A divided panel holds that the district court violated the church autonomy doctrine when it bifurcated the Synod from its corporation, and restores the Synod’s civil arm to the forum it chose.
> imposed Texas unincorporated-association law upon a body whose special status Missouri has recognized since 1894.
Last time I checked (today), the synod is a Missouri Nonprofit Corporation with members under Chapter 355 RSMO, and the incorporation date is reckoned as 1894. It was more or less grandfathered, as many nonprofits would have been as MO law was being refined. The members are the congregations. What you cited there by that judge is outrageous. I am not a lawyer but have more than average experience learning and working the rules of chapter 355 corps. The synod has been a MO corp for a long time. Not everyone thinks this is wonderful, but to deny that -- what a corrupt court.
The synod really needs to simplify and purify its bylaws, because members can assail the corp through a derivative action if we don't follow them, and many of them are really bad, aren't they?
The issue the district court was ruling on, and which the appeals court overturned, was whether the civil entity (unambiguously incorporated in Missouri) or the spiritual entity (incorporated nowhere) was the actual plaintiff.
Both courts made Paul's 1 Corinthians 6 argument for him, as frankly both were foolish.
The court is a civic entity. There's a corporation that has personal and property rights. The fact that the synod has a dual nature (civic and spiritual) does not allow the court to ignore or deny the civic, secular entity's personal and property rights. What a ridiculous, incompetent, feckless and evil dodge that court tried. I say: Revolution (again).
¹When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? ²Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? ³Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! ⁴So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? ⁵I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, ⁶but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? ⁷To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? ⁸But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!
> imposed Texas unincorporated-association law upon a body whose special status Missouri has recognized since 1894.
Last time I checked (today), the synod is a Missouri Nonprofit Corporation with members under Chapter 355 RSMO, and the incorporation date is reckoned as 1894. It was more or less grandfathered, as many nonprofits would have been as MO law was being refined. The members are the congregations. What you cited there by that judge is outrageous. I am not a lawyer but have more than average experience learning and working the rules of chapter 355 corps. The synod has been a MO corp for a long time. Not everyone thinks this is wonderful, but to deny that -- what a corrupt court.
The synod really needs to simplify and purify its bylaws, because members can assail the corp through a derivative action if we don't follow them, and many of them are really bad, aren't they?
The issue the district court was ruling on, and which the appeals court overturned, was whether the civil entity (unambiguously incorporated in Missouri) or the spiritual entity (incorporated nowhere) was the actual plaintiff.
Both courts made Paul's 1 Corinthians 6 argument for him, as frankly both were foolish.
The court is a civic entity. There's a corporation that has personal and property rights. The fact that the synod has a dual nature (civic and spiritual) does not allow the court to ignore or deny the civic, secular entity's personal and property rights. What a ridiculous, incompetent, feckless and evil dodge that court tried. I say: Revolution (again).
1 Corinthians 6:
¹When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? ²Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? ³Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! ⁴So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? ⁵I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, ⁶but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? ⁷To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? ⁸But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!