A Lack of Trust in the Trust Clause

In the wake of the 220^th GA, much has been reported through the more conservative Presbyterian press and blogosphere about the GA’s action (or inaction) on matters referring to property ownership.  The Book of Order under which all churches are subject in our polity is clear that all property held by congregations is held in trust for the PC(USA) and its ministries in the world.  The exact wording is found in G-4.0203 and 04.

The 220^th GA considered overtures this summer that would have changed that portion of the constitution to provide for relief of conscience for congregations that chose to disaffiliate from the PC(USA) and to allow those churches to depart with their property.  The GA chose to maintain the language as it is currently written.

So what is the big deal here?  There are really two issues at stake.  The first is the theological underpinning of our constitution.  We are a community of connection and covenant and the underlying theology of our property polity reflects that conviction.  The second issue is a practical one.   We are in a time of transition in the church and what was once a very rare issue has become somewhat more common, though not nearly so much as some commentators would have you believe.  The trust clause language has become, in some cases, an issue between councils and congregations wishing to depart for other denominations. 

Addressing the issues backward (the practical and then the theological), the practical issue at hand is an important one.  While it is important that we respect our polity, there is a pastoral consideration to be made here too.  Some congregations have discerned a need to move on to other places and there is no single process in place to allow them to take their property absent the consent of the presbytery.  In some places, the presbytery has worked well with its congregations in other places the process has been more adversarial.  So why not get rid of the trust clause or insert a provision for congregations to exercise their conscience and leave with it? 

Because it keeps us all engaged with one another and prevents spur of the moment division in the church and it protects those who may want to remain.  By restricting the ability of congregations to just up and leave the property clause ensures that some measure of consultation will happen between churches and presbyteries before a congregation makes such a drastic step.  Other provisions of the Book of Order require the presbytery to engage churches in this position and to determine if a) it is in the best interest of the church to make such a move and b) whether or not there is a significant enough minority wishing to remain in the PC(USA) to constitute a continuation of the church.  Together these provisions ensure that departure is not based on rashness or mere majority rules but by a process of engagement between congregation and presbytery.  Whether or not that is a healthy or helpful process is up to the parties, but that it happens is written into our polity for a reason.

Beyond the practical, though, there is the theological reason for the property clause in our constitution.   We are a connectional church and the many parts are not discrete from one another.  The ministry of the congregation is a part of the ministry of the presbytery.  The trust clause in our constitution embodies this principle.  That with which we are entrusted is not our own, rather it belongs to Christ’s church.  To eliminate the trust language may satisfy a few angry voices, but it would undermine the visible witness of the church as greater than merely the sum of its parts.  Each congregation is a part of a greater whole.  The same principle underlies our polity for church councils.  Each council is the visible representation of the unity of its member councils or churches. 

That property is at the heart of so much of our denominational debate today should give us pause.  At time it feels as though we are fighting about property to avoid the real questions before us about how we might learn to live together united in Christ.  Still, the property issue persists. 

Are those who want to keep their property fighting the good fight for principle or just trying to keep a valuable asset?  Is the denomination insisting on the trust clause because it is one visible representation of our connectionalism or is it merely trying to stave off departures?  I do not pretend to know the answers to those questions.  But until we an answer those with some measure of clarity and theological certainty, the 220^th GA was correct to leave the status quo alone.