The Statement of Faith Revision

Perhaps the most disappointing part of this whole sad situation is that this new Statement of Faith would come from a committee that is charged with preserving our spiritual heritage. Perhaps the committee should be renamed: Selectively Preserving Our Heritage Committee.

Clearly premillennialism, and even (oh dare we say it) dispensationalism was a part of the heritage of the EFCA. Now that it has fallen out of favor with the leadership we can simply relabel it as a minor and cast it aside.

Personally I joined the EFCA because of their doctrinal statement and I specifically appreciated the commitment to premillenialism and imminence. I wanted to join with a movement that shared my doctrinal distinctives. I understand now what President Reagan meant when he said he didn't leave the Democratic Party, the party left him. I fear that the EFCA is leaving me.

The comment by Ron Hammer is an important one to address. Do we want to be a dispensational denomination? That really is the question that is plaguing the revision. If the pre-trib, pre-mill position is deemed the only acceptable doctrine I fear Ron Hammer will see many (MANY!) pastors and congregants leave the denomination. Ron Hammer is incorrect in thinking the revision would ask him to leave the denomination or that the denomination is leaving him in any way, in fact, his views are not in jeopardy at all. All the proposed revision will do is let in Christ-followers who happen to have a different eschataological (end time) viewpoint than he does. What is funny, is that an amill adherant believes more in the imminent return than a post-tribber who is currently allowed to be a part of the EFCA. All the revision would do is open the door to Bible believing and preaching people who may not be committed to dispensationalism and more in line with the Reformed (like John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Martin Luther, Zwingli, and many others we claim as heros) and possible covenant viewpoints.

I appreciate the current EFCA statement, but I came to the EFCA not because of the particulars in the statement but rather because of its openness to many evangelical positions. I would love to see an open mat extended to those who are willing to hold a strong position to the authority of Scripture, the true person and work of Christ, and those who undertand the importance of accepting and living the Gospel. I want Mr. Hammer, evangelical amills, covenant folks, Ryrie Dispensationalists, reformed folks, wesleyans, progessive dispensationalists, and so many others to be a part of the EFCA. Believers only, but all believers.

I agree with Ron. I can appreciate idealists like Matt who seek unity among the entire body of believers. Unfortunately, they also seem to believe that doctrinal distinctions cannot actually lead to convictions as to the truth of the Word of God. While others that Matt mentioned may be counted among the family of God, the mixing of 5-point Calvinism & Arminianism, biblical Dispensationalism, and who knows what else, within one church leads to confusion. The EFCA SOF is already broad enough. The majors have been defined.

I for one, as a steward of my children's upbringing, cannot in good faith, allow them to be exposed to teaching that I do not believe is biblical. I don’t know if Matt has children, but maybe he can at least understand where I am coming from. As long as believers hold strong convictions on the interpretation of Scripture, there will be distinctives within the Body. Let the EFCA retain its distinctives as men like Sproul, Packer, and others do within their bodies. Let us fellowship together to the fulfillment of the Great Commission, but remain distinct in our local churches. What Matt doesn't realize is that when a pastor comes into a church and starts teaching his biblical convictions, which don't line up with what those who are already there believe, then fellowship is hindered. I speak from experience.

“You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 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. 3:14 – 17

Mark Outson
Sioux Falls, SD

Hey there,

I must admit that I am tired of the over use and expanded meaning of "Believers only, but all believers". There I said it. Phew, I feel better. Not all who hold to salvation by grace are fit for membership, especially in a congregational system. Consider the scope of who is a believer by thier admission and then consider the divergence of other core doctrines. You will be very surprised. As for that list of wonderful saints that Matt mentioned... We would not be acceptesd into thier fellowships either. This is all about who we are at a local church level and who we want to be on a universal level. I would not have over me a pastor who held himself/herself out to be an apostle. Nor would I accept a oneness pentecostal as a potential member.

Do not fall into the trap of slogan oriented decision making. For now we see dimly...for now.

Pastor CJ Addis
Kings EFC, Hanford CA

I was attracted to the EFCA because of its diversity. It is rare to see a denomination that truly considers diversity a strength and not a weakness. It requires that a denomination trust the collective hearts of the people who compose it, because no matter what your position is on any particular matter...it takes a certain humility and gentleness of spirit to have some latitude of acceptance toward those on the other side. And yet I wondered if we made our statement more friendly to other views, would it become less friendly to my own? I think the only assurance that some of us need is that this will not happen and at the meeting held at our church in Bakersfield today I believed that I received that assurance.

Jeff Harrington
Bakersfield, California

Some of you may remember me as I had stated that if the current revision of the SOF was approved, I would recommend our church leave the denomination. Some may have thought it was simply an emotional response of an angry premillenialist. Really it isn't and I feel I should clarify why.

I do appreciate the diversity in the Kingdom of God and I am not opposed to it at all. But within a denomination there needs to be some consistency. For example: it is not fair to the person in the pew (chair) that may be in an EFCA church holding a covenantal position in the Chicago area if they were to make a move to Lawrence KS have a child and want to have them recognized as a member of the covenant community by being baptized as an infant.

In Lawrence the leadership would not be able to accomodate them because of our convictions concerning the act of baptism. (I realized this was approved in 1989).

Due to the demominations lack of definition and consistency we now would have a confused family most likely angry at the leadership in their new church.

This is only one small example, but when you gather together the differences this SOF will allow, it would be disasterous for any pastor who tried to accomadate the vast variety of theological thought. The result would be a church with beliefs a mile wide and an inch deep. Which in some ways has already happened.

In good concience before the Lord I could not let the congregation within my care fall into such a scenario.

The committee in my opinion is missing the point. The new revision in reality will not strengthen the denomination, in reality I believe it waters it down the Free Church's beliefs to the point that the distinctives of the original free church movement can hardly be recognized.

I have heard it said many times that if the Wesleys could see the Methodist movement today they would turn over in their graves. Well they won't have to turn over alone if this SOF is approved. Someone by the name of Olson will be keeping them company.

"All the proposed revision will do is let in Christ-followers who happen to have a different eschataological [sic] (end time) viewpoint than he does."

This is not accurate. It isn't merely a matter of eschatology [as if that were a trifle]; it is also a matter of the exegesis and hermeneutics that bring one to a particular eschatological point of view.

I personally consider the pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, and post-tribulation positions as adiaphorous in regard to the orthodoxy of a believer. One can use the same or very similar method of exegesis and arrive at these different positions. However, this is in marked contrast to the exegetical differences between amillenialism and millennialism.

These differences are echoed in our ecclesiology and in our day to day living out of our precious faith. It is no accident that there is a difference between the Liberal Churches [which are in turmoil and long term decline] and the Evangelical Churches. Their method of interpreting the Scriptures has led them into all sorts of mischief and detours from the narrow way.

The argument about “theological battles” [in the draft revision preamble] occurring if we do not adopt the proposed changes appears to be a straw man argument. Where are those WITHIN our association that are threatening theological battles over our existing Statement of Faith?

As for those not in our association, are we failing to reach them? Is our Church growth stagnant? As of 2005, the EFCA had 1,272 Churches and an average weekly attendance of over 350,000. We have 172 Church plants. We have over 150 Urban and Intercultural Ministries with an average weekly attendance of over 34,000. The EFCA started with 275 local congregations back in 1950. We have more than quadrupled in size in 56 years. All of this occurred under the existing Statement of Faith.

Can we do better? By God’s grace, I believe that we can. Will changing our Statement of Faith to imitate the failing Liberal Churches help us or hinder us to fulfill the great commission? Well, just look at how the so-called “Mainline” Churches are failing. Why would we want to imitate them? Why would we want to open our leadership to a different way of interpreting the Scriptures when there is so much at stake? Why would we want to push out those Churches in our association that have the current Statement of Faith incorporated in their constitutions and bylaws?

I admit that Church growth or size is not the determining factor of whether a Church is following Christ Jesus as they ought. If that were the only criteria, we would all be Roman Catholic. I brought up the Church growth and size issue to illustrate that the “theological battle” argument is a straw man.

What is crucial is what is written in the Scriptures and whether or not we are following the Lord.

When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?

George Husted
Deacon at Glastonbury Community Church, CT

Greg,

Looking forward to having you at our Allegheny District Conference in April.

Thank you, Spiritual Heritage Committee, for making the herculean effort to visit each of the district conferences.

Very interested in hearing what you have to say.

-Matt Mitchell
Pastor, Lanse EFC, Lanse PA

When we approach the bible without preconceived notions and with the understanding that God means what He says we discover that the bible itself is dispensational. When we apply a natural grammatical hermeneutic to the prophetic passages we find a literal millenial reign of Christ on the earth. We also find a rapture of the church prior to a seven year tribulation period. Our doctrinal statement reflects that truth. What is going on here is prophesied in 2 Timothy 4:3, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine . . .". We know this time will come, but do we have to be the ones to fall prey to it? Keep the statement of faith as it is!

In response to those who make the threat that many pastors and congregants will leave the
EFCA if Article 11 of the present SOF is not deleted and replaced with the new Article 9, and/or Article 10 of the present SOF is not deleted and replaced with the new Article 7, might we ask how these brethren ever got into the EFCA, since Article 11 has here all the time (since 1950)? While this question has already been addressed in numberous blogs on this site, continued consideration of it seems to be in order since there are those folks who tell those who hold to the letter of Articles 10 and 11, "They (meaning the framers of the present SOF) were wrong, and YOU are wrong!"

I am very pleased with the new revision, primarily because of the way #11 was replaced. This was drawn to my attention by a godly friend who lamented not being able to join an EFCA church because of it. I also concluded that I could not join the church I had been attending for 2 yrs, due to the particular wording: namely, "imminent" and "vital bearing." I think this technicality defeats the purpose of the old document, for I joyfully subscribe to the new revision. I am a truely born again believer, yet I admit I do not really think Christ's coming is imminent as I understand the word. Mind you, I completely believe He *could* return at any time He chooses, just think chances are it won't be tomorrow, or anytime this month. Secondly, His Coming is a beautiful, encouraging promise, yet again, honestly, I am not sure it has a vital bearing on my life and service. Had I not known of this promise, I would still live and serve for Him, because He's worthy and out of response for what He's accomplished in the past and present. This doesn't require my knowing His future glorious plans.

Quite likely I am only displaying my theological ignorance and intellectual weakness here, but even so, such a statement of the EFCA should be able to be fully understood and subscribed to in good conscious by those like me.

In these drafts the committee is saying that everything we believe comes under the heading of the Gospel.

One danger in doing this is that when we make everything come under the heading of the Gospel, We are forced make some things that are NOT the Gospel, seem as though they are a part of the Gospel.

In the revision it is written in the preamble, that “Our fundamental theological convictions are aspects of this gospel.”

I do believe that the Gospel is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes it. (Rom. 1.16) I believe that it is the central, most important part of what we believe. But I do not believe that everything we learn in the Bible is the Gospel.

In the explanation under point #1, it says, “ the Biblical Gospel is a story revealed in History—the true story of creation, fall, redemption and consummation, with its center found in Jesus Christ.”

I would like to say that the Gospel is NOT all of those things. I realize that the committee is looking at the Gospel as the broader story of God’s revelation, but I think there is a real danger in doing that, especially in a doctrinal statement. I think if our goal is theological clarity, we will miss the mark if we make the whole story of the Bible and all of our beliefs come under the heading of “Gospel.”

Even when Paul talks about the Gospel in Romans, he is not saying that everything in Romans is the Gospel. Rather, he shows the need for the Gospel, then the gospel itself, then the results of believing the Gospel, and the results of rejecting it, then a section on what we should do after we believe it.

Paul warns so clearly in Galatians 1 about not changing the Gospel. So we need to be sure that we keep the Gospel—that little nugget of truth that is the remedy for the fall—pure and simple, so that a person knows the difference between the bad news and the Good News.

Please, let's keep the current format!

Brothers:
I voiced some of my concerns at the EFCA West Pastor’s meeting, but since you have invited written comments, I thought I should send a more complete commentary, including both positive and negative thoughts.

I was impressed with the two Gregs who presented the issues to the pastors’ group. Their openness and humility was appreciated, and gave us all the liberty to respond honestly and openly. I felt that you guys were really listening, and that gave me hope! I think this is going to have long-range effects on our movement, and we really do need to go slowly and carefully, to ensure accuracy and faithfulness to the Scriptures. Some of the early reactions to the process, though radical and uncalled for, show us that we are running the risk of alienating our brothers who are already serving in the EFCA.

Here are some comments that I have. Please feel free to contact me, and I’ll elaborate as much as you need me to, or meet with you, or whatever.

1. The Format Change causes a loss of familiarity in the reader.

I believe that most of those who read doctrinal statements are looking for a familiar format. The current statement of faith follows this classic format, and serves as a sort of one-page résumé for those who are looking for an evangelical church.
When there is a change in the format, I would bet that the initial response is probably going to be suspicion rather than comfort.

So I’ll tip my hand early on, and say that I think we should leave the statement in its current systematic format, to retain the familiarity to the reader, and especially to maintain the accuracy of each individual topic. If we need to clarify and update to address current heresies, then that’s healthy.

2. The expansion of the meaning of “Gospel” Obscures the Real Gospel.

In these drafts we are making everything come under the heading of the Gospel.

I appreciate the committee’s admission of the dangers of doing this, because it is true that we might give the impression that God exists solely for our benefit. That’s a good caution. We do not want to be the center of all that God is doing. He is the Self-existent Center of all things, and His glory is the goal.

But another danger is that when we make everything come under the heading of the Gospel, we are actually doing a similar thing, in shifting the center. We are also forced make some things that are NOT the Gospel, seem as though they are a part of the Gospel…and even though we are shooting for clarity, I think that if we do that, we end up giving the impression that everything in God’s Story is God’s Gospel.

In the revision it is written in the preamble, that “Our fundamental theological convictions are aspects of this gospel.”

I do believe that the Gospel is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes it. (Rom. 1.16) I believe that it is the central, most important part of what we believe. But I do not believe that everything we learn in the Bible is the Gospel.

In the explanation under point #1, it says, “ the Biblical Gospel is a story revealed in History—the true story of creation, fall, redemption and consummation, with its center found in Jesus Christ.”

I would like to say that the Gospel is NOT all of those things. I realize that the committee is looking at the Gospel as the broader story of God’s revelation, but I think there is a real danger in doing that, especially in a doctrinal statement. I think if our goal is theological clarity, we will miss the mark if we make the whole story of the Bible and all of our beliefs come under the heading of “Gospel.”

Even though Paul talks about the Gospel in Romans, he is not saying that everything in Romans is the Gospel. Rather, he shows the need for the Gospel, then the gospel itself, then the results of believing the Gospel, and the results of rejecting it, then a section on what we should do after we believe it.

Paul warns so clearly in Galatians 1 about not changing the Gospel. So we need to be sure that we keep the Gospel—that little nugget of truth that is the remedy for the fall—pure and simple, so that a person knows the difference between the bad news and the Good News.

Here are some thoughts—not meant to preach to you guys, but to share my understanding, which is the basis for my concerns.

A. The Gospel itself is God’s good news to guilty, helpless, hopeless sinners, about his accomplishments on their behalf through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Paul defines it pretty clearly in 1 Cor. 15.

B. The Gospel is about something that is FINISHED…and not something that is ongoing.

The Gospel Paul preached was The tenses of the verbs in 1 Cor. 15 are clearly past tense. He died, was buried, rose.

In this document, we are confusing the finished work of Christ with the unfinished work of Christ.

C. The Gospel is pure good news.

It is the part of our message that gives the remedy, and not the part that defines our problem, or that describes our God. Those other truths are necessary pre-evangelistic truths, and must be understood, but they are not the gospel.

D. The Gospel of Grace is Objective, and not Subjective.
And yet, when we say (in point 8) “We believe God’s justifying grace in the Gospel must not be separated from its sanctifying power and purpose.” Are we not making our subjective, ongoing sanctification part of the gospel itself?

I understand that we are saying it is important for believers to continue to grow, but to say that the ongoing growth is part of the Gospel would not be accurate, and it is confusing. That ongoing work of sanctification is a result or fruit of the Gospel, not a part of it. Yes, it is good news, too…but it must not be mixed in as if it is part of the Good News message, or we will be saying that sanctification and growth are required in order for us to be saved. We will be preaching another (heteros) Gospel, according to Paul. (Gal. 1:6)
E. The Gospel saves everyone who believes it.
As a person accepts the bad news of their lost and fallen condition, they are presented with the Good News that God has accomplished their salvation in the work of Jesus. As they believe that particular good news of the finished work of Jesus, they are saved.

F. If everything we believe is part of the Gospel, then what does a person need to know to be saved?

If we are really trying to show that we as the EFCA are centered on the evangel then I think we should show our understanding of what that Gospel really is. Should we not remain accurate and consistent in our communications?
My first suggestion is that we do not try to bring every truth we believe under the heading of the Gospel. It is too much of a stretch to do so, and forces us to put everything under that theme. The result looks a lot like what happens when we try to use alliteration in preaching.

My suggestion is that, if we really must change the format, let’s call it “God’s Revelation, which finds its central focal point in the Gospel of Christ”, rather than saying that everything we believe is an aspect of the Gospel. Then we can be free to list our beliefs systematically, without trying to stretch each thing to make it seem like it is part of the Gospel, or making it seem like the gospel is actually telling us each thing.
Just read the statement without the “Gospel” format, and you will see that it makes much more sense, and doesn’t stretch the meanings of the truths. Without this thematic approach we will be free to retain the integrity of each truth, and we preserve the heart of the Gospel itself.

3. Comments on some of the specific points in the revision:

A. In the Preamble: Please don’t say that all these things are “aspects” of the Gospel. They really are not. For example, the fall is not an aspect of the Gospel. The fall is what brought about the need for the Gospel.

B. In The body of Point #1: I think it is good to address the Open Theology errors in the way we do here. I like it.

C. Point #5: “God’s Gospel is accomplished through the work of Christ.”

The Gospel is not accomplished through the work of Christ…it is the work of Christ.

If we have to keep the format, why not say, “God’s Gospel is the Good News about the work of Christ.”

Also, I suggest we put back the phrase, “and His saving work” Because we are trusting in Christ and His work when we believe the Gospel.

D. Point six, the Gospel is applied and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

I am not sure what this statement means. Would it not be more accurate just to make the point about the Holy Spirit’s ministry, and not try to fit it into the Gospel theme?

Or, if we have to keep the theme, maybe we could say, “The Gospel is understood through the work of the Holy Spirit”.
Then we could leave the rest as it is, except for the following:

I would rather we leave the phrase “regenerates the believing sinner” as it is. I know there’s a sticky point there with Calvinists, but I think they are in error, and we should state it as it really happens in real time. We are still dead until we believe, but upon believing we are quickened.

I would not fight for the phrase “The believing sinner” to be left in, because the statement is still true, that God does regenerate sinners.

“Regenerating sinners into union with Christ” is probably not the best way to describe the events that happen. I think the events should be delineated.
I would prefer:
“Regenerating believing sinners, and bringing them into union with Christ, as well as indwelling, guiding, etc.”

E. Point #7 “God’s Gospel is now embodied in the new community called the church.

Here is an example of trying to make what we want to say fit under a theme…and it doesn’t work.

First of all, it is a difficult statement to understand grammatically,
and secondly I don’t think it is accurate to say that the Gospel is embodied in the church.

This seems like we are trying to stretch the Gospel to make it seem like the church is part of the Gospel, or that the gospel has now changed forms to the point where it is encapsulated in the church.

If we have to stick with the “gospel format”, then how about simply saying that “The church is made up of those who have believed the Gospel.” That would be clear and more accurate.
Or, “Belief in God’s Gospel brings us into the community of believers called the church”
Or, “We believe that all those who have been saved by God’s Gospel become part of the true church.”

On a positive note: I love the way you are clarifying the ordinances…very good. The ordinances do visibly and tangible express the Gospel, but are not part of the Gospel.

F. Point #8: God’s Gospel compels us to Christ-like living and witness to the world.

Though I think I understand what you are getting at, I don’t believe the Gospel itself does this. The gospel simply announces what has been done for us.
The Holy Spirit compels us. The compelling comes as our regenerated hearts and our “new man” are “created to be like God, in righteousness and true holiness” (Eph. 4:24). This is something that comes “post-gospel”, and is not really part of the gospel.

It is true that the Grace of God teaches us “that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present age” (Titus 2:11), But my understanding is that the process is this: As we are saved by the gospel, something happens within us, that causes us to be grateful for God’s Grace in Christ, and want to be pleasing to Him. Grace motivates where Law cannot.

The Bible also compels or exhorts us to holy living. But if we say (as the revision does), “We believe that God’s justifying grace in the gospel must not be separated from its sanctifying power and purpose,” we are confusing the gospel by mixing it with the subjective, ongoing sanctification process, and Christian living.

Sanctification and right living are the result of our salvation, a result of the gospel, and not a part of it.

We would do better to leave the first sentence out, and just start the paragraph with the statement, “ God commands those who have been saved by God’s Gospel to love him with….etc.

The statements on point 8 about what holy living are good statements, but do they really belong in a doctrinal statement? Are we applying the same filter here as we are in point 9, where we leave out premillennialism and the imminent return? Is seeking justice for the oppressed really the core mission of the New Testament Church, and should it be part of our doctrinal statement?

G. On Point #9: “ God’s gospel will be brought to fulfillment by the Lord Himself at the end of this age”

This makes it seem as though the Gospel is still in need of completion.

Paul is so clear in 1 Cor. 15 that the Gospel is a finished work already. It will not be brought to fulfillment later. It will have more results later, but the Gospel itself is already complete. Christ died for sins, once for all, the Just for the unjust, to bring us to God.

I think it would be more accurate and clear to say something like “ We believe the Lord is coming back for those who have believed God’s Gospel.” …Then go into the eschatology.

H. And in regards to the eschatological statements in Point #9:
I think it is unwise, if all of our current pastors are pre-millennial in their eschatology, to change this. This is who we are. Just today I sent off my 5-year re-affirmation of the current doctrinal statement, which includes pre-millennialism, and if I had not agreed with it, I would lose my credential. I agree with that policy, but it is ironic that we have held this as a core doctrine for so long, and then all of a sudden it is a non-essential.

If we leave the imminent return and premillennial coming in the Doctrinal Statement, we are not saying we can’t fellowship with those of differing views, but simply that we expect consistency in our teaching.

Another thing to think about is that, if we insist on saying that the gospel is brought to fulfillment in the future, then I question whether the statement goes far enough into the future. Things are not over when He comes with the holy angels and sets up his kingdom ruling as judge, etc. Isn’t the eternal state the final fulfillment of God’s purposes? The new heaven and new earth?

Actually, I don’t think the second coming is the fulfillment of the Gospel anyway. It is more accurate to say that “The Second Coming is the beginning of the final reward which the Gospel purchases for us.”

As was mentioned in our meeting with the EFCA West Pastors, this new statement actually has some negative affects on the pre-millennial, pre-tribulation rapture views.

Te revision reads:
“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.”

Because your statement limits the coming of Christ to his coming in Judgment and as ruler, it changes the Blessed Hope.
I. Point #10 The gospel itself does not call for a response.

People must believe the gospel in order to be saved, it is true. But the Gospel itself simply declares the remedy.

J. Point #10 Change Phrase “Receiving Jesus Christ”

If we are trying to clarify the doctrinal statement for a new generation I think we need to eliminate the term “receiving Jesus Christ”, because it now means something different than it originally meant. To most people today, receiving Jesus is asking Him into your heart, which is not biblical. To the Catholic, receiving Jesus Christ is ingesting him in the Communion wafer.

I suggest that we change this to “Placing trust in Jesus Christ and His work on the cross.

Steve Pruett, EFC of Santa Maria, CA
Steve@evfreesm.com

Thanks Steve for the detailed analysis. It seems to me we have focused on the "elephant in the room" to the exclusion of some of the other wildlife.

In my adult class, we came out very much in favor of the revised statement #4 on the Person of Christ. we all felt it added a lot to the old #3. They agreed, with all the challenges to the identiy of Jesus in the church and outside, we need to be clear here.

However, while we liked the adding of the first sentence in the new #5, there was a sense that we lost something. The Old #6 (the numbers do not correspond between the lists) had, for lack of a better word, "Gospel" or I suppose "Pietistic" languate of calling people to "believe...receive...(be) born of the Holy spirit...become children of God."

The New #5 has good solid reformation language of justification by faith alone, but we did not find the appeal to become a child of God, or to be born-again.

The several members of my class said that this is the language they most often use in personal evangelism.

I looked but did not see words such as "born again" or "become a child of God" in the Revised SOF, but I did find what are probably more accurate theological terms. It is there but it is not prominant.

the preface has "power of God for salvation for all who belive..."

#5 "it is through faith alone in Christ that anyone is justified before God"

#5 "...by regenerating sinners into union with Christ..."

#7 "...saved by God's grace through faith and regeneration by the Holy Spirit..."

#10 "...God commands everyone....to believe the gospel, turning to God in repentance and receiving the Lord Jesus Christ."

Have we Gained or Lost?

I think that Steve Pruett is right that the RSOF #9 doesn't emphasize that our Lord's second coming is not just a return in judgment but also a coming for His people and may unintentionally give off a post-tribulational bias.

I agree that some more work on that idea should be done.

Having just heard Bill Hamel and Greg Strand at the FLD conference, I want to commend them for a clear, open and responsive presentation. Even when I persisited in my question on SOF #2!

As one who grew up in the EFCA and attended/attends TEDS, I must say that I am both excited and disappointed by the SoF.

I am excited in what the team is trying to do, by updating certain aspects of a slightly outmoded document.

I am a bit upset by the shortcomings I perceive.

Others have already argued eloquently for the premill position, so I will add little to that discussion other than reiterating one point: at the time of the founding of the EFCA, premill was not the only eschatological position around, and therefore it certainly is indeed a key aspect of identity in the EFCA. To remove it is an historical travesty, one which does break with the spirit of our past. To those who think it is not a well-thought out break with the past, just ask how many TEDS professors are truly premill when defined in a strict fashion. The answer is that many current professors are premill only by twisting the definition of premill. A sad state that this team seeks to rectify by dropping the premill, which comes across as a justification after the fact. I know the team and the TEDS administrators do not see it that way, but the students who more regularly interact with the professors do.

My biggest problem is that the language in certain portions of the statement are not theologically tight. For example, the very first statement implies that God ordained humanity to fall, and thus Arminians are ruled out from signing the SoF. Let me give you the quote:

"This one God, all-knowing and all-powerful, has, in love and grace, purposed from eternity to redeem a people for Himself and to restore His fallen creation for His own glory."

This reduces to "God purposed from eternity to restore His fallen creation."

Logically, this means God purposed from eternity to have creation FALL. Thus, God purposed the fall. This is certainly NOT what the team means to say, but it certainly reads that way. Tighter language would get around such a misstatement.

God bless,

- Ron Fay
PhD candidate in NT, TEDS
Elder, Cornerstone Community Church in Wadsworth, IL, an EFCA church

Questions for Ron Fay (I like your blog, by the way! I used to be a youth pastor up your way when I was at TEDS--at Beach Bible Church in Zion, IL):

1. What is the "twisted" definition of premillennialism that you sense is being used by many faculty at TEDS?

As I've said elsewhere on this blog, my experience at TEDS was that the entire faculty was premillennial.

2. Do Arminians believe that God didn't decide to restore creation until after the Fall actually happened?

The proposed statement doesn't say that God purposed to have the creation fall--just that God eternally purposed to restore it. It seems to me that only the Open Theist would deny that God had an eternal plan, not the Arminian.

I could be wrong on that, not being an expert in Arminian theology, but Arminians like Grant Osborne (of TEDS) have studied the proposed revisions and don't hvae a problem with it.

That part of the writing seems tight to me.

-Matt Mitchell
Lanse EFC, Lanse PA

I think it might be instructive if salvation were defined in the SOF as the Bible defines it; as being composed of justification, sanctification, and glorification and each component defined. In the 2nd draft, justification is mentioned in items 5 and 8 but not really defined. Sanctification is defined in 6 but not named as sanctification. Similarly, glorification is described in 10 but not named as such. By defining salvation in more detail, it becomes clearer to the reader what it means to be saved and what a believer can expect once he/she becomes a Christian.

God bless you in your work. I can see that you've been very busy.

1. What is the "twisted" definition of premillennialism that you sense is being used by many faculty at TEDS?

Well, there is at least one on faculty who believes that the millenium will last only for a few seconds, and another who thinks we are in the millenium now.

2. Do Arminians believe that God didn't decide to restore creation until after the Fall actually happened?

The question is not one of temporality, it is one of determination. The statement as it reads sounds like God determined the fall in order to determine salvation. That rules out Arminianism.

And thanks for the comment on my blog. If I had not been so busy writing my dissertation (which I finished today) I would have had more time to post here and on my blog.

God bless,

- Ron Fay
PhD candidate in NT, TEDS
Elder, Cornerstone Community Church in Wadsworth, IL, an EFCA church

The following is a response to a newsletter called "Lasare" that I received concerning the refreshment. I hope that my comments will help the situation... here it is:
Dear Lasare,

I received a copy of your journal yesterday and was simultaneously blessed and troubled by the theological discussion over the current issues in the EFCA. I was a Southern Baptist before attending Dallas Seminary and then coming to the Free Church. I cannot remember as a SBC pastor the last time I had a fruitful theological discussion between fellow men of the cloth. Obviously in studying at DTS, I am a pre-millenialist, and I even continue to hold to a pre-tribulational rapture. Therefore, I have been deeply interested and stimulated by the discussion around the proposed refreshment of the doctrinal statement.
In fact the discussion has reminded me why I came to the Free Church in the first place. Growing up in the SBC I learned how much we had a proclivity to divide, fight, and boycott small issues. The last straw for me was the boycott of Disney which became a joke among unchurched people. I served for a while in the independent Bible Church which had its blessings but had a similar weak spot. They would not associate with any group who had a different view of even the minutest doctrinal point. Labels were typically thrown upon these groups that would put them in the category of “suspect.”
Then I was introduced to the Free Church; an association that had the distinctive of Chrysostom, "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, charity. In all things, Jesus Christ.” I saw a group within Christianity that understood the need of the church to focus on the gospel and only go to battle over the weightiest of issues. I saw an opportunity to be a part an organization who took seriously the prayer of Jesus for unity in John17. Finally, I saw in the EFCA a desire to steer away from the silly pettiness that seems to characterize conservative evangelicals.
I have now seen the reality of that distinctive challenged since the proposed refreshment. I guess I have struggled with some of the things I have heard in the regional meetings as well as some things said in your newsletter. One is the statement that a normal interpretation of Scripture leads to a premillennial position. If you take this statement to its opposite conclusion you would say something like, “Anything other than a premillenial position reveals a discrepancy in interpretation and a weakening of the meaning of the text.” To simplify, “Premillenialists are the most Biblically accurate.”
To hold a position like that ignores a mass of church history and a myriad of church history heroes that did not believe in Premillenialism. Some of these men were champions of our hermeneutic, yet did not come to the same conclusions as we do on the nature of Christ’s return. I am afraid that making this statement smacks more of arrogance than it does accuracy.
Not to mention, some great exegetes from other positions will make the same defense of their conclusions based upon the same commitment to a “historical-grammatical-literary-theological” hermenutic. When I was in seminary I did a project on the book, The Four Views of Revelation. The one thing I noticed was that all four positions of interpretation (preterist, classical dispensationalist, progressive dispensationalist, and idealist) claimed their conclusions were based upon this normal hermeneutic, yet all of the positions disagreed at very fundamental levels. The critiques were all lengthy and firm. All based upon the same hermeneutic. It was obvious that we each pick and choose what we will take as figurative and what we ill consider literal. And this is no new debate…
A second struggle I have is the argument that a premillennial position is an essential. Once again, I do not see this clearly in either the New Testament or the history of the church. I see the belief in Christ’s return as important, but the extent that one holds to the nature of His return is not defined as essential. The Nicene Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon both contain in them the most essential things the New Testament teaches and define the truths we definitely go to war over, but even in those seminal documents the nature of Christ’s return is not mentioned. If premillenialism is that important of a position, then why is it not found all throughout the history of the church and how have we continued to function without it (if it is an essential)?
I think our strong commitment to this doctrine has come more from the fears of a drift into theological liberalism that rooted in the early and mid 1900’s. I know that many of the old stalwarts of Dallas Seminary would warn students that Amillenialism was a step in the direction of rejecting Inspiration. I agree that there was a time when premillenialism was probably a good test for theological conservatism. However, I do not believe that is the case today. There are conservative theological adherents all over the spectrum of the Millennium. Lasare even mentions some strong and conservative evangelical theologians who do not hold to a premillennial position.
A third struggle I have with many comments I have heard and parts of your journal is the allusion that something of a betrayal has occurred, the heads of the EFCA are being dishonest, or that this is being shoved down our theological throats. I have sat in on the district discussions and I have seen nothing but openness. The very fact that both Greg Strand and President Bill Hamel traveled around to make a presentation and honestly hear feedback is a huge statement of openness and honesty. It is a huge gesture of friendship, not betrayal.
I guess the nature of your publication is what I am struggling with. I had never heard the term Lasare before (not being a Free Church native). But is that name for this journal not giving this situation in our association a worse face than what is actually happening? The Lay Readers Revival began when things were made illegal by the state. It was an underground stance against an oppressive regime. This situation is not like that in any form and I am afraid that your journal may contribute to potential schism. That would be a travesty of epic proportions. I do not have a problem fighting and dividing over the Holy Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the full Deity and Humanity of Jesus, His Atonement on the cross…etc. Those issues define us as Christian, but I am not ready to divide over the nature of His return. I think that would be a horrific infraction of John 17 and would continue to perpetuate the already damaged reputation we have with nonbelievers (I have many lost friends who will not consider Christ because “You Christians fight over everything!”). I guess I am saying that the refreshment of the statement makes a big move in evangelicalism to show the world we are made of something different and we can exist together and still not agree on some issues… we can actually love. I guess I have been convinced of this position and its importance by the work of evangelicals such as J.I.Packer and Thomas Oden in One Faith or Timothy George and John Woodbridge in The Mark of Jesus. My prayer is that we will come to truly realize the beauty of the unity of the body of Christ that C.S. Lewis longed and termed Mere Christianity. Please take these comments as one from the heart of a fellow pastor in the EFCA. I love our movement and I am fine with the refreshment, but most of all, I desire us to remain one and be an example of loving unity amidst theological diversity.

Sincerely,
Scott T. Gill
Rockwall Community Church
Rockwall, TX

To: Scot and the other Freebies,

From: CJ Addis

Subject: Scott how are ya man? Glad to hear that your church plant is thriving.

Your comments about our premill stance is normal and is to be expected. The following questions are meant to start a dialogue. Because I am not sure what it is we are trying to do.

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 the 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 and our spiritual heritage?

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 evangelical alternatives.

I find it distressing that those of us who seek to be consistent and seek to honor the convictions of the EFCA are being seen as the ones who have to justify our convictions; in light of others who do not hold to the historical and actual values of the EFCA.

Is there room and a need for a clearly premill and congregational church movement on the larger landscape of evangelicalism. What do we gain by removing our distinct identity and roles.

Later,

Pastor CJ Addis
Kings EFC
pastorkefc@juno.com

I am a former EFCA pastor whose statement on millennialism was not sufficient to remain in the EFCA at the time when I was seeking ordination. My official position was one of Pan-Millennialism; and it still is, as I am certain that each one of the classically defined positions is inaccurate to a certain extent. Each and every position has to push and pull the Scriptures to some extent, waffling between a literal and figurative understanding of various passages in order to package the entirety of the Scripture into any one of the various schemes. Each position has a weakness, a place where the Sciptures have to be stretched or twisted to make it fit, or where certain passages of Scripture have to be tossed out and ignored. Therefore, I have been forced to believe that there is a picture which is being presented within the Scripture which is higher and broader than what the limited mind of man can possibly conceive and believe. Therefore, I have chosen to believe that God will work out His plan in His way, and that history will be culminated in such a way that when we look at the Scripture after it is all fulfilled, we will be able to say, "Oh, so that is what God meant when He said this . . ."

Unfortunately, this position was not sufficient for the EFCA. What was not figured into the equation, however, was that this was my home denomination. It was the denomination of my birth. I was born into an EFCA's pastor's home, and was raised in the denomination. I had been a member of EFCA churches for the entirety of my life. In every community in which I had lived, I had been a faithful member of an EFCA church (with the exception of those few communities where there were no EFCA churches). I had served in leadership positions, including Sunday School teacher, Discipleship director, Elder, and pastoral intern. I was even a pastor of an EFCA church at the time of my having been rejected for ordination by the ordination council which interviewed and reviewed my case. Ultimately, my inability to fully accept a premillennialist construct was the reason given for my denial.

All of this caused me great sorrow. And it forced me out of a denomination which I still consider to be my home denomination. And all over my understanding of what God says none of us knows for certain anyway. If Jesus Christ does not know the exact timing of the end times, is it ok if I say that I do not have enough information to make up my mind on the issue either?

Certainly there is much at stake in the issue. To a certain extent it is a hermeneutical issue. It does involve our understanding of literal Israel, or our understanding that Israel may be representative of the people of God, whether they be by nature Jewish, or the larger body which includes the saved Gentiles (all of the sheep of the fold of God). Certainly they are important, but where one comes down on the issues does not necessarily put one outside the pale of orthodoxy. It must be admitted on all sides of the aisle that each position has it places of support. But each position also has a weakness, and an 80/20% split still leaves premillennialism wrestling with 20% of the Scripture. (20% of the Scripture is approximately 6088 verses. How one could say that 80% of the Scripture is sufficient to define a "Biblical position" is beyond me. The only time that we can define a Biblical position is if we have very close to 100% agreement on a particular issue. I doubt that one could find 6000+ verses which may mitigate against salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. That is a Biblical position. But when one considers that there may be 6000+ verses which stand in the way of our theological position, perhaps it is time to go back to drawing board and re-evaluate our position.)

As I see it, the entire argument over the millennium is largely defined by what weight one puts on any particular passage or concept contained in the Scripture. It is the same with the Calvinism/Arminian debate; which Scriptures have more weight? Which ones are to interpreted in the light of which other ones? In this debate, do we interpret the Old Testament passages woodenly literal to the exclusion of New Testament passages which speak to the issue, or do we interpret the Old Testament in the light many passages which seem to speak to the nature of Israel in the New?

I, obviously, have not fully resolved these questions within my own mind. Am I to be rejected by the denomination in which I have raised, to which I have been loyal, and to which my heart has been committed, simply because I cannot force some of the Scipture to say that which it simply does not seem to say? Is my loyalty to the Scripture, and my refusal to push everything into a premillennial construct to be rejected as unfit for the EFCA, when the EFCA is rooted in the authority of the Scripture itself?

I would love to come back to the EFCA. The millennial statement is still the only statement that I question; and even then it is not something that I can reject, only something that I cannot wholeheartedly endorse. At the present time I am not in the ministry and am considering moving to a town where there is an EFCA church. I plan on attending there, as it will be going back to my roots. However, it bothers me that I cannot be considered for full-time ministry in the denomination. My case was referred all the way to the home office, and I was rejected by that home office, specifically because I could not fully embrace the Premillennial stance.

I believe this to be unfair. Thus, I would love to see the Free Church drop a dogmatic insistence upon a millennial position from its stance. I could come back home; and when I came back home, I could actually be coming back home to serve. My heart is still with the EFCA. It always will be. But I feel as if I have been rejected forever, all because I am willing to be honest and admit that the Scripture simply is not 100% clear on this issue, and that I prefer to say that I do not know how it all will end up, rather than forcing myself to adopt any definitive eschatological position.

I just sent in a post, but forgot to give my information as to city, state, etc. You may tag the message with this information.

Keith A. Needham
Saint Marie, Montana
Currently living in an area without a Free Church.

To Keith Needham, and to others feeling "forced out" of a 'denomination' (are we calling ourselves that now?) because of its theological moorings: This is a fact which exists in every denomination, and which, notably, will not be resolved if the EFCA leadership succeeds in changing the SOF. It will only 'move the line' of doctrinal decisiveness to a place more agreeable to some (like yourselves) who have yourselves moved. The question would then be, Why not move it further, to include others who do not agree with another of our stated beliefs?

I do not have problems having fellowship with pastors who are Calvinist, Arminian, Pentecostal, Charismatic, or any other variations within the broad umbrella of "evangelical Christianity." But by the same token, would it not be absurd to suggest that we should then do away with our distinctives so that we would not "force out" anyone from our denomination?

The EFCA was founded with clear distinctives, not so that all who called themselves "Christians" would be embraced in our doctrinal statement, but so that all would know that while we hold to certain doctrinal distinctives, we do not use these to batter those with whom we disagree, but demonstrate grace while at the same time defending the positions to which we ascribe. If we change to include some, why not others? Where will it end?

In this regard, I include here some observations drawn from a book I recently read.

Fuller Seminary, Hermeneutics, and Eschatology:
Some Thoughts About the EFCA Doctrinal Discussions
With Reference to George Marsden’s "Reforming Fundamentalism"
(P Congdon, 2006)

As articulated in Reforming Fundamentalism by George Marsden, the slide of Fuller Seminary from its beginnings in 1947 as a bastion of evangelical “fundamentalist” teaching into a morass of theological confusion which abandoned inerrant biblical authority in the early 1960s includes, and may be directly tied to, a process of emphasizing human theories and scholarship over the “bare” adherence to biblical revelation as Truth. This process begins (as it did at Fuller) when theologians adopt a “progressive” hermeneutic, while simultaneously holding to the absolute authority of God’s Word. In other words, they affirm the inerrancy of the words of scripture, but at the same time take liberties with the meaning of those words – laying aside the normal (literal-historical-grammatical) interpretation of the words of scripture. In Fuller’s case, this involved faculty first adopting non-literal positions in eschatology, specifically, abandoning pre-millennialism in lieu of amillennialism (or perhaps more accurately, “pan-millennialism”; see pp150ff).

Once the interpretation of scripture, even scripture deemed to be both inerrant and authoritative, was compromised and became “relative”, it was conceptually far easier to accept the notion that the underlying doctrine of inerrancy itself was flawed. Understand what happened here: While holding to inerrancy, the significance of inerrancy itself is undermined by a hermeneutic which leaves the “inerrant” words of scripture open to different meanings—not those indicated by a literal-historical-grammatical approach. The result is that inerrancy itself becomes unimportant – a sort of Fundamentalist ‘sacred cow’ which has no real value. This is precisely what happened at Fuller (see pp 208-215), and what has happened repeatedly in institutions of higher theological education (Harvard, Andover, and Union Seminaries, cited on p114). Indeed, Fuller Seminary was born in response to Princeton falling from the ranks of the orthodox in the early 20th century (see pp21-25). The first institution to rise was Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, founded by J. Gresham Machen and colleagues at Princeton who were alarmed at its tolerance of liberalism (31-33). Marsden writes,

Machen saw in the Princeton situation a historical pattern repeated time and again during the preceding fifty years. As he told the 1929 General Assembly, here was “the same old story, so often repeated, of an institution formerly evangelical that is being made to drift away by insensible degrees from the gospel it was founded by godly donors to maintain.” (p33).

What is amazing, and tragic, is that while Fuller was to be an institution of higher learning which combined the highest scholarship with a commitment to “fundamental” biblical truth, and that while early leaders were alert to the dangers of “creeping liberalism” (see p214), they still fell prey to it in little more than a decade!

It is interesting that Marsden also notes that while this liberalization was taking place at many institutions, some—like Wheaton and Moody—“where conservatives had kept the tightest control on innovation” (p214)—had avoided the slide. Note: The key is that they “kept the tightest control on innovation.” (Of course, other institutions, e.g. Philadelphia Bible College, Multnomah Bible College, Columbia Bible College, and Dallas Theological Seminary, also avoided this slide.)

Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. When an academic or ecclesiastical organization holds to a high view of scripture, but allows this theological “mortar” to be eroded by “insensible degrees” through a ‘low’ hermeneutic – a progressive approach to scripture which invites “innovation” at the expense of literal-historical-grammatical interpretation – the end result will ultimately be a loss of the high view of scripture.

If the EFCA abandons a dispensational pre-millennial position, they will no longer take historical-literal-grammatical hermeneutic in the arena of biblical eschatology. This was the first step in the downward spiral for Fuller Seminary. Will it also be that for the EFCA?

Philip F. Congdon
New Braunfels Bible Church
New Braunfels, TX

Philip, thank you for sharing your comments and stating some of your thoughts and concerns.

There are a number of things to which I will respond, by asking a few questions and making a few statements. Both questions and statements are intended to foster dialogue, so please receive them with that spirit.

1. What did Fuller Seminary mean by the term inerrancy? (You may recall that they qualified it such that it was believed to be limited.)

2. What does a literal-historical-grammatical approach to interpreting the Scripture mean, i.e. how do you define it? It is literal to the reader, or literal to the author? How does genre affect this? Is your definition the way it is understood by all in the EFCA at present?

3. When Princeton was moving towards liberalism, Westminister was founded by J. Gresham Machen. He was an amillennialist. But he was strongly committed to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, and the deity of Christ. These were two key biblical truths that were being undermined in the liberal church, and which became the major emphases spelled out in the fundamentals of the faith.

4. No one in the EFCA desires to move away from our strong statement on the inspiration, inerrancy, sufficiency and authority of the Scripture, which is strengthened in the revision. This means that no one wants to embrace a 'low' hermeneutic, a move away from a literal-historical-grammatical interpretaion of Scripture. But neither should we embrace a 'flat' hermeneutic either. Certainly it is necessary to embrace this as one of the key principles of hermeneutics. But one also must consider the canon, redemptive history, Christ, who is the interpretive key to the whole Bible, and the Holy Spirit, who enables one to understand the Bible, both the Word incarnate and the Word inscripturated.

5. Regarding the concern that the EFCA will abandon a "dispensational pre-millennial position," it is important to say two things. First, the EFCA does not soley embrace a dispensational premillennial position now. The EFCA embraces premillennialism more broadly, which includes Dispensational Premillennialism, Progressive Dispensationalism and also Historic Premillennialism. Second, it appears you equate Dispensational Premillennialism with the "historical-literal-grammatical hermeneutic" which you equate with inerrancy. However, there is not an absolute causal connection between them. Fuller's weakened position on the Scripture was not on the basis of their position on eschatology, but rather their weakened position on the Scripture, viz. a notion of limited inerrancy. A study of church history reveals that Movements and Denominations that go more liberal do so generally not because of their position on eschatology but rather because of their position on the Bible and the person and work of Christ.

Glen Kehrein, Compassion for the Poor - the significance of Article 8, Loving our neighbor as ourselves means more than the "poor, needy, or oppressed". By adding this to the article we limit the meaning of God's word. It will not impress superstar authors, like Rick Warren, nor appease the irreligious critics, nor the priests of Baal.

If we have abaondoned the poor we should repent and do the work, we should not make impressive (and inadequate) statements of our concern.