Pre

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

( NAPEC )

PO Box 84-133, Westgate, Waitakere City, Auckland 0657

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, Mark Farmer, John Gullick, Ian Hyslop, Emma Keown, Mark Keown, Martin Macaulay, Colin Marshall, Wilson Orange, Rhys Pearson, Ralph Penno, Alex Robinson, Alistair Smales, Alistair Taylor, Stuart Vogel.

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

Ø If you no longer want these newsletters, please advise us so we can alter our data base

Later in the newsletter there are some other matters, but we are writing to you primarily to alert you to a matter of considerable importance that will come before the General Assembly in October. It is the proposal to replace the existing Subordinate Standards of the Presbyterian Church (The Westminster Confession, Larger Catechism and Shorter Catechism) with a brief “Focal Identity Statement,” now named the “KUPU WHAKAPONO.” It includes explanatory notes entitled the “Commentary.” The proposal was sent to parishes and presbyteries for comment in December 2007

Has your church council/session made a response? If not, we encourage you to do so. The Task Group requires a response by 30 April.

WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED (AND WHAT WE WERE ALL INVITED TO COMMENT ON)

[Note: The proposed Confession below is also accompanied by a 16 page proposed Commentary].

AFFIRM’S EVALUATION OF THE FOCAL IDENTITY STATEMENT (F.I.S.)

At first glance, the Kupu Whakapono/Focal Identity Statement may seem adequate, or even attractive: it flows reasonably smoothly, and refers at least broadly to many key Christian doctrines.

However there are a number of significant omissions of basic biblical and reformed doctrines, e.g.

(a) The sovereignty of God (both generally, and in relation to our individual salvation)

The main problem with the proposed Confession is not what it says, but with how much it leaves out.

Also, although it mentions many key doctrines, it often does so only in broad and ambiguous ways. The overall impression is that the F.I.S. is weak: it is at several points vague, reductionist or timid. In all of these respects it is very different in both tone and content from Scripture, the Apostles’ Creed, or the existing Standards.

The proposed “Commentary” does contain some material that is biblical and helpful.

However: the “Commentary” falls short of Scripture and classical orthodoxy at many points, understates or waters down a number of basic biblical doctrines, and fails to articulate various important doctrines of the Reformed faith such as God’s sovereignty, God’s role in effectually calling individuals to salvation, or any doctrine

of covenant. The “Commentary” is often bland, weak or unclear. It is inadequate on the nature of God, on the seriousness of sin, on the atonement and the cross, and on judgement and eternal life. It omits the supernatural conception of Jesus, his sinlessness, his miracles, or his return in power and glory.

The proposed “Commentary” introduces its own significant eccentricities and obscurities: while understating some very important things, it says too much on some minor things, and at points is tortuous in both expression and content.

The “Commentary” lacks doctrinal robustness, clarity or comprehensiveness. It is 16 pages long, but manages to avoid saying some things that need to be said. As our primary theological statement, it would be defective.

The Westminster Standards resulted from the intensive work of many, over several years. That is one reason why it has lasted over 350 years. But the proposed “Commentary” is the work of just a few and we do not think that in its present form it could ever win wide acceptance, or endure.

Because of all the above factors, the proposed F.I.S. and “Commentary” has significant discontinuity with the existing Subordinate Standards. But, constitutionally, any replacement for the existing (Westminster) Subordinate Standards has to be consistent with those Westminster standards. What is proposed is significantly different in doctrinal content and emphasis, so Assembly (which has a legal responsibility to act in accordance with its own historic constitution) cannot responsibly accept the F.I.S. as a replacement standard.

If it is argued that the PCANZ cannot continue any longer with the Westminster Standards, because of their content, then it is tacitly admitted that the F.I.S. is a significant departure from those standards. But any replacement standard is constitutionally required to be consistent with existing standards.

D. WE THEREFORE RECOMMEND…

(1) We strongly recommend the retention of the historic Westminster Standards.

Despite their shortcomings and occasional oddities, they remain the key confessional documents of the Presbyterian church, and magnificent in their articulation of many crucial biblical and reformed doctrines. The PCANZ cannot responsibly divorce itself from this heritage of faith. For those who object to some aspects of the Westminster standards, the Declaratory Act already allows for liberty of opinion on matters outside the essential doctrines of the reformed faith.

(2) We support the eventual adoption of a good contemporary statement of faith birthed in New Zealand, as an additional subordinate standard.

It would be good in principle for the PCANZ to have a contemporary New Zealand statement of the faith, sitting alongside the historic Westminster documents. We are

not convinced the F.I.S. is yet adequate for that. With some further improvements, the F.I.S. could possibly be made adequate, especially if it made more obviously consistent with the existing standards, and if the “Commentary” were significantly strengthened. Time will tell whether or not it would be widely used both in worship and in teaching. But in any case future generations will be free to add their own confessions of faith, providing they are consistent with the existing standards.

(1) The proposed F.I.S and “Commentary” need to be further modified. (If not, it should be just commended by Assembly to the church’s use).

(2) The Task Group proposal to Assembly needs to be amended so that the F.I.S. (once strengthened) becomes at most an additional contemporary subordinate standard - but not a replacement standard.

There is not enough in this paragraph about the character of God. God is all-powerful all-knowing, eternal and good, and sovereign over all. To strengthen this at least a little, change this line to read: “Creator, Nurturer, and Sovereign over all.”

· It is true, but hardly worth saying: the same is true of anyone ever murdered or killed in war.

· It is not an adequate expression of the biblical and reformed doctrine of the Cross.

· It misses the whole meaning of Christ’s death, with regard both to divine intent and what the Cross achieved. The Scriptures and the existing subordinate standards make it plain that Christ died for our sins, by the will of God, as a sinless sacrifice to atone for our sin. Compare what is proposed with e.g. John 1:29, Mark 10:45, Romans 3: 24-25, Romans 5:8-9, 1 Peter 3:18, 1 Peter 2:24, Hebrews 9:26, John 1:7, Isaiah 53:6. Do the drafters of the F.I.S. have difficulty with the classical Christian understanding of such biblical texts? Compare what is proposed here with Chapters VI and VIII of the Confession. But, as stated as stated in the Act of Modification and in the Task Group’s terms of reference from the 2004 Assembly, the FIS needs to be consistent with Scripture and the Westminster Standards

· We suggest changing “suffered death by human hand” to “he was crucified for our forgiveness”. This specifically relates Jesus’ death to the Cross (the central Christian symbol), and also picks up the aspect of human brutality in Jesus’ death.

This is too vague. Jesus was raised from the dead, and is forever the living Lord.

· This is true, but it is not specific enough. It does not say in what respect we are set free from sin, or how. The Scriptures indicate that in Christ we are set free from the guilt of sin through Christ’s sacrifice. Also, it would better to link this line with the Cross rather than the Resurrection.

· If the intention of this line is to assert that through Christ’s victory in the resurrection the power of sin over us is weakened, then re-state as “setting us free from sin’s power”

· This is not very clear. The Commentary confirms it is intended primarily as a reference to how the Cross and Resurrection initiate the renewal of God’s creation (Romans 8: 18-25). But should not the F.I.S. itself have a clear reference to new birth through the Holy Spirit for those who trust in Christ (John 1:12-13, John 3:1-9)?

· By contrast, the Westminster Confession has several chapters on individual salvation (e.g. XIV, and especially XVIII on “Assurance of Grace and Salvation.”)

· We suggest it be re-stated as: “bringing us new life in Christ, and birthing God’s new creation.”

· The use of the present tense here is reminiscent of the neo-orthodox doctrine that the Scriptures become for us the Word of God when we read them with faith. But that is not what the Scriptures or Westminster Confession teaches: compare this inadequate statement on Scripture with the majestic and comprehensive Chapter I of the Westminster Confession.

· This line could be changed to: “inspired and illuminates the Scriptures.”

· This seems to obscure and confuse the basic New Testament gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ (remember the Reformation catch-cries: “by faith alone,” “in Christ alone,” “by grace alone”).

· We suggest a change to: “We belong to this triune God,

· There is no clear mention of (1) judgement, especially of those who reject Christ. (A brief reference in the Commentary is not sufficient). A reference to judgement should be in the F.I.S. itself, otherwise the statement conveys an impression of universalism, which is not consistent with the teaching of either the Supreme Standard (e.g. Heb. 9:27, Romans 6:23, Matthew 25:41) or the Westminster Standards

· There is no clear mention of (2) eternal life in the presence of Christ. It is implied (last line), but compare that with the teaching of Scripture (e.g. John 3:16, Revelation 21:3-4) or the Westminster Standards.

Apart from asserting the Trinity, the Commentary fails to describe God as revealed in Scripture. If this is to be a subordinate standard, there are many other important things that need to be said, e.g.

(c) that the God we believe in is the one true God (surely we must teach this, in view of our multi-faith world, if we are to be faithful to the Scriptures, the reformed faith, and the existing Subordinate Standards).

(d) that God must be distinguished from nature (it is also necessary to teach this, in view of our pantheistic New Age context in which God is often reduced to an impersonal spiritual principle immanent in nature).

(2) The Commentary has inadequate teaching on SCRIPTURE’S AUTHORITY AS GOD’S REVELATION, AND ON SCRIPTURE’S AUTHORITY OVER THE CHURCH

(a) Unlike the Westminster Confession (which firmly attributes authority in and over the church to as God’s revelation in Christ and the inspired Scriptures), the Commentary seems to place authority in the church itself. This is inconsistent with basic reformed teaching.

(b) Nowhere does the Commentary affirm that the Scriptures are true and trustworthy, and grounded in historical events.

(3) The Commentary has inadequate teaching about CHRIST. It fails to teach e.g.

(a) that Christ was pre-existent, always existing as the eternal Son of God, and sharing in the act of creation

(d) that Jesus’ life and ministry was marked by extraordinary compassion, insight, teaching, healings, miracles, and servanthood

(g) that Jesus arose “bodily.” (This needs to be made clear, as in the Westminster Confession. Was Jesus’ body just an apparition or delusion? We need to recall the disastrous debate of the 1960s, which seriously weakened the Presbyterian Church.)

(a) The Commentary does not adequately explain the origin, nature, and offensiveness of sin, as perverse and ungrateful rebellion against God, or its powerful hold over human beings

(a) With regard to basic reformed formulations relating to salvation (repentance, justification, regeneration, sanctification), the Commentary is very seriously inadequate

(b) The teaching on the Cross pointedly leaves out substitutionary atonement (that Christ died as a sacrifice in our place): but that is a central basic New Testament metaphor for how God saves us through the Cross

(c) There is an avoidance of the basic New Testament and reformed teaching that we are saved by grace through faith (This implies that individual saving faith in Christ is not really necessary. It also leaves the church open to the false teaching of salvation by works, which is directly opposite to the teaching of the reformed faith).

(d) There is an avoidance of the New Testament teaching that those who reject Christ will be separated for ever from God, and there is no mention of hell (Instead, the Confession seems to come close to universalism, which is clearly not the teaching of the New Testament or the Subordinate Standards)

(a) Unlike the New Testament, the Commentary has no mention of heaven, or life after death. What happens to believers after they die? Where did Christ ascend to?

(b) There is no clear teaching that Jesus will return. The commentary needs to say something like: “Our future destiny is through Jesus Christ, whose ministry, death and resurrection are forerunners of his second coming to personally reign and complete his Kingdom on earth. Believers will be bodily raised - or bodily transformed if they are still alive at his coming - to share in this Kingdom.”

It says “The Sacraments are known as converting ordinances…” This exaggerates the place of baptism and communion. It is the Holy Spirit alone who converts us to faith and new life in Christ.

In great contrast to both Scripture and the existing Subordinate Standards, the F.I.S. ignores moral issues of any kind. Is how we live irrelevant? Are there no biblical principles and boundaries that can be stated?

THEREFORE: If the proposed “Commentary” is to be adopted by Assembly, it will need major editing and re-writing, so as to incorporate a true depth of biblical and reformed doctrine, so as to remove unhelpful material, and so as to make the meaning much more clear. The changes required are far too numerous to itemise here. But, for example, we suggest…

In Section 3, the paragraph headed “Setting us free from sin,” add the words “through substitution” after “ransom”. At the end of the paragraph, add the words: “Those who are restored to God through Christ are declared not guilty in the sight of God, and will live in God’s presence for ever. Those who reject Christ remain in their guilt and will be excluded from the presence of God.”

Also in Section 3, the paragraph headed “… he calls us to repentance and faith,” add the sentences: “It is the witness of the New Testament – and of the Reformed faith – that although we must choose Christ, in some mysterious way God has also first chosen us, as an expression of his sovereign grace (e.g. Ephesians 1:4, Romans 8:28-30, 9:15). But that does not diminish our responsibility to respond to his grace (Romans 10:12-17), or to proclaim it to others (Matthew 28:19-20).”

(1) We do not believe the proposed F.I.S and “Commentary” are adequate to replace the existing Subordinate Standards. We find them too weak or vague, at many points.

(2) The proposed F.I.S and “Commentary” would need to be significantly modified, before either would be satisfactory.

F.I.S. becomes not a replacement Subordinate Standard but at most an additional contemporary standard (it could equally be adopted by Assembly not as a Subordinate Standard, but as just a statement for use by churches).

It is very important that parishes send a commissioner to the Assembly (they are entitled to send either a minister or an elder). Please ensure that your parish will be being represented. If you are an elder or minister, you may be able to go. Assembly is in October of this year, at Silverstream near Upper Hutt.

Ø Please also note that we are planning an AFFIRM-NAPEC mini-conference for the afternoon and evening prior to Assembly.

It is crucial that Sessions/Parish Councils vote in the final round of voting, in the time frame permitted. The parish vote now determines who is the next moderator-designate. Voting is by a preferential system, in which parishes rank their preferred candidates from the short-list provided by the Nominating Committee.

This conference was an excellent time of fellowship, encouragement and stimulus, with inspirational speakers and an impressive array of useful workshops. We very much enjoyed the ministry of Paul Windsor (with two lively expositional addresses) and Bob Robinson (on sharing Christ in our multi-faith society). Martin Baker (Assembly Executive Secretary) and Andrew Bell brought greetings and a challenge from the national church, Stuart Lange spoke on the place of Christian renewal movements throughout history, and Ray Coster brought a stirring and encouraging pastoral address which was followed by prayer ministry. Mark and Emma Keown led us in worship at various points, Emma spoke at the Sunday services, and Steve Jourdain (who once again was the key organiser of the conference) kept us all on track. We deeply appreciated the warm hospitality of the local parish at Fairfield (Discovery Christian Centre), where Ruth, Garry and a huge team worked tirelessly to assist and feed the conference. Apart from the mini-conference the day before Assembly, we are planning a National Conference in July 2009 at Palmerston North.

Presbyterian AFFIRM was founded in June 1993. Our basic calling and agenda remains: the spiritual and theological renewal of our denomination

· We have been a consistent witness within the Presbyterian Church in this country for orthodox, evangelical, biblical faith

· We support anything pro-Gospel, & anything growing strong biblical local churches

· We honour the Presbyterian Church’s historic doctrinal standards, and oppose moves to replace them (but we welcome good brief additional statements)

· We encourage evangelical ministers and elders to work through normal channels, and to work for the renewal of the PCANZ at every level

· We believe in classical Presbyterian structure and polity, and have been eager to see the emphasis move from large unsustainable national budgets (a post-war innovation) towards an emphasis on local mission

· We have encouraged regional fellowship clusters of evangelical ministers We have operated on a shoestring budget in dependence on God for sufficient donations

This association was founded by AFFIRM in 2003, as a way of evangelical parishes to nail their colours to the mast and show support for the spiritual and theological renewal of the PCANZ. Joining NAPEC has never meant any loss of parish independence, and never will. We encourage NAPEC parishes to fellowship and work together - on missions, preacher exchanges, renewal weekends, combined camps, sharing of resources, larger parishes helping smaller with youth leadership, and so on. We are encouraged by all those parishes that have already joined. We warmly invite other evangelically-minded parishes to sign up. 88 parishes have now done so. A list of NAPEC parishes is on the website.

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

Ø To keep receiving this newsletter, please advise us of changes! The newsletter can be either e-mailed or snail-mailed, or both. Over to you: just let us know what you want.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] The proposed F.I.S. as currently worded is essentially the one that was distributed with the Working Papers of General Assembly 2006, with two changes to the Confession and corresponding changes to the Commentary.