In the heart of Tennessee, small rural churches are more than just buildings; they are pillars of our communities, deeply rooted in tradition, heritage, and faith. These churches, often founded and built by simple farmers and community members, serve as places of worship but also as places of spiritual, emotional, and financial support for some of the poorest regions in our state. These rural churches also face unique challenges that come with being small and rural—they often lack the financial resources and legal counsel readily available to larger urban congregations or denominations. Now, a new and troubling threat has emerged, putting the very existence of many rural churches in Tennessee in jeopardy: the complete loss of their church buildings and property.

The Supreme Court of the United States long ago ruled that the U.S. Constitution precludes civil courts from adjudicating questions of religious doctrine or internal governance. Watson v. Jones 80 U.S. 679,727 (1871). That said, there are certain areas where, when a church body chooses to participate in secular society, the civil courts may have general authority to settle disputes—property ownership is one such area. Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 602 (1979). As the Justices noted in the Jones decision, a state may adopt “any one of various approaches for settling church property disputes so long as it involves no consideration of doctrinal matters.” There has not been another church property dispute heard by the U.S. highest court since the Jones case in 1979.

Since the decisions in Watson and Jones, a few approaches have emerged amongst the states in adjudicating church property disputes in line with the SCOTUS decision. The dominant approach adopted by most states has been some version of what is described as the “neutral-principles of law” approach. Under the neutral principles of law approach, the courts will look at both secular legal documents like deeds as well as church documents such as church constitutions or other governing documents. 

While the majority of states have adopted some version of this approach, there remain differences in how the courts weigh the significance of these documents. These differences are best understood by considering how the courts address situations where the civil legal documents are silent or in conflict with the church organizational documents.  Under the “Strict Neutral-Principles of Law” approach, courts only give effect to provisions in church constitutions and governing documents of hierarchical religious organizations if the provisions appear in civil legal documents or satisfy the civil law requirements and formalities for imposition of a trust. Under the “Hybrid Neutral-Principles of Law” approach, the courts defer to and enforce trust language contained in the constitutions and governing documents of hierarchical religious organizations, even if this language of trust is not included in a civil legal document and does not satisfy the formalities that the civil law normally requires to create a trust. The Tennessee Supreme Court adopted the hybrid neutral-principles approach in Church of God in Christ, Inc. v. L. M. Haley Ministries, Inc., 531 S.W.3d 146 (2017).

Whether a state applies the strict neutral approach or the hybrid neutral approach is often determinative of how a given property dispute will be decided. If a small rural church is part of a larger hierarchical denomination, even if the deed to the church property is silent the courts in Tennessee when applying the hybrid neutral approach will give effect to any trust language found in the hierarchical church’s governing documents. This outcome has resulted in numerous churches across the state losing title to their church property without the congregation possibly even realizing this had happened simply by becoming a member of the hierarchical church. (For a case involving the Church of God, see Church of God in Christ, Inc. v. L. M. Haley Ministries, Inc., 531 S.W.3d 146 (2017); For a case involving the Presbyterian Church, see Holston Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Bethany Presbyterian Church, No. E202201337COAR3CV, 2023 WL 4789082, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2023)).

In the wake of recent provocative moves by the United Methodist Church, including an October 2024 decision by the United Methodist Church’s high court, a long line of lawsuits have been initiated by large and small churches across the country wishing to leave the UMC with title to their property. In many of the small rural churches I have spoken with across the state of Tennessee, the church trustees were not even aware they lost title to and control of their properties simply by joining the UMC. Remember, many of these church congregations are built and run by rural laypeople, farmers, etc. and the deeds to the church property had never been updated. However, under the hybrid-neutral approach applied in Tennessee, the trust clause from the UMC is treated as if it had been added to the deed. In many of these cases, the church property was built and purchased long before the congregation joined the UMC and was paid for completely without funds from the UMC, and yet the UMC is removing congregations from these church properties relying upon the Tennessee property laws to be able to do so. In practice, the hybrid neutral approach in Tennessee often favors larger, centralized church bodies. This approach can have devastating effects on small, local congregations that simply wish to retain the property their members have built and maintained for generations.  Protecting our Tennessee churches from this outcome will require legislative action by Tennessee lawmakers. 

Lawmakers in Tennessee could pass legislation requiring the courts in Tennessee apply a strict neutral approach to church property disputes. Under a strict neutral-principles approach, the courts in Tennessee will only give effect to the trust language in circumstances where the trust language was added to the deed or in the limited circumstances where Tennessee law would necessitate an implied trust. Local churches would be protected from losing their church property unless they had acquiesced to the trust clause by amending the deed.  Under this approach, church property disputes would be resolved by closely examining the historical intent of property ownership, prioritizing the wishes of the founding members and local congregation, rather than automatically favoring denominational headquarters.

We urge Tennessee lawmakers to adopt a strict neutral-principles of law approach to church property disputes. This change would honor the legacy and efforts of those who built these churches and ensure that local congregations retain their rightful property.

Please join us in standing up for Tennessee’s small rural churches. Sign this petition to demand legislative action that will protect our community churches from unjust property loss. Together, we can preserve the heritage, faith, and spirit of our communities.