The Spectator’s Notes | 24 February 2007

The Anglican Communion, trying to hold itself together in Dar-es-Salaam, is like the Commonwealth. Indeed, it exists for the same reason — the inheritance of the British Empire. Like the Commonwealth, it began as a white-dominated organisation, and has gradually ceased to be so. The Episcopal Church of the United States stands in relation to the Communion as white South Africa stood to the Commonwealth 50 years ago. Its insistence on pursuing its own obsessive doctrine — in this case, the ordination and marriage of practising homosexuals, in South Africa’s case, apartheid — isolates it from its fellows, particularly its black fellows. In the middle, in both cases, stands England, home of residual authority, trying to provide a focus of unity, but lacking decisive power. The result, in South Africa’s case, was that it had to leave the Commonwealth, and returned when it finally accommodated itself to the demands of the black majority. Will the American Episcopalians follow a similar path? Apartheid was given a pseudo-religious justification (by the Dutch Reformed Church), but was eventually recognised as unscriptural. The same thing will happen to the doctrines of extreme sexual liberation.

As Lent begins, I realise that every single sermon I have heard on the subject tries to turn it into something positive. We shouldn’t think in terms of giving things up, says this homily, but think instead of something we could take up that would help our neighbour, make the world a better place, etc. ‘There’s no need to look miserable!’ the preacher will usually add. Is there any Biblical or traditional support for this view? Of course it is always right to help our neighbour, but there is surely nothing positive about the season of Lent. Because Jesus endured 40 days of fasting and temptation in the wilderness, so should Christians.