In Bowie v. Murphy (Jan. 13, 2006), the Virginia Supreme Court held that deciding a defamation suit would not unconstitutionally involve the court in deciding a matter of religious faith and doctrine. The claim grew out of an an attempt by some members of Greater Little Zion Baptist Church to remove Murphy as the church's pastor. Murphy, in turn, called a special meeting to take action against one of the church's deacons, David Bowie. At the meeting Murphy accused Bowie of assaulting another member who was a supporter of Murphy during the vote of members on Murphy's removal. Two other members moved to remove Bowie as Deacon and reduce his membership status. Among other things, Bowie sued for defamation. The court held that while the allegedly defamatory statements were made during a church meeting, the defamation claim is separate from the church governance issue involved in Bowie's status as a deacon that was being considered at the meeting. The alleged defamatory statements could be evaluated for their veracity and the impact they had on Bowie's reputation the same as if the statements were made in any other, non-religious context. A dissent by two justices argued that the defamation claims could not be removed from the church-governance context in which they arose.
In a second case, Boone v. Christian Chapel United Church of Christ, (Jan. 17, 2006), a North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the trial court had acted properly in interpreting a Church's bylaws and finding that the Church had violated its own procedures in terminating its pastor. However, it infringed on the separation of church and state when it ordered the Church to conduct a new vote, because that involve an ecclesiastical matter. Having determined that the vote was in violation of the bylaws, the court should have merely directed the church to resolve on its own the matter of whether or not to retain its pastor's services.
