Who Gets Access to Bishops?

A Plain-English Commentary on Judicial Council Decision 1523

Rev. Luan-Vu “Lui” Tran, Ph.D.

When the Judicial Council issued Decision 1523 on April 24, 2026, it stepped into the middle of a quiet but deeply important question about the future of leadership in The United Methodist Church: Who gets access to bishops—and on what basis?

At first glance, the issue may sound technical, even bureaucratic. But beneath the surface, it touches something much more fundamental: whether leadership in the church is something we share together or something that can be shaped by financial capacity.

The Judicial Council’s answer was both careful and decisive. It said, in essence, that the church is free to rethink how bishops are assigned in a changing world—but it cannot allow access to bishops to depend on who can afford them.

A Church in Transition

To understand the ruling, it helps to know what prompted it. In 2024, the General Conference approved significant changes to how bishops are distributed across the United States. For decades, the number of bishops had been determined largely by a formula tied to membership. As membership declined in some areas and shifted in others, many believed that system no longer reflected the real needs of the church.

So the General Conference moved toward a more flexible, “missional” model. Instead of relying on numbers alone, the church would discern where bishops are needed based on ministry context—things like geography, growth, and the challenges facing different regions.

That shift was widely seen as a necessary and even hopeful step forward.

But alongside that change came a more controversial idea: jurisdictions would be allowed to fund additional bishops if they believed they needed more leadership than the church as a whole could provide.

It was this provision that raised constitutional concerns—and ultimately brought the matter before the Judicial Council.


The Red Line the Judicial Council Drew

In Decision 1523, the Judicial Council did not reject the church’s desire to adapt. In effect, it left intact the move toward a more flexible, mission-driven approach. The old, membership-based formula is gone, and the church is free to think more creatively about how the number and placement of bishops are discerned.

What the Judicial Council rejected was the idea that some parts of the church could effectively secure more bishops by paying for them. Essentially, it rejected the concept of episcopacy as a commodity that can be purchased.

The reasoning was not primarily financial—it was theological and constitutional. The Judicial Council pointed to the long-standing principle that the church has one unified episcopacy. Bishops are not regional assets or local hires; they are leaders of the whole church, set apart to serve the entire connection.

To allow some jurisdictions to fund additional bishops, the Judicial Council warned, would create a system where access to episcopal leadership varies by wealth, which could lead to a two-tiered church: one in which well-resourced regions enjoy greater oversight and support, while others make do with less. 

The Judicial Council put the matter plainly: “Over time, this disparity threatens not only internal unity but also the church’s public witness as a body of Christ committed to justice, equity, and shared ministry.”

That, the Council concluded, is incompatible with the church’s Constitution and core identity.


A Question of Connection

At its heart, this decision is about what United Methodists mean when they describe themselves as a “connectional” church.

Connectionalism is more than a structural arrangement. It is a theological commitment to shared life—shared ministry, shared leadership, and shared responsibility. Bishops are a visible expression of that connection. They do not belong to one region alone; they are entrusted with the care of the whole church.

By striking down the funding provision, the Judicial Council reaffirmed that this shared responsibility cannot be fragmented. The support of bishops must remain a collective effort, carried by the entire church rather than delegated to those with greater means.

In doing so, the Judicial Council also reinforced an important constitutional boundary: only the General Conference has the authority to determine how churchwide leadership is funded. That authority cannot be passed down to jurisdictions and annual conferences or reshaped in ways that effectively shift control to regional bodies.


What Changes—and What Doesn’t

The immediate effect of the decision is clear. The sections of church law that allowed jurisdictions to fund additional bishops are now null and void. No part of the church can increase its number of bishops simply by underwriting the cost.

In practical terms, Decision 1523 does three things. It preserves the new missional process in ¶¶ 404.2(a)–(c) of the Book of Discipline. It strikes down the jurisdiction-funded additional-bishop mechanism in ¶¶ 404.2(d) and (e). And it makes clear that the budgeting process must account for the full number of bishops recommended through the lawful process, not merely the constitutional minimum of five per jurisdiction.

At the same time, the broader shift toward a mission-based system remains intact. The church is no longer bound to a rigid membership formula. Instead, it will rely on discernment—guided by committees and informed by the needs of different regions—to determine how many bishops are needed and where they should serve.

This creates a new kind of tension. On the one hand, the church now has greater flexibility to respond to changing realities. On the other hand, it must do so within the limits of shared funding and collective responsibility. Decisions about episcopal leadership will require not only vision, but also careful negotiation and mutual trust.


Why This Matters

For many local church members, decisions like this can feel distant. Yet, they shape the very structure of leadership that connects congregations to the wider church. They influence who serves as bishop, how conferences are supported, and how equitably leadership is distributed.

More than that, Decision 1523 speaks to the kind of church the United Methodist Church is choosing to be.

In a world where access often follows economic resources, the Judicial Council has drawn a clear line. It has said that in the church, leadership is not something to be purchased or expanded through financial strength. It is something shared, stewarded, and distributed with a view toward the whole body.

That conviction carries both promise and challenge. It preserves a vision of equality and connection, but it also requires the church to live into that vision with integrity—especially when resources are limited and needs are great.


A Defining Moment

Judicial Council Decision 1523 will likely be remembered as a defining moment in the church’s ongoing transition toward regionalization. It does not settle every question, and it does not remove every tension. But it provides a clear framework within which those questions must now be addressed.

The church may change how it organizes leadership. It may develop new ways of discerning where bishops are most needed. But it cannot abandon the principle that those bishops belong to—and are supported by—the whole church.

In that sense, the decision is both a boundary and an anchor. It limits certain paths forward, even as it steadies the church in a time of change.

And perhaps most importantly, it reminds United Methodists of something easy to forget: that in the life of the church, we are not simply managing structures or balancing budgets. We are discerning how to remain faithful to a shared calling—one that binds us together, not by resources, but by grace and covenant.