Ballot #4: The Amendment No One is Talking About

by

Special to United Methodist Insight | May 7, 2025

Do United Methodists need another constitutionally mandated entity?

United Methodists are voting on four constitutional amendment ballots this year. Three of them have garnered significant attention. The first ballot pertains to the package of legislation regarding worldwide regionalization. The second ballot pertains to inclusion in church membership, and the third strengthens the church’s stance against racism and colonialism. Church members interested in learning more about these constitutional amendments can easily find videos and articles making their case. But what about Ballot #4?  

Ballot #4 is the constitutional amendment no one is talking about. The fourth ballot amends paragraph 35, Article IV (what is now paragraph 36 of the Book of Discipline 2020/2024), which states who is eligible to elect “clergy delegates to the General Conference and to the jurisdictional conference or central conference.” The amendment, submitted by the United Methodist Board of Higher Education and Ministry, specifies the entity responsible for determining the education required for licensed local pastors to participate in clergy delegate elections in the United States. The proposed amendment to this rather arcane provision, however, is deeply problematic.

Here is the proposed amendment:  

¶ 35. Article IV. The clergy delegates to the General Conference and to the jurisdictional or central conference shall be elected from the clergy members in full connection and shall be elected by the clergy members of the annual conference or provisional annual conference who are deacons and elders in full connection, associate members, and those provisional members who have completed all of their educational requirements and local pastors who have completed course of study or an M. Div. Master of Divinity degree from a University Senate-approved theological school or its equivalent as recognized in a central conference and have served a minimum of two consecutive years under appointment immediately preceding the election.  

Note that it is not the degree requirement that this proposal would amend. The requirement of a Master of Divinity (M. Div.) degree is already in the Constitution.

There are several problems with Ballot #4. First, the amendment compounds specificity with further specificity. A Constitution should be lean. It should contain no more detail than is necessary to constitute the organization for its stated purpose. The paragraph in question needs fewer details, not more. Second, the amendment is US-centric, which is inappropriate for the Constitution of a global church. Specific educational requirements for local pastors vary between conferences around the world. Third, the amendment touches on a fundamental aspect of constitutional law: Which entities constitute The United Methodist Church? And, specifically in reference to Ballot #4, would the University Senate become a constitutionally mandated entity?

What does Ballot #4 accomplish, then? The amended part names the entity with the authority (and responsibility) to determine which schools may legitimately offer this degree for licensed local pastors in the United States. Ballot #4 would add the words “from a University Senate-approved theological school” to this paragraph about who is eligible to participate in clergy delegate elections in the US jurisdictions. For those outside the United States, the amendment adds, “or its equivalent as recognized in a central conference.” The ambiguity of the antecedent to “its” serves only to underscore the primary intent of Ballot #4. 

The primary implication of this amendment is to name the University Senate as the entity with the authority to approve a school’s Master of Divinity degree in the United States. The Constitution is an inappropriate place to establish this entity’s authority.

The entities constitutionally necessary to the UMC are named, defined, and described in the Constitution: General Conference, jurisdictional conferences, central conferences, annual conferences, district conferences, charge conferences, bishops, and Judicial Council. Conversely, those entities that are not named and whose responsibilities are not described are not mandated by the Constitution.

On a practical level, this means that specific general agencies, committees, commissions, and caucuses are not required by the UMC’s Constitution. General Conference is given the power “to initiate and direct all connectional enterprises of the Church and to provide boards for their promotion and administration” (para. 17.8.). However, neither the General Council on Finance and Administration, Global Ministries, Discipleship Ministries, the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry (under which the University Senate currently operates), nor any other agencies or departments or divisions—no matter their perceived importance to the operation of the UMC—are constitutionally mandated.

General Conference has the power to establish and disestablish any of these entities as it initiates and directs the connectional enterprises of the UMC. However, if annual conference members vote in favor of Ballot #4, the University Senate would then have standing as a constitutional entity. At least in this specific role, the University Senate would no longer be amenable to General Conference—or even the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry—but would derive its authority directly from the Constitution.

No other board, agency, or committee provided by General Conference for the administration of its work is ascribed any responsibility or authority within the UMC’s Constitution. Amending para. 35/36 to constitutionalize a specific function of the University Senate is a bit of an overstep, isn’t it?

This implication presents a significant problem for the Constitution of the UMC. At the very least, Ballot #4 deserves informed conversation and thoughtful debate. The burden of proof is on those who support this amendment. I recommend voting against Ballot #4 unless a strong case is made otherwise. These are my thoughts. I welcome yours.

NOTE:  Dr. Stephens offers this addendum to his recommendation:

The better alternative would be a different amendment, which is unfortunately not an available option at this time since Ballot 4 must be voted on without change. Ballot 4 compounds specificity with further specificity.

The requirement of a Master of Divinity (M. Div.) degree is an unhelpful level of detail in the Constitution. The appropriate place to specify educational requirements for pastors is in Part VI of the Discipline, “Organization and Administration,” since educational requirements vary regionally. I propose deleting the specificity in para. 35/36 by perfecting it to read, “and local pastors who have completed all of their educational requirements and have served a minimum of two consecutive years under appointment immediately preceding the election.”

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.