Challenge To Church Governance Matters Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Azige v. Holy Trinity Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahdo Church, (NC App., Sept. 6, 2016), a North Carolina state appellate court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a lawsuit by a faction of church members alleging that the church bylaws had been violated in extending the terms of certain parish council members and in taking other actions.  The court said in part:

Although plaintiffs seek to present this dispute as a simple procedural disagreement over the adoption of bylaws in accord with proper procedure, the substance of the complaint belies this claim. The amended complaint alleges that each plaintiff is “a registered member” of the church; defendants dispute their membership....

Membership in a church is a core ecclesiastical matter. The power to control church membership is ultimately the power to control the church. It is an area where the courts of this State should not become involved.... 

The issues before us would require interpretation of the bylaws which do impose doctrinal requirements. Even if a declaration of plaintiffs’ status as registered members is not specifically the issue before us, in order to determine if plaintiffs even have standing to bring the other issues or to determine if the correct number of members voted for the challenged amendments, the trial court would need to address the contested membership status...

Settling Factional Dispute Would Involve Civil Court In Religious Matters

In Samuel v. Lakew, (DC Ct. App., June 11, 2015), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court's dismissal of a lawsuit between two factions of the Kedus Gabriel Parish (located in D.C.) of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church in the Diaspora.  The parent church's Holy Synod had ruled that the president of the local church and the head of the Parish Administrative Council should surrender all keys and property of the Parish to the Archbishop of the Washington Metropolitan area.  They refused to do so, and the Archbishop sued seeking an injunction requiring them to comply with the Holy Synod's ruling.  The DC court held that the true dispute was over whether a clause in Kedus Gabriel's bylaws giving the  Holy Synod responsibility for the congregation's "spiritual and religious matters" gives the Holy Synod authority to remove Kedus Gabriel’s elected officers here.  Deciding whether the Holy Synod's decision here involved spiritual or religious matters would involve the court in an impermissible inquiry into religious doctrine and practice in violation of the First Amendment. The court concluded:

Informed by both parties’ summary judgment papers that the dispute here at bottom is about which clergy have the right to control Kedus Gabriel, Judge Kravitz properly denied relief, on the ground that “the First Amendment does not permit a civil court to determine the religious leader of a religious institution[.]”