Date: Tue, 31 May 94 9:46:06 EDT From: "Louie Crew" *The Voice of Integrity* Winter 1994 This is an electronic reproduction of The Voice of Integrity, the quarterly publication of Integrity, Inc., the lesbian and gay justice ministry of the Episcopal Church. All materials except those reproduced from other sources are copyrighted by Integrity, Inc. You may reproduce all original material herein if you state "Reproduced from the Winter, 1994 issue of The Voice of Integrity, the quarterly publication of Integrity, Inc., the lesbian and gay justice ministry of the Episcopal Church." Material may not appear exactly as published since some changes were made after the document was transferred to desk top publishing format. We encourage you to join Integrity. We encourage non-Episcopalians and non-lesgay persons to join. If you are a lesbian or gay Episcopalian and don't belong to Integrity, you're benefitting from all our work and we hope you'll strongly consider helping us by joining. Individual annual membership $25, Couple's annual membership $40, Low income/student/sr. citizen $10. Please mail check or money order to Integrity, Inc., P.O. Box 19561, Washington, DC 20036-0561. ******************** Winter 1994 *The Voice of Integrity* Volume 4, Number 1 Published by Integrity, Inc. P.O. Box 19561 Washington, D.C. 20036-0561 Telephone 718-720-3054 Bruce Garner, President Edgar Kim Byham, Publisher R. Scott Helsel, Editor Contributing Editors: Claudia Windal, Louie Crew Paul Woodrum Book Review Editor: Keith McCoy Dorothy Gunn, Production Editorial Office: 201-868-2485 PO Box 5202; NYC, NY 10185 Member Episcopal Communicators Associate Member Gay Lesbian Press Association copyright 1994 ******************** *TABLE OF CONTENTS* House of Bishops Meeting A Chilly Welcome Heats Up The House Awkward Bishops' Meeting Bishops Continue To Search For New Style Of Leadership At Meeting In Panama Openly Gay Deacon Ordained In Pennsylvania Montreal Murder Leaves Legacy: Washed In The Blood Of Martyrs Homophobic Chicago Parish Leaves Church General Theological Seminary Repents (We Hope) Massachusetts And Rhode Island Call For Commitment Rites We Are Republicans, Too! And We Have Friends Who Are Democrats The ABCs Of Gay Bashing National Board Nominations Sought Inherit The Earth: Address by Dr. Louie Crew At The First Integrity National Convention, 1975 Dr. Crew Part Of Major Lawsuit A Divine Sermon: Bruce Garner Preaches At New York Cathedral Ball Violates General Convention Resolution Episcopal Women's Caucus Supports Outcasts in San Joaquin Claudia's Column My Vocation Trinity to Sponsor Ex-Gay Training! Recent EDS Graduate Gay Bashed: Was Near Death In Boston Strategies For Success: Lesbian Coming Out Walt Szymanski Moves To Pittsburgh The Life And Death Of A Gay Priest *Book Reviews* Act Up! Jesus Did Lambda Gray *cc'd* A Letter To The Salvation Army Magazine From Our Production Coordinator A Letter To Share Pro-Gay Bishop Consecrated In Minnesota Bishop Swing: We've Gone About As Far As We Can Go! Barrios Dismissed: Full Story To Come A 100% Heterosexual Texas County An Absence Of Malice And Integrity Following Orders Proposed Amendments To The Bylaws Of Integrity, Inc. Bylaws Ballot President's Column Integrity 20th Anniversary Logo ******************** MEMBERSHIP FORM INTEGRITY, INC. P.O. Box 19561, Washington, DC 20036 I want to share in Integrity's work for justice for lesbians and gay men. Please enter my membership as checked below and begin my subscription to *The Voice of Integrity*. [ ] Individual annual membership $25 [ ] Couple annual membership $40 [ ] Low income/student/sr. citizen $10 Mr./Ms/Miss Mrs./Rev./Dr. __________________________________________ Address _________________________________________________ City _________________________ State ___________________ Phone ________________________ Zip _____________________ Please mail with your check or money order to: INTEGRITY, INC., PO Box 19561, Washington, DC 20036-0561. All contributions tax- deductible to the extent permitted by law. ******************** *FROM THE EDITOR* First, I would like to thank all of our readers who wrote with comments about the new format which was first used in the Fall 1993 issue. All letters received were favorable, with a few readers expressing that either format was acceptable. As you read through this issue, you will notice that there is a lack of photographs. If you have pictures of recent Integrity events please send them to the editorial office. ******************** *LETTERS TO THE EDITOR* Dear Editor, I enjoyed the article "Brooke Cleans Up!" and the photo of Brooke Bushong cleaning up the highways with the Bay Area Career Women (Fall '93). Perhaps your readers would like to know that the Hampton Roads Lesbian and Gay Pride Coalition has adopted the highway which runs just outside Pat Robertson's huge complex in Virginia Beach, VA. Unfortunately, there has been frequent vandalism of their sign and the state has threatened to stop replacing it for them. Ann Carlson *LETTERS: FROM ONE OF OUR CHAPTERS DOWN UNDER* Dear Brothers and Sisters, We of Integrity/Adelaide have been grateful recipients of your newsletter for some time, and would appreciate you continuing to supply it. We have a new postal address and ask you to change your records accordingly: P.O.Box 8001 Hindley Street South Australia 5000 Australia The change of address is only one of the changes happening herein the last two years. We have taken on a formal structure and declared our aims, which was designed to give us the opportunity of being a more prominent force within the Anglican Church in Australia. Our brief on educating the church with regard to gay and lesbian issues began last month with a workshop held specifically for our clergy. This is to be repeated, and probably adopted into the Post Ordination Training program. We feel that we are achieving at last, and obliged to inform you that without the constant messages of hope and support that receiving your newsletter gave us we may never have made it thus far. Yours faithfully, Malcolm Swalling Secretary ******************** *Responses to "Should Change How it Addresses the Clergy?"* Dear Editor: I am writing concerning the article entitled "Should Integrity Change How It Addresses The Clergy?" which appeared in the summer issue of *The Voice of Integrity*. I feel that Integrity should not adopt the forms of title and address that the Committee on the Status of Women of the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church has suggested. It has been said again and again that the church should celebrate diversity and that women bring a special gift to the clergy. By using titles which do not distinguish between men and women we are erasing this special aspect and this special gift. I find it comforting to address a priest who is a women by the title "Mother" and a man by the title "Father." There is a special relationship between a priest and his or her flock. A priest is not a "buddy" but a special person to whom one can go for advice and counsel when the need arises. There must be something there which distinguishes the priest from lay people. That something just does not seem to exist when to go to Mr. Smith or Ms. Doe or to Dick or Jane. Sincerely yours, James A. Tons, Passaic, NJ Sir, I am writing with regard to the proposed changes in forms of address for the clergy. May I offer the viewpoint of an English Anglo- Catholic Priest not yet affected by colonial grammar! It is always incorrect to use "The Reverend Doe" both as a written and a spoken form of address. The title "Reverend" is intended for use with the Christian name, or at least with the initial. Hence, "The Reverend John Doe", or "The Reverend Jane Doe" are correct, as is "The Reverend J. Doe." If the title is to be used without the Christian name or the initial, then the correct designation is "The Reverend Mr./Ms. Doe." It would be correct to use the salutation "Dear Reverend Jane," or "Dear Reverend John"; or, when speaking to say "Reverend Jane," or "Reverend John." However, to an English ear, this sounds like an excerpt from the script of a B Movie western! Far better as a form of written or spoken salutation is the title "Pastor." This is a term used for some time by the Reformed traditions of the Church, and is now increasingly used by our Roman Catholic brethren as the form of address for the Parish Clergy. Here, then, is an English Anglican compromise! Written: The Reverend J./John/Jane Doe Dear Pastor Doe Spoken: Hello, Pastor John/Jane (or Pastor Doe for the more formal) Yours somewhat 'tongue in cheek', The Reverend Derek Palmer Rector, St. George's Episcopal Church, Riviera Beach, FL Dear Editor: It has recently come to my attention that the Executive Council's Committee on the Status of Women has objected to the use of *Mother* as a form of address for female priests, arguing that it "is not an appropriate equivalent to 'Father' because of the very different values and roles assigned to male and female parents in our culture." They recommend instead the use of *Mr./Ms.*, *Reverend*, or *Pastor*. *Pastor* is an appropriate and useful form of address regularly employed by Lutherans and others which we miqht well incorporate into Anglican usage. *Reverend*, on the other hand, is not only bad grammatically but sounds at once pompous and patronizinq. Curiously, *Mr.* or *Ms.* are certainly viewed by our culture as designating roles every bit as dissimilar as those of *Mother* and *Father* - if not more so, since *Mr.* is ultimately derived from "master," and *Ms.* from "mistress"! Both *Mother* and *Father* are terms of endearment coupled with respect indicating a ministry of spiritual nurture while at the same time acknowledging an innate distinction of gender (which no amount of "politically correct" unisex wish projection can ever really abolish.) Indeed, *Mother* as a form of address recognizes and honors the inclusion of the feminine within the presbyterate. Faithfully yours, Kenneth D. Aldrich, Jr. Rector, Trinity Church, Red Bank, NJ Dear Editor: I have very mixed feelings about wanting to join your discussion of appropriate forms of clerical address. This is clearly an issue that falls into the theological category of things indifferent: nothing of importance, in my view, hangs on how the matter is resolved. Mindful of Jesus's warning about titular honorifics throughout the Gospels (Mt. 27:7-12; Mk. 12:38; Lk. 11:43), it's important to keep the whole question in perspective. Now, having said all that, I want to offer "Dame" as an appropriate form of address for women clergy. "Father," while commonly used today in the Episcopal Church, superseded the previously-used forms Mister or Doctor, which are still correct forms of clerical address. It follows that Miss, Ms., Mrs., Madam and the variant Ma'am can all be used in the direct address of women clergy. The underlying problem here is that "Father," while popular today, was unknown in Anglicanism before the 1850s and was copied in any case from Roman Catholic usage. "Father" makes sense as a form of address only in a patriarchal context. The proposed use of "Mother" attempts to identify an equivalent substitute, leaving the question of context unchallenged and unchanged. "Dame," on the other hand, has no particular resonance in patriarchy, but it has been associated in England both with women religious and with women of rank and authority for hundreds of years. Dame Julian of Norwich and Dame Hilda of Whitby both come readily to mind. "Dame" is also used of women admitted to orders of knighthood, which may be, finally, an argument against its use in the United States. "Dame" may just be too foreign and class-bound. The vast majority of (ordained) Christian ministers in the United States are addressed as "Reverend" or "Pastor." Though I was taught differently, frequency of use in the case of "Reverend" may now determine appropriateness. To hold otherwise constitutes the kind of purism, as Jacques Barzun said in another context, that "haggles over trifles and refuses to acknowledge when errors or confusions no longer matter." Sincerely yours, (The Rev.) Reginald G. Blaxton Washington, DC Dear Sir; I read in your last newsletter with disgust of the tempest in a teapot being waged over the question of clerical titles. Women have what they wanted, at great cost to the Church. If the sensible and logical title (God forbid that we should ever be logical or sensible, and most certainly not simultaneously) for a male priest is "Father," the head of a famlly, then the logical and sensible title for a female priest is "MOTHER"! If women don't like the title, they shouldn't get ordained, at least not in this Church. The argument that "Mother" connotes sexuality is really zany. Are we to believe that Miss, Mrs., or Ms. do NOT indicate gender? News to me! Maybe I've been missing something all these years. Otherwise, keep up the good work and zap it to EURRR and the Synod! Very truly yours, Robert F. Dorum Poughkeepsie, NY P.S. Why don't you provide a place for gift memberships in your renewal applications? Who knows, we might pick up a few new members or at least get more publicity that way. Of course we don't want to get too large too fast. Might be like the Roman Empire, which got real big and then collapsed! Dear Editor: As a member of Integrity and long-time ordained (1955), I have decided that it is a must to comment on "how to address the clergy." During college I became a convert from "prot" to raving "anglo-catholic." For many years I was deeply attached to the title "Father," but have mellowed on that someway since the 60's. I think the best direct address is to use a person's name -- for me, Alden. Since we have women ordained, it seems least sexist to use the title "Pastor" as other groups do. In being formal I find that many people are uneasy in addressing ordained without some title. The statement that objections to "Reverend" reflects an upper class bias... etc., is utter stupidity and absolutely a haughty reverse snobbery from my point of view. "Reverend" as direct address STINKS and is a denigrating usage! PAX... Alden Franklin, Cathedral Church of St. Paul, San Diego *MORE SAINTS IN ONTARIO* Dear Scott: On my way to lead three workshops at an AIDS Awareness conference in Timmins, ON, I took the day's mail, including the Fall issue, along with me. Chris Ambridge's "I sing a song..." served as the moving closing for all three workshops. What a wonderfully affirming piece! How characteristic of the magazine and of Integrity! May God richly bless all of us in our efforts. In Christ, (The Rev.) Bruce Duncan Rector, St. Luke's Anglican Church, Hornepayne, Ontario ******************** *House of Bishops Meeting* A CHILLY WELCOME HEATS UP THE HOUSE by Scott Helsel Integrity's presence at the interim meeting of the House of Bishops in Panama caused controversy at the outset of the meeting. Fred Ellis, Integrity's Director of Development, and I, as Executive Secretary (and editor of this journal), went to Panama City to cover the meetings. Several members of the House were apparently not happy about having lay Integrity members present. Early on Friday (the first day of the meeting), the Presiding Bishop and Bishop Hulsey (Northwest Texas and chair of the Kanuga Planning Committee) called Fred and me to meet with them. At the meeting we were told that a mistake had been made in approving Integrity reception scheduled for Saturday evening. Somehow, this reception was going to destroy the camaraderie of the House! (The fact that Integrity had several times in past years sponsored such receptions at House of Bishops meetings without destroying the House seems to have been overlooked.) While excuses were made, and Church Center personnel named and blamed for approving the reception, misinformation was spreading rapidly and unfortunately continued to spread after the meeting by "The Living Church" and "United Voice." Integrity was told that the reception was a violation of an "agreement" among the House of Bishops that no outside interest groups be present during house meetings during this triennium. (No vote was ever taken on this "agreement.") The General Convention Office - responsible for planning and arranging House of Bishops meetings - was not aware that the "agreement" was for the entire triennium nor were many other bishops. Indeed, in setting up the reception, the Integrity representative specifically asked about the openness of the meeting and was assured that the Panama meeting would not be like the Baltimore and Kanuga meetings. During our meeting, Fred Ellis asked, "Are you asking Integrity to cancel our reception?" The Presiding Bishop replied that he didn't think he had the right to cancel the event since we had gone through all of the proper channels in both registering for the meeting and requesting permission to hold a reception and because of the cost of our being there. (Actually, I made Panama a stop-over on a business trip to South America and Fred, as an airline employee, had managed to get there for minimal cost.) INTEGRITY RECEPTION GETS ANNOUNCED and ALL MEDIA EXCLUDED The following day, after a discussion on the status of the Church in Province 9 (Central and South America), Bishop Hulsey addressed the House. Bishop Hulsey's address singled out that Fred and I had mistakenly been registered by the General Convention Office and that Integrity was hosting a reception later that evening. The House was then informed of the "agreement" concerning outside groups [perhaps for the first time?] and told clearly that "no outside groups were invited by the Presiding Bishop or the Kanuga Planning Committee." The same excuses and naming of personnel were then given to all present along with an announcement that the remainder of the sessions in Panama were to be closed to all except bishops and a few invited guests. This excluded all media coverage of the meetings. It was announced that press meetings would be held each day to inform reporters of any issues which the House wished to share. "Episcopal Life" and "Episcopal News Service" staff were shocked at their sudden banishment from all meetings. Once again, the issue of closed meetings came as a surprise even to those at the Church Center whose business it is to keep abreast of such things!. Later, Fred asked Bishop Hulsey why he thought it important only to announce the presence of Integrity representatives and exclude announcing that "United Voice" (journal of Episcopalians United for Revelation, Renewal and Reformation) editor Doug LaBlanc was also present. Bishop Hulsey responded by saying that EURRR was not hosting a reception, and thus there was no purpose served by announcing Doug's attendance at the meeting. RECEPTION A SUCCESS! Thanks to the added publicity for the meeting over 20 bishops and 10 bishops' spouses attended Integrity's reception. The gathering provided Integrity representatives a wonderful opportunity to meet with those bishops in attendance and discuss many issues which are facing the Episcopal Church. Many bishops also had a chance to greet other members of the House in a casual and relaxed atmosphere. Discussions focused on sexuality, of course, but also on racism, the presence of the church in Province 9, the structure of the church and the confusion surrounding Integrity's presence at the meeting. It was clear that the controversy and announcement brought several bishops to the reception, while keeping several others away or at least causing them to run by the reception room on the way to their hotel rooms. ******************** AWKWARD BISHOPS' MEETING An editorial from "The Living Church," October 24, 1993 The interim meeting of the House of Bishops in Panama will be remembered not for what it accomplished, but rather for the glitches which occurred. There was the presence of members of Integrity, the organization of gay and lesbian Episcopalians and their friends, to put on a social reception for bishops. The problem was, the reception was a violation of an agreement among members of the House of Bishops that no outside interest groups be present during house meetings in this triennium. ... The question of whether to permit Integrity to hold its reception became all the more awkward when it was made known that the organization had gone through proper channels to gain permission to put on the reception. Arrangements for meetings of the House of Bishops are made through the General Convention office at the church center. Integrity went through that office in July when it sought approval for its reception in Panama. Permission was granted at that time, but in Panama, the Most Rev. Edmond L. Browning, Presiding bishop, said the General Convention office should have turned down Integrity's request, and didn't do so because the office supervisor was not present when Integrity registered. Because Integrity had followed correct procedure in seeking to be present at the meeting, and because the organization had invested considerable time and money to go to Panama, it was decided to allow the reception to take place. In one sense, it was unfortunate that Integrity was the organization involved in this incident. Those bishops who challenged the wisdom of allowing Integrity to hold its reception will be labeled as homophobic. Media raising the issue probably will be stamped with the same label. But a question needs to be asked: Would the reception have been permitted if it had been sponsored by, say, Episcopal Renewal Ministries, or the Consortium of Endowed Episcopal Parishes? We wonder *Response by Louie Crew* That last question is easy to answer: No one would have even remembered the "agreement that no outside interest groups be present during house meetings in this triennium." And if someone had, the person would have been shushed by reminders that the reception was a private occasion during the bishops' free time, not an intrusion into House deliberations. "The Living Church" should recast its concluding question to get to the heart of the matter: "Would the reception have been permitted if it had been sponsored by, say, EURRR." Ah, yes, that's a much tougher question. But ~The Living Church~ would not dare ask the question that way, because EURRR *was* present in Panama, albeit subtly, in the presence of the reporter "The Living Church" chose to give its account of the events there, namely, Doug LaBlanc, EURRR's major journalist. "The Living Church" counts on its readers who disagree with EURRR not to notice this connection. Why did Bishop Hulsey not name EURRR and Doug as he named Integrity and our ambassadors Scott Helsel and Fred Ellis when he specified Integrity as a disruption, in comments on the floor of the House? Was the objection to our reception just a smoke screen. We offered not to cancel that, but it was the PB who insisted that we proceed, pointing to our expenses. But we would have incurred our travel expenses had we not even hosted a reception. Our main purpose for being in Panama was to cover the House meetings. Our ambassador Scott Helsel, editor of "The Voice of Integrity," had cleared his press credentials with Episcopal News Service well in advance of departure for Panama. We threw in hospitality gratuitously. I agree that "if accredited media are not to be admitted to this meeting, or any church-related gathering, it should be stated clearly well in advance of the date of the event." EURRR's reporter (doubling as "The Living Church's" reporter) and "The Voice of Integrity" reporter were all duly accredited and not told. Given no access to the meetings, Doug LaBlanc had little else to report except his suggestion that we had kept him out. Ironically, it was the few bishops who support EURRR who cut off Integrity's access and hence his and that of the other press. Queer power indeed. Queer, queer. Even strange. ******************** *MORE FROM THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS MEETING* BISHOPS CONTINUE SEARCH FOR NEW STYLE OF LEADERSHIP AT MEETING IN PANAMA By James Solheim and Jeffrey Penn At their annual meeting in Panama, the bishops of the Episcopal Church continued their search for a new style of relating with each other -- and tested that style in reacting to drafts of pastoral teachings on two of the most difficult issues facing the church, racism and sexuality. In moving the house towards its agenda, Presiding Bishop Edmond L. Browning reminded the bishops that since the 1991 General Convention in Phoenix had exposed some deep rifts in the house, the bishops had "made a covenant to be in relationship in a different way." He quoted from a statement at the 1992 special session of the house at the Kanuga Conference Center in North Carolina when the bishops said, "We resolve to define ourselves primarily as a community of prayer, worship and biblical and theological reflection in which to give and receive one another's gifts, and to seek God's will for our lives and our work as the servants of the church." In keeping with the style they developed at Kanuga, the bishops met around 15 small tables for prayer, Bible study and discussion. In an effort to protect the developing sense of community, Browning announced that the planning committee had decided to close even the plenary sessions to staff and the press. SEXUALITY ISSUES CONTINUE TO DIVIDE The same small-group technique was used to approach the sexuality issues. "The committee sought a way to help the church continue the dialogue, rather than draw lines that would divide us," said Bishop Richard Grein of New York, chair of the committee, in discussing its approach. Like the racism issue, Grein said that the bishops were trying to model a new approach in their small groups. "We worked very hard, listened to one another -- and that's what we hope the church will do," he said. In a plenary address to bishops, Dr. Julian Slowinski, a noted sex therapist from Philadelphia, encouraged them to focus on "sexual health, rather than on sexual sins." "The pressure for those in authority to move towards certainty is enormous," Slowinski said. "These times are fraught with issues that tempt us to respond reflexively rather than reflectively," he added. Slowinski said that the Judeo-Christian heritage has received a "legacy of conflicted understanding of our sexual nature." He encouraged the bishops to view the question of sexual ethics from an incarnational approach. "A sexual theology, as opposed to a theology of sexuality, asks the question, `What does our experience as human sexual beings tell us how we are to read the scriptures, interpret the tradition, and attempt to live out the meaning of the Gospel?'" SPEAKING OPENLY ABOUT SEXUALITY Before the bishops adjourned to small-group discussion, Slowinski urged them to speak to one another with the goal of self-understanding. "We as a church and individuals are people who have difficulty speaking frankly ... and clearly about sexual matters," he said. "We were not raised to speak openly about sexuality -- our own, or others. How then can we expect to be able to ... speak openly and plan a pastoral teaching of such importance? In plain American language, how can we understand where we are coming from when we try to talk openly about sexuality?" he asked. In an interview following the small-group discussions, Grein said his committee represented a very broad range of opinion on sexuality issues and operated on a consensus style, even though that required a great deal of patience. "We didn't get bogged down in fighting because we didn't come at the issue from frozen positions," he added. The committee includes six members from the House of Deputies, "the first time we have tried to do a pastoral this way," Grein said. The process seemed to work so well, and the acceptance of the draft by the House of Bishops was so high, that "we will probably do this again," he said. Because the pastoral will go through several more drafts before it goes to the General Convention in Indianapolis, Grein could not be coaxed into revealing any of its contents or whether it will advocate specific church policies. He said that many bishops expressed surprise and relief that the draft was more than they thought possible and "they were quite excited" with the progress towards some consensus. "But we still have a long way to go," Grein warned. BISHOP DISCLOSES THAT HE IS GAY As bishops discussed the draft of the pastoral teaching on sexuality, one development since their meeting in Kanuga last Spring added a new dimension to their common life. In a letter prior to the meeting in Panama, Otis Charles, former bishop of Utah and recently retired dean of Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, disclosed to his colleagues that he is gay. Yet, there was no open or formal response to Charles's letter in Panama. "It is hard to read silence," said Bishop Tom Ray of Northern Michigan, "because you cannot read into what people don't say." However, Ray said that he had heard no negative comments regarding Charles's disclosure. Ray described Charles's disclosure to colleagues as "an historic moment. Our discussion of gay and lesbian issues will be forever changed," Ray said. "No longer will we in the House of Bishops be able to discuss gay and lesbian issues on merely an academic or intellectual level because it is now publicly a part of our own life." "At one level it was helpful because it intensified for us the need to deal with these issues very carefully," said Bishop Sam Hulsey of Northwest Texas regarding Charles's letter. "It encouraged us to take it seriously and to be present with one another." The most direct reference to Charles's announcement came on the final evening of the meeting during tributes to retiring bishops. Following a warm tribute to Charles, Suffragan Bishop Barbara Harris of Massachusetts said, "I want to personally thank you for shedding the sunlight of your reality into this house by opening a long-closed door." BISHOPS LEARN THAT EPISCOPALIANS ARE DEMONSTRATING OPENNESS TO SEXUALITY ISSUES By James Solheim Nearly 20,000 Episcopalians have participated in parish-based discussions on sexuality mandated by the 1991 General Convention in Phoenix -- the so-called A104s/a resolution -- and, based on a preliminary look at questionnaires they filled out, they display some surprisingly open attitudes. Nearly all those who responded, for example, said that one can be a faithful Christian and be divorced or divorced and remarried. Three-quarters said that one can be faithful and live with someone of the opposite sex without marriage and 70 percent said that it is possible to be a sexually active gay or lesbian person and still be a faithful Christian. In a preliminary report he shared at the annual meeting of the House of Bishops in Panama, retired Bishop O'Kelly Whitaker, who chaired the steering committee that facilitated the survey, noted that 75 of the church's 96 domestic dioceses have taken part in the survey, or to put it another way, one percent of the church's communicant membership has participated. The resolution at the 1991 General Convention also mandated that the House of Bishops develop a pastoral teaching on the subject of sexuality, taking into account the findings of Whitaker's committee. A CLIMATE FOR DIALOGUE Whitaker said that his committee worked under "an enormous amount of pressure" in "a highly charged area" in order to "implement a process that opens up a climate for dialogue." Throughout the church, parishioners participated in at least five sessions focused on the subject of the sexuality and the church's teaching. Two resources -- one adapted from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and another developed by Province 7 --were the basis for small-group discussion. Following the series of meetings, participants filled out a questionnaire that was sent through the diocese to Whitaker's committee for tabulation. According to Whitaker, the committee carefully prepared the questionnaire with the help of professionals who were trained to solicit honest, objective responses. Facing almost certain distrust of the process by some in the church, the questions were tested in several dioceses and in training sessions for diocesan leaders. "We knew it wouldn't be easy to move from the debate mode to a conversational one," Whitaker said during an interview at the House of Bishops meeting in Panama. "And we knew that the issues of sexuality are constantly shifting." THE WILLINGNESS TO BE OPEN While the committee attempted to avoid any suggestion that the questionnaire is a "referendum on church policy, theology or legislation," Whitaker said that "there has never been such a sweeping survey of church members." He pointed out that there is nothing "scientific" in the survey and those who responded "do not necessarily constitute a representative sample." When asked what was the biggest surprise in the results, Whitaker answered, "the willingness to be open. The process has helped to de-politicize the issue and to bridge gaps between people," he said. Speaking personally, Whitaker said that he hopes the church can learn to "share differences and learn to live openly, based on our baptismal covenant." While acknowledging that some regulations are necessary for the order of the church, he is convinced that "issues of human sexuality will never be solved by legislation." Although Whitaker's committee presented a preliminary report to the House of Bishops for their consideration in the development of a pastoral teaching, it will continue to receive and evaluate responses from across the church. For example, still to be sifted are a bundle of responses to essay questions in the questionnaire. The committee is charged with presenting a report on the dialogue to the 1994 General Convention in Indianapolis. ----- The articles by James Solheim and Jeffrey Penn appear courtesy of "Episcopal News Service." ******************** *OPENLY GAY DEACON ORDAINED IN PENNSYLVANIA* Despite the presence of about a dozen protesters, the Rev. James B. Robertson, an openly gay man, was ordained to the vocational diaconate at St. Asaph's Episcopal Church in Bala Cynwyd, PA, on October 9, 1993. Robertson has lived in a committed relationship with another man for over 20 years. Speaking at the point in the service where objections may be raised, the Rev. David Moyer, rector of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Rosemont, PA, told the ordaining bishop, the Rt. Rev. Allen L. Bartlett, Jr., that "you will hurt the Diocese of Pennsylvania if you do this." Moyer and four laymen who spoke claimed that the ordination was an "illegal act" that would flout the "discipline of the Church." Bartlett responded that the "compassion of Christ and the compassion of the church encompass both you and what we do here today. I pray that you will come to believe that, too. ... There is no impediment to what we are about to do ... the ordination will proceed." Here is the text of a letter sent by Bishop Bartlett to the clergy of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, regarding his intention to ordain Robertson: October 7, 1993 Dear Sisters and Brothers: God willing, James B. Robertson will be ordained to the vocational diaconate by me on Saturday, October 9, 10:30 am at St. Asaph's, Bala Cynwyd. Because some have raised questions this week, I want to share with you the following information. Mr. Robertson is a graduate of the Diocesan School for the Diaconate and has passed the necessary written and oral examinations administered by that School for those seeking ordination. He has passed the necessary physical and psychological examinations required by the Canons. He has received the endorsement of the Commission on Ministry and the Standing Committee, as well as receiving my approval for ordination. Mr. Robertson has been supported throughout the process by the clergy and lay leadership of his home parish, St. Asaph's, Bala Cynwyd, and more recently, by the parish of Holy Apostles, Penn Wynne, where he has done his fieldwork. Mr. Robertson has been in a stable and committed relationship with another man for more than 20 years, and has been discreet but honest about this from the outset of his discernment. The Standing Committee, the Committee on Ministry, and I do not believe that questions about the sexual orientation of persons seeking holy orders should be addressed in the public arena. Recognizing that sexuality is only part of what makes us whole persons, we believe that it is the responsibility of the authorized diocesan and parish bodies to ascertain that persons seeking ordination are living as faithful Christians in both their personal and professional lives. This ordination will not violate any canon of this diocese or the Episcopal Church. A statement adopted by the Standing Committee and Commission on Ministry when they considered this issue in February 1992, without reference to any individual, is attached. It is our belief, validated by many people in this Diocese, that James B. Robertson has been called by God to ministry as an ordained deacon, and we believe that, with God's help, he will exercise that ministry faithfully and responsibly. Faithfully, Allen L. Bartlett, Jr. Bishop of Pennsylvania The February 1992 statement of the Commission on Ministry and Standing Committee attached to Bartlett's letter reads: Concerning the Discernment of Call and Determination of Fitness of Aspirants to Ministry as Ordained Persons in the Diocese of Pennsylvania: Our practice in the Diocese of Pennsylvania in carrying out our responsibility to assist the Bishop in providing persons for ordination as deacons and priests is to help each person who believes herself/himself called to ministry as an ordained person in the discerning of her/his call and in determining each individual's fitness, physical, intellectual, moral, emotional and spiritual. During this process, all those with specific responsibilities make their own judgements, individually and corporately, on the adequacy of the call and the personal fitness of each individual. In our Anglican tradition this has always been a diocesan responsibility, involving in this Diocese Rectors, Vicars, Vestries and congregational PACM [Parish Advisory Committee on Ministry] Committees, designated members of the Bishop's staff, specially selected professional persons (e.g., physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists), seminaries or other educational institutions, clinical pastoral education, the Commission on Ministry, the Standing Committee, and the Bishop. We intend to continue this way of carrying out the specific directions and intent of Title III, Canons 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Canons of the Episcopal Church. ******************** *MONTREAL MURDER LEAVES LEGACY* *Washed in the Blood of Martyrs* by Kim Byham Toronto, November 15, 1993. It was the funeral of another gay Anglican priest. Almost nine hundred filled St. James Cathedral to standing-room only. Bishop Terence Finlay was in attendance. The service lasted over two hours. Many, if not most, Integrity members have attended such services in recent years. Although not an AIDS death, it was a result of an anti-gay murder which made it unusual but far from unique. What was extraordinary about this funeral service was that the preacher, the Rev. Canon Glenn Pritchard, acknowledged the priest's sexuality, saying, "Being gay is no reason to be murdered. This death is nonsense because it makes no sense." The Rev. Warren Eling, found slain in his rectory on November 10, 1993, was a victim of "the forces of hatred and fear," Pritchard continued. "We are all victims of these dark realities." Eling, 53, was found strangled and bound to a headboard in the rectory of downtown Montreal's St. James the Apostle Church, where he had served for two years. As of late December, the police had not announced any leads in the case. He had served as a curate at the Cathedral in Toronto from 1964 to 1973 and then as rector of various Toronto parishes before moving to Montreal. In his eulogy, Pritchard praised the "devotion, energy, creativity, decency and order Eling brought to the Anglican church and its parishioners." Police say that Eling, unmarried, frequented gay bars in Montreal's west end. The killer stole his wallet, computer, sound system and his car. The car was found abandoned on the Toronto waterfront on November 12. Roger Leclerc, spokesman for Montreal's Committee of Gays and Lesbians Against Violence, told the press that Eling was the 14th gay man slain in a little more than three years in that city and that he is fed up with police inaction about the slayings. "How many bodies will it take before police realize that a problem exists?" he asked. Leclerc said there are too many similarities in many of the killings not to suspect that someone is stalking gays in bars, accompanying them home and killing them. "The manner in which they met their deaths is chillingly similar." In addition to the service in Toronto, there was another equally affirming memorial service for Eling at his parish church in Montreal on November 12. The preacher was The Ven. Peter Hannen, Archdeacon of Montreal. People may never know whether Eling's killing was a case of violence against homosexuals, Hannen told 900 mourners, " ... but in terms of why we're here, it doesn't matter. Such speculations don't change our revulsion at Warren's death, neither should they make any difference to our affirmation of his life. "If this outrages you enough, then there's something you can do. You may want to make common cause with those who will appear before the Quebec Human Rights Commission early next week to demand that something be done about the apparent concerted gay-bashing in our community. "We regard it as monstrous that people should be murdered because they're the wrong religion in Ireland, or the wrong tribe in Africa, or the wrong race somewhere else. So here in Montreal, it is equally monstrous that anyone - be it a beloved colleague and a friend, or even a total stranger - should be done to death, possibly because of his or her actual or alleged sexual orientation." "Warren was the victim of violence and, as a result, so are we all," the archdeacon said. "So let's fight fire with fire." *REACTIONS* BY HIS BISHOP The Rt. Rev. Andrew Hutchison, Bishop of Montreal, said police should "pursue with vigilance any and all evidence that points" to the possibility that Eling's slaying was motivated by a hatred of gay persons. "If ... the speculation is correct that this crime is in some way related to sexual orientation, then we are doubly outraged, for it makes of it not simply a violent crime, but one motivated by hatred," the bishop told reporters in a statement. "This is a threat to the well-being of our community and a terror to a large segment of the population in particular: namely, the gay community," the bishop said. "Regardless of what may have been Father Eling's sexual orientation, he was a good and caring man. His whole life was lived out in profound commitment to challenging the bigotry of a violent world." BY EDITORIAL WRITERS "The Montreal Gazette," November 16, 1993 Crimes of hatred; A coroner should look into killings of gays To their credit, Anglican officials were quick to speak out against anti-gay violence. ... Indeed. A coroner's inquest could help label the killings for what they are. Mr. Ryan should not wait until there is another victim. FROM A RELIGION COLUMNIST by Harvey Shepherd, Columnist for "The Montreal Gazette," November 20, 1993 Living, and dying, with secrets; Redemption still may be found in way murdered Anglican priest had lived public, private lives I heard Rev. Warren Eling preach only once, on what you might call a randomly selected occasion. A few days after Father Eling's brutal murder, I find thinking that my recollection of the sermon, however vague, probably demonstrates what they say about Father Eling's effectiveness as a preacher. The ability to remember the themes of sermons I have heard a year ago is not one of my characteristic talents. In the homily at the funeral service, Archdeacon Peter Hannen of Montreal urged Christians to "let our present suffering be redemptive" and "lead to a new understanding of God's love." The archdeacon also said perhaps only Christians could hope to understand that. At first I thought with some irritation that I certainly didn't understand it, anyway. But later it occurred to me that there may be some redemption here, even in the murderer's brutally dubious accomplishment of making Father Eling's sexuality a public issue as well as killing him. And it is a public issue today, if only because of its obvious relevance to the police investigation. Whether or not Father Eling was gay up to 12 days ago, his martyrdom cannot now be thought of without also thinking of the sufferings of homosexuals. That, at least, is how I felt during the funeral service. And if, by any chance, his murderer thought he was in some way attacking or weakening homosexuality, how wrong he was! Father Eling is today a powerful emblem of much that is best in the gay tradition: its frequent delicacy, its hard-won sense of nuance and subtlety, the special holiness of the secrets of our hearts, some of which might be seen by the world around us as sordid. FROM HIS FAMILY A hush fell over the Quebec Human Rights Commission hearing into violence and discrimination against homosexuals when the Rev. James Ferry read the message from Eling's half-brothers and sister-in-law. "Gays and lesbians have faced persecution, beatings and death because of their sexual orientation and they will continue to be victimized as long as we, as a society, continue to turn a blind eye to the realities of this ugliness," said the letter from Ross and Clarke Hopkins and Bettyanne Track Hopkins. "Warren's life requires no validation by us, his friends or the scores of anonymous individuals who reached out to him for pastoral care and received it." The family appealed to the commission for actions that would ensure "that Warren's death was not in vain." "You have been given an opportunity to start the process toward change -- first, by acknowledging once and for all that this kind of hatred exists and, second, by insisting through our legal and educational systems that changes be put in place to end this bias and bigotry. "Society's silent acceptance of persecution has given a segment of society the strength it needs to terrorize and destroy. That silence must end." The family spoke again in a letter handed out at the Toronto Synod on November 19: ... "Warren was a great priest, pure and simple. But we believe that Warren could have made a far greater contribution to the life of the church had he not had to wrestle with its policy on sexual orientation. "Warren was not alone. Many other priests find themselves in a similar dilemma and it's hindering their ministry. "The issue of sexual orientation is one which the College of Bishops must address -- and soon -- for the sake of many. "Bishop Terence Finlay of this diocese and Bishop Andrew Hutchison of Montreal have been of enormous comfort to us during the past week and we thank them for their support and prayers. Their unswerving willingness to deal honestly and openly with the horrible details of Warren's murder was courageous. It is our hope that Bishops Finlay and Hutchison, having been touched so deeply by Warren's life and death, will be the vanguards for change. "If anything positive is to come from Warren's death, let it be *change* -- change in the way society as a whole treats the question of sexual orientation and change in our church's policy on homosexual priests." FROM HIS FORMER BISHOP by the Rt. Rev. Terence Finlay Remarks made to the Synod of the Diocese of Toronto, November 19, 1993 "...this week we mourn the death of a caring, gifted priest who was a victim of the mindless violence that characterizes so much of life today. It has been suggested that this is another tragic example of the negative implications of secrecy concerning sexual orientation. If this be true, then I call upon all of us in the Church to stop this charade. Let us build communities based on understanding and acceptance and work to become honest and trustworthy with one another. Let us make our communities safe places to be open about sexual orientation." FROM AN INTEGRITY MEMBER by Chris Ambidge In a very real sense, the Church killed Warren, by not letting him love openly and celebrating himself; and instead he ended up "frequenting west end bars" (as the "Toronto Globe and Mail" said) and engaging in high-risk sex. Will the church start listening NOW?? Did we have to have a martyr? The sermon at the funeral was great -- Glenn Pritchard spoke about anger. We need to listen to how our silence is doing violence. Three years ago I could not have believed that sermon could be spoken (and the preacher have a job the next day). Yet everyone (including the bishop) thought it was well said. Maybe the church WILL start accepting some of the blame for the violence against lesgays (and all of us, not just extreme cases like Warren). Maybe Warren's death, horrible as it was, will wake some people up. I surely hope so, and there is indeed grounds for hope. FROM A PRIEST/COLUMNIST by the Rev. Tom Harpur, "Toronto Star" Columnist, in the November 21, 1993 issue. Gay priest's murder must prompt Church to ask a hard question Warren Eling was, as everyone who knew him agrees, an exemplary minister and a witty, talented man. The Very Rev. Duncan S. Abraham, Dean of St. James, told me this week that Eling had "a tremendous impact" in all the parishes he served, including St. James. In the service itself, Bishop Terence Finlay, Anglican Bishop of Toronto, described him as a "gifted priest and a good person." In an interview, Hutchison, the Anglican Bishop of Montreal, told me Warren was "a super priest." He never told his parishioners he was gay. In fact, the funeral preacher, Canon Glenn Pritchard, told the mourners that the most common comment from everybody has been, "We thought we knew Warren." He went on to comment, "Perhaps he wasn't free to let us know him." That's precisely the point. Eling was gay and if, as it seems, he was the victim of entrapment by a killer of gays, it's not just our homophobic society in general that has to examine its conscience and take steps to end homophobic hatred and violence. The Christian Church, and the Anglican Church in particular, has some deep soul-searching to do. The current Anglican (and Roman Catholic) rule of ordaining gays but forbidding all expression of gayness is forcing many priests to live double lives. They're compelled to lie and deceive - and to engage in casual sex with all the risks. It involves the church in hypocrisy and the clergy in practices dangerous to their own well-being, spiritually and every other way. As Abraham says: "We drive them to it by our policy." He is convinced, as I am also, that the "only fair and just solution" to the problem is Christian acceptance and "some form of service or rite of affirmation" in which the church could bless the life-long union of any committed same-sex couple wanting it. It's not enough to be outraged over Eling's death. Anglicans must ask themselves the hard question: "Would Warren have been picked up by a killer in a bar (his home had no sign of forced entry) if he had been able to let people know openly who and what he was and to form a fulfilling relationship with one person?" As Pritchard noted in his sermon, Anglicans find it easy to lay the blame for crimes like Eling's murder at "every doorstep but our own." It's time to end the pretence and the silence. What's more, there are homosexuals in every denomination. It would help enormously to combat violence against all gays if more churches would join the real world and face up to this. Today, religion is a major player in reinforcing anti-gay prejudice. FROM A FORMER LOVER by Douglas Chambers, a professor of English at the University of Toronto, in the "Toronto Globe and Mail," December 3, 1993 Priest's death was violent, but not mindless Warren Eling was my first boyfriend more than 30 years ago, and his death has continued to outrage and anger me ever since I first heard about it. My outrage is against the evidence of continuing homophobic violence that it represents: the death throes of a murderous patriarchy wreaking its random vengeance on gays now as it did on women in Montreal five years ago. My anger, though, is for the underlying causes, the causes behind the causes, that led to Warren's death. The police are after the killer, probably a piece of rough trade who picked Warren up in a bar and lured him home to his death. What will they find if they *do* find anyone? A killer, yes, but an agent of something that probably even he does not consciously understand. The Bishop of Toronto has spoken of this as an act of "mindless violence." It is nothing of the kind. This violence, this killing, like the violence in our society generally, is promulgated: by the media, by the state, by the churches themselves. "Hatred is not a family value," read the bumper stickers, but everywhere it is legitimated by the ravings of a popular press now legally prevented from inciting racial hatred (though not sexual hatred) and by Sunday-morning TV. The denunciation of alternative sexuality is the accreditation of violence. It escapes culpability (and the rigors of the human-rights code -- even the law) under the cloak of religion. And such "respectable" denominations as the Anglican Church have done nothing to dissociate themselves from it. A man who urges another to crime is an accessory before the fact, but a church that harries its gay clergy out of the chancel, out of the church itself, is no less guilty. It condemns them to a life devoid of secure loving relationships, one of furtive secrecies, of complicity in the hypocrisy of sexual denial. It is the "final cause" of what happened (and goes on happening in less overt ways) on the night of November 8. Warren Eling left the Diocese of Toronto in the wake of the Jim Ferry case: the case of a priest in a stable and loving relationship who had been "outed" by one of his congregation and, thus, dismissed by his bishop. That case was *Kristalnacht* for any Anglican priest known to be gay, no matter how "respectable." At any moment, the jackboots of denunciation might be at the door. Warren went to Montreal, far from most of his friends and the community he knew, depressed and increasingly desperate -- in the literal sense of "without hope." He went to his death. Was he simply a victim ... or a martyr? One of the great priests of his own church, John Donne, recognized that the line between the two is often difficult to establish. In TS Eliot's "Murder in the Cathedral," one of the murderers tries to persuade the audience that Thomas a Becket was asking for what he got. It's an easy way to avoid looking at the issues. And ours is, after all, a society in which victims of rape are made to feel guilty for inviting their own abuse and victims of poverty for their shiftlessness ... though not, interestingly, victims of heart disease for their diet. Those priests who thought themselves under grace have found themselves condemned by the scribes and pharisees who "bawl allegiance to the law": a law, whether religious or social, that has been prompt in the past to regard all but white male heterosexuals as inferior. It will not do for bishops to deplore the consequences of the hatred -- sexual as well as racial -- that their own churches have promulgated overtly and covertly. The bishops have had a hand in this death. A torrent of denunciatory rhetoric is not a substitute for thoughtful examination of why this "fine priest and good man" is no longer alive, let alone a bishop. I am not one of these Christians, but I can tell vocation when I see it, and many of these clergy -- Warren among them -- are called by something as powerful as their sexuality. But then, so were the apostles, and the only evidence of apostolic relationships that the Gospels provide is one of "special friendship," not heterosexual bliss. John was the "disciple whom Jesus loved," a phrase that would not be misconstrued as passionless (as it has been) if John's name had been Joan. In 1673, Edward King, a promising young priest forced out of England by a ruthless and uncompromising church, was shipwrecked at sea on his way to Ireland. In his memory, Milton wrote the finest elegy in the language, "Lycidas," and he was in no doubt as to the cause of King's death: not the sea, not the wind, not the rock ... but the bishops. "Blind mouths that scarce themselves know how to hold a sheephook," he called them. I wish I could write as powerfully for Warren. ******************** *HOMOPHOBIC CHICAGO PARISH LEAVES CHURCH* by Kim Byham and Louie Crew The Rev. William Beasley, Rector of the Church of the Resurrection in West Chicago, and his wife Anne, the parish's deacon assistant, asked Bishop Frank Griswold of Chicago to release them from their ordination vows because they could "no longer in good conscience" be in communion with the bishop as the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese. The Beasleys said that they made the request because of Griswold's sympathetic stance on the participation of homosexuals in the life and ministry of the diocese. By allegedly reducing biblical authority to an advisory status in order "to sanction the ordination and sustaining in ministry of priests who practice homosexuality," the bishop and the diocese, they charged, have abandoned the church's historic faith and doctrine. In a separate letter, Resurrection's vestry announced they would also disassociate themselves from the diocese. Phone calls from "The Voice of Integrity" to the Beasleys were not returned. The Beasley's claim that the Diocese of Chicago is overly supportive of lesbians and gay men is strange since the diocese is no more supportive today than it was in 1974 when St. James Cathedral hosted the first national Integrity convention and Suffragan Bishop Primo was the celebrant. Ann Beasley was Ann Bales at the time and 14 years old so she should have known full well the stand of the diocese when she sought ordination from Bishop Griswold six years ago. Was it merely a matter of convenience that she held back her reservations when she agreed to join this "evil" diocese? Bishop Primo himself ordained her husband, William George Beasley. Did William George withhold his condemnation of the diocese until after he got ordained? ******************** *GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY REPENTS (WE HOPE)* The Board of Trustees of the General Theological Seminary (GTS) in New York City has agreed to reconsider the seminary's current housing policy that prohibits domestic partner households. The decision, reached at an October 19-20, 1993 meeting, follows a long controversy after a tenured faculty member charged GTS with discrimination on the basis of marital status and sexual orientation. Last June, Dr. Deirdre Good, professor of New Testament at GTS and a member of Integrity/New York, filed a complaint with the New York City Commission on Human Rights when the seminary requested that her female companion vacate their shared apartment. The seminary's housing policy stated that couples must be married "as understood by the Episcopal Church." [See "The Voice of Integrity," Summer and Fall, 1993.] At the board meeting, Trustees consulted a variety of legal opinions, including that of David Beers, Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop. This was followed by a report from Prof. Thomas Breidenthal, chair of the Dean's Advisory Committee on Seminary Housing. Prof. Breidenthal outlined areas of committee consensus which included the need to preserve the Seminary's residential character and to respect the authority of the House of Bishops and General Convention. He also discussed areas in which it had not been possible to reach a consensus. These included proposals to suspend or review the present policy and the suggestion that students must have the written permission of their Bishop or ecclesiastical authority before householding at GTS. Bishop Anderson spoke following the presentations and suggested the possibility that God might be using the Seminary to help the greater church find a way to face these matters squarely. He reiterated a determination to end what he termed a "conspiracy of silence around this issue." To promote further discussion, the Trustees then formed smaller groups to explore a set of questions formulated by Bishop Anderson in an attempt to help bring a theological and moral focus to the deliberations. Trustees later received a number of reports and petitions, including a report from the GTS faculty, a letter signed by faculty members of the Union Theological Seminary in New York and a draft statement signed by nearly 50 GTS students and spouses -- all three calling for a change in the current housing policy. Bishop Craig Anderson, dean and president of GTS, shared with the Trustees his own position on a number of the topics discussed. He acknowledged he had felt the need to withhold his own thoughts on the subject in the interest of keeping conversation open and providing consultative support to the Trustees and others. His intention, he said, was to take a stand without taking sides. On the central underlying question of the nature of homosexuality, he outlined a number of differing perspectives and said he was certain that many of these viewpoints were represented by the Trustees, point to not only a discontinuity of practice but of opinion. He admitted his own struggle with the issues, but said that he had himself come to accept the validity of sexual orientation that does no harm and results in relationships marked by commitment and love, and that he supported the ordination of gay and lesbian persons. The ultimate goal of the Seminary, he said, must be to develop a way of living together that promotes honesty and justice: "I am convinced of the need for time and space to continue dialogue," he continued. Regarding the City of New York, Bishop Anderson reiterated his conviction that the seminary not concede to outside pressure, but continue to work within the structures and teachings of the Church. In suggesting a future policy, he said he supported an approach involving shared responsibility between the seminary and diocesan bishops regarding householding at GTS and that the church's bishops need to be more explicit about their expectations for the students from their individual dioceses. In an executive session, the board of trustees reached a consensus that the present policy needed to be changed. A housing advisory committee will draft a new policy by early December so that trustees will be prepared to act on the measure at their meeting in early January. ----- Based on reports by Bruce Parker, Director of Communication at GTS and "Episcopal News Service." ******************** *DIOCESE OF NEW YORK SUPPORTS DR. GOOD* At its convention on October 23, just after the GTS Trustees met, the Diocese of New York called for the Episcopal Church to end unequal treatment of its employees. A direct outgrowth over the GTS controversy, the resolution was introduced by St. Clement's Church, Manhattan, and was overwhelmingly approved. The resolution calls for its introduction at General Convention in 1994. NONDISCRIMINATION IN THE PROVISION OF BENEFITS BY INSTITUTIONS AFFILIATED WITH THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH @ Resolved, That this 217th Convention of the Diocese of New York adopts the following statement and proposes the same to General Convention: Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the provision of benefits, including housing by seminaries and other institutions affiliated with the Episcopal Church, violates the teachings of the Church regarding the dignity and value of all human beings. EXPLANATION: Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is neither required nor warranted by the 1979 resolution of General Convention regarding the ordination of homosexuals or the 1991 resolution which affirmed the teaching that "physical sexual expression is appropriate only within the lifelong, monogamous unions of husband and wife" (which touches on issues of divorce and infidelity) and "that this Church continue to work to reconcile the discontinuity between this teaching and the experience of many members of this body." ******************** *MASSACHUSETTS AND RHODE ISLAND CALL FOR COMMITMENT RITES* by Kim Byham On Saturday, November 6, the conventions of both the Dioceses of Massachusetts and Rhode Island approved versions of the resolution suggested by the self-appointed "Consultation on the Episcopal Church's celebration of the commitment to life together of gay and lesbian baptized members" which was reported in the last issue of this journal. Rhode Island, in a vote by order, approved the resolution exactly as proposed by the "Consultation": Resolved That the 71st General Convention direct the Standing Liturgical Commission to prepare and present to the 72nd General Convention proposed supplementary rites and ceremonies with commentary, which may be used under the direction of the diocesan bishop by clergy and congregations celebrating the commitment of gay and lesbian members of this church to life together. The Massachusetts resolution, on the other hand, included considerable amendments and represented a marked departure from the proposed format since it merely "urged" its deputies to submit such a resolution. This would make it a "D" resolution (one submitted by any deputy, of which there are hundreds), rather than a "C" resolution (one submitted by a diocese, of which there are usually only about 20). The Massachusetts resolution is as follows (with the language of the "Consultation's" original proposal in bold): Resolved that this 208th Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts urge its deputies to the 71st General Convention of the Episcopal Church, 1994, to submit the following resolution: Resolved, To *direct the Standing Liturgical Commission to prepare and present to the 72nd General Convention proposed supplementary rites and ceremonies, to be used under the direction of the diocesan bishop by clergy and congregations celebrating the commitment of gay and lesbian members of this church to life together*, provided that adoption of this resolution, or subsequent adoption of any such liturgical forms as it envisions, shall not be interpreted as imposing on any minister or this church the obligation of assent to its provisions nor obligation of functioning under them, and further, no minister of this church shall be subject to any censure or inhibition for their conscientious inability to minister its provisions. The resolution was adopted by a vote of 126-91 among lay delegates and 116-42 among clergy. The convention of the Diocese of Massachusetts, the largest diocese in the Episcopal Church, also approved by a vote of 142-82 among lay delegates and 119-39 among clergy a companion resolution: Resolved That this 208th Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts urge its deputies to the 71st General Convention of the Episcopal Church, 1994, to submit the following resolution: Resolved To remove the obstacles to ordination for qualified candidates who are living in committed same-sex relationships. The debate in Rhode Island lasted for about 1 1/2 hours and was highlighted by a mother's plea that her gay son have the right to have a life-long partner. In Massachusetts, the debate lasted about 70 minutes and was frequently acrimonious. At one point, supporters of the two measures tried to cut off all debate and force an early vote. Opponents offered substitute measures opposed to the proposals, and at another point warned that the church was violating its constitution by approving actions illegal under civil law, such as sodomy, which remains illegal in Massachusetts despite that state having a gay rights law. In presenting the resolutions, the Rev. Anne Carroll Fowler, co-chair of the study committee on sexuality and rector of St. John's Church in Jamaica Plain, said, "Out of our work and study have come two powerful conclusions. The first is that God measures human relationships by the presence and activity of love in them, and not by whether or not they unite persons of different sexes. The other is that the church cannot justly bless or celebrate any human relationship while it devalues and denies other relationships in which love is likewise made manifest." "The church's failure to bless and affirm all loving, committed relationships, and its denial of holy orders to persons specifically because they enjoy such relationships, cripples the church's witness to the integrity of all of us, the sexual nature which we have created, and it expression in our relationships with each other," the committee report said. A resolution on the blessing of lesbian and gay couples was first submitted to the Massachusetts diocesan convention in 1987. At that time it was passed only by the clergy, but the convention also responded by forming the committee on human sexuality mentioned above. According to "The Boston Globe," Diocesan Bishop David E. Johnson said afterwards that there will be no immediate change in local practices pending action by the General Convention in 1994. "We will participate in change if adopted by the national church, but we will not do it unilaterally." On the other hand, he had said in his opening address: "Every baptized sister and brother, regardless of race, creed, ethnic back-ground or sexual orientation bears on his or her brow ... the sign of the cross. It is simply wrong when we dismiss each other, separate ourselves from each other." In addition to coverage in "The Globe," the Boston Fox network TV news program at 10 pm on Sunday led with the story. A significant part of the coverage was an interview with a lesbian couple who decided to come to church for the first time in many years after reading about what the convention had done. ----- This story is based in part on an "Episcopal News Service" report. ******************** *WE ARE REPUBLICANS, TOO!* by Kim Byham In the hit play "Angels in America," one of the laugh lines is: "Well, oh boy, a gay Republican!" The character is a Mormon and in the closet so it doesn't seem so strange, but what about an openly gay Episcopal priest, would you expect one of those to be a Republican? Longtime Integrity/New York member, Gerardo Ramirez, was featured in an article on the Log Cabin Club, a national group of gay Republicans (the only organized group of gay Republicans) in "New York Newsday" on November 18, 1993: "'The Uncle Tom Club,' Barney Frank, openly gay (and Democratic) congressman, has called the Log Cabin Club. "The members of the Log Cabin Club of New York City are used to outcast status, what some call their 'double closet.' When Gerardo Ramirez was growing up in Flatbush, he felt isolated and alone, not as a gay person but as a Republican. 'I was the only person in second grade whose parents were voting for Eisenhower,' he says. Now, after a detour as a Democrat and an actor, the Rev. Ramirez is an Episcopal priest and an enthusiastic Log Cabiner. "'We're planning on doing more, since we have new members and we're kind of fired up now,' says Ramirez, who claims 150 members for the New York City club, which does not have its own clubhouse, meeting in members' homes or at the Lesbian and Gay Community Services Center." Another Episcopalian, Tony Brooks, who is related to the late, noted [and gay] Bishop Phillips Brooks of Massachusetts, was also featured in the article: "'You self-hating, Republican jerk,' people said to Tony Brooks when he moved from Philadelphia to take a job in Manhattan. In his new office, every one of his colleagues carefully avoids talking to him about politics, perhaps because they wish, above all, to avoid any violence; Brooks, a Log Cabin member, works as development director of the New York City Gay and Lesbian Antiviolence Project. "'I have less of a problem being gay in the Republican Party,' Brooks says, 'than I do being Republican in the gay community.'" Sound familiar? "Begun in California in 1978 to help defeat a referendum that would have banned gay schoolteachers, Log Cabin has grown to 33 clubs in 22 states, with 8,000 members. Fully a third of its growth has occurred just in the last year, thanks to a single event: the Republican National Convention in Houston. 'There were always gay Republicans,' says Abner Mason, Log Cabin national president. 'But they were either closeted or had no voice; they had no way of making themselves known in the party.' That changed last year, thanks to the two Pats, Robertson and especially Buchanan, who gave an antigay speech that columnist Molly Ivins said must have sounded better in the original German. "'I think I was the only one booing,' recalls Brooks, who was there as a page." ******************** *COMPANY OFFERS COMMITMENT CEREMONY SERVICES* Colours of Pride announces a new service and product line relating to commitment ceremonies for the lesgay community. Through the use of a network of gay- and lesbian-owned businesses throughout the United States and Canada, Colours of Pride will help plan a personalized commitment ceremony that reflects each relationship. Among the services offered are: o summaries by state of laws and regulations concerning same-sex partnerships; o referrals on all ceremony needs including catering floral arranging and honeymoon planning; and o a full line of retail accessories including ceremonial candles, commitment jewelry, and, of course, the same-sex cake topper for you commitment cake. For more Information contact Matt Jiovanni at Colours of Pride, P. O. Box 64, Lyme NH 03768, tel 603-795-2722, fax 603-795- 4201 (call voice first). ******************** *AND WE HAVE FRIENDS WHO ARE DEMOCRATS* by Kim Byham Massachusetts has become the first state in the nation to outlaw discrimination against lesbian and gay students in public schools. The state already has a lesgay rights law that bars discrimination in housing, credit, and employment. The bill that Republican Governor William Weld signed into law on December 10, 1993 affirms that gay and lesbian students have the same rights as their heterosexual school mates. Byron Rushing, the Democratic State Representative from Boston who sponsored the bill in the House, is an active Episcopalian and chairs the Massachusetts deputation to General Convention. At convention in 1994, as he has for the past several conventions, Rushing will be floor coordinator in the House of Deputies for the Consultation, the umbrella group of progressive organizations of which Integrity is a part. The bill passed the State Legislature after an extraordinary lobbying campaign by hundreds of high school students -- gay and lesbian, as well as heterosexual. The law is intended to affirm the rights of openly lesgay students to many rituals of adolescence: to form alliances and clubs, to take a date to the prom, to participate freely in sports. The law will make it easier for gay and lesbian students who suffer harassment and violence -- and who are not protected by school officials -- to bring lawsuits against their schools. "They will have recourse," Rushing told "The New York Times." "They will be able to sue." The lobbying effort involved hundreds of lesgay students who told legislators emotional stories of feeling isolated and afraid at school. They told of being physically threatened, attacked and cursed at in class and in school hallways because of their sexual orientation. Supporters of the bill said the students provided faces to Federal statistics that show an alarming rate of suicide among gay and lesbian youth, as well as a high dropout rate. For their day of lobbying at the State House in October, 150 students were divided into groups, with eight team leaders. Four or five students visited the office of each senator. Thirty students met with a top aide to the powerful State Senate President, William M. Bulger, who had previously opposed the bill. At the time of the meeting, the bill was stalled in the Senate Committee on Steering and Policy, where it had died the previous year. After the meeting with Mr. Bulger, the bill got out of committee. It passed the Senate by a voice vote, with no debate. Mr. Rushing said: "It was very refreshing to see so many young people use the process. It was driven by students, both gay and straight students." The major opponent to the bill was the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. "The ultimate purpose here is to introduce homosexual programs into the public schools," said C. J. Doyle, the group's director. "The homosexual lobby is exploiting public education in an effort to validate homosexual behavior." Rushing responded to that claim in an interview on National Public Radio's "Weekend Edition." "There is nothing in this legislation that is going to give gays and lesbians in public schools any kind of an affirmative position where they then can argue that they have to have courses on gays and lesbians in New England colonial history, something like that." Rushing has long been a supporter of lesgay rights, but had an openly gay opponent in his 1990 reelection bid. "The Boston Globe" of September 24, 1992, reported on the gay Republican phenomenon: "The first Log Cabin Club was formed in ... Massachusetts two years ago, emerging from the failed campaign of Michael Duffy, a gay Republican who challenged state representative Byron Rushing in the 9th Suffolk District. "Gay Republicans were suddenly saying, 'God, there are other gay Republicans,'" recalls [Richard Tafal of Cambridge, president of the Log Cabin Federation, a collection of 26 local gay Republican groups claiming 6,000 members in 14 states.] That campaign caused divisiveness in the gay community - Rushing is a straight, black liberal who has supported gay causes..." ******************** *THE ABCs OF GAY BASHING* Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey spent a week in late October in the United States, lecturing on Anglican identity and hosting a fundraising event at the United Nations for the office of the Anglican observer. The first stop for the Archbishop was the national offices of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) in Chicago, reciprocating a 1988 visit by ELCA Presiding Bishop Herbert Chilstrom to former Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie. Carey spent October 22 visiting staff and discussing ecumenical issues. At a news conference Carey highlighted the agreement already in place between the Church of England and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany that provides for sharing the Eucharist. He also pointed to proposals for a new relationship between Anglicans and the Nordic and Baltic Lutherans. Carey also expressed his appreciation for the dialogue between the ELCA and the Episcopal Church in this country, calling the proposals for full communion a "model of theological clarity." The release of an ELCA study document on sexuality at the same time as his visit was attracting national attention and reporters asked Carey about his church's views on homosexuality. [See below.] Speaking at the closing session of the Anglican Institute's 1993 convention in Colorado Springs on the theme, "The Practice of Anglicanism," Carey said, "We are a roomy church -- let us rejoice in that roominess." He argued that the church was broad enough to embrace conservatives and liberals without abandoning its fundamental teachings. Rather than be dismayed by some of the controversies raging in the church, Carey said that "they are proofs that we reflect Anglicanism at its best." While understanding why gays might feel estranged from the church, Carey offered no hope that they would be welcomed soon in the priesthood. He told of meeting recently with a group of gays in England. "I felt their pain when they said that they felt the church did not accept them as people. I was stirred by the force of their despair and anger." Based on an "Episcopal News Service" release by Jim Solheim ANGLICAN LEADER FROWNS ON HOMOSEXUAL CLERGY from the "Chicago Sun-Times," Saturday, October 23, 1993 by Andrew Herrmann, Staff Writer The Archbishop of Canterbury - spiritual leader for some 2.5 million American Episcopalians - said in Chicago on Friday that he disapproved of homosexuals as clergy and could not "conceive" of church sanction of same-sex marriages. Speaking to reporter, George L. Carey's remarks came as the Episcopal Church prepares to debate these subjects at a national convention next summer in Indianapolis. Carey's power comes through influence rather than command over Episcopalians and the other two dozen worldwide church bodies that make up the 70-million member Anglican Communion. While he said he did not want to "interfere" with decisions made by the American arm, he did say he would speak to Bishop Edmond Browning, the head of the U.S. Episcopal Church, on the two issues. "We believe higher standards of behavior are expected from clergy," Carey said. Clergy, he said, should "model the kind of exemplary Christian lifestyle that we expect." Carey said he did not wish to create a "witch-hunt" atmosphere but said that homosexuals who already are priests should not "indulge in genital activity." As for same-sex marriages, Carey said: "I can't conceive of a marriage on those terms. It seems to me that a marriage is talking about - in the Christian sense - man to woman. "We believe there should be room in our church for homosexuals. We are inclusive churches. But we do not believe that homosexual relationships are on the same level as heterosexual marriages." He said that keeping homosexuals out of the clergy would be difficult and seemed disinclined to pursue it aggressively. "If you've got a single person coming in [asking for the priesthood], why should we focus on their sexuality any more than someone who is a married person? We have to be very sensitive about these human factors," he said. Some Episcopal officials acknowledge that some same-sex marriages already are performed by episcopal clergy and that some clergy are homosexual. Some observers of the Episcopal church are predicting that the summer meeting will be a key moment in its history. Conservatives are threatening to break away from the church if homosexual rights are extended. The church already has lost 1 million members in the last 30 years. Carey was in Chicago to visit officials of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. DR. CREW RESPONDS TO THE ABC October 27, 1993 Most Rev. George Carey Archbishop of Canterbury Gentle Archbishop, As the founder of Integrity, the international lesbian and gay Anglican ministry, and as the elected co-chair of the Diocese of Newark's deputation to General Convention, I urge you to give me specific and public clarification of your the "Sun-Times" report of your visit to Evangelical Lutherans. This report is generating much anguish. Your remarks have the chilling subtext: "You Lutherans and others can say good things about these people all you want, but for me and my house, we will never bless their commitments nor allow them to desecrate holy food." When I posed a question to you before hundreds of lay leaders whom Trinity Church had assembled in Washington, DC in September 1992, you pled for me to be patient as you began to study the plight of lesbian and gay Samaritans, and you stressed that in the interim all of us are welcome at God's Anglican tables. I gave you a copy of my book in which 52 lesbian and gay Anglicans tell their stories. Has this informed your thinking? Lesbians and gays throughout the Anglican Communion have the impression that you have not been in communication with us. I agree. To rectify that, I hope that you will meet with the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement in the United Kingdom and with representatives of Integrity in Canada, Australia, and the United States. Faithfully, Louie Crew THE ABC'S SECRETARY FOR ECUMENICAL AFFAIRS RESPONDS 11 November 1993 Dear Dr. Crew The Archbishop of Canterbury has asked me to thank you for your letter of 27 October and to reply on his behalf. I am afraid that a number of the Archbishop's comments on homosexuality were misquoted. He was keen to point out that in recent months he has had opportunities to meet with homosexual people and is aware of their feelings toward the church. He noted in his response in Chicago to journalists that he was aware that homosexual people often feel that the Church is oppressive and unloving in its attitude to them. He affirmed his commitment to the statement of the House of Bishops of the Church of England "Issues in Sexuality" (sic). This report made it clear that homosexual relationships were not ruled out of court. It did, however, continue to affirm that the Church could not support those who are ordained and of a homosexual orientation, living with a partner. The Archbishop was keen to affirm a real pastoral care for all people of a homosexual orientation, and noted that he continues to struggle further with the question. Yours sincerely, The Rev. Canon Stephen Platten BISHOP YATES ALSO RESPONDS 17 November 1993 Dear Dr Crew I'm afraid your letter addressed to the Archbishop and dated 27 October arrived only recently here at Lambeth, and just at the time when the Archbishop was flying out for an extended visit to Anglican Churches in South East Asia. He will be away until the end of the month. I should guess that the article you refer to in the "Chicago Sun- Times" gave offence mainly because of the phrase in its opening sentence that the Archbishop "disapproved of homosexuals as clergy." No verbatim record of the press conference in question is available here, but one can be quite confident that the Archbishop would not have used those words. Deliberately or otherwise, the phrase is misleading and ambiguous. I am not of course in a position to say exactly how the Archbishop's personal pilgrimage of thought and conviction has been developing over the months and years. He will of course see your letter on his return to this country and may wish to comment on that himself. His public utterances, however, have consistently lined up with the statement published by the Church of England Bishops corporately almost two years ago, in the booklet entitled "Issues in Human Sexuality." I dare say you were already familiar with this statement. [It was reprinted in substantial part in the Summer, 1992 issue of this journal, with comment from many, including Dr. Crew.] Not surprisingly it tends towards caution and a conservative stance, as one might expect. It does not equate homophile relationships with marriage on theological grounds, but entirely accepts the right of homosexual couples acting in good faith to take their place fully within the fellowship of the Church. It accepts similarly the value of homosexual men and women within the ordained ministry, but does not offer to homosexual clergy the same liberty as that given to heterosexual clergy within the institution of marriage. The introduction to this little book expressly disclaims any suggestion that it should be regarded as the last word on the subject, accepting in the spirit of the last Lambeth Conference that there is much study still to be done. It would be futile to pretend that from the point of view of Integrity and similar groups this basic approach to homosexuality does not fall short on several counts. But it would surely be a travesty to identify it with disapproval of homosexuals as clergy. I fear it rather looks as if journalism has rather triumphed over truth once again. Nor is it accurate to suggest that the Archbishop is not in any kind of communication with lesbian and gay people. The pressures on his diary and timetable are such that he has to decline almost every invitation to meet representatives of campaigning groups within the life of the Church here, whatever the issue involved. But only within the last few weeks, for example, he was visiting one of London's main centres ministering to those affected by the HIV virus - not of course exclusively homosexual people, but many of them homosexual. Although I was not there myself I am told there was a very open and personal meeting of hearts and minds. With every blessing and good wish to you in your own work and ministry. Yours sincerely. Rt. Rev. John Yates Bishop of Lambeth Lambeth Palace [signed in his absence by C. D. Goodyear] DR. CREW COMMENTS Bishop Yates is considered by most lesgays as our friend. He chaired the 1979 Board of Social Responsibilities report "Homosexual Relationships: A Contribution to Discussion." He became Bishop of Lambeth (in effect, the Archbishop's chief of staff) in September 1991. Before that, Yates was Bishop of Gloucester. Yates was succeeded as Bishop of Gloucester by Peter Ball, who resigned when charges came to light that he had abused a young novice monk sexually ["VOI," Summer 1993]. Yates' function at Lambeth regarding lesgay issues is viewed largely as "damage control." Few expect him to speak negatively about the Archbishop's position, but it is his job and his inclination to give those comments the best "spin." It should definitely be noted that the Archbishop is disingenuous to suggest that he does not meet with "campaigning groups." He applies this designation capriciously: he has met often, e.g., with groups "campaigning" for the rights of the handicapped; he has met often with groups "campaigning" on both sides of the issue of ordaining women. "Campaigning groups" is his code phrase to identifying those not considered legitimate at any one time; and apparently the Archbishop does not consider lesgays "legitimate," at least, not at the present time. The Archbishop has disguised the visit to AIDS patients as evidence that he meets with lesbians and gays. This is duplicitous, not on the part of Bishop Yates, but on the part of the Archbishop. The Archbishop has never met with the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement in Britain, nor with representatives of any other group of lesbian and gay Christian organizations. JUDGE FOR YOURSELF: EXCERPTS FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRESS CONFERENCE Andrew Herrmann, "Chicago Sun-Times": The Episcopal Church here in the United States next summer is going to debate the issue of human sexuality and the ordination of homosexuals. Where do you stand on those issues? Carey: I stand on those issues, uh, uh, -- if you want to read the House of Bishops report "Issues of Human Sexuality" which is 18 months ago. That is where I stand theologically and [unclear]. If you are not sure what that term amounts to, it is that we believe there should be room in our church for homosexuals. We are inclusive churches. What we've said in that report, that we do not believe that homosexual relationships are on the same level as heterosexual marriage. It also makes it clear that priests who are homosexuals should not indulge in genital activity. That is the mind of the Church of England. Herrmann: How about same-sex marriages? Carey: I cannot conceive of a marriage on those terms. It seems to me that marriage is talking about -- in a strictly Christian sense -- of a marriage of a man to a woman. Herrmann: Will you try to influence the Episcopal Church in this country? Carey: You see the way that the Anglican Communion works that we are a collection, a federation if you like, of autonomous churches. We share in one another's life. It would not be right for me to do that kind of thing. I don't interfere. But rather obviously one can share in the life in terms of keeping careful interest in what is going on and to talk with my fellow archbishops. And of course my relationship with Ed Browning, the Presiding Bishop, is very close indeed. ... And I will be seeing him in a few days time, and I will certainly be talking to him further about this. Michael Hirsley, "Chicago Tribune": Can you explain the vote in Parliament [on ordaining women], and can you speak about the status of I believe these issues, homosexuals as far as ordination in the Church of England? Carey: ... As to the second question, I recommend you read the House of Bishop's report which was on human sexuality, [which sets] what high standards of behavior are expected of the clergy, and that chastity and [unclear] has to be expressed. We have set forward this document which is an instruction document. And we would expect those who are homosexuals to abstain from any form of genital activity. Hirsley: Will they be ordained without any question being asked of their sexual preference? Carey: That's right ... do not make that a major factor in the selection of clergy. Because why should that be if you've got a single person coming in, why should we focus on their sexuality and ignore someone who is a married person? We have to be very sensitive about these human factors. But I repeat our point that in our criteria we look for people who can model the kind of exemplary Christian lifestyle that we expect. ... The whole fundamental point about the Christian life is that we are sinners saved by grace, which can [unclear] there. But we are a very healthy denomination, one in which we are compassionate, and we allow for human weakness and always the possibility of God's redeeming [verb] awfulness and sinfulness. ----- Our thanks to David Skidmore, Communications Officer of the Diocese of Chicago, for this transcript. ******************** *NATIONAL BOARD NOMINATIONS SOUGHT* Nominations are now being sought for the following offices, whose two-year terms will commence October 1, 1994: o President o Secretary o Treasurer o Midwest Regional Vice-President o Northeast Regional Vice-President o Southeastern Regional Vice-President o South Central Regional Vice-President o Western Regional Vice President Nominations must be received by February 15, 1994 and must include the signature of BOTH a nominator and the person seeking office. No particular form is required, simply state: "I hereby nominate ______ for the office of _______, signed ______ " and "I hereby accept nomination for the office of _______, signed _______." Both must be current dues-paid members of Integrity. A questionnaire will be sent to candidates as nominations are received. Those questionnaires must be returned by March 1. Nominations will be announced in the Spring 1994 issue of "The Voice of Integrity." Balloting will occur between May 1 and 30. All nominations must be sent to Dr. James Carson, Chair of the Nominating Committee, at the address below. *Please do not send nominations to Integrity, Inc.'s Washington post office box.* Dr. James Carson 1406 Elmwood Ave. #3E Evanston, IL 60201 (708) 491-1743 ******************** *INHERIT THE EARTH* Address by Dr. Louie Crew at the First Integrity National Convention, 1975 In the joy here yesterday and today, I have been deeply aware of the contrast in setting with that of the place where I first experienced joy in corporate Gay experience. Ten years ago this summer, at 28, I had experienced shared orgasm only eight times, twice in frightened adolescence and six times in drunken adult anonymity. Otherwise I had buried myself teaching in an Anglican boarding school and fattened myself to a fairly safe and superficially jovial 260 pounds of loneliness, which more and more I realized could not long hold back the flood of feelings which I did not know how to handle otherwise. When a 15-year-old student fell in love with me, I knew the dam was going to burst. My Church had taught me that to reciprocate my kind of affection would be sinful, and I knew no other kind. Feeling that I could not be responsible for leading my student into "sin," I fled his love. I knew enough of English literature and of the rumor of the *malade Anglais* to know that England would be an appropriate place in which I could burst out as a sinner, especially after the Wolfenden Report, so I took off to London. But it was in New York City, before I ever got there, that I had the first of a series of revelations that have continued to lighten my darkness through an experience that gave me just an inkling, but a very important one, of what I have felt and heard here at the first national convention of Gay Episcopalians and our friends. About ten of us crowded into a small underground room of a Harlem subway station, all strangers, of diverse races and classes. Even I considered ours a criminal setting, with danger ubiquitous midst the two stalls for standing and maybe three for sitting; but the five minutes we had all been standing there were enough even for me to know that I was safely with my own. We heard silver dime slash the metallic slit. All of us in a body inspected the newcomer meekly, self-effacingly, as only Gay people can in such suspended moments, but no one made the slightest move to leave. The intruder estimated us instantly and blanched, fumbled in his pockets as if for an unneeded exit dime, and rushed from our room. Someone chuckled. Everyone smiled. Then, for what seemed like an eternity, laughter flooded that room, joyfully, not raucously: Happy are the meek, for we will inherit the earth! The verb of our inheritance, if not of our happiness, is in the future tense. We need no prophet to remind us that we have not inherited the earth yet or to tell us who now owns the land promised to us. Like twenty million Moseses we have all been hidden by our mothers in the houses of the ruling homophobes. Most of us here tonight know as much about passing unnoticed and rewarded through the comfortable corridors of Pharaoh's house as we know about body language in our ghettos. Yet tonight, even in this place where our homophobic rulers are wont to come to be oiled with feelings of righteousness, we are meekly gathered as corporate outcasts, not only to celebrate our secret joy, but also to question how best to demand of Pharaoh, "Let our people go!" Anyone risking exposure just by being here is a witness to a major dilemma we Gays and our friends regularly face: can I save myself by continuing to hide among those who would hate me if they knew whom I loved, or must I sell all to begin a tedious 40-year journey across the wilderness with my people, possibly never to see the promised land myself except from afar? From one perspective, our having a potential of twenty million Moseses may be more of a curse than a blessing for our Gay community. The Israelites had trouble enough trying to rally around just one Moses, who had some fairly unambiguous claims to inside information from the Almighty, with twenty million Moseses it often seems easier not to leave Egypt and not to stand together with our more vulnerable sisters and brothers in the brickmaking ghetto. Even in the ghetto itself many of the Moseses seem to treasure their individuality more than they treasure one another. It is as if the Pharaoh of old had acted with better riot training, allowing one group of Israelites to continue making bricks with straw and establishing thereby a hierarchy of the straw and the strawless brickmaker. At the risk of seeming to set yet another rival ideology, I assess our most urgent need as Gay people, and not just as Gay Episcopalians or even just as Gay Christians, to be the need to love one another. Unquestionably we will require the Grace of God, but until we shed our own homophobia learned in the parlors of Pharaoh, and welcome instead rich Gay catholicity, Gay diversity, I see Gay people trapped in Egypt forever. One does not have to give up her individual tastes before being able to welcome as sisters and brothers persons with different tastes. My faith is not very mature if I require about me only those who share or never challenge my beliefs. Yet again and again I pick up in us such insecurities, often used to justify our not supporting a sister or brother Gay in time of need. One person is embarrassed by another's effeminacy. Another of us is embarrassed by a sister or brother's views on the ordination of women. Another person is embarrassed by another Gay person's personality or by her/his social credentials. Surely our masculinity and femininity are variously important to each of us, as are our views on the ordination of women, our individual styles, and our social credentials or our desire to be free of same. But if before we as Gay people will stand by our Gay sisters and brothers we require waiting until our catholicity has become a uniform identity, ideology, style, or whatever, then we will never be blessed of God meekly to inherit the earth. I dream of a time when the catholic needs of the least of these our Gay sisters and brothers will be of more concern to us than they seem now. I look forward to the day when we will be more embarrassed by a Church which shuts up or shuts out our lesbian sisters than we will be embarrassed by those whose views differ from ours on the ordination issue; when we will be embarrassed more by a Church which gives Gay young people no place to meet one another for healthy social and spiritual communion than by a brother who seems prissier than we see ourselves or by a sister who seems more militant than we would like her to be; when we will be embarrassed more by a Church which refuses to support any Gay relationship striving to be responsible than by a Gay couple that seems to us too promiscuous. I look forward to a time when we will be embarrassed more by our pleasure in guilt itself (ooh! I'm so wicked!) than by any one of our sexual experiences that for whatever reason did not meet our expectations. Surely there is much that is wrong about Gay people, much that we will want to change. But as Christians we are right to demand that first we emphasize what is right with us, the Gospel itself, viz., that God loves us ALL as we were made, with our affectional orientations intact! It is perverse to do penance for who we are! >From what does that leave us to be delivered as temptation? The myriads of temptations which face all persons face us, to be less than complete, less than responsible, less than loving. I believe that the Gay community, particularly when we are alone and with friends, is advanced enough to be very honest about some of our internal problems. Only by being secure enough to admit problems are we going to be in a position to effect any solutions. We need a bold honesty, not just the public relations of our homophobic rulers. We also need good sense. I remember in the early sixties bragging to a friend in the NAACP about my refusal to indicate my race in the space provided by the whites at Delaware's chest X-ray center. "Man, you're wrong," he countered; "Black folks have more TB than white folks, and how we gonna persuade white powers to do anything about it if you mess up the statistics?" What about the incidence of VD among us Gays, or of crimes by us, or of neurosis in our community? Of course we are right to counter the stereotypes that we are always diseased and neurotic criminals, but at the same time a minority's oppression is measured precisely by the monopolies of VD, crime, and neuroses the ruling majority thrust upon it. While there is no sexual orientation to disease, crime, or neurosis, there is a sexual orientation to those who control access minorities have to remedies. Gay apologists, for example, are always reminding the public that 85% of all persons in prison for child abuse are heterosexual, but if Gays represent only 5 percent (admittedly a conservative estimate) of the population, then our 15 percent of the child-abusers is three times our share!, regardless of extenuating circumstances. I would bet, too, that we have more than our share of suicides, and I would like to see the nonGay power structure fund studies designed to identify our needs rather than, as in the past, to identify our persons, the better to inflict capricious penalties. It is time for us to alert the homophobic majority to the evil that is institutionalized against Gay persons, demanding from them healthier spaces in which we can grow in this culture. It's time that we spoke honestly about the dangers of their own marrying one of us if they cannot make the world safe for us to know and love ourselves. I confess personally very readily that as night after night I jog through the Georgia summer heat, literally spat upon by children on bicycles, 8-, 10-, 14-year-olds, who shout their obscenities (cocksucker, homo, fag ... ) to the pleasure of their parents on porches, I am often amazed that our Gay retaliatory crime rate is not higher! Our Church, instead of offering support, has mocked our experience of holy Christian relationship, a mockery which affects are defacto excommunication, with no parish in the area willing to welcome us on a par with heterosexual sinners. Of course, if we would just cooperate, acquiesce, keep our mouths shut, and quit trying to integrate our neighborhood, the pressures would cease, as clearly as if we were dead. It is no consolation that the pressures come only when you stand tall; the only alternative, simply not to stand, is a violation of the worst order. And we hear these children innocently venting their parents' homophobia, as we answer the hate calls, often from faraway clergy, and hate mail, typically from colleagues in college English departments across the country, I have learned fresh meaning from the Scriptures, particularly from the Psalms, which to my earlier consciousness in Pharaoh's closets had seemed more or less maudlin, self-pitying, even ghetto-ish. Now it is refreshing, illuminating, to discover that for us as Gays the world really does at least on some major issues polarize into the goodies and the baddies, into us and our enemies. The Psalms and the subversive Gospel narratives (turning out money changers, teasing the powerful, bringing restoration to the profane ... ) are refreshingly free of much that for the powerful passes as sanctimonious, lukewarm moral ambivalence, as in the typical sermon in any liberal parish in America next Sunday. Deliver me, O Lord, from mine enemies! becomes a healing liturgical means of spitting out the homophobic poison fed us as an hourly diet by the rulers of this society. Working for INTEGRITY, I am learning much about our church, with its few oases for Gay persons, and its many deserts. I grow angry watching many of its Gay persons -- women, priests, street queers -- drop quietly into the oblivion of a nervous breakdown, a police arrest, unemployment ... victims of the Church's lovelessness. Often there is no one with whom to share the suffering, no one to whom the protests can be made. Even were we to be free of every homophobe at this moment, we would have years of work to do to remove the institutionalized ways in which we are oppressed into thinking more lowly of ourselves than we ought to think. I have gone to bed restless and bitter, aware that some bishop has just conned me into thinking that he had honored my people merely by taking the time to speak unctuously and ill-informed against us. I have been frustrated by having to apologize for just rage, so that some scared "liberal" won't go running away as from a "screaming sissy" when there is so much that really needs to be screamed about. Praise God for the love and the prayers that Ernest and I have been able to share as we have made it through these nights in each other's arms! For me, before this year it was easy, at least when I thought of the Church, to think that somewhere "out there" a few good persons in power, if only they could be found, are actively working to right these wrongs and bring justice. But I must report, I have not found enough of such persons to give much hope at all, surely not enough for the jobs that must be done. Most people "out there" are jealously fighting to protect whatever power they have, and certainly they have no time to give to the lepers into whom they have made us. It is now my belief that if you want to find healing, love, and strength, you will never find it "out there," but only within yourselves, in the living ministry of the Holy Spirit. I believe that our real liberation comes only as one by one we tap this spiritual energy and then take seriously the commission to tell others about its unconditional availability. I believe that God is calling INTEGRITY to this kind of ministry. Too many persons think the word integrity means "having the respect of the community," but it means, rather, "having all aspects of yourself together as of one piece." Integrity is a prerequisite for health and for strength. Our sexuality is but one of many parts of our own wholeness, but it is a part that we Gay people are systematically taught to deny, detest, or otherwise abuse. I believe that until one has experienced the joy of divine presence in loving sexual union, that person has been deprived of one of the most fulfilling revelations of God. But why then bear this name, Gay, which to many threatens wholeness by seeming to be obsessively sexual and one-dimensional? As soon ask Moses, "Why forfeit your fully secure, multidimensional life with Pharaoh and bear this newly discovered name 'Hebrew'?" Maybe some Gay people ought to stay in Pharaoh's house, at least until they discover the energies our tribe is going to need in the wilderness. Each will know in her own time. As I watch us timidly, meekly, coming together in the very place where we have been outcasts for almost two millennia, I am sensitive to the reality that our very presence here is just cause for hope in the hearts of many of our Gay sisters and brothers who could not possibly, at this time, make the step of being with us. At last the Church has an opportunity to recover the spiritual climate of the Catacombs; at last the despised and the rejected with whom our Lord cavorted most freely have been invited. David, in eating the temple bread, and Christ, in feeding on the Sabbath, demonstrated conclusively that buildings and places do not bring dignity or holiness to persons; persons must bring to buildings and places any dignity or holiness that they can have. Merely by being here we are giving brick and mortar in this, and in other places like it around the world, a long overdue chance to serve our genuine spiritual needs. At present, we are but a small leak in the dam of the Religion of Respectability, a dam perversely making God's love and mercy inaccessible to twenty million Gay Americans for whom Christ died. Our being the small leak in that dam is not merely fortuitous happenstance. In a paraphrase of that most Anglican of insights, "God moves in just such mysterious small leaks true wonders to perform." Our subterfuge of the Religion of Respectability by bringing holiness to this place signals the living ministry of the Holy Spirit. We await impatiently for the flood of true religion, the Religion of *Dis*respectability, as revealed in Christ Jesus, in Whom God so manifest love for ALL persons that Christ was made to suffer the ultimate ignominy of the cross as a ransom for us all. *We will inherit the earth.* ******************** *DR. CREW PART OF MAJOR LAWSUIT* Suit to End Denial of Partner Health Benefits by Rutgers On November 15, 1993, five lesbian and gay Rutgers employees filed suit against the university and the State of New Jersey to obtain the same health coverage that has been routinely given to heterosexual employees for generations. The suit calls for retroactive benefits from 1981, when Rutgers guaranteed an end to discrimination in employment and benefits on the basis of sexual orientation, and for compensatory damages. Joining in the suit as plaintiff is the Rutgers Council of the American Association of University Professors. The American Civil Liberties Union is providing counsel. The five Rutgers employees include one dean, three professors, and an extension agent. Since 1981, Rutgers has had a non-discrimination policy which outlaws discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and on marital status, yet the university continues to deny lesbian and gay employees the same coverage for their family members that heterosexual employees get. In 1991, Governor Florio signed an executive order to halt discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by the State of New Jersey in employment and the provision of benefits. In 1992 the legislature passed and the governor signed into law a bill that bared discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment throughout the state. Yet the New Jersey Division of Pensions, which administers state health benefits, has refused to provide to gay and lesbian state employees the same health benefits provided to heterosexual employees. The President's Select Committee for Lesbian and Gay Concerns of Rutgers University has urged the university to provide the same benefits to lesbian and gay employees as are provided to heterosexual employees since 1988. The university has begun to provide bereavement leave, access to athletic facilities, library borrowing privileges for the "bona fide sole domestic partners" of lesbian and gay employees, and it is planning to open family housing to gay and lesbian graduate students, but it has rejected efforts to extend the single most important employment benefit of all -- health insurance and health care -- to the life partners of lesbian and gay employees. The experience of both private and public employers has shown that the cost of supplying health benefits to gay and lesbian employees' partners is typically less than 1% of the total benefit budget. Another national leader of the lesgay Christian movement is also a participant in the suit. Dr. James D. Anderson has, since 1980, served as the national communications secretary for Presbyterians for Lesbian and Gay Concerns. At Rutgers, he chairs the President's Select Committee for Lesbian and Gay Concerns, as well as the Committee to Advance Our Common Purposes, the university-wide initiative for helping the entire university community to celebrate its diversity, its common purposes, and its multicultural communities and to do away with all forms of prejudice, bigotry, unjust discrimination, and harassment. The plaintiffs hope that this suit will help the university reclaim its commitment to end all forms of illegitimate discrimination at the university and to promote equity for all persons who share the mission and goals of the university. ******************** *A DIVINE SERMON* Bruce Garner Preaches at New York Cathedral I want to extend my thanks to the Dean and staff of the Cathedral for honoring me with the invitation to speak to you this morning. I have long been aware of this wonderful house of God and its ministries. It never occurred to me that I would ever stand in its pulpit. May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be always acceptable in your sight, oh God, our strength, our redeemer, our lover and our friend. The topic this morning, as you know, is People of Exile. So your immediate thought might well be: What's that white middle class guy in a suit (there is one underneath the robe) got to do with people in exile? He doesn't appear to be of color. He doesn't appear to be poor or homeless. He's not female. There's no obvious ethnicity: He doesn't appear to be Asian or Middle Eastern. His speech doesn't seem to reflect foreign origins. (Though some of you *may* consider Atlanta, my home, as somewhat foreign!) So how does he fit? What could he know or have to say about exile? What may or may not be apparent to you is that I am gay. In the secular terms of exile, I'm a faggot, or a homo, or a pervert, or any of a number of epithets used to denote those whose sexual orientation is homosexual. The exile resulting from sexuality is different from other reasons for exile. It isn't necessarily a permanent situation. In fact, for me, whether I am an exile depends on two primary factors: Where I am, and how much someone knows about me. There may even be degrees of exile. I can avoid exile by not telling you about my sexual orientation. You know, don't tell, I won't ask! Whether in the secular world or in the church world, if I do not tell you about my sexual orientation, if I don't come out to you, you are not likely to know I am gay. I can pass. Passing can prevent my exile from you, inasmuch as it doesn't necessarily give you a reason to exile me. And I can assure you, there have been times when I did avoid the exile -- they were mostly in the past, however, and they were directly related to the levels of safety and security I experienced in a given situation. I have reached a point in my life where justice is more important to me than safety and security. So, unless I choose to share what constitutes me -- there is generally no reason for other people or entities to put me in the category of an exile -- there is no reason to cast me out, literally or figuratively. I have, in fact, chosen to be subject to the possibility of exile. I am out of the closet about my sexual orientation and have no intention of ever closing that closet door again. I don't think I could, anyway. I broke the closet door off its hinges when I came out of it a good many years ago. Mindful of that, how does my notion of exile by *location* fit? It cannot be a surprise to anyone that if you are lesbian or gay, where you are in this country and this church determines whether or not you will be exiled or embraced. In this diocese, I feel comfortable in saying I am not an exile or I very likely would not be standing before you. At the opposite extreme would be the diocese of San Joaquin, where I would experience almost total exile -- exile from serving as a lay eucharistic minister, church school teacher, or virtually anything else. There I would find an exile that would prevent even gathering together as part of a lesbian and gay community -- namely Integrity -- even to worship. I would not find a hospitable church home, nor would I likely find a priest who would risk celebrating the eucharist for such a gathering. The spectrum of exile is rather broad. In the dioceses in the state of Texas, I would experience everything from begrudged acceptance to absolute disdain. In Rochester I would be embraced. In West Tennessee: exile -- at least at the level of the episcopacy. There is a lengthy litany of where I am an exile for being gay and where I am not. There's a comparable list for secular locations. In my home diocese of Atlanta, I observe a slightly smaller version of that same spectrum. My parish accepts the gifts I bring without question. Yet other parishes would prefer I didn't darken their doors. My bishop is supportive -- to a point. He has too much of a social conscience to want me in exile. He understands the inclusivity of the Gospel at an intellectual level -- even if the emotional level has not yet caught up. Yet as other gay and lesbian folks seek to explore such issues as ordination, the fences of exile begin to rise. I won't exile you as long as you are not sexually active, i.e., not "practicing," even if it is in a committed relationship. Perhaps even in the *best* of circumstances, exile always remains a possibility lurking just around the corner -- if you are gay. I am very blessed when it comes to the subject of exile. There have been few times when I have been treated as and felt like an exile. Unfortunately one of those times, perhaps the worst, was a few months ago. Deputies, alternates and others from Province IV gathered in one of what will be several pre-convention synods. Among our activities was the small group discussion centered around Bible study. Each table had several lay, several clerical members, and one bishop. They wouldn't allow more than one bishop per table -- must be some kind of message there! The bishop at my table was the bishop of West Tennessee. His disdain and disapproval of me were clearly visible. The simple fact of my presence was distasteful to him. I didn't exist for him as a person, even as a child of God -- despite the covenant we share through baptism and the redeeming blood of Jesus Christ. We are ALL one through the waters of baptism, whether we like it or not. The pain of that exile was very real and made more so by the fact that it had rarely happened before and never with such directness. Just a few months earlier I had basked in the glow of a standing ovation from my own diocese given in reaction to a reflection I had shared with them on family values and sexuality. What a difference. In retrospect, I needed to experience that exile. I had gotten somewhat complacent. Perhaps I had even become jaded, failing to recall the ongoing and very real exile of so many of my sisters and brothers in Christ, within and without this church. I doubt I will ever forget again. Maybe God was trying to gain my attention. Maybe God was helping me recall reality and redirecting me toward being who I am. So, being out can result in being in exile. But *not* being out also results in a form of exile. That exile is from oneself. That exile is from the person God created each of us to be. That exile prevents us from realizing our full potential as children of God. That exile prevents the sharing of what God has given -- a gift kept hidden cannot be given. I remember the Old Testament story of the people of Israel being carried off into a physical exile by the Babylonians. The reason for that exile was that the Israelites were not being faithful as who they were chosen and created to be. Could it have been that the people of Israel were not being the people of God? Exile comes from not being who God created us to be. And, exile may also come as a result of being who God created, but *that* exile is not *of* God. As Christian people, we have no basis, no m