This is the second post in a series that revisits the last five years of court actions involving the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (SEPA / ELCA) and member church, Redeemer in the East Falls neighborhood of Philadelphia, Pa.

Understanding the Legalities  

Five years of costly and hateful  litigation have shed little light on the legalities of the land grab in East Falls.

The courts are far from united in the various rulings in all the cases of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America against member church Redeemer in the East Falls neighborhood and carefully selected members of the congregation.

The early rulings were that courts have no jurisdiction in church affairs.

This first ruling was upheld by a split decision of the Pennsylvania Appellate Court. Two dissenting judges strongly supported Redeemer. If the law were applied, they concluded, Redeemer should be heard.

Keep in mind that all this litigation was just about HEARING the case. It has never been heard.

A similar case WAS heard at the very same time involving a Presbyterian denomination and a member congregation in western Pennsylvania. That judge took five days to hear the case and ruled in favor of the congregation. The ruling came five days after the Redeemer “no jurisdiction” ruling. This decision has held through the appellate process and was last heard at the state supreme level this April with a decision due any day.

SEPA wasn’t satisfied with their default win. They wanted Redeemer to pay more. They went after individual members.

They held the cards now and they fixed the deck. The ace up their sleeve is “Contempt of Court.”

Synod locked the members of Redeemer out of the church within 36 hours of the ruling. Redeemer members had no access to anything in the church. Synod (again with no consultation with Redeemer members) sued members for contempt of court for not supplying things we still think ARE IN the church.

If they couldn’t find something they were looking for, they could have asked. But no! Straight to litigation where they are immune from the law and church members are not.

Redeemer members are in the position of not being able to prove that the items are in the church building.

Note to other SEPA congregations: They are likely to use this tactic again. Protect your church leaders now.

In the Redeemer case, subsequent judges have shown growing sympathy for Redeemer.

First, let’s ask, Where were the clergy?

Clergy fled at the first sign of trouble.

The pastor who had been serving us for nearly two years when Bishop Burkat was elected and who was well-liked, disappeared after a private meeting with Bishop Burkat and a congregation (Epiphany) who had been in covenant with Redeemer and was sharing our building. That church never discussed breaking the covenant with us, but after a private meeting with the bishop, they announced they were closing. The pastor gave 10 days notice by email (not the constitutional 30 days notice.) He never planned to talk with us about his decision. He left the Synod.

Epiphany continued to share Redeemer’s property outside of the covenant for six months, rent free. They were never locked out!

Redeemer found a pastor to replace him. Redeemer hand-delivered to Bishop Burkat the congregation’s resolution to call him in November 2007. In February 2008, he had just encouraged Redeemer members to “stand firm” in our ministry. He visited the bishop’s office hoping to talk things through.

This pastor had shared with us that he had been trying to talk to the synod for a year and couldn’t get a return call or a response to correspondence. (We had the same experience!).

So now he goes to talk to the Synod about serving Redeemer.

He never sets foot inside Redeemer again.

He suddenly has an interim call in Bucks County.

Clergy are out of the way.

Next. Lay leaders.

Let’s make this quick! All lay leaders, having had no hearing with Bishop Burkat on the subject of closing the church, were dismissed by letter from the bishop in February 2008. She had promised to work with us just four months earlier at a meeting which closing the church had not been discussed. No grounds were ever cited.

OK, lay leaders are out of the way.

There is still the congregation to deal with. 

We’ll tell you how that went in our next post.

Hint: Any claim that there was a process of mutual discernment is a lie.