The Big Day

Well, today was it! The Big Day. The day everyone has been waiting for. The day on Human Sexuality. Oddly enough, it was a relatively quiet day. To be honest, the most contentious issue involving human sexuality was the streaker on the Elliot-Rutherford field flying a kite. And I didn't even find out about that until later! (I won't grace you with a photo ;) ). From all accounts, the Bible Studies went quite well today, as they seem to have gone all throughout the conference. Even the indaba groups, which have become somewhat unsettled as of late seemed to be relatively calm today. They were civil and quite interesting to hear. The rapporteurs and all them are working feverishly now to put their reports together as there are only three days left in the conference! It's incredible how time has flown by. The Windsor Continuation Group and Covenant Design Group continue to be the most talked about issue. I think there's still quite a bit of uncertainty about what the communion hopes to bring about through a covenant.

There was one question that struck me today while listening to many of the discussions; that was: How would the conversations differ if we lived in a world where ecclesiastical provinces truly were autonomous? With all the talk about provincial autonomy and independence, the interconnectedness of the different regions is still a major factor that seems to go unnoticed or at least unstated by many. A good deal of many of the Africans' rhetoric seems to emphasize it in explaining that what happens in North America in terms of legislation involving same sex relationships inevitably affects them, but I'm not sure that even they go far enough. I think that were the individual provinces truly independent of one another in all senses, then the discussions very well could be quite different; however, the fact is that they are not, and never can be. We live in a world whose basic structure necessitates community to one degree or another. The decisions of one group inevitably have consequences for members of other groups, particularly when those other groups belong to the same family. We are left in creation with the amazing ability to construct our own communities, to define the limits and boundaries of who we associate with and how, but we don't have control over that basic law that states that all things are in some way interconnected. Thus our responsibility (which, in an ethic constructed upon a basis of humility and washing of one another's feet, is just as important or more important than our right) is to properly establish a mechanism for the way in which we impact the other. There is no question of whether or not we will, only a question of how.

I think that it's time to move beyond our own in-group biases, and to stop defining our ethics by our politics. The fact that we talk about 'one side of the issue or the other' in attempting to describe an ethical matter indicates the degree to which our opinions are formed by our politics. The travesty of much of the discussions on human sexuality that I've seen over the past year has been the ignoring of the nuances and subtleties that exist in ethical matters. Praise be to God that today, I saw movements in that direction. I saw people listen to one another and try to locate themselves on a wide spectrum as opposed to simply dividing themselves into camps. This gives me hope for the Anglican Communion. Represented here are nearly 700 bishops of the Anglican church. Each of them austensibly has close connections to all of their respective priests. Each of those priests has connections with their congregants. Nearly the entirety of the Anglican Communion is therefore connected to one degree or another here, in this place and at this time. It's an amazing place to be.

Thanks be to God indeed :).

Goodnight,
Nick