Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 14:44:53 -0400
From: Chris Ambidge <chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca>
Subject: *Integrator* files for 1993


INTEGRATOR, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto
volume 93-7, issue date 1993 11 01

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 ==

[93-7-1]
WHERE YOU GO, I WILL GO; WHERE YOU DWELL, I WILL DWELL  /  an anonymous
     tale of betrothal

[93-7-2]
READ ALL ABOUT IT!  TASK FORCE REPORT PRINTED IN *The Anglican!*
     by Chris Ambidge

[93-7-3]
PATTI'S STORY

[93-7-4]
QU'APPELLE ANGLICANS CONSIDER SEXUAL ORIENTATION ISSUES  /  Other
     dioceses have also been working with their lesbian and
     gay members, as Bev Walpole reports:

[93-7-5]
US BISHOP AFFIRMS THAT HE IS A GAY MAN  /  excerpts from a letter by the
     Rt Rev Otis Charles

[93-7-6]
THE MONOGAMY MODEL: DOES SINGLE MEAN SECOND CLASS?  /  by Chris Ambidge

[93-7-7]
THE ELECTRONIC CATACOMB  /  by Chris Ambidge

[93-7-8]
AUTHOR IDENTIFIED!!

=========


[93-7-1]
WHERE YOU GO, I WILL GO; WHERE YOU DWELL, I WILL DWELL

[This article was written by a newly-espoused couple somewhere in
suburban Canada.  It is deliberately anonymous, because it could
have happened anywhere.]


OCTOBER 1, 1993, 9:15PM.  Outside, a gentle rain is falling, while
inside a suburban Anglican church, my partner and I proclaim our
love for each other in a private service with only God and the
angels as our witnesses.

Originally, when we decided we wanted to formalise our commitment
to each other, we chose October 1, 1994 as the date.  We then
began to search for a place and a minister.  For both of these,
resources were limited. For while there are many places, mostly
Anglican ones, which are very special or meaningful to us, they
were not available for us to reveal and celebrate God's gift to
each other in the presence of our friends and families.  And there
are many people, most of them Anglican priests, whom we would have
loved to lead us through our vows and bless our union, the
fulfilment of God's love.  They are forbidden, however, to do this
for us or any other gay or lesbian couple.

So, after much frustration and, at times, anger on my part, my
partner suggested a solution to our problem.   We could exchange
our vows on October 1, 1993, in an Anglican church, committing
ourselves totally to each other in a private wedding service, with
only the two of us present.  After obtaining the priest's
permission, we prepared a service that spoke of the love that we
share for each other.  At 9:15 pm, by candlelight, with
Pachelbel's *Canon* playing softly in the background, and in front
of the alter, we promised to love each other "from now until the
end of time and beyond." What started out as a "gotcha!" for the
Anglican church, turned into a very emotional, very romantic
moment, and we felt the Presence of God with us as our two lives
became one.

The following evening, we attended a social event in the same
Anglican church and had a friend take our wedding pictures in the
church. They will be included in our album for next year's
service.

We rounded out the weekend by attending an AIDS Awareness service
on Sunday.  We held hands throughout the service, in the comfort
of knowing that we were accepted as a couple by all present.

We are now a married couple, and we know that it is the gift of
God's love that we share and that this gift will continue to grow
forever.  God has truly blessed us in our meeting, in our
courtship and especially in our marriage.

We are still having a service next year on October 1st, one where
our friends and families can share in the blessing of our union
and where we will exchange in public the same vows that we made to
each other privately.  Our hopes are that a particular Anglican
priest, who is very special to us, will agree to officiate at our
wedding.  However, this person may feel that, because of the
restrictions placed on Anglican clergy participating in services
celebrating same-sex unions, they cannot perform this service for
us.  If that does happen, we have been blessed again in having
another friend (another Anglican priest), who is prepared to
celebrate for us, using a variation on a familiar and accepted
prayer for house blessings.

I find myself getting very angry when I think of what we have had
to go through, and continue to go through, so that we can be
married. Our dream was to have the service in an Anglican church
with candlelight and organ music (which, in fact, I provided after
we said our vows). But in order to have this, we had to keep it a
secret.  It is time the Anglican church woke up and realised that
many members of the community are leaving the institutional church
because of the lack of sensitivity to us and to our needs, and the
blatant denial of the God-given rites that belong to us just much
as they do to the heterosexual community.

I pray that the Holy Spirit will inspire the Anglican church and
its powers-that-be into acknowledging our partnerships and
recognising our commitments to one another.


========


[93-7-2]
READ ALL ABOUT IT!  TASK FORCE REPORT PRINTED IN *The Anglican!*
by Chris Ambidge


A MOTION WAS MADE at Toronto Diocesan Synod 1991 asking the
Diocesan 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."

As a result, Diocesan Executive Committee commissioned a Task
Force to dialogue and to produce a parish resource.  The Task
Force, chaired by the Rev Alice Medcof, met many times between
June 1992 and June 1993.  There were 14 members, representing a
broad spectrum of opinion, feeling and life-experience.  I was one
of the 14.

In the course of the meetings, we discovered much common ground,
and several areas where we could not agree.  We all felt that,
among other things, that hatred is not a Christian option, that
Christians are called to be a community of reconciliation, and
that the church must be welcoming.  We were divided on the
interpretation of scripture and the origins of hetero- and
homosexuality.

The Task Force has produced a resource, which will appear as an
insert in *The Anglican* this month.  We felt that producing a
report which might be seen only by a  few was not appropriate to
the nature of our task:  large numbers  of the faithful need to
hear,  and do  their own thinking and feeling about how they view
their lesgay neighbours in the Church.

*Bridge Building:  Welcoming Lesbian Women and Gay Men in our
church* will go directly to most Anglican homes in the diocese.
It outlines the mandate of the Task Force, where we could agree,
where we differed, and the ranges of opinion we found.  We wanted
other faithful Anglicans to see our struggle with the issues,
maybe to find their own feelings represented, and to enter into
the dialogue.

The greater part of the report is taken up by four stories.  Kate,
Ron, David and Trevor had different experiences in the Church as
homosexuals, and share part of their journeys in print.  These
first-person accounts are followed by a few short questions,
points-to-ponder to help readers clarify their own feelings and
attitudes to lesgays, and how they could be more welcomed.

The Task Force had to deal with wanting to put lots of information
in the hands of readers, on one hand; and the confines of a short,
readable and attractive document on the other.  As a result, two
of the six stories chosen were edited out.  One of them was
Patti's Story (written by Patti Brace of Integrity/Kingston).  It
appears below.


========


[93-7-3]
PATTI'S STORY


I WAS ONE OF THE "GOOD" CHILDREN.  I grew up with the Anglican
church at the centre of my life -- choir, youth group, serving,
diocesan youth activities, setting up hundreds of chairs and
tables and carrying trays of sandwiches and squares for dozens of
parish events.  I loved my church and, as an adolescent when the
first women were ordained in our diocese, felt called to be a
priest.  My relationship to my faith and church was quite
uncomplicated -- my God loved Her people and desired justice for
them, which was what I was supposed to carry out.

At the same time, though, I was always aware of being something
different from what I saw around me.  That I didn't date simply
indicated that I was a "good girl," or a nerd, depending on your
perspective.  Certainly the latter seemed reasonable to me.  While
I didn't have a clear sense of what that difference was, or a
language to express it ("lesbian" wasn't in my vocabulary), I
certainly was conscious of the necessity of not telling anyone
that my adolescent crushes were on other girls in my high school.

This state of obliviousness persisted until the my final year as
an undergraduate, although by this time I had decided that
whatever it was that made people loveable and able to love had
been left out of me.  When I finally linked the example of lesbian
women around me with my own feelings I was terrified. Suddenly I
had turned into one of the people it was OK to hate or dismiss
with "you know, s/he's one of them."  I couldn't reconcile this
with my sense of myself as a good child in the eyes of my parents
or my church.

At this point also my relationship with God and the church were
somewhat rocky.  My desire for inclusive language and imagery and
a less hierarchical understanding of the relations between people
in the church made participation difficult.  I also couldn't
conceive of a loving God who could make me unlovable.

At the time when I began to be conscious of my sexuality, though,
I threw myself back into activities abandoned a couple of years
before and became very "churchy" as a way of escaping. A couple of
years later I stopped running away and came out. In many ways that
decision has made life more complicated.  It is almost as
(un)popular to come out as Christian in a lesbian and gay
community that feels very hurt by churches in general as it is to
come out as lesbian in the church.  However, it has opened up some
new possibilities for bridging these communities, which has become
increasingly important to me.

At the moment, my relationship to the church is troubled.
Sometimes I feel shut out -- that the church wants my time, my
energy, my gifts, but not the part of me that loves.  Having
worked very hard to find and claim that and to see it as integral
to my being, I can't separate that lesbian self without destroying
the whole person God has made me.  There have been joyful moments
recently when "church people" have asked to hear my story and the
stories of other gay and lesbian people, moments that have
convinced me that the church I love is indeed a loving community
of justice-seekers.


=====


[93-7-4]
QU'APPELLE ANGLICANS CONSIDER SEXUAL ORIENTATION ISSUES
     Other dioceses have also been working with their lesbian and
     gay members, as BEV WALPOLE reports:

[BEV WALPOLE lives in Saskatchewan, and was one of the presenters
at the first morning session of Synod.  He has written for
*Integrator* before, and has been a member of Integrity/Toronto
for several years.]


CAREFUL, SENSITIVE PLANNING by the diocesan task force on
sexuality resulted in the successful introduction of issues
related to the Christian understanding of homosexual orientation
at the 1993 synod of the Anglican Diocese of Qu'Appelle held in
Regina in October.

Bishop Eric Bays' charge to the Synod was read by the Dean (Bishop
Bays is unwell) to some 270 members of the church at St Paul's
Cathedral.  In his charge, Bishop Bays emphasised that the subject
of homosexuality would often elicit deeply emotional responses.
"There is a need for Anglicans to acknowledge this fact, and yet
at the same time to find ways to enter into discussion that allows
respect for a variety of opinions while seeking God's truth."
Bishop Bays went on to stress the importance of informing
ourselves about the discussion so we can make our own
contributions to the work of the national group which in turn will
report to the General Synod of the church in 1995.

Since this was the first discussion within Qu'Appelle concerning
sexual orientation, the focus was on opening dialogue rather than
attempting formal resolutions and debate.  A procedural motion was
introduced to make sure that there would be no debate (but,
rather, listening and dialogue) at this meeting of Synod).  The
motion, which was expected to be *pro forma*, was itself debated.
One parish which vehemently opposes homosexuality distributed
literature stating their position on the subject, and pressed for
debate on sexual orientation and the church.  The procedural
motion was carried after several delegates spoke to the need for
careful examination of all aspects of sexual orientation without
pressure to make decisions that might later be regretted.

The presentation format for introducing sexual orientation issues
consisted of two parts.  The first morning, four presenters
related their life stories to the group.  No questioning or
discussion was permitted at this time as each speaker told of
growing up gay or lesbian in an often hostile environment, both on
the outside and within the church.  Each spoke of rejection, lies
and deceit and their respective faith journeys.  All spoke
poignantly of their struggle to accept themselves and to establish
their place with God, the church and society.

One woman related her struggle within the United Church and
reminded delegates of the difficult process her denomination began
in the 1980s.  An ordained minister, she told of being rejected by
congregations to whom she provided service, and of the strength
she gained from her personal faith.  A middle aged man spoke of
feeling like a small child watching his family from a distance,
knowing he was rejected for who he is.  A young woman seminarian,
taking a different approach, talked of her conviction that she had
been healed of lesbianism through her faith in Jesus.  The
presentation s ended with a young man telling of his struggle to
belong to a religious order, but finally leaving when he came to
understand the only way he could remain was to live a lie, deceive
and deny his own God-given nature.

Synod members sat in electrified silence as one by one the guest
speakers laid open their lives before the assembly.

Throughout the rest of synod, some of the presenters remained
available for private consultation with members and guests.

On day two, Professor Terry Donaldson of the College of Emmanuel
and St Chad in Saskatoon offered two opposite ways to approach
this difficult issue from a biblical perspective.  Afterwards,
synod members had an opportunity to voice their positions and
concerns.  Most who addressed the group spoke in favour of careful
consideration by parishes of the issues surrounding sexual
orientation.

In a brief and powerful statement to those present, Canon Helena
Houldcroft of Regina (who chairs the church's National Task Force)
encouraged parishes to give careful consideration to lesbians,
gays and bisexuals, their orientation and related concerns.  She
cautioned the group not to confuse issues of sexual orientation
with those of sexual abuse, and to be clear in understanding what
is meant in each instance.

Comments made privately by many individuals in attendance revealed
genuine interest in working towards inclusion of lesbigays in the
church and recognition of us as a whole people Although many
questions remain for delegates, there seemed to develop a desire
to get to know us as persons, and to learn about our lives and our
struggles for affirmation within the Anglican Communion.  The work
is expected to continue over the next two years in the parishes.

The Diocese of Qu'Appelle ministers to just under 29 500 Anglicans
in southern Saskatchewan.  It is one of three dioceses in the
civil province, and part of the ecclesiastical province of
Rupert's Land.


========


[93-7-5]
US BISHOP AFFIRMS THAT HE IS A GAY MAN

[BISHOP OTIS CHARLES, retired bishop of Utah, and later Dean of
the Episcopal Divinity School, has come out as a gay man.  He
wrote to all the bishops of the Episcopal Church in the USA in
September of this year, just before the House of Bishops met in
Panama City.  Integrity was given the text of that letter.  Here
are some excerpts:]


For 45 years I struggled with my sexual identity.  In the
isolation and darkness, I felt that there must be something wrong
with me.  I turned to others for help.  I prayed with all my heart
to be healed.  Nothing changed.  I was still me, pulled apart
inside by feelings I schooled myself to believe were unnatural.

Then God did a marvellous and wonderful work in my life. ...  I
prayed that I might be delivered -- and God heard my prayer.  I
was healed.  To my surprise it was not from homosexuality, but
from my fear of myself, from my discomfort about who I am.  It was
a charismatic moment for me. ...

I have promised myself that I will not remain silent, invisible,
unknown.  After all is said and done, the choice for me is not
whether or not I am a gay man, but whether or not I am honest
about who I am with myself and others.  It is a choice to take
down the wall or silence I have built around an important and
vital part of my life, to end the separation and isolation I have
imposed on myself all these years.  It is a choice to live my life
as consistently as I can with my own integrity, a choice to be
fully who I am and to be responsible for all that I am. ...

I am aware that the reactions to my openness about my sexuality
will encompass the whole range of emotion and opinion.  For those
for whom homosexuality is an incomprehensible (or even
reprehensible) aspect of human behaviour, there may be a sense of
shock and perhaps revulsion and sadness.  For those for whom the
expression of their sexuality as gay and lesbian men and women has
been long hidden, suppressed, and scorned, there may be a sense of
affirmation and perhaps even victory.

Beyond the reactions, beyond any sense of winning or losing,
beyond any opinions and feelings about what is right and what is
wrong, I would hope for people to be able finally to see in my
story neither a victory nor a loss, but a fellow human being and
Christian on the journey that life is, a human being subject to
all the feelings of joy and sorrow, of pain and wonder, of love
and fear, a human being doing his best to follow his heart and his
Lord and to live a life of integrity and service to others. ...

Because we [the church] are a people of faith, our quarrels have
at times taken place as theological and moral arguments -- after
ignoring or even threatening the very ties of brotherly and
sisterly love that binds us together as a community of believers.
But precisely because we are a community of faith, bound to one
another in that faith, I believe God is breaking the walls of
separation.  The Spirit is drawing us to a new understanding and
experience of inclusion.  I also believe God has drawn me to speak
the truth of my experience.  And I believe that as gay men and
lesbians speak openly, telling the stories of their lives, the
community of faith is strengthened.

As for the future, I expect to continue to live my life in the
context of my calling as a priest and bishop. ...  I count on your
continued prayers and support.

     Otis Charles

September 1993


========


[93-7-6]
THE MONOGAMY MODEL: DOES SINGLE MEAN SECOND CLASS?
by Chris Ambidge


WHEN LESGAY CHRISTIANS talk to the rest of the church about
ourselves, we often speak of those of us who are in monogamous
partnerships.  Fair enough.  After hearing a few such examples,
though, a question that springs to mind is "what about those of us
who aren't partnered?  What about those of us who are single --
either by chance or by choice?" It seems to me that when we ask
what the church has to say to lesgay people, we also ought to ask
what it has to say to those of us who are not partnered, or not in
monogamous relationships.

Example: In my more ascetic moments in my twenties, I tried to
refrain from masturbation.  When I fell off the wagon, and my
humanity inevitably re-asserted itself, I felt very guilty for a
while.  I now see that self-denial as being anti-incarnational,
denying the body that God gave me.  I now ask the question, would
denying myself two-person sexual pleasure not also be anti-
incarnational?  I have seen people who feel that they must remain
sexually abstinent, often with little or no experience of physical
love.  To balance that, I know people who have decided after being
open to two-person sexual activity that this is not for them at
this time.  I would call that "informed consent" to abstinence,
and can support it.  I don't think I can support the charismatic,
"no, no, it's a sin" decision, though.  The latter seems to bring
misery, when the abstinent one finds him/herself in a position of
reeely reeeeely wanting to become active with one person.  Hunger
makes them perhaps not the best judge of what is good and bad by
way of relationships.

The monogamy model has been criticised by some in the lesgay
community as imitating the heterosexual model with half the
pronouns reversed (so to speak).  I am far from objecting to
monogamy, but I do wonder about the people who don't fit into this
model.  What ARE we saying to each other, and to our young?  That
we should just-date-and-not-do-anything (certainly nothing below
the waist) until after marriage (or whatever analogy may exist for
lesgays)?  It seems to me that a Ward-and-June Cleaver picture,
retouched for same-gender couples, represents neither what we are,
nor what we should aim for.

Example: A friend of mine, Don, told me that after being in a
relationship for a year, his partner Graham had broached the
possibility of it becoming an open relationship -- one where
sexual activity with third persons is accepted (usually with some
conditions attached).  Don had come to the relationship with
considerably more experience than Graham, including some longer-
term partnerships.  Don told me his relationships had been
rewarding (as well as fun), and he didn't want to deny Graham the
opportunity for similar joy and growth.

I have heard that many long-lasting same sex partnerships have
some kind of openness built into the covenant between the two, and
it is sometimes argued that things that are flexible can withstand
external forces more readily than things that are rigid.

Example: In adolescence, heterosexual young people indulge in
sexual play.  Lesgay young people may or may not be doing so these
days, but for me -- well, I was pretty repressed, and found myself
behaving in a very adolescent way when I was in my thirties, just
after I came out, when it became permissible to me to think of
other men as potential partners.  I've seen an awful lot of
lesgays enter a late adolescence when they finally get to enter
"the life" of a homosexual person.

I appear to be saying here (and indeed in my life, actions
speaking louder than words) that sexual activity outside a
committed, monogamous, and potentially life-long, partnership is
indeed OK.  Perhaps I am advocating "responsible sexual play" for
all.  (It would be nice, though, if we all got to act as teenagers
in our chronological teens, since by the time we're middle-aged,
other things may be constraining our activity!)

So, how do we, as Christians, think people should behave in a
sexual way?  Do we promulgate virginity/complete abstinence until
we're coupled?  That doesn't seem to have much by way of biblical
background [There are literally scores of different relationship
models in the bible.  Watch for an article in *Integrator* in the
next few months].

Sex is pretty popular, as Miss Manners points out, has been so for
thousands of years, and shows no sign of diminishing in
popularity.  Do we think relationships with possible sexual
contact are "occasion to sin"?  Or do we think, "Sure, go ahead
(always with safety in mind)"?

Some of the arguments issued from the virginity corner are
essentially saying "you mustn't be promiscuous", sometimes adding,
"that won't make you any friends in the heterosexual community,
because they have stereotypes of homos rutting like rabbits all
the time." I realise that this is kindly meant.  However, I have
to live for myself, not by being afraid of what-the-neighbours-
might-think.

Maybe a little discussion on what promiscuity IS would be in
order: my Oxford dictionary defines it as "having casual sexual
relations with many people".  It is a loaded and a relative term.
I am only being partially facetious when I define promiscuous as
"someone who has more sexual partners than I do".  You know the
comparisons -- I am sexually active, you are promiscuous, he is a
slut.

I must admit that when I hear the P word used in some circles, it
comes with a distinct "holier-than-thou" tone, and I think that
that is an offshoot of the un-holy body/soul dichotomy, which is
downright anti-incarnational.

I have not found myself a life-partner, and to be told that I must
NOT do anything sexual until I do, by people who are in
relationships, can be perceived as smug on their part.  When I'm
told "NO!", I feel like the proverbial kid outside the candy
store, with my nose squashed flat against the window.  The
implicit message from those inside is "no, this is special, this
is only for me, and those like me."

I know from personal experience that sexual communion with a
beloved other is a Good Thing.  I would not have given up that
experience for the world.  I'm not saying that I go out hunting,
looking-for-to-get-laid all the time.  But I do want to remain
open to a sexual dimension to my relationships with close friends
(this, by the way, is not a cast of thousands, nor am I bedding
several people alternately).  I get the feeling, though, that in
many people's minds, those who are coupled are first-class
citizens, those who are celibate are class 1B, and those like me
are regarded by churchypeople as second-class.

I guess you can tell I don't like that.

I haven't said much about God in this.  But words to the contrary,
God is in my internal theologising on the matter, closer to me
than any human lover could be.

What does the church have to say to me?  What does the church, by
which I mean body-of-all-the-faithful, have to say to lesgay
people (and others, for that matter) who are uncoupled, whether by
choice, or by chance?

I have asked a lot of questions, and I don't pretend to have all
(or even most) of the answers.  I am speaking here only for
myself, and not for Integrity/ Toronto.  I hope that these
questions set you thinking.  I would appreciate feedback, and
continuing the discussion:  please write to *Integrator* at PO Box
873, Station F, Toronto M4Y 2N9.


========


[93-7-7]
THE ELECTRONIC CATACOMB
by Chris Ambidge

THE ELECTRONIC ERA IS HERE.  Many computer networks have sprung
up, as rapidly as new suburbs in a housing boom. All anyone needs
to link up with this world is a computer, a modem (to  enable it
to communicate over phone lines) and an account on one of the many
computer networks.  Thus equipped,  they  can talk to people the
world over, almost instantaneously, by electronic mail.

E-mail and computer bulletin boards have established whole
communities where people gather to talk about areas of common
interest, from the latest in molecular biology to hockey to
current politics.  These people get to know each other -- they may
be thousands of kilometres apart physically, but in talking, they
are as close as the computer keyboard.

When  people move into new housing estates, they take their
churches with them.  St David's Downtown gives rise to St
Stephen's-in-the-Suburbs -- or in this case, St Catharine's-of-
the-Computer.

New faith communities advertise their presence to the new
neighbours, and many on the Internet have recently read the
electronic flyer reproduced at the right.

LUTI is an electronic meeting place for people of faith who accept
lesbian/gay/bisexual people.  Some participants are homosexual,
some are heterosexual.  We talk about things important to us as
people of faith.  We pray with and for each other.  We laugh and
joke.  We rage and  weep and mourn our dead.  We share words from
outside, posting  articles and sermons gleaned from hither and yon
(indeed, several articles printed in *Integrator* this past year
have come via LUTI).

If you would like to join, send a  message as outlined in the
flyer -- or send e-mail to me.  My Internet address is
ambidge@ecf.utoronto.ca

          = = = = = = = =

     ATTENTION LESBIGAY CHRISTIANS:
        Tired of Being Fed to the Lions?

        Fed up with being burned?

     Put away your asbestos sneakers for a while and
     come to our prayer-lit electronic catacomb, LUTI.
     God is here, as the Holy Spirit, and here God dares
     to love absolutely everyone.  You don't even have
     to speak or be known.  If you need to, you may sit
     in the corner and lick your wounds.

     Lo, everyone that thirsts, come, drink eternal water
     which Jesus revealed at Samaritan wells!

     For a guide away from the Coliseum down the
     Appian Way, send e- mail to Louie Crew with the
     SUBJECT:   "LUTI, yes".  The address is

        lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu

     or from CompuServe, the address is:
        >INTERNET:lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu

     No one will check your plumbing.  In this space we
     know one another not by whether we are Jew or
     Greek, male or female, straight or gay, pigmented
     privileged or pigmented vulnerable.... but by
     whether we love one another.  Come, be the church
     with us.


========


[93-7-8]
AUTHOR IDENTIFIED!!


*Integrator* is published in electronic form on LUTI, and  one of
the readers recognised last month's article Crucifixion:  An
Easter AIDS Story.  It was the Good Friday 1989 sermon of Molly
McGreevy, Pastoral Assistant at St Luke's in-the-Fields, New York
City.


========


End of volume 93-7 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