Whenever controversial issues swirl, passionate voices express deep and sincere conviction and concern. At the same time, there are also always those who see a press release like this one, not to mention the social media response to it, and have no idea what it’s talking about or referring to.

In case you’re in the latter group, the issue at hand is specifically recent actions of the Sierra Pacific Synod of the ELCA and Bishop Megan Rohrer regarding the effective removal from the roster of a Latine pastor who was in an investigation for misconduct allegations. If you want to read more details on the matter, a good source would be a blog post from February by a colleague bishop, Mike Rinehart, in Gulf Coast Synod: https://bishopmike.com/2022/02/15/whats-going-on-in-the-sierra-pacific-synod/

As concerning as this particular case may be, the outcry—much of which I find justified—has to do also (and perhaps more) with how this church’s accountability structures work, but also about how they fail due to systemic insensitivities to race and ethnicity that perpetuate blind spots and discrimination. There are four Latine bishops among the 65 bishops in the ELCA, and two of those four are among the six bishops of our Region 9. I have the utmost respect for them, including their patience and persistence in helping me to understand the repeated racial insensitivities of this church. In the Sierra Pacific Synod case, while indeed there were investigations and a Listening Post, a discipline panel was never convened, so official charges were never presented, and therefore the Latine mission developer pastor’s case was never duly adjudicated.

By virtue of his being a mission developer and both called by and employed by the synod council, the whole right to “due process” comes into question, particularly for ministers of color. Removal from office on one of the highest ethnic-religious festivals of the year in the Latine community speaks volumes about the systemic insensitivities of a historically very white church.

Admittedly, there is much I (we) don’t and can’t know about all the facts in the Sierra Pacific Synod case. It’s tough, and dangerous, to make a statement as a bishop based to some extent on what we continue to experience as “trial by social media.” I’ve already been asked to sign on to a call for Bishop Rohrer’s removal, and I may or may not do so depending on what official information and results of the Listening Post are or are not shared with us colleague bishops. Ideally, for me, the due process of a Discipline Panel would be the most fair and in line with our processes that exist. To the extent that those processes need to be changed to leave less wiggle room for racism, I am committed to that change.

The ELCA Latine community as a whole is deeply wounded and is even questioning if they have a place and a value within our church. Bishop Eaton’s decision not to convene a formal discipline panel for Bishop Rohrer is not what most in that community hoped for and demanded. Our siblings are hurting mightily. There are other ways to pursue discipline other than through the Presiding Bishop, and I know such conversations have been and are happening now.

We need to change our structures of accountability, especially regarding the synodical expressions of this church. We know that racism is real and that it is embedded in ways of which the (we) privileged aren’t even aware. That’s how privilege works and why it’s so insidious. Any time a person of color is mistreated, overlooked, or dismissed for any reason in this church, our current systems leave room for either intentional or baked-in racist insensitivity as well as ongoing harm to precious siblings in the faith. We can, we must, for the sake of the Gospel and for the sake of the world God so loves, do better!

Bishop Tim Smith, NC Synod