wfn.org | Trust clause is 'tie that binds' United Methodists

[NewsDesk <NewsDesk@UMCOM.UMC.ORG>]

June 4, 1998	Contact: Thomas S. McAnally· (615)742-5470· Nashville,
Tenn.    {341}

A UMNS Feature
by Tom McAnally*

A United Methodist pastor decides to leave the denomination and wants to
take the congregation - and building - only to discover an impediment
called the "trust clause." 

This doesn't happen often, but it might surprise members of a United
Methodist congregation to learn they can't take their church, even
though their names may be on the deed. 

The denomination's trust clause policy was instituted by Methodism's
founder, John Wesley, in England and transported to American Methodism
in the 1700s. It has been upheld by courts throughout the 200-plus years
of the denomination in the United States.

In a recent article released by the church's General Council on Finance
and Administration, legal counsel Mary Logan points to research by the
Rev. John Topolewski. The Vestal, N.Y., pastor reports that Wesley
created a model deed to protect the security of the "preaching house" as
a place for itinerant pastors to serve and followers to worship.
Topolewski's paper, titled "Mr. Wesley's Trust Clause: Methodism in the
Vernacular," will appear in the April 1999 issue of Methodist History, a
quarterly publication of the church's Commission on Archives and History
in Madison, N.J. 

In the words of an early scholar, Wesley said Methodist properties
"cannot be alienated from their original intent and are not subject to
the theological or ecclesiastical fancies of local leadership." The
trust clause, in the church's governing Book of Discipline, means
plainly that United Methodists cannot leave the denomination and take
the property with them.

"Local church conflicts over ownership of local church property are as
old as the church," Logan notes, citing examples from Topolewski's
research. In 1820, John Street Church in New York faced a crisis when
the local trustees adopted a policy regarding property and pastoral
compensation that differed from that of the annual conference. During
the civil rights era in the 1960s, schism was a threat based on intense
feelings about racial separatism and equality, Logan recalled.

"Dare I ask where we would be today as a strong denomination with
historic and cultural ties and traditions, had John Wesley and (early
American bishop) Thomas Coke not had the foresight to protect the
preaching house for Methodists to use for time immemorial?" Logan asks
in her article. "How many churches would be left in the denomination if
ecclesiastical 'divorce' were easy? Are we not thankful in 1998 that we
stuck it out during troubled times, even if the only reason at the time,
in the heat of our passionate anger about an issue, was because we
couldn't 'take the property and run'?" 

Logan said the trust clause is a "sacred trust, not only for us but for
future generations. We fail to honor this sacred trust when we
individually think that we alone know best how these valuable resources
should be used."

In United Methodism, Logan explained, the trust clause is interwoven
with "conference," in which individuals and congregations are in
ministry with one another, and "itineracy," the church's long-standing
practice of assigning clergy to places of ministry. 

"Conferencing and itineracy as core concepts of United Methodist polity
make clear that we are not a congregational church, but rather a
connectional church: we are 'connected' to one another through
conferencing and itineracy, on a journey together in connection and in
covenant with one another," she said. "The trust clause further bears
this out."
# # #
McAnally is director of United Methodist News Service.

Full text of the Logan article follows. Topolewski's paper is available
from the GCFA legal department, (847) 869-3345, Ext. 6701. 

United Methodist churches, conferences and agencies may freely
distribute or reproduce this paper, provided it is reproduced without
alteration. Copyright 1998 Mary Logan. All rights reserved.

The Trust Clause: Who Owns Our Church?
by Mary Logan, General Counsel
The General Council on Finance and Administration
May 1998

"What do you mean, we don't own our church? We built it with sweat
equity and funds raised the old fashion way. Our name is on the deed.
Have you lost your mind? Of course we own it!"

How many times have you heard this, or something like it, from
well-meaning United Methodists, from disgruntled United Methodists, and
from persons who want to be called former United Methodists? It is
rarely spoken in Christian love. It is always spoken with a lack of
understanding of the "trust clause" and the core polity of the United
Methodist denomination.

In order to understand the denomination's polity about church property,
it is helpful to understand two important terms: conferencing and
itineracy, terms used frequently in the vocabulary of theologians (as
the rest of us scratch our heads in confusion or wonder).1

Conferencing is a wonderfully simple and yet richly complex term used in
many contexts in the denomination. Loosely speaking, the conference is a
group of persons and/or churches that have covenanted to be in ministry
with one another: the charge conference, the annual or central
conference, the General Conference. More formally, conference refers to
a body of clergy and laity that exercises certain legislative, judicial
and executive functions for the body. The term also is used in the
context of time (from conference to conference), geographical areas (the
number of charges in an annual conference, etc.), and as a method of
discussing Christian issues to discern God's will from the collective
wisdom of a group. All of these uses of the term conference are
fundamental to the polity of this "connectional" denomination.

Itineracy of course refers to the traveling preachers, the appointment
of clergy by the bishop to wherever their gifts are best used to meet
the needs of the ministry. A visual image of the circuit rider comes to
mind.

So, you ask, how in the world do these two terms relate to our ownership
of our church? Conference and itineracy as core concepts of United
Methodist polity make clear that we are not a congregational church, but
rather a connectional church: we are "connected" to one another through
conferencing and itineracy, on a journey together in connection and in
covenant with one another. The trust clause further bears this out. John
Wesley created a model deed (transported to America by Thomas Coke), to
protect the security of the "preaching house," as a place for the
itinerant pastor to serve and followers to worship. Wesley's rational
for this model deed was, as follows:

				"The chapel shall not be the private
property of the trustees; and that if any of these trustees should
change their sentiments, or from any other cause should be inclined to
give the occupation of the chapel to some other party of professors of
religion, they shall not have power to do so . . . only so as to secure
it in perpetuity for the purpose for which it was built.2

Thus, conferencing, itineracy and the trust clause are woven together as
part of the quilt that defines Methodism as a connectional, not
congregational, church. Yes, the local church has its name on the deed
and legally "owns" the property, and the local church trustees are
responsible for that property. However, the ownership is in trust for
the future of United Methodism, as a part of the covenant relationship
that every United Methodist has with one another.

Local church conflicts over ownership of local church property are as
old as the church. For example, in 1820, the John Street Church in New
York City faced a crisis when the local trustees adopted a policy
regarding property and pastoral compensation which differed from that of
the annual conference; the New Haven Methodist Church experienced
discord in the 1820's, when church members were angry with the dismissal
of a lay member who had been accused, wrongly they felt, of dishonesty.
Think back to a more recent time of the civil rights era in the 1960's,
when schism was a constant threat based on intense feelings about racial
separatism and equality.

Dare I ask where we would be today as a strong denomination with
historic and cultural ties and traditions, had John Wesley and Thomas
Coke not had the foresight to protect the preaching house for Methodists
to use for time immemorial? How many churches would be left in the
denomination if ecclesiastical "divorce" were easy? Are we not all
thankful in 1998 that we stuck it out during troubled times, even if the
only reason at the time, in the heat of our passionate anger about an
issue, was because we couldn't "take the property and run?"

The trust clause is a constant reminder that our ancestors have
entrusted us with local church property, to nurture and grow toward the
common goal of inviting, teaching and sending Christians to do God's
work. "Our church" is foundational to the Christian faith; we are the
temporary custodians of resources that ultimately belong to God. It is
indeed a sacred trust, not only for us but for future generations. We
fail to honor this sacred trust when we individually think that we along
know best how these valuable resources should be used.

So, what does all this mean? When you drive by a United Methodist church
in another town, state or country, you can proudly say, "that's my
church!" Who owns it? The local church is the legal owner and custodian
of the property, acting through its trustees. But, thanks to John
Wesley, and regardless of how the deed is written, the local church
holds the property in trust for you and future generations of United
Methodists. Let us give thanks!3

1 For those who are theologians, experts on United Methodist history, or
prefer to speak with precision - and for those who may want to take what
I say literally - I beg your indulgence as I speak conceptually and not
with precision, in an effort to teach and assist those who do not
understand the trust clause and have neither the time nor the
inclination to study Methodist history.
2 Quoted in "Mr. Wesley's Trust Clause: Methodism in the Vernacular," by
Rev. John Topolewski, at pages 8-9, quoting from Portraiture of
Methodism, or The History of the Wesleyan Methodists, by Jonathan
Crowther (London: Richard Edwards, 1815) at 308. Wesley also state the
notion like this: "Properties cannot be alienated from their original
intent and are not subject to the theological or ecclesiastical fancies
of local leadership." Topolewski, at page 12.
3 The author gratefully acknowledges the background sources that were
invaluable in preparing this piece: The 1996 Book of Discipline, ¶¶2501,
2503; The 1992 Book of Discipline, ¶112; Tuell, Jack, The Organization
of The United Methodist Church (Abingdon Press, Revised 1997-2000 Ed);
Richey, Russell, The Methodist Conference in America (Abingdon Press,
1996); Topolewski, John, "Mr. Wesley's Trust Clause; Methodism in the
Vernacular," and Campbell Marshall, Linda "The Conference Owns Our
Church!(?)!"

United Methodist News Service
(615)742-5470
Releases and photos also available at
http://www.umc.org/umns/