Thursday, July 31, 2008

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

Monday, July 28, 2008

I'm Baaaaack!

After a nice respite, including a day with TWO naps, I have to say, I'm back at it. The last couple days were pretty slow; not much to report on that front. Fantabulously, tonight has seen quite a couple events pass us by. Primarily, as I speak, there's a tremendous thunderstorm waging war with the incredibly humid heat outside. Of course, that makes me quite happy. :D.

In all seriousness though, today also held another Hearing on the "issues" of the communion including sexuality, the Anglican Convenant and a whole host of other key words that get thrown around quite a bit. I was on duty in the Marketplace when the Hearings were going on, so I didn't quite catch most of them, but I've heard that they weren't quite as constructive as many might have hoped. Of course, if you've ever been part of anything similar on these topics, you'll know precisely how it went. Much talking, little listening, and virtually no understanding on either side of the issues at hand. Mercifully, the tediousness was broken up by one of the best presentations I've heard, certainly since being here, and quite possibly ever. The speaker was The Cheif Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks, which of course scored bonus points with me before I even saw him on site. Cheif Rabbi Sacks is essentially, as I understand it, the chief rabbi over all the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth. He was here to present on the topic of 'Covenant'. All I could think at one point was what a brilliant idea to bring in a rabbi to speak on the topic of covenant. The list of speakers impresses me more and more as each day goes by.

Rabbi Sacks' discussion of covenant took up the dual nature of the topic, as expressed originally by Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik. It described the Covenant of Fate as one of pragmatism that reacts to external forces that bind one to other people who are suffering under the same forms of opposition as oneself. This is a relationship established upon the basis of a requisite reciprocity that enables an oppressed group to further propagate itself in the face of adversity. The Covenant of Faith, on the other hand, is a positive marker that is established by a group that takes up a common identity with reference to dreams and aspirations. It is a hopeful identity that celebrates the unity of diversity. Furthermore, he added that the Covenant of Faith is necessarily predicated on the foundation of the Covenant of Fate, which is where one must begin: "the covenant of fate is the greatest tool God has given us for reconciliation". Rabbi Sacks also added that "the miracle of monotheism is that unity up there creates diversity down here" while referencing the effect of the Noachic Covenant and its symbol of the rainbow, which displays the radiance of the pure light of God manifest in a multiformity of colours. Rabbi Sacks further maintained that the nature of covenant itself is transformative and invokes the logic of cooperation, which seeks the synergystic result of mutual gain. This was contrasted with the "zero sum games" of both economics and politics.

In essence, the stress was upon the need for the communion to work through its differences and to maintain the sense of diversity that it both has and has had for centuries. Only through mutual cooperation and to a degree, affirmation, can a community continue on positively while maintaining both internal and external coherence with respective communities involved. Rabbi Sacks values the Anglican communion precisely for its ability through the centuries to do just that, and if ever there was a speech that made one proud to be an Anglican of any stripe, that would have been it. Anyways, I should have a transcript by tomorrow, so maybe I'll be able to speak more coherently about it then.

Until that time, fare thee all well,
Blessings,
Nick.