The Statement of Faith Revision

By removing article 10 from the doctrinal statement did you realize that you are removing one of our distinctives (the 6th point)as well. click "distictives" on the website on the doctrine page?

Before the committee proposes this new revision at the 2006 conference in Denver, I would suggest that the committee interact with the book "Israelogy: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology" by Arnold G. Fructenbaum, Th.M., Ph.D. This book looks at the understanding of Isreal in the theologies of Covenant Postmillenialism, Covenant Amillillenialism, Covenant Premillenialism and Dispensational Premillenialism. Have you ever read this book? It should be required in every Seminary. Fruchtembaum shows why Isreal and its place in Scripture has been largely ignored in Systematic Theology at the Seminary level. He is a graduate of Dallas Seminary. It can be purchased at Ariel.org and it clearly helps in understanding why the Evangelical Consensus is not, nor has been the "Evangelical Free" Consensus since 1950. If we are committed to scholarship in this new statement and this book has not been interacted with than I think something is being overlooked when we talk about "Evangelical Consensus". There are many evangelicals and Evangelical Free pastors who do not agree with the consensus you propose. Consensus should not be based on Church History and Creeds as so much of the rationale for the new revision suggests, but rather on biblical exegesis. This book interacts exegetically with all the major postions and helps explain why Dispensational Premillenialism as compared to the other options became the consensus in the Evangelical Free Church of America. Greg, if you have not read this book, and I hadn't until five years ago, I encourage you to buy it and read it before Denver.

Thank you,

Jay Lindstrom
Associate Pastor
Sidney Evanelical Free Church. Sidney, Nebraska.

I'm a lay person, not a pastor, but very interested in this process. If you are looking for input from members, for what it is worth, I felt the second draft was one I could support. Thanks for the hard work and passionate discussion that I know has to be going into this behind the scenes.
Michael Causey, New Port Richey, FL

I thank Pastor Jay Lindstrom for his comments and for the book recommendation.

However, I would like to respectfully respond to this statement from Pastor Lindstrom: "Consensus should not be based on Church History and Creeds as so much of the rationale for the new revision suggests, but rather on biblical exegesis."

I respectfully wish to differ with this view. We cannot and must not do Biblical exegesis in isolation from how our sisters and brothers have interpreted a given text in the past. This is not to say tradition is infallible. But on the other hand we must not ignore tradition because it contains much great wisdom that the Holy Spirit has brought to others from a given text. As Thomas Oden says, "The Holy Spirit has a history."

The Anabaptists tended to deny any value to history and tradition and this led to serious error. Menno Simons came to a heretical view of the humanity of Christ because he did not think the ancient creeds worthwhile.

Therefore I would say we must interact with the history of the church lest we reproduce some of the errors found in our past. BTW, when I say "history," I mean all 2000 years, not just our own Free Church heritage, as valuable as it is. We are more than just Free Church, we also stand in the stream of two millennia of God's people.

Ernest Manges, EFCA International Mission, Philippines.

I am not EFCA however have several friends who are. And growing up was involved on and off in an EFCA church for awhile.

I am completely dismayed that you are atempting to exclude coherent arminians (e.g. "open theists").

Why is there this hostility to an articulation of faith that millions of charismatics/pentecostals practice. And virtually all Christians live because there is no other way to practice the Christian faith?

This seems quite crazy. How do you so easy pick and choose which biblical texts to exclude and include in their application to the doctrine of God? Apparenly you find deterministic texts more "real" and "literal" than the self-limiting and relational texts.

I guess some "humble agnosticism" regarding the Almighty is not permissiable on this issue.

Thanks, would love to hear why you narrow the bounds here...

grace and peace

I am the lead pastor of an EFREE church in Lawrence KS. I most likely will recommend to our Elder Team to strongly consider leaving the EFCA should the doctrinal statement remain in its revised form. The changes have been significant enough to cause me great concern.

Greg,

Thanks for offering this blog. I think this is a great idea for fostering good public discussion on the proposed changes.

-Matt Mitchell
Lanse EFC, Lanse, PA

I just wanted to say that I so much enjoy this process. Many of those that I have been priviledged to work with are people for which "change" is not a scary word. To be honest, I have been waiting for a time such as this, where the EFree church can honestly ask "What, in light of God's Kingdom, truly is important, and what is added-on?" I struggled through this in the credentialing process and am almost "giddy" about where these needed changes will allow us to go, think and do in Christ's name.

And once again, thank you for article 8. It's about time we sought to become practicing theologians.

As an EFCA pastor, I was in attendance at the Mid-Winter Ministerial. I have signed the original SOF, read both revisions, and am still (even more) excited about the process of working together within our movement to state what it is we believe to TODAY'S worldwide community.

I have been very impressed with both the breadth of representation on the SHC and those they have sought insight from (TIU and others). My fervent prayers are still that those who have their necks stiffened against any "CHANGE" would be open to this discussion. I would commend each of us to continue to remember the grace Christ has shown us in our ignorance before we make dogmatic statements in this process.

In response to Chris' concern about our distinctive (autonomy in congregational govt.) I would reply:
"Chris, rewording (and combining into other statements) what has been Article 10, does not change our movement's committment to congregational autonomy."

In reviewing the proposed changes to the doctrinal statement, it occurs to me that there was really not much wrong with the old one. I would make two suggestions on the old statement.
1. on point 11, The millennium is a thousand years of peace Christians like to fight about. There has never been unity on this question among believers and there is not likely to be till the end. It is not a cardinal doctrine that one's salvation or relationship to God hinges on. Its peripheral status suggests it should not be a required element of faith. I have found that within the EFC there are many of varying viewpoints on this subject and though I have strong opinions on it myself, I believe the cause would be best served by dropping premillenial from the statement. I would be happy to provide further support of this position if you would like.
2. On point 7. though Baptism does not save you, it was an explicit command of our Lord to do it, preceding participation in communion. If one is not ready to obey the Lord in this simple requirement, that one is not ready for the responsabilities of membership. Therefore baptism should be a requirement for membership, not that it saves, but it shows a person's heart attitude.
I hope you will concider these things. I would look forward to your response. In His love, Ed Goyette.

Even though the second draft is a vast improvement over the first draft, it still needs some work. In our current Article 12, our lives are greatly impacted by the fact the Christ could return at anytime. However, the new Article 10 completely ignores any sense of urgency on how we live our lives. Until this language is added, my church is completely against the changes.

Dr. David Hansen
Associate Pastor
Northern Valley EFC
Cresskill, NJ

In the discussion at midwinter ministerial three documents were alluded to: The Statement of Faith, The Distinctives of the EFCA, and the Articles of Incorporation. How does each document relate to the others and where does one find a copy of the articles of incorporation?

What's wrong with simply using the Apostle's Creed?

Dr. Hansen,

I think the proposed new article #9 addresses the need for living in constant expectancy.

"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."

It doesn't use the words imminent, near, soon, or urgent, but it does say "at a time known only to God" and talks about it as a motivator for Christian living and ministry.

I think new wording of this statement is an improvement over the first revision, too. I strongly believe some real sense of imminency(however defined) should continue to define our movement.

-Matt Mitchell
Pastor
Lanse EFC, Lanse PA

Thank you for clearly stating that God is sovereign and not only knows the beginning from the end, but planned and directed it from eternity past. Thank you for standing strongly opposed to the insidious danger of open theism. I personally liked the old statement of faith, but can support this version. I would prefer that the premillenial return of Christ continue to be included, but agree that it isn't an essential part of this statement.

Jeremy Oliver
Shiloh EFC
West Fargo ND

I just became aware of the revision in a meeting at our church. I welcome the revision process, especially the two major revisions to old articles 10 & 11.
My concerns are (1)the increased wordiness-- the added prcision sometimes detracts from the former clarity, e.g. the phrase in the new #3 "through the temptation of Satan" is accurate but unnecessary and dilutes the direct statement about human sin. In clear writing, less is often more. (2)Speaking of statement #3, it is not clear that all of us are sinners. We might just be victims of Adam and Eve. (3) There are several places where multiples modifiers detract from a clear statement. Perhaps this is unavoidable in theological jargon. E.g., "through faith alone in Christ" is just inelegant and hard to understand. Such complexity is not alone. (4) I don't think the "God's Gospel" theme helps. it is cute but the old topical organization worked better. Not everything we believe is "gospel." For example, the Trinity. I don't think the theme adds to the clarity of the statement.

Those are my thoughts.
Greg Giles, Bemidji Evangelical Free Church, Bemidji, MN

Dear Shel:

Open Theism should be locked out, because Open Theism is heretical. It isn't Arminian, and it's a slander to Arminians to call it Arminian. Arminius was a classical monotheist, and he would condemn Open Theism. Arminius would be able to tell the difference between God and Zeus.

In fact, the second revised edition of the new SOF errs in removing the phrase "knows the end from the beginning", and substitutes the flimsier term "all-knowing". Open Theism has already figured out its sophist, lawyer-like path around that word.

Any Open Theist heretic could affirm that God is all-knowing -- but then they say that the free future choices of people are innately unknowable, therefore such choices lie outside of what is knowable by anyone, including God. Some specific phrase like "knows the future" needs to be added to the new SOF.

You cannot write a SOF in a polemically-neutral bubble. All the best creeds and SOFs combine timeless doctrinal statements with specific, pointed counters against significant errors of their day (think for example, "Nicene").

On creeds:

The creeds and councils of the past are important, only because they tell us what Christians of the past thought were important, and why they thought. We shouldn't have to re-invent the wheel every time we write a SOF, and we should not give in to the arrogance of the modern mind which thinks no one from the past ever thought smarter thoughts than we.

But the history of past creeds and councils are no reason for dropping Congregationalism or Pre-millennialism out of the SOF.
The ancient creeds also affirmed icons and baptismal regeneration. We are all selective about how we use Christian doctrinal traditions (notice the plural there). The SHC says it is only focusing on Gospel essentials, which (if you read the revised SOF) you can easily see is not a true claim. They, too, are selective in what non-essential doctrines they want included and which ones they selectively want erased.

Jack Brooks

As a simple youth pastor in the Free Church, I feel foolish writing anything on here. My thoughts are many, but as yet, not focused well nor conclusive. I would be for a simple revision, but this total rewrite seems to be too much.

A key issue for me is the millennial issue. I think we have to answer the question - "What are the practical and doctrinal ramificaitons of being amillinnial as opposed to premillinnial?" There are many. Related to this, my pastor asked - "Why do we find an abundance of liberal amill deonominations, and yet premill denominations are not liberal (this is at least a generalization - and I can't name liberal premill groups). There may be many factors - but is the amill view one of them? I would really love to hear about the many differences in belief and practice that come as a result of being amill. I've started my list.

While I understand their "Gospel" centeredness in writing this new SOF, I don't like it, and I feel it changes the debate before it starts (God's Glory would be a much better theme if they need one - which they don't). It almost assumes a bent toward becoming like the NAE (National Association of Evangelicals) rather than the EFCA. By the way - check out who the chaiman is for the NAE (coincidence?). While I love my brothers in Christ in other denominations, I sure am glad we are not just reduced to our lowest or common denominator. I really do fear that a huge motive for this revision to include many outside of us. Let me say that I don't doubt the godliness, love, or intelligence of those in charge of this process. But I do wonder if the motivation to grow the EFCA is a large driving factor. It must be a factor, and yet I've not heard anyone overtly state it.

I have so many more thoughts and questions. I'd love to interact with anyone on this - and you can look me up at blogger.com.

Warmly IN Christ & Soli Deo Gloria - Tim Olson

Because of the divisive potential of the revision of the 12 point SOF, would it not be wise to take this discussion to the grass roots level by asking each district's Board or Ministerial Standing or like body to study the proposed document and make recommendations? Since district bodies that handle licensing and ordination issues may include pastors and laypeople, it just makes sense to start there. Make this a 3-year process. This would also allow pastors and churches that are concerned about any changes to provide feedback on a more local, grassroots level.

On another note, I am also concerned over the dropping of "premillennial" from the SOF. If this should happen, I can picture a coming day at my beloved TEDS when the theology faculty could potentially have only professors who hold to amillennialism and the hermeneutic that usually accompanies that view. The spiritual heritage of the EFCA is clearly premillennial - are we ready to leave that behind?

Brothers, let us count the cost.

Dear Dr. Strand,

Thank you for undertaking this mammoth task, and for receiving input from so many people. Being careful about how we speak about massive realities is crucial, and I trust that this work will abound to the glory of God.

My only concern (and it is a relatively minor one) is with the ubiquitous phrase "God's gospel," that is found throughout the document. My concern is that this phrase incorrectly narrows the Greek construction euangelion tou theo. Is there not more implied by this expression (particularly in Pauline and Petrine usage) than simple possession, which is what "God's gospel," expresses in English? Would not "The Gospel of God..." allow for more of these nuances to be more fully expressed?

This is an exegetical concern of mine that is separate from my grammatical concern that contractions seem somewhat unbecoming in official documents. Not to mention the fact that "God's gospel" does not roll off the tongue all that well.

So, my humble suggestion is to lose the apostrophe for the sake of exegetical clarity and grammatical elegance. Thank you.

Warmly,
Bryan C. McWhite
PhD/THS Student, TEDS

Hi, I'm Missions Pastor @ an EV Free church Newbury Park, in Southern California. I have the following suggestions:

1) I don't see the need for a new statement of faith. The old one was excellent: short, pithy and clear. If we are trying (which I would support) to revise the old statement to make room for believers who don't hold to the pre-millennial, pre-trib position - then let's just make that one change.

I also think we're misunderstanding the purpose of a statement of faith. The goal of a statement of faith is to clearly state our distinctives -- the things that make us different from other groups. It seems like the goal of this statement of faith is to be as inclusive as possible, and to avoid anything that other genuine Christians might disagree with. If that's what we're trying to do, than it should be a lot shorter. For example, there are genuine, regenerate Christians who don't subscribe to the inerrancy of scripture. Should we delete that? The answer, of course, is "NO, we should not!" Because, though we acknowledge that not all Christians believe in the inerrancy of Scripture - we do!! This is one of the important things that distinguishes EV Free churches from others. This is an important part of what we stand for. So, we should state it clearly, prominently and succinctly. We should treat our other distinctives in the same way. That is what a statement of faith is for.

2) I think the attempt to fit everything under the "unifying theme" of "the gospel" is strained and awkward. It does not clarify, it detracts and distracts, and requires intellectual contortions to make it "work." Let's just say what we believe, simply and clearly.

3) To help us in making a comparison, put together a "side by side" or "redline" version that allows us to see the changes from the existing version without flipping back and forth.

4)Delete the words "through the temptation of Satan" from item #3. Those words are true, but not critical. A short statment of faith should focus on what's critical.

5)Delete the words "under Pontius Pilate" from paragraph 4. Again, they are true, but not particularly important.

6)In item 6, include mention of Spirit's role in giving spiritual gifts to believers for serving the body. Are we embarrassed or ashamed of this? I'm not a charismatic or pentecostal, but I'm still in favor of Spiritual gifts. And, you certainly can't miss the scriptural discussions of Spiritual gifts.

7) As Missions Pastor, Item 8 is what I care about the most. It is where I live, every day. The current draft does not accurately or clearly express what I believe. It sounds like it was written by a committee. It is all true, but it puts the emphasis in the wrong place. Honestly, it sounds like it could have been written by a committee consisting of members of a more liberal denomination who were forced to give "lip service" to the notion of "making disciples" but who care more about social activism - "compassion" "social justice."

I'd suggest a complete rewrite: The central mission of the church is defined in the Great Commission - "make disciples ... teaching them to obey all I have commanded." That is our job description. So, "making obedient disciples" should come first -- that is our critical mission. The laundry list of other items, if it is to be included, should come after, and be subordinate to making disciples. Honestly, once you start making a list, you put yourself in an impossible position. How do you decide to include some and exclude others of Jesus' commands. For example, the drafters have chosen to include "acting with compassion toward the poor and needy, seeking justice for the oppressed." These are, of course, important, valid, Biblical commands. But, they have chosen to exclude many, many other important Biblical commands: things like "husbands loving their wives", "children respecting their parents", "maintaining purity in sexual relations", "telling the truth to one another", "submitting to governmental authorities", "always being ready to give a defense for the hope that is in you", "exercising self-control in all things", "taking up your cross and following Jesus", "fleeing temptation", "praying for one another", "rejoicing in suffering." The proposed text reflects an implicit priority decision, that, in Christian living "acting with compassion toward the poor and needy, seeking justice for the oppressed" is more important than those other things. I don't believe there is any Biblical basis for that priority decision. If we're going to treat some of Jesus' commands as more important than others, it ought to be the commands Jesus treated as most important: "Make disciples... teaching them to obey all I have commanded."

As it currently stands, I prefer the existing statement of faith to the proposed revision.

Thanks for your consideration.

Mark Aspinwall

Although I've expressed in different forums my opinion that the process by which this proposed SOF has emerged is flawed (top down rather than bottom up), we are nevertheless experiencing positive results as we begin as a church to review what we say we believe.

Within the past two months of receiving the first draft, we have had three forums to discuss our current SOF and the first (& now second) draft SOF. Our elders devoted several hours to considering the rationale, need, and substance of the draft. Our ministry leaders reviewed our current SOF, discussing what we appreciated about it and what we felt could use "refreshment". And this past Sunday night we invited the whole church family to gather for an hour and a half of discussion along the very same lines.

All three forums have confirmed the value and necessity of congregationalism as a biblical and practical method of discerning God's leading of our local church. Listening to God's Spirit speak through his people showed this pastor how limited my own perspective can often be and how I need (and God's church needs) the insights and contributions of every Spirit-filled and Spirit-equipped member.

I commend to the (as yet) autonomous churches of our movement a process of reflection upon our SOF as a local church that allows each member to speak out and values what each says. You not only learn from this process, but you validate the principle of congregationalism that has been a hallmark of our movement for over 50 years...and I pray will continue to be so for many more.

I affirm that our statement of faith (SOF) has needed attention. This is a good start in that direction. Thanks for your work on it.

If the purpose of our SOF is to describe the theological foundations of the EFCA movement, then I think it would be better to organize it according to theological categories (God, humanity, sin, bibliology, church, etc.) rather than trying to wrap it around a theme such as the gospel--as signficant as that theme is. Perhaps one of the advantages of using that wrapping is that the SOF becomes preachable. However, that kind of packaging has a downside. I think the gospel theme dilutes the broader focus and actually weakens the theological significance of some otherwise crucial theological statements in the SOF. As just one example, it is indeed true that the gospel is authoritatively announced in Scriptures (SOF#2). But the heading of SOF#2 () does not summarize SOF#2. That which is actually delivered in the content of SOF#2 is different than what is announced in the heading. That is, Scriptures authoritatively address and announce much more than just the gospel (e.g., God, sin, salvation, etc.). The heading makes SOF#2 feel like a bait and switch maneuver. I think the same can be said for a number of other paragraphs in the SOF. The gospel theme seems artificial.

I would suggest there is a confusion in theological methodology here. Perhaps this confusion is sourced in the preamble where the proposed SOF places theology within the realm of the gospel, as if the gospel gives rise to theological convictions and so has some kind of priority over theology. Is that not putting the cart before the horse? I think it should be the other way around: good theology generates correct understanding of the gospel, gospel proclamation, and the clothing of that gospel with community (churches). I sense the order of priority is reversed in the preamble, making the gospel the forced theme of the entire SOF.

Or perhaps what I am sensing to be a confusion in theological methodology is sourced in identifying the theological center of the EFCA as the gospel. That strikes me as a bit reductionistic. Would it not be better to state that the theological center of the EFCA is Jesus Christ himself? What would the SOF look like if you methodologically wrapped it around the Lord of the Church instead of the gospel proclaimed by the church? Is not this what the biblical writers do? Just a thought...

Respectfully,
--Dale Little (Tokyo)

Come on Jeff! The original SOF article 10 reading "every local church has the right under Christ to decide and govern its own affairs" has not been reworded and combined into other aticles. It has been entirely left out. My point still stands. By removing it from the SOF we forfeit that distinctive.

Dear Family,

A couple of brief comments.

1) We are at the start of the process not close to the end. Keep the dialog going.

2) This process that we as a denomination have started down is congregational government at the macro level. Just like in our churches there will be people that affirm all that we as leaders want to do and there are those who will threaten to leave. In the end when the vote is take we trust that the Holy Spirit has led. If we as pastors trust the Holy Spirit to lead our congregations through this process can we expect less to happen on a national level? Much prayer will be needed.

3) One of the conclusions that I had after the mid-Winter Ministerial was that we are a broader movement than I thought and thus we are not who we were in 1950 and this is an attempt to capture that in writing.

For the SHC: It is confussing as to whether the headings are to be part of the SOF or not. If you don't want to get rid of them (which I would recommend) I would suggest getting rid of the first "We believe:" since it is in each point and moving the numbers down from the heading to the point.

In Him,
Pastor Todd Harder
EFC of Aberdeen, SD

As a layman I choose not to "blog" theology, but to address a few pragmatic points primarily of process, form and function.

AUDIENCE: My first question of the first draft was, "Have they really considered who the primary audience of this document is? Is it primarily an internal leadership document that serves first as a guide for decision making and setting direction at the denominational level? Is the primary audience the constituents (members and attenders) of the local churches? Or is the primary audience the world outside the EFCA that is looking in too see what this denomination stands for, in consideration of a church's potential affiliation with the EFCA or individuals considering becoming a part of a local church. Perhaps the intended audience is all of the above, and more. But whoever you define as your audience, that must guide you in your chosen level and style of articulation. I personally don't believe this document passes the litmus test of readability at all levels.

READABILITY: To address the readability question we recently wrote a 7 point document (in brochure format)which we call "What We Believe." It is a summary of the larger SOF that still backs up this shorter document which is intended for the "masses." We summarized the SOF into what we felt were 7 major points, essentials of the faith - About Scripture, About God, About Mankind, About Salvation, About Baptism & Cummunion, & About the Future. It has proven, second to none, and it's not even close, to be the most used document we developed in recent times. Why? We believe it's because of its readability.

If in the end you choose anything longer that the original document I challenge you to consider a similar step. But please let the decision about the primary audience guide its articulation.

"GOD'S GOSPEL:" And that leads me to "God's Gospel." Generally its been the laity that I have conversed with that have wondered, "Why? What does that really mean? Why not just use the word 'God'"? One person said, "It almost chokes me with it's overuse."

APPROPRIATENESS OF EDIT: Regarding the need for re-working/editing the document - yes of course, by all means! No document aside from scripture itself can remain maximally effective outside of the culture in which it was created. One of the most basic principles of missions is to work diligently to contextualize the gospel to the "target culture", so we must contextualize this document to culture of our day. And of course in no way do I suggest compromise of the essentials of our faith as we know them.

ESSENTIALS VS. NON-ESSENTIALS: I agree with several other bloggers. Let's strive for unity of the essentials, and ongoing edifying dialogue of the non-essentials.

DEADLINE: One last point. I strongly urge consideration of moving the target date for completion of this process back to 2008. We must not allow the 2007 target date to limit the full maturation of this document. I believe if we give it another year we'll have both a better document and stronger unity of the decision, whatever it is.

Thank you.

David Viland,
Church Administrator
Bethel Free Church, Fargo, ND

The original SOF was terse, a virtue in my opinion. The revised SOF is wordy. The bullet points using the word Gospel are inaccessible to me. They in no way hint as to the content to come. I am not even sure I know what the writers mean by the word gospel, a word I used to think I understood. I have never heard it used in this fashion before and I find it strange. At one point someone used the word "narrative" to describe this SOF. I do not want a narrative for a SOF; I want a simple, short statement.

Naomi Claggett, member of Hope Fellowship EFC, Newport, NH.

As a missionary serving the EFCA IM, I appreciate the change of article ten to include how an individual responds to God's gospel. I was concerned when I did not find faith and repentance in the first draft. Good work!

In contrast to Tim Olson's remarks above, I think it's much too simplistic to equate pre-millenialism with a conservative view of Scripture. If we truly want to live up to our value of "Believers all and all believers," then we cannot exclude such a large part of the evangelical community based on prejudices against their millenial view. At a recent candidates school of the International Mission, we lost a otherwise good candidate because he held the amillenial view. This needs to stop.

On the theme of opening the Free Church to a larger part of the evangelical community , I would love to see the Free Church work toward being a denomination that could receive any church that holds to the essentials of the evangelical faith--roughly equal to the NAE. Is this not what we say we already believe in theory? Why not apply it in practice? I think God would be glorified by such an expression of unity in his church, and we would be enriched by the diversity. As a former Southern Baptist, one thing that attracted me to attend TEDS was the evangelical pluralism. I would like to see us continue to move toward being a denomination that truly "majors on the majors" and gives freedom on the minors.

David Lively
EFCA IM missionary
Mostar, Bosnia-Herzegovina

I have grown up in the E Free Church and it always will have a very special place in my heart. The real issue I have is in the second revision you say people have been accused of "fudging". Why are we not demanding integrity from the beginning if we know these people are fudging? Instead, we are changing the whole wording of the doctrinal statement just so people aren't "fudging". Isn't "fudging" just a warmed over way of saying "lying"? Have these people been lying by signing a statement they don't agree with? I am young and inexperienced, but I feel you may be doing exactly what you said you are not doing, you may be sacrificing purity for the sake of unity, when we stand before God in the end (and we will) will it be worth the loss of purity? I beg of you to think on that before a decision is made.

David Flug M.Div.(06' grad)
Des Moines, IA

How and by what means you think the Kingdom of God will take visible shape on the earth is not a minor issue. The over-arching theme of the entire Bible is the Kingdom of God.

Whether our mission as an association of churches is to conquer and re-structure unbelieving society according to Biblical law prior to the Second Coming -- which is the conclusion you get when you apply the kingdom prophecies to the Church -- is not a minor issue.

Whether we should formally approve the kind of inventive hermeneutics that a-millennialism demands, because the scriptures must be bent to fit the "Israel becomes Christianity" presupposition, is not a minor issue.

Trying to emulate the NAE is wrong, because we are a specific association of churches. The NAE doesn't baptize, serve the Table, ordain ministers, or administer discipline. The NAE isn't a church; it is an inferior organization to the Church. So it isn't a proper pattern for a church, or group of churches, to follow. The New Testament lays out the standards and procedures for churches. Should we drop everything out of our SOF that defines church-related principles and practices? Should we say nothing about baptism, the Lord's Supper, and who the proper members of our congregations are? No. And that's because we're a church, not a parachurch agency.

The main comment that I have is simply to say "thank you" to the folks who continue to work on this document; to the EFCA, for having the courage to take up this daunting task in the first place, knowing the potential for disunity---but also recognizing the need; to those who love the Lord and this denomination and who are willing to debate/discuss in a Christlike spirit; and to the Lord, Who has chosen, in His wisdom, frail folks like us to serve Him in this way.

As at least one or two have suggested, a SOF is written to express timeless truths in a way that addresses current realities. I'm thrilled, for instance, to see that Christ's death as "a" sacrifice for our sins is now His death as "the" sacrifice; this addresses contemporary pluralism, an issue that is far more active now than 50+ years ago.

I haven't dug deeply into this whole thing yet, but I'm just glad that we're having this discussion. And Greg...you're a brave man...

I have a few questions about all of this:
-Who decided that the Statement of Faith was in need of revision?
-What were the criteria used to make that determination?
-What is the purpose of [motivation for?] revising the Statement of Faith?
-What is "wrong" with the existing Statement of Faith?
-What is the timeframe for this decision and why?
-What are the ramifications for members who have already declared that they agree with the existing Statement of Faith when they joined the Church?
I have been closely observing the recent innovations in the Episcopal, Evangelical Lutheran, and United Methodist Churches [among others]. I am alarmed that recent radical changes in their Churches were prefaced by decades of gradual and very subtle changes in their core documents. This should give us all pause.

Subtle changes can and do have dramatic and long term effects which may not become evident for decades. The trend observable in Church history, with the glaring and glorious exception of the early Ecumenical Councils and later Protestant Reformers, is for such changes to have a detrimental impact.

I suppose my primary questions can be summarized by asking, ‘Why change and why now?’

In response to George Husted, who is concerned that altering our SoF may have negative consequences, with respect, I would like to point out that the history of the first five centuries is exactly that of adjusting statements of faith to meet up with new challenges.

New issues have arisen since the 1950 SoF was composed: postmodernism, open theism and many others. It is this that has prompted many, including me, to hope for a revision of our SoF.

There is nothing "wrong" with the 1950 SoF except that it could not anticipate new issues that have arisen since.

I think the Preamble addresses very well why we need to consider some revisions.

I also join with several others on this blog in commending Rev. Strand and the Committee for encouraging serious theological discussion in the EFCA.

Finally, it would not bother me if this discussion continued for another five years before we come to some kind of Conference vote.

Dr Ernest Manges
EFCA-IM Philippines.

I am pleased that we are activley engaging in theology as a denomination. Our current SOF has set the standard for evangelical orginizations(para-church) for over fifty years.ANd a clear statement, in a simple fasion. Simple does not mean easy-just simple.

My great coincern has to do with our unique denominational structure.

This does not appear to be a grass roots movement but a "Top down" activity. The only people that I have run into that want changes are those who are coming into the Free from other denominations and church experiences.They wish to make us into thier image and not conform to ours.

I have been aproached by Churches in other denominations and have turn them down because my beliefs would be in conflict with some of thier core doctrines. I do this because I respect thier destinctives.

It seems that it is vogue to be reformed (or reformed light) in the semminaries and within those who consider themselves to be higher thinkers. This process does smack of that leaning.

Eschatology does show ones bibliology. To exclude a clear millenial statement for some obscure"glorious" statement leaves alot to be desired.

There will be a backlash from the membership of the EFC. The folks, the bread and butter involved members will react to this. They will also see this as yet another step towards weakening our Denomination towards a more liberalized group, that becomes fractured from the folks in the pews.

This is a good process. But be ready, Sven & Olie will make thier hearts and minds known.

The sooner this process goes in front the Churches the better.

One area I would like to see dealt with is our weak aproach towards baptism. An ordinace is a law or commandment. How can one be a member in a congragational system if they do not keep the ordinces. We just have two, let's honor Christ with sincerity of action and not just talk. I doupt that there is a state in this union that mistakes membership with in the EFCA with voting rights, land ownership, and taxes. State church issues like this are not relevant to the EFCA. We do not have the ability to see one's heart but we can see thier obedience to the ordinances.

Well that is all for my ramblings.

Shapening Iron

Pastor CJ Addis Kings EFC, Hanford CA

I appreciate all the work that has gone into this refreshing and am excited about the proposed changes. I think focusing the Statement on the Gospel is entirely apprpriate and helpful.

I am also glad to see a particular millenial view taken out of the Statement. I've had potential members and leaders question how seriously we take "majoring on the majors" because of Article 11.

I understand that a number are concerned about dropping the premil statement. For those who think this is a bad idea, can you help me understand:

Is premillenialism absoultely *central* to evangelical faith? Why?

Why can we "agree to disagree" on baptism but not on the millenium?

Our churches already have plenty of members who aren't pre-mil. How would the health of the EFCA be threatened by a pastor with an a-mil or post-mil view?

Might not the EFCA benefit from the gifts and service of faithful leaders who currently can't serve simply because of their millenial views?

Do we really have credibility on our first two Distinctives if we are exclusive and separatistic about millenial views?

Given that eschatology is notoriously difficult to interpret, has caused division in the church, and has been an area of disagreement among Christians for centuries, is it so wrong to opt for humility and openness here?

Greetings.

For those of you with the "fudging" or "integrity" question I just thought it might be helpful to point out to you a fact and a possible scenario.

Fact: We are made up of autonomus churhes, which means that not all of our pastors are ordained by the EFCA, which in turn means that you do not have to be ordained by the EFCA to pastor an EFCA church. I would hazard a guess that the percentage that are not is higher than most of us realize.

Scenario: A church calls a pastor and he serves that congregation for 5+ years and he decides to go through the ordination process (which is a real pleasure :) and it comes out that his understanding of a particular statement doesn't quite line up with the DBOMS or BOMS. He and his church thought that his position was in line with the statement but it is not. What do you do?

For those with the frustration that this is top down: How do you lead in your churches? Does everything come from the "gras roots" up? Or does the pastor/elders set the vision/direction and that is affirmed by the congregation? Initially from my point of view this was not necessary, but I have become convinced that I did not have a vantage point that allowed me to capture a picture of our entire denomination. I believe that those who have the vantage point are bringing this discussion to the table just as I do at the local level. As I have said before this is the beginning of the discussion not something that is being forced upon us at the end of the process. Open honest dialog cannot hurt us as a denomination and if we gain a deeper understanding of who we are we will benefit greatly.

Your brother in Christ,
Pastor Todd Harder
EFC of Aberdeen, SD

I have read all of the comments so far and some of them twice. It is phenomenal to me that few, if any, have asked what the Word has to say!

That constitutes my greatest concern about the
"refreshment" of the Statement of Faith. If Premillenialism, for example, is to be dropped, give a hermeneutic and Biblical support for such an action! The Free Church, from its inception asked "WHERE IS IT WRITTEN?" Where is this question in this blog site? Reasons such as "no other great creeds have it" or "a statistical analysis of Evangelicals indicates that it is not one of the essentials that we agree on," or, even "it makes fellowship with other Evangelicals difficult" simply cannot be our reason for change! On the other hand, that it will not play well with Sven and Ole cannot be our reason for not making a change either! Not in a fellowship of churches that hold so strongly to inerrancy. We must not miss the forest for the trees here! In the very process of "refreshing" our SOF the Scriptures are being placed in an inferior position. H O W you take an action is as important to consider as the action itself.

Much has been stated about how daring this "refreshed" Statement of Faith is. I see it as far more daring to ask again and again, "WHERE IS IT WRITTEN?"

My Amill friends (I meet with them for prayer every week) have never found my Premillenial stance objectionable. I work with them constantly on all-city crusades, outreaches, social action, Communion, and most of all reading the Word together and praying.

Is it not intriguing that my Orthodox Presbyterian friend is asking me to write an article in his newsletter? Not such a surprise when one considers that R.C.Sproule is, even as I write, participating in a conference with John MacArthur, a known Premillenialist. The book by John Piper (also extremely popular speaker at Amillenialists' conferences) "The Justification of God" includes a very clear presentation of the permanent place of Israel in God's plan. Consider as well Alistair Begg, and Joe Stowell, (both who are Premillenialists) that they are highly honored among the Amillenialists.

It is time to ask where this need for homogenization comes from. What is the basis, the reason?

Dr. Woodbridge told us at the conference that the first three centuries of the church were Premill. That's 300 years! Have the conclusions reached since the time of Jesus, Peter, Paul, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and the Patriarchs always been to the betterment of the Church? Why did the REFORMATION have to look backwards (not toward tradition but toward the Word?).

Dr. Osborne said at the conference in Minneapolis that 80% of Scripture supports a Premill position. Thank God for his integrity! At what percentage does a doctrine reach the point of "essential?"

I am deeply concerned about the quality of writing in the document, its wordiness, and, frankly, its logic. I see the current SOF as pithy and solid in contrast.

If we are to change, give us Biblical warrant to do so. We are of those who believe the Evangel, indeed, the "Good News" presented unchangeably in God's Word.

In its current condition the "refreshed" SOF should not be presented at the Free Church National Conference in Denver because its very presentation will lower our reliance on the inerrant Word of God.

The study and the discussion must go on. I am not opposed to change. But base it on the fact that the changeless Word of God mandates it!

II Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." WOW! WHAT A GUARANTEE! Let's use it!

Hey there Jeff S.

A member that is not premill has either changed his position or was not sincerely discipled within our fellowship.

To the strengthening of the document...

Make those areas that deal with potential threats (postmodernism & open theism) stronger. Do not weaken our historical identity. I have friends who are from the African continent who hold to our SOF with out cultural difficulties. Being premill and having immanency, as a core to our every day faith is a fundamental of the EFCA. Being congregational is a reform that the reformers did not approve of. Is this up for grabs? It may be in the future as culture changes. We are not a slave to the whims of culture, or even Christian pop culture.

As far as being more open to a wider evangelical audience; then why don’t we just accept the “The Lausanne Covenant”.(hee-hee). Just kiddin’. But think about it… are we really trying to find commonality on all points of our SOF? Distinctives by nature are distinct. I for one appreciate denominational differences. A homogenized faith seems bland and unenergetic. The fact that we are Free to examine the issues and aggressively dialogue, makes me even more appreciative of this denomination and the ordination that I am under.

Why would some one want to be EvFree, if they desired to change areas that are unifying for those within the fellowship and distinctive. We are already a rather unusual group because our theology is not only about what we say we believe, but what we do not say about what we hold dear (Argument of Silence). Often, I have been asked if the EFCA is Armenian or Calvinistic. I say with a smile and a wink “Yes”. I enjoy that we make room, but we are not with out clarity.

If at the end of this a process we decide to stay with our current SOF that would be OK with me. I would seek to move more towards clarity, than to remove distinctives. This is the EFCA – the Evangelical Free Church of America not the EFCW (Evangelical Free Church of the World). We exist with in a plurality of Churches in this country. Evangelicals have choices. We are free to partner with all sorts of evangelicals, but they should not feel free to demand that we should change for their comfort. If I were tending towards a more reformed theology and conviction I would consider the wonderfully evangelical denominations of the Evangelical Presbyterians, or the PCA or even the Orthodox Presbyterians.

Life is all about choices. We have the opportunity to be distinct yet partner with other evangelicals.

I am concerned that eschatology is being relegated to a lesser theology. We have two statements about eschatology. One deals with each person’s personal future destiny and the other with the corporate destiny of this covenant community (the Church) not Israel. If we cannot speak authoritatively on corporate eschatology, then it will not be long before we attack personal eschatology. Once that happens…”Katie bar the Door”. Eschatology does matter. With the absence of or millennial statement we must say something. The change to “glorious” sound all sort of spiritual but it does not come with a clear definition. A millennial statement does. And believe me there will always be some sort of millennial belief stated or otherwise that that will lend towards our praxis.

Well Jeff as long as you are asking questions and seeking answers I for one am glad your are amongst the Free. Feel free to act on your convictions, and seek fellowship for the purposes of Christ. Always seek what “finds it’s legs in the Bible”. In eschatology we find our hope.

Being sharpened and Lovin’ it

Pastor CJ Addis
Kings EFC

Dearest Brother Angus,

I assume that you would affirm our distinctive of "All believers, but believers only" on the one hand and yet would also affirm that your Amill friends are truly members of Christ's body. Would you please give me a biblical defense of holding these two thoughts and a requirement of premill for membership? (I will admit that in the Welcome to the Family classes that I have taught this obvious tention has never been questioned. People just simply didn't join if they couldn't affirm all 12 points.)

Maybe you should propose that we drop the distinctive of "All believers, but believers only" since this is the one that seems to be causing this stir:)

Asking in His Grace,
Curious in South Dakota,
Todd Harder

Three Comments:

1. Where the removal of a tribulational position reflects a change that exists already in the EFCA, there is no current presence of A-Mil or Post-Mil pastors or leaders. This is a distinction worth pointing out. In this case (no millenial stance), the SOF leads change. In the former (tribulation options) it follows them.

2. Has anyone thought about whether having no millennial positon, matched with the new #2 "...ultimate authority that stands over every realm of human knowledge and endeavor..." leaves an opening for Reconstructionist Theology ?

3. Church governance is removed, but no document other than the SOF has the visibility that matters with regard to church governance - will we adopt a statement that clarifies the EFCA Polity parameters? the articles of incorporation are pretty much invisible to most of us. There is a changing stand on this in the churches over against 20 years ago.

Please let me say a little about my own background. I was raised in Southern Baptist Church in Texas. The churches I have belonged to have all been very nurturing and encouraging churches. However, over the past couple of decades, our churches have experienced a significant amount of tension as we have struggled through issues that have produced a significant amount of division among us. During the past few years I have attempted to understand better the approach of other denominations to potentially divisive issues. I was greatly encouraged to learn more about the Evangelical Free Church. I myself find great wisdom in the statement: "In essentials, unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." I believe these priorities can do so much to help us experience true oneness for the glory of God and our witness to the world.

I must say that as I have looked at your statement of faith over the past few years, the one aspect of it that seemed to run contrary to these priorities was the statement concerning premillennialism. As I look back through Church history, I find a number of individuals whom God used in very powerful ways who held differing understandings of eschatology. Knowing your commitment to the unity of the Body of Christ, I believed it would be only a matter of time before you modified this part of your statement of faith. I am very grateful for this modification and I pray it will serve to help unify all who embrace the most basic essentials of the faith.

My prayers are with you. Thank you so much for all you mean to the kingdom of God.

Your Friend and Brother in Christ,
Chet Taylor

two stories i forgot to add

1. my book group with three reformed pastors (pca, crc) said, "Great, now some of our guys can join the EFCA".

2. while visiting a student from my church (Bethany EFC Madison WI) at Trinity, I asked his seminary friends what they thought. One said, "I think it is great. It will allow me to stay in the EFCA because last semester I became A-Mil."

CJ wrote, "A member that is not premill has either changed his position or was not sincerely discipled within our fellowship.

In rereading Olson's Believers Only, it's quite clear the the Free Churches didn't make membership requirements beyond spiritual regeneration.

Do we really want to say we wouldn't ordain Jonathan Edwards, or even accept him into membership? This goes back to my earlier question: Is premil central to evangelical faith?

I understand premillenialism is a dearly held belief. I am premil. But I am also curious as to why it is so important -- especially when we are willing to disagree over Reformed vs. Arminian, infant vs. believer baptism, and many other doctrines.

I would suggest that our real distinction is not in being premil, but in being inclusive and non-separatistic about things that matter very much to us individually but aren't central to following Christ.

Yo der hey,

Does ones millennial view have an effect on their ecclesiology? Is there a denomination or church group that holds to a post mill or Amill view that is congregational? I admit, I do not have full knowledge on this; but I can’t think of any.

As for being separatists, let’s be honest… Being part of the EFC was not an option for J Edwards. I do not think in regards to eschatology, that Jonathan Edwards was to be admired. In his writings he seemed to think that the millennial rule would happen in a non physical way at some time in the future from his view point. He went so far as to put a time line on it (250 years - Some Thoughts Concerning the Revival (1742). The emergence of eschatology apart from some sort of church rule over creation as Christ’s agents was not yet developed nor a wide spread movement (see Darby 1800-1882).

We do partner in so many ways with other evangelicals through out the world that we are hardly separating from them. However in our congregational churches the members are to hold to the SOF. I would suggest that the founding fathers and sisters (who were Lutheran) did separate over eschatology. It is clear that ones millennial view did lead to church systems that were not acceptable to them. Nor frankly, are they to me.

As Dave Carlson pointed out, there are those that while attending TEDS have changed their millennial view and find themselves at odds with their home church and the denomination. Not only that, but also some of their bibliology and the their views of omniscience. Graduation does not qualify one for service or membership with in the Free. TEDS is renowned as a cutting edge seminary, that is known for it’s openness and scholarship. When did our ministerial education institutes start serving Christian scholasticism and neglect to reflect the heart of the denomination it exists for. Some of our most solid pastors did not come from TEDS but other seminaries. This process may very well lead to an examination of TEDS as a reflection of the EFCA. Why should we support an institution that is increasingly less in line with the EFCA? Is there a trend here? This seems to be a classic example of what often happens to a denomination that changes from the seminaries and the denominational leaders. I hope this is not the case.

“In rereading Olson's Believers Only, it's quite clear that the Free Churches didn't make membership requirements beyond spiritual regeneration.” This is simply not the case. Bibliology, pneumatology and ecclesiology were all part of what makes some one a member of the local Free Churches. I agree that we should strengthen our statements and be more consistent. Ramesh Richards says and I agree, “Just because you are saved, does not mean you are consistent”. I find this true in me and with in all believers I have fellowshipped with. But that does not mean that we do not move towards consistency and clarity. Openness, for the sake of being open should not be our overriding concern. We should seek unity and respect. I respect those who by conviction seek to find unity rather than a forced sense of conformity.

The variety of Choices today did not exist for our Swedish and Norwegian brethren. They found their language, culture and experience made it necessary for them to come together as Free churches, to partner in missions, evangelism and ministerial education. The opposite is true today. There are a so many choices one may make today. I choose to partner with any and all evangelicals to the extent that the context of ministry aligns with my stated values and does not come in conflict with my commitment to the EFCA and my ministerial pledge.

The addition in the revision of the SOF, to include “seeking justice for the oppressed.” Wow. Is this seriously where we are going as churches and a denomination? Define oppressed people? Define what justice? The support for these as essentials comes from the Mosaic covenant with the covenant people Israel. They had a national identity (and covenantal expectation). Do we have the same? While we are to be “good neighbors” and by good, I mean morally right (and so does the NT), are we really seeking to conform the world to a Christian image? Do y’all see where this is leading?

The more we discuss the SOF, the more I appreciate the current statement. However, anytime we can engage in healthy discussion of theology and philosophy at this level I am encouraged. We are not doomed to follow the other denominations that sought openness. Not if we seek to be biblical and honest about who we are.

Iron sharpens iron, by direct and intentional striking and application of heat for a purpose.

Thanks for your participation in making me a sharper tool for Christ.

Stayin On Course

Pastor CJ Addis
Kings EFC

Greetings Brother Todd Harder,

Sorry I have not responded earlier. I have been out of the office on an outreach to the military and sponsoring Franklin Graham coming to our town. Ironically, I am working with Amills and Premills. I share that to point out my close, sweet fellowship with my fellow warriors for the faith. Incidentally, I have beloved Christian family who are both Lutheran and PCA. Furthermore, my accountability persons are Lutheran and Episcopal. I, myself am happy in my Evangelical Free Church membership, and in my Calvinism.

Fellowship with the diversity within the Body of Christ has never been a problem for me. Nor have I ever had a problem considering Christians who believe in doctrines quite at variance with the Free Church as “truly members of Christ’s body.” I would not expect them to allow me into full membership in their churches and they would not expect to be part of my church leadership or even seek membership in my church. Why? They do not agree with our doctrine.

You ask, “Would you please give me a biblical defense of holding these two thoughts (affirming our distinctive of ‘All believers, but believers only’ on the one hand and yet …also affirming that my Amill friends are truly members of Christ’s body) and a requirement of premill for membership?” Todd, I think this is an excellent question, but I am not sure I can be an apologist for the statement “All believers, but believers only” as if it is a standard for membership. Nevertheless, I will try to cut to the chase and answer as best I can.

I find your question difficult to get at. Let me try this: “Angus, do you believe there should be different denominations?” No. But there are. In fact, in my days at Westmont College, I found a group of extremely militant Reformed brethren who pressed me very hard to agree with EVERY one of their tenets. It took deep and intensive study of the Word for me to agree with SOME of their tenets. I find, quite frankly, that the Free Church has been a great refuge FROM some of my harsher Reformed brothers. I am glad that the Free Church has insisted on Biblical bases even though it may not lead to perfect systematics. They, my Reformed, Amill brethren, are some of the finest Christians in the world. But, I really don’t want to be pressed to agree with all that their systematics lead them to believe. Why? Because I don’t find all of the beliefs they deduce written in the Word.

“Angus, do you believe in having a standard for membership that is not written in the Bible?” Yes. I believe in the Trinity. I also believe in the Church. Yet, neither word occurs in the Bible. But I see that they are taught in the Word. I believe in allowing for various positions on Calvinism vs. Arminianism for the same reason. My Amill brethren do not. Dr. Osborne said, at our MidWinter in Minneapolis, “The Scripture is 50-50 with regard to the Calv. vs Arm. Controversy.” Based on Dr.Osborne’s statement, I would say my Amill brethren are unbiblical in requiring Reformed Calvinism for membership. However, when it comes to Premill, Dr.Osborne said at our MidWinter in Minneapolis, “The Scripture is 80-20 in support of Premill.” Based on this, I would say it is biblical to require that for membership.

“Angus, do you believe every Christian church should require Premill to be a member?” No. I think it would cause real hardship to those who hold a Reformed position in a Reformed denomination. However, I believe every Christian church that calls itself Biblically based should require Premil to be a member. Do they? No. Are they therefore non-believers? No; just incomplete, in my opinion, in their understanding of the Word. They too believe that I am incomplete in my understanding and believe I maintain contradictory doctrine because it is not systematic. I would only answer that the Scripture comes before systematics and no system of man can completely grasp all that the Word says.

“Angus, are you a dispensationalist?” No. I was brought up in a strongly Dispensational church. However, I could not find ALL of its tenets in the Bible anymore than I could find ALL of the Reformed systematic in the Bible. I am thankful for the Free Church in that it is a place where Pre,Post,Mid, and PreWrath Tribulational positions are taken because none of them are completely clear in the Word (they don’t measure up to Dr.Osborne’s 80/20 rule).

So, back to your question: how can I hold a standard for membership that I don’t hold for participating in Evangelical Ministerials (I do not participate in non-Evangelical ministerials), allowing people to enter the church, listen to messages, be part of small groups, and take part in communion? For the same reason that Jesus said, “I have more to share with you but you cannot bear it yet.” For the same reason that Paul told Timothy to require of Deacons (!) “holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.” (1 Tim 3:9) He did not require that of the general populace. He had different standards. Paul says “I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” (Romans 14:14) I really can see how someone could be sincerely different from me on doctrine, and be a Christian. But their existence does not mandate that my denomination drop a Biblical doctrine, or that I allow people to become members (and then teachers) who hold positions at variance to the Statement of Faith of the Evangelical Free Church of America.

Sola fidei! Sola gratia! SOLA SCRIPTURA, SOLA DEO GLORIA!

Dr. Angus McDonald

I noticed on the second revision that point ten added wording about repentance. I suggest that this be reconsidered.

"Repent" and "return" are words primarily used in Scripture when addressing Jewish audiences to call them back to their Deuteronomy 28-30 covenant with God. (I know, I said “covenant” – don’t worry I am still dispensational.) If you watch closely in Acts, Gentiles are never instructed to “repent,” rather they are called to “believe.” If that is the case, then why insert “repent” between “believe” and “receive” in our doctrinal position?

A good resource for the discussion of this particular issue would be “Repentance in Acts in Light of Deuteronomy 30” by Dr. Charlie Baylis (A Prof at Dallas Theological Seminary.) It can be viewed online in a PDF format at:
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/05-Deuteronomy/Text/Articles/Baylis-Repent-Dt30-MTJ.pdf

Thanks for the opportunity to participate in the discussion. I look forward to your comments on this issue.

Tim Wagner
Koinonia Church
Los Angeles, CA

Clarifying question for Dr. McDonald:

In what way do you mean that the word "Church" doesn't appear in the Bible (5th paragraph)?

Please clarify.

-Matt Mitchell

Greetings Tim,

The word "church," as Dr. Stott has pointed out in his book, "One People," actually came out of the secular world. The word we translate "church" comes from the word ekklesia, as you know, which means "called out ones."

I am so impressed with the love our Lord Jesus Christ had and has for His Church. The passage about the Church, the Bride of Christ, in Ephesians 5 is filled with the word ekklesian (vss. 24, 25, 27, 29, and 32). Incidentally, that is why I capitalize the word Church when it applies to the Bride of Christ, the whole Church. This is lacking the "refreshed" SOF, an oversight that I consider difficient because it does not give the Bride the glory that our LORD gave her in Ephesians 5:27.

Dear Brother Angus,

Thank you for taking the time to attempt to answer my question. It is an interesting one to wrestle with is it not?

Please bear with me again as I give some discussion and then ask yet another question.

At the risk of sounding heretical let me make the following observation: By jumping to the biblical analysis of the RSOF too quickly we are allowing the SHC to define that "all believers, but believers only" is the trump card for determining what should and shouldn't be in the SOF and I am wondering if their understanding of our founders use of that statement is inline with the founders. (I know that others have hinted at this but maybe saying it yet another way will make it clearer.) It is my understanding that the "All believers..." statement was one of several rallying cries that led to our current SOF. I guess the question that I have started wrestling with is: "If our founders said 'all believers but believers only' why did they limit themselves to a premill. position?" The SHC hasn't answered that question, but rather has simply said that the founders didn't really intend to limit us with things like premill., so we need to get rid of it. If you buy the SHC definition of our heritage then how can you argue with the RSOF other than to tweak it? But if you do Scripture isn't your trump card, rather "all believers..." is and that leads you to attempt to define the minimum of what it means to be a believer.

Now for my question: Do you think its time to go back and start discussing the history of the EFCA and why all 12 points are in the current SOF? In the end I guess what I am thinking is we need to know: 1) Where we came from, 2) Where we are at currently and 3) where we want to go before we can fully engage in this discussion of the R(e-write)SOF.

What do you think?

Your brother in Christ,
Todd Harder

In a post from March 4, Tim Wagner questioned the appropriateness of a call to repentance to anyone other than Jews, those who had received the old covenant. The notion of repentance being related to the original covenant is very interesting and does seem to inform its meaning. However, there seem to be several places in Acts that speak of repentance relating to Gentiles as well.

When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life." (Acts 11:18)

...how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 20:20-21)

"Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance." (Acts 26:19-21)

[These are also cited in the footnote on page 7 of the second draft revision.]

So, in the particular contexts of the ministry of the OT prophets and John the Baptizer, repenting/turning from sin necessarily meant a return to faithful obedience as defined by the covenant in order to live out their relationship with God.

For Gentiles in Paul's day and ours, repentance is just as pertinent and absolutely necessary as we too must turn from our sin (life on our terms, by our standards, in our power) to rely on the divine provision of righteousness in Christ and find the power for holy living by the Spirit.

I wonder if Tim is concerned that we might be introducing some sort of salvation-by-works idea in the new statement. I think it is clear enough that we believe in justification by faith alone in Christ and his redemptive work alone, which is stated at the end of point #5. The Scriptures simply do not allow us to take repentance out of the call of the gospel, and the apostles clearly did not see it as contradicting a salvation all of grace.

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

CJ - One point of clarification:

I wrote:
“In rereading Olson's Believers Only, it's quite clear that the Free Churches didn't make membership requirements beyond spiritual regeneration.”

You responded:
This is simply not the case.

I don't wish to belabor the point, but I feel the record needs to be set straight here.

Olson is indeed quite clear that the requirement for membership among the Free Churches is evidence of spiritual regeneration. Allow me to quote from Believers Only (Minneapolis: Free Church Publications, 1964):

The emphasis on on the conversion experience led not only to the concpet of a "pure" church but one in which all believers were welcome. (26)

Quoting Daniel Brandenland, head of the denomination in Norway:

"As to qualifications for church membership, we believe that God accepts in His Church as His children everyone who receives Jesus Christ (John 1:12,13)...Our churches are neither holier nor more worthy than God's own Church, and we do not wish to add to His own qualifications for membership...There is only one qualification for membership.
...We hold different views as to a number of questions...To such questions belong baptism, holy communion, and the doctrine of the last things." (27-28)

And quoting Dr. William Bredburg, president of the Theological Seminary of the Swedish Mission Covenant:

"...the local congregation (the ekklesia, according to the Greek) should consist of all those who had experienced a personal faith and assurance of sonship with God. There should be no special doctrine, no special interpretation with regard to baptism or any other doctrine that should erect any barrier to membership. It should be open to all believers in Jesus; otherwise it would become either a territorial church or a sect." (28)

In his section on The International Federation of Free Evangelical Churches (which the EFCA joined in 1960), its second article describes itself as:

...an association of evangelical denominations whose sole requirement for church membership is spiritual life through personal faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, Savior and Lord. (62)

Finally, the subtitle to Olson's work gives a pretty clear indication of the book's perspective:

A successful search for Christian unity: believers ONLY but ALL believers

Churches in the EFCA are free to order their own internal affairs, so your church is free to require full subscription to the Statement of Faith for membership.

But Olson's Believers Only does in fact argue for spiritual regeneration and not full confessional subscription as the basis for local church membership.

Of course I would want to make sure that a believer seeking membership had a good grasp of core Christian doctrine, but I don't think I could deny membership to an amillenial believer -- because I don't think premillenialism is a requirement for saving faith.

A brief observation about the concern about justice and oppression. Apparently, there is the perception that these issues are indicative of a liberal theological slant. That's understandable, I suppose, with the division between the social gospel and fundmentalism a century ago. Part of what keeps my allegiance to the EFCA is our unflinching committment to innerrancy and the "fundamentals."

But justice and oppression are major biblical themes in both Old and New Testaments. Just do a word search. I would encourage anyone who is uncomfortable with these themes to ask themselves if their real concern is biblical fidelity or some other viewpoint? Worldwide, injustice and oppression are major, major issues, and followers of Christ find great comfort and strength in the many strong biblical injunctions against injustice. These followers are far, far more involved in evangelism and conversion than the West. If we as a movement are to become a movement for "all peoples," then we must develop a strong, biblical understanding of justice and understand how to act appropriately with justice, while we maintain our focus on evangelism and biblical fidelity. So those statements, though they may not mean much to people who haven't experienced oppression, are vital for our future.

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

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…

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

According to the preamble of the proposed draft revision, the Committee on Safeguarding our Spiritual Heritage was charged with “strengthening” our Statement of Faith [SoF] that it might be “refreshed and reaffirmed”.

The Committee observed that we are facing increasing “diversity and pluralism with respect to both theology and lifestyle” and that there is a growing sense that ambiguities in the SoF might be exploited by being “interpreted without regard to their historical context”. The committee acknowledges that our existing SoF has by God’s grace kept us from “major theological battles” and that has provided a useful standard of orthodoxy.

Q. In light of the Committee’s acknowledgement that by God’s grace the Current SoF has kept us from “major theological battles”; is EFCA currently facing or is it about to face “major theological battles” if the current Statement of Faith remains unchanged?

Q. If we are not facing “major theological battles” under the current SoF, why are we changing the statement?

Q. If we are facing “major theological battles”, where is the opposition coming from?

Q. If we are facing “major theological battles”, and as the Committee acknowledged our current SoF has provided a useful standard of orthodoxy; what is the source of heterodoxy within our ranks and why has it not been dealt with?

Q. In light of the Committee’s charge to strengthen and reaffirm the existing SoF [acknowledged as providing a useful standard of orthodoxy]; by what warrant do they propose to eliminate the doctrine of “the personal and premillennial and imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” from the existing SoF?

Q. How is the clear and unequivocal current statement that we believe in “the personal and premillennial and imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” kept from a growing sense ambiguity by removing it from the SoF?

Q. How is the clear and unequivocal current statement that we believe in “the personal and premillennial and imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” made safe from being exploited by being “interpreted without regard to…historical context” if it is being completely removed?

Q. How is the clear and unequivocal current statement that we believe in “the personal and premillennial and imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” being strengthened, refreshed, and reaffirmed by being completely removed?

It seems clear to me that the Committee on Safeguarding our Spiritual Heritage has gone beyond its stated purpose of strengthening, refreshing, and reaffirming the existing Statement of Faith. Article 11 of the existing SoF is part of our spiritual heritage. It seems clear that the proposed draft is a departure from our spiritual heritage rather than a measure to safeguard it.

If the intent is to change our doctrine, then it should be stated as such up front and debated as such. However, prior to doing so, I would reemphasize that the committee has already acknowledged that our existing Statement of Faith has by God’s grace kept us from “major theological battles” and that it has also provided a useful standard of orthodoxy. Make no mistake, abandoning the existing SoF is likely to lead us into “major theological battles” rather than protect us from them. It will also be a change to the existing standard of orthodoxy. This change may have significant repercussions given that the current membership of EFCA has affirmed the existing standard as orthodox. Do we hold our convictions so loosely?

The existing doctrinal position of The Evangelical Free Church of America is summarized in our twelve-article Statement of Faith. Article 1 of that statement claims that we believe the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are the Divine and final authority for Christian faith and life. Presumably then, Article 11 is based upon a perceived warrant of Scripture. To change Article 11, and abandon the doctrine contained therein, it will be necessary to demonstrate from Scripture that the doctrine is in error. Is that where we are as a Church?

One item that has been stated in several forums, including this one, but never challenged, is the notion that this process is "top-down". It seems as though we are accepting that idea without really defining what that means, what a "grassroots" approach might look like, and without real knowledge of all of the factors that have led to this "refreshing".

Now I don't know all of the ins and outs of the genesis of this thing---and I seriously doubt that many of us on this thread do either---but I would suggest that there almost certainly has been more "grassroots" to this than some might imagine. Personally, I raised a couple of questions several years back, which my then-DS took back to certain powers-that-be. I'm given to understand that others have done the same. That, to me, suggests that there is likely some level---maybe more than any of us know---of "grassroots" involvement in this process.

Perhaps there are other ways that a truly grassroots movement could have been undertaken, but if I were a betting man---and I'm not, though the SOF doesn't specifically address it!---I'd bet that the national office heard, through one means or another, a lot of these grassroots questions. Whether I'm right or wrong, it'd be interesting to know---and I think that we all ought to consider the possibility that there's more "bottom-up" going on here than we might know...

Glad to be having this discussion!

Byron Harvey
Mercer, PA

I just realized that I was failing to foster a community atmosphere in my posts by not signing off with my full name, city, and state. It was an unintentional oversight. I sincerely apologize.

I would also like to take this opportunity to reassure those reading my comments that they are intended to be respectful, and non-combative. The medium of written communication is very helpful in allowing one to organize one’s thoughts and express coherent logical arguments. Unfortunately, it does not provide non-verbal cues essential to framing the dialogue, and therefore the communication process is potentially marred by the perception of a tone not intended. Please read my comments charitably as they are not intended to give offense, but rather to focus on discovering Truth and discerning the right path.

George Curtis Husted
Deacon at Glastonbury Community Church
East Hartford, CT

I am being refreshed. Not by the new statement of faith but the interaction of thinking brethren of the Evangelical Free Church. Glory hallelujah! Sometimes one gets the "Elijah Syndrome" and wonders if there are any others out there who see or feel the same! But, I see and am thankful that others are thinking, asking "Where is it written?" and praying!

I have just read a 40+ page document by one of our Free Church Superintendents. I was deeply moved.

When he was told by one of the SHC, reacting to his Premill stance, "Our forefathers were wrong, and so are you." he became motivated to see what the Scriptures really say. He was also told by a member of the SHC that this "refreshment" could have happened many years ago, but that it was deemed wise not to do so while Dr.Arnold T.Olson was still alive and with us. That is very interesting insofar as ATO's works are being sighted in support of a "refreshed" SOF. He was decidedly Premill.

I also discovered while reading this 40+ page paper, that 9 of our 22 Superintendents, who have spoken out on this issue, do not support a "refreshed" SOF.

We really need to bathe this whole matter in prayer and approach the Word with renewed vigor. I am doing so and . . . I am being refreshed!

Your Premill/Calvinist (but not Reformed) friend.

Angus

Article 8 of the draft Statement of Faith [SoF] adds, “…seeking justice for the oppressed” as a new “essential” of our faith.

It is true that “seeking justice for the oppressed” is a Biblical mandate. It is written: “Learn to do good; seek justice, reprove the ruthless, defend the orphan, plead for the widow. [Isaiah 1:17 NASB]

However, as can be seen in the passage, we are also mandated in the same breath to “learn to do good”, “defend the orphan”, and “plead for the widow”. These other admonitions carry the same weight for they are spoken in the same breath. Why is “seeking justice for the oppressed” singled out for inclusion in our SoF?

Could we not, with equal justification, add the Scriptural admonition: Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. [1 Corinthians 6:18 NIV]

It is particularly troubling that this innovation to our statement of faith comes at a time when many denominations are struggling with the issue of homosexuality. There has been a concerted effort to forward a pro-homosexual social agenda within many Churches, under the guise of social justice. Pro-homosexual social justice activists posit that gays are victims and that historically, the Church is largely responsible for their status as victims.

I am not suggesting that those who advocate the innovations in Article 8 are pushing a pro-homosexual agenda.

I am pointing out how subtle changes to core documents can be and have already been exploited to the great harm of the Church.

I find it strange that this particular phrase is being added to our SoF while other equally valid and imperative Biblical admonitions are being ignored.

I find it troubling that this innovation exceeds the purview that the Committee on Safeguarding our Spiritual Heritage was given. According to the preamble of the first draft, their task was to “strengthen”, “refresh”, and “reaffirm” the existing Statement of Faith. The draft Article 8 is an innovation not found in the existing SoF. This innovation will become a new measure of orthodoxy within our membership if it is passed.

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.

George Curtis Husted
Deacon at Glastonbury Community Church
East Hartford, CT

I wonder if the introductory paragraph and Article #5 need to address the nature of Christ's saving work more holistically.

More specifically, his perfect, obedient life on earth secured us eternal life just as much as his work on the cross and his resurrection - at least with respect to our justification. See Romans 3:21-22; Romans 4:3,6; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Phil. 3:9; etc. I find Grudem's Systematic Theology (pp. 722-732) very helpful at this point.

With that in mind, why not say in the first paragraph, "...of Jesus Christ, who came and lived on earth, died, and rose again to give us eternal life..."

In similar vein, Doug Moo asserts, "Paul uses "gospel" so generally in some contexts...that it becomes functionally equivalent to "Christ" or God's intervention in Christ. In other words, Paul can sometimes expand the scope of "gospel" to include the very events of which the message speaks. God's sending his Son for the salvation of the world is itself "good news"" (The Epistle to the Romans, p.43).

And in Article #5, we could say, "His perfect life on earth, his shed blood, and his resurrection collectively serve as the only ground for salvation..."

While my own words may be inadequate, I long for us to celebrate Jesus' life on earth in same way we celebrate his work on the cross and resurrection.

I am a very concerned layman attending Portland Avenue EFC in Tacoma, Wa.

I was raised in a liberal denomination where the bible did not really mean what it said. That lead me into agnosticism for almost 25 years.

In 1993, the Lord led me to an Evangelical Free church and I discovered a people who believed and acted on what the bible said. I thank God for the EFCA!

In studying the bible since that time it is clear to me that the current Statement of Faith is right and should not be changed. The bible does not change and the current Statement of Faith is a biblically correct document.

We know that the church will become apostate, and it is happening all around us. I beg you to stand firm!

Hi Angus...Please email me the document you referred to. I would love to read it:
kidskards@msn.com

Mark,

I share your concern regarding the potential of "doctrinal drift" toward apostasy; I disagree with your conclusion that the SOF should not be tinkered with. One example of how the proposed changes clearly strengthen the SOF involves the change from our current wording which says that Christ died on the cross "a" sacrifice for our sins, to the proposed wording which says He is "the" sacrifice. When the original SOF was written, the controversy regarding the exclusivity of Christ had not arisen, at least to nearly the degree we face it in our pluralistic world today. We NEED to say that Jesus is "the" sacrifice for our sins; to leave it as it stands leaves it weaker than it needs to be made.

The Bible---and our defense of its truth---can never change; statements of faith, though, always have a time stamp on them, as they are not crafted absent a cultural context. Our SOF should serve us today...and I for one applaud the fact that we propose strengthening our statement by using the word "the" to describe Christ's sufficient sacrifice for sins.

Byron Harvey
Mercer, PA

Greetings All who read the blog,

I thought it would be interesting to see the response of a Navy SEAL in Iraq who has been reading the blogsite. I have his permission to put his words in. They appear below (with very slight editing):

Angus,

Your timing is good. I don't get much of a chance anymore to check my email. I'm too busy bringing it to the enemy! In fact, chances are you've seen results of it in the news.
I am praying regularily for the church and its committment to the statement of faith. It is such a major issue to me to keep strong the basis of our beliefs in these statements. To think, young guy(s)coming in trying to change things!!?? Keep up the fight Angus, keep up the fight. I think about you often when I am out. I know you'd like to be there too. Recently, I was on a helo and going to do some pretty offensive things and I imagined you there with us and looking out the window knowing the angels are flying right there picking up security to our flanks.
Thanks for the hymn. Sorry to hear about your aunt. Its a tough thing but knowing where she is, we can certainly rejoice. I will talk to ya soon.

Eric

Some people actually live and die for Statements of Faith. Eric is one of those who puts his life on the line. I pray that we carefully consider who we are affecting with our theological decisions. An old saying goes, "A MIST in the pulpit is a FOG in the pew." I don't think anyone of us knows how this debate is wounding the Church, the very Bride of Christ we are supposed to be Shepherding.

prayerfully,

angus

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 they 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 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 is 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 level. 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 changed 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-defing 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 its doctrinal statements should this thing follow the course of revision.

Steve Miller
South Holland, IL

I wish to respond to Mr Husted's worries about the "innovation" of article 8, which includes the phrase "seeking justice for the oppressed." I appreciate the concern he and others have, but I think it is entirely worthy of inclusion in our SoF.

Good theology must never compromise the Biblical message but at the same time good theology must communicate to the culture. Ask any Christian under the age of 25 and they will tell you that it is long overdue for evangelicals to make a formal statement in favor of the oppressed. Or ask any believer in nations like Indonesia or Saudi Arabia or Cuba if they think such a statement worthy of inclusion. As a missionary I know several fellow believers who have suffered greatly from corrupt political structures.

While I do acknowledge that article 8 is an innovation to the 1950 SoF, it certainly is not a novel idea or practice among evangelicals. Indeed helping the most downtrodden was a hallmark by which the church of the first three centuries was known (and was the basis of criticism by some pagan intellectuals of the day). Read Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity for details.

Mr Husted expresses concern that "subtle changes to core documents" may have negative effects. This is true of every SoF that has ever been written. The great creed of Nicea in 325 was "exploited" by Apollinarius and others because of a lack of precision in the area of Christology. The debate raged for more than a century until the definition of Chalcedon in 451. This is exactly why we must always be developing our theology, sharpening it and making certain it speaks to the culture in which we live while never compromising the Biblical basis upon which all proper theology must be built.

Should we relegate our concern for social justice to a minor place, outside of doctrinal essentials? Consider this: the Incarnation of our Savior is announced and celebrated with Mary's Song in Luke 1, which contains this: "He has brought down rulers from their thrones, but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty." Luke 1.52-53. This theme is a major one found in nearly every prophetic book of the OT. Jesus often spoke of the need to show care for the poor and spoke against those who used power to oppress others.

If article 8 is the only change that ends up being adopted, then I think the entire refreshment/ revision process will have been worthwhile. Mr Husted says that if article 8 is adopted, it will "become a new measure of orthodoxy within our membership." To that I say, "yes, let it be so!"

Dr Ernest Manges
EFCA International Mission - Philippines
On home assignment in Grayslake, IL

Thanks to Steve, and the other brothers who are striving to keep the Whole Counsel of God as “essential” within the EFCA. I suppose we could nitpick the current statement to death, but it seems to me to have served us well. Will all these changes really strengthen us, or divide us? Why should the changes stop with this “refreshment” as has happened in other denominations? What really changed within the EFCA to bring up all this controversy? I suspect Steve hit the proverbial nail on the head. Integrity...

“But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; . . . but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who examines our hearts.”

Secure in Christ,
Mark Outson

Brothers,

Please don't misunderstand my concerns about integrity.

I do believe that one's system of hermaneutics is essential to our entire interpretation of scripture. I also believe that every denomination has the right to define, defend, and maintain denominational distinctives.

On the other hand, I don't care if we define ourselves in 12, 10 or 110 different theological points. (There are alot of things that I think are essentials that are NOT defined in the original 12 points!) And I welcome theological debates that sharpen our understanding of both what I believe and what I can glean from others who may differ from me. Given the proper setting, I'm gladly willing to discuss whether or not the original "essentials" need to be ammended (to either include or exclude points) as some of the most important creeds of Christianity reflect various changes in the needs of their contemporary church ages.

What I'm appalled by is that our entire denomination is being split down the middle by a debate that should have taken place 35 years ago before the denomination starting hiring prof's at Trinity that couldn't fully embrace the pre-mill' SOF, before churches hired pastors who could not fully embrace a long-held denominational standard, and before our ministerial students were matriculated who could not even sign the doctrinal statements that is held by the school from which they graduated. My call is for someone to admit the breaking of procedural integrity ("fudging") that has thrown us all into this tragic situation. Unless someone can clarify some things for me, I see this whole mess as a needless and divisive conflict that has broken the unity in both churches, schools, and denominational leadership. Trusts were broken by leadership who knowingly hired non-ascribing prof's, who hushed the problem of non-ascribing pastors, who (for a desire to appear open-minded evangelicals) wanted to appeal to a larger faction than could currently embrace us as legitimate, contemporary evangelicals.

I'm concerned about the procedural integrity on the part of pastors and churches who have either left the historic "essentials" that were clearly defined by the original SOF. Would it not have been better to graciously step aside until a time when these issues would be forced to the floor without creating the unnecessary emotional tearing that have come to both the local and national hearts of a deeply loved tradition of faith?

Unlike past sins of personal behavior that can be forgiven and forgotten in the heart of God, these breaches of precedural integrity are continuing issues that will only make the division of our denomination deeper and more painful. Now we find ourselves, like Nehemiah, having to decide how to deal with divided spiritual and emotional loyalties -- and all of the corresponding heartaches -- that came when men were told to put away non-Jewish wives and children who couldn't speak the language of Judah. Whether we want to admit it or not, there are many of our churches married in the ministry to and deeply love doctinally non-E-Free pastors and, sadly, the children of our "crown jewel" college cannot even speak the same doctrinal language as their eccesiastical fathers any more. Am I asking the leadership to be like Nehemiah and throw everyone out now? Not necessarily, but couldn't most of this pain have been avoided long ago? Maybe it should have never begun in the first place.

I would especially like someone to answer my second concern about the legality of changing our doctrinal statements in churches whose constitutions prohibit any such changes. If all of this conflict has been brought upon the denomination BEFORE considering how it would practicly affect our churches if we CANNOT change, I would be even more disappointed. For one, our church will not shut down and and go through all of the time and costs to re-open just to identify with a doctrinal statement that was unnecessarily changed. Unless I've missed something important in the documents distributed, nothing has been written to address this important practical-legal concern. For our church, wouldn't it be sad if we went through all of this theological rending and then found out that the procedure was flawed and doomed before theology was even discussed? If someone could point to any of the distributed documents that tells churches how to deal with this potential problem, I will be the first to apologize for my ignorance in these two writings.

Steve Miller
South Holland, IL

Howdy from the left coast,

Jeff I hear ya’ man. But I think you have over simplified the issue. Our SOF is not just for membership or church association with in the denomination, but also for the licensing and ordain of ministers, the sending out of missionaries and the arrangement of education for service..

As to membership... We are congregational. Who in our congregation should be allowed to vote? Any saved person? Just come on in and give your testimony and bammo, you’re a member. How old? Surely Dr Olson never mentioned anything about age. A Saved person is a saved person. Right?

“In rereading Olson's Believers Only, it's quite clear that the Free Churches didn't make membership requirements beyond spiritual regeneration.”

I thank God that we are not to be monopolized by the over stretching of that statement. Books are snapshots of ones opinions with in a certain context. As for your quotations from our European brothers well. You have done your research. However none of these churches were unreasonable. Not every believer is fit for membership.

Theologically a person becomes saved when the Holy Spirit regenerates them and illumines them to the extent that they can respond to the call of Christ. They repent of their sin and receive deliverance from the wrath of God. But are they necessarily Trinitarian? What of their Bibliology? Did this process take place and now they look for charismatic gifts to prove their sanctification? What if we have a believer in rebellion to Christ yet he thinks he should retain his membership because of his testimony is true?

Membership in a congregational system is extremely important. The power of calling a pastor and appointing leaders for the board is not to be taken lightly. As it stands now, we have enough differing of opinions and we hold to the current SOF. The change regarding the premill stance will have a direct effect on how and why we do what we do. Immanency does make a difference and I believe that it is entirely biblical and part of our daily hope as believers. Consider the parable of the watchful wedding party. The immanent return of the groom for the bride was an essential theme that our savior was trying to instill in his disciples.

We are the EFCA not the EFCEU. I do not recall any local churches ever voting to be aligned with the The International Federation of Free Evangelical Churches (which the EFCA joined in 1960). That was not the only statement in those articles of fellowship. Our brothers in Europe have struggled to maintain their identity and have found their churches to be marginalized while the EFCA is planting churches in their own country.

The teachings on salvation are a baseline. It is mother’s milk to the soul. But for those coming our of either a state church (reformed church) or the Roman Catholic Church soteriolgy is key. This is however not what we are dealing with here in America. I do not know anyone who does not tie to membership, areas of personal spiritual growth and maturity. Would you want a saved Jr. High boy voting on your church’s issues?

I think it is time that we revisit certain statements with a sense of reason and maturity. Not all people who claim to be saved are in fact saved nor are they if indeed saved fit for membership in a congregational system. Maybe we should therefore get rid of our congregational form of church? The Calvary Chapel churches are good evangelical churches that are definitely not congregational.

Jeff, please consider the context and scope of the things that you read and quote. Our view of end time’s prophecy is precisely why we are not reformed and we are congregational.

I write this to not to get into some sort of personal chess game of EFCA orthodoxy with you but to state my reasons for being part of the EFCA. Those who find themselves at odds with our identity as we are now need to be respectful of who we are, not who they want us o be. For your part consider the options at hand for believers in our country. We have vibrant denominations because we do not seek the lowest common denominator for our local church fellowships. No cone is stopping any EFCA member from have fellowship and ministry with anyone that hold to the core historical statements of the creeds or evangelical confessions. Yet a there are many who would not be comfortable with our stance on the inerrancy of scripture and a closed cannon. We do not have modern apostle and we don’t hold to charismatic gifts for our fellowship and demonstration of our live for God.

I will be attending this Saturday a region meeting with Greg Strand and the others from the mother ship in Minnesota. Unfortunately most EFCA churches in the central valley of CA are woefully unaware of the revisions to the SOF. Apathy is Satan’s tool to destroy evangelicals in North America and particularly those in the USA.

Thank you Jeff for not being apathetic.

Stayin On Course

Pastor CJ Addis
Kings EFC, Hanford CA

I share the concerns of Mr. Steve Miller about the legality of changing our doctrinal statements.

LEGALITY

Article II of the constitution of the Glastonbury Community Church consists of the statement of faith in its entirety [therein called the “Confession of Faith”].

Article IX:2 of our constitution designates that in the case of the division of membership within the congregation, the property of the congregation shall belong to those members who continue to abide by the Confession of Faith set forth in Article II of the Constitution.

Article XI states that Article II can only be amended, substituted, or their contents changed by a ninety-nine [99%] percent majority of all votes cast.

These are the “facts on the ground” at our Church [and I think this is the case for many EFCA Churches].

I tell anyone willing to listen; if anyone anticipates that our Church [for one] will consent to any changes to the existing Statement of Faith without an absolutely airtight Scriptural mandate to change, they are mistaken. Many Churches will cease to be members of the EFCA if these innovations are pushed.

The sweeping nature of the changes proposed far exceed the Committee’s stated task which was to “strengthen”, “refresh”, and “reaffirm” the existing Statement of Faith. They will not pass without an absolute Scriptural mandate that they are essential. This is not an academic exercise and it is not an occasion for nuance.

I hope I am being crystal clear here.

INTEGRITY

Again, I find myself in agreement with Mr. Steve Miller on the issue of integrity. I want to reiterate some questions I asked previously concerning Article 11. Please pay particular attention to the fourth question:

Q. In light of the Committee’s acknowledgement that by God’s grace the Current SoF has kept us from “major theological battles”; is EFCA currently facing or is it about to face “major theological battles” if the current Statement of Faith remains unchanged?

Q. If we are not facing “major theological battles” under the current SoF, why are we changing the statement?

Q. If we are facing “major theological battles”, where is the opposition coming from?

Q. If we are facing “major theological battles”, and as the Committee acknowledged our current SoF has provided a useful standard of orthodoxy; what is the source of heterodoxy within our ranks and why has it not been dealt with?

Anyone in a position of leadership within the EFCA indicating that they do not now or never did believe in “the personal and premillennial and imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and that this ‘Blessed Hope’ has a vital bearing on the personal life and service of the believer” should say so. This is a matter of integrity.

SEEKING JUSTICE FOR THE OPPRESSED

In reply to Dr. Ernest Manges:

For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given us.

- If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith.

- If it is serving, let him serve;

- if it is teaching, let him teach;

- if it is encouraging, let him encourage;

- if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously;

- if it is leadership, let him govern diligently;

- if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.

~ Romans 12:3-8

We each have our own gift and place in the body of Christ. I think it is imprudent to demand in our Statement of Faith [as a measure of orthodoxy] that all must exercise the same gift.

Further, Dr. Manges states; “Good theology must never compromise the Biblical message but at the same time good theology must communicate to the culture.”

However, in our cultural context, the phrase, “seeking justice for the oppressed” is currently being exploited by the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Trans-gendered [GLBT] activists as a sledge hammer to force acceptance [not tolerance] and even approbation of their lifestyles upon the Church. This acceptance and approbation of the GLBT lifestyle is currently being manifested in other denominations by the ordination of practicing homosexuals and performance of same-sex “marriages”.

I absolutely believe that incorporating the phrase “seeking justice for the oppressed” into our Statement of Faith, given our current cultural context; will be an opening that will be exploited by GLBT activists. This opening will be “hard wired” into our by-laws and constitutions and will put the property of our churches in jeopardy.

Dr. Manges made the statement: “Ask any Christian under the age of 25 and they will tell you that it is long overdue for evangelicals to make a formal statement in favor of the oppressed.”

While I agree that “in the multitude of council there is wisdom”; I personally am not in favor of establishing our Statement of Faith in this way.

Dr. Manges acknowledges that “seeking justice for the oppressed” is already being practiced by the members of the EFCA. He says: “…it certainly is not a novel idea or practice among evangelicals”.

If it is already in practice, why do we need to change the existing SoF? Are we striving to be fashionable? Are we seeking to please men? Do not our works to relieve the oppressed speak for themselves? If they do not, will changing our words make it so? If they do, why do we need to change the words? Rather, let our work in this area speak for itself.

But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.

Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.

Contending for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints,

George Curtis Husted
Deacon at Glastonbury Community Church
East Hartford, CT

I am concerned that TIU seems to be coming under fire by some who are concerned about this process.

The leaders who have presented this proposal to us have assured us that Trinity is not the source of these proposed changes. The two professors from Trinity that spoke at the Mid-Winter Ministerial also assured us that this was not coming from Trinity.

Unless someone has some evidence to the contrary, I think we ought to believe them.

By way of personal testimony: I am a 1998 M.Div graduate of TEDS. In my time there, it was always made clear that all of our education came from the standpoint of our SOF (though students did not have to subscribe to it on all points). Every professor taught from the premillenial position (though they could ably explain the other points of view). I came away from TEDS committed to premillenialism and happy to serve an EFCA church.

I am also in favor of the proposed change because I think it fits better with our evangelical/inclusive ethos (which is also a part of our heritage). But I don't think that the seminary tail has wagged the denominational dog.

Let's keep praying for: good thinking, loving words to one another, thinking the best of one another, and eventual agreement and unity on whatever decisions are made.

-Matt Mitchell
Pastor, Lanse EFC
Lanse, PA

Three Points:

1. Re: Steve's question as to whether the new SOF will be mandated on the congregations. I heard from friends who attended the Midwinter Ministerial that the existing churches will not be required to make such a change. I am not sure how that could be mandated in any event. I think the expectation is that some will keep the old, some will take the new, and that new, newly adopted, or newly planted churches would take the new, and that officials and professors would affirm the new.

This seems reasonable, unless we adopt the idea that we could never change what is a human document, the existing SOF.

2. In Bill Hamel's introduction to the Ministerial, he referred to the EFCA as a denomination. This was met with some surprise by members of my Adult SS class, which is studying the proposed revision. I have seen this language elsewhere. I was familiar with the EFCA as an "association" which spoke to it's decentralized and voluntary nature - as compared to denominations which own church property or determine pastoral placement.

Have we decided to become a Denomination? If so, When?

3. Is this related to the changes occuring in what we mean by "congregational government"? (i.e. what specific decisions are put to the membership - in my documents the number has shifted from about 10 to about 4: calling Sr. Pastor, changing Constitution, setting annual Budget, buying or selling Property being the current list I am familiar with.)

Revisiting the doctrinal statement is a wise thing to do, & I appreciate the spirit of the discussions I've heard thus far. My concern is that in making it more comprehensive, we are making it far too lengthy for large churches to use with newcomers who are simply asking what we believe, & not wanting as much doctrinal information as the revisions include. It's sheer length will force many of us to develop a 'cliff notes' version to use with a lot of folks. Why not start there, with a shorter, 2 tiered statement with 'majors' constituting level 1 & efca distinctives becoming a level 2.

I have just become a member of the EVFree Church in Burbank and as a new member, I was concerned about the news about changing the SOF. I have two comments or questions. First, the language of the SOF and it's explaination is extremely confusing but what is the original view of SOF as far as the millennial belief and what is the change in the new SOF? Second, the removal of the word "immenent" is not a huge deal for me. To a Christian, the word 'immenent' means nothing because Christ is coming to "catch up" His people in a "twinkling of an eye". That is not immenent because there is no time set for His coming to take us to meet Him in the sky. But to someone who is living in the Tribulation, Christ's return is immenent (within seven years). So one can see the word "immenent" means nothing to a Believer who will be in heaven during Christ's immenent return.

Howdy ED,

Good question and commnets.

Imminent does classically mean "twinkling of an eye". In the trib it is not immenent because there are prophecis and a time line to be fullfilled. Read imment as "at any monment" with no prophecy yet to be fulfilled. There are those who try to strech that meaning to "at some near time" and thereby make it fit thier tribulation projection. "Caught up" refers to the mode of the Messiah return for the Church. Rapture means "caught up" or "taken up" Rapturo is the Latin translation of the greek word. You may want to visit www.bible.org and do a search on eschatology.

You are right on top of some very interesting and enlightening stuff. Keep searching and keep open to learning. Hey, ask your pastors and elders. It will be a good work out for them. I know it would be for me. I am sure they would love to walk with you in this search.

Looking foreward to hearing from ya.

Stayin On Course

Pastor CJ Addis
Kings EFC, Hanford CA

Hi D. Carlson,

Words are funny things. We are in fact a denomination. Being known as a denomination fell into disfavor for the 80's and 90's. We as a group identified our selves as an "association of evangelical free churches". Sound nice and it is true that we are an association, but it is more correct to see ourselves as a denomination filled with associated evangelical free churches. Or some such thing like that. Some just know us as THE FREE or Da Free or EV Free or that Freee Church over there.

A denomination by any other name stinks all the same. woops... let me rephrase. We put the "deno" in denomination.. No that is not quite right either..we put the "nation" in //scratch that. Oh bother.

At any rate we are who we are, in spite of who we are, for the sake of the one who is, who was, and is to come(at any moment).

I hope that was as helpful as a pointy bowling ball.

TTFN

Pastor CJ
Kings EFC, Hanford CA

I want to discuss item #2. Even the title or bold faced summary is deceptive. The Gospel was NOT announced in the Scriptures. It was announced to real people (like Abraham)is real events (like the discussion about Sodom) and it was recorded in the Scriptures. It seems to me that we are close to disobeying the injunction that Paul invoked in the midst of a growing sense of partisan loyality. We are not learning from them the principle of not going beyond 'what has been written' Does anyone else want to discuss the doctrine of scripture with respect to our SOF?

I agree with those who believe item 11 should be changed.

From "In the personal and premillennial and imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ "

To something else, I propose:

" In the personal, imminent, and glorious coming of our Lord Jesus Christ "

.. for I do not believe subscribing to a "literal" 1000 year reign eschatology is either a test of orthodoxy or a hinderance to having the highest esteem toward the Holy Scriptures.

I like the word "imminent" because Jesus warns us with particular urgency to "keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour" (Mt 25:13). We would do very well to live in such a way as to expect His return at any hour or minute.

Lastly, His return will be "glorious" - I think that is at the heart of our blessed hope.

Blessings to all,

Thor Lundberg

I was curious as to the PCA's stance on the millennial issue. I went to their home page and wrote them asking what their position is. Here is their response to me.

"The PCA does not believe that the pre-tribulation/pre-millennial (sometimes referred to as Dispensationalism) position is consistent with the view of the covenant presented in the Westminster Standards and will not ordain a man who holds this position."

He also added. "As far as other Presbyterian denominations and their stance, I certainly cannot speak for them, but I would imagine their position is similar to the PCA."

This was from Rev. Bob Fiol (Assistant to the Stated Clerk, PCA)

I'm glad their denomination can take a stance on the millennium issue - I hope we'll be able to.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Tim Olson
Just a Simple Youth Pastor
Eagle Grove, IA

I feel a little out of my league posting here, but please bear with me.

I've been following this blog silently for a while now. I've really appreciated the insightful comments, and I must say I'm proud to be part of a group that can discuss potentially divisive issues with grace and charity.

I have a lot of thoughts and concerns about the revisions and the process itself, but I'm still sorting them out in my own mind, so I won't post them yet. Instead, I'll limit myself to one comment/question for now:

David Carlson mentioned that he heard existing churches will not be forced to accept the RSOF. The expectation is that there will be a mixture of churches that accept it and those that don't, but officials, TEDS professors, and new churches will be expected to affirm the new one going forward.

Perhaps I'm being naive, but it seems to me that if we have two statements of faith, we really have none. Who is the "we" in "We Believe"?

Practically speaking, those churches that refuse to (or legally can't) accept the revisions will be increasingly marginalized over time as the rest of us become more inclusive of those who don't hold the old, more narrow views. Those who are affected are most likely to be the older, established churches that had an instrumental role in the nurture of the EFCA in the first place. I think this is most unfortunate. The fact that those who are left behind will be those who have remained faithful to the original SOF with integrity makes it even more regrettable.

It's not that the older churches cannot accept what's in the new SOF, it's that more and more churches and people will not be able to accept the old SOF. In this mobile society, members of one Free Church that move to a new area may find that they can't join or serve in another Free Church. Affiliation with the EFCA no longer means quite what it once meant in terms of faith and practice.

This indicates to me that the revision is not just a refreshing, strengthening, or clarifying of the old SOF, but contains innovations that alter our essential makeup. Perhaps the revisions overreach the mandate.

If we can't come up with an SOF that (almost) every existing church can accept, it seems to me that the exercise will have failed.

I'm not suggesting that we abandon all hope of revising the SOF (I think it needs it), but I don't think we should be satisfied with a document that leaves beloved, faithful brethren behind.

Mike Young
Elder, Faith Evangelical Free Church, Action MA

By the way, thank you Greg for this blog. It's a great tool to bring people together from across the country!

A suggestion: would it be useful to create a separate topic for each of the 10 points? This one thread is becoming pretty long. We could still use this thread for general comments about the document or process.

Just a thought. Keep up the good work!

Mike Young
Faith EFC, Acton MA

Just a point of clarification: The PCA rejects dispensationalism, but does not have a formal view on millenialism. While most in the PCA are a-mil, living in St. Louis I happen to know Covenant Seminary professors and local PCA pastors who are pre-mil and post-mil.

So one can be Bible-believing, evangelical and a-mil or even post-mil.

I would recommend The Meaning of the Millenium (ed. by Robert Clouse) for anyone interested in learning how other Bible-believing Christians deal with this aspect of eschatology.

CJ,

Thanks for the reply.

My comments on membership weren't meant to cover every potential situation - we are congregational in government. So local churches have the right to make their own membership requirements and can deal with teens, backsliders, et al as they see fit. Of course pastors and leaders have to agree to the SOF - but that was never my point.

You had originally made the comment that if we had a member who wasn't premil, it must be because he wasn't adequately discipled. I was simply pointing out that it's possible to have members who understand our premil position but don't agree with it because I don't believe it's central to evangelical faith. Would you be concerned about the voting of someone who agreed with all of the SOF except premillenialism? Why?

You wrote in your post:

"The change regarding the premill stance will have a direct effect on how and why we do what we do."

Can you expand this? I don't know what you mean.

"Not all people who claim to be saved are in fact saved..."

True enough. Olson and others recognize that potenital danger in Believers Only.

"... nor are they if indeed saved fit for membership in a congregational system."

This is where I think Olson and the other Free Churches disagee with you. As I've said, your church is of course free to make its own membership requirements, but I disagree that a particular millenial view is important in terms of local church membership.

"Maybe we should therefore get rid of our congregational form of church?"

I don't understand this at all. How does this conclusion follow from what I've written? I've stated that local churches have the right to determine their own membership requirements, and I have shown that what I am urging (i.e., not demanding a premillenial view for church membership) is a position supported by Free Church history and culture. How does this make me opposed to congregationalism?

"Our view of end time’s prophecy is precisely why we are not reformed and we are congregational."

I don't understand this comment at all. What does congregationalism have to do with eschatology?

"Unfortunately most EFCA churches in the central valley of CA are woefully unaware of the revisions to the SOF. Apathy is Satan’s tool to destroy evangelicals in North America and particularly those in the USA."

CJ, I couldn't agree with you more about the problem of apathetic Christians. But this reads like you think the revised SOF is some tool of Satan to destroy the EFCA. Can you help me understand what you mean here?

Thanks for the interaction.

Jeff Schultz
Salem EFC

I am wondering about the change in the scripture plank from "divine and final authority for christian faith and life" (1950 statement) to "the ultimate authority that stands over every realm of human knowledge and endeavor".(2nd revision) the accompanying notes say that this merely "unpacks" the previous statement. However, it seems to broaden it. Moving from saying the Bible is our source for salvation and the christiain life, to the bible is the source and judge for every kind of knowledge. It moves from saying that what the bible affirms is true, to the bible has all the truth. Does this include medicine or linguistics, bridgebuilding and economics?

do we seek to establish biblical authority over the state?

I am applying the playground test: i.e. what happens to my child when I name him "Sue" - I may have good intentions, but where will others take it.

It seems to make us open to theonomy on the one hand and bible-only-ism on the other.

by bible-only-ism i refer to the idea that no other knowlege is open to us but special revelation - I affirm that the bible is the final authority over matters of faith and practice. but I would look through a telescope to see what is in the sky, or a microscope to see a cell.

David Carlson, I agree with your comment (March 23). Perhaps we can have a discussion (which others can join) about the whole of Article #2.

to CJ re Pointed Bowling Balls, and the word "denomination" I found the following in a book that is 20 or more years old put out by the EFCA national office

From "What is the Evangelical Free Church"
date: previous to 1990, Rev. McDill is listed as president

"What is the EFC?
The EFC is an association of nearly 700 autonomous churches joined together by common purposes, principles and practices...."

"Is the EFCA a Denomination?
That depends on what is meant by the word ‘denomination.' If it is taken to mean a hierarchy that rules over local churches, the answer is, ‘no.' If the word is taken to mean common ‘denominators' that give cohesiveness to a movement, then we are a denomination. In reality, each church is a self-governing body that elects its own officers, raises its own budget, provides its own building, calls its own pastor, and shapes its own program. These local Free Churches have in common certain purposes, principles, and practices that give them a basis for cooperation, and they recognize that there are certain things that they can do in concert which they could not accomplish on their own...."

After reading many of the blogs, I’m disappointed to observe such a lack of consistency and procedural integrity that has been communicated in these writings. Let me make the following observations and then a sincere proposal.

Years ago, the EFCA was founded on certain core values as defined by the original Statement of Faith. Right or wrong... essential or not... interpretational or absolute.. that SOF was intended to be the guiding set of doctrinal value that would distinguish all EFCA churches, missions, and institutions of learning. We can debate until the cows come home whether or not the EFCA is an association or denomination... but regardless of the word used, the EFCA is a religious affiliation of which whose members would all ascribe to that founding Statement of Faith.

That SOF wasn’t all-inclusive... there were plenty of areas for diversity (regarding issues where Calvinists and Armenians might differ, eschatology issues surrounding the Tribulation, the Gifts of the Spirit, practical issues of Christian liberty, divorce & remarriage, etcetera, etcera, etcera....). BUT -- like it or not... agree with it or not... what WAS defined was intended to be definitive of all E-Free affiliates. These would be the beliefs that “distinguished” us.

There was no one standing with a club to whack anyone who didn't agree to this set of beliefs... no one calling names... no forcing doctrines down anyone's theological throats.... The founders simply said, "This is who we are. If you agree, you're welcome to join us. If you don't... God bless you and maybe there's a better place for you. But THESE are the essential doctrines that we want to define who the EFCA will be." How hard is this for people to accept?

Let me put this bluntly, "Membership in a denomination, church or Christian college is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT." And if you choose the privilege of alligning yourself (present tense) with that institution, you must also accept the responsibility of embracing what that institution represents! If you don't, it's OK to recognize it and find something that more clearly and honestly identifies your belief structure. I have infinitely more respect for someone who steps aside admitting core differences than someone who stays and thinks that cores values don't matter. If someone wants to call me "exclusivist" for admitting that, that's fine with me. There's nothing wrong with being exclusive at times.... Christianity by its very nature is exclusive!

Over the past 50 years the American evangelical culture has seen some sad and dramatic shifts... many being seen in our own denomination. We’ve become more independent in our thinking, believing that we have some inherent right to believe whatever we want, regardless of our denominational/doctrinal commitments. In our schools, we seem to value academic freedom and credibility over doctrinal identification. (Don’t misunderstand me, “blind” loyalty either to a denomination or set of doctrines isn’t the ideal, but somewhere in this process – whether we admit it or not – we’ve let go of the “distinctives” that once united us AND that we were bound to by our oaths of membership.)

Have we gotten to the point in evangelical Christianity that a proof of "brotherly love" requires that there are NO personal distinctives that distinguish groups by their doctrinal or practical beliefs? Is it wrong to be denied membership in the Lutheran Church because I don't share in their position on infant baptism or the significance of the communion elements? NO! I can still love them and they love me, but we can still accept that our differences keep us in different theological camps. This whole issue is somewhat like thinking that girls have to be accepted in the Boy Scouts because there some inherent right to be accepted in everything and by everyone.

Some in the E-Free church argue that we need a “new” set of distinctives... which has very few truly distinguishing factors and whose purpose seems only to remove the few distinctions that were designed in the first place. Others are content to sign on to the old SOF and simply ignore the clearly-defined code that binds all E-Free institutions together. (Say what you will about the millennial issue, it is nearly unconscionable that an E-Free church would overlook the issue of eternal conscious judgment as reported by a member of the Madison Blackhawk E-Free, Andrew Miller – see the blog by Andrew Miller in one of the other two EFCA blog sites. By the way Andrew, based on your description of the circumstances, for procedural and affiliate integrity Blackhawk Church would have served you and the denomination far better to help you understand the eternal conscious judgment issues from the many scriptures – Ps 81:15; Isa 33:14; Jer 23:40; Dan 12:2; Mt 18:8; Mt 25:41,46; 2 Thess 1:8-9; Jude 1-2 – then given you time to absorb and decide your position BEFORE granting membership.) I don't care if you quibble on whether or not you "hell" is the same as the "lake of fire" by name... but the real issue of everlasting and conscious judgment is an essential to our belief structure. I can love you as a brother... I can embrace as a believer... but your belief in Annihilation clearly puts you outside the realm of EFCA essentials. What's wrong with admitting that?

Again, in the end, by not acknowledging our differences, addressing the truth in love, we have weakened the denomination by compromising the single set of distinctives that were intended to hold us together in the first place.

Today, because of constant breaches in procedural integrity, our entire denomination is divided – schools, churches, and even denomination leadership. We all know that the differences are NOT minor. All of these blogs represent MAJOR points of doctrine. Two competing SOF’s will NOT resolve the issue, for they represent two completely opposing systems of biblical hermeneutics. Even if we are united on doctrines of soteriology, Christology, etc, it’s clear that the two competing SOF’s represented very differing systems of biblical intrepretation. And now, we also have the problem of the “Blackhawks” that seem to have ignored the more non-debatable points of the two SOF’s. Which "essential" points will be ignored by the next church? If the existing SOF can't hold us together, why will the next when someone else decides that they can't agree with it?

To date, no one seems to want to fully accept public responsibility for where we are. Denomination leadership says that this isn’t a “top-down” movement. Trinity prof’s say that the school isn’t driving it. Churches say that this isn’t a broad “grassroots” movement.

The sad truth is that everyone is responsible. Denomination leadership fed this by not enforcing denominational expectations and doctrines. Trinity is responsible for hiring non-ascribing prof’s and not requiring – at the minimum – ministerial acceptance of denominational doctrines. (Does anyone seriously deny that, as the schools go, so – ultimately – will go the churches?) Individual churches are responsible for hiring non-subscribing pastors or accepting non-subscribing members. Pastors and teachers are responsible for not stepping aside with dignity when they knew that their own personal beliefs didn't agree with the clearly understood essentials that represented the doctrinal identity of our organization.

So what do we do now? Here is my proposal...

Is it not time to admit the unfortunate and nearly irreconcilable differences that are dividing us and LOVINGLY create a new denomination for those who want a broader approach to scriptural interpretation than our original SOF affords?

Let the denominational, educational, and church leadership admit responsibility for universal “fudging” that has brought us to this point and ... as parents release their children to become independent adults, the denomination “births” (rather than “splits” into) a new movement that embraces a new set of distinguishing “essentials.” Every church would be given the opportunity to choose its loyalties based on the separate SOF’s and then, once things are set rightly in order, we expect that those loyalties will NOT be compromised. Perhaps Trinity could be a “shared” institution (most likely not I'm afraid), but graduates would clearly understand (as they should even now) that there is a large segment of E-Free churches that would probably not be able to hire them for doctrinal reasons.

No one likes talking about a division, but it happens all the time. Churches divide. Denominations divide. Even believers are divided. The divisions don’t have to be acrimonious. They can be done in love. Wouldn’t it be far better for the integrity of the E-Free institution as a whole to orchestrate a amicable division than than for the debate about specific doctinal points and massive “fudging” to continue?

In my mind, now this will be the only way to take a “no-win” situation and let God turn it to good.

Steve Miller
South Holland, IL

From Avanos, Turkey; the land of the Councils and Creeds, Greetings to Steve Miller. Your analysis is clear and you proposal is interesting. You can see now how easy it was for catholic/orthodox church in the the first centuries to develop into a hiarchical form of church government: believe what we believe or you are not a member and therefore you are a heritic.
I think an even better idea is to let the process go forward and get people envolved in discussing the issues, debating the issues, even argueing the issues. It promotes thinking and understanding. We should do this "until we come to the unity of the faith in the bond of peace." That means we should probably have to keep on doing it for a very long time. But at least until we distill the very core issue seperate from the issues of some historical/hermuneutical uncertainty.

This posting appeared on another blog stream. Guys ya’ gotta’ check out the other blog streams.
I am also posting a blog comment by Andrew Miller of Black Hawk EFC in Maddison WI. This is a wake up call for our denomination and our association.

Jeff, some of this may help you understand my historical approach. I do not think it will change your mind. It is meant to express mine. I already am growing weary of defending a well held SOF against those who wish to change it. The need for change is on those who seek to makes this a more progressive evangelical association/denomination. At any rate, we are who we are, if that is not good enough for some they should be honest and seek a better fit. I am not the most learned or eloquent, but I am honest about what my convictions lead to. Are there evangelical denominations that welcome those who seek the changes to the SOF that are proposed? I believe there are. If there are none so holy or evangelical then do what others have done...start one. You build your own planks and associational edifice.

Man I sound like an old crogedy humbug fundamentalist.

O.K. Here is what I wrote last week when I had more patience and a kinder disposition.

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 ands 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

Good Day Steve Miller,

Ouch! You get down to business. O.K. So there it is.

I hope we are not at that point yet but; let's be honest. Should the EFCA be torn apart or graciously birth another association?

I want to post this blog(I forgot to add it in my last transmission)

Here it is from Andrew Miller of Blackhawk EFC in Maddison Wisc.

Go easy and graciously on him. He has taken some heat. We should probably adress our concerns to his Pastor and Elders.

_________________________

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.

Andrew Miller Black Hawk EFCA, Madison Wisconsin

I am curious about how many of the 1,272 Churches in the EFCA want to change the Statement of Faith.

I am curious about how many Church members are even aware that there is a proposed change to the Statement of Faith.

Has a survey been conducted? I am unaware of any such survey.

Have Churches polled their members about changing the Statement of Faith? I am unaware of any such polling.

Have Districts polled the Churches within them to see if they are in favor of any change to the Statement of Faith?

Is this entire "movement" to change the Statement of Faith originating in The Spiritual Heritage Committee? The National Office?

How many entire Churches are we, the EFCA, willing to lose in order to embrace a new Statement of Faith? Has anyone counted the cost?

How many new members and entire new Churches are ready to join the EFCA if we change our Statement of Faith? Any?

The "compromise" proposal of “grandfathering” existing Churches and only requiring new Churches and the newly credentialed to adhere to the new Statement of Faith is untenable. As the existing clergy retires, the new clergy will not be able to adhere to the old Statement of Faith still held by the grandfathered Churches. The result is that all of the grandfathered Churches will be without clergy or will have clergy that have embraced a Statement of Faith different from their own.

Since I just happened to come across the proposed change to the Statement of Faith while I was looking at the EFCA web page, and I heard absolutely nothing about it at our local Church, I really wonder how many members are even aware that there is a proposal to change the Statement of Faith. Isn’t that odd for an association of Churches with a congregational form of government?

I think there should at least be an attempt to take a survey of the autonomous churches and their respective membership to see what the collective opinion is about whether we need to change our Statement of Faith. Why hasn’t this been done? The Spiritual Heritage Committee is already on a second draft. Is it because there is no consensus that we need to change the Statement of Faith?

If most of the voting members of the autonomous churches in EFCA don’t even know about the proposed changes, what does that say about the source of the changes? This appears to be a totally top down effort. If I am wrong about this, show me the survey data indicating that the members of the autonomous churches that make up the EFCA want to change the Statement of Faith.

Contending for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints,

George Curtis Husted
Deacon at Glastonbury Community Church
East Hartford, CT

CJ,

Thanks for the response.

I understand your defensive posture towards the current SOF - you like things the way they are and don't want to change.

I have signed on to the SOF with no hesitation or "fudging" as you call it -- but I can still see how demanding a premil position is inconsistent with our claim to value inclusion and freedom on secondary matters.

So I come back to my original, unanswered question: How would the EFCA be hurt by allowing a-mil or post-mil pastors to serve in our churches?

You're willing to be part of an association with calvinists and arminians, infant bapstism and believer's baptism, reformed and dispensationalists (a greater division than that I can't imagine) -- why is a particular view of the millenium so important?

And I have to say that your comments about leaving to start another denomination are not particularly helpful. I'm not trying to "infiltrate" the EFCA to make "you" more reformed. Is the real issue that you want the EFCA to be more explicitly dispensationalist?

The only thing I'm trying to "make" you is more inclusive of believers who ought to be able to disagree on a contentious doctrine not central to our faith.

Jesus had both a zealot and a tax collector among his disciples; the early churches had Jews, Gentiles, slaves and free together; but we can't have an amillenialist serving in ministry?

I think we've made our respective concerns clear. I don't think millenialism is a reason to exclude people from our fellowship, because I think grace and freedom are more important. We'll have to agree to disagree on that and look forward to the Day when all our divisions will cease. Thanks for the interaction.

the question was, who in the churches knows?

when the revision came up, I let the general board members know of the proposal, highlighting the two or three major changes, copied the 2 page revision (not the 40pp of notes), and pointing them to the efca web site.

We have discussed this at our elders.

I am currently making this the topic of my adult ss class.

In a church of 100, the word is out. I find that some really like the readability and gospel focus. some are concerned by the millenial change.

at our upcoming Dist conf, our chairman, his wife and I will be attending.

I have the cds from the midwinter ministerial.

So It is really up to the leadership of the churches, who are Independant, you recall, to take this. I think the National Leadership Team has been open and, judging from the changes from draft 1 to draft 2, reasonable.

Let's also be honest, while we have different views on issues, such as eternal security, it really does matter that the local church leadership determines if that is a vital issue for that church whenever they engage in a pastoral search. While the EFCA is tolerant on that issue, it can, nevertheless, cause a division or a removal of a pastor.

We have it seems to be added a couple of things to the list that the churches will need to think over, and questions they will need to ponder, as they consider their staff and ministry.

Sadly, in my 2 times candidating, i have not found lay people that adept at knowing what to ask - e.g. i doubt anyone would ask me about open theism, the emergent church or other cutting edge issues. I made sure I told them certain things, even when they did not ask: eg. I am semi-egalitarian, i am post-trib, I believe in collegiality, i am an urban guy and want the chruch in the city to act like it is. (My last change predates the ministry match process...)

So we don't really have that much of a change - it calls for developing strong and discerning spiritual leadership in the churches.

I don't know how well that is happening -

Hi. Steve Miller here again. If I may, I'd like to jump in on Jeff Shultz question that was addressed to CJ.

The EFCA is struggling with two separate issues here: ETHICS (procedural integrity) and DOCTRINE.

On ETHICS.
For just a moment, let’s set both doctrine and emotions aside. A founding SOF is a doctrinal code... a measure by which any Christian organization has to distinguish itself from other believers. I'm not aware of a single Christian ministry that isn't define by SOME SOF... whether written or unwritten. A SOF may be right or wrong, biblical or unbiblical, lengthy or brief, absolute or interpretational, inclusive or exclusive... BUT IT IS the STANDARD by which the founders wish to reflect their fundamental beliefs and distinguish themselves from others. The establishment of this standard is their right because they created the organization. Membership in that organization is strictly voluntary... but, in order to be a member, it is expected that you embrace that founding set of beliefs found in the SOF.

Will anyone argue that American citizenship is based on laws of immigration and that, by side-stepping those laws only brings de-stabilization to the authorized citizenry? I may like the person, he contributes in some way to the good of our economy, he may even love America... but there is a standard and procedure that one is expected to follow in becoming an American. Take any institution you – marriage, churches, denominations, you name it.... Every institution has some founding core-values that determines who that group is and what distinguishes them from everyone else. To violate a institution’s entrance procedures only reflects a lack of procedural integrity and breaks down the stability of the entire organization.

Believe me... if you want to create a society for exclusively right-handed people you can do it! God bless you! But being left-handed (as I am), it is absolutely unethical for me to join your organization in a way that ignores or violates the pre-defined entrance requirements. Some would argue, “It’s not fair to be excluded!” (Who defines "fairness" here... the one who wants in or the existing membership that met the founding requirements?) “But, what if you’re ambidextrous? At least I’m 'partially' right-handed?” Sorry... the standard was set and I no longer qualify for an “exclusively” right-handed club. What if I’m in an accident and I can no longer be “right-handed”? Again, I’m sorry but the standard is pretty clear.

Now, if I apply for membership acknowledging my differences, the organization is free to respond in one of two ways: first, I can deny my membership based on it’s pre-defined codes. OR it can establish a constitutional process by which the founders and/or membership can decide if left-handers should be admitted into the organization. In either case, it is absolutely unethical for left-handers to be included in membership prior to the legitimate changes necessary to broaden the rules of association.

Again, this has nothing to do with doctrine... it’s all about procedural integrity. (Just for the record, I don’t believe franchise restaurants should change original recipes... I don’t think that the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts should be forced to admit members of the opposite sex... and I like taking my '65 Corvair to “classic” car shows. Life is full of boundaries that should be respected.... Once the boundaries lines are set, I like knowing where they are... who’s in and who’s out. I don’t think boundaries should be violated or moved arbitrarily, and if they DO get moved, I’d like it done in a process that reflects integrity and responsibility.

SOF Guidelines are established to strengthen, unify, clarify and distinguish. Based on the tone of most blogs, I ask: Why have any SOF at all? Why not be so inclusive that there is NO distinguishing factors? If there IS any reason for establishing a new SOF, I suggest that – unless this process is validated with procedural integrity, some day the whole thing will be ignored again and the next generation will wonder how it happened that people disagreed with "their" SOF got in and created so much confusion. Maybe the next time it will be the militant fundamentalists... maybe it will be a branch of extreme liberal theologians... but mark my words, if the “fudging” isn’t addressed with openness, honesty and order, it will happen again.

Now to DOCTRINE.
As I’ve written in previous blogs. Pre-millennialism isn’t a make or break doctrine to me. I can be a part of a bigger tent than is currently EFCA doctrine. But because I agree with the doctrines of the EFCA and wanted to associate myself with people of like mind and faith, I chose to join the EFCA. It’s that simple. If I had wanted to something broader I would have either joined another existing group or started my own for people who want something broader than what’s defined as EFCA distinctives.

Has there ever been a Christian organization that could stand with two SOFs that seem to reflect such opposite systems of hermeneutics? Don’t we look a little doctrinally-schizophrenic when we tell people that we have two opposing sets of beliefs that “define” and “distinguish” the EFCA from others?

I suggest that people joined this organization because of what those words meant. To change statements and then say that churches will be “grandfathered” is like offering an unwanted prize from an un-entered contest!

Now, should any of you choose to start a new organization with a doctrinal SOF that eliminates all interpretational issues, provides flexibility on the cardinal doctrines, and requires no other “distinctive essential” than that you call yourself a Christian... I will be the first in line to support your freedom to form such a group. (Don’t look for my membership... only my blessing.) But if you DO choose to identify yourselves with any specific distinctives, I give you my solemn word that – if I disagree with a single doctrine represented in your founding SOF – I will never compromise either the ethical or doctrinal integrity of your belief structure by joining your organization.

Again, I may like you as a friend, love you as a brother in Christ, BUT I will also respect the integrity of your organization by not creating confusion and instability by ignoring the core values upon which your group was founded.

Steve Miller
South Holland, IL

Steve,

I'm not sure it's helpful to talk about an "ethical" issue. As others have noted, we are not a denomination but an association of congregational churches.

Our EFCA distinctives state: "fellowship and ministry opportunities in the local church are based solely on one's personal faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord... Membership requires commitment to sound doctrine as expressed in our Statement of Faith. However, a person is not excluded from membership because he or she does not agree on every fine point of doctrine."

There's tension inherent in our Free Church structure. We value inclusion and majoring on the majors, and we protect the right of local churches to order their own affairs. And the Free Churches have historically focused on saving faith in Christ as the basis for church membership.

So I think it's wrong to suggest that a Free Church which would have an a-mil member is somehow being unethical or "fudging." Those concerned about doctrinal purity have no basis under the current SOF to reject open theism. Which is the bigger issue?

Is it the attempt to update the SOF which is "unethical"? We've updated our national Constitution 27 times to date. Were those amendments betrayals of the Founders' intent, or were they significant and necessary updates to reflect new challenges?

Think carefully. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. Do you really want to be on the side of Planned Parenthood, arguing we're wrong to try to change the rules and limit abortion rights? Saying that our SOF is unchangeable puts it on a level with Holy Scripture. I hope that's not what you believe.

Let me make this clear once again: I agree with our current SOF. But it's also possible to think it has some shortcomings. I especially would like to see us more fully live up to our claim to be inclusive of those who belong to Christ but differ on secondary doctrines. Call me stupid, heretical, or unethical, but I've searched in vain through John 17, Eph. 4, Phil. 2, and Col. 3 to find Jesus' concern for our millenial views.

So can we drop the accusations of bad motives, conspiracies, and unethical behavior? I don't hate the SOF, I'm not trying to destroy our movement, and I'm not opposed to premillenialism. I do care passionately about unity in the Body of Christ.

Maybe this isn't the right time. Maybe the process hasn't been handled well. But is it worth winning if you have to demonize your "opponents" -- who are also your brothers in Christ?

Jeff Schultz
Salem EFC
Florissant, MO

Dale, on the revised #2. I don't have much to add to what I said. I will note that at TEDS, during the inerrancy debates (early 80s) we talked of inerrancy pertaining to those things the scriptures affirm - that if it makes a historical or scientific statement, we hold those to be true, because God is true.

It is different to say: "all that the Scriptures affirm is true" than to say: "the scriptures contain the truth about all things."

The "faith and practice" language, stressed that scriptural truth had mainly to do with salvation, the christian life, and the life of the church.

That is expressed in Revision 2's "..the complete revelation of his will for salvation."

It is the phrase: "...and the ultimate authority that stands over every realm of human knowledge and endeavor." that is not clear to me. Is it a moral authority over all areas of knowledge? Is it the final authority on content of knowlege? ("every realm" would include rocket science, quantum physics, and mechanical engineering to name three fields with little biblical content.)

the Last phrase, "Therefore, the bible is to be believed in all that it affirms, obeyed in all that it requries and trusted in all that it promises" is good. I like it. It preaches!

It is the middle phrase that I need clarification on.

Thoughts?

Jeff,

I am sorry that i have not answered dirctly all of your questions. This was not intetional.

So here is an attempt---

Dialogue Answer #1

"Unfortunately most EFCA churches in the central valley of CA are woefully unaware of the revisions to the SOF. Apathy is Satan’s tool to destroy evangelicals in North America and particularly those in the USA."

CJ, I couldn't agree with you more about the problem of apathetic Christians. But this reads like you think the revised SOF is some tool of Satan to destroy the EFCA. Can you help me understand what you mean here?

I am referring to the apathy of evangelicals as it regards to good theology and praxis, not the SOF. I do not refer in anyway that the SOF as the tool of apathy(in that it show ones concern), but a proof of apathy in evangelicalism in general and specifically in the USA.

Dialogue Answer #2

Questions on congregationalism and Eschatology

I have tried to give insight into this in postings on 3/25/06 & 3/28/06

Dialogue Answer #3

A more open EFCA.

My concern is that the definition of Evangelical is a very open to argument. Reformed theology and church praxis is not in line with the EFCA. There are those who would like to see us go towards the “Emergent Church movement”. That is theological suicide.

Jesus had both a zealot and a tax collector among his disciples; the early churches had Jews, Gentiles, slaves and free together; but we can't have an Amillennialists serving in ministry?

Jeff those are class and cultural distinctives not theological. But I think you are focusing on variety, and I get that. But none of those were amillennialist. A Good case can be made that after Pentecost they were all committed to imminency and a literal millk (A premill) hope. Regardless of their job description and cultural designate.

However they must all agree on who He is and what their focus should be on. He is the promised Messiah. That brought in the issue of the New Covenant and later under the Apostles that caused discourse on the church and Israel.

Dialogue Answer #4
why is a particular view of the millennium so important?

This is where I think you need to do some homework.

This eschatological area does affect ones ecclesiology and hermeneutics. What is the nature of the Church? How should we be governed if indeed we are Christ’s rule on earth in a spiritual Messianic Kingdom? What is our purpose and our future hope. Should we then seek a unified global church that has at its core some sort of confessional and hierarchy to examine and enforce orthodoxy? (By the way the great creeds are not complete in their scope of theology and that is apparent when one examines creedal denominations and church movements which are amill and/or postmill).

My last comment on this (for now).

understand your defensive posture towards the current SOF - you like things the way they are and don't want to change.

Ya got that wrong. I have shared in my earliest bloggings that I would like to visit the wording on baptism as an “ordinance”. There are historical reasons for the EFC’s stance, but they are no longer relevant.

Initially this SOF stuff was just a refreshing process. That is not the case any longer. This is a full on revision. That did make me defensive. The Spiritual heritage committee seems to be moving to revisionist history than honestly portraying our actual heritage. What is happening now is not in line with our EFCA heritage. The EFCA is a group that has been a more open group to people who could not find a home in mainline and reformed churches.

I am not merely being defensive but doing EFCA apologetics. We need to clarify and consistently and regularly be who we say we are. We have an SOF that I think can be more clear and presented in a more engaging way. I just do not think this is what they are actually doing.

You would like change and yet you have not counted the cost. I would like change and towards a more clear association because I do understand the cost. And by the way we are not allowed to pick and choose when it comes to our Churches SOF and who is a member under that SOF; it is a constitutional issue and an associational issue. The EFCA can yank our assets if we do not comply with the EFCA SOF and associational expectations.

The fact that some are is a testament of their lack of integrity or just apathy that may lead towards a full scale abandoning of any “rule of faith”. That is the danger that is part of the “Emergent Church Movement”.
A Comment to all

It would be great if in our signature line we would state our church, member or non, pastor, missionary, director of, deacon or elder.

I am concerned that we may be getting some drive by blogging from outsiders who want to cause havoc.

I think our comment should have a bit more context.

Well back to my Father’s business

Pastor CJ Addis
Kings EFC, Hanford CA

Hi Jeff.

Point well taken. I apologize to anyone offended if my spirit is coming across as demonizing opponents.

I do think that there's a big difference between changing operational structures (the constitution) which are more fluid and core values (the SOF) which are more bedrock, and I have absolutely no problems in re-examining and refreshing the SOF. As I've said, I do think this process should have begun long before it could split an entire denomination down the middle though. And I also think that the EFCA was pretty clear in what it expected as essential beliefs for association membership.

At any rate, I tend to argue points forcefully, but apologize if I've crossed the lines of appropriateness. I hope others will take my words as a challenge for thought rather than merely a personal attack. I'll drop back now and let others carry on the conversation.

Steve Miller
South Holland, IL

Ding-Ding-Ding

CJ receives the tag from Steve and enters the fray after a short rest; he’s tired, sweaty but determined to face off at the center of the ring..the crowd goes silent---

Hey y’all what’s this SOF stuff all about?! Ya’ just need to receive the “Emergent Church Good News” Who cares when and if Jesus Christ is coming; and as far as this “eschatology” & “ecclesiology” stuff; that’s for the establishment.. ya know “The Man”. Stick it to the man. Rules of faith and a cohesive consistent theology gets in the way of having koinania. Can’t we all just get along? Take an ecumenical “chill pill”.

Premill, amill, postmill all sound like generic cereals. I am sure that a postmill fella as a pastor would never try to exercise his convictions upon his Church. Sure he may want to be a bit dominating about his Church’s role in culture but it’s all good. I for one would like some help in choosing our elders, a presbytery sounds like a dandy idea. Besides we may find an opening up of eldership and ordination to women an advantage at our luncheons. In the name of love shouldn’t we let all who seek to serve God serve our Divine Parent and our Lord the Divine Sibling by channeling the Spirit of Christ consciousness as they see fit, with out having to fight over secondary issues like gender and pneumatology.

Come to think of it on TBN I see all kinds of Bishops. The EFCA needs one of those guys (Now that Chuck is gone). Lord knows we need a more active dream-interpreting ministry. We also need a national plan that gives directives on how much foodstuffs we should store up. I know that Y2K thing is gone but I hear rumblings in the Middle East. Speaking of Israel and them Arabs, shouldn’t we be helping in the selective breeding of a red heifer?

Thank you and good night.

Tongue in cheek –or- Foot in mouth

Pastor CJ Addis
Kings EFC, Hanford CA

P.S. Jeff,

I think it is time for you to do some homework on systematic theology. Start with the basics like “Ryrie’s Basic Theology” or “Bakers Encyclopedia of Theology”.

Our theology is integrated. Ecclesiology and eschatology are linked (not to mention bibliology and hermeneutics). Who we are as a Church is understood in direct links to what we understand about the prophecies of Israel and the role of the Church in this age (or that mystical/spiritual age of the kingdom of Jesus Christ). Amill, premill and postmill all seek to apply their doctrinal understandings to their church experience (this include eschatology). The problem is people hold views with out examining what that view may demand of other areas of theology and praxis. I do not know an Amillennialists who does not think we should be unified as a global church under the confessions of the Reformation. That is to say, if they are honest or consistent. And potmills definitely have a very different expectation of the churches role in culture. In either case a congregational system is a threat to a cohesive amill view of the church and postmill.

Drop me a line
pastorkefc@juno.com

I think that Jeff Schultz's recent comment about our autonomy is very important.

Because we are an association of autonomous churches, there have not been standardized ways of handling questions of "subscriptionism."

Some of our churches have allowed members to take exception to certain parts of our doctrinal statement (some treat it as having two tiers or even three tiers of importance, normally going from gospel essentials/cardinal doctrines outward). Some have even hired pastors that take exception to parts of the SOF.

Some seem to think that this is an ethical departure from the SOF, but I'm not convinced of that. It could be, if it was done with malicious intent (infiltration), but it strikes me as just a common situation of different autonomous churches handling membership and leadership in different ways. There are no standardized ways of handling these issues in our core documents. [Side note: I do not believe that the EFCA can yank anyone’s assets. If a church significantly deviates from sound doctrine, the only thing the EFCA can do is yank their name from off of our association.]

The PCA has been referenced before in these comments. Even their pastors are allowed to “take exception” to parts of the Westminster Confession of Faith. And they differ from presbytery to presbytery. It’s no wonder that we differ from church to church and district to district on how we handle subscriptionism because of our autonomous character.

I don’t think that any of our churches have departed from the SOF just because they have taken in members who are believers who differ on a few secondary issues. It may not be the best way of handling these things, but it isn’t necessarily wrong.

As a pastor, I have led our church to accept members who differed on the millennial question. They agreed to not teach anything else while members, respecting our SOF. Now, Greg Strand (the author of this blog) when he was a pastor was a “strict subscriptionist.” He has told me that he wouldn’t allow someone into church membership if they couldn’t accept every word of the EFCA SOF. He certainly isn’t leading this process because he’s made some fudgy ethical decisions in the past and now wants to tidy things up.

And Trinity does not have non-subscribing professors. I got to talk with President Waybright over the weekend and asked him some pointed questions about Trinity’s hiring processes. The idea of "non-subscribing Trinity professors" is a myth. All of our TIU professors must be able to affirm the SOF (not just, as I had previously understood, tenured professors). The adjunct faculty does not have to, but all full-time faculty does (even business professors and the like), and Dr. Waybright sees it as his stewardship to see that they do. The TEDS seminary faculty actually begin their school year together by reciting our 12 point statement of faith!

So Trinity is more strict in its subscriptionism than many of our churches. But it needs to be said that issues of subscriptionism are not the main stated reasons from the SHC or the Board of Directors for this revision process. And I think we need to take their word for it. [Note that the RSOF documents only refer to possible “fudging” when talking about how the term "imminent" has been handled, and that was done at the highest levels in full view of all–more than 25 years ago.]

Let’s not impugn the motives of those who are leading us through this process. We may disagree with their ideas about how the SOF should function, what it should contain, how important various doctrines are, and how this process should be carried out (I’m personally in favor of taking another year at least before presenting it to the conference so that our churches have time to fully digest it and have input in maturing the document), but let’s think the best of one another, pray for one another, and strive for unity and love even as we disagree.

-Matt Mitchell
Pastor, Lanse EFC, Lanse PA

CJ,

OK, so people with differing millenial positions will have different views on the role of the church in society and its ultimate goals. That's a problem for the EFCA ... how? And how is that different from where we are already?

For what it's worth, I've read quite a bit of systematic theology, and I suspect perhaps more broadly than you. Just because a brother doesn't agree with you, it doesn't mean he's stupid or uninformed. You may want to watch those assumptions.

I think the real problem hidden behind your sarcasm, posturing, and derision is that we have differing theological emphases.

You keep coming back to the church and Israel, telling me to read Ryrie, and throwing around the PCA as some kind of bogeyman. If you have a problem with reformed theology, you're entitled to your beliefs. But I didn't see "dispensationalism" required in our SOF, so I'd like to gently ask you to work on being less needlessly antagonistic and suspicious towards others in the EFCA who disagree with your theology.

Since your responses have become simply strawman arguments, there doesn't seem to be much point to further discussion. I think we've made our concerns and positions clear, and I'd like not to go any farther down the path of foolish arguments and quarreling over debatable matters.

Steve,

Thanks for your gracious words. They are very much appreciated. I'm sorry if I was overly strong in my language.

The last thing I want is more division in the Church, and the last thing we need is another denomination. I'm in favor of the revisions, but they aren't worth tearing the EFCA apart. I pray to God we can have substantive theological discussion without rancor and division.

I have appreciated the recent posts by Jeff Schultz (3/28) and Matt Mitchell (3/29) and would like to add a few thoughts related to theirs and other’s replies.

It was very helpful to me to have Jeff remind us of the description of our distinctives that does not restrict local church membership to a strict-subscriptionist view. I do think that sort of “tension” could be problematic, since it would seem to make church discipline impractical if not impossible. However, it is the EFCA position, and I am willingly serving a church affiliated with the EFCA. This distinctive should cause us at least to review particular doctrines, such as premillennialism, if it is true that a growing number of members take exception here.

I am in favor of removing the term “premillennialism” from any new SoF, even if we decide that we want to keep the doctrine. What I mean by that is, we should be able to say what it is we believe without resorting to an extra-biblical and technical theological term. So, for example, while the current statement uses the very biblical and technical term of justification, it does not use the extra-biblical term “trinity.” Rather, it briefly articulates what it is that we believe by the trinity: “we believe in one God… eternally existing in three persons.” Nobody objects to the term “trinity,” but we are trying to say what we mean without using theological shorthand. I also think this is part of what any revision of ours should do with premillennialism, and I believe the current draft proposal is going in the right direction.

I have read at least a few posts that insist that those premillennialists who do not think premillennialism is a core doctrine need to realize that there are other related issues at stake, such as ecclesiology and hermeneutics. Please give us the benefit of the doubt that we do indeed understand how these things fit together. What I would ask of you is an acknowledgement of the fact that there are already different views of hermeneutics and ecclesiology that currently exist in the EFCA that are consistent with a premillennial position, and these include dispensationalism, progressive dispensationalism, and historic premillennialism. In fact, while these schools of thought vary significantly in the way they understand God’s covenant people(s) and promises, one thing they agree on is that there is a literal kingdom described in Revelation 20. So, to say it again, even though we all affirm premillennialism, many of us have different hermeneutics and understandings of ecclesiology. Yours or mine is not the only one. So if a literalist interpretation of Revelation 20 is not necessarily tied to one’s ecclesiology or hermeneutics, how is it a core doctrine?

For those of us who do not assume that the EFCA is bound exclusively to one of these views, we want to affirm our belief (in the words of the draft revision) 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,” because we do agree that in these things, eschatology is profoundly and practically important. But to use a term like premillennial that refers to the one particular matter of Revelation 20, with all the unanswered questions that go with it, seems inappropriate to include in our Statement of Faith. The return of Christ and the establishment of his kingdom are should be articulated, but a specific interpretation of Revelation 20 need not be a defining doctrine.

I fear that this is turning into a debate between the Dispensationalists and those who are not. I hope I am wrong. I would like to continue to hear from all sides of the matter.

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

Just a note to say that Steve Miller (who appears in these comment pages
above and sees ethical problems associated with this process) and I (who
have recently said I see no big ethical problem here) got together on the
phone today and had some good fellowship and a discussion of the issues.

Steve had info and a perspective that I didn't have, and while we didn't end up agreeing on everything, it was a good and productive conversation, and we
are in full, unhindered fellowship.

-Matt Mitchell
Pastor, Lanse EFC, Lanse PA

re Subscriptionism.

I have heard both of these said:

1. every member should agree.

2. every church should afrirm the SOF - but not necessarily members. And every pastor, professor, distrinct or national officer should affirm.

At an ordination council a few years ago, I fist heard of the "top half/botton half" test for membership. Also the discussion of who the SOF was for. One point was that churches that existed previous to 1950 would have had a different SOF and, I am told, were not required to change to the 1950.

I am sure that is true of Bethany EFC, Madison (we are 100), but at some time the 1950 SOF was taken. Our bylaws require all new members to agree.

It would be an interesting question to see: On whom was the 1950 SOF binding? (I suspect churches, pastors, professors and association leaders - but not individual church members, bc the existing members were already members)

I would like to know what the expectation is for churches - in our case the 1950 statement is in our Constition (not the easier to change By Laws). Can an associaiton of autonomous churches mandate acceptance? Can we live with 1950 SOF churches and 2007 SOF churches?

My guess, and that is all it is, is there is more organizational fluidity that we might think, but for a long time there was a uniforminty of outlook bc of the predominance of scandinavian ethnicity and the prevelance of the Schofield bible - back in the day when the pastor turned the page, the church was filled with the rustle of simultaneous page turning.

These are only gentle questions.

“I’m personally in favor of taking another year at least before presenting it to the conference so that our churches have time to fully digest it and have input in maturing the document,”
************************************

This isn’t a bad thought and I am tempted to agree…except, that it leaves the impression that it is a forgone conclusion that the SoF will be changed. It is framing the situation in such a way that there seems to be but one way forward, and that is change. I hope I am reading this wrong. A gradual substantive change is still a substantive change. Quick or slow, change is change. The whole question of whether the document needs to be changed at all should be addressed first, before there is any discussion of what changes might or might not need to be made in the event that it is decided to make changes.

We should not be framing the conversation in such a way that a change to the SoF is inevitable. It isn’t.

It seems like we missed a step somewhere. I’m tempted to say more about that, but I won’t. Suffice it to say that from my perspective, the cart is before the horse and the whole process is out of correct order.

I agree that we should "think the best of one another, pray for one another, and strive for unity and love even as we disagree." I do believe that folks on both sides have good motivation and intentions. I also think that there is such a thing as the “law of unintended consequences”.

We need to tread very carefully here. As one writer put it, we are tampering with our organizational DNA. I know I am stating the obvious, but this isn’t just a business or a non-profit organization. We are a Church. This is holy ground. If we are going to make any changes, we had better be absolutely certain that it is by the leading of the Holy Spirit that we are doing so. I think a good indication that a change is by the leading of the Holy Spirit would be if we were “all of one accord.” So far, that is not the case and it is troubling.

In Love and Affection,
Your brother in Christ Jesus,

George Husted
Deacon at Glastonbury Community Church, CT

[If you note the time that I am posting this, you will see that this is keeping me up at night. I genuinely love our Church and want to do the will of our Lord. I believe the same is true of you all.]

Hey there Jeff (and howdy to the rest of the evangabloggers)

Not all my comments are directed at you but towards the discussion as a whole.

My attempt at satirical humor was not meant to be merely "sarcasm, posturing, and derision", but to take this line of SOF revision to the area of absurdity. Historically these changes have lead to wards this kind of chain reaction.

Jeff I do not know you from Adam. I do not know your educational or professional background (except I recall you are involved with leading membership classes) What I do know is that you do not see a connection between one's eschatology and ecclesiology and the application to the governance of the Church. For a single member (or worshiper) of the church this may not be all that troubling, but for church leaders, pastors and educators it sure is. A pastor should hold his beliefs up for exam and practice and see them acted out consistently in every day life situations of the Church and it related organizations.

By the way I have not mentioned Dispensationalism as a theological point yet (at least O don’t think I have). I have mentioned the eschatological link between the views of the millennium and our church governance. That seems perfectly reasonable with in the scope of our discussion.

My comment on studying systematic theology was intended to encourage you to explore the connections that differing areas of theology have with the practice and application of our faith. This would go beyond individual churches, to the organizations they are associated with or are to serve and support. This is uniquely true of the pastor and church leadership (denominational and educational).

This concern is not intended for you only but for all those who are actively seeking a revisionist action upon our SOF. I am shocked that the Spiritual Heritage Committee does not see this Revision as an attempt to take us in a different direction from who we were intended to be and are, towards a more wide-open definition that is under attack in general. The term evangelical is not universally agreed on when it comes to standards and practices; and is currently being challenged at the level of core essentials of the faith. There are those who wish to be acknowledged as evangelicals that do not hold to a strict definition of the Trinity, inerrancy and the nature of God, as omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

In the early 50’s were there amills and postmills. Was the idea of evangelical broader than the EFCA? If so, our founders were comfortable with the line of division and the invitation for unity that was and is represented in our SOF. We do need to freshin’ it up and address certain issues for clarity, but we must admit that our change on eschatology will have an organizational change (at the local church and associational/denominational level). Amill theology and postmill theology demands a greater sense of universal authority and less autonomy at the local church level. Read their works and examine their practices.

I am not condemning them; there are those evangelical reformed and non-reformed groups that seek to serve God by acting consistently with in their rule of faith. I cannot think that these fine brothers and sisters would not find our, imminent, premill and congregation distinctives as a threat towards their view of the local and universal church at an organizational/denominational level. They do not seek to lower their doctrinal distinctives to our level for good reason. They believe and desire to implement the natural out workings of their doctrine and faith. I respect them for that and support them in their integrity. I do not see any evangelical association that holds to the core of our faith as boogy men. Nor do is see them as Evangelical Free either. I respect them to much to act like their eschatology and ecclesiology are of little concern or importance. I am not just talking about reformed ecclesiology but other forms. The Calvary Chapel association is a fine evangelical group. But their view on church governance and organizational authority makes me uncomfortable and is not compatible with the EFCA. They are thoroughly evangelical, yet not Evangelical Free, nor do they want to be.

Do ya’ know what I am sayin’ here?

I believe our founders new that they were calling for a type of evangelical unity that could not be spread across all evangelical experiences and distinctives. If anything this was the place where premill folks could come when they found that they were not at home in the reformed circles. Most imminent premill folks are part of bible churches and or independent churches. Some are part of much more separatist groups. The EFCA way is a place (historically) for those who seek a broader association to come with their imminent and premill convictions. Currently the SOF Revision makes that stance much more narrow (if not impossible) for dispensationalists (there I said it). Are we really trying to have an EFCA that is open to all but dispensationalists? Our operative SOF is not a problem as it now stands.

We have never been a place for all believers, but a place for all believers who agree with our (non-reformed, not anti-reformed, non-charismatic- not anticharsmatic; and the list goes on) evangelical distinctives and doctrines.

How open are we going to be? The answer will be in the secondary doctrines and redefining of our core doctrines.

I hope this does not come across as defensive or belittling in any way.

These are my thoughts
And I ain’t jokin’ around.

Pastor CJ Addis
Kings EFC, Hanford CA

Dear fellow Free church folk,

In several comments on this thread and on the other thread reference has been made to the intentions of our founders. Since I’m living near TEDS I took it on myself to go look up some of the things said around the time our current 12 point SoF was being written and adopted. BTW, I’m not clear what the differences are between these two threads, so Greg, can you post a clarification?

Here is what Dr Olson said in the weeks before the Merger conference:
Constitutions are always being revised and we anticipate changes down through the years until the Lord comes (if he tarries through another year!!!) but the plan is workable as a beginning and a basis for merger.
- Arnold T. Olson, Chairman of the Committee on Unity, “Moving Towards Merger . . .” in The Evangelical Beacon, 21 March 1950, p. 9.

Dr. Olson fully expected the SoF to be considered for revision from time to time. I suspect his comments reflect what the Committee as a whole thought. So a revision is in line with our beloved Free Church tradition. The specifics of some proposed revisions he certainly would not agree with (note his aside on imminency) but he and others in 1950 clearly saw this SoF as a living document, subject to revision.

Dr Ernest Manges, EFCA-IM missionary to the Philippines, on Home Assignment in Grayslake, IL. Email: manges “at” efcaim.org

Hi,

No one nibbled on my question on the broadened statement on scripture, so I will take it that no one else on this blog sees that as significant. (March 23, 28)

Also, in re-readig the Revision #9 on the return of Christ, while as we all know, preM is not stated, the way it is phrased feels (for lack of a better term) premillenial:

"...when He will establish his kingdom fully..."

to an evangelical PostM - the kingdom was already established by evangelistic means. the return is after the kingdom has come - hence "post"

to an aMil - maybe would prefer "complete". perhaps "fully" is the key term allowing the "already/not yet" to be "NOW".

Anyway, while the statement would not preclude other Millenial positions, it seems to me an aMil believer and a postMil believer(of the evangelical stripe) would say it very differently.

And "constant expectancy" comes close to "imminant".

Can an evangelical postM be "constantly expectant"? "Hopeful", yes, but expectancy could only come with the evangelistic task seemed to be near it's completion. Not, it seems, our condition in the 21st Century, or of many other time periods.

What am I saying? Just that the flavor of the inclusive language here is strongly preM.

It is kind of like when I try to write in Spanish, it is clearly translated English. When we try to write a millennially inclusive statement, it is pretty clearly preM in translation.

By the way, I attended TEDS, but I was not dispensational long before that. Grew up EFCA, (3rd generation) had a dispensational class in High School, but did not agree then, nor do I now. (My teachers version tended toward the "oops, try again" reading of the OT - a rather low view of the Almighty. I have since learned that there are varieties of Dispensational teaching - few would follow the "oops, try again...." teaching) so at least in my case, it can't be blamed on TEDS.

I had a moment when I pondered AMil - but while it is easily stated, and the chart is simple - the "devil is in the (exegetical) details." It is not so easy to say, "metaphor" at every turn. Metaphors do, actually, have to mean something.

Thank you for your comments. I have appreciated the opportunity to listen in to the dialogue, and I have found it helpful. I trust you have as well. Because the comments section on this post has become so long we will be closing it out on Monday. Please plan to complete your discussions on this post by then. We will then post something new to which we can begin the discussion process all over again.