EFCA Statement of Faith
16 comments | Permalink
Collin Hansen writes about the new statement of faith for the Evangelical Free Church of America.
posted by JT at Monday, July 14, 2008
Between Two Worlds: A Mix of Theology, Philosophy, Politics, and Culture
Sponsors
Search
Gospel
- Stand: A Call for the Endurance of the Saints
- Communion with the Triune God (by John Owen)
- The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World
- Overcoming Sin and Temptation (by John Owen)
- Suffering and the Sovereignty of God
- Sex and the Supremacy of Christ
- Reclaiming the Center
- A God-Entranced Vision of All Things
- Beyond the Bounds
- Tim Challies
- Desiring God Blog
- In Light of the Gospel
- Tullian Tchividjian
- The Sola Panel
- Upper Register
- Church Matters
- Kingdom People
- Pure Church
- Together for the Gospel
- Albert Mohler
- Cranach Blog
- Team Pyro
- Reformissionary
- Kevin Cawley
- Joe Thorn
- The A-Team
- ESV Blog
- Stand to Reason
- WorldMag
- Evangelical Outpost
- Resurgence
- Biblical Foundations
- Adrian Warnock
- Mark D. Roberts
- Jim Hamilton
- Denny Burk
- Russell Moore
- Ray Van Neste
- Founders Blog
- Historia Ecclesiastica
- Worship Matters
- Vitamin Z
- Frame-Poythress
- Josh Harris
- Girl Talk
- Radical Womanhood
- The Rebelution
- The Gospel Coalition
- Desiring God
- Sovereign Grace Ministries
- 9 Marks
- Matthias Media
- Stand to Reason
- CBMW
- Biblical Spirituality
- Christway Media
- Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
- Ligonier
- Truth for Life
- Grace to You
- Monergism
- Biblical Foundations
- Founders Ministries
- Reformation 21
- Modern Reformation
- World Magazine
- Christianity Today
- Themelios
- Reformed Perspectives
- The Briefing
Co-Edited Books
Other Websites
Other Blogs
Blogs
Ministries
Evangelical Mags, Journals, and E-Zines
16 Comments:
This effort was spear-headed by
Greg Strand, Director of Biblical Theology and Credentialing of the EFCA. The picture on the web page linked to (above) doesn't show all of the scars he sustained during the past few years while he was a "lightening rod". (He was zapped by the dispensationalist crowd when an early draft had dropped the premillenial eschatology from the 1950 statement. )
Too bad that such a strong minority in the EFCA thinks that to question premillenialism is the start of the slippery slope to denying biblical inerrancy.
Greg Strand deserves much credit for pushing ahead to "innoculate" the EFCA from creeping heresies such as process theology/open theism and the moral influence theory of the atonement. But we must be ever vigilant!
Thanks for the link. I like the EFCA and considered pastoring with them back in the 1990's, but was disqualified by the pre-mil point in their statement. I understood the historical reasons why it was there, but thought it was a shame to break fellowship on what was certainly no longer a defining point for inerrancy.
As I read through the article, I appreciated each change in the new statement. The changes are good in light of current theological debates and make the new statement stronger. I believe they also reflect the original intent of the less precisely worded statemnts of 1950.
I was also eagerly awaiting a change in the pre-mil statement. I am glad to see that the change was considered, but disappointed that this will still be a breaking point for many Christians and pastors as far as their ability to serve in the EFCA.
I think the caricaturization of the premillennial issue is a little problematic both in the article and corner creature's response. I am not a premillennialist, but understand why it should be in the denominations SOF.
As part of the back history, when the original draft was sent forth it was a behomoth that overstepped its protocols from the EFCA. It had issues such as the description of Christ's return was not bodily. Moreover in an early section it eschewed pc language but in the statement of Christ it called him fully human and fully divine. The human was pc, the divine was equivocal for while I am sure the drafters held to the full divinity of Christ it would allow for lesser views of Christ.
The defense of the removal of premillennialism was an insult to anyone who knows the back story. Arnold T. Olson, former president of the EFCA, (for whom the chapel is named at TEDS)before his death approved a change in the SOF but stated unequivocally that premillennialism should not be tampered with. Then outcomes the rationale for dropping it and who do the committee use? ATO! They cut and pasted statements on unity on essentials and applied it here. One of the professors at TEDS even stated that for ATO, premill in the SOF meant dispensational-premil. If he'd had his drothers it would have been the only allowed view. In fact it was the dominant view in the EFCA until recently, so I cut those some slack who rejected the bloated original draft.
Again, I am not premil. I just think the way the committee handled it was poor. They announced that if they didn't make these changes "churches" would leave the denomination (err, um "Movement" the EFCA is "not a denomination"). In the end they almost lost a district over this revision.
So I don't think Greg Strand deserves as much commendation as Corner indicates.
I disagree with David Graves.
I am an EFCA pastor and I echo Corner Creature's commendation of Greg Strand and the other EFCA pastor/theologians who led the process of revising our Statement of Faith.
The first draft sent to us wasn't bloated (in my opinion) or overshooting any protocols. It was a first draft. It was sent to the entire EFCA constituency consideration and input, and that's what we did. 2 1/2 years of consideration, and 3 sharpened drafts later, we had a very good document to approve.
Mr.Graves makes it sound as if the leaders tried to trick people into saying that A.T. Olson agreed or would have agreed with the removal of premillennialism as a doctrinal standard. They did not.
They did point out that there are competing tensions in our EFCA family of churches--we emphasize that we are organized and energized around gospel essentials but we also require premillennialism as a doctrinal standard for our professors, credentialed ministers, etc. Most of us, while being premillennialists, don't consider premillennialism a gospel essential.
Those tensions, they argued, are present even in the writings and opinions of A.T. Olson, who was a beloved leader and remains a major influence (though he was just one major influence and not the only one with a say).
The entire process was bathed in prayer and led with integrity and graciousness. Just because there were people who didn't respond well along the way doesn't mean that the leaders weren't providing an excellent (though, not perfect, of course) process.
One person who had responded in some poor ways early on, actually apologized publicly on the floor of the conference to Greg Strand and the other leaders. They embraced, and I just about cried. It was a holy moment.
What didn't get into Mr. Hansen's piece but was the most significant to me, was the degree of reverence for God and respect for each other that was evident as we deliberated on the proposed changes. It was a worship experience, just to be involved. At the end of the meeting, the conference actually applauded the moderator for his adroit leadership and then unanimously approved this resolution (moved by my friend Byron Harvey and seconded by myself):
Whereas:
The Evangelical Free Church of America has now come to the end of a long and rigorous process of re-examining and strengthening itself theologically, and
Whereas that process has consumed countless hours of tireless effort, and whereas our leadership has thoughtfully kept our movement abreast of all proposed changes, allowed all voices to be heard, amended and clarified the various parts of the proposed statement to reflect concerns voiced by the EFCA constituency, and worked hard to achieve a statement that accomplishes broad consensus, and
Whereas throughout the process, those within the leadership of the EFCA have demonstrated consistent devotion to our Lord, integrity of godly character, and unwavering commitment to our movement,
Whereas implementing change always brings challenges, and whereas Satan always seeks opportunity to divide God’s people, subvert God’s mission, and harm God’s kingdom,
Be it therefore resolved:
That we, the delegates to the 2008 National Leadership Conference, express our sincere appreciation for the dedicated efforts of all of those individuals who have labored so diligently in preparing this Statement of Faith revision;
That we reaffirm our support for the leadership of our movement;
That we determine to do all within our power to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, as we are called to do in Scripture; and
That we humbly and prayerfully call upon God to use the revised Statement of Faith for His glory and the building of His kingdom.
You can read the entire new statement of faith here.
The first article says God has "limitless knowledge and sovereign power." Thus, the EFCA takes a stand against open theism, which claims that God granted humans complete free will, so he can't know the future precisely.
This assumes that God exists, like we do, in a specific point in time from which events can be said to be future to God. But the Catholic Church holds that God exists in eternity, such that his single gaze beholds all of time. If God did exist in time, and had perfect knowledge of his future, then it is true free will could not coexist with His foreknowledge. But with an eternal God, the term foreknowledge doesn't even apply.
Matt,
I did not say or imply deception. Bungling is not deception. The first draft was put out too quickly.
It is one thing to submit a rough draft for review, but the first draft was set forth with hoped for approval as is. The 2006 (?) Mid-Winter Ministerial was a shock to the presenters. They did not expect that there would be that much resistance to such drastic changes to an SOF. That is bungling. Not deception.
Moreover, I like the final draft, but there were many missteps getting there.
David
David,
Okay. I'm sorry to read-in that you meant that they were deceptive. That's how I took your third paragraph when I read it the first couple of times, but I'm happy to know that's not what you meant. Sorry for not reading it more charitably.
Yes, I think that the presenters at the Mid-Winter you mention were surprised by the reaction and, in hind-sight, would have done some of it differently, but, I don't think they bungled anything.
From where I sit, the biggest reason there was some early negative feedback was a lack of listening or trust in those who were initiating the process (perhaps like what I just did to you in reading-in "deception" to your first post). That's natural, especially if people don't know each other, but it's definitely unfortunate.
Thankfully, as the process unfolded a great deal more trust was built.
We obviously have different views of how the process proceeded, but I'm glad we agree that the final product is good.
Blessings,
-Matt
Teresita,
The appeal to divine timelessness only 'works' if future contingencies are resolved ahead of time for God to be able to 'see' them as such.
As long as God's creatures are independent from their creator, that is, insofar as God must be 'receptive' to information about them (rather than knowing them 'through himself'--Aquinas' view--because he is the cause for their action), to that extent knowledge, be it 'fore-' or otherwise, is by definition impossible.
If 'open theism' simply names the necessary truth that indeterminacy undermines certainty of knowledge (by definition), labeling it heresy is essentially telling Arminians they can't be logically consistent.
Some of us find that problematic.
But all this is a side issue to the EFCA's update to their statement of faith, on which I have no view (surprise!).
Peace,
-Daniel-
Daniel D Farmer: As long as God's creatures are independent from their creator, that is, insofar as God must be 'receptive' to information about them (rather than knowing them 'through himself'--Aquinas' view--because he is the cause for their action), to that extent knowledge, be it 'fore-' or otherwise, is by definition impossible.
The difficulty arises because we can't help but think that God perceives the universe in the same way we do. Our brain constructs a model from sensory data. So there's not only the free will choice made by another, but there's our own mental model of that choice. And if we were perfectly omniscient, our mental model would not only match the choice made by that person in every detail, but every future choice as well, and that person would be constrained to act in such a way that their actions did not deviate from our perfectly modeled foreknowledge. But God's foreknowledge does not consist of a separate mental model of the universe. His knowledge of an event is encoded in the event itself. Our choice is free because God's knowledge of our choice is encoded in the choice itself. Thus we can truly say "in God we live and move and have our being."
I'm encouraged that in this day of compromise, softness, and celebration of ambiguity, these men sought to, as Ray Fowler said, more precisely flesh out "the original intent of the less precisely worded statements of 1950."
I thank God for that.
...holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
foreknowledge is different than just knowing the future. Biblically speaking, foreknowledge involves an intimate knowledge of the elect.
I was present at the 2006 EFCA Mid-winter ministerial where the revised statement of faith was first publically introduced.
There was a lot of emotional reaction there, including a small but vocal minority which demanded that the 1950 SoF should never be changed. One guy even displayed a souvenir totem pole to reinforce this point. The approval of our revision at the National Conference in St. Louis this June is a great reminder that all theology must adapt to the current context while remaining faithful to the unchanging truths of Scripture.
Was the introduction in 2006 imperfect? Yes. But Greg Strand and the other members of the Spiritual Heritage Committee responded to some nasty personal attacks at that meeting in Apple Valley, MN with wonderful grace. This was demonstrated even more so in the year after Apple Valley when Greg and others took great pains to travel to nearly every district conference where they listened to and incorporated many suggestions into the next draft. I can't think of a more inclusive and "congregational" process.
There is very little precedent for a "denomination" like the EFCA to revise their SoF without some crisis at hand. Using hindsight we can always suggest improvements in the process. I think overall this process, while imperfect, has been itself a testimony to the underlying unity in the EFCA to essentials.
Do I wish the premillennial statement had been removed? Yes. I stated that from the floor in 2006 when I said it causes us difficulties on the mission field. I restated this view from the floor of the Conference this past June, but I also said that now was not the time to push forward with that removal.
Ernie Manges, missionary with the EFCA (ReachGlobal).
The practical ramifications of the Free Church to retain the premillenial statement means that I will have to forfeit my credentials, since I can no longer affirm that article. While I agree that the EFCA should require agreement with the statement for all pastors and professors it saddens me that I will lose my credentials after serving for over 20 years in the EFCA. I am aware of many other pastors who no longer subscribe to premillenialism and they too will likely lose their credentials. It will be interesting to see if choosing to retain this doctrinal position so as not to cause division will not in the end cause just that from those who no longer affirm premillenialism.
I was also present at the national conference at which the revision was adopted, and was at the EFCA's Eastern District conference in Nov 2006 at which the matter was also extensively discussed.
I plan on blogging on why this revision is such good news for the EFCA. But let me say, along with Corner Creature, Matt, and Ernest, that Greg Strand and the other men on the Spiritual Heritage Committee deserve credit and commendation both for the work they did and for the godly way they responded and interacted with critics over the past 2 1/2 years. And while I also would have like to see the premil language dropped from the statement, I would rather see it kept and keep the EFCA together than see it dropped and see us split. And as the discussion progressed over the past couple of years, that seemed to be the choice.
The discussion at the national conference was grace-filled and truth-motivated. At a time when it seems many denominations are divided in ways that lead to a stepping away from biblical truth, the EFCA revised our statement of faith in a way that moves us closer to the gospel. For that I am grateful.
I am not happy abouit the change since the original statement contained some explicitly Arminian theology, reflecting the biblical position that faith precedes regeneration. Here are the relevant statements from the original affirming this position:
"That the ministry of the Holy Spirit is to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ and, during this age, to convict men, regenerate the believing sinner, and indwell, guide, instruct and empower the believer for godly living and service."
"That the shed blood of Jesus Christ and His Resurrection provide the only ground for justification and salvation for all who believe, and only such as receive Jesus Christ are born of the Holy Spirit and, thus become children of God."
"That the true Church is composed of all such persons who through saving faith in Jesus Christ have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and are united together in the Body of Christ of which He is the Head."
I don't know how any Calvinist could have affirmed that statment in good conscience. I think I have been told that the denomination meant to allow for both Arminianism and Calvinism, but some of the statements quoted above can't be taken in any other way than faith preceding regeneration unless the bounds of standard language use are broken. This is different than writing ambiguous language to allow for some freedom of interpretation within certain bounds by signers.
"regenerate the believing sinner", "only such as receive Jesus Christ are born of the Holy Spirit and, thus become children of God", and most undeniably, "who through saving faith in Jesus Christ have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit", clearly affirm that faith precedes regeneration.
I appreciate the concern to allow both Arminians and Calvinists to be in the denomination, and so can understand and even reluctantly approve of removing this aspect of the statement. Nevertheless, I also find it sad that the biblical position on this point has been removed. In some ways, the statment has been made less specific and more general, which is funny since many appreiciate that it has been made more specific in otherways.
Oh, I probably should have mentioned that we used the original EFCA statement as a starting point in drafting the statement of faith for the Society of Evangelical Arminians (http://evangelicalarminians.org/, the staement of daith found at http://evangelicalarminians.org/sof). We changed it al ot, mixed and matched from other statements and included our own distinctive emphasis, but that served as the starting point.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home