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.