[Reflections on The Discipline] Lessons From Wesleyan History, Pt 2: The Foundational Values of The Wesleyan Church
In light of the upcoming Fifteenth General Conference of The Wesleyan Church, I have begun a review of The Discipline of The Wesleyan Church 2022, which serves as the seminal definition of Wesleyan belief and polity. My objective in this is to remind myself of the timeless things which have driven our denomination since its inception and to consider how to best pursue them in the next fifty years. Moreover, I intend to document this journey by sharing thoughts, experiences, and dreams along the way, and in so doing, I hope to encourage and even inspire those who will be elected in 2025 to be present at General Conference in 2026 to imagine what could and should be.
In my last post, I reflected on the mission of The Wesleyan Church as revealed in the history recorded in The Discipline. In short, I argued that our denomination was initially formed to see people receive the grace of Jesus and be discipled into a state of entire sanctification through social reform.
History, however, does not just reveal the mission of an organization. It also provides clues to the foundational values which actually steer its accomplishment of that purpose. These are the things that will help them determine the who and how of their strategy. They will help to focus, refine, and in some ways limit what the organization will do.
To be clear, many organizations have endeavored to identify foundational values. They print them on paper and paint them on walls, but it is in the organization’s history that we discover whether those values are real or imaginary. For instance, the wall might say “Family,” but if the history is littered with backbiting and schism, we quickly realize that value is vapor.
So what are the values revealed in the history of The Wesleyan Church? I believe we can identify five:
- Scriptural truth. The Discipline reports that John Wesley was driven by the “scriptural truths concerning Christian perfection and scriptural holiness” (Par. 1). Scripture, then, became the basis for Wesleyan Methodist efforts to abolish slavery, support women’s suffrage, and offer hope and healing for the addict. Likewise, the “scriptural holiness that swept across the various denominations” was the impetus for the founding of the Pilgrim Holiness Church (Par. 23), and when the two came together, fidelity to Scriptures was a primary concern.
- Cultural influence. Since its inception, social reform has been a key part of The Wesleyan Church’s inception. Early Wesleyans have played key roles in the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and the prohibition of alcohol. This desire to influence the surrounding culture had limits, though. Wesleyans greatly preferred exhortation over violence. Thus, their tactics for effecting reform focused on persuasive writing, preaching, and doing good works rather than more aggressive tactics such as berating, belittling, or bullying.
- Presbyterian government. Neither John Wesley nor the original Wesleyan Methodists set out to start a new church. It was only after they encountered strong resistance from the episcopal structures of the Anglican and Methodist Episcopal churches, respectively, that they exited those denominations to form something new. It is not surprising, then, that early Wesleyans were eager to create a more equitable church government. Initially, this manifested in the loose affiliation of the Wesleyan Methodist Connection, which was essentially a group of autonomous local churches who collaborated on things none of them could do on their own. Over time, however, this commitment evolved into a presbyterian government with three main features:
- Mutual submission at every level. From the local church to the general level, the new denomination was governed by a partnership of laity and clergy.
- Functional organizational structures. The entire structure was designed to support the local church’s efforts to make more and better followers of Jesus.
- Global equality. A key tenet, especially among the Pilgrim Holiness Church, was that nations and regions around the globe would ultimately be granted co-equal status with the North American conference.
- Missions. Both Wesleyan Methodists and Pilgrims emphasized missions. Domestically, this meant church planting. Overseas, it meant sending missionaries to share the gospel of hope of sanctification in places where they had not yet been heard. Indeed, Wesleyan Methodists quickly spread into Canada and then acquired through mergers mission fields in Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the South Pacific. So also, the Pilgrim Holiness Church established outreaches in Africa, the Caribbean, South America, the Philippines, and England.
- Adaptability. Wesleyans have always been committed to using every means they could to spread the message of scriptural holiness. Wesley himself was a prolific author and preacher, traveled more than 250,000 miles to bring the message to the people who needed to hear it, and was a pioneer of open air preaching. Likewise, early Wesleyans used “literature, evangelistic meetings, and camp meetings” to promote the revival of holiness (Par. 12). In short, Wesleyans have always adapted their methods to more effectively accomplish their mission.
Recognizing these foundational values, it is incumbent on us to consider whether they are still applicable and, if so, how well today’s Wesleyans are aligned with them. Let us deal with them one at a time.
Scriptural Truth
In more than two decades of vocational ministry in The Wesleyan Church, I believe our commitment to scriptural truth remains largely unwavering. I have lost count of the excellent sermons I have heard, articles and lessons I have read, and conversations I have had where scriptural fidelity was on display. Further, this commitment is manifest in action. For instance, a few years ago, we restructured our membership requirements to make them more consistent with Scripture, and our recent position statements include outstanding exegesis. This is not to say that we all agree on the exact interpretation of Scripture, but it is to say that our debates do not question whether Scripture is true and authoritative but how to apply scriptural truth and authority in today’s world.
This is not to say that our commitment to scriptural truth is entirely invincible. Recent events in the United Methodist Church, which stemmed from the erosion of this value in that denomination, should give us pause, and the degree of biblical illiteracy in our culture and churches should also alarm us. Therefore, I would suggest we must do two things to ensure our commitment to scriptural truth remains strong.
First, we must deliberately preach and teach the whole counsel of Scripture. Myopic focus on specific portions of the Bible or topics creates an incomplete understanding of what the Bible says, and that can lead to misinterpretation and confusion. We must challenge our preachers, teachers, and parishioners to systematically explore all of Scripture if we want to defend against the distorted and false teachings that are prolific in the world today. In our church, one way we are doing this is called the One-Hour Challenge. This is simply a challenge, issued several times per year, to spend one hour per week more in Bible study and prayer.
Second, we must expand our efforts to bring Scripture to bear on the daily realities of twenty-first century life. The growing collection of position statements available at wesleyan.org is a fantastic start, but we need to be deliberate about addressing more of the questions our parishioners are facing every day. In 2023, I used the summer months to preach a series of messages entitled FAQ. The congregation was invited to submit questions that they had, and I endeavored to answer them from a biblical perspective. Some of the questions shocked me. For example, a teenaged girl asked, “How do you respond to people who don’t accept Scriptures as credible, let alone authoritative?” A 92-year-old woman wondered, “What does the Bible say about tattoos?” And another parishioner inquired, “How can we hear from God?” Each week of the series, someone came to me and thanked me for addressing something they had always wondered but never heard a message about. This is the sort of relevance we must pursue!
Cultural Influence
The Wesleyan Church continues to influence the culture in which we live in a variety of ways. Wesleyan leaders have the ears of local, national, and global leaders as a result of our compassionate ministries and community engagement. Yet, our influence is threatened today by two main things.
The first of these threats is our tendency to adopt the culture war polemic. Since the late 1980s at least, Wesleyans have been told that “they” are attacking “our” values and way of life. This us vs. them mentality has given rise to a way of thinking that is starkly contrary to the gospel. Instead of lost needing to be found or sinners needing to be saved, many Wesleyans see those who are different (e.g., in skin tone, language, clothing style) as enemies needing to be conquered. This manifests in pastors and parishioners alike ranting about the other political party and its members, belittling people they do not agree with, and lambasting those who do not do what we have determined to be right. In fact, the situation has grown so bad that we even attack innocents who have never done anything to hurt us simply because they are different. Every time we do this, we do this, we make ourselves into the noisy gong or clanging cymbal of 1 Corinthians 13. We think it makes us strong, but in fact, every time we join our voices with the world’s angry hyperbole, we make it that much easier for people to tune us out completely.
The second threat to our cultural influence is the failure to critically examine secular cultural trends. As an example, I am writing this less than twenty-four hours after a presidential debate, and since that debate, I have seen numerous Wesleyan pastors on social media extolling the virtues of their chosen candidate while excoriating the other. Several called one candidate or the other a liar while completely overlooking the fact that multiple objective fact checks found that both candidates lied, misled, or omitted pertinent details multiple times. We may rationalize it by saying that we are picking the lesser of two evils, but every time we embrace a political candidate or cultural trend without scrutinizing it against Scripture, we undermine our own credibility, and our capacity to influence the culture is eroded.
Sadly, our cultural influence is already substantially eroded. Prominent Wesleyans have repeatedly taken to news and social media with vitriolic attacks and glowing endorsements of critically flawed candidates and trends. If we are to rebuild our influence, then we must repent of these things!
Presbyterian Government
Technically, The Wesleyan Church still has a presbyterian form of government, although we use a little different terminology. Laity and clergy at the local level meet annually for local church conferences to approve a budget, do big ticket items, and elect a local board of administration who will oversee the policies and decisions throughout the year. This conference also elects lay delegates who will represent the congregation at the district conference, where the same basic process is repeated and delegates are sent to the general level. However, several factors are currently converging to challenge this structure.
First, the district and denomination are scrambling to remain relevant in a world of megachurches. Simply put, large churches have the resources to fend for themselves. It is no surprise, then, that the percentage of Americans who attended a non-denominational church has risen from 3% in 1972 to nearly 13% in 2023, and “Non-denominational” churches together are second only to the Catholic church in number of members.[1] Thus, the district and denomination are compelled to cater to our denomination’s large churches in a variety of ways, and because these large churches are also allotted more delegates to the district (and subsequently denominational) level, they also have a much greater influence than small churches.
Second, the shift from three general superintendents to one created a gap that is being filled haphazardly. Prior to 2012, three general superintendents divided the districts of the North American General Conference into three regions. This enabled them to provide a consistent degree of support across a larger number of districts, and the districts consequently remained relatively consistent in size and structure. Since 2012, however, the merger of the three GS positions into one has created a logistical vacuum where the regions once were. As a result, some districts have merged, some have experimented with different authority structures, and others have remained unchanged so that districts now range in geographical scope, number of churches, and even leadership structures.
Finally, years of “streamlining” has led to a consolidation of power at the district and denominational levels. Some of this is prompted by the cultural and economic realities of our time: lay delegates have only so many days of vacation to attend a district or general conference. Some of it is prompted by a shift in paradigms: because corporations and megachurches tend to be led by dedicated staff, the different conferences have delegated more to their respective boards and superintendents. At the same time, policy changes have given the some additional power over the local church, and economic realities have forced the reorganization and reduction of headquarters departments so that the general level is now rather anemic. Thus, the district superintendent has probably become the most powerful person in the denomination.
To be clear, none of this is inherently bad. I have not heard anyone complain that they did not need to spend a week at district conference. However, it does raise a concern. The presbyterian form of government is based upon the notion that there should be shared power, and every part is mutually submissive and supportive of the others, but will that always be the case if one district has 100 churches and the next has 30?
I would submit, therefore, that it is necessary in the next four years to conduct a comprehensive analysis of our denomination’s current organizational structure and discern how to (a) maintain equity at the various levels and (b) better facilitate future growth across the movement. What would that look like? I have some rough ideas, but I think it would be better for General Conference 2026 to appoint a committee to explore the matter and return with a plan.
Missions
Over the last several years, I have observed a rather curious change in The Wesleyan Church’s missions emphasis. When I began in ministry, Global Partners was all about sending missionaries to faraway places. Our church loved to welcome missionaries, hear the stories they told, and support them in prayer and finances. We are a small church, so most missionaries did not get a lot of money from us, but they still came.
Over time, however, I noticed that many of the missionaries that we supported were leaving the field. They each had a reason for returning home, but it alarmed me that there did not seem to be as many people going to replace them. Indeed, I cannot remember the last time I heard someone talk about faith-promise giving or issue a call to become a missionary with Global Partners. I still get occasional emails from missionaries hoping to speak in our church, but the number has dwindled.
Perhaps more telling, over the last few years, the focus of Global Partners seems to have changed. Their website now talks about our missionaries, but far more space is given to how GP would help our churches be more effective in their local contexts.
Some of this is a response to shifting culture. There can be no doubt that we are now in a thoroughly post-Christian society, and I would argue that we are moving quickly toward a pre-Christian society as we now have three and four generations of people with no meaningful church experience. In effect, why should we send missionaries overseas when we need to send them into our own backyard?
I worry, however, that this is leading to a myopic view of the missio Dei in which we focus on ministering to our respective Jerusalems and Judeas while neglecting to reach out to the Samarias and ends of the earth. Indeed, this is manifest even in our lack of concern for what is happening in sister churches across town (or the district).
I would submit that we need to be deliberate about recapturing that comprehensive understanding of Acts 1:8. We need to recognize that missions encompasses our evangelistic work overseas and up the street, and we need to expand our efforts to help churches deploy parishioners as missionaries in their local contexts, find ways to reach those who only slightly like us, and commission more people to go more places around the world. We must renew our commitment to missions!
Adaptability
In more than twenty years as a Wesleyan pastor, I could not even guess how many times I’ve heard about the importance of change. I have attended meetings and conferences that focused on it, read it in books and newsletters, and talked about it in conversations with colleagues. One might think, then, that I would say that adaptability is strong in The Wesleyan Church, and in some ways it certainly is. Yet, I am concerned.
I am concerned because a lot of the calls for change assume there is a boilerplate model for success in any context. If a small church builds an indoor playground and puts a drum set on stage, for example, it is assumed that it will experience Pentecost-like growth.
I am concerned because we tend to plant churches in similar contexts using similar models while neglecting other communities and frowning upon other models. Namely, we have become very good at launching churches in suburban white communities with a 40-ish white male pastor, large core group, flood of pre-launch canvassing, great children’s program, contemporary band, and a large launch. Almost overnight, these churches have an average attendance between 150 and 250 and become just like all the others we have launched in the last 25 years.
I am concerned because I hear the things Wesleyans say about our LGBTQ+ neighbors and kids that have apparently gone wild, and I wonder how we will minister to them if they get saved but are not instantaneously converted into the perfect church person. Will we be prepared to get down into the muck and help them feel their way to godliness?
Please do not misunderstand me. I celebrate churches that experience new growth. I cheer for the church planters. And I am excited whenever someone places their faith in Jesus.
I am concerned that we do not know what to do with churches that do all the things but do not experience Pentecost-like growth, are planted in a context where one or more of the common elements may be unavailable, or even that find themselves having to walk alongside someone who is trying to sort out what it looks like to be redeemed in the midst of the very real, very permanent repercussions of past sin.
Conclusion
In the end, I would say that the five values which have been present throughout the history of The Wesleyan Church remain present today, and rightly so. There are plenty of other denominations out there who have the same basic mission as us, but it is the combination of our mission and these values that distinguish us from everyone else. Moreover, it is our mission and these values, together, that poise our denomination for continued effectiveness even as others splinter and fade away. Yet, we must not rest on the laurels of the past. If we are going to realize that continued effectiveness in the middle of the twenty-first century, we must renew and even redouble our commitment to these five values today.
[1] Burge, Ryan. 2023. “The Future of American Christianity is Non-Denominational.” Graphs about Religion.