Covenant Network, renewal leaders will study Bible By John H. Adams The Presbyterian Layman Volume 33, Number 4 Posted August 4, 2000 LONG BEACH, Calif. – A group of Covenant Network leaders and Presbyterian Coalition and Presbyterian Renewal Network leaders who attended the General Assembly met for a two-hour conversation in the Hyatt Regency on June 27. They agreed to schedule a Bible study retreat later this year that will be open to the press. Members of teams The Covenant Network team consisted of Laird Stuart and Deborah Block, co-moderators of the Network; Jane Spahr, a lesbian evangelist; Mitzi Henderson, co-moderator of More Light Churches; and Pam Byers, executive director of the Network. I don’t think it’s as simple as saying how do we respond to Scripture. How we respond relates to the questions we have and the struggles we have gone through. Mitzi Henderson The members of the Coalition/Renewal Network team were Jerry Andrews, moderator, and Anita Bell, vice moderator of the Coalition; Terry Schlossberg, executive director of Presbyterians Pro-Life; William Giles, executive coordinator of the Coalition; and Parker T. Williamson, executive editor of The Presbyterian Layman. There are a number of dividing lines between the two groups, including G-6.0106b, the constitutional standard that requires church officers to maintain fidelity in their marriages and chastity in singleness. The Covenant Network opposes the standard and says it will try again in 2001 to have it removed. The Coalition/Renewal Network group supports the standard. But neither team indicated any inclination to discuss these matters. Instead, they agreed to focus on Scripture. If the Bible study doesn’t bring the two groups to unity on issues, it should at least underscore their differences about Biblical authority and interpretation. Based on their comments during their meeting June 27, it was obvious that Covenant Network members tend to interpret Scripture according to their own experience and culture. The evangelicals view Scripture as authoritative for life and faith and not subject to interpretation that varies according to personal experience or cultural accommodation. Differences in interpretation During their conversation, participants raised questions about the purpose of their discussions – with no agreement on what they intended to accomplish. They did, however, acknowledge that their different ways of interpreting Scripture were a major issue. Toward the end of the meeting, Williamson suggested a Bible study to gauge “the way we respond to God’s Word. I’m not very interested in our just sharing opinions. But I would be interested in looking at the Word itself and seeing how we respond to that Word … I suggest that we read it together and then share our response.” Eventually, that’s exactly what members of the two teams decided to do – and also to invite the press to their retreat. But some Covenant Network team members expressed hesitancy to accept the proposal. That hesitancy revealed differences in their approach to Scripture. Henderson suggested that Scripture didn’t say the same thing to all people. “I don’t think it’s as simple as saying how do we respond to Scripture,” said Henderson. “How we respond relates to the questions we have and the struggles we have gone through.” Spahr also said experience shapes how you read the Bible and the conclusions you reach. Earlier, Stuart had highlighted some of the differences in how evangelicals and what he called “liberal progressives” look at Scripture. “We are accused of playing loose with Scripture, and I cannot categorically deny that. A lot of our exegesis is very sloppy.” I’m not very interested in our just sharing opinions. But I would be interested in looking at the Word itself and seeing how we respond to that Word … I suggest that we read it together and then share our response. Parker T. Williamson Stuart did say he was willing to participate in a joint Bible study, but he expressed reluctance to have the press invited to cover the study. “It doesn’t have to be secret, but it doesn’t have to be wide open” with reporters attending the study, he said. Henderson also preferred not to invite reporters, saying that it would be hard to be vulnerable to one another in the presence of the press. Private meeting opposed But Schlossberg and Williamson insisted that reporters be invited to sit in on the study. “Privacy would work against the objective of demonstrating to the church” how the two participating groups view Scripture, Schlossberg said. “A lot of folks are watching us right now,” said Williamson. “We are symbols. We are leaders of movements. I think one of the worst things that could happen would be that this be perceived as a private negotiating session among power brokers who would come out with an agreement to go back and work through their organizations for the purpose of impacting the church.” In 1999, a handful of Coalition and Covenant Network leaders met informally and privately. They issued a statement that called for a two-year sabbatical on issues related to G-6.0106b. But Jerry Andrews, who was subsequently elected chair of the Coalition, and William Giles, the Coalition coordinator, made it clear in their comments that the June 27 meeting should not be regarded as a continuation of past discussions. Whereas last year’s meeting occurred behind closed doors, this one included representatives of the Presbyterian News Service, The Presbyterian Outlook and The Presbyterian Layman. And whereas last year’s meeting produced a statement, participants in this year’s conversation said there would be no deals, no joint statements, no specific proposals on what the groups might seek to accomplish jointly.

Respond to this article

Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links