A well known teacher of church development and advanced training for pastors once told me that pastors, regardless of denomination, in the 21^st century are required to be more than knowledgeable about the Scriptures or counseling but also must be adroit in finance, accounting, management, real estate, and technology.  The observation seemed to reflect the seeming truth that the 20^th century level of complexity may have allowed reliance on other church leaders that were not clergy, such as church boards or a diaconate, but that is rarely adequate now.  Thus, church staff now include many people with a broad range of skill sets.  The question becomes whether those types of positions are ecclesiastical, or “sufficiently” so, to qualify for the “immunity” conferred by the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.

In Kelly v St. Luke Community United Methodist, Slip Op. (Tex. Civ. App. 5^th, 2018), the “Director of Operations” was terminated and escorted from the church property by the pastor and a police officer engaged for that purpose.  The Director lodged employment claims and a defamation claim.  The defamation claim was that the personnel action of the church was communicated to non-member third parties, such as the police officer, and non-members that may have attended meetings of the membership in which the personnel action was announced.  The termination was alleged by the church not to have been performance based but rather the result of an internal reorganization of the church.  The Director’s $82,000 annual position was allegedly scrapped and a new Director’s position redesigned in the reorganization was offered at $50,000.  The Court recited claims from both sides that indicated that the relationship between the new senior pastor and the Director was possibly problematic and that the senior pastor might have considered the Director’s compensation too high for the position.  The Court held the reorganization was an internal church management decision cloaked in the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine and that it did not matter whether the Director’s position was “ministerial.”  The defamation claim was found not to be based on a scintilla of evidence of publication, i.e., there was no proof of defamation at any meeting the public could attend and the engagement of the police officer did not rise to the level of publication.  Thus, the appellate court generally affirmed the trial court decision (for this summary Texas law specifics have been omitted but would matter to a Texas practitioner).

Employment decisions that arise from actual internal reorganizations by the church will likely be viewed as ecclesiastical.  Employment positions redesigned by changes in duties and compensation will likewise most likely be viewed as ecclesiastical decisions.  Documentation of the decisions by minutes of meetings conducted consistently with the church governing documents that approve or implement either will likely be respected by a Court.

The New Year commenced with a step along the path of the development of the law known as the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.  Indeed, this development may be an outlier or even a step too far.  Because the development is in an unpublished court opinion, it may be cited only for persuasive effect and is not precedential (aka stare decisis).  Nevertheless, the opinion is from a United States Court of Appeals and those are always significant, especially in the federal district courts that report to that circuit.

In Myhre v Seventh Day Adventist, Slip Op. (11^th Cir. 2018), a retired clergyman (assumed so because he was “defrocked”) retired in 2009 and began collecting retirement benefits.  In 2013, an unspecified “theological disagreement” arose.  The opportunity for a retiree to initiate a “theological disagreement” would seem non-existent but to a denominational insider this might seem quite normal.  In addition to being “defrocked” the Plaintiff was excommunicated.  In 2013 the denomination cut off the Plaintiff’s retirement benefits.  The retirement plan document stated eligibility continued only so long as the beneficiary remained a “member of good standing.”  The Plaintiff was no longer such a member after excommunication.  The 11^th Circuit affirmed the trial court’s decision that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract claim because the case would require an inquiry into the meaning of “member of good standing” and the underlying evidence on that subject.  Such an inquiry, the trial court reasoned, would be blocked by the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.  The 11^th Circuit characterized the dispute as “disciplinary procedure” not appropriate for judicial review.

The argument did not seem to be whether the membership clause was a condition to starting benefits.  There did not seem to be a dispute about whether the membership clause requirement was by its own language perpetually applicable after initial eligibility had been determined.  It would seem that a court could under the Neutral Principles Doctrine determine if the membership clause was an ongoing condition precedent to continuing to receive benefits.  If it was (and it may have been but the opinion was a bit terse), application of the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine would make sense.