Banyard’s Intent to Build a Church for the Segregated Levitt Co. Development, and Contempt for Concerned Black Leaders: A Letter to the Rev. Lasher, June 16, 1958

Tom Barrett - "N.J. Levittown Started; Negro Exclusion Stands" NY Herald Tribune June 8, 1958
(Courtesy of the Diocese of New Jersey; MSS held at Diocese of New Jersey archives, Trenton, NJ)

In response to the Rev. Lasher’s letter the previous week,[1] in which he warned Bishop Banyard of possible “trouble” for the proposed diocesan collaboration with the Levitt corporation stemming from Levitt’s very public policy of racial discrimination (see article above), Banyard penned a letter on June 16, 1958. In this letter Banyard expanded on the issue mentioned by Lasher, which had apparently been raised the previous Tuesday by members attending the diocesan Board of Missions meeting. As ever, Banyard’s private tone regarding those he disagreed with was nasty, in this case specifically toward the Rev. Kenneth MacDonald of St. Augustine’s, Atlantic City and Mr. Arthur Jones of Camden. He insulted their behavior as “rude” and “obstreperous” because they had dared to raise concerns at the meeting, and he also imputed untoward motives to them. Besides these ad hominem attacks, Banyard’s further comments are illuminating. He suggests that bringing up such concerns amounted to “nearly ruining” an otherwise “efficient” meeting, which is to say, his chief concern was that his agenda be acted on without any hindrance or question.[2]

            Banyard was aware of the Levitt policy but largely dismissed the expressed concern over taking an enormous gift from the racist corporation and cooperating extensively with their racist program. Firstly, he claims that the diocese “could not control Mr. Levitt’s company.” Then he suggests that the concern over discrimination is irrelevant because all the churches of the diocese were integrated (this was demonstrably false). How a church in an intentionally all-white development was to be considered “integrated” he does not say.[3] He also states that he does not think that Levitt would be able to discriminate successfully, since segregation in housing had been made illegal in New Jersey, and so the concern was not relevant. The distinction between de jure and de facto segregation seems not to have mattered to him. He does not seem concerned that Levitt was publicly telegraphing a segregationist agenda to attempt to ensure 1) that only white residents would seek to move there, 2) that a particular kind of white resident (those seeking an all-white development) would be disproportionately represented, and 3) that those white residents would help enforce de facto segregation (as the Klan had across the river in the Pennsylvania Levittown).[4]

            On the one hand, Banyard does suggest that if Levitt goes through with his segregationist agenda that he is “sure that we would not want to accept his gift.” But on the other, he immediately undercuts this statement by insisting that he is “determined to minister to the Episcopalians in Levittown,” which would, logically, be exclusively white, “even if I have to raise the money… to purchase land across the street.” He then states unequivocally “we intend to proceed with our Levittown project” irrespective of the outcome of what he claims will be his “thorough… investigat[ion]” of the issue.

            His seemingly feigned concern[5] is belied by his subsequent admission that at the aforementioned Board of Missions meeting he had asked MacDonald and Jones “Why would colored people want to live in a community where they are not wanted?” He also goes on to assert that West Indian Episcopalians discriminate against American “colored people” and that this fact he believes he has noticed undermines the legitimacy of any protest. His racial condescension in the letter is constant, and he makes his own prejudice inescapably clear in his final statements[6] where he writes: 

 

I believe one reason why Mr. Levitt feels the way he does, is that it has often been the feeling that colored people do not keep up their properties, and since he has such an enormous investment, I suppose he does not want to start out with the difficulties that are usually involved with these negro people.

 

The letter is a very clear piece of evidence for Banyard’s racism, and the racist policies that characterized his episcopate. The letter[7] is presented in full below.

 

Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski, Ph.D.

Reparations Commission Research Historian

Episcopal Diocese of New Jersey

---

[1] “Ralph C. Lasher to Alfred L. Banyard,” June 10, 1958. Courtesy of the Diocese of New Jersey. MSS held at Diocese of New Jersey archives, Trenton, NJ. See Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski, “A Warning of ‘Trouble’ over ‘Levitt’s policy of discrimination’: A Letter from the Rev. Lasher to Bishop Banyard, June 10, 1958,” DNJRJR (July 7, 2026): https://dionj-racialjusticereview.blogspot.com/2026/07/a-warning-of-trouble-over-levitts.html.

[2] The slavishly “enthusiastic” behavior of hand-picked committee members chronicled in the minutes of the diocesan Levittown Committee meetings of that year show exactly what Banyard expected of meetings. MSS held at Diocese of New Jersey archives, Trenton, NJ.

[3] Nevertheless he claims that had already told the Vice President of the Levitt corporation that “there would be no segregation permitted as far as the Episcopal Church was concerned.” He neglected to say exactly how tactfully and euphemistically he made this comment to the VP.

[4] See Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski, “Christ the King, Levittown: An Example of the ‘White Flight’ Mission,” DNJRJR (October 8, 2024): https://dionj-racialjusticereview.blogspot.com/2024/10/christ-king-levittown-example-of-white.html, note 2: “When the first Black family moved in to the Levittown across the river in Pennsylvania in 1957, the neighbors called in the Ku Klux Klan to organize the protest and local police did not stop it (even as it included cross burning and rock throwing). This was all well reported and the racialized nature of Levitt developments was well known.” See also Jerry Jonas, “60 Years Later, the Levittown Shame That Still Lingers,” Bucks County Courier Times (August 12, 2017).

[5] And even while feigned, still only half-heartedly feigned.

[6] Which, by their location in the letter, carry more rhetorical import.

[7] “Alfred L. Banyard to Ralph C. Lasher,” June 16, 1958. Courtesy of the Diocese of New Jersey. MSS held at the Diocese of New Jersey archives, Trenton, NJ.

EVENT: Diocesan Slavery History Pilgrimage Saturday, July 18, 2026 (11am) Perth Amboy

The Diocese of New Jersey Reparations Commission will offer its slavery history pilgrimage again on Saturday, July 18, 2026 beginning at 11am. The pilgrimage starts and ends in Perth Amboy and follows a liturgy of reflection and repentance through a circuit of sites of memory related to Anglican and Episcopal involvement in slavery. We will meet at 11am at the Perth Amboy Ferry Slip UNESCO slave trade marker (site #1) to begin the pilgrimage. We will eat lunch between sites #2 and #3 and will plan to arrive at site #3 (Marlpit Hall) at approximately 12:50pm. Email Dr. Jolyon Pruszinski (jolyonp@princeton.edu) to let us know you'll be participating or if you have any questions. The full pilgrimage guide is available as a PDF document online or in smartphone-friendly format and you can follow it yourself at any time. For the July 18th pilgrimage participants are responsible for their own travel to/from Perth Amboy but we may be able to travel more efficiently via carpool between pilgrimage sites.

The addresses for all of the sites are included in the pilgrimage guide but are also listed here.

Site #1: Perth Amboy UNESCO slave trade marker
300 Front Street; Perth Amboy, NJ

Site #2: Tinton Falls African Burial Ground

750 Tinton Ave.; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724

Site #3: Marlpit Hall Museum

137 Kings Hwy.; Middletown, NJ 07748

Site #4: Mount Mitchill Scenic Overlook

460 Ocean Blvd.; Atlantic Highlands, NJ

Site #5: Perth Amboy UNESCO slave trade marker (same as site #1)

300 Front Street; Perth Amboy, NJ

Please be aware that it is customary to make a small donation at the Marlpit Hall Museum to support the exhibit. Also, please plan to either bring a lunch, or to buy lunch at an establishment nearby the pilgrimage route. There are many lunch options available. We are looking forward to having you join us!

A Warning of “Trouble” over “Levitt’s policy of discrimination”: A Letter from the Rev. Lasher to Bishop Banyard, June 10, 1958

 

Ralph C. Lasher (photo from The Montrose Voice, 3/10/89) courtesy of the Texas Obituary Project.  
Alfred L. Banyard (photo by Jolyon Pruszinski of portrait displayed at the Diocese of New Jersey, Trenton, NJ).

The Rev. Ralph C. Lasher,[1] then as a twenty-nine-year-old Rector of the Church of St. John the Evangelist, New Brunswick, wrote to Bishop Banyard in June of 1958 in light of recent high-profile reporting[2] on the Levitt corporation’s formal policy of racial discrimination in its housing developments. Banyard had solicited and accepted a donation of land from Levitt for the construction of an Episcopal church in the planned Levittown development in New Jersey.[3] Lasher was concerned that Levitt’s stated policy of discrimination might cause fellow priests to reject the collaboration, stating that a “considerable feeling on the part of some clergymen” was that the policy “would make it embarrassing for the Episcopal Church to become involved.” Lasher did not seemingly agree with this concern, and even seemed to suggest that it might only be an excuse for these clergy to resist the project. Rather, he raised the “racial question” as a potential source of “trouble” but pledged his own full support, suggesting how important he and others felt it was that “when we go into a new area, we should do so by building an imposing Church.” The letter indicates how well-known Levitt’s discriminatory practices were, including among clergy and leadership in the diocese at the time. The full letter[4] is shown below.

 

Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski, Ph.D.

Reparations Commission Research Historian

Episcopal Diocese of New Jersey

---

[1] Lasher went on later in life to become a well-known gay rights activist, director of the Montrose Clinic, and founder of support groups for those living with HIV-AIDS. For more information see https://www.texasobituaryproject.org/082614lasher.html. 

[2] Including in Tom Barrett, “N.J. Levittown Started; Negro Exclusion Stands,” New York Herald Tribune, June 8, 1958; but also in the New York Times.

[3] See Gerald R. Minchin, “Presentation of Mission Program to the Diocesan Convention,” in The Journal of the 172^nd Annual Convention of the Church in the Diocese of New Jersey Held in the Crypt of Trinity Cathedral, Trenton, Tuesday and Wednesday May 8^th and 9^th, 1956, 146.

[4] “Ralph C. Lasher to Alfred L. Banyard,” June 10, 1958. Courtesy of the Diocese of New Jersey. MSS held at Diocese of New Jersey archives, Trenton, NJ.

Bishop Banyard's Move to "Integrate" Was Really a Push to End Black Churches

Detail of page 199 of the 1955 Diocese of New Jersey Convention Journal

It was 1955. The aged Bishop Gardner had just passed away in late October of 1954, and his Suffragan Bishop, Alfred L. Banyard, had within three months been elevated to Bishop. Normally a key reason to ordain a suffragan, besides helping carry the workload for an aging Bishop, is to afford for smooth a transition between episcopates and prevent significant periods of disruption in governance and policy. However, when Banyard was elevated, he immediately began to make dramatic changes in diocesan governance and policy.[1] One of these changes was moving to end Black Churches in the diocese.

          At the first diocesan convention following Gardiner’s death, Banyard announced multiple changes that he had already put in place. One was that he had immediately pushed the the leadership of the Diocesan Foundation to elect the Rev. Gerald R. Minchin to the office of Archdeacon. Installing Minchin ensured that Banyard would have a totally loyal deputy who he publicly proclaimed[2] would be “aggressive” in pursuing his agenda. The operations of the Diocesan Foundation, charged with overseeing many organs of action in the diocese, including the Department of Missions, the Department of Christian Social Relations, the Department of Christian Education, the Department of Field and Publicity, and the Church News,[3] would be significantly affected by this appointment and agenda. A key aspect of Banyard’s aggressive agenda that Minchin would be involved in enacting was his racial agenda, the first step of which involved enacting a universal policy of “integration” in the diocese. In his address to the regular 1955 diocesan convention Banyard stated:

 

It is a well-known fact that great progress has been and is being made in overcoming segregation and discrimination in every phase of life throughout our country. It is a Christian truism to state that such practices toward any race in the church as well as in the secular community are contrary to the Will of God. However, the church and its members everywhere must stand firmly for the integration of all people and practice that principle of living sincerely at all times and in all places. Therefore, I have appointed a committee of which the Rev. Canon Robert D. Smith is the chairman and composed of two other clergymen and two laymen, who are Trustees of the Diocesan Foundation, to prepare a statement and resolution to be presented to this Convention. If this is adopted, I believe that it will not only strengthen our own diocesan fellowship, but will have a far-reaching effect upon the secular life in the communities where our parishes and missions are located.[4]

 

Though in theory Banyard’s statement could sound to the credulous like a racially equitable goal, in practice the policy was aimed specifically at closing Black churches. This much is suggested from the framing of the Rev. Robert Smith’s statement[5] on the matter on behalf of the Diocesan Foundation at the 1955 diocesan convention:

 

STATEMENT ON SEGREGATION IN THE CHURCH

submitted by

THE COMMITTEE ON SEGREGATION OF THE DIOCESAN FOUNDATION

with the Diocesan Department of Christian Social Relations

 

The Committee on Segregation of the Diocesan Foundation is fully cognizant of the fact that it is, and has been, the position of the Diocese, (as it is that of the Church at large), that segregation of the races in the Church as well as in the community, is contrary to the Will of God. At the same time, it notes that there are churches in the Diocese whose members are entirely Negro. In some instances, this may be due in large part to the constituency of the community in which the church is situated. On the other hand, the Committee also notes that there are Negro families in the Diocese that pass not one but several “white” churches to attend a “Negro” church and travel as far as twenty miles to do so.

The Committee believes that the ascertaining of the facts and the determination of the best way to proceed on the basis of such facts, can only be secured by close and careful study, by conference and discussion, parish by parish, in communities where white and Negro dwell and where separate white and Negro churches seem to exist. It recognizes that the problem is too delicate and complicated to be solved solely by fiat or legislative action of Convention. It recognizes that there are emotional ties and bonds of fellowship that, no matter how they might have originally arisen from segregated patterns of living in the community, cannot be summarily dealt with. However, the Committee also recognizes that the goal can be nothing less than an all-inclusive fellowship in the Church in which there are no class, color, racial or national distinctions. It therefore urges upon those churches which are situated in communities where both Negro and white dwell, and especially where there are churches attended solely by white person and churches attended solely by Negroes—creative projects of inter-racial fellowship and cooperation in the interest of removing what racial barriers might exist, and in the interest of gradual elimination of separate churches where there is no good reason for separate churches to exist.

 

Respectfully submitted, 

Robert D. Smith, Chairman

 

It is telling that what seems firstly, and most particularly, upsetting to the White authorities of the diocese, as seen from the first paragraph of Smith’s statement, is the existence of Black churches. It was, apparently, especially galling to these authorities that Black Episcopalians would choose to worship with fellow Black Episcopalians rather than at majority-white churches. Also, tellingly, Smith does not acknowledge that the Black Episcopal churches in question had been founded out of necessity as the result of white racism, instead suggesting that these Churches had simply “originally arisen from segregated patterns of living in the community,” making it appear almost accidental. This is a substantially false summary of a history which was both quite recent and well-known at the time.[6] Nor does Smith acknowledge that racism was still operative in his time, or that it might be a reason for the continued value of Black churches. Rather, he suggested that the only (and inadequate) reasons for the continued existence of Black churches were “emotional ties and bonds of fellowship,” which his argumentation suggests needed to be overcome as being against the “Will of God.”

            In his statement, Smith acknowledges that “the problem is too delicate and complicated to be solved solely by fiat or legislative action of Convention,” and by this assertion he indirectly suggests the method by which Banyard would seek to solve the “problem.” Enacting the statement as a vague official policy through convention resolution, ostensibly oriented against all segregation, Banyard and his leadership would then move quickly to pressure Black churches specifically to close, using the pre-existing authorities and processes at their disposal, rather than overt legislative actions aimed exclusively at Black churches, which might have been directly, and successfully opposed. They justified their subsequent actions in the name of integration, pointing to this theoretically equitable policy ratified at the 1955 convention. That they had no intention of closing entirely white churches is shown by Banyard’s ambitious program of church-planting in exclusively white enclaves, such as (but not limited to) Christ the King, Levittown (which Minchin was already planning, based on the precedent of other dioceses).[7] The first Black Church closed (almost immediately) under the “integration” initiative would be St. Monica’s Episcopal Church in Trenton,[8] though others would soon follow, in some cases targeted seemingly specifically for having resisted Banyard. 

 

Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski, Ph.D.

Reparation Commission Research Historian

Episcopal Diocese of New Jersey

---

[1] Regularly referring to his predecessor in his voluminous correspondence in very negative terms both as a “liberal” and “weak.” MSS held at Diocese of New Jersey archives, Trenton, NJ.

[2] In glowing terms. Alfred L. Banyard, “Address of the Right Reverend Alfred L. Banyard to the 171^st Annual Convention of the Diocese of New Jersey,” Pages 90-100 in The Journal of the 171^st Annual Convention of the Church in the Diocese of New Jersey Held in the Synod Hall, Trinity Cathedral, Trenton, Tuesday and Wednesday, May 3^rd and 4^th, 1955, 98.

[3] Alfred L Banyard, “Address of the Right Reverend Alfred L. Banyard to the 171^st Annual Convention,” 93.

[4] Alfred L Banyard, “Address of the Right Reverend Alfred L. Banyard to the 171^st Annual Convention,” 96.

[5] Robert D. Smith, “Statement on Segregation in the Church,” in The Journal of the 171^st Annual Convention of the Church in the Diocese of New Jersey Held in the Synod Hall, Trinity Cathedral, Trenton, Tuesday and Wednesday, May 3^rd and 4^th, 1955; 199.

[6] Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski, Anglican Slavery in New Jersey: An Initial Accounting (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2025), 70-73. See also Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski, “Bishop Scarborough’s Convention Address of 1890: Staking out a Place for Black Churches in the Diocese of New Jersey,” DNJRJR (January 1, 2024): https://dionj-racialjusticereview.blogspot.com/2024/01/bishop-scarboroughs-convention-address.html. 

[7] A planned all-white development that Banyard was, knowingly, especially keen to plant a church in. Minchin announced this the following year, though the planning had already been underway: Gerald R. Minchin, “Presentation of Mission Program to the Diocesan Convention,” in The Journal of the 172^nd Annual Convention of the Church in the Diocese of New Jersey Held in the Crypt of Trinity Cathedral, Trenton, Tuesday and Wednesday May 8^th and 9^th, 1956; 146: “The new Levittown, New Jersey, to be developed between Highway 130 and the New Jersey Turnpike just east of Beverly, is now in the grading and plotting stage. Homes are to be erected and placed on sale in 1957. A total of 20,000 are planned. Land will be allocated for churches and I have already made such a request. The church structure must have a value of $100,000. Levitt and Sons, the developers, are kindly disposed toward our Church because of their previous experience in the Diocese of Long Island and Pennsylvania. I am sure that we will be allocated a fine strategic piece of property.

[8] Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski, “Christ the King, Levittown: An Example of the ‘White Flight’ Mission,” DNJRJR (October 8, 2024): https://dionj-racialjusticereview.blogspot.com/2024/10/christ-king-levittown-example-of-white.html.