Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 18:55:56 -0400 From: Chris Ambidge Subject: *Integrator* files for 1997 INTEGRATOR, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto volume 97-1, issue date 1997 03 12 copyright 1997 Integrity/Toronto. The hard-copy version of this newsletter carries the ISSN 0843-574X ==Contents== [97-1-1] WE'RE BACK! / editors forword [97-1-2] TALKING POINTS / More reactions to >For God So Loved the World: Welcoming Gays, Lesbians and Heterosexuals in the Anglican Church< by Bishop Michael Ingham (see Integrator, vol 96-4) **Questions and Answers** [a] Responses to written questions [b] Spoken Questions and Comments [97-1-3] AFTERTHOUGHTS / Responses to the Bishop Ingham Event from: [a] Brian Dench [b] Susie Henderson [c] John Russell [d] Sylvia Brightwell [97-1-4] Integrity / Toronto Announcements === begin text === [97-1-1] WE'RE BACK! by Chris Ambidge Quite a lot has happened on the Integrity front since the last issue of Integrator was mailed, and we apologise for the delay. Indeed, there's been so much, it won't all fit in this issue. Last fall, Bishop Michael Ingham of New Westminster spoke in Toronto about welcoming gays, lesbians and heterosexuals in the Anglican Church. Integrator printed the text of his address last time, along with the remarks from a panel of clergy and laity. In this issue, you'll find what was said at the question-and-answer period in the latter portion of the evening. Integrator also asked some people who were in the audience for their reactions, and you'll find four of those responses in this issue. There was a wide range of reaction: everyone I spoke to was delighted to hear Bishop Michael's powerful, theologically-based address. Opinions diverge on where we go from here: some want pastoral ministries; others would have preferred a more "prophetic" stance. Diversity of opinion and breadth of approach have always been hallmarks of Anglicanism, and this issue reflects that diversity and breadth. Reaction across the wider church has been even more diverse, as any reader of the church press can attest. As Bishop Michael predicted when interviewed by Vision TV, he got some strongly negative responses, from inside and outside his own diocese. Integrity/Toronto wants again to express our thanks to Bishop Michael for his call to the church to be more welcoming. = = = = = Things we haven't got room for this time: * Toronto diocesan synod participates in learning event around sexual orientation * Lecture series at St Clement's on Permanent Sexual Commitments Look for these in upcoming issues of Integrator soon -- really! ==================== [97-1-2a] QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS moderated by Canon Donna Hunter === Responses to written questions === There's quite a number of questions, as you can imagine, about the House of Bishops. Q: Can you tell us why the House of Bishops has not adopted your point of view? Q: When and how can the Anglican House of Bishops, call us to exciting expressions of human sexuality - that's a similar question. Q: Has the decision in the Righter trial had an effect on the Canadian House of Bishops? What effect? Q: Will the present episcopal solidarity on these issues continue? Is it Christian? Q: What can we, as laity, do to move the House of Bishops? Bishop Michael: I must ask you to respect the fact that I belong to a body which has discussed this in camera. I cannot break that responsibility that I have to my fellow bishops, except perhaps to say this. That there's no strong reason in my view why the discussions should be held in camera. If they were revealed to you, the greatest danger is that you would fall asleep, rather than get upset. But it provides a forum of safety for people to be open about their personal views in a way that's not always possible for bishops in their dioceses. Mention has been made of the gulf that exists, and the void, and it grieves me to hear - but of course I've heard it in many places - that people are losing hope and moving out of our church. The bishops are deeply aware of the void. One of the things that happens to a bishop upon ordination is that they are given responsibilities which in many ways are contradictory. One is to preach the Gospel, and defend its truth. And the other is to maintain the unity of the church. Now I would say every member of the House of Bishops is caught on the horns of that dilemma, and the great concern that many people express is about the unity of the church. Ted mentioned three groups of people. I think that would be true of the House of Bishops. There are a small number of bishops who feel very strongly that the traditional teaching of our church is the correct one, and that we must maintain it against a secular society which doesn't know the Gospel. There is another group, to which I belong, which believes that justice for gay and lesbian people is not at odds with the Gospel, but that it is the church which is at odds with the Gospel. There are a large number of people who are in neither of those positions, and whose great concern is that we try to get a much higher level of consensus and agreement on this before we move. In our in camera sessions, we've been encouraged to share with each other and to listen to each other. I believe there is a good spirit of trust - not agreement - but a good spirit of trust in the House. I've been a member of the House for three years, and I was present as secretary to the Primate for four years before that, so on and off I've been around for seven years in the House of Bishops. I've been struck at the number of people who are moving from one view to the other view - from the view that I described earlier to the position that I've moved to. And many of them say that what has caused them to move is that friends of long standing have disclosed to them that they are gay or lesbian. People that they never knew were members of this community - people that they've known a long time, liked, trusted, respected, known that they're faithful Christians. And the revelation is powerful - it's life-changing. I think, as I reflect on the history of our church just in this century - as John said earlier, pressure from outside. I think this is quite right. On divorce, on the ordination of women, on communion of children, if you go back into the 19th century on the issue of slavery - the church has not moved until society has made it safe to do so. And in a time of declining membership, as our church is shrinking, it's becoming more conservative. We're in an increasingly survival-oriented mentality, which stifles a great deal of creativity and risk. I'm not confident that our church is able to take a strong lead on controversial moral issues whilst the possibility exists of major schism in the church. I ask you for your understanding and say that I think the bishops will find it possible to move when the church tells them. We have to move. What I would like to see are diocesan synods grappling with this issue and making decisions at synod levels. After a significant process of listening, sharing, mutual engagement. There are many diocesan synods across the country. If we took the decision tomorrow, it would not benefit the gay and lesbian community. I think there are dioceses in the country where it is possible to move. I don't know about yours, wherever you come from. I don't know about mine, because the gulf exists where I live, too. But I think there will be some possibility - I hope there's a possibility that the church as a whole can say that we need to give permission to those parish communities, or those dioceses, where this will be a welcome move, to become an inclusive and just church again. To give them permission to do so, without waiting until the entire church is able to make this. Because that will be a long time. We have historically in Canada tried to work these things through together, rather than falling into unilateralism, and I strongly believe that the Canadian spirit on this one is what we should try to stay with. The bishops will not be able to move on this until the church makes it necessary for them to do so. Q: Question directly to you, Michael. Why would you not allow priests in your diocese to bless same-sex unions if, in fact, you believe this to be compatible with our faith? Bishop Michael: The Diocese of New Westminster is in the same position as all the other diocese in Canada on this one. I don't know of a diocese in our church which has officially accepted the blessing of same-sex unions. When I was consecrated a bishop, I pledged myself to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Church of Canada. And what I've said to the clergy in the diocese is that I am bound by that, as you are, but we have the same freedom of conscience of every Christian, every baptised member of our church, to argue against that and to get it changed. And what we are trying to do is to change the discipline of our church on this matter. I don't think, in the long run, that it would be beneficial at this stage for one diocese to try to move ahead without some general sense from the others that it's okay. I think it may be possible in Montreal, in Toronto and in Vancouver, and I would hope that the House of Bishops, at some point, might see that that is something they could support. But you have to think strategically. It's possible to win a battle and lose the war. My judgement at the moment - and it may be flawed - is that it's better for us to try to persuade the church to give permission for this to happen where it is appropriate and where it's welcome and that, if we move without the support, canonically, of the rest of the church, we will find ourselves in legal battles, in constitutional arguments, in heresy trials, in all the kinds of things that are ripping apart other churches. I know that sounds like a plea to wait. I don't think we should wait in advocating change, but I think the long term future, the long term benefit to gay and lesbian Christians and to the church as a whole will be for us to move in the way that I'm suggesting. Canon Donna: There are several questions that talk about there being many innocent victims, too many ruined lives: you spoke that there are those who have been driven to despair, loss of hope and even death, yet you say our strategy should be to focus on gay unions. The question is," what are we to do with those who have already become victims, whose lives have already been damaged or even ruined? They are among us now and the church largely brushes them aside." That encapsulates the tone of several of the questions. Bishop Michael: I hope other people up here can respond to that. It breaks my heart to see people so wounded by our church's continued denial of rights and dignity to people. I remember the words of Ed Browning, the Primate of the American Episcopal Church, to the Integrity conference in the United States, about three years ago, where Bishop Browning said, "We have abused you and broken you. We have denied your dignity and denied recognition of your love, and you are still among us. Like the broken Christ, you give us back the Gospel. You represent everything that we hope for." The paradox of suffering is that it is a tremendous witness to hope and the possibility of new life. That is an awful burden to bear, and it's not one that I'm glad about at all. But I think if you were to leave the church - and I certainly would understand that - the church will be much, much the poorer. The possibility that you give to us is holding up the Gospel that we preach. Q: Do you see the opportunity for them being reinstated, and how and where? What kind of protection is there for those who fear risking what has happened to others when they've come forward to identify themselves? Archbishop Ted: I think it would be utterly irresponsible and foolish for either Michael or myself to say that, if a priest came forward, there wouldn't be trouble around that issue. I think that people like Michael and myself can stand as closely as we can alongside such people in the middle of the situation that is there. This afternoon I've been working on a manuscript written by a blind doctor, which had to cope with a whole series of situations, the latest one being to discover that she has breast cancer, and she makes the comment in this article, "None of us have control over the things that are going to happen to us, or that do happen to us. The only thing we have any control over is how we respond when they happen." This is one of the terrible issues about human life. And one of the problems I think we face, any of us that suffer injustice of different kinds, that get accused of different things. When bishops take unpopular positions, you don't get away with that easily. You have to live with some of those kind of realities. But you do have some choice about how you're going to respond, whether you're going to become bitter, destructive, or whether you're going to struggle to embrace that situation, and work for something creative in the middle of it. I think all we can do at this stage is to help people struggle with that incredible injustice, and there's many of them in society, as you move to try and change the situation, try and make sure that they recognise that they're not alone in that situation, and that people want to be with them, and we can do this much more publicly now than we used to be able to do. Many of us are getting a little bit more courage about doing that kind of thing than we used to be able to do. So it's one of the areas that I think we have to work on that. And I think it would be irresponsible for either Michael or myself to suggest that a priest come forward at this stage. You can easily protect the situation happening. I would hope that we could, more and more, enlarge the scope. As Michael suggests, in certain places things could happen as a move forward. I think that's the best we could have any right to promise or suggest to people at this particular time. That's not very good news, but I think it's better to try and give honest comments than it is to try and paint pictures. Canon Donna: There are some questions related to the ARCIC statements. As I read them I remembered all the furore before the ordination of women about how every time we opened our mouths, the fear of what would happen to our relationship with the Roman Catholic church was thrown in front of us. So I can see these questions following a similar pattern. The one that I will read is: "The recent ARCIC to morals document, Life in Christ, manages to trace Anglican divergence from very many Roman Catholic opinions, yet conveniently converges in condemning all homosexual activity. How can gay-positive and gay and lesbian Anglicans witness against this shameful statement and ensure in the future that we are not 'decided for' without a hearing?" Bishop Michael: I haven't given this much thought, so let me just talk off the top of my head. As I recall, the earlier ARCIC statements, they came back to the provinces of the Anglican communion for ratification and approval, and this particular report has not received that. It's a discussion document, it's a document created by theologians and scholars. It's attempting to deal with a great range of moral and ethical implications of the earlier reports on basic doctrinal principles. I think, when it comes before us for discussion and approval, that there ought to be ample opportunity - there ought to be there, I'm hoping there will be -- ample opportunity for members of the church to comment on it and participate in the reception of the document, and that would be the point for us to say that, just like the ordination of women issue, this is not the belief of the Anglican church; it's not our view. I don't know how it works in the diocese of Toronto. In our diocese, when the previous ARCIC reports have come out, we've held diocesan meetings, deanery meetings, archdeaconry meetings and clergy meetings to discuss the import of it, along with Roman Catholics, and they've been very fruitful exchanges. My experience is that whenever we meet around things like that, we get tremendous support from people in the Roman Catholic communion as well, around some of the issues that the Anglican church has stood for, and so I think there will be opportunities for us to respond to that before officially as a church we make up our mind. = = = = = = = = [97-1-2b] === Oral questions and comments === Doug Graydon: For those of you who don't know me, I'm Doug Graydon, I work at Casey House Hospice as the pastoral counsellor/ Anglican priest. I have worked for the last 11 to 15 years almost exclusively in the gay and lesbian community and so my pastoral experience has been in witnessing to the validity and integrity of homosexual and lesbian relationships. I find myself living for the last 15 years in the extraordinary and increasingly paradoxical and contradictory experience of what the church teaches and what I experience. And so putting experience with what doctrine teaches me is becoming increasingly difficult in my personal life. This is a very personal question that I'm leading to. I sometimes feel that the church is, in this particular issue, if not currently living, then moving towards experiencing a pastoral genocide when it comes to the whole issue of pastoral ministry to gay and lesbian people, as we continue to discuss the issue which perpetuates the oppression, alienation and exclusion of gay and lesbian people, and I find myself increasingly impatient with having to access an underground ministry of ordained clergy who are willing to minister to people who are gay and lesbian, because if they come out and state to their church that they minister fully, sacramentally, to the gay and lesbian community, they run the risk of punishment. And so I am experiencing a priestly contradiction and tension that leads me to these two questions, which I ask of Michael and Ted, because they are both bishops and therefore my pastors. How do I survive as a priest living in this contradiction, in this hypocrisy, in this theological dichotomy? I'm finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the polarities and I would love any kind of pastoral insight, and I would enjoy entering into a long, ongoing conversation with either one of you, if you were willing. The other question that I ask is, what would be left of the Bible if we took out all of the stories that had any kind of risk involved as far as a faith journey is concerned? If the people of Israel did not go off into the desert, if Jesus did not climb onto the cross, where would we be as people? So, in that sense, what does our risk history as a faithful people teach us, and how does it possibly illuminate us for the future? Archbishop Ted: I share very much the dilemma of the pastoral context that you live in and work in. The only pastoral advice I think I can give is that I think, in general terms, it is very wise to be very honest about one's position. I have never hidden the fact in my ministry that I live in a perpetual love-hate relationship with the church. If I hadn't taken that position, I would never have been able to survive. Because there are times when I have to condemn, totally, things that are done by the church, and I hate that. But there's the question of balancing between the two things, and I think we have to be prepared to be critical about the institution, and be prepared to take risks. Here, I think, it comes to be an individual kind of decision. I think, if one's going to take a risk, you want to take the risk on the assumption that something is going to be achieved by that risk. This would be a long theological thing, but I don't believe Jesus took the action that led to the crucifixion and if he'd reached a point in his ministry, that something would be achieved by that event. I think there's a lot of thinking behind that, but I can't get that to your point, but I think we have to work at that kind of situation in terms of inter-pastoral support. We have to be concerned about people and acknowledge the weaknesses and the failings of the church as an institution. Ed Thain, who was my father confessor of many years, said that people who work for the church, have the best Lord in the world, but the worst employer in the world, in terms of ministry pattern. And I think there's something there that we need to be aware of: that the injustice of the structure is very real, and you have to try to minister to individual people in terms of integrity and relationships. It sure isn't an easy one. Bishop Michael: I've been tempted to leave the church many times over issues of conscience and I have not yet reached a point where I have felt so compromised in my integrity that I could not remain a part of this Body of Christ with all its sinfulness and all its goodness. And I can't speak for you, but I'm asked this question by a number of clergy, and I always say that if you have to choose between the church and your integrity, choose your integrity every time. Because whatever happens, you need to know that you yourself did what was right and what you needed to do. And that is the way of the cross, it's why we're here. We are walking the way of the cross inside this church as well as out, and it's very, very difficult. But you meet some great people. Sally raised the issue of disobedience and of course I couldn't counsel disobedience, but we face a similar issue - not in any sense to trivialise what Doug has said - but we face a similar issue over things like native land claims, in the sense - certainly in British Columbia and I think, from what I read in Ontario - we're facing issues of civil disobedience. At what point will the church undertake actions of civil disobedience? Tom Berger, as some of you may know, is a lawyer in British Columbia, a former judge and author of the Berger report. We asked him about civil disobedience and he began by saying, "Of course, as a judge, I can't counsel disobedience." But he went on to say that there is a tradition of ethical responsibility to challenge decisions that are wrong. If you make the decision that you're going to do that, you have to be prepared to take the consequences. And that's a tradition of martyrdom. I hope that we will have no more martyrs in our church on this issue. But I'm afraid it may take martyrdom before we realise where Jesus is. Canon Donna: I invite you to address the group "Charles": WhenI went to my bishop to tell him I was being divorced, I was upset and I said, "My lord, I can't tell you why." He put his arm across my shoulder and said, "Charles, it's your homosexuality, I've known about it for years." So much for clerical gossip. But the thing is, that what I was told amounted to this, and this was from a bishop who couldn't have been more fatherly, more pastoral, or more caring, or more able, he's above reproach in this matter. But it turned out that it really meant that, since I was living with someone and trying to love with Christian insight, I was a scandal, and therefore I could not practise my ministry. But if I should leave that person, then I could practise my ministry. And nobody said, "Of course, we know you won't cat around," and I thought about this and I know what you say about disobedience and all that, but after a week, I realised I'd been bloody well bashed, and I'm an Anglican, but never a member of the Anglican Church of Canada. [long silence] Canon Donna: We need to honour the pain in this room, and the pain in our church. I am grateful for the integrity of the people who are present and of the wisdom and the insight of the people who agreed to share their thinking with us and to share their journeys. ======== [97-1-3] AFTERTHOUGHTS: Responses to the Bishop Ingham Event [97-1-3a] ==by Brian Dench == The Bishop Ingham event was a contrast of extremes. What started as openness, encouragement, and invigoration closed with resentment, anger, and despair. What a way to go. Ingham was open, unambiguously positive. He articulated a theology that transformed the "classical wisdom" of the church into a reality of compassion and acceptance. The love that used to dare not speak had somehow become a revelation of the true gospel. Was that really a bishop up there? Be still, my beating heart! His interpretation of tradition and scripture had the ring of authenticity. It was liberation, affirmation. The "yes" of the universe. The kingdom was bursting onto the stage - before death! But in the discussion following, the realities of being openly gay in the church situated all the bishop's positives in a cold isolation of a long, hard struggle - the kingdom that showed up wasn't yet a happy place, after all. "Being out means being out of a job" was brilliantly concise. And the first-hand report of the exchange between the out priest and the bishop that led to a departure from the Anglican church brought the meeting to a long, painful silence that was staggering in its depth. This familiar reality was the stark, rejecting face of the enormous hurt and anger that stalks faithful gays and lesbians with the blessing and active support of the majority of the church. That wasn't heaven on earth, it was hell. At that point, the meeting was on the brink of either a break-through or a break-down. And the long silence was a masterful response -- as far as it went. Who couldn't be grateful for the courage and wisdom it took not to rush in and cover it all up with more talk? But time's up. Go home. And after all was said and done, it was hard to tell if we were farther ahead, or farther behind than we've been all the days of our life. But... we've seen this rejecting hurt before: just before the ordination of women. Can our break-through be just around the corner? = = = = = = [97-1-3b] == by Susie Henderson == Michael's presentation was sincere and moving, and not without risk. I am grateful for his leadership and his willingness to speak on this issue. I agree with much of what he said. It was a powerful apology for a healthy understanding of sexuality in general. I particularly appreciate his clarity about the links between sexism and homophobia - "the most dreadful children of our history". I do however disagree with his strategy to move on the blessing of unions, which in his opinion, would render ordination a non - issue. I am not opposed to the blessing of unions, however this plan does not go far enough to serve as a strategy for systemic change. It widens the scope of who is eligible, but it does not address the situation where marriage remains the 'ultimate' standard of the state of relationships. Partnered or not, all people are then measured accordingly. The struggle to gain admittance into the structures as they are defined leads us to defend the worthiness of same-sex relationships. If same-sex partners can imitate the forms of heterosexual marriage then they may win formal sanction from the church. This is not the only example of this kind of situation in our tradition. Women struggle into the forms defined by and for men in the priesthood. Children must squeeze into eucharist and liturgy fashioned by and for adults. Worshippers from all cultures express word and sacrament with Elizabethan language and Western symbols. Left unchallenged, the forms themselves - priesthood, marriage, eucharist - remain unchanged. Further, the community does not change to reflect its membership - diversity and difference are erased. In resisting the standardising of relationships, I do not wish to remove the role of the community. I do not even want to say that there should be no community measure for relationships. But I want to measure substance over form. My partner and I are committed to the measure as it is captured by a contemporary artist: "If we ever leave a legacy it's that we loved each other well." We look to our community to help us deepen our relationship and to express it in acts of hospitality and justice. We would have our community hold us to that. = = = = = = [97-1-3c] == by John Russell == I've been having a terrible case of "I should have said..." since Bishop Ingham spoke about gay men and lesbians in our church a few weeks ago. I was one of the panellists charged with talking about where I see the struggle moving in the future. I started my remarks by thanking him for an eloquent and surprisingly moving address, but went on to say that my efforts to secure full inclusion would be directed outside the church from now on. My argument was based on the fact that debating this question inside the church always comes back to the interpretation of scripture, and changing people's notions about God's will is far too slow and laborious a task; we'll get farther faster in the courts and legislatures, and the church will fall in step, as it has so often in the past. I was feeling pretty good at that point, pleased to have such a persuasive and well-placed ally. I wasn't so sanguine at the end of the evening, and left more convinced than ever that we're wasting our time trying to change the church from within. Ironically, it was Bishop Ingham who convinced me, with his response to a question from Rev Doug Graydon, asking how to carry on as a priest in the face of such contradiction. Bishop Ingham replied that if it came to the point where Doug had to choose between the church and his integrity, he should choose the latter -- that was the way of the Cross. He went on to say that we have an ethical responsibility to challenge positions that are wrong, but if we do that, we must be prepared to face the consequences -- that is the tradition of martyrdom. The Bishop said that he hoped there would be no more martyrs on this issue, but that he was afraid that it might take martyrdom before we realise where Jesus is. The Bishop doesn't feel that his own integrity is compromised sufficiently to risk his employment, but is more than willing for others to hazard theirs. As a friend put it at the end of the evening, "he's asking us to be martyrs so that he doesn't have to be." And this from our most powerful ally. What I should have said to him that night is that the body count of martyrs to this cause is already sickeningly high. That it's about time that someone in a purple shirt said "enough!", and forced the issue, by breaking the seemingly sacred compact of collegiality that provides such a convenient hiding place. Until one of them has the guts to set an example and follow "the way of the Cross" instead of paying it lip service, the church will remain an accomplice in the martyrdom of gay men and lesbians. Should I also have said "good-bye" to a church that refuses to offer me the unconditional love and acceptance it espouses? How tragic that this question is one we constantly need to ask ourselves. = = = = = = [97-1-3d] == Sylvia Brightwell == "We bless battleships, animals, armies..." With these words Michael Ingham, bishop, called all of us to look carefully at who/what we bless. It was exciting to hear from a man and a bishop that he had "changed his mind" around some essential issues in the church. The "ground" under the issues he was addressing was profoundly stated in a statement he made later. He said that we, as a church, have inherited a "suspicion of eros". Then he went on to explain, as I have heard before, that eros is the "drive toward union with the Other" and it is, in fact, "the homing instinct within a human being." His statement reminded me of reading the poet Audre Lorde's work in which she defined eros as "an assertion of the life-force ... of that creative energy" within us. As a result of this suspicion, we, as a church, have embraced a pathological system rather than a sound theology. We have embraced rigid beliefs that say man was intended only for woman, marriage is the high ideal (if one didn't want to "burn" with lust), and that sexuality really should be renounced if one was faithful to the gospel. Such beliefs stem from a toleration of sexual expression rather than a celebration of it. Sexual expression has been labelled, within us, the church almost as a necessary evil and marriage as an alternative for the undisciplined people who couldn't be celibate. Yet we also know that eros has a broad enough definition to include sensuality, sexuality and the soul's longing for God. Carter Heyward, in her marvellous book Touching Our Strength, has subtitled the book "The Erotic as Power and the Love of God." God's love and power can be expressed in the erotic expression of who we are and can, in fact, bring us home to the presence of Christ within us. Of course, many people do not choose such consciousness in their expression of eros, but it is a "divine possibility" within each one of us. It is the home of Christ within us that Michael Ingham is asking us to open ourselves to, as individuals and as the Body of Christ. Home, by definition, is a place where one "lives", not merely exists. Home is "an environment or haven of shelter happiness or love." Home. is a "place or condition valued as a refuge or place of origin." To "come home" to God is an instinctive need of us as human beings, for God is our source in whose image we were made! I believe that the God to whom we desire to come home is both within us and beyond us, immanent and transcendent. So when all people follow their desire for something more in life, we heed the drive within us to be fully alive, not merely existing or barely coping. We seek surroundings which are, to us, a safe place that shelters us and brings us some form of happiness (blessedness) and love. We ache for somewhere where we can find refuge from those beliefs, attitudes, ideas, thoughts, values and feelings that assault our self-esteem and degrade us in any way. We look for a place where we matter and are not made to feel like second-class citizens or, worse, scum of the earth. People seeking home, looking for a place where we are welcomed and cherished, a place that feels like we belong. Isn't that, after all, what a place of origin is supposed to be like? As a counsellor in private practice, I work with all kinds of people who are seeking home within themselves, and then, in a community. Many of them are people who have been rejected by the church. Many of them are lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. In our work together, I try to help them to get to know the Divine One within them, and to listen to the guidance that the Divine One is offering them constantly. Then, often, the desire for a community surfaces and they ask, "Is there a church where I would be welcome?" That question is often worded in this way: "Do you know where I could find a church home?" Michael Ingham, bishop in the church of God, was talking about welcoming all people to the Anglican church ,and helping them to feel at home with us. He spoke as one who is, as a bishop is called to do, "guarding the faith of the church", the Body of Christ which is called, as Christ did, to welcome all people. We have been remiss in our history for being suspicious of the very energy that is instinctively prompted from with our souls. Eros is the soul's desire for God, and is the very energy that urges us to make connections with other human beings. Lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and heterosexuals all are being urged from deep within their own souls to seek a loving , welcoming God who created them as they are and who celebrates them. God delights in all of us! May we follow Michael Ingham's open, .loving example and do the same for each other -- all others! =========== [97-1-4] Integrity/Toronto Announcements Renewals It's that time again -- time to renew your membership (or subscription). Postal subscribers got a pink paper renewal form If you would like to become a member, and/or receive paper copies of Integrator, please send $15 with your name and address to Integrity/Toronto at PO Box 873 Station F Toronto M4Y 2N9. = = = = Tapes Video and audio tapes of Bishop Michael Ingham's address: For God so loved the world: welcoming gays, lesbians and heterosexuals in the church are available for $10 video / $7 audio. Check the box on the pink renewal form, or drop a note to Integrity/Toronto at PO Box 873 Station F Toronto M4Y 2N9. = = = = INTEGRITY RETREAT Integrity's annual Retreat will be May 30 - June 1 (Friday suppertime to Sunday lunchtime) at St John's Convent in Willowdale; led (as always) by Sister Thelma-Anne ssjd. The theme this year is "Stones In My Shoe" -- we'll talk about questions that we, as lesbigays of faith, have had for some time (with no obvious answers); things that have been bothering us, like a stone in the shoe, for a while. The registration fee is $100, and bursaries are available for those of limited fiscal means. Please call Brian MacIntyre, Retreat Registrar, at 905 273 9860 ; or write to PO Box 873 Station F Toronto M4Y 2N9 to let him know that you'll be attending. === end of text === End of volume 97-1 of Integrator, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto copyright 1997 Integrity/Toronto comments please to Chris Ambidge, Editor chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca OR Integrity/Toronto Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON Canada M4Y 2N9