Church court: Season of church exits is over

Key Points

• The United Methodist Church’s top court ruled that a church closure cannot be used as an alternative method of disaffiliation.
• The Judicial Council also struck down as unconstitutional an expansion of the church-closure law.
• The two rulings were among five the church court released dealing with church exits and closures.

A church law designed for handling church closures cannot be used as a way for congregations to leave The United Methodist Church with property, the denomination’s top court ruled.

“With the expiration and deletion of ¶2553, the postponed 2020 General Conference effectively removed from The Book of Discipline, 2016, …  the only pathway for the disaffiliation of local churches,” the Judicial Council said in Decision 1512.

In a separate ruling, the Judicial Council also struck down changes to the Discipline’s church-closure provision, Paragraph 2549, that would empower a church council to initiate a congregation’s closure.

These changes violate the denomination’s constitution, the church court said in Decision 1507, because “they deny and circumvent the authority given to the Charge Conference” — which has general oversight over a church council.

The decisions were among five rulings the denomination’s high court released Oct. 29 that address questions related to church withdrawals and closures.

Bottom line: The Judicial Council says church closures cannot be used as a backdoor way for congregations to exit and take property with them. In the words of Decision 1512, The United Methodist Church is now “in a new season” after five years of congregations leaving under the auspices of church law.

The special General Conference in 2019 instituted the Discipline’s Paragraph 2553 amid intensifying debate and defiance over bans on same-sex weddings and gay clergy. Under the provision, congregations could leave with property for “reasons of conscience” related to homosexuality if they met certain financial and procedural requirements.

In essence, Paragraph 2553 provided a temporary and limited release from The United Methodist Church’s centuries-old trust clause, which states that church property is held in trust for the benefit of the entire denomination.

Over the next four years, the paragraph opened the door for more than 7,600 U.S. churches — about a quarter of the denomination’s U.S. congregations — to exit with property.

Paragraph 2553 set its own expiration date at the end of last year. The COVID-postponed General Conference that met earlier this year took the additional step of eliminating the provision entirely from the Discipline. That same gathering of the denomination’s top lawmaking assembly also ended the denomination-wide bans related to LGBTQ people.  

In General Conference’s aftermath, some conferences — regional bodies consisting of multiple congregations — have looked to the church-closure provision, Paragraph 2549, as an alternative disaffiliation method. Essentially, these conferences sought to use the provision to close a church and then transfer the assets to the closed congregation under the same parameters outlined in Paragraph 2553.

The South Carolina, South Georgia and Rio Texas conferences already have used Paragraph 2549 to approve the exit of more than 200 U.S. congregations this year.

In Decision 1512, the Judicial Council was responding to a question from the Alabama-West Florida Conference about the meaning, application and effect of Paragraph 2549 as it relates to such separations going forward.

The Judicial Council said that using Paragraph 2549 for disaffiliations contradicts its clear intent. The provision specifically states that a closed church’s remaining congregants are to be connected with other United Methodist congregations in the area. Paragraph 2549 also says a closed church’s assets are to be vested with the annual conference’s board of trustees, “who shall hold said property in trust for the benefit of the annual conference.”

Using Paragraph 2549 for denominational separations “is another failed attempt to circumvent the trust clause, a hallmark of United Methodist polity,” the Judicial Council said.

If Paragraph 2549 could be used for church disaffiliations, the church court goes on to say, there would have been no need for General Conference to pass Paragraph 2553. Now, General Conference has voted not to extend that disaffiliation policy.

The Judicial Council previously determined in a 2022 decision that absent General Conference action, annual conferences do not have the authority to withdraw en masse from The United Methodist Church. In Decision 1512, the church court applies the same principle to individual congregations.

“Except for the General Conference, no body or entity in the Church has the power to reinstate or replicate ¶2553 or adopt legislation, policies, guidelines, rules, or regulations authorizing the departure of local churches,” the church court said.

“Any such action, plan, or attempt to do so intrudes upon the exclusive prerogative of the General Conference and is unconstitutional, null, and void.”

The Judicial Council’s ruling comes just days after the Alabama Supreme Court denied a request for a rehearing of its ruling against United Methodist churches that sued the Alabama-West Florida Conference to leave the denomination and take property with them. The state Supreme Court had previously ruled that the churches must pursue the matter through the denomination’s own judicial system.

In Memorandum 1511, the Judicial Council said it could not address the Kentucky Conference’s similar but more broadly worded question about Paragraph 2549. The conference asked whether it could use the paragraph or some other provision of the Discipline as a pathway for the exit of local churches from The United Methodist Church.

The Judicial Council said it lacked jurisdiction “to determine whether a given paragraph of the Discipline can be utilized in a certain way or to determine which Discipline paragraph might be used to accomplish a specific goal.” The memorandum then pointed the conference to Decision 1512.

Judicial Council member Bill Waddell recused himself from deliberations on both Memorandum 1511 and Decision 1512 because of his previous role as chancellor of the Council of Bishops.

In Decision 1507, the Judicial Council addressed another question from the Alabama-West Florida Conference regarding Paragraph 2549. The conference specifically asked about changes that this year’s General Conference approved that allowed a local church’s council to petition its conference to close that local church. The changes go on to say that such a motion at the annual conference may be made by a lay member, who is a member of that congregation or another church in the same charge.

The Judicial Council said this expansion of Paragraph 2549.2(b) and the addition of Paragraph 2549.3 usurp the constitutional power of the charge conference. In the words of the Discipline, a charge conference “is the connecting link between the local church and the general Church and shall have general oversight of the church council(s).”

A charge conference directs the work of the church, reviews its mission and ministry of the church and gives general oversight to church leadership. A pastoral charge can consist of more than one congregation and thus the charge conference can serve more than one church.

“The Church Council can make a recommendation to the Charge Conference, but the Church Council cannot bypass the Charge Conference,” Decision 1507 said. “The usurpation of the Charge Conference’s connection to the general church and delegating it to the Church Council of a local church is a Constitutional violation.”

When considering the constitutionality of a General Conference action, the Judicial Council must have a full roster of nine present. At least six must agree the action is unconstitutional to strike it down. The ruling in Decision 1507 was unanimous.

Molly Hlekani Mwayera was absent for the Judicial Council’s fall meeting. Erin Hawkins, first lay alternate, participated in all the fall decisions. The Rev. Øyvind Helliesen was absent for most decisions but participated by Zoom in the deliberations of Decision 1507.

The Judicial Council also faced other questions dealing with the ramifications of disaffiliations and the rise of the Global Methodist Church, a theologically conservative breakaway denomination that has drawn much of its membership from disaffiliated churches.

In Memorandum 1508, the Judicial Council said it did not have jurisdiction to address a question from the Northeastern Jurisdictional Conference about the eligibility of delegates who serve in a denomination not in full communion with The United Methodist Church. The issue for the Judicial Council was that the record did not show any evidence that the question was germane to the jurisdiction’s regular business or discussion. The request also failed to address a specific Disciplinary paragraph.

In Decision 1514, the Judicial Council affirmed in part and reversed in part a decision of law by Bishop LaTrelle Easterling dealing with retired clergy serving in disaffiliated churches.

The Judicial Council said the bishop ruled correctly that a question about whether such service constitutes a chargeable offence is moot and hypothetical. The church court agreed the question was not germane to the regular business of the Peninsula-Delaware Conference’s clergy session and did not state a connection to a specific action taken or to be taken by the conference.

However, the Judicial Council said the bishop should have also answered “moot and hypothetical” to a question about whether a retired clergy member serving a disaffiliated church constitutes a voluntary withdrawal. The church court said the question also “did not state a connection to a specific action taken or to be taken by the conference.”

In a concurrence to Decision 1514, four Judicial Council members wrote separately to address two concerns.

The concurrence said it shows a lack of accountability when retired elders choose to remain United Methodist but serve in non-United Methodist churches without the appointment or approval of their bishop.

“Elders in full connection commit themselves through their ordination to ‘live in covenant of mutual care and accountability with all those who share their ordination, especially in The United Methodist Church,’” the concurrence said, citing and adding emphasis to the Discipline’s Paragraph 303.3.

At the same time, the concurrence said, any Board of Ordained Ministry policy seeking to terminate the conference membership of such retired elders still requires the vote of the clergy session.

The Revs. Luan-Vu “Lui” Tran, Jonathan Ulanday and Judicial Council President Susan Henry-Crowe signed the concurrence, as did Andrew Vorbrich.

Hahn is assistant news editor for UM News. Contact her at (615) 742-5470 or newsdesk@umnews.org.To read more United Methodist news, subscribe to the free Daily or Friday Digests.