Homestead's Non-Disparagement Agreement

Homestead Heritage took umbrage at The Texas Observer's and WFAA's usage of their Resolutions on the Limits of the Use of the Authority of External Compulsion by claiming that the "document never refers to crime at all and only forbids lawsuits between church members." To be honest, I think the news organizations could have directed their focus a little better. Though the document clearly states that "religion" is not "an agent, or the proper province, of the corporate State and its investigative, police and judicial services" (i.e., the criminal justice system), from a spiritual abuse perspective, the fact any organization claiming the title of church would ask its members -- not its employees -- to sign a non-disparagement agreement should draw scrutiny. 

In a business setting 

A non-disparagement clause is part of an agreement between employer and employee that states the employee won't speak negatively about the company in any form or communication. That means you can't badmouth your current or former employer's leaders, products, or services in any way. No telling your friends what a buffoon your boss is, no posting rants about the company on social media, and no talking to reporters about corporate practices that will reflect poorly on the company. (source)

However, as previously stated, this document was signed by all members at the time and not just those employed by Homestead Heritage. 

One of Homestead's consistent arguments about the criticism of this document is that it was "distributed to our members a decade and a half ago." (Source)  They refer to it as an  "outdated church document," and that it "hasn't even been used at all in 15 years." (Source)  The implication seems to be that the content and ideas are no longer valid. However, in statements made to the Waco Tribune-Herald in 2007 they say,

While it's true the document is not given to members nowadays, that's because the church no longer uses it. The basic principles are still taught; they have just been incorporated into other documents.

The reason for that is because some of the wording in the constitution might sound apocalyptic to those unfamiliar with Homestead Heritage history, Wheeler says.

"It was really the tone we removed," he says. (Source)

So, while this document may not be signed and notarized by members today, Homestead still teaches and maintains the beliefs contained therein.

As evidenced by the 222 page book written about one former member in 1994, they were certainly sincere in their statement

that in any defense against such accusations that would require any exposure of the problems involved in the one bringing the accusation, that the exposure of the individual and his problems will only go so far as the accuser himself has spread his complaint. If the accuser will stay within the scriptural limits to resolve his dispute within the boundaries of covenant, the church agrees to never expose his shortcomings and sins to any outside it's covenant. 

This action apparently extends even to the victims of sexual abuse themselves, as they have essentially, and publicly, called one victim a liar on their online rebuttal even while claiming to have been so supportive.

Why would a church have such a need for a non-disparagement agreement to begin with? Why attempt to prevent members from seeking an impartial resolution? If Homestead is truly the kind of caring, supportive community that they project, what would be the need for such precautions? You can be certain it's not for the protection of the members. As The Wartburg Watch states, "[c]ontracts were chiefly established to protect the church from lawsuits." And the current contract signed by those seeking to be baptized into or to take communion at Homestead Heritage is over 130 pages long.