As is the case in any generation of Christians, there are issues that arise and trigger significant debate. In recent years, we've seen the Emergent Church/postmodernism debate, the Open Theism debate, a renewed "Battle for the Bible" to quote the late Dr. Harold Lindsell, the debate over the seeker-sensitive church model, and the list goes on. While we are not quite at the stage where a modern day Martin Luther is being hauled off to the Wartburg to escape Duke George and Pope Leo, the battle over theology is again getting quite intense.
It should be no surprise that this would happen. Scripture is replete with warnings about the last days and deception. The Lord Jesus Himself asked the question, "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8). The picture painted by the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy is severe, marking out especially for condemnation those who "have a form of godliness, but deny its power." I think it is safe to say that, while Revelation speaks of a multitude that no man can number, this number - as vast as it apparently will be - is but a remnant of those who could have been saved. I believe Scripture also makes it clear that the Lord expects those who name Him as Savior to be faithful to His Word. "If you love Me, keep my commandments."
As of yet, I haven't said a whole lot about the debate in the Evangelical Free Church about our doctrinal statement, especially in reference to eschatology. But what little I have said has been pretty stark. In essence, I would have preferred it to be left as it was. I am thankful that the most recent change left premillennialism in there, but as has been pointed out, the argument isn't over. Both sides are keeping their powder dry for a future revisiting of the issue.
The EFCA has historically been a premillennial, largely dispensational fellowship. A change was made back in the 1970s to reflect other understandings of the word "imminence" in a historic premillennial sense. The changes that some wanted to introduce appeared to me to allow for amillennialism and other eschatological ideas. All of this rather confirms a long-standing belief of mine. I seldom see doctrinal statements strengthened by changes. Almost always, they get watered down. The EFCA was formed to stand for something. There are numerous other fellowships out there having amillennial views on eschatology. It's hard for me to understand or appreciate people coming in from the outside and then agitating for change. I would assume they knew of our fellowship's stance on eschatology before they became members. There are plenty of amillennial churches out there. Why cause a ruckus with us?
I know also that there are probably people who have always been E-Free, but their theological views have altered with time. I'll address that in a moment.
Lest I get chastised for it later, I should qualify the above with the following. I am not suggesting that one's stance on eschatology should be a test of fellowship unless the physical return of Jesus to earth is denied. I have friends who are amillennial whom I respect very much and their core theology is solid, despite my disagreement on that particular matter. What I AM suggesting is that we ought not try to force a fellowship to abandon its doctrinal statement or distinctives because we might happen to hold a different view. If it gets that bad, it's better to find a fellowship more in line with what you think. And most certainly, a pastor should not obtain or maintain credentials under false conditions. I am sorry to say that I have seen that happen in the past within my own circle of acquaintance (thankfully in another denomination, not the E-Free).
And that leads me to comment briefly on that issue, because it's bothered me for a long time. In many denominations, a pastor must reaffirm the doctrinal position of his denomination to remain in good standing with his credentials. I have seen it on more than one occasion that the pastor actually no longer holds to some of the doctrinal distinctives of his fellowship, but when it's renewal time, "nudge nudge..wink wink..say no more, say no more." This is dishonest and lacking in integrity. If you can't sign on to your fellowship's doctrinal statement, it's time to move on. But no, it seems some would rather engage in what amounts to a surreptitious campaign to change the doctrine of the fellowship in question while supposedly pledging to uphold it. Scripture says "let your yes be yes and your no be no."
In other cases, I think we've all seen rather high profile "pastors" (Bishop Spong anyone?) who plainly deny core orthodoxy, yet their fellowships do nothing to discipline or defrock them. I've seen in the past where Robert Schuller was questioned over some of the ridiculous statements he's made in his books, but all he'd do would be to wave a Reformed Church doctrinal statement at the interviewer or the camera and insist that's what he believed. He never would answer the questions.
Until recently, we have been spared (at least to my knowledge) battles over serious doctrinal error in the E-Free, that is until the Emergent Church nonsense began having an impact on us. As time marches on to its denouement, the struggle over fealty to the Lord and to Scripture will only grow more pronounced. I would like to see us throw out all the best sellers we're buying with the latest pop theology, and get back to the time tested, proven Word of God. A biblical theology is a balanced theology, and is the best guarantee for the church having the impact on the culture.
