Is the Evangelical Free Church Either?

Many people have never heard of the Evangelical Free Church of America but since WW2 it has been one of the most influential evangelical denominations Known for large churches that are faithful the Bible and welcoming to Christians of diverse theological, cultural, potical and ethnic persuasion it has been a bulwark for the gospel around the world. The Church was known for expositional bible teaching that avoided typical denominational controversy like means and modes of baptism, communion, division over gifts and political divisions. The seminary affiliated with the EFCA was Trinity Evancal Divinity School, which was part of the larger Trinity International University. Altough the denominiation did not technically own the school. The school adopted the denominations statement of faith; it's Board of Education was selected by the denomination, as were faculty appointments and tenure. The school served the broad evangelical community around the world.That school sent men and women into a variey of Christians monistries that eqiipped disciples to serve churches in nearly every denomination around the world. The EFCA promoted the shool as their gift to the bofy of Christ. The school and the denomination were so closely linked as to indistinquishable. The Evangelical Free Church of America has long been characterized by the motto of it's mimnisterial association: "Where Stands It Written." The moto along with the rather jaw-breaking denomination rubric described the denominations heritage. It was a reference to what bound the EFCA,freedom from state interference in worship, freedom from ecclesiastical heiarchy, the authority of the Bible, belief in the orthodox doctrines of faith and forebearance for those who disagreed on issues to which the Bible does not speak unambiguously. Although most EFCA congregants like most American evangelicals are dispensational, the Evangelical Fre Church welcomes people with differing views on eschatology. The culture of the Free Church was welcoming to people from a wide political and Christian tradition. Free Church people often refer to the famous quote of the early church bishop John Chrystom "in essentials unity in all thing charity." One of the early denominational leaders coined the phrase "believers only but all belivers," to assert that the churches welcomed professing believers regardless of differences in some areas of doctrine and practice. The Free Church statement of faith is intentinally silent on the baptism of the Spirit, meaning mode and timing of baptist, and the nature of communion. The denomination valeus traditional Orthodoxy and leaves polity and social engagement, ethics and political engagemen to the local churches. While all doctrine is important not all doctrine is equally significant. What one believes and practices about baptism and eschatology is important, but may not be determinative of our salvation nor hinder sanctification of the believer. These tangential issues are not matters for the denomination to manage. The Free Church (as it is called colloquially) had its roots in Scandinavia. Ninteenth century immigrants to the US migrated to the Upper Midwest and California. They had been Bible believing Christians who were dissatisfied that after the reformation churches began to be controlled by corrupt states. Many of those mostly Swedes, Norwegian and Dutch were Lutheran in their heritage. When they came to the US many were infulenced by Moody associate evangelist Frederich Fransell and MBI professor J.J Princell. As churches grew the Luther and the dispensationalist decided to bind toghether around common evangelical beliefs and leave their differences like mode and time of baptism, the nature of communion and eschatology to the local churches. In the late 1940'and 50 as the Swedes, Norwegians and Dutch congregants began returning home from World War 2 they saw themselves as more American than Scandanavian and openly sought to assimilate their small denomination with the growing evangelical movement in the US. As was true of most of US envangelicalism at the time, their churches were predominantly dispensational, so they formed a doctrinal statement affirming a belief in an "imminent premillenial" return of Christ, but still alowed diversity in other areas and they still strongly affirmed freedom from controll by state or denominational heirarchy. But over the years eventually change their statement of faith to allow for diversity of opinion on eschatology. By the late 1960 in a desire to have better train clergy they began n attempt to strengthen their affiliated seminary and Bible college the reoganized an hiring world class evangelical bible scholars. Trinity International University was formed with it's subsidiaries which included the Trinity Evangelical Divinity Shcool. The denomination eventually opened itself to a broad panoploly of eschatolgical position, but maintianed its commitment to the innerancy, authority and sufficiency of Scripture. The seminary continued to prosper an has supplied Pastors and leaders to churches, mission and para church organization a cross denominational lines. Churches and organization could be confidents that graduates from the school would continue to embrace the denominational motto "where stands it written." Pastors and churches preached the Word of God faithfully and showed deference to varieties of church practices, and forebearance for secondary and tertiary theological issue.I was an EFCA Pastor for 15 years and have been an EFCA Chaplain for more than 10. I did my graduate school work at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I was ordained in 1986 and consider myself a friend of most of the current leaders of the EFCA.That is why I find some of the recent actions of the EFCA's Board of Ministerial Standing troubling and disparate from the church's history and values. As a young seminarian in the late 70's I found the seminary and the FREE CHURCH people whom I met there to be representative of the values of the church. One good friend who had been raised in the FREE CHURCH in northern Minnesota would of often relate that as child when his family would go on vacation they would seek out Evangelical Free Churches for worship on the LORD's day, because they expected both worship an word to be faithful to scripture. Now as a Chaplain endorsed by the EFCA I am not much affected by the denominational action and decion, during most of my chaplaincy tenure I have not attended free church and have maintained a connection with region ministerial association, but one of the things I has observed is that the denomination like the rest of evangelicalism has been greatly affected by the social justice movement and with the broader cultural acceptance of different sexual identity. These question have inevitably led to debates about the role of the pastor is to take regarding cultural and political position such as abotion, DEI, social justice. These issues became prominent in church life with the connection of some evangelicals to the America First policies of the Republican Party. Some pastor and churches have found themselves adoptiong a more populist form of government and social structure. Others interpreted "America First" as an almost idolatrous form of patriotism that put a political agenda ahead of kingdom values. Other Christian who generally more associated with the Democratic party and the some of the social agenda of the Biden administration believed compassionate grace filled ministries were a higher priority than advancing an America First agend, while still others believed gospel preaching needed to be cultually and politically neutral. The Covid 19 crisis created a great divide in many churches as it created a public health crisis with the lives of many congregants at risk. During the Covid 19 pandemic governments across the country mandated social restrictions and contact on many groups. At the encouragement of the federal government many state and county governments mandated restrictions on church worship in response to the pandemic. Some jurisdiction went so far as defining what kind of activities churches could do in worship, how many people could be present, when and where churches could meet. Restrictions greatly varied by county. Some states mandated that churches cease from meeting or even restricted things like singing. Some of the more onerous restriction were only imposed for a few weeks, but in some places they went on for more than two year. The EFCA like most denominations recommended that their churches abide by the government mandantes citing the biblical charges to obey govening authoritie. Yet some pastors and churches felt the biblical command to obey government was not absolute citing Jeus' words "Render to Caesar that which in Caesar and to God that which is God's." They claimed churche were obligated to abide by Scripture when government overstepped it bounds. Some in the EFCA recognizing that their denomination was founded on the principle of local autonomy from ecclesiastical control especially in time of crisis felt government mandates were contrary to scripture and Free Church values. These pastors believed they were under no biblical, denomination or legal requirement to follow them. The governmen were essentialy dictating church polity and doctrine on dubious grounds in violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Some of these pastors had aligned themselve politically and socially with the more generally conservative America First movement and began to support some of the positions and practice of those aligned with a populist conservative view of government and they claime those views closely aligned with a biblical world view. They saw the social justice and cultural marxism as errant. Even going so far as to name people whom they thought were teaching error or in some case false doctrine and to challenging some leading Free Church pastors on some of their political and social beliefs and practices. The Cornerstone Church in Mt Laurel NJ and a Denver area church continued meeting weekly despite covid mandate (Colorado and New Jersey were among the states who had strictest restricitions and kept them the longest). The pastor of Cornershone Jeff Kliewer and other had also offended other denominational leaders over some of the stances he had taken reqarding social justice, diversity equity and inclusion, and some of the policies associated with the populist trends in American politics, and that were different from positions advocated by the majority faculty Trinity Evangelical Divinity School or the national ministerial association of the Free Church. Kliewier and other also commented on a growing acceptance and engagement and inclusion of "gay Christians" at denominational meetings. There began to be a growing discontent among a small number of pastor and churches with the direction of the denomination and it's schools. In 2021 in the most restrictive time of the Covid 19 pandemic Pastor Jeffl Kliewer of Cornerstone published a book entitled THE WOKE-FREE CHURCH:For the Deliverance of the Body of Christ from Social Justice Captivity. Kliewer outlined the repeated training and associaitons that the denomination leadership and prominent free church pastors were engaging and advocation with social justice, CRT, and gay Christian leadership. He named denomination leaders and pastor who were not only advocating for social justice, critical race theory, but were using their influence to require churches to adopt woke political agendas. Many Pastor were advocation for abortion from the pulpit, and denying ordinations and for churches more conservatively. Kliewer and others spoke out against the denominations in sermons on podcasts and places, claiming that social justice and CRT wer anti-thetical to the Bible, the gospel, Free Church doctrine and history. The denomination leaders reacted to the book, objecting to the fact that the Kliewer and other were criticizing individuals by name, and making claims they disputed to be true. When these churches refused to abide by all the government mandates during the Covid 19 restrictions the denomination took action. After several meeting, and ecclesiatical trial of Kliewer a Denver area pastor and Seth Bickley of Wisconsin were subject ot an ecclesiatical trial before the "Board of Ministerial Standing" of the Evangelical Free Church to defend their actions. After many meetings and discussion the Board of Ministerial standing revoked the men's credentials saying their "Christian nationalism" was incnsistent with "the ethos of the Free Church." Then the "Board of Ministerial Standing had every right to decredential there member, but they went much further they removed their churches from the denomination. The reason for decredentialling the pastors and the churchs was not doctrinal nor ecllesiastical nor ethical but because the pastors and the churches did not fit with "the ethos of the denomination." In other pastors were defrocked by an ecclesiastical committee and churches removed from the denomination because they were not the kind of people this council of pastors wanted in their denomination. I am left with one conclusion the Board of MInisterial Standing (the credentially agency of the free church) has assumed more and more power to remove pastor and churches from their association for any reason. The Board of Ministerial standing has become a bishopric. The Evangelical Free is no longer an association of autonomous churches so, is it still free? Traditionally, congregations chose their own pastors in accord with selections mentods outlined in their own by laws. Churches were admitted to the denomination by vote of the church bodies represented at regional district conferences around the country. Pastors were technically ordained by the congregations in partnership with the denomination. The local church would call for an ordination council who would either approve or decline the credention. The Board of Ministerial Standing of the Free church would then review the ordinands paper an council note to affirm whether the persons views and character aligned with EFCA values and tradition. An acceptance or rejection by the Board of Ministerial standing did not determine the pastors status with local church, unless he church required their pastor to hold a FREE Church credential. Has the Evangelical Free Church has completely abandoned it's commitment to congregational autonomy? The church recently defrocke several pastors and expelld churches from the denomination entirely because of their opposition to the COVID 19 worship restrictions and other their conservative political stances and advocacy from the puplpit. The reason for the action were neithe doctrinal, nor eclessiological, nor ethical. The stated reason were the pastors and churces did not fit "the ethos of the Free Churh. It appears that "Board of Ministerial Standing," has become a bishopric, taking in pastors, churches and expelling them based on arbitrary or cultural reason. This is an abuse of power and represents a sea change in the demominations polity. Let's be clear most of the pastors and congregants in the EFCA held differing views on culture and politics and responded differently to the Covid pandemics, and I admit I do not know all the facts and recognize the Board of Ministerial Standing has a right to discipline, and discipline may have been approriate in some cases. I don't have all the facts but I raise several questions: What was the violation of either the Statement of Faith of the EFCA did these men or their churches violate? There was none What was the ethical or moral compromise or abusive activity or lack of virtuosity engaged in by these men or their churches? No one questions the ethics, character of virtuosity of these men or the practices or polity of their churches. What ecclesiological rule or Scripure did they or their congregation violate? How is a church that refuses to countenance government controll of it worship dishonoring a denomination that was formed to be free from government control? When has a denomination expelled a local body because of their pastor's doctrine, politics, or practice? Congregational churches ususlly remove the pastor's credentials and allow the regional governing body or local church board to act on the congregation's statues The Board of Ministerial Standin, a denominational body, not elected by any church removed a church that had been admitted to a the denomination by a consent of the churches and whose pastors had been called autonomously. It is evident that the Evangelical Free churches across america are no longer autonomous. If your Pator or church advocates for an unapproved social or political stance the Board Ministerail standing can remove your church or pastor, if they criticize denominational leaders by name will they be punished. Will decisions made by local churches that are not considered in line with "ethos of the Free Church" or controversial politics of pastors result in expulsion the Free Church? As a young aspiring minister I was proud to associate with a group where I could preach the gospel and lead my people without a bishopric forcing me to conform to standards set by them or the state. I do not regret my time with the FREE CHURCH. The years I served were good and the denomination stood as a beacon of the gospel and Christian liberty, but it is clear they no longer One can ask is the EFCA is either evangelical of free? The Free Church has been a good place for me to serve both as a Pastor and Chaplain the denominations and many pastors and churches have given me freedom to grow, have corrected and disciplined when appropriate, and have rallied behind me at time of personal tragedy. I write this not from a desire to be contentious, but from a love of the Free Church. When an organization abandones its founding principles that organization ususally falls. I hope we have not seeh the begining of the end of the EFCA's strong evangelical witness. But I am concerned: is the evangelical free church either evangelical or free?