In October our family traveled to London to see my sister's husband consecrated as an Anglican bishop. The service was in Westminster Abbey and we had front-row seats. The ceremony was carried off faultlessly and it was a great learning experience for our children to witness the color and pomp of Anglican ritual. Afterward we all retired to Lambeth Palace for the reception, and as the grown-ups sipped wine and nibbled canapés the children ended up watching cartoons with the bishop's wife in their apartment.

But beneath the warm welcome and splendid proceedings there was a palpable tension. The week before, Archbishop Rowan Williams had been to Rome for his first meeting with Pope John Paul II, and the week after our event Lambeth Palace was to be the meeting place for the Anglican presiding bishops to discuss the impending consecration of another bishop — Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

How could the Anglicans have gotten themselves into such a mess? Curiously, Westminster Abbey itself held a clue to one of the fatal flaws in Anglicanism. For more than 500 years Westminster Abbey was home to a community of Benedictine monks. From the 11th century it was the site of the coronation of the monarchs of England.

Then 500 years ago the link with Rome was broken, the Abbey was dissolved and the monks dispersed. In the years following, the images of the Christian religion, including many statues of Jesus, Mary and the saints, were destroyed.

Ironically, the Abbey is now crammed with statues and memorials to English politicians, artists and writers. The substitution of statesmen for saints is symbolic of the root problem of Anglicanism: It has substituted secular power for sacred. Erastianism is the name of the error that enshrines a state authority as ruler of the church.

The temptation to create a state church is nothing new. The Romans had a state religion in which their emperors were worshipped, and the emperor Constantine established Christianity as the state religion. The Eastern half of Christendom has struggled with church/state relations ever since. Communist Russia enshrined atheism as a state religion and the Chinese regime still sanctions a state “Catholic” church while outlawing the true Church.

Anglicans often overlook the intrinsic problems of their links with the state.

The problems are not so much in the legal absurdities (Anglican Church law has to be approved by the secular Parliament and Anglican bishops are appointed by the prime minister). Instead the deeper problem is that a state church is always tempted to adapt itself to secular power demands instead of challenging the status quo.

Another symptom of this is that Anglicans have a fatal tendency to adapt their religion to the philosophy and morals of the age. In Tudor times they became Protestant. During the reign of Charles I and II (when tastes were flamboyant and lush) they adopted a refined but opulent “Catholicism.” During the 18th century the Anglican Church followed the fashions of deism and freemasonry.

Even though the American form of Anglicanism is not the official state church, this tendency to adapt to the prevailing social trends continues as part of the Episcopalian heritage. The consecration of Gene Robinson as a bishop is a primary example. Wherever they are, the Anglicans simply adopt the attitudes and behavior patterns of the culture around them.

That is why an African Anglican finds it so difficult to communicate with an American Anglican. As one of the bishops at the crisis meeting commented, “We call it dialogue, but it's really more like playing tennis on different tennis courts.”

This Anglican tendency to be blown about by every wind means that as our culture moves further and further from classic Christianity so does the Anglican Church. The time has come for some stern questions from our side. In a spirit of fraternal charity and concern for our Anglican friends, we need to ask how much their current position is actually Christian at all.

We acknowledge that they are baptized and profess faith in Christ, but at the same time many of their theologians and bishops formally deny the Incarnation, the virgin birth, the inspiration of Scripture and the efficacy of the sacraments. When it comes to morality,

a significant proportion of Anglicans endorse multiple remarriages after divorce (even among their clergy and bishops); they formally allow homosexual “marriage,” cohabitation, contraception and abortion.

How far can another Christian denomination go before we Catholics say, “We're sorry, we don't actually recognize your position as Christian any longer”?

The Catholic role down through the ages has always been to both define and defend the faith. Since Vatican II our ecumenical discussions have been positive, forward-looking and creative. Much of the historic animosity between Catholics and Protestants has disappeared during the last 30 years. All of this is a sign of hope, but along with the fraternal discussions and diplomatic niceties it is also necessary to talk straight.

Happily, the Holy Father spoke frankly to Archbishop Williams just a week before the Anglican primates met in London to debate the homosexuality question. Williams is known to be in favor of the homosexual agenda. He is now steering a more moderate course for the sake of church unity. Could it be that the successor of Peter helped bring him to this decision?

As I saw my own brother-in-law consecrated as an Anglican bishop, I couldn't help feeling sorry for the mess the Anglican Church has got itself into. There is no room for Catholics to gloat over the problems. Goodness knows we've got plenty to worry about ourselves.

But in the midst of the mess we have to watch and pray for Anglicans and whenever possible we must engage them in open and charitable discussions — hoping that more and more of them will see that the way out of moral confusion and social relativity is to build their house on the rock that is Peter.

Dwight Longenecker (www.dwightlongenecker.com) is author most recently of Mary — A Catholic/Evangelical Debate co-authored with David Gustafson.