FAME OR INFAMY IN THE COLLINSVILLE TRIAL?

If and when I revise my history of the Stone-Campbell Movement I might have to recognize that the most famous (or infamous?) name among Churches of Christ in the 1980’s is Marian Guinn. She was catapulted into fame by way of a judicial spectacle that resulted from a suit she filed against the elders of the Collinsville Church of Christ in Collinsville, Oklahoma, near Tulsa. As the plaintiff she charged that the elders invaded her privacy when they publicly exposed her as an adulteress before the congregation, withdrawing fellowship, and then sending such information to other churches. The elders as the defendants insisted that they were doing their duty as elders of the church, administering discipline according to the Scriptures.

The trial made headlines across the nation, in both Time and Newsweek as well as the great metropolitan dailies, and was given extensive coverage on radio and TV. A Texas business man told me he was repeatedly exposed to the story on TV while staying in a New York hotel. It has attracted the attention of jurists and clergy alike both for its drama and its uniqueness. One lawyer indicated that the trial might well have plowed new ground in reference to “the right of privacy,” which thus far has limited judicial history.

But Marian Guinn is not only now famous but rich or potentially rich, for she not only won the suit to the tune of $390,000, but Hollywood has offered her $200,000 to $300,000 for the right to use her story. This caused a Tulsa newspaper to quip that she had received “Manna from Hollywood,” if not from heaven!

The subjects of this affair may be seen as ordinary folk like the rest of us, caught up in a drama they had no way of anticipating. The elders are probably well-meaning men who were only doing their God-given duty as they saw it. They had shown Marian various kindnesses, when she was on welfare, such as helping her buy a car and find a job, and even when her sin of adultery marred the relationship they continued to be solicitous toward her. It was only when she refused to repent that they threatened public exposure and withdrawal. All of us, and especially those of us who have served as elders, can only sympathize with these men in their ordeal, even if we believe they erred.

As for Marian Guinn, a nurse, she is probably a reasonable and decent person, as most Church of Christ folk are, caught up in a Greeklike tragedy that she did not ask for and would have avoided if she could have. She was reported as saying that she did everything but get down on her knees in an effort to dissuade the elders from their threat of public exposure. A divorcee with four children, she must have had a hard time of it, and, being lonely, it is understandable that she would succumb to the attentions of the former mayor of Collinsville, whose car was seen in front of her house all too frequently. Bur no one has accused her of promiscuity.

The mayor’s name was broadcast far and wide as being involved with her. After all the publicity my wife Ouida figures that he must be hiding under the nearest pile of wood, and both of us feel that he should receive his fair share of the “reward” money. It is hardly the way to treat a mayor.

The lawyers of course played their role. The elders may have made a mistake in selecting a lawyer who was a member of the Church of Christ, for Marian’s attorney is one of those courtroom generals who nearly always wins. He added to the drama with such statements as: “He’s single and she’s single and this is America,” which was impressively realistic. Most of us consider illicit sex between singles as less serious than when marital vows are violated. And it is the latter, not the former, that is really adultery. The commandment Thou shalt not commit adultery is given to those who would betray the marital covenant. Marian’s lawyer also taunted the elders for their claim that their treatment of her was done in love. “They loved her so much that they loved her plumb out of town!,” he said, referring to Marian’s flight to Tulsa amidst the storm. The lawyer knew that most folk who sit on juries, including church members, have a built-in sympathy for the underdog, especially when the pursuer is an institution. Half of the jury belonged to no church at all.

The elders’ lawyer dutifully appealed to Oklahoma’s Supreme Court to dismiss the case, arguing that the church should be left to settle its own affairs. But the high court rejected the appeal without comment, so the case had to be settled in court. Faced with the trial the lawyer told the press: “We are going to find out what elders can and can’t do.” The jury decided that the elders could not legally do what they did. But amidst all the smoke of battle there is confusion in the minds of many Church of Christ people, if not the public at large, as to what it is that elders cannot do.

In the light of the trial it is rather simple: elders cannot administer discipline to one who is not under their oversight. Some preachers in the Tulsa area confuse the issue, charging that the court is trying to deny us religious freedom or to tell the church how to run its affairs. This is a smokescreen.

A week before the climactic public withdrawal, Marian Guinn, at the advice of her counsel, presented to the elders in person a handwritten resignation from the congregation, and she warned the elders that if they persisted in their course she would take legal action. This the elders ignored and proceeded to expose her publicly, calling her name and telling the people not to associate with her.

Two things were never questioned in the trial: (1) Marian Guinn’s guilt as charged; (2) the church’s right to discipline or withdraw from its own members. The issue was whether the elders had the right to discipline her after she resigned her membership, thus invading her privacy. The jury decided that since she was no longer under their jurisdiction, the elders did invade her privacy.

Here is an oddity in the history of Church of Christ polity: the elders contended that the woman did not have the right to resign from the congregation during a disciplinary procedure. They would not in effect accept her resignation. She could not withdraw from the church, they had to withdraw from her. It is something like an employer telling an employee, “You can’t quit, I fire you!”

This strange doctrine led the editor of the Tulsa Tribune to defend on his editorial page “The Right to Resign.” A Church of Christ minister for 47 years responded to the editorial and while pleading for sympathy for the elders in their plight on the part of the press concluded by saying: “Another issue raised in your editorial was regarding the right of a member to resign his church membership, and this is a valid one. It challenges the notion that one is perpetually a member of a congregation and cannot withdraw his membership. I have been a Church of Christ minister for 47 years, and I had never before heard this contention made. It is not a view generally shared by Churches of Christ or its ministers.”

Indeed! It is axiomatic that if one has the right to join a voluntary society he has the right to resign from that same society and at anytime. That society in turn has the right to draw up its own code of ethics and to dismiss from its membership those who violate it. And we in Churches of Christ believe that there are circumstances in which our members can be excluded from the local congregation (but not necessarily from the Body of Christ at large). But to say that one cannot withdraw her membership, whatever be the circumstances, is going to far. Far too far, for it impinges on that person’s freedom.

I am persuaded that even if the jury had been made up entirely of Church of Christ members, the verdict could have been no different. You are not going to get our people to make the judgment that a member of one of our congregations cannot withdraw his membership at any time and for any reason. Perhaps Marian no longer felt comfortable in the Collinsville Church of Christ, or she didn’t like the new paint job, or she feared the building might collapse on her some Sunday. The reason doesn’t matter — any reason or no reason. She had the right, the God-given right, to withdraw her membership whenever she wished.

And in resigning amidst the ugly conflict she gave the elders an out if they wanted out. If they had issued such a statement as this to the congregation, the matter would have ended then and there: “There is a sister among us who has fallen into the sin of adultery. We have made painstaking effort to turn her from the course she has taken, but without success. She has in the meantime submitted to us her letter of resignation from this congregation. So you will understand that she is no longer a member of this church and thus no longer under our shepherding care.” One gets the impression that for whatever reason they did not want out.

This is a great embarrassment to the Church of Christ and we should all regret it deeply. It does not help that some of our preachers in the Tulsa area, however well-meaning they may be, confuse the issue, as they did before thousands of our folk at the Tulsa Workshop, inciting negative feelings toward “the powers that be.” I was present to hear one preacher criticize the court for infringing upon our freedom of religion, and he presumed to speak for all “fundamentalist churches” when he wondered what would come next in the state’s efforts to involve itself in the affairs of the church, indicating that the separation of church and state was threatened. And of course the sin of Marian Guinn was well emphasized.

But this was all beside the point. The trial never raised the issue of Marian Guinn’s guilt. This was conceded and understood. Neither was there any question raised of the church’s right to discipline its members. There was no threat whatever to religious freedom. There was but one issue: did the elders have the right to do what they did to a former member of their church. The judge emphasized this fact, instructing the jury not to regard her as a member at the time the disciplinary action took place.

We may have hurt ourselves badly if the public is led to believe that if you join a Church of Christ you join for life and can’t resign if the elders say you can’t. Those brethren who fear that the world will be shocked to’ see us “harboring adulterers” need to ask what the world must think of our understanding of freedom. We may be the ones that are a threat to religious freedom if the Collinsville doctrine is our doctrine.

One prominent Tulsa minister, a fine man and a great preacher, has taken up the Collinsville cause with abandon. On a cassette tape that he circulates far and wide (the cost of $5 goes into a legal fund for the elders) he tells you how you can make a million dollars. Join a good Church of Christ, he says, and commit some such sin as homosexuality or adultery. Then refuse the pleas of the caring eldership, and then when they take disciplinary action against you, sue them for a million dollars. You are sure to win!

Whether intentional or not he left out one crucial step. To have a chance for that million you’d have to find an eldership that would publicly expose you after you withdrew your membership from their church. In spite of the minister’s insistence, it is risky to try to get rich that way. There is surely only one eldership among us with such an idea, and it is not likely that they will continue to practice it. They can’t afford it!

As for our dear sister Marian Guinn, there is a frightful irony to all this. She was no doubt sincere in her desire for privacy, and we can respect the jury’s verdict that her privacy was invaded. But what is she now but a very public figure, one who is apparently willing to portray her carnal past and her fracas with a small, unsuspecting church on the silver screen for money. She could of course say that the elders started it, but what was at first an exposure to a church of 120 people now holds promise of going burlesque before multiplied millions and at her choosing. By the time her children are grown she might decide that the cost was too high.

So with the elders who have appealed the verdict to a higher court. One would suppose that everyone has had enough. —the Editor

 

We are going to have to decide what kind of people we are - whether we obey the law only when we approve of it, or whether we obey it no matter how distasteful we may find it. -Harry Scott Ashmore