The article on a non-rancorous split was provocative, but it raises many questions. While both traditionalists and progressives would be relieved to be free to act according to their consciences without judgment from the other side, what about the following issues:

Would Canterbury let both church A and church B stay in the Anglican Communion? Which side would get to call itself the Episcopal Church? or would each side have to choose a new title (or symbol) to distinguish which camp a given church belongs to?

Bishops would have to choose sides, and then rectors and churches would choose sides, and ways would have to be found to allow shifting of allegiances to new dioceses. Maybe renting is the answer! Church A congregations within a church B diocese wouldn't have to move out, but could pay a monthly rent to the church B diocese while being under the jurisdiction of a church A bishop.

And what about the building at "815"? Would it go to the side which has the most dioceses? Would it be sold and the profits divided so each camp could set up its own headquarters? Would it be possible to find anyone neutral enough to be Presiding Bishop?, or would two absolutely separate organizations finally emerge each with its own P.B. and its own convention?

Finally, can all this be done without rancor?

Mike Davis Sanford, Fla.