†S8.12(g)4. [As the synod’s pastor, the bishop shall exercise leadership in the mission of this church and in so doing] submit a report to each regular meeting of the Synod Assembly concerning the synod’s life and work.
2014-2024: We’re Still Here
Ten years ago, the synod wrapped up a year-long conversation on whether the synod had a future. Well, that might be overstating it, but not by much. A letter from Pr. Bill Ridenhour to Synod Council served as the impetus for the conversation. He asked bluntly whether the synod needed and could afford a full-time bishop. At that time, we were still struggling with significantly diminished revenues, the aftereffects of a major financial crisis in the nation (and world), instability in key congregations, and instability in the denomination. As the synod was scheduled to hold the election for a new bishop—Bishop Dunkin had made it clear that he was in his last term—in 2015, Ridenhour’s was a timely question. Anyone ending up on the first ballot for bishop would want to know 1) whether the bishopric would be full-time and 2) what the prospects would be for the call to last more than a couple of years.
During the course of the year leading up to Synod Assembly 2014, the bishop (The Rt. Rev. Ralph Dunkin), vice president (Paul Wangerin), and D.E.M. (Helen Harms) toured the synod conducting listening posts, providing extensive information on the work, financials, and demographics of the synod. It was impossible to ask whether there should be a full-time bishopric without raising the question of whether there should be a synod at all. The responses from those attending those listening posts leaned heavily in favor of continuing as a synod. The option of synodical dissolution with reassignment of congregations to one or more synods was discussed and coldly received, especially by those with history in the LCA’s West Penn-West Virginia Synod. At the same time, attendees preferred retention of the full-time bishopric, often stating accessibility to the bishop (without going through an assistant) as a positive along with a sense of actually knowing the bishop and feeling like the bishop knew them.
Synod Council reviewed the findings of the year-long listening. I was synod treasurer at the time, and, having been asked to project budgetary demands for a full-time bishopric—I actually ran nine different scenarios—in relationship to projected income, I advised Synod Council that this was doable but, unless something changed in either our revenue stream or expense profile, we were looking at roughly five years before insolvency. Synod Council deemed that acceptable and sent the plan for a full-time bishopric to the Synod Assembly for consideration. Synod Assembly affirmed the plan, and the synod began a year-long reflection on what we were looking for in the next bishop.
Synod Assembly 2018 ordered that Synod Assembly 2019 focus on the finanical position of the synod. With that in mind, Victoria Flood, ELCA Senior Director for Mission Support, was secured as a keynoter and Churchwide representative. She gave a marvelous presentation. Many in attendance were surprised to learn how positively WV-WMD stood in relationship to the rest of the church in per capita stewardship. While our per capita stewardship has always been impressive, we’ve never had a lot of capita to work with. During that assembly, workshops were held on every aspect of our income and expense (including presentations from numerous grant-recipient agencies). In my thirty years in this synod, I remember no other time that we have devoted so much of our assembly to understanding our fiscal realities. So it was that we entered committee of the whole and, as an assembly, debated openly and honestly what the synod budget should be. I remember Vitoria Flood saying to me that she had never seen a synod assembly engage in such reasoned and civil debate over such important and difficult matters, concluding that WV-WMD should be lifted up as the examplar of assembly work. When the committee of the whole rose, the assembly adopted a significantly altered budget. The assembly also, on motion by Pr. Sean Smith, ordered that the Synod Council review staffing with an eye to making some positions part-time. I fully understood that to mean the bishopric as well (even if Smith did not).
Well, here we are ten years later—despite the pandemic—primarily the function of a change expense profile. We do not live high on the hog, but then we have never lived high on the hog. There are things we used to do that we do not do, and there have been changes in the ways that we do things. Some of those changes have probably been for the better, others perhaps not.
The proceedings of the Third Annual Convention of the West Virginia Synod, however, frequently come to my mind. Fewer than forty pages in a 5¾” x 9¼” format, including the statistical reports of the synod and the minutes of the constituting convention of the Women’s Society, with plenty of white space, those proceedings are evidence that the way we have always done things is not, in fact, the way we have always done things. Until the formation of the Lutheran Church in America, the president of the West Virginia Synod (ULCA) was a pastor actively serving a congregation—unless you were George Weirick (of blesséd memory), in which case you were serving multiple congregations. Without thorough investigation of our institutional history—that would be a retirement project— I hypothesize that we (writ large) have created structures, processes, and expectations that did not exist a century ago. I don’t expect that we can repristinate the synod, nor do I think that we should even try. It is to be assumed that a good portion of the things we have added over the intervening decades were meet, right, and salutary adaptations. Even if all such additions were meet, right, and salutary, there is no guarantee that all still are. We are prone to ask: What new thing can we do? We should also ask: What old thing can we stop doing? N.B.: I am only asking in reference to the temporalities of the institutional church.
The Middle Judicatory Question
In all this, we bump into something that is now running through all large American Protestant polities: the middle judicatory question. Between the congregation and the national church body, there is the middle judicatory. Whether we call it synod, or district, or diocese, this middle judicatory is under pressure, and its future is uncertain. This is somewhat ironic for most American Lutherans. Among us, congregations came first, but pretty quickly these congregations and their pastors recognized that intercongregational cooperation (even if limited) would be beneficial. Among the oldest lines of American Lutheranism, synods (sometimes called ministeriums) formed as membership polities, the congregations (and sometimes clergy) being the members. The first suprasynodical polity would form seventy-five years after the first synod formed. Its members would be the synods. Until relatively recently the type of American Lutheran polity looked like the forms described by the Lutheran Scholastic dogmaticians: the congregation was considered the principal instantiation of the ecclesiastical estate; anything beyond that was a council, either a diocesesan council (synod convention) or a particular council (the national convention). These councils were not originally bureaucratic organizations. They were deliberative assemblies that created committees to handle whatever work needed to be done until the next convention. The creation of boards, more permanent committees, soon followed, representing the first step toward bureaucratization. The development of larger and larger bureaucratic structures paralleled (though with a bit of a lag) the development of civil bureaucracies. The same may be said with respect to the shift in the locus of supracongregational authority and even the order of being. Whereas once the national church was a creature of the synods, synods banding together to form a suprasynodical polity, the synod today is a creature of the national church, i.e., the national church creates the synod to serve as a mediating structure between the congregations and the national church. In this middle position, pressure is experienced from both below and above—I know, we don’t use hierarchical language in the ELCA, preferring instead the language of interdependence, but whether it is vertical language or horizontal language or anything else one can dream up, the fact is that the synod is in the middle between one entity that can mandate and another entity that can fund (or not).
What’s that mean for the WV-WMD Synod? As the ELCA’s Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church (CRLC) continues its deliberations, the middle judicatory question is one of the items on the table. Some favor greater flexibility for synods in terms of structure and mission. Others speak of greater accountability in terms of enforcement of national directives. Some talk of fewer but larger synods. Others talk of more but smaller synods. Some see the primary purpose of the synod to support the work of congregations and the primary work of the Churchwide expression to support the synods in supporting the congregations. Others see no need for synods at all. There might be agreement that the work of the church is the gospel, but there doesn’t seem to be agreement on what exactly the gospel is—this is more a function, I think, of imprecision in dividing Law and Gospel coupled with confusion between the power of the Gospel and the power of the sword and their respective domains. With all these questions, this synod should count itself fortunate to have Laurel Muhly-Alexander serving as a member of the CRLC.
It is doubtful that the CRLC reach a consensus, but a consensus is not required in our polity. It should be understood that Churchwide Assembly 2025 will have some very heavy lifting. The report of the CRLC will be closely watched and likely hotly debated on the floor by those who pin great hopes (and fears) upon it. At the same time, we will be considering a social statement on faith and civic engagement and electing a presiding bishop and a secretary.
I am asked from time to time, “Will they dissolve our synod?” First off, if by they one means the Churchwide administration, the answer is a simple, “No.” Neither the presiding bishop, nor the secretary, nor any other office, department, or unit of the Churchwide organization has that power. If by they, one means the Churchwide Assembly, the answer is, “It’s possible,” but we elect the voting members of the Churchwide Assembly—well, four of them at least. Actually, realignment of congregations by the Churchwide Assembly is surprisingly simple in terms of parliamentary procedure. Whether one can secure enough votes is another matter. Honesty, however, demands that we acknowledge that WV-WMD does not own itself. It is not even owned by the congregations that are members of the WV-WMD Synod. The synod is owned by the Churchwide Assembly.
Calls
Since our last Synod Assembly, there has been a good deal of movement. The Rev. Bill Ridenhour departed First English, Wheeling. The Rev. Warren Lahammer arrived at Christ the King, Barboursville. The Rev. Angela Lamber arrived at the Mountain Lutheran Parish. The Rev. Paul Schafer moved from St. Mark’s, Wheeling, to the Mountain Lutheran Parish. In terms of clergy in calls, that is a net gain of one. In terms of congregations, that is a net improvement of four. I am optimistic about this coming cycle.
Office Staffing
As mentioned, the 2019 Synod Assembly ordered a review of staffing configuration. By the 2021 Synod Assembly the total staffing of the synod was two (a full-time bishop and a half-time DEM). Both Synod Council and Mutual Ministry Committee pressed to see some augmentation of staff. Synod Council contracted Grace Riegel for clerical support during her collegiate summer and during breaks as available. This was very helpful. Beginning this past fall, we’ve contracted Larisa Mount, a WVU doctoral student, to provide clerical support. Again, this has been super helpful, and progress has been made on various projects. These contracts have been for work as needed. I look forward to tacking (after the Synod Assembly) some lingering office projects.
We continue to contract with Pro-Am Billing Solutions, LLC, for bookkeeping services.
We’ve learned how to handle things like event planning mainly by taking a minimalist approach. There are two areas that concern me in this regard. First, the planning (including contracting, logistics, etc.) for the bi-annual Synod Clergy Continuing Education Event first rested upon the shoulders of The Rev. Christine Olson and, for the last several years, The Rev. Sherri Schafer. Schafer is now stepping down due to a change in conference assignment. One of the members of the planning committee will have to take up the mantle, or the committee will have to figure out a new way of doing business. Having the back-office aspects fall back to Synod HQ is less than desirable from my perspective. I’ll address my second concern under the next heading.
Synod Assembly
We have found a way to pull off Synod Assembly inexpensively and efficiently while preserving its essential nature as a deliberative assembly. This is the fourth Synod Assembly for which there has been no registration charge. It does cost money to hold a Synod Assembly, but we can do so for less than $750. At the same time, the back-office aspects of planning Synod Assembly under the model we have been using recently is significantly easier than when we had to worry about lodging, meals, and a multi-day facility rental.
While most feedback on the one-day assembly has been positive, concerns have been raised about a perceived lack of fellowship, decreased time for agencies and institutions to present, and timing and nature of worship. Synod Council has discussed all these matters, and, so far, no vote to change the current pattern has garnered majority support.
It is important to remember that Synod Assembly, for the most part, owns itself. There are obvious constraints that result from venue once it is selected, but the assembly can direct Synod Council to attempt to do things differently. Within those constraints, however, the assembly can organize its work pretty much any way it wants within the constraints of the governing documents of the synod. Last assembly, we witnessed a good example of this. Several agencies wanted time at the microphone for which the proposed agenda made no provision. A motion was made on the floor to amend the agenda proposal to provide a fixed amount of time. That passed, meaning the assembly wanted to hear from the agencies. By the same token, the assembly could vote down such a request or remove something from the agenda (assuming it is not a required report). As is my practice, I do not read my report to the assembly, but the assembly could order me to do so. The assembly could also dispense with the reading of something that has been submitted in writing.
If we want to go back to multi-day Synod Assemblies, there are two ways to do that. First, we could have more than one day of Synod Assembly non-consecutively. For example, the West Virginia Presbytery meets quarterly in one-day sessions. We could meet more than once a year under one agenda, meaning we would not do everything all over again each time we gather. Or, we could return to a multi-day assembly held on consecutive days. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. A more leisurely pace would allow us to consider more presentations, workshops, educational programming, worship, etc., and do these in different ways. There would be an attendant increase in direct cost to attendees. Facility costs would increase, and there would be boarding and lodging. There would also be significantly increased work load on synod staff, and, given our current configuration, it would probably involve contracting someone to handle the logistics and planning.
It is also possible for a congregation, cluster, or conference to host Synod Assembly. Prior to the pandemic this was common. Now that it has been a half-decade since Synod Assembly was last “hosted,” folks may have forgotten it is an option. They may also have forgotten how much groundwork is involved.
Though not a large number, other synods have moved to one-day assemblies (or are alternating with multi-day synods). To the best of my knowledge, we are the only synod not charging a registration fee. It should also be noted that some synods are holding multi-day assemblies with one day being online and the other in person.
All this is to say: How we do business is up to you, but be sure to understand the costs and benefits when making a decision.
I would also note that I have asked John Cooper, Esq., and The Rev. Juhn Unger to serve the assembly as resource parliamentarians. An assembly’s deliberations are facilitated by appropriate motions being made at appropriate times. It can be particularly frustrating for even an assembly veteran who is not familiar with parliamentary procedure to navigate the deliberative process. Imagine what it is like for the assembly novice. The resource parliamentarians are on the floor to assist the voting members of the assembly. If you have a question about what motion to make to get from point A to point B, feel free to find one of them. You may also rise to a parliamentary inquiry during the proceedings.
Synod Council
I point you to the Report of the Vice President, especially her mention of the consultations with each conference. The Eastern Pandhandle and Mon Valley-Mountain Conference have been held. An invitation has been extended to Upper Ohio Valley Conference to meet with Synod Council this summer. We anticipate inviting Ohio-Kanawha Valley Conference to meet with Synod Council this fall, and, finally, we hope to get to the Potamc Highlands (probably after the snow season is past).
ELCMA Redux
Toward the middle of the 2010s, ELCMA (Evangelical Lutheran Coalition for Mission in Appalachia) was shuttered. A series of conversations were held at the time regarding how best to continue the work without the institution. The Symposium for Evangelical Lutheranism in Appalachia (SELA) emerged and had, prior to the pandemic, one very successful conference on the opioid crisis. An attempt by United Lutheran Seminary to revive SELA this past fall was cancelled due to insufficient registration.
This past March, representatives from eleven Appalachian synods met in a cabin at Twin Falls State Park to discuss a revival of intentional cooperative effort. Initial conversation was energetic and hopeful with some initial projects outlined. The goal is to provide Appalachian congregations and synods with resources directly and applicable to their ecclesiastical lives in Appalachia. As the Appalachian church cannot expect others to do the work for us, we’ll have to do it ourselves. Let us see how this develops in the months ahead.
Education for Clergy & Laity
The synod continues to be aggressive in promoting education for the clergy and the laity through its website (and The Bishop’s Roadshow) . In the last six months, the synod has highlighted courses for congregation council members offered by United Lutheran Seminary and informed by the leadership of Region 8. Educational offerings announced on the website’s Education for Clergy & Laity page have included practical, Biblical, theological, historical, ethical, pastoral, homiletical, and ecumenical offerings. Most of these offerings are open to everyone. Does the synod actually provide each and every one of these offerings? No. If there is something being done well by someone else, and it is accessible to the people of the synod, we advertise and direct, avoiding duplication of effort (and commensurate waste or resources). In turn, there are some things that we do that most others do not, and we have clergy and laity coming from outside our synod for those offerings.
Civic Life & Faith
Ordered by Churchwide Assembly 2019, a task force has been working on a draft social statement currently titled Civic Life & Faith. The study phase, when it was open for response, was advertised, and the current response period to the draft has been advertised (and will continue to be advertised until it closes 30 September 2024). Planning will begin following this Synod Assembly (well, maybe a week following) for one or more hearings as part of this response phase. It is not required that a person attend a hearing. Individuals can file a response to the draft. The draft document, supporting materials, and further information can be accessed through the synod website. I serve on this task force and encourage your input.
Caroline Furnace
Synod Council opened a conversation with the Eastern Panhandle this past fall on the relationship with Caroline Furnace Lutheran Camp & Conference Center. Some of us may remember that The Rev. Dick Neal (of blesséd memory) was one of the two co-frounders of Caroline Furnace. When the current WV-WMD Synod formed at the merger of the ELCA, Caroline Furnace was included as an affiliated camp (alongside Camp Luther). The Congregation Councils of those WV-WMD congregations that were LCA Virginia Synod were surveyed this past winter with respect to historic and current relationships with Caroline Furnace. These congregations, at the time of the merger, understood Caroline Furnace to be their camp. The survey, however, reveals a weakened relationship, at least in the consciousness of the councils. I would attribute this to several factors: 1) a decrease in the number of potential campers over the years; 2) a decline in interest in church camping in light of competition and shifts in parental attitudes; 3) weak synodical promotion of Caroline Furnace in comparison with Camp Luther; and 4) less than aggressive recruiting and church relations work vis-à-vis the Eastern Panhandle congregations on the part of Caroline Furnace. The Synod Council is looking forward to a conversation with Caroline Furnace leadership by this coming fall to discuss the relationship.
Compensation Question
I have wondered over the past several years whether we should replace our current compensation standard with something resembling the General Schedule used for federal employee compensation. We currently treat a call as a call with the only recommended modifier being seniority. Calls are different;, some are more demanding than others prima facie. At the same time, a curvilinear progression on seniority might be fairer than a linear progression. I honestly don’t know whether this is worth the synod’s time and energy to rethink compensation. Most may be satisfied with things as they are, and there may be unforeseen negative consequences, even if an alternative might be more equitable.
Other Items
There are many other items that could fall under a state of the synod report, but, having reviewed the other reports submitted, those matters seem sufficiently covered. I commend these other reports to you.
✠Riegel
The Commemoration of John Calvin, A.D. MMXXIV
Feedback
Post your comment on this topic.