For me, one of the greatest things that anybody ever said was what Pope John Paul II told a group of a million young people in Canada a few years ago: “We are not the sum of our weaknesses and failures; we are the sum of the Father’s great love for us and of our very real capacity to become the image of his son.”

For me, that is Christianity at its very best and truest. Christians do not back into the future. Their eyes are not on the past. The focus is always joyfully, hopefully, on Christ and the future with him.

Judge James Bradberry (“Liberation, not excommunication,” Commentary, May) states a position that sees opportunity in a potential separation of the Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion.  I strongly disagree with his position, although I respect his deep commitment and effective leadership in the church.

Communion is not about all simply getting along, agreeing or being of one mind.  Community is acknowledging in our life and work that it is God’s desire that we be in communion.  Francis of Assisi in his Testament of 1226 states that it was the Lord who gave him brothers and sisters.  It is the same for us as Anglicans; it is the Lord who gives us communion.

The Episcopal Church is not part of the Anglican Communion because of desire or convenience or even for mutual benefit, but because it is God’s will we live and work in communion.  Our catholicity is being linked in relationships through Christ not of our choosing, but for God’s greater work and glory.

Too often we as Americans assume too much about our gifts, leadership and resources. Judge Bradberry is correct in noting the value of our resources but does not see that we are the beneficiaries of the gifts from others as well.  I do feel it is in part arrogance on our part that reflects not needing our sisters and brothers in other parts of the communion.

It is not at all true that other places and persons in the Anglican Communion are not willing, nor do they deal with, controversy.  It is true that human sexuality is not the issue for many, but there are other matters of deep concern.

I would like to commend James Bradberry for his commonsense approach to our situation in the Anglican Communion. We are in fact in the forefront of a series of liberation movements into freedom for previously suppressed groups.  We can simply continue to move forward while the rest of the Communion catches up or fails to do so. That is their choice.

Our choice is to understand the drive toward freedom implicit and explicit in the gospel.  In so doing, we can set aside the anger and ideology being thrust upon us in the name of conformity and unity.

Why should we return to homophobia, gender inequality or other inappropriate forms of group oppression in the name of unity? That is to place power above people and sentimentality above freedom.  We can best serve our Anglican heritage worldwide by risking to stand with the oppressed, the poverty-stricken, the victims of injustice, and by attempting to speak truth to power while using our power and resources to continue to move on these issues in direct and clear ways.

Regarding the House of Bishops’ decision to covenant with each other not to give consent to the election and/or ordination of any new bishops until after the General Convention in 2006: How interesting.

It seems strange to me that they would make this unprecedented decision on their own, without consulting with their diocesan councils and standing committees and, after doing so, making a joint decision with respect to joining the moratorium or not.

Having been a parish rector for nearly 40 years, I can’t imagine making a unilateral decision of this magnitude without first consulting with the vestry. I feel the bishops have overstepped their bounds of authority, broken trust with the laity and clergy who should have had a voice and vote in this matter.

Delay election of bishops until 2006?  Of what were the Episcopal bishops of the United States thinking?  We should not be subservient to the indefensible biases and prejudices so blatantly exhibited by the intolerant, unreasonable and unthinking bishops from other countries and continents.

As a noted, now departed, Broadway critic is reported to have lamented, "When tripe is served, then call it tripe!"  How unfortunate that the "tripe" served in the Windsor Report has resulted in our Episcopal bishops' having in turn endorsed a response that is equal parts of "tripe!"

Columnist Douglas LeBlanc’s story of Spot (“From the edge,” April) touched my heart, prompting me to share with you what happened when our beloved Lady, an amazing Akita who had been with us for all of her 14-plus years, had to be put down.  This was a time of extreme grief for all of us, one aspect of which was the not knowing whether we would see her again in heaven. 

On that morning as I engaged in my habitual practice of turning to the Lord in the Scriptures assigned in the Daily Office Lectionary, beginning with the psalm(s) appointed for the evening before, the first one I read was Psalm 36.  You can imagine the power of the impact of verse 6 when I got to it: “…you save both man and beast, O Lord.”  What an incredible blessing it was to have that psalm to read on that day! 

Again and again God has amazed me with his ability to speak to specific situations in my life through the agency of the lectionary.  Indeed, we serve the living God who speaks to us when we seek him with all our hearts.  What I heard God say to me on that sad day was that our fullness of joy in heaven would include being reunited with Lady.  I firmly believe that your joy there will include eternal relationship with Spot.  Shalom, my friend.

Under the cover of defending the sanctity of marriage, Susan Russell (“Put me in, coach,” April) attempts to make a case for the value of committed relationships per se between persons without reference to gender.  The norm is "commitment."  What I find missing are some basic principles of pastoral and moral theology.

Commitment in and of itself is too broad a term and ignores the fact that it is possible to be committed to a person inappropriately or disproportionately, even to the wrong person.  The character and expression of commitment to one's parishioner or client is different from that to one's family, to one's child from that to one's parent, to a friend from that to a spouse.

Committed relationships can have more than one form, but defending the sanctity of marriage includes distinguishing those aspects that set it apart from a deeply felt friendship.  

How eminently satisfying to read Susan Russell's articulate, well-presented article, "Put Me In, Coach," essentially rebutting the global temper tantrum to which we weary inclusive Episcopalians have been subjected.  I wish I could have been so articulate when Proposition 416 banning gay marriage was passed a few years ago in Nebraska.  As senior warden of our small, suburban Omaha church at the time of Bishop Robinson's appointment and thereafter, I have experienced a great deal of anguish and dismay that this issue could be so threatening for so many of our brothers and sisters.

As a result of the article, I pulled up the website of All Saints, Pasadena (www.allsaints-pas.org/all_saints_church.htm) and enjoyed reading her report on her invitational trip to the Anglican Communion Office, London, albeit distressing for exposing the 20-year history of broken promises.   We do still have a long way to go to live up to Matthew's exhortation at our final judgment.

Thank you to Susan for asking the question of where to sign up.  I want to be on the defense team, too.

In response to “Army ad problematic,” Letters, April:  The question is, "Does the Army need chaplains for their soldiers and their families?"

What does it matter what consensus we reach on recruiting during peace or war? How does that diminish the need for soldiers and their families to have the gospel proclaimed, a chaplain to marry them, counsel with them, baptize their children, provide Communion or share a foxhole?

In the version of the Bible that I read, Jesus provided healing to the dying child of a soldier and others that society marginalized and, in turn, they got the message and carried it forward to others.

[Tony] Black’s letter (April) concerning the advertisements for U.S. Army chaplains shows a widespread misunderstanding of what military chaplains do.  While he directs our attention to the story about Chaplain David Sirvet in the February issue, he still, like many, misses the point. 

Military chaplains are not serving God and country.  There is no duality.  Military chaplains are serving God by serving the men and women serving our country, both in the military and as civilians.  Those men and women, most of them far from home and many in daily danger, are in greater need of pastoral care than most of us here at home ever will be.  Whether or not a consensus is needed for recruiting in a time of war, without the active recruitment by our military services there would be fewer chaplains to provide that pastoral care, leaving many without.

The billboard messages reprinted in the March edition (“He wants to tell you something,” Great idea) are not unlike the messages one can find on the front lawns of a lot of churches.  Nice, for the most part, if not exciting or theologically challenging.  But I greatly demur over the message "Big Bang theory?  You've got to be kidding."  The author of that one has gone from gospel to creationism. 

There is nothing in the Big Bang theory that is contrary to the doctrine of creation rightly understood.  In fact, one of the earliest mathematical models of the big bang was formulated by physicist and Catholic priest Abbe Georges Lemaitre in 1927.

Opposition to big bang comes primarily from young-earth creationists who treat the first chapter of Genesis as if it were a historical and scientific account of the beginning of creation. The millions of Christians who affirm creation as consonant with sound scientific theory (which big bang is) are likely to think: "I'm not hearing the voice of God this time."

For better theology on this matter, see the newly issued "Catechism of Creation: An Episcopal Understanding" on the church's website.  Go to http://www.episcopalchurch.org/science/ and click on Catechism in left column. 

For a change, I leafed through the diocesan newspaper and looked for the Letters column before I threw it away. This was a secondhand copy;  I no longer subscribe to our bishop’s efforts to share his New Age theology. I was so very impressed by the April letters in Episcopal Life.

First I came across a lady's suggestion to “Hear Evensong” complete with helpful website info from BBC Radio 3.  I cut that letter out as downright precious. Next came a fascinating Hawaiian plea to “Cover indigenous churches.” I can't throw that out -- it's too interesting. I got the scissors again.

Coming in for honorable mention was “God’s word paramount” by George J. MacCormack, DD --.inspirational, anecdotal and memorable. Other Episcopal Life letters to the editor were also good; and here I thought ECUSA was in total decline. What a pleasant surprise to find normative Christianity alive and well … in April, at least.

With all due respect to Bishop Paul Marshall, his article in the April issue of Episcopal Life (“Work hard to be read easily”) is a stunning example of writing with a velvet fist. His words appear conciliatory and reasonable, but behind the soporifics there is judgment and accusation. Based on what he has written, we who believe the ECUSA is in need of reformation are engaging in “distractions” and devoting too much time to the “dark pleasures of theological argument, liturgical tinkering and church politics.”

I find these words inflammatory, and were I, or others, to enter into “aggressive mode, the only thing that would take (us) out of antagonism” would be working together on a common goal.  That is precisely what we, the majority of the Anglican primates, and the vast majority of the Christian world are calling him, and his colleagues, to do. Work with us on returning the ECUSA to a position of orthodox and biblical teaching.

All of our leaders (and standing committee members) should  reread the preamble to the constitution of this Episcopal Church.  It says in part: "... The Episcopal Church ... is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a fellowship within the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church ... in communion with the See of Canterbury ..." 

Any act taken, or omitted, by our leadership that damages this relationship with the Anglican Communion is in violation of the constitution of this church. Yet we have bishops saying, "Who needs them?"

If our present and future leaders cannot uphold the constitution of this church, they should resign and let those come forward who are willing to maintain the worldwide fellowship.

I heartily agree with Jim Harrick (“Take a vote,” Letters, April). It makes no difference that “lay deputies, clerical deputies and bishop all confirmed the election of Bishop Gene Robinson,” to quote the editor’s reply. The fact remains that the people in the pew had no vote in that election, and how many of those that did vote now regret their vote?

Do we ever have a vote in any of these major decisions of the church? Our lone vote never gets recorded, but if there was a poll of all Episcopalians, maybe then our voices could/would be heard.

This is in response to George J. MacCormack’s letter in the April 2005 issue. Mr. MacCormack misrepresents Jesus. Jesus never once mentioned the word homosexuality in the Bible or in any way broached the topic of same-sex affiliations. If Jesus thought correcting gays was such an important thing to do, he sure forgot to tell the rest of the world.

As a former men’s prison counselor, one thing I have found to be true is this: Those people who vocalize their disapproval of gays the most are those who themselves have had sexual experiences with their same gender and have never been able to accept it. They project their self-conflicted hatred onto gays.

According to the Kinsey report, over half of all men have had some same-gender sexual contact. No wonder there is so much disgust regarding gays. So many people hate themselves and merely find peace when they attack others.

Using the guise of “helping” or “correcting” others while condemning gays is actually anti-Christ like. Jesus was pretty clear about not judging others (Matt. 7:1). Most healthy people who are secure about their own sexuality do not have time, energy or interest in “correcting” gays.

In response to the Rev. Charles F. Sutton, Jr.'s contention (“Argument invalid,” Letters, April) that the moral laws still apply:  While the authors of Scripture were undoubtedly "guided by the Holy Spirit of Christ," as Father Sutton says, this guidance seems to have left them curiously short of basic Christian moral standards as generally conceived today, not just in the Episcopal Church, but also throughout mainstream Christianity.

It strikes me that whenever anyone refers to God's unchanging moral law, their tacit assumption is that God shares their personal prejudices and is every bit as resistant to change as they are.

[Madeleine Korbel] Albright (“Stop religious divisions,” April) calls all religions and nations to set policies that reflect values at the heart of all religious beliefs.  Amen, Amen.

However, it was the fifth paragraph that troubled me.  In it, Ms. Albright notes that the United States is last in developed nations in foreign-aid giving.  Then just two sentences later, “‘Strengthening the divide between people of plenty and people with plenty loss of hope’ helps breed terrorism, she said."

The implication of this statement is clear and unmistakable.  If only the United States had given or increased its foreign-aid packages to certain nations, or gave more foreign aid to the terrorists’ home countries, perhaps terrorism would be lessened, and maybe 9-11 could have been avoided. Rubbish!

A few points to consider:
Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaida's leader, is a multimillionaire from Saudi Arabia.  Hardly the picture of poverty.  The throat-cutters in Fallujah and homicide bombers in Mosul and Baghdad do not chant "We need more jobs" as they gleefully send innocents to their deaths. They chant "God is great!”  They do nothing to improve the lives of their fellow Muslims and citizens.  Instead of creating wealth in the land of oil, they destroy and kill innocents with pride.

Ms. Albright, through her comments, tries to understand terrorism, instead of recognizing the evil for what it is.  Terrorism is calculated, reasoned, evil, and no amount of foreign aid will ever convince [terrorists] to abandon their designs to destroy America and its friends.

In response to “Liberation, not excommunication” (Commentary by Judge James Bradberry, April): It depends on the context.  Surely liberation is what we will feel as we separate from a leadership that essentially denies a fundamental tenet of the faith -- man's fallenness. 

But the word -- excommunication -- is both correct and politically astute.  You must remember that it is liberals who always claim they are being persecuted -- even as they banish, disenfranchise, slander and excommunicate traditionalists throughout the world.  Using the proper word helps to counter their argument.

I was amazed by reading, in the April edition, such vitriolic letters about homosexuals in the Episcopal Church from ultraorthodox Episcopalians who might properly be described as part of the new American Taliban.

Unfortunately, the only significant balancing comments came in the "Personally" column, but in that column the Rev. Susan Russell seemed to fail to hold homosexuals accountable to anything more than loving relationships. 

While I agree that loving and committed relationships are the essential part of Christian behavior, we do suffer when the Episcopal Church hierarchy and clergy somehow fail to criticize the gay and lesbian community for tolerating, if not encouraging, licentious behavior.  That lapse then allows the ultraorthodox to more easily sway generally Christlike Episcopalians to move toward their extremist views.

What a refreshing article (Susan Russell’s column, April)!  We should, indeed, team up to defend the sanctity of marriage -- for all.  I have been unable to determine how anyone else's choices have or could destroy the 32 years of marriage I shared with my husband.  I have a real problem with the thinking of those who wish a constitutional amendment against gay unions.  Have any of our other amendments been for the purpose of shutting others out?

Thank you to Susan Russell.

I truly understand that Susan Russell, as a gay person, would like to believe that a loving relationship between two gay persons can be defined as "marriage" and that God's word can be altered or negotiated to fit this definition. This can not be so.

It is clear that Jesus our Lord teaches that both adultery and sexual sins are defined as unclean -- these behaviors are outside of a marriage unity between one man and one woman and obviously include sexual relations between two men or two women.

Two women, two men may love one another, of course -- it is, however, repugnant to the word of God to define such relationships as marriage -- unless one chooses to negotiate what God himself has commanded us. That is, indeed, dangerous business.

I am grieved, appalled and angered that the Episcopal Church would elect and ordain a homosexual to the position of bishop, that the  church has not taken a stand to no longer engage in this behavior and that consideration is still being given to the blessing of same-sex unions. Contrary to what Susan Russell (“Put me in, coach,” April) infers, many single parents provide a loving and Christian environment and do not engage in homosexual relationships to do so.

Is the church so concerned with openness and equality that eyes are blinded, minds are closed and hearts are turned from God?

The bishops have once more bowed to the minority Christian Right -- the tail still wags the dog. 

As far as churches in other countries, we can respect their views, and they should equally respect ours.  If they find it impossible to be in communion with us, that is their right.  They should understand that we would not give money to those who do not respect our rights to chose our own bishops and head our own direction.

We should also remind the archbishop of Canterbury that we won the American Revolution.  I see no reason to accept his directives to us any more than our ancestors would accept English tea. I was baptized as an Episcopalian almost 60 years ago.  We have always been a liberal, forward-thinking church.  We have always been inclusive.

The present turnaround sends a sad message to many.  They had finally achieved an equality.  A large number of bishops agreed to full equality -- they voted for it.  Now these same bishops want to change their position because the right wing of the church is unhappy.  I am ashamed to be an Episcopalian.

What kind of theology would allow us to step away from the altar and say, “I cannot receive from you or with you, because you are not worthy”? Who of us is? Is that not why we come?

In spite of our often deeply felt differences, we cannot declare each other “out of communion.” Is it not Christ who has brought us into communion by his saving grace? Not because we are worthy or right, but because we are his? What human authority can take even the least among us and declare him/her out of communion?

We are all people who love the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, even though we are standing in different places.
I beseech those contemplating separation from ECUSA not to take this step away from communion with us. I would pray that we could continue to share in the communion of the one who makes us whole, in the midst of and perhaps, especially now, because of our division and need.