What we really have is at least TWO minority churches within ECUSA who have the arrogance of seeking to replace the Episcopal Church with themselves. They are not a church within a church but two different faith packages of overlaping "convocations" within the Episcopal Church. In any one given locale if you are affirmative on the question of female priests you will be given "alternate oversight" by one bishop but if you are negative on the question of female priests you will be given "alternate oversight" by a different bishop.

In this scheme of parallel, overlapping convocations, which represents the law of God and which represents the law of man? Why would anyone suspect that either of these "religions within a religion" would have some corner on truth unavailable to the denomination at large?

There is an entire Christian denomination that will not allow the organ to be used during worship. If a group of individuals in the Episcopal Church were to reach the conclusion that Organ Music should not be permitted in Church because it is not authorized by God’s word written, what should they do? Should they try to persuade others and perhaps bring the issue to general convention in the form of a motion. Or should the group complain that ECUSA is violating its own constitution because the organ is not ordained of God in the Bible?

Many in Network of Anglican Dioceses and Parishes raise one kind of sin above others, when the definition of what are sins is NOT agreed upon in Anglican tradition, and use this pretext for separating themselves from their peers. Unlike Paul and Jesus, they are more "act" oriented than "principle" oriented.

Others would argue that it was not a matter of sexuality that offended the Primates of the third world provinces. They say the real reason was the arrogance of the American Church in not bringing the question to them beforehand.

What would have been the reaction of the Primates if the autonomous American Province had first placed the idea of women priests before these patriarchal, tribal societies? "Sure – go ahead – why didn’t we think of that!"

The Episcopal Church seems to spawn “continuing Anglican churches” every time the prayer book is revised. Each thinks it has the true dogma. Should each of these minorities be allowed to enlist foreign Primates to pressure the Archbishop of Canterbury to replace the established church in America with an organization more compatible with its views?

Should each be allowed to attempt to replace the Episcopal Church with one more of their liking anytime they lose an issue through the channels of due process? Do not loyal Episcopalians who pledge allegiances to their church, wide in its representational polity, deserve to be free of threats to its organizational integrity?

"I do need to say something more on the matter of legal vs. moral obligations. This has been a vexing philosophical issue for thousands of years. Anarchy could result if everyone behaved always on the basis of personal morality, but a strict legalism could quickly become impervious to moral reform. At what point does one have the 'right of revolution'?"

"There is, I think, only one reasonable resolution to this problem. Both Old and New Testament call us to deal fairly with one another. This is surely one consequence of the Golden Rule, for example. If we agree to interact with others in a certain way (through laws, canons, etc.), we are bound by that agreement. However, what if that obligation requires us to violate our moral sensibilities? One must, I think, set a high bar for abrogating agreements freely entered into, but one has to admit that such situations arise, when one feels the need to appeal to a higher law. A simple example would be when a soldier is told by a superior to shoot an enemy prisoner. When we exercise our right of conscience, we take the moral high road, but we have no right to expect admiration from our fellows who are expecting us to obey the rules. They have legitimate expectations of us and likely do not share our moral position. If we are really going to be conscientious objectors, we must state our position (as in the Declaration of Independence, for example) and be ready to accept the consequences (as the colonists did)."