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.