rebuilding the presbyterian establishment: a comment, part 2

In my first post, the purpose was to cover aspects of Weston's essay which I thought were important to consider before we levy any critique. It is important to understand that aspect of the proposal since it offers ideas which have the potential of unbuckling so many ideological commitments that people have within the denomination that undermine the very reasons why we enjoin and entrust ourselves to each other. However, I also have serious critical disagreements about the content of the essay itself.

First, I do not think that these political and structural problems are the main reasons for denominational decline and the evidence simply does not show this in various studies on secularization. This is not only a central claim in Weston's essay, but I think is the fundamental problem the essay seeks to address. As I have posted before, there is no data to suggest that political structure is the main reason for mainline denomination decline. Variations in birth rates, reduced switching of conservatives to mainline churches, and lifecycle effects are clearly account for the majority of the variance in mainline denominational decline (see this post for main causes of decline in the research and other thoughts here). Without data to suggest that it is the political authority of an Establishment or lack of one that is even a minor contributor to the either the decline or the solution, Weston makes a very hard hypothesis to swallow and I would rather reject it until data supports it.

Second, I am not convinced that re-establishment with the larger, richer congregations (aka. the tall steeple church) is a strategy that keeps focus on core theological issues to do with the Kingdom of God and classic mission of the church. The question is if this is the purpose of the church as a political entity, or, "a provisional demonstration of what God intends for all of humanity" (G-3.0200-a). Is it really through the steeple church, given its geographical and demographic limitations that may never be fixed, and given its minority status as over 50% of the congregations in the PCUSA are of 150 members or less, that the mission outlined in G-3 of the Book of Order can best be fulfilled? Moreover, it is proper to attract the talent of the church to the large church? Is it an affront to those talented ministers who are called, by God, to serve the small church which is made of people who are no less in need of a good word from a skilled preacher than a large urban or suburban church? To prop the large church up as an aspiration more than it already is for talented ministers seems to reinforce what seems to be a status seeking goal within the community of church leaders. Status seeking is a behavior that should be critiqued according to the Gospel rather than supported for the purpose of political expedience.

Third, I am not convinced that reaffirming the Westminster Confession as the central and core standard is necessarily in keeping with the Book of Order, theologically sound, or even in the best interests of the PCUSA as an heir of the Reformed tradition. There are propositions in that particular confession that ought to be questioned continually by the guidance of the Reformed tradition and by the continued growth of biblical knowledge that we have amassed only since the middle of the 20th century. Biblical studies, it must be remembered, is a rather new field that only developed in its own right apart from dogmatic conformity in the late 19th century with the influence of German methods of criticism. To affirm a document which was theologically and again, politically expedient in one era for one time, as a centrally authoritative document seems to cut out the essence of what it means to always be reforming in the light of the foundational authority of Scripture. Do we need better instruction of how the Confessions guide our understanding of Scripture? I would say yes. But to focus on one this way tries to do too much and not for a very solid outcome in my judgment.

Fourth, I am not convinced that this is the best strategy if we are to be sensitive to the Word of God in Scripture which calls us not to re-establish what has been the most politically expedient in the past, but calls us to serve the Kingdom of God as the Body of Christ. While quotas for representation may obscure the merits of given standards for effective leadership, they are intended to level a playing field so that equality of opportunity may exist where it otherwise would not. It is improper to assume that we now have a clearer conscience about racial and gender issues, have a deeper understanding of other issues of difference, and understand the nature of our pluralistic culture. Hence it is unreasonable to assume that the need to reinforce equal opportunity through equal representation is no longer required. The first premise cannot simply be assumed to be true. How do we measure this consciousness and how do we know that it has resulted in effective enough actions to make it a reality rather than empty talking points to satiate the ideological whims of liberals? This is another crucial assumption that demands support that the essay simply does not offer for it to be a convincing proposal.

Fifth, I should note that the essay itself includes no data at all to support its claims, even those with which I agree. To that end, I would suggest church leaders take the proposals in the essay very lightly until further notice. Perhaps Weston's books offer this clarity. However, even those books are not referenced as sources for support of the propositions in the essay, but only as sources to legitimate the authority of Weston's authorship of the essay.

To close, Weston is not writing this out of a place to destroy the church. He writes because he clearly cares for it and wants to see it become better than it perhaps currently is. But we must temper our polity with a continual, urgent, and intentional search for the calling of God in our midst. I do not think that the contours of our society are best served by this proposal, nor do I think it best suits the foundations of what the Gospel requires us to do for the sake of Christ. If we rebuild an establishment for the service of a denomination and rebuilding a political structure for the sake of doing so, we have lost our souls and our focus. If this is done in response to the calling of God through the witness of Scripture which might require a radical re-structuring of what we define an establishment to be, then we must be responsive to that. I happen to think the latter is a more pragmatic and substantiated set of assumptions from which to work than the propositions that Weston outlines for us to consider.

No related posts.