[Reflections on The Discipline] Local Church Organization

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.

Part 2 of The Discipline of The Wesleyan Church focuses on local church government, and the first chapter of this portion addresses the basic types of churches within the denomination. The two most familiar of these types are developing churches, which are either church plants or churches in need of revitalization, and established churches, which are generally self-sufficient and demonstrate effective ministry. Additionally, The Wesleyan Church includes urban missional churches, which minister in urban areas with high levels of poverty; circuits, which consist of multiple local congregations under the leadership of a single pastor; and missions, which are “special evengelistic, rescue, or missionary [works] which cannot appropriately be organized as a developing church.” Additionally, The Discipline recognizes affiliate churches which are independent congregations working toward becoming full Wesleyan churches.

While this chapter is relatively mundane, there are at least three things that I believe we should rethink as we head into General Conference 2026.

Let’s rethink the developing church classification.

First, let us rethink the developing church classification. This category encompasses both church plants and congregations that, for whatever reason, no longer meet the qualifications for an established church laid out in Par. 518. To be certain, we need such a classification for churches that are not self-sufficient, but the singular classification is something of a blunt instrument that could stand to be sharpened.

You see, while there are a great number of similarities between these types of churches, and many of the same principles are applicable in both situations, there are also enough differences to warrant separate classifications. For instance, church plants are often looking for new facilities, ammassing A/V gear, and attempting to recruit people who will help them build a culture from scratch. They are generally focused on fundraising, visioncasting, and recruiting. Revitalizing works, on the other hand, are more likely trying to summit a mountain of deferred maintenance on an existing building; retrofit new gear; and override decades of negative momentum, reputation, and culture to begin moving in the right direction again. In some cases, revitalizing churches will have cash reserves or equity that can be leveraged, thus reducing the need for fundraising. Visioncasting and recruiting are crucial parts of revitalization work, but there are also very real ministry needs among the existing congregation. Consequently, while the skills and resources needed by church plants and revitalizing churches will often overlap, the differences between these scenarios is akin to the differences between a test pilot building and taking off in a brand new aircraft for the very first time and a seasoned commercial pilot trying to prevent her loaded jetliner with engine failure from crashing into the ground.

Those distinctions warrant different expectations and benchmarks. For instance, it may take a year for a church planter to recruit a core group of fifty to plant a church, but the church revitalizer may require two years to help a similar group of fifty stem the bleeding, so to speak. It may take a church planter $10K to promote the new church launch in the community while the church revitalizer may require $10K to fix the elevator. The church planter may need six months of social media blitz to build brand awareness and invite people to the kickoff service while the church revitalizer may need six months just to discover that the church has a profoundly negative reputation in the community. And all this assumes that the church even realizes it is in need of revitalization! The nature of a church plant lends itself to a little more predictability. Therefore, it is possible to expect a church plant to recruit a planter, identify a target, recruit a team, raise money, and launch on a relatively uniform timeline. There may be variations depending on the model used by the church plant and some other variables, but there are only so many permutations of the basic scenario. On the other hand, church revitalization hinges on a gamut of variables ranging from the church’s current culture and condition to its age and ministry context. Therefore, there is need for much more fluidity and flexibility in determining the proper pace for change and progress.

Further, the distinctions between church plants and revitalizing works requires the availability of different tools. Again, one can reasonably anticipate the budget of a church plant. There are so many things that need to be done, and they cost so much money. Similarly, you know roughly the type of training that the church planter will need, the connections they will have to make to recruit people, etc. In revitalizing works, however, there are more questions. In some situations, a toxic board will need to be broken. In others, the leadership team merely needs strengthening. In still others, the team is healthy and ready to lead. Does the church need financial assistance? Some have money in reserve. Others could get by with a break from USF payments. Still others will need a cash infusion to return to effectiveness in a timely manner. And what about other tools? When our church started its revitalization, it would have been great to have a brand consultant to help us understand how to rebuild our reputation in the community.

Rethinking the developing church classification would also give greater attention to the need for revitalization in our denomination. Simply put, there is a stigma attached to the formerly established church being reclassified as “developing.” This stigma is compounded by the fact that most denominations have large budgets for churches categorized as district/denominational plants and even daughter church plants but almost no budgets for those that are revitalization projects or restart projects. Even the names – plants vs. projects – carry a different connotation. Establishing a separate classification for revitalizing works would help to normalize the revitalization process and encourage the devotion of sufficient resources to actually help churches make the turn.

Let’s remember the trust part of the trust clause.

Second, let us remember the trust part of the trust clause. If you are not familiar with the trust clause, this is simply the requirement that all property held by local congregations shall be owned, officially, by the district and reserved for the use of Wesleyan members and ministers (see Par. 4610 and 4680). In theory, this clause is designed to ensure that church facilities cannot be hijacked for other purposes. It was implemented in an era when The Wesleyan Church was primarily a bunch of independent congregations who happened to work together on a few things they could not do on their own. It was a way of preventing these local churches from taking their balls and going home whenever they did not get their exact way, and it was highly effective.

In recent years, however, the trust which underlies this clause has been substantially undermined by both sides of the arrangement. For instance, one local congregation in our district sought and received tens of thousands of dollars to renovate its property to be more suitable for a particular ministry they were running. Then, only a year later, they resolved to close the church and asked the district to donate the facility to the non-profit they were starting to continue the ministry. Conversely, Wesleyans everywhere are watching the horror unfolding in the United Methodist Church, including rampant reports of districts holding church properties hostage to prevent congregations from taking their assets with them, and wondering how long before something similar happens in our denomination. Indeed, I know of a Wesleyan church that was struggling to pay its pastor when the district threatened to seize their property and either give it to another local congregation or sell it and take the money if they failed to pay their USF.

We must, therefore, endeavor to rebuild trust between the various levels of our denominational hierarchy. A great starting point would be to outline the various rights and responsibilities that the local church and the district have concerning the property. Frankly, if the local church is expected to pay for the purchase, maintenance, insurance, and utility costs in perpetuity, it should also have the right to take the property and leave if the district does not support a church or actually impedes its pursuit of the Great Commission. Certainly, districts should not be allowed to arbitrarily redistribute properties or sell them from under a congregation committed to reaching its community. Conversely, if the local church is going off the rails, the district should have the right to leverage the property to bring it back into line. These conditions and processes should be clearly defined and enforced to bolster trust between everyone.

Let’s expand the urban missional church category.

Finally, let’s expand the urban missional church category. This category of church, defined in Par 523, was apparently added to The Discipline in 2016. It is defined as “a local church located and serving in a high poverty area in a metropolitan area of over 200,000 people.” When I read this, my ears perked up because this describes the church I lead. I then went on a quest to learn about the advantages and disadvantages of the urban missional church, and I discovered that any church recognized as such qualifies for one substantial benefit under Par 2005:4(b): “the USF obligation for that church shall be set at 25 percent of the regular assessment (523).”

As defined, the urban missional church classification must be authorized by the DBA and must be renewed every two years. Should a church cease to meet the necessary qualifications, “it would move into developing church or established church status, as authorized by the district board of administration” (Par 523). This does raise the concern that a DBA could approve an established church as an urban missional church for two years, then reject its renewal application and reclassify it as a developing church, in which case the DBA would have the authority to unilaterally close the congregation.

Far more problematic, however, is the limitation of this classification to urban/metropolitan areas. Certainly, this classification and its reduced USF obligation are critical for churches to effectively minister in contexts where poverty reigns, but poverty is not limited to urban areas. There are today numerous small towns experiencing economic depression as the result of closing factories, failed crops, shifting populations, and generational poverty. Neither does a poverty-stricken area always appear as a ghetto. My neighborhood is filled with single-family homes built in the 1960s and valued today in the $250,000 – $300,000 range. Yet, approximately 75% of the kids in the local schools qualify for free or reduced lunch because their families are on the threshold of poverty or below. In these and other contexts, viable ministry is barely sustainable from a financial perspective, and a 75% reduction of USF could make a profound difference in a church’s ability to minister or even survive. Therefore, we should expand the urban missional church classification to include churches that operate in poverty-stricken areas regardless of population.

Of course, this could have a substantial impact upon the district’s and denomination’s revenues. We would therefore need to study the matter and consider restructuring the USF system to maintain operations. That, however, is another discussion for another day.