Merging with other Wesleyan Holiness churches?

[David Pettigrew]

Has serious discussion ever taken place between the Nazarenes and the Wesleyans about merging? Perhaps the Free Methodists as well?

I don't know about the Free Methodists, but I know Nazarenes and Wesleyans are just mergers of other groups who combined resources so they could more effectively fulfill their mission.

Isn't that what the discussion of Nazarene renewal comes down to, really?

I mean, really, our stories, theology, and even government is so similar as to make not joining together seem silly. Such a decision could respark the holiness "movement", which hasn't actually "moved" around these parts in a generation or so (unless you count moving inward and downward.)

What disadvantage would there be in merging with other Wesleyan holiness denominations?

[Ryan Scott]

The impression I get from people is that it would be a nice idea, but the political and organizational headaches are not worth the trouble.

[Gina Stevenson]

Something to make a plank in your bid for GS, David! :basic05
[but, seriously, I do see what you're saying, tho' I have the LOL face there]

Has serious discussion ever taken place between the Nazarenes and the Wesleyans about merging? Perhaps the Free Methodists as well?

I don't know about the Free Methodists, but I know Nazarenes and Wesleyans are just mergers of other groups who combined resources so they could more effectively fulfill their mission.

Isn't that what the discussion of Nazarene renewal comes down to, really?

[David Pettigrew]

The impression I get from people is that it would be a nice idea, but the political and organizational headaches are not worth the trouble.

I'm certain your assessment is correct, but would there have been any less headaches for the various groups that came together 100 years ago? Seems to me they had more doctrinal and polity differences than we have with the Wesleyans and FMs by far. There were people at Pilot Point with the Civil War still fresh in their memories, joining forces with those they had fought against.

Perhaps I'm idealistic, but I can't think of a better way to celebrate our centenial than by continuing the work that was started 100 years ago - uniting the holiness groups that we might more effectively proclaim our message.

[Barb Bouldrey]

Yes.

I cannot remember the year...but I believe it was in the 80's...that the Nazarenes and Wesleyans TALKED about what it would take to merge.

The brick wall came when discussing government. The Wesleyan Church is more of a federation, with regional general leaders and regional conferences.

I really like their form of government better than ours.

But they have talked in the past.

Other Holiness denominations use our literature, just use their own covers and writers for adult S.S. materials.

Once a denomination is set up with their own government, it would be a very difficult task to sift through every detail and fit it for both.

Barb

[Dennis M. Scott]

One of the snags reportedly was that combined we have too many DSes and colleges. I doubt Dave's extended proposal would encourage discussions to move ahead . . . but on the other hand, maybe.

[Susan Unger]

Yes.

I cannot remember the year...but I believe it was in the 80's...that the Nazarenes and Wesleyans TALKED about what it would take to merge.

The brick wall came when discussing government. The Wesleyan Church is more of a federation, with regional general leaders and regional conferences.

I really like their form of government better than ours.

But they have talked in the past.

Other Holiness denominations use our literature, just use their own covers and writers for adult S.S. materials.

Once a denomination is set up with their own government, it would be a very difficult task to sift through every detail and fit it for both.

Barb

I seem to remember that happening in the 80s. It would rather interesting to see it happen.

[David Pettigrew]

The only way it could even be put on the table for discussion would be if it were to be something new. It couldn't be one denomination absorbing another, or even combining two denominations. It would have to be a new church with a new structure and new name. It's certainly not unprecedented, though it is a huge paradigm shift.

Perhaps a start would be some sort of networking among our groups. We could declare ordination credentials in one group immediately recognized in all groups, for example. Or, we could begin with merging publishing companies, or youth ministry divisions (NYI).

[Randy McRoberts]

There would be some doctrinal issues to work out, too.

From the Wesleyan Articles of Religion:

5. The Sufficiency and Full Authority of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation

218. We believe that the books of the Old and New Testaments constitute the Holy Scriptures. They are the inspired and infallibly written Word of God, fully inerrant in their original manuscripts and superior to all human authority, and have been transmitted to the present without corruption of any essential doctrine. We believe that they contain all things necessary to salvation; so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man or woman that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. Both in the Old and New Testaments life is offered ultimately through Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and humanity. The New Testament teaches Christians how to fulfill the moral principles of the Old Testament, calling for loving obedience to God made possible by the indwelling presence of His Holy Spirit. [emphasis mine]

We Nazarenes don't use the word "inerrant". I remember Dr. Grider saying, "We don't even claim that Jesus himself was without error."

[Randy McRoberts]

The Pilgrim Holiness Church and the Wesleyan Methodist Church merged in the sixties to make the current Wesleyan Church. I know of a small town in Indiana that has two Wesleyan Churches less than three blocks apart because the congregations wouldn't merge even though the denominations did.

See for yourself (http://maps.google.com/maps?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B2GGGL_enUS176US176&um=1&q=wesleyan+church&near=Elwood,+IN&fb=1&sa=X&oi=local_group&resnum=1&ct=image), if this link works.

If you don't merge stuff like that, there is no efficiency to be gained. That would mean congregations in some cases, colleges, headquarters. I can't see the Nazarenes giving up anything, being the much larger denomination. But I also can't see the Wesleyans giving up anything either. I used to believe a merger would happen in my lifetime, but I don't think so anymore.

One thing the Wesleyan pastors would be unwilling to give up would be their far superior retirement packages.

[David Pettigrew]

I think we can all agree that the only way any type of merger could happen is if everyone put aside personal agendas.

If we're not willing to do that, what business do we have calling ourselves "holiness"?

I'm not naive enough to believe a merger of our groups would be painless. Nor would it be a cureall. I don't believe whatever solutions we came up with to resolve differences would be perfect.

I do believe the potential rewards outweigh the risks of potential pitfalls. For instance, such a merger would have the attention of the Church world, which would give us a voice. With some of the publicity we've received lately, good publicity could only be a benefit.

I have to be honest - this idea really excites me more than anything else discussed thus far. It excites me because all holiness groups have weaknesses that need to be addressed. Rather than restructure them individually, why not work together?

[Roy Richardson]

I'm certain your assessment is correct, but would there have been any less headaches for the various groups that came together 100 years ago? Seems to me they had more doctrinal and polity differences than we have with the Wesleyans and FMs by far. There were people at Pilot Point with the Civil War still fresh in their memories, joining forces with those they had fought against.

Perhaps I'm idealistic, but I can't think of a better way to celebrate our centenial than by continuing the work that was started 100 years ago - uniting the holiness groups that we might more effectively proclaim our message.

There would be significant overlap with the educational institutions as well. That could prove to be a sticky wicket.

[David Pettigrew]

In our original merger, three groups united by a passion for freedom from the bondage of sin, each brought a strength to the table. Bresee's group emphasized compassionate ministry. Reynold's group was strong in missions. Chapman's group had built a strong system of higher education. The Church of the Nazarene is still characterized by these values today.

Right now, the Wesleyan church has an awesome church planting plan. Churches are planting churches that plant churches. The Church of the Nazarene continues to lead the way in World Missions. I confess to not knowing much about the Free Methodist church, except they recently reworded their article on Entire Sanctification, bringing it much in line with many of the ideas discussed on this site.

Excuse me for getting a little carried away here, but I would love to see our groups bring our strengths together.

[Barb Bouldrey]

100 yrs ago all those holiness groups had very little organized governmental structure. It was easier to merge then than it would be now. No headquarters, no general superintendents, no Manuals, no organized districts, no colleges, no pension plans. Just groups meeting to preach and practice holiness.

The idea of merging all holiness churches is honorable. But each church has come too far in their history and organization to ever see it happen.

Barb

[David Pettigrew]

So far all I'm hearing is hindrances to merging ("It might be nice, but it ain't gonna happen because...".) What I'd like to discuss is disadvantages to merging. I'm probably not making myself clear.

Pretend we decided to merge with the Wesleyans and Free Methodists. It's easy for me to think of good things that could happen as a result of that. I'm trying to think of bad things that might happen because of that.

Perhaps we'd lose something in giving up our unique identities?
Maybe it would be like merging two local churches - we'd end up with one declining denomination instead of three?

Again, I think the benefits would far outweigh the risks of the above. I'm wanting someone to show me my blind spots - why would merging be bad?

[BobHunt]

Yes, some of the new york state pilgrim holiness formed their own conference and did not merge with the wesleyans..it is still there today, they have churches also in Pa and Ohio. That was my home denomination many years ago.
Anyone know the names of Andrew Whitney, Donald Myers, O L Fay, Francis Richmond, Donald Hardy, Milton Pierpoint, Bobby and Billie Bidwell, to name a few?
Maybe someone here would remember a RG Flexon, Leslie Wilcox, S I Emery, S D Herron, J Wesley Adcock.

[David Pettigrew]

Yes, some of the new york state pilgrim holiness formed their own conference and did not merge with the wesleyans..it is still there today, they have churches also in Pa and Ohio. That was my home denomination many years ago.
Anyone know the names of Andrew Whitney, Donald Myers, O L Fay, Francis Richmond, Donald Hardy, Milton Pierpoint, Bobby and Billie Bidwell, to name a few?
Maybe someone here would remember a RG Flexon, Leslie Wilcox, S I Emery, S D Herron, J Wesley Adcock.

Ok, that might be one negative. I am aware the the Wesleyan Methodist/Pilgrim Holiness merger actually resulted in about half a dozen splits of conferences that didn't want to merge. I suppose that could happen, but it wouldn't be for the same reasons. The churches that pulled out of the merger did so for "holiness standards" reasons, which wouldn't be a factor for us today.

[Susan Unger]

Yes, some of the new york state pilgrim holiness formed their own conference and did not merge with the wesleyans..it is still there today, they have churches also in Pa and Ohio. That was my home denomination many years ago.
Anyone know the names of Andrew Whitney, Donald Myers, O L Fay, Francis Richmond, Donald Hardy, Milton Pierpoint, Bobby and Billie Bidwell, to name a few?
Maybe someone here would remember a RG Flexon, Leslie Wilcox, S I Emery, S D Herron, J Wesley Adcock.

The wesleyan methodists in the area did the same. I went to one of those by accident thinking it was a regular Wesleyan church ~ boy was I wrong! That place scared me spitless :eek:

[Crystal Lutton]

I am rather surprised and excited to see this topic today after a conversation I just had this afternoon. Without going into too much detail I was talking with someone about broaching the subject with a Messianic Methodist pastor about whether there was interest in our congregation renting space or partnering in their facility, etc. They wanted to know if there was any reason to not broach the subject and other than a few things we'd have to make sure we were in agreement about (since Methodist churches tend to be Wesleyan but are not always holiness--though the Messianic spin provides an interesting spin I think is worth exploring). But since we come from the same stock I started thinking about what it would mean for combining of forces . . . anyway, my mind was going in a similar direction so I'm surprised to come here and see your mind going that way too :)

[Eric Frey]

I am always amazed when these discussions that the United Methodist church is left out. If we want to talk mergers, the most logical (and least practical) is for all the "Wesleyan" to united with the United Methodists. I always hear that they are not "holiness enough." I'm not sure what exactly that means (too litugical? too episcopal? too mainline? too liberal? - whatever any of those mean), but they are the original Wesleyans. Here is a link to their "Articles of Religion."

http://www.crivoice.org/creed25.html

Help me out. What are the THEOLOGICAL problems or obstacles to reuniting with the UM's?

[Susan Unger]

I am always amazed when these discussions that the United Methodist church is left out. If we want to talk mergers, the most logical (and least practical) is for all the "Wesleyan" to united with the United Methodists. I always hear that they are not "holiness enough." I'm not sure what exactly that means (too litugical? too episcopal? too mainline? too liberal? - whatever any of those mean), but they are the original Wesleyans. Here is a link to their "Articles of Religion."

http://www.crivoice.org/creed25.html

Help me out. What are the THEOLOGICAL problems or obstacles to reuniting with the UM's?

Someone will come along to give you a better answer, but a short answer would be they are too theologically liberal as a whole. Individual churches may not be, but the denomination as a whole.

[Wayne Paul]

Someone will come along to give you a better answer, but a short answer would be they are too theologically liberal as a whole. Individual churches may not be, but the denomination as a whole.

I believe there are other roadblocks that are as large, if not larger, then our “liberal” theology. I can not see the Nazarene pastor submitting to the control of a Bishop, or even giving up their chairmanship of the church board. Throughout my life I have watched the Nazarene clergy consolidate power to the extent that it is almost impossible for a congregation to precipitate change if the pastor wants to stay.

In the UMC the laity has much influence in the denomination’s governance and the content of the Book of Discipline and Book of Resolutions. Additionally, the UMC recognizes that the USA it is not one homogenous society and allows for regional cultural differences.

I think if you look at the official doctrine of the UMC and the CotN you will find very little difference. The difference exists in our “folk” theology. The folk theology of the UMC tends to be more liberal then the official position of the Church. In the CofN the folk theology it varies. In some areas it is fundamentalism, in others it is legalism, etc.

The bottom line is that you can not paint either denomination with a single theological paint brush.

[Randy McRoberts]

Throughout my life I have watched the Nazarene clergy consolidate power to the extent that it is almost impossible for a congregation to precipitate change if the pastor wants to stay.

...

The bottom line is that you can not paint either denomination with a single theological paint brush.

Here, here!

I'm in a legalistic pocket of the church. Although there are certainly exceptions, around here Methodists would be eyed with suspicion because they might drink and smoke and cuss. Oh, yes, and they don't have Sunday night services, so they can't be Christians.

The dominant clergy is a problem that will probably never be solved, since only the dominant ones have power to make change. I vote for merger with the UMC forthwith.

[Crystal Lutton]

It was my Methodist pastor professor (currently serving in a church) years ago who taught my New Testament class and convinced many students that Jesus is not the Son of God, wasn't born of a virgin, didn't perform miracles, was nothing more than a good social gospel preacher. It was a long time before I didn't look at every Methodist with a wary eye. I now know that the flavors within Methodism are very varied and I have wondered if the more devout among them might appreciate a whole new boat to get on and then the truly liberal/social gospel only left could form their own club.

[Crystal Lutton]

Our congregation did not grow out of the COTN--we grew out of the Messianic Movement and then anchored ourselves to the COTN with our shared holiness doctrine. In the past denominations have been created by splitting other groups but according to many experts we are in a post denominational era and denominational churches are shrinking while inter and non denominational churches are growing to mega size. Why could we not create an umbrella structure that allowed for certain freedom in non-essentials and united all or at least some of the holiness preaching denominations! Why would our structures be able to be used by the enemy or our flesh to keep our message from having teeth? If we had greater unity we could preach loudly the message of holiness to a generation that has a heart of apathy just waiting for (and needing) meaning!

[Wayne Paul]

It was my Methodist pastor professor (currently serving in a church) years ago who taught my New Testament class and convinced many students that Jesus is not the Son of God, wasn't born of a virgin, didn't perform miracles, was nothing more than a good social gospel preacher. .... .


The Book of Discipline of the UMC. Par 103. Section 3 -- OUR Doctrinal STANDARDS and General Rules.

Article II - Of the Word, or Son of God, Who Was Made Very Man.

" The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided; whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.

Article III - Of the Resurrection of Christ

"Christ did truly rise again from the dead, and took again his body, with all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth until he return to judge all men at the last day."

[Cindi Hammons]

The dominant clergy is a problem that will probably never be solved, since only the dominant ones have power to make change.

Hmmm...are you sure about that? Before women had the right to vote in the U.S., only men could vote to make the change...and many men were against that change. Yet, here we are 88 years later and I am preparing to vote (once again) and we have a women running for the President of the United States. I agree that a power change it is not likely, but certainly not impossible. :)

[David Pettigrew]

Eric,

I debated including a discussion about being folded back into the larger Methodist movement in my original post, but decided against it for the following reasons:

1) The point of my discussion is that there is such minuscule difference between the CotN, the Wesleyans, and the FM church, that a merger resulting in reduction of overhead and revival of mission seems like a no brainer. Our history, polity, doctrine, theology, and "special rules" are almost identical. We speak the same language.

2) Of the above, we only have theology in common with our Methodist fathers. Our story, government, doctrinal expressions, and social conduct code are vastly different.

3) In order for serious discussion of a merger to go forward, all parties have to perceive joining together as more beneficial than remaining separate. I can't think of what benefits the UMC would see in absorbing us.

4) That brings me to my third reason. If we were to join with the Methodists, it would be an absorption, rather than a merger. I'm not saying that would be bad, it just didn't have anything to do with my thought.


I'd love to see a day when we only had two or three expressions of Christianity, rather than thousands. I see the Wesleyan holiness family coming together as a step in that direction, but we must take one step at a time.

Thanks for your thoughts,
dp

[Crystal Lutton]

Wayne, thank you for that specific reference. As I said, I've now come to realize that was him and his issues and I pray for him because teachers are held to a higher standard and knowing his theology I have no doubt he led many astray :( I only pray he repented in time to lead them into truth!

[Randy McRoberts]

Hmmm...are you sure about that?

Pretty sure. You would have to get the people in power to voluntarily reduce their power and allow the people who don't have power to have power.

In the case of our church, there is no analogy to national elections. We only have the equivalent of local elections to congress. By rule, the rule-changers are 50% clergy. Who will change a rule to harm his/her self-interest?

I suppose it could happen. It will take something like a groundswell movement, like the one Dave is originating. Or else a total collapse of the current system. Most of us want to see a more organized changing of the guard than that.

[Randy McRoberts]

4) That brings me to my third reason. If we were to join with the Methodists, it would be an absorption, rather than a merger. I'm not saying that would be bad, it just didn't have anything to do with my thought.

Which is how either the Free Meths or the Wesleyans would see a merger with us.

As you said, that isn't necessarily bad, but there is a major resistance to overcome, just as there would be in an attempt to absorb the Nazarenes into the UMC.

[Barb Bouldrey]

The Methodist Church openly ordains homosexuals and perform homosexual marriages. Our local Methodist, a very fine godly man, recently dedicated a baby of a gay couple.

That would be hard to merge with the COTN.

And many of the Methodist pastors we have worked with smoke and drink and swear. In one of our pastorates, the Methodist pastor and his wife were our best friends. They lived across the street from us. I looked out my front window at the Methodist Church. When I would walk over to visit Carol, I would hear a draw slam as he put away his cigarette and turned on his air purifier.

I still could smell it. He did not fool me. I always chuckled inside every time he did that, but I also regretted that he did not understand that we were friends and I would not condemn him for his habit.

He also came to John and showed him the Methodist Discipline that list sanctification in its doctrine, but he had never heard of it.

Barb

[David Pettigrew]

Which is how either the Free Meths or the Wesleyans would see a merger with us.

As you said, that isn't necessarily bad, but there is a major resistance to overcome, just as there would be in an attempt to absorb the Nazarenes into the UMC.

I had thought of that as well. I did a little google research.

North American Free Methodists - 77,000
North American Wesleyans - 120,000
North American Nazarenes - 600,000
North American Methodists - 18,000,000
(source: http://www.adherents.com

I see a bit of a difference between three small groups - one of which is slightly larger - joining together. We could reasonably create a new denomination with a new name, new charter, etc. from these three groups.

The only way to merge with the Methodists is for all of us to become Methodists.

[Bruce Carriker]

As I recall those 1980's discussions...and subsequent discussions from some folks with at least peripheral involvement in them...governmental form was a major issue, as has already been pointed out.

But, there was also an issue of how to handle redundant educational institutions...for example, after a merger do you continue to support BOTH Bartlesville (Oklahoma) Wesleyan College and SNU? Do you continue to support Olivet, Indiana Wesleyan, and Mount Vernon? And if you close schools, which ones get closed? As I understand it, both sides were (understandably) pretty wedded to the idea of keeping "their" schools open under any merger.

And there was also an issue of how the GS's of the two denominations would be "merged". As I understand it, one group wanted simply to expand the number of GS's so all the GS's in each denomination would be GS's under any new denomination. The other group did not want to increase the number of generals.

DISCLAIMER! While I trust the person from whom I received this info, I was never privy to any of the discussions directly. This is second-hand information...or worse...so I do not vouch for its accuracy.

[Bruce Carriker]

I had thought of that as well. I did a little google research.

North American Free Methodists - 77,000
North American Wesleyans - 120,000
North American Nazarenes - 600,000
North American Methodists - 18,000,000
(source: http://www.adherents.com

I see a bit of a difference between three small groups - one of which is slightly larger - joining together. We could reasonably create a new denomination with a new name, new charter, etc. from these three groups.

The only way to merge with the Methodists is for all of us to become Methodists.

Agree, Dave. There would be no merger with the UMC. It would simply be a matter of the UMC "absorbing" the three smaller groups. But for reasons of both theology and polity, I don't see any realistic prospect of this happening.

On the other hand, the issues which separate the CofN, Wesleyans, and Free Methodists are not nearly so insurmountable, if the leadership of those groups were inclined to merge. But does growing larger automatically mean "better"? How is the mission of all three groups enhanced by the possibility of a merger? Curious as to your thoughts on this.

[David Pettigrew]

As I recall those 1980's discussions...and subsequent discussions from some folks with at least peripheral involvement in them...governmental form was a major issue, as has already been pointed out.

But, there was also an issue of how to handle redundant educational institutions...for example, after a merger do you continue to support BOTH Bartlesville (Oklahoma) Wesleyan College and SNU? Do you continue to support Olivet, Indiana Wesleyan, and Mount Vernon? And if you close schools, which ones get closed? As I understand it, both sides were (understandably) pretty wedded to the idea of keeping "their" schools open under any merger.

And there was also an issue of how the GS's of the two denominations would be "merged". As I understand it, one group wanted simply to expand the number of GS's so all the GS's in each denomination would be GS's under any new denomination. The other group did not want to increase the number of generals.

DISCLAIMER! While I trust the person from whom I received this info, I was never privy to any of the discussions directly. This is second-hand information...or worse...so I do not vouch for its accuracy.

I think real estate would be the major snag in merging. We own too many colleges, headquarters buildings, campgrounds, etc. All of them serve a good purpose - but we don't need them all.

Off the top of my head, the best solution is a networking-merging-phase out approach over a decade or so. We start by partnering together, with a target "merge" date in the future. Once the proposed merger happens, we phase out institutions, buildings, etc that duplicate ministries, or prove inefficient.

So, in other words, go slowly while clearly communicating.

[David Pettigrew]

Agree, Dave. There would be no merger with the UMC. It would simply be a matter of the UMC "absorbing" the three smaller groups. But for reasons of both theology and polity, I don't see any realistic prospect of this happening.

On the other hand, the issues which separate the CofN, Wesleyans, and Free Methodists are not nearly so insurmountable, if the leadership of those groups were inclined to merge. But does growing larger automatically mean "better"? How is the mission of all three groups enhanced by the possibility of a merger? Curious as to your thoughts on this.

I'm actually thinking smaller, rather than larger. One GS instead of however many there currently are in all three groups. One administrative center (aka "headquarters") instead of three. One publishing company. One missions auxiliary organization. You get the idea.

The Nazarenes wouldn't have to invest resources in costly newstarts in areas where the Wesleyans already have a strong presence. The Wesleyans wouldn't have to spend resources opening new works in nations where the Church of the Nazarene already is established.

And, yes, eventually we could have fewer and stronger institutions of higher education - perhaps even self supporting.

This would reduce operation costs, thus reducing budgets, thus putting more money into local ministry.

However, to me, the greatest benefits are as follows:

1) A huge morale boost to the holiness movement.
2) Great publicity in the Church world.
3) We would finally have an excuse to deal with all the "third rails" (like the huge power wielded by some of our auxiliary organizations that don't like to play ball) in our groups.

[Roy Richardson]

Someone will come along to give you a better answer, but a short answer would be they are too theologically liberal as a whole. Individual churches may not be, but the denomination as a whole.

Speaking as a former student at Asbury Theological Seminary, I can attest that there are many strong "Holiness" pastors within that denomination. There is a tremendously painful struggle within that denomination over theology and practice, but there are many persons of strong conviction fighting to keep the UMC on a path of biblical truth.

That being said, I see the UMC following the ECUSA down the road to schism. Maybe at that point, the conservative UMC crowd might be willing to talk about merging. Right now they have their hands full.

Pray for them. They are good, Godly people trying to fix a system they see as broken.

[Billy Cox]

Help me out. What are the THEOLOGICAL problems or obstacles to reuniting with the UM's?

Are mergers ever scuttled by theological issues? I just assume that two groups talking about merger have already assessed their theological relatedness/compatibility.

Does an obstacle have to be theological to be a valid obstacle?

[Kevin Rector]

That brings me to my third reason. If we were to join with the Methodists, it would be an absorption, rather than a merger. I'm not saying that would be bad, it just didn't have anything to do with my thought.

I would love to see a merger and total makeover of the three main Wesleyan Holiness denominations (into a completely new single denomination that is none of the three and all of the three). One of the issues at hand is that I'm afraid the Wesleyans and Free Methodists would say the same thing about merging with us as we would say about merging with the United Methodists. I think that they would be afraid that we would simply absorb them rather than merge with them.

[Eric Frey]

Are mergers ever scuttled by theological issues? I just assume that two groups talking about merger have already assessed their theological relatedness/compatibility.

Does an obstacle have to be theological to be a valid obstacle?

Not necessarily, but most issues have theological roots. For instance, will Nazarene pastors accept the authority of a UM bishop? It depends on what you believe about the nature of the church?

And, if there is no significant theological difference, then the things that keep us apart are surely minute enough to be overcome.

[Susan Unger]

I think real estate would be the major snag in merging. We own too many colleges, headquarters buildings, campgrounds, etc. All of them serve a good purpose - but we don't need them all.

Off the top of my head, the best solution is a networking-merging-phase out approach over a decade or so. We start by partnering together, with a target "merge" date in the future. Once the proposed merger happens, we phase out institutions, buildings, etc that duplicate ministries, or prove inefficient.

So, in other words, go slowly while clearly communicating.

I would agree. It gives people a chance to accept the changes as well as work out bugs in the system.

[Wayne Paul]

The Methodist Church openly ordains homosexuals and perform homosexual marriages. Our local Methodist, a very fine godly man, recently dedicated a baby of a gay couple.

That would be hard to merge with the COTN.

And many of the Methodist pastors we have worked with smoke and drink and swear. In one of our pastorates, the Methodist pastor and his wife were our best friends. They lived across the street from us. I looked out my front window at the Methodist Church. When I would walk over to visit Carol, I would hear a draw slam as he put away his cigarette and turned on his air purifier.

I still could smell it. He did not fool me. I always chuckled inside every time he did that, but I also regretted that he did not understand that we were friends and I would not condemn him for his habit.

He also came to John and showed him the Methodist Discipline that list sanctification in its doctrine, but he had never heard of it.

Barb

I know the US Episcopal Church ordains homosexuals; however, it is outside of accepted practices in the UMC. (Review the Current Events thread “same sex marriage allowed in California.”)

Dr. Phineas F. Bresee smoked a pipe when he arrived at Pilot Point Texas for the conference that formed what is now called The Church of the Nazarene. He argued that the prohibition of tobacco should not be included in the Manual. Finally, he conceded, in the name of unity, to accept the prohibition statement in the manual, even though he did not agree with it, and would abide by it.

However, as a symbol of protest he kept a canister of tobacco and a rack of pipes on his desk. He even insisted his official portrait which is displayed at Headquarters include them.

The first religious prohibition of tobacco was part of the abolitionist movement in Ohio. It had nothing to do with the evils of tobacco, but was simply an economic boycott of the slavery based industry.

[Kevin Rector]

Which is how either the Free Meths or the Wesleyans would see a merger with us.

As you said, that isn't necessarily bad, but there is a major resistance to overcome, just as there would be in an attempt to absorb the Nazarenes into the UMC.

I had thought of that as well. I did a little google research.

North American Free Methodists - 77,000
North American Wesleyans - 120,000
North American Nazarenes - 600,000
North American Methodists - 18,000,000

Randy beat me to my comment (always a danger when coming to a discussion a bit late and not reading the whole thread completely).

David, while your argument is compelling from the perspective of a Nazarene, it might not be so compelling from the perspective of a Wesleyan or Free Methodist. They have their own culture, schools, heroes, history, emphasis, inside jokes, etc. These are a powerful pull for many people (they are in our tribe as well), and there is probably genuine fear that merging will cause that to die off (I think these fears are unfounded but real).

But I do think that merging is a great idea, and Wisconsin is the perfect example of why. The COTN has had a hard time getting established in Wisconsin for a number of reasons. The Wesleyans on the other hand are doing a great work here with several churches that run 200+ (there are no Nazarene churches over 200 in Sunday morning attendance in Wisconsin). There are hardly any Free Methodists in Wisconsin but they have a phenomenal campground in the state (that we rent out for several events during the year).

[Kevin Rector]

Perhaps the first step is to ditch Naznet and have Dave start up Wesholnet -the web site for members and friends of the Churches in the Wesleyan/Holiness tradition.

[Susan Unger]

Speaking as a former student at Asbury Theological Seminary, I can attest that there are many strong "Holiness" pastors within that denomination. There is a tremendously painful struggle within that denomination over theology and practice, but there are many persons of strong conviction fighting to keep the UMC on a path of biblical truth.

That being said, I see the UMC following the ECUSA down the road to schism. Maybe at that point, the conservative UMC crowd might be willing to talk about merging. Right now they have their hands full.

Pray for them. They are good, Godly people trying to fix a system they see as broken.

Yes, I was thinking of the conservative groups when I wrote my post. I have several relatives who [thankfully] attend the more conservative churches. And I have a cousin who attended Asbury Seminary... as well as my former Nazarene pastor.

Interestingly, an aunt's church just got a pastor that is really on fire for God. I asked her how they were so fortunate to get someone so good. She said that a group of women prayed every week for months for the right pastor to come in. They feel that this new pastor is in response to their prayers. :basic05 It made me think of my former nazarene church which wouldn't be caught dead praying for the church ~ yet would wonder why they had so many problems and God didn't "seem" to bless. ay ay ay!

[Susan Unger]

But I do think that merging is a great idea, and Wisconsin is the perfect example of why. The COTN has had a hard time getting established in Wisconsin for a number of reasons. The Wesleyans on the other hand are doing a great work here with several churches that run 200+ (there are no Nazarene churches over 200 in Sunday morning attendance in Wisconsin). There are hardly any Free Methodists in Wisconsin but they have a phenomenal campground in the state (that we rent out for several events during the year).

It is the same in Northern PA - there is a derth of nazarene churches but quite a few Wesleyan...and probably some free methodists as well.

[Hal Paul]

Hmmm...are you sure about that? Before women had the right to vote in the U.S., only men could vote to make the change...and many men were against that change. Yet, here we are 88 years later and I am preparing to vote (once again) and we have a women running for the President of the United States. I agree that a power change it is not likely, but certainly not impossible. :)

But you know, a bunch of those men voted for the change because they knew they'd be in the doghouse when they got home if they voted otherwise. Sounds kind of funny now, but I've read several accounts of congressmen who were personally opposed to womens suffrage, but voted in favor of the amendment because if they hadn't their wives and daughters would have never let them hear the end of it.

[David Pettigrew]

It made me think of my former nazarene church which wouldn't be caught dead praying for the church ~ yet would wonder why they had so many problems and God didn't "seem" to bless. ay ay ay!

Why were they opposed to praying for the church? Just curious.

[Hal Paul]

As I recall those 1980's discussions...and subsequent discussions from some folks with at least peripheral involvement in them...governmental form was a major issue, as has already been pointed out.

But, there was also an issue of how to handle redundant educational institutions...for example, after a merger do you continue to support BOTH Bartlesville (Oklahoma) Wesleyan College and SNU? Do you continue to support Olivet, Indiana Wesleyan, and Mount Vernon? And if you close schools, which ones get closed? As I understand it, both sides were (understandably) pretty wedded to the idea of keeping "their" schools open under any merger.

And there was also an issue of how the GS's of the two denominations would be "merged". As I understand it, one group wanted simply to expand the number of GS's so all the GS's in each denomination would be GS's under any new denomination. The other group did not want to increase the number of generals.

DISCLAIMER! While I trust the person from whom I received this info, I was never privy to any of the discussions directly. This is second-hand information...or worse...so I do not vouch for its accuracy.

That's pretty consistent with what I understood were the major issues preventing a merger. Specifically with governmental form was the Nazarene commitment to being an international church, while the Wesleyans, if I understand correctly, are structured as a communion of autonomous but like minded geographical regions.

[Susan Unger]

Why were they opposed to praying for the church? Just curious.

Hmm...lots of issues but I think the root was a legalistic pastor who came in the 1960s and stayed for 28.5 years. My mother can remember him saying on several occasions that to pray more than five minutes a day meant that you were just doing it for show. He also hated the excesses of the pentecostals and so would preach against anything that seemed too pentecostal [I can attest to those sermons being preached regularly]. And since Pentecostals are known for their enthusiastic praying....no one dared prayed too much and be like THEM. This kind of preaching for 28.5 years developed a non-praying mentality in the bunch. Throw in losing God as their first love over the years and giving in to the darkness that is in that area. Well, it just left that place so spiritually cold.

[David Pettigrew]

That's pretty consistent with what I understood were the major issues preventing a merger. Specifically with governmental form was the Nazarene commitment to being an international church, while the Wesleyans, if I understand correctly, are structured as a communion of autonomous but like minded geographical regions.

I'd definitely be willing to give up the international church commitment in favor of a world alliance of national churches. Makes sense to me.

[David Pettigrew]

I think we're a different church than we were in the 1980s, and folks might be a lot more open to leaving certain things on the table for discussion. Now, I'm off to see Prince Caspian! I'll leave it with you all for a bit.

[John Kennedy]

Perhaps the first step is to ditch Naznet and have Dave start up Wesholnet -the web site for members and friends of the Churches in the Wesleyan/Holiness tradition.


Kevin

That's gonna' raise some real issues for me in terms of how I identify myself. On Naznet I'm a 'Naz-friendly, ex/non-Naz Naznetter'. When I contemplate trying to wrap that around 'Wesholnet', etc, I'll probably have to put a speech therapist on retainer.

[Christa Woodward]

I am rather surprised and excited to see this topic today after a conversation I just had this afternoon. Without going into too much detail I was talking with someone about broaching the subject with a Messianic Methodist pastor about whether there was interest in our congregation renting space or partnering in their facility, etc. They wanted to know if there was any reason to not broach the subject and other than a few things we'd have to make sure we were in agreement about (since Methodist churches tend to be Wesleyan but are not always holiness--though the Messianic spin provides an interesting spin I think is worth exploring). But since we come from the same stock I started thinking about what it would mean for combining of forces . . . anyway, my mind was going in a similar direction so I'm surprised to come here and see your mind going that way too :)

We do this in our congregation, we have four congregations total that meet in our building, all on Sunday. We are the only Nazarene congregation...the others are different language groups and different denominations. But we see them as more than "renters" and we meet corporately at least once a quarter. One of the congregations is a Vietnamese Christian Missionary Alliance church (which doctrinally is extremely close to Nazarene) and we partner with them for Children's ministry so we have more kids and more workers. It works for us...there are times when we have to sacrifice for one another, but for the most part, the benefits outweigh the frustrations.

I actually really admire my husband (the pastor) for his attitude in sharing with other churches/denominations...it would look better for him if we could convince them to become Nazarene - we would be able to "count" them which would jump our numbers up to about 250 instead of 80 or so. I love his willingness to focus on the Kingdom - just one of the many things I love about him actually! :)

[Roland Hearn]

I believe there are other roadblocks that are as large, if not larger, then our “liberal” theology. I can not see the Nazarene pastor submitting to the control of a Bishop, or even giving up their chairmanship of the church board. Throughout my life I have watched the Nazarene clergy consolidate power to the extent that it is almost impossible for a congregation to precipitate change if the pastor wants to stay.

Wayne, I think this is a characterization that doesn't reflect a full understanding of the situation. The original problem with Bishops wasn't simply a view of the pastors it was equally a view of local churches. And you have obviously never been a pastor trying to bring about change if you think that pastors are the ones with all the power. I have been a pastor for twenty years trying to bring about change in my local church and districts. If you want to do that you take a lot of hits and bleed a lot of blood. While our system is far from perfect if you don't have pastor and people together on an issue you probably aren't going anywhere. Your statement makes it sound as if pastors are making all the decisions.

As for the reasons the CON doesn't merge with the UMC on the one hand and the Wesleyans on the other one of the major reasons is internationalization, this is a process the CON has taken very seriously for the last couple of decades. For example the UMC doesn't even exist in Australia. Here we have the Uniting Church which is a 70's amalgam of Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregational churches and for those that understand church politics work that one out. The Wesleyan Church here is in fact called the Wesleyan Methodist church, has its own General Superintendent and considers itself only loosely affiliated with the Wesleyan Church in the US. If a merger with either of these groups happened in the US there would be enormous ramifications for areas outside of the US and in fact it would spell the disintegration of the church as we know it as it fragmented into regional churches. Now that may not entirely be a bad thing but it would be a very different direction then we have been trying to head for the last 100 years.

The Church of the Nazarene has a reason for existence. It is the propagation of the message of holiness as a present transformational reality around the world. While a merger may have certain attractive ingredients it would mean the end of that purpose. Now there may be lots pluses but we would have to recognize that that would be the reality. Mergers wouldn't mean that purpose couldn't be achieved but there would no longer be a denomination that existed for that purpose.

[Wayne Paul]

Wayne, I think this is a characterization that doesn't reflect a full understanding of the situation. The original problem with Bishops wasn't simply a view of the pastors it was equally a view of local churches. And you have obviously never been a pastor trying to bring about change if you think that pastors are the ones with all the power. I have been a pastor for twenty years trying to bring about change in my local church and districts. If you want to do that you take a lot of hits and bleed a lot of blood. While our system is far from perfect if you don't have pastor and people together on an issue you probably aren't going anywhere. Your statement makes it sound as if pastors are making all the decisions.


I don’t believe I suggested that the CotN become part of the UMC. I just identified a couple of roadblocks.

My history with the CotN spans some 56 years. I was raised in a Nazarene Parsonage, served on church boards in Washington State, Virginia, and Nebraska. I was even a member of the faculty at a Nazarene college. I do understand the basic differences between the denomination’s governance and the weakness of each. I do believe there are important reasons for the existence of the CotN.

All that said I have seen the full menbership pastoral “recall” disappear combined with multiple year renewals. I see pastors trying to dictate worship styles, failing to meet the needs of the members who have built the Church in order to interject the latest evangelical fad. I have seen the reverence during the musical prelude degraded by conversation to the point you would think you are in a “piano bar,” etc……

Ah, yes this is the ranting of one of the “aged ones” who feels that the church which he has loved has abandoned him.

[Roland Hearn]

I don’t believe I suggested that the CotN become part of the UMC. I just identified a couple of roadblocks.

No, sorry Wayne I was not particularly clear on that. I was basically responding to your post specifically on the issue of pastoral leadership and to the whole thread generically on the issue of church merger. I didn't intend to suggest that you were supporting a merger with UMC but that idea was mentioned in this thread.


My history with the CotN spans some 56 years. I was raised in a Nazarene Parsonage, served on church boards in Washington State, Virginia, and Nebraska. I was even a member of the faculty at a Nazarene college. I do understand the basic differences between the denomination’s governance and the weakness of each. I do believe there are important reasons for the existence of the CotN.

And yet you generalize about pastoral leadership that showed a degree of contempt. It would not be my suggestion that there are not problem pastors in many places but to suggest Throughout my life I have watched the Nazarene clergy consolidate power to the extent that it is almost impossible for a congregation to precipitate change if the pastor wants to stay. as one of the problems with merging with UMC and of the leadership of the church is an over simplification that a person with your experience should be want to avoid. I can assure you that there are many pastors that feel entirely powerless to affect change in a constructive way that achieves the goals of the church. And your statement here does suggest that it is the congregation that desires change and the pastor resists it where the rest of this post seems to suggest the opposite. It is never healthy to set up a group as the bogey men and take pot shots at the groups as a whole.


All that said I have seen the full menbership pastoral “recall” disappear combined with multiple year renewals.

Once again such a statement surprises me. It is the statement of someone that has a particular perspective as a result of personal experience that doesn't take into account the full details of the change. It was more than just pastors that made the change and I would think that you would be aware of that. The previous system has led to pastoral families put out of a church they faithfully served because of a recalcitrant power block and seen their lives devastated as a result, and that is a situation that happened in many places. In addition the former system had many issues that meant that it was unable to fully address the recall issues. Even under the old system it was possible to have an extended call. A move came into being to act with more grace in dealing with the pastoral assignment issue. No system is perfect but to suggest the current system was a power play on the part of pastors is to misrepresent the reality. In fact in the current system if there is broad unhappiness in the church rather than a few troubled individuals there actually is a very effective way of dealing with the problems that involve extended discussion and disclosure. Perhaps your situation in your current church is not a generally held feeling and if that is true even if there was a recall vote the pastor would probably get the recall.



I see pastors trying to dictate worship styles, failing to meet the needs of the members who have built the Church in order to interject the latest evangelical fad.

No doubt true but at the same time lay people resist change at the cost of the death of the church, is that really a better scenario. In a healthy church there is agreement in this process. You can get bad pastors and bad congregations to label one group as having exclusive claim to being the power block is again a misrepresentation of reality.


I have seen the reverence during the musical prelude degraded by conversation to the point you would think you are in a “piano bar,” etc……

Is that exclusively a pastoral problem?



Ah, yes this is the ranting of one of the “aged ones” who feels that the church which he has loved has abandoned him.

And Wayne that is the pain behind your attack, but your attack is about your situation it doesn't reflect the reality of the church nor does it address the issues of merger. You used this discussion to address your agenda and you are right in your observation only to a certain extent it isn't the truth of the denomination. There are many other issues that are problematic with respect to merger than power hungry pastors.

[Wayne Paul]

Roland,

Once again the Internet's lack of ability to show body language and vocal inflection has led to a stronger interpretation of my words then intended.

Respectfully,
Wayne

[Jim Franklin]

To quote Dr. Middendorf last week: At Pilot Point one of the southern leaders reached agreement with the merger by saying, "I haven't hugged a Yankee since before the war but I am a fixin' to do so right now." And did.

[Hal Paul]

All this talk about the CotN relationship with UMC & merger with other Holiness Churches prompted me to pull out my copy of Churches and Sects of Christendom by J. L. Neve, c. 1944, Lutheran Publishing House, Blair Nebraska. (yeah, I know, I'm a geek)

In the chapter on the Methodist Church Family, he discusses the Holiness Churches and has about 1 1/2 pages on the Church of the Nazarene. Regarding the relationship between the CON and then Methodist Church, he writes "The Church of the Nazarene wants to be separate from Methodism chiefly because, as they say, the Methodists are not anymore, as they once were, 'Arminianism on fire.' This they attribute to the degree in which Methodism of today has been making fundamental concessions to theological liberalism and with this to the world." (p. 365)

Check out the growth statistics in the years preceding the 1944 publication: "This is one of the larger bodies among the Holiness groups, claiming in 1936 a membership of 136,371 in 2339 churches and in 1942 180,243 members in 2898 churches." (p. 365)

He mentions the possibility of a merger between the Church of the Nazarene and the (then) Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America by commenting that "The Wesleyans feel the need of merging but there is indecision as to the direction in which such a movement should be taken. Fraternal delegates are being exchanged with the Church of the Nazarene and also with the Free Methodists." (p 353) And in the section on the Free Methodists he states "The Free Methodists and the Wesleyans cooperate in many ways, and a merger of these two and the Church of the Nazarene is a possibility in a not far distant future." (p. 354)

What I find fascinating is that what many Nazarenes said about Methodists in 1944, is still being echoed by their descendants today, and while I'm not sure what Neve meant by "not far distant future," I think he would be surprised that 64 years after penning those words, the three denominations are still separate entities.

I considered scanning and attaching the relevant pages to this post, but it appears that the copywright may still be active since his 1940 edition that Google has online has some pages blocked from view.

[John Kennedy]

4) That brings me to my third reason. If we were to join with the Methodists, it would be an absorption, rather than a merger. I'm not saying that would be bad, it just didn't have anything to do with my thought.
Thanks for your thoughts,
dp[/QUOTE]

Let me take you back, through the dim distant recesses of the past when there was an organization called the NYPS. In those days, the NYPS, especially in smaller churches, met before you evening service (you undoubtedly remember those). Frequently the topic for the meeting was taken from, if my recall is correct, something called the NYPS Journal (kind of like a Sunday School quarterly).

I can recall sometime in the early 60's being a part of a panel discussion regarding the merger of holiness churches. One of the obstacles to merger was that, to the FM's, Wesleyans, etc., it wouldn't be a merger but an absorption. "Swallowship rather than fellowship' was the term I recall.

IMO, any Naz-UMC union, aside from any of the other barriers, the 'swallowship not fellowship' factor would be incredibly difficult to overcome. (I nearly said 'insuperable', but I couldn't remember how to spell it.)

Merger efforts eventually almost take on a life of their own. The FM's and the Wesleyans have been making attempts at it for years. The closest they've gotten, IMO, has been in the joint development and production of two hymnals. That is no longer the case. The FM's did their own thing, hymnal-wise, about 20 years ago.

There's no logical reason why there shouldn't be a Naz/Wes/FM union. Maybe that's the reason there won't be.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Every time this discussion comes up on Naznet I throw in the question of mission, so I guess it's about time I do that again. How would such a merger help any of us accomplish mission? Mission has nothing to do with reallocation of funds, or vice versa. Argument for merger seemingly must get around this question. Consolidation and/or merger has rarely resulted in making more or better disciples.

This discussion is somewhat like telling McDonald's, Wendy's and Bruger King they should merge because they all "just sell hamburgers, anyway." There isn't anything unholy about a variety of presentations of the Gospel. It's kinda like saying, "We should consolidate Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Four different accounts make it sound like we don't know what really happened. Disparity relfects lack of unity."

nonsense

[Hans Deventer]

How would such a merger help any of us accomplish mission?

I'm sorry Dennis, I honestly don't think even mission, as great a goal as it is, is the main argument for a merger. I believe the true reason would have to be our Lord's prayer in John 17
20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
The fact that Jesus prays for this unity, should be enough motivation. And once we get there, we may find benefits in stewardship and hopefully a boost in credibility as well. I don't think it will harm a church if they take the words of the Lord seriously.

[Dennis M. Scott]

I'm sorry Dennis, I honestly don't think even mission, as great a goal as it is, is the main argument for a merger. I believe the true reason would have to be our Lord's prayer in John 17
20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
The fact that Jesus prays for this unity, should be enough motivation. And once we get there, we may find benefits in stewardship and hopefully a boost in credibility as well. I don't think it will harm a church if they take the words of the Lord seriously.


There apparently are some who feel that we can't be one without being in the same denomination. We already are part of the only one Kingdom. Agan, how is it that the authors of the Gospels opted for four different expressions of The Story?

My disatisfaction arises when all denominations try to reach the same tiny slice of populations. The four gospels weren't written primarily for the same audiences. To try to fit everyone into one denomination is the same tragedy as trying to make everyone enjoy the same music or preaching style. When any single denomination begins to say they are the only true group, they've gone over the line.

By the way, which make and model of automobile do you think the rest of us should join you in owning? Not fair? I'd same the same thing about putting forth the Lord's prayer to make us all one as logic to force us all into the same denomination. I'm not pushing for all the auto manufacturers to merge, are you? Inappropriate analogy? Not more than making "one Lord, one baptism" a call for denominational union.

Let's strive for what the Lord prayed, but that isn't a single denomination any more than a single accent or language.

As for the missional question not being appropriate, I disagree. If an effort of this magnitude in energy and effort isn't going to help us accomplish our primary objective, we might consider not engaging in it. If it is that important, let's just go ahead and join the eastern orthodox church, or the Roman church, or at least the Jerusalem church.

Let's avoid nasty conflict between denominations, but at this point, it doesn't appear that avoiding conflict would be a result of merger.

Sorry, but I've got to hit and run. Staff is waiting.

[Cindi Hammons]

Our local Methodist, a very fine godly man, recently dedicated a baby of a gay couple.

Barb, not trying to be snarky here, but....is that the baby's fault? I think God can and will bless that child regardless of the condition of it's "parents." And I know you agree with me on that. Is dedicating the child condoning the life of the couple? I don't know...it is something to think about.

[Crystal Lutton]

my thought regarding accomplishing mission is very much on the practical side. I live in a huge city where all around us non-denoms are opening up store fronts and denominational churches are struggling to keep their doors open or closing with their *traditions* driving them into the ground. For the groups (whether entire denoms or individual churches from a denom) who espouse holiness to merge together into something new and vibrant and alive might give the opportunity for sharing of facilities, updating of traditions, reworking what is old--new wineskins. If three small struggling churches in the same local area were willing to reevalute their traditional identity they could merge into one vibrant local community holiness church and start to be effective in their area. They could merge ideas, funds, facilities, all sorts of practical things.

[Randy McRoberts]

Crystal, I could see that working very well on a local level, particularly in the urban environment. That would be great progress.

On the denominational level, though, well ...

... If I had some bread, I'd make myself a bologna sandwich. If I had some bologna.

[Hans Deventer]

To try to fit everyone into one denomination is the same tragedy as trying to make everyone enjoy the same music or preaching style.

??? For a 1000 years, the church WAS one denomination. What was so terrible in the years up to 1054? Who says they made "everyone enjoy the same music or preaching style"?

When any single denomination begins to say they are the only true group, they've gone over the line.

Dennis, why did denominations come into existence? Because they were "one" with their parent bodies? Not quite. The reason was always a negative one.

By the way, which make and model of automobile do you think the rest of us should join you in owning? Not fair?

Not fair at all, indeed.

I'd same the same thing about putting forth the Lord's prayer to make us all one as logic to force us all into the same denomination. I'm not pushing for all the auto manufacturers to merge, are you? Inappropriate analogy? Not more than making "one Lord, one baptism" a call for denominational union.

I don't know many car manufacturers who only make one type of car, which would be the equivalent of "trying to make everyone enjoy the same music or preaching style." I would not complain if there were only one manufacturer who made good cars for a good price with a good variety. Small city cars, regular cars, SUV's, sports cars, convertibles etc etc.
The truth is of course (as you know) that even within our very own CotN, there are many worship and preaching styles.

Let's strive for what the Lord prayed, but that isn't a single denomination any more than a single accent or language.

I think the Lord had this idea in mind of one church in which there was a variety of people, who testified by their love to their being one with God and with each other. But we had to brake fellowship and create our denominations. I think that is sad and not what the Lord had in mind.

As for the missional question not being appropriate, I disagree.

I didn't say that, I said it wasn't the "main argument"

If an effort of this magnitude in energy and effort isn't going to help us accomplish our primary objective, we might consider not engaging in it. If it is that important, let's just go ahead and join the eastern orthodox church, or the Roman church, or at least the Jerusalem church.

Shall we start with some sister denominations in the holiness movement? We may need to get the hang of it before we become Eastern Orthodox.

[David Pettigrew]

I guess what it all boils down to really is that 100 years from now will there even be such a thing as a denomination? Why hold onto a label that is increasingly irrelevant?

I've heard all my life "It's not what's over the door of the church that makes you a Christian." Yet we cling to our denominational identity tenaciously.

Again, a merger doesn't have to be a legal corporate one. It could be a merger of purpose, or vision, or fellowship.

[Mark Woodward]

[QUOTE=
One thing the Wesleyan pastors would be unwilling to give up would be their far superior retirement packages.[/QUOTE]

Ok - I am willing to give up headquarters for a far superior retirement package!:laughing

[Mark Woodward]

Let's talk names:

Nazawesodist?
Methanazawes?
Wesamethazenes?

Perhaps something totally new?
Christ Followers....but then we would have to do it - and sounds like others are not.
Holy Merger....but then we would have to merge and be holy - sounds like two stumbling blocks...
What would our new name be?:)

[Kevin Rector]

Let's talk names:

Nazawesodist?
Methanazawes?
Wesamethazenes?

Perhaps something totally new?
Christ Followers....but then we would have to do it - and sounds like others are not.
Holy Merger....but then we would have to merge and be holy - sounds like two stumbling blocks...
What would our new name be?:)

I'd vote for the Wesleyan Holiness Church. Pretty descriptive I'd say, and the Wesleyan Church would probably like it.

[Greg Farra]

Dr. Diehl mentioned this subject at District Assembly. He didn't think it would happen, although he said that more cooperation would be welcome. After DA, there was to be a Holiness preaching series at Ohio Christian
University that would feature preachers from different Wesleyan denominations. I think they had some others planned at other locations. I think we could do a lot of cooperation without merging. After seeing what happened to Lutheranism after the forming of the ELCA, I would say be careful of what you hope for.

[David Pettigrew]

We could just change the name of all our churches to "Glory Barn, Inc."

[Michael Gentry]

I admit I skipped to the end and did not read all the replies. So if other's replied, I apologize. But to just mention a couple of things ...

David Pettigrew said earlier ... I think we can all agree that the only way any type of merger could happen is if everyone put aside personal agendas. A friend of mine who has friends in the Wesleyan, Free Methodist, and of course, Nazarene said that a serious discussion went on in the 1980's between the three groups. But the merger fell apart due to each having superintendents, publishing houses, etc., etc., and none budging on giving anything up.

Eric Frey said ... I am always amazed when these discussions that the United Methodist church is left out. If we want to talk mergers, the most logical (and least practical) is for all the "Wesleyan" to united with the United Methodists. I always hear that they are not "holiness enough." The issue is our stand on "Entire Sanctification." I have the last Methodist Discipline (1896) which as "Entire Sanctification" as a doctrine listed. It disappeared in the next discipline (1897), and perhaps the beginnings of the new holiness movement?

Just a thot.

Michael Gentry
www.dr-michael-r-gentry.faithweb.com

[Mark Woodward]

Perhaps we will have to wait and see how Article 10 might read in future before we can know who we might be able to merge with.
We might have to trade an "entire" for a petal of the "tulip".

[Gina Stevenson]

Let's talk names:

Nazawesodist?
Methanazawes?
Wesamethazenes?

Perhaps it's just b/c of the culture in which we live, but a couple of these sound too much like names of home-manufactured drugs ... the couple of them with "meth" in them. Say them outloud & see what they sound like! :rolleyes:

Perhaps something totally new?
Christ Followers....but then we would have to do it - and sounds like others are not.
Holy Merger....but then we would have to merge and be holy - sounds like two stumbling blocks...
What would our new name be?:)

Now, that first idea ... "we would have to do it" (?) ... we're already called that if we call ourselves "Christian," no? ;)

[Michael Gentry]

Gina:

When I pastored in Illinois we had a Free Methodist Church in the town I served in. I sugggested to the pastor once that he disconnect the light on one part of his sign and it would read "Free Meth Church." He could have begun a ministry to the drug culture. :)

I'm not sure what it would look like either .... Maybe "Free Wesleyan Nazarene?"

The "United Methodist Church" which I am sure many already know how they got their name from a merger many years ago. When the "UNITED Evangelical Brethern" and the "METHODIST Episcopal Church" joined together they kept part of both names ... thus, "United Methodist Church."

I do hope that if we unite with some other denominations in the future we don't do what they did ... according to the agreements in the merger their UMC Book of Discipline (same thing as our "Manual") must always keep the Articles of Faith of both denominations in the book. So, the have two sets of Articles of Faith.

Michael Gentry

[Carol Kane]

My husband Rick came up with a possible name:

The Free Weslyan Nazarene Church ??????

In 1989 GA we were present when it was brought up that the Indianapolis Star
as best as I remember had a headline that read: Church Of The Nazarene Merges With The Weslyan Church or something similar. Boy was that quickly corrected from the platform..

[Crystal Lutton]

this discussion of names has brought to mind the megachurch we used to attend called Word of Grace and I recently learned it merged with City Church of Scottsdale and now both campuses are called "City of Grace"

Every time I drive by my mind runs the gamut of reactions from "compound" to considering what their "population" must be now.

Totally OT I know, but when Juliet asks "what's in a name?" I think she underestimates the answer.

[Greg Farra]

I really don't see the overwhelming need to merge, especially if there's not full agreement on most everything. I could see us being more of an association, helping each other out and mutual ministry.

[Dave McClung]

I really don't see the overwhelming need to merge, especially if there's not full agreement on most everything. I could see us being more of an association, helping each other out and mutual ministry.

Have you ever thought about why businesses merge? Certainly, if it were left up to the managers, businesses would never merge. It is the shareholders who benefit, because when businesses merge, they can do the same amount of business with less overhead (that means managers).

The "shareholder" for a denomination is the Lord. Instead of thinking of all of the reasons we shouldn't merge, think of the reasons we should.

1. We could reduce the number of General Superintendents and Distirct Superintendents (by what ever title). Some of those people would actual return to pastoring, where they served so well.

2. We could reduce the number of support staff, allowing those people to go into the secular world where they would earn a much better living.

3. We could combine our educational institutions and allow the surplus faculty to go to secular schools where they could make a positive difference and earn twice the salary.

4. We could combine our World Mission teams and do even more good because a smaller percentage of the WEF (by whateever name) would go for overhead and more for front line missionaries.

5. Because of the larger number of local churches in close proximity, our zones and districts could be smaller (le'ts call them "clusters"). That would mean less driving, saving gasoline.

6. Those of us from the Church of the Nazarene would adopt a different way of matching churches and pastors. Whichever other system we adopted would beat the one we have.

7. At the local level there would be opportunities for struggling churches to merge to form a stronger one.

Frankly, I like the idea.

[Richard Call]

I have read this entire segment on the merger of the holiness denominations with great interest. First, I support such a merger. I feel it is important to tie the work of the Wesleyans, the Frees, and the Nazarenes together for the sake of strength by union.
I remember the discussions that happened in 1989 about this very subject.

Dr O. D. Emory, GS Emeritus of the Wesleyan Church, used to be my pastor in the early 1950.s. He has been a very dear personal friend. After he retired in 1994 I had the priviledge of going fishing with him. On one occasion I asked him what happened to the merger. He simply replied it was the fault of the Wesleyan GS's who didn't want to give up their status or positions.

Unfortunately, we deny the appeal of Jesus in his high priestly prayer that we might be one as he is one with His Father and that for political reasons.

[William Hunter]

I understand that our denominatin and the Wesleyan church had such discussions but that those discussions ended over the extremely high budgets we have as the main sticking point.




Has serious discussion ever taken place between the Nazarenes and the Wesleyans about merging? Perhaps the Free Methodists as well?

I don't know about the Free Methodists, but I know Nazarenes and Wesleyans are just mergers of other groups who combined resources so they could more effectively fulfill their mission.

Isn't that what the discussion of Nazarene renewal comes down to, really?

I mean, really, our stories, theology, and even government is so similar as to make not joining together seem silly. Such a decision could respark the holiness "movement", which hasn't actually "moved" around these parts in a generation or so (unless you count moving inward and downward.)

What disadvantage would there be in merging with other Wesleyan holiness denominations?

[Greg Farra]

Have you ever thought about why businesses merge? Certainly, if it were left up to the managers, businesses would never merge. It is the shareholders who benefit, because when businesses merge, they can do the same amount of business with less overhead (that means managers).

The "shareholder" for a denomination is the Lord. Instead of thinking of all of the reasons we shouldn't merge, think of the reasons we should.

1. We could reduce the number of General Superintendents and Distirct Superintendents (by what ever title). Some of those people would actual return to pastoring, where they served so well.

2. We could reduce the number of support staff, allowing those people to go into the secular world where they would earn a much better living.

3. We could combine our educational institutions and allow the surplus faculty to go to secular schools where they could make a positive difference and earn twice the salary.

4. We could combine our World Mission teams and do even more good because a smaller percentage of the WEF (by whateever name) would go for overhead and more for front line missionaries.

5. Because of the larger number of local churches in close proximity, our zones and districts could be smaller (le'ts call them "clusters"). That would mean less driving, saving gasoline.

6. Those of us from the Church of the Nazarene would adopt a different way of matching churches and pastors. Whichever other system we adopted would beat the one we have.

7. At the local level there would be opportunities for struggling churches to merge to form a stronger one.

Frankly, I like the idea.

Dave,

I'm not sold on the business model, because when you have mergers, people do lose their jobs. My wife went through this. The ELCA has agreements with other denominations that allow for shared ministry, clergy exchange, etc.

We have 5 districts in Ohio. The ELCA has three, and they are much larger than the Nazarenes. Points 1 and 5 seem to be in conflict. If you have less districts, then they will be larger. I don't have the numbers, but I don't think the number of Weleyan/Holiness churches would make us into a huge denomination.

As far as struggling churches merging, that is something we should be considering now.

I'm not sure the support staff and college faculty are looking to earn more money. If that was so, then they'd already be there. Most people in Christian work are not driven by money (except some notorious TV evangelists).

You did bring up some good points, Dave. We need to keep thinking outside the box.

[Greg Farra]

Dave,

Just to add, I'm not all that experienced or in the know about the whole Wesleyan/Holiness world. Maybe I'm a bit jaded after living through 15 years of the ELCA, which was a merger of 3 Lutheran denominations. There were major issues that were not dealt with before the merger, and it is a body that is fractured and has steadily declined in numbers nearly every year of it's existance. Perhaps I will change my mind. It is open. :basic01

[David Pettigrew]

Have you ever thought about why businesses merge? Certainly, if it were left up to the managers, businesses would never merge. It is the shareholders who benefit, because when businesses merge, they can do the same amount of business with less overhead (that means managers).

The "shareholder" for a denomination is the Lord. Instead of thinking of all of the reasons we shouldn't merge, think of the reasons we should.

1. We could reduce the number of General Superintendents and Distirct Superintendents (by what ever title). Some of those people would actual return to pastoring, where they served so well.

2. We could reduce the number of support staff, allowing those people to go into the secular world where they would earn a much better living.

3. We could combine our educational institutions and allow the surplus faculty to go to secular schools where they could make a positive difference and earn twice the salary.

4. We could combine our World Mission teams and do even more good because a smaller percentage of the WEF (by whateever name) would go for overhead and more for front line missionaries.

5. Because of the larger number of local churches in close proximity, our zones and districts could be smaller (le'ts call them "clusters"). That would mean less driving, saving gasoline.

6. Those of us from the Church of the Nazarene would adopt a different way of matching churches and pastors. Whichever other system we adopted would beat the one we have.

7. At the local level there would be opportunities for struggling churches to merge to form a stronger one.

Frankly, I like the idea.

Thanks for this great post. This was at the heart of the idea. Lower overhead=greater resources available=higher morale=more fruit.

As far as the discussion of a name goes, why not The Wesleyan Church (or the Wesleyan Community of Churches?) It seems to describe our distinctiveness well. Nazarenes and FMs already identify themselves as Wesleyans, right now.

[Susan Unger]

why not The Wesleyan Church (or the Wesleyan Community of Churches?)

I like the WCC name... It is faster to type than CotN, too.

[Hans Deventer]

As far as the discussion of a name goes, why not The Wesleyan Church (or the Wesleyan Community of Churches?) It seems to describe our distinctiveness well. Nazarenes and FMs already identify themselves as Wesleyans, right now.

Right now we are named after Someone I believe in. I don't believe in Wesley.

[Dave McClung]

Dave,

Just to add, I'm not all that experienced or in the know about the whole Wesleyan/Holiness world. Maybe I'm a bit jaded after living through 15 years of the ELCA, which was a merger of 3 Lutheran denominations. There were major issues that were not dealt with before the merger, and it is a body that is fractured and has steadily declined in numbers nearly every year of it's existance. Perhaps I will change my mind. It is open. :basic01

A lot of mergers in the business world that look good on paper don't work in real life. Look and the AOL/Time Warner merger.

If the organizations that are merging aren't healthy before the merger and the issues are resolved by the merger, then the resulting organization will be unhealthy too.

[Billy Cox]

Perhaps we will have to wait and see how Article 10 might read in future before we can know who we might be able to merge with.
We might have to trade an "entire" for a petal of the "tulip".

If I had to choose a petal of the calvinist tulip, it would be perseverance of the saints because it is the only that has a hopeful note.

I can sum up all of the other 'petals' with the phrase, "It sucks not to be in the elect."

[Jon Twitchell]

I'd definitely be willing to give up the international church commitment in favor of a world alliance of national churches. Makes sense to me.

This is worthy of discussion on its own...

Regardless of whether or not a merger is considered... let's not lose this idea right here.

[Ryan Scott]

Why are an international denomination and a worldwide alliance of national churches mutually exclusive? The problem is how far we are willing to give grace. I tend to think the answer is "very far," but I'm obviously not the only opinion on the matter.

[Jon Twitchell]

I don't know if they are (mutually exclusive) or not...

I just think that the distinction is worthy of discussion...

[Dave McClung]

Dave,

I'm not sure the support staff and college faculty are looking to earn more money. If that was so, then they'd already be there. Most people in Christian work are not driven by money (except some notorious TV evangelists).



I would certainly hope that the reason we have our colleges and universities isn't to provide employment for the faculty.

[Billy Cox]

Here's a name for the amalgam of holiness refugees that would result if the Wesleyans, Nazarenes and all such rag-tag groups got over themsleves.

"World Wesleyan Federation" - the main downside being that the domain name wwf.org is already taken. :basic04

[Susan Unger]

Here's a name for the amalgam of holiness refugees that would result if the Wesleyans, Nazarenes and all such rag-tag groups got over themsleves.

"World Wesleyan Federation" - the main downside being that the domain name wwf.org is already taken. :basic04

Oh, just too hysterical! :laughing And yet...it would fit so well :basic05

[Bruce Carriker]

I'd definitely be willing to give up the international church commitment in favor of a world alliance of national churches. Makes sense to me.

That's essentially what you have in the Anglican Communion...and it's a mess. The national churches in "western" nations are much more liberal than those in the "developing world", yet almost all the growth in the AC is coming from Africa, South America, and parts of Asia. Just as in the CofN, those churches which have the economic clout and those churches which are still growing are, by and large, not the same, and...again, just as in the CofN...the Golden Rule applies: Those who control the gold get to make the rules (or ignore them with impunity).

Being an "alliance" rather than a denomination, the Archbishop of Canterbury...the titular head of the church... has no real authority, other than to "suggest" that the ECUSA not ordain homosexuals or consecrate them as bishops. BUT, he has no authority to discipline the ECUSA, or the Church of Canada, or the Church of Australia, etc.

A "world alliance of national churches" may sound good, but its really like trying to herd cats - an ungovernable mess.

[Ryan Scott]

I agree with Bruce, although I'll take the optimistic road. It just seems to make sense that if we're living out the principles of the Church we will seek closer connection rather than separation. Certainly there is room for freedom within a committed international community.

[David Pettigrew]

I like the word "covenant", rather than "alliance" or even "communion". Each region could govern their own affairs, but would be bound by covenant to mutual mission, doctrine, etc., and agree to submit to the authority of the (one?) General Superintendent.

[Ryan Scott]

Essentially, what you're proposing is to remain united on the basic essentials (Section II) of the Manual, but allow for regional application of such things for differing contexts?

It seems like that is allowed under the current system, but is not put into practice that way. Some of that difficulty, especially in governance (Section IV) comes because the amendments to make governance more flexible are small, later additions to a really involved, complicated, very specific plan. That particular section could be quite a bit smaller to emphasize the flexibility inherent in the system.

The sticking point comes in dealing with section III (Covenant of Christian Conduct). I would be all for doing away with that section entirely as it is simply a cultural expression of the essentials outlined in Section II. However, it might be a worthy compromise to allow each region (probably more likely district) to form their own suggested interpretation in their context.

[Bill Evans]

If holiness denominations were to merge, then do we run the risk of the doctrine of holiness being perceived as a "sectarian" doctrine? As it stands now, the doctrine is shared by several different groups making it appear to be regarded more as the biblical doctrine it is than a sectarian idea. Part of the strength of the Pentecostal teaching is that it is shared by both denominations and independent churches. That being said, there is certainly more room for cooperation among the holiness denominations than there is now.

But why do we consider merger with others when we need to experience renewal ourselves?

[Billy Cox]

But why do we consider merger with others when we need to experience renewal ourselves?

This reminds me of the old Baptist church-planting mantra, "Divide and Multiply". It's a big part of the reason that there are so many darn Baptist churches around; in far more than 30 flavors...none of which have anything to do with each other.

Then there is my mantra of church mergers, "Add and Subtract". Put two anemic, struggling fellowships together and before long you will have just one anemic, struggling fellowship. I think it's pretty clever. :basic07

A merger wouldn't benefit the Church of the Nazarene, so it won't happen anytime soon. We are after all pretty good at looking out for our own interests.

[Jim Franklin]

We have a working relationship with the Salvation Army in the "Reflecting God" devotional and I believe that our Compassionate Ministries work with them at times so a gradual coming together to present a more united Wesleyan-Armenian force would likely result in the Kingdom's advancement. We can work more closely together even if we never merge.

[David Pettigrew]

Essentially, what you're proposing is to remain united on the basic essentials (Section II) of the Manual, but allow for regional application of such things for differing contexts?

It seems like that is allowed under the current system, but is not put into practice that way. Some of that difficulty, especially in governance (Section IV) comes because the amendments to make governance more flexible are small, later additions to a really involved, complicated, very specific plan. That particular section could be quite a bit smaller to emphasize the flexibility inherent in the system.

The sticking point comes in dealing with section III (Covenant of Christian Conduct). I would be all for doing away with that section entirely as it is simply a cultural expression of the essentials outlined in Section II. However, it might be a worthy compromise to allow each region (probably more likely district) to form their own suggested interpretation in their context.

I think the best kept secret in the church of the nazarene is that we already have a lot of freedom to do things differently. It's like the elephant on the chain. The old sermon illustration goes that trainers in India shackle baby elephants with a chain around their hind leg. When they grow up, all they have to do to keep them in place is put a small chain around their hind leg again. The elephants could easily pull it up and wander away, but they don't realize it. Is this making sense? I'm having an empty brain day again.

Anyway, some small changes in wording have been added to the Manual in recent years that allow us to do pretty much as we please as long as no one complains.

[David Pettigrew]

If holiness denominations were to merge, then do we run the risk of the doctrine of holiness being perceived as a "sectarian" doctrine? As it stands now, the doctrine is shared by several different groups making it appear to be regarded more as the biblical doctrine it is than a sectarian idea. Part of the strength of the Pentecostal teaching is that it is shared by both denominations and independent churches. That being said, there is certainly more room for cooperation among the holiness denominations than there is now.

But why do we consider merger with others when we need to experience renewal ourselves?

Bill, I think this is a thoughtful question, and a great concern to have. I posted last month about taking a vacation, and hearing holiness preached in a seeker friendly mega church and a traditional Episcopal (ECUSA) church. I think the holiness movement has had more influence than we believe.

I really do believe that joining forces would only serve to further promote that message to the rest of the Kingdom. It would reflect very positively on our message if we actually put it into practice by setting aside personal agendas.

The pentecostals are our spiritual children. Together, our two movements have served to keep both the purity and the power of holiness before the Church. And the Church looks at us and says "If y'all all have the Holy Spirit, why can't you agree on anything?"

[David Pettigrew]

This reminds me of the old Baptist church-planting mantra, "Divide and Multiply". It's a big part of the reason that there are so many darn Baptist churches around; in far more than 30 flavors...none of which have anything to do with each other.

Then there is my mantra of church mergers, "Add and Subtract". Put two anemic, struggling fellowships together and before long you will have just one anemic, struggling fellowship. I think it's pretty clever. :basic07

A merger wouldn't benefit the Church of the Nazarene, so it won't happen anytime soon. We are after all pretty good at looking out for our own interests.

I respectfully disagree with the premise that the CotN wouldn't benefit from a merger. We could learn a bunch about church planting and retirement benefits from the Wesleyans, just off the top of my head. Are you saying we're so huge that another half million or so wouldn't mean anything to us?

Never underestimate the power of excitement, morale, and good PR, all of which are potential benefits of a merger.

I learned the following today -
Vision - Plan = Dream
Vision + Plan = Reality

I agree with you that it's unlikely to happen. But it's a good dream.

[Ryan Scott]

I think the best kept secret in the church of the nazarene is that we already have a lot of freedom to do things differently. It's like the elephant on the chain. The old sermon illustration goes that trainers in India shackle baby elephants with a chain around their hind leg. When they grow up, all they have to do to keep them in place is put a small chain around their hind leg again. The elephants could easily pull it up and wander away, but they don't realize it. Is this making sense? I'm having an empty brain day again.

Anyway, some small changes in wording have been added to the Manual in recent years that allow us to do pretty much as we please as long as no one complains.


Yeah, I had Church Leadership and Administration last fall with a staff member from a large and growing Nazarene congregation. Their administrative structure was entirely different than anything in the Manual. The professor had a tough time figuring out how to compare it to the "traditional Nazarene polity" at all. Then the guy said they had pretty much copied it from an even larger, more prominent Nazarene congregation.

I think there is a lot more freedom out there than people realize.

[David Pettigrew]

So, let's say there's a consensus that, ultimately, a merger with the Wesleyans and Free Methodists (and perhaps the Church of Christ in Christian Union, Church of Christ Holiness, Christian and Missionary Alliance, the Evangelical Church, etc) would be a good thing.

If it takes twenty years for significant change, as has been oft sited on this board, would bringing forth a resolution to propose some sort of conversation with other holiness groups be in order for Orlando, knowing it had very little momentum? I'm talking about planting the seed at this point, really. Maybe this already happens every four years and I'm just ignorant of it.

[Ryan Scott]

There are usually representatives from a number of the other holiness denominations present at GA who get recognized as special guests.

I know it's easier to have them in Indianapolis because there are so many headquartered close by, but there might be some in Orlando.

[David Pettigrew]

I've been reading through some of these threads today to see how my thoughts have evolved. I found this article by Drury and remembered this thread.


Should Wesleyans Merge?

Wesleyans have recently been involved in low-level flirting with some other denominations. That has triggered rumors of impending marriage with one or another of our friends. Of course, the rumors are blown out of proportion. Wesleyans have not even held hands, let alone kissed or dated any of these denominations. But the rumors bring the opportunity to talk about merger anyway and since I wrote about whatever I’ve thought or heard about that week here goes a column on merger. So, should the Wesleyan church merge with another denomination and if so, who should we marry?

1. Should we marry Nazarenes?

Nazarenes are the best looking bride among our friends. She is strong, well off, has great leadership gifts, is well educated, and is the prettiest girl at the prom. Sure, we grumble about her conceited attitude but we have to admit she is pretty! Alas! We’re not getting to first base with her. We’ve made a few moves and given a few “meaningful glances” --even offered some hints. She seems uninterested. (I think she knows how pretty she is and thinks we’re rather drab.) Also, her family is really strong. Would we get gulped up by them and be forced to go to their home for single every Thanksgiving and Christmas? Could it be an equalitarian marriage of any sort? (I bet we couldn’t even get a hyphened name and might have to adopt her name?) And, boy she’s high-maintenance. Her tax rate on local churches could lead us into poverty. But my goodness, she’s so pretty… and living with such beauty in poverty might be OK?! I bet if she fluttered her eyes our way and offered to make our marriage at least appear equalitarian we’d melt into a pile of goo and start collecting boxes to move to Kansas City!

2. Free Methodists?

It might make more sense for “plain folks to marry plain folks.” Free Methodists are plain like Wesleyans. We’re similar in background and size and we almost got married once before (early 1970’s). Admittedly, she’s not as appealing as the cheer-leader Nazarene and she doesn’t make our hearts thump. But, then again, we’re not such hunks ourselves, are we? On the local level Free Methodists and Wesleyans can’t be told apart. I bet we could build a solid marriage if we got together. The only hitch is our parents. Free Methodist Bishops have often treated Wesleyan General Superintendents with disdain. And since all denominational mergers are actually “arranged marriages” I suppose this one won’t get arranged—at least until the parents like each other more. But if we ever did marry I bet we could make a solid marriage with Free Methodists of the non-heart-throbbing kind.

3. Conservative Holiness denominations?

I suppose some might say we ought to hitch up with an old plain home town girl—one of those conservative holiness denominations who still dresses like they did when we were kids. There are some of these gals still available and some are tiring of their single life. I suppose if we married one of these she’d keep us Wesleyans on a tighter leash. NO more movie-going or card-playing and she’d stomp her foot and refuse to allow us to bring alcohol into her house. But falling in love again with someone you used to live with is hard. She angrily moved out (1960’s) and her exit was messy and hurtful. The divorce was final I’m afraid. Not much chance for a marriage here. Besides, we never see each other any more.

4. United Methodists?

A long time ago we used to be married to the Methodists but we left. She liked us fine but we got mad and stormed out of her house (1843). She did not even cry. I think she said something like, “I did not bid him leave and I shall not bid him to return.” She promptly forgot us and moved on with life. We both have changed so much since then (she more then we). Our journeys have taken us so far apart I doubt we could find common ground now. If we called her cell, she’d probably say, “Wesleyan who?” Then again, recently we’re getting more like her. She’s getting more conservative while we are getting more liberal. Who knows, maybe we will some day meet in the middle. Not soon.

-----------

Maybe we won’t get married after all. We’ll keep “playing the field” and stay single for a while yet.

Rather than marrying maybe we will try adopting. There are a number of tiny holiness or Methodist-type denominations out there tired of living with their mother. We Wesleyans are catholic-spirited, aren’t narrow-minded, we welcome others into the family; we’re equalitarian in approach, and to boot we have an exceeding low tax rate (that keeps getting lower). Maybe instead of marrying the homecoming queen we’ll adopt these kids—maybe several! And once we have a bigger family and a smaller tax rate the prom queen we secretly hold in our heart might take notice? Who knows?

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I found this the other day:

http://wesleyananglican.blogspot.com/2008/08/general-assembly-resolution-merger.html