Whether a church is governed by a hierarchy or governed by the congregation determines who has the right to control church property. Typically, hierarchical churches are denominational. Independent churches are typically congregational. In the hierarchical church, the hierarchy controls the property. In a congregational church, the congregation controls the property. Some churches may have aspects of both categories.
In Tom Slagle v Church of the First Born, Slip Op. (Tenn. App., August 2017) (Slagle II), the appellate court sent the case back to the trial court for a trial on the issue of whether the church was hierarchical or congregational respecting its property and regardless of how it might be classified on any other issue. Based on the record, the appellate court could not determine as to property ownership and control whether the Deacons controlled the property or whether congregational voting governed the property. In our post of June 20, 2017, we analyzed Slagle I, a prior decision in the case which is the subject of this post.
In Slagle II, the Court listed “a six factor test” for determining whether a church is hierarchical. The factors listed were: (1) the affiliation of the local church with a parent church, (2) an ascending order of ecclesiastical judicatories in which the government of the local church is subject to review and control by higher authorities, (3) subjugation of the local church to the jurisdiction of a parent church or to a constitution and canons promulgated by the parent church, (4) a charter from the parent church governing the affairs of the local church and specifying ownership of local church property, (5) the repository of legal title, and (6) the licensing or ordination of local ministers by the parent church.
After the church split occurred (or while it was developing), there was a vote to adopt bylaws. Had this been done earlier in the history of the church, the question of control of property might not have required litigation, and if it did, shorter and cheaper litigation. Slagle I and Slagle II, did not finally resolve the case because it was remanded for trial, as noted above. The litigation nightmare of this church, and its cost in money, time and distraction from mission, was made inevitable by the failure of a founder to have a succession plan and the failure of the church to incorporate or adopt bylaws during a time of peace.