In November 2019, the pastor and council president of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church McKees Rocks met with the synod bishop for two hours to discuss the future of the church. The following month, they reported back to the council that a “synod takeover” of the church could be imminent, in which case the council would be replaced and the synod would determine the fate of the congregation, the church building, Mt. Calvary Cemetery, and other assets. This dire warning was repeated at other council meetings.[1]
The notion that the SWPA Synod of the ELCA was eager to take over Good Shepherd and help itself to its McKees Rocks assets was both absurd and suspicious on its face; as 2020 progressed, it became clear that a “synod takeover” had been little more than a scare tactic cooked up by the church leadership to continue justifying the transfer of Mt. Calvary Cemetery funds totaling $27,000 in 2020 alone and $92,000 since 2017. These transfers were part of more than $240,000 from non-offering sources the church has used to cover its vast and widening operating budget deficits since 2015.[2]
It finally came to light that the bishop had discussed every option short of a synod takeover, and had recommended a handbook, Leaving a Legacy of Mission and Ministry: A Resource for the Closing of a Congregation (2016), for our council to study.[3] When I confronted the council president on this, it was insisted that the handbook had been mentioned at various meetings—although to date no member of the council or congregation could corroborate this. He also threatened to quit (something he did publicly on three other occasions in 2020).[4]
When I insisted that our council had wasted most of 2020 by not following the guidelines of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America as set forth in the handbook, the council president accused me of trying to bully the congregation into merger and declared he would not resign. Finally, he told me my volunteer work as a council member all year had amounted to “bullshit.”
Below is the complete correspondence. Personal names have been removed, since only the office is important.
_________
Monday, September 28, 2020, 7:38 AM
Donald Simpson to Council President
Re: ELCA Merger and Closure Guidance
Hello [Council President],
This past week I came across several documents on the ELCA website offering guidance to churches facing the options Good Shepherd is facing. I’m attaching them below.
I think particularly pertinent is a phrase appearing on page two of Leaving a Legacy of Mission and Ministry: A Resource for the Closing of a Congregation (2016): “For struggling congregations, the fight to stay alive is often seen as a badge of honor and an act of final obedience,” despite overwhelming signs that it is time to let go.
Among them: the inability to make operating expenses from offerings, the depletion of capital assets to cover operating expenses, etc. It seems to me the Good Shepherd has already met or exceeded all the criteria listed on page two. Another document, Together in Mission: The Blending of Ministries Through Merger or Consolidation, A Study Booklet with Helps (2005) also offers clear steps that seem very applicable to our situation.
Both documents urge synod communication with the congregation throughout the discussions Good Shepherd has already been having for several months, since before I was asked to join council, whereas it seems to me the council throughout 2020 has attempted to navigate these waters ad hoc, as if such guidance was nonexistent, and to reinvent the wheel by itself. This clearly has not been productive and would seem to violate ELCA guidelines in several ways.
I am wondering if, in your two-hour meeting with [the bishop] almost a year ago, he made reference to these documents, and if so, why you would not bring them to the attention of council at that time.
A more recent document, “Considerations for Remote Council and Congregation Meetings During the COVID-19 Pandemic” (April 1, 2020), offers suggestions to congregations for holding congregational meetings by remote communication, and even instructions for voting. I see no language in our constitution expressly forbidding such technologies, and I believe they would greatly facilitate giving the entire congregation a voice in these matters, which I’m sure is your wish.
It seems to me that the ELCA offers some very clear advice on these topics. While certainly not easy, they are also not as insurmountably difficult or impossible as some exaggerations have made them out to be.
I’m sure you will agree that council should study these documents closely, if possible at or before the October meeting.
Sincerely,
Don
Monday, September 28, 2020, 8:19 PM
Council President to Don Simpson
He did make mention of this in the meeting. If you would like to discuss this at the meeting I will make sure you have time. We are still in the process of gathering information for the congregations. They have ultimate decision. Any chance to give them an opportunity to vote is very important.
 |
| Leaving a Legacy (2016), published by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. |
Friday, October 1, 2020, 6:53 AM
Don Simpson to Council President
Hello [Council President],
What you are telling me is that when you and [the pastor] met with [the bishop] last November (2019), the bishop discussed one or both of the following documents with you, and made you aware that these were available on the ELCA website:
Is this correct?
Did the bishop also advise you to commend these text to our council and congregation, so that we might be guided by their contents in our deliberations over this past year?
I am attaching those documents again, below, so there is no confusion. I would appreciate your response ASAP.
Sincerely,
Don
Thursday, October 1, 2020, 2:53 PM
Council President to Don Simpson
What l am telling you is the Bishop had mentioned this. It was also briefly discussed at the special congregation meeting. No formal information had yet been presented to the congregation. Do you think they are prepared to hear this formally at this time? Like I have said and I really mean it, if you would like to take over as Council President, I am willing to resign. We do not have anything ready to present formally at this time unless you want to do it as President.
Don Simpson to Council President
Hello [Council President],
You have to follow the dictates of your conscience. If you no longer feel you can carry out the duties of council president, or no longer wish to serve out your term, the October 14 meeting would be the appropriate time to bring this up so that council can decide on new leadership. I see this as a particularly crucial time to have such leadership as is willing to be transparent in working with the synod and a merging congregation going forward.
As for the ELCA documents, Leaving a Legacy (2016) and Together in Mission (2005), as I read them, the first necessary step the ELCA strongly advocates to congregations in the position of Good Shepherd is to bring the synod into the process so that a plan can be developed upon which the congregation may vote (in other words, preparing the congregation will follow).
As far as I can tell, everything has been done to keep the synod out of the process, to say nothing of denying the congregation a voice, for the entirety of 2020. Instead, the council has halfheartedly tried to reinvent the wheel down in McKees Rocks on its own, blindly, without competent and objective guidance. From my perch, it has been several months of futility.
As I read the minutes of the December council meeting, which as I say I did not attend, those documents were never mentioned, although you say now that the bishop discussed them with you. I have also looked through the reports submitted at the January 26, 2020 congregational meeting as well as the minutes thereof, and see no mention of the meeting with the bishop or the ELCA documents at all, nor do I recall any verbal mention of same. It is only since I was named to the council in January that I have personally studied the matter.
What I find most concerning is that in the December council meeting minutes (which I did not attend), is that—as I read them—some of the advice presented to the council as coming from the bishop seems to contradict the very ELCA advice from those documents, which can only be erroneous.
Among the most glaring is the option suggested then (and repeated several times since) of selling the cemetery to cover operating expenses. In my view, this would amount to “depleting capital assets” to cover operating expenses in lieu of sufficient offerings, one (in fact, two) of the very criteria the ELCA considers a red line for congregations to consider merger (see page 2 of Leaving a Legacy, 2016).
Another disturbing exaggeration I read in the December minutes (and I confess the language is difficult to parse since it is so poorly written) is that synod involvement in devising such a merger plan would be tantamount to a synod takeover, which is simply not the case. Nothing can be finalized concerning the disposition of Good Shepherd and its assets, as far as I can see, without a congregational vote, and to suggest otherwise could be construed as a scare tactic.
Since the bishop recommended those documents to you and the pastor in your meeting a year ago, I can only assume he expected you to bring them to the attention of the council rather than allow individual council members to find them on our own. In any case, I believe the council should study those documents immediately, before or certainly at the next meeting, and reach out to the bishop and synod again in October 2020 to formulate a plan for merger.
What the synod (or an objective third party, as per the 2005 document) would provide at this juncture would be fairness and objectivity, instead of misinformation, exaggeration, and this kind of game-playing about hiding documents the bishop wanted to be brought to our attention. A referee, I believe, is what the ELCA is offering, and would be invaluable to us now. It has been sorely needed for some time. So yes, please, make sure the ELCA documents are an agenda item this October 14.
I am also disturbed, quite frankly, that another council member would suggest in our September meeting that remote-enabled congregational meetings are out of the question, given the April 2020 ELCA document endorsing remote meetings, provided that chapter 10 of a church’s constitution (nor state law) contains language that expressly forbids such remote-enabled meetings. Again, by my reading of the constitution, there is no such language, nor am I aware of any state law. (I am disturbed only insofar as this council member seems up-to-date in all other respects to matters relating to the ELCA.)
This latter I consider a side matter for the moment, as I believe the proper order is developing a plan with the synod and another congregation (Ascension, presumably) before bringing the matter before the congregation for a vote. It is not my intention to recriminate or impugn anyone’s motives about what has transpired thus far, although I do find the ELCA’s language apt: “For struggling congregations, the fight to stay alive is often seen as a badge of honor and act of final obedience.” I believe people have been confusing prolonging the inevitable with fighting the good fight, and it is had been most unfortunate and unnecessary.
Sincerely,
Don
Saturday, October 3, 2020, 9:16 AM
Council President to Don Simpson
Questions: Are we at the process now where we start the merger process? Do we ignore other possibilities that the congregation were interested in? Do we ignore the current work of aasessing [sic] the properties? Do we ignore the possibility of selling the church property and continuing the work needed in the community? We discussed these possibilities in Council before you came on. They have not been forgotten but simply put aside until the appropriate time. The appropriate time will be determined by council. The merger possibility and dispersement [sic] of church assists never goes away. The possibility of selling church properties can.
I will not respond to these emails. I will respond in. person [sic] or at meetings. If your plan is to bully the congregation into merger, I will remain on council. I can. not [sic] stand by unless all possibilities are discussed and explored.
Please be aware that I do have friends and relatives burred in our cemetery and do not wish to see funds depleted without good reason. The work of the church has gone on for millenniums with sacrifices made by humans to numerous to count. As long as there are legal funds, I support keeping the church alive if the congregation votes to do so. My final statement.
Monday, October 5, 2020, 9:10 AM
Don Simpson
Hello [Council President], Let me respond to your questions, point by point:
Q: Are we at the process now where we start the merger process?
I believe we were at a point a year ago, according to the ELCA documents, of reaching out to the synod for their help in formulating a plan of discernment. Instead, I believe you and the pastor met with the bishop, intentionally ignored his advice to study those documents, never mentioned them to anyone at Good Shepherd on council or at any congregational meeting, and instead reported a number of distortions to the council and congregation in subsequent meetings about your meeting with the bishop. Since then, you have sought to prevent any consideration of a merger at all costs, failed to keep the bishop apprised of your activities,
Q: Do we ignore other possibilities that the congregation were interested in?
The only suggestions that were put before the congregation seem to have come from you and the pastor, not from the congregation. Some are purported to be the suggestion of the bishop, but they contradict ELCA advice, so they cannot possibly be valid.
Involving the synod in developing a plan, as per the ELCA documents, does not commit the congregation to a particular course of action or ignore any other suggestions; rather, it could only demystify the process (that you have sought to portray as mystifying as possible) and make our choices clearer.
Q: Do we ignore the current work of assessing the properties?
An assessment of the properties is already underway and is necessary in any case, but is entirely beside the point. The ELCA documents do not call for an assessment to be undertaken let alone completed to begin developing a plan with the synod, and an assessment will not in any way be ignored when it is completed and reported. The two processes can go on simultaneously, and should have taken place before now. Furthermore, if it were left to you, no assessment would have even been begun by now.
Q: Do we ignore the possibility of selling the church property and continuing the work needed in the community?
Of course not. Developing a plan with the synod would be a necessary prerequisite before selling any properties, and continuing the work in the community would absolutely be a priority the synod would have in mind in helping us devise a plan.
Q: We discussed these possibilities in Council before you came on. They have not been forgotten but simply put aside until the appropriate time. The appropriate time will be determined by council. The merger possibility and disbursement of church assists never goes away. The possibility of selling church properties can.
You attempted to take the possibility of a merger off the table at the last council meeting (September). You sought to restrict the options presented to the congregation as (a) worshiping at the cemetery site and (b) continuing to take money from the cemetery to maintain services at Russellwood; this is a matter of record. As I stated in a previous email, this is a false choice and does not consider the possibility of merger at all.
Q: I will not respond to these emails. I will respond in. person or at meetings. If your plan is to bully the congregation into merger, I will remain on council. I cannot stand by unless all possibilities are discussed and explored.
We will certainly discuss all of these emails concerning the ELCA documents at the October 14 meeting, as you wish.
I do not understand how my suggestion to follow ELCA guidelines and first invite the synod to assist Good Shepherd in devising a plan for merger, then reaching out to a potential merging congregation, then putting such a plan before the congregation for their vote, could possibly be construed as a “plan to bully the congregation into merger.” I do not have the power to force one congregation, let alone two, into a merger that neither party would want or agree to.
You are the only person who has ever spoken of stepping down as president and/or walking away from council. While I appreciate the vote of confidence, I have never suggested that I or any particular member should take your place; this is entirely a figment of your imagination. I don’t even want to be on council, but since I am, I take my duties seriously, and will not be bullied into shirking them. It is completely disingenuous for you to accuse others of taking your threats at face value and contemplate moving forward in these very important matters facing Good Shepherd without you.
Q: Please be aware that I do have friends and relatives burred in our cemetery and do not wish to see funds depleted without good reason. The work of the church has gone on for millenniums with sacrifices made by humans to numerous to count. As long as there are legal funds, I support keeping the church alive if the congregation votes to do so. My final statement.
I have asked you in past emails what those good reasons for continuing to deplete cemetery funds could be, and whether they amounted to anything more than maintaining a payroll that no longer makes any sense for our dwindling congregation and keeping the synthetic name “Good Shepherd” alive. Except for empty platitudes, you have not yet provided any answer to my satisfaction.
As for the legality of your repeated requests to the cemetery for funds, it is unclear to me that you even have proper council authorization to be making those requests, and the very legality of those transactions has been called into question during my entire tenure on council and yet to be definitively answered.
As for keeping the church alive, again, you and I have very different notions of what that means. I adhere to the ELCA documents, which counsel that the demise of a congregation after a normal lifespan is not tantamount to a death of a church, but rather that God’s mission and ministry goes on. As page 2 of Leaving a Legacy (2016) states, “God can use the seed found within a closing of a congregation to produce more fruit and enable your congregation to leave a legacy of mission and ministry.”
[The bishop] commended this advice to you nearly a year ago. It has been ignored, distorted, and circumvented since, and a number of red herrings have been substituted in its place. Your actions speak only of a wish to prolong an unsustainable situation for as long as possible and to prevent the proper process the ELCA endorses from taking place at all.
As for your relatives buried in Mt. Calvary Cemetery, let me respond by saying I have three maternal grandparents (including a step-grandmother) and my paternal grandfather buried there. My mother also has a plot reserved for herself, next to her mother. My parents were married in the Russellwood Avenue church (then Mt. Calvary) in 1960; indeed, I would not exist if it were not for that building.
I deeply resent your insinuation that the dozens of hours I have already put into studying ELCA documents, the church constitution, and meetings of past minutes, not to mention the hours I have spent formulating my thoughts into clear communication, so that they can be discussed intelligently, amounts to bullying, or that because certain actions took place before I was asked to join council that I have no right to question them and ascertain the truth.
Between the two of us, the only person who has bullied, employed passive-aggressive tactics, and consistently misrepresented themselves as neutral, evenhanded, and an honest broker when they are emphatically not any of those things has been the current council president.
If you have any further questions or thoughts on these matters before the October 14 meeting, I welcome them.
Sincerely,
Don
Council President to Don Simpson
Don, I am not going to respond or read your emails anymore. Don ’t waste cyberspace with your bullshit.
_________
[1] The false option of a “synod takeover” was reported in the December 11, 2019 Council Meeting Minutes:
“[The council president] mentioned he had requested a meeting with [the bishop] between himself and [the pastor]. They talked for two hours and were very open. They discussed point by point what had happened. [The pastor] presented her views and [the council president] presented his views. What is going on at this point revolves around the attendance and the empty pews. There is a fear and panic going on, [the council president] gave his views on how to fix it. [The bishop said] he doesn’t think we can fix it, the fear and panic is taking over and is going to get worse, he is probably right since he has a lot of experience with congregations in this same situation. [The council president] presented himself as neutral[,] not [to] take one side over the other, one side in not totally correct and one side is not totally wrong. The mission of the church is not right [sic] and the arguments going back and forth and retaliation going back and forth, [the council president] said if he can stop the retaliation he will, that is his goal, if it is not part of the mission[,] then it does not belong there.
“Other things were suggested: Set some benchmarks, we talked about this before but there are different ways we can go, a benchmark could be made around attendance; participation; Council and Cemetery Board; as for attendance say we set a goal of 20 members, if it falls below this for 3 or 4 months in a row, then we can consider the possibility of the Synod Administration taking over the church totally and financially, and council will all be replaced, the will Synod how the congregation and building can be utilized in the community. We could consider merger. We could consider closure. We do have assets[,] and they do not have to go the Synod[;] we can decide where we would want them distributed in our community. In essence[,] our ministry can carry on through someone else. We will discuss these things in the New Year [2020].”
The false threat of a synod takeover was repeated in the January 8, 2021 Council Meeting Minutes.
[2] For more on the budget deficit facing Good Shepherd, see “The Future of Good Shepherd,” a video report at https://youtu.be/6dxPDzQ-26I .
[3] I emailed the synod bishop and received a reply on October 9, 2020, confirming that Leaving a Legacy had been commended to our pastor, council president, and ultimately our council for study. He wrote, “It is always my intention in sharing documents like this to help a congregation find its way[,] and to be supported along that way.” The assistant to the bishop confirmed at our November 11 and December 16, 2020 council meetings that a “synod takeover” was only an option of last resort, requiring a request of the synod council that might in fact be turned down. The financial secretary later insisted to me in an email that the “essence” of Leaving a Legacy had nonetheless been conveyed to the congregation.
[4] The council president threatened to quit unless he got his way (although he claims to be completely neutral on every matter) three times during 2020: at the January 26, 2020 Congregational Meeting, at the August 12, 2020 council meeting, and at the September 9, 2020 council meetings, all in much the same language as was used in his October 1, 2020 email, above. Since a council member called his bluff, he appears to have changed his mind, and now considers himself “President-for-Life” (see October 5, 2020 email, above).
___________________________________________
Content is ™ and © Donald E. Simpson 2020, all rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment