1974 - The Gay Christian - March, April by MCC Churches

..•.:...:.

':-:::.:.'

.;•... ...

'.::'"

. .

-,' t:=r.":r'.•.• -:--. ~l.LLL!Jl1Jl1li1~

•

<» • ".,:. '.

. .' :....

. .,.,

','

.. ::.~:.

. ..

'::

~~".

.• ~~.

...... ,..••.

x....)::!:,.\:;' ,~.~ '. . ,

.~...... ..

f,I,-----+;\>.:'-:

~~~~

~~/{.:~

~ .... .;.,..-- ......•..'.. ":' i.J.-----.-<

<.::-.. .

I-!,.--/.;

'.' .','

:..c.----t.:::.. , ..._

:----I.:.;... ::.;:.

!t;::=::::::J... ... .....

,11--------'-( -. -

... .... lI

"I Dream ... " The Gay Christian VOL.

by Susan Day, Women's Rap Group, MCC New York I DREAM ...

III, No. 1

THE GAY CHRISTIAN: Journal of the Northeast District of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches; published by Metropolitan Community Church of New York. Material in t.his magazine is origina1. unless otherwise credited. Opinions expressed are those of the writers only. Please credit The Gay Christian when reproducing from us. The appearance of any name in this magazine should not be taken as an indication of that person's sexual orientation. Roy Birchard, editor James E. Ricketson, copy and circulation George Buehler, layout Pat Kasaras, cover We welc.ome articles and news about Christians everywhere.

Gay

of a church which has no walls, of a world where everywhere is church; of a congregation in which everyone loves each other, and that's why it's a congregation; of a service in which everyone holds hands and embraces, embr~cing God together then; of prayers spoken when no one is afraid to speak aloud to God, and let their sisters and brothers join in their thoughts; of a world in which we each minister to each other, always; of a God who doesn't have to be male or female, white or black; of a God who isn't only for male or female, old or young, rich or poor, white or black; ... 1 dream of the time ALPHA,

begin which

now to struggle you dream.

Contact Persons For Denominational American

Baptist

Gay Caucus

United

(Gay Catholics

Paul Diederich, Executive Director Room 514 1105 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02215 ~piscopal

of Concern

Universalist

Gay Caucuses

Church

of Christ

Gay Caucus

Rev. William R. Johnson, Co-Ordinator P.O. Box 1250 San Francisco, Calif. 94101 United

United

Methodist

Gay Caucus

Ms. Sandy Szelag 5306 South Hyde Park Blvd. Chicago, Illinois 60637

Presbyterian

Gay Caucus

Rev. David B. Sindt, Co-Ordinator 2217 North Fremont Street Chicago, Illinois 60614

(Gay Friends)

Rev. Ronald Mattson, Executive 3208 Portland Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55407 Unitarian

that of

Troy Stokes, Co-Ordinator 2355 Austin HWy. #68 San Antonio, Texas 78218

Gay Caucus

John Preston, Co-Ordinator Box 3592 Upper Nicollet Station Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 Committee

toward

God.

Rev. Frank Robertson All Soul's Unitarian Church 16th and Harvard, N.W. Washington, D.C.

Ms. Louise Rose, President Apt. A-405 649 South Henderson Road King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 DIGNITY/National

I'll be one with

Secretary Prepared by: The Council on Religion and the Homosexual Suite 421 83 McAllister San Francisco, Calif. 94102 Phone: (415) 863-2295

2 szz:t.

Come In And Out The Closet I SAT ON THE BED in my room having just finished reading A Man Called Peter. I was sixteen and the book spoke clearly to the central question I was asking those days, "What do I want to do with my life?" My Presbyterian family and the church we regularly attended had taught me a formula for figuring out God's will for my life. In those restless days I had been trying to apply that formula, fully believing that God would speak through the process as I identified areas in which he had given me skills and interests, and areas of life in which there was human need. I began to pray as I so often did in those days, and as I did the various settings and relationships of my life flashed before me. The greatest moments of joy were those in which I worked and studied with some of the other kids and adults in my congregation. Dating my steady boyfriend, going to ballgames and singing with friends in the chorus were fun, but the most meaningful times were those when I worked with inner-city children in the summer recreation program or taught second-graders on Sunday morning or led Bible study and worship at day camp. That night it all came together, and I knew that God was "calling me to full-time church work." I gave thanks as the restlessness gave way to a deep calm that was counterbalanced by the energy and excitement of my clear commitment. It all seemed to simple then. Twenty years, three degrees, eight jobs, and three lovers later, I am still doing "full-time church work." By most standards, I am quite successful in my profession, and I find it extremely exciting and satisfying. However, during the past two years the restlessness has returned and I am again looking for answers to the central question, "What should I do with my life?" The question is prompted anew by my growing awareness of myself as a lesbian and by the increased awareness of the oppression of our society toward persons who love persons of their own sex. The search for clarity about my sexuality was a struggle, and I found very little help from the church as I pursued that search. However, I was able to move to a very positive understanding of myself as a Christian, a woman, and a lesbian. I am pleased with the quality of the relationships I have with other people, the friendships with men and women and the intimate relationships with

women. I am still learning and growing in these relationships, and I am quite comfortable about that. The restlessness comes from my discomfort at having to hide the direction of my sexual preference. The problems are many, and many of the problems are subtle. The image of being "in the closet" which gay people use to describe the hiding of our homosexuality, is one I find helpful. The opposite of being in the closet is "coming out." I see several levels of coming out that are important for gay Christians who value being in (working in) the institutional church. Each level has its own assets and liabilities. The first level is "I'm in the closet, but even I don't know it." I have met quite a few of these people in the church. I was there myself for a short time. People at this level do not consider sexual relationships with persons of their own sex to be an option for them. Their religious faith and their society reinforce this assumption. They therefore choose one of two options. Some relate to and often marry persons of the opposite sex and play the socially, religiously prescribed roles of heterosexuals. They ignore the problems presented by their pretend-life, or they are overwhelmed by them and use some form of escapism, such as overwork or alcoholism. The church has many helpful little quotes to help them carry off their games: "my cross to bear," "no marriage is perfect," "more blessed to give," "the spiritual life is what really counts," etc. Other people at this level reject both heterosexual and homosexual relationships and affirm celibacy. In no way do I imply that all or most celibate people are closeted homosexuals. They are not! But those persons who do prefer their own sex but are not aware of it are often pretty comfortable with their choice of celibacy. It is a meaningful choice for a life of giving to others. The self-denial is relatively painless as long as there are causes to give oneself to and as long as a homosexual relationship is not consciously considered an option. Frequently, however, it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore feelings that are aroused by a close friendship with a person of the same sex. As society becomes more tolerant of homosexuality and as more gay people come out

publicly, difficult

one's own homosexuality to ignore.

is more

Another problem that arises among persons who are in the closet but don't know it is a certain amount of confusion about relationships. On several occasions persons at this level of awareness have talked to me about problems they are having with their "best friend." They cannot understand certain conflicts and tensions that arise without any identifiable cause. In several of these instances it has appeared to me that the two persons were in love with each other and the tension came from their ignoring or denying the true nature of their love. After several such puzzling experiences one often decides that she or he is just not capable of close relationships. The fact is such persons are not capable of playing "friends" when they are reaLl.y lovers. Many people, however, appear to function happily and productively at this level. The second level is "I'm in the closet with my lover, but nobody will ever know." At this level, the person knows that he or she is gay and is acting out that sexual preference in ways that are consistent with his/her own morality. There is life at home and life at the office--two totally different worlds. At home there are all the adjustments and responsibilities and joys of any healthy intimate relationship. Outside the home--at work, at parties, at church, with parents and siblings--the hetero game is played. To most people the couple is just sharing living space to cut down on expenses. After several years some people may suspect there is more to the relationship than convenience, but friends choose to ignore it and others gossip about it far from the ear of the couple. If the lovers are male, it is prudent to get s~parate apartments for appearance sake. Women get by with a bit more since they are pitied old maids rather than glamorous bachelors. Helpful friends never give up seeking to play cupid, and real estate brokers and banks are reluctant to let the couple buy property jointly, since everyone knows one of them is likely to find "the right man (or woman)" and get married any day. Nevertheless, strong couples can survive the double life. One becomes very creative at playing the hetero game. At times it is even fun--at times. But this constant denial usually takes its toll on the relationship. If everyone around you tells you that you ought to be something else, and you pretend most of the time, it is hard to remember that you are a person of worth just as you are. It even gets hard to remember that the secret love you share is indeed a beautiful creation of God. Maintaining this double life becomes even more precarious if the consciousness of one of the partners. changes, and she or he begins to feel responsible to come out, at least with family and close friends. It is of course impossible to come out and respect the privacy of your lover. This situation frequently leads to a moral dilemma for gay Christians who have a strong sense of social responsibility and a strong commitment to a lover.

Another frustration that is experienced at this level comes from the inability to share with friends and family something as beautiful and important as a primary love relationship. People just like to share the good things of life with people they love. This level of Dpenness denies that possibility. There are some distinct advantages to choosing this level of openness, however. If the couple can function in the double life, and if their relationship can survive the pressures of constant role playing, they are spared direct attack and condemnation from family, friends, and business associates. More significantly, they have many more vocational options open to them, especially in the church. The gay minister who is married to a person of the opposite sex for cover can move into almost any church profession. Single closeted males have more limited options, since local churches often insist on married men in the pulpit. Women, straight or gay, married or single, experience equal discrimination when they seek positions as senior ministers of congregations. However, except for the position of preaching minister, closeted lesbians and male homosexuals can secure almost any position in the church. Many gay people choose this level of openness because they feel their work is important to the church, and they are willing to tolerate the church's intolerance in order to do the work to which God has called them. The third level of openness is "Only my best friends know I'm out of the closet." This level has the advantages of the greater vocational freedom and the freedom to share this important aspect of life with a supportive community of friends and family. Role playing isn't so bad when it is only done with people who don't matter that much anyway. This level seems like the best of both worlds, except that there is always that haunting possibility that a close friend will prove to be not so close, and the information can then be used against the gay person to endanger her/his job. Another problem with this level of openness is that a little openness seems to whet the appetite for more. Once the person tastes the joys of being honest and free about his/her true self, it becomes increasingly difficult and ridiculous to fake it. It almost seems that you are insulting the people you refuse to tell. Perhaps the most difficult problem with this level is the conflict in social responsibility. The gay Christian who works in a church profession to increase the love of people for God and neighbor has a hard time restraining him/herself from working actively for the liberation of gay people. Part of working for that liberation is coming out publicly. I firmly believe that if all gay Christians came out publicly at the same time the church would have to accept us. There are just too many good Christian people who are gay for the church to deny us. But in the meantime, any single gay Christian who comes out can be sure that she or he will be denied the right to work in a church profession. Again the moral dilemma.

occasional pittance to do consciousnessraising among l~Deral straight Christians. I know of two such positions for professional gay people. But who wants to be a professional gay person? Or a professional woman, or a professional black? Why must our total identity be defined in terms of our sex~aLi~y if we are gay? At this point in my lif0 I am not willing to pay that price, thouS~ I am extremely grateful to my co uraqe ou s gay sisters and brothers who have paid the price to work for my liberation. The day may come when I have to join them out of conscience, and I will regret that, becaUS2 the church will be denied the main skills I have, and I will be denied my God-given right to serve as I feel called to do.

I have chosen this level of openness because I believe my job in the church is important, but I know that if I came out publicly now I would be denied the opportunity to serve the church. At best I might be permitted to serve an all-gay congregation in an all-gay denomination. That seems to be a significant way to serve, but it does not see-m to be the place I can make my best contribution. So I stay closeted to the public, and I wonder how much longer I can tolerate the intolerance. The fourth level of openness is "I'm out of the closet and I want everyone to know." Such freedom! The person at this level is risking everything to follow her/his conscience. She/he is affirming the Godgiven direction of his/her sexuality. There are opportunities to work openly for the liberation of gay people as well as all other people.

To other gay Christians who are asking the question, "What should I do with my life?" I suggest that you consider each of these levels carefully, weighing the assets and liabilities of each. ~nd remember, at this time in the church, we can come out, but once out, we can't go back in the closet again.

But where will this open gay person get a job? Not in any of the mainline denominations unless he/she is lucky enough to be paid an

'7k ~

(Ut, 94tf ~ e.tJhtt-fuuH tk.4e

fuuH

~ Me ~

fuuH ~~,

tJdted eu ~

4Hd-t&.

elf, ~

94tf."

Gay Prisoners by Harvey Alter The degree of humaneness exhibited in a prison system is directly proportional to the degree to which the society that supports that institution has become civilized; so said Dostoevsky in his novel, The House of the Dead. If he is correct, then our nation's prison system constitutes a searing indictment of our assumption that our society is basically humane and just. And it allows us to sense the very real brutality and injustice that is hidden from the casual observer of American society by a thin veneer of mythology about American traditions of fair play and compassion for those who are down and out. My personal, first-hand experiences with the American prison system seem to support Dostoevsky's contention, for it indeed appears that the social dynamics which characterize our society are present in an intensified state in prison populations and in the administrative policies and attitudes of those institutions. The complexities that surround those basic social dynamics--usually camouflaging them--are stripped away by the existential realities of a system of human incarceration, thus revealing the, true nature of the dynamics, along with their frequent accompanying horrors.

society and therefore has to be isolated, punished, and more recently, "cured" of whatever constitutes deviance. For the gay prisoner, his or her "sin" is just being different in terms of sexual orientation. Therefore, when an inmate is identified or labelled as being gay, he or she suffers double jeopardy--for the crime that resulted in incarceration, and for the "crime" of being gay. The punishment inflicted on gay prisoners comes from two directions: from the administration, and--to a lesser extent--from those

This phenomenon is strikingly exemplified by the homophobic nature of the prison system, a nature embracing inmates and prison administration alike. Our society tends to equate social deviance with criminality, especially sexual deviance. The popular reaction to the problem of social deviance is that the person so labelled is one who cannot or will not ~bscribe to some of the norms and mores of

fellow-inmates who are not labelled as being gay. The oppression resulting from these two sources is interlocking and mutually supporting, although the greater part of the responsibility lies with the administration solely because it is in a position to change the situation. Instead, it simply reflects an intensified version of society's homophobic bigotry, ignorance, and hatred of gay people.

basic human need--the straight prisoner searches for some sort of substitute, and that search oftentimes culminates in establishing "power trips" over his fellows. The oppression of gay prisoners provides a convenient means of satisfying this psychological need for assertion of power. ("I may be a criminal, but at least I'm not one of those dirty faggots!")

A few examples of gay oppression prison system are in order:

This intense manifestation of homophobia can be a boon to those individuals and organizations trying to determine how to effectively address themselves to its nature and dynamics on the outside. By carefully examining these dynamics in a prison environment, one can effectively extrapolate one's findings in order to recognize their presence and extent in the wider community. Thus what would effectively reduce homophobia in theprison system could probably be constructively implemented on the outside.

in the

A. Administrative oppression. 1. In order to "protect" gay prisoners from their fellow straight inmates, they are isolated in special tiers of cells, sometimes called the "queens' tiers." In New Jersey's Rahway Prison, gay prisoners and persons convicted of sex crimes (child molestation, heterosexual sex crimes involving violence, etc.) are indiscriminately lumped together and isolated in a special building located in the center of the prison complex. In order to justify this punitive type of isolation, the administration encourages straight prisoners to regard their gay counterparts as being on the lowest rung of the prison population's "pecking order," thus keeping alive the antagonism between straight and gay inmates. 2. In the Connecticut Department of Corrections, gay inmates are currently required to go through a "treatment program" that includes aversion "therapy," e.g., the application of electrical shocks to a gay prisoner's sexual organs and/or injections of chemicals that cause incredible pain or loss of breathing ability for short periods of time. In Massachusetts, persons labelled as being gay are frequently sent to the "Sex Treatment Center" at Bridgewater to be "cured." The victim is not eligible for parole until he or she is certified as being "cured" of homosexual orientation. This philosophy of "cure" is completely contrary to the American Psychiatric Association's recent decision to eliminate homosexuality from its list of mental diseases and psychiatric disorders.

Gay prisoners need to find themselves; they need to have the opportunity to develop a sense of strength, dignity and solidarity with their fellow inmates. This can only be done if their efforts at organizing themselves are not hindered by prison administrations. The fulfillment of this need can be greatly enhanced if the gay prisoners-and the administrations--know their situation is not going unnoticed on the outside.

B. Oppression by fellow inmates. Straight inmates unwittingly support the administration's policies and attitudes toward gay prisoners. There are several reasons why straight inmates oppress their gay counterparts:

I believe the National Task Force on Higher Education and Criminal Justice must include the plight of the gay prisoner among its concerns along with the plight of many other groups trying to overcome the oppressive stigma caused by the labelling process, as that process is manifested in the criminal justice system.

1. Straight prisoners are conditioned by society's homophobia before they are incarcerated; that conditioning is nurtured by the administration. Because gay prisoners are isolated from the larger prison population, straight inmates have little or no opportunity to discover that preconceived gay stereotypes are inaccurate and dehumanizing.

Furthermore, the plight of the gay prisoner because it is a searing indictment of our society is a challenge also to the institutional church. Christians and their organizations must address themselves to this issue in a courageous manner now if they are ,to avoid being subject to Dostoevsky's indictment of the rest of our society.

2. The prison environment subjects its victims to sexual deprivation; as a result, a straight prisoner is invariably tempted to seek substitutive means to meet this basic human need. The administration's portrayal of gay prisoners as helpless, disgusting objects render them prime candidates for sexual exploitation by straight prisoners.

(NOTE: An excellent film dealing with homosexuality in the prison system, "The Jail", is available from Cinema 5, 595 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022. Also, contact the Task Force on Higher Education and Criminal Justice, The Interchurch Center, 475 Riverside Drive, New York, N.Y. 10027. The only MCC prison ministry currently active in the Northeast District is that of Deacon Dennis Foster. For information, write him c/o MCC Philadelphia.)

3. In an environment that does not encourage or sustain a sense of human dignity--another

But this suggested manner of dealing with the gay issue--from the prison community to the wider community--is not a one-way street. The influence of gay organizations such as the Gay Activists Alliance and Metropolitan Community Church, and straight organizations sympathetic to their cause eventually filters into the prison system. As a result, we are beginning to see the formation of gay prisoner unions, gay consciousness-raising groups and gay religious organizations in the institutions. This trend must continue if the prison system is to be purged of its homophobic element. And this sorely-needed trend can move only as fast and as far as the issue is effectively dealt with on the outside.

In August 1971, I had the opportunity to sit on the floor of the California State Assembly as it debated a bill seven years in the making--AB 437, permitting sexual acts in private between consenting adults. Its author, Assemblyman ,'lillieBrown of San Francisco, made an impassioned plea for its passage, and his arguments were supported by highly-qualified experts in psychology and sociology. On the basis of the evidence presented to the Assembly, passing the bill was the only humane, intelligent thing to do. But of course there was one drawback--voting for such a bill might constitute political suicide. How could the legislators escape their dilemma?

attributed to the "Yahwist" or J writer. This material is commonly dated about the 19th century, B.C.,in the southern kingdom of Judea.2 The tale of the destruction of Sodom is an independent saga of unknown origin belonging to a widelydiffused class of tales possibly having a mythological origin and was probably current in Hebron when the Israelites settled there. It was taken over by J and linked to Abraham's encounter with Yahweh at Mamre (Chapter 18) by identifying Lot's visitors with two of those whom Abraham had entertained, and by making the man who was saved from the disaster Abraham's nephew, Lot.

Then someone stood up and asked "Shouldn't we consider the Bible--God's Word?" Of course, the Bible! Sodom and Gomorrah and all that! Assemblypersons who had not seen the inside of a church in years suddenly became very religious. The story of Sodom's destruction was read with gravity, accompanied by heads bobbing up and down in agreement.

J says little about the actual destruction of the city itself except that " .•.the Lord rained ...brimstone and fire .•• out of heaven; and he overthrew those cities, and all the valley .•. ,,3 This brief description suggests that the catastrophe was the result of an earthquake which, accompanied by lightning, ignited the natural gases and seepages of bitum or asphalt, which are indigenous to the southern Dead Sea area where the site of Sodom is popularly thought to be, thus causing a conflagration.4 This would also explain why, when Abraham looked down over the area, he saw that " ...the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace."S

"Our responsibility as political leaders of the State includes protecting our constituents from divine wrath," one Assemblyman proclaimed. "We've been having a lot of earthquakes recently. Why court disaster? The State might fall into the ocean!" The bill was defeated. Guilty consciences were soothed with the thought that final responsibility for defeat of the bill could be assigned to God. This scene in the California Assembly has been repeated in more than one state legislature in recent years. In political settings and religious settings, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah with its supposed categorical condemnation of homosexuality is used to oppress gay people. It behooves us then to reexamine the nature of Sodom's sin as we start to deal more seriously with Biblical and theological questions inherent in our controversial religious movement. The Sodom st-ory begins in Genesis 18 as Yahweh (Israel's name for God) tells Abraham that he intends to destroy the city and its neighbor, Gomorrah, " ...because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave. "1 Abraham pleads _ with Yahweh to spare the cities if ten righteous people can be found therE;.. Yahweh accedes to Abraham's request, and two angelic messengers are sent to discover the actuality of the sinful, wanton nature of the Sodomites (Chapter 19). Lot, Abraham's newphew, befriends the messengers and, as a result, incurs the wrath of the city's inhabitants. At the last second, his guests rescue him from bodily harm by blinding his assailants. The attitudes and actions directed toward Lot and his guests attest to the evil which permeates Sodom, and the "cities of the plain" are subsequently destroyed. /

The authorship

of the Sodom

story

As with many other popular myths, J appropriated the Sodom legend and re-worked it into his Abraham saga in order to reflect the tradition which Israel had brought from the desert, that Yahweh is a universal God who rules all people--Israelites and pagans alike --who judges their deeds, decides their fate and executes his decisions. The Israelites were called to respond to their covenant with Yahweh in a moral context as delineated in the Torah. The Sodom story extends that moral imperative to all people. Yahweh is the "Judge of all the earth.,,6 His universality finds expression in the fact that he has established a societal pattern which is universal in scope; not only may the pagan fully share in it, but he is also fully responsible for its maintenance. The Israelites were under the constant influence of the Canaanite culture, a culture that was not noted for its high moral standards. Israelite writers of every period agree that among the Canaanites, family ties were lightly regarded, the paternal authority was flaunted, while in the matter of sexual morality, liberty was carried to the extent of license, especially in the area of Canaanite religion in which bloody rituals, ceremonial orgies and prostitution were sanctified.7 J vividly

dramatized

the wanton,

sinful

nature of the .i.nh ab i t an t s of the Canaanite 'city of Sodom. In the pericope, the Sodomites demonstrated their sinfulness in the following manners: 1. They crassly violated the oriental custom of hospitality by embarrassing Lot in the presence of his guests and implying some sort of violence against them. The seriousness of this sin is illustrated by the fact that according to this widespread custom, it was the duty of the host to risk his own life and the honor of his family in order to protect his guests. Any breach of hospitality was regarded as a serious crime.8 2. Lot's action of offering up his virgin daughters to the crowd on the condition that they cease their inhospitable actions against his guests attests to the Sodomites' abandonment to lustful passions. (If the Sodomites had not previously evidenced these passions to Lot, he probably would not have offered up his daughters.) 3. The Sodomites were so Rlinded by sin that they failed to recognize the divinic characteristics of Lot's guests; thus by their churlish manners, the Sodomites profaned the sacred. It should be noted that Sodom was not destroyed because of the sins its inhabitants committed against Yahweh's messengers. The Sodomites' behavior against the latter onlY typefied their already-existing sinful nature. Biblical writers have not uniformly defined the "sin of Sodom." The city always symbolized the greatest depravity that Israel could think of, but the nature of its sin was not always the same. Isaiah considered its sin to be the barbarity of its administration of justice;9 Ezekiel defined it as "pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease;"lO and Jeremiah spoke of adultery, lying and unwillingness to repent.ll The witness of the Old Testament is maintained in the Apocrypha, where three passages tell only of the folly, pride, and'inhospitality of the Sodomites.16 It is not until late New Testament books--II Peter and Jude-that we find the sin of Sodom inplicitly connected with homosexual practices.17 It is beyond the purview of this paper to trace the history of how the sin of Sodom became synonymous with homosexuality. For further study on this matter, the reader is referred to D. Sherwin Bailey's book, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1955) . But we must deal somewhat with the subject due to the fact that the homophobic attitude that prevails in Judaeo-Christian cultures is uniformly reflected in contemporary theologians' interpretation of Sodom's primary sin, i.e. to be that of a homosexual attack by the Sodomites on the angelic messengers. The sole rationale for such a conclusion is the interpretation of the verb "to know" in verse 6 as "to know sexually." The actual context of the verb in the verse renders such an interpretation to the realm of being arbitrary at best and at worst, unscholarly and irresponsible. The shallowness of this interpretation is made clear where some of the exegetes use the supposedly etiological origin

of the word "sodomy" as evidence for their position. Contrary to the fact that Old Testament prophetic writings do not even hint at Sodom's sin as being homosexual, theologians and Biblical scholars continue to advocate the homosexual theme. Let us illustrate the ludicrous position one is led to if one accepts the homosexual hypothesis regarding the nature of Sodom's sin. If one is to take Genesis 19:4 to literally mean what it says, "...all the people ... " (indeed, it must be taken as such in order to justify the destruction of the city--ten righteous people could not be found), then the homosexual hypothesis would lead one to conclude that Sodom was populated solely by homosexual males! It is much more reasonable to assume that " ...all the people ... " meant all the men and women in Sodom, and this',hypothesis is strongly supported by the fact that the particular Hebrew words for "man", "men" and "brothers" used in Genesis 19:4-7 referring to the Sodomites are used most commonly in the generic sense. If, as the theologians and Biblical scholars would have one believe, the crowd of Sodomites were lusting for Lot's guests, then heterosexual lust is an equal factor in the outrage against the angels, simply because a woman cannot commit a homosexual act with a man! Thus, to weight the sin of Sodom toward homosexual lust is arbitrary and contrary to the Old Testament prophets' definitions of the sin of Sodom. If the Sodomites did not desire the angelic messengers for sexual purposes, how then can we account for their behavior? It is not readily obvious that the context of the verb "to know" in Genesis 19:5 is to mean "to know sexually" as it is in 19:8. The Hebrew verb used in verse 5, yadha, is most commonly used to denote "to get acquainted with." If we assume that the verb in verse 5 has the more common denotation, then a much more reasonable hypothesis than the homosexual hypothesis can be formed to account for the Sodomites' violent demand "to know" Lot's visitors. It should be noted that Lot's status in Sodom was that of a ger, or sojourner, i.e., a resident alien. As-a ger, he no doubt acquired obligations and limitations to his civic privileges. Thus it is conceivable that Lot, either by ignorance or in defiance of the laws of Sodom, had exceeded his rights as a ger by serving as host to two strangers whose intentions might be hostile and whose credentials had not been examined by the citizens of Sodom. Thus, it would be quite natural for the Sodomites to demand his visitors' identity and business. Lot's offer to bring out his daughters to mollify the crowd was probably the most appealing bribe that he could offer on the spur of the moment; (Lot is not portrayed in the Bible as a paragon of virtue or intelligence.) and the fact that he could even contemplate such a desperate course may well indicate his anxiety at all costs to extricate himself from a situation which he had precipitated by action incompatible with his status as a ger.15 In addition to the ancient Near Eastern custom of hospitality, there may be another reason for Lot's risking of his daughters' welfare in order to protect his guests. As mentioned earlier, the Sodomites were so

blinded by their sinful natures failed to recognize the divinic istics of Yahweh's messengers. distorted perception of reality solely around their egotistical appetites--a state in which one to God's presence and glory.

that they characterTheir revolved desires and is oblivious

This motif is a major theme in the New Testament Gospels where the arduous difficulty of coming to faith is not so much due to doubt that might result from reason, but the blindness that does not allow the individual to see or sense in Jesus a mighty act of God.16 Because Lot shares in the covenant that had been established between Yahweh and Abraham, he is sensitive, perhaps unconsciously, to Yahweh's presence in the two strangers. The ability to "see" Yahweh (which is not shared by the Sodomites) provides the context needed to explain Lot's solicitous behavior toward the messengers, e.g., he alone welcomes the messengers and prostrates himself before them (verse 1); he insists that they accept his offer to be their host despite their initial refusal (verses 2 and 3); he offers them a hurried meal (unleavened bread) as though he expects something important is going to happen soon (verse 3); and he strives to protect his guests from the angry crowd at all costs (verse 8). Today, like the blinded Sodomites, our culture is blind to the fact that the sin of Sodom has not been isolated, but still runs -r amp an t . The process by which this blindness is maintained is simple enough to comprehend. As long as the sin of Sodom is equated with homosexuality, most people will feel they are not guilty of committing the sin. In effect, the homosexual has been made into a scapegoat, to bear the sin of Sodom alone and be driven into the wilderness of social ostracism. And in ord2r to prevent his return to society, and thus "contaminating" it with his "sin," he is fenced out by inhumane sex laws, discriminatory housing and employment practices, social mores that encourage families to disown their gay children, police harassment. But most especially through the Big Lie pushed by the Church that there is no place in the Kingdom of God for gay people-anything to encourage gays to believe the sin of Sodom is his and his alone. As long as the homosexual continues to meekly bear that burden, society will blindly stumble on, believing that the sin of Sodom has been isolated and restrained.

their own? We need not look far, if the Old Testament prophets' characterization of it has not changed, i.e., barbarity of administration of justice, pride, prosperous ease, adultery, lying and unwillingness to repent. The sin of Sodom permeates this nation and established religion at all levels, but its most refined state is reflected in the highest offices of our government. The harsh reality is that the sin of Sodom does not dwell outside in the wilderness with the homosexual scapegoat--it resides with those who erroneously think they are chosen by God to dictate His will to the world, and is nurtured by their blindness to the falsity of that assumption. Footnotes: 1. Genesis 18:20. 2. Brown, Raymond E., FitzmyeL, Joseph A., Murphy, Roland El The Jerome Bible Commentary. Volume I. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968, p.3. 3. Genesis 19: 24-25. 4. Sarna, Nahum M. Understanding Genesis. New York: Schocken Books, 1970, p. 142. 5. Genesis 19:28. 6. Ibid., 18:25. 7. Lods, Adolphe. Israel. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1962, pp. 147-148. 8. Ibid., p. 202. 9. Isaiah 1:11; 3:9. 10. Ezekiel 16:49. 11. Jeremiah 23:14. 12. Wisdom 10:8; 19:8. Ecclesiasticus 16: 8. 13. II Peter 6-10; Jude 6-7. 14. Brown, Raymond E., Op. Cit., p. 21. 15. Bailey, D. Sherwin, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1955, pp. 4-6. 16. Mark 4: 1-20; Luke 17: 20-37.

UFMCC GENERAL CONFERENCE 1973: Elder Lou Loynes addresses the conference as fellowship moderator Perry looks on, (Photo: Scott Johnson. Washington. DC)

Our society needs the homosexual scapegoat to ease its conscience, and for that reason it is no wonder why it feels threatened by gay people no longer willing to bear the onus of that sin, who are no longer willing to tolerate the deadly silence and isolation that crush the life out of the closeted gay person, who not only fight back against gay oppression but take the initiative in changing the situation, firmly believing that in doing so, they are participating in the struggle to bring about the final victory of the Kingdom of God. So, where is the sin of Sodom today if gay people are not willing to claim it for

Reviews Ftom The

"Deviant, Cultic Aggregate" by Rev. Roy Birchard

Chick, Jack T. lications, P.O. 1972 .

The Gay Blade. Box 662, Chino,

Chick PubCalifornia,

Of The Gay Blade--aside from the Horror Comix style of the cartoonist--the main thing to be said is that like the New York roach, it is everywhere. Available at $46.50 in quantities of 1,000 from Chino, California, and the Sunday School Centre Wholesale in Cape Town, South Africa, it has wended its way to many corners. One member of the New York MCC found it on a Jews for Jesus table at the Feste San Gennaro in Little Italy. Another MCCer had it pressed on him by a clerk at the Calvary Baptist Book Store. The Gay Community News of Boston traced it to a regional d~stributor, one Rev. Richard Burns, director of CITA Center, Inc. of Lawrence, Massachusetts. A hot-line volunteer at the CITA Center reported that "We had one hard-core homosexual who went through our program. He still has the movements and actions of a homosexual, but he's found Jesus and he knows it's wrong." Now comes The Gay Church, doing for books what The Gay Blade does for massproduced religious tracts. Despite Publisher's Weekly's blurb calling The Gay Church "surprisingly good and objective", the knowledgeable reader will soon commence to question the "scientific" pretensions of this "sociology." The book, however, should not be dismissed as unimportant. Its respected evangelical publisher ensures a wide distribution. For if last year the United Presbyterian Trends magazine proposed to its audience that homosexuality was "neither sin nor sickness", The Gay路 Church focuses attention on a phenomenon the publisher suspects may "prove startling and even disturbing to the established straight church" (sometimes known as viewing-with-alarm). The book grew out of a sociology class at Westmont College in California and, according to the authors, involved a year-and-a-half study of the MCC Fellowship and a three-month intensive study of MCC San Francisco. On their behalf, it must be said that for neophytes, Enroth and Jamison have been thorough. One is impressed by the great dollops of direct quotation from a wide variety of MCC publications. (All that free reprinting!) And they have obviously made an effort to cover much of the turf of the American gay religious community--recounting the ordination of Bill Johnson, the formation of Dignity, delving into the adventures of

Enroth, Ronald M. and Gerald E. Jamison, The Gay Church. William B. Eerdrnans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1974. $2.95, paperback. "Bishop" Mikhail Itkin, as well as carrying out their main task, an overview of the rise of MCC. After a while, one forms a pictu~e of academics closeted in a room somewhere laboriously poring over The Catalyst, In Unity and The Gay Christian. Such flattering attention to our modest efforts! Trial balloons and tentative projects long flown away into journalistic night are here brought back as though these scholars were retrieving the fragile scrolls of the homosexual equivalent of the Protocals of the Elders of Zion, while the myth of the Homintern hovers Phoenix like in the background. Indeed, one looks into the future with a shudder, seeing already the parade of Ph.D. dissertations bearing titles like "The Etiology of Paper Priests" and "The Significance of Capitalization in the Writings of the Rev. Keith Delano Davis." Perhaps most scholars lose sight of the forest for the trees. But one does have a sense that wandering agog in Sodom, Enroth and Jamison lack comprehension of the experimentation, the give-and-take of a burgeoning religious movement. Thus they

'I,

''I'' . ~

"1" " j

r~~

I' .I!I

,Jr.' 'fJ I' 'i'

WILT THOU HAVE THIS MAN AS THY WEDDED SPOUSE?

do not see the relative significance or insignificance of the passino scene they try to describe. Another limitation is the authors' selfadmitted lack of religious expertise. Thus they can speak of "the fundamental background

of the Baptist church" when describing the liberal American Baptist Churches. And remark that "the United Methodist Church was expected to be at the vanguard of homosexual liberation." (As was the AFL-CIO, perhaps?)

starts, feuds, excesses and follies of the past five years in the gay religious movement. One wonders if there is any pathology they have left uncovered! But they have brought before us mistakes we surely must learn from.

So too, in their chapter on the Bible, they mix serious exegesis by gay theologians with a recounting of a gay Cain-Abel story they picked up somewhere and the supposed healing of a "gay centurion." One is reminded of the genteel, romantic Bible novels of one's youth--Ben Hur, Dear and Glorious Physician, etc-.--From what further shore of the gay world did they gather in

"Bishop" Mikhail Itkin, the "paper priests", the "provocative, yet tasteful" issue of MCC San Francisco's Cross-Currents, the Prodigal's self-designation as "an organ of Christian outreach"--all these are factors we must contend with, regardless of our private opinions of them. Enroth and Jamison warn us that we had better decide how we are going to present ourselves to the rest of the world. The ultimate question that faces us is: If Gay is Good, is everything that calls itself Gay good? If not, how do we distinguish?

JUT OF SATAN'S SHADOWY WORLD OF HOMOSEXUALITY, IN A DISPLAY OF DEFIANCE AGAINST OCIETY, THEY COME FORTH - THOSE WHO SUFFERTHE AGONY OF REJECTION THE DESPAIR )F UNSATISFIED LONGING DESIRING ENDLESSLUSTING AND REMORSECRYING THAT GAY ; GOOD THEIR TRAGIC LIVES PROVE THAT THERE ISN'T ANYTHING GAY ABOUT BEING GAY.

these daydreams? (for at this point their scholarly apparatus of footnotes quite disappears) . In the final chapter (aptly titled "Keeping a Straight Face"), Enroth and Jamison lay aside the mask of the "valuefree" sociologist. Pointing to the schism of MCC Denver and falsely quoting this writer as being among "frustrated gay religious liberals," they surrunonup stormy portents for the future of MCC: its theology has led the gay church into a cul-de-sac where, despite itself, it has become associated with the encircling gay world [Sic.] ... Christians who value orthodoxy and who are rationally corrunitted to the Bible as the infallible Word of God, the only rule of faith and practice, cannot be expected to dismiss lightly what Klaus Bockmtihl has called the 'fantastic exegetic somersaults' gay churchmen have perpetuated in order to support their position (Christianity Today, February 16, 1973, p. l7). The judgments of Karl Barth, evangelical theologian Carl Henry, and David Wilkerson's magazine, The Cross and the Switchblade, are sounded. For Enroth and Jamison return finally from their safari into terra esoterica to embrace "the body of evidence from the experience of humanity and from the biblical record that points to the conclusion that God ordained a heterosexual lifestyle for mankind culminating and being perpetuated in the man-woman relationship." (pp. 139-140). To their credit, it must be said that Enroth and Jamison have been successful in gathering together in one place all the accumulated false

Enroth and Jamison underscore something that has grown increasingly clear to us since we published our "Gay Morality" issue of "The Gay Christian last summer. If we in MCC do not address ourselves to the development of a constructive, loving lifestyle for gays and seriously seek to bring the insights of the gospel to bear on the life of our community, others will seek to do the job for us. Sometimes these "others" will be schismatics from our own ranks; at other times they may be "scientists" and "theologians" who regard us, as do Enroth and Jamison, as a "deviant, cultic aggregate." (p. 115). Looking at MCC, Enroth and Jamison see a vessel of wrath; from our necessarily different perspective--tested as we are continuously by the strains and storms of an emerging community--we see the Apostle's "earthen vessel." And we are reminded of the Lord's response to the Apostle who prayed that the thorn might be removed from his flesh: "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." (II Corinthians 12:9). I believe there is a Christian spirit among us that eludes them, and I think no clearer instance of this is available than the evident astonishment they show that any gay women at all are to be found in the MCC churches. (For if we are bound together by lust, what possible attraction can there be between male homosexuals and lesbians?) It is because I believe I can perceive this spirit among us that I feel we can successfully address ourselves to the issues which Enroth and Jamison raise. We do not need to cultivate our paranoia about the challenges of articulating a Gay Christian lifestyle, but we need to recognize that Gay people do come to us seeking spiritual and morar-guidance and help in developing their own lives. If we have no fuller teachings to offer than: "Love God; love yourself; love other people"; and 2. "Do your own thing", these people will find other teachers. ---There is a fine, moving, genuine spiritual yearning on the part of Gay people to find out the good, to seek out the Spirit of God at work in the world. Such a hunger for righteousness is altogether natural and laudable. In the days ahead, we must devote ourselves to prayer, study, meditation and honest discussion among ourselves in our churches. We must seek out guidance for those "who hunger and thirst for righteousness. For they shall be satisfied."

A missionary Letter (Missionaries today are as likely to be in the United States as overseas; modern mission frontiers are "strategic" as well as "geograpHic." Here is the New Years' letter

Dear Family

and Friends,

It has been such a long time since I have been in touch with you, I expect many of you have just about marked me out of your "book of the living." I hope that you will forgive my extreme delay and neglect. In addition to being one of the world's laziest writers, I have been very occupied with work. Let me go back in time and bring you up to date. In early 1970 when I was still working at LTV, I made a business trip to Los Angeles, While there, I visited a new church that I had heard about and talked .with its founder, the Rev. Troy D. Perry. I was immediately impressed. They were a little different. They taught true Christianity, stressing the commandments of Christ to love God and to love our neighbor. Also, like Jesus, they welcomed all people without judgment or condemnation. This was a church that was filled with the Holy Spirit and a work to do. At that time, the church was only a little over one year old and it was already expanding. On July 30, 1970, a group of 12 of us in Dallas met to discuss the possibility of starting a study group in Dallas. We continued to meet each week and we grew in numbers. We moved from a small living room, to one side of a duplex house, to a rented room at the First Unitarian Church. We were at the latter location on May 23, 1971, when we were chartered as a full church in the new body--the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches. I had been active in the affairs of the group and, upon chartering, I was elected the pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church of Dallas. By then I had been laid off at LTV and had started a horne repair and remodeling business. I continued with the business, striving to support my needs and concentrated on church affairs during evenings and weekends. Church business started taking some time during the day. I began to be invited to speak at most of the colleges and universities in the area, at group meetings, at other churches, and even on radio and TV. In Octdber 1971, I st ar t.ed visiting the Dallas County Jail to minister to inmates there. For a year I was a member of the Jail Advisory Committee and I joined the Dallas Pastors Association. Suddenly my life was not my own any more. I also found that I was not getting enough from my business to meet my financial obligations and things got pretty hectic-but the Lord provides! Our congregation grew in spirit and numbers. We were incorporated in the State of Texas as a non-profit organization. We started looking for church property. In November 1972 we were led by the Lord to a former. private clinic that had been vacant

by Rev. Richard Vincent of the Rev; Richard Vincent, pastor of MCC Dallas, Texas, and a member of the Fellowship board of elders; Richard Vincent is finding new frontiers in the new year.), .'!C.

. - .â&#x20AC;˘. ~'-.

for five years. ~"e purchased it at a very reasonable figure, held our first community prayer in the building on Thanksgiving Day 1972 and started our long task of remodeling. A little over a year later, we are still working on that task, but great progress has been made. Our Sunday attendance presently runs about 125 as we continue to grow. We have a beautiful congregation. Finances are not sufficient for our. work. Some give generously, but average contributions are only $2.00 per week per person. As funds became available, the congregation voted me a living expense. It grew from $25 a week to $50 to $100 to its present figure of $125 a week. I have been full time with the church since we purchased the property. There is no way I can predict when I would be able to work on a job--with calls at all hours for some phase of church work-including counseling, weddings, funerals, lectures, etc. The Fellowship has grown too, now having some 57 congregations over the country and in Canada and England. My responsibility in the Fellowship has also grown. After being licensed as a minister, I was ordained as a minister in the Fellowship in September 1972. This past year I have served as the district coordinator for the South Central District of the Fellowship (Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma). In September 1973, at our annual General Conference, I was elected to a three-year term as an elder of the Fellowship--now being one of the seven elders who govern the affairs of the Fellowship between General Conferences. This year, I am also a member of the Ministerial Credentials and Affairs Committee. At the present time I am convinced that my work in the church is exactly what I should be doing. After all, I did start out in 1953 to become a priest, but the Lord had other plans. Now I can see why certain events happened in the past. It was no accident that I carne to Texas. Indeed, all things happen for a reason. Things are happening now that I do not understand, but I am confident they have a positive purpose. Very recent events have been even more spectacular, giving me somewhat of an excuse for not sending Christmas greetings. Again, to explain, let me step back in time. The Fellowship has a mission in New Orleans, Louisiana. The group has fluctuated in size for various reasons, and they have experienced some very traumatic events in their group history. The most catastrophic event was the loss of one-third of their congregation, including their pastor, in a bar fire on June 24, 1973. The bar was a popular place for the congregation because the manager had

worship, bul.lding the congregation, etc. Victor and I expect to live in New Orleans for three to six months. During my leave of absence, Rev. David Carden, our assistant pastor, will act as pastor of the Dallas church. This move is made purely on faith. At this time, the New Orleans church cannot pay for my support. Victor and I have no reserve funds. The Lord has provided Victor with a job in New Orleans, so he will be able to meet his financial obligations. The cost of living is:higher in New Orleans than in Dallas and, therefore, the cost of church operations will be higher. We will just have to start from scratch and trust in the Lord to bless and provide. If any individual or group would like to donate (tax deductable) funds for the church, they will be deeply appreciated. Checks should be made payable to Metropolitan Community Church and sent to P.O. Box 15757, New Orleans, La. 70175. The funds will go into the general fund of the church to be disbursed according to needs of the church unless funds are designated for a particular use (debt retirement, building fund, pastor's expenses, etc.). All funds sent for the pastor will be used only to fulfill actual needs of the pastor and any surplus funds will be used for the church. I believe this brings things up to date. I will try to keep you posted more frequently in the future,

UFMCC GENERAL CONFERENCE 1973: Elder John Hose shakes a mean tambourine. (Photo: Scott Johnson. Washington. DC)

Affectionately, Rev. Richard Vincent P.O. Box 15757 New Orleans, Ls. 70175

been good to the church and had provided meeting space during their early days. The fire was a tragic event that still causes pain. It was started, apparently, by an angry bar patron who returned with cans of gasoline to ignite the stairwell that was the only entry to the bar. Twenty-nirre died immediately, three died later, and several are still recovering. The church in New Orleans is desperately needed, but there is no leader and support has dropped to an average of four in attendance on Sunday with a collection of $25.00. The church has debts at least of $1,600.00 and much work is require<f'tClrevitalize that body which has been so sorely injured and scarred. I have made three trips to New Orleans since September. After much prayer, I have decided that I must go to New Orleans to help. I have obtained a leave of absence from my pastorate of the Dallas church and will go to New Orleans on January 24, 1974--just five days before my 50th birthday. I will function there as interim pastor and will be very active in developing good relations with officials and the community, determining the exact debt and seeking funds to pay that debt, locating a more suitable place of

Twentieth Centuty Pentecost by Rev. Robert A. Sirico

What once was a practice isolated to storefront churches and "holy rollers" is now being called the third most powerful branch of Christendom--the other two being Protestantism and Catholicism. I hope to answer a few questions about the charisms, or charismatic, movement. First, what is it? How does it help Christians? Is there a place for it in MCC? The word "charisma" is from a Greek word which means "gift." We have heard great speakers and have noted that they are "charis-. matic"--that is, gifted speakers. In the biblical sense of the word, we are referring to the "gifts of the Holy Spirit" listed in I Corinthians, the 12th chapter. Those who, like the first-century church, use these gifts are called charismatics. The use of miraculous abilities is not something unique to twentieth-century Pentecostals. A study of church history will reveal such things as "speaking in tongues" and "prophecy" or "ecstatic utterances" in each century clear back to the apostolic era. Martin Luther is said to have spoken in tongues, and surely his great hymn "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" brings out his belief in charismatic gifts when he says, "The Spirit and the gifts are ours." A literal translation from the original German makes it even stronger: "The Spirit and the Spirit's gifts are ours." Cyprian, martyred in A.D. 258 wrote: "Even the innocent age of children is filled with the Holy Spirit; and they see and hear and speak in ecstasy such things a~ the Lord vouchsafes to admonish and instruct us by."l In the third century, Tertullian wrote: "We had a right after Saint John, to expect prophesyings, and we do now acknowledge said spiritual gift ... " Going on back to Justin Martyr (A.D. 165), we are told men and women were then seen in the church expressing gifts of the Spirit. 2

LiB£RAlioN NEWS AT ~~S WE'V£Gar

tJATIONAL GAY

NEWSPAPERS

ALSO A l.AR6f

r!ARIHWORKS [aJ

112+ 20TH ST. 14

,SEL..EC.TWt-l OF

GAY PATCHES ~'N6S A~D .••.. N.W.W~SH't-l&TO""l.t>.e

"l..QOOq

Certainly, in historical analysis of the charismatic movement, we find validity. More recent days have seen the movement grow and receive endorsement from a number of church officials, including a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, the Pope himself requested a meeting with Kathryn Kuhlman, a woman prominant in the movement. There is a clear-cut distinction between the charismatic movement and spiritualism. One of the differences is the emphasis on the persons of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Spiritualism denies the deity of Christ and does not believe in the personality of the Holy Spirit.3 Charismatics, on the other hand, move in the framework of the orthodox, historic church. The purpose of all these miraculous occurrences is not entertainment but the upbuilding and edifying of the church. Paul counsels the Corinthians, "Since you are eager for spiritual gifts, seek to excel for the upbuilding of the church." (I Corinthians 14:12). The gift of the Holy Spirit was given for power to witness to those outside the Christian community (Acts 1:8), as well as supplying the power to live a holy life (Ephesians 4: 11-16). God the Father made himself known throughout the pages of the Old Testament as the Creator. God the Son was revealed to us through the four gospels as the redeemer. God the Holy Spirit from the Book of Acts on to the present is the sanctifier. Living then in the age of the Holy Spirit, it is most important that we possess his power and abilities. This is what the charismatic movement is saying. The growth of charismatic or "Spirit-filled" churches is evidence of needs being met in people's lives. Also the spirit of commitment on the part of those with this "baptism of the Spirit" is noteworthy. Just about every pastor in the MCC Fellowship has had to ask himself this question: Are we a "pentecostal" church? Should we stop all appearances of pentecostalism? These are questions we must come to grips with. We are the only major church our community has. If we follow the Baptist way of doing things, the Methodists will feel alienated. Should we decide to go about things as good Episcopalians, the Presbyterians will have something to say. We mJst go about our work as Christians with a unitive variety, being diverse yet one. One can be a charismatic without being a traditional pentecostal. By that, I mean that my being filled with the Holy Spirit --perhaps speaking in tongues or interpreting --has nothing to do with whether or not I beat a tambourine or shout in church. The Pentecostal church has many traditions, just as do mainline churches. The tradition

itself has nothing to do with with the Holy Spirit.

the experience

Some of our churches have solved the problem of what to do with the charismatic movement by holding two worship services-one aimed at the traditional modes of worship, and the second a more evangelical type meeting. It is my feeling that the fulness of the Holy Spirit in our churches is a most necessary thing for five reasons:

Oscer Wilde memolial Bookshops

1. We are ministering to one of the most gospel-neglected people on earth. We need that same power the early church had to carry out our mission effectively.

Retail: 15 Christopher Street

2. We need the power of the Holy Spirit to enable us to live Christ-centered lives and to deliver others from Satan's lifestyle.

Monday - Saturday 11 A.M.-7 P.M. Sunday 12 noon - 6 P.M.

3. The Holy Spirit will lead and direct our churches according to God's路will (John 14). 4. The Holy Spirit will cause each member to be a real support to each local church.

Mail Order:

5. His welcomed presence in our midst will serve to confirm that God has indeed ordained and blessed our ministry to gay people (Acts 10).

291 Mercer Street, NYC 10003 -

In closing, I would like to share a word of caution. Some who profess to have this marvelous experience with the third person of the Trinity seem to think themselves somehow better than brothers and sisters who have not had similar experiences. We should beware self-righteousness, lest we drive people away from a deeper walk with God. On the other hand, to those who would outlaw all "pentecostal manifestations" I would say, as did Paul, "Forbid not to speak with tongues" (I Corinthians 14:39).

send $1.00 to be included on mailing list

10% Discount with this ad.

Footnotes: 1. A.J. Gordon, The Ministry of the Spirit, (London, 1894, Baptist Tract and Book Society), pp. 67-68. 2. Arthur McGiffert, The Apostolic Age, pp. 527, 652. 3. Colville, Universal Spiritualism, p. 234, and Hastings, p. 91. Suggested Reading: Aglow with the Spirit. The Holy Spirit and You, Dennis Bennett, Logos Publishing. Ministry of the Spirit, A.J. Gordon. Power for the Body of Christ, Michael Harper, Fountain Trust, London. They Speak with Other Tongues, John Sherril.

SUBSCRIPTIONS One year, $5.00, 3rd class mail; $7.00, 1st class mail, sealed in envelope.

Name Street

The Gay Christian Box 1757 Genera 1- Post Office New York, N.Y. 10001

City State

. Zip

NottheQst Disttict Ditectoty UNIVERSAL

FELLOWSHIP OF METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCHES, NORTHEAST THE REV. J.E. PAUL BRETON, DISTRICT COORDINATOR

BALTIMORE, MARYLAND MISSION METROPOLITAi; COMMUNITY CHURCH P.O. Box 1145

METROPOLITAN COM!'IUNITY CHURCH OF P.O. Box 8174 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Services: Sunday, 8 p.m. 2125 Chestnut Street (First Unitarian Church)

Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Services: Sunday, 7:30 p.m., 27th & St. Paul Streets (St. John's United Methodist

PHILADELPHIA

DISTRICT

TilE COMMITTEE OF CONCERN 357 Dean Street Brooklyn, N.Y. 11217

(Gay

Friends)

Church).

Phone: None. The

Rev.

J.E.

Paul

Breton,

interim

METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCH OF BOSTON 131 Cambridge Street Boston, Massachusetts 02114 Services: Sunday, 7 p.m. Phone: (617) 523-7664. The Rev. Laurence G. Bernier, pastor. The Rev. Nancy Wilson, associate minister.

(First Unitarian

Church)

METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCH OF NEW P.O. Box 1757 General Post Office New York, N.Y. 10001 Services: Sunday, 7 p.m., Ninth Avenue at 28th Street (Church of the Holy Apostles) . Phone: (212) 674-4850 and

PENN STATE CAMPUS MINISTRY METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCH Services: Sunday, 7 p.m., Eisenhower Chapel, Penn State University Campus, University Park, Pennsylvania. Mr. Charles Rinear, worship coordinator.

Organization

Gay

YORK

METROPOLI"fAN COHMUNITY CHURCH OF WASHINGTON, D.C. P.O. Box 40551 Palisades Station Washington, D.C. 20016 Services: Sunday, 3 p.m. lOth & G Streets, N.W. (Alcord Chapel, First Congregational United Church of Christ) Phone: (703) 528-3783. The Rev. John M. Barbone, pastor.

DIGNITY: Baltimore. c/o Sr .• Jeannine Gramick St. Jerome Convent 761 Hamburg Street Baltimore, Maryland 21230

DIGNITY: Boston. 1105 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts

DIGNITY: New York/New P.O. Box 1554 F.D.R. Station New York, N.Y. 10022

02215

Jersey

DIGNITY: Providence c/o Mr. Frank Murphy 199 Garden Street Pawtucket, Rhode Island

02860

DIGNITY: wash Lnqcon , D.C. c/o Apt. 204 215 C Street, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003

DIGNI?Y: National office. Room 514 755 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02116

Other Gay Religious Groups in the Northeast THE CHURCH OF THE BELOVED DISCIPLE 348 West 14th Street New York, N.Y. 10014 Services: Sunday, 2 p.m. Phone: (212) 242-6616. The Rev. Robert M. Clement, pastor.

BOX 1757 • GENERAL POST OFFICE.

THE GAY SYNAGOGUE 300 Ninth Avenue at 28th New York, N.Y. 10001 Services: Friday, 8 p.m.

Street

UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST GAY CAUCUS IN NEW YORK: c/o Mr. Milton Lounsberry, Apt. 2D, 421 East 78th Street, New York, N.Y. 10021. Phone: (212) 628-2038.

NEW YORK, N.Y. 10001 NON PROFIT ORG.

U.S. POSTAGE

Catholics.

pastor.

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT STUDY GROUP METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCH P.O. Box 514 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Services: Sunday, 3 p.m. Phone: (203) 525-3523. Mr. F. Jay Deacon, worship coordinator.

369-8513 (pastor's residence). The Rev. Roy Birchard, pastor.

METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCH OF PROVIDENCE 410 Waterman Avenue East Providence, Rhode Island 02914 Services: Sunday, 7 p.m. Phone: (401) 434-0668. The Rev. Arthur Cazeault, pastor.

UNIVERSAL FllLLOI;SHIP OF METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCHES Suite 211 373 North Western Avenue Los Angeles, California 90004 Phone: (213) 462-652l. ~he Rev. Troy D. Perry, moderator, board of elders.

BROOKLYN HEIGHTS STUDY GROUP METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCH 50 Monroe Place Brooklyn, New York 11201 Services: Sunday, 2 p.m. Pierrepont and Monroe Place Phone: (212) 662-7400 Ext. 717. The Rev. Howard R. NeIls, interim

DIGNITY:

pastor.

PAID NEW YORK, N.Y. PERMIT NO. 751

-PRINTED MATTER