June-July 1975 [HTML]

INTEGRITY

GAY EPISCOPAL FORUM

c Integrity 1975 ISSN: 0095-2184

Vol. 1 No. 8 June-July 75

INTEGRITY is the official newsletter of Integrity, Inc., a nonprofit religious, charitable, educational, and literary organization, with offices at 701 Orange Street, No. 6, Fort Valley, GA 31030. Signed articles represent the views of the contributors. (c) 1975 by Integrity, Inc. 10 issues/$5.

Editor..................................... Louie Crew, Ph.D.

Associate Editor......................... Ellen Barrett, M.A.

Associate Editor.................. Ernest Clay, Cosmetologist

Associate Editor......................... Dan Fee, Seminarian

Associate Editor................ The Rev. Michael G. Koonsman

Associate Editor.................... Br. Thomas Williams, LPN

Consultant......................... The Rev. Robert W. Cromey

Consultant........................... Norman Pittenger, Ph.D.

[At bottom of page listing candidates]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

BALLOT

All paid individual members of Integrity should complete the national ballot below and return it before 1st July to INTEGRITY/Chicago, P.O. Box 2516, Chicago, IL 60690. All must be signed.

Yes []; No [] - Ellen Barrett and Jim Wickliff

as co-presidents Alternate write-in _________________

Yes []; No [] - Kate Jones and Dan Fee

as co-vice-presidents Alternate write-in__________________

Yes []; No [] - Robert Diehm

as secretary-treasurer Alternate write-in__________________

______________________________ __________________

Signature of Voting Member Date

[on reverse side of bottom of page]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(SEE OTHER SIDE)

CUT OUT AND MAIL IMMEDIATELY

TO:

. . . OOPS! BALLOT

INTEGRITY/Chicago

P.O. Box 2516

Chicago, IL 60690

-- BRIEFS --

INTEGRITY membership is now over 330.

Louie Crew, FORUM editor, has been named a regular panelist on the NBC Macon, Ga. WCWB-TV's "Middle Georgia Ministers" program, after first requesting equal time.

Dept. of Special Ministries, Diocese of Atlanta, recently invited Dr. Crew to a luncheon to discuss INTEGRITY, and they are drafting two resolutions, one supporting the decriminalization of all adult consensual sexuality and one supporting the personhood of all Gays seeking to live in a monogamous lifestyle.

The American Lutheran Church has given $2000 to Lutherans Concerned for Gay People.

The Rev. Robert F. Herrick, coordinator of religious programs for the National Gay Task Force and an Episcopal priest, has been made the first openly Gay member of the Task Force on Homophiles and the Ministry of the House of Bishops.

God Loves NonGays Too!

CANDIDATES

As reported on page 1, the Nominating Committee has unanimously reported a slate of candidates for our three national offices, with co-persons nominated to serve as presidents and co-persons to serve as vice-presidents. All five people thus nominated have agreed to serve if elected; information about each candidate appears here with statements by each candidate. All members are urged to study this carefully and to return ballots promptly so that winners may take office on schedule. No ballots may be counted after 1st July.

ELLEN MARIE BARRETT - Candidate for Co-President

Age 29, unemployed writer/teacher.

M.A. (history), New York University; M. Div., cum laude, General Theological Seminary.

Between 1969 and 1973: Member of Gay Liberation Front/NY; DOB/NY; Radicalesbians, NYU Student Homophile League (later - Gay Students Liberation); Group V, a lesbian/feminist CR group; Past Moderator of NYU-GSL; past co-Chairman DOB/NY; past Executive Secretary for the Homosexual Community Counseling Center/NY. For the past three years, actively involved in the struggle for ordination of women and of open Gays. An editor of GAY EPISCOPAL FORUM.

STATEMENT: In six years' open participation in the Gay movement outside the Church, I frequently wished I could communicate to my religiously disillusioned sisters and brothers the joy of Christian struggle, and in a lifetime in the Church I have bruised both my head and my heart on the Church's traditional rejection of Gays. I believe in our people and in our contribution to humankind's vision of love. I also believe, against all odds, in the Church as inclusive community of Christ. Refusing to tolerate their actual dichotomy is painful but vital to how I see us as Christians and how I see my own ministry. I see INTEGRITY as both a support group for individuals and groups and as an agent for change within the structure of the Church. I also hope that its influence will extend far beyond its membership to bring hope and strength to all who need us -- women and men, Gay and straight -- until we can all partake of the freedom and unity (not to be confused with homogeneity) of the children of God.

JIM WICKLIFF - Candidate for Co-President

B.A., M.A. (History of Art, Interdisciplinary Humanities) Roosevelt University.

Military Duty in Korea (50-52); administrative experience as editorial manager, assistant to the Director of Faculty Research at San Francisco State College (66-69), Administrative Assistant on Peace Corps Training Project for Sierra Leone (63-66), Assistant to Registrar at Roosevelt (69-70); teacher of Humanities in College of Continuing Education at Roosevelt (72-present), et al. Original convener of INTEGRITY/Chicago.

STATEMENT: INTEGRITY has the potential to become a force for constructive change in the Gay Community, the Church and society in general. To realize this potential, we should spend this first year strengthening ourselves for the challenges ahead. Two ways I see for doing this are: 1) through growth -- physical, spiritual, financial, intellectual -- and 2) through establishing communication -- with each other, with the Church and with society. Accomplishing this would permit us, then, to function at maximal efficiency with a minimum of "structure." We should avoid becoming an organization "run" by a few officers and volunteers, but rather work toward being an organism that functions well because all its parts are involved and coordinated. We need new members and, as we attract them, we need to find ways to get and keep in touch with each other. We need to develop strong Chapters and encourage Chapter activity at every level of involvement. We need enthusiastic Committees to investigate, consider and propose solutions to the variety of problems that are bound to come up. Ours is an important ministry.

KATE JONES - Candidate for co-Vice-President

45 years old, divorced, mother of 4

M.L.S., Librarian at a major California University Library.

Member, Council on Religion and the Homosexual; Active in parish church and in women's CR group.

STATEMENT: My primary concerns for INTEGRITY stem from my being a closeted Gay woman. I hope this organization will provide support and affirmation to these people in particular -- Gay women and hidden Gays. The insights of the Women's Movement and the flexible structure typified by CR groups can be used effectively. To encourage contact and support between individuals and groups through letters, small ongoing groups, discussion played out in FORUM -- this should be a major emphasis for INTEGRITY. Opportunities exist for dialogue between Gay Episcopalians and their straight sisters and brothers at the parish level, in particular, but the risks of living free can only be taken with the help of a support community. INTEGRITY can and should be a source of strength to those not among our membership as well, and we must consciously concern ourselves for both Gay and straight, men and women, who may through our words and actions see a new heaven and earth and a new vision of God.

DAN FEE - Candidate for co-Vice-President

Educated at Oral Roberts University, Southern Illinois University, and the Episcopal Divinity School.

A native of Kansas. An original editor of GAY EPISCOPAL FORUM. A poet. Active in Gay Academic Union, in Gay counseling in the Boston area, et al.

STATEMENT: INTEGRITY's commitment should be 2-dimensional, first toward helping Gays and the communities we are in and second towards revising the external institutions (parishes, diocesan processes, etc.) and re-educating the nonGay persons who restrict our realization of our full personhood in this culture. I do not work out of a hierarchical model. I see INTEGRITY's officers as coordinators and resource people. All members should expect to be dynamically involved and not merely approve/disapprove what a few officers do. Our officers can afford to be out front for others who cannot, but all must be involved. We haven't worshipped together; we don't know each other: OUR FIRST TASK SHOULD BE OUR GETTING TOGETHER.

Bob Diehm - Candidate for Secretary-Treasurer

A.B. (economics), Oberlin; J.D., Cleveland Law School; member of Ohio Bar.

Native of Cleveland. 20 years with Allstate Insurance. An Episcopalian since 1953. Past treasurer of two Episcopal parishes; currently treasurer of St. Margaret's in Chicago.

STATEMENT: As one of four founding members of INTEGRITY/Chicago, I certainly believe in our organization. Quietly and definitely I am coming out by telling one or more persons per week. The big need we all face is to cut down on the homophobia rampant in this country, no so much with the relatively open-minded nonGays under 30, as with the nonGay peers of those of us who are older. Much re-education is needed. INTEGRITY reverses the stereotypes of Gay people by affirming our professional, personal, and spiritual catholicity.

_________

[quotation in Greek with caption: Kara Iwavvnv 15:13]

INTEGRITY CHAPTERS

INTEGRITY/Atlanta. Convenor Steve Matthews (404-996-1853)

INTEGRITY/Boston. Convenor Joe McCauley (P.O. Box 2582, Boston, MA 02208)

INTEGRITY/Chicago. Convenor David Williams (P.O. Box 2516, Chicago, IL 60690) meets weekly.

INTEGRITY/Minneapolis. Convenor Frank R. Eggers (26 Arthur Ave., Box 203, Minneapolis, MN 55414)

INTEGRITY/NYC. Convenor The Rev. Michael G. Koonsman (31 Stuyvesant St., NYC 10003)

INTEGRITY/Philadelphia. Convenor The Rev. John Lenhardt (4711 Baltimore Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19143; 215-726-1089)

INTEGRITY/San Francisco and Bay Area. Convenor Jim Frooks (1256 Page St., No. 1, San Francisco, CA 94117; 415-621-0182)

Convenors have contacted Integrity about the possibility of the new chapters below. Those interested in joining these efforts, please write in care of the Fort Valley, GA address:

INTEGRITY/Denver

INTEGRITY/District of Columbia

INTEGRITY/Los Angeles

INTEGRITY/Montana

INTEGRITY/North Central Rural Pennsylvania

INTEGRITY/Oklahoma

INTEGRITY/Toledo

INTEGRITY/Topeka

INTEGRITY/Toronto

This ministry is very important. We need you. Please write today.

CONVENTION & NOMINATIONS

Chicago (Box 2516, IL 60690). Plans are well underway here for the first national meeting of INTEGRITY, 8-10 Aug. Enclosed with this mailing is a prospectus for the event, together with forms for all members to return for advance registration and/or reservations.

Already leaders throughout the Church are expressing an interest. On 15th May an invitation was sent to all bishops and all deans of Church schools urging their support and their attendance, either in person or through an observer. Many leaders in other Gay groups and other denominations are also planning to attend.

Mainly, of course, the Convention is for us, and it is most important that as many as possible plan to participate. This meeting will set an important agenda for the coming months. It will provide us all with the vital strength of Corporate Gay Community.

Those concerned about possible over exposure to nonGays are urged to express their concerns in making reservations. Every effort will be made to protect the identity of those requiring anonymity.

In addition to the major address by Dr. Pittenger, numerous workshops, panels, committees, etc., are being planned, with the following subjects already suggested: Starting a Local Chapter; Modern Moral Theology; Militancy; How Much, How Far?; Women, Gay Women and Church Women; Ageism and Growing Old Gay; Permanent Gay Relationships; Sex and the Single Gay; Counseling Each Other in Crisis; Problems of Gay Parents; Ministering to Gays on Campus; Gays in the Seminaries; Gay Priest/Parish Priest? There is still time to suggest others.

Fort Valley, Ga. Louie Crew and Ernest Clay, trustees of Integrity, Inc., in accordance with the Constitution, report that the previously appointed Nominating Committee has duly submitted a slate of nominations for the national offices; and at the concurrence of the trustees the Committee unanimously decided to nominate co-officers, one male and one female, for each position except that of secretary-treasurer, in an effort to make Integrity non-sexist in deed as well as in word.

Nominations for co-presidents: Ellen Barrett and Jim Wickliff; nominations for co-vice presidents: Kate Jones and Dan Fee; nomination for secretary-treasurer: Bob Diehm. See pages 7-8 for the official ballot and for the statements by each of these candidates.

It is very important that the ballots be returned to the Chicago address indicated thereon as soon as possible so that the new officers can begin their service promptly. No ballot can be counted after 1st July.

One Fold, and One Shepherd

By LOUIE CREW

For too long I came to the Communion table as a thief in the night, not really feeling that I belonged there, but hoping to sneak some grace. For too long I looked to my Christian brothers and sisters to make me feel welcome to the sacred mysteries, and for too long I hid my real self in fear, hoping thereby that my brothers and sisters would make me a part of their communion. For too long I failed to look at the Savior, who always says, "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden." I am a part; my part is not something other guests can give or deny. Christ's grace is unconditional!

It is time the church listened to the love of Christ and made an effort to be honest about sexuality.

We human beings have very little choice about what is sexually appealing to us. Our bodies, our hormones, our glands, and all other God-designed chemistry announce what is appealing; and our sexual longings are very sacred because they are in the image of the creator who himself made man to relieve his own loneliness.

The Anglo-Saxon word hal contained all the meanings divided among three derivatives in modern English -- whole, hale (i.e., healthy), and holy. Even the wisdom of our culture, not only that of our religion, tells us that whatever holiness or health one can hope to experience can never be isolated from God's wholeness or completeness. So much is sex a part of the whole person that it is fair to say that anyone who denies or suppresses his God-given sexual identification cannot make many steps towards health or holiness. Hence, my God-designed homosexuality is not a definition of my sickness, but a potential ingredient of my health; it is not a mark of my sin, but a requirement of any holiness and salvation that I may experience.

The good news of love has been too long suppressed with very unChristian consequences. In my work as a professor, actor, writer, and frequent counselor of young people I regularly encounter gay brothers and sisters whose spiritual lives and mental health have been stunted by their listening to the damning voices of our culture rather than to the saving voice within. When one wrongly feels that even to be attracted to another person is evil, predictably he's going to be muddled about questions of evil over which he actually has a choice. If I feel condemned merely for being what I did not choose, I can more easily tolerate the evil I choose. Here heterosexuals are no different from me. If my straight brother is sexually attracted to a person who is married to someone else, that attraction is not his responsibility. It is in itself good; his accountability is in how he does or does not act upon that attraction. When Christians misrepresent Christ by saying that all gay attractions and behaviors are evil, they are in effect striving to deny gay people the moral accountability of acting out their desires in Christian, loving, mutually fulfilling ways.

This is good news for straights too. For one thing, the gospel reminds us that God loves indiscriminately. Thereby straights may be spared any sick illusions that God loves because someone has met specified or unspecified qualifications, be they sexual or otherwise.

More importantly, straight Christians need to know that gays and straights alike need to unite for far more urgent spiritual crises facing our time. It is absolutely amazing how much spiritual energy is wasted in church gossip about the sexual identity of priests, of choir directors, or organists, of Sunday School leaders, even of bishops. One priest recently complained to me that while he accepted my whole personhood he was deeply resentful that his own bishop is gay and gives the better parishes to the in-group. Whole churches have lived in an atmosphere of suspicion. One can gossip all year long with no sense of sin; yet let him love another man and it's scandalous. We surely need an atmosphere wherein all can love openly; where it will be no scandal. We need an atmosphere where we are accountable for what we do, not for what God made us to be; an atmosphere where we are taken as whole persons, not just as freaks completely defined by their sexual identification.

Such a healthy atmosphere will be impossible until some dearly kept secrets have been told. The liturgy would be poorer, the hymn book positively tinny, the theology impoverished, many edifices unembellished, many scholars ignorant, if the suppression of gays were to have been effective for the last 2,000 years!

Such a healthy atmosphere will be impossible until we can rid our society of the unwholesome divorce of sexuality from spirituality throughout our society. One of the most intensely spiritual encounters I have ever had was with a young holy man, an Anglican novitiate monk, who spent an afternoon wandering around an English mountain simultaneously seducing me with his understanding of God and with his understanding of how God-given chemistry was magnetizing our two bodies. Many gay sisters have shared with me accounts of similar spiritual impact. Many gay brothers have rejoiced about learning to integrate mind, body, and soul in the rectory.

Some may wish that gays would go away. The Nazis baked us by the thousands, and otherwise outraged Europe and Christendom has yet to raise a whimper of protest. Still every sociological count shows our numbers to be increasing. We may constitute one of the biggest challenges of the church to follow its historic mission to take the Gospel to every creature.

"Go to a gay church," some may say; "get with your own kind." Brothers and sisters, at every Holy Table I am with "my own kind." The Gospels teach that my neighbors are those whom I treat neighborly. The bidding of the Book of Common Prayer requires only that I be "in love and charity with my neighbor and desir[ing] to lead a new life following the commandments of Christ Jesus." I join thousands of gay Christians throughout the world, serving in rectories, in lunch rooms, in hospitals, in teamsters unions, in factories, in schools, in government, in laboratories, in asking straight Christians to take seriously this same bidding, to be in love and charity with us, to treat us neighborly.

_________________________________________________________________

DEAR ABBY

[Thank you for your gracious letter. Yes, you have my permission to reprint my column titled "Love and let love" ... I give it to you with pleasure -- gratis. I consider the opportunity to educate the ignorant a privilege, which is its own reward.

Sorry I can't do any more than I have already tried to do to "reform" my sister's thinking insofar as homosexuality is concerned. But take hope ... she's not as rigid as she once was. ... God loves you. Abby]

DEAR ABBY: I am a minister who also does counseling.

A young man recently came to me for counseling and he showed me a clipping from your column that he had been carrying for over two years. He said it saved him from suicide.

I am enclosing it. Will you please print it again It might save another life. God love you.

T.B.M.

DEAR T.B.M.: With pleasure:

"Dear Abby: Another advice columnist keeps insisting that homosexuals are 'sick.' She says, 'Thousands of homosexuals have written asking me where they can get straightened out, so they must consider themselves twisted, or they wouldn't be asking for help.

'Occasionally I hear from homosexuals who are at peace with themselves, but they are few and far between. I believe the majority of homosexuals would be straight if they were free to choose.'

What do you think, Dear Abby?

L.A. TIMES READER

DEAR READER: I say that if a heterosexual had been raised to believe that his preference for the opposite sex was 'sick,' twisted, abominable, sinful and a disgrace to his family, he would ask for help on how to 'straighten himself out,' too.

Homosexuality is a problem because an unenlightened society has made it a problem, but I have received letters by the thousands (and not just 'occasionally') from gay people telling that they wouldn't be straight if they had a choice. All they ask is to be allowed to live in their own way without facing the charge that they are 'sick and twisted.'

I say, love and let love."

editorial THE TRUTH IN LOVE (L.C.)

Dear Bishop Haynes:

I thank you for sharing with us at Integrity your very forthright statement of your views [see page 3]. Candor is increasingly rare these days, and most essential if Communion is to make any sense whatsoever.

We certainly agree with you that Christ himself makes all persons welcome at the Communion, that He is no respecter of persons. We also agree that this access confers upon all persons "the healing power of our blessed Lord to all people who need His help" and we know full well that as Gay people we do need his help.

I am, however, troubled and confused by the tone and the statements of the rest of your letter, most particularly by the tone. For me, to "remain thoroughly unconvinced" is very near, though not exactly tantamount to my saying "don't even show me the evidence, since I have looked at it already." Also, your conclusion that "if that makes me impossibly out of date or whatever, then it must be that way until God the Holy Spirit reveals this to me ..." seems almost, though not exactly, tantamount to saying "I can't be persuaded by persons and any reply that persons make will make me that much more rigidly or 'impossibly' fixed in my attitudes."

I would not presume to persuade anyone to be "in date." I feel that homophobia was as much a weakness in the Apostle Paul as it is in some modern saints. Sin and righteousness alike are always in season. Nor do I feel that Gay persons need to persuade anyone of our full personhood as Gays before Jesus Christ; Christ has persuaded us of this stance, and ours is the task of spreading the Good News. He was most explicit in telling his disciples how to react to those who for any reason could not hear the Good News (Matt. 10:14-15).

What confuses me about your letter is my complete inability to understand your language, as in your sentence: "I remain thoroughly unconvinced that God has ever intended a sexual relationship between people of the same sex by such very obvious facts as by their physiological equipment and the rather inherent attitudes of masculinity and femininity...." Some facts are obvious to you that are not obvious to my husband and me. Our physiological equipment has never for one moment seems inadequate for fulfilling in a loving, full Christian way the Spirit's bidding of us to be one flesh and to be His Holy Temple as our two bodies fulfill the sacrament. Given our understanding of the bodies which Christ has given to us, we still have no problem seeing how God on some other occasions, with other of His children, works with a different physiology to bring about the same miracle. We have found it dangerous for us to generalize for nonGays, whose experience is not ours, from the particulars of our experience; and I am frankly troubled by how easy you find it to put yourself in the position of telling God whom He can and cannot allow to love.

I am very happy that you consider yourself to be "normal," even as I am happy that my husband and I know ourselves to be "normal." We are merely following different norms. If I wanted to be ugly, I could say that you are abnormal, and I would have the behavior of over twenty million Americans to establish the norm by which you were so described. I feel no compulsion to be thus vicious, however. I hold that the physiological details which set different norms for us are but superficial to the spiritual details which place us both as brothers before the Lord our God.

Somehow I do feel that in spite of your protestation to the contrary that you do look down your nose at those of us who are Gay, however unwittingly. People who have ever looked us eye to eye, person to person, no longer misuse language as if it accommodates only one norm or one point of view even those whose point of view is different have learned at least to hear what we are saying about our bodies as temples of the Holy Spirit.

You speak with confidence about "the rather inherent attitudes of masculinity and femininity." I presume that you mean "theologically inherent," and even then I honestly do not have the slightest idea what you mean. No biologist, no anthropologist, no psychologist ... no scientist any more speaks with such confidence. In any case, anyone who has ever spent a week in the nonGay world is well aware that nonGays show even in our culture no uniform manifestation, either in behavior or attitudes, about what masculinity and femininity are. As outsiders, we Gays know that we will be in a very good position to help our nonGay sisters and brothers when they finally get around to taking seriously their own sexual identity questions instead of routinely making Gays the scapegoats for all their fears of themselves. I praise God that He has allowed me to know that I am a man without having so to define myself at the unnecessary expense of others....

I take heart that you have written and that you have clearly tried to be direct. I hope that you will read this letter in the same vein....

I will be speaking (on "victimless crimes") at the U. of S. FL for a special NEH forum on 12th July. I will gladly schedule my trip to arrive ... earlier ... if possible for us to get together.

DEAR FATHER BILL (A NEW COLUMN)

Dear Fr. Bill: I'm compulsive about sex. I mean I like it all the time (not bragging ... well, at least 4-5 times a week); and I like it even with strangers. I like the strangers, not just their bodies, and often I feel like I have entertained angels unawares. Yet I feel guilty even when there has been reciprocal generosity of spirit in sexuality. Monogamy raises its ugly head. Then I feel guilty about feeling guilty. ... I certainly would never confess these affairs at confessional because there has been no personal abuse either way, only momentary warmth and joy. But I would like to be more at peace with myself about this glut of humanness. -- Herman

DEAR HERMAN: YOUR LETTER HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO ME. IN ANSWERING IT THERE ARE SEVERAL PITFALLS. I MAY MISINTERPRET PART OF YOUR LETTER AND I DO NOT HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF A FACE-TO-FACE CONVERSATION WHICH MIGHT CLARIFY SOME POINTS FOR BOTH OF US.

YOU MAY BE SURPRISED TO LEARN THAT PART OF YOUR LETTER WHICH MOST DISTURBS ME IS WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU FEEL GUILTY ABOUT FEELING GUILTY. THIS IS NOT UNCOMMON TODAY; SMART YOUNG PEOPLE, YES ALSO SMART YOUNG CHRISTIANS HAVE COME TO FEEL THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO 'SEX' GUILT FEELING AS LONG AS IT IS 'YOUR THING' (that you both enjoy) AND NO ONE IS HARMED. I'M CERTAIN YOU HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS: BUT ARE THEY IMMUTABLY VALID?

AS YOUR LETTER REACHED ME THROUGH INTEGRITY, I AM ASSUMING YOU ARE AN EPISCOPALIAN, OR AT LEAST A CHRISTIAN, THAT YOU ARE GAY AND THAT YOU WOULD LIKE SOME ADVICE.

AS CHRISTIANS WE SET OURSELVES AS A GOAL THE IMITATION OF CHRIST: NOT AN EASY ONE AND REACHED BY VERY FEW, BUT NEVERTHELESS OUR GOAL. BUT CAN YOU IMAGINE US EVEN MAKING FALTERING STEPS ALONG THE WAY WITH NO CONSCIENCE, NO SENSE OF GUILT -- NO AWARENESS OF FALLING SHORT? THE REALLY TOUGH PART IS IN LEARNING WHAT WE NEED TO FEEL GUILT ABOUT AND NOT JUST GUILT ABOUT A VIOLATION OF HETERO STANDARDS AND SOCIETAL RULES. I PRAY THAT YOU WILL NEVER REACH THE STAGE OF NEVER FEELING GUILTY, BUT DON'T WALLOW IN IT. LET GOD'S LOVE FORGIVE IT.

AND NOW TO THE SEX BIT. IT'S NOT STRANGE THAT YOU END YOUR LETTER WITH THE PHRASE "GLUT OF HUMANNESS." I SUSPECT YOUR SUBCONSCIOUS DREDGED UP THE WORD GLUT. YOUR NORTH AMERICAN BACKGROUND IS DISTURBED BY YOUR GLUTTONY, FOR GLUTTONY APPLIES NOT ONLY TO FOOD BUT TO OTHER DELECTABLES AS WELL. THE FACT THAT YOU ENJOY SEX 4-5 TIMES A WEEK PROBABLY OFFENDS THE PURITAN CAUL WHICH SEEMS TO ENVELOP MANY AMERICANS.

I AM ASSUMING THAT YOU HAVE NO SERIOUS COMMITMENT TO ONE PERSON AND ARE FREE TO PLAY THE FIELD AND BOTH TEAMS WHO ARE USING IT. YOU SAY "I LIKE THE STRANGERS," AND YET YOU FEEL GUILT EVEN WHEN THEY RECIPROCATE. ARE YOU RATIONALIZING? ARE YOU KIDDING YOURSELF? WOULD IT BE JUST AS TRUE IF YOU SAID, "IF IT HAS PANTS AND A PENIS, I WANT IT!"? AND THE MAGIC OF CONSUMMATION AND CONQUEST IS MISTAKEN FOR LIKING OR LOVING?

BASICALLY I BELIEVE WE ARE MONOGAMOUS AT HEART. NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE BUTTERFLY AND LOVE IT WE EACH WANT OUR OWN PERSON AND UNTIL WE FIND HER/HIM, WE ARE SEEKING. I'M CERTAIN I DON'T NEED TO REMIND YOU THAT MULTI SEX INCREASES THE RISK OF REACHING THAT STAGE WHERE EVERYONE WILL SAY, "OH HER. EVERYONE HAD HER!" AND THEN IF YOU FIND YOU REALLY CAN'T FACE YOURSELF IN THE DARK OF THE NIGHT IN THE EMPTY BED, THEN YOU HARE PARTIED YOURSELF INTO A CORNER.

DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE MUCH CHANCE OF FINDING MR. RIGHT IN A SERIES OF ONE-NIGHT STANDS? WHAT CHANCE HAVE YOU TO GET TO KNOW HIM? THERE IS SO MUCH MORE TO A LASTING RELATIONSHIP THAN SEX. UNTIL WE FIND WHOM WE ARE SEEKING WE WILL NEVER BE AT PEACE WITH WHAT WE HAVE. IF YOUR PRESENT WAY OF LIFE FULFILLS YOU WITH NO HANG-UPS, THEN PROVIDED YOU DON'T USE ANYONE, KEEP RIGHT ON AND PRAY FOR STRENGTH AND NOT FORGIVENESS.

_________

Editor's note: Fr. Bill is an authentic priest of Christ in a United States parish. His letter to Richard in our April issue has led to this column. Address all mail to "Fr. Bill," c/o INTEGRITY, at the GA address. All will be answered if not printed.

FORUM

Just a brief note to express my personal compliments and congratulations to you and to INTEGRITY on your rapid growth and increased effectiveness. It has been great to follow your growth in the past few months, and I look for great things to come from INTEGRITY.

--Paul Diederich

President of DIGNITY

* * *

I read each issue of INTEGRITY from beginning to end, with care and concern. I hope you will regard me as a friend, because that is my intent toward you, and if I offer criticism from time to time it is in a truly fraternal spirit.

I think you need to try to reduce considerably the note of bitterness that runs all too consistently through your material. I well understand that you and your brethren are a minority which has suffered and continued to suffer much of scornful treatment, ostracism, and worse, and it is only human that you should retaliate in kind. But is it Christian? ....

I recognize the need for an honest and open dialogue on this whole subject between us who are brothers and sisters in Christ. I am glad that you have Dr. Pittenger as a consultant, because although I frequently find myself in theological disagreement with him I am always impressed by the truly irenic and charitable spirit in which he deals with controversial matters.

In saying these things to you I am also saying them to myself, being thoroughly and contritely aware that many times I, too, when I sit down to my typewriter use it as a club or a bludgeon for the "clobberation" of those who disagree with me. The point I want to make is that, we scribes of the Lord, we lose our real thrust whenever we cease to "speak the truth in love."

May the good Lord bless you in all that you undertake to do for Him.

--Carroll E. Simcox, ed.

THE LIVING CHURCH

P.S. Re the Chicago meeting: "I'd like to come for part of it myself. Please keep me informed about place, schedules, etc." C.E.S.

* * *

My vacation this year happens to fall in August, and I expect to be abroad at that time. I do hope that you will have a very successful meeting and be guided by the Holy Spirit in whatever you do. I am sure that the Chicago Chapter of Integrity will provide our quota of observers and participants in the National meeting.

--James W. Montgomery

Bishop of Chicago

* * *

I have your letter of May 15th, announcing the meeting in Chicago ... together with certain other information about the work which is going on at this time to develop a relationship within the Church among people of this stance or condition.

Let me state very positively my attitude toward homosexuals in the Church. First, they are certainly deserving of the same kind of ministry as any other person in the Church. God's love is not cut off from any person for any reason whatsoever and unless someone has behaved notoriously to the detriment of the Christian Community in a public way, no thought should ever be given to inhibiting him from making his Communion. Further, I would support any efforts to bring the healing power of our blessed Lord to all people who need His help and, most of us do in some way or another, including the homosexual.

I must be equally positive in saying that I do not, for one moment, accept homosexuality as a valid alternative to heterosexual relationships despite all that you say or anybody else has said to the contrary; I remain thoroughly unconvinced that God has ever intended a sexual relationship between people of the same sex by such very obvious facts as by their physiological equipment and the rather inherent attitudes of masculinity and femininity which is to say that I really cannot support any efforts whatsoever which have to do with equating this status of what I would call a normal person with that of a homosexual. Now this does not mean that I look down my nose at any such person or that I feel myself superior to them in any sense of the word; it simply means that I am grateful for being what I consider to be normal and that I will support any efforts to assist people who are not, in having that fullness of health which I believe is inherent in our creation. If that makes me impossibly out of date or whatever, then it must be that way until God the Holy Spirit reveals this to me through whatever means He chooses, a different outlook.

--E. Paul Haynes

Bishop Coadjutor, SW Florida

* * *

I am pleased to have your letter ... in which you indicate that Dr. Pittenger will address your meeting.... It will not be possible for me to be present at that time. I wish you well in this undertaking.

It might be of interest to you to know that we have had homophiles in priest's orders in this Diocese, and serving in parishes. We presently have a priest in chaplaincy. Yet another member of your community is preparing for ministry within the church at the non-stipendiary level. I thought this information might be of interest to you.

--Philip F. McNairy

Bishop of Minnesota

Does the Bible Condemn Homosexual Acts?

by Joseph C. Weber

Associate Profession of Biblical Theology,

Wesley Theological Seminary

_________________________________________________________________

Reprinted from e/sa forum - 6 "Questions Christians Ask about Human Sexuality" with permission from engage/social action magazine, 100 Maryland Avenue., N.E., Washington, DC 20002. Rights to this article are strictly reserved and no part of it may be reproduced without express consent from the editors.

Homosexuality arouses emotions and anger more than any other contemporary style of sexual fulfillment. Not only does it raise questions for the norms of Christian ethics, but it also poses to every person the question of his or her personal sexual actualization as a child of God.

In our Western culture there is an emotional rejection of homosexuality that often even determines psychiatric literature. This rejection is related to the universal condemnation of homosexuality by church tradition, beginning with the fathers of the church. Tertullian, for instance, asserted that homosexuality is contrary to nature -- an opinion that has remained the basis of both Christian ethics and secular law up to our present.

Two important factors, not taken into consideration by the church fathers, have contributed to the complexity of the contemporary discussion: (1) there is no agreement about the cause or causes of homosexuality and (2) there is a recognition of the great variety of socio-psychic components in homosexuality. Is a homosexual anyone who at anytime engages in a sexual act with someone of the same sex? Or is the homosexual only that person who can find sexual satisfaction with a person of the same sex? Is an act of mutual masturbation essentially the same as forced anal intercourse? What kind of distinction must be made between condition and act? In light of such questions one must ask whether Holy Scripture does indeed justify the absolute and sweeping condemnation of homosexuality that one finds in Christian tradition.

Most-Quoted Bible Passage: Sodom

The passage most quoted in tradition against homosexuality is Genesis 19:4-11. It is questionable whether the sin in this story is "sodomy" at all. The word "know" in Hebrew in verse 5 appears 943 times in the Old Testament. Only ten times does it refer to sexual intercourse and in each of these cases it means heterosexual intercourse. The incident can rather be understood as a breach of hospitality. Lot's offer to turn over his daughters is a desperate effort to maintain the sacred trust of hospitality by diverting the men of Sodom away from their attempt to assert their rights. They are the ones who have the right to decide whether hospitality should be accorded to the strangers, not Lot who is just a sojourner in the city. One must remember that the strangers are the angels of the Lord who have come to judge Sodom.

There is no evidence that Sodom's sin was homosexuality (Gen. 18:20). In every other passage in the Bible referring to Sodom the sins condemned are vain sacrifices, pride, and inhospitality (Isaiah 1:10, Ezekiel 16:48-49, Jeremiah 23:14, Matthew 10:14-15, Luke 10:10-12). Even if the men of Sodom intended homosexual acts against the angels, the passage could serve only as a condemnation of homosexual rape.

The story is interpreted sexually for the first time in the intertestamental period by the Book of Jubilees and Josephus in the context of the struggle against homosexuality as an expression of pagan fertility cults. This passage from Genesis simply cannot bear all the weight the church fathers and Western legal codes have placed upon it. To put it bluntly, misuse of the Word of God has a long history.

Pagan Fertility Cults

Pagan fertility cults are the social context of several other passages referring to homosexual practices in the Old Testament. In Deuteronomy 23:17, and in I Kings 14:24, 15:12, and 22:46 male prostitution is condemned because it is an expression of the cultic worship of foreign gods. The unique claim of the one God over his people is denied by sacral male prostitution. The revulsion against sacral male prostitution remained one of the major forces in Judaism's rejection of any form of homosexuality. These texts, however, offer no general ethical judgment about homosexuality. Therefore, one cannot draw from them the conclusion that every homosexual act is, per se, evil. Only when such an act is infused with a sacral-mystical quality that is supposed to relate the persons involved to some form of divine power can these texts be the basis of a strong rejection of a homosexual act.

Two other texts referring to homosexuality are embedded in the cultic laws: Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The background of these prohibitions is cultic defilement. There are no clues in the whole passage that would allow us to draw a distinction between ethical and cultic laws.

Such a distinction cannot be imported from the New Testament because it is not found there either. Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor the Letter to the Hebrews makes a difference in principle between cultic and ethical laws. If a Christian wishes to affirm that these two injunctions are permanently valid also in the new life in Christ, then the logical consequence must be drawn that the other injunctions in these passages are also valid, e.g., the prohibition of sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman (18:19), of the interbreeding of cattle (19:19), of eating of blood (19:26), and a whole host of other laws. What then would this be but disobedience to texts which as Romans 10:4, Philippians 3:4-7, and Hebrews 7:11-19?

If there is in principle no way in this passage to draw a distinction between ethical and cultic, then one must turn to Paul for a Christological solution. Paul proclaims an end to the law in Jesus Christ (Romans 10:4), and to its fulfillment in love (Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14). The interpretive process in regard to homosexuality should not be simply to repeat and absolutize isolated texts from the Old Testament as though they were clearly the word of God. Rather, Christians should ask whether a homosexual act can ever be something other than the committing of sin. For instance, can a homosexual act be an act of love?

St. Paul and Homosexuality

But does not Paul quite clearly indicate that homosexuality is always sinful? Direct references to homosexual practices are found in the New Testament only in two Pauline letters and in Deutero-Pauline I Timothy. In I Corinthians 6:9 Paul uses two Greek words: malakoi and arsenokoitai. The Revised Standard's translation of the two words taken together as homosexual is certainly imprecise. Malakoi can mean weak or effeminate and in this context probably means catamites, as the Jerusalem Bible puts it. Arsenokoitai probably refers to those engaging in anal intercourse. The question being dealt with is not homosexuality, per se, but the kinds of actions that exclude people from the kingdom of God. It is important to see that the two expressions are found in a long list of those who will not inherit the kingdom. A malakos is no worse than a drunkard.

What these acts all have in common is that they either deny the sovereignty of God or do harm to one's neighbor. They are not evil in their very being apart from their consequences. They are unrighteous because of what they do, namely, deny God as creator or harm one's fellow human beings. The listing of the malakoi and the arsenokoitai along with the sexually immoral (pornoi) and adulterers suggests that Paul is rejecting any expression of sexuality that disregards the unique worth of one's fellow human beings. The same can be said of the similar test in I Timothy 1:10 where the word arsenokoitai appears in a similar catalog of practices. Neither of these texts can serve to support condemnation of homosexuality in all of its various degrees and manifestations.

The final passage that deals with homosexual practice in the New Testament is Romans 1:26-27. It is found in the larger section 1:18 through 3:20, which exposes the wrath of God now revealed from heaven in light of the preaching of the gospel. Note the parallel construction between verses 17 and 18. Why do men not honor God and give thanks to him when he is known to them? Because, Paul writes, man refuses to live as a creature. He attempts to be master of his own destiny and thereby denies his creator.

Even though Paul uses Stoic language, he does not expound a natural morality. Rather, he makes clear the universality of sin in the fallen creation apart from Jesus Christ. The homosexual practices mentioned are not the cause of God's wrath. They are symptomatic of that human chaos which results when men do not acknowledge their creatureliness and accept life as a gift from God their creator. Homosexual acts can be an expression of that state of chaos, pride, and confusion that is universal to all apart from Jesus Christ -- but so can religion (1:22-23), gossip, boasting, and the whole list of things mentioned in verses 28 through 31.

Is Paul not saying more, however, when he calls homosexual practices unnatural? It is this text which led Tertullian to call homosexual acts contrary to nature. But Tertullian interpreted nature within a Stoic context. For the Stoic, nature is the harmonious, rational unity of the world into which human beings fit. Nature assures a fundamental harmony between human reason and the rationality of the world. The Stoic calls people to live according to their rational nature and in this way to be in union with God and to be freed from temporal passions such as pain, love, sex, anger, etc. To be moved by such passions was to live irrationally and therefore contrary to nature. There is nothing of this view in Paul. Paul does not call his readers to live according to nature, but explains the universality of sin in order to make clear the meaning and magnitude of the establishment of God's righteousness in Jesus Christ.

"Nature" is not a specific concept in Paul at all. It is a flexible term that expresses various concerns in different contexts. Galatians 4:8 uses "nature" to make an onto-theological statement about the status of the pagan gods. Romans 11:21 and 24 use "nature" to make an analogy with the way trees grow. Galatians 2:15 uses "nature" to affirm the distinction of the birth of the Jews. I Corinthians uses "nature" almost synonymously with culture. One simply does not find material in the passage from Romans that would justify a Christian ethical position based on natural law that would specifically condemn homosexuality as such. To erect such a position one has to import a concept of nature from some nonbiblical philosophical position, which then must be tested to see whether it interprets the text or distorts it.

Toward a Christological Understanding

In this brief review of biblical texts it has hopefully become clear that one finds in the Bible no basis for a hostile and absolutistic condemnation of all homosexual expression. The way is then open for a Christological discussion of homosexuality, which would be closely related to our wrestling with the whole meaning of human sexuality -- what it means to be a man or a woman in Jesus Christ. Certainly the duality of male and female is rooted in God's intention for his creation (Gen. 1:27).

This duality is more profound and more comprehensive than its actualization in heterosexual intercourse. In Matthew's Gospel Jesus affirms marriage by referring to the creation story, but qualifies this affirmation eschatologically by saying that marriage is not for all (Mt. 19:3-12). Paul recommends against marriage because he believes it makes the partners too anxious about worldly matters. Still, he affirms marriage for those to whom the gift of celibacy is not given (I Cor. 7:1-7).

Paul's argumentation in this whole chapter seven is open and flexible. Celibacy does not deny the fundament intention of creation as it is fulfilled in Christ. Does homosexuality? Homosexuals at least must still define themselves in relation to sexual duality and they cannot cut themselves off from this basic reality in a world full of men and women. (It is false to think that homosexuals necessarily hate the opposite sex.)

We can say that homosexuality is not at the center of the creative process. Therefore, it is more vulnerable to misuse and perversion than heterosexuality. But one may not say that homosexuality or every homosexual act is intrinsically perverse or sinful; in Christ even the duality of the sexes in regard to salvation has been made relative. One is redeemed as a woman or as a man -- as a heterosexual or a homosexual -- not because of or in spite of one's fundamental sexual being (Gal. 3:25-28, I Cor. 7:17-24). Christian ethics, if it is based on the fullness of God's Word, cannot condemn homosexuality in all of its forms and expressions in an absolute manner, but must examine the use made by a person of his or her sexuality in relationship to the sovereignty of God and the good of fellow human beings.