I recently visited family in the Midwest and attended a fairly large Evangelical Free Church. I am not very familiar with the denomination. Chuck Swindoll, who once served as the president of the seminary I attended, was a member of it. It is known as a Bible-believing and Bible-teaching denomination.
I attended a few classes while there. One explained the changes the denomination went through about eighteen years ago. They changed their doctrinal statement from being premillennial to a very generic statement about the return of Christ. They saw the details about the return of Christ as not being fundamental. In an attempt at harmony within the denomination, a person could be amillennial, dispensational, progressive dispensational, premillennial, Reformed, or several other things and be comfortable in the church. All views were considered acceptable.
The teacher made a list of the things impacted by one’s view of Christ’s return. This was his list: the kingdom of God; the Rapture; the Tribulation; the relationship between Israel and the Church; and the books of Daniel, Zechariah, the Gospels, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Revelation.
I was not aware of this history, but I can understand why this change took place. This church probably had around 400 people attending on Sunday morning. I am sure there were many different opinions about Christ’s return. The class I was in had around twenty adults. The average age was in the 60s. Harmony among such a group would be very desirable. I am also sure that many of them were friends and socialized outside of Sunday mornings. Why fight over things if they are not important? Why discuss things that will bring division?
The world at large would have looked at the change in a positive light. It is a good thing when people can get along.
But I couldn’t help but look at the list of things impacted by this change. The teacher wrote them on a chalkboard. There was no time for questions, but I was curious. How could a teacher in that church teach the Bible? Didn’t the church have a responsibility to teach those who attend what the Word of God says? How were the teachers to deal with all the passages about the kingdom of God and the return of the King? Harmony is a good thing. But if it comes at the expense of sound doctrine, isn’t the price too high?
I attended another class after the first one concluded. It was on the Book of Romans. That Sunday, they were covering Romans 9–11. The teacher said that Paul discusses Israel’s salvation in these chapters. He said that there are different opinions about what he was saying, but, “We don’t need to discuss the details.” He then said that the fundamental point in these chapters is that in order “to go to heaven,” we must confess our sins and proclaim that Jesus is God (Rom 10:9-10). He added that belief alone is not enough.
Harmony is important. But if we study Romans 9–11, we must discuss the relationship between Israel and the Church in order to understand what Paul is saying. If we do not answer that question, there is no need for the class. In this case, it impacted the message of eternal salvation that was given.
If someone had come to that class hoping to understand the salvation of Israel, the gospel of eternal life, and grace, he would have left disappointed and confused. It is great to get along, but not at that price.
