Doctrinal Resourcing Task Group

<typohead type="2">Report

</typohead>

<typohead type="3">1. Introduction </typohead>

1.1 The Task Group on Resourcing Doctrine was established on the basis of the following point of agreement in the Council of Assembly

1.2 Recognising that the Reference Group struggles to meet the expectations of the Church to provide advice to the Church in all dimensions and recognising that the Church no longer has theological professors providing theological leadership to the Church, and given that the Church, in all its dimensions, needs to be resourced with theological expertise, a Task Group be established to recommend to the March meeting of the Council of Assembly structures and processes to ensure that the Church is provided with expert theological advice and leadership. The Task Group is to comprise:

Bruce Hamill (convenor), Ian Pimm, Margaret Anne Low, Judith McKinley, Rachel Judge, with representative nominated by Te Aka Puaho, Pacific Islanders´ Synod, and Council of Asian Congregations if they wish, otherwise they are to be consulted in other ways.

2.1 We contacted Te Aka Puaho, Pacific Islander' Synod, Council of Asian Churches, Mission Resource Team, School of Ministry (via the Principal) and the Co-convenors of Equipping the Leadership informing them of our task and seeking their input on issues we should discuss at our teleconference. In this initial email we also informed them that we would have a more concrete proposal for their consideration after our teleconference and would seek their input at that stage.

2.2 On 23 September at 9.30am the core Task Group (Te Aka Puaho did not seek active involvement at that stage and we did not hear back from Pacific Islanders' Synod or Council of Asian Churches) teleconferenced from 9.30am till 11.15am. The following is a summary of our discussion and of the proposal that emerged over the following months.

<typohead type="3">3. Initial Points </typohead>

3.1 We quickly found that, in keeping with the Council's request for theological leadership, we agreed that careful theological reflection and definition is essential in a reformed and reforming Church, which seeks to understand all its life and action in the light of the Word of God.

3.2 Our general accord with the Council's request was qualified by concern about the Council's suggestion that the current teachers of the School of Ministry do not offer theological leadership or are less able to do so than the previous Hall teachers who were called 'professors'. Whatever the precise nature of the role-change between then and now the Task Group considers that we have theologians at the School of Ministry and theological leadership is inseparable from ministry formation.

3.3 We discussed the notions of 'leadership' and 'resourcing' and agreed that any leadership, which was (or was perceived to be) authoritarian, would be both inappropriate and unsuccessful. Therefore any model of theological resourcing we adopted would need to bear that in mind. There were different attitudes to the use of the notion of 'leadership' in our group. Following the recognition of the importance of disciplined theological reflection we would like to suggest a new model for 'ensuring that the church is provided with expert theological advice and leadership'.

3.4 We did some research into the way theological leadership is provided in other denominations in New Zealand. In particular we looked at the Anglican and Methodist models.

3.5 Methodist

Methodists leave it to a major committee (a standing committee of Council) called "Faith and Order". It is based in Auckland. Its membership is supposed to be both representative as well as including theological expertise. They beaver away at the major issues and produce papers, which 'give a lead' as well as respond to occasional requests. They have a lot of clout in the Methodist church and if they don't give a lead there are questions asked. Their representative character includes representatives of 'liberal' and 'evangelical' styles of theologising as well as ethnicity etc. Because they have such clout they call on people to do jobs for them from throughout the church.

3.6 Anglican

The have a committee that meets regularly (centrally) called the Doctrine Commission. It is representative in that it consists of representatives from each of the regions and tikangas. These representatives are selected with skills and expertise in mind. Their proposals need to go through synods for approval.

3.7 Our committee discussed and was aware of times in the past when a Doctrine Committee has worked well and harmoniously and also times when it has struggled in different ways. In particular we bore in mind (i) the difficulty of finding theological expertise at any one geographical location in New Zealand, (ii) the difficulties that have sometimes occurred due to the degree of diversity of opinion (iii) the high level of expectation that has traditionally been placed on a doctrine committee and uncertainties about the implications of a change to a 'reference group' (iv) the challenge of communicating doctrinal issues in an accessible manner for the whole of the Presbyterian Church.

<typohead type="3">4. A New Model of Theological Resourcing </typohead>

4.1 In the light of the above considerations we would like to propose a new model, which overcomes the limitations of geography, draws on expertise throughout New Zealand and allows those with skills and knowledge to serve the church in their area of passion and understanding.

There are three parts to this model:

(i)    the Register;

(ii)    the Core Group; and

(iii)    the Working Groups.

4.2 The model is based on a large Register of people with theological expertise. On this Register there would be names of people who have expertise and skills and the areas in which their expertise lies. The Council of Assembly would establish a process of selecting and monitoring the membership of the Register. Members would be people within the life of the Presbyterian Church who share the kind of commitment that an elder or minister does to the core convictions of our reformed faith (see footnote below about the leadership issue). This does not exclude the possibility that we might draw on people outside the Presbyterian Church when we might benefit from doing so.

4.3 The second part of the picture is a small Core Group of 2 or 3 (someone suggested more) people who would administer the Register in a transparent manner. We think it is important that processes are in place to ensure that everyone is confident that open and sustained debate is being undertaken and that the Register and its members do not become an isolated group with its own preoccupations. The Core Group will call together temporary theological Working Groups to help the church with key theological issues. They would keep the wider church informed about the membership of the Register, the formation and membership of Working Groups and their timetables and processes. In all of this the Core Group would be accountable to Assembly via Equipping the Leadership Policy Group and the Council of Assembly. Both this Core Group and an active Working Group could call on 'outside' expertise when required.

4.4 Issues to be considered by the Working Groups would normally arise from the Policy Groups and Work Groups through the Council of Assembly (or Assembly itself), Te Aka Puaho and Pacific Islanders' Synod and we would have a process whereby these bodies are responsible for analysing the key theological issues at stake in their work and submit them to Council for prioritising before passing tasks on to the theological Core Group for attention. The Council would be able to specify as clearly as possible the area of theological research to be considered and the type of help required from a Working Group.

4.5 We envisage that once a Working Group had been called together from the Register that they would be able to work initially on the internet and that there would be a web site available both for their private work (with a PIN entry) and for public postings. We also see the importance of opportunities to dialogue and engage in face-to-face debate and would ask Assembly to fund gatherings of these Working Groups occasionally to work through issues. Teleconferences would also be useful at times. We hope that the temporary nature of the Working Groups would encourage people to make a short-term commitment to the Presbyterian Church without being tied to a committee forever.

4.6 We envisage that the administrative Core Group would have some theological expertise and training as well as skills in communication to assist with the editing and publication of the results of the work of the Working Groups. Administrative skills would be valuable. Their role would not be to censor or control but simply to assist the process.

4.7 Consistent with this Model is the idea that the Presbyterian Church plan for occasional theological hui/conferences on a key theological issue in the life of the Presbyterian Church with input from the relevant Working Group.

4.8 The results of the Working Groups would not be the authoritative voice of the Presbyterian Church, however they would provide an important theological resource for the church's work. We recognise that final debate lies with General Assembly and interim leadership responsibility lies with the Council of Assembly

4.9 This model emphasizes the need for quality guidance and help and we do so with an awareness of the suspicion of experts which is widespread in our culture, however, we hope that those who have done some thinking and researching in an area that they are passionate about will be able to communicate better rather than worse. It may be helpful if Working Groups offered simplified summaries of their conclusions as well as the full report, or limited technicalities to footnotes or appendices. We also imagine that Working Groups would often include divergent opinions and the areas of both agreement and disagreement would be communicated.

4.10 We realise that there will be some expenses involved in providing quality theological input for the Presbyterian Church, however we feel that it is worthwhile.

<typohead type="3">5. Timetable </typohead>

5.1 At the conclusion of our teleconference we agreed to consult with the wider group that Council suggested to us and seek their responses by 15th November. We have emailed all the suggested consultees with a draft of our proposal. Beyond this we have also consulted the current Doctrinal Reference Group for their feedback. There has been little feedback from beyond our Task Group, however we have had some discussion since our progress report. As you will see, the content of our recommendation has changed little from the progress report of 3 November.

Footnote

It might be helpful for the Assembly to know that our group debated and differed to some degree on the following issues.

(i)    whether the panel/register is a form of leadership in the Presbyterian Church and if so;

(ii)    whether we need to have standards similar that for leaders (or simply require membership in the Presbyterian Church); and

(iii)    how we might register those standards in the description of the panel.

One suggested solution to these questions is to leave responsibility for monitoring the membership of the panel to Council of Assembly.

Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand

Doctrinal Resourcing Task Group