Title: Doe v. First Presbyterian Church U.S.A. of Tulsa
Citation: 2017 OK 15
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: February 22, 2017

Doe v. First Presbyterian Church U.S.A. of Tulsa Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary Appellant John Doe filed suit against Appellees, a church and its minister, alleging torts and breach of contract after he was baptized and notice of his baptism was published on the internet, resulting in his alleged kidnapping and torture by extremists while travelling in Syria. The trial court sustained Appellees' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellant appealed. The question presented for the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s review was whether the church autonomy doctrine, rooted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, barred the courts from considering Appellant’s claims against Defendants-Appellees. The Supreme Court held that it does. Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Oklahoma Supreme Court? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Oklahoma Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here . DOE v. THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH U.S.A. OF TULSA 2017 OK 15 Case Number: 115182 Decided: 02/22/2017 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. JOHN DOE (a pseudonym for the Plaintiff), Plaintiff/Appellant, v. THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH U.S.A. OF TULSA, OKLAHOMA, and JAMES D. MILLER, Defendants/Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY HONORABLE DAMAN H. CANTRELL DISTRICT JUDGE ¶0 Appellant filed suit against Appellees, a church and its minister, alleging torts and breach of contract after he was baptized and notice of his baptism was published on the internet, resulting in his alleged kidnapping and torture by extremists while travelling in Syria. The trial court sustained Appellees' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellant appeals. ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT IS AFFIRMED G. Steven Stidham, Levinson, Smith & Huffman, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant. John H. Tucker and Denelda Richardson, Rhodes, Hieronymus, Jones, Tucker & Gable, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. COMBS, C.J.: ¶1 The question presented to this Court is whether the church autonomy doctrine, rooted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, bars the courts from considering Plaintiff's claims against Defendants/Appellees. We hold that it does. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 This appeal originates from a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff/Appellant John Doe (a pseudonym for Plaintiff) (hereinafter, "Appellant") against Defendants/Appellees The First Presbyterian Church of U.S.A. of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and James D. Miller (hereinafter, "Appellees") alleging breach of contract, negligence, and outrage. Appellant alleges he was born in Syria into the Muslim Faith, but for most of his adult life has resided in the United States. As part of what he refers to as his westernization, Appellant made the decision to convert from Islam to Christianity. ¶3 The precise relationship between Appellant and Appellees is disputed, but it is undisputed that Appellant was baptized at his own request at The First Presbyterian Church U.S.A. of Tulsa, Oklahoma (FPC) by James D. Miller (Miller). Appellant alleges he made Appellees aware of the need for confidentiality throughout the conversion process, as he was planning to return to Syria shortly thereafter. Appellant's baptism took place on December 30, 2012, during a service that was open to members and guests of the church, but was not televised. It is undisputed that Appellant was not and never became a member of FPC, before or after his baptism. ¶4 Appellant alleges he travelled to Syria almost immediately after his baptism, arriving in Damascus on January 2, 2013. Appellant asserts he was confronted by radical Muslims in Damascus in mid-January, 2013, who had heard of his conversion on the internet. Appellant alleges he was kidnapped, and informed by his kidnappers they were going to carry out his death sentence as a result of his conversion from Islam. ¶5 Appellant alleges he was tortured for several days before he was able to escape captivity, killing his paternal uncle in the process. As a result, he asserts he is now wanted for murder in Syria. Appellant alleges he was able to clandestinely make it back to the United States, where he faces continuous death threats. Appellant asserts he suffered numerous physical injuries and psychological damage, all proximately caused by Appellees' publication of his baptism, in contravention of promises they supposedly made to him that it would be kept confidential. ¶6 Appellant filed suit against Appellees in the District Court of Tulsa County on June 9, 2014, alleging breach of contract, negligence, and outrage. On July 2, 2014, Appellees moved to dismiss Appellant's petition, pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 § 2012(B)(6), for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted. Appellees asserted: 1) the First Amendment barred all Appellant's claims because the conduct alleged by Appellant related to Appellees' constitutionally-protected religious practices; 2) Appellant's negligence claim failed because Appellees owed no legal duty to Appellant; 3) Appellant's breach of contract claim failed because absent consideration there was no contract; 4) Miller could not be held personally liable for breach of contract in his capacity as an agent of FPC; and 5) Appellant's claim for emotional distress through the tort of outrage had to be dismissed because the allegations, even if true, did not rise to the level of outrage required by Oklahoma law. Appellant filed an objection and response to Appellees' motion to dismiss on July 22, 2014, and Appellees replied on August 8, 2014. ¶7 On October 24, 2014, the trial court denied Appellees' motion to dismiss. The trial court noted the complex issues involved, and determined that early in the litigation process, it "cannot find any of these claims such that it would be impossible for facts to be presented that would make relief possible to the Plaintiff as is required by Oklahoma law." Opinion and Order on Motion to Dismiss, r. 5, p. 10. After the trial court's decision, Appellees' filed their answer to Appellant's petition on December 18, 2014. ¶8 On October 16, 2015, Appellees filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 § 2012(B)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellees asserted the district court lacked jurisdiction over ecclesiastical matters, which included the theology, usage and customs, and written laws of the church that controlled the ritual and publication of Appellant's baptism. Appellees attached several exhibits to their motion to support their contentions. Appellant filed a response on October 30, 2015, asserting: 1) he never consented to FPS' ecclesiastical jurisdiction; 2) First Amendment protection applies only to religious beliefs, not actions based on them such as the publication of his baptism; and 3) his claims against Appellees did not interfere with FPS' beliefs, customs, or practices. Appellees filed a reply on December 1, 2015, asserting: 1) Appellant's claim he did not consent to ecclesiastical jurisdiction was not supported by the evidence; and 2) baptism was a sacrament fundamental to FPS' beliefs and the procedures established by the church constitution and practice conformed to those beliefs. ¶9 On June 17, 2016, the trial court granted Appellees' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court noted there exists an exception to subject matter jurisdiction over ecclesiastical matters, which it chose to refer to as the religious autonomy doctrine but which federal courts such as the Tenth Circuit have commonly referred to as the church autonomy doctrine. After examining federal and state cases on the subject, the trial court determined FPS' practice of the sacrament of baptism gave it ecclesiastical jurisdiction over questions centered on the performance of the sacrament. The trial court determined this included, pursuant to the Presbyterian Constitution, Book of Order, and church practices, the public nature of the sacrament and its publication online. Accordingly, the trial court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Appellant's claims, tortious and contractual, based on the performance and publication of his baptism. ¶10 Appellant appealed, filing his petition in error with this Court on July 18, 2016. Appellant alleged three issues to be raised on appeal: 1) did the district court err by ruling that the publication of Appellant's name and baptism on the internet constituted an ecclesiastical matter over which it had no jurisdiction, in spite of alleged promises of confidentiality made to Appellant; 2) did the trial court err by ruling it had no jurisdiction over the common law torts allegedly committed by the Appellees; and 3) even assuming the trial court lacked jurisdiction over FPS, did it err by finding it lacked jurisdiction over Miller for his torts, as an employee of the church. Appellees filed their response on August 3, 2016, and on that same date filed a motion to retain the appeal. This Court granted Appellees' motion to retain on August 17, 2016, and the cause was assigned to this office on August 18, 2016. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶11 The standard of review for questions concerning the jurisdictional power of the trial court to act is de novo. Dilliner v. Seneca-Cayuga Tribe, 2011 OK 61, ¶12, 258 P.3d 516; Jackson v. Jackson, 2002 OK 25, ¶2, 45 P.3d 418 ; Samman v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, 2001 OK 71, ¶8, 33 P.3d 302 . There was argument before the trial court as to whether Appellees' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 12 O.S. Supp. 2012 § 2012(B)(1) should have been converted, specifically into one for summary judgment due to the attachment of evidentiary materials. However, attachment and consideration of evidentiary materials does not require conversion of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 12 O.S. Supp. 2012 § 2012(B)(1). See State ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Okla. v. Lucas, 2013 OK 14, nn.9-10, 297 P.3d 378 . ¶12 A separate issue, and one not raised on appeal, is whether a motion to dismiss under 12 O.S. Supp. 2012 § 2012(B)(1) was the proper vehicle for Appellees' claims. Several of the Federal Circuits are in agreement that use of the church autonomy doctrine is more appropriately considered as a challenge to the sufficiency of a plaintiff's claims under Rule 12(B)(6), likening it to a defense of qualified immunity. See Petruska v. Gannon University, 462 F.3d 294, 302-03 (3rd Cir. 2006); Elvig v. Clavin Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951, 955 (9th Cir. 2004); Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colorado, 289 F.3d 648, 654-55 (10th Cir. 2002). However, where the secular courts are asked to interfere in purely ecclesiastical decisions, this Court has indicated that the subject matter jurisdiction of the civil courts is implicated. See Hadnot v. Shaw, 1992 OK 21, ¶27, 31, 826 P.2d 978 . For reasons discussed in Part IV of this opinion, infra., Appellees' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was proper. III. THE CHURCH AUTONOMY DOCTRINE ¶13 Civil courts are prohibited from reviewing internal church disputes involving matters of faith, doctrine, church governance, and polity. Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94 , 116-17, 73 S. Ct. 143, 97 L. Ed. 120 (1952); Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colorado, 289 F.3d 648, 655 (10th Cir. 2002). See Hadnot v. Shaw, 1991 OK 21, ¶31, 826 P.2d 978 . Sometimes called the "church autonomy doctrine", this principle is rooted in the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.1 Hadnot, 1991 OK 21, ¶31; Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U.S. 94 , 115-16, 73 S. Ct. 143, 97 L. Ed. 120; Bryce, 289 F.3d at 655. ¶14 The framework for the church autonomy doctrine was set out by the Supreme Court of the United States in Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 , 20 L. Ed. 666 (1871). In that decision, the Court explained: In this country the full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice any religious principle, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not violate the laws of morality and property, and which does not infringe personal rights, is conceded to all. The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect. The right to organize voluntary religious associations to assist in the expression and dissemination of any religious doctrine, and to create tribunals for the decision of controverted questions of faith within the association, and for the ecclesiastical government of all the individual members, congregations, and officers within the general association, is unquestioned. All who unite themselves to such a body do so with an implied consent to this government, and are bound to submit to it. But it would be a vain consent and would lead to the total subversion of such religious bodies, if any one aggrieved by one of their decisions could appeal to the secular courts and have them reversed. It is of the essence of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism itself provides for. Nor do we see that justice would be likely to be promoted by submitting those decisions to review in the ordinary judicial tribunals. Each of these large and influential bodies (to mention no others, let reference be had to the Protestant Episcopal, the Methodist Episcopal, and the Presbyterian churches), has a body of constitutional and ecclesiastical law of its own, to be found in their written organic laws, their books of discipline, in their collections of precedents, in their usage and customs, which as to each constitute a system of ecclesiastical law and religious faith that tasks the ablest minds to become familiar with. It is not to be supposed that the judges of the civil courts can be as competent in the ecclesiastical law and religious faith of all these bodies as the ablest men in each are in reference to their own. It would therefore be an appeal from the more learned tribunal in the law which should decide the case, to one which is less so. Watson, 80 U.S. at 728-29. ¶15 Over the years, the Supreme Court of the United States has continued to refine and apply the church autonomy doctrine. For example, in Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94 , 119-21, 73 S. Ct. 143, 97 L. Ed. 120 (1952), the Court declared unconstitutional a New York statute that would have forced the transfer of church property between church authorities. The Court favorably cited Watson, declaring it: [R]adiates … a spirit of freedom for religious organizations, an independence from secular control or manipulation, in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine. Freedom to select the clergy, where no improper methods of choice are proven, we think, must now be said to have federal constitutional protection as a part of the free exercise of religion against state interference. Kedroff, 344 U.S. at 116.2 The Court has also noted that the Church autonomy doctrine applies beyond selection of clergy and doctrine-related disputes over church property, covering other internal matters. See, e.g., Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 , 710, 96 S. Ct. 2372, 49 L. Ed. 2d 151 (1976) (holding the church autonomy doctrine "applies with equal force to church disputes over church polity and church administration."). Such matters include employment discrimination claims concerning the qualifications and hiring of ministers. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C., 132 S. Ct. 694, 705-706, 181 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2012). ¶16 This Court has applied the principles behind the church autonomy doctrine several times over the past few decades. In Guinn v. Church of Christ Collinsville, 1989 OK 8, ¶¶12-23, 775 P.2d 766 , we rejected liability for tort claims made by an appellee against a church for disciplinary actions taken against her while she was a member. The cause bears some similarity to this one, in that the claims made by the appellee did not attack the church's disciplinary action on the basis it contravened established church polity, but rather because the church's actions--whether or not in conformity to established church doctrine--amounted to a tortious invasion of her rights. Guinn, 1989 OK 8, ¶17. Similarly, in this cause, Appellant does not dispute the doctrinal sufficiency of his baptism. Rather, he asserts multiple claims in tort based upon harm he suffered after his baptism and its publication, regardless of whether those acts were in conformity with established church doctrine. ¶17 In Guinn, we discussed the limitations of the church autonomy doctrine's prohibition on subject matter jurisdiction in the context of tort claims, holding: Unlike the instant controversy, the class of religious dispute which the Court has traditionally held to be outside the purview of civil judicature involves arguments among members over interpretation of church doctrine, or over actions taken pursuant to an allegedly incorrect construction of church rules. Because the controversy in the instant case is concerned with the allegedly tortious nature of religiously-motivated acts and not with their orthodoxy vis-a-vis established church doctrine, the justification for judicial abstention is nonexistent and the theory does not apply. The dispute between Parishioner and the Elders is clearly not immune from secular judicature and was properly before the trial court. Guinn, 1989 OK 8, ¶¶17-18 (footnotes omitted). However, this did not end our inquiry, and we applied a different test concerning the appellee's claims: Nevertheless, the nisi prius decision holding the Elders responsible in tort, and the subsequent verdict imposing liability, present a judicial and thus state interference with the alleged exercise of First Amendment rights which may not be sanctioned lest it pass constitutional muster. In testing the constitutionality of the court's action against the Elders and the jury's verdict in Parishioner's favor, the proper inquiry is whether, on the record, the Elders' decision to discipline Parishioner constituted such a threat to the public safety, peace or order that it justified the state trial court's decision to pursue the compelling interest of providing its citizens with a means of vindicating their rights conferred by tort law. Guinn, 1989 OK 8, ¶18. This court determined that the church's disciplinary actions, involving withdrawal of fellowship and notification of her transgressions to the congregation, did not justify government interference on the grounds that it posed a serious threat to public safety, health, or welfare. Guinn, 1989 OK 8, ¶¶19-20. ¶18 In Hadnot v. Shaw, 1992 OK 21, ¶¶ 26-32, 826 P.2d 978 , this Court reaffirmed the protection provided to churches to discipline their members free from outside interference from the courts, and backed away from the tort exception stressed in Guinn. Specifically, this Court stated: The Free Exercise Clause prohibits civil courts from inquiring into any phase of ecclesiastical decisionmaking - its merits as well as procedure. Internal ecclesiastical procedure need not meet any "constitutional concept of due process." This is [826 P.2d 989] so because the church's judicature rests solely on consent which in turn is anchored on the ecclesiastical respondent's church affiliation. Because religious judicature is immune from any civil court inquest, it is also protected from intrusion by discovery. The church's immunity from disclosure rests neither on a statute nor a code of evidence. Rather its shield is of a constitutional dimension. It is founded on the Free Exercise Clause's prohibition against secular re-examination of merits and procedure in ecclesiastical judicature. In sum, if a matter lies within ecclesiastical cognizance, the church stands protected from any interference by the Free Exercise Clause. If it oversteps proper bounds, it will run afoul of the Establishment Clause insofar as its use of the state power may be in furtherance of a religious cause. As stated in Prince v. Commonwealth, ". . . religious activities which concern only members of the faith are and ought to be free - as nearly absolutely free as anything can be." Hadnot, 1992 OK 21, ¶31 (footnotes omitted). ¶19 In Bladen v. First Presbyterian Church of Sallisaw, 1993 OK 105, ¶¶26-28, 857 P.2d 789 , this Court refused to determine the nature of the advice a minister must give during counseling sessions with a parishioner, declined to recognize a claim for bad advice from a minister, and further declined to recognize a claim for failure to provide counseling. In doing so, we noted: The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment may shield a church from tort liability on a parishioner's suit when the church's act occurs in the context of the church's ecclesiastical jurisdiction. [857 P.2d 792] In Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville, 775 P.2d 766 (Okl. 1989) we explained that the plaintiff's recovery on the basis of the torts of outrage and invasion of privacy could not be sustained in a civil court when the acts alleged to be tortious were the ecclesiastical disciplinary acts of a church against its member. We followed this rule in Hadnot v. Shaw, 826 P.2d 978 (Okl. 1992). The First Amendment does not shield a religious institution from all tort liability. Tort liability for a church may arise from acts unrelated to religious practices protected by the First Amendment. For example, where the degree of care a church uses in maintaining property is unrelated to its religious beliefs and practices, and a person is damaged as a result of the church's maintenance of the property, a tort action may proceed. Some jurisdictions have determined that a church may likewise be liable under some circumstances for the intentional torts of its employees. Similarly, tort liability may be imposed upon the Elders of a church for tortious acts beyond the constitutionally protected religious practices of a church. Bladen, 1993 OK 105, ¶¶11-12 (footnotes omitted). ¶20 While the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and prior decisions of this Court set out the boundaries of the church autonomy doctrine in broad strokes, the trial court correctly noted that this particular matter is one of first impression in Oklahoma. Given the federal law nature of the church autonomy doctrine, however, the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colorado. 289 F.3d 648 (10th Cir. 2002) is particularly instructive.3 ¶21 In Bryce, the Tenth Circuit considered claims of sexual harassment made by a former minister and her partner, against the former minister's church over comments made and actions taken by the church concerning the plaintiffs' sexuality. 289 F.3d 648 at 651-53. The Tenth Circuit determined the threshold inquiry for application of the church autonomy doctrine to be whether the alleged misconduct is rooted in religious belief. Bryce, 289 F.3d at 657 (citing Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 , 215, 92 S. Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d. 15 (1972)).4 The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reached a similar conclusion in Bell v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 126 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 1997), which the Bryce court noted. The Fourth Circuit determined: The question that we must resolve in the case before us, therefore, is whether the dispute between Bell and the four national churches is an ecclesiastical one about "discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom or law," or whether it is a case in which we should hold religious organizations liable in civil courts for "purely secular disputes between third parties and a particular defendant, albeit a religiously affiliated organization." Bell, 126 F.3d at 331. ¶22 Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit in Bryce framed the question it had to consider thus: Bryce and Smith complain about allegedly sexually harassing remarks made in written correspondence between Rev. Henderson and other church leaders, and remarks made at a series of church meetings. We must determine whether the defendants' alleged statements were ecclesiastical statements protected by church autonomy or purely secular ones. 289 F.3d at 657. After an examination of the statements made by the church and its leadership in the context of the greater doctrinal debate within the church over homosexuality, the Tenth Circuit concluded: The statements made at the church meetings, in Rev. Henderson's letters, and in materials Rev. Henderson attached to his letters may be offensive, and some of the statements may be incorrect, but they are not actionable. The defendants' alleged statements fall squarely within the areas of church governance and doctrine protected by the First Amendment. Rev. Henderson's letters to other church leaders discussed an internal church personnel matter and the doctrinal reasons for his proposed personnel decision. The series of meetings addressed the same issues, and also facilitated religious communication and religious dialogue between a minister and his parishioners. At the time the offensive statements were made, Bryce was an employee of the church subject to its internal governance procedures. Bryce, 289 P.3d at 658. ¶23 Finally, the Tenth Circuit distinguished its decision in Bryce from this Court's decision in Guinn, discussed supra. The Tenth Circuit determined that the former minister in Bryce voluntarily attended the church's meetings and chose to become part of the dialogue on sexuality and her employment, as opposed to the Guinn plaintiff's withdrawal of membership, which this Court determined made her no longer subject to the church's internal discipline and its subsequent conduct actionable. Compare Bryce, 289 F.3d at 658 with Guinn, 1989 OK 8, ¶¶51-54 (holding church could be liable for publication of details of a parishioner's private life after withdrawal of membership). It is with these principles in mind that we turn to Appellant's claims. IV. PURSUANT TO THE CHURCH AUTONOMY DOCTRINE, THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DISMISSED APPELLANT'S CLAIMS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ¶24 With the above principles in mind, application to this cause may be considered. At the start, this Court notes that the parties agree Appellant never became a member of FPC. Though he does not urge it on appeal, Appellant's lack of membership was a core facet of his argument before the trial court that he had not consented to FPC's ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Appellant argued, based on prior decisions of this Court, that a church's jurisdiction exists as the result of the mutual agreement between that body and its member. Hadnot v. Shaw, 1992 OK 21, ¶26, 826 P.2d 978 . See Guinn v. Church of Christ Collinsville, 1989 OK 8, ¶¶32-50, 775 P.2d 144. Hadnot and Guinn both concerned the exercise of Church discipline over former members, and the manner in which withdrawal of membership and/or excommunication would bring an end to ecclesiastical disciplinary authority. However, in Hadnot, this Court noted: "[w]hile excommunication would put an end to jurisdiction over any further offense, it does not abrogate the consequences flowing from the previously announced Church judicature." Hadnot, 1992 OK 21, ¶27. ¶25 In this cause, while Appellant never became a member of FPC, it is unquestioned that he consented--and in fact specifically requested--to be baptized into the Christian faith at FPC by Miller. Applying the principles of Guinn and the church autonomy doctrine, the courts lack jurisdiction over any actions related to Appellant's baptism that are rooted in religious belief, even if Appellant was not a full member of FPC or later broke off any connection to FPC. See Bladen, 1993 OK 105, ¶¶11-12; Hadnot, 1992 OK 21, ¶27; Bryce, 289 F.3d 648 at 657. However, it is not the baptism itself of which Appellant complains. Rather, his tort and contract claims are predicated on his baptism's publication on the internet, which he claims resulted in his relatives' discovery of his baptism while he was in Syria. ¶26 The question this Court must determine is therefore this: is the publication of Appellant's baptism on the internet an act rooted in religious belief such that it occurs in the context of the Appellees' ecclesiastical jurisdiction, with the result that Appellant's tort and contract claims based on the publication cannot be sustained in the civil courts? We agree with the determination of the trial court and hold that it is. ¶27 The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) provides for two sacraments, one of which is baptism. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Ex. 5, pp. 39, 184. The record indicates that the public nature of baptism is an integral part of the Presbyterian Church's understanding of the sacrament. For example, the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) provides: "By baptism, individuals are publicly received into the church to share into the church to share in its life and ministry…" Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Ex. 5, p. 261. ¶28 The Book of Order, which is the second part of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), provides that "Baptism is celebrated in a service of public worship" outside of extraordinary circumstances, such as in hospitals and prisons. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Ex. 4, p. 93. The Book of Order further outlines the responsibilities of the session for baptism, including that it is responsible for: c. admitting to Baptism, after appropriate instruction and examination, those not yet baptized who come making public their personal profession of faith; d. placing all baptized persons on the appropriate roll as members of the congregation Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Ex. 4, p. 94. The session is also required to maintain the register of baptisms: "[t]here shall be registers of baptisms authorized by the session, of ruling elders and deacons, of installed pastors with dates of service, and such other registers as the session shall deem necessary." Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Ex. 4, p. 50. ¶29 Robbie Emery Burke, a Ruling Elder of the First Presbyterian Church of Tulsa, stated in his affidavit concerning the public nature of baptism: 10. Affiant states that the sacrament of Baptism within the PCUSA churches is a church ritual celebrated in a ceremony of public worship. Baptism is considered a public profession of faith. 11. Any Baptism conducted by the Church is required to be memorialized or recorded in the Parish Register. All baptisms are traditionally reported and published in congregation publications as part of the celebrated life of the Church. 12. Churches throughout Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery publish the names of those being baptized in their Sunday Bulletins and newsletters, which are also frequently made available on the World Wide Web. 13. The First Presbyterian Church of Tulsa has announced and listed the names of all those being baptized in the Sunday Bulletin since I began attending the Church in 1983. These customs are based on the Presbyterian belief that Baptisms are public declarations of faith and should be celebrated publicly. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Ex. 6, pp. 1-2. In his own Affidavit, Miller stated he performed Appellant's baptism in a "public service open to all members and guests of the church." Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Ex. 1, p. 1. Miller further stated: "[a]fter being called to the front of the Church, Plaintiff voluntarily walked forward, identified himself, and expressed his desire to be baptized by me in front of all members and guests present…" Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Ex. 1, pp. 1-2. Miller's statements concerning the recording requirements of baptism are in accord with Burke's, and Miller stated: 12. Baptism is a declaration of the Christian faith and is celebrated publically. All baptisms performed at the Church are required by the Constitution to be reported and recorded in the Parish Register. 13. In accordance with the belief that baptism is a public declaration of faith, it is the long-standing custom and practice of the Church each week to report in the Sunday bulletin the name of any person who was baptized the previous Sunday. This has been the custom and practice of the church since before my becoming senior pastor of the Church in 1992. The bulletin, or Order of Worship, is a written publication, customarily distributed to attendees of Sunday worship services, delivered to individuals who are unable to attend services in person, and made available on the Church's website. 14. Plaintiff's name was listed in the bulletin the week after his baptism in keeping with the tradition, custom, and practice of the Church. Plaintiff never requested that the Church depart from its normal practices in conducting his baptism. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Ex. 1, pp. 2 ¶30 The record supports what the trial court determined to be the key portion of Appellees' argument in their motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction: The Book of Order is Part II of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). It requires that baptisms be recorded in the minutes of the Church Session and be made publically available as part of the Parish Register. In accordance with longstanding custom and practice of the Church, Parish Register updates, including baptismal records, are included in the Order of Worship. The Order of Worship is a weekly publication of the Church. This Publication is always distributed to attendees of worship services, is delivered to individuals who are unable to attend series in person, and is made available on the Church website. This is the practice and custom because of the Presbyterian belief that Baptism, as one of two sacraments of the Presbyterian Church, is a declaration of faith to be celebrated publicly. This has been the custom and practice of the Church for decades. Order On Hearing Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, pp. 5-6; Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, pp.1-2. ¶31 Appellant argues that the Appellees' conduct in posting an announcement of his baptism on the internet should be considered separately from the act of baptism itself, and should fall outside of the protection of the First Amendment: "[i]n short, Plaintiff's lawsuit falls in the 'conduct' exception to the absolute protection of the First Amendment. It is not Plaintiff's baptism that caused his harm, it was the act of posting an announcement of his baptism on the internet for the world to see." Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 7. Appellant relies upon this Court's decision in Guinn, 1989 OK 8, ¶¶17-18, where we declined to apply the full protection of the religious autonomy doctrine to tort claims based upon religiously-motivated conduct, because the claims sounded in tort and were not an attempt to dispute the doctrinal propriety of the complained of acts. ¶32 Appellant's application of Guinn, however, is not in accord with more recent precedent concerning the reach of the church autonomy doctrine. Soon after Guinn was decided, in Hadnot, this Court backed away from any broad exception for torts. In Hadnot, we considered a different set of tort claims raised by former members of a church allegedly committed in the process of church discipline. Making no distinction concerning whether the tortious conduct was religiously motivated or not, this Court determined: Until it is so terminated, the church has authority to prescribe and follow disciplinary ordinances without fear of interference by the state. The First Amendment will protect and shield the religious body from liability for the activities carried on pursuant to the exercise of church discipline. Within the context of ecclesiastical discipline, churches enjoy an absolute privilege from scrutiny by the secular authority. Hadnot, 1992 OK 21, ¶26. ¶33 In Bladen, we simply stated that the First Amendment may shield a church from tort liability on a parishioner's suit when the church's act occurs in the context of the church's ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 1993 OK 105, ¶11, 857 P.2d 789 . We recognized that the First Amendment does not shield from all tort liability, using as an example someone being injured due to a church's property maintenance when the degree of care a church used to maintain the property was unrelated to its religious beliefs and practices. Bladen, 1993 OK 105, ¶12.5 ¶34 Unlike the example given in Bladen, the manner in which Appellant's baptism was conducted, including its subsequent publication online, was rooted in religious belief. See Bryce, 289 F.3d at 657; Yoder, 406 U.S. at 215. The context of the online posting of Appellant's baptism is not secular. Appellant's tort claims all rest on an act that, per church doctrine, is an integral part of what the church considers to be the public nature of the sacrament. Because Appellant's tort claims arise from the performance of his baptism, this dispute is one over ecclesiastical rule, custom or law, and is not purely secular. Bryce, 289 F.3d at 657; Bell v. Presbyterian Church, 126 F.3d 328, 331 (4th Cir. 1997). Just as the church in Bryce had the right to freely engage in ecclesiastical discussion with members and non-members, even if those discussions were the crux of alleged torts, so does FPC have the right to conduct the sacrament of baptism in accordance with custom and doctrine, even if doing so resulted in alleged torts against Appellant, who himself requested the sacrament be administered. See Bryce, 289 F.3d at 658. ¶35 It must be noted that our holding is a limited one, given the manner in which Appellant's claims are inextricably tied to the doctrinal requirements of baptism. We are not overturning Guinn or establishing here that the courts lack jurisdiction over all religiously-motivated tort claims. Appellant's tort and contract claims in this matter cannot be separated from the doctrinal requirements of the baptism he asked for, performed by Appellees. It is this entanglement that moves this dispute into the realm of one about discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law. See Bryce, 289 F.3d at 657; Bell, 126 F.3d at 331. CONCLUSION ¶36 Recognizing the importance of the autonomy of religious institutions within the framework of the United States legal system, the courts must refrain from undue interference with religious beliefs and practices. Appellant exercised his right to convert to Christianity and accord his religious beliefs with the demands of his conscience. Similarly, Appellees exercised their right to perform the sacrament of baptism in accordance with the doctrine and a custom of the Church. It is not the role of the courts to adjudicate a dispute between Appellant and Appellees over the publication of Appellant's baptism in accord with Church practice, even if Appellant was harmed by his baptism and its subsequent publication. Per the church autonomy doctrine, the courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over the matter. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is affirmed. ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT IS AFFIRMED CONCUR: COMBS, C.J., WATT, WINCHESTER, REIF, JJ., and BUETTNER, S.J. CONCUR IN PART; DISSENT IN PART: GURICH, V.C.J. and KAUGER, J. (by separate writing) DISSENT: COLBERT, J. NOT PARTICIPATING: EDMONDSON, J. NOT PRESENT AND NOT PARTICIPATING: WYRICK, J. FOOT