Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 18:55:35 -0400 From: Chris Ambidge Subject: *Integrator* files for 1996 INTEGRATOR, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto volume 96-4, issue date 1996 11 12 copyright 1996 Integrity/Toronto. The hard-copy version of this newsletter carries the ISSN 0843-574X ==Contents== [96-4-1] FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD: welcoming gays, lesbians & heterosexuals into the Anglican Church of Canada / copyright (c) 1996 the Rt Rev Michael Ingham [96-4-2] Panel Discussion: THE FUTURE: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? Responses to Bishop Ingham from [a] the Rev Meredith Hill, [b] John Russell, [c] the Rev Sally Boyles, & [d] the Most Rev Ted Scott [96-4-3] JUSTICE, HONESTY, CELEBRATION, PARTICIPATION: Four hopes for lesbigay people in the church / by Lynette Ley [96-4-4] SPACE FOR REFLECTION: Toronto Synod 96 to include education on orientation issues [96-4-5] DISCERNING A WAY FORWARD: Toward a hallowing of permanent sexual commitments / study at St Clement's in January 97 [96-4-6] "A KINGDOM DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF COURTS RUIN" / Bishop Baycroft stresses urgency of dialogue in charge to Ottawa Synod === begin text ==== [96-4-1] = = = = = = = = = = = On 27 September 1996, Integrity/Toronto and an AdHoc Group sponsored an address by Bishop Michael Ingham at St Leonard's Church in Toronto. In addition to Bishop Ingham's address, a panel of four spoke on "Where do we go from here", and there were responses from the audience of 140. This and the next issue of >Integrator< will provide full coverage of the words spoken that night. = = = = = = = = = = = FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD: welcoming gays, lesbians & heterosexuals into the Anglican Church of Canada copyright (c) 1996 the Rt Rev Michael Ingham Three years ago, in July 1993, we held a debate in Vancouver between John Stott and Bishop Spong. It was held in the Cathedral on a hot summer's night and about 1400 people came. We turned 300 away at the door. It was an amazing evening. Both men spoke passionately and persuasively. They spoke with an evident measure of respect for each other. But what they described were two fundamentally different understandings of human sexuality, human freedom, the interpretation of Scripture, and indeed the Gospel itself, and they were applauded by two quite different sections of the audience. Two things became clear to me that night: first, what a marvellous thing the Anglican Church is that we can hold together such diverse and opposite viewpoints within both our members and our leaders. Many of us remain in good relationship with each other despite disagreement on these fundamental issues. And second, what a huge gulf divides our church in its understanding of human sexuality. I welcome therefore Bishop Finlay's appeal to us to build bridges of understanding. I have lived on both sides of this gulf at one time or another, and I understand some of its depth and its difficulty. But in the last few years I have moved over from one side to the other. I no longer believe some of the things I once did, though I continue to believe many of the things in common with those on the other side of the gulf. What I want to offer tonight, hopefully by way of a bridge, is some personal reflections and some reasons for changing my mind. For the greater part of my life I have believed that the male anatomy is meant only for the female anatomy, that God has ordained the sexual act for men and women alone. For the greater part of my life I have believed that all forms of same-sex relationship are a distortion of the biblical ideal of marriage; that marriage is for men and women; that marriage is for life; that in the absence of marriage one should remain celibate; and that even if these ideals are difficult to live up to, they nevertheless represent a high and noble Christian ideal, and are the revealed will of God. I thought that when you reached the really advanced levels of Christian faith you had to renounce sexuality altogether, that genuine faith required giving up the flesh, or as much of it as you possibly could, so you could lead a truly spiritual life. When I was a teenager, I thought that would probably happen when I was about forty. Today I've given up hope. My study of Scripture, and twenty years of pastoral work among all sorts and conditions of people, has led me in another direction. I still believe the Christian life means choosing the harder path of self-discipline and self-sacrifice over the easier path of following our selfish instincts. And I still believe that sexual relationships between people are profoundly sacramental, that is, an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace that connects people with each other at the deepest core of their being. I continue to believe that sexual activity needs to be between people of relatively equal power, between people who have both the maturity and security to give themselves freely to each other in mutual love, and that all forms of exploitation and degradation, coercion and manipulation, are morally wrong. I also believe our Church has been correct to say that sexual activity achieves its highest expression in the context of a sacrificial commitment by one person to another, in a covenant of mutual love, that sex it is a sacred act and a sign of the unconditional love God has for us and for all creation. None of this has changed for me. But I no longer believe that only heterosexual people are capable of such sacramental relationships, and I no longer agree with the double standard our church has imposed on gay men and lesbians as a condition of their inclusion within the Christian community. I continue to believe that the celibate or single life is always an option for people, that voluntary abstention from sexual relationships is a courageous choice and should be treated with respect. But I no longer believe sexual abstention can be required of a whole class of people regardless of their personal vocation and calling simply because of their sexual orientation. I've crossed over from one side of the divide to the other not because of I've lost sight of the Gospel, but because the Gospel itself cannot and will not sustain continued discrimination against people simply because they are attracted to others of the same sex. And after many discussions with people in countless coffee hours and forums after church, I have come to think that the basis for our continued denial of dignity and intimacy to gay and lesbian people is not theology but pathology. I believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ now requires us to recognise the full humanity of every child of God, whatever their sexual orientation. Christian tradition has had an ambivalent view of sex. Starting with St. Paul who thought it better to marry than to burn - by which he meant that marriage is something people should do if they can't walk in the way of the Spirit - we have tended to rank sexuality low on the scale of human characteristics. Sex has been justified largely as a means of continuing the species, of producing children. For that reason, it was restricted to relationships between men and women and to the covenant of marriage. Sex has been tolerated rather than celebrated through most of our history primarily because there seemed to be no way to get rid of it, and also I suspect because there was no other way to produce popes and bishops. There is also, I think, a deeper reason. We have inherited a suspicion of Eros, the explosive and passionate power that is part of the human instinct. We have failed to see the erotic as a dimension of the creative life that makes us human. We have difficulty knowing how to direct its power positively, in ways that integrate and deepen our humanity. We have tended to separate the erotic from the spiritual. The Greeks defined eros as "the drive toward union with the Other" and as such they saw it as part of God's design to draw us back to Godself, a kind of homing instinct that drives us toward passionate union with each other and with God. But instead of this positive view of eros, the early Church Fathers saw it as a dangerous force that threatens the purity of the spiritual life, as a destructive power that brings unpredictable chaos, or as the Orthodox scholar Philip Sherard has described it, "the springhead through which the tribes of evil pour into human nature." We have had a long history of ambivalence to sexuality, as something both necessary and nasty, and the 20th century has brought us face to face with it. Nietzsche, the 19th century philosopher, was no fan of Christianity but he had some perceptive observations. He said: "Christianity gave Eros poison to drink. She did not die of it, to be sure, but she degenerated into vice." What he meant was that religious suspicion of sexuality has produced a distorted and unhealthy dis-integration within human nature. Suppress the erotic and it comes back as the pornographic. If you idealize love without sex, what you get is sex without love, the commercialization of sex, the objectification of sex and its reduction to a lonely and soul-destroying promiscuity. This is precisely what we've got today. In Jungian language we might perhaps say that Christianity needs to integrate the erotic. If you try to suppress it, it will become your shadow - a dark force that will rise up and overwhelm you with its power, a deep and unresolved chaos that can unleash powerful destruction. This has been the experience of many Christians over the centuries. The greatest bearers of this shadow have been women. Early on in history women were seen as symbols of the flesh, of the lower order of nature, as more susceptible to temptation and the wiles of the devil. Men were held to have the capacity for reason and for things of the Spirit. Women were for child-bearing, men were for affairs of state. Child-bearing remained for many years the sole justification of women's sexuality. They were regarded as essentially inferior to men. The other great bearers of the shadow have been gay men. Western tradition placed them lower than women in society. They were believed to be passive and submissive in nature, even more so than women. They were therefore not men. Maleness was defined in heterosexual terms. Men who were by nature not attracted to women were rejected and sometimes hated. The subjugation of women and the denigration of gay men as being less than women, has had disastrous consequences for millions of people. It has produced suffering the likes of which most of us cannot begin to imagine. Not just the outward things like public ridicule, violence, and discrimination in every area of life, but also the inner things, the deeply personal things. People have been driven to self-loathing, self-hatred, and some to despair and death. Sexism and homophobia are profoundly linked to each other. They are two of the most dreadful children of our history. They are both consequences of our dualism and ambivalence about sex. They are aspects of the shadow that haunts our culture because we still need to integrate our sexuality in a healthier way. There is nothing in the teaching of Jesus which supports this treatment of gay men and lesbians. On the contrary, it's hard to imagine our Lord condoning the contempt that has been directed against this community in his name. He seems to have been far more concerned with justice and with love than with male and female anatomy. His whole life was a demonstration of the importance of faithfulness in relationships. He revealed a faithful God. He taught us the meaning of fidelity. He remained faithful to us even unto death. He seems to have been less concerned with sex than with compassion and forgiveness. Even the creation stories in the Bible suggest the same thing. Eve was given to Adam as a companion, according to Genesis, because it was not good in the eyes of God that Adam should be alone. Companionship, mutual love and comfort, the need to care for and sustain the creation itself as co-stewards with God - these are the first reasons given in the Bible for human sexual identity. Not the task of procreation, but mutual love and sacrifice. The Bible suggests that it is in exercising these gifts that men and women reveal the image of God. We need to get beyond the reduction of sexuality to genital and biological activity. Sexuality is not simply an instrument for pro-creation. It's a means of celebrating and deepening the total realm of interpersonal love between mutually committed persons. Sexuality is sacramental of the care and compassion with which God loves the whole creation, uniting us in deep bonds of communion with each other and with the divine. There seems no reason to restrict it to heterosexual relationships, unless we continue to maintain that its purpose is primarily reproductive. There seems no more reason to deny sexual relationships to same-sex partners than there is to prohibit sex among couples who are infertile, couples who are elderly, or those who have no desire to have children at all. If we can accept sexuality as a powerful and healthy dimension of human nature, and see its purpose as also playful, celebratory, healing, and in the right context profoundly holy, then we must ask why only heterosexual people have been allowed to express it openly and freely. What is the great harm in homosexual relationships? Why are we still being told they are a threat to the family? I have lived all my life in a family. It happens to be a nuclear family and a heterosexual one. Some of the people who have been most supportive to us over the years have been gay and lesbian people. They are not a threat to me or my children. They have extended our family and made us aware of other ways to be a family. This dark picture of homosexual threat to society is a scare tactic and it is designed to maintain a system which needs to be changed. I would like to see the day when we can bless same-sex unions in church. I am unable to see a great danger in that. We bless battleships and oil tankers. We bless armies and soldiers and people going off to war. We bless dogs and cats (I can't say I do, but it happens). We bless homes and construction sites. But we can't bless people who want to make a commitment of their lives to each other before God - because that would imply approval of their lifestyle. But I can't for the life of me understand why the church approves of the lifestyle of the lizard and the poodle I saw blessed last year. We have been told that homosexuality is sinful, that it is contrary to nature. And yet nothing can be contrary to nature that occurs in nature so widely. Human sexuality comes in a variety of forms, and each of them is morally neutral. Sexual orientation is neither moral or immoral by itself. What makes sexuality moral is when it builds up and supports truly human relationships, when it contributes to our growth and compassion. What is immoral is when sex is distorted for purely selfish and manipulative ends. The greater immorality, in my view, has been the one visited on gay and lesbian people because they have been unable to express their love in moral ways. The dominant culture has repressed and driven underground even the healthiest expressions of same-sex partnerships. We have driven you underground and then vilified you for being secretive and covert. We have prevented you from living in moral relationships and then accused you of having immoral ones. There have been too many ruined lives. Too many false healings. Too many tragic deaths. Too many innocent victims among family and friends. The church should be in the business of defending loving and responsible relationships not undermining them. We need to encourage people to reclaim their sexuality in healthy, integrated ways, whether they are homosexual, bi- sexual or heterosexual. I don't mean to suggest, of course, that all expressions of love between people need to be sexual. Most human relationships are not sexual and don't need to be. Ordinary friendships and family relationships are obvious examples. And there has always been a recognition in Christianity of those specially called to the single or celibate life. The voluntary renunciation of sexual activity as a particular gift of self-offering and service that some individuals are called to make, and it can be a deep expression of love and faithfulness. There is also a place for periods of voluntary sexual abstention in marriage itself. These things are rightly honoured in Christian tradition. Unfortunately, celibacy has not always been voluntary. It has been imposed on people who have no calling to it, and required of people who cannot bear it. Far from being a blessing, in these situations it becomes a curse which denies normal, healthy human intimacy to people who are in every other way faithful servants of God. When people fail in it, as they often do, the response of the Church has been to blame the individual, when it would be better to question the teaching. Imposed celibacy is a contradiction in terms. Anglicanism, to its credit, along with Orthodoxy, has never imposed celibacy on its clergy. Our clergy are free to marry and enjoy all the freedoms and responsibilities of human intimacy. This is enshrined in the 39 Articles, no less! It's as if we have recognised from the beginning that ordination does not require renunciation of sexual life. Some individuals may have such a calling, it is true, but they are few in number. Anglicanism has instinctively recognised that human beings are sexual beings and so we have accorded the clergy the same marital privileges as the laity. Except, that is, for gay and lesbian clergy. Here we meet the ambivalent double standard. Homosexual people alone must accept imposed celibacy. Homosexual Christians alone are denied the full expression of intimacy with their partners because only for them does the church now insist on the pro-creative theory of sex. Only for them does the church still require renunciation of the sexual life. I believe we need to help the church to see both homosexuals and heterosexuals alike as people with the same legitimate yearnings, desires, hopes and dreams for stable, faithful and lifelong intimacy; that we are different only in the object of our attraction; that we share the same fundamental humanity, the same sinfulness, the same image of God given to us in creation; that we have the same Saviour and Lord who accepts us and loves us unconditionally. We are different only in what Richard Holloway calls a 'normative variation' which is quite common in nature. Normative variations are seen in racial and ethnic characteristics, in quite normal physical differences, in things like left- handedness. This will require persistent education and courageous personal witness. I think our strategy now should be to try to get the church to move on the blessing of unions. If we can get people to see that normal healthy intimacy is equally possible between people of the same sex as between people of the opposite sex, if we can show the importance of nurturing and supporting people who wish to commit their lives to each other, whatever their orientation, then we will have addressed a fundamental injustice. After this the issue of ordination will become a non-issue. Anglicans have not denied to the clergy the marital freedom enjoyed by the laity. What we need to do is to extend that freedom to all members of the Church. Those on the other side of the divide will immediately pull out their Bibles and point to passages in Genesis and Leviticus and Romans and Corinthians and say the Word of God prohibits such freedom. They will say the Scriptural teaching is clear. They will say we are in rebellion against God's will. And we need to say to them that God's will is to create some male and female, some called to singleness and some to marriage, some heterosexual and homosexual. God's will is to call all of us to freedom and responsibility through the proper integration of our sexuality. God's will is that we may know the fullness of life, not the repression and denial of life, and for this reason we can no longer support the repudiation of human rights and dignity among people for whom Christ died. We need to say to them that the truth of Scripture is not served by selective quotation. We no longer believe women should be silent in church. We no longer believe in the divine right of kings and rulers, nor in the institution of slavery, nor in the prohibition against usury, nor in the slaughtering of scapegoats, nor in the beating of children with rods. All these we find in Scripture. But they are not God's Word. They are the words of an ancient culture. And an increasing number of us believe that the exclusion of gay and lesbian people falls into the same category. Those of us who have crossed over the gulf continue to believe in the Word of God. We continue to believe that God's Word was spoken in Jesus Christ, the one who suffered and died that we might live, the one who was crucified by the excesses of misplaced religious belief, the one who said not a word against homosexuals nor sanctioned their rejection. We continue to look to him who consorted with prostitutes, tax collectors and sinners because they were the outcast of society, people whom he singled out for inclusion and adoption in God's kingdom before the righteous ones. We believe Jesus Christ continues to stand today with those who are outcast and abused because society has projected on to them the shadow of its own ambivalence and fears. I hope to see the day when our church can welcome gays, lesbians and heterosexuals as equal members at the eucharistic table, when sexual orientation is of no consequence to a person's dignity and freedom as a child of God. I hope to see the day when we can truly say like St. Paul that in Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor free - and go on to say neither black nor white, yellow nor brown, gay nor straight. The double standard in our church compromises our integrity and our credibility. I would like to see us correct this situation for the sake of the Gospel itself. = = = = = Author: The Rt Rev Michael Ingham is diocesan bishop of New Westminster, BC. ============= [96-4-2] Panel Discussion: THE FUTURE: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? === === === [96-4-2a] THE REV. MEREDITH HILL, member Holy Trinity That is certainly a daunting proposition. I suspect that the future will continue to be as muddy as the present. I pray that I'm wrong. Last week, I got a new job and before I drove my car into the parking lot of my new school, I sorrowfully peeled my rainbow triangle off the back of my bumper. My defiant self-identification that felt okay on my street in the East End where, as you know, a number of people of the community live, didn't feel safe in a school parking lot. I was angry at feeling that I had to return to a closet. I was angry at myself, feeling that some degree I was a traitor to the openness with which I'd moved in church-land. But then again, that openness, as a lesbian priest, means I don't work in church-land. Last year there was a rough period in the winter, and I named it at that time that I was working on grief work, coming to terms with what appeared to be the case, that the movement and the change was not going to happen in time for me. And that, for all my outness, I would continue to be out in terms of work as well. I'm not sure today that I want to retain that task of that piece of grief work. Maybe we could set that aside for a while. Maybe there is time. If there is time, I think there's going to be a continuation of the three processes that I identify this way. One of which I query the continued usefulness of, and that's dialogue. I was interested, Bishop, that you spoke in terms of dialogue as having effected a great change for you. I'm not aware that two sides of the gulf, continuing to talk across the gulf, has in fact done anything more than legitimate the status quo, and ask those for whom the risk is greatest to bear the burden of the conversation. A second process that I see happening is the gradual acceptance - I hate the term, but I don't know what else - at least it's a step from tolerance. And I think it's a step that, in itself, has a range and perhaps it begins with prayers on World AIDS Day. But I think it can move a lot further than that. And I think a lot of parishes are working to see what acceptance really looks like in a parish. And it might look like some interesting hugs and kisses during the Peace between gay and lesbian couples as well as the straight couples, at the time of the Peace. It may look like Prayers of the People that include a recognition and a celebration of a couple's anniversary. It may look like a celebration and a recognition of court cases. Those kinds of acceptances are growing, but I think what's really needed is advocacy, and so it comes to the question of WHEN. When is the logjam going to end? When it is going to be possible for a parish such as Holy Trinity, for a parish such as - and I don't pretend to be able to name them - where out gay clergy can work, where known gay clergy can be out, where we can have a ministry to that pained community that needs to hear the gospel. === === === [96-4-2b] JOHN RUSSELL, AIDS Committee of Toronto Let me start by thanking Bishop Ingham for a magnificently eloquent talk and, I must admit, a surprisingly moving one. I was quite unprepared for my emotional response to hearing those words from the Bishop in my church. And he summed up for me a lot of my own thoughts about the future when he talked about the void within the church. The future for me in this fight is to work as much as I can within the Anglican Church, to accept opportunities like this, to come and talk, to do the kind of education I've been able to do so far, and with the Ad Hoc group. But the focus of my energy will be outside the church from now on. Because I think pressure from outside is the way we're going to see inside most quickly. And the void is precisely the reason for that. Let me read you a letter that I got this week. I work with the AIDS Committee of Toronto, and I got a phone call about a month ago from a man who discussed, for about an hour, the explicitness of our prevention education material. That resulted in two pamphlets that are now turning up on subway systems and street corners accusing the AIDS Committee of Toronto of disguising homosexual recruiting material as AIDS prevention education. I phoned him back and said, "Golly, I had no idea that this was going to happen. Would you mind sending me a copy?" And he did. And he accompanied it with a letter. And I want to read just part of the letter. 'John, to be a Christian is to repent of your sins and turn from your evil ways. Homosexuality is a sin. You must renounce this evil and beg for mercy. God will heal, but you must first ask for healing. It will take time, but if you keep your faith, God will be faithful to it. The world may tell you that homosexuality is normal, that God will not punish, and I'm sure that you have convinced yourself of this. However, it is not true, John. I believe your guilt still remains in you, that you are trying to suppress it. John, if you want to walk with the world, so be it. But please do not, for your own sake, call yourself a Christian, because you are taking others to hell with you.' Now, if any of you would like to come to hell with me, I'll be selling tickets at the door ... [massive applause] They are, of course, one way. The reason I'm moving outside the church is that this man holds these beliefs with the strength and integrity I hold my beliefs. He is fully committed to a vision of the Gospel, in the same way that I am, but they're on opposite sides of that void. And the thing about belief is that you get points for a simple, unquestioning faith in our church and in other religious institutions, and I've found that it's very difficult to reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into. And unfortunately, for a lot of people, belief falls into that category. So I'm moving this fight to the secular world, where, when you don't have to address the Mexican stand-off of my view of scripture versus your view of scripture, the arguments people fall back on are those old-time tried-and-true runs: we're child molesters, we're women trapped in men's bodies, it's curable, it's a lifestyle choice, blah blah blah - all of which can be refuted by a growing body of scientific and statistical evidence, and I feel on much more solid ground there. This may sound cynical but, as the Bishop said in reference to things like women being silent in church, slavery, the beating of children, the slaughtering of scapegoats - it seems to me that when society moves, you see an interesting redefinition of the way in which people see scripture. And I think scripture will come into line if we move from the outside first. Thanks. === === === [96-4-2c] THE REV. SALLY BOYLES, Incumbent, Holy Trinity Bishop Ingham - I was surprised at my lack of passion when I listened to your words, and I was surprised to find my response being: I have heard this, I have heard this, I have heard this. And so to get a chance to say, Where do we go? is really challenging, because what does it mean to hear it over and over and over and over? I've decided there are two actions I need to take. One, I know myself as a heterosexual, and as a result, I have never been called to that examination of my own sexuality that most of my friends who are homosexual have had to do. So I think that I would like to make a call to all my heterosexual brothers and sisters to get on the bandwagon and get on with it, and let's get studying sexuality. If we spent more time on our own, maybe we would know what to do, or what the issues were. Because I think our lack of examining that has something to do with our fear of looking at it. So that would be the one thing I would say. The second thing is, every time I come to a meeting and we go over this again - I realize there are a lot of people who don't move in circles where they get a chance to go over this again and again, and I would also say that I know that I probably am in a wonderful place of wonderful opportunity where I do get the chance to go over it again and again. And I think that that is really very exciting. I think inside that community I find myself moving more and more towards disobedience. [cheers] I don't find myself there yet, so no one has to worry and come and sit at the back of the church. I am not there yet. But I just find myself more and more impatient with waiting, and so I don't know what I'm going to do with that, but I hope that there are more and more people who get impatient with waiting. Because in 1980 when I was ordained, people got up and protested at my ordination and said I didn't qualify for ordination because I was a woman. And surely, if the scriptures you quote are true, then we will have ordinations with great joy and gladness and delight and mirth when there's an openness around the ordination of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. === === === [96-4-2d] THE MOST REV. TED SCOTT As you think about the future - I can't determine the future for everybody else, or for institutions, but I can play a part individually. So when I look to the future I have to ask the question, What is my personal responsibility in terms of the future? One of the things I think is to recognize that, in society, there are perhaps three groups on this issue. Those who are very concerned about justice for gay and lesbian people, those who are very much suffering the injustice - but there's a core group in the centre that don't know where they stand at this point. And I would hope that, individually, I could do the kind of thing that Michael Ingham is doing, but not able to do it as well as he does: articulate a position quietly, firmly, steadily, that's based on scripture, so that people have to look at the whole realm of the situation and help them understand why people have moved from one side of that gap to the other side of that gap, to bear witness to that process. I would hope I could go on doing that kind of process effectively, particularly for the group in the middle situation. Secondly, I would hope that I would be reaching out in every way I could, in the church and outside the church, because we're both citizens as well as church members. To do everything I could to make for an open, welcoming situation for gay and lesbian people. That I could be available to give support wherever I could in individual situations and to listen with care to the kind of things that they are saying. And I think I would encourage people who are concerned about getting the public situation to think more widely and to recognize the church is influenced by the things that happen in the society as well. So I'd be concerned about what was happening in the society as well as I am concerned about what happens in the church. Thank you. ============== [96-4-3] JUSTICE, HONESTY, CELEBRATION, PARTICIPATION: Four hopes for lesbigay people in the church by Lynette Ley of Integrity/Vancouver = = = = = = = The Integrity/Vancouver Newsletter recently published an excerpt from a letter from Lynette Ley to Bishop Michael Ingham of the Diocese of New Westminster. Here she indicated her hopes for an upcoming discussion on lesbigays in the diocese. Her comments are part of a dialogue, which is going on throughout the church. = = = = = = = #First#, I hope that we will move beyond a #Justification# paradigm (endless rounds of pro and con arguments as to whether lesbigay people [not to mention transgenderists] have a God given right to be allowed partially or fully in the door and to be seated at the banquet); and move to a #Justice# paradigm (as there is already a place at the table for everybody, what do we need to do to bring in those who haven't already taken their seat?) o I hope that we can find ways for those clergy and laity who want to work within this Justice paradigm to feel safe and be encouraged to show leadership. o I hope that we can brainstorm practical ways for this paradigm to be lived out. o I hope that we can give those fearful of letting lesbigay people in the door permission to stay behind their castle walls where they feel safe; and yet firmly refuse to let them expand those walls to cover the entire countryside. o I hope that we can acknowledge that as church, our time- and energy-consuming concern with the sexuality of a minority group has effectively kept us from confronting issues of economic and social injustice in our society. My #second# hope is that we can examine the process of prejudice, with its roots in fear of the dark places in ourselves, the unwillingness to own that fear, and the need to project it on someone else. o I hope that we can look at homo-fear in particular with its roots in fear of women, fear of the power of sexuality, fear of the "feminine" elements of change and chaos. o I hope that we can look at how prejudice and stereotyping became more common in times of rapid change, and how we have structured our church and our society in a way that encourages these judgmental abusive attitudes that allow this behaviour. o I hope that we can examine how homo-prejudice, among other issues, is being used deliberately by religious fundamentalist groups to foster fear and so gather more people (lucratively) inside their castle walls, and as an excuse to expand those walls. o I hope that we can look at how the dominant culture (in this case, the non-gay) deals with a minority by ignoring it and rendering it invisible. And how, if that minority group insists on being acknowledged, the mainstream culture maintains dominance by vilification and direct threat, by claiming "counter-victim" status, by encouraging a number of minorities to squabble among themselves as to who is the most victimised, or by eviscerating the minority culture (marking it as merely quaint, chic, cute, and therefore non-threatening) and thus absorbing it into the norm. #Thirdly# my hope is that we can look at some of the gifts that lesbigay people bring to the banquet: o For example, the coming out journey requires acts of courage over and over again, it requires that we search deeply our relationship with God, ourselves and our neighbours, it brings us to a place of personal integration, it brings us to a place of connection with other minority and oppressed people. o For example, many lesbian and gay people are living out alternative models of family, such as a chosen, extended family o For example, we have had opportunity to explore, in intimate relationships, the possibility of egalitarian partnerships and the restrictions and freedoms of gender roles. o For example, our living out of deep, loving friendships between men and women brings a fresh perspective to gender relations. o For example, because gay and lesbian people are defined primarily in sexual terms we have had to delve into the complexity of the erotic, sexual identity, of the intertwining of the sexual and spiritual; of the meaning of our embodiment, and I think that this has afforded us a greater comfort level in discussing these matters. I hope that we will hear the voices of lesbian and gay people who have done theology around some of these gifts -- such as Elizabeth Stuart's friendship model of relationship, Andre Gidon's model of fruitfulness in relationship, Carter Heyward's exploration of the erotic in relationship with God and one another, and Virginia Mollenkott's exploration of family models. My #fourth# hope is that gay and lesbian people are involved in the planning, preparing and presenting of any discussions, so that it truly will be discussion "with and by", and not just "about". = = = = Author box: A member of the famous high-flying fag'n'dyke team at the Ottawa General Synod in 1995, and a past president of Integrity/Vancouver, Lynette continues to pray subversively. ======================== [96-4-4] SPACE FOR REFLECTION: Toronto Synod 96 to include education on orientation issues The Toronto Diocesan Synod 1996 will begin with a service at St James' Cathedral on Thursday 21 November, and continues at the International Hotel on Friday 22 and Saturday 23. As we have for many years now, Integrity/Toronto will be present, and have a display at the hotel. At the 1995 session of Synod, a couple of motions came forward that were of particular interest to Integrity members. One, which called on the federal government to amend the #Canadian Human Rights Act# to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, was not passed, but rather referred back to the diocesan Executive Committee. Considerable frustration was felt by Integrity and our supporters at this cutoff of debate. That motion did not, however, drop into the void. Although the passage of Bill C-33 last spring made the actual synod motion moot, the Executive Committee in considering the motion mandated further action at this fall's session. There will be ninety minutes of agenda time devoted to education for Synod members on issues surrounding sexual orientation and the church. Considering that Synod has between 15 and 18 hours of agenda time, this is a #huge# chunk of time that is being devoted to education on matters around sexual orientation. As we go to press, the plans are to have one hour on Friday afternoon, in which a number of people with particular insight or expertise make individual presentations to the members of Synod. There will be opportunity for Synod members to react and share their own insights and responses with their fellow members during a half-hour period on Saturday afternoon. Among the models for this event were the Forum at General Synod 1992, and a similar event at Qu'Appelle diocesan synod in 1994. Watch for a report on Synod in upcoming issues of #Integrator#. ============ [96-4-5] DISCERNING A WAY FORWARD: Toward a hallowing of permanent sexual commitments / study at St Clement's in January 97 Over a year ago, a group at the Church of the Redeemer began to meet to think and pray and listen and talk around the topic of a Christian understanding of same-sex relationships. The result of their discussions is a Study Guide to help open and guide a discussion of this sensitive area. The Guide begins with an examination of the change in the thinking of the Church around marriage and remarriage of divorced persons. From this ground, the document explores the more unfamiliar areas of Biblical language, experience of gays and lesbians in the Church, the nature of same-sex relationships, and tries to suggest some ways in which the Church might show leadership in this social justice issue. This autumn, groups have met and used the Study Guide in Vancouver, Regina, Toronto and Ottawa.. The work continues. The Church of St Clement (Eglinton) has worked with the Church of the Redeemer to organise a series of four educational evenings to present the Study Guide to a larger audience. The series will be on the four Wednesday evenings from 15 January to 5 February 1997, beginning at 7:30pm.. Each of the four evenings will be facilitated by a bishop: Terence Finlay and Victoria Matthews of this diocese, Ted Scott and Michael Peers, former and current Primates, will each lead one of the evenings. The series will begin with "Those whom God has joined ... and rejoined" on 15 January. Over the centuries, the Church has changed its mind on many key ideas. The concept of marriage and remarriage is familiar territory to begin to see how the Church has changed in recent years. The second session will examine the way language can allow us to express our developing ideas, or fix our minds at a particular moment. "Evolving Language and the Mind of the Church" will explore some of the ways faithful Christians of the late twentieth century might balance current understandings of human nature with the language that expressed the thoughts of faithful believers of the first century. The Anglican Church values the role of experience as well as scripture and tradition as part of its developing life of faith. The third session will examine the meeting between theology and experience in faithful human practice. "We are all God's handiwork" will look at issues that arise when faithful Christians experience God as a living God even though society and parts of the Church may say that the experience of some does not count. Finally, on 5 February, "Ways Forward", will explore further directions, even though there are no definitive answers. Scripture, tradition and experience have guided the faith community before. The Church can have a powerful voice in areas of social justice. This series of four Wednesday evenings promises to be informative, exciting and challenging. Everyone is invited to join in the exploration of new ideas, and to be part of discerning an Anglican way. The book, "Permanent Sexual Commitments: the Development of Anglican Tradition", is available at the Anglican Book Centre, 600 Jarvis St, 416 924 9192 ======================= [96-4-6] "A KINGDOM DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF COURTS RUIN" Bishop Baycroft stresses urgency of dialogue in charge to Ottawa Synod [Excerpts from Bishop Baycroft's charge to the 1996 session of the Ottawa diocesan synod, held in mid-October] "When we walk with Christ we respond to his invitation, "Come follow me." If you think about it, you will realise that Christ is not only the Way he is also the invitation. Everything about who he is and what he does invites us to come with him. Well we are the Body of Christ in the world today. So we are not only called to follow the way but also to be the way, and what is more to be, like Christ, an invitation to others who have not yet found and may not even be seeking the way. How inviting are we? For example, there are many people in our diocese who are affected by HIV/AIDS. Some of them tell me that they do not yet feel that the Christian community truly welcomes them. Yet Jesus says, "Come unto me all that labour and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you." The church cannot remain faithful if it is less inviting. I long to find ways in which we can let everyone know that God loves them and that they will find acceptance, support, and God's love in every parish community in this diocese. Those touched by HIV/AIDS stretch far beyond the homosexual community, but many Gays and Lesbians believe that they are so rejected by the Church that they dare not even admit who they are in parish communities. I know this is not true everywhere but I am distressed that it can be said anywhere in the diocese. I commend the work of the Ottawa Diocesan HIV/AIDS ministry and continue to urge your support. This is a particularly challenging test case of how inviting we truly are. De temps en temps il me semble que nous trouvons une disharmonie croissante au sein de notre communaute anglicane. La menace n'est pas tellement le manque de tolerance, mais l'absence d'un dialogue construtif dans l'eglise. Nous anglicans avons besoin, comme le Cardinal Joseph Bernardin de Chicago a dit de son eglise, d'un dialogue qui serait caracterise par "des yeux nouveaux..., un esprit ouvert..., des coeurs changes..., un esprit renouvele, fait de respect, de dialogue, de generosite et de consultation large et serieuse." Ce va pour la musique, pour la langage de la liturgie, pour l'inclusivite, la sexualite, et meme pour la question des edifices. Le Seigneur lui meme nous a dit dans l'evangile selon S. Mathieu: 'Tout royaume divise contre lui-meme court a la ruine; aucune ville, aucune famille, divisee contre elle-meme, ne se mainteindra.'" [translation:] From time to time there it seems to me that there is discord in the Anglican Church, a disharmony which lies at the centre of our community. The difficulty is not so much a lack of tolerance as it is an absence of a constructive dialogue. We Anglicans, as Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago has said of his church, need a dialogue characterised by "open eyes, an open spirit, changed hearts, a renewed spirit which comprises respect, dialogue, and an open and serious consultation." This applies to music, to the language of our liturgy, to inclusivity, to sexuality, and even to the question of buildings. Our Lord himself stated it in the gospel according to St Matthew: " A kingdom divided against itself courts ruin; no city, no family, divided against itself will survive". === end of text === End of volume 96-4 of Integrator, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto copyright 1996 Integrity/Toronto comments please to Chris Ambidge, Editor chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca OR Integrity/Toronto Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON Canada M4Y 2N9