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.

Recommended Reading: Jean Claude Maleka on mission theology

United Methodist New Service published an article by Rev. Dr. Jean Claude Masuka Maleka last week entitled "Mission can revitalize United Methodism." While revitalization is part of Rev. Dr. Maleka's concern, the article extends beyond its headline's focus to present a Methodist/Wesleyan theology of mission. Rev. Dr. Maleka draws connections between mission and such important Methodist/Wesleyan theological concepts as sanctification, social justice and social service, the importance of the laity, spirituality, and the worldwide nature of the church. The article is an excellent brief discussion of mission theology from a United Methodist perspective. Rev. Dr. Maleka has made an important conversation to denominational conversations around mission theology, and it is encouraging to see UMNews publishing a variety of pieces on mission theology.

Philip Wingeier-Rayo Interview of Ruth Duck on Mission

Well-known hymnwriter Rev. Dr. Ruth Duck passed away on Dec. 26, 2024. Among other hymns, Duck was known for her missiological hymn, “As Fire Is Meant for Burning.” Below is an interview of Duck by Dr. Philip Wingeier-Rayo about that hymn. The interview is from 2008. It has been edited for clarity and length.

PWR: What inspired you to write the hymn, “As Fire Is Meant for Burning”? What are the origins of this hymn?

RD: The Lutheran Church of America sponsored a hymn competition, and I think I entered it because I was on the UCC mission Board of Directors. It was the only time I ever entered a hymn competition in my life. It didn’t win the competition, by the way.

I was on the Middle East committee of the Board, and so I went to Turkey. They were trying to transition the mission to local control. The UCC had social works across the country. They had schools and hospitals in Istanbul, Izmir and Cappadocia. This hymn was really written about how I saw them in mission.

PWR: How much did you read of Emil Brunner of Niles?

RD: Not much at all.

PWR: What connection did you have when you were writing this hymn between early Christian missionaries and apologetics and modern missionaries?

RD: [The UCC missions in Turkey] were trying to make a connection with people. The interesting thing is that this is the first or second most popular hymn of mine. And I received some letters from Catholics who complain that I am against creeds. It’s not that I am necessarily against creeds.

I like much more the idea of witnessing in an interfaith situation where people have different faiths. It’s okay to witness to your faith and to share your faith. Ideally, in a dialogue both might be changed, at least to break down the prejudices that they have against each other.

PWR: Turkey is 99% Muslim. As you reflect on the plight of Christians there, to what degree should missionaries witness and seek converts?

RD: I’m ambivalent about that because I know there are people in the world who would be glad that Christians came to them. I think that I feel much more comfortable having people in the country themselves carrying out the mission. So, it’s not that I’m against evangelism, but my way of evangelism would never be coercive or judgmental. It doesn’t have to come in and harm culture and alienate people from their family. Well, you’re asking the question, so I guess this is what you are looking for.

PWR: I ask the question because I know that this question will be asked. If you’re going to have a Christian mission and a Christian presence in a country that is 99% Muslim, should the mission be on outreach and church growth and not just be satisfied with 1% of the population?

RD: Well, that’s somebody else’s decision, not mine. I grew up knowing people who started a fundamentalist student movement. The daughter of this evangelist who was a leader of the movement was a friend of mine, and she went to Turkey. I got these letters from her, and she was risking her life almost to try to convert people. That’s her interpretation of the Gospel.

I know I sound wishy-washy. I think that whatever is done should be done with respect. I suppose that we should believe enough in our faith that we would want to share it. It might be a little like in Timothy that we should be ready to give an answer when asked. We see something in your life—What makes you tick? What is the hope? What are you looking for?

Everybody should go to Turkey because it would disarm all their prejudices against Muslims. We probably have a lot more to learn. Or we have to learn as well as teach. “We are pilgrims on the way.” This is a UCC reference because they were pilgrims. We seek, and we give.

PWR: Another way to interpret pilgrims, at least how I read the hymn, is that we are on a pilgrimage, and there is not a set destination. We are companions together on a journey as teachers and learners. We are going to learn from you, and you’re going to learn from us.

RD: I’m trying to remember exactly what I meant. We can come into [mission] feeling like God has the answers and we want to live up to the best of each of our faiths. But hopefully we are trying to go together to a world of better understanding.

So, if you think of yourself as a pilgrim on the way, you definitely don’t have all the answers. You don’t know what’s going to happen to you on the way. You don’t know who you’re going to meet. You don’t know what ends are going to be closed. You don’t know if your means of transportation are going to break down or somebody will steal your horse or deflates your tires. The pilgrim is also a medieval definition of pilgrim as spiritual meaning of pilgrim and not a sightseer.

“By our gentle, loving actions, we would show that Christ is light. In a humble, list’ning spirit, we would live to God’s delight.” Because they [Christians in Turkey] couldn’t say it in words, they needed to show it with their actions. And it seemed to me that they were. It is dedicated to them.

One of my favorite passages is II Corinthians 4:7: “that it is not ourselves who we preach but Christ.” We become like Christ. Chapter 3 talks about the reflective glory of Christ. We reflect the glory of Christ. So, we are not preaching ourselves.

PWR: Is this passage your main scriptural reference as far as inspiring this stanza? Or was it for the whole hymn?

RD: Yes. I think that this is the theology of preaching and missions. Paul says, “Be what we preach.” That would seem to be contradicted here. The point here is not the preaching, it is preaching Christ, but even more in this preaching context you’re showing Christ, not preaching him. You’re not preaching yourself; you’re preaching Christ. I don’t know if Mother Teresa converted many people. But she showed Christ to many, many people. And they were Christ to her.

The other passage that is important is Mathew 4:14-16: that we are the salt of the earth and the light of the world.

PWR: Yes, like adding flavor to the dish, not by taking over, but by adding flavor to the whole plate. Is this what you meant by the salt of the earth?

RD: In that period of my life, I don’t know if I would call it dating, but I was in an interesting, complicated relationship with a man who was Bahai, and he was really pressing me on my faith, so I was having to answer these questions.

Even at the age of 37, I was a little idealistic. I know that at that stage a person may see part of the truth that they didn’t see before. And you don’t see all the things, as when you know better. But there is a spirit that I really like.

This is the hope of what mission could do—signs of oneness. This is what people can see: we are signs.

PWR: Meaning unity?

RD: And we might want to express it differently. Here it is in the next line: “‘mid earth’s peoples, many hued.”

PWR: What does hued mean?

RD: I was thinking of a rainbow. You know it rhymes. I have always been interested in racial reconciliation. “As a rainbow lights the heavens when a storm is past and gone, may our lives reflect the radiance of God’s new and glorious dawn.”

This also answers the question of where we are going as pilgrims. In the Hebrew Bible, God wanted everyone to get along. So that’s also probably behind there, you know—Noah, the rainbow, and the storm is over. It’s a sense of a new beginning. A new way of being.

PWR: Do you have any sense of how this hymn might affect the way that the singers and hearers of this hymn carry out and see their mission work?

RD: Again, I might be a little naïve, but I would expect that most people involved in mission work would look at it at lot this way. Some of them might be offended like a few Catholics are offended, but I hope that this is what a lot of them would aspire to. Don’t you think? I do, but there is also a lot of variety.

This hymn was written in the context of Turkey where open proselytism by Christians is not legal, though it doesn’t mean that some people can’t do it. I know that won’t be where everyone is, perhaps, but I also hope that you are going with the idea of respecting and listening to the people that you are working with. I believe that whatever your theology of mission, you have to do a lot of listening and a lot respecting, and at that point you are going to be more able to have people hear your message.

I hope also that the hymn would remind you of the side of missions that is more than speaking and doing but also being. Because I think that we do more to draw people to Christ by who we are sometimes than by what we say or what we do.

It is really a tribute to those missionaries who I saw those two weeks in Turkey. I saw this in them, and I’m sure that you want to exemplify that. I’m not opposed to preaching, but we should preach Christ and not ourselves.

PWR: I was just playing the devil’s advocate about church growth, and not seeking converts, but do you think there is a connection between mission and evangelism?

RD: I think there really is. Life in Christ is not easy, of course, but it is a great thing, and I think that we should want to share it. I don’t think people learn very much by coercion anyhow.

PWR: Thank you for reflecting on the context and the meaning of your hymn “For Fire is Meant for Burning.” I learned so much that I would not have known by simply reading or singing the hymn.

RD: Thank you for asking. I hope the hymn inspires people to reflect on how they understand mission.

Darryl W. Stephens: Facing the Empire Within

Today's post is by Rev. Dr. Darryl W. Stephens. Rev. Dr. Stephens is Director of United Methodist Studies at Lancaster Theological Seminary and is author of, among others,Reckoning Methodism: Mission and Division in the Public Church (2024). This post is taken with permission from Rev. Dr. Stephens' blog, Ethics Considered.

On Monday, the United States of America inaugurated the reign of a president who said he would not rule out the use of military force to seize control of the Panama Canal and Greenland. Such international aggression would be a blatant attempt to expand the not-so-hidden empire of the USA. To my fellow United Methodists in the USA: Do not retreat in resignation! We must face the empire within.

Empire assumes many guises. The 2024 Social Principles of the UMC defines Donald Trump’s threat as colonialism: “the practice of establishing full or partial control of other countries, tribes, and peoples through conquest and exploitation.” Empire can also be conducted through neocolonialism, exercised through economic, political, and social control of other peoples. More expansively, empire refers to any coercive power that controls people’s lives—often without their realizing it.

The United Methodist Church (UMC) and its predecessor institutions have a long history of supporting and building empire. The UMC was born of a state church, the head of which controlled the largest world empire at the time. When the US colonies won political independence from the British crown, Methodism in the US also became independent of John Wesley and the Church of England. US Methodism, however, retained the structures and attitudes of empire.

White US Methodists, in particular, have a lot to reckon with. We exercised empire through chattel slavery, forced relocation of indigenous peoples, and missionary expansion. Methodists defended these practices with biblical proof-texts and theological arguments, claiming their actions to be God’s will. Indigenous boarding schools, for example, were cast as education and Christianization. Jim Crow laws were depicted as maintaining public order. Methodists justified their participation in projects of empire through powerful rhetoric and jurisprudence, such as Manifest Destiny and the Doctrine of Discovery.

Trump’s territorial aspirations mirror in some ways the UMC’s decades-long agenda to become a “global church.” Both efforts involve structures of empire, with control residing in the United States. The UMC’s central conferences, for example, are directly modeled after the Church of England’s structure from 1867—during the height of Western colonialism. Regarding Anglican churches overseas, the Church of England sought “the binding of the Churches of our colonial empire and the missionary Churches beyond them in the closest union with the Mother-Church.” The US-based UMC has been slow to dismantle this inherited form of empire, making its largest overseas acquisition in 2008 (a relationship that unraveled in 2024).

Facing “the empire within” requires a long process of repentance. For example, the UMC began facing up to its past mistreatment of Native Americans in 1988. General Conference confessed the church’s sin and offered a formal apology in 1992, supported restitution to some tribes in 1996, offered an act or repentance in 2012, and published an in-depth report of Methodist involvement in the Sand Creek massacre in 2016. The work of repentance continues. In 2000, General Conference adopted an Act of Repentance for Racism—and the work is not done. Repentance involves confessing sin, ceasing wrongdoing, turning from old patterns of behavior, and intending to do better. Repentance also requires restitution and active resistance to further harm.

If only we could face down empire with a quick apology and a simple vote! Neither is sufficient, and yet both are important steps. In 2025, annual conferences in the UMC have the opportunity to vote on several constitutional amendments that address the harms of empire.

• Proposed is adding the words “gender” and “ability” as protected categories to Paragraph 4, Article 4, which proclaims the “inclusiveness of the church.” Behind this proposal is the awareness that Methodism has a long history of discrimination against persons because of gender and physical and mental (dis)abilities.

• Proposed is a revision of Article V, “Racial Justice.” Through this amendment, United Methodists must decide if “The United Methodist Church commits to confronting and eliminating all forms of racism, racial inequity, colonialism, white privilege and white supremacy, in every facet of its life and in society at large.” An affirmative vote would be a significant step toward dismantling these forms of empire.

• The most complex package of constitutional amendments addresses the most complex form of empire with the UMC: the role and power of the United States. The “regionalization legislation” proposes decentering US conferences by putting them on equal legislative footing with conferences around the world. No longer would the denomination’s General Conference be dominated by legislation pertaining only to the United States.

While I am in favor of the above constitutional amendments, I know that they will not solve the problem of empire. To face the empire within, we must reckon with our past, repair relationships, and create more just structures for all. The project of decolonizing church and society requires collaboration in material projects of shared concern through which we can craft new narratives of solidarity and belonging. We cannot achieve this goal by serving “the needy” from our position of perceived privilege. Rather, we must roll up our sleeves and get to work alongside each other as equals in the kin-dom of God.

If you, your reading group, or congregation is invested in facing the empire within, consider reading together the following books:

Stephens, Darryl W. Reckoning Methodism: Mission and Division in the Public Church. Cascade, 2024.

Scott, David W., and Filipe Maia, eds. Methodism and American Empire: Reflections on Decolonizing the Church. Abingdon, 2023.