Leading From the Center: Chapter 5 - What is Normal in the Presbyterian Church Today?

Leading From the Center: Strengthening the Pillars of the Church by William J. Weston

Part II: Where are we now?

Chapter 5 – What is Normal in the Presbyterian Church?

Weston uses the word "normal" here to mean typical for the PCUSA. I think the best place to begin with this chapter is the conclusion. After reviewing some fascinating statistical data, Weston concludes:

What is normal in the Presbyterian Church? To believe that God is and loves us, that Jesus Christ is our savior, that nothing is more important in life than religion. To believe that the Bible shows God’s active involvement in all creation, but is not meant to be read as inerrant in each detail. To believe that the gospel is a gift we should bring to the world, not an imposition, because all faiths are not equal, but Christ alone is absolute truth, and God will judge all in the end. To go to church to worship and work, to pray and pay, to be friendly and faithful. And not least, to loyally serve the Presbyterian Church as it is.

If you want to compete and win in the Presbyterian Church, you have to play to what is normal. Play to the pillars, the loyalists. Show them the connection between what you propose and what they already believe and do. (77-78)

Most of this chapter analyzes data from the Presbyterian Survey 1994-1996 combined with independent research Weston did himself. He segments the denomination into the Presbyterian Survey's four groups: Members, Elders, Pastors, and Specialized Clergy. The last group is ordained Ministers of Word and Sacrament who serve in some capacity other than pastoral ministry. Each of these groups exhibits different characteristics regarding demographics and values.

Using the self-identification of survey respondents, Weston uses classifications of conservative, moderate, and liberal as a proxy for identifying the three parties he has been discussing in the book. Weston used the 1994-1996 Survey for his data. Out of curiosity, I entered his data into a spreadsheet and added the same data from the 2003-2005 Survey. Here are the four modified charts:

 

As you can see from the charts, there is a right-leaning majority among members and elders, a less pronounced lean to the right by pastors, and a left-leaning majority among specialized clergy. What I found fascinating about the change to the more recent data is a decrease in the number of moderates in all four groups. The first three groups show a greater number of both conservatives and liberals, although the increase in conservatives is greater. For the specialized clergy, there was growth only among liberals.

It is important to remember that pastors and specialized clergy make up less than 1% of the denomination but 50% of the voting bodies that govern the church at the presbytery, synod, and general assembly levels. Consequently, if the general assembly elders and minister of word and sacrament contingents represent their broader groups, half should be distributed like the elders and half like ministers of word and sacrament.

This chapter has several interesting findings, and I will highlight just a few.

First, Weston makes this rather startling observation:

Among theological conservatives, there are 89 married ministers for every divorced one; for those in the center the ratio is 16 to one; for liberals, there are 7.7 married people for each divorced person. An extraordinary extension of this pattern is that for ministers in church agencies or governing bodies (that is, presbyteries, synods, or General-Assembly-level bodies), the married-to-divorced ratio is 2.2 to one.  (73)

It is interesting to contemplate what impact these numbers might have in terms of leadership for addressing family issues and sexuality, two issues that are at the top of the cultural agenda right now.

Second, Weston writes that the very conservative in the Church are much like most others except for a few specific positions. However, the very liberal in the group are the least likely to reflect the character of the broader Church. Yet what both have in common is that they are far more likely to have been lifelong Presbyterians. Most Presbyterians (I think it is about 60%) are not lifelong Presbyterians. Weston suggests that this reluctance to leave at the extremes may be partly because it is all these folks have known. They have never had to choose a denominational home based on their congruence with its vision. This confirms my suspicion, especially since being on the GAC.

Third, Weston presents an interesting analysis of perceptions of denominational leadership. He surveyed the General Assembly Council (I am assuming about five years ago.) He found that 13% were conservative, 60% were moderate, and 27% were liberal. He found that liberal and moderate members of the Council perceived that they were twice as many liberals as conservatives with the majority in the middle. Conservative leaders believed there were three times as many liberals as conservatives, and a plurality made up the middle.

Also, Weston wrote:

This leads us to findings related to church staff. The Presbyterian Panel includes a group of clergy serving on presbytery, synod, and national church staffs. This group is the most skewed to the left, with a six-to-one Democrat-to-Republican ration, almost not theological conservatives, and no political conservatives at all. This puts them considerably out of step with the conservative-leaning and predominately Republican Presbyterian Church. Yet this group also reports the highest rate of valuing their Presbyterian affiliation as part of their Christian identity.

What could account for this? The staff clergy also have a far higher rate of birthright Presbyterians than any other group. This could explain why clergy who are much more liberal than most pastors seem to wind up in the church bureaucracy, rather than moving on to a more liberal denomination. (76)

Okay. Enough with numbers. You get the picture.

[Previous] [Next]

Comments

[will spotts]

Very interesting set of statistics. (This fits fairly closely with patterns I see.) Still, I'm left to wonder if there is any measure beside self-identification that could be used? For one thing, we thrive on the "myth of the golden mean" ethos that prizes being "in the center" or "moderate". I would think (without statistical backup) that this would increase the self-identification of these groups.

Of course, out of the other side of my mouth . . . what do you make of the (still small, but statistically significant) shift to the poles?

[Michael Kruse]

I share your suspicion about the measure. However, despite its lack of precision I think gives a useful picture.

As to the shift in both directions away from the middle, I think it indicates a polarization within the denomination. I would be curious to see how the same question did with the larger culture during the same time period. Is this just a reflection of the culture or something specific to our denominational circumstances? I suspect it is largely a reflection of the culture.

One thing I found particularly interesting was Beau’s observation that the most strident at either end of the spectrum used here are disproportionately birthright Presbyterians. I had been coming to that conclusion before reading the book.

What are you thoughts on the shift?

[will spotts]

I concur that this is a cultural phenomenon. It's not unique to this time in history, but the US has been tilting toward the poles lately.

Part of the Presbyterian phenomenon may have to do with the loosening of denominational affiliation. Those who are most vocal about the direction of the church (which kind of have incompatible directions in mind) are those who have a strong buy in to Presbyterian heritage. On the left, these tend to identify that with modernist views (and now post-modern) -- viewing these as the logical progression of Reformed thought. On the conservative side, the content, rather than direction of reformed thought is more emphasized. Both feel that they are the legitimate inheritors of Presbyterianism.

Transplants don't tend to have that buy in. Thus they tend to be more phlegmatic about the direction of the church: they can always leave it it really offends them.

[Michael Kruse]

Interesting thoughts, Will. I think you may be on to something.