The West Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church (WVUMC) faces a significant legal challenge following backlash from changes made at last year’s General Conference.
Officials with the WVUMC, including Bishop Debra Wallace-Padgett, her immediate past predecessor Bishop Sandra Stiener-Ball (pictured), and all of the conference’s district superintendents are named in the lawsuit. In the filings, more than thirty WVUMC churches accuse conference officials of providing “fraudulent” information, which prevented the churches from disaffiliation before the December 31st deadline in the UMC Book of Discipline.
The Institute on Religion and Democracy was given a copy of the court filing (viewable below) and has spoken with the law firm representing the plaintiffs, National Center for Life and Liberty.
The filing alleges that the WVUMC told the churches they did not qualify to disaffiliate under Paragraph 2553 in the Discipline based on how the conference chose to understand the use of the word “conscience” in the paragraph. The WVUMC joined a small group of other conferences in taking a more restrictive view of this word.
The filing states, “In or around August 2022, Defendants informed Plaintiff Churches that they did not qualify for disaffiliation under ¶2553 because nothing had yet changed in the Discipline and the Conference had not taken any actions that would give the Plaintiffs the ability to utilize that Paragraph which was an alternate interpretation than utilized across the majority of the conferences in the United States.”
In other words, WVUMC decided to interpret Paragraph 2553 to apply only to churches who disagreed with the 2019 wording of the Book of Discipline or to churches who disagreed with actions taken by their specific conference. Because UMC teaching on marriage had not yet changed, they interpreted the paragraph to apply only to churches that did not uphold the UMC’s traditional teaching regarding marriage.
As the filing notes and the law firm emphasized, nothing in the Book of Discipline indicates that the paragraph was meant to be interpreted in that manner. The WVUMC was one of only a small number of conferences applying it in that manner. As a result, almost no churches were able to leave through Paragraph 2553 in the state of West Virginia. However, nearly 8,000 churches in other conferences, who had the same conscience concerns as the plaintiffs, were able to disaffiliate through Paragraph 2553.
The WVUMC told the plaintiff churches that there was a separate process by which their churches could close and subsequently purchase their properties. Plaintiffs were told that this process came from Paragraph 2549 of the Book of Discipline. The paragraph had traditionally been used for churches that needed to close to allow the conference trust to assume their properties.
One other requirement of this process was for the churches to meet with Melissa Shortridge or other representatives from the Conference. According to the filing, “Despite ¶2553’s December 31, 2023, sunset date, Shortridge and/or one of Defendants’ district superintendents, as representatives and agents of Defendants, personally visited each Plaintiff Church and told them there was no reason to make any disaffiliation decision prior to the next General Conference meeting in May 2024, where the Discipline may or may not be changed, and expressly promised that if, after that conference, they still wished to disaffiliate with their property, they would be allowed to do so as their process under ¶2549 did not have that sunset date and would still be available. This was one of the selling points of the substituted process the Defendants made available.”
Sweeping changes were made to the Discipline at the 2024 General Conference, despite WVUMC insistence that churches should wait to see the outcome. Efforts to renew Paragraph 2553 failed at the conference, leaving the December 31st sunset date in effect.
When churches then asked to start the process of disaffiliation, as conference officials promised they would be able to do, they were told they could not do so without “surrendering their real and personal property.”
The filing also alleges that several members of the Conference leadership were involved in either helping to draft, or in other ways support, the changes made to the Book of Discipline at General Conference, despite recommending to churches in the lead up to the conference to wait to see if the changes actually occurred. The filing lists Bishop Ball, the Rev. Jeff Taylor, and Judi Kenaston as being directly involved with the offending changes.
According to the law firm representing the plaintiffs, in October 2024, the UMC Judicial Council permanently ended all attempts at using Paragraph 2549 as an avenue for disaffiliation, determining that it was never intended to allow for disaffiliation.
Decisions made by the WVUMC are heartbreaking for the plaintiff churches and congregants. The filing states, “Defendants were aware at the time they made their representations to Plaintiff Churches that those representations were false.”
Laity both in the conference and those who have departed share an overwhelming sentiment that conference actions have severed trust between laity and clergy, and that this is a tragedy with ramifications beyond the fate of the church properties themselves.
More From IRD:
‘Petty and Vindictive’: West Virginia Sees United Methodist General Conference Aftermath
Reflections on My Closing United Methodist Church
Callously Breaking Covenant: Reflections on UMC General Conference
Request For Disaffiliation Info: West Virginia United Methodist Bishop Responds
Comment by Wilson R. on January 30, 2025 at 4:05 pm
Nothing then or now, of course, prevents these congregations from disaffiliating and starting a new congregation. What the UMC’s response does do is prevent these congregations from taking the church’s property with them. Non-Methodists tend to be unaware that, in the UMC system, as with the old Methodist system before 1968, the real estate and other assets belong not to the congregation but to the annual conference. In contrast to what happened when Episcopal congregations went their own way, the United Methodists created provisions that allowed disaffiliating congregations to retain their property. It was a generous gesture they didn’t have to make, especially given the bitterness displayed by the disaffiliating churches. The UMC could just as easily have said, “See ya,” kept the property, and used it either to seed new UMC congregations or sold it and used the proceeds to offset the financial impact of the departed members and their donations.
As a hypothetical, let’s say the Southern Baptist Convention operated under such a system in which the assets did not belong to the congregation. And if those less conservative churches that left the SBC and joined the Community Fellowship had wanted to keep their property, does anyone think the SBC would have let them? If you do, please check out my auctions on ebay, where I’m selling the Brooklyn Bridge.
Comment by Amber Sumner on January 30, 2025 at 6:05 pm
Wilson B, you are leaving out important details. The “generous gesture” of disaffiliation provisions under paragraph 2553 was created as an exit path for those opposed to an orthodox understanding of human sexuality after the 2016 General Conference upheld the church’s historical stance. However, instead of leaving graciously to form or join a denomination with doctrine they agreed on, the “progressive” faction loudly proclaimed that they would not abide by the decision of the denomination’s ruling body, and clergy openly flaunted their disobedience to the Book of Discipline they swore to uphold. With corrupt bishops refusing to hold disobedient, covenant-breaking clergy to account, orthodox churches in many places saw no choice but to leave or be presided over by liars who expressly opposed the doctrine of the church in which they led. The apostasized leaders then did everything possible to prevent the disaffiliation of the faithful under the provisions provided, up to and including (as referenced in the article) lying about a congregation’s ability to disaffiliate after 2553 expired. Trust clause or no trust clause, this dishonesty and manipulation must be called out and those responsible should be called to account.
Comment by Gary Bebop on January 30, 2025 at 11:01 pm
This suit moves the conversation closer to what has always been at issue: can corporate entities be held accountable for what they promise? The church has always played the Trust Clause card as final trump, but the conversation is beginning to focus on the trust responsibilities implicated in the Trust Clause. This is the right move.
Comment by Tim Mc on January 31, 2025 at 7:18 am
Quote, “Laity both in the conference and those who have departed share an overwhelming sentiment that conference actions have severed trust between laity and clergy.”
When the District Superintendent came to our church he said, “This vote is about the homosexual issue only. If you want to vote because of any other issue, I will stop you from voting.”
The real issue was the lack of trust in the coference leaders and clergy. They were ignoring the Book of Discipline. They only obeyed it, (BoD), when it was good for them!
Comment by George on January 31, 2025 at 5:18 pm
Amber said it so well. I’ll just add a couple of things. When the end came, there was heavy handed treatment of the more senior pastors and how their retirements would be affected if they chose to go with a disaffiliating church. They also demanded a ransom in order for the disaffiliating church to keep their property. I hope the UMC doesn’t choke on its spoils.
Comment by Steve on January 31, 2025 at 9:07 pm
I would be more hopeful for these church’s chances if they would hire effective lawyers or law firms with a history of success. Given their track record, I am beginning to think that the National Center for Life and Liberty is on the UMC payroll.
Comment by Ben on February 1, 2025 at 9:52 pm
This article is spot on. Our WV UMC was told exactly what the others say they were told by Rev. Shortridge: there was no reason to leave, but every reason to wait- because 2549 would still be an option if the 2024 General Conference changed the definition of marriage.
We decided we would take the offer while we knew it was available and we exited by 2549 and paid to retain our property.
Comment by WayneW on February 3, 2025 at 3:40 pm
Wilson R the UMC took scissors to the Bible. It did nothing generous. The UMC was only disingenuous.
Comment by Andrew Lawson on February 3, 2025 at 3:51 pm
I am totally supportive of born again women Pastors, yet I am also very uncomfortable that most of the mess in the UMC involves women in authority.
Comment by David Hill on February 3, 2025 at 3:53 pm
I am totally supportive of born again women Pastors, yet I am also very uncomfortable that most of the mess in the UMC involves women in authority.
Comment by JoeR on February 3, 2025 at 5:27 pm
The abritrary way in which Bishops interpreted and enforced rules were disgraceful. DS’s magically took vacation so congregations could not vote. Some Bishops and Pastors would not allow congregations to discuss disaffiliation. It took lawsuits to force them to allow discussions.
Religion at its ugliest.
Comment by David Gingrich on February 4, 2025 at 7:25 am
It would be no surprise if this denomination once again defrauded its members.
Comment by Steve T. on February 4, 2025 at 1:45 pm
David Hill, let me fix that for you…Most of the mess in the UMC, Presbyterian, Episcopal, and ELCA Lutheran churches involve women in authority.
Yours truly,
A recovering ELCA Lutheran
Comment by Tim Sisk on February 4, 2025 at 9:33 pm
I wonder if 30 separate lawsuits wouldn’t have been better than one.
Comment by Tim Ware on February 4, 2025 at 11:22 pm
In response to Steve T…
Amen to that. You nailed it.
That’s what sealed the fate of the denominations.
Comment by Kevin Bartlett on February 15, 2025 at 7:26 pm
As a former member of the UMC my advice is to get as far away from that apostate church as possible: The Lord will bless you for it! Let them keep their properties and amenities. All are under God’s curse! Don’t start another church. Give your support to a church that already stands for the Bible. There are still some out there! Although no church is perfect, the issue of homosexuality should not even be considered as the Bible clearly and repeatedly identifies this as sin. This is not “hate speech” the person who tries to warn people to turn form their sins love them more than the ones who condone it. Neither the prophets, nor apostles, Paul nor Jesus, Himself overlooked sin.