The Creation and Shaping of an American Presbytery

A Review of Historical, Theological, Organizational, and Leadership IssuesIn and Around the Presbytery of Elizabeth

Robert Foltz-Morrison©2009

This paper draws on research undertaken to complete the requirements for the Doctor of Ministry degree at Hartford Seminary relevant to my ministry setting as the Executive Presbyter of the Presbytery of Elizabeth (1997-2009). The first part focuses on the presbytery and the second on presbytery leadership.

Part I

The Organization and Function of the PresbyteryWithin American Presbyterianism

More than 350 Presbyterian Church (USA) congregations dot the landscape of New Jersey. These churches are part of seven presbyteries—geographical, “middle” governing bodies between local congregations and the national denominational body.1

Presbyterians have established churches in New Jersey over five centuries, from the 17 th

through the 21st centuries. The Middle Colonies, which included New Jersey, became a stronghold for Presbyterianism in early American history. The oldest church in the Presbytery of Elizabeth (and the oldest English-speaking church in New Jersey) dates from the city’s founding by settlers from Connecticut and Long Island in 1664 when the British assumed control over this region previously under the administration of the Dutch. The first congregations that organized and identified as Presbyterian in the state were extensions of the European populations and the churches from which they had emigrated. These largely Scotch-Irish and other Reformed immigrants used the 1645 Westminster Form of Presbyterial Church Government as their guide for organizing presbyteries early in the 18th century.2 Lewis Wilkins describes the presbytery then as having “powers of jurisdiction” which were governmental and liturgical and vested in groups of persons composed of ministers and elders.3 This post-Reformation church in the New World reflected the Reformers’ attempts to redefine the traditions and concepts of Western Catholic canon law in which they had been schooled. Reformed polity reassigned ecclesiastical powers to the presbytery from the diocese and individual bishops. The Form of Presbyterial Church Government defined an identity distinct from Anglicans, who settled in the South, and Congregationalists, who settled in New England. This distinction for the Middle Colonies was important because nine of the original

1 One non-geographical presbytery serves Korean-speaking Presbyterian congregations in the metro New York City area.2 Lewis L. Wilkins, Jr., “The American Presbytery in the Twentieth Century,” in The Organizational Revolution: Presbyterians and American Denominationalism. Milton J. Coalter, John M. Mulder, and Louis B. Weeks, eds. (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992). 98.3 Ibid. 97.

1

thirteen colonies had churches established or favored by law before the American Constitution was written and implemented throughout the states.4

Lefferts Loetscher sees this formation of the presbytery in 1706 providing two instructive forecasts for American Presbyterians. The first: the presbytery united through its ministers the “two quite differing and often conflicting heritages of Puritan Presbyterianism and of Scotch and Scotch-Irish Presbyterianism.”5 The former placed more emphasis on spontaneity, vital impulse, and adaptability rather than fixed theology and church government. The latter stressed the more objective aspects of faith: precise theological formation, the distinct character of Reformed ministry, and orderly and authoritarian church government.6 Uniting these heritages anticipated the pluralism—and a polarity or dialectic—that would characterize American Presbyterians. The second forecast: unlike Scottish Presbyterianism, organized through an act of Parliament and implemented by its General Assembly, American Presbyterianism would be organized “from the ground up,” establishing a more democratic than hierarchical nature.

This first presbytery (Philadelphia) grew so fast that a Synod of four presbyteries convened by 1717. A Synod, in the 17 th and 18th centuries consisted of representatives of all the churches in their region. There was a close relationship between congregations and each of the two higher governing bodies. Re-alignment of presbytery boundaries continued over each of the next two centuries as the number of communities between Philadelphia and New York with Presbyterian churches increased.7 These young American Presbyterian churches struggled to define the essential beliefs and practices of their ministers. British and Scottish Presbyterians required the subscription of all its ministers to particular theological creedal statements. Jonathan Dickinson argued at the Synod assembly that this amounted to elevating human documents to the level of the Scriptures themselves. The American Presbyterian Synod compromised, deciding to adopt in 1729, but not “subscribe to,” the essential tenets of the Westminster Confession written by the English Parliament less than 50 years earlier. Loetscher adds: “This Adopting Act became a kind of Magna Charta in the Church’s theological history, but unfortunately the ambiguity of its crucial phase ‘essential and necessary articles’ would rise to vex the Church again and again.”8

The debate had barely subsided when Presbyterian churches wrestled with the experiential faith embodied in the “Great Awakening”--which began in the Raritan

4 Lefferts A. Loetscher, A Brief History of the Presbyterians. Third Edition. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978). 75.5 Ibid. 61.6 Loetscher. The Broadening Church. A Study of Theological Issues in the Presbyterian Church Since 1869. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1954). 1.7 The Presbytery of Elizabeth’s “Historical Note” in its Manual of Administrative Operations chronicles the names and dates of the presbytery to which member churches were part as follows: Presbytery of Philadelphia 1706; Presbytery of Long Island 1717; Presbytery of East Jersey; Presbytery of New York 1738; Presbytery of Jersey 1809; Presbytery of Elizabethtown 1824; further alignment in 1870 as the Presbytery of Elizabeth; and new alignments in 1963.8 Loetscher (1954). 2. Any minister who did not accept a particular part of the Confession or Catechisms might state his scruple concerning that part, and the ordaining body would then decide whether or not his scruple involved “essential and necessary articles of faith.”

2

Valley of New Jersey. Old Side Presbyterians were strict about its ministers subscribing to the rational expression of faith embodied in the Westminster Confession, while New Side Presbyterians wanted to embody the “experiential faith” sweeping the American Colonies in the 1730’s. Researchers estimate that only 5-10% of the general colonial population attended church in the early 18th century.9 The Great Awakening brought Christianity to the common people, not merely the few “elect” or the educated classes. Presbyteries, lacking a long history of collective constitutional standards, aligned themselves into two new and sometimes hostile Synods: Philadelphia (Old Side) and New York (New Side).

The schism slowed but did not deter the start of new churches (including in New Jersey10) or the westward and southern expansion of Presbyterians, sometimes aligned with one or the other “side.” For a period of 17 years (1741-1758) these two sides separated from one another, reuniting following discussions that involved concessions on both sides. Patterns for Presbyterians were unfolding. Loetscher saw the revivalist’s emphasis on emotion undermining sober religious thinking and becoming exclusively interested in individuals, weakening the idea of church. Williston Walker saw the Great Awakening coming at time when familiar European patterns of outreach were proving ineffective in the American colonies. Both Loetscher and Walker, and Wilkins, saw an American understanding of Presbyterianism begun: that of a church with a mission.11

Meanwhile, a larger national rebellion was building, related to what had taken place a century earlier with English “standards” developed in the 17th century. Loetscher describes the Westminster Standards as based on covenant theology, long held by the Puritans. God enters into a covenant with fallen human beings by offering them salvation in Christ upon the condition of their faith. Together with the social contract theory, Puritans believed that people enter into a contract with a king to rule over them. If the king violated the terms of the contract and became tyrannical, the king could be restrained or deposed. Parliament tested this covenantal and contractual standard with their war against King Charles I, whose defeat by Oliver Cromwell resulted in the king’s execution in 1649. However, English Presbyterians did not fare well in the 18th century after Cromwell’s death. All clergy were required to become part of the Church of England. Three thousand left. Civil government abolished higher Presbyterian judicatories (presbyteries and synods) and established uniform Anglican worship in churches. Only members of the Church of England could study theology in English universities. Puritans became the first to leave home to begin anew in a colony in America.9 Loetscher (1978). 67. E. Brooks Holifield, “Toward a History of American Congregations” in American Congregations. Volume 2: New Perspectives in the Study of Congregations. James P. Wind and James W. Lewis, eds. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994). 24. Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church. Third Edition. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970). 507.10 From the time of 1726 when the Awakening began in the Raritan Valley of New Jersey to the time of the Old School – New School reunion in 1758, the following seven churches were started that are now part of the Presbytery of Elizabeth: Westfield, Bethlehem, Connecticut Farms, New Providence, Lamington, Rahway (First), and Springfield. 11Walker. 464-466. Loetscher (1978). 67-72. Wilkins. 100-102. Strict Calvinists see only two markers of any true church: the right preaching and hearing of the Word, and the right administration of the sacraments. Others add discipline (see PCUSA Constitution. Part I. Confessions. Scots Confession 3.18).

3

Presbyterian ministers in the colonies knew well this history. The former two synods, now united, gathered in 1775 and issued their first social pronouncement by the church’s highest judicatory: a pastoral letter to King George III of England about the treatment of English subjects in the colonies. The king himself referred to the problems in the colonies as a “Presbyterian rebellion.” The Synod appointed a day of “solemn fasting, humiliation, and prayer” to be observed by all Presbyterian congregations. When English soldiers fired upon colonialists later that year, many preachers took to the pulpit stating the king had broken his social contract. This released colonial subjects from their allegiance to him. Jonathan Witherspoon, president of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) and a Presbyterian minister, served as a member of the Continental Congress and signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The Presbytery of Hanover (VA) first endorsed it. Pastors and members of Presbyterian congregations went to war against the state. Martin Marty writes that Charles Inglis, Episcopal rector of Trinity Church in New York, went on record to say he could not find a single American Presbyterian minister who did not use the pulpit and every other means to promote the Continental Congress and colonist causes.12

While Presbyterians may take pride in the American Revolutionary War being referred to as “a Presbyterian rebellion,” the war dragged on for five years and, as church historian Ernest Trice Thompson laments, brought demoralization and loss to American churches. The British destroyed church buildings and congregants scattered or were killed, as the Reverend James Caldwell of First Presbyterian Church in Elizabeth, NJ and his wife, Hannah, murdered in separate shootings.13 A separation of church and state occurred with that war that when written into the United States Constitution in 1789 and ratified by the colonial states would bring a significant and American change from “state churches” to the church as a voluntary organization.14

Presbyterians, Walker notes, seized the opportunity after the war ended to reorganize. They drew up a new constitution that provided for a national Presbyterian structure headed by a General Assembly, with constituent Synods. The Presbyterian Church then numbered 420 churches. Settlers moved westward beyond the “original colonies.” By 1800, the denomination had more than 500 churches widely distributed throughout its 26 presbyteries. The territory of the United States more than doubled in 1803 with the Louisiana Purchase. By 1816, The General Assembly minutes reflect the United States population had grown to 8.5 million. By 1870, the size of the U.S. territory had doubled again while its population more than quadrupled.15 The challenge before the church then: the evangelization of the western frontier in the 18th century.

12 Marty, Pilgrims in Their Own Land. 500 Years of Religion in America. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1984. 138.13 The murder of this reknown minister’s wife rallied the Colonialists in New Jersey. Her death adorns the seal of Union County, NJ, perhaps the only one in the country to depict such an event on a County seal.14 Loetscher (1978). 47-53. Walker. 478. Martin E. Marty. 138. Ernest Trice Thompson, Through the Ages: A History of the Christian Church. Richmond, VA: The Covenant Life Curriculum, 1965. 258.15 Minutes of the General Assembly. 1923. Part II: Board Reports. Presbyterian Historical Society. Ref. BX 8951 .A3 1923 v.2. 36-37.

4

Presbyterian church historian James H. Smylie saw considerable authority and power located in the presbyteries, though responsibility for the whole system lay in the General Assembly.16 When the first American Presbyterian General Assembly convened in 1789, it defined the role for the presbytery in its constitutional Form of Government as:

Cognizance of all things that regard the welfare of the particular churcheswithin their bounds…receiving and issuing appeals from the session…examining, and licensing candidates for the gospel ministry…ordaining,settling, removing, or judging ministers…resolving questions of doctrineor discipline…condemning erroneous opinions…visiting particular churches…uniting or dividing Congregations…ordering whatever pertains to thespiritual concerns of the Churches under their care.17

Congregants were charged with attending worship and supporting with financial resources the work of the church. Whereas the clergy had previously lived on the provisions (food, land, shelter) of members, now congregants were encouraged to make regular voluntary monetary contributions for ministerial service. The denomination and its presbyteries had a challenge before it. In 1789, there were only 177 ministers and 205 of the 420 congregations had vacant pulpits.18

The Minutes of the Presbytery of Jersey in the early 19 th century confirm this directive shaped presbytery responsibility.19 The Presbytery examined candidates on both their education (languages, math, science, philosophy, theology, ecclesiastical history) and their doctrine, usually requesting candidates to present a paper on a subject assigned by the presbytery. Ordinations, as well as ecclesiastical trials (as the removal of ministers), took place over the course of two to three day presbytery meetings, or a series of meetings. Ministers often presented reflections on subjects requested ahead of the next meeting. Many meetings reported the “State of Religion” in the presbytery, highlighting churches in which many “awakened” to faith and joined the church through revivals or periods of prayer. One year (1821) the presbytery expressed its corporate spiritual concern by taking the following action: “Whereas the Presbytery at the last stated meeting taking into consideration the low state of religion in our congregations, did agree to spend a day in private fasting and prayer.” (Minutes, p. 529)

Theologically and ecclesiastically, Presbyterians struggled with the authority of the church within the advance of political democracy in the new nation and the emotionalism of a second “Great Awakening” that swept westward from Kentucky in 1800. The Presbytery of Jersey spent considerable time on credentialing an educated clergy largely for “settled” churches. Settled churches, with their ordained officers, established new churches in the colonies. Traveling revivalists aided the effort to establish new churches as much as they also contributed to the Presbyterian struggle of

16 A Brief History of the Presbyterians. (Louisville, KY: Geneva Press, 1996). 63.17 Louis B. Weeks, “The Incorporation of the Presbyterians,” in The Organizational Revolution: Presbyterians and American Denominationalism. Coalter, Mulder, Weeks, eds. (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992). 99.18 James H. Smylie. A Brief History of the Presbyterians. Louisville: Geneva Press, 1996. 63-65.19 Minutes of the Presbytery of Jersey. Volume 1: 1813-1819 and Volume 2: 1819-1924. Presbyterian Historical Society. Philadelphia. Ref V MI45. Cf. pp. 92, 138, 188, 249, 368, 406, 503, 529, 685, 721, 738.

5

identity, for they had less accountable to any particular presbytery or theology. The slow credentialing process of church leaders by a seminary education with tests and thorough oral examination hardly proved adequate to keep up with the expanding continental challenges.

The need for clergy educated in Presbyterian “doctrine, worship, and government” brought about the separate establishment in 1812 of Princeton Seminary out from under the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University). The experiences of most Presbyterian controversies were close to New Jersey as the Presbytery of Jersey lay between the battle fields of Philadelphia and New York, and participated in the ongoing disputes (as precision in credentialing and ministry and presentations) in one Stated Meeting after another. In 1824, the Presbytery of Jersey divided into two presbyteries: Newark and Elizabethtown. The Standing Rules of 1824 reflected the Presbytery of Elizabethtown’s membership (16 ministers and 15 congregations), meeting schedule (third Tuesday in April and first Tuesday in October), structure (Education Committee, funds for missionaries and commissioners), and oversight (moderator and two temporary clerks chosen at every stated meeting, Stated Clerk and Treasurer elected by ballot). The rules also set aside time the second evening “as a season of prayer for the blessing of God upon the kingdom of Christ, and especially the ministers, elders, and congregations belonging to the Presbytery.”20 In addition, through the reorganization of 1824, all presbyteries in New Jersey related to one another in a single synod: the Synod of New Jersey.

Another Presbyterian schism erupted in 1837—the Old School versus the New School--that involved questions about (a) whether evangelization of the West (along with Native Americans and their lands) should be done by Presbyterians alone or in concert with the Congregationalists, and (b) whether it should be carried out by church judicatories, church boards, or independent lay boards.21 The first Presbyterian board, as a separate mission agency, began in 1802 with the General Assembly’s appointment of the Standing Committee on Missions. Unfortunately, that ended with the division of the church in 1837. Nevertheless, both the Old School and New School pressed forward their work of evangelization. Both schools founded churches in the present Presbytery of Elizabeth.22 Only after reunion in 1869 could the General Assembly establish a national Board of Home Missions. While belated, that board served the denomination well from 1870 through 1923. Presbyterians joined what Wilkins called the “Evangelical American Denomination” which transformed all the major Protestant churches with a missional form quite different from their roots in Europe.23 The impact on American Presbyterians resulted in the General Assembly in 1903 revising its Westminster Confession of Faith to add chapters on the “Holy Spirit” and on “Mission,” with the majority of presbyteries concurring.

20 Minutes of the Presbytery of Elizabethtown. Volume 1. 1824-1837. Presbyterian Historical Society. Philadelphia. Vault Folio BX 8958 .E567 A3. November 3, 1824.21 Wilkins. 101.22 The following churches were founded by one side or the other between 1837 and 1869: Liberty Corner, Greystone (Elizabeth), Crescent Avenue (Plainfield), Second (Rahway), First (Cranford), Third (Elizabeth), Pluckemin, Siloam (Elizabeth), Westminster (Elizabeth), First (Roselle). 23 Wilkins. 101-102.

6

The theological conflict at the heart of the Old School – New School division rested in the nature of the church and its governing bodies in the American context. The Old School reflected Presbyterian tradition and wanted only denominational church boards responsible to the General Assembly to undertake the work of the church. They were dissatisfied with non-denominational or inter-denominational boards not under the discipline of the Presbyterian Church. The New School, on the other hand, was satisfied with voluntary societies and restated (or “improved” upon) the doctrines of Calvinism. Charles Finney, Presbyterian preacher and revivalist hardly could be drawn toward all aspects of the 17th century Westminster Confession of Faith. Christians in the “West” seemed unbothered by the eastern provincialism of denominational hard lines. Hardly below the surface lay the issue of slavery, the unresolved matter of freedom for all Americans and equal status in the Presbyterian Church. Loetscher found that Presbyterians in slaveholding states constituted less than one in eight of the New School party whereas more than one in three were in the Old School party. This division had economic and sociological groundings. Nevertheless, the Old School sent a warning to the church about “the prevalence of unsound doctrine and laxity in discipline,” securing a majority at the General Assembly in 1837 to remove four Synods under the Plan of Union and divide the church into the two “schools.” At that point, some parted company and formed or joined new denominations. Others, in the New School, signed “the Auburn Declaration” affirming their commitment to the Presbyterian Church and its doctrine, worship, and government.24

The number of churches in the Presbytery of Elizabethtown continued to increase in the 19th century from the fervor of the Old School and New School division through the Civil War. The State of New Jersey participated with Southern states in the Fugitive Law, refusing to harbor or free escaped slaves. The presbytery seemed to not take sides as Crescent Avenue Church, founded in this period, permitted Blacks to sit in the church balcony but partake of communion separately from the white congregation seated below them.25 By 1884, with the ending of the Civil War and the Emancipation Declaration, Blacks there had had enough discrimination. They withdrew from sitting apart in the balcony and formed the “Bethel Chapel” that met elsewhere in the same church building.

Evident in the structure of the presbytery was the responsibility for presbyteries to sponsor missionaries from their bounds long before selection and payment became the responsibility of centralized boards of the General Assembly in the 20 th century structure. One hundred years after its organization, the Synod of New Jersey listed two additional presbyteries outside its bounds: one in Cuba and the other in Cameroon.

Theologically, Loetscher argues that the reunion in 1869 of the two “schools” after the Civil War restored unity not by resolving differences but by ignoring them. The denomination soon would be swept into two periods that addressed issues of modernism. Nevertheless, the calm between these periods provided the church opportunities to focus on the matters most important to its health and mission. In the closing decades of the 19 th

24 Smylie. 62-80. Loetscher (1978). 96-97.25 Today the Crescent Avenue Church has a racially mixed, multicultural congregation.

7

century, the national office of the Stated Clerk became full-time and added other “professionals.” Membership increased. Sunday schools, mission programs, associations for women and for men, and planned benevolence giving grew with the addition of new “departments” and managers in these areas. Books and articles appeared about “efficient ministry.” The denomination, as other large institutions of this time, took on more of a corporate nature.26

Two modernist debates occurred between 1889 and 1903, and from 1922 to 1936.

The first debate resulted from “a cyclone” of social and culture change in the closing decades of the 19th century: notable examples being evolutionary thought, the industrial age, new immigrants, critical reasoning applied to the Bible, creedal revision, and a new directory for worship. Loetscher concludes that the forces of the first were not theological but ecclesiastical, not ideological but sociological and physical. They challenged the power and freedom in the church. Could critical science be applied to material Christianity? What Christian ideas must be guarded and what could be adapted to the present with critical reasoning? Strict doctrinal conformity defeated those who wanted a more open minded denomination. Charles A. Briggs, a victim of this censuring period, lamented that the former New School pulpits were being replaced by Old School preachers. The message from the General Assembly of 1899 was unequivocal: “This Assembly enjoins upon all Sessions and Presbyteries loyally to defend and protect these fundamental doctrines of this Confessional Church.”27 What power or freedom did presbyteries have? That question would remain unclarified until another storm would hit the church.

The second debate centered on the fundamentalist-modernist disputes after World War I and within the period of America’s Great Depression: notable examples being fundamentalism and neo-orthodoxy, prohibition, social concerns and ecumenism, denominational structures for Home and Foreign mission, women’s work and education. World War I stimulated church unity, while also drawing criticism from those, like William Brenton Greene, Jr. of Princeton Seminary, who saw interdenominational unity as ecclesiastical utilitarianism with no regard or appreciation of church distinctions. While former Princeton Seminary professor J. Gresham Machen saw true Christianity surrounded everywhere by intensely hostile forces, other denominations and presbyteries—Elizabeth included—saw new frontiers for mission in urban settings and with new immigrants. Arguments ensued over who controlled the theology and ecclesiology of the denomination and its mission. “The administrative machinery,” Loetscher deftly states, “had never been completely integrated into the sixteenth and seventeenth century patterns of government in four ascending judicatories.”28 A previous General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission had ruled that “the Church is not a mere confederation of Presbyteries; it is a united church.”29 Presbyteries competed with the General Assembly for freedom of credentialing clergy. Seminary professors divided over where control of doctrine resided: a centralized or decentralized church? Some requested the 26Louis B. Weeks, “The Incorporation of the Presbyterians.” 42-48. 27 Loestcher (1954). 72.28 Ibid. 106.29 Ibid. 127.

8

mission agencies to rule on the orthodoxy of denominational missionaries. Others seemed to see the church as nothing more than a voluntary association, like a political club. One side wanted only committed orthodox commissioners at the General Assembly; the other appealed for peace and liberty by 1925.

One General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, commenting on the ecclesiastical power between the presbytery and the General Assembly, ruled thus: “The General Assembly has limited, defined, and delegated powers.”30 The four powers which the Assembly may exercise are: legislative, executive, judicial, and amending the constitution. Loetscher summarizes: “Rejecting both extreme centralization and extreme decentralization, the commission favored a mediating view of the constitution in which powers of session, presbytery, synod, and General Assembly were balanced. But in relation to licensure and ordination…‘the powers of the General Assembly are specific, delegated, and limited, having been conferred upon it by the Presbyteries; whereas the powers of the Presbytery are general and inherent.’… A licensure can be revoked by a presbytery without judicial process, but an ordination cannot be.”31 One elder called this “a new Magna Charta.”

The commission offered the clarification that the General Assembly does not have the power to give binding definitions of the Church’s essential faith, overturning the actions of three previous General Assemblies. The commission made concessions to cultural pluralism and theological diversity by assuring local presbyteries greater autonomy and theological liberty necessary to preserve the Church’s unity. The commission essentially affirmed administrative centralization and theological decentralization. The Presbyterian Church depended on its group mind rather than on traditional Presbyterian authoritarianism for the preservation of its theological heritage.

Amid this ecclesiastical and theological debate, the Great Depression brought two realities to the church. The first being that the rapid decrease of financial resources brought the bankruptcy and closure of churches and the slashing of missionary, educational, and promotional programs of the denomination. The second being that the entry of a new social consciousness concerned for human welfare shifted the denomination away from progressive enlightenment and optimistic liberal theology.

The General Assembly’s Board for Home Mission commended the “self-supporting” status of the Synod of New Jersey in its 1923 report, appreciating the financial support provided to assist the denomination’s “Home Mission” activity in other Synods. The growth of cities and larger towns in New Jersey, the drift of people to residency outside the city, the entry of immigrants, and the migration of Southern Blacks made presbytery mission more complex--complex at a time when bridges and tunnels were connecting ground transportation in New Jersey to both Pennsylvania and New York.32 The Presbytery of Elizabeth more than doubled the number of its member churches during this century.

30 Ibid. 132.31 Ibid. 133.32 Minutes of the General Assembly. 1923. 130.

9

An entire volume of The Presbyterian Presence: The Twentieth Century Experience is devoted to “the organizational revolution” of the denomination in the 20th

century. Richard W. Reifsnyder writes about the organization of a national bureaucracy in the 1920’s, a managerial revolution in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and a restructured design following reunion in 1983.33 Within the organization revolution, he describes four leadership eras: the era of the Christocentric moderates (1923-1937); the era of ecclesiastical giants (1937-1959); the era of challenging the kingdom builders (1959-1973); and the era of the participatory model of leadership (1973-1983). Church leaders selected leaders, often plucked from the leadership of large churches during the first half of the 20th century. Seminaries hired professors at that time who began their academic careers in the parish. With the ascendancy of Protestant hegemony by mid-twentieth century (even as their percentage of the religious in the US population was falling), the denomination created leaders who were influential “giants,” known in both church and society. Today, such Presbyterian giants are hardly known or revered. The centralization of power had brought its own successes and failings when the General Assembly sought to address issues pressed upon it by society (as race, war, and poverty) or within the denomination—as the fundamentals and the ordination of women.34 Reifsnyder notes the significant shifts in church organization during the second half of the 20 th century with the formation of elected representative committees of church leaders to steer areas of church life formerly led by individuals with wide church experience. Changes by General Assembly commissioners approved a more participatory style of leadership in church polity and in standing rules to implement greater representation at all governing body levels. Women and persons from racial groups in the minority of Presbyterian churchgoers were elected to more visible leadership roles. Leaders either managed, or were managed by, this more inclusive committee style.

Lewis L. Wilkins, Jr.35 describes the development of the comprehensive program presbytery during this time. Presbyteries no longer called and sponsored missionaries from within their churches; the General Assembly took over that function. Wilkins found one stark economic reality of administrative centralization was that General Assembly boards had drawn down their reserves in the 1960’s.36 The reorganization in the UPCUSA (northern stream) in 1972 responded to this reality by encouraging larger roles

33 “Managing the Mission: Church Restructuring in the Twentieth Century,” in The Organizational Revolution. 55-94. Also Reifsnyder, “Transformations in Administrative Leadership in the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., 1920-1983,” and “Looking for Leadership: The Emerging Style of Leadership in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 1983-1990, in The Pluralistic Vision: Presbyterians and Mainstream Protestant Education and Leadership. Coalter, Mulder, and Weeks, eds. (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992). 252-288. 34 For example, the northern church undertook ordaining women progressively as first, deacons, then elders, and finally ministers were ordained to offices of the church. The southern church delayed, seeking to take one seamless action. Different judicatories (presbytery vs. General Assembly) argued again over which controlled ordination.35 “The American Presbytery in the Twentieth Century,” in The Organizational Revolution: Presbyterians and American Denominationalism.112-118. 36 Wilkins. Footnote 41: “For many years until the late 1960’s, about 25% of all Presbyterian giving went to mission outside the congregations and 75% was spent by the congregations. Congregations now [1992] spend close to 90% of every dollar and give 10% to mission at all levels.

10

for synods and presbyteries in mission. Multi-state regional synods grew. Denominational resources for these middle governing bodies began to dwindle, nevertheless synods and presbyteries still developed their mission structure in light of the structure and priorities of the higher judicatory. The frontier of home mission in the 1960’s became challenged by the turbulence of an era in which some sought the cultural disestablishment from, and distrust of, many institutions in American society, the church included. Where “established” Presbyterian churches could respond to the mission on their doorstep, new church developments, immigrant fellowships, and other denominations did. “Frontiers” for mission, Wilkins states, became local: centered in the suburban expansion begun in the 1950’s, the strife in the inner cities of the 1960’s, and racism. Both the northern and southern streams wrote their own American confessions, with the northern church approving the Confession of 1967 but the southern church only approving its Declaration of Faith for liturgical use. The Confession of 1967 spoke of reconciliation in areas indigenous to the American context in which Presbyterians lived. It was the first new confession to be adopted by American Presbyterians in 300 years, and its adoption created the Book of Confessions, that sought to link a number of Reformed heritages with the earliest creedal statements of Church Councils.

In 1983, the northern and southern streams of the Presbyterian Church reunited after a separation of 122 years. Seven years later more than two-thirds of the presbyteries approved a Brief Declaration of Faith with its poetic and liturgical style as a new confession for the reunited branches. Since Reifsnyder’s writing, the denomination closed its two pre-reunion headquarters (both on the East Coast) and moved to a new mid-America location. The General Assembly approved the addition of the national staff position of Executive Director of the General Assembly Council in the 1990’s, reflecting administrative delineation from the Stated Clerk’s ecclesiastical role. Since then, downsizing has occurred at least three times and, by the vote of General Assembly commissioners, the denomination restructured itself through Assembly actions in 2006 and 2008. Three decades of the Congregational, National, and Worldwide Ministries “Divisions” gave way to six priority areas reflecting the emphases of this American denomination and, presumably, its presbyteries at the dawn of the 21st century. The denomination has both celebrated new initiatives and concluded former program ministry areas in the last quarter of the 20th century, largely the result of the attrition of members and income, and a nod to the disestablishment of Protestant mainline denominations in America.

While Loetscher pointed out that the Reformers could not envision the administrative application at four judicatory levels three hundred years later, the 20 th

century organizational revolution had sought parallel structures in governing bodies above the session. The Synod of New Jersey, as late as 1968, and the Presbytery of Elizabeth, as late as 1971, mirrored one denominational structure with corresponding areas of ministry and mission. With the growth in the membership and number of churches throughout New Jersey, the Synod created the position of synod executive and increased the number of associate executives to eleven who managed various services to its constituent presbyteries at that time. Individual associate executives became members of the presbytery of their assignment. By 1975, national reorganization resulted in the

11

merger of three regional synods (New Jersey, New York, New England) into the larger eight-state Synod of the Northeast. The merger, intended to reduce the number of synods nationally from 35 (many using state borders as boundaries) to 16, seemed to betray its era of distrust and support for large institutions and the decline of the denomination’s membership nationally. Was the Synod living in the kingdom building era? Or, with the reduction in the number of synods coming through regional and national consultations, was it trying to reduce the per capita costs of denominational management and mission? But for whose benefit--the General Assembly, Synod, Presbytery, local congregation? Synod staff swelled. Twenty-two executives initially served specific presbyteries as Synod Judicatory Executive Staff.37 The Synod of the Northeast located its office in Upstate New York with a Synod Executive, eight Associate Synod Executives (for Program Development, Planning, Church Support and Interpretation, Racial and Ethnic Concerns and Public Issue Ministries, Finance, Education, Women’s Concerns and Evangelism, and Personnel Support Services), thirteen support staff, and three General Assembly Staff working with the Synod. No longer served by close regional staff, the presbyteries in New Jersey each elected their own Executive Presbyter. With up to 44 persons serving in some capacity as Synod Staff for 22 constituent presbyteries, how could resources sent to the General Assembly not decrease as both the synod and its constituent presbyteries undertook what Wilkins described as a comprehensive program form?

Centralization across eight states diminished statewide interaction among New Jersey presbyteries, carried largely thereafter through the State Council of Churches and monthly meetings of New Jersey’s Executive Presbyters. A Synod Collegium of the presbytery executives (with the synod executive) met at least twice annually and, initially, at “mission funding conferences” where presbytery percentages of per capita and mission giving to higher judicatories once were negotiated. Twice a year representatives of constituent presbyteries met as synod commissioners to the Synod Assembly. Nevertheless, presbyteries largely functioned more independently in their structural style and priorities, breaking—for better and for worse—the former parallel structures among governing bodies. Elizabeth Presbytery, with sufficient financial resources, elected specialized associate executive staff during the 1980’s and 1990’s for emphases in Christian Education, Stewardship, Single Adults, and Mission. Until the turn of the new millennium, the Elizabeth Presbytery often ranked in the top ten presbyteries of giving to Presbyterian mission.38 However, the decrease in giving came. Each governing body (session, presbytery, synod, and General Assembly) could not function as a program agency within one denomination. The politics showed in reduced participation in unified mission. Loyalty to the mission of higher governing bodies varied. While funds circulated early in this model among different levels of the governing bodies, by the end of the century governing bodies more freely determined the level of support to be provided to each other with little or no consultation. An orientation video for presbytery commissioners to the 2001 General Assembly illustrated graphically with a “Calvin” dollar bill that unified Presbyterian giving (a percentage determined by the presbytery for 37 Minutes of the Synod of the Northeast. 1978. 345. 5.31: “Executive Presbyters employed by presbyteries within the bounds of Synod shall be considered as Synod Staff in accordance with the Form of Government, Chapter XXIX, I.A.” The Judicatory Executive Staff are identified on page 381ff.38 The presbytery resides within two of the wealthiest counties in the United States.

12

the allocation of congregational receipts for the presbytery, synod, and General Assembly39) amounted to 70% of higher governing body support in the 1970’s. By the end of the 20th century, it amounted to only 30%, with 70% being “designated” to specific areas of mission by sessions. Diminished membership and funds pinched each governing body to take notice.

The Synod of the Northeast’s executive staff in 2009 includes only Co-Executives (one as Stated Clerk and Administrator, the other for Mission Partnerships). There are no Synod Associate Executives. Four persons provide administrative support. In 2006, the Synod of the Northeast decentralized into five presbytery partnership groups affirming a denominational-wide decentralization strategy that ministry should happen closest to the congregation. This decentralization provides New Jersey with both a haunting and intriguing reality: it has returned to its boundaries as the Synod of New Jersey with all its presbyteries working together as one Presbytery Partnership Group (PPG). Whether this becomes a fifth level—between the presbytery and synod—or a replacement for the synod altogether remains to be seen. The four judicatories no longer have the previous programmatic/structural/priority seamlessness among themselves. Among the eight presbyteries operating in the state of New Jersey, Palisades Presbytery has three part-time specialized executive presbyters and New Brunswick is considering whether to continue having an executive and associate executive presbyter. The other presbyteries have only a single general or executive presbyter.

What Reifsnyder described as the loss of good leaders in the national restructuring of 1973, seems to have followed the denomination in one downsizing and restructuring after another from the end of one century to the beginning of another. Fewer General Assembly staff today have the depth garnered from long denominational level experience. Terms are shorter with more turnovers. On the other hand, the General Assembly Council’s recent national priority appointments show that leaders again are moving directly from congregations into the national structures as they did a century ago. The present General Assembly Moderator, the youngest elected to this position, is the pastor of a multicultural congregation. This election signals a longing of commissioners.

The Presbytery of Elizabeth has long participated in the defining moments of American Presbyterian power, structure, and mission. The pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, Jonathan Dickinson, drafted the Adopting Act of 1729. The first Great Awakening began within our present bounds. Both Old and New Schools continued to found churches and Sunday Schools in the presbytery. Minutes reflect the ordination of pastors and the sending of missionaries. The Synod of New Jersey’s mission commitments to Cuba and Cameroon built an international partnership among constituent presbyteries. When the national church and synod had a Board of Home Mission and a Board of Foreign Mission in the 20th century, so did the presbytery. Foreign or Global Mission had been deleted as a presbytery committee by 1971. However, Global Mission

39 In Elizabeth Presbytery, unified giving is distributed as follows: 60% presbytery, 15% synod, 25% GA.

13

refused to die and actively re-established itself.40 Even as the 21st century begins, two new fellowships were chartered, and two more have begun in the first decade.

The simple structure of three presbytery-level committees in the early days of the Presbytery of Elizabeth in the 19th century gave way to grand complexities in the 20th

century. Positively, the complex structure mirrored many national emphases and provided direct relations between activity on the presbytery level and activity on the national level. Negatively, it became consumptive of presbytery volunteers, time, energy, and priorities.In 1971, the presbytery had 54 member churches, 103 minister members, and three commissioned church workers. Presbytery minutes then reveal a working structure that included a Board of Trustees, a Presbytery Council, and 18 committees. While the Synod of the Northeast adopted the General Assembly’s new “agency” terms, the Presbytery of Elizabeth largely did not.

By the 1980’s, the presbytery’s standing rules clustered 18 committees into “divisions” much like the denomination (largely administrative and programmatic) that met monthly. In 1995, the presbytery adopted a new structure that sought to reduce the number of committees by eliminating or combining many into two areas: six program units and one administrative unit. This restructuring on the surface resolved one complexity of a huge bureaucracy with a rationale somewhat related to goals. However, there was no vision easily articulated. Some committees simply doubled the responsibilities of a single unit instead of a more singular focus. Examples include the Committee on Preparation for Ministry including oversight of candidates preparing for ministry and the pastoral care of ministers; the Financial Development Committee replacing the better understood “Interpretation & Stewardship Committee;” and the Outreach and Social Concerns Unit combining Church & Society and the National Missions Committee. Previous foci were lost or abandoned, not without some expectation for greater efficiency of presbytery’s stewardship of its resources and action related to its goals. The comprehensive program presbytery form was still underway. It is hard to let go of such a model with a present church polity that gives every PCUSA presbytery 27 responsibilities to address.

A Special Committee on Middle Governing Relationships,41 created by the 1998 General Assembly, submitted a report a year later in which five guiding principles were set forth:

A. The primary organizational focus of the life and work of the PCUSA is on developing, encouraging, equipping, and resourcing its congregations and their leaders as the Living Body of Jesus Christ.

40 The Global Missions resurfaced with (a) the formation of a Global Missions Committee; (b) a 10-year International Partnership with the Dominican Republic (1980’s-1990’s); (c) the invitation of two consecutive pastors from India to serve as yearlong “Missionaries to the USA” with a Presbyterian church whose neighborhood became the center of the Indian immigrant community (mid 1990’s); (d) the start of four immigrant new church developments for Korean, Brazilian, Hispanic, and Malagasy immigrants; (e) the presbytery and individual congregations planning their own international mission trips (present decade); and,(f)a missionary-in-residence 2007-2008 from Guatemala.41 Report of the Special Committee on Middle Governing Body Relationships. Edwin Albright (EP, Greater Atlanta Presbytery), Chair. January 12, 1999. Mailed for personal review.

14

B. The primary focus of the life and work of presbyteries is to enhance the effectiveness of congregations.

C. It is essential that simplified, flexible, and more responsive ways be found for the PCUSA to do its work as it moves into a new millennium in a rapidly changing environment.

D. All governing bodies will be engaged in partnerships for mutual mission and ministry opportunities.

E. No PCUSA governing body is an island; indeed, none can serve its historic role apart from the others.

The report affirmed the need for denomination-wide support for congregations, and partnerships supporting such mutual mission among governing bodies throughout the denomination. “Simplify” became the catchword.

The Congregational Mission Support Presbytery form was five more years away. Elizabeth Presbytery’s Council appointed a task group to draft a new mission statement following a five-year plan begun in 1996 that concluded in 2000. In the new statement, connection and care became dominant words, as did joy: “We are God’s joyful people; we are connected to God…to each other…to our communities; we intend to care for the Body of Christ…one another as presbyters…our congregations.” Noble in language, it lacked a process to implement and measure progress. Many believed it so long at two-pages, the presbytery often referred only to its summary conclusion of three sentences. The momentum of its approval, September 25, 2001, was overshadowed by a historic tragedy that affected these New York City metro area churches in the Presbytery of Elizabeth: the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Nevertheless, a process began in 2002 to enter into clustered dialogues with all of the presbytery’s member congregations, resulting in a short, two sentence Vision Statement in 2004 describing presbytery direction for the next 10 years. Congregational mission support became essential.

Three congregations and one fellowship closed during the two years presbytery dialogue ensued, even as a new church development and bi-lingual congregations grew in the presbytery. Attention had too long focused on community and national mission beyond the congregation while the majority of congregations saw membership losses. The presbytery mandated mission studies during pastoral transitions, with other congregations doing them as part of their ongoing identification of mission priorities. Diminished presbytery resources and congregational choice for “designated giving” brought denominational dialects to a head during one presbytery meeting when advocates for a social gospel argued with advocates for an evangelical gospel. Both seemed willing to allow funding for presbytery staff to decline. As the 33-year Presbytery Administrative Assistant announced her retirement and was applauded, a motion was made but not approved to eliminate her position to finance mission. She quipped, “Before my body is even cold.” However, staff reductions did come. The morale dropped among presbytery staff when, in succession, the presbytery eliminated the Associate Executive Presbyter position in 2004 and the Director of Education and the Resource Center in 2005. The pattern of eliminating staff repeated itself at every governing body level. Congregations were not spared. Associate pastor positions were eliminated and, in a few cases, pastoral positions reduced to less than full-time. Some regretted the end of the presbytery

15

comprehensive program model; others lamented that a presbytery congregational mission support model had been too long in coming.

For the last 12 (or 30) years, the denomination and its presbyteries have re-fought the longstanding dialect in the church over the ordination standards for self-affirmed and practicing gay and lesbian persons. Slightly more than half of the presbyteries want the General Assembly to set national criteria on ordination and state essential and necessary tenants of faith to which all ordained officers must subscribe. The remainder wants to retain the historic principle and previous General Assembly rulings that sessions and presbyteries have the right to determine who they will ordain and install as church officers. Which judicatory acts to control this? How authoritarian must church government be? How does freedom of conscience apply? Theology and ecclesiology compete with ideology and sociology as in times past. Like the culture at-large, “special interest” groups lobby for influence over what some church historians have referred to as the loyalists, the silent majority, or the middle constituents within the denomination. Gary Eller documents in his article about special interest groups in the denomination42 that the influence they exercise is not proportionate to their constituency; nevertheless, their influence demonstrates what organized people and organized money can do. Constructively, Eller believes they can be in-house critics and reformers, like those in the kingdom building era of the 1960’s. However, he laments their destructive and fragmenting power, draining the denomination of its energy, unity, and mission. He leaves Presbyterians to ponder whether this “theological Balkanization” can end. Lamar Williamson and Randy Taylor, the co-chairs of the Joint Committee on Presbyterian Union (1969-1983) weighed in with these comments as a “Guest Viewpoint” in the October 22, 2001 issue of The Presbyterian Outlook:

All of us speak too casually about dividing the church again in days like these,but we speak too carelessly about the body of Christ. The body of Christ isGod’s gift to all of us, and it is not appropriate for us to play our competitivegames of division. We have some who speak seriously about dividing up thechurch as if that is a bright, new idea. How long will it take us to learn thatthis is not new? It is as old as the well-worn path that hundreds of peoplebefore us have tried in seeking to establish groups on their own. Do not tearat the tissue of the body of Christ; it causes deep pain and takes a long timeto heal!43

For a decade, many sides turned more to polity (Book of Order) as the manual for operations or enforcement in this turbulent time rather than pursuing ongoing biblical, theological, ecclesiastical, and inter-personal reflections in groups with diverse opinions. However, the General Assembly appointed Task Force on the Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church sought to lead the church into such dialogue and reflection. Commissioners in 2006 voted nearly unanimously to adopt all but one area of the Task Force’s recommendations, and more than 75% of the commissioners approved even this area (to

42 “Special Interest Groups and American Presbyterianism,” in The Organizational Revolution. 254-278.43 Richmond, VA: The Presbyterian Outlook Foundation. October 22, 2001.

16

allow for “scruples” from essential tenants by ordained church officers to be decided by sessions and presbyteries, not dissimilar to the Adopting Act of 1729).44

Craig Dykstra and James Hudnut-Beumler offer helpful, though not conclusive, metaphors to describe the Presbyterian denomination of which the presbytery is an essential part with its constituent member congregations. The denomination arose from a confederation of churches to a corporation of churches that in the past and the present can function as a regulatory agency.45 Each metaphor continues to operate in some manner today. When there is chaos and confusion, Presbyterian polity can bring clarity or regulation. Receiving per capita assessments, gathering for Stated Meetings, and working on a common mission, Presbyterian congregations display their corporate nature. Left alone (intentionally or through benign neglect) and with little contact with other Presbyterian congregations, the Presbytery may easily become a loose confederation of Presbyterian churches with different missions and purposes. Richard Giffith, the second Executive Presbyter to serve the Presbytery of Elizabeth, described the presbytery in his closing address of 1995 as resembling “a tribal confederacy” where “each does what is right in his or her own eyes” (Judges 17.6). Presbytery as tribal confederacy? Voluntary association? Organic unity?

The 21st century American pressures for choice in a consumer society, Baby Boomer emphasis on self-fulfillment, the privatization of religion, post-modern disestablishment of common practices and standards, the decentralization of institutions, the legal requirements of incorporating, new expressions of spirituality, all challenge ecclesiology—what we think “church” is. Loetscher’s analysis of Machen would caution Presbyterians not to reduce the organic unity of the Church (which the 17th century Reformers sought to protect) into nothing more than a voluntary association—a social or political club. Regulating the presbytery through legislative and judicial actions on its or the General Assembly’s part cannot guarantee its organic cohesion and unity as the Body of Christ. Adaptive faith, integrity of belief with action, desire to enlarge the fellowship of Christ, and a generous, humble spirit by presbytery leaders can. That requires active trust from presbytery and congregational leaders in the Triune God, listening discerningly to vocal neighbors and those unable to give voice to their longings, and a maturity of faith gleaned through willing study and service as a follower of Christ. What form the presbytery actually creates, will result from the function presbytery and congregational leaders assume belong to presbytery mission and commit to fulfilling.

The presbyteries throughout the denomination are studying a 2008 document that could significantly change the nature and function of the presbytery beyond what the Task Force on Middle Governing Bodies has already advocated in 1999. How rapidly organizational change is thrust upon presbyteries!

The Report of the Form of Government Task Force advocates changes to the name and function of the middle governing body called the presbytery. Council replaces

44 www.pcusa.org/peaceunitypurity45 “The National Organizational Structures of Protestant Denominations: An Invitation to a Conversation,” in The Organizational Revolution. 307-331.

17

the term previously describing the four governing bodies known as the session, presbytery, synod, and General Assembly. The term council seeks to manifest the interconnectedness of the denomination:

All councils of the church are united by the nature of the church and share with one another responsibilities, rights, and powers as provided in this Constitution. The councils are distinct, but have such mutual relations that the act of them is the act of the whole church.46

The function of the presbytery in the revision Form of Government becomes minimalist and regulatory:

a. Provide that the Word is truly proclaimed and heard;b. Provide that the Sacraments are rightly administered; and,c. Nurture the covenant community through the upright ministry of ecclesiastical discipline.

These functions represent the most recent publications of the Office of Theology and Worship regarding three Euro-centric marks of the Reformed Church.47 Is this moving back into an Old Story rather than a New Story? Does this move the church closer to Craig and Hudnut’s view of the presbytery as a regulatory agency? The New Story, seen in the first part of the revision dealing with “foundations,” appears lost in these structural revisions. The missional role, so much a part of American Presbyterianism in the past and the present is conspicuously missing in this list. The proposed revisions allow for but seem to eliminate the need for any “executive” leadership of presbyteries. The Stated Clerk alone can rule on whether the three functions of the presbytery are being adhered to or not by the proposed revisions.

The Association of Executive Presbyters in the Presbyterian Church (USA) supports the missional posture intended in the revision of Presbyterian “foundations.” Where is this missional posture evident in the revision to the function of the presbytery? Why are the Nicene “marks” of the church not placed as the operative functions of all councils? With the creation of individualized mission statements evident among each congregation in the presbytery, and within each presbytery in the denomination, can Eller’s “theological Balkanization” be far behind? Are these revisions to the presbytery capitulation to creeping congregationalism and post-denominationalism?

Hugh Heclo, in his recent publication On Thinking Institutionally, states, “Our current danger is not too much but too little institutional thinking.”

The modern mind has lost its equilibrium with regard to institutions. TheEnlightenment taught us to think for ourselves, and the Romanticcountermovement taught us to express ourselves. The rise of bureaucratizedmass industrial society showed that we had to protect the Self, and the development of consumer society has assured all of these Selves that we have aright to be dismissive of institutions as mere formalities that we could remake at

46 Form of Government Task Force. 3.0102.47 See Charles Wiley, Kevin Park, and Darrell L. Guder. Bearing the Marks of the Church. PCUSA Office of Theology and Worship. 2006.

18

will and on the other to thoroughly condemn institutions as oppressive powerstructures of the Establishment.48

Thinking institutionally, Heclo argues, calls human beings to think as moral agents within a framework of institutional values. The foundational revisions to the Form of Government grasp this urging. One constructive effect of a trustworthy institution is it can enrich human lives be it the family, the school, the church, the bank, the government, or any myriad number of lesser known institutions that uphold values for the human beings choosing to form and/or participate within them. The presbytery is one such institution that exists within relationships to its member congregations and within the larger denominational institution. Better institutional thinking about the presbytery would address the pressures of cultural disestablishment on institutions and the moral values that can build human relationships and encourage partnerships within institutions. The presbytery intentionally and institutionally builds human relationships and moral value through corporate worship, fellowship, pastoral care, mutual service, and equipping leaders. The presbytery extends human relationships and moral value through intentional and institutional partnerships with other congregations and mission endeavors, be they sharing in officer training or a vacation church school, working together to bring relief to New Orleans through the Presbyterian Disaster Assistance, or visiting our international ecumenical partners who are addressing peace on the ground in the Middle East. Members of the presbytery’s congregations participate within all these endeavors.

Thinking institutionally for the presbytery requires awareness of the historical and institutional dilemmas presbyteries have faced in the American context, agreement about the nature and the function of the Church in general, Reform Church principles that add moral value, then making organizational applications to the geographical context in New Jersey that is Elizabeth Presbytery. Our current danger, Heclo reminds us, is not too much but too little institutional thinking.

These things remain within the historical and institutional heritage of the Presbytery of Elizabeth within the American Presbyterian context.

We can expect polarities of order vs. spontaneity, the rational vs. the emotional, and focus on the church as a whole vs. individual salvation, to continue. Recent discussions on polarity at a presbytery meeting encourage the presbytery not to eliminate the polarity, but to understand its constructive dynamic.

The presbytery resides within a national and cultural context to which it has responded for parts of four centuries. It can choose to confront national forces as it did in each century as a moral agent for God’s hope. It can choose to see cultural forces with hostility and tighten its regulatory nature. Its forms and practices will implicitly define what it believes the nature and purpose of the Church to be in each era. Will the shift to congregational resourcing pull churches away from or engage them with their social context? A receding practice, for example, is that few Presbyterian pastors today

48 Boulder, CO: Paradigm Books, 2008. 193-194.

19

regularly attend and address local town council or state assemblies who create policy and legislation that affect all the residents in the communities surrounding their churches.

The Old School – New School debate about who controls mission and evangelization still continues with many of our congregations choosing independent means conducive to their interests instead of the denomination’s aim to work in mutual mission, as stated in the Special Report on the Middle Governing Body. Homeland and foreign mission were once dual emphases of the presbytery. Part of the Old School – New School debate will continue as questions are asked: Will we work ecumenically instead of independently as Presbyterians? What costs are there to not working with denominational policy of mutual mission but doing it our own way wherever and with whomever we (presbytery or congregations) desire to send dollars and personnel? The Churches of North and South India worked interdependently instead of competitively to establish Christian mission on that continent. Some countries have more than 150 years of Presbyterian “on the ground” presence with local churches and communities that has endured through civil conflicts. What engenders mission cooperation?

The original charter of a presbytery in 1789 asked the presbytery to address the spiritual concerns under their care. The past could be prologue to the future if clergy again were invited to present papers for common discussion. The moderator, stated clerk, or presbytery leader could provide insights as to the present “state of religion” in the presbytery’s congregations. The presbytery could follow a recommendation of the 2008 General Assembly to practice again “solemn assemblies.” Considering spiritual concerns may necessitate constructive reflection about why, how often, and how long, presbytery meets. Assemblies might be overnight meetings. In addition, presbyteries are charged with visiting member congregations. A triennial (every third year) visit seems too distant amid rapid changes in congregations and society. New and encouraging annualized ways might be considered as spiritual and congregational care by the presbytery.

In 1824, the presbytery met twice a year for 2-3 day meetings. In 2008, the presbytery met seven times a year for 3-6 hour meetings. The earlier era may have had it right. Too many short meetings necessitate keeping an institutional form running that inhibits time at or between meetings for the equipping of leaders, fellowship, and other missional endeavors. Four meetings might be more realistic, perhaps one including a solemn assembly and two having more extended dialogue with congregations. It might be a turn of fortune, even in a depressed economy, for the Presbytery Partnership Group to host an open invitational event for all Presbyterian congregations as former Synod of New Jersey assemblies did in twentieth century. There is strength and strengthening in numbers. We have 350 congregations statewide, but little common fellowship beyond the bounds of presbytery meetings.

What forms of congregational life will the presbytery bless or ignore? Implicit in the values and organizational practices of the presbytery are opinions about what constitutes a vital church. A Congregationalist polity values congregations being left alone from interference by a middle or national church body. A Presbyterian polity values the connectional nature and responsibility of each congregation to build up the body of

20

Christ within the presbytery’s geographical region. There are no operative markers in the Presbytery of Elizabeth to define what constitutes healthy congregational life, placing the presbytery in more of a Congregationalist polity until it must act upon mandated national overtures, pastoral transitions, and crises in member congregations. Some fear operative markers would narrowly define what forms of ministry the presbytery blesses. The creative work of the Holy Spirit, however, cannot suppress that God will create new forms and movements to extend the grace of Christ. The Confession of 1967 wrestled with what this might look like in the American context.49

The Great Depression may shed light to the presbytery about two realities in this

global depression of 2009. One reality is economic hardship that could shape what congregations and ministries remain. The denomination saw the closure of some churches and slashing of ministries in the 1930’s. Funds for denominational, presbytery, and congregational resourcing—including staff, may be reduced in some places. This also is a reminder to the churches that ministry is the work of the whole people of God, not just paid professionals or units of the presbytery or denomination. Interdependence, not independence, could become the supportive organizing practice. Partnerships between churches and community agencies similarly invested in the care and feeding of persons seems unquestionably necessary. The other reality is that while some churches closed, others began. The creative work of the Spirit of God and Christian witness continued and adapted to new forms the times then and today required. The Great Depression was followed by the Second World War in the twentieth century and a spike in people attending church and new church development. How can the presbytery build enduring practices of ministry with the assets it has at hand?

The distrust of institutional forms of religion spurs congregations to shift thinking that people will come to them toward requiring the church to go to people in the world. This is its apostolic role. Relationships matter. Small group ministries contribute to faith development, congregational care, and engagement in the world. The post-denominational age is not inevitable when institutional forms retain their ability to bring meaning, community, and value to persons by the forms they adopt. Denominations continue to provide a “public policy” about who they are, what they value, how they operate, and that they are ethically accountable. The presbytery incarnates the gospel of Jesus Christ as a corporate body. It remains a human institution shaped in its polity, structure, and symbolism by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

Part II

Ecclesiastical, Theological, and Organizational Challenges for Presbytery Leadership

IThe polity of our denomination does not mandate the “executive” position nor

does it provide the position with the authority found more commonly among episcopate

49 The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church. Part II. The Book of Confessions. Louisville: The Office of the General Assembly. 2008.

21

polities (as Roman Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, and Methodist). Episcopate polities affirm “bishops” as successors to the original apostles. The office of the Bishop is lodged ecclesiastically and organizationally into this episcopate polity. Presbyterians often speak of the Presbytery (an equally representative body of lay and clergy within its district) as “the corporate bishop” because a body, not an individual, makes decisions over the churches within its district. If presbyteries and synods have “executives” in their middle governing bodies, they are to be administrators of the mission of those bodies.50 The creation of executive positions in the church grew out of twentieth century models of large organizations. In 1930, the average size presbytery had 35 churches, 35 ministers, and 4000 members. By 1980, the average size presbytery had grown to 65 churches, 90 ministers, and 15,000 members. The Presbytery of Elizabeth founded 28 congregations in the twentieth century, more than doubling the presbytery’s organizational responsibilities. Today the presbytery’s membership has declined from its peak in 1966 of 46,000 members in 55 congregations to its present 14,000 members in 50 congregations. The Synod of New Jersey in this peak era had one Synod Executive and eleven Associate Executives resourcing the Presbyterian congregations in New Jersey. With the creation of the much larger Synod of the Northeast by the middle of the 1970’s, each presbytery in New Jersey eventually elected its own executive leadership. Memberships in New Jersey presbyteries have declined dramatically since that peak. A recent publication suggests returning to smaller presbyteries.51 Could the elimination of this “executive” position be far behind? Does it have a theological function, or has it been created solely for organizational purposes?

An “executive” or “general” presbyter (an ordained elder or minister) is elected by its middle governing body—the presbytery. This election validates this role as ministry. Beyond election to this position, the PCUSA has no balance of criteria in our constitution for elder and minister serving in this middle governing body role. A ministry in the Presbyterian Church (USA) is “valid” for ministers when s/he exhibits these five criteria: theologically trained, conforms to Reform tenets, serves others, accountable to a governing body, and participates in church life.52 Ministers elected to middle governing body leadership may find the nature of their ministry likened to biblical terms as bishop, pastor, presbyter, ambassador, or steward.53 Presbyteries may extend to elders similar criteria validating their work as ministry and descriptions to their title that reflect their function in the presbytery through their administrative manuals, personnel committees, and position descriptions. Presbyterian polity, though, remains largely silent on the theological or ecclesiological justification of this validated form of ministry.

Colleagues serving today in this Presbyterian field of validated ministry address this silence through a growing number of diverse titles appearing among our 173 presbyteries nationally: General Presbytery, Missional Presbyter, Transformational Presbyter, Multicultural Presbyter acknowledging the theological deficiency of

50 The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Part II: Book of Order. Louisville: Office of the General Assembly, 2007-2009. G-9.0700.51 William J. Weston. Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment. Louisville: PCUSA Office of Theology and Worship. 2008. 52 Book of Order. G-11.0403.53 Ibid. G-6.0202.

22

“executive”—but not “presbyter”—in the 21st century church. Titles may add clarity to the function of this ministry but what about its ecclesiology?

A cursory review of current “Executive” leadership positions listed in the 2007-2008 Presbyterian Planning Calendar reveals the following patterns among the denomination’s 173 presbyteries:

Presbyteries with No EP Presbyteries Sharing EP/SC Role GP/EP/Co-EP/Other Executive Role9 26 138

Southern presbyteries (former Presbyterian Church, US) have the larger share of combined EP/SC role. One California presbytery combines an “Evangelist Presbyter” with the SC (Stated Clerk). Snake River and Sierra Mission have partnerships with a synod or presbytery staff member overseeing presbytery staff in a three-presbytery partnership. Three presbyteries have co-executives. Other emerging titles include General Missioner, Pastor to Presbytery, and Executive Congregational Consultant. Joyce Emery and Marianne Rhebergen argue for Teaching Presbyter, because it recaptures one aspect of the historic role of the supervising minister of the early church and the teaching presbyter role Calvin promoted for a Reformed Church.

IIThese are a few important factors that require presbyteries to look at their

ecclesiology today—that is the nature and function of the church.

The American religious landscape is in flux. Congregationalists and Episcopalians were the dominant religious neighbors Presbyterians knew when colonial churches were founded in New Jersey at the beginning of the eighteenth century. President Woodrow Wilson, a Presbyterian, still referred to America as a Protestant nation two centuries later. That Protestant hegemony declined in the twentieth century. Contributing factors included the rise of Catholic immigrants in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century; the flood of refugees here after two world wars; the change in immigration law in 1965 (rapidly diversifying the nations and religions present in America); the growth of “styles” of religious and spiritual expression; and lower birth rates among Protestant baby boomers (e.g., I have two sons but four siblings). Further, the boomer generation (b. 1943-60) did not feel compelled to maintain institutions the builder generation (b. 1901-24) started and the silent generation (b. 1925-1942) maintained. The emerging cultures, as Gen X (b. 1961-81) and Gen Y (b. 1982-2002), Tim Condor writes in The Church in Transition, “is shaped by a philosophy known as postmodernism, which encourages the pursuit of truth along new avenues of inquiry.”54 The previous age’s mechanistic and scientific explanations and practices have left a cultural, spiritual, and organizational vacuum in which our Presbyterian congregations now find themselves operating.

Some of Elizabeth Presbytery’s congregations have created new and adaptive ministries; others are scrambling to catch up or feel they are in unfamiliar terrain for twenty-first century ministry. “In our North American context,” Philip Wickeri writes,

54 Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. 20.

23

“we have not, for the most part, been willing to accept the fact that our historic middle-class Protestant churches are no longer mainline.” He adds,

this will also mean a reconsideration of the privileged place of Christians, particularly white mainline Christians, in a “new religious” America where “Christian” culture no longer sets the terms. We are far from understanding what all this entails, but we can begin to experiment with new directions in mission.55

Scrambling to catch up has led many congregations to rush into new trends, of which there is no shortage of widely diverging books or consultants. George Barna, for example, has said: “Think of your church not as religious meeting place, but as a service agency—an entity that exists to satisfy people’s needs.”56 Smaller congregations are encouraged to market “niche” ministries to survive in our highly commercial and competitive American culture. Larger congregations seek to be “one stop” sites like malls for many needs. Thomas Frank says of this consumer and utilitarian view: “The church doesn’t seem particularly central to the work of theology and vice versa.”57 Postmodern trends, while liberating to some, also encourage literal or behavioral dismemberment of congregations from any connections beyond those they favor. David Roozen and James Nieman add this observation for denominations: “Expressive individualism, congregational localism, and pluralism’s potential for fragmentation are among the pervasive and significant challenges that the postmodern situation of American society places before denominations.”58 The middle governing body and its leader have the daunting responsibility to encourage innovative, contextualized ministry within its member congregations while holding them faithful and accountable to the heritage of which they are part. Presbyterian polity states it this way: “The Church is called…to a new openness to the possibilities and perils of its institutional forms in order to ensure the faithfulness and usefulness of these forms to God’s activity in the world.”59

These changes and challenges have put our denominational structure in flux. Over the last decade, the national structures have been reorganized twice, each resulting in a diminution of human and financial resources. Previous parallel structures in the nineteenth and twentieth century that used to connect the denomination’s General Assembly through its middle bodies (synods and presbyteries) to the local congregation, no longer exist. The denomination has shrunk from 4,250,000 members in 1966 to 2,267,118 members four decades later. The median size of PCUSA congregation in 2006 was 105 members.60 Nearly half of our presbyteries have only half the strength (in members) as in the early 1970’s.61 The working ethos now is this: “The primary organizational focus of the life and work of the PCUSA is on developing, encouraging,

55 Mission from the Margins. Louisville: Office of Theology and Worship, 2004. 19.56 Thomas Edward Frank, The Soul of the Congregation. An Invitation to Congregational Reflection. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000. 34.57 Ibid. 38.58 www.hartsem.edu/events/news_churchidentityandchangebook.htm59 Book of Order. G-3.0401c.60 Clifton Kirkpatrick, Is There A Future for the Presbyterian Church (USA)? Louisville: Geneva Press, 2008. n.pag.61 Gary D. Torrens, “Is There a Presbytery Crunch?” Online. www.pcusa.org/mgbconnect

24

equipping, and resourcing its congregations and their leaders as the Living Body of Jesus Christ.”62 Many presbytery leadership positions are incorporating this emphasis.

A more recent contribution to this working ethos is the proposed revision to the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s constitution that creates a “missional polity” for the whole church. Congregations become the forefront of church witness because they are the places (mission sites) where the church engages the world. Also, instead of only Calvin’s two marks defining a church—the right preaching and hearing of the Word, and the right administration of the sacraments, the proposed revision recommends the four older marks in the Nicene Creed: “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.”63 This provides one ecclesiological function of middle governing body ministry to be apostolic: training, equipping, and supporting congregational leaders (lay and clergy) to lead the Church of Jesus Christ in the world as “the provisional demonstration of what God intends for all humanity.”64

The Presbytery of Elizabeth is fortunate to have a compact “district” or “parish,” ecclesially and geographically referred to as the presbytery. Its fifty congregations and two fellowships reside within thirty-eight municipalities in four counties. From the centrally placed office, a presbytery leader can arrive at any of these congregations within an hour or less travel time by car. Time required to travel on New Jersey roads, more than distance, is the only barrier to ongoing presence between presbytery staff and congregational leaders.

Nevertheless, the congregations vary in many respects: size, community type, and the century founded. These differences contribute to diverse viewpoints about “church,” mission, membership, the middle governing body, “theological worlds,”65 money, and power. These differences, more than geography, challenge the presbytery’s vision to be “a community of churches” if congregational leaders do not value being such a connected community. Fragmentation further occurs after votes on denominational hot-button issues and arguments about where congregationally generated funds should be appropriated in presbytery budgets. Perhaps no debate, however, stirs more passion then when someone tries to define what constitutes a vital church. What, beyond the purely statistical66 defines the nature and the practice of the church? These factors in this presbytery’s context contributed toward a new “executive” position description emphasizing being in the field of this compact, diverse presbytery “to build up the Body of Christ.”

62 Report of the Special Committee on Middle Governing Relationships. Edwin Albright, Chair. January 12, 1999. Mailed for personal review.63 Form of Government Task Force. Report and Recommendations for the 218th General Assembly. Louisville: Office of the General Assembly, 2008. 1.0302.64 Book of Order. G-3.0200.65 W. Paul Jones, Theological Worlds. Understanding the Alternative Rhythms of Christian Belief. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989. Jones defines five common Christian perspectives in this book.66 Annual statistical reports are requested from each of the PCUSA’s congregations. Numerically, the presbytery’s collective membership (“on the rolls”) numbered 14,296 at the end of 2007, with collective worship attendance averaging 5,746 on any given Sunday. Approximately 50% of our congregations showed a decline in membership; 25% were stable; and 25% increased their membership over the previous year.

25

IIIPresbytery leaders face these theological concerns.

First, the word church is so widely interpreted as to muddy its theological nature and function in light of expedient pragmatic ends. Bill Easum and Bill Tenny-Brittian humorously state that “our usage betrays our misunderstanding by describing church as a building, an ordained pastor, weekly worship and/or church programs, polity, and enough members to support all that.”67 The practical theologian combines sociology and theology, looking for things observable as practices, beliefs, structures, leadership, and participation patterns that provide a double referent 68 to God or God’s activity within and/or beyond the observable. “Because it is a human community,” writes James M. Gustafson, “the Church can make Christ present to men [and women].”69 One theological claim that could be made is that the leader of a presbytery, as a validated ministry in the eyes of the denomination, remains an interpreter to the presbytery of the nature and function of the church.

Second, one ecclesiological claim that could be made is that the leader of a presbytery is called into the apostolic nature of ministry. Christopher Morse writes as one ecclesiologic: “To believe that the church is ‘apostolic’ is to refuse to believe that the gathered body of Christ is not sent by the purpose of God…This sending is said to be for the purpose of saving, and not condemning, the world (John 3.17).”70 Jesus’ disciples walked with Jesus, ate with Jesus, prayed with Jesus, and reflected with Jesus after being sent into towns and villages with the gospel. Luke’s writings in the New Testament describe acts of the apostles as sharing the gospel in both momentary encounters and on journeys to places where these apostles remained for months and years. One form of apostolic ministry then, and now, is to lodge with a particular people. “To become located and lodged in a particular fragment of human history, with a particular people,” James Dittes discerns, “is the only way, God knows, to enter history redemptively.”71 The early apostles traveled and lodged regionally starting and strengthening congregations, extending the redemptive work of God.

Third, is the church a voluntary association or a high commitment body? Do presbytery leaders, presbyters (pastors and elders), and members on the pew agree? While limited to an ethnographic study of 29 congregations in a half-mile area in the Four Corners neighborhood of Boston, Omar M. McRoberts made an insightful conclusion about the voluntary nature of church associations:

When people choose one church or another, they are locating themselvesalong some or all of these dimensions [race, national origin, socioeconomic

67 Under the Radar: Learning from Risk-Taking Churches. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005. vii.68 Edward Farley, “Interpreting Situations: An Inquiry into the Nature of Practical Theology,” in Formation and Reflection: The Promise of Practical Theology. Eds. Lewis S. Mudge and James N. Poling. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. 11.69 Treasure in Earthen Vessels: The Church as a Human Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. 111.70 Not Every Spirit. A Dogmatics of Christian Disbeliefs. Valley Forge: PA: Trinity Press International, 1994. 305.71 When the People Say No. Conflict and Call to Ministry. New York: Harper & Row, 1979. 139.

26

class, lifestyles, level of strictness, size, internal organization, religious tradition, denomination]. There are also those whose religious needs cannot be met in any one church. These are the perpetual shoppers; they are committed to churchgoing but not to any one church.72

This presbytery’s 14,000 members have made similar decisions. Is a church, is the Church, a voluntary association? What theology or practice adds to the Church being a high commitment body?

In the Presbyterian Church (USA), one shift to higher commitment occurs when the church elects and ordains its members to a church office (ministers, elders, or deacons). Those ordained to church office vow to uphold particular tenets and principles of the Reformed faith. Covenant life and “that several different congregations, taken collectively, constitute one Church of Christ, called emphatically the Church,”73 are among these principles. By what organizational frames74 can a presbytery bind its congregations and congregational leaders to those principles? Joseph Allen reminds his readers that covenant relationships rest in our willingness to entrust ourselves to others and assume mutual responsibility, proven by durability over time.75 The Presbyteries of Baltimore and Chicago, for example, have a presbytery covenant that holds each member congregation to a common agreement. Political and structural frames alone, however, cannot bind Christian and theological identities; symbolic and human resource frames also must invite persons into covenantal relationships of high commitment. Presbyterian polity affirms its organization cannot work without trust and love.76 “Congregations are by definition,” writes R. Stephen Warner, “local assemblies, whereas denominations are regional, national, or international organizations and each of the two levels is suited for different activities.”77 The presbytery, as a middle governing body, and its leader straddle those levels. One straddling task is to help individuals and individual congregations to enter into the joy of focusing not just on my church (local) but the Lord’s Church (universal) that embraces Jesus’ prayer for unity (John 17.20-23). While this theological continuum between the church as a voluntary association and high commitment body remains, organizationally it will be the ordained church officers who serve as presbytery leaders that move this “community of churches” known as a presbytery toward the high commitment end.

IV Reform (Presbyterian) theological views also are accountable to wider

ecumenical dialogue. “The Church is called…to a new openness to God’s continuing

72 Streets of Glory. Church and Community in a Black Urban Neighborhood. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. 59.73 Book of Order. G-2.0500a(2) and G-1.0400. 74 Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E. Deal, Reframing Organizations. Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. Third Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003. See Table 15.2 (Choosing a Frame), 310; Table 15.1 (Four Interpretations of Organizational Process), 306-307. Bolman and Deal consolidate major schools of organizational thought into four perspectives, they label “frames,” meaning “a set of ideas or assumptions you carry in yur heard [that] helps you understand ad negotiate a particular ‘territory.’” (12.)75 Love and Conflict. A Covenantal Model of Christian Ethics. Nashville: Abingdon, 1984. 32, 60.76 Book of Order. G-7.0103.77 “The Place of the Congregation in the Contemporary American Religious Configuration,” in American Congregations. Vol. 2. Eds. James P. Wind and James W. Lewis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. 61.

27

reformation of the Church ecumenical, that it might be a more effective instrument of mission in the world.”78

The World Council of Churches provides two significant papers that provide wisdom on the wider ecumenical community’s statements about the nature of ministry, and the nature and function of the church. The former paper (#111) takes up discussions on church roles and functions as bishops and presbyters from a context wider than Presbyterian polity alone. It states the chief responsibility of the ordained ministry “is to assemble and build up the body of Christ”79—inclusive of the primary organizational purpose of presbytery leaders. It addresses the meaning of apostolic succession that provides an ecclesiastical and theological function for bishops in the episcopate (but not Presbyterian) polity, yet does not limit this succession to a person or role, expanding it to the Church at large:

Apostolic tradition in the Church means continuity in the permanent characteristics of the Church of the apostles: witness to the apostolic faith, proclamation and fresh interpretation of the Gospel, celebration of baptism and the eucharist, the transmission of ministerial responsibilities, communion in prayer, love, joy and suffering, service to the sick and the needy, unity among the local churches and sharing the gifts which the Lord has given to each.80

This understanding provides ecumenical support for those who affirm the apostolic role belongs to all baptized into Christ’s Church. The latter paper (#198) provides insights from the Bible, the Nicene Creed, and church history to establish ecumenical understandings about the nature and function of the Church. Because these statements reflect a wide body of churches representative of Christianity throughout the world, they provide an informed critique and validation of our own particular and Presbyterian understandings of the nature of ministry and the role of the leader of a presbytery.

VOrganizationally, the leader of a presbytery is one of three component parts of the

middle governing body. The other two components are what make the organization and the core leadership team work. People Technology Consulting, Inc.81 provides an organizational diagram below that displays this.

78 Book of Order. G-3.0401d. 79 Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry. Faith and Order Paper 111. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1982. 22.80 The Nature and Mission of the Church. Faith and Order Paper 198. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 2005. 43.81www.peopletechnology.com . See also diagram in consultant Marti Smye’s Is It Too Late To Run Away and Join the Circus? Updated Edition. A Guide for Your Second Life. New York: Hungry Minds, Inc., 2002. 66.

28

. Source: People Tech Consulting, Inc.

The presbytery leader’s role becomes more difficult when the organization itself is not clear about its own core values and how to pursue objectives that demonstrate those values. Presbyterian church polity, for example, states the presbytery “is responsible for the mission and government of the church throughout its geographical district,” then delineates twenty-seven specific responsibilities. The presbytery’s Council becomes that core leadership team responsible for the “coordination of mission and program.”82 When presbyteries were smaller in past centuries, the mandated presbytery organizational leader was solely the Stated Clerk, though large church pastors exercised significant influence. Some presbyteries have combined the positions of Stated Clerk and Executive Presbyter into one person, avoiding what other presbyteries have seen as a contentious authority relationship between two leaders: the Stated Clerk and the Executive Presbyter. This occurs when the presbytery fails to clarify the ecclesiastical or theological role of each, thereby elevating organizational tension or weakness over these roles. On the other hand, if the presbytery as a whole is to function effectively, then the Presbytery Council (the presbytery’s core leadership team) should agree on its organizational focus, work processes, and roles that will facilitate this.

Functionally, our presbytery more often reflects Henry Mintzberg’s “professional bureaucracy” form, whose diagram in Reframing Organizations83 appears below. Left of the apex is organizational technical support; to the right, organizational staff support.

82 Book of Order. G-11.0103, G-9.0902a.83 Bolman and Deal. 77, 78. See Figure 4.4.

29

Source: Mintzberg (1979), p. 355. Copyright © 1979.

The presbytery is full of well-educated clergy and congregational leaders, many of whom manage their congregations quite well. Each can be a specialist in their own context and still have little impact on the presbytery organization of which all are members. The leaders of a large, homogeneous suburban congregation, a medium-sized multicultural urban congregation, and a small, immigrant new church development have only limited, formal organizational culture in common with each other. The consequences of change in the presbytery may have little impact on congregations that do not value any connectional ecclesiology with the higher governing body of which they are a member church.

In Mintzberg’s professional bureaucracy form, organizationally the presbytery is largely flat. Our polity affords no hierarchical ecclesiology and the only “management levels” are those exercised by the Executive Presbyter, Stated Clerk, and Council, except when the national body mandates votes on matters affecting the whole denomination. The apex may be the executive committee of Council, with the operating core, in reality, being the roles each member of council takes responsibility for within the larger organization of the presbytery. Others might argue Council itself is the apex over many congregations. Without the support of the wider “professional bureaucracy,” the leader of the presbytery and its council may find change slow in coming.

Some presbyteries elect representatives of member congregations to the Council on a rotating basis to assure that member congregations have a greater direct voice and vote in matter affecting the whole of the presbytery. It also would not be uncommon to non-profit management, to request such at-large members to Council to raise funds and communicate with member congregations they represent. Scheduled “Councils” or “Assemblies” of all member congregations also could provide wider dialogue that shapes organizational values and direction.

Mintzberg, does offer two other models that could be reflective of both difficulties and opportunities in the functioning of the presbytery.

Source: Mintzberg (1979), p. 393. Copyright © 1979.

In the “divisionalized” form above, the presbytery works through quasi-autonomous units: the Committee on Preparation for Ministry, the Committee on Ministry, Administrative Commissions, and program units. The risk is that the presbytery’s purpose and goals become lost to the independent operations of these divisions—as independently operating presbytery program units with their own budgets.

30

Source: Mintzberg (1979), p. 443. Copyright © 1979.

This “adhocracy” form displays itself in networks and teams. Both respond more quickly to the immediacy of issues or change. No one is nominated. There are no terms. Goals are largely immediate and team decided. Staff and technical support are done internally by the team. Council remains at the apex, but the core of activity in the presbytery is carried out by ad hoc groups of persons. Examples in the presbytery have included: Mission Study task group, Congregational Transformation Team, Worship and Theology Team (WATT), and networks of small church, evangelical, transitional, large church, transformational, racial ethnic, and female pastors. Like any small group, they last as long as the individuals or tasks need them. They can be timely and supportive, providing segmented shifts to areas of presbytery mission or make no widespread and lasting contribution to the presbytery beyond the few involved.

Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal, in their work Reframing Organizations, offer different ways to assess gaps in organizational performance and leader function, and provide four frames to consider when undertaking organizational change.

REFRAMING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Frame Barriers to Change Essential Strategies Human Resource Anxiety, uncertainty; people feel Training to develop new skills;

incompetent and needy participation and involvement;psychological support

Structural Loss of clarity and stability; Communicating, realigning, andconfusion, chaos renegotiating formal patterns

and policies

Political Disempowerment; conflict Create arenas where issues can between winners and losers be renegotiated and new

coalitions formed

Symbolic Loss of meaning and purpose; Create transition rituals; mourn clinging to the past the past; celebrate the future

Bolman and Deal (2003), Table 18.1. 372.

An example: if the presbytery leadership (or the pastors themselves) were to advocate for the vitality of congregations, then the political process to follow would be to build coalitions. On the other hand, if the leadership role is to create a better functioning organization, then the structural process requires an analysis of the presbytery with the creation of a new or better functioning design. These frames all become useful addressing a wide array of organizational shortfalls in such areas as mission clarity, work processes,

31

individual and group commitment, skill sets, and decision-making abilities. “A troubled system needs to start talking to itself, especially to those it didn't know were even part of itself," organizational consultant Margaret Wheatley states. Bring the system together so it can learn more about itself, she advocates. "Organizational intelligence...isn't the ability to solve problems that makes an organization smart. It is the ability of its members to enter into the world whose significance they share. Everyone in the group has to feel that what is occurring is significant.”84

The Presbyterian Church (USA)’s middle governing body work ethos, the General Assembly’s proposed revision to the Form of Government, and the Presbytery of Elizabeth’s vision all focus on resourcing congregations. The apostolic role of the presbytery leader, lodged in the life of presbytery’s congregation as validated ministry, grounds presbytery leader responsibility in resourcing congregations. Further: Requesting representatives of all program units who have voice and vote on Presbytery Council, and Council’s vice chair for Presbytery strategy, to listen and provide feedback in a recent meeting with Second Presbyterian Church in Rahway, NJ (as one example) demonstrates a new way of Council leaders resourcing congregations. Bolman and Deal’s structural, human resource, political, and symbolic frames are all at play.

Lewis Wilkins described one form of change already at work within those middle governing bodies known as presbyteries in the Presbyterian Church (USA) as moving from “comprehensive presbytery program models” to “congregational support models.” Loren Mead, Clair Burkat, Paul Borden, and Lyle Schaller also have developed specific structural models to provide middle governing body support to congregations. Whereas Mead (a consultant) advocates an apostolic role for the church and minimalist intervention by middle governing bodies in the life of congregations,85 Burkat and Borden (who are Lutheran and Baptist middle governing body leaders, respectively) describe organizational changes necessary for the middle governing body and advocate that its leader lead the body into transforming congregations into missional communities. In Presbyterian circles, Gerry Tyer (Tampa Bay Presbytery, FL), Richard Short (Eastern Virginia Presbytery), Steve Yamaguchi (San Gabriel Presbytery, CA), and Judy Kolwicz (Newton Presbytery, NJ) are among a growing number of Executive Presbyter colleagues who have implemented organizationally and in their individual practices resourcing congregations. Steve Shussett (Lehigh Presbytery, PA) does this as a Teaching Presbyter.

84 Finding Our Way. Leadership For an Uncertain Time. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2005. 92-93.85 Transforming Congregations for the Future. Alban Institute. 1994. 72-85. Mead’s checklist included these:

Congregations need help from the presbytery when they get into trouble Congregations need to be left alone by the presbytery Congregations need to be jacked up by the presbytery when they are off base Congregations need pastoral care from the presbytery Congregations need pastoral care from the presbytery for their for their pastors Congregations need help from the presbytery with leadership development Congregations need technical assistance from the presbytery Congregations need from the presbytery a sense of their place in a larger mission Congregations need someone who listens and listens and listens

32

The symbolic frame of an incarnational (“embedded” or “lodged”) theology and an ecclesiology informed by the Nicene Creed (“one holy catholic and apostolic church”) can shape the presbytery leader’s work with specific congregations and their leaders. The human resource and process frame can guide how presbytery leaders proceed and what each proposes chose to do organizationally to resource congregations. Adair Lummis, in her research with regional judicatory leaders (1999-2000), found many of these leaders had jurisdictional titles but hardly the authority to implement change beyond what the congregation wants to do. She described the “subtle proactivity” regional judicatory leaders must undertake in their relationships with congregational leaders to find mutual concurrence on outcomes.86

As way of an illustration applied during my sabbatical: When the pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church and I first discussed my sabbatical “embedded” in that congregation, we reviewed two books. One, William Bridges’ work, Transitions,87 provided the congregation a way to understand they need not fear the discernment process nor its outcomes but to view this as a part of life’s rhythm of many transitions. The other, Walt Kallestad’s Turning Your Church Inside Out,88 provided an agreement between us that the church has an apostolic role. Alice Mann said in a seminar on consulting with congregations, “change happens through conversation.”89 Being embedded in the congregation for a couple months provided many conversations--some intentional as semi-structured interviews and direct questions in meetings but many more spontaneously in places I found myself interacting with members (retreat, worship, CROP walk, coffee hour, after a church break-in, while feeding the hungry, etc.)—that led into the “subtle proactivity” of which Lummis and Mann speak.

Concluding Thoughts

This paper began examining the origins and functions of the presbytery in the Presbyterian Church (USA). Starting conceptually as a form to be biblical and distinct from Roman Catholicism established in Europe, protesting “reformers” struggled initially to find a place and people in which their ideas for the Church could take root. Polity and confessions eventually held this diasporas Reform community together across oceans and national boundaries. In the New World, America, it competed with other Protestant denominations for a homestead in territory expanding in mass and population. “Presbyteries” created “communities” of similar denominational churches in a geographic region. Sometimes these presbytery communities retained long fellowship. Sometimes their sense of community fractured over doctrine, ordination standards, religious expression, or mission strategy. Other times complexity by population growth, geographical distance, ecumenical unions, or organizational management redefined the size of the presbytery and the number of congregations within that community of 86 “The Art and Science of Subtle Proactivity: Regional Leaders and Their Congregations.” Paper presented to the Religious Research Association Annual Meeting in Columbus, OH. October 2001.87 Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1980.88 Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress. 2001.89 “Consulting for Vital Congregations: Foundational Practices and Perspectives.” Simpsonwood Conference Center. Norcross, GA. February 12-16, 2007.

33

churches. Even Synods, like the Synod of New Jersey, engendered an enlarged community through its annual Assemblies on the boardwalk of Atlantic City with invitations for every congregation to come.

Today, the Presbytery of Elizabeth remains more complex in membership and congregations than any previous century. However, veterans still grieve the loss its former cultural structure and peak membership while all face the challenge of being a “community of churches” as a presbytery. Small struggling congregations find they need each other more than large, self-sufficient ones. Theological orientation factors into who feels affinity with whom. Rugged American individualism coupled with the plethora of separate municipal governments in New Jersey encourages separateness even for congregations a mile apart. Members traverse many municipalities, often bypassing other Presbyterian congregations, to attend the one of choice or one joined before moving away. Technological progress in communication and transportation has been blessing and curse for relationships. Presbyterians no longer have to write, phone, or visit; communications occur through the Internet. With this technology, personal vehicles, and regional transportation systems, 21st century Presbyterians can accomplish many more tasks with their work, with their families, and for themselves. But do Elizabeth Presbyterians remain too busy for the relational work of building “a community of churches” within the presbytery’s delegated boundaries and among its sister congregations?

The cultural and ideological disestablishment of the mainline Protestant church in America can also be a catalyst for the presbytery becoming a better “community of churches” for the benefit of the population in our region having the gospel proclaimed to them and spiritual resources from which to draw. A “Parish Presbytery,” Lewis Wilkins believes, could recapture an old Christian and Presbyterian notion that the “particular church” (often referred to as the smallest unit bearing the right marks of the church --preaching and the sacraments) in the fullest sense could be the presbytery.90 This offers a paradigm closer to that of the diocese from which the first Reformers came, and one that may better fit the needs of each “mission site” in the present bounds of the Presbytery of Elizabeth. For example, must each congregation raise the funds to cover the costs of maintaining a building, supporting a full-time pastor and his/her benefits, while also setting aside benevolences for local and denominational mission? New church development grants urged chartering (i.e., incorporating as an established, incorporated church) sometimes too quickly for many new church starts to become self-sufficient. Alternative models evolved, as one California presbytery whose Latino new starts require only the funding of members. Today, two of this presbytery’s three fellowships “nest” in another Presbyterian church. Three that lodged with a single language congregational host evolved to become bi-lingual churches. A Hispanic pastor aids a Korean pastor in his outreach to Latinos in his area. An Indonesian pastor joined the staff of the English-speaking church of 800 members because 100 of those members are Indonesian immigrants. An African lay leader heads up his church’s neighborhood outreach to African immigrants. Three church teams (pastors with lay leaders) worked together on congregational transformation. Some churches partner now on domestic and international

90 Wilkins. 120.

34

mission trips. Five urban churches formed a cooperative ministry in the city they share in common as their single “parish.”

The concept of parish, familiar to many former Anglicans and Catholics now counting themselves among Presbyterian church members, is a term rarely used by Presbyterians except when asking if a pastor is serving a particular “parish” (meaning, a local church). Wilkins ponders: “What if the presbytery was a parish?” Parish nurses, commissioned lay pastors, interim, specialized and retired ministers, elder training, and mission all could have further reach and opportunity. Partnerships, encouraged by the presbytery vision, would transcend municipal and county boundaries to accomplish mission common within presbytery bounds. Might it not contribute to organic church unity and “building up the body of Christ?”

May the God of all hope, who can do more than we can imagine or conceive,

use the assets of this presbytery’s heritage, its leaders’ intelligence,

its members’ energy, and the power of the Holy Spirit,

to shape how it will continue to share the love of Christ in and beyond this region.

The Reverend Robert Foltz-Morrison March 16, 2009

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allan, Joseph. Love and Conflict. A Covenantal Model of Christian Ethics. Nashville: Abingdon, 1984.

35

Baptism, Eucharist, Ministry. Faith and Order Paper 111. Geneva: World Council of Churches. 1982.

Barth, Karl. The Church and the Churches. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

Bible. Revised Standard Version. New York: Oxford University Press. 1977.

Bolman, Lee G. and Terrence E. Deal. Reframing Organizations. Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2003.

Borden, Paul D. Hit the Bullseye. How Denominations Can Aim the Congregations at the Mission Field. Nashville: Abingdon Press. 2003

Bridges, William. Transitions. Making Sense of Life’s Changes. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1980.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. John T. McNcNeill. Ed. Ford Lewis Battles. Trans. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Coalter, Milton J., John M. Mulder, and Louis B. Weeks. Eds. The Organizational Revolution. Presbyterians and American Denominationalism. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press. 1992.

___________ The Pluralistic Vision. Presbyterians and Mainstream Protestant Education and Leadership. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press. 1992.

Condor, Tim. The Church in Transition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Part I. Book of Confessions. Louisville: The Office of the General Assembly (PCUSA). 2008.

The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Part II. Book of Order. 2006-2008.Louisville: The Office of the General Assembly (PCUSA). 2006.

Dittes, James. When the People Say No. Conflict and Call to Ministry. New York: Harper & Row, 1979.

Drucker, Peter F. “What Makes an Effective Executive,” in Harvard Business Review. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. June 2004.

Dykstra, Craig and James Hudnut-Beumler. “The National Organizational Structures of Protestant Denominations: An Invitation to a Conversation,” in The Organizational Revolution. Presbyterians and American Denominationalism. Milton J. Coalter, John M. Mulder, and Louis B. Weeks, Eds. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. 1992.

36

Easum, Bill and Bill Tenny-Brittian. Under the Radar: Learning from Risk-Taking Churches. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005.

Eller, Gary. “Special Interest Groups and American Presbyterianism,” in The Organizational Revolution: Presbyterians and American Denominationalism. Milton J. Coalter, John M. Mulder, and Louis B. Weeks, Eds. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. 1992.

Farley, Edward. “Interpreting Situations: An Inquiry into the Nature of Practical Theology,” in Formation and Reflection: The Promise of Practical Theology. Eds. Lewis S. Mudge and James N. Poling. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.

Foltz-Morrison, Robert. “The Development of Presbytery Organization and Function in the American Presbyterian Context and the Challenges I Face Today as the Leader of a Presbytery.” Unpublished Paper submitted to Dr. Cynthia Woolever. Hartford Seminary. August 15, 2007.

__________. “My Ministry as I Make Sense of It with the Theological Motif of Ecclesiology.” Unpublished paper submitted to Dr. Kelton Cobb. Hartford Seminary. January 15, 2008.

Form of Government Task Force. Report and Recommendations for the 218th General Assembly. www.pcusa.org/formofgovernment.

Frank, Thomas Edward. The Soul of the Congregation. An Invitation to Congregational Reflection. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000.

Geertz, Clifford. Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, 1977.

Gibbs, Eddie and Ryan K. Bolger. Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Culture. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.

Guder, Darryl L. Ed. Missional Church. A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1998.

Gustafson, James M. Treasure in Earthen Vessels: The Church as a Human Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Heclo, Hugh. On Thinking Institutionally. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2008.Holifield, E. Brooks. “Toward a History of American Congregations,” in American

Congregations. Volume 2: New Perspectives in the Study of Congregations. James P. Wind and James W. Lewis, Eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

37

Hooker, Paul K. Identity-Polity-Praxis. Ecclesiology and the Presbytery. Office of Theology and Worship. Louisville: Presbyterian Distribution Service. 2007.

Hudson, Jill. “Trends in Middle Governing Bodies. A Brief Look at ‘What’s

Happening?’” Unpublished Power Point Presentation for the Presbytery of Elizabeth’s Council. May 27, 2008.

__________. When Better Isn’t Enough. Evaluation Tools for the 21st Century Church. Herndon, VA: The Alban Institute. 2004.

Jones, W. Paul. Theological Worlds. Understanding the Alternative Rhythms of Christian Belief. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989.

Kallestad, Walt. Turn Your Church Inside Out. Building a Community for Others. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress. 2001.

Kirkpatrick, Clifton. Is There A Future for the Presbyterian Church (USA)? Louisville: Geneva Press, 2008. Price H. Gwynn III Church Leadership Series.

Loetscher, Lefferts A. A Brief History of Presbyterians. Third Edition. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. 1978.

___________ The Broadening Church. A Study of Theological Issues in the Presbyterian Church Since 1869. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press. 1954.

Lummis, Adair. “The Art and Science of Subtle Proactivity: Regional Leaders and Their Congregations.” Paper presented to the Religious Research Association Annual Meeting in Columbus, OH. October 2001.

Mann, Alice. “Consulting for Vital Congregations: Foundational Practices and Perspectives. Led by Alice Mann and Speed Leas. February 12-16, 2007. Simpsonwood Conference Center. Norcross, GA.

Marty, Martin E. Pilgrims in Their Own Land. 500 Years of Religion in America. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1984.

McRoberts, Omar M. Streets of Glory. Church and Community in a Black Urban Neighborhood. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Mead, Loren. Transforming Congregations for the Future. Herndon, VA: The Alban Institute. 1994.

Michel, Ann A. “Defining Congregational Effectiveness.” Leading Ideas. Lewis Center

38

for Church Leadership at Wesley Theological Seminary. August 31, 2005. www.churchleadership.com

Minutes of the Presbytery of Elizabethtown. Volume 1. 1824-1837. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Historical Society. Vault Folio BX 8958 .E567 A3. November 3, 1824.

Minutes of the General Assembly. 1923. Part II: Board Reports. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Historical Society. Ref. BX 8951 .A3 1923 v.2.

Minutes of the Presbytery of Jersey. Volume 1: 1813-1819 and Volume 2: 1819-1924. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Historical Society. Ref V MI45.

Minutes of the Synod of the Northeast. 1978. East Syracuse, NY: Synod of the Northeast.

Morse, Christopher. Not Every Spirit. A Dogmatics of Christian Disbeliefs. Valley Forge: PA: Trinity Press International, 1994.

Mullin, Robert Bruce and Russell E. Richey. Eds. Reimagining Denominationalism. Interpretative Essays. New York: Oxford University Press. 1994.

The Nature and Mission of the Church. A Stage on the Way to a Common Statement. Faith and Order Paper 198. Geneva: World Council of Churches. 2005.

New Times, New Call. A Manual of Pastoral Options for Small Churches. Revised Edition. Louisville: Presbyterian Distribution Service, 2003.

Oswald, Roy M. and Claire S. Burkat. Transformational Regional Bodies Promote Congregational Health, Vitality and Growth. Life Structure Resources. 2001.

Polity Reflection. Constitutional Services Department of the Office of the General Assembly, Presbyterian Church (USA). March 22, 2000. http://horeb.pcusa.org/oga/PolityReflections/Note36.htm

Presbytery of Elizabeth. Plainfield, NJ. http://www.elizabethpresbytery.org

Rendle, Gil and Alice Mann. Holy Conversations. Strategic Planning as a Spiritual Practice for Congregations. Herndon, VA: The Alban Institute. 2003.

Reifsnyder, Richard. “Looking for Leadership: The Emerging Style of Leadership in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 1983-1990, in The Pluralistic Vision: Presbyterians and Mainstream Protestant Education and Leadership. Coalter, Mulder, and Weeks, eds. (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992).

39

__________. “Managing the Mission: Church Restructuring in the Twentieth Century,” in The Organizational Revolution: Presbyterians and American Denominationalism. Milton J. Coalter, John M. Mulder, and Louis B. Weeks, Eds. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. 1992.

__________. “Transformations in Administrative Leadership in the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., 1920-1983,” in The Pluralistic Vision: Presbyterians and Mainstream Protestant Education and Leadership. Coalter, Mulder, and Weeks, eds. (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992).

Report of the Special Committee on Middle Governing Relationships. Edwin Albright. Chair. January 12, 1999. N.P.

Report of the Special Committee on the Nature of the Church and the Practice of Governance. Louisville: Office of the General Assembly. 1993.

Report on the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity.http://www.pcusa.org/peaceunitypurity

Roozen, David and James Nieman. Church Identity and Change. Theology and Denominational Structures in Unsettled Times. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Schaller, Lyle E. A Mainline Turnaround. Strategies for Congregations and Denominations. Nashville: Abingdon. 2005.

Schwarz, Christian A. Color Your World with Natural Church Development. St. Charles, IL: ChurchSmart Resources. 2005.

Small, Joseph D. The Travail of the Presbytery. PCUSA Office of Theology and Worship. 2008.

Smye, Marti. Is It Too Late To Run Away and Join the Circus? Updated Edition. A Guide for Your Second Life. New York: Hungry Minds, Inc., 2002.

Smylie, James H. A Brief History of the Presbyterians. Louisville: Geneva Press, 1996.

Synod of the Northeast. Presbyterian Church (USA). http://www.synodne.org

Thompson, Ernest Trice. Through the Ages: A History of the Christian Church. Richmond, VA: The Covenant Life Curriculum. 1965.

Torrens, Gary D. “Is There a Presbytery Crunch?” www.pcusa.org/mgb

Turner, Arthur N. “Consulting is More Than Giving Advice,” in Harvard Business

40

Review. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Company. September – October 1982.

Walker, Williston. A History of the Christian Church. Third Edition. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1970.

Warner, R. Stephen. “The Place of the Congregation in the Contemporary American Religious Configuration,” in American Congregations. Vol. 2. Eds. James P. Wind and James W. Lewis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

Weeks, Louis B. “The Incorporation of the Presbyterians,” in The Organizational Revolution: Presbyterians and American Denominationalism. Coalter, Mulder, Weeks. Eds. (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992).

Weston, William J. Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment. Louisville: PCUSA Office of Theology and Worship. 2008.

Wheatley, Margaret J. Finding Our Way. Leadership For an Uncertain Time.San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2005.

Wickeri, Philip. Mission from the Margins. Louisville: PCUSA Office of Theology and Worship, 2004.

Wiley, Charles, Kevin Park, and Darrell L. Guder. Bearing the Marks of the Church. PCUSA Office of Theology and Worship. 2006.

__________. Ordinary and Extraordinary Discipline. Louisville: PCUSA Office of Theology and Worship. 2008.

Wilkins, Lewis L., Jr. “The American Presbytery in the Twentieth Century,” in The Organizational Revolution: Presbyterians and American Denominationalism. Milton J. Coalter, John M. Mulder, and Louis B. Weeks, Eds. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. 1992.

Williamson, Lamar and Randy Taylor. “Guest Viewpoint,” in The Presbyterian Outlook. Richmond, VA: The Presbyterian Outlook Foundation. October 22, 2001.

Wind, James P. and James W. Lewis. Eds. American Congregations. Volume 2: New Perspectives in the Study of Congregations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1994.

Woolever, Cynthia and Deborah Bruce. Beyond the Ordinary: Ten Strengths of U.S. Congregations. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. 2004.

41

www.hartsem.edu/events/news_churchidentityandchangebook.htm

www.peopletechnology.com

42