Jonathan LeMaster-Smith

Decision 1494 reminds the bishops that they should not overstep their role as episcopal officers in offering either legislative or judicial solutions related to matters of law. These decisions are reserved for The General Conference and Judicial Council, respectively.

This has not been the first decision in history to remind bishops of their role and not to overstep it. Decision 1368 reminded us that bishops cannot decide who to ordain. What we are seeing is an increased reminder of the limited power of the bishops.
.
True, Bishop Carcaño’s trial upholds some authority of the bishops, it also reminds us that people are increasingly less fond of bishops and the roles they tend to hold in Annual Conferences and the church at large. Moreover, throughout the legislation presented at this General Conference and throughout the recommendations from Jurisidictional Committees on Episcopacy, there seems to be move to reduce the number of bishops and to spread them out.

Sure, we could say this is a money thing, and we just can’t afford this many bishops, but we are capitalist enough to vote with our money. If we truly wanted a bishop for each annual conference, we would move the money elsewhere. What we’re seeing is a greater move to connectional governance. Cabinets, conference agencies, and conference staff are governing and managing conferences more than the bishops.

While I cannot predict the future, I see the role of the bishop getting smaller as the area they cover increases. In fact, should The UMC survive another 50-100 years we may move from an episcopal system to a more, say, presidential or parliamentary system. The single point of authority is something we were weary of in 1784 with John Wesley attempting to maintain control in the US church. We may be weary now in a time where power and control are on our minds with disaffiliation and colonization.