I’ve thought for some time that, while we have significant theological and ethical disagreements in the UMC, a large part of our difficulty with ecclesial disobedience at present is structural. Every tradition has internal disputes, but how we deal with these will come to bear in important ways on our life together–and whether life together is really even possible. To come to the point, it is a significant matter that there is no real accountability for the bishops in the UMC. If a bishop chooses to look the other way when acts of ecclesial disobedience take place, there seem to be no consequences to his or her doing so. Therefore, an elder violates the discipline, the bishop does not act, and our internal structure of governance breaks down bit by bit. What we have, then, is a power play. De facto, who has authority on these matters: the bishops or the General Conference?

“Wait,” you say. “Surely the UMC has a process for dealing with such matters.” Indeed we do, and we should examine it closely. Warning: the following will be rather like reading the owner’s manual for a household appliance. I encourage you, though, to work your way through it.

¶ 413. Complaints Against Bishops

2. Any complaint concerning the effectiveness, competence, or one or more of the offenses listed in ¶ 2702 shall be submitted to the president of the College of Bishops in that jurisdictional or central conference. If the complaint concerns the president, it shall be submitted to the secretary of the College of Bishops. A complaint is a written statement claiming misconduct, unsatisfactory performance of ministerial duties, or one or more of the offenses listed in ¶ 2702.9

3. After receiving a complaint as provided in ¶ 413.2, the president and the secretary of the College of Bishops, or the secretary and another member of the college if the complaint concerns the president (or the president and another member of the college if the complaint concerns the secretary), shall, within 10 days, consult the chair of the jurisdictional or central conference committee on episcopacy who shall appoint from the committee one professing member and one clergy member who are not from the same episcopal area; who are not from the episcopal area that the bishop under complaint was elected from or has been assigned to; and who are not of the same gender.10

A few points are worth noting here. If a bishop such as Melvin Talbert violates the discipline, the College of Bishops in the same jurisdiction as the bishop against whom the complaint was filed are to oversee the complaint resolution process. The two people who are assigned to direct the supervisory response may not be from the bishop’s episcopal area, but are appointed by the chair of the jurisdictional committee on episcopacy and may be from the same jurisdiction.

Moving on….

b) The supervisory response is pastoral and administrative and shall be directed toward a just resolution. It is not a part of any judicial process. 

At this point, then, there will be no church trial for the bishop against whom the complaint has been filed.

c) The supervisory response may include a process seeking a just resolution in which the parties are assisted by a trained, impartial third party facilitator(s) or mediator(s) in reaching an agreement satisfactory to all parties. (See ¶ 363.1b, c.) The appropriate persons, including the president of the College of Bishops, or the secretary if the complaint concerns the president, should enter into a written agreement outlining such process, including an agreement as to confidentiality. If resolution is achieved, a written statement of resolution, including terms and conditions, shall be signed by the parties and the parties shall agree on any matters to be disclosed to third parties. Such written statement of resolution shall be given to the person in charge of that stage of the process for further action consistent with the agreement.

The process is intended to work toward a “just resolution,” which will include the input of the president (or secretary) of the jurisdictional College of Bishops. You and I, however, may never find out what that “just resolution” involves. There seems to be little concern here for transparency in the resolution process. Confidentiality is of course appropriate at times and with reference to particularly sensitive issues, but to allow the parties involved in the complaint to decide which information may be disclosed goes beyond the normal constraints of confidentiality.

If the supervisory response does not result in resolution of the matter, the president or secretary of the College of Bishops may refer the matter as an Administrative Complaint (¶ 413.3e) or a Judicial Complaint (¶ 2704.1). 

The president or secretary of the College of Bishops does not have to refer the matter, but he or she may do so. If this occurs and it is referred as an administrative complaint, the process is bounced back to the jurisdictional committee on episcopacy. If the matter is serious enough, then the committee on episcopacy may refer the matter back to the president or secretary of the College of Bishops for referral as a judicial complaint.

Only if the matter escalates to a judicial complaint does a bishop from another jurisdiction get involved. Here’s the rub: jurisdictions often elect bishops who fit the jurisdiction’s broad theological and ethical perspectives. Therefore, referring an errant bishop back to his or her own jurisdiction for supervisory action may be like sending a reckless driver back to the demolition derby. If the chair of the jurisdictional committee on episcopacy and/or the president of the College of Bishops (a) agree in principle with the actions of the offending bishop and (b) feel that the circumstances of the offense warranted a violation of the Discipline, there may be almost no accountability for the offense. This is a breakdown in our system of accountability, and it has helped to push us toward division at an alarming rate.

What might help this matter is if the first levels of accountability were moved out of the bishop’s own jurisdiction. Another, more complicated, solution could involve the creation of a committee for episcopal review to which complaints could be directed. This committee could include one member from each jurisdiction. Additionally, if there is a United Methodist Church after 2016, we should consider doing away with the jurisdictional system of episcopal election.

I’m interested in reading your suggestions regarding how best to move forward.