| Department Resources |
Footnotes
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.
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
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 stated 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!(?)!”
PDF documents require using the latest version of the freely available Adobe Reader for proper viewing. Click on
the Get Adobe Reader link below for
download and installation instructions.
|
|
 |
| |
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 fashioned 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? 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. 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 rationale for this model deed was, as follows:
Thus, conferencing, itineracy and the trust clause are woven
together as a 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
en-trusted 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
alone know best how these valuable resources should be used.
So, what does all of 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
|
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.
|
|
|
|
