Ecumenism. the STG, and VISION Network

To Vision Network Leaders - especially for the attention of denomination heads and representatives

Dear <name>,

This is the last of the three important issues which I referred to a couple of weeks back.What is the way forward for unity / ecumenism in NZ?As many of you will know, the main ecumenical activity in NZ in the past has been seen as focused around the activity of the NZ member of the World Council of Churches - the NZ National Council of Churches, and more recently the Conference of Churches Aotearoa NZ.

CCANZ ceased operating at the end of 2005.  One of its stated reasons was "members moving to more conservative positions".  According to the analysis of "what went wrong" delivered by Peter Lineham at the 2004 annual meeting, the organisation was hijacked by "radical feminism and liberation theology".Vision Network of New Zealand was established in September 2002 as a gathering point for evangelicals (we are the NZ member of the World Evangelical Alliance).

When we merged the activities of VisionNet into Vision Network in 2004, we carried on most of the services which they had offered to the wider church since 1996.  This was seen as a useful platform to connect with the wider church from our evangelical perspective.

When CCANZ realised it was going to close, they initiated a discussion group which came to be known as a "Strategic Thinking Group", which was asked to explore future options for ecumenism.  Invitations were extended to Bruce Patrick (Vision Network Executive Chairman), and myself.There was considerable discussion before we agreed to be involved, but in the end, we decided that it was better to particpate than not.

The STG has met about a half-dozen times over the last two years.  The results of the group's findings (three options for a way forward) have now been presented to the National Church Leaders group, and are being discussed in various denominational conferences and leadership meetings.

Until the STG's report was presented I have not talked outside the group about my view of the three options.  Now that the group's work is finished however, (apart from collating feedback for the National Church Leaders), it is appropriate for me to offer a comment to Vision Network leaders about which might be the best way forward.The three options are (1) modified status quo, (2) forum model, and (3) networking model.  Information on each of these can be downloaded from http://www.stg.churches.net.nz/ along with a response form.

1. I wrote the explanation on the modified status quo model, and to me, it seems like a pretty good option.  I'm not sure there's enough energy or desire for something new, and any new structure would raise the potential challenge of how to avoid the sort of "narrow agenda" issues which Peter Lineham described above.  Vision Network already networks extensively outside of the evangelical family, and when organising forums (eg on the pandemic issue), Christians from across the full spectrum are invited. As I say in the report, there is also a significant amount of ecumenical activity taking place in a variety of forms, especially at grass roots levels, around the country.

2. If "something new" is preferred, the issue will be control. It seems that a small section of the Church has held a level of influence for some time beyond what its size warranted. This has not necessarily been a bad thing, as evangelicals may not have been as committed to issues such as social justice and human rights as we should have been.  However, it has probably contributed to a confusion over issues of truth in other areas such as sanctity of life and personal responsibilty (to name just a couple), and in my view, it would be good for the church to be united in correcting this imbalance.

3. If "something new" is preferred, then the two options are "forum model" and "network model".  The forum model is slightly more institutional. having been modelled on the Australian Council of Churches model, and involves a loose statement of faith that every Christian denomination should be able to agree with.  The network model, is essentially like a larger version of Vision Network, again with a looser (non-evangelical) statement of faith, and a looser structure than the forum model.

4. If "something new" is preferred, I would favour the network model, as "network[ing]" seems to me more representative of where the NZ church is at than "forum" (institution).  As mentioned though, this does raise issues of "control" and would require more input from denomination leaders than the present situation.

5. It would be good if leaders - especially denominational leaders or representatives - could give feedback on preferred options, or a variation of any of the options, before the end of the year.  The STG will collate responses (probably in February) and report the findings to the National Church Leaders meeting in March 2007.  It will then be for the National Church Leaders to decide what to do with the report.

6. It was indicated at the Sept NCL meeting that the NCL group could send out a letter after the March 2007 meeting inviting churches to participate in whichever seems to be the most preferred option (or variation thereof).

Clearly the "modified status quo" would require no new forms of commitment.  Either of the other two options (or variation) would need to go to each church/denomination's decision making forum, to decide whether, or how, they wanted to participate, or not.