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", alt