Subject: Integrator volume 98-1
From: Chris Ambidge <ambidge@chem-eng.toronto.edu>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 13:46:53 -0500
INTEGRATOR, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto
volume 98-1, issue date 1998 01 28
copyright 1998 Integrity/Toronto. The hard-copy version of this
newsletter carries the ISSN 0843-574X
== Contents ==
[98-1-1] DIALOGUE FINDS COMMON GROUND / a report on the ongoing
dialogue around homosexuals in the church in Toronto,
by Chris Ambidge
[98-1-2] EMERGING COMMON GROUND / the full text of a pamphlet released
by Bp Finlay's Dialogue Group at Toronto diocesan synod,
November 1997
[98-1-3] DEAR BISHOP... / seven gay/lesbian priests react to the
1997 Statement on Human Sexuality from the Canadian House of Bishops
[98-1-4] INTEGRITY IN MONTREAL / a new chapter in Montreal is
getting on its feet
[98-1-5] FROM NELSON MANDELA'S 1994 INAUGURAL SPEECH
========
[98-1-1]
DIALOGUE FINDS COMMON GROUND
on the ongoing dialogue around homosexuals in the church in
Toronto, by Chris Ambidge
It started nearly three years ago now. Bishop Terry Finlay called a
group of people together to engage in dialogue with him on the still-
vexing questions around homosexuals in the church. There were six
people -- I'm one of them -- who met with the bishop, and who have been
coming together once every six weeks or so since then. All of us are
committed to the Anglican church, and to listening to other people. At
the first meeting, Bishop Terry asked us "How can we live together in
the same church?", and our dialogue has continued with that aim.
Three people were nominated by the AdHoc Group, and three by Fidelity,
two groups whose stances on gays and lesbians in the life of the church
are at different ends of the spectrum. The six of us do not represent
constituencies, though; we bring ourselves and our own perceptions to
the table. The discussions have not been easy, but we have developed a
great deal of respect for each other.
As the dialogue moved, it became apparent that while we have obvious
and significant differences, there is a great deal of material on which
we can agree. That isn't particularly surprising, for the rocks on
which the church is built are common to all of us. So we spent a fair
amount of time exploring the common ground which was emerging between
us. We agree, for instance, that scripture is not to be mined for
"proof texts", we agree that traditional marriage is a good thing --
but that it is not appropriate for everyone. We came up with eight
points which we could all affirm. [That text appears below, article
98-1-2]
We met with the diocesan College of Bishops late last spring, and
presented the statement; and from there went on to present it to the
diocese as a whole. We did that by publishing the text in a pamphlet
which was distributed at Synod in November 1997, available at both the
Integrity display and the Fidelity display.
I think it is highly significant that any statement at all could be
made which deals directly with gays and lesbians and the church, *and*
which could in good conscience be distributed by both of those groups.
I'm not alone in that belief.
Other writers have found the efforts being made in Toronto to be
exceptional. The unfortunately common pattern is for people to line up
on one side or the other in this debate and talk at each other or past
each other. One journalist wrote me, on reading this document, "I've
just decided there is hope for the Anglican communion. I've read a
fair bit on controversial subjects, and this is the first statement
I've read that says (1) Christian tradition is of tremendous importance
and must be respected, and (2) it is tremendously important to re-
examine tradition periodically. Of course, both these points appear
independently in statements put out by (1) conservatives and (2)
liberals, but I've never seen them side-by-side before".
This document is not the solution to the problem, of course, nor will
it guarantee nuclear disarmament. It doesn't say everything the
Dialogue Group wants to say; it is a provisional statement of where we
are now. What it does do is suggest ways forward as we talk together
and learn to live together in the same church.
The statement of *Emerging Common Ground* has gone further than the
Diocesan Synod. It has been published on the World Wide Web in a
number of venues. One in particular to point out is in *Greenbelt
Interfaith News*, which is a web publication out of Washington DC on
religions of all sorts [www.greenbelt.com/news]. In the December 1997
issue, a long 3-part article appears: *Pro-Gay and Ex-Gay -- is there
room for dialogue?* In it, Heather Peterson explores the chasm between
the two camps, and bridges across the divide. Half way through part 2,
in a section sub-titled "A Better Way", is an account of what has been
happening between Fidelity and Integrity in the past year. Part 3 of
the article is the full text of the Emerging Common Ground statement.
The article has been echoed on other sites around the world, and I hope
that others will be able to move away from direct confrontation as we
are trying to do.
The Bishop's Dialogue Group continues to meet. We now have to move on
to the more difficult -- but perhaps more expected -- areas in which we
differ. We're talking about scripture and new knowledge, tradition and
reason. We covet your prayers as the dialogue proceeds. If you have
comments, please write to the Bishop at the address in article 98-1-2,
or email.
++ ++ ++
If you have web access can find the Greenbelt articles at:
www.greenbelt.com/news/97/12/02.htm , __/12/03.htm and __/12/04.htm .
There is also an interesting article on the 1997 Canadian House of
Bishops statement on Human Sexuality at ___/12/07.htm; and an earlier
article on our Primate, Archbishop Michael Peers, seeking unity and
inclusiveness at: www.greenbelt.com/news/97/073130.htm. If you do not
have web access, write to us (the addresses are at the end of this
document) and we'll get you paper copies of these articles.
========
[98-1-2] EMERGING COMMON GROUND
the full text of a pamphlet released by Bp Finlay's Dialogue
Group at Toronto diocesan synod, November 1997
+ Some thoughts on the questions around gays and lesbians in the
+ church, from people in the diocese of Toronto who are on both
+ sides of the question.
*Preamble:* We are on a journey together, and these beginning
articulations of emerging common ground are the start of that journey
together. As members of the Body of Christ, we are committed to the
unity of the Church, conscious that some responses to homosexuality
have been divisive of this unity. We acknowledge that we all share in
a blindness on this subject, in one way or another. We are none of us
free of sin and the effects of sin, and we acknowledge that we must
repent and be willing to examine our own assumptions and attitudes.
Moreover, none have the entire picture because of our own location and
our own limited perspective. It is not given to any of us to know the
whole truth, and so we need to learn from each other.
1: We agree that scripture is not to be used as a "hammer" against
those with whom we disagree. We also agree that scripture is not to be
mined for "proof texts"; rather, specific passages are to be understood
in the larger biblical context. More positively, we agree that in all
the diversity and tensions in scripture, there is a fundamental story
or direction which is embodied in the person and story of Jesus the
Christ, which cannot be reduced to a simple set of laws or concepts. As
we hear the living Word in new situations, we may find that we hear
parts of that story in new and different ways.
2: We agree that God the Holy Spirit continues to lead and guide the
Church. As baptised believers we may experience a new insight from the
Lord, which must be respected but which must also be tested. The test
is the spirit of the Word rather than the letter of the law. It is our
common experience as believers that God's Word is spoken afresh in the
situations of our lives.
3: We agree that the tradition of the Church is to be respected and
listened to, since it represents our conversation partners in many
times and places. We affirm that Anglican doctrine establishes the
supremacy of Scripture, with tradition and reason helping to interpret
Scripture when it speaks and determine order where it is silent.
4: We agree that homosexuality is only one part of the subject of
human sexuality; furthermore we acknowledge that human sexuality is
presently a subject of considerable confusion and turmoil. We recognise
that dehumanising practices occur across the spectrum of sexual
relations. We are united in our opposition to all forms of violence and
exploitation.
5: We agree that moral and ethical norms exist in order to nurture
healthy human life, within ourselves, with other persons and before the
face of God. We also affirm that Christian tradition properly forms
our ethical disposition: it helps us by providing a starting point and
guidance in difficult situations. However, humans do not exist for the
sake of moral and ethical norms. This means that, where we find a
large degree of human pain and anguish, we must be willing to re-
examine traditional moral norms. We must realise, as the Good
Samaritan did, that the suffering is real, and must not use a code for
life as an excuse for "passing by." We must also be willing to examine
the moral norm and either make a compelling case for it or modify it in
certain ways.
6: We agree with the House of Bishops when they said in 1978 that "We
believe as Christians that homosexual persons, as children of God, have
a full and equal claim, with all other persons, upon the love,
acceptance, concern and pastoral care of the Church."
7: We agree that, while God accepts and loves all of us as who we are,
we are all in constant need of re-forming ourselves closer to the image
of Christ.
8: We agree that heterosexual marriage is commendable because it seeks
to provide intimacy for committed partners and a safe place for the
raising of children. However, marriage is not a state that is
appropriate for all persons and in every situation.
++ ++ ++
+ This provisional statement of Emerging Common Ground comes
+ from a Dialogue Group which has been meeting with Bishop Finlay
+ since February of 1995. This text was presented to the Toronto
+ College of Bishops in April 1997.
+ The dialogue is ongoing. Please keep us in your prayers.
+ Your feedback is welcome. Please write to the Bishop's Dialogue
+ Group, Diocese of Toronto, 135 Adelaide St East, Toronto M5A 1L8.
[Signed] Bishop Terence Finlay, Chris Ambidge, Dean Mercer, Paul
Feheley, Caroll Guen-Hart, Harry Meanwell, Patrick Yu
========
[98-1-3] DEAR BISHOP...
gay and lesbian priests react to the 1997 Statement on Human
Sexuality from the Canadian House of Bishops
In the last issue of *Integrator*, we printed the text of the 1997
Statement on Human Sexuality by the Canadian Anglican Bishops. We also
printed the initial response of Integrity/ Toronto: that there is much
to approve and celebrate in the bishops' statement, and that there were
two principal disappointments. Those two are, of course, the
continuing decision not to approve any blessing of same-sex unions, and
a requirement of life-long sexual abstinence on the part of lesbian or
gay clergy. The 1979 policy made life particularly tough for these
members of the clergy, and the 1997 statement showed no light at the
end of their tunnel.
Homosexual clergy are in a particularly sticky situation: their
careers and livelihood can be at peril if they come out. While the
laity (and indeed straight clergy) are at liberty to react to the 1997
statement with either praise or criticism, our gay/lesbian brothers and
sisters in holy orders have to be very circumspect. Realising that,
*Integrator* asked a number of them to respond to the bishops on the
understanding that we would publish their words anonymously. Here are
some of those responses.
Some of them are philosophical, some are angry, some are frustrated,
all are disappointed. These are the words that the priests could not
say to their bishops' face, because of their employment situation.
More responses will be published in the next issue -- we ran out of
space in this one. If there are other priests reading this now, and
who wish to have their say, please write to *Integrator*, and we will
publish those responses too.
All of these items were written by Anglican priests in good standing,
living in Canada. They live in large metropolitan areas, in smaller
towns, and in quite rural areas. They come from seven dioceses in
three time zones across the country, and the pseudonyms represent the
gender of the author accurately.
= = = = =
by the Rev Gerald Gay
I couldn't say this out loud to you, bishop, because of the situation
you continue to keep me in. The recent statement from the House of
Bishops reminds me of the response from the nobleman in Luke 19: 11-27
(particularly v22 ff ) to the fearful servant.
You seem to be saying to me: "You bad boy! You are not worthy of my
trust, admiration or credibility as a human being. You fall short of
the gift of life by your own admission [from your own mouth, v22].
Therefore I am taking away from you the gift of life and bestowing the
same onto someone more worthy."
= = = = =
by the Rev Linda Lesbian
As people of God we are all called to wholeness, to mature in Christ,
to mature in holiness. To be fully who I am, it is essential to be
free to experience my full humanity and my holiness. To deny me this
opportunity to express the person who I am is not life-giving. I am
not a label, I am a person who is loved unconditionally by God, and
should expect my church to reflect that love.
= = = = =
by the Rev Gordon Gay
I was profoundly saddened by the recent statement of the House of
Bishops. The inner contradictions lead me to disbelieve the sincerity
of the (many) positive commitments in the document. And I am so tired
of this necessity for my personal life to be dissected and addressed as
an issue.
I do notice the commitment to human rights, and to dialogue within the
church. This strengthens my intention to see that the church in this
diocese actually puts its money where its mouth is.
As to the prohibition on "Marriage", it doesn't bother me to be
excluded from a patriarchal institution. I think Holy Matrimony has
become something of an idol in Christian circles. But I do worry that
symbols which express depth of intimacy between any two people (eg
rings, joining hands, the kiss) could be forbidden to us.
At the time of my ordination I made no commitment to celibacy. Nor
will I make such a commitment, because it is not asked of straight
clergy. They are innocent until proven guilty, we are guilty until
proven innocent.
I soldier on in the Anglican church, active in my parish but
unlicensed. In my heart I left a long time ago.
= = = = =
by the Rev George Gay
Trust is an essential element of relationship; it is withdrawn when
behaviour is perceived as untrustworthy. I withdrew my trust from the
Canadian Anglican bishops the last time the spoke on this topic, in
1979. They are untrustworthy because they have a conflict of interest.
Their interest is steady income and consistency; the issue here is
justice and truth.
Our "new" facts about human sexuality are more than a century old.
Thank God for our membership, both as Canadians in a wider society
where this issue is debated in a whole different light, and as
Anglicans in a Communion still able to bring high and deep
understanding to these issues. These issues will be -- have been --
decided by the forces of history.
= = = = =
by the Rev Geoffrey Gay
One reaction I had is the thought that this is remarkable progress in a
short period of time, even if one cannot accept it as the final word.
Twenty years is not a long time in the Church's history.
Another is that while there is much talk of discussion and dialogue and
study under the headings of "Gay and Lesbian Persons in the Church",
and "Blessing of Covenanted Relationships", the section on "Ordination
of Gay and Lesbian Persons" is silent. I hope that this is an
oversight, but it gives the impression of a Church willing to talk
about being open to Gay and Lesbian Christians as long as they aren't
called to the ordained ministry.
I wonder whether the Bishops have thought of just how tiring life is
under the existing guideline? Its not even so much that one can't have
a relationship; one can't even talk honestly about it or think honestly
about it. And even if it sounds childish, one can't help getting the
feeling that its' all really unfair: everybody else gets to be honest.
Some gay people have difficulties about how to answer the family member
who asks when they're going to get married. Try expanding that family
to the size of even a small parish.
= = = = =
by the Rev Graham Gay
When working on the 1997 Statement, the bishops wanted to "redraft the
1979 guidelines in the light of new pastoral awareness while at the
same time retaining the original intent of the guideline". In what
other area of our life together as Christians would we say that we are
seeking God's will and social justice, and so we are going to study the
issue -- but at the outset, we want it to be known that we will not be
changing anything in a significant way, even if God is calling us to
change?
The bishops said: *"As Christians, we believe that homosexual persons
are created in the image and likeness of God and have full and equal
claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, concern and
care of the church."*
This is truly the hand of God guiding our bishops. As a gay male it is
one of the most powerful things they could have said to make me feel
accepted and loved as a Christian. All bishops, and all clergy, need
to be saying this loud and clear.
Sadly, the new sensitivity which the bishops say is emerging in the
church is not universal. In some of our less metropolitan dioceses it
is almost non-existent and certainly not being promoted by some
bishops.
It is good that gay people will no longer be treated as "needy objects"
for pastoral care. More and more we are supporting and caring for one
another where the community of the church has failed us.
However, for the church to truly achieve a new sensitivity, it must go
further than saying that I am created in the image and likeness of God.
It must acknowledge that my sexuality, part of me, is likewise created
in the image and likeness of God. Only then can there be a mutuality
of our baptismal covenant.
*"The church affirms its traditional teaching that only the sexual
union of male and female can find appropriate expression within the
covenant of Holy Matrimony"*. Here again, the church through the House
of Bishops enforces celibacy, and forces many Christian gays to hide
loving, committed and fulfilling relationships. There can be no pain
greater than having your own sexuality rejected by the church, unless
it is having your partner rejected by the church.
= = = = =
by the Rev Lisa Lesbian
Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.
That was my first reaction to the 1997 Statement. I am, once again,
invited to the feast to celebrate another's wedding, but I will never
be able to celebrate my own wedding within the openness and love of
that same community. I am ordained in the Anglican church. I feel a
mixture of humility, surprise, joy and sadness when I think of this.
Because, you see, I don't believe a mistake was made when god chose me
to either the priesthood or the fullness of life as a lesbian.
The House of Bishops' Statement reawakens in me the sadness and pain
that the church's perspective has long caused me. I remember many
things: the sadness and pain as I tossed and turned through one long
night after another; the prayers for the gift of chastity, for it is a
*Gift*; the loneliness felt because I could safely discuss with no-one
the struggle that I was going through. To have shared my struggle with
anyone would have jeopardised all that I had worked for and what I knew
I was called to be: a priest. To be forced to choose between the
teachings of the community established on the love of God, and the
calling to be true to the vocation to love another human, seems like no
choice at all.
The Bishops' most recent statement shows their willingness to struggle.
I know that the Bishops have heard story upon story and they are
compassionate people. But they do not know what it is to live in the
skin of a lesbian or gay priest or deacon. They continue to placate,
they continue to move at their pontifical pace. Meanwhile, we who are
ordained, lesbian and gay, who (like the Bishops) seek to live lives of
faith and love and to seek the truth, come to someone else's wedding
feast to eat, or dance or join hands with our friends. But in the name
of a God of love, we may never celebrate our own joyful unions.
In my lifetime, I may always feel as if I am always the bridesmaid,
never to be the bride. It is very sad to be not quite whole.
= = = = =
by the Rev Gary Gay
My first reaction to the statement was disappointment that the Bishops
continue to make celibacy the basis for ordination. As a priest who
has just come to integrate and accept his sexuality and desires to live
his life with integrity and authenticity, I find this requirement very
hard to accept. Celibacy is a gift and it is a gift that has not been
given to me.
I have lived my life for thirty years as a person who has not been
sexual with other men -- I was in a marriage for 26 years and have
three children. When I came out to my wife 12 years ago I agreed to be
celibate and to stay in the marriage. In doing so I almost destroyed
myself. I have since come to terms with both my sexuality and
spirituality. We have ended our marriage and I now live my life with a
new sense of freedom and hope. I am happier, my ex-wife is happier,
and our children (to whom I am out) see us living our lives in ways
that are life-giving for all of us, and they are happier.
I do love the church and want to continue to be in ministry. But I
also hope that there will come a time in my life when I will be able to
fully live and express m sexuality in a committed relationship. If
that does happen, I know that as things stand now I can not continue as
a priest in the Anglican Church.
I have spent thirty years ministering in the church. Those years have
been fulfilling. My ministry would be even more fulfilling and life-
giving (not only for me but also for those to whom I minister) if I
could act without the fear that if I am outed, the door to my career
will be closed and the Church that I love will reject me.
It hurts me that I will have to choose between the church and my need
to love and be loved. Right now I know that if it comes to the point
where I have to make a choice, my relationship with the Anglican church
will end, but not my faith relationship with my God.
As a gay priest, I pray that in my lifetime I will see the full
integration of homosexual men and women in the life of the church. We
are in the church now and have wonderful gifts and talents to offer.
Given the freedom to be open about who God created us to be, we can
bring our gifts and much new life to the church.
If the church continues to demand that we repress our sexuality, it
will cause great harm to individuals and keep the church from being the
accepting, forgiving, loving community it was created to be.
========
[98-1-4] INTEGRITY IN MONTREAL
a new chapter in Montreal is getting on its feet
Montreal Integrity is now on its feet. After two semi-abortive first
meetings, the first during the postal strike in November, and the
second during the recent Mother of All Ice Storms, the Montreal group
has now constituted itself with two Co-Conveners and a Secretary. At
the Ice Storm meeting, Holy Communion was celebrated before a general
discussion on the directions the local group wishes to take in the
coming months.
They warmly invite all gay and lesbian Christians (and their friends)
to attend their next meeting which will be a pot-luck supper followed
by Holy Communion and a meeting/discussion to be held at 370 Kensington
Ave, Westmount, Quebec on Friday 13 February, at 7:00 pm.
This is great news, and those of us who won't be able to be in Montreal
on Friday 13 (whatta date!) will certainly be holding this new
endeavour in prayer. The beginning of an organised group in Montreal
shortly before General Synod [which will meet at McGill in late May] is
certainly providential. *Integrator* will bring you further news as it
develops.
========
[98-1-5] FROM NELSON MANDELA'S 1994 INAUGURAL SPEECH
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our Light, not our Darkness, that most frightens us.
We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented,
fabulous?
Actually, who are you NOT to be?
You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the World.
There is nothing enlightening about shrinking so that other people
won't feel unsure around you.
We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us.
It is not just in some of us; it is in everyone.
As we let our own Light shine, we unconsciously give other people
permission to do the same.
As we are liberated from our own fears, our presence automatically
liberates others.
=== end of text ===
End of volume 98-1 of Integrator, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto
copyright 1998 Integrity/Toronto
comments please to Chris Ambidge, Editor
chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca OR
Integrity/Toronto Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON Canada M4Y 2N9