Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 23:13:38 -0400 From: Chris Ambidge Subject: *Integrator* volume 99-3 INTEGRATOR, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto volume 99-3, issue date 1999 06 16 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 == [99-3-1] LETTER FROM THE ANTIPODES / Diocese of Sydney continues to Dis-evangelise Lesbians and Gays - by Fabian LoSchiavo [99-3-2] EQUAL UNDER THE LAW! / Supreme Court of Canada recognises same-sex relationships - by Ron Chaplin [99-3-3] IS MOTHER CHURCH GUILTY OF CHILD NEGLECT? / a sermon by The Rev Michael Hopkins, president of Integrity Inc [99-3-4] ROMANS? HORMONES! / Lets call the whole argument over gays in the church off -- a song by the Rev Alexandra Coe (music by Gershwin) ========== [99-3-1] LETTER FROM THE ANTIPODES ++ Diocese of Sydney continues to disevangelise ++ lesbians and gays By Fabian LoSchiavo *In north America, Lesbian and Gay Pride celebrations tend to be *held in summer. Many cities, including Toronto, have the *festivities in the last weekend of June (the anniversary of the *Stonewall Riots, a pivotal point in the history of lesbigay *liberation in north America.) South of the equator, of course, *that's in the middle of winter. In Sydney NSW, Pride festivities *are held in the month of February. The Sydney Mardi Gras *attracts a million gay and lesbian celebrants. So, while it's *winter in the Great White North, Australians are kicking up their *heels. *Over ten years ago, Integrity/Toronto got word of pretty awful *treatment for gays and lesbians in the diocese of Sydney NSW -- *they were being excommunicated (yes, turned away hungry from the *altar). _Really_ long-term readers of _Integrator_ may remember us *writing to all the Canadian bishops in 1988, just before that *Lambeth conference expressing our distress for our Australian *sisters and brothers -- and our appreciation of the welcome which *we receive here in Canada. *In Sydney there was at the time a group called AngGays (very *similar in purpose to Integrity chapters in Canada, the US, and *other parts of Australia). They have since folded, but members *have remained on the Integrator mailing list. *The situation for lesbians and gays in Australia is ambivalent as *far as the churches are concerned. The diocese of Sydney is *extremely conservative and down on lesbigays (and no ordained *women either). On the other hand, 14 Australian bishops *(including three Metropolitans) have signed the 5 August 1998 *_Pastoral Statement to lesbian and gay Anglicans from some member *bishops of the Lambeth Conference._ Roman Catholic lesbigays *(and their supporters) have been refused communion when wearing a *rainbow sash to identify themselves. Secular society has a *degree of tolerance -- all states in the Australia have some *degree of civil rights protection; and the Sydney annual Mardi *Gras involves a huge proportion of the populace. *Earlier this year, we received a letter from FABIAN LO SCHIAVO, one *of the members of AngGays. He told the story of their *participation in last year's Mardi Gras parade, and of life in *the diocese a decade after we first made contact. Here in time *for Toronto's Pride celebrations is that letter: + + + + + Dear Integrator people: Thank you for continuing to send me the newsletter. I am alternatively inspired and frustrated by it: inspired because of your tremendous achievements in keeping dialogue open, not only with bishops and synods, but even with conservatives like "Fidelity" ; frustrated because it reminds me that, since the conscious winding-up of AngGays in 1990, our Diocese of Sydney has had no challenge from any visible Anglican gay or lesbian presence. It is thus able to continue its un-merry way of homophobia and dishonesty without opposition. I had a brief re-connection with a visible Anglican gay/lesbian presence at the last Mardi Gras here in Sydney. As it was the 20th anniversary of the first Mardi Gras, any one with archival floats or costumes was encouraged to dust them off and bring them out for the parade in a special retrospective section of the rout. An AngGays member, Geoff Scott, had preserved one of our fabulous papier-m=E2ch=E9 statues, made for the 1985 Mardi Gras: St Joseph and the Christ-Child, three metres tall and bearing the banner: "AngGay supports gender parity in child care". The banner and the statue were designed by Prudence Borthwick and constructed by the group under her direction, and won the prize for the best float in 1985. With a re-paint and some repairs, St Joseph and the Christ Child took to the roads again in 1998, secured to the top of a (pedal- powered) buggy kindly lent by the Dykes on Trikes (an offshoot of the famous motorcycling Mardi Gras phenomenon, Dykes on Bikes). I found a lesbian Anglican parishioner to accompany me, and a former AngGays member and friend walked with us to make up a foursome. Our tiny party was wedged between the 100 marching Lesbian Brides and another non-denominational group called the Powder Poofs. Insignificant were we, you might think, amongst the 16,000 participants in the parade itself watched by almost a million people along the route. But the response! I had made sure that every inch of spare space on our float bore the words (in very large letters) the word Anglican, the response of the crowd was very warm and enthusiastic, perhaps from sympathy as much as amusement. That a city of 3 million could produce only four Anglican gays and lesbians tottering along in a trike was an interesting meditation point. Oh well! At least we were there. Back to invisibility next year. I've had some discussions with a de-licensed Anglican priest who arrived in Sydney recently, having escaped a homophobic northern diocese, and who would like to get an Anglican support group going again. I'm not sure it would have a lot to offer, though. With the unofficial existence of a gay-friendly policy in a half-dozen or so of our 380 parishes in Sydney diocese, do we really need an Anglican gay and lesbian group? Perhaps, just for referral of people to sympathetic priests and parishes. That could be achieved with a phone listing rather than a regular group. The hostility of the diocese towards gays and lesbians who are not celibate or repentant has perhaps softened a little with the disappearance of AngGays and the existence of a more liberal regional bishop in South Sydney. Archbishop Goodhew of course is officially and publicly condemnatory, and has most recently shown his colours with opposition to gay and lesbian partnership legislation before the NSW parliament an the campaign for equal age of consent. Every so often, I'm asked to explain how I could remain part of such a moribund and hateful institution as the Anglican diocese of Sydney. I try to describe the community of St Luke's parish where I worship, the people, the children, the sometimes clumsy liturgy which is occasionally transformed by the incense-laden, candle-lit atmosphere, the continued sense of belonging, the total acceptance of us and our contribution, and then I realise the questioner isn't listening anymore: they've probably read the latest absurdity from the diocese thundered forth in the papers. Well that's the real world in Sydney. As I said early, I'm thrilled it's not so in Canada, and wish you all strength and good humour as the years of work continue. Thank you for your perseverance and for keeping in touch with me. Yours in solidarity love from Fabian *Enclosed with the letter were a couple of delightful photos of *the two-person tricycle, with St Joseph atop the roof. They *were taken at night, and wouldn't reproduce well here - but ask *to see 'em next time you're at an Integrity/Toronto meeting. ======== [99-3-2] EQUAL UNDER THE LAW! By Ron Chaplin On Thursday, May 20, for Canada's gay and lesbian community, the earth moved! In an 8:1 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that gay and lesbian relationships deserved to be recognized under the law. Although our courts, and our governments have ruled over the past several years that we as individuals have rights to the "equal protection and benefit of the law", this is the first time that our relationships have been so recognized. The decision The case revolved around "M" and "H", pseudonyms for two women involved in a lesbian relationship. When that relationship ended, "M" sought spousal support benefits, appealing to Ontario's family courts. That request for adjudication was denied, because Ontario's *Family Law Act* defined "spouse" in only opposite-sex terms. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that this definition of "spouse" was unconstitutional that it constituted discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation which is forbidden under Section 15 of the Canadian *Charter of Rights and Freedoms*. The *Charter* states, and it bears repeating, that "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination." Although Section 15 does not specifically mention "sexual orientation", the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, in the late 1980's, that the grounds enumerated in Section 15 were not exclusive; and ruled in the 1995 *Egan & Nesbitt* case that "sexual orientation" constituted an "analogous class". In other words, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation was even more than illegal in Canada it was unconstitutional. A number of court decisions have reiterated this judgement, notably the *Vriend* case which declared Alberta's Human Rights Commission Act unconstitutional because it did not include a remedy for those discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation. But last month's decision was the first which recognized gay and lesbian relationships. The impact In its decision, the Court explicitly recognized that gay and lesbian relationships have been the target of discrimination. Justice Cory, speaking for the majority, wrote: "The exclusion of same-sex partners from the benefits of Section 29 of the [Ontario] *Family Law Act* promotes the view that... individuals in same-sex relationships generally are less worthy of protection. It implies that they are judged to be incapable of forming intimate relationships of economic interdependence as compared with same sex couples, without regard to their actual circumstances." This, the Court ruled, was unacceptable. Our relationships deserve to be recognized, that we are entitled, as gay and lesbian persons in relationship to "the equal benefit and protection of the law". A dilemma This poses a dilemma for the Church. The Anglican Church of Canada has, since the 1970's, declared that discrimination and violence against gay and lesbian individuals is unacceptable. The Anglican Church of Canada, unlike many other Christian denominations, did not oppose the addition of "sexual orientation" to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination under the *Canadian Human Rights Act.* This court decision is different it recognizes our right to non-discrimination not only as individuals, but also as couples. Does this mean that the Church will be required by law to change the definition of "marriage"? Absolutely not! And the Supreme Court has made this perfectly clear this decision does not affect the definition of "marriage", but only the definition of "spouse" applicable under the law to unmarried heterosexual couples. How will the Church react? The Supreme Court of Canada has made it eminently clear, and over a remarkably consistent series of judgements, that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is prohibited under the laws of Canada. Will the Anglican Church of Canada support the provisions of the Charter of Rights as defined by the courts; or will it continue to promote the view that same-sex relationships are, by definition, illegitimate? This entire issue within the Church fills me with sadness. Far too often, within and without the Church, I have been lectured about the "norm", in biblical terms, in social terms, in political terms. Frankly, I don't care I'm not "normal", to the extent that my sexual orientation, and the concomitant "lifestyle" decisions are not of the norm. And I deplore the fact that, in my personal journey as a gay Christian, the Church has provided me with so little guidance about how to conduct my relationships. Indeed, the Church does not even recognize those relationships. On May 20, Canada, through the Supreme Court, adjudicating the laws of Canada, recognized those gay and lesbian relationships. How will the Church, our Church respond? Implications The courts may have decided, but the laws have not yet been changed. If you feel that discrmination by the law against gay and lesbian persons and couples in unacceptable, please let your members of Parliament, federal and provincial, know! Let us help build a society where all are truly equal under the law! = = = = = {Author Box: RON CHAPLIN, a long-time member of Integrity/Toronto, is a member of the Task Group on Gays and Lesbians of the Anglican Diocese of Ottawa, and chair of the Political Action Committee of EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) } ======== [99-3-3] IS MOTHER CHURCH GUILTY OF CHILD NEGLECT? a sermon by THE REV MICHAEL HOPKINS "Those who abide in me, and I in them, bear much fruit." + + + As President of Integrity, I get the occasional inquiry that goes something like: "How can you teach that homosexuality is OK when the Bible clearly says it is not? " Let me say first that as a gay man and a Christian (not to mention a priest of the Church) I will know that the kingdom of God has advanced in a significant way when I stop getting these inquiries, when I stop having to live my life and exercise my ministry with that question hanging over my head nearly all the time. In the meantime, one by one I answer the questions, and so do my fellow lesbian and gay Christians. It is our time in the history of the Christian faith to account for the hope that is within us, as Peter exhorts us to do. I, personally, do not always have the patience or gentleness he asks me to have in doing so, although you'll be relieved to know that today I'm feeling very patient and at least relatively gentle. What keeps me from going over the edge -- and, in fact, keeps me in the Church -- is the belief that the gift of my sexuality and the uncertainty of the Church in dealing with it, is an extraordinary opportunity to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This Gospel is simply the steadfast, mother-like, love of God for you, for me, and for the whole creation. Of that love for you and for me, straight or gay, I am absolutely, utterly convinced. I am as convinced of the love of God for me in season and out of season as I am of that of my own mother, even though most days I am a great mystery to her. The challenge is, of course, God's love filtered through Mother Church. The Church has struggle for all its two thousand years with its own vocation to motherhood, not sure whether it is a vocation primarily to control her children or to love them. She is, at best, a fickle mother, the Church, who has trouble treating all of her children the same, has trouble even recognising all of her children as her children. The question before the church today in regards to her lesbian and gay members is whether she wishes to own them as her children and, if so, whether then to treat them among the pride of her litter, or as bastard mistakes. It seems to me that last summer's Lambeth Conference of the world's Anglican bishops, which I attended and from which I bear the scars, sent the latter message, that lesbian and gay members of the Church are bastard children at best. How else can one take it's inconsistency of saying that we are members of the Church, and we ought to be listened to, but our life story has been pre- judged as incompatible with Scripture? It appears as though Mother has decided she can't get rid of us (at least in certain parts of the house) but she's going to make quite certain we know our place and stay there. This treatment by the Church brings me back around to that occasional question I get (one I heard over and over again at Lambeth): "How can you teach that homosexuality is OK when the Bible so clearly says it is not? " There is, of course, at least one major problem with the question that ultimately reveals its bias. What is homosexuality? I am sure there are clinical definitions or dictionary definitions, but that is rarely what the questioner has in mind. What they usually have in mind is some image of the infamous "gay lifestyle" -- sometimes they even use the term in asking the question. But again, what is that? I suppose that it means the really rather dull suburban life I and my partner lead -- the mortgage to be paid, the lawn to be mowed, the job to be worked, and the spouse to be faithful to, to be keep love alive in the midst of a sometimes wonderful and sometimes insane world. How are we to judge whether this "lifestyle" (or any other) is worthy of God or under God's condemnation? In the thinking of John's Gospel, this is the wrong question. "God sent his Son into the world not to condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved" (John 3:17). The right question in John's Gospel -- which is asked over and over again using many different and rich images -- is, "Are you in union with Christ? Does Jesus dwell in you? Are you born again?" John's presupposition (what Jesus keeps calling "the truth" in John's Gospel) is that God desires to be one with his creation. Jesus is the physical manifestation of that desire, so that if you see Jesus, you see God; if you are connected to Jesus, you are connected to God. How do you know if you are connected to Jesus, and therefore to God? When you are changed. When life is different. Love happens around you, love being the highest ideal in John's community. In terms of this morning's Gospel reading, the image of our connection to God in Jesus is the vine. Jesus is the vine. We are the branches. The branches live and bear fruit because they are connected to the vine. Bearing fruit is the image in this passage for the result of connection to God. The fruit a life bears is how we can judge that connectedness. The point is not whether a "lifestyle" is pre-judged worthy or un- worthy, evil or sinful. The point is what fruit it bears. What is this fruit? It is, for John, primarily love, "Love one another as I have loved you." For St. Paul, writing to the Galatians, it is a list of virtues: "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control" (Galatians 5:22-23). Christians are called to bear this fruit, whatever their "lifestyle." Of course none of us bears this fruit all the time. God has pruning to do in each of our lives so that good fruit may be born. So the right question in John's Gospel is not, "Is the law being followed? " but, "Are the fruits being born? " Changing that question was one of Jesus' fundamental agendas. I believe it is also a fundamental agenda of lesbian and gay people in the Church today. This agenda is not a new one. In fact, it is very, very old. Recall the end of the first creation story in Genesis. "And God said to them, be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it" (Genesis 1:28). That commandment -- the first commandment in the Scriptures to humankind -- has never been solely about the procreation of children. Certainly the need to procreate children was vitally important, and Jewish law backed that importance up by forbidding any sexual intercourse that could not produce children, including the law prohibiting sex between males in Leviticus. It seems obvious to me, however, that we've done pretty well at filling the earth and subduing it. The procreation of children is certainly less of a priority at this point in history -- which in no way lessens the importance of the vocation of parents and all of us in raising our children. It simply means that it is less imperative that as many people as possible undertake it. And being fruitful was always about more than making babies. It was always about love, joy, peace, gentleness, patience, and joy, or, in the words of a Hebrew prophet, "doing justice, loving kindness, and walking humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8). So how can I teach that homosexuality is OK when the Bible clearly says it is not? I don't. What I teach is that "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son (and, I would add, continues to give his Spirit) so that all who believe in him might have everlasting life" (John 3:16). And I teach that those who abide in Jesus bear much fruit: they make the kingdom of God come on earth as it is in heaven. They practice love, joy, kindness, patience, self-control, and peace. They do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with their God. "By their fruits you will know them," another Gospel writer says (Matthew 7:20). What gay and lesbian people have been doing for at least 25 years in this Church is to say, "Come and see! Look at the fruit we're producing! Judge us by the fruit our lives are bearing." This has been criticised as overly personalised, experiential theology. Don't blame us! Blame Jesus! It's the only kind of theology he seemed to practice. Jesus didn't leave us a systematic theology or even an orderly ethical system. Jesus didn't even write the Prayer Book. Jesus left the Gospel -- the Good News -- the Good News of God's undeserved, unconditional love in your life and in mine. Love that changes us. That enables us, in spite of the mess our lives so often are, to bear fruit -- to be Good News for others. In the end, this lifestyle is the only lifestyle Jesus cares about, a lifestyle that bears the good fruit of good news in the lives of our fellow men and women. I said to the few bishops at Lambeth who would come and listen to lesbian and gay Christians speak about their faith, that this issue is not primarily about sexuality, but primarily about the Gospel. I believe that with all my heart. It is time for the Church to do so as well. Mother Church needs to love her children as God loves them. She will be amazed at the fruit that is born when she does. == == == {author box} The Rev Michael Hopkins is a parish priest in the suburbs of Washington DC, and is President of Integrity in the USA. He was also one of the Integrity people in Canterbury last summer for the Lambeth Conference. This sermon was preached at St. Paul's Cathedral, San Diego on 9 May 1999 [Easter 6(A), (which was also Mothers' Day) 1 Peter 3:8-18; John 15:1-8] ======= [99-3-4] ROMANS? HORMONES! By the Rev Alexandra Coe One of the gifts God has given us is laughter. This song was published in the web-based magazine *Ship of Fools* [ http://www.geocities.com/~ship-of-fools/ ], which looks at the church we love, points out some of our foibles, and looks at the lighter side of things. Alexandra Coe from New York send *Ship of Fools* a song she performs on the hot topic of the ordination of gay people, sung to the tune of Gershwin's "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off". For maximum enjoyment, sing it out loud ... = = = = You say restrain 'em and I say ordain 'em I say affirm 'em and you say de-worm 'em restrain 'em! ordain 'em! affirm 'em! de-worm 'em! Let's call the whole thing off! You're quotin' Romans and I say it's hormones You 're screamin' "Sodom! " and I say, no problem Romans! Hormones! Sodom! No problem! Let's call the whole thing off! But, oh, if we call the whole thing off then we must part And, oh, if we ever part, Christ's body's torn apart! So don't sit there squirmin', come on, be affirmin' Accept 'em, embrace 'em (you don't have to chase 'em! ) Intolerance divides us, but Christ's love unites us Don't call the whole thing off! (c) Alexandra Coe 1999 = = = = {Author Box} The Rev Alexandra Coe is pastor of the Blooming Grove United Church, an Open and Affirming congregation of the United Church of Christ in Blooming Grove, New York. She is presently completing a dissertation on eschatology and the Lord's Prayer, and writes and performs satirical theological cabaret-style music for various denominational caucuses. ======== End of volume 99-3 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 http://www.whirlwind.ca/integrity Chris Ambidge chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca Integrity/Toronto http://www.whirlwind.ca/integrity Integrity is a member of the Alliance of Lesbian & Gay Anglicans http://www.alga.org