This is a two-part article. The first part deals with the distinction between “church members” and those with corporate standing. The second part is about the need for denominations to secure asset control from the outset.
In a ruling filed July 30, 2025, the California Court of Appeal dismissed a lawsuit brought by congregants of Dwelling Place Anaheim, formerly Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Anaheim, who had challenged the church’s 2022 split from the Vineyard USA denomination. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing because, under church bylaws, they were not “members” in the corporate sense and could not sue on the church’s behalf.
The decision provides a legal roadmap for how disputes within religious nonprofits are handled under California law, sharply distinguishing between spiritual participation and corporate governance.
Plaintiffs Carol Wimber and eight others, including former pastors and former board members, alleged that Alan and Kathryn Scott, senior pastors since 2018, misrepresented their commitment to the Vineyard Movement to secure leadership roles, only to withdraw the church and its $62 million in assets four years later to start their own religious initiative. They argued that their donations were given with the understanding that the church would remain part of the Vineyard denomination.
But the appellate court ruled the plaintiffs’ ties to the congregation did not give them the legal authority to challenge the board’s decisions. Dwelling Place’s bylaws designate voting rights and governance powers exclusively to board members and officers. Congregants, referred to as “associate members,” lack any such statutory authority under the California Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law.
“In the eyes of the law, the distinction between a ‘member of the congregation’ and a ‘voting member’ is not merely semantic,” the court wrote. “It determines who may act in the name of the corporation.”
The court also rejected the claim that the plaintiffs had established a legal trust over church assets. Although some donors, including plaintiff Steve Bray, claimed to have contributed large sums with the belief that the funds would further the Vineyard Movement, the court found no written documentation meeting the strict legal standards to establish a trust under Section 9142 of the Corporations Code.
Additionally, the court ruled that even if the plaintiffs had standing and could prove fraud or misrepresentation, the case would still be barred under the First Amendment. Determining whether the Scotts violated their commitments to the Vineyard Movement, or whether their disaffiliation was consistent with Vineyard doctrine, would require the court to make inherently religious judgments, something the Constitution prohibits.
“Courts cannot decide what it means to be ‘Vineyard through and through,’” the ruling stated. “For all we know, disassociating at the time and in the manner the Scotts did is what it means to be ‘Vineyard through and through.’”
Timeline of the Case:
-
1979–1990s: Church founded by John Wimber, becoming the flagship of the Vineyard Movement
-
2018: Alan and Kathryn Scott hired as senior pastors after stating their loyalty to Vineyard USA
-
February 2022: Scotts announce disassociation from Vineyard USA, rebrand church as Dwelling Place Anaheim
-
April 2022: Plaintiffs file initial lawsuit alleging fraud and breach of fiduciary duty
-
2023: Trial court sustains defendants’ demurrer and dismisses case without leave to amend
-
July 30, 2025: California Court of Appeal affirms dismissal, citing lack of standing and First Amendment protections
The court also invoked the “ministerial exception,” a doctrine that prevents courts from interfering in employment decisions involving religious leaders. Any ruling requiring the church to retain or remove the Scotts, or reverse their decisions, would improperly entangle the government in religious governance.
What This Case Means
At its core, this case is about who has the legal authority to speak for a church in court. A group of longtime worshippers, some with deep family ties to the Vineyard Movement, believed they were wronged when their church broke away and kept its assets. But under California law, their personal devotion and decades of contributions do not give them legal standing unless they are part of the group that controls the organization.
In this case, that group is the board of directors and officers, people specifically named in the bylaws. Everyone else, including tithing congregants and even former board members, have no right to bring a lawsuit unless they fall into very narrow categories defined by law. The court was not saying their complaints were trivial. It was saying they did not have the legal power to make them in court.
The decision also hinges on the First Amendment. Courts cannot tell churches what doctrines to follow or force them to stay aligned with a religious network like Vineyard USA. That would be government entanglement with religion, which the Constitution forbids. Even if there were misrepresentations or broken promises, the courts cannot weigh in on whether a church is “really Vineyard” or not. That is a theological question, not a legal one.
This ruling underscores the need for better mechanisms within religious communities, such as independent review boards or inter-denominational arbitration, to resolve these kinds of disputes.
Without those, once a board makes a decision, even major changes in direction cannot be challenged by ordinary congregants, no matter how deeply they are invested, financially or spiritually.
Tags: Vineyard Movement, Religious Corporations, Church Law, First Amendment, Ministerial Exception
When the Pastor Leaves, Who Keeps the Church? Denominations Face Pressure to Secure Asset Control
Without clear governance, courts side with local boards—even when pastors walk away from denominational ties
The recent California Court of Appeal ruling in Wimber v. Scott has stirred renewed urgency among denominational leaders over an often-overlooked issue: who owns the church when affiliations break down. As pastors increasingly operate with greater autonomy, denominations are being urged to adopt preemptive asset governance measures that clearly define control, ownership, and oversight—before a local church disaffiliates and takes its buildings, bank accounts, and congregation with it.
In Wimber, Dwelling Place Anaheim’s senior pastors withdrew from the Vineyard USA network in 2022 and rebranded the church without consulting the broader denomination. Despite deep ties to the Vineyard Movement, the court ruled that loyal congregants had no legal standing to challenge the move, and Vineyard USA held no enforceable claim to the church’s $62 million in assets.
Cases like this expose a structural vulnerability in many Protestant denominations: reliance on informal expectations or verbal commitments without aligning bylaws, property deeds, and nonprofit incorporation documents accordingly. Courts evaluating such disputes apply neutral principles of law—not denominational loyalty—and default to whoever holds corporate control on paper. In the absence of binding asset provisions, that often means the local board or senior pastor.
To prevent these scenarios, denominational bodies should consider implementing enforceable legal frameworks that designate ownership or beneficiary rights. These might include trust clauses in founding documents, deed restrictions that tie real property to the parent body, or required bylaw language ensuring accountability. While such provisions may resemble a “prenup” to congregational churches accustomed to local autonomy, but they may be essential for preserving long-term denominational integrity and mission continuity.
Without these protections, denominations may find themselves unable to recover assets intended to serve a broader faith community, even when leaders exit with little notice or denominational oversight.
Decision Link: Wimber v. Scott, (CA App., July 30, 2025)