Ballot #4: Talking Points Against the Amendment

A Response to Higher Education and Ministry

by

Special to United Methodist Insight | May 19, 2025

United Methodists are voting on constitutional amendments this year. I support all but Ballot #4. In response to my effort to spark conversation about this amendment (United Methodist Insight, May 7, 2025), the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry (GBHEM) issued talking points in support of the amendment, May 10. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that Ballot #4 is redundant, inappropriate, and unnecessary.

Ballot #4 is redundant. This amendment to paragraph 35, Article IV (what is now paragraph 36 of the Book of Discipline 2020/2024), states who is eligible to elect “clergy delegates to the General Conference and to the jurisdictional conference or central conference.” The amendment does not change the eligibilty of licensed local pastors to vote on clergy delegates. The educational standards for licensed local pastors are already stated in paragraph 602.1.d.

Ballot #4 is inappropriate. GBHEM asserts that the amendment “creates uniform educational standards for voting clergy across the global church.” In fact, it does not. Rather, the amendment clarifies which entity is responsible for determining whether a Master of Divinity degree earned by a licensed local pastor in the region of the UMC located in the United States satisfies the educational requirements of the UMC.

Within the worldwide UMC, the various geographical regions (currently central conferences) set the educational standards in their context. In the United States (which becomes a “region” after passage of Ballot #1), educational standards are set by the University Senate (para. 602.1.d). In other regions of the UMC, those standards are set by equivalent bodies, presumably indicated in the appropriately adapted version of the Discipline in each region.

Since the educational standards are set regionally, they are by definition “adaptable” and not constitutional. Thus, “University Senate-approved theological education” is not the denominational standard. On the contrary, it is the regional standard for the UMC in the United States. It is inappropriate for the constitution to speak on matters that vary regionally.

Ballot #4 is unnecessary. It is not necessary for the constitution to include details about educational requirements for licensed local pastors. After all, the same paragraph mentions “provisional members who have completed all of their educational requirements” without specifying those educational requirements or which entity is responsible for making that determination. The necessary detail is found in other parts of the Discipline, adaptable by region.

Ballot #4 compounds specificity with specificity, creating the potential for unanticipated juridical problems in the UMC. The denomination’s constitution should be lean and clean. United Methodists would be better served by voting “no” on Ballot #4.

The Rev. Darryl W. Stephens, PhD, an ordained deacon, is a professor at Lancaster Theological Seminary, in Lancaster, PA. and Director of United Methodist Studies and Director of the Pennsylvania Academy of Ministry there. He serves on the executive committee of the Board of Ordained Ministry in the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference of the UMC.