by Kent Winters Hazelton, former president of the Witherspoon Society
[12-16-04]

Last fall, Clif Kirkpatrick and John Detterick invited a small group of people for a few days of conversation about our church. On the invitation list were those who served as moderators of the Presbyterian Coalition, Presbyterians for Renewal, More Light Presbyterians, the Covenant Network and the Witherspoon Society. Earlier this month, we gathered again to renew our conversation.

Without any agenda beyond coming together and with no expectation for a plan or formula to offer the church in its travails, we joined our hearts and minds for worship, Bible study and fellowship. We spent time looking at Jeremiah 29:4-14 and Matthew 5:1-12, passages that were particular favorites of John and Clif, and explored how we read, interpret and apply scripture in our personal and professional lives. It becomes clear that the genesis of our difference around the table begins with the reading of the text. We all hold scripture to be the authority in faith and practice, but we differ on whether it is as the revealed word of God and therefore understood in a near literal fashion, or if it is the historical interpretation of faithful people who sought to understand the mystery of God at work in their lives and to pass that knowledge on to future generations. This division, of course, is not a new discovery. It is hard to say if any new perspectives emerged from our discussions. But we got to know each other better, and that was the objective.

If our church is to live together in our plurality and polarization it will be because we know each other, and while acknowledging our differences, honor one another's journey of faith. This seems to be the model suggested by the Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity; a model to be encouraged in presbyteries, in small clusters of congregations and pastors, and in gatherings throughout the church.

One of the changes between last year's gather and this, is that most of the participants are no longer in leadership roles in their respective organizations. This provided a sense that we were not "representing" the Coalition or the Covenant Network, but rather we were there as Anita, Jin, Gene, Joanna, Keith, Michael, Jerry and Kent. This gave us a freedom to share some of our deepest reflections on these issues without feeling we had to hold a particular point of view. It also offered us the opportunity to share with the larger church our impressions of this gathering.

When the retreat drew to a close, I jumped into a car to the airport with two friends from the evangelical-renewal wing of the church. We continued to talk about some of the dynamics of the church and highlighted some of the different perspectives we held when the driver finally broke in and asked, "What church are you talking about?" We filled him in on the background and he joined in the conversation as well. When we arrived at the airport this self-described new-age, agnostic, Christian (with a minor in Religion in college) said, "That was one of the most enjoyable conversations I have heard in several years driving people around Chicago." He thanked us and wished us well on our travels home.

A hopeful sign for our continuing conversation.