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 ("EPF Statement at the Consecration of the Sufragan Bishop for the Armed Forces," 1990, p. 5). 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 (A Resolution passed by the National Executive Council of the Episcopal Peace Fellowship, meeting at the Convent of Saint Helena, Vails Gate,New York, on October 9, 1987, read in part: "In order to have an Episcopal chaplaincy that is both pastoral and prophetic we must separate the position of chaplain from the chain of military command and make it a chaplaincy with the military, responsible to the Episcopal Church.").
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" ("EPF Statement," 1990, p. 5). Elsewhere, McElroy noted, "We believe in achieving peace through nonviolent means, and they believe that peace is achieved through a strong military" (McElroy, 1990). To put it another way, the controversy surr...