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 considered the foundational values which were demonstrated through the history of The Wesleyan Church. Namely, I showed how Wesleyans have historically valued scriptural truth, cultural influence (rather than either irrelevance or domineering), a presbyterian government, missions, and adaptability. I also observed that, while most of these values are still detectable in our denomination, we must redouble our commitments to several of them if we are to remain distinctive in the middle half of the twenty-first century.

Moving on from the history of our movement, chapters 2 and 3 are relatively mundane. Chapter 2 outlines our primary mission, expressing in a rather concise format what we have already explored in the first two installments of this series, and Chapter 3 explains the different classifications of church law. Namely, it shows the differences between Constitutional Law (spoiler alert: these are the rules that take precedence over everything else and therefore have higher thresholds for amendment), Statutory Law (i.e., normal rules and regulations that need simple majorities at General Conference), and Ritual (general guidelines for how Wesleyans do key things). It also explains that I can throw away the old editions of The Discipline that I have been collecting.

Chapter 4 of The Discipline contains The Constitution of The North American General Conference. Basic Christian doctrines and the basic outline for our governing structure are established here. Appropriately, these things can be changed, but it requires a tremendous amount of work to do so.

Allow me to be clear. The general principles established in The Constitution are sound. They establish as thoroughly orthodox and distinguish us as thoroughly entrenched in the holiness movement with a presbyterian form of government. I will not be advocating for any seismic shifts in this area. However, I would offer a few observations.

Our language could stand to be refreshed.

It is estimated that a new word enters the English language every 98 minutes. Other words pass out of use. This is why most of us no longer read from the King James Version but pick up a New International Version, English Standard Version, New Living Translation, or (my personal favorite) Christian Standard Bible. These modern versions use modern vocabulary and conform to modern writing styles to convey the timeless message of Scripture in a way that modern Anglophones (i.e., English speakers) will understand, and we all agree this is good.

In reading The Constitution of The Wesleyan Church, it occurred to me that the language of The Discipline could stand to be refreshed. For example, when was the last time you used the word “quicken” as it is used in Paragraph 242?

242. We believe that water baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the sacraments of the church commanded by Christ and ordained as a means of grace when received through faith. They are tokens of our profession of Christian faith and signs of God’s gracious ministry toward us. By them, He works within us to quicken, strengthen, and confirm our faith. (emphasis added)

Here, the word does not necessarily mean to accelerate the pace but to “fan into flame,” as Paul exhorted in 2 Timothy 1:6, or to “provoke,” as we find in Hebrews 10:24. Google’s usage chart (below) indicates that, while the word was fairly common in the nineteenth century (i.e., about the time The Wesleyan Church was getting its start), its use dropped dramatically through the twentieth century. It did rebound during the 1990s, but a quick glance at the books using the word reveal that this increase is due to the introduction of the popular accounting software, Quicken.

Why is this so important? I would offer three main reasons. First, refreshing the language of The Discipline would ensure that the next generation of Wesleyans is able to understand our key doctrines and policies without having to resort to a dictionary. Second, it would also allow us to reconsider how to convey our fundamental teachings with as much precision and clarity as possible. Finally, the significance of these things is compounded as more of our congregations minister to people arriving in the US from overseas with little or no ability to speak English.

Of course, the very notion of updating the language of The Discipline rightly sparks anxiety attacks in some, especially when it concerns The Constitution. I would therefore suggest that, at General Conference 2026, we empower the editorial board to invite pastors and academics, particularly in the fields of theology, English language, and communication, to participate in the process of identifying such updates and establishing a procedure for implementing them both now and in the future.

Our doctrines could be more fully expounded.

In recent years, I have become something of a theology nerd. It started when I was asked by a local Bible college to teach a couple of classes to future ministers. The first class they needed help with: systematic theology. I agreed, but they stipulated that I had to use as a text either Wayne Grudem’s ubiquitous Systematic Theology or Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology. I had never read either, so I started reviewing, and by the time I finished, while I will not place myself in the same league as theological giants of our movement (Ken Schenck, I am looking at you), I was hooked.

Obviously, The Discipline is not a systematic theology textbook. If it were to contain comprehensive explorations of even the key doctrines in The Constitution, we would likely need a wheelbarrow to cart it around. Even so, as I reviewed this portion of The Discipline, I found myself thinking that at least some of our doctrines could be a bit more fully expounded. Here are some examples:

• As a Star Trek fan, I love Mr. Spock. Captain Kirk’s first officer is famously half human and half Vulcan, but as he shows on countless occasions throughout the series, he truly belongs to each. In Paragraph 214, we briefly explain our belief in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. In this explanation, we observe that Christ is “truly God and truly man.” I wonder if there is a distinction between “truly” and “fully”? Yes, it is nitpicky, but one of the key distinctions of Christianity is that we believe Christ was simultaneously 100% God and 100% man. Indeed, when Arius and Athanasius squabbled over whether Christ was of homoiousia or homoousia (i.e., SIMILAR substance vs. SAME substance), the difference of a single iota had profound implications for soteriology and resulted in a century of bloody fighting within the Church.
• In Paragraph 222, The Discipline provides a section entitled “Marriage and the Family.” Let me be clear: this paragraph is solid. The concern I have is that it excludes those who are single or same-sex attracted. Please do not misunderstand. I am not advocating that we affirm the LGBTQ+ lifestyle. However, I would submit that, if we are going to pronounce that “God’s plan for human sexuality is that it is to be expressed only in a monogamous lifelong relationship between one man and one woman within the framework of marriage,” then it may also be prudent to explain how (a) sexuality and childrearing are not the cornerstones of our identity in Christ and (b) those who do not enter into such a relationship may still find fulfillment and joy in other ways.
• In Paragraph 226, we explain our position on atonement. Generally speaking, it affirms that we are Arminian, believing that the atonement “is effective for the salvation of those who reach the age of accountability only when they repent and exercise faith in Christ.” My concern here is that we do not define anywhere “the age of accountability.” To be clear, this is not a problem that is unique to us; many groups falling under the Arminian umbrella struggle to define this. I fear that it suggests there is some arbitrary threshold (e.g., I have often heard the age of 12 or 13) where a child is suddenly conscious of all sin and therefore bound for hell. However, I would suggest that the process is much more gradual than that. Indeed, Romans 1-3 suggests that we will be held accountable for the degree of revelation which we possess. Thus, a four-year-old may be accountable for hitting a sibling, an eight-year-old may be accountable for stealing a piece of candy from the store, and a twelve-year-old may be accountable for looking at pornography. I would propose we toss out “the age of accountability” and offer a better understanding of how the atonement works.
• In Paragraph 228, we offer our understanding of repentance and faith. Again, this is great stuff, but I find myself wondering about “God’s prevenient grace.” Namely, I wonder if we could explain a bit more fully how God’s prevenient grace is manifest in the blessings they receive, the beckoning of the Holy Spirit, and the conviction of sin even before a person repents and places their faith in Christ.
• Paragraph 240 contains our understanding of The Church. In essence, this is our ecclesiology. In 2020, COVID-19 put this ecclesiology to the test. Some churches went to great lengths to adapt to the situation while others utterly refused to change anything. Many of these insisted that to meet online rather than in person, to social distance, or even to wear masks in meetings was antithetical to the church. In some cases, they even condescended those who would embrace such things. I would suggest all of this stems from an anemic understanding of what the church is, and I would submit that we should take steps to elaborate in this section and so help our pastors and parishioners better understand what is absolutely essential to the church.

We should elaborate on what the Holy Spirit is and does.

Like most branches of the Holiness Movement, The Wesleyan Church has long had a tenuous relationship with our more charismatic brothers and sisters. Despite our common heritage, our two movements have focused on different aspects of the Holy Spirit’s ministry. Namely, they have focused on the Spirit’s power to enable ministry while we have focused on its power to sanctify.

Consequently, much of the content included in The Constitution concerning the Holy Spirit focuses on differentiating Wesleyans from charismatic traditions. For example, when we address The Gifts of the Spirit in Paragraph 238, we start with the declaration that “the gift of the Spirit is the Holy Spirit Himself,” and in Par. 260(10), we include in our “Guides and Helps to Holy Living” (aka, leadership commitments) a whole paragraph specifically about our position on the gift of tongues. While these things certainly have value, it would seem that they focus on what we oppose rather than what we support, at least when it comes to the Holy Spirit.

This is problematic because it means that our understanding of the Spirit and its work is often anemic. Nowhere in The Constitution do we address the other gifts of the Spirit (e.g., apostle, prophet, helps, healing). Moreover, we pronounce, “The relative value of the gifts of the Spirit is to be tested by their usefulness in the Church and not by the ecstasy produced in the ones receiving them” (Par. 238). Yet, do we hold the gifts of service, giving, and faith in the same esteem as the gift of prophecy or music?

Perhaps most grievous part of this, though, is in the utter failure to even mention the fruit of the Spirit, let alone explore its relationship to sanctification. We have been so consumed with pointing out how we are not charismatic that we have neglected to pronounce a key part of what makes us Wesleyan!

I would submit that we should elaborate upon what we believe the Spirit is and does! Let us talk more about the Holy Spirit’s role in drawing us to the Lord before we are saved. Let us explore more fully the Spirit’s part in applying God’s grace to our lives. Let us explain the relationship between the fruit of the Spirit and sanctification. Let us examine the ways in which the Spirit enables and empowers us for ministry.

We should examine our organizational structure for maximum scalability.

The bare bones of our logistical hierarchy are established in Article 8 of The Constitution. Essentially, The Discipline here establishes three levels of authority in the North American conference: the local church, the district, and the general Church. As noted in my previous article, prior to 2012, general-level administrative matters were divided amongst three general superintendents. However, following the consolidation of those positions into one, we have been left with a logistical gap which different district are aiming to fill in different ways. The result is a growing asymmetry in influence, with large churches and large districts garnering an increasing proportion of the power.

I would submit that, if the denomination is to be sustainable and scalable in the next fifty years, it will need to be much more deliberate and consistent in building structures to support churches of all types and sizes. Some things will need to be streamlined. Others will need to be more robust. I would propose, therefore, that General Conference 2026 form a working group with the objective of studying our denominational structure and making recommendations for how to change it so as to promote these five objectives:

• Collaboration. At every level, collaboration must be prioritized! Let us stop worrying about artificial boundaries, who gets the credit (and USF), etc., and start working together!
• Church planting. The fact of the matter is that we need more churches if we are going to reach the 300,000+ people in my county who need Jesus. We need a whole lot more churches if we are going to reach all of the lost in the world! We talk a lot about church planting, but many of our districts are sitting on mountains of cash looking for the right church planters who can use the right paradigm to launch in the right places. We must broaden our sights and open our purses much wider!
• Church revitalization. We have to figure out how to help the churches we have become healthy. This does not mean they will be large. Rather, it means they will be effectively sharing the gospel with the people of their communities. Frankly, our efforts on this front to date have pathetic. Revitalizing churches lack resources (e.g., people and cash) and encouragement. Moreover, they are often not given sufficient space or time to turn around, and then their success or failure is judged based on ill-defined metrics and/or unreasonable expectations.
• Pastoral care. Pastors are hurting. They need support, encouragement, counseling, and more. We have to invest in this area!
• Internationalization. The Wesleyan Church can no longer operate as an America-only entity. The marketplace has gone global, and the church must think in a similar fashion. We in the United States need to be able to receive missionaries from abroad, and we need to be ready to train people to minister in radically diverse contexts.

What will that new structure look like? Here are some initial thoughts:

• The local church will remain the nexus of ministry activity. Everything up and down the structure should endeavor to maximize the resources at this level. Local churches elect delegates to represent them at an annual district conference.
• The zone exists to provide pastoral support and fellowship between 5-10 churches. Think of it like a life group for pastors. These churches should be gathered in a relatively small geographic area (e.g., a city). The leaders of these churches will be encouraged to meet together to encourage and hold each other accountable. If one is in need of pastoral care, the others will coordinate to ensure he/she receives it. They will also work together to identify church planting targets and strategies, as well as to support missionaries. Zone leadership is ad hoc in nature. When a zone reaches 10 churches, plans are made to multiply the zone.
• The district consists of the churches in 5-10 zones. Geographically, the district is larger, but in most cases, pastors and leaders should be able to meet and return home within a single day. Leadership of the district shall be provided by a district superintendent who may be full- or part-time depending on the needs of the district. This superintendent will be primarily responsible for pastoral care and leadership development among the pastors of the district. As such, the DS will be an ordained person.The district will elect a DBMD to consider and approve candidates for ordination. Additionally, the DBMD will maintain regular contact with ordained ministers, building relationships with them in order to offer encouragement and accountability. The DS will also be responsible for facilitating collaboration between zones and districts for the purposes of church planting and revitalization. Geographical and/or organizational boundaries should not preclude us from planting to congregations! In order to accomplish all of this, district churches will annually elect delegates to meet in a district conference. When a district reaches 10 zones, plans are made to multiply the district.
• The region consists of 5-10 districts and therefore covers a relatively large geographical area. The primary purpose of the region is to provide logistical support for those districts, including legal matters and real estate transactions. As such, the region should be led by a regional superintendent who is a layperson with pertinent qualifications such as accountant, lawyer, or real estate agent. The region will also be responsible for facilitating collaboration between districts for the purposes of church planting and revitalization. Again, geographic and organizational boundaries are less important than raising healthy churches! Districts within the region will elect a regional board of administration to support the work. 
• The national office will support 5-10 regions by establishing national policies and systems. For example, they will be responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate ministerial training systems. They will also develop curriculum for churches that are unable to develop them internally, and they will publish resources to be used by all Wesleyan churches in that context. Districts will elect delegates to attend a general conference every four years. Between conferences, regions will appoint persons to represent them in the general board of administration. All of these activities will be contextualized to the nation or continent in question.
• The international office will establish global doctrines and policies. This should include standards for ordination and procedures for transferring ordination between jurisdictions. The missions department should fall under this branch in order to facilitate a coordinated global effort to send missionaries into new nations and contexts. National conferences will elect representatives to an international conference, to be held every four years opposite the national conferences.

Obviously, this is a very rudimentary outline. People smarter than me will have to work out plenty of details. Frankly, it may not even work. In any case, the hope would be that we can implement a structure that brings all Wesleyans around the globe together as a team to truly reach the world for Jesus.