A PASSIONATE PLEA: “Don’t punish people who have little because they have little.”

ONE YEAR LATER: Has this plea been answered?

April 25, 2005

Rt. Rev. Charles E. Bennison, Jr.
240 South Fourth Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106

Dear Bishop Bennison:

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

The latest financial documentation requirement of the DCM clergy  is of great concern to the Union of Black Episcopalians. It is our understanding that a committee/commission has been formed to review this documentation and, after review, come to conclusions and make recommendations relative to clergy salaries and to the continuance of the parishes.

Please know that this action has caused consternation amongst the clergy and great fear and doubt amongst the lay people, both those in affected parishes and parishes not directly involved. As we attempt to understand what is going on we struggle with a number of questions and concerns, such as:

1. Why is it that ministries with so little are required to document their lives more than other ministries? Why isn’t the Parochial Report sufficient?
2. Are the “marginal” ministries also included in the required “additional documentation?
3. What is the background of these people who will make value judgements about these ministries that have such a long history and whose people work so diligently to keep the ministries alive? Have these committee/commission people experienced the anti-racism training offered by the diocese or the national church?
4. Are you aware of the message this action sends?
5. Are you aware of the interpretation we have given this whole
   process?

We worry that you may not be aware of the racial implications in this matter. For people whose responsibility it is to ‘crunch’ numbers…race is not an issue. But for you as the Diocesan here in Pennsylvania to have the majority of Black ministries be in that number, for you to either allow or order this to happen…is problematic. You will put yourself in the position to bear the burden of being labeled “racist.”

The recent example of this is your appointment of a  black clergy who is new to the diocese (less than a year) to chair this committee/commission. This is an act that sets him up in a divisive and adversarial role with his Black clergy peers whose ministries’ future will be determined by this chair’s and his committees’ decisions. Your placing him in this position deflects the frustration, anger and tension over the fate of these ministries away from you and toward him as chair along with his committee. What you have created, in other words, recalls a tactic as old as the days of slavery when one Black would be placed in a position to report to the master on the behavior and misdeeds of others. In this case, it is the future of Black ministries in the diocese at stake

We have no choice but to oppose this cynical historical maneuver especially when we see it exercised in the church of which we are a part. We understand that decreased funding requires examination and cuts…across the board. In a diocese the size of ours it is doubly difficult. However, to focus on the Black parishes in the diocese  gives rise to angst and responses we would rather not experience.

The Diocese of Pennsylvania is among those dioceses with the highest number of Black communicants here in the ECUS. To take action which could result in “gutting” ministries in African American and poor communities will require action on our part to save them.
We ask that you rethink what is about to take place…reconsider this action…so that we can focus on the stability of these ministries, helping them to grow and, looking to the future, to recruit new clergy As an older aged lay person, I wonder how I would approach a young person, engage him/her in conversation that focuses on life in the church and describe how a group of people, at the Bishop’s request, shuffled some papers and decided what a priest is to be paid, whether or not a parish should stay open or have a full time/part time priest or be yoked with another parish or, worse yet, be closed without ever informing the members of the parish or spending time to hear what the people were willing to do.

This action seems particularly painful since there has been no Archdeacon whose presence would have been both informative and healing. He/she would have worked with the various parishes, earned their trust and would have given the people some understanding and warning of what the situation was. For all intents and purposes this situation has the appearance of punishing people who have little because they have  little.

The Union of Black Episcopalians has existed over the years in order to educate, motivate, equip and send persons of color to participate fully in the life of the Episcopal Church. It also has been a place where persons of color could gather and “heal” from the racism in our secular and worship lives. It now looks as if we must gear up for a different kind of struggle.

Respectfully and sadly yours,

Jane R. Cosby, President
Philadelphia Chapter
Union of Black Episcopalians
Diocese of Pennsylvania