freechurchman

In the words of Semisonic...

2006-07-21T09:48:00.000-04:00

"every new beginning comes from some other beginnings end"

This isn't really the end as much as it is the beginning of something new. I started posting on a new blog a week ago, the evangelical free market (place of ideas). This blog will allow me to address a plethora of subjects beyond the scope of the Freechurchman blog. I will from time to time come back here to address issues pertaining to the EFCA and will indicate at the e-free market when that happens.

Until then, I want to recommend a book that I believe will be very helpful as we look forward to the ministerial on hermenutical issues: The Kingdom of Christ by Russell D. Moore. There's a lot to say about this book, but I think the essential component for those of us in the free church is the way that Moore analyzes how dispensational and covenant theologians have moved closer to each other due to a shared appreciation for inaugurated eschatology. Unfortunately the book reads like a dissertation, but if you can plow through the second chapter with your finger in the end notes it will undoubtedly prepare you for our upcoming conversations about the future of the EFCA. You can order the book on Amazon by clicking on "Russell D. Moore."

For the glory of Christ in His Church,

Sean Dennis

An Open Letter to Sean (from the Freechurchman)

2006-07-12T11:28:00.000-04:00

Dear Sean,

As you know (because you are me) attending the EFCA National Leadership Conference was a good opportunity for me to think about a whole myriad of issues relating to the proposed rewrite of the Statement of Faith. While the only “formal” discussion I went to was the first session in which the SHC essentially rehashed what was heard at the district conference it still helped me process a number of things I’ve been thinking about for some time now.

First, it deepened my respect and appreciation for the members of the committee I’ve heard from (Bill Kynes and Greg Strand to be specific). Time and again they have explained the process they’ve gone through to this point and stated the reasons for the process. They have graciously admitted that the process has not been flawless, but have recognized that they’re onto something that can’t be abandoned simply because there has been a mistake or two along the way.

Now Sean, I know you’ve been reading my posts on this site since December so maybe that last statement of mine came as a bit of a shock; take a minute, slurp down some more coffee, and allow it to sink in a bit… Finished? Good. Allow me to go into greater detail regarding “they’re onto something that can’t be abandoned.” Our Statement of Faith needs to be revised. If the denomination fails to recognize the need for revision then we can either expect to become the Fundamentalist Free Church of America – we sit back and say “everything I ever needed to know about God and life in general was summarized in the 1950’s,” or we become the Liberal Free Church of America – and we declare “yeah, we have this statement from the 1950’s that we cherish as a historical marker, but we’ve decided to reinterpret it to mean what we think it should mean for today.” We must have a process for revision and that is precisely why the resolution we voted for at the conference was so important.

So yes, I’m in favor of revision. Does this mean I’m ecstatic about the proposed rewrite? Yes and no. I’m excited that we are having these conversations (and writing these letters to each other); that we’re discussing what it means to be a denomination/movement that is quintessentially evangelical and unashamed. I’m happy to see us thinking about the context in which we minister today (when heresies like open theism exist and the challenges of post modernism force us to examine our epistemology). I’m not excited about all of the proposed changes, but I am happy to know that the Spiritual Heritage Committee is listening to guys like us.

There’s one more thing that was on my mind at the N.L.C.: Classical dispensationalists. I’m not sure how many classical dispensationalists were around or how many there are in the EFCA in general, but I do know that they’re worried sick. In a way, I feel sorry for them. Many of them feel that the denomination they have been a part of for years is abandoning an essential component of what they hold dear theologically. There are a few things I would like to say directly to them like, “Don’t worry there are many other churches and denominations that don’t speak specifically about the tribulation or the millennium but still hold to Dispensationalism (like many Southern Baptist churches),” but this letter is written to you, a historic premillennialist, not to them. So here’s what I have to say to you: be kind and understand that Dispensationalism is an entire system for understanding the Bible. You wouldn’t like it if people in your church or denomination seemed to be moving away from the way that you understand the Bible (especially if it was the way that many of the key founders of the denomination understood the Bible). So do what the members of the Spiritual Heritage Committee have modeled so well – patiently listen to all and pray that God will be glorified in and through this process.

For the glory of Christ in His Church,

The Freechurchman

Another Friday with Andrew Fuller

2006-06-16T15:33:00.000-04:00

Next Friday I'll be en route to the Great Lake State and from there it's the arduous drive to the EFCA National Leadership Conference (and I don't think Fuller will be coming along - but who's to say?), so this might be it for a few Fridays:

Several of our religious denominations have arisen from a conscientious desire to restore Christianity to its primitive purity. From this motive acted, I believe, the greater part of the Reformers, the puritans, the nonconformists, and the Baptists. I do not know that any one of these denominations were censurable for the separations which they made from other professing Christians. It may be alleged that they have torn the church of Christ into parties, and so occasioned much evil; yet some of them did not separate from the church of Christ, but from a worldly community calling itself by that name; and those who did, pretended not to be the only people of God in the world, but considered themselves merely as “withdrawing from brethren who walked disorderly.” It is a melancholy fact, however, that no sooner have a people formed themselves into a new denomination than they are in the utmost danger of concentrating almost all their strength, influence, zeal, prayers, and endeavours for its support; not as a part of Christ’s visible kingdom, but as though it were the whole of it, and as though all true religion were circumscribed within its hallowed pale. This is the essence of a sectarian spirit, and the bane of Christianity.
- from "The Necessity of Seeking Those Things First Which are of the First Importance," The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, vol. iii, 796.

a dream deferred?

2006-06-08T08:23:00.000-04:00

My very first post in December was a call to remember what Carson and Woodbridge refered to as the "twin dangers" when discerning biblical truth. Now that the National Leadership Conference regular registration period has ended and many have no doubt signed up to attend the conference's sessions on the Statement of Faith revision, it seems like an appropriate time to post what John Frame has called an "Unrealistic Dream" in his article "Machen's Warrior Children" (for more writings by Frame and by Vern Poythress and to support their ministry click here). I realize that there are many in our churches and denomination who do not consider themselves Reformed; please understand that Machen's audience is the PCA and other conservative presybterian churches. Nevertheless there is much that can be gleaned from Frame's dream -

1. That Reformed thinkers continue to have bright, fresh ideas, but that they present these ideas with humility and treat with grace and patience those who are not immediately convinced.

2. That Reformed thinkers with bright ideas discourage the rapid formation of parties to contend for those ideas.

3. That those initially opposed to those bright ideas allow some time for gentle, thoughtful discussion before declaring the bright ideas to be heresy.

4. That these opponents also discourage the rapid formation of partisan groups.

5. That those contending for various doctrinal positions accept the burden of proof, willing to bear the difficulty of serious biblical exegesis.

6. That we try much harder to guard our tongues (Jas. 3:1-12), saving the strongest language of condemnation (e.g., “denying the gospel”) for those who have been declared heretics by the judicial processes of the church.

7. That Reformed churches, ministries, and institutions be open to a wider range of opinions than they are now—within limits, of course.

8. That we honor one another as much for character and witness as we do for agreement with our theological positions.

9. That occasionally we smile and jest about our relatively minor differences, while praying, worshiping, and working together in the love of Christ.

what's better than elvis on the way to new orleans?

2006-06-07T08:27:00.000-04:00

Hearing about Mayor Ray Nagin’s reelection should remind us that there is still much to be done in the city that is anything but the Big Easy these days. Two free churches in and near New Orleans continue to meet the physical and spiritual needs of their neighbors in the midst of the reconstruction process, and other churches are joining them by sending laborers and other gifts. Still another church is serving the New Orleans community mission field by offering their hospitality to those short-term teams who are providing post-Katrina relief.

The June newsletter for the Southeast Central District of the EFCA announces:

Grace Evangelical Free Church, Memphis, Tennessee is serving the Gulf Coast in an innovative way: Agape Hospitality Ministry is open for business to house, feed, and pray over those traveling south for EFCA gulf-coast ministries, primarily Covington/Urban Impact. They have had over 100 come through so far and have 4 more groups scheduled in June. Larry Hughes, team leader at Grace says, “It has been a blessing to the workers and to us, especially when we can worship together before they depart. One thing that the elders are praying about is the possibility of getting two showers hooked up with hot water for our guests. We solicit your prayers for this.”

It was a joy to meet, pray, and spend time with Larry and other members of Grace EFC (Memphis, Tennessee) when our first physical labor team from Louisville (also Grace EFC) stopped in Graceland on the way to Louisiana. Indeed there are few pleasures in life greater than being received by complete strangers as brothers and sisters in Christ, and this was the case when we arrived in Memphis.

Fuller and Missions

2006-06-02T09:49:00.000-04:00

This week's "Fuller Friday" quote comes at the beginning of Grace EFC's (of Louisville, Kentucky) Global Conference Weekend, so it is only fitting to bring a word from Andrew that reveals the heart he had to see God glorified throughout all the nations of the earth.

In "The Christian Ministry A Great Work" which was addressed to two missionaries and their wives, Fuller writes:

"The greatest work requires attention to a multitude of little things. -
It is composed of little things. Great works are not accomplished by a single exploit, but by a series of labours - by leaving no stone unturned. Look at Nehemiah. He inquires, weeps alone, prays, speaks to the king, obtains favour and a commission; but still he returned to labour, even in the night, and took a calm and deliberate view of the work; and when he communicated his intenions, his friends joined him; and thus, by a multitude of operations, the work is accomplished. He was laborious, firm, disinterested, patient, and persevering; and looked for his reward to God." The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, vol. 1, 514.

As an aside, D.A. Carson has some excellent thoughts on what it means to be a world Christian in The Cross and Christian Ministry to purchase this book and other books that I'm considering myself visit my wishlist.

Dogs, Dafur, Death.

2006-05-31T12:59:00.000-04:00

This Monday’s entry by Russell Moore in his commentary “Moore to the Point” caused me to think about a recent reflection I made when flipping through a slightly older copy of the magazine Moore derides in “Judas and the Decline of National Geographic.” I wasn't planning on posting what follows, so I don't have any documentation as to page numbers and other nonsense except to say that the quote below comes from National Geographic.

They “fill the streets and parks, the outdoor cafes and shops. They keep appointments with their masseurs and acupuncturists; they sit for portraits and for readings with their astrologers.” Neil Postman had us nailed; we are amusing ourselves to death. What’s worse, we’re taking our best friends down with us to the grave. Fifty years ago Lassie wouldn’t hesitate in yanking Timmy’s foot from the railroad track before the oncoming train could flatten the lad like a penny. Today, Lassie wouldn’t make it to the scene for two reasons: first, she finds it difficult to operate her blackberry without opposable thumbs and second, because it would interfere with her hair-styling appointment that she had to make over a month ago. The April edition of National Geographic provides no commentary when it describes in word and picture the zip code of San Francisco that has renovated animal shelters into animal condominiums, it doesn’t need commentary anymore than a photo of skeletal remains laying before a charred home in Dafur. To those who are only on-lookers both images are shocking. While it is in many respects unconscionable to continue to draw parallels between people who lavish gifts upon their pets as if they were Queen Sheba going before Solomon, and people, who acting far worse than animals, mount guns on helicopters to kill others unjustly and as carelessly as an early adolescent boy above an ant hill with a magnifying glass and a smirk. It is, in fact, regrettable that our English language allows a word like “shocking” to aptly describe the reaction to both scenarios. On the other hand, both images, both realities find their ancestral root in the same tragic event when in the garden Adam bestowed upon us all an inheritance that would in one generation give way to brother killing brother and would cause us to go about worshipping the created rather than the Creator. This in mind, it should not come as a surprise to see dogs heading into massage parlors, yet we know intuitively with Paul Harvey that this is not the rest of the story; we live for far greater reasons than to pamper our canine companions. It is no small wonder why those who take their pets in to get acupunctures would only look at the account of a dying king with thorns on his head to be a fool’s drama, but this in now way undermines their need of him. Will we, who know beyond the evidences of general revelation, only look at idolaters with disdain and scorn or will we direct them to the savior who created the dogs they venerate?

First Fuller Friday

2006-05-19T08:28:00.000-04:00

Over at the blog of one of my "token" Southern Baptist friends, I joked that since he was going to take Mondays to consider what Brian McLaren has to say, I would in turn take Fridays to bring to light some of Andrew Fuller's work. So at the risk of posting two blogs in a row that are heavily dedicated to quoting Fuller, and at the risk of taking a slightly different approach on a day when all the good bloggers of the world are posting pictures and poetry, I submit without further ado: Fuller Fridays.

“It is owing in a great degree to this contentment with a superficial knowledge of things, without entering into the spirit of them, that we so often hear the truths of the gospel spoken with a tone of disgust, calling them ‘dry doctrines!' Whereas gospel truths, if preached in their native simplicity, and received with understanding and cordiality, are the grand source of all well-grounded consolation. We know of no consolation worth receiving but what arises from the influence of truth upon the mind. Christ’s words are spirit and life to them who hunger and thirst after them, or have a heart to live upon them; and could we but more thoroughly enter into this way of living, we should find the doctrines of the gospel, instead of being dry, to be what they were in the days of Moses, who declared, ‘My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew; as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass,’ Deut. xxxii. 2. O brethren, may it be our and your concern not to float upon the surface of Christianity, but to enter into the spirit of it!”

- excerpt from "Causes of Declension in Religion, and Means of Revial" para. 6

thoughts on "Creeds and Subscriptions" from another dead theologian

2006-05-15T15:35:00.000-04:00

A Christian society, as well as an individual, is liable to err in judging what are the doctrines and precepts of Christ. Whatever articles of faith and practice, therefore, are introduced into a community, they ought, no doubt, to be open to correction or amendment, whenever those who subscribe them shall perceive their inconsistency with the will of Christ. - Andrew Fuller

I find Fuller’s words to be a helpful reminder to us as we consider a revision to the EFCA Statement of Faith. First of all, we are reminded of the fact that we can and do make mistakes when we establish doctrinal statements. Secondly, we are encouraged to make corrections when over the course of time we see problems with those statements we have established as our creed.

Given these realities I think we should have an established procedure for periodically reviewing our statement of faith. Obviously we would not want an annual review, because we would never be able to step away from our mirrors and out our front doors into the world. I also don’t think it would make much sense to try to review the statement of faith all at once since it may cause us to glaze over some issues because of some other more noticeable issues.

Allow me to connect the dots for you: Do I think we should review our statement of faith and make necessary changes? Yes and yes. Do I think we should attempt this endeavor all at once? No.

you say you want a resolution? well...

2006-05-10T16:57:00.000-04:00

No revision to the Statement of Faith will be presented at the National Leadership Conference this summer. Instead a resolution is being presented on the conference floor that will guide the future of the revising process. The following is the complete text of the resolution sent to the constituents of the EFCA:

RESOLUTION AFFIRMING BASIC RULES UNDER WHICH CONSIDERATION OF A POSSIBLE REVISION OF THE STATEMENT OF FAITH SHOULD PROCEED

A. Whereas the Conference has been informed of discussions under the auspices of the Board of Directors and Committee on Safeguarding the Spiritual Heritage about the on-going process for considering revisions to the EFCA Statement of Faith through the amendment of Article III of the EFCA Articles of Incorporation;

B. Whereas these discussions have resulted in the preparation of two drafts of possible revisions and explanatory notes that have been circulated and discussed within churches
and other constituencies of the EFCA (that is, within those groups that provide delegates to the Conference);

C. Whereas the amendment of the Articles of Incorporation formally requires introduction of the amendment at an Annual Meeting (Conference) and approval by a two-thirds vote at the next Annual Meeting (Conference); and

D. Whereas the Conference desires this process to be undertaken in a spirit of prayer and humility and with high regard for the convictions and opinions represented within the EFCA;

E. Therefore, in order to foster the communication and humble consideration it regards as important, the Conference resolves as follows:

1. The Conference requests that the Board of Directors ensure that reasonable efforts be made to keep churches and other constituencies of the EFCA informed of the progress of these discussions and work, until this matter is concluded.

2. The Conference requests that if the Board of Directors determines that an amendment of Article III of the Articles of Incorporation is not ready for formal introduction at the 2007 Conference, the Board ensure that a full report of progress is made at the 2007 Conference and at each subsequent Conference until this matter is concluded.

3. The Conference requests that if a proposed amendment of Article III of the Articles of Incorporation is brought to a future Conference for formal introduction, it be brought with a recommendation of a special rule of order that provides that if the proposed amendment is substantively amended at the next Conference, the amended proposal, absent unanimous consent, be regarded as reintroduced at that next Conference and final action be deferred until the following Conference, and so on at each subsequent Conference (with appropriate safeguards to be recommended by the Board of Directors to the appropriate Conferences to ensure that the process is not inappropriately prolonged or rushed).

4. The Conference requests that if a proposed amendment of Article III of the Articles of Incorporation is brought to a future Conference for formal introduction, it be brought with the recommendation of appropriate transitional guidelines to assist EFCA constituents, especially individual churches, if the Statement of Faith is revised.

5. The Conference recommends that all delegates to this Conference and future Conferences encourage prayerful and thoughtful discussion among EFCA churches and other constituencies of the issues raised by any proposed revision of the EFCA Statement of Faith.

Waste Ye Not

2006-04-13T14:57:00.000-04:00

We all seem to love a “good” scandal. Maybe it’s the way a scandal breaks up the monotony of an otherwise ordinary day, or maybe we just like to be “in the know” whenever something controversial comes up. Thus we have seen scandals go from being the subject of the supermarket tabloids, which we try to resist glaring at too obviously, to become the attention-getters for all our news media outlets whether it be the local nightly news, the news network of our political persuasion, or everyone’s favorite on-line source the Drudge Report.
In the early 90’s church historian, Mark Noll, wrote on what he saw as a scandal within the ranks of the church, and not surprisingly (given its title) The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind quickly became a highly read book on the face of the Western evangelical landscape. The periodical for evangelical Christians, Christianity Today, named it their “Book of the Year” and after more than a decade the title exists as a slogan of sorts for many in Christian academia. What is the scandal of the evangelical mind? According to Noll, the scandal is that there is no evangelical mind. The ability to “think like a Christian – to think within a specifically Christian framework” (i.) about the world today is rarely and sparsely practiced.
Interestingly, Noll credits, or more appropriately discredits, one of the greatest hallmarks of American evangelicalism as a reason for the scandal of the evangelical mind: the separation of church and state, or the deregulation of religion. As opposed to the Old World where one became a member of the church by virtue of their citizenship, Americans joined churches by being convinced to join one denomination over another. Denominations, as expressed through local churches, competed for church members and converts by way of the revival. Noll writes: “the combination of revivalism and disestablishment meant that pragmatic concerns would prevail over principle. What the churches required were results – new adherents – or they would simply go out of business. Thus, the production of results had to override all other considerations.” (ii.) Noll does not have an ax to grind with the separation of church and state in the way that many politicians and pundits do today, his observation of the downside of this separation comes with recognition of the significant value of the “free church” tradition. (iii.) Concurrently, he recognizes that pragmatism and practicality have become the most important issues in what a church does to try to maintain its attendance. He suggests that as early as the years following the American Revolution, the church began to start asking: “What message would be most effective? What do people most want to hear? What can we say that will both convert the people and draw them to our particular church?” (iv.) Noll then concludes, “the heavy pressure for results meant that very little time or energy was available to think about God and nature, God and society, God and beauty, or God and the shape of the human mind.”(v.)
While big-tent revivals are about as practical and functional today as a derby hat in the second week of May, the church still appears to be largely dedicated to the same rationale. We’ve replaced revival tents with worship facilities known as “experience centers,” (vi.) and most of the time we concentrate on asking ourselves what do people want instead of what do people need to cultivate. If the mind of any man is a terrible thing to waste, then for the Christian there should be an even greater impetus to develop the mind. “As servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God” (vii.) we should be actively utilizing all that he has given us, and surely that entails cultivating our minds in ways that bring him glory. We have an opportunity to do this through Christian education in the local church; we can strengthen our knowledge of God and the Word he has given us and forge a greater understanding of the world in which we he has placed us during these times with one another. Or we can choose to ignore the scandal by continuing to cater to the same felt needs that American evangelicals have addressed for generations and hope that our numbers increase while our minds remain stagnant. My hope is that our love for the scandalous will provide a catalyst for change.

i. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Mark A. Noll, 7.
ii. Ibid., 66.
iii. The use of the term “free church” refers to the sense in which the church is not regulated or maintained by any government.
iv. Ibid., 67
v. Ibid.
vi. http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=63&url_subchannel_id=&url_article_id=13444&change_well_id=2
vii. 1 Corinthians 4:1

migration or harvest? part two

2006-03-31T15:38:00.000-05:00

It looks like I didn't do my homework very well. Two days before my previous post Thom Rainer, another Southern Baptist, made the following statements in another Baptist Press article:

The numerical evidence seems clear. The American church is dying. We are not reproducing Christians. American church growth is typically the transfer of members from one congregation to another, rather than the conversion of the lost. I guess I could blame the churches, her leaders, and stubborn church members. But I must confess that I too often fall short in my own evangelistic zeal. Sometimes I get so busy that I fail to do the main thing.

Perhaps the first step for all of us is the confession of our own sins of disobedience, our own failures to take the evangelistic mandate seriously. Perhaps if we determine that the problem begins with me, then we can be a part of the solution.

Note, Rainer's comments are the result of analyzing evangelical churches across denominational lines not just the SBC. It sounds like we have more to be concerned about than Southern Baptists migrating to our churches. We need to consider whether we are simply paying lip service to the "evangel."
How many evangelical churches does it take to raise one convert sounds like a joke gone horribly wrong. We need to join Rainer in recognizing this problem by falling on our faces.

a baptist's concern and the EFCA factor (migration or harvest?)

2006-03-30T12:17:00.000-05:00

Some Southern Baptists are recognizing that they are at a cross-roads as a denomination. One of those men is Doug Baker and his article in Baptist Press is an insightful look at a denomination that must consider its history as it looks to the future. The entire article is worth reading particularly as he considers that, "Without the recovery of a denominational imperative that a local congregation is the most important and indispensable agent for Christ and his kingdom, the denominational beast easily could eat her own young." But I want to draw your attention to some comments he makes regarding the growth (or lack thereof) of the SBC in comparsion to the EFCA:

The question remains: Is theological conservatism SBC style compatible with healthy churches who aggressively work for biblical preaching and discipleship beyond the level of theological pabulum? The SBC needs only to look at other theologically conservative denominations such as the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and the Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA) and see their rapid growth (fueled by some former Southern Baptists who left the denomination) for an answer.

The most recent Religious Congregations and Membership study published in 2000 by the Glenmary Research Center indicates that during the last decade a continued trajectory of decline was experienced by the mainline denominations. While the Southern Baptist Convention grew at an overall rate of 5 percent over the last decade, the PCA grew by 42.4 percent and the EFCA grew by 57.2 percent. The question sociologists who study religion are beginning to ask is how much resettlement is taking place between the various conservative denominational options. In other words, is the growth of these two denominations (the PCA and the EFCA) specifically related to religious conversion or denominational migration? If the answer is from denominational migration, then the SBC should take note.

If the answer is denominational migration, then the EFCA should also take note. Are we growing as a denomination at the expense of another evangelical denomination? If so what does that mean for the future of our denomination? Could making changes in our statement of faith make this even more tenable? Is this desirable? Obviously we would prefer to grow due to true conversions, but what are we to think of migrations, and how should we avoid them ourselves?

go to the new efca blog

2006-02-20T09:37:00.000-05:00

Yesterday evening I received with great joy the news that Greg Strand has started a blog on the efca website (click: here or type in: http://blogs.efca.org/sof). Since I only started this blog because I felt there was a need to discuss the revision to the statment of faith in this kind of format, I'll be essentially hanging it up over here at the freechurchman. You won't find my moniker over there, but I'll be posting my thoughts along with everyone else. I hope that over the past few months you have found this blog helpful as you have discussed these issues with other freechurchmen (and women).

In Christ Jesus our Lord,

the Freechurchman

Second Draft Revision to the EFCA Statement of Faith

2006-02-12T08:17:00.001-05:00

Click on the title to go directly to the latest revision. It does not include the Preamble that was included in the first draft. If you would like to read the Preamble in view of the most recent changes go to the link I've provided on the left-hand column.

I'm a bit bogged down these days, although I've read through it already I won't be making any comments on the blog until later this week or early next week. Until then happy reading, thinking, discussing, and trusting in the hope found in Jesus Christ!

For His Church & His glory,

Freechurchman

A Message From G.E.

2006-02-06T23:55:00.000-05:00

No it isn't "we bring good things to light." It's the other G.E. - George Eldon. And while some have called me a Laddite or Laddian (other suggestions include: wee Ladd and Ladd-boy), I think that the following is helpful as we consider whether it's prudent to drop Pre-Millenialism from the EFCA Statement of Faith:

Those who 'love His appearing' should close ranks and stand together on the great fundamentals of the Word of God.... The purpose of The Fundamentals was to unite those who stood squarely on the fundamentals of the faith and to make a powerul statement in face of the inroads of liberalism.... Standing solidly together in the battle for the re-enthronement of the fundamentals of our holy faith were premillennialists, postmillennialists, promillennialists and nomillennialists. Fortunately the conservative group contains no one who repudiates the blessed doctrine of the second coming of our Lord but the group does contain those who differ radically with one another concerning the whole millennial question.

- The Blessed Hope, (59-60)

The revised SoF contains this same line of thinking: we may debate the millennium, but this much is certain; Christ will return and this is our "Blessed Hope."

Are you free?

2006-02-06T23:22:00.000-05:00

The Revised EFCA Statement of Faith has already seen some changes. This is great news for all of us! The National Office has maintained that this is not a top-down initiative and that there is no established time table for the revision's acceptance or rejection. Whether or not the revision is a top-down effort is subject to debate, but at this point I'm not convinced that it's worthy of debate anymore than debating the number of angels who can cha-cha on a pinhead. It should be recognized that those who went to Apple Valley were heard and changes were made; the Committee on Safeguarding Our Spiritual Heritage is listening and responding. Hopefully district conferences will also be a catalyst for additional change, we won't know unless we go and provide feedback and input. So say you to Captain Peacock, "Yes sir, I'm free!"

- As soon as the 2nd revision is made public, I'll post a link on the blog.

- When the new revision is posted, I'll provide a forum for interaction.

- To all those who never watch British comedy, my sympathies.

The Freechurchman

Congregationalism: A Mark of an Evangelical Free Church

2006-02-01T09:17:00.000-05:00

I'm willing to bet that for most of my Reformed brethern in the EFCA, Mark Dever's ministry has been a blessing in one way or another. Perhaps you've read Nine Marks of a Healthy Church or maybe you've even read one of his most recently published books like The Deliberate Church or The Message of the New Testament or maybe "Togther For the Gospel" is your conference of choice this year.

While hardly a Deverite (if there is such a thing), whenever he presents an issue that I find myself in personal disagreement with I know I'll have to wrestle with it substantially. Why? Because the man is thorougly biblical, "prick him anywhere and he bleeds Bibline."

If you look into the mirror and see a Reformed pastor (or layman) of the EFCA and see behind you a few books written by Dever on your bookshelf. Take the time to read the article I've linked in this post's title, and take the time to care enough about congregationalism to see that its preserved in our Statement of Faith.

a ridiculous scandal: here

2006-01-30T17:31:00.000-05:00

It seems like that's what it takes to generate discussion on any given subject matter these days. I for one am glad that we aren't there. I've enjoyed hearing that there were more discussions and questions than there were rants at the Mid-Winter Ministerial. Look here and here to see what some who were there saw, heard, and said. I also am pleased to hear (and hear of) pastors discuss the proposed revisions with their congregrants. If Apple Valley was too far of a drive or too costly to fly to, try your best to make it to your up-coming district conference (go here to get info about your district and when it is meeting to discuss the proposal and other issues). It's my understanding that the writers of the proposed revision are making an effort to go out to these gatherings, so don't miss out on this opportunity (and make it worth their efforts by going yourself).

a mid-winter's break

2006-01-20T17:04:00.000-05:00

I'd like to tell you what I've heard:

Did you catch that? Neither did I, so I'm going to take a little bit of time off (one, two weeks maybe) and listen in to what others are saying (or not saying). When I come back I hope to write some more about the more critical areas surrounding the potential changes to the Statement of Faith. You may notice that "She Must and Shall Stay Free" was called (part one); I think I've got at least a part two and a part three in me somewhere. I've only talked about the millenial issue once; so I expect to return to that rather substantial issue.

I suppose that for some this is only a fad, something that's fun to dabble with but then it gets over-played and over-hyped and then it's on to something else (I hear pet rocks are making a comeback). Well, the EFCA as a denomination means more to me than that and the local church is a whole lot more than that so I'll be sticking around for a bit longer...

The Freechurchman

The Final Article(s) on Last Things

2006-01-20T12:36:00.000-05:00

If you just can't manage to read all the way through the PDF that contains the proposed revision to the Statement of Faith all of the revised articles are now posted on this blog. Even so, I encourage you to take the time to read the proposal; it gives great insight into the thoughts and considerations that went into making the changes that are being proposed. I interacted with a few of those ideas and plan on continuing to do so in the days between the Mid-winter and the National Leadership Conference in Colorado (should the Lord tarry).

Now, here's the last installment of the articles:

The Proposed Revison to the EFCA Statement of Faith
10. Response to God’s gospel determines the eternal destiny of every person –
We believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead: of the unbeliever to judgment and eternal conscious punishment, and of the believer to eternal blessedness and joy with the Lord, to the praise of His glorious grace. Amen.

The Original EFCA Statement of Faith
12. In the bodily resurrection of the dead; of the believer to everlasting blessedness and joy with the Lord; of the unbeliever to judgment and everlasting conscious punishment.

uneasy eschatology - are some answers too simple?

2006-01-20T10:43:00.000-05:00

The forefather of Evangelical thought, Carl F. H. Henry, wrote in God, Revelation, and Authority:

Evangelical expositors disagree over the question of a literal thousand-year earthly reign of Christ. One’s view of the millennium has sometimes been made a test of evangelical authenticity or fellowship, even though this was not the case either in apostolic times or in the larger course of church history. Surely the issue should not be given a prominence above that extended to eschatological priorities expressly affirmed by the ecumenical creeds. (6:504)

Some may look at this statement by Carl Henry and say “Look, if ever there was proof that the EFCA should drop its distinctly Premillennial view, it’s the very point that Henry was making in the early 1980’s.” But not so fast, if we make what the ecumenical creeds declare the standard of what we include (or in this case delete) from our test of fellowship we end up with something very different from our current Statement of Faith. Look in the early creeds for a specific statement regarding Penal-Substitution. Is it there? Maybe implicitly... But it wasn't until Anselm’s work was enhanced by 16th century Reformers that Substitutionary Atonement was fully articulated by theologians. Should we then strike Penal-Substitution from our SoF? By no means! The ecumenical creeds do not deal adequately with the challenges that Christendom has faced in the centuries of thought and criticism that have followed them. For this reason they cannot exist as a test of what we include or delete from our Statement of Faith in the 21st Century.

The question of whether or not there should be a millenial position in our SoF deserves to be asked, but it should not be answered in this way. Considering all of the other changes being made to the SoF perhaps this is one that can be put on the backburner. An issue that has been embraced by so many in the EFCA for the last 50 years could probably stand to be analyzed by itself during a Mid-Winter with action being taken afterward toward either continued support of the Pre-Millenial position or a broader view like the one that the current draft revision proposes.

She Must and Shall Stay Free (part one)

2006-01-18T16:37:00.000-05:00

God’s gospel is revealed through the church that centers herself upon the Word of God. The Gospels only preserved two of Jesus’ teachings on the church (for all we know these could have been the only times Jesus mentioned the new gathering of God’s chosen people or they could have been just two of many times he talked to his disciples about such things). What we do know is that Matthew, inspired by the Holy Spirit, gave us a very intentional look at the inner workings of the church the second time he let us see Jesus speaking of her:

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." (Matthew 18:15-20)

In this situation the “church” refers to the local body not to an appointed committee, deacons, or elders within the church or a larger entity outside of the autonomous church. The church is given the responsibility of determining whether a brother can be recognized as a partner in the gospel or a person who needs to hear and respond to the gospel. This reality exists for the purity of the church and for the good of the sinning brother. The proclamation of the gospel is at stake when we consider how church discipline is to be carried out, and church discipline cannot be carried out correctly without the correct form of church polity. Congregationalism is not just one of various expressions of church polity; it is how God’s gospel is preserved and proclaimed.

It is worth noting that in earlier times this passage was referred to as the “gospel steps” not so much out of its connection with the gospel message as much as its location within the Gospel According to Matthew. Nevertheless, we see in the Acts of the Apostles and in Paul’s letters a continuation of this emphasis on the body of believers making important decisions as an entire congregation, rather than allowing some key leaders making decisions on her behalf. The fact that the congregation is given the responsibility to decide on key issues is even more remarkable given the presence of the apostles in the early church.

Luke gives us another glimpse of the congregational structure of the earliest church:

Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food. So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. "Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. "But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch. And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them. (Acts 6:1-6)

While numerous discussions have taken place regarding the use of Acts in terms of it being prescriptive or descriptive, it seems that this descriptive narrative provides some important prescriptions for the church. I believe that this pericope demonstrates the need for and the function of the biblical office of deacons, and I also believe it gives another insight into the priesthood of all believers and the congregational nature of the church. The apostles called the entire congregation to hear their proposal and then upon hearing what the apostles had to say the congregation determined whether it was appropriate to accept the given guidance. This is congregationalism at its best (which is why I dream of an “Acts 6 church” just as much as I pray for an “Acts 2 church”); the leaders of the church do not lord over the congregation and the congregation heeds the pastoral direction of its leaders.

In Paul’s two letters to the Corinthians many believe he is speaking of the same sinning brother in 1 Corinthians 5 as he is in 2 Corinthians 6. Regardless of whom Paul is referring to, he appeals to the entire congregation in each letter. He charges the assembly to judge this brother and then later calls upon them to demonstrate forgiveness and comfort and to reaffirm love for the one who was rebuked by the entire body of believers.

The New Testament writers show us the church appointing its leaders and determining who can and cannot be counted among the body of believers as a congregation. Congregationalism directs the course of the church it is not a political construct modeled after democracy. Congregationalism is the result of a body consisting of the priesthood of believers. This priesthood will be examined next.

Going to Apple Valley?

2006-01-18T09:36:00.000-05:00

Don't worry about the weather; it's going to be a balmy 34 on Thursday!

But don't forget your laptop, I'm not expecting the Associated Press to be providing coverage, nor do I expect Geraldo Rivera or Greta Van Susteren to be there, so email me at efreechurchman@gmail.com about what you see, hear, and say (I believe that's the Proverbial order of things), hopefully others who will be there can update us from their own blogs. If that occurs I'll be certain to provide links to their posts.

In the next few days I'll still be posting on some of the key issues (read: congregationalism and eschatology). In the meantime, know that we will be praying for all of you who will be traveling to Minnesota - grace & peace!

The Return of the King: Article Eleven

2006-01-18T09:29:00.000-05:00

9. God will bring His gospel to fulfillment at the end of the age –We believe in the personal and glorious coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with His holy angels when He will establish His kingdom fully and exercise His role as Judge of all. This coming of Christ, for which we must be constantly prepared, is our blessed hope.

11. In the personal and premillennial and imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and that this "Blessed Hope" has a vital bearing on the personal life and service of the believer.

Personal commentary on the significant changes to this article will come later today.

Martin Luther King Day and the Eighth Article

2006-01-16T09:26:00.000-05:00

Before more is said about the Draft Revision's Article Seven, I thought it would be fitting to display Article Eight today. While some might cynically complain that this new addition to the Statement of Faith would be nothing more than a trendy move; I beg to differ. Our denomination, by God's grace, is becoming more reflective of God's Kingdom, and our national leadership rightly emphasizes this by including in each EFCA Today a section called "Among All People: the diversity of our movement." This new article emphasizes the active role that God's people must take in the world today, and while we will never fully know peace until Christ returns there is nothing less Christ-like than ignoring the poor and turning our eyes away at the sight of injustice. Article Eight is a far cry from a social or liberation gospel, it rightly focuses on the how we are to fight sin in this age: through dependence upon the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.

For too long we have allowed our national and state governments to be responsible for aiding the poor and helping the downtrodden, this would be all well and good if we believed that the government will lead them to the Savior, but God has seen fit to give His Church the responsibility of directing poor and needy sinners to the mercy seat of Jesus Christ by proclaiming the gospel to them. How will they come to know the One who will set them free if we refuse to allow our hands and our carpets to get dirty? How will they come to understand the true gospel if we don't reclaim social work from social activists who proclaim a false gospel?

8. God’s gospel calls us to Christ-like living and witness to the world –We believe that God’s justifying grace in the gospel must not be separated from its sanctifying power and purpose. He calls us to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and mind, and our neighbor as ourselves, acting with compassion toward the poor and need, seeking justice for everyone. In fellowship with one another, we are to battle the world, the flesh, and the devil with the Word of God and prayer through the prevailing power of the Holy Spirit. Since the age to come has already dawned in Christ, we are called to take the light of Christ to the world, bearing witness to the gospel in word and deed to every nation, people, and language.

are you ready for this conversation?

2006-01-13T12:29:00.000-05:00

Inquirer: So what is this Evangelical Free Church of America denomination all about?

You: Well it’s really pretty simple. We’re evangelical…

Inquirer: I hear “evangelical” tossed around a lot these days; what exactly does that mean?

You: It means that we emphasize the essentials of the gospel. If you’re interested take a look at this brief statement of faith, which outlines what gospel-proclaiming churches believe (you then grab one of the many brochures you have on hand which contains the EFCA SoF and hand it to this friendly seeker).

Inquirer: Hey thanks, I’ll be sure to look this over! What about "Free," I don’t suppose that means you’re anything like that guy on TV who wants me to have free money?

You: (chuckling at the cute remark) No, no, I assure you it’s nothing like that at all. "Free" means that we’re congregational.

Inquirer: Oh.

You: I’m guessing that you don’t really know what that means, but no worries I just happen to have a copy of the latest EFCA Leadership Conference Report Book, which contains our Bylaws that further explains our church’s structure and organization. You can borrow it if you like, but be sure to give it back because I only get one each year and I need it to keep abreast of any of the changes that may or may not occur on an annual basis (you then reach for the book)...

Inquirer: Uh, no that’s okay you keep it.

_________________

An exaggeration? Of course! If you can't articulate what it means to be congregational without referencing the Bylaws then something else is wrong here. But clearly we should have something much more accessible than the annual Report Book expressing why we are "Free." Relegating this important component of our denomination to a book that few have their hands on diminishes the significance of our polity. A polity that I believe is an important part of the narrative framework of the Biblical gospel, God's gospel.
More to come on this important issue...

Article Seven

2006-01-12T16:57:00.000-05:00

The Seventh Article in the Draft Revision to the EFCA Statement of Faith:
7. God’s gospel is now embodied in the new community called the church –
We believe that the true church is composed of all those who have been saved by the grace of God through union with Christ by faith and through regeneration by the Holy Spirit. This church, of which Christ is the Head, is manifest in local churches, whose membership should be composed only of members of the true church.
The two biblically-mandated ordinances of the church, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, visibly and tangibly express this gospel, strengthening our faith. They are to be celebrated by the church during the present age in obedience to Christ, but are not a means of salvation.

The four articles in the current EFCA Statement of Faith that it will replace:

7. That water baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances to be observed by the Church during the present age. They are, however, not to be regarded as means of salvation.

8. 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.

9. That only those who are, thus, members of the true Church shall be eligible for membership in the local church.

10. That Jesus Christ is the Lord and Head of the Church and that every local church has the right, under Christ, to decide and govern its own affairs.

I will publish several posts in response to this portion of the revision.

Which Theologian Are You?

2006-01-12T08:15:00.000-05:00

This little quiz has been around for some time now, but I figure if you've spent any time in the past couple of weeks trying to make sense of changes to the Statement of Faith you need a breather.

Oh yeah, and just to be completely clear if you end up looking like Paul Tillich perhaps the EFCA isn't for you!

Articles 5 & 6

2006-01-12T07:49:00.000-05:00

Draft Revision:
5. God’s gospel is accomplished through the work of Christ –
We believe that Jesus Christ, as our representative and substitute, died on the cross as the perfect, complete, and sufficient sacrifice for our sins. His shed blood and resurrection are the only ground for salvation, and it is through faith alone in Christ and His saving work that anyone is justified before God.

Original Article:
6. 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.

Draft Revision:
6. God’s gospel is applied and empowered by the Holy Spirit –
We believe that the Holy Spirit glorifies the Lord Jesus Christ, and, during this age, convicts the world, regenerates sinners, baptizing them into union with Christ, and indwells, guides, instructs, and equips believers, empowering them for Christ-like living and service.

Original Article:
4. 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.

Commentary:
I wonder if there is anyone out there who is upset that article four's wording went from "regenerate the believing sinner" to "regenerates sinners" in the new article six. If you are that person, I'd love to hear from you. My guess is that most are pleased with this change, but that's only a guess.

Articles 3 & 4

2006-01-09T22:11:00.000-05:00

3. God’s gospel alone addresses our deepest human need – We believe that God created Adam and Eve in His image, but they fell into sin through the temptation of Satan, distorting that mage. As a result, all humanity is alienated from God and under His wrath and can be rescued, reconciled, and restored only through God’s gracious work in Jesus Christ.

5. That man was created in the image of God but fell into sin and is, therefore, lost, and only through regeneration by the Holy Spirit can salvation and spiritual life be obtained.

4. God’s gospel is revealed in history supremely through the Person of Jesus Christ –
We believe that Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah of Israel, is God incarnate, one Person in two natures, fully human and fully divine, having been conceived through the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived a sinless life, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, arose bodily form the dead, and ascended into heaven, where, at the right hand of God the Father, He is now our High Priest and Advocate.

3. That Jesus Christ is true God and true man, having been conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He died on the cross, a sacrifice for our sins according to the Scriptures. Further, He arose bodily from the dead, ascended into heaven, where, at the right hand of the Majesty on High, He is now our High Priest and Advocate.

Personal commentary:
I love how these two rewritten articles emphasize so many crucial tenents of the historic Christian faith. If you take a look at the draft as a whole, you'll note that Jesus is first mentioned by name at the end of article three (article one identifies Him as the Son). It sets up articles four and five beautifully to launch into a full-fledged Christological statement. Then each of the remaining articles speak of Jesus in one way or another. I like it. I like it a lot.

I find the terms "rescued, reconciled, and restored" to be interesting choices. The commentary provided in the draft suggests that rescued refers to the past for believers, reconciled to the present, and restored to the future. There may be in an "all ready-but not yet" sense in which each of these are past, present, and future. For example, one can say that we have been rescued from sin due to Christ's death, we are being rescued as Christ has sent the Spirit who gives us the ability to fight sin and live for His glory, and we will be rescued from sin once and for all when Christ returns. Overall, I like these terms because as far as I can tell I don't think anyone from either an Arminian camp or a Calvinist camp is going to be upset about this being some sort of ordo salutis. Clearly nothing like this is in view at all, and I for one find that helpful for the longevity of our denomination.

The First Two Articles

2006-01-09T09:49:00.000-05:00

The Draft Revision precedes the current Statement of Faith's corresponding article. The Articles:

1. God’s gospel originates in and manifests the holy love of the eternal, triune God –
We believe in one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect and eternally existing in a unity of love in three equally divine Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This one God, who knows the end from the beginning and rules over all things, has, in love and grace, purposed from eternity to redeem a people for Himself and to restore His fallen creation for His own glory.

2. In one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect and eternally existing in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

2. God’s gospel is authoritatively announced in the Scriptures –
We believe that God has spoken through the Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments. They are the verbally inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for salvation, sufficient for all that God requires us to believe and do, and the ultimate authority which stands over every realm of human knowledge. We confess that we cannot know God’s truth exhaustively, but we affirm that we can know it truly. Therefore, the Bible is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it teaches; obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; and trusted, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.

1. The Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, to be the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men and the Divine and final authority for Christian faith and life.

Personal commentary:

The choice to change the positioning of the first two articles is an interesting one. I suppose that given the right conglomeration of theologians we could go back and forth on it all day long. Fortunately we do not have the problems of the mainline denominations which Wright spells out accurately in The New Testament and the People of God: "within mainline 'New Testament theology'... it is axiomatic that the gospels do not give us direct access to Jesus, but only to the theology of the evangelists and their predecessors. If all authority belongs to the creator god, it is a matter of some delicacy to describe how such 'authority' comes to be vested in the New Testament, and what the limits of this might be."

The bottom line is: we believe in the God who has spoken and who has done so in a way that reflects his very nature "infinitely perfect and eternally existing". We believe this because Scripture itself testifies, "the grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever" (Isa 40:8). The mainline has a real problem with inerrancy, but we have stood on it and continue to do so in an even stronger sense with the proposed draft revision, because it deals two hay-makers to those who undermine our knowledge of God: openness theologians and post-modernists. Whether you begin with the God who speaks or the words He has spoken to reveal Himself to us is not nearly as significant as what is actually affirmed in the articles. These two revised articles demonstrate a continuing desire to stand for what the EFCA has always stood for: the God who is known through His own special revelation.

don't change that dial

2006-01-06T10:23:00.000-05:00

There's not a lot of time between now and the Midwinter Ministerial and even though more could be said about the Preamble it's time to get moving on. Starting next week we'll begin looking at all of the draft revision: article-by-article. It's no mystery that a few of the articles deserve a bit more attention than the others, but to be thorough and consistent you will see them all here with the corresponding article from the current EFCA Statement of Faith.

While the commentary on the draft revision the writers’ included is helpful, I won't be including their notes unless it pertains to my own commentary on the revision. If you desire to make any comments in upcoming days please make sure that you have familiarized yourself with what they have said so as to avoid any unnecessary mischaracterization.

A word (or two) about anonymity

2006-01-03T17:28:00.000-05:00

Some have complained, protested, or refrained from making comments here due to the anonymity of this blog. I have to admit there is something altogether pathetic about people who fire off salvos of criticism and slander from their computers and then walk away without taking responsibility for their words due to the guise of a pseudonym.

So what’s my excuse? Historical precedent. That’s right, surely you remember the “Federalist Papers” from your U.S. History class. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay wrote together under the name Publius to address the major issues surrounding the Constitution. I’m not a heavyweight like any of those guys nor am I an aristocrat like Sir Percy Blakeney of The Scarlet Pimpernel. So don’t look for me to take my mask off at the Midwinter Ministerial, frankly the trip is too expensive for me to make. Some of you hate surprises, I do too, but I assure you that my identity is nothing to lose sleep over. I recently “googled” my name and almost 18.5 million hits came up, and it’s true I did not look at every single link, but the ones I skimmed had nothing to do with me. Since the whole anonymous thing annoys some of you, I’ll let you know who I am when I hear back from those who have gone to the Midwinter, and I promise you it will be the most uneventful moment of all of our lives. Until then I will remain anonymous because my concern is not for you to know what I think as an individual, but for us to begin a conversation that does not appear to be taking place anywhere else.

I know that I’m not the only pastor in the EFCA who can’t make it to Apple Valley, MN but that doesn’t mean that how the proposed revision is discussed is any less important to me. I look around the “blogosphere” and see a lot of silliness; my personal favorites are all of the conversations that regurgitate all the classic straw-man arguments pertaining to Arminianism and Calvinism. If I wanted to waste my time, I’d start arguing with these people but I’d rather do something constructive, like create a forum for serious-minded Free Church ministers and laypersons to discuss what will undoubtedly change our denomination if it is embraced: the Proposed Revision to the Statement of Faith.

Changes, as you all know, can be both good and devastating. Chances are that if you are a firm supporter of the proposal you will find me to be a harsh critic. Conversely, if you think the document is appalling you may wish that I would fire off those salvos I mentioned earlier. There are some things that I don’t like about the proposal and there are some things that I do like; I want to bring all of it to the surface not just my own theological hobbyhorses. So I invite you to discuss it all right here and invite others who belong to the Evangelical Free Church of America (and can remain within the parameters I set in my first post, “Twin Dangers”). You may post a comment on any of the articles here with any personal information about yourself that you may want known, or you may wish to post anonymously, but if I think that your comments are mean-spirited expect to see them removed. If you find my thoughts to be of that vein then let me know and I will reexamine what I’ve written.

For the Church and for the glory of God through Jesus Christ our Lord,

Freechurchman

when all that glitters is not silence

2006-01-03T09:36:00.000-05:00

Not many in the EFCA are blogging about the pertinent issue of the day, but Jack over at Newcovenantliving.blogspot.com is one of them. Until I become computer savvy enough to figure out how to add more links to my side column follow the above hypertext to Jack's site.

Any Given Sunday (part two)

2006-01-02T00:08:00.000-05:00

It is possible to approve the recent proposal, but approving a new SoF and achieving the type of broad unity it desires appears staggeringly difficult this side of the Reformation.

At this point the question “is it necessary” is demanded by those who rightly reveal how it grieved Luther, Calvin, and other reformers to see the Church divide. Should we not desire to see unity among God’s chosen people? Were we called by God to argue with each other or to advance the gospel? How can God’s house stand if we allow “minor” doctrinal differences to divide us?

Paul, “an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God” wrote to the church in Ephesus, “There is one body and one Spirit – just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call – one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one god and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all (Ephesians 4:4-6).

Regardless of denominational differences evangelicals are united, not because of a parachurch movement like Prison Fellowship Ministries or an organization like the National Association of Evangelicals , but due to the work of Christ on our behalf. Our responsibility is to maintain unity (Eph 4:3,16). At the current time this unity is visibly maintained in at least two ways. There is unity in evangelical efforts to advance the gospel, thanks be to God! There is also unity in churches that are united through denomination distinctives, again – thanks be to God!

In my imagination there are two camps clamoring for the fire that is the SoF. The first camp believes that broadening the current SoF will strengthen the movement by enlarging it. The second camp believes that by making the tent larger there will be sharp disagreements in local churches due to variety of beliefs that would be considered tenable due to a broad SoF. Both camps want unity, but are divided on what that unity is to look like and how it is achieved, how ironic.

If you haven’t read The Church: One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic order it today and read Richard Phillips comments on this subject (it’s a short and inexpensive book – well worth the money). While waiting for your new book to arrive ponder the thoughts expressed by Russell Moore on why he considers himself a “Happy Evangelical”. As the head of the Carl Henry Institute, Moore appears to be one of the uneasy heirs of Henry’s evangelicalism; his statements about the “movement” (a term he wouldn’t use) deserve our attention as long as we are united as the Evangelical Free Church of America. http://www.henryinstitute.org/commentary_read.php?cid=155

Any Given Sunday (part one)

2005-12-31T11:02:00.000-05:00

Mark Noll writes in Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, “on any given Sunday in the United States and Canada, a majority of those who attend church hold evangelical beliefs and follow norms of evangelical practice,” (10). At an earlier point Noll refers to what one historian has noted as the beliefs essential to evangelicalism:

1. conversionism
2. Biblicism
3. crucicentrism

Noll does not identify what the “norms of evangelical practice” look like, perhaps this is because he also writes, “these evangelical impulses [the three points listed above] have never by themselves yielded cohesive, institutionally compact, easily definable, well-coordinated, or clearly demarcated groups of Christians” (8).
The writers of the proposed revision of the EFCA Statement of Faith seek to defy Noll and history by becoming the cohesive, institutionally compact, easily definable, well-coordinated, and clearly demarcated group of Christians for the 21st Century. Two questions emerge: is it possible and is it necessary?

A Return to Ye Olde Fudge Shoppe

2005-12-27T14:06:00.000-05:00

The case against fudging and for revisions was made earlier with some help from imminency. Faithful expositors of Scripture generally agree that written documents need to be understood as their authors intended, thus the case for revision with respect to the understanding of the word “imminent.”

Lest confusion fill our ranks, let’s be frank – a complete rewrite is NOT the same as revision, and furthermore previous fudging does not necessitate dropping imminency out of the EFCA Statement of Faith. A complete rewrite is done when nothing is salvageable from the original, thus the US deep-sixed the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union in favor of the Constitution (which has been amended since it was originally written).

A revision that includes imminency could be written with the intention of reflecting both possible meanings. After all, the great defender of the Post-Tribulation Rapture, Doug Moo, defended both the significance of imminency and Premillennialism. At the end of his chapter in Three Views of the Rapture, Moo wrote, “The truth of the imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ is an important and indispensable element of biblical truth. That this coming is to be premillennial the Scriptures plainly state.”

Who's that a writing?

2005-12-23T16:44:00.000-05:00

If you’re like me you may be fumbling through the pages of Revelation these days as part of one of the many read-the-entire-Bible-in-a-year programs. John’s Apocalypse is always confusing, but always a blessing! I’m convinced that a fundamental mark of all believers and all true churches is a yearning for the blessed hope, the return of Jesus Christ. If our hearts don’t accelerate when Jesus tells us that he is coming soon then we need to call an ambulance and hope they’re carrying some syringes full of Atropine.

So when I read, in what I’m touting as the very best EFCA Today to hit the newsstands in its printing history, the emphasis of eschatology in our everyday lives it makes me very excited about the state of our churches. The theme comes up several times, to include Bill Kynes article, “The Gospel We have Embraced”, the pastor of Cornerstone EFC in Annandale, Virginia takes some time to make a few confessions.

Pastor Kynes admits,

“Living out the truth of the gospel is not easy. I struggle particularly with the biblical notion of “inaugurated eschatology” – that is, that in the gospel, the age to come has already dawned…. as those united with Christ, we are already seated with Him in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 2:6); that we have been given every spiritual blessing in Christ (Ephesians 1:3); and that we have died to sin, so that it no longer has power over us (Romans 6:1-10).
These are theological truths, but I struggle with how they are to be fleshed out. I see too little power to overcome sin, I see too little power to overcome sin, too little resurrection life in our midst. I want to have more of the ‘already,’ even as we await the glory that is still to come.”

Catching a glimpse of the coming Kingdom can be equally delightful and frustrating. We pray that His Kingdom will come, and when He gives us a sweet taste of it we naturally want more. But then there’s the not-yet, the fact that though the Kingdom has been consummated we must still wait for it to arrive in its entirety.

Good intentions aside, I think our brothers who wrote the current proposed Revision to the Statement of Faith fault in wanting something that we can’t have this side of the eschaton: a visible Catholic Church. If you have not yet read the proposal then read it and judge for yourself. I’ll be reading Evangelical Truth by John Stott, The Church: One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic by Richard D. Phillips, Philip G. Ryken, and Mark E. Dever, One Faith: The Evangelical Consensus by J.I. Packer and Thomas C. Oden, and Revelation by John the servant of Jesus Christ.

mmm fudge!

2005-12-22T00:02:00.000-05:00

Fudge-makers, what’s not to love about them? Assuming of course that we’re talking about the guys who always let us have free samples of the more exotic flavors even though we always end up buying either maple walnut or plain chocolate. Then there’s the other kind of “fudging” – the kind where someone says one thing but means another, you don’t want to buy that kind of fudge no matter the variety of flavors to sample, which brings us to the EFCA Statement of Faith and the proposed Revision.

The writers of the Revision state “some consider it ‘fudging’ when people sign a Statement that uses the word ‘imminent’ when those people no longer use that word in the way it was originally intended.” There are three types of people who have a hard time with this fudging:

1. Dispensationalists who hold to the original meaning of imminent, 2. Those who think that a document should hold the meaning understood and communicated by the original author(s), and 3. A combination of the first two types (sorry, I don’t have a legitimate third type).

Hopefully we can agree that not finding ourselves in one of those three categories could land us in potentially hot water. The writers of the Revision couldn’t have said it better when they wrote “that that kind of erosion of a doctrinal statement is dangerous because of where it could lead – for if the words do not mean what they say as defined by those who wrote them, then they could mean almost anything.”

If you’re looking to make a case for a revision, whether it be the one presented to us or something else, look no further than this issue… The proof is in the pudding, or is it in the fudge?

First Things First

2005-12-21T01:24:00.000-05:00

The tagline for 28 Days Later is “the days are numbered.” Twenty-eight days remain until the Midwinter Ministerial Conference, which is plenty of time to articulate what we think about church polity in the New Testament (I’m sold on congregationalism and I’ll be making a case for it), the millennium (I’ll be taking historic pre-mill to the bank – many thanks to Doug Moo), and the other issues brought up in the Revision, but I for one think that there are still issues that need to be addressed regarding the “Preamble” to the Revision. So if everyone can just hold on for another day or two, let’s talk some more about the goals and ideas of the Committee on Safeguarding the Spiritual Heritage (you’ll note that I said “the Spiritual Heritage” not “our Spiritual Heritage” that’s because the By-Laws use the definite article).

First, I stand by what I said earlier: it is the responsibility of the church, not an office or committee, to frame the debate, but since we know what is on their minds we might as well let them know what is on our minds. It is easy to agree with the Committee on a number of issues:

1. Evangelical bodies “without a written creed are experiencing difficulty establishing and enforcing appropriate boundaries for belief and behavior.”

2. Periodic review of the Statement of Faith is important because “Scripture alone is our final authority” and if the Statement of Faith is to be a guiding document then its language should be updated to reflect contemporary vocabulary.

3. Times are changing and there are new issues that need to be addressed. Certainly “the reality of the spiritual battle, open theology, postmodernism, and even our mission to all people” are significant issues.

A quick reading of the Preamble will reveal that I don’t agree with the Committee on all of their reasons (hint: they listed five). Before I jump into how I disagree and why, I want to know what you think. Do you agree with all of their reasons? Do you agree with the reasons that I listed above? And here’s the part of every exam that I always hated: why or why not?

A Modest Proposal?

2005-12-19T15:57:00.000-05:00

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.

Twin Dangers

2005-12-19T13:36:00.000-05:00

Carson and Woodbridge give us some good ground rules in their Preface to Scripture and Truth, they write:

Twin dangers confront the Christian concerned with defining and
promulgating biblical truth. The first is pugnaciousness.... A Christian can almost unknowingly develop a boisterous rhetoric and a caustic spirit, neither of which are helpful for the advance of the kingdom. The evangelical community suffers when its embers lack humility and grace.
The second danger is less easy to recognize, but is not less insidious. It is a kind of arrogant apathy that bolsters a mindset less interested in the truth than in its pursuit. It involves a fine balancing of all opinions in such a way that a person is somehow impolite to insist that one opinion has the ring of truth, and, conversely, the others are to that degree false.

Before we even get started I admit that I have a tendency to drift toward the first danger rather than the second. I've avoided starting a blog in the past because it seems that it often provides a caustic campground for those who love to argue over all-things-debatable in Christendom, yet there is undoubtedly something at stake now. Unfortunately the second danger is currently winning the day, only a handful of bloggers have had anything to say about the Revisions to the Statement of Faith and those blogs have been brief and relatively unengaged.

As the debate unfolds let’s keep the Spirit in spirited debates. In other words, we want to challenge one another to think, but let's do so in a loving way rather than verbally abusing each other. When we present our cases let’s do it in a way that is honest. In other words, churchmen are invited to participate but please don’t bring any straw men to the discussion. Finally, when any of us fail in these areas let’s be mature enough to own up to our mistakes and then move on.

For the church...