Their decision to so proceed was based on their interpretation of Matthew 18:15-20, an inherently ecclesiastical matter. We hold that court interference with that decision through imposition of tort liability in this case would impinge upon matters of church governance in violation of the First Amendment. See Milivojevich, 426 U.S. at 713, 96 S.Ct. 2372 (noting that an inquiry into whether the church complied with church laws and regulations is prohibited by the First Amendment); see also United Methodist Church, Baltimore Annual Conference, v. White, 571 A.2d 790, 794 (D.C.1990) (stating “secular evaluation of the procedures that ecclesiastical or cannon law requires the church to follow is precisely the type of inquiry the First Amendment prohibits”); Minker, 894 F.2d at 1358-59 (<HOLDING>); Hafner, 616 F.Supp. at 737-39 (dismissing
holding that courts interpret indemnity provisions same as written contracts holding that lack of justiciable interest resulted in lack of standing to pursue claim and that lack of standing deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to act recognizing the lack of case law governing jurisdiction of preincorporation activities recognizing that the rules of statutory construction apply when we interpret constitutional provisions holding civil courts lack jurisdiction to interpret provisions of the united methodist churchs book of discipline governing pastoral appointments