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.
