We received this note on Sunday, Dec. 21:

Dear friends, 

I am a retired PCUSA mission co worker, and I have worked in Venezuela, Colombia and Spain in three theological education centers. I am never invited to respond to anything, since I have lived outside of the States for a good time and cannot understand the concept of high steeple churches. Most Presbyterian and Reformed Christians live in small communities with no buildings. Most Reformed Christians are poor in the real world. 

I do not understand the discourse Weston uses, nor do I wish to. I am alarmed about the way we are eliminating the prophetic and cutting edge of our great denomination.

I just pray that we will indeed become a multinational and yea, verily, even a Spanish speaking denomination. It will broaden our wings, open our eyes, and help us to meet the real challenges of our time. English [language] and tall steeples restrain our visionary sense of life.

Greetings to all, from Venezuela.

Rev. Donna Laubach Moros, D.Min. retired, Presbytery of Middle Tennessee
Teacher
Seminario Teologico de la Gran Colombia
Seminario Evangelico Unido de Teologia, España

What are your thoughts about this perspective
(not “outside the box,” maybe, but outside the States)?

On October 31, we posted a short essay raising some critical questions about Prof. Weston’s proposal that the PC(USA) needs to return to the good old days of its supposed power and glory, when a “Presbyterian Establishment” (his term) of older white males, mostly clergy, and many tall-steeple pastors, appeared to manage the denomination so well.

Since then, a large group of professors at Presbyterian seminaries, and others, have issued a similar and much sharper critique.

And most recently, the Rev. Dr. Vic Pentz, pastor of Peachtree Presbyterian Church in Atlanta, sent us a note expressing his lack of interest – even as pastor of the largest congregation in the denomination – in playing the Establishment role.

Dr. Weston has now responded, arguing that Pentz is not saying, as we summarized his note, that he has “more important things to do” – although we thought that being “out in the world with our congregations joining God in the work of the Kingdom" might qualify for most of us as being more important than playing Establishment Leader.

But why don’t you read Weston’s blog (on his delightfully titled “Gruntledcenter” blogspot) for yourself.

The Rev. Vic Pentz, pastor of Peachtree Presbyterian Church in Atlanta, Georgia, has sent this comment on Dr. Beau Weston’s paper urging the creation of “a new Presbyterian Establishment.” We might note that Peachtree is listed as having over 8,500 members, which we assume qualifies as the kind of “tall-steeple” congregation which Weston discusses as a source of the right kind of leadership for the PC(USA). Pentz is saying (in your WebWeaver’s crude summary) he has more important things to do.

Some friends at other large PCUSA churches have recently called my attention to the discussion surrounding Dr. Beau Weston’s paper on rebuilding the Presbyterian establishment. All sides of this discussion seem to assume that while society has changed and the PCUSA has changed since the 1950’s, there remains an unchanging dinosaur known as the Tall Steeple Pastor waiting to swoop in from the wings.

Amidst the busyness of being a pastor, I have little energy to devote to Dr. Weston’s paper. I’m too busy meditating on Michael Frost’s Exiles and trying to forge a relevant missional vision for our congregation, while at the same time struggling to keep our big church big. I’m exhausted.

Moreover, I don’t have time to ponder petitions over who gets to call the shots in the PCUSA. I’ve just recently signed one to protect mental health care in Georgia and another calling upon Israel to halt the settlements in the West Bank.

I am pretty confident that I speak for many other large church pastors in saying that when it comes to deciding whether to commit time and energy to the pressing concerns and sheer joys of ministry, or to fight for the reins of the PCUSA, there is no contest.

Everyone can relax.

We’re out in the world with our congregations joining God in the work of the Kingdom.

Vic Pentz

PCUSA Professors and Theological Educators Respond to “Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment”

[12-10-08]

1) The author does not provide qualitative or quantitative data to support his assertion that increasingly inclusive leadership in the structures of the PCUSA has led to its decline.

While sociological analysis is a respectable and useful resource in reflecting on the institutional, cultural, and historical trajectories of the Church, accepted standards of social scientific research require either statistical or qualitative data as evidence to support an argument. The argument in this paper is based on establishing a correlation between the decline in membership and authority of mainline Presbyterianism over the last fifty years and the rise of new governance structures that include minorities, women, and other people who had largely been excluded from positions of leadership and authority previously in the church. However, Weston does not simply see this as a correlation, rather, his argument is based on establishing that the decline of the PCUSA was actually caused by this shift in governance. Weston asks, “So what has been the net effect of disestablishing the Presbyterian Establishment? Women, racial-ethnic minorities, and youth are indeed included at higher rates in the church structure. But the church structure itself has less and less authority.”

2) The argument to “rebuild the Presbyterian Establishment” is rooted in a model of ecclesiological power and authority rooted in a hierarchical rule that has clearly been rejected by the PCUSA as oppressive and unbiblical.

Weston’s call for a return to what he describes as the “Presbyterian Establishment” based on the leadership of tall-steeple pastors and more traditional patriarchal forms of Presbyterian policy is more than simple nostalgia. His proposal is based on a highly sacramental ecclesiology emphasizing a heightened clerical authority at odds with the basic tenets of Reformed theology. The Confession of 1967 implies that all believers have equal voice in the leadership and discernment of the day-to-day decision making practices of the church. The church is not simply a social or political “establishment” but the redemptive body of Christ. “Tall-steeple” pastors are not simply the church’s “natural leaders” as Weston claims, but co-laborers in God’s work based on a theology of community, shared governance, and mutual discernment. As indicated in Galatians 3: 26, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus,” the church is not simply an “Establishment,” but the redeemed ecclesia (gathering) of God’s children, bearing witness to God’s realm on earth. The Church, therefore, is a Eucharistic community called to celebrate God’s reign in the world, where “there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female” (Gal. 3:28).

3) The proposal for “rebuilding the Presbyterian establishment” fails to respond to the needs of the church in the 21^st century.

Any reflection on the nature and mission of the Church, particularly concerning the future of the Presbyterian Church (USA), must begin with a critical and faithful discernment of God’s call for the church in the present age. The Confession of 1967 also makes abundantly clear that “God’s reconciling work in Jesus Christ and the mission of reconciliation to which he has called his church are the heart of the gospel in any age.” It is this ministry of reconciliation that guides and directs the church’s programs, policies, polity, and overall structure. The challenge for the PCUSA in the 21^st century is to figure out how to further the work of reconciliation in a world with different social realities and challenges than the world of the 20^th century. Reverting to forms of leadership and control that dominated the last century may be far from ideal in helping us address the new problems and realities of our present world.

4) The proposal that “tall-steeple” pastors, who Weston claims are the “natural leaders of the church,” should provide the primary leadership of the denomination will reestablish a denomination led almost exclusively by white, male pastors.

Weston is quite aware of the effects of his proposal, stating, “it is likely that [a restored Presbyterian Establishment] would be overwhelmingly white, predominantly male, and very largely traditional, bourgeois, pious, old, and straight.” His vision of effective leadership is a very particular model that emphasizes centralized authority and control. This is particularly evident in his criticism of leadership models that encourage including racial/ethnic, women’s, and youth representatives in determining the vision and future of the church (presumably at any level) as “failed” leadership. From a sociological perspective, this argument ignores the real social and economic differences that impact the lives and perspectives of believers who are not white, male bourgeois, old and straight. Theologically it denies the shared Reformation theological principle of the priesthood of all believers in a covenant community in which all are involved in working together to live into the realm of God on earth.

5) The claim that we no longer need structures of inclusivity fails to recognize the deeply pernicious nature of structures of racism and sexism in our culture and our church and contradict the Book of Order.

Weston’s claim that “[p]ermanent advocacy committees for women’s concerns and racial-ethnic concerns institutionalize mistrust of the denomination’s authority structures” demonstrates a misunderstanding of the role and function of advocacy work. Scripture and the Church’s teachings attest to the sinfulness of human nature, corrupting its institutions, systems, and even ideas. Therefore, structures must be put in place to “approximate” the justice of God in human institutions, as Reinhold Niebuhr would say. Many of the institutional structures that Weston criticizes (e.g. Committees on Representation, Advocacy Committees, ministry programs that focus on ministry with racial-ethnic communities and women) have been put in place precisely as a response to the human sins of racism and sexism that continue to be manifest in our society and in our church, despite Weston’s assertions to the contrary. Advocating for the perspectives and inclusion of persons who are marginalized by structures of racism and sexism is a positive example of the church’s commitment to justice and inclusivity and goes a long way toward Weston’s goal of promoting “leadership chosen for its ability to help us work together effectively”. Furthermore, the Book of Order clearly recognizes diversity and inclusiveness as fundamental to the unity of the church (G-4.0403) and ensures access to leadership and representation (G-9.0104). God in Christ, who directs and sustains the life of the Church through the presence of the Holy Spirit, establishes the meaning of justice for the church and the world and challenges any complacency with traditional group privileges.

Concluding remarks

As educators, we promote the free discussion of ideas as a meaningful and important contribution to processes of deliberative discourse and shared governance. Weston and others certainly have the right to the opinions expressed in this document. However, we are interested in promoting an informed and Reformed discussion about the issues at hand. We recognize that the challenges of the 21^st century church in the United States may very well require a renewed conversation about the role of institutions and structures in living out God’s reconciliation in our world. However, we believe a more nuanced historical, theological, and cultural analysis is required to adequately think through the challenges before the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in this new century. With that in mind, we call upon leaders, friends, colleagues, and lay-persons to engage in a meaningful and informed dialogue on the future of the church. Indeed, there is a critical need for ongoing reflection and discernment in casting a faithful vision for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) guided by the inclusive, all encompassing, call of the Realm of God on earth.

Rev. Dr. Gloria Albrecht, University of Detroit Mercy (ret.)
Rev. Dr. Jennifer Ayres, McCormick Theological Seminary
Dr. Elizabeth M. Bounds, Candler School of Theology, Emory University
Rev. Dr. Walter Brueggemann, Columbia Theological Seminary (ret.)
Rev. Dr. Gay L. Byron, Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School
Rev. Dr. John J. Carey, Agnes Scott College (ret.)
Rev. Dr. Claudio Carvalhaes, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
Dr. Gonzalo Castillo-Cárdenas, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Rev. Dr. Jill Crainshaw, Wake Forest University School of Divinity School
Dr. Daniel G. Deffenbaugh, Hastings College
Rev. Dr. Mark Douglas, Columbia Theological Seminary
Rev. Dr. Marvin M. Ellison, Bangor Theological Seminary
Rev. Jane E. Fahey, Columbia Theological Seminary
Dr. Mary McClintock Fulkerson, Duke Divinity School
Rev. Dr. Martha Schull Gilliss, Bellarmine University
Dr. Heidi Hadsell, Hartford Seminary
Rev. Dr. Johnny Hill, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
Rev. Dr. Elizabeth Hinson-Hasty, Bellarmine University
Rev. Dr. Kendra G. Hotz, Rhodes College
Dr. Dale A. Johnson, Vanderbilt Divinity School (ret.)
Rev. Dr. E. Elizabeth Johnson, Columbia Theological Seminary
Rev. Cliff Kirkpatrick, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
Rev. Dr. Edward LeRoy Long, Drew University (ret.)
Rev. Dr. John McClure, Vanderbilt Divinity School
Dr. Belle Miller McMaster, Candler School of Theology, Emory University (ret.)
Rev. Dr. Margaret Aymer Oget, The Interdenominational Theological Center
Dr. Douglas Ottati, Davidson College
Rev. Dr. Rebecca Todd Peters, Elon University
Rev. Dr. Ronald Peters, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Dr. Carol Robb, San Francisco Theological Seminary
Rev. Dr. Jill Schaeffer, New York Theological Seminary
Dr. Bob Stivers, Pacific Lutheran University (ret.)
Dr. Laura Stivers, Pfeiffer University
Dr. Ron Stone, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (ret.)
Rev. Dr. Mark Taylor, Princeton Theological Seminary
Dr. Eugene TeSelle, Vanderbilt Divinity School (ret.)

Early in 2008 a paper was published by the PC(USA)’s Office of Theology and Worship, arguing that the key to restoring the Presbyterian Church to its old glory lies in giving the reins of control back to “the Presbyterian Establishment,” which means the tall-steeple pastors and mature, successful elders (mostly male, white, straight, and otherwise decent and orderly).  The author, Dr. William “Beau” Weston, professor of sociology at Presbyterian-related Centre College in Danville, Kentucky, speaks out of his own discipline of sociology and his years of participation in and study of the Presbyterian Church.

We encourage you to download the paper, which is at http://www.pcusa.org/re-formingministry/papers/rebuilding.pdf .

The paper has attracted a good deal of interest and has aroused discussion, some of it quite critical.  We offer some comments of our own, and welcome comments from others as well. 

The first essay here is by Doug King, Communications Coordinator for the Witherspoon Society.  The second comes from the Rev. Ann Hayman, who is a minister member of Pacific Presbytery.

If you have thoughts to contribute,
just send a note,
to be shared here! 

Click here for comments received.

Church must reflect changing world, moderators told

Wealthy, white, English-speaking church must diversify, says Tony Aja

by Toya Richards Hill
Special to Presbyterian News Service

[12-5-08]

LOUISVILLE — Against the backdrop of a highly diverse, multicultural society, it’s critical that Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) leaders for the 21st Century be adaptive and willing to build a “church that reflects creation in all of its colorful glory.”

That was the message brought by the Rev. Tony Aja, interim pastor at Louisville’s Bardstown Road Presbyterian Church, during opening worship for the 2008 Moderators’ Conference held here Nov. 21-23.

The gathering brought together synod and presbytery moderators and vice-moderators from throughout the denomination for a time of learning and growing. In addition to Aja’s sermon, worship also included selections from the PC(USA)’s Unity Choir.

“The pool of folks who historically have helped build this denomination is becoming smaller, being substituted by people with different languages and accents and skin colors, empty wallets and even other lifestyles,” Aja told those gathered. “They also want to worship God.”

“We need to prepare the way for people of all nations and walks of life to join us in the building of the church and in the worship of our God,” he said.

Aja, who preached from Ezra 4: 1-4 and Revelation 7: 9-10; 15-17, talked about the idea of rebuilding the church and being open to others presumably from the outside who also wish to join in that endeavor.

“Friends, in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) we have been challenged to grow our churches. We are called of God to build or rebuild our congregations,” he said. “We are called to demonstrate to the world the Shalom community described in Revelation, when people from all the nations and walks of life come together to give praises to God.”

Yet the PC(USA) remains roughly 94 percent white, English-speaking and relatively wealthy, Aja said.

“On the other hand, the country is becoming more and more diverse with peoples from non-white, non-English speaking countries flocking to our shores,” he said. “Also, the very fabric of our society, including the traditional concepts of family and gender, is also changing.”

Aja contended that church leaders “must adapt to the changes in our society and culture.” He also called on seminaries to teach other languages such as Spanish and Korean, and to include the liberation theologies coming from Latin America, Asia and Africa in their curriculums.

“By studying and understanding the issues in our pluralistic society and by developing relationships we can begin to see the face of Jesus in others,” Aja preached.

“God’s church is the church of the refugee and immigrant, the poor and the welfare mother or father, the teenager gang member … the old man or woman on a fixed income, the gay couple down the street,” he said. “And they all want to help us build the church of Jesus Christ.” 

by Doug King, Witherspoon Communications Coordinator

[10-31-08; revised 11-4-08]]

Early in 2008 a paper was published by the PC(USA)’s Office of Theology and Worship, arguing that the key to restoring the Presbyterian Church to its old glory lies in giving the reins of control back to “the Presbyterian Establishment,” which means the tall-steeple pastors and mature, successful elders (mostly male, white, straight, and otherwise decent and orderly).

[I encourage you to download the paper, which is at
http://www.pcusa.org/re-formingministry/papers/rebuilding.pdf .]

Weston was invited to do this essay (Weston calls it a “challenge”) by the Rev. Dr. Joe Small, director of the Office of Theology and Worship, and his paper was published by that office as an “occasional paper” under the Reforming Ministry Project. Weston was then invited to take part in a recent meeting of the PC(USA) General Assembly Council. He has also met with the Committee on Representation, defending his views

We have heard expressions of concern from many people about this paper, and want to offer here a few reflections about Weston’s proposals for the Presbyterian Church.

First I’d like to consider the paper as an effort to calm the passengers on a ship in a stormy sea, by ignoring the reality of sea and storm. Second, I will raise three critical questions about the paper’s argument. And finally, I want to consider in a little more depth Weston’s main point that our church’s commitment to “representation” and the affirmation of inclusion and identity are the major source of our “decline.” And finally, I will acknowledge my appreciation for a couple valuable insights that Weston offers us.

A church floating above the culture?

Weston’s paper seems to reflect a common conviction – or better, a lament – among many Presbyterians that their church has lost members over the past few decades, and even more lamentably, has lost its “authority” over its members and in the wider society. But we must recognize that is not unique to the Presbyterian Church.

The concern is legitimate, but my question is about the paper’s assertion that the reasons for these losses are to be found within the church itself. That might be defensible if the Presbyterian Church were the only religious institution to be experiencing these woes, but this is clearly not the case. Declining membership is a reality for all the main-line denominations, and now is also occurring in many of the more conservative denominations such as the Southern Baptist Church. The “established” churches have lost much of their influence in social and political affairs, even as conservative religious groups have gained political clout. Those trends seem to be changing, though, in our current political adventures. As liberal churches are finding their voices, conservatives seem to be losing some of their power within the Republican Party.

There does seem to be a certain irony in the writing of a sociologist who seems to discount the social and culture context of the church, while focusing on the internal dynamics of the institution.

I would suggest that when Weston invites the PC(USA) to return to the “Presbyterian Establishment,” he is really asking us to leave the culture of the 21^st century and return to the Presbyterian “golden age” of the 1950s. My own studies in social science have focused on anthropology rather than sociology, so I am inclined to take cultural change very seriously. That implies that social structures (such as the leadership elite that Weston yearns for) cannot function without cultural attitudes and values that will support them. And many of the values of 50 years ago are no longer strong. Just watching the current presidential campaign, we’re seeing that the old authorities are being supplanted. The New York Times may endorse Barack Obama; Fox Network may strive mightily to convince us that John McCain alone can save us. But who cares? Younger people, for whom blogs and YouTube are major sources of information and opinion, will not decide their votes on what they get from the Times or even Fox.

(It’s interesting, by the way, to see that Dr. Weston himself makes extensive use of blogging, and that the Office of Theology and Worship has created a blog for the discussion of his paper. These highly unstructured and participative media of communication are making the old structures of authority increasingly irrelevant – or at least greatly limiting their power.)

So right now it seems a bit quixotic to hope that through a great restoration of the Presbyterian Establishment (primarily older, white, straight males, the clergy among them being tall-steeple pastors) we will regain a proper respect for the authoritative orthodoxy of the church. To expect that a social pattern of fifty or a hundred years ago can be revived in a very different cultural setting assumes that social structures can exist and function independently of cultural values and world-views. It is painful for some to see old structures fade away, but the vitality of the Presbyterian Church will not be renewed by a “back to the past” approach.

Some questions

 1. Where’s the evidence?

Weston draws a picture of the “Establishment” without ever presenting evidence of its existence, its power, or its superiority. That may all be set forth in his earlier writing, but it’s not here – we’re apparently just supposed to recognize the validity of the picture he draws for us of the Presbyterian Church.

I suspect a case could be made for the existence of such an Establishment, though, at least around the middle of the 20th century. (I was a young twerp then, and saw it – but only from below. And I respected it, pretty much, though I didn’t recognize it for the power structure that Weston portrays.

But is there any evidence to show that the power and leadership systems of 50 years ago could function effectively today?

 2. Is it Biblical?

Let’s look a little farther back, since the 1950s are presumably not normative for Christian life and mission. Is the Establishment a biblical idea? Is it a basic part of our understanding of the Church through the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament? Certainly in ancient Israel there was an established religious leadership – the priests, and later the rabbis/teachers. But there was also a very vital anti-establishment – the prophets and the poets – who were often fierce critics of the kings and the priests.

And in Jesus we see a religious figure who was profoundly “anti-establishment.” He challenged the Pharisees, who constituted the primary religious establishment of his day. He challenged the Roman authorities, who were obviously the political establishment. Between them, he was condemned to death. So much for the Establishment.

This is not to say that the polity of the PC(USA) must be based on the social and leadership structures of the ancient Hebrews, or even of the New Testament church. But the prophetic and Gospel critiques of the “Establishment” must certainly give us pause when invited to a new “Establishment” (even a Presbyterian one!) today.

 3. A question of numbers: How about the YADs?

One of Weston’s specific suggestions is that we get rid of all those Youth Advisory Delegates in our General Assemblies. I don’t agree with that, for reasons I’ll get to shortly. But first there’s simply a question of accuracy in numbers. Weston begins his attack on the YAD system by claiming that they “make up a third of the commissioners” in General Assemblies.

According to the statistics from the 2008 Assembly, there were 752 commissioners, and 173 YADs (one per presbytery). There were also 15 Ecumenical Advisory Delegates from partner churches around the world, 15 Theological Student Advisory Delegates, eight Missionary Advisory Delegates and 78 corresponding members from various church agencies. (So there were a total of 211 advisory delegates, and 78 corresponding members – the latter being the kinds of experienced people that might qualify for Weston’s “Establishment.”) Thus the YADs make up about 23% of the number of commissioners. Not a third. Not even a quarter.

Representation and identity

It is important to deal with Weston’s central criticism of the efforts that have been made over the past half century to achieve some kind of equitable “representation” of various groups – racial, ethnic, gender, and age – in the many decision-making bodies of the church. He acknowledges that all these efforts for “gender and ethnic inclusion” may have been needed at one time, to correct the exclusions created by centuries of racial and gender discrimination. But that need has passed, claims Weston. “It is time to remove another passing generation’s excesses from the church constitution. It is time to rebuild the church’s Establishment. Decency and order require it.”

Weston has not made clear why including various groups hitherto excluded from the full life of the church is a source of indecency and disorder. Be that as it may, he asserts that the church has lost more than it has gained by these efforts, and it is time to roll back the clock and let the “old boys’ networks” take the reins again.

We need this change, he argues, because we have focused too much on concerns for “identity” based on race or gender or ethnicity or age (and perhaps most offensive to Weston, sexual orientation). He concludes this point with an interesting claim: “It may be sociologically unrealistic to completely ignore age, race, and, especially, sex. But ultimately those aspects of identity are overcome in Christ.” Well, yes. But let’s look at that more carefully.

Paul did write that “[t]here is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28) Their unity in Christ, he says, outweighs their differences. But he never claims that the differences are erased. He never suggests the Gentiles are now Jews, or vice versa. Males and females remain different, and for him that means different roles both in marriage and in the church. Slaves remain slaves, even though they are now respected in a radically new way.

Jew and Greek, Catholic and Presbyterian, black and white, young and old, female and male, gay and straight – those things still matter profoundly to each of us. And what Paul finally shows us (and my experience confirms it) is that who we are (as black or white, old or young, and all rest) is not overcome, but transformed and fulfilled and affirmed and liberated in Christ. Christ sets us free to be ourselves, not from being ourselves.

So God’s gift of prophetic vision, for instance, will not be limited to a particular gender or age group. Luke declares in Acts (2:17), quoting the prophet Joel (2:28) that God promises “I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.”

The differences that separate us matter, but they are no longer absolute, and they are no longer a matter of ranking – male over female, old over young, free over slave. The differences are no longer absolutes, but they are realities. And our respect for one another is never limited by those differences.

Theological representation

Weston also urges that we do away with concerns for “theological representation” along with all the other categories. He believes that today “liberals dominate the bureaucracy and governing body staffs of the church,” and therefore we should try to assure that “some strong and well-regarded conservatives” are included in “all church bodies.” So that representation is, for him, appropriate, as long as it is not built into the structures, not made into a set of quotas. (It is not clear to me, from some years of experience on a presbytery nominating committee, that we operate under rigid quotas in many bodies anyway.)

It's worth noting here that many presbyteries in fact do intentionally include conservatives among their elected commissioners, even though many of their congregations give little to support the work of the denomination, even as they support those who seem intent on leaving the denomination.

Establishment moderators

About the church’s need for real “Establishment” leadership, he calls again for “the natural leaders of the church: tall-steeple pastors” to be placed in the most important leadership roles, including moderators of the General Assembly. It would be interesting to do a little study of GA moderators over the past few decades, to evaluate the relative effectiveness of the tall-steeple guys that fit Weston’s picture, in comparison with all the others: elders, women, seminary professors and presidents, not-so-tall-steeple pastors, and all the rest. My own general sense of the moderators over the past twenty years or so does not convince me of Weston’s case.

In short, this essay, if I read it rightly, is urging the Presbyterian Church (USA) to return to what some perceive as the glory days of the mid-twentieth century, when men were men and in charge, women knew their servant role, and other folks (like people of color, and kids, and certainly queers) knew their place and stayed in it – happily, the men liked to think.

So how can this help us?

Beau Weston has done us all a service in bringing to our attention a set of issues that we may have thought were more or less settled, even if the inclusive church we yearn for is still far from a full reality.

Further, his discussion of a “Presbyterian Establishment” does help me make some sense of my limited experiences of the Presbyterian Church in the southeastern U.S. – the descendants of the old “Southern Church,” where the patterns of strong leadership (lay and clergy) are still very much alive. As one friend wrote of Weston’s essay:

It put into words much of what I feel is the very conservative aspect of [my progressive Southern congregation]. After skimming the first part of the article, my reaction is that this is a prescription for the death of the PC(USA). What's in it for the Millennial Generation? Unless they were raised as part of the Establishment, there's not much. I don't think they really think this way. The dis-establishment of the church is not a bad thing, in my opinion. In fact, it allows for more voices, more openness, more creativity, and more faithfulness to the gospel.

Our PC(USA) certainly needs to seek more effective patterns of leadership in a changing culture, but turning back the clock will not be the answer. One Witherspoon Board member, on reading the essay, simply asked, “Last gasp of patriarchy?”

Surely undoing our modest progress toward a more inclusive church would be a betrayal of what Jesus calls us to be in and for the world. But if Weston’s essay can goad our church into dealing with our realities, even as we follow our calling to justice and hospitality, he will have done us a great service.

If you have thoughts to contribute,
just send a note,
to be shared here! 

Click here for comments received.

We have invited comments on Beau Weston's proposal for "rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment," and the two critiques above.

Here's the first one to come in, sent on Saturday, Oct. 31, 2008.

Thanks, Doug, for calling attention to this, for your thoughtful engagement, and for Ann Hayman's response. While I appreciate your charity, I'm with Ann. Dr. Weston's kernel reminds me of Jeff Sharlet's book The Family: everything depends on "cultivating" the "right" leaders. I'm sure Dr. Weston would not sympathize with the Family, but my goodness, place our future in the hands of tall steeple types?? I've known some of them, and what it seems to take to reach such places. As a measure of leadership, I'll stick with authenticity all day long.

Grace and peace,

David Oliver-Holder
Bayfield, Wisconsin

~~~~~~~~~~~