4/7InkzHVUEQeEdU9vpc1tikzEhChrKmPfvXI-FSDBrBQ

Commentary

Head-in-the-Sand Leadership Fosters Bullying in the ELCA

A random click on the computer opened a link to a news story published December 19, 2009, just as the ELCA was beginning to reel over the vote to ordain active homosexuals.

The story was printed in the Washington Times and quotes an ELCA bishop and ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson, along with several others on both sides of the issue.

The story reported alleged acts of intimidation against dissenting clergy who were contemplating withdrawal. Reading this story two years later is illuminating.

The article reads on the subject of intimidation: “I would deny that completely,” said Bishop Gary Wollersheim of the ELCA’s Northern Illinois Synod. “That’s not happening in northern Illinois. I’m sure that’s not happening anywhere in the country. I have done the exact opposite. I have assured clergy, rostered leaders, that hold different opinions on the decisions that [neither] the synod nor I will discriminate against them in any way. The last thing that I would do as pastor of the synod would [be to] bully somebody or threaten them.”

The story moves on to Presiding Bishop Hanson, the foremost leader in the ELCA. He too denied that intimidation was happening. He went on to question that there was any split in the denomination and deflected responsibility by criticizing the media.

Two years have passed and the split has become obvious. Hundreds of churches have voted to leave the ELCA.

That’s not the only thing Bishop Hanson got wrong!

Bishop Hanson continues to defend the status quo, claiming no authority to deal with parish complaints of misconduct.

Redeemer congregation (sponsors of 2×2) turned to him for help with serious intimidation problems. He responded to our first letter in 2008 by telling us of his high regard for the bishop. He failed to respond to subsequent letters sent monthly over the next ten months. Recently, after a long silence and serious conflict escalation, one of our members wrote again and received the predictable response — the defense of church leadership with no apparent regard for the effects their actions have on laity. 

Perhaps Bishop Hanson and the ELCA bishops do not understand intimidation.

Intimidation is:

  • When a bishop tells a congregation that they must agree to call a recommended pastor or they won’t have a pastor for a very long time. (Redeemer/SEPA 2001)
  • When a bishop insists a congregation vote repeatedly on a call question, hoping the congregation will finally vote the “right” way. (Redeemer/SEPA 2001)
  • When a synod representative visits prospective members and discourages them from joining one congregation in favor of another. (Redeemer/SEPA 1998)
  • When a pastor visits with the bishop’s office and returns to give the congregation 10 days notice by email or never steps foot again in the church. (Redeemer/SEPA 2006 and 2008)
  • When a bishop has a lawyer sitting at her right side (literally) at her first meeting with a congregation. (Redeemer/SEPA 2007)
  • When a bishop calls a meeting without consulting church leaders and arrives with a party of ten others (not announced as coming), including a lawyer and a locksmith positioned out of sight. (Redeemer/SEPA 2008)
  • When a bishop refuses to meet with elected congregational leaders insisting on meeting with the entire congregation. (Redeemer/SEPA, characteristically)
  • When a bishop, with no discussion, has a lawyer inform a congregation by fax that they are officially terminated and have no voice or vote at an upcoming Synod Assembly. (Redeemer/SEPA, 2009)
  • When a bishop goes into court carrying the First Amendment flag of immunity (Separation of Church and State) but proceeds to use the full force of the courts against lay members. (Redeemer/SEPA 2008-present)
  • When a bishop locks faithful members out of the church. (Redeemer/SEPA 2009-present)
  • When a bishop commits the resources of 160 churches to attack lay members of one congregation. (Redeemer/SEPA 2008 to present)
    and furthermore —

When other congregations and pastors share in confidence that they disagree with synod’s actions but no one dares to speak up — they are the bystanders who allow intimidation to reign. 

When a presiding bishop is made aware of such incidents and glibly dismisses them, that’s poor leadership. Most of the items in the above list were shared. 

It is just such apathy that creates the bullying tragedies. We in Pennsylvania are watching the esteemed leaders of our largest state-run school fall because good people failed to pay attention to complaints from the lowly. When will our church get the message? 

It’s time to clean up the Mutual Admiration Society which seems to define the Council of Bishops under Bishop Hanson’s leadership.

Intimidation happens, Bishop Hanson, and it is happening on your watch.

If the ELCA’s recent resolution to fight bullying is to have any teeth, the ELCA must practice what it preaches. 

God’s work; our hands.  

A suggestion: The ELCA should create an ombudsman system which was used in predecessor bodies. If our leaders are not going to listen and respond, the faithful need a forum less cumbersome, less biased and more capable of carefully investigating issues raised by congregations, individual clergy and lay members. Failure to find a way to respond to complaints may lead to the same sort of plight the Roman Catholic Church is experiencing. Let’s learn from that.

08 Nov 2011

SEPA Lutherans Should Advocate for a Sunshine Law

Take some time to read SEPA Synod Council minutes.

http://www.ministrylink.org/synod-council/ (bottom of the page)

Recent minutes of Synod Council meetings — gatherings of SEPA congregations’ elected representatives — are lean, riddled with executive sessions and confidential discussions with vague summaries such as — synod is entering a time when “it would be doing things differently but with less.”

This is the only information reported from what appears to have been a lengthy discussion on Synod finances. The minutes announce the beginning of this discussion, stating only that it was “open and confidential” — a strange term. Why are SEPA financial discussions confidential? Congregations are expected to pay the freight for any financial challenges and will be directly affected by any new way of doing things. Not only do they have a right to know about things their elected representatives are deciding but they surely have insight into any debate on how THEIR resources are being used. Why secrecy? If there are challenges, let’s face them together head on!

Secrecy, coupled with SEPA history, can leave congregations guessing that the private discussions might be about individual congregational “viability” and which congregations might be ripe for the picking. If past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, there is reason for concern. Such conjecture may be unfounded, but unless we know more, it is responsible to wonder.

There is more troubling obscurity. In years past, the elected representatives of the church (Synod Council) had contact information listed online. Now there is a list of names, home congregations and term expiration year, making it difficult for congregations to turn to their elected representatives — especially lay representatives which outnumber clergy. Clergy contact information is included in the published roster. While inconvenient, it can be looked up, one by one. Lay representatives pose more of a challenge. If lay representatives are not willing to share their contact information, they should decline to serve. If privacy is a concern, a dedicated email address could be supplied by synod, which can be automatically forwarded to a private email. There should be a way to contact the people who represent the congregations.

If the dates and locations of Synod Council meetings are listed, they are difficult to find.

SEPA Synod Council is acting as if they exist in a vacuum, forming and endorsing church policy hand in hand with the bishop’s office but with neither relating to the people they represent. It is easy for representatives to form a bias for the people they interact with when they have no contact with the people they all serve.

SEPA congregations should go to their next Synod Assembly in May 2012 and demand more transparency from their leaders. If congregations are asked to vote for a budget which relies on one, two, or three of them closing to pay for the budget, they need to know that when they are voting. If they are to expect less from their leaders because of budget shortfalls, they need to know that too.

When are SEPA congregations to learn the outcome of their leaders’ discussions — on the very day a few of them travel to Franconia to vote? Dialogue must begin NOW!

SEPA needs a “Sunshine Law” so its congregations — the people who fund the Synod — know how their futures will be affected by policies discussed in “open and confidential” sessions.

The Lutheran Church is proud of its heritage and its interdependent structure which exists in contrast to hierarchical denominations. Interdependence relies on communication and cooperation.

It is time we begin practicing our interdependence and work together.

30 Oct 2011

Rethinking Advent

It’s not quite November, not too early to think about Advent. About this time a few years ago, a worship committee met with a new pastor to plan the holiday season. A lay member commented without much enthusiasm, “I wish there was a little less Pentecost and we could move Advent up and enjoy Christmas a little longer.”

Surprise! The pastor readily agreed! There was a sudden breakthrough in the rhetoric that insists Advent be kept sacred with nothing of Christmas showing until Christmas Eve. The committee eagerly reviewed the lectionary and made adjustments that moved Advent up two weeks, allowing some Christmas spirit when the rest of the world was enjoying Christmas, yet still giving the Advent season its due. Advent wasn’t abandoned. It was extended with Christmas music introduced slowly in later weeks. The lighting of the candles, etc. adhered to the season. A few readings were moved around. Christmas music was slowly introduced, adding anticipation.

What had happened was not unlike the first Christmas observances — as the church set aside time to celebrate the birth of Christ. The date for Christmas was set to coincide with pagan festivities, catching people as they were ending their celebration of the winter solstice. Most scholars agree that true date for Christ’s birth was probably in the spring. Deciding on December 25 was  opportunistic — and it worked! We can learn from this!

The four weeks of Advent have no real historical connections. It is something the church decided we need to properly prepare for the Savior’s birth.We spend 40 days (the number of days Jesus spent in the wilderness) preparing for Easter with Lent. It didn’t seem right to observe Christmas without a similar period of reflection. Some traditions even call Advent “a little Lent.” There was plenty of Scripture to cover — the hundreds of years of prophecies, John the Baptist, Mary and Elizabeth.

There was a time in Church history when people spent a lot of time in church. Many observers attended mass daily and the traditions/music of Advent had more exposure. Today, the most faithful are in church only four weeks a year for Advent, probably fewer. They don’t have much time to absorb and learn to appreciate the Advent sound, especially when the car radio blasts a different season at them as they drive home.

A typical Sunday morning during the Advent season has the core congregation singing unfamiliar and difficult hymns. Seekers who first enter a church during Advent, perhaps attracted by the more upbeat hymnody they are hearing in the shopping mall, encounter something entirely alien. Visitors are likely to be totally confused. It is difficult to “teach” Advent with Christmas in full swing everywhere else.

We face the same conditions the early Christians faced. How do we get people to pay attention to the coming of Christ when they are otherwise having such fun?

The answer often presented by clergy to their congregations is to keep Advent holy and sing Christmas carols only from Christmas Eve to January 6 — after everyone else has stopped singing carols. Post Christmas Sundays are notoriously low in attendance. The faithful end up singing with lonely joy, and feeling a bit awkward about it! Yet this does not seem a bit odd to many clergy who openly advocate for a rigid interpretation of Advent — no matter how few people get the message!

Advent should be observed. There is a great deal of value in its traditions. But if the traditions are standing in the way of spreading the Good News, allow some room for flexibility. Teach Advent by starting the seasonal music a bit earlier. Some popular Christmas carols are about the prophecies and the joy of receiving (Joy to the World; Lo, How A Rose; Of the Father’s Love Begotten). They lend themselves to the Advent season. Allow the Christmas sound in your worship sooner. Add more hymns to your service if it will help. Allow room for repetition during the season so these often unused hymns become more familiar.

One idea would be to have purely Advent worship, followed each week with a carol sing as a “sending.”

Both seasons may end up meaning more. The rafters will probably not break!

29 Oct 2011