How could Paine, or any man of profound thought, conceive of such a war? Such a basic, fundamental concept, how could it be questioned? Men of his time were profoundly religious. There was no question of God in their minds. How could there be? When one is involved in such a great undertaking as they were, one simply cannot question their faith. Faith, religion must be strong, it must be unwavering in their hearts and in their minds to support them through such important and difficult times.

Now, however, the stage is set for questioning. We live in an age of comfort; all around the world the quality of life is improving; even some Third World countries are gaining First World conveniences. As a result, people have simply had too much time to sit around and think. Thinking, in fact, seems to be the new action. Especially in the Episcopal Church, such collective thought, arising from a rushing tide of liberal influence, has run rampant. The Episcopal Church has more than begun to adopt a new doctrine: it is known as moral relativism, the philosophy that morality, rather than a set-in-stone code for human behavior, is an ever-changing concept that must continually be adapted to accommodate the times.

If this is true, then all lines are crossed - all the rules ever set for us by God are broken. Is it now unnecessary for us to refrain from murder? Need we not honor our fathers and mothers? Is it no longer necessary to refrain from lying, cheating or stealing? Is sex out of wedlock; are gay or lesbian relationships now acceptable? These questions and countless others are raised by such a doctrine as moral relativism. Quite simply put, moral relativism abrogates the necessity of any morals at all. It is used to promote the right of mothers to abort their children, often for reasons such as birth defects, or other dampers on the child's life. Is not the killing of a fetus in any instance, regardless of reason, an act of murder? How can one condone the stoppage of life? It is not in the hands of the doctor, nor the parent; it is in the hands of God and God alone! Through the application of relativism, however, such a blatant act of murder is acceptable.

Moral relativism condones rebellion against parents. Often the last bastion of reason in the insanity of the modern world, which is forced upon a child the moment it enters public school, parents too are now too pushed rudely aside. And why not? Is it truly strange that many who rebel against religious parents take turns for the worse? The government, which rigorously excludes religion from schools, has taken the power to raise children right from the hands of the parents. Earlier sexual education in schools, as well as the uninhibited and unquestioned pounding of Darwinist theories into schoolchildren, eliminates the parents' ability to raise the child in a religious way. Moral relativism condones such actions; again, especially in the Episcopal Church, rebellion against parents and morality, largely caused by the influence of public schools, is acceptable.

A new air of "acceptance" and "toleration" permeate the Episcopal Church. Public schools have extricated Christianity from their midst and have in its place instituted ideas such as the normalcy of gay and lesbian relationships, as well as those out of wedlock. The Church proclaims acceptance of all such people, while this is not the case. The Church is approving, not accepting. Rather than strive with those in such relationships to show them how it is against Christian ways (as stated in the Bible), the Church is adopting more of a passive response: it labels such relationships as "alternative lifestyles," thereby undermining laws of nature set down by God. God has created sexuality to work in one way only, and the answer of moral relativists is to proclaim that those laws were in a different context: and that therefore they are invalid today because "times have changed." The same goes for sexual relationships out of wedlock. Although God has.lain down specific laws condemning it, those who subscribe to moral relativism accept it. While it is true that Episcopalians who believe in relativism do not necessarily condone such relationships, they do not prevent it. They cannot, for moral relativism assures people in such relationships a right to their own "lifestyle"; at the core of the matter, moral relativism allows any and all morals to be breached in the name of "context" and "the times."

If it is permissible that all morals be freely breached, then God must, by necessity, be denied. If we believe we are not subject to laws set down by God, then how can we believe in God? How can we deny what He said and at the same time have faith in Him? If we do not need His laws, why do we need Him at all? These, truly, are the logical questions asked in the wake of moral relativism. If God did not make us to be moral, if His laws apply no longer, then how are we any different from the rest of his kingdom? Is not humanity's relationship with God based in the idea that he made us in his image? If we need not abide by moral codes, then we are not in his image. If we are not in His image, than He does not have a relationship with us; maybe, in fact, he is not even there at all.

Clearly, Episcopalians who support this doctrine, and who are working vigorously to instate it into the official beliefs of the Church have not thought it all the way through. The logical conclusion is that, if there need be no official set of morals, then there is not and cannot be a God. If God does not exist, if He is not among us and watching us, if he has no part in our affairs, then what are we, but animals without hope.

Hope, however, we do have. Hope that the people of the Episcopal Church will come to terms with the logical progression of the ideas which they would have the Church adopt. Hope that they will see that God's law cannot be denied, that His word and His book must be accepted by Christians, and not thought of as an outdated set of behavioral guidelines. Hope that the divisions, the separations and mass exoduses of Episcopalians from their Church can be healed, and that, through a return to faith in God's literal word, we as a Christian community can be reunited.

This will not be an easy task. The ideas have been entrenched deeply in the Church; many have given up and joined other denominations, or nondenominational churches. It is possible, however, to reunite with God's help, and to re-establish a doctrine for the Church: one that both abides by the law set down by God, and accounts for the changes between then and now. Only then, armed with the love of God and a unified understanding of both Him and the issues around us, will we as a Church be able to truly reach out and touch the world around us, and draw it toward Christ.

---Ricky Trippe, age 15 lives in Virginia with his parents.