Integrity Forum

Editor:  Mary E. Reyna

Business Manager:  William G. Giles

Art Director:  Timothy Paul

Staff Photographers:  Keith Jones, Lynn Sheppod

Staff Reviewer:  Richard Boggs

Integrity Officers:  Marsha J. Langford, President; Julie Beattie, Vice President; the Rev. Richard Younge, Secretary; Bob Armstrong, Treasurer; Lee Westendorf, President of the Fund for Integrity; Sandi Johnson, Women's Representative

 

INTEGRITY FORUM (ISSN: 0095-2184), published quarterly, 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 the editor at 30 North Raymond St., Suite 406, Pasadena, CA 91103 or telephone (213) 577-8300.  Copyright 1983 by Integrity, Inc.  Memberships are 15 per year; subscriptions without membership are $20 per year.  Make checks payable to Integrity, Inc. and remit to your chapter treasurer or Bob Armstrong, 235 W. 12th Street, New York, NY 10014 (212-620-0057).

 

                                              INTEGRITY FORUM

     A Publication for the Gay and Lesbian Christian Movement

 

                                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                  August 1983

 

This Issue is Dedicated to the Memory of the Rev. Richard H. Hetz

 

Interview                                         

2     Marsha Langford

. . . as herself and as the President of Integrity, Inc.

by Laura Daltry

 

Regional News                                      

5     The Bishop of California Won't Dance at Cromey's "Weddings" (or his blessings, either)

. . . head-on clash between the Bishop and his priest over same-sex unions in San Francisco

 

Integrity News                                      

10    . . . Two proposals to amend the By-laws of Integrity, Inc., are presented to the membership

 

Opinion                                            

11    Gay/Lesbian Culture

The conflict over acculturation within the greater society vs. a viable gay or lesbian identity.

by Stephen E. Schulte

 

Literature                                         

12    Coming Home

. . . one priest's process of liberating himself from the closet and the lie

by Malcolm Boyd

 

Books                                              

14    God's Gift--Our Sexuality

Making Sexuality Human is an invitation to the consideration of a Christian ethic of sex

reviewed by Richard Boggs

 

Ministry                                           

15    The Triangle Project

Rev. Albert Ogle outlines his plans for the program to help street hustlers off the street

 

Cover:

by Walt Shelly

 

INTERVIEW

 

MARSHA LANGFORD

by Laura Daltry

 

Marsha Langford, the 33-year-old president of Integrity, elected on September 1, 1982, is a warm, out-spoken woman with a highly-developed sense of life's absurdities and the kind of six-sided intellect that questions everything ‑‑ including her faith ‑‑ and then questions again.  It's a warm January day with the hot Santa Ana winds blowing when she greets a visitor at the door of her North Hollywood apartment.  She's not at all sure she wants to do the interview.  She tugs at her wavy, shoulder-length brown hair, braces her shoulders like a child ordered to go straight to the principal's office, and suggests a tour of her apartment before the interview.  A big woman she's dressed casually in navy stretch jeans and a knit top.  She explains she shares the two-bedroom apartment with a long-time roommate ‑‑ "Not my lover." The 1940's stucco-walled apartment is furnished with a combination of faded used furniture and elaborate deco-era antiques.  "This is my late grandmother's sofa," she explains. "Most people have only heard of the color 'puce,' this is it in liv­ing color."  Indeed, the shade of purplish-pink far sur­passes this visitor's most vivid imaginings of "puce."

 

  She has prepared a lavish buffet in the kitchen:  lox, bagels, olives, fruit, and strong coffee.  As she talks for the next hour about her childhood, her spiritual awaken­ing, her homosexuality, and her hopes and goals as president of Integrity, her nervousness subsides.  She laughs often, and, when a question sounds too pretentious to her, she giggles, then answers with a whimsical joke.

 

  Langford reveals she discovered she was gay when she was 25; rediscovered her faith three years ago ‑‑ not wanting it, not searching for it ‑‑ but as a complete surprise; says she prefers neither homosexual nor straight women, but androgynous women; talks about her recovery from     alcoholism; and says her  relationship with God is like one she would have with a "pretty cantankerous lover."

 

  "I'm a native Californian, born and raised in the Hollywood area.  I have an older brother and two sisters.  I was raised mostly by my grandmother, whom I adored, although my mother also lived with us.  I put myself through college at Pepperdine University.  It took me several years to do it because I had to take classes at night.  I got my B.A., then earned a counseling specialist for adults degree from U.C.L.A.  During this time, I was working in retail clothing at The Broadway department stores in Los Angeles.  I started out as an assistant manager of a sportswear department and ended up writing terribly sexist fashion shows.  I learned more from retailing and those years at The Broadway than from any other experience in my life.

 

  "After I got my degree in counseling, I started working as a general rehabilitation counselor for a private program which had a CETA contract.  I counseled ex­-offenders, welfare recipients, han­dicapped people and Soviet refugees.  Two counselors had a caseload of 250 people.

 

  "After that, I went to work as a crisis counselor and counselor trainer, for the Gay/Lesbian Community Ser­vices Center in Hollywood, and at the age of 25, discovered I was gay.  I said, 'Aha!  I know what this is!'  It dawned on me that I had always known, that I had gone out of my way not to know.  I had been engaged for two years to a man I had gone to high school with.  We went together all told for six-and-a-half years.  I loved him. I loved our friendship.  He's a wonderful guy.  But there had never been that 'oomph' in our rela­tionship.  It just wasn't there.  After I realized I was gay, this was long after we had gone our separate ways, I called him up and told him.  He said, 'Oh, I thought it was me!'

 

  "This [homosexuality] was some­thing I had been profoundly afraid of all my life.  I grew up wanting to be a good person.  I never had a positive image of gays and lesbians.  I grew up in Hollywood, so I knew they were around, more so than your average person in Iowa, but they were either 'flaming faggots' or 'stomping dykes.'

 

  "Part of my denial of my sexual identity was that I would have to cut my hair and get a tatoo and get in­terested in trucks, and that wasn't something I wanted to do."

 

Is this something that came to you over a matter of months or weeks?

 

  "I got a real big clue when 1 fell in love with a woman.  I fell just crash­ingly in love.  I met her at The Broad­way.  It lasted three years.  I had never been that much in love before    . . . or since.  I don't think my nervous sys­tem could tolerate being that much in love again.  I'm single now, and yes, I'm looking."

 

How did your spiritual awakening happen?

 

  "I was raised as an Episcopalian as a child, my mother was a Sunday school teacher, but she was about as religious as this ashtray, and even then, I didn't think the church knew what it was doing, because they made her a Sunday school teacher.  My family quit going to church when I was seven, but for years, my friends and I went to church occasionally, for the music.

 

  "In 1980, I had been working at an audio-visual consulting firm.  Within a few months, I had worked my way up from program trainer to vice-pres­ident, but it was terribly unsatisfying.  We were doing contracts for Exxon, and what I discovered was that I'm not happy unless I'm in a non-profit situation, unless I'm changing the world.

 

  "At that point, I walked into my local Episcopal church on an Easter Sunday, to hear the wonderful class­ical music.  I ended up having a reli­gious experience and having to totally realign my life.  It's almost impossible to verbalize what happened to me that day, but when people talk about being called, I understand what they're saying.

 

  "It was a profoundly disturbing experience.  I had been vehemently anti-church for many years.  My as­sumption had been that most of the problems gay and lesbian people suf­fer, the homophobia, comes from the church.  When I walked into The Episcopal Church I didn't even know they were ordaining women!  And here I was, suddenly deeply involved.

 

  "I immediately ‑‑ within a week ‑‑ quit my job and spent about six months literally inside my house rat­tling my chains, asking myself the meaning of life, and 'What am I doing here?'

 

  "These days, I'm involved in my faith 24 hours a day.  In the church and, although the word makes me un­comfortable, in a kind of evangelism.  For someone with a sophisticated background, many of the words of Christianity are not comfortable for me.  For example, the term 'religious' I have a problem with, but I consider myself profoundly religious.

 

  "My home church is St. Michael and All Angels in Studio City.  It's my home, where I can be me.  Anywhere else I go it's very public.  I always have to be 'okay.'  Church is a place I can do my confessions and bare my soul.  I like my church very much.

 

  "I do a lot of meditating, a lot of searching for God.  I try to pray morn­ing and night and find out what the meaning is.  I don't envision God as some guy with a beard.  For me, it's an

ever-changing concept.  I have a rela­tionship with God that I think is very, real.  It includes incredible anger, hu­mor, love, almost the kind of relation­ship one would have with a lover, and a pretty cantankerous lover at that.

 

  "My faith is the most compelling thing I've ever done.  I don't know if it's made me more serene.  It is something I feel deeply called to, remember, I came into the church kicking and screaming, and not with my hands serenely folded.

 

   "l read the bible, the teaching of Buddha.  I go on retreats. I read the Bagavadghita.  I talk.  I ask questions, and I try to find meaningful symbols within our liturgy.

 

  "The reason I'm an Episcopalian is the liturgy.  I've been to just about every church, because I'm involved with the ecumenical movement.  While I disagree with a lot of the tenets of the Episcopal Church:  I don't think Christ came to die for our sins, I think He came to teach us how to live.  Boy am I going to get into trouble for that one!  I think we've been going at it bass-akwards.  As Buddha came to teach us how to live, so did Jesus.  They're talking about the same things:  oneness with each other, love, Being rather than Having.

 

  "As far as the liturgy that attracted me to the Episcopal Church, a lot of the things that we do are more conducive to spiritual development than simply sitting in a pew as the Presbyterians do.  I did some research.  The kneeling, the change of posture, it's a tradeoff we did with the pagans, it's an adjustment of the chakra.

 

  "The music, the crossing of oneself, the color, the symbolism of the com­munion are all very important to me.  They are reaffirmations of my one­ness with God.

 

  "Someone once asked me, 'Why don't Episcopalians go door to door like the Jehovah's Witnesses?'  I answered, 'Because you'd never get the same story from two different Episcopalians.'  We're not doctrinaire.  I don't think I can tell you what your journey is.  I think that my truth is different from your truth and both are equally correct.  But what I hear in less liturgical denominations is, 'Okay folks, here's what God wants from all of us.'

 

  "My salary as president of Integrity pays a whopping $250 a month, so I spend half my time traveling around the country lecturing on homosex­uality (my favorite), child abuse, and alcoholism.  I discovered I was an alcoholic five years ago, got sober through The Valley Women's Center, and immediately took courses to become an alcoholism professional.  The travel gets rather wearing.  I get tired of living out of a suitcase.

 

  "In my free time, I'm fanatically devoted to my health spa, and I take long walks.  I quit smoking a year- and-a-half ago and gained this [she indicates her girth].  I also love to cook.  When I'm not working out, I'm eating, so I maintain a perfect balance.  I'm also terrifically devoted to my two cats and my tropical fish."

 

What's the most important thing in your life?

 

  "My 3-year-old goddaughter.  She's the light of my life, though I seldom see her because she lives in Japan.

 

Do you want to be a woman priest?

 

  "That's the only kind of priest I could be!  Perhaps in three years I'll enroll in a seminary, but first I want to deal with these battles:  full accept­ance for gay and lesbian people in the church, coordination of gay activities, et cetera.

 

  "Right now, the status of gay and lesbian clergy is on a laissez-faire basis, depending on what diocese you're in.  There are quite a few gay and lesbian priests, but many of them are not out yet, although more and more are coming out.  In New York, for example, you can be gay and it's not a big deal, while in the diocese of New Orleans, you can't even be a woman and a priest!"

 

As a woman president of an organiza­tion made up mostly of men, how do you get along with men?

 

  "Very well.  Integrity is 73 per­cent men now, but they elected me.  As far as straight men go, sometimes I'm a little uncomfortable because of the games you have to get into ‑‑ the stuff we were raised to do ‑‑ but I have no problem at all with men.  In fact, I think that the lesbian sep­aratist faction of our community is going to kill us as a movement.  I am mystified by the intensity of the anger that I hear coming from my sisters.  My father did not sit down with your father and say, 'How are we going to keep the little ladies in their places?'  My father and your father were operating off of stuff that they got from their mothers.  In other words, sexism is a social problem that both men and women suffer from.  Most of the sexism I encounter from men is subconscious or uninformed, not intentional."

 

From a political or organizational point of view, do you get along better with lesbians or heterosexual women? 

 

  "I don't care to stereotype.  I think we all suffer from the idea that lesbians are one way and heterosexual women are another.  I get along best, from an organizational point of view, with trained women, women with ex­pertise.  I find women who are very fluffy, "Total Women," very difficult.  I think I prefer androgynous women.  Either extreme of sexual identity is hard for me to deal with."

 

How are gays and lesbians different from other minorities?

 

  "We're not a community.  We don't share a history.  If you're black and you tell your mother, 'Mommy, that man just called me a nigger,' your mommy will say, 'Well, yes, I had that experience,' and there will be some sharing.  If you're gay and somebody calls you a queer, chances are it is your mother."

 

Where is Integrity going?

 

  "I think up until recently, we were at risk of suffering from the wine-­and-cheese syndrome.  We could get together, have a Eucharist, and then go in and have wine and cheese and that was it.  We really need to do heal­ing, to heal ourselves and also take our message to the church.

 

  "We're going to be growing and de­veloping a ‑‑ quote, unquote ‑‑ 'min­istry' on a much more aggressive level.  Right now, we have a ministry with the hookers on Santa Monica Boulevard, the young kids who come out to Los Angeles from wherever and end up hustling.

 

  "What I would like to do is to establish some specific ministries to people who are gay clergy, gay folks in heterosexual marriages, third world gays, whatever.  We've opened up the offices in Pasadena and have staff now, and I think we'll be able to move in a much more defined direction than before."

 

What do you say to people who say 'If the Church were doing a good job you wouldn't be gay?

 

  "I would say they're misinformed.  Most of the evidence we have in­dicates that homosexuality is part of natural variation.  I feel that I was born this way.  I don't feel that it's a question of sin or of pathology, in fact, I think that's one of the issues we have to fight against, and very loudly so.  The church is loaded with gay people and it's a question of having them disclose themselves."

 

 

Laura Daltry, a television and magazine journalist living in Los Angeles, is a happy heterosexual, but some of her best friends are gay.  She has written for The Village Voice, the Los Angeles Times Rolling Stone and network TV News.

 

                         REGIONAL NEWS

 

  THE BISHOP OF CALIFORNIA WON'T DANCE AT CROMEY'S "WEDDINGS"

                   (or his blessings either)

 

The following is a statement issued by the Episcopal Bishop of California, the Right Reverend William Swing, concerning the domestic partnership legislation brought before the San Francisco City Council earlier this year and the resultant controversy surrounding the proposed blessing of a relationship between two men at the Trinity Episcopal Church in San Francisco.  The Bishop's state­ment is followed by the Rev. Robert Cromey's challeng­ing letter of reply.  The Rev. Cromey is the rector of Trin­ity Episcopal Church and a self-avowed heterosexual.

 

  In the past few months I have been involved, as the Episcopal Bishop of California in several controversies concerning same-sex relationships.  Specifically I refer to the City of San Francisco's policy concerning "domestic partnerships" and the announced "wedding" of two men at Trinity Church, San Francisco.  Obviously these con­troversies have raised many questions about my position and with this statement I wish to address these questions in greater detail.  In addition I would like to be clear about my approach to such matters in the future.

 

  Domestic Partnerships  When Mayor Feinstein asked for my counsel concerning the possibility of vetoing the "domestic partnership" ordinance, I spoke to her about three areas.  (By the way, I published a press release which was given out at City Hall at the Mayor's Press Con­ference when she made her statement.)  My thoughts were these:

 

1. Concerning individuals ‑‑ I spoke of having inter­viewed numerous people who lived together as couples (heterosexual and homosexual) outside marriage and many times I was aware of the admirable level of car­ing and mutual help that abided in these relationships.  Somehow this deserves to be honored.  On this point in the religious community advising the Mayor, I stood alone.

 

2. Concerning "domestic partnership" as an institution ‑‑ I thought that as an institution (proposed by our city), a "domestic partnership" was sadly lacking.  It was casually assumed to be coterminous with the institu­tion of marriage. A case could be made that "domestic partnerships," as suggested, could have value for indi­viduals and society.  But the scope of the argument was much more ambitious, thus stating that marriage and "domestic partnerships" were interchangeable.  That is entirely too ambitious.  On this point in the religious community, in advising the Mayor, I stood with everyone else.  (By the way "domestic partnership" as an institution had the potential of being a bureaucratic nightmare and a financial disaster, in my opinion.)

 

3.Concerning suggestions for the future ‑‑ I suggested that the Mayor veto the proposed change in the city ordinance and go back and build an ordinance change which would respect the relationships and rights of the people involved without insinuating a new definition of marriage.  On this point and in the religious com­munity in advising the Mayor, I stood alone.

 

  The "Wedding" of Two Men at Trinity Church, San Francisco (in order to speak comprehensively, I must give considerable background.)

 

  Several years ago when our Diocese inaugurated a pastoral ministry on Castro Street, I began a conversa­tion with the "parsons" there, and several times the discussion focused upon marriage or blessing of same-sex relationships.  This dialogue has been informative and troubling.  I have gained a genuine awareness of a longing among many homosexuals to continue or to enter into relationships of monogamous fidelity.  They express a feeling of incompleteness because they want to call their friends together for a service of public commitment and celebration and to receive a blessing from the Church.  Furthermore they sense that the Church discriminates against them by withholding such a blessing.

 

  In considering this matter it should be noted that Diocesan Bishops such as I, are not at liberty to create policy.  My solemn responsibility is to defend the Doc­trines, Discipline, and Worship of the Church.  In this case, you and I are bound by Title I, Canon 17 and 18 of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, which interprets and expands on the Book of Common Prayer.  The Book of Common Prayer intends the rite of Holy Matrimony and Blessing of Civil Marriage to be used only for a man and a woman.  For your information, I have also included as Appendix I, a statement of the House of Bishops in 1977, and in terms of collegiality in the House of Bishops, this has some influence.

 

  With all the constraints of this policy in mind I have been involved with the Trinity Church situation to this extent:

 

1. Over a year ago a priest in the Diocese asked if he could perform a blessing of a union of same-sex persons.  I called an ad hoc group of Diocesan leaders to consider this matter in light of the existing policy and in light of the human situation.  In the discussion it became obvious that same-sex marriages were out of the ques­tion.  But the critical issue was whether or not the blessing of same-sex unions could be permis­sible.  After long discussions it became clear to me that regardless of how it is phrased, such a liturgi­cal act would suggest a marriage and be understood as derivative of marriage.  There seems no way to bless same-sex unions without im­plying that this is some kind of a minor marriage.  Therefore I re­fused to permit blessings of same-­sex unions.

 

2. Approximately two months ago the Rector of Trinity Church, San Francisco stated in a sermon that he was going to "challenge" the Bishop and Diocese and Canon Law about this issue and that he was going to bless same-sex rela­tionships.  Very quickly it was a matter of confrontation.  Not long after that I was shown a wedding invitation which was sent out by two men he had counseled.  Evi­dently they had understood from counseling with this rector that they were marrying each other and that the church would be witness­ing and blessing their relationship.

 

3. I immediately gave the Rector of Trinity a solemn warning that neither a wedding or a blessing of a same-sex union should take place at Trinity Church . . . specifically for these two men on Saturday afternoon, April 2, 1983.  I stated that if he did not comply, I would be forced to administer ecclesiast­ical discipline.  The Rector of Trin­ity was reported in the media to have:

 

     a. announced that he would obey his Bishop in this matter, and

 

     b. encouraged the Bishop to ap­point a commission which would clear the way for same­-sex blessings.

 

4. As for the request by Trinity's Rec­tor that I appoint a commission, I think that there is some merit in that suggestion.  I am not guaran­teeing that I will be "clearing the way for same-sex blessings," but I am interested in determining if something needs to be done, and if so, exploring the suggestions.  The question of the Church responding liturgically, pastorally, and with theological integrity to same-sex couples is, in my opinion, worth considering.  Serious thought and soul searching is needed.

 

  To this end I authorized, this past winter, the Diocesan Liturgi­cal Renewal Commission to make a study of this matter and to make a report to me.  In light of the tur­moil involved in the recent con­troversies I intend to go back to the Liturgical Renewal Commission and ask them to expand the scope of their work and be prepared to make a report and recommenda­tions not only to me but to the larger Church.  Therefore I will not be appointing a new commission but will enlarge the work already assigned to the Diocese's Liturgical Commission.

 

  Summary  If being Bishop of Cali­fornia were merely a matter of defending what already is the Church's policy, my task would be simple.  I would simply read the policies and conform to the implications of the policies.  But I am in San Francisco and am the bishop of a great many heterosexuals and a great many homosexuals, and I care about the people I know.  The people I know do not always fit inside the letter or spirit of the law, and therefore conflict follows.  Matters of human sexuality are intensely complicated.  Perhaps there is more to be understood than we presently understand.  On the one hand I will defend the biblical prerogatives of heterosexuals.  I am a man under authority and I will respect that authority.  On the other hand I have to be open to see in­justices that might be inflicted on homosexuals.  Therefore a door has to be open for the Spirit to lead us into fuller truth.  To this end I have spent numerous hours listening and talking with people at the Parsonage . . . counseling with leaders on critical issues around human sexuality . . . and I have asked for an investigation by the Liturgical Renewal Commis­sion.  I will not tolerate the clergy usurping authority that is not theirs just as I will not overstep my authority.  I ask your patience with me as I find my way in this volatile arena.  Through it all I hope that the Creator's glory might be revealed in us, Christ's mercy may be found in us, and the Spirit's pilgrimage toward unity and truth might abide in us.

 

                          APPENDIX I

                  "Concerning Holy Matrimony"

 

  "Both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament the understanding of sex is rooted in the conviction that the divine image in humanity is in­complete without both man and woman.  Hence, the aim of sexuality, as understood in Christian terms, is not merely satisfaction or procreation but completeness.  Interpersonal com­pleteness ‑‑ 'The two shall become one'‑‑ is the ancient prescription, a union of differences.  This does not mean simply genital differences, but all the differences, biological and cultural, that distinguish male and female all gathered into the symbol of 'two shall become one.'

 

  "The biblical understanding rejects homosexual practice.  Heterosexual sex is clearly and repeatedly affirmed as God's will for humanity.  The teaching of Jesus about marriage, the teaching of Paul and other biblical writers are unanimous and undeviat­ing in portraying heterosexual love as God's will and therefore good and normative at the same time keeping in mind our Lord's recognition (cf. Mat­thew 19:12) that there is also virtue in the celibate life.  It is clear from Scrip­ture that heterosexual marriage is unanimously affirmed and that ho­mosexual activity is condemned.  It is not clear from Scripture just what normality attaches to homosexual orientation, but the Christian mes­sage of redemption and sanctification is one of graceful acceptance leading to graceful wholeness for all people.

 

  "The Church, therefore, is right to confine its nuptial blessing exclu­sively to heterosexual marriage.  Homosexual unions witness to in­completeness.  For the church to in­stitutionalize by liturgical action a relationship that violates its own teaching about sex is inadmissible.

 

  "The Church's liturgical action is corporate.  It is also public.  It witnesses to what the Church stands for ‑‑ and to what it advocates as good for society as a whole."

                   ‑‑Journal of the General Convention,

                                      1979, pg. B-190

 

  "In consideration of the . . . [issue] above, we call the attention of all Christians to the resolution of the 65th General Convention which ex­pressed its conviction

 

'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'

 

and that, furthermore, they

 

'are entitled to equal protection of the laws with all other citizens, and calls upon our society to see that such protection is provided in actuality.'

 

  "With dismay and with shock we note the deprivation of civil rights and the development of mass hysteria in parts of this country directed against persons known as homo­sexuals."

                   ‑‑Journal of the General Convention,

                                      1979, pg. B-191

 

The Rev. Cromey's reply:

 

To: The Bishop of California

From: Robert Cromey. Rector of Trinity Church, S.F.

Re: Your letter of 28 April 1983

 

  I am so bored with challenging the Church's discrimination against Gay people.  I have been doing this since 1964 when I preached a sermon at Grace Cathedral advocating recogni­tion of homosexual human beings in our midst.  I'm so bored with reminding the Church leaders not to discrim­inate, not to dehumanize Gays.  Yet I'll not luxuriate in the sloth that follows from boredom and fail to re­mind my brothers and sisters of the Church of our duty.

 

  The Word became flesh.  Those fleshy folks out there are invested with God.  It is my duty to love and care for those God-filled Gays, to be sure they are treated humanly, not discriminated against by bad laws, canons, and resolutions keeping them from ordination and blessed relation­ships.

 

  You invoke the Convention resolu­tion asserting that Christian marriage is for heterosexuals.  You use that to prevent either homosexual weddings or blessings of a relationships.  That is clearly a bad and discriminating reso­lution, canon, or law.  It should be disobeyed.  Laws forcing Blacks to ride in the back of the bus were bad laws.  They were disobeyed, then finally revoked.  Law follows action.  No one is going to change equally dis­criminatory laws against Gays with­out action first.  Bad laws need to be disobeyed so they can be changed or revoked.

 

  The Church needs a Bishop who is an advocate for Gays, rather than one who defends the Biblical preroga­tives of heterosexuality ‑‑ whatever that means.  We need a Bishop who regards Gays as equals; a Bishop who sees same-sex couples as people of God whose relationship needs the love, support, and blessing of the Christian community; a Bishop who assists the laws of the Church and State to change to assure homosex­uals full and equal status with every­one else in the Church and State.  The Church needs an advocate Bishop, one who calls the Church and society to change the underlying assumptions of bigotry.  It is not enough to have Bishops who are patronizing pastors of Gays who "need help."  It is not enough to have Bishops who are nice to Gays but do not treat them as equals.  We need Bishops who will de­c!are war directly on the oppressors of Gays.  It should be a gay, happy, cheerful, and relentless war of advocacy.

 

  I'm glad that you made clear on the domestic partnerships issue that you acted alone.  I hoped you had con­sulted the Gay community as ex­emplified by people from the Par­sonage and Integrity, San Francisco.  You saw fit to make a statement on domestic partnerships in the homo­sexual community without consulta­tion with members of it.  I had as­sumed you had consulted with those concerned before making a public statement which affected the lives of many members of Trinity Church as well as many Gay people in the city and county of San Francisco and the Bay Area.

 

  I do agree with you that domestic partnerships and marriage are thought of interchangeably by some people.  That question must be seri­ously discussed and wrestled with, particularly in the religious and legal community.  I tend to think it is much less of a problem than people would think.  I think it is seen as a problem as more a reflection of middle class morality than a question of the nature of human relationships.  People who live together and make vows together, Gay or straight, become an instant institution.  They have rights, responsibilities, and agreements be­tween them which did not exist be­fore, when they acted solely as in­dividuals.  There are certain legal contracts that can be drawn up be­tween Gay people who live together that are institutional in their very nature.  I don't see what the problem is.  One can compare Marriage as an institution or Gay relationships as an institution.

 

  The basic intent of the legislation was to let Gay partners have medical information about their loved ones who were in the hospital, and to have rights to visit them in prison, and rights to certain medical and dental benefits.  Far from being a bureaucratic nightmare and a financial disaster, I see it as just one more op­portunity for people to be human with each other and get some benefits from the society as a whole on the basis of their mutual commitment.

 

  I note that while the legislation was voted down, the essential points have already been put into effect in the city hospitals and prisons just by adminis­trative order of the mayor.

 

  Concerning the Blessing of the rela­tionship between two men at Trinity Church on 2 April 1983, I would also like to make some comments.  In January of 1983 I preached a sermon and issued a press statement which I sent to you.  It was not picked up by the press, nor did you respond.  A month later I wrote you a note after I heard you were upset by my statement.  I got no response to that.  When the two young men sent 150 invitations to the Blessing of their relationship, they rather stupidly, by their own ad­mission, sent out twenty-five par­tially-printed invitations that did use the word "wedding."  Some anony­mous person sent that to Rollie Jones who in turn sent it to your office without the courtesy of talking to me about it.  I instructed the two men that the event was not a Marriage or a wedding; it was to be the Blessing of a relationship.  They alone are responsible for the use of the word "wedding."

 

  I am glad that the Diocesan litur­gical renewal commission will make a study of same-sex relationships and make a report to you. In light of that, I would like to request that a list of the members of that commission be made available to all of the clergy of the Diocese.  It does not seem to ap­pear in the 1982-83 Directory of the Diocese of California.  I would also like to see that it is clear that on that committee are openly Gay men and women, clergy and lay, people with some psychological and sociological know-how, as well as liturgical sense.  I would also like to see what charge you have given the committee, and the timetable of when we might ex­pect their report.

 

  In a twenty-six year ministry in the Church, I know that commissions can bog down, meet once a month, and finally get around to issuing a report that then indeed may sit around the Diocesan office before being pub­lished to the clergy and laity of the Diocese.  I really would like that not to happen.  I think same-sex couples have a right to know what our Diocesan thinking is on this matter as quickly as possible.  There's no reason why such a report could not be ready in three months.

 

  You refer several times to people at the Parsonage as the essential contact you have with the homophile com­munity.  I have enormous respect for all of the people that I know at the Parsonage.  Jim Frooks and Bernard Mayes are long-term friends.  But the Parsonage does not represent the whole homosexual community, nei­ther does Integrity, the group of Gay people who happen to attend Trinity Church, or any other parish in the City. I would like to suggest that since you have paid particular attention to the Parsonage, they would have a natural bias toward being friendly with you and perhaps not challenge your thinking in a way that might move you to an even deeper under­standing of the problems and oppor­tunities of the homophile community.

 

  You say "I will not tolerate the clergy usurping the authority that is not theirs . . .".  I contend that I as a priest of the Church have a right to bless anybody or anything that I wish as part of my priestly function.  Giv­ing a Blessing to two people who live together and who are making vows and promises to each other is very clearly within my authority.  We priests have been asked to bless all kinds of things, from bombs and bombers to tarantulas and outra­geously inappropriate heterosexual Marriages in public and in private.  I do not intend to have my authority as a priest usurped by a Bishop or anyone else telling me whom I may or may not bless.  It is a scandal to humans that priests may bless in­animate objects and events, but not homosexual human beings.

 

  Somewhere in the newspaper I read that the service which I submitted to you was "merely a rewrite of the Mar­riage Office." In planning the Blessing of same-sex couples where should I have started?  At the Burial Office?  The Marriage Office gives us some of the best thinking and liturgical words for couples to share the best of their vows and promises to each other.  In the Blessing for same-sex couples the Marriage Office seems to be a very good place to get ideas and to set the focus for the Blessing.

 

  No matter what we say about Blessings or Marriages, we must always face the great Catholic sacra­mental principle.  In the sacrament of Marriage, it is the two people who are the officers in the wedding.  They are the ministers of the Sacrament.  On the one hand in the Blessing of a same-sex couple, it is the couple who are "doing it" to each other, and that the clergy are merely standing around saying the odd prayer over them.  On the other hand, since it is not a Mar­riage, the priest is absolutely necessary to be there, because it is the priest who gives the blessing.  So our Catholic theology can give us a number of approaches and routes to handling this issue.

 

  I think it is far less thorny than we make it to be.  My personal belief is that it should be left in the hands of the individual clergy and couples to be worked out as seems best on the local level.

 

  Now I want to deal with the appen­dices from the Journal of General Convention of 1979.  I think that the opening statement about the Old and New Testament being clear that humanity is incomplete without man and woman is absurd.  That may be the interpretation of middle class moral theologians who happen to be married in their reading of the Old and New Testaments.  The notion that two shall become one is a poetic one, not a canonical one; it is a sexual one, not a theological one.  One of the great dangers in Marriage is that a man will seek to be complete by mar­rying a woman, and a woman will seek to be completed by marrying a man.  The most healthy view is that when a man or a woman feels healthy and whole in themselves, then they are fit to be married, and not until.  I suspect that we could juggle Scripture aplenty to justify that one, too.

 

  What about celibates?  Are they not whole persons because they are not married?  I think not.  How about single men and women who choose not to marry, or who have not found a suitable partner?  Are they not whole because they are not married?  How about widows and widowers who choose not to remarry?  Are they not whole persons? 

 

  How about people who are compulsively married in consecutive polygamy.  They are married.  Are they whole persons?  How about the wretch­edly married who stay together for the kids?  Are they whole?

 

  How about the sexually active teenagers?  Are they not whole?   How about sexually active adults who are not married?  Are they whole if they are in their sixties?  Or fifties?  Or forties, thirties, twenties, or teens?  Who knows?

 

  You go on to quote "Homosexual unions witness to incompleteness."  The writer of that sentence obviously knows little about homosexual rela­tionships, the dignity and affection and love that many homosexual un­ions bear and the completeness which is available in homosexual indi­viduals and unions.

 

  The great Christian witness to com­pleteness is not Marriage.  It is Jesus.  Jesus was a single person.  He is the in­carnate one.  He is completed in his re­lationship to his own being and to God.  Completeness comes for the Christian person in the receiving of the sacraments of bread and wine in Holy Communion and the presence of Christ.  In that completeness, a Chris­tian human being can turn around and find a good relationship with another human being, a joyous one, but to ex­pect Marriage to complete a person is to expect marriage to do far more than it is capable of doing, given the whole human condition.

 

  We have got to raise the level of theological and ethical thinking about Marriage, same-sex unions, and com­pleteness above conventional wisdom and morality, into the meaning of the Incarnation and the nature of human beings.  It must not reflect the middle class heterosexual biases of resolu­tions written in haste in smoke-filled hotel rooms at General Conventions alone.

 

  But the notion of wholeness in itself is absurd.  No one is whole, healthy.  In the Church we are not called to be whole.  We are called to be repentant.  We know we are sinners, radically imperfect.  We are called to ask for forgiveness.  Wholeness is a juicy, pop-psychology term bought by the Conventions of the Church to justify heterosexual biases and keep faggots in their place.

 

  Whatever wholeness a person has is imperfect, emerging and develop­ing.  Marriages do not make people whole.  Marriage is a bedroom of life, death, passion, pain, dialogue, quiet, strength, weakness, absurdity, laughter, and fleeting glimpses of wholeness, glaring cries of sin, glorious opportunities for forgiveness and love.  All of that happens for Gays, straights, single and married.

 

  I want to say one final thing about the use of the news media for the air­ing of Church business.  The news media is the best reflection of the Church's relevance.  The news media will pick up and discuss what people are interested in and what will sell newspapers.  When the Church truly grapples with issues that get reported and dealt with in the newspapers, we know that we're touching on the issues that really affect people in our Society.

 

  I will happily continue to use the media in whatever way I can to set forth my ideas and thinking and to challenge and confront the leadership of the Church where they perpetuate injustice and ignorance.  I believe the media is one of God's gifts to us, as well as something protected, along with the separation of Church and State and the Freedom of Religion, in the Constitution of the United States.  I think there are three ways to observe success in the Church.  They are not the only ways, but three very I good gauges.  They are how many people are coming, how much money is coming in, and how much attention does the news media pay to what the Church does.  I think they're good criteria for the Christian witness in the times in which we live.

 

  All good wishes.

 

  P.S.  There is absolutely no his­torical or Scriptural evidence that Jesus was heterosexual.

 

Note:  The Rev. Cromey is interested to hear from clergy who have or would be willing to perform gay and lesbian union blessings.  Please send your letters to the Rev. Robert Cromey, c/o Trinity Episco­pal Church, 1668 Bush St., San Francisco, CA 94109 or call (415) 775-1117.  Replies will he handled in strict confidence.

 

INTEGRITY NEWS

 

Background

 

At the Integrity convention held in New Orleans last September, then- President John Fortunato reported to the delegates on the board of direc­tors' concern about the scheduling of Integrity conventions.  The by-laws required that such conventions be held annually, to ensure a regular place for communication and emotional support for all Integrity members, but especially for those who live at a distance from local chapters and cannot easily take part in their activities.

 

  The board, while recognizing the importance of annual conventions for these purposes, felt that a pattern of biennial conventions with regional conventions in the intervening years would encourage greater attendance at conventions.

 

  A triennial cycle of regional con­ventions, national convention, and General Convention presence might be a possible solution to these issues.

 

  In a later discussion of the tentative site for a 1983 Integrity convention, delegates were advised that no firm offer had been received from the Van­couver, B.C., chapter to host a con­vention and that the relationship of all the Canadian chapters to In­tegrity, Inc. was being reviewed at their request.

 

  In view of the board's request for guidance in this matter and the uncer­tainty of the 1983 convention site, the delegates in New Orleans voted to defer decisions regarding the 1983 and 1984 Integrity conventions to the newly elected board of directors.  Act­ing on this mandate and in keeping with the spirit of the discussion at New Orleans, the board of directors voted at its November 1982 meeting in Denver to schedule four regional conventions in 1983 instead of a na­tional convention, to accept the in­vitation of the New York chapter to host a national convention in 1984, and to plan for an Integrity General Convention presence at Episcopal Church General Convention in 1985.

 

  The request of the Canadian chapters to form an autonomous organization was approved.

 

  Subsequently a question has been raised regarding the authority of the board to make these decisions, in view of a by-laws requirement for an­nual conventions.  The board there­fore at its January meeting in Pasadena acted to meet these objec­tions.  A new standing committee on constitution and by-laws was ap­pointed; it was to be chaired by the Secretary of Integrity, Inc. and was ordered to undertake the urgent task of reviewing Integrity's basic legis­lative structure and proposing neces­sary changes.

 

  For the interim, the board also voted to submit immediately to the general membership an amendment to the by-laws which (if adopted) would have the effect of confirming the decisions made in Denver and suggested in New Orleans.

 

  At present By-laws Sect. V-A reads, "Conventions of Integrity, Inc. shall be held annually."  The board's proposed amendment would strike "annually" and replace it with "at least triennially."  By-law Sect. V-A would then read, "Conventions of In­tegrity, Inc. shall be held at least triennially."

 

  Another issue also needs to be con­sidered, namely the terms of national officers.  The Constitution, Sect. 111-­A:3 provides that the national officers shall serve from the adjournment of the convention at which they are elected through the adjournment of the following convention.  Since the proposed by-laws change could also have the effect of continuing the pres­ent national officers in office for up to three years, a substitute amendment to the by-laws has since been offered by three national officers (Langford, Younge, Giles).  Under this proposal "annually" in By-law Sect. V-A would be replaced by "at least biennially."

 

  Under this proposal the decision made in Denver would still be con­firmed but national officers would serve only through the convention to be held in New York in 1984.  Under both proposals, new regional direc­tors could be chosen at the 1983 regional conventions if so desired.

 

  And finally, as was also discussed in New Orleans, the Committee on Constitution and By-laws will be con­sidering a proposal to conduct the elections of national officers by mail ballot as part of its general charge.

 

Action Required

 

  Two proposals appear on the ballot on the inside back cover.  The first is the amendment to the by-laws proposed by the board of directors; the second is the substitute amendment proposed by Langford/Younge/Giles.  A "Yes" vote on either proposal will in general confirm the changes in convention schedules made by the board of directors at its Denver meeting; but a "Yes" vote on the second, or substitute, proposal, will further specifically require that the next national convention be held no later than 1984 and will limit the terms of the present national officers to adjournment of that convention.  If both the amendment and the substi­tute are passed, the one with more votes will be adopted.  A "No" vote on both proposals will have the effect of rescinding the board's Denver deci­sions.  The board will then become responsible, following the action taken in New Orleans and under By-law Sect. V-N, for deciding the time, place, cost, and other arrangements for a 1983 national convention.   

 

  As required by By-laws, Sect. X, the amendments discussed above are hereby submitted to the membership of Integrity, Inc. for vote.  Completed ballots are to be mailed to the Rev. Richard G. Younge, Sect., Integrity, Inc., P.O. Box 20663, Seattle, WA 98102 and must be received by August 30, 1983.  All members of Integrity, Inc. (that is, all those whose current annual national dues have been paid and received by the Treasurer of Integrity, Inc.) are eligible to vote.

 

  To vote, please find the ballot on the inside back cover of this issue.  Clip the ballot and mail to the Rev. G. Younge at the address listed above.

 

OPINION

 

GAY/LESBIAN CULTURE

Stephen E. Schulte

 

I strongly believe in a gay/lesbian culture.  Not necessarily from a strict, anthropological point of view.  Rather, I believe in gay/lesbian culture as the observable accumulation of our experience as an oppressed people in this society.  The resulting distinc­tiveness and hope create a safe harbor and firm foundation for all our forays into a more open, complete partner­ship with the rest of society.

 

  But where images of gay/lesbian culture stir pride and awareness, the gay ghetto conjures up uncomfort­able and murky feelings.  Whether stemming from those who want to be eternal victims, or from those who want to commercialize the gay experience into an enclave of distinctive products, dress codes and rituals, the gay ghetto is a disservice to us all.

 

  The gay movement started out as a struggle for human liberation.  It was (and is) aimed at breaking the back of homophobia and the hold of power­ful sex role stereotypes.  Gay libera­tionists hoped to show how all of us ‑‑ not just gay men and lesbians ‑‑ could live freer, more fulfilling lives.

 

  The problem with the gay ghetto is that it threatens to cut us off from those more radical roots and from the idealism of working with others toward a better life for all.  In our ghettos (whether they are in West Hollywood, Castro Street, Montrose, Fire Island, Provincetown, or the Vil­lage), we tend to forget that the "apartness" is for strengthening, not for separation from the rest of the world's problems.  In isolation, it is easy to see ourselves as safe and pro­tected in a way that is truly unreal.

 

  More and more, those of us who live in urban areas, where there are large concentrations of gay men and lesbians, are going to be faced with this dilemma:  how to carry on the struggle for liberation out in the world, versus feeling that we are safe and finally have it made.  It is clear we need safe, supportive environments to retreat to.  But these environments should never be allowed to cut us off from the rest of the world or from gay people who do not have the option of living in a "safe" neighborhood.

 

  In this light, it is easy to see that gay liberation has not been achieved.  The next phase may call us to join forces with other groups of people in the struggle for human rights, or to make the world safer for generations yet to come, or to make the abun­dance of our society available to all.  Whatever drum we march to, we will hopefully move beyond the ghetto to become part of the world as it is, not as we wish it to be while we constantly seek to escape from it.

 

  The message here is that the homophobia and intolerance we seek to reduce and from which we seek refuge is carried by people.  But at its root it is institutionalized prejudice.  To change it we need to make changes in the political, social, and economic systems around us.  It is a message that I was powerfully reminded of recently in seeing Jacob Holdt's "Pictures of America," a personal journey through America's dark side of poverty and racism.  Holdt is concerned primarily with the effects on all of us of institutionalized racism.  But it is a message that applies to us as gay men and lesbians, too.  Not a pleasant one, but one we should not try to avoid totally or escape from.

 

  Most of us believe in the inherent good in our struggle; in the positive message we as gay people bring to others.  It is important for us, then, not to sell our dreams short, but to continue to work beyond the progress we have made toward a better life for everyone.  After all, if not us, who?

 

Stephen E. Schulte is the Executive Director of the Gay and Lesbian Com­munity Services Center of the greater Los Angeles area.  He has a background in com­munity organizing and social services administration.  Steve received a B.A. in political science from Yale university holds an M.P.A. from the University of Iowa and is a Doctoral student in Public Administration at the University of Southern California.

 

LITERATURE

 

COMING HOME

by Malcolm Boyd

 

Probably I shall never forget the sermon I preached on Sunday, August 16, 1981, at St. Au­gustine-by-the-Sea Epis­copal Church in Santa Monica, California.

 

  "Father Fred has asked me to do something that I find rather difficult," I started.  "But I sense that he is being an instrument of the Holy Spirit.  And I sense that God is also asking me to do it.  You see, the subject requires humor, patience, lots of understanding, and love.

 

  "As you are no doubt aware, the parish has been holding workshops on human sexuality.  And, this week, will host the national convention of In­tegrity International, the organization within the Episcopal Church of gays and lesbians and their friends.

 

  "Our friends, I should say.  For I am a Christian and a homosexual.  A Christian and a gay.

 

  "Of all the subjects, this seems nearly the most bizarre ‑‑ outrageous ‑‑ misunderstood ‑‑ controversial.  There has been so much discussion about it and so little information."

 

  I had actually come "out of the closet" earlier, in 1976 to be exact; and had written two books on the subject:  Take off the Masks (a "coming out" memoir, published in 1978 by Doubleday) and Look Back in Joy:  Celebration of Gay Lovers, published by Gay Sunshine Press in the spring of 1981.  After a lifetime in a closet that became increasingly claustro­phobic, I decided that I would hence­forth cease to "tell a lie for Christ."

 

  Yet most of the people in the parish of St. Augustine's were unaware of my gayness.  They pursued their own busy lives, worked hard, raised fam­ilies, paid mortgages or rent, and, if they knew of me at all, probably vaguely recollected me as the author of Are You Running With Me, Jesus?

 

  So, it was a bit of a shock, that sermon on August 16, 1981.  A few people had very serious problems with it.  One even said:  "A homosexual priest?  But is that possible?  I've never heard of such a thing."

 

  Shock or not, Fred Fen­ton, the rector of St. Augustine's, was right in asking me to preach it.  For the subject of my being gay had to be dealt with ‑‑ in, and by, the parish.  I was "out;" a gossip and rumor would have had their way if the issue was not confronted honestly and openly, with­out equivocation.

 

  That morning I told the parish that I consider myself "whole, healthy, blessed, happy, created in God's own image, free of the past horrors of human slavery, and able to com­bine my sexuality and my spirituality."

 

  I said that, for gay men and les­bians, strong feelings of same-sex erotic attraction and love are the norm, the normal.  I explained how, with understanding and compassion, this can be expressed, placed in its proper focus and context, and life goes on at its accustomed clip.

 

  "But when there are awful shadows cast on such love ‑‑ bitter faggot jokes at work, and whispers of perversion around the corner in the neighbor­hood ‑‑ something dirty, ugly, grotesque ‑‑ queer ‑‑ is pictured.  So, the self-esteem of the gay or lesbian per­son is called into question; sometimes he or she feels too hurt, or anxious and vulnerable, to tell a mother or father, and certainly an employer or co-worker.  Because so many gay men and lesbians therefore are closeted, their very existence can come to seem entombed:  an existence in only par­tial light; a life pattern that is rigidly choreographed to avoid inadvertent disclosure; verbal communication in code; an underground of surrepti­tious meeting places that are 'hidden.'  In time, such a lifestyle can become a self-fulfilling prophecy of half-truth, distortion, masks, charades, sophis­ticated games, innuendo, and double-entendre."

 

  Looking out at the faces in the con­gregation, I said that gay is not exotic or sensational or glamorous; it de­scribes something real, basic, vital, indigenous to some 10 percent of the nation, the culture, the city ‑‑ and the church.

 

  I made an appeal from the pulpit:  "For gay and non-gay alike, let com­munication be an event that involves people, not a charade of puppets.  For gay and non-gay alike, let's be our­selves.  Relate to other selves without inhibition and pretense.  Help others to be themselves, too.  It isn't just gay people who occupy closets.  Think of all the various closets of all our lives!  Opening doors . . .  Walking outside, sharing 'closet experiences' as past history, can be liberating, a gospel ex­perience in Jesus Christ."

 

  Having no idea what would be the parish's response to this sermon, I went further in my appeal:  "Don't let's label each other, place each other on convenient shelves, and therefore keep each other in our places!  Let's let each other breathe, grow, develop as daughters and sons of God.  To do this, we must truly see each other, and share ourselves.  Then, in that mutual vulnerability which is surely a gift of grace, we can all grow to the fullness of the glory that is God's call, and gift, to each one of us.  Thanks be to God!"

 

  The roof did not fall in.  There were growing pains, problems, and human interaction involving mutual suffer­ing and growth, but we made it.  This, with the never-failing compassionate help, and leadership, of the two priests in the parish, Fred Fenton and Carlyle Gill, and a wonderfully sup­portive and loving group of women and men in the church.

 

  Looking back, not only to August 16,1981 ‑‑ but to August, 1976, when I came out to the Integrity convention meeting in San Francisco, and September 12 of the same year to the media ‑‑ it's very clear that it was ab­solutely essential for me to "come out" if I were to continue to function as a priest.

 

  The long-established lie masking a fundamental part of my being had become acid of sorts, eroding my sacramental, pastoral, and prophetic work in the church, as well as all the various relationships of my life.  It also seriously damaged my writing, where openness is essential.  A lie is deadly, for it touches every part of one's life.  Also, it's contagious.  It contrives against wholeness.

 

  Acting affirmatively on the request of the rector, Bishop Rusack of Los Angeles licensed me (I am canonically resident in the Diocese of New York) to function as a priest in the diocese. The vestry of St. Augustine's called me to function as a priest on staff in the parish.  It is significant beyond words that I always felt secure in the abiding love and deep trust of Paul Moore, whose spiritual and emo­tional support were steadily and unstintingly given me.

 

  It can be done.  One can be honest and open about being gay, and func­tion as a priest in the church ‑‑ in the best sense of community and spiritual health.  I feel accepted and loved, even as I appreciate and love.

 

  At St. Augustine's parish, I am the active third member of a team ministry.  We share equally liturgical and preaching responsibilities.  I edit the parish newsletter, Ebb and Flow, and the Sunday bulletin, arrange guest speakers for a vital, exciting Sunday morning discussion series, Sunday Focus; do my share of calling and bringing private communion to people who are elderly or ill, and therefore unable to get to church; and am chaplain of an incredibly vigorous new parish organization, the Men's Resource Group, that explores the meaning of what it means to be male and Christian in this society.  The Men's Resource Group organized the 1983 Parish Family Weekend at a ranch in the mountains near Malibu with Bishop Dan Corrigan in atten­dance to preach, celebrate, baptize, confirm, and simply be himself, a beloved figure in the Church.

 

  I honestly feel that I'm generally accepted in the parish now as Malcolm ‑‑ as myself, not a "gay priest" or anything else.  I love being there, functioning and working at St. Augustine's.

 

  It was in 1955 that I was ordained a priest.  Now, in 1983, I find myself engaged in the most challenging and demanding period of my priesthood.  I am grateful for faithful, loving bishops, priests, and a Spirit-filled parish.  All have acted in Christ's own Spirit to bestow the holy gift of liberation.  I am grateful to Bishop Moore and Bishop Rusack, to Fred Fenton and Carlyle Gill, and to St. Augustine's parish for saying . . . "Come home."

 

Malcolm Boyd is A contributing editor, the author of several dozen books, and is on the staff of St. Augustine's-by-the-Sea, Santa Monica, California.

 

BOOKS

 

GOD'S GIFT:

OUR SERENITY

by Richard Boggs

 

Making Sexuality Human by W. Nor­man Pittenger, The Pilgrim Press, New York, 1979.  Paperback.

 

  What is human sexuality?  This is a basic question that needs to be answered if we are to understand the variations in human sexuality such as heterosexuality, homosexuality, bi-sexuality, as well as the variations within the variations.  Just as one does not set about specializing in the field of interest without first learning the fundamentals of the discipline, trying to know ourselves and our full poten­tial, whatever our particular sexual

orientation may be, will result in many frustrations and unhappiness unless we set about to inform ourselves about God's gift to us:  our human sexuality.

 

  Fortunately for us, in our quest for this knowledge we are able to ponder the writings of a number of theolo­gians, ethnicists, and scholars who are sharing the fruits of their studies with us.  We are not alone.  There is enlightenment to be had if we but

avail ourselves of it.  One of the outstanding studies of human sexuality was made by W. Norman Pittenger in his book, Making Sexuality Human.  This book was originally published in 1970 and was updated in 1979 and is now available in paperback.  There is a world of thought condensed into its 96 pages; thought to make us think, to meditate, and to pray.

 

  Pittenger points out that many books on sexuality turn out to be mere "how to do it" books, as if technique were everything, while other books, while attempting a "spiritual" approach to sexuality, lose sight of the facts of concrete ex­istence. Pittenger balances the two approaches skillfully, treating the subject of one's spirituality without ever losing sight of one's "embodi­ment."  We are in bodies.  Spirituality means little unless we can express it in bodily terms.

 

  Pittenger approaches human sex­uality from the standpoint of process theology.  Neither the cosmos nor the world nor humankind are static.  All is dynamic, being through becoming and becoming through being.  Even God, whom Pittenger refers to as "The Divine Lover," is not a static figure but ever creates and enjoys the novelty of His creation.

 

  Pittenger traces some of the theories about human sexuality, con­sidering Plotinus, Boethius, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Sigmund Freud, among others, look­ing at the merits and drawbacks of each.  Then he goes on to suggest that sexuality is not primarily for procrea­tion, but rather for conjunction:  the uniting of two persons into one in a love which aspires to be one in its loving with the Divine Lover.  And, Pittenger stresses, human sexuality is central to human nature.  The human being desires fulfillment and in an ultimate sense, fulfillment is possible only in God.  This does not mean, as too many "sexual spiritualists" have contended, that celibacy or sublima­tion of the sexual desire is somehow of more "worth" than one's release of powerful sexual drives with another person.  But one's striving should be union with another in love, toward the ultimate fulfillment in Love.

 

  Pittenger examines both the hetero­sexual and homosexual expressions of human sexuality.  He takes some time to explain the present day attitude of most people to the homosexual which, he states, is becoming, albeit gradually, more tolerant and accep­ting.  "The necessary means for the realization of human love is through some type of bodily activity....  I am frank to say that I cannot see how the desire of the homosexual for manifestation of his sexual drive is wrong in and of itself; nor can I see why, once this has been put under human controls, it is wrong for him to act upon it," he writes.

 

  His chapter on frustrations and dis­tortions of sexuality is important reading.  He points out that one's quest for fulfillment with another with whom he or she can be in the closest and deepest relationship of love may become distorted, possess­ive, disproportionate; "owning" another person.  Sexual consciousness is reduced to its lowest terms, "with no penumbra of meaning in terms of true love, with no representation of self-giving, tenderness, the will­ingness to receive.  Thus we see sheer ugliness.  Corruptio optimi pessima; the best, when it is corrupted, becomes the worst."

 

  Pittenger outlines an ethic of human sexuality.  He is quick to say that this is by no means intended as a last word on the subject but rather as a point of beginning a serious consideration of a Christian ethic of sex.  Much of so-called "Christian ethics" were a reflection of Victorian mor­ality.  It was negation ‑‑ hypocritical, judgmental, and condemning.  Sexuality should be manifested as an ex­pression of love, not just animal satisfaction.  There can be no coercion or pressure, no cruelty, no urging of another into sexual activities which are offensive or wrong to him or her.  Whether homosexual or heterosex­ual, the sexual expression should share the qualities of commitment, mutuality, giving and receiving, union, and tenderness.

 

  When a person "sins" sexually, the ultimate forgiveness comes from the Divine Lover.  Proximately, "forgive­ness" is through  acceptance in love by other human beings who surround the "sinner" with their concern and provide opportunities for him or her to make a fresh start.

 

 "In sexual life, as everywhere else in man's existence, he lives in society and must ever be mindful of the wide, range of consequences of actions he decides.  And no human being should be afraid to love or be fearful of accepting love as God is present in any and every yearning to love."

 

  "No theology," Pittenger declares, "and no religion which fails to put God as love in the very center of its thinking can claim to be Christian."

 

To Norman Pittenger, the whole of Christian life in practice may be summed in the one word, "Love."

 

             ‑‑Richard Boggs

 

Richard Boggs is a long-time member of Integrity.  He is a scholar and staff reviewer to the Integrity Forum.

 

MINISTRY

 

THE

TRIANGLE PROJECT

 

"I had been turning tricks to eat.  I went to the nasty movies to sleep.  Since I've been out there I've had guns pointed at me, been beaten, raped, and arrested."

                                          ‑‑Michael, age 13

 

  Any day of the week walking down a main street in West Hollywood the chances of seeing Michael and others like him are excellent.  We pass them warily.  They are mostly unwashed and unkempt.  They have children's faces prematurely aged by pain and cynicism.  If we think about them at all, our thoughts are  probably a mixture of pity and contempt.  "These are not good kids," we may think to ourselves.  And they look as though it's been a long time since anyone has called them "good."  We wish they would go home and clean up their act.  But they can't go home, because there is no home to go to. 

 

  These are the gay children of the streets, the hustlers.  And their lives, their livelihoods, and their pain are bound to the streets they haunt.  They are the "throwaways" and "runaways."  No one knows how many there are.

 

  And why do they come to the streets?  A common story among them is their desire to escape the pressures of home:  homophobia, physical abuse, and/or incest.  They come to the city expecting to play and to find work.  But they end up on the streets sleeping in bus shelters, derelict buildings.  Or, if they are pretty, they are recruited into stables.  Others will consider themselves lucky if they find a sugar daddy to keep them.

 

    As the pressures of their street life, their prostitution mount, they begin to look for an escape from that as well.  They manage to hang on a bit longer with drugs.  Some pimps will supply them with drugs in order to con­trol them.  And so the viciousness of this downward spiral becomes unrelenting ‑‑ they will hustle not just to eat but also for drugs.

 

  What is the future for Michael and others like him?  Both law enforcement professionals and social workers agree that if a child is able to last one month on the streets it becomes quite difficult to break him out of this life­style.  Unable to break away by himself and without in­tervention, the child will, more than likely, inflate the crime rate statistics; become a victim of suicide, or end up as a John or Jane Doe in the county morgue.

 

  "They are the children put on the garbage heap," says the Rev. Albert J. Ogle.  "And it is hard for me to know what that feels like.  When I heard Michael's story it brought me to tears.  It reaffirmed my own story, although my story is only one percent of his struggle," he adds.  The Rev. Ogle, formerly a curate at the parish of St. Bartholomew's Church of Ireland in Dublin, was a member of the Diocesan Youth Committee and the Church of Ireland   Youth Council.  He was forced to resign from his parish in 1981  after dis­closure of his homosexuality.

 

  The Rev. Ogle is the catalyst behind the developing Triangle Project.  (The name "Triangle" is taken from the pink triangular emblem sewn on the prison uniforms of homosexuals forced into the

World War II Nazi concentration camps.)  The purpose of the Triangle Project is to help those children who want off to get off the streets.  The Triangle Project, a satellite program of Integrity International, will be modeled after Fr. Bruce Ritter's Covenant House/Under 21 program which operates crisis centers for homeless boys and girls in New York City.

 

  In Los Angeles, at present, there is no such comparable facility for gay children.  The Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Service Center receives over 300 referrals a month but hasn't the resources nor housing to accommodate them.

 

  "We are talking about children from the age of 10 and up," says the Rev. Ogle.  "Most of these children are too young for any existing facility.  And the fact that they are gay compounds the problem.  There is no program available that will allow them to be themselves," he adds.

 

  To remedy the situation the Tri­angle Project proposes to make con­tact with the children on the street.  The children's first contact will be through a store-front space located in West Hollywood and open on a 24-hour basis.  This space will be a safe haven for the street children.  It will offer them a place to eat, to wash, and to talk.  The Rev. Ogle views the store-front space as an on­site contact point.  From this point the Triangle Project will inform the children of the features of the project.  That is, the Triangle Project is a rehabilitation program.  The children will be asked to make a 6-month commitment to the program, if they want it.  Within that time they will be sheltered in a residential center, fed, clothed, offered counseling, and edu­cational and (for those of working age, 18 and older) employment guidance.

 

  "These children's most immediate needs are food, a place to sleep, and respect for what they have been through.  After these initial needs are met, we must offer them ongoing sup­port so that they may evaluate their lives and develop a means by which they may support themselves," says the Rev. Ogle.

 

  The Rev. Ogle feels the street chil­dren's stories are, to some extent, the stories of all gay people ‑‑ rejection and survival. "We can't help but identify with them, except for these children the story is so much worse.  I feel my own salvation is tied to these chil­dren.  Helping them is a way we can heal each other, a way to find a wholeness, and a way to find a community together," he says.

 

  For the Rev. Ogle, the Triangle Pro­ject is his special calling. "This is one of the ways in which we reflect God and love ‑‑ this delight in giving.  You create a safety net for people.  This is the secret of community-building ‑‑ to recognize the common needs and humanity of the person ‑‑ and to just delight in that.  This is my life and I know it works," he concludes.

 

  Ultimately, the Rev. Ogle hopes to involve the extended gay community within the Triangle Project.  "The gay community can offer financial support, valuable skills, and, perhaps, even open their homes to these children.  For all of us this is a special ministry because each of us is a resource to these children whether we are single, in a couple, or are parents of gays.

The Triangle Project needs a store­front space, a large house for its residential center, food and supplies, and trained staff.  This will require funds.  The Rev. Ogle estimates the start-up costs at $250,000.  "This is our chance to change the ending of Michael's story.  By making a positive contribution all of us can bring healing and wholeness to Michael, to the many Michaels still out on the streets."

 

Please let Rev. Ogle know if you can assist in this ministry.  A tear-off sec­tion is provided for your convenience on the inside back cover of this issue.

 

                        INTEGRITY FORUM

 

                      DISPLAY ADVERTISING

                         RATE SCHEDULE

 

FuLl Page     $200      (7-1/2" x 9-1/2")

 

1/2 Page      $160      (7-1/2" x 4-5/8" or

                          3-5/8" x 9-1/2")

1/3 Page      $120      (7-1/2" x 3" or

                          2-3/8" x 9-1/2")

1/4 Page      $ 75      (3-5/8" x 4-5/8")

1/6 Page      $ 50      (2-3/8" x 4-5/8")

Business Card $ 35

 

All ads must be prepared; deadline is four weeks prior to issue date.  Please send ads to: Forum Ads Department, Integrity  Forum, 30 North Raymond St., Suite 406, Pasadena, CA 91103.

 

What's that?  You're not a member of Integrity, or you've allowed

your membership to lapse?  That'll never do.  And what about your

friends, loved ones, and colleagues?  Have you told them about

 

us?  We're a community and you are part of it!  Join us today.  

 

How?  Simple, just fill out the form provided on the inside back

 

cover, clip it out and mail it today!

 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR INVOLVEMENT

 

[ ]  I agree ... kids like Michael need a place to run to, a place where they can be safe.  Here is my gift of $5_____ for the Triangle Project.

 

[ ]  Please register my pledge for $____ each month.

 

NAME: _________________________________________________

 

ADDRESS: ______________________________________________

 

         ______________________________________________

 

      Gifts made out to Integrity, Incorporated are tax-deductible.

   Please indicate on your check Integrity, Inc./THE TRIANGLE PROJECT

 

TRIANGLE PROJECT, 30 North Raymond Street, Suite 406, Pasadena, CA 91103

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

                             BY-LAWS BALLOT

 

1.Shall the proposed amendment to By-laws Sect. V-A, replacing "annually" with "at least triennially" be adopted?

 

     Yes [ ]     No [ ]

 

2.Shall the proposed substitute amendment to By-Laws Sect. V-A, replacing "annually" with "at least biennially" be adopted?

 

     Yes [ ]     No [ ]

 

                   Signature ________________________________________

 

                   Name (printed) ___________________________________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 

     YES!  I want to subscribe to Integrity Forum

              [ ] $20.00 without membership

              [ ] $15.00 as member

 

NAME: ______________________________________________________________

 

ADDRESS: ___________________________________________________________

         Street

         ___________________________________________________________

         City

         ___________________________________________________________

         Zip/Postal Code                        Country

 

Please make all checks/money orders payable to Integrity, Inc.

Please send to Integrity Forum, 30 N. Raymond St., Suite 406, Pasadena, CA 91103