Date: Wed, 29 Mar 95 12:25:40 EST From: "James D. Anderson" MORE LIGHT UPDATE February 1995 Volume 15, Number 7 Presbyterians for Lesbian & Gay Concerns James D. Anderson, Communications Secretary P.O. 38 New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0038 908/249-1016, 908/932-7501 (Rutgers University) FAX 908/932-6916 (Rutgers University) Internet: janderson@zodiac.rutgers.edu Note: * is used to indicate italicized or boldface text. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CONTENTS Changes New Chapters Jobs Events Requests Features: Still Under Attack: More Light Church Is Stronger Than Ever Church's Highest Court Denies Session's Complaint Brief Filed in Cincinnati Gay Rights Case Clerk Files Amicus Brief in Cincinnati Gay Rights Case, by Jerry L Van Marter Judge Spiegel's Findings of Fact Continuing the Dialogue: Same Sex Unions Encouraging Abstinence in the Church, By the Rev. Mary Foulke -- A Presentation to the October 1, 1994, Meeting of the Presbytery of New York City A South Carolina Sermon, Hilton Head Island, SC - July 17, 1994, First Presbyterian Church. Romans 1:24-2:1: A Sermon by John M. Miller -- Is Homosexuality a Sin? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CHANGES Our co-coordinator for the Synod of South Atlantic, is now Laurie Kraus. Her address remains unchanged: Riviera Presbyterian Church, 5275 Sunset Dr., Miami, FL 33143, 305/666-8586. Michael Purintun, board member and PLGC Postings coordinator has moved. Here's his new address and phone number: 522 Belgravia Ct. Apt. 2, Louisville, KY 40208-2123, 502/637-4734. Co-coordinator for the Synod of the Trinity, Stephen Slatten, has a new phone number: 412/929-2140. NEW CHAPTERS Boston & Northern New England. PLGCers in the Presbyteries of Boston and Northern New England have joined forces to form PLGC of Boston and Northern New England. They have set a goal of 4 meetings a year, with rotating facilitators. Gary Ireland, 10 Winter St., Montpelier, VT 05602, 802/229-5438, is contact for Northern New England; Sally Witherell, 28 Ninth St., #403, Medford, MA 02155, 617/391-7033 is contact for the Boston area. The next meeting will be on Saturday, March 18, 1995, 11 a.m. at the Clarendon Hills Presbyterian Church, 155 Powderhouse Blvd., Somerville, MA. The focus of the meeting will be group-building and telling our stories. The meeting will also include an opportunity for worship and all who wish are invited to stay until Sunday for worship at the Clarendon Hills Church, which is exploring becoming a More Light Church. Lunch will be provided. For more information, contact Gary or Sally. South Florida. PLGCers in the Miami area are planning to launch a new chapter. For information, contact Laurie Kraus, Riviera Presbyterian Church, 5275 Sunset Dr., Miami, FL 33143, 305/666- 8586. JOBS Minister for Christian Education, The Riverside Church in the City of New York (ordination not required). The Riverside Church seeks a minister of education responsible for a comprehensive program of Christian education in a diverse, progressive, interdenominational congregation of 2300 members. The position carries special emphasis on the Church School and includes planning, organization, administration and the evaluation of a ministry that nurtures all the members of the Church. Responsibilities include adult education, pastoral functions with Church School families and advocacy for the children, youth and families of the Church. The Riverside Church seeks a person with vision to help the Church community become a "teaching congregation." The Riverside Church does not discriminate on the basis of race, age, gender or sexual orientation and is an AA-EEO employer jointly affiliated with the American Baptist Convention and the United Church of Christ. Send resumes and profiles to: The Christian Education Search Committee, The Riverside Church, 490 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10027. EVENTS Bible Study in NYC. Sunday, February 12, 1 p.m. Maranatha, with is the "More Light" group at the Riverside Church in New York City, is sponsoring a special Bible study led by senior minister Jim Forbes on "Love and Loving," just in time for Valentine's Day. PLGCers are cordially invited! -- The Riverside Church, 490 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10027. REQUESTS Chris Glaser Is Looking for Anecdotes What's your favorite story about homosexuality and the church? I'm looking for brief, anecdotal stories about the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender movement within the church that are fun or funny or uplifting or poignant or all of the above. It doesn't matter if you've used it elsewhere. It doesn't matter if you heard it from someone else, though proper attribution is welcomed. Here are two examples in terms of content and length: A new elder was asked to write a resolution against homosexuality by her home church, which, in turn, was approved by both her session and presbytery and transmitted to the 1978 San Diego General Assembly. For her "good" work, she was elected as a commissioner to that G.A. But, upon reading the report of the Task Force to Study Homosexuality, she voted in favor of the ordination of gays and lesbians! People at home felt betrayed, but she explained that she just hadn't known much about homosexuality before. As I first watched the film about Bill Johnson's historic ordination by a regional conference of the United Church of Christ, my mind wondered what an elderly, white- haired, genteelly-dressed churchwoman seated next to me was thinking. As "A Position of Faith" ended victoriously with Johnson being hugged by the man giving him the ordination charge, the woman turned and surprised me by remarking matter-of-factly: "It's just that we're not used to it yet!" **DON'T WORRY IF YOU'RE NOT A WRITER** -- just send me or FAX me what happened in your own words or phone and BRIEFLY tell me or my answering machine the story, along with your name, address, and phone number. You may submit more than one story. Be careful about matters of confidentiality, especially if you are using someone's name. I'll put the stories in final form for the June-July issue of the *More Light Update*, **Illuminations 1995**. **I MUST HAVE YOUR STORY BY MARCH 31ST!!!** Mail/Phone/FAX to: Chris Glaser 991 Berne Street SE Atlanta, GA 30316-1859 Phone/FAX 404/622-4222 THANKS! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * FEATURES Still Under Attack More Light Church Is Stronger Than Ever "All the notoriety has strengthened us. But so has, and more so, the clear word of the Gospel" -- Hall Porter, Pastor Church's Highest Court Denies Session's Complaint *After Mt. Auburn Church in Cincinnati adopted a More Light statement and ordained a gay man, the presbytery retaliated by appointing an administrative commission to correct these "irregularities". The Mt. Auburn session responded by complaining in church courts that administrative commissions are for administrative problems, not constitutional disagreements. -- JDA* *After the decision, Pastor Hal Porter wrote to his congregation:* Elders Brit Harwood and Milo Beran and myself, the Session's Committee of Counsel, traveled to Portland, Oregon the last week of October and argued before the Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) of the General Assembly (our church's Supreme Court) that it was irregular for the Presbytery of Cincinnati to elect an Administrative Commission to come to Mount Auburn Church to correct our alleged irregularity in adopting our policy, "The Inclusion of Gays and Lesbians" back in 1991. The PJC denied our appeal and sided with the Synod's previous finding that Presbyteries have broad powers in approving commissions to come to churches for practically any oversight reason. Their judgment was decided only on the narrow question of process. The General Assembly's PJC did *not* rule on the constitutionality of Mount Auburn's policy (nor did the Synod), even though we made it quite clear that we had no intention of changing it nor would we abide by the General Assembly's definitive guidance that forbids the ordination of gays and lesbians. The trip to Oregon was an empowering experience and will help us as we continue. The Presbytery of Cincinnati at its meeting, Tuesday, November 1st (All Saints Day!), reaffirmed the administrative commission, and it shall now proceed. At the same meeting the Presbytery refused to support a friend of the court brief on behalf of Judge Spiegel's decision repealing Issue 3 which removed gay and lesbian persons from Cincinnati's Human Rights Ordinance. It is sad to see the church of Christ, represented in the Presbytery, failing to support the basic civil rights of all people. Eventually Mount Auburn will have to file a complaint if any judgment comes against us because of our policy. Then we continue again through the judicial process to directly argue the merits of our policy as constitutional before the Synod and the General Assembly's courts. In the meantime we will go forward treating all persons as equally a part of God's good creation. I am extremely proud to be identified, to be a part of, this congregation's wise, just and gracious witness. What is before us deserves everyone's full support. I have no doubt we will prevail. As far as our own congregational life is concerned, we have. Please read the outstanding statement by Brit Harwood, given at Sunday's service, October 30th, upon returning from our trial but before the verdict was known. Please call any of the members of the Committee of Counsel if you have more questions. Elder Britton Harwood Reports Sunday, October 30th, Worship Service. -- I have the privilege to report for your Committee of Counsel that traveled to Portland, Oregon, on Thursday to argue before the supreme court of the whole Presbyterian Church, the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly. While we will not have a finding until tomorrow, or perhaps even Tuesday, we thought we should say a word in the meantime. I believe this trial was an important moment in the life of this church. There, in a large room, was a lectern facing two long tables covered with a white cloth, each on a platform, the second long table raised higher above the floor than the first. Seated at the long tables were the judges, one from each of fifteen of the sixteen Synods of the national church, brought by the national church from as far as Puerto Rico, lawyers and judges from the secular courts and pastors and people from other walks of life. And there at the lectern was your Pastor, telling the national church that we at Mount Auburn will never tolerate second-class citizenship for anyone -- that we will never agree that anyone, because of a condition of birth, is somehow to be amputated from the body of Christ. There too at the lectern was our fellow parishioner Milo Beran, the soul of honor, telling the court as much by his character as by anything else that justice will never roll down like waters unless those who have nothing to lose take the part of those who have been denied. We have been in the courts of the church resisting the attempt by a narrow majority in the Presbytery of Cincinnati to send an administrative commission here to Mount Auburn, a commission that would begin by trying to change our minds and then be able to threaten us, if it could not convince us, with the loss of management of our church. Administrative commissions are mentioned in our Presbyterian constitution as coming to churches that are in turmoil and settling the disagreements there, not coming to a church to create anxiety and upset. And we resisted an administrative commission for that reason. So far as this commission would be our accuser and our judge all at the same time, it would have a conflict of interests, a conflict of interests that would deny us the due process of Presbyterian law. And we resisted on that ground as well. These were the immediate issues, narrow ones, and ones on which we may not prevail, in light of the wide powers traditionally given Presbyteries. If we have to, we shall be back in the courts again, arguing that each church under Presbyterian law has the right to judge the qualifications of its own officers. And then we shall go back again. And we shall use every occasion to deplore the sinful guidance that the Presbyterian Church has no use for homosexual persons unless they somehow manage to become heterosexuals, or, failing that, that they renounce every possibility of intimacy and faithful love and repent of having been homosexual in the first place. We shall use every opportunity to point out that the Presbyterian Church, by its ban on the ordination of homosexual persons, has substituted an emphasis on sexuality pure and simple for an emphasis upon care and faithfulness and love. And that it clings irrationally to a piece of the Old Law and blinds itself to the light thrown upon the Old Law by the teachings and the example of Christ. A refusal to welcome the contributions of lesbians and gays is so irrational that it would disappear in an instant if it were not supported by the self-ignorance that produces fear. It would instantly vanish if it were not interwoven with a whole network of ideas that maintain an unjust distribution of wealth in this country and in the world, that keep health care scarce and expensive, that multiply the punishments for crime rather than seek out and diminish the causes of crime, that frustrate the control of guns, family leave, and the public financing of political campaigns. The political force of homophobia would be instantly reduced if homophobia were not used to support inequity in many forms and to get millions of our fellow Americans to vote against their own interests. An end to discrimination against homosexual persons is one place where Mount Auburn has made, and I believe will continue to make, some small inroad into the misery of our time. We have taken this stand not because any of us is free of the most serious failings, but because we may find that these failings have been reduced a little when we pick up the burdens of another. The last place has not yet been set at our table here at Mount Auburn. Whatever the gift of each of us in creating the world that God loved, this church will welcome all of these gifts. And it will not stigmatize any of us because of what came with our gifts, whether what came with it is our sex, the color of our skin, the wealth or the poverty of the family we were born into, or the sex of the person with whom we wish to be faithfully and intimately united. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Brief Filed in Cincinnati Gay Rights Case Even though the Presbytery of Cincinnati refused to support a friend of the court brief on behalf of gay and lesbian rights in Cincinnati, the stated clerk of the General Assembly has done so. Here's the story from the Presbyterian News Service (News brief 94483, December 9, 1994) -- JDA Clerk Files Amicus Brief in Cincinnati Gay Rights Case by Jerry L Van Marter Louisville, KY. -- The Rev. James E. Andrews, stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly, has filed an amicus brief opposing an amendment to the City of Cincinnati's charter that would allow for discrimination against homosexual persons. In a statement announcing the Dec. 6 filing in the Sixth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, the Office of the General Assembly said the charter amendment would violate the long-standing policy of the PC(USA). The amicus brief supports the Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, which is challenging the charter amendment, which was approved in 1993 by Cincinnati's city council [after the Cincinnati gay-rights nondiscrimination law was overturned by a referendum! -- JDA].* When the 1978 General Assembly adopted its policy banning the ordination of gay and lesbian persons, it also stated, "Vigilance must be exercised to oppose federal, state and local legislation that discriminates against persons on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, housing and public accommodations." Subsequent General Assemblies have reaffirmed that position, most recently in 1993, when the 205th Assembly condemned all discriminatory legislation on the subject and instruction the stated clerk to "communicate with state and local officials informing them of the official PC(USA) policy." That the 1995 General Assembly will meet in Cincinnati was not a decisive factor in Andrews' decision to file the brief, said the Rev. Mark Tammen, manager of polity guidance in the clerk's Department of Constitutional Services. "The driving force in this filing is General Assembly policy," Tammen told the Presbyterian News Service. Andrews said questions were raised at the 1993 General Assembly about meeting in a city where such an ordinance is on the books. He said a decision was made at that time to work within the legal system to have the ordinance overturned rather than take the "draconian" step of moving the Assembly out of Cincinnati. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Judge Spiegel's Findings of Fact At an earlier stage in the legal challennges to the anti-gay amendment in Cincinnati, Judge Spiegel ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional. In his ruling, he made 23 "findings of fact". We share some of them here, thanks to Ken Sherrill of the City University of New York. I believe our church would greatly benefit from their careful consideration! -- JDA 1. Homosexuals comprise between 5 and 13% of the population. 2. Sexual orientation is a characteristic which exists separately and independently from sexual conduct or behavior. 3. Sexual orientation is a deeply rooted, complex combination of factors including a predisposition towards affiliation, affection, or bonding with members of the opposite and/or the same gender. 5. Sexual behavior is not necessarily a good predictor of a person's sexual orientation. 6. Gender non-conformity such as cross-dressing is not indicative of homosexuality. 8. Sexual orientation is set at a very early age -- 3 to 5 years -- and is not only involuntary, but is unamenable to change. 9. Sexual orientation bears no relation to an individual's ability to perform, contribute to, or participate in, society. 10. There is no meaningful difference between children raised by gays and lesbians and those raised by heterosexuals. Similarly, children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to be gay or lesbian than those children raised by heterosexuals. 11. There is no correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. Homosexuality is not indicative of a tendency towards child molestation. 12. Homosexuality is not a mental illness. 13. Homosexual have suffered a history of pervasive, irrational and invidious discrimination in government and private employment, in political organization and in all facets of society in general, based on their sexual orientation. 14. Pervasive private and institutional discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals often has a profound negative psychological impact on gays, lesbians and bisexuals. 15. Gays, lesbians and bisexuals are an identifiable group based on their sexual orientation and their shared history of discrimination based on that characteristic. 16. Gays, lesbians and bisexuals are often the target of violence by heterosexuals due to their sexual orientation. 17. In at least certain crucial respects, gays, lesbians and bisexuals are relatively politically powerless. 18. Coalition building plays a crucial role in a group's ability to obtain legislation in its behalf. Gays, lesbians and bisexuals suffer a serious inability to form coalitions with other groups in pursuit of favorable legislation. 19. No Federal laws prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Furthermore, voter back-lash around the country has lead to the repeal of numerous laws prohibiting discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals. In 38 of the approximately 125 state and local communities where some sort of measure prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation has been adopted, voter initiated referendums have been placed on the ballot to repeal those gains. 34 of the 38 were approved. 20. The amount of resources spent by the City on processing and investigating discrimination complaints by gays, lesbians and bisexuals is negligible. 21. The inclusion of protection for homosexuals does not detract form the City's ability to continue its protection of other groups covered by the City's anti-discrimination provisions. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Continuing the Dialogue Same Sex Unions Dear Jim: I am writing in response to your invitation to Presbyterian gays and lesbians in the September 1994 *More Light Update* to participate in the debate on the issue of same-sex unions. If you attended the More Light Conference in Minneapolis this past May it is possible that we met there, as my partner Alvin Hukins and I were extensively involved (primarily in the kitchen!) from Friday morning through Saturday evening, and again on Sunday morning at worship at St. Luke Church in Wyzata. (Incidentally, we are members of Grace-Trinity Church, the host church for that conference where most of the events on Friday and Saturday took place.) Perhaps an additional bit of personal background would be found in *Lesbian and Gay Marriage: Private Commitments, Public Ceremonies*, which is cited in the September 1994 *More Light Update* on page 11 under the heading "Resources." Alvin and I participated with Suzanne Sherman, the editor of that book, and are included among those whose stories (or part of their stories, at least) the book contains. As part of the three-year dialogue within the PC (USA), Alvin and I are involved within the Presbytery of the Twin Cities in going into the various churches as a committed gay couple and telling our story. We have found it to be a most rewarding experience, although I occasionally get the distinct impression that we are preaching to the converted and those that we would like to reach are not present. I also find that I occasionally become very frustrated and angry at the fact that we (gay and lesbian people in general) are placed in the position of having to defend and justify our existence, our very being. The one theme that has become more and more evident to me, beginning with Clinton's ill- fated attempt to remove the ban on gays serving in the military, is that the core of the issue is our being -- much more so, I believe, that our behavior. Alvin and I were first introduced to PLGC in 1992 by Lindsay Biddle, who was preaching at Bryn Mawr Presbyterian Church in Minneapolis where we attended and where I was the organist-choir director. Lindsay preached on several different occasions, and during a conversation with her on one of the later occasions she told me about PLGC -- what it was, what its purpose was, etc. -- and when and where the next meeting would be. At that time we were not members of the PC(USA), but were considering becoming members. Our first PLGC meeting is a vivid memory -- the Report on Human Sexuality was the hot button at that time, and I had been able to borrow a copy from Dick Lundy, the then pastor (recently retired) at St. Luke Presbyterian Church (a More Light Church) in Wyzata, which both Alvin and I had read and re- read. The meeting opened by those present introducing themselves and providing a little personal background. As it came my turn to speak I began by saying we were not presently members, but that we were seriously considering becoming members -- and the almost unanimous reaction from those present was a resounding "why?" --not "why" in the manner that required an objective answer, but "why" in the manner of "why would you want to?" As we shared with those present and listened to their own stories we began to ask ourselves the very same question. I must admit I began to have serious doubts regarding the dimming prospects of our relationship with and involvement in the Presbyterian Church, and as the meeting proceeded I found that I was becoming angry and frustrated -- not with anyone present, but with the situation -- my first internalized reactive thought was "who needs this? . . . I've been down this road before . . . etc., etc., etc." On the drive home Alvin and I had a rather animated conversation regarding the situation as we perceived it during and after the meeting, and I doubted very strongly that I would become a member of the Presbyterian Church. The next day I made a telephone call to our pastor relating to him the events of the previous evening, and my initial reaction to those events -- which was that neither Alvin nor I wanted to become members of any church or denomination that would not accept us in our totality. Our pastor was understanding of my frustration, but he also encouraged us to think about it and to try to focus on the fact that we -- Alvin and I -- were accepted and affirmed by our congregation (which was a true fact). Over the next several days I engaged in several or more conversations with others, both gay and straight, that we knew in the PC(USA), sharing my thoughts and feelings with them -- and as this process evolved I realized that the most effective way to bring about change was from within, and the only way to do that was to join the Presbyterian Church. After more than several conversations with our pastor, and several or more conversations with other members of our congregation, we did in fact become members -- and that decision became a very pivotal one. To me it meant that I would not attempt to conceal my being gay from anyone -- and it also meant that perhaps Alvin and I could become part of the solution instead of getting mired down in the problem. Alvin and I met in August of 1981 -- we were both living and working in Stockton, California at the time. After our first date, we didn't see each other for almost two months (Alvin claims he lost my phone number, and he had failed to give me his!). When we did again meet, we saw each other daily for several weeks, and our relationship as it exists today actually began Halloween of 1981 when Alvin moved into the tiny studio apartment that I then lived in. During the early days of our relationship Alvin brought up the subject of "marriage" on several or more occasions, and I must admit that at that time the use of the word "marriage" in the context of a gay relationship was totally foreign to me. In the several years that I had lived in San Francisco I knew of holy unions (and some not-so holy unions) that had taken place, and I also knew that I had witnessed some which took place in the bars --and usually didn't last very long. I also knew that I really didn't care for the word "lover" to describe one's partner, as in my realm of experience the word "lover" seemed to always be preceded by the word "latest" -- as in a long line of not so permanent relationships. As Alvin and I each came to the realization that we were in for the "long haul," and that we did have a genuine love for each other, I began to think more and more about the idea of our being married. We then began to plan, and one thing we both definitely knew was that we did not want our ceremony to be a sideshow or a subculture social event, but rather a meaningful and joyous time when we could publicly state our love for each other. And married we were, on April 24, 1982, in the garden of our home, with a few of our friends and family in attendance. (I've enclosed one of our invitations which you might find interesting and of use -- by the way, we designed our own invitations, and when I went into the printer's to order them, the crew at the printer's evidently was so rattled that we ordered and paid for 25 invitations and received 250! Hence the enclosed. Needless to say, we have an ample supply of them, and it is our intention to use them as invitations to our 25th Anniversary celebration in 2007!) We also experienced an interesting situation when we went ring shopping. We were looking at the rings in the display cabinet, and when the salesperson asked if we would like to look at something I told her we wanted to see some groom's rings. She then brought out several sets, all of which were the traditional bride's and groom's rings. As Alvin and I were discussing the various designs, she was very helpful, but I believe she thought that Alvin was probably the best man and I was the groom. Once we settled on a design, I asked her if they had the rings in stock or if they would have to be ordered, and she replied that they would have to be ordered but could be in within 7-10 days. I then told her we wanted to order two groom's rings, and that statement was met by a blank look on her face and a period of silence when I swear I could hear the gears of her mind turning wildly. She recovered and said, "Let me make sure I understand you. You want to order two groom's rings?", to which I replied "That's correct." She disappeared into a back room momentarily (possibly to regain her composure), returned to the jewelry counter where we were standing, measured our fingers, wrote up the order, accepted my check, and that was that. I've often thought that we must have supplied her with much conversational material for her coffee breaks! I feel like we've been out of the closet for so long that I sometimes almost forget what it was like -- and then something happens that instantly takes me back to that place in time, and my temporary complacency gives way to unrest and resolution to continue to bring about change. I do believe that Alvin and I are truly blessed in that we have the love and support of Alvin's mother in Louisiana (his dear father died in 1988) and his family, and also the support of my sister and family in California. We have the love, support and encouragement of our church family --I'm the chair of the Worship Committee and Alvin teaches Sunday School to the youngest children. (Perhaps one of my greatest sources of frustration is with the PC(USA)'s position on the issue(s), especially knowing that our personal experience within our congregation is based on our interaction with that congregation, and is not something that has been legislated or mandated by the "old white men." And in the various churches at which Alvin and I have shared our story the mere fact that people can suddenly put a face on the issue sometimes seems to make a real difference. The past three Sundays we have participated in the "road show" at congregations within the Presbytery that are implementing the mandated dialogue. The response of those who have attended (and participated) has been generally very positive. Our most recent experience (just yesterday) was at Oak Grove Presbyterian Church in Bloomington, a suburb of Minneapolis -- and following the panel presentation and an opportunity for questions one of the gentlemen present came up to thank those of us on the panel for being there and for having the courage that he perceived it took to be there and to, as he put it, let ourselves be so vulnerable. He then went on to say that he had really heard the message that we all carried, and our presence and our sharing had contributed greatly to some attitude changes for both him and his wife. And at that glorious moment I knew that in God's plan we were where we were supposed to be doing exactly what we were supposed to be doing! We also enjoy a circle of friends who are both gay and straight, and when we entertain we invite those we love and enjoy because we love and enjoy them, not because they are gay or straight. Among our friends is a heterosexual couple, Joan and Bob, who we met about five years ago at a Christmas holidays social function. Several days later Joan was talking with one of our other straight female friends, Elaine, who was also at that event, and mentioned that she enjoyed meeting us -- but where were our wives! Elaine responded by asking "Their wives?", and Joan said "Yes, they were wearing wedding rings, where were their wives? Aren't they married?" And Elaine, bless her heart, answered "Yes, they're married, but to each other." At that point Joan evidently registered her disgust and repulsion at the thought that we were gay -- and Elaine countered in her inimitable style with "You should get to know them as people and set the labels aside, Joan." The epilogue to this story is that through a natural sequence of events, and without beating anyone over the head, Joan and Bob have become two of our dearest and most supportive friends. In June of 1992 Alvin's mother visited with us for a week, and during that week Alvin, his mother, Joan and Bob, and I vacationed together in Wisconsin -- talk about a turn of events, and knowing the initial struggle Joan and Bob went through, I value their friendship perhaps more than any other with which we are blessed. I would like to share a story with you about an experience I had when we were living in Stockton. I was employed by a national insurance company, and we were in the process of closing the Stockton office (of which I was the system manager) and relocating the mainframe to Southern California. I had agreed to go to Southern California temporarily to make the transition as smooth as possible, and spent the better part of 90 days in Irvine that summer. At the end of that time period, Alvin flew down to Irvine and we were going to drive back up to Stockton. On that Friday a group of my co-workers and some of the management team took Alvin and me to lunch, and one of those who came was a woman I had known and worked with for 7-8 years. More than several of our group knew Alvin, and it was obvious by their conversations with him that they knew him fairly well. When we returned to the office that afternoon, the one lone woman went into the office of my immediate division vice president and was asking questions about Alvin -- who was he, where did he come from, how did I know him, how did everyone else know him, etc. My division VP merely told her that he was a good friend of mine from Stockton, and the response she got was "Oh my God, Darryl's gay -- yukkkk!" The woman then went on to say that she couldn't believe it and that she was absolutely sickened by the thought. My division VP responded with, "Let me put it this way: Some people are right-handed, some people are left-handed, some people are gay and some people are straight. So what's the big deal?" Perhaps the absolute truth and total simplicity of that explanation is all too often overlooked. One last anecdote to share with you, Jim (I hope I haven't bored you!). In June of 1993 my sister Grace spent a week with Alvin and me, and she arrived the day before Gay Pride. (When we met her at the airport she gave me a hug, and then as she gave Alvin a hug she said to him "Hi, brother!" -- I must say that Alvin was on cloud 9 for the rest of the day!) Alvin and I were committed to marching in the parade with our PLGC contingent, and when I asked Grace what she wanted to do she said she wanted to go with us. She opted to watch the parade rather than walk with us, as she said she wanted to see it all. And see it all she did -- in fact, when the parade was over and we went to rejoin her, it took us almost an hour to find her -- she was very busy going from booth to booth at the Gay Pride Festival and gathering all sorts of literature and information. After she had gone back to California, she and I were talking on the phone and she was telling me that she had related many of the things we did while she was here to family and friends, and that she told someone that Alvin and I were just like the folks next door -- and then she told me, "You know, that's not correct --you are the folks next door." And I think that simple statement says it all, because we all truly are the folks next door. I hope and pray for the glorious day when the rest of the world may in fact realize and accept this fact. -- With peace and love, and hope for the future, Darryl Fenley * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Encouraging Abstinence in the Church By the Rev. Mary Foulke A Presentation to the October 1, 1994, Meeting of the Presbytery of New York City My name is Mary Foulke. I am a member of the Lesbian and Gay Concerns Unit. Today I want to talk about abstinence and sexuality in the church, and to encourage you to support the efforts of our Unit. In 1st Thessalonians, chapter 5, we read, "Hold fast to what is good, abstain from every form of evil." Another text from Paul, in Romans 12, reads "hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good"; or in the King James Version "shrinking from that which is evil, cleaving to that which is good." Whatever the translation, in English or in Greek, Christians are called to abstain, to distance themselves, to hate, to shrink from, to withdraw from, to abhor evil. Yet the church in general, and the Presbyterian Church in particular, has been timid in distancing itself from evil, fickle in its abstinence, wishy-washy in its withdrawal. In cases having to do with oppression: racism, sexism, classism, and specifically in the case of sexual violence, we could say that the church has gotten Paul's words mixed up; we could say that the church has held fast to what is evil, and abstained from every form of good. Let me explain what I mean. Violence against people perceived to be lesbian, gay or bi-sexual is both blatant and subtle in our society. National reports show that the rate of anti-gay and lesbian violence is higher than the rate of criminal violence experienced by the general population. Specifically, lesbians and gay men of color, that is African American, Latino/a/Hispanic, Asian lesbian and gay people) are more frequently the victims of anti-gay/lesbian violence than are white lesbians and gay men. However, the perpetrators -- those who commit the violence -- are most often young, white men acting in groups. Gay-bashing, as it is called, as a category has one of the highest rates of trans-racial crime (that is crime committed across racial lines, in this case the criminals are most often white -- the victims most often people of color)[1]. We on the Lesbian and Gay Concerns Unit name such violence as evil; it is a visible cross-section of racist, sexist and heterosexist structures of oppression, and it is hateful actions by individuals and groups on behalf of the oppressive structures. Yet, as part of the institutional life of this country, oppression of persons for (perceived) sexual orientation other than heterosexual has been ignored and even supported by the churches. The churches have said nothing to respond to the violence, and the churches have often continued to proclaim homosexuality a sin, and gay and lesbian people as unworthy of membership or leadership in Christ's body. The church has not abstained, the church has held fast to discrimination and violence. Pete Peters, founder of the La Porte Church of Christ in Fort Collins, Colorado, has begun a television ministry in which he has stated, "There is going to be the death penalty for homosexuals . . . . It's just a matter of who is going to die and how many"[2]. Many Christians prefer to ignore Peters and those like him; many prefer to see him as one individual -- and a crazy one at that. The mainstream press often ignores stories of violence and threat, lending credence to the assumption that bias incidents are random and isolated. However, members of any target group communities (people of color, women of any race, lesbian/gay/bi-sexual, Jewish, Muslim, etc.) tend to know that violence and harassment are widespread, common and life- threatening. Yet we often hear no Christian point of view other than Peters and those like him; we do not hear loud condemnation of bias-related violence coming from many of our churches. Violence against lesbian and gay people is common inside and outside of the church. Some of you will remember a prominent incident that occurred two years ago. While on shore leave in Sasebo, Japan, Allen Schindler, a gay sailor from New Jersey was followed into a park bathroom by two of his shipmates, he was subsequently beaten and stomped to death. The pathologist who performed the autopsy compared the damage to that of a high-speed auto accident or a low speed aircraft accident, and said that it was the most severe trauma he'd ever witnessed -- even worse than a case he'd seen of a man trampled to death by a horse[3]. There was no word from the churches to address this evil. There was no word from most pulpits on the following Sunday that would encourage abstinence from evil. The church has held fast to discrimination and violence. Most cases do not reach the papers. Many perpetrators are not treated seriously by our criminal justice system, often because they are white and because the victims, regardless of race, are seen as somehow deserving of the violence, even to death. This form of hatred called heterosexism and homophobia hurts the victim and the perpetrator. Like other forms of hatred, it dehumanizes and negates lives. It is evil. To abstain or distance ourselves from evil we must take steps to challenge and to change our churches as well as our own attitudes. I have often heard -- "it's not my issue," or "this issue does not touch my congregation." And yet statistics show that it does. In 1993, there were reported 340 bias related assaults against persons perceived to be gay or lesbian in Manhattan, 2 resulted in death. In Brooklyn, 88 assaults; in Queens, 44; in the Bronx, 33; and in Staten Island, 12. While this is a slight decline from 1992, it shows a 90% increase in the last 4 years. 1992 is thought to have been particularly high because of the unprecedented levels of anti-gay and lesbian rhetoric in the religious and political arena[4]. Words are connected to actions. To distance, shrink, or abstain from evil is a sign of our mutual concern for one another, it is a sign of holding fast to what is good, holding fast to the love that we feel for our sisters and brothers and friends and family, for the love that we feel for ourselves. Holding fast to what is good, and abstaining from evil are the same action -- not two actions, but one. Let me share an example -- Michael Kinnamon is the dean of Lexington Seminary, a Disciples of Christ minister, and was nominated for the position of General Minister and President of his denomination in 1991. His nomination was narrowly defeated by anti-gay and lesbian members who objected to his support for lesbian and gay people. He writes, "Following confirmation of my nomination, I was invited to speak . . . around the country . . . . Out of all these meetings, however, only one moment continues to haunt me. It was in Cleveland. I had just finished making an opening statement and the floor was open for comments and questions. The first man to speak, a . . . minister, started out rather blandly. I was vaguely anticipating where his remarks might go when suddenly I heard him say, 'After all, these people (meaning gay men and lesbians) are just worthless scum.' This is awful enough . . . but what really haunts me is that I let him speak. Indeed, I never denounced him"[5]. Kinnamon was trying to hold fast to the good, to justice for all people, to including lesbian, gay and bi-sexual people; yet he realized that his failure to distance himself from evil, to abhor the description of human beings as "worthless scum" had diminished his own humanity as well as that of the people the statement was intended to describe. Sometimes it is difficult to stand up for ourselves, it is often more difficult to stand up for others. Kinnamon shows that we are called to stand up, and that standing up for others is the same as standing up for ourselves. He later reflected, "I suppose . . . I was caught off guard. At a deeper level, however, the question strikes at the heart of my identity and that of our churches. Like our churches I am deeply committed to (inclusivity). My life's work centers around reconciliation, an attempt to hold community together, to insist on hearing all voices. But isn't there something fundamentally impoverished about an understanding of reconciliation that left me unprepared to respond immediately to this man?"[6]. We as a presbytery must take a stand against evil in our times. In the face of brutal violence against lesbians and gay men, and in the face of actions and statements which support such violence from fringe elements and from within mainline denominations, we who call ourselves Christians must speak and act against such evil. We are called to hold onto the good, to love actively all people created in God's image, and for precisely this reason we are called to abstain, to distance ourselves, to hate those ways of acting, those attitudes of mind, the meanness of body and spirit that would threaten or devalue those whom God loves, those whom we love. It is one action to love and to defend the gospel, to hold fast to what is good and to abstain from every form of evil. Michael Kinnamon reflects upon what he wished he had done that day: "What haunts me about the episode in Cleveland is that my actions there . . . betray(ed) a certain kind of relativism. 'All voices need to be heard. We need the witness of those who see things differently from ourselves.' Yes, unless the gospel of God's gracious love for all persons is threatened. At that point, my response should have been: 'Brother sit down! Such talk (referring to sisters and brothers for whom Christ died as "scum") has nothing to do with the good news we proclaim. Such talk has no place in a community of those who know that they are redeemed only by grace'"[7]. How shall we who call ourselves Christians live in the complexity that is our world, how shall we live in the midst of structures of oppression and individuals and groups who actively support such structures, willing to commit violence to protect the only way of life they have known regardless of its distortion of their own bodies and souls? For two weekends this past July seven members of presbytery from five different churches, clergy and lay, black and white, gay, straight and undeclared, gathered for an intensive learning process led by professors from Fordham and Columbia University who have expertise in helping people to understand and to work against oppression. Our time together was focused on the issues of sexuality, race and culture, arising from our belief that these issues are inseparable. Dr. Pope and Dr. Reynolds trained us in discussion leadership with special attention to group dynamics as well as the subject at hand. In short, we were trained to lead discussions about the issues of sexuality in our multi-cultural world based on respect for each member of the group and for the gospel. These trained leaders are now available to lead discussions for any congregation, unit, or group that is interested. You might disagree with everything I have said; you might agree with part of it, and there might even be someone who agrees with most of it. The discussions we propose have more to do with listening and talking than they have to do with agreeing or fighting. Whatever your opinions, these issues touch every community whether we want them to or not, and our General Assembly has mandated that we enter into dialogue. Talking with one another about the combined issues of sexuality, race and culture is bound to be difficult, even painful. To remain silent or to hope that they disappear is not realistic, nor does it witness to the mysterious power of God which often offers grace if we struggle through conflict. Finally, to enter into dialogue is to hold fast to that which is good -- our faith and discipleship -- and it is to abstain from evil, from silence and division that supports violence. -- Thank you. References 1. from Comstock, *Violence against Lesbians and Gay Men*. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991. 2. as quoted from Leonard Zeskind in "And Now the Hate Show." Editorial in *The New York Times*. November 16, 1993. 3. from p. 60, Green, Jesse, "What the Navy Taught Allen Schindler's Mother," *The New York Times Magazine*. September 12, 1993. 4. Statistics collected by the New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project and the New York Police Department Bias Unit Statistics. 5. from Kinnamon, "Cleveland, Austin and the Meaning of Reconciliation." A talk presented at the joint banquet of Gay Lesbian & Affirming Disciples Alliance and the United Church of Christ Coalition for Lesbian/Gay Concerns at their denominations' General Assembly/Synod, St. Louis, MO 1993. 6. ibid. 7. ibid. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A South Carolina Sermon Hilton Head Island, SC - July 17, 1994 First Presbyterian Church Romans 1:24-2:1 A Sermon by John M. Miller Text: "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things." -- Romans 2:1 Is Homosexuality a Sin? There are times when ministers know that if they address certain topics that they will be in for it, that if they don't address those topics they will be in for it, that if they say too much about whatever they will be in for it, that if they say too little about whatever they will be in for it, that if they say this about that, that *those* people will be angry, but if they say that about this, that *these* people will be angry, and I will say right up front that this is one of those times, and this is one of those topics, and all of us are those or these people. *The New Yorker* had a little squib in it a few weeks ago. It was one of those unintentionally humorous quotes which it manages to unearth from hither or yon. It was a postcard which had been sent out from the First Presbyterian Church of Pueblo, Colorado, and it said, "Youth Club members and parents: The study of Presbyterian Sex scheduled for October 12 & 13 has been canceled." There was an editorial comment about this little printed malapropism, as there always is, and it was this: "Just as well." Well, you might think this sermon by a Presbyterian minister about homosexuality should have been canceled. In December I will have been an ordained parson for thirty years, and never once in all that time have I ever preached about the issue of homosexuality But, since I've talked about nearly every other controversial subject, I decided, "What the good-gracious; why not?", so here we are. The subject of sexuality is a highly charged one, but when it comes to homosexuality, the emotional lid absolutely comes off some people. If that is likely to happen to anyone here this morning, please wait until the service is finished and you're outside; it is unseemly to have the tops of heads hurtling up against the ceiling. Besides, the attendant mess is very difficult to clean up. I posed the theme of this sermon in the form of a question that is frequently asked: Is homosexuality a sin? But let me say first of all that it is not a proper question. In fact, in its fundamental intent it is a most improper question, a non-sequitur kind of question. Asking whether homosexuality is a sin is exactly like asking whether heterosexuality is a sin. Such questions are completely beside the point. The point is this: Is homosexual *behavior* a sin, or is heterosexual *behavior* a sin? The answer is, quite obviously: It depends. There are four types of sexuality among human beings, or, for that matter, among most other animate species. The largest number, by far, are heterosexuals. That is, their sexual orientation is toward those of the opposite sex: males toward females, females toward males. The next largest number, which is a much smaller percentage, are homosexuals. (Incidentally, I do not use the term "gay," for reasons which are too complicated to explain here. In general when I say "homosexuals," I am speaking of males, and I use the term "lesbians" to refer to female homosexuals.) The next-to-smallest percentage of the human population, apparently, are bisexuals, those whose orientation is toward people of both sexes. And perhaps the smallest percentage of all are those people who are asexual, having no orientation toward or interest in sex at all, with anyone of either gender. Homosexuals frequently claim that 10% of the male population and 2% of the female population have a homosexual orientation. Heterosexual researchers usually say the figure is 2-to-3% for men and less than half of 1% for women. I guess you pays your money and you takes your choice. But without question there are millions of Americans who homosexuals or lesbians, and at least two or three hundred million worldwide. So we are not speaking about a small number of people here. Further, just so everyone in this congregation understands, we have both homosexuals and lesbians who are members of this church, and some of these Christians are here this morning. So when we talk about homosexuals, we are not talking about "them"; we are talking about "us," because some of us have that orientation. Lest you misunderstand what I just said, I am not saying that I have that orientation, because I am a heterosexual, but some of the rest of us here are homosexuals. That is not just a possibility; it is a certainty. If the truth is told, other than the fact that it would have prohibited there being anyone beyond Adam and Eve (or Lucy, if you want to think of it in paleontological terms), it probably would have been the safest for the human race if everyone were asexual. Sex, of any variety, constantly gets the human race into a heap of trouble. Hormones are notoriously unpredictable, unreliable, and erratic. Since the vast majority of the population are heterosexuals, many of them live in the delusion that everything would be fine if we could just turn all of us into heterosexuals. Well, it can't be done in the first place, and even if it could, we would still have problems, and likely even more problems than we already have. Homosexuals and lesbians are gentler and milder than heterosexuals, in general, and in light of how much interpersonal violence there is between people, it may actually be a blessing to human society that we have as many homosexually-oriented people as we do. But, to return to the theme of the sermon: Is homosexuality a sin? In and of itself, the answer, obviously, is No. Without question there is sinful homosexual behavior, but there is far, far more sinful heterosexual behavior, and I would even postulate, though I certainly can't prove it, that on an individual basis, there is much more damage done to other individuals and to society because of heterosexual sinfulness than homosexual sinfulness. Curiously, the Bible says almost nothing directly about homosexuality, and it even says very, very little indirectly. The passage in Genesis 19 tells about Sodom and Gomorrah, but it is anybody's guess as to what, specifically, sodomy is. If the men of Sodom had raped the two visitors in Lot's house, they would have intended to humiliate them, which is fundamentally what most if not all rape is consciously or subconsciously meant to do. There was no inclination on anyone's part in Sodom to take any sexual pleasure from what happened there, whatever exactly it was. There is one linguistic benefit of this episode, having occurred in Sodom, however. Nobody really knows what sodomy is, but whatever it is, it is a whole lot (you should pardon the pun) more pronounceable than "gomorrahy," which would sound most un- euphonious, and possibly also vaguely Irish. The first direct biblical mention of homosexuality occurs in Leviticus 18:22, where it says, "You shall not lie with a male as a woman; it is an abomination." That is all it says: period. Leviticus 20 says that homosexuals should be executed. But, lest the heterosexuals in the congregation take either pleasure or satisfaction in that, Leviticus 20 says that people who engage in incest or adultery, women who are not virgins on their wedding night (though, in the typical male chauvinism of the Bible and the biblical worldview, not men), and those who curse their parents, should also be put to death. I might note that even with that brief list of serious sins, this church would be seriously depleted in its membership were we to demand the Levitical penalty for all such offenders. Those two brief verses in Leviticus are the only Old Testament passages which unquestionably refer to homosexuality. There is not one word about it in any of the four Gospels. Jesus said absolutely nothing on the subject. Or if He did, nobody wrote it down. The apostle Paul did speak about homosexuality three times, and always negatively: in our passage from Romans, in I Corinthians 6:9, and very obliquely in I Timothy 1:9-10. Leviticus says flagrant sinners should be killed; Paul merely declares that none of them will make it into the kingdom of God. But listen to how he describes it: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revelers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God." The Levitical list was bad enough, but Paul's list is appalling. For certain, nobody who lives on Hilton Head Island has a prayer of entering the kingdom if Paul, strictly interpreted, is correct in what he says. But I doubt that anyone who lives anywhere else has a chance either. Having noted those biblical references, we have the entirety of biblical comment on the subject: four verses which talk about homosexuality directly, and two which refer to it obliquely. So then, you may wonder, what is all the fuss about? Why do people get so wrought up about homosexuality? Why indeed? It is because, I think, we are acculturated to deplore or fear homosexuality and homosexuals. It is the thing most of us, unfortunately, were taught. In the movie *Philadelphia*, Joe, the heterosexual attorney played by Denzel Washington, says to Andy, the homosexual attorney played by Tom Hanks, "When you're brought up the way I was, you don't talk about homosexuality . . . . You're taught that homosexuals are queer." Let me ask a few questions. Are Aleuts queer? Are Albanians queer? Are people with spina bifida or red hair or size-fourteen feet or unusually aquiline noses or Brooklyn accents queer? Such people are relatively rare in our experience, but does that make them queer? Then why is it so widely claimed or believed that homosexuals are queer or odd or unusual? I am convinced it is a fact that many people, perhaps most people, have a psychological and perhaps theological hang-up about homosexuality. I don't really know why, except that maybe in our collective consciousness, homosexuality is considered to be anti-social, or socially threatening. But it is neither, in and of itself. Oh, it can be; but so can heterosexuality. Is it any more perverse for a homosexual to have had sex with fifty or a hundred or five hundred men than for Wilt Chamberlain to have had sex, as he claims, with 20,000 women? Such behavior is *all* utterly perverse! But it is unjust to declare one more perverse than the other. And yet to millions of people, the one is a disgusting perversion, while the other is *merely* a macho excess. And there is the heart of the matter; there is a very definitely learned prejudice against homosexuals by many, and perhaps most, people. Oddly, the prejudice is greater towards male than female homosexuals. For generations, maybe forever, lesbians have suffered less discrimination than homosexuals. I suppose it all has to do with our concept of masculinity, which is much less clearly defined and more easily threatened, than our concept of femininity. Listen carefully, Christian people: homosexuality is a *natural* state, just as heterosexuality is also a natural state. Homosexuality is natural; how can anyone claim otherwise? It *happens*; it is genetically determined, and it can no more be unlearned than a man can learn how to give birth to a baby. Further, it is claimed by many that homosexuality is an indication of mental illness, but in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declared that common allegation to be utterly false. Scientists apparently are getting close to genetic proof which indicates that sexual orientation of any sort is decided at or shortly after the moment of conception. The incredible thing to me is that if that is proven beyond any doubt, there will still be countless numbers of people who will insist that homosexuality, as well as homosexual activity, is a sin. You talk about perversion; now *that* is truly perverse. Without question there is often immorality in homosexual sex, but the same is true of heterosexual sex. It is not the sexual orientation which determines the acceptability of an individual before either God or society; it is the behavior within that orientation which determines it. And multitudes of wholesome and monogamous relationships are being practiced by both heterosexuals and homosexuals. That does bring up another matter, however. Should marriage be allowed among homosexuals? I personally do not think so. I would not be opposed to blessing the commitment of homosexuals to one another, although I have never done it. But I do oppose defining that as marriage. Heterosexual marriage has enough problems of its own; it does not need to be further eroded by confusing it etymologically or linguistically with homosexual commitment. The two relationships are founded on similar, but by no means identical, grounds. Jesus taught us to love everyone. Surely that injunction extends to homosexuals and lesbians, as well as to every other type of person on earth, and even regardless of their behavior. If we love only those who are good and do the right all the time, we will love no one, including ourselves. Homosexuals are no less likely to do the right than heterosexuals, nor are they more likely to do the wrong. They are people, and people are, . . . well, just . . . *people*. As Christians, it behooves us to perceive homosexuals as individuals rather than as a group or type or class. Nobody always assesses heterosexuals on the basis of heterosexuality; therefore why should we constantly assess homosexuals on the basis of homosexuality? Where is the justice in that kind of treatment? It is like treating all Jews or blacks or Hispanics or Muslims or Hindus as though those in each group were the all same, or as though their being *that* is the primary factor in their being. Their being *them* is what really matters, not their being *that*. When I was growing up in Madison, Wisconsin, we had a Scottish widow in our church, whose unmarried daughter lived with her. Fiona wanted to be svelte, and lithe, and athletic, and married, but she was unusually large, and quite clumsy, and not exactly the epitome of feminine pulchritude. But she was a wonderful person, all the same, and in order to try to convince her of that, Mrs. Dickie, who was no wee-bit duddy thing herself, would often say to her, "Och, Fiona, ye canna make a Shetland pony oot o' a Clydesdale!" The thing we hetero-types need to remember is this: homosexuals are; they are as they are from birth; they are not coerced or seduced into that state of being, nor can they seduce anyone else into it who is not there. A homosexual can no more become something he or she is not than Fiona Dickie could become something she was not. Let us all admire one another for the best that is within us, whatever our sexual orientation. And should that seem impossible for you, then think about these people: Julius Caesar, James I of England (the VI of Scotland, the man who commissioned the King James Version), Dag Hammarsjold, Herman Melville, Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote, John Cheever, James Baldwin, Gertrude Stein, Tchaikovsky, Camille Saint-Saens, Aaron Copeland, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Rudolf Valentino, Charles Laughton, Tyrone Power, Montgomery Clift, Heddy Lamar, Marlene Dietrich, Wally Cox, John Henry Newman, Pope Paul III, Presbyterian General Assembly Moderator Willard Heckel, San Francisco Forty-Niner Dave Kopay, Washington Redskin Jerry Smith, tennis great Bill Tilden, and even Wild Bill Hickock; they all, and thousands more like them, were or are homosexuals. "No man is an island," said John Donne, and in these days he would probably say that no person is an island. We are all connected to one another, regardless of age, status, income, race, nationality, or sexual orientation. To deny our connection does not disconnect us, for God has made us all one. Of all people, Christians should remember that. The apostle Paul was such an irascible, erratic, crusty, curmudgeonly genius. After having virtually told all of us that none of us stands a snowball's chance in hell of making it into heaven, and after having laid out a laundry list of sins sufficient to incorporate everyone who ever lived into it, he said, "Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things." He was hard on everybody, including homosexuals, but he ended up gently. It is a grace note, of which we all need all we can get. Heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, and asexuals need better to get our acts together. Let us learn better to glorify God in our lives and in our bodies by who we are, rather than to try to become something none of us can be. Our being controls the nature of our becoming. Therefore let us become the best we can be, given who we are. Prayer -- This day we pray for all who are homosexuals, O God, and we who are heterosexuals confess all the sins we have committed against them in thought, word, and deed. Give them acceptance for who they are, and courage for living it to their best and fullest; for Jesus sake; Amen.