INTEGRITY FORUM

FOR GAY EPISCOPALIANS AND THEIR FRIENDS

c Integrity, Inc. 1978   ISSN: 0095-2184

Volume 5  Number 1  November-December 1978

 

INTEGRITY FORUM Managing Editor:  David Williams. 

Editorial Board:  David S. Blix, Rev'd Grant M. Gallup, Rev'd T. Dewey Schwartzenburg and James Wickliff. 

Contributing Editors:  Rev'd Ellen M. Barrett, Rev'd Malcolm Boyd, Jim Cotter, Louie Crew, William A. Doubleday, Rev'd Carter Heyward, Rev'd Canon Clinton R. Jones, Rev'd John McNeill, S.J., Rev'd James B. Nelson, Rev'd W. Norman Pittenger. 

Proofreading:  James E. Templar. 

Circulation:  Jerry Vogt and Integrity/Chicago. 

Integrity Officers:  John C. Lawrence, President; Kevin Scahill, Vice-President; Donn Mitchell, Secretary; George W. Casper, Treasurer; and the 8 Regional Representatives as listed on the back page. 

INTEGRITY FORUM:  FOR GAY EPISCOPALIANS AND THEIR FRIENDS is the official newsletter of Integrity, Inc.  Publication of the name, photograph or likeness of any person or organization is not to be construed as any indication of the sexual orientation of such person or organization.  Editorial correspondence should be sent to Integrity, P.O. Box 891, Oak Park IL 60303 or telephone 312/386-1470.  Copyright 1978 by Integrity, Inc.  6 issues per year.  Memberships are $10 per year; subscriptions without memberships  are $12 per year.  Add $3 for mailing in a plain envelope.  Please remit in U.S. funds to George W. Casper, 530 Massachusetts Av., Boston, MA 02118. 

 

SOME NOTES ON AN ETHIC FOR HOMOSEXUALS

By Norman Pittenger

 

I trust that the title which I have given this paper will be taken seriously:  notes on an ethic for homosexual people.  In the space at my disposal there is no possibility of an adequate study of the subject; the best that I can hope for is that some suggestions may be made which will be relevant and helpful.

 

But before one can undertake even this small task, something must be said about the perspective from which my comments will be made.  First of all, then, I am speaking as a Christian; but I am not speaking as a Christian who accepts the conventional notion that Christian faith includes a concept of God as absolute, unchanging, impassible, and essentially unrelated to the creation.  On the contrary I regard such a concept as barbaric and subchristian, however much it may have been held and taught in the past and accepted today by millions of people who claim the Christian name.  God as the 'unmoved mover,' sheer 'first cause,' 'absolute being,' and the like is to me nothing but an idol.  Further, God seen as a cosmic dictator or ruler and God seen as the moral governor who orders his creatures by fiat are both to my mind equally idolatrous and impos­sible.  When I speak of God, I must begin with the 'brief Galilean vision' (in Whitehead's words) and this means that God is 'pure unbounded Love'; or better the cosmic Lover whose concern is universal but whose care is particular.  His 'nature and his name' is such Love as was humanly enacted in the Man Jesus; and anything else said about him must be understood as adverbially expressing the reality and intensity and everlastingness of that Love.

 

In the second place, I must make clear that I understand human existence is the enterprise of becoming a created, finite, mortal, and doubtless defective 'lover-in-the-making'; and this tells me that men and women are dynamic, developing, changing creatures ‑‑ no fin­ished articles but being created.'  Again, this is a matter of social participation, since we do not live of, to, for ourselves, but with and in and by means of our fellow-humans.  What is more, we are not souls who have bodies; we are, as the Genesis myth tells us, animat­ed complexes of material or bodily stuff.  We have a degree of rationality of course; certainly we are possessed of a measure of creative freedom ‑‑ and since God is not absolute dictator, our free­dom counts in how things go and makes its own indispensable contribution to the divine working.  And finally we are different from the animals in that we can begin to love or share together in unitive relationships, consciously and responsibly.

 

Since God, in my view, is neither cosmic moralist nor passionless being nor all-controlling power nor sanctioner and defender of the status quo nor 'male' in being dominating, inflexible, and lacking receptiveness and responsiveness, but rather is creative-responsive Love, working to increase enjoyment for all creation, we shall not expect there to be precise moral codes, exact rules and regulations, or dictates from on high in commandments and directives, whose violation brings punishment in hell and whose acceptance brings bliss in heaven.  Rather, there is only one moral absolute, if it may be put in this way; and that absolute is Love-in-action.  Or, to use the idiom of the older 'natural law' theory but to put it in a different fashion:  Since God's very nature, character, and essence is Love and is expressed in loving, that is the way things go when they go properly, in accordance with the divine intention.  But precisely because there is a genuine freedom in the creatures and a riskiness or chance in the creative process as a whole, things can get out of hand.  They have got out of hand, as a matter of experienced fact; and that is why even at our best we are defective in our moving towards loving.  We love the wrong things; or we love the right things in the wrong way; or we seek to use the not-self for the benefit of self exclusively.  In traditional jargon, we are 'sinners,' if by 'sin' we mean (as we should) violation of right and fulfilling relationships in love between the cosmic Lover and ourselves, and among ourselves as humans.

 

Thus I should insist that we are dependent upon others, upon the world, and upon the basic thrust or drive in the cosmos called religiously by the hallowed name of God; we are dynamic and directional in existence; we are bodies with rational capacity; we are social creatures; and we are both free and responsible (accountable) in the exercise of that freedom.

 

So much for general presuppositions or assumptions.  My further comments will not be accepted nor acceptable unless these are first accepted.  Sydney Smith, the famous wit who was once a canon of St. Paul's, remarked to a friend with whom he was walking in the streets east of that cathedral church and who with him noticed two women shouting abuse at each other from their respective door­steps: 'Those women will never reach agreement; they are arguing from different premises.'  Exactly so ... and for us too any agreement about sexual mores, heterosexual or homosexual, will be possible only when there is a prior agreement about context, about situation, about how the world goes, and about how God and man are under­stood.  To my own way of thinking, the basic problem has to do with our concept of God, since our view of humankind (and everything else) is derived from that.  The tragedy of our religious history was well put by Alfred North Whitehead in these telling words:  'When the religious thought of the ancient world from Mesopotamia to Palestine, and from Palestine to Egypt, required terms to express that ultimate unity of direction in the universe upon which all order depends and which gives meaning to importance (significance or value), they could find no way better to express themselves than by borrowing the characteristics of the touchy, vain, imperious tyrants who ruled the empires of the world. In the origin of civilized religion gods are like dictators.  Our modern rituals (and I add theologies) still retain this taint.  The most emphatic repudiations of this archaic notion are to be found scattered in the doctrines of Buddhism and in the Christian Gospels' (Whitehead, Modes of Thought, p. 49) ‑‑ but, alas, the notion still persists and vitiates our theologizing and our thinking about moral issues.  And nowhere is this so obvious as in the business of sexuality; for our present purpose, I believe that it finds shocking expression in what is commonly thought about homosexuality, both as a condition and as a style of life.

 

I turn now to emphasize the centrality of sexuality in human existence.  Long before Freud came along, St Augustine grasped this truth but unfortunately saw it in a somewhat jaundiced way.  Our sexual equipment, desire, and drive provide the ground or basis, physiologically and psychologically, for all our human relationships.  Even in what we take to be entirely 'spiritual' relationships ‑‑ such as our friendships, our daily conversation, and divine worship itself ‑‑ we are in truth sexually active, although of course not genitally active in the narrower sense.  Failure to see this is to succumb to a gnostic view, to think of ourselves as possible 'angels'; or it is to fall victim to 'animalism,' in which body is taken in separation from total human response and exalted in an exclusive and less-than-human fashion.  We are neither angels nor animals; we are humans ‑‑ and that means that with the emergence, at some point along the evolutionary line, of the human species there appeared a kind of creature whose sexuality is primarily conjunctive and only secondarily (if, under proper circumstances, necessarily) reproductive.  And there are various modes of sexual expression, all of them good in themselves, none deviant but all different one from the others.  Our concern here is with the homosex­ual mode; more particularly it is with the truly human expression of our pervasive sexuality, in that particular mode.

 

But before I can move on to discuss this, I must make one other comment in respect to our human existence.  This has to do with our human identity ‑‑ what makes me me.  It is commonly assumed that there is some 'substantial' self to which experiences happen, rather as clothes are hung on a clothesline of a Monday morning.  I should urge that this is a mistaken notion.  What con­stitutes our selfhood is a routing of experiences, occurring one after another and linked together by memory (in the deepest sense, not in the superficial sense of mere 'recollection') and future reference or expectation.  I am myself because I am one particular and specific routing, whose past, pres­ent, and future occasions of experience are mine and not yours; so also you are yourself because your past, present, and future occasions of experience are indelibly and distinctively your own.  Our social participation links us all together in 'a bundle of life' (in the Old Testament phrase) but it does not merge us in an amorphous sea of humanity where 'I' and 'You' can have no meaning.  On the other hand, we are so much part of each other that we can know genuine union or communion ‑‑ and that is very different from ab­sorption in which all identity is lost and there is no possibility of 'I' uniting with 'you,' since in such absorption we have no genuine reality as specific selves.  All this, it seems to me, is very important if we are to understand ourselves sexually.

 

Are homosexuality as a condition, and homosexual activity as a pattern of behaviour, to be accepted as 'natural' or to be rejected as 'unnatural.'  It is at this point that moral considerations enter the picture.  While any thoughtful person will see the absurdity of using biblical passages (e.g., the notorious Leviticus material in the Old Testament and St Paul's remarks in Romans in the New Testament) as conclusive proof that both the homosexual condi­tion and the homosexual pattern of behaviour are contrary to God's will and hence 'unnatural' or 'abnormal' ‑‑ and I will not pause to discuss this biblical material ‑‑ it is most certainly the case that many will use the so-called 'natural law' argument.  Hence we must come to some understanding of what this amounts to.

 

The concept of a moral natural law has its origin in the Stoic view of nature, in which there is a way things go that is disclosed in observation of the world and of human experience.  Right or natural human life is life in accordance with that universal way.  This position was taken over by the Christian theo­logians and moralists in early days and was at length given refined and sophisticated statement in the Middle Ages, notably by St Thomas Aquinas.  The theory has been accepted in the Catholic tradition for centuries; it may be stated in this fashion:  In God there is a coincidence of his essential nature and his purpose or will for the world: this is styled 'the eternal law.'  But in the created order there is an intimidation or disclosure of that eternal law, known to men and women quite apart from any specific revelation.  This so-­called natura] law is disclosed to us in our observation of what are taken to be 'normal' processes, in the way in which things go biologically, and in the conditions necessary to maintain social life as a possibility for men and women in their ordinary living.  In brief summary, the natural law may be stated (as by Aquinas) in the simple formula, 'Avoid evil and do good.'  But the content of that entirely formal statement needs to be filled in.  Here the usual and observed behaviour patterns are thought to provide the only source.  Hence most natural law moralists rely on the 'normal' (or usual) biological sequence of coition followed by conception as indicating what in sexual behaviour is taken to be 'natural.'

 

But many moral theologians now recognize that things are not so simple.  The supposedly usual sequence, in which for example all human activity as its telos or end clearly given in such acts and their consequences, has no necessary connection with humanly fulfilling existence.  And as Dr. John McNeill has rightly pointed out, the idea that there is a precise pattern given in our biological, psychological, or sociological activity cannot stand up to examination.  He gives as an example the human hand, which biologically and zoologically is for grasping something or other, for carrying food to the mouth, and for defense against aggression. But that biological and animal employment, as we may call it, has been not so much superseded, as given place in a wider employment of the hand; the hand can now play a Beethoven piano concerto or be used for writing poetry or be made into a scientist's tool for experimentation in a laboratory.  So also with the mouth, originally for the reception of nourishment, but now available for use in many other ways.

 

The so-called erotic areas of the human body (specifically the penis and the vagina) have of course a clear biological function; when they are brought together, as in heterosexual coition, they can secure the reproduction of the race.  But at the human level these erotic areas have come to have another use ‑‑ they can now be the means for establishing union between persons which will not necessarily have the consequence of procreation.  And it is interesting to note that in the most conservative Roman Catholic circles, devoted to the natural law position, this is in principle accepted ‑‑ when the 'rhythm method' of contraception was declared permissible, the older natu­ral law view was in fact given up, although this has not commonly been seen as a case.  We might even say that once we accept such a possibility, it can no longer reasonably be maintained that the sexual organs have only one proper purpose, which is biological in character.

 

Hence I should argue that while the natural law line of thought has value, in that it urges us to act in accordance with our true nature, it does not prescribe in detail how we are to act.  Or to put it simply, it must now be admitted that it is natural for a person whose basic constitution is homosexual to wish to act, and to act, homosexually, as it is natural for a heterosexual person to wish to act, and to act, heterosexually.  Basic to both modes is a desire to live as one really is; and the inclusive end or purpose is to establish deep relationships, to which procreation (where it is possible) is secondary.

 

Love, then, is essentially the union of persons, a deep relationship between you and me who as human persons being created through the experiences of which we are constituted, through the vicissitudes we undergo, through our joyous moments and our anguished ones, through ecstacy and through misery ‑‑ it is union, intended and to some degree (maybe a slight one) realized by us and shared with us; and in that process our sexuality has its central place and part to play.

 

Let us now turn to an ethic for the gay man or woman, boy or girl.  And first of all, I would recall to you what I said earlier about responsibility or account­ability.  Whether or not any given person vividly realizes this, each of us is a moral person, in that deep sense.  We cannot escape our accountability, even if we may seek to discount it.  The person who disclaims all sense of ac­countability in sexual behavior, for example, may say this again and again; yet he or she is being appraised: to some degree by himself or herself, by others in the gay world, by society at large, by the contribution he makes or does not make to human community and its best development, and (if we are believers in God) by God whose judgment, St. John of the Cross tells us, is always in terms of the degree and way of our loving.

 

Let me say frankly that I believe that any and all sexual contact, genital or otherwise, is good ‑‑ provided that it does not violate the intentional under­standing of each other human being as a person and not simply and solely as a thing.  Some of us would be prepared to say that the 'one-night stand,' for instance, cannot be called evil in itself, there is some genuine goodness there, insofar as loneliness is overcome, some sense of companionship is given, strong desire is released and to a degree satisfied; and perhaps a degree or kind of concern or care, usually rather slight to be sure, is present.  Thus we dare not condemn the person who engages in such activity.  Nor dare we judge that person by the single, discrete, act which he or she performs.  To do that would be to deny my point that we are a routing of occasions.  We are not a series of separate and merely mechanically associ­ated incidents; our past is what provides the material for our decisions in the present; and our present decisions shape our possibilities for our future.

 

So what is to be evaluated is the general direction of our existence: where are we going?  Are we moving towards, or away from, the most genuine satisfaction of which we, in our given time and place and circumstance, are capable.  Any good confessor or counselor knows his business treats his penitent or client in that fashion.  He does not himself get bogged down, nor will he allow others to get bogged down, in these minutiae.  Their import­ance, such as it is, will be found in the indications they provide of the direction which this or that person's routing is going ‑‑ towards, or away from, the actualizing of true human potentiality.  And remember that such potentiality is nothing other than becoming a created, finite, mortal, and doubtless defective lover, moving to or moving away from the image of God who himself is sheer Love.

 

But, if we must not condemn this or that person, at the same time we can point him or her towards 'a more excellent way.'  Sexual contacts which are not 'thingifying' are good; sexual contacts in which there is mutuality and participation, a sharing of life and interests, are better.  They are better because they take into account more adequately the totality of human existence and do not focus simply on admittedly delightful and gratifying genital expression.  Lust, I insist, is good; after all, it is only deep desire, as its old English usage indicates.  But sinful lust is desire which cannot see any­thing worth desiring save the strictly genital.  That, to my mind, is pathetic because it is so partial. I believe that even in a fairly casual contact, some­thing of this 'better' may be experienced; and so far as that is the case, I should suggest that we need to be careful about easy rejection and negation.

 

Yet there is also what I like to call the 'best.'  This I believe to be a setting of sexual contacts of a genital sort in the context of as great a degree of commitment and as much intention of 'sticking together' or permanence, as the parties to the relationship we can manage.  It may not be 'for ever and a day'; but at least the desire is that it shall have some measure of faithful and abiding loyalty.

 

Here we need to be careful lest we impose upon the homosexual segment of the population the criteria which are supposedly demanded in hetero­sexual marriage.  Of course even in that sort of marriage, things are not what they always are claimed to be.  Intention is not always realized, total commit­ment may fail, the relationship may founder and break up.  This can be tragic; usually it is, especially if the relationship, whether heterosexual or homosexual, has been entered upon in all good faith and with genuine desire to stick it out, through thick and thin.  But humans are fallible; what is more, since we are not 'substantial souls' but a routing of experiences, we ourselves are quite different persons as we grow in age and undergo life's vicissitudes.  It is surprising, however, to those who know the facts, how many gay couples manage to sack it out and to continue with genuine mutual commitment.  The job of the priest or minister here, it seems to me, is obvious enough.  He is to do all in his power to assist in the urgent wish for permanence and commitment; at the same time, he must help those who are disappointed, disturbed, alas often jealous and possessive, not least when there is the occasional episode with another person outside the union.  Nonetheless, if the primary relationship has been entered into understandingly, it is remarkable how much strain it can stand and how splendidly it can continue even under provocation.  Not always, to be sure; and then the priest is to be ready to help in picking up the pieces and assisting the people in question to make a fresh start, perhaps with another person, perhaps by enduring a period of desolation and despair.

 

To return to my main theme, which has to do with love as what Thornton Wilder once called 'the only survival, the only meaning' in human existence and in the cosmos at large.  The creation is not a complicated machine, neither is it an entirely random series of accidents; it is a great love story.  The story is about cosmic Love and creaturely love, the latter the reflection of and the instrumental agent for the former.  The one absolute, morally speaking, is the Love that is divine or God.  The intimations of love and its often pathetic seekings and strivings in human experience are then the key to genuine life for us.  Keats once said that we must 'trust the heart's affections.'  That saying can be sentimentalized; but when it is taken to refer to urgent desire for the best good of the other and of others, for mutuality and sharing, for generous giving and gracious receiving, then we have indeed a little bit of heavenly Love ingredient into human existence.  The Roman Clergy has in its Maundy Thursday rite some words that are relevant here: ubi caritas et amor Deus ibi est.  Generally we do not seem ready to recognize this.  For to recognize it and act upon it can be dangerous; it is a risk and we do not much like to live in risk.  Yet this world is not the sort of place where things are safe and secure; on the contrary it is the sort of place where our basic reliance can be only on the indefatigable and indefeasible reality of the divine Love, irradiating, correcting, and completing our little human lovings.

 

Our moral theology, in my view, needs to put his in the central place.  Codes, rules, regulations, commandments, and the like have their value, to be sure; but that value consists in their giving us some idea of the ways in which our ancestors sought to act in accordance with their understanding of a more basic structure and dynamic on the cosmos.  They often conceived that structure and dynamic in ways that for us are unacceptable; we need not feel obliged to follow them in this respect.  The 'rightness in things' if we are Christians in the sense in which I understand the term, is nothing other than the working of divine Love; and the support and sanction for that rightness is the divine Lover.  This is where religious faith enters into the picture.  It has been my experience that talk along those lines makes sense of and gives sense to the life of the man or woman who is homosexual.  For he or she has suffered enough to know how precious such love, human and cosmic, really is; and through that suffering he or she may come to a readiness to commit self to this Love, even if it does not guarantee the total security which at our human worst, we so much desire.

 

I believe that we are not likely to have any longer a world where things are neatly worked out and where all the rules are plainly laid 'on the line.'  Liberation from oppression, including sexual oppression, is a movement towards just such freedom, where contrast and difference will be found ‑‑ and welcomed.  A world like this will be a place where there will be zest, adventure, danger, but also a good deal of fun.  And why should we be afraid of its basic drive or thrust is a Love that 'will not let us go'?

 

Before I conclude, I must spell out a little more precisely the implications of what I have called 'thingifying' as morally wrong in sexual contacts.  I have often remarked that a question which might well be asked by any of us, after a genital (or approximately genital) experience, is this:  'Am I now leaving a body which has given me great satisfaction or am I now leaving a person with whom I have enjoyed the enhancement of life?'  Of course I am leaving a body; but to rest entirely content at the point is to deny the specifically human aspect of sexuality.  What is more, it is to miss the specific possibility of shared love, as the deepest and most enriching of human experiences because it is the establishment of relationship in giving-and-receiving and genuine mutuality.  To 'thingify' another means, to my mind, to treat the other simply as an object; it is to deny personality to that other and to use him or her only for selfish gratification, as 'something to hand,' not as a fellow human who is like myself or yourself a lover-in-the-making.

 

I suggest, therefore, that the wrong in sexual activity of any sort is to be found in whatever does thus tend to make use of another as a thing.  When I refuse to share with another as deeply as possible, I am rejecting the truly human way and reverting to the merely animal level.  When I act to damage another ‑‑ not in some superficial fashion but with destructive intention ‑‑ I am failing to act in love as a genuine (if never perfect) human possibility.  When I look at another man, for instance, as if he were only a penis with a body attached but without a personal integrity which is to be respected, I am again denying the possibility of love.  When I fail to esteem the other person's own self-esteem, I am degrading him and denying him his personal existence as human.  When I use another, even with his consent to such use, but have no further or more inclusive awareness of his concrete human existence.  I am acting inhumanly because unlovingly.

 

To seek to govern one's behaviour by some such awareness of human in­tegrity and dignity demands a considerable degree of self-control.  But men and women are distinguished from animals precisely by that possibility of control of self.  Admittedly, in any and every human relationship there is a chance of pain; and there is always an element of risk.  That seems to be how the world is made.  As a Christian I believe that God too faces and accepts the risk of a creation going astray, to God's own anguish.

 

I have said that ours is a world characterized by risk.  It is a world where things are not neatly patterned and arranged systematically in a conventional order.  It is a world where the unexpected can, and often does, happen.  I have also said that human existence is being made towards love, although always with the danger that there can be distortion, misuse, failure, and loss.  Let me put these two ideas together by quoting a poem written a half-century ago by a minor versifier called S.R. Lysaght.  It states the situation clearly and rather beautifully; and it also indicates both the risk we take in loving and also the enormous joy which somehow in our loving is possible for us.

 

     If love should count you worthy, and should deign

          One day to seek your door and be your guest,

     Pause! ere you draw the bolt and bid him rest,

     If in your old content you would remain.

     For not alone he enters; in his train

          Are angels of the mist, the lonely quest,

          Dreams of the unfulfilled and unpossessed,

     And sorrow, and life's immemorial pain.

 

     He wakes desires you never may forget,

          He shows you stars you never saw before,

          He makes you share with him forevermore,

     The burden of the world's divine regret.

     How wise you were to open not! and yet,

     How poor, if you should turn him from the door!

 

Making love, an old Spanish proverb tells us, is to declare one's sadness -- dolor, anguish, and pain and distress, but sadness too.  In a world like ours, with a God who is sheer Love, creative and responsive, the risk of love and of loving is indeed worthwhile.  This is not because we are guaranteed a future reward, 'pie in the sky, some day,' but because, as still another poet, this time the American Richard Hovey has phrased it in words loved by my dear friend Charles Hartshorne:

 

     God has said, ye shall fail and perish,

          But the thrill you have felt tonight

     I shall keep in my heart and cherish

          When the worlds have passed out of sight.

 

Loving humanly is our small contribution to the Love 'that moves the sun and the other stars' and that also can and does 'move' us, in spite of all our defection and error.

 

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, INTEGRITY!

 

It was a small and unassuming ad, and you could have seen it in any one of several publications (I saw it in The Advocate).

 

We sent our checks straightaway, then waited anxiously for the first issue to come.  And when it did, all the other mail that day just had to wait while we devoured every word of Volume 1, Number 1 of Integrity:  Gay Episcopal Forum, dated November, 1974.  "Gays Are Joint Heirs With Christ," Louie Crew proclaimed in that first of his many-to-come outspoken, courageous, inspired editorials.  What a thrill it was to know that someone else felt that way too, and had the nerve to come out and say it.  The homophobes shuddered while we shivered with delight!

 

In November, 1974, Integrity was a newsletter; eight months later it was a national organization, holding its first national convention at the Cathedral of the Diocese of Chicago, yet, with world-famous theologian W. Norman Pittenger its key-note speaker.  The newslet­ter grew and improved, for the first couple of years the work of one man, its founder.  He edited the copy, answered the mountain of letters each month, typed up the articles, carried it to the printer, went to pick it up when it was ready, collated the pages, stapled them together, put on the address labels, stamped it, and hauled it to the post office.

 

Today we're gorgeous ‑‑ type-set, addressographed thanks to David Williams ‑‑ and we're big, an international organization with a very active membership.  But our claim remains unchanged: we are joint heirs with Christ!

 

                   ‑‑Jim Wickliff

 

TFCC AT WORK

 

The Task Force of Counseling Concerns, which is preparing a position paper for Integrity's General Convention presentation, met recently in Hartford.  A number of individual papers have been received and studied, but the TFCC's final report will be a corporate statement delineating as broad a range of concerns as possible.

 

Allan Tull, a theologian, has agreed to present a revised version of his testi­mony before the Joint Commission on Religion and Health in Human Affairs (see Editorial in this issue) to the Task Force.  He had given a scathing critique of Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse's work, comparing her view of sexuality with that held in pagan fertility rites.

 

Dr. Barnhouse is a member of the Joint Commission.

 

LAWRENCE ELECTED ALTERNATE TO GENERAL CONVENTION

 

Integrity President John C. Lawrence, was elected second alternate deputy from the Diocese of Massachusetts to the 1979 General Convention of the Episcopal Church at the Dioceses 193rd annual convention in November.  While Lawrence will not be entitled to Vote at the convention, unless one of the deputies is unable to sit, he will have access to the floor and certain Committee meetings and hearings which might not be open to visitors.

 

Lawrence ran sixth in a field of fourteen candidates with four deputies and four alternates to be elected.  The fact that Lawrence was elected to an official capa­city at the convention should at the least facilitate Integrity's presence at the convention.

 

On a more disappointing note, the Massachusetts Diocesan Convention failed by eight votes to pass a moderate resolution submitted by the Commission on Human Sexuality that would have memorialized the General Convention not to promulgate Canons with regard to the orientation of gay persons, and which re­affirmed the maintenance of the traditional power of each bishop and standing committee to decide who is or is not qualified for ordination.  Lawrence later noted that if the Diocese of Massachusetts, which is relatively liberal, could not pass such a moderate resolution, it would seem that there is increasing cause for us to be concerned about the fate of the issue of the ordination of gay people at the General Convention next year.  It will no doubt take a supreme lobbying effort to turn back negative resolutions or canons which are sure to be proposed next year.

 

RC GROUP SUPPORTS GAY RIGHTS

 

The National Assembly of Women Religious held their national meeting in Pittsburgh in August.  The following resolution was adopted by the Roman Catholic group:

 

Whereas: Members of NAWR identify with those struggling for human rights and for the recognition of the dignity of all persons:

 

     Homosexual men and women are being subjected to persecution and oppres­sion at this time in the United States;

 

     Church teaching has been interpreted many times to support this oppression;

 

Be it resolved: NAWR members, as persons of the Church, are resolved to commit ourselves to the struggle of people in sexual minorities who arc dis­criminated against by society and alienated from the Church.

 

Implementation:

  (1)  Education ‑‑ We will develop an awareness and appreciation of our own sexuality and help educate our communities and the Church in the area of sexuality, psychological and social dimensions of sexuality.

 

  (2)  Support ‑‑ We will endorse the efforts of groups working for gay civil rights (e.g., Catholic Coalition for Gay Rights, Dignity) through direct com­munication with their leadership.

 

  (3)  Accountability ‑‑ Individuals are invited to respond to NAWR on ways they have implemented this resolution.

 

FORUM

Observations from some of our readers, and others.

 

Testimony of Integrity President John C. Lawrence to the Joint Commission on Religion and Health in Human Affairs of the Episcopal Church in the United States

 

Monday, September 18, 1978, Cambridge, Massachusetts

 

INTEGRITY, INC. is committed to the full and equal participation of all gay people in the life and ministry of the Episcopal Church.  We believe gay people, both clerical and lay, have made significant contributions to the Episcopal Church.  We do not believe that responsible and committed ex­pression of one's sexuality, whatever the sexual preference, should in any way constitute a bar to ordination to the priesthood of this Church.

 

Sexual preference has no inherent morality.  It is a state of being.  Homosexuality is a potentially healthy, happy, and productive lifestyle, as is heterosexuality.  The question of morality enters the picture in terms of the expression of any sexual preference or lifestyle.  Is one's relationship with another responsibly expressed?  Is such a relationship self and other-enrich­ing or destructive and merely self-indulgent?  Is there love and caring inher­ent in the relationship, or is it exploitation of the individuals involved for selfish purposes?  Is there mutual sharing of one's life and concerns with another, or is the relationship a matter of convenience and expediency for those involved in it?  Many other questions could be asked.  Heterosexuals and homosexuals both express their sexuality in responsible ways and in responsible relationships, and sometimes express them negatively and hurt­fully.  Just as not all heterosexuals who apply are ordained, not all homosexuals should be ordained based on the many criteria examined in those who are candidates for Holy Orders.

 

However, "advocating and practicing homosexuals" to paraphrase the statement of the Bishop, should not summarily be barred from ordination.  What the Bishop did was primarily to bar honesty.  The suggestion is that gay people who wish to be ordained should keep their relationship a secret, take every care to hide them, or possibly remain celibate.  None of these alternatives is really acceptable.

 

Many gay persons experience loving and committed relationship.  Many gay priests are among the finest I know, certainly a match for some hetero­sexuals I see being ordained these day.  The Church is asking them, in some ways coercing them, to be deceptive and dishonest if they are to have any hope of ordination, or if they are already ordained, to have hope of continu­ing a viable and effective priesthood.  It will have to be for the Church to decide how it can reconcile the strong position taken in favor of the civil rights of gay people at the 1976 General Convention, while at the same time adopting such positions as the one articulated at Port St Lucie last year, which bars gay people from ordination solely on the basis of sexual prefer­ence without regard to all the other factors that determine any individual's worthiness to be ordained.

 

Integrity's strongly progressive position is no doubt more than the Church, particularly at the grass roots level is prepared to deal with at this time.  It is for this reason, at this time, that Integrity has no wish to press the issue, and certainly we do not wish to be responsible for further dividing the Church and adding further damage to that already sustained in recent decades.

 

We would propose that the question of ordination, of whomever, be left where it has been for so long, in the hands of the Bishop and Standing Committee of each Diocese, without further constraint placed upon any individual Bishop or Diocese.

 

We would urge that there be no definitions at this time; no final decisions that could be regrettable, and we would caution that any decision that appears to be in the direction of one extreme or the other is likely to cause further divisiveness and undue pain in the Church.

 

We would urge further study to be continued in the 1979-82 triennium.  We would also urge further education of clergy and lay people in the Church, and further contact with gay people in a direct fashion.  People in the Church need time and space to deal with what is a very difficult issue for most, and they need accurate information.  They also need to meet and have dialogue with gay people in openness and honesty, if gay people are to be dealt with as human beings and if the stereotypes and misconceptions that prevail are ever to be dispelled.

 

A Standing Commission that has no gay people among its number and that frequently meets and conducts its business behind closed doors will not be able to answer very many questions of very many people credibly, and it will certainly not be able to resolve any issues effectively.  Certainly it will not foster the dialogue with gay people in this Church that is so necessary and foster the educational process that is imperative.  Likewise, the people of this Church will not be effectively exposed to the issues when nearly half the dioceses of the Church have no mechanism to study the issue, while many of those that have such Commissions on Sexuality have yet to become in­volved in the process of facilitating educational encounters in the respective dioceses.

 

Integrity will not press the issue next year, except to press for further study and to do our best to maintain an educational presence in Denver, where those attending will be able to meet and dialogue with gay people.  We might even suggest to you tonight that the whole question of ordination and its meaning needs examination.  With women being ordained and with the issue of gay people being ordained, being foremost in Church discussion these days, and with the changing nature of the Church and of Christians, it might be very well indeed to begin to rethink the concept of priesthood and just what it means in 1978 and beyond.

 

Make no mistake, however, in thinking that Integrity will continue any­thing but the continued goal of full and equal participation of gay people in this Church, both for clergy and for lay people, even though it may take 50 or 100 years.  We will be there knocking on the door, reminding you, that we are people to be dealt with, not an issue to be studied; that we are human beings who have a capacity to love and to serve the Church, and we are not simply specimens to be examined.  Intellectual analysis and review of literature and theories will never do, without the interaction at the feeling level that comes from relating to us as real people.  You will never know us until you know us not just as homosexu­als, but as whole and diverse people who happen to be gay.  We stand ready to help you to know us, and please always keep in mind that we are the experts.

 

BIGOTS LOSE IN CALIFORNIA, SEATTLE

 

Ballot initiatives to deprive gay persons of their civil rights were defeated both in California and in Seattle.  The California proposal, Proposition 6, would have required the dismissal of any school employees who either were gay or who were supportive of gays in any way, if such facts could become known in their schools.  Initiated by state senator John Briggs, a well-known Neanderthal politician, the measure was opposed by practically everyone else, including President Carter, Ronald Reagan, Governor Jerry Brown, and former President Ford.  It lost by a margin of 58 to 42 percent of the vote.

 

The Seattle question was whether or not to retain the city's two ordinances banning discrimination in jobs and housing because of sexual preference.  Voters rejected the attempt to remove civil rights protection by a margin of almost 2 to 1.

 

But Dade County, Florida, voted no on a proposed ordinance seeking to restore rights protection to gays.  The previous ordinance had been repealed by a referendum last year.  The margin was about the same as last time.

 

In California, Briggs announced that he will re-introduce his initiative in 1980.  He indicated that he viewed the narrow margin by which Proposition 6 was defeated as a moral victory, saying: "The day after the election I was walking down straight street, an obscure state senator, with three million people behind me, and there was Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, the Governor, and all kinds of public officials, walking down gay street, with only four million people behind them."

 

Among Briggs' more notable quotes, displaying his level of intelligence, were:  "Homosexuals aren't in the closet, it's their sin that's in the closet.  All we have to do is keep their sin in the closet.  If they want to go on sinning, that's up to them....  Now (homosexuals) have a national organization, with lots of money behind them, and they're in every state.  Last night I debated a guy by the name of Bruce Voeller.  He and a gal by the name of Jean O'Leary are organizing the homosexuals all over the country to wipe out male and female sex roles and eliminate the heterosexual family."  Briggs did not explain where gays would get children to recruit into their ranks (which is the way gays "reproduce" according to him) if they were successful in their purported aim of wiping out the heterosexual family.

 

Opposition to Proposition 6 also came from a number of religious leaders, including Bishop Myers (San Francisco), who recently announced his resig­nation.  In Seattle, the anti-gay initiative was opposed by Roman Catholic Archbishop Raymond G. Hunthausen, who stated, "As a man who believes firmly in God's love for all people, I am committed to do everything I can to bring that Love into our society," and added, "I oppose (the anti-gay initiative) because I fear it will encourage discrimination."

 

President Carter came out against Proposition 6 during a campaign stop in Sacramento on Friday, November 3.  At the end of a speech in support of Democratic candidates, Carter reportedly turned to California Governor Brown and asked "Do you think I ought to say anything about Proposition 6?"  Both politicians apparently were unaware that their remarks were going out over an open microphone.  Brown replied, "Reagan and Ford have come out against it.  You'll get your loudest applause if you do.  It's going to be defeated and Ford and Reagan have already come out against it, so l think it's perfectly safe."  Carter turned back to the crowd and said, "I also want to ask everybody to vote against Proposition 6."  The crowd obliged by giving him the loudest applause of the campaign stop.

 

As part of the campaign against Briggs a Declaration of Unity was drafted to be endorsed by individuals and organizations in the field of education.  In part it stated, "As Educators, we shall 'advocate, encourage, and promote' an atmos­phere where students can make their own mature decisions about sexuality, and understand the decisions of other people."  The conclusion of the Declaration specifically mentioned Proposition 6 and recognized that anyone signing the document might be considered "guilty" of "homosexual conduct" if the Briggs proposal passed.

 

NYC RIGHTS BILL FAILS AGAIN

 

For the fourth time in seven years, a bill to prohibit discrimination against gays in employment, housing and public accommodations was defeated in the New York City Council.

 

The latest version, known as Intro 384, never reached the full council.  It was voted down in the General Welfare Committee by a 6 to 3 vote, despite strong lobbying for its passage by the Mayor, Edward Koch.  The primary opposition came from the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association and several religious groups, including Orthodox rabbis and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese.  On the other hand, the Rt. Rev. Paul Moore, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New York, strongly endorsed Intro 384.

 

Editorializing on the defeat, the New York Times writes, "It is no endorsement of homosexuality to hold that they deserve protection against senseless and cruel discrimination.  As long as people keep the peace and pay the rent, they should be able to live where they like.  As long as they do their jobs satisfactor­ily, they should be left to do them without harassment."

 

OSTOMATE GROUP FORMED

 

The Orthodox-Catholic Church has added a new service to those already offered to the gay community.  Under the direction of the Rev. George Hyde, the Gay Ostomy Association has been formed as a national organization.

 

An "ostomate" is a person who has experienced the removal of part of the intestines and/or urinary tract because of cancer, a birth defect, or an accident, a procedure requiring them to eliminate body wastes into an appliance through a permanent opening in the abdomen.

 

Learning to cope with an ostomy can be not only a difficult thing, but is both a physical and emotional experience.  Gay ostomates do have the services of the United Ostomy Association and its regional chapters, but there do exist certain elements of discrimination and a feeling on the part of gay ostomates that they are not receiving proper consideration.

 

The Gay Ostomy Association will [distribute] a newsletter containing advice and guidance on the care of appliances and about new products, and in addition there will be a network of members offering emotional support and one-to-one counseling for both the pre- and post-operative ostomate.

 

More information concerning the Gay Ostomy Association can be obtained by contacting the Rev. George Hyde, 210 Glenwood Ave., Anderson, SC 29621, or by calling evenings at (803) 226-6711.

 

HOLLYWOOD PROTECTS THE STRAIGHT MALE

 

Billy Hayes suffered an extraordinary ordeal for years after his arrest in Turkey on drug charges.  He finally escaped from the hellish Turkish prison to which he had been sentenced, and returned to America.

 

In a book about his experiences, Hayes, who is straight, relates a homosexual affair he had with a fellow prisoner named Erich with sensitivity and under­standing.

 

But in a recently released movie based on his book, Hollywood copped out.  Fearing that a sympathetic portrayal of a homosexual relationship would alienate and antagonize straight male viewers, the script had Billy considering, but finally rejecting righteously, his perverted pal's propositions ‑‑ except for a quick kiss left in for "shock value."

 

Hayes is angry.  Speaking to US magazine he stated, "That's not true and I am upset that the producers were afraid to leave it in.  I did have an affair with Erich, who befriended me in prison, and I'm not ashamed of it.  I wish the producers hadn't tampered with the truth." Homosexuality, Hayes is discover­ing, is an area in which the truth is almost always tampered with, distorted, or just plain forgotten.

 

EDITORIAL

 

The November issue of the Episcopalian reported that the House of Bishops, meeting in Kansas City, Missouri, early in October "heard that the Committee on Health and Human Affairs, mandated by the 1976 General Conven­tion to study the ordination of homosexuals, will publish its recommendations in the 1979 General Convention 'Blue Book.'"

 

Very little has been heard of the work of this group thus far in the triennium; the names of those on the Commission, headed by Bishop Spears of Rochester, have been pub­lished just once in the Episcopalian.  Its deliberations, if not a guarded secret, are certainly unreported in the church press.  We hear peripheral reports of testimony given by some Integrity members, including Ron Wesner and John Lawrence.  But the group's membership list deliberately excluded gay men and lesbians from the beginning.  We have it on excellent authority that the sessions of the Com­mission are oppressively dominated by the anti-gay opin­ions of Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse, whose tailor-made Bible for homophobes, Homosexuality: A Symbolic Confusion, was issued as if with imprimatur by the Church's official publisher, Seabury Press.  (It has been tellingly repudiated by former Episcopal priest Alan P. Bell, now senior research psychologist with the Kinsey Institute, in a review reprinted in the last issue of the Forum).

 

The work of the Roman Catholic theologians and others who issued the Catholic Theological Society's Human Sexuality report last year was at least credible in theolo­gical discussion, if unacceptable to most American bish­ops.  And the work of the Presbyterian Church's Task Force to Study Homosexuality, led by Virginia Davidson, was likewise a highly respectable endeavor resulting in a superb blue book on homosexuality for the Presbyterian General Assembly in May of this year.  (It was rejected overwhelmingly by popular vote.)

 

These reports will stand on their own merit, and as testi­mony to the excellence of the work that went into them, even though they have thus far met with little popular acceptance.  The preemptory action of the House of Bish­ops of the Episcopal Church at Port St. Lucie last fall, however, in issuing a unilateral opinion without theolog­ical or psychological or sociological or legal foundation has probably insured that the report to come from the Spears commission will be, unlike the Catholic and Pres­byterian reports, incredible to the human community but acceptable to the General Convention.

 

We are sure that all intelligent churchpeople join with the community of gay Episcopalians in demanding from Bishop Spears and the commission nothing less than a report which has scientific responsibility, theological co­gency, and ethical sensitivity.

 

              The Editorial Board

 

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE

By John C. Lawrence, President

 

The Executive Committee has taken a number of actions this past year to foster the involvement of women and to demonstrate our support for issues of concern to our sisters in Christ.  First, it was voted that Integrity Conventions will be held only in those states which have ratified the Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Second, we resolved to establish closer ties with the Episcopal Women's Caucus.  Action was later taken to appoint Martha Winslow (Midwest Regional Rep­resentative) as Integrity's official liaison to the EWC, since she serves on the Board of both organizations.  Martha will be re­porting to the Executive Committee in January on her discus­sions with EWC and concrete proposals will be discussed as to how Integrity can support the activities of the Caucus.

 

I have made a commitment to seek our women for appointment to official positions within Integrity when the opportunity arises.  Martha Winslow and Margaret Putnam were elected to Regional Representative offices at the Integrity Convention.  With the resignation of the Rev. Tom Dobbs as Regional Representative for the Mountain States, I have taken this opportunity to appoint Ms. Lee Baldwin to that position.  She is co-convenor of the Salt Lake City chapter.  Three of the eleven Executive Committee members are now women, a significant improvement over a year ago, when there were none.  (One Regional Representative position remains vacant.)

 

We have made some progress in reaching out to women and welcoming their involvement in the organization, but we can­not be satisfied with a token effort.  We must continually work to respond to women as an organization and as individuals.  I believe every chapter should discuss this matter and should em­bark on affirmative action programs to involve more women and to address any subtle oppressions in our worship, programs or social events which might serve to alienate women.

 

Last, the 1977 Integrity Convention adopted a resolution calling for the use of a Rite III non-sexist liturgy for at least one of the Eucharists of each convention, at which a woman priest (or priests) would be the main officiant.  I encourage chapters which have not already done so to also seek out women priests to celebrate the Eucharist on a regular basis.

 

We cannot be content with words of support, but must also make active commitments which demonstrate that support.

 

NOMINEES FOR BISHOP ADDRESS QUESTION ON HUMAN SEXUALITY

 

A year ago, at the Eighth Annual Convention of the Diocese of Southeast Florida, the Rt. Rev'd James L. Duncan, Bishop of the diocese, called for the election of a Bishop Coadjutor at a special meeting of the Ninth Annual Convention, on Saturday, November 4, 1978.  (A Bishop Coadjutor stands in direct succession to the Bishop of the diocese, to ensure continuity in the event of death or retirement of the Bishop of the diocese.)

 

On July 31, 1978, the Screening and Nominating committee presented seven nominees for the office of Bishop Coadjutor.  The list was published in the October issue of The Net (the diocesan newspaper), along with the responses to a questionnaire sent to each nominee.  We reprint here some excerpts from the responses to the question, "What is your position on current questions of human sexuality?"

 

The Rev'd John W. Bishop, the rector of St. Thomas' Church, Rochester, NY (St. Thomas is the home of the first joint Dignity-Integrity chapter) responded, in part, "The question of justice and human rights has always been one of the church's basic priorities in its ministry.  The Minneapolis General Convention called for a church-wide study of human sexuality, including homosexuality, during the three years following.  The next convention will address the ordination question seriously.  I am firmly opposed to any form of discrimination against the homophile community, and I believe that homosexuals are entitled to every protection of the law, and to our most profound respect and love as children of God.

 

"My parish in Rochester was the first one in this city to engage a priest to carry on a ministry specifically to the homosexual community, and to find ways to enable homosexuals to feel the church's concern and care.

 

"However, at this present time, and with my limited knowledge, I cannot believe that homosexuality is as full an expression of our humanity as heterosexuality, and I see it as one of the examples of the 'brokenness' which we all share.  While there are certainly those who in every other way are whole and healthy persons, I do not believe that it should be promoted as a viable or alternative life style."

 

The Rev'd James R. Daughtry, Rector of St. Paul's Washington, DC, responded with a long and thoughtful statement in which he stresses that only in Holy Matrimony is the ideal of a sacramentally effected union to be found, and that anything short of this ideal is an impoverishment.  But he goes on to say, "We now find an increasing number of our regular church members who have for years come to terms with an impoverishment they did not choose and in which they have been involved with commitment -- whether homosexual or heterosexual -- and in which they see no barrier to their Christian profession ... I believe anyone, regardless of affectional orientation or sexual preference, who lives a scandalous or sexually promiscuous life is an improper subject for ordination.  I find the statement by the House of Bishops and other studies informative and educational, but hope the Church is not forced into a premature and ill-conceived expression of doctrine without profound study of Biblical scholarship and theology and prayerfully well prepared composition of the text of the statement."

 

The Very Rev'd Otis C. Edwards, Jr., is Dean of Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, Evanston, Il.  The Net printed only an excerpt from his response to the question, which reads " ... I personally feel a great sense of accord with the House of Bishops on its attitude toward further study of homosexuality.  While everything I know convinces me of the essential soundness of the Church's traditional sexual morality, I do not wish to exclude beforehand the possibility that more study will throw new light on the matter.  If it does, I hope that all of us will be open to receive that new light."

 

Reprinted in part from Breaking Bread, the Journal of Integrity/Miami-South Florida.

 

DIRTY LINEN AND CLOSET FRESHENERS

 

The General Faculty Committee of Northwestern University, Evanston and Chicago, has unanimously condemned the action last May of Garrett Evangelical Theological Seminary in dismissing two openly gay students.  The reason given for the dismissal by a 15-10 vote of Terry Colbert and James Mason was that the Methodist Church prohibits the ordination of homosexuals as ministers.  Garrett and Northwestern share certain programs and facilities and Garrett's doctoral candidates take courses at Northwestern.  The NU committee's resolution warns that the action jeopardizes the arrangement.  The NU resolution said:  "We consider that any institution of higher learning which discriminates against any student in respect of admission or retention solely on grounds of avowed sexual preference violates a basic principle of academic freedom and denies a student his or her right to pursue an education free from such discrimination."  +++

 

Meanwhile, Bloy House Episcopal school of theology in Claremont, California, has issued a policy statement that it will not recommend for ordination any one who "advocates and/or wilfully and habitually practices homosexuality."  Charles Upchurch Harris, former president and dean of Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, is current president of Bloy House; Edwin Wappler is dean.  +++

 

A Spanish film, To An Unknown God, won the Chicago Film Festival's Grand Prix Golden Hugo Award.  The film features Hector Alterio as a homosexual magician. Half a dozen of the entries in the festival featured gay or lesbian themes.  +++

 

A suggestion that appeared in Dialogue, the newsletter for Brethren/Mennonite Gay Concerns, has much merit:  When church headquarters (in our case, diocese or national church offices) make special appeals for disasters, regular programs and the like -- let each gay person send a contribution directly, stating that the contribution came from a gay person (with signed name and address for tax purposes, if possible -- or anonymously).  Much of the money in our offering basins is "gay money."  Let it be known.  +++

 

Gay students at Ohio State University, Columbus, are now included in the computer-programmed dating service provided by the undergraduate student government as a fund-raiser.  For $3.75 a gay student may now fill out the same questionnaire, label it "gay" and wait to meet the matches selected for compatibility by the robot.  Craig Covey, OSU Gay Activist Alliance, first suggested that gays be included.  Undergrad president Paul Zock said the policy was consistent with the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities, which forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.  +++

 

Bob Hope quipped in Playboy magazine that Anita Bryant "got sucked into" the gay rights controversy.  +++

 

"It's very hard to be outrageous today," says Quentin Crisp, the Stately Homo of England.  "When young people ask me what made me so offensive in my youth, I tell them that I had long hair, wore amulets, and often went barefoot.  They nod very politely and keep waiting to be shocked.  But all these things are common now.  Even construction workers wear amulets, and I've seen pearl buttons on some pretty heavy boots."  +++

 

The 2nd Conference on the Ordination of Roman Catholic Women, meeting in Baltimore, November 10-12, called for the establishment of a task force to facilitate the inclusion of lesbians and gay men in the public ministry of the church.  Some 2,000 participants also heard Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Notre Dame theologian, urge them to go on a "spiritual hunger strike" by refusing to attend more than the required minimum of three Eucharists a year until women obtain full and equal rights in the church.  +++

 

An event entitled "Good Friday and Holy Saturday with Malcolm Boyd" will take place April 13-14, 1979 at Jesuit-operated Colombiere Center, 9075 Big Lake Road, Clarkston, Michigan 48016.  Write Gene Gonya, S.J., director, for more information.  Cost of the overnight conference, including Saturday supper, $28.00.  Clarkston is 10 miles north of Pontiac, Michigan.  +++

 

Model Randal Jones has filed a claim in Santa Monica, California, for half the million-dollar estate of the late James Daly, an actor with whom he lived and had a homosexual relationship.  Daly played Dr. Paul Lochner on the TV series "Medical Center" from 1969 to 1976.  His will specified the estate go to his wife and four children.  +++

 

Sound the Call is the brand new newsletter of the Episcopal Young Adult Ministries Network, edited by David Selzer.  The newsletter wants pictures, poetry, articles, opinions, letter from young adults in the church.  Deacon William Landram represents Integrity on the EYAM Network.  Send your contributions to David Selzer, P.O. Box 7347, Louisville, KY 40207.  Help make the group aware of the significantly large group of gay and lesbian young adults in the Church.  +++

 

The Houston Chapter of the ACLU has elected openly gay Gary Van Ooteghem to serve on the Board of Directors during the upcoming year.  Van Ooteghem is the publisher of UPFRONT, Houston's gay newspaper.  +++

 

Integrity/Madison is currently "Madison's only group of gay Christians" according to a brochure issued by the chapter.  Organized in the Fall of 1977, the group meets first Sundays and third Wednesdays of each month at St. Francis's house, 1001 University Avenue.  They are anxious to give support and encouragement to the formation of other denominational gay caucuses in Madison.  +++

 

Second annual National Gay Health Conference is to be held May 18-20, 1979, at Hunter College, 695 Park Ave., New York City.  The conference is sponsored by the National Gay Health Coalition, comprised of gay and bisexual caucuses from the major U.S. health-related professional organizations.  Write Caitlin Ryan, N.G.H.C., 55 West 26th St., #402, NY 10010.

 

BOOKS IN BRIEF

 

Is The Homosexual My Neighbor?  Another Christian View.  Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramsey Mollenkott.  New York:  Harper & Row, 1978.  159 pp. $6.95 hardcover.

 

Of all the recent primers on homosexuality this one is quite possibly the best for those readers who are interested in the Christian connotations of homosexuality.  The authors begin the book with a homily-like section on the parable of the Good Samaritan addressed principally to non-gays who are unsympathetic to the pain they may cause in the lives of gay men and lesbians.  They next give us several chapters on various social, psychological and theological issues in which they discuss the questions that non-gay Christians most often raise.  Notes and references abound throughout.  In a concluding chapter the authors present some helpful (albeit general and unsystematic) thoughts for establishing a homosexual Christian ethic.

                                      --Jim Templar

 

L'Amour Bleu.  Cecile Beurdeley.  (Translated from the French by Michael Taylor.)  Rizzoli International Publications, Inc.  304 pages.  $65.00

 

Originally published in French as Beau Petit Ami, this English version, despite the unexplainable title change, a couple of publishing delays, and a rather steep price tag, turns out to be well worth the waiting (and the paying) for.  A collection of literary excerpts and art works representing every major period of western civilization, L'Amour Bleu is a spectacular survey of male homosexual love.  Mme. Beurdeley has chosen the examples with sensitivity and good judgment, and written commentaries that provide proper context for their understanding.  The literary examples -- from poems, plays, novels, essays, etc., many never before published in English -- reflect some striking changes in taste and attitude from era to era; but at the same time they validate the old French claim that "the more things change, the more they remain the same."  And the plates (290 of them, 40 in color) -- well, they're gorgeous, exquisite, ravishing!  Unfortunately the author rather neglects the artists, providing much less information about them than she does about the writers.  Still, L'Amour Bleu is a delight to read and to look at, and it's a very important contribution to the growing literature of gay history.  Now wouldn't it be splendid of Mme. Beurdeley if she would apply her uncommon skills to a similar anthology about lesbians!

                                      --Jim Wickliff

 

Relax!  This Book is Only a Phase you're Going Through.  Charles Ortleb and Richard Fiala.  New York:  St. Martin's Press, 1978.  124 b & w cartoons, $4.955 hardcover.

 

Charles Ortleb, editor/publisher and Richard Fiala, artist, for Christopher Street magazine have just released their second volume of cartoons from Christopher Street, their first being And God Bless Uncle Harry and His Roommate Jack, Who We're Not Supposed to Talk About which was published in paperback by Avon Books.  Their cartoons delve into such matters as appropriately named gay bars (such as "Le Fire Trap"); handy heterosexual sayings to use when parents call unexpectedly; recruiting youngsters into homosexuality (and what to do when you run out of membership forms); and overcoming the fear of going to that Big Disco in the Sky.  If you have $4.95 to spend, this is a fun book to leave sitting around on your coffee table for non-gay relatives and friends to look at.  Especially for those people whom you've been meaning to sit down and have a long talk with but haven't worked up the courage to do so.

                                      --David R. Williams

 

[Reproduction of a cartoon from the above reviewed book, showing two men facing each other, one with a T-shirt printed "STRAIGHT BUT SENSITIVE"]

 

 

CHAPTER NOTES

 

THE TRIANGLE AREA CHAPTER OF DIGNITY-INTEGRITY (Chapel Hill, NC) has been talking about new directions for their chapter.  We hope they'll share some of those discussions with the rest of us. +++ Ira Jones was speaker at INTEGRITY/CHICAGO's annual meeting and banquet.  Ira, one of the original five members of Integrity's first chapter, and a big man in the local community, delighted members and guests with his remarks.  If first prizes were given for chapter newsletters, Chicago's The Integer would surely win it! +++ INTEGRITY/DENVER helped raise funds for their gay community center, and for the Coloradans Against Briggs campaign.  A local realtor spoke to them recently on how to buy a home, something more and more of us are considering these days.  They also met with representatives of The Citizen's Committee for a Police Review Commission to discuss the proposed city charter amendment coming up, one that could have serious consequences for the local gay community.  All this in addition to their regular worship, social and planning activities. +++ INTEGRITY/HARTFORD was host to Bill Doubleday last month (he's Convenor of the New York chapter, in case you didn't know).  Their newsletter, The Hartford Informer, newsy and well-produced, indicated that the chapter has recently survived a "life-and-death" crisis (sound familiar?  We all have them!).  Reporting on the survival:  "Indeed, Integrity/Hartford is alive and well.  It is.  It is for all.  It is for all of its members; the super-active, the mildly active, the non-active.  It is for those who come to meetings, to services, to functions; it is for those who do not.  It is a vital organization which shall surely not wither, because where two or three are gathered in His name, and where He is, there also are we, stumbling along, making mistakes, learning from them, sharing successes, and always standing ready with open arms and hearts, trying to let His love blossom in us and one another."  That's integrity! +++ INTEGRITY/CENTRAL INDIANA was fortunate to hear the Rev'd Jeanine Rae, American Baptist Church minister, speak on "Woman's Spirituality:  The rebirth of the Matriarchy."  The Rev'd Ms. Rae is a super-leader in both the local and the national women's community with a long list of accomplishments.  The November issue of Phaedrus, their newsletter, carried an article by Convenor/Editor Orlando Gustilo that deserves wider readership.  Called "Towards a Pleomorphic Vision of Liberation," it was accompanied by a cartoon, the caption of which says "There is more to be learned from wearing a dress for a day than there is from wearing a suit for a lifetime."  If that whets your intellectual appetite, or you're curious about pleomorphism, write to Orlando for a copy! +++ Again, if we were awarding prizes, INTEGRITY/NEW YORK would be a formidable contender in the category of programs.  This is last months':  "Who is Integrity/New York?,"  "The Ethics of Being Gay and Christian," "Joys and Dilemmas of Married and Formerly Married Gay Fathers," and "Educating the Non-gay Community." +++ After spending the late summer reorganizing, new Convenor Samuel B. Johnson reports that INTEGRITY/PHILADELPHIA is beginning a new era of achievement. +++ Last issue in this column we reported that INTEGRITY/ST. LOUIS was struggling to get a "real" newsletter.  Well, now they've got one, and a handsome thing it is!  Never satisfied, now they want a name for it!  In an editorial-disguised-as-an-anonymous-letter, the point of which is that the success of the gay movement requires gay involvement beyond the gay community, readers are urged to take a more active part in the total community.  "It won't be easy," the writer acknowledges, "and it may cost a bit of bruising, some mashed fingers, some hurt feelings; but that's the only way we'll earn the kind of total acceptance we want ... the super-macho, spiritual rednecks, may be the toughest problem.  What St. Louis and the world needs is a new rugby team: the Mound City Queens, who would trot out into the field in lavender uniforms and dis­creet make-up, and smash the other side into the ground with brute force." In the same spirit of fun/frustration we might add: "Haaaay, TEAM!" +++ DIGNITY-INTEGRITY/TWIN CITIES came up with a good idea to increase readership ‑‑ a contest to see who could find the most typing/spelling errors in their newsletter.  And they're selling small personal ads to help pay the publishing costs.  Where there's a will, etc.  Thanksgiving day will be over by the time you read this, but since everyday for a Christian is thanksgiving, we'd like to share part of a lovely Thanksgiving Day prayer by a Twin Cities woman.  "Thank you lord for the life you have given to me, and for trusting me with free will ... I self­ishly asked you for someone to love, and you led her to me.  She is not the husband my family would have chosen for me, but in your wisdom, you knew that our relationship would make me a strong and complete person.  That in defending our very right to love, that I would learn so much about other people's rights, and through the discrimination that we have felt, I would learn to recognize the ways in which I, myself discriminate against others ..." +++ Out of alphabetical order is a late scoop from INTEGRITY/MIAMI.  The Couples Club of Holy Cross, their home parish, invited members to a dinner, after which they discussed Integrity's purposes and goals.  The results:  Integrity gay couples were invited to join the Couples Club!  Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.  Next on the calendar is dinner with the vestry.  We look forward to hearing about that in Baking Bread, the chapter's fine newsletter.

 

JOIN INTEGRITY

 

All information sent to us will be kept confidential.

 

[_] New                      [_] Renewal

 

Please enter my subscription as indicated.

[_] $10 One Year Membership      [_] $20 Two Year Membership

(All memberships include Integrity Forum.)

 

I cannot join Integrity at this time but wish to subscribe as indicated:

[_] $12 One Year Subscription  [_] $24 Two Year Subscription

 

Please send my copies in a sealed envelope for which I enclose an additional:

[_] $ 3 One Year                      [_] $6 Two Years

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

Canadian and Foreign respondents remit in U.S. funds.   

$______ is enclosed as a contribution to Integrity.

 

Name______________________________________________

Address___________________________________________

City State & Zip__________________________________

 

[_] The above is a name/address change/correction.

Return to:

Integrity, 530 Massachusetts Av., Boston, MA 02118.

 

LOCAL CHAPTERS

 

                      New England Region

 

Margaret Putnam, Regional Rep., 129 Spruce Hill Av., Florence, MA 01060.

 

INTEGRITY/BOSTON, P.O. Box 2582, Boston, MA 02208.  Convenor Allan Stifflear, Phone 617/547-4676.

INTEGRITY/HARTFORD, P.O. Box 3681, Central Station, Hartford, CT 06103.

* INTEGRITY/MAINE, Box 283, RFD, Damariscotta, ME 04543.  Convenor Doug Wright.

* INTEGRITY/MONTREAL.  Write to Regional Representative.

* INTEGRITY/NEW HAVEN, P.O. Box 1777, New Haven, CT 06507. Convenor Clinton H. Warner.

* INTEGRITY/WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS, 129 Spruce Hill Av., Florence, MA 01060.  Convenor Margaret L. Putnam.

 

                      Mid-Atlantic Region

 

Mason Martens, Regional Rep., 175 W. 72nd St., New York, NY 10023.

 

* INTEGRITY/GERMANY, Convenor Tobby Erdman.  Write to Regional Representative.

INTEGRITY/NEW YORK CITY, G.P.O. 1549, New York, NY 10001.    Convenor Charles Kast.

INTEGRITY/PHILADELPHIA, 4315 Osage Av., Philadelphia, PA 19104.Convenor Samuel B. Johnson.  215/382-1774 or St. Mary's 215/386-3916.

INTEGRITY/WASHINGTON, D.C., Convenor Wayne Fortunate-Schwandt, 2112 32nd St. S.E., Washington D.C. 20020.  202/583-2158.

 

                       Southeast Region

 

Leslie Mullins, Regional Rep., 520 W. Franklin, Box 272, Richmond, VA 23220

 

* INTEGRITY/ATLANTA.  Write to Regional Representative.

INTEGRITY-DIGNITY/CHAPEL HILL, P.O. Box 1184, Chapel Hill, NC 27514.  Convenor Hogan Gaskins.  Phone 919/929-3730.

INTEGRITY/MIAMI-SOUTH FLORIDA, 123 N.E. 36th St.,, Miami, FL 33137.  305/444-0316 or 305/576-4216.

INTEGRITY-DIGNITY/RICHMOND, Convenor Rev'd Edward Meeks Gregory, 1907 N. 23rd St., Richmond, VA 23223.

* INTEGRITY-DIGNITY/ROANOKE.  Write to Regional Representative.

* INTEGRITY-DIGNITY/TIDEWATER, P.O. Box 6363, Norfolk, VA 23508.  Bob Halcums, Secretary.

 

                       Gulf Coast Region

 

Write to Integrity, Inc. for regional information.

 

* INTEGRITY/AUSTIN, Convenor Charles Arthur, 9904B Randall, Austin, TX 78753.

* INTEGRITY/DALLAS-FT. WORTH, P.O. Box 554, Bedford, Tx 76021.  817/283-4317.

EPISCOPAL INTEGRITY/HOUSTON, P.O. Box 66008, Houston, TX 77006.  Phone 713/526-0555 or 713/777-7215.

* INTEGRITY/JACKSON, MS.  Write to Regional Representative.

INTEGRITY/NEW ORLEANS, 722 N. Hagan, New Orleans, LA 70119.    Convenor Don Osborn.

 

                      Great Lakes Region

 

Write to Integrity, Inc. for regional information.

 

* INTEGRITY/DETROIT.  Write to Regional Representative.

INTEGRITY-DIGNITY/ROCHESTER, 42 Tyler House, 17 S. Fitzhugh St., Rochester, NY 14614.  Co-Convenors Jack Lowe and Horace Lethbridge.  716/232-6521.

* INTEGRITY/CLEVELAND.  793 Bloomfield Av, Akron, OH 44302.  Convenor David Gellatly.

INTEGRITY/TORONTO, Convenor John Gartshore, 20 Berryman St., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA M5R 1MB.  Phone 416/925-4047.

 

                        Midwest Region

 

Martha Winslow, Regional Rep., 1831 Clinton Av. S., Minneapolis, MN 55404

 

INTEGRITY/CENTRAL INDIANA, P.O. Box 68290, Indianapolis, IN 46268.  Co-Convenors Charles R. Forker 812/332-6564 and Orlando S. Gustilo 317/293-9044.

INTEGRITY/CHICAGO, P.O. Box 2516, Chicago, IL 60690.  Convenor Rev'd Clark Wills.  Phone 312/743-7489.

INTEGRITY/CINCINNATI, P.O. Box 1611, Cincinnati, OH 45201.  Convenor Joshua Moore.  513/241-7539.

INTEGRITY/MADISON, P.O. Box 5641, Madison, WI 53705.  Convenor Larry Bandfield.  Phone 608/831-8448.

INTEGRITY/ST. LOUIS, P.O. Box 7213, St. Louis, MO 63177.  Convenor Jerry Martin.  Phone 314/652-9373.

INTEGRITY/TWIN CITIES, P.O. Box 3565, Upper Nicollet Station, Minneapolis, MN 55403.  Convenor Marc Messerich.

 

                    Mountain States Region

 

Lelia H. (Lee) Baldwin, Regional Rep., 1073 S. 800 E., Salt Lake City, UT 84105.

 

INTEGRITY/ALBUQUERQUE, P.O. Box 4996, Albuquerque, NM 87106.   Convenor David Maulsby.  Phone 505/268-8156.

INTEGRITY/DENVER, Convenor Rev'd Tom Dobbs, 1734 Washington Street, Denver, CO 80203.

INTEGRITY/SALT LAKE CITY, P.O. Box 11241, Salt Lake City, UT 84147.  Co-Convenors Lelia (Lee) Baldwin 801/521-6967 and Hal Carter 801/322-4396.

 

                        Pacific Region

 

Rev'd Richard Younge, Regional Rep., P.O. Box 644, San Jose, CA 95120.

 

INTEGRITY/HONOLULU, 1186 Fort Street Mall, Rm. 211,, Honolulu, HI 96813.  Convenor Bill Potter 808/537-9478.

INTEGRITY/LOS ANGELES, Convenor Bob Harrison, 7985 Santa Monica Blvd., #212, West Hollywood, CA 90046.  Phone 213/656-0258.

* INTEGRITY/PUGET SOUND, P.O. Box 855, Seattle, WA 98111.

Convenor Tim Fowler.  Phone 206/525-5817.

* INTEGRITY/SAN DIEGO, c/o Episcopal Community Services, 601 Market St., San Diego, CA 92101.

INTEGRITY/SAN FRANCISCO, P.O. Box 6444, San Jose, CA 95150.  Convenor Patrick Waddell.  Phone 415/776-5120.

 

* Indicates that a new chapter is in formation.

 

If you are interested in starting an Integrity chapter in your area, write to: Integrity, P.O. Box 891, Oak Park, IL 60303, or telephone 312/386-1470.