UMC Conference Fires Pastor of Congregation Seeking to Disaffiliate

[The Liturgist]

New Town Church’s Open Letter to United Methodists

Setting the record straight about how New Town UMC was unfairly singled out for mistreatment by the Virginia Conference.

juicyecumenism.com

The one upshot of this is that the former parish has no longer had to pay the nearly $600,000 fee the liberal bishops demanded as the price of departure, despite the fact that they are the ones in violation of the Traditional Plan adopted at the 2018 General Conference, which remains the letter of the law in the UMC, and departing congregations in a sense are being asked to pay money to not be in communion or subordinate to bishops who are engaging in intentional and open disobedience of the Traditional Plan adopted in 2018.

The reason given for the termination of the pastor, ironically, is ”Disloyalty to the UMC.”

Fortunately for all, the congregation and pastor are not litigious, and are pulling in larger congregations than when they had UMC branding. And the money saved by not going through the formal disaffiliation process will instead be invested in the construction of a new church building.

The sad thing of course is that this sort of thing has been happening in the UMC for decades, and did not start with the current attempt to thwart the Traditional Plan and the traditional morality of the UMC in Africa from being imposed in the United States, but rather, we can see a similar incident having happened back in the 1990s to St. Paul’s UMC in Anchorage, Alaska, which was shut down by the bishop because the congregation, which had paid for the costs of building the parish church in the 1980s, resisted the appointment of a liberal pastor. Fortunately they had the funds to build a replacement structure and have operated as a traditional Methodist congregation ever since.

 

[seeking.IAM]

This pastor's situation is unclear to me after reading the narrative. Perhaps, it would make more sense if I watched the video, but I was unwilling to make that time commitment. I think UMC pastors face an interesting dilemma. The dilemma is this: if their congregation leaves the UMC and the pastor doesn't want to or if the congregation votes to stay and the pastor doesn't want to.

In this situation, as I understand it, the congregation voted to leave the UMC. What about the pastor? If the pastor wants to stay with the congregation, isn't he, in effect, not a UMC pastor anymore? He refused a different appointment by the Bishop. (Note: I would see such a scenario as "quit.")

In this situation, if the pastor wanted to remain in the UMC as the congregation left, but refused to accept an appointment from the Bishop, isn't he, in effect, insubordinate and disobedient to his Bishop? (Note: I would see such a scenario as "fired.")

You seem to see this differently. What am I missing here?

 

[The Liturgist]

This pastor's situation is unclear to me after reading the narrative. Perhaps, it would make more sense if I watched the video, but I was unwilling to make that time commitment. I think UMC pastors face an interesting dilemma. The dilemma is this: if their congregation leaves the UMC and the pastor doesn't want to or if the congregation votes to stay and the pastor doesn't want to.

In this situation, as I understand it, the congregation voted to leave the UMC. What about the pastor? If the pastor wants to stay with the congregation, isn't he, in effect, not a UMC pastor anymore? He refused a different appointment by the Bishop. (Note: I would see such a scenario as "quit.")

In this situation, if the pastor wanted to remain in the UMC as the congregation left, but refused to accept an appointment from the Bishop, isn't he, in effect, insubordinate and disobedient to his Bishop? (Note: I would see such a scenario as "fired.")

You seem to see this differently. What am I missing here?

The congregation was prevented from leaving the UMC under the Separation Agreement, and thus has to build a new church, and the pastor was fired, whereas this has not happened with other departing congregations, and it violates the letter and the spirit of the Separation Agreement policy.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I still don't get it. I understand the congregation left but without benefit of the separation agreement (i.e. keeping the building). So, which direction did the pastor intend to go? Was the pastor wanting to go with the congregation or stay with UMC and seeking a different UMC appointment?

Surely the pastor didn't think they would stay with the UMC while serving a Global UMC or a newly formed non-denom? I think you are going to have to spell it out for me; I am still not getting it.

 

[actionsub]

This pastor's situation is unclear to me after reading the narrative. Perhaps, it would make more sense if I watched the video, but I was unwilling to make that time commitment. I think UMC pastors face an interesting dilemma. The dilemma is this: if their congregation leaves the UMC and the pastor doesn't want to or if the congregation votes to stay and the pastor doesn't want to.

In this situation, as I understand it, the congregation voted to leave the UMC. What about the pastor? If the pastor wants to stay with the congregation, isn't he, in effect, not a UMC pastor anymore? He refused a different appointment by the Bishop. (Note: I would see such a scenario as "quit.")

In this situation, if the pastor wanted to remain in the UMC as the congregation left, but refused to accept an appointment from the Bishop, isn't he, in effect, insubordinate and disobedient to his Bishop? (Note: I would see such a scenario as "fired.")

You seem to see this differently. What am I missing here?

I have an acquaintance who is such a pastor. His appointed congregation voted to disaffiliate; however, he has no intention of leaving the UMC. He's already packing his bags for the new appointment.
If an ordained elder/deacon's congregation leaves the UMC, if the clergy member wants to remain UMC they're not going to turn down a new appointment. I can't understand why this particular pastor is taking this stance.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have an acquaintance who is such a pastor. His appointed congregation voted to disaffiliate; however, he has no intention of leaving the UMC. He's already packing his bags for the new appointment.
If an ordained elder/deacon's congregation leaves the UMC, if the clergy member wants to remain UMC they're not going to turn down a new appointment. I can't understand why this particular pastor is taking this stance.

Interesting.