The slowness of the church to recognize obesity and other medical problems as legitimate elements of a theology of incarnation continues to limit what Christians can contribute to larger societal conversations about cultural concerns. These are too often viewed as outside the realm of the church — media influences, marketing strategies, the financial plights of families that compromise their ability to serve healthy meals to their children and, as mentioned by Rev. Scott, insensitivity and discrimination.

We encourage the church to think more about self-care in all forms as stewardship of God’s creation, to incorporate these concerns in teaching and practice, to be open to credible new information as it arises, but, above all, to be pastoral, nonjudgmental and loving to each other in this and all things.

Killing in the name of Jesus, how- ever, goes way beyond difference and lands pretty close to heresy. Killing in the name of Jesus and then bragging about it, raising funds to celebrate it and suggesting that others do the same is exactly what caused Jesus to throw the sellers of animals out of the temple (I’ve come to believe Jesus is the first animal rights activist).

Knowing full well there will be no ban on articles and stories of this type I ask only that you show the other side. Just as we now serve nonalcoholic beverages in respect for the sufferings of fellow Episcopalians at our public and private gatherings, so should Episcopalians be made aware of www.Episcoveg.weblogger.com and those of us who continue to deplore all forms of disrespect for the creator of all.

Those who came for Jesus by night came by stealth. Misdirection, mirrors and deceptive tactics are not the ways of Jesus or his followers. It saddens me that followers of the Risen Christ would use such tactics against their sisters and brothers rather than sit at table together and talk. It saddens me that though Christians have disagreed on biblical interpretation from the very first council meeting in Acts (Acts 15), there are those who would tear our communion apart over this disagreement. Would that we all could seek each other out with the heart and mind of Christ.

But there is a larger issue here. No non-kneeler has ever dragged me to my knees, snarling, “On your knees, you heathen!” nor dragged me to my feet snarling, “On your feet, you papist!” understand (I cannot document this) that Archbishop Cranmer himself said that kneeling, blessing, standing, etc., are matters of personal preference. tolerance for individual preference went out with the mandatory passing of the peace, an anachronism (I’ve had its historical significance explained to me) that is to many of us still a grating Rotary-club distraction from prayer.

I find an analogous situation in the attempt of a minority within the Episcopal Church to foist upon others its views of homosexuality. As a church musician, I have found that some natural order of events must occur if anything constructive is to be accomplished. Improvisation without structure is chaotic. Even compassion and understanding are best bestowed with a grace that has form. Disruption by a few, without good cause, can be most demoralizing.

The pendulum seems to have swung. Colleges are now over-administrated, and look-alike students appear to be unduly submissive. Such might be the worst that could happen to the church if some astute moderation is not applied.

McConney uses a stream of rude invectives and hyperbole to characterize fundamentalism: “terrorism of the mind”; “relies on intimidation and sometimes violence”; “ugly face”; “the most dangerous movement in the world today”; “destroys the creative tension”; “fear is the taproot of fundamentalism.” The only example she deigns to cite is the Taliban.

As for her assertion that “fundamentalism has no use for dialogue,” it seems that she could be describing ECUSA, which had no use for dialogue with the broader Anglican Communion before causing a great divide. Shouldn’t such dialogue have taken place before such a precipitous action?

The author cites the late Bert Giamatti, who said fundamentalism is “the true belief as propounded by the true believer” and “the terrorism of the mind.” This hardly adds up to a definition. Perhaps a bit of history is called for.

“Fundamentalism” appeared on the American scene in 1909 with publication of a dozen booklets titled The Fundamentals . The effort was directed against church liberals who rejected the “fundamentals” in question. Contributors included scholars of the stature of B. B. Warfield and James Orr.

And what were the fundamentals? They were five: Inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture (inerrant not in the sense of modern, scholarly exactitude but as in “not wandering” from the truth, after the Latin), the deity of Christ, his virgin birth and miracles, his penal death for our sins and his physical resurrection and personal return.

These “fundamentals” derive from Scripture. One must accept them by faith as God’s Word or sit very loose to them indeed, for reason unaided could never devise them. Yet they are fundamental to Christian faith.

Fundamentalism is, I fear, used simply to label anyone with whom one disagrees, especially Christians who hold to the traditional view of Scripture. It is as a theological swear word that it finds its most consistent use.

Or, as Oswald Chambers says in his Jan. 12 devotional in My utmost for His highest : “God is making us spell out our own souls. It is slow work.”

Compassionate Henri Nouwen, in Bread for the Journey, concludes his Jan. 12 devotional with, “Let’s look at everything that has brought us to where we are now and trust that we will soon see in it the guiding hand of a loving God.”

Ms. Elder has omitted the fact that they represent formal doctrinal positions of our church today. The Articles of Religion were adopted by the American Episcopal Church in 1801 in a form slightly modified from the Church of England’s. They have not been modified nor rescinded in the intervening years. They are not merely “doctrinal opinions,” as Ms. Elder has it. They are current doctrine of the Episcopal Church. It is one of those interesting anomalies of our church that few (clergy or lay) in it today actually subscribe to its formally articulated doctrines.

Those unsympathetic to the Articles of Religion seem have taken the tack of trivializing them. The most common method is to stress their genesis in the religious controversies of the 16th century with the unvoiced implication that they must therefore be irrelevant to us today. To the contrary, I suspect that a reading of them with fresh eye would reveal much of relevance to us today in the controversies we face, whether we agree with them or not.

A version of the Articles of Religion in modern English may be found here.

What troubles me about the argument Bishop Epting articulates is that it so clearly labels those who are in opposition as both unjust and lacking in compassion. The bishop does say thaat bigotry and intolerance do not solely motivate those opponents; however, thhe thrust of his commentary makes it crystal clear that bigotry and intolerance must certainly be their primary motivation.

I am reminded of Dick Gregory’s warning that, when people use the term “justice,” they almost always mean “just us.” Since Bishop Epting is so very sure that he is on the side of the angels and that those who oppose the consecration of Bishop Robinson are not simply wrong but unjust and compassionless, one wonders why he would want to remain in communion and/or conversation with them. It seems a very particular position for a man who serves as deputy for ecumenical and interfaith relations!

I am 84 years old and have been an Episcopalian 40 some years. I profess to believe that everything is God-created, and that includes all mankind. As such, he expects us to love his creation. I cannot believe that anyone chooses to be homosexual, considering the castigation, contempt and even prosecution to which homosexuals have been subjected. We have a situation where persons through no fault of their own are “different” and face making a life for themselves under trying circumstances. They merit compassion more than criticism. I have known several, worked with some ... I have found frequent kindness and caring on their part for family members, especially parents needing care.

Whenever I get that far, I have been admonished that “that may be the case, but in order to be acceptable they must remain celibate.” My reaction is a feeling of inadequacy to make a judgment about a situation I can’t imagine being in, and therefore I shall have to leave that judgment up to God, where I believe it belongs in the first place.

If we just keep our faith and pray for guidance, we all may be very surprised about what we can learn from this experience. I have seen many changes in 84 years, some great, some shocking, some very valuable, others useless and very transient, but nothing I have seen has weakened the most important thing I inherited from my parents: my faith in God.

I believe that if we can look at this new development with an eye or ear to what God is trying to tell us, all will work out in His own time.