You have been a significant voice on the evangelical side of the Episcopal Church for a long time. What in your own personal faith journey led you to this particular decision?

Several things. First of all, ever since my ordination, as I have met in gatherings of clergy in several dioceses, it has become clear to me that we do not all take the scriptures with the same seriousness and interpret it in the same basic manner. The results of that have led to a fairly tension-laden life in the church, with the church in its conventions - in its diocesan conventions in a number of places, and at General Convention - approving of things which increasingly seem to me and others contrary to the plain teaching of scripture.

That has been a concern in my life probably ever since I became a teacher of theology in 1963. So it's not a new decision to try to lead the church in this way. In addition, I have been a part of, and initiator of, many of the organizations that have tried to say to the church that we were sliding away from classic Anglican theology and morals: Episcopalians United, Trinity seminary, etc.

About five or six years ago a group of parishes - that were in dioceses so strongly departing from biblical teaching and morals that they felt they had to leave - asked me if I would come and be their bishop, and I said no. The last thing we wanted to do was to start another "continuing" church. They asked then if I would be their theological consultant, which I began to do.

Every one of these congregations wanted to be part of the Anglican Communion but did not believe that they could remain in the diocese of the Episcopal Church in which they were located, with good conscience.

In 1998 they asked me to go to pre-Lambeth meetings and talk with archbishops and bishops to see what possibilities might lie ahead for their oversight. They did not wish to be part of one of the "continuing" churches. They wanted to be classic Anglicans in the traditional sense of that word.

So I did go [to the pre-Lambeth meetings] and we had a number of conversations that drew me into a process that led to the Kampala meeting with the conservative primates.

Some people would say that this is all just about homosexuality.

No, no. That's really not it at all. The issue is not just about sex, it's about the whole normative authority of scripture itself. This is an issue that, in many ways, goes back to the whole rise of protestant liberalism with Schleiermacher. It's about the Christian faith itself.

I mean, we're in a church in which somebody can basically - as Jack Spong does in his 12 theses - deny every major doctrine of the apostolic faith and be undisciplined by the House of Bishops and the Presiding Bishop. We're in a church in which dioceses can write their own creed and be undisciplined.

As far as I can see, we do not have one theological norm that we can appeal to authoritatively to deal with our differences. And on top of that our interpretive models are so subjective as to render them simply a collection of resources to be used diversely.

I have not seen us able to appeal to the authority of scripture. The creeds are going - we've for a long time heard people say, "I can sing them, but I can't say them ... I cross my fingers." The Book of Common Prayer is increasingly seen as "the prayer book unbounded" - no longer a definition of our faith, but more "a source to draw from - make your own services."

Basically, it seems to me, that we are left with "each one doing what is right in his own eyes." And our differences are such as to have no court of appeal whereby which we might come to a common mind.

Having lived with this pain long enough, I came to a point that I would be willing to do this [be consecrated] if necessary, if the primates asked me. It was the First Promise movement that put my name forward. I didn't ask for that. At this stage in my life I'm not looking for a lot more work, and certainly not looking for a lot of extra flak.

So three reasons come to mind for this action: First, the desire to reaffirm classic Anglican identity in doctrine and morals - faith - and to ensure thereby an orthodox Anglican province in the Anglican Communion in the U.S.A. Second, the care of these congregations, in great distress really. And then, third, the desire to get the gospel out in areas where perhaps the Episcopal Church isn't doing a very faithful job of that and is, in many ways, misrepresenting the gospel.

Ian Douglas (Episcopal Divinity School) said in the New York Times that he saw this as being more about power and authority issues than about sexuality per se - a long-term shift taking place between the older Anglican churches and the newer, growing ones ... issues of what are the sources of Anglican authority and identity, etc.

I don't think it's really the new churches flexing their muscles so much as a pastoral concern on their part for what they perceive at least to be the drift of the Episcopal Church, and the need of certain congregations within it that don't want to drift, that are being kind of "oppressed" for taking a classical stance. It's about sources of theological authority more than institutional authority.

This is really more of a pastoral and an evangelistic, or missiological concern, than it is a political one. The politics of it are somewhat complex and not entirely clear, but the pastoral needs are very clear and the gospel is clear.

What do you hope to accomplish by this?

First of all, we hope just to draw the attention of the whole Communion to the importance of biblical faithfulness. And in particular we hope that the primates who are going to gather in March in Lisbon will see in this the depth of the issue. It just simply cannot go on the way it's been going on; the differences are too profound and deep, and something has to be addressed here.

The Kampala letter said that if some of the primates really felt that the pastoral needs were serious enough, they could take action earlier. And several of them do, and I agree with that. I think the people of the "oppressed" congregations have been hanging on the ragged edge for years and years now. Not to act was to demean the seriousness of the problem right now. Because the March meeting of Anglican primates is supposed to be looking at these very stresses, the question comes up, "Why did you do this now and not afterwards?"

On top of that, of course, we're hoping that this will help the primates see just how serious this is. I actually think it will strengthen their resolve to face this imperative. Some people see it the other way around ... it's a strategic difference of opinion. But my own opinion is that this helps put it on the agenda of the primates' meeting in March in a very special way.

You know we have experienced in the Episcopal Church that those who are making radical revisions in the faith and morals don't mind what we (traditionalists) say as long as we just "behave ourselves" and continue to pay our assessments. Debate and discussion has gone on for most of my ministry and, if anything, we have constantly lost ground. So this way, at least, we have staked out a spot here, and we are going to try to be faithful to it.

An action taken seriously, and at some cost, in a timely moment - in a kairos moment - has a certain influence that discussion doesn't have.

On a practical level, how would you envision this working? We have a whole tradition of bishops not entering into each other's jurisdictions without permission.

My view is that dioceses were introduced into the church in order to order the life of the faithful church. Dioceses don't create the unity, they order the unity. The unity is given in and through faith in Christ, and in and through the Anglican grasp of that. So where Lambeth spoke about our doctrine and our faith, and the order follows upon that, we will respect it. In a diocese that is honoring all of the resolutions at Lambeth - on the authority of scripture and human sexuality, etc. - we will be happy to respect the boundary resolution on diocesan structure.

On that practical level, how will you now, as a bishop in the Anglican Communion, relate to, say, the Bishop of Pittsburgh where you live?

This diocese has affirmed the resolutions of Lambeth, so I will certainly do only what the Bishop of Pittsburgh gives me permission to do, or asks me to do, for that matter.

Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold says that your term "crisis" bears "very little resemblance to the church we actually know," citing increases in worship attendance and stewardship.

Well, Bishop Griswold and his advisory committee invited the primates who raised some concern about the state of the Episcopal Church and its particular drift to "come and see." And so they came and saw and they wrote a report. In it they say a number of very searching, very troubling, things about the state of the church ... so troubling that they are going to come to the primates' meeting in Lisbon with a plan to address it. So either Frank isn't seeing the same church they are, or he isn't listening very carefully. These are matters of theological conscience, not just personal temperament.

Is there anything else you feel is important to say?

I think it's important to realize that we've created no new entities, we've not made any new dioceses, or any new province. We're simply, at this point, extending pastoral care to congregations that feel as if they cannot receive the kind of episcopal oversight and affirmation that they need to remain classical Anglicans, to be in accord with scripture, and the prayer book, and the creeds and the articles. We're simply helping them out. We hope that this will also then bring this issue more boldly to the whole Communion. o