INTEGRITY FORUM

FOR GAY EPISCOPALIANS AND THEIR FRIENDS

c Integrity, Inc. 1979   ISSN: 0095-2184

Volume 6  Number 2 Christmas-Epiphany, 1979-80

INTEGRITY FORUM

Managing Editor:  David R. Williams. 

Editorial Board:  David S. Blix, Rev'd Grant M. Gallup, Rev'd James K. Taylor, Rev'd Dennis Zygadio, O. Carm. 

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. 

Circulation:  Integrity/Chicago. 

Integrity Officers:  John C. Lawrence, President; Lelia H. Baldwin, Vice-President; Rev'd Richard G. Younge, 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 publication 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 by Integrity, Inc.  6 issues per year.  Memberships are $12 per year; subscriptions without memberships are $17 per year.  Add $5 for mailing in a plain envelope.  Make checks payable to Integrity, Inc. and remit to your chapter treasurer or George W. Casper, 530 Massachusetts Av., Boston, MA 02118. 

A CHRISTIAN UNDERSTANDING OF HUMAN SEXUALITY

A Report from the Methodist Church of Great Britain, Division of Social Responsibility and Faith & Order Committee

Preamble

1(a)  The statement which follows considers questions about human sexuality within the context of a contemporary understanding of the Christian faith.  In doing so, it will try to account for the changes taking place in attitudes and behavior without surrendering to archaic concepts on the one hand or to fashionable trends on the other.

(b)  Current attitudes tend to reflect a rigidly patterned society and to emphasize the importance of freely formed personal relationships.  Social mobility has led to the break up of the extended family and of the tightly knit local community.  There is increasing equality between the sexes, gender roles are being reconsidered and women are now able socially and sexually to take the initiative.  Effective means of contraception are widely available.  There is a growing demand that individuals be regarded first as people and not first as male or female.

(c)  The statement begins by looking at the nature of human sexuality and then indicates the six 'witnesses' which help to outline a Christian response.  This leads to a consideration of that response and of the values which are involved in sexuality.

(d)  Two sections follow which consider some implications of the statement for heterosexual and homosexual relationships.  The statement and each of the two later sections will be put separately to the Conference.

(e)  It is necessary to clarify the way in which certain terms are used in this document.  Human sexuality includes the whole range of emotion, motivation and activity which derives from the sexual nature of men and women.  The term 'sexuality' will therefore be used in this document in preference to the word 'sex' which in much popular usage has been limited to physical attraction and genital activity.  'Genital activity' and similar phrases will be used for acts which involve the sexual organs.  This is not intended to detract from the value or tenderness which such acts may have, nor to substitute clinical language for the realities of human experience.  It is simply an attempt to employ unambiguous terms.

The given character of sexuality

A1.  Sexuality is a vital element in human nature.  It is the source of some of the strongest attractions, deepest insights, most sensitive feelings and most powerful drives in the lives of men and women.  It can release forces which are creative and life enhancing in human personalities and relationships.  Equally, it can release forces which are destructive, divisive and life-diminishing.

A2.  Procreation is closely linked with genital activity.  This biological fact has often provided the controlling idea in past attitudes to sexuality.  It is however to be regretted that much recent sexual instruction and controversy has focussed too narrowly on a few of the physical questions raised with insufficient appreciation of the personal and social values involved.  At the same time, there is still widespread ignorance of the biological basis of human sexuality.

A3.  Scientific investigations have revealed many of the complex processes involved in human sexual development and maturation.  Human sexuality has physical, psychological and social components, and these interact.  The physical components include the genetic material (sex chromosomes), internal sex organs (gonads), sex hormones, and external sex organs (genitalia).  Male and female development begins soon after conception with the determination by the sex chromosome(s) of the development of the gonads, which in turn produce the appropriate sex hormones.  These sex hormones influence the development of the external genitalia and the brain and, after puberty, secondary sexual characteristics such as body shape and hair distribution.  In the majority of people sexual differentiation follows a consistent pattern, either male or female, but in a minority there may be sexual ambiguity at one or more levels.  In some a sex chromosome is omitted or duplicated leading to incomplete sexual development ‑‑ sexual immaturity or sterility or inappropriate body shape.  For example, a genetically male fetus's external genitalia may occasionally fail to develop so that at birth gender is wrongly assigned and the child is reared as a girl; only at puberty when appropriate secondary sexual changes do not occur is 'her' true genetic sex discovered.  Such a person is genetically male, anatomically partly female, psychologically largely female, socially entirely female, but biologically neuter (that is unable to have children).  In the light of current knowledge it is thus too simple to speak of persons as always being male or female.

A4.  Gender identity is the self-awareness and behaviour belonging to the male or female sex.  Although its development is not fully understood, it is probably physically and psychologically determined and is normally compatible with a person's biological sex.  Occasionally, gender identity may be discordant with biological sex and such transsexual persons are convinced that they belong to the opposite sex.  A major external factor in the process of self awareness is the definition of masculine and feminine gender roles by the surrounding society and culture (for example, the association in some cultures of masculinity with dominance).  This definition varies from society to society.

A5.  The majority of men and women are responsive to and dependent on heterosexual stimulation for sexual arousal and orgasm.  Here, too, the mechanism which leads to these responses is not fully understood.  In a minority, however, sexual arousal and orgasm are dependent on other types of stimulation: the largest group in this minority consists of those who respond erotically to homosexual stimulation.  It is clear that there are many factors, physical and social, which from before birth onwards affect the way men and women think and feel about themselves and others as sexual beings, and also respond sexually to others.  Persons are not responsible for their basic sexual orientation, heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual.

Christian sources of guidance

A6.  In seeking a Christian approach to the understanding of human sexuality, this statement recognizes six witnesses, each of which needs to be interpreted in the light of the others.  These are the Bible, reason, the traditional teaching of the Church, the personal and corporate experience of modern Christians, the understanding provided by the human sciences, and what may be called the spirit of the age.

A7.  According to the Deed of Union of the Methodist Church, the Bible is the record of the divine revelation which is 'the supreme rule of faith and practice.'  Consequently, for Methodists, the biblical revelation provides both the starting point of every theological and ethical argument and also the authentic values upon which the discussion must be based.  It might appear, then that this statement should simply abstract from the Bible an exhaustive and integrated treatment of human sexuality, but this is impossible.  In the first place, there is, great diversity in the biblical material and, in any given instance, it is hard to say exactly what the biblical view is.  The difference between OT and NT is the most obvious, but by no means, the only example of this diversity.  Secondly, the Bible does not offer a comprehensive account of human sexuality, though there are many occasional references to different aspects of it. Inevitably some matters are referred to several times and others never mentioned.  Thirdly, many of the relevant passages were written for precise situations which are far removed from those of modern society.  For example, Hebrew custom afforded what now seems a very low status to women.  Fourthly, discoveries have been made since biblical times which create new situations on which the Bible necessarily can shed no direct light.  Efficient contraception is an obvious example.  Fifthly, the words of the Bible and the fundamental biblical revelation are not identical. Sixthly, the text of the Bible is necessarily static while the task of the church continues through history.  It follows that the church has the responsibility of interpreting the Bible in every generation and this involves making judgments on the biblical material.  There is nothing new in this.  These factors do not undermine the authority of the Bible.  They do mean, however, that the application of that authority to human sexuality is a more complex procedure than at first appears.  It is impossible simply to construct a 'biblical view' and transfer it into the present context.  Instead it is necessary to ask questions about the biblical view of God and humanity, the relations between them and the principles that govern human behaviour as a consequence of that relationship, and to proceed from these truths to the practical twentieth century questions.  For this reason secondary witnesses become important.

A8.  Reason, must be given a significant role.  No analysis of human sexuality can claim to be Christian if it is unreasonable. Reason, however, depends on presuppositions which themselves require scrutiny.  Moreover, the rational process depends on skilled operators who may nonetheless disagree on conclusions.

A9.  A belief in the continuity of the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church leads to an appreciation of the Christian teaching of the past.  This teaching has, however, arisen in particular situations and as circumstances change so teaching must be adapted.

A10.  The convictions of contemporary Christians, particularly those with wide pastoral experience, are very significant.  Although they raise fewer problems of cultural difference than other sources of guidance, modern Christian convictions differ and no consistent statement could be constructed on them alone.

A11.  The sciences of medicine, psychology and sociology have provided new understandings of the human condition, and medicine has profoundly affected it by very practical discoveries.  Christians cannot, however, accept the scientist as an over-riding authority on moral matters, despite their gratitude for the insights which science provides.

A12.  Although the Church must never merely conform to the standards of surrounding society, it is false to assume that the Church and contemporary society are in total opposition.  This latter view assumes that the Holy Spirit works only through the Church.  The initiative for many undoubtedly righteous causes has come from outside, rather than inside, the Church.  Modern changes in social patterns must neither be accepted uncritically nor inevitably condemned.

A13.  This means that Christians are primarily guided by the major affirmations and perspectives of the biblical witness.  But they use these other sources both to ascertain what elements in that witness are determined by the culture of the period of writing and thus may not be of permanent validity, and also to enable those major affirmations and perspectives to be related to immediate problems and concerns.

A14.  Christians believe that all truth comes from God and that the Spirit of truth will guide them into all truth.  He will make possible the achievement of greater things than were previously possible.  All this requires change.  Of course, not every change is for the better, but God's disclosure of his purpose requires movement and, inevitably, certain changes in understanding and attitude.

Christian faith and human sexuality

A15.  God is.  And God is love.  The mystery of his being is the mystery of love.  The traditional concept of God as a trinity of persons between whom there is a relationship of love and whose love is constantly outgoing in creation, in re-creation, and in interpersonal relationships with all mankind is a pattern of which the Christian concept of human love is an image.  Because men and women are made in the image of God, the capacity to love and be loved is a fundamental feature of being human.  Jesus focussed this love in his own being, and summed up the way of life in the double commandment of love ‑‑ love of God and love of others.

A16.  The common word 'love' has a wide range of meanings.  It is possible to love food, sunsets, music, animals or persons and to love God.  In each case the loving implies giving worth and value to the object of that love.  However, the love in each case vanes in respect of the sensual, aesthetic, emotional and spiritual qualities involved.  The loving has different degrees of significance to the lover.  Within the Christian tradition there are various words for 'love' which distinguish the loving involved in friendship, or genital sexuality, or in God's concern for mankind.  The last is seen to be supreme.  The first two are related to it, but are also capable of becoming sinful and expressions of self-gratification.

A17.  God's love is creative and he calls men and women to be his fellow-workers in the creative and re-creative processes of life ‑‑ physical, mental and spiritual.  Unfortunately, traditional Christianity has been prone to set the physical against the spiritual.  Thus it has separated spiritual and physical love, associating the world and the flesh with the devil rather than with God.  But God created mankind both human and sexual, and made himself known in human flesh.  Neither humanity nor sexuality can therefore be condemned as wrong in themselves.  Yet both are disfigured by sin and may thus be put to wrong uses.  In the biblical tradition, the world is 'fallen.'  It is not, however, intrinsically bad.

A18.  God made mankind to be fruitful and multiply ‑‑ and this by genital encounter.  A doctrine of the Fall must be concerned with the misuse of the sexual function: and with the damage caused by sin to the whole range of relationships of men and women.  The existence of sexuality is not itself a sign of the Fall nor the cause of it.

A19.  Sexuality is one of God's good gifts.  It relates to the physical, psychological and spiritual dimensions of human nature. Sexual love, including genital acts when they express that love, shares with every human activity which is creative, dedicated and generous in the divine act of loving.  Yet until recently Christian attitudes have shown little enthusiasm for the idea of sexual love as a mode of Christian living.  St. Paul's attitude is problematic, but his teaching has certainly been interpreted negatively with disastrous results.  Sexuality is not evil, nor merely a concession to the lower instincts of mankind; it is basically good, but may, of course, be corrupted by human sin.

A20.  These considerations should be related to the discussion of masturbation which has often been surrounded by negative myths and fears.  Nevertheless, masturbation is an expression of sexuality which may be helpful and healthy, sometimes facilitating sexual development.  It may be an acceptable way of release and ought to be freed from feelings of guilt.

A21.  Despite the biblical references to the joy which God gives to his children, most traditional Christian attitudes have found it difficult to accept enjoyment as an essential part of God's design for mankind.  Pleasure has been frequently equated with sin.  Since sexuality provides some of the greatest pleasures, it has therefore been most suspect.  This rejection of joy forgets the Christian understanding of the love of God, the goodness of his creation and the wholeness of human nature.  Through human sexuality, men and women know the joys of affection, adventure and discovery.  They are enriched by sharing with and reaching out to others in personal relationships.  Most obviously, sexuality results in the procreation of children.  But it clearly goes far beyond this into wider relationships between individuals, between individuals and the community, and between men and women on the one hand and the whole created order on the other.  Sexuality is an important factor in the appreciation of beauty in form, colour and action, and in the response of men and women to their environment.  Its creativity is clearly traceable in visual art,  music, dance, drama, literature, architecture and the sciences.  Sexuality is not merely useful.  It is enjoyable, purposeful and fulfilling.  It is a means whereby man and woman may glorify God and grow in the fulfilment of one another.

The way to fulfillment

A22.  Mankind is made in the image of God whose nature is love.  But men and women are also sexual beings whose sexuality is always involved in their loving.  Love does not inevitably demand overt sexual expression for in many relationships this would be inappropriate.  Love may, for example, be expressed through celibacy.

A23.  The Christian ideal of love is one in which the beloved finds fulfillment.  In Christian love there must be a mutuality between those involved.  Each gives and each receives.  Initiatives are shared.  Exploitation is excluded.  Lover and beloved confront one another, essentially different, essentially equal.  Each needs, finds and shares joy in the other.  Such love is creative, as is the love at the heart of the universe.  It restores, reconciles, heals and inspires.  It gives confidence, affirms value, encourages and transforms.  It gives strength in experiences of crisis, pain and tension.

A24.  Love is reliable and not fickle, and thus it always promotes permanence, stability and trustworthiness.  It leads to commitment.  The biblical traditions constantly emphasize this feature because they are focussed upon God's covenant love for his people, made clear in Jesus Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit.  There it is shown that love promotes pledging, covenant, surety, and that such covenanting self serves to both sustain and develop the other qualities of love.

A25.  The physical expression of sexuality may be given or withheld.  This expression may include or exclude a whole range of reciprocated sexual exchanges to the point of genital activity.  These choices face men and women.  None of the options can be regarded as good or bad in itself.  For example, the physical expression of sexuality may be withheld for negative or destructive reasons ‑‑ and the resultant abstinence is thus bad. If sexuality is physically expressed, whether or not it is expressed genitally, the goodness or badness of these choices can only be assessed by the quality of love appropriate to a particular relationship and situation.

The values involved in sexual relationships

A26.  Each human being is a deep and mysterious person who is truly known only to God.  Human love is an endless process of revelation and discovery.  It requires openness ‑‑ a willingness to be discovered and known.  It also means the uncovering of the mystery of another's being in which the beloved is increasingly known and loved.

A27.  Every physical expression of love from the most tentative to the most complete brings new dimensions to the loving relationship.  A glance, a touch, an embrace, a kiss, increasing physical intimacy and genital encounter ‑‑ the value of each lies in the quality of meaning and emotional response which it conveys and in its appropriateness to the fundamental relationship of love.

A28.  When it is the appropriate expression of love and mutual discovery, coitus is the physical enjoyment of a present union and a symbolic anticipation of that fuller union with the other which belongs to the kingdom of heaven.  Physical love provides infinite variety, subtlety and scope for tenderness, appreciation, trust and devotion.  The passion and ecstasy which may accompany true love-making ‑‑ especially in genital encounter ‑‑ are to be seen as total self-giving and not to be written down as loss of control.  They represent a revealing of oneself and a receiving of the other which lead to a brief realisation of all that their mutual relationship can mean to them.

A29.  Of course, sexual relationships can be given physical expression in ways which fall far short of these meanings and values ‑‑ and which may even destroy them.  Responsibility, self control and, above all, respect for others are essential.  The irresponsible procreation of children, the self-indulgent pursuit of sexual relations where there is neither tenderness nor affection, and the cynical use of another person for selfish pleasure inflict hurt and suffering on others.  These acts are sinful.

Tackling the practical issues

A30.  How can this understanding of human sexuality be expressed in practical terms?  On the face of it there is a strong case for providing a list of rules, both positive and negative, giving clear guidance for all situations.  We have thought it right, however, to draw attention to certain theological factors relating to the place of sexuality within the divine creation and then to extract from these factors ideals at which to aim rather than precise prescriptions.  The reasons for this decision are as follows:

(a) If men and women are to achieve perfect maturity as persons in relationship with God, they must accept the responsibility of reflecting on moral issues and reaching moral choices.  Reliance on fixed rules for every situation takes this responsibility away from the individual.  The exploration of what counts as responsible choice is an important factor in the growth of a person.  Predetermined moral conclusions inhibit that exploration.

(b) Christian morality cannot be expressed in terms of approval or disapproval of particular acts considered in isolation from the circumstances in which they are performed and the persons who perform them.  Absolute rules are impersonal, concentrate on the act itself, and take no account of particular circumstances.

(c) Absolute moral rules help towards the attainment of formal virtue, but they are inadequate if the aim is perfect love rather than formal virtue.  Faith in and love for the perfection of humanity revealed in Christ alone provides sufficient moral impetus.

These considerations do not exclude personal codes of conduct deliberately accepted by individuals nor rules adopted within particular communities.  Still less do they reject the guidance and the warnings that have come down to us in Christian tradition.  These considerations make it impossible to lay down precise rules yet essential to indicate ideals in the realm of sexuality for all Christian people.

Section B: Heterosexual Relationships with particular reference

    to Marriage

                           Preamble

Love is by its nature outgoing.  It seeks to give itself actively, and that giving may find a variety of appropriate physical expressions (see A25. above).  Of course, some men and women may choose the celibate life, but this also is a form of affirming love (see A22. above).  For the majority of men and women, however, love is expressed in heterosexual relationships, which develop before marriage, in marriage, extra to marriage and after marriage.  This section does not deal directly with all these aspects of heterosexual relationships, but concentrates almost exclusively on the marital relationship.

B1.  The Western Christian tradition has been deeply influenced by teaching which saw sexuality as the means by which sinful self-assertion was most powerfully expressed in human relations, and by which sin was handed on from one generation to another.  This meant that virginity and celibacy were specially prized as being conducive to holiness, and marriage was seen as a second best state for those who could not otherwise contain their sexual desires, but justified by its procreative capacity.  Much of this was corrected at the Reformation with a renewed stress on marriage as a high calling for all Christians, and on the family as a little form of the Church.  Yet within many Christian circles there has lingered a deep distrust of sexuality and its passionate power, and a belief that Christian morality must be prescribed in a few simple injunctions such as 'Chastity before marriage; fidelity afterwards.'

B2.  Major developments, especially in the present century, have necessitated a reformulation of the Christian understanding of sexuality and sexual morality.  The significance of sexuality for the human personality and its development from infancy into old age have now become plain (as is implicit in Section A of this statement).  There is now a great variety of sexual and family patterns in different societies all over the world.  Effective contraception means that for the first time sexual intercourse can be practised without conception occurring.  Women have been able to claim for themselves the right to determine their own roles in society with equal status to men.  Major developments in genetics have greatly advanced our knowledge of the processes by which human life is initiated.  Modern culture places great emphasis on the romantic and the erotic with a consumer-oriented society constantly exploiting the latter.  Modern society has become pluralistic, embracing a great variety of religions and world views.

B3.  It is not surprising that there is much experimenting in contemporary society with various patterns of family and sexual relationship.  Nevertheless, monogamous marriage remains extremely popular and most people believe that it can fulfil a wide range of expectations.  The State supplies extensive services to support the family.

B4.  Christians need clarity concerning the values to be sought for and upheld in sexual relationships, but these cannot adequately be expressed as a series of prescriptions or negatives.  The real task is to outline appropriate values in the field of heterosexual relationships and to indicate those patterns of behaviour which will express them most satisfactorily.

B5.  Everyone is a sexual being from birth and sexual discovery begins at that point.  Children should be encouraged to respect the human body and its natural functions so that these are not found to be disgusting.  Understanding and guidance are needed in how to respond to other people, and especially to those of the other sex.  A family life in which there is affection, trust, forgiveness, humour and loving sensitivity towards the whole person as body, mind and spirit, is the most creative setting for such guidance.  Stable relationships between their parents and between themselves and their parents are of unquestionable value in the development of children.  School, community and Church have important roles in complementing the supportive influence of the family.  The single most important factor in children's lives is that they should be able to grow in their capacity to love and be loved.  A sense of personal identity, an enjoyment of trustworthy relationships and a well-balanced development of individual personality go closely together.  During adolescence, young people need to learn how to form trusting and affectionate relationships, especially with the other sex, and to beware of causing unnecessary pain or of exposing others to rejection.  They also need help so that painful experiences may be occasions of growth.

B6.  Christians believe that marriage is contracted by the free consent of two adults to live permanently together as husband and wife.  This consent should be validated by the State as a sign that marriage is upheld by society as a whole.  Whilst such marriage is only fulfilled if it is characterized by the fullest love between the partners, its basis exists in the mutual commitment.  Its marks are mutuality, intimacy, and permanence.  Its fruits are a mutual growth in maturity, creativity and interdependence, and often in the gift of children.

B7.  The responsible practice of contraception by which children are sought at the most appropriate times in the development of the marriage and resultant family is of great value.  It enables families to be planned without diminishing the enrichment of physical lovemaking.  It is, however, obvious that some contraceptive techniques (e.g. the practice of withdrawal) interfere with natural climaxes and cause destructive frustrations.  Contraceptive methods should be mutually agreed between the partners.  Women now share with men a totally new equality of freedom, initiative and responsibility.  The consequences of effective contraception are thus not limited to physical sexual activity; they extend to the psychological, moral and spiritual dimensions of relationships.

B8.  Many couples discover that they are temporarily or permanently infertile and they should seek professional guidance. They should, however, realize the continuing importance of physical love-making as expressive of mutual giving and fulfilment.

B9.  Christians believe that marriage is intended to be indissoluble.  Not every marriage, however, possesses the qualities which make it indestructible and marriage between Christians, too, may break down.  When two persons marry, it is impossible to guarantee that their commitment will grow.  The relationship may suffer irresponsible, hurtful or even destructive behaviour by either to the other; the initial affection may degenerate; the two partners may change profoundly. In extreme circumstances, divorce becomes the lesser of the two evils and acceptable in the interests of the total welfare of both partners.  The Methodist Church does not hold that there is unambiguous legislation from Jesus which condemns all divorce nor that the Christian concept of marriage is upheld and honoured by insistence on the preservation of a markedly destructive married relationship.

B10.  Nevertheless, it is a Christian vocation to promote the full development of every marriage, to work for constant reconciliation whenever great strains are being felt in the married relationship, and to encourage marriages not to become inward-looking.  The condemnation of adultery in the biblical tradition is the negative way of expressing something of positive value.  Marriage is exclusive in the sense that it is a commitment so far-reaching that it does not bear comparison with any other commitment of either partner.  This does not mean that the married relationship should be selfishly introverted.

B11.  The value set on marriage should never be allowed to encourage an insensitive or disparaging attitude to single men and women.  Indeed, those who are married should be aware of the sense of exclusion that may be felt by single people in relation to their married friends.  Marriage should be a partnership which reaches out to others and is able to receive from others, including single people.  The capacity to love and be loved grows by being exercised by married and single people alike.  Christians believe that human love is reflection, however faint, of the universal love of God.

B12.  There are certain heterosexual acts which are normally unacceptable.  Rape is obviously one of these as it represents a major violation of another person.  Incest is another because it undermines that emotional security which is an essential basis for family life and the development of children and young people. Although polygamy is accepted in the Old Testament and even in post-biblical times, it is a sign of a society in which women are subservient to men.  True marriage is between partners who are equal in status although different in their roles and functions; polygamy cheapens women and is therefore abhorrent.

B13.  The practice of 'trial marriage' cannot be commended because the essential nature of marriage is total mutual commitment which, by definition, 'trial marriage' cannot achieve. Moreover the married relationship has far more dimensions than that of sexual activity.  Although there may be mutual commitment without formal marriage (as in 'common law marriage') formal marriage provides not only the valuable support which society confers but the enhanced degree of security and trust which it creates for the partners.

B14.  There is no blueprint within the biblical tradition or Christian history for a particular form of family life.  Certainly the contemporary privatized, two-generation nuclear family is in no way sacrosanct.  Christians believe, however, that the basis of family life should be Christian marriage and that children should be brought up in a context of emotional and affectionate security, in intimate involvement with their parents.

Section C:  Homosexuality and Bisexuality

C1.  The issues raised by homosexuality and bisexuality are complex and emotive.  Fear, ignorance and an inability to come to terms with one's own sexuality often lie behind the harsh judgements expressed (by Christians as well as others) against homosexual activity.  There continues to be a dangerous tendency to apply the term 'homosexual' as a label on another person or even on oneself.  Homosexuality has also been falsely identified with paedophilia, paederasty, transsexualism and transvestism, all of which raise different medical, legal and ethical issues.

C2.  Despite the greater contemporary openness in discussing sexuality, the media and literature often continue to portray a basically false stereotype in which the 'male homosexual' is seen as effeminate, immoral, unreliable, promiscuous, desiring only the satisfaction of physical desires and leading to the seduction of the young.  There is a similar false stereotype of the female homosexual.  The use by society of the word 'homosexual' and its equivalents carries adverse overtones absent from the use of the corresponding 'heterosexual' terms.

C3.  Homosexuality refers to a predominant and erotic attraction to a person of the same sex, which may or may not result in overt sexual relations varying from the tentative to the genital (and by no means characteristically the latter).  Bisexuality describes an erotic attraction felt equally to persons of both sexes: again it may or may not lead to overt sexual relations.

C4.  In practice people do not fit neatly into the three categories of homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual.  Many adolescents pass through a transient experimental homosexual phase which disappears with the passage of time.  Others may only become aware of their homosexuality or bisexuality after their marriage, sometimes as a result of stress.  Nevertheless, the description of homosexuality, given in the previous paragraph, indicates the issue for Christians.

C5.  Homosexuality seems to occur in all types of society, ancient and modern, eastern and western, catholic, protestant and neither, capitalist and communist.  It is found in all parts of society.  It has been tolerated ‑‑ and even approved ‑‑ in some societies, but communities in the Judaeo-Christian tradition have strongly condemned.  Surveys in Britain and the USA indicate that not less than 1 in 20 (5%) of men are predominantly homosexual.  The incidence of bisexuality is thought to be higher.  About 25% of men have had some 'homosexual' experience in their lives.  All these figures are somewhat lower for women.

C6.  Although a considerable amount of research has been done into the causes of homosexuality, the results are equivocal.  A simple genetic biochemical basis is not supported by the present evidence.  Environmental influences in early childhood, such as the absence of an effective 'father-figure' may predispose some boys towards homosexuality.  It may also be the reaction to witnessing or experiencing strident heterosexuality.  In other words, the origins of homosexuality are so imperfectly understood that it is necessary to discount all dogmatic statements about what it is and how it can be 'treated' or 'cured.'  The secondary adverse effects of being homosexually oriented in an anti-homosexual society may respond to psychotherapy, but this is unlikely to change sexual orientation.  Even in strongly motivated persons, this change in orientation is unlikely to be brought about by psychotherapeutic means.  There are those who claim that their Christian experience has transformed their formerly homosexual orientations; other equally sincere Christians have not found this to be so.

C7.  There are comparatively few references to homosexuality in the Bible.  There is doubt, too, as to whether all the passages which were previously thought to refer to homosexuality were correctly understood.  Nevertheless, the Bible has been held to express a total condemnation of homosexuality and all homosexual activities.  However, it is also true that the Bible condemns some heterosexual, as well as some homosexual acts.  Fundamentally, therefore, it is a matter of how the Bible is to be interpreted and the extent to which its underlying teaching on such themes as compassion, justice and the nature of relationships is to be understood.  Some of these concepts have been indicated in the basic statement (section A, above) and applied in the section on heterosexuality (section B, above).  Their application to the issues raised by homosexuality must now be considered.

C8.  Christians believe that all persons are made in the image of God.  They are beings whose sexuality is an integral part of their personality and its orientation cannot usually be changed. Therefore acts and attitudes which deny homosexual men and women their human dignity and basic human rights are to be rejected.  Homosexual behaviour is at one end of the continuous spectrum which goes from heterosexuality through bisexuality to homosexuality.  Homosexuality is not technically a disease, but ‑‑ like any other form of sexuality ‑‑ it can become disordered. It is not in itself a moral disorder, but some forms of homosexual (as some forms of heterosexual) activity are morally wrong.

C9.  Christians affirm marriage because they believe that within it the creative, procreative and relational aspects of human sexuality can be expressed.  Nevertheless, Christians have never asserted that marriage, procreative or not, is the only valid way of life ‑‑ celibacy, for example, has at times been valued even more highly.  It is recognized that marriages which have fulfilled their procreative character, have often failed in the quality of relationships which they ought to have created.  It is because they set a high value on relationships within marriage that Christians ought also to argue that stable permanent relationships can be an appropriate way of expressing a homosexual orientation.  This involves an acceptance of homosexual activities as not being intrinsically wrong.  The quality of any homosexual relationship is thus to be assessed by the same basic criteria which have been applied to heterosexual relationships.  For homosexual men and women, permanent relationships characterized by love can be an appropriate and Christian way of expressing their sexuality.  This open acceptance of homosexuality will no doubt present problems at different levels in the life of the church ‑‑ it obviously removes the grounds for denying any person membership of the church or an office in it solely because they have a particular sexual orientation.

C10.  It is the essence of the Christian gospel to stand by and care for those in need.  The Christian recognizes a common humanity and a personal constraint to show concern for others.  In the context of homosexuality and bisexuality this means helping those in need to discover their basic sexual orientation and enabling them to come to terms with it.  It also means encouraging and supporting those whose orientation is homosexual to form stable and lasting relationships, for men and women are made for relationships and their sexuality is involved in and fulfilled by these commitments.  It is the quality of these relationships which matters, not the physical expression which they may take.  Christians may need to counsel and support families in which one member realizes that his or her orientation is homosexual.  Christians who discover themselves to be homosexual may need special support if they are to come to terms with their sexuality and to retain their faith within the Church which has a long anti-homosexual tradition.

C11.  This section has not referred to other expressions of sexuality (fetishism and transvestism, for example) since they require specialist considerations not relevant to the general theme.  These activities present a problem which is rooted not so much in sexuality as in a distortion of understanding, a crippled self-esteem or an inability to make relationships of trust and affection with other people.  The Christian response to such needs is obviously that of informed pastoral care.

C12.  If mankind is made in the image of God, the only ultimate scandal is that of lovelessness.  Christians have been given the double commandment of love.  The acceptance of the sovereignty of love is the most valuable key to the understanding of our human sexuality, which itself is the gift of a loving God.

Resolutions:

1.  The Conference adopts the Preamble and Section A of the report.

2.  The Conference adopts Section B.

3.  The Conference adopts Section C.

4.  The Conference directs the Division of Social Responsibility to consider the preparation of further studies, consonant with Section A of the report, on such issues as:  the single person, celibacy, pre-marital and extra-marital sexual activity, sexual activity and the mentally and physically handicapped, obscene conversation, and prostitution.

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

SPUR (sper), n. a rowel with sharp points worn on the heel of a boot for urging on a horse; any incentive to action.

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

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE

I have received both wide acclaim and severe chastising for suggesting a shared pledge to Integrity, with the additional note that in those places of worst oppression, one might consider not pledging to a parish/diocese at all.  Some have cheered me on while others are horrified at the suggestion.  A few made passionate pleas that I retract my suggestion as a serious error. I will not do that, for I believe very much in what I said.  However, I may have been guilty of insufficient explanation and the tone of my letter may have been somewhat more angry than was necessary.  It was simply how I felt and what came out.  I still feel the same, although I may be able to discuss the matter a bit more dispassionately in this column.

I must note from the outset that few of you (with the exception of some of the other officers) sit where I do as President of Integrity, in touch with the more global picture of the Church's response to gay concerns.  Few of you must be intimately concerned on a daily basis as I must with how to continue to make Integrity a viable organization with a vital ministry.  Few of you deal with daily letters and phone calls that tell of the malicious oppression perpetuated by our Church, among others, that breaks the human spirit, fosters despair, and stifles the faith and spirituality of many of our brothers and sisters.  Some of you may have had such experiences, but others of you, especially some who wrote to me in anger, clearly have not.  Most of you have not had the occasion, as I have, to deal broadly with the power structures of the Church, its bishops, clergy, commissions, and committees, in any organized way, with frequent frustrations and only occasional rewards.

Many of you may well be in comfortable, even responsive parishes. A good many may even be found in dioceses with bishops who have been supportive of Integrity and its work.  Many of you have Integrity chapters in your cities which provide fellowship and support.  Unhappily, I have to deal with many of our brothers/sisters who have none of those things, none of those supports.  Some exist in isolation, others in climates of outright hostility; in either case, ministry from the Church and its agents is not forthcoming.

Some of my critics have suggested that my "strategy" is akin to those who threaten to withdraw their pledge because of the new Prayer Book.  I believe that is a poor analogy.  My suggestion about pledging stems from my strongly held view that Integrity is an alternative form of ministry, reaching out and addressing the needs and concerns of many who the Church cannot or will not reach out to.  In fact, in some cases the Church has at best ignored them (us), and at worst has driven them out.  Some among our "spiritual leaders" have both harshly and verbally rebuked those who have sought out the ministry and support which the Church should offer to all equally.  Integrity provides a unique ministry to many where the Church has failed.  Many bishops and clergy with whom I have had contact view such ministry as unnecessary and undesirable, and wish no part in supporting it.

I sat through one meeting of Integrity/Boston at which the Bishop of Massachusetts stated that ministry to gay people was about his lowest priority.  When asked if he would make a financial contribution to Integrity's educational presence at General Convention he said he would not.  And, he did not.  A General Convention fundraising appeal to more than 120 incumbent bishops netted contributions from only about a dozen (plus a few retired ones).  An unhealthy number of antagonists among them wrote "uncharitable" letters to me.  Certain dioceses, to which some of you no doubt contribute, heavily fund The King's Ministries and other such "exgay" organizations.  I have more than once tried to obtain funds for our work from various Church agencies, and always without exception to date, it has been to no avail.  Some responses I receive are so nasty, unChristian, and subhuman as to be unprintable.  The Bishop of New York once expressed shocking surprise at the hateful mail he received following Ellen Barrett's ordination, and my mail, like his, might well serve to enlighten those who believe the Church and its people to be more or less benign on this matter.

I quote one response, a fairly tame one, which came from the Wardens, Vestry, and Rector of a parish in the Diocese of New Jersey:

"Please be advised that the Vestrymen, Wardens, and Rector find your appeal not only without merit but truly offensive. Although we realize that it is the obligation of the church to minister to all, we believe it to be of utmost importance to defend the faith from [italics mine] those whose actions do not constitute a different lifestyle but are in reality sinful and an affront to God.  Be further advised that because the Rector, Wardens, and Vestry of _______ Episcopal Church find your actions abhorrent, we do not wish any further correspondence from your organization ..."

Many gay persons sit in droves in large urban parishes Sunday after Sunday, putting their hefty pledges, contributions to organ funds, donations for flowers, memorials and the like into the plate every week, dutifully supporting their parishes.  In many of those places, they are unlikely ever to receive recognition of their personhood as gay individuals, much less any ministry that is sensitive to their needs specifically as gay people.  Further, in some of those very parishes many of the gay people who worship there would be hard put to even discuss the matter with their rector.  There would likely be little room for an Integrity chapter to meet there, or for a gay Alcoholics Anonymous group or any other form of ministry to gay persons.  I know the scene firsthand, for I was in just such a parish as I have described for nearly ten years, with dozens of other gay people, feeling ever more angry, hurt, and alienated.  It was an effective conspiracy of silence, since it kept gay people "in their place," neatly and nicely.

Many such gay people call or write to me, or some other Integrity contact person, when they are in need, in pain or in trouble.  They don't ‑‑ often can't talk to their rector because ‑‑ what would s/he say?  In Denver, it was clearly Integrity not the House of Bishops or the House of Deputies, that provided support and hope to the many gay people there.  Yes, there were some woefully few supportive clergy and some supportive bishops, but more often than not they go unheard and unheeded by most of their comrades.  I believe that Integrity serves as a ministry that the Church neglects and even refuses to support, and that it is therefore, worthy of a portion of our pledge.  What cannot be obtained through the hallowed mechanisms of the institution must be obtained by means of diversion.  It might even serve as a witness to the Church in pointing out that which it has sorely oppressed and neglected.  Some have accused me of undermining the concept of "stewardship."  In my humble opinion, a pledge to Integrity is in one sense the highest form of stewardship ‑‑ it is a venture in mission to those who have long since been lost to the Church, and who might find through Integrity a way to come back to the Church as whole people.  It is a means for them of hope and renewal and reconciliation of lifestyle and faith, that some had thought untenable, if not impossible.  Stewardship, faithfully exercised, does not demand that we unquestioningly put our funds at the disposal of our oppressors and hope some day that they get around to addressing our needs and concerns in some formal and organized way that constitutes ministry.

What does Integrity need money for?  What do we do with it?  What ministry, have we?  One large focus of our ministry is educational.  I have several thousand copies of the special General Convention Issue of Integrity Forum, which I am sending out to individual parishes, particularly in dioceses where there is no Integrity presence or in dioceses where we are not well understood (read: hostility).  That mailing alone will cost over $1000.  We have provided a contribution of $500 this past year to the developing work at Riverside Church, an ecumenical lesbian/gay ministries project, which will provide counseling and develop literature for all the gay religious organizations, and will coordinate efforts to deal with homophobia in the Churches.  Last Fall, Integrity provided a $50 donation to support workshops at the first annual conference of Third World lesbians and gay men.

Another focus of our ministry is charitable.  Last month, I provided a $100 contribution to Robert Storm, who works in New York to feed, clothe, and shelter adolescent male prostitutes, finding them jobs and trying to get them off drugs.  He serves as their advocate in Court when they get arrested, tries to get them released to his custody, visits them in jail, and help them to plan new lives when they get out of jail.  He lives in virtual poverty and has received almost no support for the work he is doing.  I wish I could have given him ten times that small donation.  I know none of these things are priorities for "Church" budgets either national or local, yet Bob's work is surely an example of the needs for ministry that exist in the gay community.  For the first time this year, the Integrity Convention voted into our budget a $500 discretionary fund for "charitable" contributions to such causes.

I do not discourage you from pledging to a parish.  There are parishes and dioceses that are making an effort to respond to our needs, and are worthy of our support.  I do pledge a modest sum to my own parish at this time, but only about one third of what I might consider my fair pledge to be.  Some of the rest goes to Integrity/ Boston, some to the Homophile Community Health Service, a local mental health agency serving the gay community, some to Bob Storm's work, and so on.  It is important that we be active and participating members in the ongoing life of the Church as a witness.  But for me, Integrity and its work is a priority, and I believe it is for each of you.  It is therefore important that we give to its support

I stand by my original suggestion.  I believe in it.  I cannot retract what is a conviction, born of careful thought and long, often fruitless interaction with the structures of the Church at all levels.  Our work among our own community will not be done by others, but only as we undertake some sacrificial commitments to each other as brothers and sisters in Christ in the gay community.  If it takes a diversion of funds to accomplish our own God given call to this unique ministry within the gay community, then I must say ‑‑ so be it.  For those who sincerely disagree with me, I can and will respect your views and decisions, even as I ask you to respect mine.  I hope that I have here provided a fuller explanation of the perspective and good faith on which my suggestion was based.

Faithfully,

John C. Lawrence, President

CHRISTIAN LOVE AND THE CONCEPT OF 'MATURITY'

by Rev'd Michael Keeling

There is one assumption that is fundamental to all Christian theology, but is often ignored in the discussion of sexuality, and that is that the problem for Christians is not sexuality but love.  This is not to say that sexuality is not a problem for every individual, in the course of growing up, or for social groups which are under particular pressures.  But if the problem of growing up is the problem of integrating our sexuality into a whole personality, into the wholeness of a personality which is growing and being formed (and in a sense this is a life-long process for every human being), then the fundamental question is, "What is the wholeness of a human being?"

Furthermore I suggest that this is a question about what we mean by 'love.'  The various gay movements are concerned with what hinders or distorts the process of growth into the full expression of sexuality, particularly social pressures, and there is an assumption, with which I somewhat sympathize, that when fear and ignorance are removed, sexuality will be revealed as a good and beautiful and natural aspect of human nature.  Indeed, it is very widely recognized now that Christianity has made a serious mistake in tending to treat sexuality as if it were in itself undesirable and so making it into a problem in the wrong sense.

When this has been said, however, it has also to be said that for the Christian nothing in human life is 'natural' in the sense of not having to be raised through grace and the conscious effort of the human will into something more perfect.  A.S. Neill who founded Summerhill School, set out (in Summerhill) the concept of what he calls the 'self-regulating child,' by which he means that if from the moment of birth the child is allowed to establish its own demands ‑‑ regulate its own feeding time and so on ‑‑ and if this process is followed through consistently during the whole period of childhood, the child will become a naturally self-regulating and sociable human being.

Now, I think that there is a great deal to be said for Neill's emphasis on naturalness in upbringing and that it is of the greatest importance that we should be very critical of our present procedures of childbirth and child nurture.  Furthermore, I have to note that Neill's thought is more complex than the very brief account I have given of it can convey, involving, for example, the concept of the rights of others and the provision of an environment which is a nurturing environment.  When all this has been said, however, the point remains that in essence Neill sees human growth and development as a self-unfolding, while Christian theology sees human development as a process of growth through interaction with God, encountered both through other human beings as 'beings in themselves' and directly, in the meeting of God within the self.

ENCOUNTER

It is the form of this encounter, as the way to the full unfolding of a human being, that I want to try to describe a little more closely.

The greatest influence upon the contemporary understanding of encounter has been the work of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber ‑‑ Buber's thought poses problems, particularly in I and Thou, which is more in the realm of poetry than of philosophy, but it is worth the struggle, because Buber's claim is to speak directly of human experience.  The basic distinction Buber makes is between the word pair 'I‑‑You' and the word pair 'I‑‑It.'   I‑‑It' is when we address anything in the world as an object (whether it is a tree or a person) and 'I‑‑You' is when we relate to any other as a bearer of meaning, of grace for ourselves (whether the other is a person or a tree).  It is not the other which changes when addressed as 'It' or as 'You' ‑‑ it is the 'I' which changes.  (The quotations are from the translation by Walter Kaufman):

• The basic words are not single words but word pairs ...

• Basic words do not state something that might exist outside them; by being spoken they establish a mode of existence.

• Basic words are spoken with one's being.

• When one says You, the I of the word pair ‑‑ I‑‑You is said, too.

• The basic word I‑‑You can only be spoken with one's whole being.

• The basic word I‑‑It can never be spoken with one's whole being.

The distinction is between 'having' something (as an object) and being in relation:

• Whoever says You does not have something; he has nothing. But he stands in relation.

The encounter is a mode of being, beyond analysis or 'experience;' it does not even require a response:

• The human being to whom I say You I do not experience.  But l stand in relation to him, in the sacred basic word.  Only when I stop out of this do I experience him again.  Experience is remoteness from you.

The relation can obtain even if the human being to whom I say You does not hear it in his experience.  For You is more than It knows.  You does more, and more happens to it, than It knows.  No deception reaches this far here is the cradle of actual life.

A later paragraph summarizes this part of the argument and emphasizes the difference between 'knowing' in encounter and 'knowing' in the sense of listing particulars:

     • What, then, does one experience of the You?

     • Nothing at all.  For one does not experience it.

     • What, then, does one know of You?

     • Only everything.  For one no longer knows particulars.

Finally (so far as this account of Buber is concerned), the encounter is by grace.  The moments of encounter are rare, but it is only in such moments that I am really 'I,' that I live 'actual life.'  For Buber, God is encountered in each such moment:

In the relation to God, unconditional exclusiveness and unconditional inclusiveness are one.  For those who enter into the absolute relationship, nothing particular retains any importance -- neither things nor beings, neither earth nor heaven -- but everything is included in the relationship.  For entering into the pure relationship does not involve ignoring everything but seeing everything in the You, not renouncing the world but placing it upon its proper ground.  Looking away from the world is no help toward God; staring at the world is no help either, but whoever beholds the world in him stands in his presence.

I hope I have given enough of Buber to show the peculiar difficulty of his approach (and the full text is much more complex than this), but also to show this is an attempt to explore the great profundity of relating to another human being.

EXPERIENCE

Where the Christian approach, as I understand it, differs from Buber, is in saying that such love is not necessarily a rare experience.  The task of Christian loving is to move from a condition of existence where love is a moment, or a series of moments, to a state of being in which loving is continuous.  However much we may experience love as a series of moments, the biblical claim is that love is a continuum, a Way, a progress towards that which is possible and already exists in God, the love which is infinite.  In Paul's great statement on Love (I Corinthians 13), he makes three claims.  The first is that love requires an internal commitment -- it cannot be served by outward actions alone (the quotations are from The Jerusalem Bible):

If I give away all that I possess, piece by piece, and if I even let them take away my body to burn it, but am without love, it will do me no good whatever.

The second is that love is a commitment towards the future:  our knowledge is imperfect (of one another, of God, of ourselves), but our loving is a commitment towards the future, when we shall be made perfect:

The knowledge that I have now is imperfect; but then I shall know as fully as I am known.

The third is that this commitment is secure; the assure that 'love does not come to an end' is at the centre of the Christian faith:

In short there are three things that last:  faith, hope and love; and the greatest of these is love.

It is important to realize here that Paul is talking about all particular acts of human loving.  'Love' may be summed up in the great cosmic love of which Paul also speaks in Romans 8, but the love of God is not something vague and generalized apart from human loving -- it works in and through the human acts of love.  It is precisely this point that Paul makes in I Corinthians 12, in his analogy of the human body, in which he concludes:

... If one part is hurt, all parts are hurt with it.  If one part is given special honour, all parts enjoy it.

Now you together are Christ's body; but each of you is a different part of it.

It is this corporation that is the distinctive feature of Christian loving.  The Christian is 'justified' by faith in God through Christ, and this requires in practice only our willingness to accept membership of the circle of loving -- the Kingdom of God -- not because we have done anything to earn it, but because God loves us.  The task is then to learn to love in the same way.  Thomas Merton, the American Cistercian monk, records in Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander, the experience of realizing that he is 'a member of the human race.'

In Louisville, at the corner of Fourth and Walnut, in the centre of the shopping district, I was suddenly overwhelmed with the realization that I loved all those people, that they were mine and I theirs, and we could not be alien to one another even though we were total strangers.  It was like waking from a dream of separateness, of spurious isolation in a special world, the world of renunciation and supposed holiness....

It is a glorious destiny to be a member of the human race, though it is a race dedicated to many absurdities and one which makes many terrible mistakes:  yet, with all that, God Himself glorified in becoming a member of the human race.  A member of the human race!  To think such a common place realisation should suddenly seem like news that one holds the winning ticket in a cosmic sweepstake.  I have the immense joy of being man, a member of a race in which God Himself became incarnate.  As if the sorrows and stupidities of the human condition could overwhelm me, now that I realize what we all are.  And if only everybody could realize this!  But it cannot be explained.  There is no way of telling people that they are all walking around shining like the sun.

In his Asian Journal Merton also quotes S.B. Dasgupta on the stages of enlightenment in Tantric Buddhism:

The tenth or last is the stage of dharmamegha (literally 'the clouds of dharma'), where the Bodhisattva attains perfect knowledge, great compassion, love and sympathy for all the sentient beings.  When this last stage of Dharmamegma is reached, the aspirer becomes a perfect Bodisattva or a buddha.'

ANALYSIS

The kingdom of love is all-embracing.  It includes the whole human race, because everything that is created is already within God's love.  All that has to be done is to make this a reality to ourselves.

This, of course, is a very large 'all,' as Merton recognized.  It corresponds to what in traditional Christian language is called 'sanctification.'  I am 'justified' -- or more accurately, I am on the way of sanctification -- when I begin to be able, however little, to love others as God loves them.  The 'seeing' of Thomas Merton in Louisville and the 'compassion' of the Bodhisattva are different parts of the same experience, the experience of God in seeing the practice of compassion are called ascesis:  in the original Greek this means 'exercise, training' or 'the practice of a profession;' in Christian theology it means 'the path of spiritual development or growth!'

Erich Fromm, in The Art of Loving, draws on post-Freudian psychology, on the Marxist analysis of society and on the great world religions (though not himself a theist) to arrive at a very illuminating description of mature love and its necessary elements of brotherly love, motherly love, erotic love, self-love and the love of God.  Human development begins with infantile love, in which the child experiences being loved as 'I am loved because I am.'  Arrest of the emotions at this stage leaves the person always following the principle 'I love because I am loved.'  The great responsibility of maternal love at this stage is to go beyond the affirmation of the child's life in terms of care and responsibility for the child's preservation and physical growth, to an attitude which instills in 'the love of life,' the feeling 'it is good to be alive.'  Only in this way can the challenge of separation from the parents and of 'erotic fusion' with another be easily accomplished.  For the 'erotic fusion' of one adult with another may simply be possessive attachment, cut off from a wider love of humankind, without the possibility of creating anything new.  For Fromm:

• Mature love follows the principle:  'I am loved because I love'

     • Immature love says:  'I love you because I need you.'

• Mature love says:  'I need you because I love you.'

Hence mature love is a decision of the will:

To love somebody is the actualisation and concentration of the power to love.  The basic affirmation contained in love is directed toward the beloved person as an incarnation of essentially human qualities.  Love of one person implies love of man as such.  The kind of 'division of labour' as William James calls it, by which one loves one's family but is without feeling for the 'stranger,' is a sign of a basic inability to love.  Love of man is not, as is frequently supposed, an abstraction coming after the love for the specific person, but it is its premise, although genetically it is acquired in loving specific individuals.  From this it follows that my own self must be as much an object of my love as another person.  The affirmation of one's own life, happiness, growth, freedom, is rooted in one's capacity to love, i.e., in care, respect, responsibility and knowledge.  If an individual is able to love productively, he loves himself too; if he can love only others, he cannot love at all.

RELATIONSHIPS

The approach outlined by Fromm is enlarged from the marriage relationship by Jack Dominian (a Roman Catholic psychologist) in a new book,  Proposals for a New Sexual Ethic, which seems to me to be the best statement of a Christian view of human relationships that has yet been written.  In Chapter III, 'Person and Love,' Dominian lists three 'key words' which describe the essentials of a marital relationship:  'sustaining,' 'healing' and 'growth.'  Of 'sustaining' he says:

There is emotional sustaining which basically means security.  Security in turn means that we need to have meaning, recognition, acceptance and significance for another person who is in touch with our inner world through sensitive, emphatic communication and reacts to our needs with increasing accuracy.

Of 'healing' he says:

Beyond sustaining we reach a deeper layer of our being.  If we feel sufficiently sustained, we show consciously to the person who is showing evidence of love the wounds we have accumulated up to that moment of time.  These wounds are clamouring for healing; they are the wounds we have brought into the world through our genetic and constitutional make-up, and the wounds we have sustained in the course of our upbringing....  We can all act as agents of healing by giving each other new healing experience....  It hardly needs saying that healing cannot easily occur under circumstances of transient relationships....  This needs time, continuity, reliability and predictability.

Of 'growth' he says:

Without the presence of sustaining or healing, personal growth faces enormous difficulties....  This growth means the transformation of physical prowess to athletic excellence, of intelligence to wisdom, of feelings and emotions to sensitive awareness and generous empathic response.  In brief, growth implies availability and realisation of potential.  Availability means physical, psychological and intellectual access to oneself in an affirmative manner and hence to others....  It is essential to note that for growth we need not only ourselves but others because growth occurs in relationships.  The most advantageous growth occurs within relationships which are not overwhelmed either by the need for survival, that is to say sustaining has been met minimally, or in which our wounds are not so obtrusive that most of our energy is taken up in coping with the attendant problems....  This is not to say that we cannot learn things from others or they from us in transient relationships but it does mean that the more enduring and widespread growth occurs within relationships that allow a reciprocal revelation of the widest possible range of our inner world.

The way of sustaining, healing and growth in human relationships is the way of sanctification.  There are different answers to the problems of love and sexuality at different stages of human physical and emotional development, and also different answers suggested by human spiritual development in its different stages and various kinds of commitment, but the basic requirement is a recognition that all human life is an ascesis -- a way of training.  The commitment is to the universal compassion, so that our love to God and our love to our fellow creatures become the same love.

The way in which this can be done varies according to the human side of the commitment to be 'married,' to be 'single,' to be 'celibate' (all of which forms of commitment have validity also within same-sex relationships).  The practical requirements of these various life-styles are obviously very different.  But the fundamental requirements are the same.

SEXUALITY

The requirement first is that sexuality be recognized as a positive presence.  The second is that sexuality be recognized as needing also to be transcended -- that is, taken up into something greater than itself.

The churches have often spoken as if sexuality were to be left behind in the course of spiritual development:  it would be an equal mistake to suppose that no development is required beyond 'sexual fulfilment' (or indeed that such fulfilment is possible without integration into other sorts of fulfilment of the personality).  The New Testament idea is rather 'making new' -- the taking of the diverse elements of our material, historical life and transforming them into something more.  The Hegelian-Marxist emphasis on 'transcendence' as a break-through into a new situation which carries the elements of the old situation along with it, but in doing so transforms them into something new, is no more than a re-discovery of the New Testament idea, expressed most boldly in Revelation, that God is 'making the whole of creation new' (21.5).  The analogy between marriage and the relationship of Christ and the church in Ephesians (5.21-23) is one example of the fact that transcendence is continually at work in human life.  This transcendence, taking up human activity into greater relationships, is the 'what it is about' for human sexuality.  The 'how' of this has been much investigated for the marriage relationship and some (but not all) of what is said in that context is applicable to same-sex relationships as well.  This needs a lot more exploring, for the possibilities of transcendence are present in all relationships, but when they last and when they do not, and the first and most serious part of the 'how' is not to read about it, but to examine our own relationships (good and bad, possible and impossible) in the light of the question of transcendence and of ascesis.  Christian tradition has tended to make an either-or of sexuality and contemplation, and for some who are drawn to the highest level of contemplative prayer, this may be right.  But the contemplative life at this level is a very specific calling for a very specific purpose, and if at one boundary sexuality dissolves into the affectivity of unitive prayer and at another boundary a refusal of affection is a rejection of both prayer and sexual fulfilment, for most Christians affection is the creative expression of the self both in prayer and in sexuality (and in other forms of compassion).  The paradox of creative self-expression is that it comes about only through grace -- the grace of encounter in which God is always present in the measure in which the encounter is an authentic giving of the self and recognition of the mystery of the other.  As I said at the beginning, it is not that sexuality is in itself a problem, but that the commitment to 'encounter' makes it necessary for Christians to take their sexuality as part of something very serious indeed, which is the love of God, willing to transform all humanity into a new creation.

Rev'd Michael Keeling lectures in the Department of Practical Theology and Christian Ethics in the University of St. Andrew.

Copyright Michael Keeling GCM ISSN 0142 7296 2; reprinted with permission.

CREW EDITS POETRY JOURNAL

Swish, a biannual poetry journal, welcomes subscriptions as well as submissions.  Poems (batches of 4-6; maximum 20 lines each) should explore sexuality (gay or nongay, lesbian or nonlesbian) as essential to wholeness.  The first issue of around 80 pages is planned for Summer-Autumn 1980, with an April 1 deadline.  S.S.A.E. is required.  Reporting time:  8 weeks.  Payment is in copies only.  Louie Crew, Editor, P.O. Box 754, Stevens Point, WI 54481.  Subscriptions are $8 ($5 for individual issues).

Swish aspires to move beyond the important but limitedly phallic vision of much private, confessional lesbian and gay male poetry.  Swish will sport the entire statue revealed after the fig leaf has been removed.  Swish encourages shared visions; memorials of casual, non-genital struggles of all sexual outcasts; common ballads, anthems, odes and prayers as well as more personalized lyrics.  Swish summons the elect -- feminists, blacks, criminals, prostitutes, unrepentant Amazons, militant closet queans (sic), nellie bishops, celibate intellectuals, and all other salts -- to share here their most articulate reformation hymns.

CHRISTMAS YET TO COME

by A. Nolder Gay

From about the age of ten, when I began my musical apprenticeship as a boy soprano in an Episcopal choir, I have been immersed as performer and listener in a great variety of religious music.  At this time of year especially I rejoice in the great music of the Christmas season, from the folk carols of remote European provinces and American rural communities to the work of Bach, Berlioz, Britten, Charpentier and countless others.  Humble or great, men have been moved at this season to try to express the inexpressible, to break the bonds of human finitude in their quest to frame an appropriate response to the gift of new creation conveyed through the symbol of the Child of Bethlehem.

Nearly a quarter of a century ago I was a young army officer in New York City, free on evenings and weekends to tap the vast treasury of music, liturgy and architecture forming the spaces, sounds and movements of the Christmas season.  Of all the warm memories of that period which flow back now, the most vivid is that of the traditional service of lessons and carols at St. Thomas' church on Fifth Avenue, called by some the most beautiful ecclesiastical structure on Manhattan Island.

Recall it with me.  The soft grey limestone interior is pierced by banks of brilliant red poinsettias and by the flames of dozens of milk-white candles in their gleaming candelabra.  The littlest choristers enter, in Justice Holmes' graceful phrase, "like a flight of careless doves."  The scene breaks into its individual elements:  the solemn procession of singers and dignitaries, the space-filling sonorities of the organ, the hearty singing of the close-packed congregation, readings in the language of King James juxtaposed with carols from all parts of the world.  Sound and sight fuse into a single image, a special life-world to be experienced, then long treasurer in memory.

There is a wholeness about the Advent season which is far more than the simple anticipation of Christmas, a special beauty which goes beyond the aesthetic.  It may have something to do with the contrast between inside and outside space which becomes acute at this time of year for any Northern people.  It is dark "out there," and cold, and lonely.  Within there is light, and warmth, and people congregating in the presence of something greater than themselves, something which redeems and renews the spirit.

We as gays have known what it is to be outside, to be lonely, to be cold, to wander the streets in darkness, looking at the lights within.  We have known the feeling that we are in exile, and there has been at one time or another no room for us at the inn.

Yet Advent, the traditional beginning of the Christmas year, is also a reminder that we live in God's time as well as man's, and that we too are compassed by God's love.  Indeed, one of the lessons of the Advent carol service is I John IV, verses 7-11:  "Beloved, let us love one another; for love is God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God ... Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought to love one another."

Self-affirming gay persons have no cause to be cast down by the world, for we have chosen to come to the world as bearers of peace and good will, in some sense as carriers of the Advent message.  After the struggle of identity has been transcended and we consent to our condition, then surely God's special grace to us is the ability to love fully and freely; as a decisive act of affirmation, in a world where that ability seems to be on the wane.  If gays have any special gift to bring to the world at large, perhaps it is to act out the Advent parable of love freely given, to teach by example that the most diverse sorts of people may learn to love one another.

I trust that what I have just set down does not make me come across as either a gay chauvinist or a religious fanatic.  I do not, I think, need instruction in the unloving ways many gays relate to each other and to the world, I have been there myself.  Similarly, the shadow of over nine hundred lives snuffed out in Guyana may well recall Victorian clergyman Mark Pattison's caustic phrase, "religion is a good servant but a bad master."

Unorthodox though my path may be (gay -- politically and religiously), I try to maintain my own sacred spaces, where I can confront my own shortcomings and merge my concerns in ceremonies and activities which give my life balance, perspective and meaning.  In my eighth column, written just six years ago for Gay Community News' first Christmas issue, I wrote "An older meaning of the word 'closet' is as a place of meditation, a refuge from the world, giving one time to spin the straws of experience into what is hopefully the gold of reflection, to explore the inner dimension of meaning and value in human life.  Activism has its place, and an important one, yet it must be matched by equally intensive contemplation."

Along the space-time continuum of my life, Advent has always provoked such medication.  I can too easily get locked into a pattern of dealing with day-to-day concerns, such that their cumulation squeezes out the important things.  I must now take stock of what it is as one gay human being I might give, and why it is that I seem to give so little of it.  And I do this within the Advent context, which tells me that new beginnings are yet possible.

About this time every year I reread Dickens' Christmas Carol.  The transformation of Ebenezer Scrooge is a near-parallel to the liberation of the locked-up, cold, self-hating gay person whom we all have been, at some point in our lives.  And I think it significant that when Scrooge has been scared blue (or whatever) by the death-revealing Spirit of Christmas Yet to Come, the sign of his new life is a promise to keep Christmas in his heart all the year through.  In other words, before he can be of any earthly use to other human beings, he must first center on his inner space, and be healthy and happy within it.

The magnificent church of St. Thomas is in one sense a sacred space.  But the really sacred space is within us, that temple of the spirit informing our beings with love and with a more than cerebral sort of wisdom. The nurture of that inner space is our perpetual Advent task.  Our hearts must be prepared to keep alive the spirit so nurtured throughout the circling year.

Advent of what?  Certainly the word suggests a season of preparation, after which we must go out to interact with a world of pain and suffering.  We must deal with the assassination of a Harvey Milk, with the demonic energies behind a Proposition Six or the defeat of yet another New York City gay rights bill, with the inhumanity of an adversary system which takes a small child away from its lesbian mother -- the list is sadly long.  These things compel our commitment; they form our public agenda.

Advent, however, reminds us that we have private agendas as well, and that we must take time for our ceremonies of inner preparation.  That we may be healthy and happy in our sacred spaces, and take that health and happiness out into places where it will be a solace and a source of strength to other human beings, is the Advent prayer which A. Younger Gay and I make for ourselves and for all of you in this most sacred and special season of the year.

OPENING SPACE

by D.B. Goodstein

I was born into a religious family.  Three of my great grandfathers were rabbis.  I spent ten years getting a "religious education."  I was a star pupil in Hebrew School.  I took religion seriously.

Until recent weeks I hadn't thought about my religious education and upbringing for a long time.  The visit by the Pope, the stand of the Episcopal Church about ordination of gay priests, the behavior of the Orthodox rabbis of Israel toward the gay conference there, and the killing of gay people in the name of Islam by the Ayatolleh Khomeini have caused me to look again at the relationship between gay people and the major religions of the world.  Of them all, only Buddhism seems benign, and I didn't read about anything the Dalai Lama said on the subject of sex.

Thirty years ago I turned my back on Judaism.  Not only was I incensed at a theology that had no room for me as a homosexual; I also could not have faith in a religion that had the temerity to call its adherents "The Chosen People."  All I could see we were chosen to be was victims of persecution.  I couldn't believe in a God as angry and petty as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  It was impossible for me to take seriously a religion that in 1950 still worried about eating meat with milk, driving a car on Saturday, and women sitting with men.  At the time, over half the people on the planet were starving to death; now it's only a third.  I perceived the God of my fathers as without compassion no matter what rationalizations rabbis propounded for His ruthless laws.  Furthermore, I noticed that almost everyone who called themselves Jewish lived as non-believers 362 days a year, going to the synagogue on three days to admire the latest fashions.

I flirted with a variety of Christian denominations in those years.  I even fell in love with a priest.  What appealed to me about Christianity was its founder's central messages; "God Is Love" and "Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself."  I couldn't fail to notice however, that gay people, adulterers and divorcees apparently were not considered neighbors.  Even though Jesus clearly said to throw out the laws of His compatriots, His successors chose to ignore that commandment because it made control of the faithful difficult if not impossible.

My observation of history shows me that organized religion has been and still is about domination of other people by causing them to feel guilt and to believe they are bad and need priests to intercede for them to get better and to go to Heaven.  More people have died on account of religious bigotry than any other form of human aggression.

How dare the Pope, even in gorgeous full drag, tell me I have to be celibate all my life?  How dare the Pope talk about ending poverty in the face of his own organization's use of its economic resources and stand on population control?  How dare an allegedly celibate man tell women they have to subordinate themselves to men and not even have control over their own bodies?

How dare a 12th-century mind in a 20th-century dictator kill men for loving each other and talk about corruption?  What kind of government do we have that we find ourselves kowtowing to a Persian, sexist murderer for a few barrels of oil while doing nothing to free ourselves from the stranglehold he and a few other petty despots have on us?  If you think you have nothing at stake in the energy crisis, think of a world controlled by the Ayatolleh and you might work harder for solar energy.

How dare a conference of pompous bishops and snobbish laity say gay people shouldn't be ordained because we can't serve people's spirituality?  An Anglican Church without homosexual priests would be about as viable in the world as a beef industry without cattle.  Once I went to the ordination of a gay Episcopal friend of mine.  There were 25 priests there to celebrate the auspicious occasion.  All were gay.  I have met dozens more.  What kind of religion keeps its priests frightened and in their closets rather than standing up for who they are?  How dare such cowards think they can minister to anyone about truth and integrity?

How dare a group of bigoted rabbis clinging to a 17th-century attitude about the world, wearing ridiculous costumes totally inappropriate to 20th-century Israel and interfering with every positive step Israelis wish to take, get away with telling gay Jews they can't plant trees in Israel like every other Jew can? Survivors of the holocaust turn into persecutors and still expect respect and support.  If the Old Testament teaches Jews anything it has to be that an uncharitable, intolerant Israel cannot survive.

I am outraged by the behavior of religious leaders in 1979.  Religion is the enemy of humanity.  It separates people and teaches them to hate each other instead of celebrating the variety of people that make life on this planet tolerable.  I am bewildered by gay people who continue to go to churches, mosques, and synagogues.  They either have incredible courage or incredible stupidity.  I support their efforts to transform those institutions of persecution and suffering; they certainly have their work cut out.  May God help them.

                         /s/ D. B. Goodstein

Reprinted with Permission from The ADVOCATE, Copyright (c) 1979, Liberation Publications, Inc.

A CALL TO RESPONSIBLE ECUMENICAL DEBATE ON ABORTION AND HOMOSEXUALITY

The Commission on Faith and Order of the National Council of Churches issued this document earlier this year as a study document, not as a policy statement, and has commended it to the American churches as a means of promoting further discussion.  The Editorial Board.

Prefatory Note

Concerned as it is with all that disrupts or enhances the oneness of the Church of Jesus Christ, the Commission on Faith and Order of the National Council of Churches has watched with dismay the growing division of Christians on the questions of homosexuality and abortion.  It has not viewed the turmoil from a stance of undisturbed inner tranquility.  The same conflictive views on these two issues present in the broader Christian community exist within the Commission's own membership.  Hence it has seemed urgent that this Commission, comprising as it does the most inclusive American ecumenical group doing theology for the sake of Christian unity, assist its own members and other Christians in discovering God's will in these thorny matters.

While we have formulated these guidelines out of an ecumenical sensitivity which aspires to a more reasonable, more edifying, and more faithful handling of opposing views on homosexuality and abortion, we offer them in the hope that they will apply equally in other issues on which the Christian community is divided, though, of course, we have not tested them in every instance.

A Call to

Responsible Ecumenical Debate on Controversial Issues

The issues of abortion and homosexuality are dividing families, friends, congregations, and communities.  Polarized positions on these issues of public policy and personal behavior reflect the absence of a moral consensus in the society and the presence of conflicting moral principles.  The issues raise questions about the meaning and value of human life; individual people are affected in their private and public lives.  At the same time the issues raise questions about the common welfare and the proper use of law and the political process in preserving the civil order in the midst of moral diversity.

It is essential that such issues be discussed publicly and fully. Unfortunately, positions on these issues have become so hardened, emotions so inflamed, reason so confused that careful public debate is very rare.  Personal suffering, anger and fear disrupt human relationships.  Intensity of commitment has turned in some cases to violence.  Some see every question of the public welfare through the lens of one issue, and the abundance and complexity of life in community is then reduced to a single burning question.

Denominations and individual Christians are part of this conflict.  Here, too, there are sets of moral principles which are in tension or opposition.  Some of this diversity is simply a reflection of Christian freedom in responding to God's call to us to live according to God's will.  But there is also diversity which reflects a deep division among Christians in understanding God's will.

The unity of the Church, the Body of Christ, is a gift of God which we are called to live in fact.  There is a mutual interdependence of Christians, all born into the same Body through baptism.  We are called to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3).  Denominations and individual Christians are held accountable when division over any issue fractures or tears that Body.

We are now divided on the issues of abortion and homosexuality, as well as on the larger questions of the nature and meaning of human sexuality and responsible relationships among women and men.  Indeed this division has already undone some of the ecumenical advances of recent decades and is disrupting life within denominations and congregations.  The division reflects some deep differences in our understanding of how we are to be faithful to God's will in and for the world.

These differences dare not be ignored.  No part of the Body possesses complete and faultless insight into God's will.   Dialogue must be established and maintained.  The discernment of God's will for human beings and all creation is not a private or parochial task; it is the task of all members of the Church.  The dialogue must be carried on across the lines of denominations and differing traditions, lines which all too often act as barriers or entrenchments.

The following guidelines for ecumenical debate of controversial issues are offered in the hope that Christian unity may grow and be maintained.

Discussion of Theological and Ethical Differences

1)  Christians, by virtue of their unity in baptism, are obliged individually and corporately to discuss and attempt to resolve conflicts of theology and ethics.  The lack of widespread and intensive ecumenical discussion on divisive social issues is an offense and stumbling block to the unity of the Church; it weakens the announcement and inhibits the acceptance of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

2)  There are significant differences among Christians in their understanding of God, the whole creation, and the moral responsibility of human beings.  Christians must hold each other accountable for the adequacy and appropriateness of their respective understandings to ensure that the debate is grounded in the faith of the community.

a)  Such adequacy and appropriateness must always be tested over against these sources: the Scriptures, Christian tradition, philosophical methods and principles, scientific information and principles, and the experience of human beings.

b)  Choices are made in selecting the content from each of these sources.  In ecumenical discussion the reasons for these choices must be openly acknowledged.

c)  Much of the conflict within the Church over issues of social ethics arises when different groups give different weight or interpretation to one of these sources.  All too often, however, the debate does not reveal this level; the assumptions remain hidden.

d)  The ecumenical discussion must consider the validity and relevance of each of the sources and how each is weighed when conflicts arise.

3)  This method of evaluating stances on issues of social ethics would serve to keep the debate open and calls us beyond premature and partial answers to issues of social justice.  Fundamental conflicts in our understanding of God's will challenge the illusion of security in firm stances on these issues.

4) Discussion must be carried on by laity and clergy, women and men, young and old, in seminaries and among church leadership.  It must be ecumenical, with participants fully informed of the position of their denominations and fully aware as well of their own understanding of God, the creation, and the moral responsibility of human beings.

Public Policy

1)  Political activity which seeks to bring the social order into line with ethical convictions based on religious commitment does not violate the separation of church and state.  Christians individually and corporately have a right and a responsibility, as do all citizens, to influence public policy by participation in the political process.

2)  Political activity and decision are not an appropriate substitute for necessary ecumenical debate on theological differences with social policy implications.

3)  When extensive theological and moral differences preclude consensus on issues of public policy, it is unwise for individual Christians and denominations to advocate the closing of debate through restrictive laws.

4)  When individual Christians and denominations seek to influence public policy, they have an obligation to examine and make explicit both the religious principles and the principles of reason upon which they base the public policy they advocate.  Freedom of religion demands that public policy be based on a consensus of reason, not a consensus of religious principles.

5)  Individual Christians and denominations have a responsibility in public policy debates to use language which is a true witness to their own positions and to the positions of opposing parties in the debate.  Stereotyped notions and caricatures of people and positions must be avoided.

6)  In ecumenical debates over public policy individual Christians and denominations have a responsibility to enable various perspectives on controversial issues to be heard fairly and fully.

7)  The determination and protection of civil rights are of utmost importance.  Individual Christians and denominations must call the State to account when the rights of citizens are denied or violated.

Some Critical Issues

In the Debate Over Abortion and Homosexuality

l)  In our understanding of individual human being, how much weight should be given to physical nature and how much to emotional, social, and other characteristics having to do with the personal quality of human relationships?  In what ways are the sanctity and quality of life related to both?

2)  What is a responsible method of interpreting Scripture within ecumenical debates?  How does the Word of God challenge entrenched and competing uses of Scriptures in debates on social issues?

3)  What sources are appropriate and adequate in determining that a given behavior or attitude is "unnatural?"  Is it appropriate that scientific insights and human experience offer correctives to assumptions about Scriptural or traditional understandings of natural law?

4)  How do our differing views of nature and grace affect our stances on abortion and homosexuality?  With respect to social ethics, in what way is human nature, including reason, affected by sin, and what effect does grace have?

5)  How can the experiences of women be constitutive of a more inclusive understanding of the nature of human sexuality?  How can we correct the long tradition that masculinity is normative for human nature?

6)  Is our understanding of human nature too much a function of scientific definitions?

7)  Can we reach agreement on the nature and role of reason discerning justice in public policy questions?  Does reason discern an objective moral order in the universe?

8)  What considerations should be taken into account in deciding that an immoral action should also be illegal?

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

Woodcut of King David with harp, the first full-page almanac illustration in America from Russell's Cambridge Almanack for 1684.  Reprinted in Early American Almanacs, by Marion Barber Stowell

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

"WHAT ARE WE TO DO?"

by Malcolm Boyd

We who are Christians and gays stand in total crisis between the anti-religious elements of the gay movement, on the one hand, and the establishment church of organized religion, on the other.

The crisis has come home to me very, very personally during the past months which saw the publication of my sexual-spiritual autobiography, Take Off the Masks.  The response of the anti-religious elements of the gay movement was epitomized in a review that appeared in New York's Soho Weekly News.  It said:  "Boyd has pulled off a mask, but he's replaced it with a shroud ... I cannot accept Boyd as an out of the closet homosexual ... He is a cripple leaning on a crutch of sincerity ... He has tried and judged the world's case against his nature, and won.  For Boyd to claim this discovery and yet remain in the church, calling his triumph Jesus' work ... this is not coming out."

The response of the establishment church of organized religion took the form of an attempt by a prominent bishop to have me brought to church trial, and deposed from the ministry, because I am an open gay and a priest, and because I live openly with a gay lover.  Other church harassment, often of an inquisitorial nature involving anonymous accusations that I was asked to legitimize by responding to them, followed.

So, the establishment church, that glibly speaks of hating the sin but loving the sinner (both of these, by its own traditional definitions) ends up showing hate, not love.  The church, which claims to want to welcome, dialogue ‑‑ does not even permit it.  The Episcopal Church's Standing Commission on Human Affairs and Health, which wrote a report on homosexuality for the September General Convention in Denver, chose not to list Take Off the Masks in its bibliography on human sexuality.  The book, in other words, does not exist.  The life of a gay priest, one of its best-known clergy who wrote Are You Running With Me, Jesus?, never happened.  There can be no dialogue between Father Boyd, and the church of which he is a member and a priest, about his being gay.

One is caught between the pit and the pendulum, the anti-religious elements of the gay movement (bitterly, vehemently anti-religious) and the anti-gay church (bitterly, vehemently anti-gay).  For those who think I may exaggerate, listen to this ‑‑ to the dreadful, if misunderstood, cruelty in it:  The Anglican bishops of Canada have decided to allow admitted homosexuals to be ordained priests, but they must promise "to abstain from sexual acts with persons of the same sex."

What are we to do in this moment of our greatest crisis?  Let me say: It is a blessing, because it forces us to define ourselves. I must say to the establishment church, for example, that I am not afraid of my sexuality; I will not be a hypocrite about it; I accept it as a gift from God; I will not lie or lead a double-life; not two beds in two bedrooms, but one bed in one; I will not act as if sex is unimportant in my life or as if I am dismissing it.  I want to be known, I want to know ... God ... and other people ... and one whom I especially love.  I seek to fuse the intense sexual need and deep seriousness that are parts of me, with love and responsibility.  Increasingly, for me, this points to a relationship with a lover that absorbs all of our sexual longings and love-longings into mutual oneness.

I must say to the gay movement that I bring my uniqueness as a Christian to it.  The early church became caesaro-papist when it altered its own unique insights and values, and became an arm of the state.  The gay Christian must not alter her or his unique insights and values and become an arm, politically, of the gay movement.  We will agree with the movement about some things, disagree with others ‑‑ but our basic responsibility is never to the gay movement; it is always to Jesus Christ.

The establishment church is often anti-God, anti-Christ, in its actions toward blacks, Jews, gays, the rights of women, the question of militarism.  The gay movement is a melange of diversities, including ours.  Why do the gays who cry loudest for diversity seek to deny us our own?  We shall inevitably relate to both the establishment church and the gay movement.  But we shall not court easy popularity with either.  We shall speak the prophetic gospel to both.  We shall not change our beliefs and evolving theology to win sham acceptance.  Ultimately, we will be proven meaningless, and we will be swept away as irrelevant, unless our discipleship and allegiance are to Jesus Christ.

When society (and organized religion) tell us:  "No role models!   Stay inside your closets!  Tell a lie for Christ!", our joyful response must be:  "We will be ourselves, who we are in God's creation!  We stand free in the world, for all to see!  We tell the truth in Christ, for Christ, our only Sovereign!"

NEWS

FROM THE CHAPTERS' NEWSLETTERS

All the newsletters report on the actions of the General Convention, with varying degrees of whimsy, regret, bleakness, and hope -- and mostly a mixture of them all. ··· The March on Washington captured space in a number of issues, particularly in D.C.'s Gayspring, which also includes a clergy supplement with its handsome newsletter:  education! ··· More local matters:  Honolulu reports on its Fall Retreat and looks forward to one in January. ··· New Haven pledges cooperation with MCC and Dignity/New Haven and with Integrity/Hartford. ··· Houston reprinted Regional Representative David Blalock's super report on Denver and is working with friends and families of gays. ··· Twin Cities celebrates its fine relations with Bishop Robert Anderson of Minnesota, and publishes its Constitution and By-Laws; reports elections being held in November. ··· Bloomington (Indiana), a new chapter, reports weekly meetings and visit by the co-Presidents of Affirmation. ··· New York is happy about fundraisers and responds to the filming of 'Cruising.' ··· San Francisco announces its annual chapter meeting in November and publishes an excellent review of the General Convention by Richard Younge. ··· Hartford prepares for the New England Regional Meeting in Springfield, MA, in November and is happy about its Halloween Dance. ··· Albuquerque hears that David Maulsby is leaving his convenor's job for a move to San Francisco; David reminisces. ··· Miami-South Florida reports on its Awards Night last summer and reflects on its visit from new Bishop Calvin Schofield. ··· Rochester starts a choir and sent representatives to the Dignity Convention in San Diego. ··· San Diego itself reports that its proposed constitution is ready, and gathers foodstuffs for Episcopal Community Services. ··· Denver publishes a thank-you from Louie Crew for all the work at Convention -- and Louie speaks for us all. ··· Toronto visited Rochester and reports a new chapter in Ottawa. ··· Chicago was addressed by Ellen Barrett at the November Banquet; Bill Daniels takes over as Convenor; David Williams appeared on Channel 7 in Chicago answering 'Should Homosexuals be Converted?' ··· Saint Louis indicates its strong participation in the life of Trinity Church there. ··· Central Indiana loses Co-Convenor Orlando Gustilo and lists a busy schedule.

TWIN CITIES MOVES TO CATHEDRAL

Integrity/Twin Cities has moved its eucharist and program meetings to the Jaffray Chapel of the Cathedral Church of Saint Mark, 519 Oak Grove St., Minneapolis, on the first Friday of each month at 7:30 p.m.  On the third Saturday of the month, the chapter now has home eucharists and potluck gatherings at 6:30 p.m.  Details, celebrants and topics are listed in Twintegrity, the chapter's monthly newsletter.  Visitors are welcome.

DON'T MAKE A MOVE -- WITHOUT LETTING US KNOW!

Please print--

Name _________________________________________

Old Address __________________________________

City ______________State _____ Zip ___________

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

Name _________________________________________

New Address __________________________________

City ______________State _____ Zip ___________

  Return to:  George W. Casper, 530 Massachusetts Av., Boston,

  MA 02118

JOIN INTEGRITY

Yes, I want to join Integrity, Inc. and the ____________________ chapter of Integrity.

Membership includes Integrity Forum.

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

I cannot join Integrity at this time but wish to subscribe --

[_] $17 One Year       [_] $34 Two Years Integrity Forum Only

Please send Integrity Forum in a sealed envelope for which I have enclose extra --

[_] $5   One Year                   [_] $10 Two Years

In addition to the above, $____________ is enclosed as a contribution to Integrity. 

Total amount enclosed $________________.

Chapter dues are not included in these membership amounts.

Date Submitted____________________________________

Name______________________________________________

Address___________________________________________

City State & Zip__________________________________

[_] The above is a name/address change/correction.  (These will not be processed unless your dues are current.)

Foreign respondents please remit in U.S. funds only.   

Return this entire form (with the printed label on the back) to your local chapter if you are a chapter member or wish to join a chapter.  If you are a member-at-large (no chapter affiliation) or if there is no chapter near you, return form to:

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

All information sent to us will be kept confidential.

Contributions to Integrity are now tax deductible.

LOCAL CHAPTERS

                      New England Region

David Walker, Regional Rep., 30 Woodland St., Hartford, CT 06105

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

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

INTEGRITY/NEW HAVEN, P.O. Box 1777, New Haven, CT 06507.

INTEGRITY/BURLINGTON, P.O. Box 11, Winooski, VT 05404.  Convenor Bruce M. Howden, Phone 802/879-6811

INTEGRITY/MONTREAL, 305 Willibrord Av., Verdun, Quebec, Canada H4G 2T7.  Convenor G. Eric Hill.  Phone 514/766-9623.

                      Mid-Atlantic Region

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

* INTEGRITY/ALBANY, 23 Knights Bridge, Guilderland, NY 12084.  Convenor Bill Reedy, Jr.  Phone 518/456-3843.

INTEGRITY/NEW YORK CITY, G.P.O. 1549, New York, NY 10001.  Sister Brooke Bushong, C.A., President.

INTEGRITY/PHILADELPHIA, 417 S. 43rd St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. Convenor David M. Lauer.  Phone St. Mary's 215/386-3916.

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

                       Southeast Region

Roger H. Conant, Regional Rep., P.O. Box 13603, Atlanta, GA 30324.

INTEGRITY/ATLANTA, P.O. Box 13603, Atlanta, GA 30324.  Convenor Roger H. Conant. 

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

INTEGRITY-DIGNITY/RICHMOND, 2708 Hanover Av., Apt. 10, Richmond, VA 23220.  Convenor Bob Swisher.  Phone 804/353-4556.

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

* INTEGRITY-DIGNITY/TAMPA BAY.  P.O. Box 3306, Tampa, FL 33601.  John Guzi, President.  Phone 813//397-4659.

                       Gulf Coast Region

David Blalock, Regional Rep., c/o Episcopal Integrity/Houston, P.O. Box 66008, Houston, TX 77006.

* INTEGRITY/DALLAS-FT. WORTH, 3100 Hamilton #109, Ft. Worth, TX 76107.  Convenor Robert Williams.  Phone 817/870-9031.

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

* INTEGRITY/NEW ORLEANS, 722 N. Hagan, New Orleans, LA 70119.    Convenor Rev'd Bil Richardson, Jr.  Phone 504/899-2549.

                      Great Lakes Region

Horace Lethbridge, Regional Rep., 35 Wellesley St., Rochester, NY 14607.  716/442-2986.

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/OTTAWA.  St. Georgeis Church, 152 Medcalfe, Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1N9 Canada.  Rev'd Alan Gallichan, Chaplain.  613/257-3178 or 613/257-1477.

INTEGRITY/TORONTO, 650 Parliament St. #717, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4X 1R3.  Convenor Alex Wilson-Hyde.

                        Midwest Region

Carol L. Hodges, Regional Rep., 795 Middle Dr., Woodruff Pl., Indianapolis, IN 46201.

* INTEGRITY/BLOOMINGTON, 701 Hawthorne Ln., Bloomington, IN 47401.  Contact Rev'd James K. Taylor.  Phone 812/334-2921.

INTEGRITY/CENTRAL INDIANA, P.O. Box 68290, Indianapolis, IN 46268.  Convenor Carol Hodges, Phone 317/637-8368.

INTEGRITY/CHICAGO, P.O. Box 2516, Chicago, IL 60690.  Convenor Bill Daniels.  Phone 312/386-1470 or 312/829-4368.

INTEGRITY/MADISON, P.O. Box 5641, Madison, WI 53705. 

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

INTEGRITY/SOUTHERN OHIO.  5449 Hamilton Av., Cincinnati, OH 45224.  Co-Convenors Neil Artman and Bob Diehm.

INTEGRITY/TWIN CITIES, P.O. Box 3570, Upper Nicollet Station, Minneapolis, MN 55403.  Convenor Marc Messerich.  Rev'd John Rettger, Chaplain.  Phone 612/784-3330,9 am - Noon M-F.

                    Mountain States Region

Chuck Jones, Regional Rep., 1600 Lomas NW, Albuquerque, NM 87104.

INTEGRITY/ALBUQUERQUE, P.O. Box 4996, Albuquerque, NM 87106.  Convenor Chuck Jones.

INTEGRITY/DENVER, 1734 Washington Street, Denver, CO 80203.  William Whitlock, President.  Phone 303/831-4604.

INTEGRITY/SALT LAKE CITY, P.O. Box 11315, Salt Lake City, UT 84111.  Convenor Lelia H. (Lee) Baldwin.  Phone 801/521-3876.

                        Pacific Region

Connie Cohrt, Regional Rep., 629-1/2 Burnside, Los Angeles, CA 90036.

INTEGRITY/HONOLULU, St. Andrew's Cathedral, Queen Emma Square, Honolulu, HI 96813.  Convenor Bill Potter.  Phone 808/537-9478.

INTEGRITY/LOS ANGELES, 500 S. Los Robles, #101, Pasadena, CA 91101.  Convenor Bill Giles.

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

INTEGRITY/SAN FRANCISCO, P.O. Box 3339, San Francisco, CA 94119.  Convenor Rev'd Susan Bergmans.  Phone 415/525-2459 or 415/776-5120.

* INTEGRITY/VANCOUVER, Box 34161, Stn. D. Vancouver, British Columbia V6J 4N1, Canada.  Convenor William Wood.  Phone 604/738-7731.

* 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.