If The Episcopal Church fails to acknowledge that the New Hampshire consecration has precipitated a crisis within the Anglican Communion, it will be ever harder to bridge the widening chasm that is threatening to divide the worldwide association of Anglican churches, according to Alaska Bishop Mark L. MacDonald.

In a recent interview Bishop MacDonald said he attended the Sept. 19-22 meeting of “Windsor Bishops” at Camp Allen in Texas because the Windsor Report represents the only opportunity for a constructive debate over the human sexuality issues that the November 2003 consecration raised.

TLC: You were one of the few bishops who voted for the New Hampshire consecration to attend the meeting last week at Camp Allen. Why did you decide to attend the meeting of “Windsor Bishops”?

Bishop MacDonald: Bishop Jeffrey Steenson of the Rio Grande and I had spoken about the meeting. Bishop Gary Lillibridge and Bishop Don Wimberly and I all sat at the same table during General Convention. Bishop Steenson and Bishop Lillibridge both said they felt I could make a difference. The sense of trust and respect that I have for Bishop Wimberly also made me feel comfortable. We looked to him as our elder, to borrow a term from Alaska.

TLC: Since your name appeared as one of the signatories, what have people been saying to you and what conclusions have you drawn from their responses?

Bishop MacDonald: I am on vacation with my family this week, but I have received dozens of phone calls and even more e-mail messages. People have been surprised and shocked. Others have expressed dismay and hurt. People asked me if the Diocese of Alaska was still part of The Episcopal Church.

What I found from this whole process is that people have not read carefully either the Camp Allen statement or the Windsor Report. To American eyes it looks as though the Anglican Communion is using the Windsor Report to punish The Episcopal Church. The Windsor Report describes a process by which we can discuss a difficult issue.

TLC: So you now regret the fact that the New Hampshire consecration strained the bonds of affection?

Bishop MacDonald: Absolutely. I regret any part that I played in the breakdown in the bonds of affection. Viewed apart from the emotion, what is being asked of us is quite fair. We are not being asked to regret what we did, but the way we went about it. I don’t have any problem with that.

I absolutely believe that as a church, we should follow the moratoria proposed in the Windsor Report, and I will do that in the Diocese of Alaska. What we did and the merits of its intention and outcome is part of a larger discussion.

TLC: You don’t see a moratorium as a sell-out or scapegoating of gays?

Bishop MacDonald: There are deeper forces, both good and bad, at work in this crisis. There is a spiritual crisis in the world, but particularly in the West over God. We have made so many things that are less than God more important than God. If we don’t deal with the place of God in our own lives, this crisis will continue to grow.

As in all issues today, we are dealing with a major doctrinal and faith issue, deeply impacted by cross-cultural issues and perspectives. Since in Alaska you either live in a cross-cultural context or you live in crisis, we see the Windsor Report differently, I think, than much of the rest of the American Church. We see the need for conversation. The rest of the world doesn’t always see things as an extension of “culture war politics” as experienced in the United States.

I do think gays have been scapegoated for a general collapse of faith in the church, but justice will best be served by adopting methods other than the ones currently dominating the American discussion. Part of the trouble is that the Windsor Report has been read as a complete repudiation of The Episcopal Church. We are being asked to participate in a conversation about what has happened. The Windsor Report represents the parameters under which that discussion can take place. If we reject that discussion, we reject both that conversation and its parameters. This would be tragic and its consequences grave.

TLC: You signed a statement that recognizes some of your colleagues need an “alternative primatial relationship.” Does this mean you endorse sending “another bishop” to the primates’ meeting in order to represent the eight dioceses whose bishops have said that Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori is incapable of representing their views to the wider council of the Church?

Bishop MacDonald: The fact that they have said they need an alternative primatial relationship seems to me to be merely a statement of fact, but it is not my issue. I have absolutely no interest, no desire and no plan to seek APO in the Diocese of Alaska, but they [the eight dioceses which have requested alternate primatial oversight] have said that this is an urgent necessity for them.

Without prejudicing that discussion, you can say that they shouldn’t feel that way, but if we are going to find a way to live and work with each other, my conviction is that unity is worth finding some accommodation. The Camp Allen statement uses “relationship” to describe possibilities that might exist short of APO. It is very clear that there is going to have to be some very careful work done before people can begin to feel trust again – on all sides.

To find more news, feature articles, and commentary about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion not available online, we invite you to subscribe to The Living Church magazine. To learn more, click here.