I want to offer my deep thanks to [The Rev.] Jennifer Phillips for her article “Beyond Gender Categories.” It is amazing to me how many people, both in and out of  the church, will spend time and money reading books, debating other nontransgender people and developing opinions and theories, yet do not seek out an actual transgender person to talk to. We have stories that will transfix you. We have struggles that will make you weep. And we have faith: yes, faith in the God who you might think created us by accident.

I don’t know whether God made me transgender. But I do know that God redeemed me from the pain and rejection and confusion of being male while the world saw me as female. In my darkest moments, God sent people and situations that lifted me up, set me back on my path and prepared me to make the right, faith-centered decisions about accepting my life and accepting my gender difference. So let me join my voice with Rev. Phillips: Talk to me. Talk to my brothers and sisters and to my siblings who are both or neither. Find out how we are alike and how we are different from one another. Find out who we really are, what we have been through and how God has walked with us. And then tell us who you are and how God has walked with you, so that, together, we can continue to build up the entire body of Christ.

I would like to offer a heartfelt "thank you" to The Rev. Jennifer Phillips for her observations in the May issue of Episcopal Life. I commend her courage in bringing up the topic of gender variance.

In the past, this topic has been relegated to mostly sensationalized treatment on the daytime talk-show circuit. The reality is that the vast majority of us who are gender variant, however that may be manifested, are really just ordinary people trying to live our lives with as much integrity as possible. We have jobs and families (if they haven't abandoned us), pay taxes and have mortgages. Some of us are even clergy. I am a gender-variant priest, ordained for nearly 20 years. In the nomenclature, I am a MtoF trans person.

So thank you for helping make it more OK to be honest about who we are, and not just for us, but for everyone. As a testament to the remaining climate of threat that exists in the church for us and for many others, I ask that you not publish my name. Many folks in our parish know, but not all.

On May 17, it was announced that Roman Catholic and Anglican scholars involved in the ARCIC dialogue had come to a point of agreement on the issues surrounding Roman Catholic understandings of the nature of Mary, the mother of Jesus. The word incredible sprang to mind when I read the headline. Then I went on, incredulous, as I discovered that "prayers to Mary,"  dogma regarding the "Immaculate Conception" and dogma relating to "the Assumption of Mary into Heaven" were not to be considered as barriers to a common understanding of the place of Mary in our theology.

I am always thankful when we are able to overcome barriers within the Christian community; my dream is that of a fully reconciled Body of Christ.   However, this step baffles me.   I don't often find myself aligning with "the evangelical wing" of the Anglican Church ... particularly of late ... but I have to agree that this step looks more like a political agreement than one I would expect to be coming from the folks at ARCIC.

I hope there will be a more definitive statement forthcoming that will allay my fears of a theological sellout.

I must respond to [the Rev.] Dennis Ford's letter in the May issue (“Africans being exploited”). The ordination of V. Gene Robinson may indeed have been prophetic, but it was certainly not orthodox. Father Ford's remarks are nothing less than arrogant racism, assuming that the black African Anglicans are unable to discern for themselves if V. Gene Robinson's enthronement as bishop is consistent with Holy Scripture and is in agreement with the sense of the worldwide Anglican Communion on human sexuality.

We see the same soft bigotry of low expectations every day in this country, an assumption that certain people lack the intelligence and discernment to make their own life choices and decisions. I suppose if our African brethren had supported the ordination of a noncelibate homosexual bishop, then progressives could be accused of exploiting them. The dissenting primates, 22 of 38, are articulate, decent and represent 55 million Anglicans, not the shrinking 2.3 million U.S. Episcopalians. In addition, those who have declared that they are not in communion with ECUSA have the integrity to refuse financial support from ECUSA.

In response to two articles in the May issue, one a feature article in ActiveVoice (“Patriotism supplanting piety”) and the letter to the editor regarding the conflicting role of being both a minister of the gospel and a military chaplain: Both writings were well-intended.  The ignorance and misinformation was troubling.

Contrary to the letter, chaplains do not serve in the chain of command.  Anyone who has ever served in the military knows this. Chaplains, for sacramental reasons and Title 10 of the U.S. Code, serve as ministers representing their respective faith groups.  While they have the salary and respect due an officer of their rank, they have no command authority.

Secondly, both by military doctrine and litigation in the courts, chaplains serve for one primary reason:  to guarantee the free exercise of religion for all military personnel as promised by our Constitution.  Chaplains, by military doctrine, serve as a moral and ethical advisers to the commander.  If there is any restraint in the awful business of war, frequently it comes only from the chaplain.  We are icons of mercy and of God as we function as missionaries to the military.

Chaplains are noncombatants.  As symbols of self-sacrifice, all chaplains go completely unarmed, even when in harm’s way.  Countless chaplains have made the ultimate sacrifice, not in support of war, but rather as they reached out in the name of God to our nation’s troops and to enemy soldiers as well.  Even more have been critically wounded, three in the present conflict in which we find ourselves.

I write in support of those serving in the Armed Forces.

Grace Episcopal Church, Port Huron, Mich., has more than 50 men and women in the extended parish family serving in the Armed Forces. Fifteen are serving "in dangerous places." We remember them by name at every service. A parish group sends items in short supply with pictures and letters. We have sent all of them the Episcopal Church Service Cross and the Prayer Book for the Armed Services. Friends and neighbors have asked us to include their loved ones in our prayers and to send them the cross and the prayer book.

The service flag in our front window has four stars, for our son-in-law in Korea and three nephews in Iraq. Listen to veterans.  Their experiences are life-defining and can shape profound faith. Their relationship with the church today will shape their future relationship with the church. The church has much to learn from them.

Two hundred years ago, Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing."  The tragedy is not terror, terrorism or war, but our unwillingness to confront evil.

Your article, “Saving Joan” (May), says, “Without more viewers, drama about teen who talks to God will die.”  This is really too rich! Have you no sense of irony?

What is wrong with the CBS series Joan of Arcadia is almost exactly what is wrong with the Episcopal Church. The character, Joan, spends her time talking to a god who is not real and only says things that are made up from snippets of some Hollywood writer's pop-culture assumptions of what God should say. This means that the target audience can only be a tiny minority of Americans: People who are very interested in God but don't believe what he actually says in the Bible. Kind of like much of the Episcopal Church nowadays. Unintentionally, Episcopal Life presents the kind of a church we really are: A church that simply insists, without a plan or understanding, “We just have to get some new viewers somehow.”

I read with concern your May issue’s “In review” column on the possible cancellation next season of the outstanding CBS television series Joan of Arcadia – a cancellation that now, sadly, has become a reality.

In its two seasons, Joan has done a brilliant job of addressing issues of faith in everyday life: What is God calling us to do, and how are we supposed to carry out that call?  It does so through the eyes of an otherwise very normal high-schooler who has a gift (though it sometimes seems to her to be a curse) of being able to hear God's call in very tangible terms.

The key element of the series' brilliance lies in its willingness to address really tough issues in an engaging format with characters of depth and appeal who actually grow with their resolution of the issues they face. The series helps its viewers to see the world in novel and illuminating ways.  It does so through characters from a variety of religious traditions, or no tradition at all, who struggle in different ways with matters of faith in a world whose scientific and spiritual complexities we are just now beginning fully to appreciate.

It will be a real loss to quality programming to lose Joan next season. I hope that another network will consider carefully the impact of this series for the good as well as the brilliance of its presentation of challenging issues and find a place for Joan in its fall lineup.

Our church's leadership, which is reflected in the church-run Episcopal Life, continues to reflect the amazingly arrogant behavior that has riled the Anglican Communion. The latest action involves the Executive Council's decision to send representatives to the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in June. The headline (May) says that the "Primates' request [is] granted." It is not granted, nor even honored.

The primates clearly requested that we send no representatives. That means none -- no voting members, no observers from the U.S. church. Somehow, our leaders have convinced themselves otherwise. As a moderate member of the church (not among the "most conservative" label Episcopal Life uses), I am increasingly unhappy with and alarmed by the steps our national church is taking and the superior air we exude. We were not invited to the party; in fact, we were specifically asked to stay away. By sending a delegation, we are exhibiting pure hubris.

Where has Judge [James] Bradberry been for the past 25 years?

Contrary to his joyful paean that excommunication from the Anglican faith would mean liberation for ECUSA, I suggest he suffers from unfounded admiration of contemporary culture. Since 1979, membership of our once great Episcopal Church has diminished by one-third. Declining pledges and plate offerings are insufficient for sorely needed outreach programs, and, in many instances, income from endowments must be diverted for routine maintenance.

Replacing Scripture, reason and tradition with Rotary Club fellowship and feel-good theology caused many to leave our church. Among those remaining are a great many lukewarm Episcopalians who attend services only infrequently and ignore their stewardship obligations. Since 1979, the Episcopal Church has wallowed in secularism. Now we have a contemporary get-with-it liturgy, priestesses, bishopettes, folk/jazz Masses and a divorced man living in an active homosexual relationship who became an Episcopal bishop. Each time, pseudo-liberals ridiculed the objections of traditional Episcopalians, said these innovations were long overdue and that they were divinely inspired.

Relishing the possibility of excommunication of our Episcopal Church from the Anglican faith is equivalent to another round of Russian roulette.

Thank you to James Bradberry for his "Commentary" column's positive look at the current exclusion from a meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council (“Liberation, not excommunication”), an exclusion that our Episcopal Church is experiencing, I like this part of his column:  "I do not believe we are going to leave the Anglican Communion, but if we must, we will be sorely missed, frequently imitated and acknowledged and often asked for help."

Living in a diocese that has been adversely affected by the American Anglican Council, I am keenly aware of discussions about "leaving."

We have about a dozen cats around the house, and they’ve been a blessing, providing insight into their minds (“Ode to Spot,” April). Some have learned a word or two, and while I’ve read that animals don’t have compassion, I have seen one of our cats slip behind another who may be choking and lightly slap the distressed one on the back of the neck.

So when the big black 14-year-old patriarch of our felines fell sick and went into a coma last summer, we decided to prolong his life. About a month later, we brought home an abused kitten who immediately perched herself atop father cat, rousing him out of his lethargy and causing him to wash her thoroughly with his tongue. It was the first move he’d made in weeks!

I enjoyed Judge [James] Bradberry's comments on what would happen if the Anglican Communion threw ECUSA out. He is so right.
The foundation of our religion is to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves. The Anglican Communion has chosen not to love some of our neighbors, the homosexuals. Since God created at least some of them at birth, he must be sad.

If what homosexuals do is a sin, that is between God and them. The rest of us are not involved. If a homosexual believes that what he does is a sin, he needs the church more than ever. He should be welcomed, not denied membership. I think ECUSA is in a position to prove that.

Thanks for your May issue’s story about the Joan of Arcadia show, which CBS-TV may well cancel. Since it’s one of only two TV shows of its type, it would be sad if that number dropped to one, for teen-agers (and adults) need such a forum dealing with questions about faith, existence, free will and life’s challenges. It actually spurred an event in my parish: a discussion group after the show.

The final episode (“Something Wicked This Way Comes”) had a new twist: an evil protagonist on the scene (in human form) coming into Joan’s life just as God (in human form) has done. Obviously we know who this evil one represents, but how will Joan handle this?

The website (joanofarcadia.com) urges people to write in their support to Les Moonves, CBS chairman and COO, and/or Nina Tassler, president of CBS Entertainment, both at CBS Television Network, 51 W. 52nd St., New York, NY 10019. Keep it simple and from the heart.

I want to congratulate the author of a letter in your May issue (“Reframing the issue”), Mr. Coolidge-Gillmor, who hit the proverbial nail in suggesting that “they,” not we, are breaking the bonds of fellowship.

For me, the only clearly recognizable criterion of Anglicanism is communion with the See of Canterbury. No province of this communion has the authority to exclude any other province, and this includes the archbishop himself. He may have the authority to declare a consensus, but that is a personal decision not binding on anybody. Each [province] is responsible to God for its relations with the others and with the primus inter pares of our communion.

My husband, John, and I went to Ground Zero a few days ago and had the privilege of walking through St. Paul's Chapel. I am so proud of what our church did there. We were overwhelmed by the stories and pictures of the ministry that took place. Clearly we/they did what needed to be done. We did not close the doors and say, "You don't belong here."

Perhaps the "doing what needed to be done" is exactly what our delegates to General Convention two years ago did when they voted to support Gene Robinson's journey to be a bishop. They had studied the issues around homosexuality, and they voted. I have done most of my ministry in institutions that house the "rejected" of society, and I experience deep sadness that we seem to get sidetracked from doing what needs to be done.

It's shameful that a group of bishops has secretively, duplicitously sought to undo the very work in which they shared in bringing forward the recent House of Bishops covenant statement.  And it's shameful that the archbishop of Canterbury has validated that divisive effort. 

ECUSA has the chance to learn and to teach, and through a reasoned and prayerful effort to define a rationale for actions taken at General Convention 2003.  If we will commit ourselves to the hard, humble, intellectual and spiritual work that still needs to be done in this church internally, then ECUSA may yet make a significant contribution to the rest of the communion and to the wider family of Christianity as well.

We may yet be able to derive a theology that finds, in good Anglican fashion, a way of being faithfully the church that God has made of us and which God calls us to be, a way that stays clear of those damnable litmus tests that only shorten our reach outward to others and divorce us from love of God and neighbor.

The letter from Kit Horton, "Welcome. Don't pander" (May), casts new light on what it ought to mean to be an Episcopalian.

As Horton suggests: We need some strict criteria for membership in the Episcopal Church. We need the old prayer book -- the older the better, and we need aristocrats steeped in the culture of the 16th century. Educated people we need to be cautious about, unless they understand than an aristocratic IQ always takes precedence over accredited Ph.D.s. That will stop us from being "all things to all people" as St. Paul falsely is quoted of saying. They must be like us. That is why God invented cookie cutters.

I will try my best to get my blue-collar congregation to buy titles of nobility on the Internet. The bargain-basement price is currently $30,000 a pop. And I will tell the more than 200 Mexicans who worship in my parish every Sunday to stop speaking Spanish and to learn Elizabethan English and otherwise conform to the sentiments of the Prayer of Humble Access: "I am not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs from under thy table."

Why pander to them and give them ideas and the bread of life, when empty minds and crumbs will suffice?

In a letter in the May issue, Kit Horton writes that our church is in "dire straights." Someone so concerned with the educational level of parishioners surely knows that the correct term is "straits."

I understand his difficulty in accepting changes in the Episcopal Church. However, I think it would be wise for him to remember that Christ did not choose his followers based on their "aristocratic" background, nor did he expect them to adopt an attitude of superiority toward their fellow believers. I agree that it is hard to be "all things to all people," but St. Paul certainly tried.

I would like to respectfully suggest that Horton is looking for a country club, rather than a church. I'm afraid that the kingdom of heaven may not be exclusive enough for him.

I have been indeed touched  by all that Kerry Walters expressed in the May issue. As Christians, we should remember Christ's calling to be peacemakers. Christ lived in a period of occupation; yet he never spoke about a war or killing to end this. He reminded us that it is easy to love those who love you but that the challenge is to love those who hate us.

I agree that loyalty to Christ precedes patriotism, but there should not have to be a conflict. Even within our own church there are disagreements, but does that signify being un-Episcopalian? As Americans, we must stop using our might as the means to enforce what we consider to be right (in some times, the economic gain) and instead must go the route of dialogue and understanding. This does not mean to yield to what we consider wrong, but to see the other viewpoint.

The tragedy is that mankind, despite technology, is still reverting to primitive ways to solve conflict.