As members of the Episcopal Peace Fellowship (EPF), we wish to express our dismay at the recurring recruitment ads in Episcopal Life for military chaplains. We do believe that members of the armed forces should have access to pastoral care. We are concerned that, despite good intentions, there is an irreconcilable conflict between serving as a minister of the gospel and being in the chain of command.

This would be the case even in wars of self-defense; it is certainly the case in current wars of aggression. Pastoral care for members of the armed forces should be arranged by the churches, without chaplains having to accept a commission. The ad in the February 2005 issue is especially offensive, because it portrays an infant still wet with the water of baptism, as a “new recruit.”

“War as a method of settling international disputes is incompatible with the teaching and example of Our Lord Jesus Christ.” Such has been the repeated teaching of Lambeth, as well as our General Convention. It is also the teaching of the gospel.

We therefore invite our sisters and brothers to consider the option of conscientious objection and nonviolent resistance to war — and all other “powers that corrupt and destroy the creatures of God.” (BCP, page 302) To inquire about conscientious objection, readers may contact Bill Carroll (bcarroll@sewanee.edu) or David Mycoff (dmycoff@warren-wilson.edu), co-convenors of the conscientious objection interest group. To join EPF or to find out more about alternatives to war, visit http://www.episcopalpeacefellowship.org/.

The Rev. Dr. Bill Carroll, TSSF/N
Sewanee,Tenn.

Dr. David Mycoff
Asheville, N.C.

Editor’s note: For a complete list of all 154 signatures to this letter, visit http://www.episcopalpeacefellowship.org/.

I found your publication to be both interesting and informative.  The American Episcopal Church is in dire straights even in this period of renewed religious fervor.  As a lifelong Episcopalian, I think the reason is quite clear: Our church no longer stands for anything.

The revised prayer book destroyed the beauty and continuity ofour liturgy.  These changes coupled with a broad decline in the competency of the clergy has driven out many of those who were the strength of the church --  the lifelong Episcopalians, educated and aristocratic, a tradition in America going back to George Washington and other founding fathers.

This group of parishioners is being replaced with newcomers who know nothing about our 16th-century institutions, could care less and want to remake the church in their own image.  So why then do they join the Episcopal Church?

Now I come to the point of your editorial (foreword by Jerrold Hames, March) and ask : Why should the welcoming of newcomers change the face of our church?  If they want to be Episcopalians, fine, but then they must do and believe as we do, not the other way around.
The church must stop trying to be all things to all people, with multiple services, wordy foolish prayers, politically correct language and an overall acceptance of people’s disrespectful dress, actions and attitudes.  Yes Christ didn’t turn anybody away, but he made it quite clear what was expected of you if you wanted to please God the Father and be a good Christian.  Paul certainly didn’t mince any words on this subject. 

Be inclusive yes, pander no.

(In response to commentaries about the “March for Women’s Lives,” December and March): Our daughter is 37 years old. Three years ago, she terminated a pregnancy. Her first pregnancy was normal, and she delivered a boy. Her second pregnancy was normal. She delivered a girl who died from SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) at 3 1/2 months.  Within six months, she was in her third pregnancy. She delivered a normal boy.

Four months later, she developed congestive heart failure. She worked as a respiratory therapist in the ER of a hospital. The virus attacked her heart. Her cardiologist told her husband to get a vasectomy. He chose not to do so because, if our daughter died, he reasoned he might want to have a child with someone else.

Our daughter faithfully took her birth control. However, she was on eight different medications, which may have diminished the effectiveness of the birth control pills. She became pregnant.

A cardiologist, an obstetrician and an internist advised her to terminate the pregnancy, as she likely would not survive and/or the child would not be able to develop normally due to her circulatory problems and necessary medications to keep her alive. She went through with the termination of her pregnancy so that she could raise her two sons. She still grieves for the child that died, and the decision to terminate her last pregnancy was agonizing.

Her husband did get a vasectomy. He realized that raising two boys without their mother would be a lifelong loss for them to deal with.
I appreciate the opportunity to tell this story to persons in addition to my parish. We hope that this will help keep a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy legal. Our daughter's name is Lucy Harlan. Our family attends St. Christopher's Episcopal Church in Carmel, Ind.

In the news on Feb. 24, I heard: "The Episcopal Church caused the split when they confirmed the election of Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire in 2003."

Conservatives have framed this issue and are making it sound as if the national church did something radical and unorthodox. ECUSA did nothing but allow an independent diocese to exercise its constitutional and canonical right to elect its own bishop; the radical act would have been for the General Convention to overturn the free decision of Episcopalians in New Hampshire.

Around the world and in our country, homosexuals are being systematically oppressed and culturally devalued. Gay rights is a mission field; it is not an issue to be quiet about. Conservatives label our church as "liberal," while nobly labeling their side as Bible-believing and traditional. Christian gay-rights supporters are Bible-believing, and our arguments come from Scripture and tradition. We must frame the issue ourselves and show that it is not we, but they who are the radicals.

The split was not caused by the Episcopal Church; it has been the work of a conservative insurgency with a hateful agenda. I urge all Episcopalians to work prayerfully to remain in communion with the worldwide church, but never at the cost of giving up the fight for full membership for homosexuals. This is a cause worth fighting for, and, as much pain as it has caused, it is an issue worth being divided over.

As a former Episcopalian, I have watched with great sadness a denomination that is rapidly replacing God's word with man's flawed reasoning.  Instead of contemplating same-sex ceremonies, perhaps your readers should listen to the Lord. He has plenty to say about homosexuality, gay pride and even cross-dressing -- Genesis 1:27-28, Genesis 2:23-24, Genesis 19:1-29, Jude 1:7, Ezekiel 33:11, Leviticus 18:1-30, Romans 1:24-28, Ezekiel 16:49-50, Deuteronomy 22:5.

And on the issue of abortion, what does God have to say about that?

The Lord makes it clear that he has a relationship with us while we are still being created in the womb (Psalm 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:4-5).  We also are told that the embryo is a Spirit being, capable of sensing things in the Spirit (Luke 1:39-45).

Were the Episcopalian attendees at the March for Women's Lives clearly spreading that message to all, or, by their very presence, did others conclude that the church supports abortion?  If God makes it so very clear to us that the unborn are persons in relationship with the Lord, shouldn't our activities be directed toward saving their very lives?

The church position, that “a pregnancy may be terminated ... when the pregnancy has resulted from rape or incest” seems very reasonable, as long as you don't consider that the unborn are already persons.  Once you take God's position into account, then it becomes complicated.  For how does this square with Ezekiel 18:20, where God makes it clear that the child will not share the guilt of his father?

As one with seminary roots in the Episcopal Church, I hold it dear to my heart.  Thus it is exciting to read of the upcoming advertising program to encourage new membership.  Unfortunately, the wider Anglican Communion threatens to turn the campaign's basic message into a lie.

As one who has spent the last 20 years trying to bring disenfranchised gay and lesbian people back into the Body of Christ, I have learned that the wounds of homophobia are surprisingly deep.  Sadly, it seems the first step toward a successful "Welcomes You" campaign must be a very strong, firm and unequivocal resolution stating that the foreign (or domestic) bishops, clergy and people who stand against Gene Robinson's consecration are in fact the ones who have broken the bonds of communion by rejecting God's all-encompassing grace.  Unless these detractors are sent away and their profoundly unwelcoming message snuffed out, the welcome mat will appear disingenuous.

Once again, rich white American males are exploiting black Africans for their gain and purposes. The real revisionists in the Episcopal Church, those who disagree with the prophetic and orthodox ordination of Bishop Gene Robinson, are exploiting, at best, African cultural homophobia and, at worst, ignorance to further their own ambitions for power. “Advising,” as it was called at the Primates Meeting, is a euphemism for exploitation. These bishops seek to bend the rest of the Episcopal Church to their will or tear apart the Anglican Communion, thereby shoring up their rapidly waning power and influence.

In our Episcopal tradition of “making nice,” called pastoral concern, we allow this unconscionable use of blacks by whites to go on. In two generations in this country, this whole controversy will seem trivial, while racism will by it be driven deeper, and the pandering to cultural homophobia here and in Africa will only make the AIDS epidemic that much worse. Once again, black Africans are being used, and are dying, by rich white males, and we, the church, must name it and stop it. The cost to our souls, as it ever has been, is too high!

I read with interest and horror the commentary response to [Charles Harper, “I was shocked,” December] in the March 2005 issue of Episcopal Life.  I, too, was shocked and appalled, as Charles Harper was, and I'm sure other people were, to learn that a part of the Episcopal Church participated in the March for Women's Lives.

I've been a member of the Episcopal Church for more than 60 years, and my first impression was that the Episcopal Church was supporting abortion instead of teaching that all human life is sacred and should be preserved, as I have always believed.  I had to read almost the entire article before I realized those participating in the march were objecting to any intervention by federal, state, or local entities that would result in abortion becoming illegal.

To be opposed to federal, state, or local intervention is one thing, and could easily be done without participation in a march, which many people perceive as supporting the issue itself.  You may go into an adult book store to hand out gospel leaflets, but how many people that see you entering an adult book store know that?  May your actions not cause someone to stumble, and what does the Bible say about that?  I think they definitely owe an apology.

Maybe it's hopeless to expect we can resolve our differences on the issue of gay clergy.  Maybe that will lead to a split.  Waffling by the English leadership may only delay the inevitable.  I wonder, though, if the splitters really think they can escape the issue of homosexuality by walking away.  Or will they simply be forced to return to this discussion in 20 years or so?

For myself, I read the Bible, and I see a lot of proscriptions and prescriptions that no present-day Christian would endorse as binding and eternal.  I also see a pervasive message of God's favor for the underdog and a clear command, trumping all others, to love God and each other, whatever the cost. In a culture that seeks pleasure without honor (and not just sexual pleasure), abandons the underdog and shouts down opposition at every opportunity, is this controversy the best face the church has to offer the world?

Maybe we have too many buildings, that we fight over who gets to determine their habitation and their leadership.  Maybe we have too much money, that we are so concerned with the control of resources.  Maybe we have too many committees and commissions, and not enough people standing on street corners and working in soup kitchens, that we find it so complicated to spread the gospel to all who need it. 

I humbly suggest that the best thing for all of us, in a world with so much sin and so much suffering, would be to just let New Hampshire have its bishop, let the splitters have their separate churches and turn our attention to more pressing concerns. If this is not possible, perhaps we need to ask ourselves if we are just the tiniest bit obsessed with sex?

In response to “No apology owed” (March),  to Marge Christie, Louie Crew, the Rev. Katherine Ragsdale, the Rev. Margaret Rose, Maureen Shea and John Vanderstar, I say this with every fiber of my being:  You do indeed owe an apology to every person in the catholic (“universal”) church for insulting our intelligence.

You have actually come to the point of rationalizing your position that a women’s right to choose trumps that of an innocent fetus (sometimes commonly referred to as a human being).  The gist of your position is this:  “We as a church people believe abortion is generally wrong, but we don’t want anyone or any legislative body infringe on someone else’s right to have an abortion”.

This kind of rationalization is typical of sophistic anti-logic and modernist thinking, which is to say that “while something is wrong for me, I cannot say that it is wrong for you.”  There are some serious philosophical problems with this position.  Like Martin Luther King, I believe that to recognize something is wrong and do nothing to oppose it is to participate in the injustice.

I will close with this: To defend a woman’s right to choose by denying the rights of the unborn is to deny the humanity of the unborn, because any decent human being understands that the intentional ending of someone’s life, especially that of an innocent, is not and cannot be merely a matter of “choice.”   Instead of mocking the current administration’s defense of the unborn and marching with pro-abortionists (oops, I mean pro-choice), why not cultivate a culture of life? You better believe you owe an apology.

The Primates’ Communiqué of Feb. 24 upheld the church’s traditional teaching on sexuality, as set forth in the 1998 Lambeth Resolution I.10. (The resolution, “in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage.”)

At the same time, the Primates’ Communiqué hastened to add, “The victimization or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us.” Do the primates fail to see the irony of making both assertions? Is the denial of sexual relationship not a diminishment of human beings?

Some think anti-abortionists (Charles Harper, “I was shocked,” December) are anti-women, but the founders of the feminist movement in the United States were principled and courageous foes of abortion. Susan B. Anthony said abortion was “child murder,” while Elizabeth Cady Stanton observed that abortion was “infanticide.” Alice Paul, author of the original Equal Rights Amendment, said, “Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.” Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to run for president of the United States, maintained that “the rights of children as individuals begin while yet they remain the fetus.” And Matilda Gage discerned that abortion is a great male convenience because it allows men to evade responsibility for their hedonistic and self-centered lifestyles.

Since 50 percent of the babies aborted are baby girls, it seems fair to say abortion advocates are the real enemies of women; pro-abortionists likewise are the true foes of freedom of choice, because abortion denies the unborn child her choice to live.

I see that we – the Episcopal Church in the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada – have been unceremoniously tossed, or, better, withdrawn from the global Anglican Communion. The rest of the Anglican world and, in the strangest of contradictions, the African Anglican communion in particular, just cannot stand our acceptance of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, gay ordination. Its remarkable that a communion of people who have been so colonized, subjugated, depressed and discriminated against can be so discriminatory, so unaccepting, judgmental, un-Anglican.

I always thought the Episcopal Church and the whole darn Anglican Communion was the church of acceptance, the church of nondiscrimination, the church of wholeness, inclusiveness, sharing. I always thought that we as a church accepted each other regardless of gender, sexual preferences, marital relations and whatever anyone thinks of does. I always thought we were concerned with greater issues than worrying about what others do behind closed doors.

I was always proud that our church has had women priests, that a priest who happened to be female and from our own parish became a bishop, that women and persons of all races are becoming bishops all over America, that there are always a large number of individuals in same-sex relationships in attendance at our services, that we host gay, lesbian and a rainbow gamut of other groups in our churches.
Personally, I wouldn’t want to be a member of an organization that discriminates against others. When the rest of the Anglican Communion grows up, when they begin to accept others as they are accepted and come into communion, when they cease their discriminatory ways, then maybe they can rejoin us. Until that time, I suggest we accept their “suspension” as a blessing.