The Presbytery of Baltimore was eager to work with the ICJS in gathering ministers to discuss their Christian understandings of the God of Israel. Getting pastors to commit themselves to a study series is difficult even when the topic is one of the most engaging issues in scriptural exegesis: supersessionism. The habit of thinking of the church as the synagogue's replacement is deeply embedded in the Christian tradition, and to confront this theological pattern is labor intensive. For many clergy, balancing the budget or visiting the sick takes priority over such "vexing," even "haunting" topics. So the Presbytery and the ICJS agreed to set the discussions in a context that addressed the challenges of preaching and teaching.

Thirty clergy signed up for the series. We gathered at Faith Presbyterian Church, and Chris Leighton and Rosann Catalano helped us to recognize the subtle ways in which supersession-ism finds expression in the Christian tradition. The first meeting included a look at the texts of some familiar hymns, and many participants were shocked to learn that many of our favorites exemplify Soulen's overall "problem."

If Christians nevertheless claim to worship the God of Israel while teaching God's indifference toward the people of Israel, they are engaging in a mas-sive theological contradiction. Moreover, they throw the credibility of the Christian confession itself into doubt (Soulen, Christian Theology and the God of Israel, 4).

One pastor left saying he would never again be able to cele-brate Advent using the customary songs and prayers.

A late winter storm reduced the ranks to twenty for the second meeting. Professor Kendall Soulen was present and spent most of the two hours laying out and commenting on his understanding of the development of supersessionism in the Christian tradition. He then proceeded to develop his own constructive proposal to move beyond the impasse.

Our third session was a retreat at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, where we met with some seminary professors and explored how they are responding to Soulen's concerns. The faculty and administration at Union demonstrated a keen inter-est in the challenges of religious pluralism for theological education. Their willingness to work collaboratively with the ICJS and the Baltimore Presbytery suggests possibilities for future educational initiatives. As we unpacked some scriptural readings from the lectionary and considered the distinctive character of the Reformed tradition, we realized that there is plenty for us to do.

Bottom lines: Some of our clergy don't see the problem. Others see the problem so vividly they are forced to reconsider practices of teaching and preaching that once seemed "carved in stone." The resolve to do the hard work and the educational resources to advance new understandings are emerging from the venture. The ICJS is making a difference.