Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 18:55:56 -0400 From: Chris Ambidge Subject: *Integrator* files for 1997 INTEGRATOR, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto Volume 97-2, issue date 1997 05 26 Copyright 1997 Integrity / Toronto. The hard-copy version of this newsletter carries the ISBN 0843-574X. ==Contents== [97-2-1] HEARING ONE ANOTHER: / Presentations on homosexuality evoke thoughtful responses at Toronto Synod '96 [97-2-2] CHANGES OF HEART / Chris Ambidge's Presentation to Synod [97-2-3] A MORE OPEN HOUSE? / Bishops surveyed on changing our church's 1979 guidelines [97-2-4] YOUTH RESPONSE TO SYNOD PRESENTATION / by Barry Townshend [97-2-5] CAREFUL STEPS / Excerpts from the Bishop's Charge to Toronto Synod '96 by the Rt Rev Terence Finlay [97-2-6] REQUIEM AETERNAM ... [a] David Yon, Member of Integrity/Toronto [b] Verdict in Murder of Warren Eling === begin text ==== [97-2-1] HEARING ONE ANOTHER Presentations on homosexuality evoke thoughtful responses at Toronto Synod'96 by Chris Ambidge At Toronto diocesan Synod this past fall, there were 90 minutes of agenda time devoted to an educational event on homosexuals and the church. This event was mandated by the Executive Committee. In September, I was one of six people (of a variety of views, sexes, and orientations) called toether to programme the educational time. Dr Walter Deller, programme director of the diocese, was facilitator. The event was consciously modelled on the forums held at General Synod 92, and at Qu'Appelle diocesan Synod 94. We quickly decided that we should have a number of speakers in the first hour, providing input to the members of Synod; and then on the second day give the members time to respond and speak to each other. We realised that all the members had to hear something from the podium which reflected their own feelings (whatever those might be), or the event would be dismissed as a whitewash. A spectrum of speakers reflecting the spectrum of views held across the diocese seemed in order. Just what to ask people to talk about in their time-slot proved a lot more problematic. Once we started looking at lists of real names, though, the task became much clearer, and we settled on five names in half an hour. They were: the Rev Patrick Yu, Caroll Guen-Hart, Chris Ambidge, Ajit John and Canon Ansley Tucker. The first three are members of a continuing group that has sat in dialogue with Bishop Finlay on this question over the past two years. The planning task force then tried to arrive at some objectives for what we wanted the members of Synod to take away from the event, and arrived at these objectives with remarkable unanimity: After the programme, the members of Synod : [knowledge] o will be able to identify core issues clearly o will have some grasp of the spectrum of perspectives on the issue, and their basis in scripture, tradition and reason (acknowledging that in the time frame available this can only be begun) [skills] o will have increased ability to discuss issues of sexuality with other Christians of diverse opinions. [attitudes] o will accept and honour diversity even if unable to share it. o will acknowledge that Anglican tradition approaches complex moral issues through careful consideration of different sources of authority o will be willing to think seriously about the issues o will have a greater understanding of their own beliefs and feelings about the issue. o will have an appreciation of how people have experienced the church's response to the expression of gay and lesbian sexuality [behaviours] o will share thoughts and feelings o will meditate on the information received o will come to respectful understanding of views on the subject o will treat others with respect at all times. We agreed that the task for the five speakers would be to make a presentation of a maximum of eight minutes, identifying o what they saw as the core issues surrounding homosexuality / sexuality that the Anglican Church needs to address; and o what they saw as the ways forward. We also recommended that no substantive motions concerning sexual orientation come before Synod at the November 1996 session. This meant that members would not be wondering how to vote on motion 17B (or whatever), and would be able to focus on what was actually being said. The other procedural recommendation was to ask for no applause at all, until the end of a given session. This was to stop different members voting on a clap-O-meter for their favoured speakers, and it too took a lot of the tension away from the presentations. Both measures helped make for a good listening and learning environment for Synod members. In the event, the one hour event on Friday afternoon went very well. Synod listened in pin-drop silence, with very little by way of foot-shuffling body movement, which indicated to me that very close attention was being paid. The Chancellor said to me on Saturday both that he thought the event had gone well, and that he had never seen Synod so quiet for so long. All good signs. [Indeed, the educational event was rated very highly indeed by the members in their post Synod evaluations] After the five of us had spoken, Synod members sat quietly for a while. They were asked to reflect on the presentations, and on the question, "if you could say one thing to Synod about all this, what would it be?" They were asked to write it down, and their responses were the substance of Saturday afternoon's feedback session. The number of responses handed in was very encouraging. By the beginning of the evening session we had 16 anonymous responses (whether no-name by choice or carelessness one cannot tell) and an even 100 signed responses. In the course of the next morning another 22 responses came in. There were between seven and eight hundred members in attendance, meaning a 14 - 18% response rate, which I'd say was extremely good. I should be clear at this point that the responses were not a poll -- these were the responses of people who chose to hand in a piece of paper. Those pieces of paper are now in the Diocesan Archives. The planning task force repaired to Walter's hotel room, which he had supplied with scotch, sherry (how Anglican), and soft drinks to fortify us for the task ahead, that of reading all the responses and choosing a few to have read aloud in the 25 agenda minutes Saturday afternoon. On sorting them out into "left" "right" and "centre" piles, it became apparent that Synod (or at least, those who had responded) were not nearly as evenly split as I had previously thought. Ten or 15 were centre, either in the "this was a good event, lets keep talking" pile, or in the "I don't know what I think" pile. Twenty-one were of the conservative, "we should stick to the 1979 guidelines" approach. The remainder were of the "let's accept lesbians / gays and acknowledge their partnerships / it's their own business" school of thought. Pretty close to a 2:1 split in favour of movement. We sorted out good candidates from our individual piles, then put them all on a spectrum and went through a winnowing process to get a good selection, representing diverse opinion, with male / female, clergy / lay, rural / urban in balance as much as possible, and preference also given to the succinct. We were careful that the numbers of each kind of response read aloud to Synod were in proportion to the number of such responses handed in. Eventually the winnowing left us with 13 to be read by the authors themselves to Synod on Saturday, four conservative, one "I don't know what I think, but for the first time I feel I need to speak about needing to keep thinking", one from the chaplain of a private school who was asking for guidance as to what to say to his students (since his high school age students are NOT impressed with the bird-but-don't-fly policy of today), and seven pro change in one way or another. The one that touched me most was from a woman priest, who likened the situation for lesbigays to that of the Children of Israel in Egypt. One thing that I found quite encouraging was the number of straight men responding in favour of movement. In educational events, I'm used to seeing lesbigays and straight women, but straight men are normally thin on the ground. It was interesting that of the 21 "con" responses, every one came from a male. When we added in the late responses from Saturday morning (which broke down in much the same proportions) there were two women "con" -- but that's still only 8% female, 92% male strongly against change. While most of those came from the eastern rural end of the diocese (plus one parish in the western suburbs); I didn't notice an urban / rural split in the pro-change camp; a significant number of rural parish representatives were saying too "it's time to accept". There was also an interesting representation of pro-change people who identified as coming from the health care professions. Over the years, I've seen parts of this discussion degenerate into dialogues of the deaf, with each side shouting at the other, with hands clamped over ears. That didn't happen (and I think the no applause rule helped a lot) last November. I was quite encouraged by the events at Synod last November. It seemed to be almost a sea-change in the responses of the members. (There have been numerous requests for transcripts of what was said, and I think that is in the works.) More importantly for the health of the Church, there was real listening and communication. As long as we can continue to listen and be open to the direction of the Spirit -- whatever that may be -- we'll be OK. ==================== [97-2-2] WHERE DO CHANGES OF HEART COME FROM? One-on-one dialogue is the way, Ambidge tells Synod; " But please, don't let it take forever." *To the 144th session of Toronto diocesan Synod, 1996 11 22* My name is Chris Ambidge. I was born All Soul's Day 1953 and baptised the following Advent Sunday. I'm a cradle Anglican and proud to call myself that. I have been a member of this synod in the 1970s, the 80s and the 90s. I am not an outsider, but someone very much part of the family here. The last time I spoke to you was also as a gay man, back in 1991 [in the wake of Jim Ferry's problems]. Although I am one person, and can tell only my own story, I ask you to realise that there are many many lesbians and gay men behind me here, though there isn't time for them to speak. There are many many gay men and lesbians on the floor of this synod, and in our church pews. And there are still more OUTside our churches, and if we believe in evangelism, we should be working on getting them INside and in the pews. When I say "the church" I mean parts. It's not monolithic and there are different levels of welcome in different parts of the vineyard. I am affirmed in my parish as a gay man, and there are same-sex couples there. There's a level of comfort for me in my parish, and that's why I can stay. I am fed in my life in Christ there. I know myself to be beloved of God: I see that in the pages of my bible, I see it in the faces of the people at my church, I taste it in the sacrament that I receive each week. I want to get along with the real task of Christians, living out my baptismal covenant -- clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, walking humbly with my God, to mix quotes -- but as long as lesbians and gays, my people, are not welcomed at the table as full members of the Body of Christ, I must also work to ensure that welcome. That's why I'm here now. I might also say that this is not just about the 5 or 10% (or whatever the number is) who are gay / lesbian. It's also about our mums, dads, sisters, nephews, cousins, friends: they are church too; and things that alienate lesbigays hurt them. In some ways it still seems to me that the debate is often conducted as if lesbigay people were outside, trying to get in. We're not -- we're already inside. We were baptised too. Our gifts, money and efforts are welcome: we as persons are not. This is the message we continue to get through o the denial of openly gay and sexually involved clergy (present and future), o the refusal of the church to bless and encourage committed, faithful same-sex relationships, o the fact that a great many lesbigay people do not come out in their parishes, but instead live in a closeted fashion, because they don't feel safe, o and the continued insistence by many to keep talking about "issues" as if it were a philosophy and not genuine suffering that bruises and alienates faithful Christians - not to mention the awful message it sends to the unchurched! I didn't choose to be gay any more than I chose to be right-handed. It's something outside my control. There's eight years of therapy behind that statement. The only choice I had was whether to feel myself less than whole, sinful as a gay man, some kind of mistake; or alternatively to rejoice in my God-given sexuality and try to live responsibly. I chose the latter. "God made me and God don't make junk." Now, it wasn't a clear choice at the time, coming out was a long and painful process of realisation. It's not easy. In my case, the intimate love of partnership will always be for another man. [I don't actually have a partner right now, though I hope someday I will] I know in the depth of my soul that God has created in me -- as in you -- the ability to love and the need to be loved. I cannot believe in a God so cruel and spiteful as to create in me those needs and abilities and say "but you can't use them." Yet, when the church says that lesbigays must remain celibate, that is exactly the picture of God that is being painted. And that has to change. Many gays and lesbians know that that is a false picture. God loved us so much that Jesus became human, one of us. But let me tell you, there are huge numbers of lesbigays who have exactly that picture of a nasty, judgmental, deity that they want nothing to do with (and who can blame them?). But it is as hard for me to come out as a Christian among homosexuals as it is to come out as a gay man in Christian circles. There is vitriolic hatred of anything to do with "the church", because they have been told time and again that they are scum, that they are abominations, that God will spew them out. It doesn't matter whether that message came from the Catholics or Anglicans or Presbyterians or whoever -- all of the churches are painted with the same brush. Gays and lesbians have been actively DISevangelised. But they're not lost to us. This is the decade of evangelism. There are thousands of lesbigays hungry to hear the good news of Jesus, but who are blocked by the conditional acceptance. Every Christmas Eve, Roy Thomson Hall is packed with 3000 lesbians and gays at MCC's Christmas service. There are evangelistic opportunities aplenty, but right now lesbigays are being DISevangelised I think the best way we can go about evangelising is to clean up our own house. The saying is that "for a religion born in a barn, an open door goes without saying". Right now, the welcome to lesbigays is conditional at best. The message often sent is "you can be a member if you acknowledge you're flawed, or withered in a special way". I believe that message is profoundly anti-incarnational. I believe we need to move back to an incarnational -- an embodied -- faith. We need to live out our baptismal covenant, and recognise that Christ came that we might all have life and have it abundantly. I believe we are presently operating in a "justification" model, where there are endless rounds of pro / con arguments as to whether lesbigays have a God-given right to be allowed partially or fully in the door and to be seated at the banquet. I believe we need to move from there to a "justice" model: there is already a place at the table for everyone, so what do we need to do to bring in those who haven't already taken their seat? We should change our approach. Changes of heart don't come from books, they come from human encounters. I urge members of Synod to meet gay people one-to-one. For the many in the church who do not yet feel they know enough or feel comfortable enough about the various facets of lesbigay Christian presence in the Church, I encourage dialogue, self education and prayer. We don't bite, we're not going to make a pass at you, and we're baptised just like you and your kids. I am calling for dialogue. But please, don't let it take forever. I'm forty-three years old, I don't want to wait until I'm drawing a pension. We all need to live together in the church. That's our task. We were all baptised, and in Christ, this is home for all of us. ========== [97-2-3] A MORE OPEN HOUSE? Bishops surveyed on changing our church's 1979 guidelines The House of Bishops meets twice a year. Since 1991, the topic of homosexuals and the church has taken some of their time at most of those meetings. Up to now, the discussions (like those which led up to the 1979 guidelines) have always been in camera. However, when the discussion started last month, we understand that someone asked "why are we doing this in camera?", and the motion to close the doors failed for want of a second. Two thirds of the bishops surveyed at the spring 1997 meeting favour some change to their 1979 guidelines on the ordination of homosexual persons. After the meeting they issued a statement which summarised the 1979 guidelines, and went on to say: "1. Ten members wished to retain the 1979 Guidelines in their present form; "2. Eighteen members wished to retain the original intention of the Guidelines, but update them in the light of new pastoral awareness; "3. Six members wished to retain the Guidelines in force while a task force worked on new guidelines. "The House of Bishops thereby commits itself to retaining the 1979 Guidelines in principle, but intends to express them in a wider context of theological understanding and pastoral sensitivity. The House aims to receive the first draft of a message to the church at its Fall 1997 meeting. Later we hope to undertake a wider study of human sexuality within the wider church." The 1979 guidelines say all people are equal before God, but "our acceptance of persons with homosexual orientation is not an acceptance of homosexual activity." The guidelines also say the bishops "do not accept the blessing of homosexual unions." They say a gay or lesbian person may be ordained "if there has been a commitment to the bishop to abstain from sexual acts with persons of the same sex..." The three options above were not the only questions asked of the bishops. A task group of bishops conducted a survey to get a sense of the House's feelings on how best to proceed. The survey results offer the first public glimpse into the bishops' deliberations on the topic. The survey hints at some issues of pastoral sensitivity by asking bishops to indicate their acceptance of various options including: o apologising to the gay and lesbian community for insensitivity and hostility originating within the church; o calling on the church to welcome and celebrate the presence of gays and lesbians in its midst; o considering ways of recognising committed same-sex relationships Among the survey results (the total number of votes varies because not all bishops answered every question): 19 bishops favour an apology to gays for the church's insensitivity and hostility, 12 oppose the move 21 say the church should "intentionally welcome and celebrate the presence of its gay and lesbian members;" 10 oppose 23 say the church should be "more accepting and affirming of models of family other than the nuclear family," 7 oppose Two questions about same-sex relationships produced a complex response. In one, 16 bishops oppose considering recognition of same-sex relationships, while 14 are in favour. But 19 bishops want to "keep open the discussion concerning possible ways to affirm relationship formed by same-sex partners," while 10 oppose. If the 1979 guidelines were to be replaced, 28 bishops, the largest majority on any of the questions, favour retaining its assertion that "all persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are equal before God." But 3 bishops oppose retaining that statement. 17 bishops favour a declaration that "sexual orientation is seldom a matter of personal choice," while 10 oppose. two questions, both rejected by a majority of bishops, test whether dioceses should make their own decisions. In one, 17 bishops oppose allowing a diocese to affirm same-sex unions, with 11 bishops in favour. In the other, 22 bishops oppose allowing the "ordination of homosexual persons who are in, or hope to be in, monogamous faithful relationships;" five bishops would favour the move. The survey results will provide guidance to the bishop's task force, which is now charged to prepare a draft message to the church, for the bishops to review at their fall 1997 meeting. Task force members include the Most Rev Percy O'Driscoll, archbishop of Huron (chair); the Rt Rev Tom Morgan, bishop of Saskatoon; the Most Rev David Crawley, archbishop of Kootenay; and the Rt Rev Russell Hatton, bishop ordinary to the Canadian Forces. Integrity/Toronto is optimistic about this news. Any change in a positive direction from 1979 is a good thing, and there is a sizeable majority in the House at least prepared to talk about doing that. The numbers thinking that an apology is in order is encouraging, as is the intentional welcome and the acceptance of non-nuclear family. Most encouraging was the willingness for the discussions to be public. The contradicting results on recognising same-sex partnerships reflect the state of flux that the bishops find themselves in. We believe that the results reflect the church as a whole -- some people strongly at one side or the other, others of good will not sure yet what they think. It is also noteworthy that there is still more support for the partnerships of the laity than for lesbigay clergy. It is perhaps disappointing that the "local option" was turned down at this time, though perhaps this avoids driving a visible wedge in between two factions. Integrity/Toronto has said that we'll stay hopeful as long as there are signs either of movement, or preparedness to at least talk. This meeting is one such hope. ========== [97-2-4] YOUTH RESPONSE Hello! My name is Barry Townshend and I was a youth delegate at Synod this year. I wanted to send you a note to say thank you for speaking on such an important and difficult topic. I know that you said that you've been out at Synod before, but I would just like to recognise that any time someone stands in front of a group of people and outs themselves, especially in front of this crowd, you show a great deal of courage. I have a lot of respect for you. I would also like to commend you on a very powerful presentation. I believe that you were successful in encouraging more people to stand up and make a statement. I'm sure that by now, you must be very frustrated with the church and it's attitudes. I've been attending Trinity in Streetsville all of my life, and I have often felt very discouraged. I realised at Synod that change is coming. Thank you for showing me that I need to continue to have hope and for inspiring me to contribute to a growing voice that will not continue to tolerate using the Lord's name to hurt and destroy individuals and an already broken community. Your friend in Christ Barry Townshend ========== [97-2-5] CAREFUL STEPS Excerpts from the Bishop's Charge to Toronto Synod '96 by the Rt Rev Terence Finlay I continue to wrestle with the church's and society's attitudes to same gender relationships. People still seem to be ready to judge a group of people by wild stereotypes. They seem to forget there are numerous heterosexuals who do not live admirable lives. There are many good people in our churches, committed, caring members of our communities and some of these are attracted to someone of the same gender. How can we look on them as second class Christians? It is unjust and I agonise over this. You may remember that last year in my charge I asked if our diocese should be doing more work on same gender commitments, and I asked you to write me with your thoughts. Two members of Synod, the Reverend Paul Feheley (a member of Fidelity) and Chris Ambidge (a member of Integrity), were asked to compile the returns. Out of 75 responses there was a fairly even split, with a slight preference in favour of holding to the 1979 guidelines. During this past year I invited representatives from both Fidelity and the Ad Hoc group to meet with me to see if we might discover some common ground. We have met several times, we have prayed together, we have listened, discussed and we shall continue. Please pray for us. My hope is that even in our diversity we can trust each other and soon take some careful steps on this issue. ========== [97-2-6] REQUIEM AETERNAM [97-2-6a] DAVID YON It is with sadness that we must report the death of a long-time member of Integrity/Toronto, one who was never in Toronto at all. Friends sent us this email just after Easter: To those of you who have been concerned for David Yon during the years spent in the Idaho State Penitentiary -- he was released by death on April 6th (with AIDS complications.) David was most surely a victim of gay discrimination in his sentencing. He was a charter member of the first Spokane Integrity Chapter, an active churchman and lay reader, a member of the local P-FLAG and a well known and good friend of many of us. We have kept in contact with David throughout the past 10+ years in prison; and he was attended by an Episcopal priest in Boise, Michael Mahoney, during his last months. We first wrote to David Yon after a precis of his problems were mentioned in an Integrity US publication in the mid-1980s. He joined Integrity/Toronto immediately, often commented on the news he got in *Integrator*, and the postcards we sent him from the retreat, or the picnic. There was quite a lively correspondence at first, and he phoned (collect, of course) several times. We mentioned David and our other imprisoned members at one point in *Integrator*, and a couple of pen-friendships struck up. The frequency of the correspondence slowed as his physical well-being dropped; he had arthritis (hard to write) and mobility problems over the last three or four years. David's was one of the thumbnail biographies in *A Book of Revelations*, published by Integrity US. There he mentioned that life in the Idaho penal system was not fun. "Now that I am in prison, I feel so lonely, as if on an island in a sea of negativity. Without my faith, I would have been lost long ago. You see, I was a Chief of Police of a city in northern Idaho at one time. That makes me hated by all inmates. The few Christian inmates that could overlook that "character defect" cannot overlook the fact that I am gay." Other tales David had to tell of treatment from the guards indicate that the inmates were dealt with as less-than-human, by those whose power-over had gone to their heads. For instance, there were all sorts of silly little rules that you didn't hear about until you broke them: what could and could not go in correspondence seemed to change regularly. *Integrator* was once returned because we used an adhesive return-address label. Another time it got him in trouble because we enclosed (to everyone) a slip of rainbow ribbon with a straight pin in it. The pin was a weapon, drugs might have been under the labels, apparently. David ended his story in Book of Revelations with "It's time for lights out. Agape." We rejoice that he is now where light will never be extinguished. = = = = = = = = = = [97-2-6b] WARREN ELING VERDICT Most readers of *Integrator* will recall with horror the murder of the Rev Warren Eling in Montreal back in November of 1993. Warren was gay, and was strangled in his bed by a sexual partner. His family, in a letter to members of the diocese of Toronto, said "Warren could have made a far greater contribution to the life of the church had he not had to wrestle with its policy on sexual orientation" [see *Integrator*, vol 93-8] On 22 February this year Danny McIlwaine was found guilty of second degree murder in Warren's death. Mr McIlwaine was a crack addict at the time of the murder. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment, with no chance of parole for ten years. This was his second conviction; the first was overturned by the Quebec appellate court after the first jury was misdirected. We hope that this brings some closure for Warren's family. In 1993, they asked "If anything positive is to come from Warren's death, let it be change -- change in the way society as a whole treats the question of sexual orientation, and change in our church's policy on homosexual priests." That change, though slow, is happening. Those who were deeply affected by the shock and horror of the murder have indeed become advocates for change in the church, and attitudes are indeed changing. It hasn't happened overnight, and we've a long way to go, but people's reaction to Warren's death truly has moved us along the path to "ending the bias, bigotry and violence." === end of text === End of volume 97-2 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