This meaty dish has proved unpalatable to the weaker stomachs of the North American liberals and their allies. All they want is a "local option," the permission to go about things their way, conducting SSBs where and when they like, whilst other Anglicans go about their business according to context. It seems reasonable, after all, what's good for San Francisco, Greenwich Village and downtown Toronto might very well be wrong for Lagos, St. Stephen's, Lewisham, or St. John's, Calgary. And, in the end, can't we just agree to disagree and concentrate on the things that really matter, like the U.N. charter of civil rights, the environment, or ending poverty? It's all rather as though we've entered a bizarre Anglican version of the Miss World contest, with the TEC Alliance contestant coming up with the laughably predictable, "All I want is world peace, no more poverty, to stop AIDS and the destruction of the rainforest."

Well, we're all glad to see that our liberal contender for the title of most beautiful person in the world is aiming high, albeit running long on stock in trades. And, notwithstanding the strange similarity between the vaunted MDGs (Millennium Development Goals) and the MSGs (Mono Sodium Glutimates) that make such a glutinous mess of certain oriental cuisine, we have to admit an apparent churlishness in opposing such a well-meaning program. Maybe the liberals are right, and we should tip our hats to the genius of Anglican comprehension and get on with the serious business of setting up food banks and contraceptive clinics in the Third World? We're obviously a broad church with a big conscience, why shouldn't we allow as many local options as there are locales and set about eliminating injustice, poverty and oppression? And this brings us back to dietary preference and the tyranny of vegetarians.

The problem with our beauty pageant contestant is that she doesn't really want a local option at all; on the contrary, TEC Alliance is like our vegetarian friends who want to impose their culinary will on everyone else. This is understandable, and even praiseworthy, because at least TECA has the courage of its convictions to stand up for what it believes to be right, when all along one might be forgiven for thinking that 815 & Co had jettisoned antiquated notions like truth and belief. Not a bit of it, SSBs are, for them, a crucial matter of justice, of inclusion for all in the Body of Christ. This means that the local option isn't really local at all, but universal, as truth is bound to be. In the end, "you eat your way and I'll eat mine," is little better than subterfuge, as Anglicanism per se has got to swallow the supper. Anything less is, for TECA, immoral, and it's ironic that the aging proponents of the permissive generation should have turned into the staunch puritans of today. Regardless, it should be evident to all that the debate is not about freedom, some sort of sex driven version of cuius regio, eius religio, but rather the triumph of one will over another's.

At present, the liberals have been dealt a set back, with Anglican moral consensus, as annunciated in Tanzania, being nothing less than that of the Church throughout the ages. No wonder, then, that the TECAns are mad, for instead of the customary tofu burger they've been offered the proverbial chicken dinner along with everyone else. So there's large doses of outrage all 'round in liberal quarters, and some satisfaction in traditional circles that Anglicanism is still able to uphold basic tenets of the Faith. But is this just another example of liberal intolerance, this time thwarted for a season, or does it point to something deeper? Many would argue for the latter because debate over so foundational an issue has brought two opposing worldviews, or religions, out into the open, with inevitable conflict. The question is now, quite literally, what's on the menu, Christianity, or some other thing? Bishop Ingham states it well at a recent conference in Ottawa:

"Today we have a better understanding of homosexuality as a basic and natural orientation experienced by some members of the human community (he then goes on to talk about animals)... and in Christian terms we must come to think of this as not only natural but also God-given and good. But these developments in social sciences... are still relatively new... they have not penetrated the church's understanding except on the edges... and greatly against its will."

Quite. One hesitates to wonder as to where +Ingham gets his data, from the noted satanist Aleistair Crowley's friend, Dr. Kinsey, perhaps? Be that as it may, the issue's clear, on the one hand we have the teaching of the Church and her Scriptures, and on the other, "social sciences." For Ingham et al, nothing could be simpler, social science wins every time. Immanence trumps transcendence, and so what if the former's dependant upon the latter?

Therein lies the rub; either we put our faith in God and His Son, in which case we adhere for dear life to what He has given us, or we put our trust in something else. TEC Alliance has opted for the second course, rolling the dice for the current fad of a faithless age.

Anglicanism, in contradistinction, seems to have sided with the first, with the revelation given us by Christ. Given that we stand or fall by such fidelity, it takes little imagination to gauge the future success of TEC and its friends. The Anglican Church of Canada alone is losing 13,000 members annually and can boast a handsome Sunday attendance of an estimated 250,000 souls, TEC garners a little more, officially some 787,000 - by all means have a local option but be sure that it will be very local indeed.

END