Next year is the quadrennial General Conference of The Wesleyan Church. I'm not sure what all the resolutions will be that the various districts will send. This summer will be when they will pass on them. A General Conference committee will then decide which ones to recommend to the General Conference, although all will be mentioned and an opportunity for anyone to resurrection a non-recommended resolution will be given.
One issue that I'm sure will inspire resolutions from multiple districts (I'm predicting from California and Michigan at least) is church membership. The pressures of our day have already led us to modify our approach to church membership some. When Christian groups were fairly isolated from each other and had a strong sense of group identity, it was natural that they would all have very particular requirements for church membership. In a church of 40 where visitors are unusual, becoming a member of the church can involve requirements that are highly specific to that group.
But there are a lot of larger Wesleyan churches now. I think I heard someone say recently that about half of our denomination attends smaller churches and the other half attend churches of over 200 or 300. [correct data welcomed!] In churches like these there is a natural flow of people from broader Christianity. These individuals are often "Christian book store-ish" in doctrine, vaguely Baptist, and they usually come from traditions where you're a member if you attend.
Here comes the conflict. "Entire sanctification, what?" "I don't get drunk but I do have an occasional glass of wine." "What do you mean I can't vote on the pastor--I've been here every Sunday for the last year."
But the conflict is also cultural. The spirit of the times is moving strongly against centralized denominations. It's the age of the non-denominational church. On the one hand, we should fight against the incorrect Barna notion that you don't need a visible church to be where you should be with God. This is the trend to see the woods as as good a church as somewhere you can meet with other Christians. The early Christians wouldn't have comprehended this. After all, when Paul sent people away from the visible church, he was delivering them over to Satan. No longer does the ear despise the eye--the ear has left the body to do its own thing. This is a diseased understanding of the church we should resist.
On the other hand, current Christian culture correctly recognizes that there is only "one body." Almost no one would say that the Baptists aren't going to heaven or that you have to believe and act exactly like the Wesleyans to be saved. We've already come to believe that we are only a very small part of the body of Christ.
But if we acknowledge that we are only a very small part of the church universal, then how can we deny membership to other Christians? It is for this reason that the Wesleyan Church now has two levels of membership--community membership (those who attend) and covenant membership (those who embrace the particulars of the Wesleyan Church, can vote on the pastor and hold positions of leadership). The standards of community membership are much more "common Christianity" than the covenant standards.
But this set up still seems somewhat awkward, so various Wesleyan leaders continue to strive for some sort of system that
1. recognizes all those who are truly Christians as members, even if they don't believe or practice some of the particulars of the Wesleyan tradition
and
2. maintains a full committment to specific Wesleyan beliefs and practices, which are also entirely legitimate.
The diversity of the body of Christ in itself enriches the body. And if we allowed all the churches to melt together to some vague and blurry commonality, the result would be a gray, tasteless muck. And there are many aspects of the Wesleyan Church's beliefs that I will gladly argue are far more accurate to the Bible than certain Lutheran or Baptist ideas.
The question is whether both of these principles can be maintained at the same time. If we have to choose, I think it is more important to retain the most important parts of number 2 over number 1. There are other parts of the body of Christ preserving number 1. What will happen to the places where we are right if we abandon the fort to some broader doctrinal melting pot?
One proposal I've heard has one category of membership, but requires anyone who would participate in church leadership to commit to the more particular specifics of the Wesleyan tradition. The new element is the idea that such leaders would have to reaffirm their commitment to it every year. In a way, that's a higher standard than any members have to hold to now! This becomes not another level of membership, but a way to maintain our unique identity in the body of Christ.
This proposal might work, especially if we strengthen just a tad the power of the district to give final word on local church votes. They currently have that power anyway, I believe. But a restatement of it might be the missing element in this proposal. That way if a congregation became beligerent to the Wesleyan tradition, there would be clear lines of authority to prevent a coup.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
one question, one comment.
can a person switch from covenent to community? Kinda like ending a Nazarene vow or something?
I think even though I wouldn't necessarily agree with the "covenent" standards of membership, it would show how willing a person is able to submit to authority (maybe?) and give up personal rights. I'm just thinking for myself, I really don't care about the alcohol issue, but I like have the right to drink it if I want to.
I think if I submitted to such "rules", it would be successfully accomplished amongst a body of believers I respected and trusted.
That would be an interesting situation, brings a smile to my face to think of the scenario. "Sorry, I think I'll go back to just attending. There's a New Year's party coming up."
:-)
It is a predicament . . .
Question: all this stuff you're "hearing" . . . you're not hearing it somewhere online, are you? If so, please direct me to such discussions.
A few nights ago I was thinking about denominational mergers. What do you think about talks with our fellow Wesleyan/Holiness people, on matters of doctrine (not necessarily polity)? My thought is, perhaps we should come out with some "joint statements" . . . or if we ever wanted to "merge", perhaps we could all agree to each others' statements of faith? Is a merger useless? Regardless, we ought to focus on working together, I think.
We have had people at my church go from covenant back to community. I wish we had a system that made people more accountable but on core Biblical issues and that did a better job of teaching doctrine as opposed to just rules. No idea how to do that though.
I wash checking out the Wesleyan memberhip doctrine because my wife and I are attending a wesleyan church. I am not a member, because I disagree with some of the doctrinal statements. However I am committed to following the statement as long as I attend there. I happend upon this site and found out that the wesleyan church does not think to highly of the "Baptist" people. Your artticle
called them "book store christians".I am an ordained pastor through the baptist denomination and I have to tell you I am quite let down to discover that the Church is the standard of what not to be;which is the conclusion I have drawn from your blog.
Further more, I was checking your doctrinal statements on membership to see if you have updated itsince 1988. I had hoped to take my wife out to a nice dinner and maybe a glass of wine, which she has about once per year (pre-wesleyan church)
and this is what I found. "(4) To demonstrate a positive social witness by abstaining from all forms of gambling and by abstaining from using or trafficking (production, sale or purchase) in any substances destructive to their physical, mental and spiritual health, such as alcoholic beverages, tobacco and drugs". Does the Wesleyan church really mean "any substances destructive to their physical health" Candy,Chocalate, Cafine,Hotdogs, chips, soda.
At the very best this doctrine is poorly written at worst this doctrine is legalistic.
I have no problem with the church I am in. They are strong in the Lord and they are my brothers and sisters. The pastor follows Christ in a way that I admire so much that I left everything to be discipled by him. When I started this process I was asked to be "re-ordained" by the wesleyan church, because the baptist ordination was not acceptable. The church wanted me to be the assistant pastor and I refused because I did not want to be "re-ordained" I did not know that was even possible. That request never made much sense to me until your blog. I hope you will trully dig into the life of some baptist people and find out what we trully are doing and living. Thank you
I meant to say "that the baptis church is the standard of what not to be" Not the Church. Please forgive me!
Robert, I apologize for any inflammatory language I have used in relation to Baptists. I don't talk to Baptists that way. Right or wrong, such comments were meant to "inspire" Wesleyans to be proud of things that are strengths and not melt into the generic evangelical background, which is heavily Baptist (call it baptism envy, if you will :-) Frankly, an aweful lot of Wesleyans are what I would call Christian book store Christians too (and maybe they are more spiritual than I am!).
I wrote this post almost two years ago now. Since then some things have changed in the Wesleyan Church and also I have recognized that we have much more in common with Baptists than, say, with the Reformed or conservative Presbyterians. Again, I apologize to such groups if my language is offensive. My language is mostly meant to solidify Wesleyan identity rather than shoot at others.
In the Wesleyan Church, a person can now drink if they are a community member. I don't actually think that whether a person drinks or not has anything at all to do with a person's spirituality. But it is an element of Wesleyan identity like a Nazirite vow and I believe it is acceptable for us to bind ourselves to it as covenant members.
Time will tell. But again, to anyone "outside" that I have offended, I apologize. Context is everything, and this post was written for Wesleyans...
I am a covenant member of a Wesleyan Church, but not for long. I've recently come to understand the Baptist position of "just the Bible". I've visited several Baptist churches over the last many months and will become a Baptist by year end. The Baptist position eliminates the arrogance seen in this article and in the Wesleyan Church in which I'm a member. It also eliminates the need for theologians or pastors to tell me the meaning of God's word. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to refer to the man with the degree in theology to understand what's plainly stated. Everyone want's to quench the Holy Spirit with their own version. When it's just the Bible, man keeps out of God's business and trusts in Him not man. My post is meant for Christians of all denominations. Bye Now
You're deceiving yourself. The "just the Bible" approach is the reason for the fragmentation of Protestantism into 20,000 little groups who are just following the Bible alone. Reality smashes your sensibility into 20,000 little bits.
But best wishes in your new church home.
Post a Comment