On July 14, two articles appeared in TLC which, when placed side by side, display all too clearly Bishop John MacNaughton's thesis that the Episcopal Church is no longer one but two churches [TLC, May 7, 1995].

The first article reported the formation of the American Anglican Council. Bishop James Stanton of Dallas was quoted as stating that the purpose of the group is to give expression to a desire "as so-called 'conservatives,' to stop reacting to another's agenda, but instead to uphold the faith of the church." In upholding this faith, the American Anglican Council understands that "the basis is the scriptures," and that the scriptures are "the ground upon which we (the AAC) stand."

The second article reported a forum held in Columbia, S.C., at which the Rev. Ellen Wondra, associate professor at the Rochester Center for Theological Studies, called for civil and ecclesiastical disobedience in matters of blessing same-sex couples and ordaining non-celibate homosexuals. She also called for the formation of an organization to be known as the Center for Progressive Christianity. This center would have as its purpose the promotion of inclusive language liturgies and liturgies for blessing same-sex couples.

Though I do not agree entirely with the way in which Bishop MacNaughton characterized the two churches, I do believe his observation that we now have two churches is largely correct. It also seems clear that the meeting in Chicago which led to the formation of the Anglican American Council and the forum in Columbia calling for the establishment of a Center for Progressive Christianity provide clear examples of the two-church thesis. In the light of the Righter decision, we can only expect this division to widen. Indeed, I expect there will be a number of additional groups formed in the days ahead, each seeking to show the way ahead for a divided church.

The question is not whether these groups will form. The question is how we ought to understand their significance. Those in what Bishop MacNaughton called Church One see themselves as a faithful remnant, a continuing church, in the midst of widespread apostasy. Those in Church Two see themselves as a prophetic minority struggling to be obedient to God in the midst of wrenching social change and oppressive reaction. The point is that those on each side see themselves as members of the true and faithful church. Those in the middle simply remain silent, fearful of being labeled in some way that both places them in a negative light and fails to do justice to either their convictions or their questions and reservations. They don't really want to join up with either Church One or Church Two. And so the Episcopal Church may be diagrammed as a barbell with heavy weights at its extremes which are connected only by a thin and not very strong rod.

These conditions suggest that the most likely way forward at the moment is a continuation of the battle that now rages between Church One and Church Two - a battle in which each seeks to control the governance of the church. The life of the church is now politicized all the way down, and the result of the struggle is an increasing lack of charity all the way around.

The standard way of viewing our divisions has set us on a collision course that in the end will destroy the Episcopal Church. Perhaps that is God's will. I do not know. I have, however, asked if there is another way to view the significance of our present divisions. In asking this question, I have come to the conclusion that the standard interpretation of our circumstances is itself a symptom of our problem rather than a means to its solution. I believe that what God wants from our church is not a series of claims and counter claims about the nature of the true church, but an admission of deficiency on the part of all parties to this suicidal combat.

In taking this position, I am not saying, in effect, a plague on all your houses. I do not wish to claim a righteous position in the middle. I am saying only that members of both churches, along with those who identify with the moderate middle, need to give up their claims to righteousness and ask themselves where the hostility and timidity that characterize our increasingly less common life come from. Why can't we in fact grapple with our divisions in a manner that is both truthful and charitable and so Christianly apt? It is hard to believe that this disability is the mark of a true and faithful church. Our inability to address the matters that divide us does not indicate the presence of the Spirit and its fruits but rather their absence.

If indeed our problem is not a battle between a true and a false church but a church whose entire body lacks those qualities which mark the presence of the Spirit of love and truth, then the way ahead for both Church One and Church Two (and the moderate middle) is not an inflated identification with the true church, but a searching self-examination on the part of everyone. Such an examination properly ought to be carried out on the basis of the baptismal covenant and, if indeed it is, there is good reason to believe that the examination will end in repentance, amendment of life and a renewed presence of the Spirit.

Self-examination, repentance and amendment of life are the necessary preconditions of both truth and charity within the communion of saints. At present neither is a part of our thinking. Given the place from which we begin (self-assertive claims to be either God's vanguard or God's faithful remnant), one can only conclude that it will take years for these attitudes and practices to become effective aspects of the life of our church.

This diagnosis suggests not only that our true circumstances are quite different than we believe them to be; it also suggests what we ought to look for in the platform of anyone who might seek the office of Presiding Bishop. That platform ought to contain four planks - each a marker along the only way left for a church which finds charity and truth out of its reach:

1. The next Presiding Bishop ought to call the entire church, and particularly its most clearly defined groups and parties, to a searching self-examination on the basis of the baptismal covenant.

2. He or she ought to call the entire church to the sort of repentance and amendment of life that will allow us to replace political struggle with both truth and charity.

3. In order to provide space for us to turn from our present way to another, the next Presiding Bishop ought to call for a moratorium on all resolutions and canons having to do with disputed theological and moral issues for the entire time he or she is in office.

4. He or she ought to call all bishops and clergy to pastoral restraint and discretion in respect to the issues that now divide us.

These proposals may seem timid to some, but they in fact define a more excellent way - one that, by giving up the idea of victory, in fact makes unity, truth and charity real possibilities. o

The Very Rev. Philip Turner is dean of the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale.