Court Opinion

ID: 9774631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:27:39.459271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:56:02.518740
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice (dissenting). The Majority of the Court is deciding questions relating to the religious doctrines of the Landmark Missionary Baptist Church of Traslcwood, Arkansas; and I desire to most vigorously disassociate myself from determining-such religious questions. I maintain that it is no part of the prerogatives or duties of a Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court to pass on religious questions. ,To buttress its conclusions as to the preponderance of the evidence on the question of what are the fundamental doctrines of the church in question, the Majority says that the preacher, Reverend Dovers, had ‘ ‘ an eighth grade education, seven years work in a filling station, a half year of study in a Missionary Baptist Seminary, and seven years in the ministry”; whereas the witnesses for the minority faction in this church dispute on doctrine were “nine leading clergymen of this particular sect, whose total ministerial experience exceeded 230 years.” Surely the Majority is not totally unfamiliar with the statement, ‘ ‘ A little child shall lead them ’ ’ !1  This Court should not decide what are the fundamental doctrines of the Landmark Missionary Baptist Church of Traslcwood. Courts are not supposed to decide questions of religious doctrine. In Elston v. Wilborn, 208 Ark. 377, 186 S. W. 2d 662, this Court2 said: “Many questions are mentioned by appellants, such as the calculation and disposition of the tithe, the form of church government, the right of the pastor to ‘disfellowship’ a member, and other issues of doctrine. Judicial tribunals must leave such matters to ecclesiastical writers. In the United States of America, where Church and State are separate, the courts have steadily asserted their refusal to determine any controversy relating purely to ecclesiastical or spiritual features of a church or religious society. The courts intervene only to protect the temporalities of such bodies, and to determine property rights.” I maintain that we would do well now to leave matters of doctrine to ecclesiastical writers. Furthermore, in Elston v. Wilborn, we classified churches as regards the form of church government into four groups, one of which was the congregational group, just as is the Landmark Missionary Baptist Church in the case at bar; and we quoted from 45 Am. Jur. 764: “Thus, when a church, strictly congregational or independent in its organization, is governed solely within itself, either by majority of its membership or by such other local organism as it may have instituted for the purpose of ecclesiastical government, and holds property either by way of purchase or donation, with no other specific trust attached to it than that it is for the use of the church, the numerical majority of the membership of the church may ordinarily control the right to the use and title of such property.” It is conceded by all parties that the Landmark Missionary Baptist Church of Traskwood is a congregational church and, as such, I contend should be governed by the will of the majority. The church property here in issue was deeded in one instance to the ‘ ‘ Landmark Missionary Baptist Church of Traskwood, Arkansas”; in another instance to the “Deacons of the Landmark Missionary Baptist Church of Traskwood, Arkansas”; and in another instance to the “Trustees of the Missionary Baptist Church of Traskwood, Arkansas.” There was no prohibition in the deeds forever precluding the majority of the church from selecting a preacher who preached as the majority decided, and that is the only real question in this case: is the majority free to select the preacher that it desires? In Booker v. Smith, 214 Ark. 102, 214 S. W. 2d 513, there was a dispute between two factions in the Antioch Baptist Church. The opinion recites: “From the evidence in the record, the following facts appear: In 1902, there arose a dispute among some of the Baptist churches in Arkansas as to the handling of money for mission purposes. One group to the dispute was called ‘Convention Baptists,’ and the other group was called ‘Landmark Baptists.’.. . The dispute between the Landmark Baptists and the Convention Baptists finally came to the surface in the Antioch Church in 1924. In September of that year, at a regular meeting of the church, there was a vote taken to determine whether the Antioch Church would adhere to the Convention Baptists or to the Landmark Baptists; and the vote was 31 for the Convention Baptists and 14 for the Landmark Baptists....” The dispute in that church as to how the money should be handled for mission purposes was probably as severe as is the dispute in the case at bar, relating to the preaching of Pastor Dover, but in that case we said: “Thus, in September, 1924, the Antioch Church, by a majority vote, adhered to the Convention Baptists.” We upheld the right of the majority; and that is what I vote to do in the case at bar. The Majority Opinion cites cases from other jurisdictions to support the conclusion that the majority in a congregational church cannot rule if it is not adhering to the fundamental faith and practice. I admit there are such cases from other jurisdictions; there are Annotations in 8 A.L.R. 105 and in 70 A.L.R. 75, on facets of this question; but I maintain that Arkansas should not align itself with those other states. We should continue to adhere to what our own cases3 have held, through the years, as regards congregational churches; we have supported the vote of the majority. I dislike any other conclusion. In Ables v. Garner, 220 Ark. 211, 246 S. W. 2d 732, there was an attempt to have this Court decide a doctrinal dispute in a Landmark Missionary Baptist Church; and in refusing to overturn the majority vote of the congregation regarding the disputed issue, we said: “The same majority now says it has not abandoned, or substantially deviated from the faith ...” In short, the majority of the particular church was allowed to determine its faith; but in the case at bar, this Court is allowing some preachers who are not members of the Landmark Missionary Baptist Church of Traskwood to determine what should be the faith of the majority of that church. These two sentences, used by Judge Battle in Hackett v. Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church, appear to me to correctly state the rule: “The Mt. Pleasant (colored) Baptist Church, it appears, is a congregational church. The majority had the right to control in the church government and to select its pastor and control its house of worship.”4  To start settling doctrinal questions in congregational church disputes is to embark on a sea of religious turmoil that may ultimately result in shipAvreck. Certainly the settling of doctrinal disputes is no part of the duties or prerogatives of Justices of the Arkansas Supreme Court. Heretofore we have folloAved the principle of “majority rule.” That is the ’way I would dispose of all congregational church questions; so I dissent from the holding of the Majority in the case at bar.   Isaiah 11:6.    The Court was at that time composed of Chief Justice Griffin Smith, and Justices Frank G. Smith, Edgar L. McHaney, J. Seaborn Holt, R. W. Robins, Ed. F. McFaddin, and Minor W. Millwee.    Here are some cases from the Arkansas Supreme Court involving congregational churches; and in each instance — despite any dicta therein contained — we have always upheld the majority faction: Hatchett v. Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church, 46 Ark. 291; Monk v. Little, 122 Ark. 7, 182 S. W. 511; Elston v. Wilborn, 208 Ark. 377, 186 S. W. 2d 662; Booker v. Smith, 214 Ark. 102, 214 S. W. 2d 513; Ables v. Garner, 220 Ark. 211, 246 S. W. 2d 732; Chambers v. Jones, 222 Ark. 596, 262 S W. 2d 285; Rush v. Yancey, 233 Ark. 883, 349 S. W. 2d 337.   In Monk v. Little (supra), Justice Hart said of the opinion in Hatchett v. Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church: “The opinion in the case was delivered by Judge Battle, who was specially fitted to speak on the subject, not only because of his learning and eminence in the law, but also because of his long and close connection with the Baptist faith.”