Removal of Church Elders

Established church procedures must be followed.

Church Law and Tax 1994-05-01 Recent Developments

Officers, Directors, and Trustees

Key point: An attempt by church members to remove members of the governing board without complying with established church procedures may be overturned by a civil court.

The Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal of two church elders by a minister and his supporters was not legally effective since the church’s established procedures were not followed. A dispute arose between the minister of a local Church of Christ congregation and the governing elders. The minister claimed that he was accountable to the congregation while the elders claimed that he was accountable solely to them. The elders eventually ordered the minister to vacate the pulpit and remove his possessions from the church parsonage. The minister ignored this order, and continued to live in the parsonage and serve as minister to the congregation. This prompted the elders to file a lawsuit asking a court to oust the minister. In response to the elders’ lawsuit the minister convened a meeting of 27 church members (out of a total of 162) at which a vote was taken to “disfellowship” the elders. The elders were not notified of this meeting. An announcement was made after the next Sunday morning service that the elders had been removed “because of their willful and persistent violation of scripture in taking [the minister] to court.” A trial court thereafter issued an order declaring that the elders had been properly removed by the church. The elders appealed this decision to the state supreme court, arguing that the church violated its own procedures in attempting to remove them. The court observed:

[T]he basic elements of due process as prescribed the by church’s own rules were not complied with. According to the testimony of the [elders’] expert witnesses (ministers of other Churches of Christ), when members of a church are attempting to remove elders, proper process requires that the members follow an established procedure intended to protect the elders’ rights to due process. This procedure requires (1) that the elders be given written notice and specifications of the charges before any meeting regarding the charges; (2) that the elders be given an opportunity to be heard; (3) that two or three witnesses be called to substantiate the charges; (4) that the elders be given an opportunity to confront the accusers; and (5) that the elders be given the opportunity to present evidence in their own behalf, including calling witnesses to testify.

The court concluded that the ouster of the elders violated this established procedure in a number of respects and accordingly was invalid. As a result, the court reinstated the elders and directed the minister to vacate the parsonage and discontinue conducting services on behalf of the church. The court concluded: “Clearly, the civil court will not review acts of church discipline or membership expulsion where there is no question as to the invasion of civil or property rights. However, the court has jurisdiction to review an expulsion from a religious society to determine whether the expelling organization acted in accordance with its own regulations, or to determine whether it acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.” Shearry v. Sanders, 621 So.2d 1307 (Ala. 1993).

See Also: Removal of Officers, Directors, and Trustees | Judicial Resolution of Church Disputes

This content is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. "From a Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations." Due to the nature of the U.S. legal system, laws and regulations constantly change. The editors encourage readers to carefully search the site for all content related to the topic of interest and consult qualified local counsel to verify the status of specific statutes, laws, regulations, and precedential court holdings.

ajax-loader-largecaret-downcloseHamburger Menuicon_amazonApple PodcastsBio Iconicon_cards_grid_caretChild Abuse Reporting Laws by State IconChurchSalary Iconicon_facebookGoogle Podcastsicon_instagramLegal Library IconLegal Library Iconicon_linkedinLock IconMegaphone IconOnline Learning IconPodcast IconRecent Legal Developments IconRecommended Reading IconRSS IconSubmiticon_select-arrowSpotify IconAlaska State MapAlabama State MapArkansas State MapArizona State MapCalifornia State MapColorado State MapConnecticut State MapWashington DC State MapDelaware State MapFederal MapFlorida State MapGeorgia State MapHawaii State MapIowa State MapIdaho State MapIllinois State MapIndiana State MapKansas State MapKentucky State MapLouisiana State MapMassachusetts State MapMaryland State MapMaine State MapMichigan State MapMinnesota State MapMissouri State MapMississippi State MapMontana State MapMulti State MapNorth Carolina State MapNorth Dakota State MapNebraska State MapNew Hampshire State MapNew Jersey State MapNew Mexico IconNevada State MapNew York State MapOhio State MapOklahoma State MapOregon State MapPennsylvania State MapRhode Island State MapSouth Carolina State MapSouth Dakota State MapTennessee State MapTexas State MapUtah State MapVirginia State MapVermont State MapWashington State MapWisconsin State MapWest Virginia State MapWyoming State IconShopping Cart IconTax Calendar Iconicon_twitteryoutubepauseplay