Review
Readers of Hacking Christianity know we have been following the story of a breakaway church suing the Pacific Northwest Conference for its property. The church, which has been a United Methodist presence since 1884, is seeking to leave United Methodism and take their ~$1million property with them. They’ve hired legal counsel to push this effort through the secular courts.
One of the church’s attorneys, Daniel Dalton, has extensive ties to the Wesleyan Covenant Association and prepared their legal founding document. Dalton frequently blogs on the topic of the trust clause while shilling his firm’s services to local churches upset by denominational angst.
This sales tactic creates a vicious circle causing church angst while selling the solution to that angst. But are his blogs reflecting the reality of the case?
Alleged Court Update
This week Dalton published an update on the case which reads like bad news for the Pacific Northwest Conference. During a one-sided recitation of the oral arguments, he writes,
“On Monday, April 9, 2018, the Court issued its decision rejecting the argument by the Conference who suggested that case (sic) decided before the 1968 merger that formed the United Methodist Church bound the Court to find that the United Methodist denomination is hierarchal, as opposed to congregational.”
If true, this would be a big deal as the enforcement of the trust clause is predicated on the fact that the denomination is hierarchical in nature. In a case where a local church doesn’t have, or doesn’t have written out, the trust clause in its title, the fact that the denomination requires it would be moot.
So this seems bad. But is it what really happened?
Real Court Update
I currently serve in the Pacific Northwest Annual Conference, the same conference as the newly named Mead Community Church. Interested in the full story, I contacted PNW’s conference treasurer Brant Henshaw to see if he would explain what had happened.
Henshaw shared that the facts of the matter were a bit different than what Attorney Dalton has presented. While the judge had a range of options for his ruling, this decision was not unexpected and hardly a win for Mead Community Church. Henshaw said:
“Mr. Dalton seems to have forgotten that it was his motion for summary judgment that was denied, not ours.”
A careful reading of Dalton’s post does appear to align with Henshaw’s correction. If the plaintiff (Mead Community Church) had demonstrated that The United Methodist Church was not hierarchical, there would be no need for a trial.
Dalton admits this, but it is hidden in confusing contradictions. One sentence after Dalton writes “the uncontested facts demonstrated that the local Church was the sole owner of the property,” he also admits “that there were issues of fact that had to be determined at trial concerning the property ownership issues.” Which is it? Perhaps the confusion is the purpose of such writing.
A Question of Audience
As a blogger, I spend a fair amount of time wondering who my audience is for anything I write. This post had me wondering again about Dalton’s audience, and by way of association (no pun intended), the WCA’s.
Our careful read of Dalton’s description reveals a manipulative retelling of the facts, but for whose benefit? Certainly, this post wasn’t written to persuade the judge. And both parties involved in the case are cognizant enough of the facts to know that this is, at best, a positive spin. So who is the audience?
Thankfully, Dalton kindly provides the answer to this question of “which audience?” in his closing section:
“The professionals at Dalton & Tomich PLC can help your local church leave the denomination as well.”
If you want the facts of the case, read multiple sources.
But if you want a sales pitch shilling services to remove millions of dollars and generations of faithful gifts from The United Methodist Church, then by all means, read Dalton’s blog.
Who Wins?
Honestly, I feel bad for Mead Community Church right now.
I can’t imagine that it’s pleasant for most anyone to go to court, even if you are convinced that you are in the right. The fact that this motion for summary judgment was filed back in November, and followed by many billable hours, certainly must test one’s patience and endurance. I can have some empathy for the people of Mead, even if I find them to be so very wrong in this situation.
But this is a big win if you are Dalton or the Wesleyan Covenant Association. A future court date means more business and more resources taken from a local congregation. And if you can misconstrue the facts just right, you’ve got another case of denominational cruelty to stoke the flames of schism with.
It’s a win/win for the lawyer, even when it isn’t for anyone else.
One Final Thought
This case is important because it is part of a larger effort to exit property and people from The United Methodist Church. Regardless of their expressed feelings, the people of Mead are being preyed upon to satisfy a larger organization’s goals.
Just as the Wesleyan Covenant Association warmly embraced their own board member who took United Methodist property with him as his church went non-denominational, we see that the Wesleyan Covenant Association has no problem facilitating the transfer of United Methodist property to another non-denominational church. Every church that leaves Methodism makes it weaker and easier to bargain with or hold hostage. And every church that leaves brings in more money to the official legal counsel of the Wesleyan Covenant Association, who can advertise his services to more people.
A vicious circle indeed.
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media.
Your intense hatred for the WCA and all other conservative UMC groups seems to be causing you to read your own biases into Mr. Dalton’s blog post. In the first paragraph, he clearly states, “the Court decided that the enforceability of the United Methodist Trust Clause must go to trial”. His closing paragraph regarding the case states, “The Court concluded that there were issues of fact that had to be determined at trial concerning the property ownership issues. The next step, in this case, is for the parties to go through the discovery process and then trial.”
That’s the bottom line. Your innuendo is unsupported by what Mr. Dalton actually wrote.
You also (conveniently?) failed to mention or address the section of the blog post that supports Mead Community Church’s case, i.e., “The Conference acknowledged that the local church (a) paid for the property, (b) owned the property outright, (c) had title to the property with no cloud on it involving a trust clause, and (d) refused to financially assist the local church in previous years”.
You have gone far afield in your attempt to disparage Mr. Dalton with conspiratorial innuendo.
Funny how unbiblical this is.
I firmly believe that neutral principles of property law should be followed in these cases. In particular, the unary trust imposed by the Dennis Canon in The Episcopal Church should never have been enforced by any court, although almost to a one they have deferred to ecclesiastical law over civil law.
That being said, from the earliest times, I believe Methodist meeting houses were held in trust for the Methodist Associations, not the individual congregations. This would seem to hold in favor of the annual conference, but if the recorded deed is in the names of the local congregation’s trustees, then the property should go to the local church, minus any development funds given to the local church by the annual conference. It behooves each individual congregation, and I suppose the annual conferences, to check their deeds to see what is recorded for each property. Of course if the court defers to Methodist ecclesiastical regulations, then the property will go to the annual conference. In any case, I hope the annual conference will not follow the scorched earth policies of The Episcopal Church and individually sue the trustees and board members of this UMC congregations to recover damages.
Why should the annual conference not bring a civil suit for relief against faithless trustees? The trustees have a fiduciary obligation to the United Methodist Church which they are violating by attempting to abscond with the property. The basic law of trusts is that a trustee holds legal title to property only for the benefit of the beneficiary of the trust and has a fiduciary obligation to act only in the best interests of the beneficiary. Even without a trust clause, the Discipline makes clear that any congregation that holds itself out as a United Methodist congregation, deploys the name and logo, and accepts pastoral appointments by the bishop is bound by the trust relationship.
I do not get why the conference should just roll over and accept the dishonesty and faithlessness of local church trustees in these situations.
Because it’s a “local option.” 🙂
In Christ,
The enemy hates clarity
The local church dors not agree with the rule. They are engaged in an act of disobedience in order to bear witness to their brothers and sisters across The UMC.
Ha! Wow! I guess what is good for the goose is also good for the gander
So, let me get this straight: a small church in Washington told it’s conference that it could no longer, because of their conscience, be a part of a body that was in open defiance to its own denomination’s standards . . . and that annual conference told this congregation – “You can leave but we want your property.”
And somehow – out of this story – you are criticizing the lawyer that is helping them and the WCA?
Man, I am just at a loss of words . . .
It’s not the church’s property. The Conference’s property is held in trust by the local church. That’s why Boards of Trustees are required.
Really? Says who?
That is not my problem. My problem is that the Pacific Northwest conference has done something that is blatantly against the BOD that we all in the UMC agree to follow.
This church says that it wants out of the conference because it cannot – by conscience – continue to be a part of a body who is engaging in these actions.
The conference though refuses to let the church go with its property . . . and now, Christians are suing Christians.
This is the same downward spiral that has happened/ is happening in other mainline denominations.
The Pacific Northwest conference wants the larger to UMC to respect their collective conscience but then they refuse to respect the conscience of this little church. It is nothing but disgusting hypocrisy.
Oh . . . but let’s blame the WCA (sarcasm!)
Disgusting hypocrisy. Speaking of which, for folks to say “uphold the Discipline” but then cheer on a church that is refusing to abide by the property ownership in the Discipline is also, what is the phrase, disgusting hypocrisy.
You can’t have it both ways.
It is not cheering on a church that is refusing to abide by the property ownership. This church sought to leave with its assets in check. And by the way, it is a church that is maintaining the Discipline of the UMC!
Why should this group of people be punished? Can you tell me that? The conference has the option to let this church go with its property. And that would be the right thing to do. But it did not do that. Why would the conference not respect the conscience of this group of people?
It is disgusting hypocrisy. But, of course, spin it how you like it. You seem to be very gifted in the “spin” department.
If the denomination is not following its own rules (ie BOD) then doesn’t that make null and void all other actions?
Amen Burgess Walter. As a UMC clergy, I am absolutely shocked when the church holds up the discipline as the rule. We are in a complete state of lawlessness and it is absurd that anyone on the denomination team can claim the discipline as their defense.
This article certainly does nothing to move the dialogue forward; however, I’m pretty convinced that the national split is inevitable now. The property disputes are just beginning.
Sadly, I’m going to probably choose the “traditionalist” side, even though I myself am gay. Why you may wonder? Well, the progressive side has made it pretty clear they don’t hold that Jesus Christ is the truth and the way, instead taking on more of a Unitarian Universalist approach to salvation. Belief and absolute faith in the literal Ressurection is non negotiable to me.
While I may be attracted to the same sex, my true identity is in Christ Jesus. Life is already complicated enough for me, and I feel like the progressive side will not be tolerant of my theology and identity. I’m not a gay pawn. I’m not going to be used to push schism. If it happens, I’m not going to be the scapegoat, being a gay Christian is already alienating enough.
Well, you won’t be the only one. One of the great ironies is that more gay people attend conservative, orthodox churches than liberal/progressive ones. And I think one of the reasons is that liberal/prog. churches are usually full (not really full but just a handful) of old, white angry people who like to hear themselves talk.
I hope the best for you. We all struggle with a lot of things and are each full of brokenness that needs healing. Thankfully, all that we need can be found in Christ. Blessings!
Thank you for the thoughtful response. While I’m concerned about what’s going to happen to my own church and the UMC, I have faith it will all work out the way it’s supposed to. I just pray that my conservative friends would understand how deeply embedded same-sex attraction is to people like me. That doesn’t mean they should have to accept relationships, etc.; however, I don’t believe having fellowship with those you fundamentally disagree with is the same as affirming what you believe to be a sin. I know that the Apostle Paul does seem to indicate not to fellowship with those who won’t repent, but I’m not clear on how you would live in this world and evangelize people if you lived that way. And most importantly, not all gay people become straight when they find Jesus and marry a woman. That’s not how that works for probably 99% of gays in 2018. The gays in years past felt they had to do that or be totally ostracized from society.
And to my progressive friends, I pray they understand that many gay people, like myself, need stability more than anything. I hate to be the one to point this out, but the gay community can be a very dangerous place. By this I mean, unsafe sexual encounters, superficial support from fellow gay people, many who intend to use you for sex, money, etc. Drugs running rampant. Alcoholism and virtually every other vice you can imagine exist in greater numbers in the gay community. See governmental CDC website for more details on this. While there are many wonderful and supportive people in the gay community trying to make life better, there seem to be just as many who want to affirm some of this extremely unsafe behavior as a cultural norm or “expressing yourself.” Gay people need a solid foundation for our faith, not an ever-evolving panacea of academia supporting whatever issue is en vogue right now or the social justice issue du jour that only pushes us into identity tribes. I need fellowship and companionship with solid Christians to hold me accountable as I hope to hold my friends, whom I love, accountable as well. That may mean I don’t have a romantic relationship, I just don’t know. What I do know is that I personally wish my identity to be solidly in Christ, not an identity so blatantly based on whom I’m attracted to.
Progressives and any others need to hear what you are sayings. It is incorrect to say that the LGBT community is some sort of persecuted minority and that conservatives are a bunch of bullies. From my experience, there are some tremendous dangers in the LGBT community. I knew some men who were feminine oriented and some women who were masculine and sex/ sexual desires was just not a part of why they wanted to be a part of such relationships. There were a lot of different motivations. Some were scarred from relationships with the other sex (abuse, bad experience, insecurity, etc.), others were raised by single parents and never were shaped solely by someone of the same sex (and so they were either masculine when they were actually females or feminine when they were actually males), and some were just confused.
But there are definitely predators out there in the LGBT community. There is abuse and unstated rules that hurt and oppress people. Believe me, I have seen it firsthand and know that there is a very dark side (or a darker side for those who already think this lifestyle is dark).
Whatever you do, know that God loves you more than you could ever comprehend. Sexual attraction will fade away (I’m getting older and I know that for a fact!) but God’s love is steadfast and will falter or fail. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. I pray that you find a solid Christian community who will love you with the love of Christ.
May the peace of Christ be with you!
Full congregations would rather leave, and take property held in trust in their way out, then be associated with other Christians who find sexual orientation irrelevant to Christian identity.
On what other issue do we care so deeply about the the beliefs of the person wearing the UMC apron serving meals at the shelter? None. “Gay issues” are a proxy for larger societal changes we’re not allowed to get angry about in public.
I truly thought my comment would receive more negative blowback. I’m pleasantly surprised that it hasn’t.
Full congregations would rather leave, and take property held in trust in their way out, then be associated with other Christians who find sexual orientation irrelevant to Christian identity.
On what other issue do we care so deeply about the the beliefs of the person wearing the UMC apron serving meals at the shelter? None. “Gay issues” are a proxy for larger societal changes we’re not allowed to get angry about in public.