The Romans Road
Age-old Issues and a Humble Hermeneutic

/in /by

the romans road

“Accept Christians who are weak in faith, and don’t argue with them about what they think is right or wrong. For instance, one person believes it is all right to eat anything. But another believer who has a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetables. Those who think it is all right to eat anything must not look down on those who won’t. And those who won’t eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them.”  (Romans 14:1-3)

Today we kick off a new blog topic, focusing on why it makes perfect sense to have a humble hermeneutic – especially when it comes to age-old issues that Christians (with equal trust, love, and knowledge of the Scriptures) have long disagreed about. I called this blog “The Romans Road” for a reason. Many of us grew up learning “The Romans Road” as an evangelistic tool. It used key verses from Romans to show an individual “why they needed to be/how to be” saved. In some sense, it grew out of the assumption that this is the central message of Romans: individual salvation. This emphasis has been a Western, post-reformation interpretive framework for the book of Romans – and largely grows out of Martin Luther’s personal crisis of faith and his subsequent “conversion” experience that was rooted in his study of Romans.

About ten years ago I was chatting with Pastor Fariborz Khandani, who was then pastor at the Iranian Church of Richmond Hill. He said to me, “Bill, you are such a Westerner! You read the Bible like it is a Western book, with a thesis, then the theology/argumentation (that you think is the main point of the book), and then some unimportant application at the end of the book. Then you do a sermon series on Romans and preach 100 sermons on Romans 1-11 (the theological argumentation) and only 2 sermons on Romans 12-16 (that is merely the unimportant application of “how we should live”). “But Bill”, he said, “the Bible is an Eastern book!”

And in an Eastern book, the purpose of the book is not found in the thesis at the front of the book, it is found at the end of the book!

Fariborz then went on to show me how many Old and New Testament books clearly spell out the author’s purpose for writing them in the very last chapter!

He then pointed out that the purpose for Paul writing Romans is found in Romans 14-15 not in Romans 1. The Jewish and Christians in Rome were fighting over what “good Christians” could eat or drink, or which religious festivals they needed to celebrate. Fariborz argued that in Romans 1-11 Paul, reveals why and how Jews and Gentiles needed to be saved and made One in Christ. Therefore, they need to treat each other differently – how they lived out their faith together was actually the point! The theological argument of Romans 1-11 is simply explaining why they need to live differently. So, while the traditional, post-reformation, Western reading of Romans saw it as a great treatise on individual salvation with a bit of application tacked on at the end, Eastern Christians viewed it as all about how we ought to treat fellow believers (with a bunch of theological foundation proving we are One in Christ).

Ironically, since I had this conversation, there is a mighty debate over this very issue. Whether or not you hold to the “New Perspective” or the traditional, post-reformation interpretation, it is a good reminder that a humble hermeneutic is a great place to start. Paul reminds us in Romans 14 to not look down on or condemn/judge each other over food, drink, and days (14:1-3, 10) and to act in love, so we are not a stumbling block to a brother or sister (14:12-16). Instead, we are to act following what we believe (14:21-23) and accept each other as Christ has accepted us – even when we disagree (15:7). What a good Christian should or should not eat or drink is one of many age-old issues that believers have broken fellowship over. May we heed Paul’s call to humility: to love and live out our Oneness in Christ even as we agree to disagree on secondary issues!

Bill Taylor
EFCC Executive Director

The Difference between an Argument and a Discussion

/in /by

difference bet argument and discussion

Many people equate argument and discussion. They are two different things. Some people may say, “We’re not arguing! We are just having a discussion.” But argument and discussion are not the same.

The Bible warns us against arguing with others. In 2 Timothy 2:23-24, the Apostle Paul warns us, 23 “Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. 24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.” The word argument in Greek is zetesis, meaning argument or controversy or debate. There is a place for a healthy zetesis among believers, but the Bible warns us about arguments, controversies, or debates arising from meaningless questions. The foolish and stupid zetesis are controversies that are out of line and do not merit time or thought because it stimulates pointless and fruitless controversies.

Foolish and stupid zetesis are controversial questions that breed misdirected debate and unnecessary disputes.

These are the arguments that the Lord does not want us to be involved with because it only leads to quarrels. Romans 14:19 urges Christ-followers to live peaceful lives as Paul says, 19 “Let us, therefore, make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.” In the same way, Jesus wants us to be peacemakers (Matthew 5:9).

Among Christ-followers, there is nothing wrong with engaging in a healthy zetesis. A healthy argument, discussion or debate is good and can help build relationships. A healthy discussion or debate is a respectful conversation about a particular topic. It strives to keep unity and peace with one another. Even though both sides of the conversation may disagree at some points, they are not hostile or hurtful to one another.

This was demonstrated in the first Church Council in Jerusalem in Acts 15. The early Church was confronted with a major theological issue about salvation by grace through faith among the Gentiles. Some Jewish Christ-followers were teaching, “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This was the primary and central theological issue that Paul and Barnabas strongly disagreed on and debated (zetesis) them about. (v.2).

In Jerusalem, we read that the apostles and the Church leaders came together to examine this major issue. In verse 7, we are told that there had been much debate or discussion (zetesis) on the issue. The Jewish believers and Paul and Barnabas heard each other and debated around the issue. After hearing the ruling of Peter and James, that the Gentiles are also saved by grace through faith without the requirement of being circumcised, we read the outcome that “it seemed good to the apostles and the elders with the whole Church, resolving a major issue on the salvation by grace through faith alone.

Ike Agawin
ServeBeyond Director

Post TheoCon2023 Report

/in , /by


Greetings EFCC Brothers and Sisters!

I trust that you are encouraged as you serve our God! It was so good to see so many of you in Okotoks at our 2023 Theology Conference! I was also encouraged to know that many more joined in online. We have heard from many that they loved our speakers and the spirit with which they presented their material. We heard from many women that they felt seen and heard by their brothers in the EFCC in a refreshing way.

I appreciated the spirit with which our Free Church attendees (online and in person) asked their questions, particularly how you all treated Beth Allison Barr. It dawned on me that Beth faces unique challenges when she steps onto a stage. When Beth gets up to speak, she knows that many people are already offended before she even speaks – simply because she is a woman and is standing on stage. On the other hand, Andrew (as a man) does not offend anyone until he says something they find offensive. This is a significant difference in experience between being a man and woman, and I so appreciate how gently and respectfully questions were asked during our conference.

I love the Word. As a leader in the EFCC, I can attest that we do not want to promote any policy that is against the clear teaching of Scripture. We want to uphold God’s beautiful truth while being ministers of grace in a world of broken people and systems.

Our EFCC Statement on Human Sexuality on the website is an example of how we want to both uphold truth and minister graciously. You will also find our strong Statement on Biblical Marriage there. In the EFCC we distinguish between essentials and non-essentials. Our theological essentials are summarized in our 10 Article Statement of Faith. Our moral essentials are summarized in our EFCC Covenant of Personal and Professional Ethics (CPPE). The issue of what roles men and women can play is clearly a non-essential issue. Throughout our history, we have allowed a diversity of belief and practice on this and many other issues. While we have convictions on these issues, we are determined to hold those convictions with grace.

Some of you have asked why we did not have speakers reflecting all sides of the debate as we did in 2013, when we had scholars from both sides of the discussion present their cases to us. A few have voiced a concern that we are pushing a policy that would force churches to hire and ordain women. That is not what we were trying to accomplish with this conference. We had Andrew Bartlett speak to help complementarians and egalitarians understand each other better – by revealing the assumptions and weaknesses of both sides. We had Dr. Barr speak to help menOne in Christ understand the experiences and hurts some of our women throughout history (including today) have experienced by the actions and words of church leaders.

We were not trying to present a case for both sides as we did at the Theology Conference in 2013. This conference was offered as a conversation held among family (One in Christ) to help us to have empathy for our brothers and sisters who may feel like second class members of our family. We have not set a policy on the ordination of women and there is not yet anything to recommend to the EFCC BOD or the conference at large. Therefore, ordination was not mentioned or discussed at all during the theology conference.

There seems to be some confusion regarding what we did at our National Conference in 2014, so a review might be helpful. The motion presented in 2014 was to change our credentialing procedures to allow women to be ordained should the local church want that. While the motion received a majority vote, in the interest of unity, leadership had requested a 2/3 majority before implementing the change to the credentialing procedures. Since we received 56% instead of the 67% we desired, we did not implement the change and the board has honored its promise not to bring back a motion on the ordination of women for 10 years.

Let us return to this year’s theology conference: we had more women attend this conference than ever before. The topic clearly resonated with them. Additionally, I can see some being concerned that we are preparing to discard the Bible in order to “get with the times.”  Please hear me say that this is not our intent. Our local churches each choose to hire who they want, and they give them the mandate to carry out whatever role they ask the person to serve in. Some of our churches have women pastors, some do not. Some have women on the board, some do not. We are not looking to change this.

The District Superintendents are working with the Ministerial Standing Committee on a completely new Formative Accreditation process that we hope will ensure our churches that their ministry staff (and any lay leaders they commend to us) will minister in Free Church ways alongside local church leaders. We hope to build a formative process that produces ministers who can rightly, and humbly, handle the Word. The policy needs to be finalized by MSC and approved by the BOD before coming to conference (hopefully in 2024). The new proposal will not force churches to hire or ordain women. Please feel free to speak to your District Superintendent or to myself as this is making its way through Board approval if you would like more information on what this could look like.

Please know that we love and value each of our churches – whatever their view and practice on leadership. We are congregational and hold to the priesthood of all believers. Yet we involve men and women in our ministries in different ways. Our Free Church ethos and history allows us to do that, and we desire to give each congregation that freedom. We continue to work closely with our District Superintendents on all these key issues.

May God bless each of you as you encourage men and women in your context to love and serve our Lord Jesus Christ!

In case you missed TheoCon 2023, we’re making videos of all six sessions available to you for CAD$40.

Serving with you,

Bill Taylor
EFCC Executive Director

Do You Feel What I Feel?

/in /by

do you feel what i feel

“Weep with those who weep.” (Romans 12:15)

I’m a huge sci-fi fan. In grade 3, I was rummaging around in an area of the school library that was probably not age appropriate for me and ran across Ray Bradbury’s Martian Chronicles. It was my gateway drug to the final frontier and beyond. Speaking of the final frontier, Star Trek: The Next Generation had an interesting character that wound up on the command deck. Deanna Troi was a character with the ability to sense others’ emotions – an empath. In the show, she routinely used this ability to provide counsel to the crew, enabling them to better face their challenges. I find it fascinating that in the late 1980s this kind of character was thought of as critical to the success of the ship. I suspect if the cast were redrawn from today’s polarized culture, an empath might not fare as well.

In this, my final blog post on the topic of Moving from Argument to Discussion, I want to us to think about the role of empath in that journey. Previous blog writers have asked us to be slow to anger, quick to listen, not just to hear but to understand, etc. But I’m not sure anyone has brought the “e” word directly into the discussion. I think they have hinted at it, however. So, what does it take to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes? To feel what they feel? We will never truly know. We can’t live another’s experience. But empathy can take us at least a little way down that road. So, when we hear other’s stories of pain and hurt, especially from those who are on the margins, how do we respond? I say, especially those on the margins, because it is those stories that we hear least often, and they usually carry the most pain.

How do we respond, when someone asks, “how am I supposed to be a Christian in a black body?” How do we respond when we hear a land acknowledgment? How do we respond when Pride month rolls around?

How do we respond when people do not appreciate the fears I have for the future of my church? How do we respond when others don’t understand my heart when we disagree? How do we respond when we hear the stories of those who feel they have been used, abused, and discarded by the church? Can we empathize? I’m not asking us to throw our own beliefs in the garbage to adopt the beliefs of others. Absolutely not! I’m just saying, if we actually want to move from argument to discussion, caring deeply about what others feel is vital.

Neil Bassingthwaighte
ServeCanada Director & Interim Prayer Catalyst

Making the Move from Argument to Conversation more Natural

/in /by

making the move more natural

The issue of how we talk to one another is current and important — as hopefully evidenced by our blog posts over the past moths. As I continue to read, and to hear from, writers, teachers, and all of you on the front lines of ministry, I keep hearing about “hearing.” Listening is so important if we are going to have productive, helpful, and grace-filled conversations.

Neil Bassingthwaighte wrote (in one of this series’ earlier blogs), about the “Lost Art of Listening” and he challenged us to be people who “listen to understand.” I encourage you to go back and reread that blog.

There is a concept coming out of that challege that has been stuck in my head for some months now, and I want to offer it to you as a tool to help you “listen to understand” even better. It may not be as profound to you as it has been to me, but for me it put practical “flesh on the bones” of the challenge to “listen to understand.” The concept runs something like this:

You can’t really debate someone regarding their position until you can articulate their position better than they themselves can. That is truly “listening to understand.

This means that we need to listen long and well, until we are able to fairly describe the other person’s position – possibly to their satisfaction. This is a high bar. It means we understand what they are saying (from their perspective, not just from ours). It also means we have done the hard work to understand why they are saying what they are saying — we have listened enough to understand their heart and motivation. Admittedly, it is a lot less work to make assumptions about motives, perspectives, and conclusions, but the end result of assumptions is usually counterproductive. Quite honestly, my default is to “listen to respond” — looking to hear something that I can pounce on, correct, use to support my case, or simply reject.  But that is not “listening to understand.”

So, let’s be sure we are putting our ears to very good use in the journey from argument to conversation. We will never make progress without them. Yes, it is important to give great attention to our words — what we speak and how we speak. It is also very important to give attention to our minds — how we think, how we arrive at our own position on issues, and on what we are basing our conclusions. But it is equally important to give great attention to our ears, to the degree of understanding the other person’s mind and heart. If we shortcut this work, we might be wrestling with little more than a caricature of reality. And that is not particularly productive.

Can you accurately tell me what I believe and why?

If so, I know you value me as a person, and I will want to do the same with you. Our discussion will be deep and rich and healthy and will organically move from argument to conversation. How refreshing might that be – a natural progression from argument to discussion? Let’s lead the way.

Terry Kaufman
EFCC Leadership Catalyst

The Way of Wisdom and Discussion

/in /by

the way of wisdom

“My dear brothers and sisters, be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to get angry.” (James 2:19).

“We all make many mistakes, but those who control their tongues can also control themselves in every other way…a tiny rudder makes a huge ship turn wherever the pilot wants it to go, even thought the winds are strong. So also, the tongue is a small thing, but what enormous damage it can do.” (James 3:2, 4-5).

“If you are wise and understand God’s ways, live a life of steady goodness so that only good deeds will pour forth…but the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure. It is also peace-loving, gentle at all times, and willing to yield to others. It is full of mercy and good deeds. It shows no partiality and is always sincere. And those who are peacemakers will plant seeds of peace and reap a harvest of goodness.” (James 3:13, 17-18).

This is my last post on our topic of moving from argument to discussion. In an earlier blog post, Neil emphasized the need for us to listen to each other. The book of James, with his emphasis on living our life in Jesus wisely, always challenges me. His emphasis on being quick to listen – and slow to speak and anger is convicting. Chapter 3 speaks of how powerful the tongue is – for good or evil. James reminds me that when I have selfish ambition and jealousy in my heart, then my tongue will likely spew out that insecurity in ways that judge others and lead to quarrels. Ah, the human heart! It is deceitful beyond all measure. How often is the defense of my truth more about my insecurity than the issue I am arguing about?

We live in a world that is itching for a fight. Unfortunately, I seem to think God needs me to impose His truth (or my version of His truth) on those poor souls who have fallen for “misinformation.” Too many of us need to feel like we already have all truth nailed down and systematized.

Then when we are presented with new data from Scripture (or a different perspective on an issue), we lash out from our own inner insecurities. The wisdom from God (says James) is peace-loving, gentle, and willing to yield to others. Alan Alda says this about listening: “Real listening is a willingness to let the other person change you.” It’s hard to let the Holy Spirit, through the Scriptures, break through my insecurities and change me. It’s even more difficult to allow the Holy Spirit to use another person to break through my pride, prejudice, and insecurities to effect that change.

Yet if we are to ever grow in goodness, we will need to become better peacemakers who are secure in our God (not ourselves) and who are comfortable with what we do not yet know. We will need to clean out the insecure garbage (the jealousy, pride, insecurity, anger) of our hearts and be quick to listen and slow to speak and anger. What a powerful, redemptive presence we could be if we could submit our own ideas (and lives) to the Lordship of Jesus, embrace our peacemaker calling and be people who share the hope inside us with gentleness and respect (I Peter 3:15)! In a polarized world where opinions are entrenched and dogmatically defended, may we become known as those who live according to the way of wisdom!

Bill Taylor
EFCC Executive Director