We Were Frogs

HOLINESS: Its Importance and Place in the M.B.C. Church ~ by Wm. H. Yates

2010-04-28T14:20:00.008-04:00

(The following is part of an article from the Gospel Banner, May 22, 1930. It was the official publication of the Mennonite Brethren in Christ, which is a significant part of the Missionary Church heritage.)
Each person of the Trinity is co-operative in the work of Entire Sanctification.

God the Father wills it.

Jesus Christ makes provision for it.

The Holy Ghost accomplishes it.

Its Importance and Place in the M. B. C. Church.

It is important because:

(1) God has provided it for us and demand it of us.

(2) We cannot meet God’s idea of salvation in its completeness without it.

(3) It is the only thing that will completely satisfy the souls of our people.

(4) It will give us power with God and man.

(5) It prepares men for life and heaven.

(6) Because it is the greatest need of the church.

(7) Because it is a necessity to the greatest Christian usefulness.

We as ministers cannot be at our best without the experience. Nothing else can take the place of it. Men lay great stress on education, culture and training, which are good in their place, but the great qualification for the ministry is The Baptism of the Holy Ghost. Without this we become mere ornaments, just simply filling a place, and entertaining our people. We believe that the success of our church, and ministry in the past is attributed to the stand we have taken on this important subject. We must continue to give this truth a prominent place in our preaching and teaching. It is not only essential as an article in our creed, but we must teach it, and preach it, so as our people can understand it, and see the importance of seeking the experience. Oh! Let us enjoy it, and preach it, so that our people will become hungry for it, that we will have many press their way into the blessing.
I sometimes wonder if we have not let down somewhat, in giving this truth to our people. How many holiness meetings do we have in a year? Where are our holiness conventions gone that we used to have? Were they of no benefit? Are they too much out of date for these modern days? To my mind no doctrine is of more importance than the doctrine of Entire Sanctification. All other doctrines point to this, and all other doctrines are intended to lead to this. This should be the great end of all our church teaching.
God’s method for saving the world is by and through the sanctification of His people. Jesus commanded His disciples that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait (how hard it is to wait) for the promise of the Father. Then He also said, "Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth."
Many a time our heart’s cry as workers and ministers is “O God revive thy work again.” We see the great need of this all over our church. We see the great need of extending our borders, and branching out, and opening up new work. We see the need of more workers at home and abroad. We see the lack of finances to send out more workers. Oh! the appalling need of our church and of a lost world facing us in this day. What is the remedy? What can meet the need?

Brethren and Sisters, the only thing that will meet the great need, is a genuine old time revival of Bible Holiness, among us as preachers and workers, as well as among our laity.

Our mission as a church is to promote Holiness. All our church work ought to be that end.

The Bishops of the M. E. Church (Methodist Episcopal Church) in 1824 said that in an address to the general conference. “If Methodists give up the doctrine of Entire Sanctification, or suffer it to become a dead letter, we are a fallen people. Holiness is the main cord that binds us together. Relax this and you loosen the whole system.”

This can be said of our own little church in this present day. Let us as workers together, enjoy it, teach it, preach it, and live it. Urge our people to seek it and I am confident that our work as a church will flourish and grow, and blessed revival will be the outcome.

THE SECRET OF SPIRITUAL POWER by G. D. Watson

2010-02-18T11:56:00.008-05:00

The late Dr. J. A. Huffman, Missionary Church historian, pointed to G.D. Watson as having greatly contributed to the understanding of the doctrine of holiness in the formative days of the denomination. "The Secret of Spiritual Power" was one of the writings of G. D. Watson that had wide distribution during those years.

A great deal has been said and written upon the subject of spiritual power, and perhaps I can add nothing original upon the subject, but may help to stir up some pure minds by way of remembrance.

While attending a holiness convention in Star Hall, Manchester, England, one day, there opened up to my mind a series of thoughts as to the secret of God's power in man. In the. first place, the secret of spiritual power consists in the union of the Holy Ghost with the purified faculties and natural energies of the human soul, and, on the human side, it consists in the utter abandonment of the soul to, and a hearty cooperation with, the Holy Spirit. It is not eloquence, nor style, nor personal magnetism, nor psychology, nor the natural energy of the human soul, not even the energy of a purified soul. The soul may be purified, and yet as a mere creature, the creature faculties and creature powers do not have the power of God in soul-saving, in aggressive spiritual work, in bringing sinners to repentance, or believers into holiness. It is true that a human soul free from sin, as a mere creature, has a marvelous power above other unsaved souls, but as a creature, though it be holy, yet in itself does not possess that secret energy which can communicate conviction and lead to salvation. So that, however holy a man is, there must be joined on to him a divine current, a supernatural energy which is emphatically divine, and of which he is the vehicle and conductor.

This divine power is a secret unknown to the world, uncomprehended by the most learned sinners, misunderstood by carnal professors, utterly beyond the grasp of philosophers or scientists. Let us notice some Scripture proofs. Jesus had a pure soul; from the very initial of His being He was perfectly free from the fallen nature of Adam, and, as a mere man, He was superior in moral strength to all the men of the world. And yet it was not by His holy creature-strength that He did the works of His father. The power that Jesus used in working miracles, in preaching sermons, in healing diseases, in casting out demons, in saving souls was not the power of His sinless soul, but it was the power flowing from the baptism of the Spirit upon His pure humanity. This is distinctly marked in the two periods of His life. From His infancy to His baptism in Jordan He was entirely holy, but wrought no miracles, but when the Holy Ghost descended on Him, from that time on, He was the Anointed One, and worked under the perpetual unction that flowed through Him from the Holy Spirit. So that in addition to His holy creature-faculties, God poured into Him the fullness of the Spirit. We are told that when Jesus had gotten through with the temptation of the wilderness, He "returned to Galilee in the power of the Holy Ghost." This expression of returning in the "power of the Holy Ghost," implies that there was added unto Him a power which He did not possess as a mere pure man.

We sometimes hear it said that "holiness is power," and that all the power we need for the work of God is heart purity, but these remarks are not entirely correct according to the Word of God. It is true that heart purity is power in the creature sense of power, but it is not the power of the Holy Ghost in the Scripture sense of it. Jesus is our example, and we read that He received in addition to His pure humanity the power of the Holy Ghost, and that it was "through the eternal Spirit He offered Himself without spot unto God," and that it was "through the Holy Ghost He gave commandment unto the apostles." And He so often affirms, "The words I speak unto you I speak not of Myself," that is, the words did not proceed from His merely pure humanity. Now, if Jesus needed the Holy Ghost united with His holy creature nature in order to give Him the peculiar secret of power in His mission, and if He is our example, how much more do we need that we should have our sanctified hearts and our mental faculties in vital union with the Holy Spirit, that by that union we may do the work of God. So that we cannot depend On the natural energies even of our saved souls. We cannot depend on ourselves in any form, nor on any creature, or number of creatures however holy they may be.

Another proof text is, Jesus says, "Ye shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you." The old version says, "Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost has come upon you." But it is more correct to take the marginal reading. According to the thought in the old version, the power is a something which is detached from the Holy Ghost, but according to the margin, the power is identified with the Holy Ghost, and is spoken of as a current or wave which gushes out from the conjunction of the Holy Spirit and the human soul. Just as the current of water in the wilderness did not gush from the rock of itself, nor did it gush from the rod, but when the rod touched the rock, from the union of the rod and the rock, the stream poured forth, so the current of divine power does not go forth from the Holy Ghost apart from the human soul, nor does it proceed from the merely purified soul, but when the sanctified soul and the Holy Ghost are united, from that ineffable union there goes forth what is scripturally called the power of God. Thus the secret of power is in having the Holy Ghost unite Himself to our souls, cleansing, filling, inspiring us, supplying us according to each emergency with supernatural light, energy, wisdom, courage, tact and zeal, to do the will and work of God. This power is something that God puts within the soul, which the soul itself does not comprehend, so that a person under its enduement does not break down with discouragement, does not break down under a thousand things that would break down the human soul if it were left by itself.

One of the best illustrations of this secret power is a current of electricity, of which the sanctified faculties of man form the negative pole, and the Holy Ghost the positive. If these are separated there is no current, but united there goes forth a shock to startle the slumbering, to awaken sinners, to cause the hearers to break down in penitential weeping, to reveal to Christian people as by a flash of lightning the original impurity in their hearts, and to move congregations toward the Saviour with earnest cries for salvation. The scarcity of these celestial shocks is because professedly Christian workers trust to creature strength, or to the mere orthodoxy of their words. "Cursed is the man that trusteth in man," and especially cursed is he that trusteth in himself.

George D. Watson's Influence on the Missionary Church

2009-11-24T13:21:00.005-05:00

When writing the history of the Mennonite Brethren in Christ, a predecessor to the Missionary Church, Dr. J. A. Huffman singled out George D. Watson as one of the men who greatly influenced the development of the Doctrine of Holiness and Entire Sanctification within the movement. The following is the testimony of Watson that was widely circulated in those formative days.

I was born in Accomac County, Virginia, March 26, 1845. My father and mother, grandfather and grandmother, were Methodists. I was raised up in family prayer, attended Sabbath-school and went through many revivals of religion. I suppose I was the black sheep of the flock; the worst boy of the whole six. I was exceedingly passionate, self-willed, imperious and contrary.

My earliest convictions were when I was five or six years old. One night Father and Mother went to church and left us children alone, the eldest being twelve or thirteen years of age. We sang "Rock of Ages," and all got under conviction. I prayed and cried, but did not know what ailed me. At that early, age I was called to preach. When I was twelve or thirteen I sought religion, and after that was at the altar at every revival; but my will was not thoroughly broken down.

I was converted in the Southern army, near Richmond, Virginia, August 12, 1863. When I was converted it was a new creation. I read the New Testament through twice that year. I began to hold prayer meetings among the young men. My old companions would meet me and knock my Bible out of my hand and call me names. I had not been saved a month until I found there was inbred sin in my heart. I had never heard of holiness. If some one had known how to lead me I think I would have obtained the blessing then.

I went to the Biblical Institute at Concord, New Hampshire, where I acquired a knowledge of the rudiments of Hebrew, Greek, and theology. I joined the Philadelphia Conference in 1868. I went to the National Campmeeting at Oakington in 1869, and there first heard a sermon on entire sanctification. I went to the altar seeking it, and there through the influence of Alfred Cookman, who was then a member of my conference. I received a great blessing, felt great tranquillity, and called it perfect love. I went back and testified to holiness.

My presiding elder opposed the doctrine and ridiculed me for preaching in advance of my elders, and so did others; and under the pressure I did not testify as often as I should. I did not preach against it; but I did not stand up for the doctrine, and soon got back into my old state. I then descended from a restful Christianity to a toilsome Christianity, and also began using tobacco again. I had hours of communion with God, but they were unsteady; and I had a great deal of soul twilight. I loved to preach; enjoyed a revival; felt much enthusiasm in all the interests of my church; felt at home in Christian society, and was often thrilled with the harmony and grandeur of Bible truth. I went into science and philosophy. For four or five years I ate the strongest intellectual food that the Church could furnish me. But I was starving my heart by trying to feed my brain. All this time I was trying to seek God. I would break down and cry over my condition. God blessed my labors, and souls were converted. But I was having a terrible struggle with myself. I felt my whole life to be one unending will struggle. I suffered more than tongue can tell from melancholy. An unkind or unfavorable criticism, or an apparent neglect, would often hurl my spirit into deepest gloom. I grew tired of living in the public eye: tired of routine work; but most tired of myself. My wife was sick, and I could not bear sickness. I had a great deal of trouble that others did not see was trouble, and yet sorely tried me.

In October, 1876, I began to seek holiness again. I was now filled with all sorts of notions. I said, I will grow into it. Then I took up the repression theory, then the Zinzendorf theory. I was like a sailor, first setting his sail one way, then another.

One cannot always tell by the way a man talks what he thinks. Three weeks before I was sanctified I said in a preachers' meeting, "When God converts a soul he makes it as pure as it ever will be," and at the same time I was seeking holiness. About this time a local preacher came and said to me: "Would you object to having a few holiness people from Cincinnati come up and hold a three-days' holiness meeting?" I told him I should be very glad to have them come.

On the 1st day of December, 1876, the holiness-meeting began. That night, after my wife had retired, I prayed for an hour, as was my custom. Sometimes the next day I would get mad, and my wife would say, "I am ashamed of you. I am afraid you have not a bit of religion, and you preaching as you do." I felt ashamed, and yet I would sometimes defend myself, and then go away and pray and cry over it. But that Friday night I was teachable as I lay on the edge of the bed, with my hand under my cheek and my face toward the door so as not to disturb any one.

Then the Lord began to talk to me. "Will you receive it?" "Yes, Lord." "Will you consent for me to make your family sick; your wife sick?" "Yes, Lord; give me the blessing." "Will you let me take your health in my – hand give you bronchitis or consumption?" "Yes, Lord. Any time you want me to die, I will consent to go." "Will you consent to leave those large appointments you have been having? Will you consent to take a poor appointment for me?" "Yes, Lord, I will take the poorest appointment in Indiana if it is thy will." (And there were some poor ones.)

"Suppose I want you to go and preach among the Freedmen, will you go?" I said, "Yes, Lord, if it is thy will." "Will you give up your tobacco, that your body may be my temple?" I had tried several times to give it up, but would go back to it again. I said, "Yes, Lord, I will give it up. I will do any thing. Give me the blessing." When I got all through I dropped to sleep. I do not know how it was, but when I waked up next morning I found the appetite for tobacco was gone. I never have taken back the consecration.

The following Monday, December 4, at noon, I went into my study and began reading the Scriptures, with the first chapter of First Peter: "Peter, an Apostle of Jesus Christ ... Elect according to the pre-knowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit." I stopped. "There," said I, "that is sanctification." "Whom having not seen ye love." "I do love thee, and I know thou lovest me." "In whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." As I uttered these words God let loose a Niagara of salvation in my soul. I walked back and forth shouting, "Glory to God!" After a time that subsided into a calm.

My next appointment was where the church was very worldly. Still there were some lowly ones, as there are in all churches. The Lord saved some there; but I had a terrible time. I got rash and said harsh things. I would say things that took the skin off. Instead of encouraging and strengthening the weak I would strike hard blows. Several times I lost the witness of holiness and would have to fly back to the fountain. Sometimes I acted wrong with my wife. I tried to hurry her along and have her get the experience as I did. It was not her nature, and it could not be expected she would get it as I did. Sometimes, perhaps, I would say things to try to urge her along too fast; then I would see I had done wrong and ask her pardon. Then I would go to the Lord and say, "Put me in the fountain."

I went to another place, and began urging men too fast. An old man, the one who led Bishop Hamline into sanctification, came to me and put his arms around me and said, "You are preaching holiness in the wrong way." About that time I had a sort of vision. I thought I saw a large flock of sheep. Some were scratched with thorns, some with the wool off; others had horns; then there were lambs. I was walking around among the sheep with a club trying to keep them right. I saw I was wrong. This was three years after I had been cleansed.

Then I was in a hurry. I wanted to be as perfect as Paul in all things, right away. The Lord has since meltedme down and softened my heart. I love all God's people. The devil has tried, on one side, to make me too tame. I had been too radical, and when I began to be too conservative the Lord brought me back. I was like a pendulum-- first swinging too far this way, and then the Lord would bring me back.

And now, after suffering many defeats, learning many lessons in this Canaan of Perfect Love, I praise God for the trials of my faith and for His marvelous keeping power. I have learned that I must be an uncompromising, unwavering witness to the cleansing power of Christ; that I must not make an idol of holiness or holiness people; that I must not lean upon my emotions, but must walk by faith, and sometimes in seasons of darkness; that Satan tempts and tries me more directly and boldly than ever before, that I must often be dead to things and plans that are in themselves innocent, must sow and reap, or sow and let others reap. My heart breaks down under a delicious burden of humble and adoring praise to the wonderful Jesus. I have no will of my own. My will is the will of my Father. A sense of utter nothingness is growing upon me, together with an increasing sense of merit of Jesus.

JOHN INSKIP'S INFLUENCE ON THE MISSIONARY CHURCH

2009-10-28T18:11:00.009-04:00

The first distinct "holiness camp meeting" convened at Vineland, New Jersey in 1867 under the leadership of John S. Inskip, John A. Wood, Alfred Cookman, and other Methodist ministers. The gathering attracted as many as 10,000 people. At the close of the encampment, while the ministers were on their knees in prayer, they formed the National Camp Meeting Association for the Promotion of Holiness, and agreed to conduct a similar gathering the next year.

Missionary Church historian, J. A. Huffman, when writing the history of the denomination chronicled the fact that John Inskip was one of the men who significantly influenced the development of the doctrine of holiness within the Missionary Church.

The following sermon, though lengthy was delivered by John Inskip at the National Camp Meeting Association for the Promotion of Holiness, Sunday July 27, 1873, two year before Daniel S. Brenneman founded what ultimately became the Missionary Church. It was sermons and writings like this that helped shape the doctrinal views of our early leaders.

Sermon: "And that ye put on the new man, which after God is renewed in righteousness and true holiness.." -- Eph. 4:25.

The responsibility of the task now before me, I think I fully appreciate. The subject upon which it is proposed to dwell is attracting the attention of the people of God everywhere. A profound and wide-spread interest has been awakened in the mind of the Christian Church upon this all-important theme. Whatever may be written or said in regard to it, is read and heard with the most devout consideration and deference. One of the most hopeful omens of the times is the fact that this topic is before the minds of the great body of believers unencumbered by controversy. There is an obvious endeavor to preserve the "unity of the Spirit," and harmonize any conflicting views which may yet remain. I should deem myself most unfortunate, if anything I may say should

at all hinder this. I trust, by the help of the blessed Spirit, that what I shall say will only stimulate all to press onward in the "King's highway," and seek that "full conformity to the Divine will which is the real basis of purity, and the true source of happiness.

I. WHAT IS TRUE HOLINESS?

1. As a generic term it includes whatever is connected with the Christian life and character. Thus interpreted it may be applied to any and all stages of religious life and development.

2. It is, however, used in a more definite sense than this. Among a large class the term is synonymous with "purity," "perfection," "sanctification," "entire sanctification," "perfect love," and the "higher life," and numerous others.

3. Which of these terms shall be employed is immaterial in one view, and yet immensely important in another. If the question be simply one of terminology, it may perhaps be deemed comparatively unimportant. And when we propose one of these Scripture terms as more clear and more readily understood than others, this is all right. But when, for any reason whatever, we use the uninspired verbiage of man, rather than the words which God has chosen, we certainly commit a great error if not a grave wrong. It must be admitted that on account of the grievous abuse, and persistent is understanding of these terms, it is sometimes difficult to use them. Yet we must not abandon them.

4. But what is true holiness? This undoubtedly is the great question. We should seek to know what it is, as far more essential than the mere words we may use in speaking of it. The terms we have quoted, we propose to use indiscriminately. Strictly interpreted there is a shade of difference in their import; but as generally used they mean one and the same thing.

5. The nature and true idea of holiness may be gathered from the numerous passages of Scripture in which it is spoken of. The word of God is full of this glorious theme. Dr. Foster has well said: "The doctrine we contend for is not limited to a bare and questionable place, a doubtful and uncertain existence in the holy records, but is repeatedly and abundantly explicitly and with great clearness -- embodied as a cardinal feature throughout the whole system. It breathes in the prophecy -- thunders in the law -- murmurs in the narrative -- whispers in the promises -- supplicates in the prayers -- sparkles in the poetry -- resounds in the song -- speaks in the type -- glows in the imagery -- voices in the language -- and burns in the spirit of the whole scheme, from

its Alpha to its Omega -- from its beginning to its end. Holiness! Holiness needed! Holiness required! Holiness offered! Holiness attainable! Holiness a present duty -- a present privilege – a present enjoyment, is the progress and completeness of its wondrous theme! It is the truth glowing all over -- webbing all through revelation; the glorious truth which sparkles, and whispers, and sings, and shouts in all its history, and biography, and poetry, and prophecy, and precept, and promise, and prayer; the great central truth of the system. The wonder is, that all do not see, that any rise up to question, a truth so conspicuous, so glorious. So full of comfort."

The Scriptures enjoin holiness. A command is equivalent to a promise. As explicitly as words can make it, holiness is presented as our duty. Our Heavenly Father does not command us to do or to be what we cannot. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength, and thy neighbor as thyself"

"Be ye holy, for I am holy."

"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord."

The Scriptures present it before the mind in earnest and pointed exhortation. "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore, these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God."

It is also inculcated by the promises. These promises are numerous. We select a few from the great multitudes -- "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you."

"I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the Lord; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart. After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God and they shall be my people."

"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

It is presented likewise as the object of earnest and prayerful desire. "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height: and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God. Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto him be glory in the

Church by Christ Jesus, throughout all ages, world without end. Amen."

"Now the God of Peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ."

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly: and I pray God, your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it."

It is proclaimed in the most explicit announcements of Scripture. " Blessed be the Lord God of Israel: for he hath raised up a horn of salvation for us, as he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, that we, being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life."

"If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

"But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life."

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless, I live: yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God."

"For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

A multitude of similar passages might be quoted. These are ample for our purpose. They clearly inculcate the doctrine under consideration.

6. We must admit some of these quotations are claimed not to contain the ideas we deduce from them. We have no authoritative expounder of the Scriptures. Yet we are not without a reliable and safe exposition of the word.

7. These passages should be interpreted in view of the teaching and experience of many, and the aspirations of all. The most devout, and therefore the most reliable expositors of holy writ. Have understood the doctrine of purity to be inculcated by these quotations. Some in whom we all have confidence, declare their experience of this glorious truth. All Christians desire such a state, -- and this desire is increased as men advance and improve. These considerations combined, ought to be of great weight with us.

8. Some of the declarations made by these eminent men to whom we look up for

instruction, we may profitably review.

Ignatius, one of the apostolic fathers, in an epistle to the Ephesians, says:

Nothing is better than peace, whereby all war is destroyed, both of things in heaven and things on earth. Nothing of this is hid from you, if ye have perfect faith in Jesus Christ, and love, which are the beginning and the end of life; faith is the beginning, love the end; and both being joined in one, are of God. All other things pertaining to perfect holiness follow. For no man that hath faith sinneth; and none that hath love hateth any man."

Irenaeus, an eminent father of the second century, makes the following pointed observation: "The apostle explaining himself in his first epistle to the Thessalonians, fifth chapter, exhibited the perfect and spiritual salvation of man, saying, 'But the God of peace sanctify you perfectly; that your soul, body, and spirit, may be preserved without fault to the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.' How then, indeed, did he have the cause in these three, (that is to pray for the entire and perfect preservation of soul, body, and spirit, to the coming of the Lord,) unless he knew the common salvation of these was the renovation of the whole three? Wherefore he calls those perfect who present the three faultless to the Lord. Therefore those are perfect who have the spirit and perseverance of God, and have preserved their souls and bodies without fault."

Macarius, a member of the celebrated council of Nice, is very clear in his statement of the doctrine. In a treatise upon this subject he says: " What, then, is that 'perfect will of God,' to which the apostle calls and exhorts every one of us to attain? It is perfect purity from sin, freedom from all shameful passions, and the assumption of perfect virtue; that is, the purification of the heart by the plenary and experimental communion of the perfect and divine Spirit. To those who say it is impossible to attain to perfection, and the final and complete subjugation of the passions, or to acquire a full participation of the good Spirit, we must oppose the testimony of the divine

Scriptures; and prove to them that they are ignorant and speak both falsely and presumptuously."

Numerous other authorities might be cited connecting these times of remote antiquity with the present, and showing that the idea or doctrine has been held in all ages by the Church of Christ. Very frequently there has been great ambiguity and a great admixture of error, and many views have been advanced which we could not sustain. We quote now a few authorities of modern times.

Luther learned first the doctrine of justification by faith, but for a time sought sanctification by works. As he ascended the holy stairway at Rome the word came to him, which before had struck light into his soul -- "The just shall live by faith." The great leading dogma of the Reformation was undoubtedly justification by faith. That point was made very prominent and clear. It remained, however, for the revival of evangelism under those reformers who came after Luther, to bring out the doctrine of Christian purity.

Robert Barclay informs us concerning the views held by the Society of Friends. The testimony of such a quiet and unpretending body of Christians, is of exceeding great value. He says: "In whom this holy and pure birth is fully brought forth, the body of death and sin comes to be crucified and removed, and their hearts united and subjected to the truth, so as not to obey any suggestion or temptation of the evil One, but to be free from actual sinning, and transgressing of the law of God, and in that respect perfect. Yet doth this perfection still admit of growth; and there remaineth a possibility of sinning, where the mind doth not most diligently and watchfully attend unto the Lord."

Our own denominational testimony has always been very decided and unequivocal. Wesley, Fletcher, Watson, Clark, Bramwell, Asbury, Abbott, Hedding, Hamline, Bangs, Fisk, and Olin, among our honored dead, and Peck, Foster, Wood, McDonald, and Boynton, of living authorities, have all spoken in terms that cannot be easily misunderstood. Their testimony and teaching have been amply confirmed in the life and experience of Hester Ann Rodgers and Mrs Fletcher, and the world wide spread writings of Mrs. Palmer. This truth indeed is sung in our hymns, recited in our catechisms, and reiterated in our rituals, and illustrated in our biographies, and the only wonder is that any among us ever doubted it.

John Wesley says: "Scriptural holiness is the image of God; the mind that was in Christ; the love of God and man: lowliness, gentleness, temperance, patience, chastity."

What, then, is that holiness which is the true wedding garment, the only qualification for glory? 'In Jesus Christ' (that is according to the Christian institution. Whatever be the case of the heathen world) 'neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but a new creation: the renewal of the soul in the image of God wherein it was created. In Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by love. It first, through the energy of God, worketh love to God and all mankind; and by this love, every holy and heavenly temper. In particular, lowliness, meekness, gentleness, temperance and long suffering. 'It is neither circumcision' -- the attending on all the Christian ordinances, 'nor uncircumcision,' -- the fulfilling of all heathen morality, but keeping the commandments of God -- particularly those "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself.' In a word, holiness is the having the mind that was in Christ, and the walking as Christ walked." This plain statement puts the question of Mr. Wesley's views beyond all reasonable doubt.

Fletcher was equally pointed and explicit. His argument in support of this doctrine has never been equaled -- never answered.

Watson, eminent for his theological lore, said: "Regeneration, we have seen, is

concomitant with justification, but the apostles in addressing the body of believers in the churches to whom they wrote their epistles, set before them, both in the prayers they offer in their behalf, and in the exhortations they administer, a still higher degree of deliverance from sin, as well as a high growth in Christian virtues. Two passages only need be quoted to prove this: 1 Thes. 5:2 -- 'And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly: and I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.' 2 Cor. 7:1 -- 'Having these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.' In both these passages, deliverance from sin is the subject

spoken of; and the prayer in one instance, and the exhortation in the other, goes to the extent of the entire sanctification of 'soul' and 'spirit,' as well as of the 'flesh' or 'body' from all sin: by which can only be meant our complete deliverance from all spiritual pollution, all inward depravation of the heart, as well as that which expressing itself outwardly by the indulgence of the senses, is called filthiness of flesh and spirit."

Dr. Adam Clark once observed: "As to the words which you quote as mine, I totally disclaim them. I never said -- I never intended to say them: I believe justification and sanctification to be widely distinct works I have been twenty-three years a traveling preacher, and have been acquainted with some thousands of Christians during that time, who were in different states of grace; and I never, to my knowledge, met with a single instance where God both justified and sanctified at the same time. I have heard of such, but I never saw them, and doubt whether any such ever existed. I have known multitudes who were justified according to the definition which you give of that sacred work; and I have known many who were sanctified in the sense in which you use that word, which I believe to be quite correct. But all these I have found were brought into these different states at separate times; having previously received a deep conviction of the need of

pardon, and afterward of holiness of heart. If sanctification be taken in the sense in which it is frequently used in the Old Testament -- to separate -- set apart for sacred use -- then it implies a state lower than that of justification -- such a state as that of a thorough penitent, who, when he is convinced of sin, separates himself from all unrighteousness, and consecrates himself to God. But when I speak of the purification of the heart, or doctrine of Christian perfection, I use sanctification in the sense in which it has generally been understood among the Methodists."

8. Our catechetical and ritualistic teaching is also in the same direction. Of ritualism we are fortunate in having but little. This little, however, bears decisive testimony to the doctrine. In the baptismal service for adults the officiating minister uses this prayer: 'O merciful God, grant that all carnal affections may die in these persons, and that all things belonging to the Spirit may live and grow in them. Grant that they may have power and strength to have victory, and triumph against the devil, the world, and the flesh."

In the sacramental service we have the following: "Almighty God, unto whom all hearts areopen, all desires known. And from whom no secrets are hid, cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy name, through Jesus Christ our Lord."

In admitting any one to the itinerant ministry, we ask the following questions: "Have you faith in Christ? Are you going on to perfection? Do you expect to be made perfect in love in this life? Are you groaning after it." Here is a clear recognition of the doctrine and experience we speak of.

9. Our catechism gives a most explicit statement of this truth. "Question: What are the results of saving faith? Answer. Justification, regeneration, and sanctification. Justification is that act of God's free grace in which he pardons our sins, and accepts us as righteous in his sight, for the sake of Christ. Regeneration is the new birth of the soul in the image of Christ, whereby we become the children of God; and sanctification is that act of divine grace whereby we are made holy. It is the privilege of every believer to be wholly sanctified, and to love God with all his heart in the present life; but at every stage of Christian experience there is danger of falling from grace, which danger is to be guarded against by watchfulness and prayer and a life of faith in the Son of God Again it is asked: "What other term is used to signify the great change which every sinner must experience in order to enter heaven? Ans. Conversion, which, implying a complete renewal of heart and life, comprehends justification, regeneration and adoption."

Question. "When is sanctification begun? Ans. In regeneration, by which we receive power to grow in grace and in the knowledge of Christ, and to live in the exercise of inward and outward holiness."

Question. "What is entire sanctification? Ans. The state of being entirely cleansed from sin, soas to love God with all our heart, and mind, and soul, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves."

"Question. Should Christians, who have attained this high state of grace, pause in their career as though there were no further improvement? Ans. They should still grow in knowledge and in grace, and improve faster than before."

10. It is also announced in our hymns of praise. We may safely assume the orthodoxy of their doctrinal teaching. Most certainly devotional theology is more directly suggested by divine impulse and illumination than mere dogmatism. We have hymns on repentance -- on justification -- and on sanctification formerly "full redemption." These hymns have much to do with forming our religious ideas -- even more perhaps than our systematic divinity. This is obviously the fact. One said, "I care not who makes the laws, if they permit me to make the songs of the people." This axiom has its application here:

"Lord I believe a rest remains, To all thy people

A rest where pure enjoyment reigns,

And thou art loved alone."

"Saviour of the sin-sick soul,

Give me faith to make me whole;

Finish thy great work of grace

Cut it short in righteousness.

Speak the second time -- be clean!

Take away my inbred sin;

Every stumbling block remove;

Cast it out by perfect love."

"Oh for a heart to praise my God

A heart from sin set free;

A heart that always feels thy blood,

So freely spilt for me."

"Come. O my God, the promise seal,

This mountain, sin, remove

Now in my waiting soul reveal

The virtue of thy love.

I want thy life -- thy purity --

Thy righteousness brought in

I ask, desire, and trust in thee,

To be redeemed from sin."

11. Our history and biography are full of this glorious truth. Wesley, Fletcher. Clarke,

Bramwell, Asbury, Whatcoat, Abbott, and a host of others, have given their testimony, and are held up before us as "epistles" to be "read and known of all men."

II. HOW MAY THIS BLESSING BE OBTAINED?

1. An all important inquiry. Many err at this point.

2. We must, to start with, assume it is attainable. It will be of no practical benefit to seek it unless we believe it attainable.

3. Next, we must deem it necessary because practicable. Because we may be, therefore we ought to be holy. Being our privilege it also becomes our duty. A low estimate of a state of justification has led many to suppose that whether they will go forward is a matter that may be determined without involving any radical consequences. But if we fail to advance we must retrograde. If we do not obtain more, we lose what we have.

4. We must remember it is God's work in us. It is no ceremonial washing -- no mere external change -- nor a modification of our habits; but a fundamental -- a thorough, radical revolution wrought in us by the cleansing power of the Holy Ghost. We are saved "by grace." Holiness is salvation. Paul says in 2 Thess. 2:13 -- "But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth."

Peter in his first Epistle 1st chapter 2d verse, speaks of believers as "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." The Holy Ghost is our sanctifier.

5. It being the work of divine power, it may be accomplished in an instant. How soon and quickly this work may be done, in a large measure, depends on the condition of mind of those who desire it. The question has been often asked, "Is this work gradual or instantaneous?" It has been well answered, "both." Yet in seeking after it we must keep it before our minds as that which may come at any moment. May look for it every moment.

John Wesley, referring to this point, says: "Not trusting to the testimony of others, I carefully examined most of these myself; and every one (after the most careful inquiry, I have not found one exception either in Great Britain or Ireland), has declared that his deliverance from sin was instantaneous; that the change was wrought in a moment. Had half of these, or one-third, or one in twenty declared it was gradually wrought in them, I should have believed this with regard to them, and thought that some were gradually sanctified, and some instantaneously. But as I have not found in so long a space of time a single person speaking thus; as all who believe they are sanctified, declare with one voice, that the change was wrought in a moment, I cannot but believe that sanctification is commonly, if not always, an instantaneous work."

Dr. Clarke says: "Every penitent is exhorted to believe on the Lord Jesus, that, He may receive remission of sins. He does not, he cannot, understand that the blessing thus promised is not to be received today, but at some future time. In like manner, to every believer the new heart and right spirit are offered in the present moment, that they may in that moment be received. For as the work of cleansing and renewing the heart is the work of God, his almighty power can perform it in a moment, in the twinkling of tin eye. And as it is our duty to love God with all our heart, and we cannot do this until he cleanse our hearts, -- consequently he is ready to do it this moment; because he wills that we should in this moment love him. Therefore we may justly say, 'Now is the accepted time; now is the day of salvation.' He who in the beginning caused light in a moment to shine out of darkness, can in a moment shine into our hearts, and give us to see the light of his glory

in the face of Jesus Christ. This moment, therefore, we may be emptied of sin, filled will holiness, and become truly happy."

Mr. Fletcher in presenting this point, makes use of the following eloquent and earnest language: "If a momentary display of Christ's bodily glory, could in an instant turn Saul, the blaspheming bloody persecutor, into Paul, the praying gentle apostle; if a sudden sight of Christ's hands could in a moment root from Thomas' heart that detestable resolution, 'I will not believe,' and produce that deep confession of faith, 'My Lord and my God,' what cannot the display of Christ's spiritual glory operate in a believing soul, to which he manifests himself 'according to that power whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself?' Again, if Christ's body could in an instant become so glorious on the Mount that his very garments partook of the sudden irradiation, became not only free from every spot, but also 'white as the light, shining exceeding white as snow, so as no fuller on the earth could whiten them;' and if our bodies shall be changed, if this

corruptible shall put on incorruption, and if this mortal shall put on immortality, 'in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye' why may not our believing souls, when they submit to God's terms, be fully changed, fully turned from the power of Satan unto God? When the Holy Ghost says, 'Now is the day of salvation,' does he exclude salvation from heart iniquity? If Christ now deserves fully the name of Jesus, because he fully saves his people from their sins; and if now the Gospel trumpet sounds, and sinners arise from the dead -- why should we not, upon the performance of the condition, be changed in a moment from indwelling sin to indwelling holiness. Why should we not pass in the twinkling of an eye, or in a short time, from indwelling death to indwelling life?"

6. This work God will accomplish for us when we believe. The doctrine of justification by faith has become the prevailing idea of reformed Christianity. Many, however, seem to think we are to be sanctified by growth -- development -- experience, &c. They forget, however, that as we "put on Christ, so must we walk in him" -- and that as the first step was taken in the way. So must all subsequent advance be made. Wesley says: "I have continually testified (for these five and twenty years) in private and in public, that we are sanctified as well as justified by faith; and indeed the one of those great truths does exceedingly illustrate the other. Exactly as we are justified by faith, so we are sanctified by faith. Faith is the condition, and the only condition of sanctification, exactly as it is of justification. "No man is sanctified until he believes; every man,

when he believes, is sanctified."

This faith implies implicit confidence in the word of God. It literally takes God at his word -- "What things soever ye desire when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them."

"And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us and if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions we desired of him." This is truly great confidence that we know he "heareth us" when we "ask."

7. In exercising this faith we believe God has promised it, that he is able and willing to fulfill his promise, that he is able and willing to do it now, and finally that he does it.

To get to this point we must become very candid. The subject is one concerning which we cannot afford to urge captious objections. We must, therefore, as far as possible, avoid all mere theorizing, and abandon ourselves completely to divine guidance and control. Our pride and self-will must be yielded -- and in the deepest humiliation before God, we must cry for wisdom and help.

9. We must become docile and childlike. Be willing to learn of any, even the most feeble and unskillful. Some desire the attention and aid of persons who are prominent. But we may learn even of God's little ones -- [instance cited here of Bro. Belden and the servant girl.]

10. Let the consecration be perfect. Put all "on the altar." Keep nothing back. Examine carefully and candidly your heart. Thus ascertain whether your consecration is entire. Many wonder why they cannot believe. They may cease to wonder when they learn they have not fully consecrated themselves.

11. Cry day and night for the blessing. Be very much in earnest -- face opposition, and welcome odium.

12. Keep looking unto Jesus, and expect the blessing every moment. Don't dwell on your unworthiness and unfaithfulness. This may produce great humiliation, and ultimately despair. But think of Christ's atonement and fullness, and rest there.

The Development of the Doctrine of Sanctification Within the Missionary Church

2009-09-29T18:00:00.007-04:00

by Bill McPhail

How did the doctrine of entire sanctification develop in the early days of the Missionary Church?

In his Book The History of the Mennonite Brethren in Christ Church, Dr. J. A. Huffman writes: “ 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 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 the Christian experience.”

Though the writings of Albert Sims, G. D. Watson and John S. Inskip were a significant influence upon the early leaders of what would inevitably become the Missionary Church, it is probably safe to postulate that the names of these men are relatively unknown to the average pastor or layperson within the Missionary Church today.

It would serve us well then to do more than recite the names of Sims, Watson and Inskip. If we are serious about understanding our holiness heritage, it seems only logical that we would be well served in rediscovering what these men wrote that so significantly shaped our doctrine of sanctification and holiness.

With that in mind I will limit our investigation only to time period in which their writings would have influenced the formation of the doctrine of sanctification within the lives of our first leaders during the crucial time of our denomination’s infancy.

Not surprisingly, all three men: Sims, Watson and Inskip published books from 1878 till 1882 that received wide distribution among our Mennonite predecessors. Furthermore, while it is more likely that our Canadian brethren were more likely to occasionally sit under the actual preaching of the Canadian Sims, our American forefathers were likely to have attended one of the Camp Meetings for the proclamation of Christian Holiness headed by Inskip in either Pennsylvania or New York; and had even greater access to the preaching of Watson who preached a great deal in Indiana, Ohio and Michigan.

During that time period Albert Sims was the only one of the three who did not author a book dealing directly with the subject of holiness. His widely read book published in 1878 entitled: The Sin of Tobacco. Smoking and Chewing Together With An Effective Cure For These Habits clearly addressed the call to purity and holiness.

Sim’s began his very first chapter by writing: '' Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God."—1. Cor. vii. 1.

" If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, whose temple ye are."—1. Cor. iii. 17.

“The central idea of the religion of Christ,” wrote Sims, “is purity, and it applies to the body as well as to the soul. Is it any wonder that God requires a pure temple to dwell in? Would we offer a dear friend, who came to see us, a filthy room to occupy? Nay, but we would provide for his reception with the greatest care. How much more careful should we be to furnish a pure temple for the Holy Spirit to dwell in.”

Continuing, Sims would write: "One of the most eminent believers in, this kingdom, for example, gave us this account of an important fact in his experience. For more than twenty years he had been an abject slave to tobacco. He had often resolved to abandon the habit, and prayed for strength to keep his purpose; and as often without success. When he set his heart fully upon being 'sanctified wholly,' and being baptized with the Holy Ghost, 'I said to myself,' he remarked, 'the heart-purity which I seek is certainly not compatible with enslavement to this appetite. I accordingly, in specific terms, spread this promise before my Saviour: "From all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you." With that promise distinctly in view, and with absolute faith in the trustworthiness of Him that had promised, I asked Him to take that appetite from me. In an instant the work was done, and from that moment to this I have never experienced the remotest stirrings of the appetite.' "

Later in his book Sims quotes English preacher George Warner: "In seeking to promote the work of holiness and teaching that the body, as well as the spirit and soul, is to be wholly sanctified and preserved blameless—that God's people are to be cleansed from all filthiness of the flesh as well as of the spirit— that he will cleanse his people from all their filthiness and from all their idols, and then possess the temple for Himself, many have come to see the necessity of abandoning the use of tobacco; and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ they have done it.”

While one hears little today from the pulpit that matches Sim’s polemic regarding the prohibition of tobacco, and other harmful products, it is equally true that we hear little as well regarding being ‘sanctified wholly’ and experiencing ‘heart-purity.” Perhaps if we did we would find, in the words of J. A. Huffman, more “people, truly converted and walking in the light, (who will be) led to see their privilege and duty in relation to being cleansed from all sin, and embrace(d) the provision (of sanctification).”

In our next Issue of We Were Frogs we will begin to look at the influence of John Inskip and the development of the doctrine of sanctification within the Missionary Church.

The Origins of Sanctification in the Missionary Church

2009-08-28T15:23:00.008-04:00

~by Bill McPhail

In his book The History of the Mennonite Brethren in Christ Church, Dr. J. A. Huffman writes: “That it was the intention of those who gave leadership to the original movements which finally resulted in the Mennonite Brethren in Christ Church to adhere to the fundamentals of the Christian faith as interpreted by historic Mennonitism, there can be no doubt. It is evident, however, that they, at the same time, purposed to breathe into these doctrinal tenets an evangelical spirit superior to that in general practice on the part of those professing them.”

"When the New Mennonites and Reformed Mennonites merged to form the United Mennonites* in 1875, a resolution prepared by a joint committee, representing both societies was adopted, which read as follows: We agree on the Word of God as contained in the Old and New Testaments and a synopsis of the "Word of God as contained in the eighteen articles of the Confession of Faith drawn up by the Union Conference held at Dort (Dortrecht), Holland, April 21, 1632, as a basis of Union." This conference referred to, held in Dort, Holland, was a Mennonite Conference, and the Dort Confession is the historic confession of the faith of Mennonites. Having been adopted in Holland in 1632, it was ratified in 1660 by the churches of Alsace and South Germany, and later introduced into the early colonial Mennonite Church of America.”

Of particular interest is point number six of the Dort Confession:

6. Man is in nature corrupt, and it is only through faith in Jesus Christ, the new birth and change of life, that he can have the promise of salvation, receive pardon and become sanctified, justified and a child of God.

It is important to note that the doctrinal statement adopted in 1875 by the newly named United Mennonites while using the term sanctified did not clearly define the doctrine of sanctification.

Through a subsequent merger of the United Mennonites and the Evangelical Mennonites, in 1879 the denomination became known for but a brief period of time at the Evangelical United Mennonites.

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

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 God 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.

Again Huffman writes: 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." 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 Holy Ghost."

*One of the predecessors of the Missionary Church.

Note: in our next issue of We Were Frogs we will begin looking at what influences contributed to the development of the doctrine of Sanctification within the Missionary Church.

HERE'S HOW WE VOTED by Bill McPhail

2009-08-09T14:10:00.002-04:00

The 20^THBiennial Missionary Church General Conference held at Bethel College in Mishawaka, Indiana July 13-17, 2009 is now history and could well be considered historic both for what did and did not transpire.

Prior to the General Conference some were anticipating at the least an “interesting debate” and “perhaps even explosive fireworks…when the proposed language changes on sanctification for the Constitution” came to the floor.

In my last article on the We Were Frogs page entitled “Before We Vote” I asked four questions regarding the proposed changes to the historic doctrinal position of the Missionary Church. They were:

1. Do the recommended changes strengthen our historic position on the doctrine of sanctification and the filling of 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?

To the great relief of many, the first four sentences of Article IV.A.4.d. Salvation: Sanctification and Filling with the Holy Spirit were maintained which reads: “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.” (The Doctrinal Commission reported that those sentences were inadvertently dropped from the new proposed statement.) Thus the three questions 1, 2 and 3 as stated above were positively and importantly affirmed.

With those four sentences preserved, question 4 above, on whether or not the Missionary Church would retain language that clearly defines sanctification as an either a “crisis experience” or “decisive experience” subsequent to conversion was yet to be addressed.

Believing that the Missionary Church was facing a both a significant and defining moment with regards to its historic position on the doctrine of Sanctification and Filling with the Holy Spirit, at the Thursday morning business session, I presented the following statement and amendment:

“Some years ago, J. Robertson McQuilkin, then professor and now President emeritus of Columbia International University in South Carolina, made a noteworthy study. Providing a questionnaire, he polled 5,000 students. His respondents attended Bob Jones University, Biola University, Columbia International University, Prairie Bible College, Providence Bible College and Wheaton College. All these schools will be recognized as representing an evangelical tradition, which is non-Wesleyan in their orientation.

The questionnaire investigated a student’s conversion, service call, and deeper life experience.

…Out of the 5,000 students questioned, 90 per cent stated that they had received a second crisis experience, which they variously called “surrender,” a life of “victory,” the second work of grace,” the second blessing,” or “the baptism with the Spirit.”

In his book Dwell Deep. J. E. Ramseyer one of the founders of the Missionary Church and of Fort Wayne Bible College tells the story of a woman who received the assurance of forgiveness of sins at the age of 86. Four years later he relates and I quote: “Jesus baptized (her) with the Holy Spirit.”

Said Ramseyer, “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 ringing testimony of this saintly old mother.” “This precious sister,” wrote Ramseyer, “ got the experience before she got the doctrine. Many, “ he said, “have the doctrine but are lacking the experience.”

The first camp meeting ever held by another one of the founders of the Missionary Church, Daniel Brenneman began on July 30, 1880 in Fetter’s Grove south of Elkhart, IN. In that camp meeting Daniel Brenneman would report in the Gospel Banner that “many entered into the higher life or blessed state of sanctification.”

Dr. J. A. Huffman in his book “The History of the Mennonite Brethren in Christ Church” wrote: “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.”

If Dr. Quinton J. Everest, after whom this very chapel is named, were here today, there is no doubt that he would say, and I quote: “We must conclude…from the Word of God and from experience that subsequent to conversion, there is need of a further work in the heart. This need, as I have stated, is an inner sanctifying. It is a cleansing, co-instantaneous with cleansing, there is the infilling with the Holy Spirit.”

These three former leaders of the Missionary Church used the term “subsequent to regeneration” not because they were misguided men who were “allowing tradition and historical precedent to trump Scripture.” On the contrary, they did so because they each, by their own unique testimony, had personally yielded to the convicting and convincing power of the Holy Spirit who had cleansed their own hearts subsequent to regeneration with His sanctifying power. In so doing they linked heart and head not only with scores of Biblical scholars of their day but with the majority of the early church fathers such as Cyprian, The Bishop of Carthage: Origen, the father of bible interpretation: Tertullian, the chief of the Latin apologists: Clement of Alexandria: and Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John, just to name a few.

Furthermore, I would suggest that they simply shared the testimony of not only tens of thousands of sanctified believers throughout the centuries, but the testimony as well of more than a few of us in this room today.

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment to the proposed Article IV.A.4.d: I move that in the sentence that reads: “Furthermore, through a decisive experience…” the word subsequent be added after the word “a” and before the word “decisive” thus reading: “Further, through a subsequent decisive experience…” Though the wording of the new proposed doctrinal statement is descriptive of a subsequent experience, it is not definitive of a subsequent experience.”

Thank you Mr. Chairman.”

After one supporting comment from the floor, no one rose in opposition to the amendment! On voice vote, the amendment was overwhelmingly passed.

After a short period of discussion on the conference floor, the amended motion which follows was voted upon: “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 subsequent 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"

By more than a 5 to 1 margin, the conference adopted the new doctrinal statement on Sanctification and the Filling with the Holy Spirit!

No rancorous debate, no explosive fireworks! By a strong, firm, decisive vote, the 20^THBiennial Missionary Church General Conference affirmed its historic stand regarding the doctrine of Sanctification and the Filling with the Holy Spirit.

It is now our responsibility to embrace the doctrine with passion, teach it with clarity, preach it with certainty, and live it with unswerving commitment.

BEFORE WE VOTE...

2009-07-10T00:37:00.000-04:00

~ by Bill McPhail

In 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?

IGNORING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

2009-06-13T20:46:00.000-04:00

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

2009-06-08T17:23:00.000-04:00

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

2009-06-08T16:22:00.000-04:00

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.

WE WERE FROGS

2009-05-28T17:49:00.000-04:00

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”²there 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

2009-05-28T17:37:00.000-04:00

[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

2009-05-28T17:26:00.000-04:00

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

2009-05-28T17:17:00.000-04:00

“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

2009-05-28T16:46:00.000-04:00

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.

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

2009-05-28T14:31:00.000-04:00

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):

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