An Oklahoma district court supersedes UMC church law, reinstates 55 churches to stack the vote to get one more disaffiliated.
Playing Hardball on Holy Ground
For the past decade, Traditionalists’ divisive preaching and failure to uphold big-tent denominational principles turned many United Methodist congregations into lopsided ones. Traditionalists either dwindled their churches down to monolithic majorities that reflected the pastor’s views, or grew their churches because such extreme views reflect the cultures they are in.
Starting in 2021, traditionalists used those large local percentages to vote to disaffiliate from The United Methodist Church, enabled by the General Conference 2019 legislation. Even though the total number of disaffiliating churches will end up being less than a third of United Methodism, and the actual number of exiting members is far less than on paper, given decades of artificial membership inflation, it’s still been effective in some areas ripe with discontent.
When this disjointed process doesn’t work to get the majority needed to disaffiliate, the local church has resorted to secular courts. For example, the National Center for Life and Liberty got several thousand dollars each from hundreds of Methodist churches in multiple states to join suits against the annual conferences to disaffiliate without upholding the Disciplinary processes—incidentally, each one of these joint suits failed to pass a court of law.
Up until now, aside from some isolated cases were lost on the basis of the individual states’ recognition of the trust clause, no court of law would tell a denomination how to interpret and practice its ecclesial law on this topic.
But that just happened in July 2023 in an Oklahoma district court: a judge has decided it can better interpret ecclesial law and doctrine and practices than our own denominational authorities and judiciary. If the decision is not thrown out, it will be open season on the First Amendment protection of churches.
Mind-numbing misinterpretations of church law
The briefest synopsis of the situation is that First UMC in Oklahoma City sued the Oklahoma Annual Conference rather than participate in the disaffiliation process that all previous disaffiliating churches did at varying levels of compliance. The district court then sided with First OKC, and in its decision, required the annual conference to hold a new special session just to deal with First UMC’s disaffiliation vote (a vote which incidentally doesn’t even exist according to our polity)
The decision by the district court includes the following claims, amongst others. You can read the appellate court files here, but basically, the lower court ruled:
- The Church did not have to go through the conference processes found in the Book of Discipline ¶2553 and upheld by the Judicial Council, thereby nullifying church law.
- The Church did not have to hold a charge conference vote to disaffiliate as an unsanctioned straw poll sufficed, thereby nullifying the Book of Discipline’s explicit process on the matter.
- First OKC did not have to participate or uphold other areas of the Book of Discipline because they were “in the middle of a disaffiliation process,” thereby declaring that a church is no longer UMC when it votes to leave, nullifying UMC processes before and after.
These misinterpretations of ecclesial law gave the basis for the district court to dictate how a religious denomination shall operate. And in doing so, it overreached badly.
The whopper: Reinstate the membership of 55 disaffiliated churches
The district court required the annual conference to hold a vote on approving the disaffiliation of First OKC, even though the church has not even held a disaffiliation vote at a charge conference, and allegedly withdrew from the OKUMC disaffiliation processes. That’s why it wasn’t eligible to be voted on at an April 2023 special session that approved 55 churches to disaffiliate.
But here’s the kicker: in calling for a vote, the court required that all the attendees to that April 2023 Special Session be allowed voting privileges. Which means:
- Church laity from those 55 churches (and others) that have renounced their United Methodist membership are eligible to vote.
- Clergy that have turned in their clergy orders (even ones not present in April 2023 but hadn’t turned in their membership until May 2023) and no longer serve as United Methodist Clergy are eligible to vote as if they were clergy again.
Yeah, it’s bananas. People that have turned in their clergy orders, publicly refuted their lay membership…they are to be reinstated as laity and clergy and given the right to vote again in a denomination they no longer reside in?
That’s just not happening. Nor should it, by any reasonable reading. But it could next week!
What’s Next? Be Ready to Vote “NO”
The Annual Conference has appealed to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma to stay the decision, which requires a called church conference on August 5th, 2023. If they fail to intervene, Oklahoma United Methodists should be ready to vote en masse to protect the First Amendment rights of all churches in Oklahoma. Oklahomans: Be sure to check with the district superintendent on how to attend if you are eligible.
But the damage has already been done, and laid bare the lawlessness of those seeking to break their United Methodist ties by any means necessary. In the case of First Oklahoma City, the church removed 2,100 members without a required charge conference. They held a straw poll to disaffiliate, without a required charge conference. And they now celebrate the reinstatement of exited clergy and laity for the sole purpose of voting to affirm their lack of participation in the requirements of disaffiliation. Reading the writings by former UMs and now-GMC pastor videos in support of such a failure to uphold the Discipline is astounding. Can you imagine if this was required of the Global Methodist Church? Their lawyer/pastors (and there are a LOT of them in leadership) would lose their minds.
Let’s agree on the basic tenet: The United Methodist Trust Clause is a theological claim. For United Methodists, it’s a theological claim going back to our originator John Wesley (and you could make the argument that this has been the case going back to Acts 2). The judge, in this case, has ruled that it is entirely a property matter, and nullified church law and understandings that even Tom Oden, arch-Traditionalist, affirms in his book Turning Around the Mainline (how far the Traditionalists have fallen in their frenzy to exit people and property from United Methodism!).
If this decision is upheld then it would be open season on ecclesiology of every local church and mainline denomination, saying church processes are subject to revision and approval by civil law. This makes sense in many areas (ie. employment practices, harassment, protection of minorities, etc) but not in how we make decisions as a body, who upholds those decisions, and what elected body reviews those decisions. I’m not a lawyer but it sounds like a huge First Amendment violation to me, and so it’s surprising to see the conservatives and traditionalists in support of this court decision–I guess we know them by their fruits.
Your Turn
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, subscribing, and sharing on social media.
Jeremy, you’re wrong on this one. The conference did not require any of the other 88 churches who disaffiliated to conduct a viability study. And then, the retired pastor they appointment to do the study, only conducted one of the three required meetings. It was very evident in the testimony that the conference didn’t follow – didn’t even try to follow – their own rules for viability studies or their own disaffiliation process. The person in charge of transitional ministries told First Church, “The United Methodist Church will have a downtown presence in Oklahoma City and it will either be St Luke’s or First Church, and you can decide who that will be.” This isn’t anywhere close to the same conference you left. They’re the gang that couldn’t shoot straight and now they’re all up in their feels.
Hi, thanks for commenting. Alleged failures in process have processes themselves to remedy them. We have a Judicial Council. We have a SCJ College of Bishops. We have a Book of Discipline. What we don’t have is going to a district court claiming an desperate exception to ecclesiastical abstention for a theological and ecclesiological process matter. I’m unsure by your comment if you are part of the few dozen members of the congregation, else I have more to share.
<>
Right from the gitgo, you have gone off the legal rails. The majority interpretation in the United States is that courts apply neutral principles. Whoever holds the title gets the property.
The currently lawless state of the UMC demonstrates the need for courts to apply neutral principles.
Under your interpretation, the Church of Divine power could claim all the property of a member if the church’s rules say it can do so.
Thanks for playing. You get the consolation prize: a case of Rice-A-Roni.
The case was not decided on neutral principles, else the judge would have just given the building away or not. Instead, dictating how a church is to practice its own faith is the error of the case.
Imagine that, a group of United Methodist refusing to adhere to rules contained in The Book of Discipline. Oh Jeremy, say it ain’t so!!
Mind-numbing misinterpretations of God’s Word: https://hackingchristianity.net/2023/03/the-first-palm-sunday-was-a-drag-show.html
This statement is not only one-sided and dishonest, it’s an assault on the truth “For the past decade, Traditionalists’ divisive preaching and failure to uphold big-tent denominational principles turned many United Methodist congregations into lopsided ones.”
In truth for the past decade leftist were usurping the church and stretching their understanding of the “big-tent” to deny scripture, the actual resurrection of Jesus Christ, and force a “woke” agenda down their denominations’ laity’s collective throats.
As for who “dwindled down” any membership in the UMC, the statistics show that the people are leaving your ‘big tent” leftist churches, because they were sick of the Pastor’s view being preached and Not the traditional orthodoxy.
The absolute absurdity of you claiming the opposite of the statistical reality. Claiming that pastors who preach traditional orthodoxy are only getting their membership due to some cult-of-personality argument is not only laughable, its sad.
The rest of this article is either an attempt to gaslight people who don’t actually know what’s going on, or it’s your attempt at coping by going to painful mental gymnastics to twist the fact of the situation, the plain read of the court’s decision, and the reality of the left leaving Jesus behind at the alter of politics before faith.
I feel very sorry for the author and his inability to be openly honest about the situation.
The disingenuous Smith is at it again! Smith knows full well of several instances in which UM Annual Conferences have brought suits against local congregations, not only looking to the courts to settle property disputes but even arguing that the courts indeed had jurisdiction to rule on such matters. Nothing but rank special pleading here, folks. Par for the course from Smith.
If this lawless church is so terrible, seems the UMC would be happy to be rid of them!!! Or is that they (UMC) don’t give a snap about the people but can’t wait to get their greedy little hands on the church’s $30m property!!
With all of the idolatrous stridency about “THINGS”. e.g. ‘can’t wait to get their greedy little hands on the church’s $30m property!!’; some pursuit of history might be undertaken. In the article we read: “The United Methodist Trust Clause is a theological claim….going back to our originator John Wesley “. In the publication: “The People of the United Methodist Church” produced by ‘Ask the UMC, a ministry of United Methodist Communications'” we read: “By 1750, John Wesley had accumulated three properties as meeting places and ministry sites for the Methodist societies. He wanted to make sure that local societies could not take control of these properties from the connection he was creating. He was aware of some other religious societies where local society members had refused to accept or sought to remove clergy or other leaders sent to them by the leaders of the larger society of which they were part. Wesley had also seen situations where people in a local society became influenced by teaching contrary to those of the Methodist movement and sought to leave while taking the society’s property with them. Wesley wanted to ensure that leaders chosen by him would never be shut out or removed by local societies. He also wanted to make certain that Methodist properties were used only and always to teach established Methodist doctrine and be available to Methodists for their ministries. “
I think Smith has read the wrong transcript. First OK UMC was not allowed to go through disaffiliation by the conference despite their best efforts. The Conference used delaying tactics. Not sure how traditionist positions are extreme since they have been the status quo for two thousand years. The trust clause is a legal term – enforceable by courts. To say that courts have no power would of course destroy the Trust Clause because that is the UMC’s enforcement mechanism. This is a case of what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Calling the Christian sexual ethic extreme is nothing but a dishonest, disingenuous, revisionist rhetorical ploy intended to scare folks who don’t know any better. Why anyone takes a manipulative clown like Smith seriously is mind boggling. He’s not a serious thinker. Just another run of the mill charlatan in a long line of many. Baal and Molech are well pleased with their devotee Smith.
First UMC paused the disaffiliation process when they brought a suit in June. They haven’t even held a disaffiliation vote or brought internal processes to bear (Judicial Council, SCJ College of Bishops, etc) to call for one. So no, they have not participated in the internal processes, and have jumped the shark to be outside of it. We’ll find out soon whether the OK Supreme Court agrees or not.
First UMC made many attempts to follow process and sent many emails and made many phone calls in an attempt at following guidelines. Even as the guidelines shifted. All the attempts at communication with the UMC are clearly documented in the court case. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best.
If you want to be a governing body and make rules for those to follow. Don’t be caught lying. The UMC got caught. The courts backed that up.
Integrity is what you do when you think people are not watching. The UMC governing body has demonstrated a complete lack of integrity and they know it.
Wow.
Where to start.
I will admit: you do point out some of the more unorthodox or perhaps even weaker points of the ruling in your items 2 and 3..
However, you miss the forest for the trees. The main idea of the ruling is not complicated, and it is just. The two concepts are “breach of contract” and “making them whole.” The judge saw clearly that the contract was breached and the local church was harmed by the egregiously inconsistent practices of the conference. The additional special conference and the extraordinary call to disaffiliated churches was the best she could come up with to “make them whole” and allow something close to the chance they would have had in April. OK Conference of the UMC breached the contract formed by the text of 2553 and their own published disaffiliation policy. They could not even follow their own rules, and it was obvious upon questioning.
Most of your article is just the usual creative spin to make evangelicals look as bad as possible. But one particular statement is just plain and blatant falsehood, and I’m surprised even you would publish it. It is a complete bald-faced lie that First Church OKC “withdrew from the disaffiliation process.” That is somebody’s ignorant invented rumor. They had their *vote date* scheduled with the DS and published to the congregation! They received a letter from the bishop 8 days out telling them their vote was postponed indefinitely and they had to undergo a viability study. This only happened to them, no one else in the same way. The conference policy had a clause about an option to call a viability study, but it had to be announced 2 weeks before the vote or before it was scheduled. They broke their own policy. As the judge said in the ruling, gray areas in contract law are settled “against the drafter.” If you wrote the policy, you definitely can’t break it and expect to stand up in court.
But even after all that, the church gave the conference the benefit of the doubt for several weeks, patiently undergoing the first viability study meeting, just trying to see the process through so they could get to conference for a vote. But the 2nd and 3rd meetings never came. There was never a clear timeline or any communication about a 2nd date. They inquired and were stonewalled and stalled. The evidence for this was examined in court. That is what led to the judge’s ruling. It’s all available for curious minds to read.
Are there elements to the ruling that would have been different if she knew more about Methodist polity? Yeah. Are there parts that will be talked about in law school classes for decades to come? Yeah. Are there parts that may not hold up under scrutiny? Perhaps. But she got the forest right. The conference broke their own rules, and the local church was harmed in an arbitrary and discriminatory way, receiving special negative treatment compared to other churches. A fair-minded judge called the Conference on it and a lot of people are mad about that. We’ll see how it plays out. This is certainly a crucible time for the people called Methodist.
I enjoy how you wrote the longest comment, but failed to comment on the primary legal concern of the article: the reinstatement of former UM clergy and laity (including you, James) to vote in an organization you have already left. There was an entire section written on it above; and I’ve noticed radio silence from online about its obvious fallacy. It’s hard to justify an end run around ecclesiastical abstention when the primary vehicle for its remedy (a court-mandated church conference) has such an obvious error in it to render our United Methodist polity void and even the future GMC polity more vulnerable (especially if we get closer to stronger employment practices about LGBTQ+ clergy) because of it.
Has they been allowed to vote in a timely manner as outlined by the UMC and had the UMC not been disingenuous in their intent to not follow their own rules and laws. The 55 would have been there to vote. So simple even a judge could see that. Thankfully.
Hi Jeremy. It was not clear that that *particular* legal concern was your primary point. I acknowledged off the bat that that there were some strange points to the ruling which might be questioned. My main point was that you are missing the forest for the trees. In an attempt to get you to see the forest, I can address those trees.
It doesn’t “nullify church law” to order an exception whose only purpose is to make a party whole for what they should have had done if the drafter (the party with the leverage) had followed their own policy. It still remains the case, ever after, that those 55 churches and their clergy are no longer part of the UMC. They are simply being called to what is basically a simulation of what should have happened in April, if the Conference had followed their own policies. Like it or not, the court recognized those policies as a contract, which must be upheld, and rejected the argument that the conference can simply change them whenever it wants, which they attempted to make during the proceedings.
(I will be no part of that conference, by the way, as I was in the first round of disaffiliations back in October. The ones called back are the ones who disaffiliated in April.)
I don’t think it is at all obvious that it’s bad law to order the regional church to follow its own policy for one local church the same way it did for others. Now, perhaps I could wish that the judge had taken more time to study Methodist polity so she could have made a smoother order. I agree that it would have been more proper to order the DS to hold the charge conference first, so the local disaffiliation vote could be done in good order, before the conference vote. That would have dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s more. I have no idea whether the ruling will hold up on appeal. Not being a judge, I don’t know if some of the specifics of what that judge did were permissible or not. But I do know that she saw through the stall tactics and special negative treatment which the conference gave to First Methodist OKC, and she attempted to do justice according to neutral principles of law. Part of me wishes she had just granted the request of rendering the local church disaffiliated as if they had been voted on in April – but her comments suggest she considered that to be overreach into forcing the result of a church process and so held back from it.
The arguments of the Conference in this case basically boil down to: “we can do whatever we want to you, the local church. We can change the rules when we want to, and we’ll let you go if we want to.”
But 2553 says a local church has a limited *right* to disaffiliate, if it fulfills certain obligations. The churches in certain other states who lost lawsuits earlier on lost because they were trying to exercise the right without fulfilling the obligations which limit it. But the churches who have won lawsuits recently (in Georgia and OK) won because the conferences had tried to take that *right* and turn it into basically an *option* for the conference. Hopefully, that won’t fly. The “no” vote may indeed win at this special conference, but then we can expect further lawsuits to challenge the way a right for local churches has been morphed into an option for conferences.
One of the most annoying part of all of this is how Smith’s side refuses to see the abject corruption in a lot of the conference leadership. In N. Ga, Bishop Sue lied ALL THE TIME (and it’s documented). The N. GA conference has become completely corrupt. While they will allow an Atlanta First UMC to keep it’s doors open even thought it is DEAD, they will close a small country UMC in a very small country community simply because of it’s traditional views. The conference has MILLIONS sitting in the bank and yet the N. GA conference has dwindled (as was Bishop’s Sue’s intent). The reality is, Jeremy, the left is terrified of what is coming. The future of the UMC is bleak. The money is leaving. The vital ministries are leaving. There won’t be churches for pastors. This is untenable and they know it. If Wesley was still in charge I might be ok with the trust clause. However, since we have such ineffective leaders who have NEVER been effective ANYWHERE (N. GA’s new bishop is a prime example), I like the idea of individual effective churches deciding what they do with their property.
The statement: ” I like the idea of individual effective churches deciding what they do with their property.” raises some issues;
A. it’s not their property-it belongs to the denomination through the ‘trust clause’ that John Wesley put in place over 270 years ago
B. there are many ‘individual effective churches” in other denominations that do not have a trust clause to burden the property (which actually is a God-given gift)and they are in positions of trust to take care of it for the glory and honor of God.
“A. it’s not their property-it belongs to the denomination through the ‘trust clause’ that John Wesley put in place over 270 years ago”. And again, if only people as ethical as Wesley were still in charge.
Let me try this again since my comment isn’t showing.
“A. it’s not their property-it belongs to the denomination through the ‘trust clause’ that John Wesley put in place over 270 years ago.” Again, if only people as ethical as Wesley were still in charge.
Perhaps there are “people as ethical as Wesley”, but in the tunnel vision of anger and lack of love for neighbor they aren’t visible or acknowledged as worthy? Words such as ; “Smith’s side refuses to see the abject corruption in a lot of the conference leadership.”; virtually preclude any hope of searching for common ground. John Wesley said; ‘if your heart is with my heart give me your hand’. He didn’t say; ‘If you see eye-to-eye with me, then we can walk arm-in-arm.’ ; nor did he say; ‘My way or the highway!’ Pastor J; I extend to you my hand, may we together go forth in peace to love and serve the Lord.
It’s really funny that you imply “my side” has “tunnel vision of anger and lack of love for neighbor.” Is your sister-in-law gay but loved like every other family member? Mine is. Were most of your friends in college gay/lesbian? Mine were. Did your father begin the first suburban Aids ministry outside of a major US city? Mine did. Did your father, IN THE 1980s, hold the hand, without gloves, of a man dying of AIDS in the hospital? The man broke down and cried because he hadn’t felt the touch of a person in a very long time. So, don’t give me the crap about tunnel vision. I do not support nor affirm active participation in the homosexual lifestyle. But I love people. Period.
Our conference leadership calls us racists even though our Thanksgiving table is mostly Hispanics (at least 20) except for me, my dad, and my mom (we are very white). My children are mixed. I love people. Period.
If you are looking for people with tunnel vision, you need to look to the progressives. Our conference speaks so much about justice and minorities and yet tries to shut down almost every Hispanic ministry unless they’re progressive. Our conference shuts down a small self-sufficient country church in a very small rural town but props up progressive churches.
The progressive movement is a movent of hate and it does nothing but destroy. And the same is true of the progressive side of our denomination. I don’t speak hyperbolically. My conference has come after me and my family and I can assure you it had nothing to do with WHAT I was doing but WHO I was. I know this for a fact. So, you can imply all the names you want. I won’t imply anything. The UMC is headed for death. But here’s the part that I REALLY ate. I won’t shed a tear when the UMC dies. But I do shed tears for all the people who followed it to their own destruction. Lord, have mercy on our souls.
If you would like to review the truth about this Churchs disaffiliation process, please follow this link. It’s all out there. Court docs, actual email communications with the conference, timelines, etc.
https://firstchurchokc.com/legal-faq-court-document
Ruling has been stayed by Oklahoma Supreme Court pending appeal. https://news.yahoo.com/future-first-church-uncertain-oklahoma-224034647.html
I will just comment on one item …
You make it sound like churches wasted thousands of dollars on the National Center for Life and Liberty law firm. First … the cost to a church is either $100 a month or $1000 for a year. This is small compared to the tens of thousands dollars conferences were asking of each church to disaffiliate.
The North Texas conference had $33 million (yes million) in an account set aside towards retirement. They wanted to credit churches $0 (yes zero!) of that amount toward their unfunded pension liability. NCLL was retained by a dozen or so churches. Under the threat of lawsuit, the North Texas Conference negotiated a more reasonable unfunded pension liability cost for each church. This save the church I was serving around $60,000. So NCLL was clearly a good call!
Also, court cases have been won by churches (although cases won have been sealed under appeal so they do not create legal precedence). In Texas we call it the “Blue Ridge option” for a church that took on the big bad wolf of the North Texas Conference and won.
$,$.$.$.$ and more emphasis on $. It is obvious where treasure/heart is!