The Holiness Partnership: A reform movement or a reactionary group?

How should the rise of The Holiness Partnership (THP) be viewed? Is it a genuine reform movement potentially moving The Church of the Nazarene closer to its cherished ideals? Or, is it reactionary group attempting to resist change and promote division?.

By Rev. Robert (Bob) Hunter

How should the rise of The Holiness Partnership (THP) be viewed?  Is it a genuine reform movement potentially moving The Church of the Nazarene closer to its cherished ideals?  Or, is it reactionary group attempting to resist change and promote division?

Reactionary movements advocate the restoration of a previous state of affairs. Typically conservative, reactionary groups not only resist but attempt to reverse trending realities.  Conversations with THP leaders reveal tremendous anxiety over the current state of affairs in the Church of the Nazarene.  More specifically, THP has expressed considerable angst toward Church officials representing the General Church.   At its inaugural gathering, a keynote speaker declared, “You are here because your leaders have failed you.”  One THP leader with whom I spoke broadened his criticism to the general church.  “The church has not been faithful to the holiness message,” he claimed. “Deliverance from sin is no longer a prevalent idea” he added.  Other leaders lament the tolerance of sinful sexual behaviors such as same sex attraction which they claim is one of the church’s biggest threats.  As a conservative movement, THP’s social media presence has been one of instilling fears toward perceived changes brought about through the influence of culture and progressive ideals.  Considering these observations, it is the opinion of this writer THP more closely resembles the characteristics of a reactionary group and not a genuine reform movement; even though reactionary elements can be present in all movements seeking reform.

Reactionary movements, whether social, political or religious, rely heavily on labels to establish their identity and define their purpose. THP is no different. Terms like justice warrior, unbiblical, liberal, heretic, woke, progressive, etc. are used to identify people that have arrived at different conclusions. Though not explicitly stated in its literature, these labels are part of THP vernacular. Borrowing from political and populist leaders, THP has unofficially adopted language consistent with firebrand conservatives in the current social-political landscape of America.  As for THP, “biblical” is the preferred label by which they refer to themselves.

The task of this writer is to discern the nature of THP as a reactionary group or a reform movement. Early on, I defended the rise of THP as an interest/affinity group of which there are many in the Church of the Nazarene.  But THP has gone beyond the threshold of an affinity group.  Their criticisms, claims, and future ambitions demonstrate a propensity for autonomy. For example, THP is launching an official publication aimed at delivering its own brand of holiness messaging.  Is that a bad thing necessarily?  No, but under the circumstances, it comes across as an attempt to rival and possibly replace denominational literature deemed as inadequate.

There are other eyebrow raising developments. Many THP adherents have vocalized criticisms of our educational institutions and in some cases withdrawn support while advancing their own educational venues.  Moreover, a future THP gathering is slated for Kansas City at one of our denomination’s flagship churches in close proximity to the GMC.  Are these the marks of a genuine reform movement seeking to galvanize support and foster change from within, starting with one’s self? You decide.  I am of the mind these developments resemble behaviors of a reactionary group and not a movement of genuine reform.  But I remain open to being convinced otherwise.

What is the origin of THP’s pronounced reactions to our denomination?   There are many possible theories one could explore.  I will suggest one in particular.  It is my heartfelt belief that supporters of this movement feel ignored and their dissatisfactions with the status quo have not registered with denominational leaders.  The airing of grievances is an important part of church life we would all agree.  The Bible commands us to resolve matters internally and privately in an orderly fashion before going public.  While legit avenues for airing grievances may have been pursued, those leading the charge may not have liked the response. Perhaps their efforts were not effective in producing desirable results, which fueled frustration leading to a public cry for support.  Interestingly, rather that formally address misgivings in its official statements, THP has opted for a more subversive route.  The organization’s belief statements reflect harmony with the church of the Nazarene, but the rhetoric of its leaders reveals a more pressing agenda.

One THP leader used the analogy of captivity to describe the message of holiness in the Church of the Nazarene.  Bowing down to worldly influences in a manner reminiscent to Israel under King Jabin in Judges 4 is the analogy used by one leader.  The leader responsible for this description extended the metaphor to include contemporary attacks on biblical holiness (presumably from within the church by progressive people) and the need to march on in truth.  Yet they reflect none of these misgivings in formal statements. There is noticeable disparity between the stated purpose of the organization and the actual agenda.  On the surface, THP exhibits characteristics of a Nazarene affinity group, but underneath, a rally cry for battle is raging.  Urgent calls to action, warfare language, and dualistic theology are exhibited. There is a clear sense of what must be done among THP faithful to restore the church to its previous state of being, but little if any of that conversation finds its way into official print.

You may ask yourself: Can reactionary movements become reform movements? Does the potential exist?  Perhaps, but THP would first have to reform itself before reforms on the scale of the general church have a chance.  That would mean ridding itself of harmful labeling, political pandering, and antagonistic rhetoric (e.g., promoting articles that call social justice a deceptive philosophy, etc.)  A more unifying agenda would be helpful and refreshing.  Honest dialogue and less social media toxicity would also be beneficial. Can it happen?  Yes, and one of its leaders has already regretted the inclusion of Rev. Jim Garlow into its speaking line-up.  Garlow, a former Nazarene pastor, is a well known political activist and defender of the political right.

Five years from now, ten years from now, the history of THP will be written.  What will be said? Will the movement evolve to benefit the church? Or, will it devolve into more name calling and divisiveness? If they make the aforementioned changes, will hard-core followers responsible for its rise even stay with it?  Only time will tell.  It is the opinion of this writer, at this moment in THP’s infancy, the organization more closely resembles a reactionary group and less a genuine movement of reform.

One problem with reactionary movements is that they tend to spawn counter movements.  Take the UMC for example.  At the height of the Methodist controversy, three distinct groups emerged, resulting in the formation of The Global Methodist Church led by traditionalists.  A separate movement formed an inclusion group that appears to have launched LMX (Liberation Methodist Connexion), a denomination of former UMC members. A third group and possibly a fourth are also represented. The final outcome of the UMC controversy led to a permanent and painful separation. Though framed in the language of reconciliation, the price tag emotionally and financially was considerable.  Even worse, it damaged the credibility of the institution with the very people it is trying to reach.

Will Nazarenes stay united? I hope so! Nazarenes should take great pains to keep everyone under the big tent by avoiding the formation of reactionary groups and counter groups. Unfortunately, THP takes issue with the term “big tent” which is not entirely surprising given their penchant for autonomy. But it is nevertheless in the best interests of our denomination to maintain a big tent mentality instead of splintering into several smaller tents. For the sake of unity, we must come together in the true spirit of Wesleyanism and embrace our differences instead of dividing over them. The Church of the Nazarene, at its founding in 1908, united with like-minded groups in its quest to promote scriptural Holiness.  They were not all perfectly aligned in every aspect of existence, but they united around a set of core values which I believe still exists.  At the end of the day, we can succeed where our Methodist friends failed.  I would humbly ask THP to reconsider its tactics, reform its agenda, and resist autonomy.

Disclaimer:  I did not arrive at these observations quickly. I spent considerable time on the phone speaking directly with THP leaders and listening to their concerns. In this article, I have refrained from naming individual leaders publicly and attacking them personal level. I have also submitted this article to them in advance before distributing it to others. I am committed to dialogue should they be open to doing so.