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.