The Statement of Faith Revision

Hi Greg,

Have you had many conversations with those who have taught or preached on this? I had a good adult class with the first edition, which led to some interesting insights into the thinking of the people.

David Carlson

David,

I have, and all those with whom I have spoken have greatly enjoyed preaching through the Proposed Revision, and they have received encourging comments from God's people in the local church.

Grace and Peace,
Greg Strand

Hi Again,

Greg, would it be possible to put the file in one monster file, rather than having to down load each individual set of notes?

David Carlson

David,

I have not considered that as it would be over 100 pages. But, let me see what I can do.

If I may ask, why do you prefer one single document?

In Christ,
Greg

Greg,

Thank you for the immensity and quality of your work. Thank you, too, for the spirit in which you have done it.

John Allen

Greg,

SoI can down load once, rather than 10 times. Then I can save it and read it from the file.

It is not that big of a deal really.

dave

Hi David -- It seems in the BOD letter we received that there has been some resistence to this. Is there a summary of what those comments have been?

Many Thanks,

Doug Davis
Grace Memorial Church
Fredericksburg, VA

My main concerns about the proposed revision of the statement of faith are these:
1. It seems to be from the top down move, not instigated by the laity, so the motive is suspect.
2. Nothing in the proposed revision about local church governance. Is this an oversight or a plot?
3. It is much wordier than the present statement of faith. However, the extra words do not clarify, but rather confuse.

David,

I will see if I can pdf a "monster file" for you.

John,

I thank the Lord for your kind comments. It was a privilege and honor to carry on this discussion, a labor of love. Our desire was to speak the truth of the gospel, and then to live the gospel about which we spoke. We also prayed to keep in step with the Spirit (Gal. 5:25) so that an aroma of Christ would pervade our discussions and linger thereafter (cf. 2 Cor. 2:15-16).

May Jesus Christ be praised!

Greg Strand

Doug,

I could respond to this one, but let's wait to hear from David, since he is the one you asked. As we wait for David's response, what are your thoughts? How have your processed our SOF discussion, and the Proposed Revision now before the Conference?

Because of Christ,
Greg

Greg and Doug,

I am not sure why the question re the BOD letter was addressed to me!

I actually like the revision in that it shores up some theological points (open theism and justification for example). The previous wordiness was shortened.

Gary, In the introduction it speaks of autonomous churches, which does to a degree speak of our form of government. The process, instituted at the top, has been open. There is nothing wrong with leaders proposing a change to the membership.

David Carlson

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

We are a body of believers first incorporated as an Evangelical Free Church in 1908, making us one of the longest-lived Free Church congregations on the West Coast. We write to express our concerns regarding the proposed revision of the Statement of Faith.

We are concerned that the process for adoption or rejection of the revision operates to exclude small churches such as ours that have seriously limited resources and can ill afford to send delegates to the Conference. There does not seem to be a compelling reason why proxy voting cannot be used to give small churches an appropriate level of participation in the decision.

More importantly, we are concerned with the document itself. To summarize our concerns:

1. It departs from the historic position that the Free Church is for "all believers, but believers only," by adding numerous points of doctrine that are nonessential to salvation, to a document commonly used as the "make-or-break" text for admission of new members and staff. While we concede that the additional verbiage contains sound Christian doctrine, we strongly disagree with making adherence to these added items mandatory for every member or staffer. Yet we also anticipate serious problems if full acceptance of the Statement of Faith becomes merely optional for members of local churches.

For example, revised paragraph 9 requires that believers be motivated to godly living, sacrificial service and energetic mission by our "blessed hope" in Christ's return. Suppose a believer is motivated to do such things only by her hope for blessings in this life and an eternal reward in Heaven, finding that her belief in Christ's eventual return to Earth doesn't motivate her? Must she now be excluded from our church? Or do we water down what it means to subscribe to our Statement of Faith by allowing that we don't have to subscribe to every word? If we do "water it down," how do we decide where else "water" may be applied? Is it enough to be "united around" this Statement without adhering to all of it?

We feel the loss of the simplicity, focus and directness of the current Statement greatly outweighs whatever advantages the longer text might confer.

2. It would provide fertile ground for divisions and dissentions of various sorts. As noted above, the revision would add many nonessential beliefs to the Statement. Differences of opinion about those beliefs are bound to arise, and indeed are already arising. Some suspect that new Paragraph 8 would inject elements of a "social Gospel." One common and respected way to interpret changes in a document is to assume every change was made for a reason. Endless wrangling can ensue over issues such as whether we no longer believe the Holy Spirit "instructs" us and what is new about believing He "equips" us, to cite but one of many examples.

3. It would present a stumbling block to new members precisely at a time when we are struggling to attract them. There would be double the verbiage to pick apart and understand. Oddly, the longer statement is a good deal less specific about who should be members of a church: it specifies that local churches be composed only of "believers," without saying believers in what (paragraph 7; contrast, current paragraphs 8 and 9). Of course, the inference is that members believe in Jesus; but wasn't the purpose of doubling the length of the document to spell out more specifically what we believe?

In light of the above objections we cannot support the proposed revision of the Statement of Faith. We urge the Conference to retain the current Statement.

Sincerely,

Paul M. Sluis
Deacon Board Chairman,
Trinity EFC
El Cerrito, California

Paul,

Thank you for posting your comment. It is great to learn of your long Free Church history (Were you from the Swedish or the Norwegian-Danish branch?)

This discussion of our Statement of Faith revision has been healthy in and for the Free Church. In light of the biblical and theological agreeements in the Free Church, we have much for which to be grateful to the Lord. This is especially true in comparison to other denominations in which the inspired and inerrant Bible, total inability, the full deity and humanity of Christ, etc., are questioned, and in some instances denied. We in the Free Church strongly agree on these important essential truths of "the faith once for all enstrusted to the saints" (Jude 3).

Many have shared thoughts, affirmations and concerns the past four years, as you are in this blog post. This has truly been a congregational discussion of 1400 churches that has been faithful to our polity. Though I disagree with your concerns, I do appreciate that you have shared them. We will pick this discussion up again at this summer's National Leadership Conference where we will, as a Conference, discuss and possibly vote on this Proposed Revision, along with the six amendments.

I will respond to your question of a proxy vote. Here is a word from our Moderator, Mr. Ron Aucutt: "In some organizations, proxy voting or some other form of absentee voting (such as mail-in ballots) is allowed. The Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation Act, under which the EFCA is organized, does not require absentee voting, but leaves that to the articles of incorporation or bylaws of each organization. Article VI.B of the EFCA's articles of incorporation prohibits proxy voting, and neither the articles of incorporation nor the bylaws contain any provision for any other kind of absentee voting. Article X.E of the EFCA's bylaws states that all matters of parliamentary procedure not provided for by the bylaws shall be governed by the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order (Newly Revised). Robert's Rules of Order states the general rule that a member must be present to vote and provides that exceptions to this rule must be expressly stated in the bylaws. Since no exception is stated in our bylaws, absentee voting cannot be permitted. Because this is a bylaw matter, the Conference itself could not even decide to allow absentee voting.

"Although this rule is inconvenient, it is fair. At the Conference we will devote several hours to discussion of the proposed revised Statement of Faith. There might even be amendments. The rule that prohibits absentee voting ensures that votes are cast with the benefit of that discussion and reflect any amendments that are made. That benefit is not available in the case of absentee votes."

Thank you, again, Paul, for engaging in this important discussion of the Proposed Revision of our EFCA Statement of Faith.

For the Sake of Christ,
Greg Strand

Greg,

Are your teaching notes still available? The link you provided above is broken and the notes do not appear on the SOF page at this time.

Tom Thompson
Loomis, Ne