The Statement of Faith Revision

In my experience in communicating with non-Christians and with Christians searching for a new church or denomination, shorter is better. A short Statement of Faith will encourage reading and perhaps open the way for dialogue. A longer Statement of Faith is more likely to cause a viewer to skip it entirely, and either search out another church/denomination or remain ignorant of the central tenets of EFCA faith.

Dear Greg,

I like the second revision and am working through it with my congregation on Sunday evenings. I have a couple of comments on the new article 8. First, I think it is a great idea just to include it and it reflects the new awareness that there is a theology of the Christian life. I am bothered by the wording because it does seem to make missions and evangelism an afterthought. This impression was strengthened after reading the commentary. I would say the best way to avoid the impression that the Draft Revision is giving priority to social action would be to put mission and evangelism right up there with the statements about compassion and justice and saying something like combating unbelief and liberating people from spiritual darkness (Acts 26:17-18).

Returning to the issue of length, I think a case can be made for a statement that is longer than our current one.

We need to remember that this statement not only serves as an introduction to those who would be considering a home in an EFCA congregation, but also as a defining document for those who are already a part of the EFCA.

I think that the low level of biblical illiteracy and the lack of theological reflection and application in American evangelicalism, broadly speaking, means that a hearty, robust statement can be of tremendous benefit to Christians. The characteristics discussed in earlier posts (Gospel framework and biblical narrative verse systematic theology structure) are also helpful in this regard. There is simply far less that we can or should assume today about our churches and their members' beliefs.

The statement not only serves to remind and continually reform our own churches, it also serves to communicate our doctrinal stance to those outside the EFCA. The current statement is more concise than the proposed revision, but perhaps that approach is better suited to the reader who is already familiar with Christianity and is simply looking to see that we are orthodox and evangelical in the traditional sense. I believe that that is the way it can be a major benefit to retain the current statement's brevity, but I simply believe we are far from the time of the original statement's historical setting, where most Americans were simply looking to a statement to differentiate between Christian denominations. I believe now is the time for a statement that says what it means to be a Christian disciple and a Christian church.

For those who do not know what it means to be a Christian, I am excited by the potential of the proposed revision. I believe it uses very understandable language and avoids unnecessarily technical theological terms. For a person who is patient enough to study the statement rather than simply scan it to see if they agree or not, I believe the revision could be a helpful tool.

Bruce McKanna, Associate Pastor
EFC of Mt. Morris (IL)

In response to the question regarding the benefits of a shorter versus longer statement of faith in the context of the current cultural climate, the following are pertinent points to consider:
1) The average length for a New York Times feature article is 1,200 words
2) Over 64% of the articles in the major daily newspapers (NY Times, USA Today, LA Times, Washington Post, etc), are in excess of 1000 words
3) The minimum word count for a magazine article varies from approx 450 to 800, with the average length being between 2000 and 5000 words.

People of all walks of life are willing to sit down and read these items which are all greater in length than the 846 words of the second draft of the proposed revision of the SOF.
The SOF is, as evidenced by the title, the statement by which members and/or potential members of EFCA determine if their personally held beliefs are compatable with EFCA and affiliate congregational churches. In this culture, people will, when making a decision of the magnitude of church membership or affiliation, read the longer statement of faith. Comparing the 454 words of the current SOF and the 846 words of the proposed, a sense of brevity does seem to be lost. However, in light of the times, such a difference is likely negligible in comparison to the clarity that is achieved.

Bill Severt
Canton, Illinois

It's admirable the way the authors of the current Statement of Faith were able to put so much meaning in so few words. The strength of the Statement of Faith is in its brevity. A short, concise statement is easier to use to get an "overall" look at the church and what it believes than a long one would be.

However, there are many issues in contemporary society that, combined with a rather large degree of Biblical illiteracy in America as a whole, necessitate further clarification.

Therefore, I would propose that instead of expanding the Statement of Faith, we create a new supporting document which would deal with any ambiguities and/or issues that need to be addressed.

A simple analogy would be to a Constituiton and the Bylaws of an organization. The Constitution (Statement of Faith) presents the broad principles, while the Bylaws (supporting document, whatever it's called) give a "practical" application/clarification of the principles expressed in the Constitution (Statement of Faith).

I would suggest that much of the text of the proposed revision would be moved to this supporting document, and that there would therefore be few substantive changes to the Statement of Faith.

I think that the second option is better -- a little bit longer statement still focused on essentials.

The problem, of course, is really figuring out on a case-by-case basis what is essential and what really needs addressed.

Two things I think that often get missed in the making of these kinds of statements are sexual/gender issues and dignity of life issues. Christians have historically significant positions on these things, and these issues are in the forefront of our present day battles, as well.

Should the RSOF deal with things like that, as well (perhaps in an expansion of #8)? If not, why not? Just because they haven't been handled in other SOF's, doesn't mean they aren't very significant (as the addition of the material in the proposed #8 suggests).

A thought.

-Matt Mitchell
Pastor, Lanse EFC, Lanse PA

Wouldn't it be best to say that we should make it as short as possible, while being as complete as necessary. Some of the added words are in the framwork statements. Are they as authoritative as the statements themselves. (You know, like verse numbers not being part of the text.)

With many words, controversy is not far absent - to paraphrase a proverb.

The length should be dictated by its purposes. What do you want it to do? The fewer the words, the more the ambiguity.

Most of the SOF consists of such old truths that they probably don't need explanatory clarification. Everyone ought to know what the classical meaning of the Trinity is, for instance. I assume that the Board of Ministerial Standing serves as a clarification source when theological disputes arise. We nailed down Open Theism as a heresy pretty quick a few years ago.

EFCA SOF Second Draft Comments and Reservations; rwwilson 12/4/6

After some conversations with the Elders of my church regarding my beliefs about Scripture and the deity of Christ I was asked to briefly write up my thoughts. There may be a problem with the briefly part. It seems rather difficult if not impossible to adequately critique statements that take additional lengthy comments to describe what they mean, with comments shorter than the commentary deemed necessary by the original authors. So, some of my issues and concerns with the SOF (s) is that they don�t say what they mean, at least not clearly, in the statements themselves, but have the real significance spelled out in the attendant commentaries. This is true of the existing SOF and the draft revisions. I�ll do my best to keep this short.

First I�ll note that I appreciate the focus on �God�s Gospel.� We�ve been given good news and we need to announce and share that news in every way we are given grace to do so, in word and deed (as the draft revision of the SOF says). My faith is rooted in non-creedal soils: first as God directed me to seek the truth primarily through the scriptures, next as I saw the faith more faithfully lived in Anabaptism, and later in more or less Stone-Campbell, Plymouth Brethren, and other free-church environments.

Personally, I don�t think the history of creedal councils and the enforcement of those statements as orthodoxy shows a particularly positive influence on the faithful spreading of the Gospel. This seems so at least compared to how it might have been if it had reflected more closely biblical forms and behavioral norms. I am skeptical about the veracity of humanly authored and authorized statements about God and his will. I am inclined toward limiting the validity of creeds to local church distintives and guides for discussing scripture because of the tendency to use them for purposes of power and domination rather than servanhood and empowerment of believers to authentically share the good news as recorded in scripture itself. Jesus� kind of creed might say something like �loving God is more important than defining him, and loving others in action while taking up one�s cross and denying one�s self-desires is more important than excluding others from ministry and membership if they can�t understand or accept your creedal formulations.� Of course, he would keep it brief, like �love God and love others,� but that doesn�t leave us much to debate. If you just want my brief version, you can skip from here to the last two paragraphs.

Second, I have come to see some of the historically orthodox conclusions about the nature of God as more dependent on extra-biblical philosophy, concepts, and language than scripture itself. Not having found some of the particulars explicitly expressed in scripture, I have come to doubt that those creedal statements answered in a purely scriptural manner questions about the nature of Christ Jesus, the Son of God, or even the Logos. The SOF says that the one God is �eternally existing in a loving unity of three equally divine Persons.� The term �eternal,� however, is of ambivalent definition, not necessarily excluding the idea of having a beginning; so if the intent is to reflect Nicene definitions then �eternally begotten, not made,� �without beginning� or some such expression needs to be included explicitly in the SOF. However, in so far as I have been able to determine, any such statement goes beyond what scripture itself says, and hence my reluctance to affirm the Son to be without beginning. It may be true, but the scriptures themselves apparently don�t answer that question.

Third, I will note that our contemporary conception of �persons� is rather different from the early church fathers� conception of three �personae.� I�m not sure why Persons is capitalized, though I can see why many evangelicals are warning of the dangers of tri-theism today. Beyond that, it seems not insignificant that there is no portrayal or picture of the Holy Spirit being worshipped or seated around or on a throne, or even being prayed to. Hence, there seems some good reason to think that �three persons� in the godhead doesn�t accurately reflect the true nature of God. Moreover, one doesn�t need to be an entranced mystic to realize that the actual nature of God must so far exceed what we can imagine that using the term �person� is wholely inadequate.

Fourth, there is the question of what �equally divine� means. Jesus himself says that the Father is greater than all, evidently including himself, so I�d just rule that statement out as contradictory to scripture (theological double talk about his human nature speaking in this case not withstanding). If Jesus was simply the second person of the trinity, then who was tempted? (It took another 700 years after Nicea for the issue behind this question to erupt in the debates that divided the church into Eastern and Western traditions)

Fifth, having my theological thinking nurtured in the other evangelical side of the inerrancy divide influenced by Fuller Seminary, I have found the phrase �without error in the original writings� to be rather counterproductive. I find it odd that Christians are so intent on affirming the innerrancy of writings that we have never seen, probably never will see, and may have never existed; statements about hypothetical (even imagined) documents seem far removed from the piety and power of biblical witness to the eternal Word and words of God. It doesn�t seem to me to be the kind of thinking in which the OT prophets, Jesus, and the Apostles had engaged. A chiseled in stone perfection and permanance like that of the Ten Words etched by Yahweh doesn�t seem to be a reasonable reflection of the nature of the whole Bible as we have it. Nor does it seem to be the way God has intended it, given the evidence we have of how the NT deals with OT texts, or how it refers to its own (re-)presentation of the Word of God, or how the various strands of biblical texts have come down to us.

Sixth, if the intent is to exclude anyone from pastoral ministry in EFCA associated churches inclined toward an open theism perspective, then why not say so explicitly in the SOF? Or, if the intent is to exclude those who may believe such from membership in EFCA churches, then it should be explicitly stated as a doctrine in the SOF. Currently, the second revision says merely that God is � all-knowing,� but that in no way excludes open theists because they believe that also. The issue is not whether God is all-knowing but what is all-knowable, and what God can therefore know. The arguments for the different perspectives in this debate are most likely infinite, so why should we try to boil it down to some one phrase dismissal and enshrine our traditionalisms in the SOF?

Finally, there seems to be a need to clarify what is doctrinally essential and what isn�t. The informal idea regarding the original SOF was that the first six statements were essentials and the second six denominational distinctives. However, I think it is fairly apparent that the discussion and language regarding the �inerrancy of the original writings� is a belief firmly rooted in the middle of the prior century rather than an explicitly biblical doctrine, and it is clear to me that the Apostles didn�t expect believers to hold to anything like that concept in order to be saved. So, how is it an essential? At least this and the open theism issues are not essentials for salvation, but they are mixed in with what are at least more arguably essentials. I�m not sure how to clarify the differences, but it is not particularly my problem.

Of course, I am inclined to go beyond these things to assert that all of the points of doctrine which I have questioned here may not be essential doctrines either, but that is more than most evangelicals can fathom. Excluding others from a denominational realm because we think we know more than they seems to be an inherently Pharisaical posture, promoting something like a theological self-righteousness. On the other hand, relativizing creedal authority allows one to remain open to submission to new light from the God�s word, and to persausive dialogue with those of other understandings in a manner worthy of those who believe they are inheritors of God�s Gospel. Excluding others from membership or ministry because we think we may be right and they wrong can only be put forth faithfully in the most humble and tentative manner as we recognize our less than apostolic authority and �succession.� It seems to me that we ought to be much more reserved in our attitude toward theological dogma and not think more highly of ourselves than we ought.

Yours in Christ our common Lord and Savior,
Richard W. Wilson

I have had to read R. Wilson's comments a couple of times. It seems to be overall a skepticism of creeds and traditions over against pure scripture.

I remember the pastor who performed our wedding speaking of the value of the wedding service tradition.
Those who write their own vows seem to say less with many more words. The traditional words have been tested and pruned. I think that creeds and established language of theology has that tested and pruned quality. Sure some terms like "trinity" are not in the Bible, or "persons" as used in the creed. Yet, if used with care, they serve us well. And while "without error in the originals" was not in mind in the 3rd century, I think the "without error" or "true" was. the part about originals avoids the conflicts over translations and oviously detected textual transmission errors.

A recent discovery of mine, in reading Luther on the Magnificat, was that the Roman church took from a Latin feminine ending that Mary rather than the Lord was seen as the Redeemer. A reminder that the original was the greek text, not the latin text, would have served the church well in that instance.

I do find that we have to come back and re-establish the definitions we intend of terms like "omniscient" or "persons" is needed, or the intent of the framers of the creed will be lost as language changes over time. Of course we would need to consider what "person" meant at the council that used the term, rather than what it means in popular conversation or popular psychology.

to all the regulars, I wish a Merry (meaning "surprised by happiness") Christmas (meaning birth of Christ, not arrival of Santa).

(Note: I didn't have time to read all of the comments thoroughly so I'm not positive that this hasn't already been said.)
I'm not really sure if this is possible but a few other organizations/fellowships I respect greatly have also taken the time to clarify what is NOT true in order to compliment what is. In this relativistic country that rejects understanding texts, especially in any authoritative way, I believe many would benefit greatly from both affirmations of truth and rejections of falsehood.

In considering length, we must first determine who we believe the audience is for this document. From my discussions with pastors and lay leaders I expect the primary audience is pastors, some lay leaders, and only a few of the people within our congregations.

I suggest that the document should serve the needs of both those with an exhaustive need as well as those that desire a cursory/basic understanding. The format I'd suggest to accomplish this is:

A summary level document that includes no more than one very understandable sentence on each point of the SOF, then behind that a more detailed explaination of that point. On the web that could easily be accomplish by showing the brief summary statement, then including a hyperlink either by making the statement itself the link or by making a word such as (more) or (detail) as the hyperlink.

On paper, I believe it should still be in two parts. Perhaps a cover page includes only the summary statement followed by more pages to cover the detail. I think the summary page could also stand by itself for certain applications, i.e. where there is need for a short brochure, but therein referencing the availability of more detail, and the source for that, i.e. the web.