Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment....and deviled eggs too!

For those not in the know, there's a pretty hot-button essay entitled "Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment" that's been floating around for awhile.  I think it's been around for a good bit, but it has re-gained some momentum of late as Mr. Moderator himself (Bruce Reyes-Chow), made it the focus of his most recent online townhall/vidcast.

I'll freely admit that I've not watched the townhall yet, but I did read the essay yesterday, and there's no question that it is worthy of discussion.  BUT!  I managed to get myself ill yesterday (some nasty Peruvian gut bug or some other such intestinal nonsense), so I punted to Jared, Bill, and Stacy.  Jared responded first, so he gets the honor of a blog-post-by-proxy:

---

I took time to read it.

It made my heckles stand up immediately.

I think he has some valid points.  Affirmative action against oppressed classes has its place - as he talks about...but it's easy for affirmative action to work counter to the actual goals...I buy all that.  I also buy that women, African Americans, and other previously harmed classes are no longer harmed by the prevalent worldview, and that we should consider not mandating equal representation.

I am offended that he would insist that those affirmative actions were positive things, while failing to extend the same affirmative actions towards the LGBT community - a community that clearly has a treasure trove of capable leaders, but which is excluded from sharing those gifts with the church.

My sense of the way the Holy Spirit often works through youth is offended by the fact that he would remove all forms of "institutional listening" from young people.  I understand his concern with giving them vote - but refusal to give them voice is simply idiotic ("Your old men will see visions, and your young men will dream dreams.")

His notion of "Leading from the Center" is in fact not a centrist position - but a position that would simply work to maintain the status quo - whatever that status quo is.  It is explicitly anti-continual-reformation.

If our goal is to build an institution that will persist, he may be on to something...this kind of establishment rule is precisely the way that GM, Ford, and Chrysler have managed to hang on well past their usefulness.  But, last I checked, institutional preservation was not the aim of the gospel.  He needs to first convince me that a persisting "establishment" institution is necessary for making the world more like God wants it to be.  Then, he needs to convince me that the reformations he's talking about are less costly (in terms of time, talents, money, and effort) than just starting over (and he makes no claims that his reformations would be easy.)

This essay and approach to church institutionalism would appeal greatly to those who are mourning the loss of main line Christianity's "moral authority" over society, to those whose primary concerns are the preservation of property and pension, and those who are primarily concerned with preserving over-the-top "tall steeple" budgets that allow for congregations to live in luxury.

Rather than clinging to that which we no longer are (the moral, social, and institutional compass of a nation), we should be about the work of the gospel.  It is fine to mourn the loss of that status.  It is fine to grieve the loss of the grand institution the Presbyterian Church once was.  It is good to celebrate God's faithfulness to us through that institution in the past.  But it is not good to be hung up on how things were at the expense of neglecting how they should be.

Rob Bell points out that "There's a certain amount of despair that sets in when we believe that things were better "back then," when we're stuck back there, when we're not fully present.  When we're still holding on to how things were, our arms are not free to embrace today."

Letting go of how things were is hard to do, especially when God has been so faithful to us in the past - I know this from experience, I've been having to deal with that in alot of places this year.

Celebrating the ways that God has been faithful to us in the past is important work.
Mourning the loss of things that are no more is important work.
Grieving the bad places we sometimes find ourselves in is important work.

But all of that is important so that we can embrace the things that God puts in our laps today - not so that we can return to the truths of yesterday.
----

Jog on over to Facebook and join in the coversation over there too: 

Facebook:  Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment

And for what it's worth, am I the only one who finds a discussion of this nature (that being a return to the old-guard establishment), centered around blogs, Facebooks, and vidcasts to be....ironic....don't ya think?

Comments

[Bruce Reyes-Chow]

Thanks for the post and raising some questions. And while I certainly disagree with Beau on a great many points, I think it would be helpful to watch the modcast and hear him out. That is the least we can do. He does clarify some things, reinforce others etc. Take care - Bruce

[Bill]

Y'all beat me to this conversation. Oh, well. Let me begin here: I listened to the Modcast before I read the article. Now that I've read it, I'm going to go back and listen again.

But, here is my initial reaction: NO! This is in response to one foundational point and one conclusive point.

First, it is inappropriate to compare the move towards inclusiveness in the sixties to the anti-papal theology included in Westminster. Apples and oranges. While Beau says of the Gender Representation Mandates, "we may take some satisfaction in a good change well accomplished"(13), can we say the same of calling someone an anti-Christ for the sake of "remind[ing] us of our deeply Protestant understanding of God's representatives on earth"(12)? One excess led to more inclusion, one to deep division and further excess of orthodoxy (people died, drowned, hanged, burned, and/or stabbed). These are not the same. And therefore should not be shown in parallel.

Secondly, being a pastor of a tall-steeple church is not a sign of natural leadership. It is more a sign of charisma. (Bruce, forgive me; I know a discussion of this is in the Modcast, and I'll be dealing with it again after my second listen.) Even so, many of our denomination's natural leaders (and many unnatural ones, too) have chosen small church ministry, new church developments, legal work, social work, computer programming, and many other fields to respond to Christ's call to ministry. If I am good at glad-handing and fund-raising, should I be considered a more apt voice for the denomination than if I have struggled alongside churches in changing neighborhoods or with new calls to serve specific populations? No, not as far as I'm concerned.

Ok, now to listen again to the Modcast (and continue to enjoy the neologism, or rather, the Wikipedian 'portmanteau').

[Matt Kinard]

I'm sure I'll have more to say at some point, but I think I should start out by saying that I probably find more agreement with Weston than do any of you who are probably reading this (just a wild guess).

That said, I want to relay a part of a conversation Jared and I had via IM this morning....

I was responding to Jared's honest statement

"But, last I checked, institutional preservation was not the aim of the gospel. He needs to first convince me that a persisting "establishment" institution is necessary for making the world more like God wants it to be. "

My response was that first and foremost, I don't need to be convinced, that my life as it is right now is a witness to the importance of the institution; and because of that, preservation of the institution is something I care deeply about.

I ran through a litany of people, places, events, and opportunities that have profoundly shaped my life, my understanding of the Gospel, and my willingness to try and live my life as a part of that larger story.

I think of Places like Austin College and MO-Ranch, people like my wife and my grandparents, events like Triennium and my Ordination. All of these things are singular to a degree, and I'm willing to cede that many would be important without the "institutional church".

But...

What makes these things really rise to the top, what makes them so crucial in my development as an Elder in the PCUSA and as a disciple is their connections; connections largely facilitated to a great extent by the "institutional church".

Now, as to the rest of the paper and the Modcast....that'll be for later.

[Jared]

This is intended to be a pseudo-snarky aside...not a serious remark... (for those that don't know me - I grew up in the Methodist church, and still hold memories of that time and place quite fondly.)

...but Matt, you should be a Methodist. Wesley himself referred to the Methodist Church as "the connexion".

This is from the UMC webpage on church structure:

"United Methodists often joke about the many organizational layers of church life, but, as members of other denominations have been heard to say: “If you want something done, get the Methodists to do it.” Followers of the Wesleys are indeed “methodical” about the ways they approach mission and ministry.

One reason United Methodists are able to accomplish great things is the church’s emphasis on “connectionalism.” It is common to hear United Methodist leaders speak of the denomination as “the connection.” This concept has been central to Methodism from its beginning."

Just think, you'd even get Bishops (with a capital B,) and an occasional chasuble :P

[Matt Kinard]

Jared, I prefer debtors....

Oh, and for those who couldn't figure it out, the "Deviled Eggs" thing is all about some of my earliest church-life memories.

I spent my childhood years in First Presbyterian Hillsboro, and once a month there was a post-worship potluck called 'Lunch With Bob Moon' (Bob was the pastor).

While I couldn't tell you much else about the lunches, I always recall there being a strategic shortage of deviled eggs. I loved the little buggers (and still do), and so I recall always trying to elbow my little self to the front of the line to snag one of the pale lovelies, and none of the old folks ever complained. I'm not sure if that means anything...but I like the story.

[Bill]

Honestly, Matt, after knowing you for about ten years now, I still believe you think you're more centrist than you are. You think of examples from your experience, and believe that they stand for other centrist ideas.

Just this afternoon, you and I were IM-ing about the large-steeple pastor as moderator, and you wrote, "I would say Blair [Money, from Preston Hollow Pres,] is a decidedly 'tall steeple pastor', and exactly the kind of leader that our church needs in high places". I don't disagree with you there, but Blair must decide where the Spirit is calling him to serve, as everyone should. It is not his status as "tall steeple pastor" that qualifies him for leadership in the denomination, but his gifts for ministry. That should be the defining characteristic of a denominational leader: possessing gifts for ministry to the denomination. Not: pastoring a large, wealthy congregation. (I'm not attacking PHPC here, this is from Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment, where Beau refers to "senior pastors of larger, wealthier congregations" as "best-prepared church executives" (18).)

[Matt Kinard]

(1) Monie not Money. That's funny.

(2) Bill says: "It is not his status as "tall steeple pastor" that qualifies him for leadership in the denomination, but his gifts for ministry.".

Matt says: Well...duh...I think some clarification of Weston's basic theses relative to the "TSP" issue is in order:

Thesis 1: TSP are the best, natural leaders of our denomination due to their (already proven) ability to navigate a reasonably tricky, political career ladder.

Thesis 2: TSP have been, of late, disqualified from said leadership of late due to an increased focus on ensuring demographic representation.

Now, as for Thesis 2, this can be simply proven or disproven by looking at who has held the positions in the past. I've looked, and to tell you the truth, I don't know who most of the folks are...I'm inclined to trust Weston on that one.

Now Thesis 1 is far trickier. A natural, and reasonable, response is that there isn't necessarily correlation between career success as a TSP and one's ability to lead. That said, I don't think Weston's assumption is unreasonable. Leadership at the denominational level is a necessarily political, tricky thing, and I'm inclined to think that someone who has already experienced some degree of that as a TSP would likely be well prepared for that aspect of the leadership postition.

I'm not trying to argue that Weston has it all right. His positions are full of flaws, but I am willing to consider that he might be onto something here despite my institutionally endowed distaste of rich old white guys.

[Jared]

This is me rambling...not me trying to make a point...

"It is not his status as "tall steeple pastor" that qualifies him for leadership in the denomination, but his gifts for ministry."

In my industry, we do occasionally hire people. And I have indeed been on lots of hiring boards.

In 95% of all interviews that I've ever done, we've had to look for indicators that the person might be good at the job we're trying to fill, because taking the time and effort to actually prove that they are is too expensive and time consuming.

Simple economics would indeed insist that the TSCs (that's Tall Steeple Churches) that have lots of resources to find and hire the best pastors they can get would indeed hire the best church pastors of our denomination.

That's pretty hard to argue with.

The only way you can argue that TSPs shouldn't be the best denominational leaders in our denomination is if you can argue that the being a "denominational leader" requires a skillset for which "sucessful TSP" is not a good indicator of ability.

What's more interesting to me, is the argument that (at least in the long run) our denominational leadership positions should be a proving ground for TSPs...

That means that we're willing to let the "Peter Principle" operate primarily on our denominational leadership positions (or that we're going to hire someone like Jack Welch, who is willing to frequently fire the bottom performers) to run the HR organization of the denomination.

[Matt]

"The only way you can argue that TSPs shouldn't be the best denominational leaders in our denomination is if you can argue that the being a "denominational leader" requires a skillset for which "sucessful TSP" is not a good indicator of ability."

Well said my curly-haired amigo.

On another note, it seems that Dr. Weston has really hit a nerve:

http://www.witherspoonsociety.org/2008/presbyterian_establishment.htm#profs%20respond

I'm not sure what the "Witherspoon Society" is, but I can only hope that one day I write something that gets that many teachers cranky enough to sign something like that...

[Bill]

Thanks for correcting my spelling, Matt. I forgot to fact-check. Lazy on my part. Just plain lazy.

I don't want to dismiss Weston's paper at all. It is a good voice to have in the conversation. In fact, as far as the governing bodies are concerned, I think he's right on. No more synods, smaller presbyteries, preserve the GA (where the church meets the world--I like that), and enable the congregations to do more. These are wonderful ideas. But I disagree with his reasons. For him, efficiently run congregations and presbyteries are well-represented enough to avoid interaction (between congregants and presbyteries, or between the "grass-tops" and the leaders of the wider church). Firmer, more efficient structures, for Weston, seem to result in a more authoritarian church, and he is actually advocating for that. How strange.

As far as I am concerned, Weston's structural ingredients could, alternatively, allow for more involvement, more relationships, more openness, precisely what the diversity quotas he disparages were meant to accomplish. Rather than harboring theological grudges and casting aspersions on the motives of "Louisville" or "Presbytery" or "the staff", we could have a church built to facilitate proclamation and pool our resources. This would be ideal. Not stronger levels of governance, but stronger relationships between congregations and church leaders.

I actually think Bruce's work as Moderator so far has been a good example of strengthening these relationships. Congregation members (the grass-roots) can now interact with top levels of leadership (the dandelions?). Is this a weakening of the Presbyterian Establishment? Maybe. But are there more possibilities for involvement in proclaiming the Word? I'm certain.

[Babbaloie]

Bill says: "But I disagree with his reasons."

Matt replies: Again...well...duh. You two are are approaching the conversation from two distinctly different perspectives.

BW is coming at this from the position of a sociologist who looks at organizational structure, and while he is a part of that structure to a certain degree, I would think that he has the ability to examine the structure of the organization from a generally neutral perspective.

[Jared]

No more synods, smaller presbyteries, preserve the GA (where the church meets the world--I like that), and enable the congregations to do more.

I actually strongly disagree with the notion of the GA being the place where the Church meets the world. I get what is being said - that GA is a place where Presbyterians could iron out the "rough intersections" of sacred and secular can be ironed out...but I strongly disagree with that notion.

I believe that those "rough intersections" get smoothed out in relationships with each other - not in plenary sessions or commission reports.

I believe that it is the role of each and every disciple to be "the place where the church meets the world."

I believe the larger structures of the denomination to be the structures that should get all the other stuff out of the way - so that grass-roots disciples can be at the work of meeting the world and making it more like God wants it to be.

I've never spent as much time looking at my UMC roots as I have since this conversation started, but here's a quote from their Book of Discipline (their equivalent to our Book of Order):

It is primarily at the level of the local church that the church encounters the world. The local church is a strategic base from which Christians move out to the structures of society...Therefore, the local church is to minister to persons in the community where the church is located...to cooperate in ministry with other local churches...and to participate in the worldwide mission of the church...

In a corporation that works well, each level of administration or management understands that their primary role is to remove roadblocks to the progress of their direct reports, so that their organization can respond well to the needs of the market and its customers. I don't believe the Church is any different in that regard - individual contributors (i.e. individual disciples) are the place where the church meets the world. Everyone else should exist to empower and enable them.

[Gruntled]

Two clarifications:

1) I am for authoritative, not authoritarian, leadership. As in, "as one who teaches with authority."

2) Calvin's "reformed, ever-reforming" meant continually returning the church to its proper form, not progressing to something new. This does not mean we should do things just because they were done before. Rather, Calvinism has always been aware of the church's tendency to degenerate and give way to entropy because it is easier.

[Bill]

Matt, if there's anything your fancy Austin College education should have taught you, it is that there is never such a thing as a "generally neutral perspective." There's always a personal hermeneutic. Weston's methodology may be different from mine, but he has put a lot of his own experience and belief into his interpretations, just as I have. We can't help that. And neither can you.

So let's take this back to the "Tall Steeple Pastor" discussion.

Jared says, "Simple economics would indeed insist that the TSCs (that's Tall Steeple Churches) that have lots of resources to find and hire the best pastors they can get would indeed hire the best church pastors of our denomination." My response: No, simple economics would insist that TSCs have the resources to find and hire the pastors most suited for that congregation's needs. Isn't that what supply and demand dictate? Maybe I should watch A Beautiful Mind again.

Matt, your two theses do a great job of summing up what Weston says. A real study of them is difficult, and Weston's short paper no doubt has the research and thought to explore them in depth. But taking just this paper, where he says things such as, "One measure of a healthy establishment in the PC(USA) will be if most moderators are tall-steeple pastors, honored for their congregational success as well as their service to the denomination" (19), you can see the problems. How will we define congregational success? If a church is secretly glad to see a pastor goes, will the whole denomination know that before he/she becomes Moderator? And further, why would we ever credit a pastor with the success of a congregation?

Ultimately, what Weston describes in this paper is the 'Pastor as CEO' model of the church, a model that Bill Carl employed at First Dallas "successfully" for twenty-three years (I may have that number wrong). The congregation didn't die, it didn't explode in growth, it went about its business, growing steadily declining sometimes, performing ministry and worshiping God. Is that success?

Honestly, though, these are small details. Why I most disagree with Weston is that the legacy of the sixties and seventies (with its weakening of structure) is likely not mandated diversity. It is the firm establishment of a corporation-like model for church organization. The proliferation of corporations convinced churches that the measure of success was in a positive balance sheet and new initiatives to replace the old.

In this model, the Pastor, as CEO, has authority to do as he or she pleases, as long as the Session, acting as a Board, approves. This mostly requires that the pastor take on the characteristics of a politician, listening to advisers, sectioning off and pandering to groups, constructing the vision for the whole congregation and then enacting that vision. With this model established, large-steeple churches were encouraged to use or disregard presbyteries as needed. Some stuck with the presbytery, many more differentiated themselves. Some used their authority (and financial gifts) to control presbyteries, and continue to do so. Some served on committees, some ignored them.

There are many reasons why Moderators do not all come from large-steeple churches, but one of the main reasons is that a Moderator does not set the agenda for the church. The large-steeple pastors often are more comfortable serving their congregations where they do set the agenda, because their gifts for ministry require them to set the agenda.

This isn't always the case, and I'm not anti-TSPs, nor am I against TSPs serving in the high offices of the denomination. But as a group, TSPs are not, not, not the majority of natural leaders in this church. That title belongs to elders, deacons, small church pastors, Sunday school teachers, and plain ol' members who offer their gifts to the church just as much as it belongs to the TSPs. If we want to turn this denomination further into a corporation than it is already, Weston has given us the blueprints. But employing that model will continue our gradual decline into nothingness. Corporations do not satisfy the desire for leadership in our generation. And you know that, Matt.

[Jared]

Bill says:

Jared says, "Simple economics would indeed insist that the TSCs (that's Tall Steeple Churches) that have lots of resources to find and hire the best pastors they can get would indeed hire the best church pastors of our denomination." My response: No, simple economics would insist that TSCs have the resources to find and hire the pastors most suited for that congregation's needs. Isn't that what supply and demand dictate? Maybe I should watch A Beautiful Mind again.

I should watch A Beautiful Mind again, just because it's a good flick....

That's not really supply and demand (at least, I don't think so.) But, you're point about TSCs hiring the pastors that best suit them is a valid one...and it is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier:

If we pre-suppose that the skillset (read: gifts for ministry) that are required for being a successful TSP and the skillset for being a successful denominational leader intersect each other, then indeed, it makes sense for TSPs and denominational leaders to be the same people.

If that is a bad assumption, then it doesn't make sense.

I'm vacillating on whether I think that is a safe assumption or not.

[Bill]

Thanks for contributing, Beau. And thanks for the clarifications. Here are my responses:

1) I don't want to accuse you of advocating authoritarian leadership, but I think your model lends itself to that. If the grass roots aren't talking directly to the dandelions (or whatever we want to use for the top of the pyramid), then that is an authoritarian structure. Or at the very least, a military style chain of command. I don't think that's what you want, but I think that your paper leads us that way.

Be careful with that quote, "as one who teaches authority". It describes Jesus, not the church. I only mention it because I am tired of us conflating the two.

2) Is it fair to set your comment that "Calvinism has always been aware of the church's tendency to degenerate and give way to entropy because it is easier" in parallel with your statement in the paper that "discipline is a distinctive mark of Calvin's church on good theological grounds" (28)? If so, we should remember that discipline as a mark of the church is post-Calvin. It is certainly Calvinism, and derived from his work, but should be differentiated from Calvin's theology.

I make the distinction because God's continual revelation must play a part in the forming and reforming of the church. Reforming is not only a return, but also a process of discovery. I don't think Calvin would say the church was being reformed back to its earlier roots. For him the Spirit was doing something new in Geneva while also returning the church to an earlier path. There was a mixture of both.

Further, if we are talking Calvin, reforming the church is only reforming the Visible Church. As long as the Word is rightly preached and Sacraments administered as Christ taught, the Church (Invisible) exists in that place, whether it be the denomination, the local congregation, or even the Synod.

Your appeal to efficiency does not fit into Calvin's understanding of the Church; it jibes more with Knox and the Scots Church, maybe. But if we are truly honoring Calvin's thought, then we would not have large steeple pastors running the church. Doctors of Theology would run it, as it was for the Presbyterians at the end of the 19th century. (And if that's the way we choose to go, Karl Barth's influence will need to be entirely erased from the church.)

[Bill]

I do see the problem, Beau. I was unclear in my comment when I said, "Firmer, more efficient structures, for Weston, seem to result in a more authoritarian church, and he is actually advocating for that". It was poorly worded, and I apologize.

Perhaps it should read, "Firmer, more efficient structures, for Weston, result in a more stratified church, which he advocates. But would this not be an authoritarian model?"

[Matt]

Sorry Bill, I'm just not buying what you're selling.

You say: "That title belongs to elders, deacons, small church pastors, Sunday school teachers, and plain ol' members who offer their gifts to the church just as much as it belongs to the TSPs. "

While as a member of that group, I appreciate the sentiment, I just don't think the model of bottom-up, grass-roots leadership in an organization of 2 million people works. It quickly splinters into fractured, issue-oriented interest groups, and tends to mill around in chaos until it falls apart.

The effective leadership of an organization of the size of PCUSA requires a very specified skillset, that is largely exercised and the purview of folks in TSP positions.

Now, I totally agree that my argument may not be the worlds most "biblical" or "reformed", in fact, it is disgustingly corporate. I get that.

But remember, this is a church made up of disgustingly sinful, rotten humans, and we, as humans, display organizational tendencies, regardless of the type or function of the organization.

Now, Bill, I am perfectly willing to cede, that we (the PCUSA), as an organization, can make the decision to take a bottom-up approach on reformed and/or biblical grounds, but I think it's not fair to look at that organizational style and expect it to produce results that it fundamentally cannot produce.

In all of this discussion, I've become convinced that our current organizational style will not produce results to the major issues of our time. Maybe that's fine, but we just need to understand what we're doing.

[Bill]

Define two terms for me as far as church is concerned: 1) Produce results and 2) Effective leadership.

Malcolm Gladwell has a great article in this month's New Yorker about the difficulty of predicting job performance. His primary metaphor is quarterbacks who transition from college to the pros. Scouts cannot determine which college QBs will be successful (effective?) in the pros because the skillsets, while seemingly similar, are vastly different. College QBs have more time to "read" defenses, they don't have to be as tall to see over the Defensive Line, and they have to throw different kinds of passes. QBs have to learn an almost entirely new game to play pro, and it rarely happens. Teams have instituted IQ tests as predictors, but that is a failure too. The only way to test a QB is to have him practice and play and then succeed or fail.

ESPN magazine recently ran a cover that showed Mizzou's QB and backup QB and made light of the problem. "Chase Daniel [Mizzou's QB] might win the Heisman; his backup [who has thrown a total of twenty-six passes in his career] could win the Super Bowl," it said.

Your statement, "The effective leadership of an organization of the size of PCUSA requires a very specified skillset, that is largely exercised and the purview of folks in TSP positions." Is exactly the assumption that Gladwell is questioning. The difference between pastoring a congregation, no matter how tall the steeple, and setting a vision for the wider church is as vast as the difference QBing in college and in the pros. It's almost an entirely different game.

Further, a pastor from a small steeple church has to navigate political waters that are just as difficult as those of large steeple pastors. Problems may be of a smaller scale, but that does not mean they are less complex. Most often there are fewer resources available to the SSPs, and they have to do more with less. Isn't that effective leadership?

What I'm saying is, your contention that the skillset for effective denominational leadership is the purview of TSPs is highly, highly questionable. Give me some proof otherwise.

[noe]

y'all are such academic males!

tall steeple pastors remind me of schmoozing politicians... i'm also curious and sceptical of ways we judge success in the church... i mean, it's not a number thing, although some people think so... there are a lot of TSC's that are full and ill... but maybe i just get more out of a smaller community because of my personality type... just the perspective of the lesbian who will never be a TSP...

now i'm going to go read whatever originated this conversation...