HISTORIC CONFERENCE APPROVES PROPOSED REVISION OF THE EFCA STATEMENT OF FAITH
President Bill Hamel began this historic discussion by asking two questions: would the Conference affirm a new Statement of Faith strengthening our commitment to evangelical, historic faith? And would we debate and vote with godly character? The answer to both questions was "yes."
On June 26, 2008, delegates of the 124th EFCA National Leadership Conference approved the Proposed Revision of the Statement of Faith - 86% of delegates voted for the Proposed Revision. None of the four amendments passed, so the delegates adopted the Proposed Revsion as it was presented to the Conference in 2007.
Throughout the debate and decision, God's presence was evident as delegates kept in step with the Spirit (Gal. 5:25), manifested the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23), and left an aroma of Christ (2 Cor. 2:14-16).
The conference concluded with President Hamel leading the attendees in a strong and passionate confession of the new EFCA Statement of Faith. Here is a link to the Statement of Faith:
http://www.efca.org/about/doctrine/
To God be the glory, great things He has done . . . and continues to do in the EFCA!
Comments
Comments RSS feed
Hi,
Is this blog continuing? If so I have a question. In reading the transitional rules, it was not clear to me the application of the new SOF. That is, is it univerally expected that members of EFCA's will fully accept either the new or the old SOF? Could a church accept a member, who while agreeing with the majority, has an issue with one part - say millennialism.
Some in discussing this say we need full agreement (which is what my church's constitution says), others say there is flexibility at the level of membership.
David Carlson
I am so grateful for the humble leadersihp that has brought us to this point. I thank each of the members of the SHC and the pastors and lay leaders who were a part of this historic discussion.
Jeff
David,
Though there is not much action on the blog, I decided to keep it running for a while longer so that we can address implementation questions, and other questions related to our newly adopted Statement of Faith.
Regarding your question on membership, the Transitional Rules, adopted by the Conference, say nothing about this because it is a local church issue.
Grace and Peace,
Greg
Jeff,
We praise the Lord for His goodness! And we are grateful for the privilege of serving the Lord by serving in the EFCA in this way!
To God Be the Glory, Great Things He Had Done . . . And Continues to Do In and Through the EFCA,
Greg Strand
Thanks Greg. I think that this is not widely understood, and perhaps that adds to the strength of some objections. I have read a number of church plant constitutions and many of them add various statements regarding membership expectations and/or social issues that go past what is in the SOF.
Thanks again for your work on this.
David Carlson
Morning!
Now that so much public attention has been paid to pre-millennialism, it sticks out as an issue in membership more so than ever.
I wouldn't want to deny someone membership to someone if they didn't know what they thought one way or another about premillennialism. That illustrates the peculiar nature of pre-millennialism, since I believe I would delay or deny membership to someone who "wasn't sure" about any other part of the SoF.
I think the way I'm going to advocate to my congregation is that the pre-millennial clause defines what will be taught and preached on the subject. We won't allow it to be actively contradicted or campaigned-against. And I think if a potential member was consciously against pre-millennialism, I would want him or her not to be a member, since we have enough to deal with as it is without someone joining who has a hang-up about it and starts trying to foment dissent over it. People need to be able to say that they aren't going to sit there and irritably fidget if I preach a series on Bible prophecy.
At our church, in the past, we've allowed folks who informally took "exceptions" to a few particular points in the 1950 SOF to still be members, as long as they weren't agitators, and premillennialism was one of them.
That approach worked pretty well, but in the future, I will be asking them to put their "exception" in writing with a written promise not to agitate. And that should be clear to the congregation when the member is taken in, not just to those interviewing them.
-Matt Mitchell
Lanse EFC, Lanse PA