I write in response to the article "A question of justice" (February). My heart goes out to the suffering of Thomas and JoAnn Meehan. That their beloved daughter's grave should at this time be unmarked in a desolate dump is a sacrilege. Her parents are denied the assuaging of their grief and the comfort of having their daughter's grave in a beautiful, peaceful place where they could bring or plant flowers. I would like to sign a protest petition at this heartless treatment of innocent victims caught in the evil tragedy of 9/11. I will keep Thomas and JoAnn Meehan in my prayers.

Rev. Leon Spencer does us a favor by exposing the gap between the financial aid our leaders promised for fighting AIDS in Africa and what they are actually providing.  We all should lobby our president and members of Congress, reminding them of their promise to help stop the spread of this debilitating disease.  It's in our own interest to do this, as well as being a humanitarian act. And honesty demands that we carry out our promises. For an administration which claims to be devotedly Christian, it shows a sad lack of interest in living up to the teachings they profess to follow.

I read with great interest the article about "The Miracle Church" in Greenville, S.C. (February). I just came in from a meeting with our bishop concerning the separation of St. Mark's and St. Christopher Episcopal Churches in Jackson, Miss. We are a small black congregation, and we are trying to do the same things that they did at St. Philip's. The outer structure of their building is very much like our own. The steep roof in our case is positioned over a trailer. The article was great and inspiring, and it makes me want to get up and start tonight on this project.  I have e-mailed most of our congregation to read the article and look at the pictures.

In considering the flap over the ordination of Bishop [Gene] Robinson, I find myself asking why our church does not seem to express concern over the adulterers among our congregations.  As adultery is condemned specifically among the 10 Commandments, why do we not, as Christian people, root out those people who have broken that commandment and prevent them from holding any sort of church position?  To do otherwise seems a great hypocrisy. Is there a wise reader out there who can explain this lopsided morality?

The American Anglican Council (AAC) feels that they have suffered impaired or "damaged" communion from the nonfundamentalists within the ECUSA. Has the AAC, however, ever thought about the "impaired" or "damaged" communion that the fundamentalist sect within the ECUSA has imposed on thousands of faithful gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and marginalized Christians within ECUSA, as well as others who cannot swallow their rhetoric? That requires looking into the mirror in naming and claiming their sin of exclusion. Maybe the AAC can learn from the marginalized who have felt unwelcome to sit at the Lord's table and to break bread with other Christians. Did we leave when we weren't welcomed or didn't get our way? No! We stayed faithful to baptism knowing that God is working in the lives of people to fulfill the prayer of Jesus that we all be one as he and God the Father are one. Now that that prayer is being actualized within the ECUSA, why destroy what Christ wants?

As a retired surgeon and a lifelong Episcopalian, I should like to compliment Robin Hodson on the fine article, "Diary of a promise kept" (November).  She stated in only a few words of tenderness without gushing sentimentality the essence of caring for one's fellow sufferers.  Her honesty with herself and us, the readers, conveyed the pain she felt when she left the terminally ill patient before his game of cribbage.  How often the rest of us have felt that pain under similar circumstances. It would seem that her vocation and her continuing growth in it are assured.  I hope many have read her article and taken hope and courage from it that the church is in good hands.

The frankness of Don R. Greenwood's article in the February issue is refreshing, and the content familiar. In 1965, with a wife and two children, my husband's first church in the Diocese of Pittsburgh paid $4,000 plus a house and small car allowance.  He was priest-in-charge directly out of seminary.  I do not know what portion of the church's budget the clergy expenses were, but I do know that we could not make ends meet even though our spending habits were very frugal, having barely survived three years of seminary. Eventually I was able to go to work, first teaching and, much later, when the children were grown, as a government bureaucrat.  My salary, especially in the second position, allowed us to breath more easily and to build a house for retirement.  I keenly remember my panic years when I realized that if Kit were to become ill or die, I could not maintain our standard of living, already lean, since we would have to find other housing.

In response to Bishop C. Christopher Epting's January Commentary, "Compassion and justice," I  write to contest his assertion that "homosexual orientation is not a choice but a given."  I believe that this is not true. Homosexual acts are the consequence of  a complex interaction of response to childhood trauma, including sexual abuse, habit, compulsion and, finally, addiction and can be changed. Looking back, this sequence may feel like a given, but it is not. This is described in compelling and compassionate detail in a book that I commend to your readers.  Its author is Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist, and its title is Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI 49516, 1996.   Dr. Satinover reveals that  secular  treatment for homosexual behavior for those who wish to change has had a success rate of from 37 to 77 percent, with the results of Christian treatment being as high or higher, propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding. 

Stuart Buncher (Letters, February) states, "Attributing modern revisionist history ... is dangerous." Yet, he makes several assertions that do not appear factual. He states, "The Jewish Nation was under occupation by an idol-worshiping army bent on converting the Jews away from their monotheism." All written histories from that period indicate the Jews were free to practice their religion, not only in Palestine, but also in the heart of Rome itself. Buncher says, "The Romans were the ones taxing the Jews ..." Actually, recorded history shows the priests in the temple had police and collectors who extracted a temple tax from everyone and required animal sacrifices that had to be purchased from highly organized vendors. The priest caste lived very well on the proceeds of these revenues. Mr. Buncher needs to be more inclusive in his description of those oppressing the Jews at that time.

I am responding to the letter written by Douglas and Corey Marshall-Steele (February).
The "holiday wish ... that those opposing gay marriage would just be honest enough to admit they actually are hate-driven" strikes me as a harsh and unnecessary indictment.  Episcopalians who have wrestled with and prayed over this difficult issue, but have honestly reached a conclusion not agreed to by the Marshall-Steeles, deserve to be treated with respect.  We would hope that all who weigh in on the issue be assumed to have reached their opinions after sincere and thoughtful Christian reflection.  It seems somewhat uncharitable -- and certainly unhelpful -- to presume otherwise.

There is  a move to ban same-sex unions nationwide. Some people, including some congressmen, want a constitutional amendment, so the Supreme Court cannot overturn it. Incidentally, Canada is considering legalizing these unions. Marriage is a religious ritual. The state is involved only when death or divorce requires distribution of assets. What two consenting adults do in private is their business, only. If it is a sin (and the Bible says it is), they have to make their peace with God. No one else is involved except to offer counseling, if requested. The reason homosexuals are in the news is because some well-meaning but misguided people persecute them. This sometimes becomes so violent that the police must restore order. Homosexuals are our neighbors, as are all other humans. God expects us to love them as ourselves. If you don't like what they do, love them anyway. Remember the old adage: "Hate the sin, but love the sinner."

When reduced to its element -- fear -- fundamentalism is easier to handle. As the Rev. Anne McConney notes in her January column, it does no good at all to hit it head-on, with intellectual punching, nor through using the posture of divine disdain, aka "denial."  It is important, it would seem to me, to live love and live life -- fully. When doing that, one's cup runneth over, calming others and inspiring their own right actions.  It is a wonderful zen balance to make it work.  What a challenge worth taking.

In recent weeks, various clergy and laity have openly and vocally been planning for and proclaiming the birth of an alternative to the Episcopal Church ... a church within a church, separate, but immersed. There is even talk of an inner group that is subversive and antagonistic. This is grievous news. I fully realize that there are times when a line must be drawn beyond which there is no journeying. In times past, during the civil rights struggle, I myself have drawn such a line. If action need be taken, then my prayer is that it will be done with honor, respect and love.  These are sisters and brothers who are now condemning, denying and assaulting the family that birthed their ministries and then nurtured and fed them for decades. They seem to be demanding, "My way or you pay." If you must depart, go swiftly with no attempt to continue to nurse at the breast of the church that 'til now has provided you abundant shelter, sustenance and strength. Depart without claims to property, position or pension. And prayerfully go without attempting to create a rival congregation whose only reason to be is: "We're not the Episcopal Church." If you remain within the church in disagreement with its policies, do so as a loyal opposition, with loyalty to our covenant even in the face of our differences. That is an honorable role. Please don't bite the hands that feed you. If you must go, dear brethren, then go in peace. Don't burn all your bridges. The time may come when you need them to return.

Allen Rushing's letter (January) overlooks one of our bishops who "came out of the closet" following his retirement and who wrote a well-conceived letter. That bishop  explained his position without remorse except that he had been forced into a life of denial and hypocrisy -- by people like Mr. Rushing. I believe also there were at least two homosexual popes: one around 500 and the other a Renaissance personage. There was definitely one recent Roman cardinal ... probably more. I have hardly made a study of gaiety or lack of it in the episcopate. Who anywhere  considers homosexuality a virtue as Mr. Rushing fears at the conclusion of his piece? I know people who range from teeth-gnashing, fist-clenching homophobes to bend-over-backwards liberals, and I have never heard anyone say that homosexuality is a virtue. I think Allen Rushing got carried away with his own rhetoric and probably his fundamentalism.

I agree with Bishop Epting's commentary. What I don't understand is that I have not read or heard anywhere in the Episcopal Church what Jesus had to say on homosexuality. That must be because he said nothing at all on the subject that I can find in the Bible. I hear the Bible mentioned often as, "The Bible is against homosexuality." Could Jesus be reminding us that he did not speak on homosexuality at all and that it is time for us to admit that and pray that we will seek no other source, but work together to pray and hear God in this matter?

The Episcopal Church in the United States may be the first modern Christian body to deliberately ratify a gay person for such high office. Other Christian bodies will likely find that it is only a matter of time before they must wrestle with some such choice. For now, we must live with a question mark: Has the Episcopal Church advanced the causes of openness, honesty and inclusiveness with this ratification? Or has it merely been politically correct and introduced further fragmentation into Christendom? As for me, I will continue to be a part of the larger body of Christ, worship, fumble and bumble along in my attempts at service in his kingdom via my local Episcopal church. Without reservation, I will keep on affirming my core Christian beliefs with my fellow members each Sunday when we proclaim where we stand by means of the Nicene Creed. And I am confident for the long range that Gamaliel was right: If this is merely of men, it will come to nought; if it is of God, then it will surely stand. Although this isn't comforting to those with a low tolerance for ambiguity, it will have to do. I am also confident that self-righteousness is a far greater threat to the faith than homosexuality -- sinful or not -- could ever be.

I am disheartened by the moralists in our church.  If only we could all do as Jesus did and see, in his response to the moralists of his day, a methodology. I would challenge every person who feels contempt for homosexuals to begin eating with the so-called sinners (Luke 15:2).  This kind of intimacy does two things.  First, it opens one to see the persons for who they are, not as imagined.  Second, it opens one to see the grace of God in the other, not as we judged. It is obvious to me, from the many discussions going on both within our church and within the church universal, that most of our moralists have not fellowshipped, or welcomed, homosexual persons into their lives.  Believe me, it changes everything.  Perhaps, then, one might begin to realize, as Peter did, that the biblical injunctions aren't the ending, but only the beginning of the dialogue.  Perhaps one will discover the greater truth, that "what God has made clean, you must not call profane" (Acts 10:15). This kind of inspiration only comes when one is humble enough to accept that none of us has a grasp on truth -- only the Spirit knows the mind of God.  And only the Spirit can lead us into all truth.  I pray to be so humble.

Thank you for the Rev. Jennifer Phillips' column in the January issue.  I see the polarities she outlines in my own family and neighborhood as well as in the church.  While I fall into her "immersion" model, my spiritual growth certainly hasn't been straightforward;  there have been detours along the way. I came into the church in college after being reared in Christian Science by parents who were lapsed, one from Roman Catholicism, the other from Judaism.  Neither, however, lapsed from faith or from deeply personal, highly visible relationships with God.  I can not remember ever not knowing that God is, that God loves you and me and that our only security is in God.  I wish every child had that spiritual beginning. I used to think that using all that ink and paper, not to mention the energy, to debate prayer book revision and women's ordination must surely be sinful. Now I am 65, and here we go again.  But this time, thanks in great part to Mother Phillips, I will be less judgmental of those who feel differently than I.

Couples sharing marriage and ordination ("Sharing a vocation," February) face many challenges unique to their situations and rarely understood by congregations, bishops or deployment officers.  We need to recognize that neither vowed profession trumps the other.  We need to support the families that are the happy result of a marriage but too often seen as a stumbling block to ministry.  And what of the confusion of the young child who hears every Sunday acquaintance, young or old, claim the child's parents as "Mother" or "Father"... The profiled couples have the messy years of childrearing behind them.  Those of us with young children at home find that the ordained vocation of one of the partners is sublimated to the work of the other unless they share a common placement.  The trailing spouse then frets about ever being restored in ministry.  The parochially employed spouse bears the domestic pain of thwarting the partner's legitimate claim to ordained service.  Serving separate congregations splits families when they should be brought together. Your brief article could have been balanced and strengthened by considering the costs to families of answering two calls at once.

The president and some members of Congress are planning on treading where wise men of old dared not go: to legislate who can be loved and who can love.  This dominion has from creation belonged to God and God alone.  As a follower of Jesus, I must warn all persons of faith that this is blasphemy against God's Holy Spirit, the unforgivable sin. Historically, marriage was a means of barter.  My daughter (a woman) for your goats, oxen and some grain.  It was a means on institutional slavery. This was the basis of marriage. When it comes to love and loving, that is God's domain.  God is Love.  The Holy Sprit is God with us today.  Just remember: Whom God has joined together -- humankind had best not put aside. May God have mercy on the United States of America for its arrogance to even think of assuming God's responsibilities.