Bishop’s Report to Synod Assembly 2026
1776
One of my favorite musicals is 1776, a delightful theatrical retelling of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. As a child, I would watch this with my father and younger brother every time it came around on broadcast television, as patriotic seasonal specials were wont to do in those days at this time of year. I loved it for its humor and its drama, from the jocular “But, Mr. Adams” to the wrenching “Molasses to Rum.” Not so many years ago, we were caught up in “Hamilton Fever,” many amazed that American History could be so popular in a popular medium, but 1776 proved that it could be done more than forty-five years before. My appreciation of 1776 is not surprising. I like a good story. I like history. A good story about history is a good combination, and throwing in some catchy tunes just adds to the enjoyment.
I’ve found myself repeatedly using 1776 as an example of the work of an ad hoc drafting committee, especially when trying to explain to the appointees to the Synod Assembly’s Committee on Resolutions what exactly it is that they are supposed to do: someone has an idea; that person is not sure how to word it; give the job to a committee. Let’s be honest: a hundred people trying to write a resolution together is a crazy and well-nigh impossible job. A smaller group can work more quickly, and as for expertise, they can always ask people to help advise them. The Continental Congress wanted a resolution on independence; they assigned the task of drafting it to Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Livingston, and Sherman, that committee then asking Jeferson to take the first crack at it. The committee made several clarifying and stylistic edits to Jefferson’s draft, following which they presented it to the Congress for debate. The Congress made roughly 40 changes, removing about a quarter of the draft submitted by the committee (which had already tempered Jefferson’s verbosity).
This same process is within the rights of the Synod Assembly (and our Synod Council and all our deliberative assemblies). As I describe it: the Committee on Resolutions is to help the Assembly find its voice. In terms of parliamentary process, ours is not an expert assembly. Most of our membership does not think about Robert’s Rules on a regular basis. As a consequence, we are somewhat hobbled. There may be ideas floating around in the ether that never take on form. People have approached me after Synod Assembly is over with this or that concern, idea, or praise, and I have asked, “Why didn’t you bring that up on the floor?” The two most common answers I receive are “I didn’t know how” and “I didn’t think anyone would be interested.” As for the former concern, the chair, the parliamentarian, and the other parliamentary wonks in the room would be more than happy to help; just ask them. As for the latter concern, a solitary opinion, that is, the opinion of one person, is the opinion of one person. It’s not something particularly actionable because, for all we know, ninety-nine people hold the exact opposite opinion. Resolutions (and motions in general) are the means by which we determine whether an opinion is held by the body or just one person. Making a motion to instruct the Committee on Resolutions to draft something is a means for testing whether your opinion is shared by others. Of course, it may not be (or, at least, not shared by the majority of members). Then again, you might have the brilliant idea, and no one will know unless you offer it.
As I’ve aged, I’ve also gained greater appreciation for the ways in which 1776 depicts a pretty typical deliberative assembly with a broad membership. There are differences of opinion, there are different sorts of personalities (those personalities playing no small part in the way people engage the deliberative process), there are competing interests, and there are human needs. The work of such an assembly is deliberative. It is ironic that terms like debate and argument have taken on such thoroughly odious connotations. Argument is the way in which a person shows forth what is good, the reasons for pursing the good, and means by which the community might secure the good. Debate is the communal enterprise by which competing notions of the good, the rationale for the good, and the means to the good are tested against each other. This is what it means to deliberate, and this is what it means to be a deliberative assembly.
I could make numerous other references to 1776. I could also cite other great writings in American political thought. Aristotle and Plato are equally at hand. I could also refer to the writings of Philipp Melanchthon (Luther’s Wittenberg colleague); in addition to being a theologian, he was a political theorist (among many other things). As this is a report to an ecclesiastical body, I will instead suggest that Holy Scripture has something to say, for in the first chapter of Isaiah, the LORD invites, “Come now, let us reason together….” It might sound crazy, but God is inviting humanity to deliberate with Him. Think too on Abraham at the Oaks of Mamre debating with God over Sodom and Gomorrah, or Moses on Sinai debating with God to spare the people. For Luther, the very creation of humanity involved divine Trinitarian deliberation:
Here again Moses adopts a new phraseology. The divine expression is not in this place, “Let the sea be moved,” or “Let the earth bring forth grass” or “fruits.” But the remarkable Word of God here is, “Let us make, or form, or fashion, or fabricate man.” Wherefore this expression implies manifest deliberation and counsel; the like of which is found not in the creation of any former creatures. In those cases God says simply without any deliberation, counsel or particular design of mind, “Let the sea be moved;” “Let the earth bring forth,” etc. But here where God wills to create man, he turns himself as it were to deep thought and enters into profound counsel and deliberation (Luther, Commentary on Genesis, Lenker ed. (1904)).
I would be so bold as to suggest that this divine Trinitarian deliberation impresses itself upon the creature thereby created, making it a creature that deliberates. Aristotle wrote that the human is a political animal, but I believe Holy Scripture testifies to this more profoundly than the Philosopher’s observation. If God deliberates, creates us as creatures that deliberate, and then invites us to deliberate with Him, how can we be so averse to deliberating in the church? Are we not created to test what is good and seek it? Are we not to take disparate wills and form through our deliberations a common will to exert a common effort to secure a common good?
2026 and After
Why should I care so much about deliberation, especially deliberation in the church (and particularly in this synod)? I expect this synod to be dissolved by the ELCA and its congregations parceled out to neighboring synods. I expect action to that effect at either Churchwide Assembly 2031 or Churchwide Assembly 2034. There is an outside chance that it could be as early as 2028, but given the speed at which these sorts of deliberations move at the Churchwide expression, that seems unlikely. You may ask: why should WV-WMD be dissolved? Are we insolvent? No. Are we unable to discharge our basic responsibilities? No, though it sometimes takes longer. Are we transgressing against the norms of the faith and its practice? No. Are we the naughty synod? I don’t think so. So why would we be dissolved?
Simply put, there are more than few who believe that there are too many synods. It seems to me that the root of such thinking is an ideological commitment to the proposition that an economy of scale is the norm by which polity should be judged. I have repeatedly argued that no discussion of economies of scale is complete without a recognition of the diseconomies of scale. Bigger is not always better, and sometimes the whole can be less than the sum of its parts. Do we not have some things because we are a small synod? Yes, we lack some things that bigger synods have, but we also have some things that bigger synods do not have. Many of these things we possess are intangible, but not all things in life that matter can be reduced to a balance sheet.
Synod Council has had some frank conversations about my projections. In those conversations, I have tried to emphasize that I do not personally favor the dissolution of this synod. I have also been clear that I think that there is nothing we can do to stop it. Unless prevailing thought patterns change across the denomination, dissolution is an inevitability. It seems foolish to me to expend resources to fight the inevitable, and contrary to what has from time to time been said, this synod does not own itself. It is a creature of the Churchwide Assembly, its boundaries and very existence determined by a paragraph in a bylaw in the Constitution of the ELCA. On the other hand, it seems eminently reasonable to expend our resources, human and fiscal, in preparing the congregations and clergy of the synod for a future without the WV-WMD Synod. I do not want to go gentle into that good night, but neither do I want to rage against the dying of the light. If we can in the upcoming years strengthen our congregations and pastors to be more and more the church of Jesus Christ (in a Lutheran key), we will have fulfilled our purpose.
Determining what the Lutheran church should be in these mountains and valleys, where exactly we should expend our resources, and how the work should be accomplished is the deliberative task before us. I offer for your consideration the following as areas of possible work:
- strengthening congregations through
- the cultivation of piety in devotion (private and corporate), in the reading of Scripture and edifying spiritual writings, and in the practice of the mutual conversation and consolation of the saints;
- the cultivation of clergy and laity work in the care of souls, preaching, teaching, and worship leadership with special efforts being made to raise up clergy through the TEEM program and Synodical Lay Worship Leaders;
- the cultivation of laity leadership in the management and oversight of the temporalities of the church; and
- the cultivation of the bonds of Christian fellowship between congregations;
- fiscally stabilizing valued affiliated ministries that would likely be orphaned in the dissolution of this synod through a development manager to support non-ecclesiastical fundraising;
- continued retooling of our polity and fiscal operations to support transition; and
- increased investment in the education of clergy and laity.
We have made progress in some of these areas.
- We have entered into conversation with Go Tell It in the Mountains, a preaching improvement program jointly run by the Northwestern Pennsyvlania Synod, the Upper Susquehanna Synod, and the Allegheny Synod. We have received word that while we are in negotiations, we have been granted by GTIitM full access to their resources.
- Negotiations are underway on the question of the development manager position to support Camp Luther, LCMWVU, and CLPi. You will see a recommendation from Synod Council to set aside funds for that project should an agreement be reached among the parties.
- On the polity front, the Bylaws Committee continues to develop alternatives to the ways in which we have always done things so that the synod might do things better. The proposal to create a Finance Board is the next step in the ongoing work of better managing synodical resources.
Others areas will require a refocus of attention and the adoption of new measures.
- The cultivation of piety posses the greatest challenge. Unfortunately, the war against Pietism was all too successful. I am convinced that the lack of piety left us particularly unable to cope well with the pandemic. I am equally convinced that the rebirth of vibrant and vital piety would be the most salutary thing could happen among us.
- The value of TEEM (Theological Education for Emerging Ministries) as a program to train future pastors for the underserved sections of Appalachia should be apparent to all—unfortunately, many have never heard of TEEM.
- While we have held workshops for new Synod Council members, equipping congregations to better manage their business affairs will become more and more pressing as both the number of both clergy and lay leaders continues to decrease.
- Building fraternal relations between congregations should not be ignored; in a future with a more distant synod office, relying on one’s neighbors could prove salutary.
Education is one area in which this synod leads. I regularly hear from people outside this synod (even other bishops) that our education offerings are some of the best in the church. We frequently see clergy and laity from other judicatories in attendance at our Synodical Clergy Continuing Ed Events, LARCUM, and SCALD. Expanding our offerings to include items mentioned above is within our reach, though it will require some additional managerial support. By the way, our recent LARCUM on the Devil had 56 in attendance—a record. Next year’s LARCUM will focus on theological anthropology under the title “Fearfully & Wonderfully Made: Can We Be Human?”
Of course, all the above is my offering; the synod may have other ideas about our future and how we go about entering it.
The routine stuff of synod continues. It has not been an easy year, but we are the church. Being made of people and being a people under constant attack by the Unholy Trinity (Sin, Death, and the Devil) means more than a few rough spots in the road and even the periodic wrong turn. Nevertheless, we know our destination, and that destination is neither the WV-WMD Synod nor the ELCA; it is Jesus Christ, and
I am convinced that there is nothing in death or life, in the realms of spirits or superhuman powers, in the world as it is or the world as it shall be, in the forces of the universe, in heights or depths—nothing in all creation that can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom 8:38-39).
✠ Riegel
Feedback
Post your comment on this topic.