The Case of the Belligerent Church Member - Sharonrose Cannistraci, Esq. -

THE PROBLEM

What can your church legally do if a member becomes belligerent, begins to disrupt worship services, or is badgering the leadership or harassing the congregation while on church property?

This is what happened to the Church of Christ in Hollywood, California from January 2001 through June 2002 when a belligerent member, “Mabel”, had strong disagreements with the church leadership, primarily for allowing divorced and remarried couples to participate in church ministries. Mabel began expressing her disagreement by walking up to other members, often during the worship service, and loudly calling them “adulterers”, “agents of Satan” or “devil worshipers.” Once, while the pastor was speaking from the pulpit, she yelled at him, “Preach from the Bible!” When one married couple was having trouble starting their car, Mabel yelled, "Things happen to people who live in sin!" Children were frightened by her conduct. The youth of the church became so intimidated by her that they began to hold their meetings secretly. Services were cancelled to avoid her outbursts. The pastor experienced significant emotional distress that greatly affected his ability to minister to his congregation. Mabel’s hostility caused some members to leave the church altogether.

HOW THE CHURCH RESPONDED

The pastor and others privately asked Mabel to find another church where she could respect the leadership, but she declined and refused to change her behavior. One year after the outbursts began, the church held a membership meeting to address Mabel’s membership and the church allowed her to air her grievances for several hours. The meeting was conducted according to all corporate requirements and at the end of the meeting, the church voted to terminate her membership. She was given explicit written instructions not to attend services or set foot upon church property. Disregarding the church’s instructions, Mabel appeared at subsequent worship services and continued her disruptive behavior. Finally, the church called the police to remove her from the property. Before the police arrived, Mabel declared that she would not stop her actions unless the church obtained a court order. After the police arrived, she remained on the grass outside the church and continued her accusations, claiming the pastor was doing the devil’s work and calling some of the members demons. The congregation was not able to leave the premises until the officers had dealt with Mabel.

HOW THE COURTS RULED

The church sought a restraining order against Mabel. Yet, even after Mabel was served with the court papers, she was seen tearing down Easter fliers from the church’s bulletin board. Her rationale was that “There is no Easter in the Bible.” When the fliers were replaced, she tore them down again. Although the trial court agreed that Mabel was making an “absolute pest and nuisance of herself by shouting insults at the members of the congregation” and tearing articles off the bulletin board, the court refused to issue a restraining order. The court reasoned that to grant a restraining order would infringe upon Mabel’s constitutional right to free speech and would entangle the court in an ecclesiastical dispute arising out of Mabel and the church’s contrary religious views.

The church filed for a writ of mandate, requesting that the appeals court direct the trial court to grant the restraining order. The court of appeals agreed with the church’s position and ruled that a church, like any other private property owner, has the right to decide whom to allow on church premises and whom to exclude. The court determined that the church would suffer irreparable injury if the restraining order was not granted and directed the trial court to issue a restraining order.

Church’s Right to Prohibit Conduct that Disrupts Worship is Greater than a Person’s Right to Exercise Free Speech on Church Property

On the issue of whether a restraining order would infringe upon Mabel’s right to free speech, the appeals court ruled that her right to speech did not supercede the church’s right to prohibit disruptive behavior on church property. It is a misdemeanor in California for a person to intentionally disturb “any assemblage of people met for religious worship.” Prohibited conduct (i.e. yelling, swearing, threatening) is not cloaked with constitutional protection simply because it is associated with speech. The constitution does not entitle an individual to express their views however and wherever they choose. Freedom of speech is not protected on privately owned property such as church premises that constitute a non-open forum. The more a property is open for use by the public, the more freedom of expression is granted to the public. It is for the church to decide whether a particular religious expression or belief is appropriate on its property. If speech is “inappropriate for the property or incompatible with the intended use of the property, then the expression may be totally barred.” The church was thus within its rights to bar Mabel from the premises.

Courts Can Apply Neutral Legal Principles To Decide a Church’s Property Rights But Cannot Become Entangled in Ecclesiastical Disputes

On the issue of entanglement, the appellate court recited the well established rule that courts can determine the property rights of a church provided the issue can be decided on neutral principles of law that do not involve the court deciding ecclesiastical disputes. Concerning the requested restraining order, the appellate court found that there was “no doctrinal issue to be decided” since Mabel had not challenged the termination of her membership. Having been expelled and explicitly told not to enter the premises, Mabel was a trespasser. The appellate court stated, “The pertinent question, then, is whether a church or religious organization can exclude unwelcome persons from its premises. The answer is yes.”

Church Would Suffer Irreparable Injury if a Restraining Order was Not Granted

In determining whether the church had met the requirement of irreparable injury, which was a prerequisite to obtaining a restraining order, the appellate court recalled how during the eighteen months before the hearing, members were harassed, children were frightened, the youth group was forced underground, the pastor was openly insulted, and members had left the church. Mabel had said she would continue her disruptive behavior until a court directed her to stop. In siding with the church, the court of appeals stated, “That time has come.”

HOW TO PROTECT THE CHURCH

This case confirms that churches have legal recourse to prevent unwelcome persons from entering church property, disrupting the worship, or bothering members. Such legal recourse consists of calling on law enforcement for assistance in removing trespassers and unwelcome persons from church property, obtaining a restraining order if the conduct meets the criteria (including physical threat or irreparable injury), suing for monetary damages, if applicable, and/or requesting criminal charges be filed if the misconduct warrants a criminal penalty (fine not to exceed $1000 or up to one-year imprisonment, or both). In dealing with a belligerent member, keep in mind that a member may have the right to be on church property and thus would not be a trespasser. A restraining order may be more difficult to obtain so long as the person remains a member of the church. However, a member that disrupts a worship service in violation of the California Penal Code §302 or inflicts damage on person or property is guilty of other crimes (such as assault or battery or vandalism) and may also be held civilly liable for damages.

Leadership is charged with protecting the church and its members. One disruptive outburst from a disgruntled member is one outburst too many and should be addressed to avoid repeat misconduct. The sooner leadership deals with a belligerent person, the sooner the peace will be restored and injury avoided. The lesson to be learned from this church’s longsuffering predicament is that decisive action early on may have prevented physical, emotional, and spiritual damage to church members and the pastor. When inappropriate conduct is tolerated, the congregation may lose confidence in the leadership, which may lead to a loss of relational or financial support.

In deciding how to handle similar misconduct, leadership should consider the nature of the misconduct and likelihood of whether it could escalate beyond hostile words and actually cause physical harm to a person or property. Not only does the church want to avoid injury to person and property, it also wants to avoid being sued for negligence. For instance, if a child was injured by a belligerent member while under the supervision of a church employee or volunteer, and the church was on notice of prior misconduct without adequately addressing the problem, the church could be sued for damages.

A church that understands its rights is empowered to invoke legal remedies as appropriate, and is more apt to quickly and correctly handle a difficult situation. To review the text of California Penal Code §302 making it a crime to disrupt a worship service, click here.
 

Unsubscribe from Mailing List

Top

Back to Legal Updates