Our worship gathering started a little blue today. We Redeemer members are tired of being ignored or looked down upon at best and demonized at worst. Our members walked through our worship doors this morning fed up. We allowed some time for complaining.
Our members have plenty to gripe about. This month, we enter our sixth year of persecution by the leadership of the ELCA. We’ve been treated very badly and the courts, which are beginning to sympathize with us, still must defer to the original court ruling that says the church has to settle this themselves. The dissenting opinion that sided with Redeemer seems to be gaining support as court actions continue.
The Church is powerless to fix its own problems. They seem to be unable to practice much of anything that they preach. What good is any church that when put to the test is totally impotent? That’s the ELCA.
We soon put our problems aside, learned a new hymn and began worship. By the end of the service and our discussion of the amazing faith of the centurion, we were in a better mood.
Sometimes people outside the Church can see the bigger picture most clearly. That’s Redeemer’s experience, too. Many of the people who have been most generous in helping us have no church affiliation. Church people look the other way. Silence and inaction is all we’ve seen from SEPA congregations.
Redeemer has maintained our community. We are poised both financially and administratively to resume our ministry in our own community with our own resources.
If our situation was so dire—as SEPA falsely claimed—we could not have maintained our ministry for more than a few months. We’ve continued to grow our ministry for the last four years!
Our ministry was not the reason for the conflict in East Falls. SEPA Synod’s failing finances are the cause. Six years later, they are still in pretty bad shape. Redeemer is holding its own!
When Dorothy left home with no particular plan for her future, she ended up visiting the land of Oz. She returned to the world she knew wiser for her visit and assured that the place she called home was heaven on earth. She needed to leave in order to appreciate it.
Not so in the mainline church. Fifty years ago there were six major mainline denominations that accounted for the majority of people who called themselves Protestant Christians. Lutherans were one of the six.
Today these six denominations are in serious decline. Non-denominational churches or smaller denominations have a bigger piece of the Protestant pie. But the pie is being nibbled away.
I’ve been reading the statistical studies of George Barna. His Group did research the scientific way, issuing a report in 2008.
Redeemer’s Ambassadors just started visiting churches of our denomination. Nothing scientific about it. But our findings are empirical. We look up a church on Saturday afternoon and visit on Sunday. We’ve visited close to half the congregations in the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. We’ve found the Barna Group statistics to be true. If anything, they are even more dire today, five years later.
The average age of a mainline pastor in 2008 was 55. We’ve seen only a few younger than that and most are considerably older.
His report talks about today’s short pastoral tenure. Most pastors stay in one parish only about four years. Since the current custom in our denomination is to place an interim pastor for as long as two years when a pastor leaves, there is really no realistic expectation that any pastor will become a “settled” pastor. The key leadership position in most churches is a revolving door. Smaller churches tend to be waiting rooms for pastors hoping for openings in larger congregations with bigger budgets.
We hear pastor after pastor talk about taking the training for serving as an interim. They may soon be the majority! That this is so widespread disproves the tendency of church leaders to blame congregations when tenures are short. The commitment level seems to be low.
Shorter tenures may not be a bad thing. Society is no longer settled. But how this is to work while maintaining congregational polity and the interest of lay people will be the challenge. Lay leadership is bound to wane when lay Christians provide the continuity in ministry but must exist under synodical scrutiny for an undesignated period of time—every four years.
This 2008 report reveals that 35% of people attending church are 60-plus. Our experience is that number can be easily doubled. The elderly are the majority in almost every congregation we have visited. Children in worship are rare. Frequently, there are none. Youth are even rarer. Young adults are in the minority.
The report cites the inability of the mainline church to attract racial and ethnic minorities, particularly Hispanic and Asian. Our visits reinforce that finding. In addition, we see very little diversity within congregations. There are just a few that have any measurable diversity. Most are either predominantly black or white—mostly white. Synod Assemblies can crow all they want about diversity. Statistics don’t back it up.
Interestingly, the report points to the quality of leadership as presenting serious challenges. “especially regarding vision, creativity, strategic thinking, and the courage to take risks.” Our experience mirrors and magnifies this finding. Church leadership is in a rut. It cries to the laity to pull them out of the rut, but it gives them no power to do so. In fact, it can be very judgmental, even punitive, towards lay leadership if they attempt differing approaches to ministry. Yet the need for transformation is regularly preached.
Our visits and experience attest that this is a critical problem and perhaps the biggest threat to the future of the Church. The professional leadership model just isn’t working at any level and is unlikely to change without some major fresh blood. The Church has a hard time generating or recognizing talent that can make a difference. Laity are valued for their support not their talent and initiative. Pastors tend to exist in their own worlds. They are rewarded for being good followers, not leaders.
The report goes on to talk about emerging options for Christians and their greater exposure to different religious expressions as changing the face of the mainline Church.
Perhaps we should have been paying more attention to independent churches and the religious expression of smaller denominations all this time. We might have learned something. We still can.
Perhaps our Oz is a “melting pot” phenomenon. Maybe the lessons we need to learn have something to do with recognizing that we and our neighbors are not who we think we are. Congregants are likely to find this refreshing and exciting. Mainline church structure may find it bewildering and threatening.
But most alarming may be the economic statistics. Those who attend church are less well to do than they used to be. The wealthy have found other, more rewarding places to spend their money.
The educational level of church leaders has dipped. Salaries have risen.
Offerings have dropped. More than a third of those who attend church do not contribute at all. At the same time church budgets have doubled.
In our experience the aging of the church-going population has sparked a move by church institutions to corner the market on endowment giving. Seminaries, social service agencies and regional bodies encourage the donors to think of them when planning their estates. Any questions, just call their development officer. Be wined and dined while the papers are drawn up.
Fifty years ago, those bequests might have been designated for the local churches. Small churches don’t have development staff to work with members. In addition, regional bodies are assuming powers to claim gifts bestowed on small congregations. Future gifts are unlikely. People want their money to go where they want it to go! A lot of dollars that could be supporting congregations are disappearing.
We are in the Land of Oz. Are we learning any lessons?
If we can ever return to the health and influence of decades past, what might we do differently?
I don’t want to hype it. He does a pretty good job of that himself.
It’s the subtitle that interests me. New Rules for Winning in the Real World
When talking about his book Dr. Phillip McGraw says (repeatedly) that the world has changed. We can’t approach people or situations with the same level of trust we might have had 30 years ago.
Watch out for people who take advantage of your trust.
We are told we can no longer give people the benefit of the doubt. The advice: Observe. Ask questions. Follow your instincts. Be ever alert to motives and behaviors.
Sad to say, but this is good advice for trusting Christians, too.
Today’s Church is not like the Church many of us grew up in.
We now know that we cannot automatically trust church leaders to behave in godly ways. Headlines for the last decade have shown us that the people we trust, the people we ask our children to trust, are often unworthy. Problems are no longer rare and isolated. We know that criminal behavior has been widespread and enduring, existing under the protected status of “church.” The guilt goes beyond the parish. It reaches into the highest offices.
It is a new world!
Two factors make his advice particularly applicable to religion.
The Church today exists in a state of distress. Mainline membership and attendance are plummeting along with offerings. At the current rate of decline, some denominations will disappear within 40 years. The church is not attracting the best and brightest to careers of service. Seminaries are struggling to find students. Candidates are often second career or interested in part-time ministry only—at their convenience more than at God’s call. The sense of sacrifice and dedication that once characterized candidates for ministry is increasingly rare. The future of church leadership is shaky.
The Church is largely immune from the law. Clergy can operate knowing that there is low likelihood of question or challenge. Many, many people will give clergy the benefit of the doubt and look with suspicion on anyone who makes any challenge.
In the free world, the church is as close as you get to absolute power. We know the saying about absolute power. It corrupts absolutely.
As the mainline church faces continued economic challenges there are greater temptations. Church leaders crave power. The power that wealth gave them is disappearing along with status as our culture grows more and more secular. They are lording power over fewer and fewer people.
Rules start to be broken. Polity is ignored.
Constitutions are tweaked to increase power.
These actions are begging for challenge, but the Church bets that in most cases they will achieve their objectives without question.
When at last leaders are challenged, they MUST win.
All the tenets of faith are quickly forgotten.
Let’s look at what is happening today in the Anglican Church in Canada. It begins with a familiar story—a land and asset grab. In this case the bishop takes the dispute further.
Five years have passed since this 2008 land grab. Bishop Michael Bird of the Niagara region is resurrecting the conflict by suing a lay person who wrote about church leaders on a satirical blog. The stories we’ve read are just silly, obvious farces.
Bishops expect adulation. They can’t take criticism. They have lost the ability to laugh at themselves.
And so in Canada, the bishop uses his protected status to attack a 66-year-old man, a loyal church member who undoubtedly donated a great deal to his church over the years. The bishop claims that the blog cost him $400,000 in damages. We can only wonder what kind of deficit his regional body might be carrying. We know here in Philadelphia that SEPA’s interest in Redeemer’s assets always came when SEPA faced severe budget problems.
When bishops have tantrums, they tend to be costly, and the Church or its members pay the bill.
The Canadian news has many similarities to Redeemer’s and other land grabs in ELCA synods. The common threads:
No attempt to work with the congregation or lay leaders.
No dialog, just the strong arm of the Church, wielding what is left of waning power.
Legal actions against lay members with clergy running for the hills.
Public presentations that talk about “discernment,” “dialog,” and ridiculous but righteous-sounding allusions to “death and resurrection.” They represent that taking what does not belong to them is God’s work! That’s what they are doing, and the ELCA’s tagline is “God’s Work. Our hands.”
The Church today is desperate.
New rules are needed.
Don’t trust that church leaders are wise just because they are elected to office.
Don’t assume that church leaders are immune from temptation.
Don’t assume that church leaders will practice what they preach.
Don’t assume that somebody else will speak up before you, if there is really something wrong going on. Years went by before the Roman Catholic Church took action against 27 priests for misconduct.
Do assume that things will get very bad indeed before the whole church recognizes there is any problem at all.
As it is, it’s open season on lay people. The more knowledgable, dedicated and invested in church, the more vulnerable we are.
The only safe Christians are those who sit quietly in the pews (or in the chancel).
And we wonder why churches are empty on Sunday morning.
In the unending quest for transformation, churches in our area have been asked by their regional leader to take risks.
Sounds very daring!
But look before you leap!
What are congregations being asked to risk and why?
We presume our leaders are asking us to change. They are never very clear on how. Just change. (When they bring their experts in to to evaluate, they usually try to set things up the same old way.)
So what are our leaders expecting to happen now?
They could be looking at society and seeing a spiritual desert. They could be concerned for the troubled individuals, broken families, the children who live in two houses with torn parental loyalties, the outcasts of society, the people who struggle with illness and addiction, the jobless, the homeless, the youth who feel left out, or the lonely and unnoticed in general. They could be concerned with the growing number of people who do not know God and can’t pray.
They could be looking more globally at a world of injustice, hunger, disease, tension, prejudice and discrimination.
Most Christians would agree that if these were the major concerns, taking risks and making changes would be well worth a congregation’s efforts.
Unfortunately, the changes sought by the Church are economically based. The risks we are being asked to take are so the Church can survive—that the hierarchy can survive— just the way it always has. No changes there!
Small churches have proven to be resilient. Immigrants and pioneers, uprooted from the established Church of the Middle Ages, came to America and started the Church anew. These small churches survived for hundreds of years. They changed over the years without prodding. Many actually grew!
The cost of hierarchy is weighing down the small church. The need for change and risk today is because hierarchies are failing.
They don’t intend to fail alone.
Change will happen in the small church when hierarchy demonstrates that they, too, can take risks and make significant changes. This doesn’t mean cutting ten percent of the staff or freezing salaries. It means revisiting everything they do. Reallocating initiatives more in line with the modern world. Changing the way they relate and communicate with congregations, and how they value the contributions of members—all members.
It means looking at our relationships with our schools and seminaries and our social service agencies. Are they serving the mission of the Church or have they adopted a secular mission while expecting support from the Church?
It means examining what is expected of professional leaders at every level. If pastors can be settled in ministry for 10 years while statistics steadily drop — and be applauded for nothing but having a satisfied congregation — well, it’s the same problem academia has with tenure. Security tends to trump mission.
Things are just fine here. Let someone else take the risk. Ten years to retirement.
The Church will not survive the present age without taking risks. Let’s make sure the risks are for the mission of the Church, not the survival of our comfort and way of life.
And leaders, congregations are more likely to take risks when we see you in front of us, not prodding (or picking our pockets) from behind.
Today is Memorial Day. We honor the many who have fought for the freedoms we have today. It’s a good day to revisit what we in the Church are doing with our freedoms.
A significant story involving the Church comes to our attention this month from Canada.
It all began with a land grab.
Now it’s a court battle pitting a bishop and a denomination’s best legal minds against a vocal layman.
Should we, residents of the Land of the Free, be concerned?
There are significant similarities that ELCA Lutherans should note. Here’s an excerpt from the Canadian story.
The ultra-liberal Anglican Bishop of Niagara, the Rt. Rev. Michael Bird has sued an orthodox Anglican blogger, a layman, alleging that he was libeled 31 times on Anglican Samizdat, a blog by David Jenkins that presents facts and pokes satirical fun at liberal Anglican leaders who depart from “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.”
The Bishop of Niagara was one of his targets.
The claim seeks:
$400,000 in damages plus court and legal costs.
An interim and permanent injunction to shut down Anglican Samizdat.
An interim and permanent injunction prohibiting Jenkins from publishing further comments about Michael Bird.
Isn’t it a bit funny that someone labeled as an “ultra-liberal” would attack free speech—even if delivered with a Canadian accent.
Canada has its own Bill of Rights, a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
On this side of the Niagara, the same Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that protects freedom of religion also protects freedom of speech.
The root problem is church leaders thinking so much of themselves that they shield themselves with the first amendment as they take actions that in a secular venue could be challenged in the courts—if not considered criminal.
The ruling in the SEPA-Redeemer case was made without ever hearing the case — even after five years of courtroom drama. The court determined that the issues were not within the jurisdiction of the courts under separation of church and state. However, a minority opinion concludes that if the law were to be applied, Redeemer’s arguments have significant merit. Two judges since have indicated that they, too, consider the dissenting opinion to have value.
Church leaders count on loyal obedience of followers who also benefit from their dubious actions. The same Synod Assembly that gave the bishop permission to take Redeemer’s property—defying their own governing documents—approved a healthy six-figure deficit. The Church can do anything they want. They are the Church.
Dissent is part of Lutheran heritage. How have Lutherans become so weak?
Church leaders work hard on their presentation. They hold the future of the clergy in their hands and can rely on their support. They also control all venues for discussion and media.
At least they did until the term “blog” became known.
Even now, Church leaders tell people how hard they work with congregations—how they use a rigorous process of dialog and discernment. They are very sure that everyone will believe them because they are Church leaders—even when there is no mutual discernment, dialog or any effort whatsoever to work together. No one asks for facts or evidence. Lay people who cite statistics and facts must be wrong because they are lay people. Church leaders can just repeat the same unsupported rhetoric and they are applauded. Bishops make pronouncements. Loyal followers stand back, out of the line of fire, and offer support—or more likely, say nothing whatsoever. This type of behavior prompted the Reformation 500 years ago. And here we are again.
Christians are not obligated to follow leaders simply because they are elected. Rank and file Christians are obligated to speak out when they see abuses and wrong actions and teachings. This is part of the supreme document of our faith—The Bible, sometimes called The Word of God.
In a free society that protects religion, it is imperative that religious followers monitor the actions of leaders. If they don’t they are at risk of being a cult.
Sadly, courts are not equipped to see beyond the rhetoric of religious leaders and probe the causes of their actions. Consequently any layperson who follows duty and conscience risks considerable loss, including:
heritage.
status within the faith community.
their property and assets (personal as well as communal).
their faith.
friends and family.
the fruits of years of volunteer service.
the benefits of years of monetary support.
and now, at least in Canada, all possessions, including the life savings intended to support you in old age. Mr. Jenkins is 65 years old.
We could simply say “shame on the Canadian church leaders,” but we know how close this scenario is to what has been happening in East Falls with attacks on the individual members of Redeemer going on long after the objective of grabbing our property was decided. (Yes, right here, where George Washington camped with his freedom fighters on the same stretch of land where the LCA once had its headquarters.)
None of this costly and public conflict is necessary. Church leaders need only treat lay leaders with respect (love one another) and follow the teachings of their faith (do not sue one another, do unto others…). They need to stop coveting the property of member churches. Breaking the covet Commandments leads to breaking several other Commandments and the slow and steady deterioration of the Church’s mission.
Church leaders who encounter criticism or resistance, whether merited or not, have a less costly choice. They can write their own blog and respond to criticism. They can actually have the dialog they tell everyone they are having. Why not try peacemaking?
Using the courts against their members while they cry “separation of church and state” has the potential for a dual payoff. They might be awarded a lot of money while humiliating and intimidating lay people and thereby exerting control over anyone who might follow suit. In the Church today, pursuit of the Almighty Dollar is second only to the pursuit of power.
Mr. Jenkins already took down the offending blog posts.
I’m betting that won’t be enough to satisfy his enemies. Once bishops take an issue public, they have to win. Pride and power take control. Humility, forgiveness, reconciliation — just words for preaching.
Happy Memorial Day! Hurrah for the Bill of Rights and the people who lived and died protecting them!
At the 2013 Assembly of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod, Bishop Claire Burkat exhorted member churches to take risks. Start small. Just take one risk in mission.
I beleive in risk-taking.
Many of the risks that need to be taken in the Church are long overdue.
The climate of SEPA Synod is not conducive to risk-taking.
If congregations are to take risks they must be assured that failures
will not be used as excuses for hierarchical seizure of everything they own.
will not cause them to be excommunicated from Lutheran fellowship.
will not put their personal welfare and that of their families in danger.
SEPA cannot provide these assurances.
Consequently, risks will not be taken.
The biggest obstacle? Involuntary Synodical Administration.
Involuntary Synodical Administration, now so common that it is referred to by the acronym ISA, did not exist in the founding documents of the ELCA. The Articles of Incorporation still forbid it.
ISA is the determination of the bishop that a church cannot survive. The Synod assumes all cash and property assets. Trustees are appointed. They serve the bishop’s interests, not the congregation’s. It is theft by constitutional tweaking.
The original constitutional statute allowed for synodical administration only with the consent of the congregation and as a temporary measure.
Synodical Administration was intended to be a tool to help struggling congregations overcome difficulty. Congregations were part of the process—the Lutheran way. Help was offered, but assets remained owned by the congregations.
Involuntary Synodical Administration is a monstrous contrivance.
The Synod’s model constitution has been tweaked to negate the promises made to the congregations when they joined the ELCA.
Consequently, congregational polity, precious to Lutherans, no longer exists in SEPA Synod.
Too bad. Congregational polity encourages risk-taking.
Without congregational polity every congregation must consider what big brother or sister will do if their risks fail —as measured by the bishop not by the congregation.
If congregations are to take Bishop Burkat’s advice and take risks, they should seriously review and revise their own governing documents.
Taking risks, after all, is risky. You could fail.
Failure leads to knowledge which can then be put to new ministry use. Innovation is usually the result of multiple attempts that failed.
But in the world of SEPA, failure of any sort, as measured by no one but the bishop (who has minimal knowledge of congregations), leads to long-term Lutheran assets lost to short-term synodical needs.
Here’s what I know about SEPA and their ability to accept congregational risk-taking:
Once upon a time, not so very long ago, there was a small urban congregation facing the same challenges many small congregations face. The founding members who predated decades of urban unrest were dying off. The landscape for ministry was changing dramatically and at a faster pace than the “settled” Church had ever encountered.
This congregation had resources. A founding member had left an endowment with the stipulation that it be used for ministry in that neighborhood.
That endowment had already been an attractive target for s financially troubled synod, but that had been resolved eight years before. However, the memory was still fresh. The Synod refused to follow the call process after the resolution. They were betting that without help, the congregation would fall apart. SEPA need wait only a bit longer to get to the assets.
This congregation had unusually strong lay leadership. The absence of professional leaders had actually helped develop the congregation’s sense of mission. They knew they had to serve a multicultural neighborhood. Without the burden of salaries, they were free to engage pastors for specific tasks as needed.
Money was not yet a problem, but it was clear that it would become a problem if congregational leaders didn’t address the needs of the future immediately.
The congregational leaders spent six months drafting a plan. They consulted pastors, real estate experts, an accountant and a lawyer in drafting a five-year plan. Funds were needed to bring facilities up to modern standards. The congregation was willing to risk a third of their property for a short-term mortgage that might catapult them into a solid future.
The congregation had been renting its educational building to a Lutheran agency, but the congregation knew that this was no longer in their interests. The property had more potential for congregational ministry if the congregation ran its own school with the important added benefit of being able to witness in mission as the Lutheran agency was unable to do.
Two members of the congregation already experienced in childcare took the training necessary for licensure. The school was projected to bring in $100,000 annually to the congregation’s ministry within two years. Meanwhile, other sources of income were also identified and a stewardship program was implemented.
Previous pastors were not comfortable in multicultural settings. They promised to find help but reported regularly, “There is no one.” When the last pastor left, the congregation found excellent, qualified professional leaders within a few weeks.
52 members joined in the first year and there was every indication that this was only the start of a vibrant new ministry.
Meanwhile, the congregation presented the mission plan to Bishop Claire Burkat along with a resolution to call one of the pastors who had already been working with the congregation successfully for seven months.
There were risks, but there were strong indications that the risks would pay off.
Bishop Claire Burkat accepted the resolution and ministry plan and promised to review them. She also promised that the congregation could work with the Synod’s Mission Developer. Four months passed with no communication from anyone in the bishop’s office.
Was there to be a period of discussion and review of the 24-page mission plan? Would the bishop make suggestions or offer help?
No.
Bishop Burkat abruptly sent a letter to the congregation announcing the church was closed and all assets were to be assumed by her office (which had recently announced they were within $75,000 of depleting every available resource).
The risks quickly escalated with law suits and personal attacks on members that continued for five years. Although Bishop Burkat wrote to clergy that all issues are settled, the fact is the case is still in the courts.
If Bishop Burkat truly believed in risk-taking, she could have taken a chance on Redeemer’s carefully crafted mission plan. She could have joined interdependently in a carefully calculated mission adventure that was already succeeding. She could have taken credit!
Bishop Burkat couldn’t risk Redeemer’s resources slipping from syndical control twice in one decade. Some of the motivation was SEPA’s own financial needs. Power and pride also entered the picture.
Risk-taking does not happen in this atmosphere.
Lay members are sitting ducks for abuse. Clergy will protect their standing.
If SEPA congregations truly want to be risk-takers for mission, they must revisit their constitutions and make risk-taking a little less risky.
Redeemer is still ready to take risks.
We’ve been pioneering mission while SEPA has been attacking us. There is nothing stopping Redeemer’s mission plan from being implemented even today.
SEPA prefers the expenses of locked churches to the expenses of mission. They spend more than $170,000 a year keeping those doors locked. Taking a risk on Redeemer’s mission plan would have cost them nothing (and it was already succeeding!)
We’ve heard the adage before. It is presented in today’s church almost as if it were romantic. There are hints that it might be biblical.
It is not biblical—at least in the way it is being used to justify self-serving actions by regional bodies and church leaders.
This month in the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (SEPA) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), this thinking was passed on to the rank and file.
Good idea to have an outsider reinforce the ideas that are hurting so many SEPA member churches.
From SEPA’s web site:
Jay Gamelin urged congregational leaders to focus on making disciples instead of taking care of members and warned that sometimes new life requires death to occur first. “What needs to die in your church?” he asked the Assembly. “Because you know what God does with death? He makes an empty tomb out of it.”
Actually, that was not Christ’s approach to mission. True, his Resurrection saved us, but He didn’t tear down the people He encountered. He taught. He nurtured new leadership. He counseled established leaders. He empowered ordinary people—people who had no wealth to give but were welcomed all the same. He cured. He encouraged. He gave hope to the marginally served in society and within the religious structures of the day. He loved.
Christ wanted sin to die. Not churches.
He didn’t teach taking financial assessments of congregations and abandoning the weak. In fact, the sense of economics in His parables often puzzles us. He found strength and promise in places no one else did!
This death-oriented ministry philosophy may create an occasional statistical success story, but church statistics don’t reveal that resulting success is the norm or automatic or has longevity. Of course, time will tell.
Something must die. Any volunteers?
Why is it that our church leaders look to find somebody else to do the dying? Why is it the efforts of lay people that are targeted?
This is an abuse of the Resurrection story. Why do we embrace this thinking? Why do we sit in Synod Assembly and listen to it being taught?
Noble-sounding words mask a dangerous idea. The Church is playing with power—group power and some individuals’ sense of power.
Power doesn’t take much encouragement before it runs seriously amok. The idea that one person or group knows better how to use another person’s or group’s assets is the root of much crime.
ELCA documents protect us from this misuse of power, but they are routinely ignored.
This pseudo-resurrection concept is rooted in a sense of superiority. It masks leadership failures. “We didn’t fail as professional church leaders. It was their time to die. We’ll help them grieve on the way to the bank.”
They are playing God.
The temptation to play God when exercised by mortals results in skewed or lazy assessments of ministries, with property and cash assets the focus — not mission.
Christ’s power grew from humility. It has no time for arrogance.
When money is a problem for everyone, including the regional body and national church, things get crazy fast. No one looks for mission solutions. We look for easy answers that won’t take work, time, or commitment or an investment of any kind. We find it easy to judge others as unworthy of God’s blessings. We stop providing mission services and tell ourselves it’s OK. We decide which congregations will die (not “might die” but “will die”) in ten years. TEN YEARS!
The dereliction of duty is intentional and horrific. We not only do nothing but we plot to speed the process. We provide a “caretaker” minister. This caretaker expects to be paid as if he or she were actually doing ministry, but they are there to do nothing more than hold hands while resources and spirit are drained. They are there to facilitate the conveyance of assets.
Let’s look at what can happen in ten years.
Ten years — enough time to fight most wars, including World Wars. Enough time to reverse a serious recession. Long enough to see a high school student through seminary. Time enough for the Civil Rights Movement to begin to see results. Ten years—the entire history of social media!
What could happen in a church in ten years?
Endowments might be enriched. New populations could move in. Mission initiatives might take hold. Community outreach might take root. New housing might be built. New businesses might move in. A new generation will be born.
If the Church’s attention is on fostering failure, they will miss out on important mission opportunities.
One Bad Idea Leads to Another
This philosophy quickly jumps to even more erroneous thinking.
“You are not here to serve your membership, you are here to serve God.” Jay Gamelin concludes.
Serving your members IS serving God. Your constitution probably spells out your duties and it undoubtedly mandates care of members.
We ARE here to serve members. Their needs and preferences DO count. It is THEIR expression of worship and ministry. They are not the only thing that counts but they DO count. Love would tell us that.
The minute we give our leaders permission to NOT serve members, we devalue our message to all. Problems will result. They may not be immediate, but they will result.
Where there is life there is hope and there is God. God can play God all He wants.
And He will.
Don’t expect this philosophy that results from our leaders playing God to spread without problems.
How does a denomination reach diversity goals when diversity is so difficult to measure?
Here’s what probably won’t work:
assigning a pastor who brings along personal friends who fit diverse criteria and adds them to a congregation’s membership roster without going through the constitutional membership process.
pigeon-holing already diverse populations and directing them to churches where you think they will be happier.
assuming that individual personal worship preferences are dictated by skin color or ethnicity.
assuming that one congregation can serve only one demographic—the one they served 40 years ago.
trying so hard to appeal to new populations (that might not even be local) that the long-time supporters feel like strangers.
locking out an already diverse community, which has made major contributions to the denomination, with a stated goal of replacing them.
Each of these tactics was tried by SEPA leadership at Redeemer. Each failed.
What does work?
consciously welcoming whomever walks through the door.
consciously creating a fellowship that draws newcomers in. (Just setting up a coffee urn and snack table isn’t enough.)
empowering all to invite others. (Find a way to model this to make it part of your congregation’s personality.)
providing a quality worship experience despite numbers. (This doesn’t mean hiring a lot of professional musicians. It means nurturing the worship experience, not always going with the obvious, expanding the experience so that there is something for new worshipers to connect with and something for older members to own and cherish.)
expanding or changing the worship experience incrementally, not all at once.
fostering participatory worship every week. (Let go of the reins. Really engage worshipers and give them a leadership role in planning worship.)
not forcing old ways on new people.
not forcing new ways on old people.
using repetition. (Introduce new elements slowly and repeat them often until they are accepted.)
re-examining the “givens” in our worship life to determine if they are understood and appreciated by the current group of worshipers or if a change might make an overall difference. (Example: Are an opening hymn, sermon hymn and closing hymn enough musically? Is the frequency of communion attracting people or keeping them away? Would shorter or longer sermons be appreciated? Should children be excused for most of the service? Is the time of worship interfering with attendance?)
listening to newcomers to understand their worship preferences.
Redeemer used these methods with success. We didn’t know all this when we started. We worked at it. We made mistakes. What we learned from mistakes makes us more certain of our success.
One of the more frequent exclamations coming from SEPA Synod Assembly is the boast, “We are diverse.”
Just keep saying it and people might believe it.
Diversity in SEPA Synod is an illusion. Cloaks and mirrors.
The Synod Assembly is rigged to display diversity. Congregations are given extra votes and representation if they can prove diversity. A small church with darker skinned members can have more votes than small pale congregations.
Ecclesiastic gerrymandering also distorts gender and age. Most churches have a predominance of women in attendance, but congregations are required to send one female and one male member . . . creating the illusion of gender equality.
From the number of youth present at the Assembly, you’d think our churches were filled with energetic and engaged young people. They are not.
Diversity Within Diversity
When addressing diversity, the Church tends to fixate on skin color. Skin color alone, is broader than black and white and diversity is so much more than skin color. Skin color is easy to see and count . . . and so we do!
Redeemer’s Ambassadors have visited more than 60 of SEPA’s 160 congregations, We began our visits in the city where racial diversity is likely to be more prevalent than in the suburbs. As we continue our visits, reaching into the suburbs, we doubt we’ll see more diversity than we already have. So far, we haven’t seen much!
We see many white congregations with a few assorted “others” and a few black congregations with a few assorted “others.” Of all the congregations we have visited we can count only about five that have a substantial representation of people from different racial or ethnic backgrounds. Each of these was a smaller congregation.
This includes Redeemer — who SEPA has excluded from Lutheran fellowship for five years. Redeemer had grown to be very diverse. We were diverse racially, culturally, linguistically, ethnically, economically, philosophically, and in gender and age.
Our diversity didn’t earn us extra votes. In fact, we were denied any voice or vote in the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (SEPA ELCA) by decree of the bishop—a flagrant denial of congregational constitutional rights.
SEPA attempted to divide our congregation along racial lines. SEPA reported only our white members in reports to Synod Assembly. They further decided for our black members where they ought to go when they claimed our property—as if our black members were somehow too feeble to determine for themselves where they’d like to worship. It was OK if white Redeemer just disappeared. In fact, that was the plan.
“White Redeemer must be allowed to die. Black Redeemer . . . we can put them anywhere,” Bishop Burkat said in 2007.
Truth be told, there was great diversity among both our black and white memberships. We had African Americans, East Africans and West Africans. The Africans spoke many languages—French, Swahili and various tribal languages. We had white members born in England, Germany, Asia and America. We had regular visitors from India, France and South America and students from East Falls’ three universities.
We don’t count.
Do Some Research
You don’t have to visit as we have to get a true picture of diversity. Just add the numbers in the parish reports available on the ELCA Trend site. The demographics of Lutheranism are very white and very aging.
Our visits reveal that most worship services are typically attended by women over 65.
More often than not, there are no children present in the sanctuary for worship. Children’s choirs, a rarity, tend to be very small and very young.
Youth are scarce. It will be 20 years (if ever) before the few young people will come to be of an age to support the church financially in the manner of previous generations. They will be saddled with college debt.
Leadership has a hard time recognizing reality when they look across the Synod Assembly and see the hand-picked representation that gathers to decide the future of the church.
SEPA has often chosen to let congregations die, providing minimal services for as long as 10 years rather than help congregations when a little help might have made a big difference.
This should be a serious concern to SEPA. Two decades could decimate dozens of congregations. It may be too late and far more costly than if this had been addressed 20 years ago.
Some Parting Questions and A Plan
Should diversity in the Church be measured at all if there is no way of recognizing it?
Is diversity so important that we create false impressions? What is to be gained?
We are one in the Lord.
The fact is diversity will soon be the new norm in most neighborhoods. We are ill-equipped to serve the changing population.
Lest you think we criticize without venturing solutions, check out vbsaid.com. It outlines a plan which 2×2 would love to sponsor and pioneer. It could help the many small, aging churches reconnect with their neighborhoods.
We dont want to see any more Lutheran property in the city, provided by the sacrifices of dedicated lay members, permanently sacrificed to plug short-sighted budget holes.
The plan requires cooperation within the church and between various expressions of the church, but we think it is worth the effort and will benefit all. Right now, all these expressions are struggling in isolation.
We know the perfect hub to implement this program. Midvale and Conrad in East Falls.
Journalism 101: The incoming (not outgoing) leader is the news.
We heard a rumor that Tracey Beasley of Reformation Church in Mount Airy was elected to replace the outgoing Vice President of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. We looked for confirmation but came up with a story that said she was one of two candidates.
The story that comes up on SEPA’s web site is all about the outgoing vice president.
The people of Reformation are congratulating Tracey on their Facebook page. It must be true!
What do we know about Tracey Beasley? What can we expect from her leadership?
Tracey Beasley was influential in the creating the mess in East Falls that severely hurt our Christian community and neighborhood and has saddled SEPA with a costly and unnecessary five-year court feud.
She was one of four trustees appointed by Bishop Burkat to make our community wards of the bishop and convey our property and cash assets to benefit the synod, while locking out the Christians that provided this Care Package to plug the Synod’s deficit. She was co-chair, along with The Rev. Lee Miller, who left SEPA Synod last fall for New York’s green pastures.
She visited Redeemer in July 2007 along with the other three trustees. Rev. Lee Miller had demanded the meeting with only a couple of days notice — never telling us why. Only two of our council members could attend. Summer vacation season made getting people together quickly for an undesignated purpose difficult.
The four visitors from SEPA Synod, never identified themselves as trustees nor did they inform us that we were under Involuntary Synodical Administration (a made-up term that does not appear in the constitution, but has taken on legal weight by virtue of it being tossed around often enough). Apparently, we had been under synodical administration for some time. No one told us! Not even the trustees sitting with us in our fellowship hall.
They came to our door and asked for a room where they could meet in private. Odd.
They then sat with us and we told them about the mission plan we were drafting. It was a good discussion. At the end, they thanked us for being candid. I remember commenting, “Yes, we have been forthright, but something tells me you are not being candid with us.”
They glossed over the observation and assured us that they were there to help. We were unaccustomed to SEPA showing any interest in our ministry, so even that was odd.
The four trustees then did nothing to help us. We didn’t see or hear from them again until November 2007, when our congregation council met with the Bishop. This is when they told us about the synodical administration — some five months after it was supposedly imposed.
Tracey Beasley did not attend this meeting. The other three trustees were present. Larry House and Ray Miller said nothing but took copious notes. Lee Miller seemed to be excited by our reports of our ministry and said “I’m with you guys.” Closing the church was never mentioned at this meeting. We gave Bishop Burkat a copy of our 24-page mission plan and a resolution to call one of the ELCA pastors who had spent seven months helping us draft and implement the plan.
We were excited by the progress our congregation had been making. The meeting was concrete proof that our membership had grown steadily in the last ten years, during which SEPA was largely absent. Bishop Burkat promised that we could work with the newly appointed Mission Developer, Rev. Patricia Davenport.
Four months of silence from SEPA followed. Repeated phone calls to the Synod from our leadership, who were eager to follow up on the promising meeting, were ignored.
We were not to see Tracey Beasley again until February 2008. She was with the bishop and her party when they came to our church one Sunday afternoon with a locksmith and lawyer waiting behind the church, out of sight. She was instrumental in spreading the gossip that we tried to have the bishop arrested at this encounter. This is untrue.
We objected frequently to this false representation, but it continued to appear in court documents for five years.
Tracey Beasley spent no time with our congregation outside of that first encounter in which she lied by omitting her true purpose. She presented a report to the 2008 Synod Assembly about our ministry that was wholly inaccurate. Some of the information was just plain false. Some was so outdated that it created a false impression. And that’s what the trustees needed to sway the Synod Assembly—a false impression.
In 2008, Redeemer immediately asked for the record to be corrected. We followed up with detailed monthly reports of our growing mission and ministry. All of these were copied to Tracey Beasley and all the trustees, as well as the bishop.
There was never any response to any of our letters.
Tracey Beasley read the same fabricated report, unaltered, to the 2009 Synod Assembly.
The next time we were to see Tracey Beasley was on Mother’s Day 2009, just hours after the close of the 2009 Synod Assembly. This is the Assembly at which Redeemer appealed Synodical Administration. The Assembly never voted on our appeal. Synod leaders substituted a question allowing the Synod to take our property—a topic our appeal had not addressed. The vote was predictable. Almost everyone voted to take our property. They have NO constitutional authority to vote on congregational property.
Tracey Beasley came to our worship that Mothers Day with Larry House. They sat through the worship service and before the service concluded they walked to the front of the sanctuary and announced, “We are in control now.”
What happened next was beautiful. The people of Redeemer rose united from the pews and surrounded the two trustees who had represented themselves as working with Redeemer but had done nothing. There had been no plan, no strategy. It just happened. I watched from the back of the church, talking to the visitors. (Redeemer had visitors almost every Sunday.)
Redeemer members confronted the two trustees about their behavior. Most notably, someone pointed out that Synod’s interference in our ministry had cost us a 25-year relationship with Ken Crest. This interference had not only cost our congregation a strong source of income, it had deprived our neighborhood of an excellent service.
Tracey Beasley claimed that Ken Crest did not leave because of them. We pointed out that Ken Crest had just signed a five-year lease with us but abruptly whited out their names. We had a letter from Ken Crest stating that they were leaving because they didn’t want to be in the middle of a property dispute.
Tracey Beasley claimed to know nothing about this and demanded to see that letter. The letter indicated that she had, in fact, been copied.
The courts ordered the property given to SEPA — not under the law, but under Separation of Church and State. They couldn’t get involved in church matters. They did not order that the church members be locked out, but Synod accepted the court win as entitling them to do exactly as they please. There is no authority in the church or out of the church to stop them (unless SEPA Lutherans follow their constitutions).
We were suspicious. Suddenly, we are open again! A public announcement. No effort to tell Redeemer’s members.
It ended up to be not so much a worship service as a gloating fest. The service, never to be repeated, was conducted by the Rev. Lamont Anthony Wells, pastor of Reformation in Mount Airy, where both Tracey and her predecessor are members. The watchful eyes of East Falls reported that about seven people showed up and seemed to be very uncomfortable in their presence.
There was never any real intent to “open Redeemer.” The group that seemed to be from Reformation marked their territory, locked the doors behind them, and moved on.
Tracey Beasley, as a trustee and as a member of synod council, was in a position to represent the interests of the congregation. She demonstrated no inclination to do so.
She was clearly an extension of the bishop. Now she is an official leader of all congregations. Will she do so with independence? Will she now represent the interests of the congregations—as her position suggests? Will she check the power of the bishop — as is the responsibility of synod council?
If past behavior predicts future behavior, your leaders are comfortable in their view that congregational property is theirs for the taking. Because Synod Assembly seems to be powerless in enforcing their own rules, there is nothing to stop them.
Small churches (and most SEPA churches are already small or getting there) should be alarmed. You now have leadership that has shown they are capable of plotting to take your property. They have a track record using secrecy, intimidation, and deceit in doing so. They have demonstrated a clear sense of entitlement. They will not hesitate to attack lay people in court if they dare to oppose their views within the constitution.
You elected them!
When they knock on your doors, remember—we warned you.
Join Bishop Ruby Kinisa as she visits small churches "under cover" to learn what people would never share if they knew they were talking to their bishop.
Undercover Bishop will always be available in PDF form on 2x2virtualchurch.com for FREE.
Print or Kindle copies are available on Amazon.com.
For bulk copies, please contact 2x2: creation@dca.net.
MISSION INSPIRATION OFFER
A visual and biblical guide to help congregations define their missions.
Contact Info
You can reach
Judy Gotwald,
the moderator of 2x2,
at
creation@dca.net
or 215 605 8774
Redeemer’s Prayer
We were all once strangers, the weakest, the outcasts, until someone came to our defense, included us, empowered us, reconciled us (1 Cor. 2; Eph. 2).
Be calm. Wait. Wait. Commit your cause to God. He will make it succeed. Look for Him a little at a time. Wait. Wait. But since this waiting seems long to the flesh and appears like death, the flesh always wavers. But keep faith. Patience will overcome wickedness.
—Martin Luther
