The Statement of Faith Revision

I'm disappointed in reading the transitional rules that there will not be provision for grandfathering individuals who were credentialed under the old SOF. We are making such provisions for churches, but the man pastoring a church which retains the old SOF, must now affirm a new SOF to retain his credential. We are simply giving men one more reason to not be credentialed through the EFCA and to seek local church credentialing.

Ron Hammer

Regarding the transitional rules, I recently came across an article titled The Preachers Have a Creed, in the Evangelical Beacon (July 1, 1947, p. 2). It is a report of the Ministerial Association (Swedish) meeting at Medicine Lake, Minnesota when the ten-point doctrinal statement was adopted (two additional statements were added at the merger in 1950). The editor wrote: There is no intention, so far as we could gather, to require the members of the Ministerial Association to attach their signatures to this doctrinal statement, nor to discipline some member who might find it impossible to subscribe to every article as formulated by the committee of preachers. The main purpose of the doctrinal statement seems to be to inform people as to the generally accepted beliefs held by the Evangelical Free Church. When outsiders ask, as they often do, What does the Free Church believe, our District superintendents and others will be able to say, This is what our Free Church preachers, for the most part, believe. My question is: Was this the official practice in 1947 and 1950, particularly not disciplining members who did not subscribe to every point of the statement?

David,

With the recent change in the Transitional Rules for those reaffirming the SOF, I am not sure if you still have a concern about this. As you have likely read, if the Proposed Revision is adopted by the Conference in 2008, one who was credentialed under the 1950 SOF can choose to reaffirm either SOF.

Here are a number of responses to your question. Before responding to your question with a brief recounting of our history, I must begin by pleading ignorance. Since I was not around, and since there is not a great deal of written records about this, which you know, I confess I do not know the specific answer to your question. However, it would be accurate to say that what was done in 1947 is descriptive of our history, but it has no bearing on what we do today. Our bylaws and credentialing standards are quite clear. Nationally, we do not say anything about local church members. Having said this, there are a number of other things I can say more specifically.

There is a difference between what was passed by the Ministerial Association of the Swedish EFC and what was passed at the merger Conference in 1950. The former was only approved by the Ministerial Association, while the latter had Conference approval. Thus, there is a difference in authority and the number of people it impacted.

On December 19, 1950, The Evangelical Beacon 1/21, p. 3, President Halleen wrote of the Amillennialists �among us. Its growth in certain quarters is alarming. It was deemed necessary at our latest conference to suggest that officers and board members sign on the creedal dotted line.� Granted it is suggested, but in light of the necessity language and the need for officers and board members to sign off on the creed, the SOF carries more authority than what was stated of the Swedish Ministerial Association Creed for pastors.

In 1961, A. T. Olson, This We Believe, identified four main groups that were required to sign off on the SOF, and he believed that though there was no denominational authority in local Free Churches, there was authority in the larger fellowship. According to Olson (p. 38), �It is used either as a test or a guide in ordinations, selecting men to serve in administrative positions, commissioning missionaries and granting tenure to members of the faculties at the schools.�

In the 1990s, as the EFCA continued to grow, discussion began about requiring the whole SOF to be adopted by local churches in order to become part of the EFCA, either through church plants or transfers.

In 1997, the Office of the President, on behalf of the Board of Ministerial Standing, on behalf of the Conference, began doing a five-year reaffirmation of all those credentialed in the Free Church. In this, credentialed individuals were/are asked to �reaffirm the SOF without mental reservation.�

I did notice that you shifted from pastors to members. The quote from The Evangelical Beacon addresses pastors, whereas you ask about disciplining members. Let me address them separately. To the former, if one who is credentialed cannot reaffirm the SOF, the individual is asked to explain �why,� and based on that it may mean nothing further, or it may begin a process of asking to clarify and eventually if it is, for example, a denial of the Trinity, that person would be disciplined. To the latter, I do not believe that a member would be disciplined if they could not sign off on the SOF, but it would depend on what they could not sign. As our discussion over the past three years as manifested, the SOF is used in a number of different ways with different levels of authority in the local church. My sense is that there has been a growing number of churches who use it in a subscriptive manner, i.e. one must sign off all 12 points of the SOF or one cannot become a member. There might be a couple of exceptions, but even if those concessions are granted, those individuals would be limited in what they would be allowed to do.

As I close, maybe you could help me to understand your question. You commented on the Transitional Rules and its connection with the SOF and discipline. As you read the previous TR, were you under the impression that if a premillennialist could not sign a SOF that did not include premillennialism that they would be disciplined? That was never the intent of that previously worded TR. It has now been reworded so this has become a non-issue.

Greg Strand

Yes, the recent change in the Transitional Rules pertaining to ordained pastors reflects the spirit cited in the 1947 Evangelical Beacon article, and answers my concern. Thank you for clarifying the difference between the 1947 decision by the Ministerial and the 1950 decision by the merger Conference. There clearly was a difference in scope and authority.

I appreciate the brief history of the application of the SOF. While there has been much discussion over the past couple of years about content, much less has been said about application of the SOF, and the history of its application.

Although the context of my question dealt with members of the Ministerial, your point about members of local churches raises a question of application that seems to be addressed in the Transitional Rules under Preamble. Was the intent ever for the 1950 SOF to be applied to members in local churches? President Halleen s and Dr. Olson s statements that you quote deal with ordained pastors, leaders, missionaries, and faculty. My question is: At what level should the free-church principle of Believers Only But All Believers be applied? Should new members of local churches, for example, be required to sign on the creedal dotted line, believing all points? A different application would be for new members (believers, including new believers) to agree to sit under the teaching of the local church, given its EFCA SOF. This allows for a process of discipleship and progressive understanding of our theological distinctives. Elders, teachers, new staff, etc., however, would be required to believe all points. This reflects the two-tiered approach that some churches have applied.

David,

Dr. A. T. Olson spelled out in This We Believe (chapter 3, �The Case for Creeds,� pp. 32-41) some of the early applications of the EFCA Statement of Faith. In the previous post outlining this history, Olson�s fourth point was listed that stated the four groups that must sign off on the creedal-dotted line, �The Creed Provides a Test of Orthodoxy to be Used in Such Areas Where Actual Authority Exists.�

The third point in this chapter addresses your present question: �The Creed Provides a Common Testimony as to the Official Position of the Church on the Doctrines in Question.� Olson states that though the SOF cannot be forced on a local church or an individual, �it does present the view of the majority.� The situation was different prior to the merger. Olson notes, �Prior to the adoption of the statement there was no way of proving whether or not the statement of any individual represented the viewpoint of the church at large.� However, post 1950 merger, this changed. Olson continues, �Since its adoption more and more local congregations are, of their own free will, and not be compulsion by some denominational official, incorporating the statement into their own constitutions. Since it represents the view of the majority of churches in the general assembly, why not also the view of the majority of members in the local congregation?�

As is evident in this quote, local churches faced a different situation after the merger, and it was primarily due to the adopted SOF. You also read of the valiant attempt to maintain the fine balance between the autonomy of the local congregation and the local church�s voluntary participation in the association (movement or denomination). Saying �yes� both to autonomy and voluntary association in the EFCA precludes independent-only, on the one hand, and any form of hierarchical authority, on the other hand. My read of our history is that we so emphasized the autonomy of the local church it was at the expense of the voluntary association. Later in the 1980s and into the 1990s, and even to this day, there has been, and continues to be, an attempt to bring more of a balance to both elements of the EFCA, which means an emphasis on the voluntary association.

Now back to the question of �believers only but all believers,� the SOF and membership in local churches. Many are not comfortable following a two-tier approach to the SOF, as the believe it dilutes the SOF and its purpose. This, I conclude, has led to the tension many feel in the EFCA. What the SHC suggested was one way of attempting to resolve this tension.

I wonder if a better way to answer the question you raise would be to consider the broadest circle of �believers only but all believers� to be the regular attenders , those who are true believers and who attend regularly and faithfully. (In this scenerio one would have to distinguish "Christian 'regular attenders'" from non-Christian 'regular attenders.'") At this level, wherever these people are spiritually on this side of conversion, they would likely give general agreement to the SOF, to the mission and vision, etc., of the local church. The level of membership would then be for those who agree to sign-off on the SOF. Those who are members take on a greater responsibility than the regular attenders, and if they are to make decisions as part of the �congregation� on behalf of the local church, they ought to be in agreement with our doctrinal beliefs. Of course there are some exceptions to the application of this model, but this seems to be more accurate to where we are today than what happened in 1947 or even initially at the merger in 1950 (which was noted by Olson in 1961).

Thank you for your good question David. I agree that we have not given much time in our SOF discussions to the question you raise. That may be because the question was unimportant, that the question was less important than the SOF discussion, or because there is an unspoken consensus about how this is understood today. I am not sure of the answer. Maybe some of our future discussions will help us to discover that answer.

Because of Christ,
Greg