Note 62 (of 92) by MICHAEL INGHAM on June 8, 1995 at 08:07 Eastern (6786
characters).

Well, today was an agonising day, the most emotionally difficult day of the
Synod so far.

This afternoon the resolutions from the Homosexuality Task Force came to
the floor for debate. This is the Task Force created after the Toronto '92
General Synod which had designed a study called "Hearing Diverse Voices;
Seeking Common Ground." After processing the feedback from the study, the
Task Force made several recommendations, including the need for further
study, continuing dialogue, and condemnation of bigotry and violence.

These were presented in the form of separate resolutions, to my mind
innocuous and neutral. But the first resolution triggered an enormous
conflict which lasted almost four hours.

It read (as proposed):
    That this General Synod affirms the presence and
    contributions of gay and lesbian Christians in the
    life of the church and condemns bigotry, violence and
    hatred directed toward any due to their sexual orientation.

The discussion started lightly. After the first presentation, few came
forward to speak and it appeared to be a routine motion which would pass
without remark. But the first amendment was intended to be friendly -
deleting the word "Christians" and rewording as "gay men and lesbians" etc.
- and then the floodgates opened.

It became clear that the hearing on homosexuality on Monday evening had
indeed been largely boycotted by the traditionalist forces. They were
saving their arguments for the resolutions. The first argument was that the
motion was confusing. It spoke of "orientation" but not "practice." What
exactly was being affirmed? Homosexual presence or homosexual activity? It
was too vague. So an amendment was put to add the words "while not
condoning homosexual behaviour" after the word 'Synod.'

Two hours of debate followed this amendment. This included some of the
worst villification of human beings I have ever heard in the councils of
the church. A priest from Algoma read a statement about gays choosing their
lifestyle, performing indecent acts, lobbying and intimidating the church,
infecting the world with disease - etc. etc. A bishop argued that the issue
was between, in his words, 'justice and righteousness' - apparently
gay people are only concerned with justice but not with righteousness, or
moral purity, and the church has to stand up for the truth.

This amendment was finally defeated. But another was produced. It proposed
to delete all reference to gay and lesbian people and affirm "all" people
in the church, and to change "condemn" to "repent of" - so the church would
not condemn violence and bigotry but repent of it instead.

Two more hours of debate followed. The amendment was presented as a more
inclusive statement, not singling anyone out, not simply condemning wrong
actions but confessing them toward everyone. During the course of this
discussion some powerful and moving stories were told. An archbishop told
of a gay man who before his death called home to speak to his mother, but
the father would not put him through, to her utter incomprehension and
everlasting grief. What role did the church play in that, asked the
archbishop.

A First Nations bishop told of a gay man - non-native - who came to live
among his people and was accepted by them, and died among them, and was
buried among them, and they did not judge him but loved him. A native
priest drew the parallel between the historic rejection of his people and
the treatment of homosexuals. In my culture, he said, someone who is born
different is a gift, a special gift, and we do not judge.

A lay women told a story about her attempts to talk with a young student
here at Carleton University over lunch, a young man who wore a cross round
his neck. Are you a Christian, she asked.  Yes, but I can't go to a church,
he said, I'm gay, you don't want me.

As it became clear the amendment would not succeed, there followed a series
of bizarre and endless procedural reolutions - attempts to defer, to extend
the debate, points of order, calls for voting by orders, attempts to limit
debate, to propose further amendments, to deny further amendments, to hold
a secret vote. We were locked for a long time in procedural wrangles which
occasionally confused the chair and even the legal officers. At one point
we had about three resolutions on the floor, and no one knew what they were
voting on.

But the amendment to delete reference to gay and lesbian people was finally
defeated. The original motion (already amended to remove the word
"Christians") was put to the vote - by orders, on a show of hands - and
passed. By my eyeball count, it passed about 80/20% among the laity, 60/40%
among the clergy, and 80/20% among the bishops.

It took the Anglican Church of Canada four hours to decide whether to
affirm the presence of gay and lesbian people in our church, and to condemn
violence and bigotry against them.

I was glad none of my atheist friends was there to see the church of Jesus
Christ in action.

Other resolutions then followed without strong opposition - agreement to
continue the dialogue and to deepen the study, a call to the bishops to
tell the church what's going on in their house, encouragement to the
Primate to foster continued dialogue in the church.

This last one caused a flurry of comment. The Primate had made his personal
position clear in the Monday night hearing. Some now chose to distance
themselves from him publicly, including a bishop. Others asked whether the
Primate could now encourage genuine dialogue, having come down on one side
of it himself. Finally, the Primate responded by saying he has a mind of
his own, opinions of his own, and at the same time the ability to ensure
fairness for all. No one wants a Primate who can't think for himself.
The motion passed overwhelmingly.

Other things happened today too. But this was a really important moment in
the life of our church. The debate was held, the conflict came out in the
open, the stories were heard, the arguments were weighed, each individual
had opportunity to declare themselves, and the passions were intense and
deep. Nothing of great significance was finally said in the motions that
were passed, but we saw and felt the place the church has come to be in. It
seemed like a kind of litmus test. Though there is much more to come.

And there seemed to be a lot of parties going on tonight, after the late
night session. Diocesan parties, provincial receptions, room huddles and
corridor discussions. There is some relief that this issue is now over for
the time being. Some joy and some sadness in almost everyone.

+ Michael Ingham, Bishop of New Westminster
  Vancouver, BC
  Written on Wed, Jun  7, 1995 at 10:49 pm PDT at General Synod, Ottawa,
  Internet: MICHAEL_INGHAM.parti@ecunet.org