I enjoyed the Rev. Jennifer Phillips’ article on using lay people as "advisers" and "instruments of unity." It would be an excellent idea to establish an elected Anglican Lay Council.  This would allow many individuals with a variety of gifts and talents to be active participants in resolving important issues facing the Episcopal Church.

Another suggestion: I feel that the presiding bishop should poll all Episcopalians relative to the election of Bishop Gene Robinson. Only by obtaining a total national vote (clergy and laity) could a true picture be obtained, reflecting the feelings of all members.
I'm sure that many in charge will say this is too big a task to undertake; what do we have to lose -- we have all the time in the world!  If the presiding bishop would choose not to do this, I would ask him what he fears; would he think the results by the lay people would not be in line with what the clergy had agreed to do at the General Convention?

Would this represent the "power of the laity?"

I am very displeased with the back cover of the February issue of Episcopal Life (advertisement for the U.S. Army chaplaincy), especially since it's on the outside back cover! Do we need the Army's money? Have we reached a consensus on recruiting for the military (... or any branch of government ...) in a time of war?

Conversely, on page 3 is a good article about a chaplain who was wounded in Iraq. I direct your attention to the final paragraph of the article about the Rev. David Sirvet. I think it follows closer to the concepts of Christianity we hold dear and reflects a positive and human report on the reality of dual service, i.e. "to God and country." An ad from the Army showing a baptism with a cute headline is bad taste.

I'm astonished that Brian Grieves seems to arrogate to himself and the Episcopal Church the godlike power to decide what a "just" solution would be in the Middle East. My views are that Israel has an absolute, unconditional, legal right to exist and that Israel has an absolute, unconditional right to defend itself. Just as there is no moral equivalence between a murderer and his victim, there is no moral equivalence whatever between Palestinian terrorist murderers and Israelis who are trying to defend themselves.

Grieves points out that the PLO has supported the two-state solution since 1988.  That may be true, but it is also irrelevant because Hamas, for example, to this day denies Israel's right to exist and is in favor of a "one-state solution:  Palestine from the [Jordan]  river to the  [Mediterranean] sea."  This is just code for the extermination of  Israel. Israel's right to self-defense is paramount and takes precedence over any violations of international law.

Once Israel's right to exist is recognized and assured, then, and only then, can it be criticized if its attempts to defend itself violate international law.  But Israel then would have no need to defend itself, would it?  As long as the Palestinians persist in terrorist attacks that murder Israelis, no one is any position to criticize Israel for defending itself in any way that it sees fit. To limit Israel's right of self-defense in any way is in effect to deny Israel's right to exist.

Brian Grieves can't have it both ways. He should recognize that Israel has never threatened to exterminate Palestine but that the Palestinians have not only threatened but also have actually attempted, and are still attempting, to exterminate Israel.  There is no symmetry whatever.

I find it quite sad that discussion of biblical interpretation in our church has devolved to the level of  the sentiments expressed in "How Literal Do You Go?" (Letters, February).

Interpreting Scripture is the real basis of the current conflict in our church, and we seem to have a great deal of difficulty in recognizing that 99 percent of us fall between the literalist and post-modernist labels. Liberals and conservatives fear that by giving an inch to our critics, we completely lose credibility (if you do not believe all of the Bible, doesn't that mean that you select the portions that you do believe -- and aren't our differences due simply to different selections?). This makes for clever debate but poor fellowship.

To me, the Old Testament is the story of man's creation, fall and God's covenant and deliverance of his chosen people. Much of it is metaphorical -- the story and revelation of God and his nature is the theme. The New Testament, however, I consider to be inspired of God and written, to the best of man's abilities, as truth. Even here, in areas such as Revelation, there is nonliteral truth.

If we are to be able to continue in fellowship with one another, we must respect the personal validity of each individual's beliefs. You do not have to agree with them, but you do have to acknowledge the sincerity in which they are held. Liberal theologians have forever been demanding understanding and inclusiveness when regarding minorities. The same stance has not been taken in regard to "minorities" such as myself, who disagree with them.

I beg you, make room at the table for believers such as myself. We have much to add to the richness of our life of faith together. We are different from some minorities; we will not keep battering our way to the table. If we are not invited and made welcome at the table, we'll quietly find another table where we are welcome. I love our church and do not want to leave. All of us must look for ways to respect the beliefs of all of our minorities. Do not limit your tolerance and love. During this time of conflict, we must find positive ways to acknowledge our desire for unity.

This letter is in response to Patricia LaRosa. She equates Bible-believing Episcopals to idiots who take everything in the Bible literally. Christians are not leaving the ECUSA because of the issue of homosexuality, they are leaving because of the sin of homosexuality. Did Jesus say to the adultress, "Your sins are forgiven, so go and keep on sinning?"  Wrong! He said, "Go and sin no more" (John 8:11). According to Patricia's logic, I can go out and rob banks and all will be forgiven.

I have a gay relative. He's a Christian just like me. He's welcome in my home anytime. He's a sinner, I'm a sinner, we're all sinners. But don't tell me the church has to change its official position on homosexuality after 2,000 years. I have rights as a Christian American, and I do not have to subscribe to someone else's deluded logic because, God forbid, it may hurt their feelings if I do not. I do not have to lower my standards in order to accommodate those who are morally inferior.

In her letter to the editor in the February issue, Patricia LaRosa raises the "shellfish" argument, so-called because it usually states that Leviticus forbids eating shellfish, but we Episcopalians eat lobster, so we have warrant for setting aside Old Testament laws.

If Ms. LaRosa would care to consult her Book of Common Prayer, pages 869 and 871, she would find Articles VII and XX of the Thirty-Nine Articles. Article VII tells us that Christians have long distinguished between the Old Testament laws, which were specific for the time when the people of God were both a nation and an ethnic culture (and so were given civil laws and religious ceremonies to guide and guard their lives as God's people), and the time since Christ when the people of God are transcultural and transnational.

The civil and ceremonial laws no longer hold, but the moral laws still apply.  The laws regarding sexual intercourse as being designed by God for a man and a woman in the context of marriage only are among those moral imperatives, as Jesus notes in Mark 10:6-9.  Article XX says that no passage can be understood except in its context within the whole of Scripture. 

We do not have the liberty to pick and choose which parts of the Bible we like and to interpret those parts simply by what seems good to us.  Scripture is not like Poor Richard's Almanac, a collection of sayings; it is ultimately of one piece, for its authors were guided by the Holy Spirit of Christ.

In February, there was a letter indicating that opposition to homosexual activity is based on literal interpretation of the Bible and finding that inconsistent/hypocritical, citing the Province of Uganda as guilty of such. However, the test of Bible interpretation is not literal vs. nonliteral, but the mind of Christ who is the living Word of God (John 1:1).  He condemned both adultery and sexual immorality (Matthew 15:19), which, for Jesus, included homosexual activity.

The letter indicates that Christ’s supreme commands to love God and neighbor require us to approve everyone’s deeds. But Christian love is obedience to Christ: “If you love me, obey my commandments” (John 14:10). We truly love homosexuals when we humbly call them to repent, accept our Father’s forgiveness and forgive others.

I have counseled three homosexuals who, when they forgave those who had hurt them, were set free of homosexuality and rejoiced. Others have had the same experience.

Finally, as a part-time missionary in Uganda, I applaud the archbishop, bishops and beautiful people of Uganda for their fidelity to Christ in emphasizing the fundamental Judeo-Christian teaching of abstinence and marital fidelity, whereby they now have, by far, the lowest AIDS rate in Africa. The letter did not mention that.

It seems to me that most of the people who keep quoting certain passages from Leviticus aren't concerned with following the Bible literally, they just don't like homosexuals. That's a point of view, but let's not drag the Bible into the controversy.

Comes now Patricia LaRosa's letter (February). With respect, I think she's off about the rector's wife being a virgin.  That rule may be in there, but it's not Lev. 10:15. When you have a free moment, go to http://www.jewfaq.org/halakhah.htm for all 613 of the laws. I don't dare call a particular one to attention -- I would never finish.

As a member of a Bible-believing and, equally important, Bible-reading Christian church that happens to be Episcopalian, I find we cannot in conscience take a hard stand against abortion when the Bible endorses it. Biblical endorsement is found in the book of Numbers, Chapter 5: 5-31. Moses presents the moral rationale, plus a procedure, including a religious ritual, for an abortion performed for social reasons, using a chemical abortifacient, done in the temple and presided over by the priests.

While I find it shocking that the Bible considers husbandly jealousy an adequate motive for abortion, I can only pray for understanding. In case you have ever wondered why our religious older brothers and sisters, the Jews, have not joined the anti-abortion ranting, it is because they read and take seriously the entire legal system of the Torah.

After many centuries of meditation, discussion and commentary, they have achieved a deep understanding of the biblical passage. This has allowed them to take findings from modern medicine into consideration. For example, Tay-Sachs disease, a hereditary birth defect, has been almost totally wiped out in Jewish families because the rabbis encourage genetic counseling and, if necessary, abortion, to ensure that a child is not born only to die in long drawn-out pain.

We might be well-advised to try some serious Bible reading whenever we find ourselves being swept along on newspaper-nourished moral fads. In the past 30 years, we have been shocked by racially mixed marriages, birth control, unwed motherhood, sexually transmitted diseases, teen sexuality, abortion, adultery, homosexuality and now are being treated to a debate about clothing???. I have better things to do with my time than respond to every provocation thrown out by people who want free publicity.