"Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment"...have y'all read this???

[Stephen Baldwin]

came across this paper, "Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment", from the Office of Theology & Worship:

http://www.pcusa.org/re-formingministry/papers/rebuilding.pdf

will rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment of the 50's grow our church deep and wide? the author thinks so. i anticipate our community here may disagree. thoughts on the paper?

[Heather W. Reichgott]

The paper argues that the church would be better off scrapping all our equal-representation policies and returning to a more top-down leadership structure in which (a) individual leaders have more power, (b) groups have less power, and (c) most leaders are white and male, with a few women and a few people of color, to match the power balance of secular society. It's the first time I've ever seen anyone actually argue for tokenism.

for example
"Let the Chips Fall Where They May
The old Presbyterian Establishment was composed almost exclusively of traditional, bourgeois, pious, old, straight, white men in positions of power in the world. A restored Presbyterian Establishment would not be exclusively white, and definitely would not be exclusively male. Nonetheless, it is likely that it would be overwhelmingly white, predominantly male, and very largely traditional, bourgeois, pious, old, and straight. It would be based, of necessity, in the positions of power in the church and the world."

I guess, if you wanted a church that was traditional, bourgeois, pious, old, straight, white, and male-dominated, this would be the way to go.

Such a church would probably have a firm foundation in terms of money and respectability. But it doesn't sound like the mission of Jesus Christ to me.

[Barry Ensign-George]

Stephen,

Thanks for calling attention to Beau Weston's paper! I wrote the Foreword to Beau's paper, and work in the Office of Theology & Worship, where I focus on the Re-Forming Ministry program, which published the paper as part of its "Occasional Paper" series (Beau is a participant in Re-Forming Ministry).

Folks who are interested in the paper will be interested to know that there is a discussion group for the paper on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=18244292338.

If you aren't familiar with Beau Weston, you can learn something about who he at his blog, Gruntled Center: http://gruntledcenter.blogspot.com. For those who wonder about his motives in all this, do read something about him, to find out.

Weston has written two fine books on the PCUSA: Presbyterian Pluralism: Competition in a Protestant House (http://www.amazon.com/Presbyterian-Pluralism-Competition-Protestant...) and Leading from the Center: Strengthening the Pillars of the Church (http://www.amazon.com/Leading-Center-Strengthening-Pillars-Church/d...). Presbyterians in America have been a focus of his academic research.

One thing that these sources will clarify is that Prof. Weston has no interest in going back to the 50's. Being a sociologist, he has a deep sense of how groups work, and he is another PCUSA member (like you and me and so many others) who thinks our denomination can work together better. The Facebook group has responses that range from strong disagreement to strong agreement. What I hope is that Weston's paper will contribute to our having good dialogue about how we can be stronger together as a denomination, dialogue in which we learn from the best we have to offer one another. The Facebook group has been able to embody such dialogue so far. Let's think together, learning as much as we can from one another!

Barry Ensign-George

[Leslie Rigoulot]

Wow. I found myself agreeing that visioning is not leading and that it takes too long for decisions to be made. But then I used to be Catholic. Decisions were left to the priest, the bishop, the pope. I left because there was no place for me as a woman to be a part of the decision making process. Now I'm an elder. I'm eager to grow the church deep and wide. Taking a step backward isn't going to help. I had thought there would be some useful suggestions from Weston. But the world he longs for is gone. Brand loyalty is gone. The Good Old Boy network has been invaded by women at every level. Wake up! You can't go back to Kansas, Dorothy.
Interesting to hear his perspective. Maybe a lot of people are wishing for the good old days. But those of us who grew up in that patriarchal, white world aren't going back.

[Stephen Baldwin]

great conversation! it's caused me to re-read the paper for clarification.

i appreciate the author's desire to see the church flourish. that can be a wonderful starting place for our conversation, as most of us want the same. also, i agree that an authoritative establishment is necessary to achieve flourishing. decisions must be made. risks must be taken. organization must be maintained. established leaders can best do this.

but...here's where i'd like to engage the author further...who is best suited to lead? he thinks tall steeple pastors are the logical choice--mostly white, male, and straight. and they are proven leaders in the sense of holding experience defined by years and prestige. but don't we value experience in the sense of wisdom, location, and less prestigious service? for example, i know plenty of PCUSA chaplains, educators, and lay leaders who are not older, white, male, or straight...and they too are established and most capable of leading!

we can agree that a problem exists: leadership must be better established in order to better produce flourishing. but how does that happen? does the system need to change--ie, rid it of representation? or do we keep the system and change our preconceptions about who is fit to lead and what comprises appropriate experience, thereby changing our level of commitment to following our chosen leaders?

[Barry Ensign-George]

Thanks! I think your last paragraph is key.

I've heard Beau talk about the paper with a group that read it. What came clear in the discussion is that in part Beau wants to urge us to be in the business of identifying the leaders among us.

This could be one of the advantages of our Presbyterian system, which so often appears cumbersome: our system requires us to spend time talking with one another in Sessions, Presbyteries, GAs, our ever-present committees/task forces, etc. Spending time talking, even arguing together could give us good opportunity to be discerning one another's strengths, thinking about how we can all benefit from those strengths (that is to say, from those gifts which God has given). But that might require a change of mindset on all our parts - from "why am I stuck here in this boring meeting with people who hold views that I object to (how could they?!) to "what unique strengths does that person have, what is God doing through them, even when they say and do things I object to so strongly"? And let me make it clear that in saying so I am talking about my own struggle not to think the former, and to learn to think the latter. One way to refine Beau's proposal could be to draw this out, make it more clear. Your comment points to an interesting way to think about how we can move forward seeking to be ever more faithful.

I do want to comment on one response to the paper that has shown up in several comments on the paper in various settings beyond this conversation.

I've been interested by responses to what Beau says about "tall-steeple pastors." I have heard lots of anecdotal evidence that there have been many places in our denomination's life in which "tall-steeple pastors" (however you define that) have been the one group excluded from leadership. That surely runs against our best intentions.

I've been surprised by the level of animus which has appeared in responses to this proposal of Beau's. Sure, there are plenty of "tall-steeple" pastors who are bad news. But the same is true of those who serve small congregations, those with calls outside congregations, EPs, Stated Clerks, folks who work for GAC and OGA :) . . . name your group. There are also pastors serving large congregations who are deeply faithful, truly humble, and who have learned valuable lessons about leading larger groups of people. My own service as pastor of two smaller (yoked) congregations in Iowa didn't require me to develop those leading-large-groups-of-people skills. Do I have no leadership skills? Not at all. Do I have all the kinds of leadership skill that we as a denomination need? Not at all.

I think the objection to "tall-steeple" pastors that has been part of the response to Beau's paper has been laced with a vehemence that is problematic. Something is going there that we need to be willing to examine. As pastor of a smaller congregation, there were times when I longed for the kinds of resources and critical mass and programs that I so enjoyed when I was a member of a large congregation. It was sometimes a struggle not to be envious. Am I the only one who has had to struggle against such responses? I think probably not.

Clearly we should not say only "tall-steeple" pastors deserve to be leaders. But neither should we exclude them.

On the Facebook discussion group for this paper there have been a couple of discussion threads on these and related topics - they might be of interest: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=18244292338. Folks have engaged Beau in that setting - might be interesting.

Again, thanks for the conversation. Thanks for your willingness to take the time to read the paper through again and clarify both point of agreement and points of disagreement!

[John Sterner]

This position, while thoughtful and well presented (I agree especially with the comment on Synods) ignores two important things - Scripture and our present culture. Most current thinking bases itself on Ephesians 4 (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors & teachers) and gets away from the top-down corporate structure. John Sterner, CLP, Albion, Mich

[Peggy Owens]

I think we will find that many disagree. Still, the author opens the door for some critical and serious conversation. What type of leadership do we need in the PCUSA? There is a part of me that would like to totally ignore this document, but our Committee on Representation has covenanted to read it together and discern if there is anything we can learn from it.

[Beau Weston]

I thank you all for your responses, pro and con (and con). As Barry Ensign-George has noted, I certainly do not wish to look backward.

One point that I have seen is often missed in the discussion of tall-steeple pastors. If we routinely honored tall-steeple pastors, then the whole stream of those who head to those positions would change. The church is a living organization which, like all organizations, needs leaders. We have interminable struggles now because undermine our whole capacity for accepting leaders. And I think it would be a great mistake to think that people only lead from the perspective of (and in the interest of) their demographic group.

[Rick Olson]

Thanks, Dr. Weston, for a thought-provoking paper.

I question a couple of your key assumptions, however.

First is the supposed dis-establishment of "tall-steeple pastors" Certainly, that is not nation-wide. Admittedly, my sample size is small (three presbyteries), but in all three, tall-steeple pastors hold significant positions of power and certainly wield a lot of "back-room" clout. And, of course, they are overwhelmingly white and male.

Second, I question how "deep and wide" the acceptance of women in leadership roles really is. The pitiful statistics for woman pastors of mid-to-large churches certainly does not bear it out, and it's been half a century after they were first ordained. The glass ceiling is certainly still in place; there has to be something keeping it there.

[Naphtali Moore]

Okay, stupid question time. I haven't read the paper yet, just the comments here. But what's wrong with white male leadership? I'm a Hispanic male, with brown hair, green eyes, who was raised Catholic. My pastor is a white male, with little to no hair, gray eyes, who was raised without religion. You're right he's nothing like me and I would hate for him to 'represent' me. He's my pastor. He should not be representing ME but Christ. As for all the demographics, they're superficial. The Bible tells us we're all in the same demographic. We're all wretched sinners in need of a savior. As Christians we're all part of the same family in the body of Christ. We're all in the same boat, Jew and Greek, slave and master, all equal before the Lord.

Maybe the first question is "Should church government represent its members, either demographically or ideologically; or should church government seek to represent Christ on earth?"

[Sarah Dyck]

Amen, Naphtali! Our job is to represent Christ, not ourselves.

[Shawn R.]

Two days ago, I opened an envelope from Louisville to find a copy of a new occasional paper from the Office of Theology and Worship: William Weston’s Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment. I cringed. Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment? So I began to read, and my fears were confirmed. “It is time to rebuild the church’s Establishment,” he writes. “Decency and order require it.” (p.12)

Weston’s thesis is this: The anti-establishment attitude of the 1960s is what led to the decline of the denomination. Our preoccupation with political correctness (“a straightjacket for the church” p.12) has removed from power the “tall-steeple” pastors who should rightly lead the denomination, and thus contributed to the PC(USA)’s lack of influence and authority in society. The solutions: remove representation rules, “abolish all the current advisory delegate categories”, and reinstate the core of tall-steeple pastors who lead the Presbyterian Establishment. Weight lifting for beginners