INTEGRITY FORUM

FOR GAY EPISCOPALIANS AND THEIR FRIENDS

c Integrity, Inc. 1979   ISSN: 0095-2184

Volume 5  Number 4   May - June 1979

INTEGRITY FORUM

Managing Editor:  David R. Williams. 

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

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

INTEGRITY FORUM:  FOR GAY EPISCOPALIANS AND THEIR FRIENDS is the official 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 $10 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 George W. Casper, 530 Massachusetts Av., Boston, MA 02118. 

THE GAY CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT

by Giles Hibbert O.P.

IT IS ONLY WITH THE DECLINE of the social and moral influence of the Church that sexual deviancy from the norm has become to any extent accepted by our society, just as agnosticism or even atheism is now accepted without moral stigma being attached to it ‑‑ as long, that is, as the latter is not directly linked to a commitment to rid our society of its intrinsic or parasitic injustices.  Sexual normalcy, allied in many ways to social conformity, is in fact so much an aspect of Christian traditional teaching that it would seem to be a radical part of it ‑‑ there are in fact many Christians who would believe this and many more who will have accepted it unthinkingly and who will probably also have accepted that this whole subject is not one which we should be openly talking about.  So in this context it comes as quite a shock to find an organised group of committed Christians declaring their conviction that "it is entirely compatible with the Christian faith not only to love another person of the same sex but also to express that love fully in a personal sexual relationship" ‑‑ part of the Statement of Conviction made by all members of the Gay Christian Movement.  No wonder the Festival of Light campaign against the Movement; no wonder preachers fulminate against and denounce it, citing God's judgment on Sodom, or Paul's 'clear' condemnation of homosexuality; no wonder, if this is going on within it, the Church is losing, or has lost its right to be respected and to be seen as a guide and arbiter of men's mores.

The Gay Christian Movement is not, however, made up of people concerned for their own self-indulgence, nor is it involved in any form of special pleading.  It is concerned precisely with the reality of our existence as human beings, and with the relation of all men and women to God.  It is thus an association of Christians ‑‑ not all members are necessarily themselves gay ‑‑ who believe that "human sexuality in all its richness is a gift of God, gladly to be accepted, enjoyed and honoured as a way of both expressing and growing in love, in accordance with the life and teaching of Jesus Christ" (again from the Statement of Conviction); they further believe that neither God nor nature impose arbitrary patterns upon men and women, and their experience has taught them to recognise the validity and integrity of actions not understood by those who both do not share their experience and have in effect undergone subtle and pervasive indoctrination.  They do not believe that the Church's tradition with regard to homosexuality has been properly thought out or formed according to true Christian principles; they do not believe that the texts habitually cited from Scripture in condemnation are adequately interpreted, or in fact generally approached without what can only be called gross prejudice, and moreover they recognise, again from their own very acute experience, that countless numbers of people have been wounded, damaged, even seriously maimed, by the Church's traditional attitude ‑‑ even at times when what is taught is moderated or even dominated by apparent compassion.

In this overall context the Gay Christian Movement has a number of tasks and aims, not all of which unfortunately are easily compatible.  First of all it has to support, encourage and give security to those who have already been harmed by the pressures and tensions caused by both Church and society with regard to their sexuality; and these probably constitute the majority of its membership.  These are the people who will not really appreciate any militant role for their Organisation, will not easily tolerate anything which looks like rocking the boat or stirring up hostility against them.  But if it should succumb to these pressures the Movement will lose its own validity, because for this to have reality it must exert its energies towards undermining and eliminating the source of this insecurity and the harm done to human lives which has brought it about.  The Gay Christian Movement, to have any fundamental validity or long-term effectiveness, must challenge, along with other gay liberation movements, the dimensions of our society which perpetuate this situation, and, in its own right, the theological assumptions and ignorance which are continually presented as being the Christian faith in this area.

The Movement has, however, another potential enemy within its own  ranks.  When people are forced into a ghetto or into a corner, they tend to take refuge from the fundamental unbearability of their situation either in anger or in fantasy, in commitment or escapism.  It is this latter element which, when combined with dramatic sensibility (or probably the lack of real, or creative, sensibility), produces a form of 'camp' which characterises a great deal of the remnant of traditional Christianity.  Our churches are full of it:  young and wishfully young, often decorative or self-consciously beautiful men (but not yet women) camping it up in surplice, cassock or even mitre.  Everything is acceptable as long as one is never quite open or honest about it; for if one is, the fantasy breaks up and one is faced with unbearable reality ‑‑ unbearable, that is, if one is not prepared to take oneself seriously, and do something real about it.  What the Gay Christian Movement must fully realise, indeed perhaps what the Church must realise, is that it is not effectively in the theatre but in the arena.

Within this context the tasks and role of the Movement, which impinge heavily not only upon itself but upon the whole of the structure of our society, are particularly the following.  It has first to develop its own selfconsciousness, to understand itself so as to be a genuine agent for supporting, and not just propping up, others.  It has, as I have already mentioned, to engage in serious theological research and education to investigate, often enough in the face of hard and congealed tradition as well as hostility, the real dimensions of Christianity's understanding of sex and sexuality, and a real understanding of the meaning and significance of its Scriptures.  Bus perhaps more than anything else it is necessary for the Gay Christian Movement to investigate and understand the power structures which both make it a necessity and effectively control what it is able to do.  In Gramsci's historic study of hegemony he investigated the power structures which effectively made the worker think that he was being served and made well off by the system that exploited him, the psychological factors which were used to ensure his continued subservience, and so on, and thus added a new dimension to social analysis.  In a similar way it is necessary for any gay movement, and particularly a movement within the organisation which has most effectively wielded this power, to come to grips with its actuality, to attack the forces which have led gay people to despise themselves and their sexuality, even completely to deny it and take refuge in dishonesty, fantasy and cynicism; the forces which have imposed upon men and women a concept of sexuality which is destructive and neurotic, because inadequately human ‑‑ to attack those forces, this use, abuse, or rather actuality, of power, at the level at which it operates.  In the strictest sense this task is a subversive one; the engagement which it involves is not simply with regard to religion, but with the whole structure of our society, its cultural and material dimensions, and the forces which control them.  Whether the majority of its members are happy with it or not, the Gay Christian Movement is a revolutionary movement or it is nothing. If it can find and develop its role here, it has a future.

Reprinted from the Newsletter on ONE for Christian Renewal, a progressive Ecumenical pressure group in Britain.

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE AMERICAN CHURCHES:

LEARNING FROM EXPERIENCE

by David S. Blix

In September of 1979 the General Convention will meet in Denver and will debate the report on homosexuality and ordination submitted by the Joint Commission on Religion and Health in Human Affairs.  Judging from the experience of other Christian denominations in this country, we may expect the debate to be difficult and fierce.  But in this case Episcopalians have an advantage:  the others have gone first.  Accordingly, we may do well to learn from their experience.  One way of doing this is to take a comparative and analytical look at some of the study documents prepared by these denominations in the past six years. I am thinking in particular of the studies done by the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, by the Disciples of Christ, by the United Church of Christ, and by the Roman Catholics.  From these four studies we may be able to learn some lessons about how to interpret our own.  Of the four studies, two ‑‑ the Presbyterian and the Disciples ‑‑ deal specifically with homosexuality.  The other two ‑‑ the United Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic ‑‑ deal with sexuality as a whole.  Let us look at each in turn.

The Presbyterian study was the work of a Task Force to Study Homosexuality, consisting of nineteen members, and appointed in September of 1976 at the direction of the 188th General Assembly in Baltimore.  The task force transmitted the completed report to the 190th General Assembly, which met in San Diego, in May of 1978.  The occasion for the study was quite specific.  In 1975 the Presbytery of New York City, unable to ascertain whether a self-acknowledged homosexual candidate was eligible for ordination, asked the 188th General Assembly to provide definitive guidance.  The Assembly in turn mandated the task force to take Scripture as the norm of its study, observing that "there is always more light to break forth from the Bible through the work of the Spirit" (D-32).

The report opens with a brisk review of the current findings of the empirical sciences on homosexuality.  One might object at once that this is already to displace Scripture as the norm of the study.  But the task force seems to be making a simpler point before one can apply the normative teaching of Scripture to any phenomenon, one must identify what the phenomenon is.  In this case, the review is markedly post-Bieberian and post-Kinseyian.  For while citing the work of these men in due course, the task force finds its guiding principles in the work of John Money, Patricia Tucker and Anke Ehrhardt (in biology and psychology) and the work of William Simon and John Gagnon (in psychology and sociology).  For our purposes, we summarize their work in six points.  First, following Money, Tucker and Ehrhardt, we must distinguish at least three criteria of sexual identity: gender identity (one's inner sense of being male or female), gender role (one's outer enactment of the inner sense as masculine or feminine), and sexual orientation (one's erotic attraction to males or females).  There is no empirical confusion in saying, for instance, that a woman has a female gender identity, a feminine gender role, and a lesbian sexual orientation.  Second, these three dimensions of sexuality are not biologically innate, but are psychologically learned ‑‑ determined by a "continual interaction of heredity and environment" (D-13).  Third, scientists are not agreed on what psychological causes determine these three dimensions.  That is, the original causes of homosexuality in childhood remain unexplained.  Fourth, following Simon and Gagnon, we may say that, even though the original causes of homosexuality in childhood remain unexplained, the patterns of homosexuality in adulthood may be explained.  They may be explained as a result of the "social structures and values that surround the homosexual after he becomes or conceives of himself as homosexual" (D-20).  Fifth, these social structures and values generally tend to make the pattern of adult homosexuality one which is marginal to the larger society.  Sixth, this pattern may change when homosexuals take the initiative, move from the margins, and strike up a dialogue in the centers of society itself, such as in the church.

Now, it is only once they have made this point that the task force goes on to recount the circumstances in the Presbytery of New York City in 1975.  Indeed, I would be tempted to say that precisely because the Presbyterians began their report in this way ‑‑ grasping the social and public dimensions of homosexuality ‑‑ they were really able to hear the candidate, and to grasp his self-acknowledgement as an invitation to serious theological reflection, rather than as an unwanted intrusion of private concerns into the life of the church.  Only then do they turn, in the second section of the report, to consider Scripture.

The consideration of Scripture includes any exegesis of Biblical texts, and a discussion of the problems and models of Biblical authority and interpretation.  The exegetical survey covers three Old Testament and three New Testament texts.  On the story of Sodom and Gomorrah they take what we call a middle interpretation.  A traditional interpretation would be that the story refers to homosexuality as such, and that homosexuality as such is the sin in question.  A broad interpretation, like that proposed by Bailey in 1955, would be that the story does not refer to homosexuality at all.  A middle interpretation holds that the story does indeed refer to homosexuality, but only to homosexual rape, and that the rape ‑‑ as a sign of inhospitality ‑‑ is the sin for which the cities are punished.  In Deuteronomy 23:17-18, the task force dismisses it as a mistranslation to read "Sodomite" for kadesh (male cult prostitute), since the cults in question were fertility cults, and since it is hard to imagine what role a fertility cult might assign to a homosexual.  On the Holiness Codes in Leviticus, the task force observes that the criterion of holiness here is the avoidance of tebel (mixing, confusion), and that the Codes are thus an early midrash on the orders of creation in Genesis 1-2.  Hence the Codes condemn homosexuality as a confusion of the orders of male and female, just as they condemn the eating of pigs as a confusion of the orders of "having cloven hoofs" and "not chewing the cud."

In Romans 1:26-27, observes the task force, Paul unequivocally ranks homosexuality as one of the marks of the pagan self.  It is a symptom of Gentile idolatry, which is contrary to the order of creation, even if it is no more condemnable than Jewish self-satisfaction over keeping the law.  In I Corinthians 5-6, Paul commends the new freedom of Christ, and, as a typical Hellenistic Jew, catalogs some of the pagan types which that freedom excludes.  Among them are two groups of people who in Greek are referred to as malakoi and arsenokoitai, but whom the Christian Biblical tradition has taken to be homosexuals of passive or active sorts.  Citing the (as of yet unpublished) work of John Boswell at Yale, however, the task force observes that there are good, though by no means definitive, grounds for translating malakoi as "the dissolute" and arsenokoitai as "male prostitutes."  The same translation is possible in I Timothy 1:1-11, and in each case, it eliminates any reference to homosexuality.

From the exegetical survey, the task force reaches a modest but important conclusion:  Scripture gives no clear and definitive guidance on homosexuality.  At best it raises a series of questions, and, as a task force sees it, all these questions converge in one:  What is the relation between the ancient Israelite view of orders of creation and the Christian view of the creative, sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit?  For example, if "Paul counseled women, Greeks, and slaves to receive sanctification within their given estate," and "if Paul were to understand that many homosexualities in our society are given estates, would he counsel those particular homosexual persons to receive sanctification outside their given estate rather than within it?" (D-62).  Obviously this is to pose the question in its most radical form.  Unitarian opinions of all sorts might fancy that the power work of the Spirit should be either to reiterate or to abolish earthly estates, rather than sanctify them.  But the task force scorns such fancy, and takes the doctrine of the Trinity with full seriousness.

How, then, are these questions to be answered?  The task force does not say in so many words.  Rather it presents four distinct models of Biblical authority and interpretation on which it believes to be prevalent in the church at the present time.  It documents these four models in great detail, but we shall settle for a paraphrase.

Model A holds that Scripture and the guidance of the Spirit may not disagree, that they are unconditioned by historical context, and that Scripture unilaterally provides the objective standard by which to distinguish the guidance of the Spirit from mere human experience.  Model B holds that Scripture and the guidance of the Spirit may not disagree, but that Scripture may be conditioned by its historical context, and that therefore Scripture unilaterally provides the objective standard, not simply for distinguishing the guidance of the Spirit from human experience, but for discerning the guidance of the Spirit in human experience.  Model C holds that Scripture and the guidance of the Spirit may not disagree, that Scripture may be conditioned by its historical context, but that therefore Scripture and the guidance of the Spirit are related dialectically rather than unilaterally, and that the Spirit may as much illumine Scripture as be illumined by it.  Model D holds that neither Scripture, nor the guidance of the Spirit, nor both in dialectical relation, can fully reveal the Word of God who is Jesus Christ, that therefore neither is any less or any more authentic a witness to Christ than human experience, and that the principle in experience for discerning any witness to Christ is the "principles of God as active love, creating, responding to need, and liberating" (D-66).

The application of each of these models to homosexuality follows suit.  Adherents of Model A condemn homosexuality as a sin, for which homosexuals alone are responsible, and for which they should repent.  Adherents of Model B condemn homosexuality as sin, but one in the genesis of which heterosexuals fully participate, and which is to be met by gentle admonitions to continence or conversion.  Adherents of Model C reason that, although human beings are biologically equipped for heterosexuality, they are not thereby determined for it, and that they have a capacity for freedom of choice.  But, unlike adherents of Model A, who infer that free choice means repentance, adherents of Model C infer that it means we may respond in a free but disciplined way to divine commands, and that this response is a freedom for creating new structures in oneself and one's society.  Adherents of Model D infer that free choice means freedom from old oppressive structures, and that the basis for this freedom is the principle of active love.  Adherents of both Model C and Model D hold that homosexuality reflects this freedom, and is therefore not a sin.

These, then, are the four models.  The task force casts its concluding recommendations in their mold.  The majority report, along the lines of Models C and D, sees no impediment to the ordination of self-acknowledged homosexuals.  The minority report along the lines of Models A and B, does see an impediment.  As I suppose everybody by now knows, the 190th General Assembly did not accept the majority report, and drafted a compromise version of the minority report which prohibited presbyteries from asking candidates if they were gay, but which also prohibited presbyteries from ordaining candidates who acknowledged that they were gay.

Turning to the "Study Packet on Homosexuality and the Church," put out in 1978 by the Disciples of Christ, we confront a very different kind of document.  Our particular concern here is with one item in that packet.  "Study Document No. 7750," on which the Disciples voted at the General Assembly in October 1977.  Unlike the Presbyterian study, the Disciples study is preliminary in aim and brief in scope.  Also unlike the Presbyterian study, it follows a different order of argument.  The Presbyterians, as we saw, began their study with a look at the empirical sciences.  The Disciples, begin by turning at once (and, no doubt in good Disciples fashion) to Scripture, postponing their look at the empirical sciences till later.  In doing so, however, they unwittingly split their exegesis into two parts, and the two parts are not, as one might expect, about heterosexuality and homosexuality respectively, but about human sexuality and homosexuality.  Naturally, this split introduces a bias, and means that the Disciples effectively treat heterosexuality alone as the properly human form of sexuality, thus as the sole context for understanding homosexuality.  The first part of the exegesis notes that humanity is created male and female, that the Biblical view of sexuality is celebrative rather than ascetic, and that sexual love should be secondary to the primary qualities of agapeic love ‑‑ faithfulness and responsibility.  The second part of the exegesis discusses the specific passages on homosexuality (with the implicit assumption that these are the only passages that bear on homosexuality), and parallels the exegesis of the Presbyterian study with two exceptions.  On Sodom and Gomorrah, they follow the broad interpretation of Bailey, and on Deuteronomy they accept the homosexual translation of kadesh.

Having dealt with Scripture, the task force moves on next to the empirical sciences, and a look at the cultural, physical, and psychological aspects of homosexuality.  Negatively, they argue that the pathological aspects of homosexuality result from a lack of social opportunities to develop relationships.  Positively, they argue that to provide such opportunities would diminish the pathology in homosexuality, without diminishing the frequency of heterosexuality.  But the odd thing about these arguments is that, while they suggest the task force would have wanted to examine the sociological aspects of homosexuality directly, this is just what it does not do.  Perhaps this is because a sociological theory of homosexuality (such as we find in Simon and Gagnon) would also require an active theory of sexual learning, according to which homosexuals acquire their orientation through an interaction with society that is intelligent and partly self-initiated.  The task force, however, seems to prefer a passive theory of sexual learning, according to which homosexuals acquire their orientation largely through the influence of society, with only minimal initiative on their part. That is, the task force favors the work of Kinsey, whose rating scale suggests the fluidity of human sexual response, and Hooker, who regards human sexual response as easily malleable by external factors.

In conclusion, the task force borrows from James Nelson, and cites four possible stances that heterosexuals might take toward homosexuality.  First, there is a rejecting-punitive stance, which is the traditional one.  Second, there is a rejecting-non-punitive stance, which is the one favored by Barth.  Third, there is a stance of qualified acceptance, which is the one favored by Thielicke.  Fourth, there is a stance of full acceptance, which is the one favored by Pittenger, McNeill, and Nelson himself.  In comparing the four stances of the Disciples study with the four models of the Presbyterian study, we see that they do not quite match.  These is no model in the Presbyterian study which matches the first stance in the Disciples study.  The second stance matches Model A, the third stance matches Model B, and the fourth stance matches Model D, with its emphasis on freedom from structure, and the principle of love.  There is no stance in the Disciples study which matches Model C in the Presbyterian study, with its emphasis on freedom for structure, and the principle of discipline.  This, I suppose, is not surprising.  It is in accord with the split between the homosexual and the human, and the passive theory of sexual learning.  For it is difficult to conceive of homosexuality in terms of structured freedom, if one does not regard the homosexual as fully human, or as capable of personal initiative.

The United Church of Christ study and the Roman Catholic study, unlike the other two, each deal with human sexuality as a whole. The UCC study is the work of the United Church Board for Homeland Ministries, and was commissioned by the tenth General Synod in 1975.  It was published in 1977 as Human Sexuality:  A Preliminary Study (The United Church Press).  As a survey of human sexuality, in light of the Christian faith, it is unsurpassed.  Yet only a small part of it deals with homosexuality.  Does it therefore labor under the same split as the Disciples study?  No, I think not, and for several reasons.  One reason is that UCCers are old hands on this issue.  They published the first church-related anthology on homosexuality back in 1969 (The Same Sex, ed. Weltge), and have since moved beyond dealing with homosexuality in isolation, to seeing it as part of the fabric of human sexuality as such.  Another reason is that the ordination of William Johnson in 1972 effectively defused that issue.  And still another reason is that such fine UCC pastoral theologians as Peggy Way have been quietly working with gay men and women since the early sixties, and can now provide the first-hand expertise that any truly Christian approach to homosexuality requires.

There is one chapter in the book, however, that commands our attention here.  This is the chapter on "Psychosexual Development" It is, in my judgment, one of the best brief summaries anywhere of the current research on the formation of sexual identity.  Like the Presbyterian study, the chapter draws on the work of Money, Tucker, Simon, and Gagnon.  The guiding distinction is again that among the three sexual criteria of gender identity, gender role, and sexual orientation.  But unlike the Presbyterian study, this chapter, following suggestions from James Harrison and Joseph Pleck, links these three criteria to the other six which Money et al. have developed, and looks at all nine in terms of additional research on sex roles.  For the record, the nine criteria are as follows chromosomal sex (XX,XY,etc.); gonadal sex (ovaries and testicles); hormonal sex (body hair, breasts ‑‑ glands other than the gonads may secrete sex hormones); internal sex organs (uterus or prostate): external sex organs (clitoris, penis, labia); the sex of assignment and rearing (the sex to which doctors and parents assign the child); and then, gender identity, gender role, and sexual orientation (119).  Now, once we see all nine criteria in series, constituting a hierarchy of levels, we are in position where we can grasp what is perhaps one of the key implications of Money, Tucker and Ehrhardt's work.  The key implication, as Pleck points out, is that gender identity is principally determined by the prior criterion of sex of assignment and rearing ‑‑ the sex the parents want the child to be ‑‑ and not by the subsequent criterion of gender role ‑‑ the incorporation of masculine or feminine characteristics (118-119).  Once the child has a sense of his identity as male or female, it can incorporate whatever range of masculine or feminine characteristics it wishes.  Masculine and feminine characteristics, therefore, are very much the result of socialization, and this point is borne out in the additional research of Eleanor Maccoby, Carol Jacklin, and Sandra Bern.  The actual psychological differences between women and men are neither as radical nor permanent as commonly supposed.

Now, this implication leads us to make two observations.  First, we may observe that this implication requires us to revise the widely influential teachings of psychoanalysis on this point.  Psychoanalysis has taught that sexual orientation is learned automatically as part of learning gender identity, and that a confusion of gender identity is at the root of homosexuality, caused by a failure to identify with the parent of the same sex. But, as gay people are wont to point out in their autobiographical reminiscences, learning a sexual orientation is indeed very much a matter of adopting a particular range of masculine or feminine characteristics, without detriment to one's sense of maleness or femaleness, but very often at conscious variance with the wishes of one's parents and peers.  Yet, as we have just seen, gender identity is not learned in that way.  Thus, any correct theory of sexual orientation must distinguish not just one, but two phases of learning.  First there is a more passive phase of learning gender identity, and second there is a more active phase of learning gender role.  For homosexuals the two phases, while not confused, may not reflect one another in the neat ways that heterosexuals often expect them to.  Now, to be sure, psychoanalysis has not overlooked this distinction entirely.  Freud himself eventually came to distinguish (for men at least) between primary and secondary identifications with the father, which correspond roughly to the two phases we have distinguished here.  (See, for example, The Ego and the Id.)  But so far as I know, neither he nor his successors have explored this distinction in a systematic way in their accounts of homosexuality.

Second, we may observe that, like Freud and his successors, Money, Tucker, and Ehrhardt, do not themselves develop the implication we have noted, and so adopt a point of view on homosexuality that remains close to that of psychoanalysis.  They argue thus.  If, for instance, we find that a man acts out a particular gender role of such as receiving a man's penis) and if, as it happens, society defines the role as feminine, then the correct way to explain the outer role is to say that there is an identity inside to match, i.e., a feminine gender identity.  (See Man and Woman/Boy and Girl, Johns Hopkins, 1972, p. 146)  Clearly the UCC study suggests another line of argument.  For, like the Presbyterians, the UCCers link their psychology with sociology, and sense that the relations between individuals and their society may be more complex than Money et al. have allowed.  That is, just because society defines a role as feminine, it does not follow that the individual in question will define it that way.  There is room for his or her own creative self-understanding.  Hence, many gay men may regard it masculine, not feminine, to receive another man's penis, or, indeed, may not think about the question at all.

We come finally to the Roman Catholic study.  It is the work of a five member Committee on the Study of Human Sexuality,  established in 1972 by the Board of Directors of the Catholic Theological Society of America.  The report was received by the Board in 1976, and published in 1977 as Human Sexuality:  New Directions in American Catholic Thought (Kosnik, et al., Paulist Press).  Of the four studies we are considering here, it is the longest, and in some ways the most difficult.  The difficulty is particularly acute for Protestant readers unfamiliar with the tradition and terms of Roman Catholic moral theology.  Hence, more than with the other three studies we need to read it in its own context.  That sense of context comes only with a sense of history, and, happily, the Committee has documented that history in the first and second chapters.

Spurning any attempt to deduce a code of sexual ethics from historical facts, the Committee instead traces out a line of historical development in the Christian tradition, and then, from the line, extrapolates ethical principles for the present situation.  ln Scripture (which they discuss in the first chapter) the line of development moves from the Yahwist tradition in Genesis, which anchors sexuality in a doctrine of the goodness of creation; to the Priest]y and Levitical traditions, which prize legal and cultic purity: to the prophetic tradition, which interiorizes the law in the heart.  The prophetic tradition, as the Committee sees it, climaxes in Jesus, who taught the equality of men and women, fidelity in marriage, and the primacy of love. In Mark and Paul, the doctrine of creation fades behind a doctrine of eschatology, which excludes sexuality in the earthly estate from ultimate human fulfillment in the life to come.

In the remainder of the tradition (which the Committee discusses in the second chapter) the line develops further.  Theologians of the Patristic Period and the Middle Ages emphasized that the primary end of sexuality is procreation.  In the twentieth century, however, this emphasis begins to shift.  Pius XI in Casti Conubi (1930) recognized that, alongside the primary purpose of procreation, sexuality (in marriage) had a secondary, unitive purpose of "mutual interchange and sharing" (46).  Vatican 11 (1965) reversed the order of the ends of marriage, and made the procreative end secondary to the unitive end.  More importantly Vatican 11 proposed that the principle for integrating both ends should be "the nature of the human person and his acts" (48).  Finally, in 1975, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Declaration on sexual ethics, extended this principle to areas of sexuality outside marriage.  Thus, says the Committee, in the principle of the "person and his acts" we have the "proximate objective norm for determining which behavior is appropriate and moral" (51).  Here, perhaps, is the Committee's most valuable insight.

The fourth chapter gathers up these historical extrapolations, and works out their implications for a theology of sexuality, while the fifth (and longest) chapter proposes a set of pastoral guidelines.  We will return to the third chapter in a moment.  What, then, are the implications of taking the person and his acts as the principles for human sexuality?  First, according to the Committee, we must see that human sexuality is the chief mode of human experience as such.  It is a "force that permeates, influences, and affects every act of a person's being at every moment of existence ... at the core and center of our total life-response" (81).  Second, it is the chief mode of intersubjective experience, by which an "isolated subjectivity reaches out to communion with another subject ... to banish loneliness" (83).  Third, it is the mode of intersubjective experience that depends on the difference between the male and female bodies.  "Anatomy and physiology modify the manner in which the world is perceived and form a basis for relationship with the world" (84).  Fourth, because this is so, it is a mode of experience that depends on genital impulse and union ‑‑ "a phenomenon in which the biological difference of gender is significant" (84).  Fifth, the genital impulse is "biologically tied to procreation" and is a "given in each one's experience," so that "the reaching out to a genital encounter will be biased in the direction of heterosexuality" (84-85).  Sixth, only in the genital union of heterosexuals does the union of subjectivities have the "potential for fullest realization" (85).  Seventh, in light of the principle of personhood, we must nonetheless say that the chief mark of the person is "creative growth toward integration," and that therefore this is the purpose ‑‑ the "basic finality" ‑‑ of sexuality, not simply procreation or union (86).  Eighth, we cannot therefore evaluate the morality of individual acts from an "abstract analysis of the biology of the act," as if we could treat the act in isolation.  We must consider the act in relation to the creative and integrative person, and thus in relation to the circumstances, intentions, and decisions that surround the act (89, 91).  Ninth, by so doing, we can avoid offering moral evaluations either by the "extremely subjective criterion of sincere intention alone," or by the "exaggerated objective criterion of act alone" (51).

Now, how does homosexuality fit into all this?  We have been told that the fullest realization of intersubjectivity is in heterosexual genital union.  But we have also been told that genital union of subjectivities is not the basic finality of sexuality ‑‑ creative integration is.  At the very least, then, we may expect the position of the Committee on homosexuality to be confused.  And so it is.

The first hint of the confusion comes in the third chapter, in which the Committee sifts through the various data from the empirical sciences.  On homosexuality they cite the usual sources, such as Kinsey and Bieber.  But for the rest, their citations are oddly eclectic, as in a medieval Summa.  Some sources they omit, others they dismiss, others they read without a critical eye.  Simon, Gagnon, Maccoby, and Bern they omit, except to list them in the bibliography.  Hoffman and Hooker they cite, on the complexity of homosexual psychology, but then dismiss as probably biased by a pro-gay ideology.  Money, Tucker and Ehrhardt they also cite, but uncritically.  For they ignore altogether their nuanced hierarchy of sexual criteria, and completely collapse the distinction among gender identity, gender role, and sexual orientation.  Then, to shore up the collapse, they advance the psychoanalytic theory (citing Green and Ferenzci) that disturbances in sexual orientation have the same causes as disturbances in gender identity, and state that this theory is "especially supported" by Money, Tucker and Ehrhardt's work (73).  The upshot, of course, is nonsense.  As if to certify the most simple-minded notions of homosexuality held by the man in the street, they give us a picture of homosexuality as the mere "inversion" of traditional male and female roles (199-200). But as we saw in looking at the UCC study, the work of Money et al. carries critical implications which, especially in light of sociology, may as much lead us to revise psychoanalytic theory as to support it.  Even more importantly, this picture misrepresents the lived experience of real gay persons, who experience their sexual identities in ways far more diverse and coherent than the Committee recognizes.  And this is the crucial hint.  A picture that misrepresents the experience of persons will also very likely misrepresent the principle that we should examine experience in terms of the person and his acts.

The Committee makes good this hint in the section on homosexuality in the fifth chapter.  On Scripture they do the customary exegesis, accepting (like the Presbyterians) a middle interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah, and accepting (like the Disciples) the homosexual translation of kadesh.  Also like the Presbyterians and Disciples, they sketch out four basic positions on homosexuality.  But whereas the Presbyterians speak of models of Biblical interpretation, and the Disciples speak of stances for heterosexuals toward homosexuality, the Roman Catholics speak of approaches to the morality of homosexual acts.  The first approach, which is that of the Declaration on sexual ethics, holds that "homosexual acts are intrinsically evil" (200).  The second approach, which is that of McCormick, Kennedy, and Curran, holds that "homosexual acts are essentially imperfect" (202).  These two approaches are virtually identical with the first and second stances in the Disciples study.  The third and fourth approaches, however, have no exact parallels in either of the other two studies.  The third approach, which is that of the Michigan Episcopal Diocese Report, and Salvatorian Gay Task Force, and Gregory Baum, is that "homosexual acts are to be evaluated in terms of their relational significance" (204).  The fourth approach, which the Committee describes as the "extreme position of the Gay Liberation Movement" (208) is that "homosexual acts are essentially good and perfect" (206).

Of these four approaches, the Committee cites the second and third as most nearly compatible with the view of sexuality they have advanced in the fourth chapter.  But more to the point are perhaps the reasons the Committee marshalls in each case.  The first approach they reject, because it is biological, and isolates the homosexual act from the homosexual condition, and thus from the homosexual person.  The second approach they question, because it assumes that heterosexuality is always the norm.  The third approach they question, because "mutual love, faithfulness, and caring for one another" represent only a "basic minimum" for sexual ethics, and "is that enough?" (206).  The fourth approach they reject because, as they see it, it rests on the "extremely subjective criterion" of personal experience, divorced from historical and empirical objectivity.  Now, while the reason marshalled against the first approach comes as no surprise, the reasons marshalled against the remaining three, given the preceding argument, are truly astonishing.  As to the second approach, if before the Committee was quick to grant heterosexuality alone the "potential for fullest realization," how can they now, consistently, doubt that heterosexuality is the norm?  To be sure, they ought to doubt it.  Their arguments about the heterosexual bias of the genital impulse are decidedly specious.  Statistically, such a bias is as a matter of fact not given "in each one's existence," but at most (following Kinsey) in 90% of existences.  Qualitatively, the homosexual bias given in the remaining 10% is no less genital ‑‑ male or female ‑‑ than in the 90%.  As to the third approach, if Jesus taught fidelity and love, and if the basic finality of sexuality is neither procreation, nor union, but creative integration: then how can the Committee now say that love and fidelity are no more than minimal aspects of human sexuality?  Or are we to conceive creative integration as unloving and unfaithful?  Finally, as to the fourth approach, the Committee's reasons are ambiguous.  If they are advising us not to rely for moral guidance on the experience of homosexuals who are irresponsible, then the advice is well taken.  But if they are advising us further that we should not rely on the experience of homosexuals at all, then the advice begs the question.  For why assume that claims for the essential goodness of homosexuality must be rooted in extreme subjectivism? The only evidence the Committee cites for this assumption is an interview with Dick Leitsch, former director of the Mattachine Society of New York (hardly an extremist group), published in 1971 in a popular sex magazine (207-208).  They show no familiarity with the actual literature and art of the gay movement up to 1976.  Yet there they would have found, I think, ample evidence of concerns among gay women and men that exceeded mere self-interest, and that were well-versed in the scientific, historical, and theological literature.  More to the point, they do not discuss the work of John J. McNeill, or the later work (1971) of Henri Nouwen.  Yet both men offer reasoned arguments for a view of homosexuality in which moral responsibility figures prominently.  Thus, there seem to be only accidental reasons for supposing that a view of homosexuality as essentially good and natural could not be consistent with the "proximate objective norm" of the person and his acts.

How are we to interpret this confusion?  My hunch is that, in the face of homosexuality, the Committee has retreated on its original theological premises.  They originally proposed to interpret sexuality in terms of personhood ‑‑ to personalize sexuality.  Instead, they largely interpret personhood in terms of sexuality, thus sexualizing personhood.  They therefore fail to grasp the point, which is a commonplace to persons with any amount of interpersonal genital experience, that sexual attraction and personal affection do not necessarily coincide.  In connection with heterosexuality, this is evident from the way they make sexuality the very ontological ground of human experience, "at the core and center of our total life-response," and this, in a way that rests mainly on anatomy and physiology.  In connection with homosexuality, it is evident in two ways.  First, the very phrasing of the four approaches slants the terms. The Committee is concerned, not for the morality of homosexual persons and their acts, but only for the morality of homosexual acts.  This phrasing cannot but favor the "exaggeratedly objective criterion of act alone."  In a subtle but decisive move, the Committee has isolated the act from the person, and then, as might be expected, identified it in purely sexual terms. Second, however, even if they had kept the act attached to the person, they would probably have phrased the approaches in the same words.  For although they set aside the idea that sexuality is a monolithic biological drive, which overmasters the decisions of the individual person, they replace it with the idea that sexuality is a monolithic existential drive, presumably of "being itself."  Yet an existential drive, no less than a biological one, may overmaster one's creative and integrative powers for making moral decisions in diverse real-life contexts.  Once again every human act becomes sexual.  There is no role here for the transformative powers of human freedom, much less human freedom under divine grace.  The proper logic for a personalist theology, therefore, would be indeed to interpret sexuality in terms of personhood, but then to interpret personhood, as do McNeill and Nouwen, in terms of something else, like "responsibility" or "moral agency."  But notions such as these are intrinsically social.  They require us, as we saw in assessing the Disciples study, to pay attention to those dimensions of sexual behavior in which social interaction, and self-initiated active learning, play a part.  Unfortunately, by neglecting the sociological work of people like Simon and Gagnon, the Committee misses this point, and so, I fear, ultimately misses the properly ethical aspects of sexual ‑‑ and thus homosexual ‑‑ behavior.

We now have the four studies before us.  What are the lessons they have to teach us?  I can think of eight.

(1)  If these four studies are any indication, then, when a church body undertakes a reasonably thorough study of homosexuality, it finds that it cannot condemn homosexuality unequivocally as sin, regardless of its confusions on particular issues, or its conclusions on the question of ordination.  We may therefore take it as a rule of thumb at least that, if any other church body should submit a report which does condemn homosexuality unequivocally as sin, then that group did not in fact undertake a reasonably thorough study of homosexuality.

(2)  Scripture is properly a source of normative and historical themes for Christian life and reflection.  It is only improperly a source for empirical and scientific data on any phenomenon in the created world, including homosexuality.  As evidenced in the Disciples study and the Roman Catholic study, any attempt to begin a discussion of homosexuality with Scripture, rather than with empirical data (as in the Presbyterian study), inevitably distorts our descriptions and theories of homosexuality.  This is so, not only because Scripture may introduce cultural biases different from our own, but because it may introduce cultural biases similar to our own ‑‑ that is, a bias in favor of the universality of heterosexuality.  We then get, not the data on homosexuality, but heterosexual interpretations of the data on homosexuality, which are simply a further set of data on heterosexuality itself.  Even though heterosexuals cannot avoid interpreting the data in one form or another, the interpretations are still to be measured against the data, and not the other way around.

(3)  Our descriptions and theories of homosexuality, therefore, must be empirically based.  Even Christians have not the option of propounding theologies of fictional creatures, be they unicorns or homosexuals as popularly conceived.  These descriptions and theories, in turn, will strongly influence our decisions about which points of Christian theology we bring to bear on the issues.  As you conceive homosexuality, so will you theologize about it.

(4)  For instance, if you conceive homosexuality in terms that are largely biological and psychological but rarely sociological, you will probably be confused about the public dimensions of homosexual behavior.  You will then reflect this confusion in the ambivalent complaint that homosexuals are narcissistic (are too asocial) and that they should keep in to themselves (are not asocial enough).  You will also probably be unable to make sense of the vocal presence of homosexuals in the life of the church.  Your theology will speak of the way homosexuals are narcissistically rending the unity of the Body of Christ.  If, on the other hand, you do describe homosexuality in terms that include the sociological, you will be able to take the homosexual presence seriously, and your theology will speak of freedom, love, and responsibility, by which the entire Body of Christ may cohere.

(5)  If you conceive of homosexuality in terms that do not include the sociological, you will probably also not be able to conceive of homosexuality in terms that include the ethical.  For, as we have seen, to grasp the sociological dimensions of homosexuality is to have the insight that homosexuals are not simply the "patients" of society (in both the common and philosophical senses of the word), but also agents in society.  They interact with society in ways that are intelligent and partly self-initiated.  This insight, in turn, leads to another. The sense of self from which these initiatives spring is, for many homosexuals, not mere passing whim or lust, but rather a perduring and reflective awareness of the self as a center of value and purpose.  In short, it is the insight that homosexuals are not only intelligent agents, but also moral agents.  This is so, in virtue of the dimension of sexual orientation itself, as well as in virtue of other dimensions of the self.  It is also true, in virtue of the aetiology of sexual orientation (in the present).  That is, one becomes homosexual, as well as stays homosexual, partly because one likes homosexuality.  The desire itself, as intelligent, is already a cause, and not merely a latter effect.  These insights, moreover, have an important corollary:  the moral judgements that homosexuals make are therefore part of the initial empirical on homosexuality.  You may, if you wish, initially rule these data out of court, and pronounce as acceptable only those studies of homosexuality that are purely "objective," and are done by recognized heterosexual "experts."  If you do this, however, you will probably discover that you cannot bring these data back into court in time for the final verdict.  For you will have eliminated what you are not equipped to restore, and will be stuck with the hopeless task of trying later to derive moral statements from factual ones.  You will also probably lodge a second ambivalent complaint:  that "objective" studies of homosexuality (such as Kinsey's or Bieber's) focus only on the impersonal, quantifiable aspects of homosexuality (often do not include moral values but should), and that "objective" studies of homosexuality must not focus on such personal matters as gay "apologetics" or "politics" (often do include moral values but shouldn't).  For a recent example of this ambivalence, read Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse.  If, however, you admit these data into court from the beginning, you will be able to derive both moral and factual statements from the same body of date, differentiated according to levels of concreteness.  In particular, you will see that an essential source of data on homosexuality (in addition to formal research) is the informal and open interactions of homosexuals and heterosexuals in their day-to-day lives, such as in the church.  To shun interacting with homosexuals in the church, therefore, is equivalent to suppressing part of the data essential for understanding homosexuals in the church.

(6)  If you do not take account of the full range of research on the formation of sexual identity, you will very likely place more weight on the doctrine of creation than it can bear.  In particular, the burden will be on you to defend four claims: first, that homosexual men and women are confused about their identities as male and female; second, that the psychological differences between men and women are radical, and are fixed in permanent forms of masculinity and femininity; third, that these radical differences are in every case beneficial to human relationships; and fourth, that the most important way for women to relate is through actual or potential genital union in which these radical differences are reflected.  The first and second claims, as we have seen, are false.  The third claim is also false, since traditional sex roles are often fronts for the abuse of power in human relationships.  The fourth claim stretches the Yahwist account in Genesis beyond its means, and, as in the Roman Catholic study, makes sexuality the key to personhood.  If anything, the force of the Yahwist account here is not that we are to use the idea of genital relations between men and women to interpret the idea of being created in the image of God.  It is the other way around.  We are to use the idea of being created in the image of God to interpret the relations among men and women, and, by extension, their progeny, in which homosexuals are included.  And for Christians, the image of God is in turn revealed in full form only in Jesus the Christ.  This, however, is another way of saying that, for Christians, any doctrine of creation must be completed by a doctrine of Christ, the second person of the Trinity.

(7)  If you take some of the weight off the doctrine of creation, and shift it, as I have suggested, to the doctrine of Christ, you are then also free to pay attention to some of the other doctrines in Christian teaching.  Here, however, you have at least three options.  First you may opt, as in the Disciples study and in Model D of the Presbyterian study, for the doctrine of agape, which subdues sexuality to the liberating love of God. Second, you may opt as the Roman Catholic study suggests in its exegesis, for the doctrine of eschatology, which minimizes the importance of sexuality in ultimate human fulfillment.  Third, you may opt, as in Model C of the Presbyterian study, for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, which speaks of sanctifying human sexuality in its earthly estate.  Of these three options, it is worth noting that only one lays its primary emphasis on love.  Perhaps, then, one of the most important lessons these four studies have taught us is that a love ethic, however weakly or strongly defined, need not be the only alternative to the traditional condemnation.

(8) In short, if we invoke the full range of Christian teaching (and as Christians why should we not?), and if we observe its Trinitarian integrity, we will find that any condemnation of homosexuality per se is difficult, if not impossible.

                 David S. Blix

                 Chicago

                 Christmas Eve, 1978

David S. Blix is a graduate student the Divinity School of the University of Chicago, where he is completing a dissertation on the idea of love in the theology of Bernard Lonergan.  He has been active with Integrity/Chicago since 1977, and is a member of the Editorial Board of Integrity Forum.

CALLING ALL CANADIANS

Alex Wilson-Hyde, Convenor of Integrity/Toronto, would appreciate it if the various Canadian members would let him know of their concerns for Integrity.  Especially, he would appreciate hearing from Toronto area members of Integrity who may not be members of the Toronto chapter.  You may write to him at 650 Parliament St., #717, Toronto M4X 1R3.

You might be interested to know that Integrity/Toronto holds its eucharist and fellowship on the second Tuesday of the month at the Church of the Holy Trinity.  If sufficient members want more frequent services this can be arranged.  Everyone is welcome.

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE

This expanded special General Convention issue of FORUM has been carefully and thoughtfully prepared by Editor David Williams and the Editorial Board.  It is our hope that the high quality and the variety of material contained in this issue will serve as a strong basis for educating and informing the Church ‑‑ clergy and laypeople ‑‑ about the concerns, thoughts and needs of gay women and men, especially those who are Christians seeking to remain within the Episcopal church.

This isn't easily done for many gay people within a Church, where we have often not found our humanity affirmed as gay persons, instead encountering only rejection and oppression.  Too often we have asked for bread and the Church has offered a stone.  Too often we have been dealt with from premises of fear, ignorance, and irrational assumptions which have diminished the great love for one another to which we are so clearly called by the Gospel.

It is especially important that bishops and deputies to the General Convention be accurately informed:  that they seek knowledge and understanding about gay people and gay issues.  In many respects, gay people are the expert resources in such a learning process.  Since gay issues promise to be a major topic deliberated in Denver, it is imperative that discussions and decisions be carried out in an atmosphere that is both rational and informed, not in a negative climate dominated by fear, misinformation, myths, stereotypes, and prejudice.

INTEGRITY is prepared to be one source that can inform discussion and decision-making.  It is also important that the discussions not be simply cold, intellectual debates, but rather that there be some effort to arrive at a real human "feeling-level" understanding of gay people, gay relationships, gay culture, and all of the attendant issues and concerns.  We hope to assist in facilitating the much needed dialogue and interaction that will, at least, begin such a process.

This issue of FORUM represents only our preliminary effort to be a positive force for change in preparation for the Convention.  If it raises questions or issues which are bothersome, confusing, or unclear, please feel free to contact me personally.  While I may not always be able to provide "answers" I can surely put you into contact with people or literature that may be of help.

Integrity will hold its own Convention in Denver September 6-9, 1979.  We welcome all seekers of information to attend all or any part of it.  We will have speakers and workshops which may serve to inform or develop your views in an enlightened way.  At the General Convention itself, we will sponsor an exhibit, a hospitality suite, and a bookstore.  We urge you to take advantage of these opportunities to meet gay people and to engage in dialogue with us.  We also encourage familiarity with the excellent resources in the literature which is now available.  In these months before the Convention, you may wish to arrange to talk with Integrity people, either personally or by sponsoring an education forum in your Diocese.  Integrity resource people are available to you in many areas of the country.

Our prayers and thoughts will be with those who will represent the Church at General Convention.  Growth will not come without openness and some discomfort.  Truth will not be found without struggle.  Mutual understanding will not be achieved without some conscious effort to talk with each other and to hear each other in an atmosphere of Christian love.  While recognizing that disagreements will inevitably exist, it is my hope that positive feelings and our love for one another will prevail.

John C. Lawrence, President

THE REPORT OF THE SCREENING TASK FORCE OF THE

COMMISSION ON MINISTRY OF THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF OHIO

November 1976

PREFACE

The Screening Task Force of the Commission on Ministry has been asked by the Bishop to propose a position on the issue of the fitness of acknowledged and or practicing homosexuals for Candidacy for the Sacred Ministry.  The Task Force is composed of eight women and men, clergy and laity of diverse occupational backgrounds, heterosexually and homosexually oriented ‑‑ all concerned about the issue, all Episcopalians, all Christian.

We have been dealing with the issue for several months: we have read, we have discussed, we have drafted, we have argued, we have redrafted, we have prayed ‑‑ all of this over our charge and over what that charge raised in our hearts, minds and souls.  We did not start at ground zero.  Much has already been written on the issue (i.e., the Statement of the Diocese of Michigan) (Appendix A) which has spoken to us and to our task.  Homosexuality is a current and pressing issue in and for our society.  It in many ways parallels the issues of racial justice and women's equality in regard to discrimination.  And yet the strides made by Blacks and women have done little to lessen the heavy charge connected with homosexuality.

Though much work has been done, new roads are always cleared with great resistance.  Yet resistance does not make the task any less compelling or necessary for the Christian community.  Political expedience or a tradition of oppression does not abrogate the rights and value of any of the children of God.

The core of our position is:

Sexual orientation has no relevancy in consideration of a candidate for ordination as a Deacon, Priest, or Bishop of the Episcopal Church unless there is well-documented evidence that the "sexual orientation" is "a symptom of some underlying personality problem or psychiatric illness"1  which, unless treated, would interfere with her or his professional performance as a Clergyperson.

Our position, as did Michigan's, grew out of our understanding of sexuality as being a gift of God's creation and therefore good.  The Christian qualities of redemption and the overcoming of alienation can find expression through sexuality, sexuality expressed with the qualities of love and wholeness.  Subsequently, the 65th General Convention of the Episcopal Church passed a resolution which states in part "that homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the church."2

The false concept of the dichotomy of body vs. soul has been the source of much pain and misery to the Christian community.  The same false dichotomy exists between the concepts of heterosexual and homosexual.  The fiction of this dichotomy is most aptly spoken to by the Kinsey scale of human sexual behavior3 (Appendix C).  ALL ‑‑ body and soul, heterosexual and homosexual ‑‑ are the gifts of God to be celebrated, enjoyed and responsibly expressed.

Scriptural Perspectives

Scripture authorizes sexual activity as witness to God's creative love, power and glory.  Cultural concerns, seen through scripture in the experiences of the developing Hebrew nation, place a high emphasis on populating the world for the sake of national strength.4 Christians are asked to recall that Yahweh was early regarded as the exclusive deity of the Hebrew people, and that his chief concern was for their number, well-being, and strength as a nation.5

For this reason, Old Testament laws said much about the sexual activity of the Hebrew people.  These laws condemn any and all sexual behavior which does not lead to pregnancy.  Both culturally and religiously, pregnancy answered the problem of the times.  The human expansion of Israel guaranteed armies of sufficient size to protect her political interests.  As a holy nation, Israel's population expansion was a necessary testimony to her faith.  References to sexual taboos abound in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament.  These reflect an inspired understanding of God's concern for the well-being of his holy people in that time and place in much the same way as the dietary laws of the Old Testament, and in this case the sexual laws in particular, were inspired pastoral understandings offered by the scriptural authors who attempted to portray God's great love for Israel in all matters of human life.  Just as St. Paul's defense of Onesimus at a much later date is a pastoral concern for a single member of the Christian community and his relationship with another from that same community, not a justification for slavery.  So also we ought to keep alert to the possibility that scriptural teachings about sex practices may be the same sort of inspired pastoral helps offered out of the human concern to discover and interpret God's will for those to whom these were addressed in history.  As a casual acceptance of human slavery in the time of Paul has often been used to condone the Christian tolerance of this practice, so also have the sexual mores of Israel been adopted informally by western civilizations.  "We've always done it that way" has come to characterize even the Church's moral teachings.  Often the Church seems immune to the examination of whether or not these ancient moral teachings are congruent with the cultural and religious understandings of a people other than those for whom they were composed.

The Curse of Ham,6 used to defend racial prejudice, segregation, and slavery, has been promoted to the present time to further negative, selfish and racist attitudes toward Black people.  This misuse of scripture by some has not ceased even with contemporary Biblical scholarship and research.  Rather it is maintained by those who would justify and proof-text the validity of their own racial attitudes.

Sex laws in the Old Testament come under the same sort of misuse in many cases.  Many try to justify their own sexual attitudes and feelings, as well as their agreements and disagreements with others about these, through citing scriptural references which were intended for another group of people in quite another time and place.  For example, if we were to acknowledge the Levitical qualifications for religious ceremonial cleanliness and apply these to clergy today, the Church would necessarily forbid marital sexual relations in every Episcopal Rectory after sundown on Saturday.7  We might respond, "Certainly that law was not intended for us!"  Thus we begin picking and choosing those things in scripture which support our private needs, promptings, compunctions, conscience, and/or sense of morality.  Clearly, the Bible is not intended to further a goal of personal vindication, nor is it to be used as an argument against itself.

Scripture is the Word of God containing all things necessary to salvation.  This premise effects our study and interpretation of the Bible.  In the Old and New Testaments, God guided his people to search out the mysteries of the human condition in the world. This guidance from God is called inspiration.  When this search culminates in unfolding one of God's mysteries, we speak of divine revelation.  Hence, everything in the Bible is inspired, but not everything is revealed.8  Discerning between inspiration and revelation is a pertinent activity as we study the sexual laws in the Bible.  Not every word of scripture can, should or must be taken literally.  Scripture must be viewed in the light in which it is offered and in the context of a culture which we cannot thoroughly understand nor participate in.  Scripture is truly inspired, but not necessarily every passage contains a potential revelation of the will of God.  Discernment of ancient value systems and the scriptural author's loving concern for their community from the divine will also become a problem for the serious Bible student.  Revelation concerns itself with the nature of God, his relationship with his creation, and the culmination of this in eternity ‑‑ a timeless, endless experience of mutual love.  Inspiration serves to prepare, maintain, and nurture God's people in preparation for this.  The sexual laws of Scripture intend only to maintain a people ready and willing to witness to an anticipated eternal relationship with God.  Proof texts for every human activity have never been a goal of scripture, nor for that matter has scripture ever intended to supply a prescription for inclusion in the heavenly kingdom.  Though sexual activities and their acceptance are reported at a number of points in the Bible, it is not necessarily indicated that these are to be considered applicable and binding for all times.  Yet certain basic principles of sexual activity are established.  These, too fall under the general category of inspiration; for to elevate Biblical views of sexual experiences to the status of divine revelation is to put them on a par with the revealed divinity of Christ, the empowering of the Holy Spirit, or any one of a number of other mysteries that God's intervention in history has solved.

Any relationship, entity, or object which stands through human choice between the individual and God, and inhibits an open and free intimacy with God, becomes a source for idolatry.  In idolatry, God is supplanted for that which is other than God.  Whether we speak of golden calves, money, treasured possessions, people, or sexual expression, anything which hinders the flow of human and divine affection becomes idolatrous.  For the purposes of this Biblically based position paper, any mode of sexuality (autosexual, bisexual, celibate, heterosexual, or homosexual) contains within it the possibility of supplanting God's love with that for self or another person.  It also contains the possibility for implementing God's love for self and others.  Rather than condemning one or another expression of human sexuality, scripture seems more truly concerned with condemning idolatry and selfishness based on sexual expression.  It would appear that scripture speaks of human sexual activity in an inspired way, and not as a revelation of the divine will.  The search for meaning in sexuality continues, and for this reason we may presume either that man has missed, misunderstood or ignored God's will in all sexual expression, or that a revelatory experience has not yet been offered us.  Scripture is often cited to condemn homosexual activity.9

In each case, it can be well argued that God's wrath was directed against the unrighteous idolatry, selfishness, exploitation and unwelcoming attitudes more than against the homosexual activity. The homosexual behavior is usually condemned only as it is related to other acts.  Supplanting divine affection with human affection likewise seems to be St. Paul's chief concern when he speaks about marriage and marital sexual activity as marginally acceptable.10  Many examples of conflicting sexual values within scripture could be cited as inspired authors attempted to persuade Israel to forsake those things which appeared to bar the people from their fullest relationship with God.  For the most part, the real concern of scripture seems to be that God's people not replace his worship with the worship of penis, vagina, another person, animal or thing.  At the same time, the Bible calls people to sexual expression which serves to mirror the unselfish and sacrificial love flowing from God.  Sexual unrighteousness in its Biblical sense occurs when sexual activity for its own sake replaces God in the hearts and minds of people. Satisfying human sexual desire in ways which reflect God's creative love, rather than denying either his love or the human desire and drive, becomes the focus for us as Christians.  Perhaps Paul's revised view of the dietary laws could equally be applied to human sexual appetites.11  By this, a person judges only what is clean or unclean for him by what promotes his peace and mutual improvement within the body of Christ.

Human love is truly designed to serve as a witness to God's infinite love.12  Love and sexual behavior are not equated any more than God's righteous judgment on his people is dependent on a relationship with Jesus Christ.  Jesus redeems people from their sins, not from their sexual activities unless these are their sin.  Sexual sin is real sin when the individual engages knowingly in that which is unclean for him.13  Any mode of sexual encounter can be sinful and unrighteous if it replaces God's love and power in the lives of those who practice it.  Conversely, any mode of sexual encounter can reflect grace and righteousness if it celebrates and enhances God's love.  For this reason, Christians seem to be called on to refrain from making judgments about the sexual acts of their brothers and sisters in Christ.

In addition to the previous exegetical work done by the Task Force Members, we also requested a meeting with The Very Reverend Sherman Johnson, former Dean of the Church Divinity School of the Pacific.  He graciously prepared a position paper which is enclosed as Appendix A and summarizes our discussion with him.

In responding to the question, "Should avowed homosexuality disqualify a person from ordination?", Dean Johnson stated the question must also be discussed with moral theologians as Biblical exegesis can only try to tell what the Bible says in its context.14

We recognize the need as imperative.  Our work to date has included the review of writings by Norman Pittenger.  The following are direct quotes:

"What Paul said on this matter of homosexuality, like the long Christian moral tradition on the subject, is not ipso facto divinely given and divinely imposed.  In all such teaching, on many more things than sexual issues, new occasions teach new duties.  Our ancestors were not fools, but they were not all-wise either.  We need to look at such statements in the light of new knowledge, new understanding, new awareness, deeper Christian perception.  Some of us are convinced that such an enterprise will result in an openness to homosexuality as an equally licit way of sexual genital expression as heterosexuality.  We shall not pity nor condemn the homosexual man or woman; we shall try to understand him or her, help him or her to be the best sort of person possible, just as we should try to do for the heterosexual.

To call them abnormal or deviant specimens of humanity would be a scandalous misuse of words.  According to the possibilities which are theirs, they are entirely normal; they are not deviant, but obviously they are different.  And I venture to speak of that difference in the same fashion as did the Frenchman in the story who said of the difference between man and woman, vive la difference!  That is, I should rejoice in the fact that there are people who thus love persons of their own sex, just as I rejoice in the fact that there are people who love persons of the other gender ‑‑ it adds variety, color, and spice to the common life, if only we will accept and help rather than reject and condemn.

For it comes down to the theological conviction that God has worked in his creation to produce men and women of different kinds and interests, including sexual kinds and interest.  Why should we not agree with this?  I can think of no reason for failing to do so, except for inherited prejudice, dislike of what is not 'our own thing,' and failure in insight and charity.15

Along with our reading of Dr. Pittenger we also attempted to gain the perspective of authorities in Ohio.  We sought an interview with Professor Richard Hettlinger, Professor of Religion at Kenyon College, who echoed many of the same concerns in an interview.  Author of several books on human sexuality,16 Dr. Hettlinger, on the subject of the ordination of homosexuals, stated, "It seems to me the judgment of the acceptability or non-acceptability from a Christian point of view must surely be; are they not expressions within the range of possibilities of relationships expressions of love and commitment and concern and compassion or whatever which is the criteria for heterosexual relationships?"

In response to the question, "What would you feel is the range of cost to individuals who through social concern or whatever are put in a position of denying their sexuality?" Hettlinger replied, "I think anyone who is put in a position of denying their sexuality is being very seriously, tragically abused by society.  Being a sexual person is the only kind of person you can be anyway."

Dr. Hettlinger recommended consideration of various points made in "Gay Can Be Good," a chapter in his most recent book.17  Feeling that the Episcopal Church "with its relative condition of freedom and openness" has an "incredible opportunity" to help in changing the atmosphere, Hettlinger, in his book, decries the societal pressures towards heterosexuality and adds, "The roots of true homosexuality lie far below the level of simple choice: nobody makes up his or her mind to be a homosexual, though someone may choose whether or not to engage in homosexual acts or to accept the fact of being homosexual.18

He goes on to argue that homosexual acts are not necessarily degrading:  it is the nature and quality of a relationship that matters.  In his concern that homosexuals gain the self-esteem and self-respect so long denied them, he adds, "As homosexuals erase the low self-image with which they have been imprinted, and as society begins to accept them as people (neither depraved nor sick) the possibility of serious, loving relationship is opened up.19

Dr. Hettlinger spoke of the need of practicing homosexual clergy for support and understanding in their isolation.  This concern is re-enforced by some of the closing words in his chapter:  "I know homosexuals whose fidelity, sensitivity and integrity equal or surpass that of most of the heterosexuals I know: yet the majority of our society absurdly condemns them as immoral just because they differ in loving a member of the same sex."20

In addition to the work of Dr. Hettlinger a work was received by the Task Force after the writing of the report The work, "The Church And The Homosexual" by John J. McNeill S.J. was found extremely helpful and should be read by anyone contemplating a serious study of the issue.

Psychological Perspectives

In addition to questions of Biblical exegesis and moral theology, the Task Force addressed itself to the psychological/psychiatric areas pertinent to our study.

Sexuality is but one of the many things determining who a person is and does not determine goals, ideals, or personality structure.  Evidence supporting this position was found by Dr. Evelyn Hooker,21 a respected authority on contemporary homosexuality.  Matching non-patient heterosexual and non-patient homosexual men on the basis of age, intelligence, and level of education she gave each subject a battery of psychological tests and interviews.  These test results were not distinguishable by psychologists trained in their interpretation.  The homosexual subjects were basically equal with their heterosexual counterparts on virtually all levels of psychological adjustment.22  This correlation is amazing in the light of severe social pressures under which homosexuals in our society live.

This correlation was recently corroborated by Thomas R. Clark, Ph.D., University of Windsor, Ontario and Wayne County Psychiatric Hospital, Detroit.  Using "non-patient homosexual subjects expressing varying degrees of homosexual behavior and preference (a significant methodological departure from past research)"23 Clark investigated the assumed relationship between homosexuality and psychopathology.  He found "there was no trend toward the homosexual group being even slightly more pathological as the level of homosexuality increased, and no evidence emerged to suggest that homosexuality and heterosexuality are differentially related to emotional adjustment or disturbance .... (The) present data offer empirical evidence that the traditional view in the clinical literature, that homosexuality is always a sign of symptomatic psychopathology may be in need of qualification or revision."24

Again the Task Force sought the help of authorities in the area. Consequently, the Task Force invited Douglas D. Bond, M.D.,25 to join us for a discussion of the psychological and psychiatric implications of homosexuality and ordination to the ministry.

The following statements are pertinent.  Dr. Bond, on sexual preference, stated, "There's an enormous variation in people of all kinds, and other qualities are more important than this one quality (sexual orientation) alone ....  Homosexuality would not necessarily cause them not to be able to function well."26

In responding to the question of when does homosexuality itself become important in psychopathology he said:

"Homosexuality is dysfunctional when it becomes a real nuisance to the person or to the people around that person. By this I mean sexual molesting, attempting to influence minors to homosexual acts ....  I tell you I have something very gross in mind.  It is if the homosexual business, or the heterosexual business, for that matter, becomes imposed on minors ‑‑ imposed on others against their will.  Then it's a big problem.  But that is just as true of one sexual preference as of another.  You see, I don't think there is anything very important about the sexual orientation of people as long as it is in some sort of control.  You worry about the sexual orientation when it is out of control, is imposed upon somebody defenseless.  That is the only time I would ever worry about it."

Dr. Bond explained that sexual orientation does not have to inhibit the intellectual or moral development, and he considered that these were primary.  He said that homosexuality is one of the variants of human beings as they mature and that sexual preference is irrelevant to the main issue of having other qualities that are particularly desirable in a clergyperson.

The problems of homosexual women and men arise, he said, not out of their sexual preference, but rather from the oppression imposed on them by a heterosexually-oriented society.  Until very recently homosexuals blamed themselves after introjecting the standards of society.

Dr. Bond was asked, "What can happen to someone asked to deny or to not acknowledge sexual preference?"  He responded, "Well, a lot of that is very tragic ... a tremendous sense of isolation, shame over something that can't be helped.  Alienation from people around you is a very depressing and unhappy business."

Sociological Perspectives

We now turn our attention to the question of the right to relationship and expression of sexuality among homosexual clergy and among homosexuals in general.  The 65th General Convention stated in resolution A-69 that "homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim, with all other persons, upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral care and concern of the Church."  The Church also called for acceptance by society at large of homosexuals and protestation of their civil rights against discrimination.  This is an attempt by the Church to deal with the injustice of society toward the homosexual.  The Church asked society to change not only its attitudes (prejudice) but also its behavior (discrimination) toward homosexuals.  The Church at this point accordingly leaves itself open to the charge of hypocrisy unless it is willing to change its attitudes and behavior toward the homosexual.

Let us look at the present stance of the Church toward homosexual persons.  Within its sphere the Church bars homosexuals from rights, specifically the sacraments of marriage and holy orders. Marriage is denied unilaterally to homosexuals on the basis that primary cause of the sacrament, namely procreation, cannot be met.

     The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church states:

"The preface to the Marriage Service in the BCP aptly sums up the ends of marriage.  It defines its purpose as the procreation of children, the avoidance of sin, and mutual society.  The first of these universally understood as the prime end."27

From this it must be understood that the prime end of marriage is procreation.  How is it then that the sacrament of matrimony is not denied to those heterosexuals who either will not or cannot meet it prime end?  The ends of marriage would seem to suggest that this holy state be open only to those Christians who would attest that their prime goal is procreation.  And yet all of us would see it as unfeeling and unjust for the Church to deny marriage to a loving couple who were past the age of child bearing, or to a couple with a congenital disease, or to a couple who has serious reservations about bringing into their over-populated and starving world more children.  These couples come to the Church asking for authentication and support of their relationship on the basis of the two ancillary reasons for the sacrament, i.e. avoidance of sin and mutual society.  The Church joyously grants the request.  The homosexual couple asking on the same basis for the Church to authenticate and support their relationship is denied and rejected.  This clearly then is discrimination expressed through a double standard imposed by the Church toward some of her children, the "children of God".

As to the issue of Holy Orders, currently Holy Orders are denied to all noncelibate homosexuals.  The Convention has decided to hold in abeyance "the ordaining of practicing homosexuals" D-58 (emphasis added).  From the resolution one may understand that the injunction limits only the ordination of "practicing" homosexuals, and that non-practicing, i.e. celibate homosexuals, are not barred under the resolution.  There is no condition of imposed celibacy in the Episcopal Church for heterosexual clergy, as the option of marriage is open.  This abeyance, then, is discrimination in the form of another double standard inflicted upon some of the "children of God".

We must now look at the form of the discrimination practiced by the Church toward its homosexual members.  An analogy may be revealing here.  In society at large discrimination is evidenced in behavior, not attitudes, and ranges in severity from anto-locution, i.e. speaking despairingly of a person, as in "Nigger" and "Kike" to genocide, the systematic extermination of a group. The most severe sanction which the Church imposes today is the exclusion from the sacraments.  In this sense, then, exclusion from the sacraments of Matrimony and Holy Orders is parallel with spiritual genocide.  In terms, of the Spiritual life and alienation of an individual, this analogy may be telling.

To the extent then, that the Church does not change its behavior, while calling for society to change their behavior, the Church leaves itself open to the charge of Hypocrite.  To the extent that the Church does not change its behavior, it does violence not only to the homosexual children of God, but also to the charge and tradition of Jesus Christ.

On this basis, at least, it follows that sexual orientation ought not be among the criteria for selecting aspirants to Holy Orders. Saying that, however, does not solve the problem.  Culturally we may be a long way from the acknowledgement of such a broadly accepting view of human sexuality as the one contained herein.  Leaders of all sorts, including ecclesiastical, are viewed and judged by the eyes of their constituents as well as the general public.  While this may be an uncomfortable position, unjust and even inappropriate for those who judge as well as for those who are judged, one must also admit that no amount of argumentation will be likely to satisfy, unify, obliterate, or ameliorate all judgments of people toward those who differ in choices and values which are unlike their own.  Nevertheless, the Church is charged to lead the way in proclaiming the unalterable love of God toward all his children though their ways and values may vary from age to age as well as within their own time.  We can speak in certainty only of the reconciling love we have come to trust and anticipate in our God.  It is, for this reason alone, appropriate for the Church to ponder how best to serve as Christ's ambassadors of reconciliation in moral teachings concerning sexual activity.  To follow the sexual laws and mores of ancient Israel would seem foolish and inadequate; for we cannot know or appreciate adequately the mind of that time, or the culturally derived good that was sought.  We can only ponder, and begin to explore, the ways in which human differences can be celebrated within the Body of Christ.  We now have that opportunity to celebrate differences in those who aspire to Holy Orders in Christ's Church.

Conclusions and Recommendations

As a result of the large amount of work done, through the review of written materials, face to face interviews and our own wrestling with the issues we have reached some conclusions and recommendations.

In the area of ethics and moral theology the Anglican Communion has a long history of viewing its role as teacher as descriptive not prescriptive.  If there is any danger in holding an ancient religious view, opposing any but heterosexual expressions of sexuality, it lies in the possibility of our Church's adoption of a prescriptive approach to sexual morality.  If there is any danger in holding a more contemporary religious acceptance of human sexual activity as being one more way of expressing "creatureliness" the danger lies in supplanting the divine will with human desire.  To be true to our Anglican heritage of descriptive moral and ethical teaching is a difficult task, for we attempt not to seek a middle road of compromise but rather a road of truth reflecting the love of God.  We cannot presume to know the will of God, even through diligent study of Holy Scripture.  Nor can we know this through history, doctrine or social ethical and moral thought.  Truly, it does seem blatantly hypocritical to acknowledge homosexual activity outside marriage as worthy while at the same time condemning heterosexual activity outside marriage.  This is the essential effect of the proscription on homosexual marriages.  Needed, perhaps, is an approach to human relationships which acknowledges that there are many sorts of interpersonal meetings which cannot be described in either marital or non-marital terms.  Homosexual "marriages," while they may not meet the present definition of marriage offered in liturgical forms, are of significant interpersonal import to those thus involved.  A means whereby other expressions of love of a truly interpersonal and personal nature can be manifested may well solve a portion of the dilemma.  What seems to lie at stake is the ability of human beings to express their felt affections without incurring the condemnation of society.  If human beings exist to proclaim God's love, it is then time to acknowledge that there are many avenues and expressions to Divine Love.  Again, lest we be too presumptuous, sexual expression is not the only way in which God's Love is reflected to society, nor is it the only way in which God's Love is mocked.

God's Will, Love and ways expressed through the Sacrifice of Christ become our only concern in surveying an overview of sexual righteousness.  Lover laying down life for the beloved becomes the test of sexual morality.  Performance of the most loving act while accepting the responsibility for its outcome has become a major theme of contemporary moral theologians such as Joseph Fletcher.  Sexuality viewed in this light becomes a worthy response to the Sacrifice of Christ.  We are able to love not only God in Christ, but our brothers and sisters as well when the sexual expressions seek to serve the other party in the relationship, not the gratification of self only.  How truly reflective of Christ's Sacrifice of loving his people to the end is any form of sexual expression?  How offensive to the will and ways of God are any of our sexual attitude or appetites?  And in this sense, how can we single out one or another expression of human sexuality as being exclusively according to or opposed to the Divine Will?

Sexual expression outside marriage has scandalized generations of Christians.  Fornication has been a favorite topic of condemnation among Biblical writers.  It seems a bit late in history to require a special brand of morality for the clergy considering the number of years we have proclaimed to those in Holy Orders to be just ordinary human beings called to an extraordinary task.  Heterosexual or homosexual temptations and acts have been no strangers to either married or celibate clergy. In addition to examining the avenues available to all Christians to express loving relationships, the Church must now examine her attitudes toward double standards in clerical and lay morality on many fronts.  It is time to be frank and honest.  Members of the clergy have been party to many forms of sexual impropriety, and will continue to be so.  To acknowledge what is true seems to be the necessity of the moment.  Many philandering heterosexuals have been ordained.  Many promiscuous homosexuals have, too.  Still the focus lies on the heterosexuality or homosexuality of the clergy, and not on their manner of expressing their persuasion.  Greater understanding and study of human sexuality and the Church's position on it are needed.  It is no longer possible to deny sexual identity among any of God's people, including the clergy.  What seems appropriate also is that clinics, workshops and other educational programs be launched to enable people to choose their sexual orientation with understanding and not by default.  Counseling in sexuality is deplorably deficient in the Church.  Clergy need training to counsel in areas of sexuality and sexual choice rather than passing along prejudices and fears which they themselves often hold.  A possible program might be:

• Seminars in counseling on sexuality for the clergy

• Laboratory teaching on human sexuality for clergy and laity

• Support systems for persons who wish to acknowledge their sexual orientation

• Support systems for those who wish to change their sexual orientation

• A study program developed for use in parishes employing a believable textbook or audio-visual resource on human sexuality in general

• A speakers' bureau to which parishes and organizations can turn for factual materials and information about sexual orientation

• A concerted effort through educational channels of the Church to diminish critical generalizations and discrimination around sexual life styles

• Support of role-models for homosexual members of the Church

• A review of the sacramental and liturgical aspects of the Church to more include all of the members of the Body of Christ

To seek to do whatever we do to the glory of God seems to be the challenge.  Sexual expression for Christians necessarily glorifies God when it possesses the attributes of altruistic and self-effacing offering.  Christians ‑‑ clergy and lay alike ‑‑ often enough feel naughty for not fully practicing these attitudes during sexual activity.  Rather than placing greater guilt on God's people for acts of sexual expression, the Church needs to learn to give thanks that these are as responsible as they are while at the same time working to increase responsibility in sexual activity.  To brand an avenue of sexual expression as wrong, or sin, or depraved, or deviate does little or nothing to assist those who are a part of that expression to work toward greater fulfillment.  Encouraging heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals to be the most loving partners they are able to be would seem more congruent with the Episcopal Church's stand on moral and ethical teaching.  To this end the sexual orientation of Episcopal clergy is not nearly the concern to the Church at large as is another ability, the ability to relate to other human beings in a warm and loving manner, which in the practice of a professional ministry is necessarily nonsexual.

Respectfully submitted,

Dr. Janeen Catrell-Brown, Convenor

Dr. Edgar S. Bowerfind, Jr.

David Gellatly

The Rev. Walter L. Krieger

The Rev. Robert H. New

Stephanie Sattele

The Rev. M. Elden Smith

Anne Williams

____________

1.  Weatherhead, A.D.  Letter to E S. Bowerfind, Jr., M.D., 17 September 1976.  (Appendix B)  Comment:  In response to point b, we are well aware that because of lack of understanding on the part of the parish and society it may be difficult to place such people in parishes.  However, political or economic considerations should not be a bar to ordination.

2.  Resolution A-69, The 65th General Convention of the Episcopal Church.

3.  Kinsey, et al.  Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia; Saunders, 1948), p. 638.

4.  Genesis 1:27-28  A portion of the Creation Covenant, man is designated the earth's master ‑‑ a role which he can fulfill only through numbers.

5. Genesis 17:4  Abraham's descendants are to be numerous, even to the point of Abraham becoming the "father of many nations."

6.  Genesis 9:18-27  Some say that the Curse of Ham resulted from his engaging in homosexual relations with his father.  The text itself does not support this view, any more than it supports the view that Ham's banishment led him and his descendants to have black skin and to be destined to slavery forever as some would ask us to believe.  In fact, Ham seems to be cursed because he saw his father's predicament and did nothing to relieve his embarrassment preferring to call this to the attention of his brothers.

7.  Leviticus 15:18-24  This speaks in regard to ceremonial uncleanness following marital sexual intercourse and defines the method of cleansing as well as the time span required to accomplish this.

8.  Benoit, Pierre, Exegese et Theologi, 2 vols.  Paris:  Editions du Cerf.  1961.

9.  Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:17; I Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; Romans 1:26-27.  In each case these passages denounce cult prostitution, both male and female in some instances, because this was particularly associated with the idolatries of Egypt and the worship of Molech.  Romans 1:26 refers to a similar sort of homosexual temple prostitution practiced by certain segments of Roman paganism.  Homosexuality in this form does not occur in our society.  For this reason, these passages are not pertinent to this study.  I Corinthians 6:9 also belongs among those passages surveyed.  The "unholy" referred to in the first part of this verse are probably, again, a part of the pagan culture of Rome.  Though this is by no means clear cut, nearly all Biblical scholars agree that this refers to that sort of cult prostitution.  Genesis 19:1-28  The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is the single most often cited denunciation of homosexuality, yet it probably does not refer to that at all.  Lot failed in social amenities by not taking the visitors to meet the city leaders.  As Lot himself was a stranger he owed the elders this courtesy.  The demand to know the visitors was all together reasonable.  Further, 'knowing' in a sexual context in scripture is not so common usage as often presumed.  To know (yodh) them seems very unlikely to imply homosexual contact here, as it is nowhere else in all Old Testament writings used to denote homosexual activity.  In the 964 times yodh is used in the Bible only 10 of these refer to sexual acts ‑‑ and all of these are heterosexual!  Furthermore, homosexual interpretations of this whole pericope were unknown until the time of the apocryphal Book of Jubilees which appeared centuries after the original story.    Prior to this interpretation, no homosexual significance was ever attached to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.  (Derrick S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, Longmans Green, London, 1955.)

10.  I Corinthians 7:1-10  Paul offers the concession for marriage only as a means to avoid lust while continuing to wish that Christians would remain celibate as he was.

11.  Romans 14:12-19  The comparison with the dietary laws and Paul's reinterpretation of these serves as an example of how previously believed binding judgments can be reviewed.  Perhaps this serves as a useful model on which to reassess Christian moral teachings regarding sex.  In that honoring God is the goal of both old and revised dietary laws, perhaps the Process of re-evaluation along these lines would prove useful in our current study.

12.  1 John 4:7-21  Little commentary is needed except that which points us toward surveying all human activity according to its ability to portray, witness to, or offer testimony about God's love, and the requirement for humans to offer love in the measure they have received it.  Seeking to achieve the most loving acts in all things remains a high priority for Christian living.  This includes not only overt physical acts, but mental and emotional activities as well, and further urges Christians to avoid judging others by their own private standards.

13.  Romans 14:14  This acknowledges man's ability to discern for himself those activities and standards which do or do not fit his life-style comfortably and without pain to his conscience.

14.  Sherman Johnson, discussion with Task Force, Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio October 15, 1976.

15.  Norman Pittenger, "Theological Approach to Understanding Homosexuality" Religion in Life (Nashville:  Abingdon Press, 1974), p. 443

16.  Growing Up With Sex, Seabury Press, New York City, 1971 .

Human Sexuality, A Psychological Perspective, Wadsworth, Belmont, California, 1975.

Sex Isn't That Simple, Seabury Press, New York City, 1974.

17.  Sex Isn't That Simple, Seabury Press, New York City, 1974.

18.  Ibid., p. 142.

19.  Ibid., p. 150.

20.  Ibid., p. 154

21.  Evelyn Hooker, Ph.D. is a research psychologist at the Univ. of California in Los Angeles.  Since 1954 she has been engaged in the study of homosexuals in the context of the homosexual community.  Her research has been supported by the National Institute of Mental Health, The U.S. Public Health Service.

22.  Evelyn Hooker, Ph.D., The Same Sex (Philadelphia: Pilgrim Press, 1969) p. 25 & ff.

23.  Thomas R Clark, "Homosexuality and Psychopathology in Nonpatient Males," The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 35, 1975, p. 163.

24.  Ibid., p. 168.

25.  Dr. Bond was Dean of Case Western Reserve School of Medicine from 1959-66.  Previously he served as Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at the Medical School and Director of Psychiatric Services at University Hospitals from 1946-69.  He has also served as a member of the Advisory Committee of the National Institute of Mental Health and was immediate past President of the American College of Psychoanalysts.  He died ten days after the interview.

26.  Douglas Bond, Discussion with Task Force, Chapter Room, Trinity Cathedral, Cleveland, Ohio, October 21, 1976.

27.  Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (London, Oxford University Press, 1958) p. 873.

FIVE GAY PRAYERS

By Malcolm Boyd, author of "Are Your Running With Me, Jesus?", "Am I Running With You, God?", and "Take Off the Masks."

[Editor's Note:  "Gin," "Louise and Henry," and "Keith" were published in "TRINITY Prayers for Us" in Blueboy, November 1978; "Loving" and "Thank God I'm Gay" were published in "Malcolm Boyd's Thanksgiving ‑‑ A Blessing on Being Gay" in The Advocate, November 1978.  They are published in Integrity Forum by special permission.]

KEITH

He wears a large ring on his finger.

The episcopal ring indicates that Keith is a Bishop.  He's also a closeted homosexual, God, as you know.

Keith is forty-seven, tall and blond.  His eyes are blue, his shoulders broad, waist slim, and body firm.  Everybody seems to like Keith.  But he feels trapped by circumstances beyond all control.

Years ago when Keith entered the seminary, everything was closeted.  Keith dutifully remained forever discreet.  When he fell in love with a classmate, he thought it was heaven to sleep with him, a holy gift of love.  The necessity to tell a constant public lie about themselves, however, doomed their love.  Eventually, Keith managed to get over the pain of this, concealing his emotional scars.

He was ordained a priest.  To his utter amazement, he was later elected a Bishop.  Why?  Didn't they know he was unworthy?  Christ, he knew.

Keith has tried to be a good Bishop.  Always he has remained completely secretive about his sex.  When he and Joseph, a priest and close friend, meet for an occasional quiet evening, they enjoy sex together.  Keith is grateful for this.

When Keith goes to Europe in the summer, he takes off his clerical collar and episcopal ring.  He blows his reserve, getting all his horny fantasies out of his system, and pays for it when necessary.

Now, Keith is hard-pressed by the gay movement in the church.  Gay priests and laity clamor for honesty, freedom and openness.  Keith is sorely afraid of disclosure.  His mask is so heavy upon his face, he feels that he can scarcely breathe.

Gay?  God, Keith wishes he were.

GIN

Gin was only a child

Gifted and beautiful when she was a young woman, Virginia should have gone away ‑‑ left her family, home and town, and made a career.  It could have freed her, God, from the bondage of shame and self-destruction.

But she stayed at home.  Her parents were socially prominent and rich.  Discovering she was a lesbian, they found only disgust in it.  They rejected her nature while they kept her in bondage.  Gin's long line of lovers remained hidden from all sight but yours, God.

Her career was ruthlessly snuffed out.  The brilliant gifts that you gave her ‑‑ that unforgettable speaking voice, the sense of timing and humor beyond compare, the presence and style designed for glory on the stage ‑‑ were utterly wasted.

In her frustration, Gin drank too much and too long.  Her health was destroyed.  She saw her dignity and self-worth vanish to nothingness.

Her mother and father died when Virginia was nearly fifty, leaving her only enough money to exist at poverty level for the remainder of her life, the bulk of their estate bequeathed to a distant foundation.  Then, Gin met Ruth.  Gin and Ruth loved and lived together as blissfully as two young lesbians entering into their covenant.

But, Gin soon experienced her first crippling stroke.  Paralyzed on one full side, she was rendered near helpless.  Ruth lovingly cared for her until one morning, as she sat at a table writing letters, she died of a sudden heart attack.

Gin is sixty-five this year.  Alone, she awaits the release of her death.  She hopes ‑‑ oh, so fervently, God ‑‑ that she and Ruth will soon be reunited, and forever.

LOUISE AND HENRY

Louise and Henry are nice people

They've lived in their suburb for years, raised a family, paid taxes, gone to church, taught Sunday school, supported culture and good works in the community, and generally shown a smiling face to the world.

But now the unbelievable has happened, God.  As Henry put it to Louise, they've got a goddam queer in the family.  Henry always suspected it, yet managed to repress his anxiety to such an extent that he previously never even mentioned the subject to Louise.

It was Louise who happened upon the terrible news.  During a visit to her Aunt Martha's house, the fact that a male homosexual bears the proud family name was ferreted out, among tears and cups of camomile tea.

The first question for Louise and Henry:  what should one do about the children in the family?  Obviously, they cannot be told.  They must never know anything at all about the leprosy.

The second question is:  what should one do about everybody else ‑‑ friends, business associates, neighbors, church members?  They must never know, either.  The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike ‑‑ but why, God?  Why is this unmentionable sinner of their own blood ‑‑ call him a queer, faggot, homosexual, gay or whatever one damned well likes ‑‑ visited upon a Godfearing, decent, hard-working family that never blasphemed or committed evil in the sight of heaven?

It boggles Henry's mind.  It taxes Louise's spirit.  As Henry said to Louise, they had invited him to dinner next Sunday before they found out he is a queer.  What shall they do?

God, what shall they do!

LOVING

I am thankful for the moments when my lover stirs in my arms.  John falls gently asleep after we enjoy sexual play and both of us come to orgasms.

Now, his head is nested between my neck and shoulder.  A few strands of his hair fall on my forehead.

I hold one arm around his shoulder.  The other rests on the ivory rise of his ass, surely one of the seven wonders of the modern world.

As I tighten my hold upon his body, he moans ever so quietly in his sleep.  He is happy with me.  He is content to have me for his lover.  Even in the labyrinths of his sleep, he resolutely trusts me.

I kiss his forehead, his neck.  Slowly, I turn his face tenderly toward mine, and kiss him on the mouth.  Now, John awakens.  He returns my kiss.  Our tongues meet.

Warmth and desire stir once again in my groin, the sensitive seismograph.

Energy lifts me.  Desire seizes my willing body, curious mind, and groping spirit.  The center of the universe is here.  Joy and fulfillment are mine.

Thank you for creating both John and me in your own wondrous image, God.  Thank you for letting us share in your own gift of loving and sexual union.

THANK GOD I'M GAY

Why am I gay, God?

No one can really explain it to me.

Yes, I like to have sex with members of my own sex.

Yes, I've yearned forever for what was mysteriously and stubbornly called forbidden fruit.

Yes, I've fought and struggled, tooth and nail, against the tyranny that would kill my nature, mercilessly changing me to a vegetable ‑‑ albeit a socially acceptable one.

I'm tired of Bible-spouting hypocrites who talk about love in your name while they hate my sisters and brothers ‑‑ and me.

I'm sick of self-righteous inquisitors who quote scripture even while they light the faggots to burn, turn the screw of the rack to draw more blood and screams, and hammer nails into countless bodies on numberless crosses in order to murder the human spirit.

At long last I have come to know myself as free.  I have taken off my mask, and the sun and rain upon my naked face feel marvelous.  The mystery of my gayness I celebrate with joy and thanksgiving.  God, thank you for making me gay.

INTEGRITY ANNOUNCES PLANS FOR 1979 CONVENTION

Integrity, Inc. will hold 1979 annual convention September 6-9 at St. Thomas Church in Denver, Colorado, immediately preceding the 66th Triennial General Convention of the Episcopal Church (September 8-20).

The Convention will open on Thursday evening, September 6, with an address by President John C. Lawrence.  The opening eucharist will take place on Friday morning, September 7 at St Thomas Episcopal Church.

The keynote speaker for the Convention will be the Rev. Ms. Carter Heyward, who as one of the "Philadelphia 11" was one of the first women to be ordained in the Episcopal Church.  She is the author of the book, A Priest Forever and is an Assistant Professor at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  She is currently completing work for her doctoral degree at Union Theological Seminary in New York City.

Other speakers will include the Rev. Richard Kirker, a deacon in the Church of England, and currently the Administrative Secretary of the Gay Christian Movement in England.  Also speaking will be William Stringfellow, noted lawyer, author, and activist, who has long been associated with the work of the Episcopal Peace Fellowship.  The Rev. Ms. Stacy Cusulos, one of the first lesbians ordained in the United Church of Christ will also address the convention.  Ms. Cusulos, also a feminist songwriter and musician, will provide entertainment for a social evening on Saturday, September 8, 1979.

A special feature will be an address by Louie Crew, Ph.D. at the annual banquet on Friday evening, September 7, 1979.  Dr. Crew is the founder of Integrity.  His recent book The Gay Academic has won wide acclaim.  Dr. Crew is newly appointed Associate Professor of English at the University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point.

BARNHOUSE DISMANTLED

by Jeanne Hoff, M.D.

There exists an interface between religion and science that deserves development.  Those who have the versatile intellectual tools to merge and refine data and opinions from both areas are not yet commonplace, but publications that purport to speak from that position of strength are.  So when careful examination of such works uncovers important systematic faults of comprehension, objectivity, and synthesis, allowing academic separatists from both sides to draw comfort from their view that such studies are inevitably fool's errands.  The moral seems clear.  To mobilize the rich talents and energy of skeptical people to this interdiscipline, the greatest care must be taken that dual qualification is not used to mask inferiority on either side.  It is the burden of the scholar who claims diverse accomplishments to be as impeccable in all her areas as those who have only one area to focus upon.

When we consider the effects of faulty works that deal with the scientific and religious characterization of sexual minorities, we anticipate a penalty much more serious than the estrangement of certain kinds of scholars.  An author who writes only in the service of her prior decisions and commitments, and those who support her uncritically or out of personal investment, set in motion a kind of mischief that spreads through the lives of those misrepresented like rapid malignancy.  Since the primary work always has more momentum than any subsequent analysis or revision of it, the damage done by it is difficult to undo.

The most susceptible audience for "Homosexuality: A Symbolic Confusion," by Ruth Barnhouse seems to be in the world of religious study.  It certainly is not influential in the scientific community nor to the general reading public.  To the homosexual reading public it appears to be another in the series of whitewashes of the particularly demoralizing public oppression under which they live.  That view, however, is not sufficient proof that this is a badly or unfairly researched or written book, and in offering this examination of her work, I will attempt to distinguish between ignorant or malicious opposition and the work of an honorable opponent who may have some forgivable flaws of scholarship or objectivity.  The author was free to choose data, arguments, and collaborators from any fields in which she can read and synthesize with strength, and to draw her conclusions and recommendations similarly.  She enters the contest with weapons of her choice, and I content myself with focusing upon her selections and the skill with which she aims.  In doing so, I reject her dismal implication that everyone is a blind partisan about the subject of homosexuality (p. 113 and elsewhere):  "... it is impossible not to have an attitude about homosexuality ...  There are those who consider homosexuality normal and those who do not."  Perhaps.  There are also those who are reserving their final decision on "normality" until more is known, and others who feel that the issue of "normality" is trivial compared to the persistent despair of those who are trying to live their lives and work out their salvation in a political and ecclesiastical climate once reserved for the sufferers of leprosy.  An "attitude," i.e. bias, is a hazard to rational thought about any sexual topic, or any topic at all, but some people rise above this when they try, and when they write, it is neither for nor against homosexuality, but about it.  I see no evidence in this book that Dr. Barnhouse exercises such objectivity.

The book has a foreword by Barry Ulanov, an introduction, four main sections of text and two appendices.  Part 1 concerns itself with "The Relation Between 'What Is' and 'What Ought To Be.'"  The author says (p. 15) "If theology ignores the findings of human sciences, it runs the risk of setting irrelevant or impossible standards of conduct, and therefore deteriorates into a system for stimulating neurotic guilt in its adherents.  The other risk, even if the first is avoided, is that it may give foolish or unworkable direction about how to get to 'ought' because it is ignorant of the true starting point of 'is.'"  I heartily concur.  The stage is set for her to examine "What Is" in subsequent chapters on history and anthropology, biology, sociology, politics, psychodynamics of male homosexuality, comparative sexuality of males and females, psychodynamics of female homosexuality, and treatment of homosexuality.  Reading them, I recall a worrisome sentence (p. 9) "Theology got into trouble from which it has not yet recovered by arrogating to itself the right to decide what is ...."  She is emphasizing and criticizing the failure of science and theology to share the work they have in common, but the phrase, as she writes it, contains an interesting and telling slip.  Anyone who understands the spirit of scientific inquiry would have written "the obligation to find out what is."  In virtually every topic developed in the next seven chapters she demonstrates ignorance or contempt for the difference between "the obligation to find out" and "the right to decide" what is.  She is an authoritarian both in style and in mind-set.

Here are some illustrated examples of other systematic failures of the scientific chapters.

A.  Failure to understand scientific material or to use it correctly.

(p. 39)‑‑ "... all human and primate embryos begin as female."   She claims that males arise by converting the female reproductive system to the male one under the influence of endogenous male hormones.  This is not even approximately true.  Embryos start with no recognizable gonadal differentiation.  As gonads are organized from more primitive tissues, the pattern established by the XX or XY chromosomal complement from the very first moment of conception is followed.  A female reproductive system is never converted into a male one in the embryo, hormonally or otherwise. There was no pressing reason for her to select an illustration from a branch of biology that she obviously does not understand very well, and even less reason for her to use this as the basis of one of her absurd psychological formulations, i.e. (p. 78) to develop a male psychological identity a boy "must learn to extract himself successfully from being the same as his mother."  A more tragic example of this fault is her lack of understanding of the difference between gender and eroticism.  The foreword starts with "Once upon a time there were men and women who liked being men and women."  We are then required to believe that homosexuals, by virtue of having a primary erotic attraction to members of their same biological sex, are therefore men and women who do not like being men and women.  The distinction between gender and eroticism is not trivial and it is unthinkable for anyone who writes a book on homosexuality to get the two consistently mixed up.  There are brief examples on p. 22 and p. 84 of references to gender which are, in fact, references to eroticism, and most of the material of the chapters on psychodynamics of male and female homosexuality is a discussion of the development of gender identity and not of the development of homosexual erotic attraction.

There is a more subtle lack of scientific acumen that needs to be commented upon.  Dr. Barnhouse goes to great lengths to prove that the sources and manifestations of homosexuality are pathological.  She subscribes to a rigid, narrow old model of human sexuality which has never worked very well, even for the characterization and understanding of heterosexual behavior, (and she is critical of it when discussing the development of the heterosexual female).  Now that careful studies are being reported which reveal the immense variety of gender adaptations and erotic directions that really do occur with frequency, it is clearly out of line for any scientist to cling to a model which treats all these variants as distortions.  She presents an analogy by describing (p. 167) "a distorted pattern of angry relations with others" as leading to a display of anger or a rise in blood pressure.  Her typically inflexible conclusion is "Basic and antecedent to either manifestation is a disordered pattern of relationship."  In the analogy and in the primary matter of all the variants of sexuality that she disapproves of or does not understand she ignores a point of importance.  A response in a system may be the result of great versatility and flexibility of the system, rather than a distortion induced by a pathological circumstance.  It is certainly plausible that some kinds of disordered relations might lead to anger or elevation of blood pressure and similarly to any or all of the minor sexualities, but that does not prove that these responses are in themselves always pathological, or that all stimuli that lead to them are pathological.  Both stimulus and response can be healthy components of a flexible system.  Dr. Barnhouse seems quick to assert that everything may properly be invested with moral content, and even more pompously, that she sees that moral content clearly.  I suggest there are some behavioral and biological matters than have no moral content, or whose moral content is not uniquely manifest in the external parameters that our coarse powers of observation can access.

B.  Unsupported generalizations, unwarranted extrapolations.

(p. 54) "Highly competitive societies tend to produce a greater number of homosexuals than do less competitive ones."  (p. 61) "While it is true that a small number of males who become committed homosexuals in adult life have consciously experienced this as an overpowering inclination from an early age, such cases constitute a small minority."  (p. 82) "...Such were the problems of families which produced this generation containing a disproportionate number of comparatively weak men."  Nowhere does Dr. Barnhouse treat us to references to controlled studies which support these statements.  If any such studies exist, they should certainly have rigid definitions and criteria for "competitive," "weak," etc. and follow the usual statistical methods of public health studies, carefully counting unbiased samples from different societies or generations.  But Dr. Barnhouse stands in strong contempt of such studies and the people who do them.  That leaves her to draw upon the admittedly small sample of her own private practice, or to make them up from what she regards as common sense.

C.  Glib etiological explanations and doctrinaire adherence to psychodynamic theories.

(p. 40)--regarding transsexuals, "...there is strong evidence that their condition is the result of extremely abnormal mothering..."  There is no strong evidence to support any etiology of transsexualism.  There are only theories.  See how Dr. Barnhouse uses one of her favorites, again with regard to transsexuals:  (p. 71) "The acquisition of basic gender identity for both boys and girls depends primarily on the fundamental process of separation from the mother."  This leads her to postulate (p. 79) a particularly infrequent type of inadequate mothering as being a possible cause of male transsexualism, and she goes on to say "...true transsexualism is unknown in women." The proof of her belief about the way gender identity develops rests entirely upon her faith in a certain psychodynamic school. Outside of this, it is just another plausible opinion, no better than many others, and never subjected to any kind of validation but the circular, self-proving experiments that she swallows (but seldom even bothers to give precise reference to) and that other kind of proof that begins "Freud believed..." or "Jung  believed..." (or, we may assume, "Barnhouse believes ...").  She gives no case histories for the bizarre etiology of male transsexualism raised (p. 79) and if any exist they will be rare enough to be regarded as coincidental findings.  As for the matter of "true" transsexualism in women, she points out that not everyone who requests sex change operations are transsexuals.  That is quite true, and an applicable restraint to the physician for patients of both sexes.  Apart from such cases, it is also true that there are many "true" transsexuals, both male and female, known in every one of the clinics and private practices that specialize in the diagnosis and management of gender dysphoria syndrome.  The author's complete willingness to ignore evidence or to distort definitions and diagnostic criteria in the interest of preserving and elaborating upon a theory she favors is one of the most prominently recurring of her characteristics.  I cite this example for the comic relief of viewing someone who loftily proclaims that such-and-such cannot happen, while surrounded by living examples of the very thing.  The chapters on psychodynamics are largely recognizable as produced from this mentality.  The general validity of the psychodynamic approach is not the matter of dispute here, but rather Dr. Barnhouse's skill with it.  If ever one read a work that sounded like catechism learned long ago and never fully understood or updated, this is it.  I also give appropriate credit to her baffling habit of stating high sounding positions as her own and then illuminating them with total contradictions of the principle stated.  A later section of this essay will provide more details and examples.

D.  Harsh and uncomprehending criticism of certain scientists and their approaches and results.

(p. 12 and p. 35)‑‑Regarding the reporting of a survey of the prevalence of such things as wife-swapping, she complains that the "conclusion will be" to decide it is "normal, and it is therefore time to revise the moral code."  In her fear that clarifying "what is" will force her to refine her demands for behavioral conformity she misses two points.  One is that people who engage in "conventionally disapproved behavior," for whatever reason, are entitled to be free of the noxious burden of believing they are a tiny, perverse, mutant minority when they are not.  The other is her own recommendation (p. 15, previously cited) that theology must take into account realities of behavior in setting the direction and severity of its goals.

(p. 67)‑‑referring to the work of Masters and Johnson on human sexual physiology, "They have made a number of errors, not the least of which is to confuse sexual physiology with sexuality itself.  (p. 74)  Referring to Kinsey and his associates, and Masters and Johnson: " ... all made the error of believing that sex could usefully and without serious distortion, be reduced to its physical aspects."  (p. 74)  She characterizes the forementioned physiological studies as "almost worthless."  I suspect that people clever, brave, and determined enough to carry out this research were aware of two points.  First, it is sometimes necessary to dissect a system and study its parts individually before you can sensibly study the complex interactions of the parts in the greater whole.  Second, the thousands of clients who have come under their management and have benefitted from it were not there to be duped into believing that sexuality is just a matter of physiology and technique.  Ignorance, fear, and clumsiness about fundamentals are the traditional impediments to making the most of the intense sharing experience of making love.  We will wait patiently to see whether it is Dr. Barnhouse's approach or that of the people she frowns upon which will produce the greater degree of functional and moral improvement and gratitude in those who seek to incorporate their sexuality into their growth.

Following this error-riddled assemblage of materials of a scientific nature, Dr. Barnhouse turns her attention to developing her view that homosexuality is an immature position, the result of making certain choices, conscious or unconscious, when conflicts arise, and for which the person is responsible.

As to the matter of homosexuality being immature, she claims that maturity is the heterosexual adaptation and therefore, a failure to reach that position means that one or more of the steps to maturity have been missed (p. 119).  She does not consider the possibility that the road may branch here and there and that there may be other equivalent suitable end points or many courses to get to one end point.  It is quite a simple matter for her, and a self proving argument.  Heterosexuality is maturity and there is one path to get there.

With regard to the matter of the existence of conflict and the choices she alleges we make, we are again served another "Freud believed ..." argument.  Freud believed in the existence of conflicts, even at the earliest ages, and that these led to a necessity to make choices.  Not everyone (including many of his disciples) believes in Freud's view of this and it can hardly be said that there is an unbiased way to prove it.  But Dr. Barnhouse is prepared to shelve some of her other serious reservations about Freud's grasp of human sexuality when it comes to this convenient boost to her own position.  She harkens back to her interpretation of the myth of original sin. (p. 147) "It has always been unmistakenly understood to mean that all people, always, everywhere, under all circumstances, at all ages, are responsible for all their choices, whether these are intentional or accidental."  Then to bolster ancient scripture with modern scripture (p. 164) "Freud still believed that people were ultimately morally responsible, even though frequently helpless, for decisions made unconsciously."  Who cares what Freud decided about responsibility of this sort?  He was entitled to have his view of the matter, but the power to decide the issue was never delegated to him by God or human legislature.  Regarding Dr. Barnhouse's interpretation of original sin, the fact that this may have been believed as she claims does not make it true.  Some false positions and misunderstandings of scripture have taken a long time to get corrected.  How long did we believe that menstruating women were unclean and inferior?  The feeling has evolved in law and society, with no significant theological opposition, that for some people or some moments, judgment and insight are impaired, lacking, or insufficiently developed to make responsibility for a choice anything but trivial.

Dr. Barnhouse has some awareness of the evil done to people by dwelling upon their alleged responsibility for "choices" made under markedly adverse or primitive conditions. (p. 147) "Freud's research revealed that people are subject to guilt for sinful wishes in early childhood that were not even conscious, let alone acted upon, and that these guilt feelings are a major cause of the disposition to psychological disorders in adult life."  Notice it is the neurotic guilt and not the "sinful" wish or conflictual choice that leads to adult pathology. (p. 148) "... neurotic guilt.  By this we mean that the original sinful deed or wish is largely fanciful, or that the quantity of guilt experienced is out of proportion to the extent of its cause." (p. 156):  After insisting that unconscious solutions to conflict are the result of choices and that people are responsible for such choices, she continues " ... Furthermore, because this process begins so early in life that we have neither the necessary experience or judgment to choose wisely, all of us are, to a greater or lesser degree, deformed by our past."  How can the choice for heterosexuality, made at the same age and under the same adverse conditions, be regarded as evidence of greater maturity or moral fiber?  Here is an alternate interpretation of original sin from Dr. Barnhouse:  (p. 151) " ... that doctrine which accounts for the fact that human beings are simply incapable of always choosing wisely and require constant help, love, and guidance to do better.  We have also seen that this is true even if the person's responsibility is mitigated by the process having taken place unconsciously.  It is impossible for homosexuality not to be included in this category."  This concession to the possibility that beating the drum about responsibility for early conflictual choices may be putting the wrong emphasis on original sin will not really suffice to rescue homosexuals from the deluge of self-hatred they have been given, and which this book reinforces.

The last item to take up regarding the soundness of thought of this book has to do with her vague formulation that homosexuality is a symbolic confusion.  Dr. Barnhouse reasons only with polar opposites.  I have cited her strange belief that an infant boy not only has a sense of identification with his mother, but that he is continuous with her and, even more grotesquely, identical to her, and to achieve gender identity as a male he must be converted into an opposite.  To her, men and women are opposites, or "other" as she puts it. (p. 172) " ... sexuality itself is a symbol of wholeness, of the reconciliation of opposites."  What happens to all the wholes, all the groups, all the sets of things in life that consist of the sum of their parts, not the sum of opposites?  Small wonder that such limited vision can only see the fusion of two persons who are biologically complementary (not opposite) as whole, but science and theology must rise above this provincialism and recognize that there are other forms of complementarity that may make a valid whole.  Praising the richness of possibilities of the meaning of sexuality when it is viewed as symbolic and not just the traditional procreative, Dr. Barnhouse misses her own point. (p. 175) "If we accept the view of sexuality as symbolic ... then it is no doubt true that we will never exhaust the meanings ... a living symbol is a bottomless well ... But ... the mystery of completeness to be achieved only by encountering the truly other will stand as amongst the most important ..."  She is entitled to select her favorite of the symbolic meanings of sexuality, with or without scientific or other justification.  But it hardly seems logical or charitable to push the argument as she does and then insist that the symbolic variants which do not appeal to her are confusions, immaturities, or disorders.

Earlier I raised the question of the distinction between honorable opposition and that which stems from ignorance or malice.  I feel I have made my case for the quality of scholarship of this book, and turn to the matter of ill will.  To start, here is some material from the book that might raise hope: (p. 47 ) " ... it is undeniable that society's treatment of many kinds of deviants has often transcended the merely uncharitable and reached the outright sadistic."  (p. 116) "It is unquestionably time for society to stop oppressing homosexuals by abrogating their civil rights and labeling their behavior criminal. ....  Furthermore, they must not be oppressed by those misuses of the concept of illness which perpetuate their second class citizenship." (p. 118) "The Church ... has more than a little reason to have collective guilt feelings because of its contribution to the climate of unjust persecution which homosexuals have had to endure ..."  (p. 151) " ... there is no reason to single out homosexuality for cruel and unusual condemnation."  (p. 154) "... the immaturity which homosexuality represents, even though it is morally significant, cannot possibly be as distasteful to the sight of God as the self-righteous hostility of those who persecute homosexuals. Nor is there any room for the milder attitudes of patronizing condescension to 'unfortunates.'  The first law of God, and also the last, is real charity to all. It is incumbent on all of us to keep it."  And most significantly, (p. 177) "Since perfection is hardly a standard for priesthood, homosexuality cannot be in and of itself disqualifying. Persons with other known and confessed immaturities have been and will continue to be ordained."

It is not the alleged "immaturity" or some conditioned cynicism/paranoia of the sexual minorities that leads us to see these declarations as evil disguised as good.  They are the sweetener for a great deal of bitter medicine that has been dispensed.  They come from the curious misalliance of self ordained messiah-impersonators, clergy, prelates, and legislators who are responsible for devising and perfecting the blend of condescension and sadism Dr. Barnhouse refers to.  I disagree with her contention that the "idea that all sex is bad, homosexuality is even worse..." (p. 169) stems from a few isolated clergy who oversimplify and distort the real teaching of the Church.  Various parts of the Church are, at this moment, using enormous resources of money, manpower, and social leverage to teach just that, and the simple message to despise people you do not know or understand comes through the florid prose quite clearly, from the highest to the humblest sources.  Dr. Barnhouse's voice is among them.  Recall her concession that "perfection is hardly a standard for priesthood" and wonder how she concludes (p. 177) "No homosexual should be ordained who believes and proclaims that homosexuality is normal and entirely acceptable," and that "Any candidate who is subsequently discovered to have lied ... should be automatically disqualified."  In just those few sentences she has ruled that the confessed "immaturity" of homosexuality is somehow worse than all the others and deserves an "unusual condemnation."  Candidates who fear, suspect, or know they have a same-sex erotic orientation are forced to follow the traditional path taken by their brothers and sisters who now serve in the religious life. They can knuckle under to the dogma that they are abnormal constitutionally and morally inferior.  They can lie about it to themselves and to others and try to evade discovery.  They can try to subscribe to her implication that candor and honesty are of secondary value, and that it is wiser to live a life of conventional virtuous pretense.  Failing all these horrors, they can relinquish their call and give up hope that they are just as eligible as their heterosexual counterparts to grow in the service of God and humanity.

There is another crucial hint that her apparently supportive declarations have a hidden trap.  In general Dr. Barnhouse is offended by open discussions of sexuality.  She insists (p. 122) "... mature people tend not to discuss their sex life as such."   She gives a self-conscious parallel to the very rich who, according to her, avoid the vulgarity of discussing money.  This is in line with her opposition to physiologic studies and public health data, and a vote for continued ignorance, superstition, and secrecy in the name of etiquette.  She goes a step further when she scolds a pro-homosexual lobby (p. 45) about a letter to members of the American Psychiatric Association.  She believes that such lobbying, when it comes from homosexuals, shows an "obviously questionable" propriety.  (I cannot find her comments as to how her book constitutes a proper kind of lobby.)  And she gallops on with the following:  (p. 152) "Far from proclaiming their condition to be normal, homosexuals have the responsibility to minimize it as far as this lies within their power."  No! No! No!  Homosexuals have the responsibility to insist that the normality of the condition is a thing that cannot be known or easily investigated in the prevalent prejudicial atmosphere, and that heavy handed deprivations and punishments for an assumed "abnormality" be stopped.  The injunction to wait patiently while those in power, driven on by their own generous impulses, lift a yoke of suffering from your shoulders, is the most infamous tool of the oppressor.  If people comply, it provides the exploiters with the simplest, cheapest, and most effective method of pillage.  Every minority that has emerged from the shadows to take its birthright can remember how long the lullaby of virtuous suffering, patience, and faith in the good will of the powerful was sung to them.

As she reprimands those who may be hastily discarding attitudes she holds to be indispensable, Dr. Barnhouse says (p. 133) "There are now many who do not know how to discern the difference between oppression and discipline."  Among those who cannot make this discernment are many who are dealing out oppression in the pietistic disguise of discipline.

Dr Jeanne Hoff is in private practice in New York City and deals primarily with people having sexuality problems.  She received her M.D. from Columbia University and her Ph.D. from the University of London.  Dr Hoff is a member of both Integrity and Dignity.

GAY MARRIAGE: A "CONFLUENCE OF TERMS"

A phrase from the Diocesan Council of Virginia's resolution on homosexuality has been gnawing at me for a month.  In the statement on marriage, while not denying that "many homosexual persons can and do live together in faithful, loving, and sometimes lifelong pairings or unions," the Council (and the Study Commission that drafted an earlier version of the resolution) concludes that marriage in a Christian context "must necessarily preclude the 'marriage' of two homosexual persons as being a contradiction in terms" because marriage, they contend, is defined as "a lifetime union of a man and a woman (including) the possibility of the procreation of children."

Two things bother me profusely about that statement.  One is the harebrained logic; the other is the mindset that leads to focusing on what, in fact, gay relationships can be called.  Let's undo the logic first.

Marriage is not theologically defined in terms of procreation; it has never been.  A perfectly sterile man and a perfectly sterile woman have always been able to have a marriage solemnized by the Church, whether the sterility is a result of physical disability or age.  I am aware of an obtuse strain of moral theologizing that purports, by means of some philosophical gymnastics, that such unions are at least theoretically "open" to the possibility of procreation.  After all, Elizabeth, Mary's cousin well beyond the years of childbearing ....  This esoteric line of defense, however, equally falls apart since it is based on the sterile couple's assumed willingness to have children.  Today, a fertile couple can enter a marriage firmly resolved never to have children and have it solemnized.  The new Book of Common Prayer even facilitates such resolve by bracketing for possible omission all sections of the marriage rite that pertain to the bearing of children.  Hence the "logical" conclusion that marriage for gays is precluded because gay relationships are patently non-procreational is nonsense.  The Church has been blessing patently non-procreational marriage right along.

The first phrase of the Council's definition is more easily laid low.  They begin by stating as one logical presupposition that marriage is a "lifetime union of a man and a woman."  Thus defined, it would obviously preclude the "marriage" of two people of the same sex.  Beside the fact that this is a ridiculously obvious case of begging the question, it also bears a morbid resemblance to one of the arguments used to preclude the ordination of women.  If you simply begin by defining priesthood as a rite conferred upon men, then logically you can preclude women.  Underlying the idiotic logic, of course, is the emotional argument for historical precedence: the Church had never ordained a woman before; they still have not officially married two homosexuals.  Those of us who argue for the sanctioning of gay marriages as well as those of us who defend the priesting of women do not view historical precedent as definitive.  What we are saying to the world is, "There are some traditions that are best left behind."  The Spirit constantly reveals to us new facets of God's love ‑‑ if we will only look.

So what is all the fuss about this purported "contradiction in terms?"  Why is the Council (and the Commission) so concerned about what the union of two gay people is called?  This question becomes more poignant when we look at what the Commission went on to say in the same paragraph (and the Council deleted).  "We recognize that heterosexual couples may marry  without the ability to have children and seek in their relationship values such as love, companionship and a true sharing of the whole person; therefore It seems unfair to deny such a relationship to homosexual persons who want no less."  There it is.  They came to realize that, all rhetoric aside, the basic dynamics and nature of a gay relationship based on permanence and fidelity are identical to those of a straight marriage.  And I can attest, as one married gay person, that their insight was accurate.  Three years worth of comparing notes with a great many straight married couples leaves no doubt in my mind that our relationships are of the same order and the same nature.  So again I ask, why all the concern about what we shall be allowed to label Gay unions?

I can perceive only one answer.  And that is that ultimately, even the progressive bleeding-heart liberals that sat on the Commission could not go quite the whole ten yards.  It's the old "the same, but different" evasion tactic that has raised its head as other groups have moved toward their liberation.  "Yes, blacks are equal to whites BUT we'll give them their own water fountains, their own places to sit and their own neighborhoods to live in.  Separate but equal.  Well ... almost equal."

It used to be I didn't much care what people called Wayne's and my relationship; a marriage, a holy union, a covenant.  I used to think it was best left to semantics ‑‑ a trifling matter as long as people understood what the relationship was about.  I don't think so any more.  I had forgotten that what we call things (and people) is very important.  Very important indeed.

Well, here it is world; Gay People Get Married.  And they will continue to get married whether or not any government or church chooses to sanction their marriages.  And it will continue to be hard (sometimes very hard, as has been the case in our marriage) for gay people to sustain their marriages without the social and religious structures and sanctions with which heterosexual people are presently graced.  And that, my friends, is oppression.  So let's stop quibbling about words and get down to the nitty-gritty of dealing with the reality that most straight churchpeople don't want homosexual people married because they basically don't understand homosexuality and are frightened to death by that which they don't understand.  Homophobia by any other name ....

                      John Fortunato-Schwandt

INTEGRITY AWARD WINNERS ANNOUNCED

INTEGRITY, INC., has announced the recipients of its Annual Awards which have been given since 1975 to those who have made significant contributions to the gay community and the gay Christian movement.  This year's award winners are The Rt. Rev. C. Kilmer Myers, Bishop of the Diocese of California, and Virginia Mollenkott and Letha Scanzoni, co-authors of the book, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?

Bishop Myers has been an outspoken supporter of the gay movement on many fronts.  He preached a moving sermon from the pulpit of Grace Cathedral in San Francisco last year opposing Proposition 6 in California.  As a member of the Theological Committee of the Episcopal House of Bishops, he provided the only dissenting vote against the moratorium on gay ordinations called for by the Committee, and wrote a minority report opposing the move, delivered on the floor of the House.  He has also been supportive of INTEGRITY and has been especially encouraging to the San Francisco chapter.  Bishop Myers will retire on January 1, 1980 and it is fitting that he be honored for his consistent and helpful support.

Virginia Mollenkott and Letha Scanzoni have supported the cause of human rights on many fronts.  Their book has had a positive influence, especially with conservative groups and people.  Ms. Scanzoni and Ms. Mollenkott have also addressed many groups about the "Gay and Christian" controversy who might not have otherwise sought out speakers or information from the Gay Christian Movement itself.  They will be appearing at the General Convention of the Episcopal Church.  INTEGRITY will sponsor a speaking engagement for them on September 14, and they will also be present to autograph their book at Integrity's Booth/Bookstore and at our hospitality suite at the General Convention.

(The following article is an actual account.  Places, names and other identifying information have been omitted in consideration of individual feelings and in the belief that experiences of this kind are typical rather than exceptional throughout the Episcopal Church.  The author's name is a pseudonym.)

THE MISSIONARY POSITION

A review of the Gulf Stream Diocese's response to 1976 General Convention's mandated three-year study of sexuality.

One year after the 1976 General Convention called for a 1976-9 study of human sexuality, two unrelated resolutions of the Gulf Stream's Diocesan Executive Council and the Diocesan Convention called for local action.  One and one-half years after General Convention's mandate, Gulf Stream's Human Sexuality Committee was organized.

Early meetings of the committee reflected the fact that the two resolutions establishing the committee were entirely unrelated. Members could not agree whether the task was to study human sexuality or to produce a study document to be used throughout the Diocese.  As author of the Council resolution, I was deeply committed to a wide-ranging, responsible study, which would encourage ever-widening participation in a process which would raise awareness of the concrete opportunities we possess to express and experience the love of God sexually.  The majority, however, accepted a minimalist challenge:  to produce for congregational use a document stating traditional theology as it applied to current sexual issues.

The next issue faced by the committee was the problem of committee membership.  The Bishop appointed all members and the Chair.  The Chair's appointment was particularly interesting since during the debate over the enabling resolution at Convention, he had emphatically opposed a study, saying that we already knew all that was necessary, and the study would merely express what we had already decided was right.  The appointment of a hostile Chair is surely a frequent leadership-control tactic in Congress and Legislatures, but one can only wonder at the tactic's use in the Church.

The Committee was informed that it had no authority to add to its membership which consisted, actively, of six male clergy, three laymen, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, an obstetrician, and two laywomen, one with a nearly completed theological education, the other, a member of an experimental renewal community.  Without wishing to denigrate the experience or skills of any member, I believe that none of us possessed very broad familiarity with current research, sexism or feminism, nor any serious theological discipline with respect to sexuality, save only the psychiatrist, a specialist in adolescent sexuality, and the female theological student, a specialist in sexism and feminism.  Meetings were routinely scheduled at times which prevented very active participation by the psychiatrist.  And the female specialist dropped off the committee for reasons of health after a few months.

I vigorously protested the membership, inviting the committee to express concern to the Bishop, which it never did, and in personal correspondence with the Bishop.  It seemed clear to me that one-half of the human sexual experience is female, indicating a most serious gender imbalance of the committee.  Further, the failure to include a single acknowledged gay or lesbian, when much of the committee's business might affect such persons, doomed any result of our work.  The committee majority and the Bishop instantly rejected the latter demand, claiming ours to be a theological not a political task.  My position was and is that as each of us is made in the image of God, each is called to the theological task.  Failure to include the experience of all is failure of the theological task.

When the theological student resigned, leaving only one active female on the committee, the Bishop appointed four women to replace her, three of whom ultimately were active, and a layman. With these appointments the committee contained the married, single, divorced and remarried, but no self-affirming gay, who might have helped dispel the ignorance and anxiety so evident on the committee.  I sensed continuously in the Bishop and committee a fear of sexual minorities, of the articulate liberated woman or gay, lest their presence reveal the broad areas of human experience and knowledge which are simply omitted in the Church's teaching and proclamation of the Gospel.  One committee member, for example, was transfixed by the causes of homosexuality, a question any gay could have pointed out is more complex than the DNA molecule and which, in any case, is not so important as the way gay persons are treated by the Church.

Of the last four women appointed, one is a female deacon whose vocation has been more thoroughly and longer tested than any I am aware of, but her priestly vocation was denied by Gulf Stream's Standing Committee in February, 1979, which knows better than the General Convention that it is impossible for God to make a female priest!

The Bishop searched the Diocese carefully for members of the committee, but found only a few who did not hold his views on sexual matters.  It happened accidentally, he assured me, since he had not tried to determine members' views before appointing them.  O miraculous unconscious!

The committee repeatedly rejected a format which would draw forth either interested or expert testimony, fearing that members would be over-taxed as to time, and overwhelmed by volume.  Few books were corporately read and none were discussed in any depth.  In short, interest in current data, cultural, technical, psychological, political or sexual, was minute to nil.  The assumption was made that we possessed, corporately, the necessary sociological, theological and biblical skills to complete the task adopted by the majority.  What I mean by "sociological skills" are those disciplined powers of observation systematically used to establish facts of social behavior, as well as facts about the meanings of social behavior, as perceived by society's members.  Such confidence, although obviously misplaced, meant that resource persons and materials offered in writing by several persons and groups could safely be ignored.

Nor was the committee interested in genuine dialogue within itself.  Efforts by a few to broaden perspective, or to introduce personal sexual experience were viewed as disruptive.  Repeated attempts to speak of the insufficiency of the project, the pain which our procedure was causing and would be guaranteed to cause in future were routinely rejected by a majority which promised, falsely as it turned out, that public airing of the product of our work would enable us to amend, correct or add.

In the majority's opinion we began to make progress when protest and attempt at dialogue were abandoned.  An outline on sexuality, conservative to the point of reaction, had been offered by the Committee Chair.  A process of point by point consideration ensued but quickly evolved into members writing papers on elements of the outline.  Remaining sessions consisted of discussing their papers, changing them or returning them for redrafting.  The paper on "Authority" was redrafted about one-half dozen times.  The final three months of work consisted of one month with no meetings, and the last month with one meeting to accommodate the imminent departure of the Chair for a one-year sabbatical.  Out of town for the meeting, I had no knowledge it was to be the last, nor did several other members know they were attending the last meeting.

Considering the potential impact of such a document upon individuals, the hasty effort was unseemly, consisting in toto of fourteen meetings.  This problem was dealt with by, as may be noted further on, unkept promises, that this was simply a preliminary effort.  The majority felt obligated to submit a study document to Convention, 1978, and to demonstrate to Council that the Committee had been faithful to its task.  The Bishop made clear to the Council that he had not designated an interim Chair, despite the projected absence of the Chair for one year.  He further let me understand that we had no authority to proceed, despite the fact that neither Council nor Convention had so hamstrung the committee, once it had been appointed by the Bishop.

Not surprisingly, despite an initial unanimous commitment not to submit study guides, statements or position papers to Council or Convention before meaningful public hearings and input, Gulf Stream's Human Sexuality Committee completed its fulfillment of the General Convention three-year study in six months, submitting a statement, an outline, and papers expansive of the outline to Council and Convention.  Since I agreed neither with the process nor the result, I drafted a short statement expressing the reasons for my dissent.  My statement was concurred in by two other committee members, and we submitted it as a minority statement to Diocesan Council.  Council ordered the Diocese to print and distribute to Convention both majority and minority documents.  Council also passed unanimously a motion thanking committee members but indicating the task was far from completed. Council instructed the Bishop to speedily reconvene the committee so that its work could proceed.

The story continues with the shocking events of the 1978 Diocesan Convention.  Integrity, an organization for gay Episcopalians, and, in Gulf Stream, at least their very few friends, routinely requested of the Convention.  Arrangements Committee space to exhibit its educational materials and from which to engage in dialogue with interested members of Convention.  The King's Ministry, (an organization designed to help gay people go straight, and heavily dependent for financing upon the interest of the Bishop), had been granted exhibition space.  But the Arrangements Committee Chair was clearly appalled at Integrity's request.  Indicating personal disapproval, he nevertheless submitted the issue to the Bishop for decision.  Integrity's request was denied.  This arbitrary misuse of the Bishop's power should not have surprised Integrity.  Although he had met with the group once, insistence of its members that "gay is okay," caused him to decline to celebrate the Eucharist for and with Integrity.  At other times he had denied permission for Integrity to use his Cathedral or Diocesan meeting places.  Fulfilling the maxim, "divide and conquer," the Bishop has frequently met Integrity members individually but any group activity, recognition or charity is rigidly excluded from the Bishop's agenda.

Convention opened with Integrity distributing educational materials outside each door of the Cathedral, its only hope for dialogue.  Inside, all the other sinners had fellowship with their Bishop amid the pomp which has so much power to enchant Episcopalians.  In his address the Bishop spoke to questions of sexuality facing the Church by prophesying that the time is coming when a woman will be ordained priest in this Diocese.  He stated, further, that the Church has old and venerated truth to teach about sexuality.  But "woe to the Church," he proclaimed with emphasis, which puts forward its teaching in such a way as "to create a new class of victims."  "Dialogue," he further noted, "is at the center of Christian life."  Integrity members knew that this proclamation of the Gospel included all classes and conditions of persons except the self-affirming gay or lesbian.  Some gay persons snickered; most abandoned the Cathedral.

During the business sessions of Convention delegates noted that the Diocese had failed to reproduce and distribute the minority statement of the Human Sexuality Committee.  A unanimously adopted motion of Convention instructed the Diocese to reproduce and distribute the statement to every delegate.  The Bishop engaged himself to carry out this command.

Six months after the Council resolution calling for urgent continuing work of the Human Sexuality Committee the Bishop has not acted.  Five months after the Convention, the committee's minority statement remains unprinted and undistributed.  One has to conclude that sex is finished in Gulf Stream.

Our church has not yet overcome its sexual phobias and double standards.  Bishops and deputies have not ended our corporate abysmal ignorance of sexuality, nor do they seem yet to appreciate the trail of wretchedness walked by thousands in consequence of the Church's sexual terrorism.  To date the study of sexuality in the Episcopal Church is as satisfying as coitus interruptus.

The only reasonable course for the 1979 Convention is to insist that the Church undertake the task of promoting openness, honesty and compassion in the area of human sexuality.  If Prayer Book reform has taken twenty years, Convention ought to decline passage of punitive canons or cruel resolutions, recognizing that sexuality is somewhat more complex than the Prayer Book.  At all costs Convention must evidence a concern lacking in the House of Bishops Pastoral, in diocesan studies, and in the preacher-pastors whose mien covers a fearful rejection of any experience other than their own.  General Convention must make a believable commitment to end the real, daily, continuing crucifixion of Christ in the sexually oppressed.  At this point, the sexually oppressed have a right to identify the Church with the "guy" in the following words spoken to a man:  "I listen to women talk all day long.  Do you listen?  All they talk about is how some guy messed them over."  (Warren Beatty as the hairdresser in Shampoo)

ON THE NECESSITY OF CLOSETS

by Harry A. Woggon

Closets are necessary for everyone.  Each of us have many feelings, desires, fantasies and things that need to be kept in closets.  Some of these are near the front for easy and regular retrieval, while others are hidden deep in the recesses and all but forgotten.  Closets also have doors which are normally closed.  They are to be opened by us or with our permission.  Never are they to be wretched open or ransacked, lest many fine and delicate things be destroyed.

While we have the control over our own closet and may choose who is welcome there, there is One who can enter any place and from whom nothing can be hid.  The Lord God focused most clearly in Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit is not limited by time and space and may be equally present everywhere.  Yet He does not force his way in.  He stands waiting and knocking, but the latch to our closet is on the inside only ‑‑ our side.  He will not force his way in; he enters by request only.  Once within our closet, with that gentle firmness so characteristic of his earthly ministry, Jesus asks us, in the light of his Presence, to sort out, clean out and set in order.  He asks us to open the door for a spring cleaning even as he came out of that closeted tomb of doubt, despair and death on the first Easter Day.

Closets and wardrobes are mysterious places, as those who have read C. S. Lewis' Chronicles of Namia have discovered.  They may lead to strange symbolic lands or just to the back of the closet. Like all mysterious places the more they are explored the more mysterious they become.  They may be problems as well, but the problems to be solved are the size, shape and organization of the closet, not the closet itself.

All people need closets in which they may store their secrets and their treasures.  The contents of closets are shared only with intimates and are not available to the curious and the crass.  The zealous cry to open all closets and expose all mysteries will not lead to greater joy and enlightenment but to a form of existence that is cut, dried and dull, lacking all shades, shadows and wrinkles.

People must neither be required to live in closets nor be forced to open them for public inspection.  No one must be compelled to live in the constant fear that his closet will be ripped open and his secrets scattered around for all to see.  When a person willingly opens his closet and shares some of the secrets and mysteries therein, humiliation and ridicule will have no effect because they will not be utilized.  However, when there is a denial that there is even a closet, harassment, humiliation and blame may well result.  Closets need to be acknowledged and accepted as a necessary part of well ordered life.  Then each of us may proceed in that integrity and dignity which leads to joy, peace and wholeness.

Harry A. Woggon, Administrator of the Alcohol and Drug Programs for Blue Ridge Community Mental Health Center, is a self-supporting priest in the Diocese of Western North Carolina.  He is married, has four children, and lives in Asheville, North Carolina.

"LIKE A MIGHTY TORTOISE"

by Tom Jones

(Reprinted from the newsletter of the Open Church Group, an interdenominational fellowship for the dignity of Gay Christians, in England; Tom Jones is Secretary.)

"The Church is the conscience of the nation:  it is the task of the Church to give guidance to the nation on homosexuality."   Brave and stirring words from an Anglican bishop at a recent conference I attended on where the Church was at on homosexuality.  Those of us who are Non-Conformist might hark back to the days ‑‑ long since gone ‑‑ of the "Non-Conformist Conscience," when the Free Churches rightly or wrongly often made or marred political lobbies and indeed careers, causing many a Westminster politician to tremble, and legislating for the general morality and lifestyles of Society.

Modern commentary in this vein comes perhaps from a recently published national survey on the religious and moral attitudes of young people, who give a very decided two fingers (and I don't mean the Churchillian victory sign!) to the historic churches. The survey tells us that only 20% of boys and 33% of girls definitely believed in God, and 52% of teenagers believed that God helps people (it was 62% in '74).  On Morality ‑‑ sex outside marriage ‑‑ young people polled 57% definitely "OK" for boys and 21% for girls, yet only 1% of both sexes appeared to tell us that gay sex was "OK."  52% of the boys and 60% of the girls did say, however, that "it should be left to the individual."  The conference I started this piece with was an interesting barometer of where Christians in the established churches were at on homosexuality in particular and sexuality in general.  It was something of a unique and historic gathering, I suppose ‑‑ bringing together heterosexual and gay Christians, incorporating laymen, priests and pastors, psychiatrists, theologians and a mixture of people from the caring professions.  All, I think, expressed a concern that the Church face up to its responsibilities to gays: indeed, one leading Anglican ‑‑ and a straight one at that ‑‑ said that the C of E was "on the hook" over its deliberations on homosexuality.  Certainly the credibility of the Church is very much at stake now for many of us, so I hope that our religious friends in high places take a serious note of the above survey and the gay/Christian dialogue generally if they want to continue to have consumers to pay their wages!

Whether these friends like it or not, we represent the tip of the sexual iceberg making up all humankind.  If the Church really is the Body of Christ, then it must minister to our sexuality ‑‑ whatever that might be ‑‑ in the context of its total mission.

"Like a mighty tortoise creeps the Church of God" runs the parody on "Onward Christian Soldiers."  How long must we wait, How long can we wait?  Christ is surely coming again ‑‑ what will He find? Will He find His Body whole and holy, scorning outward form and respectability, caring for and comprising ALL manner and type of men and women?  Or a tawdry, broken remnant of die-hard reactionaries afraid of their own shadows, ravished and burnt out like an old whore, prey to every fear and phantasy?

May I end with the more encouraging and dignified words of the Friends Homosexual Fellowship statement "Sexuality in Context."   God grant that they ring true and are true in all our lives!

"Until recently society's greatest concern about sexuality has focused on the institution of marriage and the development of adult sexual relationships that will provide a secure basis for bringing up children.  This will probably remain the pattern for the majority, but greater openness and honesty about sexual matters leads us to realize that there are many people for whom this pattern is incomplete, unworkable or irrelevant.  Sexual experience and the capacity to give and receive love vary greatly from person to person.

"From childhood onwards we are sexual beings.  Whether we are emotionally attracted to the other sex or to our own, enjoying a sexual relationship or remaining celibate, experiencing delight or frustration, we can hardly avoid being aware of our sexual feelings and trying to find the proper place for them in our lives.  The body is both a temple of the Holy Spirit and an instrument of relationship, giving our sexuality a profound spiritual dimension.  For many people it is a joyful truth that where the emotions are rooted in commitment and responsibility, there sexuality receives its deepest and most powerful expression.

"It is part of our Western experience ‑‑ and one that reflects our high valuation of the individual ‑‑ that sexuality is one of the important ways in which a person becomes aware of his or her own identity as an individual.  Because of the complex and imperfect world in which we live, it may not be easy for us to realize our sexual identity in truth, joy, love and responsibility.  But we need to remember that life is a process of growing and that all parts of that process, the setbacks as well as the successes, have their specific value.  The goals of sexuality are different at different stages of life, and they vary from person to person. It is unhelpful to denigrate or elevate one form of sexual experience at the expense of another, provided that it does not cause harm or take place under constraint.  The experience of the child or adolescent differs from that of the adult.  The male experience is not the same as the female.  A heterosexual relationship is not of itself morally any better or worse than a homosexual relationship.  Each may be prized according to the measure of tenderness, caring and responsibility that it shows.

"In the looking at the experience of others we should be aware that where we are ourselves, by chance or disposition, most conventional, we may also be most lacking in insight, imagination and sympathy.  We ought not to judge sexual experience ‑‑ our own or others' ‑‑ by constant reference to external standards, but rather by its appropriateness in the context of growth towards personal wholeness.  While the means of expressing our love may vary, the underlying nature of love itself remains unchanged: love unfailing, patient in disappointment, endlessly forgiving, love unselfish, slow to take offense, keeping no score of wrongs."

              12 June 1977, Friends Homosexual Fellowship.

GAY CLERGY WANTED

During the past several years the Church has begun to struggle with the issue of "gay liberation."  Since 1969, considered to be the turning point for the gay movement, few if any, institutions in North America have escaped its influence, and the Church is certainly no exception.  At first the big issue was the simple acceptance of gays within the congregation.  Today the focus has shifted to the much more difficult question of the Ordination of persons of a homosexual orientation.

Many people, in all walks of life, have begun to write of the gay experience, and their personal stories are accounted by many to be amongst the most powerful and influential factors in bringing the heterosexual majority of our society to some understanding of their homosexual neighbors.  Scientific studies have been valuable, but the true life stories of men and women, doctors, writers, lawyers, artist, football players ... has done more than anything to break down some of the traditional prejudice and misunderstanding and open the door to acceptance, freedom and integrity for many gay people.

In only a very few instances have we heard from openly gay clergy ‑‑ people who have been able to, and chosen to, remain within the church.  We have not heard from the thousands of gay clergy who lived closed and secretive lives.  Perhaps this is understandable since the church has for centuries been so negative about sexuality in general and same-gender sexuality in particular.  But the omission is a serious block to any growth of understanding within the church, and to the development of a holistic theology of sexuality ‑‑ one that fully takes into account the very real spiritual experience of a considerable number of serious and dedicated Christians.

We anticipate that the debate around this issue will continue for some years to come, and would like to hope that the church will be open to dialogue with many people on the question, and responsive to the movement of God's Spirit wherever that may lead.  In particular we would like to see the Church and secular society enlightened by listening to what has to this point been an amazing "sound of silence," the voice of that great cloud of witnesses who are its gay Christian clergy.

To this end we would like to write a book about the gay Christian clergy experience, and to base it on the life stories of a representative selection of ministers.  We would hope to include both women and men, from a wide variety of denominational background, different ages, life-styles and types of personal and ministerial experiences.  We will hope, in presenting these stories, to find a way to retain something of the unique 'flavor' of each person and what we can learn from their particular experience of the Gospel.

We would now like to invite you to participate with us in this project and to make your contribution to the overall picture that we hope to build.  We would also like to ask for your help in discovering others who would be willing to join us, and to pass on a copy of this Proposal to anyone whom you might recommend as possible contributors.

If you are able to accept, would you please contact one of us.  We will attempt then to arrange for an interview of approximately two hours with you.  This will be taped, transcribed and edited, and a first draft prepared.  We will send you a copy of this draft for your comments, suggestions or additional information.  We are concerned about personal confidentiality and anonymity (see further note) and so again at this stage we would like to give you an opportunity to make corrections which would assure your privacy.  If your narrative is ultimately selected for inclusion in the book we will consult with you on all further revisions made to the text.

We anticipate that all of the material that we gather will be of value; and those contributions not finally included could still be of great service to the research projects on gay clergy that we anticipate will be undertaken in the next few years.  We would later consult with you on the possibility of making your contribution available in some such way.  Under no circumstances would we release any information obtained from you without your consent.

ANONYMITY:

In view of the present position of the church on homosexuality we recognise the need of most people for strict confidentiality.  This, in a sense, is what the book is all about, and we would like to assure you that we will fully respect your need for anonymity in making your contribution.  We will consult with you on the use of suitable pseudonyms the alteration of place names, and any other devices necessary to protect both you and any other persons mentioned in your story.  After transcription, all tapes will be erased.

If you choose to participate in the creation of this book with us, would you please contact us immediately at one of the addresses below.  We will need to hear from you no later than September 1st 1979, and will then keep you informed on the progress of the book.

With sincere appreciation.

Harold J. Wells                   Roy L. Wood

2718 University Av.               3421 N. Hayden Rd.

Des Moines, IA 50311              Scottsdale, AZ 85251

(515) 274-3133                    (602) 994-1329

"GO YE FORTH' ‑‑ AND HE DID

LONDON.  When Anglican church authorities decided Richard Kirker was 'unsuitable' for parish work, they unwittingly opened the door to a wider ministry.

His work today is creating a stir beyond anything they could have imagined when they effectively gave him the choice of hiding his gayness or sacrificing his hopes of the priesthood.

Now, instead of masking his sexuality in the customary cloak of clerical discretion, he is in the forefront of GCM, the Gay Christian Movement, which he helped to found.

He has just become GCM's administrative secretary, preparing for a projected doubling of active membership and a 'considerable' expansion of activities, counselling, lobbying ‑‑ and praying.

At 27, Richard, a boyishly slight fair-haired man who smiles a lot, seems stuck at the rank of deacon, with little hope in the foreseeable future of taking full Holy Orders.

'It's a price worth paying,' he says in his small office in a City church.  Then he adds significantly:  'For the moment.'

The authorities' decision is not irrevocable.  'They may hope I'll moderate my attitudes and beliefs.'  There's something steely in the smile that follows.

Indeed, there's more than a trace of steel in the Rev. Richard Kirker ('Reverend' is the proper form of address for a deacon as well as for a priest).  Fully committed to both his Christianity and his homosexuality, he refuses absolutely to compromise on either.

This goes back to the partnership which sprung up between him and fellow student Michael Harding at theological college at Durham and Salisbury, after Richard had returned from a year's Voluntary Service Overseas in Pakistan.

'We grew up together, socially and sexually.' says Richard.  As the relationship developed, they helped each other to a deeper understanding of their religious beliefs.  We realized we were not there simply to comfort each other.'  There were gay Christians and insisted on the right to be both ‑‑ in stark contrast to the surreptitious outlook of other gay students.

Michael and Richard chose not to become closeted parties in Anglo-Catholic robes in the traditional manner of most gay clergymen.  They joined CHE in 1971 and other liberation groups ‑‑ and were in at the beginning of GCM.

This led, says Richard with delicate understatement, to mounting tension between them and the college and church authorities.  Richard became a curate and was looking forward to the ministry.

'The church at last realized I was in earnest.  I would not keep quiet about my gayness.'  He was told he would be 'unfulfilled and frustrated if I stayed in the ministry,' the authorities' polite way of removing him from candidacy for the priesthood.

Tragically, Michael was killed in a motorcycle accident in February 1977.  But his influence obviously pervades Richard's life and thinking and is still clearly felt in the movement itself, which sponsors an annual Michael Harding Memorial Address (this year's will be at the Westminster Cathedral Centre on March 31).  A selection of snapshots of Michael stands unobtrusively by Richard's phone.

From being a small, almost defiant, band of gay Christians huddled together for mutual support, the Gay Christian Movement has become a major force in the network of gay organizations and is increasingly a thorn in the side of church establishments of all denominations.

'A thorn, yes, but a creative, positive thorn,' says Richard, who emphasizes that there are two equally important aspects of GCM's activities.

There is the task of ministering to the growing number of gay Christians who need feel isolated no longer, as well as to those gays who have been alienated unnecessarily by the traditional ecclesiastical abhorrence of homosexuality.  ('It can be a bridge back to the church without compromising integrity,' he says).

And there is the formidable task of lobbying and campaigning to change official attitudes inside the churches themselves.

The movement is growing rapidly, and now that GCM has raised £1,600 to pay Richard's part-time salary for a year (he survives by frugal living and with the help of friends) it expects a boom in 1979.

Membership, currently around 600, is expected to rise beyond 1.000 soon.  The inquiry rate is also escalating, with more and more requests for information and help.  (Who else would you ask, for instance, where to find a priest willing to bless a homosexual partnership?  Even the Women's Own problem page referred such an inquiry recently to GCM.)

'We are entirely ecumenical and entirely confidential,' says Richard, who knows and understands better than many the sometimes irresistible pressure on Christians, especially those in orders, towards anonymity and discretion.  He and his colleagues help people to come out if they want to, but never insist on it.

A charming and almost intimidatingly articulate young man, Richard has no regrets about having made his own stand.  'I feel this job is a valid extension of the ministry.

'I suppose you could say that now I've got the whole country as a parish ...'

-- The Cay Christian Movement's address is: BM Box 6914, London WC1V6XX.  Tel: (01) 283-5165.

Reprinted from Gay News, (c) January 25, 1979 (159)

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

Minnesingers, 12th-14th cent. Ger. Iyric poets, chf. theme love; almost exclusively of noble descent; sang their elaborate verses to their own accompaniment; highest devel. in Swabia and Austria; classical repres., Walter von der Vogelweide.

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

WINSOME WAUGH

Auberon Waugh confided to London's Private Eye that "services in the Roman Catholic Church have become so repulsive that I am seriously thinking of joining the Church of England."

"Obviously, the history of the Church of England is totally abject, rooted in cowardice, servility and doctrinal error.  On the other hand, it seems to have acquired a certain dignity over the years, while the present countenance of the Roman Church is transcendentally ignoble and reptilian in every aspect."

Qualifying the statement for London's Catholic Herald, Waugh remarked:  "I'm not trying to insult anyone, even bo-Irish priests whose brogue renders the vernacular liturgy both unintelligible and hideous ....  I am concerned as to whether the Mass, as at present celebrated, is fit for the eyes and ears of an English country gentleman.  I mean no offense to the fools who don't agree."

That's an astringency worthy of his old man.

From Commonweal, Vol. CII, No. 1, p. 4.

BISHOP FRENSDORFF WILL PRESIDE AT INTEGRITY EUCHARIST

The Right Reverend Wesley Frensdorff, Bishop of Nevada, will be the Principal Celebrant at the opening Eucharist of the Integrity Convention, Friday, September 7, at St Thomas' Episcopal Church, Denver.  Concelebrants will be the Right Reverend Otis Charles, Bishop of Utah, who will also preach the sermon, and the Right Reverend Edmond L Browning, the Bishop of Hawaii.  It is hoped that Bishop C. Kilmer Myers, one of the 1979 Integrity Award Winners, will also be present to concelebrate, if his health permits.  Joining the bishops in concelebration will be all the priest members of Integrity, and assisting at the Eucharist will be all deacon members.

WITNESS OFFERS SIX MONTHS FREE

THE WITNESS magazine, which has run two special issues on gays and the church, has published in the June 1979 issue an article by Carter Heyward called "Theological Explorations of Homosexuality."  It is excerpted from a talk she gave before the Massachusetts Diocesan Commission on Human Sexuality and the Church and Society Network, Massachusetts chapter.

THE WITNESS will send, to anyone who asks, a complimentary six-month subscription.  All you need to do is write to THE WITNESS, Box 359, Ambler, PA 19002.  Ask for six free issues and specify that you want to begin with the June issue.  (Offer open to non-subscribers only.)

THE WITNESS is the only Episcopal Journal devoted exclusively to social concerns.  We're glad to recommend it to you.

[ ] Please enter my (our) complimentary subscription to THE WITNESS for six months.

[ ] I (We) already subscribe.  Enter the free subscription for (friend or associate):

Name ___________________________________________

Address ________________________________________

City __________ State _________ Zip ____________

BOOKS IN BRIEF

Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?  Letha Scanzoni and Virginia R. Mollenkott, Harper & Row, 1978.  $6.95

Jonathan Loved David.  Tom Horner.  Westminster Press, 1978.  $5.95

In his address to the diocesan convention in San Francisco last October, Bishop Myers referred to those, including some Episcopalians, who claim that the Scriptures are inerrant.  He reminded us that such folk do not belong to the mainstream of Anglican tradition, which has no infallible book to guide, direct, or order us to God's will.  Rather for Anglicans the concept of authority is rooted in Tradition and God-implanted human Reason, as well as in Scripture.  "The Bible," he said, "is our Book ... born out of the experience of the church.  We must not let the fundamentalists steal our Book.  Their claim is that only they know how to read it and understand it.  It was, they say, dictated to human automatons who, taught by the Holy Spirit, wrote it from Genesis to Revelation.  They delight in "proof texts," quoting them whenever it suits their purpose ...  We have been nice to the fundamentalists and polite and tolerant long enough.  Now we must fight back and re-assert our own tradition. Now is the time to attack and in a manner that does not ape the hatred many of them have for us.  It is time to assert that theirs is a false Christianity."

Underlying these words is certainly the belief that Christians are not asked to take the Scriptures literally, but they do have a responsibility to take them seriously.  Too often Christians, especially gay Christians, fail to accept that responsibility.  The reasons are obvious.  We have been exposed for so long to so much homophobia masquerading as biblical teaching that we despair of finding any good news for ourselves in these pages; instead we abandon that aspect of our struggle for dignity and justice, and in so doing allow the false notion to continue that the gospel of Jesus Christ, like water fountains in the old South and in South Africa now, is "For Heterosexuals Only."

The two books being reviewed are intended to change all this.  The authors of the first book, both evangelical Christians, believe that many Christian people do not identify with the "Kill a queer for Christ" mentality which flourished in Dade County, Fla. in 1977 and a little less virulently in California in 1978. But many continue to be puzzled and disturbed about homosexuality and about what they see as immorality.  This book is intended to provide them with information to help resolve their ethical dilemma.  It begins by reminding us of Jesus' teaching that all people are our neighbors, and that our responsibility to a neighbor is quite clear:  to love him/her as ourselves.  Carrying that out may mean that we have to abandon our prejudices, or even give up some deeply held religious 'convictions.'  Jesus' parable about the Good Samaritan attacked the prejudices of his listeners, because he confronted them with the notion that in a life-and-death crisis a despised Samaritan was the good guy; and the early apostles, as they went out to preach to non-Jews came to understand that the gospel of Christ transcended the rules and laws of the Mosaic tradition, however sacred and eternal they had seemed before.

The authors look briefly, but quite thoroughly, at what the Scriptures do say and don't say about homosexuality; scientific insights into this area of human experience; the sociological processes of stigmatizing and stereotyping as they apply to gay people; and, finally, the debate going on in the churches and the urgent need for rethinking our traditional views ... or even, I would suggest, thinking about them in the first place.  The authors conclude, "Those who dare to pioneer in such rethinking must be prepared to pay a price.  Deeply ingrained attitudes toward taboo subjects do not disappear overnight.  Even to suggest a reexamination of the subject can call forth charges that a person is guilty of heresy, of leaving Christian teachings and going against the will of God ...   The big question is this:  Are we willing to face the cost in order to share the love of Jesus Christ?" (pp 132-4)

Tom Horner's book is subtitled Homosexuality in Biblical Times, a subject about which there is widespread ignorance or misinformation.  "For almost nineteen hundred years the evidence and arguments for the acceptance of homosexuality in the Bible have been largely ignored or concealed.  Now the full story needs to be told.  The facts of the matter are that we all need to learn more.  This book is written for all those in the churches who are still wrestling with the moral and from their standpoint legal questions in regard to the ordination of professed homosexual candidates to their ministries:  for all those Christians who are personally troubled by what they understand the Bible to say about homosexuality; and for all others who, whether for humane, judicial, or scholarly reasons, are concerned about the issues raised by this "subject." (p. 13)

Horner begins by describing something of the ancient middle eastern world that was the historical matrix of the bible.  In that world homosexuality was widely practiced ‑‑ by noble lovers, by professional homosexual prostitutes, and by plain average citizens ‑‑ and with varying degrees of acceptance depending upon circumstances.  He asserts, and documents the assertion, that there was a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan, and that the relationship between Ruth and Naomi is also capable of this understanding, and that in neither case would this have been disgraceful to their contemporaries.  What was morally contemptible to the ancient scriptural writers was the rape and sexual abuse involved in the Sodom story (Homer disagrees with Derrick Bailey here) and the cultic prostitution, both male and female, found in the Canaanite religions.  The first was condemned because it was violent and coercive; the second because it was seen as idolatrous and intimately associated with pagan worship.

As for the New Testament writers, Homer presents a long discussion (impossible to summarize here) of Paul's attitudes towards homosexuality.  These were influenced by his attitudes towards sexuality in general and by the situations of his listeners, just as were his attitudes towards women and slaves, and we need to bear in mind that Paul's fundamental teaching is that we are not saved by what we do but by faith in Christ.  And Jesus, as Horner reminds us in his last chapter, never said a word against homosexuality, nor did he ever show hostility against anyone because of known or implied sexual orientation.  Instead he made love central in his teaching and made everything else depend on that.

Both of these books are products of love, a love for Christians both gay and non-gay, both within the churches and separated from the visible Christian community because in their experience it has talked much of love but not shown much love in action.  They are short, well-written, lucid, and easy to read.  For the non-gay church member who may still be struggling with the idea of gay liberation and self-affirming gay presence in the church I would recommend Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?  It will strengthen his/her conscience to answer yes without hesitation and then to act to make that neighbor loved and welcome.  And for the person willing to approach the scriptural record without preconceptions and take its message seriously.  Jonathan Loved David is a good place to start.  It is also a good book for those of us who have to deal from time to time with those who like to quote the Bible selectively against us.  It provides some understanding of what the texts say, and what they don't say and as a bonus it offers a few goodies that we can quote back ... if we want to play that game.

                           Richard G. Younge

This review was reprinted from SFI, the monthly publication of Integrity/San Francisco.  Richard G. Younge is an Episcopal priest, has been convenor of Integrity/San Francisco and is currently the Pacific Regional Representative for Integrity, Inc.

A BIBLIOGRAPHY ON SEXISM

Prepared by Lutherans Concerned, Box 19114A, Los Angeles, CA 90019

Sexism involves a series of arbitrary social and sex roles that limit the expression of the full potential of women and men gay and non-gay.  This Bibliography, emphasizing the more recent efforts to address the question, is published not only for new students of the issue, but for all gay people and women in the church who seek to learn more about themselves and their potential.  Feminist writings, profuse in recent years, are represented here with only a sampling of church-related works.  Where these items are not available in libraries (OOP means Out Of Print), or on special order through secular or church bookstores, mail-order addresses are given.

RELIGION:

IN GOD'S IMAGE:  Toward Wholeness for Women and Men, Rev. LaVonne Althouse and Lois Snook, Eds.  New York:  LCA Divn for Mission in N. America (231 Madison Ave., NYC 10016), 1976.  Magazine format. 48 pp 75¢.  A focus on Lutheran churchwomen today, in varied roles.

HOMOSEXUALITY & THE WESTERN CHRISTIAN TRADITION, by D.S. Bailey. London:  Longmans Green, 1955; Hamden, Conn.- Archon-Shoestring Press, 1975.  181 pp $9.50.  Avail. by mail for $8.50 + 75¢ postage/handling from Oscar Wilde Bookshop, 15 Christopher St., NYC 10014.  The pioneer scriptural treatise by the Anglican Bible scholar.

AN EVANGELICAL LOOK AT HOMOSEXUALITY, by Dr. Ralph Blair.  New York:  Homosexual Community Counseling Center (30 E 60th St, NYC 10022), 1972.  Paper 12 pp $1.50.  Fundamentalist Bible study by a gay alumnus of Bob Jones Univ.

HOLIER-THAN-THOU HOCUS-POCUS & HOMOSEXUALITY, by Dr. Ralph Blair. New York HCCC (Address above).  1977.  Paper 48 pp $2.  The gay therapist carefully shows why, despite the claims, sexual orientation isn't changeable.

GANYMEDE IN EXILE, by Dr. John Boswell.  Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, due Spring 1979.  Promises to be the most thorough scholarly analysis of Scripture and gay life ever published.  By the Yale historian.

TAKE OFF THE MASKS, by Malcolm Boyd.  New York:  Doubleday.  1978.  178 pp $7.95.  The nightclub priest's 2nd autobiography ‑‑ this one telling how he feels about being gay.

WOMEN IN A STRANGE LAND, Betsy Brenneman, Ed.  Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.  Paper 133 pp $3.50.  Testimonies of women seeking freedom:  worship, ministry, singleness, birth.

STRAIGHT/WHITE/MALE, Glenn E. Bucher, Ed.  Philadelphia:  Fortress.  1976.  Paper 149 pp $3.95.  Feminist, gay and Third World perspectives, presented in a novel but dated (and almost exclusively) political treatment.

THE CHURCH & THE SECOND SEX, 1968)

BEYOND GOD THE FATHER, 1973) by Mary Daley.  Boston:  Beacon Press.  Pioneering insights from the Boston College Lesbianfeminist theologian.

WOMEN & WORSHIP: A Guide to Non-Sexist Hymns, Prayers & Liturgies, by Sharon & Thomas Neufer Emswiler.  New York:  Harper & Row, 1974.  115 pp $5.95, paper $2.50.  Essential.

SEX LAWS & CUSTOMS IN JUDAISM, by Louis M. Epstein. New York: Bloch, 1948/00P (Rev. 1968/00P).  The best Old Testament exegesis to date on homosexuality.

LOVING WOMEN/LOVING MEN: Gay Liberation & the Church, by Sally Gearhart & Rev. William Johnson.  San Francisco:  Glide Publ. (330 Ellis St., SF 94102), 1974.  Paper 165 pp $6.95.  The famous ordination, gaychurch history to 1973, Scripture analysis by Dr. Robt. Treese and Lutheran Gearhart's line critique of masculist theology.

HOMOSEXUAL CATHOLICS: A Primer for Discussion, by Sr. Jeannine Gramick, Fr. Robt. Nugent & Fr. Tom Oddo.  San Diego:  Dignity, Inc. (3719 6th St., S.D. CA 92103), 1976.  Paper 18 pp $1.50. Perspectives on theology.

HOMOSEXUALITY, by Rev. Harold I. Haas. St. Louis:  Christ Lutheran Seminary (607 N. Grand Blvd., St. L. MO 63103), 1978. Paper 24 pp 50¢ (10 copies $4.50, 25 for $10).  A Missouri Synod psychologist's plea for charitable acceptance of gays in the pews, as he questions traditional uses of Scripture.  Reprinted from Currents in Theology & Mission, April 1978.

DAVID AT OLIVET, by Wallace Hamilton.  New York:  St. Martin's Press, due Feb. 1979.  206 pp $10, paper $4.95.  Novelized version of I and II Samuel, including David's affairs with King Saul and Jonathan.

A PRIEST FOREVER, by Rev. Carter Heyward.  New York Harper & Row, 1976.  146 pp $6.95.  An Episcopalian's tale of her 1974 Ordination ‑‑ "irregular," they called it, because she isn't a man.

JONATHAN LOVED DAVID:  Homosexuality in Biblical Times, by Fr. Tom Horner.  Philadelphia:  Westminster, 1978.  Paper 163 pp $5.95.  An Episcopalian's erudite analysis of Scripture ‑‑ both the positive passages often overlooked, and those often interpreted negatively.  Thorough.

WHAT ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY?  by Clinton R. Jones.  Nashville:  Thomas Nelson, 1972.  Paper 86 pp $1.95.  A Youth Forum introduction to the topic, ideal for study groups.

TOWARDS A THEOLOGY OF GAY LIBERATION, Malcolm Macourt, Ed. London:  SCM Press, 1977.  Avail. by mail from Alec Allenson Inc., 635 E. Ogden Ave., Naperville, IL 60540, for $5.50 + 45¢ postage.  Paper 113 pp.  Anthology on Scripture, male gay life, male gay relationships.

THE CHURCH & THE HOMOSEXUAL, by Fr. John J. McNeill SJ.  Kansas City:  Sheed, Andrews & McMeel, 1976; 212 pp $10.  Pocket Books paperback 224 pp $2.25.  A landmark work of moral theology, ethics, exegesis and churchmanship.

CHRISTIAN SEXUALITY, by Rev. Richard Mickley. Los Angeles: Universal Fellowship Press (5300 Sta. Monica Blvd., LA 90029), rev. 1976.  Paper 186 pp $3.95.  An exhaustive search for an authentically Christian gay ethic.

WOMEN, MEN & THE BIBLE, by Virginia Ramey Mollenkott.  Nashville: Abingdon, 1977.  Paper 144 pp $3.95.  Jesus as feminist, St. Paul's views, and "mutual submission."

THE LADY WAS A BISHOP, by Joan Morris.  New York: MacMillan, 1973.  $6.95.  The hidden history of ordained women.

EMBODIMENT:  An Approach to Sexuality & Christian Theology by James B. Nelson.  Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1978.  303 pp $8.95.  The flesh doesn't oppose the spirit but embodies it, the United Church of Christ ethicist argues in an outstanding new work.  Lengthy chapter on gay helps.

IS GAY GOOD? Ethics, Theology & Homosexuality.  W. Dwight Oberholtzer, Ed.  Philadelphia:  Westminster, 1971.  Paper 287 pp $3.50.  A carefully balanced symposium, pro and con, lovingly introduced by the LCA sociologist.

THE HOMOSEXUAL QUESTION, by Fr. Marc Oraison. New York:  Harper & Row.  1977 Paper 132 pp $4.95.  A French priest-psychiatrist argues for understanding.

THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD & HE KNOWS I'M GAY.  by Rev. Troy Perry, with Charles Lucas.  New York: Nash, 1972/00P.  Autobiography of the Pentecostal founder of Metropolitan Community Church, now in 125 cities.

A TIME FOR CONSENT       1970)

MAKING SEXUALITY HUMAN, 1972) by Dr. W. Norman Pittenger.  Philadelphia: Pilgrim.  Loving, persuasive pleas for gay ministry from the renowned Anglican theologian.

GAY LIFESTYLES, by Dr. W. Norman Pittenger.  Los Angeles: Universal Fellowship Press (5300 Sta. Monica Blvd., LA 90029), 1977.  135 pp $8.95, paper $4.95.  A loving guide to theology and how gay men live together in love.

NEITHER MALE NOR FEMALE:  Wholeness for Women & Men, by Ruth Bretscher Ressmeyer; 1977.  Avail. by mail for $1.25 + 50¢ postage from St. Paul's Commission on Women, 106 Vernon Valley Rd, East Northport NY 11731.  Paper 78 pp. 5-part Bible study from LC/MS unit on women in pulpit.

RELIGION & SEXISM.  Rosemary Ruether, Ed.  New York:  Simon & Schuster, 1974.  356 pp $9.95.  An excellent anthology of perceptive feminist thought.

LIBERATING THE WORD:  A Guide to Non-Sexist Interpretation of the Bible, Letty M. Russell, Ed. Philadelphia:  Westminster, 1976 Paper 121 pp $3.95.  Four theologians vs. masculist language and liturgy.  Useful study guide.

ALL WE'RE MEANT TO BE:  A Biblical Approach to Women's Liberation, by Letha Scanzoni & Nancy Hardesty.  Waco, Tex:  Word Books, 1974.  Paper 255 pp $4.95.  Examples of how the Bible is sometimes misused to support male dominance.  "Most significant book of 1975." ‑‑Eternity.

IS THE HOMOSEXUAL MY NEIGHBOR?  Another Christian View, by Letha Scanzoni & Virginia Ramey Mollenkott.  New York:  Harper & Row, 1978.  159 pp $6.95.  Caution against fear and hatred from the two evangelical feminists.

THE BIBLE & THE ROLE OF WOMEN, by Dr. Krister Stendahl. Philadelphia:  Fortress, 1966.  Paper 43 pp $135.  Cogent work by the respected Lutheran dean at Harvard.

THE ETHICS OF SEX, by Helmut Thielicke.  New York: Harper & Row.  1964; paper edition, Grand Rapids, Mich:  Baker, 1976, $3.95 Still the major Lutheran contribution to the dialogue on the use of gay sexuality.

GOD & THE RHETORIC OF SEXUALITY, by Phyllis Trible.  Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978.  A Hebrew scholar's study of the Bible's long-neglected female imagery for God.

JESUS ACCORDING TO A WOMAN, by Rachel Conrad Wahlberg.  New York: Paulist Press.  1975.  Paper 106 pp $1.65.  A Lutheran's thoughtful, sometimes humorous study of how Jesus related to women, and their roles in the Bible.

THE SAME SEX: An Appraisal of Homosexuality, Ralph Weltge, Ed.  Philadelphia:  Pilgrim, 1969.  A pioneering work of compassion and justice from UCC's press.

IN CELEBRATION, James Wickliff, Ed.  Chicago: Integrity (Box 891, Oak Park, IL 60603), 1975.  Paper 91 pp $3.  Important for the 49 pp text of Dr. Norman Pittenger's rambling, anecdotal sermon at Integrity's first convention.

THE SHALOM WOMAN, by Dr. Margaret Barth Wold.  Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975.  Paper 128 pp $2.95.  An insightful ALC gay leader's insights on the challenges women face.

ANOTHER KIND OF LOVE:  Homosexuality & Spirituality, by Fr.  Richard Woods OP.  Chicago:  Thos. More Press, 1977.  163 pp $8.95; Doubleday Image paperback, rev. 1978, 155 pp $1.95.  A Dominican priest's observations on and recommendations for a loving ministry with gay men.

THE LESBIAN MYTH:  Insights & Conversations, by Bettie Wysor.  New York: Random House, 1974.  $8.95.  A helpful resource on lifestyles, a fourth of it relating to religion.

Audio-Visual Resource:

A POSITION OF FAITH, a film by Michael Rhodes (1972).  Sound color film 16 mm 19 minutes.  Rentals $25 from Brandon Films (offices in large cities) or $15 from United Church of Christ A-V Office, 600 Grand Ave., Ridgefield NJ 07657.  Documentary on William Johnson's 1972 ordination, and the debate (balanced, pro and con) about it.

Magazines (Special Issues on Homosexuality):

CHRISTIANITY & CRISIS, May 30,1977.  32 pp.  $1 from them at 537 W. 121st St., New York, NY 10027.  Articles by James B. Nelson, Rev. Peggy Way, Nancy Krody, et al.

THE WITNESS, October 1977 (Gays Speak for Themselves, 20 pp. articles by Rev. Ellen Barrett, Louie Crew et al,) and October 1978 (Gays in the Church: Is There a Place?  20 pp, articles by Fr. John Snow, Greg Pinney, Bill Doubleday).  $1 each (10+ for 50¢ each) from them, c/o Episcopal Church Publ. Co., Box 359, Ambler, PA 19002.

THE WITTENBERG DOOR, October-November 1977.  $1.50 from them at 861 6th Ave, San Diego, CA 92101.

Collections & Study Packets:

TASK FORCE ON HOMOSEXUALITY REPORT.  $2 from United Presbyterian Church, 475 Riverside Dr., Room 1201, NYC 10027.  Incl. Majority report endorsing gay ordinations.

RESOURCE PACKET ON GAY ISSUES & MINISTRY, compiled by Commission on Women in Ministry, Natl. Council of Churches.  $3.50 from Professional Church Leadership Divn., Natl. Council of Churches, 475 Riverside Dr., Room 770, NYC 10027.  Collected reprints, pamphlets, church statements.

READING RESOURCES, compiled by Robert Wheatly.  $2 from Unitarian-Universalist Office of Gay Concerns, 25 Beacon St., Boston, MA 02108.  Bibliography of 43 items plus 28 folders, sermons, articles from the gay, daily press.

HOMOSEXUALITY:  A STUDY PACKET.  $1.25 from Dept. of Christian Education, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Box 1986, Indianapolis, IN 46206.

ERA PACKET, compiled by Vivian Jenkins Nelson.  Free from ALC Divn for Life & Mission in the Congregation, 422 S. 5th St., Minneapolis, MN 55415.  A bibliography of 60 items on white and minority women's potential, and 8 statements, pamphlets on the Equal Rights Amendment.

RESOURCES FOR PASTORS.  Order from Lutheran Women's Caucus, 1124 S. Ashland, Chicago, IL 60607.  A 44-item bibliography and 22 sermons, papers and tracts on the roles of women in the church and society.

THEOLOGICAL/PASTORAL RESOURCES.  Paper 76 pp 1976.  $2 from Dignity, 3719 6th Ave., San Diego,CA 92103.  Articles, statements from a gay Catholic perspective.

GAY/GENERAL:

SAPPHO WAS A RIGHT-ON WOMAN, by Sidney Abbott & Barbara Love.  New York: Stein & Day, 1972.  Paper 251 pp $1.95.

HOMOSEXUALITIES:  A Study of Diversity Among Men & Women, by Alan Bell & Martin Weinberg.  New York:  Simon & Schuster, 1978.  505 pp $12.95.  "The" gay lifestyle?  No, there are many, reports this scholarly US-financed study by the (Kinsey) Institute for Sex Research.

FAMILIAR FACES, HIDDEN LIVES, by Howard J. Brown MD.  New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1976.  246 pp $8.95; Harvest/HBJ Paperback 312 pp $2.95.  An insight-filled autobiography, valuable for its revealing, slice-of-life peeks at small-town gay life.

RUBYFRUIT JUNGLE, by Rita Mae Brown.  New York: Bantam, 1973.  Paper 263 pp $1.95.  A comic novel so real it hurts, already a classic.

THE HOMOSEXUALS:  Who & What We Are, by Alan Ebert.  New York: Macmillan, 1977.  384 pp $9.95.  In-depth interviews with 17 gay men on themselves, their lives.

THE GAY MYSTIQUE, by Peter Fisher.  New York: Stein & Day, 1972. Paper 258 pp $2.95.  An activist's perspective.

A GAY BIBLIOGRAPHY, Barbara Gittings, Ed.  Philadelphia:  American Library Assn. Task Force (Box 2383, Phila. PA 19103), 6th edition due Spring 1979 for 60¢.  5th edition (1975, 8 pp + update) avail for 25¢ Complete.

GAY AMERICAN HISTORY:  Lesbians & Gay Men in the USA, by Jonathan Katz.  New York: Crowell, 1976.  690 pp $19.95.  Avon paperback revision, 1978, 1063 pp $3.95.  An impressive (if spotty) achievement in compiling data.

LESBlAN/WOMAN, by Del Martin & Phyllis Lyon.  San Francisco: Glide Publ. 1972.  Bantam paperback, 310 pp $1.95.  The two lovers for 26 years now, record their life and work in the gay movement.  Helpful for gay men.

HOMOSEXUALS IN HISTORY, by A.L. Rowse.  New York Macmillan.  1977.  346 pp $12.95.  Indexed guide to James I, da Vinci, Erasmus, Michelangelo and other men (no Lesbians).

GAY SOURCE:  A Catalog for Men, Dennis Sanders, Ed.  New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1977.  Paper 287 pp $6.95.  Ideas, lifestyles, (dated) list of resources.

THE HOMOSEXUAL MATRIX, by C.A. Tripp.  New York McGraw-Hill.  1975.  314 pp $10.  Signet paperback, 304 pp $2.50.  A fresh look at old myths about gay men, with important new insights, perspectives and findings.

OUR RIGHT TO LOVE: A Lesbian Resource Book, Ginny Vida, Ed.  Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978.  319 pp $12.95, paper $6.95.  A grand collage of ideas, inspiration, affirmation and resources for women, sometimes dated.

Audio-Visual Resource:

THE INVISIBLE MINORITY:  The Homosexuals in our Society, by Deryck Calderwood & Wasyl Szkodzinsky, 1972.  3 color filmstrips with 20-min. phonodiscs.  $18 purchase from Unitarian-Universalist Office of Gay Concerns, 25 Beacon St., Boston, MA 02108.  The political disc-strip is outdated but lifestyle material is still on target.

FOR PARENTS, COUNSELORS:

WE SPEAK FOR OURSELVES, by Jack Babuscio.  Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977, Paper 146 pp $4.75.  An orderly collection of interviews with gay women and men ‑‑ the experts.

LOVING SOMEONE GAY, by Don Clark; Judy Nichols, Ed.  New York: Signet, 1977.  Paper 275 pp $1.95.  Ideal for parent, spouse, brother or lover.

NOW WHAT? by Bill Hutchinson.  Miami:  LCA Center for Dialog (2175 NW 26th St., Miami FL 33142), 1977.  Paper 106 pp $4.95.  A Lutheran-published work for parents who learn that a son/daughter is gay.  Superb factual basis.

HOMOSEXUALITY & COUNSELING, by Clinton R. Jones.  Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974.  Paper 132 pp $3.50.  A helpful, anecdotal resource for any pastor or counselor.

UNDERSTANDING GAY RELATIVES & FRIENDS, by Clinton R. Jones.  New York:  Seabury, 1978.  Paper 133 pp $3.95.  A careful, thoughtful, anecdotal guide for parents, et al.

A FAMILY MATTER, by Charles Silverstein.  New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977.  $8.95, paper $3.95.  "Should be immensely helpful to parents:" Dr. John Money.

SOCIETY & THE HEALTHY HOMOSEXUAL, by George Weinberg.  New York: St. Martin's Press, 1972; Anchor paperback 148 pp $1 95.  A good book for a gay man to learn about himself and to share with his parents.

Audio Resource:

COUNSELING PARENTS OF GAYS, 45 min. 1974 $7.95)

STRAIGHT TALK ABOUT GAYS,  60 min. 1975 $8.95) by Fr. Paul Shanley.  Cassette tapes.  Purchase singly (or together, $15.95) from Ampro Inc., 101 Tremont, Boston, MA 02108.  Conversational discussions by the Boston archdiocese's priest to the gay and bisexual communities.

Reprinted with permission from Lutherans Concerned.

1978-79 CHAPTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO INTEGRITY, INC.

Albuquerque                  $302.00

Boston                       750.00

Central Indiana              380.00

Chicago                      561.25

Cincinnati                     70.00

Cleveland                     73.00

Hartford                     165.00

Honolulu                     105.00

Houston                      100.00

Los Angeles                  100.00

New Haven                    110.00

New York City                243.33

Philadelphia                 170.29

Richmond                     250.00

Rochester                    200.00

St. Louis                      50.00

San Diego                    200.00

San Francisco                700.00

Sewanee School of Theology   100.00

Tidewater/Norfolk            100.00

Toronto                        50.00

Western Massachusetts          20.00

     TOTAL                 $4,799.87

INTEGRITY ANNOUNCES ENDOWMENT FUND

Integrity, Inc. has started the "Irvin I. Kibbey Memorial Endowment Fund" thanks to a bequest from the estate of the late Irvin I. Kibbey, M.D., a California physician.  While the total amount of the bequest was $5000.00, the 1978 Convention concurred with an Executive Committee decision to invest $1000 of the bequest to establish a fund to promote and encourage financial planning and long term fund-raising for the organization.  As it grows, the Fund will provide a source of income to Integrity.

Donations in any amount may be made to the Fund, although we would prefer these be larger donations ($500 or more).  Smaller donations and pledges are best made to the general treasury, which insures that Integrity continues to have adequate operating revenues.  Gifts to the Fund may be made as memorials, which will be acknowledged in Integrity Forum, if you desire.  Significant amounts can be bequeathed to the Fund by including Integrity in one's will, as Dr. Kibbey did.  Integrity can also be named as (co-)beneficiary of a life insurance policy.

You can help by considering Integrity in your long term financial and estate planning.  If you name Integrity as a beneficiary of any part of your estate, please let us know by returning the attached form.  In this way, we can maintain accurate records, plan better for the future, and monitor the progress of the Fund.  Should you require further information about the Fund, please feel free to contact me.

                   --John C. Lawrence President

I would like to make the following donation/commitment to the Irvin I. Kibbey Memorial Endowment Fund to assist in securing the financial future of Integrity, Inc.:

Please check the appropriate Category:

[ ] DONATION  [ ] $500  [ ] $1000  [ ] Other $_______________

[ ] MEMORIAL: in the Amount of $____________________

     a.   In Memory of _____________________________

     b.   In Thanksgiving for ______________________

     c.   Other ____________________________________

[ ] I have made arrangements in my estate to provide a bequest to the fund in the amount of $_____________________________________

[ ] I have named Integrity, Inc. as beneficiary in a life insurance policy in the amount of $_____________________________

Please make checks/bequests payable to Integrity, Inc. and note on the check (or in a will) that the gift is being made to the Kibbey Endowment Fund of Integrity, Inc.

I [ ] Do [ ] Do Not wish this donation/bequest to be acknowledged in the Integrity Forum.

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

ONLY YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE

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

JOIN INTEGRITY

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

International Dues include Integrity Forum.

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

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

[_] $17 One Year Subscription  [_] $34 Two Year Subscription

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

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

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

Date Submitted....................................

Name______________________________________________

Address___________________________________________

City State & Zip__________________________________

[_] The above is a name/address change/correction.  (These cannot 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.

LOCAL CHAPTERS

                      New England Region

Write to Integrity, Inc. for regional information.

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. Convenor Jon P. Rollins.

* 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/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 Fortunate-Schwandt.  Phone 202/583-2158.

                       Southeast Region

Leslie Mullins, Regional Rep., 520 W. Franklin, Box 274, Richmond, VA 23220

* 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.

                       Gulf Coast Region

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

* INTEGRITY/DALLAS-FT. WORTH, 6020 Malvey #25, Ft. Worth, TX 76116.  Convenor Robert Williams.  Phone 817/732-4885.

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 Don Osborn.

                      Great Lakes Region

Write to Integrity, Inc. for regional information.

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

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

INTEGRITY/TORONTO, P.O. Box 873, Station F, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4Y 2N9.  Convenor A. 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.  Contract Rev'd James K. Taylor.  Phone 812/334-2921.

INTEGRITY/CENTRAL INDIANA, P.O. Box 68290, Indianapolis, IN 46268.  Co-Convenors Carol Hodges, Phone 317/637-8368 and Orlando Salazar-Gustilo, Phone 317/924-2220.

INTEGRITY/CHICAGO, P.O. Box 2516, Chicago, IL 60690.  Convenor Jerry Vogt.  Phone 312/743-7489.

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

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

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

INTEGRITY/TWIN CITIES, P.O. Box 3570, Upper Nicollet Station, Minneapolis, MN 55403.  Convenor Marc Messerich.

                    Mountain States Region

Lelia H. (Lee) Baldwin, Regional Rep., P.O. Box 11315, Salt Lake City, UT 84111.

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

INTEGRITY/DENVER, 1734 Washington Street, Denver, CO 80203.  William Whitlock, President.

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

                        Pacific Region

Rev'd Richard Younge, Regional Rep., P.O. Box 6444, San Jose, CA 95120.

INTEGRITY/HONOLULU, 1186 Fort Street Mall, Rm. 211,, Honolulu, HI 96813.  Convenor Bill Potter 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 Cal South.

INTEGRITY/SAN FRANCISCO, P.O. Box 3339, San Francisco, CA 94119.  Convenor Robert Fuller.  Phone 415/776-5120.

* Indicates that a new chapter is in formation.

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