By Rev. Luan-Vu “Lui” Tran, Ph.D.
I. Introduction: Regionalization as a Test of Stewardship
The regionalized United Methodist Church will test whether connectionalism can become more contextual without becoming less covenantal. Regionalization is not merely a constitutional rearrangement of conferences. It is a stewardship question: How shall a worldwide church share authority, responsibility, property, financial resources, theological identity, and mission in ways that are faithful both to local context and to the whole connection?
The Book of Discipline 2020/2024 (“Discipline”) defines The United Methodist Church as a worldwide denomination united by doctrine, discipline, and mission through a connectional covenant. It allows central, jurisdictional, or regional conferences to make changes and adaptations to the General Book of Discipline for mission in various contexts, while preserving non-adaptable portions that remain under General Conference authority. Discipline, ¶ 101.
That balance—adaptation within covenant—is the heart of connectional stewardship. Regionalization gives the Church a new constitutional architecture, but the spiritual question remains older and deeper: Will the Church steward its diversity as a gift for mission, or will it allow diversity to become fragmentation?
II. The Present Regionalization Moment
On November 5, 2025, the Council of Bishops announced that the constitutional amendments approved by the 2020/2024 General Conference had been ratified by annual conference voters. The regionalization amendment received 34,148 “yes” votes and 3,124 “no” votes, a 91.6 percent majority, and the ratified amendments became effective immediately.
Official United Methodist materials describe the amendments as authorizing a more decentralized and less U.S.-centric model of governance. The former central conferences are now regional conferences; a ninth regional conference for the United States is being organized; and regional conferences have additional powers relating to ministry qualifications, lay ministry, professing membership standards, regional and annual conference structures, hymnals and ritual, and regional judicial mechanisms for matters arising from adapted portions of the Discipline.
Yet, regionalization remains unfinished. Post-ratification denominational materials identify the completion of the General Book of Discipline, including an adaptable Part VII, as a major remaining task for the 2028 General Conference. The same materials note that regional conferences will not be able to adapt Parts I–VI, while Part VII is to contain legislation adaptable by regional conferences.
Thus, the Church is now in a transitional period: regionalization is constitutionally effective, but its full legislative, administrative, financial, and pastoral implications will unfold over time.
III. Connectional Stewardship Begins with Mission
Connectional stewardship begins not with institutional preservation but with the mission of God. The annual conference exists “to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world” by equipping local churches for ministry and providing a connection for ministry beyond the local church. Discipline, ¶ 601.
The local church likewise exists in and for the world. The Discipline calls the local church a “strategic base” from which Christians move into the structures of society, minister to the community, cooperate with other churches, defend God’s creation, live as an ecologically responsible community, and participate in the worldwide mission of the Church. Discipline, ¶ 202.
Regionalization must therefore be judged by mission. It is not successful merely because it creates new bodies, transfers legislative competence, or reduces U.S. dominance. It is successful only if it helps annual conferences, local churches, clergy, laity, and agencies make disciples more faithfully in their own contexts while deepening the worldwide connection’s capacity for shared mission.
IV. The Theology of Connectional Stewardship
United Methodist stewardship is not simply the management of money. It is the faithful administration of all that God entrusts to the Church: doctrine, property, leadership, institutions, clergy deployment, lay gifts, cultural diversity, financial resources, and global mission.
The Discipline’s theology of stewardship is broad. At the annual conference level, stewardship includes education, proportionate giving and tithing, funding the Church’s ministries, planned giving, time and abilities, economics and money management, lifestyle, ecological responsibility, and the biblical and theological basis for stewardship. Discipline, ¶ 629.5.
Connectional stewardship therefore has at least four dimensions. It is theological, because resources belong to God’s mission. It is ecclesial, because local and regional bodies are part of one worldwide Church. It is fiduciary, because leaders hold resources and authority in trust for others. It is missional, because adaptation exists for the sake of more faithful witness, not for regional self-protection.
V. Regionalization Does Not Abolish the Principle of Legality
Regionalization expands contextual authority, but it does not abolish Church law. Judicial Council Decision 1366 remains essential for the regionalized Church. It states that the Discipline governs lay and clergy members and regulates all aspects of Church life; no individual or entity may violate, ignore, or negate Church law; and official bodies must act within the Constitution and the Discipline. It also states that the principle of legality forbids selective or partial enforcement of Church law at all levels of the connection.
This principle will become even more important after regionalization. Regional conferences may adapt what the Constitution and General Conference allow them to adapt. They may not adapt what remains non-adaptable. They may contextualize within constitutional limits. They may not create regional systems that contradict the Church’s doctrine, restrictive rules, constitutional order, or connectional trust obligations.
Judicial Council Decision 1500 is also important. Before ratification, the Judicial Council held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of proposed constitutional amendments and related disciplinary changes that depended on those amendments. The Council expressly noted that questions could be brought again after completion of the ratification process.
That means regionalization’s future will require disciplined constitutional interpretation. The Church should expect new legal questions about the boundary between adaptable and non-adaptable law, the scope of regional authority, the continuing role of General Conference, and the relationship between regional legislation and general Church fiduciary responsibilities.
VI. The General Book of Discipline as a Stewardship Covenant
The General Book of Discipline is the legal structure through which regionalization seeks to hold unity and contextuality together. Discipline, ¶ 101 states that the General Book of Discipline reflects the Wesleyan way of serving Christ through doctrine and disciplined Christian life, and that the denomination is united by doctrine, discipline, and mission through its connectional covenant. It also identifies non-adaptable portions and anticipates further restructuring to distinguish general organization and administration from additional organization and administration adaptable by regional conferences.
The future of regionalization will depend heavily on how the Church completes this work. If too much remains centralized, regionalization will disappoint those who expected contextual authority. If too much becomes adaptable, the connection may lose coherence. The stewardship task is to define non-adaptable law not as control for its own sake, but as the minimum structure necessary to preserve doctrinal identity, sacramental order, mutual accountability, episcopal unity, trust obligations, and shared mission.
VII. Financial Stewardship in a Regionalized Church
The Discipline already treats financial stewardship as connectional. The committee on finance in the local church must give stewardship of financial resources priority throughout the year, cultivate generosity, compile the budget, raise sufficient income for the budget adopted by the church council, administer funds according to church council instructions, maintain internal controls, provide for annual audits, and honor donor intent. Discipline, ¶ 258.4.
At the annual conference level, apportionments are part of the Church’s “shared financial covenant.” Discipline, ¶ 615 directs conference councils on finance and administration to apportion general Church funds, World Service, conference benevolences, clergy support, administration, and other apportioned causes, and to make every effort for full payment.
Regionalization will not eliminate this shared financial covenant. It will force the Church to ask how financial responsibility should be fairly apportioned in a worldwide body marked by vast differences in wealth, currency stability, membership patterns, cost of living, legal systems, and institutional capacity. Connectional stewardship in the regionalized Church must therefore be both contextual and redistributive. Regions need space to develop sustainable funding models for their own contexts, but the whole Church must still support ministries that no region can or should carry alone.
VIII. The Connectional Table: Ministry and Money at the Same Table
The Connectional Table offers a significant model for regionalized stewardship. The Discipline describes it as the place where “ministry and money are brought to the same table” to coordinate the mission, ministries, and resources of The United Methodist Church. Its purpose includes discernment and articulation of vision, stewardship of mission and resources, fiscal responsibility, and policies and procedures to carry out the mission of the Church. Discipline, ¶¶ 901, 904.
In a regionalized Church, this model should be deepened rather than weakened. Regionalization will create new centers of legislative responsibility. Without careful coordination, those centers may compete for money, staff, attention, and authority. The Church will need structures that bring regional leaders, general agencies, episcopal leaders, finance bodies, and mission partners into genuine conversation about priorities, duplication, outcomes, and accountability.
The future Church should not ask only, “Which body has authority?” It must also ask, “Which body is best positioned to steward this ministry faithfully, sustainably, and connectionally?”
IX. Property, Trust, and the Limits of Regional Autonomy
No discussion of connectional stewardship is complete without the trust clause. Discipline, ¶ 2501 provides that all property of United Methodist local churches and other United Methodist agencies and institutions is held in trust for the benefit of the entire denomination, and that ownership and usage are subject to the Discipline. It describes the trust requirement as an essential element of historic United Methodist polity, part of the Discipline since 1797, and a fundamental expression of connectionalism.
Judicial Council Decision 1512 confirms that connectionalism is a bedrock principle of United Methodist constitutional polity and that the trust clause is a foundational element of connectionalism. It further holds that church property can be released from the trust clause only to the extent authorized by Church law.
This has direct implications for regionalization. Regional conferences may gain contextual authority, but regionalization does not convert connectional property into regional or congregational property. Nor does it authorize local churches, annual conferences, or regions to treat the trust clause as optional. Property stewardship remains a covenantal responsibility held within the whole Church.
X. Regionalization and the Future of Apportionments
One of the most difficult practical questions will be how apportionments and general Church funding evolve. Regionalization may encourage more regionally tailored budgets, more transparent calculations, and more contextually realistic funding models. That is healthy. But it may also tempt regions to reduce connectional giving to whatever directly benefits their own context. That would be a failure of connectional stewardship.
A regionalized financial covenant should preserve several principles. First, general Church funds should be clearly tied to shared mission. Second, regions should understand what their apportionments support and how those ministries serve the whole connection. Third, less wealthy regions should not be burdened by models built around U.S. assumptions of institutional capacity. Fourth, wealthier regions should not use regionalization to retreat from global responsibility. Fifth, financial reporting should be clear, comparable, audited, and accessible.
The future of apportionments should be neither centralized extraction nor regional isolation. It should be covenantal participation.
XI. Equity, Anti-Colonial Accountability, and Mutuality
Regionalization emerged partly from the recognition that the United Methodist connection had been too U.S.-centric. A regionalized Church must therefore practice stewardship as equity, not merely efficiency. Official United Methodist materials describe the regionalized future as more decentralized and less U.S.-centric.
That change has spiritual significance. Connectional stewardship cannot mean that wealthy or historically dominant regions set the agenda while others receive decisions. Nor can it mean that every region withdraws into itself. A Wesleyan connection is not empire, but neither is it federation without covenant. It is a communion of shared doctrine, shared mission, shared accountability, and shared sacrifice.
Equitable stewardship will require multilingual access, fair representation, transparent funding, culturally competent leadership development, regional theological education, and mechanisms for less powerful voices to shape the whole Church’s agenda.
XII. The Continuing Role of the Charge Conference and Local Church
Regionalization should not obscure the importance of the local church and charge conference. Judicial Council Decision 1507 emphasized that the charge conference is the connecting link between the local church and the general Church, and that the church council may recommend action but cannot bypass the charge conference when the Discipline assigns authority to that body.
This principle matters for regionalized stewardship because contextual authority must not become top-down regionalism. Local churches remain the primary arena of discipleship, worship, mission, and community witness. Annual and regional bodies exist to equip, order, and connect local churches—not to absorb their vocation. The future regionalized Church will be healthy only if authority flows in disciplined relationship among local, district, annual, regional, and general bodies.
XIII. Risks in the Regionalized Future
The greatest risk is fragmentation. Regionalization could be misunderstood as permission for each region to become a semi-autonomous denomination. That would contradict the purpose of the connectional covenant. Judicial Council Decision 1444 held that there was no basis or process in Church law for an annual conference in the United States to withdraw or separate from The United Methodist Church; Decision 1512 extended the logic by holding that local churches may not disaffiliate without General Conference action.
A second risk is financial nationalism: the idea that each region should keep its own resources for itself. That may appear prudent in the short term, but it would weaken ministries that depend on shared sacrifice.
A third risk is duplication. Regional conferences may create parallel structures that increase administrative costs rather than increase mission capacity. Official United Methodist materials already note unresolved questions about the continuing existence and cost of jurisdictional conferences in the United States once the U.S. Regional Conference is functioning.
A fourth risk is uneven accountability. If different regions develop different rules, the Church will need careful systems for determining which matters are regional, which are general, and how conflicts are resolved.
A fifth risk is donor confusion. As regions adapt structures and terminology, local churches and conferences must clearly explain how gifts, apportionments, endowments, restricted funds, and property remain governed by donor intent, fiduciary law, the Discipline, and the trust clause.
XIV. Best Practices for Connectional Stewardship After Regionalization
The Church should develop a connectional stewardship framework for the regionalized era. Such a framework should include:
- A clear adaptable/non-adaptable map. The Church should identify which paragraphs are general, which are regional, and which require coordinated interpretation.
- Regional financial impact statements. Regional legislation should include analysis of costs, funding sources, staffing needs, administrative burden, and impact on local churches.
- Connectional mission impact statements. Regions should explain not only whether legislation fits local context, but how it strengthens the worldwide mission.
- Transparent apportionment education. Every region should teach what shared funds support, how they are calculated, and why they matter.
- Uniform minimum fiduciary standards. Even where regional adaptation is permitted, basic expectations for audits, internal controls, donor intent, conflicts of interest, and property trust should remain strong.
- Mutual accountability among regions. Regional autonomy must be paired with structures of consultation, reporting, and learning across regions.
- Protection of the trust clause. Property must remain connected to the mission and covenant of the whole Church unless the Discipline authorizes otherwise.
- Investment in translation and access. A worldwide Church cannot practice equitable stewardship if its legal, financial, and theological resources are not accessible across languages and cultures.
- Ongoing Judicial Council clarity. As disputes arise, the Church will need authoritative interpretation of regional powers, constitutional limits, and the continuing force of general Church law.
- Spiritual formation in stewardship. Regionalization will succeed only if leaders treat money, property, power, and contextual authority as gifts held in trust for God’s mission.
XV. The U.S. Regional Conference and the Question of Jurisdictions
For the United States, regionalization creates a particularly complex future. The U.S. Regional Conference is constitutionally anticipated, but official materials indicate that its first meeting will occur after the 2028 General Conference. The U.S. Regional Committee exists as an interim body to process U.S.-adaptable matters before the U.S. Regional Conference becomes functional. Discipline, ¶ 507.
The future of jurisdictional conferences remains unresolved. Presently, only the United States has jurisdictional conferences. They perform elective and administrative functions that other regional conferences combine with legislative functions; but the continuing existence of jurisdictions raises cost and structural questions.
From a stewardship perspective, the question is not simply whether jurisdictions are historic or familiar. The question is whether they serve the future mission of a regionalized Church efficiently, equitably, and faithfully. Any future reform should be judged by constitutional integrity, racial justice, episcopal effectiveness, financial sustainability, and mission impact.
XVI. Conclusion: Connectional Stewardship as Constitutional Grace
Regionalization is not the end of connectionalism. Properly understood, it is an opportunity to renew connectionalism by making it more equitable, contextual, and missionally effective. But that renewal will require disciplined stewardship.
The regionalized Church must steward doctrine without rigidity, context without fragmentation, money without self-protection, property without privatization, and authority without domination. It must allow regions to speak from their own mission fields while preserving the covenant that makes them part of one Church. It must bring ministry and money to the same table. It must keep the trust clause as a covenantal safeguard. It must honor the principle of legality. It must treat apportionments as shared mission rather than institutional tax. It must build structures that serve discipleship rather than merely preserve governance.
The future of The United Methodist Church will not be secured by regionalization alone. It will be secured only if regionalization becomes an instrument of connectional stewardship: a disciplined, grace-filled way of holding difference, sharing resources, honoring context, and serving the mission of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.