Presbyterianism as Revolutionary Organization.

We don’t usually realize that the word “Presbyterian” is not actually faith-based or religious at all.  It is a political term.  It means a system in which the presbyters, that is, the elders, rule.  It is literally a kind of oligarchy in which a small group has the authority over the whole.

There was a time, of course, four or five centuries ago, when being politically Presbyterian was a big deal.  In those days, the 1640’s or so in Britain, it was presented as a rival political ideology to monarchy.  They fought a war over it and everything.

King George III famously referred to the American Revolution as a “Presbyterian rebellion.”  We American Presbyterians liked to boast about how our system was a model for the representative democracy embodied in the U.S. Constitution.  I’m not sure that is still a positive thing in an age of filibusters and gerrymandering.  And Presbyterians have not been particularly revolutionary about anything since.

(If anything the influence bleeds back the other way these days, with church members expecting things like separation of powers to apply in ecclesiastical governance when they are not original aspects of our polity.  The use of Robert’s Rules imports a partisan adversariality into our decision-making.  And we reflexively see things through a Modernist/individualistic lens we get from post-Enlightenment culture.)

But referring to Presbyterianism as a revolutionary ideology today sounds crazy… until we notice that the practice of rule by small groups of disciplined, trained, adept, committed practitioners, that is, cadres, is basically what was advocated and used by revolutionaries like Lenin and Mao.  The word “soviet” is Russian for “council.”  The Presbyterian Church is not a pure Congregationalist democracy but is governed by elders gathered in councils.  It is designed as a “single-party” system.

Presbyterianism may look like a compromise/hybrid between the Episcopal (bishop-ruled) and Congregational (purely democratic) systems, but it was actually extracted from Scripture.  It goes back to the appointment of elders to assist Moses, and then the polity of the Israelite tribal confederacy.  It reemerges in the early Church, especially after the passing of the apostles.  Groups of elders ruled churches, appointed and led by overseers, ie. bishops (in Greek: episcopoi).  (Today we  Presbyterians call them Moderators.)  Eventually the bishops came to take precedence and the system began to look and act more monarchical.  And presbyters evolved into priests.  Part of the Reformation agenda was to rein in the office of bishop, and bring the elders back into prominence.  (Of course, the more extreme wing of the  Reformation adopted Congregationalism, a polity more in-tune with congealing Modernity.)

But my point in this analysis is that Presbyterianism can be a potent political ideology designed to guide a community through change and maintain continuity with an original vision.  It avoids the excesses of both the democratic and monarchical alternatives.  The latter obviously tends to concentrate power in an autocrat.  The former easily caters to popular opinion.

By giving power and authority to people who have proven their loyalty and commitment to the values and practices of the community, Presbyterianism is structured for both integrity and growth.  It contains the organizational power to resist autocracy, on the one hand, and cut through the ephemeral fog of democracy on the other, giving guidance to and guarding the community.

A Presbyterian system will function this way IF those called to serve as elders are adequately trained and held to a rigorous standard of discipleship.  Unfortunately, the Presbyterian Church today routinely fails at this essential requirement.  The Book of Order astonishingly has in practice almost no standards for serving as an elder.  This reduces us to just another inept, disintegrating main-line denomination, led by people who often do not know, let alone demonstrate a deep commitment to, the gospel.  We simultaneously fetishize both tradition and relevance, which cancel each other out, so that we end up spinning our wheels.  For decades.

But a revivified Presbyterianism, which has serious and demanding standards and requirements for serving as an elder, and which explicitly bases those standards on the teachings and life of Jesus Christ — featuring humility, justice, generosity, non-violence, forgiveness, compassion, service, simplicity, healing, scriptural literacy, and a deep spiritual life rooted in prayer and the Sacraments — would be a powerful witness and could change the face of Christianity, not to mention the world. 

+++++++