The idea that “gracious exit” plans should be the first order of business during the all-important Special Session of the General Conference of The United Methodist Church—opening today in St. Louis—is wrongheaded on many levels, many of which have been helpfully highlighted elsewhere. 

What I want to emphasize here are the flaws with this approach that most trouble many of the Church’s chancellors – the men and women who, besides being dedicated lay members of our beloved connection, have been elected by their respective annual conferences to serve as legal adviser to the conference and its resident bishop.

I can’t speak for every chancellor, of course, but most of us have been following the Way Forward process closely, and regularly communicating about how we can best fulfill our responsibilities under the various outcomes that might emerge from the Special Session.  A clear consensus among chancellors has emerged on the “gracious exit” issue in the course of those conversations, and the principal points are these:

1. As a group, chancellors have long viewed the trust clause as critically important to honor.  Crafted in the first instance on John Wesley’s own instructions, the trust clause is not only foundational, but indispensable to the fundamentally connectional character of The United Methodist Church.
2. Human sexuality issues are not the first issues on which Methodists have disagreed, and they will surely not be the last.  During periods of discord, the very existence of the trust clause operates to discourage schism, and to reinforce unity.  We face a real danger of undermining the trust clause’s efficacy in such times if we start defaulting to carving out trust clause “escape hatches.”
3. The more immediate concern of most chancellors is that the limited time available during the special session needs to be used by the delegates to pursue legislation of the type the Way Forward process was specifically designed to foster—legislation that (as the Council of Bishops framed things for the 2016 General Conference) “allows for a variety of expressions to coexist in one church.” Daily Christian Advocate (DCA), Vol. 4, No. 9 (May 19, 2016) at 2488.  Elevating “gracious exit” concepts at the outset not only threatens to divert the delegates’ focus; it is inconsistent with the very purpose of the Special Session, which is to craft legislation that motivates folks to continue the journey together, not to construct exit ramps that make it easier to part company.
4. As it stands, John Wesley’s trust clause is a precious asset of The United Methodist Church. It is uniformly recognized by state and federal courts as the archetype of legally enforceable mechanisms by which connectional denominations my protect their interest in local church property.  Indeed, in the landmark decision in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court made specific mention of the Discipline’s trust clause (id. at 600 & n.2), recognizing it as an instance in which a denomination’s governing documents had been “made to recite an express trust in favor of the denominational church,” which all civil courts, in all states, are “bound to give effect.” Id. at 606. The respect this cornerstone of our polity receives in American courtrooms is undoubtedly why some are anxious to build exceptions into the Discipline.

Your chancellors love the church. What’s more, for reasons that are unique to our particular service to the church, we appreciate that John Wesley’s own “trust clause” fosters unity, encouraging us to preserve, not loosen, our connectional bonds.