logo

The church’s need for godly administration
by John Grenfell

In 1974, Bishop Dwight Loder, episcopal leader of the Detroit Area, asked me to become a district superintendent. After prayerful consideration, I accepted his invitation. As I began my experience as a D.S., Bishop Loder requested that I and the other new cabinet members learn the Book of Discipline. He said it had guidelines that would eliminate dealing with personality conflicts and assist greatly in shaping the ministry of the church. Now, thirty-four years later, I realize more than ever how correct he was. 

Today, if our Book of Discipline were administrated fairly and with integrity—without heavy-handedness or intimidation—it would change the spirit and morale of our church. I believe that the polity of the United Methodist Church, while not perfect, is one of the best forms of church government. It assumes both discipline and accountability. For example: “The Book of Discipline and the General Rules convey the expectation of discipline within the experience of individuals and the life of the Church. Such discipline assumes accountability to the community of faith by those who claim that community’s support” (Discipline, Para. 101, General Rules and Social Principles, p. 49).

Accountability in the church must, of course, include those in positions of leadership. The disturbing disregard for the authority of General Conference reflected in neglect of, or disobedience to, our Book of Discipline should have consequences. The Discipline reminds us, “Support without accountability promotes moral weakness” (p. 49).

Today, the United Methodist Church is faltering and some of the blame must be laid at the feet of our bishops. They are charged with giving oversight to the spiritual and temporal affairs of the whole church. They are the ones who must see to it that the church administers its affairs justly and with integrity (see Discipline, Par. 415.3). Unfortunately, some are not fulfilling that responsibility.

Thirteen years ago, I entered a new phase of ministry in retirement—I began serving as an Advocate for pastors and laity who were either facing complaints or making complaints while seeking accountability. Before long I decided to attend the Associates in Advocacy meetings and to secure some training from the Just Peace organization. These contacts broadened my understanding of how to deal with unfair process and provided insight for a better application of our Book of Discipline in the administration of our church polity. I learned that administration with integrity requires character and the courage to obey God’s directives. Also, I was reminded that accountability must be administered honestly and humbly if it is to produce an effective servant church.

So, after 41 years as a United Methodist pastor, six of which were as a district superintendent, and now 13 years in advocacy ministry, I want to illustrate how flawed administration—the lack of administrative integrity—is undermining the life and mission of our church. Here are just a few examples:

• I have worked with several pastors who have encountered difficulty with their cabinets and were summoned to a meeting with the bishop to be told, quite suddenly, “You can take honorable location, turn in your credentials, or face charges by a complaint.” Obviously, this is a deeply intimidating thing for a pastor to hear. The cabinet, after all, holds the key to one’s future ministry in the annual conference. 

In one such situation, an ordained clergywoman, at the request of one of her parishioners, went to that person’s home to pray for her healing. She brought along two women to join her in praying for the woman’s healing. The two who came with the clergywoman to pray were Hispanic women and prayed in Spanish. After the experience, the parishioner shared with another church member something of her discomfort with the women praying in a language she didn’t understand. Word of the parishioner’s discomfort in the matter reached the bishop’s office and the pastor was called in to meet with the bishop and two district superintendents. The clergy person was told, “You have crossed over the line and we are seriously questioning if you can be appointed. You can take honorable location, turn in your credentials or face charges.”

The bishop and superintendents engaged in administration by intimidation. They were attempting to deal with a perceived problem before all the facts were gathered and evaluated. Furthermore, they had not clarified to the clergy person her rights in the matter. The meeting with her was rushing to solve a problem prematurely, without due process according to the Book of Discipline. This kind of oversight is unfair and un-pastoral. It fails to model for the church fair and Christ-centered administration.

As of this writing, that pastor still does not know exactly what was shared with the bishop and superintendents that resulted in her being called to the meeting in the bishop’s office. No complaint was ever filed, and fortunately, the pastor has now been given another appointment. However, she could easily have caved in to the intimidation of the moment and surrendered her credentials.

• In another, somewhat similar case, a pastor was told that a complaint had been filed against him. However, the bishop did not possess a signed formal letter of complaint. That fact was not made known to the pastor. Believing there was a signed complaint against him, he chose to withdraw under complaint pursuant to Par. 361.3 of the Book of Discipline.

The facts of the case are now more clear. The bishop had deposited with the secretary of the Annual Conference the clergy person’s letter surrendering his credentials under complaint. However, four months later, the clergy person received a letter from the bishop indicating that he had decided to amend the record filed with the secretary to indicate that the clergy person’s withdrawal was a voluntary withdrawal under Para.361.2 and 361.4 of the Book of Discipline and not a withdrawal under complaint.

So this ordained elder, faced with the pressure of an alleged formal complaint and possible trial, chose to surrender his credentials. Such a decision, of course, would have a major impact upon the pastor, his family, his future ministry, and his local church. The point here is not so much what the pastor did or did not do, but whether or not he understood his rights in the matter or simply yielded to the intimidation of the moment. It is hard to imagine the career of a medical doctor, attorney, or other professional person being challenged and ended in such a manner. Surely the church can do better than this.

The two cases above are reminders that a bishop and cabinet must take care not to over-step their powers when they confront a pastor with such hard, intimidating options. It is easy to slip into an administration by intimidation mode. Pastors need to realize that the church has no right to demand their credentials unless it can prove that they have violated their office of ministerial trust. In fact, the Book of Discipline has a Restrictive Rule guaranteeing both clergy and laity a “right to trial…and of an appeal” (Par. 20, Article IV).

Often, the intimidating options being laid out before clergy are actually matters of conference relations, which are to be handled by the Board of Ordained Ministry, not the cabinet. As someone has aptly put it, “The Board of Ordained Ministry employs, and the bishop (and cabinet) deploys.” During the past 13 years, I have been urging both pastors and laity to read the Book of Discipline and know their rights and privileges.

• In another situation, a pastor called me to share how he had received a letter from the chair of the Board of Ordained Ministry (BOM) stating that he had been approved for full connection and ordination. He was to be ordained at his upcoming annual conference. However, several weeks later, he received another letter from the registrar of the BOM indicating they had rescinded their approval. He questioned whether due process had been followed and called me for help as an advocate.

I spoke by phone with the BOM chair who told me he would need to talk with the bishop. He also said that he thought we should have a face-to-face conference, which was the very reason I had called him. After the chairperson spoke with the bishop, he called me back and informed me that he didn’t have to talk with me and hung up abruptly. The bishop had told him I could not be this pastor’s advocate because their annual conference “had a policy.”

The bishop eventually returned my phone call and reiterated the same information—they did, in fact, “have a policy.” I responded, saying, “Bishop, you or your annual conference cannot write a policy that circumvents the authority of General Conference. Paragraph 362.1(b) of our Book of Discipline makes it very clear: ‘the person against whom the complaint was made may choose another person to accompany him or her with the right to voice; the person making the complaint shall have the right to choose a person to accompany him or her with the right to voice.’”

When I finally was able to confront the bishop directly about her statement of policy, she responded by saying, “The policy is only a recommendation.” My question to her was this: then why try to deny a pastor his/her right to an advocate, a right that is clearly defined in our Book of Discipline? And why make a statement that is not consistent with our church polity?

Our polity as outlined in the Discipline for administering the affairs of the church is not flawed. Our problem is the lack of consistent, fair, and faithful administration by those “charged with the oversight of the spiritual and temporal affairs of the whole Church.” For whatever reason, some bishops and cabinets too often lapse into an authoritarian mode, characterized by intimidation rather than by servant leadership. Surely, the church can do better than this.

• Allow me one more example. A pastor was told quite suddenly by his bishop that he would be moved to a new appointment. Both the pastor and the Staff Parish Relations Committee (SPRC) were concerned that there had been no consultation with either the church or pastor about the move prior to the pastor being notified—and it was just days before annual conference.

When the pastor and the SPRC questioned the superintendent and bishop about the sudden reassignment, and the Discipline’s requirement of consultation, they were told, amazingly, “We don’t do that here” (meaning in that annual conference). The Book of Discipline, however, is clear and specific about the matter of consultation. In Par. 431. Consultation and Appointment Making, it says: “Consultation is the process whereby the bishop and/or district superintendent confer with the pastor and committee on pastor-parish relations, taking into consideration the criteria of Par. 432 [the criteria runs a full page and a half], a performance evaluation, needs of the appointment under consideration, and mission of the Church. Consultation is not merely notification [emphasis mine]…. Consultation is both a continuing process and a more intense involvement during the period of change in appointment.”

One must ask just how a bishop and his/her cabinet can read those directives about consultation and then simply put them aside, saying, “We don’t do that here.” Our Book of Discipline contains a clear, well-crafted polity for us United Methodists. Unfortunately, some of our bishops feel at liberty to ignore it if they choose. And when the Discipline is ignored, what mechanism is there for holding a bishop or cabinet accountable? Surely, the church can do better than this. 

I have often wondered whether our leadership understands administration to be one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Do our bishops realize how important their role as administrators is in helping the church be an effective, servant-body of Jesus Christ?

Our bishops need to spend more time today leading their cabinets to deal with local church issues. After years of advocacy work, I am convinced too many of our district superintendents do not really understand the Book of Discipline, nor do they know what is happening in local churches. This is true in part because we now have joint charge conferences to free up our district superintendents to spend more time in conference and general church matters.

My observations are not meant to be mean-spirited or critical. I was just privileged to serve as a superintendent under a bishop who believed in sound, consistent, and godly administration. The church, Bishop Loder believed, would be stronger if that task were done well. What he believed has stuck with me.

We need bishops and cabinets who will administer the polity of the church with integrity. We need episcopal authority that comes from godliness, not authoritarian style. Godly administration would change our preoccupation with taking care of the system. It would help us focus on fulfilling the mission of the church as defined by Scripture and our Wesleyan doctrinal standards. It would enable us to strengthen the ministry and service of the local church as we seek, together, to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. 

John Grenfell Jr. is a retired elder in the Detroit Annual Conference. He is a lifetime honorary member of the Good News board.



Click here to send your response plus the title of this article to us at Good News.

Good News | 308 East Main St. | P.O. Box 150 | Wilmore, KY 40390 | 859-858-4661 | 1-800-487-7784
info@goodnewsmag.org | About Us | ©2007 Good News magazine