Speaking "positively", what would you have to "believe" in order to convince other people (as empty as yourself) that you were one of the "good people" and not one of those noisy troublemakers who make life with one's head in the sand seem dark and constricting?

Notice I put "positively" and "believe" in quotes. The word "positive" has an important philosophical meaning, apart from its popular connotation of "say something positive", meaning, "say something nice". "Say something positive" today generally means "say as little as possible, but make it sound good."

In philosophy "positive" refers to something that is actually there. The Pope, according to Dr. Graham's comment, is skeptical of Anglican religion (at least in the West) because it appears to have no positive content. It is nothing disguising itself as something. Worse -- it is nothing disguising itself as divine revelation.

If the former Cardinal Ratzinger, the theologian's theologian, can ask, "Where's the beef?", then those of us in the Anglican fold who value our self-respect need to come up with an answer. Not for His Holiness' sake, but for our own. By calling our bluff he shows himself a better friend than most of our sworn leaders.

In a 2002 interview the same Monsignor Graham, newly converted to Roman Catholicism, characterized his native Anglicanism as a "slide into subjectivism". He traced this "slide" to the Anglican Church's origin in Tudor England, describing the Faith as a political settlement from the beginning. While the public statement of that Faith had always been orthodox, implicit in it was a certain political malleability. As Dr. Graham suggests, orthodoxy as a means to some greater end is not the orthodoxy of saving faith, nor of Catholic Christianity.

Presumably the good Monsignor makes similar observations about the state churches of "Catholic" Europe as well.

What sort of "belief" characterizes a "subjectivist" religion? If it was hidden in pre-modern England, in post-modern America it is quite out in the open.

"Belief" (still in quotes) in the churches today is not something with positive content; nor does it denote some active stance relative to the world. It is more like a "position statement" -- something to keep the public at bay for the time being, maybe even something to satisfy our friends (who are as suspicious and insecure as we are). "Belief" in a subjectivist faith is a means to maintain the personal or collective status quo. It says what needs to be said, not to be taken at face value as "truth", but merely to disarm criticism for the short term.

Such "belief" is purely defensive and quickly becomes hysterical when challenged. It is really a terrorized "belief", and its adherents are like frightened children, who display a measure of bravado only when gathered in numbers. One wonders if such displays are expressions of real confidence and whether the "faithful" really inspire one another, or whether they simply remind each other to hold their cards close and keep smiling.

The Anglican Churches in the West have become citadels of such passive, self-protective "belief". In recent decades such religion has given liberal Protestantism a new lease on life. Biblical scholarship in the seminaries had revealed in rigorous detail the emptiness of secular proclamation. Generations of seminarians graduated with two positive attainments: the latest erudite explanation for their doubts, and a nose for political survival.

When the churches gathered in judicatory, such as TEC's General Convention, statements of "belief" flowed in torrents. From one meeting to the next the "doctrine" seemed to change slightly, but on closer look the substance was always identical: consisting of carefully worded statements, the result of focused study on the public mood. To paraphrase St. Paul (slightly), the challenge was always "how do we preach the word THIS season?"

One is reminded of the incident where the chief priests and scribes wanted to ask Jesus by what authority he did what he did. He replied by asking them a question, the response to which would commit them to taking a theological position: the baptism of John, was it from God or from men?

St. Mark recounts their deliberations in forming a response. In short, they had no response based upon anything they believed about God and how He acts in the world and on behalf of His Elect. Such a revealing response would be "divisive", making them vulnerable to criticism and perhaps persecution. Their public response would have to be safe, expedient, non-committal. They posed a passive, defensive position, pretending to acknowledge their humble limitations and, of course, their horror at putting God in a box.

One wonders what the various scribes of that era believed, if anything. Bible dictionaries will list specific "beliefs" of the various groups and point out how they contrasted with each other and with those of Jesus and the early Church, as if everyone believed heartily one thing or another. Like most of us today, most of them probably believed nothing in particular and scanned the horizon constantly for what "belief" was likely to cost them the least, enabling them to muddle through their lives more or less intact.

This is passive "belief" -- a kind of perpetual damage control -- a matter not of conviction but of survival. We can all sympathize with the need to survive in a dangerous world, but we ought not to call it something else. When we make it into an active "faith", dressed up in the garb of historic religion, accompanied by a functioning cult with altars of sacrifice, it becomes an active Lie -- a positive deception.

Passive "belief" is a front for active unbelief. Our new Presiding Bishop dares not "put God in a box" by calling Jesus what Jesus called himself -- the Way to the Father. This echoes what a previous generation called "the scandal of particularity", referring to God's intervention in human history in a particular people -- the Jews -- and then a particular man -- Jesus of Nazareth. Years ago liberal scholars mused about the implications of such a "scandal". Today they are no longer amused. Today they cut and run.

The majority of today's Episcopal leadership actively disbelieves the unique Person and work of Jesus, the trustworthiness of the Holy Scriptures, just to name a few. Is this based upon their hard earned conviction? No, not really. It's based on their perception that the world at large is scandalized by the real God after all.

Today's Anglican leadership in the West, for the most part, positively believes nothing. Like the scribes and chief priests in St. Mark's account they are in perpetual conference, barely out of earshot of the general public, carefully wording their next statement to win us over. And we will be "won over" for the moment. More likely, we will be dumfounded by their tortured language, unable to detect a thread of anything that could be argued or even comprehended. They will have bought time.

Here's one thing they do believe, and it does demonstrate a measure of faith: if we lay low and don't offend anybody -- or at least if we only offend the people our focus groups have identified as expendable -- then the Vandals at the gate will realize that we're "good people" after all, and they'll go away and leave us alone.

That's all they are saying.

---Gary L'Hommedieu is Canon in charge of Pastoral Care at St. Luke's Cathedral in Orlando, Florida. He is a columnist for Virtueonline.