Take some time to read SEPA Synod Council minutes.

http://www.ministrylink.org/synod-council/ (bottom of the page)

Recent minutes of Synod Council meetings — gatherings of SEPA congregations’ elected representatives — are lean, riddled with executive sessions and confidential discussions with vague summaries such as — synod is entering a time when “it would be doing things differently but with less.”

This is the only information reported from what appears to have been a lengthy discussion on Synod finances. The minutes announce the beginning of this discussion, stating only that it was “open and confidential” — a strange term. Why are SEPA financial discussions confidential? Congregations are expected to pay the freight for any financial challenges and will be directly affected by any new way of doing things. Not only do they have a right to know about things their elected representatives are deciding but they surely have insight into any debate on how THEIR resources are being used. Why secrecy? If there are challenges, let’s face them together head on!

Secrecy, coupled with SEPA history, can leave congregations guessing that the private discussions might be about individual congregational “viability” and which congregations might be ripe for the picking. If past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, there is reason for concern. Such conjecture may be unfounded, but unless we know more, it is responsible to wonder.

There is more troubling obscurity. In years past, the elected representatives of the church (Synod Council) had contact information listed online. Now there is a list of names, home congregations and term expiration year, making it difficult for congregations to turn to their elected representatives — especially lay representatives which outnumber clergy. Clergy contact information is included in the published roster. While inconvenient, it can be looked up, one by one. Lay representatives pose more of a challenge. If lay representatives are not willing to share their contact information, they should decline to serve. If privacy is a concern, a dedicated email address could be supplied by synod, which can be automatically forwarded to a private email. There should be a way to contact the people who represent the congregations.

If the dates and locations of Synod Council meetings are listed, they are difficult to find.

SEPA Synod Council is acting as if they exist in a vacuum, forming and endorsing church policy hand in hand with the bishop’s office but with neither relating to the people they represent. It is easy for representatives to form a bias for the people they interact with when they have no contact with the people they all serve.

SEPA congregations should go to their next Synod Assembly in May 2012 and demand more transparency from their leaders. If congregations are asked to vote for a budget which relies on one, two, or three of them closing to pay for the budget, they need to know that when they are voting. If they are to expect less from their leaders because of budget shortfalls, they need to know that too.

When are SEPA congregations to learn the outcome of their leaders’ discussions — on the very day a few of them travel to Franconia to vote? Dialogue must begin NOW!

SEPA needs a “Sunshine Law” so its congregations — the people who fund the Synod — know how their futures will be affected by policies discussed in “open and confidential” sessions.

The Lutheran Church is proud of its heritage and its interdependent structure which exists in contrast to hierarchical denominations. Interdependence relies on communication and cooperation.

It is time we begin practicing our interdependence and work together.