The Statement of Faith Revision

"good fences make good neighbors" and

"Don't move the ancient boundary stones set up by your forefathers." Pv 22:28

When we discuss establishing the boundaries of EFCA doctrine - by giving partular substance to the phrase "Believers only; all believers."

Can anyone suggest what the principles ought to be for deciding what is primary, secondary and tertiary in doctrine?

It seems we agree that some issues are more important than others, but we don't agree on where the line is drawn.

At an evening of interaction, discussion, and prayer at our church to consider and review the proposed revision, the following was suggested: since # 4 of the revision states that Jesus is now "at the right hand of the Majesty on High..." we thought it doctrinally helpful to add "sitting" at the right hand ..... as this more clearly reflects Hebrews 8:1-2 - "...We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven.." His work is complete - hence, he "sat down".

This is not an attempt to be wordy, but to be clear, and Biblical!

Thanks for considering this addition.

-A group from Red Cedar Evangelical Free Church in Okemos, Michigan

If the 2nd Draft Revision will not be presented at the NLC this June for a first reading and the SHC is now working on a 3rd Draft Revision to be presented to the BOD at their September meeting...why will the SHC continue the discussion of the 2nd Draft Revision at the NLC and why will the SHC also be providing resources for local churches to aid in the ongoing process of considering and discussing the 2nd Draft Revision?

I must be missing something.

Is the 2nd draft revision viable or not?

If it is, why not present it at the NLC this June and why start work on a 3rd draft revision? If it isn’t, why continue discussing it at the NLC and why continue to have local churches consider and discuss it?

This is most perplexing.

Also, has the BOD actually ever approved a “revision”, or is the direction to the SHC still to “strengthen”, “refresh”, and “reaffirm” the existing SOF?

Striking articles from the current SOF and creating new ones from whole cloth appear to me to be actions that are diametrically opposed to the purported rationale given by the SHC in the preamble of the 1st draft “revision”.

Is there a document from the BOD that directs the SHC to even explore a “revision” of the SOF? The language cited in the preamble of the 1st draft revision does not appear to lend itself to the support of a revision.

Just wondering…

George Husted
Deacon at Glastonbury Community Church, CT

In reference to the resolution, is "3." possible given the fact that what is stated in "C." is a reflection of the Articles of Incorporation (Art. XII) and would seemingly not be able to be changed (either to strengthen or weaken it) unless the protocol that it establishes for amendments is followed?

In other words, do we need an amendment that must be introduced one year and then acted upon at the next meeting in order for unanimous consent to be binding as a "special order?" I'm not aware of a provision for special orders and I am not a parliamentarian by any means so this is a bit confusing.

Isn't it reasonable to expect that what is stated in "4." (transitional guidelines) be made available to churches before the time of formal introduction?

Finally, if the resolution is not passed then what?

George,

It's not that the 2nd draft isn't viable, it's that it isn't fully mature, yet. Each successive revision of the document is a refinement.

The BOD and the SHC have invited the entire EFCA to dialogue with them and provide input into the process before putting something before us to consider voting upon.

My sense is that they don't feel that the process has been given enough time for everyone to be included.

-Matt Mitchell
Pastor, Lanse EFC, Lanse PA

P.S. Greet your pastor for me; he and I were classmates at TEDS.

What is Important enought to include? (toward answering my previous post - May 7)

Here are two ways:
1. Only that which is really essential to Salvation itself.
This would be the "top half" of our current statment and probably #12. Or something like the NAE statement.

2. What is essential for salvation and those beliefs that are built into our history.
This would include some of our distinctives: pre-mil, congregational,tolerance of views on baptims, calvinism and charismatic gifts, etc.

Our revision tries to approach #1. Our current statement is closer to #2.

The #1 approach makes us leaner for future mission and growth. the #2 makes us faithful to our roots.

Those valuing debate would favor #1. Those valuing agreement would favor #2

Would debate distract us from mission, so that we are better off to narrow the options?

Hey Der,

Thanks Dave for seeking to bring clarity to this process.

I think thier needs to be a review of the goals set forth in the preamble.

As for the choices that Dave Carlson gave I want to make a couple of points.

A. The NEA is a para-church movement. It is true that many who are excited about this process want to go with option #1. But the preamble seems to side or desire to accomplish a #2 view, and yet the revision does not do that.

We are a Church movement. Our eschatology and ecclesiology are linked in our history and in our theology.

Systematic theology seems to be taking a hit in this process for a more "wind tunnel" shaped SOF. The shape should serve the function.

B. I do not agree that the new SOF would make our missions effort any easier. It might make it easier on some missionaries who swing towards the reformed side of evangelicalism. But when it comes to missions that is focused on church planting...the form and functin of the church in this age will always need to be addressed. Just read Paul's letter to the Roman Church.

Our Pastoral cluster is meeting tomorrow (Wed 5/17/06)to come up with our collective view of this SOF. We are 8 churches with two that are over 250 people. Many of these churches are church plants within the last twenty years. However there are those that were originally Swedish Free. The Central Valley of California is one of the most quickly growing areas in the state. Our premill, iminent and congregationalsm is not the problem. A convictin to live out our beliefs is.

Somewhere over the last twenty years, the EFCA and its associated churches have lost thier collective convictions. It is my prayer that this process would stoke our hearts, minds and actions towards living out our convictions.

Stayin On Course (Heb 12:1-3)

Pastor CJ Addis
pastorkefc@juno.com

The results of my adult class that took about 10 weeks to review the SOF, current and proposed.

1. Everyone was positive about the 2nd draft. Particularly for clarifying some doctrinal points
- for example the new #10 is much clearer than the old #12 on what it means to be a believer.

2. Two people, one college aged and one older had reservations about the millenial position. But still liked the statement overall. (I had spent a class period laying out the Pre/Post/A Mil positions, and another on the significance).

3. On person did not mind the increased word count, and actually thought it was hepful for clarity.

4. There was a lot of positive comment about the readability of the revision - including the introductory phrases before each point.

If it were put to a vote by my SS class, it would have passed with the necessary margin.

I personally am still undecided on the millennial question - Grant Osborne's comments at the mid winter that the debate between perspectives will sharpen us all in our reading of the scriptures is well taken. However, will we end up spending a lot of energy on the debate when we could be about mission?

And, sorry to say Greg, I am not resolved on the phrase in #2 about scripture vis a vis human knowledge.

I expect this to be my last comment, at least until Revision #3 comes along.

I've heard a rumor that next year's ministerial forum may be about hermeneutics and premillennialism. I sure hope it isn't about those things. I would wish for a theme on "Discerning the Primary and the Secondary" , or something with that focus in mind.

The reason I prefer that is because 99.9% of the debating that's gone on over premillennialism isn't over whether it's Biblical. The debate is only outwardly about premillennialism. Underneath the surface, what I think we have are clashing criteria for distinguishing what is essential from what is important-but-secondary, then distinguishing those two from what is tertiary, and last what is completely a matter of personal taste.

If the ministerial forum ends up being about hermeneutics and premillennialism, I fear it would devolve into just being a three day sales pitch, and not actually shed light on anything. I'm really really not interested in a 3-day long sales pitch. But something on "How Do we Discern What Matters?" would be very appropros.

While I realize there may be a need for more eschatological space in the original statement - I wonder if a Preterist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism) might be able to agree with statement 10 since there is no reference to a future coming of Christ. Could it be interpreted by some that Christ has already returned?

The sentence structure is complex making it difficult to follow and understand, expecially by those of us who are not theologically astute or trained. I suggest it be written for those of us who will use the document but vary in level of Biblical and theological sophistication. Don't forget the masses are not theologians.

#1. In line four the word "a" could be confusing. could it not open the door to consider The Elect? Or the 166,000 as is believed by the JWs. Do we all know what is meant here? Also, the statement, "...knows the end from the beginning..." needs to be guarded from Open Theology of our day as they hold that God does did not know all from the beginning, etc. Perhaps you could insert the word, "fully" to preceed that phrase?

#2 Great definition of an Evangelical. In line six, the word, "truly" is confusing. Do you mean "fully?"

#3 The statement about the human need and image are a disconnect. The human need is to belong, to be in fellowship. Man is out of fellowship with God. There is a need to be restored to fellowship with God. May I suggest the rewording of line three as, ...under His wrath BUT can be restored.... I also suggest a different word than "rescued."

#4 May I suggest that the last sentence be completed by saying, "...High Priest and Advocate to God the Father...."

# 10 May I suggest that an initial or incorporated phrase be used, such as, ...God's gospel demands a response that will determine the eternal destiny of every person..." This could be used at the end of #9.

Thanks.

I have found the following to be a helpful model for discussing the relative importance of theological issues:

1 - Essential doctrines: biblical truths that are salvific. The deity of Christ, His death, perfect life, resurrection, the reality of eternal judgment, our sin, the necessity of faith.

2 - Sustaining doctrines: biblical truths, which, if denied will eventually lead to a denial of those doctrines in category one. For example, the absolute reliability of the Scriptures. When we deny verbal, plenary inspiration, we will eventually deny the divinity of Christ.

3 - Non-essential doctrines: I would place some of the Free Church distinctives in this category. For example, we are not typically charismatic in our practice.

The phrase "knows the end from the beginning" should be included. Many of our people, unknowingly, are open theists. Many outside the Free church are openly, open theists. This teaching is a current credible threat to orthodoxy. I believe our doctrinal statement should guard against this heresy. It is a crucially important sustaining doctrine.

Bob Burris
Orange, CA

Sorry I couldn't attend the national conference this week.

I agree with Bob Burris that some language pertaining to God's foreknowledge needs to be restored. Open Theism is fundamentally humanistic (it's like a limitless view of free-will gone cancerous and grown out of control), and it's theologically blasphemous. You don't need to be a Calvinist to affirm that God knows the future.

The SOF was used to cut certain people out of the mix, based on secondary but important matters. The language about how baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances "for this present age" was intended to cut out the ultra-dispensationalists, who denied that statement and were a real problem at the time. You can never get rid of secondary-but-important matters. I don't want to be part of a group that is as wishy-washy as the IVCF.

I still want to hear someone explain how we can protect ourselves as a movement from the distorting effects of certain eschatologies, if we open our doors to post-millennialism or preterism.

There has to be some way to prevent the heretical elements of consistent Preterism from entering the fellowship. And there has to be some way of preventing the politicizing, theonomic effects of post-millennialism.

Pre-millennialism now functions (apart from its own positive features), as a barring bulwark against these two other harmful viruses. I don't believe that those who seem so confident about casting premillennialism aside are thinking in terms of the infectious stuff it keeps out.

If the new Revision said something more assertively and explicitly about how:

1. The kingdoms of this world will not become the Kingdom of God prior to Christ's return.

2. The Church does not in this age exhaustively fulfill all the prophecies of Messiah's reign.

...it would guard against the politicizing of our view of the Church, and no less importantly, keep post-millennialism was eating into our missional commitments. We need to show some sensitivity to how warped eschatology helped cause the bloody convulsions of the Church in centuries past, especially in Western Europe.

To whomever: Stop thinking about millennialism as if it's some novel doctrine from the 1800s that led to the Left Behind series and funny 4-color charts, and tune into Church History and what it can teach us about how millennialism gone wrong will wreck the Church.

What you believe about millennialism = how you believe God's Kingdom will come to pass. The medieval Church believed it was their job to bring it to pass, and so they killed people to do it. If you look at it that way, you can see it is not a trivial doctrine.

I have read through all the comments in this section and find the last one by Jack Brooks the most enlightening. In fact the first thing that occurred to me once discovering that the proposed SOF was deleting premillenialism, was, so what happens when someone wants to claim the kingdom has come already? Mr. Brooks is correct, while the statement may inconveninece some it has purpose and protects us from error.

I also thought it interesting that one of the appeals the revision committee made for removing this statement was because of our tradition of majoring on important issues, and having charity for issues of legitimate debate. This is the justification the Evangelical Covenant uses for having no statement of faith except a generic statement that they believe in the Word of God, ect. I grew up in the Covenant, and expierienced a troubling time when I attended North Park College in the late 60's. As a freshman I got to know several of the seminary students, and was absolutely blown away by what they believed. They questioned everything basic to the faith, even the Virgin Birth of Christ. I couldn't believe it and it troubled me so much I eventually ended up in the Free Church. It was then I encountered the statement of faith and rejoiced in the affirmation of my faith it represented.

We must not end up being so open minded our brains fall out. Mr. Brooks words should be carefully considered. Our dear brothers and sisters in the Covenant Chruch have suffered much because of a lack of direction and setting of boundaries. There may be legitmate reasons for allowing disagreement concerning theological issues, but history reminds us that often the tolerance among brothers, opens the door to error, since in being tolearnt we want to show respect, and that leads to remaining quiet when we should not. God, however, is a respecter of no man, and the word seems clear concerning the coming of his kingdom on earth - not while Satan is still free and the god of this world. Let's be cautious about the effect our open mindedness and brotherly concerns may have.

Just some thoughts from a layman - no MDiv's or PhD's to my name, just a love of and concern for the church. May the Spirt of God give us wisdom!