WE WERE FROGS

In July of 1968 when the United Missionary Church voted 96.3 percent in favor of merger and the Missionary Church Association voted 91.7 percent in favor of merger, no two men were happier then Rev. Tillman Habegger, president of the Missionary Church Association and Dr, Kenneth E. Geiger, General Superintendent of the United Missionary Church! Both leaders believed that this large majority vote clearly indicated it was the will of God to bring the two denominations together.¹ In their exuberant hope for the future, they momentarily lost sight of the fact that God’s will is not determined by majority vote.

While the benefits touted for the merger included “more effective preaching of the Gospel, better coverage of the country with our message, and a greater effectiveness in administration”² there was one underlying issue not publicly spoken that dually motivated these two good friends and leaders.

In a private conversation before his untimely death on July 20, 1984 in an automobile accident while enroute to the Nigerian Conference of the United Missionary Church of Africa, Dr. Geiger confided that a strong motivating factor for merger was the honest but mistaken belief of both men that the United Missionary Church was so soundly grounded in the doctrine of sanctification that it would succeed in drawing the Missionary Church Association back to its founding doctrinal position of 1905³ i.e. “The enduement with the Holy Spirit as a definite crisis experience after the new birth, to guide us, to endue us for service, and to transform our life into Christ’s image, Jn. 16:13; Acts 1:8; 2Cor. 3:17,18.3⁴

Given assurances that there were no significant theological differences, and that no core doctrines were at risk for either side of the new church family, those who had entered the ministry prior to merger, like frogs in a kettle, obediently fell in line, bought into the song of unity, never envisioning how quickly the new denomination would move away from its historic doctrinal moorings.

Indeed, as the twenty-fifth anniversary year approached Dr. Tim Erdel and Dr. Dennis Engbrecht in an article entitled: Marriage, Memory, and Mission: Reflections on the 25^th Anniversary of the MCA/UMC Merger would write: “The Missionary Church has indeed forgotten much. We are no longer Anabaptists whose discipleship is expressed in the washing of feet and the willingness to suffer persecution rather than taking up the sword of self-preservation. We no longer shout in worship and linger night after night in protracted meetings like old-time Methodists. Healing and prophecy no longer take center stage at our church conferences. We no longer have a small army of socially active women in uniform, preaching in city missions, stalking streets and storming saloons, attacking the gates of hell with the gospel. The Wesleyan ideals of holy living and entire sanctification have for many been all but swept away by the incessant throbbing of pervasive secularism.”

How did we move so far away from our holiness heritage? I suggest at least two answers.

First, some of us remember that when we were candidates for ordination we were asked such questions as: a) Do you sense the urgency of Christians being entirely sanctified, and does your ministry result in the sanctification of believers? And b) If, after you have been ordained by the church, you find you cannot conform to the standards, doctrines and government of said church or wholeheartedly support the church and its institutions, will you voluntarily surrender your credentials and withdraw from the ministry without charges or trial?

Alas, many who now fill our pulpits either did not make that commitment or do not share that serious view of ordination. More than a few have maintained their credentials in the church long after they have ceased embracing its historic doctrines. Others gained credentials fully knowing that their core beliefs were not in harmony with the church but did so with a “wink and a nod” by both district and denominational officials whose quest to expand allowed doctrinal integrity to be either obscured or obliterated.

Second, though many of us accepted from our founders their doctrine of holiness, we did not catch their passion or embrace their conviction. When our old professors exhorted us to “preach holiness” at least once a month, we quietly dismissed their exhortations as being too legalistic and sought to preach more relevant, relational messages. We thought no one would notice, and tragically, they didn’t. Those of us who received the sixteen page, weekly denominational periodical called The Gospel Banner with its mast head that proclaimed “Holiness Unto the Lord” hardly blinked when we transitioned to less frequent issues, a less obtrusive identity, and less than an infrequent offering of articles addressing entire sanctification and heart purity. Little wonder the doctrine of holiness was reduced from being a conviction (i.e. a belief that is God ordered)⁵, to a preference, and finally to little more than an option.

Forty years have now passed since the UMC/MCA merger and the General Board of the Missionary Church now asks that we change our official position on Sanctification and the Filling with the Holy Spirit. They are recommending that we forsake our historic position that 1) “Sanctification is the will of God”; 2) that It is provided in the atonement”; 3) that sanctification is a “subsequent crisis experience” following repentance and regeneration; and 4) that a "believer is to be perfected in holiness."

We were frogs…are we still?

~ Bill McPhail

¹Reflections, A Publication of the Missionary Church Historical Society, Summer 1993, Founding Issues of the Missionary Church, history of Merger Negotiations, Rev. Tillman Habegger, p.8 ² Ibid. p. 5 ³Private conversation between Dr. Kenneth E. Geiger and Rev. Carlyle Wise as reported to Bill McPhail. ⁴ Reflections, op. cit. Founding Issues, The Missionary Church Association, Rev. Virgil Bixler, p. 19 ⁵ See Let God Lead Us article by Dr. Dan Light entitled The Theology of the Supreme Court.

Note: They say that if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will leap out right away to escape the danger. But, if you put a frog in a kettle that is filled with water that is cool and pleasant,
and then you gradually heat the kettle until it starts boiling, 
the frog will not become aware of the threat until it is too late. 
The frog's survival instincts are geared towards detecting sudden changes

Constitutional Changes Recommended by General Board

Article IV.A.4.d. Salvation: Sanctification and Filling with the Holy Spirit

Current: d. Sanctification and Filling with the Holy Spirit. We believe that sanctification is the work of God in making people holy. It is the will of God. It is provided in the atonement, and is experienced through faith by the operation of the Holy Spirit through the Word and the blood. While the divine work of making people holy begins in repentance and regeneration, yet through a subsequent crisis experience the believer is to die to self, to be purified in heart, and to be filled with the Holy Spirit so that he may be separated wholly unto God to serve Him in righteousness and holiness. After the crisis experience, the believer is to be perfected in holiness in the fear of God and to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Ps. 4:3; John 17:17; Acts 15:8-9; Rom. 6:19 and 22, 12:1-2; 2 Cor. 7:1; Gal. 2:20, 6:14; Eph. 5:26; Col. 3:3, 1 Thess. 4:3, 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 12:14; 1 Pet. 1:2 and 15-16; 2 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 5:6

Proposed: d. Sanctification and Filling with the Holy Spirit. While the divine work of making people holy begins at conversion, believers must surrender to the Holy Spirit’s sanctifying power in their lives as they battle the world, the flesh, and the Devil. Furthermore, through a decisive experience, believers are to deny self, be purified in heart, and be filled with the Holy Spirit that they may be separated wholly unto God to serve Him in righteousness and holiness. Their progressive growth in Christ-likeness will be accelerated and deepened through continually submitting to His Lordship in every aspect of life until they are called to heaven.

Ps. 4:3; Matt. 16:24; John 17:17; Acts 15:8-9; Rom. 6:19 and 22, 12:1-2; 2 Cor. 7:1; Gal. 2:20, 6:14; Eph. 5:26, Col. 3:3; 1 Thess. 4:3, 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 12:14; 13:12; 1 Pet. 1:2 and 15-16; 2 Pet. 3:18, 1 John 5:6

Sanctification by Dr. Dennis D. Engbrecht

[From: The Theological Development of the Missionary Church 1969 – 1994.  Dr. Engbrecht is Senior Vice President of Bethel College, Mishawaka, IN  and Professor of History] 

 SANCTIFICATION

A third significant theological development within the Missionary Church since the 1969 merger relates to the constitutional position on "Sanctification and the Filling with the Holy Spirit. Both the MCA and the UMC had experienced some strife amidst their respective denominations over the doctrine of sanctification. In 1923 a debate took place at the MCA General Conference between those who supported a progressive sanctification and those who held to the original MCA position of a crisis experience subsequent to salvation. Eventually a committee of six drew up a statement that reaffirmed the original position of the church.17 Nearly three decades later in 1952 at the UMC General Conference, the Pennsylvania District presented a resolution effectively withdrawing from the denomination stating that "the position of our district on our interpretation of the doctrine of holiness …conflicts with the principles" of the UMC.18 In both cases the conflicts led to great losses in their respective denominations. The MCA lost several churches, pastors and professors at Fort Wayne Bible Training School. The UMC lost 44 churches, 4,489 members and $1.5 million in property, equal to one-third of its constituency. At the same time, both conflicts led to "a clearing of the doctrinal atmosphere" giving the "cause of unity…a big impetus."21

At the point of merger in 1969 the Missionary Church essentially adopted the position of the United Missionary Church on sanctification in its new constitution. However, in 1985 the constitutional commission, with General Board approval, brought a revised statement on sanctification to the General Conference in Toronto. The two most significant changes allowed for a progressive sanctification and eliminated the phrase "to die to self, to be purified in heart."22 A spirited debate took place on the conference floor followed by a vote. Since the recommendation involved amending the constitution, a two-thirds majority was required.

The motion failed by the closest of margins. The action of the General Conference was similar to that of the 1923 conference in Grabill at which the historic MCA position on sanctification was upheld. This time, however, there was no massive exodus of pastors and professors. In fact, the 1985 General Conference adopted a new preamble to the constitution which for the first time officially acknowledged its Wesleyan roots along with German Anabaptist and American revivalistic backgrounds.

¹⁴.Constitution and General Conference By-Laws of the Missionary Church Association (Fort Wayne, Indiana: Bible Truth Publishers, 1966), p. 2.

¹⁵. Ibid., p. 2. ¹⁶. The Constitution and Manual of the United Missionary Church (Elkhart, Indiana: Bethel Publishing Company, 1959), p. 15

¹⁷. Jared Gerig, A Vine of God's Own Planting (Fort Wayne, Indiana: Fort Wayne Bible College, 1980), pp. 163-65. ¹⁸. Mennonite Brethren in Christ, Pennsylvania Conference 1952 (Bethlehem, Pennsylvania: n.p., 1952). ¹⁹. Gerig, A Vine of God's Own Planting, p. 165. ²⁰. Storms, p. 75. ²¹. Gerig, A Vine of God’s

Own Planting, p. 165; Storms, p. 75. ²².1985 General Conference Journal (Toronto: n.p., 1985), p. A-12

We have surrendered... by Dr. Timothy Paul Erdel

The following excerpt is from a paper entitled: “Pedagogy, Propaganda, Prophetic Protest, and Projection: Dangers And Dilemmas in Writing an Authorized Denominational History.  

“…just as we have surrendered our Anabaptist heritage, we seem to be on a fairly fast track toward losing our Pietist, Wesleyan, and Keswickian emphases as well, at least in the majority of districts. The stand taken by a few to defend the most rudimentary Arminian theological perspectives may well be a lost cause (cf. Moran et al. 2004, 80-81; Erdel 2004, 82-88).

Should my confessional commitments be to a bygone past which I believe the Missionary Church should still hold dear, or to the current trajectory of assimilation into popular American culture and generic evangelicalism? If I attempt to cry out in prophetic protest, will I lose whatever voice I have within the denomination? This question of how to write about our very dramatic series of changes in doctrine and practice, a pattern which is rooted in the very birth of the those movements which are now the Missionary Church, may be the most important historiographical issue I face.

Are there some stories that do not offer any great historical lesson, but that are nevertheless too rich in irony not to be told? Just before going to Jamaica as a missionary, I visited J. A. Ringenberg one last time in 1987 at Hubbard Hill Estates in Elkhart, Indiana. The former president of both Fort Wayne Bible and of the Missionary Church Association, as well as a former missionary to Jamaica, his most basic doctrinal and spiritual concerns were forged as a young lieutenant to J. E. Ramseyer during the crucial period which led to a denominational split over the issue of Holy Spirit crisis sanctification in 1923. Teaching on the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit was a central portion of his life’s work (see, e.g., Ringenberg 1972; cf. Huffman 1940, 1944). Now Donald Gerig, who had openly questioned traditional Missionary Church teaching on crisis sanctification in print, was the new president of Fort Wayne Bible College. J. A. Ringenberg was all doom and gloom as he talked to me about the appointment, rather oblivious to the fact that Don and I had been good friends for years. J. A. was convinced that God could not possibly continue to bless the college if the man at its helm denied crisis sanctification, the very doctrine for which God had called and raised up the church and the school, the doctrine that was their special mission to guard and to teach. “Mark my words,” J. A. told me, “Don Gerig will be the end of Fort Wayne Bible College.” I think the ancient Greeks would love such a story.”

From the "History of the United Missionary Church" by Everek Richard Storms

            “As the Church expanded, it carried the doctrine of a second work of grace into scores of the pioneer sections of the nation.  In community after community throughout many of the western states, hundreds of people received their first teaching on entire sanctification from one of the pioneer ministers of the denomination.”

            “The former Pennsylvania District was actually the first to have holiness conventions, two of them being held during November 1893, each of three days’ duration.  Early in its history, however, the conference became somewhat divided over the question of holiness.  As described in chapter ten, many of the ministers began to show a definite trend away from the Wesleyan position.  In deference to this group, the article in the discipline on sanctification was revised and considerably weakened by the General Conference of 1904.

            In spite of opposition from other conferences, the article remained lengthy and somewhat ambiguous until after the withdrawal of the Pennsylvania District in 1952.  At the 1955 General Conference a new constitution was adopted in which the section on sanctification was shortened and stated in clear and concise terms. (see below)

            Past history has shown that there is always the danger of a holiness church losing its initial emphasis as it develops into an established denomination.” Pgs. 225-226

 c.  Sanctification and Reception of the Holy Spirit.  We believe that sanctification is the work of God in making men holy.  It is the will of God.  It is provided in the atonement, and is experienced through faith by the operation of the Holy Spirit through the Word and the blood.  While the divine work of making men holy begins in repentance and regeneration, yet through a subsequent crisis experience the believer is to die to self, to be cleansed from all sin, and to be filled with the Holy Spirit so that he may be separated wholly unto God to serve Him in righteousness and holiness.  After the crisis experience, the believer is to be perfected in holiness in the fear of God and to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.  (This doctrinal statement if from the copy of the Doctrine and Disciplines of the United Missionary Church which is in the Missionary Church archives at Bethel College and contains the following inscription inside the front cover: “To my good friend and brother, Rev. Tillman Habegger.  Rev. Kenneth Geiger, Gen. Supt. United Missionary Church.

SANCTIFICATION by Dr. J. A. Huffman

The following is from the  “History of the Mennonite Brethren in Christ Church” by J. A. Huffman, A.B., B.D., D.D. Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis, Bluffton College and Mennonite Seminary, Bluffton,  Ohio,  Editor-in-Chief, 1920 and early Missionary Church scholar.  (Pictured at left is  the Taylor Memorial Chapel located on the campus of Bethel College, Mishawka, IN.

“The Mennonite Brethren in Christ Church was born in a revival of experimental religion. This placed its adherents into a good state for spiritual development. Whatever regeneration led to was most certain to be reached by those who entered into the experience so whole-heartedly.

The theory of sanctification, as a definite work of grace subsequent to regeneration, came to be accepted quite generally throughout the church by 1880. "When preaching of the theory of sanctification was begun, there were those throughout the conferences who testified to having entered into the experience without having known the theory of it.

Beginning with the December issue, 1878, the Gospel Banner, then the organ of the United Mennonites, carried the following statement in its business card, as to the purpose of the publication: "Its most prominent theme shall be holiness unto the Lord." This is possibly the first documentary evidence to be found, indicating that "holiness" was becoming a dominant theme in the new movement. In Canada, Menno Bowman became an ardent advocate of the doctrine. In Indiana, D. U. Lambert was perhaps the most aggressive exponent of holiness. In Pennsylvania, Jonas Musselman appears to have been the leader in this teaching. These were influential men, and they, together with the other ministers, seem to have experienced no difficulty in getting the people to accept the doctrine.

Perhaps one of the greatest factors in spreading the teaching of sanctification was the first camp meeting, held in Fetter's Grove, Elkhart County, Indiana, in 1880. The doctrine of holiness was made prominent at this meeting, with the result that some of the laity and even some from among the ministry sought and obtained the experience.

 From this camp meeting holiness teaching spread. Both Menno Bowman, of Canada, and Jonas Musselman, of Pennsylvania, were present at this camp, which may, in part, account for their zeal for the teaching in their respective conferences later.

The following year (1881) there were three camps instead of one. In Canada, one was held at Breslau, and in Pennsylvania, one was held near Coopersburg, called the Chestnut Hill Camp. These, like the Indiana camp, proved to be "holiness" camps. D. U. Lambert, who had been secured to assist in the Breslau camp, reported in part as follows: "The principal effort of the meeting was for the promotion of Scriptural holiness. Many entered by faith into the experience, and are now singing, 'I am washed in the blood of the Lamb.' Others  that were prejudiced against the doctrine, having a theory of their own, had their foundation swept away.

Thus 'Holiness unto the Lord' gained the day."³  Jonas Musselman, reporting the Chestnut Hill Camp of that year, wrote : ' ' The meetings were conducted strictly on the holiness line, and quite a number entered the land of Beulah. Some at the commencement could not understand what these things meant, and were in doubt whereunto they might grow. But as the power of God was so wonderfully displayed, many began to change their minds and concluded that, after all, it is better in the land of Canaan. Praise God for the power! Each day and night He gave us a new baptism of the HolyGhost."⁴

The Discipline of the Evangelical United Mennonites of 1880 contains the following article on Sanctification :                                  

 "Sanctification necessarily follows justification and regeneration; for by it is implied a setting apart for the continual service of God, the individual, justified, and regenerated ; also a cleansing from inbred or original depravity, which is removed only by the application and cleansing process of Christ's blood. It is an instantaneous act of God, through the Holy Ghost, by faith, in the atoning merits of Christ's blood, and constitutes the believer holy; inasmuch, as it excludes depravity and all unrighteousness from the heart. He, therefore, is perfect -  perfectly saved - the will of God perfectly performed in the soul.

"By sanctification, or perfect love, is also implied a development or perfection of those heaven-born principles imparted to us, or imbibed in the heart in regeneration ; and it is a state which is not only the privilege of Christians to enjoy, but the duty of every child of G-od to seek after and attain unto, which is evident from the Word of God, as it is said : 'For this is the will of God, even your sanctification,' and again: 'Be ye holy, for I am holy.' Matt. 22:37, 38; Lev. 19:2; Heb. 12: 14; 1 Cor. 1 : 30 ; and Eph. 1:1" Article XII.

  The General Conference of 1888 aimed at the strengthening of the article, adding the word "Entire" to the heading of the Discipline article, making the heading to read: "Entire Sanctification"; also omitting one paragraph and adding some outlined teaching on the subject. There have been several changes made since in the wording of the article in the Discipline. The General Conference of 1882 included the volume entitled "Lessons in Holiness" in the original ministers' Reading Course, and it has remained there ever since. Holiness Conventions have been common since 1900 or a little earlier. The first and main paragraph of the article as it now stands in the Discipline reads as follows:

ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION.

"Entire sanctification necessarily follows justification and regeneration, for by it is implied a setting apart for the continual service of God the individual justified and regenerated ; also a cleansing from inbred sin or original depravity, which is removed only by the application and cleansing process of Christ's blood. It is an instantaneous act of God, through the Holy Ghost, by faith in the atoning merits of Christ's blood, and constitutes the believer holy."

Chapter I, Article 12.

Again, it is not easy to point out all the factors which entered into the development made in the church, in relation to this doctrine. A Free Methodist in one community, a United Brethren in another, and an Evangelical in still another, may be accredited with having been instrumental in bringing the doctrine of sanctification to the attention of the church. The writings of A. Sims, Geo. D. Watson, John S. Inskip, and others fell into the hands of these zealous Christians and exerted their influence. But the cause was more likely inherent than external or visible. People, truly converted and walking in the light, were led to see their privilege and duty in relation to being cleansed from all sin, and they embraced the provision. God providentially permitted such human agencies as have been or may be pointed out to direct a willing and obedient people into the deeper things of Christian experience. ³Gospel Banner, October 1, 1881, p. 149.  ⁴ Gospel Banner, September 15, 1881, p. 142. “

The following is from the “Doctrines and Discipline of the Mennonite Brethren in Christ” 1914.    Article XII. Entire Sanctification: Entire sanctification necessarily follows justification and regeneration; for, by it is implied a setting apart for the continual service of God, the individual justified and regenerated, also a cleansing from inbred sin or original depravity, which is removed only by the application and cleansing process of Christ’s blood.  It is an instantaneous act of God, through the Holy Ghost, by faith in the atoning merits of Christ’s blood, and constitutes the believer holy.

            The personal indwelling of God through the Holy Ghost, in the believer, is the greatest theme of the New Testament.  If we are really filled with the Spirit we must have Him in our body.  We will then know what it means to be “quickened” in our mortal flesh by the Spirit that dwelleth in us.  We therefore are prefect – perfectly saved - the will of God perfectly performed in the soul.  We must get a Scriptural  conception of the reality and possibility of such a life.  The Scriptures speak of:

1.     The sanctification of Christ, John 10:36, 17:19; as His setting apart as a servant and the sacrifice.

2.     The sanctification of believers unto God, I Cor. 1:2; II Thess. 2:13.

The sanctification  of believers is two-fold, viz:

1.     That which is wrought for the, or sanctification past and  perfect.  I Cor. 1:2; 6:11 *R.V.,) Acts 20:32; 26:18. The work of God the Father (Jude 2), and Christ the Son.  Heb. 2:11; Eph. 5:26.

2.     That which is wrought in them, or sanctification experimental and practical wrought by the Spirit. (I Thess. 5:23) through the Word.  John 17:17.

The believer is to live as becometh saints (Eph. 5:2), and to purge himself from all filthiness  of the flesh and spirit  (II Cor. 7:2); from unequal yokes and unholy alliances (II Cor. 6:14-17); and from the teachers and holders of evil doctrine.

3.     Only thus shall he be a vessel sanctified, made meet for the Master’s use.

Pgs. 19-20 Articles of Faith

The Missionary Church ~ A Response by Dr. Jim Smith

  Preamble 

I have now been to two sessions (General Board meeting – 10/9/08, and MCNCD district meeting – 11/6/08) focusing on the proposed reorganization of the Missionary Church.  Throughout these sessions (as well as in the intervening periods of time), I have thought and prayed and meditated on this document, for it will have effect on me, personally and professionally.

             Overall, I think that the concepts of this document are sound – and I support them, as evidenced by my “yes” vote in the General Board meeting.  At the same time, I think that there are some statements that need to be reworked in order to make them theologically, biblically, historically and ecclesiastically sound – which is the impetus for this response document. 

In this document, I point out the areas that I think need to be reworked, and I give some suggested reworking of the area.  All my remarks/suggestions are written in green ink as well as in a different font in order to quickly differentiate them from the already existing body of the document.  I submit them to you for your perusal with the prayer that my meanderings will aid in the discussion of this very important juncture in our denomination’s life.

THE MISSIONARY CHURCH

Recommendations for   Ministry Vision and Supporting Structure

Prepared by the President/District Superintendents/MCI Staff and the

 Commission for Denominational Reorganization

 The following pages represent the work of two groups of Missionary Church leaders.  They have spent several months attempting to frame ten helpful recommendations for future Missionary Church ministry that could be presented to General Board and General Conference.  The President, District Superintendents, and two members of the MCI Staff developed the first set of five recommendations for a denominational Ministry Vision (and five-year goals).   The Commission for Denominational Reorganization developed the second set of five recommendations for denominational Supporting Structure.  Working independently of each other at first, these two groups gathered in several joint sessions for collaboration and the merging of their work into one, harmonized set of ten recommendations. 

These recommendations were framed upon the following assumptions:

  A.   The Missionary Church denomination is a group of local churches organized into inter-dependent districts defined, more or less, by geographical boundaries.

B.    These local churches desire their denomination and its inter-dependent districts to be a “network of values.”  This last phrase lacks communicative as well as historical value.  What is a “network of values”?  Though it is defined in the next section as “a belief that by working together,  the ‘whole’ can achieve more and be greater than the sum of the parts, is this American truism really the  underlying theology (the only place that “faith” is mentioned in this section) for our existence as a denomination?

I would recommend that this statement be reworked to say: “These local churches desire their denomination and its districts to be interdependent.”

Thus the next section would also need to be reworked – and my suggestions are as follows.

     C.   A.   Interdependency includes shared theological commitments, shared ministry vision, shared opportunities for ministry, shared authority structures, shared missions commitments, deep respect and appreciation for as well as loyalty to each other, and shared supporting fellowship.

The current section “D” is only a reiteration of the American truism addressed above – though I would add that the churches which have left our denomination have basically disagreed with the truism, for they have said - through their leaving - that they can accomplish more separately than together.

   D.   Local churches, district entities, and denominational leaders deeply desire these values to be embraced and implemented as effectively as possible.

 As stated in the Preamble, both groups view these recommendations as “beginning points,” requiring additional and ongoing refinement and adaptation.  However, both groups equally believe they represent sound and solid starting points for helping the Missionary Church address the ministry challenges of the future.

The five recommendations for Ministry Vision and the five recommendations for Supporting Structure address the following areas:

Ministry Vision                                   

Call to Perpetual Intercessory Prayer

Call to Evangelism and Disciple Making

Call to Strengthen Local Churches

Call to Plant New Churches and Districts

Call to Recruit and Develop Catalytic Leaders               

Supporting Structure

General Conference

Ministry Leadership Council

Trustee Council

Districts and Regions

Pastor Councils

Recommendations for Ministry Vision

and Five-Year Goals

Recommendations prepared by the President, the District

  Superintendents, and MCI Staff

[Some time before General Conference, a short, compelling, and passionate  vision statement sound bite (being developed) that encapsulates the Ministry Vision will be placed in the space this bracket now occupies.]    

As I have already written (to Dr. Hossler), I find this portion of the document to be very troubling – for the following reasons: 

1)    This portion is creedal in form; i.e., it begins with the words “we (still) believe . . .” While I have no personal distaste for creeds within the church, I do think that we need to evaluate whether or not our denomination desires to become creedal in its make-up, for such a move would be an extreme change of our historical identity.  And if we do, do we desire to have this creed become our central creed?

     2)    If we do desire to adopt this creed as central to our denomination, I fear for our health  as a people of God – for the underlying narrative of this creed is not the story of God rescuing/ redeeming/restoring His creation through the incarnation, life, passion, death, burial,  resurrection, ascension, and return of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord; rather it is the story of our commanded actions in light of the ever-present needs of lost people. As I see it, this “creed” in its current form communicates that the most deeply held truths we hold as a denomination lie in the idea that “what we do” for God determines the number of “non-believing people” in the USA as well as in the world.

Thus, I recommend the following reworking.

 I.   Faced with a 21^st-Century postmodern, relativistic world, we still believe that:

A.   God created all things, visible and invisible, and God created them “good”.

B.    Sin was brought into this world through the disobedience of Adam and Eve, thereby placing God’s good creation under its curse of death and decay.

C.   God did not abandon His creation, but He pursued after it, especially us human beings - making covenant with us to be our God, sending us His revelation through prophets, priests, and kings, and giving us His continued promises to make all things new through His Messiah.

D.   At the decisive point in time, God sent forth His Son into His creation.  His Son Jesus Christ, our Lord – emptied Himself and took upon Himself our human form in order to destroy the curse of sin.  He accomplished this feat through His holy life, His earthly ministry, His suffering, death, and burial, His resurrection, and His ascension.  Because of His thorough and victorious obedience in all things, God has placed Him at the pinnacle of everything – above every person, power, an principality.

E.    Jesus Christ is Lord.  As Lord, everything has been placed under His feet.  As Lord,  everything in heaven and on earth and under the earth should bow before Him.

F.    Not yet does everything bow before Jesus Christ and acknowledge Him as Lord.  Not yet has the curse of sin – though thoroughly defeated – been destroyed.  Thus, God’s mighty acts in Jesus Christ still need to be proclaimed.

  G.   Jesus Christ established the church to carry on His life and His work in His creation until He returns.  He has filled His church with His presence through the giving and gifting of His Holy Spirit – with the result that His church is His current body within His creation.

H.   Jesus Christ has entrusted us, as part of His church, with His church.  Therefore, it is necessary for us to:

1)    Carry out His life and work in His creation. 

2)    Proclaim God’s mighty acts in Jesus Christ – as recorded in the Holy Bible - especially to those who have never heard. 

3)    Join in the Spirit’s work of making lifelong disciples of Jesus Christ. 

4)    Live lives of holiness to the glory of God.

 II.   Acting upon these beliefs, and with God’s guidance and help, it is our recommendation that we diligently seek to accomplish the following in the next five years (See Appendix B, pages 22-23):

 

1. WE RECOMMEND CALLING THE MISSIONARY CHURCH TO PERPETUAL INTERCESSORY PRAYER.

 1.   We will engage every region, district, church, and believer in a “call to  perpetual intercessory prayer” that: 

§       Empowers us to grow in personal discipleship.

§       Empowers us to love, engage, and witness to the lost world that God loves.

§       Opens the hearts of the lost to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

§       Empowers us to make disciples.

§       Empowers us to intercede for the recruitment and development of more “laborers for the harvest.”

§       Tears down evil strongholds.

2.     We will have achieved our five-year goal when an active intercessory prayer network has been established in every region, district, and local church, and intercessory prayer is being offered on a regular, systematic, and perpetual basis for the worldwide ministry of the Missionary Church.

  B.    WE RECOMMEND A RENEWED, PASSIONATE COMMITMENT TO EVANGELIZE THE LOST AND MAKE DISCIPLES.

      2.     We will have achieved our five-year goal when: 

• The denomination and each district/region is realizing an annual conversion growth rate of 15%, and existing local churches are realizing an annual conversion growth rate of 10%.

§       The denomination and each district/region has 15% of its people involved in making disciples and each existing local church has 10% of its people involved in making disciples.  (Disciple making is defined as intentional involvement in some aspect of helping people move from pre-Christian to devout Christian to reproducing Christian.) 

§       Denominational, regional, and district leaders are exemplifying our passion for evangelism and disciple making to such an extent that at any given point in time, 75% of them are actively involved in intentionally evangelizing non-believers and/or discipling new Christians on at least a monthly basis. 

C.   WE RECOMMEND A MORE TARGETED FOCUS ON STRENGTHENING LOCAL CHURCHES. 

1.   We will assist each district/region in every way possible, to achieve its vision and five-year goals for: 

§       The development of local church evangelism and disciple making strategies.  This may require a paradigm shift in the thinking and ministry focus of both the pastoral leadership and congregation. 

§       Pastoral leadership development. 

§       Lay leadership development.  

§       District/Regional and local church planting strategies. 

We will find customized ways to help each district/region address common problems such as: a) recruiting and developing spiritually passionate pastor/leaders for our churches without pastors; b) improved preaching; c) local church conflict management and problem solving; and d) district/regional and local church financial resources development.  

We will do everything possible to clarify and strengthen lines of communication, understanding, encouragement, and assistance between all parts of the denomination – Local Churches, Districts, Regions, and the National Resource Center (formerly called the National Office).  Our goal will be to help district/regional superintendents give a minimum of 50% of their time to local church growth strategy, leadership training, and new church planting.  

We will do a thorough and ruthless review of all denominational programs and initiatives (including a survey of their effectiveness) to determine which should be continued, improved, or abandoned, and take appropriate action.  We will initiate any new programs necessary to enhance the respective visions of the districts/regions and the denomination.

2.     We will have achieved our denominational five-year goal when:  

§       Districts/Regions are achieving their five-year goals. 

§       Clear lines of communication, understanding, and encouragement, along with multiple lines of assistance, are flowing unrestrictedly in a two-way manner. 

§       Every District/Regional Superintendent is giving 50% of his time to growth strategy, leadership training, and new church planting.  It is fascinating – in a macabre way – to me that, in accordance with this goal, we will be overriding the historic chief task of a bishop (which is what a district/regional superintendent is in our system).  The chief task of a bishop, historically, is prayer and the Word, serving as chief guardian of orthodoxy and theology.  

§       Each denominational program and initiative is producing results so effectively (how will these results be determined to be effective?) that they are viewed by the leadership majority as absolutely necessary.  

D.            WE RECOMMEND A GREATER EMPHASIS ON PLANTING NEW CHURCHES AND DISTRICTS. 

1.     We will:  

§       Plant new churches, employing multiple strategies, for a five-year total of 250 new domestic churches. 

§       Intentionally target 10 major domestic population areas and launch evangelism, disciple making, and church multiplication movements in those areas. 

§       Create 15 new domestic districts to accommodate this growth and any leadership overload experienced in existing districts.  

§       Launch 25 new international disciple-making movements with the expectation that 20% will identify with the Missionary Church.  

2.     We will have achieved our five-year goal when the above stated numerical benchmarks have been reached.   

 

E.    WE RECOMMEND A MORE INTENTIONAL RECRUITMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF CATALYTIC LEADERS.* 

1.   We will identify, recruit, train, credential, equip, and empower  catalytic leaders, both vocational and lay leaders, to lead, implement and expand our vision for worldwide evangelism, disciple making, and church planting. 

2.     We will have achieved our five-year goal when catalytic leaders are recruited, commissioned, and leading: 

a.  250 new church plants. 

b.  Evangelism/disciple-making movements in 10 major population centers.  

c.   15 new domestic districts.  

d.   25 new international evangelism/disciple making movements.

 *A catalytic leader is characterized as being spiritually passionate, missional, and entrepreneurial. 

I take umbrage with this phrase and its definition because: 

1.     There is no mention of God’s calling, gifting, or leading of these leaders. 

2.     There is no mention of the possibility of God’s calling for such leaders being judgment or destruction, such as God’s call upon Jeremiah’s life or Isaiah’s life.

3.     There is no mention of these leaders leading any of our established churches.

4.     There is no mention of these leaders being incarnational shepherds of the people God has entrusted to them.

Recommendations for Denominational Restructuring 

As I have already written, I think that, overall, the concepts of this document are sound.  I have no pulsating concerns with the recommendations for denominational restructuring.  

Thank you for taking the time to read this document.  I look forward to any response. 

Jim Smith

bmc39@juno.com

Note: Dr. Jim Smith is pastor of the Bethel Missionary Church, Goshen, Indiana