Smith v. Calvary Christian Church
462 Mich. 679, 614 N.W.2d 590 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who has consented to a church's disciplinary practices cannot bring a successful intentional tort claim for harm resulting from that discipline, especially when continued engagement with the church after formal withdrawal of membership indicates ongoing consent.
Facts:
- In 1985, plaintiff began attending Calvary Christian Church and formally joined in 1986, providing written consent to accept church discipline as prescribed by Matthew 18:15-17.
- Shortly after joining, plaintiff confidentially disclosed to the pastor, Mark Byers, that he had previously frequented prostitutes.
- In 1991, the church removed plaintiff from membership for causing division. To be reinstated, he was required to confess his past sins to the church board and his wife, which he did.
- After being reinstated, plaintiff continued to engage in divisive conduct, leading the church to decide to 'mark' him, a disciplinary practice involving public disclosure of his sins.
- Plaintiff submitted a letter withdrawing his formal membership from the church.
- Despite his withdrawal, plaintiff was present at the church on the day of the marking, December 8, 1996, and engaged in a dispute with the pastor over religious doctrine.
- During the church service that day, Pastor Byers announced to the congregation that plaintiff had formerly visited prostitutes.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Smith filed suit against Calvary Christian Church and Pastor Mark Byers in a Michigan trial court, alleging claims including invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for the defendants on all counts.
- Plaintiff appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's statutory and contract claims but reversed the trial court on the tort claims, remanding the case for a determination of whether plaintiff was a member of the church at the time of the incident.
- The defendants, as appellants, sought and were granted leave to appeal the remand order to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a former church member's intentional tort claims, arising from a church's disciplinary action of publicly revealing his past sins, fail as a matter of law when he had previously consented to the church's discipline and continued to participate in church activities after formally withdrawing his membership?
Opinions:
Majority - Cavanagh, J.
Yes. The plaintiff's intentional tort claims fail as a matter of law because his words and deeds demonstrated his consent to the religious discipline imposed upon him. The court avoids the First Amendment constitutional questions and instead resolves the case on the common law tort principle of consent. A person who consents to another's conduct cannot bring a tort claim for the harm that follows. Plaintiff manifested his consent both explicitly in writing when he joined the church and implicitly through his active participation. The court rejected the argument that withdrawing his formal membership automatically revoked his consent, distinguishing this case from Guinn v. Church of Christ. Unlike the plaintiff in Guinn, who completely disassociated from her church, this plaintiff remained actively engaged by appearing at the church to dispute doctrine on the very day he was disciplined. This continued involvement belied his purported revocation of consent, therefore the church's actions were not tortious.
Concurring - Weaver, C.J.
Yes. The author concurs with the majority's result but writes separately to state that the constitutional discussion was unnecessary to the case's resolution. The author also notes that the Court has not officially recognized the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress in Michigan and is not doing so in this case. Regarding the invasion of privacy claim, the author agrees that summary disposition for the defendant was appropriate as there was no genuine issue of material fact.
Analysis:
This decision establishes consent as a primary, fact-based defense for religious organizations against intentional tort claims arising from internal discipline. By resolving the case on common law tort principles rather than constitutional grounds, the court provides a pathway to decide such disputes without engaging in the complex ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. The ruling emphasizes that a plaintiff's continued engagement and participation with a religious body can override a formal withdrawal of membership when determining ongoing consent. This creates a higher burden for former members who must demonstrate a complete disassociation to successfully claim revocation of consent in future tort litigation against religious institutions.
Unlock the full brief for Smith v. Calvary Christian Church