A Modest Proposal?
The Committee considered whether our statement of Faith, our doctrine, could be more clearly focused on the evangel, the gospel and those theological issues that are central to the gospel such that it could be affirmed by all whom we recognize as fellow Evangelicals today.
- except from “Draft Revision of the EFCA Statement of Faith: We believe in God’s Gospel,” 4.
The proper question is not “could” our doctrine “be more clearly focused on the evangel” but should it be more clearly focused on the evangel. Given the structure and organization of the EFCA this appears to be a very responsible question for the Committee for Safeguarding the Spiritual Heritage to ask churches, and yet it hardly seems possible for such a committee to actually safeguard our spiritual heritage by determining what the questions are and then answering those questions themselves. The Committee has proposed to eliminate references to the autonomous and congregational nature of our church, but they fail as a committee when they do this without interacting with us or even asking for our consent.
The proposal should be discarded not because of what it says or does not say but because the Committee has undermined the local church and by doing so they have damaged our spiritual heritage. The churches should invite the Committee to a conversation where changes to the statement of Faith may be considered, and the churches not the National Office should set the agenda in regard to what questions need to be asked. For the Statement of Faith exists for the churches and not for the National Office as a means to determine how the denomination might bring additional churches into the fold.
There is much more that could be said about “EFCA SOF Draft Revision (12/09/05)” (and much more will be said), nevertheless the Committee has a responsibility to restart the process of revision with the consent of the churches it exists to serve and preserve. The revision could easily been seen by those who have been in the denomination for a long time as leading the EFCA from “the foundations of the Word of God, loyalty to Jesus Christ, the EFCA Confession of Faith, and the Distinctives of the EFCA” (EFCA By-Laws) and thus violates the very purpose behind the creation of the Committee on Safeguarding the Spiritual Heritage.
posted by Sean Dennis at 3:57 PM
17 Comments:
I am an EFCA pastor, and my reaction to the draft is this:
1. I have a hard time becoming enthusiastic about something (an almost completely new SOF) that I didn't feel any need or desire to have.
2. It bothers me that this was uniformly advertised as a refreshing of the old statement, and it's anything but that. It is substantially a completely new SOF. Was someone using PR words in order to mislead?
3. I oppose broadening out the SOF to endorse a sacramentalist (Reformed) view of the Lord's Table.
4. I oppose dropping Congregationalism as an ordinational standard. That paves the way over time to the elimination of Congregationalism altogether, once enough non-Congregationalist preachers get ordained into the EFCA.
5. I oppose opening up the EFCA to destructive eschatologies such as post-millennialism/theonomy, and Preterism. That's what is being done, by adopting a "neutral" position on millennialism.
I feel this SOF is going to be the occasion of a great deal of argument and disunity. I don't believe that it represents what the majority of EFCA pastors wanted. There's something in it for all sorts of people to object to. I've even heard about an amillennial EFCA lay-leader objecting to it on the basis of the phrase about the Kingdom, "fully come" ... in other words, by using the word "fully" it's still endorsing pre-millennialism, so naturally this amil brother says he won't vote for that.
Thanks for your comments jack. All of the issues that you raised deserve to be brought up in the days ahead (especially before the Midwinter Ministerial). We'll try to do our best to tackle them here. If you (or anyone else) wants to provide some comments on the mainpage of this blog as a guest just email me at efreechurchman@gmail.com and I'll put it on the page (please remember the twin dangers).
I currently work for Trinity Law School which is part of Trinity International university (which as you know is run by the EFCA. This is actually the first I have heard of it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
I agree with Jack is one sense, that it does seem strange to produce and almost new SOF. A couple of the issues I may actually agree with like broadening the eschatology issues, but those changes to the SOF should not take place outside of the church having a say in the matter.
I'll have to take a closer look and give you a more educated opinion later.
Great blog,
Doug
I'm a seminary student at TEDS who is hoping to plant an EFCA church after graduation.
I haven't read through all of it yet but I too have mixed feelings. I'm glad to see the millennial position broadened. No historic creed or confession has taken a position on eschatology to the degree our SoF did. That needed to be corrected.
I'm not sure what I think about the congregationalism thing. I believe the pattern in the New Testament is Elder lead with congregational participation. Taking a broader view of the Bible, I think some form of Presbyterian structure is present. However, the NT doesn't give us clear instructions, only examples.
There is one thing I saw that I think is flawed, "Response to God's gospel determines the eternal destiny of every person." I think it was intended to appease both Calvinists and Arminains in the Free Church. Instead it says something that the Bible doesn't, something that neither side should be comfortable with. According to Revelation 21:12 mankind is judged according to their deeds, not according to their response to the Gospel. What does this imply about those who have never heard the Gospel? Does it imply salvation by ignorance?
I would invite you to visit www.newcovenantliving.blogspot.com, because I have some entries regarding why I feel Premillennialism and Congregational autonomy are both important. Elder rule that doesn't allow for congregational selection or discipline contradicts an excample set in acts 5, and Christ's steps for discipline taught in Matthew 18.
Interesting comment about "response to the Gospel", though. The whole human race is already condemned, even if they've never heard the Gospel. People don't go to hell because they rejected Christ -- they go because they're unforgiven sinners.
Tim, I’m not sure that I agree with your exegesis of Rev 20:12 particularly in light of Daniel 12. In other words, I think it’s entirely possible that this is the judgment of the righteous in this verse and not all mankind. At any rate, the issue that you bring up is a legitimate one: what is meant by “Response to God’s gospel determines the eternal destiny of every person”? In my mind the case is open and shut: all have sinned and are therefore condemned to death, but those who believe and confess are saved. Article three does a good job of wrapping up the anthropological and hamartological questions and then article ten goes on to address the eschatological issues that nine doesn’t mention, such as the reality of Hell contra Universalism and Annihilationism and Heaven. Am I simplifying the issue?
FCM, so you're saying that the judgement in 12 is different than the one in 13? That is a possible interpretation. But that doesn't really help much either does it? I mean, they are still judged by their works.
I agree with what you said about articles 3, 9 & 10 but I still think the wording is incorrect.
Jack, in reference to your concern about hyper-preterists, I think the very working of article 10 precludes it as it affirms a bodily resurrection and article 9 in affirming a physical return of Jesus.
I don't think all forms of post-mil are bad and theonomy has morphed into Auburn Avenue/Federalist Vision theology and is all but gone. It seems unlikely that the EFCA would attract those kind of Christian.
I totally agree with your comments about Elder rule. There are some horrible examples of it out there where the congregation is hardly involved. Then again, there are horrible examples of congregationalism where an unelected, unqualified clique runs the church from behind the scenes.
And the Reformed view of the Lord's Table is not sacramentalist but neither is it strict memoralist. Again, there is a lot of variance on the issue within the orthodox church and the Free Church should embrace some of that variety.
Lastly, you said of the revised SoF "There's something in it for all sorts of people to object to." But that is true of the current one! And there are some things in the current one that should not be there.
Tim: I dopn't believe your normal, thorough-going PCA pastor would agree that their view of the Lord's Table wasn't "sacramentalist". The Westminster Confession, chapter 27, titles it "Of the Sacraments".
"The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted." Larger Catechism, Q.161.
Jack, I assume that Tim is referring to a spiritual presence view of the Lord's Supper, which doesn't appear to damage the evangel of a church as it has no saving grace attached to it. I think that the following article gives a good historical understanding of how some in the Reformed faith have understood this view: http://haykin.luxpub.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=50
"The Committee has proposed to eliminate references to the autonomous and congregational nature of our church, but they fail as a committee when they do this without interacting with us or even asking for our consent."
. . . what do you think the Wid Winter Ministerial is about? They are ASKING us there. This is untrue, unfair &. . . ugh h h . . .
"...but because the Committee has undermined the local church and by doing so they have damaged our spiritual heritage."
I wish you were kidding here . . .
Jack,
I too am Reformed thought the 1689 London Baptist Confession is my personal confession. It says pretty much the same thing and I agree with it.
Yet, as Freechurchman said, that is not the sacramentalist view, though it uses the term "sacrament". Strictly speaking, a sacramentalist view would find saving grace in the Lord's Table. The Reformed view says that the Table is a means of grace as is prayer, fasting, baptism, etc. What the Lord's Table does is not to supply some other grace but to strengthen the grace by which we were enabled to believe.
Just to be clear, I understand and appriciate the memoralist view of the Lord's Table and am comfortable serving with those who hold it.
Enough theology. Practically speaking, I wish I could attend the Mid-Winter but I'll have classes. I am glad that the denomination isn't going to just do the change and let the chips fall. It is a good thing, a necessary thing, really the ONLY thing they could do is to involve the local congregations.
Kerry, I'm a bit unsure what is "unfair"... Is it unfair to ask the National Office to reconsider the direction it has taken? Or is it unfair of them to start the process without the consent of the churches?
I realize that the Mid Winter "gives EFCA pastors the opportunity to participate in the process" but what can we really expect out of this participation? Do you think that the revision as it stands faces revision?
I think it's likely that they'll allow people who are upset to air their grievances and then everyone else will give the good old seal of approval. If you think I'm being pessimistic about the process please let me know.
RE: Kerry and FCM comments on local church autonomy...
In general, I do like the new SOF, not without some concern.
I can see a concern in the initiation and start of the process by the Committee. One distinctive (some would say advantage and others would call this a dis-advantage) of the EFCA has been the autonomy of the local church over the national office and it's subsequent connection to congregationalism. For many other denominations, the "committee" or national office would make proposals and the churches would have to go along with it, even if with complaints. Is that what Freechurchman is fearing is being done in the EFCA?
That impetus of the National office committee is a significant change from the churches being an impetus for change. But was the committee responding to a growing voice of those asking for a change? In my observations, I think that is highly possible. I believe their pre-amble, when taken in the entirety, implies such a situation. They felt there were enough voices asking for some changes and made an organized initiative to do it. Now they have invited dialogue concerning the changes to the SOF that they have proposed.
I would observe history and say that every broad-based official organization (distinguishing that from the body of Christ) over time generally moves towards a "center of power/leadership" or moves toward decentralization to dissolution (civil war?). I think, over time, a natural movement of more influence out of the national office is likely and this may very well be an early form of that.
This is an interesting thought...
In the removal of "congregationalism" the committee has said:
"We believe that there are other Evanglicals who are not congregational but whome we would not want to exclude from fellowship simly because they could not in good conscience sign our doctrinal statement affirming that congregationalism is the (one and only) biblical form of church government. This affirmation of church polity belongs, rather, in an explanation of the "free" part of our name, which speaks of our structure and defines us as congregational."
That is a significant change to take "congregationalism" out of the "core" doctrinal statement. That is worth complaining about for those who (like it seems for Jack above) seem to hold strongly to "congregationalism."
Even if congregationalism is in the "Articles of incorporation" it seems that it was at least significant enough to put it in the core statement of faith back then.
So, has that changed? Are we no longer that convicted of the doctrine of congregationalism?
Essentially, a similar question applies to eschatological issues. Has our conviction, as a body of churches, been changed enough to state it differently in our SOF? Those two are significant changes. Other changes seem to be (at least for me) more linked to changes in understanding and meanings of words and adjustments for cultural shifts.
I think we need to recognize the removal of those two (congregationalism and specific eschatology views) from this SOF as a significant change. Whether we agree with the changes or not, I think we need a general agreement it is a significant change that must be discussed.
Mr. B,
The congregationalism issue is huge. Jack shared some thoughts that deserve consideration on his own blog: http://newcovenantliving.blogspot.com
I'll be sharing my own thoughts (which I hope to ground firmly in biblical truth) later on.
Right now I'm thinking about the issue of Unity and Oneness in the Church today because I think this issue is at the heart of the Revision, so church polity is on the back burner...
I think the proposal coming from the spiritual heritage committee falls directly in line with our polity. Our churches voted for the leadership body of our church adn these leaders are leading not usurping. They are fulfilling their call to lead and they are not intending to railroad anything. It was a great discussion in MN and I hope it continues that way for the next 18 months. I see factions developing and it breaks my heart.
Matt,
When we call pastors or vote in elders in the local church their responsibilities are different than the responsibilities of the leaders of a national denomination that exists for the autonomous local church.
While it is true that pastors, elders, and the national office all exist to serve the church and to promote its unity, the differences in the way that they are called to serve are too substantial to say that the national office has the right to lead in the same way that officers of the church lead.
This is true up until the point where we decide to drop our article on congregationalism. You've raised the point that the President raised in his closing remarks, and it's certainly an interesting (but I think deeply flawed) idea about the nature of the national office. A point that is deserving of its own posting in the near future. Thanks for taking the time Matt!
Post a Comment
<< Home