Having read both pieces thoughtfully and prayerfully, I can say I feel strongly both ways.

Technically, John Howe is correct, of course. Anyone who is in the Anglican Communion is in communion with anyone else who is in the Anglican Communion through the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, if not directly. But technicalities only get one so far, and ECUSA chooses to ignore many technical realities all the time. For example, technically most so-called "Continuing Churches" have legitimate claims to "Apostolic Succession," yet their claims are routinely and repeatedly ignored or dismissed.

Technically, the AmiA consecrations of men like Bishop Thomas Johnston have more ecclesiastical legitimacy than does the consecration of the current Bishop of Florida, Johnson Howard. T.J. was consecrated by two sitting primates while Howard had none at his consecration. Yet, Howard has told me on a number of occasions that he T.J. is not a "real Anglican" let alone a "real" bishop. On what grounds? The technical reality is that T.J.'s pedigree is more legit than his own.

Technically, according to our founding document–The Anglican Articles of Religion–we Episcopalians believe predestination is a doctrine full of "sweet pleasant and unspeakable comfort," yet most find it troubling and refuse to believe we believe it. Technically, according to that same foundational document, Episcopalians are forbidden to "reserve" the sacrament, yet this is done in many parishes. Technically, according to that same foundation, the Episcopal Church cannot ordain anything contrary to "God's word written." Yet, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church has publically said words to the effect that The Episcopal Church has been led by the Spirit to bless things clearly condemned in Scripture.

Technically we are not "in communion" with the Roman Catholic Church, yet the Presiding Bishop of our church takes communion at a Roman Catholic Church.

The list of "technical" realities we ignore all the time could go on and on.

So, Bp. Howe is technically correct that leaving ECUSA to join the AmiA–or the Province of Rwanda, Uganda, Singapore, Southern Cone, etc.–does not remove one from the interconnected "power grid" that is global Anglicanism. Yet, in along side the technical reality, there are psychological, prophetical, and practical realities that are very important in this context.

A psychological reality? Psychology: literally, words that speak of the soul, or to the soul. There is something deeply important to the Christian soul in separating itself as much as is possible from things that are an affront to the sanctified conscience. Any thoughtful Christian knows that if he or she connects the dots using enough ink, all believers are communally connected to one another. Yet, we are a people who embrace the notion, spelled out in the Book of Common Prayer, that we are to communally separate ourselves as much as possible from those who repeatedly and unrepentantly participate in "notorious" evil.

There is also a "prophetical" reality. If we are going to be a church with a message that will change the world, we must allow it to change us first. If we are not willing to visibly and vigorously pursue lives of Christlike holiness, we have lost the right to proclaim the Gospel. If a church openly, proudly, and unrepentantly thumbs its nose at its own heritage, its own international brotherhood, and its own doctrinal formularies, it ceases to be The Church in any biblically definable sense.

On a practical level, it would have been nice for us in Florida to have been able to follow Bp. Howe's counsel and wait until next summer to make our decision. Sadly, we in the Diocese of Florida were not given that option. Those four of we so-called "Florida Six" who were rectors (some of us with decades of service as rectors), were told our status would be changed to vicar, our parishes reduced to missions, and our vocations threatened with instant, unilateral termination. We have been left no choice. For the sake of the flocks to which we are called to be shepherds, we must act to protect the souls within our cure. In practical terms, the further we can separate vulnerable souls from the infection or leaven of sin, even if that separation is not complete, it is helpful.

How is it possible that we are even having such a discussion? How was the Anglican Communion defined before the first-ever Lambeth Conference in 1867? The reality is that before the rise of what I call "the Primacy of the Episcopacy," the Anglican Communion was held together by a cord of three strands: A Common Heritage, Common Liturgical Discipline, and Common Core Doctrines. I believe each of these three strands has unraveled to a dangerous degree.

For centuries, we westerners could virtually assume a certain level of "anglophilia" (love of things British) in our world. For centuries, Britannia ruled the world. But, in case you missed it, the Western World's love affair with England is over. ...................

Our commitment to a Common Liturgical Discipline is gone. ECUSA now has rites to bless illicit sexual union unions. ECUSA now has officially blessed and endorsed the homosexual lifestyle by ordaining a practicing homosexual to the episcopacy. Ordination is the place where liturgy and doctrine most clearly intersect in the life of a church. ECUSA has failed radically in this area.

Finally, we have no Common Core Doctrines. This was the actual, stated conclusion of the Righter trial. Ever since ECUSA buried its founding document, the Articles of Religion, in the basement of the prayer book and removed those Articles from our Constitution we have had no statement of faith to which we can point.

In the absence of these three strands, we have no common core to hold us together. Therefore, we now rely on the primacy of the Episcopacy...we are Anglicans if we are connected through the episcopacy. The episcopacy, a noble and pleasing human institution, was never meant to carry that weight.

The founders of our communion understood that. The Archbishop of Canterbury is not mentioned in The Quad. The Articles say nothing about communion being defined through the Archbishop of Canterbury. Even Hooker said he didn't believe the episcopacy was part of the essential nature of The Church. I believe we are on thin ice when we rely on this one human institution, this one accident of history, to define what it means to be an Anglican.

The documents that came out of that first Lambeth Conference in 1867 seem to foreshadow this shift toward the primacy of episcopacy. Nature abhors a vacuum, so do church hierarchies.

This critical issue of the nature of communion begs many questions, none of which have ever been adequately or definitively answered. Most basic, of course, is raised by Bp. Griswold's reception of the communion elements at a Roman Catholic Church. What does it mean to be "in communion?" Is being in the Anglican Communion the same as taking communion? Are we "in communion" with anyone who welcomes us at The Table? Are we "in communion" with anyone who receives at the table with us? Is it only the celebrant's status that counts? Co-celebrant's?

There is clearly a tension in scripture from start to finish. On the one end are the "come out and be separate" admonitions, spelled out most clearly in the disciplinary "rubrics" of I Corinthians 5-6. These admonitions to a life of demonstrably separate holiness (the word itself meaning "set apart") seem to be in contrast with the sort of "inclusive patience" modeled by prophets like Hosea and even Jesus Himself–at times. Jesus told parables which encouraged patience and inclusivity (wheat and tares, etc.) and he ate with "sinners," yet he also threw the money-changers out on their ears and called the hypocrites nasty names.

Jesus may have eaten with notorious sinners, but he did not invite them to the covenant meal, the "Last Supper."

Again, I love both Rob and John. I respect their great faith and their great learning. I respect their differences. I approach this subject with fear and trembling. But, it is a subject with which we all MUST wrestle...even if we look a little foolish in singlets.

--The Rev. Sam Pascoe is rector of Grace Church, Jacksonville, Florida