The Statement of Faith Revision

Dear Brothers in Christ,
In regards to changes within the EFCA, we as missionaries returning on home assignment after 4 years in Africa, were surprised to find our home church “Reformed”. Then, as if that wasn’t enough of a surprise, we also find out the EFCA wants to “refresh” its statement of faith. Why does it need to be “refreshed” after all these years? I suspect there are some hidden agendas here. Does Trinity want to remove Dispensational teaching?

Since hermeneutics has been relegated to “minor”, even though it was specifically stated as a “major” in years past, does not bode well for the EFCA movement in general. I am not sure who is teaching what in our Sunday school classes now. My concern is that our children will become more and more confused as to what is being taught in our churches. Let’s think about their futures as well.

Although we still have many godly people supporting us in our church, we are not quite sure where the leadership of the EFCA is taking us. If anyone is looking to partner with a displaced biblical/dispensational missionary family in the Nebraska region, please let us know!

EFCA Refugee in South Dakota,
Mark Outson

Since my remarks have been confined to a separate blog, I will blog with myself!

When we joined our church in 1995, we went through the membership class using “Welcome to the Family!” dated 1992, and revised 1994. Starting on page 7, under “Distinctives of the EFCA”, it seems to me in numerous places that the current 12 doctrinal points were “essentials” or “majors”, and not just minor issues.

Here are some quotes from some of the Distinctives:
1. - Membership requires commitment to doctrine as expressed in our Statement of Faith.
2. - But we believe there is strength in diversity and that it is important to preserve the distinctives of various organizations.
3. - Being “evangelical” means that we have deep convictions that doctrine and life-style are based on the authority of God’s Word.
5. - We believe it is essential to have solid biblical content in our doctrinal understanding of faith… [emphasis mine]

It appears to me, from the above statements, that everything in the Statement of Faith is important, that is important to preserve the distinctives of various organizations, have deep convictions about [our] doctrine, and essential to have solid biblical content in our doctrine.

The term “imminent” is important, as that is part of our motivation for the Great Commission. The question given on page 35, “In what ways should the second coming of Christ affect the personal life and service of the believer?”, explains why this term is important. Verses given are: I Thes. 5:4-8, II Peter 3:1-10, Mat. 24:42, Titus 2:12-13, I John 2:28, and I John 3:2-3.

Mark Outson
Sioux Falls, SD

You are on the wrong path!

Not with your concerns, but with where you are placing them.

You need to go to the "topics" bar at the top of the page. This will scroll open to two choices. Pick the "discussions" choice.

Here you will discover the blogging realm of the revision to the SOF of the EFCA. OK?

Hey get in there and blogg away. I for one apreciate your candor and biblical opinion from a missionaries view point.

Stayin On Course Heb 12:1-3

Pastor CJ Addis
Kings EFC

I would like to know if the revised statement of faith will be up for a first vote at this Summer's conference. I have heard varying reports that it will or will not. Can you tell me how much advance notice we will receive as to whether it will or will not be voted upon this Summer?

I believe that the Leadership of the EFCA is heading in the right direction. Not many, but some of us who love the EFCA church are calvinistic and reformed in our theology.I think this change would allow many of us who love our Lord to feel more included.
Dan Cattanach, Marshfield, WI.

I just attended the Central District Conference and heard many opinions on the proposed revision. I thought many statements were good, but many were overstated. For instance, one pastor said that he had a problem letting in people with different "end times" views, because one in particular, RC Sproul, has at differnt times claimed the doctrine of premillenialism as unbiblical and this particular pastor who shared did not want to be in fellowship with someone like Sproul. Well, I am in fellowship in the EFCA with several people who I think have "unbiblical" doctrines. I think Wesleyan-Arminianism is unbiblical, I think the baptism of infants is unbiblical, and I think certain views of the rapture are unbiblical but I am overjoyed to be a part of an association of churches who is all about God's Word and the proclamation of the Lordship of Christ. I choose to overlook the "minors" (which I say premill view is, like Wesleyanism) and focus on the majors. I hope we are not so focused on the theological particulars that made up the 1950 merger and realize the face evangelicalism is much different today. I would gladly associate with RC Sproul, JI Packer and many others who are currently unable to fellowship in the EFCA.

thanks
matt proctor (boone, ia)

Matt,

I was disappointed to hear that methods of Bible interpretation seem to be a "minor", or “theological particulars” now days. Being involved with Bible translation as a missionary, I truly believe biblical exegesis and hermeneutics are not trivial matters. That includes eschatology too. The men of the EFCA who came before the "everything is cool" generation, thought it was important too.

I am also curious as to what your statement "the face of evangelicalism is much different now" means. A trend I have noticed in the Church since our return to the States is that there is no truth, and everything is relative. Please bear with me; I guess I have been living a sheltered and unenlightened existence while in Africa.

Secure in Christ,
Mark Outson
Sioux Falls, SD

Mark,

this is why I love the EFCA. I am glad we can disagree and be in cohoots with each other within a corporate body called the EFCA.

Mark, would you be willing to have a phone conversation? I feel blogging really does not allow 2 people to really understand one another. I want to hear where you are coming from, how missions work in Africa is affecing your thoughts, and your other desires for the EFCA.

I do not want us to misinterpret one another's words and that's the futility of blogs like this. I feel a little hurt by some of your responses b/c you seem to have misinterpreted my thoughts and made some false assumptions, but I want to dialogue over these issues to just see if you were trying to cause me to think.

I don't feel comfortable sharing thoughts that are much more complicated and developed than can fit in a 3 paragraph blog comment, but I would love to have a conversation and then each of us could blog on what we thought the other person was saying or something like that.

I love you brother and I love the comradery in the EFCA. I just wish we would allow others of similar passion for God's Word (but with differing theological conclusions) into our body we call the EFCA. It's the dealing of differences that make friendships (and church bodies) stronger. Watered down agreement for the sake of avoiding controversy is a dangerous thing. True fellowship comes through understanding, encouraging, listening, and ultimately bearing with one another.

Feel free to email me your info and I'll get a hold of you. proctorm@efcboone.com

Brother Matt,

Just wanted to reply so folks know we are "Blogging" in a spirit of "as iron sharpens iron" love. On those lines, I apologize if I offended you. Thing we all need to keep in the front of our mind is that the Word of God is precious, and thus I want to strive to be as close to the Truth as possible – I know you must feel the same way. Let me see if I can clarify my position for any and all who may “stumble” across our blog.

Having been given the privilege of being involved in a small way in bringing God’s word to life in a language that has never been written before makes this issue ultra important to me. How we interpret God’s word should be a humbling and exacting experience. I would not want to expose the young babes in Christ we work with to various teachings, which brings about confusion. We have enough confusion is this world as it is. Hence, doctrinal distinctions are something we must live with. It doesn’t mean we can’t fellowship on a larger level with those who hold to different ones. In Africa, we work with Reformed and Arminian missions on some issues where we can be helpful to each other.

Since I have been out of touch with the church in America for 4 years, I have found some changes that have disturbed me a lot. Some of that comes from changes in my home church that bring me into conflict with my Mission’s SoF. Since the EFCA seems to want to move in a similar direction, I really feel like I am being pushed out or marginalized. Another area is that biblical truth and inerrancy seem to be becoming “passé”. I heard about the “guy” who came to speak at the district meeting last week, and quite frankly he said some pretty disturbing things that only confirm my fears for the EFCA. I won’t pretend to know by who, or why this particular person was invited to speak, only some of what he said. If that is what “refreshing” the SoF means, then as Ron pointed out, the EFCA is leaving me, not the other way around.

As I mentioned in another blog area, I believe strongly that a church should have a unified teaching on major points of doctrine that brings about the least amount of confusion for all believers, but especially our children. In my book, this includes eschatology. I truly believe God has entrusted the biblical upbringing of my children to me, as their father. I desire to be accountable to that mandate. If a pastor is teaching the 5-points of Calvinism/Covenant theology in S.S. and another teacher the 5-points Arminianism, or Dispensationalism, I don’t think that is helpful. This is why strong convictions, bring about distinctions in churches.

I can’t wait to get to heaven so we can remove all these theological labels and just worship God the way He intended! Then we will all be Biblicists…Oh what a joyous day that will be! Until then, let us recognize these distinctions are necessary. His blessings upon you as you seek His perfect will.

By His Grace Alone,
Mark Outson

I am very encouraged by the changes I have read in the statement of faith. While I have loved the EFCA, it has always seemed strange to me that a denomination which claimed a desire to only major in the majors maintained a premillennial stance in their statement of faith. I am saying this as one who is premillennial! From my perspective, there seemed to be an inherent contradiction between the desire to only contain the major doctrines in the statement of faith and the presence of premillennial language. The EFCA has historically remained "neutral" on issues such as mode of baptism, Lord's Supper, and Calvinism/Arminianism. I could never understand how a denomination that would not take positions on these issues, made a point to take a position on something like the exact nature of the millennium! The new wording allows those with varying millennial views to fellowship with us while, at the same time, allowing those who are dispensational to remain well with the bounds of the wording of the statement of faith. It seems to be the best of both worlds to me. Blessings upon everyone!

Nathan Hogan
La Mesa, CA

Hey everyone! I am new to this site. I am a relatively new member of the EFCA here in New Mexico. I am a layperson who definately feels a call towards ordained ministry.
First, let me say that the revision of the sof blew me away! It was both biblical and beautiful. It captured the true heart of evangelicalism. Even though I myself am premillennial(for the time being, that is. It is one doctrine I have not studied that much), I was always bummed out that the sof included a premillennial stance. It did not seem consistent with the EFCA distinctives. I would gladly be in fellowship with the likes of R.C. Sproul, etc. Why would we make that a dividing line, when the majority of those in church history NEVER made that a major issue? It is curious to me. Everyone seems to have their "pet" doctrine(at one time I was a "rabid" calvinist!, thankfully I recovered. LOL). But this does not seem to capture the spirit of evangelicalism. Let's major on the majors! One vote for the revision here.

God's peace,
Travis

While I have many difficulties with the entire process of the SOF revision, let me address of couple of major concerns.

First on integrity "fudging" issue: If a member of our churches came to us and said that he no longer believed in one of the clearly defined essential doctrines of our faith, would we pretend that it doesn't matter? Even more, would we re-define our essentials just to be more accomodating or attractive to someone outside the church? I don't think so. I'm sorry, but the fact is that "essentials" are still essentials -- whether people like and agree with them or not. And should someone no longer agree with the essentials, integrity (both personal and institutional) requires that we admit it and deal with the potential consequences.

I fault both the individuals who have not been fully open and honest in dealing with their differences and the denomination for not enforcing adherence to essentials that were already clearly defined. All of this turmoil that is now dividing the denomination is both unnecessary and unbiblical. Should the denomination want to change those essentials for any reason, there was a legitimate process for making those changes... a process in which we are now engaged. But let's be perfectly honest all the way around... this "fudging" has been taking place for years on both the local and national levels. Trinity has been tolerating (if not embracing) amill' teachings in its various forms for decades. This is no surprise to anyone closely associated with the university or divinity school. Does anyone really think that we're re-defining the essentials to widen the table for more guests? Of course not, we're simply re-writing the guestlist to name who's already sitting at the table. Isn't there something wrong here when (before the SOF has been changed!), as a pastor I cannot hire the average graduate of our own college because he cannot sign our pre-mill' doctrinal statement?

Second: A very practical question for the denominational leadership... I venture to guess that several of our E-Free churches using the 12-point SOF as their doctrinal official statement also have constitutional provisions that will not allow that section of the constitution/by-laws to be changed. Ours does! Our constitution clearly reads that Article 2 (the doctines "as set forth in the preceding Articles of Faith") cannot be eliminated nor essentially altered as to its content." The original concept of "refreshing" might have passed the prohibition to not alter essential content. But this new "revision" won't come close.

If the denomination changes its SOF, what will be the ramifications for any church that, by law, cannot change its SOF/doctinal section without first shutting down to re-open with the new SOF? And should the new SOF be adopted, must we put some kind of clause in our new constitution that states this can't be changed unless the denomination thinks that we need to accomodate to another group in another 50 years from now?

Personally, I graduated from an interdenominational Bible college with a big-tent approach to denominational doctrines but required absolute adherence to its defined essentials. I can still live under a big tent. But I believe that the denomination has already defined its essentials; that it should have decided about re-defining them BEFORE the guest list was ammended; that integrity requires us to accept whatever consequences come from a change in beliefs; and that, whether intended or unintended, this whole process will bring very painful consequences for churches that, by law, cannot change their doctrinal statements should this thing follow the course of revision.

Steve Miller
South Holland, IL

I welcome the changes to the EFCA doctrinal statement. The new statement is gospel-centered, Christ-centered, and Bible-centered. It maximizes what is essential to Christianity and minimizes those elements which have divided true believers over the years. The new statement invites all true believers, who hold the essentials dear, to church fellowship and creates the opportunity to experience John 17. I understand that the greater challenge is that we will all need to experience much more grace and mercy to genuinely welcome those who love the same Lord but who differ on non-essentials.

After having been through the SOF presentation at the Midwinter Ministerial, and then again a month later at our district, I would have to say that my principal concern is that we find a way to affirm the promise-keeping character of God. The key weakness of amillennialism is that it so thoroughly transfers the promises of God from Abraham's seed to the church, that it calls into question the integrity of God's promise. Our assurance of salvation, our very salvation itself, rests upon the character of God and the integrity of His promises. I think I could live with the removal of the specific affirmation of premillennialism, if in its place was a clear affirmation that God says what He means and means what He says.

I think I have one other reservation. The EFCA leadership and the Spiritual Heritage Committee seem to want the Statement of Faith to be something on the order of the Nicene Creed, Apostles Creed and Chalcedonian Definition, something that all true born-again believers can affirm, nothing more, nothing less. If we were a parachurch organization, I would applaud such a purging of distinctives. However, we are a family of churches. We like the language of a movement more than the vocabulary of denominationalism, but we are what we are, an association of churches. I believe that such an association needs distinctives in order to have and maintain an identity. I would favor the publishing of a Statement of Distinctives, to be adopted with the Statement of Faith. Let the Statement of Faith be our standard for membership, but let the Statement of Distinctives be an additional requirement for the ordination of Pastors and tenuring of TEDS Faculty. By doing so, we open the door to our churches, yet ensure that we have a means of establishing and maintaining an identity.

Sincerely,

Steve Palm

This has been an interesting read. I re-read AT Olson's section on this in This We Believe. At the time it was written, He was pretty dogmatic. I see a change in the statement as being a major cause of disunity within the body of the EFCA. So while we may have a bigger umbrella for outsiders we will definitely be experiencing a major storm within. Steve Miller is right in his assessment about the local churches that have the current EFCA SoF as their local church SoF. Some will come along with the changes but others will hold fast so there will be at least two EFCA Statements of Faith. Pray for unity on this because a 60 - 40 vote won't help the cause of Christ.

DC

Yo Der Hey,

I have just come back from a meeting (EFCA West) with two of the principles for changes in the SOF and 50+ pastors. They did a good job (on both side) presenting their positions in grace and with conviction.

I am still asking the question “Are we really trying to make the EFCA a home big enough for all evangelicals?” Some would argue that to be evangelical we need to rethink the Trinity and God’s omniscience (These folks are not EFCA people but they find our stances offensive).

As far as armenianism and calvinism we are currently not a home for the zealots on either side. It is true that God ‘s will in salvation is supreme, yet we do have a choice. Every believer is elect and they all were called to make a decision. How this works out exactly is God’s (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) job. So there is room; and to over work it is the arrogance of theologians wishing to excerpt control or experience a sense of authority in an area that is not for us or for them. I am not so much a Calvinist, as I am an Augustinian in regards to man’s inability towards righteousness. In the end every person who is saved, is elect.

In eschatology there is room for views with in evangelicalism. But within a biblical church organization centered on congregationalism there are some natural restrictions. John Stott and RC Sproul are not seeking to become ministers or members in the EFCA. We do partner with them in the ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) and in missionary work. Fellowship is not restricted for anyone with other evangelicals. But within the local body we have many restrictions for members and ministers.

As far as the millennial question; consider the different types of church governance of differing denominations and then compare their views on eschatology. The more reformed, the more authoritarian the organization. Amill’s are for the most part Episcopalian or Presbyterian in governance. Is there a connection? Yep, you betcha. It all comes down to the hermeneutic that gives teaching on Israel and the Church.

As for imminency, that is the rubber meets the road issue. Is this a major teaching of Christ? How about the Apostles? When did it fall into disfavor and why? Why was this so important to the Free Church movement and not to the ruling Amill churches and states (to include Roman Catholicism)? Or was it?

Do some historical homework. No one was bothered by the premill camp because the ruling church/state groups found the Bible to be best understood through the official church statements (in the local vernacular or in Latin). The Word in the common language, but the interpretation was still by order of the state church. Anything causing someone to question the ruling of the church as a partner with the state was seen as heretical and as a threat to the states authority. An imminent return took away the holy union of church and state to rule a Christian state and turn towards a Christianized world awaiting Christ’s return to a fit household of faith. Imminency became the average man’s hope and a threat to the state church of the reformers and Roman Catholics.

I would encourage my brothers who are premill and seem to hold that view in low esteem to consider all the other areas of theology that are tied to that conviction. I keep hearing folks say “I’m premill but…” Have you really come to your viewpoint through study and conviction or is it more a “pop culture” value? Sorta premill light. Is Jesus really going to fulfill the covenant promises to Israel? Is that happening today? Are the Palestinians the oppressed are or are the Jewish immigrants to the covenant land the oppressed? How should we proceed? Is the church ushering in the Messianic Kingdom or is it a separate entity with Jewish believers? Is it fair for Jewish believers to receive a greater blessing than the gentiles in the millk?

I have a great connection to the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) evangelical Presbyterian Church and the Orthodox Presbyterians. I have done pulpit fill-in with each. But they would not have me as a pastor, nor would I want to be. In fact I was saved under the ministry of a PCA body. It seems we are so concerned about a fictitious need. I however have a pastor friend that is not ordained and serves in an EFCA body who is at the point of conviction that will cause him to seek ministry in another denomination. His choice centers on two issues 1) our definition of inerrancy and 2) eschatology. In particularly imminence. I love him dearly, but I do think he does need a different body to minister in.

There is not an evangelical body that does not try to have a clear statement on eschatology. However we are intentionally trying to word our eschatology in a less clear way on purpose. In fact a pretrib/premill minister does have a problem with “fully bringing in the rule of Christ” or however the statement goes. I do not, with my eschatology hold to any form of the messianic kingdom on earth today. This statement would exclude me. The language of an expectant attitude of Christ’s return in needlessly obscure. Imminence is a core teaching of the Messiah and the Apostles. I think it is a major. One must some how get around it and construct a system to make imminency mean something other than “at any moment”. But those people can still be evangelicals. However I do not think historically they are Evangelical Free.

There also seems to be some bit of recunstructionism/covenant issue bubbling up. The idea of our SOF adding in “seeking justice” smacks of this. What king of justice being handed out and by whom? When we say “God’s gospel”, are we in some way referring to God’s eternal covenant of Salvation? I would rather substitute “God’s gospel” with “God’s rule of faith”. Try that out for size. It’s just an opinion and suggestion.

Speaking of Reformed. I do not think the reformers were reformed enough. In fact, the reformed movement is often defending practices and doctrines that are tradition and philosophical more than theologically biblical. I do not know why we seek to be shackled by an incomplete reformation. They certainly are not eager to accept us into their local/denominational circles. And this is just Okie dockie with me.

Besides, I will see them at our out reach events or hymn sings or any other endeavors. If some one says they are Baptist I introduce them to a Baptist. If they say Presbyterian then…well you get the idea. As long as we agree on the content of faith, in this arena we can partner. Evangelical partnership for the whole body of Christ, Yee Haw! That’s good stuff and that is appropriate.

By the way, it was these same reformed evangelical fellowships that made the EFCA necessary. Our eschatology has been the point of attack that drove many out of the reformed denominations (Lewis Sperry Chafer) fellowship. Remember the roots of the EFC. We were forced out of the reformed circles.

But don’t infiltrate the EFCA to make us reformed or covenant. We already have the Swedish Covenant Church. Let people seek appropriate church fellowships. Internationally it may be different because of the options, but we are the EFCA.

In conclusion (Da-dida-dida), I find it interesting and a bit disturbing to hear how this process was intentionally shelved until AT Olson and his homies were removed from this terrestrial ball for enough time to make them footnotes, so as to not have them answer these issues directly or cause them concern. It is easy to quote dead guys. I am sure that this is couched in concern and respect, but it sounds a lot different to the senior members of my church who have fond respect and admiration for him and his contemporaries.

So the discourse continues

Stayin On Course

Pastor CJ Addis
Kings EFC, Hanford CA

Pardon me, but those who write about the need to only have "essentials" should re-read the revised SOF. Surely you know that it, too, contains non-essential doctrines (though I ask, "non-essential" to whom or to what?).

Do you want to get rid of the non-essentials contained in the new SOF? No, many of you have testified here to how much you like the new SOF. If that is so, then don't claim to be for an essentials-only approach. Since the new SOF has non-essentials, and you like the new SOF, then that means you don't believe in an essentials-only approach.

By what right does anyone today claim to speak for the EFCA founders, that pre-millennialism is inconsistent with the founding principles of the EFCA? Are we blind? Since it was put into the SOF by the EFCA's founders, it's obvious they never saw anything inconsistent about having it in there.

The argument that pre-millennialism is "inconsistent" with the EFCA principles can't be taken seriously. Do people forget that we still have in our hands what the original founders wanted? No one can come along 50 years later and sensibly claim that the founders were violating their own values. It's like claiming that James Madison would want us to get rid of the 2nd Amendment because keeping it violates his founding principles.

Is the PCA sinning when it refuses to ordain one of our guys? I don't think we want to make such a harsh judgment. We don't condemn them for holding distinctives, do we? No; actually, I believe many of those pressing for the new SOF are Reformed, and want the EFCA to become even more Reformed. Anyway, if the PCA doesn't sin when they refrain from ordaining someone who doesn't subscribe to their distinctives, then we're not sinning when we refuse to ordain one of their guys.

Fellowship is not broken when ordination is denied, since ordination isn't fellowship.

The real sin is churches crafting their own personal, private SOFs -- edited to their liking -- while at the same time claiming to be EFCA churches. I just learned over the weekend of some EFCA church in my own district having done this.

Lastly: Dual SOFs ("grandfathering") was recommended at our district conference as the answer to those churches that constitutionally can't adopt a new SOF, or churches that will refuse to accept the new one regardless of how the vote goes. I think it's a terrible idea. Grandfathering only works with minor differences, pertaining to bureacratic matters, and on the assumption that the old will die out.

These aren't minor differences, they deal with the doctrinal DNA of the movement, and anyone who thinks the old will fail while the new prevails is being unjustifiably optimistic. We wouldn't have dual SOFs, we'll have dueling SOFs. This current project is already splitting the denomination; dual SOFs would further a complete split.

Wow! Maybe some would like it if the EFCA became the FFCA(the Fundamentalists Free Church of America!) It is funny how divergent the EFCA really is. I wonder why being evangelical is not enough? Why do we need these secondary doctrines to define us? In this postmodern context, we need to focus on what unites us and be as missional as possible. Should we disqualify someone from membership because he is not pre-mil? Give me a break? This just shows how far off track we have become. I believe the leadership of the EFCA are trying to bring us back to be the church: the church seeking the lost! I commend their efforts and keep them in my prayers. Arguing about specific eschatalogy might be fun for some, but let's not forget that there are lost and dying people out there who don't care whether or not we are pre-mil. Keep the focus!

Let me provide a context for this discussion. I am a member at Blackhawk Church (3000+ attendees) in Madison, WI. I am not ordained (and do not seek to be), but I am passionately interested in experiencing the grace of Christ in my life and seeing it impact the lives of people around me. Also, I *love* the Bible.

When I joined Blackhawk, I specifically said that I do not believe in parts of the last two articles of the statement of faith. I am not a pre-millenialist, and see no evidence that this position is actually affirmed anywhere in Scripture (not even in Revelation 20). Also, I cannot imagine that God will necessarily send everyone who doesn't explicitly agree with a certain set of doctrines to hell. I am very thankful that Blackhawk invited me to become a member anyway. I have benefited from it (perhaps enormously, time will tell). There are those at Blackhawk who say that they have benefited, too.

To me, this discussion isn't about absolute truth vs. relativism/postmodernism. It's about being absolutely honest about things that are true, even when it makes some things less comfortable and clear.

I am thrilled that the EFCA is dropping pre-millenialism from its doctrinal statement. That a doctrine whose sole basis is a few verses in a book in which images, numbers, and personalities are more often than not explicitly used as symbols to make points that are sometimes simply not clear--this baffles me. Perhaps this is an important issue for pastors and theologians, but how does this affect me or my friends? In trying to work out my salvation and God's grace in my life, I can't remember when the last time I even thought about the hermeneutical implications of this or that eschatological viewpoint. Those of you who are pastors, do you not realize how little this matters to hundreds of people who are (potential) attendees and members of each your churches?

The hell question is more complicated, but I look forward to the day when the EFCA (and evangelicals in general) will drop this as an "essential" part of their faith. There simply is not enough evidence in the Bible to support a confident assertion that every "unbeliever" will face "eternal conscious punishment".

For example, the summary of the proposed SOF revision at
http://www.efca.org/about/media/sof_second_draft_revision.pdf mentions the Greek word "aionion" in a citation of what it calls "*the* crucial verse on this doctrine" (emphasis mine). The citation is from a parable ascribed to Jesus. The obvious problem with this, of course, is that Jesus probably never heard the word "aionion" in his life. He did not speak Greek. What we have in Matthew 25 is a *summary* in Greek of a *parable* (!) Jesus spoke in *Aramaic*. Also, of course, the criterion that Jesus states will be used to separate sheep from goats is clearly *not* belief in a doctrine--it is *conduct*.

The statements I made above are *true*. Does anyone not see a problem with including in a denominational statement a doctrine for which *the crucial verse* is surrounded by so much doubt?

Of course this doesn't settle the issue. I am not a universalist. I don't know what I am. But acknowledging that we do not know for sure what we cannot know for sure is not relativism--it is humility and honesty, something that Jesus calls us to if he calls us at all.

So this is a question that perhaps should affect this discussion: Does the EFCA want someone like me among them? I hope so. There are many of us. We are evangelicals. We cannot go to Southern Baptist or Calvinist or "liberal" churches. Where can we go?

My best guess is that EFCA probably should have a place for me. (Perhaps after this blog, it will not...) But I can't tell. Which is why, among other reasons, I am taking a break from attending church on Sundays right now.

Brethren,
For what its worth, as having served as a missionary for the past 10 years in Africa, I will submit the following:
Eschatology is MAJOR in that it is part of the Whole Counsel of God.
Eschatology is MAJOR as it accounts for large portions of God’s Word.
Eschatology is MAJOR as it does affect the implementation of the Great Commission.

Does the Bible mean what it says, or is it an allegory for us to interpret in light of our theology? “Imminent” is one of the MAJOR motivations we have as believers to spread the Gospel. Besides, it is biblical. I Thes. 5:4-8, II Peter 3:1-10, Mat. 24:42, Titus 2:12-13, I John 2:28, and I John 3:2-3. (references taken from the EFCA membership manual dated 1994)

It is MAJOR as Church history proves that most missionaries and evangelists are premillennnial and especially dispensational. Forgive me, but yes, I dared to say it. It does matter!

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” 2 Tim. 3:16-17

A biblical fundamentalist,
Mark Outson

Andrew:

So you're saying that Blackhawk approved you for membership, even though you deny that hell is eternal, conscious torment?

To others:

You need to understand that Pre-millennialism = the Kingdom of God. The word "Pre-millennial" is just a bit of verbal shorthand that sums up, in a single word, our theology of the Kingdom of God.

The issue of how God's Kingdom will come to pass on the earth is not a minor doctrine. If you think Pre-millennialism is only about the particular number 1,000, or just the 20th chapter of Revelation, then you weren't taught it correctly. Even if Revelation 20 predicted only ten years of Christ's earthly reign, and it was called Pre-Decadalism, it wouldn't be any less important. How and when God's Kingdom will come to the earth is not an unimportant teaching.

Mark et al.,

I would respectfully suggest that your question is not as well-formed as it could be. Scripture does mean what it says, AND sometimes it is manifest allegory that requires nontrivial interpretation--especially books like Revelation.

A literalist should recognize that there is no explicit mention of a millenium anywhere except for a few verses in...Revelation. Also, what you write about church history is debatable (e.g., think of all the evangelism done in the early second century before Revelation was universally accepted and cited, or in the first century before it was even written. Think of all the Catholic missionaries of the 1500-1700's who were not premillenial. Etc., etc.) Your statement would be much more verifiable if you amend it to "most missionaries and evangelists have believed in Christ's imminent return".

Eschatology *is* major. I live in the hope of what will happen when Jesus comes back; while my service to Christ does not come close to yours, much of my life is built around this hope. I think that everything that the church does should be done with this hope. However, what the Scripture says about a millenium (or if it actually says anything at all about a literal millenium) is simply not clear.

I would love it if the word "imminent" were included in the SOF to describe Jesus' return (the sooner he returns the better!!). But not "premillenial". Would you be content with this?

Whether or not, I respect your years of service and your regard for Scripture. Very much. I do still have the question of whether EFCA sees benefit in having people like me participate. Feel free to email me off-line if you like: ajmiller16@yahoo.com.

"A literalist should recognize that there is no explicit mention of a millenium anywhere except for a few verses in...Revelation."

Except for a few verses...
Except for a few verses...
Except for a few verses...

Hello!!!

You could also say that:

"A literalist should recognize that there is no explicit mention of a hell anywhere except for a few verses..."

"A literalist should recognize that there is no explicit mention of the virgin birth anywhere except for a few verses..."

"A literalist should recognize that there is no explicit mention of a resurrection anywhere except for a few verses..."

Where do we draw the line?

What doctrine is next?

George Husted
Deacon Glastonbury Community Church,CT

In the discussion of eternal judgment, the comment was made that the Greek word "aionion" was not used by Jesus in Matthew 25. I suppose that is valuable in understanding the term as we find it in Matthew. We do, however, hold to the inspiration of scripture, which means that all of the words of Jesus will be in Greek not Aramaic or whatever language we may presume was spoken. Which words are "verbally inspired" only the original speech of Jesus, or also the written accounts we find in the Gospels in translation? Since we do not have the original speech, we would have nothing but speculative reconstructions of Jesus' words. Certainly we have and will always work with the NT as the authoritative text.
(Do we know that languages Jesus knew or did not know, by the way, Galilee was not unfamiliar with the Roman Empire or it's economic web.)

I think it was Norman Geisler who pointed out that Mk 25:46, which is not the parable, but the interpretive statement about the parable, makes eternal life paralel to eternal punishment (using NIV). Making the punishment other than eternal or conscious, would by parallelism in the same sentence make "life" other than eternal or conscious.

The comments expressed by the man in Blackhawk, Wi are the very reason why we should not be seeking to be diverse to so great an extent. What part of Luke 16:19-31 do you not understand about the Sciptural teaching of conscious punishment and the nature of the reality of the awareness of it by the rich man? I find it incredible that a pastoral staff in the EFCA would allow this!

Andrew,

Sorry that my posting did not more directly address your concerns, but when I wrote mine, yours was not listed yet. Since you seem well informed in doctrinal matters, I am curious as to where you studied, and who you might associate with in regards to theology?

What concerns me more than anything is your statement "There simply is not enough evidence in the Bible to support a confident assertion that every "unbeliever" will face "eternal conscious punishment." Are you asserting that there are “degrees” of unbelievers, and some will be punished and some not?

How many verses does it take to confirm a doctrine? 1, 5, 50, 500? Depending on the original text and context of the entire passage, and harmony with the rest of Scripture, I think in some cases, ONE would be enough! In any case, we are not just talking about one verse are we? You sound more than capable enough to look up topics like hell, and eternal judgment for yourself. What do you do with other verses like these? Are they allegories too?

I stand by my question on allegory. Unless the historical, grammatical, contextual, particulars of the passage lead one to allegory, it is best to treat God’s Word as literal as possible. This is why normative dispensationalism uses one hermeneutic for all of Scripture. When you resort to multiple/allegorical methods, you can do pretty much what you want with Scripture…that is why some use it to fill in the blanks, so to speak, in their system of theology.

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning; unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths indicate clearly otherwise.”

Otherwise stated: “If the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense.”

Yes, some of my remarks may be debatable. Since I believe premill. was the doctrine taught in the 1st century, I believe it is biblical. Many early church fathers were premill. Even Augustine was, until he changed his mind. If you don’t believe me on some of this “Kingdom” doctrine, please get a hold of a copy of Renald Showers’ book “There Really Is A Difference”. If he doesn’t convince you, then keeping seeking the truth.

Concerning missions, I was talking about Evangelical or Biblical missions. Sorry, I do not consider Roman Catholic missions as part of evangelical mission history. What happened from the Reformation until the New Divinity movement was not the Great Commission in action, it was the “Great Omission”. Part of that reason is they had no “imminent” motivation in their Confessions. That is why as a missionary the “refreshing” of #11 in the SoF is troubling. From that time forward it has been mainly those who took eschatology seriously, and mainly of dispensational background, who have carried missions forward. You may dispute that, but you can check out the theology of those involved. Beyond that, look at the theology of the majority of evangelists and missions of the last 50 years. Other resources include: Mission Handbook 2004-2006, which lists who is really INVOLVED in evangelism, not just those who TALK about it. I appreciate C. Gordon Olson’s “Beyond Calvinism & Arminianism” for a sobering look at the history of missions, and extremes in systematic theology. The abridged version, just out, is called, “Getting the Gospel Right”. He not only taught Missions and Theology, but was an ACTUAL missionary in Pakistan. If you really desire to know more, see his book “What In The World Is God Doing?: The Essentials of Global Missions”. All this to say that, pemill. and imminent must remain.

I hope and pray that you will keep attending church. Your “I don't know what I am” statement means that you are seeking. That is good. After what you said, I hesitate to send you back to your church, but hopefully someone there believes in the current EFCA SoF. In any case, I would love to send you “The Stranger on the Road to Emmaus” by John Cross as a love gift. This is a chronological Bible study starting from Genesis. Please let me know your address via e-mail.

Contending for the Gospel,
Mark Outson
m.outson@freesurf.fr

David,

You make good points--thanks. I want to stress that I do not think what I wrote settles the matter of eternal judgment--far from it. My point is that many Christians (including those, like me, who believe in the inspiration of Scripture) recognize that Scripture itself may not always provide enough evidence to settle every theological dispute, however much we want it to.

To respond to a couple of your points:
--I disagree with Geisler. Verse 46 *is* a part of the parable, just like verse 30 is part of the parable of the talents, and verse 12 is part of the parable of the virgins.
--I'll acknowledge that my assertion that Jesus did not know Greek is debatable. (He certainly knows it now. :)) But the obvious, overwhelming probability is that when Jesus taught, he taught in Aramaic. (It is clear even from Acts that the original disciples were not Greek speakers, and that including Greek-speaking Jews in the early church was a significant source of strife.)
--As I mention above, a difficulty in using Matt. 25 (and other synoptic quotations of Jesus) to justify the doctrine of eternal judgment of every "unbeliever" is that these passages never mention belief as a criterion for judgment. The literal criteria that Jesus gives in the synoptics is always *conduct* (except, perhaps, for the last part of Mark 16, a text that poses problems that are even more severe).

Again, however, let me stress that my main goal was not to change anyone's mind about this doctrine. It's obvious that whatever happnes to the SOF, this doctrine is in for the near future. The point is to pose the question: In defining the SOF, does EFCA want to encourage people like me to participate within it?

Another way to phrase the question: are Christians who are doctrinally similar to the church father Origen, George McDonald, G.K. Chesterton, and C.S. Lewis (to name a few) welcome?

Also, Mark, thanks a lot for your post. I'll reply off-line when I can find time.

Andrew,

I don’t want to take up too much space with this issue, but maybe this will help you.

(“Handbook of Evangelical Theology” by Robert P. Lightner)
Eternal Punishment of the Wicked

Except for a few (Origen was a notable exception), the early church fathers held to the doctrine of eternal punishment for the unregenerate. The fathers of the Middle Ages held the doctrine and often presented it in extreme forms. The great Protestant Reformers believed it but did not stress it, no doubt because they said little about the broader doctrine of ESCHATOLOGY. [oops, he said the ‘E’ word; all caps are mine]

“In the eighteenth century a rebellion against the doctrine started. Caused in part by the extreme forms in which the doctrine was propagated by its adherents, this rebellion swelled into a mighty revolt in the nineteenth century, a revolt which continues to the present day. At the same time, many continued and still continue to hold the traditional doctrine, although rarely in the grotesque forms in which it was held during the middle ages.” [Buis, The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment, p. 111; see also pp. 53-111.]

Within evangelicalism there is a small but growing movement away from the belief in eternal punishment for the wicked. At the present time this difference among evangelicals is not nearly as great as those discussed above, yet it does deserve mention. One evangelical describes the difference in these strong words:

“This issue of the duration of punishment for the unrighteous is the issue for professing Christians in the late twentieth century. Today there is hardly anyone feigning to be a Christian or assuming himself part of God's church who does not agree there is at least some judgment on the ungodly. But there is a growing number who are insisting that, contrary to the obvious teachings of the historic church, the Bible teaches only a temporary period of punishment.” [Jon E. Braun, Whatever Happened to Hell?]

Those evangelicals who question the eternal punishment of lost often do so by arguing the Greek word aionios means "aionic” or "new age" rather than the traditional "everlasting" "eternal.” [see Fudge, “Putting Hell in Its Place”] This understanding of aionios must, of course, squared with the fact that the same word, or a form of it, is used describe God the Holy Spirit and God the Father.
Leon Morris' comments highlight this reality:

“It is plain from the Bible that sin will be punished (Dan. 12:2; Matt. 10:15; John 5:28-29; Rom. 5:12-21), and the duration of this punishment is sometimes expressed in the NT by the use of aion or one of its derivatives (e.g., Matt. 18:8; 25:41, 46; II Thess. 1:9). Aion means "an age," and it was used of the never ending "age to come," which gave to the corresponding adjective aionion meaning "eternal," "everlasting." These words are used of the “King of ages” (1 Tim. 1:17), of "the eternal God" (Rom. 16:26), and when glory is ascribed to God "for ever" (Rom. 11:36) and God is blessed "for ever" (II Cor. 11:31). The concept of endless, duration could not be more strongly conveyed; the use of these expressions for the eternity of God shows conclusively that they do not mean limited duration. It is important that the same adjective is used of eternal punishment as of eternal life (Matt. 25:46 has both). The punishment is just as eternal as the life. The one is no limited than the other.” [Leon Morris, "Eternal Punishment," Evangelical Dictionary of Theology]

Secure in Christ,
Mark Outson

Andrew, for the record, I not Geisler said v. 46 wasn't part of the parable. his is the paralelism comment.

i don't think we can declare that parabolic passages can not teach. it seems you tend that way. it is often true that we want to make more of them than is there. but they do say someting. just as poetry says someting - the psalms often cited in NT as prophetic and/or teaching texts. (Hebrews 1 for example)

also, all teaching on heaven is to some degree metaphoric - golden streets and so forth. that does not make it unreal.

so unquenching fire - Mt 3:12 - not a parable here - can mean that 1. the fire burns unquenchably but the sinner is consumed (J. Stott's position, I believe)or 2. that the sinner is in the fire endlessly.

I don't see us moving from 2 to 1. In the near or long term.

CS Lewis belived in a kind of eventual depopulation of hell, as far as one can tell.

Now Stott could preach at Bethany, even be called to pastor, just could not be a member or in the ministerial association.

Dear David,

I'm not sure that's quite right -- if an EFCA church willfully chose to call someone who directly contradicts the SOF, the church itself would/should lose its standing as a member church. But I'm assuming you mean here that the individual church has the power to call a John Stott, and the EFCA couldn't forbid them, unlike the PCA.

Unrelated P.S. If we're re-writing the SOF just to accomodate a change in EFCA constituency that's been happening because pastors and superintendents have been deliberately looking the other way, that's just as bad as re-writing the nation's laws because we've refused to defend our borders or stop illegal immigration. There are those who would benefit short-term from creating doctrinal amnesty. But how can they have the confidence that the future leaders of their generation won't do the same thing again, with reference to other doctrines that they see as very important?

Hey Grag Strand if you are out there..this would be a good time to jump into this conversation.

Let us not lash out. I agree that Andrew does experss views that are troubling. He is very smart and has done his research according to a certain vain of thought and expression. But make sure we are not going at him with a pack mentality. He is in our midst because those who should know better did not act in a consistent manner with our SOF or destinctives. Yet thery may very well love him and treasure his involvement and fellowship.

As to you Andrew, your realm of evangelicalsim is not a surprise to me. You are not alone. There are some who have graducatedd from TEDS with the same bent as yours. There are those who will say that your bibliology makes you an non-evangelical. They would be surprised to find out that you are one of many,and a growing movement. May I ask you a couple of questions?

(I'll assume you consent)

What is your view of inerrancy?

What is your biblical stance on the Godhead?

In what ways is God ommniscient?

What is the confessin of the believer?

Is there more than one way to recieve pardon from God's wrath?

What is the difference between the Church and the covenant keeping Isreal?

I am interested in knowing these things from you, because you are an eye opening look at the new evangleical. Or maybe not.

I just think EFCA leaders need to know that we may want to revisit what an evengelical is, or is becoming.

We may even want to consider a new name sake for our denomination/associantion.

To quote a certain movie "I do not think that word means what you think it means" I say this not so much to you as to those who think we need to change as scocietal movement or philosophies change. The evangelical that I embrace may not be the evengelical that you embrace.

The EFCA and the leadership need to realize that there are those who wish not only to redefine the EFCA but also the enagelical movemnet. And they are (as Andrew is, already amongst us).

Andrew I hope through your searching you will find God as the unchangeing and knowable Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I apreciate your comments and honesty. You have jumped into an in house fracas that is finally coming to the surface.

Stayin On Course (heb 12:1-3)

Pastor CJ Addis
Kings EFC Hanford CA
pastorkefc@juno.com

Top of the Morning to ya,

Technically the Kingdom of heaveen and the Millenial kingdom (Millk) are not the same.

The Kingdom of Heaven is the eternal reign of God. The Millk is the Messianic reign of Jesus, fulfilling all the promises to David , Moses and Abbrahmic Covenants.

It is not an everslasting state.

Pre-mill is not just shorthand but a specific address to when and how Christ comes back to judge and fulfill the covenant promises. So what do the other mills think?

The A-mill holds that Christ is indeed fulfilling his covenant promises to Isreal by way of the Church. The Church replaces the role of Israel. So the Church rules for Christ on earth until(at some far off time) he comes for us to usher in the New Heavens and New Earth.

Post Mill believes that the reign of Christ is when the world is Christianized as a propper place for Jesus' return (or something like that)

The Amill and Post mill positions will definately demand some interesting views on the role of the Church and Chrisitian in culture.

Look up preterist and Dominion Theology.

Well there is probably an over simplification and or generalization for ya.

Stayin ON Course (heb 12:1-3)

Pastor CJ Addis
Kings EFC, Hanford CA

I am and have been a member of the Congregational/UCC for 68 years. Lately I have become concerned with the route our conference wishes us to persue regarding inclusive language and the open & accepting toward the gay community. Could some one explain to me (in BLACK & WHITE), the differences betwwen EFCE and UCC. Do you use Apostles Creed; do your pastors wear robes and vestments; do have divided chancelery and paramounts on the pulpit and lectern? How often do you serve communion?

Being dissatified with the direction the UCC is taking but very ingrained with the traditions I've been raised with, I don't to change; also losing all the friends I've made over the years.

Marguerite asked about the EFCA and the UCC. Here a a few quick observations

The UCC is liturgical, that is, it follows the forms you seem to appreciate. Most of our churches are not liturgical in that sense. Part of the meaning of "free" is that the form of worship is not tied to a particular form. Our churches are then more informal, and would put the preaching of the bible at the center, more so that in the UCC.

The UCC has become theologicaly liberal, for the most part, by which I mean, the current campaign "God is still speaking" would indicate that the Gospel is changing and adaptable. We are theological conservatives, in that we hold that the gospel is what it has always been.

The EFCA has issued a statement that we do not affirm gay, lesbian, etc sexual behaviors or same gender marriage. The UCC is on the other side of that question. We say that the Good News is for everyone, but we are all called to follow Christ - which includes sexual behavior among many other things.

Most of us do not wear robes or vestemnts, some might observe portions of the church year, especially Advent, nor do we have a lectionary.

We have had a family recently explore our congregation for the same reasons as you have indicated. It is a difficult decision.

If it helps, there is a story of a man who bought what was said to be George Washington's hatchet. However, he was told, the handle was changed twice and the head one.

A church can continue a name (George Washington's hatchet) but in fact, piece by piece, totally transform the content of it's teaching. Some, such as Bishop Spong, of the UCC, have gone so far as to deny the idea of God, and yet claim to be Christian. I can't accpet that you can be a Christian without faith in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

On the other hand, there remain a number of UCC congregations that teach the scriptures faithfully.

I hope that helps.

Correction:
Biship Spong is Episcopal, not UCC. My apologies.

I wish to respectfully respond to Mark Outson, a fellow missionary. Mark, you recommend Renald Showers’ book. I have read it and find it contains serious flaws of scholarship. Mr Showers misinterprets the patristic evidence. One egregious example: his citation from Justin Martyr, Dialogue 80 conveniently omits a comment Justin makes just a few lines above where Justin explicitly states that the premill view he holds is not held by all true Christians. Furthermore, his book loses credibility for me since it never once acknowledges any kind of premill except dispensationalism. No major historic premill author is ever mentioned or cited by Showers, not once (e.g. Ladd, etc). Showers, who has an MA in Church History, never cites from original patristic sources but only from English translations.

A second point: Mark, you assert that most mission activity comes from dispensationalists. I have worked in the Philippines for almost 20 years side by side with wonderful and godly sisters and brothers who are missionaries sent from the Allianz Mission, the missions arm of the Evangelical Free Church of Germany. Not only are they not dispensational or premill, they have no statement of faith at all! Yet this denomination has vigorous missions work in many nations around the world. Yes, dispensationalism has contributed much to missions, but let us not forget the contributions of others.

Dr. Ernest Manges
EFCAIM missionary to the Philippines, on home assignment in Grayslake, IL.

Marguerite,

The UCC and Angilcans are governed by the creeds. Unfortunatioey the Creeds do not address bibliology.

They assumed that everyone througout all time had the same aproach to Holy Scripture. The changes in credal churches comes by way of ones challenging the inerrancy of the scripturs and a closed cannon and revelation.

Does culture change our faith or faith inform our culture. The UCC has attempted over the last three decades to adapt God's revelation to the prevailing values of culture. That is unfortunate.

My desire is that the EFCA will learn from the UCC and the Episcopalians.

Keep on askin, seekin and knockin
God revelation will never Fail and Jesus is the Living Word

Pastor CJ Addis
Kings EFC, Hanford CA

I think this will be my last post, though I will continue to try to read the blog. I'll try to answer CJ's questions in case it's helpful. If any of you wish to reply further, convince me that I am wrong :), etc., please email me off-line: ajmiller16@yahoo.com.

Before proceeding, I wanted to assure those who are concerned that I continue to have deep, consistent fellowship with people from my church. Thanks for those who expressed concern about that.

Also, I should apologize to Greg Strand. I think the new SoF is masterfully done. While I stand by the statements of my first post, there may be a lack of respect towards Greg implicit there which I absolutely did not intend.

"What is the confession of the believer?" The best answer I can think is the historic creeds, such as the Nicene and Apostolic. Irenaeus' Rule of Faith is also good. I affirm all of these with passion. One of the reasons that I can't affirm premillenialism, or the eternal conscious torment of every person who doesn't become a Christian before death, is that these doctrines go beyond the historic confessions of our faith.

"What is your stance on the Godhead?" My answer to the above should cover this.

"In what ways is God omniscient?" Every way imaginable. :) This question makes me feel uninformed; I didn't know this was an area of controversy. The only thing that I can think to add is that God's knowledge of how we will respond to him does not mean that he determines how we will respond to him.

"What is the difference between the church and covenant keeping Israel?" Not much. The church is the "Israel of God". This quotation (Galatians 6:16) absolutely does *not* settle the matter, as there there lots of Biblical proof-texts available for covenant theologians, dispensationalists, and everything in between. But I'll move on.

Well, not yet. The reason I say "not much" rather than "none" is that I have enormous respect for Judaism. To loosely paraphrase Romans 3, the vestiges of what the Jews have inherited from their ancestors have been enough to preserve a fascinating identity, an identity which (in some ways at least) deeply reflects God's faithfulness.

"Is there more than one way to reduce pardon from God's wrath?" In the sense of 'Is there salvation outside of the work of Christ?' the answer is emphatically NO. God revealed himself in Christ, and only in Christ did God "reconcile all things to himself" (Colossians 1:20).

However, in the sense of, for example, 'Will members of other religions be forgiven?', I would say they may well be. I hope so. I don't pretend to know all the particulars of what the next age will be like. God is the judge, not me. I think that nothing impure and no one who remains unrepentant in the world will have fellowship with God. But I can't deny that God is at work in other religious communities now; nor can I know that he won't find a way to be gracious to people who die in another faith.

This is *not* to say that all religions are the same. Far from it. We are called to share the gospel and ourselves with others. This is crucially important both for this world and the one to come. But believing that all who die in other religions will go to hell forever won't help us do this.

I neither affirm nor reject the universalism that seems to be implicit in this quote, but it's worth listing: "As a human race we are on a journey and we need to be shown the road...In Christ we have been shown the road. We cannot treat that knowledge as a private matter for ourselves. It concerns the whole human family. We do not presume to limit the might and mercy of God for the ultimate salvation of all people, but the same costly act of revelation and reconciliation which gives us that assurance also requires us to share with our fellow pilgrims the vision that God has given us, the route we must follow, and the goal to which we must press forward."
(Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society, p. 183).

"What is your stance on inerrancy?" I am afraid that I will get into trouble here, but I hope not. I can affirm the SoF, both current and revised.

I am much more excited about affirming the inspiration of Scripture than its inerrancy (although I am well aware of the historical reasons for which these two terms are linked). The reason is that we don't have the original texts of Scripture. We have copies of copies of copies. This means that inerrancy of the original writings doesn't get us far without additional assumptions or knowledge about how the copying process occurred. There is massive documentary evidence that suggests that the copies we have are essentially accurate. Unfortunately, there is also massive documentary evidence that clearly indicates that some mistakes were made in the copying process. (Evangelicals don't like to admit this, and many fundamentalists will not, but it's the obvious truth.) Did these copying mistakes result in the introduction of erroneous assertions into the the texts we have? I don't know. I don't think that it should be an article of faith that they did not, since Scripture itself says nothing about this.

Affirming the inspiration of Scripture by the Holy Spirit (as all of the most ancient creeds do), along with the massive documentary evidence of the essential accuracy of the copying process, allows us to limit ourselves to saying about Scripture what it says about itself, and yet still look to it as God's prophetic revelation to us. The texts we have are not powerful and life-changing only because the originals had no mistakes, but because *God inspired them*.

I appreciate the phrasing that "the Bible is to be believed in all that it affirms". I am a theistic evolutionist; I do not believe that the first part of Genesis affirms that God created every animal and plant species 6,000 years ago. (It affirms many things about God, about man, about sexuality, about sin...but not what I said in the previous sentence.) There are many evangelicals who share this point of view, and the language of the SoF, it seems, will encourage their participation.

Also, I don't believe that the Bible always affirms historical facts in the same way, or with the same precision, that 21st century textbooks do. Before getting mad at me, consider: when was Jesus crucified? Before the Passover (as stated in John), or after (the synoptics)? There is a historical contradiction here, and one of the two is mistaken. I do not think a historical inaccuracy is an "error"; nor would it have been understood as one by readers of the time. (Yes, I have read "solutions" to this dilemna that deny the existence of a contradiction, but they are not convincing and come across as less than honest. My own best guess is that John, by giving details such as those found in 18:28, intended to be historically precise, and perhaps even to correct the synoptics, while the synoptics themselves (e.g. Mark 14:12) were giving a general time reference and not
intending to be precise.)

There are many, many other examples I could give. Yes, it is easier to defend the "historical inerrancy" of the Bible against every historian, archeologist, and textual critic who is not a fundamentalist. Yes, it's scarier to have sometimes to ask questions like "Exactly what is being affirmed historically is this passage?" But it's *honest*.

Related to CJ's quotation of some movie about a giant, a Spaniard, and the dread pirate Roberts (and other, earlier blog posts), I think that the EFCA should be considering the relative importance of the Distinctives and specific provisions of the SoF. I fell in love with the Distinctives when I first read them. It's part of what made me decide to attend an EFCA church. But if the EFCA really wants to define itself as it does in the Distinctives, it will have a hard time keeping people like me out, and at some point its SoF will probably need to reflect that. Just my two cents, in case anyone cares.

That's it. Again, email me directly if you have something that you think would be helpful for me to read. Otherwise, grace to you all. I hope the SoF revision goes well.

Just a comment: I think Andrew has given me a little snapshot of the Emergent Church movement (and my fears about it). But I don't think the issues he raises, though all pretty important, apply directly to the SOF revision. I would caution others who are critical of the revised SOF from using Andrew's words as portents of anything too particular re. the SOF. The lines drawn by even the new SOF would exclude theistic evolution, any view less than full verbal-plenary inspiration, etc.

For most of us (I think), we're debating the process -- the fact that a revision of such a crucial document of the EFCA was launched without an authorizing vote by the General Conference, the sole fact of which anoints the process with its top-down character -- and then the actual contents of the "product" itself. Both the current and the proposed SOF define us in ways that would deny most of the doctrines described in this previous post.

Sorry if this makes you sound a bit like a specimen under a slide, Andrew, but I don't think anyone should use your ideas or questioning for rhetorical purposes.

-- Jack

Mark said this:
"It is MAJOR as Church history proves that most missionaries and evangelists are premillennnial and especially dispensational. "

While it is true that the majority of missionaries in church history have been premillennial, it certainly is NOT true that the majority of missionaries in church history have been dispensational, considering that dispensationalism is not even 200 years old.

There is a saying that says "if it is true, it ain't new and if it is new, it probably ain't true."

Just throwing that quote out for fun.

Travis

Hey Guys,

Andrew thanks for your candor and honesty.

Jack, I think Andrew has given insight into the practices of churches that do not take serious the SOF. What is to say that they will take the revised statement serius?

Our distictives may also portray something differrent to others, than what we wanted them to. Our distinctives were not aproved of by conference, were they? I do not recall.Also the distinctives are not the standard for membership or of ordination.

Our Free churches can be very open to a larger audince than is membership and the responsibilites that come with membership. One can be an involved worshiper and find areas of service with out being a member. Yet there needs to be a more intimate expectation of those who desire to participate in our congregational system

This true for laypersons and clergy.

Talk to ya later Andrew, and thanks for the call.

CJ Addis
Pastor Kefc, Hanford CA

Dr. Manges,

I hope you are having a refreshing home assignment. In regards to your comments, I admit that Renald Showers’ book may not be perfect, but I feel he presented some good arguments, and covered the subject very well for the briefness of the book. I don’t think Mr. Showers ever intended this to be the magnum opus on the subject, and that is why I recommended it to Andrew. If you know of some unflawed and all-inclusive scholarship on the subject, I would be willing to look at it. I suspect that much of your criticism comes from the fact that you are not dispensational? I look forward to your critique of Olson. In all fairness, I don’t believe my remarks ever stated that ALL missionaries are dispensational, just most. I praise the Lord your fellow missionaries are active in the Great Commission. We could all use more help.

Mark Outson

C.J.,

My main concern was that those of us who have criticisms of the RSOF II shouldn't latch onto Andrew's words and start making a case like, "see , looky here! Adopting this will open the door to some of the beliefs that Andrew said that he believes!", etc.

Supporting and enforcing the doctrinal standards of the Christian group to which one belogs is a serious matter of integrity in the sight of God and man. If there are EFCA churches that have softly dropped certain standards for membership, or are tolerating the teaching of doctrines that are contrary to the SOF, then those churches need to recognize that they've sinned against their own word, and repent. If we don't enforce our own standards, or if DS'es pick and choose which churches to confront and which ones to leave alone, or which doctrines they'll insist on compliance with and which doctrines they'll passively let unravel in the churches given to their care, then we might as well have no SOF at all.

Travis:
I believe I clarified my remarks in my post to Andrew. Please reread them. As I stated, one of the major reasons for the “Great Omission” was a lack of biblical eschatological development and lack of having imminent motivation in their Confessions. I suppose many think it was coincidental that biblical evangelism picked up around the time of the New Divinity movement, and increased prominence of eschatology? That’s fine, we can agree to disagree.

I do have to agree with Dr. David Jeremiah’s radio comments last week about how many believers will be surprised in heaven to learn that His imminent return was important. Believe it or not, theology does, upon occasion, trickle down from the pulpit and into the congregation and affect our walk with Christ (pastors correct me if I am wrong on that one).

The other reasons for the Great Omission, I won’t do into here. Look at Olson’s books if you are interested in Missions. Also, since Covenant theology wasn’t developed into a “system” until about the same time as dispensationalism, I don’t see your point. For your sake, I will say that “dispensationalism” is just a term to describe what God’s Word has always said, if you take His Word at its normative meaning, as I talked about with Andrew. Even Covenant theologians have stated that if you use a normative hermeneutic you will be a “dispensationalist”. No surprise there.

Just for fun I will throw out the following quote for discussion:
“Always, of course, the conclusive evidence of the truth of a doctrine is not historical but exegetical.” Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology

Everyone:
It has been interesting to “blog” with you all over the past weeks. It was a new concept for me having been out of the States for 4 years. Since we are in the process of packing for our return to Africa, I will have to bow out of the blog. (some of you will probably rejoice!)

In my final remarks about the “refreshments” of the SoF, I will just say that many of them are probably helpful. Problem is that the process has gone beyond its mandate as far as #11 goes, and seeks to change our traditional distinctives. If that is where the EFCA is headed, so be it. Integrity is another issue. Maybe biblical ethics courses should be reexamined.

Since I cannot lay aside my convictions on “premillennial and imminent”; if the changes go through, we will have to withdraw our membership and seek one that does. In any case, that will not be the end of the world, as my sufficiency is in Christ alone.
To quote someone I have been reading lately; “We have an overwhelming responsibility to manifest love to our fellow believers, even in the way we dialog doctrinally. If I have failed to do this in this [blog], I ask your forgiveness. However, if the truth makes you angry, I cannot apologize for that!” We will continue to pray for the situation.

Adieu,
Mark Outson
Sioux Falls, SD

Most of what I have read on the blog seems to deal with dispensational versus covenant discussions or strong Calvinists versus moderate Calvininsts [commonly known to the strong Calvinist as Closeted Arminians - :) ]. However, what I anticipate is that the primary challenge will lie in the area of pragmatism and cooperation. I base this observation on some past experiences I have had within the denomination.

For example, I was once a member of an ordination council that met at the church in Santa Clarita. Some members of the council were very reformed and others, like myself, needing more reforming. It was sometimes difficult to reach agreement on licensing and ordination when a candidate went against the grain of some of the theological inclinations of those who sat on the council. The good news is that we were able to work together most of the time, but I remember at least one occasion when Craig Miller, the moderator, had to remind the council it was theoretically possible to be Arminian and become ordained. It seems to me that as long as we have some balance of views represented within the denomination a certain level of tolerance must be maintained, but what happens when a majority shift occurs and the balance is lost? Or has this already happened? Will the minority group, whoever it is, still have a voice of expression within the denomination or will they feel like a stepchild?

My second example has to do with the magazine PURSUIT. I remember several pastors in my cluster group who did not like the magazine and were very vocal about it to the denomination because it went against their particular theological point of view. The wide range of diversity within the denomination will make it difficult for the denomination to provide common resources (like PURSUIT) to the churches or the resources will become one-sided to the frustration of some.

As I mentioned on the other half of this blog I was attracted to the EFCA because of its diversity and I am not against making our statement more friendly to other views, if in the process it does not become less friendly to my own.

I liked it when I went to the national convention in New Mexico and the seminar sponsored by the ministerial association entitled "The destiny of the unevangelized" (and which appeared to be heavily attended by reformed pastors)was right next door to the "Becoming a Contagious Christian" seminar by Mark Mittelberg of Willow Creek (and was not so reformed). Yet it is a difficult balancing act requiring a great deal of wisdom to minister from and to both sides of the aisle.

Last, but not least, and again I am all for diversity, will we be confusing the general population of church goers by being so diverse? Will they see our distinction as being that we have nothing that makes us truly distinct and each individual church is some sort of theological grab bag...that could change at any time?

GNP2U

Jeff Harrington
Bakersfield, California

Just a snapshot observation
Is it a coincidence that the imminent return, premill and congregationalism are all removed from the revision? Is there a connection?
I have been asked repeatedly what the connection is between eschatology and ecclesiology.
Maybe we should ask the Spiritual Heritages guys and the revision fellas. They obviously see a connection, and are intentionally removing roadblocks towards a reformed evangelicalism that excludes non-covenant or reformed people. For guys of their caliber not to see this coming is shortsighted, or even manipulative.

I am about done with this blog stuff. I want to hear directly from these guys. That is why I am going to mobilized my cluster to make sure we all go to the national conference.

I do not think that those who do not consistently, with integrity hold to the current SOF as individuals (be they laypersons or clergy) or churches should be allowed to vote on these issue. They can sound off but in our “congregational system” they should not have the same rights in approving these changes. We do not let illegal aliens vote, likewise those who have become members by fudging should not be validated in such a way, nor should the churches that have made this their practice have the same weight in decision making. Nor should a non-EFCA ordained Pastor have the same influence as one who hold to the current SOF with intergrity.

This is a tough thing to say. But true Christ oriented love does not approve or validate dishonesty.
I am talking ethics of our Christian faith displayed to a larger evangelical community. Do we mean what we say, and do what we mean. Apparently our current SOF and the procedures of our association have been compromised (for quite awhile) and we are complicit (pastors, church leaders, District leaders and National and TEDS).

I heard from them at our CA meeting in Bakersfield. They were open and engaging. But there seemed to be (as I reflect) a desire to really not get into the "down and dirty" of this change and the future ramifications.

We should bring in some recognized amill and postmill guys who represent the ecclesial side of theology. Let's hear where this stuff will actually go.

I fear the unity we seek will be towards a reformed unity, under a centralized movement and not a decentralized association of churches in a denominational structure. Historically this is what people tend to do.

This is what the revision with its removal of congregationalism and our unique eschatology is doing. We will no longer speak of the invisible universal church, but the visible Catholic Church under reformed evangelical confessions.

When that happens you have two routes

1. a centralized bishop governed organization with decisions being made by districts or by a ruling council.

2. A liberalized universal church that seeks to unify under a humanized gospel and allegorical understanding of the creeds and confessions, let alone the Bible.
Saddened and concerned,

CJ Addis
Pastor KEFC, Hanford CA

While we are recommending books, I am over half way through Dr. Hesselgraves new book, ("Paradigms in Conflict" Kregel, 2005) which has 10 chapters on different paradigm conflicts in missions. However his discussion of "Restrictivism and and Inclusivism" is interesting on the question of etermal punishment, and the players in that debate. His "Holism and Prioritism" is relevant to the role of evangelism and social action (tne Revision #8).

Dr. Hesselgrave is a retired missions prof from TEDS.

On eternal punishment, I had to go check a reference on Stott, who seems to have decided that we have conditional immortality - hence, neither eternal punishment or annihilationism, but, as far as I can tell, selective resurrection. (I am not really sure what he said here). So there is a bigger issue on the question in these blogs: "Could John Stott join the EFCA?" ( See: J. Stott, David Edwards, "Evangelical Essentials" IVP, p.313ff)

And I have been a fan of much of Stott's writings over the years!

Greetings to fellow missionary Mark Outson,

My main objection to Showers is that he unfairly ignores historic premill while purporting to write a book comparing dispensationalism to other evangelical theologies. You’re right, I’m not a dispensationalist. I accepted historic premill while taking a TEDS class taught by a strong dispensationalist, Paul Feinberg, who was FAIR in his teaching by assigning us to read the best of all the options and letting us make up our own minds. So your question of 2 March, “does Trinity want to remove Dispensational teaching?” can be answered, “no.”

The best single book on the millennial issue is still The Meaning of The Millennium, R. G. Clouse, ed. (Intervarsity Press, 1977).

But may I respectfully suggest that as a dispensationalist you should read Clarence B. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism: Its Historical Genesis and Ecclesiastical Implications (Eerdmans, 1960)? I have not yet seen a copy of the book by C. Gordon Olson, but I will try to do so soon.

Finally, to your assertion that “most missionaries and evangelists are premillennial and especially dispensational” (comment of 22 March), may I respectfully suggest that you consider South Korea? Of the many thousands of missionaries that nation has sent out in the past few decades, a significant number are not premill because they’re Presbyterian.

If you (or anyone reading this blog) would like one-to-one conversation, you may contact me: manges “at” efcaim.org

Blessings on you during your home assignment, a stressful yet enriching time.

Dr Ernest Manges, missionary with the EFCA-IM in the Philippines, on home assignment in Grayslake, IL

Having attended our district's conference discussing the new SOF last Saturday, I have these comments:

1. Greg Strand is absolutely brilliant when it comes to discussing theology. I am grateful to the Lord for Greg's leadership on this committee and the drafting of the revised SOF (second draft).

2. Having said that, I believe there will be unintended consequences that will occur should this new SOF change takes place. One of these is the possibility of a major split in the EFCA. Since our SOF is the only document that in effect holds us together, I fear churches that do not want a revised SOF will leave the EFCA and that would be tragic!!

Dr. David Hansen

I don't think it is such a bad thing that some churches end up leaving EFCA. No one is telling them they have to adopt amill views or covenant theology. The truth is they have no toleration for those of us with differing views on secondary issues.

I can see someone leaving if an essential was denied in the sof. If the sof denied that Jesus is God, then by all means, we should all flee. But this just shows where people are at. If someone is willing to leave EFCA because their particular views on eschatology is not being mandated, then I say, so be it. We have a world to win for Jesus, and if I were a pastor, I would not deny somoene membership because he was amill. I just think that is absurd.

If by making EFCA more evangelically open is a bad thing, then, Lord, I don't want to be right!

Travis

Travis,

I would ask you to examine the breath and scope of this revision's consequences and the theological implications. A revision is not some trifle affair. It is the spiritual DNA of a group of associated churches and the standard for ordination and associational Biblical conduct. Consider your comments and then broaden your experience level. Ask some one from the Orthodox Presb. Church, PCA or any other reformed group what their eschatology and ecclesiology have in common (make sure to ask some one who actually knows and cares about such things).

I think some must understand that these arguments have more to do with clergy and church/denominational leadership and associational expectations.

If you would like, you may email me and I will send to you works by amill folks and their view of the universal church and local. These are people I respect and hold as brothers in the faith.

I also think you must consider your position here. We are imminent, premill Congregationalists. You act like we are subverting your denomination/association. There is no lack of a home for an evangelical reformed brother. Someone who is amill has more choices in denominational fellowship than do we who are not amill. It seems that you and others, think we who are of the Ev Free are wrong for our consistent and historical stance within the EFCA.

There is no major denomination that does not take a stance on eschatology and how that affects their ecclesiology. The following are example from two major reformed evangelical groups.

The PCA says
“We believe that God is gracious and faithful to His people not simply as individuals but as families in successive generations according to His Covenant promises.
We believe that Jesus will return, bodily and visibly, to judge all mankind and to receive His people to Himself. “
__________________________-
This is a pretty good statement and I believe a good statement of the reformed church movement except, that the other Presbyterian churches would add to it an adherence to the Westminster confession.

Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) says…
42. With the Augsburg Confession (Art. XVII) we reject every type of millennialism, or Chiliasm, the opinions that Christ will return visibly to this earth a thousand years before the end of the world and establish a dominion of the Church over the world; or that before the end of the world the Church is to enjoy a season of special prosperity; or that before a general resurrection on Judgment Day a number of departed Christians or martyrs are to be raised again to reign in glory in this world; or that before the end of the world a universal conversion of the Jewish nation (of Israel according to the flesh) will take place.
Over against this, Scripture clearly teaches, and we teach accordingly, that the kingdom of Christ on earth will remain under the cross until the end of the world, Act 14:22; John 16:33; 18:36; Luke 9:23; 14:27; 17:20-37; 2 Tim. 4:18; Heb. 12:28; Luke 18:8; that the second visible coming of the Lord will be His final advent, His coming to judge the quick and the dead, Matt. 24:29, 30; 25:31; 2 Tim. 4:1; 2 Thess. 2:8; Heb. 9:26-28; that there will be but one resurrection of the dead, John 5:28; 6:39, 40; that the time of the Last Day is, and will remain, unknown, Matt. 24:42; 25:13; Mark 13:32, 37; Acts 1:7, which would not be the case if the Last Day were to come a thousand years after the beginning of a millennium; and that there will be no general conversion, a conversion en masse, of the Jewish nation, Rom. 11:7; 2 Cor. 3:14; Rom. 11:25; 1 Thess. 2:16.
According to these clear passages of Scripture we reject the whole of Millennialism, since it not only contradicts Scripture, but also engenders a false conception of the kingdom of Christ, turns the hope of Christians upon earthly goals, 1 Cor. 15:19; Col. 3:2, and leads them to look upon the Bible as an obscure book.
_________________________________
The fact that we are premill is a fact. It is a fact that our eschatology does separate us from others according to their confessions. Not only is this an issue of eschatology but also of the ordinances (this is not a problem with most presbys-except for baby baptism as a standard-, but with Lutherans and Methodists, and Roman Catholic who are also Amill).

If you hold to a doctrine it is important for you to understand the fullness of that doctrinal conviction. This is not a pick and choose faith and fellowship and neither are the reformed denominations.

There is a church movement that seems not to care for doctrinal distinctives. Pick and choose is their credo. They are called the “Emergent Church”. They would hold to the Church Creeds and Christ oriented communities. Sounds great right? But they are redefining the Christian faith in their own images.

Travis are you a member? Do you conduct yourself with integrity? I think you probably try and intend to act with integrity. I would encourage you to study the history of the EFCA and respect the identity that is the EFCA. We do need to make changes but not a revision. We need to speak of our SOF with more integrity as an association than we have. I have never felt that a believer must go to an EV Free. I think they need to be in a church that reflects their core beliefs and encourages them to act on those with consistency and regularly.

At any rate this is not an “us vs them; but a struggle for who we are willing to be”. This should be an in “the family” discussion. Unfortunately we have guests trying to make house rules for their benefit.

Feel free to drop me a line.

Ev Free and Lovin’ it

Pastor CJ Addis

Kings EFC, Hanford CA
Ch 559-583-0356
Email pastorkefc@juno.com

Ok, I’m going to try this blog thing. It seems to me that the millennium and imminent are getting all the press. So rather than beat that horse I have a question about number 4.

The phrase “Israel’s promised Messiah” gives the impression that the Messiah was promised exclusively to Israel. The verse is cited from John 4:22 as a proof text that Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, is the Savior of the world. The way I understand this line of reasoning is that Jesus is the Messiah and Savior of Israel but for the rest of us Gentiles He is the Savior and not the Messiah. Is that what Scripture really teaches? When Jesus said “salvation is from the Jews” in John 4:22 could it not be understood as salvation proceeds from the Jews because the Messiah of the world that God so loved was a Jew? Is this also taught in Romans 9:5? Paul writes, “To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.” In addition, in a study of Romans 4 and Galatians 3, does not Paul make the argument that Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised, ie. a Gentile? So the Messiah was promised to Abraham before he was circumcised. So, isn’t Jesus then the promised Messiah to the Gentiles as well as Israel. (Galatians 3:7-9 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. [8] And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." [9] So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.) Finally, If Jesus is exclusively the promised Messiah of Israel why does the New Testament refer to Jesus as Christ for both Jews and Gentiles? Is not “Christ” the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew “Messiah”? John 4:25 The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things." Wasn’t Paul ministering and writing to Gentiles when he wrote for example in Ephesians 1:17? “that the God of OUR Lord Jesus Christ/Messiah, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him,”

Pastor David Barr
Lake Street Fellowship
EFC Madera, CA

on #4

the footnote #14 on p.4 of the 2nd revision discussion says

"this minor change is simply meant to minimize the notion that Jesus is only the messiah of Israel and not of the whole world. The new wording offersa subjective rather than on objective genetive, suggesting that jesus is Israel's Messiah for Israel but also for the world."

Dear David,

I'm not sure I understand why the phrase is problematic. Could you clarify? Jesus was Israel's promised Messiah. To me, the phrase is an allusion to the Old Testament prophetic support for our belief that Jesus was/is the Messiah. It's true that God promised salvation-blessing to the nations as well (in Abraham's covenant), but Israel held primacy in order of access to the blessing. That's why Christ told his men to not preach to anyone except the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt. 10) -- a preaching rule He later rescinded.

Responding to Pastor Barr's post on 4/6 regarding point #4 of the draft revision:

I agree with you that Jesus is the Messiah of all in the sense that he is the only possible Lord and Savior of mankind, though he is this Christ most fully for those who have acknowledged his lordship through repentance and faith and received his promise of salvation, whether Jew or Gentile.

On this point I think the revised statement is simply trying to affirm that we identify Jesus as the very fulfillment of the Jewish hope for a Messiah. So, if someone were to ask us, "Who do you worship, Jesus or Israel's Messiah?" We would say, "We believe that Jesus _is_ Israel's promised Messiah." We are not by that statement limiting Jesus and his lordship to Israel (which may be the bare meaning without the emphasis on the verb); rather, we are affirming that Jesus is the fulfillment of that very same promise and not making completely different claims. Thus he is not "Messiah 2.0 for Gentiles," leaving Israel to wait for their man who hasn't shown up yet. No, Jesus is Israel's Messiah now revealed to be the Lord and Savior of all peoples! This is the good news! [And precisely the point of Matthew 28:16-20.]

Bruce McKanna, Associate Pastor
EFC of Mt. Morris (IL)

For those who, like me, want to retain our premillennial distinctive: I feel I should encourage all of us to remember that we are advocating retaining the premillennial position, not dispensational premillennialism specifically.

The doctrine of an "any-moment" Rapture is specifically and exclusively a dispensational viewpoint -- no other set of Christian prophetic beliefs holds to it. The word "imminence" was given a broader meaning in the 1970's, and the post-trib view was officially sanctioned from that time on. I foresee no chance that this policy will be reversed, nor do I wish that it should be.

The word "imminence" was the only distinctly dispensational word in the entire founding SOF; and so, with the permitting of the post-trib view, the EFCA severed its creedal, organizational commitment to dispensationalism.

This is why I say that our debate (among other things) should be about the importance of premillennialism in the broadest sense. It will be a lost cause if we try to build our issues around imminence, since the EFCA broke with the original meaning of the word "imminence" thirty years ago.

For Jack Brooks (or anyone else who's willing to tackle this...)

On the question of imminency... I have one question regarding the classic definition.

While I believe that Christ could now return at any moment... and I do believe that the early (apostolic) church could hold to that definition... if we believe that Israel holds a primary key to dispensational hermaneutics, could we have also held to an identical interpretation of "imminency" between the years of the diaspera and 1948? Without Israel in its homeland, can we really hold as tightly to the all of the teachings of dispensationalim -- whether you're pre-trib, post-trib, etc. Doesn't Israel's presence in their homeland provide a platform for imminency and corresponding prophetic events in some way?

While I hold to imminency today, I wonder if I would have held as tightly prior to Israel becoming a nation again.

Steve Miller
South Holland, IL

I believe the doctrine of imminency was first theorized and popularized by Rev. John Nelson Darby, in the early 1800s; and the Scofield Bible, and the Niagra Bible conferences which further popularized it, both pre-dated the recreation of Israel as a secular state. So the doctrine of an any-moment rapture predated the recreation of the state of Israel by something close to 100 years. Israel's reinstitution as a state further inflamed eschatological excitement among evangelicals (I sound like Dr. Seuss here -- Big E, little e, what begins with e? Eschatological Excited Evangelicals, whee whee whee!).

Anyway, no, I don't think the existence of Israel as a nation was crucial. People held to imminency long before 1948.

One of the criticisms of the new SOF made by some is the charge that it abandons all forms of imminency. "Living in constant expectation" is a pale, watery shadow of the former robust imminency view.

Some say that post-tribs can't live with an imminent expectation, but I believe the counter-argument is that imminent expectation can pertain to the entire, final, end-time chain of events. I.e., the whole thing could kick in at any moment. I can buy that, since it's consistent with Jesus' prophetic parables. The virgins weren't caught completely unawares -- there was a "midnight cry" which preceded the bridegroom's arrival (Mt. 25). Jesus said His disciples could roughly figure out that spring was near, because the trees were blossoming.

But what about the millennial views? If we're going to endorse post-millennialism -- which is what the new SOF does -- aren't we at the same time abandoning all commitment to any type of imminency? Post-millennialism is completely incompatible with any sort of alert expectation of Christ.

The new SOF implicitly endorses post-millennialism through its silences.

Please forgive me if I do not respond to any questions with regard to my ramblings in a timely manner. I promised myself that I would not get sucked into blogdom and spend too much time in the world of blogging. I have set a limit of once a week at the most for responses or ramblings.

In regards to the responses and questions with regard to “Israel’s promised Messiah”, I believe that Jesus is Israel’s promised Messiah as well as the promised Messiah, Anointed One, who makes salvation possible for all who “acknowledge His lordship through repentance and faith and receive His promise of salvation.” With regard to Israel’s primacy in order of access to the blessing, is it not based on a sovereign plan of the Almighty to make them a nation for the purpose of carrying out His plan to redeem mankind? Abram’s descendants would become a special nation from which the Messiah would be born, the Messiah would be rejected by that nation, crucified and rise again on the third day, and the Gospel message would then be proclaimed to all nations: Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the end of the earth resulting in all the families of the earth being blessed. Thus, Christ’s initial instructions to the disciples to preach only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel falls in line with God’s plan.

All this to say, how does the phrase “Israel’s promised Messiah” strengthen the statement of faith? If we have to explain it with expressions such as “meant to minimize the notion”, “a subjective rather than an objective genitive”, and “suggesting” have we strengthened the statement or complicated it unnecessarily. We can’t put all truth into the statement of faith so is this addition really necessary? If so, why? Is the question, “Who do you worship, Jesus or Israel’s Messiah?” a question that is being asked and debated regularly in our culture and churches? Is our statement on the person of Jesus being exploited in such a way that this addition is necessary? Is our statement on the person of Jesus being interpreted without regard to its historical context making this addition necessary? Are new questions being raised at this time in our history that were not asked when the original statement of faith was written making this addition necessary? Does the lack of this phrase provide opportunity for lots of heretics to sign the statement of faith?

I am not debating the truth that Jesus is Israel’s promised Messiah. I am asking if it is a necessary revision. If it is necessary to include this concept based on a clear affirmative to any or all of these questions, which are set forth in the preamble as reasons for possible revisions, then I would suggest making it clear that Jesus is Israel’s promised Messiah and the Messiah of the whole world as well.

David Barr
Lake Street Fellowship
Madera EFC

My #1 concern about the new SOF in the eschatology area has to do with allowing post-millennialism and preterism.

When we take no position at all about the future Kingdom of God, we automatically allow in these two errors.

Post-millennialism is a serious delusion. It denies all expectancy toward Christ's coming, which is anti-scriptural. This is because the Church is expected to Christianize the entire secular order before Christ can return. So, contrary to Christ's own parables, his return is not the next thing in God's plan.

Post-mil re-directs the local church into secular politics to an excessive degree. It attempts to bring about a political order in society that can't possibly be, in the absence of near-universal regeneration and the personal force of Christ Himself.

I believe that church history illustrates how post-millennial doctrine converts into the use of physical military force by Christians against others. The practical effect of post-millennialism is that it tries to put a secular sword into the hand of the Church.

Preterism is worse, in that consistent preterism teaches that Christ's second coming and the resurrection of the just already happened (in AD 70). This is heretical, and I try not to use that word very much.

Both views -- post-mil and preterism -- would also provoke even further splintering, division, and bad feeling within the EFCA. Just tossing pre-millennialism out of an organization that has been both creedally and passionately pre-mil for more than 50 years is like thinking that re-sequencing someone's DNA is just a piece of out-patient surgery.

Or like Wallace says in Curse of the Were-Rabbit, "Just a little harmless brain alteration...". I'm with Gromit, whose ears stood up in horror when he heard Wallace cheerfully mutter that as he fastened his brain-washing gadjet onto his own head...

This is why I regard the statement that millennial views are trivial as very uninformed.

Your view of God's Kingdom changes your view of the Church's mission and methods in the world. I would never vote in favor of a SOF that allows post-millennialism and preterism, and I don't think anyone else should.

In my opinion, a vote for no millennial position at all is, in principle, a vote for post-millennialism and preterism to come into the EFCA.

The glib promises made at the Apple Valley conference that such a thing would never happen were examples of empty, baseless optimism. Given human nature, and the aggressively proselytizing nature of post-mils and preterists, it would happen, and sooner than anyone would think.

If there is a way to be OK about amillennialism without swinging wide the door to post-mil and preterism, I'd be willing to consider it, in spite of my strong dissent from amillennialism. But, regardless, none of us are under any moral obligation to become Presbyterian-Reformed in our eschatology. There's plenty of work to go around, and plenty of Christian denominations where post-mils and preterists can be rightfully ordained and serve our Lord in a peaceful, fruitful way.

Margueritte of the UCC,

Are you still watching? As someone who left the UCC due to my concerns of their disrespect for Scripture and the tolerance of those who deny Jesus Christ as the only way to a right standing with God the Father, I am very eager to encourage others who face similar concerns, and I think that either the Olson statement of faith of 1950 and the revised one as it stands more than adequately shows the EFCA to be a denomination committed to glorifying Jesus in a way that, frankly, the national UCC is not.

While I certainly get hives every time I hear an "evangelical" favor "open theism," I think you will find here a very refreshing intra-orthodox debate among people who trust in Jesus Christ and Him alone. That distinctive is the most important for me.

My wife and I are involved with the Evangelical Free Church because we value the Scripture as the infallible Word of God, and we trust Jesus' sacrifice alone for our right standing with God. I will be yet another person who advocates not only the pre-mil interpretation of Scripture but also it's usefulness in compelling us to Godly living. Yet, it ought not be a test of orthodoxy.

The EFCA is an awesome group and I pray that we all seriously value Jesus' completed work on the cross as being of infinitely greatly worth as a source of hope than any secondary doctrine.

Michael Scheib
Evanston, Illinois

Hey there to Jack Brooks, Dave Barr, Steve Miller and the Free Bloggers.

Jack take your concern of post mill & preterists and add in the statement of “seeking justice for the oppressed”. It seem that the framers are missing the link between eschatology and ecclesiology. However the seeking of justice is it seems a very familiar theme for postmills.

I am with you Dave. If the revision is to cause unity and clarity, then “Israel’s Messiah (as much as I like that language as a dispensationalist) causes less clarity and more controversy.

Is our future hope a central doctrine and value for individuals and the Church as a unified body? Did the founders of the EFCA feel that it was? Did they articulate their view? If so what was their opinion? Are we to be permanently stalled by a decision that has come back to bite us from the 70’s? If so them we must do more work on imminency and our premill expectation.

I wish we could step back away from a revision, to the original intent of a refreshment of our current SOF. I fear we (the EFCA organization) have been trying to make sense of a situation that has grown into a real dilemma. There has been fudging. By this I mean there are ethical issues of ordination and associational commitment between our ministries and our churches. I have been a member of, a missionary of, or a pastor in the Free since 1990. I have always been aware of Trinity’s eschatological weakness to the stated SOF eschatology and also the weak association of so called EFCA churches. These churches have hired and ordained non Free Church ministers out side of our EFCA ordination. We have accepted views at odds with our historical and current doctrines and SOF. There has been an effort over the last six years to bring back a sense of EFCA order. The answer it seems now is to open the door to those who have not been in line with the EFCA so we can all get along.

This attitude will lead to further struggles and a disintegration of the historical EFCA. We will continue towards an entirely natural decent. To coin a phrase of another denomination “Open hearts, open minds, open doors”.

How open are we willing to be so that we are a home to all those who confess to be believers or all those who confess to be evangelical? The Spiritual Heritage group should recognize that our founders clearly sought a unity for those who were not reformed in ecclesiology and eschatology, on purpose fully aware of their decision. They were very aware of amills, preterists and postmills. They also were intentional about our congregational system, which is at odds with certain forms of mainline and reformed theology and eschatology.

Just some thoughts.

Pastor CJ Addis
Kings EFCA, Hanford CA
pastorkefc@juno.com

Very much agreed.

It's like the mentality that says we've got so many illegal immigrants now, let's just throw out the rulebook, call them all citizens, and be done with it. Until the next time. And then the time after that.

I also agree with Pastor Pruitt in the other sub-blog: the headings aren't right, theologically speaking. Everything in the Bible isn't the Gospel. Sanctification isn't the Gospel, nor is justice for the poor. Neither is believers-membership-only. People need to accept that the paradigm isn't going to be "essentials only." That's a myth that's still being perpetuated in this discussion.

The phrase "justice for the poor" -- are we supposed to take it in the normal way that the Jim Wallis/Ron Sider/Tony Campolo Left does? Using it reminds me a little of that weird phrase, "unity in love", that someone at Apple Valley pointed out is a phrase used among Mormons.

I don't think it's a good idea to inject politics into our SOF; like we aren't already stirred up enough. That phrase -- "justice for the poor" -- is usually code for socialist economics, such as was praised by a sociologist featured in a roundtable urban-ministries article printed by EFCA Magazine two years ago.

I'm something of a politics and current-events buff, so I read a lot of secular political lit. Based on how it is commonly used in literature I have read over the years, "socialism" is what that phrase means to me.

I consider socialism fundamentally immoral, in that it causes the government o routinely violate the 8th commandment. Even so, I wouldn't support a 'pro-free-market-capitalism' phrase in there, either.

Since post-mil is Social Gospel, CJ, your connecting-the dots on this is apt.

I have had the same concerns about postmillenialism and preterism that Jack raises above and communicated them early on to the Spiritual Heritage Committee.

I am pretty sure that the new statement #9 (2nd revision) on constant expectancy will continue to dissuade the militant post-mills and preterists from infiltrating. Their understanding of the blessed hope is very different from ours (and, for that matter, expectant amillennialists). (That is not to say that there isn't some kind of an expectant post-mill--there may be, and if so, I'd like to know how they do it--but that's a whole other kind of issue.)

However, no one is advocating "tossing out pre-millennialism" from our association--just broadening the acceptability of other millennial views. If the RSOF is accepted by our churches, premillennialism would still be a huge position within our association. And there is no reason why that would have to change. We are autonomous congregations and no church that values premillennialism would need to hire any other kind of pastor. Remember, no one is advocating changing our polity (it will continue to be preserved in our Articles of Incorporation)--just whether or not we all need to believe that our polity is the only biblically rooted polity.

I agree that our churches are not morally bound to broaden our statement on eschatology, but I have come to think it would be a good idea and fairly consonant with our historic ethos.

-Matt Mitchell
Pastor, Lanse EFC, Lanse PA

Greg,

I appreciated your comments and candid insight. Revisions and changes should always be performed but with a delicate hand. Placing article one to article two is no longer giving emphasis to the doctrine of the word as being the pillar and ground of truth. We know God by the Bible. I understand that various philosophical approaches can be used: Ontological, teleological, cosmological, etc to argue God's existence. The practicality of Sys. Theo has provided this understanding of God. But in the end, the church must always go back to the Bible to defend our understanding of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

Also, as a way of recommedation. I think we should add 66 books denoting what we actually believe. Since, many Protestant denominations are denying inerrancy, what books do we believe to be true. As well, as the current trend to push the Book of Judas and other deutercanonical writings.

Praying for you Greg.

Howdy there guys, I hope you don’t mind if I jump in here with you. As an old farmer I like to look at the simpler side of things. Here’s a couple of questions:

If I as a local Free Church pastor advocated and preached the second blessing and the gift of tongues as the absolute test of salvation, what would happen? Would the D.S. visit me? If I persisted would my credentials be in jeopardy? Hey, they’re secondary issues right? We don’t want to leave anyone out right? Everything is cool isn’t it? What if I started doing snake handling over here in Idaho, I mean all I have to do is step out the door and pick up a rattler. Now that is a cool thing, playing with rattlers and sucking in that venom, that’s what you call faith! That would be good right? We could use some of that kind of faith in the EFCA! If a local pastor is held accountable to uphold in teaching, preaching and practice the 12 point statement what about the national boys? Is there a double standard?

Here’s a follow up question: If a person pledged to represent, advocate and protect certain theological property of our denomination, yet does not represent, advocate and protect but instead criticizes, contends against and advocates the abandonment of said inherited property, should such a person be entrusted with further oversight of the property? Hum . . . maybe a second thought should be given to the re-election of certain men to national offices in June who are not protecting but instead attempting to jettison doctrinal distinctives of which they were entrusted as guardians.

Here’s one last question on just plain, old fashioned honesty. In these days of revisionist everything, is it any wonder that some among the Free Church have suspicions when a committee labeled ‘The Spiritual Heritage Committee’ is commissioned with the task of revising our EFCA doctrinal statement? We are told that the committee is guarding our spiritual heritage. Just to be sure, I checked on the meaning of heritage. Here is how Webster defines the word: Heritage – 1. property that is or can be inherited. 2. Something handed down from one’s ancestors or the past, as a characteristic, a culture, tradition, etc. If we are working with the dictionary definition and not creating our own, I would assert that the heritage that we possess as the Free Church is our unique evangelical identity. This identity is plainly defined in our 12 point doctrinal statement. To remove parts of this identity such as Imminency, Pemillennialism and Congregationalism is to abandon part of our heritage not to guard it. The work of the ‘Spiritual Heritage Committee’ to date can in no honest way be construed as guarding our heritage. If the Leadership of the EFCA deems that the theological repositioning of our movement is wise and proper at this time, then I for one would greatly appreciate up front candid admission of that opinion. Say it like you see it. The founders were wrong. They set us on a doomed course. They didn’t divide the word rightly. We must leave our heritage. If we are a movement of Christ honoring integrity, if we have nothing to hide, then why not at a bare minimum give the committee a name that reflects it’s work and do away with the highly misleading title ‘Spiritual Heritage Committee’? Prov 19:1 puts it succinctly; Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity Than he who is perverse in speech and is a fool.

Hoping Jesus comes sooner!

Nate Good, Pastor, Valley Christian Fellowship, Grand View, Idaho

I would like to refer all to a three-part article on Al Mohler's blog this week on the subject of The Pastor as Theologian. Take special note of PART TWO where he talks of theological triage.

Here's an excerpt:

The pastor's concentration is a necessary theological discipline. Thus, the pastor must develop the ability to isolate what is most important in terms of theological gravity from that which is less important.

I call this the process of theological triage. As anyone who visits a hospital emergency room is aware, a triage nurse is customarily in place in order to make a first-stage evaluation of which patients are most in need of care. A patient with a gunshot wound is moved ahead of a sprained ankle in terms of priority. This makes medical sense, and to misconstrue this sense of priority would amount to medical malpractice.

In a similar manner, the pastor must learn to discern different levels of theological importance.

In my opinion we are becoming dangerously closely to theological malpractice when we lose the ability to see different levels of theological weight.

The SHC is doing a fantastic job of correcting this in our SOF ...kudos to them. They way I see some pastors exalting dispensationalism and pre-mill is sad.


Larry Stromberg, pastor
Centennial EFC
Forest Lake, MN

On the justice issue:

The phrase the SHC is asking us to consider including is actually:

"...acting with compassion toward the poor and needy, seeking justice for the oppressed."

I don't think that mandates a political system/approach but a biblical call to compassion and the "prophetic" emphasis on justice for those who are being sinfully denied it.

It just sounds biblical to me.

-Matt Mitchell
Lanse EFC, Lanse PA

How about inserting the word "truly," and saying "justice for the truly oppressed?" Or, even "Biblical justice for the truly opporesed?" As long as anything being advocated must adhere to the words of Scripture, I am comfortable that we will avoid becoming little Tony Campolos (and I think it is very well that we do avoid such a thing) Since we can all agree with Amos that justice is a good thing, I don't think that forces us to accept the leftist politics that we should rightly avoid.

As for the millenium issue, I think there is a logical fallacy in suggesting that allowing a millenial position that is in line with apostate denominations will somehow lead us into apostasy or spiritual illness. The very last thing (or at least almost the very last thing) I'd want is for the EFCA to become as one of the liberal denominations, but this idea that post-millenialism or amillenialism "opens the door" for such a trend is like saying that we should not eat ice cream because people are killed more often in months where ice cream consumption is highest.

That is, just because liberal denominations are not premillenial doesn't mean that THAT'S their problem, or a cause of their problem. Really, if that were their biggest problem they'd be doing a heck of a lot better.

I am interested in what is Biblical rather than what is or is not associated with wrong-way organizations. The liberal congregation of my youth did a decent job feeding hungry people, yet I hardly fear that if I too feed hungry people, or tolerate those who do in my church, I'll be "travelling down that road."

The fact is, the Methodists and the United Church of Christ have, whether consciously or unconsciously, elevated "social good" above the finished work of Jesus Christ on Calvary. That's what is wrong with them. There came a time when "getting right with an eternal God through Jesus' death and resurrection" and "to glorify God and enjoy Him forever" took a back seat to something else. If we will value Jesus above everything else, and His word as the inspired and infallible Word of God, then we will encroach on their doors, rather than them on ours. The commitment to Jesus and to His Word brought my wife and I into the EFCA (although we had already left the wrong-way denominations of our pre-Christian lives years before). Leaving the apostate denominations had nothing to do with their views on the millenium, and entering the EFCA had nothing to do with our pre-millenial eschatology. The apostate churches will continue to dwindle and fade, and those that love the Bible will continue to grow.

Concern for the poor does not say "how" one is concerned. Presumably we would be guided by scripture. Just because some on the left use that to justify socialism does not make us do that. I think a biblical study of the OT and NT does not deny the idea of private property. and I would say that Christ-like compassion for the poor would be personal, not only adjusting systems. One theme of Ruth is the over-generosity of Boaz to the laws of gleaning and the call to be fair to the poor and the sojourner. The Good Samaritan story was about a personal act of compassion. Tabitha in Acts made clothes for the poor. So before we say that "preaching the good news to the poor" is a liberal verse, lets note that all the verses are God's, and all should be properly interpreted.

by the way, old language in my 99 year old church's constitution speaks of the concern of the elders and deaconesses for "the poor, the sick and the needy." That is not languge from the 1990s, maybe from the 1890s. John Newton of "Amazing Grace" note was also active against the slave trade. This is not new, but is a somewhat neglected part of our heritage, that we are a bit afraid of because of what others have done with it.

Not all a-mills are sloppy with scripture, not all pre-mils are "too heavenly minded to be any earthly good", not all the compassionate are socialists, not all reformed are passive on evangelism, etc. Such broad generalizations show that we have not listened to our brothers and sisters over the fence. Lets disagree well - where there are real disagreements. But lets not fight with ghosts.

Ok, I have used my my nickel.

Posted by Michael Scheib
On April 21, 2006 03:46 PM (link)

“The apostate churches will continue to dwindle and fade, and those that love the Bible will continue to grow.”

Hey Mike,

What do you suppose is the theological term for the eschatology of your above statement? (Premill, Postmill, Amill) And what is your hermeneutic that allows for such a statement? And if that is the case then what does that say about our individual congregations in light of our Catholic identity? Are we to move towards a visible centralized church, with a centralized authority structure? Kind of a "Darwinism for the church" attitude. The last ones standing were right, a pragmatic determination of rightness?

Please think on these things Mike.

I for one would be interested in your involvement level in the EFCA. Are you a member, Pastor, elder, deacon, or missionary? Or are you a faithful worshiper at an EFCA church?

I am trying to guard against a type of “drive by” blogging.

Now to the rest of us.

My fear is not so much that we would become a liberal denomination by way of eschatology and poor hermeneutics, but that we are going against who we are as the EFCA and away from central teachings of Jesus and the Apostles that our founders were convinced were important. It seems that there are those who wish us to change. O.K., then ya better bring a sound system of theology, which is coherent and reasonable. That is why our founders were Premill. To do other wise was an act of tradition rather than a biblical exegesis of scripture of the future hope of the believer in this age, the previous ages of the faithful and the one to come. They made this determination not out ignorance, nor out of arrogance, but out of an impassioned belief in the reliability of scripture.

Our SOF may be a bit dated in presentation, but not in it’s foundation on any of the twelve points. The problem with the current SOF was/is the inconsistent and sometimes unethical application of it, in regards to church association, ministerial and educational adherence and denominational/associational leadership. This cannot be stressed enough.

Relegating eschatology to a lesser theology is inconsistent with the EFCA and any other reputable evangelical association. Systematic theology seems to be out of style. Are we now moving to a potluck style of theology and faith?

We are setting precedence here in this process. The areas of revision will be used for further revision in the future. The areas that we want to revise are biblically true and are historically what made us different from other evangelical groups. Are these areas any less valuable today? Maybe to some. Then they have a crisis of conviction.

The EFCA and Trinity speak allot about ethics. I would ask if this process is an attempt to placate those who are up against an ethical rock and a hard place.

I for one am glad that we are going through this process, because we were/are sliding towards a real crisis in the future. We had churches that were something, but Evangelical Free. Theology was becoming merely words on some document. We were becoming a Christianized “minnie-me” of our culture.

Maybe this process is leading to a much deeper conversation. I hope we are willing to go there.

Pastor CJ Addis
Kings EFC, Hanford CA
pastorkefc@juno.com

What I would like is:

1) Dispense with the doctrinally-blurry and stylistically clumsy "Gospel" headings, and just give us the meat of the paragraphs straight.

2) Re-insert the "God's exhautive foreknowledge" bit, which the committee inexplicably removed from the second version of the revision. Open Theism is heretical, and should be locked out.

3) Add back more language emphasizing the sinner's need to personally respond to the Gospel. Speaking as my district's DBOMS person, I do see this revision as far too tailored (through omissions) to suit Calvinists and the Reformed.

4) To see a way to solidly protect us as a movement from the politicizing, this-world-focus, and dangerous false optimism that Post-millennialism exerts.

5) Keep some doctrine of imminence -- whether any-moment rapture or any-moment-final-age -- because of how often Jesus ordered us to "be ready." John said that our expectation of His return purifies us, so there is a direct connection between eshcatological expectation and holy living that shouldn't be given up.

6) Some proof that the Arminians and Cal-minians aren't going to be incrementally marginalized.

To me, the difference between a-mil vs. post-mil and preterism is that a-mil believes in an "end times", accepts the NT's predictions that in the latter days dark times will come, and is committed to a literal, future second advent and the future judgments of the righteous and the wicked.

There are texts that say the Kingdom of God is present now (e.g., Matthew 13), and there are texts that say that the church fulfills in some degree the nature and plan for Israel (e.g. Romans 11). A dispute between pre-mils and a-mils is how much is now, how much is fulfilled.

But I want to see and hear evidence that opening up to a-mil won't at the same time open us up to every bizarre eschatology out there -- especially Christian reconstructionism, which rides piggy-back these days on all the non-pre-mil teachings.

Steve Miller weighing in after a long silence.

In previous blogs I've expressed a serious concern about the ethics involved in much of this process.

I have to admit with others that the more serious concern now revolves around the question "Are we redefining the Gospel?"

If claiming that creation, the fall, and other historical events are part of the Gospel, are we not borderlining heresy? The NT is pretty clear about its definition of the gospel -- the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. You might even legitimately add the future judgment that Paul identifies as part of "my gospel" (Rom 2:16). I ask, Will our current EFCA efforts end up redefining the gospel by adding theologically inaccurate elements? Although the specific issues may differ, isn't this essentially the same error that Paul addressed in dealing with the legalists in Galatians who wanted to add elements to the gospel that ended up distorting the simple purity of the true message? Are we not getting dangerously close to the very elements we criticize about the Catholics or cults where theological inaccuracies become "gospel"?

If this is the actual case, I'm concerned about the future of our denomination regardless of where we all stand on the millennium issues.

Steve Miller
South Holland, IL

Help me, I'm confused!

I am scratching my head over what seems to be "hand-wringing" over language that is less overtly Arminian. It seems that Jack above (and others in previous posts) wants language that is clearly Arminian in order to squeeze out Calvinists. I have seen this in other posts, too, and I am honestly confused over what the underlying fear is in this? Can someone help me out? Any person in my church would tell you I am clearly a Calvinist and I clearly keep evangelism on the front burner (including the call for sinners to respond). My encouragement to my Arminian brothers is this: the survival of your position in the EFCA depends on your biblical proofs, not the SOF. As for Jack's mention of Cal-minians (can you say oxymoron?), these brothers are not missing A point they are missing THE point.

Larry Stromberg
Centennial EFC
Forest Lake, MN

Um...is this a good time to mention that I am a 4-point Calvinist?

I don't think that my Arminian and Calminian brethren's positions should need to have to "survive" anything, in the EFCA. I think there is some legitimate concern about the Reform-izing of the SOF, thru omissions.

"As for Jack's mention of Cal-minians (can you say oxymoron?), these brothers are not missing A point they are missing THE point."

That could have been phrased in a more charitable manner.

The term “Calminian” is often used [sometimes humorously, sometimes pejoratively] to label what is more accurately described as “moderate Calvinism”.

Moderate Calvinism, Calminianism if you prefer, is not an oxymoron. It is a legitimate attempt to address a theological split within the Church and come to a biblically based solution. Some of the notable advocates include: Norman Geisler, Bill Bright, Josh McDowell, Charles Stanley, Zane Hodges, and Ravi Zacharias.

You may disagree with their conclusions, but it does your position little good to disparage those who agree with them. And, it is the height of irony for one to say that those who hold such views are “missing THE point.” Look to your own missing points, brother.

Your brother in Christ Jesus,

George Husted
Deacon at Glastonbury Community Church, CT

I am a lay member (with formal Biblical training) of an EFC church in Ohio and I have one question to those who disagree with the current doctrinal statement regarding Premillennialism:

Did you join an EFC church knowing that you disagreed with the statement or did you come to that conclusion after joining?

Either way, I feel that you have not been honest with your local congregation, and that alone is a serious problem that should disqualify a person from membership.

I would not think of becoming a member of a church where I did not agree with the doctrinal statement. I would instead find a denomination that I agreed with and pursue becoming a member there.

As for Premillennialism, a serious student of the Old Testament should understand that a literal millennium is an important promise to the physical nation of Israel as recorded in numerous places in the OT, not just in the NT book of Revelation.

As for it being 1,000 literal years, look to the Scripture for other literal dates and see how the prophets interpreted it. For example, Abraham was told that the children of Israel would be afflicted 400 years in Egypt (Gen 15:13) which was fulfilled literally. Also, Daniel read from Jeremiah and noted that their captivity would be finished after 70 years. Daniel interpreted it *literally* and rightly so (Dan 9:2, Jer 25:11). We should follow the lead of these great men in our hermeneutics.

Roger Davis

I received a mass e-mail from EFCA High Command today, saying that the Powers That Be decided the SOF Revision wasn't ready to be presented at next month's convention. So there's going to be a Revision III. But does this mean that there won't/can't be a vote on anything until June 2008? In other words, do we now wait till Conference 2007 for the final product's coming-out, and then another year for more hashing out?

Do we know what reason(s) were stated for holding it back? Or when to expect Revision III?

I guess I'm just interested to see whether/how much the discussions on these forums have had an effect on their decision.

Tim Reineke
Boone, IA

I have heard a number of comments to the effect that millennial threology is a small point. However, isn't it tied to a number of issues - not necessarily by hard logic, but by similarity of thought. For example, PreM is tied to a kind of pessimism about human potential without God; which is much like our call to "decision" in evanglism (before/after; can't help yourself), and for most of us, believers baptism (which is tied to a view of culture - the church is counter culture). It is usually tied to how we view political activism and social involvement. Also, how we borrow from culture, or make hard distinctions.

Maybe we are more in tune with our culture as churches, than our bretheren in 1950. Is that good?

try googling Millennialism or check Amazon, and you will see that at the cultural level, it is viewed as linked to Waco, Jonestown, etc. i.e. a topic for the lunatic fringe.

anyway, in visiting the nearby university library, I found this food for thought - the intro paragraph by a Gordon Conwell Professor.

"The Victory of Christ's Kingdom; an introduction to postmillennialism", John Jefferson Davis, Canon Press, Moscow, Id, 1996.

"Does the Bible teach that conditions in the world will become steadily worse as history unfolds and the time of Christ's return draws near? Are Christians destined to minority status, marginal influence in society, and inevitable defeat prior to the second coming? Or does the Bible teach that there will be a remarkable period of peace, spiritual prosperity, and victorious expansion for the church prior to the return of Christ at the end of the age."

NOTE: those are Davis' thoughts not mine. They are meant to illustrate that the millenial position one holds is significant in our approach to life and ministry. I am and remain PreMillennial.

Mr. Davis,

I have been watching the blog, hoping that someone would reply to your post (May 1), because I believe it needs a response, and because I don’t have a lot of time to write one myself.

Your question assumes that those who are in favor of dropping the word “premillennial” from the proposed Statement of Faith revision are not premillennialists. This is simply not the case. All pastors ordained by the EFCA must be premillennialists. I am a premillennialist. The issue is that there are many of us who do not believe that a particular position on the millennial issue is significant enough to be part of our Statement of Faith which serves to define our core beliefs and set our boundaries for what churches and pastors we will accept into our denomination. Therefore, it is not necessary to argue for acceptance of the doctrine of premillennialism. What needs to be discussed is why it is an essential article of our faith or why it is not. This issue has already been discussed in this web-log, so you may find it valuable to peruse some of the other entries.

Some have argued that we should keep premillennialism because it is a part of our identity. Of course it is a part of our identity, but that does not mean that we all agree that it should continue to be so, especially if keeping it as a distinctive is not consistent with our other principles, such as remaining silent on issues that are not at the heart of the Christian faith so that we can be as open as possible, for the sake of Christ and His Gospel. Think of it this way, as you look at our Statement of Faith, do we really want premillennialism to be the only item that truly is distinctive?

Others have argued as you have, that those in favor of dropping it must really be hiding the non-premillennial views they actually hold. This is a misunderstanding at least, and an inappropriate slander of integrity at worst. If it is an accusation, then it is inappropriate to do so without any evidence of lying or equivocation. If it is a simple misunderstanding, then I think that is, well, understandable since many of these premillennialists are in fact making a case for the acceptance of churches and pastors with other millennial views.

For example, even as a premillennialist, I can argue for the fact that one can be a “serious student of the Old Testament” and not come to the conclusions that you and I have. In fact, I agree with you that many places in Scripture understand numbers and dates quite literally as you pointed out, but works in apocalyptic and prophetic genres like Revelation and Daniel are filled with imagery that the writer intends to be understood figuratively. Why does someone who takes a different interpretation based on sound principles not “serious”? I also want to grant the fact that more and more of those of other millennial views are recognizing the literal (i.e., physical, actual) fulfillment of the Old Testament promises, but see them coming in the New Heaven and New Earth, not limited to a finite 1,000-year period. How many of us premillennialists think that everything that is wrapped up in the promise of “kingdom” is fulfilled in that 1,000-year period alone? They see a literal fulfillment, but not a literal reading of Revelation 20:1-6 as a separate time from This Age and The Age to Come. And remember, we can’t get into an argument about kingdom having to be according to the premillennial view for the sake of ethnic Israel, because the EFCA is not exclusively Dispensational on those matters.

To recap, we don’t need to be persuaded to believe in premillennialism. Nobody is renouncing premillennialism, and no new statement of faith is going to force anyone or any church to forsake it. The question is whether or not we want to allow others who do not share our premillennialism to join the EFCA as full partners in our mission. There needs to be a case made for why premillennialism is necessary for our core, defining beliefs, particularly when our Statement intentionally leaves room for a variety of positions on baptism, election/free will, and the tribulation.

Bruce McKanna, Associate Pastor
Evangelical Free Church of Mt. Morris (IL)

We had Greg Strand and Bill Hamel presenting on the RSOF process last weekend at our district conference (Allegheny), and they gave us some information about this most recent decision.

One reason they gave that the 3rd draft wasn't ready was that there were 5-6 more district conferences to go with more feedback to be gathered in. The board of directors won't meet again until around the National Conference so there wouldn't be a time for them to get all of the input in, weigh it on the leadership level, and approve it as a Board of Directors for presentation to the conference.

Another reason was to give more time for the churches to give input into this process. Individuals can speak somewhat quickly, but congregational processing takes time.

They gave other reasons, but I can't think of them off-hand.

Primarily, what I gathered was that they felt that for this to be a truly congregational process, more time was needed for everyone to give input and for the leadership to carefully consider all the input gathered and reword the revision accordingly.

To answer Jack's question, from what I can gather, there will be a vote this year at Denver on the resolution that came from the Board of Directors (if you didn't receive one, send an email to president@efca.org and ask for it).

The 3rd draft will come out some time after Denver (after receiving more input from the seminars there) and be submitted to the churches for more discussion.

The Mid-Winter Ministerial in January 2007 will further the discussion with something on "Inerrancy, Hermeneutics, and Eschatology" (all of this sounded tentative to me, I'm sure we'll hear more about it in time as plans are developed).

And then, there may be another 4th draft along the way (depending on the amount of feedback they receive and if it significantly changes their minds on any wording) that would probably be what is presented to the conference in 2007 for a first reading (therefore, no vote on the actual change until 2008 at the earliest).

That's my feel for the process. I'm not sure if I've gotten all of the details correct.

-Matt Mitchell
Pastor, Lanse EFC, Lanse PA

Pastor McKanna,

Sorry to take so long to respond, I've been busy and out of town.

I would like to respond specifically to the statement "Nobody is renouncing premillennialism, and no new statement of faith is going to force anyone or any church to forsake it."

You make a valid point that some may simply want to remove the premillennial requirement while still remaining premill (in spirit). In my personal experience, however, I recently left an EFCA church and joined another one because the board was clearly no longer premill and had just elected a pastor that seemed somewhat hostile to the position. So, as you can see, I have experienced first hand the departure from the premill position even before it has become official.

Also, from the nature of the discussion it is clear to me that a number of people who have responded are not premillennial and my comments were primarily directed at them.

As for the second half of the sentence quoted above, a new doctrinal statement will, in my opinion, force churches to forsake premillennialism. Membership in an EFCA church will no longer include agreement with the premillennial position, and in that sense, the churches will no longer be premillennial. That seems to me to be the forsaking of the premill position. It may not be a denial of the position, or the taking up of a contrary position - but it certainly is the forsaking of the original position.

Roger

There needs to be a case made for why premillennialism is necessary for our core, defining beliefs...

No, that is not correct. The current statement of faith presently defines our core beliefs. The onus for change (should there be a change) is on those advocating that we remove premillenialism from our current statement of core beliefs.

Furthermore, the issue involves more than eschatology. The issue is about hermeneutics. Some are saying that they still believe premillenialism to be correct, but are advocating that we remove it from the SOF in order to allow those who do not believe premillenialism is correct to become preachers/teachers/leaders of those of us who do believe in premillenialism. The end result of that is obvious. It will bring discord, heartache, and schism.

Premillenialism does not exist in a vacuum. The members of the EFCA believe that premillenialism is the correct eschatological view because we are a community of Churches that have a specific method of interpreting the Holy Scripture. That method leads us to conclude that premillenialism is the correct view on eschatology. Those who hold differing views arrive at their beliefs because they use different methods of interpreting the Holy Scriptures. Those methods lead them to more than just a different view on eschatology. This issue strikes at the heart of how we practice our faith, govern our Churches, and see our mission to fulfill the Great Commission. So, this is about much more than a difference of opinion about what we believe will happen in the “end times”.

Thus far, I have seen no compelling argument to thrust our Church into schismatic confrontation that will likely lead to a constitutional crisis in which our property will be up for grabs to the best lawyer. It is very disheartening to hear the leadership continue to press forward with this, despite the myriad questions surrounding the purpose and process of this wholesale destruction of our organizational DNA, and the obvious damage that will be done to so many Churches and the souls in them.

There are some old sayings that still ring true:
First do no harm.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
And finally, leave the old boundary lines alone.

Those wanting to make this change need to make the case for changing the SOF…and it would need to be a compelling argument from Scripture.

George Husted
Deacon at Glastonbury Community Church, CT

THIS WE BELIEVE
Exposition of the Doctrinal Statement of
The Evangelical Free Church of America,
Dr. Arnold T. Olson [President Emeritus, EFCA]
Free Church Publications, Minneapolis, MN, 1963.

Page 66

2. THE COMING OF CHRIST IS TO BE PRE-MILLENNIAL

(3) The pre-millennial view accepts the literal interpretation of the Scriptures and holds that Christ will come at the close of a period of great tribulation in the earth to judge the nations, bind Satan, and set up an earthly kingdom for a period of a thousand years, after which there will be a new heaven and a new earth. While there is great flexibility in certain areas of the doctrinal statement, there is no room for differences on this point. The church holds to the pre-millennial view. (emphasis added)

I don't think it is possible to be any more clear.

Other than Dr. Olsen's death, what has changed?

Who [the specific individual(s)] is pushing this change? [Is the Committee on Safeguarding our Spiritual Heritage unanimous on removing "pre-millennial" from our SOF?]

In our local church, the SOF is Article II of our constitution and bylaws. I would be keenly interested in reviewing the EFCA constitution and bylaws to see how/if there is a similar construction.

I suppose for some this may be an abstract exercise in church polity. For me, it is a matter of the following: where I am bringing up my children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; where my wife and I are being discipled; personal integrity with regard to my affirmation of belief in the Statement of Faith when I became a member of our local church; and care for our congregation as one of the deacons in our church.

I remain deeply troubled and concerned by all of this. As if post-modernism and pluralism were not large enough hurdles for us in our struggle to fulfill the Great Commission...

"Give me oil in my lamp, keep me burning, Give me oil in my lamp I pray. Give me oil in my lamp keep me burning. Keep me burning 'til the brake of day. Sing hosanna, sing hosanna,
Sing hosanna to the King of kings.
Sing hosanna, sing hosanna,
Sing hosanna to the King." ref. Matthew 25:1-13

George Husted
Deacon at Glastonbury Community Church, CT

To Roger, responding to your post from 5/22, I am sorry to hear of your particular situation in which the board and new pastor of your former church showed no commitment to the premillennial position while remaining in the EFCA. Clearly, our different circumstances have shaped our individual responses to the whole issue, and I would want you to know that I do hope that the situation you described is very rare. I wish it were non-existent. With that background, I can understand your resistance to the idea of revising the Statement of Faith.

To Mr. Husted, regarding your two most recent posts of 6/3 and 6/5, you took issue with my comment that a case needed to be made as to why premillennialism should be one of our core, defining beliefs, saying that the burden of proof remains on those who would make the change. I actually agree with that sentiment entirely. I just happen to believe that a very good case has been made for the change, but that the arguments against the change have not been substantial, at least in my opinion. Let me see if I can briefly outline the case that has been made for the removal of premillennialism from the SoF, and then respond to your arguments for leaving it in the statement.

The “premillennial” in our statement sticks out as a position in which we have taken a very particular stand. This is an anomaly in light of our values and principles that include our commitment to “believers only but all believers” as well as “major on the majors, minor on the minors.” [I understand the current statement presents it as a major doctrine, but I’ll address that issue later.] We have taken a neutral position already in relation to the significant issues of infant vs. believer baptism, Calvinism vs. Arminianism, and Dispensationalism vs. Historic Premillennialism. This has been known in the EFCA as the “significance of silence” and considered a strength of the movement. The proposed revision suggests that we be silent on a particular millennial view, while including references to Christ’s return and the consummation of the kingdom. This will strengthen the SoF by replacing doctrinal terms from particular schools of interpretation with biblical language. It will also allow us to broaden our movement which would help our efforts in missions and church-planting (with partnerships across evangelical denominational lines), local church membership (by welcoming a wider range of evangelicals seeking biblical churches), and filling pastoral positions within current EFCA churches (through expanding our base of potential pastors).

In brief, that is the case that has been made, as I have heard it. Now I will refer to the objections as I have heard them from you and others in this blog and through personal conversations. In this I will try to show why I have felt that a strong counter-argument has not been made against that of the Spiritual Heritage Committee in charge of the proposed revisions.

1. Precedent/History/Identity

This argument says that premillennialism is already in the statement, so it should not be changed. This is a substantial argument only if we believe that the SoF should never be revised. This document has never been viewed as infallible and unchangeable, and we should not promote that notion.

Others argue that, because it was the view of the founding fathers of the movement, the removal of premillennialism would mean forsaking our heritage. However, the revision seeks to honor the founders’ principle of openness rather than their particular position in this instance where there has always been a recognized tension. This is not forsaking or dishonoring but a change that would be consistent with the early EFCA in a different way.

Related arguments say that this is part of our unique identity, and to lose this is to lose our identity. I can agree that it will mean that our official stance will be changed, but as one who holds to a premillennial view, I don’t happen to believe that removing it from our statement will result in a loss of “identity.” If indeed premillennialism is the most glaringly unique item in our statement, do we really want that position to be the way others identify us? It seems to elevate our millennial position too highly.

My point again is that I need to hear why this is a core doctrine. I don’t need to hear why it is biblical or true or better than other doctrines, because I already believe in premillennialism. I need to hear why it is so essential that, unlike the doctrines we have chosen not to take a position, this issue requires a definitive, exclusive position. This leads to the next argument.

2. Ripple Effect on Other Doctrines

This argument says that a loss of premillennialism will undermine our hermeneutics, polity, understanding of the Church and Israel, etc. while introducing such problems as preterism, theonomy, and an identification of the church/kingdom with the state/culture. These are often mentioned but I am still waiting for explanations that account for the fact that the churches of the EFCA already have a variety of hermeneutical approaches. [It’s not enough to say the EFCA believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible, because we have to explain what we mean by “literal.”] Though we are committed to congregationalism, there are a various expressions of that same conviction that are consistent and compatible. We do not have a unified view of the relationship of Israel and the Church, yet we are committed to seeing the gospel spread among all peoples. With all of that diversity, we are still committed to the truth and authority of Gods’ Word, we are still congregational, we still do evangelism, and so on.

Furthermore, I do not believe premillennialism should serve as some sort of lynchpin for our theology or a litmus test for orthodoxy. If there are other essentials to our faith that have somehow come under the umbrella of premillennialism or other doctrinal schools of thought that have been excluded by our premillennial stance, I would want to see those essentials articulated in any new statement of faith, so let’s discuss and debate them individually. I think we would agree that these need to be stated, not assumed. We will have to acknowledge, however, that any doctrines or hermeneutical methods unique to the school of Dispensationalism or but not Historic Premillennialism (and vice versa), would not be able to be included in any new statement. The EFCA already crossed that bridge years ago.

3. Potential for Division

This argument says that the EFCA will break apart if premillennialism is not retained, presumably because the staunch premillennialists would depart. The same folks who talk of such schism are also the ones telling those with questions about the priority of premillennialism to leave. Either way there seems to be a loss to the EFCA, rather than in the case of the proposed revision which would serve to expand, rather than narrow, the denomination. Does anybody really know which camp (premillennialists who want to keep it in and the premillennialists who want to remove it) represents more churches and pastors? Do we really think that the other side is only a tiny minority?

And why haven’t differences on Calvinism and Arminianism split the denomination? Why haven’t pastors and church members who hold to infant baptism, historic premillennialism, or a mid-tribulational rapture view split the denomination? I believe the ultimate answer is the grace of God, but my point is that predictions of schism and demise seem overwrought. These examples demonstrate that you and I can hold to very specific yet differing views on each of these issues (and many more!) while not feeling any pressure to relinquish those convictions or terminate our partnership in the gospel. Of course, there are some issues on which we can never be open, while there are other issues on which we already are open, but apparently there already exists a significant disagreement within the EFCA over which category our millennial views should be.

Finally, I want to say that I think that those who have abandoned premillennialism already should relinquish their credentials and/or membership in the EFCA. But, at the same time, I want to say just as emphatically to those who hold strongly to premillennialism that they should not abandon the EFCA if the proposed revision wins the necessary support to pass.

Bruce

Bruce McKanna, Associate Pastor
Evangelical Free Church of Mt. Morris (IL)

Brother Bruce McKanna, thank you for your cordial and comprehensive reply. While I appreciate the tone of your response, I could not disagree more strongly with its content.

This is an anomaly in light of our values and principles that include our commitment to “believers only but all believers” as well as “major on the majors, minor on the minors.”

Rebuttal: The principles of “believers only but all believers” and “major on the majors, minor on the minors” are not part of our Statement of Faith. They are also not incorporated into the constitutions and bylaws of our churches. Therefore, although they are good guiding principles, they are not of the same weight as the articles that are actually in the Statement of Faith. The application of those two principles is therefore subordinate to the articles in the Statement of Faith and the two principles do not supersede the articulated beliefs delineated in the Statement of Faith.

However, the revision seeks to honor the founders’ principle of openness rather than their particular position in this instance where there has always been a recognized tension. This is not forsaking or dishonoring but a change that would be consistent with the early EFCA in a different way.

Rebuttal: Dr. Olsen specifically stated, “While there is great flexibility in certain areas of the doctrinal statement, there is no room for differences on this point. The church holds to the pre-millennial view.” There can be no argument; removing “pre-millennial” from our Statement of Faith is in fact an abandonment of a strongly held belief by the founders. Dr. Olsen was well aware of the “principles of openness” you appeal to when he made that statement, yet he did make it. More importantly, pre-millennialism was incorporated into the Statement of Faith by the same people who held to the “principles of openness”. Therefore, they did not consider pre-millennialism to be a minor point of doctrine nor did they subordinate it to the principle of openness. Furthermore, the founders of EFCA considered all of the articles in the Statement of Faith to be based squarely upon warrant of Scripture and the doctrines outlined in the statement of faith were considered essential by the founders. That is why, in light of the principles you mentioned, they incorporated the doctrines in the Statement of Faith that they did. It is impossible to “be consistent with the early EFCA in a different way” by abandoning what they considered an essential of the faith.

My point again is that I need to hear why this is a core doctrine. I don’t need to hear why it is biblical or true or better than other doctrines, because I already believe in premillennialism.

Rebuttal: First, I would point out that you have contradicted your own position by admitting that this is a core doctrine and not minor. Therefore, your previous argument that we can abandon pre-millennialism based on the principle that we should “major on the majors, minor on the minors” is undermined. Secondly, we both acknowledge that pre-millennialism is both biblical and true, so we can take that as an a priori and concentrate on why it is a core doctrine.

1. Christ Jesus’ return is the “blessed hope” to a Christian and a “much-to-be-desired-event”. How could the bodily return to earth, with power and great glory, of our God and King be anything less than a core doctrine?

2. The pre-millennial return of Christ Jesus is a driving influence to evangelism.

3. The pre-millennial return of Christ Jesus is a challenge for missionary volunteers because of “the urgency of the hour” and the knowledge that the Lord is coming soon.

4. The pre-millennial return of Christ Jesus is a prophetic announcement to a lost and dying world, that all wrongs will soon be set right.

5. The pre-millennial return of Christ Jesus is an acknowledgement that His return is personal, in keeping with Acts 1:11. “This same Jesus, which is taken from you up into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” God thought this of sufficient significance that he sent angelic messengers to make the pronouncement.

6. The pre-millennial return of Christ Jesus stands in stark contrast and opposition to those who believe that the church will “bring in the Kingdom” by fostering civic righteousness and world peace. World War I, World War II, abortion, euthanasia, cloning humans, etc. should amply demonstrate that the church is not about to usher in the Kingdom of God. Misguided efforts toward that end raise false hopes that can lead to a falling away when those hope go unrealized.

7. Other views beside pre-millennialism lead to a lower view of the redemptive work of Christ Jesus in the creation. They also falsely elevate a view of the ability of man to redeem the world. Israel was unable to create the Kingdom of God on earth by attempting to keep the law. The Church will be no more successful than Israel. Christ alone does the work of redemption, both for individuals and for all creation. All crowns will be placed at His feet. That alone makes pre-millennialism a core doctrine.

I am out of time for today. I hope to continue my rebuttal soon. Thank you again for your cordial reply to my concerns. I hope my response is thought provoking.

God bless and keep you brother.

George Husted
Deacon at Glastonbury Community Church, CT

Two more quick points supporting why pre-millenialism is and should remain a core belief:

8. On May 14, 1948, Israel became a nation again. In June 1967, Jerusalem was once again part of Israel. In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and Jews have been returning to Israel in unprecedented numbers. These events fall squarely within the pre-millennial view and lend themselves to the sense of imminence found alone in pre-millenialism. Prophecy is being fulfilled in front of our eyes!

9. Historically, the Reformed system of theology [specifically Dominion theology and Covenant theology] has lent itself to anti-semitism.

George Husted
Deacon at Glastonbury Community Church, CT

Hey there Freebies,

Bruce you have done a good job of stating the position for change. Maybe this will encourage some dialogue.

Questions to all ya’ll.

Is there a congregational system under a consistently performed reformed theology?

How big of a tent is the EFCA to become? Is it to be a home for all believers or all evangelicals?

In the RSOF II, is there a mention of congregationalism or a description of one?

Is there a connection between eschatology and ecclesiology? At the time of the framing of our historic
SOF was there an established reformed church movement? Did our founders no of it?

Where are all these premills from educationally (and do they hold licensing in the EFCA) who seek change for their non-premill friends?

Is there a place for non-premills to worship that is not heavily reformed in their liturgy?

How is our evangelism being hampered by our doctrinal stances (be specific)?

Are all believers fit to be members in a congregational system? Is any believer fit for licensing just because of his statement of faith? What is the criterion?

With the RSOF II expanded definition of the gospel, do we now have a new standard for what is evangelism?

Is our premill stance a core element of our spiritual heritage?

Is Spiritual Heritage Committee carrying out its stated goals by advancing a revision instead of a refreshment? What is the mission statement for the SHC? Who is exercising oversight?

Does this process reflect our commitment to a congregational system?

Here is a personal question.

? What value is there in my credentialing if those who hold the power to approve my application and my ongoing status do not hold to our current SOF with conviction?

The SOF has to do with those who want to promote the EFCA’s mission and distinctives. Non-members may hold to a wide variety of doctrines that do not agree with our SOF and serve in ministries with in the local church. There is a difference between membership and active worshipers in a congregational system. This same difference should be applied to TEDS (and associated institutions), EFCA denominational/Associational Leaders, and Pastors of EFCA associated churches.

Maybe we should add to our SOF… 1. a statement on ethics 2.our partnership with other believers outside of the EFCA 3. an eschatological view that see all believers eventually enjoying our Saviors Milk rule as Messiah over all the elect throughout redemptive history. 4. a biblical view of baptism that is no longer linked to abuses of the past on another continent and governmental system.

There. Ya see I am all for changes. See how progressive us premills are.

My wife and I are expecting to have a daughter in the fall. I worry about her dating, even now!

This situation in the EFCA seem to be like this…

My Daughter brings home a boy friend. He is a nice enough guy but he does not hold to our standards.
He’s a Raiders fan and a pacifist. He holds to the sanctity of marriage yet does not see anything wrong with living with someone before marriage. In fact he starts to demand that we change our families diet because it offends him. He thinks my daughter is beautiful but she should only use organic materials. He even wants her to quit competitive sports because he thinks competition stifles creativity and one’s self-confidence. He makes her feel guilty about her values, while advancing his as superior.

So what should a good dad say to his daughter and the young fella?

Is there room for difference? Yes, within context.

That is how I see this issue.

What are the doctrinal distinctives of this local church movement? I can tell ya’ what it is not.
It is not the first six doctrines of our current (and only) SOF. Our distinctives are found in our last six.

Since the 50’s our doctrinal statement has influenced the para-church movements and other bible churches. However, I am not aware of one denominational group that is reformed or mainstream that has sought to be more like the Evangelical Free. They may have sought to be more evangelical. But that ain’t the same as being EFCA.

I for one appreciate the differences between evangelical denominations and their theologies. The seeking to homogenize our local church movement (to all evangelicals or believers) is more in line with our culture than our heritage.

This is strictly a volunteer organization. No one is being forced to be EFCA. In the USA we are not lacking for a number of alternatives.

Later,

Pastor CJ Addis
Kings EFC
pastorkefc@juno.com

Dear Brother Bruce McKanna, the following is a continuation of my response to your post. I hope I have captured the thrust of your second point with the following quote:

These are often mentioned but I am still waiting for explanations that account for the fact that the churches of the EFCA already have a variety of hermeneutical approaches. [It’s not enough to say the EFCA believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible, because we have to explain what we mean by “literal.”]

Rebuttal: I will answer the last question first. Dispensationalism utilizes the principles of literalism and normalcy in understanding what the text being studied means. Literal interpretation (also called normal) takes into account normal literary devices such as simile, metaphors, hyperbole, and figurative language. Passages that are historical are interpreted in light of the historical situation of the day. The precise grammar rules of Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic are used to interpret Scripture. The etymologies of words in a given passage are used to interpret the meanings of those words based on their roots and derivations. Finally, both the immediate and general context of a passage is used to interpret Scripture in light of the sentence, paragraph, chapter, book, and testament in which they are found. Occasionally extra-biblical material is consulted if it brings light to the interpretation.

Secondly, the EFCA has historically held to a modified dispensational view.

THIS WE BELIEVE Exposition of the Doctrinal Statement of The Evangelical Free Church of America,

Dr. Arnold T. Olson [President Emeritus, EFCA]

Free Church Publications, Minneapolis, MN, 1963.

Page 66

2. THE COMING OF CHRIST IS TO BE PRE-MILLENNIAL

Some readers may wonder upon what the statement that the Free Church holds to a modified dispensational view is based, since the word “dispensational” does not appear in Article XI. It is based first on the generally accepted tradition as declared often in various writings, but further upon the word “pre-millennial,” which is part of the dispensational interpretation.

If “churches of the EFCA already have a variety of hermeneutical approaches”, I submit it is because they have departed from the historic norms of the Free Church, departed from the Statement of Faith, and have failed to maintain integrity by so doing. Churches that are failing to honor the existing SoF should have the integrity to either conform with the existing Statement of Faith or remove themselves from the EFCA. Masquerading as a church that holds to the SoF of the EFCA while working to undermine core beliefs of the EFCA is less than honorable. I fail to understand how a lapse by some churches within the EFCA can be used to justify a change to our existing SoF.

God bless and keep you brother.

George Husted
Deacon at Glastonbury Community Church, CT

Dear Brother Bruce McKanna, the following is a continuation of my response to your post. I do not have much time this evening, but I will begin to respond to your third point about the potential for division within the EFCA over the revised SoF.

This argument says that the EFCA will break apart if premillennialism is not retained, presumably because the staunch premillennialists would depart. The same folks who talk of such schism are also the ones telling those with questions about the priority of pre-millennialism to leave.

I don’t think that is entirely correct. I cannot speak for all, but my desire is for honesty and integrity. Those who do not hold to the pre-millennial view should be honest about it and have the integrity to acknowledge that they are defacto non-members of the EFCA. They aren’t “leaving”. They are acknowledging that they are not now or never have been members of the EFCA because those in the EFCA hold to the Scriptural teachings embodied in the SoF. The SoF is the defining organizational document of the Evangelical Free Church of America.

As far as the likelihood of division occurring; I hold my belief that the revised SoF is likely to cause division because the current SoF is Article 2 of our local church’s constitution and bylaws. To change Article 2 requires a vote of 99% of the membership. According to another article in our constitution and bylaws, in the event of a controversy in the church, all the church’s property is retained by those who adhere to Article 2, the SoF. Furthermore, I have read here that there are some EFCA churches that also have the SoF incorporated into their constitution and bylaws, but they have no provision to change it. That means that a local church in that situation would literally have to dissolve itself in order to adopt a revised SoF.

Call me a pessimist, but it’s hard to believe that such dramatic and difficult changes can be done without schism. And the schism that results will not be because “the staunch premillennialists would depart”. The schism would be entirely at the doorstep of those who pushed such churches out of the EFCA. While we are on the subject, does your own church have the current SoF in its constitution and bylaws? How easy will it be for your church to make the change? Is there a provision that you and/or your pastor could lose the parsonage if there were a dispute between yourself and members of your church who adhere to the original constitution and bylaws of your local church? These are serious “real world” consequences to what is being proposed. The sweeping nature and number of changes being proposed in the revised statement of faith virtually guarantee that there will be resistance to the change. Will the sister churches of the EFCA be there financially to pick up the pieces and give aid to pastors without parsonages and congregations without buildings? Will your church step up to the plate and share enough funds to do so? I know it’s vulgar to talk about money, but one should count the cost before making a commitment.

For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, `This man began to build, and was not able to finish.' – Luke 14:28-30

I sincerely hope that the EFCA will count the cost and not abandon local churches whose only crime is that they hold fast to the Statement of Faith.

Once again, I am out of time for today. Thank you again for your patience with me, charity towards me, and consideration of my viewpoint. I continue to hope that my posts are thought provoking and will be a benefit to both my local church and our shared Church. Rejoice in the Lord.

God bless and keep us all.

George Husted
Deacon at Glastonbury Community Church, CT

I know that my redeemer liveth!

In my last few comments, I have been focusing on the specific revision of pre-millennialism. I would now like to take a step back and look at the proposed revisions as a whole. Aside from the problematic “Gods Gospel” headings and the “narrative” formation of the proposed revision of the SoF, I think there is a larger problem with the revision. While each revision brings its own exclusive problem to the table, there is a synergistic effect that could prove to be a greater problem than the individual statements.

Before I get into that, I want to be perfectly clear that I am not making any accusations that there is some sort of conspiracy by the leadership or that what I am about to discuss as a possibility is somehow planned. What I am about to discuss falls into the realm of unintended consequences. I am not impugning the motives of anyone.

There are three proposed changes that could act in concert to cause enormous difficulties for EFCA.

1. The removal of pre-millennialism from the SoF which will have a broadening affect on exegesis and hermeneutics, allowing for a more metaphorical interpretation.

2. The inclusion of “seeking justice for the oppressed” to the SoF, which thus far has only been discussed in economic terms and not in terms of the sexual politics now forefront in American ecclesiology and popular culture.

3. The removal of congregationalism from the SoF which will begin the organizational drift to a more centralized church polity.

The synergistic maelstrom I envisage as the result of these three changes acting in concert is as follows:

Within a generation, the EFCA leadership [our children of today] having been raised with a looser view of Biblical truth, will begin questioning the relevance, inspiration, and application of certain passages of Scripture. Pressured by a culture in which many other mainstream churches have long ago denounced the “homophobia” and “sexual repression” of historic Christianity; and by a secular society which considers any statement that isn’t a glowing endorsement of the gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgendered, transgenerational, trans-specian, and polygamous lifestyles as a form of criminal hate-speech; the future leaders of the EFCA will begin to change their views on Biblical teachings about human sexuality.

The leadership will embrace the popular culture’s normative values on this issue. Many in the church who had been closeted or allegedly celibate homosexuals will announce that they have actually been in “faithful and long-term loving relationships”. They will demand that their “God given” orientation and relationships be given equal standing with heterosexual marriage. They will demand an end to the “injustices” that have "victimized" them.

There will also be a simultaneous broadening of the leaderships understanding of Christology and soteriology. The “divine feminine” will begin to emerge and there will be a strong trend toward pluralism. At first, most of the members of the EFCA will reject what the leadership is doing. There will be resistance and small pockets of the faithful will network to oppose the changes being wrought in the church. But it will be too late, the instruments of church governance will already be in the control of the “progressives” and the “liberal” agenda will be unstoppable.

Alarmist? Reactionary? Pure fiction from a fevered imagination? Brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus, you may not have been paying attention but allow me to gently direct your thoughts toward; The Protestant Episcopal Church of America, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church. These churches have been in convulsions over the last decade over the issue of sexuality. For example, the 77 million strong Anglican Communion is on the verge of breaking apart globally. That would constitute the single largest schism in Christianity since the Reformation!

Just in case you are tempted to think that this is only a problem in “Mainline Denominations”, you should be aware of these groups:

Evangelicals Concerned , a non-denominational evangelical resource providing a community of fellowship that is a safe place for gay and lesbian Christians

Honesty , the Southern Baptist GLBT solidarity group

American Baptists Concerned for Sexual Minorities , the first organization providing support, education and advocacy for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Baptists

Soulforce , "The purpose of Soulforce is freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from religious and political oppression through the practice of relentless nonviolent resistance." [A current headline on their webpage: Soulforce Infiltrates Southern Baptist Convention].

That is just a tiny sampling of the groups out there that are actively infiltrating churches with the determined mission to accomplish the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans-gendered agenda.

I firmly believe that the combination of proposed revisions will have the unintended consequence of making the EFCA completely vulnerable to the GLBT agenda. This is a spiritual warfare that we are in and the enemy is relentless. He is a hungry lion prowling about for those whom he can devour.

I believe that the enemy of our souls is making an assault against our church on three fronts:

1. He is trying to lead us to question whether Scripture means what it says [Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?]

2. He is trying to convince us that God is unjust [especially about sexuality] and that humans must correct the situation [For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.]

3. He is trying to reverse the God ordained Church leadership and governance in order to accomplish the first two goals [When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.]

May the Good Shepherd preserve us from our enemy.

George Husted
Deacon at Glastonbury Community Church, CT

Thank you, George, for your responses. Your posts over the past few weeks have helped to flesh out some of the things that I felt I was not hearing in the debate. I think part of the problem is that the blog format sometimes encourages short spurts of comments rather than developed arguments. On the other hand, it is harder for me, and I’m sure for others, to find the time to write out detailed thoughts. I’m going to try to find a happy medium in this post, so if I do not respond to everything, please understand that I am trying to do so in the midst of other constraints.

I suggested that the proposed change to our Statement of Faith would bring us to a place that is more consistent with our stated principles that we call our “Distinctives.” You replied that our Statement of Faith is the binding document, not any secondary documents or traditional slogans that state “believers only, but all believers” or “major on the majors, minor on the minors.” But the whole point of the discussion is that we are talking about revising the Statement of Faith. You assume that we can never change the Statement of Faith, and I do not. If we can change it, I would submit that we should consider a change that would bring us into greater consistency with our stated principles.

As to whether this is a major or a minor issue, let me put my position this way: I believe our doctrine of the kingdom of Christ is major, but our doctrine of the millennium is minor. I fully understand that these are connected, but I believe that it is possible for us to articulate certain convictions regarding the kingdom without having to choose from pre-, post-, or a-millennial terms, and thus allow people to agree with what we say we believe, rather than have to choose a particular school of interpretation. In my view, this is what the proposed revision does when it says in point 9:
"God's gospel will be brought to fulfillment by the Lord Himself at the end of this age—
We believe in the personal and glorious coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with His holy angels, when He will establish His kingdom fully and exercise His role as Judge of all. This coming of Christ at a time known only to God requires constant expectancy and should motivate the believer to godly living, sacrificial service, and energetic mission. This is our blessed hope."

This is why I don’t feel much weight coming from your concerns. You say we need to keep “premillennial” as a descriptor of Christ’s return because it affects the work of evangelism and missions, as well as the watchfulness, holiness, and hope in the lives of believers. But all of those concerns are addressed in the revised statement, and I believe it says it better than the original! It seems that you understand all those things to be in there because of the word “premillennial,” while I would assert that it is better to articulate those things and allow for variation in how we fit the 1,000 year reign of Christ in Revelation 20 into this picture.

The bottom line is this: the Bible talks about the return of Christ being the motivation for all these things. The reason the return of Christ is so critical is that judgment will follow, and one’s relationship to Christ through faith (or lack thereof) will determine his or her eternal destiny. This is what the revision says in points 9 and 10, and I think there are biblically faithful post- and a-millennialists who could affirm the same thing. If they can’t, then obviously they would not be able to join us, even with the removal of the word “premillennial.” The post- and a-millennialists who are consistent with their own doctrines see the spread of the kingdom at this time to be accomplished through the preaching of the gospel and the conversion of sinners, and that gives us common ground that is more important than how we differ in relating this to the outline of Revelation 20.

Another concern you raised involved the extremes of post- or a-millennialism, such as preterism, theonomy, and reconstructionism. I suppose that if deemed necessary, we could draft specific positions on these issues, as we have with charismatic issues and women’s ordination. But I would like us to recognize that there are extremes of premillennialism, too. Paul even dealt with some in the Thessalonian church who had such an imminent view of Christ’s return that they were not working. He rebuked them for this and told them to work diligently so that they would have enough to provide for their needs, and to continue to do good to others.

Pessimism is a related charge that is laid against premillennialists. Rather than dismiss these accusations, I think we premillennialists should acknowledge that this can be an unhealthy extreme that we are prone to. I’m not advocating a sunny optimism that says things are only getting better, but I am saying we should not avoid meeting the needs of others and doing good in our culture because of a faulty assumption that premillennialism means things are bad now (so we don’t offer practical help) but will be good in the millennium (so our work is limited only to saving souls). This is not the way the Bible talks, and I believe the revision point 8 better reflects the scriptural balance that we are to do good now even though we cannot save the world through our activism for mercy and justice. The new point 9, when it points to the return of Christ to “establish his kingdom fully,” follows quite naturally and logically.

The issue then is that of maintaining the right motivation and full obedience to all of Scripture. If a post- or a-millennialist thinks that they can bring in the kingdom to legislating Christian morality, they are missing the fact that it is the person of Christ in the gospel and finally in his bodily return that is the essence of his reign. The premillennialist who thinks he can save souls for the kingdom while ignoring the physical and social needs of the present is missing the fact that God’s message of love and mercy is undercut by our selfishness and materialism even as we focus on “spiritual” matters. I think we can find agreement beyond millennial boundaries that now is the time for the spread of the Gospel and its accompanying good works, but that our ultimate hope for this world is the personal reign of Christ among us. There are many post- and a-millennialists who would agree with us on this, and those are the only ones who could affirm the proposed revision, not the extremists with whom you are concerned.

Finally, you believe that because the founders of the EFCA were predominately dispensational, that we should maintain that stance. This is important to many other statements you made, such as the reconstitution of the state of Israel as prophetic fulfillment and Reformed theology having anti-semitic tendencies. First, those with a Calvinist soteriology have had just as long a history in the EFCA as those from a more Arminian heritage. Second, I’m not the one to defend the right of historic premillennialists (or progressive dispensationalists, for that matter) to exist in the EFCA. That discussion and the decisions resulting from it happened almost thirty years ago, and it is summarized in the notes to the proposed revision. If you believe this, then you need to do more than oppose the revision of the Statement of Faith; you need to campaign for the return to a dispensationalist-only stance in the interpretation of the Statement of Faith and the ordination of pastors in the EFCA.

Thanks again for replying, and for reading this follow-up post from me. I will commit to reading and considering any future posts from you, but I will have to take some time away from doing further writing on this blog for now.

Bruce McKanna, Associate Pastor
Evangelical Free Church of Mt. Morris (IL)

Brother Bruce,

Just a quick note to thank you for your reply. I have read through it once and I am likely to read through it a half dozen times or more. There is a lot to ponder, consider, and pray about.

May God richly bless you. May we both rejoice in the Lord always.

Your brother in Christ Jesus,

George Husted
Deacon at Glastonbury Community Church, CT

"3. The removal of congregationalism from the SoF which will begin the organizational drift to a more centralized church polity."

I am starting much later than all you bloggers on fully understanding this revision topic. I have read every word of the blog to date (although I must admit it took a couple stints!) It has been most intriguing. But it doesn't seem like I have read much about George's statement above. Why is it an issue, based on the explanation regarding Article 10 in the revision commentary? For me, those comments seem to eliminate this concern. Maybe it has been addressed and I have missed it. I would be willing from both pro and con revision as to whether Free churches could now become elder rule under the new a revised SOF, as most recently proposed. To those of you who are in favor, is that a problem? I would imagine it is for those who oppose. If so, why do those comments not settle it?

I was not in Denver. I would also appreciate any reflections from you about the discussion and proceedings there, regardless of your position on the revision.

Blessings to all the Free family,

Gregory Sarensen
Family of Faith Church Plant
Midwest District

The creeds and confessions of church history typically arose to combat serious heresies that attacked essential Christian doctrines.

Hence, the most compelling reason for changing a good doctrinal statement is to address new heresies that arise, to make it clear where we as a body of believers in Christ stand in relation to those heresies.

Here are some heresies that have become a significant threat to orthodoxy in the years since the original EFC doctrinal standards were published...

1) Open Theism
2) Emerging Church
3) New Perspectives on Paul / Federal Vision

These heresies are promoted by those who claim to be Evangelical Christians, and therefore pose a real threat to any denomination or association of churches that claims to be evangelical.

I believe it would be prudent to affirm the doctrine of twofold imputation (our sins to Christ, His righteousness to us) as the only basis of justification for those who trust in Christ.

In addition, I would recommend that we clearly affirm the following...

1) A recent creation in six literal days
2) Biblical marriage is between one man and one woman
3) Human life begins at conception

While some would rightly counter that you can hold to an old-earth or non-literal "day" theory and still be a believer, such ideas nevertheless seriously undermine the authority of scripture and represent a capitulation to bad science(i.e. "science" based largely on secular presuppositions).

Thanks, Greg, for your fine efforts, and for the opportunity to provide input to the proposed revision!

Mitch Cervinka, elder
Cedar Ridge EFC
Harrisonville, MO

Dear Brother Gregory Sarensen
of the Family of Faith Church Plant
Midwest District

Thank you very much for your comments and questions pertaining to my statement:

3. The removal of congregationalism from the SoF which will begin the organizational drift to a more centralized church polity.

After reading your post, I realized that I had not fleshed out that idea at all and had simply submitted it without support. I am on occasion an excitable fellow and fail to explain my thoughts. I believe that I have an obligation to explain the thoughts that I have posted and I appreciate your opening the opportunity to revisit this particular thought.

You asked:

Why is it [my comment] an issue, based on the explanation regarding Article 10 in the revision commentary?

And…

If so, why do those comments not settle it?

Let’s look at those comments. Here is an excerpt of the comments from the Revised Statement of Faith regarding Article 10:

Not having this affirmation of the autonomy of the local church in our doctrinal statement will not affect our church polity, since our Articles of Incorporation declare that "The Evangelical Free Church of America shall be an association and fellowship of autonomous but interdependent congregations of like faith and congregational government" (II.A).

And…

Certainly there have been debates among us about exactly what form congregational government should take, but those debates have never been settled by what is stated in our Statement of Faith. Those debates will have to be settled in our broader discussions about how we want to order ourselves, not in the central statement of our "like faith."

I would like to preface my answer by reiterating that my original comment was to “discuss as a possibility” something that could be an “unintended consequence”. OK, here we go…

The current Article 10 states:

That Jesus Christ is the Lord and Head of the Church and that every local church has the right, under Christ, to decide and govern its own affairs.

The rationale for the proposal to remove this from our SoF is:

We suggest that this affirmation does not belong in our doctrinal statement, which is centered on the essentials of the gospel and which expresses the truth of the "Evangelical" part of our name. Matters of church polity are secondary to the gospel itself.

First, I would point out that I believe that neither the current SoF nor the proposed revised SoF [RSoF] are limited to “the essentials of the gospel”. The proposed revision will in part be substituting one set of statements deemed "not essential to the gospel" for another set of statements that are no more essential to the gospel than those they are replacing. I thought that Brother Jack Brooks did an admirable job of pointing that out in his post on April 18, 2006 01:13 PM. [He did slightly misquote one of the proposed revisions as "justice for the poor" though, and as a result limited his concerns to socialism. The actual revision uses the words, “seeking justice for the oppressed”, which has much broader implications than economics; especially in light of all the sexual politics currently plaguing the Church universal.]

I agree that Article 10 is secondary to the gospel…perhaps even tertiary. I think however, that it is important to point out that the comments supporting the RSoF acknowledge that Article 10 is currently a matter of Doctrine. It is not just a temporal matter of church polity. Removing Article 10 from our SoF would comprise a de facto demotion of our ecclesiology from a matter of doctrine to a purely secular polity issue. Furthermore, it would devolve from an immutable truth proved by warrant of Scripture to a malleable policy decision…and that would open the door to ANY form of Church governance. Although a doctrine may be secondary or even tertiary to the gospel, it does not follow that it is unimportant or a non-essential.

Having our ecclesiology as part of our doctrinal statement helps safeguard it from the more readily changed Articles of Incorporation.

Second, I believe that it is the “natural” inclination of governments and organizations, including churches, to centralize power. I base my belief on the historic record. I could go into a long discussion about that, but for the sake of brevity [and readability], I will not. I would like to point out that the Church has already been through the process of centralization and that despite the corrections from a centralized ecclesiology brought about by the Reformation, it was not long before the reformed churches also began the process of centralizing their ecclesiology. [The word “immediately” comes to mind.]

The RSoF comments on Article 10 indicate the prospect of a change to our church polity with the following statements:

“Certainly there have been debates among us about exactly what form congregational government should take…”

This is an acknowledgement that there is a “debate” about “what form congregational government should take”. If there were no desire to change the current form of congregational government, there would be no “debate”. There is also an acknowledgement that, “those debates have never been settled” and an affirmation that the “debates will have to be settled in our broader discussions about how we want to order ourselves”. That affirmation leads me to believe that there would be a change to our church polity if it is demoted from a position of doctrine to a position in which it is merely a temporal matter.

So, there you have it. Those are the reasons leading me to express my opinion of the possibility of an unintended consequence of “organizational drift to a more centralized church polity”.

Maybe I am wrong. Then again, maybe it’s worth looking at.

I hope that I have explained my thoughts on this. The medium of a blog has its limitations, so I want to very clearly state that it is not my intention to give offense, cast aspersion, or leave innuendo in any of my remarks. If I have given offense, I apologize. If I have cast aspersions, I assure you that it was unintentional and I would be glad to make corrections to my comments if someone would be kind enough to point them out to me. The same holds true if I have made some innuendo. My email address is gck_husted@yahoo.com and I gladly receive correction. I don’t look at this as an “us versus them” situation. We are all in this together and as such, we should engage in a dialogue that meets the concerns of this present time while maintaining the immutable truth of Scripture and applying it to those concerns.

Your Brother in Christ Jesus,

George Husted
Deacon at Glastonbury Community Church, CT

PS. Dear Brother Bruce McKanna, Associate Pastor of the Evangelical Free Church of Mt. Morris (IL), I am still thinking and praying.

PPS. Dear Brother Greg Strand, thank you for your gift of time and your charity toward me. I deeply appreciate both your sharing the history of the process leading to the RSoF and our discussion about some of my concerns. I have been reviewing some of my remarks [on my own initiative] and I am resolved to do more listening and less commenting [this post not withstanding].

Fudging in the Free Church! - Past errors cause present troubles.

A view expressed by a layman upon reading the proposals made concerning the EFCA SOF. I do not claim to be a parliamentarian or Biblical theologian, I do claim to be a concerned member of "the Congregation at Large" who is trying to understand a very distressing development in the Free Church.

This much I know...

1) We become members of the Free Church according to the decision of our local congregation. In my church this includes agreeing with the SOF as originally written in the 1950's.
2) I know that we are congregational, meaning that the congregation has a vital say in the affairs of the local church, including the election of officers of the church, and approval of constitutions that very often include the SOF.
3) I also understand that the Free Church holds conferences where representatives of the local congregations meet to discuss, debate and approve the issues of the denomination, and this body elects our national leadership approving of their leadership through this congregational process.
4) I have a vague understanding that as a part of their responsibility the denominational leadership is to approve ordination of pastors under the authority given it by the congregation. This process has very little visibility in the local congregation, but it is my understanding that a local layman can be asked to participate in one of these ordination processes. Beyond that I am aware of the...
1) Free church publication,
2) the Foreign Missions work of the Free church, and that is about as far as it goes for me, and I expect most other laymen.

However, I must add that implicit in my joining the Free Church was a trust that congregational style governance meant openness in all issues that would affect the constituency, or those of us who have joined and agreed to the SOF. Most laymen do not have the time or energy to be intimately associated with the denominational leadership, nor should they expect to be, however, the "Trust Factor" implicit in our form of governance is very important to a layman. What does this mean? It means that we trust the leadership to help us know about and participate in any issues that would affect our standing in the Free Church or would be threats to our faith and practice of the Christian lifestyle. Thus I offer the following observations concerning the present state of affairs in the Free Church. First a quote from the Commentary on the Second Draft Revision of the Statement of Faith - SOF, p 21

"This change in theological understanding raises an important issue. Some consider it "fudging" when people sign a statement that uses the word "imminent" when those people no longer use that word in the way it was originally intended. We believe that kind of erosion of a doctrinal statement is dangerous. The elimination of the word "imminent" effectively deals with this already recognized theological shift in our midst and clears away the confusion caused by the different ways this word "imminent" is now used." - From Second Revision of the SOF

I agree this is dangerous, but wait a minute, did they say, "deals with this already recognized theological shift in our midst?" Recognized theological shift? What shift? When did this happen? Who brought it about? Why did the layman fail to see this coming? Where is the Free Church going? Yikes, that is a pretty powerful statement, to be so glibly presented as a forgone conclusion. Did the Headquarters Bus leave the station, and forget to pass the schedule along to the layman? They got left behind.

It appears that due to the inability of our leaders in the past to hold to the SOF, which is a stated "basic" of the Free Church, today we have unauthorized (or possibly clandestine authorized) fudging in the Free Church. I can't believe that I read this. What is the use of our SOF if it is fudged when someone has problems with it. If you don't agree with it, don't join, my goodness, what kind of people want to join something they don't agree with? So, today, fudging has lead to a Clintonesque situation where we are asked to believe we can no longer be sure of the meaning of the word imminence. Solution, dump the word imminence! I wasn't aware that I had a problem understanding imminence. No, actually I don't, the fudgers do.

Whose consequences? Did past or present leaders think that their example of fudging would not have ramifications? It seems that our Congregational form of government did not apply to the past leadership. They decided without the approval of the congregation to allow fudging, and now the present leadership wants the congregation to approve this new process called "Fudging," and along with it the SOF. A SOF they now claim is being fudged upon, and must also be changed to placate the consciences of the fudgers. What a shameful process, how disingenuous can our leadership be?

Approving Fudging will be the death of the Free Church's distinctiveness if not the Free Church itself. I became a Free Church member and agreed with the SOF with full knowledge of the meaning of imminence. I don't have any problem understand what it means. It is pretty simple, Jesus is coming again, we don't know when, but it could be at any moment. What is so hard about such a basic belief? How does something like that shift... unless shift means you question that Christ could come back at any moment. That's not a shift, its a .9 earthquake!

So now, the fudgers want to throw out a distinction that the Free Church has always considered of principal importance to the correct understanding of faith and practice?

I say to you, "Never! You fudged in full knowledge of what you were doing and therefore you need to accept the consequences of your actions."

What might they be? Well, certainly not the devaluing of the commitment many laymen made to imminency in the SOF. Christ is coming back, at any moment, and this has ramifications for how we need to live our lives. It is incumbent upon the perpetrators of such error to suffer rebuke, not the other way around. This is especially true since the fudging was not done in the open light of our congregational form of government. Don't expect the congregation left out of the process to be inclined to approve error done in a manner outside the agreed to process of open and congregational discussion.

If this is allowed to happen, then the entire SOF may as well be dumped. Why? Precedent will have been established that whenever there is disagreement a small group of leaders can approve a change without the congregation being involved. Then some time in the future when things seem appropriate or enough fudging has taken place to effectively change the landscape of the leadership you reveal it to the congregation and use the fudging trump card as justification. You don't even need to tell them what you believe! Just say, It's been fudged and needs changing. Believe us we know what's best for you.

I was not aware that this fudging had taken place until I read it had been, approved and accepted by past Free Church leadership. This was an earthshaking revelation - quote from the Commentary on the Second Draft Revision of the Statement of Faith - SOF, p 21

"Now many of our pastors hold to a posttribulational position,45 and this position was given official sanction in 1977 in a decision of the Committee on Ministerial Standing. In a memo of December 1 of that year, President Tom McDill, on behalf of that Committee, recommended that district ordination councils allow a candidate for ordination "to interpret imminency within his convictions as long as such interpretation remains within the framework of premillennialism."

The fact of fudging's beginnings is acknowledged in the commentary. It was an action taken by former leadership and a committee. I do not know if they intended today's consequences, but their method was not congregational. The commentary shows no congregational approval was given, or it would have been mentioned. Remember trust is basic to the congregational form of governance, but this is without a doubt outside the trust granted within our Congregational governance. That such an action was taken, and has persisted to this day speaks to a disregard for the trust which is part of the layman's understanding. Now the congregation, meaning the layman, has a chance to state unequivocally that such a process is wrong by insisting that the SOF stay unchanged at least as far as imminency and premillennialism are concerned. We need to acknowledge the errors of past leadership and make sure it does not happen again.

Fudging serves no one, regardless of their theological stance.

The present leadership is the recipient of this legacy, and I am glad they are allowing it to see the light of congregational discussion, however the committee's conclusion that we must change the SOF to justify past error is also an error.

Is a house cleaning needed? I hope not! Do people who fudged on their commitment to the statement of faith need to admit what they have done? I think that would helpful, because most laymen have no idea which of our leaders joined the Free Church while disagreeing with the SOF. It is about time they stand up and declare who they are and why they did such a thing. I believe it would be in the best interest of our church to have them express this openly in the Free Church's official publication. Then we need to engage in a discussion of how to resolve the mess. If we love the Free Church, we need to find a way to work this out, but cutting out the heart of our distinctiveness and replacing it with the word "glorious" is a slap in the face to all those who agree with the present SOF.

Certainly, such disruptive a change is worthy of more discussion and careful thought. The present solution of dumping imminency and premillennial is at best reactionary. Will the Free Church really throw out those who believe in the imminent, premillennial return of Christ in order to accommodate the consciences of fudgers?"

That is without a doubt what is being done, make no mistake, this is a divisive issue. It was made so by the dishonesty of fudging. It is also an issue that has given the Free Church its distinctiveness. Imminence means, soon, at any moment, and premillenial is part of imminence. Imminence affects other Biblical interpretations and understandings. Imminence is part of much more than the wink and nod given by trying to replace it with the words, "glorious return of Christ." If you don't understand that you have lost touch with your laity.

Please no more Fudging in the Free Church.

As best as I can understand this is what has happened. Right or wrong this is what it looks like from where I sit.

Jim Gronvall
gronie@frontiernet.net
http://web.mac.com/j.gronvall/iWeb/Personal%20Site/Joy.html

Dear Brother Bruce McKanna, Associate Pastor of the Evangelical Free Church of Mt. Morris (IL),

I have been thinking and praying about your questions a lot. I especially think this particular element needs to be addressed:

"There needs to be a case made for why premillennialism is necessary for our core, defining beliefs..."

I think I have found some answers. I did not think them up, but God provides. Since they are not my own thoughts [for though I agree with them very much, I freely admit that a brighter light shines through them than shines through mine], I will only provide a few of the headline points [to pique interest] and then the web address. These are from REVJAB:

1. Premillennialism obeys the Old Testament law of prophetic fulfillment demanded by Moses: literal fulfillment.

4. Premillennialism means that the Bible interpreter sticks to the grammatical-historical method of interpretation all the time with all Biblical texts and all Scriptural genres, instead of selectively using it sometimes, and then abandoning it whenever it threatens to cause Premillennialism to occur.

This is where you can read more:
http://newcovenantliving.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-premillennialism-matters-for.html

I think that it is important that we make a theological statement, in light of the Scriptural test of prophecy, that we believe those prophecies in the Bible that have been fulfilled were fulfilled literally and that we anticipate the literal fulfillment of the prophecies which have not yet come to pass. That is the test of prophecy found in Scripture and it should be ours as well. If we fail to take a stand that the prophecies of the Bible have or will literally come to pass, we open our Church to more heresies than I care to imagine.

I hope that helps make the case that “premillennialism is necessary for our core, defining beliefs..."

Thanks for all your dialogue. This may become moot after the next draft revision. I remain firmly committed to the existing Statement of Faith but I also remain open to dialogue.

May God bless us all and may we all hear our Lord Jesus Christ's voice as He leads our Church where He wants it to go. Anything less is disaster.

Your Brother in Christ Jesus,
George Husted
Deacon at Glastonbury Community Church, CT

I am a TEDS grad, EFCA Sr. pastor in Southern California for 18 years, an assoiciate pastor for 2.5, and now my wife and I are planting a Free Church in the small community of Ashland, Nebraska with the intent of reaching the greater Omaha/Lincoln region.
While attending some of the discussion during this year's National Conference, I was amazed at the subjects which some determined were worth "living and dying for." D.S. Carlson stood to say he would "live and die for this statement (the existing statement of faith of the EFCA)."
I watched, with dread, the reactions of our colleagues at this sentiment, which, I fear, is all it is. I realized that some have their eye off the ball.
I have chosen to die for that which lasts forever... only. Statements of faith will come and go. I love ours. It has served us well. But I live and die for the one true and living God and His only Son, Jesus Christ. If God ever wants to pull the secure rug of a doctrinal "foundation" from under me, I'll be fine. So will His larger world church movement, by the way. The fulfillment of the Great Commission does not rest on the shoulders of our preserved statement of faith!
I appreciate the spirit of the refreshment. Focusing our attention on the gospel is powerful in connection with scriptural roots and kingdom pursuits. Though I am concerned about taking the first steps toward a weakened hermneutic, I am confindent that you who are on the board are as well. I pray for you. I believe in you. I trust you. More than that, I trust our Father.
I have but one question:
When we speak of narrowing our thoughts to what is "essential" what do we mean? That is, essential to what, exactly?
Is it our objective to design a statment that preserves what is essential to a respect for our EFCA heritage? If so, then we've deemed "essential" the traditions of men. Are our essentials defined by that which preserves a "literal hermeneutic? Is "historic orthodoxy" the parameter of our essentials? Is it statements that ensure as "essential" the maintainence of our denominational distinctives? Or is the support of a certain systematic theology what we deem "essential?"
It is my conviction that the gospel be what we deem essential. In that regard, you are on the right track! But what statements of doctrine cover the bases of what is truly essential to a clear presentation of the gospel? How about only those statements that make clear the way of salvation? That narrows it, makes it a little more measureable. But still, have we answered my basic question?
What are the essentials? Has anyone asked, "Essential to what, exactly?"
Is this a fair question: "What is essential for me to believe in order to be saved?"
Perhaps a statement of faith is a slightly different, more detailed, and substantive work than the simple answer to my question, granted. But need it be? My question narrows our focus greatly. Does it narrow it helpfully? I think that it just might be the only truly clear cut-off point for the essential and non-essential. The answer to that question boils down all organizations to their core purpose and reveals that around which we can all unite...or divide.
Must I believe in dispensations to be saved? Must I believe in a literal seven years of tribulation to be saved? If I believe that Israel has a unique end-times destiny, does that save me? If I don't, does that condemn me? Must I believe, forgive me now for I trespass on sacred ground, the Bible is inerrent in the original writings in order to be saved?
I know, if the Bible is in error anywhere, then its veracity must be questioned everywhere. I am an inerrantist, even though I can't spell it. But is it essential to articulate it for salvation?
We all know it is not. Salvation is by grace, through faith alone.
Now, I know that the task at hand is greater than that. Or is it? We must preserve sound doctrine. I am just asking the question, "What standard or directive is being applied to determine the boundaries of "essential?" Which doctrines are essential, and to what?
Again, thanks for your diligence in the work. And thanks for your faithfulness to the word of God and, mostly, to the God of the word!
Neal Brower
Ashland, NE (neal@riverviewcc.org)

Greg and Committee,

I want to first give hearty "kudos" to the effort put into the revised SOF. I see much seasoned wisdom, heightening, clarity, and for the most part - improvement in the 2nd revision over the previous 12-point statement. Particularly the emphases on God's glory and the centrality of the fullness of the gospel mission are appreciated. Also, I am one who sees value in the removal of the "Premillennial" requirement. This recognizes the development of hermeneutical studies and options over the past several decades. It also brings consistency to the non-divisive emphasis of the EFCA, recognizing that it is arguable that post-trib historic premill hermeneutics have more in common with some amill approaches than with dispensational premill approaches. This admission is a step forward for integrity.

However, I am especially grateful that a 3rd revision is in process. I offer these following points for consideration for further improvement of a good document:

Here are 4 suggested edits, and 2 substantial changes.

1) Clearly the strength of the original SOF was its brevity. At any and every point that words may be able to be omitted - I would recommend it. Keep it as tight as possible.

2) The headings, as stated, don't consistenty get at the heart or guts of the explanations that follow, in all cases. I would recommend true headings that reveal the essence of the sentences that follow (which then provide expansion).

3. Statement 7 needs to re-implement the former statement 10 inclusion of self-governance. Please do not omit this emphasis on local autonomy that opens the door to a regional or national presbytery of sorts. This concern was felt strongly at a local meeting on credentialing a couple years ago, when the national position regarding reviewing candidates' doctrinal statements came across as very heavy handed.

4. I suggest adding to the gifts of the Holy Spirit an emphasis on "power for bold witness"; possibly extending the present sentence, "empowering believers for Christ-like living, service, and boldness in witness." The present wording presumes lifestyle worship and edification ministry, but not the clear emphasis in Acts on power for evangelism. This omission encourages a continuance of anti-charismatic bias or the unbiblical distinction between so-called "sign" and ministry gifts. Unwittingly, the statement, as worded presently, gives continuing credence to the false distinction of an older dispensational cessationism.

The changes of larger substance I suggest are:

1. Clarify that baptism in the New Testament (under the New Covenant, in the Church era, etc.) is for professing believers. There is no clear New Testament advocacy of baptism ever being for a child or infant, or anyone who has not personally responded in faith to Jesus. The doctrinal statement revision provides an opportunity to close this window that has been left open too long. It is only a Reformed logical process that associates OT circumcision with NT baptism and assumes the birth of the church to be an Old Covenant phenomena that leads one to paedo-baptism conclusions. This is a case where a stronger line helps the EFCA be both more biblical and more consistent with its view of the nature of the "Church" and the preferring of "ordinances" over "sacraments".

2. I recognize this last recommendation is the most controversial, and I don't see that anyone has yet brought it up. However, this single word was the single strongest reservation I had with the original statement, and I'm most disappointed that it has been retained. I would expect that 20 years from now, this is the primary issue that discussion will then be about. It is the word, "conscious". I recommend it be omitted as unnecessary, and uncertain.

The doctrinal statement (rev. 2, statement 10, p.27) justification appeals to Matthew 25:46, which reads: "And these will go away into eternal punishment." This wording was sufficient for Jesus and Matthew. I would argue this wording is sufficient for the EFCA and for all Evangelicals as well. By adding the word "conscious" we have not only changed Scripture, but also imported an uncertainty.

The reference to Rev. 21:8 of "the Lake of Fire" being the "second death" may be a "condition" or "state" as you presume, rather than an "event", in your explanatory wording. But I would argue we are on stronger ground to not go farther than Scripture in doctrinal statement assertions. The appeal to Revelation 20:10 (not v.11, you've got a typo) does not necessarily follow. Only the devil, the beast, and the false prophet are specifically said to be "tormented day and night forever and ever" (thereby implying that consciousness is part of their eternal punishment).

Verse 15 describes all who were not written in the book of life as being "thrown into the lake of fire". However, there is nothing specified here that says their conscious experience is equal to that of Satan, the Beast, and the false prophet. The reference to "2nd death" and the distinction between the nature of Satan and people would actually logically argue the opposite direction. I recognize this view goes against much of historic understanding, but in this case historic understanding based on Hellenistic philosophy may have gone beyond clear Scripture. Said simply: just stick with Matthew 25:46 and we KNOW we are on fully biblical ground.

Thanks for consideration.
Craig Allen

Key Evangelical quits amid gay sex claim

In other posts [if memory serves], some have linked the proposed changes to the statement of faith to an effort to conform more to the National Association of Evangelicals.

Sadly, today I read that Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the 30 million-member of the National Association of Evangelicals, has resigned "while a church panel investigates allegations he paid a man for sex." According to the article, the "acting senior pastor at New Life, Ross Parsley, told KKTV-TV of Colorado Springs that Haggard admitted that some of the accusations were true."

Read the whole article here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061103/ap_on_re_us/haggard_sex_allegations

Brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus, I have been closely watching the efforts of the Gay/Lesbian/Bi-sexual/Trans-gendered [GLBT] militants as they have wreaked havoc in several churches. I have studied their methods and tactics. Repeatedly, the GLBT militants secretly infiltrate the target Church, gain influence, gain power, and subtly lay the groundwork for their agenda.

One of their chief tactics is to use the language of "seeking justice for the oppressed" to manipulate the direction and belief of a church.

I am deeply troubled that the same language has somehow found its way into the re-write of our statement of faith. I am deeply saddened and troubled that a national evangelical leader has been involved in homosexuality and may have influenced the direction of the Evangelical movement in a manner that may further the GLBT militant attack on the Church.

For this and other profound reasons, I remain resolved in my opposition to the re-write of our statement of faith.

The fact that Ted Haggard, president of the 30 million-member of the National Association of Evangelicals, has resigned "while a church panel investigates allegations he paid a man for sex" should shake you to the core. God has warned us and we should be on our guard:

"...many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved." Matthew 24:11

"...there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words...." 2 Peter 2:1-3

"Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons...." 1 Timothy 4:1

"I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears." Acts 20:27-31

"I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry." 2 Timothy 4:1-6

The proposed revision of our Statement of Faith may have language that opens the doors wide to false doctrines. I have posted in the past the names of militant GLBT groups that are actively working to subvert the churches, including Evangelical churches.

I fear my concerns have been ignored. I urge you all to reconsider and resist the siren song of changing our Statement of Faith to conform to the NAE. The leadership of that organization has been deeply flawed for some time now. Ted Haggard did not arrive where he is in one day. Incremental changes may lead us down a very dark path.

Your brother in Christ Jesus,
George Husted
Deacon at Glastonbury Community Church, CT

The revised statement on eschatology does not appear to leave the door open to preterism. It does articulate more fully the purpose of the second coming with regard to the kingdom and judgment than the current statement. Therefore, it seems that the concern over removing the term "premillennial" is misguided. Those who believe in the millennial reign can support the statement. Those who believe that Christ's return will immediately usher in eternity can also support the statement. But both must do so with the understanding that the glorious, visible, personal return of Christ is yet future and will result in the fulfillment of prophecy.

As to polity, it seems that the church is part of the Gospel and to exclude it in the statement diminishes the importance of the church and the visible kingdom of God on earth in the here and now. I would suggest that a statement heading concerning our polity be included, such as the following.

God's Gospel experienced in and through his people -

We believe that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Head of the church and that every local church has the right, under Christ, to decide and govern its own affairs. We believe that the kingdom of heaven is now manifested in the hearts of all those who believe and confess that Jesus is Lord.

Finally, to the very real concern of those churches who cannot change their bylaws or constitutions without difficulty, they should be allowed to retain the original statement of faith and maintain full standing in the EFCA. This does not seem that difficult to implement and should alleviate their concerns.

Blessings,

Don Sailer
River Valley EFC
Arapahoe, NE

Fellowship,
My main concern is that the present SOF was something that I could totally agree with fully. That is why I chose this association in the first place. Due to the exegetical casuistry being used for the new SOF there is no possible way it could be totally agreed with no matter how many changes are made or how revised it becomes. If already ordained in the EFCA, is the present SOF being "grandfathered" so that able to finish out ordained ministry under this SOF? Who is speaking to this issue? Also since the word "god" is a category and not a name. Why does the SOF not use the Name of the particular god that we worship? Our God has a name and it is mentioned thousands of times in the Bible. I prefer it be written in for documents as "YHVH" all caps. And if "God" must be used to specifiy if the Father, Son or Holy Spirit is referenced.
Lloyd Scott, Ledyard, CT
ordained EFCA 1976

My only comment is to advise those who have the responsibility to teach amillennialism is that they do it well and answer the objections from their congregation with a clear understanding of the doctrine. I have heard some "former members" state the EFC is disregarding Revelation, stating their leaders are saying Revelation should only be regarded as a series of stories, that the leaders are deleting portions of Revelation. They clearly have not understood the doctrine perhaps due to inadequate teaching.