Regionalization of the UMC

The largest number of amendments to the constitution of the United Methodist Church relate to a worldview change: instead of continuing to be a dominating colonial-style denomination we will aim for being more equal in standing next to each United Methodist body in each region of the world. Having supported the democratic concern that we not be paternalistic but develop indigenous leadership in a process of missions, I think it is time to take the next step and stand as a partner in operations rather than continue as the head of the business.

What appears to be a reasonable step, amendments changing terminology in anticipation of enabling legislation in 2012, has been seriously criticized by a most unlikely group.

For years now, a caucus in our denomination has been pressing for division into two denominations. Each General Conference occurs with everyone asking, “Is this the year they are going to split the church?” I first heard such talk in 1984. It was so serious in 2004 that some key leaders of that caucus were speaking openly about a split.

I have never taken their threats too seriously. Our demographics have diminished. How that has come to be could be argued, of course. The real reason the caucus won’t split the denomination is because they would then have only half the resources of the whole denomination. They might not be left with very much.

Their threats have proved to be quite fruitful, however. They have gotten the majority to compromise in the name of peace and unity. Compromises have been legislative (some Disciplinary changes have led to passages that, unlike the wise one on abortion in the Social Principles, have just split the church down the middle) and some have been administrative (addition of an extra missionary society).

This past couple years, denominational leaders have successfully introduced the idea of regionalizing the church. It passed at General Conference.

Material from the caucus interested in “splitting” now is actively seeking to defeat the region idea which “splits” the church and its resources geographically. This sudden shift comes from a new situation in the denomination. Over the past decade, a highly successful evangelization of the Ivory Coast has formed a conference so large it would completely change the numbers at General Conference. And they would tend to vote with the caucus! When Cote d’Ivoire is fully seated, the caucus may well have the votes to take over the denomination.

I have friends in the Southern Baptist Church and Missouri Synod and remember the splits that were brought to both denominations when their “caucuses” took over, what that did to congregations and especially to the seminaries.

So, from my perspective, the real issue is control of the denomination. As I perceive Scripture and the Holy Spirit, we are to seek to mutually respect one another, to work together in Christ’s name, and to share the task of passing on the Good News of salvation and sanctification (fancy word for going on to perfection in love as Jesus called us to be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect).

While my experience with members of the caucus individually is of caring people and good pastors and mission-minded folks in nearly every respect, they tend to draw circles that exclude rather than include. They do not see that as a problem, certain that they are right and the rest of us just have an awful lot of changing to do before we get it right.

I have no trouble working with caucus folks. But on the political level, I’m not ready to submit to their leadership and to turn the clock back on our relationship with our sister churches in the other parts of the world.

This is the unspoken argument over the regionalization issue.

For missional, theological, and political reasons, I encourage you to vote yes on all the amendments on regionalizing the church.