Any legislative action on the question of church dissolutions would have to be carefully balanced, the House Judiciary chairman said.
“You’ll see very quickly how legally complex this becomes, because neither the Legislature nor the courts really have the authority under our Constitution to direct how churches conduct their business,” House Judiciary Chairman J.B. Akers, R-Kanawha, said on MetroNews Talkline.
“Gotta be very careful with that, and that cuts both ways.”
The church dissolution issue came up in West Virginia’s Legislature last year and could come up again.
House Bill 4515 as introduced in the regular legislative session earlier this year focused on resolving disputes over church assets when a local congregation chooses to leave a denomination. The bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee but did not advance.
Meetings between the House Judiciary Committee and representatives from local congregations and hierarchical denominations didn’t manage to produce a consensus on to resolve complicated legal and First Amendment implications.
Akers recalled telling some of his fellow delegates, “This is a sword that has two edges. If we start telling churches how to conduct their business in a way that we ‘agree’ with in this room tomorrow, there may be an issue that comes up that we disagree with, or say, ‘Hey, leave the government out of church business.’ So, this is a tough one.”
After the regular session was over, delegates gathered in May to explore policies that could lay the groundwork for future legislation. The House Judiciary Committee and a subcommittee discussed policies surrounding church splits for nearly two hours.
The state Supreme Court is also set to hear a case surrounding church dissolution. Oral arguments would be this fall.
At the core is a dispute between the West Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church and 33 local congregations seeking to disaffiliate while retaining their property. The local churches are being supported by an organization called the National Center for Life and Liberty.
The local churches have sought to leave the United Methodist Church because of “issues of conscience” following shifts in the denomination’s policies on human sexuality, particularly over the issues of same-sex marriage and allowing openly gay people to act as ordained clergy.
The United Methodist Church had a disaffiliation process allowing churches to leave and keep property after fulfilling specific financial obligations, such as pension liabilities. that expired Dec. 31, 2023. While the process was open over four years, about 25% of UMC congregations, more than 7,600 churches, moved to split from the denomination.
Some congregations that disagree with the UMC’s direction but did not disaffiliate before the deadline are still trying to find ways to exit with their church property, leading to ongoing denomination-versus-local-church litigation.
The United Methodist Church maintains that all local church property is held in an irrevocable trust for the benefit of the entire denomination, a principle known as “connectionalism.”
The local churches counter that they paid for, maintained and insured the property, and that the Conference’s attempt to seize it constitutes unjust enrichment and a deprivation of their contractual rights.
A major question is the degree to which the courts or the legislature could assert authority because of First Amendment protections of religious autonomy.
Akers expressed empathy with local congregations who have put effort, investment and time into their churches. He suggested any solution must fit within constitutional constraints and established legal principles.
He framed the goal as finding fundamental fairness that still respects the First Amendment
“We have an obligation to try to fit our laws into that box, whatever it may be,” Akers said. “We can make what are essentially neutral laws. We can define what contracts are, just normal contract principles, but we cannot, as a legislature, legislate church ideology.”