QUESTION FIVE: Can a jurisdictional conference be convened in a special session to elect bishops?
The Role of the “Conference” in Church Life and Governance
Among Methodists, the word “conference” has multiple meanings. We use it to refer to meetings that are convened periodically to transact church business, celebrate liturgies, and elect leaders. We also use it to refer to a body of persons whose church membership is in a conference whether or not that conference is actually meeting in session. We even use it as a means of grace.
In The United Methodist Church, under its Constitution, “conference” is multivalent. An Annual Conference is a body of members: laity, who are elected by the local churches of which
they are members; and clergy, who are elected by clergy members but are not members of local churches. A General Conference is a meeting of delegates in a session. A Church Conference is a
meeting of members of a local church to elect officers, receive reports, and make decisions of
various kinds. As members, or a meeting, or both, each “conference” functions differently.
United Methodists often confuse the meanings and uses of “conference.” Someone might mention a lay person from a local church who is a “delegate” to the Annual Conference. But the Annual Conference does not have “delegates,” since it only has members. Or someone might say a clergy or lay person is a “member” of General Conference. But General Conference does not have “members.” General Conference only has “delegates” sent by an Annual Conference.
An “Annual Conference” is an organic body that exists whether or not it happens to be in a session. The “General Conference,” a “Jurisdictional Conference,” or a “Central Conference” only exists when, as an assembly of delegates, it is meeting to conduct business established by the Constitution or authorized by church law for such sessions.
A Brief History of the Jurisdictional Conference
The jurisdictional conference is a relative newcomer to the systems of governance that Methodists devised. It was added as a new layer of church structure in 1939, when a reunion of three Methodist churches established The Methodist Church. It was continued when that church merged with the Evangelical United Brethren to form The United Methodist Church.
The merger that created The United Methodist Church in 1968 established governance systems with nearly identical entities known as “jurisdictional” and “central” conferences. But
they are not entirely identical. The jurisdictional conferences in the United States1 and central
conferences outside of the United States2 have similar responsibilities, but different histories. One started as an institutionalized form of the racially segregated, white supremacist values that drove social life, political structures, and cultural patterns in the United States. The other showed attitudes embraced by many Americans with regard to the world beyond the United States.
The jurisdictional conference was created as part of the reunion of northern and southern Methodist denominations with Methodist Protestants. These three churches had separated in 19th century schisms over slavery and systems of church governance. They reunited as The Methodist Church in 1939.
In achieving institutional reunion, they adhered to the patterns of white supremacy and racial segregation in the United States. To do that, they added a new kind of “conference” to the ecclesiastical order and divided the church into six “jurisdictions” in the United States.
Five of the jurisdictions were defined regionally.3 One jurisdiction was defined racially, namely the Central Jurisdiction, which became the governing jurisdiction for all the Black annual conferences, Black local churches, and Black clergy in the United States. The responsibility for electing bishops was shifted from the General Conference to the six jurisdictional conferences, thereby ensuring that bishops would be selected and assigned in a racially segregated manner.
Outside of the United States, “central conferences” were established. They reflected a colonialist mindset from a missionary era. A bishop elected by a central conference in Africa, for example, could participate fully in the global Council of Bishops only “whenever the interest of his Central Conference or the interests common to all Central Conferences are involved.”4
The Methodist Church in 1939 understood its presence beyond the United States as an extension of American Methodism, not an expression of indigenous Methodism. When western colonial empires ebbed, the colonial mindset in the church began to wane. Bishops of Central Conferences became full members of the Council of Bishops.5 Some Methodist churches in the nations outside the United States left to establish national churches. And Methodists in Liberia considered creating their own national church,6 though they eventually chose not to do so.
It remains clear that jurisdictional and central conferences were launched in an era of white supremacy and western superiority. The structure that was created for The Methodist Church in 1939 was an expression of those mindsets.
In the formation of The United Methodist Church in 1968, there was a determination to overcome racial segregation and diminish colonialism. The jurisdictions continued, but without de jure segregation. The central conferences continued, yet provisions in church law and clauses in the Constitution treat them differently. For instance, the Constitution sets the boundaries of jurisdictional conferences and gives their annual conferences a vote in any boundary change. But General Conference can change the boundaries of a central conference merely by its own vote.7
Jurisdictional Conferences in United Methodism Now
A currently vexing question that concerns the “jurisdictional” conferences in The United Methodist Church today involves the circumstances under which a “jurisdictional conference” can meet in a special session. And, if it may do so, can such a special session elect bishops?
Jurisdictional conferences hold regular sessions every four years, according to customary practices. During the era of The Methodist Church, ecclesial law required that they meet after a General Conference session. Indeed, the Doctrines and Discipline of The Methodist Church said jurisdictional conferences were to be convened within twelve months after a session of General Conference. That law existed for the entire history of The Methodist Church.8 But no such law was part of the merger when The United Methodist Church began. And none exists currently.
Instead of connecting the convening date of jurisdictional conferences to a session of the General Conference, The United Methodist Church assigns responsibility for setting the date to the global Council of Bishops. According to the Constitution, all jurisdictional conferences must convene in regular session on the same day, which is specified by the Council of Bishops.9
But church law allows any jurisdictional conference to have a special session. The 2016 Discipline specifies two possible ways to call such a special session. One is that a jurisdictional conference itself could schedule a special session, though it would have to be in session in order to do so. The other is that the College of Bishops “shall have authority to call a special session of the jurisdictional conference when necessary.”10 This provision of law does not further define the phrase “when necessary.” A necessity is determined at the discretion of the College of Bishops.
To be clear, this provision in ¶ 521 is a matter of church law, as enacted by the General Conference, by a simple majority vote. It is different from Division Two, Section IV, Article IV, in the United Methodist Constitution, which establishes that all jurisdictional conferences shall be convened on a date determined by the Council of Bishops. The legislation in ¶ 521 does not provide any role for the Council of Bishops—just the College of Bishops in a jurisdiction.
In effect, church law allows a jurisdictional conference to be convened for some specific purpose(s) on a date designated in the call for a special session by the regional body that issues the call. Having a special session is a lawful act.11 The body that calls a special session—i.e., the College of Bishops or the jurisdictional conference—would specify the purpose(s) of the special session in the call. When it meets in a special session, the jurisdictional conference conducts the business for which it was called and for which it has authority. And that authority is the same, whether the session is regular or special.
Among the authorizations given by the Constitution to a jurisdictional conference, two are most prominent. One is electing bishops. The other is determining the names, numbers, and boundaries of annual conferences. A special session can be called for either of those matters or for any other constitutionally authorized work.
Paragraph 521.2 is one long, complex sentence. The General Conference does not do the church any favors when it enacts items into grammatically complex church laws, like ¶ 521.2. In writing legislation, the General Conference should hold itself accountable to approve acts that are written clearly and that can be translated clearly into the multiple official languages of the church.
In its complex grammar, the law makes an important distinction. Paragraph 521.2, in a single sentence, has three clauses: one is main; two are subordinate. The primary clause sets the threshold that has to be reached by the College of Bishops—a two-thirds vote—at which the College "shall have authority to call a special session of the jurisdictional conference." The two subordinate clauses have "provided" details regarding certain circumstances for some special sessions.
The subordinate clauses cite unusual circumstances that may create a vacancy in the College of Bishops and may permit the jurisdictional episcopacy committee to consider recommending some changes in episcopal assignments besides the area where the vacancy arose. Very importantly, the "provided" conditions are permissive, because they use the word "may." However, the main clause uses the word “shall.”
In the jargon of The Book of Discipline, the word “shall” is equivalent to the word “must.” And in the jargon of The Book of Discipline, the word “may” permits an action to be taken, if the body with authority to take such action chooses to do so, without mandating that the action occur.
Thus, ¶ 521.2, in its confusing grammar, adds subordinate provisions to the main authority that the College of Bishops "shall have" according to the main clause of the sentence. The College of Bishops “shall have authority” to call a special session by a two-thirds vote. However, the College, facing specific conditions, “may” exercise—by a simple majority vote—permission to call such a special session on rather short notice. To call a special session, the Discipline mandates a two-thirds vote by the College of Bishops. To call a special session in certain specified situations, the College is allowed to issue the call on very short notice if a simple majority of the College wishes to do so.
The two items that are "provided" in subordinate clauses to the primary clause involve very specific circumstances. They add details that are "provided" in an unusual set of events. And they are permissive, not mandatory. These points are critical and deserve to be emphasized.
- In the main clause, the College of Bishops “shall have” authority to call a special session only if two-thirds of the College of Bishops agrees to call it.
- In one subordinate clause, the College of Bishops "may by majority vote" convene a special session in a relatively short time period. The "majority vote" applies only to the time period that says a meeting can be convened within three months, with notice of at least thirty days. This permissive provision applies to time limits only.
- In the other subordinate clause, the jurisdictional committee on episcopacy "may" recommend rearrangement of the episcopal assignments. The jurisdictional conference delegates would still have to approve any changes in assignments.
Paragraph 521.2, in its complex grammar, contains separate parts that have distinct relevance. Just because the subordinate clauses exist, they do not alter the main clause in the paragraph. It is still within the authority of the College of Bishops, by a two-thirds vote, to call a special session for any purpose within the authority of the jurisdictional conference “when necessary.” The College of Bishops must designate the purpose of the special session.
And the designated purpose could be the election of one or more bishops.
The subordinate clauses add permissions to the lawful authority of the College. If, by a vote of two-thirds, the College of Bishops calls a special session of a jurisdictional conference for the purpose of electing one or more bishops, such action is lawful. The College of Bishops “shall have” that authority. If the unusual events cited in ¶ 521.2 occur, the College of Bishops could set a date for that special session on rather short notice by taking a separate vote, but a simple majority is enough to approve the short notice.
Having Authority and Exercising Authority
In many human endeavors, it is vital to distinguish having a capacity to do something from
exercising the capacity to do something. Just because a community, a corporation, or a country has
the ability to engage in an action does not necessarily mean it should take the action.
The College of Bishops in a jurisdiction could call a special session of the jurisdictional conference for the purpose of electing one or more bishops. However, in defining the threshold that requires two-thirds of the College of Bishops to favor such a call, church law increases the difficulty of issuing such a call. That alone inserts a word of caution into the consideration.
However, apart from that, the Discipline does not provide any criteria or guidelines to help the College of Bishops discern whether to call a special session. The only stipulation in the church law is that the College of Bishops “shall have authority” to do so “when necessary.” The bishops in a jurisdiction will have to use all of their spiritual, intellectual, emotional, and political wisdom as they seek to discern if any given moment is actually the moment “when [it is] necessary” to call a special session.
1 See the Constitution: Division Two, Section IV, Articles I-V; and Division Two, Section VII, Articles I-IV. They are published as ¶¶ 23-27, 37-40, in the 2016 Discipline. See also the enactments of church law by the General Conference in legislation published as Part VI, Chapter Four, Section II, ¶¶ 512-539 in the 2016 Discipline.
2 See the Constitution: Division Two, Section V, Articles I-IV; and Division Two, Section VII, Article IV. They are published as ¶¶ 28-31, 40, in the 2016 Discipline. See also the enactments of church law by the General Conference in legislation published as Part II, ¶ 101, and Part VI, Chapter Four, Section III, ¶¶ 540-548 in the 2016 Discipline.
3 Two of them, the Southeastern and South Central, adhere roughly to the boundaries of The Methodist Episcopal Church, South. The other three adhere roughly to the boundaries of The Methodist Episcopal Church.
4 Doctrines and Discipline of The Methodist Church 1939 ¶ 449
5 The Constitution of The Methodist Church, Division Five, Amendment VI (April 19, 1956), published as ¶ 45 in the Doctrines and Discipline of The Methodist Church 1960. See also ¶ 444, op. cit.
6 Memorial to the 1964 General Conference of The Methodist Church, February 27, 1963, from the Liberia Annual Conference, published in The Methodist Experience in America: Volume II, A Sourcebook, Russell E. Richey, Kenneth E. Rowe, Jean Miller Schmidt, eds. (Nashville: Abingdon, 2000), pages 595-597. Some Methodists thought that the Liberia Annual Conference should belong to the Central Jurisdiction in the United States. Judicial Council Decision 128 ruled that such a configuration was impermissible.
7 Division Two, Section II, Article IV, and Section V, Article I, published as ¶¶ 16.12 and 28 in the 2016 Discipline.
8 Doctrines and Discipline of The Methodist Church 1939 ¶ 429. The same law existed for the central conferences in
¶ 454. Both remained in the last edition of Doctrines and Disciplines of The Methodist Church 1964, in ¶ 520 for the jurisdictional conferences and ¶ 545 for the central conferences.
9 Division Two, Section, IV, Article IV, published as in the 2016 Discipline.
10 Paragraph 521.2 in the 2016 Discipline.
11 The Judicial Council could be asked, at some point, whether this provision of law is constitutional.
The Rev. Dr. William B. Lawrence is an ordained elder of The United Methodist Church, former dean of Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University and former president of the Judicial Council. This essay is republished with permission from the website of UMC Conferencing, an unofficial group of concerned United Methodists seeking fresh leadership for the denomination.