Conservative Anglicans were further outraged when the American church took steps to authorize the blessing of same-sex unions, a move that admittedly contradicted traditional Christian sexual morality.

The move was not lightly taken by liberal Episcopalians, who felt that the core message of the teaching of Jesus was a gospel of radical inclusion, especially the inclusion of people traditionally excluded. Liberals asked how gay and lesbian Christians, who had been baptized, tried to live faithful lives, and demonstrated gifts that edified the whole church, could possibly be excluded from the church's leadership or denied the church's blessing.

Conservative Episcopalians agreed with liberals that a homosexual orientation was not sinful in itself. But they saw no way to remove the practice of gay and lesbian sex from the list of proscribed practices for Christians.

And so the argument ended in a stalemate. Liberals did not persuade conservatives to change their minds, nor conservatives, liberals.

Some conservatives formed an association of likeminded Anglicans within the Episcopal Church to mount a more effective opposition to what they regarded as an unacceptable status quo. Others attempted to leave the denomination, with or without their church property, assisted by Anglican archbishops around the world who agreed with them.

But the stalemate could not be allowed to persist, since the bitter division between liberals and conservatives crippled the mission of the Anglican churches. The primates of the Anglican Communion therefore met with the archbishop of Canterbury in Dar es Salaam on Feb. 14-19, in what appeared to be a last-ditch attempt to find a way through the impasse. What they decided at the end of their deliberations represented both a compromise by the conservatives and an ultimatum for the liberals.

The compromise aimed at persuading dissident American conservatives to stay in the Episcopal Church. It suggested the creation of a primatial vicar for the Episcopal Church who would oversee conservative congregations and dioceses in the U.S. unhappy with supervision by liberal bishops. Hopefully, this arrangement might convince foreign archbishops there was no further need for them to intervene on behalf of conservatives in America.

The ultimatum, on the other hand, was blunt and uncompromising. It requires the Episcopal bishops to answer two questions by Sept. 30: whether they would agree to consecrate no more gay bishops and whether they would refrain from authorizing the blessing of same-sex unions.

Response to the ultimatum has been mixed. Some liberal Episcopalians have urged the church to dig in its heels and reject the ultimatum entirely, even if it means a permanent break with the Anglican Communion. Others have focused on what seems to them ambiguous wording in the final communique from Tanzania, searching for loopholes. Still others have argued that the primates lack the constitutional authority to demand such an answer from the American bishops or the bishops to give one.

But arguments over proper constitutional procedure seem beside the point. The primates appear unlikely to be put off by a refusal of some bishops to answer on constitutional grounds. They will regard no answer to their questions as the answer "no" and equate silence with dissent.

It would be a mistake to assume that the primates lack the de facto power to impose sanctions on the Episcopal Church -- especially if they are backed in their resolve by the archbishop of Canterbury.

Which raises for liberals in 2007 the tough question already faced by conservatives since 2003: In the clash between the desire to preserve church unity, on the one hand, and the need to maintain theological integrity, on the other, which value takes precedence, unity or integrity?

Never an easy question to answer when matters of principle are at stake.

---David C. Steinmetz is the Amos Ragan Kearns Professor of the History of Christianity at The Divinity School at Duke University in Durham, N.C. He wrote this commentary for the Orlando Sentinel.