Category: church splits

CHURCH WARS OF ATTRITION

When a church divides into factions, the conflict can escalate. The conflict can spill into the street. The conflict can reach the courts. Sometimes the conflict will spawn multiple court proceedings. Usually the cost of litigation dampens the enthusiasm for secular court resolution. The narrow scope of court jurisdiction renders court resolution unsatisfying. Factions often want vindication rather than simply restored order or control. Vindication is often not available in court.

In Stewart v McCray, Slip Op. (Ind. App. 2019) the church split turned into a war of attrition. Neither side seemed able to gather the strength to vanquish the other but both were uncommonly resilient. At least two lawsuits resulted and in the second, the trial court tried to manage the process required by the bylaws of the congregational church to resolve church governance issues. In the second lawsuit, the trial court’s orders were blatantly disobeyed by one faction. The pastor that was also the leader of one faction was held in contempt and sentenced to pay attorney fees and jail time of thirty days. The sentence was stayed pending appeal. The appellate court reversed the trial court and held the second lawsuit should have been dismissed at inception for lack of jurisdiction. The lack of jurisdiction made void ab initio all of the orders of the trial court in the case, including the contempt. The second lawsuit, the appellate court held, should have been dismissed because the only issues presented in it were church governance issues consideration of which transected the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine. The first lawsuit involved only issues of control of property and assets.

Hesitation and slowness to act will never be forgiven by the future burdened with the deepening rift. In church split litigation, there is only one goal that matters: control of the property and assets. Once control is achieved, there is only one final resolution available: declare the dissidents to be trespassers, seek their arrest if they return, and cut off their access to funds. If a pastor is involved in the group excluded from control, terminate the salary and other benefits immediately. If a congregational vote is required to terminate the pastor conduct it according to the bylaws. The congregational meeting that is called in which the vote is to be conducted should have a single agenda item and no discussion needs to be permitted. Church leadership that regains control after an attempted usurpation by a faction led by a pastor must be quickly excised or the split will never end. If the church cannot survive the cure, then foreclosure will allow a new church to be born. The foregoing does not apply to less confrontational temper flare-ups in a congregation that can be resolved with a congregational meeting to air grievances and reach compromises.

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.

CHURCH MEMBERSHIP TERMINATION

While the title may read like an attempt to define excommunication in secular terms it seems probable that excommunication refers to a church disciplinary action intended to have spiritual ramifications or consequences. However, termination of church membership might not always be designed or intended to have spiritual ramifications or consequences. Termination of church membership might also be designed or intended only for church governance issues such as resolution of a church split.

In Adkison v Williams, 2019 Ohio 4289 (Ohio App., 2019), thirty-one church members were terminated as church members. The opinion does not recite that the intent was excommunication. Rather, the implication seems to be that to restore harmony or order these members were terminated because of disparate but irreconcilable church governance views. The former church members sued claiming that the membership termination violated the church bylaws. The former members claimed the Court could apply Neutral Principles to determine whether the membership terminations were procedurally consistent with the bylaws. The trial court dismissed the case holding that the church membership terminations were unreviewable pursuant to the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine. The appellate court affirmed. The appellate court noted the church was a congregational church that elected its leadership by congregational vote. Nevertheless, the appellate court agreed with the trial court that the membership question presented a question of “internal church governance.” The appellate court concluded that a question of “internal church governance” was presented because the final step in the membership termination process mandated by the bylaws was the dispute resolution process set forth in Matthew 18:15-17. Court review of the process necessarily would require court interpretation of the scriptural requirements leading to a collision with the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.

Church governance issues, especially those arising from a church split, will not generally be susceptible to secular court resolution. Attempts to characterize church governance issues as contract disputes or corporate law disputes will not likely be successful unless the contract or corporate law issue is the real nexus of the dispute. Termination of church membership to restore harmony or order will likely come under court review only when the church membership records are non-existent or patently unreliable, when congregational votes have not been conducted or cannot be conducted to determine the authenticity of the appointment of church leadership, and when actual property ownership or control issues result.