Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 18:55:10 -0400 From: Chris Ambidge Subject: *Integrator* files for 1995 INTEGRATOR, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto volume 95-5, issue date 1995 12 20 copyright 1995 Integrity/Toronto. The hard-copy version of this newsletter carries the ISSN 0843-574X Integrity/Toronto PO Box 873 Station F Toronto ON M4Y 2N9 === contents === [95-5-1] TORONTO SYNOD DECIDES ... NOT TO DECIDE / by Chris Ambidge [95-5-2] FROM THE CHARGE TO TORONTO DIOCESAN SYNOD by the Rt Rev TE Finlay [95-5-3] OTHER OPINIONS: FROM MEMBERS' HOUR AT SYNOD words of [a] the Rev Norm Rickaby, [b] Pat Dewhirst and [c] Jack Fricker [95-5-4] NOT A REFERENDUM: / by Doug Fox Bishop Finlay at Integrity/Toronto's 20th anniversary [95-5-5] ADOBE CHURCH REQUIRES YEARLY RENEWAL / by Chris Glaser [95-5-6] INPUT TO THE BISHOP REQUESTED [95-5-7] THE REVIEW GOES ON: WHAT THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS HAS BEEN DOING SINCE 1990 / Abp Percy O'Driscoll reported to General Synod 1995 ===== [95-5-1] TORONTO SYNOD DECIDES ... NOT TO DECIDE >> Modest motion supporting civil rights gets referred for > "further study" by Chris Ambidge At Toronto's diocesan synod in late September, several things happened which are of particular interest to Integrity members. Bishop Finlay addressed lesbigay issues in two separate parts of his Charge, and those passages appear below. Integrity, as usual, had a table in the display area, and many people stopped by to chat, for printed resources, or even for some chocolate. As we mentioned in the last issue of >Integrator<, two particular motions came to the floor, both with the recommendation of the diocesan executive to pass: one called on the federal government to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination, and a second called on the national House of Bishops to keep the rest of the church informed on their deliberations on the position of homosexuals in the church. The second motion can be dealt with quickly: it passed almost immediately, with very little debate. It had really been overtaken by events at General Synod, where a similar motion was passed, and where Archbishop O'Driscoll of Huron gave a precis of the deliberations of the house over the past few years [see "The Review Goes On", below]. The first motion was considerably more controversial. There were several speakers to the motion, both pro and con. The text of the motion invoked the House of Bishops in 1979 saying that homosexuals should have the same civil rights as other Canadian citizens. Some disagreed with this interpretation. Some of the other arguments against were that this would perhaps be at odds with the Church's present discriminatory practices; that this synod debate was pre-empting a discussion within the church on sexual orientation; and that "sexual orientation" was not defined. Some felt that this would include bisexuality and even pedophilia. With many people still at the microphones, the member who invoked pedophilia moved that the motion be referred back to the Executive Committee. This motion narrowly passed (the vote had to be counted twice), and so synod debate was closed. This year. I must admit to considerable frustration by this parliamentary manoeuvring. "More Study" is a rude phrase in my vocabulary, because we've been working on this for nigh-on two decades, virtually half of my lifetime. However, "we need to talk more about this" is invoked as an excuse, ironically enough, for synod >not< to be allowed to talk about it. There was certainly frustration from those waiting at the microphones who were pre- empted. Some of that upset was expressed at Members' Hour [see "OTHER OPINIONS", below]. The argument about "sexual orientation is not defined" is specious. No other term in the enumerated list of discrimination criteria is defined in the legislation. The Church is in fact protected by one of those terms, "religion". No-one is asking that "religion" be defined so that some peculiar cult which practices, say, ritual cannibalism or polygamy is excluded from using "religion" as a protective term. Jurisprudence is quite clear on the matter, and there are other aspects of the (criminal) law to prevent those extreme examples. I am also fed up to the back teeth with having my sexual orientation put on the same rhetorical plane as pederasty. That is likewise covered in the criminal code, and I came extremely close to screaming when that boogy-man was invoked >yet< again. Nevertheless, discussion continues. As long as it does, there is hope. However, as long as the church prevaricates, has yet-more- study, and paints us as dreadful people, lesbigays will continue to walk away, having heard the wrong message. ===== [95-5-2] HE WILL, IF WE WILL ... > excerpts from the Bishop's Charge to Toronto Diocesan > Synod, September 1955 by the Rt Rev TE Finlay >o Finlay would explore emphasis on faithfulness rather > than orientation "if there would be sufficient support >o Wants pastoral care specialist for lesbigays (but the > partnered need not apply A quick story -- Recently, after a funeral service, a woman in her eighties, spoke to me. She enquired as to how the bishops were progressing with their policy on human sexuality and then she said, "My son and his partner have lived together for about fifteen years, faithfully and lovingly -- I just want you to know that." I replied that, as I travel around the Diocese, I hear from people of deep faith and love who are on both sides of this issue. Did she believe that we would come to that day when, rather than worrying about a person's sexual orientation, the church would place the emphasis on whether people in relationship are living lives of faithful, monogamous commitment to another person, with self-discipline and integrity? She looked at me and said, "I would welcome that." What about you? Is it time this Diocese gave some leadership in exploring what this would mean for the church? I would be willing to begin that journey but I need to know if there would be significant support. Over the past three years we have been bridge building. Please drop me a note about where you are and I will ask a couple of people, from Ad Hoc and Fidelity, to gather the responses. Is it possible for our church to reflect diversity while we hold together at the core a faith united in Jesus Christ? ... Finally, as I begin the second half of my episcopacy as Diocesan, I have some dreams I want to share with you I offer them as challenges to our future: [five dream, of which number 2 on the list was] 2 - Again, in my desire to build bridges and something I have mentioned in an earlier charge, I would like to have the resources to fund a position for a gay or lesbian priest (abiding by the House of Bishops guidelines), who would be a pastor and counsellor for gays, lesbians and their families, who have been victimised by our society, and help our Church to discern where the Spirit is leading. ===== [95-5-3] OTHER OPINIONS > At Members' Hour, members voice their distress over > Toronto Synod's fumbling [95-5-3a] >from the Rev Norm Rickaby:< I would like to talk for just a moment about what it is like for a gay person to operate within an atmosphere of non-discrimination. For the past 4 years I have been teaching for the Toronto School Board, which has an explicit anti-discrimination/anti-harassment policy regarding race, religion, gender and sexual orientation. Every day I walk into an environment in which the administration, my co-workers and most of my students know that I am gay and it's not a problem. I am comfortable, most of them are comfortable, and those who are not know that, while they are free to discuss or state their concerns, they may not use abusive language and certainly may not allow their behaviour to interfere with my person. Compare that to my present experience of the church. To me, the church has always been like family, but ever since I came out vocally about who I am, going to church is not such a comfortable experience. It's rather like going to the family reunion and you're the one everybody knows will always use the wrong fork or call the favourite rich auntie by the wrong name. They're very polite - on the surface - but you KNOW they'd just rather you weren't there at all. Nobody is comfortable -- especially me. Laws and legislation do not change people's ideas, nor their ability to discuss and work in a constructive way to put their ideas forward. What my school board's policy does, and what prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in a Human Rights Act does is allow me to be a part of normal society and life, KNOWING that there is protection and that others are restrained from infringing upon my health and safety. This morning, it would have been wonderful to see/hear the church (as assembled in this place) express support for the concept of opposing discrimination. The Rev Patrick Yu said this morning that what we need is some meaningful debate -- but almost immediately afterwards, a motion to refer cut off the debate - even on a very non-threatening motion which supports asking the federal government to do what it and the previous conservative government insisted they intended to do. Though I suspect the motion would have passed, even if it had been defeated , it would have given us a clear message , as one of my colleagues said later, about where this Synod really stands. On the other hand, even had BOTH motions passed this morning, I probably would have been on my feet this afternoon. Both motions as originally presented were pretty "safe" since they ask other people (the government and the House of Bishops) to do something while not demanding anything of this Synod and this Diocese. It's time for this Diocese to take some leadership - we probably have the highest concentration of active lesbian, gay and, yes, bisexual church members of any Diocese in the country. It's time we started doing and practising some of the loving of our neighbours we talk about so much. ------------- [95-5-3b] >from Pat Dewhirst / Church of the Annunciation:< I would like to identify myself as the original mover of the Canadian Human Rights Act motion. I was not progenitor of the motion, though I wish I had been: it came from St Clements. I'd like to comment that I was disappointed yesterday seeing the debate stifled. The motion came from the Executive Committee, and referral back to the Executive is circular. It's not as if it hasn't been considered there already. Yesterday I was talking to a friend, who spoke of having seen an exercise in a large political forum on homosexuality. The question is a difficult one, so there is an amount of trust present. The exercise involves all present closing their eyes, and those who are gay or lesbian are asked to stand. Next, stand if you have a member of your family is gay or lesbian. Next, stand if you have friends or co-workers who are gay or lesbian. And so the circle widens, and eventually people are asked to open their eyes, and there are four people still sitting. Think about that for next year when this issue will come back. ---------------- [95-5-3c] >from Jack Fricker / St Phillips Unionville:< A mugwump has two sides, mug on one wump on the other. The synod seems to be that, with two messages. On the social justice question, our bishops message in the charge was clear last night, but contradicted by the budget we just passed. We need to get our act together to present a consistent message. The second area is on homosexuality. We say we encourage and welcome gays and lesbians, we are prepared to accept homosexual priests -- or at least >frustrated< homosexual priests; but we will not accept >satisfied< homosexual priests. This is a position I find incomprehensible In these two areas our moral message is confusing to the rest of the world. This may be one of the reasons why we the church do not lead but stagnate. Yesterday we were listening to the Indian presentation, and I was stuck by a remark of one of one of the Chiefs -- he said reflectively that maybe Jesus should come back and try all over again. ===== [95-5-4] REFERENDUM -- NOT! >by Doug Fox< Bishop of Toronto Terence Finlay presided and preached at Integrity/Toronto's 20th anniversary celebration on October 25th. His refrain throughout the homily was "I am in favour of unity; I am not in favour of division." The bishop was referring to the Quebec sovereignty referendum only by way of analogy -- an analogy for our church's struggle to come to terms with lesbigay issues. Like our national unity debate, the church's conversations on homosexuality carry enormous emotional freight. Another similarity, said the bishop, is that the end result of the lesbigay dialogue is very much in doubt, and for many, the wait may be too long. However, there are also signs of hope. For one, the bishop is personally committed to seeking the unity of the church on this matter. One of his initiatives has been to invite people to write him with their reflections on the church and sexual orientation. Here he contrasted the national unity debate with our church process. His aim in asking for letters -- thoughtful ones, he emphasised -- is not to initiate a kind of letter- writing "referendum" in the church, but to foster genuine dialogue based on the assurance that the other party is listening. A mark of the bishop's commitment to bridge-building was his very presence at our gathering; he repeated several times, both in the sermon and in conversations with individuals after the service, that he was glad to be invited to Integrity, and grateful to be with us. I for one am glad he accepted our invitation. In a church where some are devoting themselves to bashing lesbians and gays, we are in very great need of persons with a passionate belief in and commitment to unity. Most of all, perhaps, we need those who are willing to witness by their personal presence to the belief that the unity of the Church is indeed a mystery that Christ is revealing to us. ====== [95-5-5] "ADOBE CHURCH" REQUIRES YEARLY RENEWAL > excerpt from address delivered to >Gay, Lesbian and > Christian<, Kirkridge, June 1995 by Chris Glaser We [lesbian and gay people] are transforming influences that can help our churches back home become oases themselves; tastes of the Commonwealth of God. Two friends and I recently drove to Taos, New Mexico, to see that small [religious] community, and we visited a church that I'd read about in a fiction story where there's a painting of Jesus where, when the lights are turned out his silhouette kind've hovers over the sea of Galilee in the painting and a cross mysteriously appears behind him. Well, in the video that preceded this experience of the painting, I found something that was much more interesting. This church is an adobe church which was captured by Georgia O'Keefe in one of her most famous paintings. It has like eight- foot thick walls of brick covered with straw and mud. Well every year, because the exterior is mud, the rains wash some of the mud away. And so every year the members of this church, the religious community, have to gather together and help re-pack the church. Re-form the church. Well they got tired of this annual messy process, so somebody suggested that they put this coating on the church which would prevent the mud from washing away. Everybody thought this was a great idea, so they did. But they found that because it was no longer permeable, that the inner walls could not breathe , and the bricks dried out and started to crumble. Think of this as a spiritual metaphor. They had to take off the covering . There are no permanent boundaries to the church, there are no permanent walls . Every year they have to get together to repack and reform the church. And that is what we are about. We are about not only repacking and reforming the church and getting our hands muddy as we do so, but inviting the church to open up its boundaries, to make its walls more permeable, so that the spirit of God can really breathe there. ===== [95-5-6] THE BISHOP WANTS TO HEAR FROM >>YOU!<< In his charge, Bishop Finlay asked people to write to him to let him know where they are on things to do with lesbigays in the church -- both ordination and blessing of unions. He's already got a pretty good idea of what the Integrity executive think, but is wanting to hear from other concerned people. PLEASE write your thoughts down -- whether it's just a paragraph or a couple of pages. >>The underpinnings of your thoughts and feelings<< (how you got to where you are) would be particularly helpful, instead of a one-liner "I think you should do X, Sincerely, J. Anglican". The address is: The Rt Rev TE Finlay / Bishop of Toronto 135 Adelaide St East / Toronto M5C 1L8. ======= [95-5-7] THE REVIEW GOES ON > Positive resolutions emerged from General Synod, but not a > peep from the House of Bishops. What have they been saying > about us behind closed doors since 1990? Archbishop Percy > O'Driscoll made this statement to General Synod 1995 Your Grace and members of Synod. The journey that we have been on... In November of 1990, the House of Bishops received a couple of letters requesting that we reconsider the statement on sexuality that was made in 1979, by the House of Bishops. That same month of November, 1990, the National Executive Committee passed the following resolution: That this NEC request the House of Bishops to update its 1979 statement on human sexuality and ordination of persons of homosexual orientation. Since then, this is what has transpired. In November of 1991, at our meeting then, we spent about three to four hours and took the time to focus in on some of the material that is in the 1985 study, the one which was published by ABC and edited by Professor Jim Reid. ... In June of 1992, we spent at least half a day in session with Dr. Donald Meen and a panel of people. Around that time, then, we began planning for the Forum on homosexuality which took place on the Saturday night of General Synod that year. I'm sure you will remember that evening. I was involved in that planning group, and two of the bishops were a part of the panel, who spoke that evening. >From that General Synod a request was made to the House of Bishops and the National Executive Council which commissioned the >Diverse Voices< study that we've all been engaged in for the last year at least. And three of the bishops were involved in that, on behalf of the House of Bishops. That brings us to November of 1992, in which we spent two days in what I would call a self-directed study; that is, the bishops studied the Church of England document which is titled >Issues in Human Sexuality<. In October of 1993, we heard from Fr. John Perry of the University of Regina, and we spent the whole day with him. In February of 1994, we took a whole day, first of all to have Dr. Bruce Pellegrin from ATS, (the author of >To Live According to Our Nature<), [discussing the] 1979 guidelines and human rights legislation. Following that,... Dr. John Webster from Wycliffe College came and responded to Dr. Pellegrin's presentation and, following that for some hours, there was a panel of bishops reflecting on those two presentations, and a general discussion amongst us. In October of 1994, the members of the House of Bishops took a day [or possibly] more than that, and each was offered the opportunity to speak on his or her personal position on the 1979 statement, and on any other issues or aspects of the issue that he or she wished to discuss. That brings us to our recent meeting, when there was some further discussion on the matter, and I guess I would end by saying that the House continues its review and while the House continues its review, the 1979 statement on human sexuality and the ordination of persons of homosexual orientation still remains. And I think that tells the story. ========= End of volume 95-5 of Integrator, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto copyright 1995 Integrity/Toronto comments please to Chris Ambidge, Editor chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca OR Integrity/Toronto PO Box 873 Station F Toronto ON M4Y 2N9