Church Autonomy

This article addresses the common sources of internal church disputes and discusses how churches, ministers, denominations, and other players can identify potential areas of controversy, prevent litigation, and help ensure favorable outcomes if litigation does arise. First, we discuss the concept of church polity as a framework for understanding issues associated with litigation. Next we cover how the governing documents of a church are often critical to both creating and resolving legal disputes. Third, we discuss church litigation resulting from church property disputes and how to prevent and prepare for such controversies. Fourth, we focus on avoiding legal trouble related to defamation and other claims resulting from church discipline. Fifth, we discuss constitutional principles that restrict courts from deciding certain church disputes. Finally, we explore practical steps that church leaders can take to prevent conflicts and keep them out of court.

In September of 2018, the Virginia Supreme Court held that the lower court had authority to rule on a merger agreement and contract between two churches, and that did not overstep church authority.

When are the courts allowed to review a church’s internal sexual harassment investigation? A court in Illinois addresses this question by applying the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.

In re Episcopal School of Dallas is a recent Texas court case affirming a faith-based school’s right to manage its internal affairs according to its beliefs, including its discipline decisions.

Connecticut court says the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine prevents it from deciding whether a religious organization is liable for not conducting a mental fitness evaluation.

Religious schools have always had the right to decide whether students should have to keep a moral code as a condition of enrollment. A recent case out of Texas, In re St. Thomas High School, solidifies this right.

When someone brings their church to court in Texas there are two things the court is likely to do. The court may refuse to hear the case because it would require getting into church doctrine or issues that are reserved to the church’s decision-making (“church autonomy” or “ecclesiastical abstention”). Or, the court could hear the case just like any other civil action because the court can decide the case using “neutral principles of law.” These are the principles of law that control the case when doctrine is not critical.

You hate to see a case with a caption like God’s Hope Builders, Inc. v. Mount Zion Baptist Church, since it seems unlikely the lawsuit is what God would have hoped for. The Georgia Court of Appeals, on March 28, 2013, remanded this case with orders to the trial court to figure out, if it legitimately could, who the church members actually were.