In the end, John Doe and Jane Doe ended up reconciling and the lawsuit was dropped. I’m sure Watermark was relieved and considered it a big ‘win’ for their hard efforts in reconciling the marriage. While it was a win that a marriage survived the heartache of adultery, it does not negate the nightmare that John & Jane Doe (and Jane Roe) went through as a result of the actions of Watermark Church. There are some lessons to be learned and facts to be gleaned from this case that are VERY important. You might be unaware of just how vulnerable you are legally when you are dealing with a church where you signed a membership covenant and find yourself in their crosshairs.

The church is under no obligation to keep your information private or confidential

“A Texas appeals court will decide whether the Watermark Community Church went too far in its attempt to save a church member’s marriage. A lower court has already ruled that the church is free to release private information about its members. John Doe’s attorney says his client is now considering a civil lawsuit against the church for slander.”

(*This does not apply to clergy/penitent privilege)

Remember when you are getting all connected in a Community, Marriage or Recovery Group, doing all the sharing….none of that is required to be kept confidential BY LAW.

2. The Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine of the First Amendment (that I mentioned above), known as the ‘church autonomy’ doctrine. According to this Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review article:

“In its most distilled form, the doctrine counsels that if a case would require a civil court to decide a matter of religious doctrine, the court should either refuse to adjudicate[1] or defer to the relevant religious hierarchy.”

What this means is that if you have an issue with, for example, how a church is handling internal discipline, like in the case of John & Jane Doe, the courts have no obligation to intervene, citing a separation of secular law & church doctrine/bylaws. The secular courts cannot apply secular laws to church bylaws. John Doe & Jane Roe attempted to challenge this in a higher court, but the lawsuit was dropped. I believe that if this had advanced through the court system, there would have been some interesting rulings as a result of this case, since Watermark clearly went outside of the membership covenant and the church at large to administer church discipline.

3. If you sign a church membership covenant, understand that it IS a legal document & can be used against you in legal proceedings

When the case of John Doe and Jane Roe v. Watermark Community Church was heard by the 5th Court of Appeals in Dallas County, TX, Watermark Church’s attorney’s responded to the appeal with the following brief (excerpts):

Doe and his wife signed a membership covenant with Watermark in April 2005. Doe’s wife first approached the church for counseling about her husband’s affair. “In response to her request for help, the church began a disciplinary process involving Mr. Doe to bring him back to his “religious practices” and “bring healing and restoration to the spouses of a broken marriage.” By signing the membership covenant, he waived any right to have the disciplinary proceedings remain confidential.



By signing the membership covenant, John Doe signed away any rights to confidentiality. There it is, in writing, indisputable, for everyone to read. If you needed any more convincing about why you SHOULDN’T sign a membership covenant, I hope this is it.