~ by Bill McPhailIn the foreword to Further Insights into Holiness, Dr. Kenneth Geiger, the first president of the Missionary Church and a leading proponent of the doctrine of entire sanctification wrote: “It is a fact of history that the vitality and dynamic of a movement can be dissipated over the years. The process of transmission or the handing down of a message or emphasis from generation to generation in a careless manner can result in distortion and confusion. Unless the God-given responsibility of communication is discharged with faithfulness and in the fear of the Lord, future generations will be like the generation after Joshua, who ‘knew not the Lord’ (Judg. 2:10).”
Dr. Geiger’s warning should give those of us in the Missionary Church pause, as we are asked to consider changing our historic doctrine of holiness… A doctrine, which our forefathers passionately embraced and boldly proclaimed… A doctrine which defined our message, mission and purpose!
Sadly, a close reading of both the current statement and the proposed statement belie any assurances given to date that the proposed doctrinal statement is but a “tweaking” or clarification of the current doctrinal position on sanctification.
Now, I am not suggesting that we in the Missionary Church do not have the right or the responsibility to clearly articulate our core beliefs, and in particular, our statement on sanctification and the filling with the Holy Spirit. Nor do I believe that there is only one correct way to formulate such a statement. Indeed, none of the denominations in America that continue to share a common belief in the doctrine of holiness have identical doctrinal statements! However, we need to exercise caution when being asked to exchange a definitive statement for a descriptive one. For a definitive doctrinal statement is one that is clear, absolute, distinct and free of all ambiguity, uncertainty or obscurity. On the other hand a descriptive doctrinal statement is one that tends to try to be more inclusive to differing doctrinal positions, thus relating to present realities to the exclusion of historical and comparative beliefs.
So, before we vote we need to ask ourselves these questions:
1. Do the recommended changes strengthen our historic position on the doctrine of sanctification and the filling with the Holy Spirit?
2. Do we still believe that sanctification is the will of God?
3. Do we still believe that sanctification is provided for in the atonement?
4. Do we still believe in a crisis experience subsequent to regeneration in which the believer is to be perfected in holiness?
If our answer is “yes” to all of the above why do we want to change?
Frankly, the honest answer probably lies with the fact that a majority of the doctrinal committee who wrestled with this issue do not subscribe to a Wesleyan-Arminian understanding of the doctrine of holiness nor does the General Board of the Missionary Church. But, if you are up to it, please read a little further as I endeavor to address these four questions, keeping in mind that whenever a denomination drops substantive statements from its historic doctrinal position, it either no longer believes the statements to be true, or, the statements are no longer embraced with unshakeable, unchanging conviction.
Answer #1: Church History
No debate! The current doctrinal statement on Sanctification and Filling with the Holy Spirit has been with us since the Missionary Church Association and the United Missionary church merged forty years ago. Though the form changed through the years, it has Wesleyan-Arminian roots tracing back to the early days of the Mennonite Brethren in Christ.
Answer #2: The Will of God
Ironically, the belief that sanctification “is the will of God” is not the exclusive property of Wesleyan-Arminians. Throughout church history this idea has been firmly held.
Among the Apostolic Fathers (those acquainted with the apostles) Clement of Rome who died in A.D. 95 wrote: “The Church of God which is at Rome to the Church of God which is at Corinth, elect, sanctified by the will of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord: grace and peace from the Almighty God, by Jesus Christ be multiplied to you.” Ignatius of Antioch who was appointed bishop of Antioch in A.D. 70 wrote: “It is, therefore fitting that you should…be wholly and thoroughly sanctified.”
The Shepherd of Hermes which was one of the most popular books read in the Early Church during the second, third and fourth centuries says in chapter 9: “ Hear me, therefore, O my sons! I have bred you up in much simplicity, and innocency, and modesty, for the mercy of God, which was dripping down upon you in righteousness; that you should be sanctified.” Clement of Alexander who lived about A.D. 153 to 217 wrote: “…and is dignified with the Holy Spirit through the sanctification of soul and body, perfect with the perfection of the Saviour…”
Reformer Martin Luther (1483-1546) wrote that: “sanctification is wrought by the Holy Ghost through the Word of God in the unity of the Christian church.”
John Calvin (1509-1564) in his Institutes (III.19.2) asserts, “The whole life of Christians ought to be a sort of practice of godliness, for we have been called to sanctification.”
The late John Brown, United Presbyterian pastor and theologian from Edinburgh, Scotland wrote in his commentary on First Peter.: "The better the connection between the atonement and sanctification is understood, the more firmly it is believed, the more habitually it is meditated on, the greater progress will the individual Christian make in practical godliness"... "The sanctifying efficacy of the atonement is exerted through the faith of the atonement. It is only as known and believed that it can either pacify the conscience or purify the heart".
Andrew Murray – Dutch Reformed Church missionary and author (1794-1866) in his book “Thy will be Done” wrote: “When, by His grace, the believer wills as God wills, when he has accepted God’s will for sanctification as his own will, he can count upon God’s working it. God wills it with all the energy of His Divine being. God can as little cease working holiness as He can cease being holy or being God. He wills our sanctification; and if we will but will it too, in the faith of the new nature in which the Holy Spirit works, and yield ourselves to the will of the Omnipotent Love in assurance of His working in us, we shall experience how true and blessed the message is: God wills, and therefore most certainly works your sanctification.”
William Lush - Episcopal – 1869 “Sanctification, the word of God informs us, is the setting apart, for holy purposes, persons and things, according to the will of God.”
Though these men of God may have had diverse viewpoints on the doctrine of sanctification, one thing is clear: they believed Sanctification was the will of God.
If sanctification is the will of God should we drop it from our statement of faith?
Answer #3: Provided in the Atonement
If we no longer believe that Sanctification is provided in the Atonement, inasmuch as we believe that initial sanctification begins at conversion, then the atonement could not apply to conversion either! Wow…imagine that, salvation not accomplished by what Jesus accomplished for us on the cross!
In the abridged edition of his Fundamental Christian Theology, Dr. A. M. Hills says:
We infer the possibility of sanctification from the revealed purpose of the life and death of Christ. The Scriptures declare that Christ came "to make an end of sin, to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in everlasting righteousness" (Daniel 9:24). "That he would grant unto us, that we, being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all our days" (Luke 1:74, 75). Here is sanctification, not at death, nor after death, but "all the days of our life." "Christ loved the church and gave himself for it that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it that it should be holy and without blemish" (Ephesians 5:25-27). Again, "Wherefore Jesus also that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate" (Hebrews 13:12). "Who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify for himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works" (Titus 2:14). "Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example that ye should follow his steps, who did no sin" (I Peter 2:21, 22). "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, having died unto sins, might live unto righteousness" (I Peter 2:24). Manifestly God designed the great plan of salvation, and Jesus died on the cross that He might restore fallen man to holiness.
If sanctification is provided for in the atonement should we drop it from our statement of faith?
Answer #4: Crisis Experience
It has been suggested that today’s generation doesn’t understand the word “crisis experience, so we need to change our wording to decisive experience. (Hmm, I wonder if they understand the words “born again”? Anyone for dropping that language?)
Webster’s dictionary defines “crisis” as “the turning point” or the “decisive moment”. Thus, I would agree that a crisis is a decisive experience, or a decisive point of change.
In his book, Launch Out, A Theology of Dynamic Sanctification, Gerald E. McGraw writes: “Perhaps ‘turning point’ should replace (the word crisis) at least for a generation that grows impatient with theological jargon.” But then, he adds this poignant footnote: “Needless quibbling about trivial points rightly disgusts a generation dedicated to practicality. On the other hand, precise words sometimes convey vital distinctions that impatience hopelessly muddles. Virtually every field includes a vocabulary that enables communication. If I refuse to learn my computers vocabulary, it stubbornly rejects mine. My physician uses some of the same words that other human beings use but with a different meaning; to communicate, I must understand him. If a generation of Christians learns enough computer and medical language to communicate but refuses to master any theological language, can any solution emerge? Clergy and teachers must either keep defining their terms with every use or select less technical and therefore often less precise ones so that Christians can understand and grow. The only alternative would be to foster a generation of Christians who were as eager to communicate about God and spiritual things as they are to communicate with computers and physicians.”
Frankly, since neither the term “crisis experience” or “decisive experience” are “biblical” terms, perhaps one would be just as good as the other in describing that sanctifying experience that follows conversion… except that … past generations within the wider spectrum of both the Wesleyan-Arminian and even Keswick family who passed to us the doctrine of holiness and sanctification also understood, taught and wrote the words “crisis experience”. It is regularly used in holiness literature, here, my appeal is not to tradition, but to understanding.
In our attempt to find a suitable replacement for the words “crisis experience” we are setting sail in a sea where there are no other boats.
So, one last time I ask the question: Do we really want to drop it from our statement of faith?
