Scott Jones' Support for Regionalization

The Dilemma

A book has been staring at me from the bookshelf in my office. I read it shortly after it was published, 15 years ago. Staying at the Table by then United Methodist Bishop (and my bishop) Scott Jones gave a strong defense of unity for the denomination even with our many disagreements. Much water has passed under the bridge since Jones wrote, but I recently read through it again and was reminded of why even today I yearn more for unity than separation, even as I acknowledge that separation is now unavoidable. 

One piece that Jones advocated for still has legs - what we now call regionalization.

Listen to Jones' case for regionalization from the portion of his book titled "Global Nature." At a time when the number of delegates to General Conference from outside the U.S. was half of what it is now, he said, "Delegates from outside the United States complain that too much time is spent on U.S. issues, and U.S. delegates complain that there is no forum where U.S. issues can be dealt with by U.S. representatives." The 2024 General Conference will be the last one where any country has a majority of the delegates, but we are still structured as a U.S.-centric church. This is a problem.

Jones gave us a solution: "I believe great progress can be made if the General Conference will create a Central Conference for the United Sates, and then determine the answers to two questions:
1. What paragraphs of our Book of Discipline...are global?
2. What paragraphs of our Book of Discipline ought to be...settled by Central Conferences?"

He goes on to note that many aspects of our polity would remain the same, including the powers of jurisdictions in the U.S., the function of our general agencies, our doctrine, and our Social Principles.

His solution is the right one. And in 2024 General Conference can make it happen. The regionalization legislation will replace the language of "Central Conference" with "Regional Conference," but otherwise what I have read is exactly what Jones suggested.

What Paragraphs are Global and Which Are Regional?

The draft legislation I've seen delineates this clearly. It retains the language of "The General Conference shall have full legislative power over all matters distinctively connectional," but adds language that allows General Conference to "legislate what is non-adaptable for regional conferences" with a supermajority vote. Legislation passed after Jones' book was published specifies paragraphs 1-166 as "not subject to change or adaptation except by action of the General Conference." These paragraphs contain all the core doctrine* of the church, the Constitution, and the Social Principles. Everything not in those paragraphs is adaptable, subject to the limitation noted above.

What is most important to see is that our doctrine really does become what holds us together. And despite the misinformation you may have heard, our doctrine really is staying the same. Instead of an 800+ page book that is fully binding to some people and minimally binding to others, we will all be bound by the principles in the first 120 pages (and less than that if the new Global Social Principles are adopted). Politically, this is a conservative proposal. It lets more governance happen closer to the people who are governed and less reliance on the larger bureaucracy. 

This is a good idea, regardless of the question of whether or how we become a more inclusive denomination. Frankly, I supported the last attempt at regionalization, which Jones himself led, even though that legislation would not have impacted our teaching on human sexuality. I agreed with Jones' statement in 2008: "I do not regard our teaching on homosexuality as an essential doctrine." I also agreed with his follow up statement, "We have seen how important diversity is to the body of Christ. Diversity includes spiritual gifts, ethnicities, cultures, languages, and theological persuasions within the bounds of our doctrine, discipline, and mission." Jones seems to have had a change of mind, as he left and led others out of the denomination. I have not. We are better with a global church, unified by core doctrine while allowing diversity in that which is not core.

*  I remember Jones making an argument on Facebook once that because doctrine is the official teaching of the Church our doctrine goes far beyond what is labeled doctrine in the Book of Discipline in paragraph 102, 103, and 104. That's OK. I've said silly things on Facebook, too. It's not that he's wrong. Technically, he's right. But that means the entire Book of Discipline is doctrine and I don't think anybody wants to make the case that having the correct number of people on a given church committee or holding all six Special Sunday offerings is equivalent teaching to our understanding of Baptism or the nature of Christ.