Dear Lancaster County Commissioners,

As clergy serving religiously, racially, and ethnically diverse congregations in Lancaster County,
we are deeply concerned that some local officials have unilaterally announced a May 15 partial
“reopening.”

Our close daily contact with the county’s people provides us with a distinctive perspective into
their resources, concerns, and vulnerabilities. We also bring the perspective of faith, which is
informed by thousands of years of people’s struggling through difficult times and seeking
wholeness (shalom) in the midst of them. This is a rich heritage from which to draw in times like
these.

So we’d like to add our voice. People are now being asked to decide which laws and guidelines
to follow: those of the state or those of certain local leaders. Quite a confusing situation!

The letter released on Sunday came from only Republican elected officials. Our congregations
include people of both major parties (and others, as well). Had the letter reflected a bipartisan or
multipartisan consensus, we would have found its guidance more compelling.

While Lancaster County is clearly a majority Republican locale, its most populous areas,
including the city and township of Lancaster and Manheim Township, have significant
representation from Democrats. That zero of these leaders are signatories to these letters must
leave residents wondering what rules apply where they live. If the county’s Republican
leadership defy the duly-elected Democratic governor’s state of emergency, can each
municipality’s leaders make their own rules, as well? This would seem to lead to a condition of
chaos, since viruses do not respect human-made borders.

In our congregations, conservatives often play an important role of keeping the community from
rushing to toss out long-established ways of doing things without a solid rationale. This letter
proclaiming a shift from red to yellow in a matter of five days, in defiance of state orders,
doesn’t seem to match the best strengths of a conservative approach to decision making.

We certainly appreciate the important tool of civil disobedience in making change. For people of
faith fighting injustice, it has been an essential response to systemic violence.

But there is a vast difference between civil disobedience and just plain disobedience. Civil
disobedience is a last-resort tactic, to be engaged in after thorough deliberation when all other
avenues of moral and legal persuasion have failed. (We are not convinced that these conditions
have been met.) It is to be engaged in with a willingness to bear the consequences. (We note that
the signers of this letter got the district attorney to promise not to prosecute people for defying
the state’s emergency order. We also note efforts to absolve business owners from accountability
to protect their employees’ safety by shielding them from lawsuits arising from negligent
behavior.)

The letter raises concerns about a lack of transparency in the state’s data. We share this concern
and have also raised it with Governor Wolf. It is essential, for instance, that the state and all its

1
counties and municipalities provide accurate information about the race and the ethnic heritage
of patients impacted by the disease and act boldly to correct disparities. The letter doesn’t
mention that lack. We expect the writers should share this concern, given their stated interest in
transparency.

Yet the letter itself does not model transparency. It sets forth no metrics for deciding when a
return to stay-at-home rules might be warranted. What level of infection or rate of new fatalities
or hospitalizations or shortages of ventilators or hospital beds would trigger a change of
direction?

We also think it is essential that the state and the county reveal the cases and deaths reported at
each nursing homes and retirement community, including among staff.

We are glad that the Republican signers of this letter commit to address the crisis in local nursing
homes by providing resources such as PPE and cleaning services. The workers and residents of
these communities are highly traumatized, and they and their families have been put at great risk.
We know this because we are the ones called upon to bind up such wounds. Therefore, we are
certainly pleased that there is now a concerted effort to prevent further harm.

But we also hear in this letter a certain disregard both for staff and residents of these
communities. They are spoken of as if they are somehow not a part of the wider Lancaster
County community. In fact, many are vital members of our congregations as well as their towns
and communities; all of them matter. They are precious in God’s sight. When our scriptures say,
“Honor your father and your mother,” they are not speaking only of our own literal parents but of
all our elders, no matter their address.

Like the letter’s signers, we share a concern for the economic health of our community. Some of
us serve in neighborhoods in which people, because of long-term realities of racism and other
forms of discrimination, have very few material resources to tide them through times like these.
The most marginalized always bear the brunt of hardship.

These folks are now caught between a rock and a hard place. If the county reopens, some might
lose unemployment benefits or be compelled to work outside the home, putting family members
with serious medical conditions at risk. Some argue that we cannot afford to do otherwise: we
suggest that there is serious moral poverty in such thinking. We are a rich nation and a rich
county. We should not place the burden of risk upon our most vulnerable. This is the very sin
that Isaiah, Micah, Amos, Jeremiah, and Jesus so often condemned.

We expect our governmental leaders to build consensus rather than provoke conflict. Online
responses to this letter from our Lancaster County neighbors indicate profound division. Too
often our neighbors prioritize individual freedom over community wellbeing. Our faith traditions
embrace the rights of individuals within the context of community. The Torah testifies that God
executes justice for widows and orphans, loving strangers by providing them with food and
clothing (Deuteronomy 10:18). Jesus warned that God judges the complacency of the rich (Luke
16:19-31).

2
Spiritual leaders must discern when and under what conditions it is safe for our communities to
gather in person. All of us long for greater physical connection, yet we face conflicting guidance
from local politicians, state authorities, and our larger religious communities.

We share what we hear from the people in our congregations:

 A health-care worker is concerned about the risks to her patients, her co-workers, and her
children, both under 5, should she be compelled to work in an even riskier environment.
 First responders and grocery workers we know are concerned that this letter may send the
wrong signal, encouraging people to abandon sensible measures, like wearing masks, that
protect workers.
 The parents of a new baby who has a disability are grateful that stay-at-home orders
prevented the hospital where the child was born from being overwhelmed.
 Some families rejoice as a loved one with Covid-19 received quality care and survived,
even with serious underlying conditions. These positive outcomes would not have
occurred had our hospital systems been overtaxed. We also know the deplorable truth that
Black, Latinx, and Native American people, as well as poorer white people and the
disabled, often do not receive an equal level of priority care and are at greater risk of
death.
 Many of our members have had trouble getting tested, even when their symptoms
indicated likely coronavirus infection or when they had been exposed to those who have
tested positive. Thus, we’re convinced that not enough testing is available for us to know
the extent of the pandemic in our community. This feels like a ticking bomb. We wish
that the politicians who signed this letter would instead have focused on doing all in their
power to increase the availability of testing.
 The grief and pain of losing a loved one to this illness is devastating and often lonely.

Despite the challenges we face, our faith communities embody alternatives to the either-or
proposals we often see. We are sharing resources, such as food and money for housing, with one
another in new and exciting ways. We are using technology to build community for those who
are lonely and isolated. We are making technological access more widely available, including to
students in cities and rural areas who lack it. Our people are growing in empathy for those who
are imprisoned and applaud the release of persons who are unfairly or unnecessarily incarcerated.
We are supporting small-business owners and non-profits in our communities by shifting our
purchasing and giving toward them.

Our hope would be for more creative, less reactive decision making from those elected to serve
all the people of Lancaster County.

With prayer,

Pastor Matthew Lenahan, Zion Lutheran Church, Akron, PA

Rev Edward Bailey, Bethel AME Church, Lancaster, PA
Rabbi Jack Paskoff, Congregation Shaarai Shomayim, Lancaster, PA
Rev Jennifer Mattson, St. Thomas Episcopal Church, Lancaster, PA
Ms Beth Reeves, Lancaster Friends Meeting, Lancaster, PA
Rev Dr Patricia McAllister, Mt Zion AME Church, Lancaster, PA

3
Rev Greg Impink, Ironville United Methodist Church, Lancaster, PA
Rev Andrea Brown, Grandview United Methodist Church, Lancaster, PA
Fr John Morris, Episcopal Priest, retired
Rev Kathryn Kuhn, Church of the Apostles UCC
Rev Rachel Nolt, Akron Mennonite Church, Akron, PA
Rev Matthew Carlson, Akron Mennonite Church, Akron, PA
Pastor Gerald Simmons, Faith Tabernacle Church of God in Christ, Lancaster, PA
Rev Roland Forbes, Ebenezer Baptist Church, Lancaster, PA
Rev Tamie Scalise