{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreicbsucw7a5dzbflw2c5mnubn7pfmhmaiw55ixksuwww4twrz64544",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:xmviqbn3a2rrkhizx4gf7g6t/app.bsky.feed.post/3melz5f4ujgl2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreidypucvmqfrcl2inankaw43rk5sd5qzrenlmtmsf4rlcvmsluiwc4"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
    "size": 253408
  },
  "path": "/2026/02/11/west-virginia-methodist/",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-11T06:06:00.000Z",
  "site": "https://juicyecumenism.com",
  "tags": [
    "United Methodist",
    "reported",
    "dismissal",
    "motion",
    "appealed",
    "reassigned",
    "Methodist Court: Appointed Pastors Determine Same-Sex Rites in Local Churches",
    "Required Repentance: Ohio United Methodists ‘Still Failing",
    "Seeking Disaffiliation, Churches Sue West Virginia United Methodist Conference",
    "Request For Disaffiliation Info: West Virginia United Methodist Bishop Responds",
    "West Virginia Methodist Lawsuit Dismissed, Appealed",
    "Juicy Ecumenism"
  ],
  "textContent": "Last year, the Institute on Religion and Democracy reported that a lawsuit had been levied against the leadership of the United Methodist Church in West Virginia (WVUMC). That lawsuit filed by the National Center for Life and Liberty (NCLL) represents 33 churches in the state. It alleged that leadership in the WVUMC had provided “fraudulent” information to churches in order to prevent their disaffiliation while Paragraph 2553 of _The Book of Discipline_ was in effect.\n\nAccording to the plaintiffs, WVUMC leadership required churches interested in disaffiliation to meet with Melissa Shortridge or other members of the conference leadership. At that time, they were told that they did not meet the qualifications for disaffiliation because the conference chose to take a narrow interpretation of the word “conscience” in Paragraph 2553 that only allowed it to apply to those churches that did not support the UMC’s traditional stance on marriage.\n\nThe churches were encouraged to wait until after the May 2024 General Conference, and if _The Book of Discipline_ was changed, they would still have the opportunity to exit under a separate portion of _The Book of Discipline_ , Paragraph 2549, which allowed for the sale of church properties after closure. However, once the changes were made to the _Book of Discipline,_ the plaintiffs claimed that they were, in fact, not given the opportunity to disaffiliate under Paragraph 2549.\n\nIn October of 2024, in response to a request made by the Alabama-West Florida Annual Conference, the UMC Judicial Council ruled that disaffiliations could not take place through Paragraph 2549, but the WV plaintiffs allege that their requests were denied before this ruling took place.\n\nThe original lawsuit was filed in October of 2024, and the defendants then asked for the case to be dismissed. In October of 2025, the dismissal was granted by Judge Ryan Flanigan, who believed that he “lacked subject matter jurisdiction.” There were three primary factors that played into his determination.\n\nThe first, according to documents provided by the NCLL, was, “before the enactment of section 2553, the _Discipline_ does not provide for disaffiliation of local church while allowing it to maintain UMC property, as such action is contrary to the bedrock principle of connectionalism and violative of the trust clause.” The second was that the _Discipline_ gave the conferences the right to either approve or disapprove individual churches’ disaffiliation, and the plaintiff had not appealed the denial of their disaffiliation. Finally, he deferred to the October 2024 Judicial Council ruling on Paragraph 2549. For these reasons, he felt he did not have the ability to rule on the facts of the case.\n\nIn November of 2025, the NCLL, on behalf of the plaintiffs, filed a motion to have the court “alter and amend” Judge Flannagan’s decision, and they also requested “the court make additional or amended findings to clarify the scope and basis of the court’s ruling.” They challenged that the UMC’s Judicial Court ruling should not have factored into the dismissal decision because it was ruled after promises were made to plaintiffs and because the WV Annual Conference had an established history of allowing churches to exit through Paragraph 2549. They simply considered it a matter of closure and then purchase of the property rather than disaffiliation.\n\nThe NCLL also noted that the interpretation of Paragraph 2553 that the WV Annual conference used in denying these churches the ability to exit was “an alternate interpretation than utilized across the majority of the conferences in the United States.” Based on this “false statement,” the churches were told that they did not qualify for disaffiliation and were told that they should wait and see what was determined at General Conference, and, if the changes were made, conference leadership promised that they would still be able to exit. The appeal notes that “Plaintiff Churches, in good faith, trusted Defendants and waited until after May 2024 to make their final disaffiliation decision.”\n\nThe NCLL also felt that the scope of the dismissal was not clear and needed to be explained further. Specifically, the dismissal did not note which specific claims were dismissed because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The petition lists an additional six issues needing clarification by the court. They are currently waiting for a ruling on the latest appeal.\n\nThe NCLL also appealed that Judge Flannagan had a “conflict in presiding over this matter.” As a result, the case was reassigned to Judge Mark Willis on January 21.\n\nWhile churches across the state await the court’s ruling, it is clear that the disaffiliation issue is not going away. There is a separate bill being put forward to the West Virginia House of Delegates that would also enable church exit. The IRD will have a forthcoming article on the bill.\n\nWhile the WVUMC seems to have successfully prevented initial disaffiliations, they may have won a pyrrhic victory. They will continue to pay legal fees in what looks to be a drawn-out lawsuit, that they may still lose, and, if the West Virginia bill is passed, it will potentially provide a broader path for exits. Significantly, as well, it will be almost impossible to repair the breach of trust between conference and congregants. Two years out, the feeling of palpable betrayal is still apparent when I talk to Methodists in West Virginia, and it doesn’t appear to be abating.\n\n**More from IRD:**\n\nMethodist Court: Appointed Pastors Determine Same-Sex Rites in Local Churches\n\nRequired Repentance: Ohio United Methodists ‘Still Failing’\n\nSeeking Disaffiliation, Churches Sue West Virginia United Methodist Conference\n\nRequest For Disaffiliation Info: West Virginia United Methodist Bishop Responds\n\nThe post West Virginia Methodist Lawsuit Dismissed, Appealed appeared first on Juicy Ecumenism.",
  "title": "West Virginia Methodist Lawsuit Dismissed, Appealed"
}