03/21/2004: "Think of the possibilities..."

The Humpty Dumpty approach of the Karen Dammann jury to the United Methodist Book of Discipline presents some interesting possibilities for those who would like to explore them. For instance, according to the Discipline, local church property is owned by the annual conference. Now that an official body of the denomination has decided that what seems to be mandatory is actually only optional or advisory, why can a church not decide to leave the UMC and claim that it owns it own property? After all, if this language is elastic:

Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.

Then why can't this language be elastic:

All written instruments of conveyance by which premises are held or hereafter acquired for use as a place of divine worship or other activities for members of The United Methodist Church shall contain the following trust clause: In trust, that said premises shall be used, kept, and maintained as a place of divine worship of the United Methodist ministry and members of The United Methodist Church, subject to the Discipline, usage, and ministerial appointments of said Church as from time to time authorized and declared by the General Conference." (paragraph 2503.1)

Here's a novel, Dammannesque interpretation of this statement: The necessity of such a clause is dependent upon the Discipline. Provisions of the Discipline that offend the conscience of the local congregation may be set aside at will. Therefore, we, the members of congregation X, have decided to void the trust clause of the Discipline as an unjust expropriation of property by those who have not paid for it. If you don't like it, sue us.

Personally, I think you can make an argument for the injustice of a conference beauracracy owning buildings it didn't pay for that's at least as strong as the justice argument made by Dammann's defenders. Tom Oden of Drew Divinity School as already made an argument about the connection between the trust clause and the Discipline's doctrinal standards. Maybe now is the time for the Good News and Confessing Movements to flex their muscles and explore some options. Whaddya think, folks?