Two men sit down at a coffee shop. One looks to be in his late 60s. The other is relatively young, maybe in college. The young man has a tablet to take notes on.
Aaron: Thanks for agreeing to meet with me on such short notice. My paper's due tomorrow.
Keith: (with a grin) If I'd have known that, I wouldn't have agreed to the interview. You'll never be successful in ministry if you don't learn to plan ahead and get things done in a timely way.
Narrator: A slight look of horror came over the student's face.
Keith: So, you're writing a paper about the recent history of the Wesleyan movement?
Aaron: Yes, in particular I'm supposed to write about the split that happened recently.
Keith: Well, that's the first thing to get straight. It wasn't a split.
Aaron: What? Isn't there The Wesleyan Methodist Church, The Wesleyan Connection, and one other I can never remember the name of.
Keith: The Wesleyan Holiness Church?
Aaron: Yes, that's it.
Keith: Yes, and there are also a number of congregations that don't belong to any of these any more.
Aaron: Right. So a split.
Keith: Nope.
Narrator: The puzzlement on Aaron's face was plain as day. He was a twenty-one year old young man studying to be a full-time minister. It was a rare approach to ministry those days, since most pastors were now co-vocational.
Keith: Let me explain. It wasn't a split. It was a fizzle.
Aaron: A fizzle? What's that?
Keith: OK. Let's go back about ten years, and I'll tell you my interpretation of what happened.
Aaron: That would be great. You're already different than a couple others I've interviewed. But I'm supposed to let you tell the story your way without interfering. So fire away.
Keith: Ten years ago in 2025, America was very divided. You'll remember that Trump was president at that time. Some of the divisions in America were present in the church as well. But those weren't the primary reasons behind the fizzle. They more came into play after the fizzle.
Aaron: You're kind of hurting my brain. Could you back up and start again.
Keith: Sure. Let me start again.
Ten years ago, there were already cracks in The Wesleyan Church that had been steadily widening. For example, the church had been struggling over the issue of drinking for decades. One wing of the church -- especially large church pastors and younger pastors -- saw a prohibition on drinking as a hindrance to evangelism and church growth. And they just didn't see an absolute prohibition on drinking as biblical. They thought the church's position should be moderation, not total abstinence.
Aaron: That's the position of The Wesleyan Methodist Church, right?
Keith: Yes, and The Wesleyan Connection. The only one of the three that prohibits drinking now is the Wesleyan Holiness Church. In fact, that's one the main reasons it exists.
Aaron: Really? I didn't know that. What about homosexuality? Was that part of the cause of the split?
Keith: It wasn't a split. And no.
It's true that, for a long time, there were voices that warned about The Wesleyan Church splitting over homosexuality. It just was never a real threat. It was more of a fear about something that could happen in the future.
The Global Methodist Church had pulled out of the United Methodist Church over the ordination of gay ministers. And there were many in The Wesleyan Church who warned that The Wesleyan Church might undergo the same split if we didn't "tighten the ship," so to speak. They believed that we were getting more and more liberal.
Aaron: So, was there ever a group of Wesleyans fighting to affirm homosexuality?
Keith: No, but the fear of it was a crucial element in the dissolution of The Wesleyan Church.
Aaron: Dissolution?
Keith: The fizzle I've been talking about. Have you learned about the "trust clause" yet?
Aaron: No, what's a trust clause?
Keith: Well, you'll need to learn about it because The Wesleyan Methodist Church put it back in. But it doesn't exist any more in the other two branches of the Wesleyan fizzle.
For a very long time, the property of local churches was technically owned by the districts they were in. There was a line in the property deed that said it was held "in trust" for the denomination. A local church thus couldn't vote to leave the denomination and take the property with them. And the denomination held authority over the local church.
Aaron: Really? Even if the church paid for the building and all?
Keith: Yes. Part of the idea was that local churches usually had a lot of help getting established. The denomination might invest a lot into a local church and then, if the local church got some new pastor next year who wanted the church to leave with the property, the denomination could lose the church and it wouldn't be fair. There were a lot of churches that left the church with their property in the 1960s.
There was also the desire to make sure local churches didn't start teaching heresy. Owning the property gave the district ultimate control over the church.
On the other hand, for those afraid the church would drift into accepting homosexuality, there was the fear that the denomination would go liberal and then local churches would be forced to accept homosexuality or lose their property. That's somewhat what happened in the Global Methodist Church.
Aaron: OK. So did the trust clause go away before or after the "fizzle," as you call it.
Keith: Before. It was one of the key steps in the denomination dissolving.
Aaron: I'm still not quite sure what you mean by fizzling or dissolving.
Keith: Maybe it would help if I talked about where most of The Wesleyan Church ended up. That's in The Wesleyan Connection.
Aaron: And they call themselves a "connection" rather than a "church," right?
Keith: Yes. A lot of the larger Wesleyan churches had never really believe in denominations, in my opinion. They were almost a denomination to themselves.
Aaron: So what exactly is a "denomination"?
Keith: A denomination is a collection of churches that have an official structure of authority, organization, rules, etc. The local church is part of and under the authority of a larger organization.
Aaron: Like the Wesleyan Methodist Church.
Keith: Yes, or the Wesleyan Holiness Church.
Both churches have a Discipline. Both churches have general superintendents. Even though the Wesleyan Holiness Church doesn't have a trust clause, it is organized into districts and has district superintendents. In their case, they don't have much teeth if a church wants to leave, which has already happened in a few places.
Aaron: So what does The Wesleyan Connection have?
Keith: It has a President and Connectional By-Laws. But membership in the Connection is purely voluntary. It lets you participate in certain common goals like the Wesleyan Planters Association. There are benefits to partiipating, but it isn't a denomination per se any more.
Aaron: So how did that happen?
Keith: Well, like I said, there were many who thought that we should be more like they saw the New Testament church. And they liked to say that John Wesley started a movement and that the early Wesleyan churches were part of a movement. They became organized churches later.
These voices thought we too would be more biblical if we were a Spirit-led movement rather than an organization that was also a business. A hidden assumption here was that our goal should be to make the church today be just like the church was in the first century.
Aaron: And isn't that what we're supposed to do?
Keith: The church of the first century fit the shape of the world in the first century. There are groups today who might say we shouldn't have guitars in worship because they didn't have guitars in Bible times. But surely we should focus on the goals of the church, not the various forms the church has used to reach those goals over the centuries.
Aaron: So you're saying they mistook the forms for the substance.
Keith: Yes. It was much the same as those who say we should meet in house churches because the early Christians met in houses. They just applied it to denominations. They said, "They didn't have district superintendents in the Bible so we shouldn't either" or "They didn't call them local boards of administration in the Bible so we shouldn't either." In the end, they didn't see that every generation has to play out the gospel in the most helpful forms for its own day.
Aaron: So how did that play out?
Keith: Like I said, the larger churches had already largely run to a large extent like they were their own denominations. They sometimes felt like district leadership was less capable of leading than they were. They sometimes felt like smaller congregations were either failing at the mission or were small-minded in their thinking.
So in the late 2010s and early 2020s, there was a shift toward putting the larger churches in charge of the districts. Districts were combined, which lessened the voices of more traditional Wesleyans -- especially the ones that eventually ended up in the Wesleyan Holiness Church.
The Boomer layer of the denomination was finally in charge. They emphasized evangelism and lay leadership. There was a big emphasis on equipping non-ministers to do the work of the ministry. There was less and less a sense that a minister was someone called and set aside specially for full time ministry.
Meanwhile, larger churches and many in the denomination had long been absorbing ideas from other mega-churches and broader evangelicalism. The church was absorbing a lot of Baptist and broader evangelical thinking and assumptions in the process. The broader church culture of America was pulling us into its gravitational pull.
Aaron: Like how?
Keith: For example, many in the church had a low view of the sacraments.
Aaron: You mean baptism and communion?
Keith: Yes. The larger churches and a lot of pastors believed that any Christian should be able to baptize a new believer or lead at communion.
Aaron: That's not what the Wesleyan Methodists do, right?
Keith: Right. The Wesleyan Methodists only let a licensed or ordained minister serve communion or baptize, except in emergency situations.
Aaron: And Wesleyan Methodists allow infant baptism?
Keith: Yes, it's somewhat rare, but it is not allowed in either The Wesleyan Connection or the Wesleyan Holiness Church.
Aaron: And what about women in ministry?
Keith: Women cannot be lead pastors in The Wesleyan Connection, but they can be staff pastors. That's one of the reasons the Wesleyan Methodist Church isn't part of the Connection any more. In the Wesleyan Holiness Church, women can't be pastors at all. But in the Wesleyan Methodist Church, they can be any kind of pastor up to General Superintendent.
Aaron: So what led to the fizzle?
Keith: Well, there was this slow movement behind the scenes. The headquarters was sold without anyone hardly even noticing it. The trust clause was done away with. The financial institution of the church went independent.
Aaron: So it was slowly moving away from a denomination toward a connection for a while?
Keith: Yes. At the 2030 General Conference they made it official. In 2032, they would meet to draft the By-Laws of the new "Wesleyan Connection."
This move solved several problems. It let local churches and former districts that wanted to prohibit drinking prohibit drinking. Meanwhile, churches who believed in moderation could adopt that position.
Every church would agree to the by-laws of the Connection and would enjoy the benefits of pooled resources. But they could follow their conscience on "non-essential" items. The leaders of the move championed it as "becoming like the New Testament church."
Aaron: So did they meet and set it up in 2032?
Keith: Yes, but it didn't play out quite like the leaders of the move thought it would. It's funny how so many think that a church might just follow the Bible alone. But there are always different interpretations of Scripture -- even in a small denomination like The Wesleyan Church.
A Task Force came with its recommendations. The move on drinking was obvious. There would be no prohibition on drinking in the By-Laws. It didn't make a lot of churches in Tennessee and Kentucky happy, but I think initially they were planning to go along with it.
Aaron: But they didn't in the end?
Keith: No, in the end there were several features that led them to walk away. They thought the position on entire sanctification was too watered down. There were some strong voices that didn't believe in women in ministry at all. And they obviously didn't like the allowance of drinking.
They had felt shoved in the corner for too long and missed the days when they played a more central role in the church. The year after the Connection formed, they came together and re-formed as a denomination again, the Wesleyan Holiness Church. It mostly consists of smaller churches. A lot of them were churches that had once been Pilgrim Holiness churches before the 1968 merger.
Aaron: So why did the Wesleyan Methodists leave the Connection?
Keith: That's where some of the social and political dimensions of the last decades came into play. Both in the Connection and the Wesleyan Holiness folks, there were some strong feelings against things they called "woke" or "social justice warriors." Following the flow of 2020s politics, they saw things like women in ministry, racial reconciliation, taking care of the poor, helping immigrants get documented -- they saw these values as "leftist liberal."
Aaron: Really? I've been taught that those values were part of the founding of The Wesleyan Church and John Wesley. And don't those values come from the Bible?
Keith: Well, The Wesleyan Methodist Church sure thinks so. But the leaders of the other churches didn't so much. Or they thought those issues were too secondary to let interfere with the greater good that was happening. Some had actually come to see such values as evil and preached against them. The culture and political landscape at the time was strongly pushing them in that direction. We don't always know why we see what we see in the Bible.
Aaron: So the Wesleyan Methodists left the Connection too?
Keith: Well, they never really joined. It was mostly the Millennial layer of the church. They just couldn't agree with some of the values and direction of the Connection. Like the Wesleyan Holiness Church, they re-formed as a denomination again the next year in 2033.
Aaron: And that was just two years ago! Wow.
Keith: We'll see how the three bodies go. The Connection is going strong. Lots of baptisms. Very white upper middle class.
The Wesleyan Methodists are growing too. It's finding a lot of forty somethings coming back to the church after leaving in the 2020s. It also seems to speak to your generation well.
Aaron: And the Wesleyan Holiness Church?
Keith: My impression is that it is holding its own so far. A lot of older congregations in small churches.
Aaron: Wow. This has been very helpful. The paper has practically written itself.
Keith: Next time, do it in plenty of time. Don't be a last minute minister. Plan your responsibilities out. You never know when an emergency is going to pop up.
Aaron: Understood. Thanks so much for letting me interview you.
Keith: Thanks for the coffee!
4 comments:
Thanks, Keith, oh, I meant Ken. Your reflections are insightful. Your repeated use of the word "fizzle" seems to indicate that you don't see this "split" as beneficial to the constituency of what we now know as The Wesleyan Church. Would you care to describe an alternate future that you see as more positive? What actions now and in the near future would contribute to your preferred alternate result?
We get to decide. I don't necessarily see the above as a bad future. I would just like us to walk into whatever future with our eyes open.
Never thought I’d see Ken speaking in Dad’s voice but here we are. Glad he wasn’t used as a kind of Screwtape—you seemed to capture his energy on campus back in the day.
He would have enjoyed these speculations while perhaps disagreeing on a few of the alignments, I suspect (was most curious about a denom that only restricted the highest office —the pope—from women. Maybe in your mind Jo Anne Lyon is not only alive and kicking in 2035 but still running circles around men half her age and they needed to ensure she didn’t make a triumphant return?)
In addition, I believe there are fewer who oppose women in ministry than rendered here among the Wesleyans too—our problem on that front is apathy and lack of intentionality, not outright opposition. I know it feels more tenuous to many—but I do not think it is.
I agree with your rendering on the doctrines on sexuality — that has been largely used as an excuse when our people have spoken with unanimity and removed those out of the alignment over and over. We are nothing like the UMC in culture or structure and that has kept us off that path. It is a red herring issue used for other purposes among us—since nobody has even one example of a Wesleyan who even tried to marry a same sex couple, for instance, much less matters of ordination. When people bring that up all the time among Wesleyans it makes me question their real motives.
A question I ask those advocating for change in a variety of areas always is this: what exactly has your district board told you cannot be done that you want to do? Those are the areas I think are ripe for change. Other things feel a bit like arguing over money and power and are less mission driven, and thus distractions I have little time for and wish people would go back to work on what matters most. In reality in most places district boards have been quite permission giving. There are exceptions and over-reach here and there. But the majority of our churches do as they please in most areas. If people just don’t want to pay assessments or want to leave with their property they should say so and propose changes to both, rather than playing a shell game on motives.
I don’t think any of your predictions here are likely to come true by 2035. But those who love chaos and upheaval would enjoy all this, and new power centers would form for more people. That alone would be attractive to some too—although less than we might assume.
In the end it’s interesting you have Dad describe it as a “fizzle” when the final paragraphs portray an almost best case scenario after such a reordering into 3+ divisions. I’m guessing it would look even more Balkanized and uninspiring the longer it went on, and nobody by 2045 would much feel satisfied other than those who crave 100% independence.
Thanks for bringing an authentic voice!
Post a Comment