Pre-Assembly newsletter, September 2006

NOT confidential:  please copy and distribute freely

PO Box 84-133, Westgate, Waitakere City, Auck. 0657

Website:          http://www.presaffirm.org.nz   (includes NAPEC info’)

E-mail:             PresAffirm@xtra.co.nz            napec@presaffirm.org.nz                     

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

Ø      To get updates quickly, send us your e-mail address (you can retain snail-mail too if desired)

A NECESSARY  & CRUCIAL DECISION…

On the morning of 29 Sept., the General Assembly will be asked to ratify its 2004 decision that “in accordance with the Supreme and Subordinate Standards of the Church, and with previous Assembly decisions, 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.”[1] To do that, it will need to vote at least 60% in favour.

This motion is necessary, for the church to uphold biblical authority, to defend the moral ethics that the church has held for two thousand years, and to bring some closure to this debilitating PCANZ controversy. From the outset, the Christian church has upheld sexual abstinence in singleness, and faithfulness in marriage. Neither Jesus, nor the Word of God, nor the universal Church, nor the PCANZ, has ever endorsed any other standard.

Until a couple of decades ago, hardly anyone in the church ever questioned traditional Christian sexual morals. Everyone knew what the standards were, and no one even dreamed of ministers openly living in de facto or homosexual relationships. No one would have thought a formal PCANZ rule about such matters would ever be necessary!

But now the church faces intense pressure to embrace biblically unacceptable sexual ethics. A minority has vociferously agitated for accepting active homosexuals as ministers.

A 2003 Judicial Commission ruled that, without an explicit Assembly rule, there is no barrier to the ordination of practising homosexuals. Such a situation is clearly contrary to a mainstream understanding of Scripture and Christian tradition, and is unacceptable to the biblical conscience of thousands upon thousands of ordinary Presbyterians. Many are deeply troubled and embarrassed by the apparent permissiveness of their denomination.

For over 15 years, Assembly after Assembly has been characterised by torrid debate, by unhelpful indecision, and by a minority advocating endorsement of what is contrary to the biblical consciences of the majority. The denomination has been regularly brought into public disrepute. The peace and unity of the church has been seriously disturbed.

This situation must now be put right

A suitable and fair-minded ruling has been approved by the 2004 Assembly, has been approved by the majority of Presbyteries, and must now become a formal rule of the church.

·        It is a ruling that is consistent with Scripture, with the Subordinate Standards, with worldwide Christian practice, and with previous Assembly decisions. The PCANZ will at last have in place a rule which is consistent with biblical standards, classical Christian ethics, and the beliefs of the majority of Presbyterian church members

·        It is a ruling that leaves in place those practising homosexuals who are already in ministry: a major concession, on the grounds of “natural justice.”

·        It is a ruling that will enable the Presbyterian church in this country to move ahead in confidence and in relative peacefulness: to re-build, and to re-focus on mission.

·        The current controversy will not entirely disappear, but we believe that once the rule is in place it will significantly abate.

In the event the motion is lost (it needs 60% to pass), the rule adopted in 2004 will at that point lapse, and there will then be no barrier to the ordination of people who are in de facto and homosexual relationships! Such an outcome could do incalculable harm to the future health and unity of the PCANZ. The PCANZ would experience unprecedented disaffection. There could be a very serious loss to the Presbyterian Church of people, leaders, money, congregations – even entire ethnic streams. There could be a major church split.

Surely nobody wants any of that! But important choices carry serious consequences. If we care for the future of the PCANZ, whatever our beliefs, we will surely vote for the motion that represents the church’s historic position, and which will best enable the PCANZ to move forward together, to preserve its green shoots, and to recover confidence and health.

·        The rule applies to all types of inappropriate sexual relationships in leaders (i.e. both heterosexual and same-sex relationships)

·        It relates solely to those who wish to be church ministers or elders (i.e. it has no direct application to church members or attenders, or society at large)

·        The rule notes that it is in line with the teachings of the Supreme and Subordinate Standards, and with previous Assembly decisions

·        As a concession to “natural justice,” the rule exempts those who are already ministers or elders (i.e. from 2004 onwards)[2]

·        The rule has no application whatsoever to “orientation” alone (i.e. it would not apply to a person who claims a homosexual “orientation” but was committed to celibacy)

·        There is no proposal for any other regulations about this (i.e. we should trust people to be honest, and Presbyteries and Sessions to exercise common sense and grace.)

Ø       The only sexual ethic endorsed by Jesus is faithful marriage between man and woman (Matt.5:4-6). This reflects God’s intention from the beginning (Gen. 1:27, 2:24)

Ø     Jesus explicitly rejected adultery, immorality, and lustful thoughts (Matt. 5:8, 5:27-28, 5:17-20, 7:21-23). He did not explicitly condemn homosexual behaviour because it was so obviously wrong (it was always prohibited in the Old Testament), and was unthinkable in a Jewish societal context.

Ø     In the whole of Scripture, there is not a single endorsement of homosexual behaviour or any other extra-marital sexual relationships. All such behaviour is contrary to God’s purposes.

Ø     The Old and New Testament consistently reject homosexual conduct (e.g. Rom.1:26-28, 1 Cor. 6:9, Jude 1:7, Rev. 21:8)

Ø     The New Testament teaches that, whatever our past behaviour, we can be set free and transformed inwardly by the power of Christ (e.g.1 Cor. 6:11, Eph. 4:19-23, Ro.6:13-14, 2 Cor. 5:17)

Ø      Grace does not condone sin, or confirm us in it, but calls us out of it, through the power of Christ’s Spirit (Titus 2:11-14, Rom. 12:1-2, 1 Cor. 6:18-20)

Ø     To endorse homosexual behaviour is to deny God’s creation of us as male and female, the reality of sin, the call to holiness and repentance, and the power of Christ to make new

What to expect at Assembly: naturally enough, those sincerely opposed to the motion under the Barrier Act will try very hard to try to prevent the rule being ratified. Some will attempt to confuse, to raise unwarranted fears, to muddy the waters, to delay. There will be intense appeal to emotions. One tactic might be to move the (undebatable) motion “that we move to the next business”, i.e. to let the rule lapse without a vote. We must pray that the Assembly will be faithful, clear-headed, and decisive.

IT WILL BE ARGUED …

“We should be loving” 

Absolutely. But love and grace does not mean we must endorse unbiblical standards.

“We want the church to be accepting – this rule will send the wrong signals.”

Bigotry and hatred are unacceptable. But, as Christians subject to Christ and the Scriptures, we sometimes have to decide between right and wrong – or between what is biblical, and what is

unbiblical. The church must have the moral courage to insist on its own God-given standards.

“Everybody should be welcome in the church”

Agreed. But not everybody should be a church leader. The church has always had the right to have its own internal standards for leadership based on the Scriptures.

“We don’t need a regulation”

If we do not have such a rule, we are accepting the opposite. If we do not say “NO” to ministers in  sexual relationships outside marriage, we are in effect saying “YES.” There is no middle position.

“Science has proved that homosexuality is in-born. Some people have no choice”

Science has not proved that. Homosexual preference arises from some variable mix of nature, nurture, influence and choice. We are all tempted in various ways. But, in Christ, we can – by God’s grace - choose to live above whatever tempts us. We can choose to be single and celibate, or married and faithful. (Even if it were ever proven that homosexuality is primarily innate, that would reflect the brokenness of a fallen, sin-marred creation, rather than God’s expressed intention).

“We are discriminating against a certain group. It is injustice”

The rule is about behaviour, not any group. It is across the board. No one is compelled to be a Christian minister or elder. But all Christians - sinners saved by grace – are called to biblical holiness, and leaders must exemplify lives which are being transformed through Christ.

“You are condemning some to be second class citizens in the church”

All Christians are called to costly biblical discipleship. Leadership in the church is never a right.

“We know better nowadays”    

Do we?

“We should not take the Bible literally.”

We should accept the Scriptures as the Word of God, and interpret them responsibly and faithfully. We have no right to ignore or distort the plain teaching of Scripture that does not suit us.

“The Bible does not prohibit homosexual relationships as we know them today”

There is not a single biblical endorsement of homosexual behaviour or relationships.

The Scriptures consistently and emphatically reject homosexual activity.

“Leviticus also condemns wearing mixed cloths etc.”

In Christ, we are set free from the Old Covenant ceremonial law. But the moral law still applies. As Christians, we take our lead from the New Testament, not Leviticus!

“The New Testament rejects homosexual pederasty, not homosexual relationships” 

This is exegetical special pleading, and is not sustained by most biblical scholars.

“The issue is like the ordination of women”

Not so. There are valid biblical arguments for women in church leadership, which we endorse. But, from cover to cover, the Bible is against immorality of all types.

“Some de facto relationships are of better quality than some marriages.”

Yes. But does the church strengthen marriage by saying it is no longer necessary?

“My children/grandchildren are living in a de facto or homosexual relationships, and they are very loving people who are deeply committed to their partners.” 

Maybe so. But are they committed Christian believers who are ready to be a minister or elder?

“We cannot deny people the opportunity for sexual intimacy”

Out of faithfulness to God, millions of Christians have chosen to forego sex outside marriage.

“We should catch up with what society now thinks about sex”

We obey Christ, not culture. The faithful church has always been counter-cultural.

The church will be respected not when it blindly follows society, but when it is true to its own beliefs and standards. If the church does not uphold Christian morality, who will? History shows that when the Church lowers its standards to accommodate the world’s values, it declines. Presbyterian churches, indeed most churches which are growing – and those which retain many young adults – almost always have orthodox biblical beliefs and clear-cut Christian ethical standards.

“We should follow the Government in these matters”

We follow Christ, not Caesar. Parliament legislates for the whole society, the church just for the church. The Church must be free to set its own internal leadership standards, consistent with its own biblical convictions and its 2,000 years of belief and practice. The rule simply does that.

“We should follow the Methodists’ policy in these matters” 

 The Methodist church has split several ways, and is hardly a model for the PCANZ.

“The rule is ‘legalistic’ ” 

The church has rules on all sorts of things. This one will safeguard something important.

“Presbyteries have no business snooping in people’s bedrooms”

No and Yes. God still calls believers to holy living. The rule depends on people honestly acknowledging if they are in a de facto relationship, same-sex partnership, or adultery etc.

“The church should concentrate on mission”

Agreed. We mostly do. Settle the matter now, in accordance with a mainstream understanding of Scripture and standard Christian ethics, and that will greatly help us all to focus on mission.

“Assembly should have no winners or losers. There should be a consensus.”

There is no consensus. We must go with what the majority believe, and what will sustain greater peace within the PCANZ. The church overall has not been convinced it wants a permissive policy.

“People in our parish have very different convictions on the matters of homosexuality and sexual morality, and we all get on very well together”

Sure. However this rule is not about everyone thinking the same, but about a national church having consistent ethical standards for ministers and leaders. It is about how we answer the question: ‘Does – or does not - the PCANZ ordain those in de facto or same-sex relationships?’

“The rule is “divisive’.”

It would be a whole lot more divisive if the rule were not ratified, because it represents the convictions of the majority of church members. It is permissive policy that is divisive.

“The rule represents the rise of militant, bigoted, cult-like ‘fundamentalism’. ” 

In our Presbyterian context, it simply reflects the enduring strength of mainstream, orthodox Christian faith, especially among younger people, and the steady decline of theological liberalism.

“Let parishes and presbyteries make their own decisions on this”

Such a proposal has been strongly rejected by all previous assemblies (including 1995, 1996, 1999, 2004). Why? Because in effect such a policy amounts to a permissive “yes.” Also, we are not Congregationalists – we are a national Presbyterian church, with legitimate national standards.

 

“In 1998 the Assembly rejected a very similar rule to the motion before Assembly.”

Yes, by a very narrow margin, and the PCANZ has continued in turmoil ever since.

“The church is not ready to decide”

Successive assemblies have shown that the PCANZ is not persuaded it should accept ministers in relationships outside marriage. This motion wisely confirms what the church has always believed.

“We are so tired of this issue. Let’s move on”      

We are all extremely tired of it. The failure of previous Assemblies to resolve it has been a great disappointment to very many people. The PCANZ must now resolve it responsibly, in line with Scripture and with universal Christian ethics.

WHAT DOES AFFIRM THINK ABOUT THE HOSTILE  ANONYMOUS STICKERS? We 100% reject them! We think they are highly inappropriate and unhelpful. AFFIRM supporters have been instant and unanimous in expressing their distaste for the stickers. Soon after the stickers came out, we distributed (under appropriate heading) this statement to all those who get this newsletter by e-mail…

“Dear friends,

It has come to AFFIRM's attention that someone has been anonymously posting offensive anti-homosexual stickers to Presbyterian parishes.

We strongly deplore this action, with regard to both the methods used and the views expressed, and fully agree with the Moderator's rejection of this misguided initiative.

The stickers seriously misrepresent the issues. For us, the issue in the church is about responsibly and faithfully applying biblical standards of morality to church leaders. For others, they believe it is about justice. Whatever we may believe, debates must be conducted openly, and with a respect for others.  We cannot agree with the reduction of the issues before Assembly to the level of crude bumper stickers or hostile, fear-mongering propaganda. Anonymous letters should be disregarded.

Contrary to what the stickers assert, we believe anyone is welcome in any Presbyterian Church. Love for others and a warm welcome are Christian non-negotiables.

Contrary to what the stickers imply, the motion before Assembly relates to all types of sexual impropriety.

Contrary to what the stickers say, the motion before Assembly is not about rejecting anyone, but about upholding biblical standards of morality for all who wish to be leaders and teachers in the church of God.

 …Please continue to pray for the Assembly, that grace and truth may prevail in all its deliberations.

- Steve Jourdain and Stuart Lange (Co-Chairmen, Presbyterian AFFIRM)”

RETAINING ADEQUATE DOCTRINAL STANDARDS

For some years, an official workgroup has been preparing a “Focal Identity Statement” (F.I.S.), with a view to it replacing the Westminster Confession and Larger and Shorter Catechisms as the PCANZ’s Subordinate Standards.[3]

This proposal represents a very major change: the Westminster Confession has been in place since 1647, is widely respected as the classic Presbyterian statement of the reformed Christian faith, and remains the doctrinal standard for most Presbyterian Churches world-wide (some have also adopted additional shorter, more contemporary statements, to sit alongside the 17^th century documents).

To make this change is constitutionally difficult: any replacement standard(s) must be “always in agreement with the Word of God and the fundamental doctrines of the reformed faith” [Reg.1 (e)]. Clearly, the F.I.S. is very different from the Westminster Confession (if it were not so, the proposed change would be superfluous). But if the F.I.S. is too different, can it be claimed to be in agreement with the Westminster Confession – and can it legally replace it?

AFFIRM’s view is that there is much about the F.I.S. that is commendable and attractive. It generally reads well (the “Commentary” less so). But we think the F.I.S. falls far short of doing justice to the core doctrines of the reformed Christian faith. We also note the opinion (2004) of I.R. Millard QC that “given the different purpose, and of necessity, consequential brevity [of the draft F.I.S.] it cannot be considered a replacement subordinate standard that is both ‘in agreement with the Word of God and the fundamental doctrines of the Reformed Faith contained in the said Confession and other subordinate standards’.” We thus think the F.I.S. is not adequate to replace our existing standards. If it were amended at certain key points, we would support its adoption - at least as an additional subordinate standard.[4]

On a number of crucial points, the F.I.S. is either weak or silent…

• There is nothing about Jesus being “Lord” – the basic New Testament confession.[5]
• On Jesus’ life, it simply says he “lived among us” (Jesus’ life was more than just a prelude to his death: what about his character, compassion, teachings, miracles, sinlessness?)
• On Jesus’ death, it says he “suffered death by human hand” – but there is no hint as to why Jesus died, i.e. so that we might be forgiven. (This omission is very strange. The atoning death of Jesus is not an optional extra in Christian theology, but at the heart of the Gospel.)
• On Jesus’ resurrection, it rather vaguely says Jesus was “raised to new life” – but it does not make it clear that Christ rose bodily on the third day, leaving the tomb empty (as in Scripture, and the Apostle’s Creed[6] and Westminster Confession [7]).
• The F.I.S. itself makes just one inadequate and ambiguous statement about Scripture, appearing to put inspiration in the present rather than the past (cf. the magnificent and comprehensive whole first chapter of the Westminster Confession).[8]
• There is no trace of distinctive reformed emphases such as providence, the sovereignty of God, or the biblical doctrine of election (and thus it radically departs from the Westminster Confession – we agree that double predestination is best left behind, but this goes too far).[9]

• It leaves out the return of Jesus in power and glory (cf. Apostles’ Creed; W. Conf. Ch.22-3)
• It neglects to mention the resurrection of the dead, or everlasting life (likewise)[10]
• It does not refer to the Last Judgment[11]
• It gives no indication that those who reject Christ are excluded from God’s presence[12]

The accompanying “Commentary” is also weak at points, and needs some extra material inserted.

Ø      If the church only changes its Confession of Faith once every 350 years, it needs to do so extremely carefully!

Ø      We suggest Assembly decline to adopt the F.I.S. in the form that is currently being proposed, unless significantly strengthened.

Ø      With careful amendment, however, the F.I.S. could be made into an acceptable “Short Confession,” to sit alongside the Westminster Confession and catechisms

FINANCIAL DEMANDS FROM PCANZ CENTRE

The work of the national church is of much less importance than the ministry and mission of local congregations. The national church exists primarily to support the work of the local church. AFFIRM accepts that a national church requires some funding from parishes, to enable essential administration and useful support services (such as ministry training). But national budgets take on a life of their own, and can easily expand beyond what is sustainable. If national levies are too high, congregations are burdened, and local staffing and outreach is affected. AFFIRM believes that parish levies to the national church have been significantly beyond what is necessary or healthy, and that this Assembly needs to impose a sensible maximum (as a percentage of regular parish income). The proposed increase in ministry stipends will increase the financial pressures on many parishes. 

CLEANING UP THE PCANZ NOMINATING SYSTEM

For many decades, the councils and committees of the national church have been unrepresentative of the church at large. Evangelicals have almost always been under-represented. Official attempts at saying what a good and fair system we have are unconvincing. The facts speak for themselves: the Council of Assembly has until recently had three members from one liberal Auckland parish. Is that fair?

It is to be hoped that Assembly will insist on some long-overdue reforms. The Council of Assembly will be proposing more of the same (just a reduction in Council numbers). Such an inconsequential change is not what is needed. AFFIRM favours an alternative proposal that the Council be directly elected by Sessions, through Assembly, after the circulation to parishes of nominations and supporting information. A similar system is already used for choosing moderators. With a fair and open system of election, the Council would be more likely to win the wider church’s confidence.

THE DRAFT BOOK OF ORDER

We appreciate the task group’s response to feedback. We have some concerns about references to “supplementary guidelines”, when these are not yet written. Contact Steve Jourdain re other B.O.O.concerns: <Jourdain@xtra.co.nz>

SCHOOL OF MINISTRY REVIEW

We support the development of internship. We have serious questions about the school’s core business (and whether it should attempt some new areas of work ), and whether the proposed outcome will be any less expensive. For any further discussion on this matter, contact Martin Macaulay:  <martinmacaulay@paradise.net.nz>

to receive AFFIRM’s e-mail updates, you need to send us your e-mail address !

“CHURCH WITH A FUTURE”: A NATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR PRESBYTERIAN EVANGELICALS!

A national conference for evangelical Presbyterians (especially ministers and elders) is planned for 3-5 November, 2006, at St. Alban’s, Palmerston North. This will be a great time of fellowship, encouragement, and stimulus. We are certain this gathering will be more enjoyable than General Assembly!

We are putting together a fine array of speakers and workshop leaders, mainly people who have wrestled with growing and leading churches in our various New Zealand contexts. Keynote speakers include Garry Marquand, outgoing Moderator of the PCANZ, on ‘Called to be Mission Churches’ and Brian Winslade, national Baptist leader. Registration form at back of newsletter, or email Steve Jourdain: Jourdain@xtra.co.nz

PLEASE ADVISE CHANGES OF ADDRESS & E-MAIL!!!

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. Please check that your minister and eldership and church people still have access to this newsletter

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

RESPONSE SLIP

post to: PO Box 84-133, Westgate, Auckland 1250  OR e-mail us

My/our name: ____________________________________________________

Address:         ____________________________________________________

q       Please find enclosed my/our contribution of $______

q       Please send a receipt (sent on request only)

q       Please add name to mailing list

q       Please remove name from mailing list

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

 AFFIRM/NAPEC CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FORM

From 7pm Thursday Nov 2nd to 1pm Sunday Nov 5th

post to: St Albans Church, 339 Albert St, Palmerston North

OR e-mail us at: office@stalbans.org.nz

My/our name: ___________________________________________________

Address:        ____________________________________________________

E-mail:           ____________________________________________________

q       Please register me/us

q       I/we would like a billet

q       I/we would like info on local motels

The AFFIRMATIONS, 1993   
 
We affirm ...
 
1          our whole-hearted response to the love and grace of God in Jesus Christ, who is the unique and incarnate Son of God, who is the image of the invisible God, who died for our sake, who rose from the dead, who is forever alive and active, who brings forgiveness, reconciliation, new life, and a new commissioning, to all who put their trust in him;
 
2          our full dependence upon and openness to the work of the Holy Spirit, in all aspects of life and mission;
 
3          our confident acceptance of the essential truths of the historic, apostolic, and trinitarian Christian faith, as revealed in Christ and the scriptures, and as formulated in the historic creeds - we stand against its erosion, and its substitution by relativism, subjectivity, secular humanism, and neo-paganism;
 
4          our full acceptance of the authority of the word of God, contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as the supreme standard of our Presbyterian church, and as our rule of faith and life;
 
5          our insistence on the key insights and achievements of the Reformation, including the centrality of Christ, the necessity for faith and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, the authority of the scriptures over the church, and the priority of the word over the sacraments;
 
6          our continuing respect for the subordinate standards of our church, which are subordinate to the Bible, but which remain helpful guides to the substance of the reformed faith - we stand against their relegation to historical status only, as we affirm the value of being a confessional church;
 
7          our acknowledgement that the scriptures call us to mission in God's world, not just to proclaim personal salvation through faith in Christ, but also to serve others in the love of Christ, to work for social justice, to encourage responsible stewardship of creation, and to build churches that demonstrate that unity in Christ transcends cultural, socio-economic, and gender differences;
 
8          the unity and ministry of all Christians together, whether female or male, ordained or not ordained, and regardless of age, race, culture, or denomination;
 
9          our appreciation of many aspects of the Presbyterian ethos, including the eldership, the call system, the oversight of Presbytery, emphasis on the preaching of the word, and the importance placed upon worship;
 
10         our full commitment to the renewal of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and the ongoing reform of its life and mission in the light of scripture;
 
11         our recognition that no era, culture, denomination or theological stream has a monopoly on the gospel, that every generation must discover, interpret, explore, apply, and express Christian truth in its own way, and in reference to its own context, and that we all have much yet to learn;
 
12         our recognition that, as Christians, we are all subject alike to the authority of God and the word, that we must continually submit our own convictions, attitudes, traditions and practices to careful scrutiny, and that it is our solemn responsibility to study, interpret, and apply the word of God with the utmost integrity, so that we `rightly handle the word of God' (2 Tim.2:15) - we stand against any tendency to interpret the Bible in shallow or inappropriate ways;
 
13         our full support for the balance, sensitivity, and authority of the affirmations of the 1985 and 1991 General Assemblies with regard to sexuality, homosexuality, and church leadership, that `God's intention for sexual relationships, as affirmed by Jesus Christ, is loving, mutual and faithful marriage between a man and a woman, and that intimate sexual expressions outside of that context fall short of God's standard' - but we stand against any implication that homosexual orientation is in itself sinful, or that sexual sin is necessarily worse than other types of sin, or that any sexual sin is beyond the grace, restoration, and forgiveness of God;
 
14         our conviction that those who hold to the historic Christian faith with confidence must now make a much more positive, articulate, and active contribution to the life of the church as a whole - we acknowledge that our primary focus remains the mission of the local church, but we declare ourselves unwilling to retreat into our congregations, and we accept anew our responsibility to work and pray for the mission of the whole church."