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.”