“A Spirit of Governance”: On Bishops in the Global Methodist Church [Firebrand Big Read]
Photo by kailash kumar on Pexels
Editor’s note:
Today we’re introducing the Firebrand Big Read. Each month we will publish one Big Read article that goes into greater depth than our typical articles. The Big Read will tackle a topic by delving into the finer nuances of the issue, presenting more sustained argumentation, and providing thought-provoking analysis. We hope you will enjoy this new feature!
I’ve heard it said that generals always fight the last war. Perhaps churches do, too. Within the ranks of those disaffiliating from the United Methodist Church, I hear rumblings that we do not need bishops in the Global Methodist Church. Some suggest that if we have them, we should so limit their scope and authority that they can do no harm (and probably no good).
These attitudes are understandable. A number of UMC bishops have acted in bad faith. They have rejected the authority of the General Conference and become a law unto themselves. They have lashed out at those who oppose them. Some have helped to create insurmountable obstacles for churches that wish to leave. Not all UMC bishops have done this. Some have behaved honorably. We should give credit where it is due. Nevertheless, episcopal malpractice has been sufficient to destroy trust not just in individuals, but in the office itself.
To reject the office of bishop, however, would be an exercise in fighting the last war. There are two main problems with the office of bishop in the UMC, and both can be remedied in a new denomination. The first is that the UMC has turned bishops into managers, and it has lodged them within a vast and top-heavy bureaucracy that directs them away from matters of spiritual leadership. Additionally, it has saddled them with responsibility for an antiquated and untenable appointment system. The “bishop-as-manager” model is a failed modernist experiment. If we look back to the New Testament and the early church, we see the development of the office of bishop as a necessary one for the care of the spiritual life of the church. The bishop was a pastor, evangelist, and defender of the faith. Certain administrative duties necessarily attended this work, particularly in the bishop’s pastoral role. This administrative work, however, directly served the church’s evangelistic mission.
The second problem is that the UMC elects and holds bishops accountable in jurisdictions. De jure it has a general superintendency. De facto it has regionalized governance, and the general church cannot effectively hold bishops accountable when they violate church law. In this sense, the UMC has undermined the ministry of order among those charged with upholding it. I recommend Scott Kisker’s excellent historical piece on the catastrophic mistake of jurisdictional governance.
The solution is not to defenestrate the episcopacy, but to recover a historic sense of the office. We have abundant resources to help us in this task. I will note several important sources in what follows, though I make no claims that this survey is exhaustive. Books have been written on the topics of church order and episcopacy. Nevertheless I hope this brief overview illuminates something of the role of bishops in the Christian life.
What is a bishop?
The word “bishop” is a derivation of the Greek word episkopos, which means “overseer” or “guardian.” It could also mean “tutor.” Additionally, it might be used of military scouts or soldiers keeping watch, supervisors or inspectors of city states, or municipal officials (Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon). As in many other cases, the early church adapted structures of the surrounding culture to suit its needs.
Protestants affirm the priesthood of all believers. Some believers, however, are called by God and affirmed by the church for special roles within the church. Through most of Christian history, we have referred to these as deacons and elders (or presbyters). The office of bishop arose from the order of elders.
The New Testament Witness
In the New Testament there is not a well-defined distinction between bishops and other elders. In Phil 1:1, for example, Paul greets the bishops (or overseers) and deacons. There is no mention of elders because bishops and elders were not yet distinct. In Acts 20:17, we read of Paul, “From Miletus he sent a message to Ephesus, asking the elders (presbyterous) of the church to meet him.” Yet when he does meet with these elders, he exhorts them saying, “Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (episkopous), to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son” (20:28). In this passage, the elders function as overseers.
An important part of the ministry of oversight in this passage is the defense of the apostolic teaching: “I know that after I have gone, savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Some even from your own group will come distorting the truth in order to entice the disciples to follow them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to warn everyone with tears” (20:29-31).
Other New Testament passages instruct that those charged with oversight should be exemplars of the church’s moral standards and represent the church well to outsiders. In other words, the bishop should model the faith to those within the church and live in such a way as to draw in those who are outside the church. Titus 1:5-6, for example, speaks of elders to be appointed in every town and offers a few qualifying criteria: “someone who is blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious” (v. 6). In vv. 7-9, the subject changes from elders to bishops, with additional qualifying criteria, which might indicate some emerging distinction between the offices:
For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or addicted to wine or violent or greedy for gain; but he must be hospitable, a lover of goodness, prudent, upright, devout, and self-controlled. He must have a firm grasp of the word that is trustworthy in accordance with the teaching, so that he may be able both to preach with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.
If there is a distinction between bishops and other elders in this passage, it is embryonic. Whether or not such a distinction is in play here, those who oversee the life of the church must be people of high character. They must also possess the necessary skill and learning to proclaim the apostolic gospel and refute those who teach falsely.
We see the same criteria for the church’s overseers in 1 Timothy 3:2-7:
Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way—for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil.
Again, those charged with oversight should model the Christian life both to the community of faith and to those outside the church.
Biblically speaking, then, bishops should (a) come from the order of elders, (b) live in accordance with the moral teachings of the church, (c) represent the church well to outsiders as part of her evangelistic mission, and (d) maintain the integrity of the church’s apostolic teaching, defending her against all purveyors of false doctrine. These characteristics highlight the pastoral role of the bishop. In Acts Paul describes the ministry of oversight as “to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son” (20:28). A bishop is the chief elder, the chief pastor, responsible for leading the lost into new life in Jesus Christ. Crucial to this role is the preservation and transmission of the apostolic witness.
Ignatius of Antioch
In the late first and early second centuries, a new generation of Christian leaders came on the scene. The era of the apostles ended with their martyrdom, and new leaders like Ignatious of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Clement of Rome emerged as their successors. The role of bishops in the church was becoming clearer at this point. Clement, for example, does not articulate a clear distinction between bishops and elders, but he certainly feels entitled to extend his oversight as bishop of Rome to the church in Corinth. Ignatius was the most emphatic of the Apostolic Fathers on the authority of the bishop. He also emphasized the bishop-elder-deacon structure of ecclesiastical authority:
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the priests as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid (Smyrnians, Ch 8).
Ignatius’s heavy-handed insistence on obedience to the bishop (“even as Jesus Christ does the Father”) is probably an attempt to establish the tripartite authority structure within the church. No doubt other authority structures were in play. In any event, he seems to have won the day. Bishops rose to the top of the church’s hierarchy.
Irenaeus of Lyon
Perhaps the clearest statement of bishops as (a) the successors to the apostles and (b) defenders of the apostolic witness comes from Irenaeus:
Bishops are successors of the apostles to convey the truth: It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity (Against Heresies, 3.3).
Note the first sentence of this passage. Bishops are successors of the apostles to convey the truth. In another passage, he writes of his teacher, Bishop Polycarp, who “not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna.” Polycarp was martyred “having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true” (3.3.4). It is the responsibility of the bishop to pass on and guard the apostolic witness and thus protect the church from falling into disastrous error. This is a pastoral function related to the salvation of the lost. True proclamation leads people into new life. False proclamation leads people away from it.
Hippolytus of Rome
Hippolytus of Rome provides us with liturgy from the early third century: “Even now pour out from yourself the power of the Spirit of governance, which you gave to your beloved child Jesus Christ, which he gave to the holy apostles, who set up the church in every place as your sanctuary, for the unceasing glory and praise of your name” (The Apostolic Tradition, 3). According to Hippolytus, then, bishops are the successors to the apostles, who are the successors to Christ. The reference to the “Spirit of governance” is noteworthy. It is a petition that God will bless the bishop with the capacity to order the life of the church for its evangelistic mission, “for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.” In what sense will bishops govern the life of the church? Hippolytus continues:
[G]rant that your servant, whom you have chosen for oversight, should shepherd your flock and should serve before you as a high priest without blame, serving by night and day ceaselessly propitiating your countenance and offering the gifts of your holy church. And let him have the power of high priesthood, to forgive sins according to your command, to assign duties according to your command, to loose every tie according to the power which you gave to the apostles, to please you in gentleness with a pure heart, offering you the scent of sweetness.
Bishops have been chosen by God for spiritual oversight and to direct the church in ways that are pleasing to God. They are to continue the mission that originated in Jesus Christ and that he entrusted to the apostles. As elders, they continue in their priestly responsibilities, with the additional task of overseeing the priestly functions of other elders.
Insights From the Early Church
These sources from the first through third centuries indicate a distinction that arose gradually between elders and bishops, and seems to have been well in place by the time of Irenaeus (ca. AD 180). The episkopoi of the New Testament were to be moral exemplars of the particular way of life that characterized Christian communities. Those who did not exemplify this way of life could not be trusted with the ministry of oversight. The bishops of the early church were understood as successors of the apostles and were tasked with continuing the church’s apostolic and evangelistic mission. An important part of this mission was the teaching of the apostolic faith and the refutation of those who taught false doctrine. Ordering the life of the church was a particular responsibility of bishops. They were believed to have received a “Spirit of governance” which related mainly to the ordering of the church’s liturgical life, making sure its proclamation was in keeping with the apostolic witness, and identifying those to whom priestly functions could be entrusted.
What About Methodism?
Early Methodism was an attempt by John Wesley to reconstitute the “primitive church.” Wesley believed in bishops and was committed to the description of “overseers” in the New Testament. Some of the more Anglican-leaning among us might suggest that the episcopacy represents not an office, but a separate order. Wesley did not think so. How is it that he could ordain Thomas Vasey and Richard Whatcoat as deacons one day, elders the next, and set apart Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury as superintendents? The reason is that he believed that elders (presbyters) and bishops were part of the same order. The difference was one of function, not kind. He rejected the Roman Catholic notion of apostolic succession and believed himself already to have been acting as a bishop in the scriptural sense. In a 1784 letter to his brother he wrote, “I firmly believe I am a scriptural episkopos as much as any man in England or in Europe; for the uninterrupted succession I know to be a fable, which no man ever did or can prove." While he never assumed the honorific title of bishop, then, he understood himself as such and acted as such. The designation of “superintendent” for Coke and Asbury naturally gave way to that of “bishop.” In the biblical sense, that is what they were.
Generally speaking, the description of the episcopacy in the GMC’s Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline comports well with what I’ve written above. In another article I will suggest some changes—mostly minor—we might make during a convening conference.
The reaction against the formation of the GMC has been loud, sharp-edged, and often disparaging. One example is a recent article in The Christian Century by UMC Bishop Willimon, who asks, “Should I, an aging UMC bishop, be envious that the GMC will have the most autocratic, powerful episcopacy in the history of Methodism, badass bishops who are free to kick out errant clergy faster than you can say, ‘to heck with due process’?”
Regarding due process, I would point his attention to the “Judicial Practice and Procedure Rules of the Global Methodist Church,” which details the due process for clergy against whom complaints are filed. I would also point out ¶415.4 of the Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline, which deals with involuntary leave. He may not agree with the process the Transitional Leadership Team has outlined, but there it is in black and white.
As for his charges of an “autocratic” episcopacy, there is much more to be said. Willimon insists that the GMC is forming only over a single issue—homosexuality. This is a common institutionalist trope, rhetorically effective but inaccurate. The UMC has not changed its position on what the Discipline calls “homosexual practice.” With a growing African majority, it is not clear when it will have the votes to do so. The church’s policy on what the Discipline calls “homosexual practice” remains traditional.
The church’s dispute over homosexual practice, however, is bound up with the larger reason that the UMC is dividing. Traditionalists wish to leave because their voices and votes are irrelevant. What we have seen on multiple occasions is that, if bishops wish to enact practices and policies that violate the decisions of the General Conference, they can do so without consequence. Traditionalists could win every vote at the General Conference, and it would not matter. Such bishops—bishops for life, by the way—act as if they are responsible only to their own judgment. They are, in a literal sense, autocratic. Attempts to hold them accountable flop around for a few minutes before dying from lack of oxygen.
For example, the General Conference rejected the One Church Plan in 2019. Yet Bishop Laurie Haller issued a statement in 2021 indicating that her conference would enact basic elements of this plan. Consider that Bishop Sue Haupert-Johnson (formerly of North Georgia Annual Conference) reappointed Jody Ray without consultation to a conference position that did not yet exist. (I describe the details in this article.) She refused to reconsider after 5,000 members of the church signed a letter opposing Ray’s reappointment. This, after conference officials published their own version of the One Church Plan in a statement called “Love Is Making Room.” Now this same conference has paused the disaffiliation process, just as the bishop is out the door for a new assignment in Virginia. After the 2016 General Conference, when the UMC voted to leave the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, five annual conferences joined on their own in defiance of this decision. Where were the bishops to uphold the integrity of our governance? The Western Jurisdiction bishops have defied both the General Conference and Judicial Council regarding the election of Bishop Karen Oliveto. And this is to say nothing about punitive appointments of conservative pastors by progressives bishops, such as the three Korean pastors targeted in the Cal-Pac conference. I am not aware of any instance in which one of the bishops involved in these cases received any substantive internal pushback.
I offer these examples not to reopen old wounds, but simply to respond to the charge of autocracy. In light of the above, who are the autocrats? Who are the “badass bishops”? Have there been other periods in Methodism when bishops have wielded such unchecked power over annual conferences, clergy, and congregations? No, Bishop Willimon, you need not be jealous of the power of GMC bishops. But if you do truly care about due process, you might turn your critical eye on the power that some of your UMC colleagues wield.
Imperatives for the Global Methodist Church
The Global Methodist Church must preserve the biblical, historic, and Methodist office of the bishop. We must not let the unfortunate actions of particular United Methodist bishops keep us from organizing our lives in accordance with Scripture and tradition. We must, however, revise the office in a few important ways, some of which are already stipulated in the Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline.
We should conceive of the office of bishop as a crucial element of our rich Christian heritage. It has been given to us by God, prescribed through Scripture and embodied in tradition, as a gift for the upbuilding of the church and the salvation of the lost. We should continue in the tradition of Hippolytus, praying for a Spirit of governance to rest upon those chosen for this office.
As Billy Abraham wrote, the work of the bishop should be close to the ground:
Where the threefold order exists today, bishops operate in a world that is far removed from the workday world of local congregational life. They are systematically cut off from the grass roots, often work surrounded by assistants who are afraid to speak the truth, and spend countless hours in administrative and legal labor that saps their energies…. The separation of bishops from the life of the church was not the case when canonical episcopacy was instituted and developed. Oversight required close contact with the life and work of the church on the ground…. In this situation ecumenical councils of bishops were appropriately representative; and bishops could know the persons for whom they exercised spiritual responsibility (“Handing on the Teaching of the Apostles: Canonical Episcopacy,” in Canonical Theism, 58-9).
3. It follows then, that we should not conceive of bishops primarily as managers. We should not hobble them with unending bureaucratic responsibilities. Rather, we should conceive of bishops as pastors, evangelists, and defenders of the faith. The bishop is an office within the order of elders, and the Spirit of governance God pours out upon bishops is for the church’s spiritual care. Let business managers handle business. Let attorneys handle the law. Let bishops lead the church in word, sacrament, and order.
4. In their teaching office, bishops should help to guide the church’s intellectual life. They should possess a high level of theological facility. When complex theological questions emerge, bishops should have the chops to engage them. The church will face increasingly complex challenges in the days ahead, including challenges from the scientific community. There will be no hiding from these. A shepherd of the church must face them head on.
5. While bishops should have significant authority in the life of the church, their authority is always derivative of the church. Put differently, as bishops, they have no authority except what the church gives them, and to the extent that they defy the church, they do not act with episcopal authority. The Spirit of governance is a gift God gives to the church for its order and wellbeing, not a weapon to create disunity.
6. It follows, then, that the guidance bishops provide for the church’s intellectual life functions under some constraints. By virtue of their office, bishops are bound to the church’s core teachings. If a bishop steps outside the boundaries of the church’s core teachings, that bishop has exceeded his or her mandate and authority. A bishop who wishes to challenge the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, should step down. If he or she will not do so, the church should take steps to make this happen.
7. We should emphasize the general superintendency and resist regionalization. Bishops may have responsibility over an annual conference, but they are bishops of the whole church and should be accountable to the whole church. They are not responsible only for the spiritual life of those in a geographic region, but for the wellbeing of the entire denomination. Correlatively, both election and accountability should be at the level of the general church, not a particular region.
8. Bishops should embody the unity of the church through word, sacrament, and order. This will involve faithful teaching of the church’s doctrine, maintaining sound catechesis within the churches, refuting false doctrine, ensuring the integrity of the church’s sacramental life (including her liturgy), and ordering the church according to the will of the body expressed through the General Conference.
9. We should think of apostolic succession not as an unbroken chain of the laying on of hands, but as the preservation and propagation of the faith handed on to us from the time of the apostles. Bishops are successors to the apostles only insofar as they continue the work of the apostles.
Understanding the Times
Many people are leaving the UMC licking their wounds. I understand. I have my own. Fighting the last war, however, would be a mistake. We must focus on the problems before us, not those behind. Christianity has all but collapsed through most of Western Europe. It is declining in the United States, while the percentage of those who identify as “nones”—those having no religion—may be as high as 30%. Our churches are rocked by scandals, dissension, and blatant hypocrisy. Christendom is collapsing before our eyes. The halls of power in government, legacy media, social media, the entertainment industry, and higher education are populated by legions who regard the values of traditional Christianity not simply as antiquated, but harmful. As Christians, we can respond in a few different ways. We can abandon the faith, bend the knee to the values of the popular culture, or live lives of difference, sometimes with costly results. If the GMC does not choose the latter of these, it will quickly and justly become irrelevant. I’m not talking about fighting a culture war. I’m talking about carving out a distinct way of life, living as aliens and exiles, and inviting the least and the lost to join us.
This will require leaders who are like the sons of Issachar, able to understand the times in which we live. We need a well-ordered church, led by bishops who will take upon themselves the serious task of shepherding the churches and defending the faith once and for all entrusted to the saints. The challenges facing the church today require people with extraordinary gifts of leadership, preaching, evangelism, and theological acumen. Pray that God will raise up those leaders for the Global Methodist Church and give us the discernment to identify them. The work of the apostles is no less relevant today than it was in the first century, and we need men and women who will continue faithfully and fearlessly along the path carved out by our forebears in the faith.
David F. Watson is Lead Editor of Firebrand. He serves as Academic Dean and Professor of New Testament at United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio.