"The Statement of Faith Revision - Our Unity in God’s Gospel" is a unique blog in that the focus group is primarily limited to the EFCA and the topic is the revision of our Statement of Faith. It is considered the “unofficial official” blog addressing the Statement of Faith. Although I will be overseeing the blog, I will bring in the other members of the Spiritual Heritage Committee for interaction as well. The SHC desires to hear from the people in the EFCA, so we are using as many means of communication as possible. We believe this will provide a great opportunity for dialogue and discussion to aid in this important process.

About the Author

Greg Strand has been the EFCA's Director of Biblical Theology and Credentialing since 2002. He holds a Master of Divinity and a Master of Arts in New Testament from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and is currently working on a Ph. D. from Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Heverlee, Belgium. He and his wife, Karen, have been married for 21 years and have three children, Michael (17), Elyssa (14), and Anna (8).

Greg has served in pastoral ministry in the Evangelical Free Church of America since 1989, first as an associate pastor of adult ministries, and than as a senior pastor. Since 1995, he has served on the Board of Ministerial Standing and as the Dean of the annual EFCA Series of Theological Discussions. At present he serves as the Chair of the Spiritual Heritage Committee. He is passionate about God-glorifying, Christ-exalting, Spirit-empowered ministry rooted in the Word.

Comments and Guidelines

We desire honest, open communication through the comments written in this blog. To help foster a healthy conversation, here are some general reminders as we carry on this biblical and theological discussion:

1. God sees and knows all (Ps. 139). We are to glorify Him in all we do and say (1 Cor. 10:31).
2. We confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, and thus we live under His authority, and we seek to please and honor Him in what we do and say (Phil. 2:9-11). By confessing “Christ is Lord,” we have given up all of our rights to Him, our Lord (Gal. 2:20; 2 Cor. 5:14-15).
3. As those who confess the name of Christ, we are brothers and sisters (Jn. 15:15; 1 Cor. 1:2; Heb. 2:11). This is a family discussion.
4. Our character ought to be reflective of the truth we speak and defend. It is important to remember that the mouth speaks what is in the heart, words for which we will be accountable (Matt. 12:34-37).
5. We are committed both to doctrinal purity and Christian unity (cf. Eph.); but we are not given to purity at the expense of unity (sectarianism), or unity at the expense of purity (liberalism).
6. We must understand the difference between first-order doctrine and second-order doctrine (e.g. Acts 15:36-41; 1 Cor. 15:1-5; Gal. 1:6-9).

It is also important to remember the following specifics as we carry on a dialogue with one another:

1. Speak (write) the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). Speak (Write) to your position passionately, but do so lovingly.
2. Think before you speak (write) (1 Cor. 14:20).
3. Make sure what you say (write) is accurate; get your facts straight (Eph. 4:25).
4. Focus on the issue when making statements, comments or suggestions, not on people (Tit. 2:7-8).
5. Be quick to hear, listen respectfully and attentively (Jms. 1:19); speak (write) and engage in discussion with humility (Phil. 2:3-5).
6. Give preference or honor to the other above yourself (Rom. 12:10).
7. Do not impugn the motive(s) of others (1 Cor. 4:5).
8. Do not allow yourself to be angry with a brother or sister (Matt. 5:21-22; Eph. 4:31).
9. Do not create personal loyalty tests (1 Cor. 1:10-13), or attempt to make your point or defend your position through manipulation (cf. Matt. 5:37).
10. If you have offended another, apologize and be reconciled (Eph. 4:3, 26-27).
11. If you have been offended by another, communicate that and seek reconciliation (Matt. 18:15; Eph. 4:32).

With these biblical truths as our framework, we will post most comments we receive. We do, however, reserve the right to edit comments that have compromised biblical truth or Christian character. Our desire is to foster appropriate God-honoring dialogue.

Disclaimer

Many articles on this blog will be “works in process” and are not official EFCA positions. Moreover, since I am providing the oversight to the blog, what I say may not officially represent the views of the SHC. This is one of the beauties of a blog dialogue, but also one of the limitations. When a stated position is officially endorsed by the SHC or the EFCA, I will note it.

Thank you,

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

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 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

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

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

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.

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

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

Jeremy Oliver
Shiloh EFC
West Fargo ND

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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...

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?’

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.

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 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?

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

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!

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

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

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.

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."

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.

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

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

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

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

Please clarify.

-Matt Mitchell

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.

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

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)

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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 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 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

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

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 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!

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

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

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

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

“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

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 o