Yesterday was devoted to discussion of human sexuality. Unfortunately, it  started a little rough. An American bishop who has done a lot of bridge building was quoted in the newspaper as saying some of the bishops from developing nations beat their wives and that their societies permit such behavior. African bishops were quoted as expressing acute resentment. The bishops I talked with, however, were calm and non-reactive. The American bishop then made a clarifying statement saying she had been quoted out of context and that domestic violence is an American problem as well.

      The discussion of gay inclusion (which is the only aspect of human sexuality we are addressing) was discussed at length yesterday. Most of the statements were given with open hearts and sensitivity. There were not two polarized factions. Instead the bishops expressed nuanced positions all over the field. At the very end, there were about three statements more in the nature of blaming, defending, and counter-accusation. Today, we continued the sexuality discussion and it went quite well. There was even an apology for one of yesterday’s harsher attacks on the American Church. One thing has become quite clear.  The reaction to Gene Robinson’s consecration is strongly colored by reaction to American intervention in Iraq, our refusal to join the Kyoto accords on global warming, and our foreign policy in general. We hear a lot about American arrogance and unilateralism. If the world political situation improved, or if the American role in it changed, this conversation might go a lot better. Still, we have underestimated the extent to which people in developing nations have blamed their leaders for actions we Americans have taken. It has been important for us to hear from them. Some of them say that someday they may well come to our position but it is years away and our moving too fast will actually slow things down for them or could force schism.

      In the afternoon, we had another session with the Covenant Design Group about the core of the Covenant—Article III  – discipline and enforcement. There is widespread discomfort with Article III. Many of us distrust the “instruments of unity” – especially the Primates’ Meeting. What’s more, the lurking proposals for a Faith and Order Commission to make the rules and a Pastoral Forum to enforce them through partial or total excommunication make the whole thing very problematic. Bishop Steven Charleston (Native American bishop formerly of Alaska, then Dean of EDS, now in California) and a Maori bishop from New Zealand both challenged the Western legalistic model of the covenant as opposed to the more flexible relational principles that govern tribal societies. Bishop Mark McDonald (National Indigenous Bishop of Canada and Bishop of Navajo Land) noted that the only reference to indigenous peoples in Lambeth 98 was a reference to “descent into tribalism.” Bishop McDonald suggested it might be time for us to ascend into a bit of tribalism.

         My sense of the situation as of Friday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. is that we are a long way from formalizing legal structures for the Anglican Communion. We are a long way from agreement on questions of human sexuality. But we have come to deeper friendship and personal understanding of how our actions affect one another. There is almost universal desire to hold the family together. Only a few dissidents prefer to be divisive. I hope we can hold the family together as well. I do not know how tightly together it can all be held if we are to hold it together with integrity. I do not know how much of it can be held together. The Primate of Uganda has repudiated the Archbishop of Canterbury. Four of the 38 countries are ostensibly boycotting Lambeth  (though people have been here from all them). So we struggle for relationship as best we can by God’s grace. Keep praying for us.