David W. Scott: Regionalization as a Kairos Moment

Today’s post is by Dr. David W. Scott. Dr. Scott is the Senior Director of Theology and Strategic Planning for the General Boards of Global Ministries and Higher Education and Ministry. This is the first in a three-part series based on a presentation given to the Connectional Table on a theology of regionalization.

As I have been describing for the past two weeks, while we have some problems in the church, including the problem of US centrism, God provides us solutions to our problems, and regionalization is one important such solution to the problem of US centrism.

There’s more good news, though. I believe we are currently in a period in which God has opened up the possibility of change in our church. We are in a Kairos moment.

Kairos is God’s appointed time. It is a time when the possibility for successful collective action exists. To borrow language from the political science term of policy window, it is when a problem, a solution, and the will to implement that solution line up. We have a problem – US centrism. We have a solution – regionalization. And I believe that we have the will to implement that solution in this moment.

Our current Kairos time is the latest in a long line of Kairos moments throughout UMC history, as the church has repeatedly encountered God’s invitation to live into new and more equitable ways of being the connectional church together across geographic borders:

• From the 1790s through the 1810s, the system of a General Conference and regional annual conferences evolved. The first General Conference was held in 1792, and in 1812, the Methodist Episcopal Church began the present system of electing delegates from annual conferences to the General Conference.
• In the 1830s & 1840s, the first American Methodist international missions offered the first chance to develop equitable relationships and structures across international boundaries. The church decided that annual conferences would be established everywhere Methodist mission went, not just in the United States.
• In the 1870s, the first central conferences were created in India and elsewhere in Asia to allow for more coordination among annual conferences outside the United States. Eventually, central conferences led to leadership selection adaptation of church practices on a regional level outside the United States.
• In the 1920s, there was discussion of how the church in the United States should relate to the church in Korea, Mexico, and Brazil, where the church was pursuing autonomy. In this period, central conferences were also extended around the world, almost but not quite, including to the United States.
• The 1960s and 1970s brought COSMOS – the Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas – and a wave of churches in Latin America and Asia becoming autonomous.

I want to talk a little more about the COSMOS process as an example of how the church approached a Kairos moment in the past. COSMOS was designed to address issues of the relationship between the Methodist Church in the United States and the Methodist Church in other countries. In doing so, it was intended to balance the principles of freedom and fellowship.

COSMOS focused on 5 Core Principles that should determine the relationship between the church in different contexts:

• Developing responsible, indigenous churches of integrity
• Being shaped by the centrality of mission
• Fostering interdependence in mission and fellowship
• Being considered provisional and thus flexible
• Providing for equality of relationship

Based on those principles, COSMOS developed four options for the structure of the church:

1. Continuing the present structure, including central conferences
2. Granting autonomy for churches outside the United States
3. Creating an international church with regional conferences
4. Creating a World Methodist Conference of Churches

So, COSMOS considered a variety of solutions to the perceived problems of its day. In the end, the UMC went with a combination of the first and second options. Some churches became fully autonomous. Others stayed in in the present central conference structure. We can perhaps see COSMOS as a missed opportunity to be more creative in finding ways to develop equitable connectional relationships across international differences, but it was a time when the church dedicated significant focus to such questions, and it was still a step forward in that direction.

Experimentation has continued since the time of COSMOS.

• In the 2000s, the Worldwide Nature of the UMC saw regionalization legislation passed in 2008 but not ratified.
• That brings us to our current moment of regionalization, where legislation has passed and is now in the ratification process.

So, regionalization has lots of historical precedence. Every few decades throughout the life of The United Methodist Church and its predecessors, there have been Kairos moments when the church has sought anew to develop equitable relationships of Christian fellowship across countries. With the current regionalization legislation, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to live into what God has been calling us to as a church for a long time.

I hope this series of posts leaves you with three things:

First, I hope you are assured of the strong theological basis behind the Worldwide Regionalization legislation.

Second, I hope you are grateful for the gift God has given the church in the form of this Kairos moment.

Third, I hope you are determined not just to support the Worldwide Regionalization legislation but to figure out how we can in all our ways as a denomination live into the type of connectionalism to which God is calling us. So may it be. Amen.

David W. Scott: Regionalization as Solution to US Centrism

Today’s post is by Dr. David W. Scott. Dr. Scott is the Senior Director of Theology and Strategic Planning for the General Boards of Global Ministries and Higher Education and Ministry. This is the second in a three-part series based on a presentation given to the Connectional Table on a theology of regionalization.

As discussed last week, US centrism is a problem in The United Methodist Church, and God is calling us to a better connectionalism.

The way we get from one to the other is the solutions God offers us as a church. One very important such solution right now is regionalization. Regionalization is one way, but an important way, to move away from US centrism and toward the type of connectional values that God is calling us to practice.

It is important to make a distinction between regionalization as a theological concept and the Worldwide Regionalization legislation. I will talk about both.

As a theological concept, regionalization affirms that the primary venue for making collective decisions for the church should be a regional level rather than a global or local level. Regionalization is a value that affirms that all parts of the church should have equal authority and equal ability to make decisions.

Regionalization is related to other theological concepts such as contextualization. Contextualization asserts that the practices of the church should be determined within a shared context so as to best fit that context.

For both regionalization and contextualization, there are differing levels of local and regional contexts. We could talk, for instance, about the local context of Basel and the regional contexts of Switzerland, central Europe, and Europe as a whole.

What decisions are made on what level is a question of polity.

There already is one form of regionalization in United Methodist polity. The Book of Discipline refers to annual conferences as “the fundamental bodies of the Church.” Annual conferences are a form of regionalization in the church. They bring together churches from across a region for collective decision making in a way that goes beyond the local but does not include everyone from the global. The issue in our current US centrism is that this is not a sufficient form of regionalization.

As a package of legislation, Worldwide Regionalization seeks to implement the concept of regionalization in one way within The United Methodist Church. The Worldwide Regionalization legislation proposes to change the names of the existing central conferences into regional conferences. It would also create a new U.S. regional conference enabling The UMC in the U.S. to decide on specific U.S. matters.

Central conferences are already existing forms of regionalization. The Worldwide Regionalization legislation would standardize this form of regionalization to include the US, which currently does not have an equivalent form of regionalization to the central conferences. This is one of the major drivers of the problem of US centrism. 

Once created, each regional conference will have the authority to maximize the effectiveness of mission and ministry in its context by adapting portions of The Book of Discipline.

All regional conferences will share the common portions of the Book of Discipline, including the Constitution, Doctrinal Standards and Our Theological Task, The Ministry of All Christians, and Social Principles enacted by General Conference. These are not adaptable by regional conferences. The Council of Bishops, Judicial Council, General Agencies and General Conference are fully maintained.

The important thing to affirm is that the Worldwide Regionalization legislation is based on regionalization as a theological concept. In addition to discussing the merits of that legislation, it’s also important to better understand the theological concept of regionalization, which is where this presentation comes in.

I want to offer four affirmations about regionalization as a theological principle: that regionalization has a biblical foundation; that regionalization is missional; that regionalization is equitable; and that regionalization is connectional. Together, these four affirmations aim to give a better sense of what the theological concept of regionalization is and why it matters.

Let’s first look briefly at the affirmation that regionalization has a biblical foundation. Throughout the Bible, God has recognized the diversity of cultures and nations, included that diversity in God’s redemptive plans for humanity, and allowed for decision-making structures that take such diversity into account. In this way, the theme of regionalization runs through the Bible.

In the Hebrew Bible, we see in the Psalms and Prophets that God intends for all nations to one day know and worship God. This will not happen because cultural or political differences among nations are erased. Rather, each nation, with its unique heritage, will worship God through its own culture or cultures and under its own leadership. So, there is international connectionalism and regionalization of worship and leadership in that theological vision.

We also see in the history of the 12 tribes of Israel intertribal connectionalism, united around a shared faith and history. This was paired with regional decision-making by elders within each tribe.

Turning to the New Testament, we see repeatedly in such verses as Matthew 28:18–20, Acts 2, Acts 10–11, and Revelation 7:9–10 that, just like in the Hebrew Bible, God includes all nations in God’s salvific vision and intends for them to keep their own unique culture or cultures as part of that vision.

Moreover, in the early church, there was a spiritual and relational unity among the churches along with local and regional decision making by leaders of churches and groups of churches throughout Greco-Roman, Persian, and African lands.

Next, let’s explore how regionalization is missional. As I said earlier, regionalization is tied to contextualization, which is one of the major insights from the past half century in the theology of mission. Mission theology has shifted away from an understanding of mission that equates Christianity with Western culture and toward an understanding of mission that recognizes that all cultures are equally valid homes for the gospel. This insight extends across mainline Protestant, evangelical, and Catholic theologians.

The emphasis on contextualization in mission theology recognizes that no culture can claim superiority over other cultures in the Christian faith, just as no region can claim superiority over others. It is an obstacle to the gospel to insist that all Christians follow the practices of one culture or one region.

Instead, when Christianity adapts to the culture of various nations and lands, then it flourishes. By giving decision-making authority to those most familiar with their cultural context, regional governance allows the church in every context to better engage with the culture around it in appropriate ways.

Shared beliefs and practices continue to unite Christians across cultural differences, even when those beliefs and practices are expressed using terms, symbols, and concepts indigenous to each culture.

Again, regionalization is equitable. It moves away from a center/periphery understanding of the church. The United States is no longer treated as the center and template for others.

Instead, regionalization recognizes that the church in each country, including the United States, is an adaptation of United Methodism to the particular context of that country. Each adaptation of United Methodism must reflect on its own context as together they dialogue about what it means to be United Methodist across contexts.

Under regionalization, each region governs itself, and each region contributes equally to the governance of the whole. And all regions build relationships of mutuality with each other grounded in equity, reciprocity, and trust.

Regionalization emphasizes the adaptation of the church to the various contexts in which it operates, but regionalization is not separation. It is simply a way for The United Methodist Church to live into its connectional identity.

As history shows, and I’ll say more about this in next week’s post, the quest to balance regionalization, connectionalism, and autonomy is long-standing. These theological concepts are not mutually exclusive. Instead, they reinforce one another.

Together, United Methodists across nations and cultures can discern how to support one another in carrying out, in our own contexts, our shared mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.

David W. Scott: US-Centrism vs. A Better Connectionalism

Today’s post is by Dr. David W. Scott. Dr. Scott is the Senior Director of Theology and Strategic Planning for the General Boards of Global Ministries and Higher Education and Ministry. This is the first in a three-part series based on a presentation given to the Connectional Table on a theology of regionalization.

To frame this theological discussion of regionalization, I want to talk about moving from where we are now as The United Methodist Church to where God is calling us to go before next week looking at how we will get from where we are now to where God is calling us to go.

Where we are now as a church is US centric in many ways. That is, as a denominational whole, the church tends to focus on those members and those parts of the church in the United States. You can see some facts associated with US centrism on this slide:

• In terms of attitudes, US United Methodists often fail to see or treat their fellow United Methodists from elsewhere as equals. If we need proof of this, we can listen to some of the stories that our central conference sisters and brothers can tell us about their experiences in denomination-wide settings.
• The agendas of denomination-wide bodies often reflect primarily US concerns. Just look at the percentage of General Conference petitions that come from the United States vs. from elsewhere.
• For focus, many of the structures of the denomination focus primarily on the church in the United States, even when they are ostensibly denomination-wide and do work internationally. As an example, we could look at the percentage of cases the Judicial Council hears that come from the United States vs. from elsewhere.
• 99% of denominational finances come from the United States, and not all areas of the world contribute to apportionments at the same rates or to the same funds. Granted, there are significant economic differences between regions of the church, and we need to be cognizant of these, but that does not fully explain away this disparity.
• The denomination operates according to rules developed in the United States that reflect American cultural values. Roberts Rules of Order are the most obvious example.
• And United Methodists from the United States are often proportionately overrepresented on denomination-wide bodies. With less than half the global membership, they tend to have much more than half the members of most denomination-wide groups.

There is a long history behind this US centrism. In some ways, it is rooted in the success of the evangelistic mission of American Methodists who shared their faith in countries around the world. In some ways, it stems from the theological and cultural prejudices of previous generations of Methodists. In some ways, it reflects the significant secular economic and political power that the United States has as a country.

The important thing to emphasize is that there are differences in how the UMC’s current structures and practices treat United Methodists in the United States vs. United Methodists from other countries.

I would suggest that these facts about our US centric nature as a denomination point to underlying problems with US-centrism.

• One problem with the difference between the United States and the rest of the church is that by treating different areas of the church differently, we privilege the United States by giving it more power and control of resources. Therefore, US centrism is not fair or equitable.
• Those inequalities are also a problem for Christian fellowship. We believe that all Christians are equal before God. How can United Methodists from different contexts join in true Christian fellowship when they are not treated as equals?
• There are also practical problems. Under the current setup, the United States serves as the template for the rest of the church, but what works in the United States won’t necessarily work elsewhere, since laws, access to resources, and cultural norms are different around the world. As Jose Miguez Bonino, the Argentinian Methodist theologian, said, rules and structures designed for a church of 10 million won’t work for a church of 10,000.
• These differences are also a potential problem for the church’s evangelistic witness. When the church is not adequately able to adapt to its context, it will not be able to address important issues related to the witness of the church in that context.

But there is hope! If US centrism is a problem in the church, then God will provide solutions. In fact, God may offer the church multiple different ways to move forward, and the church may use multiple different ways to move toward a better expression of church.

As we consider possible solutions to these problems, our goals should include preserving our connection to one another. For United Methodists, connectionalism is the term we use to talk about what it means to be the church together. When we’re talking about where God is calling The United Methodist Church to go, we are asking: How is God calling us to better live out our connectionalism?

Some people and some groups have already left the UMC or are in the process of doing so. The work of shaping the future of the UMC belongs to those of us who have decided to remain and #BeUMC and to our ecumenical Methodist partners with whom we have official, recognized, and in most cases, long-standing relationships. The work ahead of us is work for those who are committed to being connected to one another.

As we think about what sort of connectionalism God is calling The United Methodist Church to embody, we need to be aware of the different senses in which the term can be understood. This includes a structural meaning of connectionalism, where we talk about the formal polity of the denomination: conferences, episcopal leadership, itineration, the agencies, and so on. While this form of connectionalism is what people often think of first, it is not the only meaning of connectionalism.

Connectionalism is also a set of relationships between people who know one another and have eaten, prayed, worked, talked, and traveled with one another. But there’s even more: As Christians, we believe that we are sisters and brothers in Christ, whether or not we have ever met. This is a spiritual sense of connectionalism. Finally, connectionalism has an ecclesiological sense. There is something important about the nature of the church that only exists in the connections between local congregations. Congregations need one another to fully be the body of Christ.

With these four senses of connectionalism in mind, I would like to suggest that God is calling us as a denomination to live into a connectionalism that embodies the following qualities:

• First, it is missional: Connectionalism exists to serve mission, and mission cannot exist without connectionalism.
• Second, it is mutual: Mutual connectional relationships depend upon investment from all parties, give and take by each party, and benefit for all parties.
• Third, it is decolonial: It must actively address historic injustices related to empire, nation, race, gender, class, ability, and other forms of privilege.
• Fourth, it is contextual: Understandings and practices of connectionalism vary across contexts, and this is a normal and healthy reality that supports missional effectiveness.
• Fifth, it is intercultural: Connectionalism must put us in dialogue with each other across difference for the sake of mutual learning and collective discernment.
• Sixth and finally, it is open: As United Methodists we may expect, even demand, that the church continue to change and grow for the sake of better loving God and neighbor.

This is a theological vision of what God is calling us to be as a church, how God is calling us to live into our connectionalism. We are called to step away from our US centric past and present and toward these better practices of connectionalism in the future.

Plan Now: Worldwide Regionalization and Ratification Webinar

UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott will present on “Theology of Regionalization” as part of an upcoming “Worldwide Regionalization & Ratification Webinar.”

The webinar will be on February 20 at 8am PST/9am MST/10 am CST/11am ET. The webinar is expected to last about 3 hours long. Dr. Scott will be second on the agenda.

The webinar is organized by the denomination’s Regionalization Task Force and presented by United Methodist Communications. It represents a collaboration among UMCOM, the Connectional Table, the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters, members of the Christmas Covenant writing team and The Council of Bishops

According to the event description, “This session will examine the significance of worldwide regionalization in The United Methodist Church, its implications for the U.S. church and the consequences of inaction. Attendees will gain a deeper understanding of the ratification process, engage with key leaders, and explore how regionalization fosters adaptability, equity and mission effectiveness.” The webinar will conclude with a live Q&A.

Interested readers can register here.

David W. Scott - United Methodist Disciplines: Possibilities and Anomalies

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.

Inspired by upcoming work on the General Book of Discipline during this quadrennium of the UMC, I have been examining over the past couple of weeks how United Methodists understand the concept of discipline and what it means to have a Book of Discipline. Thus far, I have looked at the relationship between discipline and discipleship and examined rules vs. norms and boundaries vs. ideals as ways of influencing behavior.

I’d like to conclude this series (for now, at least) but looking at one more pair of concepts, related this time to when rule making is necessary: possibilities and anomalies.

Much rule making occurs in response to a specific situation. Something happens, and then rules are put into place to make sure there’s consistency if a situation happens again or to avoid a bad situation happening again. Certainly, rules can arise in response to theoretical issues or for other reasons, but this approach to rule making is a common one. Something happens, someone says, “That might happen again, so there ought to be a policy about that,” and a policy is created.

This is not a bad approach. It is good to have consistency and to avoid bad situations if we can. Many would argue that we have a moral imperative to do so. Yet behind this approach to rule making are some assumptions about risk or recurrence that are worth delving into.

One of the assumptions behind this “there should be a policy” approach to discipline is the judgement that the possibility of a situation recurring is realistic and significant – that it is common enough and important enough that it justifies the effort of making and carrying out a policy.

Thus, for instance, the Book of Discipline states in ¶256.1, “Local churches or charges are strongly encouraged to develop policies and procedures to provide for the safety of the infants, children, youth, and vulnerable adults entrusted to their care.” The consequences of abuse or harm to children and youth are so severe and, unfortunately, such an occurrence is frequent enough around the world that it is important for the Book of Discipline to set this policy. Sadly, child abuse is a realistic risk, and it would be irresponsible of the church not to try to prevent it.

On the other hand, General Conference hasn’t recommended a policy about what to do if a plane crashes at your church before worship, though this is something that happened to a Baptist church in North Carolina last year. https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/baptists/plane-crashes-near-nc-church-before-sunday-services/ That possibility is seen as too remote to be worth worrying about, even though we could imagine the situation having an impact on worship and pastoral care. And in the North Carolina incident, thankfully, the pilot was okay and church services continued, so the situation had few major consequences. Planes crashing into churches are not seen as a realistic, significant possibility. Instead, the incident can be chalked up as an anomaly.

An anomaly is something abnormal, peculiar, and unexpected. It is unlikely, and it may even be a singular occurrence – something that has only happened once. There is generally no need to make policies to avoid anomalies because they are seen as rare (and therefore not worth worrying about) and unpredictable (and therefore unable to be controlled).

So, when United Methodists are considering when to embed policies into the Book of Discipline in response to something that has happened, the question is, “Could this situation likely happen again? Or was the situation an anomaly?”

The challenge is that determining whether something is a realistic and significant possibility or an anomaly is a judgment call, and different people’s judgments will be influenced by a whole host of issues, including personal experience and relevant information they possess. Critically, that judgment can also be influenced by cultural context.

Cultures involve assumptions about what phenomena are salient and significant in the human world. Set aside for a moment that the statistical likelihood of a plane crashing into a church varies from one context to another based on the prevalence of planes, churches, and aerial safety measures. If planes were to crash into two different churches in two different cultural contexts, the members of those churches would make sense of those crashes in two different ways. They would derive different theological and social meanings from the events.

And, crucially, they might have a different sense of whether another plane crash was a realistic risk and/or how significant an event it was for a plane to crash into a church. Thus, they would have a different sense of whether something was a possibility or an anomaly.

To bring this discussion back to the Book of Discipline, there are, for instance, several paragraphs in the current Book of Discipline on Ecumenical Shared Ministries, ¶207-211. In the United States, the possibility of an ecumenical congregation formed by combining United Methodists and Christians from another denomination is both realistic and significant. There are many such congregations, meaning that this is more than just a singular occurrence. And given the challenges in integrating differing denominational governing structures, the UMC sees these instances as significant enough for there to be rules surrounding them.

But this might not be the case in all other contexts. In other contexts, such ecumenical congregations may be unheard of or even unthinkable. Or they may exist, but they may be seen as mere anomalies – unusual circumstances, but not significant enough to make general rules around such occurrences.

Thus, part of the work that will need to be done around the General Book of Discipline is not just cross-cultural discussion of theological, educational, and legal systems. It will also involve cross-cultural discussion of risks, possibilities, and anomalies – deep level investigations into how different cultures understand the patterns and significance of occurrences within the life of the church.

David W. Scott - United Methodist Disciplines: Boundaries vs. Ideals

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.

Inspired by upcoming work on the General Book of Discipline during this quadrennium of the UMC, I have been examining over the past couple of weeks how United Methodists understand the concept of discipline and what it means to have a Book of Discipline.

As part of that series, I asserted that the purpose of having a denominational Book of Discipline is to help United Methodists live productive lives of Christian discipleship, where, together with others in Christian community, they grow in holiness, i.e., the love of God and neighbor.

I also asserted that one of Methodism’s theological insights is that actions matter in the Christian life, and that discipline builds on this insight by trying to regulate Methodists’ actions, to encourage those actions which best express holiness and discourage actions which are at odds with holy living. Last week, I looked at rules and norms as two different ways to influence action.

This week, I would like to suggest another pair of approaches to influencing action: boundaries and ideals.

In brief, boundaries set the limits of acceptable actions. They determine what sorts of actions are prohibited, or “out of bounds” within a particular community, and what actions are required of a community’s members to remain in the bounds of the community. Boundaries set expectations for behavior by indicating what behaviors people should not engage in and focusing on penalties for not performing required behaviors.

Ideals, on the other hand, set standards and goals for desired and discouraged actions. They determine what sorts of actions would best reflect the beliefs, values, and identity of a community and what actions would be inconsistent with those beliefs, values, and identity. Thus, they set aspirations for behavior by indicating what behaviors people would exhibit in the best of situations, even if there is recognition that in practice, individuals will not exhibit all of these behaviors or will not exhibit them perfectly.

An easy test of whether a rule sets a boundary or an ideal is whether questions about if it has been followed must be answered with “yes/no,” in which case it sets a boundary, or whether such questions can be answered on a spectrum, in which case it sets an ideal.

The UMC Book of Discipline contains both boundaries and ideals.

As an example of a statement of ideals, look at the membership vows in ¶217. When members affirm that they will “accept the freedom and power God gives them to resist evil, injustice, and oppression,” they are not agreeing that they will never commit any more wrongs at the risk of losing their church membership. They are affirming an ideal of Christian discipleship. For various reasons, members may by commission or omission still participate in oppression, but they recognize that such behavior does not conform with the highest ideals of Christian discipleship.

Just a few paragraphs later comes an example of a statement of boundaries. ¶221 on “Accountability” sets a boundary for membership. It explains the actions required by congregants and pastors in a situation in which a congregant is accused of not living up to their baptismal vows. It details the steps of intervention, mediation, and ultimately church trial.

Other portions of the Book of Discipline are less clear whether they constitute boundaries or ideals. When ¶216 says, “Baptized infants and children are to be instructed and nurtured in the meaning of the faith, the rights and responsibilities of their baptism, and spiritual and moral formation using materials approved by The United Methodist Church,” it is clearly attempting to set some boundaries on what the confirmation process should look like in UMC churches. Yet, most United Methodists would recognize that actual confirmation practices in UMC churches vary, with little consequence, so this passage may function more as an ideal than a boundary.

To the extent that the Book of Discipline is influenced by U.S. secular law (and that’s a significant extent), it has tended to proliferate boundary statements. U.S. secular law is geared toward determination of mutuality exclusive states (guilty/innocent, owning/not owning, liable/not liable, etc.) and toward outlining proper procedures. Determining which of two (or more) mutually exclusive states a case falls into is an exercise of boundary setting. The concept of “proper” procedures implies that if certain actions are not performed rightly, if they fall outside the boundary, then the procedures will be improper and invalid.

Large portions of the Book of Discipline, especially in Part VI: Organization and Administration, reflect boundary-setting material – rules for determining who counts as being in which categories of ministry, rules for who should be on what committee or board, rules about actions that must be followed or avoided lest they lead to improper organization and administration of the church. Certainly, some of this material is necessary, especially for the church in the United States to function within the context of secular law.

Yet, we should remember that the point of discipline is discipleship. Discipleship involves being conformed to the image of God through the on-going process of sanctification. And that process of being conformed to the image of God is less about behaviors that absolutely must or must not happen. It’s about better and better reflecting the characteristics and heart of God. It’s about approaching an ideal.

So, since discipline is ultimately about discipleship, ideals are often more useful than boundaries in clarifying the end toward which our church behaviors are oriented. Boundary setting may play an important part in helping us walk the path toward the goal of discipleship by preventing us from falling into ditches to the side of the path, but articulating our ideals of Christian discipleship must remain the primary focus of our disciplines.

To get some idea of what this could look like, I recommend reading through the section on ordination in the African Methodist Episcopal Church’s Book of Discipline. So much of the UMC’s section on ordination is focused on boundary setting – required mentoring, required education, required papers, required committee and board meetings, etc. The AME Book of Discipline has some of that, to be sure. But that AME Book of Discipline also has beautiful passages describing the qualities that a Christian minister should embody. It describes what sort of person ministers should be, or at least should aspire to be. It lays out the ideal.

I don’t know if AME ministers are better disciples than UMC ministers because of this setting of ideals, nor do I know how such a statement could even be assessed. But I do know that the AME Book of Discipline is more discipleship focused on this point, and that’s an example that United Methodists can aspire to follow as we continue to refine and perfect our Book of Discipline.

David W. Scott - United Methodist Disciplines: Rules and Norms

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.

Last week, I argued that the purpose of having a denominational Book of Discipline is to help United Methodists live productive lives of Christian discipleship, where, together with others in Christian community, they grow in holiness, i.e., the love of God and neighbor. The process of developing a General Book of Discipline that determines adaptable and non-adaptable portions of the present Book of Discipline is thus an opportunity to think theologically about the role of discipline in the life of discipleship.

One of Methodism’s theological insights is that actions matter in the Christian life. Christianity is not just about believing the right things; it is about putting one’s faith into action and thereby living out holy love. Discipline builds on this insight by trying to regulate Methodists’ actions, to encourage those actions which best express holiness and discourage actions which are at odds with holy living.

Yet there are two different ways to influence people’s actions: rules and norms.

Rules are formal statements of required or prohibited actions. They usually are tied to a set of stated consequences that apply if the rules are broken or at least an authority that has the power to enforce the rules and apply penalties if they are not followed. The primary feature of rules is that they are explicit. They state clearly, in ways that are accessible to all members of a community, how those community members are to behave.

Norms, on the other hand, are implicit. They are internalized and usually unspoken guidelines about how community members are to behave. There may be consequences to breaking norms, but these are social consequences, and those consequences are not necessarily predetermined nor does their application depend upon a particular authority. Norms operate through a process of socialization into the group that produces a common understanding of how to act.

Both formal rules and internalized norms can significantly shape people’s actions, but they do so in different ways, with each working best in specific settings.

Rules are especially useful in situations where there might be uncertainty or disagreement about how to behave. When there is uncertainty or disagreement about behavior, rules define expected behavior clearly in a way that everyone can access.

There are probably rules posted in your church kitchen. Not everyone who enters a church kitchen does so with the same idea about what to do with a dirty coffee cup or where to store leftover food, so posted rules encourage people to behave in the same way in that kitchen, regardless of what their initial inclinations would be.

Rules are also especially useful in situations where the consequences of behavior are significant. There’s no rule about not making change from the offering plate because, while that might be seen as a social faux pas, there’s little impact on others of that behavior. However, there are probably rules posted around your church about the heating or air conditioning systems because if one person acted inappropriately, that has the potential to discomfort everyone else in the church.

Norms have the advantage of being more comprehensive and more efficient than rules. Because they are based on observations of the behaviors of others, a lot more can be communicated in this way, and it can be done much more quickly than if everything were written down.

Imagine all of the behavioral choices that go into the average church potluck – what type of food to bring, how much to bring, what form to bring it in, how much food to take, etc. Some of these choices might be decided through formal rules (e.g., “Last names A-G bring a salad.”), but most of these choices are made based on observations of previous potlucks. You get a sense of how people act at a potluck, then you behave similarly. There might be some confusion for first-time participants, but by your second or third potluck, you get the hang of it, all without having to read a 32-page manual of rules on how to behave at potlucks. This is the power of norms. Even if there were a 32-page manual of potluck rules, it still probably won’t be as effective at getting people to behave the same way as social imitation is.

The disadvantage of norms is that they require a community of practice to operate. Potluck norms work when there’s a church community that regularly has potlucks. That setting of the same group of people engaging in the same set of actions is what allows people to socially learn from one another. If a church were to have a potluck for the first time ever, there would likely be a lot more variation in people’s behavior at the potluck. Or, if you had been to many potlucks before but then went to one in a new setting, it might be more difficult to anticipate in advance how people would behave because you would be outside the community where you learned potluck norms.

One of Wesley’s key insights, though, was that the practice of Christianity best happened in community. Classes, bands, and select societies were predicated on Christian community. These groups formed settings in which collective Christian norms could encourage all members of the community to behave in a more holy way. The Bible may function as a shared text, but most Christian small groups don’t have an extensive list of rules to govern their behavior or that of their members. Instead, they depend upon frequent interactions among members around shared areas of concern that build up commonly held norms in those areas. This has historically been an incredibly effective way to discipline Christians in their practice of discipleship.

Yet, the entire membership of The United Methodist Church functions much different than a small group. Most members of the church do not know each other, indeed have never met each other. So, there is no opportunity for people to directly learn social norms from one another. To the extent that individuals are part of multiple smaller groups within the denomination, they may help transfer norms from one area to another.

Nevertheless, for there to be shared understandings of expected behavior across the whole denomination, there need to be explicit rules, since the scope of the denomination is too large for implicit norms to function well. That is why we have a Book of Discipline.

Yet, even though rules are necessary in a large, multi-national, multicultural, multilinguistic denomination, it is important to remember that discipleship best happens in community and discipline exists to support discipleship. Thus, making formal rules is not an end in itself. The best and most effective way to discipline members into living lives of Christian discipleship is for them to be part of communities that can create shared norms of discipleship.

Rules support this process of community norming by ensuring that these communities incorporate key behaviors when the potential risk of not doing so would be disastrous to communities and by clarifying expectations of how the communities will relate to one another in mutual support of their process of forming Christian disciples.

Rules are not the only thing that can be included in a written Book of Discipline. In my next post, I’ll look at the distinction between boundaries and ideals.

David W. Scott - United Methodist Disciplines: Discipline and Discipleship

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.

Among the many actions of the recently concluded General Conference was to approve continued work on the General Book of Discipline. The creation of a General Book of Discipline is an idea that’s been around The United Methodist Church for some time and is laid out in ¶101 of the Book of Discipline.

In short, work on the General Book of Discipline involves designating certain portions of the Book of Discipline as adaptable and certain portions of it as non-adaptable. Adaptable portions of the Book of Discipline could be changed by central conferences (and regional conferences, should Worldwide Regionalization be ratified). Non-adaptable portions of the Book of Discipline are binding on all branches of the church.

Clearly in the non-adaptable portion of the Book of Discipline is the Constitution, the Doctrinal Standards and Our Theological Task, the Ministry of All Christians, and the Social Principles. Work on the General Book of Discipline is thus focused on the largest portion of the Discipline, Part VI: Organization and Administration. The instructions in ¶101 call for Part VI to be split into adaptable and non-adaptable parts.

This work is primarily assigned to the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters (SCCCM) and the Committee on Faith and Order (CFO), with some additional groups consulted on portions of the work. A movement at General Conference to give the SCCCM and CFO the power to reword portions of the Discipline rather than merely categorize them as adaptable or non-adaptable ran out of time to revise the authorizing legislation.

Worldwide Regionalization was one of the major foci for General Conference, and the work on the General Book of Discipline intersects in important ways with the push for regionalization. The regionalization legislation (which still requires ratification by annual conferences to go into effect) would clarify and strengthen the power of what would become regional conferences to adapt portions of the Book of Discipline. A General Book of Discipline would clarify where that power to adapt should be focused.

For some portions of the Book of Discipline, the decision about whether to categorize them as adaptable or non-adaptable is fairly straightforward. Portions of the Discipline dealing with US clergy pension programs, for instance, are clearly relevant only to one part of the church, and other parts of the church should be able to remove them or replace them with their own clergy retirement provisions.

Other portions of the Book of Discipline are less clear. Should the order of deacons be an adaptable part of the Discipline, since some places in Africa still practice the transitional diaconate, or should that become a standard practice everywhere? Should the agencies be seen as part of the global infrastructure of the church, or are they primarily vehicles for the US church to do its work? Should the process of organizing a new congregation be the same in all places?

Such questions push the church to think carefully about theological issues around contextualization, subsidiarity, unity, and mission. They impinge upon relational issues such as trust, differentiation, control, and reciprocity. These are all good and important issues to think through.

Yet if we go one level further up, work on the General Book of Discipline raises a further question: Why do we have a Book of Discipline? What is its role in the United Methodist understanding of the Christian life? How does the concept of discipline and the existence of a Book of Discipline shape The United Methodist Church as a Christian community?

Discipline is a central concept in Methodism, dating back to the days of John Wesley. In secular meanings, discipline has connotations of instruction, knowledge, training, and adherence to rules. All of these fit with Methodism’s understanding of discipline.

But the best linguistic connection through which to understand Methodist discipline is the connection between discipline and discipleship. Discipline is, in essence, a reflection of the Methodist understanding of how discipleship should work. For Methodists, a life of discipleship is a disciplined life.

John Wesley believed, and subsequent generations of Methodists have maintained, that a life of Christian discipleship should be focused on growing in holiness through sanctifying grace. That process of growth involves spiritual and moral training, which is best carried out in Christian community through a set of regularized practices that structure the Christian life.

In Wesley’s revival, such lives of Christian discipline were initially structured through small groups – the classes and bands. Eventually, as Wesley and the preachers associated with him began to meet in yearly conferences, the minutes of those conferences wrote down “what to teach, how to teach, and how to regulate our doctrine, discipline, and practice.” These written minutes were the beginning of the evolution of the present UMC Book of Discipline.

Yet it should not be lost that the point of these formalized minutes was to assist the individual Christians who were part of Wesley’s revival in living out disciplined lives of Christian holiness. The point of disciplines (and a written Discipline) was ultimately spiritual, not administrative, legislative, or legal. Disciplines existed to standardize best practices from the revival so that people could incorporate these practices into their Christian discipleship and thereby grow in holiness.

Thus, as United Methodists think about work on the General Book of Discipline, it is critical to keep in mind the spiritual intent of having a Book of Discipline. The question is not merely, “What rules can we afford to allow variation in around the world?” Ultimately, the question must be, “How do we craft a General Book of Discipline that helps United Methodists around the world be successful disciples of Jesus Christ?”

With this lens of discipleship in mind, I will suggest a few additional concepts over the next several posts to help United Methodists think through how disciplines and a Discipline can contribute to living out lives of holiness in Christian community.

An Intercultural Prayer for General Conference

The following prayer was written by Dr. David W. Scott, blogmaster for UM & Global, on the opening of The United Methodist Church's General Conference in 2024.

Triune God, united yet diverse, we thank you for the gift of varied human cultures. We know that you created cultural diversity (Genesis 11), you included it in the very beginning of your church (Acts 2), and it is part of your eschatological vision for your heavenly, redeemed people (Revelation 7). We thank you for the ways in which the multiplicity of human cultures and perspectives help us to understand the multiplicity of ways in which you shower your love and your grace upon the world. We praise you for your creative spirit at work in the human desire to express truth and beauty regardless of background.

Yet we know that cultural diversity is not always an easy gift for us to accept. Give us then the other gifts that will help us better receive your blessing of cultural diversity and will keep us going in the direction of one another, even when we encounter difficulties and conflicts. Give us the gifts of listening, of understanding, of patience, of perseverance, of wisdom, of discretion. Give us most of all the gift of on-going sanctification so that we may be drawn ever closer to one another in holy love. We know that you through your sanctifying grace desire us to come to understand you better and to understand one another better so that we might better understand you.

May these gifts abound especially during this time of General Conference. We know that it can be difficult to discuss, debate, disagree, and discern even with those who look and think as we do. It requires that much more of us to engage in your work of holy conferencing across cultural differences. But we know that when we engage in such work interculturally, it holds out the potential for special blessings from you - special outpourings of your grace, special insight into how you work in the world, and a special opportunity to witness to the wideness of your redeeming grace. We pray that you may help us to run with perseverance this race so that we might win the prize.

And when this General Conference is over, we ask one more boon of you - that you may give us the space to tend to the work of building your intercultural church outside the pressure cooker of General Conference. Give us the opportunity to eat with one another around the boodle fight and the potluck table, to discuss under the palaver tree and in the seminar classroom, to worship together with the sounds of spirituals and organ music, to travel together by train and tuktuk, and through it all to learn from one another, to laugh with one another, and to love one another more.

Incarnate God, we thank you that you meet us where we are and walk with us on our journeys. May we feel your presence in all of us, now and always. Amen.

Recommended Viewing: Global Ministries on Emily Explains

UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott recently appeared on an episode of "Emily Explains" in his capacity as Director of Mission Theology and Strategic Planning for Global Ministries. "Emily Explains" is a series of short videos created by Emily Allen, a General Conference lay delegate from the California-Nevada Annual Conference. The videos are created to help inform United Methodists about various aspects of the church related to General Conference and the global connection.

In the episode, "What Is the United Methodist General Board of Global Ministries?" Scott shares some overview information about Global Ministries and also some information specific to Global Ministries and legislation before General Conference.

Recommended Listening: Un-Tied Methodism on Regionalization

UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott was a recent guest on Un-Tied Methodism, the podcast of the General Commission on Archives and History (GCAH), hosted by General Secretary Dr. Ashley Boggan D. Scott joined Boggan D. and other guests Rev. Dr. Izzy Alvaran and Rev. Dr. Betty Kazadi Musau to discuss regionalization in The United Methodist Church in an episode titled "Reimagining unity: Regionalization and the UMC."

During the conversation, Scott shared some insights from Methodist history, including work associated with the book Methodism and American Empire: Reflections on Decolonizing the Church, which he co-edited with Dr. Filipe Maia, and to which Alvaran contributed a chapter.

Given the significance of discussions of regionalization at General Conference next week, the episode is sure to be of interest to readers.

David W. Scott: Why the Book of Discipline Matters More in the US

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.

When General Conference convenes in just over a month, it will spend most of its time examining legislative petitions to alter the Book of Discipline (BOD), the denomination’s rule book. And the overwhelming majority of those petitions dealing with the BOD come from the United States.

There are many reasons why so much of the BOD legislation at General Conference comes from the US – the relative size of the church there, the historical US-centrism of the denomination, the lack of any other venue for the church in the US to make policy.

But along with these well-documented reasons, there are also cultural and institutional factors for why US United Methodists want and need a Book of Discipline for church governance more than United Methodists elsewhere. That’s not to say that other parts of the UMC don’t use or care about the BOD. It’s just to say that the BOD has a special significance in the US that it doesn’t hold elsewhere.

I’ll briefly survey four explanations:

• An emphasis on the rule of law

• Light government regulation of religion

• A large, distributed, and diverse church

• Significant assets

Each of these factors contributes to the greater emphasis on the Book of Discipline in the United States relative to elsewhere in the UMC.

An Emphasis on the Rule of Law

US Americans tend to place a high cultural value on rules, laws, and formal, impersonal systems. When something goes wrong, the US American attitude is often, “There should be a rule about that!” and US Americans often assume that things will go smoothly if everyone follows the rules.

While this attitude is bred in US Americans primarily by our secular legal system, this preference for formal rules carries over into many other arenas, including the church. Having a book of church laws as the central text for a denomination reflects a particularly American veneration for law.

In this veneration of the rule of law, US Americans reflect a general trend withing Western modernity. Yet the large and active lawsuit culture in the United States that is not present elsewhere in the Western world also turbocharges a reliance on formal rules as a way of avoiding bad scenarios.

Not all countries in the world share the same high cultural value on the rule of law as Americans do. Other countries may emphasize personal preferences of a leader, interpersonal or collective systems of arbitration, or implicit cultural standards to tell people how to act and what to do when something goes wrong. These are all alternatives to formal laws and thus alternatives to relying on the BOD for questions of church governance.

Light Government Regulation of Religion

This may seem paradoxical in connection with the above point about the emphasis on the rule of law, but it’s not. One of the foundational concepts in the system of American laws is the separation of church and state. That is not true everywhere, even in other Western countries with a similarly strong sense of the rule of law. The standard in much of the world is for the government to regulate people’s religious practices and organizations.

If the government is not going to regulate religious groups in the US and there’s a desire for those religious groups to be governed by a system of laws, that means the religious groups have to come up with their own laws, since the state isn’t going to do it for them. The BOD is an expression of the US American church’s desire to self-regulate in the absence of much government regulation.

In other countries with a UMC presence, it may not be necessary to put so many rules into the Book of Discipline because the matters addressed, including employment and pensions, may already be covered by government regulation. Thus, having separate church regulation is unnecessary.

A Large, Distributed, and Diverse church

Even after disaffiliation, but especially historically over the past half century, the US American portion of The United Methodist Church is large – millions of members within scores of annual conferences led by dozens of bishops spread across five jurisdictions and every US state and territory. Within this group are very large churches and very small churches; urban, suburban, and rural churches; black, white, Asian, Native American, and Hispanic churches; rich churches and poor churches; and many other forms of variety.

This size, distribution, and diversity mean two things.

First, the church is much too large to operate effectively through informal, personal governance. While there are certainly United Methodist insiders, most United Methodists do not have direct personal ties with one another. Most are not even at one degree of removal, where two parties both know someone in common who could serve as a go-between. In the absence of such personal connections between United Methodists, it is more important to have impersonal rules since behavior and conflict management cannot always be addressed through personal means.

Moreover, there is no central head figure of the church in the United States who could serve as an ultimate personal arbiter within the church. Each bishop is co-equal, and there are dozens of bishops. Short of a miraculous revelation, there is no way to adjudicate a dispute among bishops by appealing to their common superior. Without personal regulation, impersonal regulation becomes more important.

Second, the church is too distributed and diverse for there to be central cultural norms that shape everyone’s understanding of how to act as the church and what to do when things go wrong. Different regions of the country, different racial and ethnic groups, even churches at different stages of the organizational lifecycle will have different notions of what the expectations for church are. Without shared cultural understandings, it is impossible to adjudicate between competing understandings of how to behave in certain situations without some sort of external systems of written procedures.

While this lack of personal or cultural regulation in the United States makes the BOD that much more important there, other countries have stronger systems of personal and cultural regulation that make the BOD less necessary there. The small size of the church in Europe and the Philippines means that many systems for running the church can be established through personal connections and a shared culture without the need for formal regulations. In Africa, the strong power of bishops, who often govern all the United Methodist churches in a country, provides a personal focus for church governance. In many places in Africa, this personal approach to church governance is reinforced by shared cultural, ethnic, and kinship ties.

Significant Assets

Finally, the US UMC has large holdings in property and finances. Pre-disaffiliation, those total assets throughout the US connection were somewhere in the neighborhood of $70 billion. All these assets mean that the financial stakes for church governance in the United States are high. If someone embezzles money, tries to leave the denomination with their church’s property, does something to get the church sued, or makes a bad financial transaction, the ramifications for those actions could be large, at least monetarily.

Thus, there is in an incentive for more extensive formal rules to try to handle and protect this large amount of assets. Regulations on church property, pensions, apportionments, church employment, and other finance and finance-adjacent areas of the BOD are there so that US Americans can manage their church’s assets, especially in the context of a well-developed secular US legal system with significant opportunities for lawsuits. Putting rules in the BOD allows US United Methodists to avoid secular courts more often and set the terms for when cases do end up in secular courts.

The church in all places has some assets. But in no other place is there the same combination of wealth and size that the church has in the US. Thus, no other place has the same financial incentives to put in place a system of formal financial rules through the BOD that the US has.

Conclusion

Ultimately, it is neither inherently good nor bad for the US to rely heavily on the BOD or for other branches of the church to rely less heavily on it. What creates a possibility for misunderstanding is when US United Methodists rely heavily on the BOD, other United Methodists rely less heavily on it, but General Conference proceeds as if the BOD has the same significance for everyone. Delegates should be aware when they discuss the BOD at General Conference that delegates from different places will have different understandings about the role of the BOD in the life of the church and may have different things at stake in the discussion.

If General Conference creates some option for the formation of a US region, it will have the benefit that US United Methodists will have a venue in which they can fulfill their cultural and contextual need for an extensive set of church laws and regulations without needing to negotiate all those laws and regulations across international cultures, where the various parties have different understandings of law and different senses of what’s at stake. Such an outlet for US energy around lawmaking would then free up General Conference to focus more on spiritual, relational, and other aspects of what it means to be the church together.

David W. Scott: Exploring Intercultural Connectionalism

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries. This piece originally appeared as a commentary on the United Methodist News Service site and is republished here with permission.

As 2024 begins, many United Methodists are looking toward the next General Conference, to be held April 23-May 3. This legislative gathering has the potential to make significant changes to The United Methodist Church through regionalization and other proposals.

Whatever happens at this General Conference, it will be historic. For over 240 years, General Conference has always had a majority of U.S. delegates; however, 2024 is very likely to be the last time a regular General Conference will have a majority of delegates from the United States.

The upcoming shift in delegates reflects a shift in membership in The United Methodist Church. Even before the recent wave of local church disaffiliations, membership decline in the United States and membership growth in Africa meant that more United Methodists have been living outside the United States than in it for the past several years. This membership shift coincides with a season in which United Methodists are seeking to reexamine and revitalize relationships with ecumenical partner Methodist churches throughout the world.

These changes present United Methodists and their ecumenical Methodist partners with a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is to shift from centuries of U.S.-dominance in the church. The opportunity is to reflect better the multinational, multicultural nature of the church universal. Multiculturalism has been part of the church since its beginning in Acts 2 and will continue to be part of the church in heaven, according to Revelation 7:9-10.

For the church to avail itself of the divine opportunities of being a multinational, multicultural church, it will need to engage in both deconstructive and constructive work.

The deconstructive work involves letting go of the presumption that the church should revolve primarily around Americans and their values, concerns and standards, and dismantling or reconfiguring the structures that solidify that presumption.

This work is underway throughout the church, often carried out under the term “decolonizing church.” One example of such work is the book of essays I have edited with Filipe Maia, “Methodism and American Empire: Reflections on Decolonizing the Church.”

The bishops’ initiative over the past several years to “dismantle racism” is a related endeavor, and many other scholars, agencies and church leaders are involved in such efforts as well.

The constructive work necessary for becoming a truly multinational, multicultural church is for the church to increase its capacity to communicate and work across cultures and contexts. Communicating and collaborating across cultures requires not just intellectual commitment to the importance of being a worldwide church. It requires specific skills in listening, seeking understanding, being flexible and adapting.

Again, this work is being carried out in many spots throughout the denomination. One such effort that I am involved in is a joint theological task force between the United Methodist boards of Global Ministries and Higher Education and Ministry. Joining me in that work are the Rev. Dr. Greg Bergquist, Dr. David Field, the Rev. Dr. Paulo Roberto Garcia, the Rev. Dr. Jean Claude Maleka, Deaconess Darlene Marquez-Caramanzana, the Rev. Dr. Connie Semy Mella, Dr. Amos Nascimento, Dr. Hendrik R. Pieterse and Dr. Ulrike Schuler.

This task force was convened to reflect on theological grounds for greater collaboration between the two agencies. One of the major insights from our joint reflection is a concept we are calling “intercultural connectionalism.”

The term “intercultural connectionalism” builds on the Methodist tradition of connectionalism as a central ecclesiological concept. I have written about connectionalism elsewhere, but briefly it refers to the structures, practices, relationships and theology that connect local congregations to one another, in the process creating something that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Adding the term “intercultural” recognizes that the connections that make up The United Methodist Church (and its ecumenical partners) cross lines of culture and other elements of difference. Intercultural connectionalism thus offers a factual description of the current nature of The United Methodist Church. (And much of its history, too, if we have eyes to see it — as in, for instance, this article.) It also offers a normative aspiration — that the church will learn to connect in ways that take cultural differences seriously.

Indeed, to push the claim further, we cannot truly understand the nature of United Methodist connectionalism unless we consider various cultural perspectives on the concept. I have written elsewhere about how the understanding of what a denomination is varies across contexts and how European and Filipino United Methodists have unique perspectives on the nature and meaning of connectionalism.

Thus, intercultural connectionalism involves a different approach to theological reflection in and for the denomination. It requires that United Methodists engage in intercultural dialogue as we seek to understand the nature of our church and how God is calling us to join in God’s mission around the world.

While General Conference does provide a venue to engage in intercultural dialogue, United Methodists should avoid associating intercultural connectionalism only with General Conference. Although it brings together United Methodists from around the world, General Conference, because of its limited time frame and legislative focus, may not always be the best place for United Methodists to engage in deep listening and learning across cultures.

Instead, it is better to think of intercultural connectionalism as a principle that various parts of the denomination can incorporate into their practices. This includes the general agencies, the Council of Bishops, the ecumenical office, the Commission on Faith and Order, scholarly networks and mission partnerships. Whenever United Methodists from varying cultural backgrounds gather, attention should be paid to how those cultural backgrounds inform their understanding of United Methodism and what they can learn from one another.

The Global Ministries/Higher Education theological task force has developed a discussion guide to help United Methodists and their ecumenical Methodist partners engage in conversations related to intercultural connectionalism. The study guide, which is available in English, French, Portuguese, Spanish and German, moves from reflections about our Wesleyan origins through our history to our hopes for healing and renewal and the actions inspired by those hopes. The four-session discussion guide can be used in various settings, from the local church to seminaries to connectional bodies.

The guide ends with questions about how we can act as United Methodists. This is significant, because while conversation and conferencing are important realms in which to live out intercultural connectionalism, intercultural connectionalism must also characterize our joint work in the world. United Methodists have always had a strong sense that one’s faith must be lived out. Living out our faith with others from different cultural backgrounds, as together we engage in mission and ministry, presents new opportunities to learn from one another.

In this regard, United Methodists can learn from Interfaith Youth Core and other interfaith organizations which have concluded that generating understanding across differences should involve not just talking about those differences but also joining together in positive work in the world. Such joint work builds understanding and relationships. As I have argued elsewhere, relationships are a vital component of connectionalism, necessary to make organizational connectionalism work.

The Global Ministries/Higher Education task force, and the increased alignment between the two agencies broadly, including sharing a general secretary, represents a further opportunity here. Not only is education an important part of mission around the world, but this interagency collaboration is also a chance to bring scholarly conversation about intercultural connectionalism and the application of intercultural connectionalism in mission practice together.

Alignment between the two agencies creates possibilities for deeper learning about and better practice of intercultural connectionalism.

United Methodists are part of a multicultural church that is tied to partner Methodist churches from yet more cultural backgrounds. This has long been true and will only become truer in the future. For the church to embrace this blessing from God, we must live into the reality and the opportunity of intercultural connectionalism.

David W. Scott: On International Mission and Cosmopolitanism

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.

International mission, by its nature as international, involves crossing national boundaries and, by its nature as mission, involves Christian practices of love and caring. Thus, international mission necessarily involves caring for and about others who are from a different nationality than oneself.

Put another way, international mission involves an extension of what Geert Hofstede and others have called the "moral circle" - the group of people who are within one's sphere of moral concern - those whom one sees as having the same moral rights as oneself - to life, health, happiness, love, etc. International mission is not the only way such an expansion happens - migration or contact with immigrants is another significant means - but it is an important way for Christians around the world to come into contact with people from other countries.

Granted, this extension may be imperfect and not lasting. Someone may participate in international mission and show concern for others without believing that those others are entitled to be treated by the same standard as oneself. Or, a Christian who takes a short-term mission trip may feel concern about the life conditions of those they encounter while on the trip, but three years later may largely have forgotten this new concern for people in other lands.

At the other end of the spectrum, however, international mission may be completely transformative of how one sees one's moral world. The annals of mission, especially of long-term mission, are replete with stories of Christians in mission who come to have a deep and abiding concern for the people of another country, wanting good for the people of that other country just as much as they want good for the people of their own country.

Beyond even that, there are stories of Christians in mission who come to see themselves as attached not just to another country and their own home country but attached to all countries, to see themselves as "citizens of the world." An academic term that describes this sense of connection to and concern for people all around the world is "cosmopolitan," which literally means "citizen of the world." It is clear that at least some Christians through their engagement in international mission take on a cosmopolitan outlook on life.

There is at least a little academic literature on missionary cosmopolitanism in the past two centuries of Western-led and then global Christian international mission. (See, this book for instance.) But the notion that Christians' sense of citizenship extends beyond a particular nation to encompass all goes all the way back to the roots of Christianity (as in, for instance, the Epistle to Diognetus).

Much of the academic discussion of cosmopolitanism, though, is not linked to religion but rather to secular forms of what might be called globalization - international trade, migration, international professional and cultural networks, etc. Moreover, secular cosmopolitanism is positively correlated with urban areas, wealth, and education and can carry a critique of rural provincialism.

These characteristics of secular cosmopolitanism and the existence of missionary cosmopolitanism raise for me a variety of questions, including the following:

First, to what extent is an openness to people from other countries a prerequisite for becoming involved in international mission, and to what extent is increased concern for people from other countries a result of participating in international mission? Both could be true. In a way akin to prevenient grace, perhaps a nascent openness to concern for others from other countries allows for the actual extension of moral concern to those others after participating in international mission. Yet I am left with the question of whether international mission only transforms the moral circles of those with larger than average moral circles to begin with or whether international mission has the power to potentially transform the moral outlook of anyone.

Second, if it is true that The United Methodist Church is a disproportionately rural church but secular cosmopolitanism is associated with urban living, where one is more likely to encounter people, goods, and ideas from other countries and cultures, then where does that leave the outlook for cultivating cosmopolitanism among United Methodists? Are United Methodists, because of their rural distribution, less likely to adopt cosmopolitan outlooks on the church than people in other, more urban, denominations, or does Methodists' penchant for mission increase their cosmopolitanism?

This question feels particularly important to me as the UMC looks forward to a more world-wide future. The ability to successfully live into that future seems to depend, if not on widespread cosmopolitanism, at least a sustained sense by enough people in enough parts of the church that they have a moral and religious connection to fellow denomination members throughout the world. A successful worldwide church cannot be the work of a few church bureaucrats or denominational insiders but must be rooted in the impulses of people in local congregations.

Third, where does the rising tide of nationalism over the past decade leave international mission and missionary cosmopolitanism? Nationalism emphasizes one's identity in connection to their home nation (however defined). It is thus in tension with cosmopolitanism, which views the world in a supranational way (that is, beyond one nation). Is international mission destined to decline or to become more of a niche endeavor if its association with cosmopolitanism goes against the nationalist trends of the day?

While I do believe that Christianity requires that we enlarge our moral circles, I don't think it necessitates that all Christians adopt a cosmopolitan view of the world. It is possible to live as a good Christian without much of a sense of the world community. Indeed, the vast majority of Christians across time and space have oriented their lives primarily toward local concerns. This localism often does not even rise to the level of nationalism, let alone cosmopolitanism.

Still, as someone who cares about the church as an international body, who cares about mission, including international mission, these questions about international mission and international Christian community on the one side and the idea of cosmopolitanism on the other leave me somewhat unsettled. Even if it will not be a primary concern for all Christians, how does the church keep alive the sense of the transcendent kingdom of God, which is beyond all nations or other allegiances, in the world, but not of it?

Methodism and American Empire Book Now Out!

I (David) had previously shared an announcement and description of a book I have co-edited with Filipe Maia: Methodism and American Empire: Reflections on Decolonizing the Church. At the time, the book was available for pre-order. I am happy to share that it is now printed and available for purchase! You can find it on Cokesbury, Amazon, or wherever you buy your books. Note that in addition to being the denominational book seller, as of this writing, Cokesbury has the book at a discount over Amazon.

Here is the brief description of the book from the publisher (Abingdon):

"Methodism and American Empire investigates historical trajectories and theological developments that connect American imperialism since World War II to the Methodist tradition as a global movement. The volume asks: to what extent is United Methodists’ vision of the globe marred by American imperialism? Through historical analyses and theological reflections, this volume chronicles the formation of an understanding of The United Methodist Church since the mid-20th century that is both global and at the same time dominated by American interests and concerns. Methodism and American Empire provides a historical and theological perspective to understand the current context of The United Methodist Church while also raising ecclesiological questions about the impact of imperialism on how Methodists have understood the nature and mission of the church over the last century. Gathering voices and perspectives from around the world, this volume suggests that the project of global Methodism and the tensions one witnesses therein ought to be understood in the context of American imperialism and that such an understanding is critical to the task of continuing to be a global denomination. The volume tells a tale of complex negotiations happening between United Methodists across different national, cultural, and ecclesial contexts and sets up the historical backdrop for the imminent schism of The United Methodist Church."

I am very impressed by the contributions to this volume of all the authors, and I think the book will make an important contribution to some really significant conversations going on in The United Methodist Church (and beyond). It was also a joy to work with Filipe Maia on this book. You can hear some more of his reflections related to it on this Bar of the Conference podcast. I'm proud to have worked on this book, and I hope you will check it out.

The Future Is Networks

January is a time for making predictions about the future, so here’s a prediction: The future is networks, not formal institutions.

This prediction requires some elaboration of what I mean by networks and formal institutions. The prediction should also be qualified somewhat: This is less a prediction of what is to come and more an observation of how human organization has already been changing, coupled with an assumption that such a shift will continue.

Networks

A network may be defined as a collection of separate individuals or organizations that come together for collaboration. A network is definitely a type of organization itself, in that it organizes people or other organizations. Networks are, though, defined by their relational nature – relationships are the basis of their organization. There is a large literature in several social science fields on network organizations, and this post does not even begin to scratch the surface of this literature, but this definition will do.

A network may also be a type of institution, in that it may involve “rules, beliefs, norms, and organizations that together generate a regularity of behavior,” though it lacks much formalization of these rules, beliefs, norms, and organizations. Instead, a network relies on relational ties to produce those qualities. Moreover, the focus of a network may not be so much on regularity of behavior as on responsiveness, that is, on coordinating behavior in response to particular conditions or events rather than coordinating behavior toward a pre-determined end.

As relational organization, networks involve (relatively) equal status among their constituent parts. They may be organized around common interests or a shared desired outcome. They may also be short- or long-term oriented. Networks, especially those organized around shared interests, are often open ended, with the purpose of the network evolving as its constituent relationships evolve. Thus, networks are a relatively flexible form of organization.

Networks usually serve as avenues of communication among their members and for exchanging or pooling resources around shared objectives. A network may carry out a project as an organization itself, but more often, networks serve to loosely coordinate the activities of their members through exchange of information. Thus, those members are the primary actors in carrying out any work, not the network.

Formal Institutions

A formal institution may be defined as an organization with formalized rules and structures for working towards a goal or goals. Such formalized rules and structures include aspects such as legal incorporation, by-laws, assigned roles and responsibilities within the organization, clearly defined leadership roles, organizational hierarchies, defined mission and vision, etc. Formal institutions as organizations are defined by their formalized nature.

Formal institutions tend to be goal oriented. They are very concerned with regularity of behavior and planning toward a particular end. They exist to direct the behavior of constituent parts and the use of labor and financial resources towards certain goals.

Formal institutions tend toward a long-term orientation. Their formality gives them a greater permanence, and some of a formal institution’s efforts are likely to be directed towards the continuation of the institution. Formal institutions can and do change, grow, and shift over time, but their focus is on regularity.

Contrasts

Both networks and formal institutions are solutions to the problem of collective action – how can humans act together for the sake of achieving goals beyond what any individual is capable of? Formal institutions and networks can be thought of as two ideal types of solutions to this problem with actual organizations falling somewhere in the middle. Moreover, networks are often composed of formal institutions as members. Again, there is a large literature available for those interested in the spectrum of organizational types.

Each of these solutions is better at some things and in some situations. Networks have advantages at information sharing and are more flexible. Formal institutions are better at standardization and central coordination.

Yet whatever the absolute advantages and disadvantages of each organizational form, there has been a significant shift in recent decades away from formal institutions towards networks. Formal institutions were one of the crowning achievements of the modern era of human history – the world coordinated through bureaucracy, in a non-pejorative sense. In the 21st century, however, the flow is in the other direction, towards the creation of more networks and the dismantling of some existing formal institutions.

Applications for Churches

This shift from formal institutions to networks has implications for many areas of life, the church among them. Three ways in which this shift will impact churches are in denominational structures, ecumenical organizations, and ministry collaborations.

Denominations are, at their most basic, an organization that brings together multiple congregations. Yet there are varying ways in which denominations can serve to organize congregations, and some are more similar to networks, while others more closely resemble formal organizations. Some of this depends on polity. (Baptists tend more towards networks; Methodists towards formal organizations.) But even within a denomination, shifts are possible. Thus, for United Methodists, a shift towards a more network understanding of denominational structures would mean structures that serve to equip and coordinate churches in their own work rather than structures that seek to represent churches through the work of the denomination.

A similar principle applies to ecumenical organizations. At one time, the National Council of Churches was a significant organizational force, carrying out major work itself, work that was supported by the member denominations because of the formal structures that tied them to the NCC. Nowadays, the NCC serves more as a forum for discussion among member denominations, who may sign off on statements released by the NCC, but who maintain more autonomy in deciding what of the NCC to go along with.

Such a shift applies to more local and regional forms of ministry collaboration as well. In the past, inter-congregational ministry efforts may have involved forming new formal organizations with carefully balanced representation from participating congregations and extensive binding agreements as to how the congregations would relate to one another and the new entity. Now, though, inter-congregational ministry is more likely to be ad-hoc and project-based, involve a sharing of information rather than entering an MOU, and/or involve creating an informal “coordinating committee” instead of founding a new 501(c)3 entity.

Again, these are not necessarily bad or good shifts; they’re just different. Walter W. Powell, in his 1990 article, “Neither Market Nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization,” wrote that “the open-ended quality of networks is most useful when resources are variable and the environment uncertain.” In that way, the shift away from formal institutions towards networks is a reflection of other shifts going on in society. 

The point is not to try to resist this shift or to try to be the first to hop on the bandwagon. The point is to recognize the ways in which how we as humans collaborate and organize work are changing so that we may continue to do what Christians have always done: work together to make disciples and transform the world.