So, what do I think of the latest developments? While I have seen something coming for quite some time, like everyone else, I only learned the details of the negotiated separation agreement on Sunday, 6th March, and have only been able to follow the story from afar through the internet.

1. There has been a long history of Christ Church being on the edge of the Diocese of Kansas. Many attribute it to the fact that Christ Church was founded in 1959 as an identifiably "low church" congregation in a "high church" diocese. So, from the very beginning, Christ Church did not "conform" (to use a word from Bishop Wolfe's pastoral letter) to diocesan expectations. When I came to Christ Church in 1997, there was a lot of animosity from members of the diocese toward the parish because it had experienced rapid growth at a time when many churches in the diocese were declining.

Since Christ Church's churchmanship had crept up the candle over the years, the tension between the diocese and the parish shifted from churchmanship issues to big church vs. small church or suburban church vs. rural and small town church issues. I will never forget a diocesan convention in the early 2000's that concluded with a commissioning of all those who had been elected to diocesan positions or appointed by the Bishop to serve on various diocesan committees.

More than three-quarters of the convention members came forward for the commissioning, but not a single one of them was from Christ Church, the largest congregation in the diocese, and the largest contributor to the diocesan budget. It was a painfully graphic picture of the marginalization of the parish in the diocese.and, all before the "current unpleasantness" had erupted. I rehearse this history because I believe a congregation can only live with tension for so long before there needs to be some kind of resolution like the one that has been put forward by the Vestry and the diocesan Council of Trustees.

2. The Bishop and diocesan Council of Trustees and the Rector and Vestry of Christ Church are to be highly commended for achieving this separation agreement outside of the civil courts.

3. So, what does the Diocese of Kansas get out of this agreement? First, they get rid of a congregation that has been a thorn in their side for many years. The Bishop gets to consolidate his power and will no longer have a large church rivaling him with a different vision of Anglicanism in eastern Kansas.

The Bishop gets to send a strong message to all the other clergy and vestries in the Diocese, "Conform, or we might negotiate you out of the diocese and depose your clergy." The Diocese also gets $1,000,000 over the next ten years to prop up its budget while they re-group to find a viable way forward. If the Diocese had moved in to take the property away from Christ Church, they would not only have been saddled with the church's $1.7 million mortgage, but would also have had to find a buyer for the property. They are relieved of that burden by essentially selling the property to the people who had already paid for it.

4. What does Christ Church get out of this agreement? Christ Church gets to keep its property. Secondly, notwithstanding the statements suggesting that the whole process was done civilly and respectfully of one another, one can easily read between the lines to see that the Diocese's priority is money and its leadership style is coercion to bring about conformity. Christ Church gets to be freed of this kind of tyranny. After the consecration as bishop of a man living in a same-sex relationship, Christ Church's vestry offered the congregation's members the option of financially supporting a leadership structure that could legally make a decision contrary to Scripture.

The parish's leadership did not dictate what people's pledges would support. It was a grace-filled approach that permitted individuals to stay together under the same roof, come together at the same Table, and yet disagree about the decisions of the General Convention. It was a decision that allowed space and room for disagreement while the wider church continued to sort out its interpretations of Scripture on matters of sexuality. The leadership of the Diocese of Kansas, however, could not tolerate such a pastoral approach and insisted that participation in the common life of the diocese is defined chiefly by payment of apportionment.

I was very impressed to learn that at the October 2004 diocesan convention the Christ Church delegation went to the convention and participated - in spite of not being given voice or vote. They were there! They stayed at the table and participated at the level they were able. Yet, apparently, that is not sufficient evidence that Christ Church supported the common life of the diocese; only payment of full apportionment qualified for symbolism of support. So, in this separation agreement, Christ Church gets to cast off this millstone of diocesan oppression and intolerance. Christ Church will be free at last! Thank God Almighty.

5. Is this a fair separation agreement? In every respect I think it is fair, except one. I think the agreement favors the diocese. If the Bishop would relinquish his right to depose the clergy of Christ Church, and agree to transfer them to another Bishop or Ecclesiastical Authority, then I think the agreement would be fair. The Bishop can refuse to license any clergy not canonically resident in his diocese, and thus ensure that they will have no involvement in his congregations. The effect is the same. He does not need to depose them; he is choosing to depose them. If the Bishop would make this sacrifice of his right to depose the clergy of Christ Church, then I think the agreement is fair.

But, we all know that life is not always fair. Do I think Christ Church should accept this separation agreement? It has been unanimously accepted by the governing bodies of both parties, which is a remarkable achievement, and not to be taken for granted. I would hope that the Bishop would relent in his decision to depose the clergy. But, even if he feels obliged to do that, I think the agreement represents a "win-win" solution and the best way forward in a difficult situation.

Even so, I admit to personally feeling very, very sad that the state of the church means that we have come to this kind of decision point. I am at least a fifth generation Episcopalian (my family can't remember farther back than five generations, so we may go back farther than that). There are days when I would prefer denial and I would rather not have to be faced with these kinds of decisions. "Why can't it just be like it used to be?", I ask myself. "I don't want to have to choose." "Why does it have to come to this?"

When people used to ask me what orthodox congregations should do in revisionist dioceses, my advice was to "stay, but don't pay." But, apparently, the Diocese of Kansas will not accept that, and I suppose that is their prerogative. The choice they seem to be presenting is either (1) "stay and pay," or (2) "don't stay and don't pay." The middle option is not available.

I realize that things have changed that are out of my sphere of control or influence and that I must adapt. The Serenity Prayer has become particularly meaningful to me in these last eighteen months:

God, grant me the serenity To accept the things I cannot change; Courage to change the things I can; And the wisdom to know the difference.

I can't change the decisions of the 2003 General Convention. I can't change the Bishop of the Diocese of Kansas. I can't change the prevailing theology in the Episcopal Church. But, the Separation Agreement presents an opportunity for something I could do - for myself, our children, and our grandchildren.

P.S. For those who may be wondering if I will be deposed by Bishop Wolfe, the answer is No. In January the Lord told me that it was time to leave the Diocese of Kansas, and that I should do it before the end of the Primates' meeting in February. The Primates' meeting ended on 26th February, and the Bishop of Kansas quietly transferred me to the Diocese of Pittsburgh on 25th February 2005. Bishop Wolfe is no longer my bishop, and the proposed agreement does not involve me personally.

--The Rev. Canon Dr. Alison L. Barfoot is Assistant to the Archbishop for Int'l Relations Church of Uganda.