An All Saints Sunday Message for Bishop Eaton

Last year, on Reformation Day, I wrote to the newly elected Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America—the Rev. Elizabeth Eaton.

I wrote with hope and respect that new leadership would bring order to the Church and recognize obvious wrongs. I heard nothing in response. No real surprise. We have written letters to her predecessor and other national church offices and been ignored for six years. Since the Lutheran way is to ignore dissent, I’ll post this year’s letter online.

No letters would have been needed had our regional bishop been talking to us, if our regional Synod Council had done anything but follow orders, if our Synod Assembly had checked their constitution before voting on a member congregation’s property.

All dreams of true participation in the Church and its message of reconciliation evaporated early on—when our bishop first came to us with a lawyer at her right hand. The Bible warns against this pretty clearly, but . . . .

When Christian denominations turn first to lawyers they have lost their way.

I post on All Saints Sunday—a day when we can remember our Lutheran roots—we are all saints and sinners—priesthood of all believers. Remember?

It is so easy to forget in challenging times. When the road gets rough, we grasp for any methodology—constitutional or not.

Redeemer is not alone in dealing with the overstepping of clergy authority, but we may have the most experience!

In our genetically engineered minds, when threatened, we have three choices—fight, flight, or freeze. In our experience—

• The congregation fought.
• The clergy fled.
• The people froze.

The Self-Destruction Superhighway

The Church is on a road to self-destruction. The challenges we face are the same challenges Jesus faced, but we have stopped learning from his example.

The response has been to rely more on hierarchical thinking. Just as like our Old Testament forefathers, in troubled times, we long for a king—or queen.

Laity get shoved aside.

Ignoring the laity is a bad idea. Laity hold important keys to the Church—not the door keys, although in the Lutheran Church they are supposed to hold these keys—but the keys to success. If mainline denominations are to survive another century, laity must play a larger role.

Laity are needed for more than monetary offerings. We have a great deal to offer beyond the usual choir membership and Sunday School teaching. Church-building skills were once the realm of specially trained clergy. Today, the laity have these skills. We’ve learned them on the job.  We practice them in our secular lives. We network and share our secular messages in a world that is alive with clashing cultures and customs. In the Church, the laity are held back from using their God-given gifts—if they clash with the agenda of clergy.

This has created an unnecessary schism in the church.

What Regional Bodies Don’t Want Congregations to Know

Difficult economic times affect hierarchical church structures more deeply than local churches. They are dependent on the congregations.

Yet they have the power their supporters don’t have—the power to pool resources. They don’t intend to be the first to fold! Consequently, they tend to view their supporting congregations with a critical eye—not to help those who need help the most (the Christian way) but to hasten the demise of the weak to gain control of their remaining assets. Meanwhile, they curry favor with the strongest congregations — the strongest for the time being.

Threatened regional bodies criticize congregations when clergy exhibit the same symptoms. Congregations are labeled as graying. Clergy are aging, too. Many candidates for seminary are well into their second careers. Part-time work is attractive to their more settled lifestyles.  While the commitment expectations of pastors have changed, payment expectations have risen.

Consequently, congregations are encouraged to seek full time pastors from a very limited pool. Leadership is concentrated in a few richer congregations. Part-time or interim ministries become the norm while the traditional structure of church is built on the disappearing norm of long-term pastorates.

This is a crisis in leadership—and congregations pay the price.

Add to this the fact that many congregations — many of them small — have more liquid assets than their regional bodies. The regional bodies look for ways to “secure those assets for mission” (funding the regional office).

Redeemer had more resources available to them in 2006 than the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Yet we were represented as being in dire circumstances. A lie—and not the only lie.

Changing the rules is the most viable strategy for them. A tweak here and there and soon the constitutions have reversed their original intent.

The battle is being fought on a sharply tilted playing field.

Regional bodies and the national church face individual congregations—not with prayer and discernment, where the small congregations might have a chance, but in the threatening and expensive realm of court. David and Goliath.

And Then Came the Great Recession

We could have helped one another through the last difficult decade—interdependence at its best.

The return to hierarchical thinking precluded that.

Hierarchies are crumbling. Leaders in politics, business and academia have had to rethink archaic structures, while the Church reverts to what they know best—the Middle Ages.

The result: The sense of mission is more profound in congregations than in church leadership.

Redeemer’s situation is an example.

A Structure Doomed to Fail

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America was proud of its approach when it formed. We are “interdependent.”

The problem is that “interdependence” has been inadequately defined.

The founding documents are clear.

• The laity have administrative control over the property and ministries.
• The clergy are servant leaders. The concept of servant leaders and hierarchy do not mix well.

We can fix this.

Return to our roots.

The Priesthood of All Believers

Martin Luther believed in the equality of laity and clergy—separate roles, equal importance. It became a common denominator across the Protestant Church—an extension of the foundational teaching of our faith—“justification by faith through grace.”

For the first time in the modern church, laity have the same access to learning and communication. The teachings of Martin Luther can be tested among a highly learned laity.

The current reaction has been for the clergy to view the most knowledgable and active laity as competition—adversaries. Interdependence becomes a battleground.

Unlike other hierarchies, in the Lutheran Church, the top tier of leadership does not own land or control congregational assets. They exist entirely on voluntary contributions.

In feudal times, the “lord” would raise an army. Today, the church hires lawyers.

Servant leaders become bullies, protected by tradition and the First Amendment.

There is little to stop them.

When regional and national bodies pool resources of all congregations to fight individual congregations in the courtroom, the playing field is unfairly tilted.

The View from the Pew

From the congregation’s vantage, the Council of Bishops is a closed circle. A social club. They support one another — right or wrong.

This is what got the Roman Catholic Church in trouble with the sex scandals.

This is what is getting the Lutheran Church in trouble with property scandals.

The Solution

We live in one could be viewed as a magical time for the Church. Cheap, unfettered communication tools are widely available. We can lead the way, if we trust our own message, but our unnecessary dependence on hierarchical thinking cripples us.

It may be easy to rally votes to support the ways of the past. This would not be leadership.

Bishop Eaton, help us be Lutherans. Listen to laity. Uphold the original promises made to ELCA congregations. Restore order to the Church.

A first step would be to provide a forum for disputes between congregations and regional leadership. There were ombudsmen forums in previous Lutheran bodies but not in the ELCA. Bishops can do as they please unchallenged. If there was oversight that is not controlled by the bishop, bishops would be encouraged to respect their constitutions and congregations. Their bullying power would be diminished. Congregations would have a sense of that their Church truly believes in reconciliation. Bishops would think twice before exercising nebulous powers.

This is important to the survival of the entire ELCA.

We know, Bishop Eaton, that you know the clergy. The temptation will be to believe whatever they tell you. Take the time to know the laity. Build a church for tomorrow.

You may be closer than you think to presiding over a group of bishops who are proudly dangling the keys to empty churches.

There is a lot of talk today about the modern phenomenon of “going viral.” But really, Christianity had virality covered 2000 years ago.

Think about it. When Christianity was an outlawed religion; when Christians were hiding in catacombs; when the only news sources were the orator in the public square, the gossip, or the personal foot courier; when expressing allegiance to anyone but the current political power was life-threatening—during all these challenges and outright peril—Christianity spread like wildfire—to the ends of the known earth!

Why is it is so hard today? Christianity is mainstream—safe. Christian thinking is foundational to our current governing and justice systems—accepted. We have communication tools at our fingertips that early evangelists never imagined—like magic!

There is a science to virality that today’s Christians must study if we truly want to reach more people.

Derek Halpern wrote about this in a recent post. There are seven characteristics of messages that “go viral”—that people willingly and eagerly share. Here are Derek’s observations and how they apply to traditional Christian mission and our congregations today.

Feel free to share your own examples of your congregation’s vitality.

1. People share incidents that are memorable.

The gospel and Old Testament are full of memorable stories. Yet, a noted seminary professor recently wrote that when he routinely asks students to name a favorite Bible story he is met with blank stares.

Practice answering this question. Be ready to share.

I thought of Jesus raising Lazarus. There is the drama and the setting in motion of so many agendas—some noble, some founded in fear.

I also thought of two Old Testament stories—the story of David facing Goliath and the story of Joseph forgiving his brothers. Both of these powerful stories provide daily inspiration.

And what about MY church TODAY? What is memorable—worth sharing? Here is just one small encounter that defines our faith community and is worth sharing.

One day a pastor, filling in during the long-time absence of pastors in our church, broke down in tears as he was giving the benediction. His wife had died weeks before. A nine-year-old boy walked to the front of the church and asked “What’s the matter?” The boy was better than a trained counselor. He stood there in front of the congregation and addressed an adult he had known for only a few weeks. He waited for answers to his questions. He wanted to know the name of his wife—all the details. The congregation waited patiently as the the child comforted the pastor. After church the boy took a piece of chalk and added the name of the pastor’s wife to the memorial for member soldiers that hung in our narthex. Memorable. Worth sharing!

All congregations have stories to tell. We just get a little rusty or timid when it comes to telling our own story. But our own stories have the power to go viral.

What was the last memorable thing that happened to you in church—that you are itching to share?

2. People share material that matters.

What biblical events matter? Miracles. Resurrection. Lovingkindness. Three examples.

I thought of our how our little congregation was able, through our website, to befriend Christians in Pakistan before their ministry hit the international news with horrific incidents of terrorist bombings. We were poised to help when established church relief systems weren’t.

I also thought of the more intimate spiritual lifeline that reaches into our own community.

What about your church experience matters so much that you just have to share it?

3. People share things of practical value.

This is probably the reason most people don’t attend church these days. We fail to see the practical value.

What is practical about the gospel message? Curing the sick. Feeding the hungry. Reaching the oppressed. Three good examples.

I thought of how our little congregation was able to welcome immigrants and create a cross-cultural fellowship that helped families assimilate into a new culture. Practical, nuts and bolts ministry.

How about your congregation? What is the practical value of your faith community that members and visitors can easily recognize and share?

4. People share things that project friendliness.

Again, there are many biblical examples—from the admonishment to let the children come to Jesus, to the acceptance of the woman at the well, to the forgiveness offered first to the thieves hanging on crosses with Jesus and then to us at the foot of the cross.

I’m reminded of how people once became active in our neighborhood congregation without actually joining or appearing on our church records. They helped with the East Falls Children’s Choir, music camps and our six-week summer camp. They attended AA Groups we hosted or the community meetings that shared our buildings. I am regularly reminded in my encounters in the neighborhood of the number of children who attended one of our day schools during the last 40 years. One mother commented to me recently that she hates walking down the street and seeing our locked buildings.  She was never a member, but involved none the less.

How does your congregation project friendliness.

5. People share things that are moderately controversial.

AUUGH! No one likes controversy. But history teaches that most important advancements in civilization owe a good portion of success to controversy that matters and that grows virally. Controversy was surely part of the success of early Christians.

This has been a tough one for our church because we were labeled as adversaries and shunned by our regional body. That put us in a position where we were beyond moderately controversial. But sometimes there is no middle road. Time will tell if our reluctant willingness to engage in controversy will advance our congregation or not.

What about your congregation? What is important enough that your members are willing to engage in worthy controversy?

6. People share what is popular to talk about.

Let’s hope that’s short of gossip.

What do Christians like to talk about?

Jesus primed this pump with his admonition to NOT share the news of miracles. We still talk about these forbidden stories today.

What do we talk about today outside the biblical examples.We could talk about acts of love and kindness, but we often end up talking about things that exclude others from fellowship (homosexuality, popular morality, etc.). Let’s try to focus on the good. (That’s not original, by the way. It’s from Philippians).

7. People share things that are entertaining.

What entertains us in the church to the point that we want to share? Jesus knew that parables would entertain and teach. They are so very sharable.

At Redeemer and 2×2, we found our visits to 80 churches entertaining. We share our experiences in a book—our own parable of sorts. Undercover Bishop: A Parable for Today’s Church weaves our church visits into an exploration of small church ministry. We hope it is entertaining!

I didn’t start this post with any intention of promoting this book. But there’s no controlling online virality!

How can you entertain while sharing your message? Write your own sharable parable! Start your own spiritual blog.

Be a witness! Tell it! Tell it here if you like!

Lutherans have adopted a new stance in recent years. Lutherans used to be the denomination that valued an educated clergy AND an educated laity. Lutherans used to be trend setters and thought leaders.

Somewhere in our 500-year history, we began to doubt — not God but ourselves.

Lutheran leaders, once able to forge their ministries around their own thinking and consideration of the gospel, now wait to be told what to think and how to react. “We respect the wisdom of our leaders” is an oft-heard mantra —one that compromises the integrity of our own tradition of free thinking. It abdicates responsibility. “Because the bishop tells us so” replaces “Because the Bible tells us so.”

We laity watched from the sidelines as our leaders worked for years to reach this “full communion.” Many of us had very little knowledge of the Episcopal Church. There are many Lutheran congregations with no Episcopal neighbors.

Why, exactly, was this something we wanted? What was ever in this for Lutherans?

The benefits are to clergy. They now have more pulpits available. There are also more clergy competing for them! The irony is that a pulpit has little influence any more, so why was this so attractive?

I suspect one of the motivations to Lutheran leaders was the more hierarchical structure of the Episcopal Church. Episcopal polity is more like the Roman Catholic structure in that the diocese owns congregational property. That’s probably fueling our bishops’ emerging propensity for grabbing congregational land and assets and ignoring promises made to congregations before the “full communion” deal. This includes their own constitutions, the contributions and wishes of congregations, and the local tier of leadership (traditionally a strength of Lutherans). The association with the Episcopal Church gives Lutheran bishops powers to crave that are absent from their own constitutions.

We now have 15 years’ experience as full communion partners with the Episcopal Church.

There isn’t much hope this long-sought relationship will ever benefit grass-roots Lutherans. Both denominations are struggling and the “full communion” seems to make us competitors.

In our neighborhood, the Lutheran bishop, the Rev. Claire Burkat, was working with the local Episcopal Church at the same time she was trying to destroy the neighborhood Lutheran church. Her involvement with our neighbors makes little sense. She told us that we were doomed because we had no parking lot. The local Episcopal Church has no parking lot either! Very few churches in the city ever had parking lots. Both congregations funded ministry by renting space for pre-school. We were in the process of creating our own Christian day-care program. Our congregation was larger at the time and more diverse. Redeemer had a far better location in the neighborhood and was a hub of community activities. So why did Claire Burkat believe in the future of Memorial Church of the Good Shepherd, tucked away on one of East Falls few upscale neighborhood streets. Why did she believe in their future and not that of the her own member congregation in the center of town? (Follow the money. Follow the power.)

All of this seems to tie in to the current happenings in the Episcopal Church today. The internet is abuzz with news of the happenings at what is believed to be the doomed General Theological Seminary in Manhattan—the oldest Episcopal Seminary in the United States. There was a dispute between faculty and administration which resulted in the firing of the majority of professors. Attempts at reconciliation have been dismal.

As the dispute is discussed, it becomes clear that things weren’t going well for a while. Class size was dwindling to the point that the faculty student ratio per class appears to be close to 1:1. Other statistics are starting to be discussed. Episcopalian congregations are reporting an annual downward trend of between 1 and 2.5 percent — not huge for one year, but alarming when repeated annually for a decade or more.

Perhaps they entered into full communion with us in hopes of reversing their own decline!

How are Lutheran seminaries and Lutheran statistics comparing? They may be troubled, too.

The whole debacle leads to questioning the wisdom of our leaders (perhaps too late)!

Thankfully, the end of the full communion agreement includes a page of disclaimers—which are rarely read—but may need to be moved to the front of the document!

Read this article that talks about the qualities of a Roman Catholic bishop and describes the typical career path of aspiring pastors and resulting effects to overall church leadership, especially in the highest Church offices.

Bishop Francis says he wants priests and bishops who have the “smell of the sheep”; that is, he wants them to be out among their people and not remote, removed and seemingly superior.

Protestants can learn a thing or two by comparing their leadership structure to the process described in this excellent article.

I can’t speaking for all Protestant denominations, but I see similar problems within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. There is one thing very different about Lutheran structure. Our bishops reign with no authority over them except an unwieldy Synod Assembly system, where a third of voters owe their career path to currying the bishop’s favor and a large percentage of remaining vote (much of it lay) have limited experience or knowledge of church law or custom. They are the constitutional “highest authority.”

There is a “presiding bishop” with offices in the national church office in Chicago, but the people don’t really know what this national leader stands for or does. If the people take a regional issue to the presiding bishop, they are likely to be ignored. We know this from our experience with the current and previous presiding bishops. For all we know they are as what Bishop Francis describes as “airport bishops”—ready to hop on a plane to the Vatican or popular international site at any moment.

Our issues with the ELCA and its regional body, the Southeasetern Pennsylvania Synod, were (are) pretty serious. They involve land, church debt, a hefty endowment, the role of lay leadership, and the spiritual lives of nearly 100 people, all of whom were locked out of their church property and dismissed from membership in the ELCA by edict of a bishop, who was administering a regional body with a 10% recurring deficit budget. Courts ruled without hearing the case that they have no jurisdiction in intrachurch disputes. This was bad for us, but the day will come when the other churches who stood by and watched will realize that it was just as bad for them.

This is what it means to them. Regional bishops in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are accountable to no one. They can write and approve constitutions with ease—because they don’t have to follow them.  ELCA bishops can do what they like.

That regional leaders often have next to no parish experience probably helped this situation come about. They never were in a position to know and practice servanthood (except ceremonially on Maundy Thursday).

In this regard, we are like the Roman Catholic Church. As this article points out, the surest track to becoming bishop in either the Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches is to cozy up to those already holding prominent positions. Avoid parish service where no one will notice you. It is much easier to get the necessary name recognition working in the regional office or agencies than it is to serve any parish—large or small. SEPA’s current bishop served just five years as an associate pastor before going to work in the synod office prior to her election as bishop.

Here is how it works in the ELCA. Every six years, Lutherans are given a slate of names to consider for bishop. Most of the names will not be recognized by a great majority of voters. Delegates will read the short bio provided and check to see how others are voting.

Voters in civil elections for important but rarely publicized positions such as judge have more opportunity to vet and explore the credentials of candidates than delegates to church assemblies.

All churches are stuck with the decision made under this flawed procedure for six long years—when the process of electing the name most people recognize will be repeated. Parish pastors rarely have the visibility to attain regional office. The next bishop is likely to come from the existing regional body’s staff, seminary faculty or an executive of a social service agency that visits with all the congregations and is therefore known by the most people.

How can we improve the process to get leaders who not only “smell of the sheep” but who know a sheep when they see one?

There is a crisis at General Theological Seminary in New York City. Faculty members are unhappy with leadership. A seminary bigwig made comments that were offensive at worst or not sufficiently clear at best. The comments are being interpreted in a way he didn’t intend, he says. Mix all the ingredients together and Boom! It blew up in his face.

The issues themselves are a story in their own right.

Here are the links if the details interest you.

• The dispute: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/10/02/most-faculty-general-theological-seminary-gone-what-happened
• More about the dispute: http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/seminaries/here_is_an_update_on.html
• The GTS Dean and President’s Response: http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/seminaries/general_seminarys_besieged_dea.html

I’m more interested in the process we are witnessing and how it differs from the way disputes are usually handled behind closed church doors.

The dean/president took quick action. He wrote more of an explanation than an apology. It was long, detailed and covered a lot of underlying issues. It was reprinted outside of the seminary community.

What? This is never done!

Thirty years ago, every church leader would have known exactly how to handle this crisis. Say nothing in public. Do the damage-control dance internally. Rely on some other problem capturing peoples’ attention within a few days and hope with some realistic expectation that old-fashioned, unquestioning respect will kick in and save the day.

But things have changed.

Angry people today don’t usually read long and detailed explanations. They write short tweets on the points that offend them the most. Those tweets become a resounding chorus.

I predict things will get worse for GTS before they get better.

Church leaders are still living in a time when heads of organizations controlled all forums. We’re hanging on to that world for dear life!

Most online religion forums, if they allow comments at all, have a caveat—“Your comment may be monitored.” They’ll be looking to see if you have Dr., the Most Rev., Rev., or Pastor in front of your name and that what you write doesn’t offend or challenge people holding such credentials. Not much chance of off-the-wall or outside-the-box thinking grabbing attention. It’s not so much that monitors won’t print these kinds of comments but that the warning tends to deter creative thinkers. They will read the warning and say, “Why bother?!”

The Church just can’t let go of their cloisters and the discipline and control of church organizations. A lot of the comments attached to the writings on this issue refer to that private, protected, disciplined seminary community of yesteryear.

It will be hard for the storm at GTS to blow over. For every explanation issued publicly there is a potential for thousands of rebuttals—and all have access to the same information superhighway. They’ll find a way to post their ideas, with or without official approval. And if their writings are short enough, use the appropriate key words, and provide sharable images, they will be read around the world.

And this is a good thing. It will keep seminary deans, faculty, students and laity — all of us — on our toes.

Here’s how wise leaders of the future will handle controversy.

They will blog.

“But I don’t have time!”

It is time well spent and time that would have diverted the current controversy.

This crisis is not likely to have happened if the seminary dean/president had the discipline to write to his faculty and students EVERY DAY and not just during a crisis. Blogging would have helped him think through his positions and test slowly how they played to his constituency. Reactions would have been measured and handled before they had a chance to spin out of control. He would have fostered an engaged community that discussed ideas with temperance and respect.

Church leaders, make time.

They say God is the same—yesterday, today and forever. But I have reason to wonder.

Last weekend, I attended a family baptism held in a suburban church—one of the largest in the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The five-year anniversary of that Synod locking out our congregation and claiming our property is eleven days away.

It took four worship leaders—at least three of them pastors—to lead the service that wasn’t much different from a service led by just one pastor—or in many cases—no pastor.

For much of the service, all four were seated behind the altar with just the tops of their heads visible over the altar, looking a bit like “Kilroy was here” graffiti times four.

Having visited more than 80 churches in the same synod over the last three years, I have to wonder about pastors and the call process. Most of the churches we visited were getting by with minimal professional leadership—part-timers with limited commitment toward any growth needs of the congregations. God calls them, we are to believe, to “caretaker ministries.” That’s the church terminology when earthly leaders give up on God’s people. Caretaker ministers are considered successful if they live up to earthly expectations. Failure is the only goal. Yet, much is likely to be made of these “calls” to do little.

What happened to the God of the Bible?

The God of the Bible was forever calling leaders to forsake comfort and go to the needy. He dragged them from the rich, prosperous neighborhoods and put them on the fringe. He asked them to trust in his goodness (the Old Testament lesson last Sunday was the Exodus story of manna).

The God of the Bible didn’t negotiate salary packages with benefits.

Does God call pastors only to the large suburban churches, where so much ministerial effort is exerted just in management?

When “God” gives the larger churches the right to vote on ministries in distant neighborhoods of which they have no firsthand knowledge, the disparity within the Church and the called community is even more striking.

Perhaps the coming demise of the mainline church has something to do with our craving for comfort over mission. Perhaps it has something to do with making the model for ministry the creation of places for people to come to—instead of going to them.

Our bishop told us “A church without a parking lot has no chance for survival.” We visited many churches without parking lots, some of them doing pretty well!

Did God change? Or did we stop listening?

I’d like to see some form of “Kilroy was here” dotting the urban church landscape. That symbol gave courage and hope to soldiers when they saw it wherever they went in World War II. That symbol in the Church is supposed to be the cross. (Last week was Holy Cross Sunday). But our cross, in our neighborhood, with its burnt base having survived a 1920s fire, has been locked away for FIVE years with no SEPA congregations called to care.

Small churches are challenged to be sure, but our biggest challenge is overcoming the advice from church leaders who have stopped trying to serve small churches.

We know from experience. We were told all the things we “can’t” do. And then we proceeded to do them—even after church leaders took our property and money.

“We don’t see how you can go on.” That’s what they said.

Well, they spent no time trying. Their minds had been made up for them.

Here we are six years later—still active in mission and reaching more people each year than any other congregation in our area—way more! By next year, we will be reaching more than all 160 congregations in the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America combined. That’s assuming they average 1000 people each.

One of 2×2’s loyal subscribers sent this video link that proves what is possible when you remove “can’t” from you vocabulary.

It is hauntingly uplifting.

Enjoy it and then work on your own mission with equal passion.

Today we celebrate church workers—the laity.

They work in one of the harshest work environments ever!

No pay, no benefits, little recognition, no opportunity for advancement—except to take on more responsibility with no earthly reward.

They have multiple bosses. The people, the pastors—even community members who don’t belong to the church.

When there is conflict of any degree, the church volunteer can count on bearing the blame—often behind closed doors, without their knowledge and with no ability to defend.

The entire structure of the Church relies on their offerings—heart, mind, muscle and dollar.

They’ll plan their family vacations and holidays around what’s going on at church. They’ll sacrifice their summers to running programs for the neighborhood. They will gather ideas and spark energy. They wield a broom and sing in the choir and bring an extra dish to the potluck. They will sit through meetings, chafing to get to work.

They are the torch bearers for mission.

They will have a tough time accepting any Church vision that is not mission-oriented. They will be criticized—even mocked— for this.

Church is not a social club to them—although professional church leaders might use those very words to discredit them.

They will ignore the criticism and come back. Sunday after Sunday. Weekday after weekday. Summer after summer. Holiday after holiday. Potluck after potluck.

They will be taken for granted.

The American church volunteer.

Today, trade the pew for the beach chair! Relax. Enjoy your day.

Pass the Shoofly Pie

I was reading an article about the Pennsylvania Dutch as a tourist attraction. The article began by pointing out that many of the things in the Lancaster County (only an hour from Philadelphia) tourist traps have nothing to do with the Pennsylvania Dutch. Windmills for example. The word Dutch is anglicized from Deutsch—the German/Swiss language. Nothing to do with the Holland Dutch and windmills!

The point was made that Pennsylvania Dutch includes more than Amish. The term includes all the German and Swiss settlers who came to southern and eastern sections of Pennsylvania in the late 1600s and 1700s. Many a Pennsylvania Lutheran claims Pennsylvania Dutch heritage. My grandfather was not Amish, but he spoke Pennsylvania Dutch. My other grandfather was just as Pennsylvania Dutch bur spoke Telegu as a second language.

The article points out that many of the foods served in Pennsylvania Dutch tourist restaurants are not authentic. This drew dozens of comments from readers who had their own ideas about authentic Pennsylvania Dutch cuisine.

I should know the answer! I am Pennsylvania Dutch. But I never heard of a few of the foods mentioned by the commenters, and I could add a few to the list.

This got me thinking—What constitutes authentic Pennsylvania Dutch cooking?

Are we Pennsylvania Dutch locked in time? Must we cook and eat the same foods that filled the 18th century farmers’ bellies? Are we misrepresenting our heritage to substitute oregano for savory? Must we choose shoofly pie over chocolate mousse to prove our loyalty? Could we marry (gasp) someone from one of the many other ethnic groups that also came to Penn’s colony—and are still coming to Penn’s colony?

No, we Pennsylvania Dutch know that a large part of our heritage is in how we think. We question. We do not adopt fads easily. We know what and why we believe as we do. We are loyal to our beliefs.

Need a label? Stubborn Dutchmen. I heard the phrase many times growing up.

People have a tendency to label groups of people. We are disappointed when our perceptions fail.

We do this with our churches, too—especially small churches. They tend to be viewed as smaller, less effective versions of the ideal bigger church. They will be stereotyped.

• Small churches are supposed to be family churches.
• Small churches are supposed to have a patriarchal leader or matriarchal leader that clergy should either work with or watch out for.
• Small churches are supposed to be homogenous.
• Small churches are supposed to be comforting to the aging with no younger people to consider.

If you belong to a small church, you can make your own list!

Small churches are entities unto themselves. There is a lot going on. Today they have power large churches do not have. They are unencumbered in many ways. They can change without layers of bureaucracy—unless we require a bureaucracy to meet some ineffective standard.

Small churches will be steadily preached to about change. But no one really expects change. Few will believe it if we do change! The fact is many regional church leaders have no plans to serve small churches. They will work around us and blame us when things don’t go well. They will harp about what must be done to meet their approval—their standards.

In my experience, small churches change first. Small churches innovate and adapt. Small churches have multiple leaders (almost everyone!) — not just one patriarch or matriarch. Those matriarchal and patriarchal leaders, if they exist, are likely to be rearing church leaders the same way they reared their children—to be productive, skilled, and self-sufficient. But outside assessors don’t see this in visits every few years.

Within the Church, we will be forever stuck with expectations of the past. We are the dying remnant of the glorious 1960s. Just let us die.

Is there an “authentic” small church?

Can any good come from Nazareth?

Pass the shoofly pie!

Or the mandazi! (African donuts—favorites at Redeemer pot lucks.)