ELCA’s Resolve to Support Congregations May Backfire
Let’s examine the resolution passed by the recent ELCA National Assembly. Here it is:
Resolution (11.03.06) passed with 57 dissenting votes and 914 approving votes.
RESOLVED: To make support for the work of congregations one of the highest priorities of this church. To request congregations, in collaboration with synods, to begin, develop, review or redefine their unique mission plans by the end of 2012, so that each congregation strengthens its capabilities and resources for witness and mission.
57 people voted against making the support for the work of congregations a high priority. Why?
On the face, the resolution sounds like a “no brainer.” This is why a synod judicatory exists in the first place. Why restate the obvious?
Perhaps it’s a matter of urgency. Mission and stewardship numbers are down.
This resolution forces congregations to face a fork in the road. Collaborate with the synod or don’t collaborate. Either choice will be rocky. Saying either “yes” or “no” puts the congregation in a position of being judged. If the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, small congregations can feel threatened.
For several decades church leaders have been looking for answers to steady decline. In so doing, they attempted to reinvent a judicatory’s relationship with congregations — sometimes in conflict with the denomination’s traditions and governing laws. In recent years, little has stood in the way of judicatories in their expressed goal of “transformation.” Small congregations live in realistic fear that working with the Synod will “transform” them out of existence.
The list of small congregations who thought they were collaborating with synod in mission only to find themselves on the chopping block is growing. Will this resolution feed into a Synod practicing the triage of transformation – independently determining which congregations deserve their attention and which should be left to die?
There is real risk that Synod will assume authority in the collaborative process despite congregational constitutions that call for self-determination of mission goals and use of resources.
The interdependence fostered by the resolution is no doubt meant to inspire congregations and synods to begin working together more closely to make sure the congregations have the help they need. However, it may be interpreted to create a hierarchical relationship resulting in attitudes that insist on compliance with Synod’s view of a congregation’ mission — or else! It all depends on who is reading between the lines!
If this resolution has any chance of being effective, judicatories must approach congregations with the truest of intent and purpose — to help them, not themselves. The mission and growth of the congregation is the goal — not closure and reassignment of assets to the benefit of the judicatory’s mission.
Those 57 dissenting votes may have a point! Time will tell.
Would you vote for this resolution? Tell us why or why not?