My mind was flabbergasted as I related Warren Anderson’s response in the May issue of  Episcopal Life to Leila Richards’ article “Working for peace: Palestinians, Israelis join in protesting Israel’s dividing wall”  in April’s issue. It appears that Mr. Anderson read into it a lot that was not in Richards’ letter. Unfortunately, it all too often appears that anything seeming to be critical of Israel or suggesting that Israel could handle matters differently is taken by some as an argument that Israel has no right to exist. That is irrational and mind-boggling. Many people strongly support Israel’s right to exist as a free and independent state and yet criticize some of her political decisions and actions, just as they criticize some of the decisions and actions of their own government. To accuse them of being anti-Israel or anti-Jewish just increases the problem and masks the real issues.

Oh, how I do identify with Mary Freel [“Getting things rite,” May]. I so long for the days when we knelt to pray, sat to learn and stood to praise. I also feel a foreigner in my church.

The "peace" is a perfunctory of people I've never seen all touching hands and murmuring, "Peace." I came for peace with my Lord and to worship. I didn't come to greet my neighbor. I can socialize with them at the coffee hour. I came to worship, not pass time with the congregation. My rituals that gave me comfort and joy when I converted have long gone. Thank you, Mary Freel. You expressed my feelings so well. I'd travel a long way to have the old rite once in a while.

Thank you so much for the insight and devotion in Jennifer Phillip’s column, “Withholding judgment” [May].  The words in the article were ones that I have wanted to hear for as long as I've had the ability to understand.

I was raised in a Southern Baptist missionary family.  My mother was an exceptional person who knew her relationship with God and followed his will.  She was aware of her many purposes here and respectfully rejected many trivial opinions of others to alter her course.  I was and will always be so proud of her decisions.  Examples of her witness were the several times that she went to a local bar owned by her friend’s sister.  The lady wasn't a Christian; however, she had an enormous love and respect for my mother because Mom didn't judge or condemn, but loved this lady without reservation just as God directed her to do.

One of the biggest reasons that I've chosen the Episcopal faith is the dedication of this church to respect the dignity of all persons.  I don't believe that God intends or directs his children to judge or condemn his other creations.  Who are we to say that he has made mistakes?  I know that God's plans are too great for me to question.  I pray with the Rev. Phillips that God will help us to remove the blinders we wear in his name and that we will all better understand his love and how to use it.

In his essay “Obsessed with Money” [April], the Rev. Shane Scott-Hamblen wishes for a day when sermons on money are banned. This is an interesting proposition, though as a church treasurer, it is an idea that, frankly, scares me more than a little bit.

Yes, talking about money in church is problematical, but not talking about it does not necessarily help our spiritual growth. A casual review of Jesus’ parables reveals that money was a topic that he brought up frequently. And the reason for this was that undue concentration on material things distances us from God. It was true 2,000 years ago; it is just as true today.

Ultimately, stewardship is more than keeping the building repaired, the utilities connected and the priests paid. When stewardship is discussed, it should involve more than money. It should remind us that how we relate to God has a lot to do with how we lead our day-to-day lives. Yes, the money is useful, but what makes it useful is that it provides the resources to nurture and expand ministries both within our parish as well as in the community at large. A sermon on stewardship should move us not to give just money, but also our time and talent, along with our treasure, to advance the Kingdom of God. And that is what our lives here are supposed to be about.

In response to the rector’s wife concerned about pay  [letter, “Story is familiar,” April]: While I do know that making $4,000 dollars in the 1960s was not much, and one really had to stretch their dollars, my dad supported a family of seven on $8,000 a year.

He put three children through college without a loan.  My grandmothers lived with us.  Yes, that income is twice that of the writer’s, but it had to cover housing, utilities, car, pension, health insurance, etc.  These expenses were paid for with his income after taxes.  The family of the writer was probably given a rectory, had the utilities paid and was given mileage expenses, insurance and pension all tax free.  Also, during that time merchants often gave discounts to clergy, and the family may have received a holiday monetary gift from the parish.   We gave one to our priest during that time.

This is not to downplay the importance that a priest needs to make a living wage in line with his/her education and responsibilities.  I just wanted to give another side of the story.

I am exasperated and want to speak out about the church's complicity on animal exploitation/suffering/killing. When stories like [“Call of the wild: Where eating out takes on a whole different  meaning,” January] appear in the press, there is a sense of humor interwoven in the words, which I find disappointing, if not mildly offensive.  It shows an ingrained cultural callousness.

I am the U.S. representative for the Anglican Society for the Welfare of Animals. That organization (based in the UK) and a General Convention resolution adopted last summer are little-known in this country. Sometimes I feel like we are up against insurmountable odds, trying to find a way to create a sensitivity within the church about the plight of animals.

Articles like the one about the "wildlife dinners" -- I refer to them as "church-sponsored slaughter-fests for fun and profit" – encourage other churches around the country to have these dinners … as a fund-raising event for some good cause. I have to wonder if that is becoming a horrifying new trend among churches.  I have to wonder why it is so necessary to kill representatives of as many species as possible as an attraction to raise a few dollars per dinner ticket.  Wouldn't it be possible to find enough church members to chip in $5 without feeling that they should get their money's worth feasting on tidbits of deer, buffaloes, elks, fishes and anything else that lives and moves and has its being other than the family pet?

I would like churches to take a look at some of their traditions of fellowship, outreach and fund raising and think about the message they're sending.  And if it isn't a peaceful message, I would ask them to think about alternatives.

[Re. “The Passion of the Christ,” April] I thoroughly enjoyed this article.  I saw this movie twice.  Three things stand out for me -- the first was the applause in the theater when we see Jesus on the third morning standing triumphant over death.  The second was that almost every person waited until the end of the credits and, when we left, the absolute and total quiet.  Third was that all of us were totally drained and exhausted and overwhelmed.

One of the viewers [quoted] in this article, Michele Morgan, makes the comment that her Jesus is the Prince of Peace and would never stomp on a snake.  I beg to differ with Michele. I refer her to Psalms 91:13. "Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder."  I was confused about this scene until I went to church that next Sunday and Psalm 91 was read.  However, I missed the nuance that one of your writers, Leonard Freeman, pointed out about Simon of Cyrene and his speech.  I found the scenes between the Virgin Mary and Jesus the most touching -- perhaps because I am a mother and have also had a child return to the Father.  I believe this movie will have a positive effect on many people and will bring many more to Christ.  I, for one, will never view Good Friday the same again.

Thanks again for a great and enlightening article.

The April issue of Episcopal Life had a cover article on ethics in business. On page two, there was an article on Suffragan Bishop George Packard's visit to our troops in Iraq. The ethics of our government's presence and actions in Iraq was not discussed.

The cover article was concerned with insider trading and accounting scandals, but made no mention of the accounting scandal of the unfunded Social Security liability, which is so large as to make Enron's lies a rounding error in comparison.

Why is it that Episcopal Life and the Episcopal Church are so free with criticism of the “Market” and so silent with criticism of government? Is it because the Episcopal Church believes that there are two ethical standards, one for individuals and the market and an entirely different one for the government?

St. Paul in his writings advised church members to obey the rulers, but his actions spoke louder than his words. He had the courage to defy the government, to suffer the consequences and to die as a result. I wish I could say the same for the modern Episcopal Church.

How very appropriate to have the Rev. Shane Scott-Hamblen’s article, “Obsessed with money: Let church focus instead on sacrifices of the heart” [April], in the same issue that mentions the Episcopal Church and its place in business, and the treacherous path to be walked between God and mammon. Too many of us in our own church lives have experienced priests and bishops who see their work as ecclesiastical CEOs rather than pastors, and have seen how their people have suffered spiritually because of it.

Let us put our trust in God and not in financial princes. He can always be trusted to provide, which is more than can be said of the Dow Jones or the gross national product. Those of us in ministry, whether ordained or lay, must never forget that we are servant-ministers, serving Christ’s beloved laity, not our own financial legacies. "Seek first the Kingdom of God, and then all these things shall be given to you."

Rite I is in some ways an improvement on 1928, but as Mary Freel points out is now a concession (at the early service) to people of mature years like us.  The revisers also created various Rite 2 liturgies, which have little to recommend them.  Holy Communion, once the high point of the Episcopal ethos, now suffers from constant use.  Morning Prayer is extinct, to my great regret.

What to do?  After more than 80 years as an Episcopalian, I am now a member of a small Methodist parish.  We have Communion on the first Sunday of the month, their version of Morning Prayer the other Sundays.  We have good music, sing good hymns, listen to a rousing sermon, follow a logical order of service.  Much of the service is based on the Anglican liturgy anyway.  Mary Freel and I lost the Episcopal battle years ago.