Court Opinion

ID: 9606647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:51:29.098583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:17.128817
License: Public Domain

SEARS, Chief Justice,
concurring.
The majority opinion correctly holds that “ ‘(i)t is well-settled that a court of equity will take jurisdiction over disputes involving churches when property rights are involved and when the suit is brought on behalf of a majority of the congregation.’ ”2 As the majority also properly notes, in order to exercise that jurisdiction, it was necessary for the trial court in this case to determine who qualified as a member of the church, and was thus eligible to vote on the property dispute at issue. I write separately, however, to emphasize the extremely limited nature of the courts’ authority to delve into matters of church membership.
As the United States Supreme Court stated in Presbyterian Church in the U. S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, “First Amendment values are plainly jeopardized when church property litigation is made to turn on the resolution by civil courts of controversies over religious doctrine and practice.”3 Generally, issues of church membership involve matters of religious doctrine and practice that are beyond the jurisdiction of the civil courts.4 Thus, while it is proper for courts to determine church membership for the limited purpose of determining eligibility to vote on a litigated property dispute, it is plainly improper for courts to resolve disputes over church membership in general.

 Majority opinion, pp. 703-704.

 393 U. S. 440, 449 (89 SC 601, 21 LE2d 658) (1969).

 See, e.g., United Baptist Church v. Holmes, 232 Ga. App. 253 (500 SE2d 653) (1998) (courts will not decide issues regarding expulsion of church member).