Decision Number 1523

IN RE: Petition requesting a declaratory decision regarding the meaning, application, and effect of ¶ 404.2 of the Book of Discipline (2020/2024), submitted by the General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA).

Digest

The Constitution does not contemplate a unified episcopacy in name only, but one that exists in fact, structure, and access across the whole Church.

The funding structure created by ¶¶ 404.2(d) and (e) violates the principle of a unified superintendency and episcopacy guaranteed in the Constitution ¶ 46, Article I, the exclusive funding authority of the General Conference ¶ 17.9, Article IV, and Judicial Council Decisions 1208, 1366, 1378, and 1499, and, therefore, is unconstitutional, null, and void. Therefore, Questions 2-5 are moot.

On Question 1, read together with ¶ 819, the sentence in ¶ 404.2(c), which provides that GCFA “shall include the costs of such bishops when recommending a quadrennial budget,” refers to the total number of bishops (not just the minimum five per jurisdiction) recommended by the IJCOE after following the procedures under ¶¶ 404.2(a)-(c).

Statement of Facts

The General Conference rewrote ¶ 404.2 in a series of separate votes during the afternoon plenary session on April 30, 2024, acting on two calendar items and offering amendments and explanations from the floor. That legislative work and the subsequent editorial work of the Committee on Correlation and Editorial Revision established a novel process for determining the number of bishops for each jurisdiction, calculating the costs of those bishops and their offices, and recommending a quadrennial budget.

The amendments to ¶ 404.2 were part of legislation proposed by the Jurisdictional Study Committee (“JSC”), authorized by the 2016 General Conference. The JSC issued its report on September 26, 2023 (Daily Christian Advocate, Advance Edition (“ADCA”), Supplement 3, pp. 1268–1274). In its report, the JSC provided reasons for the proposed amendments. Not all of its rationale or proposed language made it into the legislation. In addition, the legislation included a requirement for “surety,” which was not part of the JSC report. At the time “surety” and other provisions were added, floor discussion indicated that those proposing the additions had consulted with GCFA.

The JSC report listed constitutional authority related to the amendments:

The Constitution of The United Methodist Church establishes an interconnected set of authorities leading to the determination of the number of bishops authorized for election and assignment in the jurisdictional conferences. The Judicial Council has observed that “[t]he system balances and constrains the power exercised by each of the authorities individually and by all connectionally” (Decision 1312). Colleges of Bishops have authority to arrange the plan of episcopal supervision of the annual conferences, missionary conferences, and missions within their respective territories (¶ 48).

Jurisdictional conferences have authority to determine the number, names, and boundaries of the annual conferences and episcopal areas (¶ 40). Colleges of Bishops have authority to arrange the plan of episcopal supervision of the annual conferences, missionary conferences, and missions within their respective territories (¶ 48). General Conference has authority to “fix a uniform basis upon which bishops shall be elected by the jurisdictional conferences”(¶ 16.10) and to “determine and provide for raising and distributing funds necessary to carry on the work of the Church” (¶ 16.9); the Judicial Council has reasoned that this dual authority granted to General Conference determines how many bishops there will be in each jurisdiction (Decision 1312). Our legislative proposals attempt to take into account the tension created by these competing constitutional provisions in an effort to create a new process that allows the determination of the number of bishops in the jurisdictions to be based on missional needs rather than a strict mathematical formula, while shifting the financial responsibility for support of bishops beyond the minimum number directly to the jurisdiction.

Neither the JSC report nor the General Conference discussion addressed ¶ 46 of the Constitution, and it was not discussed during the floor deliberation on the amendments to ¶ 404.2.

The JSC acknowledged that it made its report in the context of constitutional amendments related to regionalization.

The newly amended ¶ 404.2(a)-(c) assigns the General Conference final authority over the number of bishops in each jurisdiction, acting on recommendations from the Interjurisdictional Committee on Episcopacy (hereinafter, IJCOE). In developing those recommendations, the IJCOE must evaluate missional need rather than rely on raw numerical formulas. The paragraph directs the committee to consider, in order of priority, episcopal workload (including the number of charge conferences and active clergy), the geographic size of episcopal areas, and overall church membership. It must also assess the missional impact of proposed changes and the capacity of the episcopal fund, in consultation with General Council on Finance and Administration (hereinafter, GCFA) and the Council of Bishops. Each jurisdiction is guaranteed a minimum of five bishops, with the cost of those bishops included in the church’s quadrennial budget.

Under ¶¶ 404.2(d) and (e), a jurisdiction may request additional bishops beyond this baseline, but only if (1) it assumes full financial responsibility for the additional episcopal offices and (2) demonstrates to GCFA that it can fund those costs for the entire quadrennium. When a jurisdiction makes such a request, the IJCOE, in consultation with the concerned jurisdictional committee on episcopacy, is mandated to submit a timeline for implementation of the new number of bishops.

Following the General Conference’s amendments and the edits by the Committee on Correlation and Editorial Revision, ¶ 404.2 now directs GCFA to:

a) Provide input to the Interjurisdictional Committee on Episcopacy (hereinafter, JCOE) to “analyze the capacity of the episcopal fund to determine the number of bishops that can be funded.” ¶ 404.2.c.

b) Include the costs of certain bishops when recommending a quadrennial budget. ¶ 404.2.c (“The General Council on Finance and Administration shall include the costs of such bishops when recommending a quadrennial budget as provided by and required in ¶ 819.”).

c) Calculate and apportion “the salary and other expenses” of “additional bishops that a jurisdiction may request.” ¶ 404.2.d (“A jurisdiction . . . may request additional bishops . . . ; provided, however, that the salary and other expenses of such bishops, as calculated by the General Council on Finance and Administration, shall be apportioned to the annual conferences of such jurisdiction.”).

d) Receive a surety from any jurisdiction that seeks additional bishops. ¶ 404.2.d (“Any jurisdiction seeking any bishop(s) over the base number provided in subparagraph 2.a-c) shall be able to demonstrate their ability to fund any additional bishops by providing a surety to the General Council on Finance and Administration that they are sufficiently capable to meet the full funding of additional bishop(s) for the coming quadrennium.”)

e) Establish a base cost for the funding of an office of an episcopal leader. ¶ 404.2.d (“The General Council on Finance and Administration will establish the base cost for the funding of an office of episcopal leader, which shall be used by any jurisdiction seeking to fund a number of bishops over the base number of five.”)

The newly amended ¶ 404.2 raised significant questions for GCFA and other authorized agencies tasked with implementing that new process.

In a closed meeting on November 14, 2025, the Board of Directors of GCFA authorized a request for a declaratory decision as to the “meaning, application, and effect” of the various provisions of ¶ 404.2. Specifically, GCFA requested a declaratory decision resolving the following questions:

1. Does the sentence in subparagraph 404.2.c which provides that GCFA “shall include the costs of such bishops when recommending a quadrennial budget” mean that GCFA shall (1) include the costs associated with all of the episcopal areas ultimately recommended to the General Conference by the IJCOE after completing the entire process required by subparagraphs 404.2.a–c, regardless of how many episcopal areas are recommended for each jurisdiction, or (2) only include the costs associated with the “minimum of five bishops per jurisdiction” referenced in the sentence immediately preceding that sentence? ¶ 404.2.c (emphasis added).
2. Are any annual-conference-specific or jurisdiction-specific apportionments mandated by subparagraph 404.2.d if IJCOE recommends to the General Conference more than five bishops for each jurisdiction after completing the process required by subparagraphs 404.2.a–c?
3. What definition shall be given to the word “surety” as used in subparagraph 404.2.d? If a jurisdiction is not able to provide surety would that responsibility fall to the annual conferences within the jurisdiction? At what point must a surety be provided?
4. If the General Conference determines in its discretion to reject the recommendation of the IJCOE made in accordance with the provisions of ¶ 404.2, and any petition of a jurisdictional committee on episcopacy as to the number of episcopal areas to be approved for the next quadrennium and instead determines a different number of bishops for a given jurisdiction, are any annual-conference-specific apportionments as described in subparagraph 404.2.d required for the annual conferences within that jurisdiction?
5. Under subparagraph 404.2.e if a jurisdictional committee on episcopacy requests a change in the number of bishops for the jurisdiction, must the IJCOE recommend a timeline and a change in the number to satisfy that request from the jurisdictional committee to General Conference? If so, are additional apportionments required from that jurisdiction to cover the costs of the additional bishops?

Jurisdiction

The Judicial Council has jurisdiction pursuant to ¶¶ 2610.1 and 2610.2(c) of the 2020/2024 Book of Discipline [hereinafter The Discipline].

Decision

The Constitution does not contemplate a unified episcopacy in name only, but one that exists in fact, structure, and access across the whole Church.

The funding structure created by ¶¶ 404.2(d) and (e) violates the principle of a unified superintendency and episcopacy guaranteed in the Constitution ¶ 46, Article I, the exclusive funding authority of the General Conference ¶ 17.9, Article IV, and Judicial Council Decisions 1208, 1366, 1378, and 1499, and, therefore, is unconstitutional, null, and void. Therefore, Questions 2-5 are moot.

On Question 1, read together with ¶ 819, the sentence in ¶ 404.2(c), which provides that GCFA “shall include the costs of such bishops when recommending a quadrennial budget,” refers to the total number of bishops (not just the minimum five per jurisdiction) recommended by the IJCOE after following the procedures under ¶¶ 404.2(a)-(c).

¹ During the oral hearing, there was a discussion about whether Decision 1502 implied that the amendments to ¶ 404.2 were constitutional. Decision 1502 considered only the amendments that had been adopted with immediate effect, which are ¶¶ 404.2 (a)-(c).  Sub-paragraphs 404.2 (d) and (e) were not adopted with immediate effect and therefore were not considered. The Judicial Council addressed only the question about the then current authority of the IJCOE. There was no ruling on the constitutionality of any of the amendments to ¶ 404.2