Is it Anglicanism as a beautiful, specific expression of Christianity? Yes, there, too, although there are alternate versions of Anglicanism being offered in the world today. These sometimes appear to be almost different religions rather than simply subsets of one original good thing.

Edmund Grindal fought for something. He was nominated to be Archbishop of Canterbury in 1575 and served in that post from 1576 to his death in 1583. On December 20, 1576, he got into terminal trouble with Queen Elizabeth I, because he wrote a letter challenging her over her desire to suppress the "prophesyings." These were somewhat revivalist gatherings of Protestant clergy for the purpose of learning how to preach within the new reformed Church of England. Grindal challenged the Queen in extremely direct terms, and she fired right back, and with extreme force. Grindal was "sequested" (i.e., placed under house arrest) for the remainder of his term as Archbishop, and died broken, in a human sense, and blind in both eyes.

For Edmund Grindal, the point was the freedom of the Church of Christ. He provoked the Queen because he believed the state-connection was in danger of blocking the mission of the Gospel. From her side, the "prophesyings" were potential seedbeds for rebellion against the government. Grindal's archiepiscopate was an almost unique instance in the history of Anglicanism of a bishop's bucking the trends and standing up with unparalleled force against the principalities and powers. The fact that he lost is important, because had he won, William Laud and his prelatical circle would not have prospered so immediately thereafter, and our country would not have been founded by Puritan émigrés in the year 1620.

There are different issues for which it is worth fighting, in every generation. Long ago, the Donatist controversy split the church, which was a trouble over ordination. Long ago, in the 16th century, the Reformation in England became a fight over transubstantiation. Not so long ago, the Lambeth Conference was founded in order for the bishops as a body to answer the teachings of Bishops Colenso concerning the Old Testament. And today, all these innumerable air fares and meetings and security searches have taken place in the name of human sexuality in relations to the Bible, occasioned by one single decision made by a diocese in New England of the United States.

So why fight? For two reasons: First, the church has imbibed an unreal idea about the human condition. Christianity says that the human condition is intrinsically and genetically flawed, and the sooner we see this, the sooner we can reach out to Hope from outside ourselves. The church has imbibed an inaccurate doctrine of the human being, and the human sexuality debate is ultimately about that. We are sticking to the Old Story of the Garden and its tragic fruits.

Second, the world is going after faith in God Who is extrinsic to itself. The world is determined to be rid of us. This is what C. FitzSimons Allison [Bishop of SC ret] calls the Sadducean impulse, the world's believing, passionately, that it exists and can be understood only on its own terms. All committed Christians reject this, from good Cardinal Mahoney in Los Angeles to worthy Bishop Nazir-Ali in Rochester (UK). Poignantly, in point of theological fact, we can join hands with Muslims in our standing under the command of God. Strange bedfellows at times, and it could not be an alliance that will last. But we are on a collision course with the world's "ever-changing moods" (Dean's Contest).

So there is a conflict, a "fight" on two fronts. On both fronts, it looks like a losing exercise. On both fronts, we are required to fight. I do not like it, not one bit. But to refrain from taking one's part is probably something like the normal temptation to recant. And I cannot end my life like a character from Shusako Endo's novel Silence.

Et tu?

---The Rev. Dr. Paul Zahl is Dean and President of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Ambridge, PA.