Introductory Statement of Identity and Gospel Structure
Second Draft Revision of the EFCA Statement of Faith:
We believe in God's Gospel
Our identity as the Evangelical Free Church of America is centered on God’s evangel, the gospel of Jesus Christ, who died and rose again to give us eternal life. To God's glory, the gospel is the power of God for the salvation of all who believe. Our fundamental theological convictions are aspects of this gospel.
Here are some questions to begin our discussion.
1. Should this be considered part of the Statement of Faith (SOF) or not? Why or why not?
2. What, if anything, should be tweaked in this preamble to the SOF?
3. If we are to include any other identity markers, beyond our commitment to the evangel, the gospel, is this possibly the place to do that? If we do, would that affect the weight we place upon this statement (cf. question 1)?
4. Is this statement necessary? Is a preamble helpful to include with a SOF, or does it add words and cause more confusion?
5. More broadly, is the "gospel structure" the format we want to use? What are the strengths and weaknesses of this structure?
6. How do the gospel and the kingdom relate, i.e. how are they similar and how are they dissimilar? Is it important to say something more about the kingdom as Jesus emphasized both the kingdom and the gospel (cf. Mk. 1:14-15)?
Comments
Comments RSS feed
Hi,
would those who object to the "broadening" of the definition of the gospel be happier if we said that our "fundamental theological covictions are outgrowths of that gospel" rather than "aspects". or some other word like "implicatons", "consequences" or "results"?
Thanks for asking, Greg.
1. Yes, I think it is helpful for setting the stage of the SOF, especially the centrality of the gospel for our identity.
2. I think that the word “aspects” is too strong. I’m not sure that all 10 points of the proposed RSOF are "aspects" of the gospel. “Connected to” “Deeply connected to” “related to” “directly related to” “centered on” or something like that might be better.
3. The idea I’ve heard of adding our interdependent, congregational, and autonomous church nature (Articles of Incorporation Article 1) seems like it might be a good one. That would make it clear that we have more of a developed ecclesiology than the rest of the SOF would suggest.
But being in the preamble, it would separate our distinctive ecclesiology (that we all would need to agree to submit to) from what we believe that all evangelical believers believe (where people would be free to not believe that our distinctive ecclesiology is the only or the most biblical, just one that they can gladly submit to). That seems like the right balance. No one is suggesting that we change our polity (it’s still in the articles of incorporation and who is going to be able to take away our freedom?), so articulating it in the preamble might be a good way of communicating that.
The only problem would be adding words (which would also need some defining).
4. Yes. See my answers to #1.
5. I love the “gospel structure.” It was the first thing that jumped out to me when I read the first draft back in December. Intentionally defining ourselves by our commitment to the biblical evangel is the hallmark of our movement both theologically and practically. While the first draft was a bit awkward, I think the second draft really sings.
It was this aspect of the proposed RSOF that gave me renewed hope in the theological direction of our movement.
6. I’m interested in what other people have to say about this. I think that the Kingdom was a major part of Jesus’ theology, and we ignore it to our peril. But how it relates to the gospel? Well, for one, we read about the “gospel of the kingdom,” the good news that the King of Universe has personally come in an amazing rescue mission to free His enslaved people to serve under and rule with Him forever (Mt. 24:14, 1 Cor. 15:24-28, 2 Tim 2:12, Rev. 20:6, etc). Again, I’d like to hear more people’s thoughts on this one.
-Matt Mitchell, Pastor
Lanse EFC, Lanse PA
I am struck with the similarities between the use of "Gospel" in the proposed SOF and the use of "Narrative" in the "Call to an Ancient Future" that is being promoted by Northern Seminary, Christianity Today, and others. Is this coincidental?
Well, as much as I appreciate the open dialogue, I am still opposed to the use of the Gospel as the theme for our SOF, unless we can differentiate between the Gospel itself and the truths that flow from an understanding of the Gospel.
It has been suggested that the term Gospel has a broad meaning, encompassing many truths, such as the kingdom, the Christian life, the whole book of Romans, etc., and I understand that the committee is looking at the term gospel in this light.
Well, it is true that the term evangellion has a broader meaning than just the Gospel of Salvation. In its' simplest sense the word means good news. And it is also true that the Bible has several good news messages. But each message means something a little bit different, and must be interpreted in its own context, rather than being added to our definition of the Gospel.
For example, in Rev. 14:6-7, there is the everlasting or eternal Gospel�but it is not the Gospel of salvation, in fact it has no salvation in it at all. It is a message of coming judgment. This is good news to the righteous, because God is going to set things right, and deliver them, but it is not the salvation message we preach.
It has been proposed, in support of the broader definition of the Gospel, that in Romans, Paul is giving the Gospel. But a close look will reveal that the Gospel message doesn't appear until the end of Chapter 3. The first three chapters prepare for the Gospel. Then there is the Gospel itself, then there are truths that come later, which are the logical results of the Gospel, and not the Gospel itself. For example Romans 12:1, we are urged to present ourselves to God, but that is not part of the Gospel. We are told to do it in view of God's mercy-that is, in light of the Gospel, in light of what has been done for us.
If we follow the eclectic approach of the SOF, which adds all sorts of other meanings to the gospel, we are going to confuse the process of conviction, justification and sanctification. If that sounds like an exaggeration, just look at some of the things in the blog that are being said about the Gospel, such as, that it is the whole Christian life. And look at points 8 and 9 of the RSOF #2.
In point 8, it says the gospel must not be separated from its sanctifying power and purpose. Then it goes on to say that God wants us to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves, then helping the poor and seeking justice. The implication is that these are part of the Gospel. They are not. They are the fruit that comes from an understanding of the Gospel. They are the deeds of the new nature, which faith in the pure gospel produces in us.
In point 9, the Gospel is not finished until the second coming. "God's gospel will be brought to fulfillment by the Lord Himself at the end of this age." The implication there is that even the second coming is part of the Gospel. The second coming should be part of our belief system, because God's revelation tells us it is going to happen. God's gospel-the gospel of our salvation does not include the second coming. It is about the first coming.
If we used the unifying theme of God's Revelation, or God's truth, or the Scriptures, I would have much more freedom to endorse a revision. But if we are going to use the term Gospel in this confusing way, I cannot support the RSOF.
Steve Pruett,
EFC Santa Maria, CA