Key points:
- The trust clause has been key to shaping the church’s connectional identity and preserving its unity.
- Legally, it defines the limits of local church autonomy and ensures that property is held in trust for the denomination.
- Theologically, it reflects the shared mission and covenantal identity of the church.
- While it has been tested during a heavy period of property disputes, the trust clause remains a cornerstone of the church today.
Photo courtesy of author.
Commentaries
The United Methodist Church has emerged intact after a challenging period of division, thanks in part to an unsung hero: the denomination’s trust clause.
The clause, instituted by John Wesley himself at the beginning of the Methodist movement, has endured as one of the denomination’s most consequential legal and theological doctrines.
Codified today in Paragraph 2501 of the 2020/2024 Book of Discipline, the trust clause provides that local church property is not owned outright by the congregation but is held “in trust, for the benefit of the entire denomination.” Emphasis added.
Though often dismissed as a technicality, the trust clause has played a pivotal role in shaping Methodist connectionalism, preserving ecclesial unity and more recently has been at the center of tensions over disaffiliation and denominational identity.
The trust clause serves two central purposes: legal and theological.
Limits to local autonomy
Legally, the clause ensures that local church property is held in trust and for the benefit of the denomination. That means individual congregations may use and manage property solely for purposes consistent with the mission of The United Methodist Church (Paragraph 2501). However, they cannot sell, mortgage or transfer it without the consent of the district superintendent and the district board on church location and building (Paragraphs 2540, 2541).
The clause supports open itinerancy by ensuring clergy can use church property without regard to race, ethnic origin, gender, color, disability, marital status or age (Paragraph 425.1). If a congregation closes, merges or leaves, the property reverts to the annual conference through its board of trustees, not to a local church (Paragraph 2549).
This legal structure has prevented fragmentation, protected assets and maintained coherence throughout cycles of growth, decline and denominational reorganization.
While the legal framework provides clarity, it is the theological foundation that gives the trust clause its enduring purpose.
A connectional identity
Theologically, the trust clause embodies the connectional nature of United Methodism.
The church is not a loose federation of independent congregations; it is a covenantal body where authority, mission and resources are shared, reflecting Paul’s theology of the church as the diverse and unified body of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12-27). Property, like doctrine and polity, belongs to the entire connection.
This was highlighted by the Judicial Council in Decision 1512: “Connectionalism is a bedrock principle of United Methodist constitutional polity, and the Trust Clause is its foundational element. Disaffiliation is a radical departure from connectionalism, and, therefore, church property can be released from the Trust Clause only to the extent authorized by Church law.”
In that spirit, the clause reflects the longstanding theological view that ministry is not the possession of a congregation, but a shared missional responsibility under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the wider church, the body of Christ. But this shared vision has been tested in recent years as the trust clause has become a focal point in major ecclesial and legal disputes.
Battle tested
The trust clause, while historically stabilizing, has become a flashpoint in recent conflicts, especially amid the denomination’s internal debates over sexuality, doctrine and disaffiliation.
At the 2019 special General Conference, delegates adopted Paragraph 2553, a temporary provision allowing churches to disaffiliate with property due to “reasons of conscience” and “deep conflict ... around issues of human sexuality.” This provision allowed a conditional and temporary release from the trust clause’s enforcement — subject to strict terms and only valid through Dec. 31, 2023.
Over 7,600 local churches used this pathway, but many others missed the deadline or found the requirements too burdensome. In response, some annual conferences — most notably the Mississippi Conference — attempted to use Paragraph 2549 (normally reserved for church closures) as a creative workaround. The Judicial Council, in a series of rulings, nullified these efforts, thereby closing the backdoor to disaffiliation and reaffirming the authority and centrality of the trust clause (See Judicial Council Decisions 1512, 1517 and 1518).
In multiple U.S. states, the trust clause has been tested in civil courts. Some states apply “hierarchical deference” to religious institutions (Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 [1871]), often upholding the denomination’s rights. If a denomination like The United Methodist Church is deemed hierarchical, and its internal governance clearly claims property through a trust clause, then the court will not interfere with that decision. This benefits denominations with a clear, top-down governance model. In states like New York or Maryland, courts have often upheld The United Methodist Church’s trust clause using this standard, recognizing the denomination's authority over local church property.
Others apply “neutral principles of law” (Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 [1979]), which allows them to scrutinize deeds and conference control more critically. Courts under this framework examine whether there is a legally valid trust according to state property and trust laws. If a deed does not explicitly mention a trust in favor of the denomination, or if state law doesn’t recognize “implied trusts,” the court may side with the local congregation. In Georgia (where the Jones case originated) or Texas, courts using neutral principles have sometimes ruled against denominations, concluding that no legally enforceable trust existed despite denominational rules.
Underlying both approaches is the First Amendment’s religious freedom clauses.
- Courts may not “entangle” themselves in religious doctrine (Establishment Clause).
- They must also respect the autonomy of religious organizations (Free Exercise Clause).
The legal balancing act is between avoiding theological entanglement and ensuring property law is fairly applied. As a result, the trust clause’s enforceability in the United States can vary depending on the jurisdiction and a court’s approach to First Amendment interpretation.
Why it still matters today
Despite its legal complexity and controversy, the trust clause remains a cornerstone of United Methodist constitutional polity.
These enduring principles explain why the trust clause continues to matter today:
- Mission continuity — Ensures the work of the church continues beyond the life or preferences of any single congregation, securing ministry across generations.
- Asset protection — Safeguards church property from being claimed by breakaway groups, individual leaders or movements outside the denomination.
- Theological unity — Reinforces our identity as a theologically connected people, committed to shared doctrine, mutual accountability and a united witness to Christ.
- Structural clarity — Provides a consistent legal and ecclesial framework for how churches are to close, merge or transfer property in a way that honors covenant and connection.
In a time of denominational restructuring and regionalization, combined with a fractured religious landscape and polarization, it is more necessary than ever to protect the integrity of the church.
Subscribe to our
e-newsletter
The trust clause is not just a property-law concept, it is a theological and legal declaration that we are a connectional church. As stated by the Judicial Council in a landmark case, “connectionalism is the universal thread out of which the temporal and spiritual fabric of the Church is providentially woven, creating the relational ligaments that wonderfully link and sustain the diverse parts of ‘the community of all true believers under the Lordship of Christ.’” (Judicial Council Decision 1444)
In the end, the trust clause is far more than a legal mechanism — it is a profound expression of who we are as United Methodists. It binds us not only in property, but also in purpose. It reminds us that the church is not a collection of independent outposts but a living, breathing connection — joined by covenant, accountability, discipleship and a shared mission.
As the denomination continues to navigate challenges of identity, structure and unity, the trust clause remains a vital safeguard of our communal life, anchoring us to a vision of church that transcends individual preference and local autonomy.
Like stewards entrusted with the mysteries of God (1 Corinthians 4:1), we are called to honor not only what we’ve received but how we pass it on. We are called to steward not merely buildings but a sacred trust — passed down through generations, rooted in grace, sustained by connection, and guided by the Holy Spirit under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Tran is assistant chancellor for church law of the California-Pacific Annual Conference. He served on the Judicial Council from 2016 to 2025 and is currently the lead pastor of Garden Grove United Methodist Church and assistant South District director in the California-Pacific Conference.
News media contact: Julie Dwyer or Heather Hahn at (615) 742-5470 or [email protected]. To read more United Methodist news, subscribe to the free UM News Digests.
