Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 18:56:33 -0400 From: Chris Ambidge Subject: *Integrator* files for 1989 INTEGRATOR, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto volume 89-10, issue date 1989 12 06 copyright 1989 Integrity/Toronto. The hard-copy version of this newsletter carries the ISSN 0843-574X Integrity/Toronto Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON Canada M4Y 2N9 == contents == [89-10-1] FULL MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHURCH IS AT STAKE / by Sr Thelma-Anne, ssjd [89-10-2] NATIONAL EPISCOPAL AIDS COALITION CONFERENCE / by the Rev Norm Rickaby [89-10-3] MIXED FABRICS SHOULD BE NIXED [89-10-4] HETEROSEXUAL QUESTIONNAIRE / by Kathleen Boatwright, *Integrity Inc's Western Regional Vice-President* ======== [89-10-1] FULL MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHURCH IS AT STAKE by Sr Thelma-Anne, ssjd As a member of the Sisterhood of St John the Divine, a religious community in which the Divine Office is recited daily, I feel strongly committed to use gender-inclusive language in my reading of scripture in chapel. We, as a community, use *Hearing the Word: An Inclusive Language Lectionary *(published by St Stephen and the Incarnation Episcopal Church, Washington DC) whenever possible (Sundays and some feast days). However, I have to do my own editing for the weekday Eucharist and the Daily Office since other translations reflect non- inclusive patterns of speech. Here are some of the changes I typically make. When words like "man" or "mankind" are used to refer to humanity as a whole eg "Let us make man in our image," or "all men," meaning simply, everyone, I substitute inclusive words like "humanity," "all people." For "he who" I substitute "whoever" or something similar. If "brothers" is used when the whole congregation is intended, I add "and sisters" of use an expression like "my friends." When a word like "person" or "everyone" is used I avoid "his" as the relative pronoun (the so-called sexist pronoun - are only males persons?). I substitute inclusive nouns for those that are gender-specific, eg "kindred" for "kinsmen," where this does not change the sense. I also avoid using masculine pronouns in referring to God. Sometimes the word "God" can be repeated; sometimes expressions like "the divine purpose" for "his purpose" can be used; sometimes the pronoun can simply be omitted or the construction changed eg from active to passive voice. I find that when changes are made unobtrusively and sensitively and the result reads smoothly, people are not offended. Indeed, others are emboldened to experiment, and I notice that our sisters are doing so increasingly. My religious community regards diversity as strength and respects the deeply held convictions of its members. There has been some discussion around issues of inclusive language, and we are encouraged to experiment, but no one is pressured. For me, to use inclusive language in the public reading of scripture bears witness to important principles. If "there is no male or female" in Christ, to exclude women linguistically contradicts the gospel message. Furthermore, although we say that God is beyond gender distinctions, and that both male and female are made in God's image, we deny this in practice when we continue to use exclusively male language about God. This is not an academic question; what is at stake is my sense of full and equal inclusion, as a woman, in the redeemed community (not to mention the human race) and the capacity of my female humanity to bear the image of God. [reprinted by permission from *The Anglican* (Toronto) October 1989] ======== [89-10-2] NATIONAL EPISCOPAL AIDS COALITION CONFERENCE by the Rev Norm Rickaby Recently, I attended the *National Episcopal AIDS Coalition Conference* held in Cincinnati, Ohio. While Americans and Canadians often make comparisons between our two peoples and countries, crossing the border is mostly a "non-event" for both of us since there is not much sense of being in a foreign country when we do. However, one experience at the opening banquet of this conference served to remind me that I was "not in Canada any more, Toto". The room was full of delegates from churches across the country and a healthy representation of clergy was present. At the head table sat *four* bishops, including Bishop Barbara Harris, the keynote speaker for the evening. At the introduction of the head table guests, two of the men there, one of whom was a priest, were introduced along with their (male) "partners"! And not one eyebrow lifted in shock or surprise, though later one woman from Atlanta suggested that some of the "good old boys" in *her* church would probably have clapped one of the partners on the back asking, "And what business are you boys in, anyways?" With the theme, "Our Church has AIDS", the Conference had over three hundred people attending from all over the continental United States. Episcopalians from thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia were represented as well as two Anglicans from Canada. My impression over the three days of workshops, plenary sessions and worship was of tremendous commitment and energy in the Episcopal Church around the issue of AIDS. I gather that the *energy* tends to be grounded in the parishes and communities either affected or concerned by the disease, while *commitment* in the form of supportive resolutions, personnel and finances comes from the National Church and many Diocesan Bishops and Conventions. The two main foci of the energy seem to be 1) Education, and 2) Outreach Ministry to person affected by AIDS. *Education* takes many forms, but generally begins with the sensitising of parishioners to the fact that AIDS is "our" issue as the church, rather than "someone else's out there". Next, there is the component of information so that people know what they need to know and can spread that knowledge to the community beyond the church. Then, finally training is offered to ensure that infected or affected people in the church will have the community of faith around them in support and ministry. *Outreach Ministry* is aimed at empowering the parish or individuals in that parish to become active in supporting persons living with AIDS in their community or neighbourhood. The emphasis is upon the ministry of the baptised to "seek and serve Christ in all persons", often working through or in co-operation with secular community-bases organisations. Some churches, where there is no community-based group, have established such support groups themselves or in co-operation with other churches and denominations. One of the decisions made at our Canadian General Synod in Newfoundland earlier this year was to have a National Day of Prayer for people living with AIDS. The Diocese of Toronto recently had such a day. In the USA, in addition to the National Day of Prayer (their 4th Annual was recently observed), many Dioceses schedule quarterly "services of Healing" -- ie laying on of hands with anointing -- in different churches throughout the year. These services are seen as having the dual emphasis again: 1) educating people that AIDS is the church's issue and 2) reaching out with a compassionate touch to people in the AIDS community. Finally, the Episcopal Church and the National Episcopal AIDS Coalition are pushing now to distribute a new educational curriculum entitled "Youth Ministry in the Age of Aids". Young people both in the U.S. and in Canada are the segment of population most *at risk* for AIDS in the next few years. The attempt in this program is to approach AIDS education for youth from a Christian and Anglican perspective. One of the strengths of this new curriculum is that youth in the churches are challenged with the "mission" to reach their peers in school or elsewhere with factual live-savings information. In the USA, there are now many communities where the church is not just responding and reacting to AIDS, but where it is a genuine leader in facing the spiritual, social, and practical issues raised by the AIDS epidemic. My prayer is that the church(es) in Canada would seize both the opportunity and the responsibility to lead our communities as well! The program "Youth Ministry in the Age of AIDS" is available for $15 US from AIDS Ministries Office, / Episcopal Church Centre, 815 Second Avenue / New York, NY USA 10017 The package consists of four parts; 1) *Advising Young People about AIDS* - a sort of "pep talk" for Clergy & Parish leaders. 2) * What Young People Should Know about AIDS* - a handout for youngsters. 3) *Talking to your Family about AIDS* - a family resource which contains age-specific information for talking to children and youth about AIDS. 4) *You(th) and AIDS *- the actual curriculum designed to be used with teens, but suitable for adults as well. This curriculum is designed to be used with two video-tapes which are not included but are generally available for borrowing or rent from local agencies. For more information, contact Norm Rickaby c/o St. Francis of Assisi Anglican Church, 6945 Meadowvale Town Centre Circle, Mississauga, Ontario L5N 2W7 [phone (416) 821-2750] ======== [89-10-3] MIXED FABRICS SHOULD BE NIXED [A letter to the Rev Earl Q Jackson, of Massachusetts, quoted from Bay Windows] Dear Earl: I am writing to thank you and congratulate you for your diligent work that helped defeat the Massachusetts Gay Rights Bill. People who, like gay men, break laws casually mentioned somewhere in The Bible should not be given civil rights protections. More Christian should be as dedicated as you to fighting basic civil rights and human dignity. Good work, Reverend. However, I am concerned that many people break other laws mentioned in The Bible and yet do not suffer just discrimination for their mere existence. I am specifically concerned about people who break the law outlined in Leviticus Chapter 19, verse 19: "Neither shall a garment mingled of different fabrics come upon thee." Yet you can see people out on the streets everyday shamelessly wearing flannel shirts with wool sweaters, acrylic blended with cotton, and all manner of other sinful combinations one could imagine in a nightmare. This sort of disrespect for the laws of God is leading to the moral decay of our society. And what's even worse, they flaunt their perverse mixed fabrics in front of children. I've even heard that some of them like to dress children in mixed fabrics, but this sin is just too perverse for further elaboration ... and of course, ALL people who wear mixed fabrics have a secret or overt desire to dress children in the same way. If a mixed-fabric wearer wanted to become a foster parent, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would allow it. There are no questions on the application referring to this sin. NO one asks if the child will be exposed to mixed fabrics or might even be forced to wear them. We should spend some tax dollars to study the effects of mixed fabrics on children, though I am sure it has a negative impact. Furthermore, there are people who eat bacon for breakfast, which is outlawed in Leviticus 17:10-14, and cheeseburgers for lunch, which is outlawed in Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:2 and Deuteronomy 14:21 (This must mean that cheeseburgers are three times as sinful as gay sex since the former are mentioned thrice.) Now there are so-called Christians who want to liberally "interpret" the Word of God or leave out certain parts of it. They say that Jesus came to fulfil the law (Matthew 5:18) and that His message of love is far more important (Matthew 19:19, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27, and 1 Corinthians 13:13) than mixed fabrics or cheeseburgers. I point out that there is a curse on anyone who completely leaves out any part of it (Revelation 22:18). Besides, it's all right to call yourself Christian. Just don't try to be TOO MUCH like Jesus. After all, look where it got him. For the sake of Christianity and the children, Earl, I want you to join me in restoring some morality to government. Together we can take away the civil rights of homosexuals, mixed-fabric wearers and unclean meat- eaters. Next we can persecute barbers (haircuts are outlawed in Leviticus 19:27) and veterinarians (outlawed in Leviticus 22:24). Then we can enforce all the Biblical laws and directives! I can't wait until we can apply the death penalty for adultery as Leviticus 20:10 mandates. Because you have never committed adultery, Earl, and lived without sin among us, you can cast the first stone (John 8:7). *Sister Polly Ester* Christian Coalition Against Mixed Fabrics Boston, Massachusetts ======== [89-10-4] HETEROSEXUAL QUESTIONNAIRE by Kathleen Boatwright, *Integrity Inc's Western Regional Vice- President* [This questionnaire reverses the questions that are very often asked of lesbians and gays by heterosexuals. By trying to answer this kind of question, one can gain some insight into how oppressive and discriminatory a "straight" frame of reference can be to gays and lesbians.] 1) What do you think caused your heterosexuality? 2) When and how did you first decide you were heterosexual? 3) Is it possible that your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of? 4) If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, is it possible that all you need is a good gay/ lesbian lover? 5) Why do you insist on flaunting your heterosexuality? Can't you just be who you are and keep it quiet? 6) Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex? 7) Why do you heterosexuals feel compelled to seduce others into your lifestyle? 8) Even with all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiralling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals? 9) There seem to be very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed that might enable you to change if you really want to. Have you considered trying aversion therapy? [Reprinted from *Outlook* the newsletter of Integrity/New York] ======== End of volume 89-10 of Integrator, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto copyright 1989 Integrity/Toronto Editor this issue: Bonnie Bewley comments please to Chris Ambidge, current Editor chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca OR Integrity/Toronto Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON Canada M4Y 2N9