The Statement of Faith Revision

My name is Matt Stanghelle. I am 25 years old, married and working on a family. I was born and raised in the EFCA and my father is a pastor in the denomination. I am attending TEDS in the fall and hope to minister with the EFCA upon graduation. The EFCA is my home. However, if the proposed SOF stands in regard to its eschatological position, in the year 2010, I and countless other prospective ministers will be homeless, without the possibility of ordination by the Free Church. You see I'm an amillennialist.

What Unifies the EFCA?

As I have been following the SOF BLOG debates, I have noticed that the word "biblical" has often been used by both sides of the SOF debate as the all-powerful measure of authority. As we have seen these "biblical/unbiblical" allegations thrown back and forth, I am moved to ask the question, what is the unifying measure of the EFCA? I think we would all like to say, "God" We would then add, "God, in the person of Jesus Christ." In context of one of the issues of the SOF debate, we would also like to say "God's redemptive work in the Gospel" and "the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture". On the other side of the debate we would say, "Pre-millennialism!"

Are these things what really unify the EFCA? Even I would say yes, they are. But, as I see the word "biblical" being thrown around, I am forced to wonder"unbeknown to many in the denomination"if there is something deeper, more subtle through which the EFCA finds its unity; namely, a reductionistic mid-Twentieth Century North American hermeneutic?

I wonder if the debate is really about defending the orthodox principles of faith at all? If one refuses to separate the infallibility of the Bible from pre-millennialism, it seems to me that the debate is not about defending orthodox principles, rather it is a fight for the preservation of reductionized hermeneutical principles.

Reducing Reductionism

Lately, I have been blessed by TEDS' Dr. Kevin Vanhoozer through his book "The Drama of Doctrine." What has impressed me most about this book has been his idea of a non-reductionistic "catholic-evangelical orthodoxy". "Catholic", meaning, "the whole church" (both in chronology and geography) and "evangelical", meaning "the Gospel/Redemptive History". By placing these two ideas together, Vanhoozer proposes that we can define what is inside and outside the bounds of orthodoxy without reducing orthodoxy to a limited "interpretative grid" (i.e. defining orthodoxy to a strictly 19th century liberal German hermeneutic, nor a strictly 20th century Dispensational/Pre-millennial stance, etc.).

Vanhoozer's idea is pertinent to the SOF debate in two ways:

1)It reveals that any SOF that takes an exclusively pre-millennial stance can lay a stock claim to such notions as 'biblical' or 'orthodox' without showing a reductionistic hand.
2)Vanhoozer's "Catholic-Evangelical Orthodoxy" proposes a way forward for the EFCA where we can adhere to and preach a healthier, more robust orthodoxy which will take us further toward a historically/culturally sensitive evangelicalism.

Is the EFCA Compromising On It's Strengths?

There are three doctrinal devotions that I have always appreciated about the EFCA's Doctrine (minus its narrow pre-millennial qualifier). A devotion to:

1)A high view of Scripture.
2)Majoring on the major theological issues, and minoring on the minors.
3)Historical accountability.

By lopping off the proposed allowance for the amillennial position from the SOF draft, is the EFCA being doctrinally consistent? Or is it compromising on its values?

Since there are many on both sides of the coin, the EFCA has always tried to hold a neutral line between the Calvinist/Arminian debates. This issue, being a very important one, dwarfs the historically grey and shaded opinions about the chronology of last things. Why then has the SOF made this minor issue into a major one? This seems incredibly inconsistent when it holds such a neutral line on very major sovereignty issues? Why has it made pre-millennialism a ruler of orthodoxy--or at least an admissions prerequisite?

If the proposed SOF stands, the EFCA will have compromised its doctrinal devotions as follows:

1)A high view of scripture really means a high view of the above mentioned mid-Twentieth Century North American hermeneutic.
2)The SOF will have made a mountain over a doctrinal mole hill.
3)The SOF will have reduced its historical sensitivity to one eschatological strand which is no bigger than its equally historical amillennial counterpart.

Standing Beside Augustine, Luther, and Paul

I am not arguing in any way that the EFCA should deny its roots, leaving behind pre-millennialism and embracing amillennialism; I am simply requesting that the SOF be a little less reductionistic by allowing the equally historically grounded amillennial view of last things to be accepted in the denomination.

I really love the EFCA, and I want to be a pastor in it. I am thrilled that it wants to be passionate and zealous about the preaching of the gospel, but is it right that we define the eschatological part of our SOF so narrowly that a Free Church pastor could not even stand side by side in this denomination with Augustine, Martin Luther, Jonathan Edwards, or for that matter (according to the hermeneutics of a large portion of Christendom) the Apostles Paul and John?

A Doctrinal Proposal

I propose that we write a more balanced last things portion of the SOF, one that truly does major on the majors and minor on the minors. For example, below is the last things excerpt from the BGC's Affirmation of Faith (taken from the BGC Affirmation of Faith Webpage: http://216.177.136.28/content/view/194/69/ ):

"We believe in the personal and visible return of the Lord Jesus Christ to earth and the establishment of His kingdom. We believe in the resurrection of the body, the final judgment, the eternal felicity of the righteous, and the endless suffering of the wicked."

Passing the Baton

I know that there is a fear that if the SOF opens to other-millennial positions that there will be some churches that leave the denomination, but shouldn't we have a greater fear of lopping off sound doctrine with the hermeneutical cookie cutter that the EFCA is embracing in the current SOF proposal. Further, how can you call keeping pre-millennialism in the SOF a tactic for keeping unity when it disqualifies half of Christendom from membership in this denomination? Lastly, what example is being set when the EFCA allows the narrow-minded of the denomination to win the battle? Who is going to take a stand against the "strong minority" who refuse to let the EFCA open up it's SOF to reflect a more consistent and balanced orthodoxy?

I deeply want unity in the Free Church. But should we not value truth, doctrinal balance, and historical orthodoxy even more?

I pray that the present generation of EFCA pastors will take to heart a more "Catholic-Evangelical Orthodoxy" and open up the SOF to allow the amillennialist to participate. It is this generation of pastors that will hand off the baton to mine. Please set the stage so that we can be there to receive the handoff. Please do not drop the baton.

Matthew Stanghelle
Minneapolis, MN
July 16, 2007

I love the Evangelical Free Church and what it has stood for. All my grandparents were from Sweden and came to this country, in part, because of their convictions and appreciation of the EFC. I was born into a family with membership in the EFC some 75 years ago. I have been a member of an EFC since I was deemed old enough to hold membership.

Until a short time ago, I accepted the premillenial dispensationalist position, even though there were certain elements of it that didn't seem consistent with scripture. But recently I have tried to make an open-mended study of eschatalogical issues and have come to the conclusion that this entire matter just should not be a defining issue for the EFCA. As Matthew Stanghelle has well said (above), we are exluding from our membership a great body of committed believers, to say nothing of the great reformers of the past.

I, for one, would strongly support the proposal made by Stanghelle. By refusing to admit amillenarians and/or post millenarians to our membership flies in the face of what makes the EFC the unique denomination that it is.

Don Bergstrom

Don,

Thank you for sharing your history with the Free Church, and your engagement in this process of revising the EFCA Statement of Faith.

Here are two brief responses. On the one hand, this was the argument put forth by the Spiritual Heritage Committee, and submitted by the Board of Directors, for three Draft Revisions. We are all premillennial, but we did not believe that this temporal specificity of the Lord Jesus Christ's return ought to be a 'litmus test' in a Statement of Faith. That He will return - physically and bodily - to establish the new heaven and the new earth is essential. And this truth ought to have a bearing on how we live our lives!

On the other hand, the decision to include it in the Proposed Revision was made in light of where the Free Church presently is on this matter. Though premillennialism is not equated with the gospel essentials, it is reflective of our past heritage and considered an important distinctive to some. Therefore there were those who concluded it ought to remain in our Statement of Faith.

We affirm the decision of the Board of Directors to present this Proposed Revision to the Conference. This seems to be the best decision for the EFCA at this present time.

For the Sake of Christ,
Greg Strand

"Our Unity in God's Gospel" is compromised in insisting on premillennialism. "Our" then means practically just premillennialists, not every saint in the Kingdom of God.

Though I'm not post-millennial, I think Loraine Boettner is right in reminding us that the Jews were looking for a literal, political kingdom. In so doing they missed out on the true and spiritual kingdom--in fact crucifying the King. Premillennialism may be prone to a similar problem in insisting on literal interpretation. And is that a good hermeneutic considering the genre of Revelation?

Boettner is also right in warning againt making eschatology a test of orthodoxy. Is that happening in the EFCA? Perhaps so if only pre-millennial pastors can serve in the EFCA.

As one wise person said regarding this issue, if you can't articulate the best points of the other views, then you really don't understand.

To that end, "The Meaning of the Millennium--Four Views" is an excellent book. Published by IVP, edited by Robert G. Clouse, contributors: Hoyt, Hoekema, Ladd, and Boettner.

The Lord be with you. The Lord bless you.

Bob Brandhagen (TEDS, '94)

Bob,

Thank you for posting your comments.

For three drafts brought before the EFCA people, our statement on eschatology was broadened to include the essentials of the return of Christ, without attempting to spell out the temporal specificity of His return. Part of our reason for this was to "major on majors and minor on minors," to state clearly that our unity is in God's gospel.

Even though this broadened statement on Christ's return was not included, the EFCA is still rooted in and committed to God's gospel. The premillennial return of Christ is considered a distinctive of the EFCA, but not one that is an absolute litmus test between evangelicals.

I would tweak a bit what you write about Boettner. I do think that eschatology is to be a test of orthodoxy. But I do not think that the temporal specificity of Christ's return ought to be an ultimate dividing line. The fact of Christ's return is an essential, and thus a test of orthodoxy.

At this point in our history the decision to retain premillennialism was not just for pragmatic reasons. It, too, was rooted in a biblical and theological doctrine that we value - unity (Eph. 4:1-3).

Though our new Statement of Faith was not as far-reaching as some had hoped and had been spelled out in three drafts, it has been strengthened in most every article, and for that we thank and praise the Lord.

May the Lord bless and keep you as well!

Greg Strand