In one of three opinions released today, the Supreme Court of Virginia tackles the intersection of church property disputes and the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, ultimately finding that both circuit court and the Court of Appeals of Virginia missed the mark.
Shalom Presbyterian Church was founded in 1982 as an independent, non-denominational congregation. In 1998, it joined the Atlantic Korean American Presbytery (AKAP): a newly formed body seeking enough member churches to qualify as an official presbytery within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (PCUSA). Shalom’s membership application consisted of a short letter checking a box to “join and support” AKAP; it never submitted a separate application to PCUSA itself.
For over two decades, Shalom’s involvement with AKAP was a mixed picture. On one hand, it attended presbytery meetings, paid dues, filed annual statistical reports on PCUSA-branded forms, participated in the AKAP pension plan, and its own Standing Rules stated it was “a member church of Presbyterian Church in the United States of America” subject to the Book of Order. On the other hand, Shalom operated largely independently by managing its own property, finances, and staffing without AKAP input or approval.
The dispute crystallized in 2022 when Shalom refinanced its Fairfax Station property without obtaining presbytery approval, as the Book of Order requires for member churches encumbering real property. AKAP also raised questions about Pastor Seo’s 1988 ordination. When AKAP moved to install an Administrative Commission to assume control of Shalom’s session and audit its finances, Shalom filed a complaint with the Synod of the Mid-Atlantic, asserting PCUSA membership for standing purposes.
After the Synod denied relief, Shalom declared itself independent and sought a declaratory judgment in Fairfax County Circuit Court that it was no longer an AKAP member and had sole control of its property. AKAP counterclaimed for a declaration that Shalom remained a member subject to the Book of Order’s trust provision (which provides that all PCUSA member church property is held in trust for PCUSA). The parties entered a “Rule 56 agreement” allowing the circuit court to consider affidavits and deposition testimony on cross-motions for summary judgment.
The circuit court granted summary judgment to Shalom, holding that no express trust existed because Shalom never executed the formal membership covenant required by the Book of Order, and no constructive trust arose from the parties’ course of dealing.
The Court of Appeals reversed, but on different grounds It found that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction entirely under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. Because Shalom had previously invoked the Synod’s jurisdiction (asserting PCUSA membership), the Court of Appeals held that the circuit court’s ruling constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the Synod’s decision.
The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings, finding both it and the circuit court erred, though for different reasons.
First, it found that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment. Whether Shalom was ever a PCUSA member church is a material fact genuinely in dispute. Pastor Seo and Shalom maintained they never formally joined PCUSA and never executed the required membership covenant. But Pastor Kim (AKAP’s Stated Clerk) swore that joining AKAP automatically constituted joining PCUSA. Shalom’s own documents—including its Standing Rules submitted to a bank, PCUSA-branded annual reports, and a church bulletin stating affiliation with “AKAP PCUSA”—further supported PCUSA membership. The Court found these conflicting interpretations “simultaneously plausible and irreconcilable,” presenting a classic factual dispute that a finder of fact must resolve. Summary judgment for Shalom was therefore improper.
Second, it found that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine bars civil courts from resolving internal church governance disputes, particularly contests over which faction represents the “true” church. But this case is different: Shalom claims it was never a PCUSA member, which is a question that may well be resolvable on neutral principles of law without entangling courts in matters of doctrine or church governance. The Court declined to hold that all such questions are beyond civil court jurisdiction and held that the summary judgment record was too undeveloped to make that call either way.
In the end, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions to remand to the circuit court for a full evidentiary hearing, at which a factfinder can resolve the disputed membership question and, if necessary, determine whether doing so requires impermissible entanglement with church doctrine.
A Virginia Appellate Law Blog 