As someone present during Archbishop Henry Orombi’s time with the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, I read with disbelief reporter Matthew Davies' attempt in the January issue to interpret that visit as a sign that relations between the national church and African Anglicans have “strengthened.”

On the contrary, a majority of the Anglican Communion remains in an impaired or broken relationship with the Episcopal Church.  Because of our church’s unilateral actions, even our financial support is tainted in the eyes of a growing number of churches and dioceses in the Global South.

Archbishop Orombi spoke of many things during his time in Pittsburgh with us.  He told us about the vitality and challenges of Anglican Christianity in Africa.  He spoke of his sadness at the current state of our church and the obligation he and many Africans feel to bring the gospel message back to the United States. His only mention of unity was the encouragement to those of us who, through the Anglican Communion Network, remain in unimpaired relationship to our sisters and brothers in the rest of the communion to continue standing for the truth and walking in the light of the gospel.  Not once did he even suggest that unity trumps truth or dialogue will solve our difficulties.

The fact that Davies was willing to so misrepresent Archbishop Orombi’s visit makes me wonder what the other African Church leaders he quotes really meant to say.

I agree with the Rev. Barbara Crafton‘s “Hazardous handshakes” (January) for priests in the flu season. I will take it a step further and would cancel the peace handshake. I don’t like it.  I don’t wish to offend members, and the peace would be fine, but no handshakes.

People are coughing and sneezing in winter months especially. Many people I know feel the same. I bet if a vote were taken it would stop. Who came up with the handshaking anyway?

Thank you to Dr. Emily Sisley for stating that separation of the ECUSA and the Anglican Church is not unthinkable (“Tired of bullying,” Letters, December).

What benefit does the ECUSA derive from being in the Anglican Communion, other than to claim larger membership?  Do we need the guidance of the archbishop of Canterbury, who is, after all, an administrator -- as is our presiding bishop?

That's not to say that separation is the preferred consequence of the turmoil caused by the ordination of a gay bishop in a committed relationship.  Of course Episcopalians on both sides of the issue should try to walk prayerfully together toward reconciliation.

However, given the chasmic political, economic and social polarization in United States (and notwithstanding the power of the Holy Spirit to accomplish miracles), I personally doubt that reconciliation will occur.

My small Mississippi parish has split apart over this issue.  Some parishioners remained, and some formed a new "Anglican" church down the block.  These two congregations are so far apart philosophically and spiritually that the separation is permanent -- in this lifetime.  While I regret the action, I say, "Go with God," and wish them luck.

Yes, we who are left in the parish are struggling financially.  Yes, we may be forced to mission status and become dependent on the diocese.  Yes, this will happen in more churches if we cannot reach a compromise and walk the via media. So be it.

I want to say how touched I was by Doug LeBlanc's column in the January issue ("Please Forgive Me"). His authentic and personal statements invite me to reflect on my own preconceptions in relation to church politics, especially as Lent approaches. This is crucial groundwork for healing and moving forward together in mission.

His search for labels that are descriptive but not pejorative, and above all balanced, is interesting to me. "Progressive" has a secular sound in my ears. Perhaps a better pairing would be "orthodox" and "prophetic." Each seems to demand a bit of stretching, but they speak to important qualities that we all try to cultivate.

About Doug Leblanc’s column (“Please forgive me,” January): Well done.  I really liked the part about treating the Global South as an abstraction.  What a liberation "forgive me" can be!

My tiny parish has suffered a great deal over the theology wars of the past year.  Our one active gay member has left the church because he was tired of the militant few who told him he should find a shrink to fix him so his good looks wouldn't be a waste.  Kind of a water torture thing rather than a flood for him.

Others are refusing to pledge because they don't want the bishop of Los Angeles to "have our money."  The fact that we have been subsidized for five years by him doesn't seem to compute.  I am being a militant moderate, as usual, and expecting (and realizing) what it is to be distrusted by both sides.  The liberals, especially those with gay relatives, are being very, very quiet.

I still want to put in my order for a bumper sticker -- the favorite form of communication in Southern California -- "David Anderson and Gene Robinson are identical twins separated at birth -- it's all about me."

In response to Doug LeBlanc’s column “Please forgive me” (January): Christians have embellished God’s basic, simple teaching with such “folderol and fiddle-dee-dee" that we have forgotten what he truly wanted us to concentrate on -- love and compassion.

Worshipers of theology who hold their holy texts with uncalloused hands allow their bodies to soften while their hearts callus. If they would leave their sheltered sanctuaries and truly follow Christ’s lifestyle -- living among the world’s people who need Jesus and his teachings -- they wouldn’t have time for the foolishness that causes such divisions to come about.

God surely must have meant to protect his children from themselves when he wanted to keep them away from the forbidden fruit. More than anything we need to ask our Lord’s forgiveness.

Rational minds appreciate that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is extremely complex. Rational minds acknowledge that both sides have legitimate points. Rational minds concede that heated words and mindless accusations contribute nothing toward a resolution.

One therefore has to wonder whatever possessed the editors of Episcopal Life to print the opinion of Lyle Horn in its December issue ["Zionism is racist and evil ... Most of the world sees Israel as a criminal state ..."]. Surely, such comments contribute little to the discussion.

I wish to comment on the Rev. Anne McConney's column (“A game of  ‘I believe’,” December).  "When did we begin to believe that we could define ourselves not by what we stand for but by what we stand against? When did our faith become so uncertain that it requires agreement by everyone else?” she asks.

It seems to me that defining what we stood against as part of our faith has been present since the beginning of our faith.  One can find examples in the current Book of Common Prayer in the Creed of Saint Athanasius on page 865.

One can define one's faith in part by what one stands against, as well as what one stands for. The Rev. McConney seems to my mind to do so herself when she says, "Out into the discovery, or rediscovery, of the things that really do need to be stood against -- prejudice, brutality, injustice and exploitation."  Does she not then define her faith in part as being against these things?

One need not, and should not, use vile terms and names to oppose sin.  But there are things that are sins, and those who sin are sinners.  Jesus called out sins and sinners in plain language often enough, and he teaches us by example to do the same.  When he saved the adulteress from being stoned, he then told her, "Go and sin no more." 

He showed her grace and mercy, but he neither denied nor helped her deny she had sinned. People have done many vile things in the name of righteousness, but that does not make naming and confronting sin and asking sinners to stop inherently vile.  Otherwise we really will be "standing bewildered in a barren and grotesque landscape, captives self-delivered to a place we never thought to be," because we won't know what sin is nor have the ability to name and fight it.

Hundreds of Episcopal churches have homosexual couples. In every case that I know of, these couples are respected, well-liked and active in the church. Everybody is getting along.

All of us, even the most insignificant, have as direct a line to God as the bishop. So what right do any of us -- parishioner, bishop, liberal, conservative -- have to say … “I know the mind of God better than you do?” A person cannot change another person’s moral ideology by force.

I just wonder how things in the church have come to such a pass. Who forced this issue? Why? What was the expected result?

Thank you to Doug LeBlanc for his article on, and example of, repentance.  In the article he requests suggestions for terms to use to characterize the two main voices in the current controversy in the church.  In response, please know that I am a liberal socially and a conservative theologically, ecclesiastically and liturgically.  However, and perhaps my own case exemplifies this, these terms are faulty and inaccurate. The same, I'm afraid, is true for “orthodox” and “progressive.” 

For instance, progressive is fast becoming a pejorative equivalent to liberal.  And, in fact, progressive is rather a haughty term, anyway, implying some inherent connection to progress or forward movement.

I actually prefer liberal in its true sense.  True liberalism esteems having present at the table a wide variety of opinions and perspectives.  Liberalism requires that all participants appreciate the right of one another, and the responsibility of everyone, to communicate honestly and respectfully.
I also claim for myself the term “conservative.”  I consider it conservative of Christian faith to model the great Johanine insight that "God is love."

My suggestion for terms of convenience (and we should ask, should criticism and critique be made convenient?), would be "traditional" and "innovative."  As yet, I believe, neither of these terms is encumbered with negative connotations.  I hope this suggestion is helpful.

Doug Leblanc wrote, "I've often favored 'orthodox' and 'progressive,' as neither easily becomes an insult."

When you label yourself orthodox and say that I am not, you have insulted me, especially when you do so on the basis of a single issue that was addressed by no dogmatic council and finds no expression in the creeds or the catechism or the formularies of our faith.

As a father who lost his daughter on Sept. 11, 2001, at the site of the WTC,  I understand perhaps more intimately the pain and loss of a family member that now affects all those families who’s relatives perished on Dec. 26. I understand those who survived and now struggle to face their immense losses and to rebuild their lives. The images of the photos posted to learn the fate of their loved ones brought back a flood of memories.

And just as in the aftermath of Sept. 11, the American people have responded, by their donations and all of the relief efforts in process.  And yet, for the families of Sept. 11, there still remains the lingering question of why our government officials, federal, state and city, allowed the ashen remains of almost 3,000 victims to be bulldozed into the world’s largest landfill at Fresh Kills, Staten Island, N.Y.

While foreign governments seek to assure those nations who citizens were victims of this great disaster that their remains will not be bulldozed into mass graves, so that the remains can be returned to their respective nations, the remains of those who perished on Sept. 11 remain in the largest landfill on the planet.

I pray that the families of this great disaster do not have such a wait.