The "Trust Clause" Controversy

Recently, the General Assembly of the State of Virginia a bill was proposed that would have made the “trust clause” that is a part of the structure of the United Methodist Church illegal. The trust clause says that the trustees of a local congregation hold the property in trust for the denomination. It means that if a local congregation wants to leave the denomination, they cannot take the church building and property with them. The bill to eliminate the trust clause in Virginia seems to have been generated by attempts by several Episcopal parishes to leave the denomination in protest against its ordination of an openly gay bishop. The bill was ultimately sent back to committee and effectively killed for the time being though it is likely to reappear in some form in future sessions.

I think I understand why people believe the trust clause should be eliminated. First, it seems that the local people who have given their time, resources, and energy for the purchase, building, and upkeep of the property over the years should have the right to withdraw from the denomination and take the property with them. Another reason for supporting the elimination of the trust clause is to enable local churches to exert their influence and maintain their integrity (overagainst a possibly apostate denomination) with respect to the various issues the church is confronting, especially those related to homosexuality. This seems clearly to have been the motivation behind the proposed bill.

I think we all know that the real driving forces behind the move to eliminate the trust clause have to do with that struggle over homosexuality and related issues. The trust clause has always been a part of Methodist church structure and that of the other denominations with an episcopal organizational structure. It only becomes an issue in the context of concrete struggles over doctrinal and moral matters. (It’s much like the national debate in the 19th century over whether the states that formed the union had the right to withdraw or secede from it. That debate about states’ rights was not driven by abstract constitutional issues, but by the very concrete struggle over slavery.)

None of this is to suggest that the question of the rights of the people of the local churches in relation to church property is not important. Indeed it is very important and it may well be what concerns me as much or more than the debate about homosexuality, that is driving the issue. What frustrates and angers me so about the position you have taken is that it reflects a complete failure to understand the theology of the church that underlies the trust clause. The idea that the local congregation holds the property in trust for the denomination reflects the belief that the church (the community of faith, the body of Christ) is the whole people of God and the local congregation is “church” only in communion or organic union with the rest of the body. Paul says the one part of the body cannot say to another part of the body, “You are not the body.” That’s precisely what a single congregation withdrawing from the denomination represents from the perspective of this episcopal or connectional understanding of the church (which is held by the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal, and Methodist branches of the church).

From the perspective of this ecclesiology the claim of the current members of any congregation that the property is “theirs” is wrongheaded. It is not theirs to do with as they please or even as they believe themselves to be lead by the Spirit. It is only theirs in trust from Christ, in trust from the whole body of Christ (including the generations in their local church who have gone before), in trust from the denomination which imperfectly represents Christ and the whole body. What they do with the property of Christ should be shaped in large measure by the discernment of all those among whom the Sprit works and not just the local members. The members in every place should test their discernment against that all the members of the body—rather than assuming that there discernment is infallible.

Of course, this theology of the church is not the only one, nor is it necessarily the right one. There is also the Baptist view that the church is fully present in the local congregation. That is the basis of Baptist church organization in which local congregations are fully autonomous and may or may not “associate” with other congregations and withdraw from their association to become “independent” at will.

It may be wrong for me to say that people who supported the bill don’t understand this. Maybe they do. If so, then it is evident that they subscribe to the baptist rather than the episcopal theology of the church. That’s fine. Either view can find some basis in scripture and Christian people operating under both forms of organization have effectively spread the Gospel. (I must say I think the episcopal form is a better witness to the unity for which we hope as people of God and is more effective in discipling those who become believers, but that’s a discussion for another time.)

Here’s the bottom line for me: if those who don’t subscribe to the theology that has historically formed and continues to form the United Methodist Church on this matter why do they want to be United Methodist? They have choices. Typically, they drive by many Baptist churches (associated and independent) on their way to the United Methodist congregations they attend? Why don’t they attend and become members there? Why do they insist on trying to turn the United Methodist Church into a Baptist association? If they had no options I could understand, but they do have options. Lots of options. Why do they insist on coming into my home and rearranging the furniture! It saddens me deeply that we can no longer attend the United Methodist congregation that I once served as pastor and to which my wife and her family has long belonged. That some there have been clamoring to leave the UMC and were excited about the possibility that this bill would facilitate that possibility reminds me again of what I felt so many times over the years when we were attending: why do you people have to make my United Methodist Church into a Baptist Church. If you want a Baptist Church go to a Baptist Church.

As I’ve said, what’s driving this issue is the struggle for the soul of the UMC with regard to homosexuality (and other related matters). A significant part of what’s going on in the debate about the trust clause is an attempt by those who oppose any recognition of the legitimacy of homosexuality or homosexual unions or ordination to gain additional leverage over their denominations in the “political” struggle with the church organizations over this issue. This is where I find the position of those who are supporting this bill in the UMC most curious. It’s not as if the UMC doesn’t provide all the necessary mechanisms for enabling its members and local congregations to shape denominational policy. Moreover, those who are opposed to any recognition of homosexual legitimacy are winning and winning consistently! God Lord, if any congregation should be supporting the end to the trust clause it should be those where the majority of the members feel profoundly out of step with the direction the UMC is going as it strengthens its stand against homosexual ordination and unions. But no, it’s the winning side that is clamoring to increase its leverage.

I know, the opponents of homosexual unions and ordination can point to the proclamations and actions of a bishop or two, lots of seminary professors, and more than a few officials in church agencies that reflect positions different from theirs and different from the official positions of the church. Still, the church is farther from approving the ordination of homosexuals or authorizing homosexual unions than its ever been in our lifetime. So why the push to eliminate the trust clause?

Let me tell you what I think and feel from my own experience: it’s not enough for the anti-gay forces to win. They want to drive everyone who thinks differently out of the UMC. That’s what I think largely because that’s what I experienced at one United Methodist congregation and what I see happening at the denominational level. Many of the groups that consider themselves “watchdogs” and “renewal movements” in the UMC miss no opportunity to sound the alarm, to inflame outrage against the denomination, and to promote discontent among the laity at every sign of any dissent. And they won’t be satisfied until all of us who think differently are either silenced or gone because they’re just so sure they are right and they’ve got a monopoly on the Holy Spirit and the rest of us are just misguided pagans.