NGPs and NGCGs

Posted by: lifework in Untagged  on Print PDF

Maryland is thinking about letting gays and lesbians get married.

As you can imagine, some folks are for it and some are against it. Some fear there may be a mass exodus, with those favoring gay marriage flocking to D.C., where it is legal, and the rest of the state flocking to Virginia, where heterosexual monogamy is officially ensconced forevermore.

What do we do to accommodate the people so upset? So Maryland is thinking about something bold and new. We are thinking about the non-geographic county governments (NGCGs). Or… well… maybe not really a government that governs, but one that people can get in and either have married gay or lesbian neighbors or not. But there are some other values at play as well. County choice is based on “Missional affinity.” The idea goes that each neighborhood would get to pick its own non-geographic county to be in. I’m not sure if we would go for the one with more lax fence regulations (I really want a bigger fence across the back yard so I don’t see the high school football field lights), or a county where my taxes would be lower. Many of us are thinking about a non-geographical county where taxes are just thought of as suggestions, “moral obligations” (hint, hint), without any possibility that a county could actually impose a tax on anybody.

We really don’t want a county at all, but if we must be in one we want one that doesn’t cost us or require any sort of compliance from us and that lets us do anything we want. My neighborhood still wants garbage pick-up, police protection and fire houses, but this non-geographic approach may plop us in with another neighborhood 50 or 60 miles from here. Our fire truck may have to drive past five other fire stations to come put out a fire in our neighborhood. Water and sewer services are a little more problematic to sort out, but we know that geography doesn’t matter. Missional affinity matters. And that can be anything we say it is.

So this bold new concept, do you think it will work? Obviously if you have reservations, you must be against progress and change. You must not care that the whole of Maryland will soon be emptied out into D.C. and Virginia!

Then we wondered, what if we keep the counties geographic so the basic services of fire, police and garbage are covered? Those don’t really differ whether you are gay-OK or not. Water and sewer can flow equally among the just and the unjust, the right and the left, the self-proclaimed orthodox (as if everyone else isn’t) and progressive (as if everyone else is regressive). After all, different people can go anywhere they want and get together around whatever “affinities” motivate them. Different groups can self-organize and self-fund whatever mission they desire together. Shoot, they can even drive across state lines. Shucks, they can even have international mission relationships! But they still come to the geographic county to get the fence permit, police services, fire services and garbage pick-up. It’s permission-giving, efficient and effective. The pain is that I give up my aspirations for a 20-foot fence. So… I pull the blinds for football games.

So now the PCUSA is thinking about non-geographic presbyteries again (NGPs). This isn’t new. We’ve rejected the idea for good reason several times already. I fear the popular use of the term “missional affinity” has more to do with the opportunity for each congregation to do what is right in its own eyes. There is, after all, only one mission: God’s mission of reconciliation and salvation. Our singular affinity had better be to that and only that. Our longstanding covenanted identity has been that we best do that connectionally across our differing discernments. A presbytery’s part in God’s mission is to provide the minimum necessary oversight so that the congregation’s active solidarity with the mission of God can be discerned and expressed in creative and diverse ways. The presbytery’s task is not to enforce some narrow, homogeneous “missional affinity,” yet this very homogeneity seems to be the motivation for the proposed non-geographic approach. Instead the presbytery appropriately provides effective, efficient, basic services (water, sewer, fire, police, garbage pick-up) so that abundant life via reconciliation and salvation can be experienced in its congregations. A water and sewer system will be needed regardless. Why do we want to reroute all that when we can pursue mission passions already within and even across county lines? I do not see the necessity of reorganization when the same objectives can better be pursued with existing structures.

 

G. Wilson Gunn Jr. is general presbyter of the National Capital Presbytery.


Your Responses (6)add comment

G. Wilson Gunn, Jr. said:

Rockville, MD
Well I see responses from those who don't care for my position but no presentation whatsoever of what benefit NGPs would provide. Our Presbytery does work at being efficient, effective, and fair in its dedication to participating with God to strengthen and transform our congregations to be missional, pastoral and prophetic. And, by the way, we do require fidelity and chastity in our Presbytery. The Presbytery is an institution which provides essential services for the church which has been built over many, many years. To imagine (as we did with the 1983 reunion) that these institutions can be torn down and rebuilt in three days is naive. I watched that rebuilding take tens years in Orange/Catawba to New Hope transition and again from the Fincastle/Catawba to Peaks transition. I do not see the anticipated benefit of NGPs outweighing the pain, loss, chaos, inefficiency, temporary ineffectiveness, and theological compromise entailed.
February 14, 2012

Donald Wehmeyer said:

Austin, Tx
In reply to Rev. Gunn, the fact that the Reformed Church does not have a set liturgy (canon) should be a clue that we understand the freedom of the Spirit to be present in each local community of faith. When a Reformed theologian speaks of the freedom of the Spirit he or she does not mean "do right in one's own eyes" but free from the bonds of sin to follow our Lord Jesus. This following of the Lord will not be lock step legalism nor will it be open rebellion to clear teachings of the Word. Many Reformed churches around the world have been successful with non-geographic boundaries as have the religious orders dating back to the Patristic era. There is no need to mock those who are proposing to do something historically proven and theologically responsible even if one disagrees.
February 10, 2012

Shawn Coons said:

Clermont, FL
I was originally extremely opposed to NGPs, especially based solely on politics and theology, but as I grow more frustrated with the current bureaucracy of most Presbyteries and national structures I am warming up to the idea.

I would love to be at a church that could share a Presbytery with other churches of any theology who would like a simpler, leaner Presbytery that performs its basic and required functions without the inherited and accumulated bulk of too many unnecessary committees all competing for announcement and report space at Presbytery meetings.
February 10, 2012

p.w. gregory said:

lambertville, nj
Having lived and served in Mr. Gunn's presbytery for 3 years, I find his remarks consistant with his views and leave it at that. Though I find it most interesting that those who are so quick to de-construct every other traditional structure in church and society are so quick to hold-on to, or advocate for the old structures of the church, lacking logic or reason, as a child about to loose their security blanket.

In this season of discontent with in the PCUSA, there are good and valid arguements to be made for the continuation of the current system, many for radical change. The comparison of Presbytery to municipal services is not one of them. I can a very compelling arguement apart from any theological, ideological ax to grind, that the current administrative system of the PCUSA is not cost-effective, bloated in management, nor an efficient or effective deliverer of goods and services across the churches which it claims to serve. That the price of keeping the system in place from a simple dollar and cents perspective is far too high and far too cumbersom for the church to afford to maintain. That individual churches and people will find more and better vehicles and means to express their vision and missions. With or without permisson of their theological masters.

And again even in the public sector if public schools fail their students, parents even in inner core urban areas have options, charters, religious based, cyber. If public services fail to delivers core or essencial services one moves to where they do.

Though Mr. Gunn does bring a very good point, in that "missional" as a term is in essence a useless word. It really is one of those made-up words whose meaning is never fixed and is used by people without really thinking what it means, nor providing an adequate explanation. The ECO/Fellowship folks really need to flesh that out.
February 10, 2012

Joshua Miles said:

Louisville, Ky
I find Mr. Gunn's very premis to be wrong. If presbyteries are only there to give congregations permission to do something then our floundering system will continue. We can no longer seek to just maintain or survive. It is time for bold steps that seek to encourage our whole church to risk boldly for what is understood to be the kingdom. If non-geographic presbyteries encourage creative ministry development then let's try it. If it fails then let's try something else instead of just issuing permits like the DMV because that is all we have ever done.
February 10, 2012

Walter L. Taylor said:

Oak Island, North Carolina
I find Mr. Gunn's remarks downright offensive and obnoxious. I fear for the folks in his presbytery who do not embrace his liberal theology and social policy. I also find it ironic that someone who is an advocate for the PC(USA)'s rejection of fidlity and chastity would dare to allude to the statement in Joshua and Judges, about "everyone did what was right in his own eyes" given the lack of sexual standards for church officers as well as a lack of any real "essentials of the Reformed faith" in the PC(USA). Odd, is it not, that folks like Mr. Gunn can be so pluralistic when it come to church doctrine, and yet so literal (dare I say fundamentalist) when it comes to church polity!
February 10, 2012

Write a Response
smaller | bigger

security image
Write the displayed characters


busy