Will the Tail Wag the Dog? Practice and Theology at the General Conference of the GMC

Photo by MATÍAS ALEJANDRO on Unsplash

Long before the creation of the new Global Methodist Church, faithful Wesleyans debated how this new church would guard orthodox Wesleyan theology and practice fruitful ministry. A successful convening General Conference in Costa Rica two years ago established this new church, adopted a mission statement, elected interim bishops, and approved a brand new Book of Doctrines and Discipline. The scope of the initial conference was limited to allow this work to be completed. But now the stakes are even higher. When delegates to the 2026 General Conference meet later this week in Johannesburg, South Africa, they will have the opportunity to approve new Articles of Faith, elect full-time bishops, and address every aspect of the Book of Doctrines and Discipline. Nearly 450 petitions will be addressed, and it is clear from the variety of petitions submitted that delegates have differing ideas regarding the nature, direction, and practice of ministry within the GMC. Although one can easily get lost in the minutiae of each piece of legislation, it is imperative that delegates consider the big picture when voting. Each decision regarding how the GMC practices ministry is a theological decision. Delegates must decide whether the tail will wag the dog—that is, will practical concerns trump historical Wesleyan theological understandings—or will Methodist theology rightly drive our practice? In what follows I outline three basic theological questions to guide decision-making and consider how legislation may or may not support these theological foundations.  

Will the Global Methodist Church uphold orthodox Christian teaching?

John Wesley affirmed the historic teachings of the church as defined by Scripture, the creeds, and the preaching of early Christian leaders. As an Anglican priest, Wesley embraced the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England, and yet he was willing to reshape these articles for his ministry context: he reduced them to twenty-four Articles for the American church, a move that was approved by the Christmas Conference in 1784 (BDD ⁋101.3). Wesley himself thus gives a precedent for reconsidering and reshaping our foundational Articles. As Wesleyan churches divided and emerged over the years, multiple statements of faith resulted. Thus, in the GMC’s transitional BDD, both the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church and the Confession of Faith of the Evangelical Brethren Church were included. (For more on this history, see David Watson’s article here.) The 2024 General Conference directed the Commission on Discipleship, Doctrine, and Just Ministry to combine these articles into one. Two statements of faith, even when theologically similar, can be confusing, and some of the original language is antiquated and thus less accessible to the current church. In addition, some of the Articles addressed issues that are no longer as significant in the life of the church (e.g., Article 23 of the Articles of Religion was written on the heels of the American Revolution; it was necessary to affirm the sovereignty of the United States for the sake of the churches residing there). It was a different time. The current work of the Commission to revise and update the Articles of Faith will be voted on in Johannesburg next week (Petition 1441).

Although much debate has taken place regarding the new revisions and the process of writing them, the guiding questions for delegates must be: Do the revisions reflect orthodox Wesleyan theology? Do the statements accurately reflect what Methodists believe (i.e., our “normative doctrinal standards”)? If not, the language should be tweaked in legislative committee. Yet delegates must resist the urge to edit ad nauseum: Articles of Faith are meant to give an overview of basic Christian theology, not address every possible issue. (This is why many ethical principles appear instead in our Social Principles.) The revisions proposed in petition 1441 have come through a lengthy writing and revision process overseen by an international team of clergy and laity. The Commission released a public draft earlier this year and received hundreds of comments in reply, which led to careful revisions of the wording. Petition 1441 is the result of this open process. 

Some commentators have protested that process. For example, a paragraph on Creation and Providence, as well as a paragraph on Human Nature have been added; these were not in either original document. It appears that lingering trauma from the opaque processes experienced in our previous tribe has led many delegates to carry suspicion into the new denomination. These concerns can help the GMC not to repeat earlier mistakes, but delegates must be careful not to allow the ghosts of the past to stop the church from embracing a better future. The new paragraphs reflect a foundational understanding of the nature of God and God’s gracious design. The paragraphs are scriptural, and they are Wesleyan. This should be the litmus test for our new Articles of Faith—or any legislation the delegates pass.

Not all petitions meet this test. Several petitions, for example, propose removing language about original sin and the Fall (petitions 1321, 1322, 1323, 1324, 1325, 1326). Such theology flies in the face of scriptural testimony, the historic teaching of the church, and the theology of Wesley. Wesley urged people to read and understand Scripture through the lens of the “analogy of faith,” by which he meant the connection throughout all of Scripture “between those grand, fundamental doctrines, Original Sin, Justification by Faith, the New Birth, Inward and Outward Holiness” (Preface to The Explanatory Notes Upon the Old Testament). To deny original sin is to deny the basic teaching of Wesley (see also his sermons “Original Sin” and “On the Fall of Man”).

While not every piece of legislation that comes before the body will have such clear theological implications (some simply delete language about the 2024 convening General Conference, for example), delegates should ask whether the underlying principles reflect the historic teaching of the church. Even a petition on committee membership can raise theological questions, such as “Does this committee membership reflect the concept of the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9)?” 

Will the Global Methodist Church fully embrace Wesleyan distinctives?

Beyond theological foundations, delegates must consider whether the church they are constructing reflects Wesley’s understanding of the nature and practices of the church. For example, Wesley never departed from an episcopal understanding of church authority (even if he creatively interpreted some of its practices). For Wesley, laity and clergy are accountable to bishops, whose role is to oversee the church, shepherding the people by teaching the historic faith, ordaining clergy, and upholding the discipline and order of the church. Other denominations have embraced different forms of polity, such as congregational models (where authority resides solely in the local church body) or presbyterian models (where authority resides in elected elders and regional governing bodies). An episcopal polity is not the only way to do church. But for a denomination that claims to follow Wesley and the Methodist tradition, episcopal authority is foundational. 

An episcopal structure emphasizes connectional relationships between churches, so that individual churches band together under a common doctrine and polity to share resources and minister to the world together. This structure reflects Wesley’s conviction that there is no holiness but social holiness, meaning that believers must be in fellowship with one another in the church to encourage one another and hold one another accountable. This is why Methodist churches join together in annual conferences and a general conference. We hold one another accountable to the discipline and order of the church, and we recognize that we can do more effective ministry when we pool our resources together in under-served and under-resourced areas around the globe. 

The GMC was formed with this Wesleyan connection in mind, and our polity reflects these Wesleyan distinctives. But once again the echoes of our former denomination have significantly impacted the way we view this polity: fears of a bloated bureaucracy have led to a strong emphasis on the local church. In some ways this has been helpful: we have a leaner BDD and a significantly lower connectional funding percentage. The GMC must be careful, however, not to over-correct and focus so exclusively on the local church that it harms our connectional identity. For example, dozens of petitions from the MidTexas delegation (see the “Global Unity, Local Clarity” headers) seek to further limit BDD requirements. In some cases, these petitions seek to delete narrative language that provides Wesleyan background and theological rationale for our discipline (e.g., petition 1406). In other cases, these petitions remove specific governance instructions that currently ensure a variety of voices on key committees (e.g., petition 1367). Such reductions would likely result in decreased unity among GMC churches, as the very general language could cause the practice of ministry to look significantly different in churches just miles apart. 

Another MidTexas petition (1272) seeks to delete three general conference commissions. The submitted rationale suggests that the functions of these commissions “are either completed, do not apply globally, or are best handled at a more local level.” It is difficult to see, however, how eliminating the Kingdom Advancement Commission (formerly known as the Evangelism, Church Multiplication, Missional Mobilization, and Disaster Response Commission) will benefit the church. Has the need for evangelism resources and training abated? Or disaster response? How will eliminating the Discipleship, Doctrine, and Just Ministry Commission help the church? Will doctrinal questions and the need for Wesleyan teaching cease to arise? And why would a connectional church want to end the Commission on Ministry and Higher Education? How can a global church ensure that the same doctrine is taught in all GMC churches without offering consistent educational requirements for its clergy? Doctrinal confusion led many of us to leave our previous denomination; we must guard against any repeat of that disaster by strengthening, not weakening, the churchwide communication of our theological foundations. 

Delegates should also consider approving petitions that remove the stranglehold on the resources needed to provide a truly unified and connectional church. Petition 1063, for example, removes the restrictive language of BDD ⁋711, which currently limits annual conference connectional funding for conference-wide ministries. Although the stated intent of ⁋711 is to keep funding in local churches, the results are problematic. For example, an annual conference is restricted from funding youth events at the conference level. Many smaller local churches, however, cannot afford youth pastors and thus greatly need and desire these connectional opportunities to aid in the discipleship of their youth. Without connectional funding, the options are limited.

As this new church grows, practical needs arise that must be addressed. One such issue is the question of whether trained laity should be allowed to offer the sacraments (see petitions 1011 and 1062). Here again we must return to our Wesleyan roots. Wesley certainly innovated different practices when clear needs arose, such as his appointing Thomas Coke as superintendent of the fledgling church in America. Part of Wesley’s rationale was the fact that, after the Revolutionary War, British bishops refused to send clergy to America. How were Methodists to receive the sacraments without clergy to offer them? Yet Wesley’s answer was not to allow laity to preside over the sacraments. Rather, he sought a way to ordain clergy in America so that this need could be met. Wesley looked to the Scriptures and concluded that bishops were elders who were set apart for a specific ministry; thus, he believed he had the authority to consecrate Thomas Coke to this ministry. 

For Wesley, if no clergy are present to administer the sacraments, then the sacraments should not be offered. This is a stunning conclusion for the man who argued that parishioners should receive Holy Communion as often as they can. Wesley believed Christ is present in the bread and wine, and God’s grace is communicated to the one who partakes. Holy Communion is nothing less than “food for our souls” (“The Duty of Constant Communion”). It must not be entered into lightly nor administered casually. Rather, the church is the place where the sacraments are “duly administered.” (For an excellent discussion of Wesley’s soteriological and ecclesiological understanding of the sacraments, see Steven David Bruns, Full Tables, Closed Doors, Open Fields, 2018.) We must recognize that the situation today is not the same as post-Revolutionary War America. We have clergy available to offer the sacraments; they simply need to be willing to travel a circuit to offer them (see petition 1138 regarding elders for all churches). Thus, if the GMC is to follow its Wesleyan heritage, then only ordained clergy should be allowed to administer the sacred mystery of Holy Communion.

In addition to Wesleyan distinctives in polity, delegates must consider those practices that will energize our mission of making disciples and spreading scriptural holiness. Wesley literally put the “method” in Methodism: he urged parishioners to regularly partake of the means of grace and he created society, class, and band meetings so that believers could grow in discipleship. Petition 1409, for example, addresses this need and emphasizes the covenant that Methodists enter into with one another so that we can hold each other accountable and grow in grace. Petitions like this put into practice our Wesleyan theological commitments.

To what extent will delegates allow the Holy Spirit to shape their voting? 

One of the difficulties of any church connection is determining the balance between following prescribed polity processes and following the leading of the Holy Spirit—although certainly the Holy Spirit can lead the people of God to create effective polity! Perhaps this tension is best illustrated by the current process to elect bishops, which is outlined in BDD ⁋604. A complicated process of nominating and vetting candidates has been followed over the past year, resulting in the creation of eight episcopal areas, each comprising six to eight annual conferences. Each of these conferences nominated one clergy member and one lay member to be a part of their Area Committee on Episcopacy (ACE) that reviewed the files of episcopal candidates, determined which candidates to interview, and ranked the top five for that episcopal area. In effect, only 12-14 people have determined which candidate serves as the top choice for an entire episcopal area. 

At least some of the published rankings did not receive unanimous votes in the ACEs, nor were all the members satisfied with the outcome. Furthermore, multiple episcopal areas identified the same candidate as their top choice, even though a bishop cannot serve more than one area. Despite the significant prayer and discernment that has gone into this process, these results suggest that more discernment needs to take place. 

When the early church chose leaders, they prayed (Acts 1:24), worshiped and fasted (Acts 13:2-3), and chose those who were “full of the Spirit and wisdom” (Acts 6:3). In a global church we must engage in prayerful discernment by reading the bios of all the candidates and watching the videos of the ranked candidates. Scripture tells us that the main qualifications of those who lead the church boil down to two key features: 1) living as a person of integrity in accordance with the Gospel, and 2) effectively teaching and defending the Gospel (1 Tim. 3:1-7, Titus 1:6-9). The first is difficult to judge from bios and videos but can be discerned by speaking to other delegates who know the candidates. The second is of utmost importance. Do the materials submitted by an episcopal candidate demonstrate their ability to understand and express clearly the distinctives of Wesleyan doctrine? Which candidate can best articulate prevenient, justifying, and sanctifying grace, or describe the concept of entire sanctification, or explain scriptural holiness? We have many excellent candidates for bishop who have lengthy experience as administrators. But we must discern who will serve as the best spiritual leaders—those who will uphold the discipline of the denomination and defend the faith with clarity and wisdom.

Our current election process (which hopefully will be changed for future general conferences) obscures the idea that a bishop is a general superintendent of the church. That is, even though a bishop will be elected to serve a specific episcopal area, bishops serve as overseers of the entire church. Delegates should consider not only the interests of a particular episcopal area, but how the whole Assembly of Bishops will represent the denomination. Will both men and women be elected to serve as bishops? Will clergy from across the world be elected to serve as bishops of a global church? My prayer is that our episcopacy, as well as our churches, will reflect the picture of the heavenly throne room described in Rev. 7:9, in which a great multitude “from every nation, tribe, people and language” stand in heaven giving glory to God. May the Holy Spirit guide us to choose wisely who will oversee our denomination.

Conclusion 

Many important issues lie before the General Conference. The variety of petitions can be confusing. With every discussion and every vote, let us consider how our decisions reflect orthodox, Wesleyan, Spirit-led ministry that will equip the church to make disciples of Jesus Christ and spread scriptural holiness across the globe. May our theology direct our practice so that the Global Methodist Church will not become the dead sect Wesley once feared. Rather, let the Global Methodist Church “hold fast both the doctrine, spirit, and discipline with which they first set out.”

Suzanne Nicholson is Professor of New Testament at Asbury University in Wilmore, Ky., and a member of the Firebrand editorial lead team. She is also an elder in the Global Methodist Church, serves on the Commission on Discipleship, Doctrine, and Just Ministry, and is a delegate to the 2026 General Conference.