Methodist bishop opposes proposed New Mexico bill that would apply’neutral principles of law’ in church property cases
By Craig M. Kibler, February 16, 2007
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – The bishop of the New Mexico Conference of the United Methodist Church has come out in opposition to proposed legislation in the New Mexico state legislature that would require the use of “neutral principles of law” in cases involving church property rights.
The proposed legislation, Senate Bill 230, was introduced by state Sen. Leonard Lee Rawson, R-Las Cruces.
Bishop D. Max Whitfield, in an e-mail sent to Methodist ministers, states that, “The implications of this bill are significant.”
The e-mail, a copy of which was obtained by The Layman Online, goes on to say that, “It implies that unless the local church enacts a resolution, they could ignore The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church. At the very least, it would require a significant amount of paperwork to satisfy the State of New Mexico that we are United Methodists. At the worst, it could spawn lawsuits about whether local United Methodist Churches must abide by The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church.”
‘Serious questions’
“I believe this legislation raises serious constitutional questions about the power of the State to impose its will upon the Church and negate Church Laws, or at least make them optional,” he wrote. “It implies the State has a right to interfere in Church doctrine and polity issues. It attempts to overturn 250 years of Methodist and United Methodist practice. By the way, Senator Rawson is not United Methodist.
“Therefore, I am soliciting your assistance in helping to defeat this legislation. First, I urge pastors and lay leaders to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee … and express opposition to this bill,” Whitfield wrote. “We need to fill the committee room with as many people as possible to oppose this bill. Second, I urge you to contact Senators and Representatives from your area, or those that you know personally in other areas, and request they defeat this bill.”
The proposed legislation asks the legislature to enact two things:
1) That “New Mexico courts shall apply neutral principles of law in resolving church property disputes.
2) That the “property of a nonprofit corporation organized for religious purposes shall not be deemed to be impressed with an express, implied, statutory or common law trust unless:
A) “The property was received by the corporation with an express written commitment by resolution of its board of directors to hold that property in trust; or
B) “The donor of the property expressly imposed a trust, in writing, at the time of the gift or donation.”
The measure was introduced during the first 2007 session of the 48th Legislature. The proposed legislation was referred to the Senate’s Public Affairs Committee, which, on Feb. 2, returned it to the Senate for a second reading. In its report, the Public Affairs Committee, voting 5-0, stated that it “has had it under consideration and reports same with recommendation that it DO PASS, and thence be referred to the” Senate Judiciary Committee, where the measure is tentatively scheduled to be taken up Monday, Feb. 19.
State Attorney General’s Office
The State Attorney General’s Office, in a response accompanying the bill, states “that the bill adopts the ‘neutral principles of law’ method of resolving property disputes which arise between different factions in a religious organization. The disputes often arise when one faction seeks to break from another and the question of who owns church property leads to litigation in state courts.”
“The method adopted in this bill was approved by the United States Supreme Court in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979) and allows a state to use generally applicable neutral principles of state law to resolve church property disputes without violating the United States Constitution. A state need not defer to religious authority in resolving church property disputes. The sources to be used to settle such disputes are the deeds to church property, the articles of incorporation of the local church, the state statutes, and the rules of the general church organization.
“The primary advantages of the neutral principles approach are that it is completely secular in operation, and yet flexible enough to accommodate all forms of religious organization and polity.”
More opposition
Whitfield’s opposition follows that of the outgoing executive presbyter of the Presbytery of Sierra Blanca, the Rev. Jon Shannon Webster. Webster also sent an e-mail to ministers in the presbytery stating that the bill “is a very bad thing for our common life as a Christian community, and must be stopped.”
Like Webster, Whitfield’s e-mail included a sample letter written by the Rev. Ran Loy, pastor of First United Methodist Church in Las Cruces, to state legislators hearing the bill. It urges the ministers to ” take a minute and call or write those legislators of our area and voice your concern in your own words.” That letter reads as follows:
“I write to express strong opposition to Senate Bill 230, introduced by Senator Rawson, concerning church property adjudications.
“The bill will cause more adjudications, not less, for the United Methodist Church because we currently have a trust clause requirement in deeds by our polity and discipline, the official publication of our church denomination. In The Book of Discipline, churches are guided to keep all property in the trust of its ministry and members. We would break covenant with those who have kept the church and all its property in sacred trust down through the years, both for the ministry of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and for their posterity who they’ve intended to continue that ministry.
“In the past, those churches in our denomination that have failed to specifically address that legal requirement in a deed have lived with the assumption that the Book of Discipline, Paragraph 2503.1, would be sufficient should any legal challenge appear.
“This legislation will be a breach of trust and should not be something the state imposes on the church. Such government entanglement is what the founding fathers of our country sought to protect its religious community from, allowing each group to govern itself.
“I urge your assistance in defeating this bill.” Craig M. Kibler is the Director of Publications for the Presbyterian Lay Committee and Executive Editor of The Layman and The Layman Online. He can be reached at cmkibler@www.layman.org.