Who gets the stuff when the church and denomination split?
Justices of the West Virginia Supreme Court have determined that is a question the church itself must resolve, not the secular courts system.
Last week, in an opinion written by Justice Charles Trump, the Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition in a property dispute between several local Methodist churches and the United Methodist Church Conference. There were no dissenting opinions by other justices.
Trump’s order determined that secular courts lack subject matter jurisdiction under the First Amendment and the state constitution to interfere in internal church governance and ecclesiastical matters.
“That a dispute has consequences for ownership of property does not negate the constitutional imperative that the civil courts are forbidden from intruding upon matters committed to a church’s ecclesiastical authority,” the justice wrote.
The court held that because the United Methodist Church operates under a hierarchical structure, civil courts must defer to the final adjudications of church tribunals regarding disaffiliation and property rules.
Justices heard oral arguments in the case in September. West Virginia Supreme Court justices considered the question of what happens when a local congregation wants to disaffiliate from its denomination but keep the church land, buildings and bank accounts.
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 have been 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.
“Based on a doctrinal disagreement within the Church concerning the ordination of homosexual clergy and the performance of same-sex weddings, the Local Churches sought to disaffiliate from the Church while retaining church property,” Justice Trump wrote.
The lawyers for the local congregations in West Virginia maintained the dispute belongs in the court system because of a fraud claim over whether the United Methodist Church schemed to prevent the local churches from disaffiliating before the deadline to do so passed.
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 local churches say they paid for, maintained and insured the property, and that the Conference’s attempt to retain it constitutes unjust enrichment and a deprivation of their contractual rights.
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.”
Justice Trump said all of that is a process for church hierarchy and rules, not the courts.
“The Local Churches’ claims arise from the Church’s rules governing disaffiliation and the disposition of church property. Adjudicating those claims would require the circuit court to determine what the Discipline permitted, what procedures it made available to congregations seeking to disaffiliate, and whether the Conference properly interpreted and applied the Church’s governing law,” he wrote.
“Those are questions of ecclesiastical law committed exclusively to the Church’s own governing structure.”
In Mercer County, the first circuit judge assigned to the case, Ryan Flanigan, originally dismissed the local churches’ claims late last October, citing the First Amendment and the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine that prohibits civil courts from interfering in the internal governance, discipline, or religious law of a hierarchical church.
Judge Flanigan ruled that the church’s high judicial council has final authority over property trusts and separation protocols.
However, early this year, Judge Flanigan recused himself by saying he had a “conflict in presiding over this matter” that was not publicly specified.
The matter was transferred to Judge Mark Wills, who reinstated the case on March 13.
“As there are, indeed, allegations of fraud and collusion, the Court believes that those are questions of fact for a jury,” Wills wrote in his order.
The West Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church responded by filing a petition with the state Supreme Court to try to block the circuit judge from proceeding with the case, arguing he lacked the constitutional authority to review these church decisions.
Justice Trump’s order sided with the Methodist church’s position, saying, “the strict limitations on governmental involvement or interference in matters of religion have been woven into the constitutional history of both our nation and State from their respective foundings.
“Upon this constitutional foundation, both the United States Supreme Court and this Court have long recognized that civil courts must refrain from deciding disputes that require them to interpret or resolve matters of religious doctrine, church discipline, internal governance, the qualifications or conduct of church members or leaders when those questions are committed to the church’s own ecclesiastical authority, or ecclesiastical law.”