In_Whose_Name! Can This Happen to Us? The Trust Clause Implications for the Future April 23, 2002 Letter to Bishop Paup July 2, 2002 Letter to Bishop Paup January 7, 2002 Email Re: Disobedience to the Order and Discipline of the United Methodist Church with regard to actions and complicity with efforts to exclude certain members of Saint Paul UMC from full participation in the life, community and activities of the church. In Whose Name?! by Cam Carlson It was a gorgeous summer June day in Fairbanks, Alaska when the call came. Dazzling sunshine, brilliant blue sky and not a cloud in the sky. Nature was bursting forth all around with wild flowers adorning the roadsides and trees and bushes leafing out making the snowy winter a distant memory. Into all this loveliness came the phone call……the call that would drastically impact our lives in the days, months and years ahead. It was Pat Turner, chair of the administrative council at St. Paul Church, calling to report an incident that had just occurred at the bank. When Pat and Tom Hallinan, church treasurer, had gone to the bank to change the signatories and update the church name on our church account, they were told that the church account had been closed out and all the money withdrawn by a former treasurer of St. Paul Church.. We headed out to see if our church had been attacked in any other manner. We drove to the former treasurer’s home and retrieved the financial records from him. There we learned that he had been driven to the bank by Glenn Gibson, a former church member, along with Rev. Rachel Lieder Simeon, superintendent of the Alaska Missionary Conference (AMC) of the UMC, and Lonnie Brooks, a member of the Administrative Unit of the AMC. They had directed the former treasurer to withdraw the money from the St. Paul Church account, to close the account, and to write a cashier’s check for all the withdrawn balance to the Alaska Missionary Conference. Next, we headed out to the church to see if it was okay. As we approached our little brown country church, the most appalling sight revealed itself. There on our member built, member paid for church were 15" X 19" fluorescent orange signs saying, "NO TRESPASSING"! FIVE of them. One at each door and one on the walkway. That anyone would place such a sign on the house of the Lord was most shocking. Who would have such disrespect for God’s house? (Two work teams from the lower 48 helped on the construction and several UM churches from the lower 48 gave some money for which we are very grateful; over 90% was member work and member money). We tried the doors; all were locked and our keys could not unlock them. The locks had been changed. The view through window into the sanctuary revealed missing items: the candlestick holders and offering plates were gone from the alter. What else was missing, we wouldn’t discover for several more weeks. Our thoughts turned to the parsonage. A trip there revealed another set of changed locks preventing any access. At this point we reported these findings to the legal authorities, the Alaska State Troopers. But what, you’re probably asking, precipitated all this and what is it all about? The members of St. Paul Church are still asking those same questions of Bishop Edward Paup and Superintendent Rachel Lieder Simeon of the Alaska Missionary Conference of the UMC. My thoughts went back to when we’d first dreamed of starting our church and the chain of events that brought us to this day. A group of lay people met in homes to organize "The Proposed Methodist Church". We petitioned Bishop Cal McConnell to consider letting us join the United Methodist connection. He was supportive of our efforts and said it was only the second time in his ministerial career that laity had come to him wanting to organize a church instead of the denomination coming in to plant a church. He encouraged us to proceed. It was December 18, 1983 when "The Proposed Methodist Church" held its first worship service in rented space. AMC Superintendent Thom White Wolf Fassett traveled up from Anchorage to Fairbanks to preach for us. After the service we enjoyed a potluck dinner, then discussed how to become a full-fledged church. Supt. Fassett told us we would have to have 100 members and be financially totally self-supporting before we could be chartered as a United Methodist Church. We accepted this challenge with enthusiasm and charged ahead to grow this gathering of Christians into a full-fledged church. Most of us in the group had at one time been members of the First UMC in Fairbanks, but over the years had wandered off for one reason or another. Various paths had been taken by the individuals. Some went off to the Presbyterian church, some to the Lutheran, Assembly of God, Baptist and elsewhere. And some had chosen to just stay home on Sunday mornings. We were excited to come together and begin a second Methodist church that could offer the community a Wesleyan type experience of a spiritual, God centered worship, void of political overtones…or undertones…or agendas! Sunday worship was the first order of faithfulness, to include a special Christmas Eve service. By January 5, 1984 we had organized an Administrative Council and committee areas, opened a checking account, obtained a post office box and decided to put out a weekly newsletter. Plans were moving ahead to file articles of incorporation with the state, begin Sunday School in March, settle on rental space for the long term, and, seek a full time pastor by June 1984. Such a flurry of activity: meetings, potlucks, choosing a name, fund raising for hymnals, woodcutting parties (wood stove), social events. On a festive Palm Sunday, April 15, 1984, Supt. Thom Fassett again came to Fairbanks to preside at our Constituting Church Conference and present us with a Certificate of Organization. We had 51 adult members and 29 preparatory members, and, were paying all our own expenses. In the brief time since our first worship service on December 18, 1983, we had evolved from "The Proposed Methodist Church," to "St. Paul Methodist Church," and now, to "St. Paul United Methodist Church!" How elated we were to have a church focused on God and Jesus Christ. Worshipping the Lord in His house, even if it was a rented house. Sunday School had begun in March. The AMC had recommended a pastor to us, and after he and his wife visited Fairbanks, they made the decision to accept appointment to St. Paul UMC. They arrived in June 1984. How richly God had blessed our little country church with a congregation full of people with many talents and skills. There were members who had previously, in other churches: served as lay leaders and lay member to annual conference; chaired or been members on administrative board, council on ministries, PPR, trustees, finance committee, nominations committee, worship, education; and had served as treasurer and secretary. God also blessed us with members with musical ability and teaching experience. Thus we had 6 pianists, choir directors, a choir, and wonderful Sunday school teachers. All were ready and eager to serve in these capacities in this new church. Praise the Lord! And we did! A search for land on which to build a St. Paul UMC building concluded in 1988 when we found a lovely 3.4 -acre parcel on Farmers Loop, the main highway that circles around the north side of Fairbanks. On a clear day, one can see Mt. McKinley (150 miles south) from our church lot. That same year we also found a fine 3-bedroom house to purchase as a parsonage. In late August 1993 we did what you just don’t do in Fairbanks, Alaska that time of year. We began constructing our church building! After the scare of an early September snow fall, we were blessed with a wonderful long Indian summer allowing us to complete the shell of the structure and enclose the basement before winter really took hold. After trying to nail on exterior siding at –20 degrees, it became clear the rest of the construction would have to wait until spring of 1994. By Christmas 1994 our members had completed enough of the church building, that we celebrated the birth of Jesus Christ in our almost finished sanctuary. And again, we thanked God for his blessing of this new church building. Sunday Worship could be at "prime time," 11:00 AM on Sunday. There was room for Sunday School classes. Everything didn’t have to be packed back up and put away before leaving church. Events could be scheduled when it served our purposes. Offerings could be expanded. Acreage was available for outdoor activities: games, volleyball, softball, BBQs. Wonderful! Although the economic boom caused by construction of the Alaska Pipeline boom collapsed, taking "pillar" families from our church midst, new members and pastors with talents and skills to share kept joining St. Paul UMC. With all these many blessings, we had no hint at what was coming our way. In 1999, St. Paul UMC got a new superintendent, Rev. Rachel Lieder Simeon. Although contact with superintendents is quite limited (once a year at the All Church Conference for the congregation), it appeared from what contact she did have with us, she did not like our church. The handling of the All Church Conference in January 2001, had not gone well. Supt. Simeon seemed upset when what appeared to be her choice for administrative council chair was not elected to that position. In a loud and angry voice she told us we were a "conflicted" church. And, she was going to find the best mediator/conflict manager she could, to be our next pastor. How strange. "Conflicted?" We didn’t know we were "conflicted." But if we were, and this being a body of Christ’s followers, why not find a great spiritual leader for our pastor? The chain of events from January 2001 to the current time is very confusing and leaves us with numerous unanswered questions. In February 2001 Supt. Simeon told us that Rev. Steve Eldred would be our pastor come June. In March 2001 Supt. Simeon called us from some airport as she was leaving the country and told us Rev. Eldred would not be coming, that Rev. Don Strait would be our new pastor. She did not give an explanation, nor did she have time to meet with the PPR committee. When Rev. Don and Nancy Strait arrived in July 2001, we were told they were an interim appointment, but we were not given any firm date as to departure time. The Straits had some wonderful skills that could have been shared with our congregation and would have made it grow, but there appeared to be some other agenda at work. At Administrative Council meetings and committee meetings, Rev. Strait often insulted members and was argumentative with them. It became clear that some members would be his friends and others would not. He even told some members, "I cannot be your pastor." Later, in a very strange Ash Wednesday service, he told us he was going to depart from the traditional Ash Wednesday service and do things differently. He said he needed to ask us for our forgiveness. We had no idea what that was all about. But, back to November 2001, just prior to Thanksgiving, the PPR committee received a rather unfriendly un dated, unsigned memo on plain paper from Supt. Simeon. It demanded that we read various paragraphs of the UMC Book of Discipline, and then "The lay leadership and congregation needs to consider seriously whether it is truly willing to be – and become – a United Methodist church." The PPR committee was to share this memo with the Administrative Council. Well,….that seemed like an unchristian, unloving slap in the face. For 18+ years, since the Proposed Methodist Church had become St. Paul UMC, we had followed the Book of Discipline faithfully. In fact Bishop Cal McConnell had said we were marching forward with the Bible in one hand and the Book of Discipline in the other. We had faithfully paid our apportionments to the UMC in full every year, even the first year when not required to do so. We had a devout, active, viable congregation with: Sunday worship. Sunday School, bible study, prayer group, UMW, UMM, Whatever Tuesday, Family Day Our, special social events, special worship experiences, terrific receipts for Thank Offerings, outreach into the community, cooperation with other UM churches for special events. We were financially solvent. What was the problem? Supt. Simeon was present during our November 2001 Administrative Council meeting, but either couldn’t or wouldn’t give an explanation for the meaning of the memo. One member specifically asked her, "What are we doing wrong?" Again, she couldn’t or wouldn’t tell us. Then as we were entering the joyous Advent season, leading to the celebration of Christ’s birth, St. Paul UMC received a memo from Supt. Simeon with a formal request that all our officers step down and be replaced with all new officers. And, we were told, the new officers must stay in place a minimum of three years. Once again, we were accused of being a "conflicted" church. And, once again, no explanation or examples of how we were "conflicted" were given. At this point, since conversations with Supt. Simeon had produced no information or explanations, I tried to reach Bishop Paup. After a week of repeated attempts, I had a brief conversation with the bishop. He informed me that the AMC cabinet had spent a lot of time on St. Paul UMC and he didn’t really have any more time to spend on it. I asked when St. Paul UMC would see the fruits of all the time spent on St. Paul UMC, as we had heard nothing about this from the cabinet and had no knowledge St. Paul UMC was even under discussion by them. He had no answer. When the Lay Leadership Committee (LLC) met to work on the slate of officers for the January 22, 2002 All Church Conference, Pastor Strait reminded us of the cabinet’s request to replace all officers with new people. St. Paul member Bob Carlson had sent a January 7, 2002 memo [included as Appendix N in this book] to the AMC Cabinet (which includes Bishop Paup), Pastor Strait, and most of the leadership at St. Paul UMC. In the memo he outlined all the paragraphs in the UMC Book of Discipline that speak to inclusiveness. Thus, to comply with the cabinet’s formal request by excluding certain persons from office would have put the Lay Leadership Committee in disobedience to the order and discipline of the UMC, which is a chargeable offense. In addition, with over 20 positions to fill and an average attendance of approximately 35-45 (including children), the request was mathematically improbable. At the January 22, 2002 All Church Conference, upon seeing the slate of officers, Supt. Simeon stated that she saw we had not complied with the cabinet’s request. She said she would note that. Both Joyce Carlson, co-chair of LLC, and Pat Turner were questioned about the slate. Supt. Simeon made no other comments to us about either the "conflicted church" issue or any other problems. At our February 12, 2002 Administrative Council meeting, Pastor Strait said he had a letter from Supt. Simeon for the PPR chair to read to the council. It stated that the Supt. was "calling a special meeting to discuss and share plans for the immediate needs of St. Paul UMC," on March 12, 2002. It was anticipated that the full cabinet and the bishop would be there. She also indicated that March 3, 2002, would be Pastor Strait’s last Sunday at St. Paul UMC. It was beginning to appear that the AMC bishop and superintendents were unaware of the Christian calendar and the events we, as a Christian congregation would be celebrating: Thanksgiving, Advent, Christmas…and now the Easter season interrupted by "conflict" inflicted by the AMC clergy! All attempts to find out what the special meeting was about, what the agenda would be or even more specifically what the topics of conversation would be, met with stonewalling by Supt. Simeon. At the March 12th meeting with the full cabinet (Bishop Paup and Supts. Monte Baker, Dennis Holway and Rachel Lieder Simeon) in attendance, Supt. Simeon announced that the Annual Conference of the Alaska Missionary Conference would be asked to vote on a recommendation for St. Paul UMC to be discontinued. When asked under which paragraph of the Book of Discipline we were being discontinued, Supt. Simeon stated paragraph 2548.2(a). According to that paragraph, an annual conference may declare any local church discontinued "on such recommendation that a local church no longer serves the purpose for which it was organized and incorporated." When asked how St. Paul UMC was no longer serving the purpose for which it was organized and incorporated, Supt. Simeon merely replied, "I’ve told you that already." All questions as to what we were doing or had done wrong and why we were being recommended for discontinuance were stonewalled. Bishop Paup, and Supts. Simeon, Holway and Baker refused to give any explanations or reasons. And, except for telling us Rev. John Campbell, from First UMC, would preach on March 17th, no plans for the immediate needs of St. Paul UMC were addressed. Between the March 12 meeting and the Annual Conference on May 30th, the members of St. Paul UMC made numerous attempts to find the answers to these questions: -What had we done wrong? -What could stop this "railroad job" of discontinuance? Questions to all levels of United Methodism failed to find anyone at any level that could or would offer any solutions or help. Contacted parties included: Pastor Strait, Supt. Simeon, Rev. Tom Dahl, chair of the AMC Administrative Unite; Lonnie Brooks, rule chair of the AMC Administrative Unit; Bishop Paup of the AMC and the Oregon/Idaho Conference; Bishop Elias G. Galvin, President of the College of Bishops; and, Sally AsKew, secretary of the UMC judicial council. Unknown to the St. Paul UMC congregation, in April/May of 2002, the AMC superintendents Baker, Holway and Simeon were "visiting" the churches throughout Alaska and telling them about St. Paul UMC. We have no idea what was said about us and we, obviously, had no opportunity to speak for ourselves. It is little wonder then that on May 30, 2002 when the AMC Annual Conference was asked to vote to discontinue St. Paul UMC the vote was 61 to 1 in favor of discontinuance. This was a standing vote before Bishop Paup, who of course makes the pastoral appointments. Although an hour of "testimony" was allowed, no real debate or discussion took place. Interestingly, before the floor vote, Bishop Paup called a private meeting of the few St. Paul UMC members that were there at the conference. He indicated he did not want to go to court and cause us both a lot of financial expense. At that time he offered to give St. Paul UMC our St. Paul church building and indicated the AMC would take possession of the St. Paul UMC parsonage. This was a rather specious offer, since he had no authority to make the offer (only the AMC could) and the St. Paul member to annual conference had no authority to accept such an offer. Again, let me emphasize: -No charges were made against St. Paul UMC. -No charges were made against any St. Paul UMC officer/officers. -No charges were made against any St. Paul UMC member or group of members. So, back to June 7, 2002. There we were, "St. Paul Church" locked out of our church building, locked out of our parsonage and our bank account stolen. We also discovered all our business accounts had been transferred to the AMC without ever contacting us about it. All the phones were disconnected and the AMC even tried to close our St. Paul Church post office box, which was ours even before we were ever a United Methodist church. What to do!? Having decided we were not dealing with rational people, we chose to worship at an alternate location for a few weeks in the hope that tempers would settle down and that God might work some miracles in some hate filled hearts. Although we quite enjoyed worshipping in Tom and Nancy Hallinan’s greenhouse next to the pool with flowers all around and sunshine streaming in, we decided it was time to return to the St. Paul Church building. And, on the advice of an attorney, on July 21, 2002, after a locksmith re-keyed the locks, we began worshipping in the church building once again with guest preachers leading worship. Upon re-entering the church we found that Supt. Simeon had taken (stolen?): all the hymnals (both the blue and the old red sets); the beautiful myrtle-wood communion service, offering plates and candle stick holders; all the phones (even one in a cabinet that was only used for meetings); the computer, computer monitor and computer printer; the copy machine; framed certificates and photos from the wall; membership book; UM Book of Worship; and, other books and records not completely itemized yet. At our first worship service upon re-entry, just as the pianist was to begin playing the prelude, she exclaimed, "The piano is locked!" So much for Christian love! Soon after we began using our St. Paul Church building again, the AMC served us with a "Notice to Quit," meaning they wanted us to vacate the building. With the building deed in our name and since we were advised that we had every right to be there, we did not vacate and continued to worship in our church building. On September 27, 2002, the Board of Trustees of the Alaska Missionary Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc., filed a law suit against St. Paul United Methodist Church, Inc, an Alaskan Corporation (even though by their action St. Paul UMC no longer existed!). In addition, six individuals were named as defendants even though St. Paul Church was incorporated. They sued us as individuals so that we would be financially liable for 75% of the attorney fees (in excess of $175,000) if we lose. We see this as pure vindictiveness and an attempt to intimidate us with the thought of financial ruin. We soon were required to attend an eviction hearing at which, thankfully, the judge ruled against the AMC and let us remain in our church building until a trial is conducted. The phrase, "God will provide", has taken on real significance for the St. Paul congregation over the last year and a half. He has blessed us with ten to twelve guest preachers who have rotated in providing us with wonderful God & Christ centered-messages each Sunday. He has blessed us with the help and prayers of many wonderful United Methodists across the lower 48 states. And, on October 8th, 2003 he blessed us with the arrival of Pastor Doug and Marilyn Brownrigg who have come to pastor at St. Paul Church for one year. Praise the Lord! Surely you are still asking, "Well, come on…..what precipitated all this?" We are still asking the same question and receiving no real answers from Bishop Paup and Supt. Simeon. The only reason we can find for Bishop Paup, Supt. Simeon and the Alaska Missionary Conference to want to destroy St. Paul UMC is that we were loyal to the United Methodist Book of Discipline and the Wesleyan teachings. Our church would take petitions to Annual Conference requesting that the AMC and the UMC be faithful to the Book of Discipline, and that they not support partial birth abortion, politics, and homosexual "marriage"/the gay agenda with UM money. We requested that they honor the BoD in matters such as paragraphs 431-432 on consultation on pastoral appointments. We suggested that bishops have term limits and not be bishops for life; that apportionments not be mandatory; and, that petition materials be sent out in a timely manner. For 18-plus years the St. Paul UMC congregation: worshipped and praised the Lord; taught and trained our children in the Christian beliefs; paid our UMC apportionments in full every year; was financially solvent and responsible; worked in mission with others in the community; was faithful to the Book of Discipline of the UMC and the Wesleyan teachings; provided many learning and social opportunities for our members; was a wonderful, warm, friendly group of Christians; and, opened its doors to all who wanted to worship with us. Through the tireless labor of church members we had nearly completed construction of the St. Paul Church building. Neither the AMC nor any of the UM churches in the AMC offered any help with the construction. With less than 10% from outside contributions, and through the faithful and very generous contributions of the members, the parsonage and church were now debt free properties worth between $400,000 and $500,000. All this from a small country congregation of 50-60 members. So, what could we at St. Paul Church have done to bring on such wrath and hatred from the clergy of the AMC and to have them take such an egregious action against us? One question we now ask is, "Can you be faithful to the Wesleyan teachings and the UMC Book of Discipline and be a United Methodist in the Alaska Missionary Conference?" And the answer…..apparently not! More importantly, in whose name are Bishop Paup, Supt. Simeon and the AMC taking these actions? Surely not our Lord’s! * * * Post script: The congregation of St. Paul Church is worshipping in its St. Paul Church building. The legal battle continues. Far too much time has been devoured by preparing legal documents, sitting through depositions and attending court hearings. The expenses are mounting with the AMC already having over $175,000 in legal expenses and St. Paul Church’s nearing $50,000. It is very disheartening to see all the time, talent, and money being wasted in this legal battle when all we want is just to be left to worship God in the Wesleyan tradition in our St. Paul Church building. Surely God is not pleased with all this! * * * Written on November 15, 2003, by Mrs. Cam Carlson. Editorial note - The people of St. Paul Church can be contacted at: St. Paul Church P. O. Box 83725 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Telephone #: 907-479-7998 Can This Happen to Us? "Two years ago when my wife and I visited Fairbanks, Alaska, we were welcomed in a small church on the north side of town. It was a delightful church with friendly people and an encompassing Christian atmosphere….We really looked forward to visiting the church on our current trip to Fairbanks. This year, we knew that something was wrong when 11:00 A.M. approached and very few autos were present in the parking lot….When we talked with some of the members that we had met two years prior, this is the story that was told. Some of the members had raised some questions about the UMC and its activities….Questions to their local bishop were not answered. He would not talk to them. Their minister divided the church members; he split the church boards; and he finally admitted that he was sent to "close" the church…. In the past, St. Paul United Methodist Church was fully paid for by its members; all bills were timely paid; the ministers were fully paid on time; and all apportionments were timely paid. A reasonable person may ask, "Why?" This question was asked by United Methodists but no answer was forthcoming from their bishop. Obviously, I am disturbed! Back in the time of Christ, when the Elders of the Church called for his arrest and an end to his preaching, the community cried, "Crucify Him", and his friends stood by quietly as he was crucified. How many of us have thought what we would have done if we had been there. Would we have spoken up at the risk of going to jail or losing our jobs or would we have stood quietly by watching the crucifixion? My fellow members of the UMC, you have a chance to symbolically relive that episode in our church’s history. The elders of the UMC are trying to kill St. Paul Church in Fairbanks, AK; they do not want it to preach anymore; and they wish to bury it. You can do nothing, watch the crucifixion quietly, no one will say anything, and no one will know about it. Or you can speak up loudly, give your support to St. Paul, demand an investigation to the actions of Bishop Edward Paup, and get an answer in writing from our bishop. "Does he have the power to do this to our church?" If he does, then I have a problem with the UMC. If he does not have the power, then the bishop for Fairbanks, AK does not have the power for his actions, and he has a problem. As such, I expect the full resources of the UMC to rectify the problems of St. Paul Church in Fairbanks, AK." Mr. David S. Swan, Jr., CPA1 This letter from an outraged member of the UMC in Florida is yet another voice about the injustices in the attack against St. Paul Church. When one examines all of the evidence in the situation, it becomes clear that this is a case of "Goliath versus David" in both the financial resources available to the two sides, and also in that "right" is on the side of the "David" in this case - St. Paul Church. In Appendix M is an undated communication given to us that was apparently a memo from Rachel Lieder-Simeon to "All Committees" of St. Paul Church’s Church, yet there is no indication as to the originator. The directive is interesting in that it instructs the members to do some of the basic things that they had, apparently, been doing all along.2 When one examines Dr. Robert F. Carlson’s Memo to Bishop Ed Paup in Appendix N, it is obvious that the people of St. Paul Church were attempting to follow the procedures in the Book of Discipline and were expecting others in the conference to do the same. When one examines the points made by Dr. Carlson and the actions of Alaska Missionary Conference (AMC) personnel to exclude St. Paul members from leadership positions in their own church, it is apparent that the AMC action was patently illegal. A further examination of this memo would further clarify that St. Paul Church’s members were seeking answers and were open to correct any de facto problems in their congregation, but none were enunciated nor clarified. 3 Third, St. Paul’s Letter to Bishop Ed Paup in Appendix 0 outlines apparent lapses in AMC leadership to the church and describes some of the people who attend the church as: two Korean families, a single father, a widow, and a lady who had transferred from another church.4 St. Paul’s Letter to Bishop Ed Paup in Appendix P is especially instructive in describing the May 3, 2002, meeting the bishop called to work out a deal. According to two of the key points, Bishop Paup stated that "the conference wished to avoid litigation" and the AMC would turn over the church building to the "friends" of St. Paul, the members themselves.5 The rest of the memo describes what happened subsequent to that: the St. Paul Church building was locked to its members, and the other ensuing events that led to the litigation. It would seem that events subsequent to the May 3, 2002, meeting, and a later meeting with Jim Anderson may not have been done in "good faith"! The experiences of other churches to include First UMC of Kingsburg, California, reinforce this as being a common practice used when attacking a local church. Fifth, statements from St. Paul Church’s members to the Judicial Council on the process of discontinuance are contained at Appendix Q.6 These reinforce what has already been stated with additional observations on the processes that were used. Finally, Dr. William W. Wennen’s letter7 to Bishop Elias Galvan in Appendix R expresses his thoughts on this situation with a forecast that serious decline may result if injustices like this are not corrected. In the first letter above, David Swan had asked the question, "Does he have the power to do this to our church?" In his deposition on this case, Bishop Paup stated, "The annual conference has sole authority in a connectional system to determine both how a congregation is organized and how it is discontinued. That is the essence of what it means to be connection. A local church is not an entity that stands by itself in our - - in our system. The basic unit of the United Methodist Church is, in fact, the annual conference, and so the annual conference has such authority."8 These are interesting contentions in four ways: The first sentence: "The annual conference has sole authority in a connectional system to determine both how a congregation is organized and how it is discontinued…"[emphasis added] It would seem that the Book of Discipline has something to say about it; if what Bishop Paup says is true, this means that we effectively do not have a connectional system and each individual church is at the mercy of its annual conference. "A local church is not an entity that stands by itself in our - - in our system." That is true. This also applies to the annual conference. "The basic unit of the United Methodist Church is, in fact, the annual conference, and so the annual conference has such authority." With this reasoning, the authority of the annual conference derives from its being the "basic unit" of the UMC rather than the Book of Discipline. In reference to the annual conference being the "basic unit" - should not this be the local church? In fact, that is what the Book of Discipline does imply in paragraph 201 when it says the local church "provides the most significant arena through which disciple-making occurs." One interesting aspect of these proceedings is that AMC personnel started legal action so these court proceedings could not be published. In other words, they wanted to silence the members of St. Paul Church as to what was happening to them.9 If this is a fair, just situation, why should they want to keep details of the case from getting out? To quote Mrs. Cam Carlson, "If they are doing God’s work, you’d think they would be proud of it and not want knowledge of their actions hidden!"9 Thankfully, the judge denied this request. Dr. Tom Oden’s paper on the "Trust Clause" (contained in the next chapter) presents additional insights into this case. His observations as they relate to a denominational entity not abiding by the Book of Discipline when it attempts to seize a church’s property are instructive. The people at St. Paul Church have estimated that the legal fees expended by Alaska Missionary Conference personnel in the lawsuit trying to take their property are upwards of $200,000. Both UM General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA) and the UM General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM) personnel stated that they have provided some of the funds: GBGM provided $15,000 to the GCFA for this; the GCFA has provided a $50,000 grant; both are to be repaid to the respective boards after the case is over. It is believed that more money may have gone into the fight against St. Paul Church from other general agencies of the UMC. This means that every local church in United Methodism that pays the apportionment is indirectly funding the attack against St. Paul Church, as is everyone who gives money that makes its way into the apportionment. Mr. Swan had asked, "Can This Happen to Us?" The answer to that is a definite "Yes." This can happen to each one of our local churches – since it is happening to St. Paul Church. The Trust Clause By Dr. Thomas C. Oden The Trust Clause Governing Use of Property in the United Methodist Church Faithfulness to the connection according to established doctrinal standards Who controls church property when evangelical congregations decide to leave mainline denominations? In the United Methodist Church, liberal conferences have often been able to hold conservative congregations hostage over property issues. Methodist theologian Thomas C. Oden offers here a different interpretation of the "Trust Clause" — one that would make the property issue turn on questions of doctrinal faithfulness rather than organizational structure. Executive Summary To possess United Methodist property requires protecting its doctrinal standards. The burning issue today: Who owns licit title to United Methodist Church property — those who follow the United Methodist doctrine and discipline or those who do not? Thesis: The doctrinal and disciplinary standards embedded in all property deeds are unmistakably clear, as stated in Books of Discipline both historical and contemporary, since founding and constitutional conferences in 1784 and 1808. The Discipline rightly protects "free inquiry within the boundaries defined by" our doctrinal tradition and standards, assuming that "Scripture is the primary source and guideline for doctrine." The Plan of Union (1968) takes great pains to specify that the phrase "our present existing and established standards of doctrine… [includes] as a minimum John Wesley's forty-four Sermons on Several Occasions and his Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament. Their function as ‘standards’ had already been defined by the ‘Large Minutes’ of 1763, which in turn had been approved by the American Methodists in 1773 and 1785. To these Sermons and Notes the Conference of 1808 added The Articles of Religion" (Disc 1968, p. 35). The Constitution (1808), Plan of Union (1968), and current Discipline (2000) require property deeds to be accountable to United Methodist established doctrinal standards. There is a consistent and continuous historical pattern of title deeds in American Methodism throughout its decisive moments in the Minutes and Disciplines of 1770, 1784, 1808, 1832, 1939, 1968, 1988, and 2000. To be "subject to the Discipline" requires first of all to be subject to its Constitution, hence subject to the Restrictions on the General Conference set forth in the Constitution, which constrains the General Conference from amending or teaching contrary to the doctrinal standards: Sermons, Notes, and Articles and after 1968, the Confession. The General Conference is strictly prohibited from changing the doctrinal standards by the First Restrictive Rule from 1808 to the present, which states: "The General Conference shall not revoke, alter or change our Articles of Religion, nor establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing and established standards of doctrine." The Restrictive Rules have become the central fortress of the United Methodist constitutional system. Their doctrinal standards are embedded in every trust clause of every local church and in the Discipline. The trust clause embedded in the property deed transmission is a legal guarantee in a court of law. The trust clause is not written to protect the Conference, but the doctrinal standards, and to protect the Conference only insofar as the Conference protects the doctrinal standards. The trust clause guarantees the right to use property only to those who are guardians of its doctrinal standards. The renewed attention being given to the trust clause provides a promising opportunity for those faithful to the connection to shift the contest for theological integrity in a decisive way. The trust clause has been wrongly viewed as an obstacle. Now the trust clause can be rightly understood to be a legal instrument to call the Conference itself to account under its own Constitution, based on a continuing unchanging tradition of both historical and contemporary legal documents that have juridical and binding import. The Plan of Union (1968) and the Discipline keep the historic trust clause in constant application in every local church, even when not explicit in a local church deed or mortgage. Bishops and ordained conference members are voluntarily pledged to defend these doctrinal standards, and subject to charges if they inveigh against them. "Faithfulness to the connection" in the Methodist tradition by definition means faithfulness to the doctrinal standards that are constitutionally defined and required in every Discipline and every title deed. The civil courts have reserved a generous and deferential space of freedom for church law to be administered within conferences by due processes governed by the United Methodist Discipline. The courts facing disputed claims may be asked to decide whether the use and administration of church properties rightly belong to those who follow the doctrinal and disciplinary standards, or those who have disavowed these long-held standards. Civil courts have jurisdiction and valid interests in the following spheres of distinctively civil action (as distinguished from church law, doctrine or polity): the legal use of property under the trust clause in property deeds; abuses of constitutional rights under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights (such as limiting freedom of worship, speech, press, or assembly); seizing of property without just compensation; the due performance of contracts; the rights of laity who are faithful to the connection to enter and use the church property they have built and maintained; fairly examining evidences of fraud or malfeasance; and abuses of due process under civil law. The Order of Consecration of Bishops and the Discipline’s paragraphs on the duties of the bishop clearly require the bishop to guard and defend the doctrinal standards. If bishops protect bishops from investigation and trial, leaving the laity with no remedy against bishops who are otherwise unable to be disciplined by any due process, then the faithful in the connection must go back to the most basic understanding of what is permissible according to our property deeds and trust clause. * * * Used by permission of Christianity Today International, Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. Implications for the Future The case involving St. Paul Church is a very troubling situation. It involves the attempted elimination of a viable, functioning church that had been fulfilling all of its responsibilities. The time I spent in Fairbanks with the people of this church were especially instructive. I was impressed with their spirituality, enthusiasm, and diversity. Members include: Dr. William W. Wennen, M.D., a plastic surgeon; Dr. Robert F. Carlson, a professor of engineering and university departmental head; Dr. Tom Hallinan, an astrophysicist and one of the preeminent experts on the Northern Lights; Judy Stoop, a lady who owns her own company; Pat Turner, a professor at the Junior College level; two Korean families; a single father; a widow; a lady who had transferred from another church; and others who are bush teachers, paralegal, housewives, mothers, and children. It is simply unconscionable to think that this church – that they built with their own hands – would be taken from them in the way that is being attempted. I examined their case and asked them the "hard" questions. There are concerns that need to be raised: 1. Can a local church be discontinued that has fully paid its apportionments; is financially solvent; and abides by the Bible and the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church? 2. Can a local church be discontinued without any evaluation involving that same local church? 3. Can a local church be discontinued without legal safeguards similar to that afforded to the clergy? 4. Can a local church be discontinued without the due process and justice guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States? 5. Can a local church be discontinued because the Alaska Missionary Conference wants to go in a "new" direction? 6. Can a local church be discontinued because the district superintendent does not like some individuals in the congregation? This has serious implications. This means that the financial resources of the entire United Methodist Church could be brought to bear to seize any local church’s property, leaving little recourse to that local congregation – and the action financed by the contributions of laypeople through the apportionment. Assuredly, this is not the only situation of local church abuse by the leadership. It is understood that in the workings of organizational entities, there will be friction and misunderstandings, but there are multiple instances where it seems the local churches were being abused. The Church in Bondage,1 contains studies of other local church-abuse situations: Ocracoke UMC on Ocracoke Island in North Carolina (Appendix N of the book); First UMC of Omaha, Nebraska (Appendix O); Salem UMC of Lodi, California (Appendix P); St. Francis UMC in San Francisco, California (Appendix Q); First UMC of Kingsburg, California (Appendix R); First UMC of Marietta, Georgia (Appendix S); and Camp Ground UMC of Fayetteville, North Carolina (Appendix T). For instance, at Salem UMC of Lodi, California, 27 people were notified that they had been removed from the rolls of the UMC without their knowledge. Following are three others with more summarized information: Some Other Church Abuse Cases High Point District (Western North Carolina Conference).1 According to information given to us by people from the High Point District, Richard Crowder, then-superintendent of that district, closed Randolph Hills UMC, a viable, working church, and turned it into his own district office. He had reportedly gone into their church, interrupted one of their meetings, and told them, "I’m going to pick a date for you to close your church." Then on the appointed day, a moving van pulled up in front of the church building, and men loaded into it the church’s contents including the piano, chairs, furniture, and everything they could to include the hymnals. Seibert UMC, Seibert, Colorado (Rocky Mountain Conference).1 As the situation was reported to us, the D.S. went into the local bank and asked to look at the account for the Seibert UMC. The clerk informed the president, who attended that church. The D.S. was told, that he would not be allowed to look at the account. The people, alerted to this action, opened other bank accounts with no direct connection to their church and operated from them. They then safeguard their assets, accumulated sufficient funds, purchased their church building from the conference, left the UMC, and formed an independent church. Hillrose UMC, Hillrose, Colorado (Rocky Mountain Conference).1 As the situation was reported to us by Mr. Gene Peterson and Mrs. Jo Ann Windolf who belong to the church, the members of their congregation had accumulated $16,000 to pay for repairs on the building to the roof and the windows, and to paint the church. According to Mr. Peterson, the people are farmers and that money "came pretty hard" as he put it. A pastor that they had (and who did not have legal access to the church's bank account) took the money and cleaned out the safe deposit box; later the conference sold the parsonage. Subsequently, the district superintendent locked the doors of the church and left town. Since the people had keys to the building, they would open it on Sundays and have their own laity-led church services. When officials from the conference found out about this, they changed the locks on the building. Through subsequent negotiations, the people bought the church for $8,000 (which they termed a "ransom") with a note signed by Mr. Peterson. Mrs. Windolf, who is a farmer's wife herself, said, "People just don't know to what lengths they [i.e., the conference] will go to get their hands on property that isn't theirs." The people had bought the land and the building, paid for its upkeep, and cared for it over the years. Both indicated that the people of the church are pretty bitter over what happened. Some of the other churches which have fought or are in a fight over their property are St. Lukes UMC in Fresno, California; Elo UMC in Pickett, Wisconsin, that was founded in 1846;2 and Pungoteague UMC, in Pungoteague, Virginia, that had voted to close its doors rather than to pay "dues" to the "church’s national hierarchy" as the newspaper reported.3 However, Haney’s Chapel UMC won its fight to keep its property when the annual conference sued to take it. In 1995 a majority of the members passed a resolution to withdraw from the conference. The UMC’s conference claimed title to the property, based on the church’s hierarchical relationship with the national church and the Book of Discipline. But Justice Mark Kennedy, who wrote for the majority on the Alabama Supreme Court, said that the land was intended to be used by the local church "free from any control of the national church" and the "trustees and their successors hold legal title for the beneficiary class of the congregation."4 If we are to presume that Bishop Paup’s statement in his deposition is the reality of the "unseen polity" of the UMC, this means that the Annual Conference does have life-and-death authority over the local church. Then the Book of Discipline is not the final authority in the UMC, if it can be violated with impunity. If the Book of Discipline has ceased to be an authority and is just given lip service, it is not the rule of law in the church and has lost all validity. Therefore there is no basis for connectionalism in the denomination, nor in mission. Then each annual conference, bishop, and member of the clergy can do "what is right in his own eyes" with no fear of consequences. This in turn means that the "connection" has been broken. We, the United Methodist Church, are in fact no longer a connectional church. As previously stated, the case involving St. Paul Church is an extremely troubling situation. Their situation and the others like it need to be corrected – and soon. April 23, 2002 Letter to Bishop Paup   Bishop Edward W. Paup 1505 S.W. 18th Avenue Portland Oregon 97201-2599 Dear Bishop Paup: We at St. Paul UMC continue to be mystified as to what unknown action we may have committed to generate such hate toward us within the Alaska Missionary Conference. In a closed session in Anchorage the Cabinet and Administrative Unit took action to discontinue our church; yet, neither body has had the courtesy to inform St. Paul UMC why this action is being taken. Thus, we have the following questions: 1. We have been told the action to recommend discontinuance of St. Paul UMC was done in executive/closed session and is confidential. However, paragraph 604.14 of the 2000 Book of Discipline of the UMC clearly limits the reasons for closed sessions and "discontinuance of a church" is not among the listed reasons. Why was this not handled in open session? 2. Are you aware that Superintendent Simeon never discussed the possibility of discontinuance with the congregation of St. Paul UMC or any of its committees before the March 12th announcement? 3. Are you aware that since March 12th Superintendent Simeon has refused to meet or communicate with any of St. Paul UMC’s official committees? 4. Are you aware that Superintendent Simeon refuses to meet with the PPR Committee of St. Paul UMC and discuss pulpit supply as outlined in paragraph 258.2 f #14, of the UMC 2000 Book of Discipline? 5. How do you know that what ever it is that Superintendent Simeon told you and others concerning matters at St. Paul UMC is in truth factual? The perception in one person’s mind of what is going on at St. Paul UMC, is hardly valid or accurate when that person has never spent any time at the church to view the day-to-day activities and the interactions of the members. Superintendent Simeon’s visits to St. Paul UMC have been limited to the mandatory ones such as leading the annual All Church Conference and perhaps one or two other meetings with the PPR Committee. At these times she would arrive just before the meeting and depart immediately after the meeting. She has shown no Christian love for our church. 6. Why do you have no Christian love for our church? 7. How can four people (the cabinet) and ten people (the Administrative unit) sit in a closed room in Anchorage and judge the state of affairs at a church which they have never been to or have, again, never spent any time in to view the day-to-day operations and the interaction of members. 8. If St. Paul UMC is discontinued, what do you plan to do with the property you are ready to "seize"? As per paragraph 2548.2 of the UMC 2000 Book of Discipline, "A recommendation for discontinuance shall include recommendations as to the future use of the property." 9.Are you aware that the following are among the people who have found a Christian home at St. Paul UMC where they feel welcome and enjoy worshiping God ? -Two Korean families that have gone through a rough time with the shakeup of a Korean church and who have teenagers who are very happy and active at St. Paul UMC. -A single father, with two young sons, who wishes to join our church, even knowing, church officials are trying to close us down. All three are very happy at St. Paul UMC. He has volunteered to install the vinyl in our lower level. -A widow who moved north from Pennsylvania to live near her son and has made good friends at St. Paul UMC. -A lady who recently transferred to St. Paul UMC from another local church and is very happy at St. Paul UMC. -And, many families whose children are very comfortable and happy in St. Paul UMC’s Sunday School and have no desire to be sent elsewhere. 10. How do four and ten humans feel they have the authority to close down God’s church and prevent people from worshiping our Lord?   In service to Christ,   Pat Turner, Chair Judy Stoop, Secretary Administrative Council St. Paul UMC cc. Simeon July 2, 2002 Letter to Bishop Paup   Bishop Ed Paup 1505 S.W. 18th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97201-2599   Dear Bishop Paup: At the Annual Conference of the Alaska Missionary Conference in Anchorage on Thursday, May 30, 2002, you called a meeting with the members of the former St. Paul UMC. During that meeting you stated that: -The conference wished to avoid litigation and expensive court costs. -You wanted to break the connection between the UMC and St. Paul UMC and that, "We (UMC) will go our way and you (St. Paul) can go your way". -You realized Bob could not negotiate a deal at that meeting or speak for the group back home. -The AMC would turn over the St. Paul church building to the "Friends of St. Paul" and the AMC would take the parsonage, to give a new UMC group a start. -The UMC wanted to go in a new direction in Fairbanks. Just before adjourning the meeting you said that although Bob Carlson could not speak for the group back home, you wanted to know what his personal commitment was. Bob clearly stated he intended to work for the St. Paul Ad Council group to keep the church and let the conference get the parsonage. On the floor of the conference plenary session that followed the library meeting, you again assured the assemblage that the AMC trustees would negotiate to transfer the church building to the St. Paul group that had filed the injunction. You and Rachel stated and it was printed on the sheet with the motion for discontinuance of St. Paul UMC: "Information: It is important to realize that we are not making a determination as to whether or not St. Paul should exist as a church. The only determination we make, as an annual conference of the United Methodist Church, is whether or not St. Paul should be continued as a United Methodist Church." Since returning from the conference in Anchorage, here are the things St. Paul Church found, learned, discovered and experienced: 1. Upon arriving in Fairbanks at 11:15pm Saturday night, June 1st, 2002, we found a message on the church answering machine from Jim Anderson. He stated that due to action taken by the AMC Annual Conference to discontinue St. Paul UMC, there would be no worship service on Sunday, June 2nd at St. Paul Church and that he would contact the key people in the congregation. (We had the service all set up and a guest preacher coming.) 2. Jim Anderson was at St. Paul Church on Sunday morning, June 2nd, and met with Bob Carlson for about an hour before the worship service. Jim said he represented the Bishop. Jim told Bob he (Jim) was to secure the building and put the funds into a trust to pay the bills. Bob told Jim that St. Paul Church intended to continue on as a church and that those actions would not be necessary. St. Paul Church would take care of the building and the bills; that the church building was vital to our church program. Jim agreed that we needed the building for our program and that he felt we could negotiate a satisfactory conclusion. They both agreed the conference motion was to break the UMC connection, not to prevent St. Paul Church from continuing. 3. After the June 2nd service, Jim spoke to the congregation, read your (Paup) letter, and indicated he was sure we could arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Jim said we could use the church building this Sunday, during the week and next Sunday. Bob addressed the congregation and assured them we had every intention of continuing on as a Christian church. 4. On Monday or Tuesday (June 3rd or 4th), Jim Anderson met with Tom Hallinan and Bob Carlson for lunch at Denny’s in Fairbanks. At that time he presented a typed sheet titled, "An Outline for the Future of St. Paul Church (Non-denominational)" (Addendum A). It was unsigned and undated, but Jim said it was from the cabinet and the administrative unit. You will note that at the bottom of this sheet it states: "Building Access St. Paul Church be allowed to use the building to conduct worship and other church activities. St. Catherine’s Anglican Catholic Church be allowed to use the building to conduct worship and other church activities." This led us to believe, as you had assured us and the conference, that the church building would continue to be ours. 5. Tuesday night, June 4th, the St. Paul Church Administrative Council met and received the proposal, "An Outline for the Future of St. Paul Church (Non-denominational)" provided by Jim Anderson. The group formulated a counter-proposal for Bob Carlson to present to Jim Anderson. 6. On Wednesday, June 5th, Bob Carlson presented the counter-proposal to Jim Anderson. 7. Thursday afternoon, June 6th, Jim Anderson called the Carlson residence and asked for Bob. Cam told him Bob was at work and offered to give Jim the office phone number. Jim said that wasn’t necessary, to just tell Bob, "Rachel has pulled the plug on me. I’m not to talk to you people any more." 8. Friday, June 7th, 2002, Rachel Simeon and Lonnie Brooks were in Fairbanks, but made no attempt to contact the St. Paul Church officials. Thus, with no notification to St. Paul Church, they proceeded to: -Change the locks on the St. Paul Church building -Change the locks on the St. Paul Church parsonage. -Turn off the message machine at St. Paul Church building. -Turn off the message machine at St. Paul Church parsonage. -Take the "St. Paul Church" sign off our church building. -Remove some contents from the building. -Screw five large fluorescent orange lettered "No trespassing" signs on to the exterior siding of our church building, securing each with six screws. (Thus, defacing the house of the Lord. A great message to the community!) -Tell Keith Murrills (former church treasurer, with no current authority) to withdraw all the money from our St. Paul Church checking account and write out a cashier’s check to the Alaska Missionary Conference for the total amount which was in excess of $6,000. (This is in violation of the church rules requiring two signatures on all bank actions.) 9. Late Friday afternoon, June 7th, Bob Carlson emailed you to alert you of the illegal action of two of your agents. 10. Saturday, June 8th, Bob Carlson called you at 7:30am at your home in Portland, Oregon. You told him: -Jim Anderson was acting beyond his authority. -We should have come to a written agreement at the annual conference. -We should have talked more about an agreement at the conference. -Bob was not available to you at the conference. (Bob attended every plenary session until the conference adjourned, even though he was no longer considered a delegate and was not allowed to vote.) -Tom Dahl was the chief negotiator. -They (AMC) thought we were not interested in negotiating because of our parsonage position. -You (Paup) were not adverse to St. Paul Church continuing to use the building. -You (Paup) would ask Dahl & Simeon to call him (Bob). 11. Saturday, June 8th, Rachel called at 8:14am and wanted to meet with Bob alone at the airport at 11:15am. Bob knew it was unwise to meet alone with AMC people and took three St. Paul Church officers with him. Upon arriving at the airport and locating Rachel and Lonnie, the meeting came to an abrupt end even before it began. Rachel was incensed that Bob was not alone and angrily said, ""I said alone, Bob! Come on Lonnie, we’re checking through security!" At that point they grabbed their bags and went up the escalator. When Bob called to each of them individually and asked if they would be willing to talk, each answered, "No!" End of meeting. Bob attempted to call you again at noon and left a message when he couldn’t reach you. You did not return the call. 12. Tom Dahl did not call Bob, so Bob finally reached Tom late afternoon on Saturday, June 8th. Tom made no attempt to negotiate or to offer to negotiate at a future time. He implied all negotiations had ended after the May 30th meeting with the former St. Paul UMC members in the library at 1st UMC in Anchorage. However, Tom then continued on to state that St. Paul Church needed to: -Disband the corporation. -Drop the lawsuit. -"Return" the money from the St. Paul Church savings account (building fund) to the AMC. He offered St. Paul Church nothing in return for these actions. He stated the AMC already had one offer to buy and one offer to lease the St. Paul Church building. He offered no accommodation for St. Paul Church to use the St. Paul Church building on Sunday, June 9th. 13. Sunday, June 9th, St. Paul Church was locked out of its church building and had to find another place to conduct worship and other church activities. St. Catherine’s Anglican Catholic Church was also locked out of the St. Paul Church building and could not worship. In addition to being locked out of the building, all St. Catherine’s worship materials (alter setup, communion service, communion book, etc.) were locked up inside the building. 14. Since June 9th, two weeks ago, St. Paul Church has been locked out of the St. Paul Church building. The congregation has had to hold worship elsewhere without access to our worship materials. We have also had to meet elsewhere for other church activities.  St. Catherine’s Anglican Catholic Church has also been locked out of the St. Paul Church building, and without any opportunity to retrieve their worship materials, has not been able to hold worship. 15. St. Paul Church has no knowledge of anyone looking after the needs at the church building: -Removal of garbage. -Removal of perishables from the refrigerator -Watering the plants -Watering the piano humidifier. -Checking the interior of the building. -Mowing the grass (which is getting overgrown). Nor is there any knowledge of anyone checking the parsonage. Vacant buildings invite vandalism and there is a lot of that in Fairbanks. 16. Just this past Thursday night, we learned that the AMC officials have been closing out St. Paul Church business accounts and transferring the accounts to the AMC office in Anchorage. These include: -Phones -Electricity -Fuel -Water -Insurance -Post Office box Some of this account closing activity even occurred before the discontinuance vote was taken in Anchorage. That covers most of the facts to date. In closing, St. Paul Church feels you and the AMC have not kept your word as stated to us and the assemblage at the Annual Conference in Anchorage. What is most appalling about all these egregious actions is that it is being done by religious officials who should be setting examples for their flock. We fail to see any shred of God’s love shining through any of this. St. Paul Church has not been contacted for any negotiations by the AMC Administrative Unit since Rachel "pulled the plug" on Jim Anderson. St. Paul Church has not been contacted in any manner by the AMC. It has been over four weeks since the Annual Conference adjourned. This does not appear to be "immediate" resolution. If you will agree that this foolishness must stop, then, as you stated in the library in Anchorage, you (UMC) can go your way and we (St. Paul Church) can go ours. In service to Christ, By action of the St. Paul Church Administrative Council, June 24, 2002. Sonja Younker, Vice Chair Judy Stoop, Secretary Addendum C E Mail attachment January 7, 2002 Memo To:       Alaska Missionary Conference Cabinet: Bishop Paup, Revs. Baker, Holoway and Lieder Simeon Saint Paul UMC Pastor: Rev. Strait Saint Paul UMC Lay Leader: P. Turner Saint Paul UMC Pastor Parish Committee: J. Stoop, K. Murrills, A. Koll, G. Gibson, T. Hallinan, Diane Ranck, R. Carlson Saint Paul UMC Nominations Committee: D. Strait, C. Carlson, J. Carlson, B. Beckley, J. Stoop, David Ranck, C. Lawrence Saint Paul UMC Administrative Board attendees of Dec. 18,2001 meeting: G. Gibson,       D. Strait, E. Wennen, J. Carlson, R. Carlson, C. Carlson, K. Murrills, A. Carlson, T. Hallinan, P. Turner,  J. Stoop From: Bob Carlson, Member, Saint Paul UMC Re: Disobedience to the Order and Discipline of the United Methodist Church with regard to actions and complicity with efforts to exclude certain members of Saint Paul UMC from full participation in the life, community and activities of the church. 1.                  The actions, communications and planning by the Cabinet, Rev. Strait, certain members of Saint Paul UMC and the complicity by the action of the administrative council to exclude certain members of Saint Paul UMC are disobedient to the discipline of the United Methodist Church.  The references to the Discipline are listed below.  (The reference numbers refer to the reference system of the Discipline of the United Methodist Church: 2000.  Phrases in Italics are direct quotes from the Discipline.  The underline is my emphasis.) 2.                  The Discipline covers the central thrust of the cabinet’s directive to exclude members in leadership position from further participation in the church governance for a 3-year period.  Each reference is pretty much self-explanatory. All but one refers to the mandate of inclusiveness or the prohibition of excluding any member from service because of current status. The one exception, No. 10, states that the only ground for removing officers is by their being unable or unwilling to perform their duties.  Each of these references is listed in turn from front to back. 3.                  The Constitution: Part I/Division One/ Article IV. ¶ 4. Article IV. Inclusiveness of the Church—The United Methodist Church is a part of the church universal, which is one Body in Christ. Therefore all persons, without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition, shall be eligible to attend its worship services, to participate in its programs, and, when they take the appropriate vows, to be admitted into its membership in any local church in the connection. In The United Methodist Church no conference or other organizational unit of the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any member or any constituent body of the Church because of race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition.   4.                  The Constitution: Part I/Division Two/Section II/Article IV. ¶ 15. Article IV. —The General Conference shall have full legislative power over all matters distinctively connectional, and in the exercise of this power shall have authority as follows:20 1. To define and fix the conditions, privileges, and duties of Church membership, which shall in every case be without reference to race or status.21 14. To secure the rights and privileges of membership in all agencies, programs, and institutions in The United Methodist Church regardless of race or status.31 (The footnote 20 refers to Judicial Council Decisions 96, 232,236,318,325,544.  The footnote 21 refers to Judicial Council Decision 558.  The footnote 31 refers to Judicial Council Decisions 427,433,442,451,540,558,567,588,594 and to Decision 4, 5 Interim Judicial Council. )   5.                  The Mission and Ministry of the Church/Section VI. Called to Inclusiveness   ¶138 We recognize that God made all creation and saw that it was good. As a diverse people of God who bring special gifts and evidences of God’s grace to the unity of the Church and to society, we are called to be faithful to the example of Jesus’ ministry to all persons. Inclusiveness means openness, acceptance, and support that enables all persons to participate in the life of the Church, the community, and the world. Thus, inclusiveness denies every semblance of discrimination. The mark of an inclusive society is one in which all persons are open, welcoming, fully accepting, and supporting of all other persons, enabling them to participate fully in the life of the church, the community, and the world. A further mark of inclusiveness is the setting of church activities in facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. In The United Methodist Church inclusiveness means the freedom for the total involvement of all persons who meet the requirements of The United Methodist Book of Discipline in the membership and leadership of the Church at any level and in every place. In the spirit of this declaration, United Methodist seminaries will make all efforts to meet Americans with Disabilities (ADA) accessibility standards by the year 2011. Exemptions for historical or existing buildings are not allowed under this requirement. 6.                  Organization and Administration/Chapter One/The Local Church/Section V. Church Membership   ¶214. Eligibility-The United Methodist Church is a part of the holy catholic (universal) church, as we confess in the Apostles’ Creed.  In the church, Jesus Christ is proclaimed and professed as Lord and Savior.  All people may attend worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments and become members in any local church in the connection (¶ 4.)   7.                  Organization and Administration/Chapter One/The Local Church/Section V.  The Meaning of Membership ¶ 218. Mutual Responsibility-Faithful discipleship includes the obligation to participate in the corporate life of the congregation with fellow members of the body of Christ.  A member is bound in sacred covenant to shoulder the burdens, share the risks, and celebrate the joys of fellow members.  A Christian is called to speak the truth in love, always ready to confront conflict in the spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation.   8.                  Organization and Administration/Chapter One/The Local Church/Section V.  Care of Members ¶ 227.1  The local church shall endeavor to enlist each member in activities for spiritual growth and in participation in the services and ministries of the Church and its organizations.   9.                  Organization and Administration/Chapter One/The Local Church/Section VI.  Organization and Administration ¶ 242. Primary Tasks-…In carrying out its primary task, it shall be organized so the adequate provision is made for these basic responsibilities:…..(6) seeking inclusiveness in all aspects of its life. ¶ 243. Organization-…3.  Members of the church council or alternative structure shall be persons of genuine Christian character who love the church, are morally disciplined, are committed to the mandate of inclusiveness in the life of the church,….   10.              Organization and Administration/Chapter One/The Local Church/Section VI.  Organization and Administration/The Charge Conference ¶ 249. Removal of Officers and Filling of Vacancies-If a leader or officer who has been elected by the charge conference is unable or unwilling to perform the duties reasonably expected of such a leader or officer, the district superintendent may call a special session of the charge conference in accordance with ¶ 245.7.  The purpose of such special session shall be stated a “Consideration for the removal of person(s) from office and the election of persons(s) to fill vacancy(ies).”   11.              Organization and Administration/Chapter One/The Local Church/Section VI. Organization and Administration/The Church Council/Administrative Committees   ¶ 258. There shall be elected annually, by the charge conference in each local church, a committee on lay leadership that is composed of full members of the local church….e) In the identification and selection process, care shall be given that the leadership of ministries reflects inclusivity and diversity.   12.              Chapter Three/The Superintendency/Section IV. Specific Responsibilities of District Superintendents   ¶ 419. The district superintendent shall oversee the total ministry of the clergy and of the churches in the communities of the district in their missions of witness and service in the world:…(c)  by encouraging the personal commitment to the mandate of inclusiveness in the life of the church.   The references listed above clearly state the case.  We, the local church, the pastor or the cabinet,  may not exclude any person from service to the church for reason of status.   13.              Judicial Council Decisions   Rev. Strait stated in one of our meetings or education sessions that the Judicial Council supported the cabinet mandate of excluding present leaders from leadership in the church for 3 years.  The United Methodist Judicial Council has rendered about 880 decisions since 1940.  Decisions 610-924, covering 1989 to 2001, are indexed two different ways.  A search of the subject index reveal the following with regard to the local church:   Administrative Board ·        Authority concerning designated gifts, 667 ·        Authority to make changes in policy, 706   Local Church ·        Authority of Administrative Board of determine policy regarding designated gifts, 667 ·        Authority of Annual Conference to require participation in insurance program, 759 ·        Authority of Charge Conference to set pastor's salary, 792 ·        Authority of Pastor-Parish Relations Committee in matters of staff employment, 638 ·        Covenant services and celebrations, other than marriage, for couples 694 ·        Labeling or identifying as unofficial body subject to conflict with Discipline, 871 ·        “professing member” , use of phrase in Discipline 885 ·        Restrictions on use of funds for church property, 688 ·        Restrictions on use of proceeds from mortgage or sale of church property, 664 ·        Transfer to another Annual Conference, 795 ·        Unconstitutionality of mandated categories of membership on boards and agencies, 633 ·        Withholding from pastor's salary to pay costs of cleaning parsonage illegal, 657 None of these decisions directly address the question of allowing exclusion of members from offices by reason of their present status. However, Decision 633- Unconstitutionality of mandated categories of membership on boards and agencies, does address the issue of officer mandates.  In our case, present status would exclude current officers from serving for three years.  It in turn refers to many other decisions that would grant a preferred status not granted to all.  In the council’s Decision 633 analysis they state: In Decision 601, we referred to Decision 594 in which we reaffirmed our long-standing position that Par. 4 and 15.14 of the Constitution forbid "any legislation which would guarantee a preferred status not extended to others." Par. 15.14 has been interpreted in Decisions 4 and 5 of the Interim Judicial Council and in Decisions 427, 433, 442, 451, 540, 558, 567, 588, 594 and 601, consistently upholding the principle of non-restrictiveness based on race or status. So, there you have it folks, in the United Methodist Church, one’s present status, a current officer, may not be used for exclusion from future service as an officer. I respectfully request that each of the units participating in the exclusion process withdraw their mandate, planning, compliance and other activities with respect to exclusion of certain members of Saint Paul UMC in participation in the life of the church. And, that we concentrate on our primary mission in the words of the Discipline:  ¶ 202. The Function of the Local Church-The church of Jesus Christ exists in and for the world.  It is primarily at the level of the local church that the church encounters the world.  The local church is a strategic base from which Christians move out to the structures of society. The function of the local church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is to help people to know Jesus Christ personally and to live their daily lives in light of the their relationship to God…. Or, in the words of Saint Paul UMC’s August 9, 1984 Statement of Purpose and Emphasis-The purpose of St. Paul United Methodist Church is to be a community of faith in Christian ministry to its own congregation and to the wider community, sensitive to the historic purposes and practices of the Methodist and Evangelical United Brethren churches… Amen.