The Institutional Problem With The PC(USA)

Much has been said about FPC’s disagreement with the Presbyterian Church (USA) over matters related to biblical authority/interpretation and theology. The divide created by those issues alone justifies departure from the PC(USA). If that is not enough to make the case for departing to the Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians (ECO), the denomination’s illness as an institution also constitutes a reasonable justification.

The PC(USA) is an institution that is, as some have rightly described, “deathly ill.” In the 1960’s, our predecessor denominations had a combined membership of over 4 million people, but today it is less than 2 million. While the denomination has never, since the 1960’s, had a year of positive growth, the rate of decline reached a new peak last year with a loss of over 100,000 members. There is no substantive solution to change this trajectory. A recent movement to plant 1,001 new churches is admirable, but does not occupy the central focus of the denomination, nor is it the chief recipient of resources, which might be expected if such a movement was considered the hope of our future.

While our destiny is not tied completely to our denomination, we are not unaffected by the decline. As any institution becomes desperate for survival, its constituent members almost always feel the impact. Dying institutions routinely turn to control, power, and scapegoating as weak straws to grasp for survival. We are already seeing such desperation and it will increase in the future.

The central question for us regards the likelihood of the institution to turn around. If we think the institution is just in a slump, we can be patient and assist in its renewal. However, the historical evidence suggests that we are not suffering a temporary setback and transformation is unlikely given the following institutional realities:

We have a leadership problem. The Presbyterian system distributes power among a variety of different people, but not to those who necessarily have gifts for leadership or wisdom about rebuilding the institution. Our system is most concerned with filling positions of power with a balance of teaching and ruling Elders, males and females, different ethnicities, and people from a wide variety of churches. No presbytery nominating committee could credibly disagree with that priority. Do you will notice what is lacking in that list? Leadership skills or experiences in a healthy church are not listed. At best, we stumble upon people who are gifted for leadership and organizational change after we have satisfied the criterion for diversity. What we usually end up with are well-meaning, kind people, from struggling churches filling all the committees of power in our system, but not people who know the first thing about repairing a sinking ship. Almost no one talks about this problem and there is no stomach among these leaders to change the system and “fire themselves”.

Our institution is more mono-cultural than most expect. Presbyterians are known for being a mostly white denomination despite many well-intended efforts to become a multi-cultural church. It is ironic that while we bemoan our lack of diversity, we are obstinately mono-cultural when it comes to our governance. Our polity and institutional structure is set up to allow for only one position on the most controversial matters. The system is designed to force compromise rather than manage polarity. The results are long, protracted battles over matters like human sexuality positions, ordination standards, or abortion stances. This approach has consigned us to repeated close votes that rob the peace of the denomination and force more battles at subsequent meetings. In the military metaphor, we spend a lot of time and energy fighting to occupy a single, strategic hill. The system won’t allow for a second hill so we are destined to fight over the same patch of ground time and time again.

The last General Assembly had a major plan before it that would have allowed for a second hill. It would have provided structural changes that could give both conservatives and liberals relief of conscious on serious biblical and theological issues that divide us today. The General Assembly’s strong rejection of that proposal demonstrated a conviction to keep the system just as it is. It is increasingly clear that the great divide occurring in our denomination over what it means to follow Jesus Christ in the 21^st Century will only grow. The current mono-cultural system will not allow for churches on very different paths to exist together in one institution. We have some choices. We can continue to expend energy and resources on denominational battles to occupy one hill. We can concede defeat and ignore the big issues completely. Or, we can leave together like many churches are doing in order to join a system far more flat in its structure that shares our biblical and theological convictions. In doing so we align ourselves with churches that will encourage and challenge each other to do better at what matters the most: fulfilling the Great Commission.