by Chris Ritter
On April 10, the Transitional Leadership Council (TLC) of the Global Methodist Church released key recommendations related to the governance of the denomination. The release of disciplinary language provides long-awaited answers to questions about bishops, the future role of presidents pro tem, and the governance model that will go into effect once the TLC dissolves in September. All these recommendations, of course, are subject to the approval of the convening General Conference (Sept. 20-26). Although I served on the Episcopacy Task Force, this analysis is based solely on the information published.
The April 10 release is specific to bishops, but the proposed Section Five of The Book of Doctrines and Discipline describes a larger denominational eco-system that is important to understand. Here are the key pieces:
New: Conference Superintendents
The April 10 release should put to rest speculation that the presidents pro tem will re-framed as bishops. As today, bishops are to operate above the annual conference level and oversee multiple conferences. The new office of conference superintendent, described in a proposed Par. 507, provides primary leadership to the annual conference. Conference superintendents are appointed by the bishop in consultation with conference leadership. They serve an initial six-year term that may be extended annually to a maximum limit of twelve years. The Conference Superintendent chairs the conference leadership team, leads the cabinet, appoints the Board of Ministry, and recommends the clergy appointments (including presiding elders) to the bishop.
Since 1939, the UMC and its predecessors have been drifting toward a diocesan model that locates bishops within a judicatory body. The proposal reverses that trend in favor of the original Methodist pattern of “itinerant general superintendency.” A layer of superintendency above the annual conference adds cost, but it also provides dedicated spiritual leadership over the whole Church. The pattern of bishops overseeing a number of conference superintendents is not unlike that found in the Free Methodist Church.
New: The Connectional Council
Proposed Paragraph 505 makes reference to a Connectional Council. Although we don’t have the full legislation on the make-up and duties of this council, the proposed constitution provides General Conference with the right to delegate to this group “authority… to address all matters entrusted to it between meetings of the General Conference subject to such limitations as the General Conference may from time to time impose and subject to ratification of its actions taken between General Conferences by the General Conference.” Why the possibility for significant delegated powers? After a General Conference 2026, the GMC intends to hold General Conference only once every six years. This is too long a window to do budgeting and similar planning carried out by the UMC General Conference. While we await details on the Council, the April 10 release indicates this group is to nominate members of the General Committee on Episcopacy and elect the Connectional Operating Officer (as nominated by the bishops).
New: A General Committee on Episcopacy
Another feature distinct from the UMC is a General Committee on Episcopacy. This 12-member body is nominated by the Connectional Council with additional nominations to be received from the floor of General Conference. The committee would have the power to handle complaints against bishops and suspend them as necessary. Within the parameters of the budget, the committee sets the salary and benefit package for bishops and, in collaboration with the Connectional Operating Officer, recommends how these expenses will be covered.
Most notably, the Committee on Episcopacy plays a significant role in the election of bishops. They not only recommend the number of bishops to be elected but also produce a vetted slate of nominees for the episcopacy. Nominations are to be invited from the annual conferences who may recommend one of their own clergy and also a clergy from another conference. The slate produced by the committee is to include at least twice the number of bishops needed so that General Conference delegates are provided with genuine choice. Acknowledging the importance of prior vetting, there is not a provision for nominations from the floor. Information on candidates is to be published sixty days prior to General Conference. No member of the Committee on Episcopacy is eligible for election during their term of service. The potentially thorny issue of global regionalism within the episcopacy is handed to the General Committee on Episcopacy which sets the episcopal areas and assigns bishops to them. There is no limitation placed upon bishops serving across international lines.
Global Methodist Bishops
Bishops Jones and Webb are recommended to be retained at General Conference 2024 by acclimation. Additional interim bishops, serving for only two years, are to be elected to serve only through General Conference 2026. The provision for interim bishops helps the church navigate a season of uncertainty whether additional UMC central conference bishops will join the church. The plan is “two years and done,” making way for regular elections in 2026. The Transitional Leadership Council will produce a slate of nominees for this interim role that is larger that the actual number needed.
In 2026 and beyond, it is proposed that bishops be elected by General Conference (as Methodist bishops were before 1939) and limited to two, six-year terms. At the end of the first term, a bishop must be re-elected to a second and are automatically included on the nomination slate. The overall number of bishops is recommended by the Committee on Episcopacy which produces a vetted slate of nominees twice the number needed. A vote of 60% plus one vote is needed for election and consecration of bishops happens at the General Conference session. Episcopal terms begin sixty days later. The teaching office of bishop is made explicit: “Guard, transmit, teach, and proclaim, corporately and individually, the apostolic faith as it is expressed in Scripture and Tradition and understood from a Wesleyan perspective.” We await additional details on how episcopal leadership will interface with the work of the Connectional Council.
The Assembly of Bishops
The active bishops together comprise the Assembly of Bishops. This group shepherds the whole denomination and issues teaching documents “as may correct errors, provide theological and moral guidance, and deepen faith.” The exclusion of retired bishops corrects a long-standing complaint in United Methodism that retirees bog down deliberations and frustrate reforms. Also unlike the UMC Council of Bishops, the Assembly is mandated to watch over one another in love. Minor complaints against bishops may be referred by the Committee on Episcopacy to the assembly for resolution. Bishops are not expected to preside over clergy trials, but are to appoint qualified persons to do so. The assembly leads ecumenical dialogs on behalf of the GMC. They also nominate the Connectional Operations Officer who is ultimately to be elected by the Connectional Council. (Keith Boyette has announced his retirement in September and the new COO will likely not exercise the same level of authority.)
Summary
The April 10 release provides answers to key questions about the future shape of the Global Methodist Church. President pro tem become Conference Superintendents. A Connectional Council replaces some of the work being done by the Transitional Leadership Council. A new General Committee on Episcopacy will be seated. The election of new bishops in 2024 will be limited to a small number of interim bishops only serving until 2026. By then, the shape of the Global Methodist Church beyond the United States will likely be much clearer.
The release of these details points toward a humble, accountable episcopacy not overly entwined with the inner workings of annual conferences or the local churches. A General Committee on Episcopacy will exercise notable authority over the selection, accountability, and assignment of bishops. Conferences, as now, will normally be led by one of their own clergy. Denomination-wide work will be handled by a potentially powerful Connectional Council with a single Connectional Operating Officer accountable for results. There are important details not mentioned in this summary. I encourage study of all the materials found here.
People Need Jesus 
I pray that this is not the beginning of another costly and cumbersome heirarchy. Bishops, Superintendents, councils, sound all too familiar. If we must go this route, I think there should be a maximum percentage of contributions from the local church written in. It should also made very difficult to change that percentage at the General Conference level.
If we don’t put controls in place early on, from a bureaucratic standpoint we will become UMC 2.0.
Thanks for reading. The need to stay lean gets repeated at almost every meeting I attend.
I like almost all of it.
I really, really like the terminology of Conference Superintendent for the office currently held by Presidents Pro Temp. I like that we will be using the same terminology as some other Wesleyan denominations there. In a way, the Conference Superintendents will be functional “bishops” in the more catholic sense – local area overseers.
And I like the “General Superintendent” model of Bishops in the Wesleyan tradition. It frees them up to do evangelism, encouragement, training, all the good stuff.
The combination of the two is great. There will always be people who say “hierarchy is bad.” But that’s an oversimplification. Nonfunctional, redundant, unfaithful hierarchy is bad! But some hierarchy in a large organization is unavoidable and necessary.
The great thing about the system the GMC is moving toward is that Bishops, Conference Superintendents, and Presiding Elders will all have different and complimentary jobs. I guess the UMC could have had that in theory. But it’s about the spirit of the thing more than the letter.
I particularly like that Conference Superintendents will be chosen from among their own Conference. That gives a “best of both worlds” sort of thing – residential episcopacy, in effect, exercised by the Conference Superintendents; and general superintendency exercised by the bishops. I do hope that Bishops will give the Conference clergy input in who they want for Conference Super. I’d like it if they were elected. What should happen is *either* the Bishop nominates 3 persons and the Conference elects one, *or* the Conference nominates 3 persons and the Bishop chooses one. Something like that.
Only part I don’t like, really, is that bishops don’t seem accountable enough to the General Conference itself. I guess that is hard to do when they only meet once every 6 years. And there is built-in accountability by having the need to get re-elected. But the circle of accountability seems a little too tight. It all rides on the leadership of the Committee on Episcopacy. I don’t see much to stop them ignoring complaints. (Of course, not all complaints have merit.)
At the end of the day what people need to see is an episcopal system in action in a church that is actually making disciples. Then some of the long-held distrust can dissipate over time.
The proposed revision of ¶501 THE NATURE OF SUPERINTENDENCY is almost entirely a rearrangement of ¶501 from the 3.8.24 version, with two exceptions: the final paragraph geographically locating bishops has been deleted, along with a highly concerning deletion of a single phrase from the first sentence:
  “From apostolic times, certain ordained persons have been set apart and entrusted with the task of defending the Apostolic faith and overseeing and leading the church in its mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ [and to spread scriptural holiness across the world].”
  If the intent is to stick closely to scripture, the phrase “and to spread scriptural holiness across the world” should not have been deleted, but amended to “and to teach them everything that he has commanded us.” 
  This deletion is concerning because spreading “scriptural holiness,” or the pursuit of “that holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (aka entire sanctification) has long been identified as THE distinctive marker, or in Wesley’s words “the grand depositum,” of the people called Methodist.
  Although ¶502 goes on to insist that Bishops “shall be…able to effectively communicate the historic Christian faith from a Wesleyan perspective,” the only distinctive Wesleyan element has been deleted.
  Why?
 
That paragraph seems more about the historic office of bishop… long before there were Methodists. The change may have been made for accuracy. I would not read too much into that. There are other places in the Discipline to underscore our commitment to scriptural holiness.
Thanks for the comment!
Get rid of Bishops while You can.
There are not needed.