I was relieved in reading the article that SMU was interested in separating at a time when the more conservative part of the UMC was trying to have the denomination’s policies toward the LGBTQ community be more restrictive, as I was afraid that the issue was about how many of the denomination’s more conservative congregations pulled out of the conference over having more accepting and welcoming language toward the LGBTQ community.
It’s also interesting that the founders of SMU wrote the UMC in as part of the bylaws to never be separated, as they had done that in reaction to Vanderbilt being allowed to separate itself from the UMC. Since the original bylaws were written the way they were in order to expressly avoid this kind of situation, I’ll be interested to see where the courts land on this.