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.