You can pick your friends, but you can’t pick your family.

The next big issue from my Committee addressed the concept of Non-Geographic Presbyteries. 

Now, for those of you who need a bit of a refresher course in Presbyterian History (and who doesn’t need a little refreshment in weather like this?), almost as soon as the earliest Presbyterian congregations were formed in the American colonies, they organized themselves in geographical bodies: Presbyteries, and then Synods; General Assembly came a little later, as the most universal expression of American Presbyterianism. All the congregations in a locality were part of a Presbytery; all presbyteries in a region (later a state) were part of a Synod, and everybody was under the authority of the General Assembly, where each Presbytery had both voice and vote. It just made sense; in a world where both distances and hardships were greater, one coveted the support of neighboring congregations.

As the  nation grew, and immigrants began to stream in from the four corners of the world, Presbyterians recognized the difficulties of assimilation; as early as the 19^th century Hungarians were joined together in one presbytery – as safe place for the first generation to worship, and begin the process of becoming American Presbyterians. Such Presbyteries were based, not on geography, but on language, and culture, and ended up being a transitional step in their integration into the life and work of the Presbyterian Church. Of course, the unity of language and culture had a price; often congregations were located too far from one another to enjoy true fellowship. Immigrants still stream into the United States; language and culture differences still pose a barrier to fellowship and representation in the church. We still have non-geographic presbyteries, for the same reasons – and with the same shortcomings.

Of course, the world has changed.  Distance is no longer the barrier it once; through telephone, e-mail, text, Facebook®, Twitter® and Skype,® the question who is my neighbor? has taken on a global dimension. We can be present in many ways with people in every corner of the world; we make connections with sisters and brothers we may never meet face to face. 

The issue at hand was not whether or not the church should take advantage of technology and social media to expand or transform our ministry; the issue was whether to expand our understanding of connection in such a way as to replace proximity with interest; specifically to extend the use of non-geographic presbyteries beyond language and culture, to what was termed particular missional purposes. 

The Mid Council Commission was clear in its report that it did not consider the theological implications of allowing churches to align themselves in novel ways; as a matter of fact, they were enthusiastic about what they saw as an opportunity for experimentation – for imaginative new initiatives, for thinking outside the box, seeking to adjust rapidly to a rapidly changing world. But for me, at least two questions arose:

Where do one turn when a church burns,

or a hurricane blows it away, or a pastor is murdered,

or any of the myriad bad things that can happen in this world

happen to one's congregation?

And

What exactly IS a particular missional purpose?

I happen to think both are serious questions, but it was the second with which many wrestled, both in our committee and in Plenary; like so many other Presbyterian concepts, it was left open for interpretation. From what I gathered, a missional purpose could be a passion for service to the urban homeless; it could be the call to minister to the aging in the community; but it could also be a desire to do as we will, free from the interference of all those stubborn, pigheaded, sinful *insert label here* in my geographic presbytery.

Although a tempting notion, especially when things are tough

and one’s voice seem to be ignored or ridiculed,

in the end, it just isn’t Presbyterian.

In his remarks at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary Luncheon, Dr. Edwin Chr. van Driel, assistant professor of theology, contrasted the church is his native Netherlands with the American church. He recounted the unique experience of arriving here and having to choose, for the first time, where he would worship. In the Netherlands, one’s membership is a geographic parish; when one moves, so does one’s membership – into the local parish to which you have moved. Without entering into a discussion of the merits such an ecclesiastical model, I was struck by this statement by Dr. van Driel:

The church is not a voluntary organization.

We may think it was we who decided which church was right for us; we who decided to become part of the family of God; we who decide to serve; but that is just not so. God called out of darkness into light; God forgave us and commissioned us to follow His Son; God made us into his family; and it is as a family that we must wrestle with even the most painful, divisive subjects, loving the stubborn, pigheaded, sinful people around us, because God loves them just as much as He loves the stubborn, pigheaded, sinful person that IS us.

A note about Friday: The Assembly began it's work at 8:30 a.m. Friday and concluded around 1:30 a.m. Saturday. It's going to to take some time to process all the actions, so look forward to another entry as soon as I am able.