It’s been said that among the many oxymorons (such as military intelligence, friendly fire, plastic silverware, Microsoft Works) that one should be added to the list: United Methodist. It is quite evident that as a denomination, we are not united.
Could it be that the way we elect bishops is partially to blame? Is the way that we elect bishops truly representative of the whole Church, or do we elect regional leaders that fit the political and social demographic of an area? I think in reality we do the latter, and the problem with that is that we then become a denomination of regions, rather than a united denomination. If we were like the Southern Baptists, where every congregation is autonomous, that would make sense. But at least in theory, our Book of Discipline says that we are a covenant Church. Moreover, our baptismal theology states that our membership exists at three levels; (1) the Church Catholic, (2) the United Methodist Church, and (3) the local congregation or parish. That means – in theory – that a United Methodist in Alabama should feel somewhat at home at a United Methodist Church in Washington state (and vice versa). Moreover, children going through a confirmation class should be taught similarly and come away with the same “method” of Methodism. Again, at least in theory.
We know that practice tells a quite different story.
What would happen if we elected bishops at General Conference instead of at Jurisdictional Conferences? Before someone says “we’ve never done it that way before,” it actually WAS done that way for many years, and jurisdictions are a relatively new invention. The change that created jurisdictions was primarily born of racism… and we ought to be ashamed that we still have such barriers up in a truly United Methodist Church.
One of the first things I learned in a polity class in seminary was that when we elect a bishop, we elect someone to the general superintendency of the whole Church. But in reality, we really don’t. To quote Richey and Frank in their book Episcopacy in the Methodist Tradition:
…[I]f bishops are elected in a region, and if their “residential and presidential supervision” is restricted to that region only, in what sense can the Church maintain the myth that bishops are general superintendents or bishops of the whole Church?… [T]heir primary responsibilities lie in the region in which they were elected. (p. 108)
It seems to me that one of the ways to restore unity in United Methodism would be to elect bishops at General Conference. Why? The same people who are shaping legislative and doctrinal policy, mandating missions, and discerning spiritual, liturgical, and sacramental actions in our denomination would be electing people that they believe would best shepherd the church in such a context. Richey and Frank believe that such a change would grant the Council of Bishops more episcopal oversight over the whole connection, as they would be a more representative of it as a whole.
It may be that the reason we don't want bishops to have too much oversight is because, regionally, we don't seem to fully trust them as a Council! We might trust "our" bishops ("our" meaning "from our jurisdiction"), but we are reticent to fully trust them collectively. The recent skirmish between the Council of Bishops and the Judicial Council more resembles our U.S. government than a covenant Church.
Jurisdictional conferences tend to “elect their own kind,” and my own Southeastern Jurisdiction is as guilty as anyone in this regard. Such a concept may be in keeping with a United States caught up in the religion of individualism, but it seems antithetical to a United Methodist Church that is supposed to be bound in covenant.
Pax,
Sky+
Related blogs here and here.
5 comments:
The idea of united is a myth, we just don't want to admit it. In reality we are a dominational home of 2 distinct religions, Evangelical Christianity and Liberalism and I don't see any uniting or compromising by either. Speaking for myself, I would be very concerned and suspicious of a bishop from the Western Jurisdiction.
I think those of us in the Western or NEJ would worry about larger jurisdictions block voting (as many conferences do already anyway) so that we would end up with bishops all from one area. We already get trampled on in delegation size, representation on agencies, etc. I don't think bishops at GC would help our sense of Unity. It would just create a sesne of loss of input. Besides, part of being a bishop of an area is being able to identify with local/regional concerns. It is hard enough with bishops from other areas of the jurisdiction. Cross-jurisdiction would be even harder.
I think all of us American UM's are going to have to face such realities in about 4-8 years when African and other non-American UM's are granted the number of delegates computed by formula - which will "shift" the "power" delegate numbers to the African United Methodists.
Our Church will take on decidely world-view when that happens. Do we truly want an international church to not have international leaders that are up to the challenges of a 21st century church? If the world is truly our parish, how can we do otherwise?
What you are suggesting Elizabeth is, I'm afraid, gaining steam. I fear that before the delegate numbers are recomputed, we fearful Americans will form a "U.S.-only" General Conference to protect our own voices and keep non Americans out. That will be an opportunity lost.
I think you raise good points, but I also believe you should not ignore the fact that our United does not come from the fact that all Methodists are united, but rather that we joined with the Evangelical United Brethren.
That doesn't excuse how our bishops do tend to be regional, or the difference from congregation to congregation, but it is an important part of church history to remember.
Hey Laura! Thanks for visiting and commenting!
Sky+
Post a Comment