To Teach and Preserve the Faith: Bishops and the Global Methodist Church
This article is part of our Counterpoint series, in which Firebrand explores opposing viewpoints on theological topics. For a different view, read: The Hybrid Episcopacy Model: Maximum Flexibility, Minimal Bureaucracy by Nako Kellum, Monteen Pillay, Jeremy Rebman, and Jay Therrell. Each of these articles examines proposals for how bishops will function in the Global Methodist Church.
I’ve never played 3-D chess. I hear it’s difficult. For those looking for a more robust challenge, however, I suggest writing legislation describing the office of bishop in a new denomination. When I agreed to serve on the Transitional Leadership Council’s committee charged with doing just that, I knew it would be difficult. What I didn’t know, however, is how much I didn’t know. The work of the TLC represents an attempt to balance a host of competing concerns in a new global denomination, establish a strong general episcopacy, reclaim the teaching function of the episcopacy, and provide for the spiritual and temporal (administrative) supervision of annual conferences.
The Global Methodist Church will now consider two major plans for the episcopacy in its upcoming general conference, one submitted by the Transitional Leadership Council (TLC) and one coming from the Florida delegation. For a clear outline of the major differences between the two plans, click here. I’ve written this piece to advocate for the TLC plan. It is published alongside another piece from members of the Florida delegation arguing that their plan is the better of the two. I’ve read through the Florida legislation several times. To be as fair as possible, however, I didn’t read the Florida piece published here in Firebrand before writing mine.
My major claim in this article is this: the GMC must adopt a strong general superintendency to preserve the teaching of the historic faith across the globe. Over the past several years I’ve developed a severe allergy to regionalization, and I believe the Florida plan would create an imbalance of power tilting toward the annual conferences, rather than establish a proper balance between the global church and its regional expressions. To be clear, I don’t think this is the intent of the Florida plan. I don’t think anyone involved in this conversation has come to it maliciously. Regardless of intent, however, I think the Florida plan will weaken the GMC in the long run because it proposes a weak general superintendency.
Concerns with the Florida Plan
There are several features of the Florida plan that I think do not represent the best way forward for the church:
It purports to create less bureaucracy than the TLC plan. Yet in light of the considerable load bishops will carry, this may not be the case. Under the Florida plan, bishops will likely require ad hoc assistance, such as provosts or assistants to the bishop that support the episcopal office in the UMC.
That said, as we establish a denominational infrastructure, there are two dangers. One is to make it too large. The other is to make it too small. If our infrastructure (or, if you prefer, bureaucracy) is inadequate, the necessary work won’t get done. I realize most of us come from a denomination with a bloated bureaucracy, but, as Matt O’Reilly reminds us, it is best not to overcorrect. The goal is not simply to downsize, but to right-size our denominational infrastructure.
The Florida plan does not require two-year bishops, but the presidents pro-tem take on the role of bishops between 2024 and 2026. In effect, they are interim bishops, just by a different name.
The office of conference superintendent goes away after bishops are appointed in 2026. The Florida plan does stipulate that the Assembly of Bishops will provide teaching documents and other spiritual guidance for the church. Under this plan, however, it is not clear that bishops in the GMC will have any more time or space to provide spiritual and theological leadership than they have in the UMC. The provision of spiritual and theological leadership is at the top of their job description, but the structures proposed under this plan do not facilitate this work.
Bishops are selected, hired, evaluated, and paid by annual conferences. The obvious concern in light of these stipulations is the potential for regionalization. It is no great stretch to envision a struggle over regional autonomy if the leadership of an annual conference, including the bishops, disagrees with the general conference or the General Episcopacy Committee. The authority of the General Episcopacy Committee to exercise discipline in the face of defiant annual conferences is unclear. Were the Florida plan to pass, the role and authority of the General Episcopacy Committee would need immediate clarification.
Further, because bishops are selected, hired, and paid by their conferences, large and wealthy conferences may have an advantage in recruiting and retaining the bishops they would prefer.
The Need for Theological and Spiritual Superintendency
“My people perish for lack of knowledge” (Hos 4:6). That verse has haunted me for a long time. It was the text of a sermon I heard at a friend’s ordination service in The Episcopal Church many years ago. The sermon was an indictment of church leaders who have left their people to wander in doctrinal error or, perhaps worse, indifference. The stakes are high. Without knowledge of the faith, knowledge of God imparted by divine revelation and received by the church, people perish. “[H]ow are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard?” (Rom 10:14). Faithful Christian teaching is a pathway into the life of God, a conduit of the Holy Spirit, a lifeline for salvation.
Most Christians today live in pluralistic, often polytheistic, environments. Whereas the Global West was once overwhelmingly Christian in its population, that is no longer the case. Some would say the West has become secular. I would say it has become pagan again. We cannot take for granted that people in our churches, much less those outside of them, are familiar with the major doctrines of orthodox Christianity. In a recent article, Suzanne Nicholson cited the 2022 Ligonier Ministries State of the Church Survey, which yielded abysmal results regarding the beliefs of U.S. evangelicals. To sum it up, a great many evangelicals are heretics. This is to say nothing of mainline Christians. And let’s get clear: these are not the “unchurched.” These are churchgoers. We cannot make the teaching of Christian doctrine a second- or third-level priority anymore. If we do not take effective measures to ensure doctrinal integrity in the Global Methodist Church, we have no one to blame but ourselves when our denomination is blown about by every wind of doctrine.
Bonhoeffer held that doctrinal sin is more serious than moral sin: “False doctrine corrupts the life of the Church at its source, and that is why doctrinal sin is more serious than moral. Those who rob the Church of the gospel deserve the ultimate penalty, whereas those who fail in morality have the gospel there to help them” (The Cost of Discipleship, revised edition, MacMillan, 1963, 330, footnote). In other words, moral sin at least leaves the gospel of forgiveness in place. Doctrinal sin corrupts the knowledge we need to come to Christ in repentance. If we go off the rails doctrinally, we will fail in our duty as Christians to bring others to saving faith in Jesus Christ. If the church can’t accomplish this goal, let’s close the doors and go home.
Unfortunately, the defense of doctrine, by which I mean the faith once and for all entrusted to the saints, has not been a priority for leaders of mainline Protestantism. Yes, there are exceptions. For example, the late UMC bishop Timothy Whitaker was a faithful champion of orthodoxy. Across the twentieth century, however, many bishops and other leaders in the mainline traditions took up the task of revising, rather than preserving, the orthodox faith of the church. While we thank God for Bishop Whitaker’s legacy, we should be clear that he stood out as unusual because he did in fact take up the historic episcopal duty of defending the faith.
In another Firebrand article, I laid out what I hoped would be a helpful vision of the episcopacy for the GMC. Bishops should exercise both spiritual and temporal governance. I argued that we should get away from the “bishop-as-manager” model of the episcopacy (as in the Florida model) and move toward a more historic understanding in which bishops are primarily shepherds, evangelists, and defenders of the faith (as in the TLC plan). While they mustn’t become disconnected from the temporal affairs of the church, if each day is taken up with meetings, resolution of complaints, disciplinary actions, and other such tasks, there will not be sufficient space for bishops to provide spiritual and theological guidance.
Responding to Criticisms
One criticism I’ve heard of the TLC plan is that the bishop has no temporal responsibility. This is incorrect. They have oversight of conference superintendents. It will be necessary for bishops to be familiar with the temporal affairs of the conference in order to evaluate the conference superintendents. They have final responsibility for appointments. They preside at conferences. They raise money. Ultimately, the entire life of the annual conference is the bishop’s responsibility, even as certain administrative functions are delegated to other superintendents. In many ways the relationship between the bishop and the conference superintendent would be like that between a senior pastor and an executive pastor. The executive pastor shoulders more administrative work so the senior pastor can focus on work such as preaching, teaching, and evangelism.
I’ve also heard the criticism that, in the TLC plan, the conference superintendents are actually bishops, and the bishops are actually archbishops. This characterization is a red herring. The word “bishop” is derived from the Greek episkopos, which means “overseer.” In the Methodist tradition, we call the ministry of oversight “superintendency.” The difference between the two plans is not that one has archbishops and the other doesn’t. Rather, the major difference between the two plans has to do with the strength of the both general and local superintendency. The TLC plan divides labor between the bishops (general) and the conference superintendents (local). It thus provides stronger supervision in each area. The Florida plan lodges responsibility for both general and local superintendency firmly in the office of the bishop, though it emphasizes local superintendency.
Progressivism and Pragmatism
Before long, we will see progressive efforts to change the GMC, just as we have seen in other theologically conservative denominations. At some point, a group of Global Methodists will decide that the church has been wrong all along in its basic doctrine and/or ethics, that our founding ideas and core principles are off-base. That group will then attempt to change the church to suit their opinions. The Church of the Nazarene has experienced such controversy for years. In the GMC, we will need clear lines of responsibility for addressing disagreements relating to doctrine and ethics. Historically, the church has looked to its bishops for such guidance.
Another danger for Global Methodists, and perhaps a more tempting one, will be pragmatism. Our belief in the new birth, our emphasis on entire sanctification, our sacramentalism, our project of watching over one another in love—all of these face the threat of benign neglect in the days ahead if we do not “guard the good treasure” entrusted to us (2 Tim 1:14). We will opt for what “works,” without reflecting deeply on what “working” means. To preserve our orthodox Wesleyan faith across the church, we need a strong general superintendency. In other words, we need bishops who can teach and guard the faith across our global connection.
The TLC plan has a clear theological rationale: the preservation and propagation of the orthodox Wesleyan faith. The theological underpinnings of the Florida plan are less apparent. I would be interested to learn more about the theological, rather than pragmatic, rationale for the episcopal structure they propose.
Final Thoughts
If the Florida plan passes, I will abide by it. I won’t leave the GMC. I won't take my toys and go elsewhere. Rather, I will submit to the church’s polity. According to the democratic form of government Methodists employ, no one gets everything he or she wants. I will, moreover, trust that God has guided our decisions. God knows what is best for us, and I trust that he will be present in our proceedings. At the end of the day, what is most important is not that my will be done, or that of the TLC, or that of the Florida delegation. What is important is that God’s will be done, and my most fervent prayer is that this come to pass.
David F. Watson is Lead Editor of Firebrand. He serves as Academic Dean and Professor of New Testament at United Theological Seminary.