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.

An Open Connectionalism and Change as Perfection

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 pastor I know used to refer to The United Methodist Church as "perfecting the church of the 1950s." While I think he intended this comment to critique backward-looking tendencies in the church, I think it also highlights a danger in how United Methodists think about perfection.

Perfection is an important concept for Methodists historically. For John and Charles Wesley, "Christian perfection" was a synonym for "entire sanctification." Both terms denoted a state in which believers were completely filled with God's love such that all their actions expressed that love and not sinful impulses. Thus, early Methodists were asked whether they were "going to to perfection."

Perfection was a concern for theologians long before Wesley, mostly for those theologians drawing on Platonic philosophy. But this Platonic heritage in Christian theology is the source of a danger in how United Methodists think about perfection.

Platonic theology states that what is perfect is eternal and unchanging. Change, in Platonic philosophy, is seen as problematic and imperfect. This notion that change is imperfect raises various problems in theological philosophy ("How can an unchanging God really interact with a constantly changing world?"), but it also potentially creates problems in how we understand Christian perfection in humans and in the church.

If we are to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect (Matt. 5:48), and part of God's perfection is God's unchanging nature, then we may assume that Christian perfection should imply that Christians, or at least the church, should be unchanging as well.

However, Wesley's notion of perfection wasn't about being unchanging; it was about love. Christian perfection is perfection in love. And love is never static. Recent insights into Trinitarian theology have highlighted how even within Godself, the three members of the Trinity are always engaged in active (not static) love with one another. Many metaphors are used to describe the relationship within the Trinity, but a helpful one here is a dance. Dancing involves movement. It is anything but static and unchanging.

If the Trinity is involved in an active and ever-changing dance of love and we are called to be perfect in love just as our heavenly Father is perfect in love, then we may expect that perfection in love is not static but active, not immutable but modulating, ever responding in new and delighted ways to how others are moving in the communal dance of our collective Christian life.

This insight, I believe, can be extended from individuals to our understandings of the church as well. If God is perfect in an active, loving sense, and if individual Christians can be made perfect in an active, loving sense, then does it not make sense to hope that the church will be perfected in an active, loving sense as well? And if the church is being perfected in an active, loving sense, then we must expect that the church will be ever changing, ever responding to the movement of the Holy Spirit and God's call to engage the changing world around the church.

This claim is more than saying that church structures need to be reformed every now and then. It is saying that our fundamental understanding of what the church is must be open. It must expect and even eagerly anticipate that the church will continue to shift and change as it continues to strive for perfection by reaching out in love to God and the world as it presently is (and not as it was decades ago!). As the church experiences new insights into God's love and as it responds in new ways to the ever evolving needs and nature of the world, the church itself will change.

For United Methodists, an important concept that describes our understanding of our church is "connectionalism." Connectionalism refers to the relationships, structures, and theologies that connect the various components of the church (congregations, conferences, agencies, etc.) to one another as together they join in God's mission to the world. 

An open and dynamic understanding of Christian perfection calls us to an open and dynamic understanding of connectionalism.

Of course, changes in what constitutes the United Methodist connection are a historical fact. The number of annual conferences and the number of levels of conferences have been in constant flux over the 239 years of history of the UMC and its predecessors. Practices of conferencing and who attends conferences have altered. Geographic areas have been added to and departed from the UMC. Agencies have been created, merged, and reconfigured. Relationships among United Methodists have shifted.

But beyond these historic facts, which we may accept or bemoan, a theology of an open connectionalism reassures us that such change is a necessary and important part of the church adapting to its ever new missional call to spread scriptural holiness and reform the world. Therefore, we may expect, even demand, that the church continue to change and adapt for the sake of better loving God and neighbor. Moreover, such changes are not a betrayal of our faith but an expression of it -- an expression of our deepest convictions about the nature of the Christian life.

The end of one year and beginning of another is always a time of taking stock of the changes of the past year and anticipating the changes of the year to come. As United Methodists engage in this spiritual work, may we keep in mind that our connectionalism must be open, and may we eagerly look forward to how Christ will lead our church in new steps in the dance of love in the year to come.

Regionalization and Connectionalism: Healthy Regionalism amid Waning Globalization

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. It is the fifth 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.

Having looked at how dynamics related to local relevance and trans-local connection have played out across history, I want to conclude this series of posts by sharing some of what I see going on around the world today in terms of local focus and identity vs. broader connections, both in the secular and religious realms, beginning with the secular context.

Looking at news stories from around the world over the past decade, it appears that we are living in a time of increasing nationalism, authoritarianism, and violence. Appeals to national identity have proliferated, and they are often cast in terms of rather narrowly defined national identity, with boundaries drawn along lines of culture, ethnicity, and religion. In this way, nationalism focuses on local identities and often decries connections to broader groups.

Tapping into and amplifying this trend toward nationalism has been the rise of an increasing number of leaders with authoritarian tendencies, whether that has been in the Philippines, the United States, Italy, Hungary, Brazil, Turkey, Russia, or China.

This increased authoritarianism has also led to increased violence, whether that is in the form of more frequent coups in West Africa, increased religious violence in Nigeria, wars in Ethiopia and Ukraine, or civil unrest in many countries around the world.

Also part of the mix is anti-immigrant agitation, both in the form of anti-immigrant protests, which have spanned from Cape Town to Chemnitz, and questions about the treatment of migrants, which have arisen from Texas to Taiwan.

There is, of course, much we can and should critique in this mix of nationalism, authoritarianism, violence, and anti-immigrant rhetoric. We could raise ethical and moral questions about the oppression of the marginalized, including immigrants, who are targets of authoritarian regimes. We could raise theological protests against the use of violence as a way to assert power or resolve conflict. We could call out the exercise of dominance and control over others in a way that eliminates their voices and their input into society.

We can also point to the inadequacy of this sort of nationalism to adequately address continued and growing global international crises, such as mounting environmental catastrophe; the spread of Ebola, COVID, and other diseases; and even the migration flows that are such a point of ire for these nationalists.

We should and must engage in such critique. But we should also recognize that the rise of this form of destructive nationalism also points to the failures of globalization.

Economic globalization promised that a rising tide would lift all boats, improving the standard of living for everyone. We must acknowledge that was a false promise. Instead, economic globalization served to dramatically increase the wealth of the very rich while neglecting and exploiting others around the globe, leaving them poor or making them poorer. This trend extends from economically neglected areas of the Democratic Republic of Congo to rural areas of developed countries experiencing economic abandonment.

Political globalization promised that more integration would lead to more efficient and effective collective action. That may be true in some ways, but for most people, their experience is one in which they have increasingly little control over the circumstances of their lives, with the really important decisions being made in distant government halls or corporate boardrooms where they have no voice.

Cultural globalization promised a new era of cosmopolitan exchange. But without the proper tools for better understanding culture and creating better intercultural interaction, we have experienced instead a McDonaldization of culture, in which the worst parts of American culture are exported to the rest of the world, and/or a backlash that takes the form of a rejection of global multiculturalism.

In all these ways, the globalization of the previous era has failed. Globalization, instead of creating a world of more justice, peace, prosperity, and equality, has instead proven to merely create new forms and degrees of injustice. The current nationalist trends are a consequence of these policy and moral failures of globalization.

Where, then, does this leave the church? The church, too, is moving away from the global and towards the regional or even national. To some degree, this reflects the larger secular context of receding globalization, and to some degree, this is driven by internal dynamics within The United Methodist Church unleashed by conflicts within the church over sexuality, theology, and US dominance.

Unlike the current secular nationalism, I think there is much to be affirmed in the church’s move towards regionalism. Nevertheless, we must also think carefully about this trend toward regionalism: How do we model a healthy regionalism that is an example to the secular world? How do we engage in regional contexts without being subsumed by regional polarizations? How can we remain the body of Christ that extends beyond all the diversity of nations and languages and influences?

This secular context challenges us: How will we speak authentically to our local contexts that cry out for Christian witness? While trends towards nationalism, authoritarianism, and violence cut across secular contexts, these dynamics play out differently in each context and call out for local witness by churches fully engaged in their contexts.

But how do we each engage in our contexts in a way that does not let go of our international connections and devolve into an unhealthy nationalism, such as is all around us? How do we continue to collaborate across contexts on big issues such as climate change, and how we do continue to affirm the ecumenicity, the intercultural, supra-nationality of the church as the body of Christ, which is not limited to any tribe, ethnic group, race, country, or region?

Ultimately, the question that faces The United Methodist Church is not whether we will have more regionalization or more connectionalism, more autonomy or more worldwide structure. The question is how do we have both regionalization and connectionalism?

Moreover, how do we do so in a way that does not merely hold the two in tension with one another but comes to see the interplay between the two, how our understanding of one deepens our understanding of the other? How can creating more regional autonomy make us more united in our connectionalism? How can a stronger practice of connectionalism lead to greater regional autonomy for the components of that connection?

I want to pause here for a moment of epistemic humility. This framing of the question is one I could not have reached on my own. In my initial reflecting on this question, I was caught up in an American cultural way of thinking which emphasizes dualism and conflict. My tendency was to try to put these two values—regionalism and connectionalism, autonomy and unity—into competition with one another. I needed the writings of Argentinian and Filipino Methodists to help me understand another perspective on the issue, to reframe my thinking away from seeing these two values as either/or and instead see them as both/and.

The new situation in the world and in the church, “the changes taking place in those areas” as the Book of Discipline says, calls for a rethinking of how we deploy our means of connection—itinerants, writing, money, bishops, and councils (or as we Methodists would call it, conferencing)—to ensure continued connection and continued relevance to the “conditions that exist in various areas of the world,” as the Book of Discipline charges.

Part of this necessary re-thinking must involve work on our structures, but we must remember the relational component of this work as well. We must plan for the relationships we want to have with one another, not merely the frameworks that we can all agree to.

There are no easy answers in this process, but there is great excitement in this work as well. This is the work to which God calls us as part of our invitation to join in the mission of God. This is how God calls us to be God’s faithful church at this moment as we seek to be a church that is both relevant to the wide array of local and regional contexts in which we are located and at the same time united together in the shared connectionalism of our Methodist faith. May God’s Spirit be with us as we take up this task.

Recommended Reading: Soundings Towards an Intercultural Identity for The United Methodist Church

The journal Methodist Review recently published another article that may be of interest to UM & Global's readers. It draws on history and theology to comment on the intercultural nature of The United Methodist Church. Hendrik R. Pieterse and David W. Scott wrote "Soundings Towards an Intercultural Identity for The United Methodist Church: Some Historical and Theological Resources." The piece can be found for free, with registration, on Methodist Review's website. A full abstract for the piece is below.

 

Hendrik R. Pieterse and David W. Scott, "Soundings Towards an Intercultural Identity for The United Methodist Church: Some Historical and Theological Resources"

The United Methodist Church today is in an identity crisis rooted in the role of culture, power, and agency in the negotiation of denominational identity. To confront these challenges, the UMC must recognize the extent to which white American understandings of Methodism have functioned as normative in debates over Methodist identity. To illustrate the intercultural dynamics at stake, we analyze the history of Italian and Japanese immigrants’ struggle to find a place within American Methodism in the late-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These case studies show that Methodism flourished when there was room for intercultural conversation about its nature. Thus, United Methodists need an alternative understanding of our collective identity that evolves out of intercultural conversations that remain alert to the role of culture, power, and agency in identity formation. We suggest that one promising resource in this task is the Methodist practice of conferencing or dialogue.

Robert Hunt: Methodism Unraveling

Today’s post is by Rev. Dr. Robert A. Hunt. Rev. Dr. Hunt is Director of Global Theological Education and Director of the Center for Evangelism at Perkins School of Theology. This post was originally published on Hunt's blog, The Crossroads of Christianity and Culture, and is republished here with permission.

Polity will never give you unity.

The current United Methodist polity is in crisis, the result of a failure to adopt to emerging global realities. The General Conference is once again delayed, congregations are departing, and denominational finances continue to fall. Most importantly, in the very practical matters of institutional maintenance we face unprecedented hurtles: http://www.umglobal.org/2022/03/what-now-episcopal-elections.html.

Methodism was born on the cusp of the creation of the current international order. As it grew beyond England and the United States, its polities reflected that order, with an organization based on both emerging national boundaries and the essentially colonial nature of the new order. The structures of the American Methodist church were fundamentally colonial, with ecclesial colonies (mission annual conferences within larger mission central conferences) managed by American bishops, run by American missionaries, and reporting to the General Conference funded and dominated by the United States.

The long end of the colonial era offered American Methodists two choices for continuing as a world wide organization. The first would be to develop into a kind of commonwealth of autonomous national Methodist churches related by a common heritage, pledged to mutual support, and engaged when possible in common missions. Such a structure fit well into a decolonizing world, even if it would have its own difficulties related to financing the newly autonomous national churches.

All of Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia followed this pattern, and annual conferences became autonomous affiliated national Methodist churches. These churches have thrived, formed their own associations and cooperative ministries, and generally enjoyed the fruit of independence while remaining affiliated with the Methodist and then United Methodist Church.

However, the American Methodist church didn't require or encourage autonomy, and some Methodist central conferences chose to remain part of the Methodist Church and its successor, the UMC. They would elect their own bishops and appoint their own clergy, but remain dependent for both their polity and their funding on the UMC structures, with only minor changes possible. Churches in the Philippines, Europe, and Africa went this route.

There were reasons. In the European social setting, isolation from an international church polity invited being dismissed as a mere sect. You needed to be historical and international to be taken seriously. In the Philippines, long ties to the US of many types, not least a common language (English) for those with a tertiary education and patterns of migration, made staying part of the UMC seem a natural choice.

(The entire story of the complex formation of the central conferences can be found at: https://www.umc.org/en/content/central-conferences)

Yet these central conferences (with the possible exception of the Philippines) possessed neither national nor cultural integrity. They were international without having ever been national; multi-cultural without ever having had a culture of their own. And in Africa they were intermixed with autonomous Methodist churches out of a British Methodist tradition.

Most importantly, as the report on episcopal elections above makes clear, they remained financially dependent on US funding for every aspect of not just ministry, but organization. United Methodist business would always be international business and conducted at the same great expense and uncertainty as international business. The COVID pandemic has made this clear.

As Europe rebounded after WWII, European Methodists were largely able to fund themselves. Exceptions in Eastern Europe remained, but stronger Western European economies and the formation of the EU made the European central conferences a more organic expression of unity than in Africa. It also gave them far greater autonomy vis-a-vis the United States.

Africa -- Here we see the real fallout of the failure to create autonomous national Methodist churches. It is almost perfectly characterized by this map. https://s3.amazonaws.com/Website_Properties/who-we-are/documents/africa-central-conferences-map-revised.pdf Only the Congo Central Conference possesses national integrity, and that spread over a geographical and cultural area 1/3rd the size of the continental United States. While French is the language of government, there are four other national languages and 400 spoken.

The other African central conferences are each a multi-national, multi-lingual, multi-cultural hodgepodge lacking geographical integrity or a common history. What unites them is the fiat of organizational convenience, funding by American Methodists, and the rubric of a global United Methodist Church. These central conference structures possess no organic relationship to their pastors, congregations, and people.

Small wonder then, that with the combined crisis of division within the UMC and the COVID pandemic they are becoming organizationally dysfunctional. And look what happens when they don't function! An American bishop has to be brought in to supervise (in name at least) peoples and congregations he scarcely knows. Colonialism redux.

The idea of a global UMC was misconstrued, based on the false understanding that polity creates unity.

Polity will never give you unity.

As we see even within the US, a common Discipline binds no hearts together and works only so long, and no longer, as it provides political and financial benefit to those who embrace it. When the money and power are gone, and even before, those who can leave, will.

As the UMC now unravels, we are beginning to see what really makes for unity: long established relationships of cooperation and mutual love that manage to transcend and make room for theological disagreement. The unity of the Methodist movement will depend on these, not an outdated and untenable polity held together by American dollars.

Instead of clinging to an unworkable "global" structure we should instead work, at whatever institutional level we are able, to establish real patterns of co-working and cooperation among those of the Methodist tradition.

The General Conference will face the hard task of restructuring the UMC in a way that is financially and organizationally tenable. The recent Christmas Covenant plan offered by the central conferences is certainly a good start, particularly since it comes from those most affected by disunity, most in need of better solutions, and most desirous to build real partnership across differences.

But while we wait for the General Conference, we do not need to wait to build Methodist unity. That must be rebuilt from the bottom up, seeking joint projects and more intimate institutional relationships than can be either managed or even supported by General Conference agencies.

In theological education, where I have been involved for 40 years in both autonomous national Methodist churches and the central conferences, the need is clear. Instead of ad-hoc admission of "foreign students," US seminaries should seek direct partnerships with leaders of United Methodist seminaries in the central conferences to both strengthen those local seminaries and craft the kinds of degree programs and admission standards that best serve particular churches and regions.

The era of a "global" UMC is ending. Let us pray that an era of genuine Methodist unity will begin.

UMC Deacons at 25: The Progress of the UMC Diaconate

Today’s post is by Deacon Benjamin L. Hartley and Deacon Paul E. Van Buren. Paul E. Van Buren is a retired deacon residing in the Nashville, Tennessee area. Benjamin L. Hartley is a deacon in the Oregon-Idaho Annual Conference and is living in Seattle, Washington. In the fall, he will be joining the Seattle Pacific University School of Theology as an Associate Professor of Mission and World Christianity. He writes occasional blog posts at https://missionandmethodism.net/blog/

In 1998 Paul Van Buren of the Section of Deacons and Diaconal Ministry in GBHEM and I wrote a book together about the UMC’s new understanding of the diaconate. I was a second year MDiv student at Boston University filled with enthusiasm for what the new diaconate could be. The Deacon: Ministry through Words of Faith and Acts of Love was the first book to provide theological and practical guidance on our denomination’s understanding of deacons after the 1996 General Conference decision to institute the Order of Deacon as a full and equal order.

To celebrate the 25^th anniversary of the Order of Deacon, Paul and I had a conversation about the book, the progress of the UMC diaconate, and our hopes for the future. This post contains the second part of that conversation.

Ben Hartley: Because my academic career has not been at United Methodist colleges or universities but at American Baptist, Quaker, and (in a few months) Free Methodist ones, it has been hard for me to have a birds-eye view of UMC deacons. You have a better sense of that, Paul, and even followed up with people whose stories we included in our book. Are you pleased by what you see deacons doing now? Did you think the diaconate would look differently after 25 years?

Paul Van Buren: This is a good question, Ben. How are they living out their calling? Initially, most of the deacons were employed by local churches and agencies as Christian Educators, musicians, administrators, and some as pastors of outreach and mission. About three-fourths of them were women with a master’s level of training in some specialization. Today, twenty-five years later, the range of appointments has expanded beyond the local church, especially as opportunities within the local church are shrinking. The gradual trend has been that more candidates are getting a Master of Divinity degree in addition to a specialization which gives them more flexibility for employment. I have been told by some seminary faculty that the students attracted to the ministry of the deacons are as qualified or better than those preparing to be elders.

According to a Lewis Center for Church Leadership Report from 2020, the number of newly ordained deacons is growing and the percent of deacons under age 35 has increased over the last ten years. According to this study, approximately three-fourths of the deacons in the UMC are employed in the Southeast and South-Central jurisdictions of this country. There is also a significant increase in the number of young men entering the United Methodist diaconate, (an increase from 20% in 2019 to 26% in 2020). The gender ratio is still that 27% of candidates in the UMC diaconate are men compared to 73% who are women. It is important, however, to bear in mind that this study is based on data derived from the denomination’s pension program. Many deacons were not included in that study because they are not part of that program. There are currently 1,424 active deacons in the UMC.

Clearly, there are unlimited needs and possibilities for deacons to serve beyond the local church in varieties of service agencies as their primary appointment while still having a secondary appointment in a local church usually without pay. For example, Bruce Maxwell, whom we interviewed for the book, is still doing chaplaincy ministry at truck stops to truck drivers. Randy Lewis is still coordinating outreach ministry of a local church, and Rae Frank is still involved in hospice ministry. But it is not unusual for the deacon to piece together a variety of ministries both for support and new awareness of needs. I would estimate one-fourth of the deacons in our denomination are employed in a secular setting outside a local church and/or a church agency.

Ben Hartley: Paul, you have also been really engaged outside of North America in encouraging the ministry of deacons. How would you say the new understanding of the deacon has been received in different places around the world?

Paul Van Buren: Ben, it was twenty years ago I was provided an opportunity to attend eight annual conferences in four African countries, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Although the United Methodist Churches in these countries were still using an outdated Book of Discipline of the Central Conference, the bishops of these countries were interested in the recently approved ministry of the ordained deacon for those persons employed by church agencies in the areas of health, education, administration, and missions. We interviewed a number of young people who had been trained as “missioners” who were interested in and identified with the calling to be a deacon. The primary problem we found was some of them wanted to use the designation of deacon to start their own local congregation and function as a pastor without meeting all of requirements of training and approval of the board for ordination. There was also the problem of the two-step ordination still in practice that shaped the mindset that a deacon was on the way to becoming an elder. That was an outlook for many in the United States to change as well!

Countries that have Roman Catholic permanent deacons are more advanced in having an established Order of Deacon with a well-defined role in the church. The episcopal structure of the Roman Catholic church and several Protestant denominations lends itself to an understanding of the Order of Deacon that is missional, prophetic, and innovative as well as accountable to a Bishop for an appointment. On this basis I would expect to see growth in the diaconate eventually, but at this time there are few and only isolated cases of persons ordained to the Order of Deacon in many of the African countries with which I am familiar.

Ben Hartley: I do wonder what will happen to the ecumenical diaconate when (and I do think it is a matter of when) the Roman Catholic Church decides to ordain women to the diaconate. That will be quite a shift!

In your many years of service as a deacon, what story from your own ministry comes to mind that best represents what the diaconate truly is or could be? Do you have a time when your heart, body, and mind all shouted with delight, “Yessss. This is what it means to be a deacon!”

Paul Van Buren:Your reference to “many years of service” totals sixty years! It is much easier for me to respond to years of identity with servanthood ministry beginning with our General Board of Global Ministry as a missionary. I knew I was a deacon long before the church recognized it!

At the same time our denomination approved the formation of the Order of Deacon in 1996, it also approved the establishment of a world-class university in Africa. The Board where I was employed was given the responsibility, and I happened to have the agricultural training needed in international development to coordinate the creation of the Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources. When my boss “sanctified” this appointment as my ministry as a deacon, that is when I proclaimed “Yesss!” That eventually led to me to coordinating the Faculty of Health and later a ministry of rehabilitation of persons in Zimbabwe living with HIV and AIDS. That project was accepted as a model of the ministry of the deacon by our church. Another big “Yesss!”

Ben Hartley:I’ve been inspired, as you know, by the linguistic research on diakonia that Australian Roman Catholic scholar John N. Collins has done.[1] He highlights the concept of “go-between” or “emissary” for the diaconate, and I have tried to embody that in my academic writing on Christian social welfare history, urban history, and my current project to write a new biography of Methodist Nobel Peace Prize laureate John R. Mott (1865-1955). The working title for that biography is one that will make you smile, Paul. It is “World Christianity’s Emissary.” Of course, Mott was not a deacon, but I think he was animated by some of the spirit of the diaconate as it has been understood over the centuries. Working on that biography is a “yes” to my calling as a deacon. Writing a historical article on the history of UMCOR for its 75^th anniversary also prompted a heartfelt “Yesss!” But beyond the writing projects, I think where I most feel like I have done the work of the deacon is when I have led my little congregation in Oregon to pray for one of the kids in the correctional facility that I visited or when I’ve pick up the crumbs of bread after communion. Those quiet and even awkward activities are moments when my deacon’s heart whispers a “Yesss!” too.

---

[1] Research stemming from Collins’s work decades ago continues. The latest scholarly volume in this regard is Bart J. Koet, Edwina Murphy, and Esko Ryokas (eds.), Deacons and Diakonia in Early Christianity (Tuebingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2019).

Recommended Reading: David N. Field on Models of Methodism and the Unity of the Church

David N. Field of the European Methodist e-Academy has published a paper online entitled "Models of Methodism and the Unity of the Church: A European Reflection on the Conflict in The United Methodist Church over LGBTQ+ Inclusion and Affirmation." In the paper, Field outlines six different understandings of church within United Methodism: as a US American denomination, as a European free church, as a connection of holiness societies, as a confessional church, as a generously orthodox church, and as a movement of liberation. While Field's main concern in outlining these six views is to explore their implications for understanding current conflicts over LGBTQ+ inclusion, along the way, he highlights the implications of these views of the church for ecumenism and other aspects of theology. Field acknowledges that his work needs to be supplemented by more attention to African and Filipino understandings of the church. Still, and despite its length (18 pages), Field's piece is well worth reading for a better understanding of the complexities of the current UMC.

UM & Global Collections: Missional Ecclesiology and Church Unity

The previous UM & Global collection looks at the issue of ecclesiology through the lens of two documents developed by the Committee on Faith and Order to help define the UMC's theology of church: "Wonder, Love and Praise" and "Sent in Love." Many of the essays in that collection highlighted the missional nature of Methodist ecclesiology.

In follow-up, the two latest collections continue to examine issues of ecclesiology, especially missional ecclesiology. A collection on missional ecclesiology with contributions by David W. Scott and Hendrik R. Pieterse looks at the relationship between mission and our theological understandings of the church. A second collection of essays by David W. Scott considers various sources for denominational unity, exploring in particular the connection between personal relationships and unity.

As always, discussion questions help connect these writings to pressing contemporary questions for United Methodist leaders, General Conference delegates, and students.

UM & Global Collection: Commentaries on "Wonder, Love and Praise" and "Sent in Love"

Three previous UM & Global collections have looked at issues of global ecclesiology: one on the UMC as a global church, one on church autonomy and the Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas (COSMOS), and one on ecumenical perspectives on the global UMC.

The latest collection looks at the issue of ecclesiology through the lens of two documents developed by the Committee on Faith and Order to help define the UMC's theology of church: "Wonder, Love and Praise" and "Sent in Love." "Wonder, Love and Praise" was a draft ecclesiology document released in 2016. It was revised and rewritten into "Sent in Love," which is pending for adoption by General Conference the next time that body meets.

The collection includes twenty-nine essays by a range of authors: Benjamin L. Hartley, Knut Refsdal, Daniel Shin, Robert A. Hunt, Jacob Dharmaraj, Stefan Zürcher, Norma Dollaga, David N. Field, Joon-Sik Park, Steven J. Ybarrola, Ole Birch, James Z. Labala, Global Ministries staff, Nkemba Ndjungu, Laceye Warner, Meeli Tankler, and Lizette Tapia-Raquel. Women are under-represented in the analysis of "Wonder, Love and Praise." Yet the collection includes ecclesiological reflections by United Methodists from a wide range of cultural backgrounds.

As always, discussion questions help connect these writings to pressing contemporary questions for United Methodist leaders, General Conference delegates, and students.

UM & Global Collection: Culture, Context, and the Global Church

Three previous UM & Global collections have looked at issues of global ecclesiology: one on the UMC as a global church, one on church autonomy and the Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas (COSMOS), and one on ecumenical perspectives on the global UMC.

The latest collection continues that theme by looking at culture, context, and the global church. These pieces examine the impact of culture on what it means to be a global United Methodist church, the challenges of communicating and doing theology across cultural differences, the definition of contextualization, issues of contextualization in Europe and the United States, and ministry practices for multicultural congregations.

The collection includes twenty-four essays, many of them by Robert A. Hunt. Additional essays are by David W. Scott, William Payne, Darrell Whiteman, Barry Bryant, Michael Nausner, David Field, Hendrik R. Pieterse, Heinrich Bolleter, and David Markay. As always, discussion questions help connect these writings to pressing contemporary questions for United Methodist leaders, General Conference delegates, and students.

UM & Global Collection: The Global UMC in Ecumenical Perspective

Two previous UM & Global collections have looked at issues of global ecclesiology: one on the UMC as a global church and one on church autonomy and the Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas (COSMOS). The latest collection continues that theme by looking at the global UMC in ecumenical perspective. These pieces examine other models of being a global or world-wide church, including Catholicism, Pentecostalism, and other Methodist/Wesleyan denominations, raising questions for The United Methodist Church through the process of comparison. The collection also includes several pieces that examine the World Methodist Council and other ecumenical associations of Methodist denominations for the light they can shed on what it means to be a global Methodist, United Methodist or otherwise.

The collection includes thirteen essays by Arun W. Jones and David W. Scott. As always, discussion questions help connect these writings to pressing contemporary questions for United Methodist leaders, General Conference delegates, and students

UM & Global Collection: Church Autonomy and the Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas (COSMOS)

The previous UM & Global collection looked at the UMC as a global church. The newest collection of UM & Global articles on church autonomy and the Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas (COSMOS) looks at the flip side of that coin: churches that were at one point connected to The United Methodist Church or its predecessors but have chosen to become independent, autonomous denominations. Many of these denominations have, however, chosen to remain affiliated with the UMC. Most of these changes came about in the late 1960s and early 1970s through the work of the Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas (COSMOS), a General Conference-created body of The Methodist Church. This collection examines this history for the sake of drawing lessons for current mission practice, ecumenical relationships, and global polity conversations in the UMC.

The collection includes essays by Philip Wingeier-Rayo, Robert Harman, David W. Scott, Blair Trygstad Stowe, Daniel Bruno, and Kyle Tau, as well as documents from the Commission on the Structure of Methodism Overseas (COSMOS), including writings by D. T. Niles. As always, discussion questions help connect these writings to pressing contemporary questions for United Methodist leaders, General Conference delegates, and students.

Darryl W. Stephens: Considering the Dissolution of the UMC

Today's post is by Rev. Dr. Darryl W. Stephens. Dr. Stephens is director of United Methodist studies at Lancaster Theological Seminary and a clergy member of the Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference. The post first appeared on the author's personal website, Ethics Considered. It is republished here with permission.

dis·so·lu·tion /ˌdisəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/ noun. 1. the closing down or dismissal of an assembly, partnership, or official body.

In a previous post, I explored the possibility that General Conference might not ever meet again. I am not the first to raise this possibility. Indeed, more than a few other church leaders and scholars have called for the dissolution of The United Methodist Church (UMC). However, my discussion dissolution of the denomination differs in an important way from previous proposals: rather than construct and prescribe future connectional relationships through protocols and agreements, I believe new relationships can emerge organically if we allow them.

The possibility of new beginnings requires an end to what was. There are many reasons for the divisions currently tearing the UMC apart, not the least of which have to do with a white, US, imperialistic mindset. The denominational structure has become an obstacle to our ecclesiology, a hinderance rather than an enabler of connectional relationships.

I am not the first or the only one to reach this conclusion or something similar. In March 2017, Professor Mark Teasdale recommended “dissolving United Methodism as a denomination”—but he lost our ecclesiology by proposing every congregation become independent. More recently, Professor Tom Frank also advocated for terminating “a global denomination with common governance” in favor of “mov[ing] authority for ministry closer to where it is practiced”—albeit through a US denominational structure. My consideration of dissolution differs from Teasedale’s congregationalism and Frank’s US-denominationalism by suggesting the annual conference, “the basic body of the Church,” be the largest institutional entity.

Envisioning the dissolution of the UMC is not a call for ecclesial anarchy or the end of connectional relationships. Rather, this path forward can maintain the essence of what our clergy and laity recognize as the United Methodist way of being church. I am in agreement with Bishop Bob Farr, who declared, “It is time to find a way for The United Methodist Church to separate.” He suggested, along the lines of what I am discussing, “convert[ing] all [annual] conferences into affiliated autonomous conferences.” Likewise, Amy Valdez Barker, former top executive of the Connectional Table, argued for “a connection based on relationships” centered in the local congregation and annual conference. “General Conference is not a system that allows for conflicts to be resolved through relationships and, therefore, it needs to change,” she asserted.

Despite differences in strategy, each of these leaders recognizes the importance of subsidiarity—allowing decision-making to occur at a more local level of authority. We need to deal with divisive issues locally, face-to-face, and among those who live side-by-side. The denominational level is no longer (if it ever was) an effective place for deliberation, discernment, and decision-making.

Dissolution is not the same as schism or restructure. Dividing up the denominational spoils among competing caucuses through a negotiated “Protocol” would exacerbate United Methodist divisions, focusing on money and property rather than mission. Jeremy Smith described the differences in an informative post, “What does it mean to Dissolve The United Methodist Church?” Restructuring the denomination into affinity conferences through the Connectional Conference Plan, Bard-Jones Plan, or a similar negotiated arrangement would also fail us ecclesiologically, enshrining our differences over homosexuality into the very structure of our church. Furthermore, both schism and restructuring for the sake of US ecclesial politics would leave in place the inequities of central conference structures.

Dissolution of the UMC is not a last-ditch effort to “save” this denomination or to orchestrate its demise. Instead of euthanasia by Protocol, dissolution pulls the plug on artificial life support and allows a natural death. In doing so, we may find that the UMC, like the late Terri Schiavo, had ceased meaningful functioning and any chance of resuscitation long before we allowed death to occur. No hopeful covenant for unity can change the fact that church law, for nearly 50 years, has categorically denied the first principle of unity, that “we are all children of God.” Resurrection cannot occur prior to death. We must allow this denomination to die in order to experience rebirth as a Church.

Dissolution is an intentional means of allowing new relationships to form while being true to our ecclesiology. Getting back to basics by centering our connectionalism in the annual conference can renew United Methodism. Removing the denominational overlay could actually help foster more genuine connection between individuals, congregations, and conferences. We would have to give up the imperialistic features of our global connection and our ambition to become a “worldwide” denomination. Rather than relying on structural ties, annual conferences and congregations would have to do the hard work of building new relationships—this time truly recognizing our equal dignity and equality as children of God.

UM & Global Collection on the UMC as a Global Church

The latest UM & Global collection include a compilation of 15 posts written by a variety of authors about The United Methodist Church as a global denomination.

The collection, "The UMC as a Global Church," includes pieces by Hendrik R. Pieterse, Dana L. Robert, David W. Scott, Philip Wingeier-Rayo, Robert A. Hunt, Amy Valdez-Barker, Darryl W. Stephens, Igmedio Domingo, and Robert Harman. The pieces raise questions about what it means to be a global denomination; the benefits, costs, and challenges of being such; and the various ways in which a global denomination is connected - through mission, relationships, polity, and money.

The collection includes discussion questions for reflection on the included pieces. These discussion questions are intended to help students, annual conference leaders, General Conference delegates, local church leaders, and others to think wisely about what it means to be a global denomination and whether and how the UMC should aspire to be such.

UMC Ecumenical Partnerships: Why They Matter Today

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.

Over the past month, I have done a deep dive into the extent, nature, and history of UMC ecumenical partnerships, both those with other Methodist denominations and those with Christian denominations from other traditions. In part, I have done this work because I thought that United Methodists do not know enough about these relationships, even though ecumenism is a long-standing part of the Methodist tradition, and I wanted to help educate the church.

In addition, though, I think knowledge about our ecumenical partnerships, past and present, is particularly relevant for The United Methodist Church at this juncture in its history. With the delayed General Conference meeting just a year from now, it seems likely that The United Methodist Church is headed toward some sort of break up or reconfiguration.

A breakup of The United Methodist Church will certainly come with a great deal of pain, difficulty, and internal focus. But there are also opportunities included in such a process.

One of those opportunities is for all successor denominations to rethink what type of ecumenical relationships they want to cultivate. Certainly, an important part of that process is figuring out what (if any) ecumenical relationships those successor denominations want to have with each other. But the question of future ecumenical relationships applies to other Methodist/Wesleyan denominations and other Christian denominations broadly.

As the range of current options reviewed in previous posts and the historical overview provided in a previous post show, there are many options for how to structure ecumenical relationships. Successor denominations may decide that they prefer less-direct, multilateral relationships such as those provided through the World Methodist Council and World Council of Churches. Or successor denominations may decide that bilateral relationships are important, and then will have to choose whether to focus on collaborative ministries or on recognition of sacraments.

Successor denominations will have to choose whether to continue to recognize the current range of ecumenical partnerships maintained by the UMC. Perhaps a Traditionalist denomination will invest more into the Wesleyan Holiness Connection but less into the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA. It will be interesting to see what they decide to do with the Pan-Methodist Commission or affiliated church relationships.

As successor denominations look to their ecumenical futures, it is important to remember that the emphasis in ecumenical relationships has changed over time. Relationships between the UMC and affiliated churches, for instance, have gone from emphasizing missionaries and ministries to emphasizing recognition of members and ministers to exchange of fraternal delegates. Recent UMC ecumenical efforts have prioritized full communion relationships, especially with churches in the US. Some things may have been lost along the way and others gained, but the point is that successor denominations to the UMC will need to figure out what matters most to them about ecumenical relationships at this moment in history.

In reviewing some of the notes, reports, and General Conference speeches about the UMC’s ecumenical relationships, I saw one question raised repeatedly, and I hope it is a question that all successor denominations take seriously as they reflect on their ecumenical relationships: How can ecumenical relationships be structured so as to reflect relationships of equality and mutuality between parts of God’s church?

The United Methodist Church tends towards US-centrism, triumphalism, and in recent years, an internal focus. None of these are healthy habits. But serious attention to ecumenical relationships with churches around the world is an opportunity to counter these trends by taking intentional steps to create relationships of mutual support and sharing.

Ecumenism as a spiritual practice recognizes that no denomination is the entirety of God’s church. In this way, all denominations are incomplete and need the gifts that other denominations bring to the table. Moreover, when the question is phrased about ecumenical relationships globally, it reinforces that no one part of the church, no matter how powerful the nation in which it is located, is the church all by itself. We are all dependent upon one another for a fuller understanding of God’s grace and God’s action in the world.

Thus, I hope that those who are currently United Methodist take the opportunity presented by the next couple of years to reflect seriously about the nature of the ecumenical relationships they intend to retain or cultivate, even after the UMC as we know it is no more. This is an opportunity for greater spiritual and theological depth in how we think about the nature of God’s church.

The Problems of a Global Traditionalist Church

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.

As noted previously, Traditionalist United Methodists in the United States are making a concerted bid to persuade African United Methodists to join the new Traditionalist Methodist denomination that they intend to launch. Traditionalists’ main argument is that because of Africans’ common opposition to homosexuality, they would be best served by being part of a Traditionalist denomination.

The problem, however, with unity forged through a common enemy is that once that enemy is gone, internal fracturing soon follows. There are significant reasons to believe that this pattern may apply to a global Traditionalist denomination, unless they are able to articulate a common vision that goes beyond opposition to gay ordination and gay marriage. Moreover, this vision needs to be adequately fleshed out by theological and operational agreements on thorny issues such as power sharing, contextualization, and the nature of partnerships.

US Traditionalists and (some) Africans may currently be united in opposition to changing the stance of The United Methodist Church toward gay ordination and gay marriage, but the moment they jointly leave for a denomination where those practices are out of the question, they lose their main point of commonality, since there will no longer be arguments about sexuality to unite them. The question then is, what next? Evidence of grounds for possible future division are already visible.

There is a particularly telling moment in Mark Tooley’s recent interview of Jerry Kulah. Tooley asks, “How can USA traditionalists help [the] UMC in Africa?” Kulah responds, “That is an interesting question. I think your question should rather be, ‘How can USA traditionalists and African traditionalists be of help to one another, following the schism?’ And that is what I would prefer responding to.” As part of his answer, Kulah states, “We desire mutual partnership in response to the holistic needs of one another, not one that is dependent or paternalistic.”

It is clear that, having helped Traditionalists prevail at General Conference 2019, Kulah is not willing to accept a second-class status in a church in which Africans continue to play the role of poor objects of US benevolence. Instead, Kulah intends that African agency be recognized and that Africans have power in whatever church they become part of. While US Traditionalists affirm the worth of African church members, it may be a hard shift for those used to pulling the levers of power to suddenly find that others have their hands on those levers too.

In particular, US Traditionalists may be surprised when Africans want to speak to issues other than evangelism and vitality. There is a deep-seated trope among US United Methodists of all stripes that defines Africans in terms of their vibrant worship and growing number of church members. This trope is evidenced in Tooley’s next question to Kulah: “What can [the] UMC in Africa teach [the] USA church about church vitality and evangelism?”

Kulah’s reply includes several points of critique of US culture. While US Traditionalists are likely to agree with the points Kulah raises here, how will they react when Africans want to speak about more than just evangelism and vibrant worship? How will they react if Africans want the church to address neo-colonial economic structures that keep the church in Africa poor but benefit the church in the US? How will they react if Africans want a role, as Kulah suggests, in determining the curriculum not just for African theological schools, but for American ones as well? There are numerous points of potential conflict.

The possibility for offense goes the other way as well. Despite the title, Keith Boyette’s piece on “The Beauty of a Global Church” has a fundamental problem: It only speaks of cultural or contextual particularity in negative ways. Boyette does say, “Becoming a truly global church means we recognize and highly value the gifts, abilities, and contributions of each part of the movement, and we work intentionally to identify and deploy those gifts, abilities, and contributions to make an impact beyond the limitations of country, culture, or context.” Yet he also describes diverse cultures as “local idiosyncrasies, myopic visions, and efforts to shape the gospel to accommodate a particular setting” characterized by “regional prejudices, ethnic tensions, economic differences, and social distinctions” and says that focusing on one’s local church is “selfish.” What happens in a new denomination when Africans feel their cultural heritage is dismissed by US Traditionalists as a “local idiosyncrasy” or, worse, a “regional prejudice”?

Boyette argues that the church should be shaped by “the word of God which is not bound by geography, time, language, or culture.” This is similar to a statement that Kulah makes about the need to “[p]reach the simple message of Scripture without diluting it with the cultures and philosophies of the day.” That is well and good. But what happens when differing language or culture impacts the ways in which US Traditionalists and African Methodists understand the word of God? As works such as Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes make clear, there are abundant examples of issues where Westerners and non-Westerners have significantly different ideas about what the “simple message of Scripture” is.

It is entirely possible that US Traditionalists and African Methodists may be able to forge a strong working partnership based on a shared vision and a mutually acceptable modus vivendi of working toward that vision. But that will not come automatically, and it will not come simply through shared opposition to homosexuality. Being a global denomination takes difficult work, culturally sensitive negotiation, and a willingness to learn from the other, acknowledge one’s mistakes, and forgive the other party. Time will tell whether US Traditionalists and African United Methodists are able to transition from a shared enemy to these deeper practices of partnership.

The Traditionalist Bid for Africa

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.

With the postponement of General Conference until the end of August 2021 and plenty of other things to focus on, especially a global pandemic and a movement for racial equality, many United Methodists in the United States, especially centrists and progressives, have been relatively distracted from denominational politics. In addition, key foci of progressive and centrist agitating—annual conference ordination ceremonies and weddings—have been among the events most disrupted by the pandemic.

So-called Traditionalists, however, have continued to push forward with their plans for creating a new denomination. The Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) has continued to release drafts of portions of a new Book of Discipline. United Methodist Traditionalists, sometimes working with ecumenical partners from other Wesleyan/Holiness churches, have also launched new media channels including an online magazine and a podcast to promote their point of view.

Key within on-going Traditionalist efforts to create a new denomination has been a focused attempt this summer to recruit African United Methodists to join that new denomination. These attempts are evident in surveying a variety of blog posts and articles across Traditionalist outlets.

Keith Boyette of the WCA re-stated the goal in a June 12 post on the WCA site entitled “The Beauty of a Global Church.” In the piece, he wrote, “We will only be the church Jesus is building if we are truly global in every way.” Although Boyette disclaimed, “Being a global church is not simply about having churches around the world and members from every nation,” having churches around the world is an express goal of the UM Traditionalist movement. “That is rudimentary,” he said.

Global ambitions are not new for Traditionalists. Just after General Conference 2019, Traditionalist theologian Billy Abraham wrote about “the genuinely global nature of our enterprise” and hinted that other (even non-United) Methodists from around the world might be interested in joining “an orthodox, global, intellectually vibrant, Spirit-energized, socially engaged version of Methodism.”

Yet this summer’s developments go beyond US traditionalists re-stating their global ambitions. A number of articles have sought to undercut the African bishops as leaders and to assure Africans that their financial interests will be taken care of in a new, Traditionalist denomination.

The summer has seen pieces by Africa Initiative leaders Jerry Kulah (May 26 interview by the Institute on Religion and Democracy’s Mark Tooley) and Forbes Matonga (June 15 article in Firebrand) in which they have opined on the future of the UMC. Matonga’s piece in particular makes the case that the unofficial, unelected Africa Initiative is the true representatives of African United Methodism, not the polity-provided, democratically elected bishops.

Moreover, Matonga writes, “If Africa is allowed freely to choose its future, it will definitely go with the conservative side of the church. But given the manipulation, intimidation, and pure dishonesty by a few powerful African bishops, the African church shall split just like what is happening to the American church.” This sets up African affiliation with US Traditionalists as the default, normalizes division within the African church, and undermines the bishops as a source of leadership by labeling their leadership efforts as “manipulation, intimidation, and pure dishonesty.”

In a further attempt to undermine African bishops as a source of leadership, Good News Magazine’s Tom Lambrecht published two pieces “Violations in Central Congo” on July 17 and “Looking for Accountability in North Katanga” on July 27. These two pieces lay forth allegations of misconduct by Boards of Ordained Ministry and bishops against pastors and laity in the Congo who were disciplined by the church. Lambrecht asserts that the Boards and bishops violated processes laid out in the Book of Discipline, while failing to acknowledge that the Book of Discipline that is operative in the Congo is an adaptation and translation of the 1988* Discipline, not the 2016 English-language Discipline.

Whatever the merits of the complaints, the impact of the pieces is to undercut the bishops as leaders. They cast Bishops Lunge, Mande, and Unda as liberal on the questions of gay ordination and gay marriage (by their willingness to stay within The United Methodist Church), with the complainants as the real Traditionalists. Lambrecht writes, “The underlying issue behind the singling out of some pastors and laity for punishment has to do with the church’s position regarding marriage and human sexuality,” although the reality is almost certainly more complex than this reduction of the conflict to a single issue that is most salient in the US, not Africa. It characterizes the bishops’ actions as flowing from a lack of accountability and implies that their political opponents within the UMC would fair better under a Traditionalist church with “a more robust accountability mechanism for bishops at the global level.”

Funding is also a concern in a number of pieces appearing this question. Questions about funding are a significant portion of Mark Tooley’s interview of Jerry Kulah cited above, though Kulah, as in past statements, does not seem concerned about funding as a major factor that should impact the church in Africa’s decision.

In early June, the WCA announced recipients of its Central Conference Ministry Fund. The WCA awarded just over $200,000 in grants, mostly to Africa, with a promise of another $100,000 in grants to be announced in November. This announcement was made with great fanfare, despite the yearly total representing as little as 0.3% of the yearly total support by US United Methodists of their sisters and brothers in the central conferences.

June also saw another trial balloon for mechanisms of Traditionalist funding of African ministers. A piece by Davies Musigo, a United Methodist pastor in Kenya, on the Traditionalist-oriented Spirit & Truth site for which he serves as Africa Regional Director, included an appeal to give to Spirit & Truth’s “Kenya Fund.” No information has been released on how much was collected in this way.

John Lomperis of the Institute on Religion and Democracy wrote a three-part article in which he argues that United Methodists in the central conferences would be better served financially to affiliate with a Traditionalist denomination. He first critiques a centrist talking point about 78% of global UMC funding coming from centrist and progressive US United Methodists. Then, using data from this blog in misleading ways, Lomperis argues that, because local church partnerships represent a major source of US funding for the central conferences, a significant portion of US funding is Traditionalist-provided, though Lomperis does not offer hard numbers for the amount of local church partnerships or annual conference apportionments that come from Traditionalist congregations. Finally, while acknowledging that US giving overall will decline and that cross-denominational financial partnerships will be possible, he asserts that Traditionalists have the financial best interests of United Methodists outside of the US at heart, while centrists and progressives want to cut their funding.

Thus, the Traditionalist argument is clear: United Methodists in Africa should affiliate with a new, Traditionalist denomination because of their views on sexuality. Even if their bishops oppose such a move, their leadership is illegitimate. Plus, affiliating with Traditionalists is in Africans’ financial best interests.

Most Traditionalist United Methodists, as well as most centrists and progressives, honestly believe that those United Methodists outside of the United States would be best served by continuing to be affiliated with them. Ultimately, it is up to Africans to decide which case is more convincing. The unfortunate point is that Africans are being forced to choose sides and, in the process, divisions that originated in the US are being spread to other areas of the world.

* An earlier version of this article originally indicated that the BOD used in the Congo is an adaptation of the 1984 BOD. The 1990 Africa Central Conference BOD is an adaptation of the 1988 BOD.