I argue that John Wesley certainly fits the "three-stream," "convergence" concept. In fact, I think that it is evident for those who desire to be more fully Wesleyan. - I would nuance that the "Spirit stream" in Wesley and the Wesleyan/Holiness tradition is a bit different than either the Pentecostal or Charismatic traditions, but it is clearly just as prevalent (and I know that some Methodists seem to have stepped out of traditional Wesleyanism and have incorporated some aspects of the P/C theology and traditions).
We are in the beginning stages of planting a new church in the Floyd/Clark County area of Indiana that could be described as "Three-Streams," "Ancient-Future" (to use a Robert Webber term), or "Wesleyan-Anglican." It very much fits your article. The church is called Ancient Paths Church of the Nazarene. (If any of your readers are in the area and would like to be a part of it, email me at AncientPathsNaz@gmail.com)
The charismatic/Pentecostal/Spirit stream is certainly becoming more complex and growing more branches as time goes on. I have a number of friends in that camp who are discovering the roots of those branches, though. I recently asked one young Assembly of God pastor who is a classmate why he chose a Wesleyan seminary and he said "I can't deny where my theology is at it's core." Fascinating how the wind blows.
What I find interesting about that story (and about other similar stories) is that the Assemblies of God decidedly are not Wesleyan. That is to say, the Pentecostal denominations can be divided into two groups (leaving off the “Oneness” folks). There are “Holiness-Pentecostals” and “Baptistic” or “Finished Work Pentecostals.” The former hold to a Wesleyan understanding of Entire Sanctification. They just add to that a third crisis moment, which they call Baptism with the Holy Spirit. The Assemblies are not a part of this group of Pentecostals. Rather the Assemblies are Baptistic or Finished Word Pentecostals who have rejected any idea of a Wesleyan doctrine of Entire Sanctification. One is sanctified at conversion and then grow in grace throughout their lifetime, but their doctrine of Sanctification is purposefully not Wesleyan. Instead, they own the Pentecostal doctrine of Baptism with the Holy Spirit (which the Holiness-Pentecostals identify as a third work of grace), which they teach is a second work of grace.
Beyond that, they do not hold to a Wesleyan understanding of the sacraments, either, which they identify as ordinances.
So, when I see Holiness-Pentecostal denominations reclaiming their Wesleyan roots, I get it. They have a Wesleyan theological heritage, which they own and teach. They have just added to their Wesleyan theology aspects that are not really Wesleyan. - But, when I see Finished Work (Baptistic) Pentecostals seeking to reclaim their (supposed) Wesleyan theological roots, I am puzzled. - Don’t get me wrong, I am pleased when any group wants to become more Wesleyan, I just find it interesting.
While I think the distinction is very relevant from a theological perspective, from a historical perspective (which I have studied the most - which is to say, little) looking at the origins of the entire movement and the men and women who began these "Baptistic Pentecostal" movements and were at Azusa Street who became part of these movements, Methodism and former Methodists are still at the roots of them, though they have willingly departed in many instances. I think your distinction is true that these Baptistic Pentecostals movements have departed *more* from the Wesleyan-Holiness theological stream and picked up many parts of their teaching from Reformed traditions, especially in the area of sacraments. (Many modern Methodists have done the same with the sacraments, unfortunately.) But at its core the doctrine of Baptism in the Holy Spirit itself and in all of its modern iterations it has its origins in the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition. Some may call it an uncesceray evolution when viewed as a third work of grace, or a unnecessary misunderstanding when it replaces entire sanctification as a second, but also can be called a near synonym in practicality at times. Discussing the doctrines of Baptism in the Holy Spirit and Entire Sanctification with my peers in the AoG, we are often able to come to a near consensus on what the doctrine means in practice. Most do not hold to their denominations position of speaking in tongues being the sole evidence of their version of the doctrine. This may not satisfy the systematic theologian, but remembering that Wesley was a practical theologian, I am more than open to finding common ground.
Just a question in my head as I read the article so don't shoot me down. Does the Church of England need to get back to the BCP, Liturgy and the Anglican Way just as the Episcopal Methodist church has lost its way some what from Wesley's teachings? I see both becoming more of an 'organisation' than church of true believers and need to get back to the roots they seem to have lost such as the true liturgy and BCP. As I said at the beginning - just thinking out loud. Chris x
Great question Chris. I am American, so I can only comment from that perspective, my knowledge of the happenings in the Church of England are very limited. However, I certainly don't think more common prayer could be a bad thing.
One of the fascinating things about your comment is the truth behind the idea that liturgy preserves the teaching of the church. It is a built-in catechesis and formation device. That does not mean liturgy has to be 100% traditional, but rather that to think intentionally about how the things we do in worship form us and catechize us is important, it is a sad state when our churches miss out on that opportunity of disciple-making.
Sidney, if you are ever in Boise, Idaho, please visit my church, Epworth Chapel on the Green. We call ourselves Wesleyan-Anglican, so I think we are very much in the stream you are talking about.
Thank for the comment John. Looking at your website, it looks like y'all have something truly special going on over there. I also see you're a fellow Free Methodist! If I am ever over that way, I would love to visit a worship service at Epworth.
It's interesting to learn that this may be a broader movement, as it's something that's occurred in my own life. I attend an Evangelical church, which is fairly free form, but I regularly use Anglican prayer books in my private devotions.
A couple years ago, I learned about a prayer book titled "Day by Day" which is a simplified Daily Office based on the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. I'd never heard of the BCP at this point and knew very little about Anglicanism, but I enjoyed using it and quickly found myself wanting to know more. I kept learning more and eventually was led to the 1928 American BCP which has become a daily companion in prayer since.
I can't overstate how much it's benefited my prayer life and faith - the BCP has helped me to form a daily habit of prayer, and drawn me closer to God. If I'd discovered it earlier in life, I may very well have joined an Anglican church; I really love the tradition and form of worship, and it reminds me of the relatively high church UMC I grew up in. But I'm glad I can benefit from the BCP in my private devotions even though I'm broadly Evangelicalish on Sunday mornings.
Excellent article and right on point concerning so many things. I believe this is gaining traction and is so much a part of a true move of the Holy Spirit.
Very nice article, Sidney!
I argue that John Wesley certainly fits the "three-stream," "convergence" concept. In fact, I think that it is evident for those who desire to be more fully Wesleyan. - I would nuance that the "Spirit stream" in Wesley and the Wesleyan/Holiness tradition is a bit different than either the Pentecostal or Charismatic traditions, but it is clearly just as prevalent (and I know that some Methodists seem to have stepped out of traditional Wesleyanism and have incorporated some aspects of the P/C theology and traditions).
We are in the beginning stages of planting a new church in the Floyd/Clark County area of Indiana that could be described as "Three-Streams," "Ancient-Future" (to use a Robert Webber term), or "Wesleyan-Anglican." It very much fits your article. The church is called Ancient Paths Church of the Nazarene. (If any of your readers are in the area and would like to be a part of it, email me at AncientPathsNaz@gmail.com)
Thanks for the article!
Blessings,
Todd Stepp
President,
Wesleyan-Anglican Society
The charismatic/Pentecostal/Spirit stream is certainly becoming more complex and growing more branches as time goes on. I have a number of friends in that camp who are discovering the roots of those branches, though. I recently asked one young Assembly of God pastor who is a classmate why he chose a Wesleyan seminary and he said "I can't deny where my theology is at it's core." Fascinating how the wind blows.
What I find interesting about that story (and about other similar stories) is that the Assemblies of God decidedly are not Wesleyan. That is to say, the Pentecostal denominations can be divided into two groups (leaving off the “Oneness” folks). There are “Holiness-Pentecostals” and “Baptistic” or “Finished Work Pentecostals.” The former hold to a Wesleyan understanding of Entire Sanctification. They just add to that a third crisis moment, which they call Baptism with the Holy Spirit. The Assemblies are not a part of this group of Pentecostals. Rather the Assemblies are Baptistic or Finished Word Pentecostals who have rejected any idea of a Wesleyan doctrine of Entire Sanctification. One is sanctified at conversion and then grow in grace throughout their lifetime, but their doctrine of Sanctification is purposefully not Wesleyan. Instead, they own the Pentecostal doctrine of Baptism with the Holy Spirit (which the Holiness-Pentecostals identify as a third work of grace), which they teach is a second work of grace.
Beyond that, they do not hold to a Wesleyan understanding of the sacraments, either, which they identify as ordinances.
So, when I see Holiness-Pentecostal denominations reclaiming their Wesleyan roots, I get it. They have a Wesleyan theological heritage, which they own and teach. They have just added to their Wesleyan theology aspects that are not really Wesleyan. - But, when I see Finished Work (Baptistic) Pentecostals seeking to reclaim their (supposed) Wesleyan theological roots, I am puzzled. - Don’t get me wrong, I am pleased when any group wants to become more Wesleyan, I just find it interesting.
While I think the distinction is very relevant from a theological perspective, from a historical perspective (which I have studied the most - which is to say, little) looking at the origins of the entire movement and the men and women who began these "Baptistic Pentecostal" movements and were at Azusa Street who became part of these movements, Methodism and former Methodists are still at the roots of them, though they have willingly departed in many instances. I think your distinction is true that these Baptistic Pentecostals movements have departed *more* from the Wesleyan-Holiness theological stream and picked up many parts of their teaching from Reformed traditions, especially in the area of sacraments. (Many modern Methodists have done the same with the sacraments, unfortunately.) But at its core the doctrine of Baptism in the Holy Spirit itself and in all of its modern iterations it has its origins in the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition. Some may call it an uncesceray evolution when viewed as a third work of grace, or a unnecessary misunderstanding when it replaces entire sanctification as a second, but also can be called a near synonym in practicality at times. Discussing the doctrines of Baptism in the Holy Spirit and Entire Sanctification with my peers in the AoG, we are often able to come to a near consensus on what the doctrine means in practice. Most do not hold to their denominations position of speaking in tongues being the sole evidence of their version of the doctrine. This may not satisfy the systematic theologian, but remembering that Wesley was a practical theologian, I am more than open to finding common ground.
Just a question in my head as I read the article so don't shoot me down. Does the Church of England need to get back to the BCP, Liturgy and the Anglican Way just as the Episcopal Methodist church has lost its way some what from Wesley's teachings? I see both becoming more of an 'organisation' than church of true believers and need to get back to the roots they seem to have lost such as the true liturgy and BCP. As I said at the beginning - just thinking out loud. Chris x
Great question Chris. I am American, so I can only comment from that perspective, my knowledge of the happenings in the Church of England are very limited. However, I certainly don't think more common prayer could be a bad thing.
One of the fascinating things about your comment is the truth behind the idea that liturgy preserves the teaching of the church. It is a built-in catechesis and formation device. That does not mean liturgy has to be 100% traditional, but rather that to think intentionally about how the things we do in worship form us and catechize us is important, it is a sad state when our churches miss out on that opportunity of disciple-making.
Sidney, if you are ever in Boise, Idaho, please visit my church, Epworth Chapel on the Green. We call ourselves Wesleyan-Anglican, so I think we are very much in the stream you are talking about.
John Crow
Thank for the comment John. Looking at your website, it looks like y'all have something truly special going on over there. I also see you're a fellow Free Methodist! If I am ever over that way, I would love to visit a worship service at Epworth.
It's interesting to learn that this may be a broader movement, as it's something that's occurred in my own life. I attend an Evangelical church, which is fairly free form, but I regularly use Anglican prayer books in my private devotions.
A couple years ago, I learned about a prayer book titled "Day by Day" which is a simplified Daily Office based on the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. I'd never heard of the BCP at this point and knew very little about Anglicanism, but I enjoyed using it and quickly found myself wanting to know more. I kept learning more and eventually was led to the 1928 American BCP which has become a daily companion in prayer since.
I can't overstate how much it's benefited my prayer life and faith - the BCP has helped me to form a daily habit of prayer, and drawn me closer to God. If I'd discovered it earlier in life, I may very well have joined an Anglican church; I really love the tradition and form of worship, and it reminds me of the relatively high church UMC I grew up in. But I'm glad I can benefit from the BCP in my private devotions even though I'm broadly Evangelicalish on Sunday mornings.
Excellent article and right on point concerning so many things. I believe this is gaining traction and is so much a part of a true move of the Holy Spirit.