Lippard V. Holleman

In 2012, tensions broke out between two members of the Diamond Hill Baptist Church(DHBC), pianist Kim Lippard and Pastor Larry Holleman. Lippard had been the congregation's pianist and vocalist for nearly 34 years and was in disagreement with the music director, Alan Hix, as to who should be assigned a solo performance. The two had a history of tense arguments and Pastor Holleman worked them through two rounds of reconciliation. Reconciliation is a process to improve the relationship between the two individuals based on biblical principles and passages. All attempts for reconciliation failed and in November 2012, Holleman wrote a letter to Lippard recommending that she be dismissed as pianist. This decision was backed by a meeting Holleman had with the Board of Deacons as well as the DHBC’s Church Personnel Committee. 

On November 28, 2012, Holleman delivered a church-wide sermon discussing the motion to terminate Lippard. According to Lippard, Holleman gave a two-hour sermon while reading a “20-page diatribe” which included false statements about her and her husband, Barry Lippard. The accusations claimed that Kim Lippard had “maliciously slandered another choir member and accused Hix of lying and intentionally hiding her sheet music.” After the church-wide meeting, Holleman left printed copies of the sermon in the foyer for all members of the congregation.  A similar occurrence took place again on December 2nd and ballots were distributed to the congregation that contained three questions about Kim Lippard’s character and her response to the scripture. Ultimately, the congregation voted to keep her as the DHBC pianist however Holleman's efforts to dismiss the Lippards continued.

The Lippards sued in 2013. Hix and Holleman as defendants wanted the claim thrown out on the basis that the courts could not interfere in matters involving “ecclesiastical or ecumenical question of church governance.” Due to this claim, the courts must evaluate the applicability of applying the First Amendment ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine. The ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine is an extension of the Establishment Clause in order for the state to avoid weighing in on matters of religious institutions. On a case-by-case basis, the court must determine whether the defamation claims can be resolved using neutral principles of law in order to avoid interpreting or weighing ecclesiastical matters.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals concluded that all statements the Plaintiffs challenge are barred by the ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine, and thus would not address remaining challenges.

I agree with this assessment in large part due to the nature of this particular case. The North Carolina Court of Appeals emphasized that in order to address a defamation claim in an ecclesiastical setting, the plaintiff must generally present that the defendant caused injury by making false, defamatory statements that were published to a third person. The main part of this decision then occurs in that first competent regarding whether or not weighing “falsity” would require the court to interpret church doctrine. In this case, because the claims made by Holleman are directly tied to the process of Reconciliation the court would, in ruling, be entangled in church matters. 

This is a significant principle that reflects precedent established in US v. Ballard, which held that the courts could not “be the arbiters of the truth or falsity of one's religious beliefs.” The ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine is extended by this precedent. Though individuals should be generally protected by defamation, in a religious setting it would be a rare, though not impossible, occurrence when internal statements are purely secular. It is important to note that Ballard prevents the courts from ruling truth or falsity regarding religious beliefs, not speech or actions which is why the court must take these cases individually. The careful application of weighing action is seen through the “ministerial exception” in both the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru case. Though the “ministerial exception" under the First Amendment is in ways applicable to both cases, in both instances the court carefully observed whether or not this principle was applicable to the individuals. This is done to ensure that employment discrimination is not completely shielded by church authority. This aspect of weighing the harm and applicability of this First Amendment doctrine is significant and must be applied to this case. In cases regarding defamation, serious injury can be committed that should not be shielded by the church. For the sake of protecting individuals from serious harm in the form of slander, I understand the appeal on the plaintiff's part. However in this case I feel as though the court did weigh the applicability of the ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine in a way that affirms that the court cannot weigh in on the Lippard’s defamation claims.