The Lambeth Conference wades on while Down Here I read what I can find to read, and none of it is looking very good. My own little hunch is that they have the wrong agenda. Rather than trying to find a way to hold together that which does not properly fit together, the discussions need to be on how to separate with the least amount of acrimony possible. In other words… it is over, in all but name.

OK, so I have just put myself in the category of the separationsts as opposed to the reformers (who think they can “convert” the other side over) or the new paradigm-ers (who want to create a new way of us all hanging out together, loosely connected but connected somehow all the same).

My experience of debate with those adhering to positions permeated by liberal theology is that, no matter how polite and congenial, we are diametrically opposed and unable to “give” in any meaningful manner on the fundamentals of our respective faiths. Yes, respective faiths… we do not hold to the same gospel. We might use the same words and terms, but we use them quite differently and talk past each other. We do not engage… because we cannot engage. A round peg does not fit the square hole. We simply wear each other out, and must end up “agreeing to disagree” for sanity’s sake. So I’m not hopeful of converting others to my position - the traditional one - when they do not want to be converted, and likewise they cannot do the same to me. I see the reformers position as something of a lost cause. If there is no en masse “Road to Damascus” experience, then we are totally stumped.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, despite what was reported that he said last week, according to his public writings, personally believes that while the ongoing innovative actions of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada (the ordination of a gay bishop, and the blessing of gay partnerships) are provocative and ecclesiologically irresponsible, they are not profane. This view makes it impossible for him to appreciate and understand why so much of Christendom, including a clear majority within the Anglican Communion, are so deeply scandalized by the revisionism coming from a highly politically active part of the Communion intent on sanctifying the gay lifestyle. The argument is over what is sacred, and what is not. To call sacred something that is profane is as much blasphemy as to call profane something that is sacred. It is about Biblical authority and Biblical truth. You do not compromise the truth when you know it is God’s truth, the Apostolic faith handed down to us. Secular humanism and cultural innovations absolutely do not change what is God’s truth, and no amount of revising the way Scripture is read can truly replace what is sacred with what is profane. No compromise is possible. Truth is truth.

The new paradigm? This is a weird one. Under a new paradigm, Anglicanism would become a global network, but remain locally distinctive, church or community-based, and centred on the biblical mission of evangelism and discipleship. Something holds it together loosely… the name “Anglican” perhaps. But we would have different faiths, preach and teach different gospels, and hope not to step on the toes of each other. Nope. Not for me.

So altogether, and with a heavy heart, I come out on the side of a breakup - a complete split into two separate churches. Unity cannot be held up as the supreme virtue when Truth is at stake. It is a superficial unity at best, the Visible Church being a mixed crop of both wheat and weeds. It is only within the Invisible Church where the saints are truly united, belonging (or having belonged) to many different churches down through the ages. That is where we have unity, and it is also where we have Truth.

Postscript: The Church Cannot Heal This Crisis of Betrayal ~ from The Most Rev Henry Luke Orombi, Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Uganda.