For a report on the second meeting of this group, March  9 and 10, check out the Outlook report.  [3-12-01]

 

Liberal and conservative Presbyterians meet to "speak the truth in love"

by Eva G. Stimson, Presbyterian News Service

GLEN ELLYN, Il. -- 12-September-2000 -- The atmosphere was more than a little tense when 10 Presbyterians from opposite ends of the theological spectrum sat down together in a church parlor here on Sept. 8 for the purpose of "speaking the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15) to each other while studying passages from the New Testament book of Ephesians.

As the marathon Bible study drew to a close the next morning, participant Michael Adee admitted, "When I first came into this room, I felt like I could hardly breathe." But in the course of the conversation, he said, "the level of tension went down, and the level of trust began to grow."

Adee, an openly gay elder from Santa Fe, N.M., sat with Bible and commentary in his lap within spitting distance of the Rev. Parker Williamson, executive editor of The Presbyterian Layman, an independent publication known for its strident critiques of liberal theology. Pam Byers, an elder at Old First Presbyterian Church in San Francisco and executive director of the Covenant Network of Presbyterians, a group that supports the ordination of gays and lesbians, shared a sofa with the Rev. Jerry Andrews, a co-moderator of the Presbyterian Coalition, which opposes gay ordination.

With Ephesians as the launching pad, the discussion rocketed toward the crucial issue of biblical authority. The participants acknowledged that their disagreements on sexuality and other issues were rooted in their differing interpretations of the Bible. Before adjourning on Sept. 9, they agreed to meet again early next year for a more in-depth study of what the Reformed tradition teaches about biblical interpretation.

The idea of studying the Bible together emerged in Long Beach, Calif., in June, in a groundbreaking meeting that took place on the fringes of the 2000 General Assembly, when representatives of the Coalition and of the Covenant Network talked frankly about some of their differences and decided to continue the conversation.

Heads nodded around the room in Glen Ellyn as Terry Schlossberg, an elder of National Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C., and executive director of Presbyterians Pro-Life, expressed one of her reasons for participating. "I've spent plenty of time talking about you," she said, addressing those aligned with the Covenant Network. "Now I'm going to talk to you."

The September meeting took place at First Presbyterian Church in Glen Ellyn, a suburb west of Chicago, where Andrews is pastor. Before the group got down to business, Andrews and his wife, Lois, were hosts of a Sept. 7 dinner in their home, the first of five meals together, during which the group talked about families, favorite foods and hobbies, told jokes and compared air-travel horror stories.

Each day's discussion began and ended with a time of prayer. Andrews and the Rev. Deborah Block, a Milwaukee pastor and co-moderator of the Covenant Network, planned the agenda and chose the Bible passages for study (Eph. 2:11-22; 4:1û5:2).

The format of the meeting allowed those present "not only to engage one another's minds, but to see each other as human beings," commented the Rev. Anita Bell, a suburban Philadelphia pastor and co-moderator of the Presbyterian Coalition.

Continuing a policy in operation for the Long Beach meeting, the group invited press coverage by the Presbyterian News Service, The Presbyterian Layman and The Presbyterian Outlook. Because Williamson was a participant, editor John H. Adams covered the meeting for The Presbyterian Layman. Several participants admitted to being uncomfortable in the presence of reporters, and concerned about being quoted out of context. "I don't want anything I say to be taken as a summation of my theology or as the opinion of any organization that I'm a part of," said Mitzi Henderson, an elder of First Presbyterian Church of Palo Alto, Calif., and co-moderator of More Light Presbyterians, a group that advocates for the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the church.

But Schlossberg said the conversation had the potential to help the rest of the church "come to terms with whatever divides us," and therefore needed to be open. "It is important for the church not only to know we're meeting but to know as much as they can about what we say."

While divisions were clearly evident, some surprising points of unity emerged. The group began its study on Friday morning by reading aloud the entire book of Ephesians. After the reading, Williamson commented, "As we read the Scriptures together it's as if there's a bonding occurring through this common language."

In the middle of a discussion on how to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3), Block asked abruptly, "Have we done the church a disservice by forming these groups (the Coalition and the Covenant Network)?"

The Rev. Bill Giles, a retired presbytery and synod executive from Birmingham, Ala., the executive director of the Coalition, responded, "I think it's a sad commentary on the church today that the energy is in these groups and not in the work of the church."

In one intense exchange, Andrews spoke directly to Adee, lamenting the fact that when they met each other they were introduced "as being on opposing teams."

Andrews told Adee, "I'd like to see a way forward where you and I wouldn't start out at cross purposes. I would like to be a companion with you, to be on a journey with you in Christ."

However, the tentative movements toward unity did not coalesce into concrete action, except for the agreement to schedule another meeting. The Rev. Laird Stuart, a San Francisco pastor and a co-moderator of the Covenant Network, floated a proposal that the two groups develop a joint mechanism for "holding the church accountable" when controversies arise. He said he was not proposing "a truth squad," but a group that "would have credibility with both liberals and conservatives," and could represent more than one side of a disagreement.

The proposal sparked mild interest, but no action was taken.

Block drafted a short statement to the church summarizing the content of the Glen Ellyn meeting, and encouraging others to undertake similar endeavors. However, several participants said they thought it was premature and unnecessary for the group to issue a statement, although they had no objection to the contents of Block's.

"If some of our members are not comfortable with the letter," said Byers, "it would be a pity for this to become a point of controversy." Those who had supported sending out the statement did not press the issue.