At the 220th General Assembly, a conversation relating to “nongeographic” presbyteries took place, generated by a report from the Mid Councils Commission (MCC). The commission, chaired by Rev. Tod Bolsinger, was asked to put forth a proposal that would help our church reorganize its institutional structures so that we could more effectively minister to the post-Christendom society in which we now find ourselves. The recommendations of the commission focused primarily on synods and on allowing a “season of experimentation,” in which “nongeographic” presbyteries would be allowed for a specified amount of time.
During the floor debate, a commissioner said he was approaching this issue from the perspective of a prosecutor. He had recently worked on a case involving sexual misconduct and, in his view, “nongeographic” presbyteries would make it more difficult to respond to such cases. If the commissioners voted for “nongeographic” presbyteries, it was asserted, they would be putting smaller congregations in danger, congregations that lacked the resources to handle such cases of sexual misconduct. In effect, the commissioner was making the claim that voting for the MCC’s recommendations would aid perpetrators of sexual misconduct.
I don’t doubt the sincerity of the commissioner’s concern. However, I hoped that another commissioner would point out that a representative from a “nongeographic” presbytery could be on-site for a case of sexual misconduct within one day, easily, no matter where in the United States the congregation was located.
I also hoped that someone would stand up and point out that, if the speed of travel wasn’t fast enough, and someone needed to be on-site sooner, the closest presbytery office could provide a representative. In fact, a partnership from the two presbyteries could easily be worked out. This was a very fixable problem.
Sadly, no one made these observations. Instead, commissioner after commissioner utilized arguments that actually bore little to no relevance to the recommendations of the MCC.
At one point, an articulate woman took to the microphone and said that she had grown up in a “nongeographic” presbytery. This structure, she asserted, had served her parents’ generation well, but it didn’t serve her generation at all. She then asserted that “nongeographic” presbyteries would only institutionalize division. She was applauded.
In actuality, the closest bodies that we currently have to “nongeographic” presbyteries are not, technically, “nongeographic.” In fact, it’s questionable that any presbytery could be “nongeographic.” Rev. Steve Yamaguchi, the executive presbyter of Los Ranchos Presbytery, wonders if it may be more accurate to refer to the Hanmi Presbyteries and the Dakota Presbytery as “transgeographic” or “suprageographic.” For Hanmi Presbyteries and the Dakota Presbytery, there are still geographic boundaries within their synods.
Also, as Rev. Yamaguchi wrote to me, “What the MCC was talking about, I think, is not exactly ‘NON-geographic’ but is more like ‘Otherly-geographic.’” He raises a good question: Has the designation “nongeographic” become a caricature, one that distracts from what the report actually recommends?
As Rev. In Yang, the executive presbyter of the Hanmi Presbytery of the Southern California and Hawaii Synod, confirmed for me, the Hanmi Presbyteries addressed specific needs that were distinct from what the MCC addressed. “These are really two separate conversations,” Rev. Yang told me. “I know the recommendations of the MCC came from an entirely separate conversation.” Given the unique issues related to each, lumping the conversations together may lead to an oversimplification.
I asked the chairman of the MCC, Tod Bolsinger, how he would respond to the claim that the MCC’s recommendations would institutionalize division. “Our recommendations would have insured that the presbyteries had the authority to give permission — or deny it if they sensed any disingenuousness toward stated missional aims,” Bolsinger replied. “Further, the regional commissions also had to give permission.” It seems difficult to believe that two presbyteries and a regional commission would all allow institutional division.
The concern over the blurring of geographic boundaries of presbyteries is firmly rooted in our history. Back in the 19th century, Presbyterians debated New School theology and Old School theology. The New School exhibited more freedom by utilizing unorthodox expressions of doctrine, while the Old School took offense at such liberties.
Eventually, the New School Presbyterians began drawing overlapping presbyteries that scuttled geographic boundaries. These new presbyteries were drawn based upon theological convictions and were explicitly intended to institutionalize division. And, these new presbyteries helped turn what was a theological disagreement into an existential crisis for Presbyterians.
There are other examples that highlight reasons for concern. Those reasons, however, were addressed by the MCC in its report. Sadly, if we take the debate at the assembly as our primary evidence, one wouldn’t even know anyone had weighed how these concerns were addressed.
The most concerning aspect of this debate wasn’t that the MCC’s recommendations were dismissed. The disturbing piece in all this is that an actual conversation never even took place. As Mid Councils Commissioner John Vest wrote: “I don’t think I ever heard a commissioner talk about the post-Christendom realities we find ourselves in and how our recommendations might or might not address them.”
The Mid Councils Commission served diligently for two years to provide a framework for our church to move forward in our new social context. They began by asking: “How do we move forward structurally to address the new realities around us?” As I sat there in the bleachers, watching the debate unfold, I never once heard this question addressed in a serious, honest way.
An even more fundamental question needs to be asked: How are we to proceed if we can’t have an honest conversation? If we can’t rely on our General Assembly commissioners to actually engage the content of a report that our fellow Presbyterians gave two years to put together, how can we expect to move forward?
In my email exchange with Tod Bolsinger, I was referred to a recent blog post in which he calls for new leadership in the PC(USA). “The church will not change until we get a change in leadership,” Bolsinger writes, “Either we need new leaders who are ready to make the future or the current leaders of every level of the church must find a courage and creativity that has so far eluded them.”
At the end of the day, our church leaders need to stop being afraid of new ideas. Those who read the Mid Councils Commission’s report heralded it as a gift to the church. John Wilkinson, the chair of COGA (Committee on the Office of the General Assembly), said that he loved the report and that COGA wanted to let the ideas “bake,” and did not want to completely throw the report out.
COGA’s recommendation was to refer the report to the 221st General Assembly and to allow for further discussion. Yet, 73 percent of the commissioners chose to ignore the advice of those who had spent the most time on this, and instead decided to outright kill the conversation.
Let me be clear in asserting that I have no special attachment to the MCC’s recommendations. If they will help us reach our neighbors with the message of Jesus’ resurrection, then I am in support. If they will hinder us in this, then I am opposed. The debate of the 220th General Assembly, though, offered no insight into any realistically possible effects of the actual recommendations.
I do have a special attachment to honest and candid debate. That was denied at the 220th General Assembly, at least when it came to the MCC’s report. Presbyterians deserve better than red herrings and hasty generalizations. We have real questions, and we need to have real debate.
JONATHAN SAUR is a candidate for ministry in Los Ranchos Presbytery and a former district representative for U.S. Rep. Lois Capps (Calif.-23).
