Maryland Court Rules Methodist Church Dispute Must Be Resolved Internally Amid LGBTQ Policy Schism

The Maryland Appellate Court has ruled that a dispute involving the United Methodist Church (UMC) and 37 Baltimore-area congregations should be resolved internally, rather than through secular courts. The case centers on the UMC’s recent shift in policy to allow the ordination of LGBTQ individuals and the performance of same-sex marriages, which led to a significant number of congregations leaving the denomination. These congregations challenged the UMC’s requirement that they pay 50% of the assessed value of their church property to remain affiliated, arguing that the policy penalized them for their beliefs and improperly leveraged control over church resources.

The congregations filed a lawsuit in 2023 against the Baltimore-Washington Conference of the UMC, alleging mismanagement of pension funds and other grievances. They contended that the UMC’s policies conflicted with their religious convictions and sought to challenge the denomination’s authority over church property. The Anne Arundel County Circuit Court initially ruled in October 2024 that the case should be handled by the UMC Judicial Council, as it involved interpreting church doctrine rather than secular law.

The Appellate Court affirmed this decision, citing the “ecclesiastical abstention doctrine,” which restricts secular courts from intervening in religious matters unless they involve neutral legal principles. The court rejected the congregations’ argument that exceptions for fraud or collusion justified judicial review. “Resolving the claims alleged in this case would require a trial court to examine the UMC’s religious doctrine and the Conference’s management of church resources in a manner prohibited by the First Amendment,” wrote Judge Doug Nazarian, joined by Judge Anne Albright and Senior Judge Donald Beachley.

The congregations are represented by attorney Derek Hills of Easton and David Gibbs III of the National Center for Life and Liberty in Florida. Neither responded to requests for comment. The ruling underscores the legal and theological complexities surrounding the UMC’s internal schism, as well as the broader implications for religious autonomy and property rights.

The decision highlights the tension between religious institutions and secular legal systems, particularly when doctrine and governance are at stake. As Micah 6:8 reminds us, “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” This case exemplifies the delicate balance between upholding religious freedom and ensuring equitable treatment of all congregants, regardless of their beliefs or affiliations.

Source: Read the original report