Category: Church Governance

CHURCH SUCCESSION TITLE BOUTS

When the founding pastor fails to have in place prior to need a written succession plan adopted by the governing authority, words like coup d’etat can become applicable. A church split can result that impairs the legacy of the founding pastor.

In Elglise Baptiste v Seminole Tribe, Omnibus Order (SD FL, 2020), the founding pastor died. A battle for control of the church erupted that was marked by a congregational meeting that turned into a brawl that required police intervention to restore order. Apparently, a congregational vote survived the brawl and the wife of the late pastor led the winning faction elected by the congregation to succeed. The following week the worship service led by the losing faction was interrupted by the widow and her faction. They retook the church building from the “losing” faction accompanied by “six armed officers from the Seminole [Tribal] Police Department.” The widow’s faction’s opponents were removed from the church property, the locks changed, and the gates to the property locked. The “losing” faction sued the Seminole Tribe but could not defeat the tribe’s sovereign immunity. The widow and her faction were also dismissed from the lawsuit because the Plaintiff’s claims represented “non-justiciable questions of church governance” excluded from review by the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.

Most courts will not play referee in a title bout between factions in a church split. If there is a documented congregational vote in congregational churches or a hierarchical action in denominational churches, and if the vote or action is arguably consistent with organizational governing documents, such as bylaws, even should a court need to address property ownership or control, usually those are the facts that will control the decision. A written succession plan adopted by the governing authority of the church or the denomination, or both may, if drafted with sufficient clarity and due regard for other laws, such as rules against perpetuities which may or may not apply to churches, be a determinative piece of evidence.

ECCLESIASTICAL CONTRACT TERMS

The Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine of the First Amendment prohibits courts from hearing matters based on religious doctrine or polity. Many evangelical churches, most of which are congregational even though they may also be denominational, incorporate into church governance documents such as bylaws contract terms that are more or less quotations of Scripture. Internal church dispute resolution often is procedurally described in bylaws by quotation, more or less, of Matthew 18.

In Adkison v Williams, Slip Op. (Ohio App. 2019), the trial court held that claims to membership in the church by the Plaintiffs were outside judicial review by virtue of the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine. The internal dispute resolution clause in the bylaws was more or less cloned from Matthew 18. The appellate court noted that the bylaws of the church were contractual and that a church did not have “unbridled” freedom to disregard them. But, the particular dispute involved the application of the dispute resolution clause inspired by Matthew 18 which the trial court and the appellate court were unwilling to interpret or enforce. The Plaintiffs alleged the church leadership terminated their membership and when a dispute arose, did not submit the dispute to the congregation for a final vote. The interpretation required was whether in Matthew 18 the requirement of congregational submission was or was not required or automatic, or whether that step may be left to the discretion of leadership. Both courts declined to make the interpretation.

Congregational churches should verify their written membership rolls at least annually and purge persons that no longer attend or participate. It is not necessary to give notice of this action nor to explain to anyone why it is being undertaken, but it is helpful to record the action in minutes of the governing board. Such membership rolls will, in a controversy, be useful to identify who can actually vote and who can be elected to church leadership. Routine membership roll purges should not be confused with disciplinary membership terminations. Disciplinary membership terminations should be documented in the minutes of the governing board, too. Especially regarding disciplinary membership terminations church security personnel should be notified of the action so that they may observe a trespasser until official law enforcement can arrive to address any problem.

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CHURCH CONTRACTS

As lawsuits become more acceptable to churches as a means of enforcing their rights among themselves, secular legal theories are more often asserted. In struggles between denominations and their local churches or parachurch organizations, there are often contracts about which one or all parties will allege a breach of contract. Less often but becoming more common is the claim that a religious organization interfered with a contract.

In Samara Iglesia Evangelica, Inc. v Lorenzo, Order on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike (D Mass., 2019) the federal trial court sorted out a struggle between a denomination and its local church and the local church pastors. The denomination alleged the local church pastors were contractually bound not to alienate the property of the local church without authorization. When the local church and its pastors decided to terminate their relationship with the denomination, they transferred the property from the local church to a new church unaffiliated with the denomination. However, unlike more established denominations, the deed only named the local church as the owner which allowed the local church to transfer the deed to the new church without hinderance. Also, the governing documents of the local church did not grant the denomination any rights in the local church governance or property. The contracts with the local pastors, however, stated no definite duration which made the contracts terminable at will by either party. The local pastors resigned from the contracts. Those resignations terminated the contracts leaving no contract with which to interfere tortuously or otherwise.

From the denomination’s perspective, the error made was the failure to engage counsel to amend and update local church governing documents and deeds as well as denominational governing documents since the 1970s. The law has changed substantially since then. Also, religious promissory language is generally not enforceable in a court in the United States. Explicit contractual promises must be made, typically in writing signed by all parties. The employment contracts of pastors must be of a definite duration even if they automatically renew for a new term if not terminated at the anniversary date, or they will be “at will” employment contracts in most states. Venue and applicable selection clauses will prevent legal battles from always being fought in the location of the local church rather than in the location of the denominational headquarters.

DENOMINATIONAL FORECLOSURE

The hierarchical denominations exercise varying degrees of control over the existence, management and property of local congregations. Some can take total control if the numerical membership of a local church declines to a point below which the local church is no longer viable or its property is on the verge of abandonment. Congregational denominations may exercise similar varying degrees of control. Both tend to remain uninvolved locally until summoned or collapse of the local church appears imminent.

In Eltingville Lutheran Church v Rimbo, 2019 NY Slip Op. 05957 (NY App. 2019), the denomination asserted control over the local church when numerical membership of the local church appeared to the denomination to make the local church no longer viable. The local church operated a church and a school on its property. The local church sued the denomination. The local church claimed the takeover violated the denominational governance documents. The local church also sought an injunction of the takeover alleging property issues could be disposed of applying Neutral Principles of Law. The trial court dismissed the entire case finding the entire dispute to be an internal church dispute to which no Neutral Principles of Law were applicable. The appellate court affirmed.

The learning from this is a repetition of the universal axiom that if the dispute looks internal to the church and may be resolved through application of the church or denominational governance documents there is no room for Neutral Principles of Law. The effort to characterize property control issues separately from other aspects of the dispute will only succeed where the property control issue cannot be resolved through church governance documents. As has been seen, muddled church governance documents and sloppy record keeping, such as board minutes, may require Neutral Principles of Law to fill the vacuum.