Regionalization - Refuting Tom Lambrecht and the Africa Initiative

 Earlier this month, Tom Lambrecht of Good News and, soon, the Global Methodist Church traveled to Nairobi to help organize the Africa Initiative in opposition to measures many of us hope to take at General Conference next week. To be clear, the 100-150 Africans present do not represent the continent. No group of that size can represent an entire continent.

The statement produced from the gathering includes five reasons to oppose regionalization. This post will directly refute those reasons. 

1. "Regionalization contradicts our current connectional system that brings together...annual conferences worldwide."
    This is not accurate. Under regionalization, we would still have a General Conference that addresses worldwide concerns. There is a change in which decisions are made by the global body and which are made by regional bodies, specifically within the U.S. Remember that regionalization affirms the central conferences outside the U.S., just with a new name. If regionalization contradicts our connectional system then having central conferences also contradicts our connectional system, and nobody is suggesting we should eliminate central conferences.

2. "Regionalization fragments our one worldwide UMC into several regional denominations, allowing each region to govern itself with its own book of discipline...no region would have a say in what another region believes, teaches, or practices."

    I read this as two arguments. First, that we will have multiple books of discipline and, second, that no region would have a say in what other regions teach or believe. 

    The reality is we already have different books of discipline. As I've shared previously, Bishop Kasap recently called for a special session of annual conference under the authority of the 1990 Book of Discipline. To the best of my knowledge, no other conference even has a 1990 Book of Discipline - it is a translation of the 1988 Book of Discipline from English so that the conference would have one in their own language. In addition, the current Book of Discipline allows central conferences (but not the U.S.) to make alterations to the Book of Discipline. While they might all carry the same name, any time an alteration is made by a central conference it is effectively a new book.

    The argument that no region will have say in other regions is also misguided for two reasons. First, as I already shared, there will still be a general conference every four years that is charged with maintaining our order and discipline. All matters essential to the faith will be settled there. Second, petition #21039, one of the preferred petitions for regionalization, gives the General Conference the power "to legislate what is non-adaptable for regional conferences by a 60% majority vote." In other words, except as protected in the Constitution, a 60% vote of the General Conference can limit the actions a regional conference takes. 

3. "Regionalization is a recipe for fragmenting the gospel, and thereby presenting a distorted Christianity to the world, that contradicts the biblically based liberating message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

    I assume this is a reference to the efforts to change the Book of Discipline's restriction on LGBT+ people. That effort is separate from regionalization. I fully expect the General Conference to remove the restrictive language. If the worldwide church is comfortable with this removal, then regionalization will have no effect on it. If portions of the church are not comfortable with this, then regionalization will give them an opportunity to make an alteration for their region. As United Methodists, what we believe is core to the Christian Faith is contained in our Doctrinal Standards, which will not change and to which all regions will be accountable. 

4. "Regionalization is an economic death trap for the UMC in Africa and other central conferences with limited financial resources." 

     I can say unequivocally that I've heard nobody involved in the effort towards regionalization want to decrease funding to any of the central conferences. It is true, though, that without regionalization we should expect more churches in the U.S. to leave the denomination. That is not what I want; it is an acknowledgement of reality. The true economic effect of regionalization would be more resources to share, not less.

5. "Regionalization would liberalize the UMC worldwide, thus making the denomination biblically and theologically unsafe and unwelcome for evangelicals and conservatives."

    Again, regionalization does not affect what will happen to the current language restricting LGBT+ participation in the denomination. My expectation is that the language will be removed, regardless of whether or not regionalization passes. For a region where homosexuality is illegal, for example, that would be difficult. But with regionalization, that region would be able to put a restriction in place. Regionalization actually provides a protection for areas that are concerned about this.

I hear in these arguments the same thing we have experienced in the U.S. for the last few years. American traditionalists who are committed to leaving the denomination mislead people about the effects of regionalization and removing the restrictive language to encourage others to join them in leaving the denomination. For those who will be in Charlotte, I hope we can connect and speak truth with each other. For those who will not be in Charlotte, I ask for prayers that our conversations and actions will be just and holy.

Regionalization - Objections Answered, Pt. 3

Read Part 1 (Segregation) here

Read Part 2 (it's all about inclusion) here

I recently heard a traditionalist leader in the U.S. say that the true purpose of regionalization is to maintain U.S. control of the denomination. "The bottom line is the U.S. wants to run the Church." This idea is laughable. I literally laughed out loud when I heard it.

Objection #3: Regionalization is About U.S. Control

Let's start with a thought experiment. If the U.S. wanted to control the United Methodist Church, how could it be done? Remember that starting at the next regular session of General Conference the U.S. will not have a majority vote. So certainly if nothing at all changes we will not have total control. How could we change the makeup of General Conference so that we could control the outcome? Regionalization doesn't work. In very general terms, even with regionalization the General Conference will still set budgets and be entirely responsible for roughly 20% of the current Book of Discipline, including all of the parts that are most important like our Doctrinal Standards. 

Perhaps a series of petitions could be submitted to General Conference that would somehow allow a U.S. region to veto decisions of others regions similar to how the United Nations allows five countries to veto any proposal to the Security Council. I don't know if that would be possible for us or not, but I do know no petition like that has been submitted. 

Maybe we could pass something that intentionally offends other countries to the point that they feel compelled to leave. For example, we could pass petitions that require pastors to perform same-sex marriages regardless of local laws or customs. I would not be surprised if a petition like that has been submitted by someone, but I know of nobody who plans to support such an action. 

These aren't viable paths. I can think of only one way to improve the chances of U.S. control. We would have to reduce the number of delegates to General Conference by making it as easy as possible for churches and conferences outside the U.S. to leave. Disaffiliation has harmed us in the U.S. if we infect central conferences with the same problem, then they will have fewer members and we will have more votes at General Conference. That's the solution.

Now let's come back to reality. Who do you know that is encouraging churches to disaffiliate? Is it U.S. progressives and centrists? No. 

I had a brief email exchange a few months ago with a traditionalist leader. He said, "I’m a bit mystified by the all-out push to enact regionalization at this point. Do you not achieve your goals just as well by simply removing what you call the harmful language on LGBT persons? And the removal only requires a majority vote, whereas regionalization is the hard sell needing two thirds." 

He (almost) has a point. If the language removing prohibitions on LGBT+ participation in the denomination passes, and I am cautiously optimistic that it will, and if we in the U.S. want to ensure that we have control of the denomination in this and all other matters, then why try to pass regionalization when it will be difficult to get he required 2/3 majority at General Conference and at Annual Conferences (needed for ratification)? 

 Unity, not Domination

The answer to this question is actually very simple. We want inclusion, period. Yes, we want LGBT+ inclusion. We also want inclusion of people from Germany, the Philippines, Nigeria, DRC, Liberia, Zimbabwe, and every other country that has or could have United Methodists. We want inclusion of different theological perspectives that are in alignment with Wesleyan theology. This is why we are still in the United Methodist Church. We never left, nor did we ever force or ask others to leave. We have consistently said this is a denomination that should have room for all. 

Regionalization puts every region of the Church on the same level. No single region controls the denomination. That is a good thing. Power is distributed. That is a good thing.

One last thought experiment. Imagine the proposals to remove discriminatory language and the proposal for regionalization pass at General Conference and there is a mass departure of churches from outside the U.S. in the next several months, so many departures that we could predict with certainty that the U.S. would once again have a majority of General Conference delegates. What would U.S. centrists and progressives do? If we want control then we would start to advocate against regionalization being ratified by the annual conferences. In this scenario, we could have control of the whole denomination around the world! I don't think that many churches will leave. But if they did, we will not change our position and start arguing against regionalization. Why? Because regionalization is the right thing to do for our Church. It is the right path forward. We must stay united even while forces opposed to the UMC continue to work to separate us.

Regionalization - Answering Objections, Part 2

 Read Part 1 here

Objection #2: Regionalization is all about promoting LGBT inclusion

It is true that regionalization would help those of us in the United States that want to expand LGBT+ rights. But even if that were not the case, regionalization would be a good idea. This is why Scott Jones led the last effort for regionalization in 2008. Jones is now a bishop in the Global Methodist Church and was never a supporter of equality for LGBT+ people. He supported regionalization because it is a better form of governance for the denomination. 

Over the years, General Conference has usually been about one thing: our position on LGBT+ inclusion. Every vote on every issue was made in preparation for the inevitable votes on inclusion. All the delegates had to think, "How will my vote on this effect the vote coming later? So it makes sense that regionalization and removing the language restricting LGBT+ people would be conflated into two parts of the same concern, but they really are two different issues. If removing the language fails, for example, I will still be voting for regionalization. It will still make sense for the U.S. to deal with issues that apply to the U.S. and for each African central conference to deal with issues that apply only to them. It will still make sense for us to have global flexibility in understanding and implementing our shared mission. 

Further, regionalization will actually protect regions of the world that do not want to promote LGBT+ inclusion. It seems likely that the discriminatory language against LGBT+ people will be removed this year. Although I hope this doesn't happen, it is possible that once this language is removed many churches from African countries and some from the Philippines and Europe will choose to leave the denomination. It is unlikely, but possible, that those departures will be large enough that the U.S. will continue to have a small majority of votes at the next General Conference. Without regionalization, that small majority could force a denomination-wide change. With regionalization, each region of the denomination can make their own clear stand.

Regionalization is complicated. There are good reasons a person may choose to vote against it. This is not one of those reasons.

Regionalization - Answer the Objections, Pt. 1

 Taking a break from arguing for regionalization, this brief series will look at some of the objections that have been raised. I don't find them compelling. If you have additional objections, please put them in the comments so we can reflect on them.

Objection #1: Regionalization is Segregation

Because this is the exact language that has been used, I need to start by noting that this is intentionally and inappropriately playing on our racist history. In the U.S., segregation was the 80-year period of legally sanctioned "separate but equal" treatment of African-Americans. Using this language now is yet another trick to try to demonize a group with a different perspective.

Having said that, it is fair to ask whether a regional structure is a way of keeping different groups from around the world from influencing each other. The answer is yes and no. First, the yes

Regionalization does prevent one group from interfering in something that they do not need to interfere with. At this moment, there is intense argument in Nigeria between two factions of the denomination. Should the U.S. impose a solution on Nigeria? Or would it be better for Nigeria to work things out? And if, as seems to be the case, Nigeria cannot work it out on their own then shouldn't United Methodists in Africa work it out? Similarly, does the church in Nigeria need to speak to politics that are internal to the U.S.? I think not. It is true, then, that regionalization does separate some decision making just like every annual conference already has the authority to make some decisions separately from other annual conferences.

Regionalization does not mean all decisions are made separately. There would still be a General Conference every four years. That General Conference would still make decisions for the entirety of the church. It would simply be more limited in its decision making than it is right now. This is not governance by segregation, it is governance by federalism, which many (but not all) of the countries represented in the UMC use. 

The Case for Regionalization Pt. 7

 Pt. 1: Regionalization acknowledges reality

Pt. 2: Regionalization gives clarity

Pt 3: Regionalization promotes fairness

Pt. 4: Regionalization identifies the essentials

Pt. 5: Regionalization improves our structure

Pt. 6: Regionalization avoids unneeded arguments

Regionalization Is the Only Viable Path to Keep the Denomination Together

I was born a United Methodist. I had no choice in the matter. United Methodist was all I knew and there was no reason to considering a different denomination. Now that has changed.

Now, I choose to be United Methodist.

This is not a perfect denomination and it never will be, but I believe the UMC offers the world a truth of grace, love, mercy and, yes, law that serves God's will in this time. The United Methodist Church must carry on.

Our divisions are significant. We should not ignore this truth. In the same spirit of not ignoring truth, if Regionalization does not pass at General Conference or is not ratified by our annual conferences in the following year, at least another 25% of churches in the U.S. will leave in the coming years, matching the number who left in the prior two years. The proposed denominational budget reflects a 42% decrease in revenue. Imagine needing to cut the remaining budget by another 25-30%. What ministry will we be able to do in the U.S. and across the globe with so few resources? How do we stay connected? 

There will still be United Methodist churches if regionalization does not pass, but the worldwide connection that we call the United Methodist Church will cease to exist. 

I believe God still have a purpose for our denomination. We must work together to preserve it for the sake of the mission God has given us.

The Case for Regionalization, Pt. 6

Pt. 1: Regionalization acknowledges reality

Pt. 2: Regionalization gives clarity

Pt 3: Regionalization promotes fairness

Pt. 4: Regionalization identifies the essentials

Pt. 5: Regionalization improves our structure

Regionalization Avoids Unnecessary Arguments While Retaining Connection

I served on one of our General Boards from 1997-2002. This was a time not long after we began to wrestle more seriously with how to be a worldwide church instead of a U.S. church with international outposts. Every meeting included conversation about how to structure every petition, resolution, or action as global instead of U.S. focused. I really appreciated this, but it was also a challenge. Some issues really are regional. One of the subgroups I worked on the marketing of tobacco to children. This is a much different and deeper issue outside of the U.S. where laws were laxer than U.S. laws. On the other hand, marriage equality for LGBT people makes much more sense in a country where it is legal than in a country where it is illegal.

These are questions we may well disagree about at a worldwide General Conference. The disagreement can limit action and, therefore, limit our impact. Regionalization will allow us to work together in the areas we can work together while working separately in the areas where either we can't come to agreement or we are more effective by acting regionally. 

The Case for Regionalization - Pt. 5

  Pt. 1: Regionalization acknowledges reality

Pt. 2: Regionalization gives clarity

Pt 3: Regionalization promotes fairness

Pt. 4: Regionalization identifies the essentials

Regionalization Octifies Our Structure

I read a book several years ago called The Starfish and the Spider. In summary, the book stated that in the past most organizations worked like spiders with a centralized processing unit (brain) that told the whole organism how to function. Newer organizations in the era of the internet are like starfish. They may look similar to spiders, but starfish don't have that centralized processing. The processing happens throughout the body. So if you cut a leg off a starfish, a new starfish grows from it. This is how something like Wikipedia works. 

We have a 19th century structure that was adopted in the 20th century and just doesn't work well in the 21st century. I have very little patience for the people today who say the United Methodist Church never worked right. It did work right, for a time. The problem is the time has changed and our structure has not. But I think regionalization is more like a third animal, one especially suited for our times today.

An octopus has nine brains. There is one brain in each of the eight tentacles as well as a central brain in the head. In essence, the central brain sets priorities and the brain in each arm carries out the priorities. Imagine a church that functions like this. At the global level, we can adopt a set of universal priorities like starting new faith communities and feeding the hungry. We can align common resources for those priorities. Then we can allow each region to independently decide how to accomplish the priority without being bogged down by a process that requires a worldwide consensus every four years. That's what regionalization does. Having a worldwide body (a kind of centralized "brain") keeps us united with basic doctrine and direction while regional "tentacles" are largely independent in how those doctrines and directions are lived out. We are both united and diverse, which I think is the future of the 21st century world.