Typically, the Episcopal clergy is way to the left of the congregations.
Nobody really listens to them on political matters. Frankly, many do not on theological matters, as well.
Mommy st folks read the Pastoral Letter, and even more the Letter from the Bishop, with an attitude of “What did that idiot say this time?”
My English mother was a sort of Anglican Socialist who disagreed with St. Paul about justification by faith. It's so weird: a communion with strong Reformation influence yet claims to Catholicism, and so many parishioners are really Pelagian Unitarians! Yet so many others really do love Jesus and make an effort to be theologically informed.
But even when I was active ... I remember in the early 80s the House of Bishops labored and brought forth some pastoral letter which was notable in its ignorance of history. By the end of the 80s ... I remember a conversation with a bishop about Eucharistic theology. He claimed to believe in transubstantiation and to repudiate Hooker's “high receptionism” bu it became distressingly clear that he had NO idea what he was talking about. I don't know if it's very “Episcopalish” to insist on this or that Eucharistic Doctrine. They may SAY, “real presence,” but there's no agreement on what “real” means, so it's little more than a vague claim of some sort of objectivity.
But I think a bishop ought either to know the classic dogma or to have a counselor who knows them. As I slipped across the Tiber I saw that if there were any Episcopal theologians of merit, the clergy weren't listening to them. It was almost all slogans and fads.
So, what was there really for the laity to listen to?