Next Week's Jurisdictional Conferences

Today we begin preparations in earnest to leave first thing Monday morning for the Northeast Jurisdictional Conference (JC) in Charleston, WV. My husband Chris is a lay delegate from our Annual Conference, and the JC will spend the majority of its time dealing with the election of three bishops (to fill vacancies due to retirements in our jurisdiction).

There was a great deal of talk and disappointment after General Conference, and I have yet to really be able to pull my thoughts together to blog too much about it. Suffice to say, little tangible change will be felt, I suspect, by most local churches and pastors in the wake of GC. Jurisdictional Conferences (and in a related way, the Judicial Council), then, will be, I suspect what defines 2012 for the UMC.

In addition to the pending decision from the Judicial Council on the GC legislation dealing with guaranteed appointments, the Judicial Council will likely, pending an official vote at the SCJ by the Episcopacy Committee, be ruling on an unprecedented and landmark case involving Bishop Bledsoe involving what measures the Book of Discipline currently provides for getting rid of bishops despite lifetime episcopacy. If the decision proceeds as currently planned, and is upheld, it offers the UMC as tool for dealing with episcopal leaders in the same way they seem to want to have the freedom to deal with the rest of us. It’s hard to not see this as a welcome door (should, in rare case, it be needed).

Jurisdictional Conferences (well, three of them at least) will be voting to fill something like 11 open episcopal positions in three (of the five US) jurisdictions. In all five jurisdictions, Episcopacy Committees will be discerning and assigning bishops to episcopal areas (or annual conferences, some episcopal areas have multiple annual conferences, though ours—the Baltimore Washington Conference—has its own bishop).

Just like the appointment of a pastor to a local church has an immense impact on that congregation, so too does the assignment of a bishop have a huge impact on an annual conference. The tone and mood of the conference is perhaps the most significant (and hardest to quantify) way this happens. But episcopal leaders also have the very real task of helping set priorities, select top conference leadership, and that responsibility which makes them more powerful than any other Protestant bishops—the appointment of clergy.

As much as it will be very interesting to see how things go down across the UMC in the United States next week (all Jurisdictional Conferences must start at the same time, due to voting rules), it has also been interesting to see how bishops have dealt with the impending decisions that will be made.

First, there are the current bishops. The general practice is for bishops to be in an episcopal area for eight years, and in special circumstances, twelve years. An example of the latter was Bishop Joe Yeakel, who completed eight years in our annual conference, and with retirement only one more quadrennium away, was allow to stay (he was also widely loved and respected in the BWC). It’s been interesting this year to see the difference in how our own bishop, John Schol, and the bishop in Minnesota, Sally Dyck, have approached the end of their eight years in their ACs. Bishop Dyck is well-loved in Minnesota, it seems, but she made it very clear she expected to be moved, as she was approaching the end of eight years. They celebrated her at annual conference, and there has been a great clarity about everyone’s expectations.

Meanwhile, in my annual conference, there is a great murkiness and confusion because our bishop seems to believe twelve years is the norm. While many anticipate a move in the normal course of things, most indications suggest he does not. As a result, should he be moved, will will not have had a chance to prepare for it as well or celebrate his ministry here. That is unfortunate. Then again, if he’s right and he is returned here, I guess we’ve saved some time. The tone in the two conferences though, seems very different, and it remains to be seen which has been more helpful. Though I have suspicions.

The second part that’s been interesting has been the gearing up for the elections itself. With rules in the NEJ barring overt campaigning (well, really any campaigning, but people find a way) there has been little direct work on this, though annual conference and recognized special interest groups are allowed to make official nominations. Those so nominated receive an advantage in the process leading up to elections at JC, though nominations, I believe, are still technically allowed from the floor.

Watching the process this year, while I am glad we contain the politicking, but I’m also concerned that there is a need for some filtering that has not yet happened. But I’m anxious to see how that is handled at JC. I’m trusting it will be—and since this is my first NEJ JC (I’ve once attended the SEJ while in seminary), I’m very interested to see how the process is handled.

All in all, next week will be very interesting and very important for the future not only of our jurisdictions, but also for our local churches and the United Methodist Church. Please join me in praying for the candidates who will be considered for the episcopacy, and for the discernment of the delegates as they decide (then assign) our bishops.