IGNORING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

by Bill McPhail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abundant Satisfaction by J. E. Ramseyer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missionary Church Heritage Commission ~ Dr. Paul Erdel

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

WE WERE FROGS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We were frogs…are we still?

~ Bill McPhail

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

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

Constitutional Changes Recommended by General Board

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

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

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

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

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

Sanctification by Dr. Dennis D. Engbrecht

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

 SANCTIFICATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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