June 19, 2003

DES MOINES, Iowa - A couple who filed a defamation lawsuit in 1999 against the United Methodist Iowa Annual Conference and a local church will now have a chance to bring their suit to trial because of a ruling by the state Supreme Court.

The suit revolves around a letter written by then-District Superintendent Jerrold Swinton, in which he warned "the spirit of Satan" was at work in Shell Rock (Iowa) United Methodist Church.

The letter was prompted after Swinton visited the church, and Jane Kliebenstein, then a member of the church, made comments to him about the church pastor.

In the letter, Swinton wrote: "Folks, when is enough, enough? When will you stop the blaming, negative and unhappy persons among you from tearing down the spirit of Jesus Christ among you?" The letter also called on church members to acknowledge that "the spirit of Satan" was at work in the church.

Even though the letter did not specifically mention her, Jane and her husband, Glen Kliebenstein, claimed the letter falsely attacked her "integrity and moral character," causing damage to her reputation in the community.

Swinton's letter went on to advise the church's staff-parish committee to call a meeting to propose that Jane Kliebenstein be stripped of church offices.

A lower court had thrown out the case, arguing that the phrase "spirit of Satan" was a "purely ecclesiastical term, deriving its meaning from religious dogma" and thereby preventing the court from adjudicating the phrase's impact in the context of a civil suit for defamation. The Kliebensteins appeal the ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court.

The higher court agreed that judges could not interfere with matters of faith and internal church discipline, but the circulation of Swinton's letter outside the congregation "weakens the shield." The court also ruled that although the phrase has religious roots, it carries an "unflattering secular meaning."

The Iowa Annual Conference released the following statement about the latest court decision: "We are disappointed in the decision and believe it to be an unfortunate erosion of First Amendment rights of a religious organization. We believe that the mere fact that this notice of a church meeting was accidentally sent to non-church members should not constitute a waver of constitutional rights. We are seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court."

United Methodist News Service