by Chris Ritter

We are nearing full swing in the election process that will give the Global Methodist Church its first group of eight full-time bishops. Decisions made this year will affect the health of our episcopacy and, by extension, the entire Global Methodist Church.

There are two questions currently at risk of being conflated:

  • Should delegations be allowed to group together in anticipation of highly ranking the same episcopal candidate, such as an incumbent bishop?
  • Should bishops be elected to serve an episcopal area that includes their home conference?

My response to the first question is that this is fair practice and a dynamic anticipated by the election process. Incumbents who have served well will naturally have an easier time being re-elected, and this can have a positive effect in the GMC. Conferences have opportunity every six years to reconsider their episcopal area. The vision is a bottom-up, dynamic, grassroots approach to selecting bishops who meet the leadership needs of the conferences they serve. A bishop selected in this way will have a strong mandate to lead.

Ultimately, bishops must still be elected by the General Conference and meet the standards expected of a general superintendent of the whole church. This is why area committees on episcopacy are asked to select and rank no less than five candidates. If their first choice is not acceptable to the General Conference, other options will be readily available. (The entire ranking matters!)

The second question remains more open in my mind: Should a Global Methodist bishop serve his/her own home conference?

As you may know, the Global Episcopacy Committee (GEC) used a “no bishops from their home conference” standard in their 2024 assignments. This was primarily done to manage the reality of part-time bishops. The GEC did not want a bishop to exercise self-supervision in a concurrent role as a conference superintendent or pastor.

There has been positive feedback on this standard beyond that immediate concern. Some in Africa see it as a guard against the monarchical, residential episcopacy that characterized African United Methodism. Others view it as a way to strengthen our global connection through the cross-pollination of leadership. I am also aware of at least two conference delegations that have agreed they do not want to be served by their own native nominees.

My only hesitation on the second question is that not every good idea needs to become a rule. United Methodism greatly expanded its Book of Discipline by trying to enshrine best practices into polity. If the concern is that a bishop might establish a personal fiefdom in his or her home territory, I believe there are already safeguards baked into our system:

  • A non-residential episcopacy that prevents bishops from becoming enmeshed in the daily workings of any one conference.
  • Election by the General Conference.
  • Term limits.
  • Episcopal areas approved at a plenary gathering where all our conferences have representation.
  • Episcopal areas comprised of six or seven annual conferences, who, regardless of size, each enjoy an equal voice in the rankings.

If the General Conference decides to limit episcopal elections in such a way as to prevent a bishop from serving their home conference, I certainly will not oppose it. At the same time, I wonder whether we may be borrowing worries from a different system.

What do you think?