Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 21:43:15 -0400 From: Chris Ambidge Subject: Integrator, back issues from 1994 INTEGRATOR, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto volume 94-5, issue date 1994 11 12 copyright 1994 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== [94-5-1] CHALLENGED CHRISTIANS: A HOMOSEXUAL RESPONSE / Chris Ambidge reports on the Fidelity conference held at Wycliffe College September October 1995 [94-5-2] EDITOR'S MAILBOX: a letter from a conservative person, on his motivation for involvement in lesbigays in the church debates / by David Burrows [94-5-3] OPENNESS: Letter urges open acceptance of lesbians and gays in the church / by 71 Anglican priests in the diocese of Toronto [94-5-4] PART OF THE DIOCESAN FAMILY / Integrity/Toronto at Synod [94-5-5] LET'S GET ON WITH IT! Excerpts from the Bishop's Charge to Synod / By the Rt Rev Terence Finlay [94-5-6] ARIMATHEA'S GARDEN / a meditation by Mayne Ellis [94-5-7] NO LOSERS IN CHRIST / by Bonnie Crawford-Bewley [94-5-8] CHURCH CHESS -- TURNING BISHOPS INTO PAWNS / by John Gartshore [94-5-9] OBITUARIES / Gregory Lee and Eric Nobes ======== [94-5-1] CHALLENGED CHRISTIANS: A HOMOSEXUAL RESPONSE by Chris Ambidge Fidelity called their conference in late September *The Homosexual Challenge: A Christian Response*. The day-long event investigated how they, as people who feel that the Church's "traditional teaching" on human sexuality needs to be given stronger voice, should be reacting to homosexuals. Well, as someone who describes himself as both homosexual and Christian, I thought mayhap I should go. I wasn't alone. There were some- where between 150 and 170 of us there in all, gathered to hear the words of Philip Turner (dean of Berkeley Divinity School at Yale) and Elizabeth Moberley (a theologian who is a principal proponent of "Gender-affirmative therapy", which aims to heal homosexuals to heterosexuality). Both of these people gave plenary addresses, and later answered questions from the audience. They also gave smaller-group workshops, as did Toronto's Sue Careless of CURE (a group who feel, among other things, that homosexuality should not even be talked about in the schools). Dr Moberley is a fairly controversial figure. There are many who feel that her methods are suspect, and based on weak science. As the time for the conference drew closer, controversy about her surfaced in the gay and secular media. Students at the Toronto School of Theology felt that her presence at Wycliffe (part of TST) was offensive and contrary to University policies on non- discrimination codes. They did not want to zap the event, by being loud and disruptive, but rather to ensure that real dialogue took place. A sizeable number of them were present at Wycliffe as participants. They also provided and staffed a literature table from lunchtime on. It was here that the "Openness" letter, signed by 71 priests in the diocese of Toronto, was first distributed [see "Openness", article [94-5-3], below]. The evening before the conference, the TST Lesbigay students organised a prayer vigil on the lawn outside Wycliffe, and there were more than fifty of us there. It was quite a representative group: about half men and half women, from pensioners to infants. The people came from many denominations: Presbyterians and Quakers and RCs and Anglicans and MCC and then some. We sang, we lit candles, we listened to scripture (one of the readings was the bit from 1 Corinthians 12, about *all* the various parts of the body being necessary to well-being). Most of all, we prayed together. We prayed for those who would participate in the conference, for those who felt excluded by the aims of the conference, and that the Holy Spirit would give everyone there new insights into God's grace. One of our number, 21-month-old Cadence, scattered flower petals in blessing. A number of Wycliffe students watched us for a while, and a couple came out to speak to us afterwards. That sort of communication was heartening, and I was reassured that the event wasn't going to be completely "us against them". Next morning came the conference itself. There was a capacity crowd, and more people waiting in the lobby. I spied all sorts of people that I knew in the throng, including five bishops and a large number of either lesbigay or gay-positive people. Dr Turner spoke for eighty minutes, as did Dr Moberley. Turner said that the case for full acceptance of lesbigays in the church (my phrasing, not his) had not been made. In investigating the theological underpinnings for pastoral acceptance, he rehearsed arguments pro and con, and said he was unconvinced by what he called the "revisionists". His arguments were mostly theological and intellectual. However he did say that we (people in the church) should get out of the game of competitive prooftexting. He called for a shift of focus in the discussion from Genesis 19 (the Sodom story) to the first twelve chapters of Genesis, the creation myths. There I fully agree with him. Dr Turner said that scripture and tradition, in that order, set for Christians a framework that all parties to the debate must inhabit. He went on to say that unity, rather than victory, was possible. When asked later what he thought of reason in the context of scripture and tradition, he laughingly said "Reason is a whore who sells herself to the highest bidder". While he went on to give a second answer, many a true word is spoken in jest. I found myself wondering if he would accept *any* argument from reason. I appreciate his call to avoid fighting for an all-or- nothing "victory" by either side. On the other hand, I hope that he is not preparing to sacrifice my people, Anglican lesbigays, on the altar of unity-at-all-costs. As someone else has said, "Unity without justice is not worth fighting for." Dr Moberley began her presentation by quoting John 3: 16, and pointing out that Jesus came that *all* might be saved; and that "all" included homosexuals. She also spoke of the church needing to repent of its homophobia, and both of these I found encouraging. The basis for her therapy is that homosexuals have had a poor relationship with their same-sex parent, and (when the patient really wants to change) homosexual orientation can be reversed. She claims that large numbers of people have been helped to become heterosexual this way. She spent a goodly portion of her talk criticising those whose research indicates that sexual orientation is immutable, or has physiological causes. My main problem with her work is that there is virtually *no* follow-up work done on the people who undergo gender-affirmative therapy. She has no hard data on what happens to people two, five or ten years down the line; whether they are happy, or whether they revert, or whether they are psychologically damaged. That is just plain bad science -- and, since she's dealing with human beings here, it's also immoral. Dr Moberley said that one of her main points was that people can change sexual orientation if they wish. Both speakers were careful to point out that all, homosexual and heterosexual alike, are beloved of God - but bottom line is, homosexuality is sinful, and it is God's will that you change. That's not a very accepting message. This is not just a hypersensitive homosexual speaking. Lynn Glazier of CBC Radio's *Sunday Morning* did a piece on the conference with a focusing on Moberley. Glazier said "...the message is clear: 'No-one blames you for being gay, but God will hold you responsible if you stay that way.' " She included interviews with two people who had been through a conversion experience, one of whom felt he was now heterosexual, the other who felt that, try as he might, the conversion attempt was unsuccessful, and that it damaged him. This ex-ex-gay sees "conversion" of homosexuals "as a gentler homophobia. Elizabeth Moberley, and those like her, give [the church] a model to cling to, and to offer to the rest of the church leadership, and to the community, as an answer to this "gay dilemma." The conference was picketed at lunchtime by various groups who felt that the bigotry of the organisers was not a good thing. A priest from Fidelity, while making the closing thank-you speech referred to the picketers. "I don't like being called a bigot," the organiser said from the dais. "No, I'll bet you don't", I thought; but on reflection, two other thoughts crossed my mind. No one likes being called names that you don't think are appropriate, or fair, or nice; certainly not by angry people who may well be shouting and who probably don't like you. That sort of thing happens constantly to lesbigay people, inside and outside the church. The name-calling may well be on the street, as those picketers were; but if you're lucky it will happen when the police are present to make sure that vocal name-calling is as far as it goes. The name-calling may be behind closed doors, or behind your back, or it may be denying you support or position or employment. Maybe the picketing will help Fidelity people to walk at least part of a mile in the moccasins of lesbigays, of Integrity people. The picketers felt that Fidelity people were bigots. The priest felt that this was untrue. To the priest I would point out that, to a large extent, perception *is* reality. Somehow, the people carrying the picket signs got the message, from something that Fidelity people said or did (in setting up the conference, in the speakers they invited, whatever) that they are bigots. Anyone who has preached a sermon to ten people knows that there were eleven sermons -- the one that was preached, and the ten that were received. If you don't like the message that is being received, then it incumbent on you to change your words or your actions in such a way that the correct message is sent out. Another Integrity person said to a Fidelity person, "I don't like the pickets myself, but please hear the anger of my sisters and brothers who couldn't be in here. Please also hear the silence of those who couldn't bring themselves to even come to the street, let alone inside the hall." A friend of mine said that possibly the most profitable thing to come from the day was the physical presence of large numbers of people on both sides of the bridge in the same room for a chunk of time, all thinking about lesbigays in the church. This physical closeness, she said, would help church people deal with the incredible squeamishness we tend to have about matters sexual. All-in-all, it was not the most affirming day of my life, but I'm very glad that I went. I think that all Christians are challenged by the issues raised by lesbigays in the church. By talking and listening to each other in good faith, we can grow together within the Body of Christ. ===== [94-5-2] EDITOR'S MAILBOX One of the things that I, as a gay man, really do not understand, is why people on the Fidelity side of the bridge invest so much energy in the issue of lesbigays in the church. There are many other things that we as Christians can and should be interested in: Rwandan refugees, evangelism in Asia, the plight of the homeless and hungry in our own towns. I know why I am interested in lesbigay issues, but my motivation is pretty obvious. So I asked a few people to tell me what moves them, in their own words. I asked for heart-stuff, rather than head-stuff. David Burrows, whom I have quoted in Integrator before, responded. I respect David, even though we come to different conclusions. He has always been prepared to listen to lesbigays; I ask that we listen to him. = = = = = Dear Chris: Thank you for your note. It had never occurred to me that those on the other side of the "issue" would not understand why we are so highly motivated. Now that I think of it, it seems to me eminently reasonable that you wouldn't understand. You're gay, I'm straight. You don't oppose the ordination of straights. Why would I oppose the ordination of gays? I should add, before proceeding, that I speak for myself alone. I do not represent Fidelity, or for that matter, anyone but myself. The bottom line is this: I believe that men (or women) were never meant to be united physically in a sexual relationship with other men (or women). So I guess it comes down primarily to sex. (How twentieth-century of me). I saw someone at Synod the other day with a T-shirt on that showed two males (holding hands, I think) and the caption "Adam & Steve". I don't believe that. I believe that anatomically as well as psychologically men were made to "cleave" to women and women to men. If you don't mind my using the word -- I feel that gay unions are not natural. Please allow me to say at this point that I truly do not wish to hurt you or any other gay person although I know full well that what I say might -- no, will -- do just that. Certainly, hurting is what both sides ought to avoid. I'm sure that you've been called man vile names. I've been called "a bigot" and a "homophobe". I do not and never will hate people of colour. In fact, my youngest son Paul's first girlfriend was black and we were delighted with her. And I'm not afraid of homosexuals. I am, however, an arachnophobe. Once a spider dropped down from the sun visor of my car and I nearly lost control and went off the road. I have no such phobia regarding gays and I feel that to reduce what I consider to be my moral imperatives to psychoanalytic categories is to fail to confront the reality behind them. This is to the detriment of us both. I know that speaking about the naturalness of any given act will raise hackles but I do not offer this as a scientific and theological definition. This is, quite simply, what turns my crank as you put it. I am afraid that the acceptance of what I consider to be unnatural will lead to the diminishment if not the destruction of much on which my life is based, eg church, family, etc. Another way of putting it would be to say that I regard "gay-lib" as the "thin end of the wedge". What other preferences or orientations will we be asked to accept? I ask myself, what will be left for my children? And for their children? What sort of society? What sort of church will hey inherit? These are my fears and they move me to thought, speech and action. I also have my hopes. So there you have it. Sincerely, David Burrows = = = = {Author Box: The Rev David Burrows is the rector of Bobcaygeon and Dunsford} ===== [95-4-3] OPENNESS Letter urges open acceptance of lesbians and gays in the church Dear Friends in Christ: We are Anglican priests within the diocese of Toronto writing about the issue of homosexuality. Our intention is to challenge, modify, or balance various opinions on this topic recently circulated within our community. Our way of looking at this issue is, we hope, healing and conciliatory. The Church is called continuously to discern from the diversity of the Scriptures what is fundamental for salvation, and what is not. New knowledge and new experience stimulate that process, which in turn requires patience, openness and time to complete. God is with us in that -- and as God's Spirit has taught us repeatedly, our discernment must be grounded in justice and compassion. Our century's debate on homosexuality is just such a case. Sexual orientation is a gift from God. The Church is called to accept and deal with this. Our reading is that biblical directives are essentially silent on the issue of loving same-sex relations as we now understand them. We wish to sustain God's gift of sexuality for us all by making specific provision for the needs of gays and lesbians in the Church. Intimate partnerships enable us to unite with one another in love, to be transformed by that love, and thus to return to love's Source. The pastoral teaching and ministry of our Church freely accepts relationships that are not procreative in possibility or intent. This principle, in our mind, applies equally to homosexual as to heterosexual couples. We support any who choose to remain abstinent or who respond to the vocation of celibacy, but we believe that neither the choice nor the vocation can be imposed. In fact, the freedom to enter into faithful and loving relationships is what constitutes us in the image of God. We believe that all responsible, caring relationships bear witness -- by their honesty, faithfulness, integrity and loving self- sacrifice -- to God's presence and blessing within them. We bear witness as believers that the gifts of the Spirit are as present and visible in the Church's homosexual as in its heterosexual members. We believe that God's Spirit is bringing the Church to a deeper understanding of what it means to love. We are confident of God's guidance, and believe that this journey will bring us to a more complete understanding of how human identity and human relationships reflect the will and nature of God. We seek to facilitate the open acceptance of gays and lesbians in the Church. We therefore pledge ourselves to work with our brothers and sisters toward a faithful witness where: o Sexual orientation will no longer be a cause for any kind of discrimination in society and, especially, in the Church. o The Church will bless covenantal relationships between gay and lesbian couples. o The Church will allow gay and lesbian priests to have the same rights as do their heterosexual colleagues to be in committed, loving relationships, including the sexual expression of that love. *Ad Hoc Group, Creed, 1994* We offer these reflections to the glory of God and the good of God's people. To God be praise forever! Signed, Robert Black, Sally Boyles, 102 other priests, and 45 lay persons (as of the end of October). You may show your support for this Statement by signing a copy and returning it to the address below. As well, it is supported by several essays which can be obtained by sending $10, payable to The Church of the Holy Trinity re "Openness" Statement, 10 Trinity Square, Toronto M5G 1B1. Feel free to copy and circulate this document. If quoted, correct attribution is requested. ======== [94-5-4] PART OF THE DIOCESAN FAMILY Integrity / Toronto at Synod One weekend after the Fidelity conference came Toronto's diocesan synod. We hit the ground running, so-to-speak, and set up our display on Friday morning. Even though we got there at 8, there were only three spots un-claimed. We seized one and proceeded to make it our own, with rainbow banners and flags and our marching banner and flowers and pamphlets. We made a point of speaking to as many people as possible (and not just the people "on our side"), and that of course included our next-door-but-one neighbours, Fidelity. This was their first Synod, and I hope they felt welcome. There were no particular hot issues on the floor of Synod from the lesbigay point of view this year, and it was good to relax and be a part of our diocesan family. Bishop Finlay mentioned people of faith struggling on both sides of the bridge in his charge [see elsewhere in this issue], and that too affirmed us in our place at the diocesan family table. The big draw to our display (besides [ahem] our charming selves, of course) was the *Openness* letter, which had been made public at the Fidelity conference the week before. Copies were being distributed from the Integrity display, and more people were adding their signatures to the document at our table (indeed, some seventy people, clerical and lay, were added to their number that day). Several new friends signed our guest book, and may be reading *Integrator* for the first time because you gave us your address. Welcome! If anyone else would like copies of the pamphlets that we distributed at Synod, drop us a line, or give us a call. ======== [94-5-5] LET'S GET ON WITH IT! Excerpts from the Bishop's Charge to the 142nd Synod of the Diocese of Toronto, September 29 1994 By the Rt Rev Terence Finlay ... I do have one suggestion to make: begin with our Baptismal Covenant ... here the essentials of our faith, our identity and our mission are outlined. Take each phrase and roll it around I your mind, let the words become pointers, look beyond a basic understanding, peel back the layers like an onion. Apply the questions and hopes of an adult to broaden your insight. You will discover a God that is infinite, awesome. ... As a Church we live to serve others in God's world, particularly the poor, the lonely, the alienated and the hopeless. I said it last year and I will say it again, each parish should have at least one outreach project which enables people to be involved at the cutting edge of need in their community. You may want to undertake it with your neighbouring parish, or even another faith group, but let's get on with it. Some suggestions: continue to build bridges of understanding between people of different values around the issue of homosexuality; be part of an affordable housing project training hospital visitors, develop an employment programme, drop-in centres, or strategies for safer streets and parks; support those who seek to reduce violence and abuse amongst families, individuals and communities; take action to care for our environment. ... As Anglicans we are a peculiar people, who hold as orthodox both conservative and liberal, evangelical and catholic, we are grounded in scripture, tradition, reason and experience ... It is called our Anglican way. It has a wonderful richness which holds within it the seeds of diversity, partnership and mutuality. Let's consider this, for example, in the light of just one issue: homosexuality. In this Cathedral tonight there are people of deep faith, grounded in the scriptures, committed to Christ and his Church, who hold to very different understandings regarding the homosexual who seeks to live in a faithful commitment to another person of the same gender. I ask myself whether our church will be able to hold together these varied understandings with respect, charity and honesty, or will we divide, build walls and fragment? This is not the first time in our history that we have experienced such diversity in understanding on a key issue, from interpretation of scriptures, to moral values, to ministry: eg high/low Church, remarriage of divorced people, ordination of women. There is a lack of precision, an ambiguity that many find difficult in an anxious age which often demands simple answers to complex problems. Anglicanism is at its finest and, I believe, [its] truest form is seen when we have been able to hold in conversation and communion a rich, challenging, lively, but sometimes painful, diversity of thought and practice. Retreating into exclusive camps is, I believe, contrary to God's purpose. Diversity is inherent in our very being as creatures fashioned in the image of the triune God We need to listen attentively for the voice of God speaking to us out of the experience of those who may be quite different from us, but who are also our sisters and brothers in Christ. This is a form of identity through partnership. ... And so, my friends, let us begin by carefully renewing our own spiritual base and our understanding of God as creator, redeemer and sanctifier. Then let us move to enliven our eucharistic congregational development, social justice and a rediscovery of the uniqueness of our Anglican identity through partnership. We have been empowered by God, now, let's get on with it! ======== [94-5-6] ARIMATHEA'S GARDEN A meditation by Mayne Ellis Mayne gave this meditation before the British Columbia Diocesan Conference, Nanaimo / October 1994 in the Forum "Homosexuality and Homosexual Relationships" = = = = = My name is Mayne Ellis. I come among you as a lesbian. As a child, I was bewildered and alienated; I deceived myself and others in great fear as a young woman, yet was reborn into a life of self-acceptance and renewed confidence in God's love for and acceptance of me. We are ALL precious to God. It took me twenty years to learn that I was included in that "all". I come among you, knowing that all of us here, despite our differences, have a mutual friend. Let me share with you a bit of my relationship with Jesus. I have walked with Christ, in the press of great cities, in the rainforests of the west coast, in the stillness of the Australian desert, in the white-hot desert of Israel. I come among you in uncertainty and fear. Even though I am a Christian and an Anglican, I am not sure if any of you here will accept me, believe what I say, or like me. Yet I see no enemies here, though some of you may see me as an enemy. Jesus did not call anyone his enemy. My witness is no less valid because some of you don't believe it. Jesus was murdered by those who called themselves wise. In fact, it was Jesus who taught me: for every crucifixion, a resurrection. I am an example of the foolishness of God, that same foolish Sophia who has made this stone, unlike any other. I am in God, and God is in me. God, being passionate, does not fear my passion. God, the discerner, does not scorn my discernment. God, ever-loving, does not condemn my relationships. But some of you do. I have seen some among you use scripture, tradition and reason as your own personal weapons against anyone you don't like, or whose faith journey you don't understand. Yet what is scripture but the written record of some men's experience? What is tradition but the codified experience of certain men? And this vaunted reason of yours, what is it but the template formed of some men's experience? I am wary of these cherished tools of men; I have seen them used to justify the burning of wise women, the destruction of indigenous peoples, the enslavement of millions, the creation of wars, and the aggrandisement and enrichment of a sanctimonious few. And I have seen some among you use scripture, tradition and reason to empower women, to uphold the honour and uniqueness of First Nations, to condemn the enslavement of children, to denounce the making of war, and the unjust getting and use of wealth. What are scripture, tradition and reason but tools? -- the tools of mortals, used to build a road -- or a tower? -- to God. As if God needed a road to find us. Some among you have made gods of these tools, worshipping them as idols -- especially scripture -- and we lesbians and gay men, formed in God's image, are offered as holocausts now. Lesbian and gay people continue to be crucified by indifference, and by the astonishing Christless hate that this church allows some of you to freely express. I know many of these crucified, for they are my people. I have heard their voices, and embraced them, and looked on their faces. There are some among you who have put their hand on the wound and acknowledged that the suffering of my people has happened, is true. Those of us who continue to claim our place in this church do so because we know: for every crucifixion, a resurrection. And we are waiting and working for that morning. I know what is asked of me: to do justice, and love kindness, and walk humbly with God. I am here now because there are many in the church who are kind, and would be kinder, and I love them; because justice in this matter is necessary, not just for lesbigay people, but for every one of you who would silence and condemn us. And I know: if this road runs to Calvary, then, most certainly, it will lead on to Arimathea's garden. ======== [94-5-7] NO LOSERS IN CHRIST By Bonnie Crawford-Bewley In the past few weeks as I have been thinking about the Integrity and Fidelity camps within the church, I find myself remembering General Synod 1989. The memory is of one of the very first sessions, in the gymnasium at Memorial University of Newfoundland, and the Integrity people were watching over the gallery railing. Some motion or other was debated, and passed, and there was applause. Archbishop Doug Hambidge, who was in the chair, cut off the applause with "I don't want any of that. Applause like that after a motion means that someone has won, and if there are winners, there are losers. I don't want any losers in this Church, and so I don't want any applause." It is my prayer that the church can continue the discussion about lesbigays in their church in that spirit. Yes, I want to be fully accepted, but this shouldn't be a win/lose situation. Or, at least, it *needn't* be a win/lose situation. I don't want the church to implode as we talk about this. If the Holy Spirit is with us, we'll be able to get past the fighting and on to reconciliation; for there should be no losers in the church. ======== [94-5 8] CHURCH CHESS -- TURNING BISHOPS INTO PAWNS By John Gartshore Some years ago, in the midst of the troubles, a historian remarked that good things happen in the Church as a result of bishop- pushing; leaders can't always take the initiative to start good things unless someone pushes them. There are two phases to the pushing process. Phase One is simply to make leaders aware that there is a trouble-spot, so that the matter can be got on people's agendas. Phase Two is the political action required to get the result one wants. In the late seventies, when the Integrity movement was in its infancy, it was not easy to get Phase One going. Sexuality was generally put down as a "non-issue". Indeed, when the Primate brought the question of the Church's attitude to the attention of the House of Bishops, there was opposition; some felt that the matter was not urgent. Besides, it was too hot to handle. Archbishop Scott persevered, and the House made public statements in 1978 and 1979. There was an uproar when the *Canadian Churchman* -- as it was then called -- printed a lengthy article on homosexuality; the topic was too dirty for nice churchy people to read about. One mother wrote to the editor, "I hid that filthy article from my teen-aged son. He shouldn't have to see that sort of thing." But sexuality stopped being a non-issue; Phase One seemed to be successful, and we thought the bishops didn't need to be pushed any more. Then came the twelve lean years. Integrity kept holding meetings, and some bishops visited us and even encouraged what we were doing among Anglicans who were hurting. Along with other groups, we tried to keep a Christian visibility in the lesbigay community, and we gently pressed an improvement on the official, but vaguely worded position which the bishops adopted in 1979. We were *too* gentle -- nothing ever happened. Then disaster struck. It is not my intention, in this article, to review the details of the accusation and trial of Jim Ferry in 1991 and 1992, but the fallout shook the whole Church. We'll probably never know what was said in the rare atmosphere of the House of Bishops, but one thing was clear: something had to be done. If Phase One wasn't finished earlier on, it certainly was now. So, what about Phase Two? How do we make sure the *right* thing gets done? We always knew that there was an opinion in the Church which didn't agree with ours, but it was difficult to pin-point exactly what and where it was. Negative opinions weren't terribly well expressed, and certainly weren't helpful. A couple of dioceses, apparently without bothering to do the study they were asked to do, declared that same-sex families weren't in keeping with God's will, which is no help at all to those who disagree. In the absence of any evidence, we wondered if they had even bothered to talk to any real lesbian or gay people. We tended to write these things off as ill-considered, and knew that we were in for a royal row at the Synod in 1995. From our point of view, knowing that there was an opinion somewhere there, that differed from ours, we could see a monster spate of bishop-pushing looming up. We would have to shove as hard as we could on episcopal opinion, hoping by our plausible arguments to sway more bishops than the opposition could. They, in turn, would be shoving in the opposite direction, hoping to accomplish the exact opposite. We were gearing up for a game of Church Chess, with warring parties turning the bishops into pawns so that they could be pushed around the chess board more easily. If we kept on that way, whatever the bishops (or synods) decided, there might be some winners, but there would be hundreds of losers, and one group or another would be "voting with their feet". The Church would be the greatest loser of all. Then the Fidelity Group appeared. Finally, instead of some unknown people in the woodwork, real live church people made themselves known. They stood up to be counted. In the lingo of our community, they came out of the closet. The term *closet* needs some explanation. That's the term traditionally used to talk about the process of admitting, first to oneself, then to one or more others in confidence, and then (optionally) to one's public that one is gay, lesbian or bisexual. It sometimes is a long, painful process, it requires a lot of prayer, courage, and peer support, and, especially for the public part, it is apt to attract a lot of flak. Above all, it is an attempt, as best one can, to be honest. It's frightening and often it hurts. Some of us see that that is what Fidelity members have done -- becoming public about their theological, moral and political position on sexuality. (I *don't* mean that anyone confessed their own sexuality -- there's more than one closet to come out of.) Sensing a need to do something, they have -- it appears -- met, talked, discussed, and made a courageous decision, in the face of what many call politically correct, to state an opinion. A few actually signed their names. It took gust, and it exposes the members to the same sort of flak we sometimes get. Of course, we had wanted plain sailing to pushing the bishops around; we weren't all that happy when the Fidelity document first appeared. We pouted when we heard about a conference. We shook in our shoes when we heard who the speakers were going to be. Then we said we'd better go and see how bad it really is. Others in the community did incredibly good work to pave the way for us to attend. The conference, on 24 September, was good news and bad news. The bad news was that the opinions of the guest speakers were even more toxic than we expected, and we thought some of the language was insulting. The good news, and it was very good, was that we were received with more respect and courtesy than we could ask or imagine (to coin a phrase). In terms of teaching about sexuality, Fidelity and Integrity are poles apart. In terms of the human values necessary for dialogue, we are almost chummy! This leaves us looking at our differences, and at the real, live Anglicans with whom we disagree. What would an all-out war between Integrity and Fidelity accomplish? Would the Church -and incidentally our own causes -- be well served if one side or another managed to shove the bishops hard enough to get our won way? It is clear to me that it would not. The process would create losers in a Church in which all should be winners. The injury, personal and corporate, would be indescribable. The Body of Christ would be traumatised. We have seen it happen in other denominations. What Fidelity has done, first by its appearance, and then by holding a peaceful conference, is to make available to the Church -- especially to us Integrity folk -- a contact through which to work out a peaceful solution which was otherwise impossible. Surely there are things we can do together which will help fearful people on both sides of the argument to consider the serious problems caused by our disagreements. We can learn not to hurt one another by our language. We can reassure timid people that dialogue is possible. We will have something useful and supportive to offer to our bishops, instead of just bickering. Don't we owe the Church the best we can give? = = = = {Author Box: JOHN GARTSHORE is a founder member of Integrity/Toronto, and has been working on both Phase One and Phase Two of the problems that lesbigays have in the Church since before many of us were even aware of Phase One.} ===== [94-5-9] OBITUARIES GREGORY LEE / By John Gartshore On 17 September 1994, the Reverend James Gregory Lee died at the age of 79 in Wellesley Hospital, after several weeks of increasing frailty due to a liver ailment. Those who did not know Gregory well will remember a little man with a skin problem on his face. Many wrote him off because of his appearance. Integrity/Toronto remembers Gregory as the first priest to refuse to be afraid to associate with us. Years ago, he was our first Chaplain. When we were meeting secretly in people's living rooms (for fear of the religious authorities, as some would say) Gregory was there for us, ready to celebrate Eucharist on someone's coffee table and expound what he saw the scriptures saying to us. Today, many wonderful priests respond to our invitation to celebrate with us, reassured by the example of several bishops and two Primates. Fifteen or twenty years ago, it took a special kind of daring to be seen with Integrity folk, and Gregory set the precedent for that kind of courage. It was Gregory who brought Integrity to the Toronto Diocesan Synod in the days when it met in the auditorium at 135 Adelaide Street. During Members' Hour, he told the old story of a Member of Parliament in England, visiting the Headmaster of one of the great Public Schools. "What do you intend to do about homosexuality?" asked the MP. "Well, I'm not going to make it mandatory, if that's what you mean," came the rejoinder. Gregory went on to serve notice on the Synod that Integrity was active in the Diocese and was available for further information. At that point, Peter Iveson and I hung over the edge of the visitors' gallery, displaying a poster with our address and phone number. Gregory knew perfectly well what would hit the fan after that speech. It was characteristic of the man that the flak didn't matter -- something important had to be done, and he was there to do it. The member who responded to Gregory's speech displayed his horror at the idea that such a holy meeting as Synod would discuss such a filthy matter as homosexuality. Gregory's courage that day set the tone for the rest of us who insist that the "non-issue" merits discussion, dialogue -sometimes even confrontation. Those of us who knew Gregory well knew a Christian of absolutely unswerving and prophetic loyalty to what he considered to be right, coupled with the humility to know how easy it is to be wrong. Lots of us argued with him at one time or another, and found a formidable disputant who was still capable of listening with courtesy and care, ready to be challenged to change his view. Father Gregory Lee's unshakeable faith in the love of God, the companionship of Jesus Christ, and the strength of the Holy Spirit set a pattern of Christian behaviour for all of us. We are grateful that God put him among us for a time. = = = = = = ERIC NOBES A memorial service was held at 4:00 pm on September 28, 1994 at St. James' Cathedral for Eric Nobes, who served as treasurer of Integrity/Toronto in 1981-82. Eric died from complications due to AIDS. He was living in Oshawa, and working at St George's College at the time of his death. In the past, he was a parishioner at St James' and at St Simon's. Eric passed away in his forties. === end of text === End of volume 94-5 of Integrator, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto copyright 1994 Integrity/Toronto comments please to Chris Ambidge, Editor ambidge@chem-eng.utoronto.ca OR Integrity/Toronto Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON Canada M4Y 2N9 -- -- Chris Ambidge chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca Integrity/Toronto http://www.whirlwind.ca/integrity Integrity is a member of the Alliance of Lesbian & Gay Anglicans http://www.alga.org