In Chung v. Kim, (CA App., April 1, 2022), a California state appellate court held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion in dealing with a dispute between two factions in a Korean American church. The court expalined:
Appellant Jang Geun Chung is an “Active Elder” at OMC and the leader of one faction, and OMC’s Senior Pastor, respondent Chi Hoon Kim, is the leader of the other faction. Prior to the initiation of the trial court proceedings, these individuals were the only two members of OMC’s “Session,” or board of directors. Chung and the Senior Pastor do not agree on whom to nominate as another Active Elder on the Session. Had Chung and the Senior Pastor concurred on the selection of one or more nominees, then any candidate receiving a vote of two-thirds or more of OMC’s congregation would have been elected to the Active Elder position and ultimately would have joined the Session.
Chung and the other members of his faction ... filed suit against the Senior Pastor and the two other members of his faction.... The trial court granted appellants’ motion, reasoning that the Senior Pastor had acted improperly in unilaterally selecting the candidates and scheduling the election. The court then ... ordered that a new election be held.... Appellants contest the trial court’s order adopting respondents’ proposed procedures for the new election....
The court rejected the argument that the trial court's order violated the Establishment Clause, saying in part:
Even assuming the eligibility determination for the Active Elder position calls for the resolution of an ecclesiastical matter, the trial court could not defer to a decision from the relevant authoritative ecclesiastical body—i.e., the Session. Specifically, the parties concede that because the Senior Pastor and Chung were unable to agree on nominees for this position (i.e., no candidate could “receive[ ] a vote of 2/3 or more” of the Session, as required by Art. 51(3)), the Session is “deadlocked” on this issue.... Appellants do not cite authority for the proposition that the Establishment Clause barred the trial court from resolving this impasse by allowing each member of the deadlocked authoritative ecclesiastical body to select his own candidate for the election.
