4/7InkzHVUEQeEdU9vpc1tikzEhChrKmPfvXI-FSDBrBQ

East Falls

The Myth of Redeemer’s Resistance

A Bishop Abuses the Respect of Her Office

Bishop Claire Burkat of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (SEPA) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) has frequently criticized Redeemer for “resisting” her leadership. With scant detail, she seeks to create the illusion of a renegade congregation that must be reined in for benefit of the whole Church. Her mission is easily accomplished in a synod where the rank and file is passive.

In her words, she sensed “resistance”—a definite taboo in her leadership style—but definitely allowed within the church’s democratic processes and under the beliefs of our faith.

In another tirade Redeemer was “adversarial.”

Adversarial. Resistant. Not bad words. By definition, nothing for Redeemer to be ashamed of — except by innuendo and the surety within the ELCA that no one will investigate.

Redeemer was placed in an adversarial position by unreasonable and unconscionable behavior of a bishop who uses name-calling to disguise self-interest.

Congregational leaders should stand up for the people they lead (be adversaries) and resist selfish outside agendas.

If congregational leaders are not permitted to represent their congregation’s interests, they serve no purpose. This may be the problem in SEPA and the ELCA. Its governing structure is ineffective.

If you read the three illustrations we recently posted about SEPA’s concept of mutual discernment, you will notice that Redeemer was very cooperative whenever SEPA leadership asked them to do anything that made sense and would further their mission efforts. Redeemer often sacrificed self-interest in its cooperation.

Redeemer resisted when the congregation was asked to do things which would endanger their ministry.

  • Redeemer cooperated with Bishop Almquist’s proposal to call Pastor Matthias for 18 months. Bishop Almquist broke the call agreement three months later.
  • Redeemer cooperated with Bishop Almquist when he declared synodical administration. Redeemer resisted within Lutheran rules but worked with Bishop Almquist and the trustees, bringing the matter to peaceful resolution within a year. Redeemer resisted when he failed to return our money upon the release of synodical administration for an additional year.
  • Redeemer agreed to accept the only pastor Bishop Almquist offered. Redeemer resisted locking in to a term call when the pastor announced his intentions to provide only the barest amount of service. Redeemer supported a term call, which Bishop Almquist refused to consider.
  • Redeemer cooperated when we were approached to help Epiphany when its building was condemned. We worked in good faith for 18 months. Redeemer was not given the opportunity to resist when SEPA began working with Epiphany in secret to close down their ministry, without considering the covenant made with Redeemer.
  • Most of the attention of the covenant for the first year was on settling Epiphany’s pressing problems. As soon as the covenant began to show some promise of benefitting Redeemer—the covenant was broken with all benefits to SEPA. Redeemer did not protest the inequity, but we felt used.
  • Redeemer cooperated for an additional six months, allowing both Epiphany and synod ready and rent-free access to our property. Less than a year later synod tried to lock us out!
  • Redeemer brought our successful outreach ministry to local East African immigrants to the attention of Bishop Burkat. She told us we were not allowed to do outreach ministry and refused to recognize our East African members—some of whom had been members for a decade.
  • Redeemer met with the trustees in good faith and shared our ministry plan with both them and Bishop Burkat, unaware in the beginning that the trustees had lied to us for five months. We learned from a synod staff member that Bishop Burkat never intended to give Redeemer’s ministry consideration.
  • Redeemer followed ELCA and SEPA constitutions, asking to withdraw from the ELCA, which clearly was not serving the congregation. SEPA resisted, refusing to allow Redeemer the 90 days of negotiation called for in the constitution.

Many of the continuing travesties of this sad and horrific chapter in SEPA’s history—that everyone just wishes away—would not have happened had SEPA worked with Redeemer. That’s the subject of another post.

02 Jan 2013

New Year’s Resolutions for Church Social Media

13 Resolutions for 2013 

It’s a new year. 2013. No better time to refresh our thinking for Redeemer’s ground-breaking ministry in social media evangelism, otherwise known as 2x2virtualchurch.com.

Redeemer, East Falls, Philadelphia, began its social media ministry in February of 2011, reaching 1,994 people its first year—most of this number during the last two months of the year. We projected that we would reach 12,000 in 2012. We have reached more than 13,000. With steady growth in the last six months, we project that we will reach 20,000 in 2013.

Between 50 and 100 people visit 2×2 each day. 300-600 each week. Redeemer (which the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America no longer recognizes as existing at all) reaches more people than most of its congregations.

Resolutions for Our Social Media Ministry

Here are some things we resolve as we approach a new mission year.

  1. We resolve to honor the Gospel imperatives to reach the world with a message of love.
  2. We resolve to be mindful of the needs of others as we create content for small congregations.
  3. We resolve to respond to every comment posted on our site.
  4. We resolve to think beyond our membership to provide helpful resources for seekers.
  5. We resolve to energize the laity and provide a voice for the lay point of view.
  6. We resolve to strengthen the mission bonds that were planted during the last year in Pakistan, Kenya and Sweden.
  7. We resolve to keep minds open to new mission ideas and opportunities.
  8. We resolve to add video and podcast content to our editorial mix.
  9. We resolve to assist other congregations in entering the rich but unknown territory of social media.
  10. We resolve to not desert East Falls and stand idly as the assets and resources contributed by Redeemer members and friends for mission purposes are seized to pay the operating expenses of a Synod that failed to serve us.
  11. We resolve to explore making 2x2virtualchurch.com a ministry that can support the work of Redeemer, East Falls, should the Lutherans of the Southeastern Pennsylvanian Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America ever stir its collective conscience to revisit its horrific behavior in this neighborhood.
  12. We resolve to help find active ministry solutions for small congregations and put an end to SEPA’s selfish “stand and watch while they fail” policies.
  13. We resolve to be ready for a day of reconciliation with a ministry plan that is ready to resume speed.

Redeemer has never stopped following its mission.

Redeemer is not closed.
We are locked out of God’s House by SEPA Synod.

31 Dec 2012

Illustration 3: SEPA’s Mythical Mutual Discernment

Bishop Claire Burkat justifies her actions in East Falls, citing a process of mutual discernment that she suggests was long and involved, having spanned both her term and that of Bishop Almquist.

We’ve provided two illustrations of how the mutual discernment (1 and 2) process excluded the members of Redeemer.

Here’s a third illustration. In this case Redeemer was not only never consulted, we were totally unaware that another congregation was engaged with the bishop in discussions that affected Redeemer’s future and property.

In 2005, Redeemer was approached to help a neighboring congregation, Epiphany in Upper Roxborough, more than two miles away.

Epiphany had to vacate their building. It had been condemned because of termite damage. They had been sharing space unhappily with a neighboring Episcopal Church. Rev. Timothy Muse, their mission developer pastor, was a member of SEPA Synod Council.

We agreed to work with Epiphany and jointly drafted a covenant that we hoped would lead to the merger of our two congregations within a few years. We were careful to put no timetable on the covenant. We wanted both groups to be confident of any decision to merge and such confidence could not be fostered with mandated deadlines.

The covenant called for Redeemer to share Epiphany’s pastor. Epiphany would provide most of the salary. Redeemer contributed. Epiphany would have free access and use of Redeemer’s property, for which Redeemer would continue to bear the expenses. We would worship separately and consider joint worship on special occasions as a starting point.

This system worked well for 18 months. Our councils met together every other month. Individual councils and leaders occasionally met with Pastor Muse separately to discuss matters that involved only one of the congregations. (The trustees represented this period of time to Synod Assembly as if Redeemer’s council was not meeting and decisions were being made by a few in isolation. Not true. The minutes of meetings were kept by Epiphany’s secretary. They never asked for them.)

Redeemer bided time for the first year as Pastor Muse was admittedly preoccupied with Epiphany’s need to sell their condemned property. We were encouraged when the sale at last was completed with a benefit to Epiphany of about $600,000.

Epiphany expressed an interest in moving the merger ahead a bit more quickly. Redeemer was looking forward to a bit more of Pastor Muse’s attention. The worship committees met jointly during the summer to explore merging worship. We wanted to preserve the traditions of our East African members which we had incorporated into our worship for several years and we wanted consensus on decisions as Epiphany was not only larger in number but they had worked with Pastor Muse for much longer than Redeemer had. They had an advantage in their long-term relationship while we were just getting to know him.

We recognized that Epiphany had been through a lot with the loss of their building. Their lay leadership appeared to be much more dependent on Pastor Muse, while Redeemer who had not had a pastor for years, was used to lay leadership. We discussed this with Pastor Muse. He encouraged us. He said that Redeemer’s strong lay leadership was a gift to the covenant.

Redeemer drafted a proposal which we hoped would jumpstart working together. We presented it as a starting point. We modeled it on the proven success of two other ELCA congregations who had successfully shared a pastor and programming for many years. It called for even sharing of worship leadership, alternating Sundays, with joint planning of special events and one jointly planned service per month. We saw this as a honeymoon period that would help us grow to know and trust one another.

Pastor Muse reviewed our proposal. He mailed it to Epiphany members without our knowledge, although we would not have objected. Epiphany members mistakenly believed that Redeemer had sent it to them as an ultimatum for their acceptance, which was never Redeemer’s intent. There was a meeting to attempt to clear this up. Pastor Muse made it clear at this meeting that Redeemer did not know that he had mailed the proposal to Epiphany’s members.

It became clear at this meeting that Epiphany viewed Redeemer’s East African membership as not part of the merger. Conversation ended when we insisted our East African members were full members of Redeemer and their preferences for worship needed to be part of the discussion.

Pastor Muse suggested we let some time pass before we talk again.

Shortly thereafter Redeemer’s leaders received an email from Pastor Muse that Epiphany had voted to break the covenant and close. He would be gone within ten days (the constitution calls for 30 days notice).

Breaking the covenant was never discussed. We were given no opportunity to continue with Pastor Muse, whom everyone liked.

We learned that Pastor Muse and Epiphany’s president had met privately with Bishop Burkat.

Would it not be reasonable to assume that a bishop would encourage congregations in covenant to talk? Would it not be reasonable for synod, as leaders, to help facilitate such a meeting?

Redeemer was never part of any discussion about breaking the covenant.

Pastor Muse, true to his word, was gone in 10 days. He even left the Synod! Redeemer was abandoned.

Bishop Burkat would not meet with Redeemer until a year later and then only for a few minutes, promising to get back to us in three to five months. Eleven months of silence passed during which Redeemer drafted a mission plan and began to implement it with immediate success. Do the math. That’s nearly two years of non-involvement with Redeemer added to the six years of Bishop Almquist’s second term, during which he intentionally ignored our church. Claiming this is a time of heavy interaction and mutual discernment defies the truth.

What can explain this bizarre history?

SEPA’s recurring deficit budget is surely a consideration. SEPA needed money. It was easier to gain access to the congregation’s money by encouraging closure than to provide the services that would help a congregation grow and thereby foster long-term contributions.

All was going well until that $600,000 windfall from the sale of the property became a temptation.

The first sign of discontent from Epiphany brought encouragement to close — not to keep their ministry promises. And SEPA was to be the immediate beneficiary of $600,000.

Redeemer’s investment in the covenant—nearly two years of work down the drain! Epiphany’s covenant with Redeemer was broken with no consultation with Redeemer. NONE!

Synod, also with no conversation with Redeemer, allowed Epiphany six months to “wind down” their ministry. During these six months, Epiphany used Redeemer’s property as if it were their own — only now they were not contributing to the covenant any longer. Redeemer was left to coexist with Epiphany as non-contributing and somewhat hostile tenants.

Redeemer paid the freight for Bishop Burkat’s policies with Epiphany.

Even so, Redeemer cooperated without complaint.

Since we were not included in any discussions, we do not know exactly what transpired. But we’ve heard a few things since.

We learned during our Ambassador visits, that when Epiphany voted to close, they assumed they could allocate their assets to ministries and charities of their choice — which is Lutheran polity.

One ex-Epiphany member shared with us that Bishop Burkat had informed them after the vote was taken that SEPA would be the beneficiary of all but 5% of Epiphany’s assets. They were told this is an ELCA “rule.”

Synod’s Articles of Incorporation expressly forbid the Synod from conveying ANY congregational property without the consent of the congregation.

SEPA’s definition of “mutual discernment”: comply or good-bye.

30 Dec 2012

Lutheran Soup on Christmas Eve

xmas eve copySEPA: Christmas Humbug!

Last night was Christmas Eve and the doors to our church were locked by the Southeastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

O Holy Night! Love and Joy Come to You. Let earth receive her King. Noble words were being sung in other SEPA Lutheran sanctuaries.

We gathered around the soup pot as we so often do at Redeemer. (Still)

The ladies of Redeemer once supported our ministry with monthly soup sales. A rich beef vegetable soup was produced in Redeemer’s kitchen which we were renovating so we could cook more soup.

Redeemer lives as long as those soup recipes live. Last night I enjoyed Lutheran soup for 25th Christmas Eve.

On 21 of those Christmas Eves, we also went to church.

God and sinners reconciled.

We’ll gather again this morning for Christmas breakfast. But not in our church.

We’ll be back in church on Christmas Eve when the hymns people sing actually mean something.

Meanwhile, I suggested we change the name of the soup. Lutheran Soup just doesn’t sound good anymore.

photo credit: smithrw1 via photopin cc

25 Dec 2012

Illustration 2: The Folly of Blindly Replicating Mission Strategies

Replication is King

During the six years of Bishop Almquist’s term, during which SEPA was all but absent in its relationship with Redeemer, the Rev. Claire Burkat was making a name for herself as an assistant to the bishop.

She had a success of which she was particularly proud. She worked with a failing church and devised a plan. Synod would close the church with its aging members’ cooperation and reopen it weeks later with a new name.

In 2006 in her early days as bishop, Bishop Burkat came to Redeemer eager to replicate the experience which had been so successful (by her reports) before her election. In truth, it was too soon to tell if the mission strategy was actually successful. There were no statistics to support whether or not it was a good idea.

We have checked the current statistics of this congregation. They are not impressive. Membership seems to be under 50. About half the statistics of Redeemer in 2007.

Nevertheless in 2006, the experiment was touted as a promising innovation. Bishop Burkat was eager to replicate it and add another “success” to her résurmé.

The problem was Redeemer was not at all like the congregation that had agreed to pioneer this technique.

Remember, SEPA had walked away from Redeemer six years before and their memory was that the congregation consisted of a dozen old ladies. Their waiting game strategy should have been ripe for implementation, in Bishop Burkat’s view.

Things had changed at Redeemer. The elderly members who had met with Bishop Almquist had in fact gone to their heavenly reward. But there were now three times as many Redeemer members as when Bishop Almquist had released us from synodical administration—and that would soon double. Our members were mostly young families, most of whom had joined within the last ten years. Many were Tanzanian immigrants, but there were other new ethnic backgrounds new to Redeemer’s membership as well. Bishop Burkat even suggested removing the Tanzanian members to create statistics to justify the strong-arm tactics she planned to implement. Some had been members for a decade, some had been born into our community. This was (and is) insulting to Redeemer’s Tanzanian members as it should be to every Lutheran. As one young Tanzanian member noted at the time: SEPA is big on ministry to the Tanzanians — as long as we stay in Tanzania. (The statistics presented to Synod Assembly by the trustees excluded the Tanzanian members.)

Redeemer’s interest in working with SEPA was to build on its success. SEPA wasn’t listening. They knew best.

Closing Redeemer and reopening it under a new name was the only plan they would consider. Why?Their way gave them control of the congregation’s assets.

Here we go again! Mutual discernment at work!

Bishop Burkat made this proposal. She would close the church down, have a grand closing ceremony, and reopen it a few weeks later. Renaming the church was key to this strategy. There should be no confusion that the old church was dead and gone. The new name had to meet with her approval. Oh, and the current members would not be permitted any leadership roles. From where the new leaders were to suddenly emerge to take control of our ministry was not made clear. Meanwhile, Synod would reign with no one to answer to — hardly the Lutheran way.

Of course, this was offensive to a congregation that had worked hard to recover from the mess created by Bishop Almquist — and was succeeding.

The first proposal was the church should close for two weeks. That became six months by the time they saw us in court.

Well, in 2009, Bishop Burkat finally got her way and has control of Redeemer’s property. It has been locked to Redeemer and the community for three and a half years.

Redeemer remains active through 2×2 Foundation, waiting for the day that the Lutherans of SEPA recognize that maybe, just maybe, they were part of a big mistake.

The strategy of replicating one success in a different neighborhood has been disastrous for both East Falls and SEPA. Redeemer bears the popular blame, but SEPA with its selfish policies is responsible. Bishop Burkat defends her actions, citing the process of mutual discernment.

Once again, the definition of mutual discernment is “comply or goodbye.“

22 Dec 2012

Mission by the Book: A Sure and Steady Path to the Past

Following the Mission Manual 

There are such things, you know. Mission Manuals. They tell us exactly how to start a church or revive a faltering ministry.

Frequently, mission is all about replication. We try to do the same thing that worked so well, perhaps just a few years ago, but in a different place.

We follow flagship ministries that succeed because of unique vision and herculean passion and try to pull off the same success with no unique vision and the part-time commitment of clergy.

At times we go so far as to attempt to import people into neighborhoods. That early “manufactured” success can be measured. It might attract the regional body’s interest and their investment (coin, time, or talent). Perhaps the statistics will attract some unsuspecting part-time pastor!

Why do we try to replicate—and call it innovation?

  • There is comfort in routine.
  • We know how to measure routines.
  • We know what to measure in our routines.
  • We already have the training to do things the old way and the training to do things in new ways might not exist.
  • Who doesn’t like a roadmap?

Neighborhoods are not the same. In decades past, there may have been more similarity and more stability within a geographic era. Church mission concepts are geared to such commonalities.

But neighborhoods vary greatly these days. Change used to be generational. Now it can be expected, especially in urban neighborhoods, within five years.

Look at Philadelphia. There are whole neighborhoods where virtually everyone is in their mid-twenties to mid-thirties with just a few toddlers in tow (Fairmount). There are ethnic neighborhoods that are shifting ethnicity (South Philadelphia, once heavily Italian, is now the home of Southeast Asian immigrants). There are collegiate neighborhoods (West Philadelphia). There are neighborhoods that are very mixed racially, economically, and socially (East Falls).

No amount of forcing will make neighborhoods stay the same. Congregations must learn this. So must professional leaders. We must also learn that a successful replication may have a life of only five years — if ongoing changes are not recognized as part of the mission model.

The act of replicating means that a great deal of energy and resources are devoted to recreating the same model. By the time all of the pieces are in place and showing the first signs of stability (if not progress) there are few resources or energy for initiative. Congregations may be locked into the leadership that brought them thus far but will not be able to take them into the Promised Land.

So how can the church foster innovation when so much thinking and resources are designed to protect the status quo or the initial investment?

If we want innovative ministries. we must stop measuring old statistics. New ministries can’t live up to them. But they CAN forge new ground and show impressive advances.

The day will come when you can apply the old measuring tools. But, if you wait for the old measurements to be in place before you innovate, nothing new will happen.

We can illustrate many of these points by looking at the recent history (15 years and counting) of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (SEPA) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)’s attempts to do ministry with the people of East Falls. We’ll publish these separately. They are worth looking at if not for Redeemer’s sake (which would be welcome) but to learn what doesn’t work in the single-minded quest for transformation. There are many lessons to be learned from this one, largely misunderstood, ministry.

20 Dec 2012

Why Does Our Church Treat Us So Badly?

When Did the Lutherans of East Falls Become Enemies?

Why is SEPA’s only envisioned solution to the six-year conflict between the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod and Redeemer Church a score something like

SEPA: $2,000,000

People of Redeemer: 0—and if necessary to ensure the win—Homeless and Destitute?

What is this conflict really about?

SEPA must have grounds to declare synodical administration. Those grounds are detailed in the constitution and have to do with just one thing—the ability of the congregation to fulfill its “missional” purpose. It has nothing to do with the size of the congregation or the history of the congregation.

Five years of growing ministry with no support from SEPA and considerable attempts to shackle us prove that SEPA assessment of Redeemer’s potential was faulty. Their motives were monetary as evidenced by their attempt to sell our property without our knowledge early in 2008.

If there was truly a concern about Redeemer’s ability to do mission, why did SEPA declare Synodical Administration and then do nothing for five months before they even told the congregation and for more than a year afterwards? Clearly, there was no dire concern.

SEPA must admit that routinely running deficit budgets blinded their own sense of mission.

Maybe the clergy and Lutherans in the pew think these details don’t matter. They do. They are the details that all court actions are hanging on.

The people of East Falls, nearly four years after SEPA won in a court that never heard the case, are still being abused. There is still no end in sight. And remember, the PA Supreme Court ended in a split decision with the minority stating that if the law were followed, Redeemer’s arguments had merit.

Because the Synod, from the very beginning chose to attack members as individuals, they gave Redeemer members no recourse but to fight. They already have everything we owned as a congregation. That has not been enough.

In the early days of the conflict, we heard a lot of clergy use the excuse, “We didn’t know.”

That doesn’t fly anymore. You’ve been told. Numerous letters have been written to SEPA and clergy. Personal visits have been made to a third of SEPA congregations. This web site has discussed the issues thoroughly.

You know that your Church is not behaving compassionately. It is abusing its powers. It is using bullying techniques as ministry tools.

And you don’t care.

It’s not happening to you. You as a synod are the beneficiaries.

To you it is mildly uncomfortable, a topic to be avoided. You think, there must be something to it, dismiss it without investigating and then move on.

The people of East Falls have lived with numerous threats of legal action every day for five years. We haven’t left the denomination. We were kicked out by decree and with no discussion. Loyal, we continue to attend churches and stand next to the Lutherans who are suing us, who are praying for good things, who pass us the peace of the Lord, invite us to the communion table . . . . and do nothing to change things.

SEPA Lutherans, you can still call upon your leaders to work this out honorably and equitably and in a way that will not embarrass the denomination when you look back at this years from now.

The prescription for peace is in the Bible. We have to talk to one another.

We are Lutherans. Interdependent. Supposedly working together. Ask for a forum. We CAN talk to one another. Contact your Synod Council. Tell them you want these issues to be discussed face to face within the church. Ask for a moderator or ombudsman from outside the synod to ensure that both sides are heard. This is only necessary because the lines have been drawn indelibly.

It can’t wait any longer. People — good people — people who have supported the Lutheran church all their lives are in real danger.

Work it out face to face, Christian to Christian. It’s the biblical thing to do.

And, hey, it’s Christmas. (Remember what that’s about.)

So why is there NO attempt to reconcile? Isn’t that what we teach?

The reason is that this is about winning. It’s about power. It’s about the inability to admit mistakes. It’s about pride. It’s about revenge. It is NOT about the gospel.

But there is still a chance that we can make it about the gospel. Help, please.

We at Redeemer have always considered ourselves to be on the same side—”missionally” speaking.

Here is a list of Synod Council members. Contact them and ask them to work together in the mutual discernment that has been alleged by the synod, but which has never happened.

The Synod no longer supplies contact info, so you’ll have to do some research. We’ve provided some that are easily found on line. Lay people are more of a challenge. If they accept the role of representing congregations, they should make it possible for congregations to contact them.

If you think you don’t have the power, these are the people who do. And most of them know nothing about Redeemer except what preachers with a self-interest, many of them who also know nothing, tell them. That’s how prejudice becomes powerful.

Name Congregation (conference) Term expires
Bishop Claire S. Burkat
Holy Communion (Central Phila.)
2018
Patricia Robinson, vice president
Reformation, Phila. (NW/Olney)
2013
Rev. Raymond A. Miller, secretary
St. John, Quakertown (Upper Bucks)
He was one of the “trustees” who introduced themselves as “fact finders” failing to identify themselves as trustees and failing to mention that they considered our church under their administration. Their deceit set the stage for the conflict. He testified in court that Redeemer had more than twice the number of members as they represented to the Synod Assembly. Synod lawyers then went on in court to attempt to hold the congregation to a quorum vote for three times the number they testified.
2015
Janet Neff, CPA, treasurer
Grace, Royersford (Upper Montgomery)
2015
Clergy
Name
Congregation (conference)
Term expires
Rev. Paul Beck
215 723 5356
St. Peter, Hilltown (U. Bucks)
prbeck@comcast.net
One of our officers tried to talk to him in 2007. He refused. Our representative reported that he said the Synod Council had no intention of negotiating with Redeemer.
More evidence of the SEPA myth about the “mutual discernment” process.
What might have happened if we had talked before the lawyers were called in?
2013*
Rev. Sandra Brown
215 225 5329
Holy Spirit (NE Phila.)
brownsj@msn.com
Her husband, Rev. Jesse Brown, was our part-time pastor in 2000, well before we accepted more than 60 members. She has had no contact with our church in 13 years.
2014*
Rev. Carol Ficken
215 402 0337
Grace, Wyndmoor (Lower Montgomery)
clficken8438@aol.com
We visited her church.
2013*
Rev. Regina Goodrich
610 622 7649
Mediator, Northwest/Olney Conference
evangee@comcast.net
2015*
Rev. Charles Leonard
215 248 6340
St. Mark, Philadelphia (NW/Olney)
cleonard@ltsp.edu
We visited his church.
2014*
Rev. Karl Richard
610 543 1923
St. Matthew, Springfield (Delaware)
kandlr@juno.com
We visited his church—twice.
2013
Rev. Hennrik Sonntag
267 373 9748
St. Paul, Glenside (Lower Montgomery)
pastor@stpaulsglenside.org
We visited his church.
2015
Rev. Christopher Weidner
610 323 7469
St. Luke, Gilbertsville (Upper Montgomery)
stlukelutheran@dejazzd.com
2014*
Lay
Name
Congregation (conference)
Term expires
Joyce Brown Adams
Faith Immanuel, E. Lansdowne (Delaware)
Their church had weaker numbers and resources than Redeemer when they started a multi-cultural ministry similar to ours at about the same time SEPA was trying to destroy our multi-cultural ministry.
2013
Fred Brown, at-large
Good Shepherd, King of Prussia (Lower Montgomery)
We visited their church.
2014
Malcolm Davis, youth rep.
Reformation, Philadelphia (NW/Olney)
Youth reps have more say in Redeemer’s future than 82 Redeemer members had.
2013*
Robert Hensil, at large
Temple, Havertown (Delaware)
We visited his church.
2015
J. Lawrence House AIM, at large
Upper Dublin, Ambler (Lower Montgomery)
He was one of the “trustees” who introduced themselves as fact finders failing to identify themselves as trustees and failing to mention that they considered our church under their administration.
2013*
Sr. Sally Kerr, at large
610 327 6852
Emmanuel, Pottstown (Upper Montgomery)
Sally@silver-springs.org
2013*
Sue Massey, Lower Montgomery
Living Word, Roslyn (Lower Montgomery)
2015
Sr. Mary Julia McKenzie, Upper Bucks
Emmanuel, Souderton (Upper Bucks)
2015
Adrienne Nash Melendez, young adult
Good Shepherd, Coatesville (Chester)
2013
Jill Meuser, Chester
Calvary, West Chester (Chester)
2014*
Margie Pendarvis-Wright, NW/Olney
St. Peter, Phila. (NW/Olney)
We visited her church.
2015*
Susan Pursch, at large
University, Phila. (Central)
We visited her church.
2015
Alex Rafuse, young adult
St. James, Limerick (Upper Montgomery)
2013
Madison Reid, youth rep.
Gloria Dei, Huntingdon Valley (Lower Montgomery)
2014
Rodman Rothermel, Chester
St. Luke, Devon (Chester)
2014
George Shultz, Lower Bucks
Peace, Bensalem (Lower Bucks)
2014
14 Dec 2012

Making Disruptive Ideas Successful in the Church

disruptiveTransformation Requires Disruption

This is the second in a series about the concept of Successful Innovation by adopting Disruptive Techniques.

We reference the book Innovators Guide to Growth: Putting Disruptive Innovation to Work published in 2008.

The work of Scott D. Anthony, Mark W. Johnson, Joseph V. Sinfield and Elizabeth J. Altman proposes three principles that characterize disruptive growth. They cite businesses that found a way to thrive when the trends and statistics were discouraging.

We think these theories point to the missing ingredient in the Church’s long and ineffective quest to transform. Here are the three principles which, if followed, lead to growth.

  1. Serving “overshot customers” or totally new consumers
  2. Noting that “good enough” can be great
  3. Doing what the natural competitors consider unattractive or uninteresting

Let’s look at each of these as they might apply to the Church. We’ll use our own ministry as an example. Today we will look at Principle 1.

Serving “overshot customers” or totally new consumers

What does this mean in the world of Church? The study elaborates:

A truly disruptive strategy is unlikely to find success in a current market. Making that disruptive solution good enough for current customers often requires heavy investment to fix performance limitations. Those investments can snuff out the disruptive essence of the new solution. Furthermore, bringing the solution to established markets means following established approaches, which can blind companies to the new potential inherent in the disruptive model.

This is a description of the current situation facing thousands of mainline congregations today. The Church cannot transform without the support of the current membership. The Church frequently opts to discourage current members hoping for better luck and more influence with pews full of newby Christians. They are hoping that they will buy in, ask few questions and give money to support the way things are already being done. In so doing, they are wasting the investment they made when they nurtured and educated the existing members.

This is not insignificant. The current membership with knowledge of the church and its traditions is the most likely source of both sweat and financial equity. The Church is shooting itself in the foot (not to mention missing the point of Christianity) when it undervalues its current members.

The Church has its established approaches.

  • Thick manuals on how to minister to churches in transition. (We’ve read them.)
  • Book after book sitting on the shelves behind the pastor’s desk. (We read many of them.)
  • Changes in constitutions to give the hierarchies powers to force their ministry ideas on congregations.

In all this effort to follow accepted or conventional ministry techniques, the Church is eroding their foundation and missing opportunities that are begging for unconventional attention.

The second part of the above quote is equally important: while we are following the conventions of church building we are blinding our eyes to new possibilities — new potential.

How the Redeemer/SEPA conflict validates this principle

The Redeemer situation illustrates this principle. Redeemer members were following the Disruptive Innovation techniques, serving a neighborhood which church analysts had determined was “overshot” and totally new populations. We had never heard the term at the time.

One of the few pastors who have openly addressed the Redeemer issue (retired, of course) justified the Synod Assembly vote with a point that was never raised in either the Synod’s presentation or Redeemer’s allotted few minutes.

“There are too many churches in East Falls anyway. What do we need with a church there?”

(Let’s forget for now that under Lutheran polity this isn’t his or the Assembly’s choice.)

This is not true, the people of East Falls are largely unchurched—not over-churched.

East Falls has

  • a Roman Catholic Church
  • a Presbyterian Church
  • an Episcopal Church
  • Redeemer with its locked doors but open hearts

The Roman Catholic Church is reeling from its own conflict with its hierarchy. The hierarchy, ever attentive to their own fiscal challenges, closed St. Bridget’s relatively successful school in an attempt to bolster the numbers at a school a couple of miles away that was failing despite the diocese’s investment in renovation. (Now both schools are closed. Great job, hierarchy!)

Five years ago, when SEPA’s attention turned to closing Redeemer, Falls Presbyterian Church had half the membership of Redeemer. Their denomination decided to support the congregation with a minister who has helped them make significant progress.

Five years ago, the Memorial Church of the Good Shepherd Episcopal Church was struggling, following the unexpected death of its pastor. They turned to then synod staff member, Claire Burkat. As a consultant, she determined that this congregation, located at the more affluent end of East Falls, with a location on a side street with no parking lot (a criticism she hurled at Redeemer) had ministry potential. While supporting the Episcopal congregation in East Falls, Bishop Burkat was soon plotting the downfall of the congregation in the same neighborhood that had supported her work for decades.

It should be noted that East Falls once had

  • a Methodist Church, which failed when its location became locked in the crowded streets of an old neighborhood
  • a Baptist Church, with similar challenges
  • a Congregational Church that closed more than 30 years ago
  • and a second Episcopal Church that did not survive a conflict with its bishop

There is a track record here of techniques that don’t work. Redeemer noticed and addressed its ministry challenges with them in mind.

So the neighborhood, in the analysis of church experts, was over-served but in reality it was “overshot,” a fertile field of “nonconsumers.” Prime ministry territory for Disruptive Innovation.

When the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Church in America decided that this was the next church they could turn to as a solution to their fiscal problems, Redeemer had already taken significant and promising ministry steps. We were able to forge a new direction in part because  SEPA Synod was following its guidelines of NOT HELPING churches they determined might die in TEN YEARS. An unbelievable philosophy that is documented.

Pastors were discouraged from serving here. In that void, the laity charted an unconventional but promising 2008 Redeemer Ministry Plan, which we are still following this plan today, with necessary adaptations, despite the fact that SEPA excludes us from church membership.

During the ten years that SEPA thought we were dying, Redeemer was reaching newcomers to the East Falls area—some with Lutheran roots, some without. They were different from Redeemer’s historic membership in that their roots were in East Africa as opposed to England, Scotland and Germany.

SEPA Synod and Bishop Burkat in particular looked at our membership list and criticized it. “A lot of these names look African.” She tried to remove our African members asking our pastor to take them with him to another congregation—choosing for them which church they should attend, something she would never dare try with white Lutherans. She never counted them — reporting to the Synod Assembly in 2009 that we had only 13 members. We had only 13 white members. We had 60 or more black members that SEPA refused to recognize. They were unconventional.

SEPA wanted to see a conventional ministry here, opting to follow the trend of three other denominations that failed following the same “tried and true” ministry strategies. Pastor Patricia Davenport made a presentation to East Falls Community Council last March, repeating “We want a Word and Sacrament church at that location.” Why they evicted the Word and Sacrament church that was there was not explained. Redeemer, if given half a chance, would be flourishing and paying the debts the Synod continues to fight over in court.

And we would be forging new ministry techniques that might help others.

08 Dec 2012

New ways to measure “church”

2×2 records banner statistics as 2012 draws to a close

2×2 will soon enter its third year of online ministry. Very few churches are experimenting with content evangelism. This is new territory.

We have been forced into online ministry by the confiscation of our property and the abandonment of traditional leadership. Online numbers are the only thing we can measure. We don’t have property or a pastor to pay. We have few expenses outside of unending law suits.

This was an interesting week statistically. For the last five weeks or so we’ve been inching up to 400 readers per week. We got as high as 397 without breaking 400. We fluctuated a bit, week by week, with our monthly totals steadily climbing for the last six months. Our daily readership also climbed steadily during the latter part of 2012.

This week we broke the 400 mark—and the 500 mark—and the 600 mark. 604 readers visited 2×2 last week.

Keep in mind that Redeemer’s ability to fulfill its mission was the lame excuse offered to justify the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s self-serving land grab. SEPA paraded false statistics before a Synod Assembly that was duped into taking foolish actions. Redeemer was allowed no say at the time (under questionable constitutionality)—by design.

Now we have independent statistics to prove our viability.

And a little church shall lead the way

2×2 is the focus of Redeemer’s mission. We pay daily attention to our blog’s statistics so we can do a better job. It’s not just a numbers game. We are forming real relationships with our readers all over the world. We are sharing freely what we are learning.

We look beyond the numbers to determine what the numbers represent. Online ministry is very measurable.

This week, an Ambassadors post early in the week attracted unusual attention, mostly on Monday but a little on Tuesday morning. By Tuesday afternoon, that interest had died. We expected the numbers to plummet to 20, 30 or 40 visits per day. They didn’t. By the end of the week, all the traffic was from the usual sources (people searching for ministry ideas), only at two or three times the previous week’s numbers.

Redeemer continues its dedication. We have numbers to back up our claims. Along with the statistics is evidence of Redeemer’s growing reach. We have readers all over the world. We may even lay claim to being one of the largest Lutheran churches within SEPA’s geographical area. But we are not limited by geography!

Imagine a different scenario than the one fostered by SEPA leadership

Imagine what we could be doing

  • if we had a place to meet for worship.
  • if we had a facility to hold workshops on the things we are learning.
  • if the pastor who had given us a five-year commitment hadn’t been chased off.
  • if our property were serving the community and earning income to satisfy existing debt and support even more outreach.
  • if we were free to monetize our site without interference.
  • if our members were not burdened or intimidated by lawsuits.
  • if we had a pastor to work with us and care about us.

And there’s the rub! It’s in that last bulleted item. The lay people of Redeemer now have more experience at this type of ministry than almost all ELCA pastors.

And so we are condemned and excluded. Not because we lack “missional” focus but because professional leaders, steeped in 19th and 20th century ministry models, don’t know how to work with us.

Who knows how long SEPA will keep Redemer’s doors locked until they feel they can totally control a ministry they never understood?

They have looked the other way as Grace, Roxborough, failed and their building and parsonage were sold to benefit SEPA. They allowed Epiphany, Upper Roxborough, to break its covenant with Redeemer and vote to close—assets going to SEPA. Only landlocked Bethany remains to serve several Philadelphia neighborhoods—East Falls, Wissahickon, Roxborough, and Manayunk.

A resurgence of ministry there without new focus is unlikely, but SEPA would rather watch traditional ministries struggle with an arrogant “we told you so” hanging in the air than help them to experiment beyond the experience of available leadership.

SEPA congregations and clergy look on with approval, touting the wisdom of its leaders, and protecting their own endangered territories.

Meanwhile, little, unrecognized Redeemer just keeps growing. Without property, without money, without professional leaders, Redeemer grows!

God is doing something new in East Falls.

When will SEPA  and the ELCA perceive it?

December 2 Stats

Screen shot of Redeemer’s statistics toward the end of the December 2, 2012. We actually closed the day with 604 site visits — two more visited before the Cinderella hour.


03 Dec 2012

Redeemer Ambassadors Learn More about St. John’s, Mayfair

On the first of the month, Redeemer always looks forward to holding our own worship service at the Old Academy Theater. The Ambassadors arrived still enthusiastic about our visit to St. John’s, Mayfair, last week. One of our Ambassadors enjoys the history and architecture of the churches we visit. She asked about the two cornerstones—one pre-Civil War and one from the mid-20th century. We discovered a connection we didn’t know we had. Our pastor, one of only a couple of SEPA/ELCA pastors not afraid to be seen in public with us, once served St. John’s back in the 1960s.  (Yes, we have a pastor, in fact we have two who worship with us regularly!) He told us a bit of its history, how it used to be downtown and how the new church had been designed to showcase its beautiful German windows. He talked about how the educational wing was once filled with Sunday School students and how it had a friendly competition with St. Paul’s in Olney. Its membership then was more than 2000. Latest Trend reports have them holding their own in the 600s, with a little fluctuation, most recently reported at 695, a third of them worshiping members.

02 Dec 2012