The Statement of Faith Revision

Hey, welcome back.

Has anyone actually preached the whole SOF issue through completely? I am beginning a series this spring walking through "WHO WE ARE" with an intention to touch on the revision but a focus on what we believe and how it impacts us locally rather than on the revision process... (I know that should seem obvious).

Personally, I love the new language and the clarity for the average lay person. I believe that the revision and the discussion/grappling that has brought us here has been valuable.

Finish strong!

You say "possibly voting." What would be the scenario in which we would not vote on it?

Bruce McKanna

Concerns with the Proposed Statement of Faith

Having recently completed ordination with the EFCA, I came to learn of the process to revise the current Statement of Faith (SOF) rather late in the game. I realize that years of faithful work and personal investment are sewn into the fabric of this entire effort. I am pleased with some of the new language that closes the door on Open-Theism and clarifies our commitment to Substitutionary Atonement, for example. However, I would like to register the first of two concerns regarding other changes contained in the Proposed Statement of Faith (PSOF).

Removal of Scripture from Article One:
The PSOF removes Scripture as the first article and replaces it with the article on God. In my view, this move signals an enormous shift from the EFCA's heritage. Arnold Olson, who is considered by some to be the "chief architect" of the EFCA and who authored the EFCA's foundational book "This We Believe" wrote:

"The first article is basic to the rest. All that follows must be carefully examined in the light of the statement on the Scriptures...The reason and authority for the doctrinal views set forth in the following articles must be in accord with the Word of God declared in this opening statement to be the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men."

Such a robust position on Scripture has effectively made its way into the laity over the years via the current EFCA membership manual, which states that Scripture "is the first article in our Statement of Faith because it is the most foundational. All other doctrinal statements are based upon our belief in trustworthy Scriptures."

The SHC recognizes the significance of this change, but they feel that placing the article on God as the first article provides a more natural narrative framework from which to articulate Christian theology. They argue that something like "The Gospel begins with God" makes more sense as a first impression than an article that intimates something like "Our belief structure is based first on the Bible."

Honorable, Bible-loving theologians have long debated how one should begin a systematic treatment of Christian theology. Some want to begin with a statement on the Bible's authority, others with a statement on God. Either starting point can be adequately defended. However, I am not convinced that the SHC's decision to change horses after only 58 years of the EFCA's existence is warranted by an appeal to a narrative framework. I must confess that the SHC's justification for removing Scripture as the first article, which is found in their commentary posted online, seems overly seasoned with more contemporary narrative terms such as "story" rather than the more traditional terms like "authority," which emerges in Olson's justification for beginning the SOF with the article on Scripture.

At the same time, let me state clearly that I am convinced the SHC is absolutely committed to the authority of Scripture. However, in our present era where the "Battle for the Bible" continues to rage, I believe that a decision to remove Scripture as the primary article because of an appeal to narrative terms simply undermines our traditional identity and also sends the wrong signal, which may unnecessarily lead to confusion among some pastors and subsequently; our congregations. Treating the Bible as the epistemological grounding for what we believe, which is implied by positioning Scripture as the first article, is biblically faithful and easily understood, and it has successfully paved the way for an EFCA that is today marked by both spiritual and numeric growth.

In the end, given the less than compelling "narrative" rationale for removing Scripture as the first article, I believe we would be better off by heeding the sage advice: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." In my view, Scripture should continue to be our first article in the PSOF and such a change would not seem to be that difficult to implement, even at this late stage in the process.

Respectfully submitted,

Tim Johnson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew
Nashotah House Theological Seminary

Jeff,

We are glad to be back as we prepare for our discussion and vote at this summer's National Leadership Conference.

I am sure there are a number who have actually preached through the Proposed Revision. Last September through December I led an 11-week study in our Christian Living Class through the Proposed Revision. I will be posting those notes on our EFCA webpage in a couple of weeks. A notice will go out in the next EFCA broadcast email. This is one resource. I am sure there are others out there as well.

I am also encouraged to hear your strong affirmation of this process that has gotten us to this Proposed Revision, and the content and clarity of the Statement. We are grateful to the Lord!

By God's grace we will finish strong, and please join us in praying to that end, for God's glory!

In Christ Alone,
Greg Strand

Bruce,

The reason I refer to a "discussion that 'will' take place" and a "vote that 'may' take place" is dependent on any motions that might be made to amend the Proposed Revision.

If any passed motions to amend the Proposed Revision are substantive in nature, it will delay the vote for another year.

It is important to remember that passing the Proposed Revision requires 66.6 percent of the vote. For an amendment to the motion to pass, it requires a simple majority.

The Board of Directors will be sending out "Special Rules Relating to the Revision of the EFCA Statement of Faith" that will spell this out further.

Thank you for your important question. I trust this provides a sufficient answer.

Grace and Peace,
Greg

Thanks, Greg.

By the way, I should be finished preaching through the proposed statement just before Easter, as God allows. It's been a good experience so far. I'm sure we'll also give our congregation some opportunities for open Q&A time before June.

Bruce McKanna

Bruce,

I am encouraged to hear it has been a "good experience" to preach through the Proposed Revision. This has been the general sentiment from those who have preached or taught through it. It sure was for me!

In Christ,
Greg

Tim,

Thank you for sharing your concern with the Proposed Revision. I am sorry you have only been able to join our discussion as of late. It has been an invaluable discussion in and for the Free Church the past three years. Anyway, I guess "better late than never!"

Regarding your concern with reversing articles 1 and 2, the statements on God and the Scripture, we share that concern. From the beginning of our discussions we have been committed to retaining a strong view of the inspired, inerrant, authoritative Word of God. The SHC has no desire or intent to lessen the importance and significance of our statement on Scripture at all. In fact, we have strengthened it, such that a good statement, we believe, has been made better. Every realm of human knowledge submits to the Word of God: �. . . and the ultimate authority by which every realm of human knowledge and endeavor should be judged.� In our postmodern day, this is a huge statement about the final authority of the Scripture.

Why have we changed the order of articles one and two, between the Bible and God? This has been done for two reasons. First, we have followed a salvation-historical framework. We have followed a biblical theology framework in the statement, so it follows God�s story of His unfolding plan of redemption from beginning to end. This is the purpose of the headings. (Each article then states the truth in systematic theology categories.) It gives preeminence to God in all His Trinitarian fullness. God existed before the Bible. This God, however, is a talking God. This means that we have received His Word. Much like when we study Christ, we begin with His person and then address His work. Here we begin with the person of God, and then we address one of the things He has done, revealed Himself through words which is recorded in the Word.

Second, we begin with a statement about God because ultimately our convictions about the nature of the Bible are based on our faith in God. This addresses epistemology, i.e. the basis of how and what we know. The real foundation for our knowledge of God is not a rational judgment about an inerrant Bible, which it is, but a faith in the goodness of the God who speaks. We believe God, we believe He has spoken, and we believe He has spoken truly.

Your question does reveal that when the gospel headings were replaced with topical ones in the Proposed Revision, our primary rationale for switching articles 1 and 2 became less clear. The "gospel headings" emphasized the narrative flow and biblical theology, while the simple topical headings are more "systematic" in nature. In the original drafts our emphasis was, first and foremost, on God�s grace in the gospel, not on epistemology. The Bible was the result of God's gracious purpose to save a people for himself. It was a necessary part of that saving work, communicating it to a fallen humanity. Even though the headings have been removed, the intent is that this Proposed Revision would still be considered a statement of the gospel, for we are evangelicals, gospel-people. Most Christians can understand that �the gospel beings with God, better than they can understand that �a statement of systematic theology ought to begin with God.�

In summary, the order follows a biblical framework, not necessarily and only a narrative framework. It is a narrative framework that is not just a story, but His story, a narrative containing propositional truth about the unfolding of God�s salvation-historical plan climaxing in Jesus Christ. It is an attempt to follow the gospel framework. We agree that we only know God definitively through the Word. But our understanding of the Bible leads us to the priority of God. We believe what we have done is faithful to the Scripture, and the priority of what the God of the Scripture has revealed.

Thank you, again, Tim, for writing of your concern. It provided me an opportunity to explain further the rationale of a change in the Proposed Revision.

Because of Christ,
Greg

Are there any rising motions to change the language on Christ's return from:

9. We believe in the personal, bodily and premillennial return of our Lord Jesus Christ.

to

9. We believe in the personal and bodily return of our Lord Jesus Christ

or something very similar? This is a major issue for us as a denomination, and for us as a church. Anyone have a heads up on the progress on a motion to amend to that end?

Steve Treichler

Steve,

I just posted a new entry that broadly addresses the question of amendments: "'Special Rules' for the Discussion of the Proposed Revision." Regarding specifics, you will have to hear from others.

Grace and Peace,
Greg

Why is open theism being explicity denied in the proposed revision rather than remaining an unspoken issue as in our current statement of faith?

Rodney Price

Rodney,

All Statements of Faith or Creeds are written in a historical context. In that context, there are certain biblical truths that are being undermined that must be addressed. If not, those heterodox or heretical teachings will undermine the faith once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 3).

Regarding open theism, this belief did not exist in 1950, so the Statement of Faith did not because it could not say anything about it. When it became an issue in the early to mid 1990s, the Board of Ministerial Standing did pass a policy for those seeking ordination - that the Free Church would not ordain one who denies God's exhaustive foreknowledge which includes future free acts of human beings.

Because it is a position that undermines the very character of God, we believed it was important to address it explicitly in our Statement of Faith.

Because of Christ,
Greg