by Neil Heath » Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:22 am
I said I wanted to hear from a friend who led a dialogue group at the conference before drawing any conclusions. She had very positive things to say about her small group experience ...
There were people on different sides of each issue--and more than one issue was dealt with at the conference, even though one has gotten the most discussion here.
There was a diversity of opinion on the issues within the group, but the participants were respectful of each other. There was no attempt to argue for or against a position, just an effort to share where each one was in their own thinking and a willingness to listen and understand without judging.
She also mentioned the very worshipful atmosphere that prevailed throughout the meeting. I suspect setting that sort of tone would go a long way toward defusing tensions and allowing people to feel safe in sharing.
One of the group members said she wished they could have that kind of discussion in her home church and others agreed. She felt it would be very helpful to deal with the various issues in such a positive way, and ask how their church should respond to them. (My own suspicion is that such would be very difficult in most churches without the context of a program that sets a tone where it could happen.)
I have a good friend who wrote liturgies and helped plan worship for the large sessions, though I didn't know that until yesterday. I haven't heard any mention of the fact that there were worship times, not just addresses without a context. He writes very well and is excellent with worship planning, so I'd like to hear more about the worship dimensions of the meeting.
One other observation: since several have commented on a lack of balance among the presenters, we really don't know who was asked but declined to be a part of the meeting. Perhaps there's more than we know to that issue.
From what I've heard from my friend's first-hand experience, I regret not being able to attend on a retiree's budget.
Neil
Neil Heath