Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 18:57:00 -0400 From: Chris Ambidge Subject: *Integrator* files for 1990 INTEGRATOR, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto volume 90-7, issue date 1990 09 12 copyright 1990 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 == [90-7-1] THOSE WHO SHOUT HEAR ONLY THEIR OWN VOICE / by Chris Ambidge [90-7-2] UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA REAFFIRMS HOMOSEXUAL ORDINATION POLICY [90-7-3] [QUOTE OF THE MONTH / Desmond Tutu] [90-7-4] CHRIST AS GOD'S UNANSWERABLE ARGUMENT: Exemplary lives from First and Twentieth Centuries / by Barbara Lundblad [90-7-5] JESUS SON OF UNWED MOTHER? What is a family anyway? / by Sandy Tipper [90-7-6] UNDER ONE ROOF -- An Episcopal Church Conference / An on-the-spot report by JOHN GARTSHORE, who met them in St Louis ======== [90-7-1] THOSE WHO SHOUT HEAR ONLY THEIR OWN VOICE by Chris Ambidge A parish priest recently phoned to request information on Integrity. I must admit that I was rather surprised, since I had heard that the person in question was quite conservative on matters of sexuality. I would not have expected this person to want to listen to Integrity at all, being rather on "the other side" of the sexuality debate. Still, I sent off a package of pamphlets, back issues of *Integrator*, and *Our Stories* (thumbnail autobiographies of gay and lesbian Anglicans) -- the material that we gave to people at General Synod. I received a very gracious letter thanking me for the documents. The second paragraph of the letter gave me pause to think. Here it is, in its entirety: "As you no doubt realise, I tend toward the 'conservative' or 'traditional' Anglican approach to sexuality. This is why I asked for the information. In my own struggle, I don't feel I can understand the whole issue without letting lesbians and gay men speak for themselves. When I hear their voices, I may understand." One of the surprising -- and encouraging -- things in this letter is the willingness to listen. More and more, I hear lesgay people saying that the way to change peoples' feelings about us is to tell our stories. Anyone can argue, this way or that, over concepts. It is a great deal more difficult to argue with the life of a real flesh-and-blood human being. Gandhi once said "Those who shout hear only their own voices". Shouting is certainly not the way of my correspondent. I can respect someone who has this approach, who is prepared to listen to my side of the argument. I hope that I can, in turn, listen to the sincerely held beliefs of those with whom I disagree. This person thinks the normal thing to do is to let lesgays speak for themselves. While we may disagree on the appropriateness (or otherwise) of sexual behaviour, the first steps in a real dialogue have been taken. It is incumbent upon me to continue the dialogue by really listening to other people, and other points of view. ======== [90-7-2] UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA REAFFIRMS HOMOSEXUAL ORDINATION POLICY The United Church of Canada, meeting in General Council in London, Ontario in August re-affirmed its policy that all church members, regardless of their sexual orientation, are eligible to be considered for ordination. The re-affirmation came in a 302-74 vote. The policy was first adopted at the previous General Council in Victoria BC in 1988, and immediately became a *cause celebre.* The initial policy was supported and lobbied for by AFFIRM, the lesbian/gay caucus within the United Church. The 1988 adoption of the policy, and the reaffirmation of it this year, have been cause for great rejoicing for lesgays and their friends in all of the churches of Canada, and indeed the world. The United Church has found itself in the headlines very frequently since 1988, with the conservative Community of Concern leading the anti- gay ordination forces. Talk of the church splitting and people leaving the church in droves have made almost weekly appearances in newspapers. AFFIRM has had a tough go of it over the past two years: they have been preaching tolerance and social justice for lesgay people. This tends to sell fewer newspapers than the Community of Concern's disaster scenarios. It was to the point that full gay/lesbian membership and ordination in the United Church was referred to simply as "The Issue". The commissioners to the 1990 General Council were certainly not going to London unprepared to consider the matter. The commissioners undoubtedly received input from many sources. Archbishop Desmond Tutu was among them. He spoke to the General Council about many areas of social justice, and delivered a clear message on this issue. When all was said and done, the vote was more than 80% in favour of ordination, regardless of sexual ordination. *Thanks be to God*. ======== [90-7-3] [QUOTE OF THE MONTH] Christians have no option but to defend the rights of all the oppressed, including homosexuals.... Our faith cannot allow this [oppression] to happen. Archbishop Desmond Tutu London, Ontario =B7 August 1990 ========= [90-7-4] CHRIST AS GOD'S UNANSWERABLE ARGUMENT: Exemplary lives from First and Twentieth Centuries by Barbara Lundblad [BARBARA LUNDBLAD is a Lutheran pastor working in New York City. She delivered the keynote address to Lutherans Concerned's *Assembly 88* in Toronto. This article is excerpted from that address by her permission.] Did it ever strike you as interesting how bereft the scriptural witness is to what we call Christian marriage? I bring this up because I think it is a very important model for what has happened in confusing our own opinions and cultural norms with scripture. If I have time sometime I would like to write a little article about it, I might call it something like "Peter's mother-in-law goes to the wedding at Cana: The biblical case for Christian marriage". If you look at the New Testament we would initially say that the weight of the scripture speaks for Christian marriage, but then we would look at the text and come up with these two powerful points: (1) Jesus went to a wedding and (2) we must be able to affirm that we know Peter indeed had a wife, because we know he had a mother-in-law, who Jesus healed. Beyond that in the New Testament as far as I know the only other reference to a married couple is to Ananias and Sapphira. Now you may want to a pick those two as a model of Christian marriage but as most of us remember they were the couple who lied to the apostles and who fell dead at the apostles' feet. I'm not suggesting that that happens to all married people, and I'm not suggesting that we do away with marriage, but it is at least interesting that there are so few pictures of Christian marriage, or of marriage in the New Testament. If we're going to go back to the Old Testament at this point we're going to have to affirm polygamy. The other interesting thing is that in all of the Bible the two most completely described, the most passionate and promise-filled relationships, are these two: the relationship between Jonathan and David, and the relationship between Ruth and Naomi. I'm not suggesting anything, but it is interesting. It's an important reminder of the real danger of confusing our own personal opinions with scripture at every point, but back to the wedding, or rather the reception. Most scholars who look at the book of John say that this being Jesus' first sign in the book, John heralds the whole of his ministry to come by saying that Jesus-the-Word now stands in the midst of the people, replacing the ancient ritual. Here I would like to refer at several points to John Boswell's introduction to Chris Glaser's new book called *Uncommon Calling: a gay man's struggle to serve the church*. Boswell says: "This is at least in part what John says when he refers to Christ as Logos. Although translators often render it as Word, it is much more than that, it is Greek for reason and argument, our word 'logic' comes from it. Christ was God's unanswerable argument. His people had hardened their hearts against the spoken reasons the arguments propounded in words for centuries, so God sent an Argument in the form of a human being, a life, a person, the Argument became flesh and blood, so real that no one could ignore or refute it". Scripture, theology, tradition, will not change the mind of a person who is repelled by the idea of homosexuals. Here I think John Boswell speaks very clearly: "You can't use reason to argue someone out of a position they didn't get into by reason, precisely because it is at rock-bottom a visceral feeling rather than a rational position. Anti-gay hostility both inside and outside the Christian church cannot be overcome simply by appeal to history, theology or logic. There are on the other hand ways to communicate and enlighten not dependent on mere information that can overcome deeply embedded prejudices better than argument. A life can be an argument. Being can be a reason. An idea can be embodied in a person; and in human form it may break down barriers and soften hardness of heart that words cannot." A life can be an argument. It's the same thing that John Boswell said about the theological significance of the Incarnation. When the committee members [in the former Lutheran Church of America that studied issues related to homosexuality] were moved and converted, they were *not* moved by any of the sections on theology or scripture, they were *not* moved by all the appendices, they were moved by the arguments of a human life, at *every point*. Of course, the dilemma here is that this argument is the one that is so difficult, for the price of being such a flesh-and-blood Word is very high. ======== [90-7-5] JESUS SON OF UNWED MOTHER ? What is a family anyway? by Sandy Tipper Not long ago, I had a conversation with someone regarding marriage and family definitions. He made a comment to the effect that there could be no disagreement on what the Bible defines as "normal". Oh, really? I agree that the Bible does teach us much about relationships; what works, what does not, what can lead to problems, etc. I do NOT agree that the Bible gives a single, consistent definition of marriage and family that corresponds to what we in twentieth century middle class Canada understand as "traditional". The most obvious (and most quoted) biblical examples that support the "traditional" model of marriage are the wedding in Cana where Jesus performed his first miracle (water into wine), and the creation story in which Eve and Adam are given to each other. However, note that in Cana, we hear nothing about the ceremony, or even the parties being married, just that it is a big festive occasion, of which the Christ evidently approved. Adam and Eve had neither witnesses nor minister, but their relationship was engineered and obviously blessed by God. What about the most significant family of the Old testament, that of Israel? Jacob was married to the sisters Leah and Rachel (simultaneously), and by their urging, took their slave-girls Zilpah and Bilhah as concubines. All the children of this polygamous family were not only considered legitimate, but were blessed by God to be the heads of the twelve tribes of Israel. Solomon, perhaps the greatest King of Israel, had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Now it is true that Solomon lost favour in God's sight as a result of these marriages, but the scriptures are quite clear: the displeasure had nothing to do with the polygamous form, but with his idolatrous following after their foreign gods. What about the Holy Family itself? A strong tradition, believed by a large segment of the Community of Faith, holds that Mary was perpetually a virgin; in other words, Joseph and Mary never consummated their marriage, even after Jesus' birth. Since the same segment of believers holds this to be grounds for annulment, or recognition that a marriage was never valid, does this not mean that Jesus was born to an unmarried mother? Whatever the definition, it is clear that Jesus takes marriage very seriously. He embarrasses the woman at the well in Samaria by pointing out that she had had five husbands, and was now living with another man. Since polygamy was not practised in that time, they must have been sequential. It is highly unlikely that she was widowed five times, so the implication is that she discarded her marriages lightly. In fact, in other teaching, Jesus condemns easy divorce. On the other hand, he is ready and willing to forgive error rather than support hypocrisy ("let the one who is without sin among you cast the first stone"). Over and over again, we see in the scripture, that mutual respect and responsibility are key requirements in a commitment made before God, but the form, details, and legal definitions vary with time and circumstance. The Family is important, the Bible does say fairly clearly. But what is family? If you want to believe Jesus, "whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother." ======== [90-7-6] UNDER ONE ROOF -- An Episcopal Church Conference An on-the-spot report by JOHN GARTSHORE, who met them in St Louis In June 1990, ten agencies of the Episcopal Church in the United States held the second *Under One Roof* conference in St Louis, Missouri. Ten social justice networks came together to discuss common ground. The sponsoring agencies were, Appalachian People's Service Organisation, Episcopal Peace Fellowship, Episcopal Peace and Justice Network, Episcopal Urban Caucus, Episcopal Women's Caucus, Integrity, National Episcopal AIDS Coalition, National Episcopal Coalition on Alcohol and Drugs, United Episcopal Charities, and the Urban Bishops Coalition. As well as those, there are fifteen more organisations listed as Endorsers; nine dioceses and two other groups are listed as Contributors. Bishop Browning, the Presiding Bishop, was to have attended the conference, but we received notice at the outset that he was ill, fortunately not as seriously as was Archbishop Peers during our General Synod last year. The Integrity (US) Annual General Meeting was held on the first afternoon. As well as a very detailed address from the president, and the usual treasurer's report, a significant motion was passed, making it a policy that Integrity will not, in future, hold conventions in states which still have "sodomy" laws on the books. The motion further calls on other organisations, and also the General Convention of the Church, to adopt the same policy. One of the speakers that evening was the Honourable Roxanne Jones, State Senator for the State of Pennsylvania. Senator Jones is the fist black woman to be elected to the Senate of that state, and it is easy to see from her drive how she got there. She told the story of having been driven into poverty, and forming an impromptu coalition of poor single mothers, to get some of the inequities of the government rectified. Senator Jones' principal contribution to the conference was, I think, her adrenaline. It was apparent that the method of achieving anything is to have lots of energy, lots of drive, and keep hammering until you get your way. Unfortunately, she overstayed her welcome, and spent half an hour screaming at us. It was apparent that her agenda was not ours. The two working days of the conference followed a similar timetable: Eucharist, plenary session, and workshops on the many areas of interest to the sponsoring groups. One night, I had dinner at one of St Louis' gay bars (Clementine's) and while walking back to the hotel almost got caught in a tornado. On Sunday morning, the whole conference was invited to Christ Church Cathedral for the 9 o'clock Eucharist. Beforehand, in a side chapel, Integrity held an installation of the new officers of the national organisation. The officiant was our friend Walt Szymanski from Rochester. The following were installed: o President: Bruce Garner of Atlanta, Georgia o Treasurer: Tim Caison, also of Atlanta o Secretary: "Gil" Grady of Salinas, California o Northeast Regional Vice-President: "Betsy" Hess of Easthampton, Massachusetts o Director of Communications: Kim Byham of Guttenberg, New Jersey. We had a great privilege during this service. The preacher was Verna Dozier, from Washington. If you don't know who that is, get her booklet titled *The Authority of the Laity* (published by The Alban Institute, 1982) and find out. It is reassuring to know that the real leadership of the church is in the hands of wise persons like this. Since the Sunday was June 24th, the celebration was in the name of John the Baptist. I had been avoiding newspapers while I was away, intending to make the conference into a kind of retreat. I didn't know what had happened with Meech Lake, and all that hit me during the service. Here I was, in a foreign country -- friendly enough, but still foreign -- on the feast day of the patron of my country, and wondering if there would be a country to come back to. I was hit by this, and burst into tears during Communion. A long-standing Integrity friend from Detroit had come to sit with me, and comforted me. Thanks, Rod. Meanwhile the Canadian church needs to think about the fine example our neighbours have set in co-operation and mutual nurturing among social justice organisations. When we share our insights, everyone grows. Ms Dozier made the point that if all we church people do is sit in pews on Sunday, we need to think about *why* we are there. If the Christian experience isn't about *doing* justice, what is it? Isn't it time we had an *Under One Roof* in Toronto? Shouldn't we be joining with other church groups sharing concerns and sharing each other's strengths? [Editor's note: Fortunately, John was wearing his ruby slippers when he had the close brush with the tornado, and made it back home to Toronto. He has promised to report soon in these pages on the workshops that he was able to attend in St Louis.] ======== End of volume 90-7 of Integrator, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto copyright 1990 Integrity/Toronto Editors this issue: Bonnie Bewley & Chris Ambidge comments please to Chris Ambidge, current Editor chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca OR Integrity/Toronto Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON Canada M4Y 2N9