The Statement of Faith Revision

Article 11 in the current Statement of Faith summary on the EFCA web site states our belief in the "premillennial and imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The Second Draft of the statement of faith revision removes these terms and replaces them with a more generalized phraseology, "at a time known only to God..."

As a long-time attender considering membership, this change concerns me. It appears (at least to me) to be marketing language, or a slight loosening of doctrinal rigor, perhaps to become more inclusive with regard to eschatological differences.

As a non-member I have no standing in the EFCA, but I pray that "our" church will stay strong on doctrine and the proclaiming & teaching of it, as stated in the second article of the Second Draft: "...Therefore, the Bible is to be believed in all that it affirms, obeyed in all that it requires, and trusted in all that it promises." This I can strongly support. Thank you.

Daren Hastings
Eagan, MN

Looking forward to the guided discussion.

-Matt Mitchell
Pastor, Lanse EFC, Lanse PA

I am looking forward to the ongoing discussion of the Statement of Faith.

I disagree with Daren on the inclusion of premillenial doctrine. I feel that it is a narrow issue for us to be exclusive on, given some of the other theological areas where the EFCA has chosen to be inclusive. I hope that we can have a thoughtful discussion of the issues when that article comes up for discussion.

John Simons
Ocala, FL

I agree that "the process question has now been answered", but only so far as how a change to the Statement of Faith could take place.

I don't think the question of whether or not we need to change the SOF has been asked let alone answered by the broader Church.

I believe that a discussion should take place concerning why or if we should change our current SOF before jumping ahead to what the changes should be.

I don't think that conversation has happened yet.

To solve a problem, the problem must first be defined. To that end, I sincerely ask the following question:

What exactly is the specific problem with our existing SOF?

I asked that question before on February 24, 2006 at 10:25 AM in the "Welcome to the Statement of Faith Revision" thread.

"-What is 'wrong' with the existing Statement of Faith?"

I received a reply on the same thread on February 24, 2006 at 3:31 PM, from Ernest Manges. [Thank you Dr. Manges.]

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

I am unaware whether this question [What exactly is the specific problem with our existing SOF?] was ever formally raised at GC. I am unaware of a formal response or vote on this question.

I am aware that a vote approving a process to make changes to the SOF was made after a second draft of a revised [re-written] SOF was proposed by the Spiritual Heritage Committee and being discussed informally in the Church.

I reject the paradigm that the existing SOF has already been deemed sufficiently flawed that a re-write is necessary. There has been no vote that I am aware of that proposes that our current SOF is in some way flawed. There has been no vote that I am aware of affirming that there should be a new SOF written.

I reject the notion that the approval of a process that would allow a change to the SOF equates to approval of changing the SOF. Simply stated, approving a process to make a change to the SOF does not mean that the existing SOF is flawed or that a change to the SOF is currently needed. It most definitely is not a forgone conclusion that the SOF will be changed at all. No formal proposal has outlined the perceived flaws in our existing SOF and no vote has been taken [that I am aware of] stating the need to change our SOF. All that has been resolved is the process to make changes should they be deemed necessary .

I believe that the conversation about the nature of the changes to the SOF is entirely premature. That paradigm skips over the question of "what if anything is wrong with our existing SOF" entirely and presupposes that the current SOF is now so flawed that it will be changed.

If Open Theism is not defended against in the existing SOF [one of the original justifications for revising the SOF mentioned in the preamble of SOF Revision One] and this is of sufficient concern that a revision to the SOF is needed to counteract it, then make that case. Present it for a vote. Follow the process.

[However, I must exclaim that defending against Open Theism has absolutely NOTHING to do with premillenialism, congregationalism, changing the order of the first two articles, including "seeking justice for the oppressed", etc. There is a BIG DISCONNECT between the alleged reason for changing the SOF in the preamble of Revision One and the changes actually proposed. This is the sort of thing I mean about defining the problem. The problem was defined as Open Theism, but the "solution" is out of line with the problem.]

It may be that the current SOF is flawed. It may be that there is a new and unforeseen heresy that the existing SOF did not anticipate and defend against. In my opinion, these things need to be established [defined and voted on] BEFORE a meaningful discussion on the nature of changes being proposed can take place with integrity.

Your Bother in Christ Jesus,

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

[BTW...I would be in favor of changing "a" to "the" in Article 3 where it says, "a sacrifice for our sins". Contrary to appearances, I am not opposed to any and all revision!]

Some of my observations on the revised statement of Faith.

1) There is a new framework centered around "God's Gospel". Although I fully agree with this definition of "God's Gospel" from a theological point of view, I don't believe that the framework accomplishes the goal for which it was designed i.e. to "provide a kind of "headline" for each statement that allows one to skim through them quickly and grasp the whole more easily." [EFCA SOF Second Draft Revision (2/2/06): p.8, 1st paragraph]

2) We have moved the statements about the scriptures from statement one to statement two. This is something I have a bit more difficulty with, and something I believe is much stronger in our current Statement of Faith. One of the biggest historical tenants of the Protestant faith is a belief in "sola scriptura" i.e. that the scripture alone is the final authority for evaluating all of our beliefs. Because what we believe about the scriptures is fundamental to the formation of everything else in our Statement of Faith, I think that that a much stronger statement is made by keeping it first.

3) We have replaced "imminent" with "requires constant expectancy", and removed "premillennial" from the statement about eschatology. The inclusion of "premillennial" was something I questioned my pastor about when I first began attending Hillside church in San Jose, and something that up until this week I would have removed myself if I had the opportunity, but after reading through the EFCA blog related to this update I am no longer convinced that it should be removed. All but one of the arguments for keeping it seem weak to me, but the one that I am wrestling with is whether or not a pastor should be hired who does not hold to this belief, or to put it another way, is this distinctive of the EFCA something that is important enough that it should be an expected teaching? If the purpose for including premillennialism is so that it may be used as a test of faith, then I would be strongly opposed to its inclusion, but if its inclusion is for the purpose of maintaining a doctrinal distinctive of the EFCA then its removal might not be so prudent.
The change from "imminent" to "requires constant expectancy" appears to weaken this statement a bit. My first impression of this change (although I am likely reading far to much into it) is that it might be summarized as requiring a constant expectancy, but not necessarily a belief in an imminent return of Christ. Because I think the scriptures lean much more towards a belief in an imminent return of Christ, this change appears to me to be an attempt to harmonize that teaching with the two thousand years of history that "seems" to indicate a not so imminent return. Because I personally believe that the tension created by a doctrinal belief in an imminent return of Christ is theologically important, I would be hesitant to make this change.

Mike Tisdell
Hillside Church, San Jose, CA

Yo Der Hey,

Well it has been about seven months since I last made a comment on the SOF change.

There is no way to call a "non premill" statement in line with who and what we are as the EFCA. Three distinct groups broke away from the Lutherans in the mother land (Sweden) and came to the USA. They are the Evangelical Free, Swedish Covenant (or Evangelical Covenant www.covchurch.com ) and the Baptist General Conference (www.bgcworld.org ). So you have the reformed, Anabaptist and us. If you take away the premill stance, then you might as well be Evangelical Covenant. The difference between BGC and the EFCA is their hard stance on baptism and their Baptist form of church polity. However baptism and polity are no longer much of a stretch for the EFCA and the BGC.

Here are my original questions that are almost two years old��Are we trying to make the EFCA a home for all evangelicals and or all Christians? Who asked the spiritual committee to do this? Did the delegates, or local churches? Are the PCA and Christian Reformed Churches begging to be let in?� I have yet to see any solid evangelical reformed group look at dropping their amill or postmill stances.

It seems to me if there are those who do not like the theology of the EFCA as it is currently accepted then they have a simple choice. Find a good evangelical group of churches that agrees with their stances and go there. We have our theology that is unique to this ecclesial association; as is appropriate for all ecclesial associations. I am ordained under the current SOF with out any reservations and with complete integrity. I understand that immanent does not in fact mean immanent, but �at some moment�. I new that when I joined. I also know why that is. I ain�t happy about it�but it is what it is. But enough is enough.

I am calling on the EFCA leadership to show the courage of their convictions. I would not infiltrate the Mennonite Brethren and try to erase their pacifist stance and make them Calvinistic, nor would I try to convert the Evangelical Presbyterians to dispensationalism, nor would I demand that the EFCA come under the 1689 London Baptist confession (although some may wish we would).

It is one thing to seek clarification and freshen up the language, but to change the systematic theology of our denomination is a whole other can of worms. If the proponents say that this is not happening then they are being less than honest. I expect more from our theologians.

We should stop this process immediately and take a vote (according to our by laws). Are we for exploring theological changes to our SOF or for clarification of our current SOF? Then we should move a head based on those votes.

All this other stuff we are trying to do is a waste of time and frankly is quite frustrating.

The EFCA Today that explored the process was a propaganda tool for SOF theology change. The EFCA ministries are to serve the local churches. That includes ordination, higher Ed and the national and district offices. The cart is before the horse on this.

If there are those who want to move us theologically away from our historical stance (and biblically permissible stances) then they should find a new house. Premillenial theology and the accompanying systematic theology is what this EFCA was founded on and what unifies us. If it is a stumbling block to some, then they should seek out the appropriate fellowships. We should seek out how this all came about. What has lead us to this point and what are the pressures that have made this change of theology something to be considered? Then we need to address those issues as a denomination founded on ecclesial agreement on our Statement of Faith and the purpose of our association.

May we all have the courage of our convictions.

If ya� want to talk to me directly please feel free to do so.

Pastor CJ Addis Hanford CA
pastorkefc@juno.com 661-342-1249

Pastor CJ Addis says: "It seems to me if there are those who do not like the theology of the EFCA as it is currently accepted then they have a simple choice. Find a good evangelical group of churches that agrees with their stances and go there."

-----------------

The result, the EFCA is reduced to becoming a "sect" of Evangelicalism.

The EFCA as a member of the body of Christ would suffer in the lack of God gifted individuals for the work of ministry and evangelism, simply because they do not subscribe to a particular "non-essential" eschatological view.

Is the EFCA ready for such a consequence?

This is a "paper fence" issue. There are MUCH better ways to make a "distinction of heritage" of the EFCA.

Drop "premillenial" and use "glorious"

Blessings

Thor Lundberg
Broomfield, CO
Ephesians 4:3 and Colossians 3:14
tkestm-efcablog1 @ yahoo.com