I really appreciate your reflections, Logan. I think there are deeply important aspects of institutions that too easily get dismissed in the name of the things you've mentioned here. Maybe I've just been reading too much Hauerwas recently, though. Keep it coming, friend.
In your contribution to the 75 common causes ;) what would you say is the Wesleyan cause? Whether that be if we boiled it back to our origins, or what you evaluate our current position in time to be?
This is well articulated here, Logan. I think your questioning of the "organic vs. structural" dichotomy on growth is a welcome one--and an oversimplification of how things actually work. There is a pendulum at work perhaps, and both extremes may be problematic? Or perhaps it's no pendulum at all and all gardens need fences and weeding, even though by definition they are organic.
A story from our own Wesleyan history may illustrate. I went to South Korea to speak at a university and tour some churches there, while also going to a conference of the Korean Evangelical Holiness Church where I represented TWC and shared greetings of a sort. Why? Well, it's because their denomination was started by Pilgrim Holiness missionaries long ago, who went to Korea, some of whom lost their lives in the effort, and then after many Koreans came to Christ and formed churches and became pastors and missionaries themselves, the Pilgrim folk left. Some went back to the states, some went to new countries to reach other unreached people groups. They didn't form a Pilgrim Church of Korea, they just left and let the Koreans figure it out on their own.
This is a story that is inspiring to the "just let it be organic" folk, of course, and those who love the Crazy Pilgrim Stories of Your (myself included). However, it is notable that once "we" left, the Koreans themselves adopted a bunch of structure and institutionalism, and in fact I would dare say they are way more structured and institutionalized than we are in the subsequent inherited denomination we are now in. I can say that if they had STAYED in our denomination and we still had direct oversight of that church there they would be less structured, but I might also suggest they would be much smaller, a season of being "on their organic own" may have spawned them into the monolith they have become eventually (in the life cycle of perhaps all organizations.)
This is why we use the "5 Phases of Global Partners" as a guide to ensure we are organic enough in each season to ensure we don't control the Spirit, while also allowing for more structure to evolve when needed, but also to know when we ourselves cannot dictate that structure in phases 4 and 5, when they should begin to do so (they = national leaders, not westerners). It's all a bit complicated, of course, but I dig it as an aspiration that is the exact opposite of colonialism.
I don't think I've ever seen the 5 Phases from Global Partners, but I like it. Amber Cook suggested on a different post that we ought to be getting wisdom on fostering and sustaining momentum from some of our Wesleyan brothers and sisters in other contexts; maybe the South Korean church should be one such set of advisors.
This coming January Wesleyan folk from around the world gather in South Africa for the International Conference of The Wesleyan Church. Those from North America are equal delegates to this conference, which is hosted and run by Africans (who have been perhaps the most effective Wesleyan missionaries of the last 30 years, one might claim, and certainly have experienced what social scientists would call "Movement-level growth" in many areas, such as Mozambique.) All that to say, asking our brothers and sisters already at that thing in February what they learned along the way seems like a good call.
The South Korean connections I made were good and I retain some friendships there with a few scholars. But to be honest their work is so old and stolid, it reminds me of our own. Speaking at their university felt like speaking at IWU or Houghton for me, except that their auditorium was bigger, and most of their churches were bigger than ours ;-) (Certainly their pulpits were bigger! I felt swallowed up behind them and I'm a big guy)
I would love to hear YOUR answers (and others’ answers) to the three questions you have posed. Here are a couple of my initial thoughts.
1. I would be concerned if our shared vision didn’t include biblical holiness. Our Wesleyan understanding of the transformation possible in the lives of individual believers which then must and naturally overflows into social holiness has set us apart from the beginning. I believe that will be essential to future movement as well.
2/3. If it weren’t for our institutional structure, we would not have our universities. I know if it weren’t for IWU, I would likely have left TWC—not because I had a bad experience necessarily, but just because I didn’t have an understanding of the gifts TWC brings to the wider Church until my time at IWU. I believe our schools are strategically placed catalysts of our movement.
Answering questions is so much harder than asking questions, Amber, come on now.
Like you, I think holiness could be restated in compelling fashion. The heart of the holiness message is about freedom and life, the possibility of leaving behind all those things that are slowly killing you. You are not doomed to sabotage your relationships and your own happiness, you are not stuck repeated the same dead-end patterns. We need to move away from purity and abstinence as definitive for holiness and focus on the fullness of life that is possible.
I really appreciate your reflections, Logan. I think there are deeply important aspects of institutions that too easily get dismissed in the name of the things you've mentioned here. Maybe I've just been reading too much Hauerwas recently, though. Keep it coming, friend.
Logan!
In your contribution to the 75 common causes ;) what would you say is the Wesleyan cause? Whether that be if we boiled it back to our origins, or what you evaluate our current position in time to be?
This is well articulated here, Logan. I think your questioning of the "organic vs. structural" dichotomy on growth is a welcome one--and an oversimplification of how things actually work. There is a pendulum at work perhaps, and both extremes may be problematic? Or perhaps it's no pendulum at all and all gardens need fences and weeding, even though by definition they are organic.
A story from our own Wesleyan history may illustrate. I went to South Korea to speak at a university and tour some churches there, while also going to a conference of the Korean Evangelical Holiness Church where I represented TWC and shared greetings of a sort. Why? Well, it's because their denomination was started by Pilgrim Holiness missionaries long ago, who went to Korea, some of whom lost their lives in the effort, and then after many Koreans came to Christ and formed churches and became pastors and missionaries themselves, the Pilgrim folk left. Some went back to the states, some went to new countries to reach other unreached people groups. They didn't form a Pilgrim Church of Korea, they just left and let the Koreans figure it out on their own.
This is a story that is inspiring to the "just let it be organic" folk, of course, and those who love the Crazy Pilgrim Stories of Your (myself included). However, it is notable that once "we" left, the Koreans themselves adopted a bunch of structure and institutionalism, and in fact I would dare say they are way more structured and institutionalized than we are in the subsequent inherited denomination we are now in. I can say that if they had STAYED in our denomination and we still had direct oversight of that church there they would be less structured, but I might also suggest they would be much smaller, a season of being "on their organic own" may have spawned them into the monolith they have become eventually (in the life cycle of perhaps all organizations.)
This is why we use the "5 Phases of Global Partners" as a guide to ensure we are organic enough in each season to ensure we don't control the Spirit, while also allowing for more structure to evolve when needed, but also to know when we ourselves cannot dictate that structure in phases 4 and 5, when they should begin to do so (they = national leaders, not westerners). It's all a bit complicated, of course, but I dig it as an aspiration that is the exact opposite of colonialism.
Relevant: https://www.globalpartnersonline.org/5-phases/
I don't think I've ever seen the 5 Phases from Global Partners, but I like it. Amber Cook suggested on a different post that we ought to be getting wisdom on fostering and sustaining momentum from some of our Wesleyan brothers and sisters in other contexts; maybe the South Korean church should be one such set of advisors.
This coming January Wesleyan folk from around the world gather in South Africa for the International Conference of The Wesleyan Church. Those from North America are equal delegates to this conference, which is hosted and run by Africans (who have been perhaps the most effective Wesleyan missionaries of the last 30 years, one might claim, and certainly have experienced what social scientists would call "Movement-level growth" in many areas, such as Mozambique.) All that to say, asking our brothers and sisters already at that thing in February what they learned along the way seems like a good call.
The South Korean connections I made were good and I retain some friendships there with a few scholars. But to be honest their work is so old and stolid, it reminds me of our own. Speaking at their university felt like speaking at IWU or Houghton for me, except that their auditorium was bigger, and most of their churches were bigger than ours ;-) (Certainly their pulpits were bigger! I felt swallowed up behind them and I'm a big guy)
This is incredibly helpful, Logan!
I would love to hear YOUR answers (and others’ answers) to the three questions you have posed. Here are a couple of my initial thoughts.
1. I would be concerned if our shared vision didn’t include biblical holiness. Our Wesleyan understanding of the transformation possible in the lives of individual believers which then must and naturally overflows into social holiness has set us apart from the beginning. I believe that will be essential to future movement as well.
2/3. If it weren’t for our institutional structure, we would not have our universities. I know if it weren’t for IWU, I would likely have left TWC—not because I had a bad experience necessarily, but just because I didn’t have an understanding of the gifts TWC brings to the wider Church until my time at IWU. I believe our schools are strategically placed catalysts of our movement.
Answering questions is so much harder than asking questions, Amber, come on now.
Like you, I think holiness could be restated in compelling fashion. The heart of the holiness message is about freedom and life, the possibility of leaving behind all those things that are slowly killing you. You are not doomed to sabotage your relationships and your own happiness, you are not stuck repeated the same dead-end patterns. We need to move away from purity and abstinence as definitive for holiness and focus on the fullness of life that is possible.
I think institutional resources can and should be put behind rallying a movement around that message. I mentioned this elsewhere, but it is really interesting to me that in the "Wesley is Fire" article in Christianity Today (https://www.christianitytoday.com/2024/09/wesley-is-fire-now-methodist-turn/?fbclid=IwY2xjawFWdzZleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHWa0Bp0emyeETW2hhgvOQdEsQ7aR6HofOjae6eHOXG89BBIqcH4qAPsqBA_aem_8P2HHDqDvQYg7PagcrSznA), they are highlighting a grassroots resurgence of Wesleyan theology, but attributing it to institutional entities like Seedbed and Firebrand Magazine.