Support the Café

Search our Site

Bishop encourages name change for R. E. Lee Memorial

Bishop encourages name change for R. E. Lee Memorial

Michelle Boorstein of the Washington Post today has This is the church where Robert E. Lee declared himself a sinner. Should it keep his name?

Less than two weeks after a deadly white supremacist rally, leaders of the R.E. Lee church found themselves back at the table Monday night, with some again pressing the issue of a name change. While the church has been divided in the past over the issue, Charlottesville has pushed more members and some in leadership to conclude that, no matter what good Lee did in Lexington a century ago, white supremacists have taken ownership of his reputation and made him their symbol. The bishop [Mark Bourlakas, Episcopal bishop for Southwestern Virginia] has made clear that the Lee name is a distraction from sharing the gospel and is heading to Lexington in the next week or two to push the issue.

Last night a vestry divided over whether to return the church to its original name issued this unanimous statement:

The internal debate over a name change has been brewing for some time. In November 2015 the Episcopal Café quoted WDJB7:

After Lee’s death, the church became “Grace Memorial Church,” and the college, a totally separate entity, was re-named Washington and Lee. In 1883, a larger church building, the current stone Gothic Revival structure at the corner of W. Washington Street and Lee Avenue, began holding services. In 1903, the Vestry re-named the church R.E. Lee Memorial, although no record can be found of reasons for this change or a debate over it. This year is the church’s 175th Anniversary, which was celebrated this month with a reception after an All Saint’s Day Choral Evensong service Nov. 1.

Off and on, members of the church have quietly discussed whether the name was inappropriate or misunderstood in the 21st century as the name for a church seeking to be, like all Christian churches, part of the “Body of Christ.” But loyalty to tradition and attachment to the name as an identity made the issue too emotional for an all-out debate – until this summer. Two weeks after the horrific fatal shooting of nine leaders of an African Methodist Episcopal church in Charleston, S.C., a member of R.E. Lee Memorial Church wrote a letter to the church rector, senior warden and junior warden saying she felt that, in the wake of the tragedy, it was “time for us to have a frank, Christ-centered discussion about the name that our church has borne since 1903.”

From March, a report from ENS on the deliberations and tensions within the parish over its name.



Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kurt Hill

Actually, Cricket, Vermont began the mass emancipation of slaves in 1777. And as an individual, Lee was hardly the first to do so in the Union. There were plenty of people to do so before him. However, as I said above, redemption is also a legitimate framework with which to view a person’s life story.

Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY

Cricket Wood

This is where Lee repented of his sins!! He set a great example for both sides. How to be a gracious loser, supporting the winning side, freed his FEW slaves before anyone in the Union.
This of all places, should keep his memory alive.

Kurt Hill

I agree with John Chilton (above). However, as Christians, we believe in redemption. Robert E. Lee’s actions as churchman and educator following the Civil War should also be considered in evaluating him as an historical personage, (just as George Wallace’s later life after standing in the school house door should be considered.)

Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY

Thom Forde

Where does this emotional iconoclasm end?

David Curtis

Ms Kromm: Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate it.

Let me clarify: my comment was directed to the first paragraph and its denunciation of some of the evils perpetrated by the white supremacist movement and to the fact that this movement is targeting more than just racial or religious groups. The misogyny and homophobia that is evident in this movement seems to be repeatedly ignored by many who issue statements denouncing this evil and others.

Thank you again for your response.

God’s peace, David

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café