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.

Regionalization and Connectionalism: The Colonial Mission Era

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. It is the second in a five-part series based on a presentation by Dr. Scott to the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries. 

In this and the next two posts, I want to lay out how questions of local relevance and trans-local connection and of connection and power within the church have played out for Methodists in three separate historical eras: the colonial mission era, the era of political independence and church autonomy, and the era of globalization and world Christianity.

The first era is the colonial mission era. This is the age, lasting from the early 19th century to the early 20th century, during which Methodism spread from North America to other places in the world, usually following the lines of secular colonial and commercial expansion.

European colonization of other parts of the globe stretches back to the late 15th century, but the period from the middle of the 19th century through the World Wars is often referred to as the period of “high” colonialism, the era in which Western colonialism achieved its furthest geographic spread and greatest degree of political and economic control over other lands.

Emblematic of this period of high colonialism was the “scramble for Africa,” the competition among European countries to control portions of the African continent, leading to the Berlin Conference in 1884-85, at which Europeans, without African input, agreed among themselves on how to partition Africa.

Of course, colonialism existed in Asia and Latin America as well, and indeed, European colonialism developed in these contexts earlier than it did in central Africa. And we must remember, too, that the United States entered the act of holding foreign colonies in 1898 with its victory in the Spanish-American War.

Along with the extension of European (and American) political control over other areas went the extension of Western economic networks. Often, political control and economic exploitation were deeply intertwined. This phenomenon of economic expansion was one in which the United States participated vigorously after its Civil War, especially in Latin America. As part of both colonialism and commercialism went the extension of various new technologies of transportation and communication: trains, steamships, telegraphs, and even postcards.

This was the context in which American Methodist missions began to spread, first to returned former slaves in West Africa, next to American businessmen in Latin America, then to immigrant homelands in Europe, and then to populous nations in Asia, and so on.

By 1919, when American Methodists from the North and the South celebrated the centenary of their mission agencies, Methodist churches had hundreds of missionaries and tens of thousands of converts in dozens of nations across five continents. Mission work included not only evangelism, but also education, healthcare, literacy, agriculture, and the promotion of democracy and Western culture. This wave of founding new branches of Methodism in new countries crested in the mid-1920s, when financial problems with mission fundraising and budgeting forced consolidation and retrenchment of mission efforts.

These missionaries organized their converts into new branches of their denominational structures, especially in the Methodist Episcopal Church and Methodist Episcopal Church, South. As mission historian Wade Crawford Barclay wrote, “There is no record of the Missionary Society having given instructions to their missionaries to transfer to their respective fields the exact pattern of church organization existing at home. It was assumed by all, without question, that this would be done.” That is, missionaries, mission executives, and bishops all assumed that connections across geography must include structural connections.

Nevertheless, founding new branches of the church in new geographic and cultural locations did raise questions about the process of trying to establish “the exact pattern of church organization existing at home.” How exactly should these new branches of the church relate to existing branches? What should be done if local conditions made some elements of the home pattern of church organization impractical, or even impossible? How could the church maintain connection—and often, control—over long distances that made travel and communication slow?

The answers that the church developed, slowly, through experimentation, and often outside the boundaries of existing polity, reflected the means of connection and local relevance that characterized the early church. Missionaries were a form of itinerants and the most important link in holding the various branches of the church together. They were not the only such link—migrants, traveling preachers, and even tourists also made connections across geographic regions of the church.

Nevertheless, missionaries were the most important such link, both in their own travel to the mission field and home for furloughs, and in their voluminous amount of writing. They wrote letters, newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, pamphlets, even calendars, and this volume of writing served to communicate about the home field to those they encountered around the world and to communicate about mission, including the lives and customs of people on the mission field, back to their friends, family, and supporters at home.

Often inspired by visits and letters from missionaries, church members in the United States (and Europe) in turn sent money to the mission field, both through denominational mission structures and directly through personal relationships with missionaries. This generosity underwrote the development of the church around the world, though it also often established long-standing traditions of dependence. Some mission leaders such as William Taylor attempted to cultivate self-support on the mission field, opting for local relevance instead of international financial connection.

As the church outside the United States grew, the structures of the church grew there as well, including both conferences and bishops. Annual conferences outside the United States were formed quite early, already in the 1830s, though initially in an adapted form as “missionary annual conferences.” Central conferences were added later in the 1880s, originally on the local initiative of missionaries in India, though eventually adopted into the regular practice and polity of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and carried over to successor denominations, including the UMC. Jurisdictions in The Methodist Church and The United Methodist Church were modeled in part on central conferences.

Questions about episcopal supervision and the availability of ordination also arose from the church outside the United States, first in Liberia and then elsewhere. This led to a variety of polity experiments in providing episcopal supervision, including travel by general superintendent bishops from the United States, missionary bishops limited to areas outside the United States, and general superintendent bishops appointed to live outside the United States. None of these arrangements were fully satisfactory to both areas of the church outside the United States and to decision-making centers of the church in the United States.

Several branches of the church outside the United States, starting with Japan in 1907 and continuing through Korea, Mexico, and Brazil in 1930, became autonomous churches, structurally separate from their parent denominational bodies, though still connected through missionaries, writings, and money. The desire to unite separate branches of Methodism, local political considerations, and, in the case of Brazil, disputes over episcopal supervision motivated these moves to autonomy. These developments, however, did not initiate a new wave of rethinking the relationship between autonomy and connection. Instead, with the 1939 merger of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and Methodist Protestant Church, the international polity of the new Methodist Church took on a settled character.

In the attempt to ensure both local relevance and trans-local connection, the Methodist churches of this era tended to emphasize trans-local connection over local relevance. Moreover, this was usually connection as a form of control by those in the United States, who in this era exercised dominance over other branches of the church, especially those in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Methodists in the United States set the standards, and others were occasionally allowed to adapt those standards to a greater or lesser degree. But Methodists in the United States were slow to recognize the need to adapt the practices of the church to ensure local relevance outside the United States.

When adaptation did happen, it usually did so through American missionaries taking initiative outside the regular system of polity, and even American missionaries were often suspicious of local control by native leaders. American Methodists in this era spread the gospel to others around the world, but the relationships and structures they created to do so stressed connection as control instead of connection as an aid to local relevance.

The next post will look at the era of political independence and church autonomy.

Up to a third of General Conference delegates can't get visas in time

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.

There has been a lot of recent debate about vaccine requirements as a bar to participation in General Conference by delegates from outside the United States. This debate has surfaced important issues about international equality and equity within the church. It has, however, overlooked the second big bar to participation in General Conference by delegates from outside the United States: visas.

Heather Hahn's recent article about UMC debates emphasizes, though, that visas are just as important as vaccinations for allowing General Conference to happen. And new data show that it may be visas, rather than vaccinations, that are the more insurmountable obstacle. Up to a third of General Conference delegates (and three-quarters of those from outside the United States) may not be able to obtain visas in time to participate in an August 2022 General Conference.

Visas are difficult to obtain even in normal times, as previously reported. But the pandemic has created anything but normal times over the past two years, making the process much slower and more difficult.

The wait times for visa processing depends on both the demand for visas from a country and the capacity of the consulate in that country to process visas. Visa wait times vary somewhat by country and from year to year, but normally, they are around two months.

COVID has disrupted normal wait times in many countries, however. During some parts of the pandemic, the US government was not issuing visas at all, at least to particular countries. This has created a backlog of demand for visas in some countries. COVID may have also diminished the capacity of various consulates to process visas in some cases.

The result is that in a number of countries, including countries where UMC General Conference delegates reside, wait times for obtaining visas have become quite long. Moreover, visas are still completely unavailable in a few countries where General Conference delegates reside. Other countries have returned to fairly normal wait times.

Based on the visa appointment wait times reported by the US State Department, there are up to 286 General Conference delegates who, if they were to start the process today in the US consulate in the capital of their country, would not even be able to get a visa application interview before General Conference is scheduled to meet. This is approximately a third of the total number of delegates and just over three quarters of the delegates from outside the United States.

Moreover, having a visa application interview is no guarantee of getting a visa, and in some cases there is additional processing time required to issue the visa. That additional processing time could mean that several more delegates would not be able to get visas before General Conference is scheduled to meet in August if they started the process today.

This group includes all of the delegates from the DRC (the country with the second highest number of United Methodists) and the Philippines (representing an entire central conference). It also includes a variety of other African and European countries, including Cote d’Ivoire, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Russia, all of which have substantial delegate counts. If they start now, at current rates, Nigerian delegates couldn’t get visas in time for General Conference in 2024.

Of course, some of these delegates may already have started the visa process. The US government began processing visas again in most countries three months ago. Not only did that represent an earlier start to the process, if delegates applied then, the timing of their interview would be based on wait times at that point, which may have been lower.

Some delegates may already have visas for other purposes. In a typical General Conference year, some delegates have visitor visas already because of travel to the United States for other church meetings or business or personal travel. That number is likely to be lower this year because of the pause in travel due to the pandemic.

It is possible that the visa application wait times could come down, though in many cases, they would need to come down substantially to allow delegates to participate. There are also sometimes other work arounds – for instance, applying in another nearby country (which is not allowed in all cases).

Part of the challenge of visas is that, because the process is controlled entirely by the US government, the UMC has little leverage to affect the outcome or timing. UMC leaders can advocate on behalf of delegates, and the Commission on General Conference is undoubtedly doing so, but such advocacy has limited effectiveness even in normal times.

Thus, even with the exceptions noted above, an in-person General Conference held in the United States in August would likely not allow representatives from a substantial portion of the church to participate.

Obviously, I cannot speak for the Commission on General Conference. But given their previous statements about their desire to have an in-person General Conference with representation from a wide and representative array of United Methodists, the outlook for holding General Conference this year does not look good.

On Comparing US and Majority World Politics

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.

A week ago, violent, pro-Trump insurrectionists stormed the United States Capitol, disrupting Congressional certification of the presidential election, and forcing evacuation of the country's highest legislative body. This event was rightfully and widely condemned, both in the United States (including by United Methodist leaders) and around the world (including by the Pope, the World Council of Churches, the Lutheran World Federation, and the World Communion of Reformed Churches).

In their condemnations of the attack, some secular commentators in the United States compared it to what happens in "third world" countries. That comparison deserves some unpacking, as it and the sense of American exceptionalism behind it are worth critiquing in themselves and are moreover relevant to The United Methodist Church.

First, it should be noted that "'Third World' is an offensive term" to many people from the broad but vaguely-defined set of countries indicated by that term, as it is seen as linked to a hierarchical sense of the worth of different countries. Thus, this post will instead use the term "majority world."

The sense of hierarchy contained in the term points to the broader history of American exceptionalism behind the comparison. American exceptionalism is the belief that the United States has a unique role to play in the world-historical stage, a special, even God-given, mission that it is uniquely equipped to carry out because of its supposed moral and cultural superiority.

The belief in American exceptionalism is one way in which people from the United States have seen themselves as better than people in other countries. This sense of superiority applies to both other developed countries in the "Old World" of Europe and to the Majority World in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. When used with regard to those in the Majority World, a belief in American exceptionalism posits that the United States is richer and more economically developed not because of good fortune but because of some sort of moral, cultural, political, or other superiority.

To note similarities between current United States politics and political crises in certain Majority World countries thus is to draw attention to a disconnect between those US politics and how the United States has traditionally seen itself in relation to the rest of the world. There are two ways to resolve the cognitive dissonance of that disconnect, though.

One of those ways actually reaffirms the United States' sense of American exceptionalism. "Yes, there is a disconnect at this moment, but we will and must behave better to show that we still are better than the rest of the world," this line of reasoning goes. While this line of reasoning aims at good outcomes for American democracy (less violent unrest), it does so at the expense of America's ongoing relationship with the rest of the world (through a continued sense of superiority).

The second way to resolve the cognitive dissonance is to jettison or reduce the belief in American exceptionalism. This approach would say, "I guess there isn't as much difference between us and the rest of the world as we thought." There is a danger that such an approach could lead to political fatalism, but there is also an opportunity that it can lead to greater learning from others' experience with democracy and to greater resolve in work to sustain the United States' own democracy, not because it is inevitable, but because people in the United States realize that if they do not work for democracy, they will lose it, just like anyone else.

This second way to resolve the cognitive dissonance thus can work toward the reaffirmation of US democracy while at the same time strengthening relationships, solidarity, and identification with others around the world who are working to support their own democracies.

The question of how those in the United States process the cognitive dissonance between their sense of American exceptionalism and the events of last Wednesday has implications for The United Methodist Church as well as US democracy. The church is notably US-centric, indicating that a belief in American exceptionalism does not stop at politics but applies to the religious as well.

If US United Methodists resolve their cognitive dissonance in a way that reaffirms their sense of American exceptionalism, then the sorts of US-centric thinking and US domination of General Conference are likely to continue, with the dysfunctions and injustices entailed therein.

If, however, the events of last Wednesday prompt US United Methodists to take a good, long look at the national character in a way that mitigates their sense of American exceptionalism, then there will be benefits to The United Methodist Church as well.

If US United Methodists loosen their sense that they are morally superior and the standard around which the church should be organized, then there will be new opportunities for the church to listen to each other across national and cultural boundaries to discern the moving of God's Spirit and be faithful to God's will. There is the opportunity to better be the global church we aspire to be.

If, that is. If.

When It Comes to Geography, Mission Trumps Polity

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology 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.

Nearly two months ago, United Methodist News Service posted a story written before the pandemic about diaspora ministry for Zimbabwean United Methodists. I doubt the story got much traction, as it was published as the pandemic was really ramping up, but it is significant, and in ways that surprisingly end up being related to the pandemic.

Briefly, the UMNS piece describes how the Zimbabwe Episcopal Area provides spiritual and religious care for Zimbabwean United Methodists who have migrated. In many cases, this includes starting congregations with appointed pastors from Zimbabwe. The article mentions congregations of Zimbabwean United Methodists in England, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the United Arab Emirates.

Moreover, while it's not discussed in the article, Zimbabweans are not alone in this trend. Filipinos, for instance, have United Methodist congregations in the United Arab Emirates as well. Other national branches of The United Methodist Church have organized and sometimes appointed clergy to congregations that lie outside the geographic boundaries of their nations. These congregations are primarily created to serve migrants, though occasionally others will join as well.

These modern migrants forming new congregations have long historical precedent. Methodist migrants (and migrants from many other religious traditions) have carried their faith and their religious identities with them and started new religious groups in their new homes. Indeed, the first Methodist small groups and worship services in many places in the world were organized not by missionaries but by migrants.

The one catch in this normal and wide-spread practice is that it is not provided for in our current United Methodist polity. UMC polity assumes a geographically-based system of organization with clear boundaries to those geographical units. Annual conferences, episcopal areas, and jurisdictional and central conferences are all presumed to cover designated geographic areas and to focus their ministries within those areas. There is no provision for officially-recognized congregations beyond those boundaries. Anything outside those areas is theoretically supposed to be organized as a mission of the church, not a part of the annual conference structure.

These restrictions don't come from nowhere. There are thorny ecclesiological, missional, polity, and ecumenical questions involved in the spread of a denomination (or branch thereof) to new areas, especially where other branches of that same or closely-related denominations exist (as the World Methodist Council has addressed). Yet, geographic restrictions on ministry are just not how the church works, and probably not how it should.

One might argue that the BOD's current failure to recognize or account for the existence of migrant congregations outside of home episcopal areas is another instance of the US-centric nature of the document. The United States is used to being a country of in-migration, but United Methodists in many places live in countries of out-migration, and the BOD take on such migrant congregations would be very different written from their perspective.

Nevertheless, the coronavirus pandemic is giving some in the United States a taste of the tricky questions that come up with the blurring of geographic boundaries in the church. Previously, because of the physical nature of most worship services, most churches focused their ministries on geographically proximate persons. Now, with churches online because of the pandemic, that dramatically raises the possibility for people to "attend" churches that are not geographically proximate.

This raises a series of questions for pastors and other church leaders: What if parishioners from a pastor's former and church now want to switch from their home church to worship virtually at the pastor's new, geographically distant church? If new people start worshipping virtually with a congregation they do not live nearby, what should happen once meeting restrictions are relaxed? Should they be encouraged to find an in-person church near them, or should they continue to worship virtually with the distant church? Should a church organize small groups in another state? Does it make a difference if the geographically-distant followers come from the same denominational background, a different denominational background, or an unchurched background?

Historically, it has proven hard to balance a missional spirit and a concern for pastoral care on the one hand and geographic restrictions on the other. It would be a shame to sacrifice the former just to uphold the latter. If there is a way to respect geographic boundaries, it must be one that still affirms and accommodates the missional spirit of the church. Yet, it can also sow division within the body of Christ to completely ignore the latter for the sake of the former. Thus, the missional spirit must always also coincide with an ecumenical spirit, one is that is willing to work with others, especially when once distant people suddenly become neighbors.

2019 in Review

As the United Methodist News Service has concluded, and pretty much anyone else observing The United Methodist Church in 2019 has agreed, the top story in United Methodism from this past year is the on-going fight over the place of LGBTQ persons in the church, especially as it played out at General Conference 2019 and the aftermath of that event.

The centrality of that conflict for United Methodists around the world has certainly made an impact on the sorts of content this blog has presented over the past year. Yet, rather than comment on the political mobilizations or talking points that often reinforce the views of one side or another, UM & Global has tried to provide unique perspectives on that conflict, such as the following:

  * Dana Robert's excellent piece on the impact of a potential church split on women

  * Articles on how central conference perspectives on this conflict differ from US perspectives and need to be taken seriously, including special attention to Filipino perspectives

  * Coverage of how this conflict is playing out in European United Methodism and its search for a way forward as annual conferences and central conferences

  * Research on the international financial arrangements of the church and how these would be impacted by a church split

  * Reflections on what we as United Methodists can learn from our autonomous affiliated sisters and brothers about how to be the church across denominational lines

Yet 2019 was not just about the conflict over the treatment of LGBTQ persons. Mission continues, no matter what is happening with church structures, and this blog examined several important threads related to mission as well, including the following:

  * The bicentennial of mission in the United Methodist tradition

  * The practice of UMVIM and other short-term mission trips

  * African women's perspectives on mission

  * The definition of mission

  * Multiculturalism and cross-cultural interactions as a central part of mission

While it's certain that 2020 will bring a certain amount of stories related to General Conference 2020 and the conflict over sexuality, UM & Global will remain committed to providing unique perspectives on that conflict (look for a series on the legal and financial implications of the trust clause starting soon!) and will remain committed to telling other important stories about mission and the global nature of the church.

Thanks for your readership, and see you next year!
Dr. David W. Scott, blogmaster

Where Are the Central Conferences in the WCA's New Denomination?

The Wesleyan Covenant Association last week released its draft Book of Doctrines and Disciplines, which provides the framework for a new denomination that the WCA expects will form out of the current turmoil in the UMC, either as a result of a split or as a way for individual departing congregations to regroup.

The WCA has stated that their preference is for a split along the lines of the Indianapolis Plan, which was endorsed by both the WCA leadership team and last weekend's Global Gathering. Under the terms of the Indianapolis Plan, the new denomination would include not only US Traditionalists, but also many from the central conferences, who become part of the new denomination by default.

The expectation that United Methodists from the central conferences will become part of this new denomination raises a fair question: What would the draft Book of Doctrines and Disciplines (D&D) mean for United Methodists in the central conferences?

First, a disclaimer: the D&D as released is a DRAFT. Significant sections, including one on conferences, are yet to be written. Existing sections may be significantly modified. Yet, despite this caveat, the draft D&D contains enough to have some sense of the implications for the central conferences.

Second, a note about authorship. The WCA stated that a 16-person team wrote the draft D&D, but they did not state who these 16 people were. 15% of the WCA Council is from the central conferences, and there have been people from the central conferences speaking at all WCA events. Yet, given the overwhelmingly American nature of both the Council and Global Gatherings, it is likely that the writing team for the D& was overwhelmingly American.

Moreover, the recent Global Gathering does not appear to have been streamed in any central conferences, so there appears to be limited involvement by the United Methodists from the central conferences in affirming the draft D&D.

However, if the central conferences except for Western Europe were to join the new denomination, along with, say, 25% of US membership, then Methodists from the central conferences would represent 75% of the membership of the new denomination.

Thus, there's already an issue in a (likely) largely US group making decisions that will impact a largely non-US group. That pattern is not confined to the WCA but is unfortunately all too common in the UMC as a whole.

Let's turn now to what the draft D&D says. I'll discuss four points:

1. Central conferences and episcopal areas, as they are now, cease to exist.
The draft D&D refers only to annual conferences and regional conferences. Regional conferences are primarily about overseeing shared ministry. They do not have the power to elect bishops or adapt the D&D, and thus are significantly different from central conferences, as they currently stand. Moreover, the draft D&D envisions bishops serving a single annual conference, not episcopal areas of more than one annual conference. This leads to my second observation:

2. Ending episcopal areas would force a massive reorganization of the central conferences.
Currently, in many places outside the US, bishops serve multiple annual conferences. Requiring each annual conference to have its own bishop would either result in many more bishops or many fewer annual conferences outside the US, or both. To cite just one instance, would the 2,000 United Methodists in Poland get their own bishop, or would they become a district of some transnational annual conference?

In whatever way such questions are answered, this new denomination would require a massive reorganization of current UMC central conference structures. Any such reorganization is likely to have significant economic, legal, and church political implications.

3. There is not currently any indication that people outside the US will be able to adapt the D&D.
When the section on Conferences is written, this power may be given to annual conferences outside the US, but currently the draft D&D makes no provision for adaptation by context.

This raises at very least some legal and logistical questions. The draft D&D includes extensive rules around trusteeship. Will these rules meet the legal requirements for all countries in which this new denomination would function? The draft D&D requires an online database of all pastors and open appointments. Will this apply to remote congregations in the DRC as well?

In general, the draft D&D seems to repeatedly presume a US context of formal organizational rules and procedures, easy printing enabling frequent use of forms and paperwork, and easy internet access. These conditions do not exist in many parts of the UMC around the world.

4. Bishops are significantly weakened in the new denomination.
Under the draft D&D, bishops are term-limited to twelve years. They also have curtailed powers, including a hybrid call/confirmation system for pairing clergy with congregations instead of the current appointment process.

Bishops, especially in Africa, are currently positions of great power and usually great respect. Bishops in Africa serve for life after winning 1-2 elections. They frequently have the power to appoint not just clergy, but leading laity as well.

Thus, the proposed reduction in the powers of the bishop would go over much differently in Africa than in the anti-institutional, anti-bureaucracy culture of the United States. Of course, views will differ among Africans, and Filipinos and Europeans will have still other views, but this change is not likely to be as welcome in the central conferences as in the US.

In short, the draft Book of Doctrines and Disciplines struck me as overwhelmingly US-centric and often unaware of the consequences its proposed changes would have for the central conferences.

This raises an open question: Does this proposal mark the end of the road for the coalition between US Traditionalists and United Methodists from the central conferences, especially Africa?

That coalition has been founded on mutual opposition to homosexuality. But we've seen with the African bishops' statement opposing a split and opposing plans written without central conference input, that the interests of US Traditionalists and Africans are sometimes opposed to one another.

US Traditionalists may find that joint opposition to homosexuality is not enough to incentivize most Africans and Filipinos to follow them into a new denomination that would make radical changes to the church in their lands, changes that they had, at most, a minor role in determining.

The African bishops' statement said, "We cannot allow a split to further reduce us to second-class citizens in a church that only needs us when they want our votes. As Africans, we have the right of self-determination and we have the right to speak for ourselves and determine who we want to be." Whatever the future of the UMC in the US, Africa, and elsewhere, we should take Africans at their word when they speak of self-determination.

Recommended Reading: US Regional Structure Proposal

The Connectional Table has put forward a proposal to General Conference 2020 (or perhaps more accurately, two proposals) to create a new regional structure for the United States. Pages are available online continaing an announcement of the CT's intention to do so, its announcement of having done so, the text of the legislation, a narrative description of the rationale for the proposal, and frequently asked questions about the proposals.

The CT proposes a two-stage process: first, the creation of a standing committee of General Conference that would be the U.S. Regional Committee, tasked with screening all GC legislation that primarily impacts the US. In this regard, it would be a cognate to the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters.

Then, eventually the U.S. Regional Committee would be replaced by a U.S. Regional Conference, separate from General Conference, that would take responsibility for making changes for the US context to adaptable portions of the Book of Discipline, as central conferences do in their contexts. Depending on how quickly the church moves to the second stage, the first stage may not be necessary for long.

This legislation is interesting for two reasons:

First, although its origins predate the called General Conference in 2019, it is usually talked about as one of the "plans" for GC2020 to take up in the wake of GC2020. That is not really correct, as it is neither a comprehensive plan for the future of the church nor a response to GC2019. But it is tied to or in harmony with some of the other plans for the church, including the UMC Next plan and the Filipino plan.

Second, this proposal seeks to change the long-standing, US-centric structure of the UMC by creating a structure for the US that would parallel some of the powers of the central conferences. Note that the legislation still leaves the US in a separate class of structure by itself; the US does not become a central conference. In part this is necessary because of the continued existence of jurisdictions under this proposal. Thus, the US still remains a unique, if somewhat less priviledged part of the church under this legislation.

A main reason (beyond the issue of jurisdictions) for calling the proposed US structure a "Regional Conference" instead of a "Central Conference" is because of sensitivities to the term "central," given the racist history of the segregated Central Jurisdiction. Certainly it is laudable to want to make a clear statement against racism and a clear break with the church's racist history.

Yet, if it is not okay to have Americans in a structure with the name "central," because the Central Jurisdiction was a separate structure for black and brown people, then why is it still okay to have separate structures for black and brown people with the name "central" in other countries? Why not change the name for areas outside the US, too? Do we as a church think that echoes of second-class segregation are okay for those outside the US? It seems to me that we must commit ourselves to anti-racist practices not just domestically, but internationally as well.

Aside from the issue of the name, while the proposed legislation does not make the US function in quite the same way as the rest of the church, it seems a step in that direction and an important way to give the US some more missional flexibility in adapting to its context. The proposal is thus well worth a read.