Resignation June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

Dear Rev. Phelps, Clergy, Church Council, Membership Department, and fellow Congregants of the Riverside Church,

I began attending Riverside during Bill Coffin’s tenure. I joined as a member because Riverside was the only institution that I believed lived what she preached.

Over the past few years, I have witnessed fundamental and overwhelming changes in this institution, which I have loved dearly for decades, including:

· ravaging of her liturgical form and tradition
· continued attacks and erosion of her luminary music tradition
· wholesale change in direction of her theological position, which now focuses primarily on extolling incarcerated African American men, while demeaning the millions of mostly African American people (their fathers, mothers, siblings, girl-friends, wives, children, family members, and neighbors) who have suffered horribly as the very real victims of the crimes for which they were incarcerated; and the characterizing all people of Caucasian descent as racist
· destruction of all forms of actual ministry, and particular attacks on social justice ministry
· want of pastoral care
· pilfering of the endowment and corporate spending that makes less than a dozen people among the richest humans on the planet, while billions of men, women, and children suffer in Morningside Heights, Harlem, and around the world

After long reflection and prayer, I realize that I can no longer in good conscience associate my name with the Riverside Church as a member because all of the above practices are antithetical to my beliefs and to my faith. Thus, please remove me from the church membership rolls, and from your membership tally.

"Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right."
--Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)

Sincerely,

Jennifer Hoult, Esq.

Membership number 18683

Burke/Tolstoy

The following, pertinent, quote is attributed, alternatively, to Edmund Burke or Leo Tolstoy:

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

March 6, 2011 Presentation

On March 6, 2011 the Personnel & Salary (Human Resources Committee) of the Riverside Church presented a glossy slide show with peppy management acronyms like those used by Wall Street management during the Reagan recession. “A-SMART” was extolled as a scrupulously fair management device to handle “problem” employees. The Committee lauded the many generous benefits afforded church employees.

All of it sounded compelling and wonderful, unless you have heard, as I have, from many employees who independently describe similar stories involving unfair treatment by management at Riverside. There is a stark contrast between the motto cheerfully expounded by the Human Resource Director, “Love is our aim, mutual respect is our pathway,” and the fact that so many current and former Riverside employees now refer to this once famous social-justice institution as the “Evil Tower” or just “Mordor.”

If everything is working as well as the Committee claimed, the numbers they presented should have supported their claim, and even their motto.

But they don’t.

According to the Committee, from 2007-2010, 143 (85%) of 169 employees left Riverside. (I reported that 165 employees left between 2007 and 2011. The Committee did not report on employees who have left in 2011.) In any institution, an 85% turnover rate in four years is staggering.

The Committee presented a benign narrative of the turnover number. They categorized those who left as terminations, resignations, layoffs, retirements, not-returning-after-illness, ending of contracts, and no-shows, creating an appearance that most employees chose to leave of their own accord. But such parsing to make it appear that employees choose to leave is a common narrative-control device in corporate America. It is a way employers create a narrative that looks good to prospective investors.

In the end, the numbers tell the real story. Well-managed companies have low turnover rates because employees are treated well, grow in their jobs, and stay there because they are happy. Riverside’s reported 85% employee turnover in four years is a red flag that something is seriously wrong.

As regards compensation, the Committee corroborated my claim that a handful of employees are paid compensation packages that place them among the wealthiest of the world’s human beings. Eleven (11) employees earn salaries over $100,000 (top 0.66% of world’s wealthiest humans). Using the most conservative numbers based on the minimum salaries reported by the Committee, these eleven employees cost the congregation a minimum of $1,250,000 per year in salary alone (($100,000 x 8) + ($150,000 x 3)).

This number may exceed current congregational giving, in which case donations to this church solely fund these 11 salaries. Four of these eleven individuals are clergy; the other seven are finance and business employees. Thus, it appears that merely 37% of congregational giving supports ministry. For comparison, look at the spending of charities on http://www.charitynavigator.org/. The most effective charities use over 90% of donations to provide services, and keep administrative costs under 10% of donations.

Curiously, the Human Resources Committee cannot report actual total compensation for the employees it hires and oversees because Human Resources doesn’t, apparently, know the total value of the employees’ compensation packages. Executive-style perks like travel funds to pay for taxis, limousines, school tuition, real-estate loans, donations to non-profits that pay the Riverside employee outside the church, etc. are not subject to the Committee’s overview. Thus, the $1,250,000 number does not represent the full actual compensation. (Similarly the Committee was unable to provide a cogent hierarchy chart, claiming the “matrixed” model was too complex to diagram. Having worked in much larger organizations with far more complex management structures, I can attest that creating a valid org chart for an organization that employs only 169 people does not require a Ph.D. in mathematics, or even an MBA.)

Given the value of benefits reported by the Committee, as well as executive perks, it certainly appears that several employees earn compensation packages over $200,000. The U.S. Census Bureau defines households earning over $200,000 as “rich.” These earnings place them among the wealthiest 0.01% of humans on earth.

Furthermore, if current congregational donations cover only the salaries for the highest paid 11 employees, then building maintenance and compensation for the other 158 employees can only be siphoned from the endowment, which will be exhausted within a few years. No wonder Riverside’s management has cut spending for every form of actual ministry or social justice effort. This budget structure is, quite simply, ruinous.

Strikingly, at the March 6 meeting the Committee talked a lot about money, but the words “service” and “to serve” were not mentioned.

The Committee stated the business of Riverside is “worship,” by which they apparently mean “producing religious ritual performances” like an entertainment production company. No one mentioned service to others or social justice or helping the poor. No one mentioned Christ’s ministry. Instead, the Human Resources Director, one of those earning money in the top 0.66% of people on earth, extolled the virtue of teaching employees to save money on floor wax.

The Committee defended the practice of keeping luxury compensation secret as a “privacy” issue, but could not explain why this is necessary given that many other denominations and the Catholic Church routinely publish total compensation and benefits of all employees to their congregants.

The Committee claimed that the only way they can “attract talent” is by paying luxury compensation. But this corporate keep-up-with-the-Joneses (and Tammy Fay and Jim Baker’s) theory doesn’t explain the approximately 300% increase in Senior Minister’s compensation over the last 21 years. (Rev. James Forbes’ starting compensation was approximately $65,000). In her early decades, Riverside was not in the keeping-up-with-the-highest-paid-churches business. Apparently, during the quarter-century when the American lower and middle class has increasingly struggled and the rich have gotten much (much) richer, Riverside’s leaders radically changed course away from Christ’s example of charity and social justice outreach.

The premise that the kind of “talent” needed at Riverside is found in individuals who demand to be made ultra-affluent and “rich” is a new premise. And it is a corporate premise, not a Christian premise. It is not the premise that drew Fosdick or Martin Luther King, Jr. to the pulpit. Money is not the magnet that attracts Christ’s work. Witness Mother Theresa, parents raising children, volunteers who tutor children, build houses, run soup kitchens, provide pro bono medical and legal services, counsel rape victims... Ministry is not about money. It is about service and Love.

Towards the end of his life, Rev. King realized that the root cause of most, if not all, forms of discrimination and injustice is economic injustice. King was murdered, not because he combated racism, but because he spoke truth to power in a capitalist society about the outrage of economic injustice. He dared to expose the foundation of almost forms of all human discrimination: economic injustice requires the subjugation of the majority to foster an oligarchy for the “rich.” King’s preaching against economic greed was far more of a threat to a capitalist socially which relies on the social stratification and economic discrimination expounded in “Wealth of Nations” than preaching against racism, or any other particularized form of discrimination.

“You cannot serve God and money.” Matt 6:24. People who serve God, Christians and those of other faiths, do not demand to be made part of the financial oligarchy of the world. The talent required to do social justice work does not demand oligarchic affluence while others go hungry.

The glossy March 6 presentation revealed that The Riverside Church has become a corporation. Her management is corporate, her management ideology is corporate, and her treatment of employees is corporate. In this Madoff era, Riverside’s Finance Department is funded at $1,200,000, and boasts a “Chief Financial Officer” who is one of the three highest paid employees in the church. Her few highly employees are being made affluent by the largesse of the congregation, while management drains the endowment to pay for their party.

Like Rev. King, I see neither social justice nor Christ’s example in this.

Jennifer Hoult, Esq.

quiet posting

Last night (March 3, 2011) a member of the church forwarded me the following announcement, which was buried in an electronic posting, and has not been widely publicized, in keeping with the low-publicity announcements of the last budget meeting:

Church Council (Congregational Meetings)
Personnel & Salary Committee:
Riverside’s Personnel Policies and Benefits Forum
Date: Sunday, March 06, 2011
Time: 1:00PM - 3:00PM
Location: Room 10T
The Personnel & Salary Committee invites you to attend a forum on Sunday, March 6, 2011 at 1 p.m. where we will present and discuss Riverside’s personnel policies and procedures, including employee benefits, performance management tools, salary ranges, and grievance procedure

'

RSD treatment of employees and luxury compensation

As member of the Bar in good standing and an officer of the court, I stand by my public testimony as a member in good standing of the Riverside Church at that institution’s Budget Meeting on Feb. 6, 2011 that, on information and belief, over 165 employees have been terminated from employment at Riverside since 2007, primarily without just cause.

As I testified at that meeting, a number of these individuals have contacted me in my legal capacity reporting the following disturbing pattern:
1. After years (sometimes decades) of highly regarded work,
2. they suddenly received unfounded, scathing employment reviews,
3. they were told they could not make these reviews public due to legal privilege,
4. they were told that if they filed any grievance or in any way contested the reviews, they would lose severance and unemployment benefits,
5. they were terminated or pressured to resign, and
6. their termination “agreement” letters included gag clauses with substantial fiscal penalty provisions if they revealed this information.

It is my personal and legal opinion that these practices are a type of “violence” cited in Rev. Phelps’ sermon of Feb. 6, 2011. Among other things, these acts of social injustice violate the mission of the Riverside Church.

This pattern of treatment of employees is common in large for-profit corporations, often espoused by in-house employment attorneys. Economic pressure, particularly during an historic recession, is an effective means of silencing wrongfully terminated employees. Corporate attorneys know that such economic pressure does not rise to the level of legal “duress” making such conduct difficult to contest in courts of law. The tactic uses a paper-trail to generate a false appearance that terminations are based on good cause, i.e. that the terminated employees are to blame for losing their jobs.

The claim that employment reviews are privileged, and that the employee cannot reveal their contents, misstates the legal privilege. Legal privileges serve to protect individuals. Most are not bilateral in nature. If you speak to a lawyer, clergy member, or doctor, those professionals are bound not to disclose your private communications without your permission. The privilege protects you, not them. You, the person protected by the privilege, always have the right to reveal those communications to whomever you choose. You retain the right to retain or waive the privilege. Similarly, any privilege regarding an employment review serves to protect the employee from the employer’s dissemination of information that could be embarrassing to the employee. Thus, while the employer cannot discuss the review, the employee always has the right to reveal the information. Misstating the privilege by telling employees they cannot discuss the review due to privilege is a way to keep mistreated employees silent using inaccurate legal information, and the implied threat that, if the employee reveals the information, s/he may face legal sanctions by the employer.

The “choice” between being laid-off with unemployment benefits, possible severance and COBRA health insurance coverage, and the loss of all economic benefits if the employee contests or publicizes unfair reviews or termination uses the massive inequity between an employee and a large corporation to pressure employees to submit to abusive corporate demands and remain silent about their mistreatment. While unions can protect employees from these types of abuse, many employees, like those at Riverside, do not enjoy union protections that can insulate against this power imbalance and expose employers’ abuse of employees.

Corporate legal strategies exploit this power differential, and employees’ understandable fears of loss of income and difficulties finding new employment in the worst job market in a century. Employees who are unprotected by union membership can scarce afford the threat of litigation against a large corporation that is well funded and well-lawyered. The corporate Goliath can easily abuse, discard, and silence these unarmed Davids. False paper trails and gag clauses with Draconian fiscal penalties for disclosure prevent those entrusted with decision-making from learning about abusive employment practices. In Riverside’s case, these democratic governing bodies are the Council and the congregation. The practices terminated employees have reported to me mirror those used in places like Enron, Arthur Anderson, and Abu Graib. It is the same old story. Secrecy protects abusive, immoral conduct. But in the end, the truth will out. Matt 5:15.

Since I do not have permission from each terminated individual to publicly reveal their names, and given that revelation of their names/departments could trigger legal action against them by the church under the contractual gag orders in their termination “agreements,” I proffer of the truth of my testimony and its valid evidentiary basis with a list of their initials, each of which represents a unique person. I suggest that Council members thoroughly review the records of every employee who has left the church, and interview each such employee after first providing them with written and legally binding assurance that their disclosures in these investigations will not result in legal retaliation against them by the church.

On information and belief, the following individuals have been terminated or pressured to resign from the Riverside Church since 2007:

1. A.D.
2. A.L.
3. A.M.
4. B.S.
5. C.C.
6. C.G.
7. D.V.
8. E.S.
9. E.M.
10. E.W.
11. F.G.
12. J.L.
13. J.V.
14. J.R.
15. K.Z.
16. P.Z.
17. P.F.
18. R.B.
19. R.F.
20. M.G.
21. R.M.
22. R.J.
23. S.M.
24. S.C.
25. T.W.
26. T.R.
27. T.W.
28. T.R.
29. T.B.
30. W.J.
31. W.W.
32. A.M.
33. B.G.
34. D.B.
35. D.E.
36. D.G.
37. E.H.
38. F.L.
39. G.T.
40. I.S.
41. J.I.
42. K.D.
43. M.H.
44. M.J.
45. M.T.
46. N.M.
47. O.G.
48. R.M.
49. T.S.
50. K.S.
51. P.M.
52. L.A.
53. B.H.
54. A.H.
55. R.R.
56. J.T
57. H.H.
58. D.K.
59. J.T.
60. N.R.
61. A.A.
62. D.W.
63. A.G.
64. L.B.
65. P.D.
66. J.A.
67. Q.P.
68. M.B.
69. J.H.
70. L.R.
71. L.P.
72. A.R.
73. A.K.
74. B.N.
75. C.F.
76. C.A.
77. D.H.
78. D.S.
79. D.B.
80. E.E.
81. E.O.
82. E.M.
83. E.P.
84. F.E.
85. F.N.
86. F.W.
87. G.V.
88. J.F.
89. J.M.
90. J.M.
91. K.L.
92. K.F.
93. K.H.
94. L.M.
95. L.D.
96. L.A.
97. L.H.
98. L.N.
99. L.R.
100. M.B.
101. M.K.
102. M.M.
103. R.C.
104. R.S.
105. R.R.
106. S.H.
107. S.H.
108. S.S.
109. S.C.
110. S.G.
111. S.J.
112. S.L.
113. S.S.
114. T.W.
115. B.C.
116. C.D.
117. D.F.
118. D.S.
119. D.P.
120. K.M.
121. E.H.
122. J.G.
123. J.W.
124. J.B.
125. K.W.
126. N.S.
127. P.C.
128. P.L.
129. R.V.
130. R.N.
131. S.L.
132. Z.C.
133. C.J.
134. C.S.
135. E.G.
136. F.A.
137. G.S.
138. H.C.
139. J.F.
140. K.M.
141. K.S.
142. M.M.
143. M.W.
144. S.J.
145. T.T.
146. G.W.
147. M.S.
148. R.M.
149. S.C.
150. J.M.
151. E.H.
152. K.G.
153. J.S.
154. C.C.
155. G.G.
156. N.L.
157. S.B.
158. B.B.
159. K.L.
160. L.N.
161. F.N.
162. H.H.
163. J.C.
164. D.S.
165. L.M.
166. R.L.
167. R.M.
168. B.C.

Other questions aside, this surprisingly high employee turnover over a short period of time begs the question of how it came to be that so many employees were suddenly deemed terminable for “good cause.” I suggest that Council members ought to review the percentage of employee turnover going back for the past three or four decades. Well-managed institutions have low turnover rates and these rates remain steady over time. A sudden spike in employee turnover is often a sign, not of employee incompetence, but of managerial malfeasance, just as the sudden spike in paper shredding was the evidence that proved Arthur Anderson’s wrongdoing in the Enron affair.

As regards my testimony at the budget meeting that a number of employees are being paid salary packages that place them among the wealthiest human beings on the planet, those numbers were contested by several church members on the basis of raw salary numbers. As I pointed out to them, I referred to salary packages (total compensation packages), not raw salaries. Once health benefits, travel benefits, housing benefits, school tuition waivers, pensions, loans, donations to corporations that pay external salaries to employees of the church, and other benefits are included, I stand by my representation. Total compensation includes both salary and the value of all other benefits. Non-salary benefits generally add at least 25% to the salary number. For many corporate top-earners, non-salary benefits are hundreds of percents higher than the raw salaries themselves. Additionally, since clergy housing allowances are untaxed, a fair comparison of compensation packages must compare the net (post tax) value of the total compensation package, thereby revealing the substantial net value of untaxed housing income.

Using these metrics, I stand by my claim that a number of employees are Riverside are being provided with compensation that places them among the wealthiest humans on earth. I further stand by my belief that no one “needs” a compensation package of over $100,000 (top 0.66% of the wealthiest humans on earth), let alone over $200,000 (top 0.01%).

To put the Riverside compensation packages in context: The median household income in New York City in 2008 was $51,000; in 2009 it decreased to $47,000. In 2009, 3 million New York City residents lived in poverty, where poverty is defined as a three-family household earning less than $18,000 per year. In 2010, New York City’s poverty rate approached 21.3% of our residents. Most New Yorkers spend 50% of their earnings on housing, so their non-housing pre-tax median income is $23,500 per year. Many New Yorkers lack health insurance, pension benefits, tuition benefits, travel benefits, employer-funded loans, and the myriad other benefits offered to select employees of the Riverside Church.

I do not believe that there is a valid theological basis for placing a handful of employees among the wealthiest 1% (let along 0.66% or 0.01%) of humans while their neighbors literally go hungry. Spending is action. Riverside now spends over $1,000,000 on its finance department, which she has cut all forms of actual ministry budgeting.

Keeping compensation packages secret from the Council and congregations under a claim of privacy is not a normative practice among Christian denominations. This practice serves to protect those who are compensated luxuriously while keeping the congregation and Council in the dark about how money is actually spent. Without knowing the details of the entire budget, including the total compensation packages for all employees earning more than double the current New York City median, and money spent on actual ministries, neither the Council nor the congregants can participate meaningfully in this democracy.

I stand by my testimony that Riverside’s treatment of her employees and luxury compensation for a select few reflects the values of a capitalist corporation, not a house of God. The pattern of secrecy that pervades all of this is not consistent with Christ’s teaching or His ministry. Matt 21:12; Luke 16:13.

"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words
and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people."
--Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail

Jennifer Hoult, Esq.
riversidechurchnycdiscussionblog.blogspot.com

Don Bickford's Comments at the 2-6-2011 Budget Meeting

Don Bickford gave me permission to post the comments he made at the Riverside Budget Meeting on Feb. 6, 2011. They were as follows:


I applaud the

progress made in the Finance Office in the past year.

initiative of Budget and Planning to clarify and document the donated funds in our portfolio.

public commitment of lay leadership to honor donor intent.

And I am confident of the sincere good intentions of all who have brought the process to this point.


However, I will vote NAY with respect to the resolution now under discussion.

I will state my reasons and if you agree, I hope you will also cast a NAY vote.

This resolution authorizes taking from the portfolio nearly $300,00 more than the amount that the longstanding spending rule would permit.

This fact is not made clear to the congregation in the budget documents you have been given; nor was it explicitly explained at the forums held in the fall.

Combining the three separate resolutions into one and failing to provide the spending rule calculation sheet as had been our practice for more than 20 years has further clouded the situation.

The proposed budget claims to have sustainability as its goal; regrettably, this budget continues Riverside’s longstanding habit of spending beyond its means and is most definitely not sustainable.

The materials provided and presented have inappropriately combined operational and capital spending to assert progress towards the sustainability goal. It is in the nature of capital spending to fluctuate from year to year and what is important is the long term average. The previous Church Council concurred with recommendations from Budget and Planning to treat $4 million as that average capital amount; That 2011 happens to be a lower than average year for capital spending ought not to be deemed progress.

This budget eliminates or reduces certain positions and programs important to the membership; while this is necessary, insufficient educational efforts to win over support from the effected constituencies has taken place. A major part of that failure of responsibility falls with senior staff, a group which has offered no reduction in its own compensation as part of a sharing the pain strategy.

For all these reasons I will vote NAY and hope you join me.

TRC proposed budget December 2010

December 6, 2010

The Riverside Church Council, Worship Commission, and Clergy
The Riverside Church
New York, NY 10027

Dear brothers and sisters,

The Riverside Church proudly calls herself a “social justice” church. Sadly, her spending tells another story.

Congregants have been purposely kept uninformed that nearly two dozen people employed by The Riverside Church now earn six-figure salaries, and that many lower-earning employees have quietly been let go in the past two years without acknowledgement or mention. While raises have been given to the higher-earning employees, all ministry budgets have been cut.

The numbers are pretty simple.

The median household income in New York City in 2008 was $51,000; in 2009 it dropped to $47,000. New Yorkers spend, on average, 50% of their earnings on housing. So the non-housing portion of the median household is $23,500 per year.
In 2009, 3 million New York City residents lived in poverty, where poverty is defined as a three-family household earning less than $18,000 per year. In 2010, it appears New York City’s poverty rate has approached 21.3% of our population.

Since Riverside boasts being an “international” church, I’ll put the figures in an international context. An employee earning $100,000 per year is in the top 0.66% of the wealthiest humans on the planet. An employee earning $200,000 per year is in the top 0.01% globally. A small cadre of Riverside employees are being paid church salaries that place them among 0.66-0.01% wealthiest humans on earth. These numbers do not include clergy housing allowances, which are not taxed. Needless to say, most New Yorkers are not given untaxed housing funds to pay for their housing.

The congregation doesn’t have this information, but is asked to vote on a budget that is squarely based on this spending pattern. Our pulpit resounds with sermons discussing “need” and “greed.” But our spending is to be based on a Wall Street financier or “keeping-up-with-the-wealthy-parish-downtown” model. How is this in keeping with our mission of social justice? How is it Christian?

The newly proposed budget demands $1.2 million for finance and communications, while cutting all forms of ministry budgets. Information from several church departments suggests that a few individuals are unilaterally making budgetary decisions without informing the Council, let alone the congregation, of the details and ramifications of those choices. Such conduct is undemocratic and may violate New York corporate law. Furthermore, it exposes every member of the church’s governing body to personal liability for corporate malfeasance. Those governing the church have joint and several responsibilities to know the full details of the institution’s spending, including salaries and job descriptions, and to ensure that it the institution’s money is spent in furtherance of her religious and corporate mission.

Last January I told Council President Jean Schmidt that, legally and morally, every dollar the church spends must be evaluated by one question: Is this spending in keeping with/furtherance of our mission? That is the legal and moral standard we must meet.

So the ugly question looms: How can The Riverside Church claim to be a social justice church if she lives by capitalist greed rather than Christian ministry?

While the people who live in Harlem, New York City, the U.S.A., and the rest of the globe face the devastation of the greatest economic depression since the 1920’s, those making governing decisions at Riverside are placing a small number of people among the wealthiest in the world, while contributing to the economic despair of our local economy with stealth lay-offs and ministry cuts. None of this is being reported to the congregation, or possibly even to the members of the Council, under the guise of privacy concerns. (As a non-profit corporation full financial disclosure is required by law. It is easy to protect privacy by deleting names associated with salary figures, but salaries must be disclosed for governing officers to make fiscally responsible decisions and meet their legal obligations of fiduciary duty.)

For Riverside to minister in keeping with her social justice mission, no one “needs” a luxury salary. No one “needs” to earn hundreds of times the median income of other New Yorkers. No one earning over $100,000 “needs” a housing allowance. Ghandi lived in a mut hut. Bill Coffin lived in a small apartment. No one “needs” the Lord to buy them a Mercedes-Benz. If the only employees Riverside is attracting are those who demand luxury salaries, then we are attracting the wrong candidates for our mission.

Social justice begins with our example inside the church. Our acts speak louder than our words. Our spending is a strong, public act. And right now, our acts are not acts of social justice.

Before voting on the proposed budget, I urge every voting member of the congregation to demand a full and accurate accounting of all salaries (with names deleted) for every department, along with the hours each individual works for the church, and a full accounting of other benefits, flagging those benefits that are untaxed, as well as a list of the positions that have been cut, their salaries and job duties. Members should consider the percentage of the budget that goes to building maintenance, salaries, finance, and actual ministries. Members should consider expenditures for technology and consultants, and whether these costs duplicate salaried positions and are in fact necessary.

Once this information is provided, I urge every voting member to consider whether each dollar of the budget of the Riverside Church is an act of social justice. And then vote on the proposed budget accordingly.

As for myself, I will continue to donate $1.00 per year to the church until her spending is consistent with her mission. I did not join Riverside to pay to make a few people ultra-wealthy. I joined to minister to those in need. Thus, I continue to donate directly to those in need through the food pantry, clothing ministries, and other charities that actually minister to those in true need.

And for the record, I plan to vote against the proposed budget because it violates our legal and religious mission, and is antithetical to Christ’s ministry and teaching.

Jennifer Hoult, Esq.
Member, The Riverside Church

Attempts to silence dissent within Riverside Church

A small group of members have proposed an amendment to the corporate by-laws of Riverside Church that will create a means of ex-communicating members who exercise their legal rights as members of this religious non-profit corporation.

Riverside was founded as a progressive church. Many of us joined because we believe that "progressive" means diverse views are welcome. Many of us who work in social and legal activism for progressive and liberal causes of social justice have fought long battles to protect the rights of all citizens to exercise their legal rights. Traditionally excommunication is the realm of the Catholic Church, not the American Baptist or UCC churches.

Needless to say, if this amendment were adopted, it will mark a huge theological and legal change in the governance and values of this institution, moving her in a direction that is neither just nor progressive.

Riverside: New Directions/Fiscal Management

Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 10:49 am
Subject: Letter to the RSD Church Council re: next steps
Dear Council members,

On May 25, 2009 I met with Jean Schmidt informally to talk about Riverside. Over the course of a long conversation, Jean asked me about my recommendations for next steps for the church. Given the recent announcements that the Council is exploring appropriate next steps, I am writing to reiterate the core suggestions I made to Jean back in May.

As I told Jean, the most fundamental issue I see is that there is a lack of understanding and focus about our mission. Having worked for various for-profit and non-profit corporations, I have observed that no organization can run well unless a) the mission is clearly articulated and b) the leadership is clear about what the mission means. Once those two things are clear, every leadership decision can be measured against a clear standard. In Riverside's case, our mission is elegantly stated focusing on "inter-racial, inter-denominational, and international worship" and "social justice ministry."

In the past year, it has become evident that despite the elegant simplicity of this mission statement, there is a lack of consensus and understanding about what it means. All leadership and action must flow from the mission. So the most important step I suggested to Jean is that the Council should explore (using whatever documentation exists since the creation of the corporation) the meaning of the mission. All meaningful leadership decisions will be clear when this is understood.

For example, "inter" means "between, among, reciprocal, carried on between, shared by two or more, etc." Understanding what this prefix means leads to clear leadership directions for everything including our theology, worship style, music, social justice efforts, and fiscal expenditures. For example, if "inter-denominational" means inclusive and shared worship among all denominations, then this places clear limits on the denominational affiliations and theological views of those we hire to lead us as clergy. While our worship can and must include and welcome people of all denominations, we cannot legally effectuate our mission if we hire clergy whose theological views preclude or place any limits on true "inter-denominational" theology. For example, since Riverside has led the vanguard in welcoming openly gay members and clergy, we cannot fulfill our mission by hiring clergy whose denominational affiliations prohibit them from sanctifying gay unions. We can welcome them to worship with us, because our theological umbrella is without limits, but we cannot use our money to hire them to lead us, because narrower theologies conflict with our inter-denominational mission.

Similarly, "inter-racial" means inclusive and equal between people of all races and ethnicities. We cannot fulfill our mission if we use our money, choose worship styles, or hire clergy who cannot honor all forms of worship, honor all people as individuals, and include all people equally as children of God. We can welcome all individuals with narrower views in our community, but we cannot limit the effectuation of our mission by hiring people with narrow views of worship and judgments about people based on the color of their skin because, as I wrote Billy Jones and this Council in August 2008, such leadership violates our mission and conflicts with God's scriptures and Christ's ministry and teaching.

Even decisions about spending flow naturally from a clear understanding of mission. We have a beautiful edifice. But it is fantastically expensive to maintain. The Council has dipped into and diminished our endowment for many years now, and this threatens the continued fiscal stability of the church. Understanding our social justice mission includes making the decision of whether our ministry should spend for social justice, or building maintenance. As one who loves our edifice, it would indeed be painful and sad to leave it. However, our mission is for social justice. Our spending, from how much we spend for heat, air conditioning, oil, and repointing, must flow directly from our mission. If a clear understanding of our mission leads to the decision that fulfillment of our mission requires abandoning our edifice, then we will be effectuating our mission. The decisions for every aspect of spending flow from the mission. And make no mistake, gorgeous as she is, our building is not God's home. God is without limits, and this building is a mere transitory reflection of a tiny part of His Glory.

Choosing social justice projects must similarly flow from an understanding of our "inter-racial, inter-denominational, and inter-national" mission. It is clear that we must fund and act to minister to people of all races, in all faith traditions, in all nations. There is dire need of many types all around us, and around the globe. Decisions about how to focus our efforts and spend our money must in each case be determined in accordance with our mission. We cannot focus only on one type of justice for one demographic of people in one geographical location. We are called to minister to all in need. And that need is truly overwhelming.

We also need to be clear about our legal and denominational affiliations. Certainly, it is not necessary that we only hire members of the ABC or UCC. But it is legally mandated that we only hire people whose training, denominational affiliations, and theologies fully embrace the theological embracing of our two affiliations, and our extremely widely-encompassing theological mission.

These are only a few examples, but from my own professional experience, I truly believe that if the Council focuses effort on understanding the mission, then the appropriate directions for spending, worship style, hiring, music, social justice ministries, and all other leadership decisions will be appropriately framed by the simple question, "Do this choice fulfill or violate our mission?" It really is that simple.

Finally, it has come to my attention that there have been efforts to stop fundraising efforts for Project People, a non-profit affiliated with Riverside that serves needy children in South Africa. Ministry to needy children anywhere in the world is clearly part of our social justice and inter-racial mission, and was a core part of Christ's ministry. Efforts to stop anyone from raising money to help those in genuine need are an affront to God's teaching, Christ's ministry, and Riverside's mission. In the past year, there has been a lot of bullying and silencing from the pulpit and the Council. We have descended to a level of leadership where a few loud school-yard type bullies silence and threaten important social justice actions and ministries. We need to stop allowing bullies to run the playground. We need leadership. And, as Bob preached on August 9, that leadership does not come from any of us, or from our edifice. It comes from Christ. The Council must take steps to make it clear that every effort to help those in real need by anyone who is a member of or visitor to our church is something we applaud, welcome, and encourage. Make no mistake: Anyone who works to stop ministry to those in need is working against our mission and against Christ's teaching. It is that simple. This Council must speak loudly and quickly on this matter. We cannot tolerate efforts to stop Christ's ministry to those in need. There is no time to placate bullies. The need around us is too dire.

I am familiar with the burdens and challenges of leadership. I hope that these suggestions may provide helpful directions for your important work in reinvigorating our mission, our reputation, and our effectiveness in Christ's ministry to those in true need.

With love and prayer for the effectuation of our mission and God's promise for all human souls,

Jennifer Hoult, J.D.

--------------

I was contacted by an attendee at Don Bickford’s Capital Portion Subcommittee of the Budget and Planning Committee on August 28, 2009. Cambridge Assoc. advised that meeting that Riverside should not be drawing more than $6,700,000 a year from the endowment. It appears that the past year’s budget withdrew $6,275,000 in excess of their recommendation.

The numbers reported were as follows:

12,975,000 actually withdrawn for Capital and Operating Budgets
- 6,700,000 Cambridge Associates’ recommended prudent annual endowment withdrawal
$6,275,000 amount drawn in excess of Cambridge Associates’ recommendation

Note that back in May 2009, prior to a substantial decline in the market value of the endowment, in a written report to the Riverside Church, Cambridge Assoc. wrote:
"Riverside should redefine the purpose of the endowment to best fit the needs of the Church and thus, clarify the current spending rule. Based on the current asset allocation of the portfolio, the portfolio is expected to generate an average annual real return of 5.3% over the long-term. As a rule, total spending should be set below this percentage in order to preserve and grow the base of the endowment. Total spending for 2009 (based on operational and capital needs) is estimated to be approximately 11.3% of the endowment value."

The Cambridge Associates report stated:
"At the current projected spending level, the Church risks eroding the endowment by approximately 42% in 3 years and completely liquidating the endowment in less than 10 years."

RSD Council voted to give Dr Braxton a $282,000 parting gift

On Sunday, August 23, 2009, the Chairwoman of the Riverside Church Council announced that the Council voted to give Dr. Braxton a parting gift valued at over $282,000. This sum includes 5 months' salary ($104,165), payment for 5 months of health benefits ($11,900), payment for 5 months of pension based on his denominational formula ($16,667), and the assumption of his personal contractual housing debt of $149,500.

The Council Chairwoman acknowledged that this sum was not contractually required by Dr. Braxton's employment contract with Riverside. As most workers know, it is extremely uncommon to receive payment of any sort when a person chooses to resign from their job. Thus, the $282,000 payment is simply a parting gift.

For less than one year of service to this church, the Riverside Council has chosen to pay Dr. Braxton a total sum of approximately $686,517, placing him among the wealthiest earners in the world for this year.

Here is the letter I sent the Council today:


Dear Riverside Church Council Members,

First, I will once again voice my view that the Council's decision to pay Dr. Braxton a parting gift of over $282,000, including the assumption of his personal housing debt of $149,000, is inconsistent with Christ's teaching to minister to those in need, and a violation of our social justice mission. It is my belief that this decision will have a very profound and negative effect on contributions to our ministry for a long time to come. If Riverside is going to minister by assuming personal housing debt obligations, it seems to me that, in the present era when many of our needy congregants, neighbors, and fellow citizens are losing homes due to foreclosures, the housing debts we should be assuming are theirs. That would be Christ's ministry. By using limited resources to make one man one of the wealthiest earners on the globe this year by paying him $686,517 while so many others are in dire and abject need around us, this Council has wrought an injustice that is incompatible with both our legal mission of social justice ministry and our spiritual mission to follow Christ's ministry and care for those who are in need. Among many possible ministries, $282,000 would have protected many of our brothers and sisters from becoming homeless.

Second, at yesterday's meeting, several members raised the allegation that Dr. Braxton was denied the housing Riverside originally arranged for him for reasons of race-based discrimination. This was the first time I heard this allegation. I believe the Council should fully investigate this claim. Furthermore, as a licensed member of the NY Bar in good standing, if the Council discovers a preponderance of evidence that discrimination, or any other illegal conduct, was the basis of Dr. Braxton's being denied that originally contracted housing, I hereby offer my legal services pro bono to work to vindicate that wrong.

We at Riverside must work to fulfill our social justice mission and follow Christ's ministry both by spending our fiscal resources to minister to those in true need, and by vociferously fighting to right egregious harms based on all forms of discrimination and social injustice. Our mission calls us to nothing less.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Hoult, J.D.

RSD Council Proposes large six-figure "gift" to Braxton

Recently, Dr. Braxton chose to resign his position at Riverside Church. In response, the Riverside Church Council has apparently voted to pay Dr. Braxton an outgoing "gift" that would be approximately the equivalent of 9-months of the financial package he has earned in his brief tenure at Riverside. This package has been valued between $400,000 and $600,000 per year. In total, this means the church would pay Dr Braxton close to, or possibly more than, $1,000,000 for less than one year's work, during the same period when our endowment has shrunk due to market forces, requiring us to rescind a promise to fund $1,000,000 in scholarship funding to needy children in our parish. In response, I sent the following letter to the Council:


August 4, 2009

Dear Riverside Church Council Members,

It has come to my attention that the Council intends to pay Rev. Braxton a six-figure departure gift out of the Riverside budget. As a member of this congregational church, I am strongly opposed to this decision.

In less than a year, Riverside has paid Dr. Braxton more money than 98% of the world's population will ever earn in a year. During this same time period, while Dr. Braxton has lived in luxury, Riverside's endowment has shrunk due to market factors, and we have been forced to rescind the promise to pay $1,000,000 in scholarship funds to needy children in our parish. Our ministry efforts have been completely strangled due to the financial remuneration to Dr. Braxton. During this same period, the world economy has been mired in a fiscal crisis of unprecedented proportions. Inflation in Zimbabwe has run over 200% for nearly a year; Iceland has been on the verge of bankruptcy. While Dr. Braxton has enjoyed the lifestyle of the richest men on earth, men, women, and children in our parish, our nation, and around the world, face the dire consequences of this monumental economic downturn.

Dr. Braxton chose to resign his position at Riverside. As all professional know, a person who chooses to resign is not entitled to payment of any kind. The only thing they are guaranteed by statute is the offer to pay (from their own funds) for a COBRA continuation of health insurance for 18 months, and keeping the balance of any vested pension funds they have acrued.

In response to Dr. Braxton's theology, donations at Riverside have plummeted. Those members who may consider returning to our church upon his departure are hardly likely to donate knowing that the bulk of their donations will go directly into Dr. Braxton's personal bank account, and not into the ministry of our church or maintenance of our building.

Last December, I lowered my annual pledge to Riverside to $1 precisely because our legal mission, and the teachings of our Scripture, did not support the luxury financial payments to Dr. Braxton. Since then, I have given my time and money to churches and institutions that minister to people instead of funding a few luxury lifestyles. Upon Dr. Braxton's departure, it is my intention to once again donate to Riverside. However, I am not willing to fund any part of the nearly $1,000,000 that the Council has chosen to pay Dr. Braxton over the past year (including his 2008-2009 financial package and the planned outgoing gift).

Thus, please be advised that, until such time as those who individually feel inclined to provide Dr. Braxton with this Wall Street-sized bounty-gift have completed payment to him, I will legally target all my donations to those departments within Riverside that will not fund Dr. Braxton's personal lifestyle; including, but not limited to, the Food Pantry, and the Music Department. Sadly, much as I would like to fund the building maintenance, and the salaries of the many extremely wonderful and dedicated people who work in our church, I know that, if I donate into the general management fund, my money will all go to Dr. Braxton, and not to these worthy people, or our magnificent edifice. Christ taught me to feed the people, so I will help feed their bodies and spirits through food and music until such time as the Council effectuates our mission and Scripture with appropriate fiscal leadership.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Hoult, J.D.

More information on Braxton and Coffin's fiscal packages

A member of the senior lay leadership at Riverside during Bill Coffin’s tenure corrected my assertion on this page that Bill’s salary was $30,000. In fact, Rev. Coffin’s salary was $60,000 when he left Riverside, an amount was known to the senior lay leadership on a confidential basis. During Coffin’s public divorce trial, his salary became public knowledge.

Based on the Consumer Price Index at http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm,
$60,000 in 1987 has the same buying power as $112,952 in 2009. Thus, the equivalent present-day salary for Dr. Braxton would be $112,952, and not the $250,000 the church is paying him. In short, Dr. Braxton is being paid a base salary approximately double Dr. Coffin’s.

As regards Dr. Coffin’s housing, Riverside paid the rent for his two-bedroom apartment on Riverside Drive above Tiemann Place, which had a view of the Hudson River. Having myself lived in that neighborhood from 1978 until 2007, I can assert with confidence that in the late 1980’s Morningside Heights was nothing like the luxury neighborhood in which Dr. Braxton’s housing is found on the present-day Upper West Side.

I do not know the market value of the apartment Dr. Coffin lived in. However, having myself lived about a mile south of his apartment in a two-bedroom rental apartment on Riverside Drive with views of the Hudson, based on my own rental costs, the rental cost of Dr. Coffin’s home was likely less than $1,500 per month in that era. In other words, Riverside was likely paying something in the range of $18,000 per year for Dr. Coffin’s housing. Today, Riverside funds Dr. Braxton’s luxury apartment rental costing nearly $18,000 per month; the same amount the church spent annually for Dr. Coffin’s housing. In other words, Dr. Braxton’s housing subsidy is nearly twelve times that paid for Dr. Coffin.

Dr. Coffin did not feel he needed an apartment with space to entertain church guests, since Riverside Church has plenty of space for entertaining visiting guests.
Riverside also did not fund any domestic help, gym membership, or private schooling for Dr. Coffin or his family.

Unlike Dr. Braxton, who rationalizes his luxury financial package as “combat pay” needed to “make him whole,” Dr. Coffin felt he was properly remunerated with a small fraction of Dr. Braxton’s total package, even after the respective numbers are adjusted for inflation. Coffin donated any “gifts” and wedding service “gratuities” he was given to a charity backed by Riverside. Coffin got very upset when another clergyperson on the staff received an inheritance from a member and kept it. Coffin felt that it led to conflicts of interest when staff got close with members of wealth.

Unlike Dr. Braxton, Bill Coffin was a national superstar who brought in big crowds. Both membership and donations soared under his leadership. He donated freely of his time and energy for myriad national and international social justice causes, including voting rights, nuclear disarmament, support for the end of South African apartheid, and negotiating for the release of American hostages held in Tehran during the Iranian Revolution. Despite his myriad activities, Coffin never slighted his pastoral functions. Under Dr. Braxton’s leadership, both attendance and donations have both plummeted. Dr. Braxton’ sole social justice effort is lobbying for white reparations for slavery.

Dr. Braxton's earnings from Riverside Church

The New York Daily News and New York Times have reported that Riverside is paying Dr. Braxton more than $600,000 per year, more than ten times what Rev. William Sloane Coffin was paid during his lengthy tenure as Riverside’s senior minister. In response, former church council head, Dr. Billy Jones, claimed that Braxton’s package was merely $465,000, a figure Dr. Jones claims is acceptable because it is on par with other ministerial salaries. Note that these numbers do not represent Braxton’s entire household income because they do not include his wife’s earnings in the finance industry, or his income from book sales and speaking engagements. Riverside is currently paying him for study-leave to prepare for one of these outside engagements.

It may help to put these numbers in context. The median annual household earning in the U.S. for 2007 was $53,514, and in Manhattan was $62,027. In that same year, 17.6% of Manhattan’s residents lived in poverty.

In 2009, U.S. taxpayers are paying President Obama approximately $469,000 per year. Even without considering his other income sources, Riverside’s payment of $465,000 per year places Braxton in the top 1% of U.S. taxpayers. According to bankrate.com’s list of the top 20 highest-paying jobs, without including his wife’s income or his other income sources, Braxton is near the top of the list:

1. Chief executive officer: $1.18 million
2. Chief operating officer: $690,219
3. Top-subsidiary executive: $624,831
4. Top-sector executive: $525,657
5. Top-division executive: $510,292

[Dr. Braxton’s Riverside earnings: $465,000]

6. Intermediate corporate financial associate: $459,784
7. Heart transplant surgeon: $446,666
8. Cardiothoracic surgeon: $446,255
9. Top international executive: $425,839
10. Chief financial officer: $418,772
11. Top administrative executive: $410,335
12. Top legal executive: $404,235
13. Top mergers and acquisitions executive: $399,581
14. Top mortgage executive: $399,485
15. Top power trading executive: $391,911
16. Neurosurgeon: $386,906
17. Top investment executive: $386,148
18. Chief of surgery: $380,756
19. Senior corporate financial associate: $376,761
20. Top retail banking executive: $373,383

Dr. Braxton pays $216,000 per year for the rental of a luxury Manhattan penthouse, or $18,000 per month. The median rental cost for a 4-bedroom Manhattan apartment is $4,995 per month. Braxton has claimed he needs luxury housing to entertain Riverside guests. He is in error. Christ did not entertain his disciples in luxury housing. Neither did Mother Theresa. Ghandi entertained international dignitaries in a mud hut.

Some, particularly members of traditions that pay their ministers luxury salaries, argue that these numbers are appropriate because ministers are doing God’s most important work. Christ’s example shows this view is in error. Christ did not live in luxury. He did not demand that his disciplines empty their pockets to fill his. When he created bread and wine, he did not fill his personal pantry and wine-cellar. He used his efforts to nourish the hungry.

Serving the public is a privilege. Many people who are highly educated and earn substantial salaries choose to forgo their income to serve the public. Corporate executives routinely leave huge salaries to serve their country in government jobs or as educators. Media executives work for public radio and television for considerably lower salaries. Physicians and attorneys can earn six-figure salaries, but those who choose to serve the public routinely agree to earn salaries near the U.S. median income level. Two other examples of men who have chosen lives of service instead of profit are Dr. Paul Farmer, who founded Partners in Health & provides quality health care to Haitians, Peruvians, and incarcerated Russians; and Greg Morgenson, who founded the Central Asia institute, which builds schools for girls in the most rural parts of Afghanistan.

Dr. Braxton has claimed that he needed this income package to “make him whole” for leaving his teaching position. The term “to make whole” is a legal term for reparations or restitution for fiscal harm. If someone steals your television, justice is served if you are “made whole” with the dollar value of your stolen television. Choosing to change jobs is not a harm; it is not a choice that creates a need to be “made whole.” Serving as Senior Minister of an internationally renowned congregation is hardly a harm needing economic reparations. Braxton’s rhetoric is consistent with his world-view centering on the black liberation theology demand for white reparations for slavery. But, unlike his forbears, Dr. Braxton has not been enslaved. He is instead a member of the educational and financial elite. Riverside Church is now using her ministry resources to make him one of the wealthiest humans on the planet.

Founding ideas of Black Liberation Theology

For those unfamiliar with black liberation theology, which Dr. Braxton espouses and uses as the foundation of his own theological writings, the words of James Cone, the dean of "black liberation theology," who teaches that Jesus Christ himself was black and not a Jew, are instructive. Cone expresses the theology succinctly:

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. "

(from William R Jones, "Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology, in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology")

May 17, 2009 meeting follow-up

I have tried to post the scans of the various Church Bulletins, and March 1, 2009 sign in sheet. For technical reasons I do not understand, I have thusfar been unable to post these scanned items. I will keep trying. However, should readers want to see them, feel free to either contact me by email and I will email them to you, or go to the Riverside Church library and archive, where you can view the relevant documentary evidence for yourself.

May 17, 2009 meeting

At the May 17, 2009 annual meeting of the Riverside Church, a non-profit religious corporation, a young African-American gentleman sitting directly in front of me apparently asked Barbara Hampton, another African-American member of the congregation, sitting to my right, a number of questions about my qualifications as a lawyer. Had the gentleman asked me directly, I would have answered him, but he did not deign to speak directly to me.

To answer him: I hold degrees from Barnard College, Columbia University (in computer science and religion); and Manhattan School of Music (in harp). I began my legal studies on a generous scholarship at Boston University School of Law. During my 1L year, it came to my attention that a student in another section was using email to anonymously harass other students, using racially pejorative language. I contacted the Dean and demanded that he take all steps to discover the identity of this harasser, expel him or her from the school, and notify the Bar Association to ensure this individual would never become a Bar member. The Dean refused to take action. Additionally, I protested to the Dean of Academic Affairs that the required assignment of a misogynist moot court assignment was unethical. The brief I was assigned to argue was written like pornography, and had many factual and legal flaws. Following a car accident in which I was rear-ended, and missed nearly 20% of my first year classes due to a severe concussion and neck injuries, I argued the matter (in my neck brace) to satisfy my moot court requirement. The head of the moot court judge panel me that I presented the most effective oral argument in my 1L class. (I told him that he should have seen what I would have argued had I been arguing for the side of justice.) At the end of the year, the Dean of Academic Affairs agreed that this sexist assignment would no longer be part of the BUSL curriculum. However, because the Dean refused to address the racial harassment issue, I gave up my scholarship and left the school, not wanting my name associated with an organization that covered-up such egregious conduct. My GPA for my 1L year was 3.79.

I went on to complete my J.D. at New York University School of Law, then rated 4th in the nation (Yale being 1st, Harvard 2nd, Stanford 3rd, and Columbia 5th). I graduated magna cum laude, in the top 10% of my class, and was given membership in the Order of the Coif. I’ve been invited to join MENSA. I am a member in good standing of the New York and Massachusetts Bar Associations. I served as a prosecutor in Manhattan and Staten Island, and a Children’s Law Guardian in Brooklyn. In those capacities, I handled nearly 1,000 matters, and, in over 99% of these cases, the outcome was consistent with my advocacy, whether for the State, or the children who were my clients. Members of the Staten Island and Brooklyn 18b panels told me that my reputation among them was clear: I was known as extremely thorough, absolutely fair, and a tough and unflinching advocate for justice. As Rev. Jim Forbes and others are well aware, I advocated for justice even pressing defense attorneys to get drug treatment and other interventions for their clients, and pressing my own office to immediately drop cases in which I discovered constitutional and other investigatory flaws, even when defense counsel was unaware of these flaws. As Jim and others are also aware, I left one position in protest when the administration instituted internal rules that I believe violated the constitutional rights of their employees.

Prior to entering law school, I advocated pro bono and helped see introduction and passage of state and federal laws to protect children from child sex abuse and hold abusers legally accountable. For nearly a decade, I stood up to an international organization of accused and proven sex offenders who sought to discredit victims of sexual violence, and used a variety of threats to silence them. As a result, they vilified me using the media, the internet, and even textbook publications. In 2006, I published a law review article that exposes an effort to give abusive parents sole custody of their children. The article has been described as the seminal work on the subject and is being used to train judges around the U.S. and in courts in France, Argentina, and other countries. I am currently working on a book about sexual violence, and I handle a variety of pro bono matters. Currently, I earn my living as a harpist, and donate all my legal work pro bono. Last year, I earned about $30,000, gave 8% of that in cash to charities to help the needy, and donated the equivalent of approximately $100,000 in pro bono legal work to the needy.

I invite those Riversiders, including Dr. Braxton and others, who have publicly called me a “racist” and “worker of Satan” to contact my former supervisors in Manhattan, Staten Island, and Brooklyn, (Charles King, Quentin Smith, and Fredericka Bashir) and my dear colleague Tosha Foster, all of whom happen to be of African-American descent, as well as the many members of Riverside who know me, including the choir, the last two music directors and their assistants, various Church Council members, and Revs. Pat Lawson, Linda Terry-Chard, Bob Coleman, Fanny Erikson, Jim Forbes, Brenda Stiers, etc. who can address the question of whether I am “racist” and a “worker of Satan.”

I hope this answers the young gentleman’s questions, and would hope that in the future anyone who has a question for me would ask me directly. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. preached that he dreamed of a society in which no person’s character would be judged by the color of his or her skin. I share Dr. King’s dream. In contrast, Dr. Braxton has used the Riverside pulpit to call Dr. King’s dream a “lie from hell.” It begins to appear that Dr. Braxton’s leadership is increasingly resulting in Riversiders’ characters being judged on the shade of their skin—a genetic factor of melanin levels due to recent ancestry over which they have no control, and no reflection of their original human ancestral roots back in Ethiopia some 50,000 years ago.

----
Prior to the May 17, 2009 meeting, the Council announced that Rikk Stone, a fellow church member, had submitted a resolution for the meeting, but that the Council would not entertain it. The Council published their reasons in an email message, and further announced that all other new business must be submitted to the Council by Friday, May 15, 2009 at noon. I duly submitted a resolution to rescind a vote taken at the March 1, 2009 meeting due to voter fraud. I brought documentary evidence to prove the voter fraud and was prepared to call on Rev. Terry-Chard to provide further testimonial evidence supporting this claim. Since the vote on the 2009 annual budget rested on this prior vote based on voter fraud, the matter of this voter fraud is of central ethical and legal importance. Ms. Kathleen Zbylut emailed me to remind me to bring copies for the entire congregation, which I did and distributed duly at the May 17 meeting. At no time did any member of the Council indicate that my resolution would not be entertained.

At the meeting, another resolution was entertained and defeated by a vote of the present members. Dr. Jones gave the author of that resolution leave to amend his resolution during the meeting prior to that vote. Despite the fact that the resolution in question raised questions of infringing members’ First Amendment and Due Process rights, Dr. Jones claimed that this resolution had been vetted by corporate council.

When I stood to bring my resolution, Dr. Billy Jones, head of the Church Council, told me for the first time that the Council would not entertain my resolution. I pointed out that under Robert’s Rules, a motion to rescind a vote for voter fraud is always in order. While Dr. Jones had given the prior resolution’s author leave to amend his resolution, Dr. Jones refused to allow me to amend my resolution to include the term “rescind” or “voter fraud,” and refused to honor Robert’s Rules that state that motions to rescind are always in order. Dr. Jones further accurately observed that addressing this voter fraud issue would result in re-opening the vote on the budget. When Dr. Jones attempted to silence me from speaking, I pointed out that he had allowed other members to make observations from the microphone. I then cited Riverside’s history in fighting for social justice to end apartheid, fight for civil rights, and against the injustice of voter fraud in every other instance. I pointed out that the Council’s refusal to allow me to present evidence of voter fraud within the church proceedings, left no other option but to present the evidence to a wider legal and public audience. At that point, loud jeering and yelling broke out. Despite Dr. Jones’ prior insistence that there be no clapping or yelling during the meeting, he made no effort to silence the jeering, violating the rules he had cited at the beginning of the meeting regarding member conduct.

In every instance when I have raised a question about the church’s new theological and leadership direction I have done so openly. (For the record, I am neither the author of nor a member of the distribution list of the Friends of Fosdick, and have only read a few of their publications which have been passed on to me by other Riversiders.) Having attempted to bring the serious legal and ethical issue of voter fraud to the attention of the members of the corporation, and having been silenced in violation of Robert’s Rules by the head of the Church Council, I now bring this evidence, as I openly promised to do at the meeting on May 17, to the public. All of us have witnessed the devastation wrought by voter fraud whether in Zimbabwe or in the U.S. under the Bush administration. Voter fraud is a tactic used to undermine democratic process. The fact that the Riverside Church Council, with the apparent assistance of corporate counsel, has acted to defend and hide this fraud raises serious legal and ethical questions about the present leadership of our religious corporation.

For the record, on March 1, 2009, I did not vote in either the vote on the resolution or the budget because I had to leave the meeting shortly after 2:30PM to go to perform. Rev. Pat Lawson, Diana Solomon-Glover, Brenda Clarke, and others who sat near me can verify this fact. I have thus raised the voter fraud issue solely because voter fraud offends the very nature of democratic governance, and not because the fraud had any impact on any vote I personally cast as a legal member of the corporation.

For those who did not get a copy, here is my resolution:

Whereas, at the March 1, 2009 meeting of the corporate membership of the Riverside Church a Budget Resolution [“Budget Resolution”] was duly proposed and seconded to separate the salaries for the positions of Chief Programming Minister and Director of Administration from the general budget; and table any and all actions on the salaries for the positions of Chief Programming Minister and Director of Administration in the 2009 budget, and said motion was replaced with a substitute motion to eliminate the salaries from the budget which was defeated by one vote, and

Whereas, we Riversiders are committed to the ethical and moral beliefs of our faith tradition, as well as the fundamental fairness inherent in the democratic civil laws that govern our religious non-profit corporation, and

Whereas, under the civil law and the moral dictates of our faith only lawful members of our corporation can cast legal votes on corporate matters, and

Whereas, the names of those individuals who have fulfilled their obligations and have officially become members of the Riverside Church are published contemporaneously with their joining in the official Church Bulletin, and

Whereas, Dr. Braxton announced his hiring of Ms. Kathe Hammond on November 2, 2008 (see Church Bulletin), and

Whereas, Ms. Hammond was not a graduating member of either the November 16, 2007 or January 18, 2009 membership classes (see Church Bulletins), and was not a member of the Riverside Church prior to being hired by Dr. Braxton, and

Whereas, no other new members were announced in the Church Bulletin prior to the March 1, 2009 congregational meeting, and

Whereas, at the congregational meeting on March 1, 2009, Ms. Kathe Hammond registered to vote as a member on the sign in sheet despite the fact she was not a lawful member of the corporation (see Sign In Sheet), and

Whereas, Kathe Hammond was observed casting an illegitimate vote against the Budget Resolution at the March 1, 2009 meeting, and

Whereas, Ms. Hammond’s illegitimate vote was improperly counted along with the votes of lawful members of the corporation, and

Whereas, deducting Ms. Hammond’s unlawful vote, and including the vote cast by Dr. Billy Jones, the final tally on the Budget Resolution was in fact a tie, and the Budget Resolution was not in fact legally defeated, and

Whereas, our commitment to fundamental fairness and Christian ethics is evidenced by our commitment to full and lawful democratic participation of all legal members of the corporation to protect against counter-majoritarian threats to our democratic operation, and

Whereas, as a congregational church, it is the obligation, duty, and honor of all lawful members of our corporation to govern our religious corporation; now therefore, be it

Resolved that the March 1, 2009 Budget Resolution remains an unresolved matter of old business that has not been lawfully concluded by a majority vote of lawful members of the corporation, and thus remains a matter of unresolved corporate business, and

Resolved that said March 1, 2009 Budget Resolution requires an immediate vote by the legal members of this religious corporation to facilitate our congregational duties both under civil law and the dictates of our faith to exercise responsible and ethical fiscal leadership over our church and management of our resources during this period of international economic crisis.

Resolved, that the salaries of the Chief Programming Minister and the Director of Administration be taken out of the budget.
-----

I am posting the relevant Church Bulletins (official publications of the Church available in the church library and archives) which show that Ms. Hammond is not a legal member of the corporation, as well as the March 1, 2009 sign in sheet (an official corporate document available in the Church library) that includes Ms. Hammond’s signature. I invite readers to contact Rev. Terry-Chard in the membership office, as she can further attest to the fact that Ms. Hammond is not a lawful member of this corporation. Dr. Braxton hired Ms. Hammond as his personal assistant. He has made no effort to expose or rectify her illegitimate voting on March 1.

In closing, I will reiterate what Dr. Jones acknowledged (available on the tape recording of the May 17, 2009 meeting): The March 1, 2009 members’ vote on the 2009 corporate budget was taken following the vote on the March 1, 2009 resolution. The budget vote was taken based on the understanding that the resolution had been voted down. However, the resolution was not in fact voted down. The deciding vote was the illegitimate vote of non-member Hammond. Thus, the vote on the budget was also invalid since it failed to take the salaries of the Chief Programming Minister and the Director of Administration out of the budget.

Recent changes at the Riverside Church

As the tenure of Senior Minister Jim Forbes came to an end, Riverside began a search for a new Senior Minister. Back in August, 2008, I raised concerns with the Church Council as follows:

August 19, 2008

To the Church Council and Clergy of the Riverside Church,

As a member, I am writing to voice my profound concern about the direction in which our institution is headed. We appear on a course that leads us towards a breach of faith with the values of our members, and opens the door to the risk of litigation for violations of civil non-profit law.

From its inception, Riverside Church was intended to be open to all equally; a place to celebrate our common humanity, marshal our faith, & energize its use in the fight for universal social justice. Our community has been defined by respect and love, as God taught us, not by our skin color or other attributes. This color-blind communal love and humanity has been the “tie that binds” us. Our theological focus has been transformational at the personal, community, national, and international levels; calling us to see each other as Christ did, without regard to the particularities of race, ethnicity, sexuality, or gender. While our members have diverse personal theological views, Riverside has focused on the simple embracing mission of inter-racial, inter-denominational worship.

But in recent years, our worship seems to be increasingly grounded in African-American liberation theology to the exclusion other theological views. Liberation Theologies focus on an oppressed group and their oppressors. African-American Liberation Theology focuses on the institution of American slavery, which was abolished with the enactment of the 13th Amendment, and residual social injustices that continue today. This theology posits all African-Americans as the victims of slavery; and all Caucasians as slavers. But, while slavery is unquestionably an abomination, historically it was never simply a white-on-black institution. The Bible refers to many forms of slavery not based on race. Consider Leviticus 25:44-46; Exodus 21:7-11; 1 Peter 2:18; Ephesians 6: 5-8; and Titus 2:9-10. Race became a factor in discrimination relatively recently in history, promoted by the Portuguese and Spanish in the 1500’s, followed by the English and Scotch-Irish in the 1700’s. Even in colonial times, not all blacks were slaves. The colonial slave trade relied on the many black Africans who willingly kidnapped and sold their neighbors and brethren into slavery. Similarly, not all whites were slavers. In Great Britain and colonial America, many whites (like Wilbur Wilberforce, John Quincy Adams, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and Abraham Lincoln) fought for emancipation and helped liberate individual slaves. . The Underground Railroad was principally run by whites. Among our present population, many African-Americans are descended from African slavers, and many Caucasians are descended from abolitionists. And many Americans are descendants of neither slaves nor slave-owners. The men, women, and children who are currently enslaved economically or in sex trafficking in the U.S. are being subjugated by people of all races and ethnicities. The line between slaver and slave is not a specific shade of melanin. It is the line between humanity and inhumanity.

Melanin also does not define racism. In America today, there are racists of all hues. Not just among the white supremacist churches, but also in many black churches. Ultimately theologies that blame and denigrate an “other” are theologies of hate, not love. Theologies of blame, not personal responsibility. Theologies looking backward instead of forward. Such insular hostility was not Christ’s mandate, and it is not Riverside’s tradition. Harry Fosdick stood up to such a threat in the exclusionary Fundamentalism of his time. We must similarly stand up to theologies of exclusion in our midst. I have prayed in some African-American church communities where the hostility towards my presence was palpable. Sadly, in recent times I have had the same experience at Riverside. In services, I now regularly encounter men and women whose skin hues differ from mine who literally will not pass the peace with me, something unheard of among long-time members of this church, and under Bill Coffin’s tenure. During one service preached by Jim Forbes, after an elderly African-American sister and I embraced warmly in peace-passing, a young African-American man sitting next to her refused to pass the peace to her or to me, glaring instead at us. That gentle lady was so distressed by his rebuff that she whispered to me throughout the rest of the service, asking why the young man had refused to pass the peace to her. I’ve been similarly personally rebuffed and excluded at Space for Grace. Exclusion is not grace. It is neither Christ’s way nor Riverside’s tradition.

In truth, biologically and anthropologically, we are all African; all the descendants of our ancient mother, whether we call her Eve or Lucy. Africa is the motherland to the entire human species. We are separated from her, and each other, only by generations and migrations. The amount of melanin in our skin does not define who we are. Our ancestors’ acts do not define who we are. Only our actions in this life define who we are. Hostility towards present congregants for acts of generations gone by is unjust. Our accountability is for our acts in these times, not for others’ acts from another time long past. All of us are entrusted with the communal task of overcoming the residual injustice, mistrust, and hostility that we inherited. That is one challenge of Riverside’s inter-racial transformative theology. We are a congregation committed to moving forward in faith and action to fight for justice for all people who are downtrodden. Looking backwards in blame will not actualize Christ’s vision. Looking backwards in blame we cannot solve present injustice. Looking backwards in blame we cannot build “ties that bind.”

I think Rev. Bob Polk was right: we are becoming just another black Harlem church. We are abandoning Riverside’s unique inter-racial mandate, the specific reason many of us of all races chose to worship here, for racial homogeneity. In Sunday preaching I hear the names of many heroes and heroines of African-American descent. These are people who deserve laud and praise. But increasingly, there is scant mention of heroes and heroines of other ethnicities and races. We don’t hear about Joan of Arc, Theresa of Avila, or Mother Theresa. We don’t hear about Mahatma Ghandi, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, or Friederick Bonhoeffer. People like my friends Norman and Geraldine Frenkiel, Eastern European Jews who hid French Jewish children from the Nazis. People like my young Chinese client, who fled to the U.S. after being persecuted in China for worshipping Christ. We don’t hear about the Uighers, Tibetan Buddhists, or Buddhist monks in Myanmar. Men and women who have fought to expose and recover from childhood sexual violence by American clergy. Native Americans and Canadians, and native people of Chiappas and Peru, who even now are legally subjugated by their governments. We don’t talk about the growing schism in the Episcopal church over the inclusion of gay clergy. Or our brothers and sisters who praise God through Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism and share our fight for tolerance. Among those who fought for emancipation and against Jim Crow, Rosa Parks made an important stand. So did men and women of all races and genders. Today there are people of all races, ethnicities, sexualities, and genders marching and fighting for justice for immigrants, for minorities, for women, for children, for living wages, for responsible lending practices, for the enforcement of the 4th Amendment, for equal rights for gays, and against the use of torture by our military (to name but a few current fights for justice). There are heroes everywhere, but Riverside’s vision of heroism seems increasingly based on a melanin litmus test. That is not our tradition or our mission. It is not what we want to teach our children. To be inter-racial means to transcend monochromatic sight. It is to see with Christ’s transcendent vision of all humanity.

Recent leadership choices here further the impression that this institution is moving away from its spiritual and civil mandate for inter-racial worship into the realm of the politically homogenous. Demands that department heads resign in anticipation that the next Senior Minister will want to clean house, stripping our institution of the people who have helped build our diverse traditions, demonstrate a breaking of institutional commitment to our past tradition. These leadership acts mirror the recent illegal discriminatory and political purges within our nation’s Justice Department. Equally troubling is the appearance of racial discrimination against those whose contracts have not been renewed and who have been fired. Such conduct exposes this institution to civil actions for racial discrimination and violations of our non-profit mission.

Along with other members of all races, genders, and ethnicities, I am profoundly troubled. People leave other churches because the clergy shifts course. Our mission is so simple and inclusive that we should never lose a member: we should never shift course. No one who is committed to a truly inter-racial community would want to leave an institution that pursues that course. People are leaving because we are steering into the shallow waters of homogeneity. The staggering drop in donations is a democratic outcry of members’ discontent. The choice to use our endowment to pay for routine expenses shows stark disregard for that democratic outcry. And, instead of conserving, we appear to be courting pastors who flount Isaiah 55:2, demanding luxury housing and salaries. Christ did not demand riches. Such funds would be more appropriately used to follow Christ’s example by helping our countless brothers and sisters living in strife. When Harry Emerson Fosdisk left First Presbyterian, driven out by Fundamentalists who were outraged by his call for inclusion, he said, “Leadership is not true leadership that draws people to the leader only. It must draw them past the leader to the cause….Never mind about me.” Focusing on individual personalities and financial demands, we are becoming personal bankers to clergy instead of shepherds in our community. We are steering off Christ’s course.

Riverside has been a light of transformative inter-racial harmony in the great darkness of injustice and human tribalism. I do not want this light to go out. Harlem does not need one more black church, but the world does need a truly inter-racial church. Our human community needs Riverside Church.

Jennifer Hoult, J.D.
687 West 204 St. #3G
NY, NY 10034

212-567-0710
jahoult@cs.com

---

Dr. Billy Jones, head of the church Council, responded, and I responded thus to his letter:

August 29, 2008

To the Clergy and Council members of the Riverside Church

Re: Dr. Jones’ letter of August 21, 2008

Dear Dr. Jones,

Thank you for your response to my letter. Among other things, you wrote: “I, too, value that there is an inter-racial congregation at Riverside. However, I think that is an outdated end goal dating us to the 1950’s and 1960’s. Riverside has been making considerable progress and strides to move well beyond inter-racial, which was simply having ethnically diverse members worshiping in an essentially white oriented and controlled church. While that was a beginning step to a truly integrated church it falls far short of what is to be expected at the heavenly banquet. A truly integrated congregation will not be color-blind, as you state, but will rejoice in the color and heritage of all our members. How can you truly love me if you do not see that I am a black, gay man? A beloved community, of which you speak, defined by respect and love, does not deny or negate differences, but embraces them.”

Brother, I respectfully believe you are in error in your demand for color-awareness instead of color-blindness. God did not create the construct of race. “God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Gen 1: 27-28. God sees no race, no gender, no sexuality, or other ephemeral distinctions. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Gal 3:28. God sees no husbands and wives; He sees humans “like angels in heaven.” Mat 22: 23-30. Thus we sing, “In Christ there is no east and west.” God sees no race, Dr. Jones, only souls. He invites us to his heavenly banquet as souls, not as men or women, black or white, gay or straight. Mathew 22:2, 3-5, 8-14. It was human beings who created the biologically and spiritually unfounded construct of race as a political weapon to divide, separate, and subjugate our one African family from one another. Like the dispersing effects of Babel, Gen 11: 1-9, the construct of race divides us from the truth of our undifferentiated spiritual nature. When you say, “I am black,” you implicitly also say, “You are not black.” This construction falsely divides you from others through exclusion and false differentiation. Color-awareness is nothing more than the espousal of the lie inherent in the construct of race; nothing other than “separate by equal” by another name. And separate is indeed “inherently unequal.” Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483. My brother, the Bible is very clear: God’s vision is indeed color-blind.

Furthermore, God clearly calls us to see with His color-blind vision. John 13:15; “I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do;” Eph. 5: 1-2: “So be imitators of God, as beloved children, and live in love, as Christ loved us;” Romans 15: 5-6: “..think in harmony with one another, in keeping with Christ Jesus, that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” God does not separate us by the shade of our skin. God does not see you as a black, gay man Dr. Jones. God sees you as a soul that She created. Seeing you otherwise thwarts God’s law. “Have we not all the one Father? Has not the one God created us? Why then do we break faith with each other, violating the covenant of our fathers?” Malach. 2:10. God calls us to move from the “darkness” of unjust human constructions to the “light” of His truth. In God’s Kingdom there is no place for false division and false sight, and failure to follow God’s mandate is a grave peril. Romans 2:1-3. To follow Leviticus 19:18, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” we must love one another as God sees us; as souls. We must see, as God sees, our common undifferentiated nature as God’s children. To love you in Christ is not to differentiate myself from you. It is to realize our common nature as souls; as God’s children. To realize our prayer, “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” we must see each other as God sees us. Clinging to divisions based on the false human construct of race is to willfully divide our true nature from one another. We cannot overcome the wrongs of the present by clinging to old grievances and false divisions. Luke 17: 3-4.

So, no, Dr. Jones, with due respect, I do not see you as a black, gay man. I see you as a child of God, a glorious soul unfettered by the human construction we call race. Your skin color, your education, your vocation, your sexuality, your age, your gifts and weaknesses are simply ephemeral corporeal trappings in your present journey; as transitory as the shoes you are now wearing. These corporeal traits will all return to dust. You want me to love and respect you based on the shade of your skin and your sexuality. I love and respect you based on what God made you and what God sees: a fellow soul journeying with Christ.

And no, Dr. Jones, I do not agree with your belief that Riverside Church’s mission needs changing or updating. Since 1930, Riverside’s mission, spiritually and legally, has been as an inter-racial institution to build a house of “Living Stones” and to live following the example of Christ’s “Living Word.” That mission is the reason many of us of all skin hues are members. You have indicated that you want to change this mission. As a matter of civil law, such a change requires both an affirmative democratic vote by the membership and the legal filing of appropriate changes in our civil non-profit incorporation mission. In my opinion, the “separate but equal” exclusion inherent in the color-awareness you propose has no place in the Riverside Church or in God's Kingdom. However, since you feel strongly otherwise, this matter should be brought openly to the attention of the membership for discussion and a vote.

May God bless you with the embracing generosity of his vision and light,


Jennifer Hoult, J.D.
687 West 204 St. #3G
New York, NY 10034
jahoult@cs.com


--

On Sept. 11, 2008, Dr. Brad Braxton, the one candidate for the position of Senior Minister, publicly called me and other members of the congregation who had raised these theological concerns, "workers of Satan" and "racists." Dr. Braxton refused to answer questions about his published theological works, including the following statements he published in book “No Longer Slaves – Galatians and African American Experience," a book espousing the principles of African-American liberation theology:

“It is possible for one who is white biologically to sympathize with the African American struggle, but only up to a point, for the possibility always remains for a white person to stop "being black" at any moment that the struggles of being black no longer fit that person's agenda." p 7

"As I argued in Chapter One, there are limits on how completely even the most understanding white persons can enter the black experience. Nevertheless, if white persons are interested in establishing common ground with African Americans, white persons must be willing to undergo 'conversions' in their cultural conceptual framework." p 42

"[D]ominant white society has told African Americans, especially our children, that our specific callings or "apostleship" in life are invalid because those callings have not bowed at the altar of white society to pay homage and to receive permission to exist." p 61

"[T]he dominant culture has implicitly indicated that it really believes the promises of America to be the sole possession of white Americans; otherwise there would not be such pressure put on African Americans to be like them. . . In Christ, African Americans have been freed from the curse of the dominant ideology that would force us to become white in order to receive the promises." pp 90-91

---
On Sept. 14, 2008, I cited Dr. Braxton's theology and its incompatibility with Riverside's inclusive tradition in opposition of his candidacy for Senior Minister. After citing the following scripture, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Gal 3:28, I was publicly called "racist" by one of Dr. Braxton's supporters.

Dr. Braxton has repeatedly refused to respond to congregants questions about how his black liberation theology fits with Riverside's non-credal, inter-racial mission. At his recent installation, Dr. Braxton accepted a robe bearing the colors of the black liberation movement.

On April 30, 2009, Dr. Braxton published a link to his article "Paul and Racial Reconciliation: A Postcolonial Approach to 2 Corinthians 3:12-18" on the Riverside Church website. His article argues in favor of descendants of white Europeans and American settlers paying various forms of reparations to African-American citizens and 21st Century African nations.

It seems that the concerns I raised back in August were in fact warranted.
Jennifer Hoult, J.D.