I wrote of the farmers and townspeople who contributed to endowment of the St. Lawrence Theological School, that endowment having been converted into a fund that supports Unitarian Universalist theological education today. Scott Wells of Boys in the Bands comments: "I wonder how many sold church buildings went, ultimately, into that fund too."
The law requires that not-for-profit corporations that are going out of business transfer their funds to another not-for-profit corporation with a compatible mission. This prevents a group of "trustees" from driving all the members out of a church so that they can sell the property to Walmart and retire to the Gold Coast (that is the one in Florida not the one in Africa.)
Local congregations that vote to dissolve have in recent times ceded their assets directly to the Unitarian Universalist Association. I know of congregations that have been the beneficiaries of funds held by the UUA, because the UUA puts aside such liquidation funds for future church starts in the same general geographic area. Sometimes the liquidated church transfers its assets to another church. I am sure that some failing Universalist churches in upstate New York gave their assets to St. Lawrence Theological School, as well as the Universalist State Convention.
But this is People So Bold! So my readers expect just a little prophetic crying out at the powers of privilege and their abuses (without making any one feel guilty or bad about themselves.)
There were three Universalist Churches in an industrial city in the Northeast. There was also a Unitarian Church. The Universalist Churches served the workers and small business people of this city, while the Unitarians served the teachers and the owners of some of the larger businesses. About forty years ago the mysterious panic known as "white flight" struck this city and each of the churches began to lose members. In response to their losses the leaders of these four congregations decided to consolidate and sold their real estate in the industrial city and moved to a beautiful little hill in a suburb by the sea. There they built a lovely campus and had enough money left over from the sale of the former inner city buildings to have what is now a sixteen million dollar endowment. While ministers and members have proposed that given the source of their wealth they might return something to the nearby city (which is ten times larger than the suburb by the sea) in the form of a community ministry, or even a new church start, the "owners" of this endowment have declined these invitations to restorative justice, instead spending their inheritance on themselves and cultural uplift programs in their lovely little suburb.
Again I ask, what was the intention of the original donors? What was the mission of the people who founded and endowed those Universalist Churches? When they contributed their tithe from working in a mill were they thinking that one day their small contributions would roll into big fund and establish a new congregation - a little "city on a hill" that would witness to white middle class arrogance and self indulgence? The law tells a failing congregation to turn its assets over to a not-for-profit with the compatible mission. Does that just mean a self involved club that will celebrate "our Universalist heritage" with two named Sunday school rooms; one named for Ballou and one for Dix.
Scott,
lots of Universalist buildings (as well as Unitarian buildings) were sold and the money realized now contributes to our present funds. Some of that money went to the UUA, some to State Conventions, and a hell of a lot to consolidated congregations that are supposed to being carrying on their mission.
This is a true story, it is about one city and one suburb, but it is so similar to other stories, that it might seem like I am constructing an archetype for a story with a moral. No this story is not an allegory, there is no sweeping generalizations in this story, no moral for the kiddies. Those were real workers and real shop keepers who just believed in Universalism. What does that mean to us? What is our mission? Who do we serve?
My earlier musing was rhetorical -- I'm pretty familiar with misplaced legacies. Southern Universalists -- others, too, perhaps -- I know openly suspect that small Universalist churches were starved and killed, so that the church buildings (the deeds were not held locally, common for Universalists) could be sold. Derek Parker has stories from the Midwest.
And there are tons of stories far worse than the one you mention. But since I recognize the situtation, I should mention that one of the Universalist churches of That Town was also at one time the largest church in the demomination, and larger than its heir today.