At August’s (2011) national ELCA Church Assembly, some memorials were given special attention by the delegates. Three were issues Redeemer had already addressed!
1. Expanding Multicultural Ministry
The Assembly addressed concern that the ELCA has not yet reached the goal of 10 percent members who are people of color or primary language other than English.
Two thirds of Redeemer members were immigrants from East Africa. Members and regular attendees and supporters hail from six continents. SEPA Synods response to our congregational mission work was first to try to stop us. When we told Bishop Claire Burkat of our plans to reach out to friends and extended family of current Redeemer members of African descent (2006), she responded, “You are not allowed to do that.” A year later, when our outreach resulted in dozens of new members, Bishop Burkat attempted to divide our church racially by suggesting black members go to another church. When that proved offensive to the entire congregation they attempted to force us into closure regardless of our membership and vitality. They sued our congregation. Although some of this behavior appears to be racist, their law suits against the congregation are more equitable. They evicted all of us — black and white — from our building. They chose both a white member and a black member to sue personally. In fact, the African member they chose to sue was served with the court papers on the same day he received his permanent residency papers. Welcome to America!
2. Acknowledge the International Year for People of African Descent
The Assembly asked the presiding bishop to issue a statement acknowledging this special designation. The stated purpose is to encourage congregations to affirm the gifts of people of African descent . . . and to examine factors that keep people of color and/or whose primary language is other than English from experiencing the fullness of leadership and inclusion in the ELCA.
Redeemer encouraged full participation of our growing East African community. Our worship services reflect their culture. Both English and Swahili-speaking members enjoy singing hymns in different languages. Prayers were often offered by a member whose first language was French. Worship and Bible study leadership was shared and when “black” membership outnumbered “white” membership, every effort was made to assure appropriate representation on our congregation council.
The National Church was interested in our ministry and asked us to provide a report — which we did. (Report on Kiswahili Ministry) But on the local level, we received no recognition or encouragement. SEPA Synod’s eyes were on the prize, and the prize was our property/assets.
This brings us to the third specially considered memorial by the National Assembly.
3. Bullying and Harrassment
The Assembly approved a resolution addressing bullying, harassment and related violence and urged Congregational and Synodical Mission to collaborate in addressing and preventing bullying and harassment.
Redeemer has been the victim of synodical bullying for years, escalating to litigation in 2008 and seizure of our property in 2009. As is often the case in bullying, onlookers — our sister congregations and the national church — have done very little to stop this. No reason to say more here. See our post:
As Redeemer Ambassadors began our second year of church visits in August, we began to feel more comfortable in our visitation. Perhaps that’s because we are beginning to discover connectivity — sometimes spanning decades, sometimes a century or more.
Our first visit rekindled an old working friendship which had been dormant for decades. In November we visited St. Mark, Conshohocken. The grandfather/great grandfather of two of our Ambassadors was one of the founding pastors of that congregation and visiting the church we had heard about so often from our ancestors was very meaningful. We also discovered that some of the Epiphany members who once shared our building were now worshiping there.
Almost every week, we find something in common with the people we visit. At St. John, Folcroft, one of our ambassadors mentioned her college and a St. John member responded, telling us about her college. We soon learned that the woman had been college friends with one of our ambassadors who was not present and had sung in the college choir with his wife.
At Grace, Mantua, we learned that the pastor and his wife shared mutual good friends with one of the Ambassadors. Similarly, we learned that the pastor of liberti presbyterian shared mutual friends. We had heard stories about one another for years but had never met!
This morning, we visited Trinity, Fort Washington, where one of our former members attends. We were pleased to talk with her many friends. Our former member and her family had been among the earliest and strongest Redeemer supporters. We also discovered that their new pastor was from a church near the childhood church of one of our ambassadors and they knew some of the same people. His home church was that of one of our ambassador’s earliest relatives to come to America hundreds of years ago.
As we share stories of our other visits, we learn of their connections with the people we are currently visiting. “That’s where I was married.” “That’s the church my husband and I visited when we were trying to decide on a church.”
Redeemer is part of the precious interconnectivity of Lutherans and Christians everywhere. Locking our doors won’t take that away!
We recently came across the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod’s statistical reports as presented to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America — the national church — on the ELCA web site. The report was dated August 17, 2010. We were surprised to see Redeemer listed at all, since elsewhere on the internet SEPA Synod reports our congregation as closed as of June 10, 2010. Redeemer seems to be open when Synod wants to count us and closed when they want us to be closed.
Where did these statistics come from?
The statistics in this report begin in 2004 when we are listed as having 28 members. Redeemer was listed in the same sort of report in 2005 as the only congregation in the SMALL category that was GROWING. Now Redeemer is categorized in the same year as DECLINING! The most recent report rewrites history and shows Redeemer having only THIRTEEN members in 2005 and every year thereafter, including 2010. We have been locked out of our church since September 2009.
UPDATE : In February 2012, SEPA Secretary Rev. Ray Miller and Redeemer “trustee” testified in court that Synod records had Redeemer’s membership at 26 or 28 (ignoring the list of some 70 names we had provided to them). Yet the report issued to SEPA Synod Assembly stated 13. Synod’s lawyer went on in the same proceeding to attempt to prove that Redeemer acted without authorization because the congregational vote of 17 did not constitute a two thirds quorum. It is now clear that SEPA was lying to its member churches to solicit the vote they craved.
Redeemer has very few members. Honest!
For the record, REDEEMER was a growing congregation with slow but steady growth throughout most of this time period. Part of this growth was among East African immigrants. We experienced a significant growth spurt in 2006-2007 when we began a concentrated outreach to the friends and extended families of members who had been part of Redeemer for as many as 10 years.
This favorite number, 13, keeps cropping up. It was the statistic included in the Trustees Report to Synod Assembly which was first read to the entire assembly in 2008 (along with other inaccurate information) without ever having been shared with Redeemer. We asked in writing for Synod Leadership to correct this report, but it was dragged out again before the entire Assembly in 2009. Redeemer was denied voice or vote at this Assembly.
FACT: Our church council met with Bishop Claire Burkat on November 1, 2007, and presented our membership list along with a detailed ministry plan and a resolution to call a pastor who had agreed to our payment terms and was willing to commit to five years of service. Our membership list had been carefully compiled for this report and was part of a 16-page ministry plan (see page 11). The congregation had worked on this plan months. It included the names of approximately 75 members (full members, associate members and children). We accepted a few more into membership after that meeting. We had many more who had expressed interest in joining our ministry.
The list we presented to the bishop was a conservative count. Had we included a few “drifters” (young people of college age who hadn’t attended in a year or so, for example) we could have claimed another dozen members, but we wanted to be accurate in representing our changing congregation. We had nothing to be ashamed of . . . we were growing quickly!
At this meeting Bishop Burkat reviewed our membership list and commented that many of the names “looked African.” She then added, “White Redeemer must be allowed to die. Black Redeemer . . . .we can put them anywhere.”
In about 2007 or early 2008, the synod demanded a monitored congregational vote on a resolution we had presented to the bishop. We complied with their request and a Synod Council representative attended the meeting, reporting 14 present for the vote. Synod challenged the quorum, so they believed at that time that Redeemer had 42 voting members and even more non-voting members. Redeemer has few members when Synod wants us to have few members and many members when Synod wants us to have many members.
Who came up with these statistics? We had no pastor during much of this time, so we know the forms were not filled out by anyone at Redeemer. The secretary of Synod, Rev. Ray Miller, also served as a trustee for Redeemer. Does he have the answer to this question? Were these statistics presented to the court to justify their takeover? Since Synod has defined “two” Redeemers, dividing our church along racial lines, are the 13 members they are counting our white members?
All churches should check the accuracy of these documents in reference to their congregations. Otherwise these statistics could be used against you some day. Here’s a link:
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and its synods, including the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (SEPA), have bullying on their minds.
At the May 2011 SEPA Synod Assembly, our synod issued a statement condemning bullying.
Easy to say. Not so easy to live.
What would SEPA see if it looked closely in a mirror?
Bullying has been part of SEPA’s leadership style for some time. It has been an active part of its relationship with one of its member churches for more than a decade. Redeemer Lutheran Church is not likely to have been the only bullied church. We may be the congregation to offer the most resistance. Bullies count on making the road to resistance as rocky and unpleasant as possible. Conflict is not what most people are looking for when getting dressed for church.
You may be tired of hearing about Redeemer. Bullies count on that too. Lutheran congregations need to listen.
What is happening will affect more than just Redeemer. It is a shift in how the church interprets their constitutions, which were not written to support hierarchy but interdependence. Congregations, in the Lutheran tradition, are supposed to own and control their own property and resources. By challenging one small congregation after another — hoping for no resistance — the synod is creating precedent. Their pattern of behavior becomes more entrenched with each unchallenged church closure. Soon, rank and file Lutherans forget that this is not the way Synods are supposed to interact with congregations.
They are attempting to create hierarchical rights similar to that of Roman Catholic structure. The sense that the Synod manages congregations rather than serves them will have far-reaching influence for a very long time.
When other congregations are asked to vote about a sister congregation’s property (something the Articles of Incorporation forbid), they may assume that Synod worked hard with congregation before encouraging closure. Redeemer can tell you this was not the case.
Redeemer, East Falls, Philadelphia, can predict this with some authority. Redeemer sent a resolution to Bishop Burkat, following the congregation’s unanimous decision to leave the ELCA. Bishop Burkat did not respond herself. Synod’s attorney sent a fax, informing us we could not withdraw because we are officially terminated. Redeemer had received no such notice of termination, nor can we find any constitutional provision allowing the bishop or an attorney to unilaterally declare a congregation closed. The result is an ongoing bullying campaign.
Why does the Church want to make it difficult for unhappy people to leave?
The answer is greed. They don’t care if the people leave (Redeemer members were physically locked out!). They don’t want the value of the property and endowments to go with them. They would rather see churches closed and, in many cases, sold than work to resolve differences and develop ministry.
Closing churches is an economic strategy not a mission strategy. Redeemer has been through this twice. Both attempts to seize Redeemer’s property were made during Synod budget crises. While there is considerable hype among church leaders about “allowing churches to die to allow for resurrection,” this talk does little more than veil less noble motives. Death of congregations is not a mission strategy. Mission strategies are about helping (especially the dying) — not about evicting, devaluing, and replacing the faithful.
Make no mistake, the way churches are being closed in SEPA Synod is about power, fueled by greed. Changes in the ELCA constitution will surely further fuel their arsenal.
The Greed motive is easily understood. SEPA operated with a significant deficit budget for years, relying on closing churches to keep the lights on. To the credit of the 2011 Synod Assembly, a balanced budget was passed. Had this step come earlier some neighborhoods might still have their churches. (Redeemer may have influenced this change for the better.)
The Power motive has been evident in the Redeemer situation from the start of the conflict, which began shortly after Redeemer received a $300,000 endowment. If there were any real differences between Redeemer and SEPA—and none were ever discussed with our congregation—there were peaceful resolutions available. There still are. Redeemer leaders proposed several — all aimed at building Christian community the Lutheran way. We were ignored. Instead we have become victims of vicious bullying.
From Wickipedia:
Characteristics of bullies and bully accomplices
Research indicates that adults who bully have personalities that are authoritarian, combined with a strong need to control or dominate. It has also been suggested that a prejudicial view of subordinates can be a risk factor.
Prejudice against Redeemer has run rampant. One group of retired pastors wrote referring to problems in the 1960s. None of us at Redeemer knows what they are referring to! Bishop Burkat has referred to two bishops working with Redeemer. The truth is both bishops were working to acquire Redeemer’s assets. Eight years had passed with no interaction since Bishop Almquist returned the money his administration took from our bank account ($90,000). During that time Redeemer had grown significantly. Bishop Burkat made no attempt to work with Redeemer. We first heard rumors that Redeemer was targeted for closure in June 2006, a month after her election.
Nevertheless, Bishop Burkat opened her meeting with Redeemer leaders (November 1, 2007} with something of a tirade. She called the congregation “adversarial” and used the word repeatedly, hammering the eleven members of the congregation sitting before her, most of whom had never met her before. As the conflict escalated we have been called other names. The name-calling serves its purpose. It makes it acceptable to abuse our members.
Bullying Tactics
Redeemer has experienced the following common traits of bullying:
Public ridicule. (Synod Assembly 2009 as prime example)
Name-calling. (adversarial, renegade, criminal, the list is long)
Imbalance of power. (stripping our rights to speak at Assembly, controlling the appeal process)
Deceitful behaviors. (trustees who introduce themselves as “fact finders”, meetings called for a falsely stated purpose)
Wide circulation of false information. (even after we asked for correction)
Intimidation. (bringing a lawyer and locksmith to meeting, suing volunteers)
Isolation. (A synod council member turned away our member who approached him. While other multi-lingual and multi-racial congregations were allotted additional representatives at Assembly, Redeemer was denied even one! SEPA’s failure to work with Redeemer to provide pastoral care left us without a pastor as liaison, making us an easy target.)
Bullying often relies on passive bystanders. SEPA has an abundant supply.
Again from Wikipedia:
Characteristics of typical bystanders
Often bullying takes place in the presence of a large group of relatively uninvolved bystanders. In many cases, it is the bully’s ability to create the illusion that he or she has the support of the majority present, that instills the fear of ‘speaking out’ in protestation of the bullying activities being observed by the group. Unless the ‘bully mentality’ is effectively challenged in any given group in its earlier stages, often the ‘bully mentality’ becomes an accepted norm within the group. In such groups where the ‘bully mentality’ has been allowed to become a dominant factor in the group environment, a steady stream of injustices and abuses often becomes a regular and predictable group experience. Such a toxic environment often remains as the status-quo of the group for an extended period of time, until somehow the bullying-cycle should eventually come to an end. Bystanders to bullying activities are often unable to recognize the true cost that silence regarding the bullying activities has to both the individual and to the group. A certain inability to fully empathize is also usually present in the typical bystander, but to a lesser degree than in the bully. The reversal of a ‘bully mentality’ within a group is usually an effort which requires much time, energy, careful planning, coordination with others, and usually the undertaking of a certain ‘risk’.
It is the general unwillingness of bystanders to expend these types of energies and to undertake these types of risks that bullies often rely upon in order to maintain their monopolies of power. Until or unless at least one individual who has at least some abilities to work with others, opts to expend whatever energies may be needed to reverse the ‘bully mentality’ of the group, the ‘bully mentality’ is often perpetuated within a group for months, years or even decades.
This is precisely what Redeemer has experienced within SEPA.
Let us pray for the whole people of God . . .
Passing the Buck to God and/or the Courts (somebody else . . . anybody!)
This year, Redeemer invested many Sunday mornings visiting other congregations within the synod. Occasionally, they ask about our situation. Typically, they say, “We will pray for you.” Unfortunately, prayer without action is not likely to resolve this conflict. The offer of prayer has become a meaningless mantra to hide behind.
SEPA bystanders are relying on secular courts to sort out their problems. (Ironically, they are relying on First Amendment rights [separation of church/state] while denying the members of Redeemer other rights listed in the same Amendment!) So far there have been many court rulings, all made without hearing the case. The latest was a split decision. The majority took the stance that courts do not have jurisdiction in church disputes. The minority opinion agreed with Redeemer’s position—that if you apply the law to the property issues, Synod is out of line. Redeemer lost the decision, but the split decision should indicate to the Church that Redeemer’s position has merit. Perhaps, the Church should take more time to carefully examine issues that may one day affect them.
Other congregations feel threatened. They have told us so! We see it for ourselves in our visits. Many are no stronger statistically than Redeemer. Several are weaker! They are probably correct that addressing our situation will make them a future target. (Synod stated in court that Redeemer was the first of six churches they planned to close this way!)
This conflict has pointed out many flaws in ELCA governance.
Synod Assembly, which is constitutionally given the responsibility for resolving dispute, allowed one side of the dispute to control the venue and alloted practically no time to consider an issue which the courts are taking years to sort out. In fact, in their rush to judgment, they failed to vote on most of the issues Redeemer brought before them, concentrating on the bishop’s true interest—our property — something Redeemer and two superior court judges have questioned constitutionally.
Synod Council announces an executive session when Redeemer comes up so no one knows what our elected representatives are doing. Their contact information has been removed from the synod web site. They have the power and responsibility to speak for congregations and check the power of the bishop but are isolating themselves from the people they serve.
Bishop Hanson, early on, said he had no power to help—proving Redeemer’s argument that the Lutheran church is not hierarchical. Synod bishops don’t have to follow presiding bishops and congregation councils constitutionally answer to their congregations, not the bishop. We are, as the dissenting judges pointed out, interdependent not hierarchical. Lutherans should want this historic relationship to continue.
Clergy seem, for the most part to be afraid to speak out. In four years, the only answers to Redeemer’s communications have been from retired pastors (split 50/50). NO active SEPA clergy has ventured a response.
Congregations typically say “We don’t know how to help.”
SEPA clergy and congregations join the Pharisee and Levite in passing by.
If you liken our situation to the story of the Good Samaritan, it is clear that SEPA has joined the Pharisee and Levite in passing by the victim, waiting for someone else to help.
And then there are the effects on Redeemer. The Church has shown no concern for our people.
Redeemer was probably the largest Protestant church in East Falls at the time of Synod’s interference. It was growing steadily in an innovative direction. Its members were devastated and felt abandoned by the church. Those with young children understandably looked for a place for their children during what is now a four-year struggle. They remain in touch. Families were divided. Faith was shaken. Some found a faith healer to follow with disastrous and nearly deadly results, further damaging faith.
Synod strategy (intimidation tactic) was to personally sue two lay members of the congregation who thereby had no choice but to defend against the legal charges. If you think this isa one-time tactic, keep in mind that Bishop Burkat boasted at the 2010 Synod Assembly that the Synod’s attorney had met with the legal counsels of all synods in Chicago to discuss their strategy in this case. While clergy who served us and members not individually targeted can walk away, these volunteers are in the conflict for the long haul, like it or not. (Congregation council members, beware! Write indemnification clauses into your constitutions and insure your council members now!)
Redeemer still meets and worships weekly and has continued some exciting initiatives.
The church building is locked. The promises made in court of reopening have not been kept. SEPA Lutherans remain silent.
Whether SEPA and its members do something about this conflict or do nothing about this conflict, they are defining who we are as a people of God.
We share this because we fear that many more churches will be treated as Redeemer has been treated. The proposals before the national church are a step in this horrific direction.
Join Bishop Ruby Kinisa as she visits small churches "under cover" to learn what people would never share if they knew they were talking to their bishop.
Undercover Bishop will always be available in PDF form on 2x2virtualchurch.com for FREE.
Print or Kindle copies are available on Amazon.com.
For bulk copies, please contact 2x2: creation@dca.net.
Contact Info
You can reach
Judy Gotwald,
the moderator of 2x2,
at
creation@dca.net
or 215 605 8774
Redeemer’s Prayer
We were all once strangers, the weakest, the outcasts, until someone came to our defense, included us, empowered us, reconciled us (1 Cor. 2; Eph. 2).
2×2 Sections
Where in the World is 2×2?
On Isaiah 30:15b
Be calm. Wait. Wait. Commit your cause to God. He will make it succeed. Look for Him a little at a time. Wait. Wait. But since this waiting seems long to the flesh and appears like death, the flesh always wavers. But keep faith. Patience will overcome wickedness.
—Martin Luther
