REV WILLIAM REVELY V SAM JONES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
REV. WILLIAM REVELY, JAMES
BRIDGFORTH, HARRY WILLIS and MESSIAH
MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH,
UNPUBLISHED
December 11, 2001
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
V
SAM JONES, DAVID LEVY, HENRY
TIMMONS, WILLIE POOLE, JAMES MOSS,
LUTHER WYATT, ARTHUR MCCLUNG,
ERNEST HENDRIX, JOSHUA MCCALLISTER,
RAY ROBINSON, WALTER ROBINSON,
MICHAEL LEE, WILLIE HOWARD, ELSIE
FINNER, ROBERT CRISP, EMMA HAMMOND,
OSCAR HUTSON, JOHNNIE TANSIL, REV.
PHILLIP GARLAND and CHARLES LUSBY,
No. 219084
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 97-716623-NZ
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Bandstra, C.J., and White and K.F. Kelly, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right from an amended circuit court order granting summary
disposition in favor of defendants.1 We affirm, concluding that there is no subject matter
jurisdiction over the ecclesiastical issues raised.2
1
This case was consolidated with case number 97-715125-CZ in the lower court. While the
instant appeal involves only lower court number 97-716623-NZ, plaintiffs filed a claim of appeal
with respect to number 97-715125-CZ, but this Court subsequently dismissed the appeal in
Docket No. 217757. Although Reverend William Revely, James Bridgforth, Harry Willis, and
Messiah Missionary Baptist Church were plaintiffs in lower court number 97-715125-CZ, only
Revely and Bridgforth are plaintiffs in the instant case. Therefore, references to “plaintiffs” in
this opinion refer only to Revely and Bridgforth. Additionally, only Willie Howard, Elsie
Finner, Robert Crisp, Emma Hammond, Oscar Hutson, Johnnie Tansil, Reverend Phillip
Garland, and Charles Lusby were defendants in the lower court. The remaining individuals
listed as defendants were defendants only with respect to lower court number 97-715125-CZ.
References to “defendants” in this opinion refer only to Howard, Finner, Crisp, Hammond,
(continued…)
-1-
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in part, that Congress
shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. US Const, Am I; Lewis v Seventh
Day Adventists Lake Region Conference, 978 F2d 940, 941 (CA 6, 1992). The Free Exercise
Clause applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. US
Const, Am XIV. Both the Free Exercise Clause and Article 1, § 4 of the Michigan Constitution
severely restrict federal and state courts from resolving disputes between a church and its
members. Maciejewski v Breitenbeck, 162 Mich App 410, 413-414; 413 NW2d 65 (1987). In
fact, jurisdiction over such matters “is limited to determining property rights that can be resolved
by the application of civil law.” Id. at 414; see also Hutchison v Thomas, 789 F2d 392, 396 (CA
6, 1986).
In Lewis, for example, Joseph Lewis was employed by the Lake Region Conference of
the Seventh Day Adventists Church (“the Conference”) as a minister for several Michigan
churches. Lewis, supra at 941. After a dispute arose concerning Lewis’ handling of church
finances and conduct as the personal representative of an estate to which both Lewis and the
Conference were devisees, Lewis’ employment was terminated. Id. Lewis and his wife filed suit
against the Conference, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, and loss of consortium. Id. The district court dismissed the case on the basis
that the Free Exercise Clause precluded it from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over the
case and the plaintiffs appealed. Id.
In reviewing the matter, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit first
noted that “[t]he Supreme Court has long held that on matters of church discipline, faith, practice
and religious law, the Free Exercise Clause requires civil courts to refrain from interfering” in
internal church matters. Id. at 941-942, citing Watson v Jones, 80 US (13 Wall) 679, 727; 20 L
Ed 666 (1871). The court further noted that, in a more recent opinion, the Supreme Court had
reiterated ‘“the general rule that religious controversies are not the proper subject of civil court
inquiry, and that a civil court must accept the ecclesiastical decisions of church tribunals as it
finds them.’” Id. at 942, quoting Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v Milivojevich, 426 US 696,
712-713; 96 S Ct 2372; 49 L Ed 2d 151 (1976).3 Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal
of the plaintiff’s case, stating that a minister’s employment relationship with a church implicates
internal church discipline, faith, and organization, governed by ecclesiastical rule, custom, and
law, and that civil court jurisdiction over a ministerial employment dispute would “excessively
inhibit religious liberty.” Id.
Similarly, in Hutchison, supra, the plaintiff, a Methodist minister, filed suit against a
bishop, three of the bishop’s subordinates, and various church organizations, challenging his
(…continued)
Hutson, Tansil, Garland, and Lusby.
2
We acknowledge that defendant first raised the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine on appeal, and
plaintiff filed no reply brief. However, the issue is one of law, and a challenge to a court’s
subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even if raised for the first time on appeal.
MCR 2.116(D)(3); Bass v Combs, 238 Mich App 16, 24; 604 NW2d 238 (1999).
3
Plaintiffs did not first bring this matter for resolution before any ecclesiastical body and the
record is not clear whether such a body exists.
-2-
forced retirement under the disciplinary rules of the church. Id. at 392-393. In doing so, he
alleged that the defendants were guilty of fraudulent, collusive, or arbitrary action, as well as
defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. Id. at 393. The
district court dismissed the case on the basis of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at 392.
The Sixth Circuit again affirmed, finding that the plaintiff’s claim related to his “status and
employment as a minister of the church,” and that such employment concerned “internal church
discipline, faith, and organization, all of which are governed by ecclesiastical rule, custom, and
law.” Id. at 396.
As in Hutchison and Lewis, the instant case revolves around one of the plaintiff’s
(Revely’s) activities, status and employment as a minister. Defendants were members of
Concerned Members of Messiah Missionary Baptist Church, a faction of the church attempting
to oust Revely as its minister. The allegedly tortious activities about which plaintiffs complain
all involved defendants’ attempts to accomplish that goal. They complain that defendants used
the church facility, without proper authority, for meetings critical of Revely and for the purpose
of an unauthorized election to overthrow him as minister. They complain that defendants took
steps to announce the election to the congregation without following usual church procedures
and rules. They allege that defendants made defamatory statements regarding Revely’s use of
the church facility and its funds. The allegedly defamatory material contains references to the
church’s bylaws and constitution, as well as to Revely’s employment agreement with the church.
In sum, what the record and complaint here present is an internecine ecclesiastical dispute
between plaintiffs and defendants, all members of a church, concerning whether Revely acted
appropriately as the church’s minister. Whether plaintiff Revely’s actions were appropriate
depends almost entirely on an understanding of the “internal church discipline, faith and
organization” of Messiah Missionary Baptist Church; in other words this dispute is “governed by
ecclesiastical rule, custom and law.” See Hutchison, supra at 396. Accordingly, we conclude
that the exercise of civil court jurisdiction over this dispute would excessively inhibit religious
liberty. Id. We conclude that summary disposition was appropriately granted to defendants.4
We affirm.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
4
To the extent the lower court granted summary disposition on other grounds, we note that we
will affirm a decision that is correct, without regard to the reasoning for that decision. See
Detroit v Presti, 240 Mich App 208, 214; 610 NW2d 261 (2000).
-3-
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.
