Church leaders explore future of jurisdictions

Key points:

• The major restructuring of The United Methodist Church known as regionalization has left U.S. jurisdictions in place. But whether they should still exist remains an open question.
• United Methodist leaders are considering a proposal, still in its preliminary stages, to leave the existence of jurisdictions up to each regional conference, including the still-forming U.S. Regional Conference.
• Such a plan would require amending the denomination’s constitution.

For nearly 90 years, The United Methodist Church and its predecessor Methodists have maintained jurisdictions to elect bishops in the U.S. — and only in the U.S.

However, last year’s ratification of regionalization has brought fresh scrutiny to the jurisdictions’ existence.

After all, the restructuring aims to put each of the international denomination’s different geographical regions on equal footing. Yet regionalization has left the five jurisdictions in the U.S. untouched.

The jurisdictional system now stands out as an organizational structure solely allowed in the U.S. At the same time, unwinding nine decades of history and jurisdictional ministry cannot happen overnight.

A group of United Methodist leaders are working on what they hope could be a solution to this conundrum. At this point, these leaders are considering bringing legislation to the next General Conference, the denomination’s top lawmaking body, that would leave the question of whether to have jurisdictions up to each regional conference.

“If we could get that passed at 2028 General Conference, it would allow the U.S. to move away from jurisdictions when it’s ready,” explained the Rev. Amy Lippoldt, senior pastor of Wichita First United Methodist Church in Kansas and one of the leaders working on the proposal.

“And it would put the impetus on other regions to take up their own work to create jurisdictions — if they wanted to.”

The proposal is the brainchild of a working group consisting of members of two denominational leadership bodies — the Connectional Table and the Standing Committee on Regional Conference Matters outside the USA. The group’s plan draws in part on research exploring the views of United Methodists around the world.

The proposal is still in its preliminary stages. Neither the Connectional Table nor standing committee have voted on it at this point.

Lippoldt — a standing committee member — also is quick to point out that any change to jurisdictions, just like regionalization, would require amending the denomination’s constitution.

To be ratified, a constitutional amendment must first receive at least a two-thirds majority vote at General Conference, the denomination’s top lawmaking assembly. An amendment next must receive the approval of at least two-thirds of the total vote by lay and clergy members at annual conferences worldwide.

The regionalization package of amendments cleared that high bar, receiving about a 78% majority at General Conference followed by about 91.6% of annual conference votes for ratification.

Under the restructuring, the United Methodist presence in the U.S. and the eight former central conferences in Africa, Europe and the Philippines each become regional conferences with the same authority to adapt the Book of Discipline, the denomination’s policy book, for more missional effectiveness.

Bishop Harald Rückert, the standing committee’s chair and a retired bishop from Germany, said he like the working group’s direction and sees it as in line with regionalization.

“It honors the reality of worldwide regionalization because it says every region should have the opportunity to structure and organize its work in a way that really meets its needs and fits its context,” he told United Methodist News.

Rückert also suggested that U.S. United Methodists might wish to consult with their counterparts in the former central conferences about how they organize their work.

“I’m aware that the situation in the U.S. is different from the situation in all of the former central conferences,” he said. “But in all of the former central conferences, we managed to organize ourselves in a way that was helpful without jurisdictions. So, why not ask?”

Christine Flick, chair of the jurisdictional working group and a Connectional Table member from Germany, also sees her group’s idea as a way of empowering regional conferences.

“A clear focus in the regionalization process has been and continues to be equity and to grant all conferences the same rights and opportunities, regardless of whether they wish to use them or not,” she told UM News.

“Of course,” she added, any regional conference that wishes to add jurisdictions “must then also secure the necessary funding.”

Central conferences and jurisdictions long have occupied similar positions in the denomination’s org chart. Each of the eight former central conferences and five U.S. jurisdictions contain multiple annual conferences — geographic bodies consisting of multiple churches. Central conferences, like jurisdictions, also elect bishops.

But unlike the former central conferences, jurisdictions have never had the authority to adapt the Discipline.

Central conferences and jurisdictions also came into being for different reasons.

The first central conferences formed in the 1880s in the Methodist Episcopal Church to give missionary annual conferences outside the U.S. a place to centralize their work together. At the time, it made sense for central conferences to be able to adapt the Discipline because the denomination’s policy book treated what was then the church’s U.S. majority as the default.

But at this point, a majority of United Methodists live in the former central conferences. That shift has contributed to the push for equality among all denominational regions.

Compared to central conferences, the history of jurisdictions is more troubling.

Jurisdictions first formed in 1939 as part of the merger that reunited the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Methodist Protestant Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. The southern Methodists would only agree to the union if what became the Methodist Church instituted the Central Jurisdiction to segregate U.S. Black members from the white majority. The formation of the five geographical jurisdictions also ensured U.S. Northerners and Southerners would not have a say in each other’s bishop elections.

Nearly 30 years later, the Evangelical United Brethren Church would only agree to the 1968 union that created today’s United Methodist Church if the merged denomination eliminated the Central Jurisdiction.

Still, the newly formed United Methodist Church left the five geographical jurisdictions intact with their borders and roles defined in the denomination’s constitution. The elimination of the Central Jurisdiction also raised concerns about the representation and cultivation of Black United Methodist leaders, who no longer had a guaranteed seat at the table of denominational agencies and other leadership bodies.

With all this history and complexity in mind, the regionalization legislation included a provision that required the Connectional Table and standing committee to examine the future of jurisdictions in the event of regionalization’s ratification.

Now with the restructuring taking effect, the two United Methodist bodies have begun that work.

Flick, the working group’s chair, said she is grateful the group includes members from both bodies.

“In this way, all regions are represented at the table, and we can very well reflect the global character of our church from different perspectives,” she said. “In addition to getting to know each other better and building trust, this also helps us to gain a deeper understanding of church life with the corresponding backgrounds in the different living conditions and contexts of our worldwide denomination.”

Members of the working group also considered the research conducted by Grace Sill — connectional ministries intern at the Connectional Table. The study, authorized by Petition 8 in the regionalization legislation, provides a starting place for the work entrusted to the Connectional Table and the standing committee.

For her research, Sill interviewed 71 United Methodists in the U.S., Africa, Europe and the Philippines by Zoom or through email. Those interviewed were members of various United Methodist groups including the standing committee and the Christmas Covenant, a grassroots group from the former central conferences who also contributed to regionalization.

The study was very clear that it does not speak for all United Methodists. While interviewees represented a diversity of identities and United Methodist organizations, most live in the U.S. Nevertheless, the hope was to provide a snapshot of United Methodist views that would be helpful for moving forward.

The research found:

• A majority of U.S. United Methodists interviewed supported the future elimination or alteration of jurisdictions. Those interviewed said jurisdictions uplift regional representation and ministry needs. They also said the jurisdictions conduct U.S. bishops’ elections more effectively than a national election could. However, those interviewed stressed that the structures discourage cross-jurisdictional bishop appointments and ministry partnerships. They also foster distrust and reinforce divisions that have allowed white churches in the U.S. to centralize power based on higher memberships and/or financial resources.
• The interviewees from Europe and the Philippines did not want to add jurisdictions to their regional conferences. A majority of Africans interviewed also did not support adding jurisdictions in their regional conferences. However, they also raised concerns about equity, especially between the U.S. and Africa.

The Rev. Allison Mark, vice chair of the working group and senior pastor of Faith United Methodist Church in Torrance, California, also spoke about another complication. The jurisdictions are now all separate legal entities with their own property and ministries. Some are even involved in ongoing litigation.

Mark, a Connectional Table member, said changing jurisdictions would require input from the attorneys who serve as conference chancellors in each jurisdiction. U.S. United Methodists also are still working to build trust across jurisdictional borders.

Mark stressed that nobody at this point is discussing dismantling U.S. jurisdictions.

“There was a sense that we need to implement the U.S. Regional Conference first in 2028 before we really move deep into conversation about jurisdictions,” Mark told a meeting of the Connectional Table.

But, she added, the group also concluded that its best task would be to bring legislation to the 2028 General Conference “that each region could create or dismantle jurisdictions or other organizational structures as they determine.”

Ultimately, the study concludes by calling for repentance and theological reflection for how jurisdictions came to exist in the first place.

“Without undergoing an intentional time of theological transformation and discernment, The UMC risks implementing harmful structural changes whose consequences have not been fully addressed,” the study said.

Lippoldt stressed to members of the standing committee and other church leaders meeting Feb. 9 in Denmark that many details still need to be worked out before the proposal moves forward.

At a subsequent online Connectional Table meeting on Feb. 17, both Mark and Judi Kenaston, the Connectional Table’s chief connectional ministries officer, shared a similar message.

Kenaston said that leaders are seeking a way to provide legislation that is more “permission-giving” to allow regional conferences to have the structures they need.

“What that might mean is looking at the language that’s in the Discipline requiring jurisdictions so that we could make a shift in that language so that we can allow for regions to do what is best for them.”

Hahn is assistant news editor for UM News. Contact her at (615) 742-5470 or newsdesk@umnews.org. To read more United Methodist news, subscribe to the free UM News Digest.