INTEGRITY

GAY EPISCOPAL FORUM

c Integrity 1977   ISSN: 0095-2184

Vol. 3  No. 6   April 1977

INTEGRITY:  GAY EPISCOPAL FORUM is the official newsletter of Integrity, Inc., a nonprofit religious, charitable, educational, and literary organization of Gay Episcopalians and our friends.  Integrity, Inc. maintains a national office with The Rev. Ron Wesner, President, 5014 Willows Avenue, Phila., PA 19143, tele. 215-748-2118.  Membership and subscription correspondence should be sent to Forum Business Manager, Dave Williams, INTEGRITY, P.O. Box 891, Oak Park, IL 60303, tele 312-386-1470.  Editorial correspondence should be sent to Louie Crew, 701 Orange Street, No. 6, Fort Valley, GA 31030, tele. 912-825-7287. 

Signed articles represent the views of the contributors.  The editors reserve the right to revise all sexist language. 

Copyright 1977 by Integrity, Inc.  10 issues per year.  Membership subscriptions are $10; subscriptions without membership are $12.  Add $3 for all subscriptions that require plain envelopes; Canadians add $2 if paying in Canadian currency.  Couple rates are $13 for one newsletter. 

President................................ The Rev. Ron Wesner

Vice President................................. John Lawrence

Secretary...................................... Donn Mitchell

Treasurer............................. The Rev. John Lenhardt

Editor............................................ Louie Crew

Publisher..................................... David Williams

Trustees:     Ernest Clay, Louie Crew, Julie Peterson,

              The Rev. Richard Younge

Consultants:The Rev. Malcolm Boyd, The Rev. Robert W. Cromey, The Rev. Norman Pittenger

A GAY COLLECT FOR PASSIONTIDE

Lord Jesus Christ, who in proclaiming with power the Kingdom of God disrupted the Temple and so scandalized the religious authorities that they determined upon your death:  Grant us a like zeal and courage; strengthen us to suffer if need be for your sake; forgive those who through malice or ignorance would destroy us; and bring us at the last joyfully and gaily into that kingdom where with the Father and the Holy Spirit you live and reign, one God, now and forever.  AMEN  (Fr. Richard Younge)

IN BRIEF

In January, Fr. Gallup and Forum Publisher David Williams represented INTEGRITY when leaders from several Gay caucuses participated in the annual meeting of the Roger Williams Fellowship, a movement among liberal Baptist ministers, meeting at the Divinity School of University of Chicago.+++The Rev. Richard Ingalls, President of The Foundation for Christian Theology (publishers of The Christian Challenge) said in his January "message":  "The Church as the Body of Christ has always welcomed homophiles.  I believe that the defeat of the [General Convention] resolution [which would have forbidden ordination of Gays] was an indirect apologetic introduction for a forthcoming formal approval of Fr. Adam and Mr. Evie exchanging rings and vows and living together in the rectory."+++AntiGay psychiatrist Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse told Gretta Porter Estey of the Diocese of Massachusetts that she has "a desire to move away from being the Church's resident sex expert"; meanwhile Dr. Barnhouse has accepted membership on the Church's Joint Commission on the Church and Health, the official body charged with studying and reporting on homosexuality to the next General Convention, a body which has no self-avowed Gays as members.+++Fr. John McNeill, author of The Church and the Homosexual, will speak to INTEGRITY/Hartford on 22nd April.+++Jim Barr is the current treasurer of INTEGRITY/Chicago:  we reported an erroneous earlier balloting in our December issue; sorry.+++Be sure to note the new listing for INTEGRITY/St. Louis on our back page.  Fr. Wesner was present for their first meeting, which drew 21 interested members and the three priests of Trinity Church, St. Louis.+++Patricia Nell Warren (The Front Runner and The Fancy Dancer) will speak at a banquet hosted by DIGNITY/Detroit on 14th May in Detroit.  MCC in Detroit is hosting Fr. Norman Pittenger on 29-30 March.+++Seabury Bookstore at The Episcopal Center in NYC has maintained an outstanding account of $7.20 with Forum for half a year now, for copies of In Celebration, and has still refused to pay.+++INTEGRITY/San Antonio had a vital organizational meeting on 1st March to plan a meeting with Bishop Bailey to see what kind of arrangements can be made for a parish setting for the monthly meetings.+++Former INTEGRITY national president Jim Wickliff recently gave a presentation on Gays and Art History to the members of INTEGRITY/Chicago.+++According to a report in the February issue of The Christian Challenge a representative of the Polish National Catholic Church is concerned about several of the actions of General Convention as they might weaken existing ties of PNCC with PECUSA, especially about "the growing movement in the Episcopal Church to 'desexify' the Bible -- which could lead eventually to calling God something other than 'Father' -- and the trend that might lead to the ordination of overt homosexuals, and even to giving the blessing of the Church to 'marriages' between two persons of the same sex."+++Forum editor Louie Crew will speak at the 2nd Annual Southeastern Gay Conference at Univ. of N. Carolina, 1-3 April, and will also be the guest of Episcopal campus ministry at N. Carolina State in Raleigh on 31st March.+++INTEGRITY's national treasurer The Rev. John Lenhardt recently suffered a heart attack, but is doing better now.  Send your cards to his address on the back page and keep him in your prayers.+++Karla Jay (2785 Broadway, L5, NYC 10025) and Allen Young (R.F.D. 2, Orange, MA 01364) are planning a third anthology (cf. Out of the Closets and After You're Out) organized around the theme of CULTURE both as "arts" and as behavior."  Query for more details.  Manuscripts are being sought.

HOMOPHOBIA EPIDEMIC CONTINUES, POSSIBLY ABATING

AROUND THE DIOCESES

As we reported in our March issue, homophobia has reached epidemic proportions in the Episcopal Church in the flood of responses to the January ordination in NYC of former INTEGRITY president The Rev. Ellen Marie Barrett.  Hate mail and mail of charitably expressed concern has poured into Ms. Barrett's and Bishop Moore's offices.  Diocese after diocese has taken upon itself to react in the form of published episcopal letters, parish petitions, and diocesan resolutions.

There are a few signs that the epidemic may be abating at least partially.  Bishop Moore's mail, which was running about 40 to 1 against the action, is now running about 50-50.  Ms. Barrett's mail has consistently been 60 to 40 supportive.  Actions such as that by Bishop McGehee (reported below) indicate that reason still finds a forum in the Church.

DIOCESE OF GEORGIA

Augusta.  Delegates to the 155th annual convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia meeting here on 11-12 February debated an hour before voting 138 to 30 to adopt the following resolution:

"Whereas the doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church is expressive of the teaching of the Bible, which contains all things necessary to salvation; and candidates for the priesthood in the Church are required, as a condition for ordination, to affirm a belief that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God: and

"Whereas the Bible, in a passage clear and undisputed among many Biblical scholars of established reputation, asserts that acts of homosexuality are contrary to sound teaching (1 Timothy 1:9f);

"Be it therefore resolved by the 155th Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia, that, along with the compassion and love which should inspire a Christian attitude toward the homosexual as a child of God, and independently of whatever reasons may be assigned for the homosexual orientation of a given person, we shall continue to regard homosexual actions themselves as objectively offensive to God and opposed to His commandments; and

"Be it further resolved, that we affirm our commitment to minister the grace and power of the Gospel of Christ to those who seek to be reconciled to God ant to do His will, and

"Be it further resolved, that, as persons who engage as a matter of course in heterosexual activity outside of marriage are not regarded as fit candidates for Holy Orders, neither shall those who as a matter of course engage in homosexual activity be regarded as fit candidates for Holy Orders; and

"Be it further resolved, that the 155th Convention of the Diocese of Georgia charge the Chancellor of the Diocese, in consultation with the Bishop and Commission on Ministry, to prepare appropriate proposed amendments to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church which will explicitly insure that such persons shall not be admitted to Holy orders, and that said proposed amendments be properly presented to the next General Convention of the Episcopal Church."

According to the Atlanta papers:

"I completely supported the resolution.  I'm glad we passed it.  There was confusion as to whether it was aimed at a person's nature or action.  The resolution is aimed purely at homosexual action, which the Bible says is immoral," said the Right Rev. Paul Reeves, bishop of Georgia.

Opponents of the resolution, who tried to delay the midday vote during the debate, said the resolution meant homosexuals could not be Christians.

Father L. Powell Gahagan of Valdosta said he knew homosexual priests "whom I find to be very good priests" and he urged delegates to "quit casting stones at other people."

One priest said the resolution implied a homosexual was incapable of restrains, while a heterosexual could control himself.  "The homosexual priest can be a good priest and a good Christian," Father Jack Berlin said.

"A person who is homosexual can be Godly.  He can teach us something.  I don't believe his being a homosexual doesn't make him a Christian," one female delegate said.

Bishop Reeve's response to a Forum query is reprinted on page 5 of this issue.

DIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES

The Rt. Rev. Robert Rusack, Bishop of Los Angeles, telegramed Bishop Moore the condemnation of the ordination as "totally improper, reflective of contemptible impatience."

DIOCESE OF MICHIGAN

The Rt. Rev. H. Coleman McGehee, Jr., wrote in the diocesan Record for February, to clarify his reactions to the Barrett ordination, a full review of the past action and study of that diocese, which has been fully reported in previous issues of Forum (see especially Bp. McGehee's 1975 Convention address in our January 1976 issue).  Then the Bishop reviewed the support of Gay people by General Convention and added:

Where Do the Diocese and the Bishop Stand Today?

The three resolutions adopted by the General Convention are binding upon the diocese, as is the one general resolution adopted by the 142nd Diocesan Convention.  There is no other existing policy statement in the diocese with regard to the homosexuality question including the ordination of "professed homosexual" persons.

Finally, let us be clear that neither the Diocese of Michigan as a corporate body, nor I as a Bishop, has ever endorsed, condoned, or encouraged sexual activity between homosexual persons.

Even the four-part resolution of the Executive Council, while it wa the policy of the diocese, did not to this.

Similarly, we have never approved the misuse of one's homosexuality any more than we approve the misuse of one's heterosexuality, and this includes molestation of another, solicitation of another, or any form of promiscuity.

What we have done is try to be involved in what many thoughtful Christians today believe to be a crucial issue deserving of the church's attention and pastoral care.  I believe that the church manifesting the love of Christ for all persons has a responsibility to enter into dialogue and discussion in order to provide a voice for minority and powerless groups within our Christian society who need desperately to be heard.  Such an attitude, I believe, makes it possible for each of us as concerned Christians to learn something of other persons in our own community.

By supporting all members of the church where they are and where they exist with an understanding and compassion for one another we may enable each other to discover a deeper relationship with Christ.  I do not think we accomplish this by making denunciatory and condemnatory judgment on people who are striving hard to be committed Christians.

My own study and soul-searching review of the homosexual issue is summed up in the remarks which I made at our Diocesan Convention in 1975, a copy of which may be obtained from my office upon request.

I hope that this will answer the number of question which have been asked recently, and, furthermore, that the clergy will make copies of this statement available in their parishes and congregations, especially for persons who are confused about the facts and where the church and the Bishop stand on this important matter.

DIOCESE OF LOUISIANA

We reported last month Bp James Brown's opposition to the ordination in the form of a letter to the newspapers of the state.  When the diocesan convention was held in mid-February, this issue surfaced, with INTEGRITY squelched by the mere weight of numbers, as reported by Wesley Jackson of the Times-Picayune

MONROE, La. -- An anticipated confrontation between the Louisiana Episcopal Diocese and members of an Episcopalian "Gay Caucus" -- type group known as "Integrity" failed to take place here as the Episcopalians convened their 139th annual convention at Monroe's Civic Center.

Only about two members of the Louisiana chapter of Integrity showed up for the diocesan meeting but apparently decided that they would not demonstrate.  Some delegates feel a three-day rodeo in another part of the Civic Center complex, may have had some deterrent effect upon the planned demonstrations.

The confrontation was to have been a protest in a recent letter written by the Rt. Rev. James Barrow Brown, bishop of the Louisiana Diocese, in which he protested a recent ordination in New York of a self-proclaimed lesbian to the Episcopal priesthood.

Convention action on that matter, along with the ordination of women to the priesthood in general, is on the agenda for Saturday's concluding sessions here.  The diocese can take no action to rescind recent approval of ordaining women but is expected to formally voice opposition.

We have not had confirmed the rumors to the effect that the diocese did pass antiGay resolutions

DIOCESE OF NEW YORK

The diocese in which the ordination occurred has been the scene of several forms of protest.  At least five parishes are suspending the Diocesan support because of the event.  Gay Community News noted on the 19th February:

The Rev. Earnest W. Johns rector of Christ Church of Ramapo in Suffern, New York, told the New York Times that as a result of Bishop Moore's action, "we can no longer look to him as our spiritual father in God."  Rev. Johns said that the vestry of his church was scheduled to meet late this week and would probably vote to withhold its $8,000 assessment.

The Vestry of the Church of the Holy Communion in Mahopac, New York voted to withhold all assessments until Barrett was either defrocked or agreed to "publicly repent and rectify her professment of homosexuality as a viable and healthy alternative lifestyle."  The church's yearly assessment is $2,000.

In Yonkers, the vestry of St. Mark's church also voted to refuse to pay its assessment of $2,300.

Bishop Moore stated that "he had never had so much flak."  He emphasized that the withheld money "is not spent for ordinations. Much of it goes for the mission work of the church."

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Bishop John Maury Allin emphasized, "The church has not gone down the drain.  It really hasn't.  Pass the word along."

Fr. Michael C, Koonsman, convenor of INTEGRITY/NYC, is mobilizing an effort to visit concerned parishes with groups of Gay witnesses to explain our ministry and to enter an important dialogue with them.

DIOCESE OF RHODE ISLAND

The major protest to surface here is a lengthy editorial in The Rhode Island Churchman by guest editor The Rev. Robert D. Duffy.  We reprint here his letter to Bishop Moore, which was included in the editorial:

Dear Bishop Moore:

It undoubtedly is not news to you that the recent ordination of Ellen Barrett is a matter of controversy both on the part of those who approve women's ordination and on the part of those who do not.  The source of the controversy, of course, is her public profession of being a lesbian.  I am writing to you to express some of my own personal thoughts and concerns about this matter.

Several clergy and lay people in the Diocese of R I ... have expressed grave distress over what seems to them to be the acceptance by the church of homosexual behavior as a life-style in accord with the Gospel.  Now, I realize that it is necessary to distinguish between homosexuality as a given of one's personality structure and the engaging in homosexual genital behavior.  I also realize that vast numbers of people either do not make this distinction or are unaware that this distinction ought to be made.  It is to some degree the whole problem of the confusion in the minds of people over the difference between temptation and sin.  I suspect that what is angering people at present about Miss Barrett's ordination is the assumption that by her profession to be a lesbian she is admitting to overt involvement with another person or persons.  Of course, those of us who do not know Miss Barrett are not qualified to make any assumption about what she does or does not do.  The fact remains, however, that in the public eye to make a profession of homosexuality is equivalent to endorsement of homosexual acts.

In the Sunday New York Times of Jan 9 there was an article about a Jesuit who has been denied ordination by the Roman Church because of his homosexual activities.  The Times article indicated that this man was not involved and had not been involved in overt acts.  Thus it would seem that the Roman Church is denying ordination to a man because of disapproval of his temptations.  I regard this as grossly unjust.  After all, heterosexual people are subject to temptations and are not denied ordination if their practice is in accordance with the Gospel principle of sexual relations within the marriage bond only.  It is quite a different matter when a person is involved in sexual behavior which does not meet the standard of the Gospel as this has been consistently witnessed to by the church over the centuries.

Unless I am mistaken, our church still holds generally that the intention to practice fornication and adultery would render a man morally unfit for Holy Orders.  It certainly has been the practice at least until recently, to deny ordination to men who have been involved in a homosexual life-style, and I mean by this someone who is engaged in such acts and not simply someone who has temptations in this direction.  Should not more discretion be used with regard to the decision to ordain someone, man or woman, who has made a public profession of homosexuality?  Perhaps Miss Barrett is leading a chaste life.  If so, then it seems to me that as her bishop and for the sake of preventing public scandal, you might be wise to clarify this to the press so that the public will understand better than they do the whole issue.

I do not believe that the issue of public scandal is out-dated.  Nor do I believe that people should be denied ordination solely on the grounds of their particular temptations.  The Christian faithful, however, do have a right to expect their clergy to life in accordance with the Gospel when it comes to sexuality.  We all have enough sinfulness and brokenness which cause offense to the faithful and the unbelieving public without intensifying the scandal by ordaining persons who the public could only too easily believe are guilty of moral turpitude.

I appreciate your concern for a Christian and humane treatment of all people who are tempted in the direction of homosexuality.  It is one thing to accept people in their brokenness; it is another thing to say that the brokenness is really wholeness.  I do not believe that it was your intention to say this, but I am afraid that your comments about Miss Barrett have led vast numbers of people to think that this is what you believe.  Surely it is incumbent upon all of us, living as we do in an age of immense sexual confusion, not to add to this confusion by public statements or actions which could too easily be misunderstood or misinterpreted by the public.

DIOCESE OF THE RIO GRANDE

Bishop R. M. Trelease, Jr., issued the following letter through The Southwest Churchman:

Beloved:

I believe that a self-confessed and practicing lesbian should not be ordained.  I believe that a person with this kind of sexual life style is not a healthy model of ministry for our Church as we understand it and its ministry.  But further, and equally important, I do not believe that a self-confessed and unrepentant slanderer, or gossiper, or mischief maker, or murderer, or a treacherous person, or one who is insolent or arrogant or boastful, or one without pity or natural affection, or sense of fidelity should be ordained.  (This list is taken from Romans 1:28-31 NEB)  But sometimes people who are guilty of one or more of these sins are ordained, and they will continue to be ordained because the best screening process in the world will not discover all unfit persons.  This is not to justify Ms. Barrett's ordination.  It is simply to say that there are many other reasons one should not be ordained unless there is some kind of an effort to live from ordination on responsibly and maturely.

To my knowledge, no theologian has yet come up with a precise and accurate biblical definition of "the sin against the Holy Spirit."  If not that sin, one quite close to it is committed by those who break the body of Christ by absenting themselves from it in one of two ways:  their physical absence, or their physical presence but with closed ears and hearts.  Bear this in mind as I make some further comments upon the recent ordination in New York of the Rev. Ellen Barrett by Bishop Paul Moore.  Ms. Barrett is reputed by the Press to have said that she is a practicing lesbian.  Bishop Moore, in a personal conference I had with him, stated that Ms. Barrett said she was homosexually oriented.  However, he went on to say that the Commission on Ministry, the Standing Committee of New York, General Theological Seminary and he himself found her life to be spiritually, emotionally and morally blameless and so he felt she was qualified for ordination.  At one point, Bishop Moore went on, he asked the Standing Committee whether or not he should withdraw from this ordination.  They urged him to continue as planned.  Now those are some facts which I ask you to consider before making judgement on Bishop Moore, the Diocese of New York and the Episcopal Church.  Some of you have written and told me that "this is the last straw," that you "are leaving the Church."  Some of you will be inclined to make judgements.  St. Paul speaks so clearly about this in the second chapter of Romans.  Thus the unity of the Church is broken by such judgements.  That too is sin.

The Church will make mistakes in the future as it has in the past.  But the Church has survived.  It has survived evil clergy and evil congregations and evil issues.  It has survived because God the Holy Spirit dwells in it, and its members have not all flown the coop when the incident, an issue, a decision does not suit them.  Part of living under authority is the acceptance of that which we do not like.

Let me say one more thing about this.  I believe we are a Church under authority.  We define authority in various ways.  Canon Clark, in his column last month, used Richard Hooker's great definition of Scripture, Tradition and Reason as the basis of Anglican Authority.  I would suggest that in our day this holds just as true except that I would say Reason -- "illumined by the Holy Spirit."  That means individual conscience before God is the highest authority.  St Paul tells us we must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.  Therefore, we have Scripture and Tradition to guide us, but the final decision about actions and judgements and staying within the Body or breaking its unity is up to us.  Lord have mercy upon us.

DIOCESE OF SOUTHERN OHIO

On 8th February, The Rt Rev John M. Krumm issued the following statement, endorsed by the Standing Committee of the diocese:

"The announcement of the ordination to the priesthood by the Bishop of New York of a woman who confessed to being a practicing lesbian has raised a great deal of protest and resulted in a number of letters addressed to me expressing dismay and strong opposition.  I feel I need to make a statement of my position on this matter.

"Bishop Moore and his Standing Committee and other authorities in New York have taken this step, of course, without any consultation with any other diocesan bishop that I know of, certainly not with me.  I have expressed privately to him and now wish to make known to the Diocese of Southern Ohio my own disapproval of this ordination and my own intention not to ordain anyone who is a self-confessed homosexual and feels obliged to admit this publicly.

"My position is that homosexuality is a matter best dealt with in each individual case and by private pastoral counselling.  I cannot unequivocally condemn all individuals who engage in homosexual practices since in many instances the person's orientation is such that no other form of sexual expression is open and possible for him or her.  I am, however, unable to endorse such practice in any general way as an alternative life style which fulfills God's intention in the creation of human beings as male or female.  I have had occasion in pastoral counselling to learn about many such homosexual patterns of behavior and I am convinced that they fall far short of the true meaning of sexuality although they are not necessarily devoid of value and dignity.  The act of the Church in ordaining a person known to be a practicing homosexual seems to place a seal of general approval upon a style of life which I do not believe Christian theology, based on Scripture, can unqualifiedly endorse.

"I have also been persuaded that St Paul's admonition that we must avoid whenever possible offending against the scruples and conscience of fellow Christians applies in this case (cf Romans 14:21, e.g.) Bishop Moore has said that the present state of society now permits a homosexual to he more "open" about his orientation and lifestyle.  I cannot agree, however, that the community of Christians in the Church shares this tolerance and permissiveness, and whatever else may be claimed or believed, loving concern for fellow churchpeople would require at the least an absence of publicity about such an ordination.  Neither Bishop Moore nor Ms. Barrett sought this publicity, I am persuaded, but when it became inevitable, I believe the ordination should not have taken place.

"I also would express the hope that we might avoid any self-righteousness in our judgments concerning men and women struggling with moral dilemmas from which God may have spared us. I believe self-righteousness is a more serious sin than any other, and I feel I need to warn some of my correspondents of this danger."

DIOCESE OF WEST MISSOURI

The Diocesan Bulletin of West Missouri for February contained the following statement by Bishop Arthur A. Vogel:

The recent ordination of an avowed lesbian to the priesthood by the Bishop of New York has caused considerable protest and resentment throughout the church -- and throughout the Diocese of West Missouri.  As bishop of this diocese, I condemn the action taken by Bishop Moore if it was done knowingly:  the action is regretful whether done knowingly or not.  To minister to, rather than condemn, an individual, is very different from appearing communally to approve and advocate the style of life of an individual.

I have seen certain confidential material which would disprove many of the emotional charges now being hurled at Bishop Moore.  In order to be able more justly to apprehend the situation, I have written Bishop Moore; certain portions of my letter follows:

"Since the bishop in each diocese, by his sacramental office, presents and represents the universal church to the people of his local diocese, as a brother in Christ, I must report the deeply deleterious effects of Ms. Barrett's ordination upon the clergy and people of this diocese.  Shock wave after shock wave of disappointment and bewilderment are striking the faithful in this portion of God's vineyard.

"At this moment, I write in the spirit of inquiry in order to ascertain the actual facts of the situation.  Many people here and elsewhere have inferred that you ordained Ms. Barrett as a publicly practicing lesbian, thereby associating her individual advocacy with the Church's universal acceptance of Holy Orders.  Little actual information and material are available to me, but as I read the account in TIME MAGAZINE you are quoted only as referring to homosexual tendencies, while Ms. Barrett is represented as advocating homosexual liaisons as an alternate, acceptable life style.

" ... I need to know -- and so ask you -- if you thought you were dealing only with a persons with 'tendencies,' or if you knew you were ordaining a person who positively and publicly advocated homosexual unions as an alternate, acceptable life style."

The difficulty in which we now find ourselves once again involves the nature of episcopacy and the relationship of individual bishops to the wider, universal church.  Bishops, as individuals, may not appropriate their sacramental functions to their personal views.  The demand to accept a controverted life style, for example, in the name of the sacramental recognition of Holy Orders is to misuse and appropriate a communal expression to one's own perspective.  It is to make a sacrament a means to an end extrinsic to its nature.  So to use a sacrament as a means to an end beyond itself in an argument, is to damage the sacrament's effectiveness in the very community it is supposed to serve.  The subversion of the church's sacramental structure to the opinions and positions of individuals is what the church must not allow!

In advocating different positions within the church, partisans should argue in such a way that they alone bear the consequences of their argument.  That is where Christian charity has failed us in recent years.

OUT OF THE MARRYING BUSINESS, INTO AFFIRMATION

ONE  PARISH MOVES TO BLESS GAY UNIONS

At our first national convention in Chicago, Fr. Pittenger said that he would like to see the Church get out of the marrying business altogether and move towards some kind of support for various kinds of personal unions.  From very early on Forum has included discussions from many points of view on Gay unions, publishing two services for same (Mar. 75 and October 76).  We have just learned from our President, Fr. Ron Wesner, that the Vestry of St. Mary's Church, Hamilton Village, in Philadelphia, has unanimously endorsed the freedom of their rector Fr. John M. Scott and associate Fr. Ron Wesner to work with Gay couples and to bless Gay unions.

This decision was not taken with the fanfare of a publicity stunt, but with the deliberate and considered compassion evidenced in the preparatory documents, which we have been allowed to reproduce below.              Ed.

MEMO FROM FR. WESNER TO FR. SCOTT

I am requesting permission of the Vestry and Parish of St. Mary's Parish, Hamilton Village, to bless Gay unions in the parish church of St. Mary's.  One of the main reasons for distress within the homosexual subculture is the apparent lack of stable same-sex relationships.  Most Gay people and nonGay people have a stereotypical image of Gay relationships as being fleeting or short-lived.  There are many relationships of considerable duration to dispute this stereotype, but almost all of them are generally hidden from the public view, and survive despite their clandestine nature.  Both the Gay and the nonGay societies need to have these relationships more visible and accessible, thereby providing positive models of faithful, responsible relationships. One means of achieving this visibility and support is through the community's gathering together, expressing its intention to uphold and bless these unions.  The term marriage is not generally used within the Gay subculture, it being determined that marriage has too many connotations which are not deemed applicable.  However, there are qualities held in common by both the terms of gay unions and marriages -- the intention to be mutually supportive, caring, faithful, and to be able to express those intentions within a gathered Christian community.  To this end I extend this request.

MEMO TO HIS VESTRY FROM FR. SCOTT

No specific ceremony or request by specific persons is at hand, but Ron has wisely chosen to raise the matter in anticipation of such likelihood to give us time to consider our response.  Bishop Ogilby has graciously agreed to be present for the discussion at the 15th February meeting.

First, I believe this is primarily pastoral matter, and the extension of the ministry of INTEGRITY to gay Episcopalians and their friends.

Secondly, the hostile reaction to Bishop Paul Moore's ordination of Ellen Barrett to the priesthood indicates that a) despite the strides toward acceptance that INTEGRITY has achieved on behalf of the gay minority, there is still a long way to go; and b) the public presentation has to be very carefully done.  For instance Ellen Barrett's homosexuality was fully and frankly public with the approval of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of New York two years ago when she way ordained Deacon, but not until her priesting did anyone seem to notice, and Bishop Moore seems to have been caught by surprise by the extent of the reaction.

Thirdly, as Ron indicates, gay union is not to be equated with marriage.

Fourthly, marriage itself seems to be under increasing question with the widespread practice of "living together."  How are these conditions related?

Fifthly, I do not believe it is accurate to present gay as an "alternative" to straight or non-gay orientation because alternative suggests to many people that being gay or straight is a simple matter of choice.  Sexual orientation is subtle and complex and stereotyping in any direction does a disservice to individuals and to our openness to increased learning.

Sixthly, satisfying and fulfilling interpersonal human relationships, explicitly sexual or not, are a precious ingredient of life.  How can the Church as the expression of the love and grace of Jesus Christ our Lord witness to that in our society?

There are many broken and severely strained heterosexual relationships, but the Church is ministering to them.  Yet only the extraordinary grace and gifts of a W.H. Auden or a Benjamin Britten have withstood the lack of ministry, compassion, and understanding to which gay people have had to live out their lives.

A FOLLOW-UP MEMO TO HIS VESTRY FROM FR. SCOTT

Further development of my sixth point [above]:

Religious orders have always had a process by which a person's commitment to the rule and the community developed by stages and was marked by successive levels of commitment:  postulance, novitiate, first vows, life vows -- spread over a minimum of six years and often with the stipulation that life vows could not be taken prior to age thirty.  It's essential to recognize 1) that life-long interaction is present from the beginning.  While the novitiate is a time of testing, it is not a passive, indifferent period, but one to deepen the commitment or find that, even vigorously pursued, that commitment is not right for the person or community; 2) that even first profession and life profession do not set aside the need for frequent self-examination and renewal.

For many centuries the Church also had ceremonies other than marriage for couples living together, or intending to do so, in sexual union.  Betrothal often preceded the exchange of marriage vows by many years.  (Of course, there were child abuses and much of this had to do with political and property matters.)

Today we have the following phenomena: 1) a high rate of break-ups of marriages; 2) many persons electing to "live together" but not marry; 3) gay couples seeking support and stability in a relationship which is analogous to heterosexual unions.  Yet, despite relaxations about re-marriage, the Church is providing for only liturgical forms and recognition of binding obligations. In our society as a whole, the former phenomenon of "pinning" and engagements has declined; yet each had some characteristic of an intention which, hopefully, would reach formal commitment in public later.

In considering the proposal for a liturgical expression of the intention of a gay couple for a stable and maturing union, we should also consider the matter of heterosexual couples seeking a blessing on their "living together" relationships which are short on the final vows of marriage.  To be sure, some couples are really not serious about "living together" and see it as a "if it works, OK, if it doesn't, split"; but others have a commitment to work at, develop, and support one another toward a mature and lasting relationship.

The pastoral task is to help a couple discover where they are, and if the latter relationship is what they seek, to support and bless them in it.  Therefore, I would like to see a Liturgy which is like the old "betrothal service" (and, if we followed the monastic analogy) is in either a "novitiate" or "first vows" stage -- probably the former with a first anniversary renewal, and if they have grown and developed, ultimate marriage.

I think, too, that a separation formula -- perhaps not to be the occasion of a party with friends -- but at least a public document could acknowledge that the partners had recognized that life-long commitment was not likely to be theirs, and they could go their separate ways with the Church's blessing, if they desired it.

FORUM

There are bridges to be built and neither shame nor mental dream telepathy will build them.  We must unite, not as racists, but as Christians.  If we allow only a few to go forth for us and they are stoned ... then we are just as guilty as those with stones in their hands.  Then there is true cause for shame.  If we sow only shame, so shall we reap it.  We cause much of our heterosexual friends' uneasiness and fear simply because of our own inability to respect ourselves enough to come out of the closet.  We will be free and recognized so one day.  But only when we care enough to throw off our false pride of being different and look past the finite, earth-bound, to the infinite in and through Christ.  We are all ONE.  Why must we waste so much time tripping over our shoe laces?

              Marie

You write "It appears that you persist in thinking that homosexuals are just heterosexuals gone bad.  Medical science does not support you."  "Appears" probably is the correct word. Whence "Persists," I do not know.  Yes, I think some homosexuals have deviated from what was their normal heterosexual pattern, and I believe medical science agrees with this ‑‑ and agrees that at least some of them can return to their original, normal pattern....

The General Convention resolutions had nothing to do with ordination; our resolution was concerned with that and with that only [see this issue, p. 1 -- Ed.].  Further, ours condemned heterosexual activity outside of marriage on a par with homosexual activity ('activity,' not 'orientation').

As for any "witch hunt" in this diocese, I know of none and certainly intend none.

              The Rt. Rev. Paul Reeves

              Bishop of Georgia

Bishop William Frey of Colorado impresses those who meet him as a warm, friendly, and good humored person with a deep Christian commitment.  He evinced this commitment and great courage several years ago as Bishop of Guatemala when he spoke out against the tyrannical regime in power there.  He was soon ordered to leave the country.  It seemed a blessing when the Church in Colorado called this fine Christian witness to be their bishop.

How unfortunate it is that he who was oppressed for Christ's sake, now invokes the Gospel of Christ as an instrument of oppression, prejudice, and fear against his sister and fellow priest Ellen Barrett.  Bishop Frey attempted to persuade Bishop Moore of New York to resist the "contemptible impatience" to ordain a Lesbian and thus "recommend this as a wholesome Christian life style."  But impatience is justified when Gay people who are living "a wholesome Christian life style" are ridiculed, abused, and oppressed by a Church which is supposed to "proclaim freedom."  The Church has learned that to deny ordination to women is the same as denying baptism to them, as such action implies that the humanity of Christ is only a male humanity.  It is time to learn that to deny ordination to Gay people is to restrict the wholeness of the Incarnation, to deny that Christ is fully human, Gay as well as nonGay.

St. Paul and other Christians condemned acts which they, being heterosexual (more or less), could only understand as "unnatural lust."  All lust is "unnatural" but Ellen and Bishop Moore bear witness that all love and acts of love are supernatural and holy. They defend and continue the Christian tradition of love, tolerance, and freedom which starkly contrasts to the Manichae tradition of hatred and oppression against Gay people.  Bishop Frey has diligently searched the Scriptures, finding proof-texts against Gay people, and has failed to see the bold Gospel of liberation and love to which the Scriptures bear witness.

We may well hope that the love of Christ which Bishop Frey has shared with many people and to which he has borne witness will triumph over the malignant spirit which turns him against the Christ who lives in his Gay brothers and sisters.

              Fr. David

It was good to receive the [October] issue of Forum this morning, and particularly to read detailed reports of the Episcopal General Convention.  It was also good to note that you published Peter Elers' letter concerning services of blessing for Gay unions.  You may be aware that a rather shamefaced and hypocritical support for Peter from his Bishop when he first "came out," has been changed to outright condemnation following publicity given to Peter's blessings.  The saddest part of it all is that not one of the other clergy who perform similar blessings spoke up.

This weekend [13 December 1976] I have been attending the quarterly National Council of CHE (the Campaign for Homosexual Equality -- our nearest equivalent to the National Gay Task Force, I guess) in Cambridge.  There we heard the details of the action being raised in the courts by Mrs. (she strongly objects to being referred to as Ms.) Mary Whitehouse.  She is the founder and President of the National Viewers and Listeners Association, and is the leading exponent of mid-Victorian morals in this country.  She has a surprisingly large amount of active (letter-writing, and telephoning) support, although, I think, very little public sympathy.  She presents herself as the defender of all that respectable middle-class middle-aged ladies with flowery hats stand for!  She has raised an action of Criminal Blasphemy against Gay News....  [See Forum account ln Feb. issue, p. 1]  The case will probably be heard in March.  It has aroused a lot of interest here, and of course, could result in the bankrupting of Gay News and the imprisonment of its editor (but not, through a quirk of our law, any penalty on the writer).

While in Cambridge I attended the Eucharist of the Cambridge branch of GCM (Gay Christian Movement), at which the Secretary, The Rev, Jim Cotter, celebrated -- wearing for the first time a stole with our symbol beautifully embroidered on it, and with it also embroidered on the covering for the bread and wine.  The convenor of the Cambridge group preached a short message of hope: his name is Dr. Peter Jackson, and he is a history don at Cambridge University.  We then had a buffet supper and all went to a party organized for the CHE national conference by Cambridge CHE.

The embroidery had been done by one of our members, and the pieces have been presented to the Movement for use on such occasions.

You will, by now, have received our latest Bulletin and with it, a list of convenors of our local groups.  It is interesting to note that not all of them are Gay (no, I don't mean that some of them pretend not to be Gay; I mean that some are active heterosexuals).  We have groups ln the following towns:

ENGLAND

Birmingham

Brighton

Bristol

Cambridge

Canterbury

Carlisle

Colchester

Hastings

Leeds

Lincoln

Manchester

Blackpool

Nottingham

Oxford

Sheffield

Southampton

Plymouth

Stoke-on-Trent

Coventry

York

LONDON AREA

East; South-East; South-West: West; North-West; North; Hertforshire outer suburbs; Essex outer suburbs; Kent outer suburbs; Surrey outer suburbs.

Also a chapter in Bangor, North Wales.

The only major centres of population with over 250,000 people left uncovered are:  Liverpool, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, Norwich, Cardiff (South Wales), Hull, Bradford, Tees-side, and Swansea (South Wales).

So there you are.  Any of your people who are over here can be dealt with easily, even without the gaps filled in very few people indeed are farther than 50 miles from a group.

Incidentally, I heard today that I am to be a member of the Social Responsibility Committee of the Diocese of Durham.  I suspect that I am there to be the "trendy" on the committee, but when I checked that it was well known that I was in Gay Rights things, the reply from my vicar, who had suggested me, was, "Yes, that was one of the things ln your favor"!  I was told that what they were looking for was a lay social scientist academic, particularly one who was actively involved in caring activities, and one who could argue a case carefully!  I am very pleased and rather humbled by my being included.

              Malcolm Macourt

              12 Mavin St

              Durham City, DHI 3AU, ENGLAND

In the December Forum article "The Problem of Gay Crime" dealing with Bud Vermilye, you said.  "Fr. Vermilye has more obvious hetero than homosexual credentials," And again, "The record seems to suggest that he is not really a Gay outsider, but a heterosexual insider morbidly fascinated with the mechanics of an alien sexuality."  It is not my intention to discuss this matter, but those words you wrote somehow suggest to me a different matter, a homosexual prejudice against bisexuals.

I too am married and have five children, but I also have strong  homosexual tendencies, so I guess that makes me bisexual.  Some say that the bisexual enjoys the best of both worlds, but unfortunately he belongs to neither.  So where does that leave us? Do gays regard us as intruders when we step on their turf?  It is our turf too.  I can't anymore help being bisexual than you can help being homosexual.

Just how bisexual am I?  I don't really know.  Had circumstances been different I probably would have entered Gay society and been quite at home ln it.  However, when I was young I didn't even know there was a Gay society.  I certainly knew that I was homosexual, but I figured it was something I would just have to fight and so I followed the only pattern I knew:  I got married and incidentally enjoyed hetero sex.  But I have gone through all of the torment of the homosexual until I gave up fighting and accepted myself for what I am, and to hell with what anyone else thinks.

O.k., so I got married.  My wife married me in good faith.  I have a responsibility to her.  I had five children.  I have a responsibility to them.  And these include not embarrassing them. I made my bed, and I am going to lie in it.  Sure, I have my moments when I am so lonely I can hardly stand it.  I need someone who knows me for what I am and with whom there need be no mask, no charade.  Sometimes I want to get out of this suffocating closet, but I can't.  It is not my decision.  Six others are involved in that decision.  Do you see my point?  It may seem like cowardice to stay in the closet, but it would be downright immoral to betray my loved ones.  There must be an awful lot of guys in this same position.

The fact that I care is evident in the fact that I subscribe to Forum.  But I don't feel like I belong.  Do you regard guys like me as heterosexual insiders?  Well, I have gone through all the mental hell.  I was victimized by a blackmailer.  And I want to belong somewhere.

Now that I have said that, I have had my crying jag.  I have had a good time feeling sorry for myself.  I am a very lucky person and the Lord has blessed me.  But I do get lonely and only a homosexual could know what I mean.

              Fr. George

I'm really down.  I haven't been to Communion since the summer.  I just can't stomach the Church anymore.  Of course, Bishop Sims' [Diocese of Atlanta] actions did not help.  I saw him in the fall about my place in the Church, and all he could give me was sympathy and platitudes, no solutions.  That didn't help.  Then a few weeks ago I found out that he had labeled as "inflammatory" the very mild statement on human sexuality which the ad hoc committee [on sexuality] had presented to him for consideration at council.  The statement took no stand but just summarized what had been discussed by the committee throughout the year.  That was the straw that broke the camel's back.  I was disgusted and felt both bishop, council and Church could go fuck themselves.  I didn't want any part of it.  So I didn't even bother going to council.  I cannot deal with these people, whether it be on the Gay issue, sexuality, or the Christianity.  These people don't want to apply the Gospel to life; they just want to keep a bureaucratic organization alive.  They can have it.  I don't know where I'm going, Christian-wise.  I still am a Christian.  If I can find a community, perhaps I can salvage something.  If not, I don't know.

As far as I'm concerned now, I'm out of the Episcopal Church and anything that has to do with it.  The ad hoc [diocesan] committee is a sham and I want nothing to do with it.

Sorry for the negativism.  It's going to take a while to get back to equilibrium.

Take care, and let's keep in touch.  Love.

              Ara Dostourian

[Dr. Dostourian was founder and first convenor of INTEGRITY/Atlanta.  He is very important to us.  I am grateful that he is letting me share a letter written as private correspondence. LC]

My problem is that I have a philosophical hangup on a word --normative.  Morally speaking, other words seem rather meaningless to me in view of pastoral concern, e.g., natural and unnatural.  I overcame the supernatural problem years ago, at least as a possibility to make the Gospel credible to "rationalistic" intelligentsia, i.e., "perhaps Jesus was the only real natural man to have lived outside 'Adam,' and what we attribute to his supernatural qualities are 'natural'; the rest of us ('incurvatus in se' in comparison are sub-natural; some -- the Adolph Hitlers and the sadistic wife beaters -- are even beasts."  Such an approach, at least for me, has made the Incarnation more intelligible, and a number of "my" converts would never have been converted otherwise.  So, although at one time I was, I no longer am bothered by these classical words.

Added to all of this, I am perfectly willing (gladly) to play "humpty-dumpty" with other words for the sake of love, e.g., gay, because that is what the homophile world wishes to be called, even though I wonder if it is truly a descriptive word.  But I can do this in the same way (although gay is more difficult) that I can use Black for 'Negro' -- simply because that is what "they" want to be called.  But back to normative.

I have found that this "liberal traditionalist" that I am cannot in any way, shape, or form surrender "normative."  This seems to be my slne qua non.  Yet in so much homophile literature I've been reading recently that is what the authors have been asking me to do!

You see, I can say without any hesitation that homosexuality is natural, for love demands that that term become relative; but normative is different.  I am willing to teach and let my children be taught that "gay" is natural for Gays, as "straight" is natural for "straights," but I tremble to think that the Church would ever in her magisterium say that homosexuality is normative.

Am I the only one that is bothered by this question?

With much deep appreciation for your courageous stands, I am

              Fr. Donn

I have to disagree with some of your concepts related to the January issue and the picture.  I do believe Christ is present everywhere, but I do not necessarily feel it needs to be vividly portrayed ... hetero, homo, or with cows in Vermont for that matter....  I don't choose to have Christ so all consumed and preoccupied with erotic, and especially sexual relationships.  I find it to be rather one track, and an easy way to lose the overall perspective of the totality of Christ's presence.  More importantly, I don't believe that Christ or the Church should sanction an "anything goes" attitude in terms of sexual relationships ... of whatever nature....  I believe that a Christian life requires some discipline, some sacrifice, and a keen commitment to each other as human beings.  There then, I believe, must be some ethical and moral qualities involved, not so much in the traditional sense, but in the sense of being sensitive, loving, respectful etc., in one's relationship with others, sexual and otherwise.  I personally do not believe for an instant that those qualities exist in every aspect of Gay life, Gay relationships, or Gay sex.  I don't believe Christ smiles on exploitative, insensitive, and mechanical relationships, whatever the sexual relationships.  I value human life and love, warmth and intimacy, far too much.  Indeed I view close loving, sexual relationships as something uniquely special and precious, either to be able to accept "anything goes" or to delude myself that Christ would applaud such attitudes.  Indeed I view much of what our society has produced in terms of human values, relationships, and responsibilities as frankly destructive, dehumanizing, and out of touch with the essence of relating in an honest, fresh, and spontaneous manner.  I find this to be true ln both gay and hetero relationships.  I view total sexual permissiveness and freedom as confining in its own way as Victorian prudishness, particularly when the new culture demands almost that one adopt fluid values.  I view both extremes with skepticism.  Lest I misrepresent myself, I am not in favor of enforced monogamy or a heterosexual model for Gay relationships by any means, but neither am I in favor of promiscuity, and glory-holes and baths that so often perpetuate object relationships with things (cocks) instead of people relationships with other human beings who have feelings.  I'm not saying that this is always the case, but my experience in these situations is that it is largely the case.

... I do not feel that my views ought to be imposed on others as doctrine.  I cannot relate to people superficially and feel satisfied, and I cannot offer up intimate parts of myself to other people without having built some relationship of trust and feeling that makes me want to share, even to enjoy sharing the deepest parts of myself, both physically and spiritually.

... What I have found [in "what we call the Gay community"] is a whole spectrum of people and relationships, both positive and negative.  There is some discontent about interpersonal relationships within the Gay subculture.  There is a deep and abiding search on the part of many, for ethical ant moral guidelines, for role models, for the ability to relate to others fully and humanly, whatever the nature of our relationships. Societal attitudes have made that crisis of identity more acute for Gay people, though I firmly believe that such a problem is pervasive in our society and common to all.

I don't take issue at all with your plea for prayers and love for prostitutes and hustlers and others, but I cannot discern from your words whether or not you would have us sanction those lifestyles or have a mission outreach to them.  I cannot sanction what I view as exploitation.  I cannot sanction what I know often results in violence -- four murders of Gay people, at least, last year in Boston under those circumstances.  I have to believe that there are many higher levels of relating to each other, of giving and taking, of nurturing, of cherishing another human being and that we ought to be helping people to their maximum fullness as human beings, as Gay Christians and placing a high value on the quality of human interactions of whatever character.  I so often think we accept and sanction so much less; we pass our lives in oblivion; we're so unaware of the excitement and richness of the people and things about us; everything is taken for granted; life it is assumed will go on forever; people will always be there; and the dawn comes too late too often.

I didn't intend to imply that I want you to operate Forum as a public relations effort, but rather that we have a mission to Gay people and to straight churchpeople as well, and I think it an important aspect.  I see it as a multifaceted and multipurpose publication that must reach a broad spectrum of people.  I have no problem with the need to shake up the troops, but I wonder if we rattle people to the point where they refuse to continue to read on in months and years to come, if in fact we will have accomplished what we hope to with those individuals.

... What is more important for you to know is that I feel much more positively about Forum than my disagreeable comments would seem to indicate, and I can live with those few parts that I disagree with....

              John Lawrence

In addition to being a priest, I am a clinical psychologist specializing in psychodiagnostic work and psychotherapy -- and a member of the American Psychological Association.  For over twelve years I have been involved with the diagnosis and treatment of many types of persons -- including more "gays" than I can remember.  Frankly, I have never known a gay person who was entirely happy about his situation -- and the unhappiness was not due simply to social rejection.  Homosexuality is not, in my experience, an acceptable alternate "lifestyle."  It is abnormal psychologically, physically, sometimes endocrinologically, and almost always socially.  While the Church may be sympathetic, concerned, and pastorally supportive in its attitude toward the gay person, it cannot officially recognize and approve his "lifestyle."  In my experience, many (or most) adolescents who have homosexual tendencies are not yet fully jelled ln their role identification or sexual preference.  I have known of countless cases where, with help, these adolescents (and adults) were able to make a heterosexual adjustment that ranged from marginal to excellent.  Now for the Church to officially recognize homosexuality as a valid alternative lifestyle and to publicly recognize gay clergy would have the effect of encouraging young people to accept the gay label.  This would remove whatever impetus there might be for normal growth, since the Church would be saying, "It's perfectly O,K, to be gay."  I cannot imagine the effect on parish life of a gay priest living with a "lover" in the rectory, or openly "dating a person of the same sex around town."  Further, it is well known that the gay lifestyle is one typically characterized by frequent change of lovers, stormy relationships, and a good deal of emotional instability generally.  This fact is so universally observed and understood by clinicians that to give chapter and verse for it from the scientific literature would be a waste of time.  This condition does not commend itself to the demands the parish ministry makes on the average clergyman, We all know that there are gay priests, but most are discreet or abstain from overt sexual activity.  They do not subject the Church to the scandal and public opprobrium that official recognition of homosexuality would bring about.

              The Rev. R. T, Shepherd, Ph,D., Sc,D.

              701 Medical Arts Building

              384 Peachtree St., NE

              Atlanta, GA 30308

You should think of homophobia as the kind of ice cap that builds up in Ice Ages, flake by flake, that then takes centuries to melt away.  The melting has begun, but we will not see the end and should not exhaust our patience at this thought.  Looking back to 1970, I find I have much less ammunition now in the way of officially supported oppression [to expose].  The ending of the draft stopped the necessity of every 18-year-old declaring himself and facing discrimination -- whether he lied or not.  The Civil Service has reversed itself.  Security Clearances are now available.  Many jurisdictions are declaring Gay aliens eligible for citizenship ‑‑ thus undoing the 1961 Boutellier decision.  Eighteen states have dropped their laws (then only two had).  Umpteen cities have ordinances.  Only the armed services are obdurate, and they are being regularly told by the courts that they are fools.  All this is a tremendous advance that I would not have predicted in my most optimistic moments then -- despite the Gaylord decisions in the State of Washington and the gentlemen in Arkansas.

              Louis Crompton

... I have seen no record of our Church being on record for acceptance of homosexuality.  The acceptance of individual persons who are homosexual by nature has been reaffirmed endlessly to in no way affect their acceptance as children of God.  To love and accept all as God created is our direct command.  Yet, also are we called to a full responsibility of how we so order our daily lives and how those daily lives affect all human encounter in which we so involve ourselves.  I will fully accept that God created all persons "sexual," as you imply.  However, I take strong issue that God demands how we share that sexuality in our daily lives.  Each individual will answer to God how he chooses to use his sexuality in the daily course of creative human encounter.

.... I find our Diocese [of Atlanta] to be most healthy and well in keeping with our general Church on this matter.

              The Rev. Ronald A. Gibson

              Dean, Columbus Convocation

              Saint Mary Magdalene Episcopal Ch.

              4244 Saint Mary's Road

              Columbus, GA 31907

Join the People of NGTF

Louie Crew

HOME:  Fort Valley, Georgia

PROFESSION:  Educator, Writer

OTHER INTERESTS:  Religious lay ministry by gays; the small press; summer stock acting, poetry, painting; seamstering

MOST RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS:  Editor of the book collection essays by 27 scholars:  "The Gay Academic"

PROFILE:  Author of over 100 articles in the last five years; organizer of INTEGRITY, the national ministry of gay Episcopalians; guest co-editor of College English and Margins for special issues ... Louie and his lover Ernest Clay live a quiet life integrating their neighborhood racially in the peach orchards of Middle Georgia.

QUOTE:  "We need to emphasize the metaphor of the underground more than the in-fighting metaphor of the closet; there are many persons in very vulnerable positions of power who need to discover the secret ways to pay their dues and to lead our people to freedom.  All stations are important."

MEMBER:  The National Gay Task Force

REASON:  "NGTF has the best record of service to the full spectrum of the gay world with sound programs professionally, humanely executed, particularly in the realm of national political and media action."

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

NGTF  National Gay Task Force, Rm. 506, 80 Fifth Ave.

New York, N.Y. 10011, Tel.: (212) 741-1010

Yes, I would like to join NGTF.  Enclosed is my contribution for:

$15 Basic Member   $100 Supporting Member $25 Household Member

$25 Contributing   $500 Lifetime Member           (for two)

  Member           $1,000 Sponsor                    $5 Limited Income

$50 Sustaining                                                    Member

  Member

I understand that I will receive the NGTF newsletter, IT'S TIME, with my membership.

[ ] Please keep my name and mailing confidential.

                                                           integ

_________________________________________________________________

  Name                         Address

_________________________________________________________________

  City                         State               Zip

NOTICES

The Third Sex?, by Kent Philpott (Logos International, 1975, 208 pp., $3.50); The Sexual Revolution by J. Rinzema (Eerdmans, 1974, 107 pp., $2.45).

Reviewed by Dr. Ralph Blair

(This article is reprinted from Review:  Quarterly of Evangelicals Concerned, Winter 1977, Vol. 1, No. 2.  Dr. Blair's address is that of the Homosexual Counseling Center, 30 East 60th St., NYC 10022.)

The publisher identifies Philpott as president of "a conglomerate" which includes book stores, half-way houses, high school Bible studies, ant a Christian counseling center.  Philpott presents stories of six homosexuals he advised to "die to sex because to stop homosexual acts is to cut off all sex," since he acknowledges that homosexuals are "not interested in sex with the opposite sex."  Philpott thus partly avoids a common error of many who would otherwise agree with him and who urge homosexuals into heterosexual marriage.  Philpott demands total celibacy, but he also envisions a slow and gradual move toward heterosexuality on the part of his clients.  Unfortunately, readers are likely to gain an impression that the six people on whom he reports have continued in their celibacy and/or toward heterosexuality.  Indeed, the book is used by desperate pastors to show that such celibacy and movement toward heterosexuality is taking place in ministries such as Philpott's.  However, the author is at least honest enough to admit:  "Neither experience -- deliverance or Spirit baptism -- ends the battle the homosexual faces.  This is evident in the interviews.  Every one of the six experienced the need to wage a day-by-day fight against the temptations of homosexuality."

Not surprisingly then, I can report that none of these homosexuals has moved on to heterosexuality.  Since the publication of the book, several of them have accepted their homosexuality realistically and are trying to live their lives as responsible gay Christians in the company of others.

Philpott holds a curiously simplistic etiology which includes the influence of Satan.  He views each homosexual's dilemma as a direct result of the homosexual's own sin and rebellion.  He assumes that "no one is a homosexual since God made us all heterosexual"; thus in order to move to heterosexual expression, Philpott argues, "the homosexual would have to experience a resurrection of his basic sexuality."  He not only holds this belief about the basic heterosexuality of everyone theologically, but also from what he naively calls a "clinical point of view," since he reports that none of these homosexuals wanted to be homosexual."

As we turn next to Rinzema's book, we find a truly refreshing change ln both theoretical and practical terms.  The Sexual Revolution is a significant contribution by a Reformed pastor in the Netherlands.  The directness and simplicity of the style of Rinzema's book can be mistaken for simplistic thought on the subject, but careful reading overcomes this impression.  One does wish at times for a more detailed explanation for some of the author's positions, e.g., with regard to his emphasis upon the second table of the Decalogue as one of "the three fixed principles of Christian morality."  Overall, though, this is the first book of an important evangelical publisher to treat sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular with the perspective the subject deserves.

One of the best things about Rinzema's book is his convincing argument that the roots of our antisexual attitudes derive from Greek philosophy and Eastern dualism rather than from Hebrew naturalism and the Biblical origins.

Rather brief attention is paid to homosexuality specifically, but what there is, is quite good.  Rinzema's conclusion is that "the Bible is not dealing with confirmed homosexuals" but with what "the Bible writer assumed" were heterosexuals who "did some strange and unnatural things with each other."  Rinzema calls upon Christian moralists, "in consultation with homosexual people," to "dedicate themselves to a viable homosexual ethic."  I could not agree more.

"I Found It:  Here's How You Can Find It Too!", a 23-page tract distributed and published by Campus Crusade for Christ International, Arrowhead Springs, San Bernardino, CA 92414.  Copyright 1976.

Reviewed by The Rev. Muriel Marushka, C.L.C.

CAMPUS CRUSADE FOR CREJUDICE

I found the tract "I Found It" interesting as an example of how the teachings of Jesus -- who was and is God Incarnate -- can be perverted into sexism, racism, and a lack of concern for human flesh in general.

First and most flagrant is the sexism.  There are three adult men and three adult women who give testimony to "the exciting changes that have taken place in their lives since they found new life in Jesus Christ."  All six of these people are married; the only single person represented is a boy too young (in this culture) possibly to be married.  Do there exist no single adult Christians?

The occupation of all three women is listed as "housewife." Ardella Tolbert, one of them, says: "I thought money would help. I started working....  Our marriage became worse."  Does Campus Crusade for Christ disapprove of the employment outside the home, of married women?

All six adults speak of marriages having gone sour:  "Soon my wife and I drifted into two different worlds" --George Ott.    "...my husband decided to leave me" --Charlotte Bizzel.  Her husband Bob Bizzel agrees:  "I had decided to divorce Charlotte and start all over."  William Tolbert speaks of "many separations," to which his wife, Ardella Tolbert, adds, "there was only fighting and finally separation."  Barbara Cass reiterates, "Then, my husband left me."  The same sad tale told by six different people accomplishes overkill.

In each case the spouses are brought back together again and live happily ever after.  I would have liked to read about a man who found in Christ the courage to leave a wife who dated other men and neglected her children!  Or about a woman who, no longer terrified of spinsterhood, broke her engagement to a man she didn't get along with, finding companionship in Christ and in Christian friends.

Here even the teenager, John Harris, finds that "I don't have as many hassles with my parents..."  Family orientation again.

There is not a teenage girl student represented, any more than there is an employed woman.  Why?  Is education wasted on girls?   After all, it seems that Campus Crusade for Christ feels that women ought to be housewives and nothing else.

Yes, it would be nice to read the testimony of a woman librarian with a masters degree.  But I would rather read about a file clerk than read about housewife after housewife after housewife.

I myself am a single, employed woman of 36.  In the estimation of Campus Crusade for Christ, I wonder whether this -- of itself --constitutes a horrendous, unspeakable sin.  What would they think if they knew I wasn't even on a husband hunt?  What would they think if they knew that, although I sleep alone at present, if I had a partner it would more likely be a woman?

There are no specific references to sexuality in "I Found It," although the committee that chose the seven testimonies could hardly have been more specific:  It is proper, for man to be married to a woman.  It is proper for a woman to be married to a man, It is proper for a teenager to get along with his parents.   Therefore, I suspect that I might be praised for sleeping alone, and exhorted to give up the "sin" which they would consider my very existence to be, and find a husband and "settle down" to have children.  Pardon me while I shudder.

Less blatant than the sexism of these seven testimonies is their racism, but it's there nonetheless.  The two adult white males are listed as "businessmen"; the adult black male as an "auto assembly worker."  And John Harris "believe[s he's] even a better athlete."  Do there exist no black Christian engineers or white Christian clerks?  If a white were to name five or fifty blacks outside of his or her personal circle of acquaintances, chances are that most or all would be athletes or entertainers.  These are two areas in which whites have permitted blacks to be excellent.  I'm white, ln case you're wondering.

Now on the Four Spiritual Laws.  Page 16 says:  "We receive Jesus Christ by faith, as an act of the will." Will?  On the very same page, Ephesians 2:8-9 is quoted as saying that faith "is the gift of God."

Page 12 quotes Romans 3:23:  "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."  The "stubborn self-will" of man [sic], "characterized by an attitude of active rebellion or passive indifference, is evidence of what the Bible calls sin."

Is it, now?  Is active rebellion against those 'normal' 'Christians' who give us scorpions whether or not we ask for eggs, evidence of sin?

The gospel of personal salvation, which ignores human needs and tells people to be content (this is implied though not stated) with whatever abundance or lack they might find within their own lives and -- especially -- the lives of others, is to me a lot of pious nothing.

Shall we not forget that the same word in the Bible which is translated "savior" or "redeemer" might just as accurately be rendered as "liberator"?  What about the least of Jesus the Christ's sisters and brothers?  What about people -- created in the image of God, every bit as much as the white businessmen or the black assembly line worker -- who are unemployed and hungry? What about Christian husbands and wives, so busy doing what they consider to be 'God's work' that they have little time for one another?  What about those people who ‑‑ knowing that 'Christian' society refuses to accept their homosexuality -- get married, making themselves and their spouses miserable?  What about those locked in prisons and mental hospitals?

As an antidote to "I Found It," I recommend Human Like Me, Jesus, by The Rev. Malcolm Boyd.

------

The Rev. Muriel Marushka since 1975 has been a priest in the Community of the Love of Christ, an apostolic, liturgical and ecumenical order having a ministry within the Gay community.     --Editor

Freedom and Framework:  The Study of Gay Relationships, by The Rev. Jim Cotter.  15 pence from The Gay Christian Movement, 15 Bermuda Road, Cambridge, England.  12 pp.  This booklet makes a good beginning of a discussion of some of the problems of Gay relations.  It has much more emphasis on Gay males than on Lesbians.  It leans heavily on several long passages from the fiction of James Baldwin.  It affirms loving and caring relationships and talks about moving away from impersonality.  Fr. Cotter is a university chaplain and Secretary of the Gay Christian Movement.     lc

"Gay Studies Syllabi" and "Gay Student Groups" (5th Edition) are new from the National Gay Student Center, 2115 S St., NW, Washington, DC 20008, 212-691-7380.  Syllabi cost $1.  50¢ for the group listing.  Institutional rates are $2 and $1 respectively.  The "Syllabi" are an expanded version of the chapter of the same name from Gays on Campus, edited by the NGSC Director J. Lee Lehman (still available from NGSC for $3).  The syllabi cover courses in fields such as sociology, psychology, literature, history, and women's studies.    lc

Men Loving Men by Mitch Walker.  $6.95 from Gay Sunshine Press, P.0. Box 40397, SF, CA 94140 (including postage and handling).  1977.  160 pp.  This is billed as "a Gay Sex Guide and Consciousness Book."  It is affirmatively physical without being pornographic.  There are chapters on masturbation, fellatio, group sex, health problems, etc.  The author acknowledges that Comfort's work got him started, yet here is the perspective that Comfort skirts ‑‑ the Gay perspective, or rather the "no Blacks," "no fats," "no femmes," "no super machos either." Gay male perspective.  Gentle white males only here.  My lover questioned whether I'd paid "so much money for that!" but still warned me that I ought to read it, not just look at the pictures.    lc

"The New Leaven in the Loaf," by Louie Crew, in Metanoia:  An Independent Journal of Radical Lutheranism, Vol. 8, no 3 (Sept. 1976), 2-3.  Addresses itself to homophobia even among ecclesiastical radicals and tries irenically to explain the Gay Christian movement.  Order from Metanoia, 1018 9th St., #47, University Village, Albany, CA 94710.    lc

"Support Packet," from National Gay Task Force, 80 Fifth Avenue, NYC 10011.  $2.  No fixed number of pages.  This steadily updated folder is very vital to any activist's files, as it contains photocopied statements of support for Gay people from virtually all of the business and professional bodies and churches that have passed them.  Particularly useful is the packet when one is advising groups also trying to find models for statements of their own.     lc

Painted Bride Quarterly, $5 annually from 527 South Street, Phila, PA 19147.  This is a very important treasure chest of some of the finest poetry being written in the USA today, brilliantly edited and handsomely produced.  There is sensitivity here without sentimentality, craftsmanship with substance.  Gay and nonGay celebrations of whole personhood.    lc

'Special Sexuality Issue" of The Presbyterian Layman, IX, no. 8 (Nov.-Dec. 1976).  Available from 1727 Delancey Pl., Phila, PA 19103.  For the hardy only.  Here is homophobia spilling on most pages, but a fairly good index of where the homophobe is feeding h/ grunts in the pew next to you.  One article attacks the MCC "faulty exegesis" of Scripture; one long item is a questionnaire to determine reader reactions to homosexuality; some items report the studies of sexuality being planned by the United Presbyterians.    lc

RFD.  $4 yearly from 4525 Lower Wolf Creek Road, Wolf Creek, OR 97497.  This is a quarterly for "rural Gays."  It celebrates sexuality in a rural setting, casually as well as genitally.  I saw some early issues and thought, well, they have a good idea here.  Looking over the latest issue I feel that the idea is coming to very effective fruition.  Even many of our city members will be cheered by this affirmative effort.     lc

The Sexual Outlaw by John Rechy, forthcoming this spring from Grove Press, 196 W. Houston St., NYC 10014.  The publisher bills this as a nonfiction documentary, a "passionate outcry against the oppression of homosexuals" which shows Rechy politicized.  When James Baldwin moved from fiction to political nonfiction early in his career, many readers lamented the loss to fiction, while others rejoiced over the gain to nonfiction.  Rechy's talent as a creative artist is established.  As such he has been most successful in portraying the seamier side of Gay loneliness, prostitution depersonalization, successful because of his artistic honesty and his willingness to focus upon the individual warts and all with loving compassion.  If he can bring this same honesty to the group descriptions which often receive only public relations effort from even some of our articulate spokespersons his talent will be of lasting importance to the genre.  Hopefully too he will expand his focus to include Gay women.    lc

"Religion and Sexuality," a Special Issue of SIECUS Report, vol. 5, no. 3, January 1977.  SIECUS is the logo for Sex Information and Education Council of the U.S.  This important special issue contains several items on the impact of the Gay Christian movement, most notably the fine review of John McNeill's The Church and the Homosexual as seen by Anglican researcher Dr. Alan Bell; and the article "DIGNITY -- for Gay Catholics" by Paul Diederich, National President of DIGNITY.  Additionally, there is a page listing all caucuses for Gays, as well as MCC, the Council on Religion and the Homosexual, and other "Spiritual Resources for Gay People."  On sexuality in general there is a fine analysis of the Roman Catholic policy particularly strong in noting the shifting bases for authority therein, by The Rev. Dr. Richard Roach S.J., of the Department of Theology at Marquette. The issue also contains a very strong statement signed by various SIECUS board members in opposition to the recent Vatican declaration on Sexual Ethics.  This issue definitely ought to be ordered in quantity for distribution to all chapters and to all Church groups researching sexuality.    lc

STEINBECK AS GLASSCOCK:  M