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.

The Case for Regionalization - Part 1

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.

now the wca is just making stuff up

 Bless his heart.

Scott Field of the WCA has gone from making arguments of substance - which means ideas that can be debated and considered - to just making stuff up. I have no other way of describing his latest missive against the United Methodist Church. The rhetoric is good. The truth is entirely absent.

Seriously. 

Look, I'm strongly in favor of regionalization and somewhat opposed to allowing a paragraph 2553 style path to disaffiliation in central conferences.  If you read me regularly you know this. But there are rational reasons to disagree. I could have a healthy debate with someone about this. But these aren't the reasons. Field has become like an American politician, seemingly believing that if he just says things long enough and loud enough some of it will stick.  

First, I hope I am not the only one who is tired of U.S. traditionalists telling me what all the people in Africa think. This was the message I directly gave to one traditionalist leader who emailed me wanting to negotiate on behalf of "African allies." My message was that Africans don't need U.S. traditionalists to negotiate on their behalf. We are all capable of talking with each other. In fact, it would be more fruitful for those in the U.S. who have left or plan to leave the denomination to just get out of the way. 

Second, how presumptive is it for Field to reduce the central conferences to simply one continent? He may not need their votes at General Conference because of their smaller numbers, but the legislation he is endorsing is equally relevant to United Methodists in Asia and Europe.

Now to Field's piece. 

It's just. not. true. None of it. 

1. It is not true that progressive groups and others "want to decide the future for African United Methodists." (in all cases, emphases in original). Field says not passing a new 2553 "cut off any option for disaffiliation" and "presumes African United Methodists cannot be trusted to make their own decisions." I will remind you again that the Global Methodist Church has celebrated when churches in Africa and whole countries in Europe have left the denomination. The only people I hear saying it is impossible for churches outside the U.S. to leave are the people who want churches outside the U.S. to leave. And, just to be entirely clear, there is no process for progressives in the U.S. to block those churches from doing so. 

2. It is not true that "regionalization decides for African United Methodist [sic] how far and for what matters their voices and votes will be allowed." Let's start by acknowledging that the first regionalization proposal, The Christmas Covenant, was created by people in central conferences including in Africa. Then let's remember how General Conference works. People from around the world, including Africa, will be there. Regionalization will require constitutional amendments, which takes a 2/3 vote. That can't happen without support from people in Africa. Then it has to be ratified by a 2/3 aggregate vote of the people at annual conferences. You don't need a visa to get to the U.S. for that one. It is literally impossible for ratification to happen if there is not significant support from Africa. All of us who have spent any time thinking about the political process of our denomination understand that there is no path to regionalization be enacted without that support. African votes will decide whether or not we have regionalization.

3. It is not true that the Fair for Some Fair for All campaign actually wants things to be fair for all. Here I am not judging, just observing the numerical and political truth. Our current Book of Discipline allows conferences outside of the U.S. to make extensive changes to the Book of Discipline to meet their contextual needs. It does not, and without constitutional amendments cannot, give the U.S. that same privilege. Assuming that there is not a mass exodus from outside the U.S., the U.S. will have a minority of votes beginning with the next regular general conference after this one. Math dictates that this means without regionalization the next general conference could in theory pass something with no U.S. votes that would only be in force in the U.S. To take the current hot button concern and flip it on its head, Africa, the Philippines, and Europe could vote to forbid same-sex marriage (as we currently do) and then at their own central conference level vote not to follow that rule. Obviously that specific example won't happen, but you understand the point. It is patently unfair for a majority group to bind a minority group to a rule that the majority themselves are not bound to. That is exactly what a rejection of regionalization will create.

If you haven't read Field's post, you can stop here. If you did read it, I will take just a moment to debunk his conspiracies.

1. Why have invitation letters been slow to arrive? That's a fantastic question that I promise we are all asking. For the record, there are people who I am confident will be voting for regionalization that have also not received their invitation letter. It is incredibly frustrating to all of us, and it is an embarrassment to the General Commission on General Conference. There should be accountability for this as well as for still today not having a full list of who the delegates to General Conference even are.

2. UM News Service is doing their job. It is not the job of a UM organization to promote the cause of people who have left or are leaving the denomination. I'm reminded of the local churches in our conference who, I'm told, called District Superintendents asking for pastors after they had disaffiliated. The DS has to say, "I'm sorry, we only appoint pastors to United Methodist churches." You can't bash the UMC at every opportunity and then expect our news agency to assist you. 

3. In addition to calling out misstatements of traditionalists, one of the roles MainstreamUMC has taken on is stating uncomfortable truths. It is NOT the position of Mainstream that the U.S. should "call the tune" because the large majority of denominational funding comes from the U.S. It is a practical reality that, just like many traditionalist churches withheld apportionments when they disagreed with denominational decisions (the WCA at one point actually actively encouraged this), without regionalization many U.S. churches are likely to pay less to the denomination. Mainstream is not advocating for this, simply acknowledging it is true.

Reflections from Tanzania

 Ten days ago I had the privilege of attending a two-day conference in Dar es Salaam led by The  Africa Forum. The conference has not had enough coverage. It was, I believe, very significant for multiple reasons.

1. The conference was the first truly trans-continental conference entirely organized and led by Africans. Traditionalist media has implied that it was led by people from the U.S. That's not true. There were maybe two dozen attendees from outside the continent. Most of said, at most, a 90 second greeting to the group. Nearly every major presentation was led by Africans and 100% of the guests were invited to attend by Africans. Attendees spanned the continent and came from nearly every annual conference in Africa. Compared this to African Voices for Unity which is primarily Nigerian and the Africa Initiative which is primarily West African and largely U.S. led.

2. The conference's outcome was not predetermined. Resolutions that were adopted were written during the conference by a committee, discussed by the whole body (note that when I say the whole body I am referring only to those from Africa. Observers sat at the side throughout the conference and did not participate.), amended, and approved. 

3. The results are clearly African. Personally, I was pleased with most of the resolutions that were adopted. The key one I didn't like was amending the resolution supporting the Global Social Principles by adding the language of "a man and a woman" to marriage. I promise you if the U.S. observers were influencing the outcome this would not have been included. But it is representative of what the large majority of Africans believe. On the other hand, the group very much wants to stay United Methodist and agreed that regionalization is a way to do that. This also fits with what many of us would expect. The catch remains what has always been the case - can we remain a United church and a regional church? I think the answer is yes. The group in Tanzania thinks the answer is yes. Time will tell.

4. Leadership was broad-based. Regardless of where they are on the theological divide, I'm tired of hearing from all the same people. In the U.S. we see the same two or three people writing or speaking "for Africans" over and over again. The African Forum's leadership team functioned like a team. Multiple voices were heard and respected including people whose names you likely are familiar with and people who you are not familiar with.

5. No to Disaffiliation. This really surprised me. The line U.S. traditionalists had fed me was Africans would be willing to vote for regionalization if the 2024 General Conference passed some version of paragraph 2553 for them. I believed them. Based on the Tanzania conference, that sentiment could not be more wrong. I'm convinced that regionalization would be LESS likely to pass if it included a disaffiliation option. Opposition to disaffiliation was overwhelming. 

5. Implications for General Conference and beyond. I haven't counted the votes. I don't have any predictions about what will happen at General Conference. What I do know is that those who have said GC24 will pit the U.S. against the world are wrong. In Tanzania, the U.S. was quiet while Africans talked with each other. We answered questions from our perspective when asked. Every person there was treated with respect and appreciation. I believe the traditionalist leadership in the U.S. wants GC24 to be a trainwreck. Nobody else wants that. They want us to fail. Nobody else wants that. Those who have wanted to leave has largely gone. If they leave us alone (they won't) then all will be well. If they continue to meddle in a church they have abandoned (they will) then I think all will still be well. Our relationships and mutual understanding will continue to grow and Christ will be worshipped and witnessed to through the UMC across the globe. 

Fair for Some, Fair for All - Not Just for the WCA

 You may have seen the Wesleyan Covenant Association's new campaign for extending a version of paragraph 2553 to Central Conferences. They have titled the campaign, "Fair for Some Fair for All." 

I don't say it often, but I will here. The WCA is right. What is fair for some is fair for all.

Opportunity to Disaffiliate

It is true that 2553 did not apply to Central Conferences. My perception is that this has to do with a technicality and, unlike the rest of the paragraph, was not the intention of the traditionalists who passed the disaffiliation plan. I haven't seen the legislation that the WCA has proposed. This is important because traditionalist leaders are politically savy and, just like politicians in D.C., they can craft legislation to do more than the stated purpose. For example, they are not calling in this plan to reopen 2553 to the U.S. That would a disaster. Additionally, I've been told the legislation would also let whole annual conferences leave, which was not allowed in the U.S. So I can't promise to support their legislation. 

In fact, I likely won't. You might say, "Isn't that talking out of both sides of your mouth?" The answer is no. Churches in Central Conferences should be able to leave the denomination - and they already can. As I showed here, the Global Methodist Church and WCA have celebrated the fact that churches in Europe and Africa have left. Talking out of both sides of your mouth is saying something cannot happen while simultaneously celebrating that it has happened. 

Opportunity to Govern

One reason churches outside of the U.S. have disaffiliated without the benefit of 2553 is that our denomination is structured in a way that allows for different governance outside of the U.S. Paragraph 101 allows central conferences, which by definition are outside of the U.S., to "make changes and adaptations to the General Book of Discipline to more fruitfully accomplish our mission in various contexts." Effectively, the denomination has said that the way we do things in the U.S. is "normal" and if you are in an "abnormal" context you can make adjustments. A more charitable reading of our history would be that U.S. delegates, which represented a large majority of General Conference votes, recognized that they shouldn't dictate governance to smaller groups in different cultures.

Supporters of regionalization, like me, recognize that in a global denomination there is no such thing as "normal." Most likely, there will be no "majority" continent or country at the first regular General Conference after 2024. There is a good possibility that the General Conference after that will have an African majority. This means that without some form of regionalization United Methodists from outside the U.S. will be able to set rules that the U.S. has to follow but that the people making the rules can adapt. There is no universe in which this is fair. 

What is fair for some is fair for all. It should be possible for churches outside the U.S. to leave, and it is. It should be possible for every region of the globe to adapt to their region, and it is not. 

Fundraising off of Destruction

If you read my blog much, you've likely heard about the 2004 internal Good News strategy document "Options for the Future." The link is to a permanent mirror as the original was taken down after others and I published it.

Since then, I've received pushback from Good News leaders like Rob Renfroe denying that the document was ever discussed and downplaying the truth that the document names the continuing existence of the UMC as a disadvantage to traditionalists leaving the denomination. Good News and their allies are very smart and strategic. Documents like this don't exist by mistake. But if you still doubt their motives, I'm going to go point by point through a recent fundraising email from close Good News, WCA, and GMC ally, The IRD. It's not paranoia if they are really out to get you. Read along:

Dear Methodist friends:

We’re thrilled that the number of exiting churches from United Methodism will top 7650 this month before the deadline, far exceeding expectations.  

   Tooley is not thrilled with the number of people being baptized, the number preaching the Good News, or the number of churches joining the new denomination. He is thrilled with the number that are leaving. He is explicitly thrilled with tearing down a denomination.

Liberal pastor Adam Hamilton predicted there would only be 3000-4500 church exits. We had expected maybe 5000-6000. But 25% of all United Methodist churches have now left the denomination despite all the high hurdles!

It's true that Adam was wrong. I was, too. I expected about 20% would disaffiliate. But there are multiple issues with Tooley's statmeent:

1. While those of us remaining United Mehtodist have been accused of colonialism, Tooley forgets there is such a thing as churches outside of the U.S. The 25% number is NOT all UM's, it is 25% of U.S. churches. The international church exists! 

2. The "high hurdles" that Tooley mentions were allowed for in the legislation that traditionalists passed in 2019, saying it was "the way [we] would want to be treated if [we were] leaving."

3. The full truth is traditionalist leaders have pulled out all the stops to get churches to disaffiliate. They have held membership drives to artificially distort votes, they have allowed misinformation to spread without refutation, and they have advocated for disaffiliation for reasons other than the one reason the 2019 legislation provided for. They have done everything possible to maximize disaffiliations, far beyond what I believed their sense of Christian ethics would allow for, and still 75% of U.S. churches are staying United Methodist.

Praise the Lord for performing this great work!

Some people believe we should negotiate. Some people think we should extend the disaffiliation paragraph like Tooley, Renfroe and others want. Some people still believe progressives and centrists were the ones acting in bad faith when the Protocol failed. Please tell me how we can negotiate when traditionalist leadership praises God for people leaving us. 

This is also a tribute to your work over many years.

This is an important sentence. The work of tearing us down did not begin with the current round of disaffiliations. It did not begin with the 2019 General Conference or the creation of the Traditionalist Plan. It began "many years" ago. They finally said it out loud.

The remainder of Tooley's email is promoting IRD events. Except for one key question he poses. Tooley asks, "How many of us can answer the question:  Why are we Methodists and not Baptists?

I have an answer. Of those staying United Methodist, nearly all of us know we aren't Baptists. But, Mark, when you promote Baptist theology (like churches openly re-baptizing and only doing "believes baptism) and Baptist polity (downplaying the Connection and advocating more of a call system than itinerate system of appointment), this is what you get.