With one exception, the changes related to bishops that were made in the 2020/2024 Book of Discipline have one thing in common. All of them address significant issues that events in the life of the church and the world in recent years have brought to the fore. The one exception, a proposal that retired bishops must cover their own travel expenses, was subsequently voided by the Judicial Council.
Changes relating to bishops fall into three categories:
a) increasing clarity with flexibility for dealing with unforeseen circumstances;
b) creating greater equity and equality among bishops in the denomination; and
c) enhancing policies regarding the supervision and involuntary retirement of bishops.
Clarity with flexibility for the unforeseen
A major worldwide issue, the COVID-19 pandemic, caused significant disruption and uncertainty about when and how bishops could be elected and when mandatory retirement takes effect. Five changes in the Discipline create a more flexible approach to filling vacancies. One creates a more uniform policy for addressing elections and mandatory retirements.
Paragraph 522 authorizes the council of bishops to call, by a simple majority vote, special sessions of a jurisdictional conference to enable new episcopal elections whenever an episcopal office becomes permanently vacant for any reason. Previously, a 2/3 vote would be required if the vacancy occurred after the first two years of a bishop assuming office in the episcopal area. This two-year rule had applied only in the United States. Its abolition also makes for a more uniform process of holding elections between sessions of the General Conference.
Paragraphs 406.1 and 406.2 address the effective date of episcopal assignments. In the United States, that date is now either September 1 or 50 days following the jurisdictional conference. This change recognizes the possibility that jurisdictional colleges could be delayed or held at other times of the year for a variety of reasons. In the central conferences, the central conferences themselves determine the date of assignment, provided it should generally occur within 90 days of the election. These changes give both greater clarity about expected norms and flexibility when unexpected circumstances occur.
An issue emerged during this past quadrennium about how to provide for episcopal leadership if a bishop were suspended from office while the subject of a complaint process. The Discipline had not previously directly addressed that question, limiting itself to situations in which a bishops dies, retires, resigns, is terminated from assignment, or is on leave of absence or medical leave. To cover all such instances that could create vacancies, and to address this with the greatest flexibility, Paragraph 407 now includes suspension "or other kinds" of interruptions on the list, and allows the bishops to assign either one or more active or retired bishops to fulfill this role.
The pandemic also revealed a lack of clarity about the age standard for determining whether someone was eligible to stand for election or to serve another term as bishop in the United States. The 2016 General Conference had already made the language clearer for bishops and episcopal candidates in the central conferences. Here is the new language for the United States: "Mandatory retirement for bishops is age seventy-two. An episcopal candidate or continuing active bishop shall be no older than sixty-eight on or before September 1 in the year in which the jurisdictional conference is held. The date of retirement shall be September 1 in the year a jurisdictional conference is held."
Greater equity and equality among bishops worldwide
United Methodists have been working for many years to bring greater equity to the compensation and retirement care of bishops outside the United States. The new Paragraph 549.1 ends what had been a two-tier pension program affecting bishops in central conferences serving on a term basis rather than for life. Before this, all bishops for life would receive a pension from the Global Episcopal Pension Fund, while those in central conferences with term episcopacy would receive an allowance from a fund administered by GCFA. Now, all bishops everywhere, serving a term episcopacy or a lifetime episcopacy, are guaranteed a pension from the Global Episcopal Pension Fund administered by Wespath.
In a similar more toward equity among United Methodist bishops, the same process now applies worldwide for approving the expenses of official travel by bishops: the college of bishops of which that bishop is a member makes these approvals. Previously, only the colleges of bishops in the United States had this role. GCFA would approve travel expenses for all central conference bishops. Now, per the renumbered Paragraph 819.5, this role is given to colleges of bishops in the central conferences as well.
Two other changes give more potential voice to bishops outside the United States in the life of the denomination. Per the revised and renumbered Paragraph 512.1.d, two bishops from two different continents named by the Council of Bishops will now serve on the General Conference Commission with voice. Previously only one bishop served in this role, which is critical in the planning of the General Conference, including its worship services for which the bishops are responsible. The composition of the Executive Committee of the Commission is likewise modified to include these two bishops (Paragraph 512.3.a).
Enhancing policies relating to supervision and involuntary retirement of bishops
While the 2024 General Conference may be most known for removing regulations of various kinds, with respect to bishops, it added a good number of new regulations about their supervision and processes to remove them from active service.
There is now a direct line between the findings of the quadrennial evaluations of bishops by their jurisdictional or central conference committee on episcopacy and the accountability and mutual support of bishops by their colleagues withing their colleges. The 2024 General Conference added language to Paragraph 412 to state that where any issues are identified by the quadrennial evaluation of the relevant committee on episcopacy that the committee believe require further follow-up, the committee will notify the all members of that college of bishops of the issues involved and the college or the bishop involved will provide quarterly reports to the committee on the progress made in addressing those issues.
Jurisdictional (though not central conference) episcopacy committees are now also mandated to maintain supervisory records for every bishop within them (new Paragraph 525.3.j). Apparently there had been some concern that bishops were not being sufficiently supervised by the jurisdictional committees in part because such supervisory records did not necessarily exist. As of January 2025, in the United States at least, they will.
Responding to confusion created by several complaint processes involving bishops over the past three quadrennia, changes to Paragraph 408.3 underscore that when a jurisdictional or central conference committee on episcopacy determines to place a bishop in involuntary retirement, that decision is not subject to nor reviewable by that jurisdiction's or central conference's administrative review committee. As with all administrative processes, a bishop unwillingly placed in involuntary retirement has retains the right of appeal.
In a similar fashion, the 2024 Discipline added a detailed process the Council of Bishops may follow to place another bishop into involuntary retirement or involuntary leave (Paragraphs 408.3.c, 410.5 a-c, 422.5.a-b and 422.6). The last of these requires the creation of a three-person administrative review committee made up of persons not part of the executive committee or the council relations committee to ensure that all procedures involved in an involuntary change of status of an active bishop by the Council of Bishops were followed.
Finally, a sentence was added to the provision allowing for a second 120-day extension of the supervisory process in a complaint against a bishop (Paragraph 413.3.b). While the original petition called for the jurisdictional or central conference committee on episcopacy to develop written protocols for the supervisory response process, the legislative committee chose to give that role instead to each college of bishops.
The net effects of these changes are to create clearer and better-documented processes by which bishops can be removed from active service whether by the jurisdictional or central conference committee on episcopacy or the Council of Bishops itself as well as to open clearer lines of communication regarding progress on improvement plans those committees may recommend.
Burton Edwards serves as Lead, Ask The UMC, the information service of United Methodist Communications.
