IGNORING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

by Bill McPhail

As the upcoming General Conference of the Missionary Church draws closer, a great deal of time and energy has been expended by the leadership of the denomination presenting pastors and lay delegates with the General Board’s recommendations for denominational reorganization.  

None would dispute that both the Commission for Denominational Reorganization and the General Board itself have labored hard and long in this tedious process.  It is not surprising then that they are actively seeking support for the new vision formulation, goal establishment and structural reorganization.  What is disturbing, however, is that the recommendations clearly have been presented as being unalterable.  So, while questions have been solicited from pastors and lay delegates, it became clear very quickly that such a process was for polemic reasons rather than for constructive dialogue.  No changes would be considered. The recommendations are set in stone! 

At a recent meeting of pastors and lay delegates held on the North Central District, Commission members Milt Gerber and Paul Robbins gave a ninety-minute presentation. In a very straightforward manner they retraced the history of the deliberations and findings of the Commission for Denominational Reorganization.  They shared that following the first nine months of their discovery process which included extended face-to-face interaction with the President of the Missionary Church and all the District Superintendents, that the Commission determined that there was such a lack of trust between the Superintendents and the President that there was no purpose in proceeding on the restructuring process until the issue of trust was addressed.  This then became the immediate focus for the General Board, President and District Superintendents. 

As an attempt to be both irenic and forthright we were told that the issues that divided the leadership of the denomination were due in part to conflicting leadership styles, proposed denominational programs, and lack of shared vision. 

What was not addressed in the Commission members report was the proverbial “elephant in the room”.   No mention was made that the issue that has created the greatest lack of trust in the Missionary Church at every level is its lack of doctrinal unity. 

During the forty-year history of the Missionary Church it has never settled the question of the tripartite division, which has existed between those who continue to embrace a Wesleyan-Arminian theological position; those who hold to a Keswickian view, and those who subscribe to some level of Calvinism.  

While few have the courage to say so publicly, the new proposed Constitutional change recommended by the General Board of the Missionary Church with regards to Sanctification and Filling with the Holy Spirit speak loudly that the Wesleyan-Arminian position has no future in the Missionary Church.  The fact that the doctrinal change has been recommended by the General Board is indicative of the fact that those who embrace historic Wesleyan-Arminian theology as a point of spiritual conviction are now in the minority.   While denominational restructuring does not directly address doctrinal disunity, it is naïve to believe that one’s doctrinal convictions do not impact vision, polity or structure.  Similarly, a denomination’s vision, polity and structure by its very nature will ultimately shape and define its doctrine.  The history of other denominations that have left their historic roots stand as sad testimony to that fact. 

I take no comfort from the fact that other denominations that once were rooted in Wesleyan-Arminian theology are now engaged in the deconstructionist battle that places them in jeopardy of a future coherent doctrine of holiness. 

Though proclaiming scriptural holiness throughout the land was once the historical purpose that was both our mission as well as our heritage, it seems doubtful that it will be a significant part of our future. 

I know of no denomination or movement in the past 200 years who after abandoning their Wesleyan-Arminian heritage have ever returned to the doctrine of holiness as it was once taught, preached and experienced.  As I study history, however, I am reminded that from the time of the Early Church and throughout the ensuing centuries, whenever the message of holiness is either abandoned, forgotten or marginalized, God has always raised up fresh voices and new movements that are unashamed to proclaim that a Holy God can sanctify wholly, as a crisis experience, any and all who seek His cleansing, filling, and empowerment.

Abundant Satisfaction by J. E. Ramseyer

            On one of my early evangelistic trips in Canada, I visited a mother of eighty-six years, who was living with her daughter.  This matured lady was a distant relative of mine, who had known me when I was a little boy.  Not having been in touch with the family for many years, she was very glad that I had come to see her.  When she had the opportunity, she began to tell me with a happy heart how she had found “peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

            She had united with the church early in her girlhood.  She had been taught to fear God, to be honest, humble, conscientious, and not to indulge in worldliness.  However, her church held that it was unscriptural and presumptuous to believe that God gives assurance of forgiveness to one who truly repents and believes in the Lord Jesus Christ—a glorious truth the Word of God clearly teaches.  She told me how her heart had longed for many years for this assurance; how she had prayed again and again that God would be merciful to her and not let her be lost forever, but let her at last, for Jesus’ sake, enter heaven.  Then, with her face lighted up with joy, she related how one day the dark cloud that had hung over her soul lifted, and heavenly peace filled her heart.  She received the sweet assurance of forgiveness of sins, and from that moment she knew that she was a child of God.

            While she was speaking of the Lord’s gracious dealings with her, the daughter came into the room.  When she heard her mother telling me of what God had done for her in the evening of her life, I saw a frown on her face.  Then she said very emphatically, “Mother, you had better be still.  You are nervous—and you will cause us more trouble.”  Not saying another word, but smilingly looking at me, the mother saw that I understood the situation; that it was not the mother’s nerves, but the daughter’s conscience.  The poor young woman, though a faithful church member, knew nothing about the grace of salvation to which her dear mother had testified.

            Four years later it was my privilege to visit the home again.  The dear mother was still there—now ninety years old.  The daughter received me in a different spirit.  After an exchange of friendly greetings, she said,  “Mother is resting in her room.  You may go in and visit with her while I look after my work.”

            The dear old saint recognized me at once, and said, “I am very happy to see you again.”  Then she continued, “You remember when you were here the other time, I told you how the Lord shortly before had spoken peace to my troubled heart and had given me full assurance of salvation.”

            “Well do I remember your clear testimony,” I answered.

            Then her face beamed with glory as she continued, “But God has done more for me since that time.  Just three weeks ago the Lord Jesus baptized me with the Holy Spirit.  They tell me that Pentecost is not for us.  It was only for the Apostle and early Christians.”  Then, with special emphasis, she reaffirmed,  “BUT IT IS FOR US, because Jesus was here and He baptized me with the Holy Spirit.”

            Her heart was overflowing with joy, and her ninety-year-old face was an inspiration for me to behold.  I was reminded of what is said of Stephen, “And all that sat in the council, looking steadfastly on him, saw as it had been the face of an angel. . . . But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into  heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold,  I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.”

            If I had not believed in the baptism with the Holy Spirit as a definite experience subsequent to the new birth, I would have been fully convinced by the clear ringing testimony of this saintly old mother. This godly soul, so far a I know, never had the privilege of hearing sound preaching on salvation, much less on the deeper Christian life; nor did she have any books on these lines.  This one thing was profoundly impressed upon me that the chief qualification for salvation and also for the baptism with the Holy Spirit is a real SOUL HUNGER FOR GOD. This precious sister got the experience before she got the doctrine.  Many have the doctrine but are lacking the experience.

            “For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground:  I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring.”  And once more:  “Blessed are they that do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.”

The foregoing account comes from the book Dwell Deep by Dr. J.E. Ramseyer; compiled and edited by S. A. Witmer.

Dr. Ramseyer was part of the Defenseless Mennonite Church before becoming co-founder of the Missionary Church Association (now Missionary Church) in August 29, 1898  and continued as its spiritual leader for 46 years.  

“The particular issues which led to the expulsion of the early leaders from the Defenseless Mennonite Church were the baptism with the Holy Spirit as a crisis experience following regeneration, certain truths related to eschatology, immersion as the only mode of baptism, and divine healing. J. E. Ramseyer brought the conflict in the church to a crisis by being rebaptized by immersion in August 1896. Others followed his example in baptism, and these with others became the nucleus of the new church.” (Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online)

Missionary Church Heritage Commission ~ Dr. Paul Erdel

1.      Why might a Heritage Commission be appropriate and needed?

 

         a.      The Missionary Church has a great heritage worth celebrating and preserving.  It has its roots in at least three great Christian movements.  It has produced an unusual number of interdenominational leaders and thinkers for a denomination of its size.  And its very name spells out its deepest identity.

b.      People need to celebrate their heritage in order to be themselves and to remain free.  This was true for Israel:  “There arose up a new king…which knew not Joseph.”  It is true for us, also.

c.      Even in the Missionary Church there is at times confusion or ignorance about our heritage and its relation to each new generation which needs to be addressed honestly.

 

2.      What might be the responsibilities of a Heritage Commission?

 

         a.      To be a resource for the denomination and its leaders by offering insights from previous generations as each new generation faces its own opportunities and problems.       

b.      To challenge all our people by accounts of great lives and deeds in our MC/UMC/MCA history through occasional bulletin inserts.

        c.       To help facilitate an annual heritage Sunday in all of our churches.

        d.      To be whistle blowers when the Commission members agree deviations from our heritage endanger the denomination.

 

3.      How might a Heritage Commission be formed and function?

 

         a.      One suggestion is that the Executive Committee of the General Board (or the GOC of a restructured denomination) appoint five people who are keenly sensitive to our MC heritage to a Heritage Commission, with care to select a group that would include people with field experience as missionaries, at least one person from a district in the West, at least one historical scholar, at least one person with pastoral experience, and at least one person with executive experience at the national or district level.  Obviously, one individual might combine several of these qualities.  To give names as examples of who might be Heritage Commission members would be to consider persons such as Larry DeWitt, John Moran, Dennis Enbrecht, Tim Erdel, and Timothy Warner.

b.      Such a Commission might meet annually or more often if needed, and might keep in frequent contact by modern communication.  Commission meetings might be scheduled during denominational conferences or during sessions of the General Board (or the GOC or MLC).

c.      The Executive Committee of the General Board (or the GOC) might well have the responsibility to elect new members to the Heritage Commission when necessary or appropriate.  At their discretion the electors could ask the Heritage Commission to offer appropriate nominations for their elections.

         d.      The members of the Heritage Committee could affect its own internal schedules, organization, and goals.

         e.      If necessary, funding for the Commission could be sought outside the denominational budget.

Dr. Paul Erdel served as a missionary with World Parters in Ecuador.  Now retired he resides in Mishawaka, IN with his wife Ruth and currently serves as Director of Hispanic Ministries for the North Central District of the Missionary Church.