Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 14:44:53 -0400 From: Chris Ambidge Subject: *Integrator* files for 1993 INTEGRATOR, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto volume 93-5, issue date 1993 07 21 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 == [93-5-1] LESBIAN/GAY PRIDE 1993: *COME OUT!* / by Chris Ambidge [93-5-2] WORDS OF THE CENTURION / based on an article in the *Church Times* of England, 23 April 1993 [93-5-3] THE NAMING OF STRAIGHTS / by KD Miller [93-5-4] JERICHO / A talk given by Norm Rickaby at a service during Lesbian and Gay Pride Week 1992 [93-5-5] CHALLENGED AND CHALLENGING AT THE CATHEDRAL / by Chris Ambidge [93-5-6] THE WOMAN IN THE GREEN DRESS: how DO we deal with fundamentalists? by Chris Ambidge [93-5-7] THE STORY OF KING DAVID, ISRAEL'S GREATEST LEADER / a whimsy by John Gartshore [93-5-8] WHAT DO *YOU* SAY? ======== [93-5-1] LESBIAN/GAY PRIDE 1993: *COME OUT!* by Chris Ambidge THIS WAS THE TENTH YEAR that I have celebrated Lesbian/Gay Pride Day. The joy that comes from being and celebrating with my people never palls. It is hard to explain the reasons for Pride celebrations, because they are not rational, they are emotional. LGPD is not about the "better-than-you", seven-deadly-sins pride. It is about the joyous celebration of the self. Unchurched lesgays would talk about self-image, those of us who are churched talk about rejoicing in God's creation of us -- "God made me and God don't make junk", was how one of the many buttons I saw puts it. Lesgays have been told by society (and often by our biological and church families) that who we are is less-than-good. That is slavery, to an unattainable image of who-we-should-be. Pride is about escaping from that slavery into wholeness. The escape is very much an exodus experience, a passing through the Red Sea to where God wants us to be. Naming of ourselves as lesbian or gay is resurrection, coming into New Life. The process of Coming Out is quite as significant as Passover and as Easter, for they too are about redemption and new life. This year, the theme of LGPD was "Come Out", and to fit in, Integrity's Pride Week event was a Liturgy of Coming Out. KD Miller was there: her report of that service is below. ======== [93-5-2] WORDS OF THE CENTURION based on an article in the *Church Times* of England, 23 April 1993 IN AN ADDRESS to the annual conference of the [UK] Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement in April of this year, Dr Elizabeth Stuart (the Roman Catholic lecturer, and author of *Daring to Speak Love's Name*) asked that the Christian Church "stop pretending" in its attitudes to homosexuality. Stuart cited the words used in the Roman Catholic communion rite just before receiving the consecrated host: "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed". The words are found in Matthew 8:8, in the mouth of a centurion begging Jesus' healing for his servant. Stuart quoted the suggestion by Gerd Theissen (New Testament professor at Heidelberg) that the relation between the centurion and his servant in the story in Matthew 8 and Luke 7 on which the words are based could have been a homosexual one; many Roman officers were homosexual. "When I read this," Dr Stuart said, "I asked some classicists if the information given by Theissen about the centurion was true. They confirmed that it was. Moreover, they pointed out that the word the centurion uses to describe his servant in both accounts is not *doulos*, the standard word for slave but *pais*, that could mean servant but also child, boy, girl and was the word used in Greek culture for a man's younger male lover. Once you realise this, Luke's note that the slave "was dear to him" takes on an added significance. "Now I want to ask why none of my teachers ever drew my attention to this. It cannot be that none of them knew the inferences that might be drawn about a man and his young slave. I want to know why this passage is simply ignored when bishops or official theologians write statements on homosexuality; and I want to know why no one has told millions of Christians, including the Pope, that they may be reciting the words of a 'practising homosexual' with great reverence every time they celebrate the Eucharist. I am not arguing that this particular centurion was definitely in such a relationship with his slave, but the facts seem to be that it was widely assumed that that kind of relationship went on between master and slave, and Jesus's only concern was the quality of the man's faith. He does not seem to have been bothered about whether they were having sex or not. "That is the point. Why do New Testament scholars, bishops, theologians and others ignore the possibility that this story might have something to do with homosexuality? They do exactly the same thing with the story of the friendship between David and Jonathan, which could not be more obviously sexual. I think that the main problem the Churches have is dealing with the issues raised by lesbian and gay lives is a failure to face the truth, and a tendency to build a protective layer of pretence around the subject which masks the uncomfortable reality." Dr Stuart pressed for an end to the pretence that scripture and tradition present a single [heterosexual] view of the issue. She accused (the church) of failure to face up to reality, pointing out that "scripture and tradition present us with a diversity of attitudes to homosexuality, and therefore diversity on the issue now must be acknowledged and respected." ======== [93-5-3] THE NAMING OF STRAIGHTS by KD Miller [KD MILLER is a writer of short fiction and a parishioner at St Clement's Eglinton] WHY IS THERE NO one-word antonym for "lesbian"? In order to describe myself sexually, why must I cobble two words together: "straight woman", connoting the boring half of a comedy duo; or "heterosexual female", sounding like part of an autopsy report? Perhaps no single word exists because society feels no need to name what it takes for granted. But I feel the need of a name, a single word to describe my sexual self. I need to come out as a heterosexual. This much became clear to me during the special Integrity/Toronto service held at Holy Trinity on June 23. It was a Celebration of Coming Out, composed in part of readings taken from *Daring to Speak Love's Name*. It was also the first Wednesday night Integrity service I had ever attended. As I entered the church, I was greeted with, "Oh thank God. We could use a female reader." Then I was handed a piece of paper. What greater welcome can there be, I thought as I sat down to study my part, than being given a job to do? The piece I was to read was by Carter Heyward, a meditation on coming out as a lesbian. Initially, I worried about the appropriateness of a straight woman ("non-lesbian"? "heterosexual female personage"?) reading it. But as I got into the piece, I found much that could have come from my own pen: *"Coming out. I come into the realisation of myself as best able to relate most intimately -- to touch and be touched most deeply, to give and receive most naturally ...*" Yes. Whenever I attend Integrity events, I have the sensation, all too rare, of being "all there" in one place and at one time. Usually, I lead a fragmented existence. Not one of my lovers has been a man of faith. Most of my friends and colleagues are atheists. And when I go to church, I still feel obliged to discipline my sense of humour, launder my language and politely leave my sexuality in the parking lot. But in the presence of Integrity folk, I feel free to be at once as religious and as outrageous as I want to be, to speak of my sex life and my prayer life in one breath. How refreshing that is. How affirming. *"...Coming out is a protest against social structures that are built on alienation between men and women, women and women, men and men...*" Yes. Except for my wedding (and, ironically, my divorce), the ritual attention my sexuality has received has been marked by denial, secrecy and fear. There is, of course, nothing unusual in this. I can't be the only female baby boomer whose puberty rites were hasty, whispered instructions in a bathroom that told me more than I wanted to know about Kotex, yet contained not one word about why this thing had happened, what it was, and what it meant. I am not the only woman whose sex education consisted of undressing her Ken doll one Christmas morning. (Needless to say, my first view of a real man was a shock.) Nor can I have been the only girl-woman to arrive at a university able to decline Latin nouns yet ignorant of the word "vagina". *"...Coming out, I stake my sexual identity on the claim that I hold to be the gospel at its heart: that we are here to love God and our neighbours as ourselves...*" During the Integrity service, after a penitential rite in which we asked God's mercy for having practised self-deception and self- denial, we observed a Declaration of Coming Out. We stood in a circle holding unlit candles. Some of us stepped forward, forming an inner circle around a candle that was burning. The man on my left stepped forward. The woman on my right stayed back, beside me. I fought a childish urge to ask her, "Are you straight too?" and wondered if the time would ever come when such a question could be asked, and answered, in perfect trust. The inner circle read: *"As Eve came out of Adam, as the people of Israel came out of slavery into freedom, as the exiled Israelites came out of Babylon back to their home, as Lazarus came out of the tomb to continue his life, as Jesus came out of death into new life, **I COME OUT** -- out of the desert into the garden, out of the darkness into light, out of exile into my home, out of lies into the truth, out of denial into affirmation. **I NAME MYSELF AS GAY/LESBIAN**. Blessed be God who has made me so!"* They then lit candles from the central flame. The rest of us said around them, *"We join in solidarity with our sisters and brothers in their act of courage and prophecy. Joyfully we pledge our support for them, proclaiming the sacredness of our own sexuality also. Blessed be God the creator of all of us."* Then we joined the inner circle and lit our candles from theirs. After that, we spoke a psalm, sang a hymn, joined in a litany, and shared bread and wine. The ceremony left me feeling grateful and wistful. How different would my life be if, publicly, in a church, I could declare my heterosexuality and thank God for it? How different would my church be, if such a thing were to take place? What would it be like, to bring all of myself, proudly and joyfully, to the altar rail? And what name would that self be given? ======== [93-5-4] JERICHO A talk given by NORM RICKABY at a service during Lesbian and Gay Pride Week 1992. The 92 Pride Week theme was "Breaking the Silences" THE PEOPLE HAD BEEN BORN IN SLAVERY. They toiled all life long and died with no sense of identity or personhood. They served tables, played music, laboured in fields, created buildings, cared for children and did a thousand other tasks which made life more pleasant for those who held them under control. As long as they were quiet and did exactly what was expected of them, no one troubled them. To their oppressors, though, they might just as well have been invisible. They lived a barren life, never gathering to sing their own songs, dance their own dances or play their own games (except, perhaps, secretly after dark). Their souls were imprisoned, crying out. That cry was heard by their God. One day their God reached out and called a few who were willing to take a stand before the oppressors and say "No more!" The action was exciting, yet dangerous. Suddenly the invisibility of the people (which had been, for many, a protective cover) was gone. They were noticed and feared. The oppressors tried to contain and control them even more. More restrictive burdens were imposed. Some of them protested against making demands for freedom and for the end of conformity to other people's expectations. "Keep quiet," they begged, "you're only making things worse. There's nothing to be gained by calling attention to ourselves." Then came the opportunity for the people to gather together and march. Many rejoiced in the new power they felt and joined the parade. Over the next years these women and men shared many hardships, battles and plagues together. As they journeyed, they learned much about their own strengths, their loves and joys, their gifts and talents. They learned that it was a wonderful and blessed thing to be who they were and not what someone else defined them to be. On their way, they discovered that the determination to limit and shut them out still existed in various people and institutions. Time and again they were required to struggle for existence and a place. Sometimes they had to fight. Sometimes they used schemes. Repeatedly, they were encouraged by a sense that their God was leading them out to the possession of dignity and equality among all peoples. They were led to a place called Jericho. Jericho stood as the institutional fortress barring their entrance to full recognition as free men and women. The authorities of Jericho ordered the gates of the city locked and fortified against them. The written record affirms that this order had the effect of preventing entry, but also of keeping those within who felt kinship and identity with this people from going out to join them. Jericho was impressive. The city had already stood on that location for about 5,000 years. Its authorities were confident that they could control the lives of everyone within its boundaries and that they could prevent the unwanted influence of those outside from coming and (as they thought) destroying the unity of the society within. Standing outside, they felt daunted. For a week they circled the fortress daily in deep silence. They prayed. They wondered if there were any possible way that such a stronghold could ever be changed, could ever be open to them. Once again, on the seventh day, the people circled the great walls -- apparently immovable, unbreachable. Suddenly, trumpets were sounded by some among them who were sensitive to the call of God. At the blast of trumpets, the congregation could no longer hold its peace. A great cry rose up and broke the silences within and around the city. The cry was a mixture of rage, and pride and hope. No longer would they remain silent in the face of other people's fear and hatred and exclusion. With the great breaking of silence, the thick and formerly impregnable walls shook, then crumbled and fell. No longer was there anything to prevent the outsiders free access nor their kin from within freedom to expand and move outward. We are women and men who have reached a time in our journey of breaking and continuing to break silences. We have both the responsibility and the privilege of breaking the silences which have surrounded the institutional injustices of religion and religious organisations. These silences have kept our people out and have kept others, who are secretly within, bound and controlled. We shall not lose heart. The walls must come down. They will crumble and fall. ======== [93-5-5] CHALLENGED AND CHALLENGING AT THE CATHEDRAL by Chris Ambidge IN MAY OF THIS YEAR, St James Cathedral in Toronto presented a three-part lecture series entitled *"Homosexuality: Challenged and Challenging"*. About fifty people came out each week to participate in this, the latest in a series of educational events around the diocese on the subject of human sexuality. Each evening there was a presentation for about an hour, and then questions-and-answers from the audience. I must admit, when I first saw the display ad for the series in *The Anglican* [Toronto's diocesan newspaper], I was a little sceptical. The Cathedral has in the past had an uneven history when dealing with its lesgay parishioners. However, there are more than a few of them who have stuck it out, and I'm glad to say that my initial misgivings turned out to be ill-founded. Thanks in no small part to those lesgay parishioners, and others of good- will in the congregation, an informative series was put together. The first week's presenter was Dr Ron Langevin, a psychiatrist for the Clarke Institute (a research-level psychiatric institute affiliated with the University of Toronto). He gave a brief history of how the psychiatric profession has dealt with homosexuals and their orientation over the years. He pointed out that early studies were run on gay mental patients, and this skewed sample, not surprisingly, yielded a profile of a gay man as mentally ill. Once studies included gays living in the general populace, the gay=illness correlation disappeared, and in the 1970s homosexuality stopped being recognised as a mental illness *per se*. He also pointed out the almost complete absence of studies on lesbians. Dr Langevin also said that sexual orientation is non-elective on the part of the individual, and is not changeable. It was certainly good to hear that being said by someone with medical credentials to a church audience. The audience appeared to be mostly lesgay-positive, but it's hard for lay-people to argue with medical people on medical matters. I thought at the time that it would be interesting to see what happened the next week, when Canon Colin Proudman was to present a biblical viewpoint, and indeed it was. Canon Proudman (who has celebrated for Integrity/Toronto in the past) is immediate past Dean of Divinity at Trinity College, Toronto. He is a biblical language scholar, and so when he says "the Bible says", he speaks with more authority than most, having read it in the original Hebrew or Greek. He spoke of the bible as a historic document, to be seen in its own context, and warned of problems inherent in translating any text between two languages over two thousand years apart. Proudman also warned of the perils of taking translated texts literally -- citing slavery, divorce and lending-at-interest as social concepts that have changed from biblical times to today. Then came question-and-answer time. The second speaker (notice I'm not using the word "questioner") was a woman in green. She got up and said that she had been homosexual, but in 1984 someone showed her a bible verse (I think it was the bit in 1 Corinthians 6) and this turned her life around. I have condensed into one sentence what took her three or five minutes to say. "Witnessing" is one word for what she was doing. "Awful" is another one. Well, eventually she paused for breath and the (cathedral) Dean, who was MC, cut in and asked her "do you have a *question*, madam? Well, she didn't, but continued (while brandishing, and I'm using that word advisedly, her bible) for a couple of minutes before Dean Abraham managed to move on. During the hiatus in her speech, a man sitting in the row behind me muttered "I've got to get out of here" and high-tailed it for the door. The next person was in white, and he asked the loaded question about should the Anglican Church be blessing same-sex couples. Well, Proudman was answering that cautiously (not now it isn't, but that's the way he thought it should move), but apparently he wasn't being unequivocal enough for our questioner, who interrupted with a clarification, adding that he agreed with "what has just been said" (the woman in green), and that most of what he had heard that night (Proudman's address) was an abomination. After Canon Proudman repeated his feelings on the spousal stuff, Dean Abraham said fairly firmly that the series was part of a dialogue and "abomination" comments were NOT appropriate in a dialogue. A while later, another group, also brandishing bibles, wanted to know if Canon Proudman believed in the inerrancy of scripture (citing appropriate proof-texts). Since he had finished his address talking about seeing the writings as a history of people looking for God, this was a pretty obvious tactic on their part. He spoke of context, they spoke of the-words-of-the-LORD, with human writers as stenographers for the divine dictator [the wording is mine, and the pun is fully intended]. Proudman remained polite, but his English accent came to the fore when he finally said "Quite frankly, Madam, that is where you and I part company". The contrast between the first two weeks was remarkable: no-one had felt confident in challenging a medical doctor on his medical expertise, but several people (who had been in the audience the first week) were quite prepared to challenge a biblical scholar in his area of expertise. The third week of the programme was not nearly as confrontational as week two had been. That evening saw a panel discussion on Justice Issues, with three presenters. First was Orville Endicott, who is a priest and a lawyer, speaking on Human Rights and the Law; second came Ted Scott, former primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, on Human Rights and the Church; and third, Phyllis Creighton, General Synod member and co-author of the 1986 Human Sexuality Study Guide to give a woman's perspective on Human Rights. It wasn't nearly as splashy as the previous week, with our "missionaries" from the converted community conspicuous by their absence. The panellists all said things that I would want them to say. Endicott and Archbishop Scott approached the same things from two ends, that Human Rights proceed from our being human -- only; and that all humans should have the right to be treated equally. We are all equal as the beloved children of God. I asked a question (a real one) of Archbishop Scott: while many people say it's OK to *be* homosexual, present policies in both church and state say loudly that it's not OK to *do* homosexual. I wanted comments on this discontinuity. He said that everything we do affects what we are, but otherwise side-stepped my question, which disappointed me. Someone else asked the panel when (if ever) they thought we might see lesgay unions and/or lesgay clergy able to be up-front about it. There were interesting responses (these are not direct quotes, but capture the thrust of the statements made): SCOTT: it will happen. I won't put a time-line on it, because I'm always wrong, but I know that if we see a situation which is not in accord with God's will for the world, we must move to eliminate the injustice, whether or not we think we'll ever see the injustice rectified. In God's time (*kairos*) it will happen. CREIGHTON: it's happening now. I know of bishops who already know of lesgay clergy with partners in their dioceses and that is part of the equation when the bishop is dealing with them, just as opposite-sex partners of clergy are. Indeed, a bishop who retired a number of years ago, told me that he realised that some of his clergy (all male in those days) had male partners, and never moved them from one parish to another without ensuring that partner's career was going to be OK with the move. ENDICOTT: things are moving faster than we might think. There was a 1991 decision which allowed same-sex spouses in Ontario, and said that sexual orientation should be "read in" to the *Canadian Human Rights Act*, by invoking the *Charter of Rights and Freedoms*. However, there were decisions in 1990 reading exactly the opposite. Who knows how fast it will happen, but my sense is it that it will be not too long. SCOTT: I don't think that sweeping legislation is the way to move right now -- you want to get people accustomed to the concept that lesgay/Christian is not an oxymoron, and that lesgay is OK. My sense is that if you were to present a resolution at General Synod tomorrow [actually, it won't meet until 1995] calling for full same-sex unions, it would fail. We need the lets-try-it-anyway that is happening in various parts of the country for hearts to change (and realise that the end of the world has not come with these local recognitions of same-sex status). Keep changing small things all the time is the way to go. The three evenings gave valuable insight to those who attended. I hope that this sort of event can be repeated around the diocese, and real dialogue, learning and bridge-building take place. ======== [93-5-6] THE WOMAN IN THE GREEN DRESS how DO we deal with fundamentalists? by Chris Ambidge AT THE END of the second week's presentation in *Homosexuality: Challenged and Challenging*, in which Canon Colin Proudman gave a biblical perspective on homosexuality, I found myself compelled to go and speak to the Woman in the Green Dress. She had "witnessed" to the about-face her life as a lesbian had taken in 1984, when someone had read her the verse in 1 Corinthians (how homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom). She had laid those sinful ways behind her, and that is what all homosexuals should do. I guess I couldn't let her go unchallenged by another homosexual person, one who had *also* read the bible. She was standing with three others -- one, the man in white who had found Proudman's address to be an abomination. There were two of each sex, and if my radar is in any way reliable, they were as gay as I am (though whether any but the woman-in-green would admit it is a moot point). They didn't present any Anglican credentials, and a pamphlet they had indicated they might be from one of the more fundamentalist churches a few blocks away. I wondered why they came -- to save the backsliding Anglicans? The woman-in-green "witnessed" to me again, showing me a verse in her (KJV) bible, while her friends made supportive noises. They obviously hadn't heard anything that Canon Proudman had said about different translations. She was addressing her words to me, but rarely looking at me -- usually at the man in white (maybe talking AT me would be a better expression). She actually told me to my face that she thought I'd burn in hell. I told her that I could not believe in a God so spiteful as to create in me and in others a need and an ability to love, and at the same time not to allow us to use it. I'm not sure if either group heard the other. I worry about that, from my point of view. They are just as baptised as I am, they too are my beloved's beloved. Obviously I'd like them to change their hearts, but what can one do? I worry about the man who had to leave early, so distressed by her initial witnessing. It's hard to argue with such people as the woman-in-green -- she's been "saved" since 1984. My perception is that since then she's been repressed, and not, I suspect, terribly happy about things. That, however, is MY perception, and I'd resent others making judgements like that on my life, I realise. What to do? It is a sobering feeling to be told, by someone who literally believes it, that you will burn in hell for living out your life in what you consider to be a faithful way. I cannot dismiss her out-of-hand, for she is being faithful in the way she knows. She is God's daughter, just as I am God's son. How can we talk? How can a dialogue ensue? She won't even LOOK at me, much less listen. Your input, both in prayer and in word, is requested. ======== [93-5-7] THE STORY OF KING DAVID, ISRAEL'S GREATEST LEADER a whimsy by John Gartshore FROM TIME TO TIME, people tell us we should read our bibles and conform with "Judaeo-Christian family values". There's quite a variety of family values in the bible; perhaps this one will do as a model for us. According to the bible, the Lord instructed the prophet Samuel to select a mighty king for Israel. The only criterion for picking David seems to have been that "he was ruddy, and had beautiful eyes, and was handsome." (1 Sam 16:12). If that isn't cute, I don't know what is. David was butch, too: see how he dealt with Goliath. He was wily: see how he dealt with Saul. Now, no sooner was David in the palace that the king's son fell in love with him. It must have been quite a relationship. David's lament when Jonathan died is one of the most tender, passionate love poems imaginable. Eventually, David took four wives. It's funny that, devoted as we are to the bible, we turn censorious over the way David seized Bathsheba and did in her first husband Uriah! So much for bible values! Finally, when David was dying, they shoved a foreign woman into bed with him to keep him warm. That's how the bible describes family values. Shouldn't we be imitating it? Well, perhaps not. ======== [93-5-8] WHAT DO *YOU* SAY? One of the main thrusts of the bridge-building initiative is dialogue, and exchange of ideas. *Integrator* is part of that exchange, and response from readers on any and all points is encouraged. What have been your experiences in these dialogues? What have you heard people (on either side of the bridge) saying? One of the main stumbling blocks to real dialogue is people clinging firmly to their own "bottom line" -- we ALL have a bottom line. For some it comes from their sure knowledge of being beloved of God as they are, for others the bottom line is Christ as revealed in the Bible, or as taught by the Church (of whatever denomination). This fundamentalism is the bedrock of our own faiths, but it can stand in the way of dialogue with our sister and brother Christians. What do we do, how can we build bridges? Your input is encouraged. *Integrator*'s address is below, on the masthead. ======== End of volume 93-5 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