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.
Thank you, David, for this helpful comment. The matter of their outdated version of the BoD illustrates just how differently we already operate in various parts of the world.
ReplyDeleteSome background on their 1990 version: I assume that's the version I translated from English into French while working as a missionary in North Katanga up to 1991. The English text I used was even older than 1990, of course. After I was done a group of people verified it for accuracy. Only years later did I find out that it was indeed published. It is well possibile that no newer French version is available to them. Also, and that's important, if my memory is correct, that BoD is called the BoD for the Africa Central Conference (DRC essentially), not the BoD of the worldwide connection. And this just confirms your argument that we already have different rules. Regionalization would just make it official and the church in U.S. would finally have the same rights as everyone else. I consider this urgent and a matter of equity
Fascinating history! Thanks Christine.
ReplyDelete