It is a point worth noting that it is entirely possible to disagree about important matters while maintaining respect, dignity, and community, at least among those who are prepared to take the risk of engaging in those conversations.

It is that hope which generated our one unanimous action: the invitation to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the members of the Primates Steering Committee to meet with us for three days of conversation.

The action of the Bishops that has drawn the greatest attention was our recommendation to decline to participate in the “Pastoral Scheme” as proposed by the Primates. Frankly this action surprised many of us. Most, I believe, arrived at the meeting anticipating discussion followed by a church wide conversation lasting until September, at the least.

We were startled to learn that the archbishop of Canterbury had already begun the process of implementing the Pastoral Scheme before we had even the most preliminary conversation. Therefore, a clear majority of us felt forced to take an action sooner than we might have wished otherwise. We were convinced that to fail to act would have signaled submission to an authority we had never even debated as a church, much less one to which we had acceded.

It would be a misreading of our actions to see them as a refusal to discuss issues of mutual concern. Quite the opposite, our concern was to preserve our standing as an equal conversation partner, not one to be dictated to by prelates with whom we have important but decidedly distant relations. Further, we are fully aware that there are other requests made of us by the Primates’ Communiqué which we have yet to address. We look forward to discussing those requests, in the light of church-wide conversations, in September.

It is crucial to bear in mind, however, that that too will be just one more step in the process of consultation to which we have previously committed ourselves. The simple fact is that in this church, bishops do not have the authority to supplant actions of our General Convention no matter how pressing others may believe those issues to be. We bishops can neither create nor delete actions agreed upon by our chief governing body.

Finally, the intense desire to be and be seen to be a faithful member church, in a community of equal member churches, was expressed repeatedly. At the same time however, there was no willingness to compromise our identity as the Episcopal Church; a church that, after consideration and consultation with the larger community, is fully capable of making decisions about the course of its own mission.

We came to realize, with great clarity, that the price for claiming this identity, with its commitment to remain in solidarity with our beloved gay and lesbian members, might be that we would no longer be welcomed by some of our brothers and sisters in the Anglican Communion.

Tragic and sad as that might be, if that were the price demanded of us, that would be a price that I, among many, would be prepared to pay.

The Rt. Rev. Mark S. Sisk, Episcopal bishop of New York, is a panelist for On Faith.