Andrew Bromage <> wrote in message . > G’day all.

>

> writes:

>

> >I’m aware that this conversation is probably becoming a little pedantic

> >on my behalf, but surely if things ‘go without saying’ it negates the

> >need for a statement of faith ?

>

> You’ve got a pretty good point there. I looked over the statement of

> faith again a few times and I only just noticed that it’s generic; it

> doesn’t actually relate faith to what John Mark Ministries _does_.

> Otherwise there seems little point in developing a statement of faith

> to begin with. Or maybe what I’m thinking of is more of a “mission

> statement” (pun intended).

>

> Rowland, would you like to comment?

Yes.

1. A Statement of Faith is just that – a summary of the core theological presuppositions of a group of people. A mission statement relates to the _purpose_ of the group’s ministry.

2. It’s meant to be brief: which is the first reason why Christian Graus’ concern that healing is not explicitly mentioned is not a problem. The second reason: to add to ‘mercy/compassion’ with a reference to healing would be tautologous. They’re the same. (Yes, yes, yes, I know Pentecostals would like to affirm that healing ought generally be instantaneous. In real life – and even in the life of faith – it doesn’t work like that. God grows most trees slowly :-). And (here’s the fundamentalist coming through), the devil wants two biblical ideas separated – the concepts of divine healing and redemptive suffering. (The latter – which comprises half the Psalms, for example – doesn’t get into the modern charismatic songs).

3. Creeds are an unbiblical way to express a Judaeo-Christian belief-system. The Bible is all about covenant (dynamic rather than static, Hebraic rather than Greek)… Which is not to say that statements-of-faith / creeds aren’t sometimes useful: it’s what they omit, and their _exclusive_ rationale that bother me.

—