Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 23:32:36 -0400 From: Chris Ambidge 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