by Chris Ritter
It is an honor to be a delegate to the first regular General Conference of the Global Methodist Church. This meeting, August 30 to September 5 at the Sandton Convention Center in Johannesburg, South Africa, will elect eight global bishops, consider a new doctrinal statement, and amend our Book of Doctrines and Discipline.
I have been assigned to the Superintendency Legislative Committee which has 44 of the 471 General Conference petitions to review and perfect. Those petitions dealing with bishops, conference superintendents, and presiding elders can be found on page 308 of the Pre-Conference Petitions Report. This post offers my initial thoughts on that legislation.
PETITION 1429 ¶6XX
Providing Clarity to the Expectations of the Area Committees on Episcopacy
Petitioner: Global Episcopacy Committee
RECOMMEND
The committee I chair developed this new paragraph in the Book of Doctrines and Discipline to define the work of the Area Committees on Episcopacy. It is a needed addition. Area committees are mentioned in the BDD, but not defined. I urge this petition’s adoption. I received a question about lines 10-14 on page 310 and whether there was a duplicate method for how members are elected. These lines are intended to describe what happens when a new conference is organized after delegates are assigned to General Conference. In this case, that conference would receive representation on the ACE, even though they do not have delegates at General Conference.
PETITION 1418 ¶603
Updates to Part 6––The Superintendency
Petitioner: Global Episcopacy Committee
RECOMMEND
This, too, is a petition unanimously submitted by the Global Episcopacy Committee. It adds as a responsibility of bishops to participate actively in the Assembly of Bishops and other bodies to which they are assigned. This gives us an addition and firm basis on which to evaluate the bishops annually.
PETITION 1051 ¶603.5
Presiding over the General and Annual Conferences
Petitioner: Connectional Council
UNDECIDED
This in one of several petitions submitted by the Connectional Council. It tightens up language about the expectation of bishops to preside over the sessions of the annual conference. The previous language allows the conference superintendent to preside when the bishop was unable. While there is still an allowance for the conference superintendent to chair portions of an annual conference, the amendment makes clear that a bishop needs to be preside.
I attended a Free Methodist Conference once and noticed that the bishop sat on the floor with the other participants. Some of our own bishops have been more inclined to pass the gavel to the C.S. during business sessions. Each conference has its own rules of order and it may be difficult for a bishop to keep up on all those nuances.
I wonder if these is not an impulse to keep things as we have always had them rather than an effort to maximize effectiveness. The fact that this is proposed by the Connectional Council certainly adds weight to the petition. I look forward to learning more and listening to the debate in the legislative committee.
PETITION 1451 ¶604
Election and Assignment of Bishops
Petitioner: General Conference Delegation, North Alabama
OPPOSE
This petition makes substantive changes to our process for electing bishops. It would effectively prevent bishops from serving in an episcopal area that includes a conference in which they previously served as clergy. It would also prevent geographically contiguous conferences from being placed in the same episcopal area.
My greatest concern with this proposal is its timing. The petition stipulates that these changes would take effect this year rather than in 2032. I do not believe we should significantly alter the rules after countless hours of prayerful discernment have already taken place under the current process. If we believe changes are needed, we should consider them carefully and implement them for the next episcopal election cycle.
I have some sympathy with the desire for bishops to serve beyond their conference of origin. “Home-rule” bishops are not the ideal to which we aspire as a global church. In our 2024 assignment task, the GEC elected not the assign any bishop to a conference from which they arose. (This was mostly to avoid part-time bishops serving dual roles in the same conference). At the same time, cultural competence and familiarity with a region can be important ingredients in effective episcopal leadership. The restriction proposed by this petition seems designed to prevent a regionalism that, thus far, has not materialized.
There is also a potentially serious unintended consequence. Bishops necessarily come from somewhere, and before their election they will have served as clergy in an annual conference. Under this proposal, that prior service could later disqualify them from serving an episcopal area that includes their home conference—even when the church might otherwise discern that they should continue in that area. This provision, taken at face value, could even complicate the re-election of bishops.
I am also concerned about the prohibition against geographically contiguous conferences sharing an episcopal area. One of the strengths of our system is that annual conferences are not rigidly confined by geography. My own Great Lakes Conference includes a congregation across the “border “in Iowa because Great Lakes is a better missional fit for that church. I hope we see more, not less, of this kind of geographic flexibility. Conferences should be ministry networks, not exclusive territories.
The Korean American Conference illustrates the problem even more clearly. Its geography extends across the United States. A rule based on geographic contiguity could therefore prevent it from sharing an episcopal area with any other U.S. conference—surely an unintended and undesirable result.
There may be principles in this petition worthy of further consideration. But changes of this magnitude should be studied carefully, with their consequences fully understood, and implemented prospectively. We should not change the rules in the middle of an election process already well underway.
PETITION 1260 ¶604.1
To Change the Nature of Nomination of Bishops
Petitioner: Danjuma Juji
OPPOSE
This petition would make two changes to our episcopal nomination process. First, it would require candidates for the episcopacy to be nominated by the full annual conference rather than by the annual conference delegation, as ¶604 currently provides. Second, it would eliminate the opportunity for each delegation to nominate one person from outside its own annual conference.
My experience with the current election cycle makes me hesitant to support either change. Many delegations appear to have approached potential candidates before making a nomination, and a significant number of those approached chose not to allow their names to go forward. That kind of preliminary discernment is much easier for a delegation to conduct than for an entire annual conference. I would also be concerned that moving the nomination process to the annual conference floor could encourage political campaigns for episcopal nominations—something I do not believe would strengthen our discernment process.
I also believe there is real value in allowing each delegation to nominate one person from outside its own conference. Those nominations provide an interesting snapshot of which leaders have developed credibility and a positive reputation beyond their immediate context. In a connectional church seeking bishops who can serve as general superintendents, that wider recognition is meaningful information.
The current process may not be perfect, but I believe both of these provisions serve useful purposes. For these reasons, I oppose Petition 1260.
PETITION 1292 ¶604.1
Make Election of AEC Members Voted on by Annual Conference
Petitioner: General Conference Delegation, Upper Midwest
NEEDS WORK
This petition would make the selection of annual conference representatives to the Area Committee on Episcopacy a matter of election by the plenary annual conference session rather than by the conference delegation.
When ¶604 was drafted, we knew the 2026 process would operate on a truncated timeline. For that reason, allowing delegations to select ACE members seemed the most workable approach. In practice, however, this created some awkward situations, particularly in conferences with only two delegates. If two people constitute the entire delegation, what does it mean for the delegation to elect two representatives? In effect, they elect themselves.
I think election by the annual conference is a reasonable improvement. It gives the conference as a whole a voice in choosing those who will participate in this important work.
There is, however, a practical issue that may need further attention: vacancies. Suppose a clergy member elected to the ACE is subsequently nominated for the episcopacy by another conference. That person would become ineligible to continue serving on the ACE and would need to be replaced. Delegations, which meet regularly throughout the General Conference cycle, are better positioned to respond to such developments than the plenary session of an annual conference, which may not meet again for many months.
One solution might be for annual conferences to elect alternate or reserve members at the same time they elect their ACE representatives.
I am generally favorable toward the direction of this petition, but I think it may need additional work to address vacancies and other contingencies.
PETITION 1261 ¶604.3
To Reduce the Number of Annual Conference per Bishop ¶604.3
Petitioner: Danjuma Juji
OPPOSE
This petition would change the recommended size of episcopal areas from six or seven annual conferences to four or five. In practical terms, this would require the election of more bishops.
Leading up to the 2026 General Conference, our full-time bishops have each been serving 11–12 annual conferences, in addition to emerging areas. The GEC has proposed eight episcopal areas to serve our current 51 annual conferences—an average of 6.3 conferences per bishop. New annual conferences and emerging areas will certainly add to that workload, but the church could grow to 64 annual conferences over the next six years and still remain within the current guideline of six to seven conferences per episcopal area.
I recommend that we see how the next six years go before reducing the recommended size of episcopal areas. The current paragraph is a guideline rather than an absolute requirement, giving the GEC flexibility to recommend a different arrangement when circumstances warrant it.
There may also be some wisdom in maintaining episcopal areas of sufficient size. If bishops are given responsibility for too few conferences, there could be a temptation for episcopal leadership to migrate into levels of church life better handled by annual conference and local leadership. Our bishops are general superintendents, and the scope of their assignment should reflect that role.
Finally, the number of bishops is inevitably a budgetary question. The planned move to eight full-time bishops already represents a significant increase in episcopal expense and is projected to move the general church budget from a surplus toward something closer to break-even.
For these reasons, I recommend retaining the current guideline and evaluating its effectiveness over the coming six years.
PETITION 1198 ¶604.5
Amend Paragraph 604.5 to Indicate That at Least 75% Support Shall Be Required to Elect a Bishop
Petitioner: Julius Julukon Nelson Jr
OPPOSE
I recently had a very good conversation with Dr. Nelson about this proposal. Our current 60% threshold for electing bishops was inherited from the United Methodist Church. Out of curiosity, I consulted a 1920 Book of Discipline and found no special voting threshold specified for episcopal elections, which would seem to leave the standard at a simple majority.
I do not have particularly strong convictions about precisely where the threshold should be set, but I believe 75% is too high to be practical. Such a requirement would allow just over 25% of the delegates to prevent the election of a candidate supported by nearly three-fourths of the body. The likely result could be repeated rounds of voting until candidates withdraw or delegates change their votes—not necessarily because the leading candidate lacks broad support, but because the threshold is exceptionally difficult to reach.
The petition cites the 75% threshold required for the re-election of an interim bishop as a precedent. I see that provision differently. General Conference 2024 intentionally established a very high bar for interim bishops, requiring overwhelming affirmation before extending their service. That was an exceptional circumstance rather than, in my view, a model for ordinary episcopal elections. We will not even know how workable that threshold is until we gather in Johannesburg.
Absent a compelling reason to make the change, I favor retaining the current 60% standard. With respect for the petitioner and his thoughtful proposal, I oppose Petition 1198.
PETITION 1076 ¶604.8
Petition Deleting Outdated References in 600s Paragraphs
Petitioner: General Conference Commission
RECOMMEND
This petition removes outdated material and clarifies the term limits for bishops. Under the proposed language, a bishop may serve two six-year terms, with any episcopal service prior to 2026 not counting toward that limit.
The practical effect is that each of the current bishops seeking election in 2026—Bishops Webb, Moore, Gregory, Peña, and Khegay—could potentially serve an additional twelve years. Election in 2026 would constitute the first of those two terms, and they would need to be re-elected in 2032 in order to serve a second and final term.
This is largely a clean-up and clarification of our existing provisions and establishes a clear starting point for the term-limit system adopted for the future.
PETITION 1263 ¶604.8
To Reduce Year for the General Conference and Term of Office for Bishop ¶208 Article VII and ¶604.8
Petitioner: Danjuma Juji
OPPOSE
This petition would change the term of a bishop from six years to four years.
The difficulty is that our episcopal terms are tied to the meeting of General Conference, where bishops are elected. A four-year episcopal term would therefore be impractical unless General Conference also moved to a four-year cycle. While the legislation raises the possibility of special sessions of General Conference, this would be extremely expensive and onerous.
There may be arguments for shorter episcopal terms, but this change cannot be considered in isolation from the larger structure of our General Conference cycle. Without corresponding changes to that cycle, I oppose this petition.
PETITION 1336 ¶604.8
Election of Bishops
Petitioner: MidTexas General Conference Delegation
OPPOSE: A BETTER DUPLICATE EXISTS (1076)
This petition helpfully eliminates outdated language. But it duplicates the General Conference Commission’s petition 1076. That other version is preferred because it also clarifies the terms of bishops.
PETITION 1034 ¶605
Simplifying Vote Percentages
Petitioner: Great Lakes General Conference Delegation
RECOMMEND
My home delegation offers this petition to change the language for the voting percentage required for the election of members to the Global Episcopacy Committee. It changes “60 percent plus one” to simply “sixty percent.” The authors note: “‘Plus one’ language is discouraged by the editors of Robert’s Rules of Order because it creates unexpected tabulation
results.”
PETITION 1424 ¶605
GEC Membership Properly Located
Petitioner: Global Episcopacy Committee
RECOMMEND
This is another petition submitted by the Global Episcopacy Committee. It corrects conflicting language in Par. 605 and 605.1 on the number of persons serving on the GEC.
PETITION 1155 ¶605.1
Consistency of Nominations for Global Episcopacy Committee (3 of 3)
Petitioner: Connectional Council
OPPOSE IN FAVOR OF SIMILAR PETITION (1425)
Both the Connectional Council and Global Episcopacy Committee offer petitions to standardize the way the GEC is populated in line with other commissions. I prefer the one offered by the Global Episcopacy Committee because it is cleaner.
PETITION 1425 ¶605.1
Aligning GEC Nominations with Commissions and Councils
Petitioner: Global Episcopacy Committee
RECOMMEND
With the same intent as Petition 1155, the Global Episcopacy Committee seeks to standardize how its own members are elected in line with other commissions.
PETITION 1078 ¶605.4
Petition Deleting Outdated References in 600s Paragraphs
Petitioner: General Conference Commission
RECOMMEND
This petition helpfully omits an outdated reference.
PETITION 1427 ¶605.5
Clarifying the Expectations of the GEC
Petitioner: Global Episcopacy Committee
The Global Episcopacy Committee offers refinements to their own job description. Substantive changes:
RECOMMEND
- Clarifies expectations of collaboration in the evaluation process. Inputs are to be sought from Area Committees on Episcopacy, Conference Superintendents, Conference Lay Leaders (when applicable), and the Assembly of Bishops.
- States responsibility for personnel file maintenance.
- Makes explicit GEC’s power to suspend a bishop and process complaints.
- Clarify role in setting of episcopal compensation, including interface with the Commission on Finance and Administration.
- Defines responsibilities to assign bishops to emerging areas.
- Clarifies responsibility to make an episcopal assignment in the case of a vacancy, in consultation with area committees on episcopacy involved.
PETITION 1219 ¶607
Clarifying the Responsibilities of the Conference Superintendent
Petitioner: Trinity Conference General Conference Delegation
RECOMMEND
This petition seeks to clarify the role of conference superintendent. It provides a definition of “cabinet.” Otherwise, many of the changes seem editorial.
PETITION 1288 ¶607
Align Conference Superintendent Term of Office with Bishop
Petitioner: Jay Therrell
OPPOSE
This petition would effectively lengthen the term of conference superintendents. Currently, a conference superintendent is appointed by the bishop to a six-year term. After that initial term, the superintendent may be extended one year at a time, for a total of up to twelve years of service. This petition would instead provide for two six-year terms.
I prefer the flexibility of the current arrangement. The possibility of annual extensions after the first six years gives the bishop an opportunity to evaluate the health and effectiveness of the leadership being provided by the conference superintendent. A superintendent who is serving well may continue, while a change in leadership can be made without waiting for the conclusion of another six-year term.
Our polity intentionally limits episcopal authority in a number of ways. Within that system, the ability of a bishop to assess the effectiveness of conference superintendents and make leadership changes when appropriate seems to me an important responsibility to retain. Conference superintendents exercise significant leadership within the annual conference, and there should be a meaningful mechanism for ongoing accountability.
The current system provides both stability and flexibility: an initial six-year term offers substantial continuity, while annual extensions thereafter allow the bishop to respond to changing circumstances and leadership needs.
For these reasons, I prefer the current arrangement and oppose Petition 1288.
PETITION 1293 ¶607.1
Flexibility for Conference Superintendent’s Delegation of Duties
Petitioner: Upper Midwest Conference General Conference Delegation
RECOMMEND
The Upper Mid-West Conference is one of the few conferences with a part-time conference superintendent. They also have an assistant CS with significant responsibilities. They seek to make explicit that the duties of the CS can be delegated with approval by the bishop. As a fan of flexibility in the cause of mission, I support this idea.
PETITION 1014 ¶608
Clarifying the Role and Scope of Presiding Elders
Petitioner: Steven Taylor
UNDECIDED: I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING DEBATE ON THIS.
This petition modifies the job description of presiding elder. Among other things, it specifies that PE’s are normally part-time.
PETITION 1184 ¶608
Clarifying the Annual Evaluation of Presiding Elders
Petitioner: Trinity Conference General Conference Delegation
RECOMMEND
This provides a path for a bishop to remove a presiding elder following a bad annual review and by recommendation of the conference superintendent. Seems like a good idea.
PETITION 1456 ¶608
By Adding Paragraph 608.1 Creation of District Structure in Every Annual Conference
Petitioner: Rev Remember Masamba
OPPOSE
This petition would mandate structures in each district, such as a lay leader and coordinators of ministries to women, men, children, and youth. Although the author uses the word “lean,” I opposed mandating structures that may not serve the mission in all places. “May” language would allow for these things to develop where necessary, but our structure allows for that already.
PETITION 1015 ¶609
Consolidating and Clarifying the Responsibilities of Presiding Elders
Petitioner: Steven Taylor
LOOKING FORWARD TO LEARNING MORE
The petition would consolidate and reword the duties of presiding elders. It seems like a well-written petition from a respected conference superintendent. I would have preferred to see this come from more than one CS. It looks good on its face, but it conflicts with the next two petitions (1220. 1290) which also seek to rework the PE job description. This may indicate that paragraph needs work. I will listen closely to the debate in the legislative committee to see how we might reconcile this work.
PETITION 1220 ¶609
Clarifying Responsibilities of Presiding Elders
Petitioner: Trinity Conference Delegation
LOOKING FORWARD TO LEARNING MORE
Like petition 1015 above and 1290 below, this proposal seeks to re-work the job description of presiding elders. I think it will be best for the Superintendency Legislative Committee to choose either 1015 or 1220 to work on, possibly incorporating ideas from both. Then it could fold in the idea from 1290 if it so chooses.
PETITION 1290 ¶609
Flexibility for Conference Superintent’s Delegation of Duties
Petitioner: Upper Midwest Conference Delegation
LOOKING FORWARD TO LEARNING MORE
Like the previous two petitions, this one would amend Par. 609, duties of the presiding elder. The only change here is the inclusion of a sentence that the presiding elder may delegate their duties within the district, with approval by the conference superintendent. Upper Midwest has been leading the way on lean structures and creating flexibility. I suggest we tackle this idea in light of the two previous petitions.
PETITION 1285 ¶610
Allowing Conference Superintendents to Fix Appointments
Petitioner: Jay Therrell
OPPOSE
This petition allows conference superintendents to fix pastoral appointments, a responsibility traditional reserved for bishops. While it is true bishops are currents “rubber stamps” for appointments (they get an e-mail from the C.S. for their approval, mostly), I believe it is best to retain the tie between the episcopacy and the local church. As a pastor, I appreciate knowing that I serve at the pleasure of the bishop and carry his/her authority in the local church.
PETITION 1025 ¶610.5
Cross-Racial/Cross-Cultural Training
Petitioner: Jonathan Lee
OPPOSE
This petition offers a substantial reworking of the paragraph addressing cross-racial clergy appointments. I appreciate one aspect of the proposal in particular: it removes responsibility from the Global Episcopacy Committee for promoting cross-racial appointments. In my experience, that assignment is simply impractical and does not fit well with the GEC’s primary responsibilities.
I am less convinced by other parts of the petition. It would mandate a conference-level structure for promoting cross-racial appointments and assign the Assembly of Bishops responsibility for quadrennial training and reporting. I wonder whether these requirements arise too particularly from the American church context to be mandated across a global denomination. Questions of race, ethnicity, tribe, language, culture, and clergy deployment look very different in different parts of the world.
I also wonder whether creating additional structures and reporting requirements is the best way to pursue the underlying goal. Cross-cultural ministry is important, and all of us should examine the assumptions and biases that might unnecessarily limit whom we believe can effectively lead whom. At the same time, clergy appointments should ultimately be driven by the mission of the church rather than by a desire to achieve particular demographic outcomes or provide clergy employment opportunities.
My hope is that a church passionately focused on making disciples of Jesus Christ will increasingly find people serving fruitfully across racial, ethnic, and cultural boundaries. We should remove unnecessary barriers to that kind of ministry without assuming that every part of the global church needs the same structures to accomplish it.
For these reasons, while I appreciate portions of Petition 1025, I oppose its mandated structures and requirements.
PETITION 1335 ¶610.5
Accountability for Open Itineracy
Petitioner: MidTexas Conference Delegation
RECOMMEND
This petition eliminates the requirement that progress toward open itineracy—local churches being willing to receive clergy without regard to sex or race—be reported to the Global Episcopacy Committee.
The petitioners are correct in identifying this requirement as impractical. As chair of the Global Episcopacy Committee, I can say plainly that this reporting is not currently being done. The GEC is a volunteer body with substantial responsibilities, and collecting and evaluating this kind of information across the global church is not something we are presently equipped to do. Compounding the difficulty, not every annual conference has an active superintendency committee with which the GEC could regularly interact on these matters.
Removing an impractical reporting requirement does not require us to diminish the underlying commitment to removing unnecessary barriers to clergy appointments. It simply recognizes that the GEC is not the appropriate body to administer or monitor that work.
For my broader thoughts about mandated structures related to cross-racial appointments, see my comments on Petition 1025 above. I support Petition 1335.
PETITION 1024 ¶610.7
The Process of Appointment-Making
Petitioner: Jonathan Lee
OPPOSE
This petition offers a significant expansion of the requirements governing the clergy appointment-making process. It also conflicts with Petition 1052, offered by the Connectional Council, which addresses the same paragraph.
Many of the considerations identified by the petitioner are worthy ones. My concern is that the petition turns an ideal description of the appointment process into an expansive list of requirements. Appointment-making necessarily involves balancing many factors: the needs of the local church, the gifts and experience of the clergy, family circumstances, geography, available openings, and the larger mission of the annual conference. Not every desirable consideration can be satisfied in every appointment.
The more detailed and prescriptive our Discipline becomes, the greater the possibility that we create expectations that are difficult—or sometimes impossible—to fulfill in practice. I would prefer language that establishes sound principles for appointment-making while preserving sufficient flexibility for bishops and conference leaders to exercise judgment in particular circumstances.
PETITION 1052 ¶610.7
Considerations and Criteria for Appointments
Petitioner: Connectional Council
RECOMMEND
The Connectional Council proposes an amendment to ¶610.7 that removes the requirement that the cabinet provide a local church with three options before a pastoral appointment is made. Instead, the cabinet would provide “more than one candidate, if possible.”
Experience has demonstrated that the current requirement is not always practical. This is particularly true for smaller churches and other appointments where the pool of available clergy may be limited. Requiring three candidates when three suitable candidates simply do not exist can unnecessarily delay the appointment process or encourage cabinets to present options that are not genuinely viable.
The proposed language retains the important principle that local churches should have meaningful input in the appointment process and, whenever possible, should be able to consider more than one candidate. At the same time, it recognizes the realities of clergy availability and gives the cabinet appropriate flexibility when circumstances make multiple options difficult to provide.
This strikes me as a sensible adjustment based on our early experience with the appointment system. I support Petition 1052.
PETITION 1221 ¶610.7
Clarifying Appointment Making
Petitioner: Trinity Conference Delegation
INTERESTED IN LEARNING MORE
This petition offers refinements to the appointment-making process, especially on the subjects of consultation and local church-led pastoral searches. It seems like a petition borne of practical experience and I want to lean toward supporting it. However, Petition 1247 (below) from the MidTexas Conference may do a better job of accomplishing the same goal using more efficient language.
PETITION 1247 ¶610.7
Consultation Appointment Process
Petitioner: MidTexas Conference Delegation
RECOMMEND
This petition reworks Paragraph 610.7. Like the petition above, it alters the description of the local church’s initiative in the pastoral appointment process. It handles the mandate of providing three candidates with the addition of “Whenever possible.” It seems like a good reworking that solves problems without adding to the overall length of the BDD.
PETITION 1222 ¶610.9
Clarifying Interim Appointments
Petitioner: Trinity Conference Delegation
RECOMMEND
This petition offers a reworking of Par. 610.9 on interim pastoral appointments. The new language is more concise and well written. I support Petition 1222.
PETITION 1334 ¶610.9
Interim Ministers
Petitioner: MidTexas Conference Delegation
OPPOSE
Like Petition 1222, this provides a reworking of Par. 610.9. That other petition does a better job. In fact, the wording of this petition leaves the phrase “such congregations” without describing which congregations are being discussed.
PETITION 1035 ¶610.10
Keeping Extension Ministries Connected
Petitioner: Great Lakes Conference Delegation
RECOMMEND, IN PART
My own delegation offered this petition to include persons in extension ministries in the supervisory structures of the conference. This was an unintentional omission in the present BDD. This provides each person in extension ministry with the presiding elder. However, introducing the new term “endorsed minister” seems unhelpful. We endorse ministry placement in extension ministry. The ministers are endorsed through the ordination process. For this reason, I favor Petition 1223, below, and would add to it this line from this petition: “and shall be assigned a Presiding Elder for support and supervision.”
PETITION 1223 ¶610.10
Clarifying Extension Ministry Appointments
Petitioner: General Conference Delegation
RECOMMEND, WITH ONE ADDITION
Like petition 1035 above, this proposal from the Trinity Conference offers an amendment to Par. 610.10. This petition does a better job of phrasing the opening sentence. I would take this as the primary petition and add the following language from Par. 1035, above: “and shall be assigned a Presiding Elder for support and supervision.”
PETITION 1432 ¶611
Limiting Transferring Bishops to Possible Emeritus Status
Petitioner: Global Episcopacy Committee
RECOMMEND, WITH NOTATION
This petition offered by the committee I chair offers a replacement for Par. 611 on bishops transferring to the GMC in emeritus status. The most important change is limiting the possibility of a bishop transferring to the GMC and being assigned an episcopal area. While this was appropriate and necessary before (as with Bishop Khegay), this really does not work with our present system of deployment. Bishops transferring to us would need to stand for election and may serve up to one term. Some additional thought may be needed on the possibility of bishops coming to us with their entire conference or denomination. In that case, it would likely be best to consider such moves under the rubrics of an ecumenical merger that agreement could specify terms.
PETITION 1291 ¶611.1
Removing Allowance for Transfer Bishops to Be Assigned Episcopal Area
Petitioner: Upper Midwest Conference Delegation
REJECT IN FAVOR OF PETITION 1432
This petition removes the possibility of a bishop from another denomination joining the GMC as an active bishop. While I agree with the sentiment, I believe we should defer to Petition 1432 offered by the Global Episcopacy Committee that accomplishes the same goal.
PETITION 1185 ¶611.2
Clarifying Status of Bishops Emeriti
Petitioner: Trinity Conference Delegation
RECOMMEND
This petition helpfully omits a phrase that is included elsewhere. Let’s keep the BDD lean!
PETITION 1433 ¶612
Adding a Possible Reason for Vacancy
Petitioner: Global Episcopacy Committee
RECOMMEND
This is another excellent proposal from the Global Episcopacy Committee. It adds an additional reason of a possible vacancy in the office of bishop: removal by trial court. This is an important, if unfortunate, addition.
PETITION 1436 ¶613
Removing Emeritus Status for Those Removed by Trial Court
Petitioner: Global Episcopacy Committee
RECOMMEND
This petition offered by the Global Episcopacy Committee specifies that a bishop removed by a trial court is not eligible to refer to themselves as a bishop emeritus of the GMC.
PETITION 1438 ¶614
Removing Unnecessary Redundancy in Leaves
Petitioner: Global Episcopacy Committee
RECOMMEND
This GEC petition consolidates two sub-paragraphs on leaves for bishops. I support Petition 1438.
PETITION 1439 ¶615
Properly Placing Complaint Information in Section 9
Petitioner: Global Episcopacy Committee
RECOMMEND
The Global Episcopacy Committee seeks to move all materials related to clergy complaints to Section Nine. It has proven unhelpful to have materials on complaints against bishops in Section Six, Section Nine, and the Judicial Practice and Procedures. Consolidating everything into Section Nine also serves the work of an ad hoc group to eliminate the JPP. I support both this petition and the idea of eliminating the JPP as a separate document.
One more thing…
RECOMMEND
I have one recommended change to the proposed Articles of Faith. The mention of ordination by a bishop is unhelpful. While I completely support our episcopal form of church government, I agree with John Wesley that elders and bishops belong to the same New Testament order. Adding bishops to our articles of faith separates us from our theological roots and sends us down the road of viewing bishops as a third order of ministry. I have written about my objections here.
Thanks for reading, if I have mischaracterized or misunderstood any of the above petitions, please let me know.
People Need Jesus 