The Episcopal Church is in the midst of the 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 toward a path of reconciliation, I am proposing a facilitated negotiated settlement that would enable two diverse communities to live together in a pluralistic context centered on the person of Jesus Christ.

I will begin by asking the question, "Is a negotiated settlement appropriate?" Is it a morally appropriate and principled solution to the conflict in the Episcopal Church over homosexuality? If we assume that the heart of a negotiated settlement involves compromise over deeply held religious beliefs and values, then it would seem that such an approach would at best be a moral compromise or a handshake with the devil. However, in negotiation it is sometimes helpful to reframe the question. In this context the question becomes, "Can we find a problem-solving approach that enables two distinct identity-based communities with irreconcilable core values to live with each other in a respectful and creative context without compromising their identity or their convictions?"

I believe scripture, tradition and reason each suggest the appropriateness of a negotiated settlement. From the standpoint of scripture, the principled settlement of Acts 15 involving Paul and the Judaizers is worthy of closer study. From the standpoint of tradition, a negotiated settlement represents a principled middle course and is consistent with the values we espouse as a religious community. From the standpoint of reason, it assumes that both parties have legitimate needs and interests and would prefer a less adversarial environment within the Episcopal Church.

Is a negotiated settlement possible? There are two possible approaches: distributive and integrative bargaining. Distributive bargaining is based on five key principles: a fixed pie/zero sum gain principle, a negotiation from positions principle, the Negotiation Dance principle, the opening offer principle and the linkage principle. For a host of ethical and pragmatic reasons, I believe the distributive bargaining approach is neither appropriate nor possible as a means of resolving the conflict.

The alternative is integrative bargaining, or what is popularly known as the Problem Solving Approach or Principled Negotiation that was developed by Roger Fisher and William Ury of the Harvard Negotiation Project. Because of the identity-based, values-laden nature of this conflict, I believe principled negotiation holds the only possibility of reframing the conflict into a problem-solving approach.

The first principle of integrative bargaining is the expanded pie principle, which means creating value so there is opportunity for gains by both conservatives and liberals. As a result, the value-creating question becomes, "Can we arrive at a principled settlement that would enable two distinct identity-based communities with irreconcilable core values to live with each other in a respectful and creative context without compromising their identity or convictions?"

The second principle of integrative bargaining is the soft on people/firm on issues principle which means that conservatives and liberals need to assume a more strategic view of relationships which requires separating people from the problem. There have been years of demonizing each other that has created strong negative attitudes and perceptions on both sides. Healing and transformation are to take place in order for both parties to develop empathy and trust.

The third principle is the reconciling interests principle, which means going beyond seemingly incompatible positions to discover possible compatible interests. This brings us to the heart or essence of the problem-solving approach to negotiation - "going below the line" to discover intangible needs, values, goals, aspirations or fears. This will enable both conservatives and liberals to hear the passion of moral principle on both sides, the fear of coercive tactics, the pain of exclusion and search for self-acceptance, and the anxiety about international ostracism.

The fourth principle is the creative options for mutual gains principle, which means both conservatives and liberals engaging in a three-step process of brainstorming: identifying, developing and evaluating ideas and options. This is a point where I believe issues of local option, new patterns of Episcopal oversight, companion relationships and a minimum assessment without fear of coercive measures could be fruitfully explored by the parties.

The fifth principle of integrative bargaining is the objective criteria principle, which means establishing standards to evaluate the merits of each proposal apart from a test of wills. For Anglicans these standards already exist. Is the proposal biblical in that it is consistent with biblical teaching, practice and values? Is the proposal consistent with our tradition as an episcopally governed, sacramental and liturgical church? Is the proposal reasonable in the sense that it is consensual, just, durable and palatable?

Is a facilitated settlement appropriate? In other words, if one is to bring about a resolution to the conflict in the Episcopal Church over homosexuality, is mediation the most appropriate choice? For a host of reasons I believe mediation is not only the best option for resolution of the conflict, but is, in reality, the only option. Mediation would provide the maximum amount of facilitation with the minimum amount of outside coercion. It is consistent with the values and historical practice of religious communities in resolving conflict. It creates the least adversarial environment to resolve issues and preserve relationships. Therefore, it would be the most healing of processes.

The pragmatic application of mediation to the Episcopal Church context has five distinct stages. The first is convening, and the objective would be to bring recognized conservative and liberal leaders to the negotiating table who will participate in good faith, who will have charismatic authority to arrive at a settlement, and who will be able to sell an agreement to their respective constituencies. Specifically, a legitimate context for mediation could be created by having the provincial primates, under the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, invoke Resolution 111.6 of the Lambeth Conference of Bishops to declare that the American church is in crisis and does not have sufficient resources within itself to resolve the crisis. This could lead to the appointment of an international mediation team and the formation of conservative and liberal negotiating teams in a Camp David/Wye Plantation style.

The second stage is opening, and the specific objective would be to create a climate of safety and hope so conservative and liberal negotiating teams will have the volition and capacity to reach a durable settlement. Through opening statements and reframing the conflict, this would enable both sides to hear and be heard in a safe, respectful environment.

The third stage is communicating, and the specific objective would be to build trust and cooperation between the conservative and liberal negotiating teams in order that they will be able to surface antagonism, create resonance and embrace a problem-solving approach. Such experiences as sharing spiritual journeys, dialogue and a joint pilgrimage could foster conciliation between the parties.

Negotiating is the fourth stage. Its specific objective would be to enable conservative and liberal negotiating teams to engage in joint identification of interests, generating and assessing options for settlement and constructing settlement frameworks. In terms of settlement frameworks, there are two possibilities. The first option might be that conservatives and liberals remain in the same institutional structure with no changes to the existing policies of human sexuality on a national level, implementation of a local option policy on a diocesan level, and delineating spheres of influence in areas of national program and budget. The second option might be that conservatives and liberals develop separate institutional frameworks, amicable division of assets, freedom for parishes and dioceses to affiliate with either institution and both institutions being recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the provinces of the Anglican Communion.

The fifth stage of the mediation process is closing. Its objective would be to bring successful closure to the negotiation process to achieve a formal, written and enforceable agreement and to sell the agreement to the respective constituencies.

My hope is that this article will stimulate concerted prayer and a thoughtful national conversation about an alternative to the present conflict that can point us toward the path of healing and reconciliation. o

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