Constitutional- Ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine bars pastors’ lawsuit against church

Where two pastors sued their church and others over allegedly false and defamatory statements, but the court could not resolve their claims without deciding issues of church doctrine, governance and policy, their suit was dismissed.

Background                              

On May 10, 2024, pastors Michael A. Nieto and Kelly Anne Nieto a complaint alleging defamation, defamation per se and tortious interference with business expectancy against Great Bridge Presbyterian Church Inc. and others. Appellees filed a plea in bar, which the circuit court subsequently sustained based upon the court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction under the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine.

Analysis

Appellants assert that the circuit court erred by applying the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine because the conduct of Great Bridge was “not an act of church governance or religious doctrine.” This court disagrees.

The complaint alleged defamatory statements regarding appellants’ financial behaviors, such as spending more than $5,000 to redecorate pastoral offices, each receiving a $100,000 annual salary as a part-time pastor and placing stipends for themselves in a draft budget “without consulting elders.” The complaint also cited statements alleging that appellants “cut spending on mission and service” while adding spending for other expenses.

The statements identified as actionable also included allegations that appellants had “lobbied for, and procured, significant raises” and benefits for staff members, raises that “were highly questionable from a budget standpoint.” In addition, the complaint cites allegations that appellants’ actions had the effect of harming the congregation by “wield[ing] church finances.”

Appellants also claim as actionable statements that their “unhealthy leadership” impacted the financial situation of the congregation and that appellants “concealed [the spending cuts] from the congregation and mission partners.” Appellants further cite Great Bridge’s allegation that the pastors “convinced less-knowledgeable session members that finances were fine despite a rapidly and frighteningly deteriorating financial situation.”

Each of these statements would require the court to evaluate and determine the appropriate financial management standard for pastors serving as leaders in the Presbyterian denomination and whether and to what extent the appellants may have breached that standard as determined by the denomination. Without first determining the proper method that a pastor serving a Presbyterian church should responsibly exercise when administering the finances of a Presbyterian church, the court cannot determine whether the statements regarding how the appellants allegedly misused that authority are actionable.

The complaint also alleged that appellants were defamed by statements that they “pushed detractors from positions of leadership and eventually from the congregation,” “[e]ngaged in reactive behavior that was interpreted as intimidating by many in the congregation” “actively engaged in pushing opposing voices from the session” and “pushed [dissenters] from committees and other church bodies.”

Again, whether a “dissenter” or an “opposing voice” was “intimidated” by appellants requires an examination of what appellants were preaching and communicating in their role as pastors, forcing this court to discern who is or is not a dissenter based on the conduct of appellants during church services, meetings of the session and other times when appellants communicated to the congregation. Judicial bodies are without footing to adjudicate the merits of religious disputes between pastors and their congregation. Hence, the circuit court did not err in determining that it lacked jurisdiction over appellants’ complaints.

Affirmed.

Nieto v. Great Bridge Presbyterian Church, Inc., Record Nos. 0031-25-1, 0032-25-1, March 31, 2026. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Athey Jr.). From the Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake (Whitted). Jesse B. Wiese (Joshua J. Coe; David F. Johnson; Anchor Legal Group, PLLC, on briefs), for appellants. John F. Sawyer (Kole F. Donaldson; Wolcott Rivers Gates, on brief), for appellees. VLW 026-7-118. 18 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-7-118
Virginia Lawyers Weekly