 620 Park Avenue #311, Rochester NY 14607-2943 | 800-462-9498 toll-free | 585-360-4512 local | 585-486-6529 fax | e-mail |
|
|
|
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 Summer, 1991 issue of The Voice of Integrity, the quarterly publication of Integrity, Inc., the lesbian and gay justice ministry of the Episcopal Church."
Material may not appear exactly as published since some changes were made after the document was transferred to desk top publishing format.
We encourage you to join Integrity. We encourage non-Episcopalians and non-lesgay persons to join. If you are a lesbian or gay Episcopalian and don't belong to Integrity, you're benefitting from all our work and we hope you'll strongly consider helping us by joining. Individual annual membership $25, Couple's annual membership $40, Low income/student/sr. citizen $10. Please mail check or money order to Integrity, Inc., P.O. Box 19561, Washington, DC 20036-0561.
********************
*TABLE OF CONTENTS*
Letters To The Editor An Open Letter To The House Of Bishops Of The Episcopal Church Report Of The Standing Commission On Human Affairs To General Convention 1991 Cursillo Gets Some Integrity Primate Indecency Charge Dropped Southland Convener And Spouse Arrested *FROM AROUND THE DIOCESES:* Address to Diocese of Western Massachusetts California Diocesan Convention: Loose Cannons Lose Canons Tennessee Resolutions Read As Mildly Pro-Gay Three Resolutions From Michigan Open Integrity Member Denied Ordination: Dr. Crew Responds Canterbury Enthronement Sparks Gay Protest Carey Appoints Pro-Gay Chief Of Staff Presbyterians Ahead Of Us Anglican Primates Discuss Homan Sexuality South Carolina Bishop Bashes Gays And Gay Bashers What Jesus Said About Homosexuality Updates from EURRR: To EURRR is Human, To Have Integrity Is Divine Claudia's Column World Council Of Churches Ignores Lesbian/Gay Issues Newsletter Competition Why I Am Going To Phoenix (And How I'll Act When I Get There) Bishop Proposes Binding Canon On Sexual Morality Of The Clergy Christian Lesbians Have CLOUT Methodists To Reconsider Statement On Homosexuality Definitions Can Be Troubling - Or The Hyprocrisy of Frey's Resolution Board Meets With Presiding Bishop Bishop Hunt On Human Affairs Report Anglican Church Of Canada Publishes Our Stories *BOOK REVIEWS* Cromey Gives Aid And Comfort Rescuing The Bible From Fundamentalism *FROM THE CHAPTERS* Congratulations To Integrity/Greater Cincinnati To Our Women Members Chapters Certifications/Decertifications Integrity Chapter Gives Love And Hope NEAC Conferees Building Evangelistic Bridges for 'The Decade of Aids' President's Page - 'Bashing Queers For Jesus' Evangelical Criticizes Bush-Browning Talks On Gulf PB to Speak At '92 Convention Irish Primate On Anglican Conflict Resolution
********************
Summer 1991
*The Voice of Integrity* Volume 1, Number 2 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
********************
*LETTERS TO THE EDITOR*
MORE ON THE CLOSETED GAY BISHOP
To the Editor:
Thank you for the Spring 1991 issue. It is excellent.
I have a some additional information for you concerning your article "Closeted Gay Bishop Dies of AIDS." In 1971 I attended a summer seminar at General Theological Seminary on "Homosexuality, Women's Liberation and Communal Living." I returned home to St. George's Church here in New Orleans where I was rector, determined to do all in my power to support lesbians and gay men.
The local Metropolitan Community Church met in our chapel for some months. Then they found their own small church. From time to time I attended their afternoon service, and I came to know their minister, Rev. Bill Larsen, quite well. He often came to see me regarding their scrambled liturgy and what to do about it.
The night of June 24, 1971 some 30 or more members of the MCC group and friends were at an upstairs bar. A man who was drunk fire-bombed the stairs. The windows had iron bars over them. As a result nearly all those there were burned to death. My phone rang at 3 a.m. telling me of this. I was grieved greatly, for included among those burned to death was Bill Larsen, my friend.
Next morning a member of the MCC called to ask if they could have a memorial service that evening at St. George's. I agreed, providing they would not make a big splash over it. The Rev. Troy Perry [Founder and Moderator of MCC] flew in that evening and assisted with the service. Some 80-90 persons attended. I warned the TV people not to take pictures, and asked the reporters to play it low-key. They did.
Bishop Iveson B. Noland, who was later killed in a plane crash in New York, phoned me early the next morning. He said, "Bill, this is the Bishop. Have you read the morning paper?" I said, "Yes, Bishop, I have." "Is it true that the service was at St. George's Episcopal Church?" "Yes, Bishop, it was." "Why didn't they have it in their own church?" he asked. I replied, "For the simple reason their own small church holds about 18 persons. Without any publicity we had over 80 present." "What am I to say when people call my office?" I replied, "You can say anything you wish, Bishop, but do you think Jesus would have kept these people out of His church?"
I heard later the Bishop had a hundred calls, and I got hate calls and letters. Only one member of our vestry supported me. Later, I was stopped on the street by many persons thanking me for doing such a Christian thing.
Later that week, I was asked if we could have another memorial service the next Sunday afternoon at St. George's. I had to decline for I was just leaving for a month's trip to India to visit friends, and I knew I would have to be present for such a service. It was then that the late Bishop Finis Crutchfield offered the Rampart St. Methodist Church for that extra service.
I shall be grateful if you will insert this in your next issue. I am still very active in lesbian/gay affairs, though our Integrity group eventually folded. I have spoken several times before the City Council and before our Diocesan Convention regarding lesbian/gay issues, but to little avail. But I'm not giving up!
Cordially,
(The Rev.) William P. Richardson, Jr. New Orleans, LA
********************
*AN OPEN LETTER TO THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH*
My dear bishops,
I take heart from the new tone which I detect in last Fall's Statement of the House. [See "House of Bishops' 'Pastoral Statement' on Homosexuality," "News & Notes," Winter, 1991.] But, I pray that sometime soon the debate might shift from its seemingly endless focus on the etiology of homosexuality..."from whence does the homosexual come?"... and instead begin to address the more important, and more interesting teleological questions..."where is she or he going?"... or better yet..."for what creative purpose do lesbian and gay persons exist?" What may God be doing in calling lesbian and gay Christians to openly and prophetically affirm the value of our love and presence in the church? These, I contend, are the truly religious and spiritually fruitful questions that the church needs to address.
Let me suggest that there are at least three major gifts that self-affirming lesbian women and gay men offer the church at this time in history. We may have, first, a heightened awareness of the damaging effects of sex role stereotyping; we know that masculinity and femininity are gifts available to both sexes. Secondly, the gay and lesbian Christian community has a profound appreciation of the Spirit of God's mediation of personal truth in embodied experience; we know that God's truth is not only revealed in the scriptural canons, or in a familiarity with tradition, but also profoundly in a personal relationship with God as God is revealed to our whole body/mind/spirit-selves. Thirdly, lesbian and gay people may have a great potential capacity to understand the dynamics of oppression, and to join with other oppressed groups to witness to the need for justicemaking. God may be using us to break down barriers between traditionally isolated groups and the dominant culture; for lesbian and gay people are members of every racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic strata in society. And finally it seems most evident that we may be the people through whom Christ is inviting the entire church--homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual--to struggle to find a more workable and contemporary sexual ethic for all in this time of social transformation.
The recent statement from the House of Bishops, which I welcome, is a tempering but passionate plea for the church to move more courageously and deeply into dialogue on these matters. I take heart that what some have seen as the "sin" of homosexuality is not being reaffirmed, yet again. But I would respectfully disagree with the bishops admonition that we must not "label as homophobic" those in the church who believe the Bible supports the condemnation of homosexuality and who hold deep religious conviction about it. Such an argument is akin to saying that it is not possible to label someone racist because the person's attitudes are grounded in the honest belief that Blacks are *subhuman*.
I certainly agree that in any conflict that "name-calling" does not promote mutual respect and reconciliation. I feel strongly, however, that this is a time that demands the disciplines of honesty and candor. To compare the pain of "hurt, rejection, and anger" that gay men and lesbian women feel with the "hurt, rejection, and anger" that the "traditionalists" feel is to draw a deceptive parallel and to present the suffering as equal and equivalent. The pain may be "equal" in the sense that the subjective experience of discomfort *may* be of the same degree for both sides. However, in saying this, we do not acknowledge the essential truth that the pains are not *ethically* equivalent! The pain that lesbian and gay Christians feel is the pain that comes from being treated unjustly in an abusive relationship. The pain that the "traditionalists" are feeling comes from being confronted with the *fact* of the injustice and a demand for the abuse to stop. For recovery and healing to occur in an abusive relationship, first the one being abused must find the strength to *name* the abuse and to demand that it stop! Certainly *both* parties are called to a conversion of heart by the One Spirit that calls us into Love more deeply. But what is demanded for lesbian women and gay men in the church is to speak the truth boldly in love, and for those who would deny us our full humanity to repent and be saved from their prejudice. Most certainly, the gift of spiritual discernment must be more generously present in our dialogue for this to become evident to a growing number in the church. There can be no true peace or reconciliation without justice for lesbian and gay people. For we are ever reminded by our Lord that we are to *make no peace with oppression*.
It is my faithful conviction that I will see, in my lifetime, the church undergo, by the grace of God, an official change of mind...and conversion of heart....that the church will ultimately repent of it's treatment of gay and lesbian people, of its official support for centuries of homophobic violence, prejudice, and persecution. Just as the "Negro Question," has come to be understood as the problem of racism, I trust that ultimately the church will come to see the "Homosexuality Question" as the sin of heterosexism. The church has issued many a statement in the past for which we would be embarrassed in the light of contemporary understanding, were we to honestly remember our own history.
It would be a great service to the church at this time if the House of Bishops would show the insight and the courage to remind the church that in every age the church must preach the Gospel according to the ongoing revelation of the Holy Spirit as She reveals Herself to us within the crucible of human history. That as human society evolves we are called and empowered to hold fast to those things that are eternal, even as those things which are temporal are passing away. That our unity and hope depends upon our willingness to be transformed by the Light of Christ among us. Heir to many eternal and "unchangeable" truths revealed through Holy Scripture, the moral authority of Tradition, and the particular Science and Reason of each age--may we remind each other that we are a church that has allowed her mind to be changed over and over again--in faithful and renewing response to God's call. For we are a people who are called to live and die in the hope of the Resurrection, and in the trust that in Christ *all* things are made new.
In the faith of Christ,
Dr. Bonita Ann Palmer, TSSF Consultant to the Standing Commission on Human Affairs
********************
*REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMISSION ON HUMAN AFFAIRS TO GENERAL CONVENTION 1991*
A. MEMBERSHIP
The Rt. Rev. George N. Hunt, *Chair*, Diocese of Rhode Island (1991) The Rt. Rev. Frederick H. Borsch, Diocese of Los Angeles (1994) The Rev. Dr. David A. Scott, *Vice-Chair*, Diocese of Virginia (1991) The Rev. Dr. Martin R. Tilson, Diocese of Alabama (1991) Dr. Howard R. Anderson, *Secretary*, Diocese of Minnesota (1994) Joyce Phillips Austin, Esq., Diocese of New York (1991) Mrs. Scott T. Evans, Diocese of North Carolina (1991) Ms. Lydia Lopez, Diocese of Los Angeles (1991) Mr. Mel Matteson, Diocese of Olympia (1994)
During the triennium the Commission profited greatly from meeting for extended periods with a number of consultants. Those persons who assisted the Commission in its work on human sexuality are listed in that Section of this report.
In the environmental area, the Commission is indebted to The Very Rev. James Parks Morton and the staff of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, who worked closely with us in the development of that section of our report.
In addition Howard R. Anderson served as our liaison with the Executive Council, and Ms. Diane Porter was our liaison with the staff of the Church Center. Mr. Brian Grieves of the Church Center Staff also assisted the Commission in its work with matters of environmental concern.
B. SUMMARY OF THE COMMISSION'S WORK
The Commission met seven times during the triennium: Once in St. Louis, once in Malibu, California, four times in Alexandria, Virginia, and once in Delray Beach, Florida. In addition, the Commission sponsored regional "open hearings" in San Francisco, California, Estes Park, Colorado, and Washington, DC, to facilitate the conversations in the church regarding human sexuality.
D. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION WITH RESOLUTIONS
HUMAN SEXUALITY
Summary of Diocesan Studies
At the 69th General Convention, resolution D120 strongly urged that each congregation and diocese in the Episcopal Church engage in open dialogue on human sexuality. The resolution further called for each diocese to report its findings to the Standing Commission on Human Affairs that the Commission could prepare a composite report for the 70th General Convention.
Twenty-eight of 99 dioceses submitted reports to the Commission. Those submitting reports as of January 1, 1991 are the Dioceses of California, Central Pennsylvania, Central New York, East Tennessee, Eau Claire, El Camino Real, Indianapolis, Iowa, Los Angeles, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Newark, Northern Indiana, Northwest Texas, Pennsylvania, Rio Grande, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Western Louisiana, Western Massachusetts. Nineteen additional dioceses reported studies currently underway or planned. These are the Dioceses of Arizona, Atlanta, Central Florida, Chicago, Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Milwaukee, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Southeast Florida, Southern Virginia, Southern Ohio, Southwestern Virginia, Spokane, Upper South Carolina, Western North Carolina. The Commission is grateful for this response from over a third of the Dioceses of the Church. However, we are disappointed with the level of response. The indication that over half the dioceses have not taken seriously the recommendations of General Convention in resolution D-120s cannot be overlooked. We have had to ask why. We call on those dioceses not yet having done so to initiate such studies in the triennium ahead that all our people may have opportunity to participate in this important process.
Each diocese received a questionnaire which asked three questions: 1) In the dialogues in your diocese, what are the areas of agreement? 2) What are the areas of substantial agreement? and 3) What are the areas of disagreement? Most respondents did not use the questionnaire or even address the questions posed in it. Nonetheless, it is possible to glean some information regarding areas of agreement and disagreement within the church on human sexuality.
AREAS OF AGREEMENT
One immediate finding was that much of the church is reluctant to engage in open dialogue on human sexuality. Yet, we should point out that a number of dioceses reported the dialogue process had been a very good and fruitful experience. Half of the responding dioceses articulated positive results from engaging in dialogue.
Regarding specific issues, no strong national consensus emerged from the diocesan reports. A significant number of dioceses, though, did agree on some points. Over one-third of the reporting dioceses agreed that the Episcopal Church needs to educate its members on sexual issues and generally exert more leadership in this area.
Many dioceses emphasized that sexuality is God's good gift and pointed to the importance of that gift and the responsibility which it brings. A number of respondents took pains to indicate their agreement that genital sexual expression is only appropriate in the context of heterosexual marriage and should be maintained as the standard for all Christians.
AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT
Ten of the respondents indicated strong disagreement within their dioceses concerning the origin, nature, and health of homosexuality. There was also theological disagreement about whether or not homosexuality contradicts God's plan for humanity, whether it is appropriate to bless same-sex covenants, or even to have different opinions in the Church on this matter. There is also significant disagreement over the Church's authority in sexual matters, as well as the nature of biblical authority. When disagreement was expressed, though, it almost always had to do with understanding the nature of homosexuality. The Commission wishes to affirm the fact of wide disagreement within the Church around very important issues such as these. We would respond that it is normal for a vital and vibrant community to express disagreement around issues which deeply touch each of our lives.
DISCOVERIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
When sexuality issues become "personalized," the tenor of the dialogue changes dramatically. As one diocese reported, the level of compassion rises considerably when people can put a human face on the issues.
The church should provide assistance in the form of skilled facilitators, to help parishes discuss sexuality constructively. Without such help, such discussion can be very difficult, if not impossible.
CONCLUSION
A tremendous diversity of opinion regarding human sexuality exists within both the church as a whole and also within individual dioceses and parishes. As well, we must be aware of the significant ambivalence in the Church about even discussing sexuality. Thus, one of the questions which this Commission faces along with the whole Episcopal Church, is, "Can we move forward on issues of sexuality, even as we affirm the diversity which we experience?"
More work clearly needs to be done in understanding homosexuality. The church must draw information not only from the traditional theological sources, but also from medical science, psychology, anthropology, and the other fields of knowledge which can shed light on this complex issue. Before the church can appropriately address the theological issues, we must understand the phenomenon of homosexuality as fully as we can. Studies such as these which have and are taking place in the various dioceses must continue, lest the Church be guilty of not helping support its membership in a period of enormous societal transition.
Finally, though homosexuality dominated the discussion in most of the diocesan reports, there are other sexuality issues that are vital and that need to be addressed as well. The following questions appeared in various reports: What does the church have to say about the family in a time when the traditional family is undergoing major change? How are we as a church going to address teenage sexuality? Is it morally acceptable for adults of advanced years to live together without being married? These questions, and many others, make it clear that the church has much work to do yet in the area of human sexuality.
Summary of the Commission's own studies
[I] Testimony received by this Commission
During the triennium the Commission met with Ms. Starla Allen, vice-President of EXODUS International, an umbrella organization for ministries concerned with "assisting gays and lesbians in changing their orientation"; with David McWhirter, M.D., Medical Director of Mental Health Services for the County of San Diego, CA, and co-author of "The Male Couple"; with Dr. Elizabeth Moberly, Director of Psychosexual Education and Therapy, BCM International, a consulting therapist and author of several books and articles in her field; with Harold I. Lief, M.D. Professor Emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, and now in private psychiatric practice; and with Alan P. Medinger, Director of Regeneration, Baltimore, MD, a ministry "assisting men and women who wish to come out of homosexuality." In addition, the Open Hearings afforded us the opportunity to hear from approximately 75 persons, most of whom were gay or lesbian. Dr. Bonita Ann Palmer, TSSF, family physician and counselor and Co-Chair of The Parsonage, a diocesan pastoral and advocacy ministry, and the Rev. Paul Woodrum, sometime Executive Administrator of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Fund for Human Dignity and, since 1983, a national officer and director of Integrity, Inc., also served as ad-hoc consultants to the Commission and attended its October, 1990, meeting.
We have made an effort to hear all voices in this Church and to take their concerns seriously. In the process, we have heard about a lot of pain in the church, the pain that comes from being within the church and treated as if they were in fact outside. We have heard from gay and lesbian clergy and lay persons who affirm their sexual orientation and experience and call upon the church to acknowledge their presence, to repent of its exclusion of them from full participation, and call upon the church to affirm their sexual orientation as God-given and their experience in relationships with one another as holy, life-giving, and grace-filled. We have also taken care to listen to representatives of the smaller number of persons within the church who claim that God has cured them of a homosexual orientation and delivered them from a homosexual life-style.
We recognize that speaking in terms of causation may seem unnecessary to those who see the biblical witness, as they understand it, or the experience of their sexual orientation as they perceive it as a gift of God, as the only relevant factors to consider. Nonetheless, we believe that cause must be considered because responsible ethical decision making requires that we consider evidence that bears on intentionality. Researchers in a number of fields have proposed theories, but there seems to be no consensus in the scientific community about the cause or causes of homosexuality. Apparently sexual orientation is a complex phenomenon in which a variety of social, cultural, biological, and psychological factors play roles in causation. Thus John Money of Johns Hopkins University wrote that "the status of sexual orientation in adulthood cannot be attributed to any variable that is either exclusively nature or exclusively nurture" (American Psychologist, April 1987: 397). Expert opinion is largely agreed, however, that a sexual orientation is not, in the vast majority of cases, voluntary in the sense of a self-conscious choice.
There is also broad agreement among all who have testified to us that changing homosexual orientation is difficult. Many in the scientific community and in the gay and lesbian community, including some who have attempted to change, claim that homosexual orientation cannot be changed. The question here is not whether persons with a homosexual orientation can have sexual relations exclusively with persons of the opposite sex. Unquestionably, many can. The question is whether lesbian and gay people can ever alter their sexual identity at deep levels of sexual fantasy and response, so that heterosexual relations provide a truly satisfactory expression of their sexuality. We have heard from a very few persons who claim to have changed at such levels, but even they allow that such a change is difficult. [II] Theological Considerations
As Anglicans, we understand God's self-revelation to be witnessed to by Holy Scripture and especially mediated by Jesus Christ. Together with tradition and reason this provides guidance in matters of faith and morals. We say this recognizing that we do not sufficiently respect Scripture by examining passages in isolation, but by examining every passage of Scripture in the context of the whole scriptural witness. Whatever else we may say about that witness, the Bible, like modern psychology, testifies that how we live out our sexuality is integral to who we are as human beings. Faithful Christian living is all of a piece; God does not deal with us as disembodied spirits for whom physical and social relationships are matters of moral indifference. This is implicit in Jesus' discussion of sexuality in Matthew 5:27-32 and Paul's in 1 Corinthians 6-7. Our Anglican heritage also leads us to claim that the Bible can only be usefully interpreted for moral guidance in questions of human sexuality in light of the church's tradition and the understanding we reach with the aid of the natural and social sciences.
Biblical authors clearly knew of and condemned some forms of what we call homosexual behavior. The principal biblical texts dealing with what we call such behavior may be listed briefly. In the Old Testament Leviticus 18:22 and 20:15 forbid men to lie with other men "as with women" and in Genesis 19 the men of Sodom confirm God's sentence of judgement of them by attempting the homosexual rape of angels sent by God in the appearance of men. The one clear reference to genital homosexual behavior in the New Testament is Romans 1:26-27, which reads "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" [RSV]. Here Paul instances male homosexual behavior, and perhaps female as well, as evidence of the moral depravity which has befallen the gentiles as an appropriate punishment for their idolatry. It also appears that at least some kinds of male homosexual behavior are condemned in I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10.
It is important to recognize, however, that each of these passages also raises interpretive questions and issues. The Leviticus passages, for instance, are part of a larger context of concern with avoiding certain practices, many of which are considered to emanate from cultural attitudes not significant for faithful living today. Others do not present genital homosexual practice as their major focus. Yet more important for interpretation and use of these passages today is the awareness that many aspects of homosexual orientation as understood today could not have been so understood in biblical times. The Bible passages, for example, may assume that people with attraction to members of the opposite sex are willfully choosing a different practice. It may be argued that, since biblical authors did not understand sexual relations between members of the same sex as expressions of a sexual orientation not intentionally chosen, these biblical references to homosexual behavior do not decide the issue today.
These questions concerning the best interpretation and usage of these passages makes it imperative to relate them to the biblical message as a whole. In this connection, we note that Jesus reached out particularly to persons whom many at the time regarded as outside the community of God's invitation and favor: lepers, the lame, the blind, Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:2), Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10). Such behavior left him open to the charge of being "the friend of tax-collectors and sinners" (e.g., Luke 7:34). Jesus also included in his family of those in God's service "whoever does the will of God" (Mark 3:35). If we ask how Jesus understood that "will of God" for human behavior, it seems to be best summed up in the Beatitudes and in the love commandment of John 15:9-12, namely that we follow his example of self-giving love. In addition, we note that Jesus' most pointed words and stories were directed at those who would exclude others from the invitation to live in the community of those under the reign of God: the Pharisee in the story of the Pharisee and the tax-collector (Luke 18:9-14), the ninety-nine sheep in the story of the lost sheep (Luke 15:3-7), the elder brother in the story of the father and his two sons (Luke 15: 25-31), the all-day workers in the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16), and the religious leaders who shut the kingdom of heaven to others (Matthew 23:13, Luke 11:52).
We recognize that work remains to be done if we are to be guided by scripture, tradition, and reason concerning human sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular. We note that no passages in the Bible condone homosexual behavior and that the Bible in a number of places presents marriage as the divinely ordained context for the expression of full sexual intimacy. The creation narratives of Genesis 1 and 2 thus depict God as blessing the male-female couple and commanding them to be fruitful and multiply and as creating woman to live in companionship with man. Both Jesus and Paul quote these passages and make heterosexual marriage normative along with celibacy in their own discussions of sexuality. Such study should also consider homosexuality within the context of the church's moral and ethical tradition, which we as a Commission have not yet dealt with fully. In particular, we need to discuss the relationships between the various functions of human sexuality recognized in the Christian ethical tradition and already foreshadowed in Genesis 2, namely the strengthening of a committed love relationship and the procreation of children.
[III] Conclusions and Recommendations
This Commission, like the church at large at this time, is not of a single mind in its assumptions and prescriptions about what the church should do and say concerning human sexuality. We feel it important to say that there are no self-declared gay men or lesbians on the Commission; we heard their views expressed in open hearings and from Dr. Bonita Palmer and the Rev. Paul Woodrum who attended our October, 1990 meeting. Although a strong majority of us believe that the church's primary call at this time is to do justice to a group of people long excluded from open and honest participation in our common life, some of us believe that our call is rather to gain a better understanding of the moral issues concerned with homosexuality. We do not agree, in particular, concerning two issues fundamental to the church's position on ethical questions before us: 1) whether homosexual orientation is an equally valid, God-given alternative to heterosexual orientation and 2) whether committed, monogamous, heterosexual marriage is the only morally acceptable context for full sexual intimacy.
Being divided ourselves on such key issues, we recognize that some of our recommendations will strike many people in the church as not going far enough, that they will strike many others as going too far. We ask all those who would take issue with our recommendations to consider them carefully as conclusions arrived at deliberately and prayerfully. We offer them as a starting point for continued discussion at every level of the church. There are large areas where this Commission is in full agreement. We are agreed that, although sexual desire can often be misused and result in cruelty and serious wrongs to others, the teaching of the Church needs especially to emphasize the positive aspects of the fact that we are sexual beings. Our sexuality can be a means of growth in grace and the ways of caring and sacrificial love. A fully developed spirituality will include a fully integrated comprehension of sexuality.
We are agreed that sexuality is rightly used and blessed by God in the life-long marriage covenant of a woman and a man. We believe that Christian communities should strive to be much more supportive of these marriages and families.
We are agreed that all sexual exploitation and coercion of the powerless by the powerful is wrong (as for example, of women by men, of employees by employers, of those being counseled by counselors, of children by adults). The Church must accept its responsibility to provide firm guidelines regarding standards of sexual conduct.
We are agreed that homosexual orientation is not morally culpable or inconsistent with being a committed Christian. Such a position is consistent with a biblical witness, which, as mentioned earlier, does not speak in terms of orientation. It is also consistent with the evidence we have received from the social sciences that such an orientation is not, in the vast majority of cases, a matter of choice. We are opposed to the argument which holds that for persons with a homosexual orientation a genuine conversion to Christ will always be accompanied by transformation to a heterosexual orientation. This church should admit that it has, in practice, in the recent past excluded and in some places still does exclude a whole class of people from its ministry, and thus burdens them with unnecessary guilt on the basis of their sexual orientation. We need to repent of such activity and take steps to see that it no longer happens.
In addition, we all accept the biblical witness, first enunciated in Genesis 2:18, that human beings are not meant to be alone. The single and celibate life are part of the vocation of a number of disciples, but all persons can benefit from the comfort and support of close relationships. We agree that homosexual relationships often provide such comfort and support and exhibit commendable love and commitment. We agree that homophobia, defined, not as a clinical phobia, but as an irrational fear and hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality, is widespread in our culture and in our church. Where present it must be exposed, denounced, and, when appropriate, repented of. Such fear, and the prejudice it engenders, is often fed by ignorance, sometimes naive and sometimes wilful, about such matters as the difference between pedophilia (that is, sexual desire of an adult for children) and homosexuality. We reaffirm the call of the 1985 General Convention to the church "to foster a better understanding of homosexual persons and to dispel myths and prejudices about homosexuality." We agree that the basic civil rights of gay men and lesbians in such matters as equal protection and due process of law need to be upheld. Increasing violence against gay men and lesbians dictates that we reaffirm this principle already enunciated by General Convention in 1976 and reaffirmed in 1982. We are also in agreement that it is wrong to use the term "homophobia" to denounce any one simply because that person does not affirm that homosexuality is God's will.
A strong majority of this Commission believes that it is possible and desirable for Christian communities fully to support marriages of men and women and their families, to bless, safeguard and strengthen them, without withholding support and blessing from persons of the same sex who are in faithful, committed relationships, seeking in them the characteristics of sacrificial love and abiding care for the other. The firm intention of a life-long covenant with these characteristics is the context for the offering of God's blessing and the Community's commitment of full support. To all disciples in these covenant relationships the challenge of the gospel calls them to live in pureness of heart and to grow together in ways that will show forth to the world aspects of the faithful and sacrificial love of God and to find in their mutual care greater strength to serve the community. A strong majority of this Commission recommends that the Standing Liturgical Commission study the theological and liturgical issues involved in affirming and blessing these covenants of gay and lesbian persons and begin the process of developing liturgical forms for them.
This Commission also recommends that the church acknowledge that it has for centuries ordained gay men and has in recent years ordained lesbians from whose ministries it has benefitted, and that some of these persons have been and are sexually active. A strong majority of this Commission recommends that the church be open to ordaining gay men and lesbians otherwise qualified who display the same integrity in their sexual relationships which we ask of our heterosexual ordinands. We recommend this because we consider the opening of the ordination process to gays and lesbians a matter of justice where justice should no longer be denied. If it is granted that a homosexual orientation is involuntary and for most persons unchangeable, it is unjust to present celibacy as a calling only for some persons with heterosexual orientation who believe themselves called to the ordained ministry but for all persons of homosexual orientation who believe they have that call. Explicitly opening the ordination process in this way is certainly desirable to clear the church of the taint of hypocrisy, since the presence of gay men and lesbians among the clergy is no secret. It may also be necessary if the church is to counteract the irrational fear and hatred of gay men and lesbians rampant in our society; we cannot effectively advocate civil rights for gay men and lesbians in society at large if we appear to deny such rights within our own fellowship.
While two members of this Commission, Scott Evans and David Scott, agree with much of the sexuality section of this report, they disagree with the recommendation to develop liturgies blessing same-sex unions and the recommendation to ordain sexually active homosexuals. They believe that Scripture clearly and consistently witnesses to heterosexual relations as God's will and that such relations have the fullest potential for human wholeness. They also believe that neither the church nor this Commission have sufficiently established the scriptural and theological bases needed to support these recommendations.
A strong majority of the Commission believes, however, that the issues have been studied in considerable depth for a number of years by this Commission and other bodies and that the time has come to move forward in the direction recommended by this report.
[IV] Issues for Further Study
In addition to one task already mentioned above, namely more fully appropriating scripture and the Christian moral tradition in order to address contemporary issues related to homosexuality, the Commission notes several other tasks that remain to be done. We need to gain a greater appreciation of the distinctive character and unique perspectives of the gay and lesbian experiences. We need to address the unique circumstances of gay and lesbian youth and their parents and the ways the church can help meet those needs. We need to learn how the church can minister effectively and evangelize within the gay and lesbian community. We also need to consider if the church should and how it can advocate extending legal protection to gay and lesbian couples. Does the church need to take a stand on allowing gay men and lesbians such privileges accorded to married couples as rights to visitation in intensive care, protection for community property? Such issues can provide fruitful avenues for further work by this Commission in this area during the next triennium.
[V] Proposed Resolution
This Commission believes that our Church is engaged in a long and ongoing process on these issues -- one in which there will continue to be different perspectives -- often strongly held and argued. We know that there are disciples of profound morality on several sides of the issues.
Truth in complex issues is rarely comprehended fully from one perspective, and we believe we need each other's insights to grow together toward fuller understanding. In the Anglican Episcopal Church tradition we also believe that it is not only possible but of God that we do not insist that there be only one agreed upon position on these matters and that we can live and serve together with that tension. We believe that how we live with this tension and care for one another and others is more important to God than how we resolve it.
We also beg to say to ourselves and our Church that these issues ought to remain in context and perspective. As important as they are, further study, discussion or debate should not so concentrate the attention of Christians that they cannot vigorously carry forward the missionary work of evangelism and service to which God calls us or suggest to the secular media and the rest of society that it is some form of fixation. There is too much else to be done for God.
In this spirit, and also aware that different parts of the country and different dioceses presently experience the tension regarding these issues and the pastoral and evangelical aspects of them, we propose the following resolution.
Resolved, the House of concurring, that each Diocese of this Church, acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and in accordance with its own constitution and canons, is fully competent to determine whom best to ordain to the ordained ministry of the Church in the light of the qualifications presented for ordinations in the Book of Common Prayer; and be it further
Resolved, that, in accordance with national and local canons and long standing practice, the Ecclesiastical Authority in each diocese determines which clergy may be received or licensed to officiate with the respective diocese(s).
********************
*CURSILLO GETS SOME INTEGRITY*
by Kim Byham, based on reports by Louie Crew, Norman Mol and Sue Thompson
The National Episcopal Cursillo Committee (NECC) published the following statement in its publication "Fourth Day," in June 1990:
*We, as followers of Jesus Christ, live in a time of controversy and conflict concerning the moral life and human sexuality. The National Episcopal Cursillo Movement, as a ministry of the church, is not immune to these controversies and conflicts. We, with all others in the church, wait for its councils to clarify and speak the mind of the Church in this area. In the meantime, local Episcopal Cursillo movements have looked to the National Committee for some guidance.*
*The National Episcopal Cursillo Committee cannot and will not legislate for the diocesan members of the Cursillo Movement in the Episcopal Church. However, we submit to the leadership of the member dioceses the following statement for study and prayerful consideration:*
*All the people of God are equally loved by their Creator and share in God's grace. But just as not all are called to an equal share of the leadership in the body of Christ, not all are called to exercise leadership equally within the Cursillo Movement.*
*On the matter human sexuality and leadership, we restate the resolution of the House of Bishops passed at General Convention in Denver, Colorado in 1979, which reads in part, "We reaffirm the traditional teaching of the Church on marriage, marital fidelity, and sexual chastity as the standard of Christian sexual morality."*
*We remind the leaders of the Cursillo Movement that we rely upon the godly advice and direction of our diocesan bishops in matters dealing with Cursillo.*
Integrity's founder, Dr. Louie Crew, uncovered this statement by NECC quite by accident. He wrote to Cursillo to inquire if they had made any effort to implement the dialogue resolution approved by General Convention in 1988. Much to his surprise, he received a letter which said NECC doesn't take a stand on "issues," but that the resolution above would probably answer his question! In the context in which it was sent to him, it was obvious that the statement was meant to apply to lesbians and gay men, since we were the focus of the 1979 resolution.
NECC refused to reply to several queries, and when Dr. Crew finally reached NECC president Phyllis Lacy on the phone, he pointed out that NECC's statement violated Cursillo's own policy not to take stands on issues. Furthermore it misapplied the 1979 resolution, which did not address the fitness of leaders in general, only the fitness of candidates for ordination. Crew added: "In welcoming us only as clients, not as leaders, you sound a bit like my father when he welcomed blacks, but only in separate schools, while he chaired an Alabama school board in the l950's."
"Ah, but your father was right," Ms. Lacy replied. "At that time we simply did not have enough educated black people for it to be right for them to go to school with white people."
After much pressure, the NECC agreed to receive two witnesses from Integrity when it met in Charleston, SC. In March, Integrity's board chose as its witnesses two Integrity members active in the Cursillo communities of their dioceses. Representing Integrity were Sue Thompson of Atlanta and The Rev. Norman Mol of Lyndhurst, New Jersey. These two met with NECC on Saturday, April 13.
Norman, Sue and The Rev. Stina Pope, Sue's life partner, were greeted warmly by almost everyone present. Ms. Lacy explained that they would each have about fifteen minutes to make their statements. Both Norman and Sue expressed the hope that there would be time for some conversation after speaking to which Ms. Lacy replied that there probably would not be time as they had so very much to do.
Sue reports, "Norman and I made our presentations with Norman's talk consisting primarily of his story and the role of Cursillo in his coming out process, and mine noting the implications of their 'non-policy,' the contradiction it presented to current national Cursillo policy and some suggestions as to how they might respond. I tried to emphasize my knowledge of the Cursillo Movement, its philosophy and purpose and my empathy for the struggles with which they were dealing. I think that both presentations were beneficial and that they complemented each other nicely. While virtually all of the committee listened politely, several committee members seemed to pay especially close attention, occasionally nodding and/or taking notes.
"At the conclusion of our presentations, Ms Lacy thanked us for our concern and basically tried to dismiss us. There was some minimal dialogue between Norman, myself, Ms. Lacy and a couple committee members. However, as the group began to break up, each member of the committee made a point to thank each of us individually for coming which provided Norman and me the chance for 30 minutes worth of small group dialogue about various aspects of the situation. Some members were overwhelmingly supportive, some had concerns specific to Cursillo, some were trying to sort out all the various implications."
At this point, the members of the NECC acknowledged that they had indeed made a statement that they did not want to make. The statement as published in "Fourth Day" was taken from a draft that had been presented to the committee but was not accepted. The third paragraph quoted above had been stricken from the final statement that the committee approved. Apparently, their former secretary had incorrectly reported NECC's decisions, as they discovered earlier in the morning when they reviewed their minutes of the meeting. The secretary himself had wanted the more hostile statement, and when it had not passed had recorded it as the policy anyway.
In response to this, the Integrity representatives assured the NECC that regardless of their intent to avoid setting policy, those people who wanted to keep lesbian and gay people out of Cursillo would use the statement to their own end, most likely describing it as "National Policy" in the process. The NECC members looked shocked at the possibility, but did not argue about it.
Cursillo will report this "mistake" in its next newsletter. It is not clear whether NECC will make any gesture to pay for the enormous expenses incurred by Integrity that led to this "discovery" nor what gestures, if any, will be made to the dozens of Cursillo persons and hundreds of lesbians and gay Episcopalians who have anguished over this statement for many months.
Norman reports, "Even more important in the long run is that the meeting involved the face-to-face dialogue that is so important in promoting understanding and overcoming prejudice. The meeting also laid the foundation for continuing dialogue."
Sue concludes, "I believe our visit has established a basis for an on-going relationship between Integrity and the Cursillo Movement. They are most certainly aware of our concerns and I believe that the majority of the NECC members are interested in working with us to avoid contributing to our oppression. I think it would be beneficial to appoint a representative from Integrity as a liaison to Cursillo as an expression of our commitment to work with them and to support their efforts to remain neutral and to portray that neutrality appropriately."
********************
PRIMATE INDECENCY CHARGE DROPPED
In an incident that received little notice in the United States, the Most Rev. Samir-Hanna Kafity, President Bishop of the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East, was arrested in the restroom at London's Baker Street Tube station on February 7, 1989. The Bishop, married and then 53, on an official visit to Britain, was remanded on bail by Marylebone magistrates after being charged with behaving in an offensive manner, according to The Daily Telegraph, of February 9, 1989. Reuters reported on February 14, that prosecutors dropped indecency charges against Kafity a week later. The Crown Prosecution Service said it had decided after consultations with lawyers for the Bishop that it was not in the public interest to proceed with the case and there was insufficient evidence for conviction.
********************
SOUTHLAND CONVENER AND SPOUSE ARRESTED
by Larkette Lein
My husband Paul Courry and I were among four persons arrested on March 9 at Power Community Church in Anaheim, California, when we joined an ACT-UP protest and interrupted a speech by Congressman William Dannemeyer at a Traditional Values Coalition symposium.
What's wrong with this picture? Did an Integrity chapter really select a straight married woman as Convener? Why would Episcopalians want to get mixed up with ACT-UP? What does a Christian have to do to get arrested in church? Why is a Congressman giving a speech in a church?
One clue -- this *did* take place in Southern California ...
The conference on the "Preservation of the Heterosexual Ethic" was originally to be hosted by Disneyland Hotel, but it soon got too hot for the Happiest Place on Earth to handle. Conferees, who paid $40 a piece to attend, were notified at the last minute of the change of location.
ACT-UP had bought a block of tickets (cringing at the thought of where that money was going) and the four of us sat through three hours of patriarchy, propaganda and paranoia, including a Bible study featuring all the gay-bashing Scriptures, and a presentation by the authors of "Kinsey, Sex and Fraud." At first, the four of us constituted the proverbial 10% of the audience, but by the time Dannemeyer started to speak, the audience had grown to 80 or so.
Meanwhile, some 100 protestors had gathered on the sidewalk, including Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, ACT-UP Orange County, ACT-UP Los Angeles, Queer Nation, the Orange County Visibility League, and the Coalition Against Christian Violence. Paul and I participated as members of the Coalition, an interfaith group we helped found to counteract fundamentalist groups such as Operation Rescue and the Traditional Values group.
Then, in the middle of Dannemeyer's spiel about the power of the militant homosexual lobby, the two members of ACT-UP stood up and declared a non-violent protest, walking down the aisle of the church reading from I Cor. 13. Paul and I followed and got up onto the dias, where we knelt down between the pulpit and the drum set(!), and unfolded smuggled signs that read "Pray to End Gay-Bashing."
Bedlam ensued, with people standing on the pews and shouting, "Blasphemy!" or praying in tongues at the top of their voices. One conferee, the publisher of an African-American Christian fundamentalist publication, screamed from the back of the church, "Martin Luther King Jr. did not die for sodomy!" While ACT-UP was nose-to-nose with people shouting "Faggot!", one man came up to where I was kneeling and tried to tell me, "We don't really hate you."
During a brief lull, Paul and I tried to read our prepared statement, which we had taped to the back of our folded computer paper signs. We were quickly drowned out by the participants, but when we were released from jail that afternoon we made sure our statement was in the hands of the press:
"God is on the side of the suffering, not the oppressors. When the church gives its blessing to the oppressors -- to a political group such as this, whose chief goal is to silence the voices of my gay brothers and lesbian sisters outside -- then as a Christian I cannot be silent."
(Three local papers covered the event, and only the L.A. "Times" chose not to use some part of our statement. The three gay publications did better, but the full page coverage given the demonstration by "The Advocate" missed the whole angle of straight Christians taking part. At the time of this writing I'm expecting to see that rectified by my letter to the editor ...)
Since ACT-UP was involved, at least a dozen police cars had been cruising the area, and they converged instantly when the disturbance began. The four of us refused to leave until escorted out by the police, but we cooperated fully with the officers (who wore surgical gloves under their leather gloves!).
We had hoped to test a new California state law which provides stiff penalties for disrupting a church service. But after some conferring amongst police and conference organizers, we were cited instead for trespass and disturbing the peace.
The police treated us politely -- the Rodney King incident had occurred just the week before -- and we were handcuffed loosely with plastic garbage-bag-tie-type cuffs. It also helped that even ACT-UP was dressed in Sunday clothes. In fact, the policewoman who came to my cell to book me had clearly expected someone in leather and spiked hair, and was surprised to find a demure lady in a dress and heels.
At the April arraignment, our counsel (a well-known Orange County gay rights attorney who is representing us pro bono) immediately rejected the terms of probation -- which prohibited us from protesting at Traditional Values activities for three years. At our pre-trial hearing, the charges were modified to misdemeanor "conspiracy to commit trespass," apparently because we had all written fake names on our conference name tags. Trial is set for May 28.
How did we get into this position? We started out testifying for homosexual rights at a city council hearing; we became gay rights activists when we got a death threat as a result of having our picture in the paper (as Christians praying for gay rights at a demonstration); with this arrest we have achieved the status of honorary queers.
But actually, we're just evangelists. We're just trying to tell the Good News. ----- Larkette Lein is Convener of Integrity/Southland and she and Paul Courry will be part of Integrity's team at General Convention.
********************
*FROM AROUND THE DIOCESES*
ADDRESS TO DIOCESE OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS
I want to thank Bishop Wissemann and all of you in the Diocese for responding so responsibly to the resolution of the last General Convention calling for each diocese to set aside "another room to talk" about homosexuality. Yours is a rare accomplishment. A recent national church center inquiry to the dioceses concerning progress in this area received only 26 responses, and those responses showed that only ten dioceses in all of the U.S. have taken any action on this resolution whatsoever.
Why has the church been so slow to promote careful, balanced discussion in this area? Because General Convention passes a multitude of resolutions each session, it is not surprising that some of them fall by the wayside. However, homosexuality is obviously a topic of major concern in the church at this time Despite numerous letters and articles in "Episcopal Life" and many other church publications, meaningful dialogue between those with divergent views has rarely occurred.
Some of the answer undoubtedly lies in our reticence to state our views on such a personal issue as sexuality. However, it seems our church has an even greater taboo than sex. As the ten of us on this task force wrestled together with this issue, and were forced to carry on our disagreements face to face, we came to realize how hard it is for us Episcopalians to engage in direct conflict with one another. We tend to cluster within the church with those who share our views. And we tend to avoid those whom we perceive as disagreeing with us. By doing this, we deprive ourselves of the full benefit of being members of the body of Christ. We shield ourselves from the destabilizing realization that other Christians with a clear faith in the same God as ours, hold drastically different views on what that God sees as sinful. But as we shield ourselves, we also insulate ourselves from the necessary, and at times prophetic, critical analysis of those with different convictions.
We need to consider very seriously whether this community sin of omission, this failure to be in full communion and communication with *all* our brothers and sisters in Christ, is a debilitating sin of such magnitude as to dwarf the significance of any individual sexual act, whether God views that act as sinful or not. If God does in fact dwell in each of us, and God's Spirit works through each of us, how can we dare to ignore or discount the feelings and opinions of any of us without running the severe risk of thwarting God's intended plan for us all, both as individuals and as a church?
If Roland Morin and I share one conclusion most strongly from our experience together on the homosexuality task force, it is most likely our feeling of alarm that we might have missed the opportunity to truly know and hear each other because of our presuppositions about one another. We each started with the assumption that we were right and the other was wrong. We concluded with the sobering reality that we are both part of God's body and that we need to take each other's differences very seriously.
It would be very tempting to me in talking with you to play the peacemaker. This would be the stance taken recently by the House of Bishops. With clear feelings of concern, they ask for yet more time to study homosexuality. In their recent statement, their compassion goes out to those on both sides of the issue:
"We recognize that it would not be faithful to the Gospel to ignore the anguished cries of homosexual men and women who feel hurt, rejected, and angry by what they see about them At the same time, we recognize that it would not be faithful to the Gospel to ignore or simply label as homophobic the anguished cries of men and women who feel hurt, rejected and angry that what they see as sin is not being reaffirmed as such." 1
I long to be a peacemaker. Since birth this Episcopal church of ours and its people have provided the earthly substance through which I have experienced God most strongly. It has torn me apart to be on this task force placing myself in conflict with my church However, I cannot be a peacemaker at this time. This issue must be resolved. While waiting for further study to somehow provide more clarity, the House or Bishops is in no way maintaining a neutral position of equal concern for both sides. The two sides of this issue are not equally balanced. On the one hand are persons made anxious because their religious beliefs are being challenged. On the other hand are people whose actual lives are being damaged and constricted by the Church. Furthermore, the church's current position on homosexuality actively causes the church to be cut off from the vocation and gifts of many of its members. Openly gay and lesbian men and women of faith, hearing a clear call of vocation to the priesthood are denied ordination. Moreover, many gay and lesbian Christians living in loving, long term, monogamous relationships very much desire the church to bless our relationships, as an enabling expression of our response to God's call to us to work together for the spread of God's Gospel. Yet we are refused this blessing. And in subtler ways, any of us are passed over to teach Sunday school, or to lead the youth group, or even to meet within some church buildings within this diocese. Often our statements on any issue are discounted or distrusted simply because we are homosexual. In these and other instances, the Episcopal Church casts us out from full participation in the body of Christ.
At this convention, our Bishop has called us to reflect on our mission as a diocese, especially as we enter into the decade of evangelism. As leaders in the church, all of us here will have to decide over the next few years what the church's mission is concerning lesbians and gay men. I ask you to decide whether you are so convinced of your views concerning which sexual acts are sinful that you are willing to run the risk of obstructing God's will that the Gospel be spread to all people.
You will also risk the sin of failing to remain in full communion with those of us who are already your gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ. I urge you to realize that all of us lesbian and gay Christians are called to lay or ordained vocations just as heterosexual Christian are. We gays and lesbians must be free to respond to God's call to us to serve if we are to remain obedient to our Lord, just as each of you must pursue your vocation. The church, as God's body, should not have any amputated limbs, if it is to remain strong. Against great odds, we already do manage to serve in this church, even when you force us to be invisible, even in the face of rejection and discrimination. I hope all of you will stop by Integrity's table to see an accounting of how we serve and participate right here in the Diocese of Western Massachusetts. Our exhibit is just a local example. We have performed a similar ministry in exile throughout all time and in all places, wherever God's church has existed. But we serve in spite of the church. We are rarely enabled in our vocations.
I ask you to decide whether it is truly Christian to accept us only as second class persons in the church, as the only persons whose so-called sins are so abominable as to block full membership. If you are honest, you will have to wrestle with the inconsistency that you reject us while this church has no trouble fully accepting those who do not tithe, those who are divorced, those who eat shellfish, and those who in countless other ways do not conform with some literal interpretations of the Bible's rules for correct living. For some reason, other persons have a sanction to disagree that certain activities are sinful, and to engage openly in these activities, and yet be full members In contrast, you shut us out.
In addition, I ask you have to face the church's historic hypocrisy when dealing with issues of homosexuality. The church has a long tradition of knowingly ordaining homosexual individuals who are willing to keep their actively gay sexuality a secret. It only forbids ordination to those who are honest and open concerning their homosexuality. Furthermore, this same church opens its doors wide to those with no particular faith who want to marry in the church solely for aesthetic reasons or family tradition. And yet it denies a blessing on the monogamous, long term relationships of homosexuals who profoundly value that blessing out of deep faith in our creator.
Finally, I ask you to examine whether you may have inadvertently slipped into an idolatry of tradition, clinging to the culturally familiar in opposition to the moving of the Spirit. You will have to confront whether your conviction is based on fear, rather than faith. Any questioning of our long held traditions provokes fear. Perhaps we have a fear that if we don't draw the line at homosexuality, nothing will be sacred. Or a fear that somehow homosexuality will weaken our already fragile system of nuclear families. Fear of rampant immorality or the loss of the family are valid, important fears. But homosexuality is not the cause of these problems. Rather, attacks on homosexuality serve as a scapegoat to alleviate our anxiety about all the complex and radical changes occurring within our own families and within our entire culture.
This is not the first time the Holy Spirit has called the church to question profound cultural and religious assumptions. As soon as Christ founded the church, the early Christians found themselves plunged into agonizing controversy over how and whether the old Jewish beliefs should continue to apply. The church had to decide whether the gospel was limited only to those who complied with Judaism, or whether it was truly the source of salvation for all nations. At that time, Paul, with the help of the Holy Spirit, found the courage to reexamine the whole nature of his faith. Paul Tillich writes:
"Paul experienced the breakdown of a system of life and thought which he believed to be a whole, a perfect truth without riddle or gaps. He then found himself buried under the pieces of his knowledge and his morals. But Paul never tried again to build up a new, comfortable house out of the pieces. He realized always that fragments remain fragments, even if one attempts to reorganize them. How could Paul endure life, as it lay in fragments? He endured it because the fragments bore a new meaning to him.... Through the pieces of his knowledge and morality, love appeared to him And the power of love transformed the tormenting riddles into symbols of truth, the tragic fragments into symbols of the whole." 2
May the God of love who has saved all or us, also transform us as we honestly face our fears and resistance to welcome all persons fully into God's church. In every age, there will always be a new class of gentiles, a new group in God's ever expanding creation called to join in the work of the Kingdom. When I was a girl in the diocese of Virginia, the church was segregated, and good Christians argued that integration was not called for by the Gospel Now, thank God, we at least strive in the Episcopal church for racial equality. In the mid 1970's my rector in Montana was a priest exiled from the Anglican church of Scotland because he fell in love with and married a woman who had once been divorced years previously. Good Christians in that branch of God's church felt that a man should not perform priestly functions if his wife were tainted by divorce. Again, thank God, the Episcopal church in the United States did not view him as a gentile, but welcomed him to pursue his vocation here among us.
Four weeks ago, I attended my mother's funeral. In the early 1980's, after a long and faithful career as a lay director of Christian education she sought ordination to the priesthood from her diocese. Then, and for several years thereafter, the members of her Commission on Ministry informed her honestly, out of their genuine Christian conviction, that she was ideally suited for the priesthood in every way, but that they did not believe that God wished women to be ordained. She did not leave the church. When she became too old and ill to pursue ordination for herself, she continued to work to open the doors for other women in her diocese called to the ordained ministry. One of the great joys at her funeral was to see that both the preacher and one of the celebrants at her requiem mass were priests who were women, now fully accepted in that diocese. Like my mother, I and my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ are not going to leave the church either. Over time, the church has recognized the Spirit's call to accept other races, women, and those who have been divorced. Perhaps now gays and lesbians are the new class of gentiles, the new outcasts who can no longer be denied full kinship in God's family.
In our roles as leaders in this church, we have great power and responsibility. I ask you to consider long and prayerfully: Will it be possible for me, your sister in Christ, to have an openly lesbian priest celebrate the mass at my funeral, or will I eventually go to my death still waiting for full acceptance in God's church? _______________
1 Statement on Sexuality, House of Bishops, September, 1990
2 Tillich, Paul. "Knowledge Through Love", *The Shaking of the Foundations*. 1948. New York, Charles Scribner's Sons. Pp. 112-113 ----- Dr. Elizabeth P. Hess, a member of the Diocese of Western Massachusetts Task Force on Homosexuality, gave thisd address at the diocesan convention held November 2-3, 1990. Dr. Hess is Integrity's Northeast Regional Vice President.
********************
CALIFORNIA DIOCESAN CONVENTION
LOOSE CANNONS LOSE CANONS!
Our Diocesan Convention was held in October of 1990, and was business as usual, with an added twist of several conservative loose cannons. Business as usual means that debate centered on lesbian gay issues, while most other resolutions passed on a weakly contested voice vote.
Diocesan Convention establishes, via resolutions, the "mind" of the Diocese, and are appropriate to the extent that they do no conflict with canons of the church. Since we have no canons against homosexuality, we have consistently passed resolutions favorable to the many many gay and lesbian people in the church, including one in 1988 supporting committed relationships.
The resolutions debated at convention included one by the Reverend Robert Cromey requesting the Convention to request that the President of the United States issue an executive order ending discrimination of homosexuals in the armed service. It passed, and was the first resolution victory for Cromey in his many years of proposing resolutions (A personal victory!). Another resolution, submitted by the Reverend Gary Ost, called for the Diocese of California to request that the General Convention name at least one gay or lesbian to the Human Affairs commission. It passed.
Things got interesting when debate opened on a resolution submitted by Gordon Kamai requesting the convention "express its profound concern over the regrettable action of the Bishop of Newark in knowingly ordaining to the priesthood Robert Williams, a man who steadfastly refused to accept the Church's moral teaching, based upon Holy Scripture, as it relates to sexual relations." Mr. Kamai is an avid supporter of the ESA, and this resolution brought the conservatives out of the crowd. The debate raged over whether we had any right to comment on another Diocese's ordination procedures, whether we were speaking out against Robert Williams, or Bishop Spong, or whether this would be considered a general vote against the ordination of gay/lesbian people. After a rather strenuous debate, it became clear that either way you voted it was bad news, and so the resolution was voted to be indefinitely postponed. As it turned out, this was the most pro liberal response possible. After the defeat, the conservatives, a dwindling but more vocal number, became incensed. Gordon Kamai complained heartily about the process of submitting resolutions, and that his resolution had been censured. It was originally titled "On Ordination Integrity," and was changed by the Resolutions Committee because of the innuendo in regards to the organization, Integrity. Apparently Nigel Renton (Chair of the Resolutions Committee) and his committee thought that was a little too radical. Gordon thought Nigel was a little too radical. A rather irate Mr. Kamai became a loose cannon in his lack of collegiality in addressing Mr. Renton, and a hush took the floor.
Many members of Integrity were present, and many of them spoke, although not identifying themselves as members of Integrity. Many non-members also, spoke, and were supportive. After the dust settled on the Ordination Integrity resolution (I prefer the original name), a resolution was accepted from the floor. The resolution requested this Diocese to support amending the national canons to read: ".... There is no right to ordination in this church. Subject however, to specified canonical requirements, all members have equal access to the selection process for ordination in this church." Debate erupted over every conceivable question. What is access, what is the process, what is equal, does this include women? Kathryn Hearns from St. Michael All Angels, another bastion of the ESA, brought up women's ordination. Ms. Hearns was the loose cannon at that moment, and the delegates seemed to bemoan the fact that we were being taken back into ancient history. *That* issue had been resolved. Shortly thereafter a vote was called, but not before someone stood up to say we were not addressing the real issue, which was ordaining HOMOSEXUALS. He sat down, and no one else got up. The resolution passed.
The Reverend Juan Cabrero asked the Bishop to clarify his position as to the ordination of lesbians and gays publicly once and for all. It would be refreshing if the Bishop could own his actions publicly. He has ordained many known and well practiced gay and lesbian people who were honest in making this fact of their creation known prior to ordination, and who continue to be out in the world as priests. Actions speak louder than words. Lack of words in light of the action imply deep shame, or a real lack of conviction, neither of which are remarkable traits in a Bishop.
In the final moments of the Convention as the Bishop breathed his farewell words, Ms. Hearns accused him of accusing the ESA of trying to break away. Our very collegial Bishop invited her to apologize. It was a very embarrassing moment for our radical conservatives, and the shot to their collective foot was a fine victory. The loose cannons on the conservative ship will certainly lose any war over canons if they keep it up!
THE SHORT LIFE OF A RESOLUTION or THE ONE THAT GOT AWAY!
Before the convention, a group of women, and several other supporters submitted a resolution to convention applauding the Bishop, the Standing Committee, and the Commission on Ministry for ordaining without discrimination on the basis of race, color, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, physical disabilities, or age. The resolution was submitted to Nigel Renton, the Chair of the Resolutions Committee, by me. The group of women who originally thought of the idea of submitting a resolution are a diverse group brought together to plan for a day at Grace Cathedral directly supportive of women in the Episcopal Church. The group thought it would be a nice gesture to applaud the Bishop for what we represented around the table, a diverse group of people, a number of whom are ordained, being embraced by the Diocese. It was truly born out of a sense of wanting to say thanks to this diocese for not being a close minded group. We typed the resolution on the typewriter in the office right below the Bishop's office in Diocesan House. I submitted the final copy because I agreed to type it and walk it to the Cathedral. Because I submitted it, and because I am a known HOMOSEXUAL, and because I am an officer of Integrity, nationally as well as locally, it was viewed as a primarily HOMOSEXUAL resolution. Nigel Renton acknowledged receiving the resolution and a day or two afterwards I got a call from Nigel telling me that he had discussed it with the Bishop, and had been asked to withdraw it. Of course I was a little offended. During this same conversation I was told that the ESA had also submitted a resolution condemning the ordination of Robert Williams, and that this was, therefore, too controversial a subject to introduce to convention. "Now is not the time," and "when it is right," and "it is too controversial" were all pet responses coming from the hollow halls of Diocesan House. Meanwhile, did the Bishop ask the ESA to withdraw the "Ordination Integrity resolution condemning the ordination of a known homosexual?
The women's group met again the following week and we discussed the controversy erupting over our quite upbeat resolution. We agreed that liberals are constantly being asked to cower to the conservatives to keep the peace, while conservatives do not seem to be asked to do the same. We also agreed that the Gospel is meant to be proclaimed. If the truth is that we do ordain in this diocese without discriminating against a person for a natural God given physical attribute, then we ought to be able to proclaim it joyously. To do it, and then hide it or be afraid to tell that truth devalues all who participated in the process, as well as all who were ordained. It is like being a Christian only on Sundays, in Church, but being embarrassed by it the rest of the week. So we agreed that we would all remain supportive of the resolution. We did agree that it was focused on as a gay/lesbian issue, and I personally agreed to go with the conscience of the group, I would not make them martyrs of an issue I view personally. They remained supportive.
Then Michael Hansen, the Diocesan Executive and right hand man to the Bishop called me at work to request that I withdraw my resolution (*my*?). I told him I would go with the majority of those who signed, and that it was not my resolution, it belonged to all who signed it. As it turns out Nigel Renton had sent a letter to me at the Integrity mailbox which I had not yet received asking me to call either Michael Hansen or the Bishop's secretary giving them permission to withdraw the resolution. According to Mr. Renton, "If the resolution passes it can be used as evidence that Bishop Swing ordains self-declared gay men and lesbian women." If anyone wants evidence, just ask the many men and women who have been ordained as openly non-celibate homosexual people! I could make a list of sizeable proportion in an instant, and Nigel himself makes one in his letter. This Diocese has quite a few live, breathing, preaching, celebrating pieces of evidence.
Since I had not responded to Mr. Renton's letter, Michael Hansen called me directly the day the decision to publish had to be made to tell me he had consensus from the other signers. I agreed to the consensus, and the resolution was withdrawn.
Gordon Kamai got his resolution, representing the ESA position, included, albeit with a few modifications to the name. Our resolution was just plain nixed before it ever saw the light of day. What sort of due process is this? What sort of homophobia is this? ----- This article first appeared in "The Gathering Community," the newsletter of Integrity/San Francisco Bay Area, February, 1991.
[Nigel Renton's letter follows]
Nigel A. Renton Oakland, CA
Ms. Dorothy Beattie San Francisco, CA
Re: Resolution on Access to the Ordination Process
Dear Dorothy,
Thanks for agreeing to give serious consideration to withdrawing your resolution. I have had a couple of thoughts since we spoke.
Most resolutions seek change. They ask someone in authority to do something, or stop doing something. Others are designed to rebuke people, such as the resolution on the ordination to the priesthood of Robert Williams.
Courtesy resolutions are an exception - they are designed to thank someone for service performed, usually in relationship to a particular event (such as a convention or synod), or for long service (such as an retirement). Debate isn't really invited.
Your resolution thanks people, but it does invite debate. It will be perceived immediately for what it is, a way of trying to obtain a vote from our convention in favor of access to the ordination process for gays and lesbians. It is likely that someone will move to amend the resolution to delete the words "sexual orientation" - or perhaps offer a substitute resolution cunningly crafted to sound appealing to others.
After discussion with the Bishop, I think that you and your friends have little to gain and much to lose. If the resolution passes, it can be used as evidence that Bishop Swing ordains self-declared gay men and lesbian women. "Sexual orientation" carries a lot of baggage. Although it does not distinguish those who are celibate from those who are not, it has become a frequent battleground at General Convention and elsewhere.
There are a lot of people involved in the ordination process. Ultimately, it is the Bishop's responsibility, of course, but (as your resolution largely acknowledged) it usually takes the support of rectors, vestries, the Commission on Ministry, and the Standing Committee to "get through the hoops." Raising the issue again may not only cause polarization, it may cause good people either to decline to serve on these bodies, or to withdraw support for people like my friends Michael, Juan, and Paul, who neither flaunt nor hide their sexual orientation. For the sake of their successors who are now or will be in the process, it would be prudent to need the Bishop's preference for this resolution to be withdrawn.
It if will help, I'll make myself available for further dialogue on the matter. If you accept my reasoning, please leave word with Marilyn Brydon or Binnie Graham at your early convenience, so that the resolution won't even be printed in the material sent to the Deaneries.
Sincerely,
Nigel A. Renton
********************
*TENNESSEE RESOLUTIONS READ AS MILDLY PRO-GAY*
RESOLUTIONS PRESENTED TO THE 159TH ANNUAL CONVENTION OF THE DIOCESE OF TENNESSEE
*Resolution 1: On Homosexuality [DEFEATED]*
WHEREAS the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America to be held in July, 1991, will likely be asked to consider matters dealing with the ordination of practicing homosexuals and the blessing of homosexuals relationships, all of which have theological import for the life of the Only Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; and
WHEREAS the Anglican Communion has always adhered to the primacy of Scripture; tradition and reason having authority only when they are consistent with Scripture;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the 159th Convention of the Diocese of Tennessee requests its deputies to said General Convention to uphold God's revelation through Scripture that God exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in Trinity of persons and in unity of substance, and that we celebrate the one and equal glory of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; and,
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we request our deputies to the said General Convention to affirm that the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church, being under the authority of Scripture, affirms the revelation in Scripture that sexual intimacy outside of a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman who are married to one another is sinful, and that the ordination of practicing homosexuals and the blessing of homosexual relationships is inappropriate and not to be condoned.
*Resolution 15: Submitted by the Working Group on AIDS. [PASSED]*
WHEREAS, the wonderful mystery of human sexuality continues to be studied in our church, and
WHEREAS, the call of the gospel is not to be exclusive, but to welcome all who believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, and
WHEREAS, our Episcopal Church is currently blessed with the presence and ministry of many faithful, caring laypeople and clergy who are gay and lesbian, and
WHEREAS, Holy Scripture may lead some to conclude that homosexuality is sinful and not to be condoned in the church, Holy Scripture also leads others to just the opposite conclusion, and
WHEREAS, we the members of the AIDS Working Group see and recognize the discrimination, desolation, isolation and oppression faced by gay and lesbian people, especially those living with AIDS,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT this 159th Convention of the Diocese of Tennessee affirms and embraces the ministry and common status of gay, lesbian and heterosexual people and accords all people the same dignity and rights in the life of our Church.
*Resolution 23-A: Response to Issues of Sexuality [PASSED as amended].*
WHEREAS the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA in July, 1991 will likely be asked to consider resolutions dealing with the ordination of practicing homosexuals, with the condoning or blessing of homosexual relationships, and with other matters of human sexuality of concern to Christians,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that this Convention accepts that issues of how to respond to human sexuality are indeed an appropriate and necessary area of concern for the Church in our time; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 159th Convention of the Diocese of Tennessee asks its parishes and deputies to take steps to inform themselves on these specific issues before going to General Convention, to deeply and prayerfully consider how the Church can best reflect the will of Christ in all such matters, and to act in accordance with their conscience on such matters at General Convention; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Convention offers for the consideration of its deputies the following affirmations:
(1) that it is the duty of the Church to affirm the love of God by opposing sexual exploitation in any form, and by calling and preparing all persons to commit to steadfastly respect, love, and serve others with whom they choose to fulfill their sexual needs; and
(2) that until further dialogue on these issues can be accomplished locally and nationally, it is prudent for the Church to continue to recognize monogamous heterosexual marriage as the *standard, the norm, the primary* committed relationship within which all persons should strive diligently to fulfill their sexual needs, and that for that reason it is the only relationship to be blessed by the Church with the sacrament of marriage; and
(3) that helping one another to discern, make and maintain the best possible Christian responses to our sexual needs is a more fruitful use of the gifts and energies of the Church at this time than is formal condemnation of variants of sexual need.
*THE PRESS'S PERCEPTIONS*
"Nashville Banner," January 26, 1991
EPISCOPALIANS EASE STANCE ON GAYS by Frances Meeker, Banner Religion Editor
Midstate Episcopalians relaxed their stance on homosexual relationships but agreed that only monogamous heterosexual marriages would be blessed by the church. By a virtually unanimous voice vote, the nearly 200 delegates adopted a resolution [#23-A] that appeared to condone homosexual relationships by calling up "all persons" to show respect and love for those "with whom they choose to fulfill their sexual needs."
The resolution cautioned, however, that it would be "prudent" for the church to continue to recognize monogamous heterosexual marriage as "the standard, the norm and primary committed relationship within which all persons should strive diligently to fulfill their sexual needs."
For that reason, the resolution said, monogamous heterosexual marriage is the only relationship to be blessed by the church with the sacrament of marriage.
The vote came after the delegates rejected a strongly worded resolution [#1] condemning ordination of practicing homosexuals and refusing the blessing of the church upon homosexual relationships. George O. Langstaff, senior warden at St. George's Episcopal Church in Nashville who wrote the rejected statement on homosexuality, said he was disappointed that the weaker resolution was adopted. "The one adopted didn't deal with the issue or ordination of practicing homosexuals at all but did endorse heterosexual marriage as the accepted norm for our church, but in a much weaker fashion," Langstaff said. He said he believed that 80 percent of the laity of the 2.8 million-member Episcopal Church feels as he does on the issue of homosexuality.
The Middle Tennessee Episcopalians [also] accepted a resolution [#15] from the diocese's Working Group on AIDS that stated that "the wonderful mystery of human sexuality continues to be studied in our church." It called upon the diocese to "affirm and embrace the ministry and common status of gay, lesbian and heterosexual people" and to offer all people the "same dignity and rights in the life of our church."
The Rev. Lisa Hunt, pastor of St. Ann's in Nashville [and chaplain of Integrity/Middle Tennessee], said she opposed Langstaff's resolution because it purported to find scriptural authority opposing homosexual relationships. She said there is a "multiplicity of interpretations" of scriptural references to homosexuality.
Two delegates said they felt that the Christian tradition calls for gay and lesbian people to refrain from sexual activity the same as unmarried heterosexuals. "I am a widower and I feel that I must take a vow of celibacy," said the Rev. Paul Shields Walker, paster of St. Joseph of Arimathea in Hendersonville. "I would like to know what would happen if I should start an affair with a women," he said. "I guess I would be run out of town on a rail."
"The Tennessean", January 26, 1991
EPISCOPALIANS BACK GAY RIGHTS SHORT OF MARRIAGE By Ray Waddle, Religion News Editor
Midstate Episcopalians affirmed yesterday that homosexuals have the same rights in church as anyone else but advised the denomination to stay the course against blessing gay couples.
Voting 96-69 at their annual convention here, Episcopal delegates rejected a resolution [#1] that would explicitly denounce sex outside of marriage as sinful, but approved another [#23A] that hailed marriage as the norm for Christian sexuality.
"This is not an effort to deny love to Christian homosexuals but to clarify what Christian marriage should be," said George Langstaff, of St. George's Episcopal Church, who had submitted the more strongly anti-gay resolution that failed. Langstaff said he and other local Episcopalians pressed the issue at yesterday's meeting in anticipation of an "aggressive effort" by gay church members at July's national convention to convince the church to ordain gay priests and bless homosexual unions.
Part of the lengthy debate at the Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza centered on how Scripture speaks about homosexuality. The Rev. Lisa Hunt of St. Ann's Episcopal Church said it is naive to use the Bible to condemn homosexuality because Scripture offers a "multiplicity of interpretations."
"Insofar as it speaks to homosexuality, countered Howard Rhys, retired New Testament professor at the University of the South, "it speaks with a united voice [against it]." The Rev. Marek Zabriskie of St. George's pointed out that Jesus didn't see fit to address the issue. In the entire Bible, he added, there are about 25 verses against homosexuality but hundreds that warn against wealth, "yet we don't legislate that."
By a wide margin, delegates finally approved a resolution urging the church "to continue to recognize monogamous heterosexual marriage as the standard, norm and primary committed relationship" until further dialogue is accomplished.
The resolution said that discerning and making "the best possible Christian responses to our sexual needs" is more fruitful than "formal condemnation of variants of sexual need."
********************
*THREE RESOLUTIONS FROM MICHIGAN*
Various resolutions related to lesbian/gay concerns were considered at the Diocese of Michigan Convention, March 7-9, 1991. The following three resolutions presented by the Diocesan Task Force on Lesbian and Gay Concerns were approved by Convention:
PARTICIPATION ON PUBLIC FORUMS AND DISCUSSIONS
RESOLVED, that the Diocese of Michigan, through its Executive Council, Commissions and other committees and structures be urged to set as a high priority the sponsorship of open forums and discussions on war, peace, politics, economics, sexuality, liturgical language and other issues that affect both our corporate life as the Church and our individuals lives as Christian and Americans; and
RESOLVED, that participation and leadership in these forums and discussions shall be open to all Episcopalians and invited guests; and
RESOLVED, that such forums and discussions shall include representatives of any group that is the object of discussion, and shall not be limited to outside "personalities" and "experts."
Explanation: The Church has a long tradition of open and democratic participation in public discussion of issues that affect its life, in response to an attempt to limit participation in such discussions to a small group of recognized "experts", we feel that our respected and democratic traditions must be reaffirmed.
APPROPRIATE AND CIVIL DISCOURSE
RESOLVED, that the 157th Convention of the Diocese of Michigan call upon all members of the diocesan family to treat one another with love and respect through appropriate and civil discourse in sermons, discussions, publications and debate; and
RESOLVED, that this Convention deplore the use of discourse that demeans and attacks other members of our family on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, physical limitation, ethnic background or personality, and deem the use of such discourse unacceptable within the councils of this Church.
Explanation: Because the Church is the family of God on earth, we call on all members of our Church and diocesan family to treat one another with love and respect In the past several individuals and groups in our Church have been demeaned and attacked by public statements made in Convention and in the press. The use of crude and demeaning language should be considered inappropriate in the councils of the Church.
FULL PARTICIPATION AND INCLUSION OF LESBIAN AND GAY PERSONS IN THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
RESOLVED, that since longstanding positions of the Episcopal Church have been expressed, among other places, in the 1976 General Convention Resolutions A-69 and A-71, which welcome the full participation and inclusion of lesbian and gay persons in the Episcopal Church, stating that such persons are children of God who have full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance and pastoral concern and care of the Church, and that such persons are entitled to equal protection under the law with all other citizens; this 157th Convention of the Diocese of Michigan encourages all parishes, in the spirit of the Decade of Evangelism, to put these positions of the General Convention into action by offering the life-giving love of God to all persons regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, physical limitation of ethnic background.
Explanation: The words of our baptismal covenant call us to "respect the dignity of every human being...." Because some persons and groups in our Diocese have been devalued, excluded and ignored over the past years, it is appropriate to reaffirm and support the traditional and accepted positions of openness, respect and love expressed in the statements of the National Church.
********************
OPEN INTEGRITY MEMBER DENIED ORDINATION: DR. CREW RESPONDS
April 15, 1991 The Standing Committee The Diocese of Chicago Attention: Ms. Mary Ann Miya, Chair
Gentle Ms. Miya,
In his "Managua Saga," my closest friend, Father Grant Gallup, reports:
Roger Michael Goodman phoned from Chicago to tell me that the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Chicago had denied that he had a vocation to the ministerial priesthood, and had rejected him for candidacy for ordination. They cited his "lack of connectedness" to a local community. *There goes John the Baptist*. They cited his being in the beginning stages of understanding of his early life. *Except ye become as little children*. They cited his intention to be a catalyst for change in the Episcopal church, with regard to homosexual persons. *There is no phobia in love*, says St. John. But the Standing Committee's homophobes limit themselves to approving only of closet homosexuality, and they can never approve of Roger's joy in his orientation, and his refusal to hide. In any case, they are "uncomfortable" with catalysts for change, any kind of change. There isn't a single self-respecting Lesbian and Gay person on the Standing Committee. That is monstrous, in a diocese with such a large Gay and Lesbian population. It's outrageous that Gay people continue to submit themselves to such outfits as these "religious maintenance organizations" who "sit in Moses' seat," and as Jesus said of them, will not enter the Kingdom nor permit others to do so. Why don't the Gay and Lesbian clergy and laity in the diocese speak up to denounce this rampant homophobia? The Gay cardinal rectors and rural deans? The Gay chaplains and counselors and university professors and psychiatrists and physicians and lawyers? Where are their voices? The tide of bigotry is rising, and when it reaches their own closet doors, to whom will they then appeal for solidarity?
[Note: "Managua Saga" is a missionary journal available through Father Ted Copland at St. Matthew's, Evanston, Illinois. This entry is entry dated March 18, 1991 and appears on page 480 in the continuing pagination of that journal. LC]
I fully respect the fact that you are not accountable to me, nor do I have any desire to intrude upon what should remain the private parts of Roger Michael's candidacy, but any response you can share that does not violate your obligations to privacy could help immensely to mitigate the shock and despair that your decision will set forth throughout the lesgay Christian community and beyond.
For example, are there really no openly lesbian or gay members of your Standing Committee?
Does your Committee consider the grounds cited here as adequate grounds for rejecting a candidate?
Has the Committee changed the perspectives of the Commission on Ministry which admitted Roger Michael as a postulant several years ago and recommended him for candidacy?
Did your Committee seek the views of Integrity persons with whom Roger Michael ministers? Would you be willing to have us testify before you? Roger Michael is quite well connected with us; and we constitute the largest new ministry in the Episcopal Church, a ministry which has brought over 20,000 people into, or back into the Church, a ministry which had its first convention in your cathedral seventeen years ago, sponsored by your chapter, the mother chapter of our more than 50 others.
Has your Committee disqualified Roger Michael's connectedness to congregations such as the Brotherhood of St. Gregory and to All Saint's, Ravenswood (where I was a guest preacher last October)?
Has your Committee itself acted on D-120, by which General Convention in 1988 called "all congregations" to provide a safe space for lesbians and gays to share our stories? Have the local parishes of any of your Committee members honored this pledge? Can your Committee evaluate any openly lesgay candidate fairly without such an understanding? Would your Committee welcome witnesses to come before you quite apart from your deliberation on any particular candidate?
Faithfully,
Louie
********************
*CANTERBURY ENTHRONEMENT SPARKS GAY PROTEST*
By Kim Byham
While the full pageantry of the Anglican Church was underway inside the 850-year old Cathedral Church of Christ, Canterbury, marking the enthronement of the 102nd successor to St. Augustine as Archbishop of Canterbury, demonstrators outside made sure participants didn't forget that this is the late 20th Century. Several hundred gay and lesbian protestors gathered to call attention to the long history of persecution of lesbians and gay men by the Church in general and the statements of new Archbishop in particular.
The Most Rev. George Carey, formerly Bishop of Bath and Wells, became Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of All England and President of the world-wide Anglican Communion, on April 19, 1991. Although 2,200 people filled the Cathedral, only a select few (plus the television audience), could see the actual installation. Central to the service are two enthronements. The first, in the "Quire throne," a normal bishop's chair, was performed by the Archdeacon of Canterbury, the Ven. Michael Till, and confirmed Dr. Carey's responsibilities as Bishop of the Canterbury Diocese. Dr. Carey then transferred to the Chair of St Augustine, to be enthroned by the Dean of Canterbury, the Very Rev. John Simpson, as Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate. That marble chair is eleven steps above the High Altar, which is itself twenty feet above the nave and separated from it with an enormous stone pulpitum. Only those seated in the choir had a clear view of the ancient rite.
The two enthronements date back to the twelfth century, but the pomp surrounding them is comparatively modern. From the Reformation to the mid-nineteenth century, it was unusual even for an archbishop to attend his own enthronement. Often not only did the archbishop send a proxy, but so did the dean and archdeacon and the enthronement of a proxy by proxies took place in subdued fashion after matins. Indeed, Archbishop John Sumner's enthronement of 1848 was the first ceremony of notable public splendor.
William Temple in 1942 was the first Archbishop since the Reformation to wear cope and mitre at the service and also the last to undergo four mini-enthronements during it. The third enthronement now takes place afterwards in the Chapter House, while the fourth has been discarded as too cumbersome a form of musical chairs.
At the end of the service, Archbishop Carey emerged into the sunshine from the cathedral's west door to greet and bless the people outside.
Only yards away, outside Christchurch Gate, the main entry to the Close from the village, a quite different sort of ceremony was getting underway: a mock burning at the stake to commemorate the many lesbians and gays martyred by the Church.
"Keep your bigotry off my body", "Hi Carey, I'm a Fairy" read some of the signs. The protests were organized by OutRage, a secular group analogous to Queer Nation in the United States. "We find Dr. Carey's views irresponsible and dangerous," explained organizer Peter Tatchell. The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement was not listed as a sponsor of the protests, although they had earlier severely criticized Carey's statements on homosexuality.
Carey frequently says the church has lost its sense of sin. He has said, with less frequency, that homosexual acts are sinful.
However, in an interview only days before his enthronement, the new Archbishop said he was "still wrestling" with the issue of homosexuality. On the question of gay clergy, Dr. Carey said that he had not "made up his mind", although he said the Bible was "pretty negative" about homosexual practice. He said the Church was not yet ready to clarify its position.
********************
*CAREY APPOINTS PRO-GAY CHIEF OF STAFF*
By Ruth Gledhill
The Archbishop of Canterbury has chosen a bishop with a reputation for wisdom, depth of experience and liberal churchmanship to be his new head of staff at Lambeth Palace.
The Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt. Rev. John Yates, chairman of the General Synod's Board for Social Responsibility, will begin work at Lambeth in November.
Bishop Yates, 65, became well known as a result of two controversies during his time at Gloucester. It was his skill in handling these issues that is understood to have endeared him to Dr. Carey, who was formerly bishop of neighboring Bath and Wells. He is an experienced public speaker and entered the House of Lords in 1981.
His new job as Bishop at Lambeth is traditionally a low-profile post, although as a frequent representative of the Archbishop, Bishop Yates could wield considerable influence.
He said last night: "As a member of the team I do not think I will have any influence over the Archbishop, but I am sure that occasionally he will want to knock a few ideas about. I suspect one of the main challenges I will face will be that of trying to keep my mouth shut. The Bishop at Lambeth is a man who stays in the background."
Bishop Yates led a group which in 1979 called for fundamental changes in the Church of England's teaching on homosexuality. The report said the church should recognize as justified homosexual relationships involving the physical expression of sexual love, that the homosexual age of consent should be reduced from 21 to 18 and that bishops should not refuse to ordain a man because he is homosexual. [ed. note: That report, called the "Gloucester Report" in his honor, was never formally ratified by General Synod. It's conclusions were largely repeated, however, in the 1989 "Osborne Report," which has never been officially released.] He has continued to defend homosexual clergy and recently addressed a conference convened by the European forum of homosexual Christian groups. [ed. note: He spoke at the Forum of Gay and Lesbian Christian Groups in Europe at their meeting in London in May, 1988. See "News & Notes," Fall, 1988, in which Bishop Yates is pictured with Integrity's Kim Byham.]
His appointment was welcomed by Richard Kirker, General Secretary of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement. Mr. Kirker said: "We can take considerable comfort and significant reassurance from this appointment. Bishop Yates has a record of consistent openness to the arguments from lesbian and gay Christians."
More recently, Bishop Yates challenged Margaret Thatcher, then Prime Minister, after her 1988 address to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland [Presbyterian] in which she had stated the religious philosophy underlying her political creed. In a letter to Mrs. Thatcher, Bishop Yates said: "Justice and generosity apply to governments as well." He said government had to resist the "popular myth that the poor are feckless people who might be tempted to greed or laziness if we give them too much."
Dr. Carey, who was on retreat, was unavailable for comment. He is understood to have given considerable thought to the appointment. Bishop Yates, who is married with three children, added: "I do not think I have ever refused a job in my life, provided I have been satisfied that it is genuinely the voice of the church. I suppose you cannot get much closer to the voice of the church than when the Archbishop of Canterbury wants you to do something." ----- Ruth Gledhill is Religious Affairs Correspondent for "The Times" of London. This article appeared in "The Times," April 3, 1991.
********************
*PRESBYTERIANS AHEAD OF US*
by Kim Byham, relying on coverage by Episcopal News Service and "The Washington Post"
As virtually all of our readers are aware, a committee of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in March released a report on human sexuality far stronger than that of the Episcopal Church's Commission on Human Affairs, calling for a dismantling of "traditional patterns of oppression and sexual exclusion" and a favorable reappraisal of "any sexual relations in which there is genuine equality and mutual respect." By the time you read this article, you will know the reaction of the denomination's General Assembly, which met June 4-12 in Baltimore, to the Special Committee to Study Human Sexuality's report.
The committee recommended that the church study its report, "Keeping Body and Soul Together: Sexuality, Spirituality, and Social Justice," for two years. The 200-page report characterized sexism and heterosexism as "not compatible with Christian faithfulness." While affirming the centrality of Scripture, the report cautioned that "the Bible is never self-interpreting but always requires readers to interpret and appropriate biblical insight for their own contexts and from their own perspectives." The General Assembly will also consider a minority report issued by six of the 17 members of the special committee. Reportedly, conservatives are trying to reject the study outright, forbidding further study.
The report affirms masturbation and petting among teenagers and says that maturity, not marriage, should determine when they engage in intercourse. It questions the importance Americans place on marriage and says the church should embrace new types of families, including same-sex couples with adopted children. Gay men and lesbians should be ordained, the report says, and same-sex couples should enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Not surprisingly, the report has become a best-seller. 20,000 had been sold at $5 a copy by mid-April. "I've never seen anything like it," Marj Carpenter, longtime public information director at denominational offices in Louisville, told "The Washington Post." "Middle-class America had a heart attack," said committee chair John J. Carey in a "Post" interview. "At least we've gotten their attention."
In a hopeful note, Larry Rasmussen, professor of Christian Ethics at Union Theological Seminary in New York, told the "Post" the report is the first public sign of a "general reappraisal of Christian sexuality" underway among several Protestant organizations. "These reports are going to look very different from traditional reports," he said. No matter what happens in Baltimore, this is a report of monumental importance.
********************
*ANGLICAN PRIMATES DISCUSS HUMAN SEXUALITY*
The biennial meeting of Anglican Primates was held April 7-13 in Northern Ireland. The wide-ranging discussions included issues related to human sexuality, particularly homosexuality.
The meeting brought together primates from the 28 churches in the communion and the leaders of the United Churches of North and South India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
In a closed session, Presiding Bishop Edmond L. Browning spoke about human sexuality and the Report of the Standing Commission on Human Affairs.
Homosexuality, and the question of whether it is right to ordain open lesbians and gay men, are lively issues in some Anglican churches but not in others, the primates said. "As the church continues to wrestle with this difficult question, we want to encourage our people to pursue the discussion with honesty, compassion, and a genuine desire to seek the will of God.
"We agreed that...the church needs to give full weight to the testimony of holy scripture. We need also to take into account of such understanding of homosexuality that scientific research is able to provide.
"It is important, too," the primates said, "to try to understand the experience of homosexuals themselves as they face the implications of their sexuality."
The primates noted the "wide differences" of understanding within churches in the communion. They expressed appreciation for the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops statement last September that said the church can neither ignore homosexual men and women who feel hurt, angry and rejected nor label as simply homophobic the expressions of men and women who believe that homosexuality is a sin. ----- This article appears courtesy of Episcopal News Service.
********************
*SOUTH CAROLINA BISHOP BASHES GAYS BASHERS AND GAYS*
*A Message from The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr., Bishop of South Carolina, to the 1991 Diocesan Convention. A convention resolution commended "the sound teachings of Bishop Salmon concerning the war in the Persian Gulf, inclusive language, and human sexuality" and strongly urged that "copies of the Bishop's teachings on these matters be made available in every parish and mission in the Diocese." The Human sexuality section of the report, which is printed here, appeared in the diocesan newspaper, "Jubilate Deo," April 1991.*
HUMAN SEXUALITY
I would like to suggest that we in the Episcopal Church have not been disciplined in looking at the complex and profound issues of sexuality. We have the tendency to want to please everyone to the point that anything goes. Therefore, we buy the notion that sexual expression is just simply a matter of lifestyle, or choice, or right. On the other hand, we tend to be so legalistic that we cannot deal with the complexities of sexuality. Homophobia and persecution are rampant in our culture. On the front page of the New York Times the other day was the picture of a foster child who was being raised in a homosexual environment. Children at school were making fun of him. Can you imagine how that little boy felt? Homosexuals have been physically attacked and denied their civil rights. As Episcopalians and Christians we need to be clearly opposed to such behavior.
As we struggle with the issues of human sexuality, there are many who are in disagreement with the traditional teachings of the Church and are insistent that we "normalize" all human sexual expression and use the term "marriage" to cover both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. This confuses not only what we have traditionally held to be true, but also seems to say to many that we are simply endorsing the permissive and promiscuous lifestyle of our culture. We need to hold firmly to the traditional understanding of marriage as a relationship instituted of God and symbolizing the relationship between Christ and his Church. Philip Turner in his book "Men and Women" has some important things to say to us. The debate about sexuality has some telling points to make about the church as well. He suggests that the battle raging over sexual ethics will not be settled until the nature of the Church itself is resolved. The issue for the Church is the absence of a community of Christians where no one need be alone. The church at its very heart needs renewal -- we need to be more than a lonely crowd in pursuit of private ends. He suggests that the argument for the revision of the Church's traditional teaching is nothing but a recommendation that the Church adapt itself to the ways of the crowd that surrounds it. The fundamental importance of marriage does not demand that we call all relationships "marriage" in order for them to have meaning. Father Turner believes that men and women in this surrounding culture are not grossly promiscuous, but rather lonely, yearning for relationship. By holding to the traditional teaching we are in a position where we do not have to deny the good of even the worst of relationships. We can make better sense of them and at the same time see their deficiencies and dangers. When the traditional teaching is placed within the call of God to return to his love with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, the sacrifices required by chastity and abstinence along the way become grace and occasions for joy. In this context, same-sex relationships or friendships should not be called marriage, nor be seen as adequate expressions for those who seek the yoke of the Priesthood of the Church.
A final warning to us all. This is a complex and profound subject. Misunderstanding, and stereotypes abound. Casual and simplistic engagement of the subject will be destructive to the building up of the Body of Christ.
DR. CREW RESPONDS
April, 1991 The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr.
Gentle Bishop Salmon,
I whole-heartedly affirm your conclusion to the section "Human Sexuality" in your address to your diocesan convention: "Misunderstandings and stereotypes abound. Casual and simplistic engagement of the subject will be destructive to the building up of the Body of Christ." Please bear with me while I review some of the destructive misunderstandings and stereotypes which abound earlier in that same section.
"We have the tendency to want to please everyone to the point that anything goes." Are you creating a paper tiger here? I cannot name a single person who believes that "anything goes." That is certainly not the point of view of Integrity nor of other lesgay Christians whom I know; and yet surely you know that your audience in Charleston would hear that as the point of view of those calling for the changes which you specifically resist.
"Therefore, we buy the notion that sexual expression is simply a matter of lifestyle, or choice, or right." Again, these are all stereotypes used about friends of lesgay Christians; and they are untrue for most of us. My new tie and my new jacket manifest *style*; my sexual orientation and my life commitment to Ernest Clay derive from much deeper resources. It does little good to proclaim that "homophobia and persecution are rampant in our culture" if you manifest your own homophobia and persecution in the same paragraph.
What you said to the hetero audience in your Cathedral trivializes lesgay unions in their mind. Your bashing hurts far worse than that of the postal employee(s) who wrote "FAG" all over my mail last month: you have far more privileges than postal workers and surely should know better than to use the stereotype by which your congregation degrades my faith choices.
"There are many who ....insist that we 'normalize' all human sexual expression and use the term 'marriage' to cover both heterosexual and homosexual relationships." "There are" leaves you open to proving your point if you can find only two, but I assume that you are trying to represent the views of a larger number of those asking the Church to reconsider its refusal to bless lesgay unions. Most discussion that I have seen among lesgay Christians over the last two decades has been willing to negotiate the term you might use for these unions. With close to half of hetero 'marriages' falling apart, I'm surprised that you would characterize us as seeing that term capable of bringing any grace on its own right. You use your concern with nomenclature as a smokescreen, so as not to have to deal directly with what is really at stake, *the blessing* of lesgay unions, regardless of what you want to call them.
"This....seems to say to many that we are simply endorsing the lifestyle of our culture..... [Philip Turner] suggests that the argument for the revision of the Church's teaching is nothing but a recommendation that the Church adapt itself to the ways of the crowd that surrounds it." Bishop Salmon, Integrity members do not come from "the lifestyle of our culture" but from the "life of a faith journey within the Episcopal Church." Few people in the secular culture, and even fewer in the lesgay secular culture, give a tinker's malediction about the Episcopal Church. They are not the ones calling you to repentance; *we* are. Your statements contribute to grave misunderstandings, as has your diocese's refusal to dialogue with us.
"By holding to the traditional teaching we are in a position where we do not have to deny the good of even the worst of relationships." Have you placed your own soul in Pharisaical jeopardy here? 'Look how good I am; so good that I can see some measure of good in all these lesser evil folks about me. I thank God and tradition that I am not like them.'
As Ernest and I, and as thousands of other lesgay couples try to live out our life commitments in congregations all over this Church and all over your diocese, this kind of diction heaps abuse upon abuse. And then you have the gall to talk about those different from yourself as "lonely." Father, I am not lonely when you strike us in this way: flights of angels assure me that my God would never do as you have done. *You* must be terribly lonely playing right into the expectations of a crowd, many of whom would not be willing to make even the tiny steps you have made towards reconciliation, 98 percent of whom refused even to reply to my offer to provide lesgay Episcopalians to help congregations respond to D-120 General Convention.
I might have some sympathy for your confusion if I felt you were applying traditions equally to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals--if, for example, you announced that henceforth you forbid all priests to perform the marriage ceremony for any heterosexual couple already living together.
"When the traditional teaching is placed within the call of God to return to his love with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, the sacrifices required by chastity and abstinence along the way become grace and occasions for joy." I know a bit about the sacrifices of chastity and abstinence, especially for the last two years during which justice has caused my beloved and me to live twelve time zones apart for many months at a time. But that's not the kind of chastity you preach here. Yours is not the traditional chastity received as a grace of God, but chastity as a penalty, enforced chastity. Your rhetoric suggests that those who refuse this penalty do not seek to love God with heart, soul, mind, and strength: that's an awesome judgment on your lesgay neighbors, a judgment that has led many lesgay people into devastating experiments with heterosexual relationships, that has led many lesgay people into chemical dependencies, that has led many lesgay people to suicide, that has led many priests into patterns of self-deception....
"In this context, same-sex relationships or friendships should not be...seen as adequate expressions for those who seek the yoke of the Priesthood of the Church." I take no pleasure in noting that in the same issue of "Jubilate Deo" appears the photograph of a prominent priest well known in the gay community for his near brushes with the law for turning his rectory into a trysting place for rent-boys: were you to quiz him, I am sure that he sees it all as a part of the traditions you and he espouse, and that when he repents after each episode, he sincerely hopes that he will not be so sorely tempted again next time.
"Integrity" means wholeness. You preached brokenness to the Convention. I have little doubt that seated with me next to some watering hole in the lesgay community you would say a few kinder words, but Father, as one who has suffered some abuse from the very congregation whom you addressed, I assure you that you won't help me bring the good news of living water by promoting the stereotypes and misunderstandings which abound in your message once you get back to the priests and the Levites in your Cathedral.
Faithfully,
Louie
********************
*WHAT JESUS SAID ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY*
by the Rev. Dr. Timm Peterson
One of my pet peeves has been the notion that in the Bible Jesus said nothing whatsoever about homosexuality. We all have seen the brochure of the Evangelicals Concerned and the Universal Fellowship of the Metropolitan Community Church. The first page says "All Jesus said about homosexuality," and then the inside page is blank. I never did understand the "good news" about this pamphlet.
As a Feminist-Liberation Theologian, I had my hermeneutical suspicion about all of this. Finally I decided to examine Jesus' words more carefully. Surely there is *some* word, some good news for lesbians/gays in the scriptures.
In Jesus' Sermon on the Mount there is a passage that reads: "Call no brother/sister raca or you will be sent to the Sanhedrin." (Matt. 5:22) I was always curious about why raca was never translated in some versions and in others raca would be in the footnote. The translation "fool" made no sense to me, nor did the legal sentence against the slanderers -- until I discovered that raca may very well mean "faggot" in Aramaic, a street-language term that was pointedly anti-lesbian/gay in that culture.
This translation helped me to explain the cultural situation as well. The Romans had legal protections for their military soldiers who were in holy unions (same-sex marriages). In fact, Roman law had required the Jewish Council, the Sanhedrin, to come up with its own law to punish Jews who stoned or defamed lesbian/gay couples of Roman citizenship; thus the phrase "or be sent to the Sanhedrin."
All of a sudden, it became clearer to me. Jesus' Gospel of good news concerning God's grace and universal salvation extended to lesbians and gays. What Jesus was saying at the peak of his preaching career to a predominately heterosexual, Jewish audience was that he supported the controversial pro-lesbian/gay Roman law and homosexual marriages. And he even went further, not only against gay-bashing violence but even slurring, stereotyping language.
For me now the Bible is no longer a weapon of homophobia. Consistent with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said lesbians, gays, heterosexuals and celibates are included in God's domain just as we are. At last there is a gospel for all of us!
Sources:
Fioenza, Elizabeth Schussler. "In Memory of Her." New York: Crossroad, 1989
Gamick, Jeannine, ed. "Homosexuality in the Priesthood and the Religious Life. New York: Crossroad, 1989
Harrison, Beverly. "Making the Connections." Boston: Beacon Press, 1985
Heywood, Carter. "Touching our Strength." San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989
Horsley, Richard A. "Jesus and the Spiral of Violence." San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987 ----- The Reverend Dr. Timm Peterson recently completed his Doctor of Ministry degree from Chicago Theological Seminary. He is a United Church of Christ minister in the Chicago Metropolitan Association and he teaches at Daley College. Timm served as Associate Minister for Lesbian/gay Outreach at Peoples Church of Chicago.
This article first appeared in the March 1991 issue of "WAVES," the newsletter of the United Church Coalition for Lesbian/Gay Concerns and is reprinted with permission.
********************
*UPDATES FROM EURRR* *TO EURRR IS HUMAN, TO HAVE INTEGRITY IS DIVINE*
ANGRY LISTENERS HANG UP ON EURRR PHONE CAMPAIGN
The first foray of Episcopalians United for Revelation, Renewal, and Reformation (EURRR) into telephone soliciting ran into some static on the line in February and March when angry listeners charged that the calls were out of line.
The recent telephone campaign was one of several attempts by the right-wing Episcopal organization to raise money in its attempt to influence the upcoming General Convention.
The Rev. Todd H. Wetzel, executive director of EURRR, said the fund-raising campaign, which contacted over 50,000 Episcopalians between December to February, was a carefully put-together presentation that asked people to help fight three issues in the church: the ordination of "practicing homosexuals," the blessing of gay and lesbian relationships, and inclusive language texts.
Although Wetzel estimated that a fraction of the calls were "too aggressive and pushed too hard for money and offended some people," he said that the campaign was successful overall and had few problems. However, complaints from a number of dioceses across the country--including Arizona, Connecticut, Lexington (Kentucky), Rio Grande, Massachusetts, Southern Ohio, and Western New York--have contained serious criticisms of the tactics of the campaign.
In each case, Episcopalians were reportedly told that their help was needed because, according to the solicitors, Presiding Bishop Edmond L. Browning was actively favoring the ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians. A separate EURRR fund-raising letter last fall also raised a storm of controversy when it made similar accusations. Browning subsequently characterized the EURRR's summary of his position as a "total fabrication." [See "News & Notes," Winter, 1991.]
In the Diocese of Western New York, the recent telephone solicitation took on a local spin. Parishioners from two local parishes were asked to contribute $40 to $50 because "your bishop supports the ordination of homosexuals and the blessing of gay unions and we need your help in order to fight this at General Convention."
"I respect the intention of Episcopalians United in their goal of maintaining what they believe to be important traditional positions for our church," wrote Bishop David Bowman of Western New York in a public statement repudiating the telephone campaign, "but it angers me and makes me distrust them when they make misstatements about my position on any subject without any basis, and in fact, largely for the purpose of raising money."
Bowman said that he is on record as supporting the resolutions of the 1979 and 1988 General Conventions regarding the ordination of lesbians and gay men. [ed. note: What 1988 resolution regarding the ordination of gays and lesbians? There were none.] He acknowledged that the EURRR had a right to call anyone it wished in order to solicit money or support, but it had "no right to quote me inaccurately and out of context, and I resent it."
The Rev. Bryant Kibler, vicar of St. John's Church in Corbin, Kentucky, said he received two calls in one day from someone who didn't realize he was a priest. "The implication was that they were under the auspices of the church as an official functionary of the church," Kibler said of EURRR. "They never said that, but they certainly gave that impression." [ed, note: Fr. Kibler may simply have been confused. The Rev. Edwin Garrett of Bar Harbor, Maine, reports that the Rector of the parish there became agitated when a parishioner reported the EURRR call as *supporting* lesbian/gay ordinations!]
The Rev. Kenneth Clark, acting dean of St. John's Cathedral in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said calls were made by someone who had obtained the parish directory. He said the caller implied that the call was being made with the approval of the cathedral, and reported on the "terrible threat to the church" because it was going to ordain gays and lesbians.
"Our instructions to these people who were making phone calls was that we were a ministry within the Episcopal Church, which we are," Wetzel said. He said the campaign was successful--5,000 to 7,000 people, or more than 10 percent, agreed to contribute. But he said EURRR is unlikely to repeat the campaign. ----- This article is courtesy of Episcopal News Service and is based on reports by staff of EPISCOPAL LIFE.
EURRR CONDEMNED IN FLORIDA
The Rt. Rev. Rogers B. Harris Bishop of the Diocese of Southwest Florida
Dear Rectors and Vicars:
Last fall the organization calling itself "Episcopalians United" issued a fund-raising letter which attacked the Presiding Bishop of our Church. Bishop Browning denounced that letter as a 'total fabrication.' Yet this organization refused to retract the letter. Apparently it was successful in bringing them many contributions of money.
I consider their letter deplorable, and their refusal to retract it worse. Presiding Bishop Browning has my total and complete confidence, trust and support. I have requested that my name be removed from their mailing list because I do not feel I could have any confidence in anything said in their publications.
You and your people should know that the organization called "Episcopalians United" is not an agency of the Episcopal Church, that it has no standing in the Diocese of Southwest Florida, that it will have no influence with our Bishop, and that I do not support it in any way.
God bless you and all your people. ----- Our thanks to LIVING REALITY, the newsletter of Integrity/Western Massachusetts for the letter from Bishop Harris and to the newsletter of Integrity/Tucson for the title for this article.
ONE OF EURRR'S RECENT FUND RAISING LETTER
In this letter, EURRR makes it clear that while they are obsessed with homosexuality, it is probably for purely political reasons; they see it as a winning issue. Their real agenda is to wrest control of the Episcopal Church from what they see as liberal domination.
February 1, 1991
Ms. Dorothy J. Fuller [ed. note: Dorothy Fuller, co-chair of Integrity's legislative effort at General Convention is an alternate deputy and hence is on the EURRR mailing list.]
Dear Ms. Fuller:
It's really heating up! Less than five months to perhaps the most important General Convention in our Church's history and the liberal church leaders who plan to control that Convention are working hard to make that happen. A few examples:
The Rev. J. Robert Williams, an avowed practicing homosexual whose ordination by Newark's Bishop Spong was a Church scandal, is openly blessing "gay marriages."
The Rev. Walter Szymanski, Canon for Special Ministries of the Diocese of Rochester, NY, has performed some 60 of what he calls "discreetly official" blessings of same sex unions. [ed. note: Fr. Szymanski is also on Integrity's legislative team at General Convention.]
The Rev. George Regas, Rector of Pasadena's All Saints Church and a prominent figure in the liberal leadership of our Church, has announced he would begin blessing same-sex unions.
We've seen this pattern before! Break the law. Then, do it enough to make it appear "normal." Then say we must change the church canons because they no longer reflect "normal" practice.
And, this is how they plan to gain approval for the ordination of practicing homosexuals and for blessing same-sex "unions."
At the same time, they've unleashed an insidious attack on you, me and other mainstream, Bible-believing Episcopalians who find these radical actions contrary to the teachings of our faith and morally repugnant.
* To believe in the authority of the Bible brings charges of being narrow-minded, fundamentalist, or a "biblicist."
* To oppose gay and lesbian lifestyles brings charges of being "homophobic" or reactionary.
* To question the views of radical feminists brings the charge of being "sexist."
In this manner, *the present liberal leaders of our Church, although they truly represent only a tiny minority, seek to totally discredit the concerns of the majority.*
In this manner too, they seek to intimidate the majority into silence by the false concept that it is somehow un-Christian to stand for the Gospel, to speak the truth about homosexuality, and uphold the traditions of the Church.
Well, it *won't work this time*. We will *not* be intimidated into silence. We will stand up for our beliefs, for our faith, for everything Jesus Christ has called us to witness.
But with the General Convention so close at hand, I need your help -- *quickly*. Your financial help, yes, we could not exist without that, but more than that.
I need you to become directly involved, to fight back against the intimidation of the tactics of our liberal leaders, and to stand up for what you know is right.
Here's what I'm asking you to do. If you can send a gift today of at least $25, I'll send you a free copy of "Homosexuality and the Bible" from our new Resource Library of videotapes.
In it, the Rev. Dr. Peter Moore examines the issues of homosexuality in the light of Biblical teaching, *not* in a homophobic manner but in a straightforward scriptural analysis.
I want you to look at this tape and see and hear what Dr. Moore has to say.
*And*, I want you to share the tape with friends, neighbors, relatives, anyone you know who is concerned about our Church or who would be interested to see what's going on.
We need more people to join us in our effort. But there's no time to waste. Please send the enclosed Stewardship Statement *today*. I'll send your copy of "Homosexuality and the Bible" by return mail.
Thank you and God bless you. Pray for Peace.
Yours in Christ,
The Rev. Todd H. Wetzel Executive Director
********************
*CLAUDIA'S COLUMN*
My dear Sisters and Brothers of Integrity,
General Convention is upon us. The debate whether or not to ordain openly lesbian and gay persons weighs heavily on my spirit. As I contemplate this debate, I am continually reminded of my process as a lesbian called to ordained ministry, a process not unlike many other of our ordained brothers and sisters. This is a process that demanded secrecy, lies, and deception if we were to be ordained and then a continuation of our hidden lives so that we might remain in our places of ministry.
In 1986, following treatment for alcoholism at The Pride Institute (a treatment center exclusively for lesbians and gay men), I returned to my parish. The vestry demanded to know where I had received treatment. In order to continue the honesty and recovery that I began in treatment, I came out to them. They made the decision that I must then come out to the entire parish...which I did the following Sunday. In less than 24 hours, nearly 80% of parish pledges were withdrawn and I was told by the vestry to resign "for the good of the parish."
In grief, pain, anger and frustration, I began writing as a means of sorting through this experience. So that you might also understand the feelings and experiences of so many of us who are lesbian or gay and ordained, I share this writing with you.
I am a priest called by God to celebrate the Sacraments, To lead congregations in worship, to assist in Christian Education, To read, study and preach the Gospel I am a lesbian priest, whose call has been subverted By a congregation who believes that lesbians cannot fulfill priestly ministry.
"Have I done something...anything out of line?" I ask. "You're a sinner; a lesbian." "Moreover, you act as if you're proud and have no intention to repent of your sin."
I AM proud. It's taken me 36 years to feel proud And to publicly acknowledge my pride. "What is my sin?" My pride? My love of women? My person?
Indeed, I do love women... I'm a lesbian! I've had one partner and I was faithful to her. How many non-lesbian or non-gay parishioners can honestly claim that?
"What is my sin?" I continue to ask. That I'm sexual with women? That I seek intimacy with them? Of course I do... I'm a lesbian!
"Have I acted out inappropriately?" I've not made love in public places. In fact...there haven't even been lovers in the rectory.
"Does my being a lesbian truly keep me from being a good priest?" Only if your thoughts and questions regarding my life and bedroom Become all consuming and inappropriate issues for you.
Look at me honestly, please, and see a woman, a lesbian called by God to be a priest. Because you have discovered an unknown part of me... That I am lesbian You have disregarded my call, my personhood, my priesthood.
********************
*WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES IGNORES LESBIAN/GAY ISSUES*
by Kim Byham
The World Council of Churches (WCC) meets only once a decade. The Seventh Assembly was held in Canberra, Australia's capital city, February 7 to 20, 1991. According to Betty Thompson, writing in "Christianity and Crisis," "*[T]out le monde* - Protestant and Orthodox - was there: Archbishop of Canterbury-elect George Carey, various Orthodox archbishops, Pope Shedounda of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt, feminist theologians, liberation advocates, prelates of every description,children, youth, the 'differently abled,' and the perennial Carl McIntyre, the 84-year-old ultrafundamentalist minister who has protested at every WCC assembly." But *tout le monde* didn't include lesbian and gay Christians. The Metropolitan Community Church is excluded from both the National Council of Churches and the WCC. No deputation from any church included openly lesbian or gay persons.
It didn't have to be that way. I first raised the issue of the Episcopal Church's delegation in 1988 with the Presiding Bishop. At that time the appointments were "far away" and he promised to "consider my suggestion" at the appropriate time. I'm not sure when the "appropriate time" was, but when I met with him in 1990, the appointments had already been made, and no lesbians or gay men were included.
The issue was never raised on the floor of the assembly. Our concerns were included in a "laundry list" discussed at a women's caucus. This means even less was done than had been done at the previous assembly. In the Sixth WCC assembly in 1983 in Vancouver, British Columbia, Issue Groups 5 and 7 requested that a study be conducted in relation to sexuality. This request was endorsed by the WCC Central Committee at its 1984 meeting in Geneva which requested the Sub-Unit on Education to undertake a study, stating that the *first* phase should consist of a compilation of statements made by WCC member churches on sexuality and related concerns. A document in the form of a compendium of statements was completed by the Sub-Unit in September, 1986. Apparently this document was never distributed. No "second stage" has been reached and the most recent assembly is further evidence of this head-buried-in-the-sand phenomenon.
The Episcopal Church's official delegates were: Presiding Bishop Edmond L. Browning, The Rev. Fran Toy (Berkeley, CA), George McGonigle (Austin, TX), Judy Conley (Mt. Carmel, CT), Jennifer Rehm (Ronkonkoma, NY), Tolly Estes (Ft. Thompson, SD), Virginia Norman (Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic), Sarai Osnaya (Mexico City, Mexico), Bishop James Ottley (Balboa, Panama), and The Rev. Wang Hsien-Chih (Tainan, Taiwan).
While expressing disappointment and frustration with the plenaries and elections, Episcopal participants interviewed after the assembly by Jim Solheim of Episcopal News Service, said that they were deeply impressed by the sheer breadth of the cultural experience, especially the rich variety of worship offered at the assembly. George McGonigle, a lay delegate, said that the experience of gathering daily in worship was the high point for him.
McGonigle spoke for many in the delegation when he expressed an annoyance with how the plenaries on public issues were run. "They did not represent the best of what the church has to offer," he said, "and certainly didn't permit the Spirit to blow through the assembly." McGonigle said that he had expected lively debate, "but so many viewpoints weren't even heard. I expected a more balanced, penetrating experience."
Judy Conley, President of the Union of Black Episcopalians, said that she had never attended a meeting that expressed such inclusivity, especially in worship, "and it worked so well." For her, worship was "a very strong thread that ran through the whole assembly."
Prof. Fran Toy of Church Divinity School of the Pacific and others expressed pride in the balance of the delegation from the Episcopal Church. It was one of the few delegations that met the suggested WCC guidelines for representation of women, youth, laity, and ethnic minorities. The conspicuous imbalance of many delegations increased tensions, especially during the elections to the Central Committee and Presidium.
The Rev. David Perry, executive of the Episcopal Church's Education for Mission and Ministry office and an accredited visitor to the assembly, pointed to the composition and balance of the Episcopal delegation as "an expression of our intention to include voices that represent our whole church." And he said that he still has some hope that the Holy Spirit "can break down some of the barriers and help us to act in some new ways."
The Episcopal Church's youngest delegate, Jennifer Rehm, said that she was "still very disappointed the way youth were represented." She added that she was "very encouraged" by the inclusion of a youth among the eight presidents of the WCC but wasn't convinced that a youth president represented a serious change in attitude "because young people still aren't being taken seriously. "She said that she found the attitude toward youth in much of the assembly "condescending" and "very irritating--and we have an incredible amount of vision--we can see through much of what is happening. Maybe that threatens some people."
Rehm contended that youth are not limited to a single set of issues but are able to "cut across lines and deal with present and future issues. "She described late-night conversations among a diverse group of youth "where we managed to share and communicate about our churches. We left with a great sense of community that seems to be lost in much of the rest of the church."
"The WCC is locked in by its quotas, not allowing the Holy Spirit to move," Rehm added. The WCC must move beyond such quotas because "we're not simply playing a numbers game." She observed that youth and women, both marginalized, found ways to cooperate during the assembly.
Hopes that the WCC was ready to adopt an emphasis on *Justice, Peace, and the Integrity of Creation* (JPIC) for its future work were not realized, according to several participants. Endorsed by the WCC Assembly in Vancouver, and energized by an international conference in Seoul, Korea, the JPIC vision of seeing the church's role in more holistic terms did not impact the WCC Assembly in Canberra as much as some had hoped. The JPIC meeting issued covenants and affirmations that it said it hoped would undergird the WCC in all its future work.
Despite "lots of shouting and not enough listening and reflecting at the assembly, [the WCC] is still the only available visible expression of Christian unity in the world today," said Dr. William Norgren, ecumenical officer of the Episcopal Church, who attended as an ecumenical observer. "That unity may be hidden in many ways, but it is there, and the fact that it persists is profound," he added. "God has done and will continue to do something through the WCC--despite its obvious divisions." ----- Large portions of this article are taken from the Episcopal News Service release of March 21, 1991, by James Solheim.
********************
NEWSLETTER COMPETITION
Once every three years, outstanding chapter newsletters are honored at Integrity's National Convention. The next awards will be presented in July, 1992 at the convention in Houston. There are two categories: Small Chapters (39 or fewer members) and Large Chapters (40 or more members). Winners in 1989 were "Integrity/Austin News" and "Outlook" (Integrity/New York). All chapters are eligible. No entry form need be completed. Awards will be based on *all* issues of the newsletter for 1991. Nominations will be made by Director of Communications, Kim Byham, so if your newsletter is not presently being sent to Kim or his life partner, Scott Helsel, please see that past and future 1991 issues are sent to the editorial office.
********************
*WHY I AM GOING TO PHOENIX (AND HOW I'LL ACT WHEN I GET THERE ...)*
by Sue Thompson
I am going to Phoenix for General Convention. I am using up all the vacation I have earned at work, it has cost my partner and me around $900 in plane fare and it will be hotter than Hades. And I have no choice about going. A series of events over the past few weeks has made it clear to me just how important it is that I be there. They have helped show me how I must act once I arrive as well. A little background information is necessary here.
The first weekend in April I attended a forum at the Cathedral of St. Philip in Atlanta. At that forum, I spent three hours listening to approximately 35 people tell our deputation to General Convention that full acceptance of gay people into the church would result in a serious loss of income for the church, would ruin the decade of evangelism, would be a threat to the family and would cause the downfall of the Episcopal Church in general. The 225 folks who didn't speak applauded everyone who did unless it was one of the six of us who spoke in favor of our full inclusion within the church.
The following weekend I was privileged to represent Integrity at a meeting of the National Episcopal Cursillo Committee where I also talked about inclusion. This time, it was about being included in the leadership of the Cursillo Movement. These people were far gentler than those I encountered the previous weekend. I believe they were doing the best that they could given the level of knowledge they had about our oppression within the church. I hope Integrity will stay in dialogue with the Cursillo Movement, each group learning from the other.
A couple weeks later I had occasion to experience a promising approach to reconciliation and coalition building. I came away feeling that the approach was the one hope I saw for building consensus within the church regarding our full inclusion.
In early May, I attended most of an ordination service. I had to leave before the service was concluded because it was simply too painful to stay any longer. I knew I was in trouble when I could not in good conscience make any of the congregational responses called for in the service leaflet. As the service progressed, I realized that my presence alone implied my tacit approval of what was occurring, whether I spoke or whether I didn't. I had violated my integrity simply by being there and I knew I had to leave. I waited for a relatively discreet moment to slip out and left the service. I left because my presence endorsed my church's oppressing me. My departure removed my endorsement but it cost me participating in the Holy Eucharist as well. The rage I felt was deep and violent. The pain I experienced was much greater and far more intense than that of being bashed at the April forum.
I have avoided attendance at weddings since I came out roughly ten years ago. I know now that I will not attend any more ordinations, either. But what do I do when participation in any Episcopal church service becomes an endorsement of a church who consistently denies me all of the privileges of full membership? What do I do when attendance at a Sunday morning service in my own parish becomes a violation of my integrity? If I stay, I am supporting my own oppression. If I leave, I deny myself the most vital supports available to me in my growth as a follower of Jesus Christ, Holy Eucharist and Christian community.
I think that maybe for the first time I understand those Bible stories about the pearl of great price. I am in danger of losing my church. I have no choice but to do everything within my power to work against that eventuality.
So, I am going to Phoenix.
Interestingly enough, the same events which have convinced me of the need to be there have also shown me how to behave when I arrive.
The three hours spent being bashed at the Cathedral taught me the futility of trying to argue Scripture (I don't accept their interpretations; why should they accept mine?), the ugliness of name calling (They didn't like being called gay bashers any more than I like being called a practicing homosexual), and the uselessness of trying to reason with people who are not open to considering anyone's opinion that varies from their own. I wasted my opportunity to speak by reacting to their pronouncements and accusations instead of speaking about my beliefs and experiences. At General Convention, I want to be proactive, not reactive. I don't want to get sucked in to fruitless win-lose debates, name-calling episodes or Bible thumping. I will speak from my experience, sharing with others what I know to be true for me.
My time with the folks from the Cursillo Movement taught me that talking *with* people is far more effective than lecturing or scolding. By explaining why we felt their actions had been non-supportive *and* by listening to their intent and concerns as well, I believe we have established the beginnings of a relationship from which we can work together to support one another's ministry in the Episcopal Church. I want to listen at General Convention as well as explain "my side".
In experiencing a new approach to reconciliation and coalition building, I have learned that I am a peacemaker. I realize how important it is, and how healing it can be, to find something I have in common with those who disagree with me. I believe one of the reasons our meeting with the Cursillo Committee was successful was because those of us who represented Integrity had also been active in the Cursillo Movement. We made it clear that we already had something in common; that provided us a point from which to begin. As strongly as I disagree with those who don't want me in this church, I must also acknowledge that this church is as important to them as it is to me. We obviously differ widely on what will make it healthy, but we are both concerned for its well-being.
My experience at the ordination service has shown me that being a peacemaker does NOT mean "peace at any price." I know now how vital it is to maintain my integrity as I work for my rights within the Episcopal Church. By participating in the service of Holy Baptism, I have vowed to respect the dignity of every human being. That includes those who would have me excluded from full membership in the church. I am called by Jesus to respond in love, not in anger, to whatever statements, accusations or slanders are made about me or my lesgay family. I am committed, with God's help, to making calm, quiet, thoughtful and, hopefully, thought-provoking responses when dealing with those with whom I strongly disagree.
Since the beginning of April, I have been bashed by angry, fearful, judgmental people who consider themselves devout Christians and I have met with people whom I believe simply do not understand the extent and subtlety of our oppression and how they were contributing to it. I have experienced an approach that offers hope for consensus. I have felt the pain of violating my own integrity and recognized within myself incredible rage directed at the institution of the Episcopal Church.
By the time you read this, I will be in Phoenix. I am proud to serve as a part of Integrity's presence there. Please keep "us," "them," and our church in your prayers.
********************
*BISHOP PROPOSES BINDING CANON ON SEXUAL MORALITY OF THE CLERGY*
by Jeffrey Penn
It is time for the Episcopal Church to define its expectations of the clergy in the area of sexual morality, according to a bishop who will introduce a new canon at the General Convention in Phoenix.
Bishop William Frey has announced that he will propose a canon saying that "all members of the clergy of this church...shall be under the obligation to abstain from sexual relations outside of Holy Matrimony."
Frey, former bishop of Colorado and now dean of the Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Ambridge, Pennsylvania, said in an interview that his proposal "would bring clarity to the church's position on sexuality issues."
The Frey proposal would not require a vow of chastity per se on the part of clergy, but would, in effect, obligate them to such a lifestyle based on their promise at ordination "to uphold the doctrine [and] discipline" of the church. "I believe that Holy Matrimony is the biblical sexual ethic. Anything else is outside the bounds of the church's position," Frey said.
In a letter to bishops seeking cosponsors of his proposal, Frey asserted that the canon would recognize an existing "double standard" between expectations in the church of laity and clergy. "Clergy are expected to provide `effective examples in word and action.' In other words, they are to be role models," he wrote.
Frey said that his proposal would address the need to establish clear standards for defining sexual misconduct by clergy in the face of a rising number of lawsuits. Frey is a defendant in a case concerning a priest under his supervision, dating from the time when he was bishop of Colorado. "I admit that a canon will not solve our problems, but I believe it will lessen our liability and exposure in those cases where sexual misconduct is alleged," Frey said.
"ALSO" ADDRESSES LESBIANS AND GAY MEN
Frey said that his proposal would also address the debate in the church on the subject of lesbians and gay men in the clergy. "Homosexuals would be included in my proposal. I'm not in favor of ordaining [noncelibate] homosexual people. I have no trouble with them if they lead a celibate life," he said.
Frey acknowledged that his proposal would be pitted against a resolution of the Standing Commission on Human Affairs that would leave the question of fitness of all candidates to be ordained--including homosexuals--to local bishops and Commissions on Ministries. "If nothing else were being proposed, I might not propose this," Frey said. He added that an earlier proposal offered by Bishop John Howe of Central Florida "would likely be withdrawn." [editor's note: Resolutions, once submitted, cannot be withdrawn, though a letter from Howe to the committee considering his proposed canon could have that effect.]
Frey asserts as many as 15 bishops have told him that they would cosponsor his canon. Frey reported that he received "many expressions of support" when he presented his proposal at a recent meeting of the Iranaeus fellowship, an informal study group of 60 bishops who support traditional teachings of the church. "I haven't kept a count, but I estimate that 40 to 45 bishops have expressed support for the canon," he said.
NOT SURE HOW IT WILL BE ENFORCED
Frey admitted that he was not sure how his canon might be enforced throughout the church. "I'm not interested in witch hunts, and I never have been. I am not trying to add another cause for deposition," Frey said. "But I think we must state what the ideal is. We need to announce the ideal whether we are able to live up to it or not. This [proposal] is a brief canonical expression of what we said in 1979."
Although the 1979 General Convention adopted a resolution saying that it was "not appropriate" to ordain noncelibate homosexuals, 44 bishops subsequently signed a public statement of dissent saying that they would not be bound by the resolution. Although the House of Bishops voted in its annual meeting in Washington, DC, last fall to "disassociate" itself from the ordination of an openly gay man, the question regarding the binding authority of the 1979 resolution was a major bone of contention.
`AN ACT OF ECCLESIASTICAL DISOBEDIENCE'
Frey was clear that his proposal would bind the bishops who had publicly dissented from the 1979 resolution. "I think it would bind everybody who vows to obey the constitution and canons of the church," he said. If his proposal is adopted by the convention, Frey said that future ordinations of noncelibate homosexuals would be an "act of ecclesiastical disobedience."
Although the new canon would be binding on the church, Frey claimed that it would not stifle discussion on the matter of human sexuality. "Dialogue is going to continue as long as there are people in the church. The fact that a certain issue is under discussion does not mean that the previous resolution is therefore out of bounds while we discuss it," he said.
Frey added that he hoped the adoption of his proposed canon would help move the church on to subjects other than sexuality. "The sexuality tail is wagging the dog. I'd like to see other issues come to the fore," he said. "Let's get on with sharing the Gospel to a hurting world." ----- Jeffrey Penn is Assistant Director of Communications for the Episcopal Church. This article appears courtesy of Episcopal News Service.
********************
*CHRISTIAN LESBIANS HAVE CLOUT*
A group of 113 Anglican, Protestant and Roman Catholic lesbians from across the United States and Europe who have openly declared their sexual orientation have joined to form Christian Lesbians Out Together (CLOUT). The primary purpose of CLOUT, according to a press release issued by the organization, "is to empower lesbian Christian women and to challenge the churches to which they belong." "For the churches to coerce either celibacy or silence is morally unacceptable to us," said Carter Heyward, an Episcopal priest and a professor of theology at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "For us to submit to this spiritual abuse is to participate in our own oppression and...that of our sisters as well, whether lesbian or not." Led predominantly by Protestant clergywomen, the inter-cultural movement declared that it will struggle against sexism, racism, militarism, "and other structures of domination and violence."
********************
*METHODISTS TO RECONSIDER STATEMENT ON HOMOSEXUALITY*
A United Methodist study committee recommended that the denomination's 18-year-old characterization of homosexuality as "incompatible with Christian teaching" be replaced with a statement acknowledging that the church is "unable to arrive at a common mind" on the issue. The study panel's report, adopted by a 17-4 vote, noted that an unspecified number of church members considered homosexuality acceptable "when practiced in a context of human caring and covenantal faithfulness." The church's General Council on Ministries will examine the report and submit a final recommendation to the 1992 General Conference, the denomination's highest policy-making body. ----- Episcopal News Service
********************
*DEFINITIONS CAN BE TROUBLING* - OR THE HYPOCRISY OF THE FREY RESOLUTION
by Kim Byham
In a period I would prefer to forget, February, 1990, when I was receiving fifteen calls a day from the press, one inquiry stands out in my mind. "What is Integrity's position on monogamy?" I responded, "We've never taken a position on 'monogamy', per se, but we support the concept of equality of obligations as well as of rights within the Episcopal Church." That didn't satisfy the editor of "The Episcopalian," but it certainly should have. My Webster's Dictionary says "monogamy" is Greek in origin, from *mon* [one] plus *gamos* [marriage]. It is defined as (1) "the practice of marrying only once during a lifetime" [archaic] and (2) "the state or custom of being married to only one person at a time." The latter definition contrasts it with bigamy (two marriages) and polygamy (multiple marriages). Obviously the editor of The Episcopalian was relying on a different definition, which I assume was "having sex with only one person at a time." This suggests monogamy is the antonym of promiscuity, which my dictionary defines, in pertinent part, as "behavior...not restricted to one sexual partner." Some wags say the modern definition of promiscuous is "anyone who sleeps with one more person than I do," but the antonym of promiscuity should actually be chastity, at least in Christian terms. My dictionary defines chastity as "abstention from unlawful sexual intercourse." What is unlawful? Under canon law (but not that of the Episcopal Church) it is any sex outside Holy Matrimony, while under civil law it is now only involuntary or paid sex, or in 23 states "sodomy," a term which itself is very broadly defined. The problem with the term chastity is that it has another, now more current definition, "abstention from all sexual intercourse." This makes it a synonym for "celibacy." Rather than buck the tide of modern usage, traditionalists have flowed with the ever changing English language and simply substituted the wordy "monogamy within heterosexual marriage" for chastity.
All of this brings me back to my original answer. As long as lesbian and gay Episcopalians are excluded from Holy Matrimony, then strictures developed concerning it should not be binding on us. Once we are welcomed into full participation in the Church, then let all rules apply equally. But how serious is the Episcopal Church about applying sexual standards to its members? Bishop Hunt said in the House of Bishops a few years ago that 90% of the marriages his clergy perform in Rhode Island are of couples already living together. Obviously that means very nearly 100% have had sexual relations before marriage. I'm sure there's some Latin term for changing the legality of an act merely by changing one's status, but in Christian terms the only way to atone for past sins is through confession and absolution. Please show me the priests who require confession for couples whose marriages they propose to bless. Most parishioners take heterosexual couples living together in stride, and besides, those marriages take place on Saturday afternoon between people they've never seen in church or haven't seen in fifteen years.
In the mean time, the lesbian or gay couple who come faithfully to church every Sunday, who pledge and participate in a myriad of activities, cannot officially have their relationship blessed by the Church at all. (In truth, of course, such services have occurred in every diocese of the Episcopal Church.) Sex outside marriage must either be per se sinful, not sinful at all, or conditionally sinful. Most heterosexual Episcopalians now consider it merely conditionally sinful: it's alright for heterosexuals not currently married to engage in sex, while they would say they oppose adultery, homosexual sex, forced sex, and paid sex. But the statistics indicate that a significant number of heterosexuals, perhaps a majority of the men, engage in adultery and paid sex.
One of my favorite stories, which shows the integrity of one leading self-proclaimed "ex-gay" and the hypocrisy of the Episcopal Church, is of Life Ministries and Calvary/St. George's Church in New York City. Joanne Highley had been conducting a number of "conversion" missions at the church, some highly publicized. When Integrity learned of them, we asked the parish to expel them because of the harm done to most who participate in such "ministries." Bishop Moore joined in the call to the Rector to expel them. The Rector, however, assigned the question to a committee, permitting Life Ministries to remain in the interim. That went on for seven months and the committee never met. But then the upcoming marriage of a young heterosexual couple who lived together was announced in church. Ms. Highley, at the coffee hour, announced that it was inappropriate for the Church to bless them since they had been "living in sin." Somehow the committee which had not been able to meet in seven months managed to meet the following day and Life Ministries was expelled from Calvary/St. George's. The clear message was "gay bashing is fine, but woe to those who bash straights."
Now comes the Irenaeus Fellowship's resolution to amend the canons and the hypocrisy continues:
It is expected that all members of the clergy of this church, having subscribed to the declaration required by Article VIII of the Constitution, shall be under the obligation to abstain from sexual relations outside of Holy Matrimony.
What does this mean? My parents were married by a Justice of the Peace and never had their marriage blessed in church. That didn't prevent my father serving on the Vestry for more than twenty years, nor, of course, would it have prevented him from being ordained. But viewing marriage in a strictly legalistic manner, however, my parents have not been living in Holy Matrimony. And what are sexual relations? My dictionary defines it as "coitus" (the only definition). "Coitus" is defined as the "physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements usually leading to the ejaculation of semen from the penis into the female reproductive tract." My goodness, that definition leaves lesbians and gays out entirely, but we all know that, in fact, we are the only ones against whom this canon would be enforced.
********************
BOARD MEETS WITH PRESIDING BISHOP
by Kim Byham, incorporating a report by Dorothy Beattie
For the first time since its founding in 1974, Integrity's Board met with the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. The meeting took place on March 18, 1991, in the office of the Primate, the Most Rev. Edmond L. Browning, at the Episcopal Church Center in New York City.
Prior to the meeting the Integrity Board wrote Bishop Browning that they were "very concerned that no one [at the Church Center] has responsibility for issues relating to human sexuality or to justice concerns for lesbians and gay men." Bishop Browning pointed to an arrangement made in 1989 whereby Barry Menuez, Executive for Mission Operations, serves as liaison to Integrity's Board. That arrangement has not been satisfactory to the Board, however, since no information has been forthcoming from the Church Center unless specifically requested. Moreover, while Mr. Menuez has been most willing and helpful, his responsibilities necessarily made lesbian/gay issues a low priority. The lack of lesbian/gay representation was conspicuous during the Newark ordination uproar. The Presiding Bishop sought no advice from any lesbian or gay Episcopalians, although he claimed exhaustive consultations throughout the church. Bishop Browning apologized for that blatant omission. However, the Presiding Bishop indicated that there would be no additional staff nor any staff reassigned to address lesbian/gay justice issues on an ongoing basis. There were two positive outcomes: it was decided that Mr. Menuez would speak with Integrity President Bruce Garner monthly and that a staff workshop on homophobia would be held at the Church Center sometime in the future.
The Board had also mentioned in their letter prior to the meeting their concern that the national church had failed to do anything to encourage the dialogue with lesbian and gay Episcopalians which had been mandated by the 1988 General Convention. Bishop Browning admitted this failure but gave no suggestions as to how it could be rectified in the future. He expressed hope that others, such as dioceses or the Commission on Human Affairs, would take the lead on encouraging dialogue.
As Integrity members pointed out, however, the Human Affairs Commission's 1991 Blue Book Report does not provide any suggestions for implementing the 1988 dialogue resolution. Part of the reason, they suggested, is that lesbians and gay men were specifically excluded from membership on the Commission on Human Affairs during the last two triennia when issues of human sexuality were the central focus of its discussions. Integrity's Development Director Paul Woodrum said, "Can you imagine a commission of the church which discusses racism for six years not having any black members?" Bishop Browning expressed hope that inclusion of lesbian and gay members might occur in the next triennium, though he emphasized that appointments of lay and clerical members are made by the President of the House of Deputies.
Communications Director Kim Byham pointed to the contrast between the Presiding Bishop's forthright stand in opposition to the Persian Gulf War and his "unity at all costs, let's avoid offending anyone" stand on lesbian/gay justice issues.
Bruce Garner said after the meeting, "While the meeting was cordial, we told the Presiding Bishop some things he didn't want to hear. We shared with Bishop Browning that his actions, or often his lack of action, were sources of pain to the lesbian/gay community in the Episcopal Church. He clearly had not perceived himself as part of the problem."
It was agreed that the Board and the Presiding Bishop would meet again in October, 1991.
********************
*BISHOP HUNT ON HUMAN AFFAIRS REPORT*
Those who read the Report of the Commission on Human Affairs prior to reading the press reaction to it may think they've missed something. Much of the press reaction is based on an interview with Bishop George Hunt, Commission Chair, conducted by "The Pittsburgh Press."
What the Commission proposed is a resolution to the General Convention recommending that the ordination of candidates to the priesthood should be left to the discretion of local bishops. It does not mention anything about sexual orientation.
"What the resolution does is simply affirm the practice of the church throughout its history in the United States, of leaving those decisions to diocesan bishops and their standing committees," Hunt told "The Pittsburgh Press."
If the resolution is adopted by the convention in Phoenix, "I would hope it would depoliticize those [ordination] decisions to some degree," Hunt continued.
"I wouldn't be surprised if everyone will find some fault with the position we've taken and the resolution," Hunt said.
The statement that sparked controversy was Hunt saying, "My own personal opinion is that passage of the [proposed] resolution would negate the 1979 resolution [which called ordination of 'practicing homosexuals' 'inappropriate.']. If General Convention wants to legislate additional standards for ministry, it will have to be done with a canon change."
Hunt acknowledged that the report of the Standing Commission on Human Affairs would receive a lot of scrutiny in the church, yet he insisted that the opinions of commission members "mirrored the feelings that exist in the church at large."
"I think we heard from virtually every perspective available on the subject," Hunt continued. Although the committee was not unanimous in its conclusions, Hunt said that he believes the commission operated with an attempt to arrive at consensus. "I feel that this commission is the best one I've ever worked on. It has taken an enormous amount of time, but I think we have produced a good, solid piece of work," he said.
********************
*ANGLICAN CHURCH OF CANADA PUBLISHES OUR STORIES*
It is wonderful but ironic to note that simultaneous with Integrity, Inc. spending $7,000 to publish "A Book of Revelations: Lesbian and Gay Episcopalians Tell Their Own Stories," an updated and edited version of "Our Stories" which we distributed at General Convention in 1988, the Anglican Church of Canada has announced that it will publish and distribute without cost the personal stories of nine gay and lesbian Anglicans in a study resource titled "Our Stories/Your Story." It is the product of two years of work by the Working Group on Gays and Lesbians in the Church (WGGL). WGGL is a subunit of the Canadian church's Human Rights Unit.
A press release issued with the 46-page document says it is intended to assist parishes in dealing with the stereotypes of gay and lesbian members of the church. The hope is that it will encourage discussion about sexual orientation and open up within the Anglican community a conversation about human sexuality that will be marked by charity and openness. Each autobiography is followed by a number of questions written by WGGL.
Edith Shore, consultant for the Human Rights Unit, says the study resource does not contain policy statements or recommendations, but it is hoped that it will encourage some parishes to identify themselves as "safe" places which welcome gays and lesbians.
Ms. Shore also says that the Unit hopes to have sexual orientation accepted as one of the non-discriminatory grounds of Human Rights Principles in the church. (This document, first drafted in 1986, continues to be debated at the National Executive Council and the House of Bishops.) If this happens she says it would be much more difficult for bishops to refuse to ordain gay and lesbian candidates.
The Rt. Rev. Terence Finlay, Bishop of Toronto, urges church members to read the booklet and to make their comments on the questionnaire included with the resource. "As far as I am aware there is no anticipated change in our church's position. This is an attempt to help people understand to encourage informed discussion. It is important to hear these stories," said the bishop, "and to reflect on the pain people experience in their life, and at the same time to search for God in the midst of all this."
"Our Stories/Your Story" is available free from the National Resource Centre, 600 Jarvis St., Toronto ON M4Y 2J6, CANADA, or by calling (416) 924-6613. ----- This article is largely based on one which appeared in "Integrator," the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto, Eastertide 1991.
********************
INTEGRITY
Offers a Major New Book:
"A Book of Revelations"
Lesbian and Gay Episcopalians Tell Their Own Stories
Edited by Louie Crew, Associate Professor, Rutgers University
With a Foreword by The Rt. Rev. George N. Hunt, Bishop of Rhode Island and Chair of the Standing Commission on Human Affairs of the Episcopal Church
52 Lesbians and Gay Men, all members of the Episcopal Church, USA, or the Anglican Church of Canada, share their spiritual journeys. Most of the stories are filled with Good News, but there is much pain in their revelations. Yours may be one of the stories.
Integrity presented "Our Stories" at the 1988 General Convention. We decided to publish them as a book in response to that Convention's call for "an open dialogue on human sexuality, in which we, as members of this Church, both heterosexual and homosexual, may study, pray, listen to and share our convictions and concerns, our search for stable, loving and committed relationships, and our journey toward wholeness and holiness."
220 pages $9.95
Ask for this book at your local Episcopal or lesbian/gay bookstore. If they don't have it, ask them to call 201-868-2485 for a price sheet and ordering instructions.
********************
*BOOK REVIEWS*
CROMEY GIVES AID AND COMFORT
Cromey, Robert Warren. "In God's Image: Christian Witness to the need for gay/lesbian equality in the eyes of the church." San Francisco: Alamo Square Press, 1991. $9.95.
Review by Keith McCoy
For many years, Robert Cromey has been a loud, insistent voice in favor of equal rights for lesbians and gays in the Episcopal Church. He is a thorn in the side of the status quo, particularly to the bishops of California, prodding them beyond what their hierarchy-climbing temperament would normally allow.
In these pages, Cromey has collected his thoughts on the matter. He points out the injustices of denying loving, committed couples a blessing, and of finding committed caring priests without parish work simply because of prejudice. He points out the fallacies of holding up the "sin" of homosexuality whilst ignoring the graver sins that afflict our culture. Cromey also pokes holes in the usual arguments against full participation in the church by lesbians and gays, particularly the old chestnut of church unity.
Cromey writes with the ragged rhythms of an impassioned writer. Chapters end sharply. There are abrupt leaps of thought. Ideas tumble into images and back again on each page. While his introduction notes that he is writing to the institutional church, the true audience for this book is really the lesbian or gay reader who needs words of encouragement before returning to the battle.
I would quarrel with two of the author's thoughts. One is that gays and lesbians should use their pledges as weapons to open doors. Elections, petitions, and canonical changes are all fair fame. But the money we offer through the church is an offering to God, not the bishop. The rationale that because the wealthy have done it for years makes it a good tactic for us hardly recommends it.
Second, there is no denying that Cromey is sex-positive. One's sexuality is a gift, and having sex is to be enjoyed. However, the option of self-gratification seems to overwhelm the notion of seeking something special in another person. There is enough rape and physical abuse in the world today, and a true sex-positive relationship should make any encounter mutually edifying. The author skips over that question.
Our community will enjoy the book because it is one that will energize us. There is nothing here to convince the opposition, but that is not its strength. Instead, here is a book of passion which would rev the engine of any discouraged activist. Those who need to gird up their loins to face another convention or conservative will enjoy it. ----- The Rev. W. Keith McCoy is deacon at Grace Church, Plainfield, NJ and is a former convener of Integrity/Central New Jersey.
********************
A Review of "RESCUING THE BIBLE FROM FUNDAMENTALISM" by the Rt. Rev. John S. Spong, Harper San Francisco, 1991. 249p. $16.95.
Review by Alicia Thomas
The Bishop of Newark has given us a thoughtful, thoroughly researched, and thought-provoking discussion of what the core and meaning of the Christian Holy Scriptures are. As products of "Western Civilization," we generally look to our Holy Bible as the ultimate - and sometimes the only - source for spiritual guidance and enlightenment. We are apt to "pick and choose" from our Scriptures those passages or books which seem most clearly to support our personal or group ideas and then to hail those parts as the ultimate authority for all time. This, says Bishop Spong, is what persons who take the Bible literally do (and must do) to maintain their confidence in "Biblical inerrancy" and the Absolute Authority of the Inspired Word of God. Brought up in the fundamentalist tradition, Spong thoroughly understands that view, but now rejects it.
Spong desires to write in "laymen's language" in order to be understood, and he does so admirably. I share his dismay that the average church-goer knows so little of the origin and development of our Holy Scriptures. Do clergy and scholars think that others cannot understand the concept of the multiple traditions and authors of the Old Testament - the "J", "E", "D", and "P" sources? Or that the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke borrow much from both the Gospel of Mark, written previously, and an as-yet- unlocated document "Q", in their narratives of Jesus? Or do they believe that, knowing these things, lay persons will be confused, will have less respect for the Bible (and, by extension, for the ecclesiastical establishment)? One certainly can study and discuss the Bible without benefit of knowing its background in time and place or the process of its coming together, but it becomes a dry, desiccated discussion rather than a lively, touching and inspiring encounter.
In disputing claims of inerrancy, Spong examines the Bible area by area or book by book. He points to the many contradictions and inconsistencies and downright "unchristian" attitudes in the Old Testament. He could not truly worship and honor a God who orders the destruction of small children (Exodus 21:15 & 17), endorses the beating of slaves (Exodus 21:21), or approves the killing of all conquered males (Numbers 31:7). This is a God of Revenge with a capital "R"!! Yet this is the kind of God which the Israelites, as they came to call themselves, claimed as their One God.
In contrast, the events of Jesus' life, work, and death, as experienced and witnessed by the early followers (who were Jewish through and through) was one of "unconditional love." As the present day doctors, the psychologists and the psychiatrists, remind us, loving someone does not necessarily endorse her or his behavior. How God would convey an awareness of His Love in our day is a matter of interesting conjecture--a carpenter? a migrant crop-worker? a scrubwoman? a file clerk? The point of the message still would be that of Love, says Spong, and that is our task today - to find the kernel of meaning; to strip from it the layers of culture, time and place; and to recast or re-present it in this culture, time and place so that the message is unmistakably clear and available to all who will listen. We must "separate...the truth from the container of that truth," says Spong. We can never fully know God; we have no words to accurately describe Him, anymore than we can describe beauty. Yet we must use what language tools we do have to convey the essence of this God of Love.
One of the most interesting portions of Spong's book is his examination of that problematic and prolific letter writer, Paul. Searching for the man behind his words has been a favorite study of scholars for some time. Spong probably is not the first to postulate that Paul's "thorn in the flesh" (which Paul never actually names) is his sexual orientation. Spong concludes that this understanding is the one which best fits the mind-set and the written expressions of that beleaguered and guilt-ridden man. Since homosexuality was anathema to the Hebrews, and punishable by death, Paul, a leading Jewish scholar, can scarcely admit to such terrible wishes, yet he is acutely aware of them. Perhaps he is "more to be pitied than censured" -- unfortunate man! Here is an intellectual, a workaholic, an overachiever, a prolific letter writer, and an outstanding theologian (who is able to recast the Hebraic "living soul" into the Greek thought patterns of "Spirit" vs. "Flesh"), an altogether outstanding and admirable person, yet he is unable to control his thoughts and actions and dares not admit to his basic Being, lest he (also) be killed by fellow Jews.
Given Spong's stated purpose in writing - to find the core of the Bible and to attempt to present it in our concepts - it may not be surprising that that most controversial of its books, the Revelation to John, receives little to no space. The visions of John may well have occurred in what would be called by some "an altered state of consciousness." Can these visions or events be taken seriously? Is there another "non-visible" world surrounding us or existing beside us? Will our world of Time and Place eventually end and only Eternity continue? These are frustrating and thought-provoking ideas. Perhaps Spong will give us his views on these matters, too, in the future.
The bishop takes the Church to task for its insensitivity toward two groups struggling within it. He points out that the position of women as arranged in first century Palestine simply does not make sense for us in 1991. He argues for a broader acceptance and expansion of women's roles in the Church's ministry. In addition, he defends that usually quiet, hard-working group--the gay and lesbian Christians. How can a Church, claiming to be the Body of the Christ who welcomed outcasts, reject persons (whom Christ never criticized) and who also are made in the image and likeness of Him? who share the Divine Spark with all other humans? whose particular insights into Love may be of special value to the Church? In the words of the poster: "God don't make junk."
The greatest concern of Bishop Spong is that the Church will become irrelevant in this or the next generation. If we, the Church, cannot "translate", make relevant today, and communicate the core of the Christ event - this awareness and understanding of God's Love - our faith is doomed to eventual extinction and our Christian family will be looked upon as irrelevant and unnecessary. And if we cannot be twentieth and twenty-first century believers, there will be no twenty-second century Christians! ----- Alicia Thomas is a member of the Phoenix chapter. She attended Union Theological Seminary, N.Y.C. with additional studies under faculty of General Theological Seminary. She received a Master of Religious Education from Union and, later, a Master in Social Work from Arizona State University, Tempe.
Originally from South Dakota, Alicia moved to Arizona some twenty-five years ago and remains there, unburnt, in the desert. She is active in medical social work and enjoys travel, reading, and listening to lively conversations. She plans to retire to a place where she "can see forever," but there is no need to shovel snow.
********************
*FROM THE CHAPTERS*
CONGRATULATIONS TO INTEGRITY/GREATER CINCINNATI
Integrity/Greater Cincinnati's fund raiser to benefit Integrity's presence at General Convention in Phoenix in July was a whopping financial success. They raised $1,200.
Greater Cincinnati doubled its pledge of $500, the amount National requested from the chapter which has 17 members. The fundraiser consisted of a buffet at a gay restaurant. The video of Integrity's presence at the last General Convention was shown and non-members were impressed. It certainly made the group better known in the community and in the church.
Several chapters have pledged nothing toward General Convention. The most prevalent reason given is "We don't have any money." However, chapters were never asked to allocate money for General Convention; rather, beginning in 1989, they were each asked to *raise* money for General Convention. Integrity/Greater Cincinnati, a small chapter with a tiny treasury, provides a good illustration of what can be done if a chapter is willing to work.
********************
*CHAPTER CERTIFICATIONS/DECERTIFICATIONS*
At the Board meeting of March 15-17, 1991, the following new chapters were certified: *Integrity/Baltimore*, *Integrity/Central Florida* (Orlando), and *Integrity/Southland* (Los Angeles).
*Integrity/Twin Cities* was declared inactive because it has ceased meeting. It was moved to declare the following chapters inactive, with final action to be taken at the October meeting:
*Northeast Region* - Integrity/Harrisburg (3 members, not meeting, no questionnaire, no address), Dignity-Integrity/Rochester (no questionnaire)
*Southern Region* - Integrity/Dallas (no questionnaire), Integrity/Mississippi (no questionnaire), Integrity/Triangle (no questionnaire), Dignity-Integrity/Tulsa (no questionnaire)
*Midwest Region* - Integrity/Ann Arbor (4 members, not meeting), Integrity/Bloomington (no questionnaire), Integrity/Northeast Ohio (no questionnaire)
*Western Region* - Integrity/Spokane (no questionnaire), Integrity/Tucson (no questionnaire).
*Integrity/New Mexico* was declared no longer in-formation since it has ceased meeting.
********************
*INTEGRITY CHAPTER GIVES LOVE AND HOPE*
by H. A. Morris and others in the Charlotte chapter
Charles was born and grew up in Charlotte, North Carolina. After graduating from high school and realizing that he was a gay man, he ventured to Los Angeles where he lived for a number of years and made many good and supportive friendships in California.
Three years ago he was told that he was HIV-Positive. This was devastating for Charles, and he wanted to return to Charlotte to be with his family and have the support of the church where he grew up. When he told his family of his health problem, they turned their backs to him. His pastor phoned and advised him that he should be sure to be at the next Sunday's service. He did attend, of course, and at the mid-point of the service Charles was asked to come forward to the pulpit. The minister looked at Charles and said, "Charles you have AIDS, and we know WHY you have AIDS. The reason you have AIDS is because you are a homosexual. We want to inform you that we do not want homosexuals in our church. You are excommunicated from the church. Your baptism is revoked, nulled and voided. You are banned from the church. You are damned for eternity. Please leave the church." As Charles walked back up the aisle to the rear door he looked at his family. All heads were turned towards the windows to avoid eye contact with him. He spent a miserable afternoon alone.
A friend told Charles about Integrity/Charlotte and brought him to the meeting at St. Peter's Church. Charles was made to feel welcome and shared Eucharist with the group. He told us of his joy in finding us. We took him to Diocesan-sponsored retreat for lesbians and gay men at Brown's Summit, December 14-16, 1990. There Bishop Harold A. Hopkins, Executive Director of the National Church's Office of Pastoral Development, heard about Charles and his experiences. The bishop asked for the honor of baptizing him. Fifty people attended the ceremony. As the water was poured on Charles' head, large tears came from his eyes. Many of us shed tears with him. Those of us who rode up and back with Charles in the car were moved by the change in this man between the going and return trip. The Episcopal Church had given Charles a new life, and he told us this.
Charles remained in Charlotte and attended a few more Integrity meetings. One Sunday evening he came for the last time when he announced that he had decided to return and live with his friends in California. The next week he took a plane to Los Angeles. He told us time and time again his appreciation of Integrity and what we had done for him. He had made plans already to attend Integrity meetings in Los Angeles. And he wanted to attend confirmation classes in preparation for full membership in the Episcopal Church. ----- This article first appeared in Integrity/Charlotte's newsletter for April, 1991.
********************
*TO OUR WOMEN MEMBERS*
How have your religious beliefs/training affected your sexual identity and orientation? To participate in a study, send request for questionnaire(s) to: Sterling Psychological Associates, R.D. 2 Box 760, Johnson, VT 05656.
********************
*NEAC CONFEREES BUILD EVANGELISTIC BRIDGES FOR "THE DECADE OF AIDS"*
by Cary Patrick
For more than 300 people from across America, expressions of pain, perseverance, grief, joy and hope were the hallmarks of the second conference of the National Episcopal AIDS Coalition (NEAC) at the Cathedral of St. Philip in Atlanta, January 24-26.
In a creative, but poignant shift of words that punctuated the urgency of the AIDS crisis, the NEAC organizers borrowed from the Decade of Evangelism underway in the Anglican Communion, and named their conference, "Building Bridges: Evangelism in the Decade of AIDS."
Throughout the two-day conference, in speeches and small workshops, participants engaged each other with the basic element of successful evangelism--personal stories of faith.
"My stint on the front lines of the AIDS war began in the spring of 1984," said Bruce Garner of Atlanta, in his address to the conference. "I'm not always clear as to whether I was drafted or I volunteered for this service... [but] I am very clear that my involvement with the AIDS crisis has been and continues to be a journey of faith and an integral part of my development as a part of the Body of Christ."
Garner, National President of Integrity, set the tone for the conference with a stirring speech aimed at channeling the anger and grief caused by the AIDS crisis into creative action on behalf of all who are touched by AIDS.
"We've probably all heard the saying: 'When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.' Well, I've found a saying I like a lot better: 'When life gives you scraps, make quilts,'" Garner said.
Garner encouraged his audience to share each other's burdens as the AIDS crisis continues. "There is great comfort in the realization that you are not alone, that your frustrations are not unique, that your experiences share common ground with those of others," he said. "The relief that comes from hearing a story that relates to your own experience--good or bad--restores your faith and revives your strength.
"There is an empowerment in giving of oneself and in working with those who give of themselves," Garner added. "Maybe it's the commonness of our humanity manifesting itself. We sometimes forget about being in this life together with responsibilities for each other. If we truly believe the Gospel we proclaim, we know that our lives are linked by that responsibility--and for us part of that link is the person of Jesus," Garner said.
CHURCH MUST BREAK OUT OF OLD PATTERNS
In his sermon during the principal healing service, Bishop Douglas Theuner of New Hampshire, chair of the Episcopal Church's Joint Commission on AIDS, suggested that the AIDS crisis has provided an opportunity for the church to break out of old patterns of relating. "The times call for us to look at things in new ways. The society of the future is being built at the margins," Theuner said, quoting an African bishop. "And that's where AIDS is. Even the affluent white male who is HIV positive is at the margins, because the ultimate margin is death.
"Jesus, facing death, moved from the center to the margins...," Theuner added. "Because he's the Lord of the Church, we're here to do what he does--to heal."
Although Theuner's sermon was directed toward a theological understanding of healing, members of the congregation sought to embody that understanding in embraces and prayers. The balcony and chancel railings in the Cathedral of St. Philip were draped with large quilt panels from the NAMES Project, and the aisles were filled with people lined up to receive the laying on of hands.
'LIVING IN AN AIDS WORLD'
One of the sections of the conference, titled "Living in an AIDS World," reminded participants of the international dimension of the crisis. The Rev. Eliab Tumwesigye, a canon for chaplains, schools and missions in Uganda, told the audience that fighting AIDS in Uganda has its own set of cultural obstacles. "You find men sharing a wife with their brothers and sometimes their father, as a matter of hospitality," Tumwesigye said. "Whole families become infected."
Yet the church tries to help where possible, although the epidemic is outrunning the resources, according to Tumwesigye. "Our people need to be good Christians who respect their bodies. But some church leaders are very judgmental toward people with AIDS," he said. "They even sometimes say that those who ignore advice and get AIDS are going to hell." Tumwesigye said that he hoped education would help turn the tide in fighting AIDS in his country.
Addressing the conference, a nurse who works with women, children, and drug abusers in Newark, New Jersey, Elsie Pilgrim, added that an effective education program on AIDS is urgently needed in the United States. "Young people don't know about their bodies," she said. And, although the knowledge about the need to use condoms has increased among American youth, the use of condoms has apparently not, according to Pilgrim, who pointed to the rise in the rate of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.
ENERGY ORIGINATES IN FAITH STORIES
In addition to the speeches by Tumwesigye and Pilgrim, participants attended workshops that explored such topics as AIDS in the workplace, AIDS ministry in the Hispanic community, and how AIDS has required the resources and energy of hospital chaplaincies. Yet, much of the energy of the conference originated from the personal stories.
A workshop following Garner's plenary address included testimonies from five men who have lived with HIV infection for a long time. One young man, who had "quit counting after losing 200 friends," said he often wonders, "Why am I still here? I've been given a gift of helping people die...I've held their hands as they died."
"I'll be angry if we miss the chance to minister to others," said another man. And a third man, perhaps summarizing the feelings of his comrades, added, "I try to pray first thing each morning, thanking God for something good that's happened in the past 24 hours."
In another session, the Rev. Martha Sterne, associate rector of All Saints' Church in Atlanta, recounted that her first evangelistic work came as a chaplain at Georgia Baptist Hospital four years ago. Sterne said that she had originally avoided a patient with AIDS, but soon found that she received an incredible blessing from her eventual encounters with him. "His immune system was bad; mine worked fine," Sterne said. "But I caught something from him anyway--telling the truth, love, and faith in Jesus Christ are what I caught."
Bishop Robert Moody of Oklahoma spoke about the relationship of evangelism and AIDS. "A lot of Episcopalians are afraid of the Decade of Evangelism, because if we really became a welcoming community, we'll change," he said. "Sometimes we who work with AIDS or are afflicted with AIDS feel that God is not responding. If the church or priests or God seem slow--be persistent," Moody advised. "When we get together, there can be healing." [ed. note: Bishop Moody has consistently opposed lesbian/gay rights and rites but is reported by Integrity folks in Oklahoma as being "a good man" who is growing.]
AWARDS HONOR THE WORK OF NEAC CONTRIBUTORS
At the closing banquet, awards were presented to people who had contributed to the work of NEAC, including the Rev. Thaddeus Bennett, founding president of NEAC; the Rt. Rev. C. Judson Child, Jr., retired bishop of Atlanta, for his support of AIDS ministry in his diocese and the initiation of the Diocesan Task Force on AIDS in 1986; and the Rev. Canon Earl Conner, former canon to the ordinary in the Diocese of Indianapolis and first executive director of NEAC. ----- Cary Patrick is director of communication and editor of "DIALOG," the newsletter of the Diocese of Atlanta. This article courtesy of Episcopal News Service.
********************
*PRESIDENT'S PAGE*
"BASHING QUEERS FOR JESUS"
As I write this, I have to keep in mind that it will be read at about the time we begin the General Convention of our church. Writing for the future in the past tense provides some interesting challenges.
I feel certain that the title I have given this column will be disturbing to a number of people. I hope so, anyway. Unfortunately, the title represents an activity that is becoming too prevalent in some circles of our church. I know, I was one of the victims of such a bashing session. The people doing the bashing did so with the belief that they were acting according to God's intent.
The bashing I witnessed took place at a meeting that was called as a forum for sharing concerns for the General Convention between the deputation for the diocese and members of the diocese. The forum was to have been directed at numerous convention issues: racism, the environment, etc. Through the efforts of The Episcopal Synod of America (ESA), The Prayer Book Society (PBS), and Episcopalians United for Revelation, Renewal, and Reformation (EURRR), the event was advertized as a forum on homosexuality. Consequently, despite intent, the forum focused exclusively on issues relating to homosexuality: ordination of gays and lesbians, blessing of same sex relationships, etc. It even included a diatribe against books designed to help non gay/lesbian children cope with the stresses of having parents both of whom are the same sex.
We heard the Bible "thumped" by people who were woefully ignorant of its contents. Did you know that Jesus spoke in the Book of Revelation? It was news to me, too! We heard the Bible picked apart, quoted in bits and pieces, out of context and in any manner that might support a cause. We heard the Good News of Jesus Christ hurled at us like sharp edged epithets, condemning us and placing us in the same category as murderers, adulterers, and thieves, in relation to the Kingdom of God.
We even heard a nine year old child lamenting how her classmates' discussions of homosexuality upset her. I'm of the opinion her parents should have been charged with child abuse for putting her at the microphone. We heard several people crying and wringing their hands over how much it would cost the church financially if gays and lesbians were openly embraced by the ordination process and our relationships were blessed by Mother Church. It was very clear that some were trying to put a price tag on salvation. As I recall, the bill for our salvation has been paid. It was paid with the life of Jesus Christ.
We heard a young man tell us about having *once* been gay, having *once* had a lover of several years, but now after having "found Jesus", now having a wonderful wife and children. I had a difficult time getting past the fact that he looked like hundreds of gay male clones I had seen in dozens of places all over the country. The fact that he told us that he had, and in fact *did* come to the forum with a male companion instead of his wife added little to his credibility.
All of this "compassion" for the children of God was couched in the well worn excuse of "loving the sinner, but hating the sin." If I had heard the words one more time, I would have gotten nauseated. The hate part of that axiom was clearly evident, the love part was absent. No one there seemed to be able or interested in explaining how one might successfully implement such a condition anyway.
Lest you think this forum was a "representative" body, note that there were fifteen (15) Integrity members and supporters present. The ESA, PBS, and EURRR had mustered over 300 of their own for the gathering. I honestly do not think anyone believed there would be so many of "them" present. And that's a strategic mistake I hope none of us ever make again. An accurate description of the forum was offered: It must have been like being Black at a Ku Klux Klan rally. I can't help but wonder if early gatherings of the fledgling Third Reich were like this.
The thing most noticeably absent from the forum was the love of God in Christ Jesus. I'm sorry, but bashing - whether emotional, mental, or physical - is a distinctly unChristian activity. The tone was set early in the meeting when participants were noticeably impatient at their own Bishop's lengthy prayers for compassion, understanding, and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit during our deliberations. Hearts and minds were as closed as ears. It was very gratifying to later learn that a priest from the "coalition" was appalled at the venom and hate he heard spewed forth at the forum - he had been one of the initial speakers.
Why have I shared all of this with you? Quite simply, I am calling us all into our responsibilities to work within the power of the Holy Spirit to put an end to this bashing. It is unhealthy for us, for the church, and certainly for society at large. We must be alert to what may happen this summer. We cannot return the bashing with more bashing. We must return the bashing we receive with the redemptive love of God. We must respond in the manner of the one we call Savior: with prayer, love and forgiveness. We are children of God, and we should behave accordingly, regardless of how others behave. Lest any of you think I am incredibly naive, my own first reaction *is* to react rather than to respond. It requires much in the way of self control for me not to respond in anger instead of love, in condemnation instead of forgiveness.
I cannot predict how the actions of our General Convention will affect our lives as part of this church. In a very important way, it will not matter anyway: We will *still* have the work of God before us. We will either be continuing our struggle for a real seat at the table, or we will be teaching those who suddenly find themselves in an "official" relationship with us as a part of the Body of Christ. The work of God will remain for all of us to do. Luckily for everyone on both sides of the issues, the workings of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church do not alter the Gospel's redemptive love.
Pray, sisters and brothers, for the church - she needs it.
********************
*EVANGELICAL CRITICIZES BUSH-BROWNING TALKS ON GULF*
Doug Wead, President Bush's former liaison to U.S. evangelicals, said he would have urged the president not to talk with Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning regarding Persian Gulf policies if he were still on the administration payroll. Speaking at a "Day on the Hill" conference in New Hope, Minnesota, Wead said the meeting was a bad idea because Browning "disagrees with us on foreign policy issues." He further argued that it is not in the president's interest to meet with religious leaders critical of Bush policies because "you don't want to lend the prestige of the president and the White House to your opponents, giving them a platform to speak out on network television and radio, which is what happened." Contrasting his political advice with his personal view, Wead confided that "it was very healthy in this moment of crisis that the president called in Bishop Browning." As a member of Bush's White House staff, Wead last year drew fire from other staff members when he twice objected to the presence of gay-rights leaders at White House ceremonies. ----- [Ed. Note: Mr. Wead, an Amway distributor, was fired by the White House. See "News and Notes," Fall, 1990, p. 20.] Episcopal News Service, FEBRUARY 14, 1991
********************
*PB TO SPEAK AT '92 CONVENTION*
For the first time, a Primate of the Episcopal Church will speak at an Integrity convention. The convention, to be held in Houston, July 10 through 12, 1992, will have as its special guest The Most Rev. Edmond L. Browning, Presiding Bishop. Convention Dean Rob Rynearson reports that work on planning is well underway. Based on the outstanding job Rob and Integrity/Houston did hosting the 1989 Southern Regional Convention, the National Convention is likely to be a great success. For more information, contact Integrity/Houston at P.O. Box 66008, Houston, TX 77266, (713) 963-9344.
********************
*IRISH PRIMATE ON ANGLICAN CONFLICT RESOLUTION*
by William Sachs
An Anglican bishop who lives and ministers amid the violence and polarization of Northern Ireland brought a vision of hope to the Diocese of Virginia during its annual convention. The Most Rev. Robin Eames, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland, said the church is called to witness to Christ even in the most desperate situations by calling for reconciliation and emphasizing the sanctity of the individual.
"Perhaps we are not meant to be the church with neat solutions," Eames observed in an interview. "Perhaps we are the church that exists to go out of existence, the church whose nature is provisional, until all Christians are reunited." When asked about suggestions that the decision to ordain women has led to "impaired communion," Eames quickly responded that "communion has always been impaired; that's nothing new." The struggle is to live together despite that fractured communion. " I think this is a time when we are learning to live with differences," Eames contended. His approach to problems in the church is informed by his experiences in Northern Ireland. And he draws on his training as a lawyer and a negotiator. From these sources he has concluded that the resolution of conflict is "a process, not a fact. You never really know when it happens," he said.
Yet Eames admitted that it is difficult "to show the advantages of such a process. It's easier to be an extremist. Much of the world is looking for certainty, but my world is gray, all shades of gray."
Authority remains a serious issue for Anglicans, Eames observed. "We have been obsessed with authority," he said with a sigh. Because it is not clear who speaks for Anglicans, or how Anglicans can achieve clarity on issues, there will continue to be a "rigorous examination of authority," according to Eames. "We don't want a curia or a centralized authority. But how can we mediate our differences and hope to be more than an amorphous family?" he asked. Eames said that he believes the divisions among Anglicans reflects a tension between a respect for local autonomy and a hunger for uniformity on matters of faith and order.
"Christians often fail in the real world because they have too many preconceived notions about how God is going to work out the salvation of the world," Eames continued. He said that he is prepared for surprises--and those surprises often sustain and invigorate his own spiritual life. "The God that I love and serve lives within the realm of mystery--and the mystery is that he has enough time to put up with me."
Eames contended that it is too easy in today's world to dehumanize the individual. He said that the church "must recapture the value of the individual," and yet that must somehow be balanced with the role of the church, especially where the conscience of the individual and the mind of the church conflict. He asked, What do you say to a priest who feels alienated by the church's decision to ordain women? "Do you say that he must sublimate his conscience to the conscience of the church? We must come to terms with the relation between the church and individuals," Eames concluded, adding that Anglicans may find that remaining in communion with one another is more important than honoring individual consciences. ----- William Sachs is assistant rector of St. Stephen's in Richmond (VA) and is working on a history of Anglicanism for Oxford University Press. This article is an excerpted version of a piece he wrote for the "VIRGINIA EPISCOPALIAN" and appears courtesy of Episcopal News Service.
*********************
CHALLWOOD STUDIO Victor Challenor Paul Woodrum
Custom designed and made ...
EUCHARISTIC VESTMENTS PREACHING GOWNS - STOLES ALBS - SURPLICES - TIPPETS
100 Lexington Ave., Suite 1-L, Brooklyn, NY 11238 Phone: 718-398-2877
******************** _ |
Become a fan of Integrity USA on Integrity is a proud affiliate of Visitor statistics tracked by |
|
Click here to submit website comments, corrections, or updates by e-mail! No good thing will God withhold from those who walk with Integrity. Psalm 84:11 © 2008 by IntegrityUSA unless otherwise stated. All rights reserved. |
