Id. 728-29.

This doctrine was recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 96 S.Ct. 2372, 49 L.Ed.2d 151 (1976):

In short, the First and Fourteenth Amendments permit hierarchical religious organizations to establish their own rules and regulations for internal discipline and government, and to create tribunals for adjudicating disputes over these matters. When this choice is exercised and ecclesiastical tribunals are created to decide disputes over the government and direction of subordinate bodies, the Constitution requires that civil courts accept their decisions as binding upon them.

Id. at 724-25, 96 S.Ct. at 2387-88.

Simpson v. Wells Lamont Corporation, 494 F.2d 490 (5th Cir.1974) is similar to the instant case. There an expelled United Methodist minister sought damages and other relief against his bishop and denominational officials. The Fifth Circuit dismissed the action in a strongly worded opinion:

This case involves the fundamental question of who will preach from the pulpit of a church, and who will occupy the church parsonage. The bare statement of the question should make obvious the lack of jurisdiction of a civil court. The answer to that question must come from the church.

Id. at 492.

Quoting, with approval, from the district court opinion, the court said:

"[N]o matter how one may look at this dispute, it had to do with the substance and content of the very words uttered within the church itself, going right to the heart of the doctrine and beliefs and types of sermons that are delivered in churches. Now, the church is a sanctuary, if one exists anywhere, immune from the rule or subjection to the authority of the civil courts, either state or federal, by virtue of the First Amendment."

Id. 492-93.

Appellant, however, relies on dictum in Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, 280 U.S. 1, 50 S.Ct. 5, 74 L.Ed. 131 (1929), to support his argument that there exists an exception to this general rule of deference where cases involve "fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness," and that this case falls within that exception. There, the Court said:

In the absence of fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness, the decisions of the proper church tribunals on matters purely ecclesiastical, although affecting civil rights, are accepted in litigation before the secular courts as conclusive, because the parties in interest made them so by contract or otherwise.

Id. at 16, 50 S.Ct. at 7.

The Court dealt with this language in Milivojevich, supra, saying:

Gonzalez first adverted to the possibility of "marginal civil court review," ... in cases challenging decisions of ecclesiastical tribunals as products of "fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness." However, since there was "not even a suggestion that [the Archbishop] exercised his authority [in making the chaplaincy decision] arbitrarily," 280 U.S., at 18, 50 S.Ct., at 8, the suggested "fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness" exception to the Watson rule was dictum only. And although references to the suggested exception appear in opinions in cases decided since the Watson rule has been held to be mandated by the First Amendment, no decision of this Court has given concrete content to or applied the "exception." ...

... We have concluded that whether or not there is room for "marginal civil court review" under the narrow rubrics of "fraud" or "collusion" when church tribunals act in bad faith for secular purposes, no "arbitrariness" exception--in the sense of an inquiry whether the decisions of the highest ecclesiastical tribunal of a hierarchical church complied with church laws and regulations--is consistent with the constitutional mandate that civil courts are bound to accept the decisions of the highest judicatories of a religious organization of hierarchical polity on matters of discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law. For civil courts to analyze whether the ecclesiastical actions of a church judicatory are in that sense "arbitrary" must inherently entail inquiry into the procedures that canon or ecclesiastical law supposedly requires the church judicatory to follow, or else into the substantive criteria by which they are supposedly to decide the ecclesiastical question. But this is exactly the inquiry that the First Amendment prohibits; recognition of such an exception would undermine the general rule that religious controversies are not the proper subject of civil court inquiry, and that a civil court must accept the ecclesiastical decisions of church tribunals as it finds them.

Id., 426 U.S. at 712-13, 96 S.Ct. at 2381-82.

It is true that no issue of fraud or collusion was involved in Milivojevich since the only claim was of arbitrariness. Id. at 713 n. 7, 96 S.Ct. at 2832. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Court has established a firm policy protecting First Amendment rights that prohibits inquiry into ecclesiastical decisions in a hierarchical church, absent the most unusual circumstances. As pointed out in Ellman, Driven From The Tribunal; Judicial Resolution of Internal Church Disputes, 69 Cal.L.R. 1378, 1987 (1981):

[T]he only exception to strict deference apparently left open by [Milivojevich] was "marginal review" for fraud or collusion and the possibility of such review was not endorsed, but merely left for later consideration.

This Court finds no basis for intervention in in the instant case. There is no showing of such egregious action by the hierarchical authorities of the United Methodist Church to justify court interference, if such interference is even permitted under Milivojevich. Assuming, without deciding, that review is allowed for fraud or collusion, it is still only allowed for fraud or collusion of the most serious nature undermining the very authority of the decision-making body. Certainly there is no claim or showing of such fraud or collusion here. And we emphasize that we do not hold that such great fraud would be a basis for court interference. We merely state that possibility has been left open by the Supreme Court, but further state there is no showing whatever in this case that such egregious conduct occurred.

Appellant cites as authority for his position Alberts v. Devine, 395 Mass. 59, 479 N.E.2d 113 (1985), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 546, 88 L.Ed.2d 475 (1985). There a Methodist minister brought an action against his psychiatrist and two of his clerical superiors. The minister alleged that his superiors had induced the psychiatrist to disclose confidential information about the minister, and had then used that information to block his reappointment as minister. The court held, among other things, that even if The Discipline or other rule of the Church gave the minister's clerical superiors the right or duty to seek medical information from his psychiatrist, the First Amendment did not preclude imposition of liability on the superiors, nor did it bar judicial inquiry into the church's proceedings culminating in the minister's failure to gain reappointment.

The facts in Alberts are significantly different from the facts in this case, and the case can therefore be distinguished. We do not find the case to be a suitable precedent for the relief sought by appellant here. It involves an entirely different issue with respect to confidentiality between a patient and a psychiatrist. It is possible, in a fact situation such as Alberts, this Court could find jurisdiction, but clearly the case does not provide a basis for jurisdiction here because of the very different factual situation.

Appellant also argues that this case can be decided by application of the "neutral principles" doctrine most recently discussed in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 99 S.Ct. 3020, 61 L.Ed.2d 775 (1979). That Court expressly noted, however, that the "neutral principles" exception to the usual rule of deference applies only to cases involving disputes over church property. Quoting Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440, 449, 89 S.Ct. 601, 606, 21 L.Ed.2d 658 (1969), the Court said:

[T]here are neutral principles of law, developed for use in all property disputes, which can be applied without "establishing" churches to which property is awarded.

Id., 443 U.S. at 599, 99 S.Ct. at 3023 (emphasis added).

But this case does not involve a dispute over church property. The "neutral principles" doctrine has never been extended to religious controversies in the areas of church government, order and discipline, nor should it be. The claim here relates to appellant's status and employment as a minister of the church. It therefore concerns internal church discipline, faith, and organization, all of which are governed by ecclesiastical rule, custom, and law. See Kaufmann v. Sheehan, 707 F.2d 355, 358 (8th Cir.1983). The neutral principles doctrine relating to church property is simply not applicable in the instant case.

Numerous other federal courts have found federal subject matter jurisdiction lacking in cases such as this.^[1] The Fourth Circuit in Rayburn v. General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164 (4th Cir.1985) recently held that the First Amendment prevented application of Title VII protection to an Associate in Pastoral Care in the Seventh-day Adventist Church:

The role of an associate in pastoral care is so significant in the expression and realization of Seventh-day Adventist beliefs that state intervention in the appointment process would excessively inhibit religious liberty.

Id. at 1168.

The same reasoning is applicable in the instant case, which involves a church decision on the status of one of its ministers. It is therefore clear that the action of the district court in dismissing the case was proper, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.^[2]