Other "Thinking Drafts" and writing by Keith Drury -- http://www.indwes.edu/tuesday .

From the book "A New Thing" edited by Alan Nelson and written by a collection of thinkers & doers in the "holiness movement"

 About 20 years ago it was popular to talk about the "demise of denominations." One well known author even published a book announcing their death. Of course, he was right to a degree. And, like an aging old woman gathering plastic bags for her "final exit," some denominational leaders started downsizing toward death, enabling a self-fulfilling prophecy. On the other hand, denominations, including the holiness denominations, are still around after 20 years have passed, though they have far less punch than they once had. Or, perhaps they have a different punch today. What has happened to denominations in the last two decades or so and how has that affected the role of the general church in the holiness movement? What are the factors in the local church which affect the general church?

One can not examine the role of holiness denominations in the 21st century, until we know where we are and where we’ve come from. Those who ignore the past and present cannot predict the future. So, where have we come these last 20 years? What are the realities of holiness denominationalism these last two decades? How has the landscape already changed and what factors do we contend with? Why is it that many holiness church members do not show the same "denominational loyalty" we took for granted in the past? Here are nine factors:

The research keeps showing that Baby Boomers and busters/Xers have far less "brand loyalty" to denominations. At first this alarmed denominations. But it encouraged local holiness churches that reaped a harvest of quite a few Lutherans, reformed, Methodists, and Charismatics who were willing to give up their former brand and join holiness churches. But it has a greater effect on the denomination than the local church. These Boomers have now gotten on the board and into leadership and their casualness about brands is now affecting the general level of the church.

Holiness churches still get people saved, but the proportion of conversion growth to transfer growth has changed. An increasing number of our members are transfers and have not been saved "out of the raw." They came to us after attending another denomination first. In fact, many of the transfer members did not get saved at all, but oozed in with a testimony about present faith, if not a real specific datable "conversion." First generation converts saved "off the street" tend to be more loyal to their denomination than transfer members. Transfers will salute the denominational flag, but they don't sing the denomination's star spangled banner quite as robustly. They split their loyalties among several denominations, including their present one, and former one.

Further, members transferring today often retain some loyalty (and doctrines too) from their former denomination. Today people choose a church on other factors, not doctrine. If they were reformed when they moved to town, they probably looked for a church "like the church where we lived before." By this they usually mean the "feel" or worship style of their favored former church. They wind up in a Nazarene or Free Methodist church which "feels just like First Lutheran where we came from." They like the services, but they keep their "first wife" in their heart still. They are loyal, but loyal to two denominational spouses.

A Big Mac is a Big Mac pretty well anywhere in the country. Around the world, in fact. But a Nazarene is not a Nazarene anywhere you go. Neither is a Free Methodist or a Wesleyan. People discover this when they move to a new town. Perhaps they attended the local Free Methodist church in New York and loved the services. They move to Pennsylvania and look up the local Free Methodist church expecting to find a similar church. Are they ever surprised! In fact, when they write home to their former pastor, they say, "We found a church exactly like your church -- it is a Baptist church." In fact they are right -- except in doctrine (and one can not say even that for sure) they are likely to find greater similarities between their former Free Methodist church and their present Baptist church than they did between the two churches with the same brand names.  

We have always had diversity, but it is broader today. As people see this diversity, their desire to support the "common cause" declines. They are willing to be loyal to the Wesleyan church, but they are not sure what a Wesleyan is. Actually, members like this (and sometimes pastors too) will sometimes admit they have a greater "common cause" with certain churches from other denominations than with their own denomination’s churches. This is especially glaring among the "super churches" where there seems to be a greater common ground and shared mission with other super churches outside their own denomination than with the smaller churches within their own denominations.

The children of denominational loyalists have their own loyalty, but usually at an intensity a bit less than their parents. As holiness churches have raised up new generations of Nazarenes, Wesleyans, and Free Methodists are loyal to the entire denomination, but not with the loyalty of their parents, especially if their parents were "saved off the streets."

Certainly the dominant American political value-shift of the last quarter century is a mistrust of central authority. It is not just a Republican thing, for even today’s democrats sound more conservative and small-government oriented than yesterday’s Republicans. Big government is bad, and decentralized "states rights" values are good. Period. But, there is another factor. In the last 20 years the Republican conservative anti-big government mood has prevailed in holiness churches. In many Sunday school classes small government decentralization is as sacredly held doctrine as holiness (and perhaps a more common topic of conversations). Holiness people, along with most other Evangelicals, have come to believe that national headquarters are wasteful bureaucratic centers, the work of which should be done nearer to grass roots. As for "International centers" (United Nations, etc.) They assume even more waste. It is a hard day to be in the headquarters of a denomination when leaders get painted with the same brush as congress and the White House.

Though this is an extension of the political mood, it deserves its own heading. Americans (and Canadians too, though perhaps less so) believe that central government spends too much money and that local folk have to pay too much in taxes. Both Republicans and Democrats have sounded the call to cut taxes and "give relief" to the front line taxpayer. Indeed, most holiness church people think it is a good thing to lower the obligations to national entities and "leave the money in the grass roots" where it will be spent the most efficient way for the best things. Can they divorce their assumptions about government from church government? Many church leaders hoped this value would be confined to politics, and wouldn’t leak into the average member’s view of the church. Their hopes were not realized. Most local church members take a similar view on denominational obligations as they do on taxes. "We should pay less so we can do the "real" ministry of the church at the grass roots." In fact, they even will call their denominational obligations "taxes" when they are speaking to each other, though not publicly.

In the last 20 years over 1000 holiness churches have popped up everywhere. For the first time in history churches have appeared who owe in excess of $100,000 for district/conference and general obligations. While 15% of less is less, and 15% of more is more, when it translates into dollars it is more shocking. In fact, for most laity, when the churches' obligations reach a full time salary of a staff member, they begin to ask questions about this obligation. Some super church’s wonder if they "need" a district or headquarters. Many super churches take a "do it yourself" approach in providing the things a denomination used to. They no longer limit their pastoral search to their own denomination’s schools, (and maybe not even to their own denomination). Senior pastors say they get little help filling staff positions from the denomination, and they sometimes feel that their own printed materials are superior to the denomination’s.  

Regardless, the super churches have changed the picture forever. Some holiness denominations have considered (or passed) adaptations of "maximum taxes" on a church. That is, when the church’s obligations reach a certain point, they quit paying "budget" on the rest of their income. In fact, in some cases, the super churches have become publishers and programmers, providing to smaller churches (we should perhaps say, "average" churches) the resources and training traditionally supplied by denominations.

We have had para-church organizations as long as the holiness denominations have existed, but their power has never been so mighty. The church growth movement swept through the holiness churches in the 1970's and 1980's with such might that they began to influence local churches more than their own headquarters. Denominational leaders were often playing catch up. In fact, denominations once had an "almost-exclusive franchise" in leading their people. There were camp meetings, training events, denominational programs, Celebrations, and "denominational distinctives" which people dutifully accepted. People didn’t need to go to Promise Keepers, they had General Conference! Perhaps as much as 90% of the influence on local members came from their own denomination. Denominations controlled much of what their people heard, what they read, which speakers they followed, which programs they sponsored, and which doctrine they believed.

Obviously, this day has passed. It is a matter of access. Individual members today have better access to all kinds of influences beyond their own denomination. While a loyal denominational member of the past might pick up some books at an independent camp meeting, or may have subscribed to an "independent" magazine, still, most of the influence on this member in the 1950's was from his denomination and local church.

Not so, now. The average member has access through TV and radio to Robert Schuller, Charles Stanley, Chuck Swindoll, and Pat Robertson, and can listen to Jan and Paul Crouch or Jim Dobson every single day. And that doesn’t even count the growing influence of the Internet, where a growing number of non-holiness organizations like bible.org give away resources and curriculum materials to holiness churches who teach from them unknowingly (or not caring about the doctrine).

And, of course, most of the para-church people have written books which have become the staples of many churches' Sunday school classes once dominated by denominational curriculum. Denominational leaders have tried to head off the use of non-denominational curriculum, but eventually softened their warnings by marketing the same authors they formerly warned against, sold through their own publishing houses. Indeed holiness people now excerpt these non-holiness writers for chapters in our own topical studies, for we have figured if the grass roots wants to study such writers, we might as well be the one selling it to them. By selecting, at least we can get the bland and doctrinally non-offensive writings.

You can’t blame them. The extraordinary growth of the local Christian bookstore has given the individual Christian access to a virtual plethora of books and music influencing how he or she thinks. Denominational materials now have to compete with all kinds of materials nearer to home. And now the Internet has arrived with broad access to a worldful of (often free) materials and denominational (and independent) publishers are now sent scrambling again. The truth is, there are more non-denominational influences on today’s holiness church than ever in history. This affects loyalty to the general level.

We have YFC, Campus Crusade, Navigators, InterVarsity, Day of Discovery, Bill Gothard, Bible Study Fellowship, InJoy, SonLife Ministries and dozens of others. But what about Promise Keepers? This exploding para church organization may have accomplished in a few years what denominational officials could not do in a century with men. And new organizations are birthed daily. Among the ministerial students I teach, more than half declare their eventual intention to start some sort of para church organization and do itinerant speaking, singing, or consulting work. Where did they get this? It is no wonder they come to college with such a dream. In the last twenty years that seems to be where the action is. There are thousands of Wesleyan or Nazarene men more loyal and dedicated to Promise Keepers than they are to their own denomination. All of these organizations are now providing conventions, programming and materials (and, more important, leadership) which denominations once supplied.

The distinctions between denominations is just not as sharp as it once was. Calvinists have moved a bit toward us, and we have moved over to meet them near the middle. Same for Catholics. Holiness people no longer believe all Catholics go to hell, or that Lutherans all need saved. We’ve eased up a bit on our "distinctive" and traded some away for a sense of unity with the larger evangelical (and perhaps, main line) church. The flavor of our soup doesn’t taste that much different than the others. And local members don't see that much difference any more. So, why should they be more loyal to their own denomination than any other? "Aren’t we are all saying the same thing," they ask.

So, having examined the factors that influence the present state of the general church, what will be the role of the general church among the holiness denominations in the future? Can it survive? How will it function differently? Is there any role for the general church in the future if these trends continue? I think so. There are at least six critical roles for the general church:

Sometimes pastors go bad. They cheat on their spouse, or swipe money from their church. Who will step in, Dobson? Though it is not a romantic assignment, it is necessary. The denomination that fails to discipline their own pastor's sin will eventually collapse, and probably should.

 This is especially critical with the advent of the super church. There are some situations (though most of us don’t want to admit it) where a super church is so large, so powerful, so dwarfing the district, and contributes so much money to the district and denomination, that stepping in to remove the pastor take guts that some denominational officials may lack. But it is necessary. If such a pastor commits adultery (or even high indiscretion) the temptation to leaders is to ignore it or cover it up. More likely, figure out a way to provide some quiet and temporary low grade discipline which leaves the pastor in his position where his personality will keep the people tithing and the denomination from having to pick up the huge debt without his personal following. This is the role of the denomination.

 But such discipline has happened, even in the holiness denominations, much to the credit of the leaders willing to take such gutsy risks. Denominational leaders deserve our prayers and support in these situations. Just because a pastor is "doing the job" does not exempt the person from moral obligations. Denominational leaders must act. For, who else will do it?

 While such discipline is largely the function of a district in the holiness denominations, we all know who sets the standard, which sets the limits, who advises the superintendents, and who makes such discipline happen -- the General Superintendents. Certainly, we all hope for spiritual and moral revival in the 21st century. But if it does not come, and things go the way they have been going, such discipline may be one of the primary roles of the denomination in the 21st century. It will take guts. For the denomination that can not maintain a moral ministry deserves to disappear.

Who will step in when the church is headed the wrong way and say unpopular things? Paul Crouch? Jim Dobson? Face it, any ministry directly dependant on donations will be careful to avoid unpopular positions with its supporters. (Not unpopular positions per se, for Dobson adopts many positions unpopular with gays, or NOW, but I mean here unpopular positions to the listeners and supporters).

 Here is where the "tax" system pays off. (I know, we aren’t supposed to think of it as a tax, but a contribution... but for this purpose, "tax" is the better term). Denominations must generally please their members or they too will lose support, but it is not so immediate and dramatic as in para church organizations. (One insider reports that when their TV ministry took the prophetic tack, their income took a 40% nose dive in one month).

 So, who will stand up and say embarrassing truths about the Wesleyans or Free Methodists, or the Nazarenes? Who will scold us for our materialism? For our lusting after the gods of success? For our tendency to lie about numbers on our reports or build our own ministerial careers? Who will call attention to our self-satisfied churches that care little for the lost and have arranged the entire church budget to provide comfort for themselves? Who will say the hard things a church needs to hear? Who will give the correction? Who will serve up the rebukes we need from time to time? Don’t expect to hear them from TV. If we hear these words at all in the 21st century, my hunch is it will have to come from bold denominational officials who care little about vote tallies, income or popularity, but are willing to scold their churches when they need to hear the truth. This is a definite role for denomination leaders in the 21st century. It wont be about "packets and programs" but about this kind of leadership.

Though denominational Bible Colleges, colleges, and universities no longer have an exclusive hold on training lay people and ministers in their denomination, the denominational educational industry is so large, so powerful, and has so many votes in conferences, that it is likely that it will continue to be one of the major things 21st century holiness denominations do. The Free Methodists have low cost plan of support, but some argue that, upon examining the beyond-local-church giving for the Nazarenes and Wesleyans, the findings show that education is indeed the number one priority right now, and maybe even the second priority too. Whatever, training ministers has always been one of the last things a denomination gives up. Most of the attempts by super churches to supplant this work have fizzled. It will likely last. Indeed, a denomination that can not train its own ministers usually ceases to be a denomination, or is only pretending to be one.

If the so-called Xer generation has its way, a denominations primary role will be with pastors, not the laity. No where does this become more critical than in the maintenance of a sound and funded pension program under the stewardship of leaders in which pastors have total trust. But the financial scene has changed. Individual responsibility has emerged in the last decade, and the assumptions that a denomination should not "care for" its ministers is dying. Rather the rising assumption in culture is that a denomination should help ministers use part of their income to provide for themselves. As we approach the 21st century an increasing number of denominations will opt for IRA type options where ministers feel some control of "their own" retirement funds. Nevertheless, denominational pension plans are giant funds and the Boomers who have amassed hefty amounts in these denominational funds will retire in the second decade of the 21st century. If the fund is a good one, they will convince the generations to come of its value. This is certainly a role of the general church. Maybe even a fund will arise which joins several holiness denominations together.

 Then there are the loan funds. One of the success stories of denominations has been these revolving loan funds. Though they are sometimes criticized for rates as high as banks, or for refusing loans to shaky churches, generally they have been a sound success for denominations, and will probably play a major role in the 21st century. What many church officials could not do in new churches through advice and promotions, they now can do through loans. The big finance role of the general church will not diminish, but perhaps grow in the 21st century. But it has to be done with no hanky panky, and it better appear fair, or the troops will revolt.

The power of evangelical denominational publishing houses have been sliding for decades. The independents have cornered some of the market. The loyalty factors mentioned above hurt denominational "cash cows" like curriculum sales. When the Anderson Church of God publishing venture collapsed, other holiness bodies were alarmed. Free Methodists had already quit printing, but have kept up publishing (Even the Southern Baptists, Americas largest denomination does not print). Wesleyans made an alliance with David C. Cook to sell Cook curriculum adapted a bit toward the Wesleyan position. Nazarenes launched heavy efforts to retain local church loyalty and reach out to market to non-Nazarene churches. The last decade has been one of turmoil for holiness publishers.

 Any denominational publisher who made a profit (among non-profit organizations called "revenue in excess of expenses") in the last ten years should be affirmed and rewarded handsomely. On top of all this comes the Internet with free resources materials (and some for a minor fee) where the local church becomes the "printer" of materials produced and posted on the Internet (often with little or no doctrinal examination at all). General publishers face rocky waters in the 21st century.

 But who will publish specialty resources? Will Gospel Light make good membership materials for Nazarenes? Will David C. Cook produce solid books on holiness for Wesleyans? Will Zondervan help Free Methodists teach their view on Communion or picture in their curriculum women in ministry? Not likely. In the 21st century we may see general church publishers reversing their trend of "going generic to sell to a broader base" by getting more specific like cable TV has, "narrow casting" their products to a denominational niche, instead of trying to sell a watered down product to Baptists. Whatever they do, it will be a big challenge. But there remains a vital role publishing specialty resources.

And there is still a role for denomination leadership in the 21st century. True, it will be shared with Promise Keepers and other evangelical media individuals, but it will still be there. It will no longer come with the title, but will have to be earned. Wisdom and boldness will increasingly be the characteristics we want from our general leaders. Being a general leader in the 21st century will take guts -- for the work will at times be messy. It is no job for preachers who want mostly prestige, power, or nice pay. It will require boldness to tell the church what it doesn’t want to her. Not in a harsh or angry way, but with the broken heart of a weeping prophet. And it will take wisdom -- to be able to make careful decisions ignoring political, sectional, and church-size interest groups, deciding what is best for the whole church. Such leaders need our support and prayers.

 There is no stopping the change. Wise denominational leaders will lead the change, not respond to it after the fact. They will be pro active. They will not merely shut down one program or department after another without a strategic plan, but will get ahead of the curve and reinvent the denomination for the 21st century before we get to that century. Perhaps most of all we hope they will have wisdom. Wisdom to know how to reinvent the denomination for the 21st century. For this is what must be done.

From the book "A New Thing" edited by Alan Nelson and written by a collection of thinkers & doers in the "holiness movement"

So what do you think?

To contribute to the thinking on this issue e-mail your response to Tuesday@indwes.edu