Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 14:44:10 -0400 From: Chris Ambidge Subject: *Integrator* files for 1992 INTEGRATOR, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto volume 92-8, issue date 1992 11 11 copyright 1992 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 == [92-8-1] JUDGMENTAL ARTICLE CAUSES FURORE / by Chris Ambidge [92-8-2] AIDS IS A "DISEASE OF CHOICE" / the article in question, by the Rev Ron Meacock. This is the full text of the opinion piece, reprinted from *The Anglican*, October 1992 [92-8-3] LETTERS TO THE EDITOR in response to Mr Meacock's article [a] by Michelle and Bonnie Crawford-Bewley [b] by Doug Fox [92-8-4] EDWARD DID NOT CHOOSE TO GET AIDS / by Barry, the widow of Edward, who died of AIDS [92-8-5] TASK FORCE REPORTS TO SYNOD / by the Rev Alice Medcof and the Rev John Wilton [92-8-6] INTEGRITY AT TORONTO SYNOD by Integrity/Toronto treasurer BRIAN MACINTYRE ======= [92-8-1] JUDGMENTAL ARTICLE CAUSES FURORE by Chris Ambidge THE OCTOBER ISSUE of *The Anglican*, the Toronto diocesan newspaper, arrived at my home during AIDS Awareness Week. The op- ed page was completely occupied by an opinion piece, "AIDS is a disease of choice", by the Rev Ron Meacock. In this article, he says that people effectively choose to get AIDS by their actions, and that those actions are immoral and irresponsible. [The full text of that article appears below, [92-8-2] ] This article has caused quite a kerfuffle. There were two pages of letters in response to it in the November issue of *The Anglican*, and I suspect that more will appear next month. I personally find it to be written in a judgmental tone that is repugnant, and particularly inappropriate for a member of the clergy. The article is reprinted in full below. I have considerable difficulty with Mr Meacock's opinions. In the article, he raises the question "Is AIDS a punishment or a sin?". General Synod in 1986 and Toronto Synod in 1990 passed explicit resolutions saying precisely the opposite, that AIDS is NOT God's punishment. That is good news for people who are living with AIDS, but the article proclaims bad news, of judgement and of punishment. Shortly after the article appeared, three Integrity/Toronto members had opportunity to meet Mr Meacock and Bishop Brown to discuss the article. Mr Meacock said that he had intended the article to be a letter- to-the-Editor, that he had not intended it to be given the prominence that is was, nor the headline that it had. He intended it to be a different viewpoint, from a conservative biblical point of view, and that he was sorry if it had caused any distress. While I am quite prepared to grant Mr Meacock those points, the article remains a monument to narrow-minded selective literalism. It may well represent a viewpoint held by many in our church, and for that I weep. Mr Meacock said in our interview that he does not hate gays, and does not judge them. He really believes that, and I do not think he can see how powerfully his written words contradict his stated feelings. I am told that Mr Meacock's has great pastoral skills in the sickroom, and I have no reason to doubt this. I was nevertheless appalled by the condescension and patronising attitude of someone who would say, on the one hand, that he does not judge AIDS patients and that he loves gays; and on the other hand writes in a very public forum that these people are immoral, irresponsible, and have brought their own dooms upon themselves. Indeed, the entire tone of the article is one of judgement and condemnation for people who have AIDS. It does not mention needle drugs, and speaks only of sexual means of transmission. In that way, it reflects the aversion to sex-in-any-form that a large section of our church has. That, I think, is one of the principle problems that lesgays in the church have: people of very conservative viewpoints claim, with Mr Meacock, that the only permissible venue for sexual activity is in monogamous marriage. They also say that we lesbians and gays cannot get married, or be sexually active in any way. They are asking us to put our entire emotional lives on hold, for ever. I am not prepared to shut myself out, to say that I can never feel love for another single human being. I am not alone in this. People need love, and love will be searched out. If I put my emotional life on hold for ever, I will wither and become bitter and indeed sub-human. That is what the attitude to sex that Mr Meacock is preaching would do to any gay or lesbian person. To turn my back on God's gift of love, and indeed upon myself, is blasphemy, and I will not do it. So much for my aversion to the bad news proclaimed in Mr Meacock's article. Other people have written to *Integrator*, and their reactions are also printed here. Two of the pieces are letters- to-the-editor. The third is a very personal article. For AIDS Awareness Week, I wrote an article remembering my friend Edward, who died of AIDS this past spring. In this issue, Edward's partner (and, I suppose, widow) Barry shares his loss, and his anger at the Meacock article. I would like to thank Barry for allowing us into his life at this time. ========== [92-8-2] The text of the opinion piece by the Rev Ron Meacock, reprinted from *The Anglican*, October 1992 AIDS IS A "DISEASE OF CHOICE" We have all enjoyed the Olympic Games recently on Television. On one occasion, the "dream team" from the US was strutting its stuff on the basketball court. The television commentator, in complimenting a particularly clever move, said of player Magic Johnson, "He's such a good role model for the children." Now I am thankful that Magic is able to play so well and that he is fighting off the effects of AIDS, but frankly I am dismayed that we tend to make martyrs out of AIDS patients. AIDS is a disease of choice. We are called upon to make choices in our lives all the time. One choices is whether to indulge one's passions sexually or refrain from sexual activity until married. Those with AIDS have selected promiscuity. Theoretically, AIDS is a completely preventable disease. It was, and still is, possible to halt its spread by refraining from sexual activity. Other diseases are not asking in that they have no known means of transmission. Cancer can affect anyone at any time without explanation. We can truly feel sorry for those who must fight it. Christians are called upon to choose life, "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." (Luke 6:36, all citations NRSV) AIDS is also a disease of the immoral. Magic Johnson admits to having sex with hundreds of women fans during his basketball career. I cannot help but wonder how many of these women contracted AIDS from him as a result? AIDS is akin to venereal disease or gonorrhoea. The fact is that married "true for life" couples and single people will never contract the disease of AIDS. You many choose not to be vulnerable to AIDS by not indulging in sexual activity. The AIDS advertisements with Magic Johnson saying, "AIDS affects us all" is not true in that celibate singles and "true for life" married people are not susceptible to it. One afternoon on the* Geraldo* television show, a "groupie" woman delighted in telling of having casual sex 15 times in one evening with the road crew of a rock group! I felt revulsion at these confessions. Dr Harold Lindsell puts it into words for me, "The immoral heterosexual is under divine judgement." To the woman caught in adultery, Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way and from now on do not sin again." (John 8:11). AIDS is a disease of the irresponsible. I feel a deep sadness for the 200 or so haemophiliacs in Canada who have developed AIDS from tainted blood. Where did this death wish originate? Not from the Red Cross, but from people who knowingly or not gave blood with the HIV virus already in it. I am deeply saddened to hear of babies born with AIDS. Who is responsible for the death sentence of a tiny defenceless being like this? Two adults made the decision to have intercourse with the possibility of a child being formed. The adult choice of an HIV positive carrier to have no children is a loving one. Otherwise, the mother and father are responsible for inflicting a terrible disease on a tiny, frail soul. Jesus is harsh with such people. He said, "It would be better for you if a millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the seas than for you to cause one of these little ones to stumble." (Luke 17:2). AIDS is also a disease of the loved. God loves the AIDS sufferer no less than anyone else. AIDS patients must struggle with the question, "is AIDS a punishment or a sin?" but they are not alone. We are all afflicted in God's sight not necessarily with AIDS, "For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:22-3). Everyone, without exception, is in need of forgiveness and cleansing. To the woman at the well, who represents so many in society today, even though she had five husbands and the man she had was not her husband, Jesus offered the living water. "The water that will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life." (John 3:14). His presence is still a spring of water leading to eternal life. ======== [92-8-3] LETTERS TO THE EDITOR [92-8-3a] Dear Integrator: This letter is a response to Ron Meacock's opinion in the October edition of *The Anglican* "AIDS is a 'disease of choice.'" Magic Johnson is right when he says AIDS affects us all. Mr Meacock's assertion that this statement is not true because "celibate singles and 'true for life' married people are not susceptible to it" is ridiculous. We are lesbians in a committed monogamous relationship and as such are not in a position to contract AIDS through promiscuity. However our lives have been touched by AIDS through friends dying, friends who are living with AIDS and friends who are supporting others touched by AIDS. Everyone in the world has been touched by AIDS whether immediately with family members and friends who are living with the syndrome, or more distantly with a favourite athlete, actor, designer, artist or musician who has died of AIDS. To call AIDS a disease of choice is simplistic. There are people living with AIDS who believed they were in monogamous relationships. Would Mr Meacock tar them with his self-righteous brush and tell them they deserved no compassion because they were naive enough to believe their partners were faithful? If someone with AIDS has a child do they really deserve any less compassion than their child? Does Mr Meacock truly believe people set out to have AIDS infected babies? Many people who have AIDS-infected babies do not even realise they carry the disease until their child is diagnosed. While it is true that people make choices for themselves, good and bad; if their choices turn out to be bad they deserve our compassion and love, not our judgement. Circumstances around transmission are irrelevant once someone has a serious illness. Would Mr Meacock feel less compassion for someone who developed lung cancer through smoking excessively than for someone who had breast cancer and who's risk factors were less obvious? It's as dangerous to make moralistic judgements on how people get AIDS as it is for any illness. Diseases are not judgements from God or punishments for committing "sins". If that were true there would be a lot more sick and dying people in the world and none of Mr Meacock's "innocent victims". We do not subscribe to the theology that God makes our lives miserable because we "have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God."(Romans 3.22,23, NRSV). This chooses to ignore the promise of "if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous; and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world"(1 John 2.1,2, RSV). Mr Meacock's supposition that we should not turn people with AIDS into martyrs is true. We should offer loving support to them as we would to any person who is in pain, physical or spiritual. If, as Christians, we believe that we are all called to minister to others, it should be in climate of love, compassion and respect not of judgement. Since Mr Meacock is so fond of proof texts we would like to close with "Judge not lest ye be judged."(Matthew 7.1,RSV) Mr Meacock needs to realise that his opinion is absolutely contrary to the teaching of the Anglican Church and he should be very grateful that the Bishop of Toronto chooses to exercise compassion and understanding on this occasion. Michelle and Bonnie Crawford-Bewley = = = = = [92-8-3b] Dear Integrator: I'm distressed by the AIDS as disease-of-choice letter in the October Anglican but not surprised. How should I be surprised? This way of dealing with the problem of evil has been typical of the people of God for millennia. It's called moralising (definition: imposing a fake ethical agenda on someone else to gratify your own emotional needs). Usually the needs being met are: 1) for the world to make sense, in the sense of a moral equation. It eases the agony of "why do bad things happen to good people?"; we have to answer this question less often if we can find someone other than God to blame. 2) for a sense of superiority. You may not feel good about yourself, but you can feel better than "the unrepentant" by moralising. Often you can even get people to look up to you as a superior moral being, at the same time as you declaim that you, too, are a miserable sinner. (Notice that folks who do this seldom get very specific about how they are a sinner, lest people suspect they really mean it.) I have a response to each of the needs, and another general response to the letter. To need #1, whatever resolution we may come to in the face of AIDS or any other disease or natural disaster, looking for someone to blame is cheating. We need to face up to the fact that life is unfair sometimes. To need #2, I offer a quote from Bruce Cockburn: "You can love yourself without thinking someone else holds a lower card." As for having people look up to you, it really isn't worth it unless it's really you that they're looking up to. Finally, there is a grain of truth in the article (muddiest pool still reflects the stars department.) We can't insulate ourselves from death by being "good." But we can reduce our risk of dying from AIDS by being wise. For information on how to do that, contact the AIDS Committee of Toronto, at (416) 926-1626, or your local AIDS organisation. Doug Fox ======== [92-8-4] EDWARD DID NOT CHOOSE TO GET AIDS by Barry [BARRY is a pseudonym for an active Anglican churchman who lives in Metropolitan Toronto. His partner EDWARD died of AIDS late this spring] AIDS Awareness Week has come and gone. Articles have appeared in the press and there has been news coverage and programmes on television covering the topic. I assume the intention is that the public was to be challenged to become more aware of the many aspects of this disease, which is still shrouded in all kinds of assumptions, uncertainty, and fears. More and more it seems that there is a great segment of our population which doesn't want to hear about AIDS. Moreover, this has been especially evident within the churches. I was shocked last month to read a prominent article in *The Anglican* by the Rev Ron Meacock, entitled "AIDS is a disease of choice, Scarborough cleric says". I was very angry when I read the article a month ago. My anger has not yet subsided. Not only was I angry at the pious and questionable use of Scripture on the part of someone who has obviously little theological or Biblical knowledge, but I was angry at my church paper for giving space to such drivel. Questions came to my mind. On what authority and experience did this cleric base his opinion? Has he worked extensively with people who are HIV+ or living and dying with AIDS? I think not. Does he personally know anybody who is living with AIDS? I think not. Has he held in his arms anybody dying of AIDS? I think not. Has he conducted the funeral of anybody who has died of AIDS? I think not. Has he comforted anybody who has lost a partner, or a son or daughter or a parent who has died of AIDS? I think not. Would a person with AIDS, knowing Mr Meacock's thoughts, come to him as a priest and seek the ministry of word and sacrament? I think not. Some time ago I attended the funeral of a friend who had died of AIDS. He was 30 years old. I knew him, and I know his family. They are very committed and very involved in the life of their parish. I was perplexed to discover that his funeral was being conducted in a funeral home, and upon arriving at the service, to discover that the family had parachuted in a priest who was unknown to them, to conduct the service. I asked my friend's mother why this was so. "Our rector has spoken about AIDS, and we have heard his thoughts on the issue. We do not find it appropriate to share our grief with him". "Did he not come to visit Gary while he was ill?" I asked. "No. We kept it a secret from everybody at our Church," she replied. It might be of some comfort to think that this happened a long time ago, but it was only a few months back. It makes me sad and disappointed to belong to a church where this still happens. It makes me more sad to think that Mr Meacock's article *The Anglican* will entrench people in their self-righteous bigotry, all under the guise of being faithful to their Bible. But I also speak from experience. Six months ago, my partner died after a long and very personal struggle with AIDS. Edward was not the type to share his anxieties and his problems with others -- he wanted to spare them the pain of his suffering. His suffering was very private. All who knew him, experienced him to be a loving and compassionate Christian who dearly loved his church, who read scripture daily, and had what I believe to be a powerful prayer life. He was not promiscuous. We never talked about how he got AIDS. He tried to live every moment to the fullest, and when people came to visit him at home or in hospital he wanted to talk about them -- not his problems. He read scriptures until AIDS related blindness forced him to have others read scripture to him. One day he asked me to read Psalm 23, over and over. He knew that even in his darkest hour God was walking with him, and had not abandoned him. He asked me to read it again, and again. He died as he had lived -- surrounded by those who loved him. We all laid hands on him, prayed with him, and commended him to God. After we said "Amen", he breathed only twice and then he died. We were relieved that his suffering had ended, that the long hours of caring and difficult nursing had come to an end. He died in his home that he loved so much. And a wonderful peace came over us all. Six months later, I miss him terribly. I miss his strength. I miss his love. I miss his gentleness. I miss his sensibleness. I long to hold him in my arms. Our very different personalities seemed to complement each other wonderfully. Now I feel like only half a person. But slowly, my sorrow is turning to happy memories of a wonderful Christian gentleman. God has a way of healing that I do not fully understand. So, I find Mr Meacock's article an affront to Edward's memory. Perhaps because he never spoke negatively about anybody, nor do I ever remember him judging anybody. He could only see the good in people. Edward did not choose to get AIDS. He very likely had the virus before we even knew much about the disease. But he accepted his illness gracefully and through his illness his relationship with God deepened, and his faith sustained him, so that he rarely, even in the most difficult trials of his illness was led to despair. He ministered to me, and to a lot of other people. Can I say that I experienced in his faith a real and valid form of evangelism? I think so. Mr Meacock is a man who is known to say much about evangelism -- about bringing people to know and enter a personal relationship with Jesus. The old cliche says that actions speak louder than words. Or, as 1 Corinthians says, "If you do not have love, your words are like a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal." Or perhaps Jesus described him when he said, "you have eyes but you do not see; you have ears but you do not hear." I am appalled that a cleric could be so insensitive to human suffering -- to my friend's suffering -- to my own suffering. I have suffered a very deep personal hurt by this evangelist whose god is a god of judgement and punishment. That god is not my God, and as my Edward lay dying, I'm sure that is not the God he longed to be with. ======== [92-8-5] TASK FORCE REPORTS TO SYNOD ON SATURDAY 26 September 1992, Toronto Diocesan Synod heard reports on how the Diocese has responded to the motion at Synod 1991 which called for the church to be more welcoming to gays and lesbians. The Convening Circular contained the following in the Report of the Diocesan Executive Committee to Synod 1992, under "Items referred from Synod 1991": GAY/LESBIAN PEOPLE WITHIN THE DIOCESAN FAMILY "The incidents surrounding the dismissal of the Rev James Ferry have caused great concern among gay and lesbian Anglicans, both clergy and lay, in the Diocese. "In light of this, Synod requests the Executive Committee to look into the position of lesbian and gay people within the diocesan family, with a view to making them feel more welcome by the Church in this Decade of Evangelism" ACTION The Motion of Synod concerning lesbian and gay people within the diocesan family was referred to the Programme Resources Board with a request that a task force of the Programme Resources Board be established to: o consider a process to deal with the motion; o report back to the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee received the report of the Programme Resources Task Force, and Bishop Finlay invited people of diverse opinion and experience to participate in a Task Force which would: o have opportunity to dialogue; o perform two tasks; a)collect submissions from Biblical scholars and, from these produce a Biblically-based parish resource, b)look outside the Diocese for processes that have been used by others, and the Task Force has begun its work. That Task Force is staffed by Donna Hunter, Director of Programme for the Diocese, and by the Rev Alice Medcof and the Rev John Wilton, who are members of the Programme Resources Board. The Synod agenda for the afternoon of the 26th had an item "Task Force on Sexuality". Alice and John came to the speakers' rostrum to report to Synod, and this is what they said: [Alice Medcof speaking] Thank you Bishop Finlay. The Diocese does not have a Task Force on Sexuality, hence, with your permission, Bishop, John and I will report on another Task Force, namely that of Lesbian and Gay People within the Diocesan Family. [Alice referred to the report printed above]. One year ago, at Diocesan synod, a motion was made requesting that we, as a Church, in this Decade of Evangelism, encourage our congregations to be more welcoming of our lesbian and gay members. A number of people spoke to the issue. Widely differing opinions were expressed. Clearly Synod would not have been able, then and there, to decide what action would make congregations more welcoming. The matter was referred to the Executive Committee. Executive Committee asked the Programme Resources Board to recommend a process to deal with the motion. After very careful and extended deliberation, it was decided that Bishop Finlay would invite people of diverse opinions and experience to participate in a Task Force which would (1) dialogue and (2) perform tasks: collect submissions from Biblical scholars and, from these produce a Biblically-based parish resource; and look outside the diocese for processes that have been used by others. The Task force has met twice, once on June 10 and again on September 17. It is obvious from the public media and from the volume of material that has been sent to us that Anglicans are not the only denomination for whom this is a contentious issue. We as a Diocese, and the Task Force in particular, are not working in isolation. Many, many people are troubled. Many are wanting to make their opinions known to the church. Just as many are asking the church for guidance. I would like to share with you a little of our deliberations. Jesus is human and divine. Until the eschaton we are challenged to have an ever-increasing and ever-broadening understanding of who God is and who God is to us. Equally, we are challenged to have an ever-increasing and ever-broadening understanding of what is a human being and what it is to be human. That is a challenge that every Christian faces. It is a challenge that the Task Force faces, though from a particular perspective; namely that of homosexuality. The members of the Task Force agreed to a set of working parameters or guidelines: o We affirm that God is present in the dialogue. o We agree to work closely with the College of Bishops. o We will do all in our power to include in our group those about whom we speak. o We accept that our viewpoints will differ. o We accept the possibility that people may change their opinions during the dialogue. o We fervently hope that all Anglicans in the diocese will take some time to listen to the differing opinions that are alive and well in our churches. I return to point three: the people about whom we speak will be part of the dialogue. The question to be answered is: about whom are we talking? Those who know within themselves that they are homosexual? Those who choose to be in a same-gender committed relationship and be sexually active in the relationship? Those who are homosexual and choose to be celibate? Those who were homosexual, saw their orientation to be unhealthy, and were healed? Those who believe that homosexuals are intrinsically morally disordered? Those who believe that it is legitimate that someone have a homosexual orientation? At least these. We will continue to be as inclusive as possible. The members of the Task Force have asked that we honour their wish to be anonymous. [John Wilton speaking] I want to begin by telling you briefly about two women from my parish who have spoken to me recently about the issue of the church being more welcoming to homosexual. Our parish newsletter has recently contained articles encouraging discussion of this issue. The first woman called to tell me she felt she had to leave the Church because it went against everything she had been taught, to accept what she called practising homosexuals openly as church members and particularly as clergy. She had reached this decision after much thought and prayer, but felt it was the right thing to do. I tried to help her see that there is room for a wide range of views in the Anglican Church on this as on other issues, and she remains in contact with the parish at this point. The second woman recently came to our parish and when I asked her what attracted her, she mentioned, among other things, that our open attitude towards the inclusion of women and children, a variety of cultural backgrounds and particularly our positive view of homosexuals in the Church (as she interpreted the parish newsletter) made this the kind of place in which she wanted to raise her children in the faith. I want to emphasise that these are both women whom I respect, who are both devout, sincere, concerned Christians, actively involved in the life of their Church. I tell the story of these two women because it seems to me to be a reflection of where our Church now stands on the issue, a stand which is reflected in the Task Force on Lesbian and Gay People within the Diocesan Family. As Alice has said, the Task Force met on June 10 and September 17. The atmosphere of both meetings has been open and honest, with all members of the Task Force sharing their points of view. At the first meeting, all members spoke movingly and from the heart. As you know, this is a sensitive issue. It was therefore encouraging to observe the sincerity with which points of view were expressed and listened to. At that meeting, the members of the Task Force decided not to publish the names of Task Force members or to publish minutes. This has been part of the trust- building process for the group, and it has taken some of the pressure off the members to produce results quickly. I am pleased to be able to report that the second meeting continued this trust-building, with members feeling confident to engage in spirited but respectful dialogue on a number of issues. These people are working very hard to be bridge-builders, and I believe they are succeeding. While there is some frustration at the slowness of getting started, and a concern that all facets of the issue be fairly represented, I see hopeful signs. All members of the Task Force are agreed that they do not wish their report to end up like a Royal Commission, gathering dust on a shelf. Nor do they wish to produce something which large parts of the Church will find unacceptable. The Task Force is well aware that other parts of the Anglican Communion, and other Christian denominations, have been and are continuing to deal with the sensitive issue of homosexuals and the Church. The group has set as one of its goals the gathering of information form a wide variety of other Christian sources. The Task Force will meet again in October, at which time the goals will be to find a way to increase the membership of the Task Force to be more inclusive of a wider range of opinions, and to begin to explore what kind or resource would be best suited to helping parishes discuss the issue. We ask your prayers for all the members of the Task Force on Lesbian and Gay People within the Diocesan Family. ======== [92-8-6] INTEGRITY AT TORONTO SYNOD by Integrity/Toronto treasurer BRIAN MACINTYRE THIS WAS THE SECOND SYNOD I'd attended, the first being General Synod in June. I am not a Synod member, and so what goes on in the conference halls in largely a mystery to me (you and I can both read about it in *The Anglican*). What follows is just a brief general impression of what was going on in the "forecourts" of Synod, where various groups associated with the Church, such as Integrity, are allowed to set up displays. I staffed our table for several hours on Saturday, the last day of Synod. The main discussion floor was in the ballroom of the Skyline Hotel. The display tables were set up in the large vestibule in front of the ballroom, lined up against the wall; this is in contrast to General Synod, where we were assigned classroom space in an area well away from the main action. Here we weren't isolated at all, and virtually everyone would have to pass us at some time or another. I was mildly concerned that I might encounter some members of the small rural parish to which I formerly belonged, and where I certainly hadn't been out of the closet. I did not see any of them, however. In fact, there were no embarrassing or dramatic confrontations at all around our table, though I noticed that some people made amazingly large semicircles as they passed by. Anglicans are so polite. People who did stop by were usually quite friendly, even when they indicated that they didn't completely agree with our position. We allowed them to help themselves to our selection of pamphlets, and tried to make sure that each was given on of our BRIDGE BUILDER buttons -- "the Bishop's initiative, you know." A different bishop, Barbara Harris, breezed by our table at one point picking up a few pamphlets saying she'd been by here earlier but was it all right if she took a few more? We said "Certainly", but such was our "gormlessness" we forgot to get her to sign the guest book! I was impressed by the great variety of Anglicans that there were milling about. The stereotypical Anglican, an upper middle-class conservative establishment type, hasn't really been descriptive of our church for decades, but some members of the media still continue to perpetuate the myth. There were in attendance at this Synod people of every colour, native North Americans, and at least one youth member with the remains of a Mohawk haircut, tattoos and an earring. Then of course, there was us. ======== End of volume 92-8 of Integrator, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto copyright 1992 Integrity/Toronto comments please to Chris Ambidge, Editor chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca OR Integrity/Toronto Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON Canada M4Y 2N9