Regionalization Plan

An Overview (UPDATED)

By Rev. Luan-Vu “Lui” Tran, Ph.D.

Introduction

The Regionalization Plan (Petition #21039, “Worldwide Regionalization”)— passed by the 2020/2024 General Conference, ratified by 91.6% of annual conference voters, and entering into effect on November, 5 2025—amends the Constitution of The United Methodist Church (“UMC”) by creating regional conferences across the worldwide church, including a new U.S. regional conference. This is the most ambitious restructuring since the 1968 union of The Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church (Book of Discipline 2020/2024, ¶¶ 1–8).

For decades, the UMC has operated with an imbalance: central conferences outside the U.S. have held the power to adapt the Book of Discipline to their missional and cultural contexts, while the U.S. has been governed directly by General Conference legislation without equivalent authority. This asymmetry created the perception that the United States was the normative “center” and other areas were “peripheries.” The Regionalization Plan seeks to correct this by giving all regions constitutional parity in adaptation powers (Petition 21039, ¶¶ 28–31).

The UMC now comprises 8 different regions: Africa, Congo, West Africa, Central & Southern Europe, Germany, Northern Europe & Eurasia, Philippines, and the United States. Each region may establish its own rules on whether to ordain persons regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity and whether to permit clergy to officiate same-sex marriages.

Historical and Constitutional Background

Wesleyan Connectional Polity

John Wesley’s genius was not simply doctrinal clarity but constitutional ordering. From the earliest Methodist conferences, authority was shared, representative, and conciliar. The 1808 General Conference formalized this by adopting a Constitution and Restrictive Rules (Discipline ¶¶ 14–22), establishing limits on General Conference to protect doctrine, episcopacy, and representative government.

The 1939 Uniting Conference, bringing together three branches of American Methodism, created jurisdictional conferences in the U.S. and central conferences outside it (Discipline ¶ 11). This structure reflected a kind of ecclesial federalism: unity in essentials, contextuality in governance. The 1968 union retained these structures but did not give the U.S. any adaptation powers, assuming its norms were universal.

Judicial Council Precedent on Constitutional Limits and Adaptation

The Judicial Council has consistently navigated the tension between General Conference legislative power and regional adaptation:

• JCD 904 (1999) (citing JCDs313 and 147) held that central conferences may adapt portions of the Discipline only when such adaptations do not intrude upon “matters distinctly connectional,” which remain reserved to the General Conference. In short, adaptation is real, but bounded.
• JCD 1366 (2018) (reviewing GC2019 plans) clarified that annual conferences hold a reserved right to vote on withdrawal, but actual withdrawal requires General Conference legislation; thus, the right is “not absolute” and is checked by General Conference authority under ¶ 16.3 (Discipline). This underscored that constitutional autonomy must remain subject to connectional limits.
• JCD 1444 (2022) declared that U.S. annual conferences have no constitutional right to secede; only the General Conference can create such a process. Any unilateral action is “unconstitutional, null and void.”
• JCD 1449 (2022) ruled that ¶ 2548.2 (property transfers under comity) cannot be used as a disaffiliation pathway; ¶ 2553 was the exclusive route. This reinforced that special legislation controls over general provisions, a principle critical to constitutional interpretation.
• JCD 1515 (2024) reaffirmed that each “central, jurisdictional, or regional conference may make changes and adaptations to the General Book of Discipline” in its context, subject to constitutional limits. This decision explicitly extended adaptation authority into the new regionalization framework established by General Conference 2024.

Together, these cases form the jurisprudential foundation for Regionalization: General Conference remains supreme over connectional matters, but regional conferences hold meaningful and protected authority to adapt governance within constitutional bounds.

The Regionalization Amendments (Petition 21039)

Petition 21039 introduces several constitutional innovations:

1. Terminology Reform. All “central conferences” are renamed “regional conferences” (Petition 21039, ¶ 9). This symbolically and legally ends the asymmetry that marked non-U.S. conferences as exceptional.
2. Creation of a U.S. Regional Conference. The United States becomes a regional conference, with powers parallel to those of Africa, Europe, and the Philippines (Petition 21039, ¶ 28.1a).
3. Autonomy of Action. A new article provides: “The General Conference, regional conferences, jurisdictional conferences, and annual conferences shall have autonomy of action within the limits fixed by the Constitution” (Petition 21039, ¶ 13). This recognizes differentiated but bounded self-governance.
4. Adaptation Powers. Regional conferences may:
   • Publish a regional Discipline (¶ 31.5a);
   • Set qualifications for clergy and specialized ministries (¶ 31.5c);
   • Establish a regional hymnal and ritual (¶ 31.5d);
   • Adopt trial procedures for clergy and bishops (¶ 31.7).

These powers mirror those previously held only by central conferences.

5. Checks and Balances. The General Conference retains “full legislative power over all matters distinctively connectional” (Discipline ¶ 16) and may legislate non-adaptable matters by a 60% majority (Petition 21039, ¶ 16.17). The Judicial Council gains explicit authority to rule on constitutionality of acts by any regional or jurisdictional conference (Petition 21039, ¶ 56.1).
6. Episcopal Supervision. Bishops continue to be elected regionally, with oversight by jurisdictional or regional committees on episcopacy (Petition 21039, ¶ 46).

Theological Rationale

The preamble, A Christmas Covenant: Our Gift of Hope, frames Regionalization as a theological project: “Grace equally shared is best expressed in a church structure that is founded on equity and respect” (Petition 21039, Preamble).

Theologically, Regionalization resonates with Paul’s vision of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12–27): diverse members, each contextual and particular, yet united in one Spirit. The UMC has long affirmed unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, charity in all things. By constitutionalizing regional adaptation, the church acknowledges that missional faithfulness requires contextual differentiation.

At the same time, Restrictive Rules safeguard doctrinal and connectional unity (Discipline ¶¶ 14–23). Regionalization therefore reflects a Methodist theology of ordered diversity: covenantal structures that both liberate and bind, protecting unity while empowering contextual mission.

Legal and Practical Implications

Constitutional Parity

By creating a U.S. regional conference, the amendments end the structural asymmetry between the U.S. and the rest of the church. All regions now operate under the same constitutional logic of contextual adaptation.

Dual Disciplines

The UMC would operate with a layered legal order:

• A General Discipline, containing doctrinal standards, Restrictive Rules, and distinctively connectional provisions.
• Regional Disciplines, addressing clergy education, social witness, rituals, and other context-specific matters.

Judicial Oversight

The Judicial Council’s role as constitutional arbiter (Petition 21039, ¶ 56.1; Discipline ¶ 2609) ensures that regional legislation remains within constitutional bounds, preserving unity while allowing flexibility. Each region also has a Judicial Court ensuring the consistent interpretation and application of its Regional Discipline (¶ 31.6).

Streamlined General Conference

With Regionalization, the General Conference can focus on global mission, doctrine, and connectional polity, rather than dealing with U.S.-specific concerns (e.g., pensions, tax law).

Anti-Fragmentation Safeguards

By empowering General Conference to declare certain provisions “non-adaptable” (¶ 16.17), the amendments ensure that essential connectional matters remain uniform, preventing a drift toward denominational fragmentation.

Comparative Constitutional Parallels

Regionalization parallels federal constitutional models. Like the U.S. Constitution’s distribution of authority between federal and state governments, the UMC Constitution—if amended—would distribute authority between the General Conference and regional conferences. Authority is diffused, but unity is preserved through common constitutional norms and judicial review.

The Judicial Council has recognized this federalist balance, describing UMC polity as “connectional, neither purely hierarchical nor purely congregational” (JCD 1272, 2006). Regionalization makes explicit what has long been implicit: the UMC is a covenantal federation of conferences, united by grace and bound by shared doctrine.

Conclusion

Regionalization is not merely structural change; it is a constitutional theology of equity and grace. By empowering regional conferences—including the U.S.—with adaptation authority, the UMC embraces contextual mission without sacrificing connectional unity. In so doing, it embodies the principle of constitutional grace: one body, many members, held together by covenantal bonds across cultures and continents.

If ratified by the annual conferences (Discipline ¶ 60), these amendments will inaugurate a new chapter in Methodist constitutionalism—one that is both faithful to Wesleyan conciliarism and responsive to the realities of a global church.