A prolonged battle over voting rights at McLean Bible Church is moving toward another consequential stage, raising uncomfortable questions about membership, leadership accountability, and the limits of church autonomy. For the Northern Virginia congregation co-led by David Platt and Mike Kelsey, the dispute centers on whether members were improperly excluded from an elder election-and whether civil courts can examine those allegations.
According to The Christian Post's October 20 report, the Virginia Supreme Court dismissed the church's appeal in an October 2 ruling because the appeal had not been properly filed. The justices did not decide whether church leaders violated the congregation's constitution or whether the members' allegations were substantiated.
That distinction matters. The dismissal leaves the earlier appellate decision in place, allowing proceedings to continue toward potentially limited discovery, subject to the circuit court's consideration of protections for religious association. It does not establish wrongdoing by McLean's leadership.
The dispute nevertheless puts a pointed question before the church: what records support the decision to classify members as ineligible to vote?
The plaintiffs contend that McLean's constitution allows members aged 16 and older to vote unless they are inactive. Their attorney, Rick Boyer, told The Christian Post that inactive status requires missing eight consecutive worship services without a reasonable excuse. He argues that determining whether those absences occurred is a factual inquiry that does not require a court to settle religious doctrine.
The members allege that leaders designated some voters inactive arbitrarily, without records establishing the required absences or adequate consideration of reasonable explanations. Their complaint also raises the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, including concerns about attending services and the church's cancellation of in-person gatherings.
Those remain allegations. Whether the relevant records support the plaintiffs' account is among the questions further proceedings could help clarify.
The complaint arose from the church's July 2021 elder election. Longtime members Steve Gaskins, Michael Manfredi, Roland Smith, Deborah Ash, and Kevin Elwell challenged the process, alleging violations involving voting eligibility and secret ballots. They also alleged that the actions were intended to remove theological conservatives from influence within the congregation.
McLean's leaders have offered a sharply different account. They have described the litigation as part of an organized effort to remove Platt and other church leaders, and they previously invited the plaintiffs to pursue Christian mediation and reconciliation. The church also conducted another elder election.
That competing account makes the conflict more than a disagreement over attendance records. Each side disputes the other's understanding of faithful church leadership: the plaintiffs emphasize adherence to the congregation's constitution, while the elders have characterized the campaign against them as driven by particular ideological commitments.
The legal proceedings have already produced repeated reversals. The circuit court dismissed the complaint in 2022, an appellate court reversed that decision in 2023, and another dismissal followed in December 2024. In May, the Court of Appeals again reversed, ruling that the circuit court had erred by treating the First Amendment as an absolute barrier to any discovery.
The appellate ruling called for a narrower examination of whether discovery could proceed and whether ecclesiastical abstention applies. According to Boyer, McLean has requested reconsideration of the Supreme Court's procedural dismissal. The Christian Post reported that the church had not responded to its request for comment by publication.
For the congregation, the unresolved issue reaches beyond who won an election. A church constitution establishes expectations about how authority is exercised and how members participate. This case tests whether the disputed voting decisions can be evaluated through those written rules while respecting the church's religious independence.
The next stage may bring greater clarity about the membership records and the court's authority to examine them. Until then, both the allegations of exclusion and the leadership's account of an organized campaign remain contested.
