L Cole Harper

The current institutional oversight in many denominations is too far removed from the goings-on in local congregations to provide proper accountability to the churches. I recently learned that, in the United Methodist denomination, the people to whom the pastor is accountable are the district superintendent and the bishop above him. There is a Staff/Pastor-Parish Relations Committee (SPRC) within the church that meets quarterly, and they are required to evaluate the pastor annually, provide support and counsel, and more. However, the Book of Discipline, the rulebook of the United Methodist Church, circumscribes their authority to an “advisory only” role when it comes to pastoral change.[1]

I have belonged to a local United Methodist congregation for the past six years, serving on the worship team weekly and on the discipleship committee for the past few years. I have never met our district superintendent, nor do I even know who our bishop is.

Fortunately, this information is available online. Apparently, our district consists of 78 churches, some of which have multiple pastors – all overseen by one superintendent. We are one of a dozen districts in our conference, which consists of 958 churches total – far too many for one bishop to effectively oversee![2] Bishops in the United States are elected for life by fellow clergy.

There is a Judicial Council, which, on paper at least, serves as an independent high court for the denomination. Unfortunately, it has been plagued by controversy and scandal over the past several years; it has failed to hold erring bishops and clergy accountable.[3]

With such distant oversight, can one reasonably expect that church members, even those serving as a lay leader (an unpaid leadership position held by a member of the congregation) or SPRC chair, are able to hold their pastor accountable? Of course not. In reality, they would have to report to the district superintendent, who would then need to correspond with the bishop, and most likely wait for the next meeting (quarterly, yearly, or however far-in-between that they may be) to actually acquire any decision or action.

The higher up the hierarchy, the more removed. For example, the last General Conference, which has the power to make denominational policy changes, met in 2016 and is not set to meet again until 2024 – ostensibly due to the “still ongoing” COVID-19 pandemic. One would think that the mounting conflicts and impending schism need to be addressed sooner than later, but the overseers do not share that view.

Examples of Oversight Gone Wrong

One local United Methodist church has been displeased with their pastor for the past few years, hemorrhaging members the whole time. Over 70% of the SPRC wanted to request a replacement. However, the chairperson, who was a close friend of the pastor’s, deceived the rest of the committee, acquired their signatures on a blank form, and fraudulently used them to reaffirm the pastor’s appointment to that church for the following year. One member discovered the deception and notified the district superintendent (another friend of the pastor’s), who condemned the act but ultimately concluded that there would be no recourse.

The pastor is still there.

The congregation has dwindled to just a few dozen.

This is not merely a denominational problem. I know members of a local charismatic, nondenominational church who have also wrestled with the issue of out-of-touch oversight. The elders who helped the pastor plant the church some years ago are no longer anywhere to be found. They are technically still the elders, but they are no longer present in the congregation weekly – and haven’t been for some time. Some left for other churches in the area. Others moved out of town. All are absent on Sunday mornings, but they have not been replaced. Accountability and oversight are merely a mirage in their church. Some remaining members feel that they have lost their voice and their ability to influence major decisions, (e.g., capital campaigns, changes to the service, etc.).

Another local church – this one Presbyterian – found a replacement for their retiring pastor. The new Presbyterian pastor has substantial experience and support, but the presbytery (i.e., the out-of-touch oversight) did not want to greenlight him because he was credentialed in a more traditional strain of Presbyterianism. They threatened the congregation with the possible imposition of a pastor of presbytery’s choosing or potential closure of the church. The church is in the process of transferring to a different Presbyterian sub-denomination in order to retain its pastor and facilities – and escape the tyranny of their presbytery.

The Solution

Many bishops have been unfaithful to their calling: to provide spiritual oversight to the church.

To understand the biblical role of bishop would require a much deeper study than provided here. (Scripture uses the term “bishop” interchangeably with elder, pastor, and overseer. By contrast, deacons are not spiritual overseers but ministry leaders, responsible for tasks and programs rather than teaching/leading people).[4]

The relevant truth for us is that accountability for leaders is a biblical requirement, and our current system simply does not suffice. It is often too large, too slow, too inefficient, too far removed, too entrenched, and too unwilling to change.

A local church should have multiple elders (including but not limited to the pastor), who meet the biblical qualifications, and are present in the worshipping community regularly.[5] They ought to use their God-given authority to watch over one another, hold each other accountable, and work together to pastor their local church members, especially the leaders, whether clergy or lay.[6]

A higher governance structure is not inherently bad, but we must reform or replace insufficient ones to ensure healthy oversight at the local church level.

---

[1] United Methodist Book of Discipline, p. 199 (2016)

[2] These numbers from 2022-2023-Ministerial-Appointments_7-1-2022.pdf (umcsc.org) may have changed since the time of writing.

[3] Liberal Bishops Have Redefined United Methodist Polity – Juicy Ecumenism

[4] See Acts 6:1-6 for the appointment of deacons (from the verb “to serve/wait”) over the ministry to widows. Qualification for deacons are found in 1 Timothy 3:8-13.

[5] The model and directive to appoint a plurality of elders can be found in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 among other places. The qualifications for an elder are clear in 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1, and 1 Peter 5. Even Peter refers to himself as a “fellow elder” in 1 Peter 5:1.

[6] The verb “pastor” is the primary role of the elders (see 1 Peter 5:2 and Acts 20:28).