A question that is bothering many Christians in the local Anglican Church is the role of the diocese and the direction of the church in the run-up to the changeover in sovereignty in 1997.

To their frustration, the guidance they seek is missing - instead of responding quickly to the need for leadership during this momentous time, the leaders in the diocese are seen by some church members as deliberately avoiding the subject of 1997 - in public at least.

It is no exaggeration to say that the controversies about whether the bishop of the diocese, the Right Reverend Peter Kwong Kong-kit, should have accepted China's appointment as a member of the now-defunct Basic Law Drafting Committee and as a Hong Kong Affairs Adviser are probably the most visible issues people can relate to the local Anglican Church over the question of 1997.

Others might also recall that in 1984, three months before the Sino-British Joint Declaration was initialled, Bishop Kwong made an impressive speech offering guidance on how Christians should face the challenge of the changeover.

Appealing to them to remain in Hong Kong and contribute to the society amid the growing brain drain, he said: 'Hong Kong has survived turmoils . . . to become one of the world's economic centres . . . this also gives us a reason why we should not be worried about the future . . . our diocese is part of Hong Kong.

'We have the responsibility to help it achieve a good foundation . . . to maintain the prosperity of Hong Kong.' Gone now is the speech and gone are the days when the Christian leaders publicly faced up to the question of 1997.

Of course, there is the argument that the church should not get involved in politics but Bishop Kwong has made it clear that such an approach does not mean the church should see itself as apolitical.

In a speech delivered in 1987, he said: 'If we see something that is really right, like equality or lack of human rights, we can speak up.' But the complaint of many active church members is that the diocese has not spoken up on social injustice, let alone political sensitive issues such as the provisional legislature or the nationality status of Hong Kong residents.

In all fairness, Bishop Kwong and his top aides in the Anglican Church should not be solely tasked with shouldering the burden of leading Christians to face up to the sovereignty change. Leaders of other Christian denominations have an equal responsibility.

BUT with the unique status enjoyed by the Anglican Church in Hong Kong, expectations are high that its leaders can be more visible and do more in instilling Christian faith in the future.

Criticisms currently levelled against the church leadership should not be seen as personal attacks against Bishop Kwong. Many of those who voiced their dissatisfaction are just reflecting their hope that the church will do more for the community in this historic time - it is a positive step to urge the church leaders to take a more active role in serving and helping the community to steer it through the storms ahead.

It is only because the parishioners and the clergy care that they bother to voice their concerns. Surely, people do not intend that their bishop should be immune from the anxieties and fears bothering many of his parishioners.

Those appealing to the church to do more probably feel it is only human to expect the bishop to share his parishioners' sentiments.

To them, it is most important that they have faith that the bishop, their spiritual leader, is with them and guiding them.

As Mr Cheng pointed out, 1997 should not be seen as a deadline or as a threat to the church.

Mr Cheng's view, that 1997 should provide an opportunity for growth, to strengthen the diocese's work and bring more people back to the Christian community, is shared by many who also want to see active and urgent steps taken by the diocese.