A Response to “Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment”

by the Rev. Pasquale A. Castellano, D.Min. H.R.
(Dissertation: “The Delinquent Society” SFTS ’75)

Sociology of religions shows the dynamic relationship between spirituality and structures, which are often at odds with each other.  Hence reformation always leads to a new formation in a constant cycle of change.  The changes are greatly influenced by the historical circumstances as much as, or more than, the persons leading the reformation.  The forces of economics, injustice, and emerging value systems determine the power paradigm which develops.

“Rebuilding” as a goal sets up the renewal of Presbyterianism for another movement of reform, which most likely will be antagonistic to the new power base of leaders based upon a select group of status climbers.  Even Max Weber recognized that leadership is not natural but is contextual, i.e., different persons emerge under different circumstances which call forth their peculiar skills and leadership styles.  This not only nullifies a representational bias but also limits the authority of those who are leaders in one context and not necessarily capable in another.  All church experiences are not guaranteed to adequately transfer to larger responsibilities.  Superiority of church service positions is not the only measure of faithful use of skills and accomplishment. Any new formation needs to allow for emerging leadership.

“Rebuilding” does not mention the fact that presbyteries previously had only ministers as voting members.  Stated Clerks along with committee chairpersons and councils had the most influence on the work of the congregations.  The Book of Order grew to such a large size, because it was relied upon to maintain the respect and rights of the majority and minority in governance and mission.  Giving Elders voting membership was also one of the results of the inclusion movement, so chided by Weston.  Both northern and southern branches of the Presbyterian Family had their “old boy” systems, but the southern branch had closer familial ties and held more conservative views of parity and acceptable theology.  The merger of the northern and southern Presbyterians was a celebration of unity, but created a decade of struggles over leadership requirements and styles.  Old habits were very hard to change where money and power were involved.

In the early 60’s seminars on “The Nature of Ministry” were held with ministers and elders attending separate meetings.  The same excellent materials were used.  The official feedback data showed that elders and ministers had very different views and expectations with regard to the authority, competence, and performance of each other.  Both groups held different theological and social values as well. Weston’s rather offensive complaints about inclusive leadership seem to indicate that he experienced the same frustration inherent in these findings.  Recent data gathered by the Research Department of the PCUSA have reflected these same differences.  At the core of them is the age old disagreement over biblical interpretation which has nurtured the liberal conservative divisions.  This does not bid well for the Re-Forming Ministry Program’s finding a consensus for the future form of the Presbyterian Establishment.   Not only will the Elders and Ministers disagree, but also distinguishing between the short steeple and the tall steeple ministers will produce potentially hostile perspectives on competency and authority, i.e. parity and the universality of ordination standards. The “Political capital” envisioned by the Rebuilding is not enough to bridge the gap of trust between all ordained persons in the denomination.  Narrowing the leadership pool will not naturally result in the desired inclusive consciousness Weston claims to be a given.

The demographics of the PCUSA never were meant to reflect that of the larger society.  Overcoming the barriers of racism, sexism, and ageism made it possible for the Church to include a broader spectrum of members and leaders, as a model of progress in understanding the good news of Jesus Christ.  It is possible that the advocacy for change was mistaken as a mandate for structural representation. Nevertheless Presbyterians are committed to acting responsibly in promoting policies of equal access to privileges and authority among all communities, sacred and secular.  Eliminating inclusive requirements will hinder the  “great ends” witness of the Church.

The development of Executive Presbyters has been a mixed blessing.  The movement of mission responsibility to the best local jurisdiction and the effective connection between GA, synods, presbyteries and congregations became an added burden of management for the Executives and committees.  Ironically the effect of having Executives reduced the involvement of competent committee membership and congregational logistic support for their work.  It took presbyteries quite some time to sort out the lines of authority and to deliver the services effectively.  Too much brokerage power and institutional preservation inherent in the Executive position also limits the pastoral role with presbyters and sessions.  Giving Clerks and Executives more authority is not conducive to building trust and expanding the base of mission and ministry.  Does it make sense to increase such dependence in the Rebuilding?

Synods have struggled to find their role in programmatic and representational mission.  Funding has always been an issue and will determine the future of Synods more than their reduced function.  The concurrent desire for smaller, supportive presbyteries proves to be at odds with the Rebuilding structures’ ability to carry out their work.  The large number of vital small congregations challenges the Establishment’s lack of recognition of their leadership role.  Therefore I find it hard to accept that the Rebuilding’s proposed “recognized legitimate leadership” criteria will restore the trust levels needed by the PCUSA to carry out Christ’s “Great  Commission”. 

Responses to 'Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment'

Many people have joined the conversation around "Rebuilding the Presbyterian establishment" by Beau Weston.  We are posting responses here that have been sent to us. You will find them listed below in chronological order with  most recently received at the top.  We have tried to indicate who the authors are in each case.

We have not edited the text of these responses.  Posting them here is an effort to encourage discussion and is not an endorsement of the content of any paper posted here.

If you have written a response to Beau Weston’s paper, Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment, and would like to us to share your response here, please email your response to re-formingministry@pcusa.org.

We also invite you to participate in an ongoing conversation about Weston's analysis and his proposals on our Facebook group.

The Rev. Dr. Paul Hooker has written a brief response to "Rebuilding the Presbyterian establishment." Download "What presbyteries are for — thoughts in response to 'Rebuilding'"