But the take with the most relevance to non-Methodists is one I haven't seen anybody make. So here goes.
This is really a conversation about colonialism.
A stronger majority of developing-world delegates took the opposite stance.
The difference is, *they give equal voice to the colonized*.
"National Churches" systematically de-privilege the voices of the colonized.
"Oh it was fine being one global church when white people had the power, but now that Africans might be in charge, HAH, nope!"
But that's the thing about neocolonialism! It's never *consciously* about colonialism! It's about formal and informal institutions that *mimic* colonialism perpetuating its effects.
What I do think, however, is that this whole saga problematizes common narratives about how to deal with colonialism.
But my point is to illuminate that the dynamic at play here is that the unusual values of Western progressives don't play well globally.
Maybe they are your intellectual equal, whose voices should be listened to and respected.
You can have a church that endorses progressive values.
You can have a church that treats formerly colonized people as equals.
Having both... is not something anybody has found a way to do yet!
"National Church" bodies are actually doing something arguably worse, but it doesn't *look* bad.
The staunchest defenders of national borders within the church are not conservative Christians, but progressive ones.