Opinion ID: 1702560
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Facts and Procedure of the Case

Text: This case originated when a female employee of El Bethel Primitive Baptist Church (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Church) filed an informal complaint with El Bethel's Church Board of Deacons and Trustees (the Board) against Jonathan Yates, El Bethel's pastor. She alleged that he had sexually harassed her and that he had mismanaged church funds. Subsequently, the Board purported to remove Yates from the day-to-day management of the Church so it could investigate the allegations; however, Yates refused to cooperate. According to the Board, Yates admitted to some financial mismanagement but said that he wanted to work with the Church and the Board to rectify the situation. Still, according to the Board, Yates failed to cooperate with the Board on any occasion. The Board's other attempts to resolve the problems internally, even with the informal help of the Primitive Baptist Church Association, proved unfruitful. On March 30, 2001, some Board members sought a temporary restraining order to remove Yates from control of day-to-day operations of El Bethel. [11] Expressing a reluctance to become involved in issues related to church governance, the Mobile Circuit Court initially refused to issue the requested orders, ruling instead that the duly elected Board should deal with the matter. Apparently in response to the Board's attempts to remove him from his office, Yates, on June 3, 2001, proposed that the congregation elect new Board members. The proposed election was tabled until June 17, 2001, when Yates, during a congregational meeting, made an impromptu, impassioned appealalso in apparent violation of the Discipline of the Primitive Baptist Church (the Discipline)to get rid of the deacons and Board members opposing him. Yates then brought in another pastor, Wesley James, a minister at Franklin Street Missionary Baptist Church, to preside over the election. James asked the congregation if its members had been certified according to the Discipline. James testified at trial that no one objected to the procedure; however, on cross-examination, James admitted that the Discipline did not specifically address this type of procedure. He also admitted that the congregation was not allowed to ask questions to clarify the matter. [12] At the conclusion of the meeting, the congregation, by a vote of 130 to 100, ousted the Board members who opposed Yates and elected a new Board comprised of church members who were in favor of Yates. Without appealing the matter under the provisions of the Discipline, which provides four levels of appeal for resolution of internal church disputes, [13] some of the ousted Board members filed in the circuit court a motion seeking to have Yates held in contempt and also asking the court to set aside the election. More specifically, the ousted Board members challenged the sufficiency of notice, the qualifications of the moderator, the denial of their attempts to object to the motion, and the qualifications of the voters. On July 19, 2001, the circuit court denied the request to hold Yates in contempt; however, it set aside the election, concluding that a church is bound to follow its own rules, and that this Church did not follow its rules. [14] The trial court dismissed any concerns related to the ecclesiastical appeals process, apparently reasoning that because Yates and the moderator did not follow the Discipline in conducting the election, the ousted Board members did not have to follow the Discipline. This appeal followed. The question before this Court is whether the principle of separation of church and state affects the jurisdiction of this Court. The history behind the doctrine of separation of church and state is important to a full understanding of the doctrine.