CHURCH IN TURMOIL: THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF PENNSYLVANIA

by

Eric W. Rabe

Submitted to the Program of Organizational Dynamics in the Graduate Division of the School of Arts and Sciences in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Organizational Dynamics at the University of Pennsylvania

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

2011

CHURCH IN TURMOIL: THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Approved by: _________________________________________________ Larry M. Starr, Ph.D., Program Director __________________________________________________ John H. Fielder, Ph.D., Reader __________________________________________________ The Very Rev. Judith Sullivan, M Div., Reader

ABSTRACT The Diocese of Pennsylvania of The Episcopal Church in early 2011 and its organizational challenges are examined in this thesis. Various factions have been at odds with one another on matters of finance and governance for several years. The management of the current bishop has polarized clergy and laity. The recent history of the diocese is reviewed, and I present the perspectives of ten key leaders of the diocese during preceding decade on the current effectiveness of the diocese as an organization and as a community. The observations are synthesized and analyzed to provide a comprehensive view. The leaders believe that the diocese is ineffective, some say dysfunctional. Furthermore, the findings suggest that challenges of shrinking congregations, an oversupply of church buildings and clergy, controversy over the current bishop and an inability to agree on a common direction are creating a complex problem with no easy or immediate solution likely This thesis captures a view of the diocese as it operates in early 2011, examines how this situation came to be and offers options that are available to the diocese.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My deep appreciation is extended to Dr. Larry Starr, program director and my capstone course advisor for his interest and patience, but especially for his guidance and keen insights that have been critical to the development of this thesis. I also thank Dr. John Fielder, reader for this project, who consistently offered thoughtful advice and comment and graciously took on this project while preparing for retirement. The Very Rev. Judith Sullivan, Dean of the Philadelphia Cathedral and reader, provided insights and advice that could only have come from a concerned priest with deep understanding of and commitment to the Diocese of Pennsylvania. My deepest thanks go out to the people who gave me their candid comments and frank assessments of the Diocese of Pennsylvania for this project. This thesis would not have been possible without the gracious gifts of time and insight from the ten key leaders interviewed here. Each of those interviewed was unfailingly helpful, candid and open. John Sorensen, an expert in church development, provided additional insights on contemporary Episcopal thinking besides his comments reported in Chapter 11. The Rev. Peter Vanderveen, rector of the Church of the Redeemer in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, gave me hours of his time and his valuable perspective on the diocese and The Episcopal Church. I also received help from the diocesan staff particularly Rob Rogers, chief financial officer, and Linda Hollingsworth, bishops assistant. Finally, I thank my wife, Luisa, who throughout the project offered her intelligent insights, thoughtful edits and unfailing encouragement.

iv

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 2 3 4

Key Committees of the Diocese of Pennsylvania Increases and Decreases in Parish Giving to the Diocese of Pennsylvania 2010 to 2011 Text Analysis Process Reframing the Diocese of Pennsylvania

Page 6 9 101 120

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Parish Giving to the Diocese of Pennsylvania, 2001 to 2010 Proportion of Protestants Professing a Mainline Denomination by Year Church Attendance Decline Forecast 2000-2050 Charles E. Bennison, Jr. William C. Bullitt Ledlie I. Laughlin Frank Allen Isaac Miller Church of the Advocate, Philadelphia William Wood George Whitfield, Jr. John Sorenson Rodney R. Michel Robert Tate Effectiveness Word Cloud Community and Support Word Cloud Page 8 10 11 27 35 41 47 54 56 62 69 77 84 92 103 105

vi

FIGURE 17 18 19 20 21 Strengths Word Cloud Weaknesses Word Cloud Opportunities Word Cloud Threats Word Cloud Priorities Word Cloud

Page 107 108 110 111 112

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER 1 2 Introduction The Diocese of Pennsylvania and The Episcopal Church The Episcopal Church Diocese of Pennsylvania Organization Finance in the Diocese of Pennsylvania Management Issues in Religious Organizations Founding of a Decentralized Diocese Recent History of the Diocese of Pennsylvania Trial and Acquittal of The Rt. Rev. Charles Bennison Research Methodology Purpose of Research Design Subjects Bishop Charles Bennison, Bishop of Pennsylvania Mr. William Bullitt, former chancellor, Diocese of Pennsylvania The Rev. Ledlie Laughlin, Rector, St. Peters Church, Chair, Standing Committee The Rev. Frank Allen, Rector, St. Davids Church, Standing Committee The Rev. Isaac Miller, Retired Rector, Church of the Advocate Page iii iv v vi 1 3 3 5 6 9 12 14 19 22 22 23 24 26 35 41 47 54

4 5 6 7 8

viii Page 9 The Rev. William Wood, Rector, St. Christophers Church, former Chair, Standing Committee 62

10 Mr. George Whitfield, Former Vice-Chair, Diocesan Council 11 John Sorensen, Rector, St. Johns Church, Chair, Diocesan Mission Planning Commission 12 Bishop Rodney Michel, Assisting Bishop, Diocese of Pennsylvania 13 The Rev. Robert Tate, Retired Rector, St. Martin-in-the-Fields 14 Analysis, Synthesis and Conclusion Analysis Assumptions Data Analysis Question #1: Effectiveness of the Diocese of Pennsylvania Question #2: Diocese as a Community and Support Question #3: SWOT Analysis Question #4: Priorities for the Diocese of Pennsylvania Reframing Analysis Systemic Issues and the Role of Charles Bennison Leadership in Religious Organizations REFERENCES APPENDIX A William Wood Critique of the Performance of Bishop Bennison

69 77 84 92 100 100 100 103 104 106 112 113 121 123 127 130

ix

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Founded in 1786, the Diocese of Pennsylvania is the oldest and the fifth largest of the 110 dioceses of The Episcopal Church in the United States. In the last decade it has also been one of the most troubled. Various factions have been at odds with one another on matters of finance and governance. The management of the current bishop has polarized the clergy and laity. By mid-March 2011, two-thirds of the churches that formerly pledged financial support to the diocese had cut their contribution. The diocese lacks a common direction and purpose according to key leaders. Many including both clergy and laity have withdrawn from involvement in diocesan activities. This thesis captures a view of the diocese as it operates in early 2011, examines how this situation came to be and offers options that are available to the diocese. I consider how men and women united in love and Christian fellowship on the one hand find themselves unable to agree on direction or a focus for the common good. I examine the organizational and social effectiveness of the diocese through the eyes of ten of its past and present leaders. In the Diocese of Pennsylvania, internal tensions coincided with the arrival of a new bishop in 1996, initially around issues of finances and property control. Conflict peaked by 2006. A major leadership group, the Standing Committee, was by then in open revolt against the bishop, the elected head of the diocese. Finally, in 2008, the diocesan bishop, Charles Bennison, Jr., was charged under church law with conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy. In two counts, Bennison was charged essentially with looking the other way in connection with a case of sexual abuse at a church he ran in California in the 1970s and involving an ordained deacon who was the Bishop's younger brother, John, and a teenaged girl. In 2007, Bennison was formally inhibited, or blocked from performing any

of his normal duties. Given the Bishops firm belief that he had acted appropriately at the time and that the charges were ridiculous, given political opposition to him, and given the environment of broad news media coverage and wide public disgust with cases of sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, a lengthy trial and appeal process was predictable. With Bishop Bennison inhibited, the Diocese's Standing Committee became its ecclesiastical authority. Unapologetic for its antipathy toward Bennison, the Standing Committee argued it had the role of a board of directors for the diocese and that all other bodies in the diocese were subordinate. The canons governing the diocese and The Episcopal Church nation-wide direct primarily an advisory role for standing committees, although in Pennsylvania, the Standing Committee has authority over some funds. Many, both in the pews and the pulpits, questioned whether or not acting as the board of directors was the Standing Committees proper role. After a series of trials and appeals over more than two years, the highest review court found Bishop Bennison innocent of one of the two counts. On the other, the court found that Bishop Bennison committed conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy, but the court ruled that the statute of limitations had expired on that offense. In the fall of 2010, Charles Bennison returned to his active role as Bishop. Controversy over Bennisons leadership of the Diocese of Pennsylvania continues.

CHAPTER 2 THE DIOCESE OF PENNSYLVANIA AND THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH

The Diocese of Pennsylvania counts some 47,700 active members (as of 2010) of the approximately two million members of The Episcopal Church in the United States. The diocese includes 143 churches in Philadelphia and the surrounding five counties (Diocese of Pennsylvania, 2010). Its headquarters is in two historic mansions known as Church House, at 240 South Fourth Street at the corner of Locust Street in Philadelphia. The Episcopal Church The Episcopal Church, as the church in the United States is called, is part of The Anglican Communion, an association of 39 churches worldwide that emerged over the last 500 years from the Church of England. Anglicans are part of the 16th Century Protestant Reformation movement. The senior bishop of The Anglican Communion is the Archbishop of Canterbury who has the power to convene and lead ecumenical relations and interfaith relations but does not exert worldwide governance over the various churches that comprise the Communion. There is no Pope or Vatican-like authority in the Anglican Communion.1 Yet the church operates with a hierarchy of deacons, priests and bishops, known as an episcopal structure, and the church traces the authority of its clergy to early Christianity just as do the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. The Anglican Communion describes itself as protestant, yet catholic. As a part of the Reformation, it is clearly protestant. The Nicene Creed used in Anglican Churches
1

For a discussion of Anglicanism and its relation to The Episcopal Church, see The Episcopal Church (n.d.). What Makes Us Anglican? at http://www.episcopalchurch.org

4 worldwide and in The Episcopal Church Book of Common Prayer (1979) in the U.S. asks believers to accept one holy catholic and apostolic Church. Episcopalians are catholic in the sense of universal or all-inclusive. In the United States, The Episcopal Church is living out the commitment to be allinclusive sometimes to the concern of conservative Anglicans in the U.S. and around the world. For example, in 2006, American Episcopalians elected as their presiding bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, the first woman ever to serve in that U.S. position or as primate in anywhere in the Anglican Communion (Banerjee, 2006). The Presiding Bishop initiates and develops church policy and strategy, and Jefferts Schori has the authority to discipline bishops under the canons of The Episcopal Church (2009). Jefferts Schori serves a nine-year term. The Episcopal Church in 2003 ordained the first openly gay person to be bishop, Gene Robinson, who became Bishop of New Hampshire, and in 2010 a majority of the dioceses in the United States approved the election of a second openly gay bishop, Mary D. Glasspool (Goodstein, 2010). The combination of the ordination of women and the election of women and openly gay people as bishops in the United States has caused national and international controversy (Burns, 2010). A group of conservative U.S. churches has gone so far as to split from The Episcopal Church to form their own rival denomination (Goldstein, 2008). Amid all of this, the Roman Catholic Church made an unprecedented bid to attract disaffected Episcopalians. The Roman Catholic decision in 2009 makes it possible for conservative priests and parishes to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony,

5 according to Cardinal William J. Levada, a Roman Catholic official quoted in The New York Times (Donadio and Goldstein, 2009). Diocese of Pennsylvania Organization Diocesan Bishop Charles Bennison was installed as chief executive and chief pastor of the Diocese of Pennsylvania in 1998. However, the ultimate authority for the diocese, its program and its finances, is vested in an annual convention of all the priests in the diocese and three elected lay members from each parish (Diocese of Pennsylvania, 2008). The 2010 convention was held in November at the Philadelphia Convention Center. The diocese has its own set of canons regularly updated and approved by the Convention. The most recent modification was during the Churchs Convention in 2010. The canons describe the work of various committees, commissions and offices. Key committees are Standing Committee, Diocesan Council and the Finance and Property Committee (see Table 1). Besides the bishop, these committees constitute some of the most important power centers in the diocese. Generally speaking, along with the bishop these committees control the budgets and spending of the diocese organization. Local churches raise money for their programs and control local budgets.

6 Table 1. Key Committees of the Diocese of Pennsylvania Committee Standing Committee General Function
Typically and under national church canon, a standing committee gives advice and counsel to the bishop and has authority in some matters of property disposition and clergy discipline. In the Diocese of Pennsylvania under Canon 4.1.4 the Bishop and Standing Committee develop the episcopate budget that deals with the bishops staff and staff support. The Diocesan Councils duty shall be to carry out the programs and policies adopted by the Convention.... under Canon 6.2.1. The Council develops the program budget governing activities of the Diocese, but not the Bishops office and staff. Council also assists the Bishop in administration of the diocese, however, the power to act as convention between meetings of the Diocesan Convention was stripped from Council by amendment of the canons in 2006. This committee oversees financial matters including maintenance of property, develops a formula for pledging and assessment of parishes, and supports the Diocesan Council. It is governed by Canons 4.7 and 6.3.

Diocesan Council

Finance & Property Committee

Finance in the Diocese Funds to operate the diocese come from a number of sources, but predominantly money comes from endowments and giving by member churches. Each year, the diocese prepares two budgets. The program budget provides for the operation of the various church-supporting and social programs carried out by the diocese. Member parishes voluntarily contribute funds for this budget, although the diocese provides a suggested amount depending upon the size and budget of the local parish. The program budget is prepared by the Diocesan Council and approved by members of Convention. The second budget is known as the episcopate budget. The Standing Committee creates this budget, and the bishop and Standing Committee approve it. It pays Church House salaries including the bishops, funds staff support, and provides money for certain other canonically required functions such as licensing, personnel expenses involving clergy and similar matters. Member churches are assessed a specific amount of money for the episcopate budget each year, and the parishes are expected to

7 pay this assessment (Diocese of Pennsylvania, 2008). The theory behind this arrangement is that the core operation of the diocese must be funded, irrespective of the whims or financial straits of the member churches while programs can grow in good times and shrink in harder times to reflect current financial realities. In addition, the diocese is regularly the recipient of bequests and other giving by individuals, and it receives money from the occasional sale of buildings or land no longer needed for church work. This money may go into the general fund of the diocese or be used for some specified purpose. Uniquely in the Diocese of Pennsylvania, the Standing Committee has direct control over some of these funds. Diocesan income is not what it once was. To take one measure, total annual giving of $3.18 million in 2001 dropped to $2.35 million by 2010. However, those figures may misrepresent the willingness of parishes to give to the diocese. The amount given voluntarily and not part of the churches assessment, is known as the Fair Share Pledge. That giving fell more sharply during the same period from $2.3 million to only $745,000, less than one-third of what it had been, (see Figure 1).

8 Figure 1. Parish Giving to the Diocese of Pennsylvania, 2001 to 2010 (Figures in dollars except years.)

Source: Diocese of Pennsylvania Financial Reports 2001 to 2010

Matters are not improving in the current year. Table 2 shows the increases and decreases in the optional Fair Share Pledge for 2011 compared to 2010. At the point this data was provided to the Finance and Property Committee, March. 16, 2011, there were twice as many cuts in giving that exceeded $500 as there were increases that exceeded $500. Fifty-six of 143 parishes had not pledged at all and seven more said they could give nothing. However, one exceptional parish increased its pledge by some $60,000 offsetting what would have been a substantial reduction in income for the diocese in 2011.

9 Table 2. Increases and Decreases in Parish Giving to the Diocese of Pennsylvania 2010 to 2011 Up/Down Increases greater than $500 Increases less than $500 Total Increases Decreases greater than $500 Decreases less than $500 Total Decreases Remaining the same Total Parishes Pledging 26 10 36 29 87 of 143
*Of the 87 parishes pledging, 7 pledged $0.

Sub Total 13 9

Total

22

Management Issues In Religious Organizations Mainline protestant churches including The Episcopal Church in the United States and specifically the Diocese of Pennsylvania face management challenges born of a changing environment. In recent years, the economic downturn in the United States has meant that church managers must do with less both because of lower giving and also because of lower returns on investments. Like most nonprofit groups, churches are dealing with tighter budgets than they were a decade or five years ago. Programs such as social service projects can easily suffer while churches put priority on paying mortgages, electric bills and salaries. A longer-lasting challenge may be dealing with the tendency of Americans to move away from mainline churches. Iannaccone (1995) argues that religious consumers make the same rational choice as consumers of other products, and they base decisions on fixed personal preferences and knowledge of alternatives rather than dogma. Those

10 choices include using available time away from work for activities that do not necessarily include religion. The General Social Survey, funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (in Hout, Greeley and Wilde, 2001), shows the trend (see Figure 2). The mainline congregations Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist and others grew smaller and smaller between 1978 and 1998 and Olson (2004) expects the trend to continue (see Figure 3). Figure 2. Proportion of Protestants Professing a Mainline Demonimation by Year: Protestants, 25-74 Years Old, United States, 1972-1998.

Furthermore, mainline churches are in competition with more conservative religious organizations. Hout, Greeley and Wilde (2001) argue that Protestants are more likely to belong to conservative churches primarily because of the higher birth rates and earlier childbearing of women in conservative churches during the last century. Yet the trends away from organized religion affect even Evangelical churches, although at a slower rate than mainline denominations according to research by David Olsen (2004), the director of church planning for the Evangelical Covenant Church. He projects that by

11 2050 only 11.7% of all Americans will attend church regularly, down from 20.4% in 1990 (see Figure 3). Figure 3. Church Attendance Decline Forecast 2000-2050

Church attendance as a percentage of U.S. population. Actual 1990 and 2000 and forecast 2010 and beyond.

Thirty-eight years ago Peter Drucker (1973) argued that managing religious and other public service institutions is best done when the organization focuses on a clear purpose, sets objectives and goals, establishes priorities, defines measures of performance, builds in feed-back on their efforts and audits objectives and results so adjustments can be made. Yet Drucker argued that in his study of not-for-profit organizations, few were doing any of this very well. Crittenden, Crittenden and Hunt (1988) twenty-three years ago suggested that there was then little focus on management training when it comes to the education of priests and other church managers. In a study, they related effective planning and management to customer satisfaction among church members, but they went on to note,

12 Traditional theological education does not emphasize management principles, and few church administrators appear adequately prepared to deal with the strategic issues of managing an organization. (p. 65). It is the leaders trained when this work was done that are managing churches today. In 2011, a Google search of the World Wide Web2 revealed a plethora of church management training programs including those offered by universities such as Villanova, self-help programs and management software. Yet stakeholders interviewed for this paper agree that the lack of a clear focus, vision and good strategic planning are among the most serious issues facing the Diocese of Pennsylvania. Founding of a Decentralized Diocese By the late-eighteenth century, Pennsylvania was home to not only founder William Penns Quakers, but also, because of Quaker tolerance, Pennsylvania was home to Christians of many faiths including the Anglicans. Their church had separated from the Roman Catholic Church more than 250 years earlier when King Henry VIII broke with the Pope in 1534. Henry set up his own official state religion, the Church of England with the King of England, himself, at its head. With the Revolutionary War, Americans Anglicans rejected the Church of England. The Pennsylvania Anglicans gathered in Philadelphia in 1784 to help create the Diocese of Pennsylvania and a national church under the leadership of William White, the rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia. Clergy and lay deputies from 17 Episcopal churches in Pennsylvania worked to constitute an ecclesiastical government to coordinate uniform worship, to ordain priests and bishops and to govern the new national Episcopal
2

Search conducted Mar. 20, 2011 at http://www.google.com/search? q=church+management+training

13 Church, its parishes and dioceses. A year later, on May 24, 1785, the Pennsylvania Episcopalian leaders signed a formal Act of Association. Whites newly minted Diocese of Pennsylvania became the mother diocese of The Episcopal Church, while his Christ Church became the mother church of the entire denomination, David Contosta (in press) declares in his history of the diocese to be published in 2012. The Diocese of Pennsylvania was never incorporated, although the corporate model is in use in other dioceses in the United States. In Pennsylvania, the organization rests only on the compact of the churches. The early Episcopalians in Pennsylvania agreed that the new ecclesiastical government would have no powers except such as cannot conveniently be exercised by the Clergy and Laity in their respective Congregations. Ultimate authority was vested not in a bishop, but in a representative body of clergy and laity cojointly, the Act said, and it called for an annual convention to manage the diocese. (Diocese of Pennsylvania, 2008). The resulting convention has been held 227 times. Despite agreeing to meet regularly, the eighteenth century churches had little desire to be organized, and no desire to be ordered around. This history of independence and decentralization would continue to be a guiding force for the actions in the diocese more than 200 years later. In 2011 with the diocese well-established and well-endowed, most of its member churches nonetheless identify themselves in terms of their local parish and ministry rather than as members of the larger diocese. The core elements of belief for Episcopalians are outlined in the Articles of Religion found in the Book of Common Prayer (Episcopal Church, 1973). Irrespective of

14 this document approved by American Episcopalians in 1801, the reality is that 200 years later Episcopalians within the diocese and across the country embrace a wide variety of approaches to liturgy and even to belief. This is a hallmark of the comprehensiveness of Anglicanism. Anglicans are not a confessional denomination, and the church doesnt ask for agreement on all theological matters. One finds in the church a strong progressive, liberal bias that favors social activism, experiments with liturgy, takes pride in inclusiveness, and values service to others. Other conservative Episcopalians focus on preserving the best of the past, treasure traditional liturgies, music and churches, invest and spend resources cautiously, and also value service to others. Recent history The Diocese of Pennsylvania elected Charles Bennison bishop coadjutor in 1996. For a year and a half he served as coadjutor, essentially an assistant, to Bishop Alan Bartlett until Bartlett retired in May of 1998 and Bennison became diocesan bishop. Although the leadership of Bartlett might be described as tranquil, organizational tensions had been building for 30 years. The 1960s and 70s were marked by struggles for equality by African Americans. Bishop Robert DeWitt arrived to lead the diocese just as racial tensions in Philadelphia were taking form in riots in Chester, a city just to the south, and in North Philadelphia. DeWitt responded to protestors demands with enthusiasm and dollars during his ten years as the Bishop of Pennsylvania. Church property on Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia was sold, and later, in response to demands for retribution, the diocese agreed to use a large part of the proceeds to set up a $500,000 fund to aid the African American community. The money would be given without controls. As the 1970s began,

15 DeWitt endorsed the ordination of women as Episcopal priests. As Hackney (in press) notes, by 1971, DeWitts advanced stances on race and gender questions had created considerable opposition in the diocese. Divisions among clergy and laity were stark and morale was low. Meanwhile, The Episcopal Church (1979) was preparing for the use of the new edition of The Book of Common Prayer with an extensive revision that used contemporary language and offered an alternative to the thys and thous of the previous prayer book published in 1928. Various drafts of the new Prayer Book were authorized for trials during the 1970s, and in 1979 the new book became the official one for The Episcopal Church. The replacement of traditional liturgies and the removal of some familiar prayers altogether caused considerable controversy. One church in the diocese, Good Shepherd in Rosemont, Pennsylvania, went to far as to publish a competing prayer book, the Anglican Service Book (Church of the Good Shepherd, 1998). Good Shepherds book uses older language and service forms. At the same time the national church was struggling with demands that women be ordained. In 1974, three bishops of The Episcopal Church, including the now retired DeWitt, ordained 11 women as priests, the first women ever to be ordained in either The Episcopal Church or in the Church of England. The ordination at the Church of the Advocate in Philadelphia was clearly non-canonical, but it was no secret, and it was widely discussed before it occurred. Once again, the Diocese of Pennsylvania was in controversy. Liberal elements loudly applauded the ordination of women, and just as loudly conservatives decried it. The website Religious Tolerance (n.d.) notes that it caused massive outrage throughout the Church and the Anglican Communion world-

16 wide. By the mid-1990s, the Church faced a new controversy over ordination of openly homosexual men and women that also sharply divided members of the Church. Like the ordination of women, the ordination of an openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson in New Hampshire, caused waves throughout the church (Goldstein, 2008). As Bishop Bennison took his position at the Diocese of Pennsylvania, leaders of some of its churches were rejecting the authority of the diocese and petitioning to associate with bishops elsewhere. Among these were churches such as Good Shepherd, Rosemont, that were members of a growing conservative Anglo-Catholic movement. Other local churches rejected the authority of the diocese for their own reasons. In all, eleven dissident churches were making their voices felt when the new bishop arrived. The dissenting churches stopped financially supporting the diocese and refused to accept regular visits from the new bishop. Bennison took up the challenge, and eventually a number of the cases went to court. Early on leaders of the dissident churches may have thought they had an ally in the new bishop because statements he made during his selection process might have suggested tolerance of their positions. They soon found out that was not the case. The battles that resulted have absorbed hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and in some cases remain unresolved in 2011. Against this backdrop of conflict within the national church and the diocese, Bishop Bennison initiated an activist ministry and called on diocesan leadership to join in creating a new a strategic plan that was ultimately approved in 2003. To create the plan, the bishop called a series of meetings of clergy and lay leaders. At the same time, however, the bishop recorded a video that many saw as outlining a predetermined

17 strategic plan. In the video, Bennison laid out an agenda he thought reflected a consensus: create a church camp, establish a strong cathedral and support congregations by planting new churches and supporting some in crisis. Those three, camp, cathedral and congregation, along with an energized campus ministry became the Four Cs that were the essence of the strategic plan named Our Holy Experiment after William Penns description of Pennsylvania. Although each agenda item would run into opposition, the Bishop pushed forward on all fronts, determined to make progress on these goals. Although Bishop Bartlett had already designated a large University City church as the Cathedral, the effort was nascent and few in the parish-oriented diocese understood why a cathedral was needed when the 200-year-old diocese had never before had one. However, he new Cathedral had a healthy endowment tied to the former parish church there, and it was able to accomplish a controversial, sweeping renovation using its own financial resources. The bishop had to abandon an early commitment never to close a Diocesan church. The diocese created the Diocesan Coalition for Mission and Ministry more than a decade before Bennison arrived to support struggling congregations in urban areas, often historically African American neighborhoods. Aid was offered to other parishes through grants. Yet, as some congregations dwindled to just a few parishioners and a priest, the diocese in 2011 is confronted with the need to shutter a number of the parishes it has supported. The plan to create a summer camp for young people on a $6 million, 618 acre tract of land along the shore of the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland was the most

18 controversial of all the issues Bennison faced. The story illustrates organization and management challenges in the diocese. Although envisioned years before Bishop Bennison arrived at the Diocese of Pennsylvania, no real effort to own and operate a summer camp had gone forward. A pool of money known as the Denbigh Fund had been earmarked for a camp but had not been used. Land was identified and purchased in 2003, and the diocese built and repaired buildings, establishing Camp Wapiti. Church leadership was divided on the new camp almost from the beginning. Opponents saw the project as spending scant money that could be used to support needy parishes on a project poorer parishioners were unlikely to use. Determined, Bennison pressed ahead, but within a few years, a major element of the camp financial structure, the sale of development rights to the state of Maryland, fell through. The camp has now been closed and the property is on the market. The diocese continues to pay for maintenance and other expenses until a buyer comes forward. A multi-million dollar mortgage is coming due in November 2011 (Contosta, in press). By the mid-2000s, opposition elements in the diocese were in control of important policy-making organizations, including the most powerful, the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee was by this time in open revolt, opposing the Bishop on a host of issues including Camp Wapiti and demanding that Bennison resign. A bishop has wide authority, however, and a considerable bankroll at his disposal, and he continued to move forward on objectives he believed important for the diocese and part of his future legacy. Frustrated with an inability to prevent the spending, in 2007 Standing Committee drew up a formal complaint that Bishop Bennison had mismanaged diocese funds and went to the national church asking for charges against the bishop (Diocese of

19 Pennsylvania, 2006). The Episcopal Church declined to take action. Trial and Acquittal of The Rt. Rev. Charles Bennison At about this same time, stories began to surface of the Bishops involvement as a young rector at St. Marks in Upland, California, with a sexual abuse scandal. As rector, Charles Bennison had employed his brother John as a youth leader in the parish. John was married and a newly-ordained deacon preparing for the priesthood when in the early 1970s John began an affair with a 14-year-old girl who was a member of the church youth group. However, the story of the affair did not become public knowledge until 2006. Standing Committee saw Charles Bennison's involvement in the affair of his brother 30 years earlier as an outrage. Along with disagreements over the financial and other matters, this latest development co-produced the opportunity to push forward and force Bishop Bennisons removal. The national church investigated the affair and in October 2007, it charged Charles Bennison with two counts of conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy. Specifically, one of two charges defined the offense as Contemporaneous Failure to Respond Appropriately and detailed the charge as follows (Court of Review, 2010): Charles Bennison engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy when, as rector at St. Mark's Upland in 1975, he failed to fire or suspend his brother immediately, failed to investigate his brother's conduct, and failed to discharge his pastoral obligations to a 14-year-old parishioner, the members of her family, and the members of the parish youth group after he learned that a member of his staff the youth group coordinator, who happened to be his brother - was engaged in a sexually abusive and sexually exploitative relationship with the 14 year-old. (p. 1). In a second charge, Bennison was accused of Subsequent Suppression of Pertinent Information and it said,

20 By deliberately and systematically concealing from family members and parishioners what he knew about his brother's misconduct, and by failing to place the needs of the church and his former parishioners above his perceived obligations to himself and his brother, Charles Bennison engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy. (p. 2). Bishop Bennison was inhibited by Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori, and in June 2008, Bennison went on trial. As an inhibited bishop, Bennison was not permitted to perform any of his duties or lead worship. Instead the Standing Committee became the ecclesiastical authority in the diocese. In effect, the advisory committee assumed the role of bishop (OReilly, 2008). For more than two years, the church legal process crawled on with Bishop Bennison losing his appeal of his conviction and working his way to consideration of his case to the highest church court. On July 28, 2010 that court, known as the Court of Review (2010), issued its ruling. The court found that Bennison had engaged in conduct unbecoming because of his pastoral failure, but the statute of limitations on that offense had long ago expired. Charles Bennison was never charged with sexual abuse, which has no time limit. The frustration of the Review Court was evident in its ruling: For the reasons stated herein, we find that Appellant committed conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy. Because the statute of limitations has run on that offense, we have no choice under the canons of the Church but to reverse the judgment of the Trial Court finding that Appellant is guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy under the First Offense. Prosecution is bared by the applicable statute of limitations and, for that reason, alone, we are compelled to order and we hereby order that the judgment of the Trial Court is reversed and judgment is rendered here in favor of the Appellant on the First Offense. The Judgment of the Trial Court finding that Appellant is guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy under the Second Offense is reversed and judgment is rendered here in favor of the Appellant on the Second Offense. (p. 38).

21 Bennison was free to resume the leadership of the diocese as bishop and did so in the summer of 2010. At the November 2010 Convention, delegates passed by a vote of 341 to 134 a resolution asking that the bishop resign. This even though the convention has no power to enforce such a request. The bishop ignored the resolution.

22

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODLOLGY

Purpose of Research
The purpose of this research is to examine and present the current state of the Diocese of Pennsylvania thus providing a context for future work to improve its effectiveness as an organization for support of its members and to perform good works. I expect to show that the diocese faces tensions, anger, divisiveness and frustration among the churches, the clergy and the lay members, and that this situation limits the effectiveness of the diocese as an organization. I will examine support for churches, the clergy and the people from the central organization and to what extent it is effective. Very little has been written about this situation and virtually no independent research has examined the problems, causes or possible solutions. Through a series of interviews with ten key leaders, I will gather the views of clergy and lay people who have deep experience in the diocese between 2001 and 2011. Many of those interviewed serve in key posts in the diocese. All have served as leaders of churches and committees of the diocese, and in most cases they have had a ringside seat as the diocese has confronted divisive issues during the entire decade beginning in 2001. An analysis of their observations will conclude this thesis. A secondary goal of this work is to suggest steps the diocese can take to move forward constructively. Those observations and recommendations are found in Chapter 14.

23

Design
Between February 16 through March 8, 2011, I interviewed ten present and former leaders of the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania. Each of those interviewed was asked to respond to the following four issues: (1) Describe the diocese today as an organization and comment on how effectively it operates. (2) Describe the diocese as a community, the support it provides for clergy and lay members. (3) List as the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the diocese today and why you included these. (4) List your recommendations for the top priorities for the diocese for the next five years. Each of the interviews was recorded using an Olympus WS-700 digital voice recorder and transcribed. The objective of these interviews was to gather and present a collective viewpoint of the state of the Diocese of Pennsylvania. To do so, the observations of the interview subjects as a group are synthesized and analyzed in two ways. First, I examine the implications of the specific words the group used to answer the four questions posed. I analyze which words were most frequently used, and I provide commentary on the meaning associated with those words in the context of our interviews. Second, I analyze the observations of the ten interview subjects as a group from the perspectives, or frames, developed by Bolman and Deal (2008). They argue that to analyze what is happening in an organization, a valuable method is to examine the organization from four distinctive perspectives: structural, human resource, political and symbolic. An analysis based on these frames and some options this analysis suggests are presented in Chapter 14. Next, based on the research here, I analyzed the leadership of the Bishop of Pennsylvania and the controversy surrounding that leadership as seen by the interview subjects. Finally, I

24 offer recommendations for next steps the diocese may consider. Subjects The following were selected for interviews: Diocesan Bishop Charles Bennison was selected because he is the chief executive of the diocese as well as its pastoral leader. Bennison has been at the center of much of the controversy in the diocese between 2001 and 2011 Bishop Rodney Michel, assisting bishop, was selected because he brings an outside perspective yet one enriched by his service as leader of the diocese during much of the period of Bishop Bennisons inhibition between 2007 and 2010. Michel continues to serve as assisting bishop in 2011. The Rev. Frank Allen, rector, St. Davids Church, was selected because he is a current member of the Standing Committee and leader of one of the largest, and one of the few growing parishes in the diocese. The Rev. Ledlie Laughlin, rector, St. Peters Church, is also president of the Standing Committee. He was selected because, as president, he holds one of the most influential leadership roles in the diocese. The Rev. Isaac Miller, retired priest, was selected because he has been active in the diocese for nearly a quarter of a century and currently serves on Standing Committee. The Rev. John Sorenson, rector, St. Johns Church, was selected because he has experience in church organization development in the Diocese of Albany before coming to Pennsylvania, and he is chair of the Diocesan Mission Planning Commission which is seeking reconciliation among various factions in the Diocese of Pennsylvania. The Rev. Robert Tate, parish consultant, was selected because until he retired in

25 2010, Tate was rector of one of the largest churches in the diocese. Also, he has long experience on committees of the diocese and currently he works with troubled churches. The Rev. William Wood, rector, St. Christophers Church, was selected because he was president of Standing Committee when the committee asked for Bishop Bennisons resignation in January 2006. Mr. William Bullitt, lay leader, was selected because he served as chancellor of the Diocese of Pennsylvania for more than 15 years, and he has an intimate knowledge of the legal structure of the diocese and the national church. Mr. George Whitfield, lay leader, was selected because he has been an active leader of the diocese for more than 20 years serving as vice-chair of Diocesan Council and representative to Convention for 23 years.

26

CHAPTER 4 THE RT. REV. CHARLES E. BENNISON, JR., BISHOP OF PENNSYLVANIA Church House is the combination of two colonial-era residences in the Society Hill area of Philadelphia, the second oldest part of the city. The bishops office is a highceilinged room on the second floor with a desk, a comfortable sitting area and a large windows looking out on Fourth Street to the east. Charles Bennison and I met there on February 16, 2011, for the interview from which this chapter draws. The conversation was cordial, candid and lasted for nearly two hours. Charles E. Bennison, Jr. (see Figure 4) was elected bishop coadjutor in November 1996 and he became the fifteenth Diocesan Bishop of Pennsylvania when his predecessor, Allen Bartlett, retired in May of 1998. Bennison was educated at Seabury Western Theological Seminary and the Harvard Divinity School. As rector, he led parishes in Upland, California, and in Atlanta, Georgia, and immediately before coming to the Diocese of Pennsylvania, Bennison taught pastoral theology at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Son of a bishop himself, Bennison had been one of five candidates to be bishop coadjutor standing for election at the convention of the diocese in 1996. Another was Rev. John E. Midwood, archdeacon of the diocese, a popular local candidate. When Bennison was elected, the large group of Midwood supporters was deeply disappointed. Bennison took over as eleven parishes were rejecting any local authority and instead affiliating themselves with flying bishops from outside the diocese. It was a

27 divisive issue for the Diocese of Pennsylvania. Bennison told me his time as bishop was immediately chaotic. Figure 4, Charles E. Bennison, Jr.

Diocese of Pennsylvania photo Question 1: Describe the diocese today as an organization and comment on how effectively it operates. Bennison makes no attempt to gloss over organizational issues in the diocese that he has led over a period of thirteen years. He agrees that the diocese is inefficient, that it is divided and suffers from infighting, that various elements communicate poorly with one another, and that it is unfocused. Although he takes some of the responsibility for all that, the bishop believes the problems are shared. Bennison notes that the diocese has trouble agreeing on its mission and goals or even general direction. As an illustration, he describes the perspective he sees among some in the Diocesan Coalition for Mission and Ministry (DCMM) parishes. The DCMM was established in 1984 to administer grants and other financial support for parishes that struggle financially. For this group, he says, It became the purpose of the

28 diocese to minister Christs love to poor people in the urban areas. Thats it. Thats all we were supposed to be doing. In this view, the DCMM is to be a depository of monies from the rich parishes to send out checks to support the DCMM parishes, he says. Bennison continues, Factor into that the race question. Because to attack DCMM was to attack black people even though a number of the (DCMM) parishes are white parishes or they are mixed-race parishes. Yet Bennison notes that many of these urban DCMM parishes face issues of declining attendance and severe financial limitations with few prospects. Some have only a handful of parishioners, he notes. Bennison believes this issue must be faced squarely, and that struggling parishes that are unlikely to revive must close. We have too many franchises. We need 75 churches, not 143. So I am in a position because Im moving toward (retirement) of saying no like a new person couldnt. And a lot of people dont like me. And theyre not going to like me no matter what I do so I think I can bring some health to the diocese by just saying no. Bennison believes the canons of the diocese, rather than making the organization more effective, get in the way of the diocese. He told me, Our canons are internally contradictory which leads to a lot of conflicts because you can always find another canon to support your point of view. The most recent thorough review of the canons occurred in the 1960s and was a five-year process. Although they have been amended since, the revisions have been piecemeal. Some of the division in the diocese, Bennison believes, has to do with the historic structure that is imposed on Episcopal churches. They are not free to join any diocese they wish, but rather parishes are organized geographically, and churches are asked to work together with those nearby. As Bennison describes it, the organizers of the church created the post of bishop and the episcopacy with the idea in mind that,

29 (Everyone) may not like that person (the bishop), but were going to humanize the organization by saying that at the heart of it or the head of it there is going to be a frail human person to whom you will all relate somehow. Indeed, he says, the churchs dioceses are designed to be heterogeneous, diverse and inclusive, not homogeneous. Bennison notes that the Diocese of Pennsylvania from its founding has been more a loose association of churches than a corporate organization. Further, he says, in the Philadelphia Quaker tradition that resisted organized religion and church governance of any kind, the Episcopal parishes held on tightly to their independence. Yet the situation can breed mistrust. For example, Bennison says upon arriving in Pennsylvania he discovered a staff that was nearly paralyzed: a staff fearful of the new bishop and also fearful of offending the churches in the diocese. For the staff, he says, It was more important to do nothing than to do anything that might stir the waters. Todays staff gets praise from Bennison for being much improved, effective and strong, even though the staff is much smaller than it once was. Good planning may be at the heart of effective organizations, but in the Diocese of Pennsylvania, Bennison says, planning is resisted. He says, If you plan, then youre planning to change, and all change brings about loss, and loss brings grief, and grief brings anger and anxiety. So emotionally, I did not have in place a successful agenda for the grief equal to the agenda for change. As described in Chapter 2, the principal strategic plan of the Bennison years, Our Holy Experiment, was approved back in 2003, but it remains largely unfulfilled and controversial.

30

Question 2: Describe the Diocese as a community and the support it provides for clergy and lay members. Bishop Bennison believes that the diocese provides good support for some clergy in specific instances. He notes effective work among some of the urban parishes and the strength of some of the churches in the suburbs. But he concedes that a significant number of the 425 clergy face enormous stress because of the day-to-day job pressures, shrinking congregations or financial challenges in their own parishes. With two bishops and a limited diocesan staff, they are often alone. Bennison says, Many of them (the priests) are in crisis in this environment. Theyre demoralized. And then there some that are outstanding leaders. Many are in dying churches, and they know it, and theyre offering palliative care. At the same time, Bennison says, there is no cadre of accepted leaders, clergy or laity, no natural hierarchy in the diocese who might provide direction, advice and support. Bennison faults some of his own leadership decisions for playing into the tendency of elements in the diocese to work separately. For instance, comparing his approach with his predecessors, Bennison notes that Allen Bartlett always attended entire Standing Committee meetings. Faced with resistance from Standing Committee, Bennison acquiesced and agreed to attend for only a portion of each meeting if he was invited. He says, I have always wondered if Allen wasnt smarter, to not let them meet together without being in the room. He was very shrewd, much shrewder than I am about this diocese and what people are capable of doing. By 2005 Standing Committee grew alarmed at Bennisons leadership style, which some members viewed as unresponsive to the needs and desires of the clergy and people, and committee members objected to Bennisons plans for using the financial resources of

31 the diocese. In January 2006, Standing Committee called for Bennisons resignation (see Chapter 9). Bennison promised to pray about it, but he did not step down. Standing Committee tried to force the issue by bringing charges of financial malpractice, which were rejected by the national church. At about the same time, the case became public of Charles Bennisons involvement as supervisor of his brother during the time of John Bennisons sexual abuse of a California teenager. Bennison decided to vigorously fight charges brought against him of conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy rather than step down. That, he agrees, may have led to more tension and discord within the diocese. Ultimately, he was not convicted of the charges and returned to work in 2010. He believes that his decision to return will prove to be the right decision, even though he was urged by the Presiding Bishop and many within the diocese to go quietly. He stated, I went into the trial to come back, and I also went into the trial because I thought it was a slam-dunk. And also because Bill Bullitt (former Chancellor of the Diocese of Pennsylvania) told me it would be. He went up to New York with me one day to meet with the presiding bishop. He was in the room when the she told me that I needed to resign, and I said, I dont think Im going to do that. Bennison says from the outset of the process he believed he would return to work soon. He noted, I decided that I was going to contest the charges because they were ludicrous. That was my first motivation. But as I got into it, I decided that I was going to continue this, not because I wanted to vindicate my reputation primarily but because I wanted to go back to work. The reason I decided to come back is because I thought I could make a difference. I thought that, for the sake of the whole church, it is important if somebody goes through a trial that they actually live out the results of the trial. It was important to go back to work lest others have charges brought against them as a way to send them scurrying rather that face into what they are facing and then live with the canonical consequences. So its a way of honoring the canons of the church and the disciplinary process of the church.

32 Bishop Bennison says that now, as he visits parishes around the diocese, people tend to receive him cordially, he is actively working with parishes on issues such as growth and development, and through this work he is smoothing the way for his successor when Benison retires at age 72 in November 2015. Question 3a: Sometimes in management a four-question analysis called SWOT is used to gather information and ideas about critical events. What are the strengths of the diocese? Charles Bennison sees the people as the chief strength of the Diocese of Pennsylvania. He cites intelligent clergy and lay leadership able to deal with the important challenges facing the Episcopal Church and its parishes. He also believes that hard and successful work is being done in the diocese committees and its deaneries, the eleven organizations of local parishes. Question 3b: What are the weaknesses? The bishop had a longer list of weaknesses. There are too many buildings, some with declining congregations, he says, and many require extensive repair. The diocese equivocates on tough choices when it comes to beloved churches. He says, We would be stronger if we were clearer about who can do what and make hard decisions. We're very slow. We spent a huge amount of money, wasted resources, because we don't want to hurt people's feelings. Another weakness, he says is that there are too many priests and more in the pipeline who will have a hard time finding church work. Often, their alternatives are limited because the clergy lack secular job skills or are unprepared in other ways for work outside church. Their physical and emotional health may not be good. Too often, Bennison says, clergy are dependent people and the institution has a savior instinct. Furthermore, Bennison notes, there are few jobs at the top to provide advancement for the large number of clergy at the base of the leadership pyramid. At

33 the same time, he says, every church feels it must compete with other churches nearby for people in the pews, money in the plate and good work to do in the community. Question 3c: What are the opportunities? Opportunities include consolidation to steam-line the diocese and capitalize the diocese more, he says. Selling off unneeded buildings can generate much needed money to build churches where none exist, to support some that have potential and to use for other projects, Bennison believes. The bishop also sees a great opportunity stemming from the last vow of the Episcopal baptismal covenant that asks, Will you strive for justice and peace among all people and respect the dignity of every human being? to which the people respond, We will. (Episcopal Church, 1979, p. 305) He stated, They dont have to be Episcopalians, go to church, be baptized and receive the sacraments. Theres no church requirement for the way in which we honor every human being. I think thats an amazing thing in The Episcopal Church right now, and its not true of every church. Thats the thing that were offering. Building on that inclusiveness, Bennison believes, is a great opportunity for the church and the diocese. Question 3d: What are the threats? The threat that worries Charles Bennison is, Our own anxiety, our own worry about the future. And our ability to let things go. Turning in on ourselves, being too selfcentered, being too Episcopal Church-focused and not on the world and whats happening beyond ourselves. Bennison also sees a threat from the decline of Episcopalian seminaries. Some have closed, others no longer have residential programs and others are in financial trouble. The ability to train strong leaders for the church is a threat that worries this

34 bishop. Question 4: List your recommendations for the top priorities for the diocese for the next five years. Bennisons priorities are not surprising given his view of the issues facing the diocese. He puts a top priority on reorganizing the diocese by closing unneeded church buildings and using the proceeds to support other churches and diocese programs. Bennison adds that finding useful work for priests who are able but not needed for parish work is important. He worries about new priests now in the ordination process. Will they be well enough trained, and strong enough for work in a shrinking diocese and national church? Supporting them is another priority for the remainder of his time as bishop. Bennison also continues to support the Cathedral and lists a plan to develop its property at 38th and Chestnut streets as a priority for the next five years. The project, he believes, would provide needed efficient office space for both the Cathedral and Church House while developing the neighborhood and providing housing for students at nearby major universities. He remains committed to Camp Wapiti. Although the property is on the market, and although a multi-million dollar offer was received in February 2011, the bishop believes that the camp should not be sold. He believes the camp can provide an important experience for young people from all parts of the diocese, rich and poor. Both the camp and cathedral projects were defined in the 2003 strategic plan.

35 CHAPTER 5 MR.WILLLIAM BULLITT, FORMER CHANCELLOR, DIOCESE OF PENNSYLVANIA

William C. Bullitt (see Figure 5), a partner at the Philadelphia law firm of DrinkerBiddle, has been in a unique position to observe the Diocese of Pennsylvania. During a time of building turmoil, he served as chancellor of the diocese, the legal advisor to the bishop and Standing Committee. The chancellor is appointed by the bishop and approved by the committee. In 2005 the Standing Committee, perceiving Bullitt as supporter of the bishop, refused to endorse his reappointment after 15 years of service. Nonetheless, Bullitt served for more than another year until a new chancellor was appointed. Figure 5. William C. Bullitt

DrinkerBiddle photo

Educated at Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Bullitt has been a partner in his law firm since 1979. He is part of the Private Client Group focusing

36 mostly on estate planning, charitable corporations and foundations and related matters. Aside from is service as chancellor, Bullitt also served the diocese as president of Episcopal Community Services, the churchs social services arm, and as a member of the Unite Commission to consider issues relating to openly gay clergy. Our 90 minute interview was conducted on Feb. 18, 2011, over sandwiches at the law firms office at One Logan Square in Philadelphia. Question 1: Describe the diocese today as an organization and comment on how effectively it operates. Bill Bullitt says directly, Its a dysfunctional diocese. The net effect has been clear in the finances of the diocese, in terms of people being willing to contribute to the diocese, both churches and individuals. Bullitt believes that the diocese remains stalled over different views of accountability and control between offices of the diocese, primarily between the bishop and the Standing Committee. He notes that uniquely in the Diocese of Pennsylvania, Standing Committee has control of some funds, but that historically the committees primary role is to be a council of advice to the bishop. He said, I do not think the Standing Committee should have a major role to play in diocesan finances because it totally interferes with the function of being the bishops council of advice. Bullitt recalls growing tensions during the first half of the last decade between the bishop and Standing Committee. Bullitt recalls, There was a tremendous tug of war between at least certain members of the Standing Committee and Bishop Bennison. There came a time at which the Standing Committee started to say, We are the board of directors of the diocese. And I kept having to tell them, they were not the board of directors of the diocese. Bullitt believes that roles remain unclear today. The canons of the diocese have

37 been amended to shift responsibilities away from the Diocesan Council (R-6-2006 approved at the 2006 Convention). He says, One of the major questions was, if you need to change the budget (between conventions), who can do that? That power has been taken away from (the Diocesan Council). Irrespective of the merits of any particular change, Bullitt thinks it is a mistake to amend the canons piecemeal. He recalls that in the 1960s a group of church leaders spent several years rewriting the canons, and that this approach resulted in a thoughtful document. If revisions are needed now, Bullitt encourages a holistic approach. Bullitt is in no rush to rewrite the canons, however. The system of financial accountability is an area that some interviewed for this project criticize, but Bullitt believes its two-budget structure can be effective. He said, The historical reason for having the episcopate budget separate (from the program budget) was to prevent a diocesan convention from starving out the bishop, cutting salary and saying, We want to get rid of this bishop. I think (the system of financial accountability) worked pretty well. (The committees) function if the people who are elected to them pay attention to whats going on and if you have people on there who can ask tough questions. Like others, Bullitt says the tensions created by declining church membership are hurting the diocese today. You've got a parish that has got 15 people there. And we're spending x-thousands of dollars to support that place. And the clergy who have been assigned there have been totally unable to resurrect it as a parish. We should cut and run. We shouldn't be spending money on that. Now that was perceived by many as abandoning inner-city ministry. Question 2: Describe the Diocese as a community and the support it provides for clergy and lay members. Bullitt questions how well the diocese is supporting clergy, churches and lay members. Two examples of lack of support came up in our conversation.

38 Bullitt speaks without bitterness about his own case, but his experience in the political battles of the diocese left him disappointed and disaffiliated. Despite 15 years of work as chancellor on behalf of bishops, the Standing Committee and other groups, the Standing Committee refused to confirm his reappointment after the convention of 2005. Although Bullitt continues to follow developments in the diocese, he no longer attends church regularly. A man of law and logic himself, Bullitt finds it hard to accept when an organization such as the diocese makes decisions based on emotion. He recalls with disbelief a convention at which the body refused to accept a budget cut that would have eliminated the salary for a priest of a congregation that had dwindled. The convention put the money back into the budget based not on the need or opportunity but on sympathy for the priest. The obvious impact was that the money available for support of other activities was reduced. Question 3a: Sometimes in management a four-question analysis called SWOT is used to gather information and ideas about critical events. What are the strengths of the diocese? Bullitt quickly cites the people of the diocese as its key strength. There are an awful lot of good people involved, he says. So if you could harness their interests and their abilities that could be useful. He also believes that the diversity of the diocese is among its strengths, and he notes that it is not only diverse economically and racially, but also in terms of theology and acceptance of lifestyles. I think thats a great strength, he says. Question 3b: What are the weaknesses? Bullitt is concerned about the fracture of the diocese that he sees. Because

39 various groups go their own way, he believes, it is difficult to agree on a mission or develop a plan. He says, Theres no way to harness all these little groups into a coherent planning discussion about various kinds of issues. Everything has become quite personal. Bullitt lists the lack of funds as a weakness today. Parishes and individuals may be less willing to contribute in the current environment of the diocese, he says. He thinks tight economic times also contribute to this problem, but he notes that some parishes are receiving strong financial support from members if they think their parish is doing something good. Finally, Bullitt says, although there are good people in the diocese, a weakness is that some of the best are on the sidelines. He says bluntly, The people that you would like to have involved dont want to get involved because of all the crap they have got to put up with. Question 3c: What are the opportunities? For Bullitt, the key opportunity is to get beyond the division and agree on a common purpose and direction. He believes Bishop Bennisons plan to call for a bishop coadjutor within the next two years may be an opportunity, but that the diocese would be better served to begin the process of self-study sooner rather than later. He says, It would be a great opportunity. It would be an opportunity to heal. It would be an opportunity to start looking toward the future. Question 3d: What are the threats? Bullitt believes the diocese as an organization is important for support of the churches and their members and also as a force for doing good work in the community. The threat he sees is the loss of that opportunity. In our conversation, put it this way: Functionally if not legalistically (the diocese) becomes a congregational church with each congregation doing its own thing, and they dont look at the diocese as

40 something that helps them. Thats something that I think has been lost in all of this. Question 4: List your recommendations for the top priorities for the diocese for the next five years. The top priority for Bullitt then is finding a way to work together in support of the people, the clergy, the lay leaders and the churches of the Diocese of Pennsylvania. He believes this will require all involved to put aside their fears, mistrust and personal agendas in order to talk and work together. He says, It totally depends on the will of the individuals involved. It depends on Bishop Bennisons willingness to take certain steps; it depends of various groups in the diocese to seek an accommodation. And he asks the question, Are there processes that could be followed that would enable that to happen?

41 CHAPTER 6 THE REV. LEDLIE LAUGHLIN, RECTOR, ST. PETERS CHURCH

AND PRESIDENT, STANDING COMMITTEE

Ledlie Laughlin (see Figure 6) has lived in Philadelphia since 1999 when he was called as rector of St. Peters Church in the Society Hill section of the city. He attended the Yale Divinity School and worked in several churches after being ordained in 1989. Born in New York, Laughlin served in churches in the dioceses of Newark, New Jersey, Washington, D.C., and Connecticut before moving to Philadelphia. Laughlin has been active in the Diocese of Pennsylvania chairing a committee on evangelism and stewardship, and another on racism and also working on the diocese Finance and Property Committee. In 2009 he joined Standing Committee and is currently its president. Figure 6. Ledlie I. Laughlin

St. Peters Church photo

42 We talked in his office in a townhouse across Pine Street from St. Peters on a brilliant spring day, Feb. 24, 2011. Sunlight streamed through the tall windows as we sat opposite each other in comfortable chairs across the room from his desk and the large fireplace. An old clock on the mantel ticked away the hour and a half that we spent together. Question 1: Describe the diocese today as an organization and comment on how effectively it operates. Ledlie Laughlin is critical of the Diocese of Pennsylvania as an organization, but notes the positive energy of many individual congregations. On the one hand, he points out that many parishes are thriving and humming along yet at the same time others are struggling, perhaps teetering on the edge of collapse. However, for the diocese organization itself, he says, I would say that it is not functioning very well because it does not have a high degree of cohesiveness at the moment. Its almost an accidental collection (of churches) and in some ways a counter-productive collection in relationships. Signs of effectiveness for Laughlin are the zeal or energy or faithfulness or passion of the people and whether or not they are being fed spiritually and feeding others. He says, I would say that one of the great tragedies of where we are today is that we do not draw forth and celebrate and use well the gifts and blessings and resources that so many of us have to offer. The situation is criminal or sinful. For Laughlin, the problem stems from the tension between Bishop Charles Bennison and key committees such as Standing Committee. I think the bishop ended up effectively dividing and conquering a lot of the governing bodies of the diocese. At least dividing. And sometimes bludgeoning if not quite conquering. Its all about trust. In the church, if you dont have trust, you dont have anything.

43 We do not trust one another, and there are many people who feel that it is unsafe. Its impossible to expect that people are going to offer their gifts in that kind of environment. He believes as a result the diocese is leaderless. He notes the vote of the 2010 Convention calling for Bishop Bennison to resign. As president of the Standing Committee, Laughlin believes his is one of the groups that can fill that vacuum. Laughlin concedes that the committee has exercised a highly reactive kind of leadership and has been divisive in the recent past. Furthermore, he agrees that the committees role is limited. I do understand that in the canons...it is the responsibility of the Standing Committee to be a council of advice to the bishop and very explicitly to function in that capacity whether or not the bishop accepts the advice. (However), it is the responsibility of the Standing Committee to exercise leadership because I think by definition the bishop is the symbol of unity in church. If you have an individual in that position, and 73% of convention has voted that they want that person not to be there, he cannot be the symbol of unity that he needs to be. I would argue that to some extent the bishop is in something of a lame duck position, although he has a considerable amount of authority and is able to exercise it. What I see as so tragic is his inability...to attend to a process which is going to make his ideas palatable or that is going to give an opportunity for the rest of the body to share and take ownership of the ideas. Question 2: Describe the Diocese as a community and the support it provides for clergy and lay members. Although Laughlin does not believe the diocese as an organization is providing effective support for many churches, clergy or lay people, he believes in some ways support is there nonetheless. Indeed, he says, I suspect that there are clergy in this diocese who would tell you that they are feeling supported by Bishop Bennison, or by Bishop Michel (assisting bishop), or by Allen Bartlett (retired diocesan bishop who works part time). If they are, Im glad of it. At the same time, Laughlin worries about the impact of shrinking budgets on the

44 support available to churches and members. He says, Its a sort of chicken and egg thing. With a shrinking diocesan budget, that translates directly into shrinking diocesan staff which translates into fewer opportunities to touch and support. Still he believes that there are effective organizations within the diocese that continue to provide support to the churches, their clergy and their members. One such support group is the Gathering of Leaders that had met half a dozen times in 2010 and 2011 to discuss the state of the diocese. The agenda is open and there is an attempt to focus on positive developments, and Laughlin calls the chance to get together exciting and energizing. The group has engaged a consultant to define relationships, interdependencies, among the various groups of the diocese as a way to better understand roles and appreciate work that is being done. Laughlin, says, My hope is that our experience of one another together will ripple out and we will find ways to make conversations larger. Question 3a: Sometimes in management a four-question analysis called SWOT is used to gather information and ideas about critical events. What are the strengths of the diocese? Laughlin sees the strength of the diocese in gifted individuals who are passionate about the church. He sees encouraging areas of strength among parishes and individuals. There are, he says, some healthy congregations all around the diocese and extraordinary resources if they can be released and brought together. Question 3b: What are the weaknesses? The diocese suffers mostly because it is fractured and without a clear vision, according to Laughlin. Were not working together, he says. The average individual parishioner has little chance to feel that he or she is part of something larger that they might wish to be part of.

45 That disengagement leads to other weaknesses including less money available to support churches or service to others. Question 3c: What are the opportunities? Laughlin believes that despite the decline in membership and despite other options competing for available time and despite a general movement away from Christianity in the U.S., still there is a yearning for the spiritual life that church offers. This is the Churchs opportunity. He says, I am one who sees the dramatic shifts in The Episcopal Church as an exciting opportunity to re-imagine how were doing church in all sorts of ways. There are going to be a whole lot fewer parishes, even in 10 years. It will be exciting to engage and release our imaginations so that we can be the church in some yet to be discovered way. More locally, Laughlin believes there is an opportunity to improve the workings of the annual diocesan convention. He proposes expanding the work of the nominating committee to include providing more transparency and encouraging more clergy and laity to stand for election. He thinks a process of holding hearings before convention could provide a chance for more productive discussion of issues than has been available, and this could lead to more informed decisions at the convention itself. He also believes there is an opportunity for Bishop Bennison to be more effective if Bennison seeks wider involvement of others in the diocese in decision making. He has recommended to Bennison that the bishop find an advisor, seek out somebody and say OK, I know what I want to do, how can we do it? But Laughlin fears that Bennison will not make the genuine effort to include others. Laughlin sees the beginning discussions with the Gathering of Leaders group, a more positive and less reactive Standing Committee, and the strength of individual churches in the diocese all as part of an opportunity to build a better functioning

46 diocese. Question 3d: What are the threats? Fear, Laughlin says, Fear resulting in reactivity and petty infighting and continuing gridlock. He says that has been an all too common pattern, and, as Laughlin sees it, the Diocese of Pennsylvania is well past the time to move on. To do so may take the retirement of Bishop Bennison and in any case will take a new focus on going forward, the positive accomplishments that have been made and the opportunities before the diocese. Question 4: List your recommendations for the top priorities for the Diocese for the next five years. Says Laughlin, The top thing is for us to articulate a vision, a mission and even a short term strategic plan that gives us an opportunity to see and to go in that direction. Something that will provide the much-needed sense of unity. Something to rally around. Key for Laughlin in finding that sense of unity is to agree upon some sense of how to deal with struggling churches. In the absence of clarity around that, it can so easily feel arbitrary and subjective, he says. It remains to be seen whether those in the diocese are ready and willing to make the effort. Laughlins measure of success? The thing that I would want to measure (to gauge) the health of the (diocese) is a high degree of participation. Its about the trust, about using peoples gifts and it being a safe place.

47

CHAPTER 7 THE REV. FRANK ALLEN, RECTOR, ST. DAVIDS CHURCH

A meal, the Holy Eucharist, is central to the faith of Episcopalians. Yet it is fair to say that a great deal of the work of the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania happens over a much less sacred sort of meal. So when Frank Allen (see Figure 7) and I met at the Radnor Hotel, not far from his St. Davids Church, it was a familiar scene, a priest and member of the church having breakfast. Our hour and 15 minute conversation on Feb. 18, 2011, was lively and cordial with one of the most successful priests in the Diocese of Pennsylvania. Figure 7. Frank Allen

St. Davids Church photo In 1992, Allen was a businessman working in real estate development in the Philadelphia area, and he was active at both the Church of the Redeemer, Bryn Mawr, and in the work of the diocese. That year, he answered the call to the priesthood and

48 began studies at Virginia Theological Seminary. He was ordained a priest in June 1996, and served at St. Johns Church, Roanoke, Virginia, before moving back to the Philadelphia area and to the Diocese of Pennsylvania. Allen was called to St. Davids Church, Radnor, in November 1997. In the time since, Allen says, St. Davids has been going counter-cultural. As many mainline churches shrink, growth at St. Davids has been strong. Now among the largest churches in the diocese, St. Davids has some 3,200 members, up from 1,800 when Allen arrived. Giving has gone from $700,000 to $2.2 million a year over the 13 year period. Allen says he focuses on two things beyond his attention to the detail of church management: You have to offer ways for people to grow in their faith that have application in their daily lives and then youve got to give them things to do. People are generally generous, but youve got to help them use their generosity in effective ways. Allen is active in the Diocese of Pennsylvania. His church makes the largest contribution by far of any of the parishes to the operations of the diocese. He was elected to Standing Committee at the 2010 Convention, moving from the Church Foundation where he had helped oversee investment of money from the diocese and from member churches. As one of the newer members of Standing Committee, Allen has the opportunity to move toward reforms he sees needed there. He believes that the Standing Committee can be a force for balance in the diocese. Question 1: Describe the diocese today as an organization and comment on how effectively it operates. Frank Allen believes the diocese cannot be fully effective with Charles Bennison as bishop. Frank Allan is among those who stood to support the resolution at the 2010

49 Convention calling for Bennison to resign and he still thinks that Bennison must leave. I think were stuck until Charles goes, Allen says. A key issue as Allen sees it is trust: The bishop doesnt tell the truth all the time. Everyone is entitled to change their mind, but theyre not entitled to break their word. I think its obvious to people of integrity that we have a bishop that doesnt always tell the truth. Later Allen tells me, Bennison is definitely a divide and conquer leader. You know, (he will) tell you something, then hell tell me something. And, he suggests, the two will not be the same. Allan faults Bennisons management style for what he sees as the lack of effectiveness in the diocese. He remembers the last serious planning process more than 10 years ago. Bennison had described a vision for the diocese during his sermon at his consecration. Scores of church leaders began a planning process. Then Bishop Bennison produced a video giving his vision. For Allen and others the video was a shock. He notes, At the third meeting of this strategic plan where 400 people were involved, we watched a video of him giving his vision of the diocese. And then, after all these people had been involved, surprise, surprise, the joint vision was his vision. And I think that made a lot of us shrug our shoulders and say, OK, well, go ahead. You wasted my time. Allen believes the diocese still suffers from a lack of direction, and still has no clear mission, perhaps related to the failed strategic planning. Also preventing the diocese from being more effective, Allen says, is a push and pull between urban and suburban parishes. The perspective of those who have moved to the suburbs is different from the perspective of those in the city, he says. Most of the wealth of the diocese comes from the suburbs. The urban churches are much more heavily African-American. For some, a racial issue is present, Allan says,

50 People are happy to give money to Uganda, but theyre not sure they want to get involved in Norristown or West Philly. Because, after all (they may think), havent these people had the same opportunities that you and I have had? Allen believes the diocese has been hamstrung by political infighting. He says, I think that what weve been going through for the last 10 years is a power struggle between the bishop and people who want to have power. Some of the Standing Committees activities have indicated to me that they really wanted to have power. He is less concerned about the parish-centered emphasis of the diocese or its canons. The truth is that every diocese is congregationalist. The parish is the unit for people to be together in church because that is about as many people as you and I can know. We can only know about 60 people at a time and be engaged with them. I think the canons are burdensome, but when you sign a contract with someone, you really only go to the contract when something is going wrong. When things are going in the right direction, even though they may be difficult, you negotiate. Question 2: Describe the Diocese as a community and the support it provides for clergy and lay members. According to Allen, whereas once the people of the diocese were engaged in its work, they are less so today. Allen believes that Bishop Bennison undermined the usefulness of various diocesan committees. Allen says, This diocese used to have all these big committees, Christian Education Committee, there was a Liturgical Committee. It involved people from all over the diocese. You were feeding the diocese by pooling the resources of the body. And Charles undid all that so that we became more separated. However, Allen believes that the absence of Charles Bennison for more than two years may have removed a convenient excuse for falling short in the diocese. He says, One of the gifts of the inhibition was that I think people realized that some of the problems are our problems. They have nothing to do with Charles. So I think we realized that the number of buildings we have is our problem. The fact that were not going anywhere is our problem. The fact that we havent been talking to one

51 another is our problem. And Charles in some sense unfairly was the recipient of some of our inability to be adult Christians with one another, or to have a mission. Allen does not think support is sufficient for the clergy with the stresses of operating churches facing problems of membership and money, and again, he blames the bishop. He says, When you say to Charles the best thing you can do is be the pastor to the pastor, his response is, Oh, no. These guys are all well educated, well taken care of. They don't need that. As I go around the diocese, they do need that. When you're the rector of a church there are times when you turn around looking for help to make a decision, and it's the wall. On the other hand, Allen believes that even in difficult times for the diocese, clergy and lay leaders have come forward to nurture each other. He believes the staff of the diocese continues to work hard and be effective in areas such as finance and clergy deployment. Question 3a: Sometimes in management a four-question analysis called SWOT is used to gather information and ideas about critical events. What are the strengths of the diocese? For Allen the key strength of the diocese is the product were offering. It involves God to help people enter into a life that is really life, he says. He lists some really fabulous lay leaders and clergy leaders as another key strength including an unbelievable talent pool from all walks of life, all color, all culture. Both strength and weakness are the buildings and property currently owned by the church. The strength is in beautiful buildings and great locations that are nearby to virtually everyone in the diocese. The locations needed for todays church are already in hand. Question 3b: What are the weaknesses?

52 Those buildings are a key weakness as well, Allen says. We have too many buildings and weve got to figure out as a family what were trying to do and what that means for some of these buildings. Membership has declined, buildings meant to serve 250 serve 25 and they are not used efficiently even as the money to maintain them is no longer available. The issue for Allen is that there is no effective plan to determine which buildings are needed diocese-wide and so no way forward that is not painful and divisive. Allen adds that the lack of a clear mission or vision is also a weakness. Allan says, We just dont know what were doing. Weve forgotten what were trying to do. Having lost sight of our goal, we have redoubled our efforts. Question 3c: What are the opportunities? The opportunity for the Diocese of Pennsylvania, Allen says, is the chance to offer spiritual support for its people. For Frank Allen, the good work in areas such as civil rights and social programs has gotten divorced from the spiritual piece. A focus on prayer is important now, he says, because, Prayer opens us up to being aware of Gods presence and maybe inspires me to do something I couldnt do on my own. Weve got to get back to those countercultural things bible studies, prayer groups, taking care of the poor and the sick among us, going to church, singing, even if theyre not cost effective. Question 3d: What are the threats? Divisiveness in the diocese remains the most significant threat, Allen says. He offers the example of Camp Wapiti. Many believe it is a luxury the diocese cannot afford, and some detractors say the camp and conference center is appealing only to the wealthier segments of the diocese and that the poorer churches and their members are not likely to use such a facility. But Bishop Bennison has the power to block the sale. Allan says,

53 If people don't work together we can just block one another through the end of Charles' tenure. If we can't come up with some shared vision of change of the culture, then we'll continue to dissipate. Question 4: List your recommendations for the top priorities for the diocese for the next five years. Allen believes that a key priority is new leadership for the diocese. That requires finding a way for the clergy and people to come together and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. A new collaboration is key for Allen. He says, As a leader to be effective, you have got to gather the people together, get them involved, and be OK with some B+/A- ideas. Even though you know there might be the perfect way or the absolutely better way. And sometimes you have to play that card and say, Well, lets turn it a little bit this way. But if you want to get buy-in you have to do that. Even more, Allen believes the diocese and its people must return to the fundamentals, agree on a shared vision and remember why they are a church. He says, Life lived in the world is much harder than life lived in the world with God. I mean, it is just much harder. Youve got no bearing, there is no grace, there is no forgiveness, there is no safety net. Theres nothing. The world is much harder, much harder, on mistakes and we're going to make them. For Frank Allen, the church offers a way to live a better life, and the Diocese of Pennsylvania must return to the mission of providing that answer.

54

CHAPTER 8 THE REV. ISACC MILLER, RETIRED RECTOR, CHURCH OF THE ADVOCATE

Everyone knows The Rev. Isaac Miller (see Figure 8) as Ike, and everyone does know him. For almost two decades, Miller was at the forefront of the social justice movement in the Diocese of Pennsylvania and in the city of Philadelphia working to improve the lives of the city's poorest and most disadvantaged. He tirelessly insisted that the church must find creative ways to remain in poor neighborhoods and engage the issues there. Figure 8. Isaac Miller

Kemah Washington photo

55

As Miller worked in the inner-city, many Episcopalian congregations there were shrinking and running out of the money in endowments that were given in healthier times. It is a situation that is only worse today. For Miller, it meant that, supported by wealthier congregations elsewhere, the diocese had a responsibility to step up. As rector of the Church of the Advocate in North Philadelphia, Miller was a strong supporter of the Diocesan Commission on Mission and Ministry (DCMM) that guaranteed the ability to hire first-rate clergy and keep struggling churches open. The Advocate remains among the DCMM churches today. Now retired, Miller continues to spend time on social justice ministry. When he and I met for an hour and 15 minutes over a pizza lunch on March 8, 2011, he had just returned from the Middle East and a conference on non-violence sponsored by the Christian Palestinian organization, Sabeel, that operates an ecumenical liberation theology center in Jerusalem. Miller says the activism of the church during the civil

56 rights movement is what drew him to ordained ministry. As Miller puts it, If it weren't for that, I'd have figured out something else to do in life. Trust me. Miller graduated from the Episcopal Theological School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1968. He came to Philadelphia from Atlanta, to serve at the African Episcopal Church of St. Thomas, the oldest African-American Episcopal church in the country. After three years in West Philadelphia, Miller moved to the Advocate and soon became its rector. The Church of the Advocate (see Figure 9) is a large, Gothic stone building at 1801 West Diamond Street in Philadelphia. In the 1960s, it was a center of the civil rights movement, and it hosted the first ordination of women priests in The Episcopal Church in the United States in 1974. The building can seat 1,500 people. It is a church built by the city's wealthy, white upper-class, but today it is in the heart of one of Philadelphia's most economically depressed African-American communities. Its congregation is closer to 15 than 1500, and the church building needs significant repairs. Although Miller retired from the Advocate and full-time parish ministry last year, he remains a member of Standing Committee. He has served on the committee for 13 of the last 15 years. Question 1: Describe the Diocese today as an Church of the Advocate photo, used by permission Figure 9. Church of the Advocate, Philadelphia

57 organization and comment on how effectively it operates. Miller is more optimistic about the state of the Diocese of Pennsylvania than others interviewed for this thesis. Given the turmoil that the diocese has been through, the truth of the matter is that we probably work fairly well, he says. He says that although candor in the church is not always easy to come by, conversations are occurring that are beginning to heal conflict in the diocese. He remembers the division and tension while Bishop Bennison was inhibited, and tells me, Folks are struggling to talk to each other and to hear each other. People have decided that one of the things that will hold us together is this business of relationships and conversation, to hear each other and to speak candidly with each other. Miller believes that Standing Committee has turned a corner and has begun to figure out how to relate to everybody who is around. He says the Diocesan Mission Planning Commission, established by the 2009 convention and led by Rev. John Sorenson, is making progress. Miller also says the Gathering of Leaders meetings organized by Standing Committee President Ledlie Laughlin are contributing to an improved dialogue. He says, Trust has improved incredibly over the last year or year and a half in comparison to where we have been before. Not only has the opportunity for candor been established better than I've seen it for a long time, but the culture that allows it to occur has been developed. But that's one of those things you cross your fingers about. It could get blown to smithereens in a pretty big hurry. The diocese has a long way to go to become fully effective organization, Miller believes. Bishop Bennison is probably still divisive, he says and adds, After the appeals (court) reached its decision (allowing Bennison to return as diocesan bishop), I think he really should have resigned. There's no question in my mind about that. I still think he should. I probably also know without a doubt that he isn't (going to resign).

58 With shrinking resources, the diocese faces a major challenge posed by its physical plant. It is time to rethink which churches can be supported by a smaller diocesan budget, Miller says, and that includes rethinking the commitment provided under the Diocesan Coalition for Mission and Ministry program. He says, I'm concerned about the whole DCMM model which I think in its time was very healthy for this diocese. Times change and you have to evaluate stuff based on performance and changes. But he adds, when a church closes, There's a need for all of us to understand that it isn't just 'X' congregation on such and such a street that loses. We really all lose in terms of the collective shared ministry that we have as a diocese. Still, says Miller, My sense of it is that all of that just needs to be evaluated and looked at. You ask questions about was it worth it then, what did it accomplish then, what are the possibilities in terms of the present and the more immediate future and do we have the resources to continue this kind of thing in any way, shape, form or fashion? Question 2: Describe the Diocese as a community and the support it provides for clergy and lay members. Miller thinks it is still too soon to expect the diocese to offer much effective support because distrust is still a significant issue in the diocese. When I ask if he believes Standing Committee and the bishop can offer effective support to the churches, clergy and laity of the diocese right now, Miller replies, Bluntly, in some ways I don't think we are going to be able to. He does see various elements of the diocese supporting each other, however, particularly through the groups that are in conversation. He also acknowledges important financial support by the diocese for some small inner-city congregations including the Advocate's. The support continues, but is not sufficient to provide for the needed repairs of the building. Miller argues that the

59 shrinking financial resources of individual churches and the diocese as a whole bring the issue of inner-city churches into sharper focus. Whether I or anybody else likes it or not, we're going to see a whole lot of congregations close over some period of time. Question 3a: Sometimes in management a four-question analysis called SWOT is used to gather information and ideas about critical events. What are the strengths of the Diocese? The foremost strength of the diocese is the renewed ability to talk to each other, according to Miller. That can lead to deeper trust, but, right now, just the conversation is important. I don't necessarily have to trust somebody, I just need to know where people are coming from. Then out of that maybe some trust can be developed. But the truth of the matter is that if people can be transparent about agendas, that is probably the first thing that has to happen. Miller notes that, although the financial resources of the diocese might not be what they once were the money available remains substantial. That too is an important strength of the diocese. Thirdly, Miller lists as a strength, strong clergy. While abilities vary from person to person, Miller believes that the diocese is blessed with some excellent priests who are providing important leadership and demonstrating strong successes in their ministries. Finally, he says a strength is the location of the diocese. Philly is one of the great cities, period. I've been crazy about it ever since I've been here. I do think that is an asset. Question 3b: What are the weaknesses? Miller believes that distrust remains the principal weakness in the Diocese of Pennsylvania despite the many efforts underway to built trust by improving communication. Without addressing distrust, You kiss any kind of leadership goodbye

60 and you kiss any chance of unity in the diocese goodbye. I'm really convinced of that, Miller says. Miller worries about the lack vision, of a unified mission. Again, Miller says, it is the conversations now beginning that could be the foundation for the diocese coming together. That, in turn, could make it possible to develop the sort of vision or mission that is missing. He is not optimistic, however, that this can happen soon. Question 3c: What are the opportunities? For the diocese and for the church in general, Miller sees the opportunity to be relevant to a new generation as critical. If there is a robust witness in relationship to issues of justice it means the church can function, can (have) some degree of relevance to the broader society. Miller notes the declining church attendance in his own parish, in the diocese, in the national church and in mainline churches in general. He believes one of the reasons for the dwindling support is that the church is simply not involved in issues and causes that young people believe are important. He remembers a conversation with two young men recently. Both are passionately involved in the cause of peace in the Middle East, but when Miller asks if their church life is behind their passion, they respond with a chuckle. It turns out, says Miller, that neither is a church-goer, and, they told Miller, church has nothing to do with their work for Middle East peace. As an activist in the city, Miller was a founder of a social justice organization called Philadelphia Inner-faith Action, known as PIA. It is a model for what he believes is needed here now. Miller says, In a city like Philadelphia, facing the issues that we face across the board, you have to struggle to breath life into something like (PIA) as much as you can. You have to do it in a way that you reach across City Line Avenue (into the suburbs) and in a way that people take part in that. That's the point where you get that feel

61 and that taste for what issues of justice really are about. If you are going to anything about them, then we as a people must hang together on this as opposed to letting ourselves be separated. To the extent that we're separated, the status quo remains. Question 3d: What are the threats? The key threat as Miller sees it is that a healing conversation might not continue. There has been a good start, but not nearly enough has been done, he believes, for the diocese to move beyond the past and become more effective. He also sees as a threat of further or renewed division over the leadership of Charles Bennison. Question 4: List your recommendations for the top priorities for the Diocese for the next five years. Miller believes uniting for an important and relevant cause behind a common mission and vision must be the priority for the next five years. For Miller the issue that the diocese and the whole church can be engaged in is the fight for a better life for the neediest among us and particularly in a fight against poverty. The only reason that I came to Pennsylvania is that, at least for me, it's darned important to be involved in places that face the kinds of struggles that inner-city communities face. Pennsylvania offered that kind of opportunity (to do social ministry). Miller believes it must do so once again. If the church cannot become more relevant in the modern world, he believes, it will continue to atrophy.

62 CHAPTER 9 THE REV. WILLIAM WOOD, RECTOR ST. CHRISTOPHERS CHURCH, FORMER CHAIR, STANDING COMMITTEE

During the last decade Bill Wood (see Figure 10) has been at the center of the controversy over leadership in the Diocese of Pennsylvania. Both as rector of St. Christophers, Gladwyne, Pennsylvania, and as member and for a time president of the Standing Committee, Wood was a lightening rod for all points of view and he faced unpopular and tough decisions. It was challenging and personally difficult. Figure 10. William Wood

Photo by Eric Rabe As the decade dawned, Wood considered himself a close friend of Bishop Charles Bennison. Their families were together regularly often having dinner in each others homes. The wives, Christine Wood and Joan Bennison, became great friends and shopping companions, Wood says. But as Wood became president of Standing

63 Committee, tensions in the diocese came to a head. Then on the evening of Jan. 24, 2006, Wood called his friend to ask for a meeting with the Standing Committee late that very night. The committee was about to ask its bishop to resign. Wood described that evening as we talked in his church office at St. Christophers for some 90 minutes on Feb. 23, 2011. Wood, a Virginia gentleman offered coffee and a comfortable chair. The room was decorated with photographs from the 20 years Wood has been rector at St. Christophers and the 41 years since he graduated from Virginia Theological Seminary in 1970. Wood served as priest at two other churches in the Diocese of Pennsylvania before coming to Gladwyne. Having worked in the diocese for most of his career, Wood has served on a variety of committees including Diocesan Council and the Mission Strategy Commission. Wood was a member of the last two bishop search committees including the one that resulted in the selection of Charles Bennison in 1996. His eleven years on Standing Committee have been at the heart of his work with the diocese. Wood recalled the evening in 2006 when tension between Standing Committee and the bishop reached crisis. Standing Committee was meeting at Church House that evening and the bishop had gone to a suburban parish 17 miles and 40 minutes away. He remembers, In that meeting (of Standing Committee) we realized that wed gotten so many complaints about mistrust, wed talked to Charles about our own feelings that things were in bad shape. This had gone on over a long period it seemed to me. The Standing Committee had had many complaints, and so we had talked to Charles. We had urged him to change his mind on certain things, and finally we felt that night that the only thing to do was to ask for him to resign or retire. We needed a new beginning. Mistrust had gotten to such a level. Wood was concerned about rushing into a vote, he says, and he wanted to be sure the committee was unanimous in its decision. As the meeting went on, the members

64 resolve to ask for the bishops resignation was clear. He continues, So we voted that night, and it was unanimous. I called (Bennison) and asked him if hed come back after his meeting, and said that wed stay there because we wanted to talk to him. He did come back. We talked to him about our decision. He suggested we recant and take it back. We talked for a long time. Then we adjourned and he asked me to come into his office to explain it further, and he and I talked for another hour. It was close to 11:00 at night in a terrific thunderstorm, and I asked him if he was still willing to loan me an umbrella. And he did. But that was a very troubling night, and it was the beginning of the fact that he and I then separated from what had been a very warm social relationship. Ironically, it was Charles Bennison who asked Wood to run for Standing Committee president, as Wood recalls, and it was another bishop who later told him that it was time to leave. I left the Standing Committee at the suggestion of (Presiding Bishop) Katharine Jefferts Schori who came down (from New York City) in the midst of the turmoil and suggested that due to the nature and climate of the diocese at that point that it would be good to step aside and let other people come when our terms expired, so I did not run for reelection two years ago (in 2009). Question 1: Describe the diocese today as an organization and comment on how effectively it operates. Not surprisingly, Wood feels that the diocese is not functioning well. He says, I think its probably limping. Im worried about the finances. Its obviously suffering and going down. I think the controversy about Charles, which is all over the place depending on what issue one picks, is probably paralyzing us, and I still believe that for the good of the diocese he should leave. The root issue for Wood is that the clergy and others in the diocese simply do not trust their bishop. Most of the other issues he sees build from that lack of trust. Wood says that the diocese lacks a workable strategic plan. Wood remembers with disappointment the effort, early in Bennisons bishopric, to create one. Convention approved the Holy Experiment, without the needed broad support, he says. Wood saw

65 in the Bennison video shown during the planning process a predetermined plan for the diocese that bypassed input from churches, clergy and laity or any real effort to build support or agreement. Like Frank Allen, Wood feels that the planning process turned out to be a waste of time. For Wood, the issue of camp Wapiti is related to what he calls the bishops autocratic style. Wood remembers trying to explain his objections about the camp to the bishop. I remember asking him if he would consider the Wapiti issue. We were sidetracking an awful lot of money with murky finances...that none of us could understand. We thought it was risky and scary, and I could not get Charles to consider that this was dangerous ground. I also felt I couldnt get him to consider my point of view that we were not supposed to be in the business of building a country club as I phrased it. There was a huge amount of money going there that should have been going into missions, my bias. I felt he wouldnt listen to reason. I ask for Woods response to those who argue that Standing Committee has been unwilling to seek middle ground on Wapiti and a variety of other issues dividing the diocese. He says, I see that as legitimate. Once the Standing Committee made that unanimous decision (to ask for Bennisons resignation), there was really very little Charles could do. That is the unjust nature of a committee making a decision. Question 2: Describe the Diocese as a community and the support it provides for clergy and lay members. Although Wood believes it is possible that some feel supported by the diocese, he is not aware of where that happens. He tells me simply, I dont see that there is meaningful support. Of course, better off churches including St. Christophers require less support. He notes some clergy and laity argue that, Church House needs us more than we need them. As Wood describes it, Charles Bennisons personal style makes it difficult to feel

66 supported. I have great empathy for him as a person. Through the years weve shared stuff, and I think he is the son of an autocratic bishop and he has a need to fulfill his role as bishop. He followed a man, Allen Bartlett, who was so committed to inclusion, and Charles is autocratic. He (Bennison) likes to keep control at Church House. When Standing Committee first asked that the bishop resign in 2006, Wood made a list of the issues that he felt were in the way of a more trusting relationship (see Appendix A). He believes that many of the issues that he saw then remain today, often affecting clergy most directly . The issues on his list include the need for clear leadership, that the bishop is out of touch with the desires of the people, that he is unavailable to clergy, and that the bishop avoids responsibility for his own action. There are no high crimes here, Wood says of his list, but these issues create the lack of trust he sees. Wood also worries that the people in the pews dont feel much support from the bishop. Wood tells this story of Bishop Bennisons recent visits to St. Christophers Church: Its unfortunate, in all candor, that when Charles comes out here for confirmation, on two or three occasions when hes been here, he has talked about politics in the diocese, not the individuals being confirmed, and this has angered parents. Its almost as though hes his own worst enemy. Thats the actual auditory and visual sign of support from the bishop, and he, politically, has just done dumb things with that sermon time, talking about how he is criticized unjustly. People dont want to hear that when their children are being confirmed. Question 3a: Sometimes in management a four-question analysis called SWOT is used to gather information and ideas about critical events. What are the strengths of the diocese? Wood sees the variety of the diocese as its great strength, even though that variety can lead to challenges. He says work being done between urban and suburban churches is a good example of how people from different backgrounds and perspectives can work

67 well together. Groups have worked to solve common problems and some parishes from different parts of the diocese are working together to provide help for people in Philadelphia neighborhoods. In our nearly 90 minutes together, however, Wood focused mainly on the problems of the diocese. He simply does not see much strength in the Diocese of Pennsylvania today. Question 3b: What are the weaknesses? At the top of Woods list of weaknesses are the leadership issues he described. These include the management style of the bishop and suspicions, fear and distrust among many clergy and laity. Wood also sees the challenges of dwindling congregations and churches that are expensive to operate and maintain. It is one area where he and Bishop Bennison agree. Some churches must be closed, he says. As an example, Wood cites the Philadelphia Church of the Advocate with a capacity for 1500 people and an iconic history, but with few parishioners in 2011. We have to make some tough decisions, he says, and it is not about this bishop. We could get Jesus coming back and He would close churches, Wood says. Question 3c: What are the opportunities? For Bill Wood the key opportunity is to heal the diocese. The biggest opportunity is to bring us together again, and that has to happen with a new voice. Thats the overriding opportunity, I think. For all his concern about the leadership of Charles Bennison, Wood sees a possibility that the diocese could come together, even if Bennison remains bishop for some time.

68 The basic thing that we may not be able to get over is this mistrust. Its focused on the individual, Charles Bennison, fairly or not. My excitement would be in trying to reverse that even though it may be impossible. It goes back to his saying hes made mistakes. Be specific. Call us together. I dont care if he asks for forgiveness or not, but confess that hes done something wrong. Let us say weve done something wrong too. And lets experience the glory of beginning again which ought to be a unique reality in the church if we are what we say we are. Thats where my excitement would be, but it might not be where his is. Question 3d: What are the threats? Wood worries most about the financial health of the diocese. In protest, his own parish is withholding its assessed contribution because the money goes to support the bishop and his staff. St. Christophers does support the program budget of the diocese. He describes the threat he sees: People will pull back the money because of the economy as well as their suspicions. The biggest threat that I see is a suspicious nature that keeps us from doing the work of ministry across the board. Question 4: List your recommendations for the top priorities for the diocese for the next five years. The way Wood sees it, the top priority for the diocese is, Coming together with an identity of being the diocese. He believes Assisting Bishop Rodney Michel can help, and that Michels leadership at that time at the time of Bennisons inhibition is a model for whats needed now. Wood notes that it will not be easy. Already the national church has sent in facilitators to help various parties begin to talk candidly and honestly with one another, and there have been clergy days for the purpose of clearing away agendas and suspicions. In Woods view, these have had little impact. I ask if Wood believes there is a way to move forward. He hesitates. Then he says, You know, theres got to be. I mean there has just got to be. If the church is really what it says it is theres got to be away to do that."

69 CHAPTER 10 MR. GEORGE WHITFIELD, FORMER VICE-CHAIR, DIOCESAN COUNCIL

George Whitfield (see Figure 11) is an active member of Trinity Church, Swarthmore, in suburban Philadelphia. Hes been rectors warden twice and served three terms on vestry. Whitfield has been just as busy in his work with the Diocese of Pennsylvania. He was a delegate to all by one of the last 24 conventions of the diocese. He served as vice-chairman of the executive committee of Diocesan Council between 2007 and 2009, two of the eight years that he served on the council. The vice-chairman is the next most senior member after the bishop, who is automatically the head of the council. So during the inhibition of Bishop Charles Bennison, Whitfield served as president pro tempore. Figure 11. George Whitfield, Jr.

State Farm Insurance photo

On February 21, 2011, Whitfield ushered me into the office of his insurance

70 brokerage on the main street in Media, Pennsylvania, where he and a small staff operate the business he has run for many years. Born in Philadelphia, Whitfield graduated from Central High School and earned two degrees in music from Indiana University of Pennsylvania where he played trombone. He spent five years as a music teacher in the Western Pennsylvania town of Meadville. There he and his wife, Deidra, both Baptists, joined The Episcopal Church and married. Today Deidre Whitfield is an ordained priest in the Diocese of Pennsylvania. Whitfields candor and good humor enlivened our conversation during the nearly 90 minutes we spent together. He is open and direct. In fact, he says, he decided not to seek another term on Diocesan Council in 2009 so that he could speak more freely about things that need to be a bit more transparent. Question 1: Describe the Diocese today as an organization and comment on how effectively it operates. Whitfield believes that infighting and lack of respect for the traditions and offices of the church cripple the diocese. For him the issue is broader than just distrust of Bishop Bennison. He says, Its that whole level of disrespect. Not just disrespecting Charles, but disrespecting the office of the bishop and disrespecting the canons that people voted for. Whitfield cites efforts to change the canons of the diocese at recent conventions, and says that the changes were part of a political power struggle designed not to improve governance but to enhance the power of Standing Committee at the expense of groups like Diocesan Council.3
3

In November 2006 Canon 6.2.1 was changed to remove language giving the Diocesan Council the powers of Convention, subject only to any limitations or directives adopted by the Convention. The new version states, Diocesan Councils duty shall be to carry

71 He says, When we start messing around with the canons to give any one leadership body more power over the other is where we run into trouble. That is what happened at the last couple of conventions and all that stuff is going to come back to haunt us. Whitfield is also concerned about what he sees as a lack of honesty and transparency by Standing Committee in recent years. He gives two examples. In one case, he says, political forces opposed to Bishop Bennison concealed an upcoming vacancy on Standing Committee in order to control the appointment and pack the committee with one of their own. At the same time, he says, leaders of aided parishes joined Standing Committee as a way to assure a steady flow of funds to their churches. Whitfield sees this as a conflict of interest. Whitfield is also critical of the aid given directly to some declining churches by the diocese. If the aid is guaranteed, he says, parishes can become dependent upon it, and there is less urgency to move a church to a sound financial footing. He told me, What incentive do you have to make your congregation grow? And we havent had a bishop that would tell them, This is my expectation, and either you or your replacement will do it. But the thing is that when you say that publicly, you get the race card pulled on you. Oh, he wants to close all the African-American parishes. And that is simply not true from my perspective. The question of struggling parishes is one that Whitfield believes has never been properly addressed but must be now in the face of strapped finances. More than a decade ago, Whitfield served on a committee that considered the problem and published a report recommending minimum standards for a parish to remain open. The document was met by howls of protest especially from urban, aided parishes, he says.

out the programs and policies adopted by the Convention. Language giving Diocesan Council authority to assist the Bishop in the formulation of administrative and pastoral policies and to determine all programs and policies to be sponsored or adopted by the Diocese regardless of how such programs are funded was eliminated.

72 Whitfield says, We had developed a standard that they didnt want to follow. (Parishes were to) raise in pledges at least $100K per year. You have to have a building that is accessible. You have to have buildings that are maintained. Also he says the report recommended that to stay open, churches must have at least 100 parishioners. Whitfield calls them, just ordinary standards, but they were never adopted. Whitfield sees this an example of a major issue for the diocese: hard choices are avoided; change is resisted. Thinking of the long history of the diocese, he says, The church may have started here, but it might end here too because were not willing to change. Were not willing to do the things that it takes to continue the church in urban areas or suburban areas. If you look at the churches that are successful, what do you see? Two or three services on a Sunday, one geared to children. You dont have Hail, Ye Festival Day and all those old, old hymns. (But) where we are today is that we dont want to change. We want everything as status quo. And the church has changed. I mean, we have the first female Presiding Bishop. For Gods sake, folks, wake up. Question 2: Describe the Diocese as a community and the support it provides for clergy and lay members. Whitfield worries about the perceived lack of diocesan support by some of its churches, clergy and laity. They see in the program side (of diocese spending) that a lot of the money goes to the urban parishes. And a lot of those (donating) parishes are on the fringes of the (suburban) counties. Theyre small. Theyre not very wealthy. Theyre saying, Whats in it for me? We break our necks to get our pledges in and to pay our assessment. We dont get anything. Whats in it for us? He also believes that the diocese has not done a good job of making the support that exists clearly visible. A lot of the programs of the diocese are social justice programs and these are the things that we say we are as Episcopalians, he says. To the churches of the diocese, he adds, Thats the benefit to you.

73 Some churches are very well supported, says Whitfield. He recalls that in a recent year one urban church received $50,000 from the diocese. He worries that support like that widens the urban-suburban divide. He says, We have our suburban clergy saying, Im doing the best I can to grow my church, and my parishioners give till it hurts to provide a salary for me and my benefits. And I go to an urban parish that is supported or a DCMM parish, and they have 10 people on Sunday morning, and that vicar is making $70,000 a year. I have a problem with that. Question 3a: Sometimes in management a four-question analysis called SWOT is used to gather information and ideas about critical events. What are the strengths of the Diocese? Whitfield says the diocese has people who are willing, number one. He believes that most Episcopalians in the diocese are anxious to help where they are needed and that they are willing to roll up their sleeves to support the diocese even though some are bitter and disappointed in the organizations recent history. Whitfield also sees the growing Hispanic population of the diocese as a strength. He believes that diversity generally can be one of the great strengths of the diocese, although he sees a missed opportunity to capitalize on it. Question 3b: What are the weaknesses? The chief weakness according to Whitfield is, Everybodys out for themselves (and asking) whats in it for me? That attitude leads to jealousy and poor decisionmaking, he says. As a result, Whitfield believes the diocese has trouble enacting a long-term agenda. He offers the example of camp Wapiti. He says in the 1980s and 1990s, People wanted the camp. They said they wanted the camp. They told Bishop Bartlett they wanted the camp. They said that we have the money...to pay for the camp. The diocese purchased land on a Chesapeake Bay site in Maryland and established Camp Wapiti. Yet

74 today Camp Wapiti is not operating, the site is up for sale, and its facilities are in mothballs. Whitfield rejects arguments that the camp is too expensive to operate or not the in the right location. He believes the camp is the victim of the anti-Bennison agenda of some in the diocese. He says, When people make decisions out of spite, you have to ask yourself, Where is God in this? Related are two other weakness Whitfield sees: the absence of a united vision and the lack of solid planning. The leadership of the diocese needs to insist that its churches have a plan, he says, and the leadership must develop a plan for the diocese as a whole. Whitfield believes that racism remains a challenge in some parts of the diocese and he tells this story of two Episcopal churches just a mile and a half apart in Chester, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, and a situation, that he believes the diocese has not addressed: You have St. Pauls, a white church with lots of money and a little bit of people. But as long as they have their money, they can stay open. You have a little mission, St. Marys. First we have to have a discussion of why you have a mission thats over 100 years old. Then ask from what grounds were you made a mission? If it was based on race then we need to have a discussion, and (St. Marys) is based on race. White people at St. Pauls didnt want them worshiping in their church. So they started the colored peoples mission on the other side of town. When do you get fed up with this? Whitfield agrees with those who say that the leadership of Charles Bennison is a weakness as well, although he admires the bishops quick mind. He thinks faster than most people. He really does. (But) because he thinks so much faster than everybody else, its like, OK, Im the conductor of this train. Its about to pull out of the station. Youre either on it or your going to get left. And when he left people waiting on the platform, they got angry. Whitfield attended every day of the Bennison trial on charges unbecoming a member of the clergy and he read the canons. He believes Bennison has a right to return as diocesan bishop, and Whitfield does not call for Bennisons resignation.

75 Question 3c: What are the opportunities? Whitfield believes the key opportunity before the diocese is the opportunity to heal by putting aside self-centeredness and considering more openly the possibilities for change, the needs of all and the root reasons for being a church. He sees an opportunity for new leadership to come forward in the diocese from among clergy and laity who have not been deeply involved and who do not bear the scars and stigmas from the last decade in the Diocese of Pennsylvania. He himself did not run for another term on Diocesan Council in 2010, and he thinks the next convention may be his last as delegate. Question 3d: What are the threats? The first threat Whitfield sees is the risk of not confronting honestly the issue of declining churches in the diocese. Without candid discussion, there is a risk of increased division and strife, he believes, and there is also the financial risk posed by trying to retain expensive property that is little used in a time of shrinking financial resources for the diocese and its churches. Another threat, according to Whitfield is posed by growth and change. Whitfield believes that the diocese must put aside old disputes and that its effectiveness is on hold until it does. As long as people say, We didnt use to do it that way and Charles has to go. He cant be my pastor. (As long as we cling to) all those things where we dig in our heals, and not take an open mind to the possibilities, then were going to stay where we are. Question 4: List your recommendations for the top priorities for the Diocese for the next five years. In order to move forward, Whitfield says, the diocese must begin a frank

76 conversation with committee leaders, lay people, clergy and anyone else with a stake in the Episcopal community in the Philadelphia area. This should be its top priority, he says, and he gives a contemporary example to illustrate why he believes such conversations could help. The only thing that got rid of the mindset of apartheid in South Africa was the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (established by President Nelson Mandela and former Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu in the 1990s). People just wanted their story to be heard (irrespective of) whether anything was going to be done to the person who did wrong to them. They just wanted their story heard. And we need to have a truth and reconciliation in this diocese because until that time people will not trust one another. You must have honest conversation, and, until this diocese has honest conversation about what it is that we say we are and what were called to be, things will be the same whether Charles is here or they call somebody else.

77 CHAPTER 11 THE REV. JOHN SORENSON, RECTOR, ST. JOHNS CHURCH, AND CHAIR, DIOCESAN MISSION PLANNING COMMISSION Four and half years go, in the midst of the deepest turmoil in the Diocese of Pennsylvania, John Sorenson (see Figure 12) arrived. Hed been called to become rector of St. Johns Church in Glen Mills, Pennsylvania, 30 miles and a world away from Church House. Set amid rolling country on a hilltop not far from the Delaware border, St. Johns serves Episcopalians in the most southern part of the diocese. The peaceful surroundings contrasted with the storm in full fury in the diocese when Sorenson arrived. Soon he was involved in diocesan activities and on the board of the controversial Camp Wapiti. His outspoken opinions were quickly noticed. Figure 12. John Sorenson

Photo by Eric Rabe

78 Sorensen graduated from Virginia Theological Seminary in 1985 and went to work at a nearby school in Alexandria, Virginia, as chaplain. After a stop in Midland, Texas, he took the post of rector at Trinity Church in Plattsburgh, New York, where he spent 16 years. Then in July 2006, he answered the call to St. Johns Church. Sorensen represents the Brandywine Deanery on Diocesan Council. Sorensen has focused on congregational development during his ministry and wrote a doctoral thesis on applying principles of congregational development to the larger diocesan organization. He heads the Diocesan Mission Planning Commission (DCMP) charged by the convention of 2009 to engage leadership groups in an evaluation of the mission of the diocese and to make recommendations. The DMPC issued an interim report4 to the Diocesan Convention in November 2010 and continues its work. On February 22, 2011, a blustery late winter day, Sorenson invited me into his office and fiddled with the buildings antique heating system, soon to be replaced, to warm up the room. It was Presidents Day and the church office was closed. Question 1: Describe the Diocese today as an organization and comment on how effectively it operates. Sorenson has been in three different dioceses since he was ordained, and, he says, This has got to be the most convoluted and confusing one. The longer Im here, the more (I find) layers of inner-workings and interrelationships on so many levels. There are several levels of clergy groups. There is the major clergy group (the Episcopal Clergy Association of Pennsylvania, ECAP). Clergy that I have know either like them or want to stay away from them because some see them as having participated in a lot of political activities in the past for or against the bishop. So a number of (clergy) have tried to stay away from it. Others tried to stay with it.
4

The interim DMPC report is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.diopa.org/assets/convention/2010/DMPC-Report.pdf>

79 Then Sorensen sees complex relationships between various working groups in the diocese. He says, Youve got a complicated relationship with Standing Committee, the (Diocesan Council), the bishop, a couple of the bishops. Theres a lot of overlap there. Theres supposed to be a balance of powers. There seems to be a real disconnect on what the role of the Standing Committee is and how much power it has in the functioning of the diocese. Ive never seen a Standing Committee with as much power as this one has. The situation was enormously complicated by division over Bishop Bennisons management style, the charges against him and the trial. Sorensen says, With this bishop you have the added complications of his status in the larger church. Going through the trial and then coming out of it being let off, but not let off as innocent. Being let off on a statute of limitations is not really a very good way to be let off. It makes you happy, but it doesnt resolve the issues, the guilt or innocence. Sorensen believes the case against Bennison had less to do with the sexual abuse charges against the bishops brother and more to do with diocesan politics. In Sorensons view, the charges were a means to the end of removing an unpopular bishop. The whole reason the case was brought in the first place was not because of the issue (of guilt or innocence). They were trying to get rid of the guy. This happens to be the way they almost did it. It really had nothing to do with the case. It really has to do with the fact that there was a large group that was trying to get rid of (Bennison). So, Sorensen says, the diocese is stuck today and split on various issues. For example, he says, significant groups but not all oppose the bishops return. Sorensen is among those who support Camp Wapiti, but he estimates that the diocese is about evenly divided on the whether or not to keep the camp. The diocese remains divided over roles of Standing Committee and Diocesan Council, he believes. Question 2: Describe the Diocese as a community and the support it provides for clergy and lay members.

80 Sorensen sees minimal support coming from the diocese as an organization today. He believes that support is more often mutual support among clergy, laity and working groups. For example, he says, his Diocesan Mission Planning Commission is providing a place for representatives of various groups to meet on common ground and learn to work together. That support is an important first step, he says, toward improving the ability of the diocese to function more effectively. The next step, he says, will be, a report and some suggestions for how the diocese can better operate in its relationship with its parishes. I see that as our main thing. He believes that in the current environment the support that Bishop Bennison can provide is limited at best. He notes too, that this is more of an issue for clergy than for the people of the diocese. Sorensen says, If the diocese starts fighting (church members) tend to retreat into the congregation, so it has affected the congregations less than the clergy because the clergy depend upon the collegial relationship with the bishop. They like it, whereas the congregations focus on their relationship with their clergy and themselves. If the bishop doesnt show up for awhile, so what? You can live with it or without it because (the churches) are their own organizations. Question 3a: Sometimes in management a four-question analysis called SWOT is used to gather information and ideas about critical events. What are the strengths of the Diocese? Sorenson quickly lists three strengths he sees in the Diocese of Pennsylvania today, Talented group of clergy, good staff and a lot of cash resources. In his few years in Pennsylvania, Sorensen believes the diocese and its churches are making some significant progress. He says, Theres good news happening in this diocese, there are some really cool stories. There is new stuff happening, there are new innovations, there are new business start-ups, there are new missions and ministries going on. There are churches that are growing and thriving. And its working. We spend so much time talking about the ones that dont work. We need to learn from the ones that do.

81 Question 3b: What are the weaknesses? The biggest weakness Sorensen sees is the preoccupation of some with criticism of the bishop. He says a respectful relationship is needed first, and although he sees evidence of improvements, he believes much work remains. Progress on communicating better will lead to an opportunity to make headway on the second major weakness Sorensen sees, the lack of a common vision, but he believes that to create a vision requires effective leadership. The leaders job is to implement a vision in way that keeps the group together. Now, this group may be one that is not keep-able together. Nor, says Sorensen, is the diocese likely to be able to develop a strategic plan under the leadership of Bishop Bennison. He says, Ive been a great Bennison supporter, but I dont think it is possible for him to effectively lead this diocese. Not because I dont like the guy. I just dont think its possible. There are too many disaffected people in this diocese to ever accept him as leader. I would have said a year ago that his coming back was needed so that we could stop this fighting and put it to rest. But I dont think its possible. I think there are very few people who wouldnt have resigned by now. Another weakness that concerns Sorensen is the inability so far of the diocese to deal with unneeded churches. For Sorenson, it is a matter of both management and planning. We have a lot of churches that are not making it and are asking for help and saying they cant make it without money or help from the diocese. There arent the resources to do that, nor has there been the expertise or application of expertise to help them, or an environment of trust in which the congregation can decide what it wants to do with its future. So theres a need for a lot of congregational re-visioning and re-planning. Theres a need for some closing, or merging or re-configuring. Theres a need for some church starts. There is a need for a lot of people to learn how to be better managers of congregations, be better priests, do better mission. And there is a need for the diocese itself to more effectively target its resources on its mission. Question 3c: What are the opportunities? The opportunity that Sorensen sees for the dioceses is to begin the process of

82 creating an effective plan. A start has been made he says, but the opportunity is to get a vision and move forward and rebuild what is pretty much a dying denomination. The Episcopalian franchise is going downhill. We were the blockbuster of church, but our franchise is in need of a major overhaul. Sorensen also feels the diocese has and opportunity to deal with its problem of too many churches. He says, To me a congregation ought to minister to its people and bring them closer to Christ, they ought to have a viable ministry to the world, the neighborhood around the church, and it ought to have an impactful mission in the larger world. At least two of those three. Smaller parishes can be self-sustaining, he says, by finding new sources of revenue such as renting out unneeded space or cutting costs perhaps by using part-time priests. Clergy and lay leaders have the opportunity to find a solution that works for the Diocese of Pennsylvania. Question 3d: What are the threats? Sorensen sees the threat in a single word, Ourselves. The church he believes must change to respond to changing times. But he says its people are reluctant. We dont have a big market share, the world around us doesnt see the product were selling as that necessary. So right there you have a very targeted business model. Were a small group that provides an important product to a limited number of people. Either we have to change our business model, or change the product or do a much better job of marketing it. Question 4: List your recommendations for the top priorities for the Diocese for the next five years. In the near-term, Sorensen says the diocese must focus on creating a mission statement. He plans an all-day meeting on April 30, 2011, with leaders of the diocese to try to do that. The mission must be something, he says, that the clergy and laity agree

83 upon, or at least that has broad support. He says, I would like to see a mission statement. (Right now) I dont think we can do much strategic planning. I think we need to focus on making healthy congregations. With the arrival of a new bishop sometime in the next five years, Sorensen would make strategic planning the top priority, but he believes that it is essential that the strategic planning be done in a way that the diocese sees as inclusive and that leads to a new approach to supporting churches and the people.

84

CHAPTER 12 THE RT. REV. RODNEY MICHEL, ASSISTING BISHOP, DOICESE OF PENNSYLVANIA

In 2007, after serving ten years as the Suffragan Bishop of the Diocese of Long Island, Rodney Michel (see Figure 13) retired to Ephrata, Pennsylvania. Near to Michels family and home of the Ephrata Cloisters, an 18th Century religious community, Ephrata promised a peaceful life after nearly 40 years in ordained ministry. Michel is a graduate of Seabury-Western Theological Seminary. He served as rector in churches in Nebraska and North Dakota before fleeing bitter winters of the plains for New York where he took over as assistant at the Cathedral in Garden City. Later he became rector of a parish on Long Islands South Shore. Figure 13. Rodney R. Michel

Diocese of Pennsylvania photo Then, in 1996 and

85 somewhat to his own surprise, the Diocese of Long Island elected Michel suffragan bishop. In The Episcopal Church, suffragan bishops serve under diocesan bishops, but they have the full authority of bishops to ordain priests and serve other bishop functions. As suffragan, Michel served under a diocesan bishop who was an alcoholic and created tension in the diocese. Furthermore, Michel faced tensions between suburban churches on Long Island and urban churches in Brooklyn and Queens. So he was familiar with difficult church situations when he came to Pennsylvania. It was on April 2, 2009, with Bishop Bennison inhibited and appealing his conviction and with retired bishop Allen Bartlett filling in, that Michel arrived in Pennsylvania to be assisting bishop of the Diocese of Pennsylvania. Michel was unknown to most in the diocese, but assisting bishops do not face a vote in convention and Standing Committee, acting as ecclesiastical authority, had made the choice. The Standing Committee and Michel expected, as did many, that Bishop Bennison would not return, and that Michel would bridge the transition of the diocese from the time of turmoil and stress to a new chapter. Then on August 15, 2010, the Court of Review ruled that Bennison could not be convicted of the charges against him. Again acting as diocesan bishop, Bennison asked Michel to remain as assisting bishop, and Michel holds that post today. On March 1, 2011, we met for more than an hour in his office at Church House to talk about the state of the Diocese of Pennsylvania. Sitting on either side of the fireplace there, we discussed his work as he filled in for the absent Bishop Bennison and now as he visits parishes, and as he supervises deacons, DCMM parishes and a group working on clergy compensation.

86 Question 1: Describe the Diocese today as an organization and comment on how effectively it operates. While Bishop Bennison was inhibited, Michel remembers, I got to know the diocese fairly well and tried to take the temperature and the barometric reading of the diocese and began, I think, to do some good collaborative work to get the diocese moving from one stuck place to moving forward. With Bishop Bennisons return, he says, We have had more bumps. He goes on, I put a lot of emphasis through my written messages and sermons and so forth on unity, forgiveness, moving forward and the mission of the church and not to get so bogged down in particulars and details that we forget what were about as Christians. To my sorrow, when it was announced that Bishop Bennison was coming back, a lot of people just sort of slipped back down into that unpleasant place where they lost the vision and were dealing more with grudges and old history. Michel also hired a canon to the ordinary, essentially a of chief of staff, who improved the administration at Church House putting clear policies in place where things had gotten very fuzzy, as Michel says. With Bennisons return, the canon resigned. Michel notes, The canon was able to go into trouble spots out in the field and get a picture of things before they blew up. (Without the canon) we really dont have anybody to do that right now so when a problems comes it has usually progressed to a fairly serious stage, and you have to begin picking up pieces as well as find the solution. Still Michel believes that in some ways, the diocese is functioning well under the circumstances. He believes the Church House staff is working effectively, and he thinks Bishop Bennison is making an effort to listen. I see the bishop (Bennison) as being very attentive to listening to trying to be collaborative. He really brings in the Standing Committee and the Diocesan Council and really values their input. So I see all that as encouraging. But I hear from other folks that there is unrest. There is that unrest.

87 Michel also sees useful discussions taking place to begin to tackle the questions of strategy and vision. He cites the Gathering of Leaders group that has met half a dozen times, and he says, All of the major committees and organizations of the diocese have been giving input as to how they see the diocese, and the hope is that they will begin to do some visioning and focusing. Its important to get a clear picture of where we are so we know where need to move forward. Question 2: Describe the Diocese as a community and the support it provides for clergy and lay members. The Gather of Leaders group is an example Michel cites of how various parts of the diocese are supporting each other, outside of Church House. Another effective example, Michel points to is the Episcopal Clergy Association of Pennsylvania that meets monthly for discussion and to hear speakers. Michel also sees examples of more formal diocese support that are encouraging. One is Fresh Start, a yearlong series of meetings for newly ordained clergy, and a group that is operated by the diocese. Fresh Start gives new priests a better understanding of how to deal with day-to-day challenges including pastoral issues or problems of raising money and maintaining facilities. There are other examples of formal support from the diocese. Shortly after coming to Pennsylvania, Michel held a clergy day, an all-day meeting of ordained priests, to discuss issues. Other clergy days had been attracting perhaps 50 of the more than 400 priests in the diocese, but 250 came to this one. It was heartening he says to see mutual support the came from being together. People got to have their say but also begin to work a different way, Michel says. He believes more of that is needed now. For example, some parishes are not supporting the diocese financially in protest until Charles

88 Bennison leaves. Michel says, There are clergy who dont agree with that but they dont have any opportunity to get together and talk about it. They just talk at each other. Question 3a: Sometimes in management a four-question analysis called SWOT is used to gather information and ideas about critical events. What are the strengths of the Diocese? Right away, Bishop Michel replies that the strengths of the diocese are, The clergy, the people. There really are a lot of good Christian people in this diocese. Ive met so many of them. They are responsible, Michel believes, for other strengths such as the efforts he sees of various groups to support one another or the efforts of parishes to work together. He mentions two examples of suburban parishes supporting inner city churches in poorer communities. In one case a suburban parish helps prepare and serve food at a city parish, and in another men from a suburban parish are helping rebuild clergy living space at a city church. The dioceses is not involved. He adds, Our history is a strength. Theres a kind of pride among many Episcopalians to know that we were among the first dioceses of The Episcopal Church. We still need to wave the banner and be a leader. Question 3b: What are the weaknesses? Bishop Michel says one great weakness is the continuing disunity and unhappiness. Michel believes that cannot be resolved until Bishop Bennison leaves. He says, The other great weakness, really, and it pains me to have to say it, is no resolution of the whole leadership question. I am a friend of Charles, and I respect him, and I know he has a commitment to finishing a work that he began, but I think it really is, with such division and unhappiness, I dont know. I dont see any resolution to it until he is no longer in the picture. While he believes some are beginning to consider a new direction for the diocese,

89 a strategic plan is still needed. I still think that it would be helpful if we had a better plan for management of the diocese. That would involve some staffing changes or differences and these are difficult times for parish churches, as well as dioceses and even the larger church. But I think we have to get serious. It appears to me that the bishop and probably even the Standing Committee spend so much time sort of putting out fires here and there, and we cant get on with the major work. Tied to that is the need for a better plan of action and staffing system for the diocese headquarters that would emphasize prevention rather than correcting problems after they occur. Although he says not enough money isnt necessarily a weakness, Bishop Michel adds, A real weakness is that we have a lot of old, needy facilities. What to do about those buildings is a decision that must be made as a church not by individuals, he argues, and certainly not one that can be made by the bishops office. He adds, Sometimes were not very practical about realities. Bishop Bennison has been trying to call us to really look seriously at these situations. If were spending all our money and energy to maintain a building, that is not what the gospel is about. Furthermore, he notes, We have a camp (Wapiti) that is absorbing a lot of money. The jury is still out on whether it was a good idea or not a good idea. Question 3c: What are the opportunities? The opportunity that Bishop Michel sees as the greatest is to find some real mission or cause that everyone can get behind. That means first finding ways to get beyond divisions in the diocese. For example, Michel talks about the division between suburban and urban churches, something he says hes seen in every diocese in which he has served. Theres always that tension and dynamic, and unfortunately, people get super charged about it and get stuck there. For one reason or many reasons urban

90 congregations think that suburban parishes are wealthy and everythings wonderful, and they dont really care about the poor neighbors in the city. But suburban congregations struggle too. These are challenging times for every place. He mentions groups that are doing good work to bridge the gap between city and suburban churches, but then says, We have a long way to go to break down those barriers. Michel believes there is an opportunity to do a better job supporting the growing number of Hispanic people of the diocese, many of whom live in the city. In one case, the parish priest in an Hispanic community has served for 36 years since long before his neighborhood acquired its Latino character. Michel says, We should look at a bilingual priest for that place. Were quite a bit behind the curve here. Question 3d: What are the threats? The threat that worries Michel the most is that simmering tensions in the diocese will become something bigger. The result could be long-term dysfunction for the diocese and a blow to work that even now is going on to support churches and communities. Sometimes it looks like everything is so tenuous that it could just blow up and splatter all over everywhere. And if that happened I dont see necessarily any one or any group that could put it back into the bottle. He hopes that will not happen, but tensions between key groups including Standing Committee and Bishop Bennison remain, he says, and he adds, As I see it from the outside looking in, its a working relationship (today), but I dont think either one trusts the other too much. Question 4: List your recommendations for the top priorities for the Diocese for the next five years. The top priority for Bishop Michel is a modest one, To try to hang together and

91 steer a steady enough course just to get through this time to the next chapter, to the time of having the next bishop. Michel sees it as helpful but unlikely that a period could elapse allowing some breathing room between the end of Bennisons tenure and his successors beginning. Michel is also concerned about who that successor could be. The best qualified rectors may be faced with a pay cut to become Bishop of Pennsylvania and some might not be willing to give up heading a smooth running church to take on the challenges of the diocese. He says, The next bishop will have a lot of stuff to work through pretty immediately.

92 CHAPTER 13 THE REV. ROBERT TATE, FORMER RECTROR, ST. MARTIN-IN-THEFIELDS CHURCH

In 1995, one of the largest and most prosperous churches in the Diocese of Pennsylvania was looking for a new rector. The man who took the job says the church was going through a very, very difficult time. But Robert Tate (see Figure 14) was an extraordinarily capable leader. Tate studied religion at Princeton and then went on to seminary at the Yale Divinity School. He got off to a fast start after ordination, first working at the cathedral in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, then at age 33 leading the historic Christ Church, Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Now here he was, headed for a plum job at St. Martin-in-the-Fields in the upscale Philadelphia neighborhood of Chestnut Hill. It was a cardinal parish, and Bob Tate would be among the rectors of the half dozen major parishes in Diocese of Pennsylvania. Figure 14. Robert Tate

Diocese of Pennsylvania photo

93 Tate jumped into diocesan life. He joined the board of Episcopal Community Services and eventually became its chairman working to raise money to support a variety of social service programs in Philadelphia. His work at St. Martin's made him a voice to be listened to in the diocese. He became one of the deans of the diocese, leading the congregations in the Wissahickon Deanery. By the mid-1990s, Tate was leading the Episcopal Clergy Association of Pennsylvania (ECAP), as the diocese was beginning the search for a new bishop. The association hosted an annual conference for members and had asked a professor of pastoral theology at the Episcopal Divinity School to be the keynote speaker. Charles Bennison wowed the crowd. Tate says, He came in and was scintillating. I mean we were stunned. I know people who say he is the best seminary professor they ever had. He was brilliant, and that happened to be just as Allen Bartlett was calling for a bishop coadjutor election. So Charles Bennison was nominated to be bishop by some who had been at the ECAP conference, and he was elected. Tate continued to be active in the diocese. He was a leader of a group of rectors of the largest parishes who met occasionally to discuss current issues. Among the issues that wouldn't go away was what to do in the face of the growing divisions and bickering within the Diocese of Pennsylvania. As various factions broke apart over issues of leadership and control, Tate says he worked hard to be neutral and to keep open lines of communication with all sides. By July 2009, as there seemed no end to the tension and conflict, Tate became disheartened. He could see the impact on his parish, disagreement over support for the diocese and Bishop Bennison, by then inhibited and fighting his conviction in church court. It was having a wrenching effect on some of Tates close friends and parishioners. Tate told me on Feb. 22, 2011 when we met for an hour and 15 minutes in the

94 comfortable living room of his home in Chestnut Hill, My favorite parishioner at St. Martin's has completely disappeared and faded into the woodwork because he and his wife cannot abide Charles Bennison and cannot get beyond that. It's one of the saddest things that I've seen. Against that sort of background, Tate left full-time parish ministry and St. Martin's. Today he is a parish consultant. Question 1: Describe the Diocese today as an organization and comment on how effectively it operates. Tate believes that the diocese has ceased to be an effective organization for either doing good work in the community or supporting its churches and people because the diocese remains so divided. Like many, he puts much of the responsibility for that at the feet of the bishop, Charles Bennison. He tells me, I think Charles has done a better job since returning, kind of turning the heat down, taking a lower profile, not inserting himself into some situations where he knows that would just be reactive. (However,) I personally fault him for continuing on as bishop and have told him that. I think for the sake of the diocese he ought to go. I just cannot comprehend why he's staying. I don't buy his point that he is trying to prove that clergy are protected by the due process of the canons, and that every day he stays he's showing the clergy that they have the same protections that saved him. I don't buy that. Tate sees some progress being made. In addition to the bishop avoiding some potential conflict, Tate says, the Standing Committee too has also become more moderate, and the Deans Council is providing a forum for some reconciliation and selfhelp. On the other hand, issues that continue to divide include not only Bishop Bennison's return but the failure to resolve disagreement over Camp Wapiti and the absence of an agreed upon vision for where the diocese should go from here. Serious problems remain, he says. Tate was surprised when he arrived in

95 Philadelphia that generally the largest parishes were not involved in the life of the diocese as a whole. He says the issue remains, and too often the attitude is that the diocese needs the better-off parishes, more than they need it. Too often, he says, these most able parishes are not giving back financially. It's crippling the diocese, he says. Tate says some parishes still do their fair share, but he says, There are others that have taken advantage of the situation in order to balance their budgets in a tough economic climate, where the politics are not really the issue. The diocese is in financial melt-down if you look at it objectively. If you go into Church House, it's a ghost town. Question 2: Describe the Diocese as a community and the support it provides for clergy and lay members. Bob Tate believes the diocese is unable to provide the support that all the parishes and the people of the diocese need. To some degree he says, this is inevitable. The diocese had 170 parishes when Bishop Bennison arrived, Tate says, and no bishop can be present to 170 congregations. Tate believes the bishop did a reasonably good job of supporting the larger parishes and the deans. Tate felt too that as things reached a low ebb with the bishop inhibited and out of the picture, some clergy found support among each other. He says this continues, The Deans' Council, many of them have really stepped up to the plate (to help). They really are doing that work and trying to take care of the clergy who are hurting and they're doing it when the bishop may not be in a position to do that. Tate believes that Assisting Bishop Rodney Michel is terrific and has provided support both while Bennison was not working in the diocese since Bennison's return. He says, People who can't feel supported by Charles Bennison can feel support from Rodney Michel. Question 3a: Sometimes in management a four-question analysis called SWOT is used to

96 gather information and ideas about critical events. What are the strengths of the Diocese? Tate believes that a surprising amount of good work is still being done by the parishes of the diocese irrespective of trouble in the organization as a whole. The vitality, the commitment to mission, at the grass roots level in parishes small to large still amazes me, he says. I go into these parishes, and I can't figure out how they're paying the oil bill. And yet, I look at what they are doing in their neighborhood and their community and I'm stunned. Tate notes that often this is happening in spite of not because of the diocese itself. Tate remarks, In some cases the parishes have just turned their backs on the diocese and said we're going to do what we feel called to do right here. Another strength Tate sees is in the work of the clergy. I think the clergy are doing a better job of talking with each other and caring for each other, he says. But he continues, I think a lot of us just got so exhausted and tired through all of this that we just decided that we had to move on. Question 3b: What are the weaknesses? The weaknesses that worries Tate the most is that some key clergy, once close to the diocese and Bishop Bennison, are now so alienated that they can't resolve their disappointment and anger. These are leaders who once they decided that they could not work with Charles Bennison never backed off from that, Tate believes. This situation has incredibly hurt this diocese, Tate says. That's one of the reasons I left St. Martin's and left full-time ministry. I was exhausted by it all. I literally had to walk away from it. The bishop himself represents a weakness for Tate who puts it this way:

97 We've got a bishop who is intransigent. I've told him I don't think he can function effectively as the bishop of this diocese so the best we can do is muddle through. I don't think we're ready for Charles Bennison to call for a coadjutor. I think it's going to take years for this diocese to recover from what's happened. I think we're being set up so that really good candidates are not even going to look at the Diocese of Pennsylvania. So we're probably going to get somebody who shouldn't be the bishop. Like many others, Tate sees no ready prescription for dealing with the buildings that are empty or nearly so on Sunday mornings, another weakness. These buildings are killing us, Tate says, and adds, Every one of these old buildings is a black hole, sucking money down. (The diocese must) make some rational decisions about which neighborhoods are strategic and put all our resources in them. Question 3c: What are the opportunities? Tate sees some progress being made, mostly at the parish level, to continue the work that might have been done by the diocese in times when it was more effective. Building on that is the opportunity he sees for the diocese now. He has taken a part time position at the Philadelphia Cathedral. He thinks it is a good example of how the diocese can begin to move forward. Referring to plans to grow the congregation and improve the office space and other facilities there he says, I love what's going on at the Cathedral. What that (development project) would say, if we could pull it off, about a re-commitment to the city! We are still present in a lot of neighborhoods in the city that really need our help. Another opportunity, Tate says, is to develop a plan for dealing with dying churches. He says he is not sure that the diocese will be able to develop a process for making rational choices about which parishes should stay and which the diocese just can't maintain. Finding a workable process is an opportunity for the diocese, Tate says. Tate also believes the Episcopal Diocese has an opportunity to build on new, strong relationships with the Lutheran Church. Nationally, the two churches have agreed

98 to exchange priests, share sacraments and work together in ministry. Since 2006, the bishop of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church has been The Rev. Claire Burkat. Before becoming bishop, Burkat worked in the Episcopal diocese headquarters with Charles Bennison. Tate believes there is an opportunity for the two churches in the Philadelphia area to do much more work together. Question 3d: What are the threats? The gravest threats at this point, Tate says are economic ones. He fears the impact the diocese would feel from a general downturn in the economy. He sees the recession of 2008 and 2009 as responsible for a significant impact on fund-raising in churches. More particular to the diocese, Tate sees a local threat that he describes as, the diocesan budget going into some absolute free fall which it practically has. What could make matters worse? Tate says, Charles acting out in some new way. Or the Standing Committee acting out in some new way. Tate believes either could deteriorate the tenuous situation of the diocese today. Question 4: List your recommendations for the top priorities for the Diocese for the next five years. Tate believes the diocese must force itself back to being about the whole community, not just individual situations in individual parishes. He says, We've got to rediscover our sense of community and our sense of being together and being one with a common mission as a diocese. Is that possible with Charles Bennison here? I'm not sure. If the highest priority (for the bishop) is not moving on, then we've got to do it on our own. That will take a continued effort to talk and work together, Tate says. He worries whether or not the Diocese of Pennsylvania can make a reality the sense of community he hopes for. Is he optimistic? He quickly says, No and pauses. No, not really...and I'm

99 sad.

100

CHAPTER 14 ANALYSIS, SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSION Analysis Assumptions In this chapter, I present a summary of the perspectives of the ten leaders of the Diocese of Pennsylvania and offer suggestions for the operation and sustainability of diocese. I assume that Bishop Bennison will not choose to retire early but rather will remain in his post through November 2015 when he will reach age 72, the required retirement age for bishops. I also assume that he will call for the election of a bishop coadjutor sometime in 2012 or 2013. In evaluating the responses of those interviewed, I make two additional assumptions. First, that the words used during the interviews, in fact, reflect the beliefs and ideas that each person holds. I also assume that the most frequently used words and ideas represent the most strongly held beliefs. For example, when in the context of our discussion of strengths of the diocese, those interviewed repeatedly use the term people, I conclude that this indicates a strongly held belief that people operationally interpreted in terms of their abilities, skills, knowledge, commitment and willingness to act are a strength. Data Analysis Two approaches were used to analyze the responses of the leaders. First, I deconstructed the text of the interviews, which, as described in Chapter 3, were recorded and transcribed. From the transcribed text, I extracted the nouns, adjectives and adverbs used in the interview subjects response to each of the four questions asked. A word list

101 was created for each participants answer to each question. In the case of Question 3, the SWOT analysis, this was undertaken separately for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Occasionally it was necessary to synthesize a complex comment into a single word or phrase for analysis while in other cases the single word or phrase presented a clear concept. Because I was also interested in the perspective of the whole group, the resulting word lists for each of the speakers were combined into a summary word list for each answer. (see Table 3) Table 3. Text Analysis Process
Speaker Bennison Bullitt Question #1 Bennison Answer #1 Word List Bullitt Answer #1 Word List Question #2 Bennison Answer #2 Word List Bullitt Answer #2 Word List Questions #3-4 Bennison Answers #3-4 Word Lists Bullitt Answers #3-4 Word Lists

(Other Participants)

(Other Participants Word Lists)

(Other Participants #2 Word Lists)

(Other Participants #3-4 Word Lists)

Combined Word List of all Question #1 Answers

Combined Word List of all Question #2 Answers

Combined Word Lists of all Question #3-4 Answers

The combined word list was then entered into, Wordle, an online application engine (www.wordle.net) which has been used for qualitative research (McNaught & Lam, 2010). This tool provides text mining (Barry & Kogan, 2010) by counting the occurrences of each word in a block of text and creating a word cloud graphic showing the most used words in the largest type and progressively less frequently used words in smaller and smaller type. This technique provided an image of the collective responses

102 for each question with the most important words and concepts in the largest letters (see Figure 15). This technique synthesizes many comments into a form that graphically presents the ideas of the whole group. In the second analysis, I reviewed and interpreted the comments of the interviewees as a group by applying the approach of Bolman and Deal (2008) who argue that organizations and organizational problems can be understood from four perspectives, or frames: structural, human resource, political and symbolic. The structural frame assumes that an organization can be understood in structural ways. This means examining and managing with clearly defined goals, specialized roles and hierarchies, formal relationships, division of labor, policies and rules. From this perspective, problems occur when the structure does not fit expected situations or behavior of those holding the roles. The human resource frame assumes that an organization can be understood from the perspective of the human and social needs of its members. Examining and managing an organization from this frame means that one considers the feelings, prejudices, skills and limitations of its people and matches them and the organization to each other. The organization is considered an extended family where autonomy and participation are encouraged. Problems occur when there is a bad fit between employee and organization. The political frame assumes an organization can be understood and managed as a contest, with various interests competing for limited resources. Conflict typifies this perspective and bargaining, negotiation, coercion and compromise are the ways decisions are made and things routinely get done. In this frame, organizations can bog down when power is concentrated in the wrong place or is so broadly dispersed that the organization

103 stalls. The symbolic frame assumes that an organization can be understood and managed in terms of cultural and social anthropology. Groups within the organization are seen as tribes or clubs. Theater is important and there can be a perception of a carnival atmosphere in the organization. Culture centers on rituals, ceremonies, stories, heroes and myths. Members are not so much hired as initiated into such organizations. The spirit of the organization is important. Problems occur when the symbols are missing, the myths are misunderstood or when the teams weaken or break down. Question #1: Effectiveness of the Dioceses of Pennsylvania Each of the participants was asked to Describe the Diocese today as an organization and comment on how effectively it operates. Applying the Wordle tool produced a word cloud presented as Figure 15. Figure 15. Effectiveness Word Cloud

Some participants mentioned that the diocese is improving as an organization; however, by far most of the descriptors are negative. The most prominent word

104 representing the organization to the participants is divided. Less frequently mentioned but prominent is dysfunctional, a term used by several participants. Others described the diocese as ineffective and inefficient. Failed-planning and failed management are ideas repeatedly used by participants to describe the diocese and finances and mistrust are also prominent in the word cloud. The conclusion is that the leaders see the organization as troubled by a number of challenges. It is divided between parishes, clergy, urban and suburban groups, governing committees of the diocese and its bishop, they said. Financial issues inhibit the effectiveness of the diocese, and the participants see leadership as ineffective both in terms of managing the organization and planning for its future. They describe an organization that is unfocused and characterized by power issues, tension and weak governance. Question #2: Diocese as a community and support The second issue put to the ten participants was, Describe the Diocese as a community, the support it provides for clergy and lay members. The word cloud generated by a synthesis of this discussion is presented in Figure 16.

105

Figure 16. Community and Support Word Cloud

Dominant in the word cloud is weak support. While some participants reported cooperation and that the situation is improving, the preponderance of terms used to describe the diocese as a community are negative rather than positive. In describing the community, participants used terms such as parish focus, disengaged, distrust, stress, and lack of communication to paint a picture of a community that is, in the words of one, convoluted and confusing. The conclusion is that the leaders speak of weak support from several perspectives. For example, participants believe there is little support for clergy coming from the diocese, although they note cases of clergy supporting each other. When participants described lack of diocesan support for churches, some noted that this is less impactful on the people in the pews because they have a parish focus. This may be logical, they say, especially when the diocese is in turmoil, but it means that members are less likely to be involved directly in the diocese as an organization. In the context of this question, the term finances was used to describe the

106 declining financial support for the diocese (see Chapter 2), seen as a serious weakness or threat. Where there is diocesan support, such as financial aid to struggling churches, it can be controversial with some suggesting the money is not well spent and others noting that the support is less than it once was. Question #3: SWOT analysis A SWOT analysis (Hill & Westbrook, 1997; Andrews, 1980; Learned, Christensen, Andrews & Guth, 1965) was used in each of the ten interviews. A SWOT analysis is a strategic tool that provides an overall balance sheet of an organization in terms of its internal strengths and weaknesses, and external opportunities and threats. A SWOT helps to position and understand sources of influence and provides a guide to planning for the future. Each key leader was asked to describe the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats he sees related to the Diocese of Pennsylvania. Lists of the words used to describe each characteristic were compiled and word clouds generated. Strengths Figure 17 presents the strengths word cloud. Those interviewed consistently noted that the people, clergy, diversity and parishes of the diocese are its greatest strengths. The group also mentioned lay leadership and talent as strengths. Diversity is cited as a strength that includes the dioceses inner-city and suburban mix, its rich and poor, its ethnic mix and even its variety of theological viewpoints. Resources are seen as a strength in that these leaders believe that the diocese has strong financial resources in its endowments, even though most congregations face challenges raising money and paying bills and are likely to continue to do so. The leaders interviewed see also strong resources in the abilities of people and parishes based on good work that is being done by the parishes.

107

Figure 17. Strengths Word Cloud

The conclusion is that these leaders believe that the diocese has the people and financial resources to be successful, despite the decline in overall membership and shrinking revenues. Diversity of perspective has the potential to lead to creativity, the leaders believe. The key leaders are proud of the good work being done and the cooperation and support they see among some groups within the diocese. They sometimes see this happening in spite of, rather than because of, the diocese as a bureaucratic organization. Weaknesses Figure 18 presents the weaknesses. Participants were far more vocal about weaknesses than about strengths using nearly twice as many words to describe the weaknesses. Buildings, churches, money, plan, leadership, bishop and vision are all

reported as prominent weaknesses of the diocese.

108 Figure 18. Weaknesses Word Cloud

The conclusion is that buildings and churches are consistently mentioned as a weakness because of the costs of upkeep and renovation that are frequently unaffordable expenses. Resistance to closing churches and selling property represent another weakness: the lack of will to deal with political issues such as opposition to change, disgruntled supporters and priests threatened with unemployment. Also, the need to close empty churches starkly symbolizes the decline of mainline religion that provokes angst among so many believers. Mentioned only slightly less frequently are two different but related weakness. First is the decline in membership and the low number of Sunday attendees in all but a very few of the churches in the diocese. Second is the financial distress that the churches feel. Symbolized here as churches and money, these are issues that face not only the Diocese of Pennsylvania, but also the larger Episcopal Church and mainline

109 denominations in general (Hout, Greeley & Wilde, 2001; Olson, 2004). Nonetheless, those interviewed see these problems as ones to be faced by the diocese, and they see as a weakness the inability to find solutions. Plan, vision and mission are weaknesses representing the lack of a clear, agreed upon direction or priorities. Leaders also cite their belief that in many cases this is because the diocese is distracted by anger and in-fighting and people are distrustful. Much is said in the interviews about the bishop, leadership and management. These are related weaknesses. On the one hand, a weakness of leadership at all levels including that of key committees is suggested by the word leadership. Management suggests issues of organization such as the canons, staffing or the managers themselves. Charles Bennison as bishop is seen as a weakness that is symbolized by the word bishop. Another weakness these leaders identify is division over various issues including Camp Wapiti. Opportunities The opportunities identified by the leaders are shown as Figure 19. The dominant word and idea is heal. The key leaders see the diocese as wounded or sick, yet they are optimistic that better times can lie ahead. The leaders are less clear about which specific things can be done to accomplish the healing. They note prayer and conversation as opportunities for the diocese. Conversation is expressed indirectly through terms including re-imagine, common purpose, support, self-study, spiritual life, beginning again, new voice, and communication.

110 Figure 19. Opportunities Word Cloud

The conclusion is that virtually all of the leaders believe that the opportunity for conversation can be exploited in an attempt to heal the diocese although there is concern expressed that taking advantage of that opportunity may not be possible under the leadership of Bishop Bennison. Other thoughts are more diffused. The leaders use the word together reinforcing the idea that an opportunity is a cooperative effort to move the diocese forward. Inclusion, inclusiveness, support, transparency and discussions also describe opportunities to bring disparate elements of the diocese together for conversation. Convention is mentioned as a vehicle to improve the efficiency of the diocese as an organization. The ideas such as new churches, church, re-imagining and direction suggest an opportunity for taking on new objectives and mission work and rethinking the purpose of the diocese. Words such as cause, civil rights, peace, justice and social programs suggest the idea that becoming more relevant in the area of social ministry is an opportunity for the diocese. While the terms communication,

111 discussions, self-study and spiritual support build on the opportunity for more open and candid conversations. Threats While the opportunities seem real to these key leaders of the diocese, the group is even more specific about threats as shown in the Threats word cloud (see Figure 20). Several terms dominate the word cloud with lack of support, finances, tensions, change and fear the most prominent.

112 Figure 20. Threats Word Cloud

The conclusion is that some of the threats expressed may reinforce each other. Tensions and change are threats may interconnect with a third expressed by the group as fear. In turn all of these may be exacerbated by a fourth threat, lack of support. This combination could further deteriorate an already difficult situation. Taken together, these four threats can create a reinforcing loop with the threat of change leading to fear, which creates more tension, which is exacerbated by the lack of support. Although they are described as threats rather than weaknesses and, therefore, seen as something that is from outside the diocese rather than within, it is apparent that tension, changes, fear and lack of support are felt by the leaders currently and that the threat is that these problems will increase to the point of further limiting the effectiveness of the diocese as an organization. Finances, particularly tighter budgets brought on by shrinking revenues and higher costs, pose another threat. This threat is mentioned as frequently as the first four. Lack of vision, self-focus and the bishop are other frequently

113 mentioned threats perceived by this group of leaders. Question #4: Priorities for the Dioceses of Pennsylvania In the fourth question the key leaders were asked to list top priorities for the next five years. The word cloud for the answers to this question is shown as Figure 21.

Figure 21. Priorities Word Cloud

114 Conversation and leadership dominate the word cloud. Leadership is also reflected in other terms used: successor and strategic planning. People, community, churches and clergy are words expressed somewhat less often but still prominent in Figure 21. Another notable term is honest. Several conclusions can be drawn from this word cloud. The first is that the top priority is improving leadership and that honesty is important for that leadership and the future diocese to be successful. Related to developing this new leadership are strategic planning, churches and struggling churches. Since leadership is the top priority, it must be improved as soon as possible. Also, the participants give priority to improved communication as expressed by the terms conversation, people, community and churches so an organized diocese-wide discussion of the issues identified as weaknesses or threats is a priority for these leaders. This includes the work being done now by committees and other groups in the diocese such as the DMPC, the Gathering of Leaders, the Deans Council and the clergy to improve communication. Continuing those discussions and initiating new ones, the participants agreed, is a top priority. Finally, this group sees as a priority support for the needs of the people and assuring that their skills and talents are better appreciated and used in the diocese. Also the leaders see as a priority selecting a successor after Charles Bennison retires. Reframing Analysis Applying the Bolman and Deal (2008) frames to the Diocese of Pennsylvania presents a complex problem and a picture of an organization that is in turmoil and is struggling to meet the needs of its clergy, member parishes and people. When organizations are viewed from the structural frame, formal relationships

115 and division of labor are important. In the Dioceses of Pennsylvania, relationships are not formal but are vague. Frequently, it is unclear who is supposed to do what. Groups complete for control because policies and rules are not clear or generally agreed upon. Governance is important in a structural frame so a clear hierarchy and formal relationships are needed. In the diocese, however, governance is weak. Repeatedly those interviewed described the canons as ineffective, confusing and sometimes leading to controversy and division. Hierarchies are muddled and the authority of the bishop for administration and even pastoral care is widely rejected. Various elements are disconnected from one another: the people in the parishes from the work of the diocese; urban parishes from suburban parishes; some clergy groups from others; and, of course, the bishop from clergy. This creates confusion within the organization and has sparked power struggles. All of these contribute to the ineffectiveness of the diocese. Bolman and Deal (2008) describe an organizations structure is its best effort to align internal workings with outside concerns. (p. 97). Yet in the diocese those outside concerns are unclear because planning is weak and there is no broadly held agreement on what mission and goals are most important. Consequently, the organization is unable to address its structural needs. Reengineering or restructuring the diocese is one possible response. If such a project is undertaken, considerable groundwork will be needed in advance. Relationships, roles and processes must be understood and perhaps redefined. Clear goals must be set in order to understand the structure that will best help meet them. Agreement from disparate parts of the diocese will be essential to the success of any restructuring. The human resource frame considers the needs of the people within an

116 organization. In the case of the diocese, these are the clergy, the members of the churches of the diocese and the small Church House staff. From the human resource perspective it is important to consider the feelings of the members of the organization. To what extent can the organization be thought of as an extended family? Are the skills and limitations of its members considered by the organization or are they ignored? What prejudices are at work? The conclusion is that the human resource needs of the constituents of the diocese are poorly met. Clergy receive pay and benefits, of course, but the organization is not meeting the basic needs of its members for a feeling of safety and trust. Prejudices and need conflicts are pronounced: small churches against large ones, urban churches against suburban, and struggling parishes against more successful ones. Various committees and their leaders are in conflict with the bishop and the bishop with them. Committees are suspicious of each other, and some members of key committees are prejudiced against other members of the same committee. Distrust is a key characteristic mentioned repeatedly in the interviews. In the diocese, distrust of others translates into an unwillingness to speak openly for fear of retribution by a group or individuals. In such an environment, many feel unsafe. This can be critical because safety is a fundamental human need. After physical needs, it is a powerful motivator of behavior and emotion according to the well-known needs hierarchy of Maslow (1970). In the diocese, a secure, predictable and stable environment may meet behavioral and emotional needs while spiritual security may be based on belief in the churchs sustainability and the security of ones own place within the church.

117 Recognizing the importance of meeting safety directly, the Diocesan Mission Planning Commission has engaged the Kaleidoscope Institute and Rev. Eric Law5 to help the diocese focus on building community and trust. In the interviews, the management style of the bishop is reported to be unsuited to the needs of the members, particularly the clergy. In the diocese, clergy in particular seek empowerment, the chance to participate in key decisions and egalitarianism. The interviews show these desires are often unfulfilled, and often the bishops management style gets the blame. Clergy worry about job security, about financial security for their churches and about membership and attendance declines. These concerns are not well addressed by the diocese because planning is poor and goals are unclear. How the organization will respond to churches and congregations facing decline is not understood, and that adds to the stress and tension of dealing with the problems in the first place. Clergy feel their skills and challenges are ignored. Those interviewed noted also that parishioners are often disengaged and disconnected from the diocese as a whole. Their skills are not sought after, well used or freely offered, they explain. Because the diocese is in many ways a voluntary community rather than a formal organization, people can opt out, and many have. Some have left the church altogether resulting in a population of the diocese that has declined steadily over recent years. Many others have retreated into their local congregations and see the diocese as irrelevant, interviewees said. Church House staff soldiers on, but even this small group demonstrates disengagement. The human resource issues faced by clergy
5

The Kaleidoscope Institute works worldwide with churches in all denominations on issues of leadership, organization and communication. See http://www.kscopeinstitute.org/

118 and people have an inevitable viral effect on the staff. When the human resource needs of an organization are not met, the result is often the sorts of behaviors seen in the diocese. In a business, disengagement might be seen in poor safety records, high worker compensation, or increased absenteeism. In the diocese, since members are not on the job in the same sense as in a business, the corollary is the drop-out rate, suspicion and distrust. All are noted in the interviews. Clergy feel disengaged from the diocese, disempowered in its decision-making and unsupported. Bolman and Deals political lens considers an organizations ability to bargain, negotiate and compromise as distinct from the coercion and conflict within it. Key to an analysis from this perspective are the contests and competing interests within the organization and battles over limited resources. Problems are the result of inappropriate concentrations of power and rampant conflict. The interviews repeatedly note multiple conflicts and in-fighting in the operation of the diocese. Compromise and bargaining are difficult for the diocese participants in the interviews noted. Coercion and conflict are more common as the organization struggles with both external and internal problems. Limited resources to support inner-city ministries and struggling parishes compete with resources to maintain parishes that may be larger and wealthier. Parishes that withhold contributions to the diocese are engaged in similar power and control struggles. The struggle between Standing Committee and the bishop is a political struggle over control of diocesan funds but also over decision-making according to those interviewed. In late March 2011, another political struggle, the Camp Wapiti issue, seems ready to explode, and participants noted increasing tension over the camp. Key committees have

119 voted to accept an offer to purchase the camp land, but Bishop Bennison vows not to sell at any price. These are examples of political problems born of concentrations of power in some key committees and the bishop that are in conflict, and also born of the fact that there is no agreement on where the power in the diocese should properly lie. For this issue to be resolved, the diocese must come to a widely accepted agreement on who should lead, manage and control the organization and how members can appropriately contribute to management and decision-making. So far in 2011, there is no such agreement. The symbolic frame supposes that what is most important in an organization is not what is actually done but what it means, that symbols are used to resolve confusion and events are most important for what myths, heroes and stories they produce. There can be an atmosphere of carnival or theater. The spirit of the organization is important attempting to answer for members questions such as who am I in the organization, what are we accomplishing as a group, and why is this important? (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Church organizations put emphasis on just such components. They argue that their work is the highest calling. Their membership rights are critical and their buildings are both symbolic and filled with symbols. Stories relate the core beliefs, and culture is the backbone of the organization. Yet in the Diocese of Pennsylvania, the heroes, symbols and stories point to the larger Episcopal Church and Christianity. They have little to do with the diocese as an organization. Indeed, the spirit of the diocese in many ways appears broken. The stories told within the organization in early 2011 were of conflict and division, and these issues come up more often than stories of victories and success when participants described the

120 diocese. These stories do little to engage, enlighten or encourage the organizations members. There is little sense of being a community. Few parishes display a diocesan banner or other emblem of the diocese, for example. Although they may link to the dioceses online site from their own Web pages, news of diocesan happenings is usually an afterthought in meetings or communications of the parishes. More important, parish members generally feel little affinity for the diocese. Sometimes the style of a leader can be symbolic and emulated by members of the group. However, in the Diocese of Pennsylvania, the management style of the bishop, as reported by those interviewed, provides neither symbol nor example to be followed by those whom he leads. When an organization is analyzed from the symbolic perspective, teams are often found to have qualities of humor, fun and play. Modern businesses sometimes incorporate game rooms into their offices or a corporate campus may include a gymnasium and basketball court. Some high-performing teams report a routine of high jinks and practical jokes to lighten the mood in a stressful environment. This is the element of carnival. The idea is to provide not only stress relief but also bonding among members (Bolman & Deal, 2008). The opportunities for fun and play are largely absent in the operation of the diocese. Neither lightheartedness nor fun was ever mentioned as a strength or opportunity in the interviews conducted for this thesis. There are two ways to consider the problems of the diocese. The first is a linear analysis. Table 4 presents a summary of the issues facing the diocese with possible options to remediate them. Later, in the second, I will consider the systemic nature of the problems of the diocese.

121

Table 4. Reframing the Diocese of Pennsylvania

Frame
Structural

Criteria at Stake
Decentralized organization

Options Available
Focus on inclusion Strong communication

Weak integration Poor governance, lines of responsibility Goals unclear Human Resource Safety/trust needs not met

Responsibility charting Interdependencies analysis Task force on structure and canons Develop mission statement Strategic planning Conversation to establish trust Conflict management training

Clergy stress Job threats Poor conflict management Disengagement and disempowerment

Counseling from experts Plan for church consolidation: closing or establishing new churches Conflict management training Focus on talents Intentional inclusion

Political

Power conflict between diocese and parishes Camp Wapiti controversy

Determine agreed upon roles and support for each Work for compromise and to resolve disagreement Fact-based decision-making

Standing Committee power issues Bishop management and control issues

Focus on opportunities for success and cooperation Intentional inclusion Improve communication Value respectful listening

Symbolic

Broken spirit

Create additional support systems Counseling

Joy, fun, play missing Welcome diversity

Purposefully seek genuine and routine opportunities for play, joy, fun Intentional inclusion Value divergent opinions and views

Weak team structure

Team building exercises and training

122

Systemic Issues and the Role of Charles Bennison Much is said by the ten participants interviewed for this thesis about the leadership of the Bishop of Pennsylvania, Charles Bennison. On the one hand, the leaders find Bennison a quick thinker, an engaging personality and often a charming man. Many say they like him personally. Most agree that his plans for the diocese are sweeping and visionary. Yet repeatedly, they say that the bishop himself is a force for division within the diocese. Several called his management style autocratic. He has been unable to build support for his plans, and he ignores dissent, the leaders say. Most believe that healing the division they see and developing an agreed upon plan for the diocese will be difficult or impossible under Bishop Bennison. Aside from the bishop himself, all but one of the leaders told me flatly that the bishop should step down, and the other believes that Bennison has a right to stay but is ineffective. Yet the issues in the Diocese of Pennsylvania seem to go far beyond the leadership and management of the bishop himself. They are systemic. They are embedded in the organizations structure, people, politics and spirit and they are embedded in the larger system of which the diocese is a part: The Episcopal Church, mainline religion and contemporary American culture. That system includes the general decline in church attendance and membership, a slower economy and resulting tight budgets, and government cuts in programs that put pressure on churches to do more for their communities. The system also includes embedded and sometimes historical issues such as the quantity of real estate managed by the diocese and its impact on resources. Each of these issues individually and in interaction can lead to stress, division and strife, the sort of problems that are noted by the participants in this research.

123 When a system is as complex as that of the diocese, an autocratic style is unlikely to be successful, and we see from the interviews here that both the people and the clergy reject a top-down directive approach. This is because a system involves both the functional organization of the diocese and its parallel life as a community of believers. Because of that, Torry (2005) notes, in religious organizations a management style that relies on direction from the top or coercion seems doomed to failure. In church organizations, he says: Change must be brought about openly, in relation to the organization's charter goals, and in relation to clear and agreed goals related to a changing environment if all parts of the organization are to be involved in the process of change and the different structures are to remain coherent. This coordinating task is at the heart of the successful governance of religious organizations. (p. 108). In the diocese, most members and clergy are not bound to the organization by economic needs nor are they likely to indentify with the diocese more readily than with other organizations to which they belong such as their parishes or even their employers. Disengaging is an available option. However, Charles Bennison is to some degree is a victim of the first of the common fallacies in explaining organizational problems called blaming people noted by Boland and Deal (2008). They say, Targeting individuals while ignoring larger system failures oversimplifies the problem and does little to prevent its recurrence. (p. 27). As Frank Allen notes in Chapter 7, when Charles Bennison was absent from Church House for more than two years, the problems confronting the diocese did not disappear. Bennison faced significant early challenges. Eleven dissident parishes were withdrawing from the diocese as he took the job. The dissident churches created debate, division and anger. As a new bishop, Bennison also faced a challenge from his own election. He won election over four others to become bishop coadjutor. Among those

124 defeated was the archdeacon of the diocese, John Midwood, who had substantial support as Contosta (in press) notes. Some of those interviewed for this paper believe that after Bennisons election, his opponents organized to assure they had a strong voice on Standing Committee, and maneuvered for additional power and control in the diocese. These leaders say this contributed substantially to division. Difficult as these issues may have been, it is Bennisons own management and style that come in for the most criticism from the leaders interviewed here. They reported that the bishop is ineffective at what may be the key role of a leader: helping the organization to imagine its best and then to become that best thing. None felt that the diocese has a united vision of what it should be doing or that an effective plan is in place to make such a vision a reality. What plans there are come from the bishop alone, the other leaders interviewed say frequently. They do not believe that they have had a voice in creation of those plans. In early 2011, unpopular in the diocese but back in charge, Bennison believes that he has little to lose by pushing through plans to which he is committed, including unpopular ones such as closing churches and reviving Camp Wapiti. The Wapiti controversy is coming to a new boil in early 2011 as some in the diocese insist on selling the property and the bishop refuses. Bennison has become a symbol of division within the diocese, and the diocese appears stuck and unable to go forward. Leadership in Religious Organizations Rothauge (1996) writing about congregations describes a life cycle that includes a period of decline and redevelopment. When congregations engage this period by continually asking hard questions about identity, vision and strategy and then acting,

125 Rothauge says, the church survives. If that is not possible, the option that remains, Rothauge writes, may be only a dignified burial. (p. 7). It is hoped that the same will not be the fate the Diocese of Pennsylvania. Unclear about assets, strengths or where the diocese should go, the people of the diocese seem unable to address questions of which is the best strategy or how to take action. The decentralized nature and congregational focus of the Diocese of Pennsylvania add to the challenge and make it possible to opt-out with minimal personal consequence. Despite the division and conflict within the diocese, there are positive recent developments that hold out the hope of reconciliation and interview participants note that there are attempts to redefine the diocese as Rothauge suggests. The first of these is the work of the Diocesan Mission Planning Commission (DMPC). This group has been meeting for more than a year, and it offers clergy and lay leaders a chance to discuss the challenges they see, build trust in one another and overcome division in the diocese. In 2010, the group began working with a consultant on improving communication and in two clergy days organized by the Council of Deans late that year, the deans and DMPC engaged in a significant effort to listen to all points of view and begin to heal. Eventually, it is hoped, this process will lead to a commonly agreed upon plan that can be carried out in a timely manner. Less formal, but also important is the work of groups such as the Gathering of Leaders, the Deans and the Episcopal Clergy Association of Pennsylvania. These groups are addressing the challenges of the diocese and providing opportunities for all views to be heard, understood and addressed. The Gathering of Leaders is working with a consultant to study interdependencies among various diocese groups to help them

126 better understand their roles and better appreciate the work of others. It is important that the diocese engage in a new broad-based dialogue to address the deep and complex issues it faces. The objective of a broad dialogue is to build the basis for a project based on organization development and change principles. This work could well be a systems thinking approach as described by Ackoff (1981, 1999). If a systems thinking approach is eventually selected, this thesis can be the basis of the current state formulation that the systems approach incorporates. However, important preliminary work will be needed to build the basis for such a project so that there is a level of open communication and trust from which to work. Already, this is underway both formally and informally. The diocese may be well served by following a specific church process such as the one described by Rothauge (1983, 1996). Whatever approach is chosen, a diocesewide conversation should supplement and eventually replace the smaller limited formal and informal conversations happening today. All in the diocese must be encouraged to participate and all who wish to must have an opportunity to be heard and to listen. A common direction a mission or a vision must be found. If this can be accomplished as a new bishop is called to the diocese, the stage would be set for the needed development of a broadly supported strategic plan. Such a plan would be a road map for the support of the churches and the people, and it would provide rational decisions about priorities the diocese will set for its future. In all of this it is important that the diocese pay attention to reviving a spirit that is important in highly functioning organizations. Organizational consultant and author Warren Bennis (2000) writes, All Great Groups believe that they are on a mission from

127 God, that they could change the world, make a dent in the universe. They are obsessed with their work. It becomes not a job but a fervent quest. That belief is what brings the necessary cohesion and energy to their work. (p. 137). Bennis was referring to work teams in the secular world, but how much more his comment should resonate among those involved in church work where the people believe theirs is literally a mission from God. Yet how far are the people of the diocese from believing that theirs is a fervent quest? Bolman and Deal (2008) conclude, Team building is at its heart a spiritual undertaking. It is both a search for the spirit within and creation of a community of believers united by shared faith and shared culture. Peak performance emerges as a team discovers its soul. (p. 291). The leaders here say over and over that the people and clergy of the diocese have the talents and the will to truly change the world in important ways. It awaits the awakening of a new trust and common purpose to send them on their way. If the bishop, clergy and people can put aside their differences and agree on that common goal, then the Diocese of Pennsylvania may indeed find its soul.

128

REFERENCES

Ackoff, R. L. (1981). Creating The Corporate Future: Plan or Be Planned For. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Ackoff, R. L. (1999). Re-Creating The Corporation: A Design of Organizations for the 21st Century. New York: Oxford University Press Andrews, K. R. (1980). The Concept of Corporate Strategy, 2nd Edition, Irwin, Homewood, Ill.: Dow Jones-Irwin. Banerjee, N. (2006). Woman Is Named Episcopal Leader. The New York Times, June 19. Retrieved March 28, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/us/19bishop.html Bennis, W.G. (2000). The Secretes of Great Groups. Managing the Dream: Reflections on Leadership and Change. New York:Da Capo Press. Berry, M.W., & Kogan, J. (2010). Text Mining: Applications and Theory. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. DOI: 10.1002/9780470689646.ch6. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. Burns, J.F. (2010). Anglican Group Hits Impasse on Women. The New York Times, July 10. Retrieved March 28, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/world/europe/11anglican.html Church of the Good Shepherd (Rosemont, Pa.). (1998). The Anglican Service Book. Rosemont, PA: Church of the Good Shepherd. Contosta, D.R. (in press). Perfect Storm. In Contosta, D.R. (Ed.) This Far by Faith, A History of Tradition and Change in the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania. University Park, Pa.: Penn State University Press. Court of Review for the Trial of a Bishop. (2010). The Rt. Rev. Charles E. Bennison, Jr. vs. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. No. 1 2009. July 28, Retrieved Mar. 4, 2011 from http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/A51_Final_Judgment_(2).pdf Crittenden, W.F., Crittenden, V.L., & Hunt, T.G. (1988) Planning and Stakeholder Satisfaction in Religious Organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 17:60-61. Diocese of Pennsylvania. (2006). Complaint Filed Against Bishop Bennison. Retrieved

129 Mar. 18, 2011 from http://diopa.org/news/topics/governance/archives/complaint-filedagainst-bishop-bennison/ Diocese of Pennsylvania. (2008). Constitution and Canons for the Government of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, Amended 2010. Retrieved Mar. 18, 2011 from http://www.diopa.org/governance/diocese/constitution-amp-canons/ Diocese of Pennsylvania. (2010). The Journal of the 227th Convention. Retrieved Mar. 18, 2011 from http://www.diopa.org/governance/diocese/convention-journals/ Donadio, R., & Goldstein, L. (2009) Vatican Bidding to Get Anglicans to Join Its Fold. The New York Times, Oct. 21. Retrieved Mar. 28, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/world/europe/21pope.html Drucker, P. F. (1973). Managing the Public Service Institution. Bridgeport, Conn: M. Wiener. Episcopal Church. (1979). Book of Common Prayer. New York: The Church Hymnal Corporation and Seabury Press. Episcopal Church. (2009) General Convention: Constitution and Canons. Retrieved Mar. 22, 2011, from http://www.episcopalarchives.org/CnC_ToC_2009.html Goodstein, L. (2008). Episcopal Split as Conservatives Form New Group. The New York Times, Dec. 3. Retrieved Mar. 28, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/04episcopal.html Goodstein, L. (2010). Episcopalians Confirm a Second Gay Bishop. The New York Times, March 17. Retrieved Mar. 28, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18bishop.html Hackney, S. (in press). Social Justice, the Church and the Counterculture. In Contosta, D.R. (Ed.) This Far by Faith, A History of Tradition and Change in the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania. University Park, Pa.: Penn State University Press. Hill T., & Westbrook R. (1997). SWOT Analysis: Its Time fro a Product Recall. Long Range Planning, 30 (1), pp. 46-52. Hout, M., Greeley, A., & Wilde, M. (2001). The Demographic Imperative in Religious Change in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 107 (2001), 468-500. Iannaccone L.R. (1995). Voodoo Economics? Reviewing the Rational Choice Approach to Religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34 (1): 76-88. Learned, E.P., Christensen, C.R., Andrews, K.R., & Guth, W.D. (1965). Business Policy: Text and Case, Homewood, Illinois: Irwin.

130

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row. McNaught, C., & Lam, P. (2010). Using Wordle as a Supplementary Research Tool. The Qualitative Report 15(3):630-643. Retrieved Mar. 30, 2011, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR15-3/mcnaught.pdf Olson, D.T. (2004). Church Attendance in America is Declining. Moral Decline. Retrieved Mar. 20, 2011, from http://themoralcollapseofamerica.blogspot.com/2008/10/church-attendance-in-americais.html OReilly, D. (2008). Pa. Episcopal Bishop to Face His Accusers. Philadelphia Inquirer, Jun. 8. Retrieved on Feb. 23, 2011 from http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20080608_Pa__Episcopal_bishop_to_face_his_ accusers.html?viewAll=y&c=y > Religious Tolerance. (n.d.). The Gradual Acceptance of Female Ordination. Retrieved Feb. 13, 2011 from http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg3.htm Rothauge, A. J. (1983). Sizing Up a Congregation for New Member Ministry. [Vol. 1, Congregational Vitality Series] New York: The Episcopal Church Center. Rothauge, A.J. (1996). The Life Cycle in Congregations. [Vol. 2, Congregational Vitality Series] New York: The Episcopal Church Center. Schjonberg, M.F. Pennsylvania Bishop Inhibited from Ordained Ministry, ENS, Oct.31, 2007 Retrieved Feb. 10, 2011, from http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_91477_ENG_HTM.htm Torry, M. (2005). Managing God's Business: Religious and Faith-Based Organizations and Their Management. Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate.

131

APPENDIX A STANDING COMMITTEE CRITIQUE OF BISHOP BENNISON, APRIL 2006