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. 

The Case for Regionalization - Part 4

 Pt. 1: Regionalization acknowledges reality

Pt. 2: Regionalization gives clarity

Pt 3: Regionalization promotes fairness

Regionalization Identifies Essentials

I preached a sermon series several years ago titled What Makes a Methodist. Acceptance (or rejection) of same-sex marriage and LGBT+ pastors was not one of the topics I covered. 

John Wesley was not the first to say, "In essential unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity," if he ever even said it at all, but it is definitely in keeping with Wesley's theology. This begs the question, though, of what counts as an essential. What are the beliefs and practices that must be followed to be United Methodist? We have an answer to that question. It is found in Our Theological Task and Doctrinal Standards in the Book of Discipline. It is important for us to stand by these standards. It is also important for us to allow flexibility beyond these standards. 

I remember interviewing a candidate for ministry when I was on the Board of Ordained Ministry who firmly believed in a literal seven-day creation. That is an unusual belief in my annual conference. Some people were not sure if this candidate should be ordained. But he was. Why? As I stated to the group, belief or rejection of a seven-day creation is not an essential of the faith. Belief in God as the Creator is an essential, but the specific way that God chose to create is not. This is just one of many examples that could be shared. If we must all believe precisely the same way, we will all be members of churches of one person - ourselves. 

Regionalization continues to hold us together in the essentials of the faith while simultaneously maximizing flexibility in this complicated world we live in. 

The Case for Regionalization - Part 3

Pt. 1: Regionalization acknowledges reality

Pt. 2: Regionalization gives clarity

 Regionalization Promotes Fairness

You have undoubtedly heard that paragraph 2553, the paragraph passed by the 2019 General Conference that allows for disaffiliation, does not apply to churches outside of the U.S. Because we know which groups supported and opposed this paragraph, we can say with a high degree of confidence that more than two-thirds of delegates from the United States voted against it. Remember that. We're going to come back to it.

Recall that the United Methodist Church has a form of regionalization now - central conferences (meaning those outside of the U.S.) have the ability to make adaptations to the Book of Discipline. This ability originally came about as a way of acknowledging that a General Conference dominated to U.S. votes may not always know what is best for those outside of the U.S. In other words, at a time when 80% or more of votes were cast by U.S. delegates, it would be easy to accidentally harm a group outside of the U.S. due to not understanding their context. 

We are quickly approaching an almost complete reversal. The upcoming general conference will still have a U.S. majority, as will a special general conference if one is called before the next regular general conference. After that, it will almost certainly be the case that no one continent, much less one country, will have the majority of votes. This is important. Theoretically, it will be possible for a future general conference to approve something without U.S. support that only the church in the U.S. is bound to.

A hypothetical example: When I was in Dar es Salaam in January, I worshipped at a local church in the city. The worship bulletin appeared to be the same bulletin used every week and in every church in the episcopal area. In the U.S., different churches will have a different order of worship. Imagine that a general conference in the future decided every church should follow the exact same order of worship. It's not likely, but it is theoretically possible. We in the U.S. would be forced to follow the same order of worship as the church I worshipped with in Tanzania. Now imagine that a conference outside the U.S. that originally supported this approach changed their mind. Without general conference action, they could simply vote to change their practice. U.S. churches would have to follow a policy that every other region of the world could simply change. 

I have thought of this as just a thought experiment - it is possible for something like this to happen, but maybe not likely. Then I realized we already have an example in real life.

In 2019, the large majority of U.S. delegates voted against creating paragraph 2553, a paragraph that applies only to the U.S. Some opponents have said regionalization is colonialism. This is a false narrative targeted at delegates outside the U.S. who are rightly concerned about colonialism. The truth is regionalization would create an even playing field across the Connection. It is the only fair path foward.

The Case for Regionalization - Part 2

 When General Conference convenes on April 23rd, I plan to vote for whichever regionalization plan finds its way to the top of the legislative pile. Here's the second reason why in this continuing series.

Regionalization Gives Clearer Direction

Since the beginning, the United Methodist Church has had some form of regionalization. The 1972 Book of Discipline in paragraph 631.9 allows Central Conferences to, "make such changes and adaptations as the peculiar conditions on the fields concerned require regarding the local church, ministry, special advices, worship, and temporal economy within its territory...provided that no action shall be taken which is contrary to the Constitution and the General Rules..." The way that paragraph has been lived out is inconsistent. It seems to give very wide latitude for changes, but I've been told that Judicial Council usually rules against changes that are attempted.

In 2012, General Conference adopted a new paragraph 101 that started to add clarity by defining which portions of the Book of Discipline could be changed by Central Conferences and which could not. They were to report back to the 2016 General Conference but the work has stalled with our current conflicts.

This background is very important. The concept of regionalization today is that some decisions should be made, or at least be subject to change, based on what region of the world you are in. Local customs, laws, traditions, and circumstances can all have an impact on what is truly the best decision for the Church. This is not a new concept. We have always known and practiced this. This is why it was in our Book of Discipline in 1972, why a clearer form of regionalization was attempted in 2008, why it was rewritten in 2012, and why it is proposed again in 2024. All that has changed is that over time we have realized more and more that we need clarity about what is and is not amendable. 

We will not adopt a perfect form of regionalization in 2024. Whatever is adopted will need to be revisited and perfected in the future. We do have a great opportunity, though, to take an important step towards gaining needed clarity about our decision making processes.

The Case for Regionalization - Part 1

Introduction

 This is the start of a series of posts in favor of regionalization for the United Methodist Church. Each post will be fairly short as over several weeks I share what I believe are good, independent reasons for regionalization. One of the many myths you might hear from traditionalist leaders is that people like me only want regionalization because it will let the church in the U.S. do what we want. That's not true. I supported regionalization when it first came up in 2008 in a form that would not have allowed different decisions on the status of LGBT+ people in different regions. The group that made that recommendation was led by former United Methodist bishop Scott Jones. He and I disagree on the question of inclusion, but we agree, or at least agreed, that regionalization is a good idea.

Regionalization Acknowledges Reality

Last week I received a copy of an invitation from Bishop Kasap for a special session of the South Congo Annual Conference for the purpose of electing new delegates for General Conference. To be clear, this election is expressly prohibited by Judicial Council ruling 1472 and if the election occurs the delegates should not be seated. But that's not the point I want to make here. 

In the call, Bishop Kasap uses the 1990 Book of Discipline as his authority. It would be good to note that there is no such thing as a 1990 Book of Discipline. It was printed in 1988 and again in 1992. Perhaps it was a typo. Regardless, for the denomination, only the current version, that is the 2016 edition, is valid. The 1988/1992 versions are as useful as a box of rocks. But while going back more than 20 years may be unusual, I am told it is common for pastors and even bishops in Africa to not have easy access to the current printing of the Book of Discipline. While a group of legalists harp about progressives not following it to the letter, the truth is there is a long history of people taking liberty with it, sometimes because they have no choice. Bishop Kasap's call is invalid because it violates the Judicial Council's decision. Even if that were not the case, it would be invalid because he is using an invalid source. But should it be? I would argue no. In the context of that particular annual conference, if the 1990(ish) book has been the one they are using then, absent a newer version, so be it. This is the reality. And it means that we are not all following the exact same rules. 

Regionalization acknowledges the reality that we are already living with somewhat different rules.

now the wca is just making stuff up

 Bless his heart.

Scott Field of the WCA has gone from making arguments of substance - which means ideas that can be debated and considered - to just making stuff up. I have no other way of describing his latest missive against the United Methodist Church. The rhetoric is good. The truth is entirely absent.

Seriously. 

Look, I'm strongly in favor of regionalization and somewhat opposed to allowing a paragraph 2553 style path to disaffiliation in central conferences.  If you read me regularly you know this. But there are rational reasons to disagree. I could have a healthy debate with someone about this. But these aren't the reasons. Field has become like an American politician, seemingly believing that if he just says things long enough and loud enough some of it will stick.  

First, I hope I am not the only one who is tired of U.S. traditionalists telling me what all the people in Africa think. This was the message I directly gave to one traditionalist leader who emailed me wanting to negotiate on behalf of "African allies." My message was that Africans don't need U.S. traditionalists to negotiate on their behalf. We are all capable of talking with each other. In fact, it would be more fruitful for those in the U.S. who have left or plan to leave the denomination to just get out of the way. 

Second, how presumptive is it for Field to reduce the central conferences to simply one continent? He may not need their votes at General Conference because of their smaller numbers, but the legislation he is endorsing is equally relevant to United Methodists in Asia and Europe.

Now to Field's piece. 

It's just. not. true. None of it. 

1. It is not true that progressive groups and others "want to decide the future for African United Methodists." (in all cases, emphases in original). Field says not passing a new 2553 "cut off any option for disaffiliation" and "presumes African United Methodists cannot be trusted to make their own decisions." I will remind you again that the Global Methodist Church has celebrated when churches in Africa and whole countries in Europe have left the denomination. The only people I hear saying it is impossible for churches outside the U.S. to leave are the people who want churches outside the U.S. to leave. And, just to be entirely clear, there is no process for progressives in the U.S. to block those churches from doing so. 

2. It is not true that "regionalization decides for African United Methodist [sic] how far and for what matters their voices and votes will be allowed." Let's start by acknowledging that the first regionalization proposal, The Christmas Covenant, was created by people in central conferences including in Africa. Then let's remember how General Conference works. People from around the world, including Africa, will be there. Regionalization will require constitutional amendments, which takes a 2/3 vote. That can't happen without support from people in Africa. Then it has to be ratified by a 2/3 aggregate vote of the people at annual conferences. You don't need a visa to get to the U.S. for that one. It is literally impossible for ratification to happen if there is not significant support from Africa. All of us who have spent any time thinking about the political process of our denomination understand that there is no path to regionalization be enacted without that support. African votes will decide whether or not we have regionalization.

3. It is not true that the Fair for Some Fair for All campaign actually wants things to be fair for all. Here I am not judging, just observing the numerical and political truth. Our current Book of Discipline allows conferences outside of the U.S. to make extensive changes to the Book of Discipline to meet their contextual needs. It does not, and without constitutional amendments cannot, give the U.S. that same privilege. Assuming that there is not a mass exodus from outside the U.S., the U.S. will have a minority of votes beginning with the next regular general conference after this one. Math dictates that this means without regionalization the next general conference could in theory pass something with no U.S. votes that would only be in force in the U.S. To take the current hot button concern and flip it on its head, Africa, the Philippines, and Europe could vote to forbid same-sex marriage (as we currently do) and then at their own central conference level vote not to follow that rule. Obviously that specific example won't happen, but you understand the point. It is patently unfair for a majority group to bind a minority group to a rule that the majority themselves are not bound to. That is exactly what a rejection of regionalization will create.

If you haven't read Field's post, you can stop here. If you did read it, I will take just a moment to debunk his conspiracies.

1. Why have invitation letters been slow to arrive? That's a fantastic question that I promise we are all asking. For the record, there are people who I am confident will be voting for regionalization that have also not received their invitation letter. It is incredibly frustrating to all of us, and it is an embarrassment to the General Commission on General Conference. There should be accountability for this as well as for still today not having a full list of who the delegates to General Conference even are.

2. UM News Service is doing their job. It is not the job of a UM organization to promote the cause of people who have left or are leaving the denomination. I'm reminded of the local churches in our conference who, I'm told, called District Superintendents asking for pastors after they had disaffiliated. The DS has to say, "I'm sorry, we only appoint pastors to United Methodist churches." You can't bash the UMC at every opportunity and then expect our news agency to assist you. 

3. In addition to calling out misstatements of traditionalists, one of the roles MainstreamUMC has taken on is stating uncomfortable truths. It is NOT the position of Mainstream that the U.S. should "call the tune" because the large majority of denominational funding comes from the U.S. It is a practical reality that, just like many traditionalist churches withheld apportionments when they disagreed with denominational decisions (the WCA at one point actually actively encouraged this), without regionalization many U.S. churches are likely to pay less to the denomination. Mainstream is not advocating for this, simply acknowledging it is true.

Reflections from Tanzania

 Ten days ago I had the privilege of attending a two-day conference in Dar es Salaam led by The  Africa Forum. The conference has not had enough coverage. It was, I believe, very significant for multiple reasons.

1. The conference was the first truly trans-continental conference entirely organized and led by Africans. Traditionalist media has implied that it was led by people from the U.S. That's not true. There were maybe two dozen attendees from outside the continent. Most of said, at most, a 90 second greeting to the group. Nearly every major presentation was led by Africans and 100% of the guests were invited to attend by Africans. Attendees spanned the continent and came from nearly every annual conference in Africa. Compared this to African Voices for Unity which is primarily Nigerian and the Africa Initiative which is primarily West African and largely U.S. led.

2. The conference's outcome was not predetermined. Resolutions that were adopted were written during the conference by a committee, discussed by the whole body (note that when I say the whole body I am referring only to those from Africa. Observers sat at the side throughout the conference and did not participate.), amended, and approved. 

3. The results are clearly African. Personally, I was pleased with most of the resolutions that were adopted. The key one I didn't like was amending the resolution supporting the Global Social Principles by adding the language of "a man and a woman" to marriage. I promise you if the U.S. observers were influencing the outcome this would not have been included. But it is representative of what the large majority of Africans believe. On the other hand, the group very much wants to stay United Methodist and agreed that regionalization is a way to do that. This also fits with what many of us would expect. The catch remains what has always been the case - can we remain a United church and a regional church? I think the answer is yes. The group in Tanzania thinks the answer is yes. Time will tell.

4. Leadership was broad-based. Regardless of where they are on the theological divide, I'm tired of hearing from all the same people. In the U.S. we see the same two or three people writing or speaking "for Africans" over and over again. The African Forum's leadership team functioned like a team. Multiple voices were heard and respected including people whose names you likely are familiar with and people who you are not familiar with.

5. No to Disaffiliation. This really surprised me. The line U.S. traditionalists had fed me was Africans would be willing to vote for regionalization if the 2024 General Conference passed some version of paragraph 2553 for them. I believed them. Based on the Tanzania conference, that sentiment could not be more wrong. I'm convinced that regionalization would be LESS likely to pass if it included a disaffiliation option. Opposition to disaffiliation was overwhelming. 

5. Implications for General Conference and beyond. I haven't counted the votes. I don't have any predictions about what will happen at General Conference. What I do know is that those who have said GC24 will pit the U.S. against the world are wrong. In Tanzania, the U.S. was quiet while Africans talked with each other. We answered questions from our perspective when asked. Every person there was treated with respect and appreciation. I believe the traditionalist leadership in the U.S. wants GC24 to be a trainwreck. Nobody else wants that. They want us to fail. Nobody else wants that. Those who have wanted to leave has largely gone. If they leave us alone (they won't) then all will be well. If they continue to meddle in a church they have abandoned (they will) then I think all will still be well. Our relationships and mutual understanding will continue to grow and Christ will be worshipped and witnessed to through the UMC across the globe.