Open Minds

The Newsletter of Albany Via Media

December, 2008

A Word from the Editors

A very eventful year is almost over. It seems like just a moment ago when more than 250 of us gathered at St. Andrew’s, Albany, to hear Bonnie Anderson, President of the House of Deputies, speak of reconciliation. We left that lively meeting, in which Bishop Love participated, hopeful that it would mark a turn toward more cooperation between conservative and liberal Episcopalians in this mixed diocese. Alas, it did not. In June, Albany’s diocesan convention enacted canons that forbid the performance and blessing of same sex marriages and deny discernment for ordination to active homosexuals. In addition, using bizarre parliamentary tactics that offended even some conservatives, it beat back two resolutions supported by Albany Via Media: One that would have decoupled Albany from the separatist Anglican Communion Network and another that proposed to abolish the un- hristian practice of Church-stiffing known as Parish Choice.

June was as dark a time for moderate to liberal Albany Episcopalians as January had been a bright one. Sadly, Bishop Love continues to profess a commitment to both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion while revealing, in large and small ways, his true allegiance to the extreme right wings of both institutions.

In the spring of 2004, before Albany voted to affiliate with the Network, Fr. John Sorensen, who was then AVM’s co-President, said to our Board of Directors, “With luck, we’ll be out of business by summer!” Four years later, AVM is still in “business” because Bp. Love’s administration, like its predecessor, pretends to listen and minister to liberal and moderate Episcopalians but refuses to hear them. Albany Via Media will persist as long as it is needed.

But not unchanged. A wise friend once remarked, “Vestries are like compost piles. They work best when they’re turned over frequently.” In that spirit, Robert Dodd decided not to run for a fourth year as AVM’s President. On November 15, a quorum of the AVM Board voted unanimously to name Clair (“Toby”) Touby of Saranac Lake as Bob’s successor, with immediate effect.

***

This now-and-again newsletter will not appear again until 2008 has turned to 2009. Hence, we want to wish you a merry and blessed Christmas and a healthy, happy New Year, from the members and Board of Albany Via Media..

Marya and Bob Dodd

Proposition 8: Albany Responds

On Saturday, November 15, close to 300 people, gay and straight, from around the Capital region and beyond, gathered at City Hall in Albany at 1:30 PM to join together in a peaceful protest against the recent passing of Proposition 8 in California.

“Prop 8," now part of the California constitution, bans same gender marriage across the state. With banners and signs, the 300 plus people in Albany joined simultaneous events in major cities and towns across the United States. Integrity, the Episcopal Church’s advocacy group for full inclusion of GLBT persons in the Church, was an advocate of these events along with Marriage Equality New York, Join the Impact, the Empire State Pride Agenda, and other grassroots groups. It was evident that this issue will be sweeping across the country and into New York State soon as well.

Richard Angelo

* * * * * * * *

Update: On November 19, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments for and against Proposition 8. It solicited briefs concerning the proposition’s constitutionality, its impact on the separation of powers, and its effect – if any – on existing same sex marriages. Oral arguments may be presented as soon as March. Proposition 8 will remain in effect until the Court renders its decision. It and other such laws and canons spring from and express ignorance, the only cure for which is accurate information. The following article provides it.

The Editors

* * * * * * * *

How Much is Known about the

Origins of Homosexuality?

This article, by Dr. Michael King, appeared in the 25 July 2008 issue of Church Times.Dr. King is Professor of Primary Care Psychiatry at the Royal Free and University College Medical School, University College, London.

* * * * * * * *

As the debate about homosexuality in the Anglican Communion becomes ever more intense, it may be helpful to consider a number of its premises. Many Christians, as well as people with no spiritual beliefs, may be confused by claim and counterclaim about whether gay and lesbian people choose their sexual orientation, and whether they can become heterosexual. Last year, the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ submission to the Anglican Communion’s listening exercise was published (News, Comment, 16 November 2007). Although it was generally well received, there were concerns in some quarters that appeared to arise from a misunderstanding about the origins of homosexuality and same-sex behavior. Like all complex human  characteristics, evidence on the origins of sexual orientation is difficult to obtain and to interpret. This is because it involves study of human development from the embryo to the adult, of brain structure and function, physiological processes, and of evolutionary and psychological theory.

In addition, the hunt for evidence has been influenced by a long-held assumption that homosexuality is abnormal. Thus research has traditionally focused on why and how it occurs rather than examining how our sexual orientation (heterosexual or homosexual) arises and is sustained. One might say we know less about the determinants of sexual orientation than we know about gender, but more than we know about personality.

There are eight areas about which we now know a great deal, but with some varying degrees of certainty.

1. Normality: homosexuality is now regarded as a human characteristic rather than a disorder. It has been removed as a diagnosis from all international classifications of diseases. Two decades ago, Professor John Bancroft, an esteemed sexologist who later became director of the Kinsey Institute in Indiana, concluded that homosexuality was compatible with normal health and well-being (“Homosexuality. Compatible with full health”, British Medical Journal, 1988; 297). Churches of all mainstream denominations agree. The homosexual person is not condemned, even if same-sex behaviour is not permissible.

2. Becoming aware: There is now considerable evidence that gay and lesbian people become aware of their sexual orientation at about puberty. They often describe feeling different from other children, before becoming fully aware of their sexual feelings. There is no sensation of having or making a choice in the matter. Also, it is difficult to imagine why a proportion of young people in every generation throughout history would make a choice to adopt a sustained pattern of sexual behaviour that was often accompanied by childlessness, and that still, in many parts of the world, meets vigorous social discrimination.

3. A continuum of sexuality: Like most human characteristics, sexual orientation appears to form a spectrum, with heterosexuality at one end and homosexuality at the other. People across the middle of the spectrum experience a range of heterosexual and homosexual responsiveness, and are often referred to as bisexual.

4. The genesis of sexuality: Sexual orientation is formed very early (early childhood or before), and involves genetic factors. Although no specific genes for male homosexuality have been identified, identical twins are more likely to be both gay than brothers, and homosexuality in men is more often inherited through the mother’s line (Savolainen V., Lehmann L., “Evolutionary biology: genes and bisexuality”, Nature 2007; 445). Homosexuality is not, however, fully heritable: one member of an identical twin pair may be gay or lesbian, and the other heterosexual. Genes are not the only factors involved, and environmental influences may be needed for genetic effects to be expressed.

5. Gene-environment interactions: Environmental factors that interact with genes to produce human characteristics may be biological, psychological, or socio-cultural. They may act during gestation, or in the early years of life. Examples of such interactions are that a gene predisposing to obesity will be expressed only in societies with abundant food; or that development of language skills in early life will occur only in an environment where words are spoken and heard.

6. Environmental factors: Environmental contributions to the formation of human characteristics usually occur at so-called critical periods in early development. They also tend to be irreversible. For example, if language is not learned during the early years of life, it may not be possible to develop it properly thereafter. If vision is impaired for the first ten years of life, its restoration may not lead to normal sight. Although we are unsure what those environmental factors might be, we know what they are not: for example, people do not become homosexual or heterosexual because of a particular kind of parenting or because of any kind of early sexual experience. The most solid evidence about environmental factors is that gay men have more older brothers than straight men (Cantor, et al., “How many gay men owe their sexual orientation to fraternal birth order?” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2002; 31).

7. Do people of different sexualities have different brains? There have been many reports of differences in brain structure between homosexual and heterosexual people, but very few have held up to consistent verification. Many have reported similarities between the brain structures of gay men and heterosexual women, as well as those of lesbians and heterosexual men. Unfortunately, this approach often conflates sexual orientation with aspects of gender, which is misleading. Moreover, the evidence can be used to support arguments that sexual orientation is innate and developmental, or that homosexual activity leads to brain changes.

8. Is sexual orientation malleable? There is abundant evidence that people who identify themselves as heterosexual can respond to same-sex partners when opposite-sex partners are not available, for example in same-sex institutions. Similarly, many gay or lesbian people may have opposite- ex partners when trying to conform to a heterosexual lifestyle. However, attempts to change a person’s fundamental sexual orientation by psycho- ogical or medical means have not met with success.

Furthermore, psychologists and doctors who attempted such treatments in the 1960s and 1970s became alarmed by the potential harm they were causing (King M., Smith G., Bartlett A., “Treatments of homosexuality in Britain since the 1950s”, British Medical Journal 2004; 328). One or two recent studies of gay people (mostly men) who have undergone “reparative therapy” in the United States (a psychological approach that focuses on early relationships with parents and involves spiritual healing) have indicated that a very small proportion achieve change in their sexual orientation.

The authors of these reports, however, acknowledge their limitations (Archives of Sexual Behavior, October 2003). The patients studied were not randomized to the therapy or a control group, but consisted simply of volunteers who provided self-reports at various intervals after finishing therapy. Furthermore, most of the people who achieved change in their sexual orientation were bisexual when they began therapy, and none of the claims of change were supported by independent accounts of partners or family members.

The conclusion reached by scientists who have investigated the origins and stability of sexual orientation is that it is a human characteristic that is formed early in life, and is resistant to change.

All theological, philosophical, and moral debates about how lesbian and gay people should lead their lives and follow their religious beliefs need to take account of these premises. Scientific evidence on the origins of homosexuality is considered relevant to this theological and social debate because it undermines suggestions that sexual orientation is a choice. As scientists, we welcome research into the origins and development of human sexuality. Unfortunately, scientific evidence is seen as relevant here because of homosexuality’s persisting image as a deviation from nature’s heterosexual template.

How objective is the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ view of the evidence? The Special Interest Group for Gay and Lesbian Mental Health in the Royal College of Psychiatrists was established to assist the College with scientific and clinical issues relating to homosexuality. It has 462 members (out of a total College membership of 13,627), whose sexuality is not asked about or known. It accepts the view, which is widely held in the scientific community, that homosexuality is a normal variant of sexual orientation. It also supports psychiatrists and other mental-health professionals who may be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.

Like other similar special-interest groups in the College, it is not a lobby group. When a woman or a black person makes a comment on gender or race issues, it is respected and even judged more important than if it were made by others. Discrediting a scientist’s view on homosexuality because he or she is gay or lesbian is another example of how homosexuality itself is denigrated.

Why is the evidence about homosexuality debated so strongly? Vigorous debate and criticism is an essential part of science. All scientific knowledge is open to doubt, and every hypothesis is held only until it is supplanted by a better one. However, the issue of homosexuality is further complicated by moral, ethical, and theological disagreements about its status in human beings. Thus it is hardly surprising that evidence about its origins is questioned.

Unfortunately, this means that empirical evidence can be used rather like biblical texts to argue that homosexuality is a normal variant on the spectrum of sexual orientation, a biological abnormality, a moral/immoral choice, or whatever else.

* * * * * * * * * *

AVM Annual Meeting Brings Personnel Changes

Albany Via Media held its fifth annual meeting on Saturday afternoon, November 15, at St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church, Albany. During that meeting, the membership elected Joe Liotta of Zion Church, Colton, and Rev. Mary White of St. Andrew’s to second three-year terms on the Board of Directors. Dennis Wisnom, of St. Stephen’s, Schenectady, was elected to replace Betsy Hamilton, who has retired from the Board. (Editors’ Note: Rev. White subsequently left the Board, to her regret and ours.)

During a brief Board meeting after the Annual Meeting, the Directors unanimously elected Clair R. (“Toby”) Touby of St. Luke’s Church, Saranac Lake, to replace Robert Dodd as President. It was agreed that Board and other AVM meetings will be held at various places throughout our far-flung diocese, with a local host chairing each meeting. All meetings are open to AVM members and friends.

The next AVM Board meeting will take place at noon on Saturday, February 7, 2009, at St. Stephen’s, Schenectady.

* * * * * * * * * *

Lambeth Reflections: A Report

Bishops, clergy and lay people of Province II gathered at Trinity Cathedral in Trenton, NJ, on Saturday, October 4, to hear the reactions of a dozen bishops to the recent Lambeth Conference. Attendees from the Diocese of Albany included Bishop Love, three other diocesan officers, and ten members of Albany Via Media. The Rt. Rev. George Counsell, Bishop of New Jersey, opened the morning session, which consisted of keynote speeches by Bishops Love (Albany) and V. Gene Robinson (New Hampshire) and brief responses by two other keynoters, Bishop Chilton Knudsen (Maine) and Rev. Prof. Gordon Graham of Princeton Seminary.

Bp. Love’s speech, drawn largely from his report to the diocese, described some light moments at the Lambeth Conference (for example, his encounter with the Queen), but its overall tone was pessimistic. Even in the absence of 220 bishops, largely from the Global South, whose provinces include about half of the world’s 77 million Anglicans, +Love found most of the attendees to be conservative and orthodox. He described most of the exceptions as “western.”

Although Bp. Love disagreed with those who boycotted Lambeth (“I am a firm believer in listening to those we disagree with.”), “theologically irreconcilable differences” between Anglican liberals and conservatives lead him to “doubt any chance of reconciliation.” He noted that where personal relationships were formed at Lambeth, they usually involved bishops of similar mind.

Bp. Love expressed support for the proposed Anglican Covenant. Citing a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury to Bp. John Howe of Central Florida, he suggested that a diocese might sign the Covenant and be a full member of the Communion even if its province were not. In light of the many absentees, +Love thinks it is fortunate that this Lambeth Conference entertained no resolutions and made no decisions.

However, he regrets that the Anglican Communion remains confused and is no closer to “clarity” than it was before Lambeth. “It’s an honor to be on the program with Bill,” Bishop Robinson said as he began his keynote speech. He described his relationship with the Lambeth Conference, to which he was not invited, as “up close but outside.” Why did he go to Kent then? “To witness to the power of God in [his] life;” to show that he was “unwilling to let those guys meet and pretend we [LGBT’s] don’t exist;” and, more succinctly, to serve as an “incarnate reminder.”

The conference leaders’ strenuous efforts to exclude +Gene hurt him, but he gave one instance a humorous turn. “While the bishops were having tea with the Queen,” he told us, “I was having tea with a bunch of queens” – in fact an AIDS advocacy group. Recalling the stormy 1998 Lambeth Conference, +Robinson said that he would have voted for the draft resolution on sexuality that preceded Lambeth 1.10, because that version acknowledged that the bishops were “not of one mind.” He stressed that liberal Anglicans are not demanding that anyone leave the Communion, “not even ++Akinola.”

+Robinson was disappointed by the English bishops, whom he described as absolutely in denial about the number of LGBT’s, many of them partnered,  in their pulpits and pews. He asked whether the Archbishop of Canterbury plans “to stop same sex unions in [his own] diocese.” Bp. Robinson asked just what is theologically at stake in the struggle over full inclusion of LGBT’s. Our reading of scripture changes over time. The bishop observed that Jesus himself predicted that his message would evolve in his remark to his disciples that there were things they could not yet bear to hear. Is full inclusion of LGBT’s of God or not? Robinson’s answer: “You can’t decide in the middle of things whether you’re prophetic or crazy.”

After a coffee break, the afternoon keynoters offered brief comments on the first two addresses. Bishop Knudsen described the Lambeth Conference as “grueling” and likened it to boot camp. “Showing up for it says something!” she observed, in an apparent reference to those bishops who stayed away. Her overall impression of the Conference was positive. In contrast to Bp. Love, she observed that bishops found and used many opportunities to engage those who held different views, even on the otherwise irksome queues. Knudsen sees a growth of trust – the ability of people to get to know each other – as an “enormous gift of the Conference,” far more important than was obvious in press reports.

Prof. Graham picked up on Bp.Love’s comment that the Anglican Communion is in a state of “deep confusion” and needs clarity. “Do you want to be clear?” he asked, then raised two questions. First, what matters most in the present situation, theology or rights? Second, what would be the cost to each side of failure? Are the prizes sought by conservatives and liberals really worth the Church’s concern? “There is something to be said about being a little relaxed,” Graham said in conclusion.

After Noonday Prayer, a mariachi band appeared to celebrate Bp. Counsell’s birthday. It seemed like an answer to Prof. Graham’s suggestion that we be “a little relaxed!” The afternoon session of “Reflections” began with brief comments by Province II bishops and others who had attended the Lambeth Conference. Pierre Whalon (Europe) reported that he learned there “how little I know.” He sees the Communion entering a new period, which he calls “post-introspection,” and suggests that “The Episcopal Church stop looking at itself and asking if it’s wrong.” Orris Walker, Bishop of Long Island, felt at Lambeth a “need to bring the whole Church [i.e. all orders] together.” He is much distressed by “the rise of the primates.”

Bp. Michael Garrison of Western New York (whom we had met at a gas station before the meeting, and without whom we might still be looking for Trinity Cathedral!) came away from Lambeth with a mixture of awe and frustration. He feels that in struggling to hold the Anglican Communion together, we need to seek “relationships beyond the issues.”

Allie Graham (Rutgers University, New Brunswick), who had been a steward at Lambeth, found herself in the theological minority there and had felt it. She was disappointed to see bishops “talking across each other,” but heartened to note all of them took communion together.

Bp. Mark Beckwith (Newark) returned from Lambeth “exhausted by dread,” having experienced what he described as two parallel conferences: one working to build relationships, the other (represented by the Covenant Design Group and the Windsor Continuation Group) intent on making rules. Bp. Beckwith was also impressed by the vast disparity of wealth among bishops: Some, mostly western, could buy a book or souvenir without a thought, while others had to think twice about going to a pub for a beer. Although he was aware during the Conference of efforts by many in the press to discredit the Anglican Communion, +Beckwith’s overall reaction to Lambeth was positive: He saw dread yielding at last to hope.

Bp. George Counsell (New Jersey) closed this part of the program with the suggestion that a major reason for contention in the Anglican Communion is the lack of a “shared hermeneutic” – a common approach to interpreting Scripture.

Bishop Knudsen’s keynote speech focused less on theology and politics than on the flavor of the Lambeth Conference, and it was hopeful. For example, she described the stewards, who were in their teens and twenties, attending (mostly) men in their 60's and beyond: “Young shepherding old,” which she saw as a metaphor for the way conflicts in the Communion will be resolved as generations change. She was also encouraged by small, kind gestures, for example when a conservative bishop with whom she had sparred brought her tea. “Understanding is the goal,” she said in conclusion, “not mind change.” Prof. Graham’s half hour address focused on the history of the Anglican Communion, which has wrestled from the beginning with the problem of accommodating wide cultural differences.

As an example, he cited Samuel Seabury, the first native American Episcopal bishop, who was ordained by the anti-hierarchical Scottish church. (One wonders what Bp. Seabury would make of the Primates Meeting!) Because Bp. Robinson had to leave “Reflections” at midday (“to get back to my day job”), only Bp. Love was present to respond to the afternoon’s keynote addresses. His response concentrated on the issues that divide the Church, in particular human sexuality and scriptural interpretation. Many of those present took polite issue with him when he likened homosexuality to alcoholism and drew a sharp line between the tendency toward homosexuality and the practice of same sex relations. “What am I to say to the LGBT’s in my pews?” one woman asked.

Bp. Love repeated themes that are familiar to Albany Episcopalians: denying that he is a fundamentalist, blaming Satan for our failings, and urging us to “focus on Christ.” He seemed tired and had a right to be. He had spent a long day of defending what were, in this company, minority views. (His keynote speech had drawn polite applause, Gene Robinson’s a standing ovation.) No doubt he looked forward to Ireland, to which he would fly that evening, and to a warm greeting from the theologically sympathetic Anglicans of Albany’s sister diocese, Down and Dromore.

***

What did I take away from Province II’s Lambeth Reflections meeting? Spiritual encouragement from a dozen remarkable men and women: Bishops who can see through our present storms to the sunlight beyond them; leaders whose proud belief in The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion stands in sharp contrast to the impending doom preached and promoted by the likes of Bob Duncan, +Jack Iker, and their Network colleagues.

We should all be grateful to Bp. Love for taking part in “Lambeth Reflections” and for restoring Albany’s connection to Province II, which had withered in recent years. A long closed window on the wider Church has reopened. May the light shine in! Robert Dodd

The Sound of “WordsandMusic”

Mark Sunday, March 1, 2009 on your calendars. On that afternoon, the Washingtonbased vocal quartet, “WordsandMusic” will perform Ned Rorem’s song cycle, Evidence of Things Not Seen, at St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church, Albany. Sponsors of the concert are St. Andrew’s and Albany Via Media.

Rorem (b. 1923) is an American composer and writer whose musical works include several operas, three symphonies, nine concertos, and about 400 art songs. Completed in 1997, the 36 songs that make up Evidence of Things Not Seen are set to poems by Walt Whitman, Stephen Crane, and 22 other writers. In reviewing the cycle for Fanfare in 2000, Bernard Jacobsen wrote that it “concerns itself with topics, by turns lyrical, comical, tragical, and amorous (and sometimes more than one of these at a time), from every corner of human experience in this world, and it does not shrink from addressing mystical issues evocative of another one.” He concluded that Evidence of Things Not Seen “may well go down to posterity as Rorem’s masterpiece.”

“WordsandMusic” – the missing spaces are intentional -- has given four performances of Evidence of Things Not Seen in downtown Washington and northern Virginia. A reviewer said the group sang “admirably well.” She recommended “going out of your way to hear this work.” We’ll second that!