Resources on the Trust Clause in the UMC

The MD State General Assembly did not pass HB1554/SB1091, thanks to a two vote margin in the House subcommittee (who knows its fate would it have been brought to the floor). Word has it (this morning's Frederick News Post) that Senator Mooney plans to reintroduce the bill next year. There's every chance the Sunnyside issue will be settled by the courts by that point, but who knows.

I wanted to share with you some resources regarding the United Methodist trust clause. I'm not suggesting you read ALL of them, but if you're so inclined, here they are. These are certainly not the only relevant pieces, so I encourage you to do your own research.

THE TRUST CLAUSE GOVERNING USE OF PROPERTY IN THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
FAITHFULNESS TO THE CONNECTION ACCORDING TO ESTABLISHED DOCTRINAL STANDARDS
By Dr. Thomas C. Oden
Located in the archives of the Good News Magazine at http://www.goodnewsmag.org/news/122902TrustClause_FULL.pdf
Dr. Oden's article looks into several issues related to the trust clause (but not so much related to the Sunnyside situation) related to due process within the church, and in light of the activist goals of Good News--along the lines of faithfulness to the Discipline and doctrinal standards. Dr. Oden quotes the Book of Disciple that:

The very reason for the trust clause in deeds is to protect the doctrinal standards, not the Conference, and the Conference only insofar as it protects the doctrinal standards. The Restrictive Rules as interpreted by the Plan of Union and subsequent Disciplines textually specify the documents of the doctrinal standards (Disc., 2000, para.103, pp. 59-74).

Dr. Oden also points out:

No use of property is licit "that violates the right of the Church to maintain connectional structure," recalling that the notion of connection for two and a half centuries has meant connection with Mr. Wesley, as defined in his writings, and notably in his Standard Sermons and Notes (Disc., 2000, para. 2506, p. 652).

Dr. Oden's argument is less oriented to the restrictions on local church property (which he seems to assume quite strongly is thus restricted), but rather his main purpose seems to be to propose the possibility that denominational officials might be held to the other end of the trust clause, namely, faithfulness to the doctrinal standards--which serves as Dr. Oden's primary definition of the Connection.

My only concern/question regarding Dr. Oden's argument is I find it hard to imagine any court wanting to make a distinction within a church of who is following the doctrinal standard and who is not. I suppose the intention is more specifically to propose a new option for churches of the more conservative persuasion within our church, with the argument they are more in line with the doctrinal standards than some denominational authorities. The arguments for that aside (and they are not at all minor) I just have a hard time imagining any court would want to get in the middle of that, and as a result, would defer to the UM's highest body, the General Conference.

It's not even clear to me that Dr. Oden's target is to weaken the GC in a case where it overreaches (as he explains, that's really hard for it to do), but more so his focus seems to be on bishops (and pastors) who fail to obey the discipline. And really, the truth of the matter is that yes, if you violate the Discipline, as much as you disagree with it, you must be prepared to lose your status or protections under the Discipline.

Check out page 25 and following for Dr. Oden's description of how it IS possible, but really, virtually impossible, that the trust clause will ever be changed within UM law. Dr. Oden also argues that the trust clause is not a barrier but rather a great benefit to all of us (p.29).

Finally, Dr. Oden's article has convicted me that I really need to go back and reread Wesley's Sermons and Notes...

This article ("Land and Building Wars) in Christianity Today explains challenges to trust clauses in denominations, but also asserts that legal victories against the UM trust clause are unlikely because of the relative strength of the UMC's policy as opposed to other denominations...though it points out that some disagree.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/january/16.15.html

An Amicus brief filed in a case involving a local church and the CME church (so not the UMC, but with similar trust clause policies because of a shared history).
http://www.pcusa.org/acl/amicus/am29.pdf In all fairness, it must be noted (as noted at the end of this document) that it was filed by Tom Starnes, our conference's lawyer.

Okay, that's just a small bit, but it's some stuff of interest for now.