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 Spring, 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

From The Editor

Miscellaneous News & Notes

Why a Straight Priest Belongs to Integrity

Why Integrity?

God, Sex and Justice

A Pessimistic View of the Future

Homosexuality and the Bible

A Snowball's Chance in Palm Springs:  Los Angeles Votes on

  Blessing Same-Sex Couples

Martin Luther King, Jr.:  A White Southerner's Perspective

Bishops Should 'Come Out' for Gays

A Tribute to Jim Toy

Evangelizing Lesgays this Decade

Some Progress from Diocesan Dialogue:  Report from Western

  Massachusetts

Gays in School:  Fear and Isolation Leaves Kids in Hiding

A Friend of Mine Died of AIDS

Gay in Nicaragua

Queen's Chaplain Comes Out

One in 7 Anglican Clergy Gay

Correspondence with the New Archbishop of Canterbury

A Modern Exodus

Seattle Dean Calls for Blessing Gay and Lesbian Relationships

Claudia's Column

Heyward Joins Protest

Dallas Destroys Dialogue

Do We Really Want to Claim St. Paul?  Spong's New Book ignites

  Controversy

British Bishop Backs Us, Sort of

ANGAYS Gives Up

Mid Tennessee Chapter in Formation Makes News

Long Island Bishop Visits New York Chapter

President's Page

How Parishes Can Help PWAs

Remembering "News & Notes"

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

Spring 1991

*The Voice of Integrity*

Volume 1, Number 1

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

Editorial Office:  201-868-2485

PO Box 5202; NYC, NY 10185

Member Episcopal Communicators and Gay Lesbian Press Association

Copyright 1991

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

*FROM THE EDITOR*

GREETINGS TO GENERAL CONVENTION DEPUTIES

This issue of "The Voice of Integrity" is being sent to all deputies.  This will probably be the only mailing you'll get from Integrity.  We can't afford to match EURRR's frequent mailings.  Our funds are so limited we even have to make our regular quarterly newsletter serve double duty, rather than preparing something specifically for you.

Ironically, EURRR, ESA, and PBS are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars "to match Integrity."  Our goal, however, was only $40,000 and it is now obvious we won't even come close to that.  Our collections to date are less than 25% of those in 1988, and no wonder.  Lesbians and gays in the Episcopal Church are beginning to despair of things ever changing.  Our 50 local chapters understandably often feel that their dollars are better spent serving the lesbians and gays in their communities rather than trying to educate the Episcopal Church.

Those of you who know Integrity only as a "political" group like EURRR, etc., have seen only the top of the iceberg.  Throughout the country we are the Episcopal Church in the lesbian/gay community.  As such we provide counseling, the sacraments, food and shelter, and the Gospel to a segment of the population not welcome in most parishes.  Integrity has brought thousands of lesbians and gay men into the Episcopal Church.  Your votes at General Convention will help determine if they stay.

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

*MISCELLANEOUS*

*NEW & NOTES*

NORTHEAST REGIONAL MEETING

The next Northeast Regional Convention will be held in New York City during Lesbian/Gay Pride Weekend:  June 28-30, 1991.  Call 718-720-3054 for details.

NEW CHAPTERS IN FORMATION

In the last issue, we reported that there was a group meeting in Baltimore.  Only three months later we can report a full-fledged chapter in formation, which sought certification at the March 15-17 Board meeting.  They also asked to become a part of the Northeast Region.  (All of Maryland was previously in the Southern Region.  This change will transfer all but the four Maryland counties in the Diocese of Washington.)  Their address is c/o Emmanuel Church, 88 Cathedral Street, Baltimore, MD 21201.  They meet third Fridays at 7:30 p.m. at Emmanuel in downtown Baltimore.

Also in formation is Dignity-Integrity/Charlottesville.  Their address is P.O. Box 4682, Charlottesville,  VA 22905.  Word has been received that chapters in formation are meeting in Lawrence, Mass (Dignity-Integrity/Merrimac Valley), Augusta, Maine (Integrity/Kennebeck Valley) and in Erie, PA (Integrity/Northwest Pennsylvania), but no addresses have been provided to National.

Integrity/Brooklyn has begun meeting.  Their address is:  c/o St. Ann's Church, 122 Pierrepont St., Brooklyn, NY 11201.

Integrity/Denver has changed its name to Integrity/Colorado.

LESGAY SEMINARIANS MEET

"Just Say Yes!  A Call to Thrive," an Inter-Seminary Conference sponsored by InCarnation:  Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Seminarians, was held February 15-17 at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, MA.  Keynote speakers were Carter Heyward and Chris Glaser.  Unfortunately, Integrity received no prior notice of the conference.

BOARD MEETING

The National Board of Integrity held its spring meeting at St. Marguerite's Retreat House in Mendham, NJ the weekend of March 15-17, 1991.  On March 18, the Board was scheduled to meet with the Presiding Bishop at the Episcopal Church Center.  This will mark the first time in its 16-year history that Integrity's Board will have met with the Primate.

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

WHY A STRAIGHT PRIEST BELONGS TO INTEGRITY

By the Rev. J. Gollan Root

Integrity is for gay and lesbian Episcopalians *and their* friends. (writer's emphasis)  I am a proud member of Integrity

and a friend to gay and lesbian Episcopalians.  I'm also straight, married and the father of two.

Why do I, a straight priest in the Episcopal Church, belong to Integrity?  Mine is a long story of growth, but it has brought me to the conviction that all concerned Episcopalians should belong to Integrity.  I believe that the onus of proof should be put on those *not* members.  "Why are you not a member of Integrity?" should be the question.

But why am I a member?

Of the many stories of courage that excited me as a youth, none was more exciting or formative than that of King Christian of Denmark who proclaimed in 1944 that Denmark would have nothing to do with the Nazi anti-semitic program.  He even threatened to wear the badge of shame, a yellow star of David, if it were imposed upon Danish Jews.  He was true to his promise and ended up wearing one!  I thought, How wonderful that a king would make

himself as the least powerful citizen in his kingdom.

Later, when I understood the Incarnation more deeply, I

realized that this is what Christ did - he made himself as the least powerful in God's kingdom.  In further situations of Christian formation, especially growing up at St. Stephen's, Pittsfield, Mass., and attending YMCA Camp Becket-in-the-Berkshires, I learned that one who would follow Christ identifies with the outcast, the powerless, the oppressed, the one on the fringes of society.  It meant that I had to speak up against the bully towel whipping the 99 pound weakling.  It meant that I had to force my college fraternity to use the electric paddle no more.  It meant I had to work for Rotary to include women.

So, I guess it is no surprise that I, a white man, belong to the NAACP.  It is one of the best ways I know to work against racism.  No surprise either, that I, a straight man, belong to Integrity. It's one of the best ways I know to work against heterosexism.

I won't go into all the struggles I have had to wrestle with, including my own homophobia.  I won't mention the various kinds of negativity I have received from others, including a few fellow priests.  (Thank God for a loving bishop who has supported me even if we do not 100% agree.)  But what I can affirm is that

Christ really is most clearly present with those who know first

hand the kind of suffering he experienced, those who know first

hand the kind of rejection he knew, those who know first hand that in spite of all of this, they are still called by Christ to be hospitality givers, to be loving, giving and forgiving servants.  I have seen and known my Christ in my fellow members of Integrity, and I thank them all.

Of course I look forward to the day when our Church does not need an Integrity.  Of course I look forward to the day when our society no longer needs an NAACP.  Meanwhile, I belong to both.

I commit myself to working for the day when in Christ there is no east or west, male or female, Jew or gentile, slave or free.

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

Fr. Root is Rector of St. Paul's Church, Holyoke and Chaplain of Integrity/Western Massachusetts

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

WHY INTEGRITY?

by Tawn J. Stokes

Integrity is different.  The one thing we are, perhaps because there are few of us, is glad to see each other.  Each of us brings a strand of the Holy Spirit.  That's mystical but I know that the Body of Christ is a mystery.  I crave a family and have none, or none anywhere near me; time and death and chance have done their business.  In Integrity I am not alone.  Integrity is full of people who know about losses, and know about laughing anyway.  We are survivors.  I need that.

And I have this curious feeling that God is with us.  Our poverty, our fewness, our conflicts, our permanence and lack of permanence, strike me as holy.  The night we watched "Brother Sun, Sister Moon" was for me a major familial and spiritual experience.  Watching that movie alone would have left me despairing.

I know you are there, even when I do not see you.  Even when I don't show up on Saturday night, I am still a part of you.  If we do that for me, for how many others?  Maybe what I think we need to do is ask that: are we like a religious house that has only a few who live here, but all those who come to the door go away with something?  And the knowledge that we are here, year in and year out, is important to others who cannot even tell us.  The Monks of Tibet dance for peace; we dance for peace.  We dance for the rainbow, the love and acceptance of all.  When I die I am sure that someone will come to my funeral, be they only the last living members of Integrity.

We need to reach out our hands to those who are alone, and they come in a full range of ages and circumstances.  When I was accepted at the age of 22 into the Episcopal Church, the Bishop said to me, "You may leave the church, but the church will never leave you.  And the church will always be here when you come back."

There are not many things that have been said to me in all my life that have meant more than that.

So I have always thought that this is the mission of Integrity, both as part of the church and a special ministry; to be here, never to leave you, and to be here when you come back.  God knows it ain't easy to do that, but we have to.  It is not a glamorous mission but it is our mission.  It's not somebody's got to do it: it's us that's got to.  For those who come, and those who come back.

We have to be here.

-----

This article is excerpted from one that appeared in the Integrity/Philadelphia newsletter.

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

GOD, SEX, AND JUSTICE

A sermon preached by Dr. George F. Regas, November 11, 1990

at All Saints Church, Pasadena, California

"God, Sex, and Justice" is the title of this sermon.  God and justice--we certainly know they belong together.  But God and sex-- and in church?  It may be a puzzle to some because we have been the lifelong recipients of double messages.  "Sex is good and beautiful, but let's not talk about it in church."  Or, "Sex is dirty.  Save it for someone you love!"  I never have understood how that works!

Years ago the psychologist Carl Jung observed that religion and sexuality were closely intertwined.  When people brought to him religious questions, they turned out to be sexual issues.  And when they came with sexual questions, they turned out to be religious ones.

At conscious and unconscious levels our spirituality and our sexuality are very much intertwined.

By spirituality, I mean all of the external, ritualistic forms that help to connect us to God, the creator.  I mean also the informal ways we forge a union between our own spirit and the divine spirit, And live in God, the lover.  It is a journey into God who is the ultimate power and meaning in our lives.  It is the recognition that it is God in whom we live and move and have our existence.  In part, that is what spirituality means.

By sexuality I do mean erotic arousal and genital expressions of love.  But I mean much more.  Sexuality is a basic dimension of human existence.  It affects all of our thoughts and feelings and actions.  Sexuality is our way of being in the world as female and male persons, and living as bodied persons with the capacity of sensuousness and touch and communion.  It is our way of being in the world with certain sexual and affectional orientations.  In short, sexuality is our way of being in the world by God's design and creation--created in such a marvelous way that we can be drawn into intimacy and touch and communion.  Our sexuality is all of that.

During the 1960s we experienced a sexual revolution.  During the last quarter of a century we have witnessed great changes in the cultural and religious understanding of sex roles, sexual behavior outside of marriage, single parent families, homosexuality, and the explicit ways in which sexual matters are discussed.  There was enormous resistance to these changes, but it happened.

In 1984 "Time" magazine did a cover story announcing that the sexual revolution was over.  Veterans of the revolution, "Time" said, were bored and wounded.  The one night stand had lost its sheen.  Helped along by herpes and AIDS, commitment and intimacy were "in" again, and celibacy was once more a respectable option. There was some evidence that the "me generation" was giving way to the "we generation."

There is no question that much of that is true.  However, in a deeper sense, the sexual revolution is far from over.  Many scholars are saying that never before in the history of the Church has there been so much ferment as there is now on human sexuality. The outpouring of resolutions by national church bodies, the pronouncements by national religious figures trying to reaffirm the traditional values on sexual practice, has been unprecedented.

It is a tremendous privilege to be the rector of a church that is willing to live with conflict in its life.  One of the things I treasure most about All Saints Church is the fact that we have not shied away from trying to deal with the tough, controversial questions of the contemporary world.  It has been hard work, but we've tried to face these issues openly, gracefully and honestly. I love that about you.

This morning I want to engage you on a difficult issue.  Among many ethicists whom I respect there is the growing conviction that human sexuality is the test case for communities of faith in our time. These complex issues of sexuality are placed forcefully on the Church's agenda: full equality and justice for women, abortion rights, sexual love outside of marriage, and the most controversial of them all, homosexuality.  William S. Coffin, formerly the senior minister of Riverside Church in New York City and a leading prophetic voice in American churches, says the issue of homosexuality is probably the most divisive issue since slavery split the Church.

The mandate of Amos and the prophets, and the imperative of Jesus and the Church to seek social justice will not allow us to forget the fact that discrimination and oppression continue against millions of gay and lesbian people in the structures of society, as well as within the Church.  We must address that injustice.

My case has four dimensions to it.

I

We of the Jewish Christian heritage are a people of the Book.  So what does the Bible say about homosexuality?

Many of the people who condemn and reject gay men and lesbians and want to deal with them punitively read the Bible with a selective literalism.  I just read a recent article by the Chaplain of the United States Senate where he called homosexual practice an aberration and abomination--and quoted scripture to show how sinful and perverse such behavior is.

It is true that there is a passage in the book of Leviticus in the Jewish Bible that does call a man lying down with another man an abomination.  But I want to point out that the Leviticus law also used the word abomination in reference to other behaviors as well: eating pork, misuse of incense, sexual intercourse during the menstrual period, and wearing clothing of mixed fabric.  Selective literalism always gets us in trouble !

The television evangelists are always talking about the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, and how homosexuality destroyed the city.  I can't imagine any respectable Biblical scholar attributing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to homosexuality.  Yet the words sodomy and sodomite have come to mean the perversity of homosexuality.

I heard a great story about Sodom and Gomorrah.  A political scientist, who was also a good lay theologian, opened a speech he was giving in Washington, D.C. in this manner: "Washington is full of sodomites.  The Congress of the United States is half full of sodomites.  And the President of this country is probably a sodomite."  Then he said, "Let me tell you what sodomy means.  I will read from the Book of Ezekiel, the sixteenth chapter, the forty-ninth verse: 'This was the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had the pride that goes with food in plenty, comfort, and ease, and yet she never helped the poor in their need.'"

He said, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was the sin of inhospitality, the sin of hardness of heart in the presence of human need, the sin of injustice, the sin of neglecting the poor. That is the abomination to God.  Those are the sodomites.  I'm sure he got their attention!

The world in which the Bible was written did not know about the loyal, faithful, tender, non-exploitive loving acts of same-sex couples for whom mutual attraction is part of their given natures.

When the Bible condemns homosexuality, it is speaking about rape, incest, prostitution and cruelty which is also sinful for the heterosexual.  And there is not a single word from the lips of Jesus about homosexuality.

II

The really serious problem for the people of the Book is not how to square homosexuality with certain Biblical passages that appear to condemn it, but rather how to reconcile rejection, prejudice, hostility, and punishment of homosexuality with the unconditional love of Christ.

Homosexuality in the vast majority of cases is a condition that is given and not chosen.  From my own reading and personal experience with gay and lesbian persons, I am convinced that at least ninety per cent of homosexuals do not have anything remotely close to a choice in their sexual orientation.

I recognize that a few say they do.  Some believe they have freely chosen to be homosexuals and live out that sexual orientation.  I respect that position -- and honor those people.

What do we know about the causes of homosexuality?  The exact causes are unknown--but it is increasingly clear that the more we know about heterosexuality the more we will understand homosexuality.  It is a continuum.  I don't believe a person is absolutely straight or absolutely gay.

I have been guided very substantially in my understanding of homosexuality by the many books of James B. Nelson.  He is a brilliant theologian who teaches at the United Theological Seminary in Minneapolis.  He is recognized as the country's leading ethicist on human sexuality.

According to Dr. Nelson, we cannot say with any precision what causes homosexuality.  It is likely to be an interaction of several factors, including genetic, hormonal and environmental.  But psychological and social influences alone probably cannot cause homosexuality.  He writes that the genetic, hormonal, neurological predisposition toward homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual orientation is present at birth for all people.  But it takes the blending of various factors--and no one seems to be quite sure how--in the earliest years of a child's life to produce a lasting sexual orientation in that person.  Once that is relatively fixed--and the research now says this is between two and five years of age--this sexual orientation cannot be changed permanently by therapy.  Many gay and lesbian people tell us horror stories of how parents, upon hearing that their child was homosexual, sent them off to a psychiatrist "to be fixed."  The dehumanization of that process is overwhelming.

To deny or repress or hide one's sexuality is bad theology and bad psychology.  The only healthy thing to do is accept oneself and affirm one's sexuality.

Without self acceptance one cannot possibly live responsibly.  But for gay and lesbian people that is a gigantic struggle.  They have frequently been told by their families that they don't belong to them, by the Church that they are perverse and desperate sinners because of their sexual orientation, by the medical profession that they are sick and abnormal, and by the Supreme Court of the land that they are criminals.

How have gay and lesbian people withstood such an onslaught? am amazed to see such health and stability in the homosexual community.

At the core of the Christian faith is the simple and profound assertion: God loves you just as you are.  In the Gospel the first and last word is grace.  Grace means you don't have to become something before you are loved by God.  It is offered free.  You can't buy it or earn it or deserve it.  All you can do is receive it.  That unconditional love and generous acceptance are not marginal to our religion.  They are central to our belief.

This radical acceptance is of the total person--body, mind and spirit.  James Nelson says that once we allow this radical grace to penetrate and we accept the body as loved by God--we begin to reclaim the lost sexual dimensions of ourselves.

Grace is total acceptance.  Our body's feelings, our body's erogenous dimensions, our fantasies, our masculinity and femininity, our heterosexuality, our homosexuality, our sexual irresponsibilities as well as our yearnings for sexual integrity--all of this is graciously accepted by divine love.

That is the wonder and glory of the Christian faith.  When we know God loves us just as we are and we put our arms around ourselves in acceptance and self love, there is released in us enormous spiritual power - -power to grow into wholeness, into that beautiful person God has created us to be.

III

I want to move on and share with you my belief that genital expressions of homosexual love can be holy and good.

The National Episcopal Church, along with other mainline denominations, as well as the Roman Catholic Church, have said that gay and lesbian persons are welcome.  Their presence and service in the Church are valued.  But they must remain celibate.

The Episcopal bishops recently by a very narrow vote disassociated themselves from an ordination to the priesthood of a man who is a practicing homosexual.  By a vote of 78 to 74, Bishop John Spong of Newark was censured by his colleagues for this ordination.  And a couple of years ago the Episcopal House of Bishops reiterated the Church's belief in the traditional values that say genital expressions of love are permitted only for heterosexual couples within the bonds of marriage.

I strongly reject these positions of my Church.

Yes, celibacy is an option to be honored when voluntarily chosen for positive reasons.  Often celibacy is chosen not because genital love is intrinsically wrong but rather because celibacy is for this person the best way to express a vocational commitment or the best path into sexual integrity.  I know many people who have chosen celibacy in whom this commitment is a beautiful quality.  It should be supported.

But celibacy is not the only valid homosexual lifestyle for Christians.  Every human being has a God-given right to sexual love and intimacy--a right to be lived out in a way that is compatible with the spirit of Christ.

John J. McNeill was a Jesuit for nearly forty years before being expelled from the Society of Jesus in 1987 for his views on gay and lesbian sexuality.  His books have helped illumine my journey.

Father McNeill writes that only a sadistic God would create millions of human beings who are homosexuals and then deny them the right to sexual intimacy.  He says before he believed in such a sadistic God he would choose to believe the Roman Catholic Church is wrong about homosexual activity.  And they kicked him out!

After much study, reflection and struggle, I have come to believe that the ethical standards for sexual practice are the same for homosexuals as for heterosexuals.  The core issue for sexual ethics is not the assessment of certain types of physical acts as right or wrong, normal or abnormal.  The core issue is not whether genital love is within or outside of heterosexual marriage.  The pivotal issue is the integrity of the relationship.  This is true for us all.

Gay men and lesbians desire and need deep, lasting relationships just as much as I do.  And they should not be denied genital expressions of that loving communion.

We must boldly proclaim that it is not the legality of marriage that determines the morality of sexual love.  Is sex ln marriage right and good?  It all depends.  We know there is lots of sexual abuse in marriage, so much bargaining within the bedroom scene, lots of impersonal sex, much deception and deep sexual alienation that produces violence.  You can't tell the goodness of a sexual act just by looking at the external appearance.  You must know the inner meaning and deep quality that act is expressing.

So the ethic is authentic love for all of us.  What is a good sexual act? It is honest and real--clearly conveying what the relationship really means, what its deepest meaning is.  It is other-enriching, respecting the other person, never exploiting.  It is faithful--tonight's pleasures are not tomorrow's pain.  It reveals a commitment, a trust, a tenderness for the other person. It is willing to take responsibility for sexual love's consequences--personal and social.  Good sex connects us to the building of a good society.  It is liberating, life-giving, joyous, fun, easy, ecstatic, fantastic.  And it resists all cruelty, all exploitation, all impersonalization.

This kind of ethic for sexual behavior is appropriate, I believe, for both gay and straight Christians.

IV

I want to share another conviction I have on homosexuality.  I have come to the place in my own thinking that I now believe I should bless the covenant of same-sex couples.

There has been a strong theme in Jewish Christian thought that procreation was the justification for sex.  This began to change in the seventeenth century.  Some Puritans, Anglicans and Quakers began to teach a different understanding of the Bible.  They preached that God's main purpose in creating us as sexual creatures was not to make babies but to make love.  Loving intimacy is the primary goal of sex.  If children come, it is only an added blessing.  They are not the primary reason for marriage.  The reason is love and commitment.  We all know that such an ethical position has had a difficult struggle in the councils of the Church.

Over the years I have gotten acquainted with some wonderful gay and lesbian people.  They have been my friends and have gently led me on my journey.  I've seen goodness and holiness and beauty and love in these people.  Nothing in me could ever see their lives as sinful and perverse.  They have been the instruments of grace for this community of faith.

At least ten per cent of this congregation are gay and lesbian persons.  There are more who have children and friends and colleagues who are homosexuals.  We have all learned so much by the willingness of these people to share with us.

The holy spirit is speaking to this congregation in and through the experience of gay and lesbian Christians.  Our ministry with persons with AIDS has brought me into contact with some extraordinary people.  I've seen remarkable love between persons with AIDS and their lovers.  I've witnessed such tenderness and fidelity, such affection and care and deep respect to the last breath.  I've seen the holy God at work in their relationship.

I know many same-sex couples in this congregation.  Some of them I know up close and down deep.  I'm convinced, without any question, of the integrity and goodness of their relationship.  I believe I should bless those unions if the request is made.  Even though the National Episcopal Church says no to the blessing of same-sex covenants, I feel God is calling me and this great parish into a new place.  I've come to believe that not to be willing to bless a relationship that is committed to the same standards of love and lasting fidelity as heterosexuals is to say in effect to a same - sex couple that whatever their relationship is, it is not "fit" for public Christian affirmation, support and celebration.

We should not be in such a place in this Christian community.  The blessing of a same-sex covenant is the clearest symbol the Church can offer that these precious children of God are fully accepted into the life of the congregation.

Don't ever underestimate the power of healing such an act would bring.  When we bless a union of a homosexual couple, I believe this is what we are saying: the church sees goodness in you and your love for each other; we recognize your intention to share that love for a lifetime; the church wants to bless you on your journey and sustain you when the way is difficult; we cheer you on your way and hope for your success; and we shall rejoice in your victories and weep for your failures.

That is where I want us to be.  Even though I've been too long in coming to this position, we will not jump into a radical policy.  I want us to struggle, gay and straight together, to discern the best way to move on this decision.

I certainly recognize we are not all at the same place.  We need to share how we feel, our fears and our hopes, as we plan this important act of justice for gay and lesbian persons.

But it is for us all.  Sexuality is vitally important to the dignity of each one of us.  The issue isn't about "them" but about all of us.  I'm confident that the more I live in the radical grace of God and trust myself, body and soul, to this loving God the more steadily I will travel on this adventure.

After a long pilgrimage I'm solidly committed to bless same-sex covenants, but I want to listen to you and make our way together as a parish.  I look forward to that day when gay men and lesbians will be embraced fully and unconditionally in love with justice. And once more in this church those famous words of the prophet Amos will mark our corporate life:

Let justice flow on like a river and righteousness like a never failing stream.  (5: 24)

Amen.

-----

1.  James B. Nelson's books:

"Embodiment: An Approach to Sexuality and Christian Theology."  (Augsburg Publishing House, 1978)

"The Intimate Connection: Male Sexuality and Masculine Spirituality."  (Westminster Press, 1988)

"Between Two Gardens: Reflections On Sexuality and Religious Experience."  (Pilgrim Press, 1983)

2.  John J. McNeill's books:

"The Church and the Homosexual."  (Beacon Press, 1988)

"Taking a Chance on God: Liberating Theology for Gays, Lesbians, and Their Lovers, Families and Friends."  (Beacon Press, 1988)

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

A PESSIMISTIC VIEW OF THE FUTURE

*Excerpt from "A personal Prospectus on the Episcopal Church in the 1990s" by the Rev. Walter Dennis, Bishop Suffragan of New York, which appeared in the St. Luke's Journal of Theology, December 1990.*

I see shifts in the orientations of our own constituencies.  The Church in the 1990s will have an active and vital outreach to blue collar workers and Yuppies.  It will become less sensitive to the concerns of constituencies such as women, blacks, hispanics, gays, and lesbians.  Looking back over the long span of history, I conclude that the Anglican Church, in general, and the Episcopal Church-USA, in particular, has never handled matters of race and sexuality well.  We have an opportunity in the 1990s to turn that around, but I sadly doubt if we will.  Unless time stands still, it is the nature of pendulums not to stop at a reasonable dead center.  The swing from the sexual revolution, begun by the evident bankruptcy of lust and narcissistic consumerism, is speeding toward sexual repression, lamentably using the gross perversion of the tragedy of AIDS as one of its weapons.  I hope that the Church will not yield to the tendency to malign homosexuals or otherwise encourage homophobes to come out from under the rocks.  The signs are not promising, however.  The Church will be gun-shy of controversial issues, such as blessing pair-bonded gay and lesbian relationships and the ordination of monogamous gay and lesbian clergy.  With gay-bashing at an all time high and no one speaking out against it in spite of the resolutions of General Convention, with some seminaries requiring people to sign pledges regarding their sexuality; and with persons seeking the Episcopate being asked to allow sexual checks on their past history, I am pessimistic about progress in this area in the 1990s.  While the Church has spoken clearly on this matter, most dioceses are not carrying it out.  It seems odd that, at the very moment in history when Liberal and Reformed Jews are admitting women and homosexuals to the Rabbinate, Christian church are fighting hardest to keep those persons out of their ministries.  It is also ironic that it is in the Old Testament that most biblical prescriptions are found against homosexuality.  I foresee the church hardening its line on sexuality outside of marriage and the 1990s, like the 1890s, will be grim, not gay.

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

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE

Just as the classic story for the justification of black slavery was the story of Ham and Noah's curse of Canaan, and that for the subordination of women is the story of Eve and the forbidden fruit, the story used to justify the persecution of homosexuals is Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 10:1-29).  A perusal of the story will probably puzzle the reader as to why it has played the role it has in history.

The crux hangs on the use of one Hebrew word translated 'to know.' Lot, a foreigner, lives in Sodom, where two angels visit to investigate rumors of great evil.  He offers them the hospitality of his home.  But the men of the city, hearing he is hosting two strangers, gather at his door and demand that the men come out.  "Bring them to us that we may 'know' them."  Lot refuses and bribes them to go away with the offer of his daughters instead.

Some argue that the men of Sodom have come to check these strangers out.  'Know' here means just, 'Let's get to know them and find out if they are trustworthy.'

This word translated 'know' can also mean 'to have intercourse.' Of the 943 times it is used in the Old Testament, only 10 times is it used unquestionably in this way, and then it always refers to heterosexual intercourse.  But Lot uses the same word of his daughters 'who have not known man,' and sex is clearly the issue. Yet even this reading emphasizes the importance of hospitality, since Lot is prepared to give his daughters to these men to protect his guests.  If the men wish to 'know' these strangers carnally, the issue is not homosexuality per se but homosexual rape - another matter!

There is a parallel story in Judges 19:1-21:25.  A Levite and his concubine are taken in by a sojourner.  The men of the town surround the house and demand that the man be brought out 'so that we may know him.' Instead, the concubine is put outside and ravished until she is dead.  Later the Levite says the intent of the men was to kill him (20:5).  He stirs up Israel and the men are killed and the city burned.

0

In both cases it is clear the men intend violence, and while there is a sexual element, the key issue is the violation of hospitality, which dictates that a guest be treated with respect.

We find references to Sodom many times in Scripture as a symbol of the utter destruction caused by great sin, but nowhere in Scripture is that sin identified as homosexuality.  Jesus (Luke 10:10-13) seems to think the sin is inhospitality.  Ezekiel (16:49-50) says it is pride and thoughtless ease.  Isaiah (1:10ff) says it is injustice.  Jeremiah (23:14) says moral laxity.  In the New Testament, 2 Peter (2:6ff) says licentiousness, and Jude (1:7) says they acted 'immorally and indulged in unnatural lusts,' apparently referring to Jewish legends of women mating with angels.

Whether inhospitality is merely one of Sodom's sins, here dramatized in a homosexual rape attempt, or whether inhospitality was the primary sin of Sodom (after all, the angels had come to investigate an existing rumor of evil), at no point in the story or elsewhere in either the Old or New Testament is homosexuality itself stated as the cause of Sodom's destruction.

That the sin of Sodom was not connected with homosexuality in Biblical times is further borne out by the fact that none of the Biblical passages traditionally understood to condemn these practices mentions the story.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the only places in the Old Testament where homosexual acts per se are mentioned.  In both they are forbidden in a series of rules and prohibitions (the Holiness code) which are intended to maintain Israel's distinctiveness from the nations around her.  Here they are associated with idolatry.  Among Israel's neighbors, fertility rites were common and worshippers used male and female temple prostitutes for this purpose.  These acts are forbidden as 'abominations,' a word in Hebrew that does not mean morally wrong but 'unclean or disgusting to the Hebrews,' like eating pork or intercourse with a menstruating woman.

This is a body of law not binding on Christians since Jesus and Paul declared that under the new covenant lt was not the external violation of Levitical law, but spiritual infidelity that made a person unclean.  Indeed, in Acts 15, Gentiles were explicitly exempted from Mosaic Law, including circumcision, with four exceptions.  In order to have communion with Jews, Gentiles were asked to: abstain from food sacrificed to idols; from blood; from things strangled; and from fornication.  Homosexuality is not mentioned.  While contemporary taboos make the prohibition in Leviticus of homosexual acts seem of a different order to us than the dietary laws, the ancient world felt no such hostility to homosexuality, and made no such distinction.  Prohibition of same sex behavior would have seemed to most Roman citizens as arbitrary as prohibition of cutting the beard.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Timothy 1:9-10, the words often translated 'homosexual' in these lists of sins are uncertain ln their meaning.  In the first, 'malakoi' literally means soft, and is used elsewhere of dissolute or wanton behavior in general.  It is not used in Greek elsewhere for homosexual but it is used elsewhere of heterosexuals.  The word 'arsenokoitai' is quite rare and very probably referred to a male prostitute who services either sex.

What is striking is that there were a number of words available in Greek commonly used to describe people who practiced homosexual behavior, which would have been unequivocal in meaning.  If the author's intention was to refer to homosexuality generally, it is likely one of them would have been used.

Finally, in Romans 1:26-27, Paul discusses the Gentiles who, abandoning the true God, turned to idols and as a result abandoned their natural heterosexual behavior for homosexual. Uniquely, Paul mentions women as well as men.  This behavior, he says, is 'against nature.'

We should not read our concept or nature of natural law into Paul - 'against nature' seems to mean 'unusual' or 'uncharacteristic' rather than intrinsic evil.  Earlier he says God acts 'against nature' grafting the Gentiles on the cultivated tree - that is, the Jewish covenant with God.  The point of Paul's argument is against idolatry.  The reference to homosexual behavior is illustrative.  One of the results of idolatry is confusion in sexual matters as in matters of God.  The people condemned are not homosexuals as we know them, but heterosexuals who commit homosexual acts.  If the persons condemned are not 'naturally' heterosexual, the argument makes no sense.

Paul did not discuss gay persons but homosexual acts committed by heterosexuals.  There is a very real question as to whether homosexuality as we understand it, as an affectional orientation, was known to Biblical writers.  There is no word for it in Scripture, as there is no discussion of loving homosexual relationships; neither the Old Testament or the New takes a demonstrable position.  Sexuality itself seems to have been a matter of indifference to Jesus.

In conclusion, we have examined all the references purporting to address the question and find that Scripture gives us no specific guidance on homosexuality as we understand it today.  Any conclusions we may come to Biblically will have to derive from our understanding of the purpose sexuality and the more general principles of our faith.

-----

THis excellent summary was prepared by a clerical member of Integrity/Southland for use at the Los Angeles Diocesan Convention, where it was distributed as a pamphlet.

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

A SNOWBALL'S CHANCE IN PALM SPRINGS:

Los Angeles votes on blessing same-sex couples

by Larkette Lein

Integrity/Southland, the newly re-constituted gay and lesbian caucus of the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Los Angeles, made national news when a resolution we sponsored focused attention on the question of whether the Episcopal church "acts appropriately and for the good of the people of God when it upholds and celebrates ... two persons who are willing to make a life-long covenant of fidelity and love with each other."

Delegates from 148 churches in six counties considered the resolution at the diocese's annual convention, held in Riverside in December.  Clergy members voted 91 to 55 in support of the resolution; lay delegates turned thumbs down by a margin of about 300 to 200 in a stand-up-and-be-counted vote.  A majority of both orders were required to pass the non-binding resolution.

Nonetheless, supporters of the resolution are elated at the strong showing.  I'd been telling reporters I thought passage of the resolution the first time around had a snowball's chance in Palm Springs.  But it does snow in Palm Springs, just not very often.  Integrity plans on making several tries.  But even the clergy who were opposed say the church will give its blessing within a few years.

One unexpected boost was the stance taken by the Rev. George Regas, rector of the largest Episcopal church west of the Mississippi, whose recent sermon stating that he intends to start performing the blessing of same-sex unions made the L.A. Times and the wire services [and is reprinted herein].

More deeply significant was having our bishop, the Rt. Rev. Frederick H. Borsch, behind us.  He not only told Integrity that the resolution "made good Christian sense" to him, but sent a mailing containing the following statement to all the clergy in the diocese:  "In my office as bishop I do not at this time have authority from the Episcopal Church to sanction the blessing of the covenants of gay and lesbian couples.  Speaking personally, however, I have long held that the Church should support and uphold faithful and committed Christians in such covenants, and I continue to work toward that goal."

While the church's canons do not expressly forbid blessing same-sex couples, conventional wisdom states that you do not do this.  However, this has not stopped priests in several Southern California parishes from performing such ceremonies.

While such celebrations confer no legal rights or benefits, we hope that passage of the resolution, when it comes, will send a strong signal to secular law-makers.

But more important to those of us who believe in nurturing our  own, and others', spiritual health, that the church is even considering blessing same-sex couples is Good News.  In fact, it's Gospel, because, after all, Gospel means Good News, and what better news than that God loves and nurtures all of his children? When the church can publicly state that it is appropriate to bless loving relationships, that will be a big step towards welcoming gays and lesbians back home into the wider spiritual community.

Integrity plans to bring a similar resolution before the convention next year.  Between now and then, we'll be promoting workshops and discussion groups throughout the diocese.  Our main purpose this first year was to stimulate discussion and to give people a chance to get used to the idea.  No one could stay neutral on the topic when it was a standing vote.  I was really proud of the kind of open and genuine dialogue that we heard.  People really seemed to be trying to understand where the other guy was coming from.  And that goes for both sides, which is a good sign.

Our more immediate concern, however, is the church's national convention, to be held this summer.  Resolutions dealing with blessing same-sex relationships and with ordination of openly gay and lesbian priests will be on the agenda of the triennial meeting.  We'll have our work cut out for us.  And speaking of snowballs, the convention is scheduled for Phoenix --in July!

-----

Larkette Lein is the Convener of Integrity/Southland, which was certified as a chapter in October, 1990.  She and her husband, Paul Courry, live in Irvine and have been active in a number of peace and justice ministries of the Episcopal Church.

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

CLOSETED GAY BISHOP DIES OF AIDS

Finis Crutchfield's first post as a Methodist bishop was the Louisiana Conference.  Even in his new role, one of enormous visibility and influence, Crutchfield was determined to continue his double life.

Early in his tenure in New Orleans, Crutchfield took the most daring and uncharacteristic step of his career.

On June 24, 1973, a fire broke out in the Up Stairs Lounge, a gay bar in the French Quarter.  Thirty people were killed; among them was a minister of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, a denomination founded in 1968 by the Rev. Troy Perry to minister to the gay community.

As soon as Perry was told of the fire he flew from his headquarters in Los Angeles to New Orleans to oversee a memorial service for the victims.  But every church he approached for permission to hold such a service in its sanctuary turned him down.  Then Perry heard that there was a small Methodist church in the French Quarter whose minister was willing to hold the service.

On July 1 Perry conducted the memorial service, attended by more than 200 people, among them Finis Crutchfield.  At the service Perry met Crutchfield,  who had sanctioned use of the church.

Perry recalled:  "He said, 'I just wanted to let you know not everyone in Louisiana is a redneck.  I wanted you to know there are people who care.'  Then he said, 'Several people killed in the fire were my friends.'  And the way he said 'my friends,' I knew he was saying something more to me."

After Perry returned to Los Angeles, he received a call from a Metropolitan Community church minister who was temporarily presiding over the New Orleans congregation.  Someone had seen Bishop Crutchfield at a gay bar and was threatening to report him to Methodist authorities, the minister had heard.  Perry immediately called Crutchfield with the news.

Crutchfield replied in a weary voice, "I guess it's time for me to change my bar."

Crutchfield's role in the memorial service caused a lot of talk.  Given his outspoken conservatism, people wondered why he would take a stand on behalf of homosexuals.

One Methodist who heard of the bishop's action and was deeply heartened was Richard Monroe.  Shortly after the fire, Monroe, on the church's national staff in Nashville at the time, wrote Crutchfield thanking him for his stand.  A few weeks after he wrote his letter, the council of bishops met in Nashville, and Crutchfield called Monroe and suggested they meet.

"I thought we would talk about our concern with the gay community," Monroe, now 63, recalled.

He found out that Crutchfield had a simpler agenda.  Monroe and Crutchfield met in the hotel lobby, and the bishop invited Monroe up to his room.  Once there Crutchfield offered Monroe a soft drink and walked across the room to get it.  He came back with the drinks and put them down on a table near Monroe.  Then Crutchfield exposed himself and invited Monroe to do the same.

"He was aggressive, very intentional, and he didn't waste any time," Monroe said.  "I was very shocked."

With Crutchfield standing over him, Monroe tried to defuse the situation.

"I said, 'I'm sorry.  I'm not going to get into this.'  He said, 'Oh, I think you are.'"  Then, much to Monroe's relief, the telephone rang.

Crutchfield took the call in another room.  Monroe sat wondering what to do.  When Crutchfield returned a few minutes later, he explained that he had to leave on business.  He then escorted Monroe to the lobby, engaging in pleasant small talk as they went.  It was the only time they ever met.

Monroe knows that telling the story of his encounter with Bishop Crutchfield will put his job in jeopardy and cause pain to the bishop's family, but he said:  "I think the truth is more important than the deception.  Continuing to care for people with AIDS is more important than the question of the bishop's lifestyle."

He decided that he had to speak because of the damage that could be done by a false story of how the bishop contracted AIDS. (The family had issued a statement after Crutchfield's death denying that the bishop was a homosexual and, it was widely thought, suggesting that he contracted the disease from casual contact with gays in the course of his ministry.)

When homosexual issues later came up at Methodist conferences, Crutchfield vehemently opposed any softening of church prohibitions.  But privately he was proud of his role in the memorial service.

"I heard him tell the story hundreds of times," said a longtime gay friend.

In 1976 Crutchfield, then 59, finished his first four-year term as bishop.  He had two terms left before he reached mandatory retirement age.  That year he transferred to the Texas Conference, an area that stretches from Galveston to Texarkana and includes most of East Texas.

The Texas Conference during his tenure increased its membership from 243,000 to 270,000, becoming one of the fastest-growing in the country.

Crutchfield was a frequent patron at many of the gay bars in Montrose.  The Venture N on Main Street was one of his favorites.  Crutchfield was a steady customer for 10 years, often coming in three or four times a week.  Jim Dondson, owner of the Venture N, remembers him well.

"He always came in with young men in their 20s; he didn't pick people up.  He always wore a suit.  He'd sit with the person he brought in; they'd kiss and hold hands."

While cruising Montrose, Crutchfield ran into an old acquaintance: the young man from the Tulsa savings and loan association, now a Houston executive.

The executive recalled:  "I started to see him in a few bookstores--you know the kind I'm talking about.  It was a real shock to me.  I told him I had been in a raid a few years before.  I said to him, 'Finis, how can you afford to be in here?'" Crutchfield just shrugged off the question.

Crutchfield became close friends with a young gay minister he had encountered at the Brazos River Bottom bar, although the two were never lovers.  Crutchfield enjoyed talking to him about his official events and about his life in the gay world.  They also had more serious talks about homosexuality.

"He was interested in how I was feeling, that I had a good self-image," the young minister said.  "He would say whether a person was gay or not was immaterial; what's important is how you feel about yourself.  He knew he was gay, and he knew gay wasn't bad."

The minister recalls one conversation in particular:  "We were driving around, and I made some sarcastic remark about being gay and in the clergy.  He said, 'Never make fun of your calling.  That is to be taken with the utmost seriousness and joy, and you have nothing to be ashamed of.'"

The bishop and the young minister often went to gay bars together.  The minister found that the bishop's taste ran the gamut.

"Once he took me to a trucker bar.  It was a raunchy place not far from First Methodist Church.  He was dressed for the role in his cowboy boots and jeans."

Crutchfield seemed unconcerned about being discovered.  "He said, 'People here don't know who I am.  They don't read the papers.'"

Crutchfield also had a long relationship with a church layman, now in his mid-30s, whom Crutchfield met in 1976 at a church outside of Houston.  Shortly after meeting, the two became lovers, often traveling together to cities where Crutchfield's  duties took him.  The young man's employment by the church gave them an excuse for being seen together.

One of their trips was to a city Crutchfield knew well, New Orleans, the young man recalled.  The two also went to gay bathhouses in Houston, Dallas and Austin.  When they weren't traveling together, Crutchfield liked to report his adventures to the young layman.

"He had a huge sex drive.  He would call me from New York City and tell me who he had picked up.  He said he met gay people the entire world over."

For Finis Crutchfield 1984 was the end of an era.  After 44 years as a minister, 12 of them at the highest level of the church, at 67 he was retiring.

At the 1984 General Conference, his last as an active bishop, a major item in the agenda was a question concerning homosexuality.  Homosexuality always had been considered immoral, but as the gay rights movement spread to the church, ministers began challenging that assumption.  In response, there were those who felt the church must make explicit its opposition to homosexuality among the clergy.

After heated debate, language that excluded "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" from the ministry was added to the Book of Discipline.  As was his pattern, Crutchfield was in favor of his church's repudiation of homosexuality.

But he seemed troubled by what he was doing.  When he told the young gay minister about the conference, he reported happily how many people had voted against the prohibition.

"He came back and said, 'You wouldn't believe the number of people in support of ordaining gay clergy.  The vote is getting closer,'" the minster recalled.

Still, Crutchfield seemed not completely at peace with his public role.  At the General Conference he spoke at length to the Rev. Morris Floyd, of Minneapolis, an openly gay minister and spokesman for the unofficial church organization called Affirmation: United Methodists for Lesbian/Gay Concerns.

In several phone calls to Floyd, Crutchfield discussed the burdens of leading a double life.

"He didn't indicate he ever seriously considered doing it any other way, which is consistent with the way gay men of his generation functioned," Floyd said.

Crutchfield also told Floyd that he wanted but knew that he never could have an open and emotionally satisfying homosexual relationship.

Crutchfield also talked about his fear of discovery, Floyd said.

"He was proud of the role he had had as a leader in the church; he continually expressed the concern that if he was found out, that would be the end of his career.  He also spoke of his family and what it would do to them if it came out that he was gay.  In some ways that was a concern greater than for the church."

Crutchfield had condemned homosexuality publicly while he was bishop.  But after his retirement he was willing to take a small step forward.  He began working with people with AIDS.

John Paul Barnich, a soft-spoken, bearded Houston attorney, got Crutchfield involved in the work.  He met the bishop at a Montrose coffee shop around the time of his retirement.

Barnich first asked Crutchfield for help in 1985, when a young man living at the McAdory House, a home for indigent AIDS sufferers in Houston, received a letter from his stepfather, a Methodist minister, saying that the family would have no further contact with him.  When Barnich told the bishop, Crutchfield immediately visited the young man and also helped bring about a partial reconciliation within the family.

Barnich said of Crutchfield,  "He was one of the most compassionate people I've ever met."

AIDS by now was the No. 1 topic in the gay community. Crutchfield himself, while continuing to find new sexual partners, had conversations about the disease with his gay friends.  He warned them about being careful, but no one recalls his expressing concern for his own health.

In July, 1986, Crutchfield began to have problems with his voice.  Crutchfield saw a throat specialist, but the source of the trouble was unclear.

Then he began having digestive problems and difficulty sleeping.  He told friends he was suffering from a hiatal hernia. By Thanksgiving a case of the flu that the bishop was unable to shake had developed into pneumonia, and his wife took him to Methodist Hospital.  In January the family was told the bishop had AIDS.

It was a shocking diagnosis.  The doctors asked the bishop about his exposure to risk factors.  The bishop assured his doctors and family that he was not an intravenous drug user nor had he received a blood transfusion.  That left only the most common mode of transmission:  sexual contact, primarily homosexual contact.

The bishop's son wanted to know.  Charles went into the room of his dying father and asked about his sexual conduct.  The two men were there alone; it was Bishop Crutchfield's last chance to give up his secret life.  But Crutchfield told his son he had had no homosexual experiences.

Adding to the pain of the bishop's imminent death was the isolation the family imposed upon itself because of the AIDS diagnosis.

Mrs. Crutchfield was barely able to utter the word; friends of decades' standing were not even told the bishop was in the hospital.  When they found out, most were politely discouraged from visiting.  But for some of those who did come, the precautionary sign on the hospital door, the bishop's emaciated condition and the memory of the rumors left little doubt about his illness.

In spite of her anguish, Mrs. Crutchfield declined to be interviewed for this story.  But she did prepare a statement, which reads in part:

"I was married to him for 46 1/2 years in the most beautiful, sacred, loving marital relationship that one can image.  We worked together as partners--not just in the home--but in 'our work'--for 'his work' was 'my work,' too.  And so to lose him is like losing a part of my own being."

As the bishop's death drew closer, the family was forced to deal with the question of what to say publicly about his disease. Mrs. Crutchfield was distraught at the idea of any disclosure. But Spurgeon Dunnam, the editor of the Methodist newspaper and a family adviser, urged the family to issue a statement on the nature of the bishop's illness.

He said that he explained:  "If they chose not to, it would not keep the information from being revealed.  It would just eliminate their say in it."

Not all church officials agreed.  Several other bishops visited the hospital and suggested the strategy the church had taken on the matter of Crutchfield's private life for so many years:  silence.

Finis Crutchfield died on Thursday, May 21.  The family was told that the death certificate, a public document in Texas, would list a single cause:  AIDS.

The bishop's funeral, attended by more than 800 mourners, was the following Saturday.  No mention was made of AIDS at the service.  A few hours after the funeral the bishop's widow and son finally decided what they had to do, and Charles released his statement.

The family immediately was enveloped in an uproar over how the bishop had contracted the disease.  Houston Chronicle reporter Steve Maynard wrote an article in which members of the gay community said Crutchfield's homosexuality was well known.

In our interview, Charles Crutchfield took pains to assure that he never intended for his statement to hurt people with AIDS:

"We would be devastated if anything we said was taken to mean we did not affirm and support ministry to AIDS patients.  That would be the biggest betrayal of my father's concerns."

He said the implication that Bishop Crutchfield died as a result of such ministry is one drawn by others.

"We simply said we do not know how he got the AIDS virus."

In Houston, AIDS is a reportable disease.  When someone dies from it, an attempt is made to trace the source of transmission. In the records of the Houston health department the cause of Bishop Crutchfield's infection by the virus remains in the category "Undetermined At This Time."

When I told Charles I have spoken to men who say they were lovers of his father, he winced, but he will entertain no second thoughts.

"The whole pattern of my father's life was one of honesty, integrity, and truthfulness with family and friends," he said. "It is not in the nature of my father's character to have lied to me."

-----

Copyright 1987 *Texas Monthly*, Reprinted with Permission

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

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.

A White Southerner's Perspective 

by Louie Crew

A person's message often succeeds as much with outsiders as with the audience at home.  As Gandhi astounded the British, Dr.  Martin Luther King, Jr., left some of his greatest treasure to white Southerners, like me.

      Dr. King taught me that people close to me, people whom I  trusted, *my people*, people who had treated me well, wronged black people.  Learning this lesson, I wondered how many other ways my people had taught me to transgress.  Dr. King took away some of my props.  I could no longer afford to accept anyone's views without first carefully examining them.  He began my education.

      Dr. King taught me that fair people sometimes have to subvert a sick society.   While only a few in the black community considered him "subversive," in living room after living room in my part of town the name "Martin Luther King" used to turn even sweet grandmothers into raving preachers and jolly uncles into Klansmen and Citizens Councilors.  It did not take long for me to see that the violence my people feared from Dr. King was the violence of our own nature.  His doctrine of love exposed us, as spiritually impoverished.  Without this painful exposure, few of us would have done much to remedy our plight.

      Dr. King humanized my personal heroes.  I do not mean remote heroes in books.  I mean those closer to us, figures in one's family or community who, despite routine and heavy exposure, still suggest a measure of greatness.  I could have chosen one of the little Confederate soldiers on any town square, or a daddy serving on a local school board.  But Dr. King showed me that the soldier (my great-grandfather) fought in a morally questionable cause and that the school board which my father chaired, unjustly robbed black people of their human rights and personal dignity when it segregated them.

      Dr. King became a different kind of hero, someone who  showed that when we try to discover a just way, the world does not tumble down.  On the contrary, it starts to make sense.     

      Dr. King did not allow even well-meaning white people to control him.  He taught me to respect blackness as I had never done before.  I graduated from high school the year of the Little Rock decision.  My environment had segregated me from all black people except domestic servants.  I never met a black person with more than a high school education until I was out of college.  I even had to sneak to read black literature, never mentioned by my professors.   Dr. King broke through these barriers, revealed to me the inadequacy of my education, showed me that to live in the world, I had better start looking for leadership in new places, in black places, from black people.

      Most importantly, Dr. King shared his dream of reconciliation.  He taught me that no matter how wickedly my people had behaved, we whites might one day worthily sit at tables with blacks.  Dr. King kept open for me and for all people, a chance to walk out of narrow racism into a world community right in my own home town.

-----

An earlier version of this article first appeared in "The Living  Church" for March 31, 1974.  Louie Crew founded Integrity the same year.  He has published over 800 items, including the first openly gay materials in *Christianity & Crisis, Change Magazine, Chronicle of Higher Education, The Churchman, Episcopalian, Fellowship, Living Church, The Witness*, and many more.  He teaches at Rutgers University.

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

BISHOPS SHOULD 'COME OUT' FOR GAYS

by Jack Gessell

      One of the most astonishing developments in the donnybrook over homosexuality in the church is the startling report that Bishop John Howe of Central Florida plans to present a resolution to the next General Convention establishing a new canon specifically inhibiting the ordination of gay men and lesbian women and specifically inhibiting advocacy of the same.  Howe appears to take his cues on homosexuality and politics from the infamous and bigoted California congressman, William Dannemeyer.

      This proposed canon would, for the first time in history, establish a biological, in addition to the theological and moral, qualification for admission to Holy Orders.  This is unheard of, although the debate over the ordination of women implied the possibility of altering the canons to restrict Holy Orders to males.  If such a canon were approved it would be contrary to scripture, reason, tradition and, indeed, would be heretical.

      Homosexuality is a natural variant in creation and, as such, morally neutral and participates in the essential goodness of God's created world.  The proposed canon, by declaring homosexual persons ineligible for Holy Orders, would also negate a portion of God's creative grace.  We may as well retroactively declare women ineligible while we are about it, and preserve the purity of an all-male heterosexual priesthood.

      Equally troubling is the proposed inhibition on advocacy. Logically such canonical provision would be a matter of prior restraint and inhibition of the natural liberty of all persons.

      It is also troubling because it seems to reflect an ignorance of the depth and richness of the spirit of Anglicanism, which has always embraced and held in tension differences and diversity.  If the opinion of some is to be notoriously silenced by the authority of legal provision, then we will elaborate a church which would be unrecognizable to, say, the Tudor and Caroline divines and to William Porcher DuBose, all of whom stood for a liberal Catholicism which is our church's foundation. 

      DuBose's beliefs have, as much as that of any other one person's, formed the life and spirit of the Episcopal Church.  His liberalism was expressed in his commitment to a critical study of Scripture, in his recognition of the development of doctrine, in his unending search for truth wherever it might be found, in his understanding of evolution, process and growth, and in his efforts to reconcile historic theology with modern ideas. The canonical proposal against ordaining gays and lesbians violates this tradition.

      Cutting off discussion because of a phobic paranoia which refuses to entertain alternative views will destroy the church as a community of moral discourse, frustrate the search for truth, and will deny Anglican spirituality, which is rooted in the human as a disclosure of the divine.  This would be a grave violation of that charity which we are sworn to exemplify. 

      Is this what we wish?

      But while the proposal of such a novel canon may be based on mischievous and political motives, it leads me to recommend that we become serious about this discussion of homosexuality in the church, and clear away the rubbish which prevents clarity and resolution.

      Much of the discussion of homosexuality is confused because of the often unstated premise -- held by those who would deny to gays the church's blessing of stable committed relationships and the grace of ordination -- that homosexuality is a perverse moral choice.  But not to acknowledge that there is substantial historical, social, scientific, and experiential evidence to the contrary is perverse, regardless of one's own personal view. 

      There is evidently no clear and unambiguous warrant in Scripture or tradition for the condemnation and marginalization of homosexual persons, and it is equally unreasonable in light of increasingly compelling contemporary data.  Thus if theological objections and moral condemnations fail, as they will, then the continuing hysteria on this matter is simply political.  In other words, who will gain power and money by manipulating the issues of sexuality in order to control the church?  My exegesis of the reports from the recent House of Bishops meeting strongly urges me to this conclusion. 

      I am persuaded that the present discord on this question is so destructive that immediate action is required lest further inanition of the House of Bishops occurs.  If this issue is not soon resolved, it will create grave disunity, acrimony, and temptation to power. 

      The struggles over the inclusion of blacks in the mainstream of church life, and the ordination of women were not edifying or healthy.  We might have learned, however, from these struggles that full inclusion will happen.  Just as with blacks and women, so gays and lesbians who meet the canonical criteria will be ordained by the church.  But if the struggle is protracted, the loss of purpose, vision, and energy will be incalculable, and will vitiate the mission of the church in the world.

      This crisis is so dire that it may destroy the capability of the church to carry out its mission.  To marginalize, dehumanize, and oppress homosexual persons in the church is, in part, to be complicit with those who deny the humanity and rights of homosexual persons, and with those who subject them to violence and even murder.  Homosexual persons share the same right to life as abused women and children, racial minorities, and the unborn.

      I believe that the present impasse on this issue, because of the character of recent events, can be resolved only in the House of Bishops.  A parallel case concerned the matter of clerical alcoholism, the resolution of which, by God's mercy, began with the bishops.  The power of denial regarding alcohol abuse and its devastating results is instructive.  Once that power was defeated, healing began to occur.  In the present instance, denial is more complex.  It takes the form of closeted bishops and clergy, and denial that gays and lesbians may be fully included in the life of the community of Word and Sacrament.

      Therefore, to begin the task of clearing away the rubbish, and of healing and restoring, I suggest that the bishops consider taking the following steps:

      Let the House of Bishops become that place where love and compassion are given unconditionally, and change will begin to take place.  The gays can dare to leave their secret lives and be enlivened and ennobled by who they are.  The straights can dare to confront their fear and hatred and be ennobled by the purification of their thoughts and feelings.

      Specifically I suggest that:

      (1) In circumstances which must be guarded by strict and careful confidentiality and which must be maintained indefinitely, the gay bishops, perhaps beginning with three or four who can agree together, "come out" to their fellows in the House. 

      (2) Support systems must be provided for both gay and straight bishops to enable the gays to withstand the inevitable trauma of personal disclosure following many years of secrecy, and the straights to withstand the inevitable blows to their perceptions and their emotional commitments.  No one not a member of the House need know the process by which this is done. 

      (3) These steps will be very painful and very difficult, but if they are carefully planned and entered into in full confidentiality and mutual trust, the House can begin to discover a freedom to show the way of loving acceptance and heal the considerable wounds which have been inflicted. 

      Then we may all get on with our business in furthering God's mission for this church.

_____

Dr. John M. Gessell, a priest of the Diocese of Tennessee, is a Professor of Christian Ethics, emeritus, at the University of the South School of Theology and was until recently the editor of "The St. Luke's Journal of Theology."  This article is appearing simultaneously in the February issue of "The Witness."

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

A TRIBUTE TO JIM TOY

By Davi Napoleon

He's taunted from fraternity porches but revered by those he's counseled.

"If not for this man, I would be dead."  So says Billie Gordon, a 400-pound black transvestite who confides that her father and suicidal mother abused her sexually.  She first turned to Jim Toy for help when she was a male Michigan student in the early 1970's.

Now a Hollywood writer-performer and author of two humorous cookbooks [ed. note - and pictured on innumerable greeting cards], Gordon still dials Toy's number from memory when she feels depressed.  "Jim helped me understand you can't molest a child and have him grow up to be Beaver.  I'm not the girl next door, but I still have the dignity of the girl next door.  Some people try to save nations.  He can save a nation, one individual at a time."

Tom, Gay Male Coordinator of the U-M Lesbian-Gay Male Programs Office, also works with groups as an educator or consultant.  On one recent day, he brainstormed with a social work professor for a course she was developing on AIDS, strategized with a U-M employee who reported job discrimination, helped someone deal with news that he was positive on an AIDS antibody test, met with university officials to discuss discrimination against gays in married housing, and trained a group of students who wanted to be peer counselors.

One former peer counselor, Scott Dennis, talked to Toy before revealing his own homosexuality to family and friends in 1978.  Dennis was impressed from the start with Toy's honesty and informality, his empathy, and his willingness to enjoy campy fun.  He credits Toy with making his trip from the closet smooth.  "I came out very early and very well because I had that kind of support when I was that young," Dennis says.

What advice does Toy give to win such confidence?  None.  "I help a person transform a problem into a goal that's possible, positive, and stated in terms of action.  Advice I don't give, unless it's a suicide situation."

When someone considers coming out of the closet, Toy points out hazards; he may face rejection or physical violence.  "People get attacked coming out of the Nectarine Ballroom....  At MSU, a student's room was set on fire after he participated in a gay pride week up there."  Toy himself often hears taunts from people sitting on fraternity porches as he walks near his office in the Michigan Union.

Then Toy suggests "possible pros."  Here, he might describe those years when he own unwillingness to reveal his sexuality "stopped me from talking to anybody about anything."  And how, when he came out -- in church -- he found "all that energy used [to keep the secret] could be turned to another purpose." -- integrating his sexual orientation into the rest of his life.

A trained counselor with a master's of social work from the U-M, Toy tries to listen actively.  "In Laotian, the word 'to know' means 'to enter someone's heart,'" he says.  "To know someone is to walk in their emotional shoes....  People come here with a burden -- which has another meaning.  A burden is the deepest note in a peal of bells, a phrase that just resonates forever.  Everyone has a different song -- this is all high-flown and metaphoric -- but I try to connect somehow to whatever that fundamental song is."

His approach strikes a deep chord with many clients, sometimes reaching beyond them to their families.  Scott Dennis introduced Toy to his parents, who worked to create an Ann Arbor chapter of a national association, PFLAG, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.  "It was logical for him and my parents to know each other," says Dennis, "because he was like the gay father I never had.

"Ethnic minorities comes from families of the same minority," Dennis goes on, "but for young gays that's almost never the case.  You can't talk to another generation about shared problems.  I used to call Jim my fairy godfather."

"A lot of gays get ostracized by their families," says Billie Gordon.  "And the gay community is very transient.  I probably know a thousand queens, but couldn't tell you where nine hundred and ninety-nine of them are.  But Jim Toy has been that [family-like] support for many people.  I'm not the only one who calls him from sixteen years ago."

Jim Whiteside, acting director of U-M Counseling Services, says he's "under the impression Jim's here eighteen hours a day, seven days a week.  There have been ten different women [coordinating lesbian programs] n seventeen years.  He's the only man.  He's hung in through organization strife with a dedication .."

"Stubbornness," interjects Toy, who has been listening.

"He has many difference organizational skills," Whiteside resumes.  "And he plays the organ, viola, violin, and piano."

"He is the office," says Greg Prokopowicz, a peer counselor and group facilitator.  "He's an amazing resource person.  He knows how everything works and carries the office around in his head."

Not everyone likes it that way.  "Every new [lesbian director] brings grand-new ideas," says lesbian activist Judy Levy.  "There are young gay men who want a chance to do that job.  Jim is not relinquishing his knowledge and authority to give other people a chance to try new things."

Scott Dennis relies that those who believe groups stagnate without personnel changes don't understand the importance of "having that one bedrock person."  He points out that most similar organizations at other schools have shut down, probably because there has not been enough continuity.  "There always are people who are willing to help out and pitch in," he adds, "but leaders are few and far between."

Toy is in his fifties, and he says that he and Billie Edwards, the current Lesbian Programs Coordinator, worry that they're older than the students they often serve.  But some feel that they're better counselors because they grew up before the gay rights movement began.  "Teen-agers are struggling with an attraction toward other members of their own sex felt as I did," Toy recalls.  "Totally confused, alone, sick, guilty and despairing."

Toy's father, whose parents were Chinese, was born in Portland, Maine.  His mother, whose parents were American, was born and raised in Tokyo.  They met in New York, where he was a chemist and she taught elementary school.

Toy's mother died shortly after he was born, and his bereaved father sent him to live with a paternal aunt in California.  When he was two, he came to stay with his maternal grandparents in Granville, Ohio, near Denison University, where he eventually went to school.

After graduating, Toy taught high school English in France, then moved to New York.  He worked in a hospital blood bank until he received a letter from Joseph Dickson, who had boarded with his grandparents while a ministry student at Denison.

Dickson had become rector at St. Joseph's Episcopal, the first racially integrated church in Detroit and a locus of draft resistance in the 1960's.  St. Joe's needed a music director, and Dickson knew that Toy played several instruments, including the organ.  Toy moved to Detroit and simultaneously enrolled in a musicology doctoral program at U-M.  In 1958, he married and for nine years remained in a union he calls "amicable."

After his divorce, an announcement in the church calendar caught his eye.  "Gay discussion group.  Thursday at seven."

Gay?  "I told one of my friends about the meeting, and we looked at each other and said, 'Should we go?  If I go, this must mean I'm gay.'  I wasn't letting myself be sure, although I'd been going to gay bars.  So we agonized over our decision and forced ourselves to go."

In January 1970, Toy helped found Detroit Gay Liberation.  "It was in some sense the beginning," he recalls, "but we discovered later there had been some underground groups in Detroit."

Soon afterwards, Toy, still a U-M music student, decided to start a gay student group in Ann Arbor.  The university swiftly denied the group's first request, for facilities to hold a statewide gay conference.  Using the precedent of recently created advocacy offices for blacks, women, and other groups, Toy began to negotiate with the Office of Student Services.

In 1972, the year the group convinced the city council to pass the broadest non-discrimination ordinance in the country at the time, Toy secured a quarter-time appointment to do what turned out to be full-time work.  The university also hired Cyndi Gair as lesbian advocate.  "We insisted it would be a co-ed effort," says Toy, who is still proud that Michigan's is the only office nationwide to employ both a gay male and a lesbian to provide services.  In 1977, at the urging of the campus ministries, they were raised to half-time.  The positions were finally made full-time in August, 1987.

By then, the university had closed its other advocacy offices -- "I think because the regents felt uncomfortable with anybody having the title 'advocate,'" says Toy.  The gay-lesbian office survived because of its broader counseling and educational roles, but on a very limited budget.  "It's always been stressful," says Toy, "because we're overloaded with work and short on resources."

For years, Toy lived in an efficiency apartment.  Now his quarters are only slightly larger, ut he still wears hand-me-downs and clothes he buys at St. Vincent de Paul.  "With the talents he has, if he were more selfish, he could be off in a large mansion someplace with boats and cars," Billie Gordon reflects.  "Instead, he chose to serve others."

Patti Myers, office co-coordinator for educational outreach, believes it is Toy's exceptional sense of humor that makes him an effective counselor and consultant and keeps him going in trying times.  She has worked with Toy since 1979 and says he often breaks into songs, sometimes made up on the spur of the moment.

That spontaneity marks his work and his personal life.  "Once, Jim and a group went to the Rubaiyat [a since-closed gay bar] and literally danced on the tables," Scott Dennis recalls.  "There was no place in town where we could dance, so he made one.  [When someone is willing to be that crazy] it gives you license to be who you are ....  There are no limits to creativity.

"The thing that's amazing about Jim is that he's still doing it," Dennis adds.  "The others dancing on the table burned out years ago."

-----

This article appeared in the "Ann Arbor Observer," February 1990.  Jim Toy is a founder of Integrity/Ann Arbor and is one of Integrity's longest-term and most loyal members.

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

EVANGELIZING LESGAYS THIS DECADE

by Chris Ambidge

A friend of mine, who goes to a parish I will call St. Henry's (Hogtown) was recently having a discussion with his rector.  Roger is gay, and while he knows that there are others in the congregation who are also gay, there is no sense of community for them there.  Roger feels that St. Henry's is positively unwelcoming to gays, and he wants to change that.  The discussion with the rector focused on ways to do so.

The rector though that enough was being done.  Roger disagreed.  The sign outside might say "everyone welcome," and ads appear from time to time in the Toronto dailies, but those aren't specifically aimed to gay/lesbian people.

Roger wanted to advertise St. Henry's services, and a welcome to lesgay people in *Xtra!*, the Toronto bi-weekly paper for the lesgay community.  Metropolitan Community Church, whose particular (though not exclusive) ministry is to homosexual people, advertises in every issue - so there is an established classification for religious groups.

The rector looked at a recent copy of *Xtra!* and blanched, because of the facing page to the classified ads for religious services are ads for "masseurs" and escorts" - thinly disguised (and sometimes undisguised) ads for male prostitutes.  Some people in the parish would be quite distressed by an ad for St. Henry's appearing here, he said.  (Ads for things less-than-moral appear in the Toronto dailies, too, though not often in the religion pages.)  The subject wasn't pursued, but I think it should have been.

The people who read that section of *Xtra!* are EXACTLY the people the church should be trying to get inside its doors.  They are people looking for love, looking for acceptance.  They are looking so hard that they are prepared to pay cash for someone to give them fleeting physical contact as a substitute for real, enduring love and acceptance.

This is the Decade of Evangelism, and everyone, including St. Henry's should be taking it seriously.  Evangelism means getting the message to other human beings that God loves them, and that a church is a reasonable place to find a human face on that acceptance.

Evangelism is not wandering the streets buttonholing people and demanding to know if they are saved.  Evangelism is not selling Jesus like patent medicine to cure all one's ills, in the way deodorant is supposed to solve social difficulties.  As Bishop Finlay said to Toronto's Diocesan Synod in November, evangelism is one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread.  We all go to church because something happens there that we like that we find is good for us.  We go to church to find bread.  We are all there because someone else shared that information with us - another beggar showed us where to find bread.  Roger has found a community of God's love at St.Henry's, and wants others to know about it.

One suspects, though, that other people at the Hogtown parish would rather Roger didn't bring any of THOSE people here to their nice clean parish.  They'd rather not know Roger is gay, and they MUCH rather that people who consort with prostitutes, to say nothing of homosexuals, didn't come to THEIR church.  That attitude doesn't jive with my reading of the gospel.  Churches are not (or shouldn't be) private clubs.  They are not only for "people like us," they are for all who are looking for the bread of life.  Jesus spent a fair amount of time with prostitutes and other social outcasts when on earth, even in the face of a goodly amount of static for doing so.  It would behoove people who call themselves Christians to remember that.

Lesgay people have been actively dis-evangelized by the church.  They have been told that they are not welcome.  The Decade of Evangelism is an appropriate time to reverse that unwelcome, by whatever means are appropriate and will reach those people.

The rector of St. Henry's, I know, wants people to come to know the love of Christ.  He wants people to realize God's love and acceptance the way he has.  He, like Roger and like me, is a beggar who has found bread and who wants to tell other beggars where to find it.  I hope that he can guide the people of St. Henry's to come to feel that God's acceptance and love is for all of the creation, and not just for "people like us."

Does the "Everyone Welcome" sign outside St. Henry's really mean what it says?  I've disguised the name of Roger's church because it is every parish, and every Christian community that needs to hang out the sign - and mean exactly what it says.

-----

Chris Ambidge, a frequent contributor to this journal's predecessor, is immediate past co-convener of Integrity/Toronto and serves as editor of *Integrator*, in which this first appeared in the Lent 1991 issue.  Chris's article, "The Court of the Gentiles; Looking in from the Outside," which appeared in the Spring, 1990 *News & Notes*, was reprinted in the February, 1991 issue of *The Witness*.  The word "lesgay" was coined by Integrity's founder, Dr. Louie Crew.

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

UNDER ONE ROOF

Reminiscent of a 1970s consciousness-raising seminar, the various "social action" organizations gathered to "network" with like-minded, sympathetic groups.  As you might have guessed, UOR was sponsored by gays and lesbians of *Integrity*, the aging doves of the *Episcopal Peace Fellowship*, and the vocally feminist contingent of the *Episcopal Women's Caucus*.  In other words, all the folks that you would expect to have lifetime subscriptions to *The Witness*.

-----

From "Too Much For One Room," *Anglican Opinion*, Fall 1990

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

SOME PROGRESS FROM DIOCESAN DIALOGUE

A REPORT FROM THE TASK FORCE ON HOMOSEXUALITY OF THE DIOCESE OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS

September, 1990

INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW

In response to Resolution #4 passed at the 1988 Convention of the Diocese of Western Massachusetts, our bishop has called a 10-member task force comprised of homosexual and heterosexual Christians, to study the issues of homosexuality, and to report its findings to this 89th Convention, as well as to the Standing Commission on Human Affairs and Health.

The process of dialogue has been the key focus of the task force. Our challenge was to go beyond stereotyping one another through honest listening, in a spirit of caring and trust.  It was predicated upon the belief that, in spite of what divides us, our faith holds us together, removing misunderstanding and self-righteousness.  We invited the Holy Spirit to direct and lead.  Our dialogue did not provide us with easy answers, and for some of us there are still more questions.  In all our Listening and sharing we kept coming back to the central questions: What does the Bible say?  What has the church said in its tradition?  What do you say?  How should I feel?  What should I do?  What should the church do?  What does Jesus want for His Church?

For 16 months, we met a minimum of once-per-month for 3-hr evening sessions, and many day-long, Saturday workshops.  The process unfolded in a trusting and caring movement -- sprinkled with pain and lots of good humor -- through our personal life cycles.  We've followed the Holy Spirit through Scripture, traditional Christian mores, and our individual experiences, to bring reason to our observations.  But reason is subjective; one member's enlightenment became another's confusion.  Uncertainty and conviction ran together and, ultimately, we represent the same basic diversity as when we began.  But the process itself *did* change us all in some way.  Sympathy, understanding, respect, and appreciation of the issue of homosexuality were realized!

Biblical scholars and various counselors were invited to share their knowledge and experience with us.  This report's bibliography demonstrates the broad spectrum to which we were exposed, from Regeneration Ministry ("Homosexuality is curable"), through genetic, psychological and theological readings, to meeting with members of INTEGRITY -- gay and lesbian Christians willing to open themselves to our quest.  We dealt earnestly with those theories decrying homosexuality as a sin ("We have a choice in our sexuality.") -- to those riding the middle ground of uncertainty -- to those who state it is a natural alternative lifestyle...  "Ordained by nature, not chosen."

Despite the biblical, philosophical, or political diversity of this task force's members, be assured that the participation (and struggle) has been genuine, creative, most broad in its questioning of *all* aspects of the issue, and wholesomely focused on the Light which is Christ.

*OBSERVATIONS*

HOMOSEXUALITY

Through dialogue we opened ourselves to the pain surrounding homosexuality, including the special pain of hearing how often the church has failed to be helpful, or has even been a source of hatred and rejection.  We learned that despite considerable research by psychologists, sociologists, biologists, physicians and others, there is, as yet, no definitive answer to explain how or why human beings develop the sexual feelings and responses they have, or what causes homosexual orientation.  There is growing biological evidence that sexual orientation may be impacted by hormonal events prior to birth, as well as environmental and social factors.

We observed that a significant minority (10-12%) of both church and society consider themselves to be primarily or exclusively homosexual, and that for most, this is not a matter of choice, but a given.  The only choice they experience is between expressing their sexuality without the sanction of the church, or suppressing it altogether, unless they are called to celibacy.  The pastoral implications of this are enormous.  The church must acknowledge the presence in its midst of many faithful members who are gay and lesbian, known and unknown, including some who are living in long-standing committed relationships, some who are struggling in diverse ways, some who have hidden their identity out of pain and fear, and some who are celibate.  In addition, there are countless family members and friends who could benefit from pastoral understanding and openness.

We also observed that there are some within the church who believe that individuals can find a way out of homosexuality through healing ministries and prayer.  One of our guest speakers was Alan Medinger, the founder of Regeneration Ministry in Baltimore.  It is possible to assume that some persons who do not perceive themselves as exclusively homosexual, or with great motivation, may take this route.  Most of the gay and lesbian persons who shared their stories with us do not feel that this is an option, nor do they desire it.

*Homosexuality should be considered within the whole context of human sexuality, sin, and redemption*.  The Gospel proclaims that all Christians find their true identity in Baptism, and that all other human categories that divide -- race, gender, sexual orientation -- have been destroyed.  God has created us as sexual beings and blesses our sexuality.  Yet, through sin, our sexuality has been caught up in the brokenness, alienation, and destruction that pervades all of life, and in which we all share.

We agreed that there is no church today that is not affected by problems related to divorce, child abuse, rape, teenage pregnancy, abortion, or the everyday difficulties of marriage, child-rearing, and other relationships.  The biblical message is that human beings are not more or less sinners through some arbitrary listings of various sins, but qualitatively alike in their common rebellion against God.  And the Good News is that we all receive forgiveness by Grace, for Christ's sake, through faith.  Not one of us is more equal than others in God's sight, nor can we exclude others from God's gift of grace on the basis of any human category.  We are all called to renewal of life, over and over; but there is not universal agreement over a number of issues pertaining to sexuality.

THE BIBLE

The task force examined specific biblical texts and themes through our guest scholars, reading, and discussion.  We observed that it is important to consider several interpretive principles in order honestly to enter into conversation with biblical texts.  These include being aware of the historical settings and origins of particular passages, and testing the primary intent of the authors without imposing on them specific cultural or scientific views from our own day.  It also involves asking what the texts are really saying and why the church selected them.  It is especially important not to manipulate passages in order to support a predetermined point of view.  While it is not possible in this report to examine specific texts which refer to homosexuaL activity, there are several observations which can be made:

In the OLD TESTAMENT stories of Sodom (Genesis 19) and Brokenness (Judges 19), and the Leviticus texts (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13), there is enough ambiguity about the context, meaning, and intention to prevent us from applying them in a clear or absolute way.  For exampLe, they are so few in number (in comparison to other topics such as idolatry, infidelity or injustice) and they do not seem to have as their primary purpose the condemnation of homosexuality, or of defining Israel's attitude toward it.  Also, it is not likely that biblical writers understood the concept of sexual orientation in the same way as we do today.

The NEW TESTAMENT Pauline texts (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and 1 Timothy 1:10); The authors of the New Testament considered homosexual acts as one expression of sinfulness among others, and they are seen as the result, not the cause, of an individual's faithlessness or abandonment of God.  Homosexual acts are not singled out as more abhorrent than heterosexual ones, such as infidelity, prostitution, or incest.  Again, sexual orientation appears to be a modern construct.

We noted that most of the biblical passages refer to acts (gang rape, idolatry, promiscuity, etc.) which do not relate to the other aspects of homosexuality we are concerned about: homosexual orientation, and the committed love relationships analogous to heterosexual monogamy.  Is the Bible silent on the latter aspects, or can we discern a biblical position relative to love and homosexuality?

The task force agreed that it is very difficult to use these specific New Testament texts as the foundation of a Christian position on homosexuality, or in order to exclude gay and lesbian persons from full fellowship within the community of the church.

However, concerning the doctrine of Creation (Gen:l & 2),

we observed that in the canon of scripture certain themes are authoritative, as is Jesus himself.  And these fundamental themes, such as creation, covenant and redemption, should be seen as unifying the various facets into a Whole.

The task force particularly wrestled with the texts from Genesis that affirm the creation of human beings "in God's image," as well as the complementarity of the sexes as the basis for monogamous marriage union.  Some of us are still struggling with the issue of whether the institution of marriage ("For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.") is the only paradigm that is intended by God for human sexual relationships; and, if so, how can we find a way to be pastorally faithful to those who do not fit the norm?  Or, on the other hand, should a relationship be judged primarily on its qualities, such as faithfulness,life-long intention, maturity and mutuality, and not on the gender of the partners?

CHRISTIAN TRADITION

The task force explored some issues relating to church history, the development of the biblical canon and creeds, and the inter-play of church and culture.  We noted that, while the Bible is sex-positive over-all, the church tradition has frequently been negative about sex, women, and body-issues in general.  In regard to homosexuality, the church presents us with conflicting opinions, a variety of voices, and no certainty.  We observed that many faithful people in our churches feel confused and upset about the loss of authority, values, certain traditions, and the "ideal" family structure.  Society appears to be ambivalent about choice and responsibility, with choice becoming almost an idol.  Church members worry about how to maintain standards and yet be pastoral.  We also observed that gay and lesbian persons sometimes feel that much of the anger and confusion over the larger issues of values and sexuality gets directed disproportionately at them.  And we learned that most gay and lesbian Christians are asking to be judged, not on the basis of their affectional orientation, but by the same standards that are demanded of heterosexual marriages: monogamy, faithfulness, and love.

REASON AND EXPERIENCE

We observed that our Anglican Heritage includes faithfulness to the Word of God (the Bible), the Church (tradition), and reason, each held in creative tension and guided by the Holy Spirit.  The experience we shared is very meaningful to each of us.  Although we sampled some of the vast literature on the topic, we found that books and articles did not have the impact upon our discussion that the process of active listening and caring did.  As our experience of community grew, our tendencies to rely on code words and long-held convictions shrank.  For some of us, moving in new directions involved pain, fear and loss, making this, to quote one of our members, "...a report with tears, this journey into human sexuality."

We wish to convey that all of us were spiritually moved, and that it was a positive, growing experience.  We were able to drop our denials and our masks, and get a truer perspective on the pain and divisiveness that have surrounded the issue of homosexuality.

Certain topics were not specifically dealt with -- such as ordination and "blessings" of relationships -- although these are major concerns within the church today.  Perhaps they are for future dialogues.

It is not our intention to make pronouncements or resolutions. Mostly, we would like to affirm the process of dialogue as one worthy of continuance, express our humility before the ground yet to be covered, and convey our consensus that the church would benefit if we could bring "that other room where we can talk" into our parishes.

*SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS*

After an intensive time of work together, the following conclusions were reached:

Bringing Christians with disparate viewpoints together to discuss our differences is a difficult process.  Fear, anger, and other painful feelings surface when important parts of our beliefs and lives are brought into question.  This is particularly true with

an issue as personal as sexuality.  Nonetheless, this is an essential process within the Christian community.  After more than a year, we continue to have differences in beliefs and attitudes, but have gained respect for one another's integrity and faith, and compassion for one another's pain.  A genuineness and depth of relationship has developed among our members, which we have found to be extremely valuable.

We feel that we have met the goals set forth for us in the resolution from Diocesan Convention.  We were mandated to study and experience issues concerning homosexuality, not to solve the problem.  It is clear to us that we as a Diocese reflect the Church as a whole, and our society as a whole, in our lack of resolution on these issues.  What has become much more clear is the complexity of the issues, and the major human impact of this dilemma on both gays and lesbians as well as straight persons.

One area which was not fully explored was the academic literature in theology, Biblical studies, church history, or the social sciences.  Although we had expert speakers and read some literature in each of these areas, the volume of material available and the level of expertise necessary to comprehensively evaluate it was beyond the capacity of our group.  The material which we read differed markedly in its conclusions, and in many areas we were unable to resolve these contradictory findings.

In this difficult process we feel that by the grace of God we were able to allow the Holy Spirit to work through us.  We remained authentic with one another, and we were able to tolerate and actively face the contradictions within our group.  We stayed in loving relationship with one another.  This was truly a challenging task, and one that we could not have met successfully without the clear presence of the overriding love of God.

*RECOMMENDATIONS to the DIOCESE*

1.  Issues of sexuality, and homosexuality in particular, need to be explored further within the church.  This exploration needs to occur within an experiential process, rather than purely academic study, because of the intensely personal nature of the issue.

2.  The process which the Task Force on Homosexuality used was an effective tool for this exploration.  It can well serve as a blueprint for others.  This process should be made available to others in the diocese, ideally with facilitators and/or other assistance from the diocesan office.

3.  Any such study group needs to include members from all points of view, conservative and liberal, lay and clergy, homosexual and heterosexual, if truly meaningful dialogue is to occur.

4.  Other issues of sexuality urgently need the full attention of the church.  These issues include the high incidence of incest, rape, and other sexual abuse in our church and society physical violence and other misuse of power within marital and family relationships; the high rate of divorce; clarification of sexual ethics within the heterosexual population including premarital and extramarital sex; and sexual ethics concerning clergy having sexual relations with members of their congregations.  The harmful consequences of misconduct in these areas are incontrovertible -- research shows 33% of women will be sexually abused at some point in their lives; research on men is less complete but suggests a rate of approximately 20%.  The task force is concerned that focusing on homosexuality may be a means of denying the presence of more ubiquitous, clearly sinful attitudes and actions in our church and society as a whole.

5.  It is our perception that there is a tendency in the diocese for lack of communication and trust on a variety of issues, between persons with disparate viewpoints.  The process which we have used to examine homosexuality would also serve well to open genuine dialogue and Christian fellowship in other areas of disagreement. Using this process, all can have the opportunity to be heard, and to develop mutual respect and understanding within our Christian community.

In conclusion, we urge parishes or groups to make their interests known to the diocesan office, whereby an assistance program for continued study could be established.

-----

The task force wishes to thank the Bishop and the diocese for the privilege of this opportunity for prayer, study, reflection and personal growth in the context of a Christian community.

Having completed the assignment, as they believe, that they received from the 87th Annual Meeting of the Convention, the members now respectfully ask to be discharged in the hope that their labors and their report have contributed to our mission to know Christ, to live Christ and to make Christ known together as one congregation in Western Massachusetts.

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

GAYS IN SCHOOL

FEAR AND ISOLATION LEAVE KIDS IN HIDING

by Patrick Welsh

   "I used to pray that I wasn't gay.  I wanted desperately to be straight.  I had these images of gays being sick, perverted, child-molesting types.  But for as long as I could remember I had been attracted to guys.  I kept hoping it would change."

   When Chris was a student of mine at T.C. Williams a few years ago, I was totally unaware of the desperation that, only now, he expressed to me in recalling the anguish of his high school years.

   Anyone who still thinks that homosexuals should stay tightly closeted would feel very comfortable in the typical American high school.  Openly gay men and lesbian women have made their mark in almost every area of U.S. culture from college campuses to cathedrals.  But they remain virtually invisible in a high school world in which heterosexual activity is ever more frankly discussed and more prevalent.

   "We are all around; we look like everyone else, but we just can't afford to come out right now.  It would bring too much hardship on ourselves and our families.  It's a terribly lonely feeling," says a bright sophisticated young woman in one of my classes.

   Almost every school has a few students who fit the homosexual stereotype and are labeled as gay (whether or not they are).  But most students -- and teachers -- see these kids as anomalies, the exceptions who prove what they believe to be the rule: High school kids are too young to be gay.

   "Just like there is always the school nerd, there's always a school fag -- a flamboyant queen type that serves to take the heat off the rest of us.  Schools don't realize how many of the rest of us there are," says a recent graduate of Bishop O'Connell High School in Arlington who spent enormous energy to disguise the fact that he was gay throughout high school.

   The fact is, says social worker Ann Thompson Cook, who founded INSITE, a group to promote understanding and tolerance of sexual diversity, perhaps as many as 10 percent of all students live tormented lives.  They are fearful of being found out and painfully lonely in their inability to discuss their situation with parents, peers or teachers.  For years I have listened to high school seniors coming back from college visits talking in disbelief about all the openly gay and lesbian students they saw on campuses.  "Where do they come from?" one kid asked a friend. The answer is:  They come from your high school and high schools just like it, and they are often the kids you'd least expect were homosexuals.

   One reason that homosexually oriented youths are so invisible on the high school scene is that few fit the stereotype.  Take, for example, Chris, my former student now a freshman at William and Mary's law school.  The consummate school politician, he was president of the T.C. Williams student government and an A student.

   Chris says that at T.C. Williams he kept his homosexuality hidden from friends, family and in many ways from himself.  "In high school there is enormous pressure to be accepted.  I played the game.  I dated, went to the dances, the parties.  I slept with some girls to convince myself I was straight.  In high school there is no other choice for gay kids but to stay invisible." (Though Chris is totally out of the closet in the William and Mary community, he doesn't want his last name mentioned.)

   Woodrow Wilson senior Renata Razza says that most adolescent gays and lesbians feel that they are the only one in their school.  "There's this myth that we just don't exist in high school -- that you have to be 20 before you can be gay.  You feel very isolated.  If you're black and gay it's even worse because many blacks think that homosexuality is a European, Western phenomenon.  If you are gay and closet yourself, you pay a price in terms of your self esteem.  It is like a black who is conditioned to aspire to be white because society sends messages that everything around you that is good is white," says Razza who has been accepted on early admission to Bryn Mawr and has been recognized by the National Achievement Program as an outstanding African-American student.

   A recent graduate of Arlington's Yorktown high school remembers angrily how none of the three local high schools he attended gave the slightest recognition that gays could even exist.  "By eighth grade I realized I was gay.  From then on I was constantly worried that someone would find out.  I couldn't concentrate because my energy was spread all over the place.  It was like society just didn't agree with who I was.  In 10th grade I attempted suicide.  It's only been in the last few months since I've come out to my family and friends that I can sit down and study and get on with my life."

   Like this student, many other homosexual students feel driven to suicide by their anguish.  According to a recent Health and Human Services Department report on youth suicide, homosexuals between the ages of 15 and 24 are three times more likely to kill themselves than straights.  Suicide is the leading cause of death among gay youth.  Still, most of the gay and lesbian kids I talked to are anything but suicidal underachievers.  Many said they coped with the social pressures brought on by their homosexuality through hard work and achievement.  A former T.C. honors student who didn't come out of the closet until she was in college, put it this way: "You figure if you make yourself as good as possible in one area, people will like you and the question of your being gay won't come up.  A lot of my lesbian friends in college said that they hid behind their intellectualism in high school."

   A student who graduated from Menchville High School in Newport News and now attends a local university says that in high school he tried to be the best at everything.  "To get the stigma off my back, I did things that people would admire me for.  I excelled in band, ROTC and acting.  I made myself as highly visible as possible so I'd be known for something else than being gay."

   That these and many other students like them do so well both in school and later life astounds experts.  "It's hard to imagine the incredible stress these kids are under," says Jeffrey S. Akman, assistant professor of psychiatry at George Washington University Medical School, "I'm amazed there isn't more psychopathology among them when they get older."  Indeed, as Columbia professor of psychiatry Richard C. Friedman reports in a new book, the fact that so few homosexual youths develop severe psychological problems given the enormous stresses they face even suggests that many homosexuals have a special "capacity for coping with adversity."

   Many homosexual students I talked to felt that their stress was exacerbated by the lack of positive role models.  Although my observation is that some of the best educators in the Alexandria system are gay or lesbian, none to my knowledge has come out of the closet.  Teachers are reluctant even to mention the subject in class.  "It infuriates me when we read gay authors in class and the teacher won't tell us that they are gay," says Razza.  "I feel I'm being denied part of my culture."

   I must confess that my own behavior in this regard has not been helpful.  I have had trouble mentioning to my classes that the authors of some of the works they've read happen to be gay. When we read W. H. Auden's great love poem "Lullaby" this past Valentine's Day, I didn't mention evidence that Auden wrote the poem to a man because I was afraid the kids would be turned off and refuse to look for anything they could relate to in the poem. It is difficult to convince school administrators and educators that homosexuality is a prevalent enough phenomenon to warrant special attention for the simple reason that parents, faculty and most students find the subject extraordinarily threatening.

   Senior Christopher Couples articulates one common reaction among straight male students: "Guys are unnerved because they have problems with their own sexuality.  They think, 'I'm straight and I have to prove it by insulting gays, fag jokes. They are trying to prove their masculinity by having sex with as many girls as possible and they can't stand the possibility that some gay guy might come on to them.  It might make them worry they are gay, too."

   For their part, parents fear that any formal recognition of the phenomenon will tend to legitimize homosexuality and so "recruit" additional children - perhaps their own -- into adopting it.  Some professionals share this concern.  For example, one respected Washington psychoanalyst worries about proposals for support groups for teens who think they are gay.

   "It's normal for adolescents to feel alienated.  If a gay support group comes along and says, 'We know who you are and what you'll become,' kids, especially the less confident, may close their options," he says.  "Most kids go through a fleeting homosexual phase and if they are welcomed prematurely into a politicized movement, find a new family that has love, warmth and sex all rolled up into one, they may not grow out of it, especially if they are having troubles at home."

   But most sex educators say that kids "discover they are gay" rather than choose to become so.  "All the evidence," says Mary Lee Tatum, who runs seminars on sexuality for corporations and schools, "points to the fact that being gay is a basic orientation that is rooted in the individual and cannot be changed.  If we are open or tolerant of gays many people are afraid that kids will 'become gay.' They think that 17-year-old boys just wake up one morning and says, 'I'll be gay -- it will be so much fun.' Society causes such suffering for gays that no young person would choose it," says Tatum.

   "No one would rationally choose to be gay," says a Montgomery County high graduate whose homosexuality recently precipitated a fight with his father.  "You have to hide your lifestyle.  You can't have your parents or straight friends find out.  Many of your gay friends are dying of AIDS.  It's not really a fun culture to live in," says this all-American looking young man who says he dated girls all the time in high school and managed to keep even his best high school friends from discovering that he was gay.  Of course, if homosexuality were more accepted in schools, some of this anguish would dissipate and so, perhaps, would barriers to adopting a homosexual lifestyle.  But, says Richard A. Isay, clinical professor of psychiatry at Cornell Medical College and author of a book on the subject, "I have never heard of a heterosexual male who has chosen to be homosexual.  It's just too difficult to be homosexual in our society with all the prejudice and discrimination."

   Tatum claims that homosexuality is a temporary choice for some young women on college campuses.  "In college they see for the first time the power women can have as a group; they feel that to be real women they must withdraw into themselves.  Lesbian activity can be part of all that." says Tatum.

   Yael Ksander, a former student who is now graphics editor of a feminist journal at the University of Virginia agrees: "Feminism and the popularity of women's studies creates an atmosphere where lesbianism has been made attractive and even politically correct to some women.  It's not necessarily an attraction to the same sex.  Women sit around discussing how the patriarchy has suppressed them for millennia.  Then these capable women go home and worry about how their hair looks and when some guy is going to call.  For some, the contradiction is too great."

   But, says Tatum, heterosexual women who enter lesbian alliances while in college typically revert to heterosexual behavior later because "that is what their orientation is." And Tatum says for men "being gay never seems to be a political choice.  There is no reward of any kind for becoming part of gay men's groups on campus or in the broader society."

   The costs of treating homosexuality as a taboo in today's high schools reach beyond the immediate anguish caused to individual students.  For example, Virginia Uribe, whose counseling center for gay and lesbian students in a Los Angeles high school is one of the few of its kind in the country, is concerned about "destructive forms of masking homosexuality.  Many gay and lesbian students are drawn to have sex with a variety of heterosexual partners, increasing the risk of sexually transmitted diseases."

   My conversations with students confirmed this.  "From eighth through 11th grade I slept with as many guys as I could.  As I look back I think I was trying to get away from the fact that I was lesbian," says a recent graduate of Arlington's Wakefield High.  A gay young man told me that in high school he felt he "had to sleep with girls or they would have caught on."

   Some experts feel that accepting a young person's sexual orientation will make it easier for him or her to form permanent relationships later in life.  "The promiscuity, the split-second decision to get it on with someone will decrease as society's attitude toward gays become more accepting," says Cornell's Isay. Greater frankness by the schools would also help reduce the shock felt by many parents when they discover that their children are homosexual.  Kids dread revealing their homosexuality to their parents.

   "Given my family there was no way I could have come out in high school.  My family is very liberal," says a bright, attractive young woman, a former student of mine now graduated from an Ivy League college.  "I could have bought home any kind of lover -- a hippie, a motorcycle rider, and any color of the rainbow - as long as they were male.  In a family where it was totally unacceptable to make racial jokes, I used to hear a homophobic joke once a day."

   Medical writer Tineke Haase says that she considered herself a very liberal parent but when her son, then in 11th grade, told her he was gay "it hit very hard.  I panicked.  I envisioned him being beaten up, getting AIDS.  It took me a while to give up my dreams of him getting married and having children.  Gradually I put things in perspective and realized that he was still the marvelous son he had always been," says Haase, who is author of the pamphlet "Why My Child Is Gay."

   Elaine Mumford of Annapolis says that when she learned that her daughter was gay she started questioning her own self-worth. "I kept thinking I must have been a bad parent.  I went into the same closet my child had just come out of.  I had to learn to trust my own instincts.  At some point you say: 'This is my child who I have known and loved for so long.'  And you realize the stereotype is all wrong.  Society may be telling me this, but I know my daughter," says Mumford.

   "To grow up gay and healthy is extremely difficult," says a Fairfax County family life teacher, "when the message at school is that gay kids don't exist.  You have no visible role models. If you are a gay young person you stand alone."

-----

Patrick Welsh  teaches English at T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, Virginia.  Copyright (c) 1990 Patrick Welsh

This article appeared in "The Washington Post" on March 4, 1990 and is reprinted with permission.

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

A FRIEND OF MINE DIED OF AIDS

.... and he was gay.  But I didn't know for sure that he was gay, not that it would have mattered.  He was a fellow priest, a colleague and a friend of mine in the Diocese of Newark.  Now he's dead, and I can't tell him that I would have valued his friendship whether he was gay or straight.

I learned of his death in an article which appeared in the most recent issue of Episcopal Life entitled, "Dying priest wanted secret to be told."  The article begs for a response which can never, in this life, be given to the one who needs to hear it most -- Ray Roberts.  According to the article, Ray's final request to Bishop Spong was this:  "Bishop, when I die please tell my congregation and everyone else who cares to listen that I died of AIDS and that I was a gay male.  I want to be honest in my death in a way that I could not ever be honest in my life."

I wish I could respond.  I wish there was some way to let Ray know how much I treasured his friendship.  I more than "care to listen."  I wish I could reach out to him.  But it's too late.

It is tragic that fears and prejudices so effectively build up walls that block communication between individuals.  All of us desperately need caring, in our living and in our dying.  I wish you could hear this Ray, God bless you.  May you rest in peace.

-----

The Reverend Carol E. Henley, Vicar, Saint Anne's Church, Winston-Salem, NC, included this in her parish newsletter of October 10, 1990

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

GAY IN NICARAGUA

by Grant Gallup

In 1985 I first came to Nicaragua as a member of a Witness for Peace delegation.  I was the only openly identified Gay person among the ten men and ten women of the group.  But present in the delegation was Dr. George Edward, 65, a Presbyterian minister and retired seminary professor whose book on Gay and Lesbian liberation had just been published, and which I had just read.  By a serendipity, Dr. Edwards and I became room-mates for most of the trip, if that is the right word.  We shared floor space together in the hovel of a Miskito Indian family in Bluefields, on the east coast of Nicaragua.  Our delegation met and talked with nearly 70 individuals and groups, of all political stripes.  We met with Father Miguel D'Escoto, then foreign minister; Virgilio Godoy, now vice-president and probably being groomed by the U.S. for a coup d'etat to bring down the current government; and we met with Thomas Borge, then minister of the interior, who had been castrated and whose wife had been raped and murdered by the Somocistas.  Everywhere we went, somewhere in the discussion, Dr. Edwards would ask what was the attitude of the person or group with regard to Gay and Lesbian persons, and their human rights.  This always gave the translator a problem, and she or he usually had to be helped to reduce this to the universal "homosexual."  Dr. Edwards never assisted in this reduction.  The answers usually involved denial that there were any homosexuals in this country.  Sometimes this answer was translated by a talented linguist who gave unmistakable signs of being involved in a little act of psychological suicide.

When we got to the home of Thomas Borge, the much-revered sole surviving founder of the FSLN, the legendary "hard-line Marxist" of "The New York Times" propaganda mill.  I screwed up my courage and decided that it should be my turn to ask the Gay question.  After the usually necessary dance around the translation of Gay and Lesbian in "homosexual," Comandante Borge gave a lengthy and involved answers.  The Revolution, he declared, was of course in favor of the rights of homosexuals as it was in the rights of all.  However, the practical reality of the Nicaraguan situation was that culturally the issue was dominated by the antiquarian and outmoded attitudes of the Roman Catholic Church, which made the condition of homosexuals a very oppressed one here.  Borge said nothing about Latin American machismo or the concomitant oppression of women in the culture.  When pressed to tell what the policy of hiring was in his own Ministry of the Interior, Borge had to admit that "because of the possibility of blackmail on so sensitive a matter," the Ministry did not knowingly hire homosexuals.  I was sure I saw his talented and handsome young translator wince (not mince) and wipe a pearl of perspiration from his filtrum.

Five years later I am back in Nicaragua.  The bishop here, Sturdie Wyman Downs Higgs, has, with other Latin American bishops, consistently voted against any pro-Gay legislation in the House of Bishops.  But a seminarian from the U.S. visiting me last summer told me that Sturdie had in fact knowingly ordained a Gay man to the priesthood.  However, I have met the man, and he is about as self-oppressed and self-denying a homosexual as I have met.  He is not Gay, if by that we understand at least the opposite of Grim.  There is also a very closeted homosexual lay person in an important position in the diocese, terrified of discovery.  Furthermore, when Downs discovered that my politics were anti-U.S. imperialism and pro-liberationist, he made it his business to inquire of several North American visitors into my sexual history, searching for scandal and asking if I had been sent here to escape the heat of something salacious.  Alas and alack, not so; I came because my bishop asked me to be liaison officer for a companion relationship of our dioceses.  My refusal to stop demonstrating in front of the U.S. embassy with other North American religious, and my asking questions about the whereabouts of the money sent by the Presiding Bishop's fund for world relief after Hurricane Joan devastated the East Coast, did not further endear me to Downs.  Before it was over, he would throw me out of his office as a "troublemaker."  There are still unanswered questions, however.

I am now back here in Nicaragua more or less on my own, without a salary, housing allowance, or any other stipend.  My bishop, Frank Griswold, is paying my insurance and pension premiums, and some friends are sending dollars to support my ministry here.  I want to stay here to give a surer foundation to the work I began in my first year, at Casa Ave Maria.  This is a house of prayer, pilgrimage, and social action, which I am coordinating along with Miriam Lazo, a Nicaraguan woman with much experience in social welfare work.  We are developing self-help programs with Nicaraguan family artisan workshops, poor people's pharmacies, and the like.  I'm also involved in Gay issues.  A young Canadian friend who works here with autistic children has been developing a ministry with young Nicaraguan Gay males in an AIDS prevention program.  He goes to the ruins of the old Roman Catholic cathedral (destroyed in the 1972 earthquake) twice a week and hands out condoms and AIDS information pamphlets to the young Gays who gather there for social and sexual contacts.  An Integrity friend in California heard of this ministry through my regular newsletter/diary, MANAGUA SAGA, and dispatched to me a case of a thousand condoms to be used in this program.  They were duly delivered by United Parcel!

Saturday, November 3, was a historic occasion for the Gay and Lesbian community of Managua.  For the first time in the history of the republic, so far as we can tell, a Gay and Lesbian social occasion was held publicly here.  The Canadian social worker helped a group of young women and men arrange a dance at Casa Ben Linder, the North American solidarity house named for the young U.S. engineer/clown/unicyclist apostle of peace who was murdered in cold blood by the Contra in 1988.  The young Canadian had asked me several months ago about a place to hold the dance -- I had originally suggested Casa Ave Maria, our own original house, as being large enough for a dance of 40 or 50 people.  But I have since had to move from that house, as the rich family who own it have returned from Miami and want to live in it; my lease had expired.  So I suggested we call Casa Ben Linder, looking for more people to use its facilities anyway, since many solidarity groups have given up and gone home, Nicaragua no longer being such a "sexy" issue.  He called and made the arrangements, and on November 3 we had the dance.  Two straight friends of mine -- a North American woman about my age and my young Nicaraguan driver and aide-de-camp went with me.  It was a rainy night in the rainy season, but the community came out.  Casa Ben Linder asked us to limit the tickets to a hundred people, and when we arrived there were only a dozen or so women and men waiting for the action to start.  I encouraged them to get on with it, and before long the amplifiers were blasting out popular songs and the hips were moving.  A spectacular transvestite dancer did her thing, and we knew we had seen a "first" in Managua, at least in public.   My woman friend and I, who get up at dawn, went home early.  Our Canadian friend joked that we might miss seeing the famous Gay comandante of the Revolution, whose name is known to everyone.  But my 19 year old helper decided to stay, and told us at breakfast that over a hundred people showed up eventually and that the dancing was spectacular, with lots of cross-dressers, and a promenade at the climax.  He said the aunt of an old friend showed up and asked him if he were also a cochon.  Like "faggot," it depends who's using the word.  He said no, but perhaps de Los ambientes.  We don't have a word to translate this, as it is used in Nicaragua, but it may mean "swinger."  There's to be another Gay and Lesbian dance at Ben Linder house this evening, November 17th, and they hope, every two weeks.

There are a few restaurants known as Gay.  And there is the famous Lobo Jack's, which calls itself Central America's largest disco, where the affluent Gay crowd, especially internationalists, are known to hang out.  But there are, so far as I know, no openly Gay or Lesbian organizations just yet, though it appears that one is now forming, and that there will be regular dances at Casa Ben Linder under the sponsorship of this group.  Perhaps they should invite Bishop Downs; he might be influenced to change his vote on Lesbian and Gay issues.  And Thomas Borge, although it's too late for him to change hiring policies at the Ministry of the Interior.  This group is also trying to raise money to buy a house for a community center for Gay people. 

The new government of Nicaragua is ideologically troglodyte on the subject of sex, and almost everything else.  The Ministry of Education is now being led by "City of God" religionists of the Roman Catholic church's right wing, associated with the cristofascist group Opus Dei.  They are all very opposed to sex education unless it is done by the Roman Catholic Church.  The Lesbian and Gay revolution is part of the unfinished business of Nicaragua's struggle for liberation for all the oppressed, and it's no doubt got some hard times ahead.  But it appears to be getting its act together.

-----

Contributions to support Grant Gallup and his work at Casa Ave Maria may be sent directly to him at Casa Ave Maria, Apartado 4870, Managua, Nicaragua (telephone 011-505-2-663211), or if you need to be tax deductible, send to NICARAGUA MISSION FUND, c/o Dr. David Lochman, 2400 N. Lakeview, #2006, Chicago, IL 60614. 

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

QUEEN'S CHAPLAIN COMES OUT

By Angela Singer

Having a homosexual side to their nature has helped leading people in the Church of England, according to The Rev. Canon Eric James, one of the chaplains to the Queen.

Says Canon James:  "I probably would not have been ordained, if I had been honest about myself when I was ordained in 1951.  But the gay part of my own nature has been a tremendous assistance to my own ministry.  People think of it as a negative thing.  I think of it as the most marvelous gift.  I'd never want to disown that part of my nature, I'd want to say it's helped me as it's helped many of the best people in the Church of England."

He adds: "Many pastors who have become bishops and principals of theological colleges, very often have a very strong gay side to their nature and it's a marvelous help in a pastoral ministry.  If we deny ordination to gay people we deny some of our best pastors."

Canon James expressed his views on the television program "Out on Sunday: Gay Priests in the Church," September 3.  The debate as to whether practicing gay men should be ordained hinges, he said, on whether Scripture should still be followed, phrase by phrase, or whether Christians can move away from it as Jesus Christ did.

Up to a fifth of the clergy in the Church of England are thought to be gay and at present under extreme pressure because they are being asked, as Canon James says: "To pretend I'm not what I am."

Says Canon James:  "What upsets me is the hypocrisy which is encouraged.  One bishop said to gay curate:  why don't you just get married?  This could be disastrous.  This was a very cruel thing to say.  The Church, which is meant to be a very truthful family body or fellowship is asking people to lie."

Says the Rt. Rev. Jim Thompson, the Bishop of Stepney:  "I think when we read the Bible we don't read every single sentence and take it as an unalterable truth.  According to Leviticus, someone who has a damaged limb or organ should not be received into the community of God, but Christ embraced people with handicaps and loved them."

The Rt. Rev. Peter Coleman, Bishop of Crediton, Devon, a father of four, says in the program:  "I don't think it's fair to expect gay people not to express their sexuality."

He comments:  "I speak as a parent.  It doesn't do any good as a parent of children to be continually inquiring into every detail of their lives.  In fact it would be an impertinence and an arrogance to take too detailed an interest in somebody else's freedom and we all know that."  [ed. note - Bishop Coleman's book is reviewed in this issue.]

-----

This article is courtesy of Origin Universal News Services Limited

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

ONE IN 7 ANGLICAN CLERGY GAY

One in every seven Church of England clergymen is a homosexual and many are suffering from abnormal levels of stress because they fear exposure, it is estimated in a survey conducted by Dr  Ben Fletcher, head of the Division of Psychology at Hatfield Polytechnic.  The survey suggests seven per cent of homosexual clergy opted for the "halo of marriage."  A quarter, however, live with a same-sex partner, despite the Church's stance that "homosexual genital acts" fall short of the Christian ideal and demand repentance. 

Dr Fletcher claims the Church's attitude is largely to blame for deterring single homosexuals, the vast majority, from seeking long-term relationships, resulting in them resorting instead to "deviant" behavior.  The overall picture of the mental well-being of homosexual clergy is "very depressing," and the Church has an urgent duty to act, he said.  The findings from what is believed to be the first systematic study of the area, are based on replies to questionnaires sent in November, 1989 to 390 clergy, mainly parish priests, who are members of homosexual support groups.  Although representative of only a small sample of the Church of England clergy, they suggested that the estimate that 15 per cent of clergy are homosexual was not an exaggeration, said Dr Fletcher.  But his findings, in which he does not distinguish between practicing and non-practicing homosexuals, were challenged yesterday, with churchmen on opposing sides of the debate claiming that they were either too high or too low. 

The study, "Clergy under Stress," which was published in September, 1990, claims clergy in general have high levels of strain, but homosexual clergy "show disturbingly high levels," up to 20% are clinically depressed.  Fletcher's book also found that priests involved in stable same-sex relationships experienced less stress.  "Perceived community hostility," Fletcher noted, is pervasive among gay clergy.  One of his survey's respondents wrote: "You can never believe what you are told about `confidentiality' - the closet, despite its appalling pressures, is a good deal better than your diocese treating you as a leper, a potential scandal, or an unexploded bomb."  Fletcher argued that the Church of England's duty as a caring employer should be viewed as "a matter of great urgency."  He recommended that the church encourage stable same-sex relationships and establish an independent counseling service.

-----

"Clergy Under Stress" by Dr Ben Fletcher is published by Mowbray, price L6.95.

Taken from articles by "The Daily Telegraph," August 16, 1990, and Episcopal News Service, September 7, 1990

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

CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE NEW ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

September 27, 1990

Rt. Rev. George Carey

Gentle Bishop Carey:

      I congratulate you on your appointment as Archbishop-elect of Canterbury.

      I urge you to exercise great sensitivity towards the needs of lesgay Christians and to all other outcasts throughout the Anglican communion.  Please help us to tell the world that nothing can separate lesbians and gays from the love of God in Christ Jesus. Please help us end the Church's censorship of this good news.

I spoke with Bishop Runcie about these concerns when I met with him in Beijing in December 1983.  I covered Bishop Runcie's visit for The "Episcopalian."  Terry Waite set up our meeting.  Matters are much graver now.  I met last month with Father Fung Chi Wood in Hong Kong, a person of immense courage who speaks out on this and other justice issues even when punished for doing so.  Last December the entire assembly of the Diocese of Costa Rica mocked me in my absence when I visited San Jose to speak at an international conference.  Bishop Browning kindly conferred with me by phone for almost an hour while I was there, and extensively when I returned. He pledged to me that he would speak about homophobia when he met with all of the Central American bishops at the House of Bishops meeting last week.  At that meeting, with two exceptions, all Latin American bishops voted to disassociate themselves from Bishop Spong and our diocese.  In Africa lesgay Christians face fiercer opposition still.  Bishop Spong arranged for me to meet with Archbishop Yona Okoth when he was in Newark last year.....

      Richard Kirker, General Secretary of the Gay Christian Movement in England, is a friend of long standing.  He has been a guest in our home and lectured to my students when I taught at the University of Wisconsin.  I urge you to treat receive with high seriousness the requests which he has articulated.

      When you visit the United States, I would welcome an opportunity to meet with you.  I live and work only 30 minutes away from the Episcopal Church Center.

Faithfully,

Louie Crew

___________________________

8 October 1990

Dr. Louie Crew

Academic Foundations

Rutgers University

Dear Dr. Crew

      Thank you very much indeed for your letter of 27 September.  I do appreciate your concern for homosexual Christians and I can assure you of my desire to deal with great sensitivity to those who are homosexuals.  I think, however, that a lot more theological work needs to be done on this issue because one has to remember not only the needs of the homosexual community but those who are not homosexuals and who find the matter one of grave offence.

With warm wishes

Yours sincerely,

+ George Bath and Wells

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

A MODERN EXODUS

by Thom Niel

Homosexuality in the Church has long been a subject which the Church would rather avoid, but it is one that (much to the Church's chagrin) won't go away.  The reason for this, of course, is that God continually calls gay people to ministry, just as S/he calls all others who have been baptized into the death of Christ.  While some gay people courageously answer God's call, the Church's hierarchy defiantly holds its ears to the truth about sexual orientation, choosing rather to propagate the lie that homosexuality is a sinful choice.  In doing this, the Church has helped to create an atmosphere in which gay bashings are on the increase and unconstitutional sodomy laws are upheld at the highest levels of government - all backed up by the venerable Judeo-Christian tradition.  It is no surprise, therefore, that many gay people have chosen to escape the toxic environment of the Church to rediscover their true self-worth and God-given beauty in a more hospitable climate.

In our American culture, as in many others throughout the world, the dichotomy between the sexes is sharply defined.  Both men and women are imprisoned by stereotypes that exist to prop up an abusive, dysfunctional heterosexual model in which women are controlled by a dominant male class.  Whenever this model is challenged by sexual ambiguity of any sort, the punishment is severe.  The lie must be protected.

There is no greater threat to such a model than homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality, where a member of the powerful class dares to weaken the grip over the powerless by assuming the opposite role.  In sustaining relationships which by their very nature symbolize equality and mutuality, gay women and men expose the lie and prove beyond any doubt that humans are capable of living together in true accordance with the Law of Love established by our Savior, Jesus Christ.  But the Church cannot abide this, and over the course of many centuries has systematically sought to banish gay people and other traitors from its midst in an effort to maintain its self-deception.  What is left is a Body of Christ with limbs missing, and the results are clearly evident.

Among gay writers there is an increasing awareness of what might be called a distinctive "gay sensibility."  At its best, it is marked by sensitivity, creativity, and vulnerability - those attributes which, when found in men, trigger homophobic responses like "sissy" or "faggot."  This is the same sensibility that ancient cultures such as that of the Native Americans recognized and embraced as an important component in the collective human psyche.  (The shaman immediately comes to mind.)  But this sensibility has recently been under attack both by our modern culture and by the modern Church.  Since this discussion is focused primarily on the Church's treatment of gay people, let us now consider what effect the loss of this gay sensibility has had in the Church.

There are few who would argue that many of the most gifted and creative minds throughout history have been gay, and that many of these same people also served the Church.  One has only to recall Leonardo da Vinci's "Last Supper," Michelangelo's painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, or Handel's "Messiah," sung every year at Christmas time and dearly loved by millions of Christians all over the world.  All three of these great gay figures survived the Church's intolerance to create works of lasting beauty.  But the intolerance then pales in comparison to that of today.  Things have indeed gotten much worse.

In our own time many have acknowledged the fact that an overwhelming number of male organists, for instance, are gay.  But studies by the American Guild of Organists and other organizations have indicated that the Church is reaching a crisis in its shortage of trained organists.  Could it be that young gay men growing up in the age of gay liberation have more integrity than to serve an institution which literally generates homophobia?  It is question that deserves attention.  And what about gay artists, poets, and those gifted in many other areas?  Do they too avoid the Church for the same reason?  The Church's liturgical witness in the modern era suggests that there is a definite artistic lack somewhere - a grave consequence, considering the centrality of worship in the life of the Church and the extent to which the arts have historically been connected with worship.

If art is a reflection of life, then the Church's art is reflecting an ugly reality in which a large and beautiful contribution is absent.  The same gay sensibility which gave us da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Handel is in danger of being replaced by a more acceptable heterosexual counterpart.  "Family values" and "muscular Christianity" have become the order of the day and dictate the parameters of artistic expression.  Where does this all lead?   Perhaps to a Church devoid of color and genuine creativity, where conformity creates dogma and the baptismal mandate to "honor the dignity of every human being" is contingent upon the agenda of the heterosexist status quo.  Not, I suspect, the sort of place where our Lord would feel very comfortable.

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

Thom Niel is currently the Director of Music at St. Stephen's Church in Providence, Rl.

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

SEATTLE DEAN CALLS FOR BLESSING RELATIONSHIPS

Proclaiming "the time has come," the Very Rev. Frederick B. Northrup, Dean of St. Mark's Cathedral, Seattle, Washington, has publicly called for the blessing of lesbian and gay relationships by the Church, encouraging the Church to take moral leadership in the issue by reaching out to couples in the gay/lesbian church community.  In the Nov. 25, 1990 issue of "The Rubric," the cathedral parish newsletter, the Dean stated:

      ... There are many thousands of gay and lesbian couples living monogamous, faithful, holy and life-giving relationships.  The time has come for the church to honor these couples by blessing these unions.  Like heterosexual couples they are willing to commit to one another "until parted by death."  They are willing to live by the same standards that heterosexual couples have set for themselves.  One cannot ask for more.  The church needs to face this issue and take moral leadership, not only by reaching out to these committed couples by offering the sacrament of marriage, but also by encouraging the state to follow our lead.

-----

(Excerpted by permission.)

Thanks to "Sound Spirit!," the newsletter for Integrity/Puget Sound, for January-February, 1991.

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

CLAUDIA'S COLUMN

A Meditation on the Passion

We, the Church, are called in part to reach out to and minister with a wounded lesbian and gay community, women and men who have experienced rejection, humiliation, fear, loss of self-esteem, property, and opportunity, and on occasion, condemnation to death.  The example of Christ in his passion has been powerful in turning my anger, pain, and suffering into something positive.  To you, my lesbian nd gay sisters and brothers, I pray that this meditation will assist you in a similar manner.  For those of you who are deputies to General Convention, let this meditation inform your understanding of some of our experiences of alienation and "death."

*Jesus Dies on the Cross:*

Then Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" (My God, My God, why have you deserted me?).  He then uttered another loud cry and dismissed the spirit.

                        -- Mark 16:34-37

Death takes on

  many forms, Jesus

We lesbians and gay men

  know the agony of death

We have experienced death

  behind "closet doors"

Where we feel the fullness of

  who we are

Suffocated by those who

  demand that we remain hidden

As we experience the crucifixion of

  self identities

We, like those

  crucified upon crosses,

First fight hard to not lose sight

  of who we are

Yet soon,

  weakened by the fight,

We yield to exhaustion and

  our honest self expression dies

Crucifixion is a process of

  system failures

    circulation,

    respiration,

    heart

Until one by one,

  each system ceases its function

    and death occurs

So it is with our deaths, Jesus

First we lose our ability

  to be open and honest

    about our lesbian and gay identifies

Soon our self esteem dies

  and we think

    "Maybe I do have some intrinsic flaw"

    "Maybe it would be better and easier to be 'straight'"

    "May I'm not as good as others"

Then our self confidence dies,

  and it takes more and more

    to do less and less

We begin to depend on

  chemicals and alcohol

    to bolster our efforts and to enhance our confidence

We stop trying to achieve

  convinced that nothing can be done

We look outside the community

  because we believe that

    other gay men and lesbians can't help us

The agony of hanging on a cross,

  by nails driven through the wrist, Jesus,

Reminds me of the agony of

  "coming out" or remaining "in the closet"

Wondering how parents, employers, the Church

  will react to our real identities

    Will our families accept us?

    Will those who are friends before our "coming out" continue

              that friendship?

    What will our bishops do with that information?

    Will someone object to our teaching Sunday School?

    How do we introduce our partners during coffee hour?

      Can we lose our jobs now?

You, Jesus never lost sight of

  your true identity

Your called yourself

  Son of God,

Knowing that the consequence of

  your honesty would be death

You did not speak harsh words

  even to those who crucified you

Rather, you spoke

  words of forgiveness,

Understanding the bias and prejudice and fear

  of those who condemned you

Help us look to

  your example, Jesus,

As we experience crucifixion

  and death

Despite the uncertain consequences,

  let us maintain our identities

Proud to be lesbians and gay men

                    *Amen*

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

CARTER HEYWARD JOINS PROTEST

September 6, 1990

The Most Rev. Edmond Browning

The Rt. Rev. David Johnson

Dear Bishops, Ed and David, brothers in Christ:

      As you know, I am a seminary professor and a theologian who has worked, for quite some time and at depth, in the arena of sexuality as a locus of sacred movement for liberation and healing in our lives.  As you also know, I am both a lesbian who is sexually active and a priest who takes our sacramental responsibility seriously.

      I want to join my voice with that of our gentle spirited brother, Louie Crew, who has decided to "no longer receive Communion until the Episcopal Church makes all sacraments available to lesbian and gay persons." I have been praying this summer about what form my own response should take to the church's abuse of gay and lesbian persons.  While I deeply respect Louie's decision, mine is a different one.

      All along, I've tried to be attentive in my ministry to lesbians and gay men, those in and outside of the church.  As violence against us mounts in the United States, and as the church continues to sin against us, I feel bound, with Louie, to accelerate my protest against this sin and my public witness, specifically as a lesbian priest, to the power, justice, and compassion of God.

      Rather than deprive myself of the sacraments, I am choosing, for the first time, to direct my *sacramental* ministry *primarily* to the nurturance of lesbians and gay men, especially Episcopalians.  In the spirit of liberation, this means that the "preferential option" of my sacramental work (in Holy Communion, Blessings of Relationships, Baptisms, Burials, etc.) will be for, and with, lesbians and gay men.  I will be working with these sisters and brothers, to call the church to account for its sin against us and to celebrate publicly the blessings and joys of being lovers in the world.

      In this *kairos,* we lesbians and gay men are being called to escalate our unapologetic, concerted witness; called, that is, to combine revolutionary patience with righteous anger

and a sense of perspective that enables us to see who truly walks the paths of compassion.

      We who share this vocation need to say, clearly, that we are gay and lesbian; that we are sexually active; that *many* of us are ordained; that we experience our unalienated erotic power *as* the love of god; and that we give thanks for this resource of blessing and liberation in our lives.

      I write as your sister

      (The Rev.) Carter Heyward, Ph.D.

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

DALLAS DESTROYS DIALOGUE

*In what is probably the most bizarre misapplication of the 1985 General Convention's call for dialogue on issues of human sexuality, the Diocese of Dallas at its convention on November 9, 1990, which never established a committee to discuss or encourage discussion of such issues, nevertheless issued its conclusions in the following resolution*:

WHEREAS, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church has called for a period of study and dialogue concerning the issues related to homosexuality and Christianity with specific concern for the ordination of practicing homosexuals to the orders of Deacon, Priest and Bishop within the Episcopal Church and

WHEREAS, The Rt. Rev. John Spong, Diocesan Bishop of the Diocese of Newark, did ordain Robert Williams a priest on December 1, 1989 [sic] who had made the public claim that he was in fact a practicing homosexual and

WHEREAS, the Bishop Of the Diocese of Dallas refused to permit Robert Williams to practice his priesthood in Churches of the Diocese of Dallas on the grounds that he had made the claim that he was a practicing homosexual and

WHEREAS, the Bishop of the Diocese of Dallas in communication to the Clergy of the Diocese of Dallas stated the following:

"...we do not as a Church body subscribe or support the viewpoint that ordaining an avowed, practicing homosexuality person is a valid, theologically supportable action.

"The sacrament of marriage remains the model of wholesome, life giving relationship between men and women which the Church blesses and God makes holy.  We are not at the point of recognizing alternative lifestyles as life giving and are unwilling to ordain persons who openly support this point of view ...

"Marriage, marital fidelity, and sexual chastity (for single persons outside the bonds of marriage) remain the standards of Christian sexual morality which we honor and support...It is not appropriate for this Church to ordain a practicing homosexual person, or any person engaged in heterosexual relationships outside of marriage."  ("Ambassadors of Reconciliation", January, 1990)

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Diocese of Dallas proclaim the following to be a true statement of our belief and practice within the Episcopal Church:

That human sexual behavior is intended by God for the support and nurture of a married man and woman and, when it is God's will, for the procreation of children.

That sexual behavior outside of the marital bond is foreign to the commands of God as set forth in the Old Testament and the New Testament of Sacred Scripture.

That those who *teach* as acceptable such sexual behavior as homosexuality, fornication or adultery be considered as *opponents of the true faith* for they are causing both confusion and disturbances within the church especially among those who are of a young age and not yet sufficiently experienced to see the error of such practices on their own.

Because such diseases as AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases are a greater threat to those who do not respect the bonds of sexual fidelity in marriage, those who foster, permit and encourage such sexual practices as homosexuality, fornication and adultery are doing so without regard for the safety of those who receive their direction.

FURTHERMORE, BE IS RESOLVED, that the Diocese of Dallas join with its Bishop's refusal to permit Robert Williams to exercise his priesthood within this jurisdiction by expressing grave concern for the presence in our Diocese of Robert Williams or any other priest who professes practicing sexual behavior outside the bonds of marriage and

That we support any proceedings to censure and repudiate the actions of The Rt. Rev. John Spong, Bishop of Newark in ordaining to the priesthood Robert Williams while knowing both his practice of sexual behavior and his open support and direction of such practices among those who have received his counsel.

FINALLY, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution be transmitted by the secretary of the Convention of the Diocese of Dallas to The Rt. Rev. John Spong, Bishop of Newark, The Rt. Rev. Edmond Browning, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, the Secretary of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church and the Chair of the joint Committee on Human Sexuality.

Submitted by The Rev. Timothy A. Church, SSC, Rector, Holy Nativity, Plano

*In response, Integrity/Dallas issued the following*:

We, The Board of St. Aelred's Chapter of Integrity, having considered the actions of the 95th Convention of the Diocese of Dallas on Friday, November 9, reject and disassociate ourselves from the position on human sexuality adopted by the Convention in the passing of Resolution 4.B., known as "On Sexuality."  While we applaud the actions of the Convention and of our Bishop in the calling for dialogue within the Diocese on the issues of human sexuality, and look forward to participating in that process, we condemn the attempt by the narrowest of majority of the Convention to limit that dialogue by the adoption of such a resolution.

The intentional and specific positions approved in Resolution 4.B. we find to be contrary to the teachings of the Gospel as understood in Scripture, Tradition and reason.  By seeking to condemn all gay and lesbian persons to lives of isolation and alienation, the resolution perverts the teachings of the Gospel on inclusiveness, community and in support of mutually nurturing and supporting relationships.  We hereby serve notice that we as Christians and Episcopalians reject this perversion and will not be bound by the tenets of the resolution.  We will continue to teach the Gospel as we have received it: that the love of God has been proven to us by the gift of Christ; that all who seek God are welcome within the community of the faithful; that our sexuality is a gift of God for our nurture and joy; and that all relationships of mutuality and nurture are blessed by God.

But perhaps more troubling than the words of the resolution is the wanton lack of regard for the spiritual care of gay and lesbians Christians within the Diocese of Dallas and the church abroad demonstrated by the passage of the Resolution.  For too long the Episcopal Church has been ready to exploit the gifts and abilities of the lesbian and gay community, both ordained and lay, without a readiness to accept the authentic personhood of gay and lesbian Christians.  This we consider to be the sin of the church, and this action of the Convention has proven that some within the Diocese of Dallas will continue to oppress and reject her lesbian and gay sisters and brothers in Christ.  To publicly state through the official actions of the Diocese that gay and lesbian Christians are not welcome within this church is to intentionally inflict deep and lasting spiritual and psychological harm on those for whom the Diocese is entrusted to give care.  We call upon this Diocese to repent and to seek immediately ways to begin to repair the damage inflicted, and to publicly state the challenge of the Gospel to welcome the outcast and to set the captive free.

The pain, rejection and anger that we feel on behalf of ourselves and all gay and lesbian persons within the church causes many of us to question our continued presence here.  Yet we are convinced that the love of God is sufficient to provide for us.  We stand prepared to persist in our call to the church to repent.  We will continue to seek ways to bring about healing and reconciliation within the church.  And we will continue to lovingly and prayerfully provide the ministry of support and welcome to all lesbian and gay persons within this church.

Our prayer is that the light of Christ will make itself known to the Bishop, clergy and laity of this diocese, that we all might comprehend the depth of the pain Convention's actions have caused, and that there will begin soon the repentance and turning from hate, fear and rejection within this church, that the witness of the Good News in Christ Jesus may be spread throughout the world.

Specific Objections to the Text of the Resolution

A) The statement that sexuality is given for the nurture and enjoyment of "a married man and women" asserts that persons of homosexual orientation are demanded to remain celibate.  Nowhere in Scripture, accepted tradition or reason is this demand supported.  Homosexual orientation is not addressed specifically in Scripture, nor was the concept of constitutional homosexual orientation understood by the writers of Scripture.  Those specific actions and behaviors condemned in Scripture are understood as violating specific cultural and relational covenants.  Homosexuality, per se, does not.  Some homosexual acts in context of relationship can enhance and strengthen that relationship.  The fact that the church today does not permit homosexual persons to marry encourages inappropriate and irresponsible sexual activity.

B)  The grouping of homosexuality, fornication and adultery is misleading and inaccurate.  Homosexuality is defined as a personality characteristic enabling an individual to realize intimate relationships with persons of like gender rather than opposite gender.  Persons of either orientation, homosexual or heterosexual, can achieve healthy, nurturing, mutually supportive and enriching relationships, either covenanted or not.  Fornication and adultery are behaviors in violation of relational covenants, and as such can be engaged in by persons of both heterosexual and homosexual orientations.  The Gospel speaks to the nature of relationships, with God and with one another, and speaks of sin as the violation of those relationships.  This sin applies to heterosexual and homosexual relationships alike, not to the specific individuals involved in the relationship.  To condemn a constitutional personality characteristic, whether left-handedness or homosexuality, is to label the Creator defective, a proposition clearly contrary to the Gospel and teachings of the church.

C) The labeling of those who hold pastoral and moral theological positions contrary to one's own as "opponents of the true faith" smacks of pharisaical judgmentalism.  The true faith is found in Scripture and the historical creeds, but just as differing positions regarding the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist or the relationship between church and state can be derived from these, so can differing positions be held regarding sexual behavior.  We may disagree on how the Gospel is to be lived and still hold the Gospel.  This is the historical Anglican tradition.

D) Regarding the confusion of young persons, it is precisely proclamations such as Resolution 4.B. that cause great spiritual and psychological harm in those young persons struggling with a homosexual orientation.  Sexual orientation is established very early in life, at least by the age of three.  Young gay and lesbian persons usually begin to struggle with their orientation in pre-teen years, and continue that struggle throughout their teens.  Most of the pain and confusion of that struggle is the result of societal pressures to deny their true orientation.  As a result, young gay and lesbian persons have a devastatingly high suicide rate, must fight against stereotypes and direct and indirect violence from peers, often struggle bravely to suppress their sexuality, and even marry and foster children in an attempt to be acceptable to society and the church.  Those who avoid this crippling path of self-hatred and fear often mistakenly reject God (as represented by the church) in order to live with themselves.  This spiritual abuse of the personhood of these innocent young people is reprehensible and must be stopped.

E) The statement that persons not in mutually exclusive heterosexual monogamous relationships are at greater risk of exposure to sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV infection, is misleading.  These diseases are transmitted through the exchange of body fluids, whether sexually or otherwise.  The health risk is about specific behaviors and protection, not about sexual orientation or the nature of the relationship.  Persons involved in mutually exclusive homosexual monogamous relationships are at low risk for disease transmission.  The occurrence of STD's and HIV has been very low in the lesbian community.  The support of the church for such gay and lesbian relationships would enhance the stability of the relationships.  The church's support of educational programs and safe sex practices would save lives.

DO I STAY OR DO I GO?

by Parker Childers

After Diocesan Convention, I felt a great deal of pain by what I head and experienced.  I took it quite personally and felt as if I had been rejected by yet another family.  What made it even worse was that this Church was one that I had come to as a refuge from the Southern Baptist, and now it was rejecting me and saying horrible things too.  I had had not only the experience of seeing and hearing what happened on the floor but also feeling the isolation from the delegates.

When I was feeling the worst, I forced myself to go out into the hallways with the delegates to make a witness.  I had hoped someone would have come up and been supportive or at least come and asked some questions, but I was avoided as if I had the plague.  May they did think that I had the "Gay Plague" and would possibly transmit it to them by talking to them or shaking their hands.  I do not know.  What I do know was that I stood there feeling a lot of pain and tried my best to make eye contact with them.  They, however, would duck their heads and head off in the other direction.  I stood there saying to myself that this is what I chose to convert to.  Is this where I choose to worship God?  It certainly was not what I thought I had bought into.

There was one bright spot, however, during the Convention.  During one of the breaks, I went to see my rector, Father Terry Roper, and he asked me for an Integrity button.  I was shocked!  At that point I was expecting anything but support from anyone.  I gave him one gladly and thanked him.  That one little gesture meant so much to me at that time.

After the whirlwind passing of that last homophobic resolution, the Convention was over, and I came home.  Eddie was at work, and so I was feeling very alone.  I cried for a while and then called the assistant rector from my former parish in Austin.  I asked her why in the hell should I stay in this f______ Church?  She told me that that was a good question and that she as a female priest in the Diocese of Texas asked herself that question quite often.

It was the first time that I had ever felt this way about the Episcopal Church.  I guess this was due to the fact that I had been an Episcopalian for such a short period of time and had been insulated in a liberal town like Austin.  Here I was for the first time experiencing what so many of my gay and lesbian Episcopal brothers and sisters had been experiencing for such a long time.  After much soul searching, I decided that I would stay.  I love this Church despite its faults.  The Episcopal Church and our liturgy is the way I prefer to worship the Lord.

I cannot say that I will never question my presence in this Church again, but I insist that I am here to stay.  Jesus Christ invited me in, not anyone else.  I write this because I feel that many of you from time to time feel this way about the Church, and your feelings are totally justified, and I will not defend the Church.  I just hope that when you are in such pain that you can reach out to someone as I did who can help you put things in perspective.  And please do not forget what I had to relearn.  Jesus Christ invited us to be here.

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

THE POETRY OF AIDS

David Houston died of AIDS in July of 1989.  He and his lover, Robert Birchard, had then been members of Integrity for about a year.  David was ill for 3-1/2 years, and during that time he began to write poetry.  Many of his poems were collected into a book, "Dispatches from the Front Lines," of which a limited edition was published last year.  This year Robert has published a second edition.  "While some of the poems are rough and unfinished, they record with eloquent candor how David felt about his illness, his life, and his death."  One of the poems follows:

UNTITLED POEM

I don't remember the precise moment

when we passed from friends to lovers,

But I will always remember the joy

of finding the love I had waited for,

of facing life faithful lovers,

Best buddies for a lifetime.

But a new lover is pursuing me.

He waits for me patiently.

I resist his blandishments,

fight his gentle entreaties,

his empty and deceitful promises.

But in the end he will win me,

and spirit me away from you.

He has been planning his conquest

since the night he stole unknown into my life.

If I'd known of his plan

I never would have let you love me.

             -- David Houston, 1954-1989

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

ESA CHARGES DIOCESE OF NEWARK WITH "DEFIANT ACTION"

The Episcopal Synod of America (ESA) has charged Newark Bishop John S. Spong and his diocese with "blatantly defiant action" for ordaining an openly gay, non-celibate man to the diaconate on September 30.  [See News and Notes, Winter, 1991]

This time, however, Spong will share the limelight with Newark Assistant Bishop Walter Righter, who performed the ordination of Barry Stopfel at the Church of the Atonement in Tenafly, New Jersey.

The statement by the ESA charged that the ordination of Stopfel flies in the fact of church teaching and disregards the admonishment by the House of Bishops, which, among other things, had noted the "hurt and confusion" caused by Spong's ordination of an openly gay non-celibate priest in December, 1989.

According to a story by Religious News Services, when Bishop Spong was asked about the Stopfel ordination, he said he did not believe it contrary to House of Bishops sentiment because it involved the ordination of a deacon, not a priest.

Also according to the report, former Diocesan spokesperson Archdeacon Leslie Smith declined to elaborate on the deacon/priest distinction, but said simply that the ordination was fully in keeping with church canons and that Episcopal Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning had been informed of the process.

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

DO WE REALLY WANT TO CLAIM ST. PAUL?

      Persons who are anti-gay are fond of making the claim that Adolph Hitler was a closeted homosexual, even though the clear evidence is entirely to the contrary.  The only speculation about the sexuality of positive historical figures comes from the lesbian and gay community.  Now the Rt. Rev. John S. Spong has written a controversial new book in which he speculates that the Apostle Paul was a closeted homosexual.  The gay community's feelings, of necessity, have to be mixed, but those of us in Integrity know where Bishop Spong is coming from since the leading opponents of equal rights and rites for lesbians and gays in the Episcopal Church have overwhelmingly been closeted homosexuals.

      "Nothing else could account for Paul's self-judging rhetoric, his negative feeling toward his own body and his sense of being controlled by something he had no power to change," writes Bishop Spong, who heads the Diocese of Newark.  The book,  "Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism," which was published February 1 by Harper Collins, contends that St. Paul was a "self-loathing and repressed gay male."  [ed. note: A review of the book will appear in the next issue.]

      The 59-year-old Spong, who is married and the father of three grown daughters, has championed the integration of blacks, women, gays and lesbians into the church.

      The focus of the book is not St. Paul, however, but Bishop Spong's argument that the Bible is so intellectually demanding that mainstream Christians neglect it.  Fundamentalist interpretations are gaining acceptance as a result, he says.

      In an interview in Seattle, Bishop Spong said, "I write as a Christian who loves the church.  I am not a hostile critic who stands outside religion desiring to make fun of it.  I am not a Marxist who believes that religion is the opiate of the people.  I am not a Madalyn Murray O'Hair who believes that God should be expunged from public life."

      Instead, said Bishop Spong, who begins every day with a period of prayer and Bible study, "I am a bishop in the Anglican Church who was raised as a biblical fundamentalist and who, when I left that fundamentalism, did not leave my love of the Bible or my desire to serve God through the church."

      "If I have a chance to say what I want to say with sufficient background it doesn't come across as a radical challenge," said Spong.

      Bishop Spong said in an interview with Reuters that his chapter on the sexual orientation of the influential Christian apostle marked an attempt to show that "every human has his dark shadows but none is so dark that it puts them beyond the grace of God."

      "Paul is not very popular in some sections of the church ....  But if we assume these things about Paul, it makes the grace and love of God more powerful," he said.

      In an interview with "The New York Times" published February 2, Bishop Spong said that seeing St. Paul as a homosexual has helped him understand the Apostle's anguished cries ("Wretched man that I am!"), his apparent hostility toward women ("wives submit to your husbands") and the fact that he never married.

      By viewing St. Paul as a gay man, he said, he hopes to make lesbians and gays more comfortable in the Episcopal Church and to attract people who left the church feeling that it was a moribund institution wedded to ancient ways of thinking.

      In his book, the Bishop writes that he does not mean to be "salacious or titillating" by suggesting St. Paul was gay.Spong said that the possibility of Paul being homosexual was raised as a question in 1937 in a book by New Testament scholar Arthur Darby Nock.  "I was absolutely floored by how it opened up Paul to me," he said.  Spong argued in his book that that might explain why Paul, previously a zealous Jew, might have been converted by the compassionate elements of Christianity and became the new religion's most articulate spokesman for the concept of God's forgiving grace.

      Paul apparently condemns erotic same-sex relations in his writings, but mainstream New Testament scholars have varied opinions on what he specifically had in mind, his cultural assumptions and what his words mean for church teaching today.

      Bishop Spong said his conclusions about St. Paul come from serious Bible study and from time he spends in libraries at Yale and Harvard and at Oxford and Cambridge during his annual month-long study sabbaticals.  If he did not eke out this time for study, he said, he would be overwhelmed by the administrative tasks of running his diocese, which has 125 churches in northern New Jersey.  He has been there for 15 years.

      Although Bishop Spong's theory about Paul may dominate reactions to his  book,  the bishop's main thesis is that the Bible is being neglected in mainstream Christianity because of the intellectual difficulties it poses for contemporary churchgoers.

      "The fundamentalist point of view is the only one in the public arena," he said in an interview with the "Los Angeles Times."  "I think there are two major movements in Christianity - one is the turn to the right to find security and the other is an exodus out of organized religion into the secular city."

      In the "New York Times" interview, Bishop Spong said that he sees himself as playing an important role challenging accepted notions within the church and society.  He believes he stands in the tradition of such free-thinking 1960's Anglican bishops as John A.T. Robinson and James Pike.  Pike was the controversial Bishop of California whose death in the Israeli desert in 1969 ended a lifetime of iconoclasm.  Robinson (1919-1983) was the Suffragan Bishop of Woolwich (U.K.) in 1963 when his book, "Honest to God," shocked the ecclesiastical establishment by saying out loud what most bishops thought about the literalness of scripture.  "By today's standards, Robinson and Pike seem very tame," Bishop Spong said, and it seems likely that the "Honest to God" controversy will be rekindled again.

      In the last 10 years, the church has changed in some ways, Spong believes.  "Women fill the seminaries, and gay men and lesbians are beginning to feel that the church has something to offer besides condemnation."  But there's much left to do, believes Spong, who says he knows that change inside the church is likely to be difficult, especially for him.

      "I think that what happens in the debate that takes place in the church, the conservative elements will be so threatened that they will constantly caricature, distort and marginalize so that they will make me appear as though I'm some lonely, quirky, person walking out on the fringes without any connection with historic tradition," says Spong.

      "And I live with that all the time.  The only way I know how to deal with that is to have access to people so I can challenge that.  When people know Jack Spong, they know him as a very serious student, a man who is absolutely devoted to the Christian faith, a man who studies the Bible every day of his life, a man who never starts a day without a period of meditation and prayer that connect me to my roots."

      And ironically, as uncomfortable as they sometimes are, said Spong, "the attacks on me by conservative elements have done more to give me the platform to make my ideas be debated than anything else."

REACTIONS WITHIN THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH

      The Rt. Rev. Richard Grein, 58, Bishop of New York, said: "This doesn't help.  It creates a furor for nothing ....  When you say things like this, who is going to believe you when you say something that is true?"

      "I think Spong is self-destructing," said the Rev. Todd Wetzel, 44, Executive Director of the Cleveland-based Episcopalians United for Revelation, Renewal and Reformation.  "Much of his thinking will soon be dismissed.  It no longer represents constructive theological thinking nor responsible thinking," Wetzel said.  Fr. Wetzel went on to say that St. Paul's attitudes toward women were merely a reflection of the dominant Jewish culture of his time.  "In the context of his day, St. Paul was rather liberal," he asserted.

      The Most Rev. Edmond Browning, 62, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, said in an interview that he has not read "Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism, and could not comment on its content.  But Browning predicted three types of reaction to Spong's thesis about Paul:  "For some people that kind of courage offers them a hope.  (Some) ... will find it offensive.  For those opposed (to lesbians and gays), it will be more fodder for their guns."

      "As far as I know there is no scholarly opinion that Paul was a homosexual," said the Rev. Jerome Politzer of Monterey, who recently stepped down as president of the Prayer Book Society because of a heart condition.  Politzer, 63, predicted Spong's views would quickly be discarded by most church members.

OTHER REACTIONS

      Bernadette Brooten, a biblical scholar at Harvard Divinity School, said, "A lot of things in the New Testament we are never going to know.  The personal life of Paul is really going to remain in the realm of speculation."

      "I think that rescuing the Bible from fundamentalism is a good thing," said Pheme Perkins, professor of New Testament at Boston College and a specialist in St. Paul.  "But I think Jack Spong has gone too far."

      In Bishop Spong's previous theological works, she said, she has found him to be "fun, interesting and intelligent." But his new work, she said, is part of "a tendency to attribute to Paul all the neuroses of later Christianity.  The danger is that whenever we want to psychoanalyze any figure from antiquity, we simply project our own psychological complexities," said Dr. Perkins, the author of 14 books on the New Testament.

      Others are not so kind.  "This is not only shocking, it's one of the craziest things I've heard so far," said Roman Catholic Archbishop Theodore E. McCarrick of Newark.  Archbishop McCarrick's remark came just a few days after he broke a long silence on Bishop Spong by writing in a newspaper column of the Bishop's "strange journey" and called the Episcopal Church a "church without morals."

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

ANGGAYS GIVE UP

AngGays, the lesbian and gay Anglican group in the Diocese of Sydney, Australia, disbanded in October, 1990.  Formed in 1978, the group functioned in a manner similar to an Integrity chapter until 1985.  In that year the Diocesan Synod passed a resolution excluding all "practicing" lesbians and gays (and those who support them) from the sacraments and from all participation in ministry.  Not surprisingly, as members were excommunicated or voluntarily left the Anglican Church for the friendlier Uniting, Lutheran, and MCC Churches, AngGays declined to four members.  Amazingly those four continued to sponsor demonstrations at every Diocesan Synod meeting and even wore "Gay & Christian" T-shirts while receiving communion during the Australian General Synod in Sydney in 1989.  Their message to Integrity:  "Thanks for your support and prayers over the years.  Best wishes for the future."

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

BRITISH BISHOP SUPPORTS US, SORT OF

A Book Review by Keith McCoy

Coleman, Peter.  "Gay Christians: a moral dilemma."  Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990.  $16.95

For all the scholarship and thought that have gone into this book, it is curiously disappointing.  The Bishop of Crediton has spent many years grappling with the role of gays and lesbians in the Anglican Church, and in this effort has come down in favor of accepting our relationships, although he wouldn't go so far as to include church marriage.  This support, however, is expressed so diffidently that you can hardly notice it.  Thus, there's great ammunition here.  But no gun to shoot it off with.

In its favor, "Gay Christians" is probably the most detailed, yet understandable, theological text on this subject.  Coleman ranges far and wide with his data and insights, particularly when discussing interpretations of sexuality by theologians and church bodies.  The review runs from scripture to the early church, and then on through slight variations on western society's approach to homosexuality up until the Wolfenden Report of 1957.  He concludes with his own proposal for moving the church forward in its attitude, which he then backs off from.

The attitude expressed by the author is one of support, albeit for people who are unfortunately different.  Being the humane churchman that he is, Coleman would not condemn any of us to celibacy, as he would not do it to anyone else.  Yet, he is not willing to agree that gay and lesbian couples are as deserving of the church's blessing as straight couples are.  It should be enough for us, he feels, that we can live together and not be barred from worship and most sacraments.  Ordination would not be proper for such people, either, because they probably would not be employable or "good" role models, but he also wouldn't forbid it.

Coleman's reporting of the origins of homosexuality may give some clue to his attitudes: I found them oddly old-fashioned, and in some cases different from information available in the United States.  The index is skimpy and nearly useless, although the contents listing is more detailed.

"Gay Christians" is, perhaps, another step in the process of acceptance within the church.  The attitude that we should be accepted as an additional category of Christians instead of as equal inheritors of the kingdom is not one that many of us will accept willingly.  Coleman's old world diplomacy needs to be enlivened by some of Spong's new world brass before we find the author and the book that adequately presents gay and lesbian interests to the church.

-----

The Rev. W. Keith McCoy is deacon at Grace Church, Plainfield, NJ and is a former convener of Integrity/Central New Jersey.

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

MID TENNESSEE CHAPTER IN FORMATION MAKES NEWS

"Homosexual Episcopalians Urge Ordination"

by Ray Waddle, Religion News Editor

THE TENNESSEAN, Thursday, October 25, 1990

Local gay and lesbian Episcopalians, who believe they can express their homosexuality in a way consistent with Jesus' teachings, have organized a group to voice support for gay ordination.

The group Integrity, an unofficial caucus of gay men and lesbians in the Episcopal Church, is designed to promote understanding with other Christians and "end injustices" against homosexuals, an officer said.

"We're interested in opening dialogue with individuals and clergy and educate them about who we are -- human beings created in God's image," Fred Ellis, a convener of Integrity of Middle Tennessee, said yesterday.

The Right Rev. George Reynolds, bishop of the Diocese of Tennessee, agreed to preside Tuesday night at a Eucharist (holy communion) service for Integrity, drawing about 35 people.

Integrity's advocacy of ordination of homosexuals and ceremonies of union for gay or lesbian couples is at odds with the bishop's position, but Ellis said he was encouraged by Reynold's willingness to celebrate Eucharist for Integrity members this week. 

The bishop declined a request for an interview about Integrity yesterday.

"The meeting with the bishop was a very positive step," said Ellis, a member of Christ Episcopal Church.  "It shows us he's willing to open an educational process both for the group and for himself."

The local Integrity chapter came into being a few weeks before the bishops of the 2.7 million-member Episcopal Church met last month, when they voted to disassociate themselves from the 11989 ordination of a gay priest by one of their colleagues.

In some dioceses, bishops have declared Integrity unwelcome, though a bishop cannot ban Integrity from meeting if a church wants to host their meetings.  [ed. note: To our knowledge, only Bishop James Brown of Louisiana has openly declared Integrity unwelcome.]

"Unfortunately, the Robert Williams episode set our movement back," Ellis said.  "I agree with Spong's decision to ordain.  He just picked the wrong person.  The bishops voted as they felt they had to, but I'd like to have seen some abstain who are really unsure about how they reel.  With just a few abstentions, the motion would have failed."

IN 1979, the Episcopal Church declared that an "avowed practicing homosexual" is unacceptable as an ordination candidate.  Unavowed homosexuals have been ordained but are expected to be celibate.

Ellis said granting the right of ordination to gay men and lesbians would be a logical extension of the church's decision to allow the ordination of another oppressed class, women.

Ellis believes the biggest misconception about homosexuals is that their sexual orientation is a matter of choice.

He also accused the church of preaching "no sex outside of marriage" but offering no place for gays and lesbians who have, or want to have, monogamous sexual relations themselves.

"Episcopal Gay Group At Ease in Diocese"

by Frances Meeker, Banner Religious Editor

NASHVILLE BANNER, October 31, 1990

The leader of a recently organized group of gay and lesbian Episcopalians said the group is experiencing "a good atmosphere" in the Diocese of Tennessee.

Fred H. Ellis, convener of the local chapter of Integrity, an unofficial caucus of homosexuals within the Episcopal Church, said the group has been meeting through the summer at a local Episcopal church.  "Gays and lesbians make up an invisible minority in the Church, Ellis said.  "It is not easy to recognize a gay or lesbian who might be sitting beside you in a church pew."

He said Integrity's goal is "to be the church in the lesbian and gay community and to be the lesbian and gay community in the church."  Through the educational process, the group hopes to show the church that gay and lesbian people can express their sexuality in a manner which is compatible with Christ's teachings.

Ellis said it is encouraging to the local Integrity members that Bishop George Reynolds, head of the Diocese of Tennessee, has been willing to talk to members of Integrity both as a group and as individuals.

Reynolds presided at the Eucharist at the most recent meeting of Integrity.

The bishops of some diocese in the 2.7 million-member Episcopal Church have declared Integrity unwelcome, although a bishop cannot ban meetings of the organization if a church in the diocese chooses to host the group.

Reynolds declined, however, to discuss the Integrity group or his participation in its meeting.

"I think at this point, I want to respect their desire to be in control of what is given to the media and want to back off from responding," Reynolds said.

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

BISHOP OF LONG ISLAND VISITS INTEGRITY/NEW YORK

by Kim Byham

      The newly installed Bishop of Long Island joined with the New York City Chapter of Integrity to celebrate its patronal festival.

      The Rt. Rev. Orris G. Walker, Jr., who was installed as the seventh bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Long Island on Saturday, January 5, at the Cathedral of the Incarnation in Garden City, celebrated the Eucharist and preached on Thursday, January 17, 1991.  The service, which honored Integrity's patron, St. Aelred of Rievaulx, was held at the Church of St. Luke-in-the-Fields in Greenwich Village.

      Bishop Walker was the first Long Island bishop to conduct an Integrity service.  Integrity/New York has had as its episcopal guests the Bishops of New York (both the incumbent Bishop Richard Grein and his predecessor, Bishop Paul Moore), various Suffragan, Assisting and Retired Bishops and, last October 11, the controversial Bishop of Newark, the Rt. Rev. John S. Spong.

      In his sermon, given the day following the initiation of the bombing of Iraq, Bishop Walker strongly condemned such military action as violating the message of the Gospel.

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

PRESIDENT'S PAGE

The following collect for social justice is one of several collects for special occasions that were approved by the 1988 General Convention:

*O holy God, you love righteousness and hate iniquity:  Strengthen, we pray, the hands of all who strive for justice throughout the world, and seeing that all human beings are our offspring, move us to share the pain of those who are oppressed, and to promote the dignity and freedom of every person; through Jesus Christ the Liberator, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for and ever.  AMEN*

Integrity is a social justice ministry.  One of our goals must be to promote the dignity and freedom of *every* person, including and especially those who are gay and lesbian.  Social justice is an issue foremost in our minds for several reasons as we approach our General Convention.  The very site of the convention, Phoenix, Arizona, has sparked often fiery debate centering on the social justice issue of the observance of the Martin Luther King., Jr. holiday by the state of Arizona.  Dr. King's life was spent seeking justice and promoting the dignity and freedom of all of God's children.

Are we as a church true to the issue of social justice?  Are we as a church really being true to our baptismal vows to respect the dignity of every human being?  Are we seeking to serve Christ in all persons, loving our neighbors as ourselves?

"The Episcopal Church Welcomes You" is the invitation our church professes to issue to all who would choose to cross the thresholds of our buildings.  But is it a valid invitation?  Is it an *inclusive" invitation?  Is it an invitation that respects the dignity of all people, including lesbian and gay people?  Those are questions that will probably be answered in Phoenix.  The answers may determine our fates as gay and lesbian Episcopalians.  The answers will most assuredly indicate whether or not our church believes the Gospel it preaches. 

I am convinced that the outcome of the debate, argument, battle, or whatever we choose to call it, will depend on one important event:  the dialogue that takes place between us as gay and lesbian people, and those non-gays and non-lesbians with whom we interact.  In short, if we talk *with each other* the Holy Spirit will have an opportunity show forth the truth of the Gospel, the absolute inclusiveness of Jesus Christ's invitation to all mankind.

Our last General Convention called us into dialogue.  Have we heeded that call?  To a degree we have.  By and large, we have not.  We have not made an effort to talk to each other, to learn *from* each other, to learn *about* each other.  I cannot honestly lay the blame for the failure to dialogue on either side.  We are all guilty.

I do know that we cannot wait for others to begin the dialogue.  Our church has a history of non-responsiveness to our issues as well as a few other folk's issues.  If the dialogue is to begin, we must take the initiative.  Most certainly it is not fair that the burden rest solely on *our* shoulders.  But then, we have never been promised fairness in life have we?  If we want dialogue, we must initiate dialogue.  We may frequently even have to *force* dialogue.  We have to look beyond what we know to be fair and right and do what we know to be necessary.

I view "dialogue" as nothing more than getting to know each other, most often on a one-to-one, individual basis.  The more we know about each other, the more the truth pushes aside the myths and allows for true interaction as children of God.  The more we know about each other, the more the barriers will fall that prevent our promoting the dignity and freedom of all people.  The more we know about each other, the more we will realize how much we have in common, how much we share, how much alike we are, how much in the image of God we are *all* created.

Our most effective dialogue is the sharing of our stories, including the pain and lack of welcome we have felt.  We can share those stories as a panel in a room filled with people or in one-on-one conversations.  Regardless of how we engage in the dialogue, I believe there are certain questions *we* must ask if either side of the dialogue is to learn about the other:  What do you know about us as gay and lesbian people?  How did you learn it?  What do you know about me as a person, as a child of God, as a member of our church?  What causes you to question my right to participate fully in the life of the church?  Why are you willing to accept my time as a church school teacher, choir member, acolyte, lay reader, chalice bearer, altar guild member, or usher but not willing to accept me as a candidate for holy orders?  Perhaps more to the point, why are you willing to accept me in the role of deacon, priest, or bishop, as long as you are supposedly not aware of my being gay or lesbian?  Why are you willing to accept my financial pledge without restriction but not willing to accept my participation in all phases of the life of the church?  If I don't tell you I am gay and/or you don't find that out, why is it alright to live only half of my being?  Why is it alright to lie?  Isn't that insulting the beauty of God's creation miracle?

Why is it OK for me to be gay/lesbian as long as I don't "flaunt it?"  Yet it's OK for you to flaunt your sexual orientation by placing pictures of your spouse and children on your desk, carrying pictures of them in your wallet, wearing a wedding band, talking about your grandchildren, etc., etc.  If the only *true* difference between us is our sexual orientation, does it really make any difference?  Are we not both created in the image of God?

We must ask the questions.  We must be direct, to the point and honest with our questions.  We must expect those with whom we dialogue to be the same.  And, in all we do, we must be gentle and respectful, regardless of how we are treated.  We are, after all, children of God and we should behave accordingly.  We will gain nothing with anger and hatred except to have fallen to the level of those who would seek to persecute us.  We are better people than that, we are above such behavior.

My brothers and sisters in Christ, our tasks lie before us.  We will be fighting for our existence in this church we love.  God loves us without condition.  We must teach God's church to love as God loves.  We must teach by example and by what is in our hearts.  Pray for the resolve to succeed.

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

HOW PARISHES CAN HELP PWAs

by Claudia Windal

Ronald H. Sunderland and Earl E. Shelp, "A handbook for Care Teams Serving People With AIDS."  Abington Press.  144 pp.

While the concept of congregational-based HIV care teams intrigues me, I am disturbed by the overly broad approach outlined in this handbook:  "How to organize a care team," "How to minister to the psychosocial, social, and emotional needs of people with AIDS," "How to assist people with AIDS in the activities of daily living."  Each of these areas is, of necessity, covered only lightly in this brief book and each would merit being expanded into individual handbook format.  Significantly, working with other HIV care providers is not addressed (area AIDS organizations, home health care agencies, "Buddy" programs, meals on wheels, and so on).  One is given the impression that parish teams are to function in a vacuum, this the need for proficiency in so many areas of care.

In most communities today, the majority of persons with HIV disease will have their physical needs addressed and met by the medical and nursing communities.  It is the spiritual and emotional needs that are not so easily met.  How is that congregational-based ministry would not focus on spiritual care?  The element that is missing in this handbook is emphasis on listening to persons with HIV disease and encouraging the expression of fear, concern, hopelessness, loss, anxiety, and so on.  Instead the focus is on ministry *to* rather than ministry *with* persons with the disease.  Removing the element of hands-on care and creating one central congregational-based focus emphasizing a ministry of presence would have made this an excellent resource for those wishing to minister with persons with HIV disease.

------

The Rev. Claudia L. Windal, M.Div. RN, is a priest of the Diocese of Minnesota.

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

REMEMBERING NEWS & NOTES

Integrity started as a newsletter.  Dr. Louie Crew began "Integrity Forum" from his home in rural Georgia in 1974.  The publication led to chapters, which in turn led to a national organization, all within a year.  "Forum" remained the name of Integrity's principal publication for ten years.  It evolved into a fairly erudite publication, noted for long, theologically oriented articles.  It was from time to time supplemented by other, newsier publications, including one with the intriguing title "The Anglican Clarion and Tattler."  The final issue of that publication was dated November, 1982, and told of Integrity's and General Conventions in New Orleans.  In 1983 there were no publications of any kind at the national level.  A fancy version of "Integrity Forum" with a slick cover and a magazine layout was edited by Mary Reyna (never an Integrity member) and dated August, 1983.  No dues were being collected during this period, however, and the final "Forum" remained at the printer until July, 1984, when it was distributed to a greatly reduced mailing list.

A new Board assumed control of the organization in the spring of 1984.  At its first meeting in April, that Board decided communication was the number one priority and called for a "monthly" publication in addition to a renewed "Forum." 

Thus was born "News & Notes" in May, 1984.  Named by acting President Robert K. Armstrong, then of New York City, he also edited the six page Vol. 1, No. 1 (though he is not listed as such).  The dream of creating a monthly publication lasted one month, through No. 2 in June (8 pages).  The next issue, in December, 1984 (12 pages), labelled itself "bi-monthly."  The fourth and final issue under Armstrong's covert editorship was March, 1985 (16 pages).

It was becoming increasingly obvious that Integrity couldn't support two publications, and the goal for renewing an intellectual "Forum" began to diminish.  The newsy tone of "News & Notes" was well established when David A. White of Washington became editor.  His first issue, the second in 1985 (November, 12 pages) was now billed a "quarterly."  White's second issue was not until June, 1986 (Vol. 3, No. 1, 12 pages), but was followed in quick succession by issues in October (16 pages) and December of 1986 (12 pages).  There was another hiatus until July, 1987 (Vol. 4, No. 1, 14 pages), White's final issue.

June 1987 marked the transition in Integrity's presidency, and Kim Byham asked Donald Jackson of Washington, who had been Publisher since the June, 1986 issue, to also assume the role of Editor.  He did so beginning with the September 1987 issue (unnumbered, 14 pages) and continued one more issue, January, 1988 (16 pages).

In order to prepare for General Convention in 1988, the Rev. L. Paul Woodrum of New York City, National Treasurer, volunteered to edit a pre-convention issue which was distributed to all deputies [ed. note - as is the current issue].  Woodrum introduced a cover design and paper color which were to last until the end [and largely continue today].  After his first issue (June, 1988, 20 pages), Woodrum was induced to also edit an exhaustive post-convention issue (September, 1988, 32 pages).  The Woodrum issues changed the tone of "News & Notes" considerably, taking it beyond the "club news" which had characterized it for years and reintroduced "Forum"-type articles.  At a meeting in July, 1988, the Board volunteered to take over publication as of December, but the next issue did not appear until March, 1989 (16 pages), with Betsy Hess of Easthampton, Mass., Northeast Regional Vice President, as editor.

1989 was a landmark year, however, because after only 13 issues in the first four and a half years of "News and Notes"' existence, there were four issues that year.  Nick Dowen became Editor beginning with the Spring, 1989 issue (36 pages - a record), and served through the next three issues:  Summer, 1989 (20 pages); Fall, 1989 (24 pages); and Winter, 1990 (24 pages).  Dowen, as Executive Secretary, was also the first Editor to be paid for his services.

Succeeding Dowen as Executive Secretary and Editor in 1990 was Scott Helsel of Guttenberg, NJ.  He edited the final four issues:  Spring, 1990, 28 pages); Summer, 1990 (32 pages); Fall, 1990 (32 pages) and Winter, 1991 (28 pages).  It became increasingly clear that the name "News & Notes," intended for a brief monthly publication supplementing one of greater substance, had not been appropriate for some years.  The Board approved a new name in October, 1990 and Helsel now becomes the first editor of "The Voice of Integrity."

********************_