This post is the second in a two part series exploring the implications of Brafman and Beckstrom’s The Spider and the Starfish: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations for the Prebyterian Church (USA).  For part I, an overview of the book, go here.

Which pointy-limbed creature is the PC(USA)? Starfish or Spider?

First and foremost, a distinction between the church universal and individual denominations seems necessary.

The church universal does not have a center; it does not have a spider’s head. It perhaps has “centers”–Rome, Colorado, South Africa, Seoul–but the church universal is a decentralized faith. Or, speaking theologically, the claim that Christ is head of the church leads to a decentralized starfish like faith. This is great in terms of Christianity’s survival. There’s no one person in charge. There are no headquarters. If you take out a denomination–or even an entire stream (say, Lutherans) the faith still survives. Knowledge and power is distributed all over the world. Units are self-funding. You cannot accurately count the participants. Thinking of the church universal is thinking of a starfish organization.

Denominations, on the other hand, can function in much more spider-like ways. I’ll consign the rest of my denominational comments to the Presbyterian Church (USA), my tribe, which I know well.

First, I’ll turn to the starfish/spider characteristics as applying to the PC(USA). Is there someone in charge? Yes, two some ones, in fact (or maybe three). We have the moderator of the last General Assembly. The stated clerk, elected to serve a term of several years. And the chair of the General Assembly Council. These folks do the work of the church, the work assigned them by PC(USA) members and they wouldn’t want to be thought of as the head of the church (right Bruce?, right Gradye?), but they do function in many ways as “in charge,” perhaps leaning towards a spider-like structure.

Next, the PC(USA) does have a headquarters called “The Presbyterian Center” in fact: spider. But, on the other hand, if one took out the center (sorry Louisville), the denomination would still function. It’d be severely impaired, but our polity has enough framework in place for the denomination to survive: starfish. Does the PC(USA) have a clear division of roles? Depends who you ask, and what you’re speaking of. Thinking of worship, for instance, we are clear that only ministers of Word and Sacrament may perform the sacraments. But, any person may preach, teach in church, or say the benediction. Muddying the waters even more are the specific instructions as to whom arranges worship: the minister chooses the scripture lessons, but the session decides what time worship is held. The minister presides at communion, but the session authorizes how many times it is celebrated. The minister is responsible for “the music to be sung” in worship, but the session is responsible for “the overall program of music and other arts in the church.” And that’s just worship! Brafman and Beckstrom ask to distinguish spiders from starfish, “is there ‘a clear division of roles’ or ‘an amorphous division?’” Might us in the PC(USA) say “both?”

Similarly, the PC(USA) is both remarkable rigid (spider) and flexible (starfish). We are rigid, for instance, in our ordination process. Pages of the constitution are dedicated to describing the appropriate steps to take before becoming ordained to the office of Minister of the Word and Sacrament. But, that said, I have heard of persons ordained to the office of elder who are not even members of a PC(USA) congregation. The constitution, by some, is not treated in a particularly rigid manner. In my experience, different congregations can be remarkably rigid or flexible themselves. I’ve seen congregations gather hundreds of people with just a few hour’s warning to serve in an emergency. I’ve also seen session meetings last three hours and accomplish precious little. Overall, the PC(USA)’s history of having teaching elders (minister) and ruling elders (elders who “measured out” fidelity to the gospel) is an exercise in flexible rigity. Or, perhaps, rigid flexibility. So, perhaps, neither a spider nor a starfish.

The PC(USA) does keep careful statistics and we can count our members: spider (unlike Alcoholics Anonymous, for instance, which does not even know how many AA chapters exist). But, working groups (or congregations) can and do communicate with one another directly: starfish. Also, though, they communicate with one another through the presbytery, so that’s another someone hybrid characteristic.

Finally, a characteristic that distinguishes starfish and spiders is their funding sources. Again, the PC(USA) is somewhat hybrid. It’s starfish-like in that congregations are self-funding (unlike, say, our brothers and sisters in the Church of Scotland). That said, individual congregations are required to pay a per capita allowance to the national church. Fascinating, though, is the trend for churches unhappy with the actions of the General Assembly to withhold per capita. Withholding per capita, it seems to me, is an attempt to injure the spider’s head; it’s an attack at centralization. Interestingly, however, the churches withholding funds often do so out of anger regarding moves toward the changing of ordination standards to allow more people to be ordained–a starfish characteristic–and the churches who withhold tend to function with a slightly more hierarchical ecclesiology (spider).

Also, consider the founding of new PC(USA) churches, or New Church Developments (NCDs). The funding for NCDs usually comes, in large part, from the presbytery or perhaps another multi-congregational body. So even our new churches are funded by a centralized (and spider) system.

In my estimation, the PC(USA) is neither a starfish or a spider but a hybrid organization. In the book, a business expert explains of Toyota, “I taught them that top management is a function and a responsibility rather than a rank and a privilege” (185). This car management philosophy echoes precisely our Presbyterian theology of ordination–officers are ordained not to a higher or lower calling, but to a responsibility.

The challenge of the PC(USA) is to find “enough decentralization for creativity, but sufficient structure and controls to ensure” faithfulness (191). We also do this with an added challenge Brafman and Beckstrom do not address–honoring our tradition, being led by the word, and always seeking to follow the new movements of Holy Spirit.