It pains me to write about this. There’s nothing inspiring about what I’m going to share. There’s not a silver lining that I can see.
Stated simply: last December a relatively well-known pastor (they’ve appeared on the show Queer Eye) and the first transgender bishop in the ELCA, Megan Rohrer, removed a Latino mission-start pastor in their synod from their call and from the clergy roster. This removal was in response to a set of allegations against the pastor by a group of women, and you can read the Sierra Pacific’s current synod council account of it here.
A growing coalition in our denomination believes the actions of Bishop Rohrer to go far beyond what is right. To learn the facts of this, I recommend you watch the following remarks from Bill Gohl bishop of the Delaware-Maryland Synod, beginning at the 1:30 mark
After these remarks and actions from the Delaware-Maryland synod, this week the presiding bishop of the ELCA, Elizabeth Eaton, released a “Bishop’s Report to the Church.”
In it, she essentially says she has asked Bishop Rohrer to resign, but will not take disciplinary action.
Then things get more complicated. Unfortunately, it appears the presiding bishop of our denomination intentionally obfuscated the actual report of the Listening Team. So that team released a statement, and then a general statement was published jointly by ELM (the organization within our denomination supporting LGBTQIA leaders), the Latino Ministries Association, and co-signed a host of executive leaders within the ELCA.
This last part I’ve never witnessed before in our denomination. Our most executive staff signed a letter condemning the presiding bishop’s letter. I invite you to read their statement so you hear their perspective in their own words.
I do not see a way forward through all of this that does not include Bishop Rohrer AND Bishop Eaton both resigning, for the sake of the gospel and for the sake of the church.
I don’t know how to even describe this whole situation to my congregation or colleagues. It’s all such a mess. Partially it’s messy because of intersectionality. Bishop Rohrer’s actions were troubling and racist and they are also transgender. So there are concerns in many directions, concerns about the treatment or scrutiny of the first transgender bishop, concerns about the treatment and scrutiny of Latino faith leaders, and of course concern about how this Latino mission community was treated within that synod, and now by the denomination as a whole. In addition, there are intersectional concerns about the allegations of the women who came forward with reports about the pastor.
For the time-being, I think the following steps would be wise. I’m going to try and keep listening to the impacted communities in particular, which is why I am aligned specifically with the joint letter published by ELM, LMA, and other staff of the ELCA, entitled O LORD, HOW LONG SHALL I CRY FOR HELP? RESPONSE FROM THE LATINO MINISTRIES ASSOCIATION AND PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS OF THE ELCA TO THE “PRESIDING BISHOP’S REPORT TO THE CHURCH” REGARDING THE SIERRA PACIFIC SYNOD.
Second, I would like to see the Listening Team follow their own advice to the bishop and simply publish their report. If it is good for that report to be made public, the listening team can just do it.
Finally, I’d just like to apologize for my own complicity in this. I pastor in a denomination that is struggling to do better at anti-racism work. I cannot watch these events happening at the national level, or in a synod in California, without keeping in mind that I continue to have work to do, our local church continues to have work to do, in order to overcome white supremacy and work toward the kin-dom of God.
But to these two bishops, please, for the love of God, we need you both to do better. This is not helping our church, and it is not centering the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I abide in prayer with you for a sweeping baptism of love through the ELCA that will bind all in Grace toward one another. -- jim huffman
It would start with examining the institutional restrictions inhibiting the development of community. Ask why, who, what and whether each of our structures expands or restricts our sense and reality of community. For instance, does the regalia encourage undue deference to service leadership that makes members more observer rather than participant? Is designating pastor senior imply a difference in authority? Does the arrangement of pews separate? Is organ led singing encouraging participation or merely observation? Do we really need to do all 6 verses?
The point is for the community to decide what THEY want in their structure, and to allow and encourage sharing the substance of the faith. I would venture that in our typical congregation (ever wasting away) more folks think of themselves as observers rather than participant. Reform would look more like folks being there because they are sharing values, faith expression and mutuality.