By Rev. Luan-Vu “Lui” Tran, Ph.D.
Worldwide regionalization is one of the most consequential constitutional developments in the history of The United Methodist Church. Its significance is not merely administrative. It is a reordering of ecclesial authority within a worldwide connection so that the church outside the United States is no longer treated as a constitutional exception, but as a co-equal participant in the ordering of the denomination’s common life.
In the language of my series Constitutional Grace in the Regionalized UMC, this matters because polity is never theologically neutral; it either embodies or blocks God’s grace. The way the church distributes authority can either burden communion with domination or sustain communion through covenant, accountability, and mutual dignity.
The Book of Discipline 2020/2024 (“Discipline”) itself describes the church as “a worldwide denomination united by doctrine, discipline, and mission through our connectional covenant,” and the Judicial Council has held that ¶ 101 is constitutional and valid church law. (Discipline, ¶ 101; Judicial Council Decision [“JCD”] 1272).
The constitutional framework of this discussion must begin with the nature of the Discipline itself. Judicial Council Decision 96 remains foundational because it identifies the Discipline as “the only official and authoritative law book of the Church.” Judicial Council Decision 1341 restates the related principle of legality: no individual member or church entity may violate, ignore, or negate church law. Judicial Council Decision 1366 then applies that same principle in a later constitutional controversy, underscoring that regionalization must be interpreted as binding church law rather than as aspiration or rhetoric. (JCD 96; JCD 1341; JCD 1366).
Likewise, constitutional amendment in The United Methodist Church requires action by the General Conference and ratification by the annual conferences, and the Council of Bishops announced on November 5, 2025, that the regionalization amendments had been ratified. (Constitution ¶¶ 59-61 as amended; Council of Bishops announcement, Nov. 5, 2025).
Accordingly, citations in this article sometimes distinguish between the published 2020/2024 Discipline, which remains the church’s current official compilation of enacted law, and the ratified constitutional amendments that became effective on November 5, 2025, even though conforming revision of the General Book of Discipline remains incomplete.
I. From asymmetry to constitutional equality
Historically, the church outside the United States already possessed a form of regional differentiation through the central (now regional) conferences. Paragraph 101 of the Discipline expressly provides that each central conference may make changes and adaptations to the General Book of Discipline to more fruitfully accomplish the church’s mission in various contexts.
The Judicial Council, in JCD 1272, upheld ¶ 101 as constitutional and confirmed that the General Conference has authority to determine what portions of the Discipline may or may not be adapted by central conferences. Later, in JCD 1515, the Judicial Council held that the General Conference could not simply extend that same adaptation right to U.S. jurisdictions by ordinary legislation; such a change required constitutional amendment. (Discipline, ¶ 101; JCD 1272; JCD 1515).
That sequence is crucial for understanding the impact of regionalization outside the United States. Regionalization does not take away what churches outside the United States previously possessed. Rather, it universalizes the underlying constitutional logic. What had been a distinctive feature of central conferences is now the model for the church as a whole. The ratified amendment adds ¶ 13, stating that the General Conference, regional conferences, jurisdictional conferences, and annual conferences all have “autonomy of action within the limits fixed by the Constitution.”
At the same time, ratified Constitution, ¶ 16.17 authorizes the General Conference to determine, by a 60 percent vote, what is non-adaptable for regional conferences, while respecting the powers granted to them. In other words, equality among regions is real, but it is covenantally bounded. That is precisely what constitutional grace requires: not independence without restraint but differentiated authority within constitutional communion.
II. What regionalization now means outside the United States
The ratified amendment to ¶ 28 is especially important for the church outside the United States. It provides that the former central conferences or provisional central conferences existing before the postponed 2020 General Conference “shall become regional or provisional regional conferences.” It also establishes that regional conferences are to be exercised “equitably across the regional conferences.” Thus, the church outside the United States now stands within the same constitutional framework as every other region of the church.
The most significant practical change appears in ratified Constitution, ¶ 31.5. That provision grants regional conferences substantial authority to shape the church’s disciplinary, liturgical, ministerial, structural, and judicial life within their own contexts. They may establish and publish a Regional Book of Discipline for the regional, annual, district, and charge conferences within their bounds; set qualifications and educational requirements for clergy and specialized lay ministries, together with standards of character and qualifications for lay membership; establish and publish a regional hymnal and ritual, including marriage and burial rites; permit annual conferences to adopt structures adequate to their mission; and appoint a judicial court, along with rules governing investigation, trial, and related judicial process for clergy and laity.
The ratified Constitution, ¶ 31.5(c) also expressly acknowledges the annual conferences as the “basic bodies of the church” under ¶ 33.
These new powers align with official post-ratification explanations from United Methodist Communications, which summarize the authority of regional conferences in substantially the same terms: setting minimum qualifications for ordained and licensed ministry and specialized lay ministry, defining standards for professing membership, structuring conferences according to local law, establishing hymnal and ritual, and creating judicial processes for matters arising from adapted law.
These explanatory materials are useful interpretive guides to the church’s stated purpose and intended implementation of regionalization, but they do not supersede the constitutional text itself.
III. Annual conferences remain basic bodies, not subordinate appendages
Regionalization strengthens contextual authority outside the United States, but it does not erase the annual conference. The Discipline still describes the annual conference as “the basic body in the Church,” reserving to it the right to vote on constitutional amendments, elect delegates, act on clergy character and conference relations, and participate in ordination matters. Judicial Council Decision 1472 reaffirms this basic-body status, quoting the long-standing constitutional principle that the annual conference is the fundamental body of the church in representative and constitutional matters. (Constitution, ¶ 33; JCD 1472).
That point is theologically and institutionally important outside the United States. Regionalization does not create a distant superstructure that replaces the actual conference bodies in which clergy membership, ordination, and practical governance are carried out. Rather, it creates a more coherent constitutional environment above them. Under the concept of constitutional grace, grace is not embodied by centralization for its own sake. It is embodied when power is ordered so that the proper body bears the proper responsibility. The annual conference remains the primary ecclesial arena in which much of the church’s actual life is discerned, even as the regional conference receives broader legislative authority for contextual ordering. (Constitution, ¶ 33; ratified Constitution, ¶ 31.5[c]).
IV. Episcopacy and regional responsibility outside the United States
Regionalization also preserves and clarifies episcopal responsibility outside the United States. Under the ratified text, regional conferences without jurisdictions continue to elect bishops, fix episcopal areas and residences, and assign bishops within the region (ratified Constitution, ¶ 31.2). The number, names, and boundaries of annual conferences and episcopal areas are likewise determined by the respective regional conferences (ratified Constitution, ¶ 31.4), or by the jurisdiction if a regional conference has jurisdictions (ratified Constitution, ¶ 40). This means that outside the United States, where jurisdictions generally do not exist, regional conferences continue to exercise an integrated set of legislative, episcopal, and administrative functions.
This integrated pattern contrasts with the U.S. arrangement, where elective and administrative functions remain largely with the jurisdictions for now. For churches outside the United States, regionalization confirms rather than diminishes their mature conference identity by constitutionally entrusting them with major responsibilities for ordering ministry. That is one of the clearest expressions of constitutional grace in the new structure: contextual maturity is not a threat to connectional unity; it is one of its proper fruits.
V. Decolonizing the structure of the church
One of the deepest implications of regionalization outside the United States is its de-centering of U.S. dominance in church governance. Official explanatory materials describe regionalization as ending the imposition of one region’s cultural views on another and as fostering identity, belonging, and equitable participation in the global connection. While these materials are not themselves binding constitutional text, they are important evidence of the ecclesial purpose publicly attached to regionalization by denominational leadership.
These descriptions are not merely rhetorical flourishes. They capture what the new constitutional structure is trying to do: move the church from paternal accommodation to constitutional parity.
That is why the theological theme of constitutional grace is so important here. Grace, institutionally understood, is the ordering of common life so that each part of the body of Christ can bear faithful responsibility in its own context while remaining within one communion. Regionalization therefore has a dignity-restoring effect outside the United States.(Discipline, ¶ 101; ratified Constitution, ¶¶ 13, 28, 31.5).
VI. Affiliation, autonomy, and the continuing connection
Regionalization does not abolish the established disciplinary process by which conferences outside the United States may become autonomous or affiliated autonomous churches. Paragraph 572 of the Discipline still governs that process. It requires approval by the relevant regional (formerly central) conference, ratification by the annual conferences within that conference by a two-thirds aggregate vote, consultation with the Standing Committee on Regional Conference Matters Outside the USA (formerly Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters), preparation of a constitution and confession of faith, and final approval by enabling act of the General Conference. The Discipline itself cross-references JCD 548 and 1062, both of which interpret and enforce this process. (Discipline, ¶ 572; JCD 548; JCD 1062).
At the same time, the ratified revision of ¶ 2201 confirms the continuing coordinating role of the standing committee for regions outside the United States. The amended text provides that the committee is to review and develop petitions related to regional conferences outside the USA and that, on matters dealing with episcopal areas, affiliation and autonomy under ¶ 572, and joining The United Methodist Church under ¶ 575, it reports directly to the General Conference. That is an important sign that regionalization increases contextual authority without dissolving connectional accountability.
VII. The work still unfinished
One must also be clear about what remains incomplete. Official post-ratification guidance states that one major remaining task is the completion of the General Book of Discipline, especially the formation of a new Part VII containing legislation adaptable by regional conferences. Until that work is completed by the 2028 General Conference, the published 2020/2024 Discipline still contains older terminology in many places, even though the constitutional amendments have already been ratified and are in force.
That is why a careful article on regionalization must sometimes cite both the current published 2020/2024 Discipline and the ratified amendment text: the former remains the church’s official published law book, while the latter identifies constitutional changes already in force even where the conforming revision of the Discipline has not yet been completed.
This incompleteness should not be confused with uncertainty about the direction of the church. The constitutional center of gravity has shifted: the church outside the United States now stands not as an adapted margin to a U.S. norm, but as a co-equal regional expression of one worldwide church. Constitutional grace names this shift well: grace is not the abandonment of order, but the sanctification of order so that covenant can be lived more justly across cultures, nations, and histories.
Conclusion
Outside the United States, regionalization is not a marginal adjustment but a constitutional reordering of ecclesial authority. It preserves the annual conference as the basic body of the church and protects the continuing connectional process for autonomy and affiliation. (Constitution, ¶ 33; Discipline, ¶ 572; JCD 1472; JCD 548; JCD 1062). It also grants regional conferences clearer legislative dignity and broader contextual responsibility under the ratified constitutional amendments now in force. (Ratified Constitution, ¶¶ 13, 16.17, 28, 31.5; ratified revision of ¶ 2201).
In the end, regionalization is best understood not as a concession to diversity, but as an act of constitutional honesty. A worldwide church cannot indefinitely be ordered as if one region were its tacit norm and all others were derivative. Regionalization says, in effect, that unity need not mean uniformity and that contextual responsibility need not mean disunion. It is therefore not merely structural reform, but a concrete expression of constitutional grace.