4/7InkzHVUEQeEdU9vpc1tikzEhChrKmPfvXI-FSDBrBQ

Bishop Claire Burkat

Illustration 3: SEPA’s Mythical Mutual Discernment

Bishop Claire Burkat justifies her actions in East Falls, citing a process of mutual discernment that she suggests was long and involved, having spanned both her term and that of Bishop Almquist.

We’ve provided two illustrations of how the mutual discernment (1 and 2) process excluded the members of Redeemer.

Here’s a third illustration. In this case Redeemer was not only never consulted, we were totally unaware that another congregation was engaged with the bishop in discussions that affected Redeemer’s future and property.

In 2005, Redeemer was approached to help a neighboring congregation, Epiphany in Upper Roxborough, more than two miles away.

Epiphany had to vacate their building. It had been condemned because of termite damage. They had been sharing space unhappily with a neighboring Episcopal Church. Rev. Timothy Muse, their mission developer pastor, was a member of SEPA Synod Council.

We agreed to work with Epiphany and jointly drafted a covenant that we hoped would lead to the merger of our two congregations within a few years. We were careful to put no timetable on the covenant. We wanted both groups to be confident of any decision to merge and such confidence could not be fostered with mandated deadlines.

The covenant called for Redeemer to share Epiphany’s pastor. Epiphany would provide most of the salary. Redeemer contributed. Epiphany would have free access and use of Redeemer’s property, for which Redeemer would continue to bear the expenses. We would worship separately and consider joint worship on special occasions as a starting point.

This system worked well for 18 months. Our councils met together every other month. Individual councils and leaders occasionally met with Pastor Muse separately to discuss matters that involved only one of the congregations. (The trustees represented this period of time to Synod Assembly as if Redeemer’s council was not meeting and decisions were being made by a few in isolation. Not true. The minutes of meetings were kept by Epiphany’s secretary. They never asked for them.)

Redeemer bided time for the first year as Pastor Muse was admittedly preoccupied with Epiphany’s need to sell their condemned property. We were encouraged when the sale at last was completed with a benefit to Epiphany of about $600,000.

Epiphany expressed an interest in moving the merger ahead a bit more quickly. Redeemer was looking forward to a bit more of Pastor Muse’s attention. The worship committees met jointly during the summer to explore merging worship. We wanted to preserve the traditions of our East African members which we had incorporated into our worship for several years and we wanted consensus on decisions as Epiphany was not only larger in number but they had worked with Pastor Muse for much longer than Redeemer had. They had an advantage in their long-term relationship while we were just getting to know him.

We recognized that Epiphany had been through a lot with the loss of their building. Their lay leadership appeared to be much more dependent on Pastor Muse, while Redeemer who had not had a pastor for years, was used to lay leadership. We discussed this with Pastor Muse. He encouraged us. He said that Redeemer’s strong lay leadership was a gift to the covenant.

Redeemer drafted a proposal which we hoped would jumpstart working together. We presented it as a starting point. We modeled it on the proven success of two other ELCA congregations who had successfully shared a pastor and programming for many years. It called for even sharing of worship leadership, alternating Sundays, with joint planning of special events and one jointly planned service per month. We saw this as a honeymoon period that would help us grow to know and trust one another.

Pastor Muse reviewed our proposal. He mailed it to Epiphany members without our knowledge, although we would not have objected. Epiphany members mistakenly believed that Redeemer had sent it to them as an ultimatum for their acceptance, which was never Redeemer’s intent. There was a meeting to attempt to clear this up. Pastor Muse made it clear at this meeting that Redeemer did not know that he had mailed the proposal to Epiphany’s members.

It became clear at this meeting that Epiphany viewed Redeemer’s East African membership as not part of the merger. Conversation ended when we insisted our East African members were full members of Redeemer and their preferences for worship needed to be part of the discussion.

Pastor Muse suggested we let some time pass before we talk again.

Shortly thereafter Redeemer’s leaders received an email from Pastor Muse that Epiphany had voted to break the covenant and close. He would be gone within ten days (the constitution calls for 30 days notice).

Breaking the covenant was never discussed. We were given no opportunity to continue with Pastor Muse, whom everyone liked.

We learned that Pastor Muse and Epiphany’s president had met privately with Bishop Burkat.

Would it not be reasonable to assume that a bishop would encourage congregations in covenant to talk? Would it not be reasonable for synod, as leaders, to help facilitate such a meeting?

Redeemer was never part of any discussion about breaking the covenant.

Pastor Muse, true to his word, was gone in 10 days. He even left the Synod! Redeemer was abandoned.

Bishop Burkat would not meet with Redeemer until a year later and then only for a few minutes, promising to get back to us in three to five months. Eleven months of silence passed during which Redeemer drafted a mission plan and began to implement it with immediate success. Do the math. That’s nearly two years of non-involvement with Redeemer added to the six years of Bishop Almquist’s second term, during which he intentionally ignored our church. Claiming this is a time of heavy interaction and mutual discernment defies the truth.

What can explain this bizarre history?

SEPA’s recurring deficit budget is surely a consideration. SEPA needed money. It was easier to gain access to the congregation’s money by encouraging closure than to provide the services that would help a congregation grow and thereby foster long-term contributions.

All was going well until that $600,000 windfall from the sale of the property became a temptation.

The first sign of discontent from Epiphany brought encouragement to close — not to keep their ministry promises. And SEPA was to be the immediate beneficiary of $600,000.

Redeemer’s investment in the covenant—nearly two years of work down the drain! Epiphany’s covenant with Redeemer was broken with no consultation with Redeemer. NONE!

Synod, also with no conversation with Redeemer, allowed Epiphany six months to “wind down” their ministry. During these six months, Epiphany used Redeemer’s property as if it were their own — only now they were not contributing to the covenant any longer. Redeemer was left to coexist with Epiphany as non-contributing and somewhat hostile tenants.

Redeemer paid the freight for Bishop Burkat’s policies with Epiphany.

Even so, Redeemer cooperated without complaint.

Since we were not included in any discussions, we do not know exactly what transpired. But we’ve heard a few things since.

We learned during our Ambassador visits, that when Epiphany voted to close, they assumed they could allocate their assets to ministries and charities of their choice — which is Lutheran polity.

One ex-Epiphany member shared with us that Bishop Burkat had informed them after the vote was taken that SEPA would be the beneficiary of all but 5% of Epiphany’s assets. They were told this is an ELCA “rule.”

Synod’s Articles of Incorporation expressly forbid the Synod from conveying ANY congregational property without the consent of the congregation.

SEPA’s definition of “mutual discernment”: comply or good-bye.

30 Dec 2012

When There Is Only One Way

No one comes to the Father except through Jesus Christ.

One way.

The Church tends to take that admonition from the lips of Christ and make that road as narrow as possible.

Jesus said ONE way. Not OUR way. (tweet)

The way Jesus described is not narrow except as we mortals with all our individual and collective baggage make it.

Defining the rules of the spiritual road worked for centuries. It is not working now.

Read Seth Godin’s blog entry this morning. The renowned marketer’s message for the day speaks volumes to the church. Here it is (minus one sentence).

The pitfall of lock in

When you believe your customers have no real choice, either because they’ve signed a long-term contract, or the technology locks them in, or they’re stranded in Fargo with no other options, you’re likely to drift away from delighting them.

When you believe that people are stuck in their seats, it’s not essential, it seems, to keep cajoling them to stay there.

And while you might be correct that this particular customer is locked in, it doesn’t mean she doesn’t have friends, colleagues or a blog.

Word of mouth and recommendations don’t come with a lock-in feature. Generations change, and if you’re here for the long haul, there is no lock in.

Seth’s words complement our posts on replication and mission by the book. The replication process, touted by regional bodies as innovative, is really just a last-ditch effort to recreate ministry models that are failing at a slower rate in other neighborhoods.

Of course, the failure is first assigned to the laity. There is something wrong with them that can’t be fixed.  

Shutting churches down and reopening them in the same form with different people in the pews and pulpit is actually an admission that professional leadership has failed.  “Let’s let the people who have failed to lead for decades take control. They must know what they are doing,” is flawed church-think.

Healing (reconciliation) is too much work.

The Church doesn’t understand how neighborhoods work.

Links to the past don’t disappear because the Church held a service proclaiming their demise.

Go ahead and change the name. You can bet the neighborhood will call it Old Trinity or Old St. John’s for decades.

The Church is creating terrible word-of-mouth ministry — the kind of ministry tactic that spread the Gospel to the farthest reaches of the known world within a century or two back when there was no other way to reach people.

The lasting impression the leaders of the ELCA (its greedy bishops and spineless clergy) create in the neighborhoods where they swoop in, lock doors, confiscate assets and punish their life-long supporters with lawsuits is not a billboard for the road to Christ.

Here’s what the neighborhoods think when they pass the locked doors every day.

The Lutheran Church—ahh, yes. They’re the ones who sue their members and threaten their livelihoods and exclude them from participation with other congregations.

The next thought is not going to be

“Let’s join.”

Listen to Seth. Just because we are locked in—or locked out as has become the new ELCA’s  protocol—doesn’t mean we don’t have friends, colleagues, neighbors and a blog.

The ELCA way makes sense only to clergy who believe in their own isolated power. When you include the people of the church — the ones who put money in the offering plate each week, the ones who sacrificed a productive lot to build a building, the ones who show up every Sunday for decades, teaching and singing and serving — then it is wanton foolishness.

Remember, the WAY that is taught to us within the walls of the church includes standing up for what we believe.

28 Dec 2012

How Self-interest Stands in the Way of Mission Innovation

2×2’s previous post addressed how the interests of a regional body can hinder mission. Here’s an historical example.

The Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (SEPA) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and its relationship with Redeemer, East Falls, provides many interesting illustrations of how the structure of the ELCA, intended for good, actually impedes creative ministry.

Its attempt to structure itself interdependently quickly becomes crippled by the reality that the regional body is dependent on congregations funding its budget, heavy with salary obligations and an expensive, outdated infrastructure. Meanwhile, congregations must meet their own budgets and support the regional and national bodies.

Years of hard work and “mutual discernment”

Bishop Burkat talks of years of working with our congregation under her leadership and that of her predecessor. She calls the process “mutual discernment.”

Sounds good. Only it didn’t happen quite that way.

  1. There were more years of neglect than of working together.
  2. There were so many hidden agendas that mutual discernment was impossible.
  3. Attempts to ignore the wishes of the congregation were routine.

With interdependence comes the jockeying of self-interest. Congregations may be unaware that the synod has self-interests. They may assume that the synod has their interests at heart.

Meanwhile, the regional body expects the unquestioning deference of congregations.

Mutual Discernment at Work

Redeemer was always a small but self-sufficient congregation. SEPA did not support Redeemer financially as many people have been led to believe. It was the other way around.

When the ELCA was created in the late 1980s, Redeemer had a part-time pastor who also worked in the Synod offices. Redeemer was seen as not likely to ever support a full-time ministry. Any part-time pastor filled the bill in their eyes—a pulse was the primary qualification. They were marking time.

Then Redeemer received a $300,000 endowment. Suddenly, there was an interest in Redeemer. Pastor Wm deHeyman left the synod offices to work more fully with Redeemer. He served Redeemer 11 years. (Synod represents that Redeemer had just short-term pastors. Not true. His predecessor served 7 years.)

Wm deHeyman retired in 1996. His last years were difficult and factions had formed with some rallying around the pastor.

Redeemer looked forward to a new start.

Bishop Roy Almquist proposed that the congregation call one of his staff members, Rev. Robert Matthias, for an 18-month term call as an interim pastor.

Redeemer cooperated whole-heartedly.

This was a tumultuous time at Redeemer for other reasons. There was a series of personal tragedies that impacted congregational life. A tragic death of one family’s child. Another family was wracked with grief when its youngest child was paralyzed in an accidental shooting. A third child and family faced serious issues. The families of four council members were in crisis. During this time, a newer member volunteered to help with the financial books as the treasurer was one of the affected parents. It was soon discovered that the volunteer was embezzling money. The crime was noticed and rectified quickly—within months—but it added to the congregation’s sadness. This incident is sometimes used today to justify SEPA’s interest in Redeemer, but at the time they took no action that indicated they had concern that Redeemer could not rectify this on its own.

What was SEPA’s response in the face of unusual tragic circumstances in a small congregation?

They walked away and left the congregation with no pastor for nearly a year.

Three months into the 18-month term call agreement, Bishop Almquist returned to Redeemer and asked to break the call contract. He had an assignment for Pastor Matthias in Bucks County.

Redeemer cooperated even though it meant its investment in Pastor Matthias was wasted. Naturally, the congregation was hurt. Why was Bucks County more important than the promise SEPA had made with Redeemer?

During this year, Assistant to the Bishop Sue Ericsson was meeting with the council unbeknownst to the congregation. She encouraged the council (half of whom were in personal crisis) to convince the congregation to close. A plan was drafted. If the congregation did not go along, the congregation council would submit resignations providing grounds for SEPA to take over. Mutual discernment was being dictated behind the scenes.

The congregation’s annual meeting, usually held in February, was announced for January.

Three guests were introduced, Pastor Matthias, Gordon Simmons and Rodney Kopp.

Some reports were made. At the point when the budget should have been presented, the congregation council submitted the resolution to close (drafted by synod). This had not been discussed in the congregation who thought they were holding a routine annual meeting. They voted to table the resolution for further study—a reasonable response. A congregation should study an important issue before voting!

On cue, council members placed letters of resignation (drafted by synod) on  the table. They were swooped up by Pastor Matthias who announced the meeting was over and the congregation was under synodical administration. While Pastors Simmons and Kopp spoke to angry congregation members who were feeling ambushed (Pastor Kopp used the term “blind-sided”), Pastor Matthias left with the letters of resignation and the church books.

Pastor Mathias was known at the local bank. He and a former Redeemer treasurer visited the bank the next day and conveyed $90,000 to SEPA. SEPA asked our tenants to send payments to them. Mutual discernment included trickery.

But paying the bills was the extent of synodical administration. Redeemer kept its offerings and there was significant money in savings available to the congregation. Activities at the church continued to be run by the congregation.

The congregation felt betrayed by their council and SEPA. The members who resigned ended up leaving, some after long years at Redeemer. SEPA had used them at a time when they were vulnerable.

SEPA refused to share the letters of resignation. We learned three council members had not resigned. Two pastors helped the congregation appoint members to fill vacant seats as is allowed in the constitution. Redeemer’s council continued to meet and run the daily affairs of the church and plan its own worship and mission which included an ambitious summer program, totally lay led.

Redeemer protested the synodical administration for a year.

Several supply pastors led worship, including Rev. Harvey Davis. Our first Tanzanian members joined during this time. Bishop Almquist at last released the synodical administration. But he did not return the money for an additional year. At last, SEPA returned about $82,000, keeping some to cover their legal expenses. The fact that they were able to pay the congregation’s bills without depleting the $90,000 in two years, proves that the congregation was financially viable.

When the synodical administration was lifted, Bishop Almquist asked the congregation to call Rev. Jesse Brown. He was the only candidate presented. Bishop Almquist suggested a one-year term call.

Redeemer cooperated.

Things were fine with Pastor Brown, but at the end of the year he announced that he wanted to cut his hours to just ten per week, the minimum needed for him to retain his ordination credentials.

Redeemer did not wish to regularize a call with a pastor who wanted to provide minimal service. Redeemer agreed to extend the term call, but Bishop Almquist insisted it be regularized—or there would be no pastor for a very long time. Mutual discernment included threats.

Why was this a deal-breaker?

What’s the difference between a term call and a regularized call? 

A regularized call can be ended by the pastor at any time with 30 days notice, but if the congregation wants to make a change, they must muster a two-thirds vote against a pastor. This can be very divisive, especially when a pastor is liked—as was Pastor Brown. Redeemer’s concern was his minimal level of commitment and what that meant to Redeemer’s ability to grow in mission. For Redeemer’s lay leaders, it was not enough that a pastor was “liked.” The congregation had to make progress. Redeemer’s leaders were looking wisely into their future. A regularized call would become problematic if Pastor Brown’s outside interests minimized the effect of his ten hours per week. Locking into a regularized call under these circumstances was not in the interest of the congregation, no matter how much the pastor was liked by individual members. In fact, it was likely to be a greater issue if the pastor was liked. The congregation’s leaders would be frustrated with lack of mission progress, while the more minimally committed members of the voting congregation were content. Redeemer was being forced to make a foolish decision that was predicated on the synod’s dismal vision for the congregation, which happened to have a healthy endowment, while they were operating with a deficit.

The congregation council rejected the synod’s proposal. Bishop Almquist asked for a second vote overseen by a staff person. That vote failed, too. Bishop Almquist deemed that the congregation should vote on the call — never explaining the wisdom of asking the congregation to vote for something the church council was against. That vote failed too.

If the vote hadn’t failed, it would have strained relationships between the council and the congregation. This was pointed out to Bishop Almquist, but he insisted on taking the issue to the congregation anyway. He was interested only in getting the vote that served his purpose—finding a call for Jesse Brown.

Bishop Almquist kept his promise. Synod ignored Redeemer for Bishop Almquist’s entire second term.

The congregation worked with Pastor Harvey Davis for three years until the pastor needed to retire. He was influential in attracting several young couples with diverse ethnic backgrounds and our Tanzanian membership continued to grow. Redeemer was becoming multicultural and was making significant innovations successfully. The ministry showed promise despite synodical neglect.

Let’s look a the motivations behind this history that is so often referenced as reason for Bishop Burkat’s actions a decade later.

Why was it important to SEPA that Redeemer’s call be regularized? Term calls are a constitutional option.

The synod’s interest in a regularized call solved some of its problems.

  1. Pastor Brown could retain his status as an ordained pastor while he ran for public office and operated his own business on the side.
  2. His minimal service would solve SEPA’s problem of staffing Redeemer.

Redeemer’s mission and interests were not really considered.

SEPA’s view of Redeemer was that its elderly population would die within 10 years. Minimal ministry would speed the process along. This thinking takes on signficant importance when the targeted congregation has assets and the regional body is operating with deficits. The regularized call gave SEPA more control over Redeemer and the fate it was tacitly seeking. 

Declaring synodical administration gave them access to congregational assets.

After SEPA returned Redeemer’s assets, Bishop Almquist issued an appeal letter to all congregations for almost exactly the amount of money returned to Redeemer.

Redeemer had supplied SEPA with an interest-free loan.

Synodical administration had been used as a tool to benefit SEPA. Mission in East Falls was never the objective. 

Lasting damage was done to Redeemer. Gossip created an unjustified cloud that hangs over East Falls to this day.

At all times in this conflict, Redeemer cooperated when it was reasonable to do so. It showed initiative, flexibility, and a willingness to accept change — all the things regional bodies look for when striving for transformation. But the congregation knew that Bishop Almquist’s insistence on a regularized call was not in the congregation’s interest.

Redeemer was consistently making choices that pointed them toward new and innovative ministry. SEPA was prescribing solutions that would benefit SEPA.

And that is still the case today.

Definition of Mutual Discernment: Comply or Goodbye

21 Dec 2012

Prayer Is the Answer. Now What Was the Question?

I had an uncle who was a Methodist preacher. He often said, only partially jokingly, “Jesus is the answer. Now what is your question?”

There seems to be a similar “go to” response in the Church today. When you don’t know what to do—or when you do know what to do but don’t have the courage to do it, there is an easy answer. Promise to pray.

It’s been tough going for our congregation as members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Bishop Claire Burkat of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod went on the warpath against Redeemer Lutheran in East Falls, Philadelphia, including personal attacks on lay members. Acquiring the assets of Redeemer seems to have been part of the plan to fund massive budget deficits from the very beginning of her first term in 2006.

Large deficits have been routine since the beginning of SEPA back in the late 1980s. Giving and attendance were (and still are) in serious decline. There was no plan for reviving small church ministry beyond neglect and waiting for failure. Several congregations folded rather than swim upstream without the cooperation of SEPA leadership.

The assumption of SEPA leadership is that if they neglect ministry for a decade, ministry will fail to the benefit of Synod coffers. Under Lutheran polity this isn’t a given. Congregations can determine where to donate their assets. But Synods are finding a work-around that guarantees they will benefit. Simply declare the congregations “terminated” before they can have any say. This means that the congregations have NO rights within the Church they have served for decades or centuries. They need not even be consulted! Constitutional checks and balances are ignored.

Redeemer was getting the “10 years of neglect” treatment. But it wasn’t going as Synod planned. Lay leadership grew. Alliances were made with several dedicated pastors. Redeemer was in a promising position, with a five-year commitment of a qualified Lutheran pastor, working under a detailed plan that the congregation had spent six months drafting. In fact, our ministry continues to grow, despite the abuse.

But the efforts of lay people are not valued.

And there was that $275,000 deficit budget approved by Synod Assembly at the same time they voted (against Lutheran rules) to take our property.

The deceitful maneuverings which characterized this hostile attempt at a land grab have been a fiasco that Lutheran leadership is unable to resolve without jeopardizing ministry, the livelihoods of lay people and perhaps even the entire synod. And at considerable expense.

It’s a mess. A shameful, unnecessary mess.

And all of this has gone on while the clergy of SEPA Synod have watched.

Our members have approached people who should be in a position to at least open dialog on the issues.

There are fairly specific guidelines for resolution of disputes in the Bible and there are governing documents that could be followed within the Church. But ELCA leaders do not bother. They rely on “wisdom.”

We’ve heard all kinds of excuses.

  • From Bishop Hanson: Just talk it out. I have great regard for Bishop Burkat.
  • From a Synod Council member: We have no intention of negotiating with you. (Synod Council is supposed to represent the congregations.)
  • From deans: Silence
  • From pastors in a position to help: We have to trust the wisdom of the bishop.
  • From pastors who visited Redeemer 30 or 40 years ago: We know your history (as if Redeemer was stuck in a time warp).
  • From pastors who don’t know anything about Redeemer — but voted with the crowd anyway: Sorry! We didn’t know.

Whatever the excuse, it is always accompanied with a sanctimonious, conscience-assuaging promise to pray.

We wonder what these learned church leaders expect to come of prayer.

  • That someone else—anyone else—will play peacemaker.
  • That God will suddenly fix everything without any work.
  • That whatever happens won’t affect them.
  • That miracles will replace gumption.
  • That whatever happens, their jobs will be secure.
  • That they will never be the victims of the type of leadership abuses that have characterized this sad episode (and perhaps others before us).
  • That life in SEPA will go on as if Redeemer, and Epiphany, and Grace and others never existed—and the list will probably continue to grow.

Lutherans pride themselves on an interdependent structure. That means we are supposed to work together.  

Here’s a suggestion:

By all means, keep praying, but recognize that the answer to prayer is probably in getting off your backsides and doing something.

‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do
for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 

02 Nov 2012

If SEPA Leaders Cared . . . .

ELCA motto appended to reflect SEPA's actions in East Falls.The Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has been embroiled in trouble, largely of its own making, since 2008. It wasn’t sudden, there was a nearly decade-long prologue of neglect.

During this long period of absence from the ministry of Redeemer Lutheran Church in East Falls, SEPA leaders made unfortunate miscalculations.

SEPA had discouraged professional leadership from serving in East Falls. The strategy they were following—as published at about the same time in a book co-authored by then Synod staff member, Claire Burkat—was to let Redeemer die. SEPA presumed that lay people with no one to tell them what to do would drift rudderless and get tired. One day, the last Lutheran on board would call the Synod and beg for a lifeline.

This may have seemed like the easy way to gain the congregation’s valuable property and substantial financial assets. It is proving to be disastrous—for Redeemer and the entire Synod. It may even trickle UP to the entire ELCA as other Synods (having read the book) attempt to implement the strategy!

The book leaves out the last chapter. It doesn’t always go as planned.

The group of elderly members that Bishop Almquist assumed would soon fail by attrition did not go to their heavenly reward without laying a new foundation for the church they loved. Redeemer grew during SEPA’s years of neglect. By the time Claire Burkat was elected bishop, there was a new group of Lutherans in East Falls, who had no idea they were heirs to SEPA’s prejudice.

Had Bishop Burkat worked with Redeemer’s leaders (as she falsely claims she did), she would have seen great promise. But her intentions for Redeemer were announced long before she ever set foot on the corner of Midvale and Conrad Streets on that ill-fated day in February 2008.

Consequently, Bishop Burkat, intent on exercising powers not found in Lutheran governing documents, led SEPA into a financial boondoggle. They lack the leadership skills to retreat. They are relying on the secular courts to resolve Church problems. Courts don’t want the job.

Had Bishop Burkat cared about the people of East Falls and its mission, she would have strategized to protect her sheep as if they were as valuable as the property she coveted. The ministry that was initiated and nurtured with the investments of the laity would not have been shuttered, but would be earning a steady income, paying the congregation’s obligations with no dependence on SEPA and its member churches.

But SEPA had its own problems. It had been living on deficit budgets for most of its 20-year history. In 2008, that deficit was $275,000, approved by a Synod Assembly at a time when giving was down in nearly every congregation. There was no plan for making up this deficit except to close churches and seize assets. Bishop Burkat is insulted at this suggestion. But it was explained to that Assembly that money to make up shortfalls traditionally comes from the Mission Fund—which is the repository for the assets of closed congregations. No other plan for funding this huge deficit was presented.

Bishop Burkat further denies that selling church properties is part of synod’s survival strategy even in the face of evidence that she offered Redeemer’s property for sale to a Lutheran agency without the congregation’s knowledge just prior to the Synod Assembly that approved the huge deficit and voted to take Redeemer’s property.

There WAS (and perhaps IS) a plan to close churches and sell their property.

Bishop Burkat seems amazed that anyone would resist her clandestine takeover, fraught with deceptive maneuvering, and which defies Lutheran polity. Lutheran congregations own their properties and manage their own assets.

Resistance is a right of every congregation. But SEPA found a way to sidestep congregational rights. Declare them “terminated.” Deny them access to the constitutional benefits of church membership. Treat members as enemies.

What is going on in East Falls is dismissed in Bishop Burkat’s mind as “heart-breaking”—as if she had no leadership influence to prevent or remedy it.

She has become a victim of her own lust for power.

And it is costing all of SEPA.

If Bishop Burkat had cared about East Falls . . .

  • Redeemer would be open for worship.
  • The school Redeemer was about to open as a Christian day school would be operating to the benefit of East Falls and the income of $6000 to $10,000 a month for Redeemer.
  • Redeemer’s mission capabilities, which have continued to grow despite repression, would also be showing fruitful reward. They are already gaining influence.
  • The congregation’s expenses would not be burdening all of SEPA. (The price tag is well over $320,000.)

Instead you have locked properties and alienated members and a community that will always be reminded — The Lutherans? Yes, they are the Church that sues its members.

Even if Bishop Burkat did not trust the loyal Lutherans of East Falls, whom she did not know, she could have done something to keep the problems from escalating. She could have tried to raise funds. She could have worked with the people she leads. She did nothing but turn to the courts (which the Bible expressly discourages—1 Corinthians 6).

The Church does not need leaders to do nothing. We need leaders to solve problems. In this, SEPA leadership has failed. Pride and greed have blinded all sense of mission. Hatefulness and vindictiveness have replaced the messages of love and forgiveness. There is no effort to reconcile. SEPA wants to WIN at any cost. Silence the pastors. Call in the lawyers.

The only people who can fix this, the Lutherans of Southeastern Pennsylvania, are content to let the church attack lay people as their preferred management solution. They foolishly do not envision being in the same situation. Our Ambassador visits reveal that there are dozens of congregations in SEPA that are no larger or wealthier than Redeemer. As Redeemer goes, so will they.

In looking for the WIN, we are all LOSERS.

25 Oct 2012

Low Expectations and the Under-achieving Congregation

Science documents that expectations play a powerful role in laying the groundwork for success.

Good parents know this.

If we expect nothing of our children, they are likely to fail. Expecting failure takes less effort.

If we expect great things, we go to work for our kids. We cheer for them and help to create the conditions for success. We are not surprised when they change the world.

The same science works on adults and in communities. Jesus did his best to build up the people he encountered. He loved them. He showed them he understood them. He challenged them. He gave them the opportunity to fail. He showed them how to pick up the pieces and try again. That’s the training by example that he gave his disciples.

Many church leaders today have given up on the Church. They look through the statistics and see declining attendance, membership, and giving. So sad. Too bad.

A prevailing attitude among today’s church leaders is to accept failure as the norm. Bishop Burkat even recommends doing nothing to help small churches in her book, Transforming Regional Bodies.

The malaise is contagious—and deadly.

Redeemer will never forget Bishop Burkat’s first visit to Redeemer in December 2006. Bishop Burkat likes to claim publicly that she worked hard with our congregation for an extended period of time to no avail. This is what really happened.

It was a study in the power of low expectations, fueled by prejudice.

She walked into our Fellowship Hall. Gloom filled the room.

No bishop had visited Redeemer to talk with our leaders in nearly a decade. In 1997, Bishop Almquist came to break the 18-month term call (contract) he had made with us and one of his staff members just three months earlier. We were bitterly disappointed. (Bishop Burkat likes to claim that Bishop Almquist worked long and hard with us, too, but he was largely absent and he confiscated a sizeable amount of our money for two years.)

We went without a pastor for a year after that and for most of the following decade. Our lay leaders had worked hard to find ministry solutions on our own with mixed success. Still, we were enthusiastic about our prospects, especially since things seemed to be poised for significant change.

The memory of synod’s abandonment was still fresh for our leaders if not for the many new people who had come to Redeemer. We weren’t sure what to expect from the newly elected bishop, whom none of us had met, but we came ready for a fresh start.

It didn’t take long to dash our hopes. Bishop Burkat greeted us with what sounded like a rehearsed string of criticism.

She walked into the equivalent of the living room of our home and complained that the place looked junky. “No visitor will want to return to a place that looks like this.”

We explained. Epiphany, a neighboring church whose building was condemned, had just moved their things out of storage and into our fellowship hall. We were trying to help our neighbors.

We moved on.

Next. “You have no parking lot,” Bishop Burkat noticed. “A church with no parking lot has little chance of survival.” Our Ambassador visits have proved that the size of the parking lot has nothing to do with attendance at worship, but we answered defensively.

We pointed out that parking at Redeemer had never been an issue. The school and library, which share our intersection are closed on weekends and in the evenings when most church activity takes place.

The conversation continued.

Churches have personalities, Bishop Burkat said, with the clear implication that Redeemer’s personality left something to be desired.

What could we say? We turned the attention to our ministry efforts. We talked enthusiastically about the number of East Africans who were showing an interest in our congregation and the multi-cultural environment that had been fostered by one of our part-time pastors. We wanted to continue in this promising direction.

Bishop Burkat said a puzzling thing, “You are not allowed to do outreach.”

Huh? Say that again.

We told the bishop that we were disappointed in SEPA’s treatment of our ministry and very hurt that Bishop Almquist terminated our call agreement for his own convenience. That was a pivotal loss (by design, we think) for lay people to overcome, but we rose to the challenge.

The meeting ended abruptly. The bishop had a serious family emergency and we urged her to go to be with her family. Bishop Burkat promised to schedule a meeting in three to five months to talk about our concerns and try to heal some wounds. (Never happened,)

We sighed with relief when she was gone.  She exuded negativity. We were glad that only our key leaders were at that meeting. Her attitude would have dragged down the entire congregation. It would have undermined all the work we had done.

Our next encounter with Bishop Burkat, eleven months later, was similar. There were more people present. Redeemer had grown significantly during that 11 months of neglect, accepting 49 members! We came to that meeting with our recently completed 20-page ministry plan and with a resolution to call the pastor who had been serving us for about seven months.

Bishop Burkat began this meeting by ranting that Redeemer was “adversarial.” She used that word repeatedly in her opening statement. We still don’t understand her wrath!

The rant was undeserved. Only three of the thirteen people present had met the bishop before — two of us briefly, a year before. The third was the pastor we hoped to call who had been a member of her seminary class. All but two had joined the church within the last 10 years and knew nothing about ancient problems, which synod seemed ever-ready to resurrect.   

The meeting lasted more than two hours and we were able to turn the tone around, ending, we thought, on a very positive note. The bishop promised we could work with her newly appointed mission director, Rev. Pat Davenport. Our people began to sing a hymn together as we rode down the elevator and crossed the parking lot. We were excited and united.

And then NOTHING happened.

After four months of silence, including numerous unreturned phone calls, we all received letters from the Bishop announcing she was closing our church.

We wonder how many other churches have experienced such low expectations from leaders.

If this is how every church is treated, it is no wonder there is so little progress.

Our leaders have no faith in their message.

They don’t seem to care about or even like the people they serve. They don’t model their teachings about peace, repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation, love, justice, humility, or transformation (though they talk about this a great deal).

Pastors and congregations soon begin to avoid the regional body. They may even fear it.

The only transforming that takes place is destructive.

What would happen if we expected success—if church leaders went into congregations and asked one question: “How can we help you serve?”?

What if pastors—and bishops—were held accountable?  

What if we believed in the message we preach?

All things are possible.

20 Oct 2012

Who Is Watching the Priests and Clerics?

The Philadelphia Inquirer has discontinued its religion beat and reassigned its religion reporter to the Philadelphia’s suburbs east of the Delaware River. The Inquirer joins the media trend which leaves many city people wondering if we live in Pennsylvania, New Jersey or Delaware.

There is no area of American life which needs an occasional outside eye more than religion. It’s hard —but more likely—to get the attention of media when things are going smoothly. Otherwise, the media often fail to pay any attention until things are dire. They can be dire for a very long time when no one knows what goes on behind closed church doors. It’s religion—nobody else’s business.

Religion is at the heart of a great deal of world conflict. The lack of empathy within and between religious groups is the root cause of much unrest. It’s not insignificant. It actually changes—and sometimes costs—lives.

Religious leaders exercise authority over people who think they join church to honor and serve God. They consider God to be the ultimate authority in their lives and they are encouraged to believe that. They can then be taken advantage of by their leaders—who revel in separation of church and state.

Religion can be a haven for the unscrupulous. Just fake it ’til you make it and coast unquestioned after ordination.

Religious leaders enjoy autonomy unlike any other arena of American life. Some denominations own all the untaxed land and wealth contributed by their members. Others have internal rules regulating the control of land and wealth. The Bill of Rights guarantees that no laws will hinder their operation —or enforce their rules.

When the courts declare no jurisdiction, the Church itself looks the other way, and the fourth estate finds things too complicated to explain—church members are sitting ducks for all kinds of abuse. Meanwhile, church leaders have proven that they do not mind using the courts (from which they themselves claim immunity) to ensure their autonomy, imperiling any members who dare to challenge their actions.

The resulting lawlessness creates the conditions for a modern Inquisition. The last few years have brought to light the incredible disregard by some religious leaders for both law and doctrine. Predictably, the weakest members of the Church are the easiest victims.

The child sex scandals rocking the Roman Catholic Church took years to come to light. Countless lives are shattered. Settlement expenses are surely contributing to the church/school closings affecting dozens of neighborhoods who trusted the wisdom of their leaders. It may even be a root cause of empty pews on Sunday morning. Who knows!

The situation in the Wild West that is today’s Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is similar. Our denominational leaders provided a church structure they call interdependence. The belief in the priesthood of all believers, they thought, called for cooperation between levels of the church. Lay Lutherans were proud that this empowered them, but it has become a vague concept that is defined and redefined at whim. Interdependence is interpreted by those with a lust for power as anything they want it to be.

Funny thing! Of the three tiers of church life — congregation, regional body, hierarchy — the higher the authority, the more dependent they are on the people. You’d think they’d make friends!

But no, synodical leaders ignore their own governance prohibiting the conveyance of congregational property without the consent of the property owners. They arrogantly assume that they cannot be stopped by the law or by those elected to oversee their work—a good number of whom rely on synodical leadership for their jobs and many more who simply don’t want to imagine misbehavior by their trusted leaders.

Christians are like that. They are blind and fail to see.

This defines Redeemer’s conflict with the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

Redeemer was not the first victim of SEPA greed. We may be the first to say “no,” which is within a congregation’s rights. In the face of a massive recurring six-figure annual deficit, at a time when support was in steady decline, synodical leaders sought to close small churches so that they could keep operating as usual, guaranteeing their own jobs and salaries above their mission.

Instead of working for mission, church leaders engage in a waiting game. Small churches with valuable assets are neglected by design in hopes that they will fold and leave their assets to the hierarchy. But in Lutheran governance a church voting to close can dispose of their assets as they choose. “There’s got to be a way around this,” runs through leaders’ minds. “We need that money—-uhh—for mission. Let’s create a Mission Fund and feed it with the assets of churches we close. We can use it any way we like. No one will notice.”

Church leaders scramble to make new rules concerning “termination” and “involuntary synodical administration” and lock out the local leaders (literally) while they get their ducks in a row. Anything to protect those assets—for themselves.

Lay people are at risk, especially those who are knowledgeable enough to know the polity of their denomination. They have the least power and voice, especially when the denomination fails to provide clergy to serve them.

Courts have determined that they have no jurisdiction to require church leaders to honor their own governing rules. But two judges dissented, citing the law. There is hope!

Last February, The Inquirer looked into the East Falls land grab attempt in 2008 which has been in the courts ever since. They determined that the story might be too complicated to be told in 16 column inches. Most major newspapers have an online presence with no space restrictions, so that’s an outdated excuse.

Meanwhile, another synodical land grab is being attempted in the metropolitan New York area. Here there is an invocation of a brand new unwritten constitutional status — “permanent synodical administration.” More brazen all the time! This follows a midnight raid to seize church property in New Jersey by the Slovak Zion Synod. There will surely be more. Each unchallenged hierarchical action makes the next one that much easier!

They count on people being to timid or uncommitted to care. They also rely on the resources of every congregation fund the law suits against a congregation and the resources it can muster alone.

The courts have given an answer to the question raised in our headline.

Who is watching the priests and clerics?

In America, it’s up to us lowly Christians—the more lowly, the more likely.

That brings us to the Fifth Estate. More later.

19 Oct 2012

Rebuilding the Church: Is It Worth it?

I’ve been following the daily blog of Pastor Jon Swanson, 300 Words a Day. This week he has been retelling the momentous story of the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, told by Nehemiah. The story is gripping — all the more because it cuts to the “Why?” of ministry.

  • Why look upon destruction that is so vast that no one bothered to clean it up much less rebuild it.
  • Why cry for it?
  • Why, when given the opportunity, petition a foreign king for permission to rebuild?
  • Why face the opposition that you know is plotting against you for daring to organize efforts to make things better?
  • Why record the details of the work crews that rebuilt each gate and wall?
  • Why be bothered? No one else seems to care!

Perhaps today’s church needs some of Nehemiah’s passion.

We have become very brazen about the state of our church. Attendance down? Oh, well. It’s time for ministry to die. Is attendance down in 90% of a region’s churches? It’s just a sign of the times.

The quote from church leadership should be alarming:

Congregations that will die within the next ten years should receive the least amount of time and attention. They should receive time that assists them to die with celebration and dignity. Offer these congregations a ‘caretaker’ pastor who would give them quality palliative care until they decide to close their doors.  It is the kind of tough-minded leadership that will be needed at the helm if your organization is to become a Transformational Regional Body.” — Transforming Regional Bodies, by Claire S. Burkat and Roy Oswald, a guidebook used to train leaders of regional bodies

The most troubling part of this quote is the time frame. Ten years! In the Lutheran Church that’s almost two terms for a bishop.

Our regional leaders are encouraged to stand by, implementing a ten-year plan to DO NOTHING (and get paid for it).

A ten-year time frame is enough time to revitalize a ministry, to rebuild its foundation. But the plan advised to leaders of regional bodies is to help only the churches with a proven cache of money. Go where the work seems easiest.

Church leaders need to reread Nehemiah until they can shed tears for the temples within their charge. There can be no dignified celebration of church closings when the closings have been brought about by designed neglect. (Click to Tweet)

This trend continues in the church unquestioned because the blame is placed on the people with the least voice or sway — the lay people. Wisdom of church leaders should not be questioned. Regard for their professional status outweighs regard for lay volunteers.

When we are busy protecting church leadership, we forget to ask the “why” questions. Why are we here in the first place? Why does anyone care?

It is time for this to change.

photo credit: UGArdener via photo pin cc
21 Sep 2012

Counting Our Blessings in East Falls

It’s the first Sunday of the month, the week Redeemer members pass our locked church to worship together in a community theater and gather across the street in a neighborhood bar afterwards for fellowship. The bar even added us to their calendar. (God is doing something new!)

We had many things to celebrate and give thanks for today. Two of our members were awarded good jobs and one is starting a business. We were particularly grateful that one of the retired pastors who worships with us regularly was back with us after a four-month rehabilitation after surgery.

We enjoy having our own worship—singing the hymns we choose, praying our own prayers, enjoying our own fellowship. We also enjoy our Ambassador visits on the other Sundays of the month. But there is nothing like being at home.

We know that the only reason to lock our people out our church was to destroy our community. Lesson to church hierarchies: Find another way!

We were reminded in today’s sermon of an ongoing theme of our Australian pastor — that church is not about what we “get out of it.” It is about God and His relationship with us and our response to His love.

There isn’t a church in East Falls that isn’t challenged. Some of the challenges come from the religious apathy of the community. We can’t blame them to some extent. It’s rather dangerous to be a Christian (or at least a Lutheran) in East Falls.

The greatest challenge is from the Church itself, who values property above community. It is too expensive to operate religious schools. Send the kids elsewhere. Rent the buildings.

The people who invested their time and offerings in Redeemer and St. Bridget’s (and perhaps a few other church communities before them) have had their gifts squandered by outside interests. Fallsers gave to contribute to their community. Their gifts were confiscated or devalued by people who thought they had better uses for our resources but haven’t a clue how to serve East Falls.

If only the courts could hand out consciences as easily as property!

There are reports that the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is negotiating the use of Redeemer Church with community leaders. SEPA spent no time considering the use of Redeemer Church with the people who built the church — the Lutherans of East Falls. They continue their attacks on our members in the courts. That should give the people of East Falls some idea of the character of the people with whom they are negotiating. East Falls beware!

At the heart of SEPA’s problems in East Falls is loss of mission — or to use church-speak — the loss of “missional focus.”

If SEPA cares, they should note: Redeemer is still a worshiping community.

Talk to us! You have a better chance of serving East Falls with the Lutherans of East Falls than without us.

As for the excommunicated members of Redeemer, we will serve the Lord.

02 Sep 2012

Niche Churches — Hmmm!

This is from a blog by the Rev. Larry Peters, a Lutheran pastor from Tennessee. He was commenting on the writings of Terry Mattingly.

If churches want to reach millions of independent-minded young Americans they should learn a thing or two from craft brewers. . . . It’s time, he said, for “craft churches” that reach niche audiences.

This is an astute observation. Small churches have been serving niches for some time.

Our Ambassador visits reveal that most churches, large or small, serve a niche, but probably with little intent!

The largest church we visited (non-Lutheran and twice the attendance of the largest Lutheran church we visited) was a congregation of 25-35-year-olds.

Birds of a feather . . .

Small churches know their niche. Any intention of being all things to all people, though tempting, is out of reach. Even if people wanted that kind of ministry, (and most mission statements sound like they do!), finding leadership is daunting.

Church leaders often view small churches as failures—undesirable places for pastors to serve. Part of this is economics. All churches must rise to the same budget expectations, which in the modern era have priced many communities out of the faith business. Pastors assigned to small churches often view their role as care-taking, never bothering with outreach. Some even use the offensive term “hospice ministry.”

Perhaps it’s time to seriously examine the economics of church.

People will make their church home where they can see their offerings and efforts at work. They will neither participate nor attend a church where they do not feel fully welcome.

We at Redeemer know the difference between being welcome to attend church and being welcome to participate. Our bishop made it clear that we are not welcome to participate in SEPA Synod. She seized our property and pledged to close our church and reopen it under new leadership. She wrote to us that current members could attend this new, improved Lutheran church but former members would not be permitted to participate. She unilaterally denied us vote or voice. When we started visiting churches she sent a letter to pastors warning them!

How’s that for a welcome statement!

Redeemer was welcoming East African immigrants who were moving into our community—not just to use our building, which is the more common outreach approach, but to join their traditions with ours. We saw our unique niche ministry as adding to the mosaic of the greater church.

But SEPA was determined that one population had to die before a new population could be fully welcomed. As Bishop Burkat said, “White Redeemer must be allowed to die, black Redeemer . . . we can put them anywhere.” Control of assets was the objective.

Religion is not supposed to be a spectator sport.

Part of the problem with niche ministries is that few pastors are trained to serve niche populations.

Defining a niche (while recognizing the likelihood that niches will change every decade or so) may not be such a bad idea. It will take decades to recognize and train leaders to actively serve niche ministries and not view them as “hospice” assignments.

Another problem with niche ministries is that the “niches” that are most in need (the ones the Bible talks about), often can’t support them.

The true mission of the church is defeated by cost—at least with today’s budget and funding expectations.

Meanwhile, rejected and criticized by our denomination, Redeemer has created a niche ministry. You are visiting it now. Today, two months into our third year, we are reaching more people every week than the largest church in our denomination’s local region. We are just getting started.

photo credit: Grant MacDonald via photo pin cc
29 Aug 2012