Bishop Elections, Assignments, and Terms
General Conference is scheduled to elect eight full-time bishops, but delegates will also consider several petitions that could shape how bishops are nominated, elected, assigned, and limited in their service.
Who Nominates Bishops?
Under the current process, annual conference delegations nominate episcopal candidates. One petition would move that nomination process into the annual conference session itself, giving the larger annual conference body a more direct voice.
Another petition would require annual conferences—not merely their General Conference delegations—to elect the clergy and lay representatives who serve on area committees on episcopacy.
These proposals raise a basic question: How broadly should authority be shared when identifying and evaluating episcopal leaders?
What Percentage Is Required for Election?
The current standard requires a candidate to receive at least 60 percent of the vote to be elected bishop.
One petition would raise that threshold to 75 percent. Supporters argue that bishops should begin their service with broad confidence across the church. The tradeoff is that a higher threshold could make elections longer and more difficult, especially when delegates are divided among several qualified candidates.
Can a Bishop Serve in Their Home Region?
One substantial proposal would prevent a bishop from being elected to an episcopal area containing an annual conference in which that bishop has previously served or held clergy membership.
It would also require episcopal areas to be internationally composed, include conferences with different levels of financial capacity, and avoid placing all the conferences of one country into a single episcopal area.
The proposal is intended to strengthen the global and connectional character of episcopal leadership. It would also move the GMC away from a model in which bishops primarily oversee their own country or home region.
How Large Should an Episcopal Area Be?
Current guidelines envision episcopal areas containing approximately six to eight annual conferences.
One petition would reduce that number to four or five conferences per bishop. The rationale is that bishops—especially in rapidly growing regions—need a smaller area if they are to provide meaningful oversight, respond to local challenges, and remain connected to pastors and churches.
Such a change could improve accessibility and supervision, but it could also require more bishops and greater financial support in the future.
How Long Should Bishops Serve?
The current BDD permits a bishop to serve no more than two six-year terms, with special transitional provisions governing bishops elected before 2026.
Delegates will consider three different approaches:
- One petition would preserve the maximum of two six-year terms while removing outdated transitional language from the denomination’s founding period.
- A second would replace two six-year terms with a maximum of three four-year terms. Because General Conference would still meet every six years, special sessions could be called to elect bishops on the four-year cycle.
- A third would delete the entire paragraph containing the current term limit and transitional rules. As written, this would remove not only the temporary provisions but also the stated maximum of two six-year terms.
The real question is whether episcopal leadership is best served by longer terms that provide stability, shorter terms that create more frequent accountability, or a system without the current denominational term limit.
How Will Bishops Be Evaluated?
Other proposals would formally define area committees on episcopacy and give them responsibility for:
- Meeting regularly with their assigned bishop;
- Supporting a healthy relationship between the bishop and annual conferences;
- Participating in episcopal elections;
- Contributing to the bishop’s annual performance review; and
- Consulting on temporary coverage when an episcopal vacancy occurs.
Taken together, the petitions seek to clarify both sides of episcopal leadership: bishops need enough authority to lead effectively, and the church needs dependable ways to select, support, evaluate, and hold them accountable.
Human Sexuality and Marriage
The current BDD already teaches that human sexuality is rightly expressed within a loving, monogamous marriage between one man and one woman. It also calls clergy and church employees to fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness.
The petitions before General Conference do not primarily propose reversing that position. Instead, they debate how explicit the language should be, where the teaching should be located, and how it should be applied to clergy, employees, weddings, sexual identity, and gender.
Should the Teaching on Marriage Become a Doctrinal Standard?
One of the most consequential petitions would add a new article on marriage to the GMC’s formal doctrinal standards.
The proposed article would affirm:
- Marriage between one man and one woman;
- Faithfulness within marriage; and
- Celibacy in singleness for both clergy and laity.
Marriage is currently addressed principally within the church’s Social Witness and moral standards. Moving the teaching into the normative doctrinal standards would give it a more foundational status and make it substantially more difficult for a future General Conference to alter.
A companion constitutional petition would create the narrow exception necessary for the 2026 General Conference to add this article without opening other doctrinal standards to revision.
How Should Marriage Be Defined?
Several petitions propose revised definitions of marriage. Although their wording differs, they generally seek to affirm that:
- Marriage was instituted by God in creation;
- Marriage is a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman;
- The man and woman are understood according to biological sex;
- Sexual intimacy belongs within that covenant; and
- Sexual conduct outside that covenant is contrary to biblical teaching.
One petition would simplify the current paragraph by defining marriage first and then describing sexuality as a gift exercised within marriage. Another would add the terms “lifelong,” “fidelity,” and “mutual support.”
Delegates will therefore consider not simply whether to retain the church’s current position, but which wording most clearly and pastorally communicates it.
Should Particular Behaviors and Identities Be Named?
Several proposals would replace the BDD’s more general language about sexual brokenness with explicit references to particular behaviors or identities.
Depending on the petition, the proposed lists include:
- Sexual intimacy outside marriage;
- Adultery;
- Homosexual practice;
- Transgender identification or practice;
- Pornography;
- Polygamy;
- Promiscuity;
- Pedophilia; and
- Sexual exploitation or slavery.
Some petitions focus principally on conduct. Others address both conduct and personal identification.
This distinction is important. Delegates will be considering whether the BDD should primarily define faithful and sinful behavior or whether it should also make statements about the identities people adopt.
What Does the Church Say About Sex and Gender?
One petition would add an extended statement affirming two sexes—male and female—as the normative created order.
It would also:
- Address people born with intersex conditions;
- Describe pharmaceutical or surgical alteration of an adult’s sexual characteristics as morally wrong;
- Describe such procedures involving minors as physical child abuse; and
- Affirm the dignity and welcome of people experiencing gender dysphoria or same-sex attraction.
Another petition would add a statement that Christian identity should be rooted in redemption and sanctification rather than in desires, inclinations, or temptations. It emphasizes the Holy Spirit’s transforming work in every dimension of life, including sexuality and gender.
These proposals ask the church to determine how much detail belongs in a global Social Witness statement and how that teaching should combine moral clarity, pastoral care, and the affirmation that every person bears God’s image.
What Standards Should Apply to Clergy Candidates?
Several petitions address how the church’s sexual ethic should be applied during candidacy, ordination, and appointment.
One proposal would require candidates to demonstrate fidelity to the church’s teaching on marriage and sexual holiness through repentance, obedience, and ongoing transformation—not simply through outward abstinence.
A more restrictive petition would prohibit certification, ordination, or appointment for anyone who identifies as either a celibate gay person or a self-avowed practicing homosexual.
A related petition would prohibit certification, ordination, or appointment for anyone who identifies as transgender.
The distinction between these proposals is significant. One centers the standard on conduct, repentance, obedience, and transformation. The others would make particular forms of self-identification disqualifying even apart from stated sexual conduct.
Who May Conduct a Wedding?
One petition concerning the ministry of deacons would specify that deacons may conduct marriages “between one man and one woman.”
This would place the church’s definition of marriage directly within the description of authorized ministerial practice rather than leaving it only in the church’s broader moral teaching.
What Standards Apply to Church Employees?
Another petition would clarify that denominational employees must demonstrate either chastity in singleness or faithfulness in a monogamous marriage between one man and one woman.
This would apply the church’s sexual ethic not only to ordained clergy but also to those employed within its general church structures.
What Is the Central Question?
The main debate is not whether the GMC should abandon its traditional Christian teaching on marriage. The petitions overwhelmingly seek to preserve, clarify, strengthen, or elevate that teaching.
The more specific questions are:
- Should marriage be defined in the Social Witness, the doctrinal standards, or both?
- Should the BDD focus on behavior, identity, or both?
- How should the church describe sex, gender, temptation, repentance, and sanctification?
- Should celibate gay identification itself disqualify someone from ordained ministry?
- How should the same standards apply to clergy, deacons, denominational employees, and local church members?
- How can the church combine biblical clarity with grace, welcome, pastoral care, and the call to transformation?
Those distinctions will matter greatly as delegates determine not only what the church teaches but how that teaching is expressed and applied.
