In the summer of 2023, the Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA), in response to controversies threatening the unity of their association of churches from multiple directions, issued a set of affirmations and denials meant to clarify a path forward. “Just as Paul needed to explain and defend himself and his ministry (2 Cor 10–13),” they said, “we, too, sense a need to explain the ministry the Lord has entrusted to us.”
The statement was approved by the board of directors and the board of ministerial standing, the two boards elected by and accountable to the EFCA. When the president delivered it at the conclusion of his report, delegates responded with resounding affirmation. In that moment, the EFCA made it clear their future would be neither “Progressive Evangelical” nor “Neo-Fundamentalist.” They reclaimed the traditional and historic center of the best of their evangelical heritage. They clarified not only their beliefs but also their ethos.
This series of denials and affirmations is a terrific example of what I call “multi-directional leadership”—not an attempt to find “balance” or “a middle path” but a fierce commitment to walking in light of the gospel while avoiding dangers that encroach on the flock from different sides of the field. Here’s a quick overview of what they declared.
On Social Justice
The first three statements focus on issues associated more with the left, related to “social justice” and ideology often described as “woke.” The document pushes back against the “secular ‘Social Justice’ movement as held in progressive circles,” while upholding that “biblical justice has social implications.” It denies “a progressive ideology grounded in critical theory,” while affirming “the global and indeed cosmic impacts of sin, including racial injustice.” It rejects the reductionism of critical race theory and its contradiction of the Scriptures, while acknowledging that “the questions and challenges it raises” might “stir us to recall critical biblical truths that we may have neglected.”
On Christian Nationalism and God’s Kingdom
The next two statements focus on issues associated more with the right, related to “Christian Nationalism” and political activism. The document rejects a view of Christian Nationalism that would have “the federal government declare the United States a Christian nation” or label Americans as “God’s chosen people,” while simultaneously approving “a patriotic love of one’s nation” and the duties of Christians as good citizens to “freely advocate for God-honoring public policies.” It rejects a focus on political action as a means for establishing the kingdom of God, while recognizing the God-appointed role of “governing authorities to do good” and the reign of King Jesus as transcendent over “all other citizens and partisan ideologies.”
On Sex and Gender
Two more statements focus on current controversies over sex and gender. The document rejects attempts to alter the body when a person’s biological sex doesn’t conform to a person’s self-perception, while urging toward those who experience this “distressing struggle” a compassion grounded in biblical conviction that points “toward the wholeness of a biologically-sexed identity grounded in God’s ‘very good’ design in creation as male and female.” It also rejects an egalitarian perspective on the roles and functions of men and women in the church, while lifting up “the gifts and ministries of women” as “essential to the health and fruitfulness of churches” and saying these ministries should be “sought out and multiplied.”
On Eternal Suffering
The last statement rejects the annihilationist position regarding unbelievers who die apart from Christ and reaffirms the traditional Christian understanding of hell, while making clear that “among the kinds of suffering we ought to seek to alleviate, this is the most grievous,” thus steering clear of the tendency for social ministry to supplant evangelism.
Holding the Center
The document ends with several statements that hold together what many in our day would separate, which I summarize below:
- The gospel of Jesus is the ultimate solution to the world’s problems, yet love for God and neighbor requires us to seek the welfare and common good of others.
- The church is the new community, whose primary mission is to proclaim the gospel and make disciples, and yet Christians live as salt and light in anticipation of Jesus’s return.
- Biblical truth and the gospel must reign supreme over any contemporary social ideology, even if various social movements may contain biblical truth to which we must attend.
These summaries avoid both the quietist temptation that leads Christians to reduce our concerns to whatever is merely “spiritual” and the activist temptation that could lead to decentering the cross of Christ in favor of social work or political action. They uphold the supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture, while not dismissing truth and wisdom that flow from common grace.
Learning to Say Yes and No
The EFCA affirmations and denials are a good example of what faithful, discerning Christians must do in a time of controversy: to affirm the truth of the Scriptures and the truthfulness of biblical doctrine with an unqualified “yes,” and then respond, when the truth of the Scriptures and biblical doctrine are being denied, with an unqualified “no.”
True discernment isn’t the attempt of Christians to try to hold together opposing worldviews or meld differing beliefs together as if the distinctions don’t matter. But true discernment is also absent when Christians adopt an “all or nothing” approach, “either naively and uncritically accepting everything, or critically and condemningly rejecting everything.”
What the EFCA approved is a better way to preserve church unity and engage the world with discernment. With a posture of humility, we “avoid an attitude of hyper-criticism” that would hinder us from receiving insights from every contemporary claim. At the same time, we mustn’t be “naive in our acceptance of the truth claims of others” and thus be “misled by others’ false notions because are convinced that their motives are pure.”
The report concludes,
How do we do a better job of engaging the increasingly diverse religious opinions we are hearing today? By teaching our minds and our lips to say “yes and no.” “Yes” to what is good and right. “No” to what is bad and wrong. This will require that we use our critical faculties and listen to people as they speak and write. It will also require us to search the Scriptures more carefully and fully to be in a better position to make valid assessments of others’ truth claims.
Take a look at the whole document and the corresponding biblical and theological commentary. Whether you line up with everything in these affirmations and denials or you find some wording you might quibble with here and there, I believe you’ll admire the desire to reclaim the center of evangelical identity in a season when both progressive ideologies and a return to neo-fundamentalism are on the rise.
If you would like my future articles sent to your email, as well as a curated list of books, podcasts, and helpful links I find online, enter your address.