Redeemer is happy on this joyous Palm Sunday to report significant progress in reconciling all differences with the bishop and representatives of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
In a lengthy arbitration process, SEPA leaders agreed to drop all lawsuits against the congregation and its individual members and work together toward peace. It was noted with pride that SEPA is a reconciling denomination.
In a statement read by a SEPA representative, it was further noted that the Bible recognizes that differences will arise within the church, but by following biblical remedies, peace can be attained with love and mutual respect. “How can we expect to reconcile with people of different faiths if we cannot reconcile with our own people?” a SEPA spokesperson asked.
It was announced that the congregation will worship in the sanctuary (that has been locked for three years) beginning this Easter. The service will be presided over by a clergy representative from SEPA’s roster, chosen by the congregation. The service will follow both African and East Falls worship traditions within a traditional Lutheran liturgical structure, reflective of Redeemer’s congregational makeup.
A series of biweekly meetings will be held to include the congregation’s remaining church council, Redeemer members, and synodical representatives. Regular worship and the reopening of the congregation’s day care and after-school programs will be first on the each meeting’s agenda with projected revenues supporting Redeemer’s ministry.
The synod will assign a pastor to visit every Redeemer member to extend an olive branch of peace and reconciliation.
Redeemer will be restored to the list of active congregations with full voice and vote in Synod Assembly with its rightful number of delegates as a multi-racial/cultural church under SEPA’s constitution.
A summer outreach will be conducted focusing on a two-week Vacation Church School, led by members and local college students. The school will feature a major community service project. Redeemer has worked on this concept during its three years of exile from the Lutheran Church.
The congregation will approach the neighboring public school to work on a flex-time religious education offering.
A long-term plan for settling the debts incurred from four years of litigation will be negotiated. A low-interest loan will be sought to pay off the congregation’s high interest loan, thus ending third-party claims against the church and the synod. The congregation’s loan has been in default since January 2010 after SEPA was granted the deed to Redeemer’s property by Commonwealth Courts in a suit which resulted in a split PA Commonwealth Court decision favoring SEPA. Redeemer will repay the loan under 20-year terms.
A first congregational meeting will be held a week after Easter to restore Redeemer’s council and government. Semi-annual meetings will be held with SEPA leadership to monitor progress in reestablishing the congregation.
The congregation’s comprehensive mission plan, presented to SEPA in 2007, will be revised to take into account new realities. The congregation will vote on the revisions at a meeting to be held within six months. A SEPA staff person who recently approached East Falls community members requesting ideas for use of the Redeemer property was pleased with the careful thought put into the plan by Redeemer members.
A pastor skilled in multicultural outreach will be sought with input from Redeemer members. The search process will begin immediately.
A Reconciliation and Atonement service with transfer of the property to Redeemer Lutherans will be scheduled to be held after the details of Redeemer’s government are worked out.
Redeemer and SEPA leaders, in a joint news conference, announced that they were pleased to be working together in mission and to the glory of God. “Forgiveness and compassion are key qualities of the church,” a spokesperson for Redeemer said. “We long to take any and every step possible to reach out to our brothers and sisters in Christ in the spirit of Christian unity.”
A SEPA representative noted that Palm Sunday, the day the people of Jerusalem lauded Jesus as King and begged for salvation, was a fitting time to exercise the teachings of the Church and to begin working together interdependently in the Lutheran tradition.
Happy April Fools Day! (A Church can dream, can’t it!)
And if all of this doesn’t happen today, on April 1, it never will!
“There will be dangers, and we will surely make mistakes.”
Bishop Claire Burkat of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (SEPA, ELCA), wrote these words to rostered leaders a couple of weeks ago.
She is talking about the future. It is also part of SEPA’s past.
Bishop Burkat’s message warned leaders that they don’t quite know what they are doing or where they are going in today’s religious climate. We suspect that has been the case for a while. There have been needless and costly casualties as SEPA leadership reached their newfound epiphany.
We all make mistakes. Church members, clergy, congregations, and yes, even bishops make mistakes.
Our question for the bishop and other SEPA Lutherans is this: When, at last, you’ve identified an action as a “mistake,” what are you going to do about it?
Redeemer and 2×2 are in an excellent position to predict the future.
When leadership mistakes happen within the part of God’s Kingdom called SEPA, the rostered clergy are protected at all cost. The volunteer laity shoulder the blame. We cannot move comfortably into the uncharted future as long as this continues.
By now, it should be dawning on SEPA congregations that the actions they endorsed in East Falls— if not by vote, by neglect — are a huge mistake. And now SEPA is warning that more mistakes are likely.
So far, SEPA congregations have behaved as if they are powerless. The annihilation of one little congregation has been a focal point of Bishop Burkat’s entire term. By setting out to destroy one expendable congregation, she has weakened the whole Church.
The Church must practice four pillars of church community—repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation and atonement. Without these, the church will crumble.
What might have happened if SEPA and Bishop Burkat had practiced the techniques of listening and discernment she references in her latest letter to clergy? What might be happening in East Falls if SEPA actions had been motivated by love — which is the primary message of the Gospel? What might be happening in East Falls if SEPA had worked with Redeemer in the interdependent relationship their constitutions call for?
The Redeemer/SEPA conflict was needless. Once started there were numerous roads toward peace. Redeemer suggested many possibilities in letter after ignored letter. Every decision made by SEPA leadership for the last four years regarding Redeemer has escalated conflict with no end in sight. Faithful laity were treated as enemies from the get go.
We do not have to polish our crystal ball to predict that this is what SEPA congregations can expect if they are the victims of anticipated synodical mistakes.
Your clergy will disappear. Laity will be blamed for all consequences and have no one to speak for them.
Members will be named in personal lawsuits, their lives affected for years after being banished from their church.
Property and assets will be valued while people are thrown away.
Your congregation and its members will be called names, mocked, threatened, strong-armed, and dragged through the courts with every expectation that you submit to bullying.
No stone will be left unturned in pursuit of evidence to justify actions — after the fact.
Your members will be treated as if their faith and dedication are subservient to synod’s wishes made in greedy isolation.
Your denomination will use the full power of the courts in their attack against your members, while taking full advantage of their First Amendment protection of “separation of church and state.”
Maundy Thursday is eight weeks away. The imagery of Maundy Thursday is Christ in humility.
Church leaders like to display their humility ceremonially on this sacred occasion. If this humility is genuine, the doors of Redeemer should be unlocked and our bishop should preside over a service, kneeling to wash the feet of Redeemer members. That would be the start of a new Church that practices what it preaches — repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation and atonement.
2×2 is an experimental site in a fairly new medium, so we are learning along with everyone else. A recent real life lesson is teaching us the difference between “comments” as a way to interact vs actually posting contact information.
2×2 was launched in February of 2011. It is built on a blogging platform, so comments have always been possible. We had not included obvious phone numbers or emails. We thought the comment mechanism was the way interested people would reach us.
Our overall goal is to create helpful dialog on issues which affect small church ministry but are not often discussed. How that happens is up to our readers! While we have always invited comments, “getting comments” has never been a goal as it is among many bloggers.
We have followed analytics on our site since about June and we knew that we were getting many international “hits.” We had no way to measure whether or not they were quality hits or accidental surfing hits.
About a week ago, a reader wrote to us via a comment asking for contact information. We immediately responded by posting a contact name and number in the sidebar. We have been in regular communication since. We have begun to hear from others as well — not on the site — but via email and telephone.
Our emails are proving that we do, indeed, have a national and international following that is beginning to put us in direct contact with ministries we would have never known about years ago.
This morning we had a detailed email from a ministry in Pakistan, thanking us for our web site. The pastor sent us links to their ministry site and asked for our prayers.
Was it coincidence that a 2×2/Redeemer member suggested last week that the 2×2 web site begin to include a prayer list? Probably not.
2×2 is a place for sharing about ministry and we will always be glad to feature ministry news that will benefit the labors of other small Christian communities. We will consider linking to any ministry that sends us information to verify their ministry efforts.
And, of course, we will add your ministry to our soon to be published prayer list.
Lesson to be learned: Comments are nice, but communication is better!
This is a question that is answered differently by clergy than lay people.
Denominations want to measure assets to determine if they can comfortably place a minister there.
Congregations are more interested in ministry results. They look for ideas, passion and action.
Both have a place in the viability equation and both sides should be involved in any viability determination. Money without ideas, and vice versa, is useless.
What is rarely measured is potential and that has a lot to do with the work of the Spirit.
Redeemer has great experience with the folly of measuring viability without allowance for the Spirit.
Redeemer was declared not viable in 1998. Our elderly but spunky members were viable enough to change Bishop Almquist’s mind — even if they failed to prompt him to work with the congregation.
For eight years we were ignored by synod leadership.
Synod, under new management in 2006, decided to play the viability card again. They assumed those old ladies from 1998 were dead, gone or rasping for breath. Redeemer, under synod’s philosophy of allowing congregations to die, should have been ripe for picking.
The old ladies of 1998 were gone. But they hadn’t gone to their eternal reward without laying the foundation for new mission. In the eight years Redeemer was left to die, Redeemer grew, slowly and steadily at first, and quickly in 2006 and 2007. Most members were now under 40. Children were abundant. Redeemer was five times the size it had been in 1998.
Ample evidence of this was presented to SEPA to no avail.
We were debt-free.
We had a 25-year day care program renting our educational building.
We had an endowment fund — that suffered from Synod’s attempts to take our assets in 1998 but was still more than Synod had!
We had ministry initiatives which were reaping good rewards.
We had talented lay leadership and good relationships with several pastors.
We had worked for several months with clergy, real estate experts, an accountant and lawyer to create a detailed plan for new ministry initiatives.
But Bishop Burkat had made a hasty declaration about Redeemer and wasn’t about to let facts get in the way. SEPA’s recurring six-figure deficit budget was motivation enough. Money had to be found. Redeemer, we learned, was to be the first of six congregations targeted to solve the problem.
If the viability measure were scientific, it should have been easy. Swoop in, act like you care, say a prayer, hold a “celebratory” service, grab everything in sight, and post the “for sale” sign. If members resist, sue; that’ll get ’em.
But Synod’s measure of viability seems to be faulty. Money created a conflict of interest.
Six years later, the oppressed victims of Redeemer have an active and viable ministry even without the property and assets that were found inadequate back in 2006. Legal action, personal attacks, even excommunication failed to dampen its potential. The Spirit found a crack. Potential.
Synod– the entire body, not just the leadership — turned their responsibility over to the courts, who, as it ends up, don’t want it. The courts never heard the case Synod brought against the congregation. They decided to let the church work out its own problems, citing separation of church and state.
The ball is back in the court of SEPA member churches.
Synod could be proud of Redeemer. They could boast of Redeemer’s pioneering efforts in multi-cultural ministry, social media ministry, and children’s ministries. They might learn from our ministry initiatives.
If you approve of the actions of your synod, beware that your approval means many of you will face the Redeemer treatment. From our visits it looks like about 10% of SEPA congregations are no stronger than Redeemer. A few more years of unchecked decline will add to that number.
If you do not approve, you are obligated under the constitution to speak up and say so. The secular courts are not going to do your work for you.
That’s about the only decision to come out of four years of legal maneuvering. Doing the right thing is up to you! Spend the next four months thinking about it.
“Ministry in East Falls is not good use of the Lord’s money.”
“A church with no parking lot has no chance of survival.”
“Mission outreach? You’re not allowed to do mission outreach.”
“White Redeemer must be allowed to die. Black Redeemer . . . we can put them anywhere.”
“There are no ministers for you.”
These are quotes from SEPA leadership regarding Redeemer in the last 15 years. Apparently the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is changing its attitudes and platitudes. They have hinted a new ministry is about to begin to the people of East Falls (while they are still pursuing the people who sacrificed for the old ministry in court).
Are they admitting they were wrong all along!? The Lord’s money (provided by the people of East Falls) can be well spent in East Falls?
Are they really planning a new ministry for this neighborhood which they have bullied and abused for nearly two decades? Or . . . is this a pre-election move to satisfy those voting for bishop in 2012 that SEPA’s motives in East Falls were part of a well-planned strategy with God’s Love at its core?
Will SEPA suddenly stop suing East Falls Lutherans and welcome them back into their church? Or will the “new ministry” in East Falls welcome only new and better Christians who have no baggage in life — and therefore little need of a church?
Will this new church in East Falls be the only Lutheran Church that does not own its property and is totally managed by outsiders? Will this new community of Christians be divided from the outset by those “allowed” to serve as leaders and those who, by virtue of being part of Redeemer in the past, will be banned from full participation. This (which has no constitutional foundation in Lutheranism) is precisely what SEPA recommended in court.
Is SEPA a reconciling denomination? Time will tell.
Today’s scheduled “Clean Out” of Redeemer Lutheran Church, announced as a preparation for a new ministry to this neighborhood, did not draw a crowd. We counted three or four adults and a couple of youth. By noon they had mostly carried armfuls of items and placed them in the trunks of their cars. Hmmm. If these items are worth saving, shouldn’t they be saved for the newer and better Lutheran Church planned by the Synod?
We’ve already watched as other things were carried from Redeemer. Ten folding chairs were placed in someone’s hatchback. Four cartons of records went into another car. The neighborhood reports.
The items they were salvaging from the people of Redeemer this morning included boxes and books and kitchen items and such treasures as Christmas stockings. Some hopeful Lutheran children, eyes bright with Christmas excitement, may receive a gift of four-year-old candy courtesy of the people of Redeemer.
Meanwhile Redeemer, “closed” by a constitutionally questionable edict, plans a Whoville Party to celebrate the third year SEPA has locked the neighborhood out of God’s House on Christmas Eve.
What did the Grinch do? He cleaned out Whoville just before Christmas. Yes, Virginia, there is a Grinch!
The year was 1998. A few representatives from SEPA Synod Council were meeting with Redeemer congregation.
They had just made their first attempt to close our church and seize our assets. Working with the congregation council behind the backs of the congregation, they had convinced leaders to resign en masse to create constitutional grounds (where none existed) for SEPA to step in.
On cue, seven council members tossed their resignations (drafted by a synod staff person) onto the table. A synod representative scooped them up and declared “synodical administration.” But three council members refused to be part of the scheme. With the help of two anonymous pastors, they re-established the congregational council — following the constitution — and successfully challenged SEPA’s plot.
SEPA’s interference damaged our church and the network of friendships that characterizes all congregations. The council members who had worked secretly with Synod were disgraced. They left Redeemer with their families. Some had been at Redeemer for decades. We learned that our Synod rarely measures the personal cost of their actions.
There was also damage to our congregation’s reputation. The conflict challenged giving and our ability to attract leadership. Branded.
At this meeting, a synod council member (a pastor from a neighboring church) started to talk to our members about statistics of small churches, patiently explaining that we couldn’t survive.
We pointed out that what congregations in the heart of the city were currently experiencing would become problematic for churches in outer city neighborhoods and suburbs within a decade or so. It was time to find answers.
A decade or more has passed and the churches we visit today on the edges of Philadelphia look remarkably like Redeemer looked in 1998, including the congregation of the pastor who was lecturing us 14 years before. Most congregations are experiencing serious decline, often in double digits.
We are learning through our Ambassador visits, that even suburban churches with fairly healthy worship attendance face financial challenges. Two of the largest congregations we have visited have liquid assets very similar to Redeemer’s and are carrying a similar debt load. A remarkable statistical difference is that Redeemer was growing in membership and attendance while TREND reports show that the larger churches are in decline.
If so many congregations are failing, why are we pointing fingers? Time and resources would be better spent looking for answers.
One thing stands out from our experience. The trustees in 2008 reported to Synod Assembly that we had a vibrant outreach ministry, but it was not run in cooperation with Synod’s Mission Director. In other words, Redeemer was growing without Synod’s help!
There is NO requirement for congregations to run evangelism efforts past the Synod for approval.That goes against Lutheran polity.
The persistent attacks from our denomination have given Redeemer a valuable perspective. We actively seek answers to modern ministry challenges. This IS Lutheran polity.
We recovered from the 1998 damage and were again growing in 2007 when Bishop Burkat, facing serious Synod financial challenges, decided to evict our congregation from our property, effectively excommunicating us. As we approach 2012, without a building or much in the way of money, we continue our ministry and have a glimpse of where churches must go to thrive in a dramatically different world. We continue to grow in ways we did not anticipate as we create a worldwide community, forging invigorating intra- and cross-denominational bonds.
Congregations must be encouraged to find their own answers to ministry challenges. The prescribed way — by every statistical measure — is not working!
In our last post we noted that Redeemer Lutheran Church in East Falls had achieved the goal of expanding multicultural ministry. The national church recognized our success, but the regional church (SEPA Synod) totally disregarded our ministry.
At the last National Assembly, the leaders of our church reported poor progress on meeting this goal nationwide. We think Redeemer’s experience can shine some light on why these goals are not being met.
There are at least three roadblocks:
1. Regional bodies are not comfortable with the goal.
There seems to be no infrastructure for implementing this major change in the denomination. When it comes to multicultural ministry, most churches and leaders are experimenting. Many of the smallest churches are strategically located in neighborhoods with the most potential for multicultural ministry, but they have the least help in achieving this important goal and may very well be on a synod’s endangered list.
Regional bodies have a tendency to cripple congregations with labels. They see congregations in terms of the past. Congregations, led by professional leaders who are familiar with those names, have a hard time ministering beyond low expectations. Regional bodies are unconsciously saying NO to the potential for multicultural outreach by failing to provide leaders for neighborhoods experiencing cultural change. Caretaker pastors will ignore the cultural changes happening all around the congregation as they hold the hands of existing members, waiting for them to die. When regional bodies lose these neighborhood outposts, they lose valuable assets for achieving their goal of multicultural ministry.
What would happen if synods approached neighborhood churches with high expectations and gave them the help they needed to reach them?
Redeemer did not set out with multicultural ministry as our objective. We just welcomed all who came to our door. This was met with resistance from SEPA leadership, who had predetermined that slow death was to be our fate.
The first Tanzanian family who came to Redeemer in 1998 asked for their two infant sons to be baptized. Bishop Almquist had declared synodical administration. We were advised to NOT baptize the children or encourage new membership. (They had NOT declared us closed but that’s what they had in mind!) The family shared only recently that a synod representative had visited them and discouraged them from joining Redeemer, which was only a few blocks from their home. “Why do you want to join a church with no black members?” they were asked. They suggested they join a church with black members several neighborhoods away.
This family joined Redeemer anyway. They were to play an important role in Redeemer’s multicultural future.
2. Pastors are not comfortable in multicultural ministry.
As this family became active, they often expressed the desire to reach out to more of the East African immigrant community. Extended family and friends began joining. One was active in social work near our church and wanted to expand outreach to nearby Hispanic neighborhoods. This ministry direction had been discussed often at council meetings with our pastors, who admitted they were not equipped to lead this type of ministry. We asked them to help us find extra help. The report was always the same. “There is no one.” Redeemer wanted to move in a direction professional leadership was unable or unwilling to take us.
Within weeks of our last pastor’s resignation, lay members had identified two qualified Lutheran pastors with roots in East African culture who were willing to visit and invite. Within a few months, Redeemer had 49 new members. During this time, SEPA leadership totally ignored us. They had no interest in helping a church they perceived as dying. When we sent a resolution to Bishop Burkat to call one of the pastors who had been working with us for seven months, she declared Redeemer closed.
3. Congregations are not comfortable with multicultural ministry.
Congregations naturally will wonder what will become of their culture if you open the door to other cultures. Redeemer faced this challenge, too.
First, we made sure that veteran members were not neglected and were active in welcoming. The church service became a bit longer with the incorporation of other languages and music, but the old membership did not have to forsake cherished traditions. Strangers were not valued more than they. God’s love grows community; it does not neglect one community to lavish attention and resources on another.
In light of these three roadblocks, the ELCA has set a goal which few people share except in theory. Here is advice from our experience on how to detour these roadblocks.
Invite.
Being invitational must be taught not just preached. Pastors often say this is the congregation’s job, but in today’s climate it must start with the pastor. The pastor must model this for the congregation, especially if a congregation has been suffering. Members will be of low morale and unable to invite. Pastors should visit, talk enthusiastically about their visits, encourage members to come along, and make sure there are quality offerings for members to promote with enthusiasm. This will rebuild invitational confidence.
Don’t cut the roots.
Popular advice from church hierarchy touts allowing churches to die so that Christian community can be “resurrected.” This is a distortion of the Resurrection message. The Bible does not advocate evicting the faithful to invite new members. As cheery as this may sound, it is cruel in practice. Time will tell if these theories have longevity or if their cited successes are flashes in the pan.
We suspect the Church will not grow if you cut the roots. If veteran members are ignored, criticized, and evicted, the neighborhood will notice. Sensitive new members will ask themselves if one day this will be their fate. Make sure that old members are part of the process of welcoming new members. Change may be desirable but keep some things the same. New members will know that they are influencing a new chapter in a long tradition.
Ministry is not multicultural if cultures never mix.
Redeemer began by offering a separate service for East Africans, but this lasted only a few months. Both “old” Redeemer and “new” Redeemer wanted to be in communion. Some congregations never move beyond this and become two congregations sharing the same building while calling it multicultural.
We faced the challenge of merging communities with FOOD.
Many churches have coffee hour. It was our observation that coffee hour does not create true fellowship. People grab their styrofoam cup and find a corner to talk to people they already know.
We began serving soup. One pasta pot of soup brought in from home will feed a small church fellowship. Easy to serve; easy to clean up. Soup encourages people to sit down together. Soup is multicultural. “Old” Redeemer tasted “banana” soup, a Tanzanian staple. A Puerto Rican vicar introduced us to sancocho beef stew — “not spicy, just tasty.” If conversation stalled, we talked about the soup, asking who made the soup and what was in the soup. Stories followed about how mother made the soup, how spices were chosen . . . and suddenly you have a proud congregation sharing traditions.
When the arts are explored, minds open.
We wanted the message that our congregation was welcoming to all cultures to be clear. It’s hard to change the stained glass windows, but we featured art and poetry from different cultures on our bulletins. We occasionally practiced the Taize traditions with icons and chants. Liturgical dance became part of our tradition. Drums were played by members sitting in the pew, but the church organ still whined away. Some of the art/music featured was traditional. We did not replace what was dear to people. We added to it.
Use the gift of language.
Foreign languages make Americans nervous. Our new members graciously recognized this and switched to English when others were present. It was a considerate, unsolicited gesture that helped create community.
In worship we alternated languages between verses in singing hymns. We said the Lord’s prayer in Swahili and English until Swahili-speaking members objected, saying God needs to hear our prayers in only one language. English-speaking Redeemer objected, saying “But we need to hear it in Swahili.” We didn’t debate; we alternated.
Soon, English-speaking Redeemer began adopting Swahili phrases in conversation.
Which brings us to our final point for today.
Be flexible.
In one way of thinking all churches are multicultural. Concentrating on the multicultural in ministry is forging new ground. Develop a welcoming atmosphere and follow your instincts.
If you’d like a team from Redeemer to make a presentation on our multicultural experience, please leave a comment and we will get back to you.
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:
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