With the recent actions of the Primates of the Anglican Church meeting in Northern Ireland, I now believe that my analogy and predictions were right on the mark!

I can now extend this analogy to the situation before us. This immune system has now isolated two North American branches of the body to either bring them back to health and balance with the body or let them die off while protecting the rest of the system from the toxic nature of this death.

For ECUSA, the next steps in this process (the ball is now in our court) will be the March meeting of our House of Bishops and the 2006 General Convention. If, in these two meetings, our leaders are unable to embrace the nature of Anglicanism as defined in the report and to submit subsequently to its requirements, ECUSA will choose to no longer be a part of this wider body. We will, as Anglicans so graciously say it, "have decided to voluntarily walk apart." (Notice how graciously the Primates avoided using the volatile words heresy" or schism.) We can now prayerfully ask, "What will predictably happen next?"

The first thing to say is that what is before ECUSA is a genuine choice. People on both the left and the right are predicting that these issues have already been decided. They say this because, for very different reasons, they hope that this is true. But, I assure you that the choice is still out there in the future. Consider, for example, the number of votes in the House of Bishops to confirm Gene Robinson. If only a few of our Bishops follow Bishop Peter Lee's example and now admit that the August 5, 2003 decision was wrong and at the time and harmful to the Church, the Bishops could have a majority in favor of accepting the Communion's decisions.

Of course, even if a majority of Bishops lean in this direction, we know that several outspoken progressive Bishops will continue to allow the practices that the Communion has found divisive. In addition, I predict that, no matter what the House of Bishops decide, at least one diocese in ECUSA is already posturing itself to elect for a Bishop a second gay or lesbian person living in a same sex relationship before the 2006 General Convention. As many progressives like to say, "The issue will not just go away." However, a decision by a majority of ECUSA Bishops to submit to the Windsor Report would be the most reasonable way to stop the present polarization and hemorrhaging of ECUSA. This would be a decision to move the Church back to its compromise decisions of the '97 and 2000 General Conventions. To put a face on such a decision, let's call this the Bishop Lee alternative.

A second and possibly more predictable choice would be an attempt at compromise. The Bishops might accept the invitation of the Windsor Report and the Primates to present to the June meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council a theological case for same sex unions. Then decline the invitation to put a moratorium on the actions requested in the Report. The rationale for such a decision would be that our Bishops have the authority to take the first action, but a moratorium would require action of the General Convention. Of course, this is just a rationalization and while it would postpone a split until 2006, the wider Communion would see this as our Bishop's abdication of their Apostolic leadership and teaching role. To put a face on this possible choice, let's call it the Bishop Griswold alternative. It is, after all, a position he has already advocated on several occasions.

A third possible decision would be a flat out rejection of the Primates actions and to endorse our Presiding Bishop's decision to withdraw (I am sure it would be "regretfully") from participating in the wider Communion. The basic rationale for this decision is that eventually the Communion will come around to ECUSA's point of view. This is, after all, a long-standing American point of view toward the rest of the world. We can call this the Bishop Bruno alternative, because he has already indicated he will not accept the Primates suggestions.

I believe these are very real alternatives although I personally believe the Bishops will take the second choice, the Bishop Griswold alternative. This is the choice to accept those parts of the Windsor Report that our Bishops view as favorable while stonewalling those parts that they do not.

My point is that any of these decisions will be painful for ECUSA. All of us in this Church will feel this pain and experience its further effects upon our corporate life. However, notice how effectively the wider Communion's immune system has worked. Now, whatever ECUSA decides, it is now "our decision" and we must live with the consequences. The Communion will remain relatively immune from any alternative we choose.

One of these consequences is that, no matter what the decision, by 2006 ECUSA will be smaller, weaker and less able to reverse its organizational, financial and numerical decline. Conflict has a way of doing this to communities!

Which alternative do you believe ECUSA will take?

Do you think there is another alternative out there? Is there any realistic option that allows us to reverse our escalading decline? What do you think?

http://www.vitalchurchministries.org/Newsletter/313.aspx

--Kevin Martin heads Vital Church Ministries based in Plano, Texas.

END