Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 18:55:10 -0400 From: Chris Ambidge Subject: *Integrator* files for 1995 INTEGRATOR, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto volume 95-3, July 1995 /General Synod Issue / issue date 1995 07 26 copyright 1995 Integrity/Toronto. The hard-copy version of this newsletter carries the ISSN 0843-574X Integrity/Toronto; Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON M4Y 2N9 === contents === General Synod reports are marked {GS} [95-3-1] {GS} FINDING A COMMON ROAD / Integrity at General Synod 1995 by Chris Ambidge [95-3-2] {GS} PREPARE THE WAY / Excerpts from the Presidential Address to Synod by the Most Rev Michael Peers, Primate of Canada [95-3-3] {GS} GAY AND LESBIAN PEOPLE WILL SPEAK FOR OURSELVES / the words of Dr Donald Meen at the Hearing on Homosexuality [95-3-4] {GS} AFFIRMATION / by Chris Ambidge. / Synod recognises presence and contributions of lesgays in the life of the church / [95-3-5] {GS} NON-COMBATIVE SYNOD DEBATES / by Canon Fletcher Stewart [95-3-6] CONVENER'S REPORT / by John Gartshore [95-3-7] {GS} FAMILY VALUES / a pamphlet distributed at General Synod [95-3-8] A PRIDE POSTCARD / The Lovely Roxanne reports from Toronto Pride [95-3-9] DIRTY RAINCOATS / the Recruiting Myth debunked by John Russell [95-3-10] WOULD YOU MIND SHARING THAT WITH US? / upcoming motions at Toronto synod asking for support and openness [95-3-11] ROSIE HAS TWO DADDIES / a case of flaming feathered fag flamingo fathers =================== [95-3-1] FINDING A COMMON ROAD # INTEGRITY AT GENERAL SYNOD 1995 # > IN WHICH Chris Ambidge tells the four-part tale of The > Great Integrity Mission to General Synod in Ottawa, June > 1995; with bishops, cartoons, fruits-and-nuts, voices > heard, radio interviews, motions made, flags draped, > conversations had with all and sundry, and the Holy > Spirit seen in action left and right. Part I -- INTEGRITY AT GENERAL SYNOD This was the fifth time we'd been represented at General Synod , and the third time we've had a full-blown display with cross-country staff. We're getting better at it as time goes on. All told there were a dozen of us -- Chris, John, Brian, Don, Jim, Bev and Sam from Toronto; Lynette, Curtis, Mayne and Doug from various points on the west coast (Vancouver, Victoria and Prince Rupert); and Ron, a Toronto member who lives in the shadow of the Peace Tower in Ottawa. And on top of that, we were joined by Dr Don (Vancouver) and Sherry (Toronto), the out lesbigay members of the General Synod Task Force on Homosexuality and Homosexual Relations (hereinafter the "Task Force") There were two specifically lesbigay-relevant things happening at Synod: Monday night's Hearing, and four motions coming from the Task Force, which were debated on Wednesday. [Other articles deal with those two events specifically. The debate on the motions is covered in articles [95-3-4]and [95-3-5] below; individual speeches appear in this and the nextissue of >Integrator<, marked as {GS}] Things at Synod went as well as I realistically think they could. The Hearing went well, and all four motions passed, with much heart-felt but not at all acrimonious debate. The agenda items are a major part, but by no means all, of what we did at Synod. After all, none of us were (one of the 300 or so) members of Synod -- our work was among those people, and among the other people who came to the small town that is the Synod. Part II -- BEEN THERE I think the biggest item up our sleeves, and the most significant thing that we could do, was being there. In all our gaiety and humanity, rational faithful members of the church, possessed of neither cloven hooves nor two heads on each set of shoulders. We were part of our church, supporting its counsels; talking to people at meals, at parties, at breaks; about First Nations issues, about hymn books, about the movement of the Spirit or about the quality of the food in the cafeteria -- as well as about lesbigay concerns. John and I almost didn't get there -- we took a wrong turn in Ottawa and saw the campus on the other side of the river. So we decided to pull into a local mall parking lot to stretch legs and read the map without trying to steer at the same time. As I got out of the car, I saw a familiar figure walking by. "Excuse me, Archbishop Peers?" for lo-and-behold, it was the Primate. He was probably the best bishop to have found, too; he having been curate in that parish and knowing >exactly< the streets to take. An early sign of the care of the Holy Spirit, before we were even on campus. Ours was easily the most festive display; two tables with rainbow flags and rainbow frontals and the Integrity/ Toronto rainbow stole, and three banners; pamphlets (some tastefully arranged on the matching stripe of the rainbow flag); cartoons (which got a lot of attention, there's only so much the written word can do), a guest book, copies of the >Openness< letter to take and sign, and buttons and pins and refreshments. Somehow Lynette inveigled someone to carry 500 "Our Church has AIDS" buttons from Vancouver, so there was a constant supply of those. Michelle in Toronto had made a hundred rainbow-ribbon pins. These we sold, and they became the hot item, showing up on more and more supportive people's chests. We sold out well before Synod ended. Other colour came from the candy we were giving away (not being above bribing people to come and visit us): Smarties, rainbow-coloured chocolate buttons labelled "Rainbow candy from the Rainbow people" disappeared fast. Then there were sugar-free treats, and mixed almonds and raisins, labelled "Fruits and Nuts". We had several chipmunks, both human and rodent. A lot of Carleton University, the Synod site, was built in the sixties. Some poured concrete can be good, as the Unicentre, where the plenary hall was; others can be bad, like our residence building; and others just plain ugly. The architecture building, where the exhibits were, fell firmly into the latter category. We were a little off the beaten track for the members, so we didn't get as good a traffic flow as possible, but it was better than in previous years, when we've been stuck up in a mezzanine (St John's 89) and off in a sewing classroom (Toronto 92). Part III -- DONE THAT Besides setting up and staffing the display, the most important thing DONE was visiting and talking with the other people at Synod, in all sorts of places -- from the lunch table to the corridors to the pub at night. This contact was really good -- both for the cause, and for us to realise just how much support there is out there. For the chronic introverts in the crowd, this takes a LOT of energy, but we're getting better at it It's partially practice, and partially repeated good (or at least, not horrible) experiences. Not one person in Ottawa told me thatI was the scum of the earth and would burn/rot in hell formy sinful lifestyle. This learning makes one more likely to approach people, and it increases my optimism about Anglicans of all stripes. On Sunday evening, we realised that there would be no guaranteed lesbigay voices in the Hearing the next night. (We know that there are indeed lesgay members of Synod, but expecting them to out themselves if they are not ready is far too much to ask). So we decided that we should ask for privileges of the House for John and Lynette, as Presidents of Integrity Toronto and Vancouver. Friends on the floor, from the diocese of New Westminster asked, and next day we were told no -- but that all members of the Task Force who were not otherwise members of Synod were given privileges. Well, that included Dr Don, already there, and Sherry, who had to be found in Toronto and flown up that afternoon. So we had two voices that we knew of to speak of lesgays in the first person at the Hearing. [Dr Don's words are reprinted below,see article [95-3-3], GAY AND LESBIAN PEOPLE WILL SPEAK FOR OURSELVES] The Hearing went well, with a clear majority of voices saying things that I was pleased to hear. Ann Anthony, a lesbian member from New Westminster, outed herself when her time at the mike came. Everyone spoke clearly and with great feeling and not, I'm pleased to report, trashing anyone else's experience of God or their faith. For those of us watching on the video drop in the exhibits venue, and at the remote sites in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, it was tense but ultimately affirming. By Wednesday morning, Dr Don was back in Vancouver, and things were hopping back there -- at the Integrity display, we were getting phone calls from CBC Radio in Vancouver, and Lynette ended up as the guest on the Thursday morning radio call-in show of CBC Vancouver. Wednesday afternoon was the debate on the motions from the Task Force. This was incredibly intense, but again there was really no name-calling -- and again, those speaking and voting for the motions were in a clear majority. The motions all passed, with but one grammatical amendment -- and with several amendments adding moral judgement defeated. That evening, Lynette was asked to lead the evening prayers that closed the day's sessions of Synod. That points out the feeling I got: we really were members of the Synod community. Part IV -- BOUGHT THE T-SHIRT Life was not, of course, all work. There was time off, and on Tuesday evening while the Synod members were away at a dressy event at the Museum of Civilisation, the Integrity gang were at the home of David and Bev (the other Integrity members resident in Ottawa) for a faaaaabulous evening of food'n'fun. We did indeed buy the T-shirt, with the General Synod logo splat across the front in red and black; not only as souvenir, but to be part of the Synod community, and for our group photo. It'll also be something great to wear at our next Diocesan Synods -- a subtle way of saying "we're not new-kids-on-the-block, we're in this church family for the long haul". Thursday evening saw the remaining staff packing our tents and loading up; and departing as the Synod community dispersed for another three years. Next time in 1998, it will meet in Montreal. Now it's time to go home, evaluate our gains, see where we need to continue to work, find new avenues that have opened up, and celebrate our life that we all love. Perhaps "Been There, Done That, Bought the T-shirt" implies ennui, and I wouldn't want to do that. The dozen of us went to Ottawa because being lesbigay Anglicans means a very great deal to us. To quote another shirt we read in Ottawa: "We yell because we care". To God be the glory -- it went well, we did well, and we're affirmed as lesbians and gays in OUR church. ====== [95-3-2] PREPARE THE WAY > excerpts from the Presidential Address to the 34th > General Synod Ottawa 1995, > by the Most Rev Michael Peers, Primate of Canada ... Our theme is "prepare the way", taken from the Book of Isaiah: ... > In the wilderness, prepare the way of the Lord. Make > straight in the desert a highway for our God (Is 40:3) Prepare the way for God who will turn upside down all the suffering and sorrow of present reality. The prophet spoke as one in solidarity with his people. He was one of them; he knew the same circumstances they knew. He lived in the same exile. He saw things from the inside out -- from inside the pain that was part of their existence. But he chose to see the salvation of a people rather than their death. It was a remarkable, stunning act of faith: a choice to look into the face of despair and see the dawning of hope. ... OUR CONTEXT ... [Ottawa] is a good place to meet to face what draws us apart from one another in both society and Church, and to discern what brings us together. We are engaged so often in a search for what >distinguishes< us from everybody else. I believe there is a bold and critical search that needs to be undertaken for what >unifies< us with everyone else. The search for what distinguishes us is full of potential terror. The search for what unifies us is the source of our ultimate hope. "Prepare the way" -- search for the things of the Spirit -- this is the endeavour before us. That means risking the possibility of more chaos, but much more than that, it means becoming open to the possibility of grace, connection, relationship. Giving ourselves this permission is a way of giving God permission to do a new thing in us, among us, and through us. ... Today I pray that a singleness, not of opinion and temper, but of heart and purpose will mark our life and work together in these next days and in the years to come. That is at the heart of my vision for us and for the whole church. We are truly about the business of preparing the way for God to give us strength in Jesus Christ that we may walk with confidence, hope and humility into the life and mission to which we are called. I want to turn to some of the matters of our day, and in particular to some in which we may find ourselves at most at risk of division. I do not intend even to suggest what you might do about them. I do intend that we argue and debate and work with passion -- with a passion not only for a point of view, but much more than that, with a passion that respects, honours and cares for one another. > [The Primate then spoke of strategic planning, > residential schools and covenanting with Aboriginal > Anglicans. He then turned to sexuality] SEXUALITY When General Synod last met, we began to address the issue of homosexuality. This is not a concern only of our own North American church and society. It is on the agenda of societies everywhere, and certainly on the agenda of the Anglican Communion. In March of this year, the Primates of the Communion held their meeting in England. Sexuality was not the only issue on our agenda, nor even the one to which we gave the most attention, but it certainly was the one that was reported in the secular media. Conversations about the debt crisis and Rwanda, though the Primates spent more time on them, received no media attention. Nevertheless, we did address concerns about homosexuality in a pastoral statement issued at the end of our meeting. I quote to you from that statement: >"Around the world serious questions relating to human sexuality are being faced by the Church. The traditional response to these questions is to affirm the moral precepts which have come down to us through the tradition of the Church. Nevertheless, we are conscious that within the Church itself are those whose pattern of sexual expression is at variance with the received Christian moral tradition, but whose lives in other respects demonstrate the marks of genuine Christian character. The issues are deep and complex. They do not always admit of easy, instant answers. A careful process of reflecting on contemporary forms of behaviour in light of the scriptures and the Christian moral tradition is required. We have to recognise that there are different understandings at present among Christians of equal commitment and faith. We invite every part of the Church to face the questions about sexuality with honesty and integrity, avoiding unnecessary confrontation and polarisation, in a spirit of faithful seeking to understand more clearly the will of God for our lives as Christians."< At General Synod in 1992, we undertook to initiate such a process of reflection. We began with a forum that highlighted our differences, but even more highlighted our ability to speak honestly with and listen to one another in a context of mutual support and caring. A resolution of that Synod set in motion the development of the Task Force on Homosexuality and Homosexual Relationships, and launched us in a searching study that has involved Anglicans across the country. We will hear later from this Task Force, and have opportunity to hear and respond to what has been learned. Let me reinforce those last words. Throughout her history the church has wrestled seriously with issues of discipline around personal and sexual relations. For example, I was present at General Synod the last time it met in Ottawa, in 1967, when the Canon on Marriage, with its new pastoral approach to those hitherto excluded from pastoral ministry by a divorce, was approved. The synod worked hard at the scriptural basis and the pastoral consequences of the new canon, but also made it clear that a change in discipline is not a change in doctrine. For another example: the Lambeth Conference of 1920 took a stand against contraception, and their successors in 1930 reversed that position, but neither body felt that an issue of fundamental doctrine was at stake. Issues of morality are so conditioned by the culture and the mores of a given moment that they are unlikely to stand the test of time and eternity applicable to doctrine. Speaking as one who has read the writings of St Augustine on many subjects, including sexual morality, I can say that while I am grateful for so many of his contributions to the theology of faith and grace, I am also deeply grateful that his thinking on sexual morality is not enshrined in our tradition. Again I call on you to participate with sensitivity and care, recognising that we will be talking about intimate things, things that touch us to the core. And we will be speaking not only of principles, but of people. We will be thinking about brothers and sisters in Christ who are here in this gathering, and in our parishes across the country. Prepare the way for God here well, and be open to hear God speak through one another. Especially in this, I ask you to let passion be rooted in a spirit of love. We are divided in opinion, but we must not see this as an issue on which to be divided in heart or in the Faith. ... ESSENTIALS I want to comment on the nationwide gathering in Montreal last June known as Essentials. ...The concerns of Anglicans who met in that conference have resulted in ongoing meetings in local areas. ...In particular, the love for the church expressed by the participants, and their resolve to wrestle with the basics of the Faith we hold, have placed on our agenda some crucial questions. That has produced, and is producing, lively debate and discussion throughout the Church and we can only be the better for it. All of this, I believe, is part of preparing the way and a making room for the God who makes all things new. At the same time I want to discourage in all of us any tendency that suggests one group is right, another not; one is orthodox, another not; one holds truth, another not. That so easily and unhelpfully moves honest dialogue into issues of power -- something that manifestly is not of God. We begin to talk a language that is about winners and losers, rather than the language of brothers and sisters. ... CLOSING I began by saying something about the troubled age in which we find ourselves both as society and church. I hear, sometimes, from some quarters, that the church is giving in to the spirit of this age, that we are accommodating ourselves too much to the passing trends of the times. I think about that a lot. But if we are in danger of yielding to the culture or the age in which we live, I do not believe the real yielding is in the area or ethics or morality or a forsaking of scripture or the tenets of Christian faith. I think the real battle is the battle against cynicism and hopelessness. Hopelessness asks "What's the point?", and answers that there is none. Hopelessness is a choice. But it is not one that we need choose. Hope is also a choice. Years ago, I learned an old Russian proverb that says: "If you want to be happy, be happy." And so I say to you "if you want to hope, then >choose< to hope." We belong to the God of hope. The Christ in whom we find our life, is the Lord of hope. The Spirit who seeks a home in us is a hopeful Spirit. The prophet of the exile looked at the despair in his generation, and chose to believe in and to proclaim hope. "Prepare the Way". Prepare yourselves in hope for the God who is breaking in to do a new thing. Let this gathering be one which, in the words of the First Letter of Peter, we make "an accounting of the hope that is within us" (1 Peter 3:15) ... That is a word that speaks to us today. And as we do that, let us always be aware of each other, the "household of faith". In a recent sermon at Church House, a young South African woman spoke of a time in which she and other young people prepared themselves to walk into a white church. She said that they went prepared to say -- in fear and trembling -- but also in great hope: "We demand that you be the Body of Christ." We should demand this of one another. Let us throw our hearts into what we do, choose the path of hope, and demand of one another that we be the Body of Christ. That is how we prepare the way for God to do a new thing among us. ====== [95-3-3] GAY AND LESBIAN PEOPLE WILL SPEAK FOR OURSELVES > The words of Dr Donald Meen at the Hearing on > Homosexuality at General Synod 1995 I am Don Meen, one of two gay people on the Task Force on Homosexuality and Homosexual Relationships. My home diocese is New Westminster. I would like to begin by commending our church for coming to a particular place of wisdom after many decades. Today in our church, as never before, women speak for themselves as women. Women define women's spirituality. Women do not listen for God through a filter of men's perceptions. Today, in our church, as never before, Native people speak for themselves as Native people. Native people define Native spirituality. Native people do not listen for God through a filter of white, European perceptions. Today, in our church, over considerable opposition, gay and lesbian people >will speak for ourselves<. WE will define our spirituality We will >not< listen for God through a filter of heterosexual people's perceptions. Secondly, I admonish you who are my brothers and sisters in Christ but who are not gay or lesbian: Do not presume to interpose yourselves between us and our God. Do not presume to tell us what our God thinks of us. We and our God have had long and fruitful conversations together and we >know< ourselves >affirmed< in our >orientation< and >in our loving.< Do not presume to instruct us how to live in Christ as gay and lesbian people. We and Christ are quite capable of working this out ourselves. If we ask you for your point of view, we are asking to hear >your< wisdom arising from >your< journey -- not what you think >our< journey should be. Third and finally: our Church is today presented with an opportunity to model for the world what the world shows itself consistently incapable of managing: how to differ, even profoundly, and yet how to live together in peace. Is this church up to the challenge? ======= [95-3-4] AFFIRMATION #Synod recognises presence and contributions of lesgays# #in the life of the church# >by Chris Ambidge< The Task Force on Homosexuality and Homosexual Relationships was set up by General Synod 1992, and met many times with Canon Helena-Rose Houldcroft of Regina in the Chair. The Task Force was widely representative geographically, of all estates of the Church, and of sexual orientation. Two of the ten members, Dr Don Meen of Vancouver and Sherry Coman of Toronto, were open about their homosexuality. The Task Force brought four motions to Synod, and a considerable amount of time on Wednesday -- more than the Agenda Committee had anticipated -- was spent debating them. After four hours of deliberation, the Synod: <> "affirm[ed] the presence and contributions of gay men and lesbians in the life of the church, and condemn[ed] bigotry, violence and hatred directed toward any due to their sexual orientation." <> urged parishes and dioceses to "continue, deepen and adapt" the learning and dialogue identified and begun by the Task Force, and asked the Faith, Worship and Ministry Committee to ensure that this process continues and that a report be made at the next General Synod. <> urged the Primate to encourage dialogue on homosexuality and homosexual relations throughout the church. <> asked the bishops to indicate whether they are now or intend in future to review sexuality guidelines they formed in 1979. (The 1979 guidelines say that the church will not bless same-sex unions and that homosexual people may be ordained, but must remain celibate.) Most of the debate was spent on the first motion, which affirms gay and lesbian members of the church. Early in the proceedings, Archbishop David Crawley of Kootenay made a minor grammatical amendment to the text, and that passed very readily. Numerous amendments were made in the course of the next several hours, they all failed, and all four motions passed. The discussion was impassioned. People were obviously speaking from their hearts, about matters that touched them deeply. Several were close to tears. People spoke of situations within their own experience and their own parishes: of lesbigay people that they knew, who minister within the church and of those who have left the church in personal pain. One of the amendments came from Bishop Ron Ferris of Algoma. He felt that the original motion implied licence, and suggested the motion read "that this General Synod >while not condoning homosexual behaviour,< affirms ..." Bishop Ferris said that the church is in a vice-grip, of people crying justice versus the people crying righteousness, and saw the motion as addressing only the justice side of the question. Others felt differently, wondering what the amended motion would be saying to gays and lesbians; speaking of the amendment as judgmental and paternalistic; and pointing out that this was a pastoral issue. Opponents of the motion felt that "inclusive" may be read as "approving", and were against the original motion. Ultimately, however, the Ferris amendment was defeated. After more debate on the main motion, a second amendment came: "That Synod affirms all persons regardless of sexual orientation and >repents< of our bigotry, violence and hatred directed to any on the basis of sexual orientation." The thrust of this amendment seemed to be from people who did not want to seem to endorse homosexuals in any way -- the original motion was addressed to lesbigays, the amendment to everyone. Several more conservative people were in favour of this version, but others were emphatically not. Archbishop David Crawley stated, "this amendment doesn't water down the original motion, it drowns it." Another bishop opposed broadening the resolution because "that removes the names of the people we are talking about, and my understanding of the Christian tradition is that names are very important." One member voiced a concern over >Hearing Diverse Voices< I had heard before, that story-theology is using emotionalism and is manipulative. He felt that it was good solid Anglican tradition to stick to scripture, tradition and reason, and omit stories. A priest from the First Nations took strong exception to that reasoning, pointing out that not only was story-telling very strong in the aboriginal cultures, but that Jesus was one of the best story-tellers of all time. Eventually the amendment failed, the motion passed, and Synod affirmed the presence and contributions of gay men and lesbians in the church. The other motions passed in short order. The cumulative effect of them is to maintain the momentum of the work done by the Task Force. A sizeable majority of members of Synod were in favour of the inclusion and of the on-going work proposed by the Task Force. There are those who are getting impatient with what they perceive as the snail's pace of the church in these matters. There are others for whom what happened at General Synod is the first step down a slippery slope, to be resisted at all costs. As for myself, I believe that the church is moving, perceptibly, towards justice for lesbigays. Hearts and minds are open and changing -- I saw that with my own eyes at Synod. Most encouraging of all was that four motions, supportive of continuing dialogue and greater acceptance, were passed by members of Synod, the vast majority of whom are heterosexual. Behold, God is making all things new! ====== [95-3-5] NON-COMBATIVE SYNOD DEBATES >by Canon Fletcher Stewart< I thought our General Synod debates this June were relatively free of the divisive attributes so often found. The nature of adversarial debate is to polarise opinion; the use of some alternative formats (eg "hearings" or committee of the whole) helps. Our custom, frequently reminded, of "no applause" (after speeches or votes) helps. General exhortations, from the chair or wherever, and a generally agreed objective to work towards consensus, help. We spent long hours, both discussing in a Hearing and debating in plenary, the place of gay men and lesbians in the Church. This did not lead to a lack of division, but our division of opinion is much less cantankerous than it would be otherwise. I must give some credit, on this issue, to Integrity, our Anglican gay group, who have avoided confrontational tactics, and take the phrase "fruits of the spirit" both seriously and humorously. > {author box} Canon Fletcher Stewart has been President of > Henry Budd College for Ministry in The Pas, Manitoba since > 1991. The Henry Budd display was across the aisle from > Integrity at General Synod. =================== [95-3-6] CONVENER'S REPORT >by John Gartshore< Has Integrity ever been busy since the last >Integrator !< In early June, eight members form Toronto and four from the West Coast met in Ottawa to staff our booth at General Synod. It was a lot of work planning the effort, and the display was by far the most impressive one there. We had lots of rainbow colours, and the new and revised pamphlets were very good. Everyone who had anything to do with it, including those who couldn't come to Ottawa, deserves hearty congratulations for a splendid effort. We have ordered a copy of the videos of the events in Synod which are especially important to us, and when they arrive, several of us will study in detail what was said and who said it, so that you can receive further reports. Planning has already started for General Synod 1998 in Montreal! Three of us left Synod before the end to attend the annual >Gay, Lesbian, Christian< retreat at Kirkridge in Pennsylvania. Although this isn't officially an Integrity event, Kirkridge has been a source of profound spiritual strength to several of us over the years, and the retreat was important to us. We hardly got home before Pride Week was on us. I had asked others to take responsibility for planning this, and the decision was taken to concentrate on the march rather than setting up an information table once more. I think that was right; it was important for us to be seen in the parade. To my delight, my parish, Holy Trinity, decided to march also. About twenty supportive people arrived in t-shirts which read "The Christian Right is neither". They brought song sheets, and when the inevitable fundies came out of the sidelines shouting the usual inappropriate bible texts, the Anglicans broke into >Jesus Loves Me.< What a reply! Although it has nothing to do with Integrity activities, I had the pleasure of attending the annual conference of the >Hymn Society of the United States and Canada< in San Diego, California. The whole environment was glorious; I had bought a baseball cap with a rainbow triangle on it, and when they saw it, six people at the conference came out to me. Several straights asked the meaning, so I told them. What are you going to do when the Holy Spirit dumps that kind of opportunity in your lap? Along with all this excitement, I have heard from some wonderful people in Winnipeg who are anxious to start an Integrity chapter there. Your prayers are demanded for that enterprise. For the future? Now we start talking about Diocesan Synod in September. Please pray that our presence will be peaceful, strong, and filled with the Holy Spirit. It's less than six months until the Annual Meeting. The present Executive is three wonderful people (ahem!) who work hard, but new members are needed with new ideas. Love, John. ====== [95-3-7] FAMILY VALUES > This is the text of a pamphlet distributed by Integrity > at General Synod 1995 A family is a group of often very different persons with a spiritual affinity that brings and keeps them together. Over the centuries there have been many types of family. Some examples are: <> two people living together, with or without children, <> a man with several wives and many children (Jacob and Leah, Rachel, Zilpah, Bilhah and their twelve sons -- Genesis 31), <> adult children living with elderly parents (Rufus and his mother -- Romans 16), <> single parents with children, <> adult siblings living together (Mary, Martha and Lazarus -- John 11), <> blended families of parents and stepchildren. The affinity which binds family members may have many forms. It may be the blood relationship which makes the special bond many of us have experienced. It may be the legal and institutional tie of marriage, which can hold a family together "in both prosperity and adversity" (BCP p564). It can include the responsibility for children. Sometimes it is simply a fondness -- the sort of bond there is with a "courtesy aunt or uncle" -- which cannot be defined by law or by canon, but which still exists. The essential for any surviving and healthy family is love. Newspapers today are filled with stories of families which end disastrously because they are no longer -- or perhaps never were -- founded on the necessary mutually covenanted love described in the marriage service. God created humans with both the ability to love and the need to be loved. Adam, the original human, was perfect but lonely; indeed in the whole story of Creation, the only thing which was "not good" is that a human should be alone (Genesis 3:18). When Adam's partner was created, they both recognised the goodness of the relationship. It is the intimate partnership which was the stated purpose of the relationship. Procreation came later. The Church has much to say about relationships between people of all types. In particular, it emphasises the spiritual, social and psychological value of commitments, and is therefore concerned about their establishment, maintenance, and quality. General Synod Canon XXI describes marriage as: "a lifelong union in faithful love, for better or for worse, to the exclusion of all others on either side. This union is established by God's grace when two duly qualified persons enter into a contract of marriage in which they declare their intention of fulfilling its purposes and exchange vows to be faithful to one another until they are separated by death. The purposes of marriage are mutual fellowship, support, and comfort, the procreation (if it may be) and nurture of children, and the creation of a relationship in which sexuality may serve personal fulfilment in a community of faithful love." Gay and lesbian people have the same need for that God-given, intimate relationship. Recognising the "not-goodness" in God's eyes of a lonely lifestyle, they do form such relationships and families. The Church needs to address this with same-gender couples the same way it treats other couples, welcoming them as an indigenous part of Christ's flock. Canon XXI goes on to say that "Marriage also is exalted as a sign of the redeeming purpose of God to unite all things in Christ, the purpose made known the reunion of divided humanity in the Church." Indeed, everything in the description quoted from Canon XXI could apply to lesbian / gay couples -- who sometimes also raise children. Official Church pronouncements about same-gender unions vary. It is interesting to note that a number of Anglican bishops have authorised the priestly blessing of such unions. This was the rationale for one such ministry, in the diocese of Rochester, NY: "For centuries the Church has blessed many things and many occasions. The Church blesses friendships, families and any two individuals who wish to commit their lives to each other and to Jesus Christ. The Church acts appropriately in the best interests of the faith when it confers a blessing of commitment upon two individuals of the same gender when they seek to share a life together and to grow in the grace of God. Whether in Matrimony or in the blessing of a particular couple's commitment, the Church does not specifically bless an orientation or a particular mode of sexual behaviour. The Church, however, blesses persons, regardless of orientation, who claim Jesus Christ to be their Lord and Saviour and who commit themselves as individuals or couples to the fellowship of the Church." Cardinal Hume, senior Roman Catholic prelate in England, makes his church's position clear: "Love between two persons, whether of the same sex or of a different sex, is to be treasured and respected." He goes on to say: "When two persons love, they experience in a limited manner in this world what will be their unending delight when one with God in the next. "To love another is in fact to reach out to God, who shares his loveableness with the one we love. To be loved is to receive a sign or share of God's unconditional love. To love another, whether of the same sex or of a different sex, is to have entered the area of the richest human experience." The people of God are called to assert that it is God who brings all persons together, whether in simple friendship or in lifelong intimacy, and that humans are forbidden to put them asunder. The world, the flesh and the devil work to destroy loving friendships. Let's acknowledge that couples and families, whatever the shape of their relationship, need the Church's formal and official support, in God's name. ====== [95-3-8] A PRIDE POSTCARD > by The Lovely Roxanne, who, after her two seconds on CITY-TV > MUST be getting close to his -er, HER 15 minutes of fame< Hello All! Well, as dear Noel Coward would say, I've been to a maaahvelous party. Said party was Lesbian and Gay Pride Day itself, here in Luverly Toronto. The police (and therefore conservative) estimates of the numbers were 500 000 to 600 000 in attendance, with 50 000 in the parade. Yr correspondent thought that the day would be slightly smaller in attendance than last year (at 350 000), since there wasn't the momentum of last year's Bill 167 on which to coat-tail; but it turns out that I was pessimistic. The joy of being part of that big a happy fruity crowd is almost levitating. One gets to think "Gee, maybe we ARE ten percent of the population after all." I got there before eleven (having stopped off to pay my respects to the Almighty and All-loving, to give thanks for such days), and went to the south stage for the opening. The Mayor came to read the proclamation herself (first time a mayor has done it in person), and then she walked in the parade. Then the local MP -- he gloated a tad in the passage of Bill C41 (on sentencing for hate crimes -- the first time "sexual orientation" has been in Canadian federal law), for which legislation Hosanna. We then heard from Jim Egan and Jack Nesbit (who took their case for same-sex spousal benefits to the Supreme Court), who were the Parade Grand Marshals this year. After they came down from the platform, I managed to get over to chat to 'em just after they'd done an interviewette for the local TV news. We then moved up the street, and Bonnie nearly walked into the TV camera -- and Michelle and I laughed. All this was recorded by the camera, and broadcast later that evening [we have the tape]. I was, of course, wearing my glad-rags: rainbow maple-leaf-flag shirt, and (of course) pearls. The weather was absolutely ideal -- mid 20s, scattered cloud, very low humidity, and a pleasant breeze. No rainbow, but no rain either. The parade was an extra couple of blocks this year, and just as well, judging by how long it was -- the observers tell me that it took over 2.5 hours to go past any point. Integrity didn't have a table this year -- after General Synod, that was steam we just didn't have -- but we did march. We were joined by people from Holy Trinity, Integrity's host parish, who had made Pride the focus of their service that morning. They had a big (two-person-two-pole) banner saying "Social Justice Now / Church of the Holy Trinity" [a useful all-purpose banner for many occasions, but lesbigay liberation was the cause on July 2]; and twenty of 'em showed up, in matching T-shirts "The Religious Right is neither." They also brought song-sheets, hot pink, naturally. We got in the line right behind Christos MCC, and were joined by the Unitarians and the Brethren Mennonites. While we were waiting for the parade to start, standing next to Maple Leaf Gardens, WHO should be next to us on the east but a bunch from some fundie faction in London Ontario. These people were carrying signs assuring us that were we but to repent we would be saved, that God was not amused by our activities, and so on -- you can take a shrewd guess at the texts used. Anyway, we quickly realised that we had to counter this message and launched into spirited renditions of "Jesus Loves Me" -- I think we had 9 or 10 verses before moving on. Such SAD people with their dire version of "good" news. Is it any wonder that Christianity has such a poor name in the lesbigay community? Well, as Elizabeth Bennet told Mr Darcy, one should think on the past only as such things give you pleasure, so I shall leave the doom-sayers to their unhappy little chanting times and move on in the parade and the day. We took an hour and a half to traverse the route, and the cast of hundreds of thousands on either side was a wonderful feeling -- almost like swimming in something fizzy, like ginger ale or soda water. As we walked along Bloor at the end of the Parade, there was Svend Robinson, MP off to one side -- having finished the parade in the back of a convertible before us, he was watching the rest of the show. After parading, I wandered the length of Church St, and bumped into (and usually kissed -- Pride is THAT sorta day, y'know) all sorts and conditions of people I knew from hither and yon. By the time 5:15 rolled around, your correspondent realised that she'd been standing ever since she emerged from the subway over 5 hours previously. Fortunately, right over there was the Gay Naturists and the Body Electric people, who were offering 5-minute back massages for $5. "WHERE do I pay?" I said, and ten minutes later was tummy down on a table in a tent , looking down at the tarmac surface of Church Street. [the Naturists do not insist on nudity for massages, I should add at this point]. Teresa, I think her name was, was unencumbered from the waist up, and holy crow, does she give a good massage. Best buy of the day. On reflection, there is a LOT to thank God for this Pride Day. Oodles of family, celebrating who we are; even the nay-sayers from London Bible Alliance (or whoever they are) couldn't stop that. There is a feel of momentum in our liberation, for which Hosanna in the Highest! ====== [95-3-9] DIRTY RAINCOATS >by John Russell< Why are some people gay and lesbian? The short answer is, we don't know. But there are lots of theories. In a nutshell, the debase is usually framed as Nature vs Nurture. My preference is Discovery vs Choice. The Nature/Discovery side goes back to the late 1800's, when Magnus Hirschfeld, the founder of the first gay rights movement in Germany, said homosexuality had biological origins -- in other words, you are born gay. Various attempts have been made to prove this theory, most recently in two studies released in 1991 In the first, a neuroscientist at the Salk Institute in California scanned the brains of 41 cadavers, including 19 gay men. He found that the hypothalamus, a part of the brain though to regulate sexual activity, was less than half the size in the gay men that it was in the heterosexuals. It was perhaps the first hard evidence of that some gays have long contended -- that they were born different. In the second study, a psychologist and a psychiatrist at the Boston University School of Medicine published their findings regarding homosexuality in twins. The results showed that if one identical twin is gay, the other is almost three times more likely to be gay than if the twins are fraternal -- suggesting that it is something in the twins' shared genetic makeup, rather than their shared upbringing, that affected their sexual orientation. There has been all kinds of response to these findings, some of it very critical. So while we can say it certainly indicates a strong genetic component, we can't say for sure. The Nurture/Choice side grew out of Sigmund Freud's long-discredited psychiatric model -- the old dominant Mother, absent Father argument. Various cures based on this were tried, and still are: electroshock therapy, brain surgery, hormone injections, aversion therapy and castration. The notion that homosexuality is a curable, psychiatric condition was put to rest when the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from the DSM3 in 1973. It is the official position of both these bodies that you cannot change a person's sexual orientation. By the way, homosexuality has been observed in many other species, from mountain rams to seagulls to gorillas. Whenever you see it, you know that the seagull had a domineering mother and an absent father. And, although it is a popular theory, there is no evidence at all to suggest that sexual abuse has ever changed a person's sexual orientation. There are other theories on the Nurture/Choice side, but they don't stand up to a logical scrutiny very well. The first is that as young people, we were recruited, or seduced into homosexuality. You see this belief reflected now in parents who oppose any mention of homosexuality in school curricula, in the fear that their children will fall prey to this shameless proselytising, and somehow choose to be gay. Picture it. I'm hanging around a schoolyard in my (designer) raincoat, and I spy the captain of the football team. A handsome lad, goes out with the head cheerleader, lionised (as athletes are wont to be) by the entire school. His parents are bursting with pride in him. I sidle up and whisper, "How would you like to be a member of a despised minority? Join us, and your parents will reject you, your friends will shun you, your boss will fire you, and complete strangers will yell obscenities at you from passing cars." To which they reply, of course, "WHERE DO I SIGN UP??!!" If sexual orientation >were< the result of being recruited, or seduced, or convinced, there would be no homosexuals. The sheer weight of our overwhelmingly heterosexual culture would have crushed the orientation years ago. Virtually from the moment you're born, you are expected to be, and treated as, heterosexual. Schools, families, laws, churches, television, radio, movies, Hallmark Cards, music, opera, ballet, the Toronto >Sun< -- for every image of same-sex love, there are a million of heterosexual love. So if all this cannot turn gays straight, what supernatural forces would I have to marshal to turn a straight boy gay? What could I say to you,especially to you as you were when a teenager, with so much energy focused on "fitting in", that it would outweigh the entire rest of your life experience? But the best response to the notion of choice is to ask: when did you choose your sexual orientation? I'd be very surprised if there was a single person reading this who could say that the gender to which they are primarily attracted was a choice. It was a discovery. And I guarantee you that for most lesbians and gay men, that initial discovery, that moment of realisation, is a very frightening one. That was the moment that most of us learned that "denial" is more than a river in Egypt. [Ed: groan!] What it boils down to is that there is still much debate over the causes of homosexuality. But, frankly, finally, it really doesn't matter. Homosexuality is a fact of life, and has been for millennia. Our job is to figure out how to respond to it -- as individuals, as a society, and as a church. > {Author box: John Russell is an educator for the AIDS > Committee of Toronto. He is a parishioner at St Thomas' > Huron Street, and his face will be familiar to those who > have seen the video which is a part of *Hearing Diverse > Voices / Seeking Common Ground*} ====== [95-3-10] WOULD YOU MIND SHARING THAT WITH US? > Toronto Synod may ask House of Bishops for progress reports > on homosexuality discussions Toronto diocesan synod will be held September 28 - 30, and Integrity will as usual have a display there. Two motions will be made that have particular interest to Integrity people: >Moved:< That this Synod express its support for amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination and urge the House of Bishops to reaffirm its public statement of 1978. and >Moved:< That this Synod urges the House of Bishops as part of the church's continuing discussion to advise the church from time to time with respect to its discussions relating to issues of homosexuality and homosexual relationships. The final form of these motions was worked out by the Diocesan Executive Committee at its meeting in late June, and the motions will go to Synod with the recommendation of the Executive that they be approved by Synod. The first addresses the amendments to federal human rights legislation which have been promised by successive governments since 1986, when John Crosbie was Minister of Justice. The statement made by the House of Bishops in 1978, to which the motion refers, says in part: > We believe as Christians that homosexual persons, as > children of God, have a full and equal claim, with all > other persons, upon the love, acceptance, concern and > pastoral care of the Church. The Gospel of Jesus Christ > compels Christians to guard against all forms of human > injustice, and to affirm that all persons are brothers and > sisters for whom Christ died. **We affirm that homosexual > persons are entitled to equal protection under the law > with all other Canadian citizens.** [emphasis added] The second motion addresses the discomfort that some have been expressing with the closed-door discussions which the House of Bishops has been having over the years. While they have been having discussions, very little has been released to the church at large, and some have felt this is a lack of leadership. While the need for closed-door discussions can be appreciated, no feedback at all is not helpful; hence the motion calling for periodic advice on their deliberations. ====== [95-3-11] ROSIE HAS TWO DADDIES! Many people claim that homosexual behaviour is never observed among non-human animals. That is just plain not true. One instance came to light in the Netherlands just recently. The German publication >Statts-Zeitung< reports two male flamingoes at the Rotterdam Zoo formed a loving relationship...The pair repeatedly tried to steal eggs from female flamingoes to hatch as their own. Finally, moved by the persistence of the birds, zoo keepers provided them with a fertilized egg which the two hatched. The proud fathers have remained faithfully at the side of their youngster ever since. ===================== End of volume 95-3 of Integrator, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto copyright 1995 Integrity/Toronto comments please to Chris Ambidge, Editor chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca OR Integrity/Toronto Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON Canada M4Y 2N9