The Episcopal Church is in the midst of a profound and protracted conflict that presents the very real possibility of a historic schism as well as threatening to involve all the other provinces of the Anglican Communion. In an effort to nudge the Episcopal Church away from the present spiral and toward a path of reconciliation, I offer this analysis of the conflict and present a proposal for a facilitated negotiated settlement that would enable two diverse communities to live together in a pluralistic context centered on the Person of Jesus Christ.

The specific key issues of this conflict center on the blessing of same-sex unions and ordaining non-celibate homosexual persons as priests. There are two key parties to this conflict. The first party is theological/social conservatives who maintain that blessing committed same-sex couples and ordaining practicing homosexual persons is inconsistent with both the teaching of the Bible and with the tradition of the church.

The second party is theological/social liberals who maintain that homosexual relationships are a healthy, viable alternative lifestyle and that to take these actions is a matter of social justice for gay and lesbian people. Both parties consist of subgroups; bridge burners who are not prepared to brook any compromise and bridge builders who are prepared to reach out to the other party and to live in an institutional framework that is less than ideal. Bridge burners place a higher value on truth over unity, whereas, bridge builders see a more nuanced interrelationship between them. If one probes beneath the surface of the conflict, one discovers not an interest-based conflict, but, in fact, an identity-based conflict. This type of conflict is rooted in people's collective need for identity, security, community and vitality. Identity is the racial, ethnic, tribal, national or religious distinctiveness of a group.

In the Episcopal Church there are two distinct communities that co-exist in the same institutional structure. They have profoundly different core theology and values. They speak completely different languages of faith. They move in completely different networks of relationships.

One distinct community is the conservatives, whose core identity would pivot around personal conversion/moral values/tradition. The second distinct community is the liberals, whose core identity revolves around peace/justice/affirming and inclusive community. Historically these two communities have managed to co-exist within the framework of the institutional Episcopal Church, but the issue of homosexuality has become one of those lines drawn in the Anglican sand.

The first factor to consider in analysis of the conflict is how the two parties are presently choosing to resolve the conflict. There are five possible options available to them: avoidance, yielding, contending, compromise and problem solving. In the present context, both conservative and liberal bridge burners have chosen contending as their strategy because they have a high concern for their own outcome and a low concern for the outcome of the other party. Both have high rigid aspirations attached to the substantive issues and a relatively low concern for the continuation of the relationships with each other.

Liberals want to change the Episcopal Church's doctrine on sexuality. Conservatives want to prevent that change at all cost. However, among bridge builders on both sides of the conflict, there is the greatest potential for a problem-solving strategy.

The second factor to consider in analysis of the conflict is the psychological barriers to the resolution of the conflict. The first such barrier is cognitive dissonance, which would involve the parties having to change their positions in such a manner that would be inconsistent with past actions, values and beliefs; conservatives living with local option or liberals foreswearing a history of coercive tactics that would enable a policy of tolerance on both sides.

The second such barrier is optimistic overconfidence, which causes parties to have little incentive to settle a conflict if they believe that ultimately they will prevail. At the present time liberals are convinced that ultimately they will prevail. Conservatives are convinced that international Anglican primates and bishops will come to their rescue and punish liberals with ostracism from the worldwide Anglican Communion.

The third such barrier is loss aversion. Both conservatives and liberals are more likely to take risky and pejorative actions to avoid losing their cherished goals than the gain of keeping the Episcopal Church intact. Each is prepared to accept the loss of the other party as a price for achievement of their goals.

The fourth such barrier is divergent construal. Conservatives and liberals have two completely different frameworks for evaluating the same information. The paradigm for conservatives is the Human Brokenness Model, whereas the paradigm for liberals is the Social Justice Model. For conservatives, gay and lesbian people need to seek healing for sexual brokenness. For liberals the church has been historically unwelcoming of gay and lesbian people and has contributed to their self-hatred. The church's historic treatment of gay and lesbian people constitutes oppression.

The fifth such barrier is ego defensiveness. Conservatives tend to view themselves as faithful servants of God standing up for truth in a sea of secular post-modern revisionism. Conservatives tend to view liberals as misguided, unbiblical and even as non-Christian. Liberals tend to view themselves as champions of social justice who hold the high moral ground in this debate. Liberals tend to view conservatives as fearful, prejudiced, homophobic, resistant to change and uncaring about justice.

The sixth such barrier is naive realism. Both conservatives and liberals believe that their perception of the situation is objective reality. To the extent that the other side of the conflict disagrees with them they are seen as uninformed, prejudiced or lazy.

The third factor to consider in analysis of the conflict is the contentious tactics being used by both parties. Both conservatives and liberals have used ingratiation, gamesmanship, guilt trips, persuasive argumentation, threats, and irrevocable commitments as a part of a strategy of contending. Conservatives, for example, have used threats in withdrawing financial support from dioceses and the national church. Liberals, for example, have used an irrevocable commitment by simply going ahead and blessing same-sex unions and challenging conservatives to try to stop them.

The fourth factor to consider in analysis of the conflict is social psychological processes that have contributed to escalation of the conflict. Blame, anger and fear characterizes both conservatives and liberals in how they react to each other's words and actions. These feelings have caused an escalation in the conflict that has contributed significantly to a permanent state of conflict in the Episcopal Church. Both conservatives and liberals have deep-seated negative attitudes and perceptions of each other that have caused blaming, distrust, retaliation, loss of empathy, zero sum thinking and demonization on both sides. Within both groups these permanent attitudes and perceptions have led to extreme hostility, polarization, contentious group goals and militant subgroups.

The fifth factor to consider in analysis of the conflict is the positive factors that contribute to stability in the Episcopal Church in the midst of a highly contentious and potentially destabilizing conflict. These include social bonds such as positive attitudes, respect, friendship, kinship, perceived similarity and common group membership and dependence. Conservatives and liberals have often toiled together for years in parishes and dioceses. There is mutual dependency in terms of friendships, pastoral relationships, financial ties (i.e. the Church Pension Fund), shared common worship (the Book of Common Prayer) and governance which keeps conservatives and liberals together. There are linking pins who serve as trusted go betweens and bridge builders in parishes and dioceses. There are conflict limiting norms which encourage a respectful, open and constructive approach to conflict and anger. The heart of the gospel is about reconciliation, forgiveness and unity.

The final factor to consider in analysis of the conflict is the requirements for stalemate in which both parties will come to a realization that they will not prevail over the other and that they are interdependent on each other to resolve the conflict in a manner that meets both their needs. If liberals prevail in changing the official teaching of the Episcopal Church on homosexuality by legislation there will be a schism. How can we avoid such a historic schism? o

Next week: Toward Reconciliation

The Rev. Brian Cox is the rector of Christ the King Church, Santa Barbara, Calif. He is also the president of the Reconciliation Institute.