In late September, the Claiming the Blessing Collaborative issued an open letter to the church, signed by 15 leaders of the group (www.thewitness.org/agw). It is one of the most candid documents I have seen from the Episcopal left in more than a decade of reporting on its gatherings.

Citing Jesus' words of "Whoever is not against us is for us" (Mark 9), the leaders write, "Jesus clearly lands on the side of a diversity of 'following' so long as it is within a common confession."

Then they add this sentence, which is the heart of the document: "We ask, are not the Nicene and Apostles' Creed such a common confession and would it not be a fundamental change to the nature of Anglicanism to consider anything outside of their proclamation an 'essential' of faith that is a cause not only for disagreement but for alienation?"

Further, these leaders address a question posed by Archbishop Peter Akinola, the primate of Nigeria, when he said, "I ask, are the issues of peace, hunger, shariah, and HIV/AIDS, serious and prevalent as they are, more important to the church than faithfulness to the plain truth of Scripture?"

Claiming the Blessing responds: "For many of us (and, we dare conjecture, a majority of Anglicans) this is not a rhetorical question, and the answer is 'yes.' And the answer is yes because there is no universal 'plain truth of Scripture' in our tradition, save that interpreted for us by the universal creeds. To claim differently is, again, to propose a change in the fundamental nature of Anglicanism."

Claiming the Blessing's open letter highlights the clash of worldviews that is ultimately at the foundation of our church's arguments about sex. To the letter's question about whether the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds are our common confession, I must answer: I sure hope so.

To elaborate on that tentative response, let me turn to several questions prompted by the open letter:

Do the leaders of Claiming the Blessing believe the two major creeds are statements of theological reality? Many of us are accustomed to seeing Episcopalians treat Scripture as a symbol system rather than as God's self-revelation. Are we being overly suspicious if we think the creeds are often treated with less respect than they deserve?

When the creeds speak of Jesus rising from the grave, do they mean something more than Jesus living in the memories of his apostles?

Why do many Episcopal parishes, including one represented in the open letter, preface their reading of the Nicene Creed with assertions that it reflects the limited knowledge of the fourth century? Does such liturgical throat-clearing not diminish the open letter's description of the creeds as a common confession?

Considering that the creeds describe God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, why do so many Episcopal parishes today replace that language with impersonal formulas, such as "Creator, Liberator, and Sustainer"? Why do so many Episcopalians, like so many Jehovah's Witnesses, refer to the Holy Spirit as "It"? If we are united by these common confessions, why do we so commonly reject their language for the persons of the Trinity?

Do the leaders of Claiming the Blessing actually believe that Anglicanism, in all of history, knows nothing of a plain truth of Scripture?

In thinking about the Articles of Religion, which most people agree reflect Anglican thought of the 19th century, how would these leaders explain Article 19 (BCP, p. 871), which describes the church as "a congregation . . . in which the pure Word of God is preached"?

Or Article 20: "and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written"?

Or even this selection from the Catechism (BCP, p. 853): "Q: How do we understand the meaning of the Bible? A: We understand the meaning of the Bible by the help of the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in the true interpretation of the Scriptures"?

Do phrases such as "pure Word of God," "contrary to God's Word written," or "true interpretation of the Scriptures" not suggest a plain sense of Scripture that can be understood even by most laypeople?

What passages of our common confessions would Claiming the Blessing cite to justify the church extending its pastoral blessing to gay couples?

In holding forth with such certainty on the "fundamental nature of Anglicanism," do the leaders of Claiming the Blessing not risk the very exclusiveness they perceive in other Anglicans?