Indiana Church of the Brethren district cannot take title to breakaway congregation

A local district of the Church of the Brethren could not assume the title of the property of a Northern-Indiana congregation that broke away from the Anabaptist denomination, according to an opinion from the Indiana Court of Appeals. The congregation had not incorporated suggested language in its deeds or in its governing documents necessary to give the church the authority to take over the congregation’s property in the event of a split.


In Church of the Brethren, South/Central Indiana District v. Roann Church of the Brethren, Inc., Judge Edward W. Najam, Jr. wrote in a published opinion on behalf of a unanimous panel that the denomination had not met its burden to overturn the trial court’s decision in favor of Roann Church of the Brethren. The trial court had concluded, “There is simply no credible evidence that [the Congregation], at any time, intended to place [its] property in trust for the use and benefit of [the Denomination].”

In rejecting the denomination’s arguments, the court describes the history of the Church of the Brethren’s adoption of several policies favoring the denomination’s “uniformity and greater security in ownership.” This included a nonbinding policy that congregations incorporate language into their deeds for real estate that would impose restrictions on the property, namely empowering the denomination to assume ownership. It also included suggested language for congregational constitutions that provided similar authority to the regional body of the Church of the Brethren.

Additional recommended language stated that all congregational property would be held in trust “for the use and benefit and in conformity with the practices and beliefs of” the Church of the Brethren. It also provided that any congregation that withdrew or otherwise ceased to “function as a congregation of” the Church of the Brethren could be controlled by the district.

None of Roann Church’s deeds contained the nonmandatory, restrictive language. In 2002, Roann Church adopted some of the suggested language into its constitution. But it never adopted the trust language or the language giving the district authority over a withdrawing congregation. And in 2010, Roann Church of the Brethren amended its governing documents to repeal the suggested language in favor of language including, “We belong to Christ and denominational ties are secondary. … We shall remain members of [the Church of the Brethren] or its successor as long as the denomination remains true to God’s word.” Additionally, nothing on several bank accounts at issue gave the district an interest in those assets.

The district argued that Roann Church’s adoption of the language allowing the regional judicatory to step in created a trust in the congregation’s real estate. But the court rejected this, finding nothing that suggested the adoption was required by the denomination, that the congregation had agreed to this sort of trust, or that the circumstances implied a trust.

This decision continues Indiana’s application of the neutral-principles doctrine.This approach treats religious organizations the same as other organizations regardless of their governing structure to the maximum extent allowed under the First Amendment. That is, rather than looking to whether the church is hierarchical or not, the court looks to the governing documents to settle disputes, even when a hierarchical church’s higher authorities have decided the issue. This case is an excellent example of a situation in which the court has stepped in between an adjudicatory and a congregation, something some courts will not do on First Amendment grounds.

Roann Church leaders apparently wrote a letter in November 2002 (the same year the congregation adopted some of the suggested language) here and on the occasion of their 2012 split and the district’s lawsuit here. The first letter explains, “Under no circumstances should churches be involved in same sex covenants, or mislead believers of Christ in any way to engage in behavior unpleasing to God, our Father.” The second letter has less specificity about the reasons the congregation left but takes an upbeat tone about growing attendance numbers.

The South/Central District may now ask the Court of Appeals for reconsideration or skip that step and request review by the Indiana Supreme Court.

Lessons for religious leaders

Whether you lead a congregation or a denominational governing body, it’s very important to understand the facts as they are. What do your governing documents say? What does the deed say? Either of these two sets of documents can and often do have language that might impose a right for the denomination to step in and take control of the congregation’s assets, temporarily or permanently. And checking the local congregation’s governing documents is not sufficient, especially in traditions that have a more hierarchical structure.

In some cases, a national or regional authority might be able to set conditions for member congregations that take effect without congregational ratification. For instance, the Indiana Supreme Court has hinted that a national body’s provision requiring congregations to place their property in trust for the denomination that had been adopted twenty-five years before the congregation split could provide evidence that the congregation intended to create that trust on its property. Presbytery of Ohio Valley v. OPC, Inc., 973 N.E.2d 1099, 1113 (Ind. 2012).

Knowing what these documents say and what the denominational requirements are should help everyone struggling with important questions of identity and discernment understand the potential consequences of breaking away from a religious group. Further, ensuring that a congregation’s governing documents are updated with the denomination’s required provisions can help avoid confusion about those parameters. Breaking away is almost always a difficult process, but good leadership planning ahead through good governing documents can help make the transition one of mutual respect.