by Chris Ritter

I helped write both the TLC-endorsed episcopacy legislation and the WCA model on which the Florida Hybrid Plan is based. Both have merit. As Rob Renfroe argued this week, if we get the right people in place, almost any plan could work. But which plan will help us select the right people? 

We want bishops with a track record of quality, effective, Gospel-centered ministry. We don’t want politicians who manage to use connectional structures to elevate themselves. We need faithful shepherds, apt to teach, who exemplify servant leadership.

Let’s face it: Large international bodies that meet seldom do not do a great job of leadership selection. In the absence of genuine relationship, Methodists tend to elect categories instead of individuals. “We already have a [insert racial, regional, or gender category]. Next we need to elect a [insert racial, regional, or gender category].” etc.)  Name recognition has out-sized influence and denominational office-holding puts candidates out front, sometimes with scant evidence of fruitful leadership.

Executive search processes charged with hiring or “calling” a leader do a better job of matching leaders with the needs of an organization. The Florida proposal provides this. But enclaves of the church selecting leaders they desire is one of the factors that got the UMC into trouble. I support the TLC vision of general superintendents, shepherding the whole church and accountable directly to the General Conference. 

While the TLC plan elects bishops at General Conference, it places great authority in the hands of a General Committee on Episcopacy who govern the nominating, vetting, and assignment processes. This group also creates the episcopal areas in which bishops will serve. This General Episcopacy Committee is a sort of a “black box” of processes we hope will solve our problems. But they can only assign those who have been elected. Lingering questions persist on how to provide bishops to lead effectively in the various continents and cultures that comprise the GMC.

A Late Suggestion

As part of the TLC process, I offered an alternate that proposed a way of electing bishops to fluid episcopal areas created by the conferences themselves. While I am loathe to suggest a new plan at this late juncture, I do believe it has merit.

Prior to each regular General Conference (starting in 2026), a body consisting of two elected representatives from each conference would assemble to form the episcopal areas. While the General Episcopacy Committee would determine the number of areas (based on budget and other factors), the conference representatives would determine which conferences are grouped together for the following six years. These areas need not be geographically contiguous and could be international in nature. The goal is to create groupings with promise for fruitful shared leadership.

Once the episcopal areas are formed, representatives from each newly defined area would interview any episcopal nominees that interest them (including current bishops eligible for re-election). Each area committee would rank their top candidates based on their promise for providing quality leadership to both their area and the whole church. This data would be made available to General Conference delegates who would elect bishops for specific episcopal areas. 

How does this help? Conferences would have a real voice on the shape of their episcopal area. This is an improvement on the TLC-endorsed plan that gives this authority to the General Committee on Episcopacy. Candidates would be interviewed prior in something approximating an executive search process. General Conference delegates would have important data in hand when elections are made. Fluid groupings of conferences eliminate the need for rigidly compartmentalizing bishops along international lines. Opportunities are created for cultural specialization within the general superintendency.

Below is some brief draft legislation with additional details for those who may be interested:

_____________________________________

Petition 29 – Amend as Follows

¶ 504 ELECTION OF BISHOPS. The following provisions guide the election of bishops in the Global Methodist Church:

  1. In the twelve months prior to a regularly scheduled General Conference, duly elected annual conference delegations shall:
    1. Endorse up to one clergy delegate from their conference to the episcopacy and endorse up to one clergy delegate from outside their conference to the episcopacy. These endorsements shall not include actively serving bishops. Each nomination will ideally be accompanied by a recent criminal background check, credit check, and evidence of effective leadership. Nominations and supporting documentation shall be submitted to the General Committee on Episcopacy.
    2. Elect one lay and one clergy member to an area committee on episcopacy.  Members so elected shall not eligible for election as bishops.
  2. The General Committee on Episcopacy shall compile and publish a list of all nominees to the episcopacy no later than sixty days prior to the opening session of a regularly scheduled General Conference. A listing of bishops eligible and willing to stand for re-election shall also be published.
  3. Within 60 days of the opening session of General Conference, a plenary body composed of all those selected to serve on area committees on episcopacy shall convene to define episcopal areas based on the number of bishops recommended by the General Committee on Episcopacy. Episcopal areas need not be geographically contiguous and may be international in composition. Active bishops and members of the General Committee on Episcopacy may participate with voice but not vote. The plan for episcopal areas shall be approved by simple majority of the plenary gathering of area committees on episcopacy.
  4. Individual area committees on episcopacy shall convene, elect their own leadership, and organize to conduct interviews with episcopal candidates as desired. Each area committee on episcopacy shall produce a ranked list of up to five candidates that best match the leadership needs of the episcopal area and the Global Methodist Church. These ranked lists may include actively serving bishops. To assist in this process, area committees on episcopacy shall have access to confidential documentation as released to them by the General Committee on Episcopacy. If the same candidate is the top selection of more than one area committee on episcopacy, the General Committee on Episcopacy may issue a statement to General Conference delegates offering any guidance they feel deem appropriate.
  5. Bishops shall be elected to each defined episcopal area by the full body of the General Conference. Delegates may not vote the same candidate for more than one episcopal area on the same ballot. At least sixty percent support shall be required to elect a bishop to an episcopal area. If a single candidate is the top choice for more than one episcopal area on the same ballot, the General Committee on Episcopacy may issue  guidance to delegates prior to the next ballot.
  6. Those elected to the office of bishop shall be consecrated at General Conference according to the historic manner.
  7. The actual term of service for bishops begins sixty days following the close of the General Conference at which bishops are consecrated, unless determined otherwise by the General Conference.
  8. A bishop may serve a maximum of two six-year terms, except that Bishops Scott J. Jones and Mark J. Webb shall be permitted to stand for election at the 2026 General Conference. Those persons elected as interim bishops at the 2024 Convening General Conference other than Bishops Jones and Webb shall not stand for election at the 2026 General Conference.

Photo Credit