4/7InkzHVUEQeEdU9vpc1tikzEhChrKmPfvXI-FSDBrBQ

politics

A Lesson in Transparency in Church Unfolds in Rome

Behind the Vatican’s Locked Doors  

Is God Working in Secret?

What is going on in Rome right now might be of interest only to our Roman Catholic neighbors. But when one denomination boldly claims to be the one and only true church, they invite the attention of the rest of us neo-Gentiles.

Protestant leaders tend to emulate the Roman Catholics, often forgetting the reasons we separated 500 years ago. Some of the reasons have disappeared. Other have not. It’s probably envy for the attention the media gives to the pope.

Truth be told, Protestants have their own messes to clean up today—lots of them, in fact. We don’t really need to be watching so closely.

Nevertheless, beginning this week, all eyes will be on Rome. The process promises to take us close to Holy Week. Guess how much attention Protestant churches will get from the media this Easter season.

We don’t know how things will turn out. One learned church authority described the process and closed his statement saying, “In the end, it’s God’s choice.”

Really? God needs the help of 115 old men, each with considerable self-interest, to name his new Saul or Peter?

Why is the process so secret? Tradition is not a good enough reason anymore. Tradition has led to horrific abuses. Furthermore, tradition has condoned the abuses and made a habit of victimizing any voice of dissent. Again, Protestants share in these atrocities. For once, they can be glad the media concentrates on the Roman church.

Can we, perhaps, learn and adapt traditions so they make sense?

Secrecy in choosing leaders reveals distrust in any human ability beyond the chosen elite. It leads the Church down the road of management not leadership. Managers tend to preserve what they have as they seek to maintain and expand the same power structure. The privileged will remain privileged. Outsiders will fight for a voice.

Leaders, on the other hand, assess the existing resources and add dreams—their own and those of others. This is what the Church today — Roman and Protestant — needs badly.

Leadership has been with us always. In recent years, sparked by the Renaissance, the Reformation and the rise of Democracy, the concepts of leadership have been studied. Much of this research and analysis emerged during the last century but it continues as the world is redefined by digital communication. Old principles will be applied in new ways.

  • We know now that heredity does not ensure good leadership.
  • We know that occasionally the best leaders come from outside a given structure.
  • We know that genitalia is not a predictor of effective leadership.
  • We know that there is no chosen race that excels in leading.
  • We know that the most effective leaders are often unarmed.
  • We know that input from all leads to better decisions.
  • We know that any voting process is not foolproof.
  • We know that any power, however and once bestowed, needs to be watched.
  • We know that future power might be sitting today in a jail cell.
  • We know that power need not be a life-long mandate. Power can be passed on to successors peacefully and former leaders can return to “civilian” life.
  • And with all this new knowledge about leadership, we know mistakes can still be made and power can be abused.

Yes, we know more than we did some 2000 years ago, when someone had to figure out what to do upon the demise of Christ’s hand-picked favorite — the mercurial and passionate Simon Peter. They got it wrong a few times, terribly wrong for a while, which brings to question the conclusion that this is God’s process.

We have ample experience these days with dictators and despots—some benevolent, some ruthless.

We have learned that secrecy and exclusion is a predictor of problems.

Good leaders operate in open ways, building trust with honesty and accountability.

The Church has been very bad at this.

Protestants fall into the same trap. In our denomination there seems to be a behind closed doors vetting process. You have to play to have a say.

The archaic processes are designed to evoke mystery and keep the sheep at the far end of the fold with a few barking dogs between them and the emerging leaders.

Just look at the customs that are revealed on the evening news.

  • The papal apartment is sealed. Against what?
  • The stoves and chimneys are installed so that smoke can signal the cardinals’ progress. Come on! Even Pope Benedict used Twitter.

The mind games, always part of the process, become tiresome in the media. They would have us believe none of the cardinals aspire to stand on the balcony with the world watching. They are all so engaging as they describe their reluctance. One candidate is out of socks. Another just wants us to know he bought a roundtrip ticket. Coach or first class?

But again. This is all the business of the Roman Catholic church. It doesn’t involve the various branches of Christianity, including the Orthodox who were the first to leave the self-proclaimed one true Church. (Or did the Roman Church leave the Eastern Church?)

Orthodox and Protestant Christians are not involved in choosing the leadership of the one, true Church. Neither are most Roman Catholics. (Click to Tweet)

The difficult thing to understand is why Protestant leaders, excluded from the club, travel to Rome for photo ops with the pope. There is zero benefit to their denominations, which are surely footing the bill.

The reality is this: the papacy and all church leadership face a new age in which hierarchies as we know them will topple.

It could come hard. It could come easily. It’s going to come. Whomever God or the conclave chooses will be managing or leading God’s people into a new religious era.

11 Mar 2013

The Myth of Redeemer’s Resistance

A Bishop Abuses the Respect of Her Office

Bishop Claire Burkat of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (SEPA) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) has frequently criticized Redeemer for “resisting” her leadership. With scant detail, she seeks to create the illusion of a renegade congregation that must be reined in for benefit of the whole Church. Her mission is easily accomplished in a synod where the rank and file is passive.

In her words, she sensed “resistance”—a definite taboo in her leadership style—but definitely allowed within the church’s democratic processes and under the beliefs of our faith.

In another tirade Redeemer was “adversarial.”

Adversarial. Resistant. Not bad words. By definition, nothing for Redeemer to be ashamed of — except by innuendo and the surety within the ELCA that no one will investigate.

Redeemer was placed in an adversarial position by unreasonable and unconscionable behavior of a bishop who uses name-calling to disguise self-interest.

Congregational leaders should stand up for the people they lead (be adversaries) and resist selfish outside agendas.

If congregational leaders are not permitted to represent their congregation’s interests, they serve no purpose. This may be the problem in SEPA and the ELCA. Its governing structure is ineffective.

If you read the three illustrations we recently posted about SEPA’s concept of mutual discernment, you will notice that Redeemer was very cooperative whenever SEPA leadership asked them to do anything that made sense and would further their mission efforts. Redeemer often sacrificed self-interest in its cooperation.

Redeemer resisted when the congregation was asked to do things which would endanger their ministry.

  • Redeemer cooperated with Bishop Almquist’s proposal to call Pastor Matthias for 18 months. Bishop Almquist broke the call agreement three months later.
  • Redeemer cooperated with Bishop Almquist when he declared synodical administration. Redeemer resisted within Lutheran rules but worked with Bishop Almquist and the trustees, bringing the matter to peaceful resolution within a year. Redeemer resisted when he failed to return our money upon the release of synodical administration for an additional year.
  • Redeemer agreed to accept the only pastor Bishop Almquist offered. Redeemer resisted locking in to a term call when the pastor announced his intentions to provide only the barest amount of service. Redeemer supported a term call, which Bishop Almquist refused to consider.
  • Redeemer cooperated when we were approached to help Epiphany when its building was condemned. We worked in good faith for 18 months. Redeemer was not given the opportunity to resist when SEPA began working with Epiphany in secret to close down their ministry, without considering the covenant made with Redeemer.
  • Most of the attention of the covenant for the first year was on settling Epiphany’s pressing problems. As soon as the covenant began to show some promise of benefitting Redeemer—the covenant was broken with all benefits to SEPA. Redeemer did not protest the inequity, but we felt used.
  • Redeemer cooperated for an additional six months, allowing both Epiphany and synod ready and rent-free access to our property. Less than a year later synod tried to lock us out!
  • Redeemer brought our successful outreach ministry to local East African immigrants to the attention of Bishop Burkat. She told us we were not allowed to do outreach ministry and refused to recognize our East African members—some of whom had been members for a decade.
  • Redeemer met with the trustees in good faith and shared our ministry plan with both them and Bishop Burkat, unaware in the beginning that the trustees had lied to us for five months. We learned from a synod staff member that Bishop Burkat never intended to give Redeemer’s ministry consideration.
  • Redeemer followed ELCA and SEPA constitutions, asking to withdraw from the ELCA, which clearly was not serving the congregation. SEPA resisted, refusing to allow Redeemer the 90 days of negotiation called for in the constitution.

Many of the continuing travesties of this sad and horrific chapter in SEPA’s history—that everyone just wishes away—would not have happened had SEPA worked with Redeemer. That’s the subject of another post.

02 Jan 2013

The Religious Vote: Not Worth Going After

 

The religiously unaffiliated are now a force to be reckoned with—by the Church and by the politicians.

 

Politicians accustomed to measuring the religious right or the Roman Catholic vote, etc., before they draft their platforms have found that the most influential segment of voters is the growing group that affiliates with no religion. You know the type. “I’m spiritual but not religious” is their creed.

Add to the religious melting pot the Jewish vote, the growing segment of Islamic voters and religious “others” and you have a new political challenge.

It is far less easy to address topics that approach social consciousness like abortion, immigration and laws based on sexuality when you don’t know the creeds your voters adhere to.

It is probably a myth that voters adhere to church doctrine in the privacy of the voting booth. But now we have statistics to add to the confusion.

Should this worry the American religious?

A lot of mainline churches stopped taking stands on popular issues a long time ago, drafting social statements that are exercises in political correctness. Perhaps this has been the cue to the American religious to not weigh their vote against the teachings of any church.

There is now statistical evidence that Americans are thumbing their noses at any religious affiliation.

Maybe there is a correlation!

10 Dec 2012

Upcoming Workshop on Conflict Transformation

Weathering the Storm or System

Yesterday, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America announced an upcoming workshop for congregations. We first saw this listed as Weathering the Storm, but notice it is now advertised as Weathering the System.

Weathering the System
October 27, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
St. John’s Lutheran Church
505 North York Road, Hatboro, PA 19040

The six-hour workshop on conflict resolution is advertised as conflict transformation.

A buzzword unused is an opportunity squandered.

How do you weather a storm?

Make sure you win! Winning, at any cost, even at the expense of mission, outranks problem-solving in today’s church leadership. As one leading businessman wrote today, “It’s because defeat and power and humiliation and money have replaced ‘doing what works for all of us.'”

Although the names of presenters are not posted, you will learn from the best. The Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Lutheran Church in America, has been involved in years and years of conflict. They know the ropes!

Topics within synod’s expertise include:

  • how to create and define conflict using deceit
  • intimidating the opposition
  • exploiting vulnerable volunteers
  • how to identify which volunteers to eliminate to ensure victory
  • discouraging lay involvement to assure managerial success
  • how to pit clergy against laity to maximize success
  • guidelines for effective use of inflammatory language
  • when to apply the constitutions
  • when to ignore the constitutions
  • how to use Roberts’ Rules of Order
  • how to ignore Roberts’ Rules of Order
  • isolating the opposition from the rest of the Church
  • divide and conquer: tried and true techniques to guarantee divisiveness
  • tips for withholding professional services while appearing to serve
  • demonizing your opposition
  • use of litigation as a management tool
  • ignoring facts that do not serve your purpose
  • how to use partial truths to gain popular support
  • when to lie unabashedly
  • best practices in name-calling and finger-pointing
  • how to camouflage objectives with semantics
  • use of charm and charisma to deflect attention from the issues
  • how to keep knowledgeable people from asking questions
  • when and how to declare your opponents as non-existent
  • the underestimated value and strategic use of prejudice
  • creative use of statistics
  • techniques for silencing opposition
  • maximizing the “gotcha” factor
  • when and how to ignore Gospel imperatives
  • counting coup: the proper way to celebrate victory

The announcement quotes a former participant:

“Conflict and stress are a part of life. Both can be positive. It’s all in how you deal with it.”

Don’t miss the upcoming workshop. Learn how to deal with conflict from the masters!

Update: a subsequent announcement names The Rev. Dr. Jennifer Phelps Ollikainen of Liberty Lutheran as the presenter. Liberty Lutheran is independent of SEPA Synod, so content may actually be helpful!

12 Sep 2012

Social Statements As Ritual

In a previous post, we noted how the Church, when struggling, turns to adjusting a rite or ritual to create an illusion of accomplishment.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has a ritual that exists outside of worship. It is called the Social Statement.

Social Statements, Messages and Resolutions

Social Statements are treatises explaining the official position of the Church on topics of concern to both the Church and secular society. They are designed to facilitate discussion in hopes that congregations address issues on their own but in keeping with the teachings of the Church.

Lutherans value individual belief and diversity, so the Statements, for the considerable work put into them, carry no real weight.

The ELCA has been in existence since 1988. It has issued 11 Social Statements. Topics include: abortion, Church in Society, the death penalty, economic life, education, the environment, genetics, health and healthcare, peace, culture and sexuality.

For situations requiring more expediency, the ELCA Church Council adopts Social Messages. In the past 23 years, they have addressed 12 issues.

Carrying less weight is a third level of statement: Social Policy Resolutions. There are tons of these sitting on the ELCA website.

Drafting Social Statements in the Digital Age

The process of drafting Social Statements began before the full power of the internet was realized. Individuals are named to a commission that creates a draft document. Discussions are held at the regional level with the commission drafting the final document to be voted on by the Churchwide Assembly.

It is now possible to have ongoing debates without scheduling geographic meetings with their limitations.

Discussion could take place regionally or on the denomination’s magazine site. This site is open to all by subscription only, which limits its effect as a forum and evangelical tool. The internet eliminates logistical restraints but the Church creates new ones!  

The documents, even in draft form are available on the web. It would be interesting to know the statistics of how many times these documents are downloaded, shared, tweeted, etc. This could only increase readership and effectiveness and should be easy to do. Comments should not only be allowed, they should be encouraged. Without interaction, they sit on the national church website gathering cyberdust.

The Current Effort

The ELCA is currently developing a statement on Criminal Justice for consideration in 2013. The Church’s view on this topic should be interesting as it has exempted itself from the laws its members are expected to follow. When challenged, it cries “Separation of Church and State” but does not hesitate to use the courts to force its will on congregations as evidenced in the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod and its treatment of the members of Redeemer congregation. On this issue, where the church is a lead player, there has been no room for diversity. Members have been denied voice and vote by decree. Open discussion is discouraged.

The Church addresses issues with minimal impact. There is the illusion of caring and involvement.

Now what? Work done?

02 Aug 2012

Where the Bill of Rights Fails

Freedom to Be Oppressed by Your Religion

America was founded on the principle of Freedom of Religion. Early settlers came to escape state oppression of the emerging sects in Europe. Over the centuries, many faiths have sought refuge on American soil.

The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion.

The legal system lives in fear of stepping on the exercise of religion. In recent court decisions they have gone so far as to determine that religious groups do not have to follow their own rules. That opens a new door. The leaders of religion can themselves become lawless oppressors.

That is the result of a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that determined the case brought by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the ELCA against a member church (Redeemer, East Falls, Philadelphia) could not be heard. Yes, they brought a case against a member church and then argued that the case they brought should not be heard.

The court gave SEPA Synod a victory by default —not based on evidence. They determined that it was up to the denomination to police its own rules. Fat chance.

A strong dissenting opinion concluded that if the law is applied, Redeemer’s arguments deserve a hearing. How are members of faith communities to assume that the laws they agreed to upon joining the community mean nothing?

That creates a very real problem for all the faithful. If constitutions agreed upon by religious groups when they go to the legal trouble of incorporating mean nothing, then faith communities are faced with potential lawlessness. The laity are sitting ducks for potential abuse. Clergy will run.

Faith communities can expect to be victimized by hierarchy. It is happening with greater frequency. The conflicts are usually about the value of real estate — not doctrine. Within the ELCA there are several cases of “hostile” takeovers—raids in the middle of the night or by stealth and deceit. One bishop, anticipating trouble, went so far as to call ahead to the sheriff and police department and warn them to expect a call from church members, but that they were allowed to change the church locks.

It is not the Church’s finest hour. As proven by Redeemer’s experience, Church leadership will not hesitate to use their protected status to tyrannize their members — those with the least power, the laity. You won’t read much about this on the pages of The Lutheran.

“I have the power,” Bishop Burkat was heard to say as she prepared to raid Redeemer. If so, it is a power allowed by courts side-stepping the issues. It is not a power given by the ELCA constitutions/articles of incorporation or by God.

It’s legal because the law exempts the church. Perhaps there is hope.

The law has finally stepped in on the Roman Catholic Church and its handling of crimes within its ranks—but not before a great deal of damage was done to both victims and the Church.

On this Independence Day, it is worth noting that the Bill of Rights does not protect the members of faith communities from the abuses of their own leaders. This can be stopped by the members of the faith community, but experience is proving that the religious don’t care unless they are directly affected. They are free to use other provisions of the Bill of Rights such as Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly. Odds, in the current atmosphere, are against it.

What a waste of the First Amendment.

04 Jul 2012

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