Questions about bishops are front and center for the people of the Global Methodist Church (GMC). This is the second in a series of essays devoted to key questions regarding the two plans for structuring the episcopacy in the GMC. The first installment showed how the General Superintendent (or Traveling Bishop) Plan is the best of the two for maximizing the capacity of our bishops to offer spiritual leadership to the Church. Now we turn to the question of which plan moves too fast. I've got several more posts in the queue for this series on GMC bishops. Be sure to click the blue button and subscribe to Theology Project so you don't miss those installments still to come.
As a quick refresher, the General Superintendency Plan calls for fewer bishops who travel between multiple annual conferences and focus heavily on offering wise and robust spiritual and theological leadership to the whole Church. Under this plan, most of the annual conference administrative work is delegated to Conference Superintendents, which could either be a part-time role or a full-time role, depending on the needs and desires of each annual conference. Alternatively, the Florida Hybrid Plan calls for bishops to be not only spiritual leaders but the also the primary administrative leaders of the annual conference. This plan shifts us from traveling bishops to residential bishops and puts a bishop in each annual conference unless two or more conferences decide to share a bishop. I argued recently that the Florida/Hybrid model minimizes the ability of bishops to offer healthy spiritual leadership by unnecessarily burdening them with too much administrative work (much like bishops in the United Methodist Church).
We need charitable engagement
It will become clear over the course of this series that I strongly favor the General Superintendency/Traveling Bishops Plan. But I want to state clearly that I have the utmost respect for the authors of the Florida Hybrid model. They have worked hard for years to help us get to the point of launching a new denomination. They have advocated for churches and advised clergy on how to move forward faithfully. When it comes to proposals for the episcopacy, I believe that the authors of each plan are doing their absolute best to offer us a structure that will benefit the mission and administration of the GMC. Disagreement is inevitable, and it's crucial we maintain a tone marked by charity and trust in the midst of that disagreement. We've come out of an ecclesial conflict that was marked by significant distrust. It's now absolutely necessary that we shift the tone of our discussion and assume the best about those with whom we may disagree as we hammer out our polity. We are friends here, even if we take different views on how to structure our shared ecclesial home.
Which plan moves too fast?
Advocates of the Florida Plan suggest the General Superintendency Plan moves too fast to the election of bishops at the Convening Conference. Their plan, it is claimed, slows things down in terms of episcopal elections. I would contend, however, that the Florida Plan moves us far too fast in a direction we may not want to go.
Proponents argue that the Florida Plan slows the process by delaying the election of new bishops to the 2026 General Conference. In 2026, however, the Florida Plan would have us elect residential bishops for each annual conference, unless two or more conferences decide to share a bishop. There are presently more than 30 provisional annual conferences in the GMC. That means that as quickly as two years from now, we could have 30 or more bishops. Thirty or more in a span of two years - let that sink in. And that's only if no new annual conferences are formed. That's a lot of bishops in a very short time. If more annual conferences are formed (and we expect they will be), the number of bishops likely moves even higher. It's not a stretch to imagine that we have 40 annual conferences by the time we get to General Conference 2026. That means the Florida Hybrid Plan could give us 40 bishops in as little as two years. In my view, having an Assembly of Bishops of that size significantly increases the bureaucratic structure of the GMC and likely speeds the shift from movement to institution.
The Florida Hybrid Plan could give us 40 bishops in as little as two years.
In stark contrast, the General Superintendency Plan for traveling bishops keeps the Assembly of Bishops small and nimble. In 2024, we'd elect six part-time interim bishops in addition to the two bishops we already have. The six interim bishops would likely be assigned four (or as many as six) annual conferences, while Bishops Jones and Webb expect to be assigned eight annual conferences each. In two years, at the 2026 General Conference, we would elect continuing bishops to serve six-year terms. It's worth considering that the move from part-time interim bishops to full-time continuing bishops could actually decrease the number of bishops after 2026, if the continuing bishops are assigned more annual conferences than the the four to six that will be assigned to the interims. The total number depends on how many annual conferences are added between now and then. That remains to be seen, of course, but this line of thought highlights the very different possible outcomes of the two plans. In only two years, the Florida Hybrid Plan could give us more than 30 (perhaps even 40) bishops, while the General Superintendency Plan likely leaves us with bishops numbered in the single digits. Which plan moves too fast?
Size and Dysfunction
It's well known that one of the chief problems that led to the split of the United Methodist Church (UMC) was the dysfunction of the the Council of Bishops. That dysfunction was related to the high number of residential bishops in the UMC. As Bishop Scott Jones points out in Reconstructing Methodism, "A group of forty bishops cannot form a cohesive leadership team to guide the church’s mission. The UMC’s Council of Bishops was too large to be effective" (34). If the GMC implements the Florida Hybrid Plan, we will move ourselves right back into the top-heavy UMC-style institutionalism from which we've just escaped. We will be recreating circumstances that led to denominational dysfunction. And we'll put our bishops into a structure from which it will be impossible to lead well.
I recognize that proponents of the Florida Hybrid Plan also propose accountability structures they hope will keep us from repeating the problems we associate with the Council of Bishops in the UMC. And I agree that those accountability structures will help us avoid episcopal bad behavior. That's important. What the Florida Plan fails to do, though, is give us an Assembly of Bishops that is structured to lead as an assembly. The bishops will be in a position to lead as individuals in their annual conferences, but they will not be in a position to lead the denomination well as a group. There will simply be too many of them to do that. When it comes to effective and efficient leadership as a group for the collective Church, the Florida Plan ensures there will be no such thing.
Less is More with Global Methodist Bishops
Here's another question: which plan will be easier to fix in 12 years? Let's say we go through a couple of General Conference cycles and decide that whichever plan we chose isn't working out too well, and that we need to shift to another plan. If we implement the General Superintendency Plan now and decide we need residential bishops later, that's easily accomplished. All we have to do is elect more bishops and transition them into their respective annual conferences. If we implement the Florida Plan now and put residential bishops in each annual conference, it will be almost impossible to later shift to fewer bishops who travel between multiple conferences. Once bureaucracies grow too big, it's almost impossible to make them smaller. In short, it will be easier in the future to move from the General Superintendency model to the Florida Hybrid model, if we find it necessary, than it will be to shift from the Florida Hybrid model to a General Superintendency. (NB: see the similar argument from David Donnan). A major strength of the General Superintendency model is that it slows the growth of the Assembly of Bishops. When you are exploring fresh ways to structure new organizations, less is more. Start small and, if needed, add more later. Start big and you'll almost inevitably stay big.
Let's not move too fast
To sum up, not only does the Florida Hybrid Plan unnecessarily burden bishops with administrative responsibility that will leave little time for spiritual leadership, it also creates an Assembly of Bishops so large that unified and effective leadership will be impossible. The Florida Plan moves far too fast toward far too many bishops. We'll do better to slow things down. Let's elect fewer bishops, and let's allow them to focus on spiritual and theological leadership for the whole Church. If we decide we need more bishops later, we can always add more. For now, let's not move too quickly. Let's perfect and implement 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 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