Jonathan LeMaster-Smith

I have received several messages related to the status of Wesley Memorial United Methodist Church in High Point, North Carolina and the various emails, letters, and more that have gone out advising folks to vote for or against the disaffiliation of this congregation. I want to provide some insight based on polity to the situation as well as some thoughts on what this means going forward.

My opinion will follow at the end.

First, there have been various writeups, rumors, and postings circulating about Wesley Memorial United Methodist’s clergy, staff, or leadership manipulating the process of disaffiliation voting by adding several new members over the weeks leading up to their disaffiliation vote. The reports are these members being added from other congregations who never attended or plan to attend. There are also reports of all of their clergy planning to leave The United Methodist Church and united with The Global Methodist Church (the new emerging denomination). The responses come from former bishops, prominent clergy in our conference, the leadership of Wesley Memorial, and at least one anonymous letter. Of course, those advocating for voting no on the disaffiliation of Wesley Memorial will lean into the manipulation of the process and those advocating for them allowing them to leave will point toward no violation of any polity/rules.
.
Three things comes to mind here, and they are particularly tied to a couple of recent events in our denomination:

1) Those advocating for voting no on disaffiliation of Wesley Memorial United Methodist Church (or any other church) will lean into language of covenant, sacred trust, and connection. The Trial of Bishop Carcaño (which I covered in depth early this year) reminds us that violating sacred trust, connection, and covenant are not chargeable offenses. Actual charges of violating the rules or committing other chargeable offenses have to be brought forward and dealt with in our Judicial Complaint Process.

However, one thing to note, while official complaints have this process, a recent item in the Judicial Council’s Docket (1023-04) points to the question of whether clergy are doing their duty according to ¶605.7: “The annual conference shall make inquiry into the moral and official conduct of its ordained ministers and local pastors….Questions relating to matters of ordination, character, and conference relations of clergy shall be the business of the clergy session. The actions of the clergy session shall be for and on behalf of the annual conference.” Moreover, ¶604.9 reads: “The annual conference shall have the power to make inquiry into the membership status of the local churches, and where no members have been received on confession of faith during the year, it may require the pastor and the lay member to appear before the appropriate agency and make explanation.”

This is another place that action could be taken. However, neither has been done on a regular basis in the past years. They feel like formalities or procedural votes at best, and we have not taken the time to engage in these questions. These two spaces are where we might deal with the issues at hand and seek to address issues of connectionalism, sacred trust, covenant.

2) The question actions taken by Episcopal Cabinets and Annual Conferences in response to such issues have been brought up. These are the action taken North Carolina Conference Cabinet related to the closure of Fifth Avenue UMC in Wilmington and the action taken by the Arkansas Annual Conference related to First UMC Jonesboro.
.
I’ll start with the issue in the NC Conference. The closure of Fifth Avenue UMC Wilmington was done based on actions of the bishop (Bishop Shelton) and cabinet of the annual conference naming a series of exigent circumstances and rooted in both historic documents and a desire to keep that facility in the conference. One of the declarations in the resolution for closure read:

WHEREAS, contrary to the expressed intention of the donor of the original property for the Church that the property be used forever after as a place for preaching God’s Word by United Methodist ministers, the congregation has initiated a procedure seeking for the Church to disaffiliate from the United Methodist Church…

The Judicial Council will likely rule on this in the next week (Fall Docket Item 1023-06). Should our current bishop (Bishop Carter) feel there is a need to keep the facility (not the people) in the hands of our conference, he and the cabinet could have taken actions. However, this has not been the case.

Second, the FUMC Jonesboro issue is related to the annual conference not allowing disaffiliation of the FUMC Jonesboro congregation, based on the belief that certain actors were doing work to circumvent or manipulate the process. This is more closely related to our issue. The reality is, do we believe they actually manipulated the system in ways that are unethical or simply what we would consider bad politics. Moreover, where are the members of the congregation and the PPR committee to ask these questions? It appears the leadership of the church is on board with the move. If people are concerned, have they taken actions as members of their Church, have people taken actions based on our polity to raise these issues? If they did not know or were misinformed, who is at fault? If the structures of the church failed the congregation, have they people in charge been held accountable?

3) Finally, the question of membership and heritage are at play. This is a historic and flagship church.

Since the 1880s, we have been fixated on large, multi-staff, traditional churches as a sign of respectability and success. However, the membership (manipulated or not) of this congregation is asking to leave, and the argument is being made that we are attempting to prevent this. Similarly, the conference voted to send a petition to General Conference that would allow local churches to set membership standards for particular votes (While this violates our constitution according to ¶ 16.1, I didn’t get to the microphone and it should quickly disappear at General Conference).

But it also brings up the question of loyalty. Where is membership? To a building, a congregation, a denomination, or the Body of Christ? According to our polity, membership is in the local United Methodist Congregation. Thus, this is how we handle the voting on these issues. The annual conference, however, is the basic body of the church, and thus gets the final say in whether this congregation (and its legacy) is allowed to leave, and the vote can be subjective.

***MY OPINION FOLLOWS***

I cannot speak to whether the laity and clergy of Wesley Memorial acted immorally any more than I can speak to any church calling in its inactive members from all over to vote to leave or stay. I do not think actual rules were broken. I do not think we win by keeping this church building or the remnant of people who will stay with it.

The people who want to stay UMC will find other congregations. The people who want to stay with Wesley Memorial, will stay there. The people who want to lean into the GMC will go that way.

I also think this is a grieving process for the folks advocating for voting to not allow disaffiliation. A large flagship church, a symbol of our history is leaving. There are larger congregations that have left, and yet little has been said. This is a symbol of history, and perhaps also an anchor to a past that haunts a shrinking denomination in a sea of near constant change.

This move is a circling of the wagons, just like the move to limit church membership, and this should stop.
Moreover, while I note the call to hold clergy and churches accountable, the time has passed for this particular issue.

¶ 2553 expires two months from today. It will not matter.
.
We cannot start a witch hunt this close to midnight.
.
The clergy and laity of Wesley Memorial who want to leave will not lose this fight. If they are allowed to disaffiliate, they take with them a large historic church. If they are not allowed to disaffiliate, sue, and then lose (likely outcome) they will go down as martyrs for the cause.

My final suggestions are three fold:

1)I call upon our conference to offer true spaces and resources for grieving. Not one off worship services, but actual resources for clergy, laity, and churches to process this experience.

2)I call upon our conference to look toward the future, imagine ministry that makes disciples, seeks justice and mercy, and transforms the world.

3)I call upon the disaffiliating congregations to shake the dust off their feet and go. If we are that toxic to you, leave and let us both get to the ministry to which Holy Spirit calls us.