Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
December 1, 2008
Free E-mail Newsletters:
RSS Feed | More Feeds | RSS Help

Home > 2008 > July (Web-Only)Christianity Today, July (Web-Only), 2008  |   |  
Theology in the News
It's Not Broke, So Fix It
New EFCA statement of faith clarifies positions on controversial doctrines.



ADVERTISEMENT

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.





E-mail this pageWrite CTPrint this articlePost a comment





  


Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.


Click here for international orders2-for-1 Gifts!

[Reader Reviews]
Average User Rating: 

Displaying 1 - 3 of 20 comments.See all comments
Francis H Geis   Posted: July 15, 2008 12:05 PM
Though criticizing other denominations for its opening might be questioned, overall, I thought the article was good. And I think on many points, the new EFCA Statement is an improvement on the older one. I attended an EFCA church for several years, and appreciated their committed to teaching that was both biblically based and orthodox in content. Of course, if one belongs to a "confessional" church where the leadership is required to endorse the statement of faith or they cannot serve in a leadership capacity, then those who refuse to endorse the official church statement should not be surprised if they are denied a leadership role. Though I wonder if the statement on the Doctrine of God, good though it is, is adequate enough to deal with the Subordinationist heresy that is spreading like a cancer, and which in the next 5-10 years is going to have grave consequences for all Evangelica churches. But that is something the EFCA leadership will have to decide.

andrew tucker   Posted: July 15, 2008 10:02 PM
I am not trying to be overly negative. Why does a lot of organizations recognize that it is sin to go to a war that you are not going to win. Jesus was not positive if he was going to be crucified. It would have been sin if he knew. But he would not sin to live. great Jesus came to give the ministry and save souls. Amen! Please notice other problems with churches and or doctrines. The knowledge of satanic angels (rev 12:9)targeting churches and submissive persons. This has not been taught. Are pesons strong enough to rebuke everyday? For example:problems are: churches do not own businesses. Which means God has a hard time being a refuge ,failing will happen. And the church may fail. Another example. Modernized ministers just doing a job and creating snobs and antisocial attendees and christians that think they are going to heaven. God will not tolerate christians that do not take time for others. A lot use church for a calm social gathering. That is sin. Think solu. on a large scale.

Greg   Posted: July 15, 2008 1:30 PM
I would hesitate to sign a Statement of Faith that didn't explicitly include the Golden Rule. What real meaning does anything else have without it?

sponsors 








[Browse More Christianity Today]

Search





















Search by Name
Or use Advanced Search to search by program, region, cost, affiliation, enrollment, more!

Search by:





Books & Culture
Christianity Today
Church Law & Tax Report
Church Finance Today
Church Secretary Today
Ignite Your Faith
Leadership Journal
Men of Integrity
Outcomes
Today's Christian Woman
Your Church
ChristianityTodayLibrary.com
PreachingToday.com