Unfortunate Start to Episcopacy in the GMC

Why I'm already worried at this new start

*Edit the day after original publication - Many have taken comfort to learn that this article was written after a series of one-on-one conversations with GMC leadership. Nobody in leadership should have been surprised to learn that I am concerned about these things when I published this article. I only wrote this article because I determined that my concerns were not being addressed, the Convening Conference approaches quickly, and I wanted to make sure the standard regarding transparency had ample time to be addressed by all concerned parties, so that hopefully we can have a shared commitment to a common way of life. I realize there are many other matters to attend to. However, I think this matter is paramount.

The GMC Has a Problem

I am not entitled to speak with anyone. I’m not a voice of authority in the new Global Methodist Church. I’m a small town pastor, contentedly so, bearing very meager fruit in a place few know or care about. When I started PlainSpoken, it was to try to minister to people in similar situations as mine, connecting them with accurate information so they could make informed choices. I have been pleased to learn of the role that my effort has played in the lives of many people and their local churches in the past couple of years. The results have been largely what I intended, by God’s grace.

A big part of what I do is interviews. Well, I don’t think they are properly considered interviews, as I talk a lot. I have called them “conversations” because that is what they are. They are authentic attempts to connect with people who love Jesus and the Methodist tradition. It has largely gone well, even in conversations with people who see things very differently from me.

These conversations have been quite successful, some of them getting more than 20K views on YouTube, plus additional exposure on Facebook, Substack, and Rumble. For better or worse, my platform has become an effective means of giving average people access to the people who steering the Global Methodist Church. Folks like Tom Lambrecht (the new General Conference Secretary), Jeff Pospisil (the outgoing CFO), Robert Worthington (the incoming CFO), Bishop Scott Jones, and even Keith Boyette have had edifying and beneficial conversations with me, viewed by thousands of folks.

When the nine episcopal candidates were published by the GMC a few weeks ago, I immediately reached out to all nine, thinking each would be eager to be known by the constituency of our new denomination. As I detailed in a Facebook post the day after, the GMC’s Communications office immediately informed the candidates that they should not do interviews with anyone. This was ostensibly to avoid the impression of campaigning. I was informed by many of the candidates that they were effectively muzzled and would not accept my invitation without first getting the permission of Communications.

The Transitional Leadership Commission (TLC) of the GMC, the executive governing body of the denomination, met to discuss the presenting issues: 1) How to present each of the candidates fairly and equally for consideration by the GMC constituency, and 2) How to avoid the impression of politicking that was so often seen in the UMC we came out of. That conversation should have yielded a decision to bless the candidates in speaking to whoever they want, including me. Instead, their plan seems to be an attempt at a perfectly equal level of controlled, scripted exposure to the people of the GMC. An interview is up, and it has me feeling very concerned (it has since been taken down). I’ll address that later in this article, but first, I want to address the two concerned that the TLC and others have raised to show why their decided path is not for the benefit of the body.

Fairness is Not Possible

It is just fine to have a concern for fairness. Even so, such a concern readily becomes ridiculous. I have five children. Every birthday is hard. One child gets all the gifts and special treatment while the others get none. When a birthday comes around, the birthday child struggles against the urge to compare his or her gifts against those given to another child. Now, this is understandable among children. Adults, on the other hand, have had all their lives to reckon with the reality that things are not fair, nor can it be.

In the short story Harrison Bergeron, a dystopian future makes all people equal by putting weights on the strong and messed up glasses on those who can see well. When a man of supreme abilities finally starts flying, they shoot and kill him because equality must be maintained. This story functions to show just how farcical and harmful is the notion of absolute equality in all things. The dream of redistributive intervention from administrative agencies is not only fictitious, but it often results in more harm than good, as the history of both fascism and communism readily shows.

The situation between episcopal candidates is already very unequal, and there is nothing the TLC or anyone else can do to make it remotely equal. Here are some inequities I see:

1. Some of the candidates already have very public images. They are very active on social media, and some of them have posted about their candidacy on their social media pages. Some have much more name recognition than the others.

2. Five candidates who were legitimately elected by the annual conferences were quietly dismissed by the TLC.

3. More can be nominated later on, but they will miss out on all of the press that many have enjoyed thus far.

These inequities surely have implications that will not be undone by TLC intervention at this point. How could they be?

Politics is Inevitable

The notion that we are going to somehow avoid politics is odd and unserious at the same time. Politics happens in any grouping of people. This is how identity is negotiated and group decisions are reached. The issue isn’t politics per se, but the sort of dysfunctional politics that we saw in the UMC.

How would we characterize such politics? I would say the process was poisoned by good old boy networks, backroom deals, and quotas. Good old boy networks are constituted by certain persons who elevate themselves to positions of authority and influence. Though they may or may not have official titles or capacities, they see themselves as power brokers of sorts. The problem is that their way of doing calculus is often petty and self-serving, and the place where they do their work is behind closed doors (translation: unaccountable).

The notion that episcopal candidates in the United Methodist Church, the tribe we left, did their politicking out in front of everyone, speaking to the people generally, doesn’t correspond with reality. Rather, each would tailor his or her own public image in a friendly setting (their local church), and then have their people advocate for them on the conference boards, agencies, and committees on which they served. I can’t think of a single episcopal candidate in the UMC that benefited from doing a public interview. If anything, interviews have hurt candidates who cannot relate on a personal level with an interviewer, who cannot answer a question without looking at a script or uttering a vague inoffensive truism.

I have spoken with people who have described the process for pushing an episcopal candidate in the UMC. It was all about networking, positioning with influential people, and posturing with the voting body behind closed doors. What I’m proposing, a democratized, populist, open process, flies in the face of such behavior. What I am proposing would be the antidote to the kind of toxic behavior we saw in the UMC. The fact that they have effectively created a stink about long form unscripted interviews as somehow unfair…makes no sense. I would be surprised if many think this is a serious threat.

Why Transparency & Extemporaneous Engagement is Essential

The United Methodist Church is a case study in institutional capture, and what it looks like when a denominational structure is indifferent to a hostile takeover by an ideology that is actually aligned against them. This should be the #1 concern of people coming out of such a mess: We cannot reproduce the same institutional dynamics that allowed for such dysfunction.

The concern here is that people can and will find themselves in positions of great influence and power who are actually aligned against the interests of the people they ostensibly serve and represent. At present, many want to believe that all of our leadership is of such a caliber that asking them to be vulnerable and available on the level of an unscripted interview is somehow inappropriate. My clear call for such a measure has been construed as somehow an attack on the character of people in charge. It isn’t. I’m pushing back against a SYSTEM, a certain understanding of how power does and should work in group dynamics. Those who are advocating for the system I’m attacking might feel personally attacked, but I am not attacking them. I am attacking a system that I think will further deplete the trust of those who have already been damaged by the UMC and potentially do great damage to the future growth and integrity of the GMC. It may be that the leadership of the GMC is of much higher caliber and quality than what we saw in the UMC. If that is the case, then we should be able to see it. We aren’t going to be able to see it if the leadership is moderated.

I think a Chief Communications Officer is absolutely needed. I appreciate someone stepping up to do the job. I question very strongly if the person in the role should be in a position to tell people who they can speak to or what they can say. This is what is currently happening in the GMC. It does not bode well for our future. I want the broader body of the GMC to think about these things and make a decision quickly and now about if they want information to be controlled through a central entity at the top. Is this what we want or need? I fully support the GMC to be whatever it wants to be. I worry, however, that unelected people at the top are claiming authority that the general population of the GMC actually don’t want them to have. I don’t see how to remedy that situation except to call attention to it and try to foster a conversation about it. I hope folks can engage this without being defensive or nasty.

Why This Matters

This is not just about PlainSpoken, or even just about broader media access to leadership. The problem it creates and maintains is that of chilled and conditioned speech. It creates norms that trickle down to local churches. It becomes a justification for our churches being less than forthcoming about important information for our people. When we learn to see it as acceptable to interlope in discourse this way, it has a demoralizing effect on the connexion.

Moderation seems innocent enough, but the impact it has is huge. It will become increasingly normal for people not to know what is going on. Those who shrug this off and see it as unimportant can just mark my words. I’m trying to warn you, just like I have been all along…

Corporate Culture

The rejoinder when I talk about these things is often, “Well, this is just how things are done in the corporate world,” or “This is how things are done in my church.”

One, I’m not sure that is at all relevant to the current question. Corporations are faddish. Most fail. Very few have staying power. They are worldly institutions bent first and foremost on making money. It is a completely different market setup than the church. Our understanding of power, purpose, and interpersonal dynamics should be different from corporate culture.

Two, these rejoinders sound an awful lot like the last cry of a dying church: “We have always done things this way!” A little self-awareness might help here, folks. What we have learned isn’t great. We need to start from what we believe and make sure that what we build expresses that. Do we really believe that our church is best served by moderating discourse? Should we really have people at the top who decide what the people should know and when? I have a hard time believing that many in the GMC actually want what we are getting with respect to the control of information.

Not Going to Comply

It was made clear to me several months ago that I was to go through official GMC channels to get access to people who receive a paycheck from the institution. For a time, I was hopeful that this process could be carried out quickly and efficiently. Of course, if that had been the case, I wouldn’t be writing this.

Rather, I have put in requests to visit with several GMC officials, all of which have been denied. I was able to visit with Keith Boyette, but that was by his own decision. Moreover, when I reached out to the candidates and leadership told them not to speak, they made clear they have no intention to facilitate discourse. If they had called to work out how we could collaborate and avoid pitfalls, that would be one thing. But if a private email goes out to ghost me, well, actions speak louder than words.

Moreover, one does not end an unhelpful dynamic by participating in it. The problem is interference in free speech. The answer is just to continue to speak freely. As my free speech continues to rub up against those who would control, eventually the mechanisms of control will change, or I will be forced out. I am, of course, hoping for the former. I can’t let my fear of the latter silence me into complicity with what I see as a clear violation of the consensus loyalty to transparency and accountability that I see taking place right now.

Case in Point

My idea for interviews is a good one. I feel great about the interviews I have done. I have been able to connect with a wide variety of people from across the world, highlighting the strengths and differences of each person. I have no doubt that such an effort on my part with the current candidates would yield great clarity about who is of such a disposition to lead us for two years.

The GMC leadership knows my idea is a good one, so they took it. Dianne Burnett has published the first of a series of interviews with the candidates, this one being with Rev. Greg Stover. I find myself confused as to why they think the format is helpful. It is scripted. Stover had no surprises as to what was coming. He was looking off screen a lot of the time to remember his lines. If the purpose is to get to know someone and to see what kind of person they are, why would it be helpful to have a staged production in which what is said could just as easily be typed up and published in writing?

I also couldn’t help but notice there was a good deal of what I think pretty easily qualifies as politicking in this interview. Rev. Stover said phrases like, “As bishop, I will….” I thought we were trying to avoid such behavior? Now the leadership is facilitating it? The video has been taken down for the time being, so I cannot confirm exact phrasing, but more than once I was given the distinct impression that Rev. Stover sounded like a politician. Some of it was the phrasing, but a lot of it was also the framing and scripting of the setup. It is galling to be refused for a stated reason that is then explicitly undone by denominational leadership.

I have heard from many I trust that Rev. Stover is a fantastic candidate for bishop, and I am sure we would be blessed to have him. Even so, I am very concerned about the nature of this interview and the impression it has given of him. It would not have gone that way if I had been unobstructed and he had assented to an interview. This is an unfortunate byproduct of this level of control.

I’m concerned by how many in leadership do not seem to understand the role and function of long form unscripted interviews. When people are willing to deceive others by presenting a false image (and we know many are), then the only way to get a sense of who you are dealing with is by watching them in an environment in which they cannot so easily get by on a facade, an affect, an image. For people who have been burned by dishonest and overreaching episcopal power, they need to see that the person in question has principles, has a theological framework they can lean upon, has an ability to understand and work alongside normal people. These are things that only an unscripted interview can suss out.

It is true that some people are such gifted chameleons that they can get through such an effort. The question is not if we have a foolproof way of identifying phonies, but if we are even trying. On the ground level, we need to see that our boards of ministry are going to do better than those where we came from. At the top, we need to see that same commitment toward protecting the body.

When people find this concern threatening, I don’t know how to view that charitably. If a person has been sanctified, if they have borne fruit for the Kingdom, if they have faithfully participated in Christian formation…they do not see scrutiny or examination as a hostile or threatening thing. Rather, they understand that true Methodists watch over one another in love, we conference. The Task Force on the Episcopacy already evidenced the threatening reality: “There are individuals and conferences that are already acting like they are “running” or “jockeying” for the episcopacy.” The question is if we are going to do anything that tries to expose those who are doing such jockeying, or if we will let each candidate craft their own image on their own terms.

How Bad Off Are We?

There are many things in the GMC that are quite promising. There is much to be excited about. I have spoken about these things publicly. I am very pleased with the transparency of the petitions submitted and the leadership published for the Convening Conference. I love the transparency of the process for considering legislation as described in the establishing document of the Conference.

Even so, the episcopal process is off to a concerning start. This start began when a private workgroup was put together without informing the larger denomination. The Episcopal Task Force was the group that met for several months and presented a plan to the TLC for how bishops would be handled. When I was informed about their discussions and spoke publicly to affirm their work and alert the public of such a group, it was conveyed to me that I had upset the denominational leadership. Emails were sent out warning committee members that “leaking” information was not acceptable behavior.

Once the task force’s recommendation was made to the TLC, the TLC adopted some of its recommendations, but it also suggested its own course. I actually think the work done at this point was really fantastic. I think the task force did a great job, and I think the TLC put forward a workable plan. I have a problem with the secrecy and confidentiality of their deliberations, but I think the work they produced was of good quality.

The real problem begins with implementation. The explicit stipulations of the TLC plan was that “No interim bishop, other than Bishops Jones and Webb, will be permitted to stand for election to the episcopacy at the 2026 General Conference unless such person receives a two-thirds majority vote of the delegates.” It was made pretty clear, when combined with the task force’s report, that these nominees would need to be people at the end of their pastoral careers who would then retire after serving faithfully for a couple of years. It was NOT for those who would potentially have careers in the episcopacy starting in 2026. Yet the majority of candidates are not very close to retirement. It is well known that incumbents fare very well in elections. If these candidates serve for two years, it will be relatively easy for all of them to pass the 2/3 benchmark required to run in 2026. This goes against the clear intentions of the original instructions. Rather than selecting temporary servants to get us through this liminal point in our development, it is rather easily seen instead as people working to go ahead and secure their long term aspirations as bishops. I’m not saying that is what is happening, but I am saying that this impression is easily given by the way in which information is being controlled.

Moreover, the candidates largely overrepresent some regions of the church to the exclusion of others. Two-thirds of the candidates come from just three conferences. One-third of the candidates come from one state. 1 of the 9 candidates are from outside the US where we have 10 or 11 provisional conferences (about 1/3).

One also cannot help but notice that three of the candidates also serve on the Transitional Leadership Committee, the same group tasked with making the recommendations, the same group that disqualified five who were elected by their conferences.

The TLC is aware of all of these concerns. They have been presented to people at the very top. I am unaware of any way in which they have attempted to communicate with the larger body of the GMC to articulate why these things should not be seen as fatal flaws in the process.

The Foundational Problem is the Culture

The answer is not creating a perfect structure. There isn’t any point in having a perfect structure if the culture undergirding it is weak or sick. Human nature is already frail and sinful. If the culture is not hostile to worldliness and depravity, then even the best structure will fall prey to human nature.

In my “Bitter Medicine” series, I laid the failure of the UMC at the feet of conservatives who failed to do holy warfare ably in our previous connexion. Conservatives were generally happy to stay contained in their siloed ministry contexts. They were generally willing to tolerate things in the wider body that are biblically intolerable. These things took place because leadership on the local level was conflict avoidant. It was considered unacceptable to do what I’m doing here and highlight clear administrative dysfunction. It remains a question if the GMC can tolerate such a voice.

Even if we were able to free up the process and remove administrative interloping, all nine of our current candidates have shown themselves uninterested in pushing back against the control exerted by the GMC structure. A couple of them privately conveyed discomfort with the leadership, but most seemed happy enough to deny a conversation by pointing to the communications office. This tells me that our current candidates for the episcopacy are more concerned with playing nice with current leadership than they are with doing what is right. Even worse, many might not even know this is wrong.

If we want bold charismatic faithful leadership into the future, then I think we need candidates who fear God more than men. I think we need those who have shown themselves to be brave in the face of adversity, and who will push the right direction even if it ruffles the feathers of denominational executives, or even if it gets them excluded from consideration. We need someone who fights for what is right even if it makes them enemies. I fully believe we have leaders like this in the GMC. I don’t know that any of our current prospective bishops fit that particular bill. I’m sure each of them have many significant gifts, but if we are wanting the kind of courageous leadership I have described here, then I am not sure the options given will suffice. Maybe the GMC doesn’t want bishops like that. That’s fine. It could be I am only speaking for myself and a handful of other weirdo here.

I have spoken with more than one person in denominational leadership about the attempt of GMC leadership to control speech. Each of these have conveyed a certain clarity beforehand that disappears when they are told not to speak to me. Beforehand, it is very clear that we are all adults, and there should be a clear line of communication between them and me. Once they are told not to speak to me, suddenly they cannot return a text message anymore. The kind of power I’m warning about is real, and it is already having a significant chilling effect.

Moreover, while I have gotten a lot of phone calls and private correspondences from people who are anxious about these developments, very few have been willing to speak publicly about their concern. It isn’t just the episcopal candidates who are electing not to buck administrative overreach. It is seemingly everyone who knows about it and isn’t saying anything. If everyone who was uncomfortable with this spoke up about it, posted about it on social media, called their president pro tempore and/or presiding about it, I can’t help but wonder if this predicament might be quickly and easily fixed.

To be clear: Maybe none of the episcopal candidates want to speak with me. That isn’t the point. The point is that our communications be unmoderated by denominational leadership. The solution isn’t that all the candidates speak to me. It is that the candidates have to answer for themselves rather than deferring to someone else. Are we all free adults here, or not?

How We Could Move Forward

I think it might be wise to pump the brakes on the episcopacy for the next two years. This current process feels forced, hurried, and unnecessarily dangerous. While it is frustrating not to have all the structure we would like, I would hate to slap something together to fulfill our need for structure.

Rather, I submit that we might do well to build out the administrative structure of the church and make those hires, but save the election of any more bishops until General Conference 2026. In the meantime, set aside something of a coordinator for evangelism with a budget to network an organic group of evangelists that rise up to proclaim Christ and him crucified until a more centralized episcopacy can be established in two years. A system of organized chaos, in which quality charismatic leadership rises to the top, might be good for us.

A Softer Note

I’m fully aware that everyone connected to the topics in this article are swell people, beloved by many, and for good reason. I would affirm that everyone from Keith Boyette and Dianne Burnett on down to the nine episcopal candidates have shown themselves to be faithful and capable in their own capacities for decades. If I have indicated that these people are buffoons or malevolent, I want to speak strongly against this impression. The leadership of the TLC and those under them love the Lord and have great intentions. I’m grateful for all of the work they have done. My remarks here should not reflect on the whole of their character or their work. My issue here is limited to systems theory and transparency. I hope my thoughts here can be considered within that capacity without getting too personal.

The final note needs to be a warning, though: Good intentions pave the road to hell. It isn’t enough to mean well. We have to learn the lessons of failure in our past. If we don’t, we are doomed to repeat them. Manufacturing consent and controlling the message are corporate practices of our past. I don’t think they should have any place in our present or future. If you agree, I hope you will speak up.