Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 00:37:06 -0500
From: Chris Ambidge <chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca>
Subject: Integrator 99-1
INTEGRATOR, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto
volume 99-1, issue date 1999 02 28
copyright 1999 Integrity/Toronto. The hard-copy version of this
newsletter carries the ISSN 0843-574X
Integrity/Toronto Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON Canada M4Y 2N9
== Contents ==
[99-1-1]
A FOUNDATION FOR CONSENSUS / New Westminster will not bless same-sex
couples right away; Bp Ingham calls for another vote in 2 years,
after more dialogue and education
[99-1-2]
TEMPUS FUGIT, CARPE THE DIEM / Integrity/Toronto's response to the
New Westminster decision, by Co-Conveners Bonnie Crawford-
Bewley and Chris Ambidge
[99-1-3]
A CAUTIOUS BUT WISE DECISION / Response to the New Westminster decision
by Terence Finlay, Bishop of Toronto.
[99-1-4]
ASKING THE PROPER QUESTION / The debate over homosexual clergy and laity
needs a new focus, says Dr Reginald Stackhouse
[99-1-5]
A CALL FOR ACTION / The Anglican Church of Canada urges monitoring to
fight bigotry, violence and hatred.
[99-1-6]
I WILL REMEMBER MATTHEW / How the death of Matthew Shepard affects the
lives of Wendy Greyling and Jennifer Harris.
[99-1-7]
UPCOMING EVENTS:
(A) Cultivating the Inner Voice of Love - Discerning and
cultivating our Spirituality / Chris Glaser, in Sorrento BC
(B) Gay/Lesbian and Christian in the new millenium -
Integrity/Toronto's annual retreat
========
[99-1-1]
A FOUNDATION FOR CONSENSUS
* New Westminster will not bless same-sex couples right away
* Bp Ingham calls for another vote in 2 years, after more
dialogue and education
Last May the Diocesan Synod of New Westminster voted (179 to 170)
to ask their bishop to permit clergy to perform ceremonies to bless
the unions of same-sex couples. *[see Integrator issue 98-3]* These
blessings would be church celebrations of the couples' relationships,
but not legal marriages. At that time Bishop Ingham, who is on the
record as supporting same-sex blessings, withheld his consent to
the Synod motion, pending further consultation with the wider
Anglican Church. In the intervening months, the bishop has had
extensive discussions with local, national and international
church leaders.
On January 16 of this year, Bishop Ingham assembled synod members
at the cathedral to announce his decision. At that time, he asked
members to vote again at the 2001 session of diocesan synod to
confirm the 1998 decision. He said that while attitudes in the
church are changing, there is still not a strong enough consensus
to move forward in unity on the issue. He said that he will give
his consent to same-sex blessings in 2001 if there is a clear
majority in favour of the motion, and no existing impediments
under Canadian or church law.
Bishop Ingham in his address paid tribute to gay and lesbian
Anglicans. "They are baptised and communicant members within the
Body of Christ and deserve the same respect, the same pastoral and
sacramental care, as everyone else. It is a constant wonder to me
that gay and lesbian Christians have kept faith with the church
these many years, despite the church's unwillingness to affirm
their relationships, their commitments, their love. They have
suffered rejection in both church and society. I think our Synod
in 1998 took the decision it did from a desire to end
discrimination against our fellow members in the Body of Christ,
and that it did so believing this to be the will of God."
However, he went on to say that "in this country more and more
parishes are choosing to become 'affirming' congregations, meaning
open and welcoming to gay and lesbian people as singles, couples
or families. But the fact remains that the majority of bishops, in
Canada and throughout the world, are opposed to partnerships
between people of the same sex."
The bishop wants a more clear consensus in the diocese on this
issue before he decides to give or not give his consent. To bring
some clarity to the difficulty, Bishop Ingham has decided on a
multi-point plan of action. This will lead up to the 2001 synod,
which will be asked to vote again on same-sex blessings. This
plan includes:
o The 'twinning' of parishes within the diocese for intentional
discussion and study on same-sex unions;
o The creation of a Bishop's Commission on Gay and Lesbian
Voices, to help parishes hear and understand the experiences
of gay and lesbian Christians;
o The creation of a Commission on Faith and Doctrine to prepare
short study papers on biblical and ethical issues raised by
same-sex unions, for use in parish study groups;
o The establishment of a Canonical and Legal Commission to
determine whether there are impediments under Canadian or
church law to prevent a bishop from authorising the blessing
of same-sex unions; and
o The preparation of a rite of blessing that could be used if
same-sex blessings were approved in 2001.
This will be broadly based. Bishop Ingham is asking *all*
parishes and all members of the diocese to engage in these
discussions. The Commissions will draw on expertise from across
the country.
Bishop Ingham said the blessing of same-sex unions is a complex
issue and it is something on which Christians in good conscience
can and do disagree.
"No generation is spared the struggle of interpreting the Gospel
in a new era. This always involves making decisions about whether
to maintain the tradition unchanged or whether to adapt to new
insights and learning. Anglicanism has proven itself very skilled
in finding the right balance between conservation and progress."
In calling for further dialogue before a second vote in 2001,
Ingham told church members he has tried to find a way of
proceeding by "evolution rather than revolution".
Bishop Ingham closed his announcement with these words: "I would
ask that no one see this decision as either a victory or a defeat.
It is my hope that these measures will further our dialogue rather
than end it. I ask each of you to open your hearts to God and to
each other. I ask you to enter this period of dialogue co-
operatively and not subversively. And I ask your prayers for God's
guidance and peace, for me, for our church, and for all who live
out their lives in faithfulness with those they love. "
========
[99-1-2]
TEMPUS FUGIT, CARPE THE DIEM
Integrity/Toronto's response to the New Westminster decision
by Co-Conveners Bonnie Crawford-Bewley and Chris Ambidge
Bishop Ingham asked that no-one see his decision as either a
victory or as a defeat.
Integrity/Toronto, from three time-zones away, certainly does not
see this as a defeat. The diocese of New Westminster has not
closed the door and said *NO*. It's also not a victory. We, with
the Anglican Church of Canada, are looking to the diocese of New
Westminster to see how they will deal with a question that faces
us all.
We take encouragement that the discussions held since last
spring's motion have been centred in the Eucharist. It is, after
all, our common faith in Jesus Christ that holds us together as a
church. In Integrity/Toronto's ongoing conversations with
Fidelity, we have found wisdom in basing our meetings in the
common ground of the Eucharist. That change of focus alters an
adversarial mindset into one where all are working to advance the
commonwealth of God.
Integrity/Toronto is glad that the diocese New Westminster is
going to consider blessing same-sex unions. We believe that the
proposed process is a good one, because it will have *everyone* in
the diocese grappling with the deep questions of faith. This
issue involves everyone in the church family, by virtue of their
baptismal covenant, and not just the gays and the lesbians. This
process will inevitably take time -- indeed, it will not work if
it is rushed. The bishop has pointed out, correctly, that the
delay inherent in the process is a severe test of the patience of
both lesbian and gay Anglicans and of the many people who stand
with us.
By Bishop Ingham's own account, while there were some people who
threatened to leave at the prospect of blessing same-sex unions,
there were also a number of people who came back to the church.
While New Westminster has our sympathy as they go through this
upheaval, we think that the bishop was quite correct when he said
"all these reactions are normal and understandable. Changes in
tradition always provoke divergent responses." New Westminster
has not yet decided how to proceed on this issue, and is embarking
on a process to discern the will of God here.
Bishop Ingham was unwilling to give a definite decision at this
point because "even a qualified "yes" or a qualified "no" would be
equally unsatisfactory ... both would have the same effect, that
is, to end the dialogue that has been started."
That discussion must continue not only in the diocese of New
Westminster. What happens in Vancouver will have an effect on the
rest of the church, and as such Bishop Ingham has the support of
the Primate in furthering the discernment process.
The bishop has designed a process which will give people the time
and the resources they need to come to a thoughtful and prayerful
decision. We appreciate its multi-pronged approach.
The process calls for all parishes, in twin-pairs, to
intentionally study these questions. The diocese will provide
both training support and study resources from the commissions.
As can be seen by the difference between (a) resolution I.10
produced from the floor of the plenary sessions at Lambeth and (b)
the report from the small group which spent time studying the
issue of human sexuality, informed decisions are better than those
based on initial un-informed impressions.
Perhaps, and we suggest this with tongue only partially in cheek,
only the parishes who have actually engaged in the study and
dialogue, as the bishop is instructing them, should get a vote on
this motion in 2001.
The commissions considering the legal and canonical ramifications
will be doing useful work, and not only for New Westminster. Our
own bishop, Terry Finlay, has said that the work of the
commissions established by Bp Ingham will be very helpful for
dioceses across the country. [The full text of Bp Finlay's
statement is in article 99-1-3, below]
Requesting a draft liturgy of blessing for same-sex couples from
the Liturgy Commission is also a good idea. Some people have
said, quite understandably, that they have been asked to approve
something of unknown form, and that this is like buying a pig in a
poke. This is a fair criticism, and the draft liturgy should go a
long way to answering those concerns.
We are particularly glad to see that along with a draft blessing
rite, the Liturgical Commission has also been asked to draft
guidelines for admission and pastoral preparation of people
seeking this blessing on their relationships, and also for the
long-term support of couples after such a blessing.
A priest recently wrote to us saying, "I do not criticise church
leaders for moving slowly, because on this issue, as on others,
they are like a pilot turning a supertanker around in the St
Lawrence river. It can be done, has to be done, but had best be
done with care."
We believe that the way for the Anglican Church of Canada to move
care-fully on this question is to do so in some parts of the
country first. This is commonly referred to as "the local
option", and has been tolerated by Canadian bishops in the past,
even on matters involving doctrine. We agree with Bishop Ingham
when he says that the consensus of the faithful does not have to
be universal or unanimous for change to happen locally.
A change in policy will be right for the diocese of New
Westminster when a substantial consensus in that diocese supports
it. The same applies to each of the other 29 dioceses, but all
will reach this point in their own time and not in lockstep.
Bishop Ingham has clearly given his diocese a due-date for this
work, and as most students will tell you, the essay doesn't get
written if there's no due date. At least this time we're not being
asked to wait indefinitely. 2001 will be an interesting year.
========
[99-1-3]
A CAUTIOUS BUT WISE DECISION
The Rt Rev Terence Finlay, Bishop of Toronto, reacts to the New
Westminster decision.
I am sure that it was a difficult decision to withhold his consent
and delay action for two years, especially when he supports the
principle of such blessings. However given the narrow margin on a
divisive issue, I believe he has made a cautious but wise decision
at this time.
Substantial consensus in the church is built carefully and
prayerfully. I applaud Bishop Ingham's call to every parish to
engage in a process of dialogue which should always include
listening to the voices and experiences of gay and lesbian
Christians. His decision to establish commissions to explore the
scriptural and doctrinal issues raised by same-gender unions and
to offer guidance on questions of authority for dioceses and
bishops to act in this matter will be of considerable assistance
to the Anglican Church in this diocese, across Canada, and
elsewhere.
I join with Bishop Ingham and the Anglican Church of Canada in
affirming the presence and contributions of gay men and lesbians
in the life of the church. I recognise how painful it is for many
of our people, whether gay or straight, to continue to be in a
process of discussion.
In our diocese we have been building bridges of understanding
around this issue since 1991 and some are growing impatient with
discussion. I believe that Bishop Ingham's thoughtful decision in
this very complex matter will help move the process forward and I
welcome his contribution to that.
+Terence Finlay, Bishop of Toronto
========
[99-1-4]
ASKING THE PROPER QUESTIONS
*The debate over homosexual clergy and laity needs a new focus*
by Dr Reginald Stackhouse
In spite of being stretched out over years of intense debate, the
controversy about ordaining active homosexuals is closer now to
confusion than consensus.
At Lambeth 1998, the African bishops took a firm stand on an
invincible rock that wasn't there. Some American bishops are
putting on a kind of Wild West show by unilaterally ordaining gay
and lesbians, as well as blessing same-sex unions. Meanwhile, by
admitting active homosexuals to communicant membership but not to
Holy Orders, the English bishops remind one of the young woman who
thought herself pristine because she was only a little bit
pregnant.
The reason for all this is the impossibility of finding the right
answers without asking the right questions, and the need is to
rephrase the debate before it is renewed.
Instead of being absorbed by sexuality, the priority issue should
be marriage. Instead of focusing on depravity, the debate should
be about common human characteristics. Instead of dealing with
ordination, our primary concern should be the church. What
difference will changes like those make? A decisive one.
What today's culture calls homosexuality in not a prominent
concern of the Bible. Although the Bible contains no affirmation
of what we now call homosexual acts and does include up to seven
passages that can be cited against them, we miss the point if we
focus on it as a law book to be cited in judgment. Its focus is
something else.
The Bible's priority on sexual behaviour is fidelity to the
marriage bond, this relationship designed to procreate and to meet
the need of both man and woman for belonging. In Scripture, sex is
part of God's purpose for people within that bond, and is contrary
to that purpose outside it.
Casual sex, however heterosexual, is therefore out, and a cleric
moving a girlfriend into the rectory is as much a sinner as
another cohabiting with a boyfriend. So the real issue should be
whether homosexuals can be given the same covenanted union
opportunity that heterosexuals enjoy.
A question for the church can be this kind of concern:
Is it adequately pastoral to condemn people for favouring gay bars
and seeking one-night stands if the chance of an open union based
on a mutual, lifelong commitment is denied them? That granting
them this opportunity could send earthquake-sized shockwaves
through many parishes should not exclude the church considering
this. Heterosexual marriages by clergy were such a stunning
innovation in 16th-century England that Queen Elizabeth I would
not acknowledge the Archbishop of Canterbury's wife even existed.
It is time to find out if same-sex unions in 21st-century Canada
can at least be contemplated. Even if the church is not ready to
translate contemplation into immediate action, much more can be
achieved by a study of this prospect than a sterile debate.
Three times in the past generation, our church has plowed new
ground - on abortion, remarriage of divorced persons, and the
ordination of women. It can at least take a look at this fresh
opportunity to meet pastoral need without diluting catholic
commitment. It might conclude with a renewed acceptance of
tradition, but it would be more aware of why it was doing that. It
might also discover how once again "new occasions teach new
duties," even when they also inspire new controversies.
To those convinced that homosexual practice is sin, same-sex
unions can only make a depravity worse by cloaking it in the
garment of church approval. The need here is to appreciate how
sexuality is not part of original sin but part of our being
created. That includes being male or female, with the vast
majority of us enjoying both the ability and desire to be joined
together.
But a sizable minority are motivated by the opposite orientation
to the rest of humanity. Must we say that difference itself is
sin?
It can lead to sin, such as exploiting others (including the
young), or depersonalized purely physical sex encounters, or
commercialized bought-and-paid-for sex, or sado-masochistic abuse.
But each of these depraved acts is found among heterosexuals too.
Promiscuity is open to men with women as much as among men with
men or women with women. When half the marriages of North America
break down, gays and lesbians clearly have no monopoly on unstable
relationships.
Sin is thus not part of sexuality but the choice of the depraved
wills all of us have and for which all need the same saviour.
Sexuality is part of our humanity, not part of our fallenness.
Tradition has condemned homosexual practice, however, because it
is "contrary to nature." It is as if procreation is the one
purpose of sex, but people are still sexual long after the years
of child-bearing, and their desires are not contrary to nature. If
a man and woman are not to be blamed for giving each other
fulfilment without intending to procreate, why must we blame two
men or two women for doing what is natural to them? Why there is
homosexuality we do not know. Those who claim God made them that
way have no more reason to make the claim than those who say Satan
did it. Those who trace its origin genetically may be right, but
their findings are still being studied.
All we know is some people, like some animals, have a same-sex
orientation. The challenge for church and society is to find ways
it can be expressed with wholesomeness, free from harassment,
discrimination or opprobrium.
Can those ways include quasi-marital unions and ordination? Not
if we accept the current ecclesiastical statements issued as the
rationale for policy. But those statements distort the meaning of
the church too much for that kind of acceptance, and the question
should not go quietly away, especially when we treat the next
concern seriously.
It is theologically untenable and ethically inequitable for a
church to reject John Paul II's claim that a homosexual lifestyle
involves something "intrinsically evil," but on the basis of the
English bishops calling that lifestyle "less than the ideal," make
the contradictory demand that clergy set an example laity are not
required to follow.
A two-tier Christianity should not be adopted now any more than it
was when Cyril of Alexandria first expounded that kind of
theology. The church is one community, created by baptism, and the
clergy as its leaders are called to exemplify a life the laity are
expected to live. So these questions must be faced: If homosexual
practice is sin, why are laity free to live homosexually without
judgment? If it is not sin, why are orders denied people with
that orientation?
Once we conclude gays or lesbians can be saved without becoming
celibate, we have given away the best reason for denying them
ordination. Those who believe active gays and lesbians are headed
straight for hell are being more consistent than Anglican leaders
who want to open the communion rail but deny the altar to them.
Basic to the whole issue is our doctrine of salvation - and with
it, our doctrine of the church.
There cannot be two levels of Christian life any more than there
can be two kinds of baptism. Celibacy must be demanded of all
homosexuals in the church or not demanded of clerical gays and
lesbians. Otherwise we are equating the church with the clergy,
and treating the laity as a lesser form of Christian.
We should not ask if active homosexuals should be ordained. We
should ask instead what way of life the church as a whole is
expected to live. Let's renew the debate with new questions: this
time, the right ones.
= = = =
[Author box: Dr. Reginald Stackhouse is principal emeritus and
research professor at Wycliffe College, University of Toronto.
This article first appeared in the January 1999 edition of
*Anglican Journal*, and is reproduced here by permission of the
author.]
========
[99-1-5]
A CALL FOR ACTION
The church at the national level urges monitoring to fight
bigotry, violence and hatred.
Council of General Synod met in November 1998, just a month after
the murder of Matthew Shepard. Among the many things considered
by the Council was a motion addressing violence towards gays and
lesbians, and the position of lesbigays within the life of the
church. Specific references to Matthew were deleted because, we
understand, Council thought that they distracted from the Canadian
context that they wanted to address. The motion that Council
passed is this:
= = = =
BIGOTRY AND HATRED OF GAYS AND LESBIANS
Moved by: Canon H-R. Houldcroft / Seconded by: Dean S. Andrews
"That the Council of General Synod: a) make public its
reaffirmation of the motion adopted at the 1995 General Synod
affirming the presence and contributions of gay men and
lesbians in the life of the Church and condemning bigotry,
violence and hatred directed toward any due to their sexual
orientation; and b) request the dioceses to monitor the
situations in their jurisdictions and seek to find ways to
contribute to an atmosphere of respect and a reduction of
violence based on bigotry and hatred." CARRIED #09-11-98
Events in New Westminster have distracted attention from this
motion. It is, however, the policy of the national church. It is
perhaps incumbent on all Integrity members across the country to
ensure that the request in part b) of the motion is actively
pursued in our respective dioceses.
========
[99-1-6]
I WILL REMEMBER MATTHEW
* For most people, the principal face of the Church is that of
* our local parish. This article was written by Jennifer Harris
* and Wendy Greyling for their parish newsletter. In it they
* tell the people who share the pews with them Sunday by Sunday
* what impact Matthew Shepard's murder has had on them, and on
* other lesbians and gays in the church.
+ + + + +
On a Friday evening last October, after Matthew Shepard died, we
stood in the cold and dark at a vigil in his honour, lit by
candles and stained with tears, and we pledged, along with
hundreds of others, that we would not forget Matthew. Matthew
Shepard was a 21-year-old University of Wyoming student who was
viciously beaten the week before, and left to die, tied to a fence
outside Laramie WY. He was gay, and his killers used this fact to
lure Matthew into a truck to rob and beat him. If robbery was the
only motivating factor in this crime, the savagery of the beating
inflicted on the diminutive Shepard goes unexplained -- he was
tortured, pistol-whipped, tied up while still alive, and left
overnight in sub-zero temperatures.
Matthew's sexual orientation was not incidental to this crime, and
his death has become a clarion call for toughened hate-crime laws.
Frank Griswold, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church in
the United States, has spoken in solidarity with Matthew and other
victims of hate-crimes, saying that the church has "a particular
responsibility to stand with gay sand lesbians, to decry all forms
of violence against them." Countless other Christian leaders and
people have thrown their support behind renewed efforts to end
anti-gay violence in the United States and Canada.
Unfortunately, many other Christian leaders continue to issue the
kind of statements that incite hatred toward gay people. Just
last summer, at the Lambeth conference, some Anglican bishops
spoke with unparalleled vitriol in their rejection of any
softening of the traditional teachings of the Church. Even before
the Lambeth debate on human sexuality, the Bishop of Enugu,
Nigeria, the Rt Rev Emmanuel Chukwume, carried a placard around
the campus declaring homosexuality to be the work of Satan. He
took it upon himself to "heal" the secretary of the Lesbian and
Gay Christian Movement, pressing his hands on Mr Kirker's head and
shouting "Repent, repent". In the debate itself, the bishop of
Lahore used a "slippery-slope" argument to defend his traditional
stance, and suggested that full inclusion of gays and lesbians
would be a prelude to the Church's recognition of bestial
relationships: as if both are sides of the same coin.
It is quite impossible to convey the pain that such statements
cause. The remarks at Lambeth reflect the hatred that enraged
Matthew Shepard's killers. The hate in Bishop Chukwume, as in
Matthew's killers, is considerable, but it is not the only cause
of fear and pain. It is easy to dismiss extremists (until they
kill, of course), but what of that old chestnut about "loving the
sinner and hating the sin"? And what of the on-going debate in
the letters pages of *The Anglican* and *Anglican Journal*? One
month, a categorical statement is issued: the Bible is clear and
homosexuality cannot be condoned; the next month, a response
rebutting, even diffusing the argument. However, this isn't about
categories or arguments, it is about people. It is not
"homosexuality" that wants acceptance in the Church and the world,
it is us, and people like us.
Keeping the pages of newspapers and reports full of arguments
keeps abstractions alive, while people wither on the branch. The
real heart of the matter is people seeking acceptance. Marriage
and holy orders are merely symptomatic of the basic human need to
belong, and to live without fear. We will remember Matthew
because we have no choice; it is unfortunate, yet each Sunday
spent in a Church were our relationship is not really recognised
is another reason we can't forget.
= = = =
[Author Box: Wendy Greyling and Jennifer Harris find their parish
home at the Church of the Redeemer, Toronto.]
========
[99-1-7]
UPCOMING EVENTS
[99-1-7A]
CULTIVATING THE INNER VOICE OF LOVE:
Discerning & Cultivating our Spirituality
led by Chris Glaser
...is a retreat for lesbigay people and our friends. It
will be held at the Sorrento Centre, Sorrento BC from 11 - 17 July
1999. More details can be found on the insert with this issue of
Integrator , but if that has gone astray, get in touch with
Sorrento Centre, Box 99 Sorrento BC V0E 2W0, (250) 675 2421,
www.sorrento-centre.bc.ca .
Sorrento is a beautiful location, about halfway between Calgary
and Vancouver on the Trans-Canada highway. The air service is not
quite as convenient as the major metropolitan areas, but don't let
that stop you! If you can get to Vancouver, Integrity/ Vancouver
has undertaken to get you to Sorrento. Call Dr Don Meen at (604)
874 3428 and he'll arrange transportation (and short-term billets
if needed).
= = = =
[99-1-7B]
Integrity/Toronto's Annual Retreat
GAY/LESBIAN AND CHRISTIAN IN THE NEW MILLENIUM
Led by Sr Thelma-Anne ssjd
Dates: 21 - 23 May 1999 (the Victoria Day weekend)
Friday suppertime to Sunday lunchtime, at St John's Convent,
Willowdale
Cost: $100, bursary assistance available for those who need it.
Some people have already told us they'll be there. If you'd like
to attend, please let us know by postal mail (Box 873 Station F
Toronto M4Y 2N9), or by email (address below)
=== end of text ===
End of volume 99-1 of Integrator, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto
copyright 1999 Integrity/Toronto
comments please to Chris Ambidge, Editor
chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca OR
Integrity/Toronto Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON Canada M4Y 2N9