On Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment: A Comment

On Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment 1ON REBUILDING THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (USA) ESTABLISHMENT: ACOMMENTAndrew Tatusko, M.Div., Th.M.

On Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment 2ON REBUILDING THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (USA) ESTABLISHMENT: ACOMMENT

1

There has been much ado in various circles in the PCUSA regarding an essay by Dr.William (Beau) Weston entitled

Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment

. I wanted to offer acomment on the document also from the perspective of an Elder in the PCUSA, and as one whohas been but a call from ordination as minister of word and sacrament for some time now. What Iwant to do is balance the comment first, with points I think that we should take seriously.Second, I will then challenge what I think are assumptions that are in demand of data andresearch to support. I am not convinced that these are assertions that we can support given thevarious data and published materials in the field of secularization theory which I can assume Dr.Weston is familiar given his post as a professor of sociology at Centre College. I address a set of critical questions that the essay suggests, but does not offer any significant substantiation to bepersuasive in my judgment. My wish is that we can look at both sides critically as not to toss thebaby out with the bath water.Positive Proposals

Expertise and Merit

In general, Weston favors a church establishment where expertise and merit are thepredominate measures of who is fit for leadership rather than characteristics such as gender, race,age, or sexual orientation. From his argument, the latter has been the predominant structure of authority in the PCUSA and has thus mitigated the expertise of those who are most fit to lead.That is to say, just because you are female or of color does not therefore mean that you are fit to

1

Most of the content in this paper has been adapted from various posts onhttp://notes-from-offcenter.com,the author’s personal blog.

On Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment 3lead. Quite true. Quotas for representation should not be seen as immutable political structuresthat ought to remain after a certain time at which the political body deems them to beunnecessary. To put it another way, once those outcomes of equality for which representationalquotas were designed to alleviate are met, those structures should be changed to meet new needs,or disbanded after recognition of a job well done.

Smaller Government

Weston also favors smaller bureaucratic structures that are more conducive to a changedsociety in which mobility is easier, population densities have shifted, and congregationaldemographics have changed over time. It is axiomatic that as political bodies once designed toconnect congregations namely, the presbyteries, grow, the possible relationships betweenchurches, pastors, elders, deacons, and members of different congregations will get weakerunless the bureaucratic structure is made smaller. Smaller presbyteries and the elimination of synods would seem to be in order for the church to be more efficient and cultivate strongerrelationships.A practical question is: How often have congregations held congregational "mixers" withother churches in a presbytery? How often to congregations gather under the same tent toworship or serve God in other ways? With smaller presbyteries such connections are easier toform and the relationships less diffuse. This does result in a clearer power structure andleadership. It is why mega-churches live and die by small group leadership, why universities liveand die by the output of the colleges and departments, and why a national system of educationshould be resisted due to its inherent limitations.There absolutely is a problem with denominational loyalty and studies from Ammerman,Wuthnow, Wills, and others on congregations and denominations argue. This is perhaps a critical