— by Chris Ritter
NOTE: Since I published this post the Judicial Council has ruled that GCFA was wrong in withholding the salaries of the two bishops mentioned in this post. You can read about this decision here.
Those who know me also know my hope that General Conference 2016 will reach a fair and comprehensive settlement of our differences and achieve amicable unity in The United Methodist Church for years to come. I have written a major proposal to that end that has received generous support from across the theological spectrum. However, I am also a realist. General Conference is famous for breaking the hearts of reformers. We may need to lace our shoes for a longer, more difficult path.
My dog-eared and diet-coke-stained copy of our Book of Discipline witnesses to the deep-dive I have made into our organizational covenant over the past months. This process has yielded a profound appreciation for the challenges faced by anyone seeking to bring accountability to an organization thus constituted.
We truly are a jurisdictional church, as opposed to an organizationally unified one. Bishops, our chief executive officers, while avowed to uphold the teachings of our general church are nevertheless elected and held accountable at the jurisdictional level. When enough bishops in a jurisdiction take issue with a theological or social stance of our denomination, they can assume a position of open defiance. Bishops, we have learned, sometimes appoint counsels for the church who share their personal views and keep complaints against clergy from coming to trial. This creates a consequence-free environment for defiant clergy supervised by these bishops.
Moving the locus of episcopal accountability out of the jurisdictions would require constitutional changes which must be passed and ratified by a 2/3 margin. While the culturally conservative majority of General Conference (comprised of the African vote, American Traditionalists, and some Evangelicals and Moderates) has the votes to retain our stance on issues like human sexuality, they perhaps do not yet have the votes to rewire our Constitution. As I have written about elsewhere, it seems that the Progressives do not have the power to change our stances and the Traditionalists do not have the power to enforce them. The general church is left with positions that are unenforceable (absent of good faith) due to the jurisdictional protections of our constitutional framework. What is a simple majority to do in order to hold bishops accountable in such an environment?
I found one thing.
You may have noticed the UMNS story about two African bishops who are in trouble for financial irregularities in their area offices. The General Council on Finance and Administration has brought these bishops to accountability by withholding the majority of their salaries until they come into compliance with GCFA policies. This reveals an interesting facet of our connectional covenant: Bishops are elected by their jurisdictions*, held accountable in their jurisdictions, but their salaries are paid by the general church.
If the general church can withhold a bishop’s salary for financial disobedience, surely it can do the same for other substantial matters of our Discipline. This might start with an addition to ¶818 (The Episcopal Fund) which would put in place a new commission empowered to receive and review reports of bishops who have unchecked disobedience to our BOD in their episcopal areas. Substantiated reports could be met with a reduction or elimination of the $141,400 salary of that bishop until conditions are corrected. Members of this commission would be elected at General Conference and uphold the interests of the general church. This is similar to the way the federal government enforces traffic laws upon the states. Those states not in compliance will continue to have their people taxed but will not receive a share of the federal highway funds.
A move to bring accountability to our bishops could be paired with mandatory minimum penalties for clergy performing same-sex weddings (perhaps a one-year unpaid suspension for the first offense and de-frocking for the second). While not absolutely guaranteeing faithfulness to our covenant, these moves would eliminate the consequence-free environment that now exists in some conferences and jurisdictions. More clergy would come to trial and face sufficient penalties to enforce higher levels of obedience. Because the general church maintains a separate pension and benefit program for bishops, accountability could also reach to those retired bishops who willfully defy the teachings of our church. Most importantly, these changes could happen with a simple majority and no constitutional amendments.
My preferred option continues to be a fair and comprehensive settlement of our differences by replacing our five geographic jurisdictions with two based on ideology. Each new jurisdiction would be further empowered to adapt some of the BOD as best fits their missional setting. This requires constitutional changes and the accompanying ratification process. If there is not the will for a comprehensive solution at General Conference 2016, Traditionalists may come offering some tools for financial accountability and gear up for a longer fight for the heart of our denomination.
*Central conference bishops are elected and held accountable by their central conference, which is a structure very similar to our American jurisdictions.
People Need Jesus 
Chris, this seems a very straightforward solution to me. I hate that we would even have to consider it, but, then, we are dealing with folks who are appointed to their jobs for life and paid a very healthy salary. In most jobs, there are consequences for failing to abide by organizational standards, but our current jurisdictional structure mitigates accountability.
I would think, though, that there would have to be a very clearly delineated set of conditions under which we would enact the kind of penalty you discuss. A scenario in which bishops live under the constant threat of having their salaries withheld–which I know is not what you intend–would be very unhealthy and unfair to them.
Of course, there is the matter that outside groups could simply supplement the income of bishops whose salaries are upheld. There are wealthy progressive churches that would most certainly do this.
I know it took guts to write this and you are probably receiving all kinds of very sharp and unfair criticism. I appreciate your ability to think organizationally and to put your ideas out into the public sphere for the wellbeing of the church. Hang in there.
Thanks for your comments, David. It is really surprising how few options exist for reforming the church that do not require constitutional change. I wholeheartedly agree with your remark that the conditions under which this option would be exercised would be extremely well-defined. Those who serve the general church should have some level of accountability to the general church, I feel. Not much hate coming my way just yet. Thanks for your prayers.
I would think that receiving an alternative salary would be financially unethical, but more research is warranted on this. The stigma would likely be more sever than the actual financial penalty I would think.
Your point in well made. Denying funding to a bishop is sort of like denying a gallon of milk to a dairy farmer. The symbolic impact of a sanction by the general church would be significant, however.
What I don’t understand is why you feel the current system is bad for allowing bishops to make carefully considered (and do not doubt this is the case) adaptation in the best interest of local missional context? Consider the US for a moment, and let’s say, currently, the western and northeastern areas are outliers and southeast and south central could wield a stick in your (backup) plan. What would happen to membership and new discipleship on those coasts? As biblical interpretation (about excluding same sex couples) in the pews and annual conferences change, suppose south central is the very last hard core traditionalist holdout on this issue. What would happen to membership and new discipleship in south central as the winds (Holy Spirit wind in my opinion) shift? Now back to our global reality… As biblical interpretation in pews and conferences shift in all US states, but the global south gains the majoritarian stick you propose, how will that go over? I propose that we need more local discretion rather than more global enforcement. The current system has faults, but the pressure-relief valve function of jurisdictional episcopal leadership is not one of them.
Thanks for your thoughtful questions. My first proposal, The Jurisdictional Solution, gets right to your point. It allows for diversification of ministry by allowing parts of the church to approach ministry differently. This is my preferred path forward. With it, I have received the criticism of dividing the church. The Plan B is an attempt to see if there are any levers at the general church level to enforce the decisions made at General Conference. With it, I will face the criticism of enforcing one view of ministry on the entire church. You make the interesting point that perhaps our current system provides the Goldilocks amounts of unity within diversity. We Traditionalists are very nervous currently because we see creeping standards and selective enforcement of the rules. Some of the Jurisdictional Solution supporters are Reconciling UM’s in more conservative conferences that feel very stifled. There are also Traditionalist churches that feel trapped in a more liberal conference. I live very close to the Northern Illinois Conference line and know some pastors and churches in that conference that feel very trapped. At the end of the day, our bishops have avowed themselves to uphold, not adapt, the teachings of the general church. We should be faithful to the covenant or change the expectations by mutual agreement, it seems to me. We Conservatives are also quick to point out that our most Progressive churches seem to be dying at a faster rate than the others, regardless of their geography. We feel they are seeking to play chaplain to a worldview that ultimately has no room for the Christ of the New Testament. Progressives would argue that the Conservative churches are not booming, either, and cite studies about young people leaving due to homophobia. This debate will linger on without resolution. That is why the Jurisdictional Solution remains my top choice. It remains to be seen what life as a majority-African denomination would look like. The Global South is re-evangelizing the West in many ways. Phillip Jenkins’ book, The Next Christendom, is an excellent read on this. Thank you again for your lucid questions and comments.
I, for one, appreciate both your efforts and Adam Hamilton et al efforts in A Way Forward because you all are contributing constructively to a much needed dialog. There are flaws in both plans, but I hope the discussion leads to a more elegant simple solution. You criticize Hamilton for inserting congregationalism into our polity. But yours does so equally albeit for just a year or so. But what seems to an advantage for the Ritter plan (limiting the congregational aspects to a shorter period) will become an even greater disadvantage a few years down the road as sentiment within many congregations at first in the non-affirming jurisdiction wish to move to the affirming ones. The existing (and in your plan) surviving means for such a later switch will not be workable. So we’ll be right back in the soup of misfit congregations.
I do fear your plan, offering 2 polarized choices instead of allowing a third moderate choice, would increase our polarization and decrease our ability to grow.
It seems to me your plan’s main movement is at the annual conference level. So why not propose only that? Then some could liberalize by ordaining, others could moderate by allowing SSM, and others could operate just as they are. And if any annual conference felt the need to go faster or slower in response to local missional needs, then the could do so. That would be much simpler and less conflictual and occur naturally without all the negative press attention of the more complicated realignments that prove the high profile conflict. I don’t see this as perfect, but it is a modification in the spirit of your plan that I could support as an improvement.
Ideally, I’d rather just trust pastors to act rightly according to their best discernment in officiating marriages (even SSMs) and likewise BOMs to act rightly according to their Spirit-led discernment in ordination. We don’t need or benefit from SSM police or SSM trials for same reason as we don’t need or benefit from re-baptism police. Without trials we don’t need the church politics and we don’t suffer bad publicity that unsettles lay members and is off-putting to potential new disciples.
The experience of conservative pastors here (in Minnesota) is that it’s not the gay weddings in progressive UMC churches that stifle them but rather it is the needless conflictual politics at annual and general conference and the disputatious trials that get in their way.
BTW, my local congregation is reconciling, and we are growing in numbers and spiritual vitality. We are situated in a moderate and demographically non-growing suburb. It is blessing to be there every week and to invite and welcome newcomers.
I give thanks for you reformers seeking a positive solution.
Your comments show you have really worked to understand the proposal and I consider that a great gift. The language of “congregational vote” is actually pulled directly from our Par. 41 of our UM Constitution where it describes the mechanism for a church to leave one annual conference to join another annual conference in which it is geographically located (like a church leaving a missionary conference to join a “regular” conference.) This is not foreign polity but established United Methodism. I feel the Hamilton plan puts the congregation in the terrible place of having to decide these important issues for themselves. Laity would be at the mercy of their pastor, who is elsewhere empowered to conduct whatever religious services she/he deems appropriate. Churches would be subject to the ongoing pressures of leading families in their decision-making.
I feel some make the mistake of assuming that the two jurisdictions might as well be named “IRD” and “Love Prevails”. We are a very moderate denomination and I would expect that both jurisdictions would reflect this. I have a colleague who left the Southern Baptist Church to join the UCC denomination. He laughs at UCC folks who complain about the conservatives in the UCC: “You don’t know what a Conservative is!” He likewise laughs at his Southern Baptist friends who complain about the liberals in their denomination: “You don’t know what a liberal is!” By definition, the larger of the two jurisdictions (whatever that might turn out to be) would be the most moderate, because they would have successfully attracted the most Centrists.
As to churches being “stuck”, I would imagine that there would be some trading back and forth. The door is not wide, but overlapping conferences could negotiate trades. (I will trade your one big church that feels misplaced with three little ones of ours that feel the same).
I really feel choosing conference by conference would not work because you would end up with congregations and pastors geographically trapped in conferences that do not reflect their values. Also, if conferences could choose, they could change their mind. Imagine an LGBQT candidate on an ordination path in a moderate conference that chooses to later close the door to them. They would have invested a lot of time and energy only to be rejected in the middle of their process. For conferences to be empowered to choose, General Conference would have to allow this and it would require the same liberalizing language that is rejected every quadrennia. We would go from “not allow” to “allow” which is the same old tired debate we have been having. The Jurisdictional Solution builds a wall of protection that reassures conservatives that they will be protected from encroachment. It is really trading permission for protection. I don’t feel that legislation has any chance of success without this protection piece.
I feel the Jurisdictional Solution I have offered would eliminate the “needless conflictual politics” that you cite and of which we are all weary. It allows two different visions for ministry to move forward to their logical end.
Again, Dave, I want to thank you for your comments and questions… and for the respect way in which you pose them.
I have no new substance to add. But I would like to reciprocate the mutual appreciation. I love being in a denomination that is mostly moderate but still with a wide range of views as we work together in common mission. Peace, brother.