Ministers Sue Their Denomination

A denomination’s attempt to discipline two of its ministers has spawned years of litigation.

Both ministers occupied positions in the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA)’s national hierarchy. Reverend Roger Dermody was deputy executive director of missions, and supervised Rev. Eric Hoey was director of evangelism and church growth. Rev. Hoey and some of his colleagues formed a nonprofit, apparently without PCUSA authority to do so. The PCUSA conducted an internal investigation and, in accordance with its Book of Order, issued warnings to the Presbytery. It issued a formal warning against Rev. Dermody for violating several PCUSA policies, including its ethics policy. It fired Rev. Hoey, and informed his home congregation that his termination was due to ethical violations.

Both ministers denied any wrongdoing, and each sued the PCUSA in court for defamation in 2015. Their lawsuits took different courses.

In the Dermody case, instead of determining that it had no jurisdiction over an internal church dispute, the court considered the defamation claim: truth is a complete defense to defamation, and the only way for the court to determine whether the PCUSA’s finding was true would require the court to interpret church doctrine and policies, which courts are loathe to do, under what they refer to as the “ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.” The court granted PCUSA’s motion for summary judgment, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed, Dermody v Presbyterian Church U.S.A., 530 S.W.3d 467 (Ky.App. 2017).

We might prefer to see courts apply the “ecclesiastical abstention doctrine” at the outset and refuse even to consider the elements of the claim, but in any case, the court got this right; this internal dispute over whether the minister acted ethically does not belong in a state court.

One commentator termed this case “a victory for church discipline.”

Rev. Hoey’s case took a different path through the courts. He won a procedural motion in the trial court, which was affirmed by the Kentucky Court of Appeals and its Supreme Court, Presbyterian Church U.S.A. v. Edwards, 566 S.W.3d 175 (Ky. 2018).  (Edwards was the trial court judge who ruled against the PCUSA).

The PCUSA  petitioned the US Supreme Court for cert. PCUSA presented the issue as, “Whether the First Amendment requires a court to dismiss a claim without discovery or further proceedings when the claim, as expressly pleaded, contests a church’s termination of a minister’s employment on grounds that necessarily require judicial inquiry into church doctrine, policy, discipline or governance.” That petition for cert. was ultimately denied this past October (No. 18-1441, cert den October 7, 2019), four years after litigation began.

It may well be that an injustice was perpetrated against these two ministers, and that their reputations were unfairly tainted. But the Apostle Paul said it was better to be wronged than to sue your brother in court (I Cor. 6:1-7). But Christians do have another way to seek justice: within the church, not in the courts.

Christian Students Sue Their Christian College

A lawsuit involving Christians on both sides was filed in Federal Court this week. Several students of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, are suing their college for return of fees paid for services not received. In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, the college moved its courses online and reduced its campus services and activities in March, but kept the dorms open and refused to refund room and board fees for the balance of the semester.

This is an issue facing colleges and college students around the country this spring, and there are reports of other lawsuits over this issue. But, being the largest Christian college in the U.S., one would prefer that the Liberty University students and leadership had been able to work this out privately, in accordance with biblical injunctions against taking disputes to court (I Corinthians 6:1-7).

The students, who filed this class action on behalf of thousands of other Liberty students, may have selected their attorney, a class-action specialist from Chicago, for his legal expertise more than his familiarity with Scripture; if so, they have a wonderful opportunity to show him how Christians resolve their disputes, in love, in private. The college likewise will hopefully do everything in its power to settle this matter swiftly, privately and fairly (Matthew 5:25).

Church Re-unites 24 Years After Split

Church splits are common news. But congregations re-uniting after a full split? That’s a God story.

In 1993, First Baptist Church of Ellisville, near St. Louis, Missouri, divided in two: 400 members left to start a new church, and 400 stayed behind. The new church, West County Community Church, built a building five miles down the road from their former church. For the next 23 years, both churches carried on separately. In 2016, the Community church got a new pastor, who learned of the history and thought about reconciliation: “The gospel is seeing broken pieces put back together. That’s the redemptive story.”

Then leaders of both congregations realized that the other church had resources they lacked, and they began to consider a merger. The original church had a graying membership and an aging building in need of costly repairs; the new church had a beautiful structure but insufficient funds to maintain it, and insufficient numbers to fill it. Not everyone was in favor of a merger, especially those members who were still hurt by the split. But many saw this as an answer to prayer, and in 2017 the leaders of both churches started merging the two congregations that had once been one.

They acknowledge they made some mistakes as they merged the two church cultures, and they lost some members, but apparently the re-united church is now thriving, with a new name, Fellowship of Wildwood. The congregation worships in the newer building; the proceeds from sale of the original building paid off the mortgage for the newer one.

I would be interested to hear more specifically what they did to heal the wounds from the church split. Contrary to the saying, time does not heal all wounds, and conflicts present unique opportunities to experience the power of the gospel. But this is a hopeful story in a time when we long to see signs that God is at work among us.

Conflict With Your Ex Over Parenting? There’s an App for That

The “stay home” orders around the world are forcing us to minimize personal meetings and maximize technology. One example: mediators and family judges often met with divorced or separated parents to help them resolve issues regarding their children, like child support, parenting time, and education. Those in-person meetings are no longer available, at a time when demand may be increasing due to the stress of the pandemic.

Technology to the rescue: the co Parenter app. According to an ABA report,  “CoParenter is a platform that allows users to create parenting plans and decide everyday issues, such as whether a teen should be allowed to get a mohawk or tattoo. A paid yearly or monthly subscription includes on-demand access to a network of mediators to help the parents reach a resolution if they can’t agree. Its creator, Jonathan Verk, realized that many angry parents waiting in courtrooms to have a judge decide their parenting disputes were not fighting about legal issues, so they didn’t really need a judge or attorney. And they were unrepresented. So he created an app that “allows divorced or divorcing couples to interact in a businesslike manner that eliminates conflict. The app uses machine learning to identify hostile language that can derail negotiations.Mr. Verk presented his app at the ABA Techshow 2020 held in late February in Chicago – a perfect time, as it turned out, to tout a technological solution to a problem that was about to become almost impossible to address in person.

Will the app render mediators obsolete? Not likely, humans beings being what they are. But it could help frustrated couples work through at least some of their issues. It’s just another example of how technology is intersecting with dispute resolution.

Apology is Better Without “Any”

Public apologies are hard to do well. Just ask the leaders of the University of Michigan. With reports about sexual misconduct from a former sports doctor going public last week, U of M President Mark Schlissel issued an apology to “anyone” who was harmed by Dr. Anderson, according to a Detroit News report. What if he had apologized to “everyone” harmed, instead of “anyone” harmed? Use of the word “any” in an apology is risky; it may protect against admission of responsibility, but it also undermines sincerity.

So this week, President Schlissel and the Board of Regents issued another statement. It begins, “We are sorry for the pain caused by the failures of our beloved University.” No equivocating here; the University acknowledges that it failed, and pain resulted. Imagine how much weaker this statement would sound if it had said, “We are sorry for any pain…” or, “…caused by any failures…”

U of M still has a big mess on its hands, but at least it’s improving its apologies. (Full disclosure: I am an alumna.)