Americans have learned what the mediancall one of the “major lessons of thenGulf War”: that women can performnin the military every bit as well as men.nThe problem with restricting womennfrom combat, we are told, is that itnunfairly hinders their ability to ascendnthe. military career ladder. Concernsnfor national defense, the needs ofnyoung children, or the protection ofnfeminine virtues are of no great matterncompared to careerism. An exchangenreported in a recent issue of Newsweeknbetween Major Kathleen Shields, an17-year Army reservist in the 70thnDivision, and Representative PatricianSchroeder, a cosponsor of the Housenplan to remove women’s barriers toncombat, illustrates this nicely. MajornShields is quoted as saying, “Tell PatnSchroeder to get out of my boots. She’snnever been in the service and doesn’tnknow what she’s talking about,” tonwhich Representative Schroeder responded,n”I’m not getting in her bootsnand I don’t intend to. I’m ensuring hernequality and removing barriers to hernopportunity.” It is clear that RepresentativenSchroeder has a tin ear: can’t shenhear that Major Shields appreciates thenbarriers to her opportunity, and thinksnthere are damn good reasons for thosenbarriers to remain?nBut, it will be pointed out, there arenmany women who are not like MajornShields, who do not appreciate butnresent these barriers. And so we havenRepresentative Schroeder, one of thenmost shrill proponents of the notionnMOVING?nLET US KNOW BEFORE YOU GO!nTo assure uninterrupted delivery ofnChronicles, please notify us in advance.nSend change of address onnthis form with the mailing label fromnyour latest issue of Chronicles to;nSubscription Department, Chronicles,nP.O. Box 800, Mount Morris, lUinoisn61054.nName —nAddressnCitynState _Zip_n8/CHRONICLESnthat the 1980’s and Reaganism werenmarked by greed and avarice and concernnfor career over all else, defendingnthe rights of women in the military tonput their concern for career over allnelse.nClearly, something has changednover the past decade. One of thenarguments that killed the passage of thenERA was based on the premise thatnthe amendment would overturn thenbarriers that keep women out of combat.nNow those barriers are being removednwith hardly a shudder of trepidation.nWhat else has been lost overnthe past decade? Perhaps this: when inn1948 the Israelis experimented bynplacing women in direct combat, thenmain reason the experiment was consideredna failure was that the men werendemoralized by seeing women killed inncombat; the men began placing themselvesnat higher risk in an attempt tonprevent further female casualties.nNow, would men still react this way?nPerhaps so; perhaps that is not yet lost.nBut what is lost is the notion that suchngallantry is admirable. A male soldiernwho expressed more concern for protectingnwomen than for protectingnmen would be sent to sensitivity trainingnto ensure that the blowing to bits ofna woman would not bother him anynmore than the death of a man, that thenthought of a mothedess child wouldnnot be any more disturbing to him thannthe thought of a fatherless son.nAnd what of the effect placing womennin combat would have on nationalndefense? I have littie to say about that,nand the reason for this is simple: Indoubt that a nation that can so blithelyndiscuss sending women to die for theirncountry is a nation that is any longernworth defending.n— Michael KellynTHE GREEK ORTHODOXnArchdiocese, with a membership ofnsome two million under the leadershipnof Archbishop lakovos, suspended itsnrelations last June with the NationalnCouncil of Churches. This came asnwelcomed tidings to all who are seriousnabout authentic belief in Christ. In annexplanatory letter to the NCC bosses,nthe Primate of North and South Americancited the “extreme liberties” takennby the NCC, “which identifies itselfnwith the most liberal Protestant de­nnnnominations,” making “our associationnand membership impossible.” At thensame time the Archdiocese broke offnecumenical talks with Episcopaliannand Anglican theologians. Among thenhorrors impelling this latter move were,naccording to Archdiocese ecumenicalnofficer Father Milton Efthimiou, recentnEpiscopalian ordinations of a femalen”bishop” and female “priests,”nincluding a lesbian, and more blasphemiesnfrom Episcopalian Bishop JohnnSpong of New Jersey, who in his latestnbook identifies St. Paul as a closetnhomosexual.nSome people never saw why thenGreek, Syrian, Serbian, and other bignOrthodox jurisdictions in the UnitednStates (including the OrthodoxnChurch in America, a predominantlynRussian communion that appealsnheavily to American converts) ever sawnfit in the first place to affiliate with thenNCC and WCC (the Worid Councilnof Churches), whose objective hasnbeen to stir Christianity into an ecumenicalnstew with such ingredients asnHinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, andn(of late) even animism and the chicnNew Age necromancy. That is, thesenecumenical gangs have been stirringnthis cauldron when not busy campaigningnwith the militant “gays,” radicalnfeminists, and the abortion caterersnat Planned Parenthood International;nwhen not promoting the gnostic varietynof environmentalism and other statistndomestic activities; when not trashingnColumbus’ discovery of America asnan “invasion”; and, at least until thenongoing collapse of the Soviet empirengot well under way, when not funnelingncollection-plate receipts to Sovietsurrogatenterrorists, supporting thenSoviet-front “peace” movement unilaterallynto disarm the Free World, andnproviding cover for religious persecutionnbehind the Iron Curtain — all ofnwhich is massively documented andnwidely known.nBut better late than never, and manynare, as I noted, pleased with the archbishop’snnew wisdom. Just don’t imaginen(not yet anyhow) that you arenwitnessing some Orthodox version ofnthe Counter Reformation. NCCnmembership has, after all, become annembarrassment in recent years, as millionsnof adherents have left the UnitednMethodist Church, the PresbyteriannChurch USA, and other “mainline”n