One of the big questions in the current conversation around Global Methodist bishops is the financial question. How much will each plan cost? Which plan will cost the most? Which plan will cost the least? Advocates of the Florida Plan suggest that it will be less expensive than the General Superintendency Plan. I explained in part 3 of this series why I thought that was unlikely. In this post, we'll explore another reason why the General Superintendency Plan is likely to cost less. If you're finding this series helpful, you'll want to subscribe to Theology Project so you don't miss out on upcoming posts. For example, we still need to talk about how to improve the General Superintendency Plan!
How Global Methodist Bishops Will Be Paid
One of the big differences between the General Superintendency Plan and the Florida Plan has to do with how bishops will be paid. In the General Superintendency Plan, bishops will be compensated at the level of the General Church, which means a portion of each church's connectional funding would go into an episcopacy fund, and all the bishops would receive their salaries out of that fund. Under the Florida Plan/Hybrid Model, each annual conference pays the salary of its bishop. If two or more conferences share a bishop, then they have to figure out how to split the cost fairly.
Florida Plan advocates argue their approach is better because it keeps the money local. Your money goes to pay your bishop. And if another bishop in another conference does something you don't like, at least you don't have to worry about them being paid out of a fund to which you've contributed. Proponents of the Florida Plan say that a General Church episcopal fund means your conference would have to participate in funding of rogue bishops.
But I don't think this is really as big a problem as Florida Plan advocates say it is. If we build appropriate structures of accountability into the episcopacy (and we must!), then any issues with any rogue bishops will be dealt with under those structures. If we build an episcopacy that lets rogue bishops stay in office, then we did it wrong. That's one of the reasons I'm okay with an episcopal fund at the General Church level. But there's one other (perhaps, even bigger) reason I'm okay with it, too.
Connectional Funding Caps
The biggest reason I'd prefer bishops to be compensated at the General Church level is because General Church connectional funding is capped at a much lower level than annual conference connectional funding. "Connectional funding" is the amount of money your local church pays to the General Church and to the annual conference in order for those shared structures to operate. The amount churches pay to the General Church is capped at 1.5% of local church operating expenses, while connectional funding to the annual conference is capped at 5% of local church operating expenses. And remember those are maximum caps. The actual connectional funding percentages are currently lower than the caps. Local church giving to the General Church is currently at 1% (though I expect that will eventually be increased to the allowed 1.5%), while local church giving to the annual conference varies across the connection. The question is: what does all that have to do with the options before us for funding the episcopacy?
If the General Superintendency Plan is passed, it will not cost your church more than 0.5% more than what you already pay. If the Florida Plan passes, it could easily cost your church more.
You need to understand that both plans come with increased costs. The all-important question is which plan will cost less. If we pass the General Superintendency Plan, then it goes into the General Church budget, and the General Church must figure out a way to fund that under the current connectional funding or - at worst! - they could increase your church's giving by 0.5%. That's it. That's all. Half of one percent.
If we pass the Florida Plan, then that cost is assessed at the level of the annual conference, not the General Church. And since annual conference connectional funding is capped at 5%, then there's significantly more room to raise your church's connectional funding to pay your residential bishop before hitting the 5% cap. In short, if the General Superintendency Plan is passed, it will not cost your church more than 0.5% more than what you already pay. If the Florida Plan passes, it could easily cost your church more. It could be 0.5%, or it could be 1%, or it could be higher. There's no way to know at this point. The one thing we do know is that only one plan limits the potential increase in cost to local churches to 0.5%. That plan is the General Superintendency Plan.
The Impact Will Vary
To be fair, this won't hit every conference as hard as others. In conferences where you already have a full-time president pro tem with a salary comparable to what bishops are likely to make, then it's unlikely to change much. If you're in a conference with a full-time president pro tem who makes significantly less than what a residential bishop under the Florida Plan will make, then you'll probably have some increase, unless you share a bishop with another conference. If you're in a conference with a part-time president pro tem that intends to keep the conference superintendent as a part-time role, then the Florida Plan for residential bishops will necessitate a significant increase in local church giving to your annual conference. Or you'll have to shift money out of annual conference missions into the bishop's salary.
The size of an annual conference plays into this as well, and larger conferences are at an advantage. Smaller conferences with fewer churches means that each church will have to pay more to cover the same cost under the Florida Plan. A larger annual conference with more churches won't have to raise connectional giving as much to cover the cost of their residential bishop.
Here's an additional point to consider. General Church connectional funding is currently set at 1%. It seems very, very likely to me that the number will eventually go up to 1.5%, even if we don't fund bishops at the General Church level. The denomination is young; it's going to grow; the cost is likely to go up. So, if we opt for the Florida Plan/Hybrid Model, then bishops are funded by annual conference connectional giving and there's still a little space for General Church connectional giving to increase, which it likely will do at some point. If bishops are included in that now and it goes up now, it limits costs to the local church because the number can't go up later apart from a future General Conference raising the cap.
Here's a possible scenario: (1) Pass the Florida Plan; (2) annual conferences increase connectional funding to pay their bishop's salary; (3) in a few years, connectional funding to the General Church increases to fund the growing institution. To be clear, that's only a hypothetical situation. But it illustrates the way that, over the long-term, the Florida Plan will cost more in contrast to the General Superintendency Plan, which will have the least impact to local church finances.
Only One Plan Sets Lower Limits
One of the major selling points for the GMC has been that the institutional expense to local churches would be minimized. The plan that minimizes potential increase in costs across the whole denomination is the plan that creates an episcopal fund and puts it in the General Church budget. That plan is the General Superintendency Plan.
Dr. Matt O’Reilly (Ph.D., Gloucestershire) is Lead Pastor of Christ Church in Birmingham, Alabama, Director of Research at Wesley Biblical Seminary, and a fellow of the Center for Pastor Theologians. A two-time recipient of the John Stott Award for Pastoral Engagement, he is the author of multiple books including Free to Be Holy: A Biblical Theology of Sanctification, Paul and the Resurrected Body: Social Identity and Ethical Practice, The Letters to the Thessalonians, and Bless the Nations: A Devotional for Short-Term Missions. Follow @mporeilly on X and @mattoreillyauthor on Instagram.
This page contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
Comments