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.
David F. Watson 
I think you have some GREAT ideas, Dr. Watson. A great deal of damage has already been done, however. I’m wondering if some additional language is needed about actually SUSPENDING a bishop from serving, or “defrocking” them for behavior that is deemed to be unacceptable (although that would probably be covered by the rules for elders). Perhaps we also need some ways to limit the authority of retired clergy.
The bottom line is, our culture has decided that homosexuality is neither sick nor sinful. Our church, as mainlines do, follows a couple steps behind the culture. Lest you think it’s only cultural, don’t forget that the majority of biblical scholars agree with them. Thinking up better ways to enforce unjust laws is a waste of time.
Jeff, I am writing about an issue of structure, polity, and accountability in the UMC. The recent issue that has shown the problems with this structure is homosexuality. That is our current crisis issue. It will not always be, though. There will be something else. This blog post isn’t about homosexuality, though I knew when I wrote it that many folks would try to make it about that.
Jeff – you hit the nail on the head, defining the age old human condition, when you made the statement, “our culture has decided.” Throughout all ages, this has been exactly the problem. When a person or a culture decides what is right or what is wrong, disregarding the One who made the rules in the first place, there is sin and there is deception. Many in our culture have decided…. Many in our culture have decided, by their own devices, whether by their feelings or by scientific research “have decided” that that which God declared as wrong, is now OK. The bible is filled with stories about people and cultures who have repeatedly decided to ignore God’s prohibitions, and always to their detriment. And now, with great hubris, a powerful and vocal portion of our culture “has decided” that they know better than God. Will we never learn?
I especially like your proposal to eliminate the jurisdictional system of episcopal election. The politics inherent in the current system are deeply disturbing. Instead, I would like to see a capable pool of candidates who are willing to serve nominated by their home annual conferences (perhaps several from EACH conference.) Then, instead of VOTING to determine who will take the office, we should cast lots from among the candidates. This has several advantages. It is a BIBLICAL method to make such a decision (the choosing of Matthias as a replacement for Judas in Acts 1), and it is Wesleyan (John was known to cast lots to make some important decisions). It is the method currently used in the Coptic Church, and I believe it has some real merit. It would remove a great deal of partisanship at this highest level of the church, and if prayerfully implemented, might put God back into the process–at least God would get a vote.
Holly, there could certainly be some language about some kind of minimal penalty, depending upon the infraction. I think that would be a separate issue, but probably at some point needed.
If it would mean doing away with jurisdictionalism, then I would certainly be in favor of it.
It could be structured so that jurisdictionalism would be eliminated. The lottery could occur on a global level as the need for a new bishop arose. Perhaps a pool of willing nominees could be selected for each specific position. For example an episcopal area could write a job description that would include things like the language(s) the new bishop should speak fluently, and the skills, and spiritual gifts the area perceives the area needs.Then interested candidates could apply from all over the connection, and qualified applicants could be placed in the lottery for consideration.
One could also specify that a new bishop should NOT be from the same annual conference, and that there should be a certain minimum number of names in the lottery (perhaps 12?). I would also allow qualified candidates to be nominated by others rather than applying personally…
I think the current system needs to be reworked. To say this, doesn’t mean the old system was somehow wrong, only that we have moved past it. I’m with you on restructuring this system and I’m pretty sure I was the only UMCer to like the idea of a traveling bishop from GC2012.
I’ve mused within myself of the possibility of having bishops having to leave their home jurisdictions once elected. We do not let pastors serve their home churches, do we?
I also think we need theological teachings on the roles of bishops in the UMC.
Amen. Just as we need a clearer theology of ordination, we need a clearer theology of the episcopacy.
The Jurisdictional system was a major concession to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South to prevent a Southern Conference from being assigned an African American Bishop elected by the General Conference. We are (mostly) past that. It can’t be a surprise that Bishops elected by the Northeastern or Western Jurisdictions reflect the convictions of a supermajority of the voters in that Jurisdiction. A Roman Catholic Bishop is accountable to the Pope. A United Methodist Bishop was not elected by the General Conference and can’t be removed by the General Conference. Can it be a surprise that they don’t understand themselves to be accountable to the General Conference?
100% in agreement, Jon.