Newsletter

A network for Action, Faith, Fellowship, Intercession, Renewal, and Mission within the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand

AND THE

National Association of Presbyterian Evangelical Churches

( N.A.P.E.C. )

PO Box 84-133, Westgate, Waitakere City, Auck.1250

NATIONAL EXECUTIVE AND COUNCIL: Steve Jourdain and Stuart Lange (Co-Chairmen), Cynthia Tracey (Administrator), Brian Brandon, Peter Bristow, Peter Cheyne, Heather Coster, Peter Dunn, Keleva Faleatua, Mark Farmer, Ian Guy, Ian Hyslop, Emma Keown, Martin Macaulay, Colin Marshall, Wilson Orange, Ann Owen, Rhys Pearson, Tom Phillips, Ralph Penno, Alistair Smales, Stuart Vogel.

A YEAR OF PRAYER AND DECISION!!!

Later this year the PCANZ General Assembly will meet (28 Sept.-2 Oct.). It will make a crucial decision: whether or not to ratify a key ruling of the 2004 Assembly, “that this church may not accept for training, license, ordain or induct anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside of faithful marriage between a man and a woman.” The rule was passed down under the Barrier Act to Presbyteries/Union District Councils, was endorsed by a majority of them, and will be brought back to the Assembly this year for final adoption as a law of the church. It will need at least a 60% vote at Assembly, otherwise it will lapse. The outcome of this Assembly

vote is obviously of critical importance for the long-term health and unity of the denomination: if passed, the rule will enable the PCANZ to move forward with growing unity and confidence. If not passed, the PCANZ will be thrown back into confusion and disarray, and will again face risks of disintegration or decline.

· Please begin praying for the Assembly. Make it a prayer focus in home groups etc.

· Please make sure that your parish is properly represented at Assembly: this is no time to let your parish be represented by someone who will vote against your biblical convictions. (Watch out in your Presbytery too for parishes that manage to manipulate the system so as to get several G.A. commissioners. Offer yourselves in advance to Presbytery Clerks to fill any vacancies for parishes who cannot send commissioners.)

In September, the Assembly will be asked to adopt a “Focal Identity Statement” and Commentary as the new Subordinate Standard of the PCANZ, replacing the Westminster Confession, and Larger and Shorter Catechisms. For several reasons, Presbyterian AFFIRM believes such a move would sell the church short:

(1) The Focal Identity Statement (and its accompanying careful commentary) is the result of much hard work, is eloquently written, and is orthodox on most of those few points of doctrine it covers (such as the existence of God, and the divinity and resurrection of Christ), but is inadequate on two cardinal and indispensible aspects of reformed theology, points which lie at the core of the reformed faith…

· the question of authority: i.e. the F.I.S. neglects to say that the Scriptures are the Word of God, with authority over the church[1]

· the question of salvation: i.e. the F.I.S. neglects to say clearly that salvation is by grace, through faith in Christ and his atoning sacrifice for sin. It briefly refers to the ‘how’ of Jesus’ death, but says nothing about the ‘why’.

(2) Because the Focal Identity Statement does not include such cardinal reformed doctrines, it cannot be said to be in sufficient continuity with the existing Subordinate Standards. For the PCANZ to adopt it as a replacement Subordinate Standard could not be constitutionally upheld, according to our reading of a legal opinion obtained by the church and presented to the last Assembly.

(3) Although imbalanced and over-detailed at some points, the existing Subordinate Standards (the Westminster Confession and Catechisms) are a much more adequate statement of core biblical and reformed doctrine. Compare for instance, the majestic value of the Confession’s first chapter (on “the word of God written”) with the one line reference in the F.I.S. to inspiration. Or compare the existing Standards’ masterly expositions of justification, regeneration, and sanctification with the F.I.S’s passing allusions to being “restored to God” and transformed. Many biblical doctrines are entirely missing from the F.I.S., or are only hinted at with one or two words e.g. human sinfulness, repentance, eternal life. Our problem with the F.I.S. is not that it in itself unorthodox or unattractive, but that it would be inadequate as a subordinate standard. In adopting it as a replacement standard, the PCANZ would lose time-honoured Subordinate Standards that are so unequivocally biblical, helpful, and instructive. Surely the PCANZ can have a fuller doctrinal standard than the F.I.S. We are not opposed in principle to the PCANZ eventually replacing the Westminster standards, but we believe a replacement standard would need to be something of comparable substance (even if considerably shorter). Assembly has already adopted the F.I.S. for “use” in the church: let it be so used, where congregations wish. But we don’t agree that such a slim statement could bear the weighty responsibility of being the Church’s sole Subordinate Standard.

(4) Ministers and elders made their vows, signed the formula and were ordained on the basis of the existing Westminster confessional documents. Is there a serious ethical – and legal - issue – about changing that basis, where the change to something much more minimalistic is against their conscience?

THE DRAFT BOOK OF ORDER

AFFIRM applauds the work done in re-drafting the Book of Order to make it more simple, user-friendly, and contemporary.

However, previous assemblies have been told that the revision would “just be an updating, with no substantive changes of policy.” But it is clear that, in the process of producing a new book of order, hundreds of extremely significant changes are being proposed, with potentially far-reaching consequences. These have considerable implications for church doctrine, ethical standards, and policy.

In general, the proposed re-write is fussily prescriptive and restrictive about non-essentials, but deeply neglectful of essentials such as doctrine, and Christian

character. It often has a somewhat secular, legalistic feel. It also assumes the replacement of the Subordinate Standards.

Another general concern is that the new Book of Order gives the Council of Assembly the authority to impose mandatory “guidelines,” or to amend or revoke existing ones: 3.3 (1), (2) (3). We are not happy with this: mandatory rules over the church should only come from Assembly, after open scrutiny and debate.

1.1 (2) delete the confusing and often misapplied words “contained in.” Re-word, to capture the unambiguous wordings of Answer to Question 3, Larger Catechism (“the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word of God”), and Westminster Confession 1:II (“under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the Books of the Old and New Testaments…all of which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life”).[2]

1.4 (5) It is nonsensical to refer to the Declaratory Act (providing historic escape clauses from some minor doctrines) while ignoring any reference to the essentials of the faith.

1.4. (2) A very strange picture of the reformed faith! Include a much more adequate summary of key Reformation doctrines. Include two new initial clauses: “Justification by grace alone, through faith in Jesus Christ.” (b) “The authority of the Word of God over the church.” Include clauses about repentance from sin, new birth in Christ, and the sovereignty of God.

1.7 (3) The actual formula must be provided! A blank space is not good enough.

4.4. Delete. It is entirely improper for the Church to allow the State to have any say whatever in determining who may be members of the Church. Also, the reference to “orientation” is ambiguous and unhelpful: does it mean someone can never be declined membership on the basis of sexual behaviour?

4.6 Delete (1) (a), (b), (c). How can someone who is not required to be a believer (see 4:3, 2 (b) also have an assured right to baptism? There is no biblical basis for such an innovation. No work has been done to justify this theologically.

6.4 (1) (f) Delete (f) – an unnecessary impediment to the ready use of lay preachers

6.5 (1) . Delete (b): it is woolly nonsense. Substitute: “faithfully teaches the Word of God, and the apostolic Gospel of Jesus Christ. Proclaims salvation and new birth in Christ.”

7.16 (1) wrong to require formal benediction: to close “with prayer” may be better.

9.2 (1) (b) Substitute: “displays the appropriate Christian belief, qualities, gifts and character.” Christian faith and character are not optional, and should be specified.

9.49-58 Delete: crusty regulations about “lay preachers” are quite unnecessary. A minister may simply invite someone to preach as he/she sees fit.

9.59 (2) “may” not “must” (such a service always previously discretionary).

14.4
It is the congregation, not the assembly, that carries out the mission of the church! The heading and content of this section should be changed to reflect that.

(a) “uphold and proclaim the apostolic Gospel of Jesus Christ, and make decisions in consistency with the Word of God.”

(b) “support the congregation as the church’s primary instrument of mission.”

15:2 Include equivalent to existing Regulation 475, that “The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as interpreted by the Westminster Confession of Faith and Declaratory Act of this Church, are the standards by which teaching and conduct are tested.” To remove that basis (even with the reference to the Westminster Confession and Declaratory Act deleted) is to propose a serious change of substance and policy. Without it, what are the grounds for weighing belief or conduct?

15.7 (2) Delete (b) – discipline should be possible for serious misconduct no matter how long ago it took place. Otherwise, some may be likely to re-offend.

Also: the proposed revision has deleted much material that is of definite doctrinal importance. This material includes the very significant statements of belief that helped resolve the crisis of the late 1960s (Appendix C-2). Who has decided that the theology of many closely-worked appendices (B-4, C-3, C-4, C-6, C-7, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-7, E-5a) is no longer applicable to the PCANZ?

The 2004 Assembly ordered the Council of Assembly to consult the church on the denomination’s ministry and mission priorities, with a view to a thorough re-working of the national budget. A series of meetings were held around the country, called “Facing the Future.” The meetings came complete with a “consultant,” presumably to help guide our thinking. Significant frustration was expressed in the meetings, especially about the heavy and mandatory financial demands being made on parishes. Many do not like the transformation of “giving” into compulsory levies. Some expressed the view that the lack of trust and enthusiasm for the national budget was an inevitable outcome of a theologically-divided church. There was a widespread agreement that the budget of the national church should be lean, transparent, and only directed at self-evidently worthwhile projects. Time will tell, but at this stage there are no indications that the Council has taken to heart the concerns expressed by many parishes, and that it is united enough to bring forward any proposals for constructive reform. AFFIRM believes that significant changes can only be mandated by Assembly itself.

Any national church needs a measure of funding from local churches, to maintain essential administrative functions, and some shared work. If the level is set right, and the spending is obviously necessary and helpful, local churches will normally pay up without complaining. In the PCANZ, however, there is a widespread perception that the amount of money being required by the national church is a burden on small and large parishes alike, and that it significantly undercuts local mission. Many parishes feel they are seeing little benefit for the many thousands of dollars they are remitting to head office. They believe the national church should be a servant to local mission, rather than compulsorily extracting money that would otherwise go into local staffing and outreach. AFFIRM suggests that parish levies to the national church should be set at about 5-6% of regular giving: at present it is about twice that. In some growing New Zealand denominations, the comparable level is set at 2-5%.

Evangelicals are often nominated to various national workgroups. But, somehow, , they usually remain a minority, and are rarely conveners. Many capable evangelicals have never served on a significant workgroup, or have only done so rarely. Some parishes often appear to be over-represented. Whenever this apparent bias is pointed out, the Nominating Committee goes into lengthy explanations of how fair and open their processes really are. But AFFIRM believes that integrity must be demonstrated. Serious reform is overdue. AFFIRM believes that the Council of Assembly could be directly elected by Presbyteries and parishes.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR PRESBYTERIAN EVANGELICALS!

A national conference for evangelical Presbyterians is being called for 3-5 November, 2006, at St. Albans Palmerston North. This will be a great time of fellowship, encouragement, and stimulus. We are putting together an appropriate array of speakers and workshop leaders, mainly people who have wrestled with growing and leading churches in our various types of New Zealand context. Put the dates in your diary, and plan now to come.

A successful two-day school was held in November by Southland members of AFFIRM, attended by about 30 people. The keynote speaker was Murray Robertson, from Spreydon Baptist, who tackled topics such as “The awe of preaching,” “The difference between good preaching and bad preaching,” “The nuts and bolts of crafting a sermon,” and “Relevance: what people need to hear.” John Gullick, Peter Cheyne, and Diane Smith also gave helpful teaching, and there were practical excercises. A bonus was Marj Robertson leading a seminar on developing community ministries.

The latest brochure is included in this mailing, with details of new and revised booklets. The AFFIRM booklets are written by New Zealanders, and are priced to sell. We encourage you to purchase new titles, to send booklets to friends, and ensure that your church library or bookstall has a current set. Please order directly from the Bay of Plenty address given on the order form.

David recently passed away after a prolonged battle with cancer. He was an industrial scientist and businessman, and an elder at an Auckland church. He was on the AFFIRM/NAPEC Executive for many years, and was much appreciated for his fine Christian character and wisdom. He was a man of great faith and insight. At a recent Assembly, David gave an outstanding testimony: there was a time in his life, he explained, when he had avidly read the writings of Lloyd Geering, and as a result he had lost his faith and spent many years in a spiritual wilderness. But in God’s goodness, he said, the day came when he “met the Risen Lord,” and his life was transformed. We are very thankful for David, and remember Barbara and family in our prayers.

Despite the very encouraging decision at the last Assembly, the Presbyterian denomination in this country remains in a precarious state. It is important that biblically-faithful parishes and people continue to pray and stand together. Over 75 parishes have publicly nailed their colours to the mast, by declaring their membership of NAPEC: the National Association of Evangelical Presbyterian Churches. We acknowledge that the potential of NAPEC has yet to be developed. But we believe that the very existence of this movement sends a strong signal, at a time when many aspects of our national church’s doctrine, life and order are once again in question.

We emphasise that NAPEC is not about schism, or being separate or divisive, but about making a united stand within the PCANZ. It is about like-minded parishes encouraging one another. At this stage NAPEC is still essentially a register of parishes making a stand, rather than a separate organization. So if your parish has not yet joined, please seriously consider doing so. The application form is on the NAPEC website (http://www.NAPEC.org.nz), or email us at (PresAffirm@xtra.co.nz).

Ø To keep receiving this newsletter, please advise us of changes. The newsletter can be either e-mailed or snail-mailed, or both. It is over to you - just let us know what you want. (If you prefer e-mail version only, we like a street address as a back-up).

Ø We want contact with NAPEC churches to be primarily by e-mail. But already many e-mail messages have been bouncing, presumably because of changed addresses. If you have had a change of address or key contact in the

last few months, please let us know. Please check that your minister and eldership and church people still have access to this newsletter

Presbyterian AFFIRM - our commitment to you…

to be a voice within the Presbyterian Church that speaks up for biblical truth, grace and integrity, and to encourage anything that promotes faith, fellowship, intercession, renewal, and mission

% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] In contrast, the Westminster standards state that “the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word of God” (‘Answer to Q.3,’ Larger Catechism), that “under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the Books of the Old and New Testaments…all of which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life” (Westminster Confession 1:II), and that “The authority of the holy scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God … the author thereof; and therefore to be received, because it is the word of God” (Westminster Confession 1:IV).

[2] The wording in the present formula reflects that of the Shorter Catechism, Answer to Q.2.