The Case for Regionalization, Pt. 6

Pt. 1: Regionalization acknowledges reality

Pt. 2: Regionalization gives clarity

Pt 3: Regionalization promotes fairness

Pt. 4: Regionalization identifies the essentials

Pt. 5: Regionalization improves our structure

Regionalization Avoids Unnecessary Arguments While Retaining Connection

I served on one of our General Boards from 1997-2002. This was a time not long after we began to wrestle more seriously with how to be a worldwide church instead of a U.S. church with international outposts. Every meeting included conversation about how to structure every petition, resolution, or action as global instead of U.S. focused. I really appreciated this, but it was also a challenge. Some issues really are regional. One of the subgroups I worked on the marketing of tobacco to children. This is a much different and deeper issue outside of the U.S. where laws were laxer than U.S. laws. On the other hand, marriage equality for LGBT people makes much more sense in a country where it is legal than in a country where it is illegal.

These are questions we may well disagree about at a worldwide General Conference. The disagreement can limit action and, therefore, limit our impact. Regionalization will allow us to work together in the areas we can work together while working separately in the areas where either we can't come to agreement or we are more effective by acting regionally. 

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.

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.