The Origins of Sanctification in the Missionary Church

~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

The 20^TH Biennial 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^TH Biennial 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...

~ 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

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