Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville

GUINN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Marian OF CHRIST COL

The CHURCH OF Oklahoma, non-profit

LINSVILLE, Cash, Moody

corporation; Ted Allen Witten, Defendants-Appel Ron

lants.

No.

Supreme of Oklahoma. Court 17, 1989.

Jan. 9,May

Rehearing Denied Frasier, Hickman,

Thomas Dee Steven R. Gullekson, Frasier, Frasier & Tul- Messrs. sa, plaintiff-appellee. for Gotcher, Breedlove, Deryl Roy L. C. Jr., Jones, Luthey, Graydon D. Messrs. Giv- ens, Gotcher, Bogan, Doyle & and Truman Rucker, Jr., King, Finnerty, B. Rucker & Inc., Tulsa, defendants-appellants. ALA, OP Vice Chief Justice. dispositive first-impression question presented is a state in- whether forensic quiry alleged into an tortious act a religious body against its former member usurpation is an unconstitutional prerogatives by church’s a secular court prohibited and hence the First Amend- negative. ment. We answer I

FACTS plaintiff-appellee, Marian Guinn [Pa- rishioner], and her children moved Col- linsville, staying in 1974. Oklahoma While sister, with her ac- became quainted defendants-appellants, with the Whitten, Moody Ron Ted and Allen Cash [collectively referred to as the “Elders”] capacities as Elders of the Collinsville later, A Church of Christ. few weeks Pa- congre- rishioner a of that became member gation. Both Parishioner and the Elders agree years first of Parish- that the few membership ioner’s reflected the mutual support relationship inherent between religious organization and one of its Parishioner attended services members. congregation and the extended to her a helping and emotional hand. financial the Elders confronted Parish- having a rumor that she was ioner with sexual relations a male Collinsville [companion], not mem- resident who was According of the Church of Christ. ber Elders, pursued this rumor or- uphold der to their doctrinal commands leaders, they, require as church congregation monitor the ac- members’ tions, prob- as well as confront and discuss him deteriorat- relationship with “having trouble.” any one who lems with ing. a literal inter- follows of Christ The Church as the serves of the Bible which

pretation meeting place on final took The third and moral, religious and source of church’s sole the Parishioner’s driveway outside with suspicion confronted guidance. When under ethical she was home when companion. The Eld- having violat- her Parishioner admitted been with allegation, house and parked near Parishioner’s ers prohibition of Christ’s ing the Church Parishioner’s her arrival. When awaited transgressor of As a against fornication. driveway, the Elders pulled into the car ethics, Parish- code of the denomination’s her Parishioner and approached it and told disciplinary subject to the became ioner appear if did not before companion that she in Matthew 18:13-17.1 set forth procedure repent fornica- congregation and of her biblically-man- out the The Elders carried sin, “withdraw the members would tion in three procedure dated fellowship”2 from her. lasting more process entire stages, with the days a few after September On First, approached the Elders year. than a Parish- meeting, the Elders sent the third laundro- her children Parishioner and warning if she did letter her that ioner a appear she before requested that mat and fellowship repent, the withdrawal fornication repent of the the church and commenced. At this process would be suggested that Parishioner They also sin. in- realized the Elders point Parishioner seeing companion. her from refrain congregation of her tended to inform “meetings” was of the three The second companion. with the sexual involvement Pa- According to the held at the church. sought legal advice in an effort She rishioner, dropped consider- rights. September her attendance 24 her ascertain her On initially lawyer confronted the Elders a letter and advised ably after the Elders sent private Parishioner’s expose- had them not to The Elders her in the laundromat. congregation which life to the Collinsville if she and told her that called Parishioner percent of comprised approximately five her con- not come to church to discuss did population. The Elders did not the town’s companion tinuing relationship her with lawyer’s heed her advice. Although they come to her house. would night made the Pa- weather that the bad 25,1981 Parishioner wrote September On leaving her chil- rishioner anxious about imploring letter them not to the Elders a ,tell alone, she decided to meet with dren except name in church mention her They her Elders at the church. instructed congregation that she had withdrawn ignored Pa- stop seeing companion. membership. her The Elders requests. September 27 rishioner’s On agreed this was the best solution because fellowship disciplinary pro- is a provisions are: 2. Withdrawal of of Matthew 18:13-17 1. The member- cedure that is carried out the entire it, verily sayI unto if so be that he find "And congregation. ship When in a Church of Christ rejoiceth sheep, you, than of he more of that has the church’s code of one member violated astray. ninety and nine which went not repent, and refuses to the elders read ethics you Even so it is not the will of Father congregation scriptures to the those aloud heaven, that one of these little ones is in congregation which were violated. The then perish. should Moreover, fellowship wayward withdraws its against thy trespass brother shall if by refusing acknowledge per- member thee, go and him his between thee tell fault Elders, According presence. son’s thee, hast and him alone: if he shall hear thou purpose: process serves a dual it causes thy gained brother. transgressor lonely to feel and thus to desire thee, take with But he will not hear then if fellowship repentence more, return to in the mouth thee one or two members; secondly, ensures that other every three witnesses word two or remaining the church and its members continue neglect to hear established. And he shall if pure them, and free from sin. Parishioner was neglect to be tell it unto the church: but he if church, aware of the Church of Christ’s belief in its thee as a to hear the let him be unto practice fellowship [Emphasis withdrawal and had wit- publican." man and a heathen supplied.] sion, Bible, during Holy King disciplinary proceeding nessed one such James ver- five-year membership congregation. (Philadelphia). Bible Press her in the National anguish. congregation Septem- priva- al Her claim of invasion of they read to the cy to Parishioner. Firstly, 21 letter had sent was cast two theories. Pa- ber During the same service the Elders advised rishioner asserted the Elders intruded congregation to contact Parishioner by carrying her seclusion out encourage repent her to and return religious disciplinary and to measures which were told the offensive, to the Church. The Elders also highly unreasonable intru- attempts congregation that should Secondly, sive. Parishioner claimed the fail, scriptures Parishioner had violated unreasonably publicized private Elders aloud at the next service and would be read by communicating facts about her life fellowship proceeding transgressions the withdrawal to the Collinsville and the begin. would congrega- four other area Church of Christ overruling tions. After the Elders’ demur- met one of the Elders Parishioner with summary judg- rers and their motion for personally again attempted and to dissuade ment, the trial court submitted case divulging private life to the him from jury; in its verdict was favor of Parish- congregation. told her that The Elder ioner and each of three individ- withdrawing membership from parties stipulated ual Elders. The the Eld- Christ was not doctrinal- Church of acting agents ers were at all times as of halt ly impossible but it could not corporation Church of Christ and thus being sanction carried out judgment against the trial court found the against her. The Christ be- Church of judgment against the Elders also was a family; lieves that all its members are a jury Collinsville Church of Christ. The family be into a but can one can born $205,000 $185,000 in awarded actual and truly never withdraw it. A Church from punitive damages; the trial court then add- voluntarily join Christ member can $44,737 prejudgment ed interest. the church’s but cannot then disas- flock it. sociate oneself from II Elders, According to one of the Parish- publicly ioner was branded a fornicator THE RELIGION CLAUSES OF THE AMENDMENT, scriptures when she had violated were FIRST WHICH PRO- HIBIT recited to Collinsville Church of Christ BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL congregation part on 4. As FROM October GOVERNMENTS INHIBITING disciplinary process the same information RELI- OR SUPPORTING CITIZENS’ INTERESTS, transgressions about Parishioner’s GIOUS WRITTEN WERE sent to four other area Church of Christ IN AN EFFORT TO CREATE AN EN- congregations during to be read aloud ser- VIRONMENT IN WHICH “MANY LIFE, CHARACTER, vices. TYPES OF OPIN- ION AND BELIEF ... DE- [COULD] outrage For the torts of and invasion of AND UNOB- VELOP UNMOLESTED privacy Parishioner recovered actual and STRUCTED.” damages punitive from the three Elders Eng- Many and from the CollinsvilleChurch of Christ.3 of our who left forefathers alleged outrage governmentally in her claim of land and its established disciplining pursuit her the Elders em- church for America so in when did ployed adoption methods which caused her emotion- Before the freedom. to the Parishioner’s three "causes of premised but note that Parishioner’s amended theories — seclusion and her, damage her to second “cause of action” asserted a tort Although two all public contempt her name and of which were "causes of on two i.e., publication intrusion judgment separate action." reputation and ridicule. allegedly designed “invasion of jury private ^[1] the Parishioner’s petition alleges The first was and to verdict refers action," facts about privacy” ^[2] expose out- we rage the Parishioner’s conduct in the of an intentional and reckless nature which caused her “severe emotional distress" and "shock,” minor children. Cantwell State based on extreme and especially since the Elders Connecticut, outrageous L.Ed. presence publicized conduct [1940], of her its application. its At core invoke States those which the United Constitution protects effort to Amendment shields and life limb the First had risked who possibilities a free world of citizens both

explore liberties only in “legislatpng] not themselves interfer- governmental found and federal state10 religion, but to the establishment respect ence: precepts to its doctrines and respect very Rights of a Bill of purpose “The religious freedom To ensure the well.”5 subjects certain was to withdraw many so of the colonists had for which controversy, political the vicissitudes of first of the first Con- struggled, the session place beyond majori- them the reach Amendment6 to adopted gress to establish them as ties and officials and States: the United the Constitution applied by legal principles to “Believing you religion is with life, liberty, One’s courts. solely man matter which lies between press, free property, speech, free God; account to his that he owes assembly, worship freedom of worship his other for his faith or none rights not be other fundamental sovereign contemplate I rev- ... vote; depend on submitted American that act of the erence whole of no outcome elections.” Legisla- that their people which declared protected the values In its exhortation of respecting ‘make no an ture should law Free by the First Amendment’s Exercise religion prohibiting of or establishment Clause, that the Court has stated “[t]he building exercise thus a the free thereof/ [religious] characteristic of these essential separation of between Church and wall is, many that their shield liberties under State.”7 life, character, opinion and types of belief inception its the First Amendment From develop and unobstruct- can unmolested required government “be a has the 12 Clause, ed.” Under the Establishment relations with neutral in its [element] govern- the state the neither nor federal groups of and non-be- believers per- a ment can ... 8 [or] “force influence words, power In other state lievers.” go away or to remain church son handicap used neither to reli- should be profess against his will or him to a force nor to favor them.9 gions ”13 religion. or belief disbelief First ratification the Amendment’s Since [Emphasis supplied.] 1791, Supreme the United Court States Depending upon gov whether exploring scope and effect in has its been the sacred light relationships of the and controversies ernmental intrusion into realm TP., States, 145, Ewing Reynolds Everson v. Education v. United 9. Board 5. 98 U.S. [8 Otto] of of 8, 18, 162, at supra 25 L.Ed. 244 note at 67 S.Ct. [1879]. 330 U.S. 513. 6. The First Amendment the United States Connecticut, supra Cantwell v. 10. In State of states: Constitution 4, note the Fourteenth Amendment inter- “Congress respecting shall make no law an prohibi- preted to make First Amendment religion, prohibiting establishment or of applicable abridges tions to state action that abridging thereof; exercise or the free- free religious freedom: speech, press, or or the dom of of the of liberty concept of "The fundamental embod- assemble, peti- people peaceably and to ied in ... Amendment em- [the Fourteenth] griev- of tion the Government for a redress guaranteed braces the liberties [Emphasis supplied.] ances." 303, S.Ct. Amendment." U.S. at 60 at 903. 310 quote by a 7. This was Thomas Jefferson re- sponse given to an address a committee of Virginia West Board Education v. State of 1, (January Danbury Baptist Association 1178, Barnette, 624, 638, U.S. 63 S.Ct. 319 1185- 1802), reprinted Writings in 8 of Thomas Jeffer- 86, 87 L.Ed. 1628 [1943]. (H. 1861). also, Washington 113 ed. See son States, Reynolds v. United Otto] 98 U.S. [8 Connecticut, supra 12. See Cantwell v. State of [1879], 244 25 L.Ed. 60 S.Ct. at 906. note TP., Ewing 8. Everson Board Education of 1, 18, TP., 504, 513, Ewing Education U.S. L.Ed. 13. Everson Board S.Ct. at 330 U.S. at [1947]. order, by way judicial ty, peace, appears.16 or is liberties “[I]n mandate,14 ju- legislative area, or highly ‘[ojnly enforcement of constitutional sensitive “proper” stan- dicial determination gravest abuses, endangering para- par- a dards of ecclesiastical conduct within interests, give permissi- mount occasion for ”17 sect,15 developed has dif- ticular Court limitation.’ ble inquiry ferent means of into constitu- hand, On the other if the interference If tionality challenged action. protected religious liberty with a is accom- alleged religious freedom interference with plished through adjudication civil forensic by judicial or en- is effected statute dispute among of a of an ecclesi- members statute, the Court forcement balances organization proper astical over inter- “compelling” governmental what must be a doctrine, pretation the constitu- the asserted First Amend- interest tional issue is whether the secular court liberty. “regulation” ment Governmental deciding should have abstained justified only there a clear and when matter: riot, disorder, danger of interfer- present streets, involving “In disputes ... public traffic within ence with [cases public any other immediate threat safe- hierarchical we think the churches]18 Sullivan, According philosophy Times Co. v. The Court conceded to New York es- 710, 718, poused by Eng- 11 L.Ed.2d Lord Eldon and followed in the [1964], statutory duty application lish courts 686-87 of both maintained that it is “the itself, inquire and common law constitutes state action for court ... and decide for [civil] purposes power violations. The issue what ... the nature and [is] constitutional power judicatories, state has been these church but is the true "is not the form in which what but, form, organization, applied standard of faith in the whatever the whether such church Sullivan, contending parties power and which of the has in fact been exercised.” before the 265, Watson, supra, supra, U.S. at S.Ct. at court holds to this standard.” 80 376 84 U.S. at 727. The [13 Court remarked that Wall.] Presbyterian Mary Ch. v. E.B. Hull Mem. Pres. English it did “not think the doctrines of the Ch., 440, 448-449, 601, 606, U.S. S.Ct. 21 393 89 chancery subject court on this should have ... [1969], specifically L.Ed.2d 658 the Court ac- cheerfully the influence which ... would [it] knowledged that State invasion of constitutional others,” Watson, supra, accord to it on 80 U.S. rights through legislation could occur as well 729, at and on to hold that [13 Wall.] went civil through adjudication: civil court jurisdiction purely courts exercise no over eccle- holding "This v. Ca- St. Nicholas [in Kedroff siastical matters. thedral Russian Orthodox Church North of 97 L.Ed. America, 94, 143, 344 U.S. 73 S.Ct. Connecticut, supra 16. Cantwell v. State note (1952) invalidating legislative 120 action was ] 4, 308, U.S. at 60 S.Ct. at We note that 310 judicial extended to action in Kreshik v. St. "compelling governmental excep- interest” Cathedral, 190, Nicholas U.S. S.Ct. 363 80 commonly tion is now more referred to in 1037, [1960], 4 L.Ed.2d the where Court activity “publicsafety, terms of that is a threat to guarantees held that the Constitutional of reli- Verner, peace order." v. U.S. or Sherbert gious liberty required judg- the reversal of a 398, 403, 1790, 1793, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 ment of the New York courts which transfer- [1963], red control of St. Nicholas Cathedral from the governing authority central of the Russian Verner, 16, 17. Sherbert independent Orthodox Church to the Russian Collins, quoting 83 S.Ct. at Thomas v. Church of America.” 315, 323, 89 L.Ed. 430 [1945], Jones, 15. In Watson v. 80 U.S. [13 Wall.] [1872], 20 L.Ed. the Court ad- religious following questions: dressed the denomination involved in the "congregational,” case at bar is not “hierarchi- doctrine, religious these matters of disci- "[I]n According cal.” to Judicial in Dis- Intervention order, pline, and church who is to be the putes Property, Over the Use of Church 75 Harv. judge? say conclusively, Who the has [1962], L.Rev. 1143-44 there are three controversy, in case of that one or the other general categories polity congrega- of church party dispute] departed has — [to tional, presbyterial episcopal: doctrines of the church? Who shall form, validity judg- congregational determine of an act or “In the each local con- court; upon gregation self-governing. presbyterial ment of a church status of is officer; upon legality polities representative, authority being or an member or are ex- voluntary by laymen organized otherwise of a enforced or sever- ercised and ministers in part body general ascending judicatories pres- ance of a organization?" from the of the succession — church, bytery over the session of the local fraud, collusion, or “In the absence govern action should rule of which arbitrariness, proper of the decisions courts, a broad civil founded purely eccle- church tribunals matters of the relations church sound view siastical, although affecting rights, civil laws, sup- system our state under litigation sec- accepted before the weight preponderating ported by a conclusive, ular courts as because that, is, judicial authority whenever so con- parties in interest made them faith, or ec- discipline or of questions of like tract or otherwise. Under circum- rule, or been custom law have clesiastical given stances, in the effect courts church highest these decided judicatory the determinations of the bod- the matter has been judicatories which ies and civil associa- established clubs accept carried, legal must tribunals tions.” final, binding on and as decisions as such case, In a later Serbian Eastern Orthodox them, the case application in their Diocese, Milivojevich,22 Etc. the Court them.” before “fraud, that its collu- announced Gonzalez organizations could If members sion, exception or dic- arbitrariness” grievances their doctrinal freely pursue only, concluding tum that: courts, laws legislatures pass or could civil or not there room ‘mar- “whether activities, to inhibit enhance ginal civil court review’ under the narrow subjected to liberty ecclesiastical would ‘fraud’ rubrics of or ‘collusion’ when the “unmo- governmental interference and act church tribunals in bad faith for sec- development of lested and unobstructed” excep- no purposes, ular ‘arbitrariness’ Amend- opinion and belief inquiry tion—in the sense of an whether designed to foster could be ment shield was highest decisions ecclesiastical secularly undermined. tribunal of a hierarchical com- church unequivocally While the Court Watson plied regulations— with church laws scrutiny purely judicial banned ecclesias- is consistent with the constitutional man- decisions,20 tical it has since discussed accept date that civil courts are bound to possibility “marginal civil court review" highest judicatories decisions of disputes. In Roman these Gonzalez v. religious organization a a of hierarchi- Archbishop faith, Manila21 the polity discipline, Catholic cal on matters of organization, internal Court stated: or ecclesiastical general assembly beyond synod presbytery, authority particu- and thus no over episcopal power reposes congregation disgruntled all. In the form over lar to which a member superiors, Rough- bishops. as appeal in clerical such support. Disputes can for are settled may ly, presbyterial episcopal polities be locally congregation within of which the hierarchical, opposed congre- considered parties Disciplinary are members. decisions gational polities, autonomy in which the by govern- made churches within this form of princi- congregation the local is central deserving judicial fair ment are no less ple.” by deference than decisions made churches Supreme United has ad- While the States Court structured in a fashion. hierarchical The lack inquiry civil into ecclesiastical dressed court congregation’s "religious” of a own court of churches, decisions made hierarchical it has appeals justification not for intervention not dealt with this issue the context a civil review tribunal. congregational church which is theless, form. Never- Jones, opinion supra arewe of the that a church’s 19. Watson v. 80 U.S. [13 protected judi- disciplinary decisions are at 727. Wall] scrutiny "congrega- cial whether the church is Baptist tional” or "hierarchical.” Accord: First 20. See note 15. Ohio, Glen v. State Este 16-17, Black, 5, 7-8, F.Supp. 676 and Nunn v. 21. 280 [S.D.Ohio 1983] L.Ed. 131 [1929], F.Supp. 444 [W.D.Va.1981]. congregation self-gov- Each Church of Christ 2372, 2382, erning thus answers to no other 22. 426 U.S. [1976], body. There is no hierarchical structure and L.Ed.2d 151 custom, rule, provides or law.”23 abstention ... that civil courts may not redetermine the correctness of an In the Court held that: Serbian interpretation of canonical text or some First and Fourteenth Amendments “the relating government decision of the reli- permit organiza- hierarchical gious polity.” Unlike the instant contro- tions to establish their own rules and versy, of religious dispute the class which regulations discipline for internal traditionally has Court held to be out- government, and to for create tribunals purview judicature side the of civil involves disputes adjudicating over these matters. arguments among interpre- members over When this choice is and ecclesi- exercised doctrine, tation of church or over actions astical tribunals created to decide pursuant to an allegedly taken incorrect government disputes and di- over construction of church Because rules.27 bodies, rection of subordinate the Consti- controversy in the instant case is con- requires accept courts tution civil cerned the allegedly with tortious nature of binding upon decisions as them.”24 their religiously-motivated and not acts has Although explicitly the Court eliminat- orthodoxy vis-a-vis established church ed rule exception an “arbitrariness” doctrine, justification judicial ab- prohibited adjudi- courts are civil theory stention is nonexistent and the does cating religious disputes, tri- whether these apply. not constitutionally permitted bunals are still dispute between Parishioner and the to review final ecclesiastical decisions for clearly not Elders is immune from secular recently “fraud” or “collusion” has not judicature properly and was the trial before been revisited. Nevertheless, prius court. the nisi decision specific governmental interference tort, holding responsible the Elders rights challenged with First Amendment subsequent imposing liability, verdict here court is civil enforcement of tort law present judicial and thus state interfer- against the Church of Christ Elders and alleged ence with the exercise of First adjudication not judicial of the doctrinal rights sanc- propriety of the car- measures pass tioned lest it constitutional muster. against ried the Elders out Parishioner. testing constitutionality not attack Parishioner did the Elders’ disci- court’s action the Elders and the plinary on the actions basis that con- favor, jury’s verdict Parishioner’s poli- travened established Church of Christ record, whether, proper inquiry is on the Rather, ty. she claimed that the Elders’ discipline the Elders’ decision to Parish- conformity or not in actions—whether public such a ioner constituted threat to the church established doctrine—amounted to a safety, peace justified or order that it rights tortious invasion of her for which pursue state trial court’s to decision she was entitled to recover. While this compelling providing interest of its citizens dispute involved a religiously-founded disci- vindicating rights with a means of their matter, plinary it pri- was not the sort of conferred tort law. controversy vate ecclesiastical which the judicial Court has deemed immune from Ill According scrutiny.25 to a federal circuit case, court Paul v. TAK- Watchtower Bible & THE DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS York,26“[ejcclesiastical Tract New PA- Soc. EN BY AGAINST THE ELDERS of Diocese, Cir.1987], 23. Serbian Eastern Orthodox Etc. v. Mi F.2d n. 1 cert. [9th — livojevich, supra U.S.-, denied, note U.S. at 98 L.Ed.2d 249 [1987]. Milivoje 24. Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Jones, e.g., Watson 27. See note vich, 724-725, supra note 22 at 426 U.S. at Cathedral, supra Kreshik v. St. Nicholas note 14. S.Ct. at 2387-2388. Diocese, 25. Serbian Eastern Orthodox Etc. v. Mi livojevich, supra 426 U.S. at S.Ct. at 2382. nearly absolutely anything os free as can SHE BEFORE WITH-

RISHIONER be.”30 FROM HER MEMBERSHIP DREW CHRIST DID NOT

THE CHURCH OF together voluntarily join people When TO A THREAT PUBLIC CONSTITUTE fulfillment, pursuit spiritual the First of SAFETY, AND OR ORDER PEACE requires government that the IN- DID JUSTIFY STATE HENCE NOT respect impose their decision and not its TERFERENCE. religious organization. own ideas on people may Under the First Amendment of Prior to Parishioner’s withdrawal governed being spiritually to freely consent Christ, membership from the Church by an set of ecclesiastical ten- established separate three approached her on Elders ets and carried out those chosen defined explain doctrinally-mandat to occasions interpret impose to them: confronting consequences a member ed organize voluntary right to reli- “The transgressing had been accused of who expres- gious in the associations to assist Elders, According to the these church law. sion and dissemination stage meetings- comprised the initial three doctrine, and to for the create tribunals withdrawal-of-fellowship procedure. questions decision controverted gain repentance, they to In an effort association, faith and for the within required “go tell trans to were [the government all the ecclesiastical indi- gressing member fault.”28 Parish her] members, congregations, and offi- vidual ioner testified she was aware the with general association, cers within the drawal-of-fellowship procedure and knew unquestioned. All who unite themselves it what entail. would body implied to do so with an such give trial to court’s summa- government, refusal this consent ry judgment to the Elders on Parish- bound to submit it.”31 prewithdrawal ioner’s tort claims29 and First Free Under the Amendment’s Exer- adjudication protected its conduct Clause, right cise Parishioner had the a governmental constituted burden on participant practices as a in the consent right the Church Christ’s to its free of the Church of Christ without beliefs religion. exercise While state has a governmental As fear of interference. compelling providing forum interest leaders, spiritual Church’s chosen Eld- adjudicate where its citizens can guid- responsible providing ers were law, rights under tort the intrusion into the who, Parishioner, ance to all those like the Elders’ Amendment freedoms which had to follow. the Free Ex- chosen Under constitutionally requires that interest is not ercise Clause Elders had protected supportable. The Elders’ con- partic- rely consensual on Parishioner’s clearly justify governmental duct did not ipation congregation in the when disci- regulation ground posed a plined voluntarily who her as one had elect- safety, threat public serious health or precepts. ed to their to adhere doctrinal Although reli- welfare. limits willing “[t]he [on Parishioner’s submission operate gious begin to whenever dogma, freedom] and the Elders’ Church Christ’s begin affect or submission, activities collide with collectively reliance on that public[,] liberties others or of the prewithdrawal, the church’s shielded reli- [Reli- gious activities concern mem- giously-motivated discipline scrutiny from ought judicature. through of the faith are and free— secular bers be 28. See 29. Those Prince v. 30. J., intrusion Torts: emotional dissenting). Applying Matthew, claims on Commonwealth, seclusion distress. the Consent Doctrine as Defini- include invasion of See supra L.Ed. 645 also, Comment, note 1. intentional ^[1944] privacy (Jackson, infliction Religious 158, 177, 31.Watson Distress Rev. Wall.] tional [1986]; rageous 1296, Balancing, at 728-729. Note, Conduct by Spiritual v. 1310-1312 [1986]. Intentional Jones, be 19 U.C.D.L.Rev. “Free supra Counselors: Infliction Exercise’’?, note 949, 84 Mich.L. Emotional Can U.S. [13 974-979 Out- n public safety, to the court acts were a threat the trial wal hence direct We must order, that af- adjudica peace or we are convinced summary partial that on remand fording opportunity her ah to do so would Parishioner for tion be rendered meaningless gesture. Although we pressed her claim which is be portion of that acknowledge may reli- acts. that there be some prewithdrawal the Elders’ for motivated, giously consensual acts which remanded for new a cause is to be Whether public a threat to the to enter could constitute safe- returned with instruction trial or enough ap ty, peace great or order to fall prevailing party on judgment for the protection,35 we teaching of dehors First peal governed by Sher- case, that, There hold on the record of this Sovereign Camp, rill v. W.O.W.32 prewithdrawal acts are shielded Elders’ said: we scrutiny by judicature. The secular opin- [appellate] court is of “[I]f possibly Parishioner could not recover on may produced ion that other evidence retrial.36 Insofar as she seeks vindication say that trial or is unable on a new for the actions taken the Elders before produced, not be such evidence withdrawal, membership’s her claims her judgment but will not render final will are to be dismissed. the case for a new trial.” remand may properly reverse appellate An court IV judgment only directions to enter THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW ONE’S manifestly insuffi- when “the evidence IMPLIED TO SUBMIT TO CONSENT any appear it does not that new cient and OF THE DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS procured on a retrial of the can be evidence A IS CONSTITUTIONALLY CHURCH appellate Before an court can cause.”33 RELINQUISH- UNQUALIFIED; ITS it, action, part terminat- order REQUIRES A AND MENT KNOWING for insufficien- judgment’s ed on a reversal INTELLIGENT WAIVER. evidence, appear it must that the cy of the on a new trial —it appellee cannot recover that her Parishioner asserts with enough recovery appear improb- is not membership drawal of Collinsville able.34 also effective as a of Christ was Church of her consent to submit to that Applying these common-lawrules to this withdrawal discipli case, church’s and ecclesiastical we reverse and remand with instruc- beliefs withdrawal, nary Upon her portions procedures. those of Parish- tions to dismiss preclud urges, re- the church was ioner’s tort claims which she seeks sanctioning her as if she were covery prewithdrawal the Elders’ con- ed from continuing By to disci has not had an current member. duct. While Parishioner though practicing present specific pline her as she were opportunity to evidence member, prewithdra- of Christ the Elders the issue whether the Elders’ duty religiously to burn believed it was her 184 Okl. 86 P.2d 296 [1939]. pile her dead herself husband, the funeral beyond power it be of the would W.O.W., Sovereign Camp, su- 33. See Sherrill carrying government prevent civil pra note 86 P.2d at 296. practice? belief into here, organization of socie- So as a law of the W.O.W., Sovereign supra Camp, 34. Sherrill v. ty States, the United under dominion of the.exclusive 296; also, Dill, Johnston note 32 at see marriages provided plural it is Okl. 64 P.2d 329 [1937]. Can a man excuse his shall not be allowed. contrary practices because of his reli- States, Reynolds v. United gious be to permit belief? To this would 166-167, the Court acknowl- [8 Otto.] professed be- doctrines of make the edged religiously that some motivated acts are land, superior and in lief to the law undeserving protection: of First Amendment permit every a law citizen to become effect "Suppose one believed that human sacrifices could exist in unto himself. Government necessary part religious worship, were a name under such circumstances.” seriously would it be contended that the civil Co., government Kelly Equipment Sales lived could not v. Oliver Farm under which he 36.See [1934], prevent 36 P.2d interfere to a sacrifice? Or if a wife 169 Okl. worship protected as freedom to privacy her and Just alleged invaded to have Amendment, so also is the by distress. caused her emotional liberty from one’s alle- to recede the Elders their actions In defense of giance.37 In Torcaso v. Watkins38 has no the Church of Christ claim that that neither a state nor Court reaffirmed provision withdrawal doctrinal government federal can force or influ- beliefs, According a membership. to person go away ence a to or to remain congregation part of the remains a member against pro- or church one’s will to into a who are born for life. Like those religion. a or they can never may leave but family, they disbelief fess belief clearly safeguards The First A court’s the familial bond. really sever worship as well as the effectively that Parishioner determination freedom worship. not to her membership and thus her withdrew freedom would, doctrine to church consent to submit long recognized that the The Court has Elders, a constitutional- according maintaining strong government key to a usurpation of reli- ly impermissible state fostering growth of cherished while through judi- accomplished gious discipline respected is to and forms belief cial interference. preserve the freedom to choose one’s indi- confronted The Elders had never been worship.39 In genre Engel v. vidual chose to withdraw with a member who case, Vitale, prayer” the first “school disciplinary pro- Because from the church. prayer, that the use of a Court held already against Parishioner had ceedings regents composed by a state board of was her mem- commenced when she withdrew daily by recited teachers in a and was to be concluded their actions bership, the Elders system, public school violated Estab- by hindered her withdrawal could not be lishment Clause of the First Amendment. protected the First and would be practice that such a The Court reasoned on her relies Amendment. government place allowed the “its offi- letter to September 1981 handwritten approval upon particular stamp cial one unequivocally stat- the Elders which she particular prayer kind of or one form of membership she and ed that withdrew religious services.”40 being treated as terminated consent supported historical Engel commun- a of the Church of Christ member fact; many England gov- who left and its By standards we find her ion. common-law ernmentally established church for Amer- communication was an effective withdraw- pursuit freedom. membership of her consent to ica did so al of her religious discipline. The First Amendment United States 143; Comment, religions against supra aid all nonbe- See note 30 at 978 n. ments which Note, supra religion note 30 at 1311. aid based on a belief in the lievers or religions against God as those existence of 1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 38. 367 U.S. different beliefs. founded on Watkins, appointee In Torcaso v. [1961]. Maryland notary public in had the office of Vitale, 421, 431-432, Engel he been refused a commission to serve because [1962], L.Ed.2d the Court belief in God and was would not declare his said: holding thus barred from office virtue "Its Establishment first [the Clause’s] rights provi- state declaration of constitution’s purpose belief most immediate rested on the held that the constitution- sion. state court religion government that a union of tends self-executing required provision al a degrade destroy government and to reli- qualification declaration of belief in God as a gion implementing legis- Establishment Clause thus .... for office without need for reversed, expression principle Supreme ex- on the lation. The U.S. Court stands as an require- pressing part the view that the constitutional of the Founders of our Constitution sacred, appointee’s religion personal, holy, ment invaded the freedom of belief too too is too religion and could not be enforced perversion’ by permit ‘unhallowed its emphasized him. The Court that neither a state magistrate.” civil government constitutionally nor the can federal Vitale, Engel person profess 370 U.S. at or force disbelief belief any religion, pass impose require- laws or S.Ct. at 1266.

777 Parishioner’s claim that never controverted preserve free- designed to was Constitution taught prohibi- the estab- was not Church’s worship by prohibiting she dom of any official re- membership. against endorsement withdrawal lishment or tion purposes the fundamental testimony One of must hence be tak- ligion. Parishioner’s protect the is to First Amendment en as true. worship they choose.41 right to people’s church, voluntarily uniting with the By freely one’s right to choose Implicit in the submitting its impliedly she consented right of unhin- worship is form of own did not religious government, but form of from the unimpeded withdrawal dered right relinquishing a thereby consent to worship. Engel form of chosen its guarantees her as the civil law which that, advocating one government The in- constitutionally protected value. worship, form of particular voluntary relinquishment of a tentional here, choice; limit freedom of threatened to finding of an right required for a known that, of Christ Church it is the Collinsville never established. waiver was effective right to disasso- by denying Parishioner’s us Parishioner —a sui On the record before reli- form of particular from a ciate herself from the person herself juris —removed belief, curtail her threatening to gious congregation rolls Church of Christ according to her choice. worship freedom of the Elders communicated to moment she the constitution- Parishioner waived Unless withdrawing member- that she was consent to her initial right to withdraw al ship.43 discipline by the of Christ Church be bound Elders, resignation governing and its right. A constitutionally protected

awas V relin- voluntary or intentional is the waiver WITHDREW WHEN PARISHIONER right.42 According of a known quishment FROM THE HER MEMBERSHIP process of indoctrination to Parishioner THEREBY AND OF CHRIST CHURCH did not teach into the Church of Christ PAR- TO HER CONSENT membership to be WITHDREW body considers RELA- commitment. IN A SPIRITUAL of lifetime TICIPATE an insoluble bond becoming a member HAD unaware that SHE IM- She was IN WHICH TIONSHIP relinquish- meant of the CollinsvilleChurch TO TO SUBMIT PLICITLY AGREED voluntarily to disasso- ing SUPERVISION, her civil ECCLESIASTICAL body. from that ciate herself ACTIONS DISCIPLINARY THOSE BY THE ELD- TAKEN THEREAFTER that, Elders testified while PARISHIONER, ERS AGAINST practices “withdrawal of of Christ HER ACTIVELY INVOLVED WHICH disciplinary punishment, fellowship” as a AND COM- THE CHURCH’S WILL IN prohibit grounded biblically beliefs its THE PUR- MAND, WERE OUTSIDE withdrawing unilaterally members from AMENDMENT THE FIRST Elders VIEW OF allegiance to the church. The 130, Butts, 435, Publishing Vitale, Co. v. 388 ed. Curtis Engel U.S. at v. 370 1975, 1985, [1967], L.Ed.2d 1094 S.Ct. 18 82 S.Ct. at 1269. rights of one’s bound a waiver No one can be knowledge of the with full Co., unless it was made City Ry. Faulkenberry Southern v. Kansas rights The fact that one intended to be waived. Okl., and Johnson P.2d 206-207 [1979] rights' waive them and intends to 1019, 1023, knows his 458, 464, Zerbst, S.Ct. 304 U.S. Co. v. Cen- plainly appear. Universal Gas must origin in "Waiver" had its L.Ed. 1461 [1938]. Co., 102 F.2d Public Service tral Illinois Black in Johnson trans- civil law before Justice Bustamonte, Cf., Schneckloth Cir.1939]. [7th planted law. In Cordova v. it into criminal 218, 243-244, [1872], Hood, 21 L.Ed. 587 1] 84 U.S. Wall. [17 ingredi- indispensable An L.Ed.2d 854 [1973]. of inten- said that "waiver” is a matter the Court freely is a exercised effective waiver ent of one’s invoking party waiv- as well as action. The tion right. relinquish a known will person required to show that the er as a bar is did, at the time whom the bar is asserted transaction, was effective knowledge, withdrawal actual or 43.Parishioner’s of the constructive, hav.e resig- receipt of her rights the Elders’ later than existence of his and of September upoh they depend- nation letter of all the material facts 778 consent, unprotected PROP- without her THE AND WERE

PROTECTION Amendment; REGULA- OF STATE ER SUBJECT the Elders’ conduct TION.44 regulation hence amenable state became imposition liability. of tort through the that the Elders claims they wrongfully privacy when invaded her conforming to and motivated Conduct life45 and about her publicized private facts always is not im- one’s beliefs her severe emo caused this invasion governmental regulation: mune from After she wrote a letter stress. tional determination of what is “reli- “[A] withdrawing her unequivocally the Elders gious” practice entitled to con- belief Christ, membership from the Church protection may present a most stitutional disciplinary actions Elders continued concept very question, delicate [but] During Sunday services the against her. precludes liberty allowing ordered those congregation Elders read to person to make his own stan- every which Parishioner had violated. scriptures on matters conduct in which dards life, private done exposure This recovery importance.... [S]peech public limiting on 'matters of By to those Parishioner’s stages, during postwithdrawal occurred ‘at the heart of the First Amend- acts that concern’ ... * * * case to the issue in this protection’ speech we have narrowed on mat- [while] ment’s under theories of whether the Elders are liable purely private concern is of less First ters of privacy and intentional infliction of invasion of Greenmoss, supra, concern.” they for words which have emotional distress spoken. 758-759, (citations at S.Ct. at 2944-2945 argued, parties’ have briefs and we omitted). Clearly, the were Elders’ statements concluded, question the words in constitute "purely private concern.” Even under the Accordingly, religious speech. we have relied rulings regarding Supreme United States Court’s religion upon of the First Amend- clauses action, defamation causes of these statements analyzing degree protection these ment in “of less First Amendment concern.” would be deserve. words protections Constitutional law will be extended Supreme Court has used the The United States regardless placed particular of the label on the freedom-of-speech protections First Amendment Sullivan, supra cause of action. note recovery in lawsuits in which words limit at 720. We could thus U.S. at 84 S.Ct. at issue. See New York Times Co. v. alone are through privacy allow our invasion of and in- Thus, Sullivan, supra in state def- of emotional distress causes tentional infliction public pub- officials nor amation actions neither precludes. of action which the First Amendment figures may defamatory words lic relating recover for case, re-evaluating analysis our in the instant unless to their official conduct we that we have not violated this fun- conclude spoken prove with “mal- that the words were precept. damental Sullivan, supra note 376 U.S. at ice.” See 279, defamation, been The tort of which has some- 726; Publishing see also Curtis 84 S.Ct. Supreme States what limited the United Butts, (the rule was Co. v. note 42 Sullivan Court, protects reputations. individuals’ On the figures). public extended to We know of no hand, privacy protects against other invasion of such limitations on state causes of action for unreasonable with individuals'soli- interferences privacy invasion of or intentional infliction of tude, intentional infliction of emotional while when, emotional distress—even case, as in the instant protects against outrageous conduct. distress those causes of action based Accordingly, the role that the First Amendment words alone. plays protecting speech is attacked Furthermore, it is evident from the United through quite defamation is different from the reasoning Supreme States Court’s in defamation protecting speech plays role it which is at- protection cases that the afforded statements by way tacked of these other torts. We are ground- public figures made about officials or analyzing hence satisfied that the Elders’ public ed in the fact that those statements are of religion speech under the clauses of the First concern: Amendment —to the exclusion of defamation ”[P]ermitting recovery presumed puni- proper have afforded it damages considerations —we tive showing in defamation cases absent protection. First Amendment of 'actual malice’ does not violate the defamatory First Amendment when the state- Co., Okl., v. Oklahoma Pub. McCormack public ments do not involve matters of con- [1980], Brown, Eddy P.2d Okl., 739-740 cern.” [1986], give guide- Bradstreet, Builders, 715 P.2d 77-78 Dun and Inc., Inc. v. Greenmoss 2939, 2947, adjudicating when tort lines to be followed privacy and L.Ed.2d claims of invasion of intentional The Court reasoned that [1985]. speech equal distress. "not all is of First Amendment infliction of emotional Disciplinary rights not ty, peace or among those hallowed society as a whole ests.” an ecclesiastical pose with ^[46] a substantial [Emphasis which the practices order, association, has threat added.] involving members government First Amendment important unquestionably public cannot inter- safe- do ment’s Free Exercise Clause to when spired one who has terminated sion even stitutionally protected protect to another’s the most disciplinary measure is forfeited object preserve. of “benevolent” concern is deeply supervision freedom to felt, voluntary And was spiritually-in- yet and com- designed the con- submis- impose mand.49 sectarian matters were interfere. If these adjudication arid lia-

easily subject to civil requires First Amendment While the the First judicature, bility secular religious views dif- citizens be tolerant of “many Amendment shield under which and offensive to their ferent from own,50 life, character, opinion and belief types of require like Pa- surely does not that those develop unmolested unobstruct- rishioner, can choose not to to the who submit ed” would be ^[47] rendered impotent. authority religious association, group’s attempts govern tolerant of that ex- protection does not First Amendment Only those unite themselves” them. “who religiously-motivated discipli- to all tend impliedly consent in a association orga- in which ecclesiastical nary practices authority over them and are “bound to its By very na- might its nizations engage.48 voluntarily to submit to ture, discipline involves both ecclesiastical it.”51 doing so joined the Church Christ member. It is a means church and to its tenets. When consented submit expression as as a means of well later removed herself from member- she judging trans- ecclesiastically one who consent, ship, de- Parishioner withdrew con- gresses church law which one has a actively priving power obey. express dis- sented to through spiritual monitor her life overt dis- of those satisfaction with the disobedience to choose ciplinary acts. No real freedom promised to adhere to doctrinal who have land if under exist ecclesiastically-man- would precepts and to take religion52 Amendment reli- wayward mem- the shield of the First bring measures to dated impose their will on accepted gious institutions could back within the bounds bers behavior, unwilling immunity claim from sec- religious expression are forms of judicature for their tortious acts. the First Amend- ular and association which 205, 215-216, Yoder, religion beyond the civil are not the reach of v. 406 U.S. 92 46. Wisconsin law, Ms. Madsen went on to hold that L.Ed.2d 15 court [1972]. 32 remaining against replead claims tort could Connecticut, supra the church: See Cantwell v. State 4, 310, U.S. at 60 S.Ct. at 906. note 310 banner the First Amendment "Under the religion, clergyman provisions not Erwin, 715, 481 In Madsen v. 395 Mass. intentionally person, impunity defame [1985], employee a church N.E.2d 1160 parish- on a emotional harm serious inflict ioner, brought against suit the First Church of member [Emphasis add- or commit other torts." Christ, Boston, wrongful dis- Scientist of ed.] allegedly charge 1167; com- Erwin, and various other torts supra N.E.2d at see Madsen v. firing job process Church, in the her from her also, mitted Bear v. Mennonite Reformed 105, Ms. Madsen 330, at the Christian Science Monitor. A.2d 107-108 [1975]. Pa. employment alleged terminated that "her was see, Claims Churches and 49. But Tort preference her sexual and refusal to because of First Amendment Ecclesiastical healing’ through Church." Madsen v. ‘[seek] Officers: 1, Considerations, W.Va.L.Rev. 101-103 Erwin, Adhering supra N.E.2d at 1164. [1986], devel- the doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention Diocese, oped in Serbian Eastern Orthodox Etc. Connecticut, supra v. State 50. See Cantwell Milivojevich, supra note 426 U.S. at U.S. at note the court held that the church’s 96 S.Ct. at employment terminate Ms. Madsen’s decision to Jones, supra 51. See Watson decision which it could not con- Wall.) (13 stitutionally adjudicate. Recognizing impor- at 729. as well as tance of First Amendment freedoms equally important rights note 35. rule that 52. See text implications of a the tort cases address held that court has appellate federal A impose disciplinary practice of decision Church’s church’s Witness the Jehovah’s member, the form at current a former directed measures “shunning,” whether members, protect- in each notably different transgressing discipline is former activity which does Elders, conformity to bar, ed First case. At threat mandate, sufficient “constitute a in- interpretation of biblical community morality of safety, or peace, of Christ four other area Church formed intervention.”53 In state as to warrant commu- Parishioner’s congregations within believer became Witness a Jehovah’s Paul had acts. After she nity of her “sinful” church, her withdrew disillusioned membership from the her withdrawn subsequently to an- moved membership and requested the Eld- repeatedly Church and her old When she visited other state. exposing private her refrain from ers to later, years few her Jeho- neighborhood they proceeded to congregations, life to the speak to friends would not Witness vah’s significant transgressions with a her share them to her; church had instructed Although her fellow citizens. number of all “withdrawn” members. shun her consent to had withdrawn Church, claiming that prohibition Paul sued the of Christ’s Ms. to the Church submit her, her, had defamed by shunning “fornication,” ac- the Elders continued emotional distress her severe punish past caused her for tively discipline and Stating that while a privacy. her invaded precepts. doctrinal disobedience of its could, ques- theory, “examine the court deliberately member In Paul a former shunning of a former tion whether of the rejected the faith and beliefs Jeho- tortious,” is, itself, of a church member and was thus vah’s Witness Church practice the court instead “follow[ed] The Elders admonished the shunned. safeguard the Washington courts which speak to Ms. of the church not to members through recogni- religion free exercise Paul, they obeyed. While Ms. Paul torts, defenses to rather tion of substantive membership and thus had her withdrawn by negating plaintiff’s cause than authority her consent submit The court that action itself.”54 reasoned Church, the act of the Jehovah’s Witness great latitude “[cjhurches are afforded against her discipline which it carried out they impose discipline on members or when in the instant case—a was—unlike “shun- former members.” It found that rejection exclusion did form of which ning” religious expression form of is a for her consent: not call protects. the Free Exercise which Clause “The of the Church Paul decid- members practice shunning priv- The Witnesses’ they ed to abandon have concluded conduct, entitled to ileged abso- longer to associate with her. no want protection gov- lute First Amendment hold that are free to make that We ernmental interference. The court held choice.” protected practice of shun- that because ning present peace, not a threat to the did postresignation conduct The Elders’ community,56 safety, morality passive. was Their disassociation Paul state intervention in the form of tort liabili- through shunning from Ms. Paul was mere- justified. ty not ly prior rejection, not a reiteration of here, attempt an active to involve her in the

The facts the Elders’ involve conduct, postwithdrawal clearly religious practices pre- are of a church whose distin- cepts longer The church’s guishable from those Paul. While both she no followed. & 53. Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. New 56. Paul v. Watchtower Bible Tract Soc. New York, York, note 26 supra note 26 at 883.

54. Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. Newof 57. Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. Newof York, supra note 26 at 879. York, supra note 26 at 883.

55. Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. Newof York, supra note 26 at 883. that ele- gregation. The Elders contend pro- her was away turn decision to Amendment as In under and four not met. tected ments three were freedom, exercise of passive recently stated v. Brown this court Eddy grounded in legitimacy of which was applies the Restatement that Okalahoma prior acquiescence. (Second) assessing of Torts when whether pro- purposes For of First group people made to a a statement tection, religiously-motivated “publicity.”59 constitutes merely person measures that exclude Eddy a statement to a limited number vastly different from from communion are undergo- Eddy’s that he was coworkers designed to control and those which ing not amount to psychiatric treatment did clearly A church is constitutional- involve. purposes “publication” for of invasion of first ob- ly people free to exclude without privacy. presents The case at bar a differ- taining But the First their consent. Here, read ent factual scenario. Elders shield a church from Amendment will not scriptures implicated pri- that Parishioner’s will, liability imposing its as mani- civil congregation compris- church scheme, upon vate life to a through disciplinary a fested has not consented to ing percent an individual who of Parishioner’s hometown five undergo discipline. The court ecclesiastical group people population. This of consti- generally in stated that do Paul “[c]ourts tutes, many respects, pub- Parishioner’s relationship closely scrutinize not proved element lic. Parishioner number members) (or among members former by showing three that the Elders’ actions “[ejhurches are afforded ..and that publication. amounted to a The Elders’ great they impose discipline latitude when are hence without merit. contentions members,”58 on or former members [em- support phasis provided it no but added] satisfy To element number four of Regardless disagree- for this view. of our privacy by publication pri of of invasion refusal in ment with the court’s Paul facts, prove had to that vate distinguish between “former” legitimate publication was not of con “present” assessing church when members congregation. In cern to the McCormack a church’s freedom to visit disci- Co.,60our first case to v. Oklahoma Pub. pline, apparent is that the ratio- stated adopt “publication private of facts” as a nale did not form the basis of the court’s invading privacy, means of another’s holding. We believe that the conclusion that Pub McCormack claimed Oklahoma holding today our reached Paul and his lishing Company invaded [OPUBCO] entirely easily consistent and reconcilable. publicizing article that dis privacy by an prevail In order to on her claim for inva- illegal past his involvement in an cussed privacy by publication private sion of of Deciding in gambling operation. favor facts, prove Parishioner had to the four OPUBCO, publi this court stated that the elements of that tort. She had the burden proven cation was not to be unreasonable. (1) showing that the Elders’ statements allege did not facts sufficient McCormack highly per- were offensive to a reasonable that statements to show either OPUBCO’s son, (2) private contained facts about Pa- already public not record or that were life, (3) public a rishioner’s were disclosure legitimate concern to the they were not of (4) private legit- facts and were not of public. imate concern to the Church of Christ con- knowledge.... public

58. Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. New become one of York, supra note 26 at 883. is not one of the means of commu- difference a nication ... one of communication [but] Brown, Eddy In note 45 at reaches, public.” or is sure to reach the that court stated: Torts, (Second) Ch. See also Restatement 28A, "‘Publicity’ Seclusion, 652B, means that the matter is made Upon § Intrusion com- by communicating public, public (a) it to the at ment [1977]. many large, persons or to so that the matter regarded substantially 60.Supra must be as certain to note 45. thiness as a Church Christ member refined elements In this court Eddy pastor. privacy required prove invasion Eddy facts. articu-

publication private bar, the Elders in As the case (2) (1) publicity, elements lated those publish their decision Redgate defended (3) giv- which which is unreasonable denouncing Rédgate as “void of the article the state- private en fact. Because as a grounds spirit of Christ” Eddy’s did not coworkers ments made to legitimately concerned the the information this court was publication, a congregations. constitute The court held the Elders whether these state- required “qualified privilege” to decide to communicate had a and thus not of unreasonable for the withdrawal- ments were reasons public. legitimate of-fellowship proceedings initi- concern against Redgate.63 ated (Sec According to the Restatement congregation’s a Redgate While involved ond) Torts, “legitimate public con person concerns the credentials a policy requirement cern” based on the might attempted to continue who have proper a public has interest affected preaching denom- within consti learning such matters.61 To about ination, congre- case at bar involves a privacy, publication tute invasion of sins of gation’s person with the concern highly reasonable must offensive longer who is no a church member. legitimate person of no concern to congregation legitimate had a Redgate the public. transgres- and concern for the reasonable actions; in ease at bar it not. sor’s the did testimony that one The Elders’ indicates Redgate congregation In the had common purposes of served withdrawal-of- the being ques- about interest in informed the fellowship proceedings “keep is to the [ac- among tionable of one them who conduct spreading” sin from cused member’s] expressed to continue minister- the desire congregation. In or- throughout the entire ing of their neighboring to them or to one protect der to the Collinsville Church and Here, expressed Parishioner assemblies. other Churches of Christ Parish- area continuing in her no interest association influence, congrega- ioner’s adverse those any with the other Church of Collinsville transgres- tions made aware of were the Christ. removed herself from mem- She having sions admitted to committed. she bership posed no threat of and thus contin- In v. Roush62 the court dealt with Redgate ued influence on Church of adverse member, a Church of Christ sometimes act- congregation. Christ ing pastor, who sued the elders of Wilmington Church of Christ for def- disciplinary Because the actions preached Because he amation. sermons taken the Elders after Parishioner’s res doctrine, the church ignation deserving which contravened are not First Amend fellowship protection, that church they proper elders of withdrew ment were the sub ject from him circulated in the and articles of her claim for intentional infliction of delict, paper church which warned of his unwor- emotional distress. This also known 28A, (Second) Torts, inquiry Ch. Pub- The result of their was Restatement brotherhood. Life, 652D, interest, licity § Given to Private comment to a matter of not them and the (d) [1977], Wilmington, other church at but to members organization throughout their church [1900], Kan. 59 P. 1050 plaintiff [Redgate] country. If the was un- worthy discharge Roush, or unfit to sacred func- Redgate In P. at 1050-1051, calling, high tions of his the defendants [Eld- the court noted: ers], church, interested in the welfare of the denom- "They officers of the and were were land, welfare; throughout appear ination would to concerned its the conduct and plaintiff justified warning [Redgate] have character of the as their been other members pastor subject organization congregations had become official in- of that quiry; and it has been found ‘void might that he was [Redgate] plaintiff whom his offer Christ,’ insubordinate, spirit of of the derly, disor- pastor.” services as unworthy confidence of the

7«3 religiously certain that some motivated outrage,” recognized in “tort of as the parame- they fall out- acts are actionable because governed by the and is Oklahoma protec- Ac- of First Amendment expressed Eddy scope v. Brown.64 side ters and “out- cording the “extreme” those acts indeed be Eddy, tion would conduct parties’ judicature. rageous” proper subject nature secular in a vacuum.65 not considered disciplinary be postwithdrawal should The Elders’ post- Elders’ “outrageousness” imposed measures were without Parish- properly scruti- conduct withdrawal undeserving thus ioner's consent were Eddy test. accordance with nized protection. Imposing had that Parishioner with- The Elders knew liability upon the Elders for their un- tort yet they con- drawn from the Church not our protected acts does threaten consti- though her as she were discipline tinued tutionally freedoms. We shielded Among the and active member. a current Parishioner, unwilling, hold that noncon- congregation Parish- were Collinsville senting subject of a church’s townspeople. friends and fellow ioner’s actions, has an actionable claim apprehension expressed for the Elders and the Church of Christ requested that Elders and of emotional tort intentional infliction congregation ex- mention her name distress. her withdrawal. cept to announce if Parishioner as she setting, disciplining VI communicating still member were PARISHIONER WITHDREW AFTER could found be sin of fornication THE HER MEMBERSHIP FROM COL- “beyond decency.” all We hence bounds CHRIST, LINSVILLE CHURCH OF support competent there evidence hold THE ELDERS WERE NEITHER ABSO- Elders had jury’s conclusion that the LUTELY NOR CONDITIONALLY emotional harm on Pa- intended inflict PRI- PRIVILEGED TO PUBLICIZE rishioner. HER LIFE. VATE FACTS ABOUT intangi- held In court that the Paul the (Sec According to the Restatement ble, by Paul “harms suffered as emotional ond) Torts, of the and “condi “absolute” shunning clearly result of her ... a [were] publicize defamatory privileges to tional” justify impo- the type not of the that would action under apply matter to causes of liability religious sition of tort for con- 66 privi An privacy.68 invasion of absolute reasoned that socie- duct.” It “[without a to a claim of lege provide will defense sensibility, offenses the ty’s tolerance of pri privacy publication of invasion of religious protection of differences mandat- complainant consented to if the vate facts ed the first amendment would be mean- 67 publication. Parishioner’s withdrawal ingless.” agree we that First While put of Christ from Collinsville Church jeopardized Amendment freedoms could be in that membership end imposition liability every of tort an during offends, body. presumes that equally we are The law act which 76, Brown, community,’ having of Eddy supra a falls short note 45 at civilized 64. In v. feelings quality. do court stated: Hurt not make actionable tort-of-outrage responsibility initially of action under the court’s cause “It is trial determine whether may reasonably defendant's conduct rubric." regarded sufficiently be as outrageous & Tract Soc. New [Restate- extreme to meet the 66. Paul v. Watchtower Bible (Second) York, standards.” Torts] § ment 46 supra 26 at note 883. Brown, 77, supra citing Eddy v. note 45 65. Soc. Paul Bible & Tract New v. Watchtower 2, Torts, (Second) Ch. the Restatement York, supra 26 at Stress, Interest in Freedom from Emotional [1977], (d) court held: comment § Torts, 28A, (Second) Ch. Ab- unreasonable, Restatement which, though is nei- "Conduct 652F, (a), Privileges, § solute comment ‘beyond possible decency’ ther all bounds of 652G, (a) Privileges, occurred, comment § Conditional setting is in the in which nor one ‘regarded utterly [1977]. that can intolerable in (Sec- the church she 59673 of Restatement Under § member of time she was all known tenets voluntarily submitted to ond) conditionally is publication Torts a discipline. congregational princi- This “circumstances privileged if [under course, is, adaptation of the but ple published] the information is lead which known as vo- doctrine general common-law having a com- persons any one of several injuria.69 non lenti fit subject matter particular interest in a mon reasonably correctly believe that when Pa We have determined by her sharing from the withdrew is information that another rishioner there effectively she revoked September 25 letter interest is entitled to know.” the common Elders could upon which the any consent section, The Elders claim that under privi of “absolute a defense have based service, worship during which facts private life lege” share Parishioner’s private publi- about Parishioner’s life were congregation.70 “Con with the Collinsville cized, provided an “occasion” personal publicize privileges” ditional privilege them with the to communicate life person’s another matters about congre- this information to the Collinsvillé person’s from that on or derived based gation. certain “occasions” There are consent. (e) of of the Restatement Comment § privilege to give rise to a conditional which (Second) Torts, specifically addresses pers private about another publicize facts re- “privileged occasions” the context of publication privi on a If the made on.71 ligious associations.74 Under this “common privilege is not leged and the occasion occasion,” abused, “publisher” type “privileged is not liable.72 interest” 70. In 69. The maxim volenti upon was is the basis for the to such The volenti doctrine of the Collinsville Church of Christ. "Consent" lies; joining the church was sufficient evidence Parishioner understood of Parishioner’s consent. P.2d the member of the fellowship proceedings. ioner. The Elders were under the privilege” ment the absolute privilege 731 P.2d 822-826 238-239 and Centric ral found its Priestley voluntary assent to the risk associated with it. P.2d not knowledge means that tion Coast Coal Gas wronged by doctrine, subject Company, complete protection [1837]; contrast, which one (Second) Company, ^[1948] [1973]; way could be lost law to withdraw Mines, Fowler, Corp. during [1967]; see Thomas v. privilege person of torts as into the common-law tradition see Davis v. 419 [1986]. the Elders did have an "absolute [1988]; Collinsville appreciation it, of Torts for Oklahoma with v. Morrison-Knudsen 31 Wash.2d Okl., protection the time she was a member Wash.2d Lyons 3 M. & disciplinary came action predicated Briscoe v. Oklahoma Natu- who consents to an act is an absolute see fellowship defense. This absolute non set Her that, § absolutely privileged, Church of also, P.2d provided forth in the Restate- 652F, W. Whitsett, Okl., Holliday, Redding 86, fit from civil if it knowing on the as a Roman law. cases liability injuria, withdrawal-of- Walsh v. West 515 P.2d 197 P.2d were from Parish- privilege danger Christ, the Elders 129 [1973] discipline Construc- wayward theory Okl., Eng.Reg. applying Co., liability consent abused under Okl. she re- It 72. 73. See also 74. Comment 71. ly privileged that true information be reasonably necessary own public policy Privileges, Scope certain interests of the comment of position granted bership privilege threatened the (Second) See Elders privilege absolutely dence. through flagrant ally taking lege Under the First gious, port the officers and members and their themselves corporated, “The common associations, Restatement “Occasions states: Torts, interests, from civil discipline another form of absolute with the church. Unlike the civil law fraternal, in a privilege of which, civil court review (a). note 16. advantage infra Torts, (e) afford a that making publication concerning is the interests of third relationship whether (Second) public of recognized misconduct, Amendment, unless Note. note 74. interest charitable or other recognizes § for communications liability, Ch. 25 shielded for the of one’s a protection safety, peace incorporated of abused, public.” Restatement given the of members § Torts, of trust and confi- unless protection this constitutional that 592A, such as intention- during highly sufficient qualifications the Elders were whenever it is Elders' based protected Ch. it is those actions Restatement conditional- Conditional persons influential non-profit her mem- or order. (Second) or unin- essential of one’s upon of reli- actions among panic- § privi- sup- or a

7«5 and pri- fellow members officers. publicize privileged were Elders “privilege,” per- defense of Elders’ as it Be- life.75 Parishioner’s vate facts about occurring tains to their actions after Pa- “present” neither a cause Parishioner was membership, rishioner’s withdrawal the at “prospective” member nor a church merit. without mem- the publication, the time of Elders’ congregation did not of the Collinsville bers VII interest” the of “common share sort that would render Parishioner’s behavior CONCLUSION publication “privi- occasion the the Among forms,77 the three verdict each of Communicating unproven alle- leged.”76 priva- which listed Parishioner’s invasion of present prospective or mem- gations of cy and intentional infliction emotional of a to the other members misconduct ber’s claims, $205,000 rep- for distress the award religious, privileged is a occa- association single largest damage resents actual Parishioner; $185,- members a valid sion because the have amount awarded to figure represents single largest in and for the interest concern behavior also, society. ipation This is v. Ben in the activities of conduct. See Rasmussen nett, defamatory P.2d whether matter relates 758 [Mont. 1987]. true alleged some member misconduct of other 77.Identical verdict forms were submitted for that makes him undesirable for continued form each three Elders. verdict membership, prospective the conduct of a or stated: too, applicable rule is member. So “We, jury, impaneled and in the sworn offi- between members and communications cause, oaths, upon find above entitled do our legit- organization concerning cers of the issues as follows: imate conduct of the activities for which one'box section rule, Check for each however, organized. The does not was against plaintiff, 1. In favor of the and protection made afford to communications G this defendant on her cause of action organiza- a non-member to members of the facts, publication private and fix tion, for protection nor it afford to commu- does $_actual damages, recovery at by a member who is nications made to one $_punitive damages. and present prospective neither nor a mem- ber_” n against defendant In favor of this plaintiff cause on her of action Baptist Glen 75. First Este v. State of publication private facts. Ohio, supra 18 at 683. n against plaintiff, In favor of action this defendant on cause of In Paul v. Bible & Soc. Watchtower Tract seclusion, upon fix for intrusion York, supra at stated New note 26 the court $_actual damages, recovery at great are afforded latitude "[c]hurches $_punitive damages. discipline impose when on members ” n against this defendant and favor of added], [emphasis suggesting members former plaintiff her cause of action for protected discipline First intrusion seclusion. regardless whom it is conduct n plaintiff In favor imposed upon. While issue in Paul on her of action defendant cause pro- religiously whether motivated conduct was for intentional infliction of emotional tected Amendment and was thus $_ distress, recovery and fix liability, in the immune civil tort the issue $_ damages, puni- actual and instant case is whether conduct that is damages. tive nonetheless deemed tortious is immune n against In favor of this defendant and liability on the of an “absolute” or "condi- basis plaintiff the her cause action for on of privilege. we the tional” Once determined that intentional infliction of emotional dis- postwithdrawal subject conduct Elders’ tress.” liability, question tort our next was to decide law, they following against "privileged,” jury tort verdict whether were under returned the by appropriate purposes inquiry, marking next to act as For each Elder the box did. of Torts, (Second) liability filling adopted theory and the the in the stated in Restatement Oklahoma, of the made in each has drawn distinction between amount award instance: $205,000 "present” private ac- "former" and different Publication members. The facts — n $185,000 damages punitive damages. privilege presented, issues herein not our vehe- tual and —$114,000 disagreement upon Circuit’s actual ment with Ninth 2. Intrusion seclusion $120,000 punitive damages. opinion religious disciplinary imposed damages acts and present equally former are Intentional emotional distress and members infliction $81,000 Amendment, —$122,000 damages puni- protected guide our and actual damages. discussion of defenses for available tortious tive any are to be treated as ship, the Elders damage to Pa- amount awarded punitive Among potential- individual. other secular the case was submitted rishioner. While postwithdrawal acts was ly tortious separate verdict on each jury for a of Parishioner’s theories, communication judge the trial three Parishioner’s transgressions the Collinsville and both determined, stipulated, parties and four area Church of Christ to the other highest only the could recover Parishioner theories of congregations. Parishioner’s her three her for awarded amount necessarily recovery include but are to Pa- damages awarded theories.78 privacy by publication limited to invasion of the Eld- represent recovery rishioner for and intentional infliction of private facts occurring both acts allegedly ers’ tortious (tort outrage). mental distress withdrew and Parishioner prior to after membership. We Christ accordingly judgment court’s The trial cannot determined that have the cause remanded for new reversed and of the actions recover for postwith- trial to be confined to actionable prior to her with- occurred Elders which drawal conduct. Conversely, Pa- from the church. drawal HARGRAVE, post- C.J., LAVENDER, for may recover those rishioner JJ., SUMMERS, the Elders acts of which concur. withdrawal DOOLIN tortious. Because it is proven to have been KAUGER, JJ., ALMA WILSON and impossible separate on review Parish- part part. in in concur dissent injury recovery ioner’s for the occasioned SIMMS, JJ., dissent. HODGES prewithdrawal from that acts harm,79 postwithdrawal KAUGER, Justice, which stems from concurring in V; and remand for new trial.80 I, concurring we now reverse parts in result II, IV, VI, parts concurring part, remand, court On the trial consider III, dissenting part parts postwithdrawal im- tortious acts as not VII. judicature. mune from secular For why jury of acts occurred after three reasons commission There are 1) affirmed: Because it Parishioner withdrew her church member- verdict should be ruling parties stipulated 78. Because the below that a The Court reversed the trial court’s claim, single recovery sepa- privacy noting for the Parishioner’s three the husband’s invasion of not, rately plead cient, recovery guise exercising under theories of would be suffi- that "one does beliefs, proper place acquire wrongfully it is not the of this court to a license to determine, retrial, purposes many relationships.” for how with the familial interfere O'Neil, different torts can be based on the facts dis- Idaho at 733 P.2d at Bush, quoting approval closed the record. from Carrieri v. P.2d Wash.2d 137 [1966]. We need not decide whether the record dis- $50,000.00 origi- While court reinstated the closes the commission of one or more tortious nally awarded to each of the children for inva- parties stipulated judge acts. The and the trial privacy, sion of the case for retrial remanded highest determined that the amount awarded to analysis of the like husband’s claim. In an Parishioner for the three causes of action sub- bar, similar to the one used in the case at jury compensate mitted to the would suffice to Supreme Idaho Court stated that because the damage her for from all three torts. special record and the verdict forms made it impossible portion to determine what Schuckardt, $250,000.00 represented 80. In O'Neil v. 112 Idaho husband’s award recov- [1987], brought ery affections, 733 P.2d a husband suit for his cause of action for alienation of Bishop part represented of Fatima Crusade Church and what of it re- itself, covery and the Church "for alienation of his his cause of action for invasion of his, privacy, wife's affections and for invasion of his the award could not stand and there privacy.” jury wife's and his childrens' [sic] The would have to be a new trial on his invasion-of- $1,000,000.00 privacy rendered a verdict in favor of the claim. The court followed the same children, $500,000.00 judge reasoning addressing puni- husband and his granted but the trial in the award, judgment damage holding the Church’s motion for not- tive that it could not withstanding appeal the verdict. On impossible the Su- stand because it was to determine preme portion Court of Idaho abolished the cause of what thereof was awarded on the basis action for alienation of affections and thus af- of the abolished cause of action for alienation ruling firmed the trial court’s as to that claim. of affections.

787 “The Amendment questions declares that material appears there were that Congress respecting shall make no law beyond appear fact, it does not of religion prohibit- of or an establishment prov- parishioner could have the doubt that ing the exercise The Four- free thereof. entitling her to re- pre-withdrawal acts en leg- teenth Amendment has rendered the lief, judgment would entry summary of incompetent the states as islatures of Const., 2) The Okla. premature; have been Congress enact such The consti- to laws. fide, separate, 1, provides 2 art. bona § legislation of on the tutional inhibition independent grounds which adequate and aspect. subject religion has double of 3) verdict; Based on support jury the hand, compulsion the one it forestalls On the the instruc- parties, of stipulation the acceptance any or by law of the of creed verdict, jury the jury, tions to the the practice any worship. the of form of only post-with- appeal verdict on involves freedom to Freedom of conscience and drawal acts. religious organization adhere to such may worship of as the form individual I by law. On choose cannot be restricted parishioner opinion states “that the The hand, safeguards it the free the other present spe- opportunity has an not had religion. chosen exercise of the form the concerning Eld- cific evidence whether Thus two con- the embraces were a threat pre-withdrawal ers’ acts cepts, and freedom believe —freedom peace public safety, the or order.” Never- but, in the act. The first is absolute theless, majority “convinced that af- the is things, nature the second cannot be. fording parishioner opportunity the subject regulation Conduct remains gesture.” In meaningless do so be a would protection society for the ...” effect, opinion the trial the holds that court Corp. In 760 Buckner v. General Motors summary it to enter erred when refused (Okla.1988), P.2d the held: Court judgment in favor of the Elders undisput- the “Even when basic facts presumes issue. It concludes that “the law ed, summary judgment for motions during time parishioner that the evidence, denied, if should be under the voluntarily of the church she sub- member might different persons reach reasonable all mitted herself to known tenets con- the undis- inferences or conclusions from gregational discipline.” opinion impli- Summary judgment prop- puted facts. edly presumption determines that affidavits, pleadings, er when Nevertheless, presump- irrebuttable. deposition, admissions or other evidentia- appellee tion to all submitted doc- is no ry establish that there materials teaching is trinal inconclusive fact, genuine issue as to material presented opinion. in facts as It is moving party is entitled and that the appellee unrefuted that “was not apprais- judgment as a matter law. taught prohibition the Church’s ac- ing sufficiency petition, of a membership.” withdrawal cepted petition not rule is that should for failure to state a cause be dismissed freedom to act be- appears beyond doubt of action unless activity engage liefs—to —is prove set of plaintiff can no as is to hold those absolute support facts claim which would Activity curtailed some beliefs. be entitle her to relief.” protection circumstances suffi- ciently compelling interest.1 In entry summary judgment societal Premature Connecticut, improper. Cantwell v. State Fundamental would have been 296, 303-04, process litigation 84 L.Ed. cannot fairness (1940), except within the framework the United States Su- afforded orderly procedure.2 preme said: Court Court, Center, Early Pryse P.2d Learning Inc. v. Co. v. District Forest Hills Luk Monument al., Zebco, (Okla.1979). Cir.1984). LaBarge et hard, (4th 728 F.2d (Okla.1988), dissenting). (Opala, P.2d J. 769 125 788 property his person in or on account of

II religious worship mode or her ...”4 of reasoning and its opinion its bases States, sovereign in the exercise of their first amendment to the analysis on the power, may expansive afford more individ- progeny and its United States Constitution rights con- ual liberties than those pre-withdrawal finding that the elders’ ferred the United States Constitution.5 public safety, peace acts must threaten or State statutes state constitutions which provides or order. The federal constitution greater rights or afford individual liberties respect- “Congress make no law shall than the federal constitution must be deter- religion, prohib- ing establishment of or an by following mined state law. It thereof_”3 Al- iting the free exercise provides protection when state law less parrots though Constitution the Oklahoma question be determined must many in- the United States Constitution people law. The federal of this state are stances, liberty provision religious for its Constitution, governed by the Oklahoma 1, 2, Okla.Const., pro- art. does not. The § grants right provides and when it or n perfect vides that11 toleration principle procedure beyond of law or of secured, sentiment shall be and no inhab- protections supplied by the federal consti- ever be molested tution, itant the State shall authority.6 it is the final This is so of greater provides The First Amendment to the Constitution of Oklahoma Constitution also 3. provides: rights those the United States than secured the United States parental rights, Constitution in the arena of In respecting "Congress shall make no law A.E., E.E., E.E, R.E., A.E., the matter religion, prohibiting or establishment Oklahoma, 1041, (Okla. E.E. v. P.2d 743 1046-48 thereof; abridging or the free- free exercise 1987). Hosp., Queen v. W. Va. Univ. 365 S.E.2d speech, press; right or the dom of or 375, (W.Va.1987) (involved wrongful, termi 383 assemble, people peaceably peti- and to process); People, and due ex nation rel. Arcara griev- tion for a redress of the Government Books, 553, Inc., v. Cloud 68 N.Y.2d 510 N.Y. ances.” 844, [846-47], 492, S.2d N.E.2d 503 494-95 Const., I, 2, (involved (1986) rights first § The Okla. art. states: amendment nuisance); public W. Pa. Socialist Workers 1982 religious sentiment "Perfect toleration of shall Ins., 23, Campaign v. Conn. Gen. 512 Pa. secured, Life be State and no inhabitant 1331, (1986) (involved A.2d 515 1333 first person property shall ever be molested or solicitation); rights political amendment or on account of his her mode of Lewis, 1309, Community Butte Union 712 P.2d v. worship; and no test shall be re- (Mont.1986) (involved right 1313 to receive quired political for the exercise of civil or 495, benefits); State, welfare v. 713 P.2d rights. Polygamous plural marriages Pfost (Mont.1985) (involved right petition 500 prohibited.” forever government grievances); redress of Pennsylvania example The state of is another 717, Cheyenne Airport Rogers, Bd. v. 707 P.2d providing explicit guar- state constitutions more dismissed, 1110, (Wyo.1985), 726 476 U.S. cert. rights: antees of individual 1961, (1986) (involved L.Ed.2d 106 90 647 right “Allmen have natural and indefeasible ordinance); zoning Ly Hawaii Hous. Auth. v. worship Almighty according God 888, man, (Hawaii 1985) (involved 704 P.2d 896 consciences; dictates of their own no man action); Dep’t condemnation Fischer v. Pub. attend, right compelled can of erect or 293, 114, (1985) Welfare, 509 Pa. 502 A.2d 121 support any place worship, or to maintain (involved abortions); public funding Right consent; any ministry against his no human 287, 925, Byrne, Choose v. (1982) (involved 91 N.J. 450 A.2d 932 can, whatever, authority case control abortions); funding Pau rights or interfere with the of conscience and 672, 859, ley Kelly, 162 W.Va. S.E.2d 255 864 preference given by no shall ever be law to (1979) (involved public financing); school Fasu any religious establishments or modes of wor- 473, Arafeh, lo v. (1977) (involved 173 Conn. A.2d 378 553-54 Const., I, ship.” § Pa. art. pa confinement of mental Canniziaro, tients); Robins, Pruneyard Planned Parenthood v. 204 Shopping Center v. 447 U.S. 741, 531, 535, (Ch.Div. 2035, 2040, N.J.Super.Ct. 499 A.2d 100 S.Ct. 64 L.Ed.2d 1985) (involved rights (1980) (involved first amendment right expression of free right picket). under the first amendment and the petition government griev for redress of ances); Lawton, Lawton, City City supra; Turner v. 733 P.2d 6.Turner see note (Okla.1986), denied, McNaught, 378-79 cert. re (1909). P. Okl.Crim. (1987). L.Ed.2d undisputed that the private facts. It provision is if the state constitutional even n similar post-withdrawal ac- publication The involved constitution. to the federal The is consist- provides a floor the elders. verdict tions States Constitution United findings stipulations.11 and rights constitutions ent with the constitutional —state national ceiling.7 The minimal provide the acts of the elders threat- Whether the by the United States standard established order, or public safety, peace or ened the considered dis- cannot be Supreme Court per- in appellee the was “molested whether scope of Okla- determining the positive in property or on account of her son 2, guaran- 1, art. constitutional homa’s § jury. worship” questions of fact for the Here, the Oklahoma Constitution tees.8 verdict, jury if Although I would affirm the adequate, fide, separate, and provide bona remanded, the cause is to be the Oklahoma jury grounds upon which independent requires pre- both Constitution should be affirmed.9 verdict post-withdrawal acts of the withdrawal and presented jury. to the Elders be Ill jury on to the The cause was submitted WILSON, Justice, dissenting ALMA the three separate on each of three verdicts concurring part: part in and in However, parties asserted. theories Prefatory Statement parishoners could recov- stipulated that the question arises whether for When the only highest amount awarded er includ- stipulation This right express of one to or refrain theory. jury instructions.10 para- largest religiously motivated ed in the conduct The express another mount publication for amount was a verdict damages See, that the actual on Stephany Wagner, "The Court finds 835 F.2d 7. (3) (3rd Cir.1987). causes of action of Plaintiff over- the three that, agree- lap pursuant each other and parties, Plaintiff is entitled to a ment of the Books, Inc., People, see ex rel. Arcara v. Cloud 8. damages against judgment each De- for actual 5, supra. highest actual dam- fendant in the amount for Defendant, ages verdict form for the on the Long, Michigan 9. Defendant, is, the sum of Two on each (1983). 77 L.Ed.2d ($205,- Dollars Five Thousand Hundred 000.00). pu- The Court further finds that Jury provides perti- 10. instruction number 13 damages separate causes of ac- nitive part: nent that, pursuant overlapping and tion are you plaintiff 1. If find in favor of the "... counsel, highest punitive agreement of against or one of the defendants on either two damage verdict each Defendant’s award on action, her causes of and fill-in all three of be rendered as a is the amount that will form damages and an amount of amount of actual Defendant, judgment against and further such damages provided punitive in the blank for highest the same such award is finds that action, plaintiff causes of two or all three (3) Defendant’s verdict forms on all three recover from that individu- will be entitled to Eighty-Five Dol- Thousand is One Hundred you only largest number ($185,000.00).” al defendant lars damages under the provides have inserted for actual jury verdict dated March largest and the part: two or three causes of action pertinent punitive you plaintiff, dam- number have inserted for In favor of [] "... ages against of action the two or three causes of action. this defendant on her cause for facts, words, damages private you publication and fix recov- if insert actual for other $185,000 $205,000 damages, ery against at actual of action one two or three causes damages punitive ...” are not cumulative defendant those numbers plaintiff, and In favor of the pay [] "... will have to and that defendant against action defendant on her cause of largest plaintiff actual and number for seclusion, recovery and fix damages. for intrusion largest punitive number $120,000 $114,000 pu- damages, and at actual applies equally defen- rule to all three This damages nitive ...” judgment thereby be ren- dants and a will plaintiff defendants, "... 3. In favor one, [] against two or all three dered against her cause of action this defendant on ...” none of the defendants of emotional dis- for intentional tress, infliction $122,000 recovery actual dam- journal entry September and fix dated $81,000 damages ages, punitive ...” part: provides pertinent religiously right pursuant or refrain from motivated to the Free Exercise Clause. conduct, right the answer is not that one agree I burdening Government action other, is more than the religious valued but that subject conduct is balancing to a right to, person’s each extends can- test, but importance which the of the state’s upon, right not intrude the of the other weighed against interest is severity the freely pursue any religion, or none at imposed the religion. burden Wiscon- guarantee all. The Constitutional of in- Yoder, sin v. 406 U.S. 92 S.Ct. religious dividual freedom choice (1972). However, L.Ed.2d 15 a First worship is inviolate. Amendment interest of party one cannot be judicially paramount deemed to the same

I right Amendment party. the other The state has an equally valid interest The First Amendment to the Constitution protecting preferred position both. The provides: of the United States America given religion freedom the First “Congress shall make no respecting law Amendment is not any particular limited to religion, prohib- an establishment or religious group or any particular type iting thereof; exercise or free religion, applies but to all. United States abridging speech, the freedom of or of Ballard, press, right people or the of the (1944). L.Ed. 1148 assemble, peaceably petition and to griev- the Government for a redress of

ances.” II provision This of the Constitution creates As the Free Exercise Clause of the First very protections. two different The “es- applies Amendment where an individual guarantees tablishment govern- clause” deprived has been ability of the freely ment religion; will neither nor establish aid choose whether or not he or she will submit whereas the “free guaran- exercise clause” or religious adhere to discipline doctrinal government tees the prevent will not commands, us and/or civil redress must be freely pursuing any religion we available such if instances the constitu- choose—or none at all. Molko v. Holy guarantee tional given is to meaning. I Spirit am, Association accordingly, of grava- the view that the Unification of Christianity, World 46 Cal.3d present 252 men of the case upon resolves Cal.Rptr. (1988). Thus, 762 P.2d 46 plaintiff’s pursue constitutional freedom to while the establishment clause concerns religion, which includes her freedom freedom from a imposed religion, state pursue any particular not religion, as such as the journeyed colonists to America well as her constitutionally protected fun- escape, the free exercise clause concerns damental to privacy. individual citizen’s freedom of choice in This case does not involve doctrinal inter- worship. pretation, inquisition, ecclesiastical juris- present case, In the posed the dilemma disputes concerning questions dictional competing rights involves the par- two belief. Although I am in full ties who are each entitled to the same First accord majority with the as to the sanctity protection. hand, On the one precepts of these judicial review, I state, if acting through judicial disagree arm gravamen that the of this case government protect does plain- not upon rests Therefore, these tenets. tiff’s First Amendment Freedom to choose majority’s detailed discussion of the charac- to submit to infringement, plaintiff’s ter of the transgression is irrele- pursuant Clause, the Free Exercise vant First, for two parties reasons: court in effect has aided the establishment stipulated have plaintiff’s breach of of the defendant church in derogation of the church moral rendering code the issue the Establishment moot; Clause. On the other and Secondly, judicial treatment of hand, the defendant church also demands the character of transgression is tanta- protection state of its First Amendment mount to inquisition, i.e., ecclesiastical

7Q1 mandate, perceived to be plaintiff irrelevant. What conduct of the beyond scope went the basis of their conduct is relevant is that which forms defendants; protection contemplated the First this suit—the conduct (not belief) Amendment when it intruded such whether or not conduct so, co-existing Amendment actionable; permissible plaintiff’s dam- and if the right religious freedom to of choice. ages therefor. IV Ill In has as one of a nation which its cor- part of the ma- I further dissent to that religious liberty nerstones individual opinion mandates that a for- jority which —free- practice practice to choose to or not to dom of withdrawal of mal written statement religion given sphere a must a broad be membership prerequisite church to ac- operate, within which to as the nature of complish recognition pre- full civil of the religious requires spiritual belief rather rights and numbra of an individual’s liber- legal interpretation. or than material following religious ties induction into a or- Thus, religious absolutely immune Rather, por- ganization. I concur with that belief albeit, conduct, legal scrutiny, how- to the tion of the trial court’s instruction intentioned, enjoy ever well cannot abso- law, jury which states that under the immunity abridges lute where such conduct plaintiff right had the to terminate her impinges constitutional funda- membership upon within the church com- rights mental of others. Wisconsin Yo of that fact to an authorized munication der, supra; Nolly Community v. Grace church, representative any of the time. Cal.App.3d Valley, The form of the communication is not limit- (1984). Cal.Rptr. my It is explicit resignation. ed to A written or opinion guaran that the First Amendment present, unequivocal expres- and clear tee that all individual citizens of the United word, sion—either oral or written or in shall be free from interference States rejects otherwise—that such individual choosing practice practice to or not to doctrine and declines further intervention religion; particular the traditional interest by the church is sufficient. The absence of parents respect a written statement of withdrawal should children; upbringing of their and the necessarily unwilling bind adherant personal in privacy and familial matters aggressive (as .opposed pas- incursions rights. constitute such fundamental Con disassociation) by parties sive third based through judicial sequently, the state cannot upon longer a doctrine which he or she no contributorily action or inaction foster the practices in nor voluntarily. believes any organization church “establishment” respect The record in this reveals that at disregard of a citizen’s inviolate freedom “driveway the time of the so called inci- of choice these matters. dent”, plaintiff clearly communicated to the elders that she wanted them to leave V alone; go that she would not before congregation repent; state, publicly may through judicial that she Neither leave; inaction, asked they disregard rights them to that refused to action or thereafter; organization. leave for some time In members of a church they pub- respect, opinion told her would nevertheless I am of that the transgression. my licize her In opinion, by pu- trial court’s submission issue conduct, plaintiff damages jury her words and at that nitive error. clearly unequivocally rejected time my reading transcript, the From of the trial I sought imposed by doctrine be find no evidence which to base award, therefore, any punitive the elders and declined further reli- damage the trial giously Though motivated intervention. I court should have -directed verdict for the question sincerity do not of the elders defendant church on this issue under this carrying they obviously out what evidence. First Amendment belief constitutionally pro- Elders were may not and the damages punitive freedom cases unless evi- under the First upon defendants tected imposed be ten- discipline malice is implied liability or of actual civil dence claim. Malice support fellowship proceedings both dered to withdrawal to do so would presumed because membership not be after during church in First Amendment rule emasculate the from the Church. her unilateral withdrawal redress, permitted, must if cases to the United The First Amendment possible. Wiscon- the least burdensome that “Con- mandates States Constitution Yoder, supra. The standard sin respecting an es- make no law gress shall be mea- rea element must this mens religion prohibiting the tablishment the defen- the conduct of sured is whether Religion thereof.” free exercise scope the doctrinal dant exceeded applicable to the states are made Clauses the church. tenets of of the Four- by the Due Process Clause Amendment. Everson v. Board teenth YI 504, Education, 1, 67 S.Ct. although I must state that Finally, I Clause); (1947) (Establishment L.Ed. 711 remanded, and case must be agree that this Connecticut, 296, 60 v. 310 U.S. Cantwell in the the statements partially concur (1940)(Free 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 Exer S.Ct. therein, majority’s I to the dissent law Clause). cise and the legal of the issues characterization 1401, Williams, 543 P.2d Williams specific facts of this applied as law (Okla.1975), we observed: with the I further must take issue case. in this case. The forms jury religion, verdict forms “Freedom of which embod- multiple impression of a choice give the to the ied in the First Amendment Consti- clear an- questionnaire, provides no due of the States and tution United impermissi- They confusing swer. Amend- process clause of the Fourteenth inspecific, my opinion. Upon re- bly ment, philosophy the church reflects mand, by the trial this should be corrected separate, should be and that and state judge. religion government can best both lofty aims if each is to achieve their work herein, I concur in For the reasons stated repre- from the other within its left free opinion part part and dissent omitted). (Citations sphere.” sentative majority. purely intervene in The courts not I been authorized to state that have matters, including church dis- DOOLIN, J., ecclesiastical part opinion concurs concerning conformity WILSON, J., ciplinary actions by that is not incon- ALMA to the standards of majority opinion. of church members sistent with them, required unless such ac- morals HODGES, Justice, dissenting, joined pose public threat tions substantial SIMMS, Justice. peace v. Yo safety, or order. Wisconsin der, 32 L.Ed.2d 406 U.S. S.Ct. part III agree I with the result of (1972); Verner, Sherbert majority’s opinion which directs the trial (1963); 10 L.Ed.2d 965 judgment against to render Parish- court and Tract Paul v. Watchtower Bible Soci regarding Eld- ioner her claims (9th York, Inc., New 819 F.2d 875 ety pre-withdrawal for their acts. How- ers — denied, U.S. —, Cir.1987), cert. ever, disagree majority’s disposi- I with the (1987). I 98 L.Ed.2d 249 Because imposi- tion which allows remand disciplinary not actions here do believe liability upon tion of tort Church public constitute a sufficient threat Christ and the Elders for their safety peace, or order as to warrant civil actions that occurred after Parishioner’s intervention, respectfully I dissent membership court unilateral withdrawal of separa mandate of the Collinsville Church of Christ under the constitutional September 25 letter. I believe the Church tion of church and state. merely I the Elders were Again, think question does

Although Parishioner religious procedures for dis- punish following their investigate Elders’ law, she al- Parishioner had not acknowl- cipline offend members who concerning Elders repented actions of the their leges edged after the violation extreme and private constitute an acts her. first confrontation with position, a of their outrageous abuse (3) evening “Driveway Incident”: theOn confidentiality promise of breach of September the Elders went property. on her trespass and a upon being in- to Parishioner’s house in- challenged of the Elders actions of Parishioner’s children formed one are as follows: incidents which clude five Parish- that she was with Mr. S. When ioner, and Mr. S. three of her children ACTIONS PRE-WITHDRAWAL ap- house the Elders arrived at her In the sum- (1) proached driveway. Incident”: the car in the Pa- “Laundromat inside; the Elders go either 1979 or mer of rishioner told her children to public in the laun- however, stayed contacted the children one of her children and advised her dromat with porch approximately fifty front feet go the church with them for her to from the car. The Elders wanted concerning the rumor re- urgent meeting building. them the church meet with Mr. left garding her affair with S. She Parishioner told the Elders she would the laundromat and ac- her children at meet with them and asked them to leave. Elders to the church. companied the They proceeded to tell her if she did not told her not to see Mr. S. After Elders repent public acknowledge- make a meeting they drove her back fornication, they ment of her sin laundromat. fellowship her. would withdraw opinion actions were my In the Elders’ again, Once the Elders were follow- religious duty ap- to consistent with their ing disciplinary procedures. Church capacity pas- in their proach members tors, bishops. Their conduct overseers ACTIONS POST-WITHDRAWAL nothing more amounted to than a visit concerning discussion with Parishioner her (4) 4, 1981, a letter was read On October violation of the Church’s moral code. congregation finding her to be before (2) In “Storm Incident”: late summer scriptures relating in violation of certain telephoned the Elders her one of fornication, to the Elders to disobedience immediately and asked her come Eld- and nonattendance at Church. The building the church would come .congregation con- encouraged ers to her house. There had been a storm pray in her behalf and to contact tinue to day electricity and the was out at purpose encouragement building. her house and the church She and exhortation. This action is consist- did not want to leave her children she but she ent with church doctrine agreed go to the church because she previously informed the Elders’ was did not want the Elders to come to her September letter her. house and talk front of her children. reading letter occurred at a Parishioner testified the Elders told her worship Sunday service where members she said would confi- whatever present. The were in- were members dential; disputed by however this is specific formed of her violation because the meeting At Elders. she admitted she fellowship re- practice of withdrawal of fornication, had committed told them she quires cooperation from the entire member- to come back to church and going Also, ship. procedure operates such as a anymore. Mr. They not see S. told her deterrent of other members. go congre- she would have to before the (5) gation repent publicly detailing a letter sin On October against fornication. church action taken held that because The Ninth Circuit nearby sent to four October 4 was shunning part of the faith is a congregations. practice of of Christ Witnesses, the Church Jehovah’s church was consistent This action its free exercise of entitled to the Be- informed. she had been doctrine which Washington and United under the beliefs members of all Church believes cause the It reasoned that Constitutions. States precepts practice the churches which shunning liability for on the impose tort constitute the of the Bible New Testament long in the its members “would Church or Church, disciplinary proce- universal prohibiting the run the same effect as have nearby notification of include dures compel the Church to practice and would withdrawal of Parishioner’s churches of teachings. part of its purpose pu- abandon This fellowship. serves prevent the would and to The Church and its members rification of the Church ... spreading. damages every time a for- sin from risk substantial In member was shunned. mer Church Paul, supra, in a factual situation sum, against prohibition tort a state law case, present the Ninth very similar to the free shunning directly would restrict stated: Circuit Witnesses’ reli- exercise of Jehovah’s harms cannot “Intangible or emotional The court af- gious faith.” Id. at 881. for maintain- ordinarily serve as a basis grant summary judgment in firmed the of action ing a tort cause finding defendants the Church favor of the practices against its church for its —or constitutionally its members have to someone’s members. ... Offense prac- protected privilege engage resulting con- sensibilities shunning. tice of simply not actionable tort. See duct is Cantwell, 310 S.Ct. 84 U.S. [60 view, Furthermore, my the courts 1213]; California, L.Ed. cf. Cohen disciplinary power no to review the have S.Ct. 29 L.Ed.2d [91 actions of the Elders of the Collinsville (1971). society’s tolerance Without 284] as well as Church of Christ both before sensibility, protection to the of offenses after Parishioner’s withdrawal of member- by of differences mandated the Paul, ship. supra, the Ninth Circuit meaningless.” first amendment would be rejected any present distinction between Id. at stating: members and former members There, a of the Jehovah’s Wit- member generally “Courts do not scrutinize close- by from the ness Church withdrew Church (or among ly relationship members congregation being after ad- letter to members) former of a church. Churches disfellowshipped vised that she could be great afforded latitude when are challenged from the if she the Eld- Church discipline or former impose on members disfellowship parents. ers’ decision to agree We with Justice Jack- members. Subsequent to her of withdrawal member- ‘[r]eligious son’s view activities Governing Body ship, the of Jehovah’s Wit- only which concern members of the faith interpretation a nesses issued new ought nearly to are and be free—as abso- governing persons, rules disassociated anything lutely free as can be.’ Prince abolishing the distinction between disasso- Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 177 [64 disfellowshipped persons. ciated and Dis- 438, 445, (1944) (con- L.Ed. 645] persons associated were be treated as curring).” Id. at 883. disfellowshipped persons, subject to the Parishioner had the freedom to practice shunning of which is a form of Christ, but, join join or not to of Church ostracism similar to the of Church Christ’s voluntarily joined, when she she practice fellowship. of Af- became withdrawal of laws, subject being to all of its rules and surren- ter shunned her former friends coreligionists, religious liberty dered her to that and the former extent member defamation, brought suit not for invasion of and should now be entitled relief privacy, outrageous fraud discipline conduct. from such under its rules al- (1902)). Consistent App.D.C. convictions have though uncontested, principles these changed. purpose of Christ’s Church twofold of contract membership is one Church fel- disciplinary practice of withdrawal of church joins a he/she person and when a (1) lowship: a disobedient member cause impliedly expressly covenants to desire to fellowship miss the of the rela- the benefits consideration of (2) to church and to repent, purify to its tionship control he/she will submit thus, oper- spreading, sin prevent the from laws, usages governed by its and be ating a to other members as deterrent Watson, at 729. The custom. committing the sin. same discipline Pa- Church Christ’s directly from contract springs rishioner Biblically-based practice of The Church’s a membership. The terms of contract membership requires cooper- withdrawal in the customs contained membership by church members. ation other usages evolved from which have Séptember 21, by the Elders letter of Christ views written laws. Church meaning of to Parishioner detailed the source doctrine and Bible as its fellowship, as follows: withdrawal bylaws. It is undis- has no rules or written worship services “If the close of the practices the puted the of Christ 27, 1981, Sunday morning, September procedures Biblically based heart you penitent indicated have practice of withdrawal of include your sin by public acknowledgement fellowship. review of the This Court’s fornication, read a statement will be membership of lifetime Church’s doctrine congregation, with an exhor- aloud precisely the discipline and moral kind of you tation for each make contact with action forbids. Constitution encouragement, that purpose repent. If you might ‘hear them’ and not assert Elders Parishioner does exhorta- you so choose not to heed these regu- deviated rules and Church’s tions, worship servic- Rather, by the close of the she discipline. lations for contends Sunday morning es October that because she was not instructed when elders, statement will read joined she the Church that considers its you fellowship of the exclude from the and members as lifetime members thus has Christ, (V-17) notify Body of and sister provision no doctrinal withdrawal (1) congregations, means Not membership, she did not submit to this 5:9, (2) 1 Not assuming you, associate with Cor. doctrinal this belief. Even to be you, 1 true, open a meal or our homes to specific eat knowledge actual of this doc- 5:11, (3) Speed’, you to bid ‘God consequence, Cor. Not trine of the is of no 11, (4) To aloof from however, 2 Jn. hold ourselves impliedly because she consented 3, (5) company 2 no you, Thess. and Have to all of laws and the Church’s customs Also, you, 2 14.” with Thess. 3:6 & upon becoming a member. Parish- previous ioner testified she had observed doctrine Whether Church Christ’s fellowship proceedings. withdrawal of fellowship may be viewed withdrawal Discipline necessary improvident an individu- is a incident to a as unwise establishing preference, is of the courts. membership. contract church al no concern “ organized personal not the constitu- body ‘The church as an of Our beliefs are standard; rather, separation and members must have laws ordinances tional but existence, Furthermore, courts regulation for the of its and for church and state. preservation discipline may of its doctrine and disci- not delve into whether purity arbitrary or pline, imposed by maintain the the Elders was also to of its doctrine, membership. contrary such laws to the Without and ordi- Church’s own impossible procedures. nances it would be maintain laws and Serbian Orthodox ” discipline and church establishment.’ v. 96 Milivojevich, C. Diocese Zollmann, (1976); Presby American Church Law 829 49 151 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d § (1933) (quoting States, Mary v. United Elizabeth Blue Satterlee terian Church v.

796 Hull Church, ring,” Presbyterian Church Presbyterian 393 Memorial Hull Church, stated: supra, Watson Court 658 21 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. U.S. right New free country the full and Dist. Court (1969); “In Oklahoma belief, prac- Ch., any religious God 548 P.2d to entertain Assembly Hope and to teach religious principle, any tice (Okla.1976). does not vio- religious doctrine which any guarantees First Amendment morality property, the laws late chooses. worship as one freedom infringe personal not which does any per- any sect may not thrust State The law knows to all. rights, is conceded church. anyone to attend son or coerce sup- heresy, and is committed no Clauson, 306, 314, U.S. Zorach v. establishment dogma, no port of (1952). A L.Ed. 954 voluntary right organize sect. The no religious be- change his/her person may in the ex- religious associations to assist may join and leave a liefs; person and a any reli- pression and dissemination Bene- St. reason. Order of church for doctrine, create tribunals gious and to Steinhauser, Jersey v. New dict of ques- decision of controverted for the (1914). L.Ed. 1512 association, and of faith within the tions herself from may disassociate government of all for the ecclesiastical chooses as she she the Church whenever members, congregations, the individual Likewise, the done. has fact Elders general associa- and officers within con- her withdrawal after the Church tion, All unite unquestioned. who member for that she is a tinue to believe body to such a do so with themselves actions life and invoke their government, and implied consent to this conformity their tenets against her But it bound to submit to it. would meddle in The State cannot and doctrines. lead to the consent and would be vain religious convictions religious beliefs for bodies, of such total subversion discipline are questions of faith and deci- anyone aggrieved by one of their if fully under the First Amend- protected appeal to the secular courts sions could ment, they involve a substan- except where have them reversed. It safety, peace or order. public tial threat unions, and of these essence case, is, opinion there in this no my tribunals for the to establish safety, peace or public threat to substantial questions arising among decision of Consequently, Parishioner and order. both themselves, should those decisions are free to believe as so the Elders binding in all cases of ecclesiastical desire, prefer one as the State shall appeals cognizance, subject only to such belief over another. organism provides for. as the itself Jones, (13 Wall.) Watson justice “Nor do we see that would be (1872), is the first case which 20 L.Ed. 666 submitting likely promoted by to be principles limiting the role of addressed the ordinary decisions to review in the those courts in the resolution of civil large Each of these judicial tribunals. incidentally affect civil controversies (to influential bodies mention no oth- and The Court Watson rights. cogently in ob- ers, let reference had to the Protes- be is inconsistent with the served that Episcopal, Episcopal, tant the Methodist relationship concept of the be- churches) American Presbyterian has a and permit and state to civil tween church body of constitutional and ecclesiastical ques- to determine ecclesiastical own, courts found in their law of its Supreme tions. The United States Court laws, organic their books of disci- written quoted extensively opinion in has from this pline, precedents, in their collections of E.g., Watson. Serbian customs, decided since usage cases and which as Milivojevich, supra; Diocese v. Orthodox system each constitute a of ecclesiastical Church, Presbyterian Church v. Hull su- faith that tasks the law and pra. language recently In which has been familiar It ablest minds to become with. judges having supposed described as “a clear constitutional is not to be that the competent the civil courts can be religious faith FLINT

the ecclesiastical law and RIDGE DEVELOPMENT COM PANY, INC., corporation, an Oklahoma all the ablest men these bodies as Development Company, and Frates to their own. It each are reference corporation, Oklahoma Flint d/b/a appeal from the would therefore be an Ridge Development Company, an Okla tribunal in the law which more learned general partnership, Appellants, homa case, to one which is should decide at 728-29. less so.” Id. 80 U.S. AFFILIATES, sum, BENHAM-BLAIR upon joining

In AND the Church INC., foreign corporation, Christ, impliedly expressly Parishioner d/b/a Holway and Associates: and W.N. Hol doctrine and was consented Church’s way Gary Spragins, individually T. procedures. The subject to its Holway Associates, Ap d/b/a actions of Elders taken pellees. were consistent with Church rules and laws prior attempted both to and after her uni- No. 60204. membership. my

lateral withdrawal Supreme Court of Oklahoma. view, her withdrawal has no effect on the March disciplinary proceed- Elders’ actions. The ings against begun already Parishioner had Rehearing July Denied withdrawal, before her and the Elders’

post-withdrawal merely actions a con- were proceedings against

tinuation of the initial

her.

I therefore would hold the Elders of the discipline

Church of are free Christ Pa- (and

rishioner aas Church member former

member) protection under the of the First

Amendment without State interference and escape discipline such

by unilaterally withdrawing her member-

ship. I would find the trial court had no

power disciplinary pro- of review over the Parishioner,

ceedings against a matter

which is at the core of ecclesiastical con-

cern, under the constitutional mandate of

separation of According- church and state.

ly, I judgment would reverse the

trial court.

Case Details

Case Name: Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: Jan 17, 1989

Citation: 775 P.2d 766

Docket Number: 62154

Court Abbreviation: Okla.