Thanks Casey. Good thoughts indeed.

Jeff, This is a great response. Thanks very much for posting it. In essence, however, you are proving my point. I agree with you that our polity is not our problem. And while there may very well be a 'gap' between our diagnosis and our prescription, that was NEVER the point that was debated at GA either in the committee or on the floor of presbytery. We WANTED a debate about what would create a missional PCUSA and what would stimulate trust, collaboration and creativity at the most local level of connectionalism (i.e. the Presbytery) Further, our commission would have wholeheartedly agreed with you (and NEXT and The Fellowship) that a solution would not come from Louisville, which is why our prescription was about returning POWER to Presbyteries to do whatever they needed to do to support the mission of the Presbyteries. To be sure, our 'prescription' was NOT non-geographic presbyteries, but about flattening our structure and engaging in an EXPERIMENT (with all kinds of safety valves) in TRUSTING PRESBYTERIES with the POWER to do whatever they needed (yes, including the power to re-orient around non-contiguous boundaries if they thought it was wise to do so) to support missional congregations. My point in mentioning this is NOT that I believe our idea was the only one, or even the best, but that the whole discussion DIDN'T EVEN TAKE PLACE. Indeed, the GA didn't even agree to continue talking about it. (When have presbyterians ever said we should stop talking about stuff...?) So, why we may have disagreed on the MCC report conclusions, I trust that you are indeed one of the tinkerers that give me hope.