Author’s note: Denominational “downsizing” has continued with relentless persistence over the past 30 years due largely to changing views and practices of how Presbyterians ought to fund God’s work in the church and the world. Periodic discussions have ensued about the various levels of Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) governance and their optimum size and shape. The substance of the proposal that follows was first published in the Outlook in 1994. Much has happened in the church and the world since, but recent developments in the denomination have led to requests that the Outlook republish an updated version of the article. Perhaps the time is right for a new “big idea” that has potential to help us all re-imagine how authentically Presbyterian polity could be refashioned to serve the new needs of new times.
How does size affect the ministry possibilities and patterns of synods and presbyteries? In the context of the overall history of Reformed polity, most current PC(USA) synods and presbyteries are relatively large, both geographically and numerically. Recently, however, Presbyterians have again begun to recognize the congregation as the primary locus of the church’s ministry and future. Given these two realities, the future health and effectiveness of the connectional system we value so highly may depend on downsizing not only the General Assembly staff, but also our synods and presbyteries. With careful planning and courageous vision, such a downsizing might enable our connectional system to serve the ministry and mission efforts of congregations more directly, in accord with a constitutive original impulse of historic Reformed polity.
Original Presbyterian polity kept middle governing bodies much closer to the congregation than is currently the case in most areas of the PC(USA.) In the early Reformed churches of various nations and cultures, weekly meetings of five to 12 ministers were the first governing body beyond the congregations connecting them together. Later, elders became a vital part of these gatherings, which focused on discussing the Scriptures, praying for shared ministry concerns, holding each other accountable as ministers of the gospel and coordinating the work of congregations.
In early America, numerically small presbyteries were most often the rule. However, as the population rapidly increased, presbytery boundaries often remained the same, leading to the current situation, in which the average PC(USA) presbytery in 2005 consisted of 79 ministers and 63 congregations, and 13,374 members. The smallest presbytery had 914 members; the largest had 46,898 members. This is in contrast to various other American denominations with Presbyterian polity, including the Reformed Church in America, the Christian Reformed Church, and the Cumberland Presbyterian Churches, which have retained smaller, more local, middle governing bodies.
Consider this suggestion: Across the country, we might “downsize” synods so that they correspond in general with current presbytery boundaries. Then new presbyteries of 12-20 congregations would be established in an additional connectional layer beneath them. In many instances, a former presbytery staff and many of its funding patterns might simply be transferred to a new “synod.” Significant funding from the eliminated large regional synods would then be available to support the new, smaller presbyteries. The total allocation of financial resources could conceivably be about the same as at present. Or, with some careful scrutiny, perhaps various ways of reducing overall denominational expenditures on regional governance could be devised that would direct more total Presbyterian dollars towards missional concerns. Either way, total savings in travel for ministers and elders doing middle governing body work would be considerable.
In general, the new, smaller synods would be responsible for congregational program resourcing, coordination of theological education, and ministry training opportunities for everyday Presbyterians; camp and conference support; new church development funding; regional racial-ethnic caucusing; global mission interpretation; and a stronger review function for presbytery ordination standards and representation.
The goal would be to place at the synod level those areas of ministry most effectively coordinated through a broader and more resourceful administrative funding unit. Such a synod might meet annually and as needed, with both minister and elder delegates from every congregation within its bounds. Presbyterian institutions and regional ministries (campus, social outreach, health care) seeking funds from congregations would maintain church support by responsiveness to their immediate regional constituencies. Depending on the particular ministry, they might relate simultaneously but concretely to one or many of the new smaller “synods.”
The functions uniquely designated to presbyteries by historic Presbyterian polity would take center stage in the new, smaller presbyteries of 12-20 congregations. These would focus on “hands-on” support of and jurisdiction over congregations, ministers, and candidates for the ministry–aspects of ministry most effectively coordinated through a more personal and contextualized administrative and funding unit, closer to the congregation. These smaller presbyteries would have a minimum of staff. In most cases, they could be administered from one or more congregations’ offices, using only a volunteer or part-time stated clerk (an elder or a pastor of a smaller congregation) and perhaps a part-time administrative assistant. Elder and minister members would do the work of the presbytery through presbytery and committee action, and would include an emphasis upon building stronger connectional ties between nearby congregations. These presbyteries could meet frequently–in the scope of a single evening–allowing a broader spectrum of elders to participate actively. Smaller congregations could feasibly host such a presbytery meeting. More intimate meetings might facilitate substantive participatory discussion of crucial theological and missional concerns facing the church. Discussion could lead to action, since each presbytery would share a common sense of local community and a common arena for local mission, outreach, and community service.
In summary, such “downsized” synods and presbyteries could make connectionalism tangible to ordinary Presbyterians in many important ways that would strengthen our denomination. In the current climate of openness to new ways of being “church,” let’s have a vigorous exchange of letters to the editor of the Outlook in response to this proposal. Elders, pastors, presbytery and synod staff, and church members across the denomination have had valuable experiences with both smaller and larger presbyteries and synods–perspectives that are important for assessment and refinement of this rough sketch. Then let’s pray that such discussion will lead to re-evaluation of our current assumptions about optimum governing body size, to the glory of God and the greater effectiveness of the church’s connectional system.
Philip W. Butin is president and professor of theology of San Francisco Theological Seminary in San Anselmo, Calif.
