; the moral conflict of interest inherent in identifying, via the office of Suffragan Bishop, the Church with military force; the lack of accountability to the clergy and laity over which any Suffragan Bishop exercises jurisdiction; the ability of institutional Church clergy to minister to the faithful without the office of Suffragan Bishop.1 Overarching all of these themes is the authoritarian peril, both institutional and moral, of the perpetuation of a special relationship between an elite of government (the military) and an elite of church organization (the House of Bishops). In particular, such a special relationship might under certain circumstances be predicated of undue influence of the military chain of command on the administration of Episcopal chaplaincies in the military.2
EPF representatives made a distinction between their protest against the consecration and against the office of Suffragan Bishop for the Armed Forces as such, and the integrity of the persons, including Charles Keyser, who had held the office. "Our objection," McElroy said, "has to do with principalities and powers, with deep feelings and unexplored conflicts; and we offer it for your response and to clarify our position."3 Elsewhere, McElroy noted, "We believe in achieving peace through nonviolent means, and they believe that peace is achieved through a strong military."4 To put it another way, the controversy surrounding the issue of the office of Episcopal Suffragan Bishop for the Armed Forces goes to a host of subsidiary issues: the role of the institutional Church as a quasi official arm of the military; the morality of peace and war in general; the appropriate Christian response to the secular call of obligation to the state.
What may be termed the institutional, mainstream, or orthodox segment of the Episcopal Church was of course the instrument of consecration of Charles Keyser as Suffragan Bishop for the Armed Forces. It is useful ...