This is an electronic reproduction of The Voice of Integrity, the quarterly publication of Integrity, Inc., the lesbian and gay justice ministry of the Episcopal Church.  All materials except those reproduced from other sources are copyrighted by Integrity, Inc.  You may reproduce all original material herein if you state "Reproduced from the Fall, 1991 issue of The Voice of Integrity, the quarterly publication of Integrity, Inc., the lesbian and gay justice ministry of the Episcopal Church."

Material may not appear exactly as published since some changes were made after the document was transferred to desk top publishing format.

We encourage you to join Integrity.  We encourage non-Episcopalians and non-lesgay persons to join.  If you are a lesbian or gay Episcopalian and don't belong to Integrity, you're benefitting from all our work and we hope you'll strongly consider helping us by joining.  Individual annual membership $25, Couple's annual membership $40, Low income/student/sr. citizen $10.  Please mail check or money order to Integrity, Inc., P.O. Box 19561, Washington, DC 20036-0561.

**********

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Letters To The Editor

From The Editor

The Washington Ordination

Schofield Bans Integrity

Religious Orders For Inclusive Ordination

Unraveling The Myth About Sexuality

Southland Convener And Spouse Acquitted

Celebrating SS Sergius & Bachus: MM Christian Archetypes Of

  Lesbian And Gay Marriages

Howe Pressures Dean To Resign

EC's Blair: No Raca!

Convention Handouts Available

Election Results

Ordination Of Another Openly Gay Episcopal Priest

Gay Tales

Our Ecumenical Partners On Sex:

  Three Quarters of Methodist Committee Back Change in Church

    Position

  United Church of Christ Reaffirms Lesgay Ordination

  Presbyterians: It Could Have Been Worse

Why Integrity?

Biblical Standard

President's Page:

  After Phoenix - Now What

********************

Fall 1991

*The Voice of Integrity*

Volume 1, Number 3

Published by Integrity, Inc.

P.O. Box 19561

Washington, D.C. 20036-0561

Telephone 718-720-3054

Bruce Garner, President

R. Scott Helsel, Editor

Edgar Kim Byham, Publisher

Contributing Editors:

Claudia Windal, Louie Crew

Blair McFadden, Layout

Dorothy Gunn, Production

Convention Staff:

Ellie Atwood-Tarbell, Paul Courry,

Bryant Hudson, Larkette Lein

Editorial Office:  201-868-2485

PO Box 5202; NYC, NY 10185

Member Episcopal Communicators and Gay Lesbian Press Association

Copyright 1991

********************

FROM THE EDITOR

As I have been putting together this issue, I have many great memories of General Convention.  I went to Convention hoping for a great victory.  When Convention was over, I felt somewhat disappointed.  Looking back on Convention, Integrity was very successful.  All Integrity members should be proud.  At no Convention in the past have Integrity and its supporters had such a positive influence on events.  By meeting, sharing stories, helping, and worshipping with other convention participants, deputies, and bishops, we are making a difference in both the Church and in society.  I hope that you can join in this education process in your parish and diocese.

********************

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

July 9, 1991

Dear Editor,

      I appreciated your article "World Council of Churches Ignores Lesbian/Gay Issues" (summer 1991).  I attended the WCC Assembly in Canberra as a member of the official delegation from the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC), a denomination with a special outreach to the lesbian and gay community, and I thoroughly agree that lesbian and gay issues were ignored.  However, the picture is not as bleak as your article says.

      Your article oversimplified the situation by stating that "MCC is excluded from both the National Council of Churches and the WCC."  We have not yet applied for membership in the WCC, but we did receive the "Official Observer" status that we requested at the WCC Assembly.  Lesbian and gay issues were omitted from the official agenda, but we did form a group of lesbians, gay men and supporters that consisted of more than 50 people from at least 10 countries -- including an openly lesbian woman and an openly gay man who were official WCC delegates.  This group met three times, including once for a gay- and lesbian-affirming worship service of our own creation.  The connections we made at the Assembly have continued to grow since the close of the Assembly.

      I am enclosing a copy of our newsletter, "Keeping in Touch," which gives more details about lesbian and gay issues at the WCC Assembly.  I believe that the day is coming when the WCC can no longer ignore the spiritual renaissance of lesbian and gay people worldwide.

In Christ's service,

Rev. Kittredge Cherry

Field Director for Ecumenical Witness & Ministry

********************

THE WASHINGTON ORDINATION

by Kim Byham

      On Wednesday evening, June 5, 1991, the Bishop of Washington, the Rt. Rev. Ronald H. Haines, ordained the Rev. Elizabeth Carl to the priesthood.  There was intense media coverage, and although still and television cameras were barred from the service, one television crew peering through the windows of the church's doors provided pictures broadcast around the world.  It is not clear how the story came to the press's attention; publicity was not sought by the diocese or the ordinand.  Some sources suggest that it was an opponent of the ordination who made the first press contact.

      The ordination took place at the Church of the Epiphany in downtown Washington.  Pamela Chinnis, Epiphany's Senior Warden, who was elected President of the House of Deputies (the number two position in the Episcopal Church) at the July General Convention, said, "Nobody can speak with authority how often [an ordination of an openly lesbian or gay person] happens, but everybody is agreed that it does happen frequently."

*Pre-ordination statements by Haines*

      It was obvious that the decision to ordain Carl was not one Haines had made lightly.  Bishop Haines, in a statement issued the day before the ordination, expressed  ambivalence and soul-searching.

      "In all her discussions with diocesan representatives, the candidate has been clear and candid about her sexuality and lifestyle," the statement said.  "She has handled herself well in this connection, being forthright about herself, yet sensitive to the differing views of others."

      Haines said that Carl, "has for a number of years openly lived in a loving and intimate relationship with another woman" with whom she has made "a lifelong and monogamous commitment."

      The bishop acknowledged that "ordination of one whose lifestyle involves sexual relations outside of marriage troubles me greatly." He said some "scriptural passages and historical teachings of the church appear to be at odds with ordination of homosexuals" and "cannot easily be answered or put aside."

      But when a candidate has persistently displayed "strength, leadership, spirituality, intellect, moral understanding and commitment to Christ," the bishop said, "reservation regarding the candidate's sexuality and lifestyle" should not "by itself be an absolute bar to ordination."

      Haines said Carl "does not seek to use her ordained ministry as a public platform to advance any perceived cause relating to human sexuality."

      Haines said in a telephone interview with "The Washington Post" on June 4 that the ordination would remove "an overlay of deception that was painful and causing problems."

      "Before, there was a tacit approach.  There was an understanding that a [minister] was gay, but it just wasn't said . . . and no one asked.  Now, we would rather be truthful from the beginning."

*Protests at the Ceremony*

      Several signs posted outside the church read "apostasy" and "this ordainment [sic] is sinful."

      Not long after the ordination began, Bishop Haines reached the point where the Bishop must ask, "If any of you know any impediment or crime because of which we should not proceed, come forward now and make it known."  Five persons came to the front of the church to protest.

      "We believe this is a problem which obstructs a total commitment to Jesus," the Rev. James West, 73, who recently retired after almost 50 years as Rector of Calvary, Washington, said of Carl's sexual orientation.  "We feel it is necessary to object to ordination since it is a known fact she is a lesbian."

      He was followed by TiaJuana Rountree, also a member of Calvary, Washington, who declared that Ms. Carl's sexuality made her unsuitable for the priesthood.

      Bishop Haines responded that the objectors had not presented any information that he had not "prayerfully and fearfully" considered.  He then asked the congregation, "Is it your will that Elizabeth be ordained a priest?"

      The congregation answered resoundingly, "It is."

      "Will you do your best to pattern your life and that of your household in accordance with the teachings of Christ, so that you may be a wholesome example to your people?", Haines asked Carl.  "I will," replied Carl.

      Nearly 30 priests from across the nation placed their hands on Carl.  She then received a red stole of the priesthood and turned to face a two-minute round of applause from the congregation.

      The preacher for the service was the Very Rev. James Earl Cavanaugh, Dean of Grace and Holy Trinity Cathedral, Kansas City, who later served as chair of the House of Deputies Committee on Ministry at General Convention.

*Presiding Bishop's Reaction*

      The ordination clearly upset the Presiding Bishop, the Most Rev. Edmond L. Browning.  In a statement, he noted the imminent General Convention and said "events such as the ordination in the diocese of Washington can trigger the sort of attention that may make positive dialogue more difficult and polarize the church."

      He added: "When I was first informed by the bishop of Washington on Tuesday, June 4, of the ordination scheduled for June 5, I asked that he reconsider for the good of the whole church and the impending discussion at General Convention."

*Other Comments*

      Flying home from his speech to the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta,  President George Bush was asked by a reporter on Air Force One what his feelings were about the Carl ordination at the Church of the Epiphany, three blocks from the White House.

      "Well, to be very candid with you, I think the churches, regional churches, branch churches have a right to do what they want," said the president, an Episcopalian.  He added: "Perhaps I'm a little old-fashioned, but I'm not quite ready for that."

      "I'm surprised at the event and the timing," said the Rt. Rev. William C. Frey, president of the right-wing Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry.  "It seems to me very unwise for any bishop to act as though the debate had already taken place and been settled."

      The Rt. Rev. Frank Griswold, Bishop of Chicago, told "The Chicago Tribune,"  "I would say that a number of dioceses in the Episcopal Church regard the resolution of the 1979 Convention [regarding ordination of "practicing homosexuals"] as advisory rather than canon law."  He said that is also his interpretation and added, "I would take seriously what Bishop Haines has said about the thoroughness of interviews" that led up to the ordination of Carl.

*Carl's Background*

      Raised in the Methodist Church in her native Houston,  Elizabeth Carl was confirmed in the Episcopal Church while a student at Occidental College in Los Angeles.  She received a bachelor's degree in comparative literature there and later received a graduate degree in library science from the Catholic University of America.  Now 44, she worked for the Library of Congress for 16 years.

      She has served as a church choir member, lay reader and lay minister to homebound and hospitalized people.  She entered the process leading toward ordination in January 1985 and served as an intern at Holy Trinity Church, Bowie, Md., and as a pastoral intern at the St. Francis Center in Washington, where she counseled terminally ill people and their families.

      Carl graduated from the Union Theological Seminary in New York City with a master of divinity degree in 1990.  On May 1, 1991 she began her present job as assistant minister at Church of the Epiphany.

*Haines' Post Ordination Letter*

June 27, 1991

To all Diocesan, Suffragan and Coadjutor Bishops

Dear Sister and Brothers in Christ:

      Several of you have been in touch with me regarding the ordination to the priesthood on June 5 of a deacon in this diocese by the name of Elizabeth Carl.  I write to give you some additional information which led to my decision.  This is not to defend the action, but to establish some perspective.

      My personal journey was an integral part of my decision.  In years past, I served on Standing Committees and on diocesan staffs where I took a close interest in the formation process of those exploring a call to ordained ministry.  My perception of that past era is that we did little to address issues of sexuality in general, much less homosexuality.  The cultural climate of the times was far less open than today.  Much has changed in recent years.  The Church, it seems to me, has become increasingly ambivalent toward our emerging society, and while some have embraced societal norms uncritically, others have grown insular in the face of change.

      All of us who are called to the Episcopal office know the struggle to bring Gospel truth to bear on the practices of an increasingly secular world.  We walk a narrow line.  I am reminded of the words of Jorgen Moltmann ("The Crucified God," p.7), "The more theology and the church attempt to become relevant to the problems of the present day, the more deeply they are drawn into the crisis of their own Christian identity.  The more they attempt to assert their identity in traditional dogmas, rights, and moral notions, the more irrelevant and unbelievable they become." My belief is that we cannot have it both ways, however, and there is ever present the challenge to apply God's truth to changing situations.

      Since coming to this richly diverse diocese in 1986 as suffragan, I have worked closely with my predecessor, our Commission on Ministry, Standing Committee, those in the ordination process, and parishes and others with clergy deployment concerns.  It has been apparent that for some of our congregations, sexual orientation was a factor to be considered in the ordination and calling processes, whereas for others, it has been a litmus test.  The dichotomy often led to a tacit policy of deception.  All this has been no small concern in a diocese that has fifteen to twenty aspirants annually.  Candidates withheld certain information about orientation, and congregations too kept secrets -- a dynamic that carried through ordination into deployment.  I became increasingly uncomfortable with a system that pretended not to know what we have always known.  The Church has, does, and most likely will continue to ordain homosexuals.  The question is not if but how.  We are faced with an ethic of truthfulness and an ethic of sexuality that are in conflict.

      In 1989, the Commission on Ministry, the Standing Committee, and I concurred that a step in the right direction would be to ask for openness regarding orientation in our ordination process.  I am aware that such candor is not without considerable risk and potential for misunderstanding.  Ms. Carl, the woman I recently ordained, already was a candidate at the time.  Since she already had shared her sexual orientation with her home parish committee, she readily agreed to the new policy.  Indeed, had she not been forthright, we would have no controversy today.

      Much has been said in the press about Ms. Carl being a "practicing lesbian" - a phrase open to interpretation out of our own imaginations.  I can tell you that she professes to being of same-sex orientation and that she has for some years made a home together with another woman.  Our process does not delve beyond that point.  We are concerned that an ordinand be a wholesome example to the people of God and that identity is not necessarily set by one's sexuality.  Those expectations are re-visited many times in our five-year process for ordination.

      It is evident we are not of one mind.  Some would reject an ordinand solely on the basis of orientation.  Others would weigh additional factors.  What I can assure you is that Ms. Carl is a woman of maturity and dignity.  She has a gentle way and a strong faith.  The fruits of the Spirit are apparent in her ministry.  If she has a cause, it is to proclaim the Gospel and be a pastor.

      Some have questioned the timing of the ordination.  Let me assure you that the choice was made on a pastoral and not a political basis.  Ms. Carl was ordained to the diaconate in June of 1990 along with seven others.  The Presiding Bishop had been informed well in advance of that event.  In March of 1991, our Standing Committee approved Ms. Carl for ordination to the priesthood and urged me to ordain her.  I refused to do so until she had a call to serve in a congregation on a sustained basis.

      In the meantime, a parish of the Diocese was in need of another priest for general work on its staff, albeit with emphasis on hospital ministry.  There was some urgency since the priest who had carried out that work for many years had died.  Ms. Carl was offered the position and began work on May 1st.  I agreed to ordain her promptly as promised.  There was no desire or effort to make the occasion a media event, but, unfortunately, that was not to be the case.

      I did not arrive at my decision easily or unilaterally.  Her home parish, an intern parish, a seminary, a calling parish, our Commission on Ministry, and the Standing Committee all affirmed Ms. Carl's priestly call.  That broad support weighed heavily in my determination.

      I do not make light of the concern of many that for an unmarried person celibacy is the-only acceptable norm.  I can accept that as a principle but wonder how one goes about the task of monitoring private behavior.  As Jesus reminded us in the parable of the two sons (Matt. 21:28-32), there can be a paradoxical twist to human nature.  The first son agreed to do the father's will but did not, whereas the second refused, only to repent and become the very one who acted in obedience.  The end of the parable gives even greater pause for concern.  All are called to repentance, but the righteous are sometimes the last to respond after the tax collectors and prostitutes (Jesus' words, not mine).

      It would be unfortunate if we subordinate the primary themes of scripture - justice, redemption, holiness, mission, etc., - to the secondary theme of sexuality.  I, for one, would welcome further exploration of the biblical message, provided that it be applied to all the faithful and not just some.

      My delight in the written words of Holy Scripture comes from an understanding they are alive, calling us into a dialogue with God and each other.  I do not think the meaning lies behind the text, i.e., in the mind of the original author, in the original social setting, or even in the text itself.  The meaning lies in front of the text.  We are not simply trying to repeat the original meaning or to reproduce the original setting, but to mediate, translate, and interpret it so that the passage impacts upon life in the present (cf. Hodgson & King, "Christian Theology," p. 42).  Put another way, we are drawn to Christ -- not back to some past era.

      Even the passages from Romans, most quoted in this controversy (Chapters 1-3), contain caveats that when we judge others we may condemn ourselves (Romans 2:1), because we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).  The over-arching call is to leave behind what we once were in an idolatrous society and move toward what we are yet to be in Christ.  Some expressions of sexuality are, in my mind, manifestations of our rebelliousness against God, but they do not exhaust the field of human sin.  Perhaps our efforts would be better spent exploring what it means for all the people of God to give witness to a Christian lifestyle in a secular world by living out our baptismal covenant.

      I ask that we continue to pray that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church in its search for God's truth and give us the grace to live out that truth in our lives.

Yours in Christ,

Ronald H. Haines

Bishop of Washington   

********************

SCHOFIELD BANS INTEGRITY

by Kim Byham, taken from accounts by Brian Jones and others

      Last March I spoke with a person from a small town in north central California who wanted to form an Integrity chapter.  The tiny town of San Andreas has only a single mission Episcopal Church and it's not near any large cities.  That made me skeptical about the viability of such a chapter, but I was intrigued that it was located in the Diocese of San Joaquin [see "Two ESA Dioceses Ask General Convention to Bash Gays," N&N, Winter, 1991] Brian Jones, the person I spoke with, soon got in touch with Western Vice President Dorothy Beattie, of the Diocese of California and now living in the diocese of Northern California, and National Secretary Gil Grady, who is in the diocese of El Camino Real.  San Andreas is reasonably near these three dioceses.  Brian's determination and organizational abilities meant that soon memberships were pouring in and that Integrity of the Sierras, as of September 1, had 25 members.

      The chapter was welcomed at St. Matthew's Church, whose Vicar, The Rev. M. Woodrow Peabody, was especially supportive. San Andreas is a long way from the see city of Fresno, and it took a while for word to reach the bishop that the chapter had formed.  In early July, however, Fr. Peabody was summoned to Fresno to meet with the bishop, The Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield.  He took his wardens with him, but Schofield refused to meet with them.  The bishop told Peabody that he could not give permission for an Integrity chapter to meet in his church, nor could he officiate at any worship service for Integrity.

      Schofield, who is unmarried and was a member of a Roman Catholic religious order at the time of his election as bishop, is a leader of the Episcopal Synod of America.  He was outspokenly anti-gay at General Convention, and suffered a heart attack during the final days of convention.  He has now resumed all duties.

      On July 28th, there was a passive demonstration at St. Matthew's Episcopal Church to protest the bishop's decree.  The Ven. Donald Seeks, Archdeacon, was making his annual visit that Sunday.  Brian Jones reports, "There were over 40 people in support of Integrity wearing pink triangles of the 131 people present."  These included Dorothy Beattie, and her partner Louise, members of Integrity/San Francisco Bay Area and Integrity/El Camino Real.  Other guests include members nearby parishes.  "This passive demonstration was a success," Jones said.  "Archdeacon Seeks, on the other hand, was rude to everyone visiting St. Matthew's that day.  He refused to greet anyone after the service and chose to slip out the side door to avoid anyone wearing pink triangles."  A brunch for Integrity supporters followed the service.  Jones issued special thanks to the members of Cursillo and the Episcopal Women's Caucus for their support.

********************

RELIGIOUS ORDERS FOR INCLUSIVE ORDINATION.

By Harriet Howard Heithaus

      The superiors and officers of 16 Anglican religious communities throughout the United States and Canada have signed a statement saying they believe "the call to ordination is from the Holy Spirit, who cannot be limited and who may therefore all any individual, regardless of race, sex or sexual orientation."

      The statement was drafted and signed July 11, 1991 at the triennial meeting of the Conference on the Religious Life in The Anglican Communion in the Americas.  It is an organization of 24 communities comprising from 450 to 500 monks and nuns.  Twenty of the 24 member communities were represented at the meeting.

      It is the first time the conference has taken such a stand and one of the rare times the conference has issued a statement around a General Convention issue, said the Rev. Richard G. Johns, its general secretary.  "That's what's something of a surprise on this one.  But one of our members felt strongly about the issues and came to the meeting with a statement and we worked with that," Johns said.  In fact, the statement is also the conference's first affirmation of the validity of the ordination of women, he added.

      Ordination of women has been permitted in the U.S. since 1976 and in Canada since 1978, but the conference has not taken a stand; some of its member communities are opposed to women's ordination, said Johns.  "These are obviously issues the religious communities themselves have struggled with for some time," Johns said.

      The conference also passed unanimously a resolution that its superiors' council should commit itself to "serious and continued study and prayer around the issues of racism, sexism and human sexuality, beginning specifically at its next meeting."

-----

This article appeared in "Convention Daily," July 13, 1991

********************

*1992 INTEGRITY NATIONAL CONVENTION*

Houston, Texas   July 9-July 12

The Most Rev. Edmond Browning, Featured Speaker

Save the dates and watch "The Voice of Integrity" for more details

********************

UNRAVELLING THE MYTH ABOUT SEXUALITY

By Walter C. Righter

*Human Sexuality Is Up For Discussion.*

      The National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ and one of the Jewish groups in the United States have all spent considerable time studying the issue of sexuality and trying to define it in 20th-century terms.  Register editor Geneva Overholser, in a responsible way, focusing on being a parent in today's world, has raised the issue for all of us to think about.

      When I was 14, a friend and I played hooky from school and went to a theater in Philadelphia called The Trocadero.  It was, pure and simple, a burlesque house.  It was also pure sleaze -- except for the comic acts which were, to a teen, surprisingly good.  In the '30s we did not need excuses from parents, and the school did not notify parents of their children's absences.  So my friend and I went back to school the next day and all was well.

      But my friend blew it!  Perhaps because of guilt, perhaps because he needed to brag.  He told his brother.  His brother told their parents.  Their parents told my parents.  And one evening during supper my mother said, "Graham's parents say you and Graham played 'hooky' and went to the Trocadero to see burlesque.  Did you?"

      Surprise and shock.  I turned beet red, owned up, and watched my 7-year-old brother chuckle at my discomfort.  Then my father surprised me.  He said, "I can certainly understand your curiosity about shows like that and what they represent.  But I hope another time you will tell me what you are about to do, and if I can, I will take you myself."

*Perspective on sexuality*

      During the next week he talked with some friends who were theater critics.  It seems the Trocadero was not very good theater -- other places were better.  We went, together, to the "best" place, and we talked about it afterward.  It was as exciting as the illicit day away from school, but it gave me a perspective about all of that, and also about parenthood.

      By going to the Trocadero, I raised the sexuality issue.  And I raised it in a context that was immediate.  My parents' reactions could have been punitive, angry, foot-stomping.  Or my mother could have feigned shock and my father could have taken me behind the house for an inadequate sex talk.  None of that, for them, was adequate.  My father was obviously struggling to launch his oldest son into the existential crisis called "the teens" with as much grace as possible.

      All of that happened in 1937.  No thought was given to seeking wisdom from the parson, or from existing teachings of the church.  When Overholser wrote in her article of June 30, "the church is even less willing to look change straight in the face than we are.  It's the last bastion of denial," I found her words profoundly true, based upon my experience as a youth, and my experience as a priest from 1951 to 1971, and as a bishop since 1972.

      All of us in the major denominations have dealt with some change in the 1960s and '70s.  In the '80s, we spent time trying to consolidate what we had done and preparing for the future.  But events got beyond us.  A faithful Roman Catholic layperson discovered and released the birth-control pill.  We still are trying to recover and interpret the meaning of that pill to ourselves, let alone the world.

*Myth about Iowa*

      In the book, "The Cry for Myth," therapist Rollo May makes a suggestion worth our thought.  He says: "A myth is a way of making sense in a senseless world.  Myths are like the beams in a house; not exposed to outside view, they are the structure which holds the house together so people can live in it."

      For a long time the myth called Iowa has been embodied in words like pioneer, self-sufficiency, hard work, farming, success, etc.  Much of the world has been fed as the result of our acting out that myth.  But the myth is coming apart.  We still have 25 percent of the word's richest farm land.  We still grow enormous amounts of corn, soybeans and hogs.

      But, politically, the farm vote is no longer significant.  When I became the bishop of Iowa in 1972 I was astounded to find that the major portion of disposable personal income came from manufacturing jobs -- not farming.  I was even more astounded to discover that significant leaders in the state new it, were proud of it, but did not want to talk too much about it.  I think the latter was true because they sensed a myth coming apart.  That was 20 years ago.  It is even more clear now -- the myth of 150 years' duration no longer stands.

      Iowa still exists in all her natural beauty.  It is a good place to live.  Iowa's people are, for the most part, still honest and hardworking.  But we have to re-mythologize Iowa in order to, as May suggests, "hold the house together so people can live in it."

      Something just as profound is happening with human sexuality.  The myth by which we held our house together is no longer useful.  The "pill" is the best symbol of the newness we must deal with, but there is other newness as well.  Children must be more adequately protected from abuse.  So must parishioners whose clergy abuse them.  This latter is a recognizable and growing phenomenon across all denominational lies.  We have all this disorder and confusion because the framework no longer holds.  It is not because we have suddenly become immoral.

      Lilly Foundation in Indianapolis, Ind., has spent years and countless dollars trying to understand the malaise of the mainline denominations in our society.  They seem to know what has not caused it -- social program, ordination of women, revision of liturgy, etc.  I would suggest that May, in asking us to look at our myths, has come close to helping us discover the cause of the malaise.

*What can thoughtful people do?*

      Two things as a bare minimum.

      First, let each parish church of each denomination in Iowa spend the weeks of mid-winter doing  a serious study of human sexuality.  Read the reports of the denominations that already have done profound work.  Invite professional people in your community, or nearby, to engage in discussions.  Listen to points of view different from your own.  Organize it now so you can have the best possible resource people in your community.

      Have discussions with gays

      Second, invite members of the gay and lesbian community to meet with you in your parish study.  Listen carefully.  Scientific evidence is almost overwhelming that homosexuality is not a choice people make (therefore moral) but in most instances is given from birth.  Gay and lesbian people who have been brave enough to come out can be found if you look.  It is necessary to be inclusive of this point of view.  Churches have been ordaining gay males for more than a thousand years, and now, in many denominations, lesbians are being ordained.  The question for the churches is not "Shall we ordain homosexuals?"  The question is "Will we be honest about ordaining homosexuals?"

      I would suggest a book by Peter Drucker, a well-known business consultant, called "The Age of Discontinuity."  Drucker helps us understand that many of our beloved Bible stories have emerged from discontinuities of the past.  Those of us who despair, or give up, or get angry when we face change, think a discontinuity in history is a time when all that matters is lost.  Not os, says Drucker.  Instead, an age if discontinuity is a time when that which is the rock-bottom truth will be saved.

      What is more rock bottom than that phrase from the Presbyterian report that says, "We should be asking whether the relation is responsible, the dynamic genuinely mutual, and the loving full of caring."  That questioning attitude will rebuild the myth that holds the house together.

      Iowa has some work to do -- about the myth called Iowa and about the myth called human sexuality.  Let's do it well -- and not be afraid.

-----

Walter C. Righter, who is currently living in West Des Moines is the retired Bishop of Iowa and was until recently Assistant Bishop of Newark.  He was the subject of an unsuccessful censure effort at General Convention because of his ordination of Barry Stopfel to the diaconate in September 1990.

-----

This article appeared in the "Des Moines Register," August 1991

********************

SOUTHLAND CONVENER AND SPOUSE ACQUITTED

by Larkette Lein

      When we left off in the last issue, my husband Paul Courry and I were expecting to go to trial on May 28 for our part in disrupting Congressman William Dannemeyer's speech at a "Symposium on the Preservation of the Heterosexual Ethic."  Our attorney's motion to have the whole thing dismissed was rejected, however, and we didn't end up having our day in court until July 2.

      It looked likely that trial would run right up into the time I'd planned to be in Phoenix, working with Integrity at the General Convention.  Worse, there was a possibility that any jail time we drew would start running right away and that I'd be in jail instead of in Phoenix.  But I was very much at peace with the unknown; I was confident that God would put me where I was supposed to be, whether lobbying in Phoenix, or witnessing in court or in jail.

      However, the Lord had other things up His sleeve.  It wasn't to be that easy.  In fact, the choice that was presented us that first day in court was the most difficult I've ever had to make.  We were offered one year's informal probation and a $250 fine in exchange for pleading guilty and going away quietly.  There were all sorts of imponderables to weigh against each other.  If we insisted on trial, and were convicted, the judge promised he'd have to levy much harsher sentences -- three years' probation, a fine, and as much as 120 days in jail.

      But we hadn't gone to the trouble to get arrested for nothing.  Even if we didn't ask for a jury trial -- and our attorney recommended against it, in the county which was the birthplace of the John Birch Society -- the prosecution could, and that could easily take up the whole two weeks we were planning on being in Phoenix.

      The two co-defendants from ACT-UP decided they wanted to make a public stand.  They made it clear that there would be no hard feelings if we decided otherwise, but Paul and I knew that a great measure of the effectiveness of the action had been the inclusion of a married couple in prayerful counterpoint to their vocal disruption, and that it would be harder to convict them if we were also part of the picture.

      We paced the patio where we had adjourned to take counsel.  I kept praying, 'This isn't fair, God.  It was supposed to be Thy Will Be Done and that's all.  I wasn't supposed to have to decide my own fate with so little information and so many what-if's.  You're the One who knows it all, and you were supposed to run this show.  This is too much responsibility.  I don't like having a free will if this is what it means!'

But then it suddenly became clear that our place as Christians was not to worry whether going to trial would give us the media forum we wanted and whether we could make it worth our while.  Our place was to witness Christ's sacrificial love to our two ACT-UP co-defendants, to our attorney (a self-admitted former Catholic, who, like so many other gays of deep integrity, was forced to leave the church), and to the small group of ACT-UP supporters who had been faithfully coming to court every time the four of us had to appear.  Our witness was to go the second mile, to go further than was asked.  Once that was clear, I was at once at peace and utterly sure.

      "We're all going to trial!" The four of us shared a group hug and the spirit was intense.  By that time it was late morning, and we were told to come back the following day for a non-jury trial.  The prosecutor had opted for the cheaper way out.

      The trial began with a parade of witnesses for the prosecution, and a showing of the video tape that the seminar sponsors had made of the event.  Paul and I appeared briefly, more like props or wallpaper, behind all the wild action in the front of the church.

      The small court room was full with ACT-UP supporters, a member of our chapter's steering committee, and a bank of radio and local cable-TV reporters, as well as the L.A. Times and the Orange County Register.

      Our attorney successfully moved dismissal of the first ACT-UP defendant, on the grounds that testimony and the video tape showed his part in the action to have consisted of standing silently at the side of the person committing the great offense of reading I Cor. 13 in church.

      Although the trial was strictly an issue of whether our actions had crossed the line from allowable political speech into a violation of Congressman Dannemeyer's First Amendment rights, when I was on the stand our attorney was able to allow me to read once more in public the statement we had made while on our knees in the church, and again to the press after our arrest: "God is on the side of the suffering ..."

      However, his motion at the end of the day to have us dismissed was rejected.  But we were still one down, three to go, when the court recessed for the 4-day Fourth of July holiday.

      Over the weekend, Paul and I discussed our chances of spending our Phoenix time in jail.  That possibility was becoming more remote, as I could see the way our attorney was pointing the First Amendment arguments.  The chances of the two of us being acquitted looked better and better, as the chances of the remaining co-defendant looked dimmer and dimmer.

      Then Paul had the idea -- if we drew a lighter sentence, we would ask the judge to give us whatever he gave the remaining ACTUP defendant.  It would raise a hell of a stir in the courtroom.  But would it be seen as a genuine gesture of solidarity?  Or merely grandstanding?  Our attorney, of course, advised against it.  But David, our co-defendant, was deeply moved, and perhaps that was enough.  We talked about how and when and where to make the request -- by standing up and requesting the judge's indulgence? By passing him a note and avoiding the grandstand? What if we were acquitted? We talked late into the night.

      The next morning, I took a long run to settle my thoughts.  I'd been reading the most recent issue of The Voice of Integrity, and the griefs of so many of my sisters and brothers weighed deeply.  It was all so unfair, that so many hurts could be inflicted in the name of Christ.  And in the name of "traditional family values."  And in just plain bigotry and hatred.  I felt so helpless to help.  And even helpless to understand -- I'm not gay, it's not my problem, I haven't walked in those shoes.  But then I realized that the griefs of the world weren't Jesus' problem, either.  He'd never sinned.  Yet he agonized in the garden of Gethsemane, he yearned to protect and gather his own like a hen shelters her chicks.

      I stopped at a church along my route, found to my amazement that it was unlocked, and went inside.  Releasing the stresses and the great unknowns, and offering God my best attempt at willingness to be where I was supposed to be, I crouched at the steps to the altar and wept.  Then I looked up and found a Bible open on the lectern.  Although I'm not one for playing the let-the-Bible-fall-open-and-pick-a-verse game, I was amazed at what I found: Isaiah 8:11  "The Lord spoke to me with his strong hand upon me ...  Do not call conspiracy everything that these people call conspiracy; do not fear what they fear, and do not dread it.  The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear... and he will be a sanctuary." Considering that "conspiracy to commit trespass" was the charge against us, I took heart in the passage!

      Monday, July 9, we were all back in court.  As the three of us co-defendants took their place at the table beside, I snuck a look at our attorney, and caught him with his hands clasped in front of his face, and his eyes closed.  Perhaps not so lapsed a believer after all?

      About mid-morning, the prosecution made its closing arguments.  And to our delight, the judge interrupted on numerous occasions, arguing and disputing his points, pointing out that what we had done, kneeling apparently silently behind the speaker and holding signs (I say apparently because we were inaudible on videotape and no witness testified to hearing our statement), would not of itself prevented the speaker from continuing to exercise his First Amendment rights.  It was only the audience's frenzied response to the content of our signs which created the problem and had our signs said "Go for it Dannemeyer" we wouldn't have been arrested by the seminar sponsors.  The judge then apologized to our attorney for "stealing his thunder," and indeed, our attorney began by acknowledging that "pages two and three" of his closing argument had already been voiced by the court.  Before the morning was over we had been acquitted, and, with three out of four co-conspirators eliminated, the charges against the remaining defendant were reduced to one count of disturbing the peace.

      We came out of the court-room to a classic press of the press -- a forest of microphones, a sea of videocables, and banks of bright lights.  I'd prepared my one-liner for this fleeting moment of fame, "My husband and I are here as Christians, as codefendants with ACT-UP, because too many so-called Christians are saying, 'Faggot go to hell.' By standing here as co-defendants we're saying, 'Jesus Loves You.'

      After lunch, David was sentenced to one year of informal probation and a $250 fine -- the precise plea bargain that we'd refused.  We decided it was pointless to ask for the same sentence, since we'd been totally acquitted, but we did offer to help pay his fine.  He counter-offered -- "How about if you just pay back ACT-UP for those two $50 tickets that got you in to this whole mess?" We agreed -- those were tickets for an E Coupon ride!

      And then it was on to a restful 11 days in Phoenix for the Convention ...

********************

CELEBRATING SS SERGIUS & BACCHUS:

MM CHRISTIAN ARCHETYPES OF LESBIAN AND GAY MARRIAGE

      Integrity chapter liturgists may wish to schedule the observance of SS Sergius and Bacchus on or near their 7 October feast day.  In the martyrologies, they are described as Christian soldier-lovers who were martyred in the late 3rd or early 4th century after refusing to worship their royal employer's pagan gods.  After humiliation and torture, Bacchus died first.  Sergius then, for the first time, began to waver.  His resolve was strengthened by a vision of Bacchus urging him to hold fast "in perfect fidelity that you may be worthy to earn me as the reward of the race, for my crown of justice is you."  In orthodox iconography, Sergius and Bacchus are portrayed as equestrian soldiers, their halos overlapping and their horses nuzzling each other.

      In his address, "1500 Years of Lesbian and Gay Marriage," given at the 1988 General Convention Integrity luncheon, Yale professor John Boswell cited the role of Sergius and Bacchus as the archetypes of sacramental, Christian lesbian and gay marriage rites which date back to the 5th century.  It would be appropriate to celebrate committed lesgay covenants, especially those of couples in the chapter, on their feast.

PROPERS FOR SS SERGIUS & BACCHUS

Collect: Almighty God, who gave to your servants Sergius and Bacchus the grace to love one another, the humility to bear one another's weaknesses, and the courage to confess the Name of Jesus before the rulers of this world and to die for this faith; Grant to us your servants a like unfeigned love and unashamed fidelity that we may receive with them the crown of life; through Jesus Christ our friend who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.  Amen.

*1st Reading*:  Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 6:14-17

*Psalm*: 133

*2nd Reading*: I Corinthians 13:1-13

*Alleluia Verse* (Rev. 2:10): Be faithful until death, says the

     Lord, and I will give you the crown of life.

*Gospel*: Matthew 10:6-22

*Preface*: Of a Saint (3)

*Hymns* (Hymnal 1982): 236-241, 351, 353 s 1 & 2, 414, 668

In celebration of covenants, the following may be included in Form I of the Prayers of the People (or adapted to any of the other forms) after the petition, "For the good earth...":

      For the union in Christ of all persons joined in holy love and inseparable life, that they may enjoy unashamed devotion and unfeigned love for all their days, let us pray to the Lord.

      R.  Lord, have mercy.

For the concluding collect at the Prayers:

O Lord our God, benefactor and friend of the human race, grant to all your servants unashamed fidelity, a sound and holy love, and all things needed for salvation and eternal life, through Jesus Christ, the joy of loving hearts, who with you and the Holy Spirit, lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever.  Amen.

*NOTES*: The above collect and prayer forms were adapted by the author from lesgay marriage rite prayers quoted by Dr. Boswell in his 1988 address to Integrity.

The illustration of SS Sergius and Bacchus was sketched by the author from a copy of an icon provided by David White of Integrity/Washington.

-----

The Rev. L. Paul Woodrum is Director of Development of Integrity, Inc. and is Assistant at St. Alban's Church, St. Alban's, New York.

********************

HOWE PRESSURES DEAN TO RESIGN

by Ben Scott

      On August 21, after enduring three months of turmoil, the Very Reverend Harry Sherman, Dean of the Cathedral Church of St. Luke in the Diocese of Central Florida, resigned his position effective February 2, 1992.  The Dean has been under attack for openly supporting the inclusion of gay and lesbian persons in all aspects of church life.

      The controversy began in May when Bishop John Howe revised the diocesan guidelines for lay eucharistic ministers to say: "It is not appropriate to recommend for licensing anyone whose lifestyle is an affront to the gospel, for instance, anyone known to be perpetrating fraud, a malicious gossip, or someone known to be engaging in sexual relations outside holy matrimony."  The Bishop called upon the Dean to support the change "one hundred percent", but as a matter of conscience the Dean could not.  Shortly thereafter the Dean felt pressure from the Bishop to resign. 

      The guideline revision was viewed by many as one more act by Howe to encourage discrimination against gay and lesbian persons.  Howe claimed, "My position is that I do not want to single out homosexual activity as the only thing of concern.  I do not want to go on a witch hunt."  Shortly after the guideline revision, however, the Bishop singled out Dr. Barry Levis, convener of Integrity/Central Florida, as a target for removal from the altar.   Barry refused to respond to Howe's inquiries into his personal life.  Later, after reading Barry's faith story in "A Book of Revelations," the Bishop requested that he no longer serve at the altar.  Barry responded, pointing out the datedness of Howe's information and refused his request to discontinue serving.  He currently continues to serve.

      Members of the Cathedral were in a furor over reports that the Bishop was pressuring the Dean to leave.  Over 150 communicants attended the monthly Cathedral Chapter meeting in late June, a meeting normally attended only by Chapter members.  At that meeting Bishop Howe denied rumors that he was calling for the resignation of the Dean and other Cathedral clergy.  He called it a "misunderstanding" and expressed his "love and support" for the Dean.

      Dean Sherman responded saying, "From the bottom of my heart, I welcome all homosexuals into the church."  He continued, "Once the doors are open you are eventually faced with saying to people, 'you are welcome totally -- period -- into the life of any community.'"  He expressed his personal pain over the divisions in the cathedral and the national church calling on both to "cry together as a family" as we work through the pain surrounding this issue, but made it clear his position was firm.  He was interrupted several times by loud cheers, applause, and a standing ovation. 

      When explaining how he would enforce the Bishop's new guidelines the Dean responded, "Because two men live together doesn't mean that they're having sex together.  I don't know that and I don't want to know.  Don't tell me!" 

      When given an opportunity to speak, the crowd was overwhelmingly supportive of the Dean's position.  "Gays are the niggers of the 1990's," was the fiery cry of one man as he recollected the discrimination of pre-civil rights era and called upon the church to be a leader in working for the rights of gay and lesbian persons just as it has worked for the rights of women and persons of color in the past.  One Chapter member quoted the recently passed Vision Statement for the Cathedral which calls for the "embracing of all peoples" into the Cathedral family.

*HOWE SAYS ONE THING, DOES ANOTHER*

      When Howe was questioned concerning his future intentions for the Cathedral, he repeatedly stated that he wished just to be a part of the "Cathedral family" and had no desire to "take control" of it.  Nevertheless, the Bishop removed his pledge from the Cathedral within days of the meeting.  Some of Howe's supporters followed his example by withdrawing their pledges and calling for the Dean's resignation.  This small but vocal group has been the source of hateful letters to the Chapter against the Dean.  As his supporters began taking the initiative, Howe himself became publicly supportive of the Dean while continuing to acknowledge their disagreement over this issue.

      By late July, the Chapter's support for the Dean had eroded.  In a letter of August 20, to the parish announcing his resignation the Dean said, "I believe there has been a strong movement on the part of some discontented parishioners to push me out... It is scary to leave without a job and throw myself into the hands of a waiting Lord.  I wonder where my lord will lead me..."  The Dean felt this was the only way a "healing" could begin in the Cathedral.

      When interviewed the Dean offered these words to gay men and women and their friends, "This is not an issue that we can solve by legislation and politics.  This issue will only be solved by love, blood and sacrifice.  As people hurt you, you must continue to love them, even while you are still bleeding inside.  This is a cause I really believe in and I am prepared to shed blood for it."

      Obviously Dean Sherman has done so.

-----

Ben Scott is a member of Integrity/Central Florida and was an Integrity volunteer at General Convention.

********************

EC'S BLAIR: NO RACA!

by Ralph Blair

      Several years ago I drew up a whimsical little tract entitled "What Jesus Christ Said About Homosexuality."  The inside of the tract was blank.  On the back page it read:  "That's right.  He said absolutely nothing about it."  I got the idea from a tract I remember seeing as a child.  It was entitled "What You Must Do to Go to Hell."  True to the graceless theology of its publishers, the inside of the tract was blank.

      Timm Peterson, who calls himself "a Feminist-Liberation Theologian" and is a minister in the United Church of Christ, has now written a rebuttal in WAVES, the newsletter of the United Church Coalition for Lesbian/Gay Concerns which was reprinted in "The Voice of Integrity," Summer, 1991.

      He begins by saying: "One of my pet peeves has been the notion that in the Bible Jesus said nothing whatsoever about homosexuality."  He then refers to "the brochure of the Evangelicals Concerned and [erroneously, though it has been reprinted often and by many groups] the Universal Fellowship of the Metropolitan Community Church."  Peterson says he "never did understand the 'good news' about this pamphlet."  The "good news," such as it is, is simply this:  Jesus never mentioned what many fundamentalists think is the "worst sin."  In fact, as I have pointed out in a later tract, "The Bible is an Empty Closet": "There are no homosexuals in the Bible.  Ruth and Naomi were no lesbians.  David and Jonathan weren't gay.  Neither were Jesus and John, the men of Sodom, cult prostitutes, slave boys and their masters, nor call boys and their customers."  After presenting the comments of the best biblical scholars on so-called "homosexuality" in the Bible, I quote Helmut Thielicke's statement that questions about homosexuality as we see it today are, "for purely historical reasons ... alien" to the Bible.

      But now Peterson claims he has "discovered" a statement by Jesus indicated "that he supported [what Peterson claims was] the controversial pro-lesbian/gay Roman law [for] homosexual marriages."  Peterson, however, offers no explicit documentation for his "discovery."  He claims Jesus's statement recorded at Matthew 5:22b as his prooftext.  The New International Version translates it:  "Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin."  According to Peterson's anachronistic reasoning, "*raca* may very well mean 'faggot' in Aramaic, a street-language term that was pointedly anti-lesbian/gay in that culture."  But his exposition is careless.  For example, on *raca*, he says that "the translation 'fool' made no sense to me," even though "fool" is the usual English rending for *moros*, the next term in Jesus's threefold antithesis, not for *raca*, which usually stands untranslated.  And he claims that a Roman law protecting "holy unions" for "military soldiers" somehow protected "Lesbian/gay couples of Roman citizenship."  Lesbian Legionaries?  His conclusion that "universal salvation extended to lesbians and gays" is redundant.  He writes that "Jesus said [sic] lesbians, gays, heterosexuals and celibates are included ... just as we [sic] are."  Who, by contrast to this list, are "we"?

      Although *raca* is a New Testament hapax legomenon (appearing only here and never again imported into any extant Greek literature), there are rabbinic instances of a deprecatory expression in Aramaic, of which this Greek term is a transliteration.  On that basis, biblical scholars say that the term probably means "empty headed" (Argyle, deDietrich Filson, Gundry), "hollowhead" (Luz), "blockhead" (Heremias), "imbecile" (Hill), "brainless idiot" (Barclay), "idiot" (Guelich).  According to the fourth century Syrian church father John Chrysostom, the term was used as a disrespectful expression towards one's slaves:  "you there" or "Hey, you!"  It is, as Buare says, "obviously an insult," if a relatively harmless one at that.  But Beare notes that in the final analysis, "the meaning of 'Raca' is not certain."  Argyle agrees and the editors of the New Revised Standard Version call it "an obscure term of abuse" and elect to render the text: "if you insult a brother or sister."  Barclay puts it well when he says that it's "an almost untranslatable word, because it describes a tone of voice more than anything else.  Its whole accent is the accent of *contempt*."  Then Barclay observes: "There is no sin quite so unchristian as the sin of contempt."

      As such, what Jesus says here *does* apply to issues of homosexuality today, not because *raca* is forced to mean "faggot" but because *raca* was an invective used to depersonalize and rub out faces.  Instead of name-calling, the Good Shepherd calls by name.  When those who claim to follow Jesus refuse to follow him in equating disrespect with murder and refuse to see the links between homophobic hatred, heterosexist self-righteousness, fag jokes, anti-gay rights crusade, gay/lesbian bashing, and complicity in gay teen suicide, they fail to hear Jesus's clear *word* on "homosexuality."

      Nothing good is gained when Christians on the Right project "homosexuals" into an unfamiliar inkblot of a word in I Corinthians 6:9 or when Christians on the Left project "faggots" into an unfamiliar inkblot in Matthew 5:22.  Instead, aren't we to take seriously Jesus's sobering irony in these Sermon on the Mount Antitheses?  As Guelich explains:  "Jesus was seeking to penetrate the casuistry of his day by the deliberate use of irony in 5:22 ... to get at the underlying relationship between individuals. ... Jesus ultimately demands a relationship ... in which there is no alienation."  Doesn't that apply today between homosexual and heterosexual Christians?

-----

This article is reprinted with permission from "Review," an organ of Evangelicals Concerned. Dr. Blair is the founder of EC.

********************

CONVENTION HANDOUTS AVAILABLE

the following handouts are available from Integrity.  These handouts were distributed by Integrity at General Convention in Phoenix.  The handouts are great for chapters to give away at diocesan conventions, and many can be used as a basis for discussion at chapter and parish meetings and programs.  There is no charge for the handouts, although a contribution to cover handling and mailing costs would be greatly appreciated.  For more information call 201-868-2485 or write Integrity at P.O. Box 5202; New York, NY 10185-0043.

THE DILEMMA OF THE LESBIAN/GAY FAMILY

by Kathleen Boatwright

THE EX-GAY HOAX CONTINUES: 

THE FOUNDERS OF EXODUS TELL THE REAL STORY

Los Angeles Times

January 26 and April 5, 1990

OUTING

by Kim Byham

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE'S CREATION NARRATIVE

TELL US ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY?

by The Rev. L. William Countryman

EURRR ........UNITED?  FOR WHAT?

by Louie Crew

THE DISSENTING BISHOPS STATEMENT

COMMENTS ON EURRR'S REPORT: "SHOULD PRACTICING HOMOSEXUALS BE ORDAINED IN THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH TODAY?"

by Bruce Garner

BISHOP HUNT ON THE BLUE BOOK REPORT ON HUMAN SEXUALITY

BISHOP HUNT WRITES TO THE BISHOPS CONCERNING THE "BLUE BOOK" REPORT ON HUMAN SEXUALITY

DON'T SUPPORT "EX-GAY" MINISTRIES!

CONFESSIONS OF AN "EX-GAY" SURVIVOR

BY Cheryl A. Johnson

THE MORALITY OF HOMOSEXUAL ACTS: A RECONSIDERATION

by Jim LaMacchia

A "CONSERVATIVE TRADITIONALIST" JUSTIFICATION FOR THE BLESSING OF SAME-SEX UNIONS

by The Rev. Herbert G. McCarriar, Jr.

A BASIS FOR MINISTRY TO GAY PEOPLE/A THEOLOGICAL BASIS FOR MINISTRY WITH THE HOMOPHILE COMMUNITY

by the Committee on Homophile Ministry of the Episcopal Diocese of Rochester

HOMOSEXUALITY: A REALITY THAT WILL NOT GO AWAY

by The Rev. Canon Peter C. Moore

ON THE GOODNESS OF GAYNESS: A SHORT ESSAY IN REVIEW OF AND IN RESPONSE TO "SHOULD PRACTICING HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS BE ORDAINED IN THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH TODAY?" BY THE REV. KENDALL S. HARMON

by The Rev. David L. Norgard

CHURCH OF ENGLAND REPORT SUPPORTS LESBIANS AND GAYS

An article and editorial from the "Church Times," February 16, 1990.

GAY LIVES AND COMMON MORALITY

In the church, tolerance is not enough

by The Rev. Jennifer M. Phillips

BIBLE DOESN'T SAY WHAT WE THOUGHT IT DID; NEW BIBLICAL DISCOVERIES MOVE TOWARD ACCEPTANCE OF GAYS.  THE LAW SHOULD DO THE SAME.

by Marshal Alan Phillips

GOD, SEX, AND JUSTICE

A sermon preached by Dr. George F. Regas

ALMOST 20 YEARS OF DIOCESAN-APPROVED BLESSINGS OF SAME-SEX UNIONS

Statement by the Department of Social Ministries of the Diocese of Rochester and an article from the Toronto Star, November 4, 1989

REVISITING A 1977 POINT OF VIEW

by Bennett J. Sims, Bishop Emeritus of Atlanta

AN ADDRESS TO THE INTEGRITY WORSHIP SERVICE AT THE GENERAL CONVENTION, July 12, 1991

by The Rt. Rev. John S. Spong

EXCOMMUNICATION IN THE ANGLICAN DIOCESE OF SYDNEY

FAMILY MINISTRY AND THE HOMOPHILE COMMUNITY

by The Rev. Walter Lee Szymanski

A BASIS FOR MINISTRY WITH LESBIAN AND GAY PEOPLE

by The Rev. Canon Walter Lee Szymanski

A RESPONSE TO EURRR

by The Rev. Dr. Walter Lee Szymanski

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE

DIOCESE OF WASHINGTON: INTERIM REPORT

Task Force on Issues of Human Sexuality

AN ANGLICAN GUIDE TO PROPER RITES FOR CELEBRATING COMMITMENTS:

A LIGHTHEARTED VIEW OF A SERIOUS SUBJECT

by The Rev. L. Paul Woodrum

AN AELRED ANTHOLOGY

by Nick Dowen

********************

ELECTION RESULTS

Congratulations to the following who were elected as Regional Vice-Presidents in May:

Midwest:  Jeff Dey

Northeast:  Patti O'Kane

Southern:  Rob Rynearson

Western:  Dorothy Beattie

Nominations are being sought for all Integrity Board positions (Regional Vice-Presidents, President, Treasurer, Secretary) for 1992's election.  Further information will be sent to members at a later date in "The Voice of Integrity."

********************

ORDINATION OF ANOTHER OPENLY GAY EPISCOPAL PRIEST

by Kim Byham

      The Rev. Barry Stopfel, an openly gay man living in a committed relationship and an Episcopal deacon for one year, was  ordained to the priesthood on September 14, 1991, by The Rt. Rev. John S. Spong, Bishop of Newark (NJ).  The ordination took place at the Church of the Atonement in Tenafly, New Jersey, where Stopfel has served as Assistant since 1988.

      Stopfel became be the fourth openly gay or lesbian person to be ordained to the Episcopal priesthood in the full glare of the media.  In 1977, The Rev. Ellen Barrett was ordained priest by the Bishop of New York, The Rt. Rev. Paul Moore, Jr.  In 1989, Bishop Spong ordained The Rev. Robert Williams, and in June of this year, the Bishop of Washington (DC), The Rt. Rev. Ronald Haines, ordained The Rev. Elizabeth Carl.  That is not to say, of course, that Stopfel will be only the fourth openly gay or lesbian Episcopalian to be ordained a priest.  Many other such ordinations have been unreported or reported only in the gay press.

      Stopfel's ordination is unique in several respects, however.

It is the first such ordination to be announced in advance at the denomination's House of Bishops.  During the extended debate on ordination of lesbians and gays at the General Convention, Spong several times announced his intention to ordain Stopfel in September.  Although the Bishops approved a compromise on the ordination issue, they decisively defeated attempts to amend the compromise resolution to provide a moratorium on lesbian/gay ordinations until further study is completed.

      The second unique aspect of the Stopfel ordination is that his previous ordination, to the Diaconate in September, 1990, was the subject of controversy and media coverage.  Barrett, Williams, and Carl had all been ordained deacons without press attention.  The earlier Stopfel ordination became an issue at General Convention when an effort was made to censure both The Rt. Rev. Walter Righter, then Assistant Bishop of Newark, who officiated at the Stopfel ordination, and Bishop Haines for the Carl ordination.  The censure resolution was soundly defeated.

      The third unique aspect of the Stopfel ordination is that his life partner is also an ordained clergyperson.  The Rev. Will Leckie is a minister in the United Church of Christ.  The UCC has officially permitted the ordination of openly lesbian and gay persons since 1983.  Leckie is currently pastor of a new congregation ministering with the lesbian/gay community in New York City.  The congregation, known as Spirit of the River, is affiliated with both the UCC and the Disciples of Christ.  Leckie also serves as chaplain at the Passaic Valley Hospice in Totowa, NJ.

      "Our relationship has helped us both grow spiritually," said Stopfel.  "When the challenges to my ordination mounted, both our relationship and our mutual commitment to ministry were a vital source of strength.  While the church often sees the sexual loving of gay and lesbian persons as sin, our experience as a couple is that in such loving we often experience God's grace and sustaining power."

      The road to ordination has not been an easy one for Stopfel, who is 43.  After a career in business, he graduated from Union Theological Seminary in New York City in 1988 and has been actively pursuing his call to the priesthood ever since.  His ordination to the diaconate, originally scheduled for June 2, 1990, was postponed only days before by Bishop Spong who was responding to a request by the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church to allow the church to debate the issues without further incident.

      Stopfel said of his ordination, "To me the important thing about openly gay and lesbian people being ordained is that now we can speak with our own voices.  The Holy Spirit speaks through people representing all facets of God's creation.  Finally affirming gay men and lesbians are being given official voice by the church.  African Americans, Native Americans and women were all denied the right to speak for themselves by the church, and as their voices were freed, their messages have deeply changed the church for the better.   I pray that the voices of lesbians and gay men will also call the church to greater faithfulness to the Gospel."

      The preacher was The Rev. Carter Heyward, Professor of Theology at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  Dr. Heyward, who is openly lesbian, was one of the first 11 women ordained to the Episcopal priesthood in an unauthorized service in 1974.  Dr. Heyward was also the preacher for the ordinations of three openly lesbian and gay Lutheran ministers in San Francisco in January, 1990.  Among the presenters were Dr. Louie Crew, founder of Integrity, and Kim Byham, Director of Communications.  In an unusual move, the members of the Diocesan Standing Committee were present to emphasize the collegial nature of the approval process.

********************

GAY TALES

      Armistead Maupin, author of "Tales of the City" and other popular books about life in San Francisco, was brought up an Episcopalian. Like many others, he has been alienated from the church because of homophobia. A few years ago, while visiting his native North Carolina, he shared a story about when he first told his parents that he was gay. His father reacted, "I wish we had known sooner. We could have gotten you into seminary."

********************

OUR ECUMENICAL PARTNERS ON SEX

THREE QUARTERS OF METHODIST COMMITTEE

BACK CHANGE IN CHURCH POSITION

      A special committee of the United Methodist Church has completed a report on homosexuality after three years of hearings and debate.  "The New York Times" reported on August 28 that three days earlier, at the end of a four-day meeting in North Carolina, 18 of the committee's 24 members endorsed a version of the report that included a sentence asking the 8.9-million-member denomination to remove the condemnation of homosexual practice from the church's official statement of social principles.

       Only four committee members endorsed an opposing version that has a sentence asking the church to retain the condemnation, which calls homosexuality "incompatible with Christian teaching." The chairwoman and a staff member of the denomination working on the committee declined to endorse either version.

       The denomination's General Council on Ministries, a 133-member body of clergy and laity representing the Methodists' 114 regional conferences (the equivalent of dioceses) in the United States and overseas will review the conflicting versions of the report.  In December, the council will decide whether to send one or both versions to the Methodist General Conference (the equivalent of General Convention), which meets next May. The council can also amend either version of the report or reject both.

      The Methodists' study on homosexuality was mandated by the General Conference after a proposal to remove the condemnation was brought before the conference in 1988. The study committee, appointed by the General Council on Ministries, was made up of clergy and laity.  Like the Presbyterians and unlike the Episcopalians, the Methodist committee included two gay persons.

      According to the "Times," except for fewer than a dozen words out of approximately 14,000, the two versions of the report are identical.  The document sets out points of agreement and disagreement about homosexuality among medical, psychological and sociological authorities, biblical experts, pastors and theologians.

      The majority's view is that the current, unsettled "state of knowledge and insight" among these experts "does not provide a satisfactory basis upon which the church can responsibly maintain the condemnation of all homosexual practice." But the minority said this lack of expert consensus "does not provide the satisfactory basis upon which the church can responsibly alter its previously held position."

      In other respects, the committee members were unanimous, for example in the conclusion that the church should be "a place of acceptance and hospitality to all persons," including gays and lesbians.  Both versions of the report said those who find homosexuality incompatible with Christian belief could be caring of gay men and lesbians while at the same time trying to influence them toward changing their lives.  Both versions also urged the church to support efforts to assure the "basic rights and civil liberties" of gay and lesbian persons and "stop violence and other forms of coercion" against them.

      The committee's apparent attempt to come down on both sides of the fence came as a result of publicity surrounding a straw vote taken last February which showed the committee strongly in favor of rescinding the denomination's condemnation of homosexual behavior.

      Reportedly, only about 60 of more than 1,100 letters received by the General Council on Ministries supported the pro-gay sentiment reflected in the straw vote.  Church officials told "The New York Times" that this summer at least 50 regional conferences debated the issue of homosexual practice, with more than 35 voting to retain the present condemnation.

UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST REAFFIRMS

LESGAY ORDINATION

      The church of the Pilgrims has reaffirmed its long-standing  policy of non-discrimination in ordination at its biennial convention, June 28 - July 2.  Delegates to the United Church of Christ's General Synod (the equivalent of General Convention) rejected proposals that would have reversed the church's past stand, declaring that an ordination candidate's sexual orientation by itself was not grounds for denying ordination.

      Under UCC policy, regional associations and conferences (the equivalent of dioceses) decide whether a candidate is qualified, and many of them have approved ordination of lesbians and gay men in the last two decades.

      Its first acknowledged gay clergyperson, the Rev. William Johnson, was ordained in the denomination's Golden Gate Association in 1972.  Johnson was also the founder of the United Church Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Concerns, Integrity's UCC counterpart.  Johnson, now based at the church's headquarters in Cleveland, has headed its AIDS ministry for two years.

      In the ensuing decade and a half after Johnson's ordination, about a dozen other gay men and lesbians were ordained around the country, after which the church ceased keeping count as the policy became commonplace.  General Synod formally recommended opening the ordination process in 1983.

      At its General Synod, held in Norfolk, Va., the church also asserted the right of private, consensual, non-commercial sexual activity between adults.  The resolution denounced Virginia's so-called sodomy laws - similar to laws in 23 other states - as fomenting discrimination against gay men and lesbians and violating the "spirit of justice" and the U.S. Constitution. This was in sharp contrast to General Convention which ignored a similar resolution.

      A generally progressive body, the 1.6 million-member United Church of Christ took its present name in an unusual merger in 1957 of the Congregational Church, which grew from Puritanism, and the Evangelical and Reformed Church, which has German origins.  It was the first U.S. church merger to unite denominations of different national origins.

PRESBYTERIANS: IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE

by Kim Byham

      "No, General Convention will be nothing like the Presbyterian's General Assembly," I told anyone who asked.  "It simply isn't conceivable that the Episcopal Church could ever pass a resolution stating, 'We conclude that homosexuality is not God's wish for humanity.'  I could never belong to a church like that!"

      Tiresome Anglican superiority aside, in some sense I was right.  General Convention was far calmer than General Assembly.  But I was frightened when I read how similar Presbyterians for Lesbian & Gay Concerns' comments about Assembly were to Integrity's about Convention.  Something didn't add up.  Being as objective as I can be (which is not very), the Episcopal Church is ten years ahead of the Presbyterian Church (and ten plus years behind the United Church of Christ).  To me the most telling difference is that at General Assembly conservatives claim they won, while at General Convention they are wailing that they lost.

      The focus of General Assembly was the controversial task force report, "Keeping Body and Soul Together: Sexuality, Spirituality and Social Justice."  [V of I, Summer, 1991]

      The nine-day annual convention in Baltimore was the most heavily attended General Assembly in history.  More than 2,600 people registered, including 602 elected delegates, known as commissioners.  Thus it was somewhat less than half the size of General Convention, even though the Presbyterian Church-USA is larger, with 2.9-million members.

      Although the task force report was more moderate than certain passages would suggest, they received widespread publicity:

      "It may be said simply: Where there is justice-love, sexual expression has ethical integrity.  That moral principle applies to single, as well as to married persons, to gay, lesbian and bisexual persons, as well as to heterosexual persons."

      "The desired end is to dismantle the patriarchal family and establish new family structures of genuine equality, mutual respect and wholeness....  The moral norm for Christians ought not be marriage, but rather justice-love."

      "Any model of sexuality and sexual relations which serves to keep heterosexual women, lesbians and gay men subordinate is fundamentally unjust.  It deserves not our allegiance but our strongest critique," said the report, produced by a 17-member committee of clergy and lay members.

      Before the General Assembly began, the report had been rejected by 43 of the church's 171 presbyteries (the equivalent of dioceses).  Another 43 presbyteries criticized parts of the report, prepared at the direction of the church's 1987 General Assembly.  Not one openly supported the document.  Forty presbyteries had asked that the report not even be included in the minutes of the meeting.  Attempts to keep it out failed, however.

      On June 10, by a vote of 534 to 31, the commissioners accepted the recommendation of an Assembly committee to set aside the report.

      The delegates voted to continue to abide by church positions on homosexuality, adopted in 1978 and 1979.  While saying that gays and lesbians are "fully welcome" as members and opposing discrimination against gays in the secular world, they prohibit practicing homosexuals from being ordained as ministers or elders.  (There is no close Anglican equivalent to an elder, though it is sometimes compared to a deacon.)  The statement, "We conclude that homosexuality is not God's wish for humanity," is in the 1978 resolution.

      Harlan W. Penn, of Washington, DC, Co-Moderator of Presbyterians for Gay and Lesbian Concerns, was given the opportunity to address the Assembly prior to the vote, asking it to reject affirmation of the 1978 statute.  "If you abide by the 1978 resolution, gays and lesbians can be refused membership in our churches," he said.  "Even the gays who are members will be second-class."

      More than two-thirds of the commissioners, however, turned down a proposal to make the 1978 ban on ordination "advisory and non-binding."

      Despite the overwhelming vote against the report, the Assembly called on the denomination's Theology and Worship Ministry Unit to use the report - along with studies reflecting other viewpoints - to prepare a plan for continued church examination of sexual issues, encouraging congregations to "discover their own conclusions."

      The Assembly also voted to send a letter to its 10,500 churches affirming the sanctity of the marriage bond and the 1978 and 1979 statements.

      Most of the assembly erupted in applause as action was completed on the report.  Outside the assembly hall, about 50 protesters shouting "No, No, No" and carrying signs reading "One Way" and "Remember Why God Destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah" urged the church to uphold traditional standards.  One of the demonstrators held aloft a placard that read "Dialogue is Sin." !! (There were never more than two demonstrators at General Convention.)

      The letter was read the following Sunday in place of the sermon at hundreds of Presbyterian churches.  While the letter affirms that "the marital covenant between one man and one woman" is "to be lived out in Christian fidelity,"  a proposal that it include an explicit statement that sexual intercourse "is to be confined to heterosexual marriage" was narrowly defeated, 31 votes to 24, by the General Assembly committee which drafted it.

      The letter also raised important issues.  "We are being torn apart by issues of teenage sexuality and practice, sexual violence, clergy sexual misconduct, new reproductive technologies, AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, and the sexual needs of singles, gay and lesbian persons, the disabled and older adults."

      Politically, the letter also stated, "Let it be said that in Baltimore the 203rd General Assembly heard the cry of the church for an Assembly that listens to the grass roots."

      The chairman of the Assembly committee, Gordon C. Stewart, said his 67-member group concluded that Presbyterians were not ready to make any fundamental changes in sexual policy.  The task force report sparked so much dissension that Stewart said one of his major objectives was to keep the church from splitting apart.

      "We tried to find as much common ground as we could," Stewart said.  "We're a family here; we wanted to keep the family together.  Presbyterians are 'an independent bunch,'" said Stewart, and any major changes will have to come more from the grass roots than from Presbyterian committees.

      But Sylvia Thorson-Smith, a lecturer in religious studies and sociology at Grinnell College in Grinnell, Iowa, and a chief author of the sexuality report, criticized the priority given to finding common ground and calming those who had been disturbed by the conflict rather than those who were "marginalized" in the church.  "We do not find common ground by continuing to stand on the backs of gays and lesbians....  I think this is a pastoral word to those in the church that were disturbed by the report: 'Not to worry, nothing's changed,'" she said.

      She also protested the frequent references to organizing a grass-roots study by the church in contrast to the one she worked on.  "I am the grass roots," said Ms. Thorson-Smith, who is an elder in her church.

      The Presbyterians' new Moderator Herbert D. Valentine of  Baltimore, closed the meeting by asking commissioners to "pray for those who continue to feel excluded." Following his remarks, several hundred of those observing the Assembly, including some delegates, silently marched down the center aisle of the convention floor to support gays in the church.

      James Waller described what happened in the last issue of "Outweek," July 3, 1991:

      Then, from the back of the vast plenary hall, a procession began - led by four or five men and women carrying a large wooden cross.  In absolute silence, they approached the platform at the front of the hall, followed by hundreds of supporters, some carrying black banners that read "Never Again" and "Silence = Death."  As the procession moved forward, it was joined by some of the voting delegates on the floor and by many of the visitors from the observers' galleries.  When it reached the dias, the cross was raised aloft, to allow those following to pass beneath, then laid on the floor.  The aisles were filled with demonstrators; my view was blocked, and, when I heard a metallic sound ring out, I couldn't at first tell what was happening.  Then I looked overhead, at one of the big-screen monitors above the dias.  the camera had been turned on the cross, and one of the demonstrators was slowly hammering nails into it.

      Though my skepticism has since returned, at that moment, I thought that I understood why so many Christian lesbians and gays refuse to abandon the struggle.  Others' contempt must look a lot less fearsome when you've got a gospel lesson to teach.

      The demonstration was organized not by PLGC but by a new group, Presbyterian ACT UP.  "I guess we are using the cross in our demonstration as a symbol of our anguish and pain," said The Rev. Howard B. Warren Jr., organizer of the group.

      "The vote against the sexuality report was just a continuation of the tortuous interpretation of Scripture that left African-Americans and women without full rights in the Presbyterian Church for years," said Warren, director of pastoral care for the Damien Center in Indianapolis, a support agency for People with AIDS.

PLGC REACTS

In PLGC's newsletter, More Light Update, August, 1991, Bret Hannon, PLGC's Issues Coordinator at General Assembly gave a generally positive reading about what happened.

      "[W]e did not get the "worst case scenario" from the Assembly either.  There were several options that the commissioners could have chosen from, but did not, which would have represented major setbacks for lesbians and gay men in the church.

      "The Assembly did have the power to restrict the future availability of the report in several ways, and although there were attempts by some commissioners to do so, they failed.  Over 42,000 copies of the majority and minority reports have already been sold, and they will continue to be made available through the Office of the General Assembly.

      "There were two other actions of the Assembly dealing with lesbian and gay issues that were overshadowed by the report of the special committee.  The first has to do with same-sex commitment services.  The commissioners voted that *if* a session [the equivalent of a vestry] determines that a same-sex union in *not the same* as a marriage (which the "Book of Order" defines as a relationship between one man and one woman anyway), then they may allow the church building to be used for that service and not be out of compliance with the "Book of Order."  Ministers are allowed to perform the services if they make the same determination.  This action was taken at the end of a long day of debate, and may be appealed at a future Assembly."

      In another article, erroneously headlined, "Holy Unions Approved," the actual language of the resolution was given.  "Session ... should not allow the use of the church facilities for a same sex union ceremony that the session determines to be the same as a marriage ceremony."  Harlan's interpretation of what is not said may be overly optimistic.

      James Waller, in his article, sights a conversation with "More Light Update's" editor, James Anderson, a dean at Rutgers.  "Oh, the church will change,"  Anderson told Waller, "but it may be the last institution to change.  The society in general - even the military - they'll change first."  Waller comments, "Anderson's animated face and upbeat manner exuded the cheerfulness that's a necessary trait if you're working against such great odds.  During my stay in Baltimore, I found myself wondering how so many lesbian and gay Presbyterians found the strength to continue to fight their battle."

      We should never forget that many people say the same thing about lesbian and gay Episcopalians.

********************

WHY INTEGRITY?

by Gary Miller

      Why do I support something like Integrity?  Why do I even concern myself with something which can be such a frustration to me?  Why do I keep on pushing Integrity to do and be all I think it can do and be?  What meaning does Integrity hold for me?  To what mission does Integrity hold me?  To what obligation do I hold Integrity?  What is Integrity's purpose and duty in the church and society?

      Integrity MUST exist.  As long as those people prevail who would deny rights to any human being, Integrity must exist.  As long as people live who cannot perceive or even believe the oppression of others endures, Integrity must exist.  As long as there are priests and bishops and theologians who fly in the face of statistics and biblical critical analysis with their own private theologies, Integrity must exist.  As long as politicians, whether within the church or without, hold sway over subordinates to force their own opinions upon others, Integrity must exist.  As long as there are persons who believe that Jesus died for them but not for me, Integrity must exist. 

      I have heard the Good News and believe that Jesus, the Christ, died for me; and I accept Him in my heart as my Savior.  Integrity has heard that same Good News and its response is the same as mind: we will exist together to work for justice and dignity for all people, the end of human oppression, and witnessing to the Good News that the world and all people in it have been liberated and redeemed by our Lord Jesus Christ.  I support Integrity's twofold ministry of bringing the Episcopal Church to the gay and lesbian community, and bringing the concerns of this same group to the church.  In addition, Integrity's ministry of reconciliation is of equal importance.  Although many gay men and lesbians have left the church due to its sometimes not-so-subtle intolerance, many other gay men and lesbians have come back to the church seeking the opportunity to be open, honest Christians within parish life throughout the church.

      Integrity also stands on guard against the so-called "militant" gay rights groups which often disrupt and offend the sensibilities of everyone.  I will not embarrass the Episcopal Church, and neither will Integrity.

      It may appear to some upon shallow investigation that Integrity serves no useful purpose or function.  These people have not taken the time and energy required to "read, mark, and inwardly digest" Integrity.  Nor, more than likely have they ever attended an Integrity chapter meeting.  What must they think goes on there?  I have no doubt of the sincerity of many of those included in the paragraphs above, but must I be required to abide by their opinions, learned though they may be, because they hold ecclesiastical or some other theological or metaphysical authority over me?  Sorry, I can't abide that.  God loves me, too - just as I am.

-----

Gary Miller is the editor of The Integrity Heartland Voice, the publication of Integrity/Kansas City.  this editorial appeared in the June, 1991 issue.

********************

BIBLICAL STANDARD

The following is excerpted from an article which appeared in the June, 1991 issue of "The Vintage Voice," the publication of the Church Pension Fund.

      There is a biblical standard of morality.  Let us not focus only on one chapter or verse about one specific practice, such as gambling, pornography, homosexuality, adultery, abortion or larceny.  Then we would debate one verse and miss the basic attitude of the scriptures.  The New Testament affirms that certain life styles which pagans practice are a "no no" for those who have committed themselves to Christ and become new creatures.

********************

PRESIDENT'S PAGE

AFTER PHOENIX - NOW WHAT?

by Bruce Garner

      I write this issues' column on a flight bound for San Francisco.  I am on my way to attend the memorial service of my very dear and long time friend, Zach Long.  He died of AIDS last week. 

      I spent several days in early July with Zach and his partner Doug before going on to Phoenix for General Convention.  I'm glad I had the time to be with him.  I think I knew I was also saying goodbye.  We had several good talks.  Zach was Presbyterian and his denomination had already been through a convention much like the one we were facing. 

      Zach's congregation is an open and loving one.  They ordained him a ruling elder with the knowledge that he was gay.  They also stood a twenty four hour a day vigil at Zach's bedside as he gently slipped out of this world and into the waiting hands of the God he knew loved him. 

      With Zach's death, I have lost the last link I had to a substantial portion of my history as a gay man.  No one is now left alive who shared some very special parts of my life.  Zach was also the last connection I had to my best friend Alan, who died in 1987.  This loss may be beyond what words can express.

      It is within that context that I want to share with you my vision of what I think should happen "after Phoenix."  It is within the urgent realization of how fragile and short this life is, that I convey to you the vital importance of what we as lesbian and gay Episcopalians must now do.  We do not have the time to wait for others to do anything.  *We* must take whatever initiative is to be taken to obtain the justice from our *church* that our *God* meant for us from our birth and that our Savior redeemed from the cross of Calvary.  We must be gentle, loving and patient - but we must *no longer wait*.

      Resolution 104 instructs the church (once again!) to enter into dialogue *with* us and to educate herself *about* us.  We cannot wait for mother church to initiate those points however.  We essentially waited for most of the last three years for others to begin to move.  Abysmally few even attempted to speak with us or learn about us.  Most of the forward movement was at our behest and with our encouragement.  So, with the initiative in our court, what do we do?

      The first and perhaps most important action we can take is for as many of us as possible to come out within our parishes.  The more visible our numbers are, the more the rest of the church will realize our existence and involvement in the life of the Episcopal Church.  Let me also add that I realize many of us *cannot* come out for very valid reasons.  I understand that reality and I respect it completely.  There are, however, tremendous numbers of us who have no reason not to be out of the closet about the sexual identity God has bestowed upon us. 

      Those of us who can be out have a moral obligation to *be* out for ourselves as well as for our sisters and brothers who cannot. 

      One of the greatest educational tools we have is just being ourselves.  People come to know us as the ordinary and extraordinary people we really are.  They see their daughters and sons, sisters and brothers, aunts, uncles, parents, and friends.  They begin to see us as folks not really any different from themselves.  They put a human face on what is for so many an abstract concept:  a living and breathing, crying and laughing, growing and hurting homosexual child of God.  Once we have a face, we are never the same to them again.  Education has begun.  Change has also begun.

      The next action we need to take is to get visibly involved in our church.  We must be *seen* as being involved as vestry members, church school teachers, layreaders, altar guild members, chalice bearers, acolytes, choir members, organists, ushers, acolyte masters and mistresses, and on and on.  We've always been involved in the lives of our parishes.  Unfortunately, much of that involvement has been invisible.  We need to continue to be involved, perhaps even more so.  The people of our parishes must realize how involved we are.

      We must also get ourselves involved in the legislative and policy making aspects of our church.  We have the skills our church needs and we must make those skills available.  Taking our places on parish vestries insures our input into the processes that most directly affect our lives, and it insures it at the most basic level possible.

      We must also seek roles that involve us at the diocesan level.  There's no reason we shouldn't be voting delegates at our diocesan conventions.  There no reason we can't offer our services as members of every committee and commission of every diocese in the country.  I doubt that any diocese has an abundance of people willing to be involved!  Our interest should be welcomed.  Where we aren't welcomed, we must be persistent.  The Holy Spirit can't work if we are not present as her vehicle.

      We began this convention with two openly gay deputies.  Many of us heard what sounded like a third one come out on the floor of the House of Deputies.  By next convention there must be more openly gay and lesbian deputies.  Kinsey statistics indicate there should be at least 80 of us.  We'll never occupy those seats unless we get off our ecclesiastical rear ends and work for them.  And who knows, maybe by next convention, some of our compatriots in the "other" house will have come out also.

      Time is precious and it's not guaranteed to any of us.  Time is even shorter for some of us.  Three years is enough time for us to work with God to create a few miracles.  God may be omnipotent, but God can only do so much *for* us without our presence as a vehicle of God's grace.  God can do very little if we aren't there to be that vehicle.  We have another chance and we have a responsibility.  Let's not waste either. 

      Goodbye Zach.  Rest with God.  Your journey is finished.  Pray for us that we complete our journeys as witnesses to the beauty and wholeness of God's entire rainbow of creation.

Postscript on the return flight: 

      I saw God at work at Zach's memorial service.  It was a wonderful gathering of God's children from more walks of life than one can imagine.  A third of the congregation was dressed in leather and *with* them sat the San Francisco Symphony and Opera Guilds, board members of a youth center, an AIDS emergency fund, and a myriad of others.  All this took place in an old (1848) mainline conservative Presbyterian congregation.  All sorts and conditions of humankind had gathered in tribute to one whose work on behalf of God had touched them all.  The inclusivity of the Gospel appeared in human form.  It gave me hope and inspiration for our own future.

      I return home to attend yet another funeral.  My grandmother died the day before my scheduled return.  This loss is different:  Grandmother would have been 90 years old in November.  She lived a long and full life - a life deeply rooted in her faith in Jesus Christ.  God *is* at work in this world and the next.  May God's grace uphold us in both.

********************

Integrity Canvas Bag Now Available!

bearing the inscription:

"No good thing will God withhold from those who walk with INTEGRITY    Psalm 84.11"

Only $9.00 shipping included

High quality off-white canvas bag.  Rainbow handles.

Send payment to:  Integrity, P.O. Box 5202, NYC, NY 10185-0043

Write for Quantity Discount information and/or Integrity chapter orders.

********************

CHALLWOOD STUDIO

Victor Challenor   Paul Woodrum

Custom designed and made ...

     EUCHARISTIC VESTMENTS

     PREACHING GOWNS - STOLES

     ALBS - SURPLICES - TIPPETS

100 Lexington Ave., Suite 1-L,

Brooklyn, NY 11238

Phone:  718-398-2877

********************

*1991 GENERAL CONVENTION SUPPLEMENT*

TABLE OF CONTENTS

What Is Integrity?  What Does It Hope To Accomplish At General 

  Convention?

A Letter To The Presiding Bishop

Deputy Thanks Integrity

Thanks to Integrity's 1991 General Convention Volunteers

Open Hearing on Human Sexuality

  Stina Pope's Comments

  Walter Szymanski's Comments

  Statement by Warner Traynham

Reflections on General Convention

  Bruce Anderson

  Kathleen Boatwright, Dorothy, Phil Nicholson

  Betsy Hess, Hans Franzen

  Dorothy Fuller

  Bruce Garner

  Gil Grady, Claudia Windal, Walter Lee Szymanski

  Nayan McNeill, Sue Thompson

Integrity Worship At Cathedral

Perverse and Foolish

  Bishop MacBurney Strayed

Church Army Alienates Convention

Bishop Spong's Sermon

In The Presence of Mine Enemies:

  God's Oils At Phoenix

Claudia's Column

Evangelize Gays, Church Told

Troy Perry Welcome By The House Of Bishops

The Integrity Resolutions

The Landlord And The Gays

Bishop Revisits A 1977 Point of View

The Road to Compromise: Origins

The Road to Compromise: Deputies

Other Integrity Events

How Deputies Voted on Three Main Resolutions

Keep Your Eye On The Prize, Harris Tells Integrity

The Racism/Heterosexism Connection

Convention Videos

The Road to Compromise: Bishops

House of Bishops Vote:

  Howe Amendment To Add Frey Resolution To The Compromise

Bishops Reject 'Local Priests' Quarantine Resolution

The Compromise Resolution (A-104sa)

Deputies Come Out On The Floor of General Convention

A Model Resolution For Submission To Diocesan Conventions

Bellah Tells Church To Reclaim Moderating Role

Haines and Righter Escape Censure

Right Wingers Say They Lost, Does That Mean We Won?

R.I.P. E.U.R.R.R.

Integrity And UFMCC

********************

WHAT IS INTEGRITY?

WHAT DOES IT HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH AT GENERAL CONVENTION IN 1991?

by Scott Helsel

      In 1974, Dr. Louie Crew started a newsletter for lesbian and gay Episcopalians, calling on his adopted church to show "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You."  Joined by hundreds of lesbian and gay Episcopalians and friends,  chapters were formed around the country and a national convention held.  In 1976, Integrity was represented at General Convention, where two major resolutions passed: one  "...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;"   the other  "...that homosexual persons 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."  Integrity has been represented at every General Convention thereafter.

      Although some perceive Integrity as a "lobbying organization,"  few Integrity members would identify with that label.  In 47 chapters and 10 chapters-in-formation in the United States (plus affiliated chapters in Australia and Canada) the primary focuses are worship in a supportive environment, emotional support and counseling, spiritual nourishment and Christian education, service to the Church and the lesbian/gay community.  Our Pittsburgh chapter, for example, runs a house for homeless persons with AIDS.  Through Integrity's evangelism, thousands of lesbians and gay men, estranged from the Episcopal and other churches, have returned to worship and fellowship.  For seventeen years, Integrity has been the most successful evangelistic organization in our Church.

      At this convention we would like our Church to fulfill its 1976 promises.  We hope the "love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church" will be manifested by removing ordination barriers based solely on sexual orientation, guaranteeing non-discrimination in church governance, lesbian/gay representation at the Church Center and on commissions and committees, rites for blessing committed relationships, and clerical/lay education.  We hope our Church will "call upon our society to see that [equal] protection is provided in actuality" by encouraging the government to make custodial decisions solely on qualifications, disseminate the suppressed federal report on youth suicide, repeal discriminatory sex laws, grant protections to lesbian/gay domestic partnerships, cease discriminating in military service, and amend the federal civil rights act to include "sexual orientation." 

-----

This article appeared in the initial issue of "The Convention Daily."

********************

DEPUTY THANKS INTEGRITY

Dear Mr. Byham:

      I received "A book of Revelations" today -- Bravo!  I am a deputy to General Convention from the diocese of Northwestern Pennsylvania.  This is my first General Convention.  I am very aware of the vacuum in the area of dialogue on human sexuality, and have tried in my areas of influence to discuss the subject rationally and compassionately.  I was elected to go to General Convention by an essentially conservative diocese after having been in the Episcopal Church for four years only, and with people knowing up front that I do *not* take a conservative stance on the issue of homosexuality.  This may well be my first *and* last Convention!

      I cannot help but be with you in your struggles to be recognized and accepted at all levels of Church life.  I am not myself lesbian, but through a close association with a gay male friend I have come to understand some of the ostracism, the pretending, the covering tracks.  I visited some of his friends in the company of this man and his permanent partner.  During the course of ordinary conversation, my friend absentmindedly laid his hand on his lover's arm for a moment.  It was such an offhand gesture I wondered why it struck me so forcibly -- was it because although I knew intellectually that he was gay I had never seen him "in context"?  Was I experiencing some latent homophobic reaction?  No -- I was seeing for the first time my beloved friend *comfortable* with physical contact!  I thought back over many situations where, though I never noticed it at the time, he avoided physical contact -- the wooden hugs, taking a chair or standing rather than sitting on a couch -- I had always thought him just cool, not demonstrative.  But in that moment of touch between lovers I saw that he is warm and physical, and hides it because he's afraid of being found out as gay.  Working for a cause I understand rationally is one thing -- but in that gesture of his my anger was engaged.  I am angry that I can hold hands with my husband in the movies and my friend can't without risk.  I am angry that we could not celebrate their commitment with champagne and presents and invite the whole community to which we belong.  I am angry that they have Tuesday and Saturday nights and Sunday afternoons instead of every day of the week.  No pun intended, but I must stand with Integrity if I'm to keep any shred of *my* integrity.  I will look for you all in Phoenix.  By the way, is Integrity intended only for gay and lesbian persons, or can friends and supporters join as well?

Peace of Christ

Marji Alexa-Allen

********************

A LETTER TO THE PB

July 9, 1991

Dear Bishop Browning:

      We are parents of a gay son who passed away in April of this year.  He died of AIDS related cancer.  We are also lifelong members of the Episcopal Church.

      We write to you on behalf of gay and lesbian people all over the world.  It is time for responsible and sensible people, particularly church people, to put aside society's previous stereotypical prejudice about homosexuality, and instead take a stand for logic, reason and compassion, so that sexual orientation cannot continue to be used to preclude homosexuals from equality in our society.

      Medical evidence continues to mount which supports the fact that one's sexual orientation is not caused or chosen, but rather is a matter of biological roulette.

      We urge you to affirm the lives of gay men and lesbians in the Episcopal Church, and grant them full participation in all church matters in the upcoming General Convention in Phoenix.

Very truly yours,

Rose Ann and Robert H. Hoy, Jr.

El Paso, Texas

(Hand delivered in Phoenix to Bishop Browning)

********************

THANKS TO INTEGRITY'S 1991 GENERAL CONVENTION VOLUNTEERS

      Without the dedicated efforts of Integrity's volunteers, our presence in Phoenix would not be possible.  All volunteers are responsible for their own travel and food during convention.  Integrity is able to provide only housing.  Thus these dedicated volunteers made real personal sacrifices.  Please join in honoring them if you have an opportunity to do so.

      The following were Integrity's full-time, official volunteers.  At least 40 additional Integrity members, including members of the Phoenix chapter, and 8 members of the Parsonage helped for all or part of the convention and we thank them for their assistance as well.

      AMBASSADORS AT LARGE:  Louie Crew, Newark, NJ and Bruce Garner, Atlanta

      BOOTH: Brooke Bushong, Chair, Brooklyn; Bruce Anderson, Tucson; Jim Goodell, Palo Alto, CA; Margo McMahon, Amherst, MA; (Rev.) Stina Pope, Atlanta; and John Scherer, Freehold, NJ

      EXECUTIVE: Kim Byham, General Coordinator, and Scott Helsel, Fiscal and Housing Coordinator, Guttenberg, NJ

      EXTRA VOLUNTEERS: Gil Grady, Coordinator, Salinas, CA; David Clark, San Antonio, Hans Franzen, LaGrangeville, NY; and Rick Effinger, Orlando.  Patrick Kucera of Phoenix served as liaison with the local chapter.

      HOSPITALITY: Rob Rynearson, Chair, Houston; (Rev.) Claudia Windal, Chaplain, Minneapolis; David Lochman, Chicago; Patti O'Kane, Brooklyn; and (Rev.) Barry Stockdale, Pt. Pleasant, NJ

      LEGISLATION: Pat Waddell, Chair, Santa Clara, CA; Dottie Fuller, Asst. Chair, Salinas, CA; Dorothy Beattie, Kenwood, CA; Harry Coverston, Orlando; (Rev.) Edward Harris, Rochester, MN; Susan A. Hauptfleisch, Rochester, NY; Betsy Hess, Easthampton, MA; Jane Hope, Louisville; Barry Levis, Orlando; (Rev.) Joan Marshall, Asheville, NC; Phil Nicholson, LaGrangeville, NY; (Rev.) Walt Szymanski, Rochester, NY; and Ted Walton, Morgantown, WV

      NERVE CENTER: Carol LaPlante, Co-Chair,   Easthampton, MA; Sue Thompson, Co-Chair, Atlanta; Jeff Dey, Cincinnati; Sharon McDonald, Minneapolis; Ben Scott, Orlando; and David Wachter, Tucson

      PUBLIC RELATIONS: Bryant Hudson, Chair, Dallas; Ellie Atwood-Tarbell, Rochester; Paul Courry, Irvine, CA; and Larkette Lein, Irvine, CA

      TRIENNIAL DELEGATES: Kathleen Boatwright, Liberty Lake, WA and Nayan McNeill, Monte Serono, CA

The 43 "official" volunteers were an impressive lot: 3 priests, 3 deacons, 2 lawyers, 3 MBAs, 7 PhDs, 8 with other advanced degrees.  We could have run a medical clinic with our 2 doctors and 8 nurses!  Three of the volunteers were over 70 and the youngest was 24.  Five of the volunteers were heterosexual, including two active members of PFLAG.

********************

OPEN HEARING ON HUMAN SEXUALITY

by James H. Thrall and Jan Nunley, with additional reports by Larkette Lein

      The open hearing on issues surrounding sexuality drew almost 3,000 persons Sunday night, July 14 in the Phoenix Civic Plaza.Outside the hall, two men who identified themselves as members of a local fundamentalist church lofted signs reading "Remember Sodom and Gomorrah."

      The two and a half hour hearing, for which 117 speakers had registered to testify, was characterized by some as "tame."  An estimated 150 members of Integrity and sympathizers with the gay community gathered in the lobby as the hearing ended at the designated deadline of 10:30 p.m., singing, "Singing for our lives," a popular activist anthem.

      Speakers on both sides of the issue included bishops, members of the clergy, and lay people.

BISHOPS SET TONE

      Two bishops led the open hearing with short addresses presenting opposite views of the role gay men and lesbians should play within the church.

      Bishop Frederick H. Borsch of Los Angeles, a member of the Standing Commission on Human Affairs which produced a controversial report for the convention, supported the report's conclusion that decisions about ordaining homosexuals should be left to individual dioceses.

      Borsch contended that there is much that is agreed by members of the church about sexuality.

      "At least most of us are agreed that (homosexual) orientation itself is no bar for full discipleship and leadership roles in our church," he said.  The decision as to whether that leadership should be exercised in ordained ministry, however, should be left to dioceses, he said.

      "The church historically has often dealt with significant issues locally, and this may in our time be both a more pastoral way and a better way," Borsch said.

      "I believe that at least most of us are agreed that there is a certain mystery about homosexuality," Borsch continued.  "The homosexual orientation, with respect to its causes and purposes, is not fully explicable or understandable in special ways.

      "Many, though not all, would agree that the general sexual orientation of most people cannot be changed," Borsch said.  "Gay and lesbian persons, in other words, are a given among and with us, in our lives and world, often in our families, certainly in our churches, often as our friends and co-disciples."

CHURCH CAN SUPPORT 'GAY AND LESBIAN DISCIPLES'

      Borsch also said that "I and others who believe so strongly in families can also be fully supportive of faithful, disciplined, and committed gay and lesbian disciples and relationships they may share in," he said.  "They can be a support to the rest of us, our communities of faith and our society."  Yet there is clearly disagreement, he said, about the "dangers of gay and lesbian persons to the family and the general fabric of society."   The experience of his own family, he said, is that they have found gay and lesbians to be "friends and supporters of our family life."   

      "We are not naive," he added.  "The drive for sexual gratification is very strong.  Gay and lesbian persons can and do misuse their sexuality."

      As a pastor and bishop, he said, "I have had many more problems with heterosexual persons misusing their sexuality, attempting to seduce underage children, and abusing positions of authority" than with homosexuals.  Borsch also warned against the violence which is currently being vented against homosexuals in society.

      "The number of incidents of violence against gay and lesbian persons is going up, not down," he said.  "The message of some Christian leaders, asking for compassion and even a form of acceptance of gay and lesbian individuals while condemning their sin, however well-meant, is still heard by all too many believers and non-believers as a license for condemning a whole category of people."

'WE'VE SINNED AS A CHURCH'

      "We've sinned as a church, and I believe we are under God's judgment," said Bishop William C. Frey of the Trinity School of Ministry in Pennsylvania.  "We have sinned by silence and

acquiescence in going along with the sexual revolution."

      Yet the church also has sinned with "silent acceptance of homophobia and gay-bashing," he said.  The church, he asserted, needs to repent of both.

      Stating that he has a vision of the church in which "the love of God and not the indulgence of God" would be expressed, he reminded the attentive listeners who filled rows of folding chairs that the love of God is "a severe mercy," for the Lord "disciplines those whom he loves."

      While he said his vision is of a church that is "absolutely inclusive of all sorts and conditions of people," he made it clear that the inclusivity he envisions is one in which homosexuals may find the support that enables them to experience healing and forgiveness for their homosexuality.  There is a question about whether such healing is possible for all homosexuals, Frey said, but he argued that the church should not therefore abandon that ministry.

      "But what of those homosexual people who know they are sick and want healing and wholeness?  Should we deny them the opportunity?" Frey asked.  The statistics are there, he argued, that healing is possible.

      The church should be a "community which has a high standard but knows how to deal in love and tenderness and faithfulness to all of us, who fail to reach that high standard," Frey said.      Frey spoke of a clergy friend who admitted his homosexuality to the Christian community he served, and found "the kind of healing love that enabled him to move beyond his tendencies and find wholeness and health, and eventually a bride and children."

      "The Bible speaks with one voice on what it recommends, the heterosexual family," he said.  That ideal "of a loving, committed, faithful, heterosexual marriage is so good that it is not surprising that imitations have grace and love and are capable of tenderness and compassion."

      Frey stressed that from the beginning of Genesis, "Adam is given a helpmate, and it is a bride, not a bridegroom."  Committed relationships between homosexuals can "have something of God's grace," he said, because "the real thing is such a powerful image that even those things which fall short of the ideal, so long as they are  engaged in by loving human beings, have something of God's grace."

FOUR LEAD SPEAKERS

      Bishop Allen L. Bartlett, Jr., of Pennsylvania, serving as master of ceremonies, called for "uncommon courtesy" in the exchanges for the evening in his opening instructions.  Prayer and a few moments of silence introduced the business of the hearing.

      Following the bishops' addresses, four speakers -- two favoring the full inclusion of lesbians and gay men in ministry and the blessing of their relationships, who were selected by Integrity, and two opposing such actions who were selected by EURRR -- addressed the gathering for five minutes each.

      First to speak was the Rev. Stina Pope, chaplain to

Integrity/Atlanta and chair of that diocese's task force on AIDS.  Pope called for consistency in the biblical interpretation of sexuality by the convention.  [The entire text of her remarks is reprinted on page  .]

      Clinical psychologist Dr. Stanton Jones of the psychology department at Wheaton College, an evangelical institution in Wheaton, Illinois, maintained that his field has "nothing decisive to say" about the issue of sexual orientation, and therefore it is subject only to judgment on moral and theological grounds.

      No one knows for certain to what degree homosexuality is caused or chosen, said Jones, although he cited "the family environment" as a primary influence over genetic or hormonal influences.  "We see the same patterns for alcoholism and anti-social behavior," he noted, but don't regard these conditions as morally neutral.  "There is a difference between having an

inclination and acting on it," he added,"and what matters is not the inclination but what we do with it."

      Jones called "patently false" statements that no change from a same-sex orientation is possible, citing studies he says report a success rate of between 30 and 60 percent.  He denied that the removal of non-ego-dystonic homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual III represented a judgment by psychiatrists that homosexuality was not pathological.  He also cited support for nonmonogamous same-sex relationships by the Rev. Robert Williams, an Episcopal priest, and Chris Glaser, a Presbyterian layman, as evidence of the "relational instability and promiscuity" of gay men.

      "I am a gay man," began the next speaker, the Rev. Walter Szymanski of Rochester, New York, "in a chaste relationship for the past seven and a half years.  'Self-avowed, practicing homosexual' is a poor choice of words to describe my reality.  I have survived many things, particularly being in the church, because of a wonderful relationship with Jesus Christ," he said.    Szymanski, who has been a priest for 18 years, said he found a haven in the Episcopal Church when he left the Roman Catholic Church.  He spoke of his close relationship with his former wife and of the pain of their divorce following his realization of his sexual orientation.  "I'm very concerned with who picks up the pieces" after an attempt at changing homosexual orientation fails, he said.

      "I myself am a former homosexual," said Alan Medinger, executive director of the "ex-gay" ministry Regeneration, based in Baltimore, Maryland.  Medinger says he has been "healed of

homosexuality" for 16 years.  "What is at issue for this church is the authority of the Scriptures and the power of God," Medinger said.  "Until recently, we knew what God has said about sexuality: one man, one woman, in a lifetime commitment ... the only provision in Scripture for a one-flesh union," Medinger said.  Citing church tradition opposing genital homosexual activity, Medinger added, "I cannot believe a loving God would keep us in the dark for 2000 years."

      Medinger maintained that homosexual relationships violate the "God-given complementarity" between the sexes, and that therefore "balance, completion, and unity" are impossible for same-sex couples. Such a lack of balance, he says, contributes to "a probability of excesses."

      Medinger acknowledged that change is difficult for people with a same-sex orientation.  "Some don't make it; some cannot pay the price," he said.  He urged that resolutions affirming lesbian and gay ministry and the blessing of same-sex relationships not be passed so as not to "put the seal of approval" on homosexuality.

OTHER ISSUES RAISED

      After they finished, about 20 bishops and deputies spoke, alternating between supporters and opponents of the Hunt resolution.

      The comments seesawed back and forth, and injected other topics about sexuality, including the issues of celibacy, sexual abuse by clergy, and sexual harassment.

      The Rev. David O. Selzer of Minnesota, charged, "A bishop rapes a clergy spouse and is told nothing is wrong."  We are told, "Keep quiet, he's the bishop," he said, adding, "Over 90 percent of those involved in clergy sexual abuse are heterosexual men, and over 90 percent of those involved in same-sex sexual abuse are self-identified heterosexual men."

      The Rev. Jeff Logan of Fort Worth, Texas, who identified himself as an "unmarried celibate heterosexual" said that implications by psychologists during the hearing indicate "that celibacy somehow twists the personality.  I guess that makes me twisted.  Just because we fall short of God's standards doesn't mean those standards should change," Logan concluded.

      Sally Johnson of Minnesota added, "Sexual exploitation by clergy will have to be faced.  The problem is not going to go away.  In order to retain control and influence, the church is going to have to act now."

SEVERAL OPPOSE ORDAINING GAYS, LESBIANS

      Bishop Gordon Charlton, retired Suffragan Bishop of Texas, warned the commission that failure to respond to the challenge of the gay community will be to capitulate.  "You do not balk at ancient tradition without good reason," he observed.

      Charlton said canonical action is the best option because the church's past experience has proven it effective.  "Passage of the so-called Frey resolution will not prohibit the ordination of single persons who can and will refrain from extramarital behavior," he said.  But persons who cannot control themselves in this way, "need not join in."  Charlton was applauded when he noted that "ordination is not necessary for salvation; it is not even necessary for ministry."

      Bishop FitzSimons Allison, retired Bishop of South Carolina, said that gay and lesbian persons should be welcomed in the church.  But this does not mean the church is approving of their lifestyle, he said.

      Allison maintained that the Commission on Human Affairs report misrepresented the church, leading to a "slandering" of the church's congregations.  "Like the Presbyterian Church, we too have been damaged by an avalanche of anti-Christian papers" that had been drawn up by special interest groups under the guise of the church's national staff.

      Franklin Billerbeck of Eau Claire, Wisconsin, was more blunt: "Scripture is clear and unequivocal.  If we let each diocese do its own thing, we destroy catholicity of the whole church.  People in the pews are hurting.  We need an answer -- yes or no."

      "The Christian religion is not a complicated thing," said Bishop Clarence Pope of Fort Worth, arguing that everyone needed to be "crucified as Christ was crucified.  We must be crucified in every part of our bodies."

      Bishop John-David Schofield of San Joaquin said he as asked to speak for a Central American bishop.  "It's not a battle of sociology or theology, but one of your own culture.  Don't export it to our country."

PRO-GAY SPEAKERS

      Nothing in Scripture or tradition allowed the New Testament Church to admit gentiles, said the Rev. Titus Presler of Massachusetts.  The opposition were not bigots, but faithful and struggling.  They had little in their tradition or scripture to go on so they observed what God was doing and noted that God hadn't made distinctions in giving the Holy Spirit.  St. Paul had followed the leading of the Holy Spirit and called others to come and see what the Holy Spirit was doing.  We "are called to make the body of Christ whole.  Come and see what the Holy Spirit is doing," he concluded, citing his experience of lesbian and gay couples.

      The Rev. Warner Traynham of Los Angeles gave a forceful address which is reproduced in its entirety on another page.

      Betty Douglas of Western Michigan noted that promiscuity among gay men is a result of hiddenness and forced secrecy.

      Dr. John Fryer of Pennsylvania, a psychiatrist, disputed Stanton Jones' claims as to why the APA changed its classification of homosexuality. He noted that so-called homosexuality cures have never been recognized by the APA.  The issue is not philosophical, but political and power-sharing is the real issue.

      Nancy Westerfield of Nebraska and a PFLAG member said 90% of kids who come out to their parents are rejected by them.  "Ask yourself," she said, "when did you decide to become heterosexual?"

      Jack Croneberger of Newark: Death and sex are alike in this: if we haven't dealt with our own, it's difficult to deal with another's.  How welcome can I tell my gay son that he is welcome in the Episcopal church?

ISSUES ON A HIGHER LEVEL

      Several speakers urged the participants to consider the issues on a higher level.

       "This is not an issue of the authority of Scripture," claimed Bishop Douglas E. Theuner of New Hampshire.  "The issue is the 'H' word.  Not homosexuality, not homophobia.  It is honesty."

      Likewise, the Rev. Caryl Marsh of Utah asked, "How many persons come here with open minds?  If we legislate anything, we're not being honest, but keeping to hypocrisy.  The word of God is not always clear."

READY FOR DECISION?

      A number of speakers commented on the problems facing

convention as it moves toward considering legislation.

      Bishop George Reynolds of Tennessee asked whether the church is "ready and able to make a mature decision about this matter.  Our church is torn about this issue.  I have not met one person who is willing to consider changing his mind about this issue.

Positions are hardened.  There is no consensus.  We must stand back and look at where we are."

      Pat Waddell from El Camino Real, California, said, "It is time that the family of the church talk about these issues rather than just sending each other stuff in the mail."

REACTIONS MOSTLY FAVORABLE

      "I'm always glad when people have a chance to speak their minds," but "I don't think we've added anything new to the

discussion," said Bishop Edward C. Chalfant of Maine following the hearing.

      He praised the behavior of the audience, which for the most part followed the request not to applaud for particular viewpoints. The tenor of the meeting was far better, he said, than other open hearings, such as one held at the 1979 General Convention which he said turned into a "painful, awful slaughterhouse."  The issues around homosexuality should not be seen as a question of "justice and inclusion," but rather as "a matter of theology," Chalfant said.

      The church should be focusing its energy on clarifying its theological understanding of what it's about, he said.  "We don't know much about sexuality.  We should know about theology."      The Rev. David Roseberry of Dallas commented, "It was a very balanced approach, with  homosexual interest groups speaking out.  They presented their case well, a strong emotional appeal.  I think the evidence, the biblical witness is conclusive.  The strongest argument against homosexual ordination is the acknowledgment of their pain.  It's important not to affirm their standard, but by calling them to a greater life style."

      "I thought it was conducted well; it gave the opportunity for people with different opinions to express themselves without rancor," said Bishop Alex D. Dickson, Jr., of West Tennessee, who serves on the Bishops Committee on Ministry.

      Yet at least one person doubted the usefulness of the hearing.  "I suspect that most people came to this hearing tonight to get their preconceptions reaffirmed," said Caryl Marsh.

James H. Thrall is editor of "Good News," the newspaper of the Diocese of Connecticut.  Jan Nunley is a free lance writer and radio reporter.  Their portions of this article are courtesy of Episcopal News Service.

********************

STINA POPE'S COMMENTS AT THE OPEN HEARING

      Whenever an important ethical issue is raised in a religious environment, it is important to consider the traditional sources of authority.  So it is that we look to the Bible to offer guidance on the issue of homosexuality.  But what kind of guidance are we looking for?  What authority does the Bible have for us? 

      If we choose to be literalists, then the Levitical and Pauline passages proscribe any homosexual activity, although there is no prohibition against "being" homosexual.  Rather, it is specifically homosexual genital activity that is sin, because it inhibits procreation.  If we are to be literalists, we must maintain our corporate integrity, by adopting all such proscriptions, not only those relating to homosexuality.

      (For example, let us look at I Cor 14:34 ... and I Tim 2:12 ...  Here Paul is speaking clearly and unambiguously.  I should not be up here, and you will all kindly go home and tell all of your female Christian Education teachers that they may not teach Sunday School any more.  And, we certainly cannot support all those women teaching in our public schools.  If we are going to try to be consistent, we should adopt the Levitical Code.  We would look like orthodox Jews who believe in Christ.  Our women should not be wearing red clothing, we would not eat ham and cheese for lunch, and none of us would wear polyester/cotton shirts with silk/wool suits.  We also would not lend money for interest.  It would make for an interesting economy wouldn't it?  It is of course possible to claim that the Levitical code has passed away with the New Covenant, but in that case we should still be concerned about women cutting their hair and we would have serious questions about whether a Christian could serve in the armed forces.)

      If we are going to be literalists, we are not free to be selective in our choice of passages.  There is no integrity in picking and choosing a morality to fit one particular agenda.

      Now if we are not going to be consistent literalists, we  must find another standard that we are willing to use consistently.  That standard in the Episcopal church is a balance of Scripture, tradition and reason.  That standard involves a consideration of our present-day circumstances as they relate to  Scripture and tradition.  It is not an easy standard, but it does have integrity.

      In Matt 19, we have Jesus' very clear teaching on divorce ... We do not approve of divorce.  However, we have chosen to acknowledge the existence of divorce.  The church has elected to permit divorced and remarried people to receive the sacraments, to serve as lay leaders, and to be ordained.  This has been done in direct contradiction to Biblical teaching.

      Divorce is not the only relevant example I could have used.  Why do we have female SS teachers?  It is a serious departure from Pauline teaching.  How did we decide on making this exception to Biblical teaching?  We could go on to explore passages supporting slavery and racism as well.  I think you get my point.  We have a long tradition of working through thorny issues using tradition and reason in conjunction with scripture.  But when the issue of homosexuality is raised, we suddenly hear arguments that sound suspiciously like they have been brought lock, stock, and barrel from the literal tradition rather than being worked through our own system.

      It is time to acknowledge our previous departures from scripture.  There are numerous texts which had relevance and guidance for an earlier time which have lost that relevance and therefore their claim on us today.  We need to add sexual orientation to the list of areas in which the biblical passages are not relevant to our time and are not helpful to our understanding.

      When dealing with any troubling ethical issue, we need to return to the basics; we need to focus on big principles, not little laws:  "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind and strength, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.  On these two commandments hang all the laws and the prophets."  These are the standards which need to inform all our decision-making.  (If you will attend a meeting of Integrity or visit the gay groups of Catholics, Lutherans, Quakers, Jews, Mormons, etc., you will find people of great faith, men and women who love God, often in spite of institutional religion.  If you sit at the bedside of a gay man dying of AIDS, you will probably find lesbians and gay men acting as family, and you will see that sacrificial love we hold as the highest form of love.)

      Jesus calls us to the fulfillment of our humanity, not to the denial of it.  Jesus calls us to truth, not to a lie.  Gay and lesbian people have listened to the good news of God's truth, and that truth has indeed made us free.  Our claiming that freedom has made many people in the church uncomfortable.  I was taught in seminary that the true preaching of the gospel would comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, so perhaps we are not missing the mark after all.

      "And what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness or steadfast love, and to walk humbly with your God?"  Justice requires that 15 years after saying that gay and lesbian people are children of God is enough time (we do not need more time to study).  Justice requires that we declare the literalist arguments as irrelevant to this day and time.  Justice requires the recognition of the existence of loving, monogamous, committed same-sex relationships; walking humbly with our God requires that we admit our previous wrongs and rectify them.  Now.

********************

WALTER SZYMANSKI'S COMMENTS

      I'm a priest proud of this church.  I am gay.  I am an associate of Holy Cross and daily follow the Benedictine Rule.

      I am in a chaste relationship with a gentleman who I have loved and cared for the past seven and one-half years.  I have only shared my body with someone that I have loved deeply.  I am not a promiscuous person; and words like "self-avowed practicing homosexual" are a poor choice to describe my reality.

      I have survived, among other things, being gay in the church and in society because of a wonderful relationship with Jesus Christ -- the example of our Lord's life and teachings have been the bedrock of my ministry and my life.

      It is with gratitude to God that I have served as priest in this church for eighteen years.  The Episcopal church opened its doors and received me with love and compassion at a time that I was experiencing deep personal pain and alienation; at a time when I left the Roman Catholic Church.

      The only other time that I experienced that kind of personal pain because of my sexual orientation, was when my former wife and I said goodbye to a marriage that didn't work.  As a gay priest, I had mistakenly believed that my orientation would diminish as a result of prayer, therapy, and a loving marriage.

      I wish Margie could be here tonight to speak to you.  Her testimony would add unquestionable support to what I share with you.  After some years of marriage counseling and much prayer --she looked at me one day and said something I could not deny, "You're not here for me the way I need you to be -- you're not here--and it's too painful for us to continue living a lie." Thank God that we continue to be very good friends -- and she is loving and thoughtful enough to ask me, "How is Paul?", the man I love and presently live with.

      Others have not fared as well as Margie and I have.  One of my principal concerns that I share with you tonight comes out of a pastoral context and the pain I have had to deal with when working with some families in my parish and my diocese -- dealing with parents and their gay and lesbian children, especially when attempts to change one's orientation with prayer, healing and therapy have failed.

      I am very concerned over what some healing homosexual ministries have said to some people in my parish and diocesan ministry.  Who picks up the pieces when unnecessary attempts are made to change one's sexual orientation?  Who deals with the spouse of a failed marriage which should have never happened?  Who deals with the families?  What does a priest like myself do to adequately deal with the embarrassment and scandal of a healing homosexual ministry that just doesn't work?  The best answer for myself in dealing with these questions, and I hope the best answer for you -- would be these words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself."  Amen.

********************

STATEMENT BY WARNER R. TRAYNHAM

      So long as the oppressed will suffer oppression they will be oppressed.  And so long as society oppresses, it seems, the church can be counted upon to find chapter and verse to support it.

      For the Jews there is the Gospel of John which explicitly says, "The Jews took counsel against Jesus to put him to death."  But we no longer call Jews "Christ Killers."  Why?

      For women there is the story of Eve who seduced Adam into the Fall, and for that act she and all women were punished with the curse that their husbands should rule over them.  But we no longer insist upon the subordination of women.  Why?

      For blacks there is the story of the curse of Ham, so called, when Noah said, "Cursed be Canaan:  a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."  But we no longer maintain slavery or segregation. Why?

      We no longer maintain these things because the people in question said, enough.  We shall make your prejudice -- which inflicts pain and suffering on us, cost you pain and suffering.  Then, you will have to decide if it is worth the price.  When we abandoned these prejudices, we realized far from revealing God's will, these texts revealed the sin and prejudice of an age.

      People say -- "We wish this would go away."  But once the oppressed find their voices and glimpse hope, they must pursue it, because all they can lose are their chains.

      They will come back again and again, like the widow to the unrighteous judge, because they are looking for life.  They will demand a response not until the church answers, but until we get the answer right.  Until they are accepted.  They have no choice.  And we will finally give them the answer they seek.

      The issue is whether we acknowledge them now or later.  Whether we expedite the process and get on with it, or resist and make the conflict bloody and protracted to our later shame.

      The church's position on homosexuality has inflicted guilt and confusion and pain on people who deserve none of it.  We know it has hurt lesbians and gays.  What good has it done us?  Scripture aside, what harm is there in being gay?  Gay people, who ought to know personally, say none.

      But some say it harms society by undermining the family.  How?  Is everyone going to abandon heterosexual sex because they can now be gay and accepted?  Who believes that?  But that has always been the line.  "Accept Jews or blacks, etc. and society will be undermined."  Acceptance will change society, -- but undermine it?  How?

      I would prefer that this church authorized same sex unions and state clearly that sexual orientation, like general and race, is no impediment to ordination.  I prophecy that that is finally what some General Convention will say.  But we Episcopalians essentially refused the mandate of this body when it asked the church to study this matter.  So, what to do?

      The issue needs to be humanized but many gay Christians are invisible and unlikely to surface in a hostile church.  So perhaps the proposals of the Committee on Human Affairs are the best.  They move us along.  The Convention would provide some leadership without getting us where we are going.  But it may get some off the dime.

      The atmosphere may grow a little more congenial for the surfacing of people who, when known, will make us all wonder what we feared.

      This is not the best solution nor the real one.  But it may be the best we can do today.  If we can't lead, let us at least follow.

      This isn't a matter of some isolated text in Scripture, but of justice and the nature of God, both of which say no to prejudice and yes to inclusion and love and the future.

-----

The Rev. Warner R. Traynham, who was a Deputy from the Diocese of Los Angeles, is Rector of St. John's, Los Angeles and will be a speaker at Integrity's 1992 National Convention in Houston.

********************

REFLECTIONS ON GENERAL CONVENTION

One of the best ways to get an understanding of Integrity's presence at General Convention is to read the reflections of our volunteers.  These remembrances and personal stories express the joy and discouragement, pride and shame, and elation and anger which many of us felt while in Phoenix

*Bruce Anderson, Integrity/Tucson*

      As we drove back to Tucson and cooler weather (5-10 degrees makes a difference when it's over 100), I thought about how I would explain my convention experience to fellow parishioners.  Articles in local newspapers had headlines like "Episcopal bishops sidestep issue of ordaining gays" and I feared many would rather have had a definite answer.  In talking to parishioners, however, I was able to tell the story as I saw it.  I said that it was as if the news writers were not even there.  I found that such words were comforting to most of them.

      Upon arriving in Phoenix, Dave and I found that there was lots of work to be done before the convention even started.  Folding and stapling information booklets for the booth, setting up the computer and office equipment (twice), and learning the legislative procedures took up lots of our time for the first few days.  The entire thing seemed to be over-orchestrated and uptight.  Instead it turned out that the planning allowed the volunteers to act natural, not needing to invent a method to do everything.

      We were encouraged to participate in daily Table Eucharist with other convention members.  The tables often contained as many as 10 people who didn't know each other.  During the bible study each morning we came to know one another well.  My own table was a blessing to me.  Not all people agreed with me on the important issues, but a spirit of respect was established.  I believe from what I heard from others that that spirit existed at other tables and continued throughout the day in the legislative sessions.  The blood bath that was threatened never occurred and I think that was in part due to the spirit of prayer that prevailed.  At the Thursday evening Eucharist, I tried in vain to hold back tears as I hugged two of the women (also teary-eyed).  They had quite evidently changed their opinion of gay people during the week and we felt a bond.

      The booth turned out to be the same kind of experience.  We were as far from any door or other booth as possible, yet people regularly came by and said that they had been looking all over for us.  At least we know *they* wanted us there!  The Prayer Book Society, the ESA, and EURRR were in the center of the exhibit hall and often ignored.  The Prayer Book Society had an expensive, slick set-up with multiple television screens and plush carpeting and furniture.  But the Integrity Booth was always hopping.  Many times we had to clear the aisle in front of the booth of friends so that interested folk could squeeze in for a look at our abundant literature and books.  EURRR had a huge 4" button that proclaimed that they were the mainstream.  During the course of the convention it became evident that, if anyone was mainstream, it was we and our friends.

      Booth staff often found themselves at the doors to one or both of the houses handing out a flyer or pamphlet.  I have never liked having things stuck in my face, so I really dreaded that.  People were almost always courteous, if not congenial.  At the end of the convention one day we also handed them candy and a note that thanked Deputies for their support and offered assistance when they got home and had to explain their actions.

      Racism was supposed to be an important issue and I wish it had been.  The best reason for going to Phoenix after the failed Martin Luther King Day vote was to be a witness to Arizonans.  It was our hope that this convention would make headline statements that would catch the attention of the nation, as well as the state.  The Racism Audit was a good beginning, but it was never turned into "how can we show more of Christ's love to our brothers and sisters who are of a different color?"

      But the Episcopal Church has ordained itself to be a welcoming church that "finds a hurt and heals it."  The experience of convention convinced me that my church may not be growing in numbers, but that we are moving swiftly towards the gospel as Christ taught it.  Thanks be to God!

*Kathleen Boatwright, At-Large*

      After setting a new precedent in inclusivity in 1988, the 40th Triennial Meeting of Episcopal Church Women again included official delegates from Integrity.  We gathered as women to focus on the theme, "Restoring God's Creation to Wholeness".

      We, as Episcopal churchwomen, have a rich historical heritage.  And we are making history again.  Pam Chinnis is our next President in the House of Deputies.  Barbara Harris is a bishop.  Marcy Walsh serves on Executive Council.  These dynamic women bring our church an appreciation for diversity and have seen that the inclusion we seek is a matter of Justice.

      The women of the Triennial welcomed us warmly.  Our gift to the delegates (funded by Integrity/New York) was a much needed tote bag featuring our bible verse logo ("No Good Thing Will God Withhold From Those Who Walk With Integrity") and rainbow handles left at each delegate's place prior to the opening service.  Tucked inside every bag was a letter from me and fellow delegate Nayan McNeill and a copy of P-Flag's pamphlet, "Why is my child gay?"  From that meeting until the closing Eucharist, one could see Integrity tote bags wherever one looked.

      Since sexual orientation was THE issue everywhere, our input was often sought.  Delegates wanted to know what lesbians and gays wanted and needed from the church.  From small group gatherings to workshop settings, the issues of lesbian women were always clearly part of the agenda.  We shared ourselves with others and the myths and stereotypes went by the wayside.

      After convention I received a note from Marge Burke, now retired as president of Episcopal Church Women.  "I've learned a lot from you -- so I want to say thank you for being you and sharing yourself with others.  If we all work hard enough at it, eventually we will 'Restore God's Creation to Wholeness.'"  We have taken another step towards our goal.

*Philip Nicholson, Dignity-Integrity/Mid-Hudson*

      Hans and I were among the fifty-or-so volunteers who covered the convention for Integrity.  Our days were full and exciting, beginning with committee hearings at 7:30 each morning, continuing with Eucharist and Bible study at one of 300 tables set up in one of the five vast halls that comprise the Phoenix Civic Center.  Plenary legislative sessions occupied the next two hours, followed by an Integrity debriefing over lunch at our hospitality suite.

      Another legislative session filled four hours in the afternoon.  Following this, we would brave the late afternoon sun to attend Diocesan caucuses in the adjacent hotels, cultivating contacts in the delegations and generally keeping abreast of developments.

      After dinner, there were often legislative hearings, and we would wrap up the day with a small celebration of the Eucharist in the Integrity Suite.

      On the evening of Sunday, July 14, more than 3,000 people gathered for the Open Hearing on Sexuality.  Although these were technically "open" to the public, over forty Bishops and Deputies had, in fact, monopolized the list of speakers, precluding any opportunity to hear the rest of us who had carefully prepared for the event.

      Following the hearings, a few of us embraced the Integrity chaplain in the lobby.  She led us in prayer, and then someone started softly singing: "We are gentle, loving People/And we're singing, singing for our lives!"  Suddenly, someone was tapping us on the shoulders, asking to join in.  By the time the demonstration ended twenty minutes later, about 150 people, gay and straight, had formed a circle occupying most of the lobby.  It was a moment none of us will soon forget.

*Dorothy, Integrity/Austin*

      As several of us were leaving my seminary's alumni/ae reception on Saturday evening, a classmate of mine, who is well acquainted with my long-term work for Integrity, happened to mention it to two other friends of mine, a married couple who'd finished seminary two years ahead of me, and who have been working in small parishes in small towns in the midwest ever since.  They were especially close friends of mine in seminary, and we've kept in touch since, but I was not 'out' to them until that moment.  The couple did not visibly finch, but I could see that they were working to process this new information about me, and I of course wondered what effect it would have on our friendship.

      Just before my classmate inadvertently 'outed' me to them, they had invited us both over to their hotel room to relax and chat.  As we walked over to their hotel, I mentioned that I had not gotten to the Eucharist at my "table" that morning, and was planning to go to the Integrity hospitality suite for the Eucharist that was scheduled for 9:30 that evening.  I invited the couple to join my classmate and me for the Eucharist, as they had not had Eucharist that day either, and my classmate was to be the celebrant.

      As we walked, the husband began to think out loud.  "Hmmm.  That would be a risk, to go to the Integrity Suite. ...It would be a risk.  A small risk, but a risk."  I joked with him at that point about our taking pictures of him there, and he said, "Yeah, and send them to my bishop, too!"  I was glad to see that he could joke about it, as he was, perhaps for the first time, feeling in his guts what the oppression of gay and lesbian people does.  Later he did come with my classmate and me to the hospitality suite, and seemed to be fairly at ease with us there.  But I still did not have a clear picture of what he was thinking, or what effect there would be on our friendship, as we did not have an opportunity to discuss it then.

      The following evening was the Open Hearing on all the sexuality resolutions, after which there erupted in the lobby that dramatic spontaneous circle of folks singing, "We are a gentle angry people, and we are singing, singing for our lives..."  I was singing and crying at the same time in that circle.  To my delight and surprise, the husband of this couple broke into the circle right next to me and sang with all the rest of us, and when the circle broke up after the last verse of singing, he hugged me and gave me a big kiss.  This spoke louder than any words could have of his solidarity with us and with our work for justice, and of the ongoing stability of our long-term friendship as well.  I am sure he will take this commitment back to his small midwest parish and that the memory of that circle, singing for our lives, will have a ripple effect far beyond our wildest imaginings.

*Hans Franzen, Dignity-Integrity/Mid-Hudson*

      When I arrived at Phoenix, I was proud to have been selected to participate in Integrity's presence at General Convention.  But I didn't look forward to the first worship service at which I had to meet nine strangers without having Phil with me.  My ID badge, with the prink triangle and my affiliation with Integrity, identified me as a probable homosexual.  Everybody at the table, including two priests and the wife of a bishop, appeared friendly, but I was not able to tell them *who* I was.

      Then one day I was handed a pamphlet by a member of the Church Army as I passed their booth.  In large letters on the cover appeared the letters FAG.  At that moment I realized the hatred that prevailed in some of the conservative organizations of the church.  I knew that they were not going to accept us with open arms, but I couldn't believe that they would stoop this low.  I was hurt -- hurt so much that I felt the need to call my rector in New York.

      It turned out that not only the lesbian/gay community was offended by this kind of propaganda, and I believe that the protest of supportive heterosexual members of the church promoted the Church Army to withdraw the pamphlet, and to apologize publicly in both Houses.

      The next day, I passed the pamphlet around my table, and was able to tell them *who* I was, how much I hurt, and tell them about the "gay life-style."  I felt awkward donning a halo to tell them about my life, as a volunteer on the local Rescue Squad, who with a driver, is responsible for a community of 5,000 people one day a week, and being on call one Saturday a month, plus training sessions.I also pointed out to them that I prepare food at our homeless shelter once each month.  I am an acolyte and member of the Vestry, and regularly provide transportation for our elderly parishioners.

      I ended by urging them to take this description of the "gay life-style" home with them.  I have the feeling that my testimony has contributed, if not to acceptance, at least to understanding,  and their entries in my prayer book attest to that.

      One woman deputy at my table confided to me later that she has a son who is gay.  Although she and her husband do not have any problems with that fact, their son is having a very hard time coming to grips with it.  As a gesture of support, we gave her a copy of "A Book of Revelations," edited by Louie Crew, to take back with her to her son.  Louie himself kindly inscribed the  book with a message of support and love.

********************

Text of Cover of brochure distributed by the Church Army at General Convention:

Testimony of a

F  ornicator

A  dulterer

G  lutton

And How the church can really help homosexual men and lesbian women.

********************

*Betsy Hess, Integrity/Western Massachusetts*

      At this convention, gays and lesbians were finally *listened* to, not necessarily agreed with, but acknowledged as a legitimate, viable segment within the Church.  In Detroit, Integrity's presence was still often perceived as an underground, *external* influence.  At this convention, from recognition in the printed prayers of the people in the opening Eucharist, to frequent discussion of our issues during committee hearings, to the open hearing where 3,000 persons felt the need to listen to opinions on homosexuality, gays and lesbians became a community *within* the structure of the church.

      Frequently, Deputies and Bishops who had no affiliation with Integrity felt called to speak in support our issues, out of their concern for justice and inclusion as important qualities to foster in any Christian community.  In addition, persons identified as gay or lesbian were actively approached by Deputies and Bishops to solicit opinions and advice on issues of sexuality, as well as other concerns.

      Frequent feedback I received was that by meeting gays and lesbians face to face, Deputies were converted from a perception that gays/lesbians are promiscuous persons desiring amoral inclusion in the church, to a realization that gays/lesbians are equally as concerned as straight persons about sexual morality.  As always, personal witness appears to be the single most effective means of changing the convictions of the church.

      A second means of change occurred through exposure to persuasive facts and reasoning concerning inclusion of gays/lesbians in the church.  As a clergy deputy from Utah commented, "I was waiting in line to speak against ordination of gays and lesbians, when I realized that all the best reasoned, most intelligent comments were coming from the 'pro' side.  I realized then I had better reconsider my position."

      A third factor toward change has been exposure to those wishing to exclude gays/lesbians from the church.  Although occasional testimony occurred based on reasoned logic, the preponderance of their statements were founded on extremely literal interpretation of scripture, or appeals to emotion.  Overtly rude, insensitive, inaccurate accusations occurred frequently, requiring retractions or apologies on the house floor from those representing the so-called traditional view.  Many middle-of-the-road delegates came to perceive such groups as not holding typically Anglican values or methods of coming to religious decisions.

      Finally, as Fr. Trayham from Los Angeles noted in the Open Hearing on Sexuality, it has become very clear that this issue will not go away, but that gays and lesbians will keep returning time after time, until we receive justice.  This was the convention where denial of the problem ceased to be a viable option.

*Dorothy Fuller, Integrity/El Camino Real*

      Arrival - reunited with people from previous Conventions --- familiar, excited faces.  Seems like only yesterday that we were at this before.  Has it really been three years since Detroit?  Meeting new friends, recognizing the signs of confusion in their eyes.  What is this all about?  What is expected of me?

      Imagine the concelebration of the Eucharist at 300 round tables encircling a raised altar.  With pride, I observe Integrity members at many of the tables.  We worshiped each day at the same table with a randomly (?) assigned group of folk.  There the conservatives, moderates, and liberals shared communion, studied Bible passages and sang together.  The daily reading and hymns were chosen to focus on issues related to racism.  They applied equally to our concerns.  It was at these table groups that Integrity touched the most individuals with person to person contact.

      Floods of mixed emotions flowed over me as the El Camino Real Deputation prayed over one of our deputies who was going home to be with her critically ill husband.  I knew that being a deputy meant so much to her, a Black woman who has struggled against discrimination in our church.  Her leaving advanced Pat Waddell, Integrity's legislative chair, to the position of deputy and me to first alternate.  (I knew what that meant to us.)  Watching Pat cross the barrier that separates visitors from the floor of the House of Deputies, I knew that this was a fulfillment of a long-term dream.

      Preparing for the Open Hearing on Sexuality was one of the few times that the majority of Integrity volunteers were together in one room, just being ourselves.  We shared our stories with much laughter and tears; we experienced our combined woundedness and strength.  Carefully we decided which stories had the most impact and in what order we should sign up to speak.

      The Open Hearing was held in the worship space as 2000 people were expected to attend.  (Three thousand came.)  Bishops and Deputies were permitted to sign up the day before.  Two hours ahead of schedule *we* were all in line.  They separated us into two groups --- those supportive of the Human Affairs report and those with "concerns."  The supportive line far outnumbered the concerned line.  There was one person ahead of the first Integrity speaker.  He was an 18 year old who had been on his Diocesan Sexuality Committee and was originally opposed to gay people in the church.  His task on the committee was to research the subject from a medical/psychological point of view.  He learned enough to change his viewpoint.  But most of all he learned first hand what it is like to be ostracized by one's peers because of sexuality issues.  It got out in his high school that he was researching homosexuality and for the rest of his time in school his "friends" taunted and ignored him.  How proud I was to sit next to this brave, straight young man who had come to tell his church what it felt like when he was presumed to be gay.  (The following day, his Mom shared with me his pride in sitting with a group of self affirming gays and lesbians.)

      For two and a half hours we listened to 40 speakers share their feelings about homosexuality and the Church.  Two presenters were chosen by Integrity to give five-minute talks.  This was followed by various Bishops and Deputies (Pat included) who were allowed three minutes.  Our friends did an admirable job expressing our positions.  A total of 117 persons had signed up to present.  The allotted time was up before any of the Integrity story tellers had a turn!  Once again, for the most part people were talking *about* us; we had little chance to talk for ourselves.

      After the hearing we gathered in the lobby disappointed and angry.  We held on to each other in a circle and started to sing, "We are singing for our lives."  People joined us!  Young and old, people of color, people in wheel chairs.  The circle almost filled the entire lobby.  No one was on the outside watching!  People either left or joined the circle.  For me, this was the highlight of convention.

      The next day, I was able to speak at a committee meeting in favor of domestic partnership legislation and same sex blessings.  I felt a little release of my anger.  That same day, I was on the floor as deputy for the first time.

      During the House of Deputies debate on sexuality I listened to short passionate speeches on both sides, praying as the vote was taken.  Three resolutions; we wanted "no" on one (Frey Canon) and "yes" on the others (continued dialogue and access to ordination).  Tension rose as we had to wait until the next day to hear the outcomes.  Listening to the roll call, frantically trying to write it down and then, - total elation when all three votes went our way.  There was much joy back at the hotel that night!

      However, I felt let down and deflated when the House of Bishops voted against the ordination access resolution.  After such an overwhelmingly positive vote in Deputies I had thought they would follow our lead.

      Our final convention worship service at our tables left me with feelings of sadness not only of parting with old and new friends but of having to wait another three years to try again.  Will it ever end?  Will we ever feel totally included in our Church?   I remembered the priest at the recent Integrity Western Regional Convention who asked "What will we do if we get everything we want at convention?"  Coming home and reading Kim's reports helped me to realize how much we *had* moved the Church.  It doesn't show so much in what we passed; but both houses were with us in their own ways.  Look at what did not pass; look at what never got out of committee!  Our work on the national level has born much fruit, thanks to your dollars and prayers! It is now at home that our work lies ahead.

*Bruce Garner, Integrity/Atlanta*

      It was my first General Convention and it was hot in Phoenix - indoors as well as outdoors!  Don't let anyone ever excuse heat because it's *dry* heat.  So's an oven!  Hot is hot.

      I'm not sure what I expected our church's General Convention to be like.  I did expect some form of political maneuvering.  I guess I also expected a degree of posturing on the part of those who held differing opinions.  I *did* expect strong feelings and opinions about the issues, especially those dealing with sexuality and particularly those issues related to gay and lesbian folks.  I wasn't disappointed in that expectation.

      The one thing I don't think I expected was to feel the workings of the Holy Spirit.  So many people had such unwavering opinions that I had doubts about the Holy Spirit's ability to slip in and operate.  I was wrong - joyfully wrong.

      I first felt the Holy Spirit on Sunday morning at a tiny, terribly poor Hispanic mission in South Phoenix.  It was in that very warm (naturally) and packed church that I felt the Holy Spirit's movement as a six month old Hispanic boy was baptized by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who also celebrated the Eucharist.  A Hispanic priest put me in absolute awe of her by preaching in Spanish and English at the same time.

      Integrity's Board of Directors had been invited to walk in the procession behind Integrity's banner.  We were a minority among other minorities.  We were also a minority that the Hispanic community has trouble accepting.  None the less, the locals made us feel welcome and at home.

      A group of Navajo teenagers sang for us in Navajo and in English.  One of their songs was the "Softly and Tenderly, Jesus is Calling."  When they sang "come home, come home," tears rolled down my cheeks.  The Holy Spirit had clutched my heart and left no doubt that I was held in the arms of God and that I was truly a child of God - just as I am, without one plea.  My Saviour told me that I *was* home and I was loved.  There were no dry eyes among my Integrity colleagues.  God's blessing was given and gratefully received.

      The convention also proved to be a tiring experience.  Legislative hearings always seemed to be early in the morning or late in the evening.  Sandwiched between were all the other events:  legislative sessions of the two houses, the House of Bishop's infamous executive sessions, special sessions, deputation caucuses, special interest caucuses, news conferences, book signings, etc. etc.  Somewhere in there we were supposed to eat and try to remember what sleep was like.

      Amid all this activity, I honestly believe we began to allow the Holy Spirit to work within our convention and our church.  Folks began to talk *with* each other instead of at or about each other.  There were even times when Integrity and EURRR actually agreed with each other!  I almost fainted when the national president of NOEL had no problem being named with Integrity in a resolution commending Integrity for its evangelism - mysterious workings.  Unfortunately, the Bishop of Central Florida shot down the good feelings with a mean spirited substitute resolution.

      I saw the Spirit working in the folks who stopped by Integrity's booth to visit.  Some were a little hesitant, others very open and friendly.  Tremendous amounts of educational literature were shared with our visitors.  The amazing thing was the large number of people who wore the pink triangles we gave out.  They knew the triangles were symbols in support of and in solidarity with gay and lesbian people.  Someone commented in amazement at the large number of "little blue haired ladies" who were wearing pink triangles.

      I felt the Spirit working when a member of the Church Army Board sought me out to apologize for their part in the distribution of a pamphlet with an offensive cover, containing the term "FAG."

      I felt the Holy Spirit at work during the Eucharist at my "table church" table each morning.  I felt my table companions' love and concern for me when I was in emotional pain from feelings of exclusion over some of the events taking place early in the convention.  They viewed me as I am, as a child of God.  We became a little extended family for a few days.  Not a lot had to be spoken because so much was felt.  We hugged our kisses of peace and we meant the hugs.  Some of them were rib crushers.

      I knew God was at work (and that we were perhaps finally listening) when members of both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops began to include gays and lesbians in discussions of legislation affecting us.  Deputies and Bishops asked us how we felt, what our needs were, what our pain was.  I finally began to feel that someone was acknowledging the pain and frustration we experience when we must stand "outside the veil" and listen to others debate our lives, our intimacies, as if we weren't really there.  The erosion of the walls of separation and exclusion had begun. 

      It was a joyful moment when, during an attempt to censure bishops who had recently ordained gays and lesbians, other bishops stood and said their names should be added to the list if the house intended to censure anyone.  Finally, someone was gaining the strength to stand up for us.  The journey does begin with the first step, however tiny that step might be.

      On Sunday evening, following an open hearing on sexuality that proved to be a source of pain because of its exclusionary nature, we gathered as a family to express both our frustration and our hope.  We formed a circle of love outside the worship area and began to sing:  We are a gentle, angry people, and we are singing, singing for our lives.  We are gay and lesbian people, and we are singing, singing for our lives.  We are loving Christian people, and we are singing, singing for our lives.  Friends joined the circle and it grew.  We responded to our pain and frustration with a gentle loving anger instead of a destructive and spiteful anger.  I'm proud of us for that. 

      There is much work to do between now and the next General Convention.  We have to listen to each other and learn from each other.  Much of what divides us is based on our ignorance of each other and our failure to acknowledge the pain which that ignorance allows us to inflict.

*Gil Grady, Integrity/El Camino Real*

      Since I was busy transporting or arranging to transport Integrity folks back and forth to their assigned tasks, I had limited contact with the actual convention.  However, I have wonderful, warm (internal as well as physical) memories of times spent around the pool at night with a great group of people.  We shared a sense of achievement and progress and there was a level of excitement that made what we were doing worthwhile.  The camaraderie and obvious love and respect for each other was perhaps the most outstanding aspect of our time together.

      There was a sense of God's presence in the morning Bible study sessions that carried over especially to the House of Deputies.  I had feelings of real pride when Dottie Fuller, Pat Waddell, Bruce Colburn and Walt Szymanski were all on the floor at the same time.

      Integrity moved with dignity and intelligence that was recognized by all.  I doubt that, had we been on the "defeated" end of the scale, we would have resorted to black ribbons and long faces.  I suspect, instead, we would have begun to make positive plans for our next venture.

*Claudia Windal, At-Large*

      The daily Bible study/discussion was for me one of the most moving experiences of Convention.  As a lesbian and a priest, I've been *careful* in what I have shared with bishops about myself.  It was an uplifting experience to feel a bond of genuine concern build between the bishop in our group and me as I shared my story of coming out, a lost parish, and no further church deployment.

      Our listening became fine-tuned in those discussion groups.  We moved from listening with "one ear" while preparing a retort or comment, to total listening and entering into the experiences shared by the others.

      The General Convention was highlighted in the media by legislation passed or defeated, but the true one on-going work of the Convention took place daily in the diverse and open sharing by those who are the Episcopal Church.

*Walter Lee Szymanski, Dignity-Integrity/Rochester*

      This was my sixth convention.  Legislatively I'm not sure what we gained other than the "substitute/alternate A-104" with gay and lesbian input mandated for the first time in a study of sexuality in the church.  But I also celebrate the fact that what was *lost* was immensely our gain.  We all gained much when the "Frey resolve" went down to defeat.  However, what may have been an equally important event for gay and lesbian access to orders was the failure of the House of Bishops to come to agreement over the censure of several of their members for ordaining gay and lesbian candidates to Holy Orders, while knowing that they were in relationships.  That was singularly important and it is quite probable that this church will never again discipline or censure a Bishop of the church who knowingly ordains a gay or lesbian Episcopalian in a committed relationship.

      My heart says that more important things occurred in Phoenix.  For one, I felt the Holy Spirit alive and well and present with Stina Pope and myself as we addressed 3,000 people including Bishops and Deputies that memorable Sunday evening of July 14th.  The presence and prayers of Integrity were there; and the Church was quite clear to me, Stina and our gay and lesbian sisters and brothers -- "we love you."  Very conservative Episcopalians would generously give a warm embrace and whisper "thank you, you've given me much to think about."  People throughout the Convention were wearing pink triangles; and smiling at Integrity folk -- their love was real and genuine.  Our stories made an impact that made our presence precedent.  Things will never be the same again -- Integrity is welcomed and loved as one of the family.  Words and legislation will not come close to describe the warmth and acceptance that I have felt as an openly gay priest in Phoenix.  Thanks be to God.  Thanks be to the fellowship of Integrity.

*Nayan McNeill, Integrity/El Camino Real*

      As one of Integrity's Women's Triennial Delegates, I want to share four anecdotes that epitomize the Phoenix General Convention for me: 

      After several presentations, addresses, and discussions in the Triennial, women met in small 'reflection groups' of 8 to 10 participants (we were assigned at random).  During the first of these, we introduced ourselves; the last woman in our circle was from South Dakota, a member of the Lakota tribe.  She said, looking around the table at the white faces, "I guess I'm the only minority person here."  Then she paused, looked at me with a smile, and said, "Well, perhaps not."  It created a powerful moment of recognition for that little group.  On the last day of Convention, she sought me out, met my partner, Jo Greiner, and asked Jo to take our picture together.

      During one workshop on "Sexism and Other Isms," I sat beside a woman from the Diocese of San Joaquin.  She eventually stated that she had come to Phoenix sure that she would (a) not take communion if a woman priest celebrated and (b) not speak with any gay people.  She concluded by saying that she had never before even seen a woman priest nor had she ever had an opportunity to "get to know" a gay person.  She was going home with both her resolves changed.  During the final Triennial Eucharist, she came out of her way across the meeting hall to exchange a hug with me at the passing of the Peace.

      When Triennial ended, and the delegates were filing out of the hall, two women came up to me.  One, with whom I had talked briefly a few days before, embraced me, and choking back tears unsuccessfully, said, "God bless you and God bless Integrity.  I say this for myself--I've learned a lot from you and Kathleen [Boatwright]--and for my gay son, who, I pray, will return to the Church."

      The other was a woman I had not seen nor spoken with before.  She stopped me with a restraining hand on my arm, and looking earnestly at me, she said, "You are the face of Integrity.  Whenever I hear or think of Integrity in the future, I will see your face.  Thank you.  God bless you."  With that, she began to weep (so did I), and she just disappeared into the departing crowd.

      I, of course, also experienced truly profound relationship and interaction with three members of the clergy and one layman at my morning Eucharist and Bible study table.  I count them among my friends now.  One, a deputy, was the only member of his deputation who voted "with Integrity" in the crucial balloting.  He implied to me that part of his decision resulted from our acquaintance.

*Sue Thompson, Integrity/Atlanta*

      Before going to General Convention, I talked with lots of folks about winning and losing and coming to consensus.  I wasn't sure consensus was possible, and if all that remained as options were winning or losing, of course I wanted to win!  Now that General Convention is over, other folks talk and write about our winning (is it a "victory" to maintain the status quo legislatively?), I don't feel that we lost and there certainly isn't consensus (yet).  And yet, things are *not* the same as before General Convention.  So what happened?!?

      I think the Holy Spirit happened.

      I think that, for those who were open to God's intervention, God did intervene.  Where that was allowed to happen, "conservatives" and "liberals" became people instead of labels.  People talking to people is what happened at General Convention.  And people talking to people generated dialogue, facilitated improved understanding and allowed a process of resolution to begin.

      Each of us who volunteered for Integrity probably has at least one General Convention story.  The one of mine that comes to mind is that of being accosted by two extremely angry, frightened men.  Stina and I were leaving the Convention Center heading for the Atlanta deputation's evening meeting. Outside the center, two men offered us some literature.  Since one was holding a sign that read, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve or Madam and Eve," we had a pretty good idea of what the literature would say.  We quietly refused their offer, they re-doubled their efforts to have us take it and when we refused a second time, they yelled after us that they hoped we would "kick the queers out of the church."  I guess that was the last straw for both of us.  I turned around, walked up to the two and told them that I was one of those queers and that I was *not* leaving.  Evidently, that was the last straw for them, too, because they started yelling about the word of God and my going to hell and all the usual niceties.  I told them that they had no right to judge me and that by doing so, they were as much in violation of Scripture as they claimed I was.  Stina told them that if we were going to hell, they were going right along with us.  With that, we turned and walked away to cross the street to the hotel.

      There were to women standing at the crosswalk waiting for the signal to change.  They had witnessed the whole scene and were very concerned for our well-being.  We thanked them for their concern and explained that we dealt with that type of thing rather regularly, unfortunately.  They continued the conversation saying that no one should be treated like that, and were we sure we were OK?  We crossed the street together and went our separate ways after they made sure one more time that we were really OK.  The incident had obviously made an impression on them.

      Sometime later, someone asked me if the women were deputies.  I have no idea.  I didn't look at their name tags or the buttons they were wearing so I don't know where they stood on "our issues."  What I do know is that they wee compassionate people who witnessed the ugliness of gay-bashing.  We were people who had been mistreated and they were people who expressed their concern for our well-being.  Politics simply didn't matter in that moment.

      I think that there must have been an extraordinary number of similar moments for lots of folks, occasions where folks moved beyond politics and issues to talk with each other as people.  And I think that if we "won" anything at General Convention, we won respect.  I'd like to think that folks who talked with me at convention will go home to wherever and think differently about the next gay individual they encounter.  Maybe they will see the person instead of the stereotype.  If that happens even one, then there has been progress.

      I think that maybe we have gained more ground than any legislative package could have provided.  I think we made a difference in people's spirits and isn't that where these types of issues finally have to be resolved?  It seems to me that when spirits are changed, legislation follows.

      So, when do we start working on Indianapolis??

********************

INTEGRITY EUCHARIST AT CATHEDRAL

      On Friday evening, July 12, Integrity, Inc. and Dignity-Integrity/Phoenix sponsored a Eucharist at Trinity Cathedral in downtown Phoenix.  The celebrant was The Rt. Rev. Thomas K. Ray, Bishop of Northern Michigan.  The preacher was the Bishop of Newark, the Rt. Rev. John S. Spong.  His sermon is reproduced in full in this issue.

      Spong was vigorously applauded during his sermon when he challenged the position of the legalists within the church and their literalistic appeal to scripture by saying, "The demand of God's love that all be welcomed into the oneness of God could not be stopped (during these battles) even at the prohibitions of Scripture.  The literal scripture could not then and cannot now be used as a weapon to violate the oneness of God or the love of Christ."

      A congregation of about 300 people filled the cathedral.  In addition to Integrity volunteers, local members, convention deputies and other bishops, there were numerous representatives of the lesbian/gay Christian community in Phoenix.  The local chapter hosted a reception immediately following the service.

      The service received considerable press coverage, including a Reuters report headlined: "US Church Could Die if it Excludes Gays -Bishop."

********************

PERVERSE AND FOOLISH BISHOP MacBURNEY STRAYED

by Bryant Hudson

In one of the strangest moments at General Convention, Bishop Edward MacBurney, Diocese of Quincy (Illinois), falsely accused Integrity of objecting to a hymn in the July 16 morning liturgy. MacBurney attacked "the  Integrity lobby" saying on the floor of the House of Bishops the following day that Integrity had pressured the choir to delete "The King of Love My Shepherd Is,"  especially objecting to the language of the third verse, "Perverse and foolish oft I've strayed."  MacBurney said, "This is an example of the  Babylonian captivity" of our church, and the way it is being unduly  influenced by "pressure groups."

Bishop Arthur Walmsley of Connecticut, the celebrant at the July 16 liturgy, refuted Bishop MacBurney's accusation.  Bishop Walmsley assure the House of Bishops that the first hymn had been cut by the liturgy committee  of the Convention in order to reduce the length of the service which  included a service of healing and the laying on of hands.  Bishop Walmsley suggested that Bishop MacBurney not rely on hearsay.

When asked later about the deletion of the hymn, The Rev. Canon Gene Robinson, Minister of Ceremonies of Tuesday morning's liturgy stated that  he alone had made the decision to delete the hymn in order to allow more  time for the healing service. Robinson said, "Integrity had no part in the  decision."

Integrity's president, Bruce Garner, immediately requested a public apology from Bishop MacBurney.  There has been no response to his request.  MacBurney's tantrum was widely reported in the press.

-----

Bryant Hudson is the Convener of Integrity/Dallas and chaired Integrity's Public Relations Team at General Convention.

********************

CHURCH ARMY ALIENATES CONVENTION

      The Church Army, a lay evangelism organization that started in England and is Anglicanism's answer to the Salvation Army isn't what it used to be.  Many of the former members have departed since it took an abrupt turn to the right and moved to Ambridge, Pennsylvania, near Pittsburgh, home of Trinity School for Ministry.  One who remains is Sister Brooke Bushong, immediate past President of Integrity/New York and chair of Integrity's booth.

      Sitting at the booth, Brooke had a first hand view of the "Jericho March," which began in the exhibit hall and wound its way around the convention center each day at noon.  Sponsored by the Church Army, its purpose was to "level those walls of pride and sin which people have raised up against God."  Such a sanctimonious display did not help the conservative cause.

      What really did the Church Army in, however, was their distribution of a highly insulting pamphlet.  Written by Lynn Balmes of St. Matthew's Episcopal Church in Flat Rock, Michigan, the leaflet carried the title, "Testimony of a FAG -- Fornicator, Adulterer, Glutton," with the subtitle, "And how the church can really help homosexual men and lesbian women."  In it the author related her struggles with temptation, and her experiences as a counselor in an "ex-gay" ministry.

      The pamphlet was distributed outside the convention center starting on Saturday, July 13 by Balmes.  Integrity did not formally react since it was characteristic of the literature of various extremists picketing the convention.  However, on Monday, July 15, the Church Army began distributing hundreds of additional copies in the exhibition area.

      Integrity President Bruce Garner and a small number of people arrived at the Church Army booth at 10:30 a.m. to protest the handing out of the pamphlet.  After being told that the Church Army people would pray about the matter, the Integrity contingent left. Since distribution continued, Integrity members and supporters returned in large numbers.  Church Army spokespersons then said they had given out all the pamphlets, which made it a moot issue.  Garner demanded an apology and was again told Church Army people would pray about it.

     Meanwhile, on the floor of the House of Deputies, Patrick Waddell, a deputy from the Diocese of El Camino Real, and legislative coordinator for Integrity, condemned the leaflet during the morning session.  "The term 'fag' is a pejorative which is short for 'faggot'," said Waddell. "It is as offensive as the term 'nigger' applied to African-Americans.  To have it distributed by a semi-official branch of the church is intolerable."

      The following day House President David Collins issued a statement concerning insulting literature and Church Army Captain George Pierce issued a pro-forma apology. "We apologize to those who may have been offended."  He did, however, express personal apologies to Garner.

********************

BISHOP SPONG'S SERMON

INTEGRITY WORSHIP SERVICE IN TRINITY CATHEDRAL

      I would like to testify and talk to you of the greatest privilege and highest honor that has ever come my way.  It's been the opportunity that I have had to receive and understand the abuse, present in this society, which is the daily bread of gay and lesbian people.  I thank God for the privilege of being abused. 

      The Episcopal Church meets in Phoenix in 1991 to continue the oldest debate in Christian history.  We are seeking to determine the limits that our fear, our ignorance and our insecurity can place upon the oneness of God and the love of God made known to us in Jesus of Nazareth.  We will decide by our vote whether or not this church is part of the body of Christ, whether the invitation of Christ to "Come unto me" will be the invitation given to all of the people of the world by the church.

      Those who wish to make the church exclusive, those who will seek to reject the ones who are the objects of human prejudice, will quote the Bible in their defense.  They will quote it literally and selectively.  They will attempt to claim moral righteousness for their cause.  They will attack their opponents for supporting immorality and for destabilizing both church and society.  "Traditional values" will also be a phrase much bandied about.  It always is when new insights, new awareness and a new consciousness begin to break through human barriers into the human experience.  When one can claim both scripture and tradition in support of one's prejudice, then that person will feel not only secure but actually holy.  When that which is so obviously wrong to the traditionalists is opposed by an ever-increasing number of people, that opposition can be explained by traditionalists in no other way except to assert that a Godless secularity has overwhelmed the church.  It will not occur to them to examine whether or not they have been blinded by either their ignorance or their prejudice.  They will not entertain the possibility that they might be wrong.  Their desire is to affirm truth as they see it, to purge the church of those who might have any other vision and to impose their brand of narrow righteousness upon the body of Christ.

      It has happened many times before in Christian history.  It first happened when gentiles wanted to become Christians, but they did not want to be bound into Jewish cultic practices.  It happened when members of racial minorities wanted to become Christian and a society that had practiced slavery, segregation and discrimination in the pursuit of political and economic power, still defined humanity in such a way as to exclude racial minorities.  It happened when women dared to claim equality in both church and society and the church was sure that God was male and that only males, therefore, could represent this God before the altar.  It happened when left- handed people began to assert that being left-handed was not abnormal, it was simply different.

      In each of these battles the new idea challenged the old consciousness.  Scripture and tradition were marshalled to protect the status quo.  The battle was fierce.  The threat was made that people would leave the church if the new consciousness was endorsed.  The church met that challenge to its institutional power by protecting again and again the sensitivities of the old order and always at the expense of the group that stood at the church's door and knocked.  Gradualism was the name of the compromise adopted in racial matters.  Consciousness clauses that allowed sexist prejudices against women to continue officially and the willingness of the majority to be blackmailed by the minority were the compromises employed over women's issues.  Today the issue is whether or not gay and lesbian Christians can be part of this church openly and honestly.  But beneath the content of this debate there is nothing new, for the real issues before the church are still the same and they can be stated in the following questions: Is God one? Is the love of God limited? Is the church the body of Christ? The content of this debate changes from generation to generation as the consciousness of the church expands, but the issues remain the same.  Just listen to the way the debates of the past were shaped and then listen to the rhetoric of the church in debate today.  The words are remarkably the same.

      In our baptism/confirmation liturgy we proclaim that there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all.  Even Jesus did not compromise God's oneness, the church asserted.  Neither did the Holy Spirit whose purpose was to bind the people of God into the oneness of God.  The content of the Jewish Shema "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one," was simply transformed by the Christian experience into the content of the Holy Trinity, but the oneness of God, into which the whole world was to be called, continued as the church's essential message.  Onto the stage of history the church burst with this message.  To live in Christ, said Paul, was to claim a share in God's oneness.  The task of this Christ was to reconcile the whole world to God, to make God's oneness present in the world.  Note that the task of the Christ was never to reconcile one group of human beings to another.  The task was not to create agreement among varieties of Christians.  It certainly was not to reconcile Episcopalians to Episcopalians, as if somehow that was the purpose for which Christ died.  Nowhere is the unity of the church held as a virtue higher than the integrity of the church or the truth of the gospel.  The task of the church, rather, was to reconcile the world to God, to call the world into God's oneness.  The task of the Spirit was to lead believers into the truth of God's oneness that Jesus had made apparent, to be the sign of that oneness in a broken world.

      When the first Christian writers remembered Jesus what they remembered most was that he acted out the oneness of God.  No one, for Jesus, was beyond or outside God's oneness.  So Jesus violated every human barrier.  He set aside the human rules, he turned over the human taboos--all in the name of reconciling the world to the oneness of God.  The lepers were embraced, the Samaritans were accepted, the gentiles were welcomed, the person taken in adultery was spared, the woman of the street found the offering of her tears and her caring to be adequate, the penitent thief was consoled and the Roman executioners were forgiven.  Jesus lived out the sobering, threatening, life-changing reality that the oneness of God could not then and cannot now be compromised by human prejudices, human barriers, or human ignorance.  The love of God was universal.  That love knew no limits.  That love was incarnate in Jesus the Christ.  Nothing could violate that love, for that love called all people to enter into and to share in the oneness of God.

      So, at the experience of Pentecost the Spirit of this one God fell upon all flesh.  The divisions in the human family faded before the gift of the Spirit.  The oneness of God called a divided humanity into a new order.  In case the reader missed Luke's point, he went on to say that those touched by the Spirit could speak in whatever language the hearer understood, for the language of God's love, the symbol of God's oneness, was universal.  It challenged and transcended every human prejudice.

      Then in the life of this faith community came the first test to this view of God.  Interestingly enough, it came over the issue of whether or not one regarded as sexually abnormal could be part of the oneness of God, part of the body of Christ.  Shortly after Pentecost a man named Philip the Deacon, led by the Spirit says the Bible, baptized an Ethiopian eunuch into the Christian church.  It was a highly controversial baptism.  Philip's critics screamed that this action was against the clear teaching of holy scripture.  The leaders of the church probably moved to disassociate themselves from Philip.  By his actions Philip was asserting that his understanding of God's oneness was so powerful that in the service of this God one must set aside even the prejudices of the Bible.

      The Torah did, in fact, forbid those whose sexual organs had been mutilated from being part of the sacred assembly, from being included in the people of God.  That prohibition is recorded in the sacred Torah in Deuteronomy 23.  It is one of those passages of holy scripture generally ignored today by those who delight in quoting the Bible in defense of their prejudices.  It is seldom read in church today and I have never heard a sermon preached on this text.  Yet, when the eunuch asked if anything prevented his baptism, he clearly had Deuteronomy 23 in mind--for that passage of scripture did in fact prohibit his baptism.  But in Philip's action the oneness of God embraced the eunuch and Philip baptized him and by so doing the literal words of a sacred text, caught in the prejudice and ignorance of the past, were relativized and then finally set aside.  The demand of God's love that all be welcomed into the oneness of God could not be stopped even at the prohibitions of holy scripture.  The literal scripture could not then and cannot now be used as a weapon to violate the oneness of God or the love of Christ.

      But this perceptual struggle between the demands of God's oneness and the prejudicial limits of human divisions was destined to erupt again and again through Christian history.  Indeed, the next time came so soon after the baptism of the eunuch that its story is also told in the book of Acts.  But this time the issue rises in the life of Peter.

      Peter, as a Jew, was heir of the powerful traditions of that period of Jewish history we call the Exile.  The Jewish people in that exile had to survive defeat, deportation and the passage of three to four generations without losing their historic identity, and they did it.  It was an incredible feat never before or since accomplished in human history.  The Jewish identity was preserved through this crisis by the acceptance of a specifically Jewish consciousness imposed on the nation in exile by the community of priests, driven first by Ezekiel and later by both Nehemiah and Ezra.  This Jewish consciousness revolved around three things: the mark of circumcision, the Sabbath day observance and the kosher dietary laws.  Each was designed to keep Jews separated from all other people and therefore non-absorbable.  This plan worked well.  Not only did it preserve the national identity of the Jewish people during the Babylonian captivity but it also enabled the Jewish people to live with a national identity despite the fact that from 70 A.D., when the state of the Jews was destroyed by the Roman army, until 1948, when Israel was born anew under the Charter of the United Nations, there was in fact no Jewish homeland.

      But this powerful, exclusive Jewish self-definition also created a crisis for the Christian church and its vocation to proclaim God's oneness.  The first Christians were Jews, yet the Spirit had been poured out on all flesh, calling all people into God's oneness.  The heart of Christian worship became the Eucharistic meal, a sign of the heavenly banquet to whom all were to be invited.  But when gentiles began to enter the Christian community Jew and gentile had to eat together in the Eucharist or the oneness of God was violated, and this liturgical practice challenged for Jewish Christians the sacred traditions of the kosher laws.  So it was that once again human limits, human insecurity, human prejudice residing in the sacred traditions of the people collided with the Christian call for all flesh to enter the oneness of God's love and nothing less than the Christian Eucharist was to be the battleground on which that collision was to be settled.

      Paul informs us in Galatians that Peter, under pressure from his Jewish practices, broke off table fellowship with the gentile Christians, insisting that the only doorway into God's oneness was through the traditions of Judaism.  If gentiles wanted to be accepted, Peter argued, they had to enter the Christian life through Judaism.  Paul challenged Peter on this and called him to walk beyond his sacred traditions into God's oneness.  Literal scripture was the barrier to be transcended for Philip; sacred tradition was the barrier to be transcended for Peter.  It was once again a crisis moment in the history of the church.  The truth of God and the integrity of God's church were hanging in the balance.  The book of Acts tells the dramatic story of how this crisis was resolved.

      It occurred in a dream, says the book of Acts.  It came as a vision that appeared to Peter in his sleep.  A great sheet was let down from heaven filled with ritually unclean animals.  "Rise, Peter, kill and eat," said the heavenly voice.  "Not I," said Peter; "I'm Jewish--this is not kosher.  I do not eat unclean food." "Peter," said the voice, "what God has called clean, do you dare call unclean?" Peter rose from that dream, went immediately to the house of Cornelius the gentile and baptized Cornelius and all his household.  The crisis was over.  The oneness of God that could not be compromised by an appeal to the sacred traditions of the past--not even the sacred traditions of the people of God.

      So it has been throughout Christian history.  The universal love of God calling the whole creation into God's oneness has challenged the time-limited aspects of holy scripture and the sacred traditions of our religious history when they have been grounded in the ignorance of the past.  In the rolling tide of the church's life the call to live in God's oneness has lifted us past barrier after barrier.

      In our history we Christians have always clung desperately to our prejudices.  In the defense of those prejudices we have hated, rejected, excommunicated, character assassinated, tortured and killed.  We have over and over again put the needs of institutional peace and prosperity ahead of the truth of the gospel.  We have compromised the universal love and oneness of God by allowing manifestations of human ignorance, human fear and human prejudice to be served.  For a time we always seek to cloak our prejudices in the mantle of respectability, seeking to buttress them with appeals to sacred sources, but finally God's oneness has always prevailed and thus it will ever be.

      Today gay and lesbian people, despite centuries of rejection, stand before the church asking to be allowed to share in God's universal love.  They are demanding to be participants in God's oneness.  On these children of God the lash of the church's judgment and moral righteousness is once again being applied by the guardians of traditional morality.  Ignorance and fear have combined in high places to give the church the marks of spiritual flabbiness.  We cower in fear when faced with the clear call of God.  We act as if the unity of the church is the highest virtue by which we live.  To justify our prejudices, we quote scripture and refer to sacred tradition as if they are more ultimate than God's oneness and God's love.

      We have even created a vocabulary of righteous-sounding phrases to protect our prejudices from exposure.  We talk of the difference between sexual orientation and sexual activity, pronouncing one good, or at least no fault, and the other evil.  That is like telling me it is okay to be male so long as I do not act upon that reality.  Or, it is okay to be left-handed, so long as I do not use my left hand.  We talk about practicing homosexuality as if that is self-evidently a sinful category.  I think the time has come to cast the spotlight for a moment on practicing heterosexuality.  Why does no one ever suggest that practicing heterosexuality is sometimes evil? Let me state clearly that in my opinion sexual behavior that dehumanizes or violates another person, sexual behavior that is predatory, promiscuous, unfaithful or uncommitted is wrong whether it is heterosexual or homosexual.  In like manner, sexual behavior that honors another person, that enhances life, that is built upon equality, justice and love, that rises out of commitment, that creates wholeness and generosity in another person is good whether it is heterosexual or homosexual.

      We talk piously in this church of gay and lesbian people as having a full claim upon the pastoral ministry of the church but of course they must neither seek ordination nor make any attempt to have their holiest commitments publicly acknowledged or blessed.  Pray tell me what is equal about that? In South Carolina in the early years of this century the church debated whether or not black males were sufficiently human to be ordained to the Episcopal office.  We cringe in embarrassment about that today.  In five dioceses of this church, to the whole church's constant embarrassment, our bishops still debate whether or not women are human enough to be made priests.  They employ an ecclesiastical version of the old and fully discredited myth, called separate but equal, to justify their continuing anti-canonical prejudice.

      When I see the leaders of our church wringing their hands, whining about the tensions and the difficulties facing the church, suggesting that we study this issue for another decade or so, urging postponement of justice until the prejudices of the fearful can be given full expression; when I see bishops ordaining gay persons so long as they keep their identities hidden; when I hear it suggested that gay and lesbian Christians must wait for the church to decide whether they are welcomed, whether they can be honest and still be ordained; when I hear the threat voiced that this church must validate our corporate homophobic prejudices or people will leave the church in droves; these are the moments that I see a vision of the church's death.  Being engaged in controversy and division over the integrity of the gospel will never cause the church to die but if we as a church, by our vote, decide to violate the oneness of God, the inclusiveness of this one God's love, then death will surely be our fate for we will no longer have a purpose for which to live and witness and worship.

      Can you imagine Philip saying to the eunuch, I'm sorry, old man, but the scripture says that those whose sexual organs have been mutilated cannot enter the Christian community.  Can you imagine Peter saying to Cornelius the gentile, sorry, my good friend, but you cannot be baptized because our traditions have never allowed gentiles and if we let you in then lots of Jews will be upset and they might even leave our synagogues.  But that is exactly what many in this church are saying today to gay and lesbian people and it is being echoed by many fearful leaders of the church of Jesus Christ--a church created by the Holy Spirit to be a sign of God's oneness in this world.

      If this church institutionalizes its homophobia, if we write our prejudices into Canon Law, then let us at the very least be consistent.  Let us take down every sign across this nation that says "The Episcopal Church welcomes you" or at least let us add a public qualifier to that sign saying "The Episcopal Church welcomes you-- unless you are gay or lesbian." If we institutionalize our homophobic ignorance then let us not only stop singing but even remove from our hymnal the hymn that begins "Just as I am without one plea, O Lamb of God I come," for that invitation will no longer be one we can issue in honesty.  If we write our prejudices into Canon law then let us also revise our Prayer Book so that we no longer are forced to lie at every baptism and confirmation service, for when we are asked if we will work for "justice and peace" and if we will "respect the dignity of every human being," the liturgy demands that we respond: "I will, with God's help."

      Finally, if our Canons, under the guise of extolling moral righteousness, are used to exclude a whole body of people from any part of the church's life then let us stop calling the church the body of Christ, for the body of Christ must welcome and embrace as full brothers and sisters in Christ all whom Christ would welcome and embrace.  If qualified gay and lesbian people cannot be candidates for holy orders, if the life-giving love of gay and lesbian people for one another cannot be recognized and blessed by the church, then the church must, to be consistent, proceed to deny baptism also for gay and lesbian people.  If that is our stance then at least in honesty we can face the fact that we are no longer the Church of God.  We will have become an ecclesiastical club where the oneness of God has been sacrificed to preserve the like-mindedness of human beings unable to escape their prejudices.  Then the decade of evangelism will make sense, for it will be an attempt to enable our ecclesiastical club to grow.  But make no mistake, a body that is unwilling to act out God's oneness in the world, a body that compromises the love of Christ, can never bed called the Church of God or the Body of Christ.

      At stake in this General Convention, you see, is not just the issue of gay and lesbian people.  At stake is the heart of the gospel.  At stake is the oneness of God.  At stake is the definition of the church as the body of Christ and as a sign of God's presence in the world.  That is why there is no price that is too great for us to pay in our quest to be faithful to this Christ.  If the pursuit of the cause of God costs us fame, position, popularity, success, then we must pay that cost.  If people threaten to abandon the church rather than to be willing to accept the claim of God's oneness into which all are called, then let them abandon it.  We must be certain that God will be true even if an apostate church must die in order for that truth to be proclaimed.

      The literal words of an ancient Torah, the prejudiced words of Christian scripture and the dated sacred traditions of the people of God did not in the past and cannot today stand as barriers before God's oneness.  Nor can the misinterpretations and misapplication of them be used now to invalidate the universal love of God revealed in Jesus the Christ.

      I hold these truths before this audience and this Convention, but I also hold before both an image of our Lord.  Imagine our Christ for just a moment with his arms outstretch on the cross in the sign of a universal welcome and listen to him saying, "Come unto me all ye--all ye."  Stretch every ounce of your human imagination and try to conceive of our Lord changing that message so that he says, "come unto me all ye unless you are gay or lesbian."  If your imagination, like mine, will simply not stretch that far, then help to make this church be faithful to this Christ in this Convention.

      It is my prayer that by the grace of God we Episcopalians in Phoenix will act in such a way as to keep those arms of Christ open and welcoming, so that the unqualified invitation of this Christ, "Come unto me all ye," will continue to be heard in all the world, through every community of faith that dares to suggest that it is a sign of God's Kingdom and a part of the body of Christ.

-----

This sermon was given on July 12, 1991 by The Rt. Rev. John S. Spong, Bishop of the Diocese of Newark.

********************

IN THE PRESENCE OF MINE ENEMIES:  GOD'S OILS AT PHOENIX

by Louie Crew

      At Denver in 1979 the General Convention forged a consensus that clergysex must be plumbed hetero, that it is "inappropriate" to ordain sexually active lesgay persons.  Admittedly, theirs was a loose consensus from the start.  Several bishops and deputies dissented formally before they adjourned, but as late as September 1990, the consensus held, when the House of Bishops "disassociated" itself from a bishop and a diocese who had ordained an openly gay person.  For the consensus to inhibit me, announced the offending Bishop of Newark, Rt. Rev. John S. Spong, you must play fair and make a canon out of it.  At Phoenix, the bishops tried to do so, and failed.

      For days liberal and conservative bishops alike tried to table any action at all rather than let their disunity become official, but finally, bishops had to record a "discontinuity" between the heterostandards the Church puts forward as normative and the "experience of many members of this body."  The Bishops began lamely: "Resolved, that this General Convention confesses our inability to resolve this discontinuity....."  The House of Deputies reworded the confession more boldly:  "Resolved, that this General Convention confesses our failure to lead and to resolve this discontinuity."

      Those pushing for the old consensus had already adulterated it by the time they arrived in Phoenix.  Months earlier, Rt. Rev. John Howe, Bishop of Central Florida, proposed as a canon:  "It is not permitted to ordain any person advocating or engaging in, willfully and habitually, homosexual relations or heterosexual relations outside of marriage."  That wording clearly spells what is "inappropriate" in ordaining lesgay persons, but Howe's resolution drew very little enthusiasm even from organizations like EURRR and ESA.  Instead, those groups rallied around a tamer canon proposed by Bishop William Frey, Dean of Trinity School for Ministry.  Frey proposed requiring clergy to "abstain from sexual relations outside of Holy Matrimony."  On the surface, Frey's proposal seemed to treat hetero- and homosexual persons equally, but it hid the fact that the Church does not yet acknowledge lesgay unions as Holy Matrimony.  The Frey proposal would have canonized the Denver consensus without even without even naming the lesgay victims as such.

      The House of Bishops Committee on Ministry decided not to bring Frey's proposal forward, but Bishop Howe introduced it as an amendment to the Committee's substitute resolution for the Human Affairs Commission resolution.  Even when the proposal was reduced to the status of a mere amendment to a resolution, the bishops clearly recognized more than appears on its surface.   Did they think the Frey resolution sinister or inhospitable or idolatrous or violent or just "not politic"?  Each who voted it down might answer differently.  Frey and Howe had failed to reconstitute the consensus. 

      More important than the vote was the refreshing candor sprinkled through most discussion, even from conservatives:  Bishop White of Milwaukee acknowledged that the bishops discuss homosexual issues in the context of new heteronorms right in their own families:  "Most of us have children who live out of wedlock." 

      The Rt. Rev. Calvin Schofield (Bishop of Southeast Florida) noted that when he moved to Miami in 1979, friends gave him contradictory advice.  Some told him that he would succeed only when he found out who the gay clergy were and won their trust and their support.  Others told him, "If we ordain gay persons, we will lose all our members."

      Do many other religious bodies in America manifest this much honesty when the press is present?

      It now appears that the September 1990 vote to disassociate from The Bishop and the Diocese of Newark  was the consensus's Last Hurrah.  Just after that vote, I wrote to every bishop as a person disassociated.  I complained of this act of ritual shaming.  Bishop William Wolfrum, then Acting Bishop of Colorado, replied: "One of the theological issues that pains me greatly is that we seem unable to differentiate between disassociation from an act and disassociation from a person....  I reserve the right to disassociate myself from any particular action any time I feel strongly about it.  If you want to feel like 'the least of God's children' I guess that is your prerogative.  Don't presume to know that I do."   So there.  "Slap harder!  Slap harder!" I wrote back, "till you knock me out, dear brother.  God's grace will save us both."

      But listen to Bishop Wolfrum in the House at Phoenix, when it came time to vote on the move of Bishop Gerald McAllister (Oklahoma, retired) to censure Walter Righter (Newark, Assistant) and Ronald Haines (Washington) for ordaining openly lesgay persons:

     About a year ago I wrote a letter threatening to do the same to Jack Spong that McAllister promotes here, but I have realized at this convention that traditional values have gotten us into the bind we are in.  We have not learned how to live with people whom we disagree with.  Those who disagree get divorced.  One of the most powerful statements we can make is to show how you can live together in disagreement.  I have the sense that we are doing this here.  I urge you not to censure anybody.

      They did not.  The two bishops, as "guilty" as Jack Spong had been, got off scot-free, as will the next and the next and the next and the next....   Before the vote, Bishop Stewart Wood (Michigan) and Bishop Ted Jones (Indiana) told the House their names should be added to any censure list.  If not a new consensus, clearly a new collegiality was taking shape that was in much shorter supply last September when the bishops disassociated from Jack Spong--a new collegiality of courage and risk.

      Note well Bishop Wolfrum's look at the old consensus:  "Traditional values have gotten us into the bind we are in!"

      Bishop Paul Moore (retired, NY) asserted:  "More than 10 years after Port St. Lucie [the 1978 House of Bishops meeting at which he was chastised for ordaining a lesbian], it is all right that we are hemorrhaging.  That is part of the history of the body of Christ....  Being ambiguous, loose, and messy is the most Anglican and glorious way possible."

      *Forty More Months of Wilderness, or Forty More Years?*

      So the Church officially agrees to disagree on sexual issues.  That gets us across the Red Sea and out of Egypt.  We will have more ordinations, and the opposition has acknowledged that it cannot stop this discontinuity.  But Pharaoh's troops did not entirely get swallowed up, nor is the land promised anywhere in sight.

      Three more years of "talk" and "dialogue"?  Bite your tongue.  I am considering papering my study with the hateful correspondence I received when I tried to prompt dialogue during the last three years, but I'm afraid the acid of many bishops' epistles will destroy the plaster on my walls.  At General Convention the Bishop of New Hampshire, Rt. Rev. Douglas Theuner fantasized that "we should limit the vote to those 22 dioceses [only 22 percent of the domestic dioceses] who have had the dialogue which we called for."

      What course should chart in this wilderness, 1991-94?  Whence Sinai?  Where do we fetch our manna?

      When I returned from Phoenix, I wrote each bishop, a variation of this text:

     Some see the disunity in the House as distressful.  For me it brings the promise humility always brings.  When I am broken, I get serious.  The level of candor some bishops manifested in Phoenix would be impossible in most other communions.  I am delighted that we are still willing to be a community of risk, not just a museum society or a social register.

     The challenge is to continue this vision now that bishops and deputies have returned to homophobic support systems back home.  It is crucial that the dialogue promised in parishes not bounce like a bad check for yet another time.  Do call on us if we can help your parishes meet this commitment.

      I have written to each Integrity chapter urging members to run that check back through the bank again and again, in faith that the Episcopal Church is good for the amount pledged.  When you finish reading this article, regardless of whether or not you're a lesgay person, I hope that you too will write down the names of five Episcopalians whom you might contact to initiate dialogue in your parish.

      Bishop Spong will ordain Rev. Barry Stopfel, now deacon, to the priesthood in September, as announced a year ago.  Other bishops will ordain many other lesgay candidates during the next three years.  How else can the church have integrity? 

      I suspect that the biggest increase after Phoenix will not be in the number of lesgay priests ordained but in the number of ordinands and supportive commissions and bishops who go public before rather than after the process.

      Dr. King used to say, "There comes a time that if you go to the back of the bus you deserve the back of the bus."  She or he who would be or is already a lesgay priest and has ears to hear,  hear oh hear.

-----

Dr. Louie Crew is the founder of Integrity.  He is a member of the Council of the Diocese of Newark.

********************

CLAUDIA'S COLUMN

               "Therefore, putting away falsehood, let everyone speak the truth with their neighbors, for we are members one of another"  Ephesians

      Last month, as I sat in the DC-9 destined for Phoenix, I contemplated the cover of the June THE WITNESS.  That cover shows our traditional "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You" sign with several additional signs hanging from it that ask:

                  "But does it welcome:

                  People of color,

                  lesbians and gay men,

                  ordained women,

                  poor people,

                  Native Americans?"

                  (Disabled)

      I shuddered, concerned about the next ten days and the tension felt already by much of the Church.

      For the first several days of the convention, it seemed that my worst fears would be realized, that emotion, fear, misunderstanding, and prejudice would rule the hearts and minds both of our bishops and deputies as well as those visiting the convention.  I experienced the frustration of twenty of us who were not permitted to speak at the open hearings on sexuality, heard the hurt and anger that stemmed from the Church Army's leaflet "F.A.G." and shared the pain of hearing over and over from "Exodus" and "Regeneration" ministries that we must be somehow "healed~' of our homosexuality.

      Concurrent however, with this tension, was an entirely different phenomenon Each day began with a community Eucharist that gathered us in groups of 10 at tables surrounding a central altar.  Not only did we share the Eucharist but we entered into daily discussion of the Gospel for the day and how it related to concerns of the convention.  Diversity was the outstanding composition of each group.  Native American and Black American, women and men, healthy and not so healthy, bishops, priests, and deacons, young and old, lesbian, gay, and heterosexual, liberal and conservative, poor and wealthy, educated and not so educated.  We were at first, cautious with one another, sharing our most superficial thoughts and responses to the scripture.  In time our discussions became "Evolving relationships in which we allowed the other to enter into the very center of our person, allowed that other to speak there, to touch the sensitive core of our being, and allowed her or him to see so much that we would often rather leave in darkness...  ln this honest dialogue with each other, there was no place left for prejudice, for instead of defining the other, we always let the other appear to us as new.  Here we were able to talk to one another and share their lives in a way where heart speaks to heart" (Henri Nouwen, WITH OPEN HANDS).

      One Integrity volunteer heard the words of Our Lord when he said, "It is for this reason that I came out" and she found the courage to "come out" to those ln her discussion group and share her story with them.  A woman at our table named Gay, said the first day, "It's because of all of you that I no longer like my name...it used to mean happy and free, and now everyone associates it with homosexuals."  Near the end of convention, Gay shared that although she didn't understand lesbians and gay men, she no longer held us responsible for the comments made about her name.  "Therefore, putting away falsehood, let everyone speak the truth with his and her neighbor, for we are members one of another."

      The concerns of the convention which began as issues of sexuality, ordination, race, social status, and age, became instead, concerns for the people impacted by those issues.  Abstract concepts accompanied by fear, misunderstanding, and prejudice changed and became concrete accompanied by names, faces, and stories.

      The challenge of this convention to us as members of Integrity, is to continue the open, honest dialogue begun in Phoenix, dialogue that allows "the other to enter into the very center of our persons, allows the other to speak there, to touch the sensitive core of our beings."  Through open and honest dialogue we cease being women and men, gay, lesbian, or straight, ... rather, we begin to recognize our common humanity:

     In the faces of others in our group, "we will recognize our own faces.  In their hands, we will recognize our own hands speaking of powerlessness and helplessness.  Their flesh will become our flesh and their blood our blood.  Their pain will become our pain and their smiles will become our smiles."  Despite our varied backgrounds, ages, races, sexual orientations, abilities, and Church experiences, we will recognize and dwell on our common belief in Jesus Christ and our common experience as human beings.  "And suddenly, we will meet one another in a way in which nothing is strange" (Henri Nouwen, WITH OPEN HANDS).

********************

EVANGELIZE GAYS, CHURCH TOLD

by Jan Nunley

      Using stories, song and silence the Rev. James Forbes exhilarated meeting-weary Episcopalians the evening of July 12 with his spell-binding evangelism message that the good news of Jesus Christ is that all creation is included in God's invitation to a "love feast" -- even people of color, lesbians and gays and other "outsiders."

      "The judgment upon mainline churches is that they could all be better evangelists if they were prepared to receive the people that God has invited," thundered the Rev. James Forbes.  "But many times we want prepackaged Episcopalians as the object of our evangelistic effort."

      The powerful preaching by the senior pastor of New York's Riverside Church moved the audience to laughter, shouts and clapping as he held forth on what he called "the best good news."

      His job as an evangelist, Forbes said, is to come to God's feast himself "and then feast at the table only long enough to come back to those in the streets and lanes of the city and say that I have a good news message for you."

      Sometimes the church is unable to hear the message, Forbes

observed, because  "we are so busy maintaining our own system of values, so legalistic in our understanding, so self-righteous in our mode of being that when the love feast is extended to someone that you don't like -- someone who is different from you, of a different class, orientation, of a different ethnic background --you can say, 'I ain't coming to that party.'"

      Mainline churches should be willing to change such things as liturgy and language to accommodate the people God sends, Forbes said, and if they're not, "I'm praying for you."

'WHOM SHOULD WE EVANGELIZE?'

     Carrying Forbes' theme of inclusivity in evangelism were several speakers who identified themselves as members of Integrity or involved in ministry to lesbians and gays.

     "I bring you the question: Whom should we evangelize?" asked the Rev. Jennifer Phillips, deputy from Massachusetts.  "Is the reign of God really like a mustard seed, that has grown large enough to be a tree with room for all the birds of the air --including the odd ducks like you and me -- or is it a closed society?"  The Rev. Gary Ost of The Parsonage, a ministry to lesbian and gay San Franciscans, called evangelism "a witness of unconditional love."

       Bishop Christopher Epting of Iowa, vice chair of the Standing Commission on Evangelism, found the testimony "very affirming of what we've done.  I'm not sure a whole lot will be changed as a result."  He said it was helpful, if somewhat unexpected, to hear so much testimony from the gay and lesbian community at an evangelism hearing.  Chair Joan Bray of Connecticut thought the testimony was "well thought out" and recognized their report as "inclusive, but very clear" about the centrality of Jesus Christ in evangelism.

-----

Jan Nunley is a freelance journalist and graduate of the Episcopal Divinity School.  This article is courtesy of Episcopal News Service.

It should be noted that the Evangelism Open Hearing was held the same night as Bishop Spong's address at Trinity Cathedral.  Many conservatives thought this would be one place they could escape the pervasive lesbians and gays!

********************

TROY PERRY WELCOMED BY THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS

by Bryant Hudson

      In a controversial moment that some saw as historic, Episcopal The House of Bishops officially welcomed the visiting leader of the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), an international denomination intentionally reaching out to gay and lesbian Christians, which was also meeting in Phoenix.

      The Rev. Elder Troy D. Perry, founder and Moderator of MCC, rose silently on July 17 as Presiding Edmond L. Browning spoke a few words of greeting.  It was the first time a mainstream denomination had extended recognition to Perry.

      The Office of the Secretary of the House of Bishops, The Rt. Rev. Herbert Donovan, had two days earlier informed officers of Integrity that Perry would not be welcome to be presented to the House of Bishops because "the Episcopal Church has no 'official relationship' with MCC."  The House of Bishops reversed itself following the issuance of a press release by Integrity.

      The House of Bishops traditionally extends the courtesy of official welcome and presentation to leaders of denominations and ecumenical observers to the General Convention, and had welcomed many such observers and leaders during the first four days of the Convention.

      Faith groups recognized at convention had included the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, Armenian Church of America, Hungarian Reformed Church in America, International Council of Community Churches, Moravian Church, Polish National Catholic Church, and Reformed Church in America, several of which are not in "official relationships" with the Episcopal Church.  During the 1988 General Convention, even Bishops associated with schismatic, breakaway Anglican bodies were welcomed by the House of Bishops.

********************

THE INTEGRITY RESOLUTIONS

      For the first time at a General Convention, Integrity asked supportive deputies to introduce resolutions on our behalf.  Most of these resolutions were developed and approved at the 1989 Integrity  National Convention in San Francisco by Pat Waddell and the Rev. L. Paul Woodrum.  The following states the resolutions as originally submitted and a brief synopsis of what happened to them:

*Affirmation of Committed Lesbian and Gay Relationships*

Resolution # D-027

Sponsoring Deputy: The Rev. Willa Goodfellow (Iowa)

Resolved, the House of __________ concurring, That the 70th General Convention affirm stable, loving, and committed relationships between homosexual persons (gay men and lesbians).  Persons living in such a relationship, whether lay or ordained, provide "...a wholesome example to all people." ("Book of Common Prayer", pages 517, 532, 544); and be it further

Resolved, That persons living in such stable, loving, and committed relationships are entitled to the full love, acceptance, and ministrations of this Church; and be it further

Resolved, That such relationships are entitled to the full celebration, recognition, and hospitality of this Church; and be it further

Resolved, That the 70th General Convention direct the Standing Liturgical Commission to prepare appropriate rites for Celebrations of such relationships for presentation to the 71st General Convention, and be it further

Resolved, That the 70th General Convention grant explicit permission for Bishops to approve on a temporary basis rites providing for such Celebrations.

EXPLANATION

Although a permanent committed relationship in marriage between a man and a woman is the predominant mode of sexual expression, such a relationship is not a meaningful possibility for persons whose sexual orientation is toward persons of their own sex.  Such persons constitute 10 to 15 percent of all humanity and medical and psychological evidence makes it clear that their sexual orientation is an inherent part of their being, probably from birth.  The only fully expressive and meaningful relationships that such persons can find is in committed and loving relationships with persons of the same sex.

The Church has a long history of sacramentally blessing same-sex relationships.  Such blessings were done openly from the Fifth through the 12th Centuries and have continued since, although surreptitiously in most places.

The Church has long affirmed stable, loving, and committed relationships between men and women through the institution of marriage.  The affirmation that marriage gives is not presently available to homosexual persons who enter into loving and committed relationships.  At the very least, we, as a Church, need to publicly declare our support for such relationships and affirm to the world that such relationships, which come from the very essence of the being that God has given us, are a wholesome example for us all.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Contrary to what some conservative bishops have said, there was no vote on blessings of same-sex unions at convention.  This was the only resolution that directly dealt with the subject and it never made it to the floor of either house.  Assigned to the House of Bishops, the resolution went to both their committees on Social and Urban Concerns and the Prayer Book.  It was reported out of committee very late in convention (July 18) with a recommendation to discharge (dismiss without prejudice), but the was no official action by Bishops to even do that.

*Clergy Education on Lesbian/Gay Issues*

Resolution #s D-011 and D-049

Sponsoring Deputies: The Rev. Titus L. Presler (Massachusetts) and Mr. W. Richard Hamlin (Rochester)

Resolved, the House of __________ concurring, That the 70th General Convention urge each diocese to sponsor a clericus on ministry with the lesbian and gay community; and be if further

Resolved, That the 70th General Convention call upon all Episcopal seminaries to re-examine their curriculum relating to human sexuality in general, and homosexuality in particular, with an end to ensure that such teaching is inclusive of diverse positions and done nonjudgmentally and with insight; and be it further

Resolved, That all Episcopal seminaries be requested to prepare continuing education courses in the area of human sexuality in general, and homosexuality in particular, and to make these available to the clergy of this church; and be it further

Resolved, That the Department of Education for Mission and Ministry be directed to prepare appropriate materials for the training of clergy to deal with issues of human sexuality in general, and homosexuality in particular, by January 1, 1993.

EXPLANATION

Good pastoral care is vital to our Church.  Our clergy are essential to an effective pastoral approach to human sexuality and need appropriate training toward that end.  Our clergy need to be open and respectful of confidentiality, so that those who are struggling with the meaning of sexuality will feel free to approach them for help and guidance.  Our clergy need to address the special fear and rejection of lesbians and gay men that prevails in many of our parishes and missions.  Our clergy need to gain the skills needed for effective preaching and teaching in the area of human sexuality in general, and homosexuality in particular, so that they can speak effectively to the deep confusion concerning human sexuality that is so pervasive in our society. 

Seminaries have a special responsibility to see that the training of our clergy concerning homosexuality is inclusive of diverse points of view, done nonjudgmentally and with insight.  Our seminaries have not placed appropriate emphasis on pastoral training in the area of human sexuality.  While this is an area of some controversy within the Church, pastors need appropriate training so that all persons will feel comfortable seeking their advice and counsel.  Appropriate continuing education also needs to be made available to all members of our clergy.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Due to a breakdown of communications, this and four other Integrity resolutions were submitted by two deputies.  Interestingly, they were not always assigned to the same house or committee.  In this case, D-011 went to Deputies' Committee on Social and Urban Concerns, while D-049 went to Bishops' Education Committee.  D-011 received a favorable recommendation from its committee, along with a slight amendment, and was passed by the House of Deputies on July 18.  The Bishops' committee, however, never considered concurrence.  D-049 also received a favorable recommendation from its committee, with a more severe amendment.  It passed Bishops on July 18 and went to Deputies who concurred on the final day of convention.  The final form of the resolution will appear in the next issue.

Subject:  Access to the Ordination Process to be Open to All Persons Without Discrimination

Resolution # D-026

Sponsoring Deputy:: John L. Harrison, Jr.(Pennsylvania)

Resolved, the House of __________ concurring, That Title III, Canon 8 be amended by adding a new Section 2 as follows (and renumbering subsequent Sections):

     No one shall be denied access to the selection process for ordination in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, physical disabilities or age, except as otherwise specified by Canon.  No right to ordination is hereby established.

EXPLANATION

An identical resolution was approved by the House of Bishops but narrowly defeated by the lay order in a vote by orders at both the 1985 and 1988 General Conventions.

The purpose of the proposed amendment is to make it clear in our Church that any of God's children who may feel a calling to a vocation in Holy Orders shall not be denied access to the process leading to ordination by virtue of discrimination against any of the enumerated classes of persons.

Only access to the process is assured.  Other provisions of the Canons relating to ordination, such as age requirements, criteria for evaluation and such like are not altered by the proposed amendment.

WHAT HAPPENED?

This resolution was assigned to Bishops' Committee on Ministry.  It was recommended by the committee, but was discharged on the floor of the House of Bishops on July 15, in keeping with their "agreement" that all sexuality issues were covered by A-104sa.

*Integrity's Evangelism Efforts Commended*

Resolution #s D-012 and D-032

Sponsoring Deputies: Mr. Emil Piel (Newark) and Mr. W. Richard Hamlin (Rochester)

Resolved, the House of __________ concurring, That the 70th General Convention express its appreciation to Integrity, Inc., its chapters and members, for their efforts in bringing Christ and the Episcopal Church to thousands of people who had not heard God's Word or who had become disaffected from this and other churches.

EXPLANATION

In the decade of Evangelism, it is important to thank the group which has probably brought more people into the Episcopal Church in the last decade than any other.  The number of lesbians and gay men who have been separated from God's love represents a vast missionary field.  We appreciate Integrity's leadership in this evangelistic effort.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Both resolutions were assigned to Deputies' Evangelism committee.  They realized they were the same and Deputies discharged D-032.  D-012 was the subject of intense lobbying at committee by right-wing forces.  All of the Pewsaction constituents, EURRR, etc. asked to be included in the commendation.  At the end, Bishop Howe (the cognitive committees were meeting jointly) recommended a resolution which said many groups have worked on evangelism but since the church as a whole has done such a bad job, no one should be commended.  The committee then recommended his substitute.  (Evangelism was, not surprisingly, one of the more conservative committees.)  To everyone's surprise since Integrity did not orchestrate it, when it reached the floor of Deputies there was a motion to substitute the original.  Although this motion was defeated, it was an occasion for some very touching things to be said about Integrity's ministry and the inevitable anti-gay comments from Ft. Worth.  The Howe substitute did eventually pass both houses.

*"Ex-Gay" Ministries Decried*

Resolution # D-034

Sponsoring Deputy: Mr. Bruce Colburn (Rochester)

Resolved, the House of __________ concurring, That the 70th General Convention recommends that no diocese or parish of this Church sponsor or support so-called "ex-gay" ministries which purport to change lesbians and gay men into heterosexuals since there is no clinical evidence of such a change ever having occurred and such claims are consequently misleading, potentially harmful to those who are misled, and expose the church to derision and possible legal action.

EXPLANATION

In 1973, homosexuality was removed from the list of mental disorders of the American Psychiatric Association.  Since that time the scientific community has overwhelmingly affirmed that homosexuality is a condition from birth or at a very early age which is not capable of being modified.  There are groups offering to "cure gay men and lesbians of homosexuality."  Such groups are usually independent of major denominations, but increasingly they have sought support within the Episcopal Church.  This follows a decrease in contributions to them from fundamentalist bodies due to the perceived lack of success by such groups.  While there are a very few persons who claim to be "cured" of their homosexuality, many more who once so claimed now admit that it was a hoax, mostly perpetuated on themselves, akin to brain washing.  Even those few who still claim to be "cured" usually admit that it is only their behavior and not their orientation which has changed.  There is no scientific evidence that anyone has ever changed his or her sexual orientation as a result of spiritual or psychological therapy.  There is considerable evidence, however, of mental and spiritual damage done to those who denied their true selves and deceived others.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Integrity introduced this resolution to present a counterpoint to the Ft. Worth resolutions commending "ex-gay" ministries (C-015 and C-017).  It was assigned to Deputies Social and Urban Concerns.  The sexuality subcommittee thereof was very conservative and it created a substitute which commended those who work to change homosexuals and those who don't.  This was approved by the committee as a whole but was never reported to the floor of Deputies.

*Educational Materials to Combat Sexism and Heterosexism*

Resolution # D-038

Sponsoring Deputy: Ms. Marge Christie (Newark)

Resolved, the House of __________ concurring, That the 70th General Convention directs the Executive Council to create a task force to examine all materials used in this church's educational programs to the end of eliminating all explicit and implicit sexism and heterosexism and to develop curricula which will combat the same and deal evenhandedly with human sexuality issues without regard to sexual orientation; and be it further

Resolved, That the Executive Council shall report its findings and recommendations to the 71st General Convention.

EXPLANATION

As the Church awakens with an awareness of its deep institutional racism, it must not loose sight that it is also deeply sexist and heterosexist.  Failing to openly address this has perpetuated and reinforced active discrimination and violence against lesbian and non-gay women and gay men.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Assigned to Bishops' Education committee, it was discharged at their recommendation by Bishops on July 18 without discussion.

*A Call to Repentance*

Resolution # D-018

Sponsoring Deputy:  The Rev. Cynthia Black (Newark)

Resolved, the House of __________ concurring, That the 70th General Convention call our branch of Christ's one, holy catholic and apostolic church to repentance for denying the image of God in its Lesbian and Gay members, the grace of God in redeeming all of creation through Jesus Christ, and the efficacy of baptism to communicate that grace without regard to sexual orientation.

EXPLANATION

The Church, contrary to the Good News that "those who abide in love, abide in God," has for the past millennium actively persecuted lesbians and gay men and, by things done and left undone, continues to do so.  Rather than being an instrument of Christ's love to the lesbian/gay community, the Church has too long been the chief prosecutor and its pronouncements have served to break down family ties with lesbian and gay persons and to justify those who attack lesbians and gay men verbally, physically and psychologically.  An act of repentance is appropriate for a church which recognizes its past unfaithfulness to the Gospel.  The Roman Catholic Church has repented for its anti-Semitism, the Reformed Church of South Africa has repented for its support of apartheid.  American Christians have repented of their support for slavery and racism.

WHAT HAPPENED?

This resolution was assigned to the Bishops' committee on Social and Urban Affairs who recommended discharge on July 18.  No action was taken on the floor, however.

*Custodial Decisions*

Resolution #s D-013 and D-047

Sponsoring Deputies: The Rev. Bavi E. Rivera Moore (El Camino Real) and Mr. W. Richard Hamlin (Rochester)

Resolved, the House of __________ concurring, That the 70th General Convention call upon all courts and child welfare agencies responsible for the placement of children to make custody determinations based on the overall suitability of those seeking custody rather than letting the sexual orientation of one claimant be the sole determining factor; and be it further

Resolved, That the Washington Office of the Episcopal Church is directed to compile information about the incidence of such discrimination nationwide and to support legislation designed to eliminate it; and

Resolved, That parishes be urged to support lesbian and gay persons who are parents.

EXPLANATION

There is no evidence that lesbian and gay persons are, on average, more or less suitable than non-gay persons to serve as custodial parents.

There is also no evidence of any harm done to children who are placed in the care of Lesbian or Gay persons.  Several courts and child welfare agencies, however, have policies that prevent such placement, despite the relative fitness of the gay or lesbian parent to serve as the custodial parent.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Both were assigned to Deputies' Social and Urban Concerns.  They recommended discharge of the redundant D-047, which deputies did on July 19.  D-013 was amended by the committee and recommended to the house.  It was, however, never reported to the floor.

*Non-Discrimination in Life of Church*

Resolution # D-025

Sponsoring Deputy: John L. Harrison, Jr. (Pennsylvania)

Resolved, the House of __________ concurring, That Title I, Canon 17, Section 5 be amended as follows:

     No one shall be denied [rights or status in] *a place in the life, worship, and governance of# this church because of race, color [or], ethnic origin*, sex, sexual orientation, physical disabilities or age, except as otherwise specified by Canon*.

EXPLANATION

Nearly identical resolutions were approved by both Houses at the 1985 General Convention but one version had the word "sex" and the other "gender" and this discrepancy was not noticed until after adjournment.  In 1988, the resolution was referred to the Commission on Constitution and Canons to determine the meaning of "rights or status."  Since the Commission has been unable to define these terms, it is appropriate to change them to the phrase "a place in the life, worship and governance of this church," which is the ministry of the laity according to the Catechism.

WHAT HAPPENED?

This is one of the stranger stories at General Convention.  Assigned to Bishops' Social and Urban Concerns, they recommended a substitute which was more in the nature of a slightly amended version of the original.  Although the Bishops were in no mood to consider "sex" issues after A-104sa, this resolution was excellently defended on the floor by Bishop Theuner who emphasized that it applied to the laity.  It passed on July 19.  The twist then happened in Deputies the following and final day of convention.  Several attorneys spoke against it, raising the specter of lawsuits.  It was then rather soundly defeated (not concurred) in a voice vote.

*Youth Suicide, Dissemination of Federal Report*

Resolution #s D-014 and D-050

Sponsoring Deputies: The Rev. Titus Presler (Massachusetts) and Mr. W. Richard Hamlin (Rochester)

Resolved, the House of _________ concurring, That the 70th General Convention urge the Secretary of Health and Human Services to widely disseminate the Report of the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide at a reasonable cost; and be it further

Resolved, That the Washington office of the Episcopal church is directed to actively seek to ensure widespread distribution of the Report by the government and to report on progress or lack thereof to the Executive Council not later than March, 1992.  That office shall distribute copies of the Report to the House of Bishops, the Public Policy Network, all Episcopal schools, chaplains and youth workers. 

EXPLANATION

Suicide is the second leading cause of death after accidents among persons between the ages of 15 and 24.  While adult suicide rates have declined in the last 35 years, the rate for young persons has tripled in the same period.  In response to this crisis, the Secretary of Health and Human Services in May, 1985, appointed a Task Force on Youth Suicide.  Their 304-page report was published in January, 1989.  However, pressure from various groups forced the current Secretary, Dr. Louis W. Sullivan, to suspend publication of the Report, principally because of a 32-page paper included with the Report on "Gay Male and Lesbian Youth Suicide," which accepted homosexuality as normal but said societal prejudice tripled the occurrence of suicide attempts in this group.  The issue of suicide by lesbian and gay youth was the subject of Resolution D132a in 1988, which was concurred.

Like the Surgeon General's 1987 Letter on AIDS, pressure from mainstream religious denominations is required to ensure widespread dissemination of this valuable information.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Before convention this was considered the most likely of the Integrity resolutions to be approved.  From the outset of convention, it was assigned high priority and was listed publicly as a reason why the A-104as compromise didn't cover every issue of sexuality.

Both resolutions went initially to Deputies Social and Urban Concerns, who recommended discharge of D-014 as redundant.  they recommended approval of D-050 and agreeing with us that it was a high priority got it to the floor of Deputies on July 19 in the midst of the last-minute crush.  A member of the committee from Ft. Worth then read two sentences from the lesbian/gay section of the report (all she had read, of course) and said it was immoral.  she was strongly rebuffed, most effectively by a speaker who said if the reports distribution prevented one suicide, it was worth it.  It passed Deputies by a very large majority.  then on to Bishops on the last day of convention.  It was our only real priority, but no one seemed to know it, including friendly bishops.  When it came time to speak, only those opposing it spoke.  Most vitriolic was Bishop Fairfield of North Dakota who read the same passages as the Ft. Worth deputy.  It was almost surreal.  Integrity was asking the church to urge the federal government to overturn a homophobic decision based on religious narrow mindedness and the same narrow mindedness was being manifested on the floor of Bishops.  It was defeated (not concurred) by a strong majority among the bare quorum that remained.

*Repeal of Sodomy Laws*

Resolution # D-048

Sponsoring Deputy: The Rev. Warner R. Traynham (Los Angeles)

Resolved, the House of _________ concurring, That the 70th General Convention oppose laws which unduly discriminate against segments of society, supports the equal status of lesbians and gay men in American society and, to that end, calls for the repeal of all existing "consensual sodomy" laws; and be it further

Resolved, That this Church will honor our commitment to full, civil equality for lesbians and gay men by meeting only in states which do not have "consensual sodomy" laws, beginning with the 1994 General Convention.

EXPLANATION

The Episcopal Church has been on record as supporting the civil rights of lesbians and gays since the 65th General Convention in 1976, which support has been restated by General Conventions in 1979, 1982 , 1985 and 1988.  Implementation of civil rights statutes, however, has often been stymied by the existence in many states of discriminatory sex laws. 

"Consensual sodomy" laws, while ancient in origin, are rarely enforced today.  Since "consensual sodomy" has been interpreted to include every sexual act other than heterosexual sex in the "missionary position," their imposition would require police in virtually every bedroom.  While not enforced, per se, these anachronistic laws are nevertheless used to harass, oppress, and discriminate against lesbians and gay men, e.g., "we can't support the civil rights of criminals." 

The General Assembly of the Church of England called for the abolition of "consensual sodomy" laws in that country in 1957, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Ramsey, spoke for repeal in the House of Lords in 1965.  "Consensual sodomy" was abolished as a criminal act in 1965.  It is not illegal in any nation in the European Community, New Zealand, nor in any province of Canada.  Twenty-four American states continue to keep "consensual sodomy" on their criminal statutes. 

WHAT HAPPENED?

The Deputies Social and Urban Concerns committee recommended a substitute which never was reported to the floor of Deputies.

*Pension Fund, Modification of Survivor Benefits*

Resolution # D-015

Sponsoring Deputy: The Rev. Phebe Coe (Maryland)

Resolved, the House of __________ concurring, That the 70th General Convention urge the Trustees of the Church Pension Fund to include options for single lay and clerical employees of the Episcopal Church to name in their decease a significant adult beneficiary absent a surviving spouse; and be it further

Resolved, That the 70th General Convention urge the Trustees of the Church Pension Fund to *reevaluate and reformulate the determination of financial dependency as it relates to the phrase "widows and orphans" where used in the Pension Fund Charter.*

EXPLANATION

The composition and definition of "family" has changed significantly since the establishment of the Church Pension Fund.  Longevity beyond retirement, working and divorced spouses, single persons and their companions (which would include financially dependent parents and other family members) are among the many reasons that pension beneficiary formulations need to be amended to reflect the current and changing nature of family life.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Not surprisingly, this was assigned to Deputies Pension Fund committee.  They recommended a substitute which passed Deputies on July 13.  It was concurred by Bishops on July 19.  The substitute resolution will be reprinted in the next issue.

*Diocese of Sydney Excommunication of Lesbian and Gay Persons*

Resolution # D-028

Sponsoring Deputy: The Rev. Willa Goodfellow (Iowa)

Resolved, the House of __________ concurring, That the 70th General Convention note with sorrow that in 1985 the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney in the Anglican Church of Australia voted to excommunicate all sexually active Lesbians and Gay men and any heterosexual person who speaks in support of them, and since that date several persons have been excommunicated for this reason, and innumerable other Lesbian and Gay Anglicans have left the Church.  This Convention calls for open dialogue with the Diocese of Sydney concerning its action, with a report to be made to the Interim Meeting of the House of Bishops in 1992.

EXPLANATION

While several bishops raised this issue with the Archbishop of Sydney during the Lambeth Conference, the situation remains unchanged after six years.  Although it is unusual for one Province of the Anglican Communion to comment on decisions in another, this is a highly unusual action by the Diocese of Sydney.

WHAT HAPPENED?

This resolution went to Bishops' World Mission committee, which recommended discharge.  It was discharged on July 16.  In 1988 the committee considering it (National and International) recommended approval.

*Gay and Lesbian members of the Commission on Human Affairs*

Resolution # D-016

Sponsoring Deputy: The Rev. Phebe Coe (Maryland)

Resolved, the House of __________ concurring, That the 70th General Convention call on the President of the House of Deputies and the Presiding Bishop to appoint openly gay and lesbian members to the Standing Commission on Human Affairs.

EXPLANATION

For the last two trienniums, the principal focus of the Commission on Human Affairs and its predecessor, the Commission on Human Affairs and Health, has been homosexuality.  The failure to include lesbian or gay Episcopalians in this deliberation is akin to excluding women from the Committee on the Status of Women.  The Methodists and Presbyterians have included acknowledged lesbians and gays on their comparable commissions.

WHAT HAPPENED?

This was the first "sex" issue to hit the floor of either house and it received enormous attention.  Bishops' committee on Structure had recommended approval.  When it reached the house floor on July 12, the fireworks began.  Voting 91 to 65, the bishops passed an amended form which removed the words "openly gay and lesbian" and substituted "membership having representation from the communities and groups being most affected by the agenda for the triennium."  It was concurred by Deputies on the final day without substantial discussion.

The measure sparked a sharp clash between Bishops John MacNaughton of West Texas and John Spong of Newark midway through the debate in the House of Bishops.

MacNaughton said he opposed the measure because the Human Affairs commission deals with matters other than only homosexuality.  If the committee's agenda is to broaden participation in the committee's work, as the report indicates, then "why would we pass a resolution to put on to that commission people who specifically would be put there for the purpose of only dealing with part of their agenda?" MacNaughton asked.

In his response, Spong said, "I really find it an incredible statement, which people suggest like the Bishop of West Texas and the Bishop of Louisiana, that the only thing that gay and lesbian people know how to do is talk about their sexual activity."

"There is an incredible lack of understanding on the part of people whose eyes are simply blinded by a homophobic prejudice," he said.  "I cannot imagine this church discussing black people without asking black people to be there....  I cannot imagine us trying to legislate for a significant population who stand at the door of this church and beg for the privilege to come in and be part of this worshipping community honestly."

Spong's comments prompted a sharp rebuke from MacNaughton.  "I have been called homophobic twice now by the previous speaker and member of this house, once in the public press and now verbally in front of this house," he said.  "I cannot tell you how deeply I resent that, unless the definition of homophobic is to disagree with the Bishop of Newark."  Bishop Spong had misunderstood his criticism of the measure, MacNaughton said.  "To suggest that I intended that these persons could speak on no other issues is to misunderstand me badly."

The intention of the deputy who authored the resolution was clear, said MacNaughton.  "He (sic) wants to put gay and lesbian persons [on the commission] for one reason only: that is to speak on gay and lesbian issues."  The commission has a much larger agenda and such a move would "unbalance" its operation, he added.

Joining MacNaughton was Bishop William Frey,  "I'm not sure what more the inclusion of openly gay and lesbian people could add to the recommendation of the commission.  It isn't as though [the commission] came in with a report unfavorable to what might be called a gay agenda," said Frey.

A strong voice favoring the measure was that of Bishop Barbara Harris of Massachusetts.  "If you have never been part of a marginal group that has been studied and not included in the deliberations, you might not recognize the importance of having your own views being represented," said Harris.  "African-Americans and women know this very well."

*Domestic Partnerships*

Resolution # D-033

Sponsoring Deputy: Mr. Bruce Colburn (Rochester)

Resolved, the House of __________ concurring, That the 70th General Convention call upon all state legislatures and the United States Congress to approve measures giving lesbian and gay couples some of the protections enjoyed by non-gay married couples.

EXPLANATION

While a heterosexual couple has the option to have the state and church legitimize their mutual covenants by registering and blessing them, a same sex couple does not have such an option.  "Domestic partnership" legislation is thus critical to the lesbian and gay community if their   relationships are to enjoy even a limited degree of the social reinforcement provided to heterosexual relationships by the church and state.  However, "domestic partnership" legislation does not equal marriage, and none of the legislation now in force provides rights and privileges  that equate to those of married couples.  Nevertheless, such legislation, which exists in various forms in New York City; Seattle; Washington, DC; Minneapolis; Madison, WI; Ithaca, NY; Los Angeles; Takoma Park, MD; Berkeley, CA; Santa Cruz, CA; Laguna Beach, CA; West Hollywood, CA; Alameda County, CA; and San Francisco; and which is before the New York Legislature, provides substantial benefits to lesbian and gay couples.

Among the benefits included in such legislation are public recognition of the relationship, which include commitments to mutual support; joint medical, dental and other insurance coverage; hospital visitation rights; bereavement and family illness leave; and certain survivor rights.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Assigned like so many others to Deputies' Social and Urban Affairs Committee, it was recommended for discharge on July 18, but never reached the floor for action.

*"Throwaway" Youth*

Resolution # D-045

Sponsoring Deputy: Mr. Stephen Crane (El Camino Real)

Resolved, the House of __________ concurring, That the 70th General Convention reaffirm the call of the 69th General Convention to this Church to provide an open and non-judgmental dialogue on human sexuality (1988 Resolution D-122s); and be it further

Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Human Affairs be requested to undertake a detailed study of this phenomena during the next triennium; and be it further

Resolved, That the Department of Education for Mission and Ministry be directed to prepare educational materials directed at the parents of Lesbian and Gay youth which will assist them in understanding and accepting their children and their children's sexual orientation; and be it further

Resolved,That the Department of Education for Mission and Ministry, through the Youth Ministries Office, be directed to prepare educational materials directed at Lesbian and Gay youth which will assist them in understanding and accepting their sexual orientation and provide positive adult role models.

EXPLANATION

There is an increasing problem in large cities with runaway and "throwaway" youth.  A disproportionate percentage of those youth in the "throwaway" category are lesbians or gay children.  The "throwaway" phenomenon also occurs in families that are members of this Church.  The church has largely ignored this problem, with a few notable exceptions.  The problem will not be solved until parents can learn to accept their daughters and sons as they really are.

WHAT HAPPENED?

The Bishops' Education committee recommended discharge and it was on July 18.

*US Military Discrimination Against Lesbians and Gay Men*

Resolution #s D-017 and D-035

Sponsoring Deputies: Mr. Bruce Colburn (Rochester) and Mr. W. Richard Hamlin (Rochester)

Resolved, the House of __________ concurring, That the 70th General Convention call upon the Armed Forces of the United States to cease discriminating against those Lesbians and Gay men who desire to serve in the Armed Forces; and be it further

Resolved, That the Presiding Bishop be directed to communicate this resolution directly to the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Resolved, That the Suffragan Bishop of the Armed Forces institute special training for his chaplains so that they may deal pastorally with Lesbian and Gay men who  surreptitiously remain in the Armed Forces. 

EXPLANATION

Despite a much better than average service history, and many well documented individual examples of valor and devotion to duty, the Armed Forces of the United States instituted in the early 1950s a policy of discrimination against Lesbians and Gay men and attempts to prevent them from serving.  Although there have been court rulings against this policy, and a 1990 internal Department of Defense study that found this policy was unfounded, the Armed Forces continue to persecute and prosecute Lesbians and Gay men who are found to be serving in the Armed Forces.  In addition, the Armed Forces have sued former ROTC cadets claiming "fraud" for scholarship monies received before the cadets were expelled for being Gay.  This is an incredible waste of taxpayer money and a waste of human lives.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Both were assigned to Social and Urban Affairs, but D-017 went to Deputies, which committee recommended approval, and D-035 went to Bishops, which committee recommended discharge.  Neither committee report ever made it to the respective house floor.

*Commend AIDS Education at Congregational Level*

Resolution # D-046

Sponsoring Deputy: The Rev. Bavi E. Rivera Moore (El Camino Real)

Resolved, the House of __________ concurring, That this 70th General Convention calls upon the Youth Ministries Office and the Department of Education for Mission and Ministry to revise their educational materials covering AIDS education for youth, specifically to include concurrent separate educational sessions for youth and their parents, which revised programs and materials are to be available by 1 January, 1992; and be it further

Resolved, That the educational materials prepared by the Metropolitan St. Louis AIDS Program for the Diocese of Missouri be used as specific models.

EXPLANATION

Many American youth, including those who are members of our Church, are not being effectively reached by AIDS education.  Ignorance of the facts of AIDS transmission can be fatal, and can also cause unreasonable behavior and discrimination towards those who are HIV positive.  Several dioceses of our Church have demonstrated clearly the effectiveness of AIDS education for our youth and their parents done at the congregational level.  Many AIDS educators feel that optimum education about AIDS must be delivered concurrently to both young people and their parents.  They attend separate sessions, but receive the same basic information targeted at the specific audience.  School systems as a rule do not do a good job with sex education in general and AIDS education in particular.  In addition, our young people have expressed a desire to discuss sex in a church setting and not simply in secular settings.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Assigned to Bishops' Education committee, this resolution became wrapped up with a larger AIDS package, which drew elements of various resolutions.  It was discharged by Bishops on July 18.

*Federal Civil Rights Act*

Resolution # D-036

Originator: Mr. Bruce Colburn (Rochester)

Resolved, the House of __________ concurring, That the 70th General Convention endorses an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act which would outlaw discrimination against persons on the basis of their sexual orientation; and be it further

Resolved, That the Washington Office of the Episcopal Church be directed to work vigorously on behalf of such a bill.

EXPLANATION

The Episcopal Church has been on record as supporting the civil rights of lesbians and gays since the 65th General Convention in 1976, which support has been restated by General Conventions in 1979, 1982, 1985 and 1988.  A bill is now before the Congress which would include lesbians and gay men within the protected categories established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

WHAT HAPPENED?

Deputies Social and Urban Affairs committee recommended approval on July 16 but it never was reported to the floor of Deputies.

*Office of Lesbian and Gay Justice Ministries at Church Center*

Resolution # D-037

Sponsoring Deputy: Mr. Bruce Colburn (Rochester)

Resolved, the House of __________ concurring, That there shall be established at the Church Center an Office of Lesbian and Gay Justice Ministries, which office shall consist of a one-quarter time employee for 1992 and 1993 and a half time employee for 1994, in addition to clerical support.

EXPLANATION

Lesbian and Gay issues are usually overlooked at the Church Center since it is no one person's responsibility.  Other social justice concerns are represented at the Church Center, and it is appropriate to include lesbian/gay justice issues among them.  Because of current budgetary constraints, it is proposed that this position be only a part-time one.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Deputies Social and Urban Affairs committee recommended discharge.  It was never considered on the floor.

********************

OTHER RESOLUTIONS WE FOLLOWED

*Human Affairs Commission Recommendations on Same-Sex Unions and Ordination of Homosexuals*

Resolution # B-045

Sponsoring Bishop:  William Wantland (Eau Claire)

Resolved, the House of ____________ concurring, That, recognizing the hard work and exhaustive review of issues of human sexuality as contained in the Blue Book report of the Standing Commission on Human Affairs, the Commission recommendations for study of blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of practicing homosexuals (p. 202 of the Blue Book) are accepted.

EXPLANATION

The recommendations of the Commission on Human Affairs are contrary to the stated mind of the House of Bishops as expressed by resolution and theological statement made in 1977, and therefore should be accepted at this time if it be desired to change the teaching of this Church.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Bishop Wantland entered this resolution on July 12, the last day for resolutions.  It was assigned to Bishops' Ministry Committee who recognized it for what it was and recommended discharge the next day.  It was discharged by Bishops on July 15.  Presumably Wantland put in this resolution in hopes it would be defeated.  This transparent effort is what the right-wingers refer to when they say they defeated same-sex unions.  It is telling that Wantland didn't (nor did anyone else) introduce a resolution to prohibit same-sex unions since we all know they regularly occur in at least 85 of the 99 domestic dioceses.

*SUPPORT FOR EX-GAY MINISTRIES*

Resolution #s C-015 and C-017

Sponsoring Diocese: Ft. Worth

The text of these resolutions appeared in News & Notes, Winter, 1991.

WHAT HAPPENED?

You will recall that these resolutions would have commended ex-gay ministries, guaranteed one of them (Alan Medinger, presumably) a seat on the Commission on Human Affairs, and given them $100,000.  Both were assigned to the Bishops' Committee on Social and Urban Affairs, where they received surprisingly serious attention.  Regeneration turned out in force to support them, though it was hard to imagine anyone doing so with a straight face.  The committee recommended discharge of C-015 and amended C-017 to remove the $100,000 and commend those who both worked to change and those who don't.  Integrity, of course, found this unacceptable.  It never came to the floor of either house for a vote.

********************

Integrity offers a major new book:

A BOOK OF REVELATIONS

Lesbians and Gay Episcopalians Tell Their Own Stories

Edited by Louie Crew, Associate Professor, Rutgers University

With a Foreword by The Rt. Rev. George N. Hunt,

Bishop of Rhode Island and Chair of the Standing Commission on Human Affairs of the Episcopal Church

52 Lesbians and Gay Men, all members of the Episcopal Church, USA, or the Anglican Church of Canada, share their spiritual journeys.  Most of the stories are filled with Good News, but there is much pain in their revelations.  Yours may be one of the stories.

Integrity presented "Our Stories" at the 1988 General Convention.  We decided to publish them as a book in response to that Convention's call for "an open dialogue on human sexuality, in which we, as members of this Church, both heterosexual and homosexual, may study, pray, listen to and share our convictions and concerns, our search for stable, loving and committed relationships, and our journey toward wholeness and holiness."

220 pages - $9.95

Ask for this book at your local Episcopal or lesbian/gay bookstore.  If they don't have it, ask them to call 201-868-2485 for a price sheet and ordering instructions.

********************

THE LANDLORD AND THE GAYS

by Art Hoppe

Scene:  The Heavenly Real Estate Office.  The Landlord is cheerily rounding up a covey of blazing comets that have skittered under Queen Cassiopeia's Chair.  His business agent, Mr. Gabriel, enters, his Golden Trumpet in one hand and more reports from the tiny planet Earth in the other.

THE LANDLORD (to the comets):  Come out from under there, you little scamps, before you set that whole galaxy on fire.

Gabriel:  Excuse me, sir, another batch of Prayergrams from your most devout Christians.

The Landlord (waving a hand): Whatever they want, Gabriel.  Now where did those frisky devils get to?

Gabriel:  Yes, sir, they want you to evict 10 percent of your tenants down there.  (raising his Golden Trumpet) I've never attempted a partial eviction.  Shall I try?

The Landlord (looking up):  What 10 percent, Gabriel?

Gabriel:  The gays, sir.  Your devout Christians say they've done their utmost to keep them out of their schools, their offices, their churches and their lives, but with little success.  So their Prayergrams ask you to remove them from the face of the Earth.

The Landlord:  By me, Gabriel, that doesn't sound very Christian.  I thought they were supposed to love their neighbors.

Gabriel:  Oh, they do, sir, if their neighbors are of the same color, economic bracket and sexual orientation.

The Landlord:  But what harm do these gay people do?

Gabriel:  I'm afraid you're not seeing the big picture, sir.  Gays simply don't fit into your grand design.  You know, two by two, male and female?  Generation after generation?  The fact of the matter is that gays simply don't procreate.

The Landlord:  I thought there was enough procreation down there already.

Gabriel:  And they commit unspeakable acts.

The Landlord:  Murder?  Torture?  Paving over my mountain meadows?

Gabriel:  Unspeakable sexual acts, sir.

The Landlord:  As, you mean they express their love for each other in different ways.

Gabriel (annoyed):  Really, sir, if these people were automobiles, they'd be recalled in a nonce.  They're clearly defective.

The Landlord (frowning):  Defective, Gabriel?

Gabriel:  Exactly, sir.  Some essential part is missing, some vital drive is malfunctioning.  Bungled wiring, a loose screw ... Who knows?

The Landlord:  But clearly they're examples of shoddy workmanship?

Gabriel:  O, definitely, sir.  And they certainly don't deserve to clutter up your little blue-green jewel of a plant a minute longer.  (raising his trumpet again)  Shall I evict them now?

The Landlord (slowly):  And who made these imperfect products, Gabriel?

Gabriel:  Why, you did, of course, but ... (he lowers his trumpet in sudden consternation)  Good you, sir, I didn't mean to blaspheme.  You will forgive them then?

The Landlord (smiling):  A wise philosopher said long ago, Gabriel, that if I made these sinners, it is not I who would forgive them, but they who should forgive me.

Gabriel:  Well, I'm sure the gays will be glad to hear of your tolerance and generosity, sir.

The Landlord:  The gays?  I was talking about my most devout Christians.

-----

Copyright 1991 Art Hoppe.  Reprinted with permission.  Art Hoppe is a columnist for the "San Francisco Sunday Examiner and Chronicle," from which this is taken. 

********************

BISHOP REVISITS A 1977 POINT OF VIEW

by Bennett J. Sims

"Time makes ancient good uncouth..."

      This line from James Russell Lowell (1819-1891) is only partly true.  It applies to things like science and world-views and ethics--and to metaphors of truth.  Just as true is the fact that at deeper levels time confirms as much ancient good as it makes obsolete.  The older I grow the more I feel the truth and power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: when we can break the commonest of all addictions, the habit of confessing other people's sins (blaming), and take responsibility for our own lives and behavior (repentance), then the door to a cosmic and unfailing mercy opens wide and life begins anew.  Time only ratifies this ancient Good News, over and over.  And there is no outgrowing the truth of St. Paul's affirmation that faith, hope and love abide--and that love outranks all else.

      But other expressions of the "good" are seasonal in history, subject to change.  To wit:

"Slaves, give entire obedience to your earthly masters."

      St. Paul in Colossians 3:22 (c.60)

"Women are commonly of potent fantasies, easily cast into anger, or jealousy, or discontent, and of weak understanding....  They are betwixt man and child: some few have more of the man, many more of the child."

      Richard Baxter (1615-1691) in THE CHRISTIAN DIRECTORY, a Puritan Compendium of Practical Theology.

"[I propose] that there be mounted a ministry of healing of the homosexual...to seek replacement of the homosexual condition, be it either ambivalent or fixed, with a decisive heterosexual orientation."

      Bennett J. Sims in a Pastoral Statement on Sex and Homosexuality (1977).

      Human slavery, condoned by the Church's defining theologian and ethicist, is now morally and politically inadmissible.  The once-widely held Christian view that women are woefully inferior, with no legitimate place in public life and decision-making, seems laughable, even contemptible.  But this view had biblical sanction.  See again St. Paul, this time in I Corinthians 14:34.

      As for the wrenching issue of homosexuality, I myself have undergone a shift in conviction.  When I called for a ministry of homosexual healing and re-orientation 14 years ago as Bishop of Atlanta, the only response from the gay community in the diocese was wounded silence, punctuated by overt expressions of disappointment in their bishop.  Not rejection, but patient disagreement--with an invitation to sustained dialogue.  Since then I have come to know a large number of homosexual men and women, many of them priests.  I have heard them speak from their anguish of alienation and from their heart's deepest truth.  And often we have worshiped together.  All of them, except one, have told me in one way or another that from their earliest awakening to sexual impulse they were commanded by a same-sex attraction.

      This testimony, gathered over more than a decade of encounter with a long-suffering segment of the Christian community, forms the foundation of a changed personal view.  I no longer believe, as I did in 1977, that homosexuality is primarily an amenable dysfunction, a stubborn but changeable deviation from created norms.  In my view it is a matter of bestowed identity, not a self-chosen orientation and behavior pattern.  A growing body of scientific research and opinion supports the claim that from ten to fifteen percent of the human species, from time immemorial, has come into life with a homosexual stamp of identity.  Insofar as this represents historic human reality, then compassion is not adequate as a Christian stance toward the gay community.  We must move to include justice--as we have done in the case of slavery--as we have done in the case of women and blacks and all human beings whose unchosen identity the Church honors.

      My new persuasion may be invalid.  Ethicists and therapists who have thought as long and deeply about this as I have hold a different view.  Still, long-term personal exchange with transparently Christian homosexual men and women moves me to the conviction that justice is the issue in the Church's contemporary struggle with this volcanic and deeply divisive matter.  My further conviction is that fear and revulsion are more at the base of conventional resistance to homosexuality than fidelity to the ethics of Scripture.  When I wrote that Pastoral Statement in 1977 I knew only one homosexual person up close.  He scared me to death with his penetrating challenge that he was as complete a human being as I was--actually more complete, because in order to be openly honest about his identity he had to face wide public contempt and the narrower scorn of his own Church.  Self-acceptance in the mercy of God for him required far more courage and suffering than my self-acceptance was costing me.  In the area of sexuality this claim of his was patently true.  [ed. note: this was our founder, Dr. Louie Crew]

      In the 14 years since that earliest close encounter with a homosexual person my fear and revulsion have disappeared.  Those heavy barriers to the love we are commanded to offer one another in Christ have come down.  Very real people stand forth now in the gay community for me.  In many cases they seem more grandly endowed with the virtues of strength and gentleness than I find in myself--and in the Christian community broadly.

      But in the debate about opening the Church to same-sex acceptance it will be asked "What does the Episcopal Church stand for any more?" The first answer is in the Summary of the Law at the opening of the Eucharist.  The second answer is in the historic creeds.  The third answer is on pages 304 and 305 of the Book of Common Prayer, especially the final vow of the five we all retake at every service of Holy Baptism: "Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?"

      Again, given the increasingly convincing evidence that homosexuality is a bestowed identity, the issue moves from compassion (extended by General Convention resolution in 1976) to JUSTICE.

      But...two additional values must guide the Church in our debates and decision-making.

      First is the peace and unity of the body of Christ.   Compassion and justice are two-way streets in matters of conflict that involve going beyond the testimony of Scripture--even though going beyond Scripture is not new to us.  The ethical norm of Deuteronomy 23:1, which explicitly forbids the inclusion of eunuchs as members of the household of the Lord, had to be set aside by Philip (as a loyal Jew) when he baptized the Ethiopian in Acts 8:26-39.  Selected ethical norms of St. Paul have had to be superseded in outlawing slavery and granting full human dignity to women in the public domain and in the Church's ordination gifts.

      But most of these inclusive moves have required caring and risk and extensive time to develop a measure of consensus.  In the present challenge to go beyond historical ethical norms the Church is clearly not ready for a win-lose debate on a change in canon law that would explicitly allow the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of sexually active homosexual persons.  A Gallup survey of the Episcopal Church in 1990, commissioned by the Presiding Bishop, determined that 64% of our laity are opposed to the Church's sanctioning of same-sex relations while 21% approve and 15% have no opinion.

      Let the General Convention of 1991 face the matter openly and hear one another across the divide--but decline to legislate.  And in facing one another let there be ardent prayer that the high ethic commanded by Jesus command the passions of all who meet--that there be not despising born of fear, but the presiding power of love that casts out fear.

      The second value is also biblical.  It has to do with the birth and rebirth principle at the heart of the universe, declared by the central episodes in the life of Jesus.  The principal is easy to state and crushingly difficult to experience: from pain and death comes life.  Pain is in order to growth.  Death is in order to life.  I know of no higher reason than the power of this principle for the commanding attraction of the Cross and Resurrection that has blossomed over the centuries into a global band of sisters and brothers with our arms around the earth.  Nor do I know any other reason than the truth of this principle for the staying power of the Christian Church through all the turbulent epochs since the Cross and Resurrection.

      Empires rise and fall, navies sail and sink, armies march and molder.  All institutions unwilling to die to self-aggrandizing power and injustices, and suffer through the pain of reform, perish from their own defensive rigidity.  This is why the Church lives and grows.  Even in our time it grows, significantly in the Soviet Union, swiftly on the African continent.  Explanation for this gallant and spreading continuity lies in the Church's readiness to die to obsolete habits of exclusion, suffering the divisiveness implicit in every episode of rebirth.

      This phenomenon is traceable at so many points of the Church's long odyssey, beginning with the first General Convention in Acts 15.  We Gentiles would not be around as Christians to argue and contend and endure the discomfort of the homosexual issue were it not for the decision in that first century to include us as members AS WE WERE--not requiring that we submit to circumcision and become Jews.

      In our own time the great issues of General Convention have been invariably the expanded inclusion of persons and new practices.  It was the rigorous practice of tithing that aroused our contending passions when I was a young deputy to the General Convention of 1958.  After fierce debate we said "yes," dying to a casual unstated standard of Christian giving.  Since then we have embraced the Civil Rights issue, Prayer Book revision and the inclusion of women to full priestly and episcopal ordination.

      The Episcopal Church and all mainline denominations have vast contemporary experience with the suffering of inclusion and the dying to smaller dimensions of our life together.  We have taken up the cruciformity of real life in God's world, as Jesus commanded of all who aspire to his discipleship.  We know its cost.  Almost all the denominations have suffered schism and loss, but WE LIVE.

      The Episcopal Church is now the denomination with the highest per capita giving level in America.  More of us tithe a full 10% on income than in any other cluster of Christians, including Southern Baptists.  Forty-two percent of our parishes report growth of membership in the past five years, only 23% reporting loss.  Thumping majorities of the laity say that they want the Episcopal Church more involved in matters of concern to the world.  Sixty-three percent wish it in the issue of war and peace; 64% wish it in matters of social justice; 67% urge greater Church commitment to the Environmental crisis.  (1990 Gallup survey cited above.)

      "To live is to change, and to live well is to have changed often." I think it was John Henry Newman who said that.  Whoever it was, changing Christian experience in our own lifetimes has proved its truth.

-----

The Rt. Rev. Bennett J. Sims is Bishop Emeritus of Atlanta.  This statement was distributed by Integrity at General Convention.

********************

THE ROAD TO COMPROMISE: ORIGINS

Taken from Various ENS reports

Before Convention

      In late June, the Rt. Rev. David E. Johnson, Bishop of Massachusetts, in a private letter to the church's 375 active and retired bishops, proposed that General Convention "foreswear resolutions" to avoid "the fracturing of our church" and entrust a potentially acrimonious debate on sexuality to a special committee of bishops.

      Working with theologians and social scientists, including "a just and effective number of women," Johnson proposed that the bishops would produce a pastoral letter on human sexuality to be debated at a future General Convention.

      "What is demanded at this critical point in the life of our church is for us bishops to assume our rightful role as teachers, to reaffirm former understandings and the essentials for responsible, faithful new interpretations," he said.

      "By our present approach, we invite the fracturing of our church," Bishop Johnson warned.  "We bishops 'sit at the center' of the teaching ministry of the church . . . We have been called to be 'anchorpersons' of the church's entire ministry of proclamation, instruction and formation," he said.

      "The questions awaiting us in Phoenix are too great, too vast, too wide-ranging in ramifications to be answered through a process of voting 'yea' or 'nay' on a series of resolutions," he said.

      Behind the scenes, Johnson began seeking assistance from bishops of another area (reportedly Province 4) to submit a resolution embodying his proposal.  Originally intended only for the House of Bishops, the proposal was expanded as its proponents sought a broader initiative that would incorporate both houses.

Wednesday, July 10

    At a joint meeting of the committees on Canons and on Ministry of both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops on Wednesday afternoon, Johnson argued that the underlying issue is not sexuality, but the way the Episcopal Church deals with its most sensitive issues.  He wrote his letter to the other bishops, he said, because he was troubled that the convention would be making some decisions on complicated subjects "that had not really been talked about and understood."  What is needed, Johnson said, is "to raise up a new way of thinking, a new way of approaching these issues."  Following each General Convention, "it's a farce to stand before the people at home and say 'I knew exactly what I was doing on every issue,'" he said.

      "We are polarizing the church in the way we are dealing with resolutions on sensitive issues," agreed Bishop George L. Reynolds, Jr., of Tennessee.  "There is a real question about the way this church is trying to deal with the complex issues of our world."

      "What we are talking about is a paradigm shift," observed Bishop Roger White of Milwaukee.  A new model needs to be developed to permit the convention "to listen and to discern and then to act representing the whole baptized and not just some of the baptized," he said.  The emphasis especially should be on "allowing the church to speak back to us," he said.

      The proposals on sexuality, especially to bless same-sex unions and to approve ordinations of openly homosexual persons, are as much a symptom as a cause of division in the church, White suggested.  "There is no consensus in the church about changing the traditional moral standard," he said.  And given that lack of consensus, "the way we are handling these issues in the convention is a 'no win/no win' situation."

      For lesbians and gays faced with exclusion from the ordination process, however, it is "not a win/lose situation; they always lose," said the Rev. Canon Walter Lee Szymanski, an openly gay Alternate Deputy from the Diocese of Rochester.  "When do they come on board to join the winners?"

      Essie L. Johnson, a Deputy from East Tennessee, also complained that further study would keep the issues from reaching any resolution at this convention.  "I have a problem with the pain people are going through right now," she said.  "How are you going to respond to that?"

      "How will this be any different from what we've been doing the last 15 years?" asked Bishop Robert D. Rowley, Jr., of Northwestern Pennsylvania.  "We have done the studies."  "This is not postponing.  This is radical, systemic change," White responded.

      Actually, only about a quarter of the church's dioceses have completed or initiated studies in response to the call for "open dialogues on human sexuality" from the last General Convention, noted Bishop Arthur Walmsley of Connecticut.  "If that isn't evidence of a systemic problem, I don't know what is," he said.  As the church experiences a shift in which "the people of God are taking their baptism covenants more seriously," the result is ever stronger calls from those people that "we want to be included" in deciding the major issues of the church, he said. "If we do not address this systemic issue forthrightly," Walmsley said, "it will be addressed for us."

Thursday, July 11

      Integrity, Inc. issued an Official Statement of Position on Proposals to Defer Discussion on Human Sexuality:

      There has been considerable discussion in various committees and elsewhere at this General Convention concerning a proposal to defer all discussion and/or voting on all issues related to human sexuality until General Convention in 1994, or perhaps 1997.  Although such proposals are preliminary, and unclear in scope and intention as of this date, Integrity, Inc. strongly opposes such a proposal.

      It is impossible to critique definitely what has remained an enigmatic proposal.  Nevertheless certain elements are emerging:

1) This "proposal" would, according to at least one version,   lead to the tabling of all resolutions "directly or indirectly" related to human sexuality.  To our knowledge no one has offered a list of affected resolutions, but this could in its broadest application result in seventy or more resolutions being tabled or otherwise deferred.  Most of these resolutions are not related to the "teaching role of bishops," nor are they theological issues.  They are, rather, justice or pastoral issues.

2) The premise of this "proposal" is that more discussion is needed.  This Church began the process of formally considering human sexuality, particularly homosexuality, in 1976 when General Convention charged the Commission on Human Affairs to present a report to General Convention in 1979.  They did, but that report was considered too favorable to lesbians and gay men and it was decided that more study was needed.  Since 1979, human sexuality, particularly homosexuality, has been the principal focus of the Commission on Human Affairs and the successor commissions.  It bears noting, however, that no lesbians or gay men have ever been included on such a commission.

3) The "proposal" is that a committee of the House of Bishops discuss this issue for three years, at minimum.  Ironically, while it is acknowledged that the House, which has only one female member, would need to call on non-episcopal women to join in the study, and apparently certain theologians would also be invited to participate, there is no provision to include any lesbian or gay representatives.  This is completely unacceptable to Integrity, Inc.

4) In lieu of being included on the committee, lesbians and gay men are apparently to be invited to give testimony about their treatment by church and society to this committee.  That is precisely what has been done for the last three years.   Apparently the results of this process, which are reflected in the current report of the Commission on Human Affairs, are to be ignored.  Integrity, Inc. will not participate in any open hearings or forums in the next triennium designed to replicate the "listening process" of the last triennium.  We have consistently, whenever asked, opened the deepest and most intimate aspects of our hearts and souls to inspection and evaluation.  Enough is enough.  As the Commission report said, "A strong majority of the commission believes, however, that the issues have been studied in considerable depth for a number of years by this commission and other bodies and that the time has come to move forward in the direction recommended by this report."

5) It is a delusion to think that the issue of justice for lesbians and gay men will go away.  By sweeping it under the rug for three or more additional years, the church may begin to accommodate itself to the rapidly growing acceptance of lesbians and gay men by secular society.  However, this means that the church will abdicate its prophetic role.  It also may mean that significant numbers of lesbians and gay men, who now represent at least ten percent of the membership of the Episcopal Church and in some metropolitan areas 25%, may leave the Episcopal Church.   Is this a risk the church wants to take?

      Integrity, Inc. rejects the notion that justice issues can or should be postponed indefinitely.  There is no guarantee in this proposal that the issue won't be tabled again in 1994.  In 1988, all of the sexuality proposals were effectively tabled in return for a promise by the church that it would actively engage in non-judgmental dialogue at all levels.  While there have been a few isolated examples of such dialogue, the church has for the most part ignored this pledge entirely.

Friday, July 12

      On Friday, Johnson said that planning was continuing with a broadly based group representing both deputies and bishops, though he declined to identify who was involved.  Although this was the final day for filing resolutions, no compromise resolution was expected for some time, Johnson said, because of the mammoth nature of the task "to develop something responsible with both the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies for the whole church."

      The lid came off the simmering issues of human sexuality Friday morning at 7:30 am as speaker after speaker staked out clearly defined positions in a meeting of the cognate Committees on Ministry.  The meeting in the ballroom of the Sheraton Phoenix Hotel served as a preview of the open hearing Sunday evening.  More than 300 persons were riveted by the testimony as the merits of three legislative proposals on sexuality were examined and debated by more than 30 speakers.

      The bulk of discussion centered on the proposed canon (B-003) from Bishop William C. Frey, Dean of the Trinity School for Ministry.  Frey's proposal would insist that all members of the clergy abstain from sexual relationships outside of heterosexual marriage.

      The Rev. Gary Ost from Walnut Creek, California, a member of the Parsonage Community, said passage of the proposal would "return us to the cloak and dagger existence" with which gay clergy have had to contend through the years.

       The Rev. William Doubleday, Deputy from New York, also spoke against Frey's measure.  "I believe it is an exercise in public relations, in anticipated damage control that does not reflect the best theological tradition of our church.  If the resolution becomes canon, it will invite other deceit, both by heterosexual and homosexual seminarians.  It will invite inappropriate interrogations by commissions on ministry on all prospective ordinands.  It may well invite bed checks by bishops, witch hunts by vestries, and could ultimately lead to the deposition and ruination of some of our most creative bishops, priests, deacons, and seminary professors."

      Jennifer Lynn Craycraft from the Diocese of Virginia said, "I'm 19 years old, a college student, a virgin, and I'm proud of that fact."  Asserting that contemporary culture pushes people into sexual relations "when they're not ready," she said she is unsure about where the church is going.  Another teen-ager from Virginia, Henry Anglin, said several of his friends had been "destroyed" in premarital sexual relationships.  "My friends call me and they say, 'I'm going to do it, man, I'm going to do it.'  I say, 'Don't do it.'"  He urged the adoption of the Frey canon.  "Pass this law, and make it right."

      But Sue Thompson of Atlanta, assistant convener of Integrity/Atlanta, said she would like to get beyond the issue.  "I'm a little tired of justifying myself to people.  It is my belief that we are called in this process of ordination to lead an exemplary lifestyle."  For her that includes "a committed monogamous relationship," but she rejected the traditional assumption that it must be heterosexual.  "I am a lesbian.  I happen to be in a committed relationship."  She said it was a growing experience for her, "one of the richest blessings of my life.  I don't think that relationship is something God disapproves of."

      As the open hearing began to wind down, attention turned to a resolution which would allow access to the ordination process by gay men and lesbians and other minorities without prejudice (C-032).  Stephen Crane, a Deputy from the Diocese of El Camino Real, acknowledged that he was a "cradle Episcopalian," that he loved the church "for the gray areas it provides," even though he has experienced discrimination against women and people of color.  "Are we now to further discriminate?  We cannot change our sexual orientation."

      Later in the day Episcopalians United for Revelation, Renewal, and Reformation joined Integrity in requesting that the sexuality resolutions be brought to a vote and decided at this convention.

      "I think it's a cop-out," said the Rev. Ted Nelson, chair of EURRR.  "I think the people deserve some kind of demonstrated leadership and definitive action.  I'm convinced that the people at home can't hang by their fingertips indefinitely," Nelson said.  General Convention must provide some leadership, he said.  "Damn it, they've got to lead us, even if they lead us down a road where I don't want to go."

********************

THE ROAD TO COMPROMISE: DEPUTIES

Taken from various ENS Reports

      The Very Rev. David Collins, President of the House of Deputies began his final convention with a warning to the Deputies that they were in danger of being made irrelevant by the House of Bishops.  Obviously his words were heeded since the Deputies assumed a leadership role far in excess of recent years.  This was particularly true in the field of human sexuality.  New leaders emerged within Deputies as well.  One of them was Integrity's Pat Waddell, who began the convention as First Alternate from El Camino Real.  When one of the deputies from his diocese had to leave Phoenix, Pat took a seat and it seemed that he had been there for years.

Monday, July 15

      By agreement, both houses decided not to consider sexuality resolutions on the floor until after the Open Hearings on Sunday evening.  However, the committees which had been assigned the various resolutions had been considering them for several days.

      The Deputies' Committee on Ministry voted Monday morning to recommend rejection of both Resolution A-104 (by the Human Affairs Commission)and Resolution B-003 (by Bishop Frey)  The Committee  proposed a substitute resolution to be considered by the Deputies during a special order of business the following afternoon.

Tuesday, July 16

      Apparently to the surprise of the Deputies, two resolutions on human sexuality had received decisive consideration in the House of Bishops on Monday.  A-104 had been amended to uphold the church's traditional teachings on marriage (becoming A-104s), and Bishops discharged Frey's proposed canon defining the appropriateness of sexual conduct for clergy.

      The Deputies' Committee on Ministry considered the Bishops' substitute on Tuesday morning, but instead continued their plan to submit three resolutions for the Deputies to consider: the proposal from the House of Bishops that they had further amended (now A-104sa), the proposed canon from Bishop Frey (B-003), and the resolution declaring that all members have equal access to the selection process for ordination in the church (C-032, submitted by the Diocese of California)

      At the outset of debate, the Rev. Wallace A. Frey of Central New York, chair of the Ministry Committee, who was later to be elected Vice President of the House, told the deputations that his committee "had hoped to present a very clear package of legislation with which this house could deal clearly," including the original resolution A-104.  Because of what Frey termed "miscommunication or haste," the House of Bishops acted to recast the original measure before Deputies could consider it.  "Our situation is to do the best we can with what we have before us," Frey said, "given those actions."  Wallace Frey said his committee "has done considerable listening and thinking and talking and praying.  The issues in this special order that have been put before us touch people's minds and emotions."  He said that whatever the final decisions of the Deputies in the special order of business, "we will have assisted in furthering discussion and placing the possibility of choices clearly before the house."

      The three resolutions were introduced and "perfected" through a painstaking process of debate that lasted four hours.  Deputies decided to frame all three proposals before voting to adopt or reject them and, in a special order of business, determined that the first resolution would be voted upon before Deputies adjourned for the day Tuesday.  Frey's committee introduced resolution B-003 as amended, and recommended its defeat.  In clear-cut language, the proposed resolution stated, "All members of the clergy of this church shall abstain from genital [the committee's addition] sexual relations outside of Holy Matrimony."  At times the Deputies loudly voiced overwhelming opposition to amendments on the proposed resolutions, then listened in hushed silence to instructions from Dean Collins as he explained intricate voting procedures.

      Several deputies labeled definitions of heterosexual marriage hypocritical because the stated limitations were really aimed at gay men and lesbians and had little to do with heterosexual relationships as Bishop Frey had claimed.  The Rev. Warner Traynham, Deputy from Los Angeles, called the proposal "a retrograde ecclesiastical equivalent of sodomy laws.  In effect, it would stigmatize a certain segment of the population," he said.

      Results of Tuesday's vote on B-003 were to be released following the 11 a.m. special order of business on Wednesday . Deputies specified that they wished to vote on each resolution only after results from the preceding ballot had been announced.

Wednesday, July 17

      At the appointed time, the results of the vote on B-003 were announced.  In a vote by orders, the Deputies had decisively defeated the proposed canon.   A vote by orders means that clergy and laity vote separately, and each order must vote yes for the motion to pass.  Within every diocese, each order casts a separate vote and may register its  vote as yes, no, or divided.  A divided, i.e., evenly split, vote has the effect of a no vote, since an absolute majority is required.  The tally showed:

Laity:  114 possible votes, 58 needed for majority.

         46 yes;  47 no;  21 divided

Clergy:  116 possible votes, 59 needed for majority

          43 yes;  48 no;  25 divided

      The Deputies' defeat of the proposed canon produced a swift reaction from the floor as several deputies addressed the chair to protest.  The Very Rev. John Rodgers, Deputy from the Diocese of Pittsburgh and former Dean of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, read from a prepared statement: "I wish to inform you and this House of Deputies that I and many other Deputies and Alternate Deputies remain seated in this convention as loyal Episcopalians under protest and in order to protest."  His remarks to Dean David C. Collins, president of the house, were delivered "in the light of this House's unwillingness to affirm biblical and classical Anglican sexual morality as having canonical standing in our church."

      At noon, the Deputies moved on to balloting on substitute resolution A-104sa, the resolution approved by the Bishops, which Deputies had amended to include language from the Book of Common Prayer about what constitutes holy matrimony..

      The Deputies briefly considered extending debate on the compromise resolution (A-104sa) but the motion was defeated and the vote by orders was taken.  The House of Deputies overwhelmingly adopted an amended version of A-104sa approved by the bishops on Tuesday.

Laity:  112 possible votes, 57 needed for majority.

         99 yes;  9 no;  4 divided

Clergy:  115 possible votes, 58 needed for majority

         106 yes;  5 no;  4 divided

      The measure was returned to the House of Bishops for consideration of the editorial amendments the Deputies approved. 

      The third and final resolution being considered by the Deputies (C-032) was almost universally expected to be defeated.  The Bishops had discharged that resolution on Tuesday.  However, late Wednesday afternoon, the House of Deputies surprisingly approved C-032, which would have changed Title III, Canon 8, to read,"There is no right to ordination in this church.  Subject, however, to specified canonical requirements, all members shall have equal access to the selection process for ordination in this church."

      The vote adopting the resolution, a canonical change, was:   

Laity:  113 possible votes, 57 needed for majority.

         63 yes;  36 no;  14 divided

Clergy:  116 possible votes, 59 needed for majority

          67 yes;  38 no;  11 divided

      "Personally I was very surprised that the resolution (C-032) passed reasonably strongly in both orders," said the Rev. Wallace Frey.  "The initial hope of our committee was that it not be put in the package."

      Frey explained that the committee heard testimony from  "people who felt they did not have access to the ordination process."  He said the committee saw the canonical resolution in a far broader context than human sexuality.  "It speaks for itself," he said.  "All members of the church ought to be able to talk to their clergypersons about the possibility of entering the process of consideration for ordination."

      "There are women for whom that is an important," Frey said. They feel they have been foreclosed by dioceses which do not accept them." He said he personally did not interpret the measure as "local option," but that there were those who could interpret it in that way.  "We are dealing with many things that cannot be contained in legislative resolutions," Frey added.  "The church is part of a larger society dealing with many issues," he added, referring to divorce and remarriage.

      Not everyone was pleased with the Deputies' decisions.      Betty Douglas of Western Michigan said, "I'm disappointed.  I'm still hoping this church will open up.  But it's the best we could do at this point.  The Anglican way is to muddle along."    

      Judy Mayo of Fort Worth said, "We're very disappointed.  We expected that this possibly might be the outcome but we were very much hoping that we could, for once at this convention, make a really decisive stand.  A lot of conservatives were very concerned and voting with us ... but we know God is still in control, and we'll continue to stand up for what we believe firmly is Holy Scripture and tradition."

      The Rev. Titus Presler of Massachusetts said, "I was astounded by the passage of C-032. I think that's precisely the language on which battle lines were drawn in Detroit -- although practically speaking, it probably won't have any effect."    

      Others were more optimistic.  The Rev. Bill Doubleday of New York said, "I think it's a hopeful sign that the church can journey together towards the future, dealing with the reality of people's lives and ministries on the verge of the 21st century."

Thursday, July 18

      The morning began with a barrage of Episcopalians United for Revelation, Renewal and Reformation newsletters headlined "GAY CAUSE WINS THREE."  In the lead article, Julia Duin began, "Conservative efforts to stave off the ordination of homosexuals took a triple punch Wednesday when the House of Deputies passed resolution C-032, which is favorable to gay ordination."

      The Denver Post also reported the C-032 adoption as a gay victory.  "Kim Byham, a leader in the gay Episcopal movement, said: 'This might cause some bishops who wanted to ordain gays to now ordain gays.  But I don't think there will be that many backbone implants for those who still don't have the guts to do it.'"

      Bishop Frey was also quoted on Thursday.  "I didn't really expect that [B-003] would pass.  I wasn't overly optimistic.  The fact it didn't pass doesn't convince me I was wrong in making the proposal.  "In all likelihood I'll be back in three years with something similar," unless he gets struck by lightening "either physically or intellectually."  Frey added, "My guess is that by that time we'll have enough experience to make it more attractive.  Most good resolutions get voted down one or two times," he commented, recalling the first vote in Denver on the ordination of women.

      Following some last-minute haggling, the House of Deputies that afternoon concurred with the House of Bishops' final, editorial amendments to the A-104sa the Bishops had approved on Tuesday.  The Deputies ratified the resolution in an overwhelming voice vote.

-----

This story is based on reports by Mary Lee Simpson, Steve Weston, and Mike Barwell

********************

OTHER INTEGRITY EVENTS

by Larkette Lein

      In addition to the highly publicized Eucharist at the Cathedral and the lunchtime address by Bishop Barbara Harris, Integrity sponsored a series of lectures and workshops and a special Eucharist honoring the work of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches.

      One of the speakers was Michael Bussee, a family therapist from Orange County, California, an ex-"ex-gay" and a founder of Exodus, the umbrella organization for such groups around the country.  Bussee told rapt audiences at two lectures about the way the regenerative therapy groups misuse language.  Regeneration, the Baltimore-based Exodus affiliate headed by Allen Medinger which had a booth at convention, in its brochures defined homosexuality as an attraction, but defined an ex-gay as someone who no longer acts on those attractions - but tacitly acknowledges he or she may still have the attraction.  Heterosexuality, in contrast, is defined in terms that do not include emotional and erotic attraction, so anyone can be a heterosexual.

      Bussee received applause when he said, "Society sends three messages.  Don't be gay; if you are, be miserable; if you're not miserable, shut up!"

      He also noted the damage done to clients, citing several who attempted or committed suicide.  "A drop in the intensity of an 'ex-gay's' sex drive is seen as part of the healing, when in reality it is a classic symptom of major depression," he said.  The damage also is inflicted on those who marry "ex-gays"  "To make love to my wife while fantasizing of loving men was to violate her."

      Bussee spoke against funding Exodus before a committee meeting, but he maintained very friendly relations with the "ex-gay" representatives at convention and counseled Integrity to do the same.  "After all," he said, "we're all gay."

      Also giving a series of well-received lectures was Dr. William Countryman, Professor at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley, California, and author of "Dirt, Greed and Sex."

      Dr. Countryman is now perhaps the right-wing's most feared author, but his charming presentation made it hard to consider him threatening.  "Whatever has made homosexuality a hot topic for Episcopalians is certainly not the amount of space the Bible devotes to the subject," he said.  "The reason for Biblical studies is to protect the Bible from us and our preconceived ideas and to let it speak to us in surprising ways."

      In Leviticus, Countryman reported, the word "abomination" means "it is a disgusting thing" but it doesn't mean "this is a heinous sin."  Rather, it refers to an offense against the purity code.  "We assume our culture's code is the same as every other culture's code.  Israel's holiness code was part of their religion.  Jesus set aside the purity code and insists on purity of heart -- to love God and neighbor."

      Regarding the Letter to the Romans,  Countryman said that there is a translation problem -- the acts described are not sinful -- they're described as unclean, shameful and contrary to nature, but never as sinful.  Paul's focus in Romans is to get Christian factions to sit down together to a meal.  Jewish Christians were concerned with purity codes and refused to eat with Gentile Christians.  "Romans 14:14 'nothing is unclean in and of itself,' means it's your thinking so that makes it unclean.  However, you cannot impose your thinking on your neighbor.  Purity codes are alright if you need them, but a violation of the purity code is not a sin."

      Countryman also suggested that Integrity no longer refer to those who oppose us as "traditionalists" or "conservatives," but rather as "legalists."

      There is also a reprise of the popular workshop developed by Dorothy Fuller, Alternate Deputy from El Camino Real, "Another Room Where We Can Talk," an outgrowth of the 1988 General Convention's call for dialogue.  A number of Integrity volunteers joined in sharing their stories.

********************

HOW DEPUTIES VOTED ON THREE MAIN RESOLUTIONS

 TYPE    TOTAL   NECESSARY    YES    NO    DIVIDED      RESULT

TALLY OF BALLOT # 21:  *B-003 Sexual Relations Outside Holy Matrimony*

LAY........114......58.........46....47......21.........DEFEATED

CLERICAL...116......59.........43....48......25.........DEFEATED

TALLY OF BALLOT # 22:   *A-104s - Compromise Resolution*

LAY........112......57.........99.....9.......4.........CARRIED

CLERICAL...115......58........106.....5.......4.........CARRIED

TALLY OF BALLOT # 23:  *C-032 Access to the Ordination Process*

LAY........113......57.........63....36......14.........CARRIED

CLERICAL...116......59.........67....38......11.........CARRIED

                    B-003          A-104s          C-032

                         CLER-           CLER-           CLER-

DIOCESE          LAY     ICAL    LAY     ICAL    LAY     ICAL  

Alabama..........YES.....YES.....DIVIDED.NO......NO......NO

Alaska...........NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Albany...........NO......YES.....NO......NO......YES.....NO

Arizona..........DIVIDED.DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Arkansas.........YES.....YES.....YES.....DIVIDED.NO......NO

Atlanta..........NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....NO

Bethlehem........NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

California.......NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Central Florida..YES.....NO......NO......YES.....NO......NO

Central Gulf

   Coast.........YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Central New

   York..........NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Central Penn-

  sylvania.......DIVIDED.DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....NO......NO

Chicago..........DIVIDED.DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....YES.....DIVIDED

Churches

 in Europe.......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....NO......NO

Colombia.........YES.....YES.....---.....---.....YES.....YES

Colorado.........YES.....NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Connecticut......NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Cuernavaca.......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Dallas...........YES.....YES.....NO......YES.....NO......NO

Delaware.........YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....DIVIDED.DIVIDED

Dominican

   Republic......DIVIDED.DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

East Carolina....DIVIDED.DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....DIVIDED.YES

East Tennessee...NO......DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....NO......NO

Eastern Oregon...NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Easton...........NO......DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Eau Claire.......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....NO......NO

Ecuador..........---.....YES.....---.....YES.....---.....YES

El Camino Real...NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

El Salvador......NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Florida..........YES.....YES.....NO......NO......NO......NO

Fond Du Lac......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....NO......NO

Fort Worth.......YES.....YES.....NO......NO......NO......NO

Georgia..........YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Guatemala........YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Haiti............---.....YES.....---.....YES.....---.....NO

Hawaii...........NO......NO......YES.....YES.....DIVIDED.YES

Honduras.........DIVIDED.NO......---.....YES.....DIVIDED.YES

Idaho............DIVIDED.DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....DIVIDED.YES

Indianapolis.....DIVIDED.NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Iowa.............DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....NO

Kansas...........NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Kentucky.........DIVIDED.NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Lexington........YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....DIVIDED.NO

Litoral..........YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Long Island......NO......NO......YES.....DIVIDED.DIVIDED.YES

Los Angeles......NO......DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....DIVIDED.DIVIDED

Louisiana........YES.....NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Maine............NO......DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Maryland.........NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Massachusetts....NO......NO......DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....YES

Mexico...........NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Michigan.........NO......DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Milwaukee........DIVIDED.DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Minnesota........NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Mississippi......DIVIDED.NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Missouri.........NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Montana..........DIVIDED.DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....YES.....NO

Nebraska.........YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....NO......YES

Nevada...........DIVIDED.NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

New Hampshire....NO......NO......DIVIDED.YES.....NO......DIVIDED

New Jersey.......NO......DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....YES.....DIVIDED

New York.........NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Newark...........NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Nicaragua........YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....NO......YES

North Carolina...DIVIDED.NO......YES.....YES.....NO......YES

North Dakota.....NO......DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Northern

   California....YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....NO......NO

Northern

   Indiana.......YES.....DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....DIVIDED.DIVIDED

Northern Mexico..YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Northern

   Michigan......NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Northwest Texas..YES.....DIVIDED.NO......YES.....NO......NO

Northwestern

   Penn..........YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....NO......NO

Ohio.............NO......NO......YES.....DIVIDED.YES.....YES

Oklahoma.........YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....DIVIDED.NO

Olympia..........NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Oregon...........DIVIDED.NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Panama...........NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Pennsylvania.....NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Pittsburgh.......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....NO......NO

Quincy...........YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....NO......NO

Rhode Island.....NO......DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Rio Grande.......DIVIDED.DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....YES.....DIVIDED

Rochester........NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

San Diego........NO......NO......DIVIDED.YES.....DIVIDED.YES

San Joaquin......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....NO......NO

South Carolina...YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....NO......NO

South Dakota.....YES.....YES.....NO......YES.....NO......DIVIDED

Southeast

   Florida.......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....DIVIDED.NO

Southeastern

   Mexico........YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Southern Ohio....DIVIDED.NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Southern

   Virginia......YES.....NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Southwest

   Florida.......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....NO......NO

Southwestern

   Virginia......NO......NO......YES.....YES.....DIVIDED.DIVIDED

Spokane..........YES.....NO......YES.....YES.....NO......YES

Springfield......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....NO......NO

Taiwan...........YES.....YES.....---.....YES.....---.....YES

Tennessee........YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....NO......YES

Texas............DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....NO......NO......NO

Upper South

   Carolina......NO......DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....NO......NO

Utah.............NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Vermont..........NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Virgin Islands...NO......DIVIDED.NO......NO......NO......DIVIDED

Virginia.........NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....NO

Washington.......NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

West Missouri....NO......NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

West Tennessee...YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....NO......YES

West Texas.......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....NO......NO

West Virginia....YES.....DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....YES.....NO

Western Kansas...YES.....NO......DIVIDED.YES.....DIVIDED.DIVIDED

Western

   Louisiana.....YES.....DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....NO......NO

Western Mass.....DIVIDED.NO......YES.....YES.....NO......NO

Western Mexico...YES.....YES.....YES.....YES.....NO......NO

Western

   Michigan......DIVIDED.NO......YES.....YES.....YES.....YES

Western New

   York..........NO......DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....YES.....NO

Western North

   Carolina......NO......DIVIDED.YES.....YES.....NO......NO

Wyoming..........NO......YES.....NO......YES.....YES.....YES

Several lay and clerical deputations asked to be polled on their votes on B-003 (Frey Canon).  While poling is ordinarily to show how one voted in a divided deputation, most deputations making the request were unanimously supportive.  They included Central Florida - Lay, Colorado - Lay, Ft. Worth - Clerical & Lay, Northern Indiana - Lay, Northwest Texas - Lay, and San Joaquin - Clerical and Lay.  The Mississippi Clerical Deputation was unanimously opposed, while the Lay Deputation was divided (Cheney and Dukes - yes, Smith and Thames - no).  The two other polled divided Clerical Deputations were Northern Indiana (Kallenberg and Comer - yes, Hyndman and Bizzaro - no) and Northwest Texas (Veal and Puckett - yes, Haney and Chatham - no).  

********************

'KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE PRIZE,' HARRIS TELLS INTEGRITY

By Sarah Moore

      The church cannot make its members love one another, but it can legislate how people must treat each other, the lone woman bishop in the Episcopal Church told an audience at an Integrity

lunch-hour meeting on July 17 at the Hyatt Regency Hotel.  [This presentation was free in keeping with Integrity's commitment to a scaled-down convention,  The proceeds from the collection were designated for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Legacy Fund.]

      When the church loves those it finds hard to love, they will discover they are loving themselves as well," Bishop Barbara Harris told about 200 people at the presentation.

      The church will continue the struggle against "isms" of society, Harris said.  "It's important to choose the battleground

carefully.  A confused church is not the arena in which to fight at this moment."

      People first must look to society's role in areas of human

rights, the bishop said.  "If we win in the courts and in the streets, the church will, kicking or screaming or limping along, follow.  It always has.  Always will.  It has never taken the lead."  "It is slow and steady which wins the race.  Keep your eyes on the prize and we can prevail.  We can be a church of all races, end racism and affirm the dignity of every human being."

      A deeper question faces a church where "clergy who bless

everything from fishing fleets to fox hunts and submarines to bathrooms, cannot bless people in a committed relationship," she said.

      "All are called to make Christ's love known by example;  it is part of our baptismal covenant," she said.  Yet the church has decided who is "in" and who is "out."  "Those who are inside the circle are those who subscribe to the values.  Those who are outside are those who object to the system."

      Harris told gay and lesbian people "you are being hustled by the church."

      "In street language," she said, "the church is pimping you. They want your time, talent and treasure but do not accept your

humanity. Nor does (the church) want you to leave.  Because if you leave, they don't have anybody left to beat up on."

      Some of your worst enemies are closet clergy and deputies, she continued.  "Each is entitled to their own closet, but they should not be able to use it as a sniper's nest."

      Harris said she does not hold much promise for immediate change in acceptance of all peoples.  People must "dig in the heels for the long haul," she said.

      "General Convention is not where we try to plow new ground. It is where you try to cut your losses."

[editor's note: this story is reprinted exactly as it appeared in the Convention Daily of July 18, 1991.  Note that the editor and author did not feel it necessary to define Integrity.]

********************

THE RACISM/HETEROSEXISM CONNECTION

by Larkette Lein

      Harris' comments on racism and heterosexism showed the flip side of the statement made by Bishop Orris Walker at the July 17 morning press conference.  When asked whether people of color resented the emphasis on homosexuality that threatens to change this Convention from one dedicated to ending racism to "the 70th Genital Convention," Walker replied in words heard also at the Racism Audit last night:  "Oppression is oppression.  No one is truly free unless all are free."  He went on to describe how "special people" were treated when he was growing up, saying that the outcast seemed to be less marginalized among the black community.

      According to The Rev. Warner Traynham, an African-American delegate from Los Angeles, "One would like to think that the experience of oppression would make you more sympathetic," but noted that many people of color are actually more homophobic in their eagerness to be accepted by the dominant culture.  "They see it as disadvantageous to deviate from the norm."

      Integrity's founder, Dr. Louie Crew, stated, "It pains me as a gay, white Episcopalian that General Convention is one of the whitest assemblies I ever attend.  Over half of my family, half of my parish, and half of colleagues at Rutgers University are people of color.  General Convention does not mirror the American Community."

********************

CONVENTION VIDEOS

Video copies of some portions of General Convention can be ordered through Episcopal Parish Services.  Bishop Barbara Harris' sermon to Triennial can be ordered for approximately $12.  Also available are highlights from the opening Eucharist and the convention summary, "Epistle From Phoenix."  These videos will cost approximately $30 each.  For more information, please contact:  Episcopal Parish Services, 815 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10017.

********************

THE ROAD TO COMPROMISE: BISHOPS

Taken from various ENS reports

Wednesday, July 10 - Sunday, July 14

      The first few days in the House of Bishops were filled with tension.  Many dreaded beginning the discussion of human sexuality and when the subject was first broached, in considering whether to add lesbian and gay members to the Commission on Human Affairs, the explosion was so great that the Bishops decided to hold a closed session to work out differences in private.

      The hope for a reduction of tensions in Bishops following Saturday's closed executive session was dashed Sunday afternoon when Bishop John Spong of Newark informed the house that his remarks in the closed session had been leaked.  Spong rose at the end of the session to announce that a "top official" of the Episcopal Synod of America had "told me the contents of my remarks in the executive session.  I think you need to know that the confidentiality of this house has been violated, and the trust of this house has been diminished."

      Said one bishop later, who declined to be identified, "There is not a bishop in that house that wasn't shocked by that news." He added that he felt the "credibility of the House of Bishops is on the line."

      Following Spong's announcement, Bishop George Reynolds of Tennessee asked that the house begin each day with a half-hour executive session "or perhaps longer if needed."  Reynolds said the closed sessions would allow the bishops to "check with one another [on] how we're doing.  From what we just heard, it tells me that we're not doing very well."

      To overcome some of the bishops' frustrations, Presiding Bishop Edmond L. Browning proposed calling a special, closed House of Bishops meeting next March to discuss confidential matters and the relationships among bishops.  The bishops will "meet just by ourselves" in a retreat setting, Browning said.  "We need that kind of time."

      "Being a bishop is a hell of a job," Browning added.  "You get it coming and going."  He also said that "it makes a great deal of difference what one diocese does, to the rest of the church.  We have not been sensitive to one another," Browning concluded.

Monday, July 15

      After three days of executive sessions including one that morning, the House of Bishops Monday afternoon finally turned in ernest to the issue of human sexuality.  The bishops' announcement that they would open debate on sexuality issues came as a surprise.

      Following three-and-a-half hours of intense debate, the bishops adopted a substitute resolution that purported to uphold traditional teachings on marriage while admitting the church is not ready to make a decision, and calling for further study -- starting at the local level.

      Bishop Frank Allan of Atlanta, chair of the Bishops Committee on Ministry, presented a substitute resolution to the resolution from the Standing Commission on Human Affairs (A-104), which had recommended that decisions about ordination be determined by dioceses.

      At the same time, Allan said the ministry committee

recommended that all other resolutions -- including the proposal for a canonical change calling for clergy to abstain from all sexual relations outside of holy matrimony, the Frey proposal (B-003) -- be discharged from consideration.

      Allan admitted that part of the reason for offering the substitute resolution was that the legislative process is

inadequate for the church to reach a decision at this time.  He told the bishops that there was a strong consensus in the committee "that we did not want to legislate canons." Describing the substitute resolution as a compromise "that represents a spectrum in this house," Allan admitted it was not a great revelation.

      In the formal debate following Allan's report, the bishops generally commended the ministry committee's efforts to close the gap between the proposal from the Standing Commission on Human Affairs and the canonical change proposed by Bishop William C. Frey

      A number of bishops spoke in favor of the proposal to postpone the decision.  "I know that regardless of how we vote, we are deciding who is in and who is out in the Episcopal Church. I find that truly intolerable," said Bishop David Johnson of Massachusetts.  "I find myself in a diocese which is a varied as the Episcopal Church.  It's a wonderful diocese, and we do live with that ambiguity."  Johnson said that even though his reading for the past year has focused on "nothing but sexuality" issues, he added that "I still am not clear about what ultimate truth is on these issues.  And I don't think any of us are."

      Bishop Paul Moore, Jr., retired Bishop of New York, defended the proposal as "the most Anglican thing we can do, to be ambiguous, to be loose, to be messy, but to be honest enough to have the integrity to say we simply can't decide the will of God."

      He reminded the bishops that the same kind of discussion has occurred in the church in the past over such issues as civil rights and the ordination of women.  The debate over sexuality already has occupied the church for a long time, Moore said, but "I say that is all right.  This is so complex an issue that it warrants long, painful agony.  Long, painful agony is what the body of Christ is all about."

      If the bishops vote to absolutely refuse ordination of homosexuals, "we would also lose hundreds of thousands of people," Moore asserted.  "The hemorrhaging would go either way if a flat decision were made."  As Bishop of New York he had worked with "extremely holy" clergy who were gay, Moore said. "There is no way I can say they are not worthy to be priests."

      "I think this resolution, although it doesn't move one inch in the direction that I want to go in ideologically, is great," said Bishop Douglas E. Theuner of New Hampshire."I don't think we're going to solve this by some kind of a vote of the majority of the faithful," Theuner said.  "A majority vote of the faithful brought our Lord Jesus Christ to the cross because he did not meet the expectations of their traditional religious experience."

      Postponing the decision will permit dioceses who have not completed the study of sexuality called for by the 1988 General Convention to do so, Theuner said.

      "I left the [open hearing] last evening feeling as though I had been assaulted, assaulted by the truth," said Bishop Arthur E. Walmsley of Connecticut.  "The truth that I was assaulted by in every instance was partial truth."  Walmsley said "the truth of my heterosexual marriage of 37 years" was confirmed by "what many of the speakers said to me about the nature of God's purpose for heterosexual marriage."

      Other testimony, Walmsley said, reminded him of a priest whom he described as "one of the outstanding clergy of our diocese," who "had lived with the same person since they were both undergraduates at an all-male college 30 years ago.  I do not presume to know the mystery of human sexuality.  But I do know that both of these [experiences] are true," Walmsley said. "And if we do not in some fashion move forward as bishops together to find a way to affirm the truth that is more comprehensive than the partial truth, we will be failing the church in the future as we have failed the church of the past."

      Other bishops called for a firm vote on the issues brought to General Convention.

      Bishop Terence Kelshaw of Rio Grande challenged earlier assertions that "lifelong monogamous heterosexual union contracted in marriage is not [merely] a habit of the 20th century white population."  Rather, it is a "creation law," Kelshaw said, and outside of that creation law, "we will always act in a sick manner."

      "It seems to me that the underlying issue that we're faced with, is the issue of power in our church," Kelshaw said.  "Are we as bishops in council committed to one another, are we going to lead this church, or are we going to be led by pressure groups?"  Pressure groups act with "compassion," Kelshaw warned, but "in my feeling, mistaken compassion.  Pressure groups always begin with how they feel and not with how God has revealed himself."

      Several others warned that the absence of a clear stand would permit the continuation of ordinations of practicing homosexuals. 

      Bishop Andrew H. Fairfield of North Dakota noted that the issue at the moment is that the traditional teaching in the church that "sex is good in heterosexual marriage" is being confronted by "a practice that says the opposite.  We have the option here of doing something or doing nothing," Fairfield said. "The proposal is the latter.  It's to stand by and to passively let a new teaching come into the church."  Should the proposal pass, Fairfield warned, "the ordinations will continue.  People will continue to leave the church.  The situation will not be improved."

      Bishop Gerald N. McAllister of Oklahoma said that as one who feels the time has come to go ahead and make some decisions, "I'd like the playing field to be level, to have the same rules govern everybody."  While "some of us are being asked to wait," others "might go ahead with whatever they want to do," McAllister said. The bishops should "at least leave here with everyone agreed that we're on hold."

      Frey challenged a suggestion that to establish laws is to be legalistic.  "The question is whose ox is being gored?" Frey asked.  "Everyone wants to draw the line someplace.  We are confessing our powerlessness by wanting to do a good thing to be open and accepting, but admitting the fact that we have no power to heal and to cure and to save," Frey said.

      Bishop James Moodey of Ohio countered that even though there are people "waiting for a collision," eager to see the church make a clear-cut vote, "the truth of the matter is that the Episcopal Church is still not clear on these issues."The new resolution, Moodey said, provides a fresh choice for discovering a way to achieve consensus, and avoid living in tensions and "painful ambiguity."  It won't be painless, he warned.  "It provides us with an opportunity of what I believe the church needs: to listen more and discuss more openly with one another."  

      Yet Bishop William Wantland of Eau Claire warned that "it's quite obvious that, if we do nothing, we are going to continue to have ordinations in violation of the stated teaching, which is going to be a continuing hemorrhage for this church."

      After a short recess, the bishops reconvened to consider legislation on the committee's proposal.  During the course of a bewildering three hours the bishops debated the merits of several substitute resolutions to the ministry committee's new resolution, and a number of amendments to substitutes for the substitute.  Early in the debate Bishop John Howe of Central Florida requested that the committee resolution be amended to include a provision -- similar to Frey's canon -- calling on "bishops, priests, and deacons to abstain from sexual relations outside of marriage." Debate was spirited, with several bishops labeling the amendment "a subterfuge."  Bishop Barbara Harris of Massachusetts opposed it on the grounds that "it limits wholesome morality to the genitals."

      In one of the session's few lighter moments, the Presiding Bishop replied to her statement with, "Thank you, sir."  And then rushed down from the stage to give her a hug and apologize for the wrong-gender response.  

      In the session's only roll-call vote, Bishops defeated Howe's proposal 93 to 85.

      The debate came full circle near the close of the session when Bishop Paul Moore asked that the original resolution of the Standing Commission on Human Affairs be substituted for the ministry committee's measure.  By that time, the bishops had sufficiently argued all points, allowing them to return to vote on the original motion by Allan.  It was overwhelmingly approved.

      In a press conference following the legislative session, Allan said, "This will not prohibit bishops from ordaining gay and lesbian people.  I think the point of this is that the status quo is still in effect.  We have not affirmed the blessing of same-sex unions.  We have not at this point affirmed the ordination of [practicing homosexuals].  I don't think this a victory for either side."

      Allan cautioned this should not be seen as simply a

postponement of the legislation.  "We're not saying we're putting off for three years any kind of decision," he said.  "We're talking about entering into some kind of dialogue with the church.  We're not saying we're going to come back in three years and vote on it."

      The emphasis of the effort to initiate dialogue in dioceses and provinces will be to "get the congregations involved in this," Allan said.  "We're attempting to get this worked out into the local congregation.  "I believe that moral discourse is not done through legislation.  It's not done through making laws.  It is done by people dealing with these issues and talking to one another about them," Allan added.

      Allan said he hopes the result of the dialogue will be a pastoral letter on sexuality.  He also stressed that the study would not be "just of homosexuality.  We're not going to study gay and lesbian people again.  It's a study about sexuality.

      "We may not be the smartest, we may not be the best, but we are the bishops," Allan said.  "But also we are the church; it's not [only] bishops, but there are the deputies.  Consensus will have to be forged in this church at some point.  We can not forge a consensus simply from on top.  We have to engage people."

Wednesday, July 17

      Making a one-word change -- and adding an attribution  -- in the compromise resolution on sexuality (A-104sa), the House of Bishops concurred with the House of Deputies as the convention's debate on sexuality crawled to a finish.

      The bishops agreed with the deputies' editorial amendments of the resolution, but insisted that the resolution retain original language stating that "that this General Convention affirms [rather than acknowledges] that the teaching of the Episcopal Church is that physical sexual expression is appropriate only within the lifelong, monogamous" relationship of Holy Matrimony as defined in the Book of Common Prayer.  An additional amendment attributed a quote added by the deputies "as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer."

      The amended document was returned to Deputies, where it was adopted as church policy.

Friday, July 19

      The issue of ordaining gays and lesbians was resurrected again in the House of Bishops Friday shortly after they defeated a move to censure two bishops for ordaining gays and lesbians during the past year.

      A short and sharp debate near the close of its session prompted the bishops to soundly defeat a resolution (C-032) which had been resurrected and adopted Thursday by the House of Deputies.  The resolution -- discharged by the bishops on Tuesday after adopting the compromise resolution on sexuality -- would have guaranteed that "all members shall have equal access to the selection process for ordination in this church."

      A common concern of bishops opposing the equal-access

resolution was that its approval would damage what bishops have described as trust nurtured through a week of executive sessions.  Bishop Alex Dickson, Jr., of West Tennessee, speaking against the measure, said "that to take action now with C-032 will further erode the trust in this house which is at a very low level at this point."  It also would complicate the discussion at the meeting of bishops next March on the issues that led to the move to censure Bishops Ronald Haines of Washington and Walter Righter of Newark, he added.

      Because the measure amends canon law, Dickson said, it could be used by some bishops as an excuse for going ahead with ordaining gays and lesbians.  "I have every reason to believe that members of this house will interpret this canon in such a way as to justify the decision they have already made to ordain sexually active homosexual persons," Dickson concluded.

      Bishop Thomas Ray of Northern Michigan argued that the equal-access measure addresses more than opening the ordination process to gays and lesbians.  "I've discussed this with people who say this issue is much broader than that," Ray said.  "It involves those who are discriminated against because of age, because of physical disabilities, and because of our myopia around the issue of sexuality."

Saturday, July 20

      At the final press conference Presiding Bishop Browning shared a number of insights.  He came with anxieties , "Is there still a center in the life of this church?  The compromise says there is a center that holds together and listens to both sides to seek a consensus.  There is a greater willingness to keep talking now than there was at the start of convention.  The Bible studies facilitated that." 

      When asked what message General Convention sent to other denominations, Browning responded that the Presbyterians hadn't talked at the local level and that was their mistake.  "We are trying to get that discussion to happen at our grass roots with the third resolve of the compromise resolution," he said.  "Gays and lesbians must be heard."

      He also cautioned, "Don't use the defeat of the Frey canon (B-003) to say the Episcopal church doesn't have standards, that wasn't its purpose."

      When asked if he had a message to the lesbian/gay community, Bishop Browning said, "Don't look at the first resolve, look at the second and the acknowledgment of your pain.  We don't want the issue to go away.  We don't want you to go away.  We want to keep working and we want gay and lesbian voices as a part of it."

-----

This article is taken from Episcopal News Service reports by Steve Weston, James H. Thrall, Mike Barwell and David Skidmore.  The press conference portion is from Larkette Lein.

********************

HOWE AMENDMENT TO ADD FREY RESOLUTION

TO THE COMPROMISE

Vote of Bishops by Seniority

V    CONS    NAME                       TITLE

Y    1945    Gooden, Reginald H.        Retired

-    1946    Emrich, Richard S.         Retired

N    1948    Gordon, William, J., Jr.   Retired

Y    1954    Harte, Joseph M.           Retired

Y    1958    Saucedo, Jose G.           Cuernavaca

A    1958    Rose, David S.             Retired

N    1962    Sanders, William E.        East Tennessee

N    1963    Barrett, George W.         Retired

N    1963    Putnam, Frederick W.       Retired

N    1964    Moore, Paul, Jr.           Retired

Y    1964    Reed, David B.             Kentucky

Y    1964    Bailey, Scott Field        Retired

N    1965    Davidson, William          Retired

N    1967    Burt, John H.              Retired

Y    1967    Frey, William C.           Dean, Trinity School

A    1968    Browning, Edmond L.        Presiding Bishop

N    1968    Appleyard, Robert B.       Retired

Y    1968    Robinson, Harold B.        Retired

Y    1968    Rivera, Victor M.          Retired

Y    1969    Haynsworth, G. Edward      Retired

N    1970    Davies, Donald A.          Retired

Y    1970    Stewart, Alexander D.      Ch. Pension Fund

N    1971    Stough, Furman C.          Church Center

N    1971    Krumm, John McG.           Retired

N    1971    Garnier, Luc A.J.          Haiti

Y    1971    Varley, Robert P.          Retired

Y    1971    Vogel, Arthur A.           Retired

N    1971    Henton, Willis R.          Retired

N    1971    Charles, E. Otis           Dean, EDS

N    1971    McGehee, H. Coleman        Retired

N    1972    Righter, Walter C.         Retired

Y    1972    Shirley, Lemeul B.         Retired

N    1972    Sims, Bennett J.           Retired

A    1972    Isaac, Telesforo A.        Dominican Republic

Y    1972    Turner, Edward M.          Retired

Y    1972    Sheridan, William          Retired

Y    1972    Cox, William J.            Retired

Y    1973    Carral-Solar, Anselmo      A-Texas

Y    1973    Atkinson, Robert P.        A-Virginia

Y    1973    Parsons, Donald J.         Retired

Y    1974    Bigliardi, Matthew P.      Europe

Y    1974    Wolterstorff, Robert       Retired

Y    1974    Gray, Duncan M., Jr.       Mississippi

Y    1974    Cerveny, Frank S.          Florida

N    1975    Belshaw, G.P. Mellick      New Jersey

N    1975    Jones, William A., Jr.     Missouri

Y    1976    Cochrane, Robert H.        Retired

Y    1976    Brown, James B.            Louisiana

N    1976    Vache, C. Charles          Southern Virginia

N    1976    Spong, John S.             Newark

Y    1976    Heistand, Joseph T.        Arizona

Y    1976    Mayson, H. Irving          S-Michigan

Y    1976    Warner, James D.           Retired

Y    1977    McAllister, Gerald N.      Retired

N    1977    Jones, Edward W.           Indianapolis

N    1977    Jones, Bobby G.            Wyoming

N    1978    Anderson, Robert M.        Minnesota

N    1978    Child, C. Judson           Retired

Y    1978    Thompson, John L.          Northern California

N    1979    Schofield, Calvin O.       Southeast Florida

N    1979    Light, A. Heath            Southwest Virginia

N    1979    Swing, William E.          California

Y    1979    Beckham, William A.        Upper South Carolina

N    1979    Dennis, Walter D.          S-New York

N    1979    Sanders, B. Sydney         East Carolina

N    1979    Walmsley, Arthur E.        Connecticut

N    1980    Lewis, David H., Jr.       Retired

N    1980    Hopkins, Harold A., Jr.    Church Center

N    1980    Estill, Robert W.          North Carolina

Y    1980    Huerto-Ramos, Claro        Southeast Mexico

N    1980    Hunt, George N. III        Rhode Island

N    1980    Kimsey, Rustin R.          Eastern Oregon

Y    1980    Stevens, William J.        Fond du Lac

Y    1980    Benitez, Maurice M.        Texas

N    1980    Donovan, Herbert A.        Arkansas

Y    1980    Allison, C. Fitzsimons     Retired

Y    1980    Wantland, William C.       Eau Claire

Y    1980    McNutt, Charlie F., Jr.    Central Pennsylvania

Y    1980    Hulsey, Sam B.             Northwest Texas

N    1981    Wolfrum, William H.        Retired

Y    1981    Duvall, Charles F.         Central Gulf Coast

N    1981    Whitaker, O'Kelley         Central New York

Y    1981    Ashby, John F.             Western Kansas

N    1981    Grein, Richard F.          New York

Y    1981    Hathaway, Alden M.         Pittsburgh

Y    1981    Espinoza-Venegas, Sam      Western Mexico

Y    1981    Coleridge, Clarence        S-Connecticut

Y    1982    Guerra-Soria, Armando      Guatemala

Y    1982    Hultstrand, Donald M.      Springfield

N    1982    Eastman, A. Theodore       Maryland

N    1982    Birney, David B. IV        A-Massachusetts

N    1982    Ray, Thomas K.             Northern Michigan

Y    1982    Charlton, Gordon T.        Retired

Y    1982    Morton, C. Brinkley        San Diego

N    1982    Dyer, J.M. Mark            Bethlehem

Y    1983    Dickson, Alex D., Jr.      West Tennessee

N    1983    Moodey, James R.           Ohio

N    1983    Sorge, Elliot L.           Easton

Y    1983    Patterson, Donis D.        Dallas

Y    1984    Shipps, Harry W.           Georgia

N    1984    Ottley, James H.           Panama

Y    1984    Frade, Leopold             Honduras

N    1984    Pettit, Vincent K.         Retired

Y    1984    Ball, David S.             Albany

N    1984    Wissmann, Andrew F.        Western Massachusetts

N    1984    Burrill, William G.        Rochester

Y    1984    Lee, Peter J.              Virginia

N    1984    Anderson, Craig B.         South Dakota

Y    1984    White, Roger J.            Milwaukee

N    1984    Chalfant, Edward C.        Maine

Y    1984    Wimberly, Don A.           Lexington

A    1984    Meeks, Howard S.           Resigned

Y    1985    Pope, Clarence C., Jr.     Ft Worth

Y    1985    Garcia-Monteil, Martin     S-Mexico

N    1985    Downs-Higgs, Sturdie W.    Nicaragua

N    1985    Griswold, Frank T. III     Chicago

Y    1985    Harris, Rogers S.          Southwest Florida

N    1985    Vest, Frank H., Jr.        C-Southern Virginia

Y    1985    Carr, W. Franklin          A-Upper South Carolina

A    1985    Reynolds, George L.        Tennessee

N    1985    Johnson, David E.          Massachusetts

Y    1985    Ladehoff, Robert L.        Oregon

Y    1986    MacNaughton, John H.       West Texas

N    1986    Jones, Charles I.          Montana

N    1986    Bartlett, Allen L., Jr.    Pennsylvania

N    1986    Theuner, Douglas E.        New Hampshire

N    1986    Swenson, Daniel L.         Vermont

Y    1986    Miller, Robert O.          Alabama

N    1986    Zabriskie, Stewart C.      Nevada

N    1986    Bowman, David C.           Western New York

N    1986    Williams, Arthur B.        S-Ohio

N    1986    Bates, George E.           Utah

N    1986    Haines, Ronald H.          Washington

Y    1986    Gray, Francis C.           Northern lndiana

n    1986    Tennis, C. Cabell          Delaware

N    1986    Hart, Donald P.            Hawaii

N    1987    Allen, Frank K.            Atlanta

Y    1987    Taylor, E. Don             Virgin Islands

Y    1987    Rowthorn, Jeffrey W.       S-Connecticut

Y    1988    McArthur, Earl N.          S-West Texas

Y    1988    MacBurney, Edward H.       Quincy

Y    1988    Moody, Robert M.           Oklahoma

Y    1988    Chien, John C-T            Taiwan

N    1988    Walker, Orris G.           Long Island

N    1988    Borsch, Frederick H.       Los Angeles

Y    1988    Thompson, Herbert          C-Southern Ohio

N    1988    Epting, C. Christopher     Iowa

-    1988    Turner, Franklin D.        S-Pennsylvania

Y    1988    Schofield, David M.        San Joaquin

N    1988    Wood, R. Stewart           Michigan

N    1989    Harris, Barbara C.         S-Massachusetts

Y    1989    Buchanan, John C.          West Missouri

Y    1989    Kelshaw, Terence           Rio Grande

Y    1989    Johnson, Robert H.         Western North Carolina

N    1989    Hampton, Sanford Z.K.      S-Minnesota

Y    1989    Howe, John W.              Central Florida

Y    1989    Rowley, Robert D.          Northwest Pennsylvania

Y    1989    Smith, John H.             West Virginia

Y    1989    Hargrove, Robert J.        Western Louisiana

N    1989    Warner, Vincent W., Jr.    Olympia

N    1989    Carranza-Gomez, Sergio     Mexico

Y    1989    Sterling, William E., Sr.  S-Texas

Y    1989    Krotz, James E.            Nebraska

N    1989    Lee, Edward L., Jr.        Western Michigan

N    1989    Longest, Charles L.        S-Maryland

Y    1989    Fairfield, Andrew H.       North Dakota

Y    1989    Smalley, William E.        Kansas

Y    1990    Salmon, Edward L., Jr.     South Carolina

N    1990    Plummer, Stephen T.        Navajoland

Y    1990    Keyser, Charles L.         Armed Forces

N    1990    Williams, Huntington       S-North Carolina

N    1990    Larrea-Moreno, Jose N.     Central Ecuador

N    1990    Thornton, John S.          ldaho

N    1990    Shimpfky, Richard L.       EI Camino Real

N    1990    Terry, Frank J.            Spokane

N    1991    Winterrowd, W. Jerry       Colorado

N    1991    Talton, Chester L.         S-Los Angeles

N    1991    Wiedrich, William W.       S-Chicago

N    1991    Rockwell, Hays H.          C-Missouri

Y    1991    Scantlebury, Victor A.     S-Panama

N    1991    Charleston, Steven         Alaska

N    1991    McKelvey, Jack M.          S-Newark

N    1991    Tharp, Robert G.           C-East Tennessee

N    1991    Lamb, Jerry A.             C-Northern California

N    1991    Marble, Alfred C., Jr.     C-Mississippi

Y = Yes, N = No, A = Abstain, - = Not Present 

Defeated 85 - 93

********************

BISHOPS REJECT 'LOCAL PRIESTS' QUARANTINE RESOLUTION

     The bishops rejected a resolution (D-176) that would direct that when "persons in monogamous faithful homosexual relationships" are ordained in disregard of the General Convention statement calling such ordinations inappropriate, they be limited to service as "local priests," or priests authorized to serve only a specific congregation.

********************

                    THE COMPROMISE RESOLUTION

      After enormous labor in both houses and by pro- and anti-gay groups, General Convention 1991's final statement on the subject of sexuality was:

      Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, this General Convention affirms that the teaching of the Episcopal Church is that physical sexual expression is appropriate only within the lifelong, monogamous "union of husband and wife in the heart, body, and mind intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and when it is God's will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord"; and be it further resolved,

      That this church continue to work to reconcile the

discontinuity between this teaching and the experience of many members of this body; and be it further resolved,

      That this General Convention confesses our failure to lead and to resolve this discontinuity through legislative efforts based upon resolutions directed at singular and various aspects of these issues; and be it further resolved,    

      That this General Convention commissions the bishops and members of each diocesan deputation to initiate a means for all congregations in their jurisdiction to enter into dialogue and deepen their understanding of these complex issues; and further this General Convention directs the president of each province to appoint one bishop, one lay deputy, and one clerical deputy in that province to facilitate the process, to receive reports from the dioceses at each meeting of their Provincial Synod, and report to the 71st General Convention; and be it further resolved,

      That this General Convention directs the House of Bishops to prepare a Pastoral Teaching prior to the 71st General Convention using the learnings from the diocesan and provincial processes and calling upon such insight as is necessary from theologians, theological ethicists, social scientists, and gay and lesbian persons; and that three lay persons and three members of the clergy from the House of Deputies, appointed by the President of the House of Deputies, be included in the preparation of this Pastoral Teaching.

INTEGRITY'S RESPONSE

Issued July 19, 1991

      Integrity, Inc., the gay and lesbian ministry of the Episcopal Church, expressed mixed reaction to the passage of Resolution A-104sa by both Houses of General Convention.  The Resolution  recognizes the traditional teaching of the Episcopal Church on  issues of sexuality and sexual morality, but also recognizes the  disparity between the teaching and the current experience of large segments of the church, including single, divorced and widowed Episcopalians, as well as gay and lesbian members of the church.

      While Integrity has been pleased with the overall mood of the  Convention, and appreciative of the positive remarks made during debates on the floor of both Houses by both members and the many friends and supporters of Integrity, spokespersons for the organization voiced disappointment that more positive legislation did not pass.

      Representatives of Integrity stated that though the language of A-104sa was not what was hoped for, it is a position that Integrity can live with.  Kim Byham, Director of Communications for Integrity, stated the specific and intentional inclusion of gay and lesbian persons in the study process was a great step  forward for this church.  He also communicated Integrity's  frustration that the Resolution seeks yet again to study  "homosexuality."  "If the issue were race, the church would not  be studying persons of color, but rather would study racism.  We  as gay and lesbian Christians would be much more interested in  participating in this discussion if we would start to discuss  heterosexism rather than sexuality," said Byham.

      Integrity also noted that while past General Conventions have  repeatedly called on the church to study issues of sexuality, no  provisions have been made to either actively support those efforts, either monetarily or with enforcement provisions.  As a  result, only 28 of the 121 dioceses of the church participated in dialogue mandated by the 1988 Convention.   Byham indicated that the current resolution suffers from the same defect.

DR. CREW IN THE NEW YORK TIMES

July  20,  1991

      "This is not a clear signal to take home to the lesbian and gay community," said Louie Crew, an observer.  But Dr. Crew, the founder of Integrity, an organization supporting homosexual Episcopalians, added that "it will be a whole different ballgame" by the church's next General  Convention  in 1994.  "There will be so many ordinations by then," he said.

********************

DEPUTIES COME OUT ON THE FLOOR OF GENERAL CONVENTION!

      On Tuesday afternoon, 16 July 1991, under a Special Order of Business, the House of Deputies considered three items of legislation:  B-003a, A-104s/a, and C-032.  The parameters of the debate were that each speaker would be permitted two minutes.  Speakers pro and con would be acknowledged alternatively, if possible, and no motion to amend, substitute, or lay on the table would be in order until 10 minutes of debate had elapsed.

      Two openly gay deputies rose to speak first (coincidentally).  They were The Rev. Jane Garrett of Vermont (and the retiring Chair of the Standing Commission on Peace), and Patrick Waddell of El Camino Real (California).  This marked the first occasion when the issue of sexuality had been discussed in either House with openly lesbian/gay participation on the floor.  The two speeches follow:

Deputy Jane Garrett, Vermont:

A resolution that came before the 1988 General Convention [D-009 submitted by John Harrison of Pennsylvania] put forth the principle that "stable, loving committed relationships" between gay men and lesbian women "provide a wholesome example for the Church" and that "such persons are entitled to the full love, acceptance, and ministrations of this Church."  After three years of further talk about this, I am here to *claim* that full love and acceptance.  Not just from my parish, my diocese, my province, and my committee, commission, and fellowship colleagues, where I *already have it*, but from the *whole Church*.  It is time for those of us who have been quiet to speak out.  It is time to stand beside our Black, Indian, Hispanic, and Asian brothers and sisters and claim for ourselves the *justice* that the Old Testament prophets, the Gospels of Jesus, and this Church proclaim.  I do that, and I urge you to defeat this proposed canonical change, because it makes no provision for the committed, monogamous, same-sex relationships that are in your midst and that truly do offer a wholesome example on this age of promiscuity.

Deputy Patrick Waddell, El Camino Real:

There's a real difference in this debate -- I can speak for myself, rather than being confined to the gallery.  I'm tired of being *talked about*; ignored, called names -- I'm not "avowed and practicing," *I am* self-affirming and chaste.  I uphold my God-given relationship of almost 13 years with Franklin.  I am, have been, and intend to be faithful to him for life.

I feel no call to ordination, but if I did feel that call, I believe that I present "a wholesome example for God's people."

My own bishop, Richard Shimpfky's comments about this resolution say it best:

      The church must develop an appropriate code of ethics for clergy, but the bishop's proposal is not the answer.  Ethical behavior or more than sex.  Bishop Frey reflects in his plan the terrible flaw of the new evangelicals who bash the rest of us with one literal word of God while carefully detouring silently around Christ's structures against, for example, divorce.

      Moral theology and ethical behavior is about much more than sexuality.  His proposed canon is a legalism substituted for morality and enshrined in a canon.

The Ministry Committee's proposed substitute for A-104 is sound; California's C-032 is a wonderfully pastoral way of dealing with the canonical issues, but Bishop Frey's proposal is totally misguided and should be defeated.

********************

A MODEL RESOLUTION FOR SUBMISSION TO DIOCESAN CONVENTION

*Please submit this or a similar resolution at your next diocesan convention.  No one will initiate dialogue without our prompting.  Lesbians and gay men will not be included in the process unless you step forward.*

Resolved, that the Diocese of _________ recommits itself to dialogue on and study of issues relating to human sexuality, particularly on the parish level, and be it further

Resolved, that a Committee on Parish Dialogue on Human Sexuality be established, whose members shall include the Bishop, [the Bishop Suffragan/Coadjutor], the Deputies and Alternate Deputies to General Convention 1991, and such other members as may be appointed by the Bishop to reflect the diversity of the diocese, including lesbian and gay persons.  This committee shall:

1) Have its initial meeting prior to _________________.

2) Establish mechanisms and resources to promote dialogue on human sexuality in every parish in the diocese no later than _______________, which shall include:

     a) Creating or adapting resource material as required to assist parishes in conducting dialogue and establish a bureau of resource personnel to aid parishes in such dialogue when requested;

     b) Contacting the Presiding Bishop to encourage the creation of resources for parish dialogue as quickly as possible;

     c) Contacting other dioceses to ascertain if any have created resources for parish dialogue; and

     d) Communicating at least quarterly with the parishes to encourage and follow up on dialogue, including sharing ideas which have been successful, and which would include regular summaries in *[the diocesan newspaper]*.

3) Provide an annual report to this convention about the extent and results of such dialogue.

4) Participate with and report to the Provincial Synod on implementation of dialogue.

EXPLANATION:  General Convention has asked for our help.  Resolution A-104SA, passed almost without opposition at the 1991 General Convention, provides, in the third resolve:

      [T]his General Convention commissions the bishops and members of each diocesan deputation to initiate a means for all congregations in their jurisdiction to enter into dialogue and deepen their understanding of these complex ethical issues; and further this General Convention directs the residents of each province to appoint one bishop, one lay deputy, and one clerical deputy in that province to facilitate the process, to receive reports from the dioceses at each annual meeting of their Provincial Synod and report to the 71st General Convention:

The reason for the third resolve is stated elsewhere in the resolution: "General Convention['s] confesse[d] inability to resolve our failure to lead and to resolve this discontinuity ... between [the] teaching of this church [on human sexuality] and the experience of many members of this body."  General Convention will never come to a consensus without a more extensive effort at discussion and study than had been done in the preceding triennium.

This resolution is highly reminiscent of Resolution D-120S from General Convention 1988, which also called for dialogue at the diocesan and parish level.  In response to that resolution, this diocese did [nothing or something, as appropriate.]  Even where dialogue occurred, some of this dialogue was more "opinion" than "sharing."  There needs to be additional encouragement and follow-up and the dialogue needs to happen in the parishes.  A committee including well-known leaders of the diocese, as proposed by General Convention, may encourage wider-spread participation.

Dialogue on human sexuality is not an easy process.  Parishes which would gain the most from such dialogue are often the most reluctant or unprepared to engage in it.  Lesbian and gay parishioners may feel unable to share their stories if they fear ostracism from the congregation.  Thus the dialogue process, while ideally a sharing of members of the congregation,  sometimes requires outsiders, as facilitators or story-tellers, to provide insights which may not be forthcoming otherwise.  The diocese needs to encourage such a process.

********************

BELLAH TELLS CHURCH TO RECLAIM MODERATE VOICE

By Tom Morton

      Sociologist Robert Bellah told the Historical Society of the Episcopal Church during General Convention that the denomination needs to reclaim its role as the moderating religious voice in America.

      "We need to be a bridge church," between hardening cultural opposites in society, he said at the society's meeting at Trinity Cathedral.

      Bellah, a lay Episcopalian and professor of sociology at the University of California at Berkeley, cited sociologist James Hunter's forthcoming book, Culture Wars, saying that political and social debates are increasingly cast as conflicts between "orthodox" and "progressives."

      The "orthodox" claim a divine origin for their beliefs, while the "progressives" appeal to the "spirit of the age," he said.  "There is no way they can engage in discussion."

      Episcopalians can offer hope for Americans in the culture wars by affirming an orthodoxy without resorting to fundamentalism, said Bellah, author of Habits of the Heart.

      The Episcopal bishops did just that when they approved the

substitute resolution on sexuality that affirmed the traditional beliefs about heterosexual relations in marriage, acknowledged the struggles between the teaching and practice, and called for further study, Bellah said.  "The House of Bishops showed

extraordinary wisdom."

********************

HAINES AND RIGHTER ESCAPE CENSURE

by Kim Byham

      Just when the Houses of Bishops and Deputies appeared to have concluded a compromise on sexuality issues, a bishop called for the House of Bishops to rebuke two of his colleagues, the Rt. Rev. Walter C. Righter, former Assistant Bishop of Newark (NJ), and the Rt. Rev. Ronald C. Haines, Bishop of Washington (D.C.),who had ordained a gay man and a lesbian since the last meeting of the House.

      The attempt was ultimately unsuccessful.  While strong language was used, the process was conducted in a calm manner, with little of the venom that had poured forth in earlier debates on equally controversial but less personal (for the bishops) aspects of the human sexuality issue.

     The relative calmness of the debate was a tribute to the Rt. Rev. Gerald N. McAllister, retired Bishop of Oklahoma, who filed the censure charges and set the tone of the debate.  The charges contended that Righter and Haines "violated the position of this church" and "the collegiality of this house".  Righter ordained the Rev. Barry Stopfel as a deacon in September, 1990, and Haines ordained the Rev. Elizabeth Carl as a priest in June, 1991.

     In his explanation to the censure resolution, McAllister charged that "until the General Convention changes its stated position, ordination of non-celibate homosexuals is contrary to the mind of the church."

     McAllister noted that "the word censure is used because there is no practical way to disassociate ourselves from the action of another bishop."  Censure has no canonical meaning; it is a parliamentary procedure used to express displeasure with a particular action or position.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION

      When the matter came to the floor on Friday, July 19, the Committee on Miscellaneous Resolutions recommended, in place of the resolution to censure, a substitute resolution which stated:

 Resolved, the House of Bishops recognizes the pain and damage to the collegiality and credibility of this House and to parts of the whole Church when individual bishops and dioceses ordain sexually active Gay and Lesbian persons in the face of repeated statements of this House of Bishops and the General Convention of the Episcopal Church against such ordinations; and be it resolved:

 That we acknowledge the dilemma of conscience faced by each member of this House of Bishops  resulting from these ordinations and from the fact that there is no clear consensus on these ordinations in this House of Bishops; and be it resolved;

 That in order to advance the honesty and collegiality of this House of Bishops that this deep concern over the gap between what we profess and what we do be referred to the Presiding Bishop and the Council of Advice for consideration of this matter by the House of Bishops at an interim meeting of the House.

In presenting the substitute resolution, the Rt. Rev. Robert Moody, McAllister's successor as Bishop of Oklahoma and chair of the committee, said they were aware that the ordinations presented the bishops with a "severe and serious situation" that could call into question the leadership of the house.

     At the same time, Moody said, the committee felt the proposal to censure was too important an issue to handle "at a late time in the life of a General Convention," and was not appropriate for his committee to handle.    

     "We do not have the kinds of information that are

appropriate," Moody said.  "We don't have the mechanism to address the parties involved."  The committee does "not want to be perceived as ducking the issue," Moody said.  "We do not also want to be seen as irresponsible when the issue is as serious as this is."

BISHOP MCALLISTER PLEADS FOR HIS ORIGINAL RESOLUTION

     In defending his censure resolution, McAllister maintained that the issue was not homosexuality.  He said.  "I share the frustration with our system, but it is our system....  My plea is that you deal with whether we shall have a government of law or whether it is every person for him or herself....  Someone at my table with a pink triangle said, 'The glory of this convention is that we've talked with each other.'  The tragedy is that we have been so fixated with one subject that we have not been able to go on to establish a community of concern about any other issue....  Let's as a house become a community of concern about how we relate to ourselves.  This is not a personal vendetta.  Walter is one of my good friends.  He's my big brother bishop....  I hope you don't consider all this in terms of who is my friend and whom I get along with.  This is not an issue about how you feel about gay and lesbian persons.  I have ordained homosexuals.  I have in my own family a lesbian.  This is not what this issue is about.

   "Silence at this point is consent," McAllister continued.  The bishops' lack of action would encourage people "who by individualism and little thought of community are destroying the fabric of our community life.

      "The real issue is the ordering of the household of faith.  In our previous meeting we disciplined Bishop Spong for the same sort of things we are talking about....  This  House confirmed the action of our leadership.  Nothing has changed since that time.  We have in this convention confirmed the same position we've had in this House.  Like it or not, the order of this House is our calling.

      "Send me home in defeat if you disagree.  But do not send me home in shame that this house will not exercise its governance function.  Our profession needs the same discipline of all other professions.  We need to discipline those who are destroying the fabric of our life.

      It was McAllister's final plea, however, which modified the tenor of the debate.  "Please do not ask for a roll call vote.  All that does is to lock us into positions."

THE DEBATE ON CENSURE

      The following are accurate but not necessarily complete records of the comments made by various bishops during the debate:

      Bishop Walter Dennis, Suffragan of New York: "I want to speak against censure because that procedure is neither in the canons nor in the rules of order of the House of Bishops.  It should be before we consider censure.  In the Senate or House of Representatives, when you censure you have all the opportunities for due process.....  We have none of that.  What we would be doing is creating instant law with a bill of punishment....  In the Stephen Bayne report on Theological Freedom and Responsibility, Jim Pike said, 'Due process is central.  If a person is not able to have input into the processes judging him, he is being as an object, not a person.'  We risk creating a kangaroo court in the highest sense."

      Bishop Edward Jones of Indianapolis: "I know that Bishop McAllister made his statement without malice, but that is not why I stand here.  For reasons that are specifically pastoral, I must in conscience add my name to the list of Righter and Haines.

      Bishop William Swing of California: "We are not in conversation with each other in regard to the profound issues before us.  We are not in a position to say 'Let me tell you about the people I'm concerned about.  Let me tell you....'  There is nothing like that.  If I thought the Assistant Bishop of Newark or the Bishop of Washington were trying to use their decisions in some sort celebrity way, I would be for the censure.  I like the part when Bishop McAllister said he would like to go home in defeat.  Jerry, I would like to send you there.  Instead, we are dealing with bishops who have acted pastorally in ways that we here do not have an opportunity to review.  These are the kinds of bishops who are looking at human beings and ordaining priests."

      "I welcome the substitute resolution's suggestion that wider issues be considered.  It could offer assistance to bishops who consider controversial ordinations and feel 'out on the forefront,' very much by ourselves.  There is no gathering place for us to turn to say 'Let me tell you about what I'm up against,'" Swing said.  "There is nothing like that for us who are on the firing line.  We have got to be pastoral to each other."

      Bishop C. Cabell Tennis  of Delaware: "I speak against censure, for the same reasons that Bishop McAllister spoke for it.  In this situation, we do not have clear boundaries; then there can be no offense.  If there is no offense, it is totally unjust to censure someone.  The issue is not homosexuality, nor whether acting or not acting; the issue is an issue of accountability.  I think that the boundaries are simply not there."

      Bishop Andrew H. Fairfield of North Dakota: "My wife and I have a conflict over homosexual behavior.  I think it is inappropriate; she has no problem with it.  I offend her when I say something about it, because it hurts people she cares about.  But the net effect is positive, because she confronts me about it.  ....  This is an issue for the whole House. Spong is here, censured, but still belonging.  You are not driving them out, but this is our way of saying 'You have done something that is an offense to the way we act together.  That is why I support censure."

      Bishop William Wantland of Eau Claire: "In 1977, the House adopted a position of saying that it did not approve of violating the collegiality of the House.  The purpose of Civil Disobedience is to offend.  While civil disobedience is an accepted way to respond to matters of conscience, it involves accepting the penalties. To offend the conscience of others, to violate the mind of this house, to say that we cannot then be offended, is to cheat on the process."

      Bishop Rustin R. Kimsey of Eastern Oregon: "I plead for more time, for the committee's resolution to prevail in this.....   To presume that Bishops Righter and Haines have not painfully dealt with the issues of these actions, is wrong.  It is erroneous to think that we can resolve this responsibly by censure."

      Bishop David B. Reed of Kentucky: "This is not something new that we are doing here.  We censured Spong and others, many of whom have continued to be active members of this House.  Many of us felt offended and betrayed because we sensed an agreement that we thought was a part of this community.  The substitute prepared by the Committee does not address our need to express our pain, anguish, disappointment and offense. I feel that censure is strong, but not inappropriate in terms of how this House traditionally performs."

      Bishop Stewart Wood of Michigan: "I think that in some sense it is an accident of time that these two bishops have their names there.  There are a number of us in the House who could have been there if it had been a different time.  Just as Ted Jones said earlier, I want as a sign of honesty to have my name listed with theirs. ... We have talked about the resolution of 1979, which was recommendary.  I must confess that I have not spent much time reading past proceedings of General Convention."

      Bishop Robert Anderson of Minnesota: "I hope that censorship is not the tradition.  I realize that this has happened, but I hope that at this convention we will find a way to move to some collegial way where we can have much more personal, pastoral dialogue about these issues.  I would like to see the Council of Advice, with its broad representation, to be the place to talk from the broad perspective of those out in the frontiers.  I hope that we do not move into censorship, but into a more pastoral way of being bishops."

      Bishop Frank Vest, Coadjutor of Southern Virginia: "I speak against censure. Civil disobedience implies breaking the law.  The 1979 resolution, to which several in '79 and others in '88 dissented in writing, is not the law.  It was not canonical nor constitutional.  It remains the teaching of the church, but it is one that individuals can, in conscience, disagree with.  If we are going to require conformity to all resolutions, let's then censure all those who in conscience do not respond to other resolutions such as the Shell Oil boycott....."

      Bishop Clarence N. Coleridge, Suffragan of Connecticut: "We felt betrayed and a need to speak out. But during the last few days I have experienced a new growing together.  People can be intimidated whom I thought never could be intimidated.  We need a way to not be punitive ...."

      Bishop Theodore Eastman of Maryland: "I have been seeking a pastoral or relational moment.  I think that we are at a relational moment, and it comes out in words like 'hurt,' 'betrayed,' 'offended'.....   Those aren't judgment words, but pastoral words.  I cannot vote for censure."

      Bishop John Krumm, Retired, Southern Ohio: "Bishop Eastman has defined collegiality -- not the following of the majority.   We have never made a promise about collegiality, but a promise to follow the canons.  I do not understand the sense of surprise when a number of people at the time [1979] notified you that their conscience could not let them follow you.  Why did you not say something then?  I am very much opposed to the McAllister resolution.  These bishops were acting in the freedom that they claimed in signing the ''79 dissent.'"  [ed.note - which Bishop Krumm authored]

      Bishop Herbert Thompson of Southern Ohio: "If you say we have no procedure for censure, then what procedures do we have to deal with bishops who violate our policies?  In my own diocese we lost a priest who crossed the boundaries and I received many letters from clergy who thanked me for taking the action that I needed to take; even the clergy person himself wrote to think me.  Just a few months ago, we acted to disassociate ourselves from another bishop who did the same thing.  We should at least do the same, or rescind the earlier disassociation."

      Bishop Charles F. Duvall of the Central Gulf Coast: "We need to increase the honesty and trust, to act more pastorally, more forthrightly, but these do not require us to be more permissive. We must be able to say, 'You are out of bounds.'  Folks back home wonder how we can speak with clarity about what the church is and then not do it.  We need to be consistent.  I am for censure."

      Bishop Duncan Gray of Mississippi: "I think it is a pastoral moment.  The resolution passed at Denver (and I am not alone) is something different from those that ask us to do one thing or another.  This one is an interpretation of the canons of the church and the Book of Common Prayer.  The only interpreter, in the absence of a Supreme Court, is the General Convention.  Thus that interpretation is binding.  When we dealt with women's ordination, we had no Supreme Court, we interpreted our canons to say that yes, this can be binding on the church."

      Bishop William H. Wolfrum, Suffragan of Colorado: "About a year ago I wrote a letter threatening to do the same to Jack Spong that Bishop McAllister promotes here, but I have realized at this convention that traditional values have gotten us into the bind we are in.  We have not learned how to live with people whom we disagree with.  Those who disagree get divorced.  One of the most powerful statements we can make is to show how you can live together in disagreement.  I have the sense that we are doing this here.  I urge you not to censure anybody."

      Bishop Roger J. White of Milwaukee: "In 1977 we did say that the General Convention is the highest way we have to govern this Church.  I am opposed to censure.  We must live with that tension between what God wants us to be and what we are."

      Bishop Gordon Charlton, Retired Suffragan of Texas: "I like what Wolfrum said about our making a strong witness.  I remind us that this is not an internal affair.  We are pastors not merely to one another but to the whole church.  We cannot be good pastors if we do not at least discipline ourselves.  The question before us is whether we are capable of self-discipline."

      Bishop Francis C. Gray, of Northern Indiana: "I stand to oppose censure.  I think we can handle this in a better way.  I think our House is in disorder, and we need to have someone look into the issue of how we discipline ourselves.  In my family, when we have a long argument, I often realize that the discipline has been the discussion.  Is that possibly true now?  Perhaps mercy requires us to dismiss it."

     The original McAllister censure resolution, a substitute for the committee resolution, was rejected in a clear voice vote. 

AN IRONIC INTERLUDE

      In the midst of the debate something quite ironic occurred that was completely overlooked by the press.  The Presiding Bishop announced that there would be a break in the debate on censure while the House took up a pre-scheduled item.  He called on Bishop Haines and Bishop O'Kelley Whitaker of Central New York to come forward.  They were to introduce to the House of Bishops the newly elected President and Vice President of the House of Deputies who were from their respective dioceses.  Since Pam Chinnis, the new President, was well known to the Bishops for her past service, Haines said, "In addition to all of her national and international work, I think you should know that Pam is also Senior Warden of her parish, Epiphany, Washington."  What that meant was that Mrs. Chinnis had been part of the review process that led to the ordination of Elizabeth Carl at Epiphany for which Haines was facing censure.

DEBATE ON COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE

      The debate now returned to the "original," i.e., the committee substitute, resolution.

      Bishop John S. Spong of Newark: "I am as aware as anyone about how much pain our diocese has caused.  But I want to tell you now about the pain I have felt.  Some of those who voted to disassociate from me have themselves secretly ordained lesbians and gays.....  I too am concerned about the break down of order.  We are in the situation where we have permissive canons and binding resolutions.  I would be opposed to a good deal of the first paragraph because it is inaccurate.  There are parts of the church who have been opened and made happy by our actions.  We find in our diocese that many gay and lesbian people are opening up to the church.  I find it painful to hear brothers say that a 1977 resolution is binding, especially those who themselves follow their own conscience and refuse to follow canons of the church."

      Bishop George L. Reynolds of Tennessee moved to amend the substitute to add

      "That this House of Bishops calls upon all its members to refrain from ordaining all lesbian and gay persons until the interim meeting [any interim meeting which the PB might want to use in this way]"

"I think that we have done a good job.  I have come to realize that this issue may be preempted by a number of ordinations between now at the time that we come to terms with this issue".

      Bishop Otis Charles, Dean of Episcopal Divinity School: "This amendment just gives us another reason for some bishops to do what some of us think they should not have done."

      The Reynolds amendment was defeated.

      Bishop Charles then moved a substitute for paragraph 1:

      "Resolved that the House of Bishops recognizes that the collegiality of this House is strained when individual dioceses and bishops ordain lesbian and gay persons...."

"I agree that we have no sense of the House.  The strength here is that we are currently struggling, as we are in our dioceses, in the midst of a very difficult body of opinions.  I believe that the substitute more accurately reflects the situation by naming our struggle.  There is a clear teaching on marriage, but not yet a clear teaching on gay people and on their relationships and their gifts for ministry."

      Bishop John H. MacNaughton: "I want to keep the acknowledgement of the loss of credibility.  Otherwise, the resolution will not speak for me."

      The Charles amendment was defeated

      Bishop Thomas K. Ray of Northern Michigan: "I speak against the Committee's resolution.  Earlier we discussed the need for some important theological and biblical material.  When I get to this resolution, if this is a pastoral resolution, I would like to ask Walter or Ron how this feels.  This may not be a censure, but it looks like a duck, talks like a duck...."

      Bishop White moved to insert:

      "We resolve that we agree with one another to consult with the  Presiding Bishop and his Council of Advice and by agreeing to abide by their advice....  Requires notification 30 days prior to any controversial ordinations.... "

"We need to be concerned about scandal in this church.  I believe that the issue before this House is having to carry one another's burdens.  Many any this House feel that we are answerable for incredible situations.  I have a rule in my diocese that you are in pretty good shape if there are no surprises."

      Bishop Rogers Harris of Southwest Florida: "I speak on behalf of Bishop White's amendment, as a way to restore collegiality and courtesy."

      Bishop Peter Lee of Virginia: "This House clearly affirmed that heterosexual marriage is the standard.  I believe that this amendment will set up the Council of Advice in ways that will put us into even more trouble and conceivably put an imprimatur on some of these decisions."

      Bishop Swing, again: "I am troubled by giving that much unclear power to the Council of Advice.  We ought to go back to the resolution."

      The White amendment was defeated.

      Bishop Paul Moore, Jr. Retired, New York: "This resolution impugns the integrity of members of the House, myself included.  It implies that those of us who have ordained have been dishonest."

      The substitute then passed by a strong majority on a voice vote.

HAINES AND RIGHTER REACT

      In a press conference after the vote, Haines said he was pleased with the decision of the house.

      "Obviously no one likes to be censured," Haines said.  "I do respect Bishop McAllister and his integrity and those who would have wished to go in that direction."

      Haines said the focus of the substitute resolution on working out ways to deal with differences means that "we the bishops will struggle together in a new way theologically or biblically.  What we're all saying is that we've got to revisit the scriptures and our own theology."

      "I would like to see the church really begin to define an ethic on sexuality for all people," Haines added.

      Haines said he was not surprised that there were other bishops willing to identify themselves.  Had the vote been for censure, he said, "there would have been more than four names," though he would not say how many.  "We have to face the fact that we've been doing this for 2,000 years," said Righter.  "The difference is that we've been doing it openly."

      During his press conference, Bishop Haines said he did not want the dispute to distract from the overriding concerns in the church and his diocese in Washington.

      "Where I live we are a multiethnic, multinational, international city, and many of our churches have people in them from five continents and sexuality isn't necessarily their issue," he said.  "Economics and oppression and justice are their issues."

       He said he expects to face the issue of ordination again in the foreseeable future.

LORD RUNCIE APPROVES

      In an interview just before the vote, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who was visiting the convention, suggested he favored the resolution ultimately reached by the bishops.  "I don't think there's been a very good history of public censure moving things forward," the Most Rev. Robert Runcie, said.  It would be "unusual," he continued, "for there to be this public and identifiable censure of an individual."

-----

This article incorporates reports from James Thrall and Louie Crew

********************

RIGHT WINGERS SAY THEY LOST, DOES THAT MEAN WE WON?

by Kim Byham

      As you will note from other articles, with respect to the full inclusion of lesbians and gay men in the Episcopal Church, very little affirmative or negative happened formally at General Convention.  The Presiding Bishop has been widely quoted as saying there were no winners and no losers.  He's probably correct from a legislative viewpoint.  What happened, however, was the laying of a firm foundation for the future.  The election results were extremely encouraging, and we prevented the passage of the Frey canon.  Deputy Traynham of Los Angeles insightfully called that proposed canon an ecclesiastical sodomy law which, while outwardly applicable to all clergy, would have never been applied to heterosexuals.

      Perhaps even more significantly, the right-wing forces perceive themselves to have suffered a major defeat.  The truth of this assertion didn't sink in with me until, on my way home, I read the entire Reflections of the Episcopal Synod of America.  ESA, of course, represents a tiny minority of the church who still oppose women in the priesthood.  A parish in the ESA Diocese of Ft. Worth has announced it is affiliating with the Roman Catholic Church because of what happened at General Convention!  Yet most gay and lesbian Episcopalians I've spoken to who weren't in Phoenix say, "It was just more of the same conflict avoidance."

What about the self-avowed "mainstream" conservatives?  They, too, seem desperately troubled by the "homosexual victory" in Phoenix.

Bishop John-David Schofield of San Joaquin borrowed as his own a letter of Bishop Alex D. Dickson of West Tennessee.  Both bishops distributed it in their dioceses.  Schofield asked it be read in lieu of a sermon.  Schofield is an ESA activist, Dickson is not.

      We went to Phoenix facing two radical proposals: 1) to allow each diocese to decide for itself whether to ordain people who are practicing homosexual behavior and 2) to authorize the development of a liturgy for the blessing of same sex unions.

      Proposals 1 and 2  would hold up homosexual behavior as an acceptable lifestyle blessed by the Church.  Such action would be contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture and the practice of the Church for 2,000 years.

      *What happened officially?*  (a) we reaffirmed the traditional teaching of the Church concerning physical sexual expressions. ... (f) We rejected a proposal to develop a liturgy for the blessing of same sex unions.  [ed. note: This never happened, Bishops!!!]

      *What else happened*? ...  Our failure to discipline the Bishops who have ordained practicing homosexual persons in violation of the teaching of the Church has given "de facto" approval to Proposal #1.  And the essence of Proposal #2 is approved each time a Bishop allows a Priest to bless a same sex union. 

      We first began to deal with human sexuality, particularly homosexuality in 1976.  Step by step, the liberal leadership of the Church has gained more votes.  For example, fourteen of the last fifteen Bishops who have been ordained *voted against* "Censure" and *against* the resolution calling on all clergy to abstain from sexual relations outside of marriage.  In addition, a large majority of the members of our national Executive Council are clearly liberal in theology and in interpretation of Holy Scripture.  The prospect is that the next General Convention may move beyond liberal positions and become even more radical.

Bishop Maurice M. Benitez is probably the most politically (as opposed to theologically) conservative bishop in the church.  In a letter he distributed in the Diocese of Texas, he claimed radicals had gained control of Convention with respect to far more than just sexuality.

      ... In addition, I share with you my observation that the House of Bishops, in terms of its voting patterns, has taken a sharp turn to the left, in a more liberal direction, even since last September at our meeting in Washington, both in terms of our dealing with the issue of human sexuality, and in our dealing with the host of socio-geo-political resolutions that came before us.

      You will need to hear from our Deputies about the political climate of that House, but my observation, from the voting pattern, was that, in terms of the sexuality issue, they were more to the left than the Bishops, but in terms of the socio-geo-political issues, they were more moderate than the Bishops.

      ...However, all of those were completely overshadowed by the intense and heated debates around the subject of human sexuality, which surfaced in a host of ways throughout the convention.  *The wide-spread presence of many members of homosexual advocacy groups throughout the convention*, as well as the large attendance (4,000-5,000 persons) at the three-hour open hearing on human sexuality, ... were indications of the immense priority of the topic throughout the convention.

      The most significant aspect of the debate was our failure to pass an amendment adding a resolve which called on all Bishops, Priests and Deacons, in compliance with our Ordination vows, "to set a wholesome example for the people of God" by abstaining from sexual relations outside of marriage!  On a roll call vote this amendment failed eighty-five to ninety-three ....  In addition, an amendment failed which called on Bishops to abstain from ordaining practicing homosexual persons or persons engaged in sexual relations outside of marriage during the three-year period.  An amendment calling on Bishops contemplating the Ordination of a person engaged in sexual relations outside of marriage to notify the other Bishops thirty days ahead of time, and still another amendment  calling on such Bishops to notify the Presiding Bishop and his Council of Advice, seeking their counsel, also failed to pass.  Furthermore, during the course of the debate several Bishops indicated that they had ordained practicing homosexual persons, or they were currently scheduled to do so, or they were contemplating doing so ....

      ... Still another way of interpreting where we are is to see us moving inexorably toward the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, the Ordination of persons engaged in sexual relations outside of marriage, and the blessing of same-sex unions.  *The fact that our Presiding Bishop, the new President and Vice President of the House of Deputies, who will appoint the members of the committees and commissions of General Convention over the next three years, are committed to having the Church move in this direction makes it a real possibility.  The fact that it was conceded by most observers that in the elections of new members to the Executive Council, which is the governing body of the Episcopal Church between General Conventions, those elected almost without exception were those regarded as the most liberal and were endorsed by the liberal coalitions, is another indication that this could be our direction.*

On the final day of Convention, the ESA distributed a provocative statement that it intended to establish parishes in dioceses without the approval of the local bishop.  Their justification for this fundamental departure from Anglican polity is the Convention's position on sexuality.

      The Church's Human Affairs Commission proposed "local option" for ordination, allowing each diocese to ordain practicing homosexuals if it wished.  The House of Bishops substituted an amendment (A-104sa) that did "affirm" traditional teaching on marriage and sexual relations.  It admitted that the Church struggles "to reconcile the discontinuity between this teaching and the experience of many members of this body" and called for three more years of study and dialogue.  The House of Deputies passed the resolution, adding the requirement that gays and lesbians serve on the study committee.

      This is the resolution which many bishops and deputies are presenting as a reaffirmation of traditional sexual morality.  However, its limits were revealed when the House of Deputies overwhelmingly defeated a three-year moratorium on the ordination of "any homosexuals living openly and notoriously with a lover of the same sex, and that any bishop who knowingly violates such moratorium shall be subject to deposition."  The bishops also refused to impose even a short moratorium.  Despite the resolution's affirmation of traditional morality, its practical result is illustrated by Bishop Spong's announcement that he will ordain a practicing homosexual this September.

      ... On all these issues, the House of Deputies is considerably more radical than it was in 1988. ...  In 1988, it had refused even to open the ordination process to people of homosexual orientation, but at this Convention effectively endorsed or supported homosexual behavior in several ways, such as rejecting even a short moratorium on the ordination of practicing homosexuals.

      Why has the House of Deputies changed?  Since 1988, even more biblically-oriented Episcopalians have been lost to the Church or driven out of positions of authority.  Numbers of liberal men, women (most of whom, though not all, are theologically liberal), and homosexuals have been ordained.  *Thus the House of Deputies is almost certain to be even more radical in 1994.*

      The same decline has happened in the House of Bishops.  Fourteen of the last 15 bishops consecrated, for example, voted against the "Frey canon," including several hitherto considered "moderates."  *Predictions of an orthodox resurgence have proven to be wrong.*  Despite a series of deliberately provocative ordinations, the Convention has failed to discipline the bishops or pass any canonical change that could control them, and even rejected a short moratorium on such ordinations.

      A number of bishops declared or strongly implied their intention to ordain practicing homosexuals openly... .  It is also clear that nothing will be done about it.  This leaves the Church with de facto "local option."

"Jubilate Deo", the newspaper of the Diocese of South Carolina, was filled with negative comments from that diocese's bishops and deputies.

Arthur H. "Doc" Lachicotte, Jr. - Lay Deputy

      This was my third convention and if I had thought 1985 & 1988 were bad then this one was terrible. ... On any and all important issues, we who valued the authority of Scripture, Tradition and Reason were out-voted by a margin on average of 60% to 40%.  It was a foregone conclusion on every ballot.

      The makeup of the House of Deputies this year had to be one of the most radical, social activist body in this country.  ... we were deluged with "Human Sexuality, Gays, Lesbianism, Same Sex Unions, Integrity, Racism, Bush bashing, American bashing, the Free Enterprise System, etc. ....!  A great deal of it was a totally nauseating experience to put it mildly!

Dr. Thomas "Tommy" Kirkland, Jr. - Lay Deputy

      This majority [controlling the convention] is obviously influenced by a large number of rather strident special interests groups: gay and lesbian rights, poor peoples' rights, racial ethnic and feminist rights, etc.  The general strategy of these groups as articulated by Bishops Barbara Harris and John Spong is to work a little bit at a time and come back in three years for more.  By not demanding the whole loaf (at least right now), their agenda becomes more acceptable to the liberal majority.

      ... [T]his majority is likely to increase; certainly it was more apparent in 1991 than in 1988.  With the election of very liberal officers of the House of Deputies, the committees may become even more slanted.

The Rt. Rev. FitzSimons Allison, Retired Bishop of South Carolina

      The caucuses did seem to run the Convention.  The "gay" Caucus helped defeat the [Howe/Frey] amendment; the Native American Caucus had a "Medicine Man" blessing the altar and praying "to the spirits" for twenty minutes during the opening service, in what was overwhelmingly regarded an in interminably abysmal worship experience.  The Women's Caucus helped push inclusive language on the Church, and the Black Caucus succeeded in having us endure hours of what was termed a "Racial Audit."

The Rev. Richard "Rick" I.H. Belser - Clerical Deputy

      In the same way, decisions having to do with sexuality were significantly influenced by an appeal to personal experience. 

      There were other troubling things about Convention: the daily Bible study and Eucharist, which I hoped would keep us focussed on God's Word, turned out to be, from my perspective, a means of subtle manipulation by convention organizers, who imposed their political views on the table groups with daily questions like, "Whose norms and values are considered superior in the life of the church?"

John C. Wilson - Lay Deputy

      The 70th Convention of the Episcopal Church in Phoenix will live in infamy in the minds of those, such as I, who hold to the traditional, scriptural and reasonable teachings of the Anglican Communion.

      Why have things changed so at General Convention and in the National Church?  Since the 1988 convention many biblically-oriented people have left the church or been eliminated from positions of authority.  A large number of liberal men, women, and homosexuals have been ordained.  I have been in the House of Deputies four times and I can attest to this change of attitude.  This year there was a swing of our votes and six or seven divided votes on key issues that made a tremendous difference.

Finally, the Rev. Canon Hasland Birdwell, canon to the Ordinary of the Diocese of the Rio Grande and Clerical Deputy, a self-avowed "moderate" wrote in "The Living Church" of August 18:

      The church gathered in Phoenix is a politically-radicalized church.  It is a church that no longer has an identifiable theological center.  It is a church that has no function for those of us who are moderates, except further the agenda of political and theological extremists.

      ... Instead of the Episcopal Church we have known, the future church will resemble the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (which met concurrently with us in Phoenix).  If that scenario doesn't bother you, then don't worry ... be happy.

      ... But I will resist with all that is in me the attempt to accommodate holy scripture and the doctrine, discipline and worship of this church to the lifestyle and ethical beliefs of Integrity and radical feminists.  [ed. note: Canon Birdwell does not feel it necessary to define Integrity.]

      ... The church gathered in Phoenix was a church where anything goes, a church in which there are no sins except racism and sexism ... and the sin of opposing the ordination of militant, openly practicing gay and lesbian people and the sin of opposing the blessing of same-sex unions.

      ... The House of Deputies, however, was controlled by the agenda of Integrity, radical feminists and the mindlessness of liberal and moderate deputies who supported that agenda.  The political strategy used by those people was nothing short of brilliant ... [ed. note: Thanks!]

********************

R.I.P. E.U.R.R.R.

by Kim Byham

      In reporting the imminent demise of Episcopalians United for Revelation, Renewal and Reformation, I feel a little like an American militarist who is glad to see the death of Communism but wonders what the future will be like without a traditional adversary.  EURRR often served as the best advocates for our cause.  They helped Integrity raise money, though certainly EURRR depended far more on Integrity for its fund raising than we ever did on them.

      No they're not dead yet.  But it is inevitable, and it will happen before the 1994 General Convention.  They are now in the death throes and the shaking and the sound of the death rattle may be unsettling for a time.

      EURRR started out rather confident about the 1991 convention.  Not too confident, of course, since they needed to raise their $900,000 annual budget, but confident nonetheless.  The Rev. Todd H. Wetzel, EURRR's Executive Director, said, "We've won the war in the Gulf, it will not do for us to lose the battle for the soul of our church going on here at home."

      They sent seven mailings to all Deputies, First Alternates and Bishops, most on homosexuality but some touched on their other themes of inclusive language (against) and the authority of the Bible (for).  These mailings were so voluminous and so unappetizing that EURRR soon earned the epithet "Episcopalians United for Recycling."  Integrity, in contrast, sent the Deputies only a single issue of "The Voice of Integrity" and a copy of "A Book of Revelations: Lesbian and Gay Episcopalians Tell Their Own Stories," which reportedly were well received by the undecided.

      Just how much EURRR spent on its tracts is unclear.  In July, 1990 they estimated they would spend $90,000 on them, but it seems likely they spent far more.  In April, 1991, they said they expected to spend $158,250 on activities in Phoenix.  These were direct expenses and did not include the sizable contributions they made to other right-wing organizations at convention, such as Regeneration, the Baltimore-based "ex-gay ministry."  For their money, EURRR got an impressive booth, four times the size of Integrity's, with video equipment and even a closet in the back large enough for EURRR meetings.

      Most tellingly, EURRR predicted "upwards of 250 volunteers."  In its call for volunteers, EURRR said:

      This is especially important at this Convention, not only because the issues are crucial but because the Metropolitan Church (sic) will be holding its Convention in Phoenix, right next door to that of the Episcopal Church [ed. note: MCC's meeting place was 12 miles from the Civic Center where we met].  For those who don't know, the Metropolitan Church is the new denomination for "homosexual" churches.  There will be many homosexuals in attendance at our Convention who will add to the presence of homosexuals who would normally attend.  We need large numbers of Orthodox, believing Episcopalians to offset the impact of what will be a powerful homosexual presence.

      Perhaps the thought of so many "homosexuals" scared people because EURRR had what appeared to be only about 50 volunteers, and they were completely ineffective.

      What did EURRR accomplish?  Absolutely nothing for their side, but they did help Integrity's cause.  Of course, they can't admit that because they have a $900,000 budget to sustain.

      For a time the EURRR leadership seemed totally out of touch with what was happening at Convention.  On Tuesday, July 16, the day the Frey canon was defeated and ordination access and an improved compromise resolution were passed in the House of Deputies, Wetzel said,  "The liberal tide is going out and the conservative and moderate tide is coming in."  Even EURRR's new publication, "United Voice", contradicted him with its headline about the vote: "Gay Cause Wins Three."

      That defeat led to EURRR's most embarrassing moment.  Its floor leader and Board member, the Very Rev. John Rodgers, Deputy from Pittsburgh and professor at Trinity School for Ministry, read from a prepared statement: "I wish to inform you [Dean David C. Collins, President] and this House of Deputies that I and many other Deputies and Alternate Deputies remain seated in this convention as loyal Episcopalians under protest and in order to protest."   His remarks were, he claimed "in the light of this House's unwillingness to affirm biblical and classical Anglican sexual morality as having canonical standing in our church."