Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 08:41:41 -0400 From: Chris Ambidge Subject: Integrator 98-3 INTEGRATOR, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto volume 98-3, issue date 1998 06 30 copyright 1998 Integrity/Toronto. The hard-copy version of this newsletter carries the ISSN 0843-574X Integrity/Toronto Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON Canada M4Y 2N9 == Contents == [98-3-1] LIFT EVERY VOICE - FAISONS ENTENDRE NOS VOIX / Integrity in Montreal at General Synod 1998 by Chris Ambidge [98-3-2] JACOB WRESTLING WITH THE ANGEL / a meditation given at the April 98 meeting of Integrity/Montreal by Dr Rupert Macintyre [98-3-3] ARCHBISHOP VISITS CALGARY CHAPTER / by Jim Picken [98-3-4] SYNOD SEEKS BLESSING OF COVENANTED RELATIONSHIPS [98-3-5] A REDIFFUSION OF INTEGRITY / Chris Ambidge interviewed by CBC Radio One about the New Westminster motion, and lesbigays in the Anglican Church of Canada [98-3-6] INTEGRI-TRACTS: Pamphlets available [98-3-7] THIS WAS THE YEAR / by Sister Thelma-Anne SSJD ======== [98-3-1] LIFT EVERY VOICE / FAISONS ENTENDRE NOS VOIX Integrity in Montreal at General Synod 1998 by Chris Ambidge The theme of the 35th General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada was "Lift every voice / Faisons entendre nos voix". Some of those voices came from Integrity people (seven out-of-towners, plus the locals). This issue of *Integrator* has been delayed to bring you a report of what happened at the end of May in Montreal. Synod was at McGill University, which is almost at the top of Mount Royal; so wherever you went, it involved a vertical shift as well as a horizontal one. The plenary floor was in a double gym, built back in the 30s (and not air-conditioned, of which more anon). We the displayers were in the other half of the gym, separated from the plenary only by not-completely-closed folding doors. In terms of proximity, this was the best location we've had -- it was close by, and we were in the room where coffee and juice were available, so many people came by the display. Toiling up and down hill from the residences to the gym was one hiccup in the physical plant. The other was the heat. The Montreal weather was reasonably warm to start off with, then when you put 400 bodies in a gym and turn on the TV lights, many people wilted. The day before Synod started, Integrity people went zipping off to *le quartier Chinois* and bought 500 folding fans. We then labelled 'em "Fan of Integrity" on two sides, and they were handed out in registration packets and to whoever came to the display and asked. This was much appreciated by the members, and we even got a vote of thanks and applause on the last day. The plenary hall (and the gallery) looked like a butterfly hatchery much of the time as people fanned away. Our display was right next to Fidelity, the Toronto-based more- conservative group with whom Integrity/Toronto has been in dialogue for quite some time. Their vice-president, Paul Feheley, was a member of Synod. The location was by mutual request, and our mutual proximity netted Paul and I interviews with *Anglican Journal*. The journalist kept asking questions that were variations on the theme "but why are groups like you next to each other?" Because we want to be, in the same church, was the answer. The other conservative group, Anglican Essentials, were at the other end of the hall, in a corner by themselves. An unfortunate message may have come from their physical placement. The Integrity display itself was, of course, faaabulous (I should hope so by now -- this was our fourth General Synod). Lots of colour, with rainbow flags and frontals and stoles (and big colour photos of Primates and bishops and Fidelity priests wearing same); pictures of us at Eucharist, on retreat, at Pride day, at previous General Synods, and having fun. We had no less than nine single-page pamphlets (colour coded, of course) available, and they went pretty well, though not as fast as in previous years. We've moved away from text-based display, and were the better for it. We also had the best give-aways. First of all, there were the fans (the last one was picked up the day before Synod closed). There was of course the print material, and munchies. We had four different bowls: gummi bears, "rainbow candy" [Smarties], almonds and raisins (labelled "Fruit and Nuts"), and sugar-free candy. There were also peel- and-stick rainbow triangles (and assorted other shapes), about the size of a postage stamp. These turned out to be quite popular. In future, we'll count them to know how many go out -- our estimate is that by the end of Synod, between one third and one half of the members were wearing them stuck to their name tags. On Thursday, Paul Feheley and I had lunch with Jim Picken of Integrity/Calgary and his bishop. Archbishop Curtis is anxious to get a dialogue similar to the Toronto effort going in Calgary, so Paul and I were *more* than happy to tell him what we had been doing with the bishop of Toronto. Things continue to look up. There was not much on the agenda with direct impact on lesbigays, as compared to 1995 (in Ottawa, Synod passed four resolutions and held a forum, for a total of about five agenda hours). The Montreal Synod wasn't dead silent though. There was good news and bad. For the last six (count 'em, 6) triennia, the General Synod has in one form or another considered a Human Rights study or document or proposed code for employees and volunteers. Motion A-130 proposed it again. This resolution had more debate than any other issue at Synod, and was eventually defeated by the narrowest of margins on Thursday afternoon. The objections had two main thrusts: (a) not wanting to get caught up in a legalistic tangle, setting out protocols and procedures and generally going the way of law rather than grace. Then there was thrust (b), not wanting to include homosexuals "by the back door", when the church is not of one mind on us. One of the proscribed grounds for discrimination was sexual orientation (along with colour, physical disability, *etc*), and this was clearly a hot-button for many members of synod. If the debate had only been centring around (a) I wouldn't have minded the failure of the motion so much, because I don't really want to go the legalistic, confrontational way myself. It's not particularly the Canadian societal ethos. However, (b) was very clearly at least as significant, and that I *do* object to. The vote was close enough that given only objection (a) OR (b), it would have passed. One of the last points in the debate was a question: does "sexual orientation" include physical activity, or just state of being? One of the legal advisers answered, correctly, that in Canadian law the two are not separable (the Supreme Court has ruled on that a couple of times). That may well have lost the motion right there. Many in the church continue to cling to the being/ doing bifurcation, and aren't at the point of accepting lesbigays actually DOING anything sexual with each other. The vote, when it came, passed clearly in clergy and laity, and was defeated 16-19 in the bishops. The total was 152 in favour, 119 against, but because it lost in the bishops, the motion did not pass. That was difficult for us. But I said there was good news, too. A motion [C-15R] from members of the diocese of the Arctic (which is *very* conservative in these matters) came to the floor of synod on the last day. The initial motion commended the House of Bishops for their 1997 statement *Human Sexuality*, that affirmed the [fairly restrictive] 1979 Guidelines on the ordination of gay and lesbian persons and blessing covenanted same-sex relationships. I was a little apprehensive about the motion when we first heard about it on the Monday -- up to this year, General Synod has been pretty close to silent on Matters Homosexual: only the motion which commissioned the *Hearing Diverse Voices* study in 92, and the four motions welcoming us which passed in 95. With those exceptions, General Synod had been mute about homosexuals. I'd rather that they remained that way than passed very restrictive motions [the guidelines of 1979 and 1997 are from the House of Bishops, not from Synod]. The effect of C-15R as originally moved would have been to add Synodical weight to the restrictive thrust of the 1979 guidelines, and if not carve them in stone, at least pour concrete about their foundation. I shouldn't have worried. Silk purses *can* be made out of sow's ears. As soon as it was on the floor, two successive amendments deflected its thrust. The amendments passed immediately by considerable majorities, as did the amended main motion 30 seconds later. All was over in seven minutes. C-15R as amended has General Synod commending the House of bishops for their statement *Human Sexuality* of October 1997 an acknowledges the need for continued study and dialogue. Not only did the amendments gut the initial motion, they inverted its direction. The original motion would have anchored the 1979 guidelines yet more firmly. The motion as passed does not mention 79 at all, it commends 97 (which was MUCH more to Integrity's liking) and goes on to say that 97 is not the last word. The post-Synod press release from Essentials also praises the passage of C-15R. Maybe it is one of the geniuses of Anglicanism that two very different groups can both approve of such a motion. We got to feel (as at previous Synods) really part of the Synod family. There are about 500 people all told (members plus staff, and assorted hangers-on like us). All of us connected with our home diocesan delegation and were included in some of their activities. People kept coming over to chat to us at the display -- and not just about Matters Lesbigay. John and I were asked to lend our voices to the music of Synod worship. We were part of the family, not an external pressure group. We don't do much (if any) back-corridor politicking, and we don't enter into the debate on the floor of Synod. That's not been our style. Our main work is being a lesbigay presence there -- principally at the display, and also in the cafeteria and walkways, chatting about whatever comes up. Lots will be of direct lesbigay content, and much will not be (we're not single- issue Anglicans). I'll relate one anecdote (it's out of chronological order and not directly lesbigay-relevant) that will be one of my best memories of General Synod. On the Sunday morning, members scatter to local churches for worship. Three of us Integrity people drove west to St Paul's in Lachine. The parish over the last 40 years or so has had a close connection with Innu and northern Cree people who come south to Montreal for medical attention, and so there will often be half a dozen of each in their congregation of a Sunday. There are also a significant number of Haitians in the parish. With this aboriginal presence, the Moosonee diocesan delegation went to St Paul's on the Sunday. The service was not one I'll soon forget. It was tetralingual -- English, French, Cree and Inuktitut. Each of the three lessons were read in one of the non-English languages. Most of the Prayer of Consecration was in French. There was a baptism in Inuktitut. Each of the non-English languages had parallel words to one of the hymns. [I was OK in French, and did the Inuktitut phonetically, but Cree has a non-Roman alphabet, so I was completely at sea for that.]. The very powerful feeling for me was a realisation that *ALL FOUR* of those languages are used every single Sunday in the Anglican church in the Eastern time-zone -- not all that far away from my home at all. It underlined a feeling I got all Synod long, of the breadth and scope of the Anglican Church in Canada; and helped me discover roots and connections I didn't know that I had. Speaking of roots and connections, I also got to spend time with my lesbigay Anglican sisters and brothers in Integrity from across the country (from west to east) Mayne, William, Jim, Bob, Bonnie, John; and with Marcie, Patrick and Rupert (from Montreal). That in itself was good -- we'll keep going with the contacts made, and will set up inter-chapter communication on a more firm footing that it's had in the past. During the course of Synod, I also got a strong realisation of just how greatly the Anglican Church of Canada has been blessed in having Michael Peers as our Primate. He is a man of much grace, great wisdom, and tremendous graciousness. This was demonstrated everywhere from the opening service, when he found himself in the middle of a liturgical dance; to presiding over the debates; to the Aboriginal presentation on Tuesday when it must have been 30C in the hall and he was wearing a button blanket cope; to Wednesday morning when the wakeup session had all of Synod (including Archbishop Peers) doing the Macarena (not only is he gracious, but a good sport). On the last morning came his closing address. The Primate commented on the motion [A-130] that took more time than any other, and the closeness of the division. He recalled his first General Synod, in Sudbury in 1968; when a motion was passed in two orders, and defeated by exactly the same margin: 16-19 in the bishops. In Sudbury, the bishops were then booed. [Synod 95 was silent at the vote]. That was by way of history, saying "we've been here before". Then "the secular press likes to portray us as a divided church, because that makes for good headlines. But we are a synod, a parliamentary body. Of *course* there's division -- that's what we do. We discuss things, and then we decide, and that voting is called 'division'. That's how we come to a decision. We divide. But we are NOT dividED. We are one church. ... and I can hold this Synod up to any other church body in the world, and I am so proud of you." Having that man proud of the synod, and of my church, is something worth while. And he concluded with "Without wanting to sound too much like the Chair of the International Olympic Committee, we will meet again on July 4, 2001." That will be in Waterloo, Ontario, and Integrity will be there. ======== [98-3-2] JACOB WRESTLING WITH THE ANGEL by Dr Rupert Macintyre *A meditation given at the April 98 meeting of Integrity/Montreal* When I first came out seven years ago this past summer I experienced, not surprisingly, a tremendous elation, a lifting of the enormous weight which had borne down upon me for the thirty-one years of my life as I struggled to be what I thought was required of the good Christian boy, the dutiful son of the Rectory, namely to be straight; and if I couldn't be that, at least to sit on my hands until age and decrepitude finally quenched the embers of passion. One of my dearest friends, a man whose intellect and Christian insight I respect enormously, wrote to me at the time that he thought that whatever I might choose to do as a gay man, as a Christian (and at that point, he wasn't certain that the two were compatible, if one takes "being gay" as more than just an ontological statement) I had to try to conform my sexual conduct to the same high standards expected of straight Christians. At the time, I thought he was right. In many ways, I suppose I still think he is. Undergirding his (and my) argument is the assumption that a Christian relationship, whether it is called "marriage" or by some other name, is one in which Christ is the unseen but ever-present third partner, a relationship which is sanctified by a shared love of God. This means, of course, that I view Christian relationship as more than just biologically- or property- based. And it is this assumption that has caused me to feel more than once that I must have green pointy ears to hold such a view, so uncomprehending is the reaction of both the secular gay community, and, alas, of many gay Christians as well. In all of this, I feel a bit like Jacob wrestling with the angel, attempting to wrest a blessing from God or his Church, a sort of spiritual green-light for my gayness. I am comforted in these moments of spiritual doubt by God's words to Peter during the vision in which he saw a great sheet let down from heaven containing on it all manner of animals and birds not permitted under the Jewish food laws. God commanded Peter to kill and to eat. And Peter, good Jew that he was, protested "Surely not, Lord! I have never eaten anything impure or unclean". And God replied "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." St Paul gets a pretty bad press from just about everybody these days -- from feminists, from post-modernists, from gays -- but he actually says some pretty radical things for his time. On two occasions he writes in similar words to the churches in Galatia and Collosae that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." St Paul, bless his cotton socks, argues forcefully for an embodied faith in which the body cannot be separated from the Spirit. The continually appearing metaphor of the church as the body of Christ serves only to underline this view. And if further argument be needed, Paul also describes the human, Christian body as the temple of the Holy Spirit, adding for Good measure that we were bought with a price. We are therefor not meant at all to be disembodied Christians, Sunday-only pious people whose faith is merely an intellectual or social construct. But neither are we to be a body- only, materialistic people seeking always and only the fulfilment of our purely physical needs. It seems clear to me that what I do with my body matters therefore very, very much to my sense of being in the Way, of following my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. But how do I reconcile this desire to present myself as a "true, holy, living and acceptable sacrifice" to God with the knowledge that I continually fall short of the mark? Here I come back to the image of Jacob wrestling with the angel. I do not want to be, in the words of Andrew Holleran, a "cafeteria Christian". Having said that, I have increasingly come to realise that in some small way I, too, am a "dancer from the dance" -- not in Holleran's terms, certainly, but undoubtedly in the sense that I have been in situations which most definitely did not glorify God or for that matter build me up into a better person. Unfortunately, being merely human, it is far too easy to allow my penis to do the thinking for me, to quell my analytical mind, and perhaps most importantly, to oblige the Spirit of the Living God within me to cool his heels in the antechamber of my heart while I close the bedroom door and get on with it. Mercifully, there have also been occasions and relationships in which I have felt very much the soothing presence of God in all that was said and done. That has been a tremendous blessing and encouragement, which has reassured me that there is a way to bring together my gayness and my Christianity. == == == [Author box: DR RUPERT MACINTYRE is the *nom de plume* of a gay member of St Stephen's Anglican Church, Westmount Quebec. Yes, Virginia, there *are* gay, Low Church, Evangelical Anglicans.] ======== [98-3-3] ARCHBISHOP VISITS CALGARY CHAPTER by Jim Picken The Calgary chapter of Integrity could easily be described as "the ecumenical chapter". In the absence of a local MCC or Dignity, we are *the* Christian presence in the lesbigay community, and feel a sense of responsibility about that. We count among our members Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Alliance and United Church people. Interestingly, they would mostly call themselves "former", and would count Integrity as their church. It is then Anglican members who continue to be very active in their mainstream parish life. With this context, you might imagine that the visit of Archbishop Barry Curtis would be met with a yawn in most quarters. We were pleasantly surprised that his visit called forth our largest attendance to date: 30 people, of whom eight were women. +Barry presided at the eucharist, and spoke engagingly on the scriptures. His style was accessible and informal. He spoke about moving through past hurts. His examples, taken from the church's paternalistic relationships with our aboriginal people, could clearly be applied to our situation, while at the same time encouraging us to look beyond our own issues.. After the service, the open forum was much appreciated by all I believe that new doors have been opened in our diocese. +Barry has long had a desire for a real dialogue between those who want no change and those who are urgent for changes in the church's teaching and practice concerning homosexuality. I believe that in our group he saw an equally strong desire for dialogue, and a mature ability to deal with disagreement. WE are now in the process of forming a dialogue group to begin the task. Pray for us! == == == [Author box: Jim Picken is on the executive of Integrity/Calgary, and was part of the Integrity team at General Synod in Montreal] ======== [98-3-4] SYNOD SEEKS BLESSING OF COVENANTED RELATIONSHIPS At the beginning of May, the synod of the diocese of New Westminster met. A motion calling for blessing of same-sex unions came from three parishes: the Cathedral, St Margaret's (Cedar Cottage) and St Paul's (where Integrity/Vancouver meet). After a lengthy and intense debate, this motion passed: BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Synod of the Diocese of New Westminster asks the Bishop to authorize clergy in this diocese to bless covenanted same-sex unions, subject to such conditions as the Bishop deems appropriate The vote was quite close, 179 in favour and 170 opposed. With that close a vote, on a fairly contentious issue, Bishop Michael Ingham withheld his consent. He said that he would present the motion, as passed by his synod, to both the Canadian House of Bishops, and to colleagues at the Lambeth Conference. The House of Bishops met just before General Synod. In open session they affirmed the diocese for what they did, and also affirmed Bishop Ingham's actions. There will be a Council of Advice set up to include a wide spectrum of opinion on how the diocese should proceed. On the recommendation of the House of Bishops, the Council will include three external people, including the bishops of Huron and Edmonton. For further coverage, see "Integrity on the Airwaves", article [98-3-5] below. ======== [98-3-5] A REDIFFUSION OF INTEGRITY + Mid-May saw (or, rather, heard) both of Integrity/Toronto's co- + Conveners on the radio. Bonnie Crawford-Bewley was interviewed for + CBC Radio One's *Tapestry*, in a programme on the relationship + between gays and lesbians and the churches. Chris Ambidge was + interviewed by CBC Radio One morning show hosts on the Wednesday + after the New Westminster diocesan synod's motion calling for + blessing same-sex unions. Sex and religion apparently make for + news: there were ten interviews, from Edmonton and Calgary over to + Charlottetown. [Bonnie went coast-to-coast in a single programme, + Chris had to go national on the instalment plan]. Bonnie's + interview will appear in the next issue of Integrator. Here is the + transcript of Chris' interview on *Metro Morning* on Wednesday 13 May. == == == ANDY BARRIE: The issue of same sex unions is a controversial one for any church. The United Church of Canada recognised homosexual relationships ten years ago, it's still reeling from the bitter debate within the church. Now the Anglicans are dealing with the issue. Last weekend, 80 churches in British Columbia voted to support same-sex unions. Chris Ambidge is a spokesperson for Integrity, a group of gay and lesbian people working for inclusion and justice within the Anglican Church and we've reached him at his home in Toronto. Mr Ambidge, good morning. CHRIS AMBIDGE: Good Morning, Andy. AB: For those of us who are not Anglicans, a little background, political and theological here. What is the attitude of the Anglican church toward homosexuals in general, and same-sex unions in particular as of this moment. CA: It's divided, Andy. There are many people in the Anglican church, and there are wide ranges of opinion. Those of us who are gay and lesbian within the church clearly think that the church should be more accepting and blessing of gay unions, and indeed of our lives in general. There are others who are a little less accepting and who take other viewpoints. The Anglican Church is prepared, I believe, to deal with this issue, and I don't think any of us really want to split the church apart on it. AB: "Blessing Same-Sex unions" -- could you explain what "blessing" means in this context? CA: It's a liturgical recognition; that is, two people standing up and saying "we want to live with each other, we want our faith community to recognise us as a couple, and to receive the church's blessing and their community's blessing on that kind of relationship." AB: Would this however mean that an Anglican priest would perform a marriage between two same-sex... CA: Marriage is a loaded word, and marriage is also an act of the state. We would not be getting "married" *per se*, there would be no marriage certificate because that doesn't exist in Canadian law right now. AB: What exactly is it that these 80 churches in BC then did? How many did not, how representative are they of Anglican churches across the country? CA: What they actually did is ask their bishop to authorise priests within that diocese to bless gay and lesbian unions. The vote was really quite narrow, it was 179 for, and 170 against. In that close a relationship, the bishop is not going to proceed, but rather to going to ask his fellow bishops in Canada, and also at the Lambeth Conference from bishops world-wide what should be done. AB: Now if we're talking world-wide (and this is where my attempt to follow Anglican church politics over the ten years gets confused), of course we know that the Anglican church is unlike the Roman Catholic church for instance, not taking direction from any single individual, [CA: Correct] yet there has been a colossal lack of unanimity about various kinds about what some people would call progressive moves within the church. The church in England, for instance, has been very much less interested in seeing women ordained than the church in Canada. So what would one expect from the global church in this regard? CA: I would imagine that there will be a different range of opinions. There are people in Africa, for instance, or South America, who would take a very dim view of this. However I think that one of the geniuses of Anglicanism is that there are many people who -- we all worship God, but we have different ways of doing it. There will be people in North America who would have very little difficulty with this. As you said, there is no single way in Anglicanism. AB: And therefore, remembering friends of mine in the United Church who left their church, or felt they needed to over the issue of ordination of gay ministers -- an Anglican who strongly disagreed even, lets say, within one of the dioceses of British Columbia, who strongly disagreed with his own particular church's position on this, what would that person be left to do? CA: I would hope that they would not feel that they needed to leave. I think it's important to realise that there are gay and lesbian people within the church who have been receiving exactly that message in the opposite direction. At the moment they're getting the message that the church does not value them particularly highly. As I said, I would hope that someone who feels very strongly would not feel that they *had* to leave. We're all members of the same church, what we believe is -- huge amounts of this is the same, and there's only small parts where we're different. If I can draw an analogy, a train and a car have to share the space of a level crossing, and so there need to be protocols where we don't have a horrible smash in the middle. And generally speaking we can do that, and I hope that the Anglican church can make accommodation so that everyone can feel welcomed within their faith community, within their church. AB: I'm, I'm afraid, getting sort of a mixed message about the quality of that welcome. I understand that the church and that Anglican priests have been for years providing what they call "pastoral care" to gay congregants. You say that they will not be performing marriages, although they're being asked to bless marriages. Are you nevertheless looking at the best of a very definite second-class citizenship for gay members of the Anglican Church? CA: If they're being asked to bless gay unions, that is I believe as much as we can hope for in terms -- that is, there is NO gay "marriage", and that's a secular question. Yes, there certainly is a mixed message that gays and lesbians have been receiving from the Anglican church; there's some kind of second-class citizenship. But I do believe that greater equality is coming; and that's why I continue to work within the Anglican church and why I haven't left in disgust. Because I really do believe that the reception, the welcome that lesbian and gay Christians have within the Anglican communion is increasing; and that's the way it is within our society as a whole. Twenty years ago, it was not at all widely appropriate for someone to be out as a gay or lesbian person; now, certainly within the metropolitan areas, it's very widely accepted, and that's happening within the church as well. AB: Finally, and pardon my ignorance here, I mentioned the ordination of women, but I'm not exactly sure whether it's possible for a gay to be an Anglican priest. CA: Oh there have been gay Anglican priests for centuries. What is considered inappropriate at the moment is for a lesbian or a gay Anglican priest to be in a sexual relationship. There are many gay or lesbian Anglican priests, there have been for quite a while; and the church has been officially accepting of them for at least twenty years. AB: And is that acceptable to you? An Anglican who is a heterosexual can be in a sexual relationship -- one of the things that divides you from Roman Catholics -- Is it acceptable to you in this day and age that an Anglican priest is not expected to be a sexually active being? CA: No it isn't, and I think that needs to change. AB: Thank you for catching us up with this. CA: Thank you very much. AB: Chris Ambidge is a spokesperson for Integrity, a group of gay and lesbian people working for full inclusion and justice within the Anglican church. ======== [98-3-6] IntegriTracts: PAMPHLETS AVAILABLE Integrity had nine pamphlets available at General Synod. Seven were produced by us: 1) Why Do We Stay (Lesbians and Gay Men are *not* leaving the Anglican Church); 2) A Personal Reflection on AIDS; 3) Family Values; 4) Integrity / gay and lesbian Anglicans and friends; 5) A personal experience of Homophobia; 6) Words that make barriers; 7) What the bible *really* says about lesbians and gay men. The other two pamphlets were *Emerging Common Ground* from the Bishop of Toronto's dialogue group, and *Human Sexuality*, the 1997 statement from the House of Bishops. Only two of our six old pamphlets were re-used unchanged, all the rest were re-writes or substantially overhauled. If you would like copies in either paper or electronic form, drop us a note by paper or electronic mail, or visit our website. The addresses are in the masthead. Please note: the Integrity/Toronto website has been thoroughly redesigned and has much exciting new content, including pix from General Synod. Check it out! The URL is: www.kapn.tap.net/integrity ======== [98-3-7] THIS WAS THE YEAR by Sister Thelma-Anne SSJD It is a good thing to make an annual review of one's life, to pray over the events of the past year in order to discern how the Holy Spirit has been at work. Such a review gives us perspective and a sense of direction. Recently, the annual retreat for Integrity, held at St John's Convent, gave participants an opportunity to reflect on what has happened during the past year regarding the status of lesbian and gay folk in church and society, and on the impact of these events on their own lives. Last year's retreat coincided with the *Anglican Journal* 's big story about the House of Bishops' first open session on sexuality, complete with quotations from most of the bishops. It was a retreat marked by distress and anger, but out of it came some good things: a resolve to pray intentionally for our bishops, and my own commitment to write a regular column on prayer and related matters in *Integrator*. That fall, we had the first joint Integrity/Fidelity Eucharist, an event which some of us approached with apprehension. It turned out to be a profoundly moving experience. It was an act of courage and faith, a step into the unknown. There was a real sense of "putting one's hand into the hand of God." During the year, the pamphlet, *Emerging Common Ground*, was published by the Bishop's Dialogue Group, the result of three years of intense, honest and -- I am sure -- often difficult interaction. This document was a landmark and a sign of hope. Many responses came from people weary of the unrelieved, hostile confrontation which has become so typical of this debate. At the invitation of the US-based magazine *The Witness*, Chris Ambidge wrote an article which appeared in their May 1998 issue. This was the year the House of Bishops issued its new guidelines -- not everything we had hoped for, but very different in tone from its predecessor of 1979, and marked by a commitment to continue the dialogue. This was the year in which the government of British Columbia introduced legislation to make separation laws applicable to same-sex couples; and, to their everlasting credit, the bishops of the Province of British Columbia publicly supported the move. It was also the year that the Supreme Court of Canada handed down a favourable judgement in the Vriend case and instructed a reluctant Alberta government to read into its statutes protection against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. When it was suggested that the provincial government invoke the "Notwithstanding" clause to sidestep the court's decision, the bishops of Alberta wrote the government urging that they let the ruling stand. This was the year that the Synod of the Diocese of New Westminster voted in favour of the blessing on same-sex unions. Bishop Ingham judged the vote to be too close to give his approval, but promised to take the topic to General Synod and to Lambeth. When we consider that, only a short time ago, such a vote would have been unthinkable, we realise how far we have come. And this was the year of General Synod, from which some of us have recently returned. We saw the defeat of the resolution on human rights by a 16 - 19 vote by the bishops, after passage by both clergy and laity. And we saw the resolution presented in its place soundly defeated both from the left and from the right. It was a night of gloom, anger, and profound disappointment. And then night was followed by dawn, the death of hope by a most amazing resurrection -- a turn of events so characteristic of divine activity. A resolution with the intent to throw the church back on the 1979 guidelines was transformed by amendment into one, passed by a large majority, calling for ongoing dialogue on the blessing of same- sex unions. And the Primate, in his closing reflections, reminded Synod that what goes on the agenda is the Primate's decision, and promised that the human rights dialogue would not get lost. In making a review of our lives, we tend to concentrate on areas in which we have fallen short. However, this is only one focus, and by itself it is not only depressing but misleading. We need also to count our blessings. A very positive and powerful way of reviewing our life is to write our "blessed history", deliberately recalling and giving thanks for the ways in which God has been active in our lives over a specific period of time. I would invite us to review that past year in terms of its blessings, both in our individual lives and in the life of the lesbian/gay community. Another outcome of a review of life is to make resolutions. The most challenging resolution I could make is to keep reminding myself to see each person, and especially the one who differs from me, as (in the words of an Integrity member) "the beloved of the Beloved." Let us, then, as we pray over the past year, give praise for all the blessings we have received and commit ourselves to the journey ahead, putting our hand into the hand of God. === end of text === End of volume 98-3 of Integrator, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto copyright 1998 Integrity/Toronto comments please to Chris Ambidge, Editor chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca OR Integrity/Toronto Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON Canada M4Y 2N9 -- -- Chris Ambidge Integrity/Toronto www.kapn.tap.net/integrity chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca / ambidge@chem-eng.utoronto.ca