In his letter to the Corinthian church, the Apostle Paul wrote, “I'm not responsible for what the outsiders do, but don't we have some responsibility for those within our community of believers? 13 God decides on the outsiders, but we need to decide when our brothers and sisters are out of line and, if necessary, clean house.”
A judge in California, however, takes a different view.
When a small group of liberal churchgoers at the Free Evangelical Lutheran Cross Church in Fresno became displeased with what the pastor was preaching, they decided to stop attending the services. The church elders informed the group that their membership would revoked and provided them an opportunity to appear before the elder board if they wished to remain with the church. Instead, the group chose to take their case to court.
The court not only decided in favor of the plantiffs, forcing the church to reinstate the members, but ruled that since the church is not owned by an ecclesiastical order or denomination, the members own the church and their membership entitles them to property rights.
Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, notes:
According to the judge, this church was not owned by an ecclesiastical order (e.g., Episcopal), and therefore, the church was owned by all its members; thus, the members had property rights in their memberships. Since courts rule on property rights issues, the judge felt entitled to decide whether these former members’ property rights were being violated in any way.
Consequently, in this precedent-setting case, if this court's ruling stands, virtually every church not controlled by a structured hierarchy will be subject to judicial jurisdiction over fundamental church issues, such as church membership.
Dacus’ legal defense organization is representing the church in its appeal before the Fifth District.
My initial reaction is that while property rights certainly deserve protecting, the government has no business deciding internal church matters. I agree that congregational-style churches are, in a sense, “owned” by its members. But does that mean members who tithe more get more of a say in how the property should disposed of? Can a handful of members force the church to sell the property in order that they may “recoup their investment” when they leave the church?
I’m hoping that Stuart Buck, Professor Bainbridge, or one of the legal minds at Southern Appeal will address some of the implications of this ruling.
(Hat tip: Worldmag Blog)
Update: Bill Wallo finds that the ruling may not be without precedent.
1
Woah!
This is so wrong, I don't know where to begin.
For years, the courts have worked to erode property rights and our first ammendment right to 'peaceably assemble'.
Now they are going to tell us that belonging to an organization is a property right?!
I think my head is about to explode....
posted on 03.09.2004 3:50 PM2
Where is the ACLU arguing Separation of Church and State?
posted on 03.09.2004 4:08 PM3
Good grief.... what happened to the whole "separation of church and state" nonsense? So the chuch is not allowed to present prayers and the Ten Commandments within the government, but the government is allowed to muck with the affairs of churches? Need I say "No!"?
And what happened to the "freedom of assembly" clause. Not only does that give us the right to assemble as we see fit, but it also gives us the right to _not_ assemble with certain individuals, as we see fit.
And since when did belonging to an "accepted" sect of a religion matter? What about all of those subsets of Wicca and the like that are getting governmental identification everywhere you look? Are _they_, too, "owned" by their members?
*sigh* That big earthquake that will eventually separate California from the rest of the US really needs to hit soon...
posted on 03.09.2004 5:04 PM4
Is it just me, or is this a microcosm of what can happen to churches who choose to split from the Episcopal church, and must sue to try and save the property built loved and maintained by its members?
And these things are settled by JUDGES???
Sorry, but THAT's a first amendment violation if there ever was one...
posted on 03.09.2004 6:28 PM5
Not to mention a 1 Corinthians 6 violation.
I know, call me crazy, expecting Christians to live by what the bible says.
posted on 03.09.2004 6:44 PM6
I'm only 3/4 of the way through my property course, but I don't think being a member of a church actually gives you any property rights. A church is an independent charitable organization which receives donations from its members to continue operating.
Holding that the church members have a partial ownership in the church could open up the church to all sorts of crazy problems. Can a church member sell or assign his property right to another? When a member leaves, would the church be required to pay him back for his partial ownership of the church? I think the court is getting confused with the difference between being a "member" and being a "Partner" or "Shareholder." The latter have actual ownership in the company. A member does not.
posted on 03.09.2004 10:11 PM7
I'm going to have to find more out about the case before I really offer much commentary - finding a "property right" in church membership does seem odd, although even such a luminary as James Madison defined "property" quite broadly (can't remember the specific quote, but I've used it in a judicial decision before - something about how a man can have a property interest in anything to which he has a right). I've long thought that the traditional barrier protecting internal church practices is suffering from erosion - a secular society which sees little value in religion can't find much justification for the principle.
That said, I'm intrigued that the Pacific Justice Institute describes the matter as involving a "federal" judge when it appears it is being appealed to the 5th District Court of Appeals (i.e., a California state appellate court - a federal case would be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals). Gotta find out a bit more . . .
posted on 03.10.2004 8:51 AM8
Gee, I contribute to the American Red Cross, an independent charitable organization. I also volunteer as an instructor for same. Does that mean I own a part of it?
posted on 03.10.2004 9:16 AM9
Phillip:
Where is the ACLU arguing Separation of Church and State?
Good question. Have they been asked to get involved?
This case is pretty far under the radar (I don't see anyone other than the Pacific Justice Institute reporting it one way or another -- and this is normally the type of thing Fox News jumps on), so it's hard to judge until more information becomes available.
If the facts are exactly as Joe and PJI present them, then it would seem to me that this is a bad ruling. But with only one side of the story being told here, cooler heads need to prevail for now.
posted on 03.10.2004 3:02 PM10
There is an excellent article entitled "Church Property Disputes: A Constitutional Perspective" by Kenneth North, Duquesne University, posted by the Canon Law Institute, which chronicles the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings on church property disputes such as this - going back to the 1871 Watson rule. It may be found at www.canonlaw.org.
Although there is precedent for the court's involvement in church affairs, the issue of individual member's property rights in (I assume) a continuing non-profit religious organization is interesting. Also, there are areas of individual property rights in churches subject to state laws, such as statutes involving the succession and assessment of "pew rights", etc. (I believe) still on the books in several states.
11
In response to an earlier question, the Pacific Justice Institute made an unfortunate error in the letter. The case is being appealed to the NINTH Circuit FEDERAL court of Appeals. Thank all of you for your interest.
posted on 03.18.2004 3:12 PM12
The case is a state court case. It was filed in Superior court in Fresno and is being appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. There seems to be some confusion about this case, partly due to unclear media coverage and announcements. But it is state court.
posted on 03.18.2004 3:32 PM