4/7InkzHVUEQeEdU9vpc1tikzEhChrKmPfvXI-FSDBrBQ

2012 SEPA Synod Assembly

What the Church Has Learned from American Politics

Redeemer's right to be represented at SEPA Synod was removed by decree of Bishop Burkat before the 2009 Synod Assembly.

Redeemer's right to be represented at SEPA Synod Assembly was removed by decree of Bishop Burkat before 2009 Synod Assembly one week before the 2009 Assembly — before there was ever a hearing or vote of Synod Assembly. Redeemer appealed this decision but Synod Assembly did not vote on it. In fact, Synod Council didn't vote on this until June 2010. Constitutionally, Redeemer should have had a right to challenge that 2010 decision. Redeemer should have had voting privileges in 2009 and 2010. Redeemer never voted to close. There is no requirement for congregations to own buildings. Redeemer remains faithful in worship and mission. Since the only aspect of our appeal addressed by Synod Assembly was our property, Redeemer still has voting rights under SEPA's constitution.

Today is election day in Pennsylvania. We are expected to go to the polls as informed citizens to make wise decisions. Most of what we have heard for the last six months is what’s bad about the other guy.

Mud-raking in American politics is an old tradition. The best mud-raker wins. And so, one quality every presidential candidate must have is the ability to tear the figurative limbs from opponents.

Successful mud-raking gets leaders their way.

But there is a cost. The cost is to the spirit of the people, who go to the polls weary and uncertain that they are voting for the most capable leader . . . or the best-funded, best-organized critic.

Politics is part of American life. It’s also part of the Protestant Church. We elect our leaders. Unfortunately, our leaders have learned lessons from secular politicians. You can gain support by tearing down your opponents.

We don’t have campaigns between “hopefuls” so it is a field day for those in power. Opponents in the church can be anyone who challenges the status quo.

The techniques are more subtle in church politics. In the ELCA, each bishop has six years to plant innuendo, to ignore opponents’ good ideas, to neglect some churches and curry favor in others, to charismatically rally support. Every action is supported by well-chosen Scripture.

Who are the opponents? In the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, it can be the very churches who provide support — but not enough support in the leaders’ eyes. It can be clergy who speak against policy or who simply advocate for new policy. It can even be the congregational members who volunteer with no expectation of power, or recognition, monetary or otherwise. It can be congregations who have small memberships but more assets than SEPA.

Looking for faults becomes a habit. Finding faults (an easy job) can have  rewards when powers (constitutional or not) are exerted.

American politics is wearying. Church politics is self-defeating.

Church politics are supposed to model servant leadership—also true of public servants — but in the Church we have the life of Christ as guide. In the Lutheran Church, the constitutions assign equality to each entity. There really is no power to wield. We are supposed to be partners in ministry.

Violating the intent of the constitutions makes immediate winners/losers—a situation which is unChristian. In the end the whole Church suffers. It takes awhile, but the erosion of spirit over a decade becomes obvious.

The Church relies on knowledgeable people doing the right thing. Abdication of that role leads to abuses of power.

And yet, in the Lutheran Church it is not uncommon to hear the best educated church leaders justify non-participation with “we elected the leaders; we have to support them.” This is nonsense—an abdication of responsibility. You don’t have to support a leader who is making bad decisions.

This is also an election year for SEPA. What kind of leader will you elect? One who finds fault with the congregations served and their volunteer members who dare to disagree? Or one who builds on their strengths and nurtures them in faithful service to God and His people?

photo credit: JosephGilbert.org via photo pin cc
24 Apr 2012

Rejection in the church. It’s all too common.

You’ve seen the signs. Most churches have one. “All Welcome.”

Easier said than done.

Lucas Cranach Painting

A topic in a popular church forum today discusses inclusion—specifically that of the disabled in the life of a congregation. The author cites the profound sense of rejection experienced by members of a group home for the mentally challenged who were asked to not return. You know why — they were different and differences are unsettling. The Church loves neat and tidy.

Rejection by the Church is all too common. Frequently, the rejected have no voice. They must rely on an outside advocate. Fortunately for the members of that group home, they found an advocate who helped them find love inside the church’s walls.

Rejection isn’t a one-time incident. It stings forever.

The members of Redeemer have experienced rejection. Big time and long-term. The Lutheran Church locked us out, literally and figuratively. Having rejected us from Christian community, they continue attacks on our members.

The increasingly common scenario has become a process which, as Bishop Claire Burkat of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the ELCA attempts to justify, usually “goes smoothly.”

What makes this horrific process seem smooth? Well-orchestrated use of the age-old weapon of the Church — fear.

The process is designed to be as pain-free as possible for the perpetrators. The pain of the victims: there’s an app for that!—the closing worship service which even has an official liturgy.

Church officials gather in full clerical regalia as the emotions of the faithful are put on display. The swelling tones of the soon to be moth-balled organ drive the nails into the coffins of a faithful worshiping community. The doors are locked, remaining bank accounts secured, and no further thought is given to the people. Neat and tidy.

Most abandoned church members never find a new church. They are gone and forgotten. The elderly are left without the support of the church they served faithfully in more capable years. Newcomers are left to feel inadequate — like fools for buying into the welcoming message. The clergy return to their parishes to preach the message of love, forgetting that love is a verb.

It’s not OK, fellow Lutherans. Damage continues long after you walk away with the spoils.

  • Relationship with the surrounding community is damaged.
  • Relationship with the faithful is damaged.
  • Families are damaged.
  • Children are damaged.
  • Youth, at a turning point in their lives, are abandoned by the church that had cradled and nurtured them.
  • The disenfranchised (often major participants in community worship) are abandoned with little recourse.
  • Faith is damaged.
  • Economic and social damages extend beyond the community.
  • Stewardship is damaged. Any member of a small congregation can wonder if their offerings will be confiscated.
  • Individual Christians can wonder if their years of devotion had any value.

The process is a slap in Christ’s face.

We’ve listened to the excuses of the clergy as if the gospel they preach happens without effort—as if Christ had not died for them. Most laity seem unaware of what’s going on.

Redeemer can tell you how it feels to be rejected by the Church, to be vilified for our beliefs.

Faith makes us strong. Why do we act as if we are powerless?

22 Apr 2012

What SEPA Synod Can Learn from Redeemer

Today, SEPA (Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) Communications Director Bob Fisher sent a plea to SEPA congregations for interaction on a web site the synod created for congregations to share ministry ideas. The site was launched in November and had an initial outpouring of about 100 submissions. Then it fizzled. Involvment on the web site has been flat ever since.

There is little reason to post a time deadline on a web site like this. But Fisher’s request for submissions asks for responses by April 26 — one week before Synod Assembly. You want good statistics for Synod Assembly!

Meanwhile, during the same period, 2x2virtualchurch.com, sponsored by the SEPA-excommunicated members of Redeemer, has grown to more than 200 visits per week, with more than 80 followers and 30 new visitors daily. We’ve pioneered social media in church work and have been gaining respect around the world for our work — interdenominationally and among churches of every size. Look at  2×2’s statistics for roughly the same period (screen shot taken in midday/midweek for last bar):

The concept of SEPA’s web site is flawed. No one needs to submit ideas for review and verification by a central office any longer. There is nothing stopping any church from posting their successes and ideas on their own website. Synod should be encouraging community between congregations without a middle man. Don’t worry . . there’s plenty of work for communications middle managers.

This site is not likely to create dialog. It is rigid in a medium that operates best with freedom. It allows three categories of questions. It limits responses to 50 words. (Most of the questions had close to 50 words.) The message conveyed to a visitor to this site is that their ideas will be monitored, judged and verified — controlled. This thinking is foreign to internet users who are accustomed to the free flow of ideas on Facebook, Twitter and blogging platforms—all of which are community-building platforms.

Why invest time posting to a site that might reject you?

There are other ways to achieve sharing. Start developing content that is helpful to congregations so there is a reason to come to the site in the first place. Begin linking and commenting and taking part in the dialog. Recognize that there are no boundaries to good ideas. Why limit the submission of ideas to just 160 congregations when there is a world of mission out there? It’s the social media way. And it works.

Redeemer would submit its ministry ideas to www.godisdoingsomethingnew.com, but we doubt our ministry would be recognized. It hasn’t been for a long time!

No problem. We post our ideas daily on 2×2. Welcome!

(2×2 be glad to help any church get started in social media. Just contact us! We can have a web site up and running for you in a week, train members to use it and even help you develop content.)

19 Apr 2012

Seeking Transparency in Church Leadership

This is an election year. We as a nation will elect a president—a decision we must all live with for four years.

It is also an election year in the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (SEPA) Synod of the ELCA. SEPA will elect a bishop for a six-year term and congregations will live with that choice for more than half a decade.

We will take less time preparing for this choice.

The Church has a history of cloistering leaders. Clergy may know one another. Most lay leaders have little knowledge of the names presented to them on the floor of Synod Assembly.

People, today, want to know who their leaders are and what they stand for. We want to know this every day, not just at election time. There was a time when this was difficult. Communication was expensive and unwieldy. This is no longer an excuse. Church leadership can and should interact with church members on a daily basis. This should be a joy not a drudge.

There are long traditions of leadership by intimidation and fear in the Church. It didn’t start out that way, but it goes back centuries. The Reformation tried to address this but even today this leadership style rears its head in defiance of the Christ’s message of love.

In the business world, people have a choice. They can work for a company or they can leave.

It’s a bit different in the Church. People want to stick with their faith and their congregational community. It’s all wrapped up in their relationship with God, their understanding of who they are, and their personal and family faith journeys. When dissatisfied, they aren’t likely to look for a new Church as a first option.

In other words, they care.

That’s a good thing—a treasure!

As SEPA Synod prepares for its 2012 Annual Assembly, the topic is worth consideration.

SEPA Synod delegates need to carefully examine the relationship between synod leadership and the congregations—the only reason synods exist.

The relationship between the synod and its impressive list of rostered leaders is more difficult to analyze but just as important. Each question asked below might also be asked by each rostered professional leader.

Perhaps its best to start by examining the relationships between congregations, their elected leaders and synod leadership.

  • Do you know one another? Are you working together — interdependently — as the operating constitutions require? What do you know about the names on the ballot? What do they stand for? What do they know about you?
  • What do your leaders believe?
  • Do your members have a voice? Under Lutheran polity, you are supposed to! It’s a precious Lutheran concept that clergy and laity have equal leadership standing.
  • Do your elected leaders listen to the people they are serving? Is there two-way communication?
  • Is there a plan for reversing strong downward trends—or will that be presented after a six-year decision is made?
  • Are your lay members comfortable with synod leadership? Must all communication go through your pastor? Are your phone calls returned? Are dates for meetings mutually agreed upon? Are they scheduled within a month of request?
  • Is there trust?
  • What is the synod’s vision for moving forward? Is every congregation included in the vision?
  • Does SEPA treat every congregation and its leaders with respect and dignity — as valued members of God’s kingdom? Are elected congregational leaders treated with respect?
  • Is your only interaction with synod when there is a leadership change? When was the last time a bishop visited your congregation just to listen and get to know you?
  • Do you know what your leaders are doing in your name and in the name of God?

The choice of bishop is pivotal to the image of our Church. Let’s do this carefully.

13 Apr 2012

As SEPA Synod Assembly 2012 approaches . . .

“Why don’t ‘you people’ just find another church and stop all the anger?” a pastor asked one of our ambassadors on a recent visit.

That would make life so easy—if only victims would not fight back when they are bullied.

We assure the people of SEPA that Redeemer does not like being angry. Sometimes anger is appropriate.

Jesus became angry at the sight of the moneylenders defiling the Temple. For the last four years, Redeemer has watched those with financial interests in our property behave in similarly greedy and self-serving ways in our sacred space.

Anger is not fun. The alternative — to ignore anger—is to deny our sense of worth, our passion, our community…and not least…our faith. SEPA demands we mothball our memories and our heritage and that we break our friendships and connections with the community where we still live. We are expected to hide our light under a bushel and become passive pew-warming Christians in some other place than our own community.

SEPA discredits the volunteer hours that went into making Redeemer grow in the last ten years. Our documented successes go unrecognized; they collide with SEPA’s prejudice and true goals — acquisition of our assets.

The resulting conflict was needless. Despite reports to the contrary, there was NO forum for mutual discernment, NO long period of working together, NO consideration for the elected leaders of Redeemer.

There WAS ample abuse of the constitutional processes.

Lawsuits could have been avoided. Financial challenges could have been minimized. There were numerous paths to peace. SEPA leadership chose aggression at every turn.

In another synod, a congregation much smaller than Redeemer appealed a similar synodical decision to close. Their story is much like Redeemer’s, complete with a locksmith raid. But comparisons end there. Their Synod Assembly supported the congregation. This congregation is still small but has started community outreach that is funding their church well. They have been helping Redeemer.

Redeemer, easily five times the size of this church, had similar plans which by now would have been quite lucrative and supporting an exciting ministry in East Falls.

Instead Bishop Burkat continues to create a widening wake of hurt, anger and destruction.

Lutheran constitutions and government depend on the understanding that laity and clergy are equals and the organizations within the church are interdependent. Lutherans are supposed to work together.

This cannot happen as long as SEPA Lutherans stand on the sidelines and watch in silence as member churches endure abuse.

Back to the pastor who advised us to just stop being angry.

Why don’t we just find another church?

Our answer. We’ve been vagabond Lutherans for nearly three years. We’ve reached out to 43 of SEPA’s 160 congregations. We’ve visited. We’ve left contact information. We’ve written letters. We’ve made some friends along the way, but the fact is . . . none of the congregations still within the ELCA have reached out to us. No active pastor has visited our members to offer any kind of pastoral care. (Two retired pastors have helped.)

SEPA, the conflict is in your hands. You could turn this around at May’s Synod Assembly by demanding your leadership work to reconcile with the Lutherans of East Falls.

We repeat a wonderful quote all congregations should take to heart.

People should not have to find a church.
The church should find them.

03 Apr 2012

Here’s an idea for SEPA . . .

The laity need a voice.

The Synod is dominated by clergy. Their voices and interests outrank lay concerns simply because they are involved more with leadership on a daily basis and somewhat dependent on their standing with the Synod for career advancement and security.

Many lay representatives at Assembly are new to church governance and follow their pastors’ lead.

The Synod Assembly agenda is tightly scheduled, leaving little room for lay delegates to explore ideas, which might be old to clergy but are new to them.

Lay people who become involved at the synodical level must first pass through a nominating process that is reviewed largely by clergy or lay people who have already passed muster.

Redeemer, years ago, attempted to nominate a lay member and received a phone call from a clergy representative who said they’d consider our nomination only if we “felt strongly” about it. Puzzling! Why have a nomination process?!

Generally, there is little contact between church leadership and the people they serve. Contact is often orchestrated toward SEPA leadership’s objectives.

One dedicated lay person once shared that they went to an Evening with the Bishop excited to be part of dialog. He left, frustrated and disappointed, after an hour of listening to the bishop talk with no attempt at interaction with attendees.

Redeemer’s experience with the last two bishops was that they wanted congregational interaction on their own terms, subject to their own timing, agenda and control. Congregational leaders, who had attempted dialog for years with no response, were ignored — and eventually replaced by decree.

So here’s an idea. What if there was an annual LAITY ROUNDTABLE, say two months before the Annual Assembly, where ANY lay person could attend, discuss challenges and formulate ideas and proposals to bring to the Synod Assembly’s attention? The retreat could be one-day, on a Saturday perhaps, and should be entirely lay led. No clergy allowed. Trust your lay people!

The LAITY ROUNDTABLE would serve no purpose but to review ideas and proposals of individual congregations for inclusion on Synod Assembly’s agenda.

There would be added benefits:

  • Laity would understand common challenges and be inspired to find solutions.
  • The interests of the churches would be lifted up.
  • Lay involvement and leadership would grow.
  • Churches would feel more involved with the denomination which can only help SEPA.
  • Large churches and small churches would interact as equals.
  • Community would expand as laity come to know one another without pastors as gatekeepers.
  • Interchurch problem-solving would pump some fresh blood into our church . . . and we still consider it our church even though we have been kicked out — without a voice!
14 Mar 2012

SEPA Lutherans Should Advocate for a Sunshine Law

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.

30 Oct 2011

Choosing Lutheran leadership in 2012

Lutherans have a unique church structure. While Roman Catholic church leadership is controlled by a hierarchy, Lutherans elect their church leaders. Congregations are pivotal to Lutheran governance more so than in either the Episcopal or Roman Catholic churches, our closest neighbors in liturgical and structural traditions.

This process can be — and is intended to be — a source of strength. Congregations can act with authority in the neighborhoods they know better than distant leadership. Lay people are empowered to be active participants in their faith communities.

There are, however, serious challenges. In controlling their little corner of Christendom, many congregations have little or no knowledge of their neighboring churches and ministries. Similarly, the names proposed for election to head their leadership are those of strangers. They send their clergy and lay representatives to Synod Assembly to vote for leaders (bishop and synod council) unaware of their skills, vision, history, or integrity. Delegate packets contain only a short bio — where they live, what church they attend and what they do for a living. Candidates for bishop emerge at the Assembly itself, known perhaps among clergy, but clergy make up only a third of the Assembly.

This can be dangerous. In recent years, particularly since the merger in the 1980s which created the ELCA, some bishops have been assuming more power than the traditions of the Lutheran church or its governing documents intend.

For example, the ELCA changed the title of its leaders from president to bishop, clearly stating that the change would not affect the relationship between the congregations and leadership. The change was approved for one purpose only — to raise the status of Lutherans in ecumenical dialogue. Other denominations, it seems, do not give the title of “president” the same authority as bishops.

Nevertheless, this change has affected the ELCA. Some bishops (not all) assumed powers given to bishops of other denominations, including the power to control congregational decisions and property ownership, miring the whole church in litigation. The church has been ill-equipped to “check and balance” its leadership.

Next spring, SEPA Synod will elect someone to the office of bishop. Will the people voting on that May day know enough about the candidates to make an informed decision? Start asking questions now.

What do you expect from your church leaders? What does your congregation hope to see as they build relationship with the greater Lutheran church?  What qualities should your president or bishop have?

These questions are natural to the decision process. The problem is the church has no forum for getting answers in time to help delegates make good decisions. Poor decisions affect the entire Synod for six years!

You are not going to see these questions asked or answered on a synod’s web site, which is controlled by the existing bishop, who may be interested in reelection.

We propose that Lutherans start a dialog on an independent internet blog. Ask questions. Invite answers from those who are interested in serving. This wasn’t possible in the 1980s but today we can do something to help our church leaders make good decisions.

What do you think?

10 Sep 2011