Reparations means we shall not be lulled to sleep!

Play this song, while you read this post:


In the grand experiment that is society, we must declare VICTORY for gladiatorial games of the Roman empire.  The arena and its games, given to the masses to dumb them down, have proven their worth.  This should be the "Summer of our Discontent."  Yet, rather than exclaiming our outrage at the malfeasance of justice that is the involuntary manslaughter verdict in the Oscar Grant Murder Trial, the Country is declaring their outrage at LeBron James’ “Decision,” and/or Dan Gilbert’s response.

In a consorted effort to quell any tensions, the media has done its damnedest to keep the Oscar Grant murder out of the news.  One might even wonder if LeBron James was either complicit or used as a pawn in the effort.  I mean, his Prime Time Special diverted   all media attention from any matters that really matter to life.  All focus for the days leading up to his “decision” was on the “important question”: Where will LeBron go?  And, in the days after the focus is now on: what does his decision mean?

But, reparations means we shall not be lulled to sleep!

There was no focus on the trial of the Bay Area Rapid Transit “Police Officer” who murdered an unarmed Black man on camera.  You haven’t seen it?  Here it is again:

POLICE SHOOTING AT BART STATION - OSCAR GRANT


The frustration and outrage displayed in the days afterwards is certainly understandable.  What is the answer of a “free society” to the realities and feelings of being trapped, among the disinherited?  To where should they turn?

We of reason, and we of ignorance alike, would say that in a Democratic society they people should turn to and rely upon justice.  But, clearly justice still means “Just-Us” and the voices of the dispossessed remain unheard...their pain remains unfelt.

That’s why reparations means we shall not be lulled to sleep!

Who else is going to keep the pressure on?  Who else shall ensure that justice run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream?

But, we have been effectively lulled to sleep.  We heard very little of the trial and even less of the verdict.  And, the status quo continues because the frustrations in Oakland have been isolated and contained.  An issue that should be one of concern for Americans across the Country has been sidelined by “the decision” of a millionaire athelete. 

Cleveland is in turmoil...heartbroken because a millionaire decided to leave the City.  They burn his jersey and express outrage that LeBron could “betray” them.  Yet, no one is outraged that “justice” has betrayed America.  What does it say about a people...about an “advanced society,” when we are more affected by the isolated decisions of the rich than the connected struggle of the disinherited?  We should be ashamed of ourselves.  I feel like Dap in School Daze: “Wake UUUUUUUPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!”

Reparations means we shall not be lulled to sleep!

And, we who have been “educated” have a greater responsibility.  We should be aware of Massa’s tricks.  We should be hip to the workings of propaganda that keep us complacent while the ideals we supposedly uphold are trampled underfoot. 

It is quite ironic that all of this happens during the period in which we remember the birth of American Democracy and our “independence.”  We celebrate Freedom, Liberty and Justice for All, while a part of that “All” lives with the reality that Liberty and Justice remain a farce.  And while that part of humanity aches at the heartbreak of (Obama/post-racialist) hope deferred, mainstream society aches at the hurt of LeBron’s decision.  Damn...

What does LeBron’s decision do for the memory of Oscar Grant?  What does Dan Gilbert’s response do to aid the strivings for justice of a marginalized people?  But, check the Facebook posts and Twitter feeds.  Check the “trending topics.”  What’s the discussion?  Clearly are perspectives and priorities are skewed.

Children of God, sons and daughters of justice, we must take a different perspective.  We must remain focused and vigilant.  Reparations means we shall not be lulled to sleep!

Come and Get Your Reparations!

Does One Vote Erase A Legacy of Tyranny?

This morning we were alerted to the passing of long-time US Senator, Robert Byrd of West Virginia.  And, as I head to the heart of “the South,” to met with those who’ve inherited the ideological legacy of the “Giants of the Confederacy” who founded and established the University of the South, I can’t help but wonder:

Does one vote erase a legacy of tyranny?

I was surprised to hear that some have alluded to Sen. Byrd’s membership in the Ku Klux Klan.  Fewer have mentioned his filibuster of the Civil Rights Act.  Nevertheless, his involvement in the Klan and segregationist past is glossed over supposedly mitigated by his support for Barack Obama’s candidacy for President and a few statements that his past thoughts were wrong.

Ironically, I just started reading Blue Rage, Black Redemption, the memoir of Crips founder, Stanley Tookie Williams who was executed in 2005 by lethal injection despite being nominated for five Nobel Peace Prizes and four Nobel Prizes in Literature.  It’s funny that one man could give his early life over to debauchery and then commit his later life to undoing the damage he caused and working to ensure that others don’t follow his path of destruction.  Yet, his efforts have no efficacy to redeem him in the eyes of the public-at-large.  Meanwhile, another man could give his early life to a more extreme level of tyranny and debauchery, ignore his past as if it caused no perpetual damage, and by simply casting a ballot for a Black man’s assent to the presidency, he is redeemed.

Does one vote erase a legacy of tyranny?

Something is wrong with this picture.  The Crips are a violent street gang that cause much pain to inner-city America.  But, no Crip walks the “halls of power.”  No crip also has the ability to make laws to enforce and institutionalize their terror.  In that vein, there is an escape.

However, these is NO escape from the tyranny caused by the KKK.  And, that is highlighted by the very presence of Robert Byrd in the US Senate.  Senator Byrd was a recruiter and leader of his local Klan chapter.  He is said to have resigned from the Klan  in 1943, a year after joining and prior to entering Congress and later the Senate.  He might not have been a “dues paying member”, but he was a member of the Klan and a champion of their ideology.  After his supposed resignation from the Klan, letters were found implying that his resignation was a formality allowing him to take on greater responsibilities.  In 1944, Sen. Robert Byrd wrote to fellow segregationist and Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo.  In it he states:

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

And, as stated in the Wikipedia article on Robert Byrd, in 1946 or 1947 he wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."  The votes he cast were all in the interests of his constituency and predicated upon his membership.

The media can’t even forgive Jay-Z for being a former drug dealer.  Critics can’t forgive Snoop Dogg for being a former gang banger.  They couldn’t forgive Tookie for being a founder of the Crips and then working diligently to destroy the monster he created. 

But, they can forgive Robert Byrd for defending the South’s right to dehumanize Black people.  They can forgive him for being a part of an organization that had no qualms hanging strange fruit in every corner of the South. 

Does one vote erase a legacy of tyranny?

Now, I believe redemption is color-blind.  All people can be redeemed.  To that end, Sen.  Robert Byrd could have been redeemed before he died.  But, that begs the question: what is the difference between man’s redemption and God’s redemption?  What is a worthy redemption...a real redemption, the true redemption? 

For in the juxtaposition of Stanley Tookie Williams and Senator Robert Byrd, we see an equally corruptible beginning with completely divergent middles and staggeringly incongruent ends.  One man was executed in disgrace, ignoring the work he had done to redeem himself.  Another man is honored at his death, and the only thing that can be said in attempt to erase his racist past and legacy of tyranny is: “he supported Barack Obama for President.”

No one says that Sen. Byrd became a champion of legislation to destroy the legacy of institutional racism.  No one says that he went back to undo the racist legislation he helped to usher through Congress.  All that is said in reference to his commitment to the Klan is: “he came around to support a Black man for President.”

How is it that Sen. Byrd is redeemed in the eyes of society while Tookie Williams stands condemned?  I’m not saying one should be redeemed and the other condemned, nor vice versa.  I would wish that both found redemption.  Just asking the question: Does one vote erase a legacy of tyranny?

Must we continue in a world where White people are easily redeemed, yet Blacks are judged by a different standard?  How would God judge our judgments?  Do our requirements for redemption match with God’s requirements?  Who’s requirements are greater?

We cannot allow ourselves to be dehumanized to the point that we believe someone to be beyond redemption.  We must not allow society, including religious clerics, to determine that some are more human than others and thus more worthy of being redeemed.  Rather, we must know that God’s “amazing grace” is available to us all.

Come and get your reparations!

Will Obama's Choice of Elana Kagan Finally Wake Blacks up?

So, I saw this article through one of my listservs asking the question if President Obama's choice of Supreme Court Justice (Elana Kagan) would finally wake up the Liberals.  I don't even think that's an important question.

To me, the bigger question is will his choice finally awaken Blacks (liberal and conservative)? It's like Minister Farrakhan said in his TVOne interview: we need to realize that he will not - cannot - do anything for Black people...not just because of the political repercussions, but (in light of the Tea Parties, Rush Limbaugh and his cronies, and Dan Fanelli - check this crap out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMbPvGSADUg) the real threat of physical reprisals. 

Will Obama's choice of Elana Kagan finally wake Blacks up?

Do you all realize that if we don't wake up the Obama Administration will leave office (in 2012 or 2016) and gone will be our chances at advancement? What you think the argument will be once he's gone: "you didn't press the Black President to do this...why you bothering me?"

I feel like Lawrence Fishburn in School Daze: "Wake UUUUUUPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!"

We worried about what liberals will think...Liberals ain't made no beef with the fact that there will now be three women on the bench and only one Black - who's conservative BTW. Black liberals have been displeased with Justice Thomas ever since his consideration, and still get nothing.

Will Obama's choice of Elana Kagan finally wake Blacks up?

Don't get me wrong: it ain't Obama's fault. It's our own. We have 32 or so Members of the CBC. They made (and cannot make) any demands. Rather than putting forth NAMES of people and linking with Black organizations to place public pressure for a Black choice, we sit back and wait as if we're entitled. Our comfort has made us forget "Why We Can't Wait!"

We could have at least provided Obama with some cover, so he wouldn't be seen to be "favoring Blacks" as all the racist elements (again, Tea Parties, Limbaugh and Co., etc) waiting in the wings would say. There would at least be some political pressure and potential social unrest that would (at least seem to) force Obama to do something on behalf of his Black constituents.

Will Obama's choice of Elana Kagan finally wake Blacks up?

That's the question we should be asking. Neither Liberals nor Conservatives, nor Greens nor any political party has our best interest in mind.  And, if we continue to wait for the benevolence of historically malevolent groups, we deserve the injustice which follows.  

Reparations requires us to take hold of our own destiny.  Wake up...it's too dangerous to be caught sleeping!  

Come and Get Your Reparations!

Fight or flight: the dilemma of the Talented Tenth

Ok, so I started reading Stride Toward Freedom by Dr. King yesterday and had some compelling thoughts that I would like to share. 

If you talk to (former) community activists over 60 they will tell you that desegregation made it more difficult for them to organize around social justice issues.  I have a cousin who was an organizer in the (no longer existent) Pruitt Igo (sp?) housing development in St. Louis, MO.  She spoke of being able to call a meeting in the morning and have several hundred present that evening.  Clearly, those days no longer exist.

She spoke to me about desegregation opening doors of opportunity for Blacks, and also opening doors for selfishness.  Community organizers and movement leaders began to abandon ship for the “dry land” of integration.  They left the struggle behind for a “safe, secure job with benefits.”

Truly, as the wise Solomon said: “There is nothing new under the sun!” (Eccl. 1:9)  Today, those of the “Talented Tenth” continue to run to their own prosperity, abandoning those who are not able.  Today, the “Talented Tenth” runs for a “better way of life” - either to escape the hardships of their upbringing or to avoid loosing their “parent-given” social status.  To accomplish either of those ends, one must abandon or ignore the plight of others.

Fight or flight: the dilemma of the Talented Tenth.

I started by speaking of Dr. King’s book, Stride Toward Freedom.  This book details Dr. King’s time in Montgomery, AL.  The first chapter is entitled “Return to the South.” 

We forget, or do not put into context, that Dr. King was raised in the South and had left the South.  Little discussed is his hope to teach more than to pastor.  Even less discussed is the opportunity which awaited him in the North.

Being raised in the South, he experienced segregation.  Having studied in the North, he experienced “desegregation.”  As he mulled over the opportunities before him, he thought: “I have a chance to escape from the long night of segregation.  Can I return to a society that condones a system I have abhorred since childhood?”

Both he and Coretta faced the same dilemma.  And, they faced it together.  Coretta knew that her musical career stood a better chance in the North.  Neither of them particularly relished the thought of raising children in a segregated society.  Yet alas, they “came to the conclusion that [they] has something of a moral obligation to return...” (emphasis mine)

Fight or flight: the dilemma of the Talented Tenth.

Certainly, Dr. King had much promise.  But, imagine where we would be if he had decided to take one of the teaching positions offered to him over the pastorate in Montgomery.  Imagine if he had taken a pastorate in one of the Northern churches that wanted him.  What would have happened in the movement?

Had he taken a different course, yes he would have likely still been alive.  Or, at least would might not have died by the hands of an assassin.  He might have become a renowned professor, or he might have been simply another brilliant Black man with a Ph.D.  He probably would have raised his family in a solid middle class existence.  Coretta might have become a renowned singer.

But, where would we as a people be if Dr. King did not feel that moral obligation?

It is that moral obligation and deep love that must win out in the midst of this dilemma.  It is ironic that this past Easter Sunday was the anniversary of Dr. King’s assassination.  On Resurrection Sunday we celebrate the Risen Lord and the truth that “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).  Yet, this year we are reminded of the nexus with 1 John 3:16, “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.  And, we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.”  Dr. King answered that call.  Will you?

Where could we go if you feel that moral obligation?  To where might we fall if you just allow the phone ring?  To whom much is given, much is required.  Certainly, you are being called to something.  Should not then those of us, in the Talented Tenth, who profess being Christian answer that call?

Fight or flight: the dilemma of the Talented Tenth.

Will you fight, or will you flee?  Will you be concerned for your own prosperity?  Or, will you give of yourself for another?

Reparations requires that we become actively and sincerely concerned with the general well-being of society and not simply with our own.  Reparations demands that we do more than throw parties and events.  Reparations warrants that we are compelled by the Gospel to use our attained social status for the benefit of “the least of these.”

Come and get your reparations!

Does ONE "Day of Repentance" Balance 400 Years of Slavery?

They may not like me for this...

Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori, and others in the Episcopal Church said they hoped I would continue posting about the "Service of Repentance" held on October 4, 2008. I haven't written much, and debated if I ever would. Yet looking at the commemorative pen given at the event, I couldn't refrain from writing this.

The pen says: "Day of Repentance." And, how true that is! And, that's not just my frustration. It's one shared by many, including Dr. Ed Rodman.

Upon reading the pen, I found myself asking: "Does ONE "Day of Repentance" balance 400 years of slavery?"

There has been little to no follow up from the National Church on this "initiative." Yet as she hid her sins for countless years, she hid her sins on that day by repenting in private - rather than out in the open. It seems that the hiding of sins continues, as the Church has done nothing since to make this initiative more than perfunctory.

As I've said before, there are "Three Steps to Healing: Repentance, Reparations & Reconciliation." Yet, if you stop at step one is that gesture really sincere? Or, was it some way to simply appease the "White Guilt" that holds the majority captive?

Does ONE "Day of Repentance" balance 400 years of slavery?

In "God's Long Summer," Charles Marsh states:

Christian love must shape concrete solutions and new visions for the disenfranchised and the poor.

The Episcopal Church - by her own admission - did its share of disfranchising Black people, while supporting and condoning and profiting from the Institution of Slavery. So, how can she feel it enough to throw out an "I'm sorry," while hoarding the gains of her pillage?

The Episcopal Church - again, by her own admission - helped set Black people at a disadvantage. Even her own Black priests were/are set at a disadvantage. How can she then do nothing to bring about true healing?

I've been waiting to see if something more was coming...some committment to building private schools in Black communities, some efforts to bring parity to the pensions of White and Black priests, some committment to calling the Nation to conscience on the racial disparities that still plague our society...some sort of sign that the somber attitude of the actual service had manifested in a change in attitude post-service. I have seen none and so I wonder:

Does ONE "Day of Repentance" balance 400 years of slavery?

I think there's more that should be done. If this is supposed to be ONE church, it seems to me efforts should be made to making it whole. It would seem that, that is what "Christian love" would require?

Come and Get Your Reparations!

Congress Determines Only White Women Need Paycheck Fairness!

Tomorrow, Congress will vote on a so-called "Paycheck Fairness Act."  The Bill is supposed to address disparities in pay.  However, the Bill only refers to gender disparity.  When I called Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro's (D-CT-3) office, I asked if I was misreading the Bill or if it only addressed gender disparities.  The lady responsible for the Paycheck Fairness Act stated that it - in fact - dealt only with gender disparities, but that in doing so it would cover Black, Latino and Asian women.

Hunh?!  How so?  Must be that Congress has determined that only White women need paycheck fairness!

Reparations means that we refuse to believe the hype!  Look at this chart detailing pay disparities.

The Wage Gap, by Gender and Race

(median annual earnings of black men and women, Hispanic men and women, and white women as a percentage of white men's median annual earnings)

Year	White men	Black men	Hispanic men	White women	Black women	Hispanic women
1970	100%	69.0%	n.a.	58.7%	48.2%	n.a.
1975	100	74.3	72.1%	57.5	55.4	49.3%
1980	100	70.7	70.8	58.9	55.7	50.5
1985	100	69.7	68.0	63.0	57.1	52.1
1990	100	73.1	66.3	69.4	62.5	54.3
1992	100	72.6	63.3	70.0	64.0	55.4
1994	100	75.1	64.3	71.6	63.0	55.6
1995	100	75.9	63.3	71.2	64.2	53.4
1996	100	80.0	63.9	73.3	65.1	56.6
1997	100	75.1	61.4	71.9	62.6	53.9
1998	100	74.9	61.6	72.6	62.6	53.1
1999	100	80.6	61.6	71.6	65.0	52.1
2000	100	78.2	63.4	72.2	64.6	52.8
2003	100	78.2	63.3	75.6	65.4	54.3
2004	100	74.5	63.2	76.7	68.4	56.9
2006	100	72.1	57.5	73.5	63.6	51.7

Source: U.S. Current Population Survey and the National Committee on Pay Equity.

Clearly, Black men are earning less than White women.  And, Black women are earning substantially less than White women.  Surely, the Paycheck Fairness Act will do nothing for Black men - as Rep. Rosa DeLauro's office told me.  But, how will the Paycheck Fairness Act really help Black women?

Maybe I'm stupid (some will surely say I am).  But, it seems to me that the most this act would do is raise the pay of Black women to equity with Black men.  Truly that is a start.  But then once White women are on par with White men, we'd be left with the racial pay gap.  Am I missing something?

Must be that Congress has determined that only White women need paycheck fairness!

People want to say that reparations isn't needed.  But, here is a clear example - and this is not Affirmative Action.  It is not a handout.  It is fairness.  When Congress looks at the pay disparity between the genders they agree that something must be urgently done.  Yet, either they have not even looked at the pay disparity between the races or they don't think that something must be urgently done.  Again, as I was told by Rep. Rosa DeLauro's staffer: it (racial pay gap) is an important issue, but it is not dealt with by the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Presently, I'm waiting on Congressional Black Caucus Executive Director Patrice Willoughby to respond to my question about why the Congressional Black Caucus chose not to address this oversight.  Or, do they agree that only White women need paycheck fairness?

Email the Congressional Black Caucus, or call: 202.226.9776 and let them know that you want them to call for the Paycheck Fairness Act to be amended to include racial disparities!  Unless you agree that only White women need paycheck fairness...

Come and get your reparations!   

An Open Letter to Various Leaders in The Episcopal Church On The Evolving Implementation of the 2006 General Convention Resolution A123

by: Ed Rodman

It is with some trepidation that I feel called to write this open letter at this time. I would ask you to indulge me by taking the time to read it in its entirety so that any things that you may have heard or assumed about my various public statements on this issue can be viewed in their full context. This letter is intended to affirm, educate, chastise, and invite us to a deeper dialogue toward the beloved community. Before I begin I should make certain biographical comments, for those who do not know who I am, so that you can appreciate that this comes from a working knowledge of much that has brought us to this point on this issue.

I am a sixty-six year old Black Episcopal priest, who has served his Church as faithfully as I have been able since my ordination in 1967. Prior to that I was a history and political science major at Hampton Institute in Virginia, and one of the founders of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee. Hence I can claim a forty-eight year history as an advocate for social justice and an unyielding opponent of all forms of oppression. During my career I have had the pleasure of helping to found the Union of Black Episcopalians (originally UBCL), the Episcopal Urban Caucus, the Consultation and the first three iterations of the National Church Anti-Racism Program. Much of this was made possible by the good graces of the several bishops of the Diocese of Massachusetts (Anson Stokes, John Burgess, Ben Arnold, John B. Coburn, David Johnson, Barbara Harris, David Birney and M. Thomas Shaw) who permitted me to exercise my ministry as Canon Missioner in these arenas for the national Church on an unpaid seconded basis except for the years 2000 to 2003 when I was a paid consultant to the Anti-Racism Committee; as well as local struggles…from prison abolition, Boston School Desegregation Crisis and many other struggles for justice too numerous to mention here. I am currently a professor at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts where I work in the area of Pastoral Theology, Urban Ministry and Anti-Oppression Studies. I say these things not in pride but in order to establish a foundation of credibility and commitment that I have been blessed to have been able to maintain over these many years.

Having said this, I wish to be very clear that I affirm, support and commend the current leadership of the Presiding Bishop and her staff, as well as that of her predecessor in their willingness to stand tall on this issue and commit their time and the programmatic resources of the Church to see that we remain faithful to the task of combating the sin of racism. In whatever follows, I hope that this ringing affirmation is crystal clear and informs the rest of this letter as a teaching tool and an invitation to deeper dialogue. I should note here that since my election to Executive Council in 2003 by the General Convention, I have felt a strong obligation to be faithful to those who voted for me in the full knowledge of my strong sense of commitment and willingness to speak truth to power. One by-product of that election was to resign as the paid consultant to the Anti-Racism Committee, so that there could be no conflict of interest and equally important, exercise an oversight function on this an other social justice programs that are too often under threat, misunderstood or ignored by too many in the Church. And, it is in this capacity as an elected Executive Council member that I write today, in the full confidence that I speak for many on these matters. What now follows is the education which I promised at the outset.

Many of you may be surprised to know that this is the third such letter that I have written to the leadership of the Church over the last fifteen years. The first was in 1993 when as the convener of the Black Leaders and Diocesan Executives Think Tank in support of Black Ministries that I called into question the serial termination of nearly all the Black male executives on the staff of the national Church in less than a year. It precipitated a frank meeting, with then Presiding Bishop Browning, which attempted to educate him on the appearance of institutional racism that these terminations exhibited on their face. While I was unable to convince him of this fact at the time, subsequent events enabled him to respond more positively to my second open letter in 1995 on the subject of “A Lost Opportunity,” which can be found in the Episcopal Urban Caucus publication, To Heal the Sin-Sick Soul. The presiding officer’s prompt response to that letter led to the creation of the Anti-Racism Training Program which was a necessary programmatic response to the House of Bishops Pastoral Letter on the Sin of Racism and the several General Convention resolutions which had committed the Church to a three triennial year cycle focused on this issue. This was extended at the General Convention in 2000 and the formal committee on Anti-Racism was established and an appropriate staff person was hired to oversee the effort. In the previous three years it had been done on an ad hoc basis with a $100,000 contribution from the Diocese of Massachusetts, and my seconded time. There is a long story which I will not bore you with in this letter of institutional resistance and personality clashes which would make a wonderful novel but are beside the point of the primary objective of the training. Sadly because of the controversies over mandatory versus voluntary in regard to who should take the training and how it was to be administered obscured the fact that the objective was to bring about change on all four levels of our corporate life, i.e. individual, interpersonal, institutional, and cultural. It was to that end that Resolutions A 123 and A 127 were brought forward to the General Convention in 2006 and whose implementation is in no small measure an objective test of the effectiveness of the training and other actions to bring about an authentically welcoming and anti-racist institution. The jury remains out on this latter question, but, the circumstances surrounding the first public effort to implement a key portion of
Resolution A 123 is instructive while A 127 remains unattended.

And, now I will give the chastisement. It is not my purpose to cast aspersions or to make accusations, what I do know is that the resolution clearly called, in part, for a public apology by the national Church at the National Cathedral for its complicity in, and the benefits derived from slavery in the United States of America. This did not happen. Further no satisfactory answer has been given to explain this decision. Many have urged the presiding officers in light of this fact to consider some major event at the General Convention in which a better expression of the intent of the resolution could be made manifest and the several dioceses who have attempted to do the
historical research as requested by the resolution in other sections might have a national platform to educate the church on their findings. This may in turn inspire others to do likewise and still others in the spirit of this resolution and A 127 to examine the Church’s less than glorious relationship with Native Americans, Hispanics, and Asians. Let us hope that this will occur. What did happen was a two day event at the historic St. Thomas African Episcopal Church in Philadelphia on the 3^rd and 4^th of October 2008. Many of us had great difficulty with this decision inasmuch as it created the curious dynamic of those seeking to apologize to those who had been aggrieved inviting themselves to the house of those who had been offended. This and other “curiosities” were more than amply addressed by the Reverend Doctor Harold Lewis and the Honorable Byron Rushing in their remarkable presentations on the first day. It is their talks which need to be widely circulated in the Church, both in print and on DVD, as they address the critical issues of the legacy of slavery and how we might approach the future, in light of the fact that the first step was being taken by the Church in publicly acknowledging its sins of omission.

Had the program ended there, it would have been a great success on its face, because those to whom the apology was being offered were able to articulate in some detail those things for which the apology was needed. Sadly, on the second day a service was planned in which there was to be a liturgical expression marking this event and providing an opportunity for our current Presiding Bishop to lead the service and address the issue. She did her job with grace, clarity, amazing insight and honesty, however, the decision was made to begin the service with a litany which was neither historically correct nor appropriately structured to acknowledge that one group of people was apologizing to another group of people who for all of the history of slavery and most of the history of the Episcopal Church have been separate and unequal, and the people of color specifically excluded from the Councils of the Church. Hence a litany which did not permit the group aggrieved to respond or to acknowledge their presence, especially in their own house, was the ultimate of racism and insulting to many of us who could not understand how people of color were to participate in a litany which correctly chronicled the sins but of which we were the involuntary subjects or as Tonto said to the Lone Ranger, “what do you mean WE” . Of equal importance the litany did not recognize nor give legitimacy to the history of protests begun by Absalom Jones and carried forward by Alexander Crummel and all those lay and clergy leaders who endured exclusion from the House of Deputies and General Convention until the 1930’s. Also, the litany did not acknowledge nor give legitimacy to the many white Church leaders, known and unknown, who protested slavery, established the colonization societies, and dutifully took messages to the General Conventions from the Conference of Colored Church Workers during the long period when Black folks had no voice much less a vote.It also ignored the many efforts at uplift carried on by black laity and clergy,particularly in education,which continue to be supported by the Nat. Church to this day. As Maya Angelou has so eloquently said, “History with all of its wrenching pain cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage need not be lived again.” It is to this dictum that we must rededicate ourselves as we go forward.

To conclude, I would like to offer you an invitation in the form of a quotation that I used to open my remarks at the conclusion of the Friday educational event, they were penned by the noted peace maker Vern Neufeld Redekop in his seminal book From Violence to Blessing. In the introduction to his chapter on reconciliation he makes the following observation:

“Reconciliation means to stop imitating the entrenched patterns of past violence, and to imagine, imitate and create life patterns of well being meeting the identity needs of Self and Other.”

I firmly believe that we are struggling mightily to live into this understanding of reconciliation and that we have enough time and effort invested in it to not allow this little bump in the road to set us off track and keeping our eye on the prize. One of the reasons that I delayed writing this letter until after the election was that I was hopeful that Barack Obama’s one person anti-racism training program would prevail, and as he noted, now gives us a chance to make a change. Regardless of how you feel about the election or the growing fears that the alarming economic crisis are raising, now more than ever the Church has to stand up and continue the internal dialogue and the external struggle to combat racism. History teaches us that in these critical moments of transition and the promise of change, the desire to return to the fleshpots of Egypt often keep us prisoners of our fear rather than having the Gospel eyes to see the Red Sea being parted. Now more than ever we must attempt to live into every way that we can find the profound truth of my favorite saying “Let there be peace among us and let us not be instruments of our own or others oppression.”

Thank you for reading this and let us march on until victory is won.

Peace,

Ed Rodman

Thanksgiving/Remembrance Day 2008