focal identity

I wonder what is happening to the Focal Identity Statement?
I read in the July report from the Council of Assembly that the F.I. task group had decided not to bring a statement to the Assembly because of negative feedback (http://www.presbyterian.org.nz/5033.0.html#c16884) – is this true?
I wonder what the nature of the negative feedback is.
It is not surprising that a relatively orthodox statement will get negative feedback. Some will see it as being too conservative, others will see it as being too liberal. Some will see it as being too brief and not addressing all the points they would like to have addressed, others will see it as being too long and not easily used in a worship context.
I quite like what the group have some up with. I can see why it might wind some people up by what it does and doesn’t address, but we have to have something don’t we?
Surely we need something that we can gather around and say together even if in that gathering around there are other things we would want to say that aren’t included, and even if there are people who would want to express some things differently.
Any statement of identity we come up with in a post-modern context will not speak for all. It cannot begin to speak for all. But it can be a point of gathering. It can say enough of what it means for us to be in communion. It can affirm enough of our basis for life together. It can express enough of our identity even though it cannot express how everyone sees things.
The alternative is The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms – these documents have played a role in the genesis of our Presbyterian identity, but they are historic documents that reflect the season that they were created. They cannot and should not be made to express our story in this season. We need something that expresses our identity in this season in broad and faithful terms. That’s why for the last 20 years we’ve been trying to come up with something that expresses who we are as Presbyterians in Aotearoa.
I would be very disappointed if there is no report and recommendation from the Task Group. While I don’t hold out much hope for a smooth passage for it in our current climate, I believe that the discussion and debate it generates is useful and necessary. It is not right that the Assembly’s business is derailed just because there has been negative feedback. The Assembly asked the group to come back to the church after consultation etc, so they should come back. And if they are having trouble then we should hear what that trouble is and give some thought to why that is and what we can do about it.
And if there cannot be consensus then we need to talk about why that is and be reminded again that the alternative is historic documents that can no longer speak into our life without considerable and pointless modification.
As to how we get the focal identity statement back on the Assembly’s agenda, I haven’t the faintest idea!
Martin Stewart 19-8-08