The latest attempt by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, at "muddling through" in order to save the Worldwide Anglican Communion from certain doom (a doom precipitated by the liberal wing's pro-homosexual agenda) appears to be another artful attempt by an Englishman to navigate the religious quagmire in order to find a compromise that will satisfy everyone - and save the Communion.

To quote the Archbishop: "The leaders of the Communion thought it worth trying - not because enforced unanimity matters more than anything, but because the relations and common work of the Communion, especially in the developing world, matter massively...unity and consent seems worth holding on to, for the sake of the whole Christian family."

Whether or not the Archbishop appreciates the level of the intransigence in the liberal wing or the resolve of the conservatives is not clear to all. What is clear however, is that the western liberals within Anglicanism remain incorrigibly committed to heresy.

Said the Bishop of Connecticut, Andrew Smith: "If the primates are asking us to undo what we have already done [bless same-sex unions and ordain a gay bishop], that is a step many of the bishops would be unwilling to take."

And on the other side of the controversy, the much larger conservative wing, headed up by African primates (and westerners), remain convinced, and increasingly so, that the liberals in the western wing are in fact no longer Christian - they are liberal, and these are two very different things.

Archbishop Peter Jensen of Sydney, Australia said it best when he declared: "I have taken the view from the beginning that the crisis over human sexuality is...a crisis over biblical authority and its clarity...To accept various contemporary ways of reading scripture will leave us vulnerable at all points. We will not defend the uniqueness of Christ if we will not defend the plain teaching of scripture on human sexuality."

For his part, Archbishop Williams seems sincere about finding balance for the sake of unity and peace within the Communion. As he put it: "One of the hardest things in all this has been to keep insisting on the absolute moral imperative of combating bigotry and violence against gay people, and the need to secure appropriate civic and legal protection for couples who have chosen to share their lives" with the teachings of the Bible.

But strike that balance he must.

And that is as it should be - that is, if it wants to remain consistent with 500 years of Anglican history.

Some have suggested that Anglicanism was birthed in compromise. That it was the product of political machinations and religious muddling that made it what it has become by definition - the "via media" - the middle way.

And if one scrutinizes its early history it's a very plausible theory.

King Henry VIII, the Father of Anglicanism carved out the middle way at the very beginning. As the "Defender of the Faith" it was essential that the Church of England would become the perfect balance between two religious worlds. He had no stomach for theological reform - for Protestant "excesses" - but neither was he interested in playing the Pope's part.

His desire was singular: retain the peace of the kingdom by establishing the absolute sovereignty of the English monarchy even if it meant expelling the Pope and vilifying Protestant Lutherans and Calvinists. And so he steered his monarchy and the people of England along the middle course between Protestantism and Catholicism, satisfying no one (ultimately) but keeping the peace all the same. So concerned was King Henry about the peace of the realm that he remained principally committed to the proverbial fence, and made sure to pay no partiality as he beheaded a Roman Catholic here and burned a Protestant there.

After Henry's death a brief surge of Protestantism under Edward VI, son from Jane Seymour, Henry's third wife, ensued. The Church of England was given an English Bible and the Forty Two articles of the Faith - it appeared that the Protestants were winning the day.

But Protestant hopes were quickly dashed when young Edward died at the age of fifteen and his half-sister, Mary Tudor (a.k.a. Bloody Mary), daughter of Catherine of Aragon, Henry's first wife, ascended the throne and reasserted Catholicism. Her reign ended in her death six years later, but not until 300 had died the martyrs' death.

These were indeed turbulent times for the English, and for Anglicanism. And the English really didn't know which way the Church would turn.

But then peace was secured at last under Elizabeth I, Henry's daughter from his second wife, Anne Boleyn (interesting, isn't it, that already then Anglicanism was embroiled in sexual controversy). With her reign established, England regained its composure and warded off threats from the continent (France and Spain).

Yet once again religious turmoil prevailed. Although Elizabeth was much more favorable to Protestantism than her father, she, like her father, instituted several policies that struck a balance between two very different groups. Elizabeth ensured that the burgeoning new Church of England, a church her father had created, would forever stay the middle course between Protestantism and Catholicism for the sake of peace and unity in the kingdom.

Thus was born Anglicanism - the "via media" - a Church rooted in political stability but defined by theological ambiguity - as the theory goes.

But that was then when the English penchant for peace forged a middle road between two very contradictory traditions.

Today is an entirely different story because Anglicanism is no longer the quintessential English Church, and the issues are much more rudimentary. Today Anglicanism is much more African and Asian - and thankfully for the Worldwide Anglican Communion - possesses much greater clarity about what it is, and what it is not.

Africans, Asians and an increasing number of conservative Anglican westerners have no temperament for "compromise" simply for the sake of peace, especially when such a peace would ultimately mean betraying what it means to be Christian.

Unlike their English protegees, compromising on essentials is seen as no way towards lasting peace and unity because for them the issue is categorically clear: will Anglicans remain an authentic Christian church that adheres to biblical authority or will it become paganized - a secular haven for social-justice glee-club theories?

From the sounds of it, Nigerian Primate Peter Akinola, the leader of the Global South, has no plans to muddle through the homosexual agenda. There is simply no room for the "via-media" this time. Which probably means that this will be the last time an Englishman will have to worry about trying to make peace within the Worldwide Anglican Communion.

And frankly, this is one westerner who is profoundly glad.

Yours for our culture,

Tristan Emmanuel
ECP Centre President