A small suburban Washington Church reveals secret efforts to exacerbate tensions in United Methodism.
Wait on the Commission?
Back in July 2016, one refrain of the criticism levied at the Western Jurisdiction for electing a well-qualified clergywoman as bishop (who happens to be married to a woman) was that the West was moving too fast. From a Southern pastor a few days later:
The Rev. Ed Tomlinson, pastor of Lanier United Methodist Church in the North Georgia Conference, said he is disappointed that the Western Jurisdiction did not wait to see what the bishops’ commission would do.
And from a Bishop a few days after that:
Our church deserves the best possible way forward. Knowing the magnitude of the task and that its impact will be of historic proportion, please give time to wait on the Commission even if others in the Church are not doing so.
It is a concise argument: stop doing things to exacerbate tensions while we wait on the Commission. Have a ceasefire while the negotiations are underway. I wish Ohio right now would agree.
But just as the fingers were pointed at the West for not waiting on the Commission, we see that forces were quietly engaged in a hostile takeover of at least one local church in The United Methodist Church.
Church Suit
In October 2017, Bishop Elaine Stanovsky sent a notice to the Pacific Northwest Annual Conference of a suit brought against the Conference by one of their own:
I want you to be aware that the Rev. William St. John, supported by some members of Mead United Methodist Church, filed a lawsuit against The Pacific Northwest Annual Conference. With this suit, they seek to have the church’s property title transferred to a newly established organization they created and named Mead Community Church…
As with any lawsuit, The Pacific Northwest Annual Conference will defend the administrative processes and protections of the Book of Discipline, including the trust clause on property, even as we continue to seek a just resolution of the dispute…Methodists have had a presence in Mead since its earliest days; in this case 1884. The church was planted, nurtured, invested in, and prayed over by countless Methodists, many who called Mead United Methodist Church their home and by Methodists across the northwest, connected through The Pacific Northwest Annual Conference.
Given that I’m now serving a church in the Pacific Northwest Annual Conference, I took an interest in this story–and what I found was disturbing on a number of fronts.
The Breadcrumbs lead to…
While usually this blog has to do serious digging through Methodist communications, polity, and standards…this time, it was all written up for me in their newsletter. Really! Click here for a copy of their newsletter article, but here’s the relevant quotes from Pastor Bill:
Why have we done all of this? It was back in June of 2016, that our congregation voted unanimously to become a part of One Spokane, a church located in Spokane Valley, that was looking for a site on the North end of Spokane to which it might expand its ministry. However, the Pacific Northwest Conference was unwilling to allow us to merge with One Spokane, and told us that the only way forward was to close the Mead Church and allow the conference to sell the property to One.
So the action to leave happened before the election of Bishop Oliveto. And it isn’t to go alone–it is to become a satellite of a non-denominational evangelical church. Interesting. Pastor Bill continues:
I contacted John Southwick, the former pastor of Green Bluff Church, who I knew from New York (actually he was my predecessor as Associate Pastor of Trinity UMC in Newburgh, NY) and who had worked for Good News Magazine, asking him if he knew anyone who might help us in this situation. He gave me the name of Keith Boyette, who was a pastor in the Virginia Conference, and had been on the Good News Board of Directors.
Okay. So Southwick was a former employee of Good News Magazine. Boyette is now the President of the Wesleyan Covenant Association. Pastor Bill continues:
It happens that Keith, who had been a lawyer before entering the ministry, was the person who argued the case before the Judicial Council, against the Western Jurisdiction for consecrating an openly lesbian bishop. The Western Jurisdiction, by the way, lost that case and was directed to remove that bishops credentials. They are still stalling taking any action on that directive.
Flat out wrong. The Western Jurisdiction was not directed to remove the Bishop’s credentials–they were directed to another process. How sad for these parishioners to not receive accurate information from their pastor! Makes you wonder…
And here’s the final lines:
Keith Boyette directed me to Daniel Dalton, a friend of his who happens to be an attorney who specializes in land use litigation…Jamie Blackhart, of One Spokane, stepped in and offered to pay those expenses [for Attorney Dalton] on our behalf…we signed a letter of engagement for Dan to provide his services, and began the process that has led us to where we are today.
Summary
To summarize the above section:
- A retired pastor from another Annual Conference, having reduced Mead UMC from 40 average attendance before his arrival to 15 average attendance, decided to lead his church to leave United Methodism.
- The pastor solicited (and received) material help and referrals from the elected leader of the Wesleyan Covenant Association and a board member from the Good News Movement–and the lawyer assisting the suit attends another Good News board member’s church. Thick ties!
- The church is now suing the Pacific Northwest Annual Conference to obtain property they are now squatting on, and some of the lawyer’s costs are being fronted by the non-denominational church that seeks to own the church’s property in a growing Washington suburb.
But where does the property go if they win?
So what is the endgame? Ah, this is the fun part. The pastor of One Spokane wrote two posts that had these troubling details:
The Mead Methodist Church is interested in merging with ONE*. That would mean all ONE*, and they would attend our services!! The expressed intent from the Pastor and Congregation is that, if things go well, they would be interested in gifting that church and the 7.5 acres to ONE*. (source)
The details of the Mead United Methodist Church property are still developing. In the meantime, we’ve moved forward with a lease option. This will allow us to launch Sunday services sooner rather than later. The lease was recently signed. Now we are updating and improving the building to meet our needs. (source)
So the nondenominational church was promised to get the church property for free (valued at almost $1 million) and has taken over operations from the squatting congregation, including physical ownership. This is not a rural unwanted property: Mead is in a growing suburb of Spokane, Washington, and a great candidate for the type of renewal and replanting ministries PNW is doing well at (and that nondenominational church knows it).
Amazing.
If a North Georgia church wanted to give its property to a Unitarian Church for free, you can bet the conservative leadership would raise a stink about it. But when it is a progressive conference losing a conservative congregation, they don’t care–and perhaps even celebrate it.
Final words
Even as I am concerned for the local church, I’m more concerned about how many more of these situations are out there.
Just as the Wesleyan Covenant Association warmly embraced their own board member who took United Methodist property with him as his church went non-denominational, we see that the Wesleyan Covenant Association has no problem facilitating the transfer of United Methodist property to another non-denominational church. Every church that leaves Methodism makes it weaker and easier to bargain with or hold hostage when the Commission releases their work.
“Waiting on the Commission” applies to everyone except the WCA and Good News who continue their scorched earth strategy to exit congregations, property, and money from The United Methodist Church, continuing today with Mead United Methodist Church. Even to the point of helping a hostile takeover of $1 million from The United Methodist Church.
My hope is that United Methodists see through the efforts of their pastors and leaders to exit their congregations before the Commission is finished. Generations of United Methodists who supported the church until today deserve better respect from the current occupants. And be sure to sound the alarm before it is too late.
Your Turn
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and your shares on social media.
There’s no mention of a meeting with Church Location or Conference Trustees??
They are suing so I’m pretty sure they don’t want to try the UM processes.
Jeremy, did you favor folks on both sides waiting for the Bishops’ Commission before violating the Discipline, leaving the UMC, or holding any trials?
Nope. I don’t make that claim because to do so is to allow violence to continue against LGBTQ clergy and laity. But the above made that claim and then undermine it by acting against it. Hypocrisy.
So your problem with them (other than general theological/philosophical disagreement) is hypocrisy, not that they’re not waiting for the Bishops’ Commission?
Just thinking that although I believe all sides should wait; doesn’t that mean that if you focus on a conservative church pulling this stunt, you should be just as upset with those who continue to violate in the other direction. You allude to conservatives being upset if the show were on the other foot, but I don’t think you get it! If another GLBTQIA wedding or ordination has taken place them that is a major deal in Xhurces pulling out of the UMC.
Thankfully, I’m not the one making the “ceasefire” claim or to “wait on the commission” but am rather fully invested in supporting continued honesty and integrity at all levels of the church. For those who are making this claim of “moving too fast” but then undermining the process, there’s a word for that: hypocrites. Utter hypocrites who are harming United Methodist witness in a town not too far from me.
Please keep us posted.
We have too much work do to to be fighting ourselves! This is crazy! Hiring lawyers to help a church to leave the UMC is vastly different than disagreeing with the direction of where the church is headed or how to interpret the Discipline. This wrong. Our mission to make disciples and transform the world is lost as we leave buildings and bodies on the side of the road to get “our way”.
If there ever was a cease fire it ended when Ms. Oliveto was made a bishop in the WJ. What we are seeing is simply the next step in an ongoing process. Better get used to it. Looks like we could be going down the path of the Episcopal Church. Best solution is to let them go with the property. Court fights only benefit lawyers.
The TEC has greatly benefitted from the money and mission outposts that come from selling of church property, so I doubt they would agree with your statement.
Also, this action above was taken BEFORE Bishop Oliveto was elected. So it’s not something you can point fingers at.
Selling churches hasn’t netted TEC so much money in the long run. It’s also led to a lot of broken relationships and hard feelings, things which aren’t very Christ like. Also the UMC needs to realize that our “trust clause” is similar to the PCUSA’s. This means that it can’t be enforced everywhere. For example if a UMC church in Mississippi chose to leave they could simply sue for a summary judgement which would state them as the sole owner of their property. They would win. This is why the PCUSA hasn’t been able to extract money from leaving churches in that state. On the other hand in a state like California congregations are legally bound by their trust clauses. This is why PCUSA churches have paid millions to leave. This is the difference between states with Neutral Principals and Hierarchical Principals. Neutral Principals is where the courts look only at the deed for the property. If there is no mention of a trust clause and the congregation has voted to edit its bylaws to remove itself from the UMC then there is no ownership by the Conference. In states like California the documents of the denomination (i.e. BOD) would be consulted and would lead to the Conference gaining property. This is a terrible situation for everyone. It’s better if we just allow congregations with clear and overwhelming majorities wishing to leave to be able to have their property if they can’t be in communion with us anymore. It’s sad but I think that it’s the right thing to do.
Kevin, Jeremy explicitly states that the story he is relating here started before Rev.* Oliveto was made Bishop.
Given that the intent of the IRD is to reduce the influence of religion in general, and those that have a history of social justice activism in particular, I suspect they are working on these sorts of situations frantically. I suspect they are afraid that most Methodists might find the suggestions of the Commission to be acceptable/tolerable, and make their job of disruption and dissolution all the more difficult.
this makes me so angry. why was the UM pastor not relieved immediately for not upholding the order of the UMC?
Pamela,
I wonder if it’s because it would be hypocritical to pretend that the Book Of Discipline means anything to those who should be enforcing the Discipline now.
If we refuse to treat it as binding because of one side’s “conscience,” then it has to bend for the conscience of the other.
Wait for the official way forward word in 2019? You’re kidding, right? Most people who recognize that they are in a burning building will move toward an exit long before the firetrucks arrive.
.
And, those of us who have studied the Episcopal collapse since the cancer of liberalism metastasized in that denomination know that hundreds of churches have closed and the home office has spent $18 million in lawsuits to hang on to the real estate. They have won most and most of those buildings stand empty. A few are now bars.
.
Further, many people like me have stopped going and giving. Just tired of the fight and accepting the inevitable split. About 100,000 last year. I am among that many or more this year. No reason to wait…
.
Anyway, where do you begin to point fingers at starting too soon? There have been homosexual pastors for years before the way forward charade. Same-sex marriages are old news, maybe new in some new places like Dallas, and maybe Austin’s First Methodist church edict of “no weddings until same-sex weddings” is new. And, maybe a lesbian bishop is old news now, but the church allowing it to continue is new. But, please, the goings on have been going on, as is the debate, over decades on issues which defy reconciliation. We all know it…
So, many of us are just moving on because the future is just too complicated and contentious. What if a liberal church or churches are stuck in a traditional conference? Like Austin churches in Texas? And, vice-versa? Those churches are going to want to leave or affiliate with the other side maybe hundreds of miles away. What about a minority of traditionalists in a majority liberal church? Most will likely bail. And, vice-versa. What if the way forward suggests we separate, but still send money to the home office for “leadership and over-sight”? Both sides will not want to subsidize the other. See? There is no hope.
.
Bottom line: There is no mystery as to how this story will end; google “Demise of the Episcopal Church” if you need an example. The traditional Methodist show is nearly over so people and churches will increasingly be headed for the exits. Predictable. Inevitable.
I have this sinking feeling that the denomination will choose to do what many cancer patients choose at some point. “No more treatments, no more surgery… and the choice to die whatever slow or rapid death that brings.
Let’s say the Commission comes up with a plan that the Texas conferences would approve. Will the West go along with that? If the commission comes up with something that the West likes, will Texas vote for it?… or Africa? Even if the Special Session proves brave enough to something through… will the various annual conferences approve it?
Your article accuses the Right of being willing to leave. And I would counter that the Left has proven they are willing to leave the discipline at any point they happen to disagree with it. Such is our new definition of covenant.
We could easily end the Commission’s process right where we began. A book of Discipline that the Left can’t muster votes to change, and a denomination unwilling to even make a show of abiding by it.
I believe that it is too late. Now that there is enough demand among the liberal East and West that the Book of Discipline not be adhered to, I can’t see any return, and to try to return would result in more years of turmoil. No, I think they should fairly and amicably accept the differences and create a Lutheran type situation where we share a name and the doctrine and hymns we can, but nothing else – certainly not funds or governance or rules. I, however, would be in the third group which is simply weary of the fight, can see years of litigation over real estate (like the Episcopal church) and so I will move to one of those non-denominational churches where the issue does not exist.
Meanwhile the Trust Clause remains, and also very clear instructions in Paragraph 213 for moving to close Mead UMC and reopen another ministry there under the UMC flag. I would bet the Bishop wins this round.
And we always follow the very clear guidance in the BOD.
It’s pretty clear that more and more people are starting new faith communities without any real estate, and a lot of resources that get directed toward bricks and mortar could be used for mission and discipleship.
Having a denomination held together by the Trust Clause may now be as passé as not healing on the Sabbath… and as Pharisaical of a practice.
Just something to think about.
Because the BOD was violated by the WJ, the violation of membership/ordination vows is justified? Hypocrisy. I wouldn’t let those schismatics teach my kindergarten Sunday School class.
And the actions by the WJ, which violated the BoD as well as membership/ordination vows to support the church and to uphold its teachings was somehow NOT schismatic?
Correct because they submitted themselves to the disciplinary process of the church as outlined in the Discipline. They are not attempting to circumvent the Discipline by a suit in a secular court.
Really Jeremy?
Not going to a secular court is the mark of fidelity?
Please!
Don’t move too fast is what was proclaimed in the sixties about segration. “Wait till folks are ready.” Never mind the unjust treatment of Black people. They need to endure until white folks are ready. Hiding in Church law has the same smell to me. Chuck Heath
The bishop said: “The church was planted, nurtured, invested in, and prayed over by countless Methodists, many who called Mead United Methodist Church their home and by Methodists across the northwest, connected through The Pacific Northwest Annual Conference.”
The pastor said: “However, the Pacific Northwest Conference was unwilling to allow us to merge with One Spokane, and told us that the only way forward was to close the Mead Church and allow the conference to sell the property to One.”
The bishop’s statement implies that the PNW has a responsibility to preserve the church property for future generations of Methodists, which seems to be in line with the usual reasoning behind the trust clause.
Assuming that the pastor’s quote is accurate, it looks as if someone else at the PNW has no problem with selling the property to One, as long as the PNW gets paid for it.
Does your experience with PNW politics give you any idea which view will eventually prevail?
So, according to my legalistic colleagues it’s not OK to violate the discipline when human sexuality is the subject, but it is OK to violate the discipline when church property is involved. We are seeking a way forward in the midst of horrible and demeaning differences. We acknowledge the severity of those differences and the threat to our very existence as a church institution. For one side to challenge the legalism surrounding disciplinary interpretation and for the other side to champion legalistic purity is understandable. But for the legalistic purists to pick and choose the portions of the discipline to enforce based on their own theological and moral biases, simply reduces them to the level of equals in the discussion. We are no longer in a battle of right vs. wrong, legal vs. illegal. We are waging war over whose theology will triumph. We are all in the soup of ‘The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. And it’s getting very ugly.
Well, this was less than helpful. All you have done is confirm two things: we all have logs in our own eyes and when you point a finger at somebody else, three fingers are pointing back at you.
Reality is the church is at an impasse because we have all sinned and fallen short of God As a result, everybody is frantically trying to do church as they see fit from their own personal perspective.
I am concerned withchurches under the name, The Church of God of Prophecy now stealing the properties from its membership. My parents paid and built on property as well as numerous other churches and the churches are being closed and sold without the desire of its local membership. I saw this blog and wanted to question how to protect other churches from having the same to happen. It should be a class action suit. Twenty five in SC so far have been closed. If you can offer any advice, I would appreciate some direction.
Thank you
Ernestine Driver