Posted on 12/12/2006 5:06:48 PM PST by sionnsar
Originally posted at TitusOneNine.
(With permission–KSH).
Dear Bishop Lee,
Your personal letters of December 1 to every member of the Vestry of Church of the Apostles shocked and greatly disappointed us all. You will recall that the last time you were in direct communication with us was at the dinner we hosted for you at the home of our Junior Warden, Mark Robbins, on March 28. That evening was a warm time of fellowship and conversation. We reminisced about our cordial relations over many years, and how they had been important to all of us. We discussed our serious areas of difference that night, of course, but we also made a strong effort to do so with decorum and civility, in a manner and tone that we felt was appropriate to our genuine respect for you and your office, and to our long-term relationship with you. We sincerely hoped after that meeting that this mutual respect and civility could be maintained between us, even as we moved into what we all knew would be a difficult phase of our relations, which might involve Church of the Apostles separating from the diocese.
That is why we were so taken aback when the next direct communication from you to our vestry was the cold, sharp, and threatening letter you sent us all last Friday. What an unpleasant reversal! Beyond our great concern about what it may be revealing to us about you as an individual and your style of dealing with us, we are honestly confused about your intent.
In the early paragraphs, you discussed the Special Committee, which you had appointed and which had worked diligently in good faith under your direction for a year before it came up with a Protocol for Departing Congregation, on which the Committee unanimously agreed. You had given us every indication that if this Committee were somehow able to reach consensus—a seemingly miraculous accomplishment—you would honor and support their recommendations, and that they would become the basis for our moving forward to resolving our differences in an honorable and amicable manner.
But now you tell us that you cannot actually approve the protocol they defined; that in your view, the power to do so does not even rest within our Diocese, but rather is the purview of the National Church. Do you really believe that? Have you suddenly ceded your authority over the diocese so completely? And if that is the case, why are you only revealing that fact now? If this was a matter that involved the national church, why did you not include representation from the national church on the Special Committee from the outset? To what end were their efforts spent?
After your seeming willingness to abandon the hard work of the Special Committee, you then turned to reciting to us a litany of quotations from the Church Canons, in an extremely cold and condescending manner. “The place of Christian leaders—chiefly within the Anglican tradition, of bishops—as teachers of scripture can hardly be overemphasized,” the Windsor Report explained. “The ‘authority’ of bishops cannot reside solely or primarily in legal structures, but, as in Acts 6.4, in their ministry of “’‘prayer and the word of God.’ ’”. If this is ignored, the model of ‘the authority of scripture’ which scripture itself offers is failing to function as it should.” (Windsor Report, para. 58). Frankly, we all found this exercise deeply insulting and profoundly disappointing. Certainly you cannot have thought that we actually needed this information, that our Vestry is unaware of the relevant Canons, and that our church does not have them easily available. Obviously your intent lay elsewhere. But what was it?
We can only speculate, Bishop Lee, but the motive that seemed most probable to us was individual intimidation of vestry members, an attempt to make them fear you and what you as our bishop would attempt to do not only to our church, but also to each one of us. Why else would you cite actions in Pennsylvania and highlight that there, “Members of the vestry were held individually liable for the expenses the Diocese and the Bishop incurred in the litigation.” We note that you did not mention instances where the reverse has been true, and Dioceses in the United States have lost in court on property issues.
If indeed intimidation was your goal, we must respectfully inform you that you have utterly failed. Nothing has galvanized our vestry so strongly in all its deliberations over our affiliation with the Episcopal Church as your recent letter. Rather than making us think that we may be making a mistake, despite our having carefully studied, prayed and deliberated about this matter for years, you have succeeded in confirming our conviction that the Episcopal Church is not where we belong. Does your threatening letter reflect the way that a chief Pastor should speak to men and women who are voluntarily serving the church on a vestry, in order to help further the work of Christ in the world? The fruit of love, which you referenced by a quote from 1 Corinthians 13 in your video address to our church, and exhorted us to take to heart, is seems completely absent in your letter.
Our conclusion was confirmed even further when we noted sadly that although you quoted the Canons many times in your letter, you never once referenced scripture. And then this past Sunday, when members of our Vestry attended a Parish meeting at the Falls Church, so that we could hear what members of the Standing Committee wanted to say to that congregation, we got another shock. We learned that you have apparently written John Yates that the belief that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and that no one comes to the Father except through him, is an “ideological statement that exceeds the witness of scripture.” We are increasingly unclear about where you really stand theologically. Do you also fully embrace the revisionism that Presiding Bishop Schori is now expounding?
We recognize that our relations with you are now in a different phase from where they were during our amicable dinner. Your letter seems to indicate that your many years of gracious leadership, where we have been able to discuss our serious differences in matters of scripture, doctrine, and standards for moral behavior, in a climate of civility and mutual respect, are now behind us. You appear to beAre you now signaling to us that you have fundamentally changed how you will deal with those who disagree with you?. In the coming months, can we expect to find you no longer athe man of honor and civility we have come to know who seeks amicable solutions in the best traditions of the Diocese of Virginia? Or Are are you instead becoming a man of legalisms, threats, and intimidation? And are you ceding your authority over the Diocese of Virginia to national church officials?
Bishop, we know that we will never convince you of our positions on the authority of scripture, the meaning of marriage, and a host of other fundamental issues on which we disagree. TEC and the Diocese are deeply divided, in what the Rev. Sam Faeth described in the Reconciliation Commission as a “Level 5” conflict. You know that we stand in our beliefs with the majority of Anglicans throughout the world, and not with the new positions taken by the Episcopal Church in the United States. Where we fervently hope and pray that we still can find agreement is in how this Level 5 conflict can be amicably resolved through negotiations conducted in an honorable and civil manner. The Special Commission’s Protocol, developed under your leadership, was the first step in that process. We ask you not to draw back from it now, but to embrace it, to defend it, and to implement it in our Diocese. We ask you not to cede your authority in our negotiations in Virginia to the national church. We have no question that you have that power. We ask you to return to the civility that has so long been the hallmark of your leadership, and the fundamental characteristic of our relationship with each other.
“Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever. Amen.” Eph 3:20-21
“…Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.” Eph. 4:15
Respectfully in Christ Jesus,
David Harper, Rector David Allison, Snr. Warden Mark Robbins, Jnr. Warden
Members of Vestry: (Names Listed)
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. Big BUMP! That's my church!
December 8, 2006
Dear Ones,
You may have received, or may soon receive, a letter from Bishop Lee urging you to vote against the resolution for Church of the Apostles to disaffiliate from the Episcopal Church. We welcome Bishop Lee expressing his opinion to you in this matter. It is, and should be, of great importance to him.
In his Pastoral Address at the 2004 Annual Diocesan Council--and in the context of the actions of General Convention the previous summer--Bishop Lee summed up his position in this way: "If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy." In a wry comment on the Bishop's remark, Fr. John Neuhaus wrote: "[W]e are never in a position of having to make that choice, since heresy is by definition schismatic. Choosing heresy in order to avoid schism is a guaranteed formula for ending up with both." The bishop may have been sincere; but we believe that he was then, and is now, sincerely wrong. This is not a conviction we hold alone. It is shared by the vast majority of our Anglican family around the world, for whom positions such as Bishop Lee's, however plausible their may sound, have led them to declare impaired or broken communion with this part of the worldwide church.
The people of Church of the Apostles have carefully studied, prayed, and deliberated about these matters for years. We have just completed a dedicated session of prayer, repentance, and the study of God's Word, for all the purpose of discerning His will for the future of our relationship with The Episcopal Church. Most of us participated in the discernment small groups that were so vital in forging clarity and unity in our congregation. And, in that same clarity and unity, our Vestry unanimously voted to sever our denominational ties to TEC in order to "preserve our witness as faithful followers of Jesus Christ." (1)
We hear what Bishop Lee is saying in his recent letters; and precisely because we hear it clearly, we and your Vestry stand resolutely by our unanimous vote. We urge you to stand with us and vote YES on both resolutions (2) on the ballot before our congregation: 1) to separate from The Episcopal Church, and 2) keep our property with our congregation.
Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen. (Ephesians 3:20-21)
In Christ Jesus,
David Harper, Rector
David K. Allison, Senior Warden
Mark Robbins, Junior Warden
(1) From the November 28, 2006, Vestry Resolution
(2) Congregational Vote: Dec. 9-17, 2006
. . .
Some responses from Forty Days of Discernment small groups, as mentioned in the 09 Dec. 2006 sermon (Prepare the Way of the Lord! by David Harper):
"Our only choice is to obey God, to follow him at any price, at any consequence.
We should be obedient and faithful to the word of God, even if there are severe consequences."
We need to get back to our evangelical calling and stop the introspection. One was asking, 'Where are the converts? We have given up Alpha and other things. Why?'"
(Note: Alpha will be coming back after the New Year.)
Big BUMP. That's my Church, too!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.