That is, the ultimate authority determining what the church believes is not a pope, or a primate, or an archbishop, or a council of bishops, or even a conference or synod of clergy and laity.

Rather, each congregation will decide all questions, moral and theological, for itself.

And this, of course, if you can believe the talk of local clergy and laity, is already well under way.

No sooner, for instance, did the United Church announce its astonishing assessment of Israel than letters began appearing in the newspapers from the shocked and bewildered members of that church, most of them pointing out the obvious.

All over the world, Christians are suffering persecution.

In China, the persecutors are the Communist government. Almost everywhere else, it's the Muslim fundamentalists.

Today the most powerful bastion against this aggression is Israel.

That's why Islamic states want to destroy it. Now they have an ally in the United Church of Canada.

The mind reels.

Meanwhile, over on the Anglican front, the controversy is portrayed as one of morality -- is sodomy morally wrong? But behind that question stands another.

The Church through the ages has always condemned it. That teaching is now being rejected.

We should note that the Christian church has never condemned the inclination towards sodomy, only the yielding to that inclination.

They equate it, that is, with other sexual practices -- adultery, pedophilia, bestiality, rape, incest and so on.

Now in the 20th century, we are being asked to believe all the other centuries erred, and this particular form of conduct is not sinful.

Why? Because some individuals are prone to it.

But then some individuals have always been prone to them all.

So what have we discovered in the 20th century that we didn't know before?

One thing for sure. We've discovered it can lead to a very deadly disease. But this surely argues for strengthening the prohibition, not for abolishing it. I have never heard this question answered.

Instead all we get are paeans about human rights, tolerance and "inclusiveness."

So the Anglican Church marches to its ruin. And over what issue? Sodomy. Again, the mind reels.

And what will happen now?

Both institutions will cease to exist. The process will be gradual, of course. Synods and conferences will become less attended and less heeded. The news media will lose interest.

Few will know what strange things the General Conference of the United Church decides because so few will care.

Even now, is the Israel decision likely to make one iota of change to Canadian foreign policy? It will not, and for two reasons. First, very few church members make up their mind on any question on the basis of what some church body decides.

Second, the numerical strength of these churches is dwindling. Wherever there is an instance of growth, it's because of the church's spiritual work. Its political stands can be ignored.

As for the Anglicans, the story will be much the same. Increasingly the local congregation will become the centre of allegiance.

The bishops, most of them pro-sodomy, will of course try to discredit and dismiss those clergy who remain loyal to the faith and whose congregations reflect growth. But very soon contributions to the diocese will diminish and the power of the bishop will diminish with it.

The pro-sodomy set within the Anglican church, we should note, is confined to North America and Great Britain. In other parts of the world, the Anglican church is growing and healthy, and if the church survives at all, it's from there the leadership will come.

---Ted Byfield is a Canadian Journalist based in Edmonton, Alberta
END