It's Not Broke, So Fix It
As a denomination, there are a couple surefire ways to get your name in the headlines. You can bow to popular wisdom on a major doctrinal issue, as the Episcopal Church did in 2003 by electing an openly homosexual man as bishop. Or you can weigh in against practices near and dear to some of your fellow Christians, as the Southern Baptist Convention did two years ago.
If you want to make sure no one covers your denominational meeting, here's what you do: Revise your statement of faith before certain issues become disputed in your churches. And yet here I am writing about the Evangelical Free Church of America's newly revised statement of faith. Why? Because the time to fix your doctrine is when it isn't broke.
By and large, the EFCA has been insulated from the evangelical world's recent debates over open theism, the Atonement, justification, and inerrancy. That's not to say the EFCA has avoided the debates. Faculty at the EFCA seminary, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS), have actively engaged each of these controversial topics. But the newer interpretations have not gained traction among the denomination's 1,300 churches. Still, it's clear EFCA leaders had these debates in mind when they adopted a new statement of faith on June 26.
The first article says God has "limitless knowledge and sovereign power." Thus, the EFCA takes a stand against open theism, which claims that God granted humans complete free will, so he can't know the future precisely. This first article was shifted ahead of an article on the Bible, which led off the last statement of faith, adopted in 1950, when the EFCA was formed by merger. The move should not be interpreted as de-emphasizing inerrancy. Indeed, the 2008 revision strengthens the EFCA's commitment to inerrancy by taking a cue from the 1978 Chicago Statement. The Bible, "without error in the original writings," is to be "believed in all that it teaches, obeyed in all that it requires, and trusted in all that it promises." The EFCA statement also says the Bible is the "ultimate authority by which every realm of human knowledge and endeavor should be judged."
It is no surprise the EFCA would take a strong stance on inerrancy. The late TEDS luminaries and CT editors Kenneth Kantzer and Carl F. H. Henry helped draft the Chicago Statement. But the move is still significant, since every tenured TEDS professor must sign the EFCA statement of faith. Another bastion of inerrancy, Westminster Theological Seminary, recently suspended Peter Enns on suspicion that his understanding of inerrancy was at odds with the Westminster Confession.
Like other doctrinal statements of the era, the EFCA's 1950 draft did not elaborate much on any point. For example, it says the "shed blood of Jesus Christ and his resurrection provide the only ground for justification." But with the definition of justification now up for grabs, the new statement says, "The true church comprises all who have been justified by God's grace through faith alone in Christ alone." Regarding the Atonement, the 1950 statement says that Jesus "died on the cross, a sacrifice for our sins according to the Scriptures." Someone who rejects substitutionary Atonement, who sees Jesus primarily as a model of sacrificial service, could sign the earlier statement. Not so with the 2008 version. It reads, "We believe that Jesus Christ, as our representative and substitute, shed his blood on the cross as the perfect, all-sufficient sacrifice for our sins."
EFCA leaders often cite as their unofficial motto, "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, charity. In all things, Jesus Christ." If that's the case, they must see substitutionary Atonement and justification by faith alone as gospel essentials.
Star Trek Into Darkness
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Comments
Displaying 1–3 of 20 comments
See all comments
Anonymous
The hardliners obstruction of any attempts to include post and ammillenial brothers into worship within the EFCA is not principally because of eschatology but rather hermeneutics. Whether Jesus' kingdom is established by physically writing laws as he stands on earth during the millennial reign or whether his kingdom is established through the gospel going out into all nations is not the point that exasperates the dispensationals, it is the reformed covenental hermeneutic that has been held by the pillars of our Christian faith from Luther and Calvin to Owen, Edwards, Spurgeon, Warfield, and countless other giants until the time dispensationalism was invented in the 1800's. After listening to the business meetings involving this issue I am saddened that the majority of Christians from the time of the reformation would be excluded form membership especially when historic premil is virtually no different than ammill. and satisfies the statements.
ruth
I'd like to remark on John's final sentence in his posting. The EFCA did not infact "argue" about these changes. Throughout the process, the tone for revision was respectful, patient, thoughtful and bathed in prayer. Be careful in assuming there were arguments and wasted energy. The EFCA continues to listen to God's Spirit as decisions, both large and small are made within the denomination. More than the revisions to the Statement of Faith, the big news is how unity prevailed in the midst of change. The EFCA is to be commended for allowing debate, dialog and diversity into the process. Ultimately...the world is watching...there was not in-fighting, just a desire to remain true to the Word and loving toward one another. God's name was lifted up. That's big news!
Allan
You always need to watch a denomination closely when they revise their statement of faith. Not having read the new EFCA statement, it seems at face value that they did well. The United Church of Canada, by contrast, used their latest statement of faith to smuggle in heretical ideas by the boatload to replace their largely orthodox doctrine of the past. Theirs wasn't broke, so they broke it.