Report of the Committee on the Bishop’s Report

*The Report of the Bishop is available here in The Pre-Assembly Bulletin of Reports.

Report of the Committee on the Bishop’s Report (2021)

The Committee on the Bishop’s Report thanks Bishop Matthew Riegel for his outstanding service and leadership during this past year; especially in light of the pandemic.

The Committee on the Bishop’s Report affirms the bishop’s report and proposes the following recommendations:

1. Synod Mutual Ministry Committee distribute the Driesen Manual, providing instruction and support, to conference deans so they may instruct pastors and congregational councils in their conference on its use for mutual ministry in their congregations.
2. Post advice concerning pandemic baptism on the synod’s website and encourage clergy and laity to review these. Also distribute by mail to clergy and congregational leadership advice and counsel on pandemic baptism.
3. Post advice concerning the mutual consolation and conversation of the saints and encourage clergy and laity to review these, as well as distribute by mail to clergy and congregational leadership advice and counsel on the means of grace found in the Book of Concord, as well as their proper use during a pandemic.
4. The synod council and the bishop work together to organize a task force with the responsibility of establishing a comprehensive recruitment strategy for raising up leaders in our synod for rostered ministry within our synod. Such a recruitment strategy should be able to be implemented on many levels; from the bishop, synod council and our synod’s DEM to conference deans, congregational pastors and lay leaders. This committee also encourages the bishop to continue to develop relationships with other synodical bishops who may have a surplus of first call pastors looking for a first call, for the purpose of inviting them to consider a call in our synod.
5. Synod council establish benchmarks for fiscally imperiled congregations, by putting together and training an advisory panel to work with the bishop in addressing conversations with congregations who hit the fiscally imperiled benchmarks. This advisory panel should be able to assist the bishop in leading a congregation through the process of becoming fiscally healthy, as well as the steps in closing a congregation.
   

The Committee on the Bishop’s Report poses the following queries:

1. If the question of how we move forward in a pandemic is to be a responsibility of the Synod Mutual Ministry Committee, will the bishop and synod council give direction and guidelines to the committee for such an extensive examination? Should not synod council be responsible for examining these things?
2. In considering the benefits of well-designed operating manuals for the synod, who would be responsible for putting together, vetting, and updating such manuals?
3. In considering the remedial instruction in congregational polity, could this be part of a clergy continuing education event with congregational councils also in attendance with their clergy?
   

In closing, when a committee is convened and tasked with the responsibly of responding to a report in order to present its findings to the larger deliberative assembly, five foci serve to guide such a committee’s response:

• what might be affirmed;
• what might be admonished;
• what might be queried;
• what proposed actions might be issued in response to the report; and
• what may simply not rise to the level of importance when it comes to the use of the bishop’s and synod’s time and resources. At the very least, these five foci should be employed to respond to any questions or calls for action that might appear in the Bishop’s Report.
  

After reviewing the last 20 years of the West Virginia-Western Maryland Synod’s Committee on the Bishop’s Reports, the only responses to the Bishops’ Reports have been that of affirmation of those items reported. While appropriate and appreciative in nature, this type of reporting serves as nothing more than a thank you to the bishop with no real benefit to the deliberative assembly. The one deviation was five years ago when the Bishop was slightly admonished and urged to practice good self-care. Except for that one anomaly, there have been no other admonitions, no inquiries presented in light of the Bishop’s Report, and no proposed actions in response to the Bishop’s Report in the last twenty years. Since this has been the modus operandi of the Committee on the Bishop’s Report, the Committee on the Bishop’s Report now proposes that Synod Council take up the implementation of guidelines for reporting by the Committee on the Bishop’s Report in order to insure the consistent use of the five foci previously mentioned, as appropriate, in order to ensure a report on the Bishop’s Report that will be useful to the deliberative body, the Synod Assembly.

Sean Smith
Paula Mitchell
Wayne Stuckey
Patrice Weirick

Implementing Resolution #1: To order Synod Mutual Ministry Committee to execute Recommendation #1 as set forth in the Report of the Committee on the Bishop’s Report.

Implementing Resolution #2: To order the bishop to execute Recommendation #2 as set forth in the Report of the Committee on the Bishop’s Report.

Implementing Resolution #3: To order the bishop to execute Recommendation #3 as set forth in the Report of the Committee on the Bishop’s Report.

Implementing Resolution #4: To order the Synod council and the bishop to execute Recommendation #4 as set forth in the Report of the Committee on the Bishop’s Report.

Implementing Resolution #5: To order Synod Council to execute Recommendation #5 as set forth in the Report of the Committee on the Bishop’s Report.

Implementing Resolution #6: To refer to Synod Mutual Ministry Committee the three queries enumerated in the Report of the Committee on the Bishop’s Report.

Implementing Resolution #7: To advise synod council to enact guidelines for the work of the Committee on the Bishop’s Report such that the five foci (i.e., 1) what might be affirmed, 2) what might be admonished, 3)What might be queried, 4) What proposed actions might be issued in response to the report, and 5) What may simply not rise to the level of importance when it comes to the use of the bishop’s and synod’s time and resources) are considered by the Committee on the Bishop’s Report each assembly in order to ensure a report on the Bishop’s Report that will be useful in the deliberations of the Synod Assembly.

*Click here to download The Driesen Manual (Mutual Ministry Handbook: Guidance for Healthy Congregations).