As my recent posting to my blog indicate, we continue to face the possibility that the MD state general assembly will chose to intervene in a legal proceeding involving Sunnyside United Methodist Church and the denominational (in the case case legally represented by its local entity the Baltimore-Washington Conference).
According to public documents the entire Frederick County delegation supported a bill (House Bill 1554 and Senate Bill 1091) that in its original wording would exempt Sunnyside from the state code's trust clause. The Attorney General office's ruling that the bill was unconstitutional caused a radical shift in the wording of the bill (it's really a totally different bill now) that would seek to remove the wording related to the UMC's trust clause entirely.
Now, on surface, this may seem like a rather banal bill. It would have no doubt brought for great discussion if proposed at any other time, but it does nothing to address the long standing legal precedent. Whether the state code says it or not, Sunnyside is legally bound by the trust clause. They will lose all their property. It didn't have to come to that, but the actions of they and their pastor have created one of the most ridiculous cases we've had of late. The circus surrounding this situation has been further muddled by the activism of some local legislators, and though the amended bill passed the senate as far as I can tell, it seems doomed in the house. We hope.
What bothers me most of all is the arrogance of those outside of our system whose personal opinions seem set on challenging our policies. Sunnyside knew what the situation was. the trust clause has never been a secret in the UMC, and if they failed to understand the legal wall they would hit, that is no one's fault but their own.
What is concerning are those outside of our denomination who disagree with our policies and think it is their prerogative to change our church's policies by intervening at such a time--that the bill has been changed simply represents that the poor wisdom which originally draft the bill as worded has been supercede by an equally unwise effort to continue to affect the current legal situation by making an end run around the issue. The amended bill may not name Sunnyside, but we're not that stupid.
Look, I may not like the idea of a Pope. Maybe the idea of papal infallibility sits uneasily with me. You know what? I'm not Catholic. And I wouldn't try to challenge their structure legally or legislatively if I were in a position to do so. I wouldn't try to change that church's property rights, especially if that meant in any way diminishing them. Because you know what? If a local parish got ticked off at the Pope, that's their problem, because that's what they bargained for.
For this reason, the state has hesitated greatly to get involved in church matters. And that's why the trust clause has been so consistently upheld in court. Judges, who are not enticed by the romantic politics of sticking up for the little guy like those who face frequent re-election, are loathe to mess with church law and basically rule along the lines of, "You knew this was the rule, so you know what you were getting into. We're not going to change the rules, you have to live by the rules you accepted."
Our bishop's assistant has compared the situation to a franchise (I bet if McDonalds got concerned this might affect the laws governing their franchises, this would get resolved real quickly). I think it could also be compared to a marriage. Such a union SHOULD be difficult to get out of. And the parties involved ought to be held to the pre-nup that existed at the beginning. Just because one partner gets upset doesn't mean they get to change the rules of the game.
I have been asked of late for more details about the situation from clergy colleagues and others. I'm hesitant to share much of what I've heard, since it is second hand, but it does come from those deeply involved. The issue here is not how this church was more upset or wronged by the conference. Some churches have their moments of being upset about apportionments or wanting more from the conference (two things which, ironically enough, conflict with each other...the conference can't do more with less money). That Sunnyside took such a move after receiving the additional pastoral leadership they requested, and at a time when the conference was actively reducing the apportionment rate says a lot about them, and the only thing it says about the conference was how much it was trying to help. And of course, history has shone that churches which decide to try to leave the connection almost never do so without active and aggressive cajoling by their pastor. Which is always a shame because the people always have far more to lose than the pastor.
I understand that some may not like the United Methodist system. Perhaps they prefer more of a congregation system. That's not who we are. For a lot of reasons. Our system, like that of any denomination, has its strengths and weaknesses. But it works for us. And yours works for you, I hope. We are always trying to make our system better, and we are the first to acknowledge it's not perfect. But it is not for others to get in the middle of our structures and policies.
I hope the house will do what the senate would not, uphold the state laws for now, not seek to intervene in a legal matter, and should their remain desire to re-address the state code in an effort to clean it up, do so at a time when such an action is not a masked attempt to affect a current legal struggle.
Oh, and by the way, I'm not used to speaking about a political issue so openly. I have very strong opinions on things, but I take very seriously that as a pastor my words are heard differently (for good and bad) than one's friend or co-worker. But in this case, the political system has stepped into a process that is properly the churches, and one cannot be silent in the face of such an intrusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment