Layman writes Bishop Lee Regarding His Recent Actions

AS EYE SEE IT:  

Dear Bishop Lee;

Please read this carefully through until the end.  This is a hard e-mail, tough love, and I know that you have been getting many hard e-mails, sadly even hateful e-mails.  This message is not one of hate but words of one man speaking straight to another.  I have labored long on this message in love believing that you are an adult and old enough to take hard truth.  Please prayerfully consider what I have

said.  Time is short. Much has happened in the life of the church since I shook your hand at Olivet Episcopal Churchs 150-year anniversary earlier in 2003. As part of our familys ministry to historic re-enactors (see www.historicfaith.net www.historicfaith.net/> ), Rev. Harper had asked us to help with preparations and we were there in 1850 clothing (I have attached a photo from the event).  I was touched when you stated that you found a power in the old (1845 vice 1928) liturgy, but was not convinced.  There has been twenty years for me to judge your words by.

In 1984 as bishop, you received me into the Episcopal Church. I believe that this confirmation service at Truro was your first confirmation service as bishop of the Diocese of Virginia.  Later, you were the Bishop that licensed me as a lay preacher when my family and I were at Christ the Redeemer.  You were the bishop who I looked to when I began the local discernment process for ordination.  While talking with you at a dozen after-church receptions does not make a deep friendship, you have been my bishop since you became bishop in Virginia.

As you have been my bishop, I have carefully read much of what you have written and listened carefully to what you have said.

You are an intelligent and articulate man and I believe that you have some love for the Episcopal Church.  From what I have read, heard, and seen, I am deeply concerned for your soul.  It seems clear that you have valued the game of church politics and opinions of fellow bishops over your sworn duty to uphold the faith outlined in scripture and our catholic tradition.

I shook your hand at Olivet but I was a little guarded for I believed that when the clear decision point came to choose between the Apostolic faith and the progressive, world loving, rationalistic apostasy that has come into vogue within ECUSA, you would choose the latter.  I was right.

Years ago, you wrote in the Virginia Episcopalian that you saw your duty as Bishop to avoid clarity (what I call fuzzing up) on issues that would divide, such as the immorality of homosexual acts.

This is not the position of a bishop defending the faith.  Your duty is to make spiritual truth clear not to obscure it.  You have acted like a shepherd that will not divide wolves from sheep.  I could give you many scriptural references including the words of Jesus that show that light should not unite with darkness.  Lovingly, and actively, we are to engage the world so that those who sin are come from darkness to light but that is not to have common cause with them.  Scripture set a different course for those who are believers and even higher standards for those who are leaders among Christians.

Some time after that article on your commitment to be fuzzy in the Virginia Episcopalian, I believe around 1997, you instituted the Call to Holy Life at Virginia Theological Seminary to open the school to active homosexual partnerships in lieu of the previous policy that forbade sexual intercourse outside the bonds of marriage, adulterous relationships, and the practice of homosexuality.  By this action (and actions do speak louder than words) you clearly demonstrated that even within your own diocese, you would be go with the flow even it that

meant jettisoning the moral teachings of Jesus.  You used your skill at turning phrases to fuzz up this issue.  At the time you instituted the Call to Holy Life you stated you were seeking a policy more in keeping with Anglican comprehensiveness than the previous statement and more in keeping with the biblical balance of the Christian tradition.

Fine words, as I would expect from a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Duke Law School, but VTS, since your action and under your leadership, has become a hotbed of homosexual activism.

VTS is the place in your Diocese where church leaders are  training and you are responsible for the type of leaders you train there.  At the time of A Call to Holy Life, in my deep concern and as part of my discernment process, I exchanged a series of e-mails with you in an attempt to find out where you stood on the authority of scripture and the nature of sin, in particular on the sexual sin, which was being promoted by the apostate.  It was not easy to get a clear answer from

you to this fundamental question - did you believe that homosexual practice was sin.  I was at first hopeful when you read my e-mails and took time to reply.

The ongoing exchanges with you, as courteous as they were, eventually convinced me that you did not have a moral compass that would enable me to seek ordination under your leadership.  In my heart, I knew then that when a vote on accepting same-sex immorality would come, you would choose Sodom rather than Zion.  Thus, I left off the ordination process and after subsequent statements and actions by you, left off active life in a local Episcopal Church for a couple of years, moving instead to support our non-denominational ministry.  Recent actions of yours has shown that I made the right decision.  Since you put The Call to

Holy Life into place, VTS students who hold the orthodox faith have told me repeatedly how they feel under siege for their beliefs.

Your recent vote and past actions are clearly destroying our diocese.  Unless you publicly and proximately repent for your part in this apostasy, the diocese you claim to love will fall to pieces, to the despair of the many faithful priest and laity who have stood by you through your past moral fuzziness.  Through your actions, the Episcopal Church, USA has become a scandal within the historic, orthodox, catholic faith.  You stated that in your recent votes:

I had a difficult, even wrenching time deciding. I prayed a lot. I consulted widely, with clergy and lay colleagues, with other professionals, more formally with the deans of the regions, and the Standing Committee. I studied scripture anew.  I was particularly struck by the 15th Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles where the

apostles and elders of the church in Jerusalem adapted the requirements of Jewish law to the reality of the situation of gentile converts in Antioch.  My reading of scripture convinces me that the Gospel is ever-increasing its power to erase the barriers that we human beings erect among ourselves.

Did you prayerfully read what the Apostles decided in Acts 15:20?  One of the minimum requirements that the Apostles placed on the Gentiles was to avoid sexual sins - no compromise, no fuzziness.  The requirement for the gentiles was a beginning not the end.  The Apostles decision also had the assumption that Gods ministers would teach the Gentiles to live a life of increasing righteousness through faith, not a life of wantonness masquerading as righteousness.  Again, in your reading of scripture as in past actions as bishop, you cling to the politics and ignore the requirements of faith.  You also stated, I was also struck anew by the centrality of a theology based more on grace than on law.  In Philippians 3:8-14, Paul wrote to the Philippians yearning for a righteousness that comes not from the law but for a righteousness that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith.  Paul continues, I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Phillippians 4:9 states, The things which ye both learned and received and heard and saw in me, these things do: and the God of peace shall be with you.  Do you, a bishop, understand the grace that Paul preached?

Do you understand how repentance, the complete turning away from Sin, and Grace are related in Pauls teaching?  Romans 6:1-7 shows this clearly:

What shall we say then?  Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?  God forbid.  We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein?  Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  We were buried therefore with him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection; knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin; for he that hath died is justified from sin.

God Forbid indeed!, and you should have done all in your power to forbid the consecration of Vickie Gene Robinson and the acceptance of same-sex blessings.  What did Paul tell Titus that a Bishop should do? Holding to the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be able to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers (Titus 1:9).  As a bishop you took the vows,

and have been supported comfortably by the Church as bishop, but you are NOT holding to the faithful word and 2000 years of church doctrine. You are undermining, not defending the faith.  You seemed to stated with pride:

Since I was consecrated in 1984, I have consented to the consecration of nearly 200 bishops.  I have not voted against a single one, not those who were divorced and remarried, not the poor administrators and preachers, not even those bishops who now threaten to leave the church.

I believe strongly that the people of a local diocese, when the election is properly and fairly held, are the best people to determine who will best lead their diocese.  Just as the apostles respected the local circumstances of the people of Antioch, so the General Convention respected the circumstances of the people of New Hampshire.

The apostles clearly set limits and conditions (faith and repentance) on Gods grace and even stricter conditions for Church leadership.  Why cant you?  The Church gave you the vote of consent to defend the faith as a faithful steward.  The pride you have in never having shown leadership, not once since 1984, in the consecration of 200 bishops is shameful.

If, in 1984, you found that you did not have the judgment or moral fortitude to vote down unworthy candidates for bishops, then you should have stepped down then.  If you cannot see the problem with your actions now, you should step down now.  A sea captain whom never steers a ship or a medical board than never denies a medical license to a medical student is acting criminally, even murderously.  Your action or in this case inaction is killing the Episcopal Church and more importantly hindering the work of the Gospel to turn people from death to life.  Do you so disrespect the Church and your calling that you believe that anyone who walks in the door will do as a bishop?  Even the non-spiritual, political wisdom of the business world understands the concept of checks and balances, and of the criticality of selecting competent leaders.

Do you understand what apostasy is?  Do you realize that you are joining with those who are actively seeking to turn the Church away from the authority of scripture and the faith delivered by the Apostles? Second Peter Chapter Two clearly talks about people wedded to apostasy. Verses 18-21 (Message version) is especially clear: They are loudmouths, full of hot air, but still theyre dangerous. Men and women who have recently escaped from a deviant life are most susceptible to their brand of seduction. They promise these newcomers freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption, for if theyre addicted to corruption--and they are--theyre enslaved.  If theyve escaped from the slum of sin by experiencing our Master and Savior, Jesus Christ, and then slid back into that same old life again.