Constitutional – Dispute between church and presbytery is reinstated

Where there were disputed issues of material fact as to whether a church was a member of The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the circuit court erred when it resolved the case on cross motions for summary judgment. On remand, the circuit court needs to receive evidence on the disputed issue, and then determine whether the issue can be answered without resort to matters of religious doctrine or invading church governance.

Background

Shalom Presbyterian Church of Washington Inc. and Pastor Bo Chang Seo appeal a decision of the Court of Appeals, reversing the grant of summary judgment that the circuit court rendered in their favor, in a dispute with the Atlantic Korean American Presbytery, or AKAP, over the relationship between the parties and the effect of that relationship on the ownership of certain property.

After the circuit court granted summary judgment to Shalom and Pastor Seo, denied AKAP’s motion for the same and issued a final written order memorializing those rulings, the Court of Appeals found that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear Shalom and Pastor Seo’s claim under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the circuit court, instructing the circuit court to vacate its order and dismiss Shalom’s current complaint.

Summary judgment

The circuit court entered summary judgment on behalf of Shalom, concluding that Shalom was not a member of The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), or PCUSA, and therefore, there was no obligation for Shalom to hold the property in trust for PCUSA. Because a genuine dispute of material fact existed as to Shalom’s membership in PCUSA, the circuit court erred in granting Shalom’s motion for summary judgment.

Whether or not Shalom is or was a member church of PCUSA is unquestionably a material fact in this case. Absent such membership, there is no viable argument that Shalom held the property in trust for PCUSA. Conversely, if Shalom were a member of PCUSA, that fact would have significance in determining whether the property was held in trust for PCUSA, as member churches apparently are required to do.

Evidence demonstrated that Shalom joined AKAP, a presbytery within PCUSA, giving rise to at least an inference that Shalom was a member church of PCUSA. In contrast to Pastor Seo’s disavowals of PCUSA membership, Pastor Kim offered sworn statements that Shalom was a member of PCUSA. Furthermore, in multiple documents it prepared or otherwise filled out, Shalom indicated that it was a member church of PCUSA. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals correctly found that the circuit court erred in awarding summary judgment to Shalom.

Ecclesiastical abstention

It does not necessarily follow, however, that the Court of Appeals correctly determined that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to even entertain the dispute between the parties. Civil courts must tread lightly, but they must do so applying secular legal principles without becoming entangled in matters of internal church governance or matters of religious faith.

Here, given the disputed record and the limitations imposed by the summary judgment posture, neither the circuit court nor the Court of Appeals definitively could answer the question of Shalom’s membership or determine whether that question could be answered without resort to matters of religious doctrine or invading church governance. Resolving these issues will require a full presentation of evidence.
Reversed and remanded.

Shalom Presbyterian Church of Washington, Inc. v. Atlantic Korean American Presbytery, Record No. 250303, June 4, 2026 (Russell Jr.). From the Court of Appeals of Virginia. VLW 026-6-028. 19 pp.

Full-Text Opinion
VLW 026-6-028