Church session supports proposed New Mexico bill to use ‘neutral principles of law’ in church property cases
By Craig M. Kibler, February 19, 2007
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — The session of a Presbyterian Church in Las Cruces has issued a letter in support of proposed legislation in the New Mexico state legislature that would require the use of “neutral principles of law” in cases involving church property rights.
In urging passage of the proposed legislation, the session of Sonoma Springs Presbyterian Church wrote in their letter:
“This bill would protect the rights of ordinary people in the local congregations of New Mexico by not allowing national church bureaucrats to impose property trusts upon local churches without their voluntary consent.
“We believe that the ordinary people who pay for the property through their contributions should control ownership of that property. If the national church bureacrats have their way, it is as if a person joins the Auto Club and, a few months later, discovers that the Auto Club has claimed ownership of their pickup truck.”
The proposed legislation, Senate Bill 230, was introduced by State Sen. Leonard Lee Rawson, R-Las Cruces. 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.
Opposition
The proposed legislation has garnered opposition from the outgoing executive presbyter of the Presbytery of Sierra Blanca, the Rev. Jon Shannon Webster, and Bishop D. Max Whitfield of the New Mexico Conference of the United Methodist Church.
Webster said the measure “threatens the Church, is what it does,” while Whitfield told ministers that “we need to fill the Committee room with as many people as possible to oppose this bill.”
Both men, in e-mails to ministers, urged that they write their legislators and oppose the proposed measure.
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.”
Text of letter
The text of the session’s letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Layman Online, is as follows:
“We write to express our support of Senate Bill 230, which, consistent with the opinions of the United States Supreme Court, would establish that in the State of New Mexico the courts will follow neutral-principles of State Law in settling church property disputes.
“Justice Blackmum, writing for the majority in the Supreme Court case known as Jones versus Wolf, pointed out that:
- “The neutral-principles approach cannot be said to ‘inhibit’ the free exercise of religion, any more than do other neutral provisions of state law governing the manner in which churches own property, hire employees, or purchase goods.”
The majority opinion further stated:
- “We cannot agree, however, that the First Amendment requires the States to adopt a rule of compulsory deference to religious authority in resolving church property disputes, even where no issue of doctrinal controversy is involved.”
“This bill would also protect the rights of ordinary people in the local congregations of New Mexico by not allowing national church bureaucrats to impose property trusts upon local churches without their voluntary consent.
“We believe that the ordinary people who pay for the property through their contributions should control ownership of that property. If the national church bureacrats have their way, it is as if a person joins the Auto Club and, a few months later, discovers that the Auto Club has claimed ownership of their pickup truck.
“We respectfully ask you to protect the rights of the ordinary people of New Mexico by passing this legislation.”
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.