In mid-February, our group of ten pastors gathered in Montreat, N.C., from six different states, representing churches that ranged from less than 100 members to more than 7,000, and from a wide range of theological perspectives. And yet, we gathered under the common banner of searching for authentic dialogue and maybe even unity in a denomination where polarization and stalemate seem to dominate the landscape. We came with a common commitment to talk, but also to listen with the understanding that – if there is hope for the future of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) – it lies in our standing together rather than separately.
From the beginning, it was apparent that we made a wise decision to invite pastors who knew one another from seminary. Intense and constructive dialogue over three brief days was certainly helped by the fact that we were already friends and acquaintances on a personal level. There was a wonderful spirit of cooperation as we realized that “dialogue” was something most of us had talked about, but never fully practiced. Because of our previous relationships we were able to address the issues that divide us, have confidence to confront one another when we needed to confront, and listen to one another when we needed to listen.
The leaders for the weekend had met with members of the Task Force on Peace, Purity, and Unity, and our weekend was structured using their suggestions. We had agreed months before our meeting to the discussion of four primary fields: ecclesiology, biblical authority, public vs. private morality, and Christology. Two pastors, one from each “side of the aisle,” paired up. All four pairs were charged with researching their respective issue, forming a discussion and teaching time for the group, and then leading that discussion for the group. Each session thus had new leadership who had researched the topic and represented different perspectives on the places of major division in the denomination. The two founders of the group, Pendleton Peery and Thomas Daniel, did not lead a discussion, but were charged with the overall direction of the weekend.
Our first conversation centered on ecclesiology. It quickly became apparent that the two sides of the church were not as far apart as we supposed. We affirmed together a lot about the nature of church in the Reformed tradition, and it was inspiring to see all that we shared in our views on the basic understanding of what it means to be the Body of Christ. One of the only differences had to do with the evangelicals worrying that the liberals held the denomination as an idol. It was clear that the evangelicals were committed to working for the Peace, Purity, and Unity of the PC(USA) but were not willing to compromise their understanding of the basic nature of the Body of Christ simply to maintain the façade of denominational unity. The liberals were open to this discussion and offered insights by communicating why the fabric of the denomination was so important to their understanding of ecclesiology. The church, we surmised, is at once a human institution and the vessel for proclaiming the saving message of the gospel. It is also a place that necessarily holds a diversity of opinions about the truth that this gospel holds.
The most anticipated topic of the gathering, and the one that caused the most controversy was biblical authority. It is an important backdrop to so many of our disagreements, most obviously ordination of homosexuals, and the differences among us were quite pronounced. As a group, however, we came to see that we were addressing the wrong problem. Our differences were not over the authority of the Bible, but rather over how it is interpreted. The liberals have not thrown the Bible away, as is commonly asserted by evangelicals, but rather take seriously the clear biblical witness of faith breaking down barriers rather than building them up. The evangelicals, on the other hand, talked openly about the painful nature of their position— especially when they are branded as homophobic—but conveyed their view that whenever homosexuality is mentioned in Scriptures it is consistently described as sin. This biblical understanding is more important to them than any personal feelings or friendships. Through this discussion – and the worship that accompanied it – each side realized that the other was attempting to be faithful to the word of God. This experience proved to build trust and also a realization that neither side has sole claim to truth.
Our discussion of the ordination of homosexuals was set within the context of our discussion of public vs. private morality. It was a discussion centered on ethical behavior, and how we prioritize our actions both as a community (public) and our actions as individuals (private).
The Christology discussion surprised us because there was unanimous consent that the church must declare without hesitation that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. We agreed that if the church fails in this task, it has failed in its most basic function as the Body of Christ, and therefore has ceased to be an effective witness in the world. We also unanimously affirmed that while we believe this to be true, God is the judge of all humanity and we are not. God’s ways and judgments might surprise our limited human understanding and we all must trust in God’s judgment of creation and not our own.
At the beginning of our time together one of us posed the question: Can we find identity as believers in something other than ‘an issue.’ Reflecting on our experience, the answer is unequivocally “yes.” We discovered genuine common ground through our discussions. We came away wanting to continue to listen and learn from one another, to continue to hear how God is acting in one another’s contexts.
We also realized that we share similar fears. Each side fears losing what it is that makes us distinctive, whether in the way we worship or the substance of the gospel message. Each side fears that we are compromising, giving in to the culture around us, whether in our interpretation of Scripture or in our quest for growth. Each side fears that we are sliding down the slippery slope that will lead us away from what it means to be church.
And yet each side also realized that we need the other. We understand that no group has a cornerstone on God’s truth and if we live in a denomination where everyone stands in the same theological corner, we will miss out on the fullness of God. We need one another, and our differences, in order to keep us sharp to the limited way that each of us sees and understands the nature of God.
There were no dramatic conversions, no declarations where any pastor switched their vote from one side of an issue to another, except in this affirmation: we understand God in Jesus Christ more fully when we have opportunities to engage others with whom we disagree. We hope to keep discovering who Jesus is calling us to be as we meet together in the same denomination – and we intend to keep learning, and growing in faith by God’s grace. We will meet again next year (February 2006 in Atlanta) and continue our dialogue. We encourage you to do the same.
Thomas Daniel, Associate Pastor for Young Adult Ministries
North Avenue Church
Atlanta, Ga.
MaryAnn McKibben Dana, Associate Pastor
Burke Church
Burke, Va.
Louis Imsande, Associate Pastor for Youth
Roswell Church
Roswell, Ga.
Jeff Kackley, Pastor
First Church
Pulaski, Va.
Joseph G. Moore, Associate Pastor
First Church
Martinsville, Va.
Pendleton B. Peery. Associate Pastor for Youth and Mission
Second Church
Richmond, Va.
Benjamin Seller, Pastor
First Church
Dumas, Texas
Lyndsay Slocum, Student Ministry Staff
Peachtree Church
Atlanta, Ga.
Todd Sutton, Pastor
Lakeview Church
St. Petersburg, Fla.
Christopher S. Tuttle, Pastor
Faith Church
Greensboro, N.C.
Send your comment on this report to The Outlook
Please include your full name, hometown and state.
