Churches sue to leave UMC yet retain property
By Jessica Brodie
Ten churches have filed a lawsuit in the South Carolina Supreme Court, seeking to break away from The United Methodist Church yet keep their church property.
The lawsuit, The Methodist Church of Simpsonville, et al. v. The South Carolina Conference of The United Methodist Church, et al., was filed April 14 by The Methodist Church of Simpsonville, its pastor the Rev. Michael Smith, its church council chair Heidi Meek Medlin and nine other churches, all having removed the “United” from their name.
Those churches are Jackson Grove Methodist Church, Calhoun Falls Methodist Church, Good Shepherd Methodist Church, Trinity Methodist Church of Lancaster, Aldersgate Methodist Church, Boiling Springs Methodist Church, Fort Lawn Methodist Church, Panola Methodist Church and Dickson Methodist Church.
The churches are suing the South Carolina Conference of the UMC along with its bishop and 10 district superintendents, asking the court to allow them to break ties with the denomination and still retain their property. However, the conference holds individual church properties in trust for the UMC, and those churches remain the property of the UMC if a congregation decides to break ties with the denomination.
Represented by David Gibbs of the National Center for Life & Liberty and two South Carolina attorneys, Miles E. Coleman and James Bannister, the churches allege the conference promised them they would be able to separate from the denomination by a process that involved a legal closure and transfer of assets, accomplished through Para. 2549 of the UMC Book of Discipline. But “the UMC and the conference reneged on their promises,” the lawsuit alleges.
The S.C. Supreme Court granted an extension to June 4 for the conference to respond to the lawsuit.
“Connectionalism is an integral part of the foundation of The United Methodist Church and The Book of Discipline by which the church is governed,” Conference Communications Director Dan O’Mara said. “As a connectional church, the South Carolina Conference and all of its local churches are bound by the decisions of the UMC Judicial Council, which has determined that the process the conference had used to allow churches to separate from the denomination was in violation of The Book of Discipline.”
O’Mara added that the conference remains focused “exclusively on its mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.”
How did all of this come about?
The root of the issue stems from some churches wishing to leave the UMC over theological differences surrounding human sexuality. In 2024, the UMC General Conference voted to change its stance on homosexuality, removing language from the Discipline that previously stated “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” It also voted to lift longstanding bans on the ordination of LGBTQ+ clergy and the celebration of same-sex marriages.
In advance of this, in 2023, 113 local South Carolina congregations disaffiliated from the UMC under Para. 2549, and in 2024, 112 did so. But in October 2024, the UMC Judicial Council declared disaffiliation through Para. 2549 was no longer permissible.
The Methodist Church of Simpsonville did not participate in the Para. 2549 process, instead announcing in June 2024 the church had disaffiliated from the UMC and amending its corporate filings, changing the name of the church from Simpsonville UMC to The Methodist Church of Simpsonville.
The South Carolina Conference then sued The Methodist Church of Simpsonville and Smith in a lawsuit filed Nov. 5, 2024, in Greenville County Common Pleas Courts, alleging fraudulent deed filing and unlawful occupation of the church parsonage and property owned by the UMC, among other things.
On March 5, the conference asked the South Carolina Supreme Court to assign all cases regarding the conference and separating churches to a single trial judge, noting it had received Notices of Separation from 40 local UMCs across South Carolina since November and that additional lawsuits were “imminent” (see https://advocatesc.org/articles/single-judge). A single trial judge, the conference said, would conserve and streamline the responses of the parties and counsel, particularly as the conference and the vast majority of the churches in these cases are represented by the same people.
Not long after, the 10 churches filed suit, taking the conference to the Supreme Court.
South Carolina is not the only conference or state to experience lawsuits surrounding disaffiliation. A number of states have seen similar lawsuits.
The Advocate will run updates as soon as more information is available.