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
Courtesy Photo
Dr. David W. Scott, a United Methodist layman, is the Senior Director of Theology and Strategic Planning for the General Boards of Global Ministries and Higher Education and Ministry. This post is republished from UM & Global, a collaborative blog founded by United Methodist Professors of Mission.