Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 23:32:36 -0400
From: Chris Ambidge <chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca>
Subject: Integrator issue 2000-2


INTEGRATOR, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto
volume 2000-2, issue date 2000 04 19

copyright 2000 Integrity/Toronto.  The hard-copy version of this=20
newsletter carries the ISSN 0843-574X

Integrity/Toronto Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON Canada M4Y 2N9

== Contents ==

[2000-2-1]
NOT A LITMUS TEST  /  Chris Ambidge writes about the meeting of the
        Primates in Porto, Portugal, and how they reacted to the Singapore
        ordinations, and (homo)sexual ethics

[2000-2-2]
SINGAPORE CONSECRATORS TALK ABOUT UNITY, BUT DISPLAY A DEADLY=20
        APPETITE FOR SCHISM  /  from the *Church Times* of London

[200-2-3]
INTEGRITY/VANCOUVER CELEBRATES 20 YEARS  /  an on-the-spot
        report by Mayne Ellis

[2000-2-4]
UPDATES ON STORIES WE'VE BEEN FOLLOWING  /  [2000-2-4a]  Bill C-23=20
        passes the Commons  /  [2000-2-4b] The Cambridge Accord

[2000-2-5]
THE PRECIOUS PRESENT  /  Sister Thelma-Anne ssjd's regular column,
        "Ways of Prayer"

[2000-2-5b]
CALLING OUT, COMING OUT, KEEPING OUT  /  Integrity/Toronto's annual retreat


=========

[2000-2-1]

NOT A LITMUS TEST
by Chris Ambidge

At the end of January, there was an irregular ordination service=20
of two men, priests of the Episcopal Church USA, as bishops by=20
the Primates of Rwanda and of South-East Asia.  The two ordained=20
were to go back to the United States and provide missionary aid=20
and oversight to conservative Anglican parishes and those people=20
who are upset at the increasing acceptance of gays and lesbians=20
by ECUSA.  They are particularly concerned with the actions of=20
dioceses which have repudiated Resolution I.10 of the Lambeth=20
Conference 1998, which "reject(ed) homosexual practice as=20
incompatible with scripture".  As we mentioned in the last issue=20
of *Integrator*, the Singapore ordinations certainly put the cat=20
among the pigeons.

Several commentators saw this as a schismatic act.  A front-page=20
article in the *Church Times* of London just after the event gave=20
a clear analysis of the situation, and the challenges that it=20
posed to the Anglican Communion.  That article appears below,=20
article [2000-2-2].

As time went on, many questions arose about the validity of the=20
consecrations. The canons of neither Rwanda nor South-East Asia=20
were followed in the process, both the chancellor and assistant=20
bishop of the diocese refused to be involved in what turned out=20
to be a very secretive event, and it is not even clear that the=20
usually required three bishops actually acted as consecrators.

On 17 February, nearly three weeks after the consecrations,=20
Archbishop George Carey of Canterbury wrote a letter to all=20
bishops in the communion.  One of the things he said was: =20
"whilst recognising John Rodgers and Charles Murphy as faithful=20
and committed ministers of the Gospel, I have to conclude that I=20
cannot recognise their episcopal ministry until such time as a=20
full rapprochement has taken place between them and the=20
appropriate authorities in [ECUSA]".  Since being in communion=20
with the see of Canterbury is one of the defining characteristics=20
of Anglicans, this means Rodgers and Murphy are not Anglican=20
bishops.  The actions in Singapore, Carey said, were damaging to=20
the Communion, and, in their haste and secrecy, sent unhelpful=20
messages about the proper processes of scrutiny and discernment=20
for episcopal appointment.  He called for continued dialogue=20
between the two sides of the question on homosexuals in the=20
church.=20

As Archbishop Carey also said in his letter, the events in=20
Singapore focused even more attention on the long-scheduled March=20
meeting of all the primates of the communion in the city of=20
Porto, Portugal.  Some were hoping for ringing condemnations of=20
the potentially schismatic actions in Singapore; and others were=20
hoping for clear denunciation of the parts of the church which=20
accept practising homosexuals, or which have repudiated Lambeth=20
I.10.  Both groups were to be disappointed.  What instead came=20
from the Porto meetings was a statement showing that the=20
differences among Anglicans on this subject, though major, need=20
not pull the communion apart.

Some were expecting the Porto meetings to debate again the=20
acceptability of homosexual relationships, but that was not=20
directly on the agenda.  Looked at as a group, of the 38=20
primates, 25 or more would probably be of the opinion that same-
sex sexual activity is always and everywhere bad.  Had the=20
primates actually re-covered the ground of the Lambeth=20
discussions, the news would probably not have been good for=20
Integrity supporters.  What the primates did consider, through=20
the lens of (homo)sexual ethics, was how the Anglican communion=20
responds to diversity of opinion.  The question was not "is=20
homosexuality good or bad", but rather "are the differing=20
opinions on homosexuality either fundamental to the faith, or=20
alternatively not divisive, but an area where we can disagree". =20
The primates came down on the latter side; saying that the=20
various attitudes to homosexuals do not threaten the integrity of=20
the church. =20

Archbishop Rowan Williams, Primate of the Church in Wales,=20
commented on the Porto meetings in *The Tablet* in April.  He=20
pointed out that many of the primates are wary of the Communion=20
either becoming heavily mired in the homosexuality debate for=20
years, or splitting over it completely.  While the meeting=20
reminded ECUSA that actions in one part of the church have=20
repercussions world-wide, "the meeting seemed to have no appetite=20
for denunciation, or even direct appeal ... for a moratorium on=20
gay ordinations".  Likewise, Archbishop Williams comments, there=20
was reluctance to censure those involved in the Singapore=20
ordinations.  The primates instead endorsed the Archbishop of=20
Canterbury's letter of February as all that needed to be said on=20
that matter. Williams judged from the conversations in Porto that=20
ordinations like the ones that took place in Singapore are not=20
likely in future.

In their communiqu=E9, the primates were clear:  "We believe that=20
the unity of the Communion as a whole still rests on the Lambeth=20
Quadrilateral:  the Holy Scriptures as the rule and standard of=20
faith; the creeds of the undivided Church; the two Sacraments=20
ordained by Christ himself, and  the historic episcopate. Only a=20
formal and public repudiation of this would place a diocese or=20
Province outside the Anglican Communion.

Archbishop Williams said:  "Obviously there can be dispute as to=20
whether some development constitutes a *de facto* breach of the=20
Quadrilateral (would lay presidency of the Eucharist, as proposed=20
by the extremely Protestant diocese of Sydney, conflict with the=20
second or fourth?  Does the ordination of a practising homosexual=20
overturn the first?); but the stress was laid on formal=20
abandoning of this "grammar" of Anglicanism, in full recognition=20
of the difficulties of deciding what constituted a merely=20
implicit rejection.  On this basis, the debate on sexuality is=20
clearly seen as one which may divide provinces from one another=20
(South-East Asia has already declared that it will not consider=20
itself to be in communion with any diocese that repudiates the=20
Lambeth resolution on sexuality) but does not necessitate=20
decisions about whether a local church is or is not in communion=20
with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and so formally part of the=20
Anglican family."

               +    +    +

It is good to hear that there is significant determination NOT to=20
turn gays and lesbians into a litmus test of Anglican orthodoxy --
or, to switch metaphors, that we are not a rock on which the=20
ship of the Anglican Communion might founder.  Perhaps Resolution=20
I.10 at Lambeth 1998, and the reactions that it precipitated=20
(both with dioceses repudiating the resolution, and the=20
subsequent Singapore ordinations) brought us to the brink of the=20
abyss, at the bottom of which one could envision a shattered=20
Anglican Communion.  The primates seem to want to step back from=20
that brink, in not being prepared to treat diversity of=20
approaches to sexual ethics as a dividing issue.

There are still items which need to concern us.  The communiqu=E9=20
refers a number of times in a cautionary way to "*public*=20
actions" and "*public* blessing of same-sex unions and the=20
ordination of *declared* non-celibate homosexuals" [emphasis=20
added].  To paraphrase our colleagues in Integrity USA, this=20
fixation on public acts and declarations indicates that this=20
issue has less to do with theology and more with cultural biases=20
and protection of some mythic image of the Church. =20

The communiqu=E9 says:  "For some, new life in Jesus Christ, the=20
movement from darkness to light, necessarily involves the=20
recognition that homosexuality is part of the brokenness of human=20
life which needs to be healed by the power of the Gospel. ... For=20
others, even if they share a traditional interpretation of=20
biblical ethics, this should not be identified as the question on=20
which the Church's integrity depends."  Both ends of that dipole=20
look pretty homo-negative.

One has to read between the lines of the communiqu=E9 to find a=20
hint that a positive, affirming stance toward homosexual persons=20
and their loving relationships might also be one of the responses=20
made to the Gospel by faithful people.  The primates encourage=20
dialogue, and call for un-heated language to be used.  Such a=20
call is commendable; but the tone of most of their communiqu=E9=20
speaks against the credibility of the primates as a group in such=20
future communication.

Members of Integrity are not going to stop being public, either=20
about our affirmation of gays and lesbians, or about our delight=20
in our new life in Christ, as we meet him in our own lives or=20
that of the church.  We will continue, of course, to be in=20
dialogue in the church with those with whom we disagree; but=20
we're not going back in the closet.  The tomb was empty, and our=20
closets are staying empty.  The Easter message of new life in=20
Christ is for us all.


=========

[2000-2-2]

   +This commentary was the lead article in the *Church Times* of=20
   +London, England just after the consecrations in Singapore at=20
   +the end of January.  It is copyright (c)2000 , and is reprinted=20
   +here by permission.

SINGAPORE CONSECRATORS TALK ABOUT UNITY, BUT DISPLAY A DEADLY=20
APPETITE FOR SCHISM


On Sunday morning [January 30], the world woke up with two new=20
Anglican bishops in it. It is not, as a general rule,=20
overpopulated with Anglican bishops; nevertheless, these two,=20
Charles Murphy and John Rodgers, will be welcomed by only a=20
minority of their fellows. Frank Griswold, Presiding Bishop in=20
the USA and ostensibly the Anglican leader there, said he was=20
"appalled". George Carey, in a surprisingly brief statement from=20
South Africa, called the Singapore consecration "irregular" and=20
"irresponsible".

In an affair where both sides are speaking cautiously, either to=20
mask their real intentions or to leave room for manoeuvre, it is=20
left to us to speak plainly. The word Dr Carey was looking for=20
was "schismatic", for such was the action of Archbishops Tay and=20
Kolini and Bishop Ruchyahana, the consecrators. And they knew it,=20
too, judging by the clandestine preparation, and the fact that=20
the consecration took place in Singapore, where Dr Tay, on the=20
point of retirement, fears no censure. No other word covers what=20
one of the conspirators called "the releasing of bishops into=20
another province", as one would release hunting dogs or, more=20
charitably, sheepdogs.  [it is now unclear if Bp Ruchyahana=20
actually was one of the consecrators.]

The legitimate way to behave would have been through debate,=20
agreement, a vote, possibly, and permission. The people involved=20
in this consecration argue that these are merely procedural=20
quibbles, institutional niceties that must be set aside when the=20
gospel is at stake. And so, in a sense, they are. But they are=20
also the glue that holds a Church together. Without agreed=20
methods of decision-making, at the heart of which is an=20
understanding of what may be decided at what level of the=20
hierarchy, all that exists is a loose federation of=20
congregations, far removed from the Catholic model of the Church=20
on which Anglicanism is built.

The extraordinary thing is that one of the justifications given=20
by First Promise for this action is the non-use of the authority=20
that they flout. In the double-speak often often used by=20
schismatics, their statement talks of acting "to re-establish the=20
unity that has been violated by the unrebuked ridicule and denial=20
of basic Christian teaching". They criticise the leadership of=20
the Episcopal Church of the USA for failing to use its authority=20
to rein in those who veer too far to the left; they then=20
undermine that authority by veering in the opposite direction.=20
This, also, is a schismatic action:   their statement contains=20
promises of a commitment to the Episcopal Church; but there is in=20
it, too, a clear suggestion that here is the start of an=20
alternative authority structure - province, movement, Church,=20
call it what you will - in direct competition with ECUSA:  "It is=20
time to give the faithful in the US a place to remain Anglican,"=20
*ie* a different place.

The next thing to speak plainly about is the cause of this=20
action. Although no mention is made of it in the First Promise=20
statement, it is homosexuality. Various other matters will be put=20
forward, namely the ordination of women as priests and their=20
consecration as bishops, the marriage of divorcees, attitudes to=20
abortion, and even the revisions to the 1928 Prayer Book=20
(Liturgical Commission beware), all of which, say members of the=20
First Promise coalition, are indications of a fundamental shift=20
away from biblical foundations. But the fact remains that,=20
however burdensome each of these other straws might have been,=20
the break did not come until homosexuality asked to be=20
accommodated on the camel's back.

The expectation that the 1998 Lambeth Conference would somehow=20
calm the debate down now seems wildly optimistic. Dr Carey=20
believed that a restating of the Church's traditional views on=20
sex would reassure the conservatives and restrain the liberals.=20
But he miscalculated, allowing the conservatives to water down=20
the parts of the Resolution crucially designed to mollify the=20
liberals, particularly the strictures about homophobia. As a=20
consequence, bishops friendly to homosexuals but respectful of=20
the opposition to them could not shelter behind Resolution I.10=20
in the way, ignoble but pragmatic, that English bishops have=20
hidden behind Issues in Human Sexuality. In the months since=20
Lambeth, increasing numbers of American bishops have spoken out,=20
willingly or reluctantly, in favour of ordaining homosexuals and=20
blessing gay unions.

Bishop Griswold's abstention in the Lambeth vote was symptomatic=20
of his inability to offer leadership on this issue. This might=20
have been because the two sides had already drifted too far=20
apart; but it was also because he, too, miscalculated, believing=20
in his ability to hold his province together by making=20
concessionary pronouncements. Some of these were, indeed, clever;=20
others were simply obscure. Their overall effect, though, has=20
been to make the liberals suspicious of him, and the=20
conservatives frustrated to the point of independent action.

Single-issue campaigns are fine for pressure groups; but they are=20
poor grounds for the formation of a Church, particularly when the=20
issue is more ethical than doctrinal, a thick soup of biblical=20
understanding, cultural conditioning, personal experience and=20
prejudice. The new bishops' statement refers to "a gospel issue",=20
but those campaigning on the other side, for tolerance and=20
acceptance of homosexuals, also claim gospel justification. A=20
mature Church will enable its members to work and worship=20
together in respectful disagreement until clarity comes. But once=20
the genie of irregularity is out of its bottle, as the experience=20
of the Continuing Churches testifies, other issues have a habit=20
of arriving sooner or later and provoking fresh splits.

All that is some time off, however. Before then will come a=20
period of success for Tay and Kolini's men. Almost immediately,=20
the schismatic character of the consecration will become=20
obscured, as traditionalist bishops in the United States=20
recognise the ministry of the new bishops, giving them a form of=20
retrospective legitimacy. Congregations, weary of the unedifying=20
and time-consuming debate about sexuality, will be keen to=20
affiliate to a body that appears to have put such matters behind=20
it. The incentive to strive for a richer understanding of=20
scripture, because worshippers in the same Church have somehow=20
drawn different conclusions, will be replaced on both sides by=20
disengagement and self-justification.

More importantly, the waters of Anglicanism will be muddied, just=20
at a time when the central bodies are trying, tortuously, to=20
clarify the position of the Anglican Church for the benefit of=20
its ecumenical partners. Bishop Griswold, a key member of the=20
Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, will feel this=20
keenly. For the Primates meeting in Lisbon in March, this will be=20
the critical matter:  how should they cope with a significant=20
body of Christians who call themselves Anglicans, and behave in=20
some respects like Anglicans, but who have chosen to operate=20
outside normal Anglican jurisdiction?  The choices are few: =20
censure, accommodation, or fudge. The first is the only course=20
that will protect the authority and order of the Anglican=20
Communion, but the cost in terms of popularity might be high. It=20
will be difficult to avoid compounding the damage already done to=20
the Communion.

The world on Sunday morning was no different from the world of=20
Saturday; nor is it different now that the cloak of secrecy has=20
been pulled away. What onlookers might chance to see is merely=20
one branch of the Christian Church starting to divide. It is a=20
familiar sight. The fault is that this action - supposedly part=20
of a missionary endeavour to reveal our Lord more clearly -=20
cannot avoid adding to the thicket of branches and twigs which,=20
over the years, has helped obscure him from view.


=========

[2000-2-3]

INTEGRITY/VANCOUVER CELEBRATES 20 YEARS
an on-the-spot report by MAYNE ELLIS


There's no place like home.  St. Paul's, West End in Vancouver, a=20
heritage building with an exterior of dark red shingling and=20
steep peaked roof, a well-carpeted interior with dark narrow wood=20
pews, wood panelling and some Tiffany glass was my parish for=20
five years, and the parish home of Integrity Vancouver for=20
fifteen years and more. Where else would we go to celebrate our=20
first twenty years of Christian friendship and activism? =20

Ronald Lwabaayi greeted me warmly.  *Integrator* readers will=20
remember this Christian gay activist who was forced to leave=20
Uganda because of the continuing persecution of lesgay people=20
which is, sadly, encouraged by Kampala's Anglican bishop.  Ronald=20
is now living in Vancouver but has not given up hope of returning=20
home to continue his work.

I think all of the past chapter conveners  were there.  William=20
Wood, the first and present convener, welcomed us.  It was a=20
pleasure to see retired Archbishop David Somerville who, when=20
Bishop of New Westminster, encouraged Integrity to begin work in=20
the diocese.  His tradition of support has been carried on by the=20
bishops that followed.  The sanctuary party included as celebrant=20
Archbishop David Crawley (a former chaplain), Bishop Michael=20
Ingham as preacher, and a welcome guest, Bishop John Hannen of=20
Caledonia.  Retired Archbishop Douglas Hambidge unfortunately=20
could not be with us, but he has a special place in our hearts=20
for beginning the tradition of episcopal celebration.

It was delightful to see the many friends and supporters who=20
attended. Our Dignity/ Vancouver friends carried a banner in the=20
procession; a long-time Dignity member read the first lesson.  I=20
read the encouraging passage from Ephesians, and one of our=20
chaplains read the Gospel.

In an evening full of meaning and joy, Bishop Michael's sermon=20
stands out.  He took for his inspiration the Old Testament=20
reading (which was Numbers 21:4-9 -- personally, I couldn't see=20
how he was going to make anything out of that.) In his=20
forthright, scholarly way he began with wilderness:  the ancient=20
Sinai, and that wilderness of rejection and prejudice that=20
lesbigay people are still experiencing.  He noted, "My family and=20
I have paid a small price to share this journey with you,=20
although yours has been immeasurably greater."

And then to the image of a poisoned people.  "Moses is told to=20
make a serpent of bronze. He is not given an antidote... He is=20
told to take the very thing which is the poison and turn it into=20
the means of life. The very thing they fear must become the very=20
thing they rely upon. There is a mysterious wisdom here ...

"Where is the opposition to gay and lesbian relationships coming=20
from in the church today?  ... from those who see themselves as=20
the guardians of tradition... If there is a message in the story=20
of the bronze serpent, it may be this.  We must turn towards the=20
tradition, and not away from it. ... We must gaze upon Scripture=20
and not be afraid of it. We must turn these texts of oppression=20
into harmless bronze so they can no longer poison us... We are to=20
lift up Christ as the sign of our healing," Bishop Michael went=20
on, "not healing from what we are, but healing from our rejection=20
and misrepresentation."

I can tell you we were blown away by his words.=20

The Peace was the usual hugfest, and after the celebration,=20
Archbishop David commended Bishop Michael's sermon and work. =20
That was what we'd been waiting for.  The applause went on for=20
almost a minute, and just stopped short of whistling and=20
cheering.  Archbishop David then said to us, "I admire you all=20
more than I can say," and blessed us. =20

The ensuing joyous social was catered by Integrity members, who=20
have a long tradition of excellent cuisine.  Some gifted person=20
provided a special anniversary vintage of red and white.  Another=20
tradition Integrity draws straight from Our Lord:  enjoying a=20
good party.

I take comfort in all of it:  our fellowship and joy, the=20
renewing of so many old acquaintances, our many accomplishments. =20
The comfortable words of Bishop Michael give me strength and=20
hope: =20

"The church needs you to renew its understanding of the Gospel...=20
God needs you as a sign that the wilderness can be overcome. May=20
God be blessed for making possible twenty years of fellowship in=20
this movement, and may God bring us all into the promised land of=20
inclusion."

Amen, and amen.

[Author Box:  MAYNE ELLIS has written many articles for *Integrator* in=20
the past.  She was Convener of Integrity/Vancouver 1988-89.]


=========

[2000-2-4]

UPDATES
ON STORIES WE'VE BEEN FOLLOWING....

[2000-2-4a]
As the last issue of *Integrator* went to press, the federal=20
government introduced Bill C-23, the *Modernisation of Benefits=20
and Obligations Act*.  This is an omnibus bill, which amends 68=20
other pieces of federal legislation. The thrust of C-23 is to=20
recognise that same-sex couples, when living in a conjugal=20
relationship of over one year's duration, have the same rights=20
and obligations as opposite-sex couples in common-law=20
partnerships.  It has particularly significant ramifications in=20
areas of income tax and pensions.  On 13 April 2000, C-23 passed=20
third reading in the House of Commons, and is now awaiting=20
consideration by the Senate.  It is expected that it will become=20
law in the not-too-distant future.

              +   +   +   +

[2000-2-4b]
Late last year, we reported on the *Cambridge Accord*, a=20
statement decrying acts of violence against homosexual people and=20
calling for them to be treated with dignity and respect [see=20
*Integrator* 99-5].  This *Accord*, drafted by Bishop Steven=20
Charleston of Episcopal Divinity School, has now been endorsed by=20
140 bishops around the world.  Those bishops are from 12=20
different provinces in the Anglican Communion, and include five=20
current and three retired primates in their number.  There are=20
now 24 active and five retired Canadian bishops on the list. =20
Integrity/Toronto is very pleased to see that all five members of=20
the Toronto College of Bishops have signed the Cambridge Accord.


=========

[2000-2-5]

THE PRECIOUS PRESENT
Sister Thelma-Anne ssjd's regular column, "Ways of Prayer"

This is the last column I'll be writing for some time from 1=20
Botham Road, Toronto.  It certainly will not be my last column=20
for *Integrator*  but, as some of you know, after Easter I'll be=20
moving to Montreal, to join the staff of St. John's House/Maison=20
St.-Jean, our SSJD branch house in St. Lambert. After twenty=20
years at the Mother House, such a move brings much reflection on=20
the past and anticipation of the future.

First of all, the past.  It was not long after I returned to=20
Toronto in 1980, after five years in our house in Edmonton, that=20
I made contact with Integrity/Toronto.  My first, rather=20
hesitant, step was to approach Fr Gregory Lee, saying that I=20
would like to be a kind of prayer partner with the group.  Before=20
long Fr Lee invited me to lead a quiet evening for Integrity=20
during Holy Week, the first of many visits over the years.

The next major development was my co-leading a retreat at the=20
Convent for members of Integrity and Dignity From that developed=20
the annual Integrity retreats, which have been held each year=20
since 1982 or 1983.  At the first one, the retreatants wanted to=20
show their appreciation by inviting the Sisters to a wine and=20
cheese party on the Saturday evening.  A few Sisters ventured in. =20
Over the years, more and more came, and now the Integrity wine-
and-cheese is an annual highlight.  For me, this is a stunning=20
example of how fears and prejudices can disappear when people=20
actually meet and become friends with lesbians and gays.  Because=20
we have come to know and love you in this way, St. John's Convent=20
has become a place where lesbians and gays are welcome and=20
accepted, whatever diversity of opinions on "homosexuality" there=20
may be among us.

And now for the future.  As the time grows close - less than a=20
month away as I write - I am getting excited.  Life in the=20
Convent has been good and sustaining; but the prospect of=20
starting out on a new adventure at my age is exhilarating. =20
Living in a household of four instead of twenty plus, trying my=20
hand at cooking, making new friends as well as reviving some old=20
friendships, being out on the road speaking more than I have been=20
for several years, exploring Montreal and living in a francophone=20
milieu - all this is heady stuff.

One thing is certain:  I'm going to miss you.  I have made=20
staunch friends among you, and such friendships last.  Even=20
though, for those of you who have e-mail, I'll be only the click=20
of a mouse away, it's not the same as personal contact.  It goes=20
without saying that my commitment to full acceptance of lesbians=20
and gays in church and society will remain firm and ongoing.  I=20
hope to make contact soon with the Integrity people in Montreal.

And what about the present?  Of course I am busy packing, tidying=20
up everything in my office, organizing the music department for=20
those who will be responsible, not to mention getting ready for=20
Holy Week and Easter, being wined and dined by friends (it takes=20
the prospect of a move, sometimes, to get together) - all this=20
and much more.

But what about the present?   There is a story by Spencer Johnson=20
about a little boy who used to visit a happy old man.  The old=20
man told him about the precious present.  "It is a present,=20
because it is a gift, and it is precious because anyone who=20
receives such a present is happy for ever." The boy spent half a=20
lifetime looking for this present outside himself, becoming more=20
and more frustrated and miserable in his search.  He finally=20
realized that " The precious present was just that:  *the=20
present*.  Not the past, and not the future, but *the precious=20
present*.  In an instant, the man was happy.  He realized that he=20
was in The Precious Present." Of course, he didn't stay there=20
long.  He started to regret the past - the many years of=20
fruitless searching - and to fear the future - would he be able=20
to know the joy of living in the Precious Present tomorrow?  Then=20
he started to laugh at himself.  Of course it was wise to learn=20
from the past and plan for the future; but to be in the past or=20
the future was to lose oneself.  It was so simple.  And now he=20
saw it.  The present nourished him.  Learning to be in the=20
present was not easy; to live in the present was a choice he=20
would have to make again and again, until it became part of him.

The present moment is all that exists, and the only place in=20
which I exist. It contains the past and perhaps the future in=20
some mysterious way.  But it is the only reality which is given=20
us. .  Most of us struggle with "if-only' s" and "what-if' s" -=20
haunted by the past and driven by the future.  These are the=20
stuff of our distractions in prayer and the cause of our anxiety,=20
hurry, stress and lack of focus in daily life.  We need to keep=20
on living in the present, setting aside time each day to do so in=20
an intentional way, so that little by little it will become a way=20
of life.

I am also coming to believe that living in the present moment is=20
what spiritual writers have meant by practising the presence of=20
God.  I am coming to realize that the precious present is the=20
only place we encounter God.  I am just beginning to discover the=20
peace, the depth, and the groundedness of being present to=20
myself, to what is around me, and to the Divine.  Like the man in=20
the story, I have to keep bringing myself back into the precious=20
present, which is also the Precious Presence.  But the more I do=20
so, the more I experience myself as whole, happy, and beloved of=20
God.  The Divine Giver waits to bestow the Precious Present on=20
you and me as often as we lose it.  Let us receive it afresh -=20
now and always.

          +    +    +    +

[2000-2-5b]
Sister Thelma-Anne WILL be back in Toronto for the=20
Integrity/Toronto retreat at the end of May

CALLING OUT, COMING OUT, KEEPING OUT
 Annual Integrity/Toronto Retreat
 St. John's Convent - May 26 - 28, 2000
 Sister Thelma-Anne, SSJD, Retreat Leader

"Out" is a word central to the life experience of lesbians and=20
gays.  It is also a word that is central to the biblical themes=20
of vocation, response, and faithfulness.  In this retreat we will=20
be moving beyond some current notions about scriptural authority=20
to explore basic themes and patterns of call and faithful=20
response in the Bible, patterns which validate and sustain us in=20
our own journey through these difficult times.

=== end of text ===

End of volume 2000-2 of Integrator, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto
copyright 2000 Integrity/Toronto
comments please to Chris Ambidge, Editor
        chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca   OR =20
Integrity/Toronto Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON Canada M4Y 2N9

-- --
Chris Ambidge		chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca
Integrity/Toronto     	http://www.whirlwind.ca/integrity

Integrity is a member of the Alliance of Lesbian & Gay Anglicans
http://www.alga.org