Prior to the meeting of the House of Bishops, the presiding bishop made it known this meeting would be a time of prayer, conversation and reflection. This was not the time to either make decisions or respond to the primates' communique from their meeting in Tanzania. Unfortunately, the majority chose to move ahead with two resolutions and a pastoral letter having far-reaching consequences.

The secular and religious press views the events at Camp Allen as a clear dismissal of the "pastoral scheme" and proposal for a primatial vicar to support those in the minority within the Episcopal Church. Even as the House declared its desire to remain part of the Communion, it presented a strong statement rejecting any interference in the internal affairs of the Episcopal Church by others within the Communion. One of our speakers suggested we should be proactive in our "walking apart" by abstaining from participation in the councils of the Communion.

The arguments stating why we could not accept the proposal were linked to our structure and polity. The arguments sound hollow given the radical change in our faith and order imposed by the legislative majority in General Convention. I believe it is ironic that much of the traditional doctrine and discipline common to the Christian community is easily dismissed, while we rigidly hold to autonomy and independence as of first importance.

The struggle in the Episcopal Church is open to a comparison to contemporary politics in our country. A cursory study suggests two major parties in the life of our church. There is a consistency in the theological and moral teachings within each that stands in opposition to the other. Our division begins with two radically different views regarding the authority of the Holy Scriptures.

One group tends to view the Scriptures as contextual to the times in which they were written and bound by culture. They hold as foundational truth that the Spirit may radically alter two millennia of mission built on the rock of revelation. For these individuals, human experience holds primary authority. The Scriptures are placed under the judgment and discernment of the Episcopal Church, and have authority within this Church only to the extent it allows.

For a minority in which I include myself, the Episcopal Church, like all Christian communities, will always stand under the judgment of the Scriptures. The Scriptures have authority independent of this church or any particular generation. The context is not a particular moment in history, but the history of a world in rebellion against God. Salvation we believe is not possible apart from the work of Jesus, God incarnate in human history. Jesus is not one way among many, but THE Way, Truth and Life for all humanity. He is the door to an intimate and eternal relationship with God. "The grass withers," wrote the prophet Isaiah, "the flower fades. But the Word of our God stands forever."

This difference in approach to the Holy Scriptures leads inevitability to major differences regarding specific theological and moral concerns such as the nature of God, the person and role of Jesus in human history, the meaning of revelation, and evangelism. Take any issue such as abortion vs. pro-life, globalization vs. nationalism, individual "rights" vs. communal "responsibility" and there tends to be a consistency of opposing views in the two major parties now at odds in the Episcopal Church. For many in the majority, sin is now subsumed under genetic determinism which I believe is at odds with human freedom and liberty to choose. What we hold in common is a passion for our faith commitment.

An important part of our meeting at Camp Allen centered in daily Bible study. We were asked to address the question, "What are our idols today?" The most profound insight may have come from a bishop who said, "The idol of unity." Many of the conversations at Camp Allen asked questions of how we might walk apart for a time without a permanent separation.

My own reflections these past months have drawn me back to the story of Daniel and his three friends as they enter the Babylonian court. Required to eat the food from the king's table, they asked to be allowed to follow their conscience regarding what they would eat. The wise steward provided for two experiments to take place with a commitment to withholding judgment until some future date when the fruit of the experiments would be made apparent. Do we trust God enough to allow one another space and time for God to work God's plan in human history?

From the beginning of the current crisis, I have affirmed my hope to continue as an Anglican while serving the Episcopal Church. Many in our diocese still hope for the same future. Please take time to read the communique from the primates' meeting in Dar es Salaam and the statements of the House of Bishops meeting at Camp Allen. If we are to have conversation it must be informed by the primary documents rather than another's commentary. I only hope in light of what has been done there is still time to find the way forward that will allow us to do both.

In my last article I said that I would be writing a series of articles regarding the communique from the primates' meeting in February. In light of the actions of our House of Bishops, a more fruitful use of time will be to encourage conversation in our congregations and by the elected leaders of our diocese concerning our future.

On a final note, I must address the growing concern regarding human rights abuses in Nigeria and the reported support of the primate of the Anglican Church in Nigeria for laws that would criminalize homosexual behavior. I am aware that our Lord said that we should take the log out of our own eye before attempting to remove the speck from our brother's eye. Even as we need to clear our own vision this church must stand opposed to the abuse of human rights wherever they may occur. It is only when we allow freedom of conscience for the other, no matter how much we may disagree about their manner of life, that our freedom is assured. Support for such laws is contrary to both the letter and spirit of Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference. This resolution is clear:

* Recognizes that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the church and God's transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptized, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ;

* while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialization and commercialization of sex.

May the Lord bless and keep each of you.

In Christ,

+John