Last year, the Institute on Religion and Democracy reported that a lawsuit had been filed against the leadership of the United Methodist Church in West Virginia (WVUMC). That lawsuit filed by the National Center for Life and Liberty (NCLL) represents 33 churches in the state. It alleged that leadership in the WVUMC had provided “fraudulent” information to churches in order to prevent their disaffiliation while Paragraph 2553 of The Book of Discipline was in effect.
According to the plaintiffs, WVUMC leadership required churches interested in disaffiliation to meet with Melissa Shortridge or other members of the conference leadership. At that time, they were told that they did not meet the qualifications for disaffiliation because the conference chose to take a narrow interpretation of the word “conscience” in Paragraph 2553 that only allowed it to apply to those churches that did not support the UMC’s traditional stance on marriage.
The churches were encouraged to wait until after the May 2024 General Conference, and if The Book of Discipline was changed, they would still have the opportunity to exit under a separate portion of The Book of Discipline, Paragraph 2549, which allowed for the sale of church properties after closure. However, once the changes were made to the Book of Discipline, the plaintiffs claimed that they were, in fact, not given the opportunity to disaffiliate under Paragraph 2549.
In October of 2024, in response to a request made by the Alabama-West Florida Annual Conference, the UMC Judicial Council ruled that disaffiliations could not take place through Paragraph 2549, but the WV plaintiffs allege that their requests were denied before this ruling took place.
The original lawsuit was filed in October of 2024, and the defendants then asked for the case to be dismissed. In October of 2025, the dismissal was granted by Judge Ryan Flanigan, who believed that he “lacked subject matter jurisdiction.” There were three primary factors that played into his determination.
The first, according to documents provided by the NCLL, was, “before the enactment of section 2553, the Discipline does not provide for disaffiliation of local church while allowing it to maintain UMC property, as such action is contrary to the bedrock principle of connectionalism and violative of the trust clause.” The second was that the Discipline gave the conferences the right to either approve or disapprove individual churches’ disaffiliation, and the plaintiff had not appealed the denial of their disaffiliation. Finally, he deferred to the October 2024 Judicial Council ruling on Paragraph 2549. For these reasons, he felt he did not have the ability to rule on the facts of the case.
In November of 2025, the NCLL, on behalf of the plaintiffs, filed a motion to have the court “alter and amend” Judge Flanigan’s decision, and they also requested “the court make additional or amended findings to clarify the scope and basis of the court’s ruling.” They challenged that the UMC’s Judicial Court ruling should not have factored into the dismissal decision because it was ruled after promises were made to plaintiffs and because the WV Annual Conference had an established history of allowing churches to exit through Paragraph 2549. They simply considered it a matter of closure and then purchase of the property rather than disaffiliation.
The NCLL also noted that the interpretation of Paragraph 2553 that the WV Annual conference used in denying these churches the ability to exit was “an alternate interpretation than utilized across the majority of the conferences in the United States.” Based on this “false statement,” the churches were told that they did not qualify for disaffiliation and were told that they should wait and see what was determined at General Conference, and, if the changes were made, conference leadership promised that they would still be able to exit. The appeal notes that “Plaintiff Churches, in good faith, trusted Defendants and waited until after May 2024 to make their final disaffiliation decision.”
The NCLL also felt that the scope of the dismissal was not clear and needed to be explained further. Specifically, the dismissal did not note which specific claims were dismissed because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The petition lists an additional six issues needing clarification by the court. They are currently waiting for a ruling on the latest appeal.
The NCLL also appealed that Judge Flanigan had a “conflict in presiding over this matter.” As a result, the case was reassigned to Judge Mark Willis on January 21.
While churches across the state await the court’s ruling, it is clear that the disaffiliation issue is not going away. There is a separate bill being put forward to the West Virginia House of Delegates that would also enable church exit. The IRD will have a forthcoming article on the bill.
While the WVUMC seems to have successfully prevented initial disaffiliations, they may have won a pyrrhic victory. They will continue to pay legal fees in what looks to be a drawn-out lawsuit, that they may still lose, and, if the West Virginia bill is passed, it will potentially provide a broader path for exits. Significantly, as well, it will be almost impossible to repair the breach of trust between conference and congregants. Two years out, the feeling of palpable betrayal is still apparent when I talk to Methodists in West Virginia, and it doesn’t appear to be abating.
More from IRD:
Methodist Court: Appointed Pastors Determine Same-Sex Rites in Local Churches
Required Repentance: Ohio United Methodists ‘Still Failing’
Seeking Disaffiliation, Churches Sue West Virginia United Methodist Conference
Request For Disaffiliation Info: West Virginia United Methodist Bishop Responds
Comment by Tim Mc on February 11, 2026 at 8:57 am
Quote, “The churches were encouraged to wait until after the May 2024 General Conference, and if The Book of Discipline was changed, they would still have the opportunity to exit under a separate portion of The Book of Discipline, Paragraph 2549, which allowed for the sale of church properties after closure.”
This is what our Pastor, District Superintendant, Bishop was selling in our conference also. They did not want our church to vote on dissaffiliation. We did vote and failed. Many of us left the church.
The powers that be in the UMC had an agenda and lied to get where they are today. No one should want them as their spiritual advisors and leaders.
The following quote is my feeling also.
Quote “Significantly, as well, it will be almost impossible to repair the breach of trust between conference and congregants. Two years out, the feeling of palpable betrayal is still apparent when I talk to Methodists in West Virginia, and it doesn’t appear to be abating.”
Comment by Wilson R. on February 11, 2026 at 12:45 pm
I was part of a small, urban UMC congregation that the conference decided to close, along with other similarly situated congregations. The conference owned the property, as with all UMC properties, and the congregation had no say into the disposition of the real estate and other material assets. The conference used the sale proceeds to make grants to help strengthen other UMC congregations.
So far as I’m concerned, the “leavers” who are disaffiliating have no claim to church properties. It was extremely generous on the part of the UMC even to make that option available. It was never their property to begin with.
Note to the author:
You spelled the judge’s name two different ways.
A lawsuit is not something that is “levied.” You can “bring a lawsuit.” You can “file” one. You can “initiate” one. You don’t levy one.
Proofreading and copy editing are helpful.
Comment by Dan W on February 11, 2026 at 8:02 pm
The small church where I grew up, and the medium size church where I worshipped as an adult, both predated the UMC by almost 100 years. The buildings were funded by the local congregations. Repairs, maintenance and upgrades all were funded by the local congregations. One extremely cold winter night, I sat up with a sick boiler 1, so the pipes wouldn’t freeze and 2, so the sanctuary and classrooms would be warm enough for Sunday services. No one from the Annual Conference offered to help with any of these challenges. A widow, who was a lifetime member of one of the congregations, showed me the cabinets her father had built in the narthex 50 years before. These were still being used by our ushers on Sunday mornings. Another widow told us how she and her late husband skipped their weekly date night for an entire year, so they could contribute to the building fund for a new Christian Education building. The Annual Conference might hold the title to these properties, but the Good Lord knows who built them.
“Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.” (Luke 23:34)
Comment by Glenn Wheeler on February 11, 2026 at 11:51 pm
I can understand the positions of both commenters. Technically and legally, of course, in the UMC as well as in a number of other denominations, the denomination owns the property. But I’m not sure that people in the past really realized the import of that. It certainly was not emphasized and talked about. Back when the denominations were allies of the local congregations, there was no need to think about it. But when the denominations became enemies of certain local congregations, it became an issue…too late, of course.
But sometimes to do the right thing, one has to go beyond the technical and legal.
Surely one could understand how those who sat up all night with the boiler, who volunteered their Saturdays to paint Sunday School rooms and mow grass and trim bushes and made financial sacrifices to keep the local church going only to see it all taken away by people who had never sat foot on the property would feel betrayed, cheated, and even stolen from.
I guess the good thing to come out of this is that in all these denominations where the local people don’t own the church, all that has now been made abundantly clear. Maybe that’s one of the main reasons these denominations are all dying. Selling the properties they seize from those who built and maintained them, and who they now hate, may keep them afloat a little while longer, but eventually they will dwindle down to nothing
And wisdom is vindicated by all her children.
Comment by Mike on February 12, 2026 at 8:51 am
“And wisdom is vindicated by all her children.”
Amen.
The Methodist denomination may have the legal right to keep the buildings, but I am sure that, in God’s sight, it does not have the moral right.
Comment by Skipper on February 12, 2026 at 9:37 am
Before the UMC came into being the Methodist Church was much better. The United Methodist Church became more and more left leaning. It became apostate with its decision in May of 2024 to define a marriage as “2 people” giving their approval of Same-sex marriage. They want to keep your property because they see so many people leaving the UMC. They blend Christian and pagan rites to confuse and trap people in their sin. So sad.
Comment by Wilson R. on February 12, 2026 at 11:51 am
@DanW:
Your situation sounds similar to mine, except that the congregation was always affiliated from the beginning with the Methodist Church and then the UMC. The building dated from 1887. It had an ancient boiler that had to be nursed along. Generations of faithful laypeople maintained and nurtured that building. We repaired the AC system and the plumbing. We mowed and landscaped. Yet we all knew that the building didn’t belong to us. We, too, received no assistance from the conference in any of this. And yet it was a point of honor with this congregation always to pay 100% of our annual apportionments, even when we could have used some of that money for our building, and even when many larger congregations only paid a fractional amount each year.
My grievance with the conference is that, when they decided to close the congregation and sell the building, we received zero guidance or assistance. They told us of the decision in November of 2015, then in December that they were closing the building. We were supposed to attend another UMC a couple of miles down the street, with which we shared a pastor. So we couldn’t even worship together and grieve the breakup of this community together, except for one final “deconsecration” service six months later. The district superintendent didn’t even bother to stay for the duration of that service; she left early. She was from a rural area and did not seem to care about urban ministry. The conference was focused on attendance and giving numbers and was moving resources to affluent suburban areas that were growing. (I told the DS they should change the UMC mission statement from “making disciples for the transformation of the world” to “making more giving units for the transformation of the budget,” since that was all I ever heard her talk about.) The worst part was just feeling abandoned by the conference, more like we were a problem to get rid of than a community to care for. No guidance on helping members find a new church home (they seemed to expect we would all just migrate to the sister church, another small congregation that we figured was on the glide path for eventual closure). I am told that the majority of our members never found another church home. After a couple of years away from church, I eventually found a compatible new community in a downtown UMC congregation.
I go into all this detail (1) because I’m still angry about what happened; and (2) because I want to emphasize the point that I’m not holding any brief for the UMC hierarchy. I have no illusions about the callous way they sometimes treat people.
But the difference between the disaffiliators and me is that I did not choose to leave the UMC. They walked away knowing that they had no legal claim to their buildings but demanded magnanimity from the organization they were quitting. Despite my disagreements with the quitters over acceptance of same-sex members and pastors, I was willing for their sake to accept the UM Book of Discipline’s position that pastors could not openly live as homosexuals nor officiate at same-sex weddings. And the quitters knew full well that the UMC was willing to operate under a structure where a local congregation’s views against same-sex pastors and weddings would prevail in those churches if they wished. I was willing to remain at the table with them. They were not willing to remain at a table with anyone who thinks like me. So be it. But remember: You are the ones who quit, and then you have the gall to treat property of the church you quit as yours rather than as the gift from the UMC that it was. Seems to me that the UMC overall acted in good faith toward the quitters. And the quitters acted in bad faith. Cool. I’ve shaken your dust off my feet and moved on.
Comment by Dan W on February 12, 2026 at 12:52 pm
@Wilson R,
Yes, I saw and experienced a lot of the same over the last 10 years. My parents congregation disaffiliated and my church closed. With most of our members over 70 y/o it was inevitable. I understood how the trust clause worked, I just believed it was a partnership between the congregation and the conference, and I was wrong. Sometimes churches have to close, but there are kinder/wiser ways to do it. There needs to be a better support structure for these folks who were always there for their friends and the UMC.
Comment by Wilson R. on February 12, 2026 at 1:29 pm
Dan, we agree on that.
Comment by Qohelet on February 12, 2026 at 4:18 pm
I hear this charge that DSs and pastors “misled” churches into thinking they’d be able to exit after the expiry of section 2553. I hear it enough there must be some truth behind it, but I have to ask why on earth you believed it. The denomination’position on this was clear, and even the secular newspapers reported on this enough that you should have known that wasn’t true.
I think the real issue here is that some individuals are furious they couldn’t make their church disaffiliate under 2553. Either they didn’t speak for their whole church (like Tim Mc above) or their church couldn’t afford to pay their share of pension liability. Because when you say things like “no one from the Annual Conference offered to help with these challenges” you forget that it provided you with a seminary educated pensioned pastor for decades and that you can’t just walk away from your obligations to those people.
I suspect most of the “wait and see what happens” advice was given to folks who never were going to get to take their church buildings with them under 2553.
Comment by Skipper on February 12, 2026 at 5:02 pm
Wilson, you call those of us who left the UMC over lack of morals quitters. You didn’t notice we were standing up for Biblical Truth. I am so glad to be out of the UMC and together with those who really care about following Christ. My new church is a Global Methodist, and I am glad to see over 6000 congregations have seen fit to join.
Comment by Dan W on February 12, 2026 at 6:26 pm
@Oohelet,
Those local congregations paid into the pension fund for half a century, and the plan is apparently well funded at ~ $30 billion invested (Wespath numbers.)
Was there ever an actual impartial audit done to establish a “fair” cost for the existing congregations? Or were the exit fees just pulled out of somebodys…
hat?
Comment by Glenn Wheeler on February 13, 2026 at 12:14 am
For a group of clergy supposedly following the Son of Man who had no place to lay His head, having a $30,000,000,000 pension fund is sort of like slapping Him on the face as He hung on the cross.
Comment by Qohelet on February 13, 2026 at 7:39 am
So no substantive response to my point about 2553, just attacks on the concept of pensions. We’ll assume I’m correct then, that these churches were never going to leave by 2553 and that takes the charges of fraud off the table.
@Dan, the 2553 process was written by UMC conservatives to entice liberals to leave the church after 2016. When the 2020 conference got delayed by COVID, conservatives got impatient and left themselves through the process they intended for the left. So blasting the fairness of it is, well, unfair.
@both of you, attacking the concept of pensions is dishonest. This is a simple issue of pay your debts. In the 20th century there were a lot of ways to make a living that were easier and paid better than being a Methodist pastor. But folks uprooted their families every 4 years, reduced the earning potential of their spouses tremendously and turned their kids into pastors’ kids based on a promise that they’d be taken care of. There are vocal critics of the UMC on this site who happily draw a UMC pension and there’s no problem with that because they earned it. The idea that churches were going to be able to take million dollar (or at least hundred thousand dollar) assets (their buildings) away from the UMC but also wash their hands of the debt they had agreed to be part of paying is absurd.
Comment by Different Steve on February 13, 2026 at 9:22 am
Some provisions in United Methodist Church (UMC) law have tied a departing local church’s ability to leave to paying a share of unfunded pension liabilities, and that’s been a point of controversy. Here’s how it works and what it’s really about:
Why a “pension-related fee” can be part of a church’s exit
In the UMC’s Book of Discipline, a provision known as Paragraph 2553 (adopted at the 2019 special General Conference) allowed local congregations to disaffiliate with property under certain conditions. One of those conditions is paying a proportionate share of the annual conference’s unfunded clergy pension liability. That has sometimes been referred to as a kind of withdrawal fee or pension-related exit cost.
In practice, each annual conference determines how much a departing church’s “fair share” of that pension liability is, and that amount can vary widely.
In addition to the pension portion, churches seeking to disaffiliate under that paragraph often also must pay other costs before leaving (such as apportionments and debts).
Is this because pensions are severely underfunded?
That’s where things get a bit more nuanced:
1. Connectional responsibility for lifetime benefits
UMC leadership and many annual conferences argue that defined-benefit pensions create long-term obligations shared by all conferences and churches in the denomination. When a church leaves, the argument goes, it’s passing that share of lifetime pension obligations for clergy it has benefitted from onto remaining churches — hence the charge.
2. Whether a plan is technically “underfunded” depends on how you measure it
Some critics have said that characterizing the pension plans as underfunded is misleading. For example, a 2022 critique noted that the plans may be fully funded on a market basis at a given time, but liabilities fluctuate with investment markets and actuarial assumptions, so conferences maintain that it’s prudent to require a withdrawal share to protect future funding.
3. New pension structures aim to avoid future underfunding
In response to concerns about long-term sustainability, the UMC has approved a new retirement plan called Compass, which shifts active clergy retirement benefits entirely to a defined contribution model starting in 2026. That structure is intended to reduce long-term pension liabilities and make benefits more sustainable without creating large future obligations.
Bottom line
Churches leaving the UMC have, in recent UMC law, been required to pay a share of pension liabilities as part of exit costs, and that’s sometimes called a “pension fee” or withdrawal liability.
This isn’t simply a punitive charge — it reflects the connectional nature of defined-benefit pension obligations and protects remaining churches from inheriting obligations without contributions.
Whether the plans are truly “underfunded” in every technical sense is debated; the need for change in retirement plan design led UMC leaders to adopt a new plan (Compass) to avoid future funding issues.
Comment by Skipper on February 13, 2026 at 9:45 am
The Progressives didn’t build our building, but they took it over with erroneous information and dealings. That bothered me a lot. Now I look back on their False Gospel, how it is such a bad influence on people and I am so glad to be away from them. I am also very glad to be taken into a real Christian group that follows Christ. It was so depressing to see people at church that were such a bad influence. The UMC preacher was buddy-buddy with these ravenous wolves. He wouldn’t even let the Bible be read at church when it speaks on how evil homosexuality is, such as Romans 1 and Corinthians 5 and 6. So glad to move on. These folks seem pleased with their own wisdom. Time will tell how it works out for them.
Comment by Different Steve on February 13, 2026 at 9:47 am
My wife was non-clergy for decades and never got a pension although she did have a couple 401 plans. In my private sector case, I also never got a pension just various 401 plans. We did fine. Wife knew several clergy some in retirement, one of which referred to the embarrassment of funds he received from the pension with something along the lines of “made in the shade”. Anything I ever heard about these UMC departure fees suggested the amounts arrived at were pretty arbitrary, not actually attached to any calculation of pension obligations. Possibly because too many unknowables. Something like, we already collected and have a ton of money making a ton of money, but we are also going to have to pay who knows how many tons of money, let’s just pull a number out of the air. Public pensions are basically out of control across the country with mass bankruptcy being the probable outcome sooner or later. It’s nice that the UMC has taken steps towards pension reform but I am mindful they are probably going out of business in the next few decades anyway.
Comment by Wilson R. on February 13, 2026 at 11:31 am
Skipper:
You believe you were standing for Biblical truth. Well and good. But that doesn’t change the fact that you were a quitter.
I recognize that many Methodists have sincerely held differences from my views. I think they’re dead wrong, but I’m willing to set our differences aside and worship with them. I’ve done just that in my parents’ old church, which voted to disaffiliate. It was a bit disconcerting to be there at my mother’s funeral, by which time the congregation had left the UMC, and sense that I was in a church home that no longer felt quite like home. But we accentuate what we have in common rather than the differences, just as Jesus did by including disciples who included tax collectors and political radicals (Zealots) .
The quitters were not willing to do that. So… bye.
Comment by Wilson R. on February 13, 2026 at 11:52 am
I take a direct interest in the clergy pension issue. My parents both were sustained by that Westpath fund.
My dad was a Methodist/UM pastor in the Central Texas Conference. He served faithfully for over 50 years. He qualified for Social Security, but because pastors were officially designated as “self-employed”—a nasty bookkeeping trick that allowed the denomination to save money at pastors’ expense—he had to pay the employer’s matching 7.65% share himself.
When he died, the SS benefits ended. My mother, who had worked for 25+ years as a kindergarten teacher, did not receive Social Security. Not until my brother and I had to help her manage her financial affairs did we understand that, in Texas, the fact that teachers have a pension plan means they don’t get Social Security–another weaselly way of cutting costs at employees’ expense.
The clergy pension benefit amounted to about $2,500 a month, which was also roughly the amount of her teacher pension. Together, it wasn’t enough to cover the cost of assisted living. Only because she had the foresight to invest in long-term care insurance years earlier, and bear the financial burden of that for years, did she have just enough to pay for her care. And even that wasn’t enough when she had to move to skilled nursing care.
Pastors and pastors’ wives sacrifice a lot. They’re not just some bookkeeping item, although that is often how they are treated.
BTW, I recall in the 1980s or early 1990s a big drive to get UMC members to make extra contributions because the pension fund was so underfunded. So if it’s decently funded now, that hasn’t always been the case.
We had a pastor around 2000 who went into renal failure and needed dialysis 3x per week. But he and his wife didn’t feel like they could go on disability, even though his ability to fulfill the role of pastor was severely compromised, because at that time pastors on disability only got 20% or so of their salary. If he could stick it out for another 6 months, a change was set to take effect that would increase disability compensation to 40% or 50%. So that’s what he did. It was really hard on him, his wife, and the congregation. Please, never begrudge a pastor of their modest benefits.
Comment by Skipper on February 13, 2026 at 4:20 pm
Wilson, when quitting is a good thing, I don’t believe the term “quitter” is appropriate. Say a person quitting a drug habit. They are beginning something good, so perhaps “quitter” doesn’t quite fit, although they are quitting something. Your dad having to pay the employer portion too on Social Security was way too much!
By approving Same-sex Marriage, the United Methodists see themselves as inclusive. They see themselves as being more “compassionate” or “less judgmental”. But when you dilute and distort God’s Word and keep the captive bound in the chains of sin, nothing could be more uncompassioate.
We are to speak the truth in love, both are necessary. It’s a difficult challenge. Anyone who struggles with this and who wishes to confess his or her sinful behavior will find forgiveness and healing from God and begin a New Life in Christ.
Comment by Glenn Wheeler on February 13, 2026 at 10:44 pm
And many of the people who donated the money that went to pay for that $2500 per month pension no doubt worked jobs that provided no pension at all and when they retired, drew nothing but Social Security.
Comment by Glenn Wheeler on February 14, 2026 at 12:00 am
And instead of an income of $5000 per month, they had an income of $1300 per month.
How did they pay for their assisted living?
It’s stuff like this that has turned me, and many others, completely away from organized Christianity.
Comment by Skipper on February 14, 2026 at 3:53 pm
Speaking of quitting – it would be fairly easy to make a case that the United Methodist Church quit on us! They quit identifying sexual sin. They quit upholding our heritage as Methodists as having an emphasis on holiness, something Methodists have always stressed. They quit supporting Christian Marriage for pagan rites. They quit opposing homosexual behavior, Trans-genderism and Same-Sex Marriage. They quit being Methodists. So really it was them who did the quitting. We walked off with the shirt on our backs, even as the majority of our congregation wanted keep our property and get out of the UMC. And finally, the big one, most importantly, they quit on God!
Comment by Different Steve on February 15, 2026 at 8:52 am
Pension for me, toxic empathy for thee.
Comment by Wilson R. on February 16, 2026 at 11:22 am
Well, Skipper, it just sounds like you’re desperately trying to rationalize away the simple truth that you left.
The truth is that the UMC (for all of my complaints about them elsewhere) was NOT going to impose same-sex pastors and same-sex marriages on your local congregation, or even on your entire conference, if you are opposed to those things. That’s an unprecedented degree of congregationalism for the UMC. And for a denomination with an episcopal system, I’d say it’s a fairly large concession to allow individual churches and conferences to carve out exceptions to the Book of Discipline. Maybe it would have proved unworkable in the end, but that’s what they were offering.
The quitters chose to walk away not from a doctrine that was being imposed directly on them. They left because they couldn’t stand to be at the same table with other Methodists who believed differently.
There are some on the pro-LGBTQ side who, I think, feel the same way about you as you feel about them. But my experience is that they are a small, if vocal, minority. And in any case, they were not ginning up a movement to quit the UMC as congregations if their views did not prevail over the entire denomination. They were mostly willing to stay at the larger table with you. You were not willing to stay at the table with them in spite of your differences. End of story.
Comment by Skipper on February 16, 2026 at 6:04 pm
Oh, we left all right Wilson, but that doesn’t make us quitters. Allowing pagan sexuality is not for those who follow Christ. It doesn’t matter that it was not forced on you at the present. They blend Christian and pagan ideas. That should be enough said. That is disobedient. The Bible warns us not to go along with such. I Corinthians 5 tells how we are to handle “Immoral Followers.” You will be surprised. The UMC has made it’s own rules, disregarding God. That is a very dangerous position. One day we will all have to give an account.
By the way, do the Progressives know homosexuality is evil? I think most of them do, and they just ignore this. I talked to the Episcopal bishop of my state one time, asking if he would approve homosexuals for the ministry. He said he would. I ask if it was evil. He surprised me by saying “It’s very evil.” I ask, “how can you reconcile your position with the Bible?” He said, “I can’t, I still working on it.” So, he thinks one day he will find a way to justify this sin. How sad. Now the UMC is following the Episcopals.
The difference is Traditional Christians care about those who are in co-habiting or same-sex relationships. It’s not easy to help them toward the light. Remember Matthew 18:17 where Jesus said “If your eye causes you to sin, poke it out and get rid of it. You would be better off to go into life with only one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fires of hell.” It’s not easy to rescue immoral people, but that’s what we are called to do – rescue all and do it like rescuing someone from a fire (Jude 23).
Jesus said those who hear his message and obey are like a man who built his house on solid rock. When the storms came it withstood the wind and water. He said those who hear his message and do not obey are like a man who built his house on sand. When the storms came it fell with a loud crash. Obedience brings blessing and disobedience forecasts loss. Jeremiah 29:13 says “You will seek and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.” In 2 Corinthians 6:2, the Apostle Paul declares, “Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation”. We must all turn from sin and turn back to God.
Comment by Skipper on February 17, 2026 at 10:16 am
Wilson, why would I want to be at the same table with those who don’t do right? We already tried that and it only reinforced their erroneous thinking. In Matthew 18:6 Jesus said “It will be terrible for people who cause even one of my little followers to sin. Those people would be better off thrown into the deepest part of the ocean with a heavy stone tied around their necks!” The Progressives promote what the Bible calls sin. And sexual sin is always very serious in the Bible. They don’t care about others, they are happy in darkness and want company.
I have to drive farther to my new church now and it was excruciating to slowly lose our property to a minority of Progressives, but as I look back it was worth it. Now I have new surroundings. Hebrews 12:1 “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us”
Comment by Wilson R. on February 17, 2026 at 1:17 pm
You’ll have to be the one to answer why you wouldn’t want to be at the table with those you disagree with. Paul’s writings could help you think about that. I can’t answer the question for you. All I wanted you to admit was that you, not the “progressives,” were the ones who chose to walk away, even though I imagine they believe you are as misguided as you believe they are. And now you have admitted it. Thank you.