Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 14:44:53 -0400 From: Chris Ambidge Subject: *Integrator* files for 1993 INTEGRATOR, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto volume 93-3, issue date 1993 03 16 copyright 1993 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 == [93-3-1] BRIDGE BUILDING AT ST ANDREW'S / by Norm Rickaby [93-3-2] HOW *WE* BUILT A BRIDGE / by the Rev Brian Prideaux [93-3-3] A VIEW FROM THE BRIDGE / by Beverly Schaffner, one of the participants [93-3-4] ANOTHER VIEW FROM THE BRIDGE / by Patti Brace, who was one of the guest speakers ======== [93-3-1] BRIDGE BUILDING AT ST ANDREW'S by Norm Rickaby THIS IS THE SECOND issue of *Integrator* in a row reporting on bridge building efforts by parishes in the Diocese of Toronto. Last month the focus was on the lectures and discussions held at St Clement's church, a large parish in North Toronto. Weekly attendance at those sessions averaged about one hundred. This month we look at the program offered last fall at St Andrew's, Scarborough, a smaller parish located in the suburbs of Metropolitan Toronto. Registration at this series numbered twenty-three persons but the effort was impressive and as significant an achievement as the other larger event. It may also have accomplished more in the profound effect it had upon the individual participants. It is important to recall that the impetus behind the several recent parish bridge building programs comes from an idea and a request put forward by Bishop Finlay during his Charge to Synod in September 1991. He told the Diocese that he needed people who were willing to be bridge builders to help cross the chasms that exist between people on several tough issues, including that of homosexuality. Integrity/Toronto responded to the Bishop's call by making it clear that we were prepared to assist any groups, parishes or deaneries which wanted to embark on a project. As you will read elsewhere, one of the first decisions the parish steering committee made after it was formed was to invite Integrity/Toronto to name two members to join it in its task. Chris Ambidge and I accepted the invitation and were quickly welcomed and made to feel at home. The committee committed early to prepare an experience for parishioners which would allow them an opportunity both to learn and to enter into dialogue. The earlier experience of the Rev Joan Waters, the parish priest, in Christian/ Jewish dialogue provided support for this concept of meeting with and listening to people. In that previous experience, people came together honestly acknowledging their differences. They were ready to hear and learn from the experiences of others with the realisation that one's ability to genuinely hear another's point of view will be impaired by any underlying motive of trying to convert or change the other person. For Bridge Building at St Andrew's, we determined that people would be permitted to be honest about where they stood, whether it was on one side or the other (or somewhere in between). The members of the steering committee were able to do this from the beginning. We committed that, while people might learn things or hear stories that could influence or modify their attitudes, we would state clearly that no one would be expected to change or abandon their present positions or stances. Safety for participants to speak and express themselves was an integral part of the covenant relationship established from the start of the event. All of the guests who came to share their stories said that they found an atmosphere in which they were very comfortable sharing their stories and feelings, although the listeners were strangers to them before they arrived. Finally, this was an event looked at from within the Christian community. All of the guests who spoke of their lesbian and gay experience were women and men of Christian faith. They told their stories of growing up and/or coming out in the light of their membership in the church and of the struggle with what their identity meant to their relationships with God. The registrants, mostly from the parish of St Andrew's, obviously appreciated the contribution of the guests and asked us to invite them all back to the closing session which included evaluation, a Eucharist and pot luck party. The dialogue had succeeded in helping people feel joined in an important learning and growing experience. Here we present an account of the programme, written by the Rev Brian Prideaux, one of the presenters, and two reaction pieces -- the first by Beverly Schaffner, one of the participants, and the second by Patti Brace, one of the guests. ======== [93-3-2] HOW *WE* BUILT A BRIDGE by the Rev Brian Prideaux BUILDING A BRIDGE is hard! You have to deal with people who think you should build it elsewhere, or that you should not build it at all. You have to decide whether it will be an elaborate or a simple structure, and if it will stand up under the weight of the traffic expected to pass over it. Then there is the hard work of assembling the bridge. Finally, when it is all built, you hope that people will use it. For six weeks last fall (7 October to 11 November 1992) at the Church of St Andrew, Scarborough, about 23 people responded to Bishop Finlay's appeal for people willing to be "bridge builders" between heterosexuals and homosexuals within the Anglican community. Of course the image is not without its ambiguities: just who is it we were trying to build bridges between? Gays and straights? The church and the lesbian and gay communities? People who think practising homosexuals have no place in the church and those who think they do? Do bridges need to be built within as well as between the heterosexual and homosexual communities? Maybe all of these and more. We took it to mean that our programme should be as inclusive of people and perspectives as possible and that we had to respect where various people were situated on the bridge. At its first meeting the planning committee unanimously agreed to invite Integrity to name two members to the committee. To our delight, the persons they sent, Chris Ambidge and Norm Rickaby, quickly fitted into the group. The bridges we wanted to build in the series itself were already going up among the programme leaders. We came to realise that whatever our opinions on the subject of homosexuality we were all struggling to be faithful followers of Jesus Christ. The prayer of St Francis ("make me an instrument of your peace...") took on new meaning as we said it at the opening of each session, making us aware that each of us are called to be instruments of God's peace and reconciliation to others. Meetings closed with a time of prayer. It was very special to stand in a circle holding hands with whoever happened to be next to you, perhaps someone with whom you had disagreed earlier or who had shared an experience of suffering or of anger with the church, and know that each of you was upholding the other in prayer. Our first session, led by the Rev Joan Waters, rector of the parish, introduced participants to each other and the topic. We made a Covenant, setting out the ground rules for our dialogue. This Covenant was read out at each subsequent meeting. The series was not intended to convert anyone to a particular position, but to allow participants to express their views without judging others or being judged in return. However, nobody was obliged to express an opinion if they preferred not to do so. We were first asked to list stereotypes about gays and lesbians with which many of us have grown up. While there was laughter about some of them we were also sobered to realise that many of these images also have their vicious side and have been used to cause pain. When it came time to discuss the feelings that each group had about the other a word common to both lists was fear! All too often, fear lies at the root of the indignity and suffering that people inflict on each other -- fear of the unknown, the different, the perceived threat. The ways in which fears on the part of the heterosexual population have played themselves out in history were outlined by Norm and Chris during the second session. Not all societies nor all periods in history have been hostile to homosexuals. In fact, there are remarkable examples of acceptance. However, the over- all record is a dismal one. We were introduced to the concept of "distinguishable insiders", whose differences are acknowledged but against whom nobody would think of discriminating; "inferior insiders" whose differences are tolerated but which relegate them to an inferior status; and "outsiders" who are not tolerated and may be penalised or even killed. Those of us who had not known the origin of the pink triangle worn by many gays and lesbians learned that they were first worn by homosexuals when they were sent to the prison camps of Nazi Germany along with Jews, Gypsies and other victimised groups in the Third Reich. During the second hour of this evening we had the privilege of hearing a gay man and a lesbian tell their stories, followed by questions and discussion. This became the pattern for three further sessions: discussion of the topic of the evening followed by conversation with guests from the lesbian and gay communities or their families. It was in the second half of the evening that for many participants the programme passed from theory to genuine encounter. The openness and frankness of our guests made for some profound and moving moments. Participants had questions to ask and concerns to express, but they also wanted to listen and to understand. Some later wished that our guests had been present for the whole six weeks and not just one evening. On the third evening time was spent reviewing some of the scientific and biological insights into homosexuality, dealing with the age-old question of nature or nurture, whether homosexuals are born or made. This was presented by Dr Harri Ramprasad, a medical doctor and parishioner at St Andrew's, who produced scientific evidence to suggest that there is a genetic basis for people being predisposed toward a homosexual orientation. He added, however, that there are other elements such as psychological or environmental factors which also affect human development. My contribution to the programme was to take two evenings looking at what the Bible has to say about homosexuality. The number of passages which refer to homosexual activity is relatively small, representing only about six typed pages. Some of the ways in which scholars have interpreted these texts were examined, beginning with the well-known story of Sodom and Gomorrah and ending with Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27. We must not take passages out of context, but read them in the light of the Bible as a whole and take into account the various levels of biblical writing. The teachings and actions of Jesus are, of course, normative for Christians and we learned that he gave no direct teaching on homosexuality, but what he said about human relationships with each other and with God applies to people of any sexual orientation. Anglicanism takes seriously other sources of information such as tradition and reason in its interpretation of scripture so that, for instance, knowing whether or not there is a biological basis for homosexual orientation would influence our decision whether biblical injunctions against homosexual activity can be applied in the same way as in the past. As the closing session participants shared experiences and insights gained over the past six weeks. Several guest from previous evenings returned for the occasion which took on an atmosphere of celebration as we moved into the Eucharist, presided over by the rector, followed by a pot-luck dinner. During the Eucharist, participants were given an opportunity of putting on the altar a list of their most meaningful insights or experiences during the series. Evaluations handed in at the end were overwhelmingly positive, with many participants expressing the hope that this was only a first step in an ongoing process. The series could be repeated for the benefit of others unable to take part, future programmes might deal with specific matters such as AIDS or the ordination of practising homosexuals, and ways could be found for the parish to be more active in promoting understanding and reconciliation. At least individuals with a lesbian or homosexual orientation should be able to feel welcome and not threatened in the midst of a professedly Christian community. Not long ago I drove by part of a bridge out in the middle of a river. All that remained were the piles and a piece of the roadbed, but the bridge no longer went anywhere and there was no way anyone could use it. Further down the highway a new bridge spanned the river, a beautiful new structure which opened the way to a widened and improved highway. Our programme was a little like those two bridges. It could prove to be a bridge that goes nowhere because it is not connected to either shore, or one that leads the way to new understanding and new relationships. I am among those who hope that the people of St Andrew's will connect the bridge-building series with their ongoing life, that they will become an inclusive parish in the very best sense of the word. [Author Box: THE REV BRIAN PRIDEAUX was honorary assistant at St Andrew's, Scarborough ] ======== [93-3-3] A VIEW FROM THE BRIDGE by BEVERLY SCHAFFNER, one of the participants I LEARNED MANY THINGS from Bridge-Building at St Andrew's, especially through the well structured portions of each six week segment. What touched me most at these sessions were the individual stories of the guests. One woman spoke of how she missed not being able to invite her partner to the office Christmas party, not being able to hold hands walking on the beach, not being able to kiss hello or goodbye in public. The office Christmas party, a time to socialise, a time for fun, laughter and merriment -- but not for this woman, because at this time she can't be with the partner of her choice. Why? Because they are the same sex! Holding hands on the beach, a simple gesture to express a feeling of togetherness and closeness, taking enjoyment from the day with someone you care about -- not for this woman. Why? Because she and her beloved are the same sex! A kiss hello or goodbye. A simple sign of love and affection, again denied this woman. Why? Because they are the same sex! Simple gestures of affection and a natural desire to socialise with one's partner, things heterosexuals take for granted being denied a "person". Two other women in a loving, caring and committed relationship talked about the joy they feel with each other. The interaction between these two people was uplifting -- but they are being denied a union in their own church. Why? Because they are the same sex! Listening to all the stories one thing was very clear. They have never lost their faith. Their view of the church is greatly challenged, but heir faith in God never wavered. These people opened their lives to us unconditionally so that we could have a better understanding of a very difficult issue. I ask myself, could I have opened myself to that degree? Could you? ======== [93-3-4] ANOTHER VIEW FROM THE BRIDGE by PATTI BRACE, who was one of the guest speakers FROM THE PERSPECTIVE of one longing for spring, last fall seems like a long time ago, but the sense of welcome I felt as a speaker at St. Andrew's lingers. When I was invited to tell my story as a lesbian Anglican at a real live church, I was excited and a little apprehensive. While I have spoken to many audiences in the last few years and have talked about faith and issues around homosexuality in the church, the opportunity to speak to church people had only presented itself once before -- when Integrity/ Kingston made a case for its existence to the Diocesan Mission Board. That was not an occasion designed to make us feel welcome, although the outcome was quite positive. As I remember, the people taking part in the programme at St Andrew's did their best to make the atmosphere comfortable. Recollections of some truly remarkable cookies loom large, as do memories of quite a number of people coming over to say hello before settling themselves on couches and comfortable chairs for the evening. For the rest of the evening, what was most striking was the attention the participants paid to our stories. There was a lively silence (as opposed to the dead, 0h-we're-so-bored-with- it-all sort commonly encountered in lecture halls). I think the big revelation for me came from listening to my fellow speaker, John Gartshore. Our stories, while separated by gender difference and more than thirty years, were remarkably similar. I certainly did not expect that. The evening at St Andrew's has been important since because it represents for me a moment when the church asked for permission to listen -- that's a gift. ======== Jim Ferry's book, In the Courts of the Lord, is now available in bookstores everywhere (Key Porter Books, hardback, $24.95). Look for our review, and other news, in the next issue of *Integrator*. ======== End of volume 93-3 of Integrator, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto copyright 1993 Integrity/Toronto comments please to Chris Ambidge, Editor chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca OR Integrity/Toronto Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON Canada M4Y 2N9