WILLIAM F LEACH V R P JOHNSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
WILLIAM F. LEACH and OTIS T. BUCHAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 18, 2009
Plaintiffs/Counter-DefendantsAppellees,
v
R. P. JOHNSON, KEN PESHL, a/k/a KEN
PESHI, C. J. PUTNEY, FRANK SCHULTZ and
STEVE WOLIN,
No. 283626
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 2005-002379-CZ
Defendants/Counter-PlaintiffsAppellants.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Sawyer and Murray, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs-appellants (defendants) appeal as of right the trial court’s
order granting plaintiffs/counter-defendants-appellees’ (plaintiffs) motion for summary
disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4) and denying defendants’ motion for summary
disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10). We affirm.
Defendants argue on appeal that Assemblies of God is not a hierarchical organization
with complete power and control over subordinate religious organizations because Gospel
Lighthouse, of which defendant R. P. Johnson is the pastor and defendants Ken Peshl, C. J.
Putney, Frank Shultz, and Steve Wolin are the elders, has the power to govern itself and the
power to own property. Therefore, according to defendants, the trial court has subject matter
jurisdiction to decide which parties control Gospel Lighthouse. We disagree.
Defendants moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) (failure to
state a claim on which relief can be granted) and MCR 2.116(C)(10) (no genuine issue of
material fact). Plaintiffs moved for summary disposition pursuant to the same subsections, as
well as MCR 2.116(C)(4) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction). At the motion hearing, the parties
agreed that there was no genuine issue of material fact, and therefore, the trial court decided the
motions under MCR 2.116(C)(4).
“This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary
disposition.” Allen v Bloomfield Hills Sch Dist, 281 Mich App 49, 52; 760 NW2d 811 (2008). A
motion for summary disposition may be granted under MCR 2.116(C)(4) when a court lacks
-1-
subject matter jurisdiction. Briggs Tax Service, LLC v Detroit Pub Sch, 282 Mich App 29, 33;
761 NW2d 816 (2008). “ ‘[J]urisdiction over the subject matter is the right of the court to
exercise judicial power over that class of cases; not the particular case before it, but rather the
abstract power to try a case of the kind or character of the one pending . . . .’ ” Bowie v Arder,
441 Mich 23, 39; 490 NW2d 568 (1992), quoting Joy v Two-Bit Corp, 287 Mich 244, 253-254;
283 NW 45 (1938). On review, this Court “must determine whether the affidavits, together with
the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and documentary evidence, demonstrate . . . [a lack of]
subject matter jurisdiction.” CC Mid West v McDougall, 470 Mich 878, 878; 683 NW2d 142
(2004). Constitutional issues are also reviewed de novo. J & J Construction Co v Bricklayers &
Allied Craftsmen, Local 1, 468 Mich 722, 729; 664 NW2d 728 (2003).
The “First Amendment . . . ‘severely circumscribes the role that civil courts may play in
resolving church property disputes’ . . . .” Bennison v Sharp, 121 Mich App 705, 712-713; 329
NW2d 466 (1982), quoting Jones v Wolf, 443 US 595, 602; 99 S Ct 3020; 61 L Ed 2d 775
(1979). “Under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, apparently derived from both First
Amendment religion clauses, ‘civil courts may not redetermine the correctness of an
interpretation of canonical text or some decision relating to government of the religious polity.’”
Smith v Calvary Christian Church, 462 Mich 679, 684; 614 NW2d 590 (2000), quoting Paul v
Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 819 F2d 875, 878, n 1 (CA 9, 1987). “Religious doctrine
refers to ritual, liturgy of worship and tenets of the faith.” Maciejewski v Breitenbeck, 162 Mich
App 410, 414; 413 NW2d 65 (1987). “Polity refers to organization and form of government of
the church.” Id. A civil court’s jurisdiction is “limited to property rights which can be resolved
by application of civil law.” Id. Otherwise, a court must “defer to the resolution of issues of
religious doctrine or polity by the highest court of a hierarchical church organization.” Bennison,
supra at 713, citing Jones, supra at 602.
The Bennison Court explained that “[t]he United States Supreme Court has expressly
approved of two methods by which civil courts may be guided in deciding church property
disputes: 1) the polity or hierarchical theory; and 2) the neutral principles of law theory.” Id. at
713, citing Watson v Jones, 80 US (13 Wall) 679; 20 L Ed 666 (1872). Under the polity theory,
applicable to the case at bar,1 “when a subordinate congregation or a faction thereof secedes from
a hierarchical church, it has no right to retain church property where the governing body of the
general church has determined it is no longer the congregation or its legitimate successor for
which the property was originally purchased or obtained.” Bennison, supra at 715. A later
decision of this Court clarified the definition of “hierarchical,” explaining that a denomination is
organized hierarchically if it has “a central governing body which has regularly acted within its
powers,” in contrast to “the looser ‘congregational’ structure, with all governing powers and
property ownership remaining in the individual churches.” Calvary Presbyterian Church v
1
The Bennison Court clarified that neutral principles of law could be used where there was an
express trust, Bennison, supra at 724, however, there is no express trust in the case at bar,
William F Leach v R P Johnson, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals,
entered July 19, 2007 (Docket No. 272669), slip op, p 8.
-2-
Presbytery of Lake Huron of United Presbyterian Church in USA, 148 Mich App 105, 108 n 1;
384 NW2d 92 (1986).
Defendants assert that the constitution of the local church, Gospel Lighthouse, for which
they claim authority to speak, provides that Gospel Lighthouse has the power to govern itself and
the power to own property, and therefore, the larger denomination, Assemblies of God
(consisting of the national General Council and the regional Michigan District), is not
hierarchical. Moreover, defendants assert that any association with Assemblies of God on the
part of Gospel Lighthouse is voluntary and terminable by Gospel Lighthouse. We find these
arguments unpersuasive.
In this case, as was done in Bennison, it is necessary to examine the organizing
documents of both Gospel Lighthouse and the Michigan District. It is true, as defendants claim,
that the constitution and bylaws of Gospel Lighthouse, adopted January 20, 1984, provide for the
church to govern itself and control its property. Article II, Prerogatives, Section 1 gives “Gospel
Lighthouse, a church affiliated with the Assemblies of God . . . the right to govern itself
according to the standards of the New Testament Scriptures.” Section 2 states that Gospel
Lighthouse “shall have the right to purchase or acquire by gift, bequest, or otherwise . . . and to
own, hold in trust, use, sell, convey, mortgage, lease or otherwise dispose of any real estate . . . .”
As the trial court noted, however, Gospel Lighthouse from its inception, has recognized
itself as a subordinate member of Assemblies of God. First, On December 27, 1968, Reverend
Walter Bostick, pastor of Gospel Lighthouse Assembly of God, Detroit, Michigan, submitted
paperwork, constituting a “voluntary application,” to the “Executive Presbytery of the Michigan
District Council of the Assemblies of God for official recognition . . . as a Dependent
assembly . . . .” Second, the articles of incorporation (ecclesiastical), filed on January 20, 1984
(with defendant Johnson as resident agent), stated: “We Gospel Lighthouse declare that we are in
cooperative fellowship with the Michigan District Council of the Assemblies of God according
to the constitution and bylaws of Gospel Lighthouse.” Third, Gospel Lighthouse submitted its
constitution and bylaws to the Michigan District for approval, which it received, on December
31, 1986. Fourth, Gospel Lighthouse twice petitioned to upgrade its status in Assemblies of
God.
Furthermore, the constitution and bylaws of Gospel Lighthouse provide ample evidence
that the church submitted itself to and was part of a hierarchical organization. The preamble of
the Gospel Lighthouse constitution states: “we . . . do hereby recognize ourselves as a local
fellowship of believers, and a part of The General Council of the Assemblies of God, and of the
Michigan District of the Assemblies of God according to the Bylaws of Gospel Lighthouse . . . .”
In Article II, Affiliation and Relationship, Gospel Lighthouse again declared itself “to be
voluntarily in full cooperative fellowship” with the Michigan District and the General Council of
the Assemblies of God, “and shares in the privileges and assumes the responsibilities enjoined
through this cooperation.” (Emphasis added.) Article II further recognizes the power of the
Michigan District and the General Council over Gospel Lighthouse, including the right to
disapprove of doctrine and conduct, and the right to remove “any and all from governing rule” of
Gospel Lighthouse. This latter provision is analogous to the situation in Calvary Presbyterian,
supra, where, this Court found that while individuals were free to leave the larger denomination,
the local church could not “depart from the ‘rules’ which [it] had originally agreed to abide by,
one of which was that the Denomination could supersede the Church’s powers to govern itself by
-3-
replacing its governing Session in the event of a dispute and that the Administrative Commission
could determine to keep the real estate in the possession of the Denomination [for] the use of the
nondeparting members.” Id. at 113.
Finally, Gospel Lighthouse’s constitution makes clear what should happen to the property
in the event of a dispute. Article XII, Section 2 of the Gospel Lighthouse constitution provides,
“in the event defection shall occur from the tenets of faith . . . resulting in a breach with the
Assemblies of God, Michigan District . . . any portion of the membership subscribing to and
practicing the aforesaid tenets of faith and the constitution and bylaws of Gospel Lighthouse and
retaining membership with Gospel Lighthouse, shall retain possession of, and title to, all
properties of said church with full rights thereto . . . .” Article XII, Section 3 states that “in the
event this church shall cease to function for the purposes as declared heretofore in the Articles of
its Constitution, then, after providing for the payments of its debts, the remaining assets . . . shall
revert to, and be transferred to, the Michigan District of the Assemblies of God.”
The organizing documents of the Michigan District provide further proof that Assemblies
of God is a hierarchical organization. First, the Michigan District Yearbook explains the
meaning of “voluntary cooperative fellowship”: “once one, of their own free will, decides to
become a cooperating member of the Assemblies of God, this cooperation becomes obligatory
and not optional.” As noted above, in Article II of its Constitution, Gospel Lighthouse declared
itself “to be voluntarily in full cooperative fellowship” with the Michigan District and the
General Council of the Assemblies of God.
Second, Article VI, Section 2 of the Michigan District’s constitution states that the
district has the right “to approve all Scriptural teachings, methods, and conduct, and to
disapprove unscriptural teachings, methods, and conduct.” Article VII, Section 2 provides that
“local churches that are members of the Assemblies of God, Michigan District shall recognize
and be subject to the District Council as set forth in the General Council Constitution (Article
XI).” (Emphasis added.)
Third, Section 1 of the Michigan District’s bylaws describes the different classifications
of local churches, demonstrating that regardless of classification, an Assemblies of God church is
still subordinate to the larger organization. A district supervised local church “shall be under the
leadership of the District Supervised Church Director until such time as the Presbyter Board, in
cooperation with the District Officiary, deem it prudent for the advancement of the church.” A
district advanced local church (the status of Gospel Lighthouse from 1988 to 1992) is one that “is
making satisfactory progress toward, but which is not yet able, to qualify for General Council
affiliation as an Autonomous local church.” An autonomous local church (the status of Gospel
Lighthouse from 1992 up to the time the controversy arose), while it “shall have the right to
choose its own Pastor(s), elect officers, hold title to property in its corporate name, discipline
members, and transact business on its behalf,” it is still “expected to conform to the decisions of
the District council in the interests of general unity.” Moreover, even an autonomous church
must file an annual statement “signed by the Pastor and/or church secretary, stating that the
church has maintained the standards set forth herein.”
Finally, according to the Michigan District’s bylaws, Section 2(c), “should a crisis arise
in an Autonomous or District Advanced local church and a resolution appear unlikely, the
District Superintendent or authorized District Officer invited for counsel and advice may
-4-
recommend to the church a vote to become reclassified to District Supervised status. The church
will return to its former status at the request of the congregation and the approval of the
executive board.” This provision seems to imply that an autonomous local church has a say in
any change of status, however, pursuant to section 2(d), “if any situation is such that it requires
immediate action, the district superintendent may reclassify the church to district supervised
status . . . subject to the ratification of the executive board [of the Michigan District] within
seven days. The church will return to its former status at the request of the congregation and the
approval of the executive board [of the Michigan District].” Therefore, because Gospel
Lighthouse subordinated itself to the authority of Assemblies of God, and because the Michigan
District had ultimate control over Gospel Lighthouse’s doctrine, status, and leadership, the trial
court did not err when it determined that Assemblies of God is a hierarchical organization, thus
precluding subject matter jurisdiction.
Defendants also argue on appeal that the trial court erred in not joining Gospel
Lighthouse as a party. We note, that aside from the fact that defendants never asked that Gospel
Lighthouse be joined as a party (and indeed, this dispute concerns which party has the right to
speak on Gospel Lighthouse’s behalf), this issue was not preserved below. Although we can
review an unpreserved issue, State Auto Insurance Cos v Velazquez, 266 Mich App 726, 731;
703 NW2d 223 (2005), we further find that this issue is moot, because regardless of whether
Gospel Lighthouse was or should have been a party to this action, a lack of subject matter
jurisdiction preludes this Court from granting relief, Tenneco, Inc v Amerisure Mut Ins Co, 281
Mich App 429, 472; 761 NW2d 846 (2008).
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-5-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
