I just returned from a one-day, somewhat "unofficial" meeting at the Interchurch Center on Riverside Drive in NYC that involved a number of different leaders from across our denomination.  It was the second meeting of its kind, the first one taking place last fall.  It is a gathering of people with very different opinions on things who in one way or another were part of what is now referred to in Presbyterian Church (USA) leadership circles as the "Miracle in Minneapolis."   This phrase describes an agreement that was struck regarding a Middle East Report to the General Assembly meeting in Minneapolis last June that no one believed would breeze through the plenary or could ever gain full acceptance by the denomination as a whole.   And yet, a late-night conversation began at that gathering , of which I was part, where Presbyterian groups with very different opinions and agendas sat down with each other and asked the question:  "How can we move forward with this in spite of our differences?"   The key for all of us, of course, was how each group could come to agreement on an important report in the life of our church while still maintaining its individual identity and right to conscience on particular issues.  The "miracle" in June 2010 is that we did it, and the larger body not only followed our recommendation but celebrated the fact that we were able to transform fractiousness into a common witness for the good of the whole.  It was a win-win for all sides, and none of us felt like anyone else came out better than another.

Following General Assembly, those of us who were part of that conversation began asking the question about whether or not we could continue having this type of conversation among representatives of various groups in the life of our church in order to model something new.  It is no secret to those who pay attention to what is happening in the life our denomination that in the last twenty years we have become more fractious and divided on many different issues.   This is not unlike the behavior we have been witnessing in American society as a whole.  Yet some of us have wondered if and how we can make a conscious effort to model something different in our denominational life.  After all, we are the Church of Jesus Christ and by definition we are supposed to have something better and more valuable to say about life together than what secular society can offer.

These two meetings I have attended in New York have been the direct result of this wondering.  The gathered body includes the present Moderator of the PC(USA), Cynthia Bolbach, and two past G.A. moderators--Susan Andrews and Rick Ufford-Chase.  Along with the moderators, the group also includes the President of Auburn Theological Seminary in NYC and another seminary officer, and representatives from the following groups:  Presbyterians for Middle East Peace, the National Presbyterian Middle East Caucus, the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship, the Presbyterian Consultation on Christian, Jewish and Muslim Relations, and the group of which I am a part, the Israel/Palestine Mission Network.  All groups hold in common the hope for peace in the Middle East, and most specifically in Israel and Palestine.   Our differences have to do with how we should go about expressing that hope in practical ways as a denomination.

The agenda for this most recent meeting, following our initial introductory gathering last fall, was to jump into some of the major points of disagreement between us and see if we could find common ground.   But what we found was that this agenda was a bit premature.   After only one previous meeting together, we began to realize that we had not yet built enough trust with each other to proceed with such debate.  As a result, we pretty much moved the agenda aside and began talking about how to create a strategy enabling us to build greater trust so that we could talk to each other about our concerns in open and direct ways, not only at our scheduled gatherings, but between those occasions as well.  We agreed that even as we acknowledged that we had differences of opinion, we would not inappropriately make conclusions about each other's motives.  We agreed to affirm that we all share the same faith in Jesus Christ and that our greatest desires for peace and justice are our common motivation.   We agreed not to engage in conversations in our own constituent groups in which we would allow negative characterizations of each other to take place.   We agreed that if we heard something about what another group is saying or doing that concerned us that we would not jump to conclusions, or make snap judgments before we contacted each other to ask for clarification.  We basically agreed that we would not allow ourselves to display or exercise our default behaviors towards those with whom we disagree but rather, make honest inquiry and dialogue our first priority.

It took us all morning and afternoon to get to this place because before we could come up with, and then agree upon our principles for engagement and cooperation, we first had to begin by sharing stories with each other about past misunderstandings, and even hurts we have either intentionally or unintentionally caused each other.   These were important conversations because they liberated us from the anxiety we felt about being in each other's presence while wondering who harbored underlying, hidden agenda that was not being expressed.  The process took a lot of emotional energy and we were exhausted by the end of it.   We closed our session together in a communion service, sharing the broken body and shed blood of Christ with each other.  We parted company until March with hugs, some tears, and a new and hopeful resolve to really make something out of this unlikely gathering of opponents.   It is our firm belief that what we are doing can potentially offer a model to our church as a whole, helping us to repent of those ways we have allowed ourselves as the body of Christ to slip further into the abyss of mistrust and judgment towards each other.

This is both an exciting and challenging process in which our group is engaged, and I believe it has implications not only for our larger church, but for who we are in local Presbyterian congregations.  Presbyterians do not (and we never will!) agree with each other in regard to every issue we face in God's world, but by the living Spirit of Christ in our midst, nothing in this world can keep us from modeling behavior that clearly proclaims "that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord," (Romans 8).

Peace,

Jeff