Smith v. Calvary Christian Church

614 N.W.2d 590 (2000)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P attended D. P formally became a church member in early 1986. P specifically consented not to cause division within the church, to be faithful to Matthew 18:15-17, 1 and to accept discipline imposed by the church. P requested a meeting with the church's pastor, Mark Byers. P disclosed that he previously had frequented prostitutes. P apparently believed that this disclosure would be kept confidential. Later, in 1991, P was formally removed from the church's membership. P was removed because he was causing division within the church by challenging church leaders over religious doctrine. P requested that he be reinstated, but the pastor advised that before P could be reinstated, he had to confess his sins, including his past indiscretions with prostitutes, to the church board and P's wife. P complied and was reinstated, but the board warned him that if he did not end his divisive conduct, he would again be subject to discipline. P continued to cause division within the church. D decided to 'mark' plaintiff according to Matthew 18:15-17, which involves singling out a person who is involved in sin and causing division within the church, and detailing the person's sins before the church congregation. The pastor advised P's wife and family that P would be marked on December 8, 1996, and cautioned them against attending services that day. By that time, P had submitted a letter withdrawing his formal membership in the church; however, he remained involved with the church and was present at the church on the day chosen for his marking, apparently entering the church to dispute the pastor over religious doctrine. Later in the service, the pastor announced to the congregation that P had formerly visited prostitutes. P sued D under MCL 600.2156; MSA 27A.2156. P also sued for claims for breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and contended that the disclosure was not motivated by religious doctrine, but by the pastor's personal spite and his intent to humiliate P and cause dissension in his family. D was granted summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the statutory and contract claims, but reversed and remanded the tort claims for a determination of whether P was a member of the church when he was marked. D appealed.