The Battle Over a Church Worth Millions - The Journal Recap

Podcast: The Journal

Published: 2025-12-18

Duration: 19 minutes

Guests: Cameron McWhirter

Summary

A historic church in Nashville becomes the center of a legal battle over its ownership and assets, revealing vulnerabilities in church governance.

What Happened

The Central Church of Christ in Nashville, established in 1925 by A.M. Burton, faced dwindling membership and was eventually taken over by Sean Mathis in 2017. Mathis, a much younger member, was welcomed by the church's aging congregation and quickly rose to a leadership position. Under Mathis' leadership, the church's assets, including a valuable building and parking lots, were leveraged, leading to significant changes that upset long-time members.

Mathis was accused of using the church's assets for personal financial gain, which led to a legal battle involving the great-grandchildren of the church's founder, including Christian pop star Amy Grant. The Burton family argued that a clause in the original deed allowed them to reclaim the church property if services ceased, which they had under Mathis' leadership.

The episode highlights the phenomenon known as 'steeplejacking,' where declining churches are susceptible to being taken over for their assets. This is particularly prevalent in independent churches without strong oversight. The legal battle between the Burtons and Mathis lasted several years, with the courts reluctant to intervene due to First Amendment considerations regarding religious freedom.

In October, a settlement was reached where the church building would revert to the Burton estate while Mathis retained control of the parking lots. The proceeds from the sale of the church building would be split, with 80% going to the Burton family and 20% to Mathis' group.

Amy Grant expressed hopes for the church building to be used for community services, similar to its original mission, such as helping the homeless. Several groups have shown interest in purchasing the building to transform it into a nonprofit base.

The case underscores a broader trend of vulnerable churches being targeted for their assets, raising questions about governance and the protection of religious properties.

Key Insights