## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 22

- 00208

- CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding 48th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 048

- 313499

- 19

Bef ore Kerr, Womack, and Wallac h, JJ. Op inion by Justi ce Wa llach 

### I N RE 

### T EXAS 

### C ONFERENCE OF 

### S EVENTH



### - D AY 

### A DVENTISTS 

### , S OUTHWESTERN 

### U NION 

### C ONFERENC E 

### C ORP ORATION OF 

### S EVENT H 

### -D AY 

### A DVENTISTS 

### , T EXAS 

### C ONFERENCE 

### A SSOCIATION OF 

### S EVENTH 

### -D AY 

### A DVEN TISTS 

### , AND 

### A LICE 

### C ASH 

### , Relator s2 OPINION
Relators the Texas Confere nce of Seventh

- Day Adventists (the Conference) , the Southwestern Union Conference Corporation of Seventh

- Day Adventists (th e Union) , the Texas Conference Asso c iatio n of Seventh

- Day Advent ists ( the
Associat ion) , and Alice Cash (Cash) seek a wri t of mandamus compelling the tri al

co urt to (1) vac ate its Apri l 29, 2022 order denying th eir motion to reconsider and (2) grant their plea to the j urisdiction

. Because w e hold that the ecclesiastical
abs t e n t ion d octrine ap plies , we will conditionally grant Relators ’ r equested relief.
I. Th e Parties
The real party in interest is Fort Wort h N orthwest Seve nth

- Day Adventist Church ( the Northwest Church ) , which claims to be a r elig ious nonprofi t organ ization
hav ing i ts pri m ary place of w orship in Tarr ant County, Texas. See Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. § § 252. 001

– .018. Under the S eventh

- Day Adventi st Church Man ual , it is

— or

was

— a “ local church, ” that is, “ [a] group of member s in a defined location that ha s been gra nted, by the const i tuency of a co nference in session, official status as a church. ” 1
C ash wa s a treasurer for the Northwest Church . Whe the r she remains the
Northwest Church ’ s t reasurer is disput ed

. The Conference is a “ local co nfe re nce, ”
which , according to the Church Man ua l , is a n organized “ group of local churches [ ]

1 Our re cord contains the nineteenth edi tion of the Church Manual

.3 within a def ined geographical area. ” The Union is a “ uni on con ference, ” which , again according to the C hurch Manual , is a “ gro up of co nf eren c es [ ] within a defi ned geographical area

. ” W here the Association fits in the h ierarchy or what it s role is
with in that hiera rchy is not clear

. 2
For this opinion ’ s purpo ses, to simplify t he dis cussion, we refer to th e di spute as being between the Northwest Church and the Conference

— t he Northwest
Church ’ s immediate hierar chic al au thority. The Northwest Church appears to have
sued the Union, the Association , and Cash becaus e of their entanglement in the dispute between the Church and the Co nference following the Con ference ’ s termination of the Northwest Church ’ s pastor
. II. Th e Northwest Chur ch ’ s Grievance Against the Conference
We r ely on the Northwest Church ’ s first amend ed petition to de fine the nature
of the di spute bet ween it and the Confer ence. J oe Gr esham became the Northwest Church ’ s pastor in 1992 and remained its
past or for over twenty

- six years. Accordin g to the Northwest Church, i n addition to being it s pastor, Gre sh am was also the pastor of the Weath erford Seventh

- Day
Adventis t Churc h (the Weatherford Church)

.

2 The Church Manua l also describes the Ge neral Conference, which “ represents the worldwid e expre ss ion of the Church. ” The General Conference has regional offices kno wn as “ divisions of the G eneral Conference. ”4 A round 20 02, however, the Conference removed Pastor Gres ham as the
Wea th erford Church ’ s pastor and cut his pay in half. To suppl ement P astor Gresham ’ s pay, the Northwest Ch u r ch c reated a s pecial f und

. Th e Northwest Church
forwarded th ese funds to the C onference, which then made t he requisite
with holdin gs ; t he C onference ’ s payroll depart ment then pa id t he balance to P astor
G resham. Subsequen tly, i n 2010, the Conference reinstated Pas tor G resham as the
Weath erford Church ’ s pas tor. The Conference did not , howev er , increas e Pastor
Gresh am ’ s pay
. Acc ording to t he Nor thwest Church , in 2013 , the Conf erence forced Pastor
Gresham to r et ire with the und erstanding that he w ould continue to pastor both
church es. In ret urn, Pastor Gresham was suppos edly to receive a stipend. T he
sti pend , however, never materialized, a nd w hen Pastor Gresham inquired a bout it, the
Conference purportedly asserted that h e was mistaken about any stipend. Despite the misunderstanding, Pastor Gresham continue d to pastor both chur ches.
In D ecem ber 2 018, the Conference te rminate d Pastor Gre sham “ ba sed on noncompliance with NAD/TXC policies. ” 3 The Northwest Church is not disput ing
Pastor Gresham ’ s termination

. 4 Like falling dominoe s, a series of e vents followed.

3 The n oncompliance was with the poli cies of the N orth American D ivision and the Texas Co nfer ence .
4 The Church Manual provides , “ Pastors or assistant pastors are not nominated
o r elected to such positions by the c hurch. Their connection with the church is by5 A fter Pastor Gresham ’ s termination, the Northwest Churc h dis solved its existing governing boa rd and , in January 2019, una nimously el ected a new governing
b oard. The newly elected bo ard then voted to d issolve Pastor Gre sham ’ s special fund,
to allow a nyone w ho had contributed to the fund to with draw their offer ings by January 31 , 2019, and to gi ve a ny remain ing funds to Pastor Gresham.
On e day before the January 3 1 , 2019 deadline , ho wever, ac cordin g to th e Northwest Church, the Conf e rence “ confiscated [ th e Northwest Church ’ s] finances. ”
The Northwest Churc h alleged that C ash, the treasurer under the previou s Northwest
Ch urch ’ s governing board (but whose nam e had not been removed from the
Northwest Church ’ s bank account) , had written a check payable to the Conference that effectively exhausted the Northwest Church ’ s a cco unt
. The Northw est Church

ma in ta in s that all the funds b elon ged to it , not to the Conference. Appa rently in response to this mo ve, t he Northwest Chur ch ’ s governing board
then voted to close the Northwest Church ’ s savings account in the Union so th at it
could continue to ope rate and p ay b ills. Complying with the Northwest Chur ch ’ s

w

ishes, the Uni on w rote a c heck pay able t o the Northwest Church, b ut when the
Northwest Churc h tried to deposit t he chec k, the Northwest Church dis covered that the Conference had place d a “ stop paym ent ” on it

.

appointm ent of the confer ence c om mit tee, and s uch appointments may be changed at
a ny time. ”6 In addition to losing access to it s funds, the Northwest Church also l ost acces s to its place of w or sh ip. When the Northwest Church ’ s clerk and head dea con wen t to th e c hurch bu ilding on Februa ry 21, 20 19, they encounter ed a locksmith changing the
l ocks a lon g with rep resentatives from the Conferen c e . The Northwest Chu rch lamented, “ To date, [the Northwest Church ’ s] memb er s, who built and paid for t he church, remain locked out of their place of wors hip and above each door a sign reads:

‘ POSTED

— NO TRESPAS SIN G

— KEE P OUT. ’ ”
The Northwest Church sued the Conference and sought injunctive relief,
dec laratory re lief , damages for theft of prope rty, damages for conversion, damages for money had a n d rec eived, exe mplary d a mages , and attorney ’ s fees. With in its peti tion , the Northwest Church acknowledged that it was suing “ its parent org anizations. ” And
it based its co m pla ints on the Conference ’ s fai lure to f ollow the Church Man ual

. Specifically, it alleged, “ [The Northw est Church] will further show that the nonsecul ar
p rovisions of the [ Church Manual ] are binding upon [the Northwest Church ] and [the
Con ference] and provide that the right to ownership and use of the subject local church funds and personal property is vested in [the Northwest Church]

. ” 5
The Conference file d an answer that it later amende d three t imes

. O n March 4, 2020, it filed a plea to the juri sdiction and , on June 19, 2020, an a mended plea to the

5 “ Nonsecular ” is defined as “ [r]elating to or involving religious or spiritual matters. ” Oxford E nglish Dictionary, https://www.lexico.com/en/defini tion/ nonsecular ( la st vis ited July 13 , 2022).7 jurisdiction. On July 2 8 , 2020, the trial cou rt denied the Conference ’ s amended plea to

t he jurisdicti o n . O ve r nineteen months after the July 28, 2020 order , o n M arch 7, 2022 , the
Conference f iled a motio n to reconsider , which the trial court d enied about seven
weeks later , o n April 29, 2022

. T he Conference now seek s mandamus relief against
th e April 29, 2022 ord er. The case is set f or trial in late August 2022.
II I. Mandamus St andard of Review
M andamus reli ef is app ropriate when the trial court lacks subject

- matter jurisdiction

. In re Diocese of Lubbock , 624 S.W.3d 506 , 512 (Tex. 2021 ) (orig. proceeding) (ci ting In re Crawfor d & Co. , 458 S.W.3d 9 20, 929 (Tex. 2015) ( orig. pro ceeding) , and In re Entergy Corp. , 142 S.W.3d 3 16, 321 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) ) , cert. deni ed sub nom. Guerrero v. Diocese of Lubbock , 142 S. Ct. 434 (2021)

. A party may cha llenge jur is dic tion on r eligious

- liberty g rounds

. Id.
Or dinar ily m anda mus relie f is availa ble only if (1) a court clearly abuse d its
discretion and (2) the re lator has no ad equate remedy at law

. See In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co. , 35 S.W.3d 602, 60 5 (Tex. 2000) (orig. procee ding)

. But w hen a trial court signs an
order in a case ove r which i t has no jurisd iction, the order is void an d constitutes an
abuse of di sc retion. I d. When an o rder is void, a relator need not show an in adequate remedy at law. Id.8 I V. Su bject

- Matter Juri sdiction
Ess ential to a court ’ s power to decide a case is s ubjec t

- ma t ter jurisdicti on. Title Max of Tex., Inc. v . City of Austin , 639 S.W.3d 240, 245 (Tex. App.

— Ho uston [1st Dist.] 2021, no pet.)

. T he plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing affirmativ ely
that the court has subject

- matter j urisdiction over the plain tif f

’ s case. Id.
A defend ant ’ s plea to the ju risdiction seeks to dismiss the case for lack of

su bject

- matter j urisdiction. Diocese of Lubbock , 624 S.W.3d at 512 ; Title Max o f Tex., Inc. , 639 S .W.3d at 24 5

. When a plea to the ju risdiction chall enges the pleading s, we determine whether the pleader has a lleged facts sh ow i ng the trial co urt ’ s jurisdiction

. TitleMax of Tex., Inc. , 639 S.W.3d at 24 6. We con strue t he pleadings l iber ally in the pleader ’ s favor , accept all factual allegations as true, an d look t o the p leader ’ s intent.
Id. If the pleadings are i nsufficient bu t pote ntially curable , t he court shou ld afford the pleader an opportunity to replead , bu t if the pleadings af firm atively negate the existence of j urisdi ction , the court shall dismiss

. Id.
We review de novo a trial court ’ s ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction

. Diocese of
Lubbock , 6 24 S. W.3d at 512 ; TitleMax of Tex., Inc. , 639 S.W.3d at 245

. V. Ecclesiastical Abstenti on Doctr ine
The ecc lesi a stical abstention doctrine prohibits ci vil courts from delving into
matters of theological controversy, c hurch discipline, ecclesiastical govern ment, or

mem bers ’ conformity to the church ’ s moral standar ds. Serbian E. Orthodox Dioces e v. Mil ivojevich , 426 U.S. 696, 71 3

– 1 4, 96 S. Ct. 2372, 2382 (1976) (quoting Watson v. Jones ,9 80 U.S. 679, 733 (1871)). The doctrin e is grounded in the Firs t Amendment, which
protect s the right of religi ous institutions to decide for them s elves, f ree from state interference , matters of chur ch government as well as those of faith and doctrine. Id. ; Diocese of Lubboc k , 624 S.W.3d at 508

– 09

. A core t enet of the First Amendment is that c ourts must b e carefu l not to
intrud e on the internal affairs of church gov ernance and autonom y. Westbrook v. Penley , 231 S. W.3d 389 , 397 (Tex. 2007)

. Autonomy extends to the ri ghts o f h ierarchical religiou s bo dies to establish their own internal rules and regulations and to c reate tribunals for resolv ing disputes over religious matters , and this a utonomy extends to a

c hurch ’ s conclusions regarding it s own ecclesiastical rules, c ustoms , a nd laws. Diocese of
Lubbock , 624 S.W. 3d at 5 13

. Government action t hat interferes w ith this autonomy or
th at risks judicial entanglement with a c hurch ’ s conclusions reg arding its own rules, customs, or laws is th us pro hibited by the First Amendmen t. Id

. N ot all claims against religious institutions , however, are barred by t he First
Amendment. Id

. A court may exercise jurisdic tion over a controversy if it can a pply

ne utral principles of law that will not requi re inquiry into religious doctrine , inter fere
with believers ’ free

- exercise rights , o r medd l e in church go vernmen t. Id. Under the
neutral

- principles methodology, courts de cide non

- ecclesiastical issues such as
pro perty ownership based on the same neutral p rinciples of law applicable to oth er entities but defer to a r eligious entit y ’ s dec is ions o n ecclesiastica l and church polity questions. Id.10 While the Texas Supreme Court has not applied the neu tral

- princip les

met hodol ogy outside of chur ch propert y dispute s, it has recognized that lower Te xas

courts

— in certain, narrow circumstances

— have fo und th em applicable

. Masterson v. Diocese of Nw. Tex. , 422 S.W.3d 5 94, 596 (Tex. 2013). The supreme court has stressed
that any excep tion to the ecclesiastical ab stention doctrine must be narrowly drawn to avoid inhibiting the free exercise of religion o r to avo id imposing sec ular interests on
reli gious controversies. Id

. Put differently , courts should con sider n ot only whether a

n eutral principle exists without re gard to r eligion but also whether applying neutral principles would impose civil liabil ity o n a chur ch for either c omplying with its own internal rules and regulations or res olving a religious matter. Id

. Further, even if neutral principles of law are appl ied, if a court ’ s ruling may implicate free

- exercise concerns, such as a church ’ s standard o f morals or c hurch disc ipline , the ecclesiastical
abstent ion doctrine deprives the court of jurisdiction over t he dispute. Westb ro ok , 231 S.W.3d at 399.
When determ ining whe ther the ecclesiastical abstention doctri ne applies, courts analyze whether a parti cu lar di spute is an ecc lesiastical dispute or a civil

- law controversy in which the church happ ens to be involve d

. Diocese of Lubbo ck , 624 S.W. 3d at 5 1 4

. When making this det ermination, courts look to the sub stance and nature of the plaintiff ’ s claims , and if t hey are inextricabl y intertwined wi th matters of doctrine or church governance, then the c ase must be dismi sse d b e cause courts are prohibited from risking judic ial entan glement in ecclesiastical matters

. Id.11 T he neutral principles approach is not witho ut l imit ations. Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth v. Episcopal Church , 602 S.W.3d 417 , 428 (Tex. 2020), cert s . de nied , 141 S. Ct.
13 73 (2021)

. 6 When ecclesi ast ical questions are at issue, defere nce i s mandatory because courts lack jurisdiction to d e c ide ec clesiastical questions. Id. N eutral principles of law are applied to issues such as land ti tles, trusts, corporat e formation, corpor ate
governance, an d corp o rate dissolution, even when religious en ti ties are involved, but
if an instrument incor pora te s reli gious concepts so that interpretation of ownership
instruments would require a civil court to resolve a religious controversy, the c ourt must defer to the a uthoritative ecclesiastical body ’ s resolu ti on of that issue. Id. Consequently, in some insta nc es, d e ferring to the ecclesiastical bodies ’ decisions in matters reserved to them by the First Am endment effectively de termine s the proper ty rights in question. I d.
VI
. D iscussion A. Significant Delay As a preliminary matter, we address the over a ye ar

- and

- a

- half delay between the order denying the Confere nce ’ s amended plea to the jurisdiction and its motion to
reconside r. Delay is potenti ally a basis for deny i ng mandamus relief. S ee In re Moore , 615 S. W.3d 162, 17 1

– 7 2 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2019, orig. pr oc eeding )

.

6 Two writs of ce rtiorar i were filed, one by the Episcop al Chu rch ( s upreme c ourt cause number 20

- 536) and the other by All Saints ’ Episcopal Church ( Fort Worth) ( s upreme c ourt cause number 20

- 5 34)

. 141 S. Ct. 1373 ( b oth).12 In i ts motion to reconsider, the Conference relied on the issu an ce of several
rel evant opinions after the tri al court signed the Ju ly 28, 20 20 order to explain the
de lay

. Within the Conference ’s motion to reconsider , it cit es t wo opinions that issued
while its am ended plea to the jurisdiction w as pending but before the trial court
si gned its July 28, 2020 o rder :

• Epi scopal Dio cese of F ort Worth , 602 S.W.3d at 417 , deci ded May 22, 2020 ; and

• Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch. v . Morr issey

- Berru , 140 S. Ct. 2049 ( 2020) , which was decided on J uly 8, 2020

. Al though both opinio ns had issued before the initial ruling, both remained subject to change b ecause post

- judgment proceedings remai ned possible

. See Sup. Ct. R.
44 ( “ Reh earing ” ) . I n the Epi scopal Dioce se of Fort Worth ’ s case, writs of certiora ri were in
fa ct later filed. The Conference cites t wo other opinions that issued after the Ju ly 28,
2020 o rder:

• D iocese of Lubbock , 624 S. W.3d at 506 ; and

• In re Thomas , No. 06

- 21

- 00 106

- CV, 2022 WL 126708, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana Jan. 14, 2022, orig. proceeding [mand. pending ] ) (mem. op)

. The T homas opinion is not necessar ily the final wor d on that matter be cause the party aggrieved by i t filed a petition for w rit of mandamus in t he Texa s Supreme Court that remains pending. See In re Collier ’s Chapel B aptist Ch urch , No. 22

- 0263 ( T ex. filed Apr. 4,
2022 ).
We also not e that Judge David Evans si gned the J uly 28, 20 20 order and that
he subseq uently retired. Judge C hr is Taylor, who was appoint ed in October 2021,13 signed the April 29, 2022 order denying the Conference ’s motion to reconsider. Having Judge Taylor reconsider the matter was necessary. See In re Bouajram , No. 02

- 21

- 00072

- CV, 2021 WL 3 673856, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Wo rth Aug. 17, 20 21, orig. proceeding [mand. pending] ) (mem. op.) ; In re Bunt , No. 13

- 20

- 00263

- CV,
2021 WL 2877934, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi

– Edinburg July 8, 2021, or ig. proceeding) (me m. op.)

. Ultim at ely though, s u bject

- matter jurisdiction ca nnot be waived and can be raised at any time. Alfonso v. Skadden , 251 S.W.3d 52, 55 (Tex. 2008) . T he issue

— whether delayed or not

— cannot be avoided.
B
. The Church Man ual
In its fi rst amended petiti on, t he Northw est C hurch repeatedly rel ies on the
Church Manual as the basis for its claims

. For exa mple , Pursuant to the [ Church Manual ] , which governs policies and procedures at the local level of the [Seventh

- Day Adventists] , and desc ribes the governanc e and function of local churches and the relationship between the local church and the Conference or other entities of the [Seventh

- Day Adventists] , when an offering is taken for any general or local purpose, like the Special F und here, all money placed in the offering pl ate (unless othe rwise indicated by the donor) is counted
as part of that particular offering. “All offerings and gifts contributed by individuals for a specific fund or purpose must be used for that purpose. Nei ther the l ocal church treasur er nor the board has the authori ty to divert any funds from the objective for which they were given.” Elsewhere, the Northwest Church asserts, The [ Church Manual ] clearly and explicitly in structs that “ [l]ocal chu rch funds . . . belong to the local church and are dispersed by the treasu rer only by authorization of the board or business meeting.” This14 was not done, and was out of harmony with the [ Church Manual ] and church policy. Further, the [ C hurch Manual ] clearly an d explicitly ins tructs that “All offeri ngs and gifts contributed by indivi duals for a specific fund or purpose,” like the fund specifically for P astor [Gres ham] , “must be used for that purpose. Neither the treasurer nor the board has the authority to diver t any funds from the o bjective for whic h they were given.” The Northwest Church ’ s argument was that the provisions of the Church Manu al on which it relied were n onsecular: “ [The Northwest Church ] w i ll further s how that the
nonsecular provisions of the [ Church Ma nual ] are bindin g u pon [the North west Church]
and [the Conference] , and provide that the right to ownership and use of the subject local church funds and personal property is vested in [the Northwest C h urch ]

. ” [Emphasis added.]
With in the Northwest Church ’ s mandamus response, it s reli ance on the Church
Manual continue s extensively

. Indeed, it maintains that resolv ing t his matter dep ends

on applying the Church Manual , but it argues t hat doing so can be do ne without transgressing the ecclesiastical abs t ention doctrine : [The Northwest Ch urch ’ s ] suit to enforce the [ Chu rch Manual ] requires n o theological or ecclesiastica l decision. [The Northwest Church] seeks only adjudication of whether [the Conference ’ s] diversion of, and exer cise of dominion and control over the Local Church Funds
an d the c h urch buil di ng is authorized under the [ Church Manual ]

. These issues do not impli cate the ecclesiastical

- abstention doctrine [. 7 ]

7 T he No rthwest Church argues elsewhere in its res ponse tha t resolution of its dispute will implicate religious doctrine or p ractice : The p leading and jurisdictional evidence plainly show th at this proper ty dispute does involve resolution of religiou s doctrine o r practice.15 All the court must decide here is whether [The Conference] followed t he [ Church Manual ]

. The N orthwest Church cont ends that its dis p ute wi t h the Conference can b e resolved by utilizing ne utral principles of law to construe the Church Manual : “ [ The Northwest
Church ’ s ] claims requires no theological or ecclesiastica l decision. ” We agree with the Northwest Church that resolution of their dispute depends
on the Ch u r ch Manual

. We d isagree with the Northwest C hurch that we could do so
without viola ting the e cclesiastic al abs t ention doctrine.
1
. T e x t: Secular or E cclesiastica l?
T he C hurch Manual describes it s authority and function: [ The Church Manual ] describes the operation and fu nctions of local churches and their relationship to den omi national structur e s in which they hold membership. The [ Churc h Manual ] also expresses the C hurch’s understanding of Christian life and church governanc e and discipline based on biblical principles and the authority o f duly assembled General Conference Ses sio ns. . . .

. . . . The standards and practices of the Church are based upon the principl es of th e Holy Scriptures. These principles, underscored by the Spirit of Pro phecy, are set forth in this Chu rch Manual . They are to be followed in all matters pert ain ing to th e admini s

tration and ope ration of local churches. Th e Church Manual also defines the rel ationship that exists between the local congregation and the conferen ce or other entities of Seventh

- [D] ay Adventist de nominational organization. No attempt
s hou ld be mad e to set up standards of membership or to make, or
Instead, [the Northwest Chur ch] merely seeks money damag es for theft of property, conversion, and money ha d and receive d, claims o ver which the trial court has subject matt er jurisdict ion as a matter of law, and which can be determi ned by appli cation of neutral principles of law.16 a t tempt to enforce, rules or regulati ons for local church operations that are contrary to these decisions a dopted by the General Conferenc e in Session and that are set forth in this [ Church Manu al ]

. [Emphasi s added.] The Church Manual strongly discourages c i vil li tigation : “ Chris tian unselfishness will lead followers of Christ to suffer themselves to be defrauded (1 Cor. 6:7) ra ther
than to ‘ go to law before the unrighteous, a nd not be fore the saints ’ ( 1 Cor. 6:1). ”
E xcept ions are acknowledged : While t here a r e, in the modern world, occasions for seeking decrees of civil courts, Christians should pre fe r settlement within the authority of the Church a nd sho uld limit the seekin g of such decree s to cases that are clearly within the jurisdiction of t he civil court s and not within the authority of the Church or for which the Church agrees it has no adequat e process for orderly settlement. T he Church Ma n ual even provid es examples of when going to civil courts is proper:

“ Ex amples o f such civil cases may include, but a re not limited to, the settlement of insurance claims, the iss ua nce of decrees affecting the boundaries and owne r ship o f real property, the deciding of som e matters involving the administration of esta tes, and t he award ing of custody of minor children. ”
C o n sistent with the ab ove precepts , t he C h urch Manual specifically warn s a gain st memb ers br inging civil litigat i on again st chur ch entities : “ Members should not instigate litigation ag ainst an y Church entity except under circumstances where the
Church has no t provided adequate process for o rd erly settlement of the grievance or
where the nat ure of the case is such th a t it is clearly not within th e authority of the
Church to settle. ”17 F or internal disputes , t he Church Manual pro v i des for an app ell ate process:
W h en d ifferences arise in or between ch urches a nd confe rences or institutions, matters that are not mutually resolved may be appealed to the next higher organization. If the matter does not get resolv ed at this level, the a g grie ved entity may appeal to succ e ss iv ely higher levels of organization

. An org anizatio n to which an appeal is forwarded may choose not to hear the matter, in which case the decision of the highest organization involved in the dispu te shall be final. When orga nizations
r eview decisions of ot he r organizations, they do not assu me respo nsibilit y for the liabilities of any other organization. We note that the C hurch Manual potentially provides fo r two more h ierarchical appellat e lev els

— the reg ional division and th e General Conference

— that the
N orthwest Ch urch has not jo ined as parties

. Regardless, f or our purposes, it suffices
to note that the Church Manual provides for a stairstep appellate review of internal disputes

.18 2
. Ap plicat i on 8
The Northwest Church ’ s sui t a sks civil courts to resolve i ts dispute w ith the
Conference based on its rights unde r the Chur ch Manual . This is precisely the type of civil court inquiry that t he First Amendment pr ohibits : We have con cluded that wh e ther or not there is room f or “margin al civil court review ” under t h e n arrow ru brics of “ fra ud ” or “ c ollusion ” when church tribunals act in bad faith for secular purposes, no “ arbitrariness ” exception in the sense of an inquiry whether the d ecisions of th e highest ecclesiastical tri bunal of a h ierarchical church complied w ith church laws and reg ulations i s consistent with the constitutional mandate that civil courts are bound to accept the decisions of the highest judicatories of a religious organization o f hierarchical polity on mat ters of di sc ipline, faith, internal orga n iza tion, or ecclesia sti cal rule, custom, or law. For civil courts to analyze whether the ecclesiastical actions of a church judicatory are in that sense “ arbitrary ” must inh erently enta il inquiry into the procedures that cano n or ecclesiastical law suppos e dly require s the chu rc h judicator y to follow, or else [ in to ] the substantive criteria by which they are supposedly to decide the ecclesiastical question. But this is exactly the inquiry t h at the First Amendment proh ibits; rec ognition of such an exception w oul d underm ine the g ene ral rule th at religious controversies are not the proper subject of civil court inquiry, and that a

8 Re garding access to the place of worship, in th e North west Churc h’s response, it asserts that in the suit below, it seeks title to the property. Our re view of the Northwest Churc h ’ s first amended petitio n s hows that it sought access to and posse ssion of the church bui lding, not title to the church building. In any event, f rom this assert ion in the Northwest Church ’ s response , we can safely a ssume that t he Northwest Church currently does not hold title to the property. And because the Northwest Church allegedly seeks this relief from the C onference (or perhaps one of the other Relators), w e can also safely assume that the Conference ( or one of the other R elator s) current ly does. Assuming that the Conference (o r one of t he other Relato rs) currently ho lds the title to the place of worship, a church has authority to determine who may enter its premises and who will be exc luded without gov ernment interference. See R etta v. Me konen , 338 S.W.3d 72, 76 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2011, n o pet.). Ultima tely though, we resol ve all jurisdictional aspects of thi s suit based on the ecclesiastical abstention doctr ine.19 civil court must accept the ecclesiastical decisio ns of church t r ibunals as it finds them. Milivo jevi ch , 426 U.S. at 713, 96 S. Ct. a t 2382 (fo ot note o m itted) ; see Westbrook , 231 S. W.3d at 405 ; see also United Methodist Chu rch, Baltimore Ann

. Conf

. v. White , 571 A.2d 790, 794 (D.C. 1990)

. The Northwest Chur ch ’ s case i s n o t one in which it has separated f ro m its
hierarch ical orga nizati o n and in which it a nd the hierarchical organization dispute who
owns what

. See , e.g. , Episcopal Diocese of Fort Wo rth , 602 S.W.3d at 4 20

. Rather , this is a disput e over who has the aut hority to m ake decisions on behalf of th e Nort hwest
Church now that Pas t or Gresham has bee n terminated and the prior governing board
has been dissolved

. I n the Northwest Church ’ s response, it acknowledges that it rem ains a Seventh

D ay A d ventist Church : Whi le [ the Confere nce ] purport [s] to conte n d that [the Northwest Church] i s “not a recogni zed Seventh

- [D] ay Adventist Church, [ the Conference ] previously admitted that decisions about the l ocal church’s future are “pending,”

. . . , and ha [s] come forth with no evi dence to supp ort any further acti o n has been taken in this regar d

. . . . Rather, [t h e Northwest Church] continues to receive mail from [ the Co nference ]

— none of which has informed [the Northwest Church] that it is no longer recognized as a Seventh

- [D] ay Adventist Church, a nd [ the Con ferenc e ] continu e [s] to recognize [th e Northwest Church ] as a local church on its websi t e. Consistent with the Northwest Ch urch ’ s understanding, the Conference do es not dispute that a “ local church ” exists b ut focus es , i nstead, on w he ther the ne wly elect ed governing board represent s that chur c h :20 [The Northwest C hur ch] p urports to be a local congreg ation within the Seventh

- [D] ay Adventist Church.

. . . The higher level within the hierarchical church structure, however, has no t reco gn i ze d th is congregation as acting on behalf of the p roperly con s tituted local
c hurch.

. . . T o the contrary, the higher le vel within the hierarchical church structure terminated the local church pastor for failure to comply with Church policy , and too k ac ti o n to s afeguard the local church ’ s funds and the ch urch bui ldi n g. . . . The lo cal congregati on, claiming to act on behalf of the local church

. . . , contends that these actions were taken in contravention of the Seventh

- [D] ay Adventist Church Manual , and b ro ught suit seeking injunctive and declaratory rel ief.
Put an o th er way, from the Confe rence ’ s perspective, someone other than a duly

reco g nized authority within the local c hurch is attempting to spend the l ocal c hurch ’ s
money a n d use the l ocal c hurch ’ s place of worship, so the Conference has intervened

to safeguard b ot h. Admittedly, u nder the Church Man ual , the local church funds appear to belong
to the “ l ocal c hurch ” : Local church funds include church expense, building a nd rep a ir funds, and the fund for the poor and needy. The se funds belong to the local church and a re disbursed by the treasurer only by authorization of the board or business meeting. However, the treasurer shall pay from the expense funds all bills for lo cal ex p en se that have been authorized by the board. Neverthe less , the dispute is over whether the Northwest Church is the “ local church, ”

as contemplated by the Church Manual , when the Conference has not recognized the newly elect ed go verning board.
W hether the Conference acted in a manner consist en t with the Church Manual is
an internal matter for th e Northwest Church and the Seventh

- D ay Adventist21 h i e rarchy to reso lve. Se e Diocese of Lubbock , 624 S.W. 3d at 5 13 ; Rett a , 338 S.W.3d a t 7 7

. The Northwest C hurch ’ s claims a re inextricabl y intertwined wi th matters of doctrine

o r church governance ; b e cause cou r ts are prohibited from risking judicial entanglement in ecclesiastical matt ers , th e case must be dismisse d

. See Diocese of
Lubbock , 6 24 S .W. 3d at 5 13

. Th e Constitution b roadly protect s a churc h ’s auto nomy in managing its affairs and deciding matters of ch u rch discipline

. See Westbrook , 231 S.W.3d at 397

. The
Northwest Church has unite d i tse lf to the Conference a nd has implied ly consent e d to
its government ; the Northwest Church is bound to submit to it s h ierarchy

. Id.
VII. Conclusion
The ecclesiastical abst e ntion doctrine deprives the tri al court of jurisdiction to resolve this internal dispute between the N orthwest Chur ch and the Confer e nc e. See
Diocese of Lubboc k , 624 S.W.3d at 508

– 09 , 513

. We condit ionally grant Relator s ’ petition for writ o f mandamus. We direct the trial court to va cate i t s April 19 , 2 022 order den ying “ Defendant s ’ Mot ion to Reconsider Order De ny ing Amend ed
Plea to th e J u risdiction ” and to render an order granting tha t motion and dismissi ng the Northwest Church ’ s case for want of jurisdic t ion

. W e are confident that the trial court will compl y with these directives ; the writ will issue only if the trial court fa ils to
d o so .22 /s/ Mike Wallach M ike Wallach Ju stice
Delive red: July 21, 2022