Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rabe - Church in Turmoil FINAL
Rabe - Church in Turmoil FINAL
by
Eric W. Rabe
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
2011
CHURCH IN TURMOIL:
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
comprehensive view. The leaders believe that the diocese is ineffective, some say
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
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
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
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.
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, bishop’s assistant. Finally, I
thank my wife, Luisa, who throughout the project offered her intelligent insights,
iv
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page
1 Key Committees of the Diocese of Pennsylvania 6
v
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE Page
vi
FIGURE Page
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
CHAPTER
1 Introduction 1
3 Research Methodology 22
Purpose of Research 22
Design 23
Subjects 24
viii
Page
REFERENCES 127
APPENDIX
ix
1
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
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
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
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 teen-
aged girl. In 2007, Bennison was formally “inhibited,” or blocked from performing any
2
of his normal duties. Given the Bishop’s 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
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
CHAPTER 2
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
Church House, at 240 South Fourth Street at the corner of Locust Street in Philadelphia.
The Episcopal Church, as the church in the United States is called, is part of The
last 500 years from the Church of England. Anglicans are part of the 16th Century
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
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.
of the Reformation, it is clearly protestant. The Nicene Creed used in Anglican Churches
1For 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 United States, The Episcopal Church is living out the commitment to be all-
inclusive 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
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
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
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
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 Church’s 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
Standing Committee 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
bishop’s staff and staff support.
Diocesan Council “The Diocesan Council’s 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 Bishop’s 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.
Finance & Property This committee oversees financial matters including maintenance of
Committee property, develops a formula for pledging and assessment of
parishes, and supports the Diocesan Council. It is governed by
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
Committee creates this budget, and the bishop and Standing Committee approve it. It
pays Church House salaries including the bishop’s, 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
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
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
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
Total Increases 22
Total Decreases 36
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,
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
smaller between 1978 and 1998 and Olson (2004) expects the trend to continue (see
Figure 3).
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
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
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
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
In 2011, a Google search of the World Wide Web2 revealed a plethora of church
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
William Penn’s 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,
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
uniform worship, to ordain priests and bishops and to govern the new national Episcopal
A year later, on May 24, 1785, the Pennsylvania Episcopalian leaders signed a
formal Act of Association. “White’s 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
model is in use in other dioceses in the United States. In Pennsylvania, the organization
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,
Despite agreeing to meet regularly, the eighteenth century churches had little
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
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
Anglicanism. Anglicans are not a “confessional” denomination, and the church doesn’t
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
preserving the best of the past, treasure traditional liturgies, music and churches, invest
Recent history
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.
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
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, DeWitt’s “advanced stances on race and gender questions had created
considerable opposition in the diocese.” Divisions among clergy and laity were stark and
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
competing prayer book, the Anglican Service Book (Church of the Good Shepherd,
1998). Good Shepherd’s 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
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,
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
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
Penn’s 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.
church. The diocese created the Diocesan Coalition for Mission and Ministry more than
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
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
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.
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
At about this same time, stories began to surface of the Bishop’s involvement as a
young rector at St. Mark’s 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.
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 Bennison’s removal. The national church investigated the affair and in
October 2007, it charged Charles Bennison with two counts of “conduct unbecoming a
to Respond Appropriately” and detailed the charge as follows (Court of Review, 2010):
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
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
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.
this work is to suggest steps the diocese can take to move forward constructively. Those
Design
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
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
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
Subjects
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
outside perspective yet one enriched by his service as leader of the diocese during much
of the period of Bishop Bennison’s inhibition between 2007 and 2010. Michel continues
The Rev. Frank Allen, rector, St. David’s Church, was selected because he is a
current member of the Standing Committee and leader of one of the largest, and one of
The Rev. Ledlie Laughlin, rector, St. Peter’s Church, is also president of the
Standing Committee. He was selected because, as president, he holds one of the most
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. John’s Church, was selected because he has
The Rev. Robert Tate, parish consultant, was selected because until he retired in
2010, Tate was rector of one of the largest churches in the diocese. Also, he has long
25
experience on committees of the diocese and currently he works with troubled churches.
The Rev. William Wood, rector, St. Christopher’s Church, was selected because
he was president of Standing Committee when the committee asked for Bishop
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
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
CHAPTER 4
Hill area of Philadelphia, the second oldest part of the city. The bishop’s office is a high-
ceilinged 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
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
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
divisive issue for the Diocese of Pennsylvania. Bennison told me his time as bishop was
27
“immediately chaotic.”
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
Bennison notes that the diocese has trouble agreeing on its mission and goals or
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
diocese to minister Christ’s love to poor people in the urban areas. That’s it. That’s all
28
monies from the rich parishes to send out checks to support the DCMM parishes,” he
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.
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
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,
(Everyone) may not like that person (the bishop), but we’re going to humanize the
29
Bennison notes that the Diocese of Pennsylvania from its founding has been more
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.” Today’s staff gets
praise from Bennison for being much improved, effective and strong, even though the
Good planning may be at the heart of effective organizations, but in the Diocese
If you plan, then you’re 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
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. They’re demoralized.
And then there some that are outstanding leaders. Many are in dying churches,
and they know it, and they’re 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 predecessor’s, 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 wasn’t 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.
some members viewed as unresponsive to the needs and desires of the clergy and people,
and committee members objected to Bennison’s plans for using the financial resources of
the diocese. In January 2006, Standing Committee called for Bennison’s resignation (see
31
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
At about the same time, the case became public of Charles Bennison’s
involvement as supervisor of his brother during the time of John Bennison’s sexual abuse
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
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 don’t think I’m 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 it’s a way of honoring the canons of the church and
the disciplinary process of the church.
Bishop Bennison says that now, as he visits parishes around the diocese, people
32
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
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
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
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
the same time, he says, every church feels it must compete with other churches nearby for
33
people in the pews, money in the plate and good work to do in the community.
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
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
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 self-
centered, being too Episcopal Church-focused and not on the world and what’s 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
bishop.
34
Question 4: List your recommendations for the top priorities for the diocese for the next
five years.
Bennison’s 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.
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
DIOCESE OF PENNSYLVANIA
William C. Bullitt (see Figure 5), a partner at the Philadelphia law firm of
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.
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 church’s 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 firm’s office at
effectively it operates.
It’s 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 committee’s
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
bishop’s council of advice.
Bullitt recalls growing tensions during the first half of the last decade between the
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
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).
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
accountability is an area that some interviewed for this project criticize, but Bullitt
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 what’s 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
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
Bullitt questions how well the diocese is supporting clergy, churches and lay
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.
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
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
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
Bullitt is concerned about the fracture of the diocese that he sees. Because
39
There’s 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
The people that you would like to have involved don’t want to get involved
because of all the crap they have got to put up with.
For Bullitt, the key opportunity is to get beyond the division and agree on a
common purpose and direction. He believes Bishop Bennison’s 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,
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:
something that helps them. That’s 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
He says,
And he asks the question, “Are there processes that could be followed that would
CHAPTER 6
Ledlie Laughlin (see Figure 6) has lived in Philadelphia since 1999 when he was
called as rector of St. Peter’s 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
stewardship, and another on racism and also working on the diocese Finance and
president.
We talked in his office in a townhouse across Pine Street from St. Peter’s 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.
effectively it operates.
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
I would say that it is not functioning very well because it does not have a high
degree of cohesiveness at the moment. It’s almost an accidental collection (of
churches) and in some ways a counter-productive collection in relationships.
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
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.
It’s all about trust. In the church, if you don’t have trust, you don’t have anything.
43
We do not trust one another, and there are many people who feel that it is unsafe.
It’s 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
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
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
effective support for many churches, clergy or lay people, he believes in some ways
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, I’m
glad of it.
At the same time, Laughlin worries about the impact of shrinking budgets on the
44
It’s 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
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.”
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
The diocese suffers mostly because it is fractured and without a clear vision,
according to Laughlin. “We’re 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
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.
I am one who sees the dramatic shifts in The Episcopal Church as an exciting
opportunity to re-imagine how we’re 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.
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
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
Laughlin sees the beginning discussions with the Gathering of Leaders group, a
more positive and less reactive Standing Committee, and the strength of individual
diocese.
“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
It remains to be seen whether those in the diocese are ready and willing to make
The thing that I would want to measure (to gauge) the health of the (diocese) is a
high degree of participation. It’s about the trust, about using people’s gifts and it
being a safe place.
47
CHAPTER 7
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. David’s 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.
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. John’s Church, Roanoke, Virginia, before moving back to the
Allen was called to St. David’s Church, Radnor, in November 1997. In the time
since, Allen says, St. David’s has been “going counter-cultural.” As many mainline
churches shrink, growth at St. David’s has been strong. Now among the largest churches
in the diocese, St. David’s 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 you’ve got to give them things to do. People are
generally generous, but you’ve 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
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
The bishop doesn’t tell the truth all the time. Everyone is entitled to change their
mind, but they’re not entitled to break their word. I think it’s obvious to people of
integrity that we have a bishop that doesn’t always tell the truth.
Later Allen tells me, Bennison is “definitely a divide and conquer leader. You
know, (he will) tell you something, then he’ll tell me something.” And, he suggests, the
Allan faults Bennison’s 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
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
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
People are happy to give money to Uganda, but they’re not sure they want to get
involved in Norristown or West Philly. Because, after all (they may think),
haven’t 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 we’ve 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 Committee’s activities have indicated to me that they really wanted to
have power.
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
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
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 we’re
not going anywhere is our problem. The fact that we haven’t 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.
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 we’re 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 today’s church are already in
hand.
Those buildings are a key weakness as well, Allen says. “We have too many
buildings and we’ve got to figure out as a family what we’re 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 don’t know what we’re doing. We’ve forgotten what we’re trying to do.
Having lost sight of our goal, we have redoubled our efforts.
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
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
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, let’s 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. You’ve got no bearing, there is no grace, there is no
forgiveness, there is no safety net. There’s 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
CHAPTER 8
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
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.
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
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
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.”
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
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
congregation is closer to 15 than 1500, and the church building needs significant repairs.
15 years.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.”
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
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
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.”
Miller believes that distrust remains the principal weakness in the Diocese of
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.
For the diocese and for the church in general, Miller sees the opportunity to be
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.
called Philadelphia Inner-faith Action, known as PIA. It is a model for what he believes
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.
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
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
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
CHAPTER 9
During the last decade Bill Wood (see Figure 10) has been at the center of the
Christopher’s, 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
considered himself a close friend of Bishop Charles Bennison. Their families were
together regularly often having dinner in each other’s homes. The wives, Christine Wood
and Joan Bennison, “became great friends and shopping companions,” Wood says. But
63
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. Christopher’s
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. Christopher’s and the 41 years since he graduated from Virginia
Theological Seminary in 1970. Wood served as priest at two other churches in the
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 we’d gotten so many
complaints about mistrust, we’d 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
64
the committee was unanimous in its decision. As the meeting went on, the members’
I called (Bennison) and asked him if he’d come back after his meeting, and said
that we’d 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
effectively it operates.
Not surprisingly, Wood feels that the diocese is not functioning well. He says,
I think it’s probably limping. I’m worried about the finances. It’s 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 Bennison’s bishopric, to create one. Convention
65
approved the “Holy Experiment,” without the needed broad support, he says. Wood saw
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 bishop’s
autocratic style. Wood remembers trying to explain his objections about the camp to the
bishop.
I ask for Wood’s 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 Bennison’s 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
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 don’t see that there is
meaningful support.” Of course, better off churches including St. Christopher’s require
less support. He notes some clergy and laity argue that, “Church House needs us more
As Wood describes it, Charles Bennison’s personal style makes it difficult to feel
supported.
I have great empathy for him as a person. Through the years we’ve 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 don’t feel much support from the
bishop. Wood tells this story of Bishop Bennison’s recent visits to St. Christopher’s
Church:
It’s unfortunate, in all candor, that when Charles comes out here for confirmation,
on two or three occasions when he’s been here, he has talked about politics in the
diocese, not the individuals being confirmed, and this has angered parents. It’s
almost as though he’s his own worst enemy. That’s 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 don’t
want to hear that when their children are being confirmed.
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
67
is a good example of how people from different backgrounds and perspectives can work
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.
problems of the diocese. He simply does not see much strength in the Diocese of
Pennsylvania today.
At the top of Wood’s list of weaknesses are the leadership issues he described.
These include the management style of the bishop and suspicions, fear and distrust
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.
The biggest opportunity is to bring us together again, and that has to happen with
a new voice. That’s 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
68
some time.
The basic thing that we may not be able to get over is this mistrust. It’s 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 he’s made mistakes. Be specific. Call us together. I don’t care if he asks
for forgiveness or not, but confess that he’s done something wrong. Let us say
we’ve done something wrong too. And let’s experience the glory of beginning
again which ought to be a unique reality in the church if we are what we say we
are. That’s where my excitement would be, but it might not be where his is.
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. Christopher’s does support the program budget of the diocese.
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 Michel’s leadership at that time at the time of Bennison’s inhibition is a model
for what’s 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
says, “You know, there’s got to be. I mean there has just got to be. If the church is really
69
CHAPTER 10
Swarthmore, in suburban Philadelphia. He’s been rector’s 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.
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
On February 21, 2011, Whitfield ushered me into the office of his insurance
71
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
Whitfield’s 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
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, “It’s 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
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 Council’s duty shall be to carry
72
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.
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 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 haven’t
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
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.
73
Whitfield says,
We had developed a standard that they didn’t 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 we’re not
willing to change. We’re 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 don’t have Hail, Ye Festival Day and all those old, old hymns.
(But) where we are today is that we don’t want to change. We want everything as
status quo. And the church has changed. I mean, we have the first female
Presiding Bishop. For God’s sake, folks, wake up.
Question 2: Describe the Diocese as a community and the support it provides for clergy
Whitfield worries about the perceived lack of diocesan support by some of its
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. They’re small. They’re not very wealthy. They’re saying,
“What’s in it for me? We break our necks to get our pledges in and to pay our
assessment. We don’t get anything. What’s 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
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
We have our suburban clergy saying, “I’m 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.”
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
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,
The chief weakness according to Whitfield is, “Everybody’s out for themselves
(and asking) what’s in it for me?” That attitude leads to jealousy and poor decision-
making, he says.
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
75
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
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. Paul’s, 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. Mary’s. First we have to have a discussion of why you have a
mission that’s 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.
Mary’s) is based on race. White people at St. Paul’s didn’t want them worshiping
in their church. So they started the colored people’s 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
He thinks faster than most people. He really does. (But) because he thinks so
much faster than everybody else, it’s like, OK, I’m the conductor of this train. It’s
about to pull out of the station. You’re either on it or your going to get left. And
when he left people waiting on the platform, they got angry.
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 Bennison’s resignation.
76
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
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
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 didn’t use to do it that way” and “Charles has to go.
He can’t 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 we’re 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
77
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
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 we’re called to be,
things will be the same whether Charles is here or they call somebody else.
78
CHAPTER 11
Four and half years go, in the midst of the deepest turmoil in the Diocese of
Pennsylvania, John Sorenson (see Figure 12) arrived. He’d been called to become rector
of St. John’s 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. John’s 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
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. John’s Church.
focused on congregational development during his ministry and wrote a doctoral thesis
diocese and to make recommendations. The DMPC issued an interim report4 to the
On February 22, 2011, a blustery late winter day, Sorenson invited me into his
office and fiddled with the building’s antique heating system, soon to be replaced, to
warm up the room. It was President’s Day and the church office was closed.
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 I’m 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.
Then Sorensen sees complex relationships between various working groups in the
diocese. He says,
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. I’ve never seen a
Standing Committee with as much power as this one has.
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 doesn’t resolve the issues, the guilt or
innocence.”
Sorensen believes the case against Bennison had less to do with the sexual abuse
charges against the bishop’s brother and more to do with diocesan politics. In Sorenson’s
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 bishop’s 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
Question 2: Describe the Diocese as a community and the support it provides for clergy
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
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
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 doesn’t show up for awhile, so what? You can live with
it or without it because (the churches) are their own organizations.
gather information and ideas about critical events. What are the strengths of the Diocese?
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
There’s 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 it’s working. We spend so much time talking
about the ones that don’t work. We need to learn from the ones that do.
82
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
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 leader’s 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
I’ve been a great Bennison supporter, but I don’t think it is possible for him to
effectively lead this diocese. Not because I don’t like the guy. I just don’t think
it’s 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 don’t think it’s possible. I
think there are very few people who wouldn’t 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 can’t make it without money or help from the diocese. There aren’t
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 there’s a need for a lot of
congregational re-visioning and re-planning. There’s a need for some closing, or
merging or re-configuring. There’s 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.
The opportunity that Sorensen sees for the dioceses is to begin the process of
83
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
Sorensen also feels the diocese has and opportunity to deal with its problem of too
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.
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 don’t have a big market share, the world around us doesn’t see the product
we’re selling as that necessary. So right there you have a very targeted business
model. We’re 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
84
upon, or at least that has broad support. He says, “I would like to see a mission
statement. (Right now) I don’t think we can do much strategic planning. I think we need
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
CHAPTER 12
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 Michel’s
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
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
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
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
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.
87
effectively it operates.
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 Bennison’s 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 we’re 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 Bennison’s return, the canon
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 don’t 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
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
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. It’s 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
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
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
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
89
Bennison leaves. Michel says, “There are clergy who don’t agree with that but they don’t
have any opportunity to get together and talk about it. They just talk at each other.”
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. I’ve
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
He adds,
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 don’t know. I don’t 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,
90
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 can’t 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
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 bishop’s office.” He adds,
“Sometimes we’re not very practical about realities. Bishop Bennison has been trying to
call us to really look seriously at these situations. If we’re 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
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 he’s seen in every diocese in which he
has served.
There’s always that tension and dynamic, and unfortunately, people get super
charged about it and get stuck there. For one reason or many reasons urban
91
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.”
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. We’re quite a bit behind the curve here.”
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 don’t see necessarily any one or any group
He hopes that will not happen, but tensions between key groups including
As I see it from the outside looking in, it’s a working relationship (today), but I
don’t 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
92
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 Bennison’s tenure and his
successor’s 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
CHAPTER 13
FIELDS 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.
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 Tate’s close friends and parishioners.
Tate told me on Feb. 22, 2011 when we met for an hour and 15 minutes in the
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
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
95
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 self-
help. 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.
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
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
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
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
96
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.”
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
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
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
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
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
97
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:
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
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.
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
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
98
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
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
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
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
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
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
sad.”
100
CHAPTER 14
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
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
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 subject’s response to each of the four questions asked. A word list
was created for each participant’s answer to each question. In the case of Question 3, the
101
SWOT analysis, this was undertaken separately for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities
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
Bullitt Bullitt Answer #1 Word Bullitt Answer #2 Word Bullitt Answers #3-4
List List Word Lists
(Other (Other Participants (Other Participants #2 (Other Participants #3-4
Participants) Word Lists) Word Lists) Word Lists)
Combined Word List of all Combined Word List of Combined Word Lists of
Question #1 Answers all Question #2 Answers 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
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
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,
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
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
encouraged. Problems occur when there is a bad fit between employee and organization.
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
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
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
organization and comment on how effectively it operates.” Applying the Wordle tool
however, by far most of the descriptors are negative. The most prominent word
management” are ideas repeatedly used by participants to describe the diocese and
104
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.
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
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
“stress,” and “lack of communication” to paint a picture of a community that is, in the
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
106
logical, they say, especially when the diocese is in turmoil, but it means that members are
In the context of this question, the term “finances” was used to describe the
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
Christensen, Andrews & Guth, 1965) was used in each of the ten interviews. A SWOT
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
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 diocese’s 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
107
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.
The conclusion is that these leaders believe that the diocese has the people 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
108
weaknesses than about strengths using nearly twice as many words to describe the
weaknesses. Buildings, churches, money, plan, leadership, bishop and vision are all
weakness because of the costs of upkeep and renovation that are frequently unaffordable
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
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
109
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
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
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
suggests issues of organization such as the canons, staffing or the managers themselves.
“bishop.” Another weakness these leaders identify is division over various issues
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
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
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
111
“discussions,” “self-study” and “spiritual support” build on the opportunity for more open
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,”
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,
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
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
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.
reflected in other terms used: successor and strategic planning. People, community,
churches and clergy are words expressed somewhat less often but still prominent in
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
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
Reframing Analysis
Applying the Bolman and Deal (2008) frames to the Diocese of Pennsylvania
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.
relationships are needed. In the diocese, however, governance is weak. Repeatedly those
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 organization’s 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
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
diocese, distrust of others translates into an unwillingness to speak openly for fear of
can be critical because safety is a fundamental human need. After physical needs, it is a
environment may meet behavioral and emotional needs while spiritual security may be
based on belief in the church’s sustainability and the security of one’s own place within
the church.
117
Planning Commission has engaged the Kaleidoscope Institute and Rev. Eric Law5 to help
the needs of the members, particularly the clergy. In the diocese, clergy in particular seek
interviews show these desires are often unfulfilled, and often the bishop’s management
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
diocese’s online site from their own Web pages, news of diocesan happenings is usually
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
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
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
Political Power conflict between diocese and Determine agreed upon roles and support for each
parishes
Camp Wapiti controversy Work for compromise and to resolve disagreement
Fact-based decision-making
Standing Committee power issues Focus on opportunities for success and cooperation
Bishop management and control issues Intentional inclusion
Improve communication
Value respectful listening
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
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 organization’s 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
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:
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.
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.
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
Bennison’s election, his opponents organized to assure they had a strong voice on
Standing Committee, and maneuvered for additional power and control in the diocese.
Difficult as these issues may have been, it is Bennison’s 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 early 2011, unpopular in the diocese but back in charge, Bennison believes that
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.
Rothauge (1996) writing about congregations describes a life cycle that includes a
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
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
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
better understand their roles and better appreciate the work of others.
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
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
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 diocese-
wide 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
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
In all of this it is important that the diocese pay attention to reviving a spirit that is
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.
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/A-
51_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.
against-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
Episcopal Church. (1979). Book of Common Prayer. New York: The Church Hymnal
Corporation and Seabury Press.
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: It’s 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
O’Reilly, 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 >
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