The second of two talks given by Stuart Lange
at the regional Fresh Vision meetings, August-September 1998.

(First talk - A Theological Landscape Of Our Denomination)

The following talk - with some variations in different venues - was given at the six regional meetings by Stuart Lange (AFFIRM’s National Secretary).

So what is the way ahead? A number of options keep coming up in discussion... We want to stress that we are not advocating any of these in particular, nor can we necessarily deliver on any of them. No, we are simply trying to raise awareness of some of the pros and cons of each of them, and later to get some indication of what YOU think.

First, I suggest, is the ZERO option, ie. no change or no fresh initiative. Just stick with the status quo as I have described above. Some would express it: "Just hang in there and keep up the struggle", or as "Stay, pray, and fight'. In this ZERO option evangelicals would continue to push and pray for the PCANZ to be faithful to its standards - and meanwhile, perhaps for a very long time, evangelicals would be prepared to live with pluralism, conflict, and compromise. All the while we would be praying hard that God might clean up his church.

This no change option is sometimes supported by the conviction that in the long run, orthodoxy must inevitably flourish, and liberalism must inevitably wither.

- There is also the argument that if anyone is to change their relationship to the Presbyterian Church, or even to leave it, it should not be those who are faithful to the historic doctrines and ethics of Presbyterianism.

All the other options involve a change...
 

We could try to ignore the denomination, and just concentrate on the local church. This would be a move toward de facto congregationalism.

- The problem with this option, it would seem, is that even if we try to act as congregationalists, we in fact are not congregationalists. We would still be subject to Presbyteries and Assembly, we would still have to pay all our levies, we would still share the reputation of the denomination, the conflict and frustration would still continue, we would still probably feel compromised by the reputation of the denomination as a whole.

- But walking away simply abandons the Presbyterian church to a liberal future, and weakens the remaining evangelical parishes.

- As someone has said (perhaps a little naughtily) "Why abandon the ship to the pirates?"

- Walking away would certainly mean leaving behind all parish property.
 

The formation of a new and alternative Presbyterian Church.

In this scenario, a very large number of evangelical congregations would band together, and at a given point announce our separation from the PCANZ, and the formation of a new and purer Presbyterian Church, one more faithful to orthodox faith, and one more eager to be taught by the Word of God and renewed by the Holy Spirit.

There is an obvious difficulty here. By the law of the Church and the law of the land, local church buildings and manses belong to the PCANZ, and congregations leaving to form a new Presbyterian Church would not be entitled to anything. However, what would probably happen is that departing parishes would not physically move, but would seek to negotiate with the remnant PCANZ initially for access to buildings and eventually for title, on the basis of grace and justice. If the Assembly were not prepared to come to an agreement, and to initiate the law changes necessary, then I guess it would have to go to court.

- Of much more importance is the likely ethos of such an alternative Presbyterian Church...

This new church (and the same goes for any evangelical synod) would in my view have to be one which held together a wide evangelical diversity, including several cultures (especially Polynesian and Asian) and a range of age-groups and worship styles: both young AND old, contemporary AND more traditional. There would need to be room for a range of convictions, for instance, on matters concerning the workings of the Holy Spirit, and with regard to some of the details of reformed doctrine. I believe this new church would want to affirm the role of women ministers, and to allow diversity of conscience and practice with regard to baptism. There would be diversity - but that diversity would be within a foundational unity in the gospel, and within biblical boundaries. The 'Fresh vision for the Church' statement would certainly describe the sort of vibrant atmosphere and mission thrust we would want to establish.

- We would have to be very sure that this full SPLIT option was both in God's will and in God's timing. It is a very serious thing to be in a full-scale schism.
 

Another major option is that of a separate evangelical synod or stream, with its own separate identity within the PCANZ, and with autonomy over its own life and mission. This option fits in general terms with Assembly's proposal to re-structure the Church into separate streams or synods, where both liberal and orthodox would be set free to order their own life, with their own identity and integrity of conscience.

Now what the Commission on Diversity might come up with, or what the next Assembly might agree with, is anybody's guess. We want to stress that what we are talking about now is OUR idea of a possible synod, not necessarily the PCANZ's idea.

In one possible model of Synod, it might be almost like there were two parallel churches, within one denomination. In this model, the legal holding company would be the PCANZ, but the evangelical and liberal churches might largely order their own life.

- The advantage of the synod or stream option is that it falls short of a full split, with all its major hassles.

- But, for many, of course, the fact that it is NOT a full split is precisely the disadvantage.

- The crucial point for many of us is whether orthodox people could get sufficient separate autonomy and identity

- In one scenario, we could envisage a situation where the evangelical stream or synod would have its own unambiguous doctrinal statement, its own presbyteries, its own training for ministers, its own funding arrangements, and its own mission initiatives. That could be described as a 'Rolls Royce' model of Synod - we may in fact be offered only a 'Morris Minor' model.

- Many of us may hope too that there would be within this stream a broad orthodox-cum- evangelical unity, with a living faith commitment and working credal statement - we would hope for a rich diversity of culture and styles and emphases, all within genuine biblical boundaries. We would hope for young and old, contemporary and traditional, pakeha and Koreans and Indonesians and Chinese and many Polynesians, a range of understandings of baptism and the work of the Holy Spirit, and along with all that a warm acceptance of the ministry of women.

We might hope too that the AFFIRM 'Vision for the Church' statement would in time describe the sort of separate stream we could be proud to belong to - a part of the church that might be more alive with the power of the risen Christ, and more passionate for the Gospel, and dynamic in growth and outreach..

- Local congregations might see their primary identify in terms of the evangelical synod, rather than with the PCANZ

- Some have suggested a different brand name for popular use, something more racy and contemporary, and then the official name in small print only: 'Evangelical synod of the PCANZ'. - It remains to be seen what the Commission on Diversity might propose, or whether any radical change would actually get through the next Assembly with its 60-40 rules. There are many reasons why both liberal and middle of the road people might resist the idea of a synod. - There is also a real danger in this option: there is no way evangelicals should accept being shunted off and marginalised in a small siding, without any real autonomy, allowing the liberals to claim to be the mainline and the real Presbyterian Church.

- If we agree to explore this option, we may want to insist that there is also a liberal synod. We would do well to remember that we are actually the majority, or at the very least the biggest single group... - Remember that the one year ban on the issue of practising homosexuals is only until the next Assembly... We need to understand very clearly that basic to the whole Synod proposal is an implicit trade-off: if evangelicals were to have autonomy to order their own life, then liberals too would have to be granted freedom to do their thing. That would inevitably mean that other sections of the PCANZ would be free to do (or to allow) some things which would deeply offend our conscience, including the ordination of practising homosexuals. The question is: is that something we could live with, or would it be an unacceptable compromise? It may come down to whether there really could be genuine separate identity and autonomy.

- As local churches, as we all make representations to the Commission, we will need to be very clear about what might constitute an acceptable Synod proposal and what would not. We will also need to think carefully about what we might be prepared to do in common with the PCANZ - and what we believe we can now only do on our own.

. - The question often arises of mixed congregations, with regard to this and other options too. Our view is that, where possible, questions of wider affiliation should not be allowed to disrupt existing local unity. When a congregation made a majority decision to join one or other synod, local minorities wanting to belong to another synod could perhaps be offered reciprocal fellowship and full rights of fellowship and participation in the local church regardless of what synod it was in.

- There are also questions still about how Co-operating Ventures could fit into a synod structure. There is still a lot of work to be done on that matter, but we are confident that answers can be found.

- Some evangelicals believe that there is little hope of the PCANZ agreeing to a Synod with any real autonomy or separate identity. Some see this Synod proposal as abandoning the high ground, as a sell-out to pluralism, as institutionalising an unacceptable compromise.

- Notwithstanding this, other evangelicals see in this Synod/Stream option a significant window of opportunity, something that we should at least explore, and which may in God's timing lead on to something else.
 

The dream for some is that ultimately we should be part of a united evangelical church of Aotearoa, comprising orthodox and evangelical congregations from within the Presbyterian, Methodist, and Congregational denominations.

Again, this would be a new church with obvious diversity, but one - we would hope - with a strong biblical core, with a clearly orthodox confessional basis, and with genuine doctrinal and ethical boundaries. This sort of united evangelical church would need to be the sort of union that would leave Wesleyans free to do things in a Wesleyan way, and Presbyterians in a Presbyterian way, and Wesleyan Tongans and Fijians and Korean and Cook Island Presbyterians free to do their thing and so on and so on. This new church might be organised on a federal model - or it might simply have built into it a recognition that different congregations may have a different background or ethos.

Now this United Church of Aotearoa is an attractive option, because it is so very positive.

Obviously, too, it could also provide a home for some of our co-operating parishes.

But Just IF, HOW, and WHEN such a Union could come about is far from clear... possibly it could start with evangelical Presbyterians and Methodists asking their own denominations to release them into such a union. Evangelical leaders in other denominations have already expressed interest in some such new configuration.

With this option too, practical issues of church property would arise. The remnant denominations would need to be asked to provide at least continuing access by member congregations to their local church property, preferably with an eventual transfer of title.

Well, those are the principal longer-term options. There are other possibilities, and also some combinations of options. We want to hear what YOU believe, on each of these options. Then together, and in conjunction with other meetings being held up and down the country, we pray that we may be able to begin discerning God's way ahead. Every option is probably workable. Each has its positive aspects, each option has its down side. But the question is: What is GOD'S way ahead?

(First talk - A Theological Landscape Of Our Denomination)