• Twisted Scripture: Wellspring teaches that leaving this church can justify divorce for a married member.

• False “Unbelief”: Disagreement over doctrine or rejection of church leadership is treated as "unbelief", giving grounds for separation when one spouse leaves or has their membership revoked.

• Families Broken: This policy has divided marriages and instilled fear among members.

​

Perhaps the most destructive practice and egregious perversions of scripture at Wellspring Church is found in their policy on divorce.

They believe "...that there are two conditions, given in the Word of God, under which it is permissible to dissolve a marriage. The first condition is when one of the partners is guilty of fornication (including adultery, incest, homosexuality, and all sins of impurity). The second scriptural condition is when an unbeliever departs from the marriage. If a believing partner acts like an unbeliever and breaks the marriage covenant, we will consider those actions to be that of an unbeliever, thereby considering that person to be under this second condition."

 

In practice, this policy means that if a church member decides they no longer agree with church teaching/practice/leadership and want to leave the church, then their spouse has the right to divorce them. ​​They teach this and they counsel this.  

​

They derive this from a misapplication and even total ignoring of Paul's actual statements in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16.

​

In this section Paul says that the Lord commands wives to not separate from their husbands and a husband is not to divorce his wife. It's pretty clear.  Paul then goes on to give his opinion on what a believer is to do if they have an unbelieving spouse. If the unbeliever is willing to stay, then Paul says the believer must not divorce. Wellspring Church disregards this instruction. Notice that the option to stay lies with the unbeliever, not the believer. If the unbeliever wants to stay married, then the believer should honor that.

​

In the following verse, Wellspring Church again misrepresents Paul's words. It is wrong for them to equate having a difference in doctrine to actual unbelief. In all situations where divorce has been counseled at Wellspring Church that we are aware of, both people have been believers in the gospel of Christ. To label a spouse an unbeliever just because they have a difference in opinion on a doctrinal point, or a question as to pastoral authority and its reach, or a concern about a practice, is, to put it bluntly ...a lie.

​

Paul then closes the passage by saying if the unbeliever decides to leave, then the believing spouse should let him. 

​

This verse is twisted to say that the phrase "unbeliever leaves" is the same thing as a "former member departs from the church/doctrine". The verse actually says that if a spouse who has never believed decides to leave a believing spouse, then the believing spouse should let the unbelieving spouse leave.

​

It does not allow the believing spouse to seek a divorce just because the other spouse doesn't want to attend church or believe the doctrines that they did before. 

​

To tell a Wellspring Church member who is married that he/she can/should divorce their spouse because they don't believe the same anymore or attend church together anymore is unconscionable. It reveals that the leadership have no basic ability to interpret scriptures correctly, especially since Paul is so clear about spouses staying together in verse 10. This is pastoral malpractice. This is poor counsel. This is against God's clear commands. 

 

This practice has been incredibly destructive to families, couples and children. Marriages and families have been destroyed by this policy, with deep and lifelong impacts to children and adults. 

​

This is the sobering reality for married members of Wellspring Church. This policy on divorce is a silent threat. It is always in the back of every married person's mind that if they leave the church, the church will allow, support, and even encourage a spouse to divorce.

​

For some women at Wellspring Church, the pressure is not merely internal - it is systemic. They are repeatedly taught that faithfulness means submission, not only to God, but to their pastor and the leadership structure of the church. Under this framework, a wife may sincerely believe she is helping her husband remain “in God’s will” by urging him to stay, even when she senses his growing discomfort. Her intent is not to threaten or coerce; she is responding to the spiritual formation she has received.

​

But for many husbands, this creates a painful bind. They feel the authority God entrusted to them in their own household is routinely overridden by the pastor - who is treated, in practice, as the true head of every family. These men often recognize the overreach. They know the difference between pastoral care and pastoral control. They know that Scripture calls them to lead their families with love, humility, and discernment - not to surrender that responsibility to a human authority.

​

And yet, because Wellspring’s teaching presents leaving the church as abandoning God’s kingdom - and because divorce has been supported in cases where one spouse leaves and the other stays - many husbands remain not out of conviction, but out of fear. Fear of losing their families. Fear of spiritual accusations. Fear of being cut off from their children.

​

But the dynamic works in the opposite direction as well. Some women at Wellspring long to leave, having recognized the unhealthy patterns or spiritual overreach within the church. Yet their husbands - deeply loyal to the pastor or fearful of the consequences of leaving - insist on staying. In these cases, it is the wife who faces the threat of relational loss.

 

She may be warned that rejecting the pastor’s authority is rejecting God Himself, and that a husband has biblical grounds to separate from a “rebellious” spouse. The possibility of divorce or losing access to her children becomes a silent but powerful force. Wellspring’s pattern of identifying the more loyal spouse and using that loyalty to pressure the other effectively weaponizes marriage itself, turning the couple into a tool of institutional control.

​

Within a healthy Christian community, a husband and wife seek the Lord together in freedom, without coercion, without threats, and without the looming possibility of relational loss as a tool of control. Where fear replaces freedom, and where a human leader overrides the discernment of a household, the church has stepped outside the pattern of Christ and into the pattern of domination. And the burden of this distortion falls heavily on both women and men.

​

​