4/7InkzHVUEQeEdU9vpc1tikzEhChrKmPfvXI-FSDBrBQ

SEPA Synod Assembly

Seeking Transparency in Church Leadership

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

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

We will take less time preparing for this choice.

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

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

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

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

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

In other words, they care.

That’s a good thing—a treasure!

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 Apr 2012

Redeemer Celebrates Third Easter Locked Out of Church

Redeemer members gathered for a third Easter in front of the locked doors of Redeemer Lutheran Church in East Falls.No stone was rolled away at Redeemer this year. Maybe next year!

Nevertheless, Redeemer members gathered in front of the church, read the Easter Story, and prayed before heading to a member’s home for Easter fellowship. We had three new attendees this year, which has been steady growth since the lock out.

Please keep in mind that Redeemer members still live in fear of SEPA leadership. Not all will agree to be in a photograph—very sad commentary on the state of ministry in SEPA Synod of the ELCA.

(Our sign, which Bishop Burkat couldn’t wait to have torn down and destroyed as she pretends to honor the memory of Redeemer, will continue to live on as a witness to our ministry through the magic of Photoshop!)

We had a wonderful Easter — no thanks to the church!

Christ is risen indeed!

09 Apr 2012

Redeemer’s Good Friday Litany of Loss

Loss within the church is a theme this week.

Kenneth J. McFayden lists ten losses to the church in an article posted on the Alban Institute Roundtable.

On this Good Friday, as the members of Redeemer approach a third Easter locked out of their house of worship by SEPA Synod, we examine McFayden’s list.

  1. Loss of Members: Redeemer was growing. 52 members had joined within the 18 months prior to SEPA’s interference.
  2. Loss of Centrality: Redeemer was an integral part of our members’ lives. Our membership had quickly assimilated to its changing demography—not always possible, but accomplished seamlessly at Redeemer—a tribute to good leadership.
  3. Loss of Pastors: Redeemer had difficulty getting the attention of SEPA in calling a pastor. Redeemer believes this was intentional neglect, a way of purposely creating conditions to allow synodical interference. Nevertheless, Redeemer had many good relationships with pastors who supplied our pulpit regularly and long term. We had asked to call a rostered Lutheran pastor and had reached agreement on terms. Bishop Burkat ignored the congregation’s request.
  4. Loss of Traditions: Redeemer never lost its traditions, even when accepting new members. We embraced many new traditions but never asked any existing members to sacrifice what was important to their faith—again, a tribute to good leadership.
  5. Loss of Structural Support: This was a challenge for Redeemer made all the more difficult by SEPA. Bishop Almquist’s administration encouraged Redeemer leaders to resign and refused to give attention to the congregation’s wishes to call a pastor. Bishop Burkat worked with Epiphany, a congregation in covenant with Redeemer, to break its covenant and close, thereby removing pastoral services from both congregations and forcing Redeemer to restructure its council with ten days notice. Eventually, Bishop Burkat simply declared Redeemer’s council to not exist — by letter, not by any process of mutual discernment.
  6. Loss of Status in the Community: Redeemer always had the respect of the community and was a leading force in interdenominational initiatives. This was made difficult by SEPA locking the building for three years to both members and the many community groups who enjoyed easy access to our facilities. Now SEPA is working in our community supposedly toward opening a new church at Redeemer — one that would exclude Redeemer members from full participation.
  7. Loss of Stability: Redeemer had worked very hard on creating a plan to assure a stable future. We were working with many new members and it takes time to develop giving and stewardship among the newly churched, but we had a solid stewardship outreach in place as well as plans for supporting our ministry with our school and other outreach projects. We’d stand our ministry plan next to any  SEPA congregation’s. Our plans were ignored.
  8. Loss of Confidence: Redeemer remains confident even under intimidating circumstances.
  9. Loss of Energy for Ministry: Never a problem at Redeemer! How many other SEPA congregations would still be functioning after five years of multiple and personal lawsuits?
  10. Loss of Identity: We know who we are? Do the churches that voted to take our property know us? Did Bishop Burkat take the time to know us? (The answer is NO!)

Redeemer “lost” nothing. We had much taken from us. There is a difference.

That’s why no service was ever held in East Falls to “celebrate our ministry” and “mourn the loss” of this congregation.

The loss is among SEPA leadership. It’s a loss of integrity and conscience.

The impact of our loss will be felt across the denomination as time moves forward and SEPA leadership now has a mandate to exercise powers not given them in their constitutions.

The losses imposed on us cloud our vision of the wondrous cross. We are left this Good Friday repeating the words of Psalm 22.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? …
Why are you so far from saving me,
But you, LORD, do not be far from me.
You are my strength; come quickly to help me.
Deliver me from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.
I will declare your name to my people;
in the assembly I will praise you.
You who fear the LORD, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.

Usually, the despair of Good Friday is quickly replaced with the joy of Easter. Redeemer will remain locked out of God’s House by SEPA Synod.

06 Apr 2012

When a Church Makes Mistakes

“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.

IMAGE SOURCE PAGE: http://laughing-listening-learning.blogspot.com/2011_03_01_archive.html
10 Feb 2012

SEPA Lutherans Should Advocate for a Sunshine Law

Take some time to read SEPA Synod Council minutes.

http://www.ministrylink.org/synod-council/ (bottom of the page)

Recent minutes of Synod Council meetings — gatherings of SEPA congregations’ elected representatives — are lean, riddled with executive sessions and confidential discussions with vague summaries such as — synod is entering a time when “it would be doing things differently but with less.”

This is the only information reported from what appears to have been a lengthy discussion on Synod finances. The minutes announce the beginning of this discussion, stating only that it was “open and confidential” — a strange term. Why are SEPA financial discussions confidential? Congregations are expected to pay the freight for any financial challenges and will be directly affected by any new way of doing things. Not only do they have a right to know about things their elected representatives are deciding but they surely have insight into any debate on how THEIR resources are being used. Why secrecy? If there are challenges, let’s face them together head on!

Secrecy, coupled with SEPA history, can leave congregations guessing that the private discussions might be about individual congregational “viability” and which congregations might be ripe for the picking. If past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, there is reason for concern. Such conjecture may be unfounded, but unless we know more, it is responsible to wonder.

There is more troubling obscurity. In years past, the elected representatives of the church (Synod Council) had contact information listed online. Now there is a list of names, home congregations and term expiration year, making it difficult for congregations to turn to their elected representatives — especially lay representatives which outnumber clergy. Clergy contact information is included in the published roster. While inconvenient, it can be looked up, one by one. Lay representatives pose more of a challenge. If lay representatives are not willing to share their contact information, they should decline to serve. If privacy is a concern, a dedicated email address could be supplied by synod, which can be automatically forwarded to a private email. There should be a way to contact the people who represent the congregations.

If the dates and locations of Synod Council meetings are listed, they are difficult to find.

SEPA Synod Council is acting as if they exist in a vacuum, forming and endorsing church policy hand in hand with the bishop’s office but with neither relating to the people they represent. It is easy for representatives to form a bias for the people they interact with when they have no contact with the people they all serve.

SEPA congregations should go to their next Synod Assembly in May 2012 and demand more transparency from their leaders. If congregations are asked to vote for a budget which relies on one, two, or three of them closing to pay for the budget, they need to know that when they are voting. If they are to expect less from their leaders because of budget shortfalls, they need to know that too.

When are SEPA congregations to learn the outcome of their leaders’ discussions — on the very day a few of them travel to Franconia to vote? Dialogue must begin NOW!

SEPA needs a “Sunshine Law” so its congregations — the people who fund the Synod — know how their futures will be affected by policies discussed in “open and confidential” sessions.

The Lutheran Church is proud of its heritage and its interdependent structure which exists in contrast to hierarchical denominations. Interdependence relies on communication and cooperation.

It is time we begin practicing our interdependence and work together.

30 Oct 2011

Choosing Lutheran leadership in 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

10 Sep 2011