" ..•.:...:.

':-:::.:.' ." " • <» • ".,:. ',' ~:

".
.;•...
'.::'" . '. " ,' .. ::.~:.
... . ..
'::
. .' :.... '

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

'"

...... ,..••.

x....)::!:,.\:;'
.~...... f,I,-----+;\>.:'-: ~~~~
,~.~
'. .
,

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

I-!,.--/.; '.' .','

:..c.----t.:::.. , ..._
:----I.:.;...
::.;:. ,11--------'-(
!t;::=::::::J... ... ..... -. -

...
.... lI
 "I Dream ... "
The Gay Christian by Susan Day,
Women's Rap Group, MCC New York

VOL. III, No. 1 I DREAM ...

of a church which has no walls,

THE GAY CHRISTIAN: Journal of the Northeast of a world where everywhere is church;
District of the Universal Fellowship of of a congregation in which everyone loves
Metropolitan Community Churches; published each other,
by Metropolitan Community Church of New York. and that's why it's a congregation;
of a service in which everyone holds hands
Material in t.his magazine is origina1. unless and embraces,
otherwise credited. Opinions expressed are embr~cing God together then;
those of the writers only. Please credit of prayers spoken when no one is afraid
The Gay Christian when reproducing from us. to speak aloud to God,
and let their sisters and brothers
The appearance of any name in this magazine join in their thoughts;
should not be taken as an indication of that of a world in which we each minister to
person's sexual orientation. each other,
always;
Roy Birchard, editor of a God who doesn't have to be male or female,
James E. Ricketson, copy and circulation white or black;
of a God who isn't only for male or female,
George Buehler, layout old or young,
Pat Kasaras, cover rich or poor, white or black;

We welc.ome articles and news about Gay ... 1 dream of the time I'll be one with God.
Christians everywhere.
ALPHA, begin now to struggle toward that of
which you dream.

Contact Persons For Denominational Gay Caucuses

American Baptist Gay Caucus Rev. Frank Robertson
All Soul's Unitarian Church
Ms. Louise Rose, President 16th and Harvard, N.W.
Apt. A-405 Washington, D.C.
649 South Henderson Road
King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 United Church of Christ Gay Caucus

DIGNITY/National (Gay Catholics Rev. William R. Johnson, Co-Ordinator

P.O. Box 1250
Paul Diederich, Executive Director San Francisco, Calif. 94101
Room 514
1105 Boylston Street United Methodist Gay Caucus
Boston, Massachusetts 02215
Troy Stokes, Co-Ordinator
~piscopal Gay Caucus 2355 Austin HWy. #68
San Antonio, Texas 78218
John Preston, Co-Ordinator
Box 3592 United Presbyterian Gay Caucus
Upper Nicollet Station
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 Rev. David B. Sindt, Co-Ordinator
2217 North Fremont Street
Committee of Concern (Gay Friends) Chicago, Illinois 60614

Rev. Ronald Mattson, Executive Secretary

3208 Portland Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55407
Prepared by:
Unitarian Universalist Gay Caucus The Council on Religion and the Homosexual
Suite 421
Ms. Sandy Szelag 83 McAllister
5306 South Hyde Park Blvd. San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Chicago, Illinois 60637 Phone: (415) 863-2295

2
szz:t.

I
 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 ball-
games 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 religiously prescribed roles of heterosexuals.
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 rest-
lessness 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 relation-
ships 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,
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 friend-
ship with a person of the same sex. As
society becomes more tolerant of homo-
sexuality and as more gay people come out
3
 publicly, one's own homosexuality is more
difficult to ignore.
Another problem that arises among persons
who are in the closet but don't know it is
a certain amount of confusion about relation-
ships. 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 commit-
ment to a lover.
4
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 homo-
sexuals 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 respon-
sibility. 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.
 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 God-
given direction of his/her sexuality.
There are opportunities to work openly for
the liberation of gay people as well as
all other people.
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
occasional pittance to do consciousness-
raising 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.
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.

'7k ~ ~ (Ut, 94tf ~ ~ fuuH ~ ~ fuuH ~~, 4Hd-t&. elf, ~

e.tJhtt-fuuH tk.4e ~ ~ Me ~ tJdted eu ~ 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 society and therefore has to be isolated,
Dostoevsky in his novel, The House of the Dead. punished, and more recently, "cured" of
If he is correct, then our nation's prison whatever constitutes deviance.
system constitutes a searing indictment of
our assumption that our society is basically
humane and just. And it allows us to sense For the gay prisoner, his or her "sin" is
the very real brutality and injustice that is just being different in terms of sexual
hidden from the casual observer of American orientation. Therefore, when an inmate is
society by a thin veneer of mythology about identified or labelled as being gay, he or
American traditions of fair play and compassion she suffers double jeopardy--for the crime that
for those who are down and out. resulted in incarceration, and for the "crime"
of being gay.
My personal, first-hand experiences with
the American prison system seem to support The punishment inflicted on gay prisoners
Dostoevsky's contention, for it indeed comes from two directions: from the adminis-
appears that the social dynamics which tration, and--to a lesser extent--from those
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.

This phenomenon is strikingly exemplified

by the homophobic nature of the prison system,
a nature embracing inmates and prison admin-
istration 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

5
 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 psychol-
ogical 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 in the This intense manifestation of homophobia

prison system are in order: can be a boon to those individuals and
organizations trying to determine how to
A. Administrative oppression. effectively address themselves to its nature
1. In order to "protect" gay prisoners from and dynamics on the outside. By carefully
their fellow straight inmates, they are isol- examining these dynamics in a prison environ-
ated in special tiers of cells, sometimes ment, one can effectively extrapolate one's
called the "queens' tiers." In New Jersey's findings in order to recognize their presence
Rahway Prison, gay prisoners and persons and extent in the wider community. Thus what
convicted of sex crimes (child molestation, would effectively reduce homophobia in the-
heterosexual sex crimes involving violence, prison system could probably be constructively
etc.) are indiscriminately lumped together implemented on the outside.
and isolated in a special building located
in the center of the prison complex. In order But this suggested manner of dealing with
to justify this punitive type of isolation, the gay issue--from the prison community to the
the administration encourages straight wider community--is not a one-way street. The
prisoners to regard their gay counterparts influence of gay organizations such as the Gay
as being on the lowest rung of the prison Activists Alliance and Metropolitan Community
population's "pecking order," thus keeping Church, and straight organizations sympathetic
alive the antagonism between straight and to their cause eventually filters into the
gay inmates. prison system. As a result, we are beginning
to see the formation of gay prisoner unions,
2. In the Connecticut Department of gay consciousness-raising groups and gay
Corrections, gay inmates are currently religious organizations in the institutions.
required to go through a "treatment program" This trend must continue if the prison system
that includes aversion "therapy," e.g., is to be purged of its homophobic element.
the application of electrical shocks to a And this sorely-needed trend can move only as
gay prisoner's sexual organs and/or injections fast and as far as the issue is effectively
of chemicals that cause incredible pain or dealt with on the outside.
loss of breathing ability for short periods
of time. Gay prisoners need to find themselves;
they need to have the opportunity to develop
In Massachusetts, persons labelled as being a sense of strength, dignity and solidarity
gay are frequently sent to the "Sex Treatment with their fellow inmates. This can only be
Center" at Bridgewater to be "cured." The done if their efforts at organizing them-
victim is not eligible for parole until he selves are not hindered by prison adminis-
or she is certified as being "cured" of homo- trations. The fulfillment of this need can
sexual orientation. This philosophy of "cure" be greatly enhanced if the gay prisoners--
is completely contrary to the American and the administrations--know their situation
Psychiatric Association's recent decision to is not going unnoticed on the outside.
eliminate homosexuality from its list of mental
diseases and psychiatric disorders. I believe the National Task Force on
Higher Education and Criminal Justice must
B. Oppression by fellow inmates. include the plight of the gay prisoner
Straight inmates unwittingly support the among its concerns along with the plight
administration's policies and attitudes of many other groups trying to overcome the
toward gay prisoners. There are several oppressive stigma caused by the labelling
reasons why straight inmates oppress their process, as that process is manifested in
gay counterparts: the criminal justice system.
1. Straight prisoners are conditioned by Furthermore, the plight of the gay prisoner
society's homophobia before they are incar- because it is a searing indictment of our
cerated; that conditioning is nurtured by the society is a challenge also to the institu-
administration. Because gay prisoners are tional church. Christians and their organiz-
isolated from the larger prison population, ations must address themselves to this issue
straight inmates have little or no opportunity in a courageous manner now if they are ,to
to discover that preconceived gay stereotypes avoid being subject to Dostoevsky's indict-
are inaccurate and dehumanizing. ment of the rest of our society.
2. The prison environment subjects its (NOTE: An excellent film dealing with homo-
victims to sexual deprivation; as a result, sexuality in the prison system, "The Jail", is
a straight prisoner is invariably tempted to available from Cinema 5, 595 Madison Avenue,
seek substitutive means to meet this basic New York, N.Y. 10022. Also, contact the
human need. The administration's portrayal Task Force on Higher Education and Criminal
of gay prisoners as helpless, disgusting Justice, The Interchurch Center, 475 River-
objects render them prime candidates for side Drive, New York, N.Y. 10027.
sexual exploitation by straight prisoners. The only MCC prison ministry currently
active in the Northeast District is that
3. In an environment that does not encourage of Deacon Dennis Foster. For information,
or sustain a sense of human dignity--another write him c/o MCC Philadelphia.)

6
 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?
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.
"Our responsibility as political leaders
of the State includes protecting our con-
stituents from divine wrath," one Assembly-
man 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 Calif-
ornia 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 homo-
sexuality 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 is
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 des-
truction of Sodom is an independent saga
of unknown origin belonging to a widely-
diffused 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.
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
As with many other popular myths, J approp-
riated 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
7
 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 serious-
ness 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 main-
tained in the Apocrypha, where three passages
tell only of the folly, pride, and'inhos-
pitality 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 irres-
ponsible. The shallowness of this inter-
pretation is made clear where some of the
exegetes use the supposedly etiological origin
8
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 con-
clude 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 refer-
ring 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 homo-
sexual 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 that they
failed to recognize the divinic character-
istics of Yahweh's messengers. Their
distorted perception of reality revolved
solely around their egotistical desires and
appetites--a state in which one is oblivious
to God's presence and glory.
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 blind-
ness 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 uncon-
sciously, 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 blind-
ness 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 "contamin-
ating" 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 admin-
istration 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

r'
 Reviews Ftom The
"Deviant, Cultic Aggregate"
by Rev. Roy Birchard
Chick, Jack T. The Gay Blade. Chick Pub-
lications, P.O. Box 662, Chino, California,
1972 .
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~stri-
butor, 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 homo-
sexual 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 mass-
produced 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 homo-
sexuality was "neither sin nor sickness",
The Gay· Church focuses attention on a phe-
nomenon 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 neo-
phytes, Enroth and Jamison have been thorough.
One is impressed by the great dollops of direct
quotation from a wide variety of MCC publi-
cations. (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 ordi-
nation of Bill Johnson, the formation of
Dignity, delving into the adventures of
10
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 Sig-
nificance 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; jl Jf I I" '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' self-
admitted 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?)
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
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 "value-
free" 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
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.
"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?
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 schis-
matics 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 homo-
sexuals and lesbians?)
It is because I believe I can perceive this
spirit among us that I feel we can success-
fully 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 right-
eousness 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."
11
 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 con-
tinued 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
12
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. . - .•. ~'-.
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 Fellow-
ship 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

Affectionately,
shakes a mean tambourine. (Photo: Scott Johnson. Washington.
Rev. Richard Vincent
DC) 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

13
 Twentieth Centuty Pentecost
by Rev. Robert A. Sirico

What once was a practice isolated to store-
front 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 trans-
lation 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
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 through-
out 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.

In the third century, Tertullian wrote: The growth of charismatic or "Spirit-filled"

"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
churches is evidence of needs being met in
people's lives. Also the spirit of commit-
ment on the part of those with this "baptism
of the Spirit" is noteworthy.
Just about every pastor in the MCC Fellow-
ship has had to ask himself this question:
Are we a "pentecostal" church? Should we
stop all appearances of pentecostalism?

LiB£RAlioN
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
NEWS AT things, the Methodists will feel alienated.
Should we decide to go about things as good
Episcopalians, the Presbyterians will have
~~S something to say. We mJst go about our work
as Christians with a unitive variety, being
diverse yet one.
WE'V£Gar
tJATIONAL GAY One can be a charismatic without being a
NEWSPAPERS traditional pentecostal. By that, I mean
that my being filled with the Holy Spirit
ALSO A l.AR6f --perhaps speaking in tongues or interpreting
,SEL..EC.TWt-l OF
r!ARIHWORKS
[aJ
GAY PATCHES
~'N6S A~D
.••..
--has nothing to do with whether or not I
beat a tambourine or shout in church. The
112+ 20TH ST. N.W.W~SH't-l&TO""l.t>.e "l..QOOq Pentecostal church has many traditions,
as do mainline churches. The tradition
just

14
itself has nothing to do with the experience
with the Holy Spirit.

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
1. We are ministering
gospel-neglected
to one of the most
people on earth. We need memolial Bookshops
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 Monday - Saturday
to deliver others from Satan's lifestyle.
11 A.M.-7 P.M.
3. The Holy Spirit will lead and direct our
churches according to God's·will (John 14). Sunday
4. The Holy Spirit will cause each member
12 noon - 6 P.M.
to be a real support to each local church.

5. His welcomed presence in our midst will Mail Order:

serve to confirm that God has indeed ordained
and blessed our ministry to gay people (Acts 10). 291 Mercer Street, NYC 10003
- send $1.00 to be included on mailing list
In closing, I would like to share a word of
caution. Some who profess to have this mar-
velous experience with the third person of
the Trinity seem to think themselves somehow 10% Discount with this ad.
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 "pente-
costal manifestations" I would say, as did
Paul, "Forbid not to speak with tongues"
(I Corinthians 14:39).

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; Name
$7.00, 1st class mail, sealed in envelope.
Street
The Gay Christian
Box 1757 City .
Genera 1- Post Office
New York, N.Y. 10001 State Zip .

15
 NottheQst Disttict Ditectoty
UNIVERSAL FELLOWSHIP OF METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCHES, NORTHEAST DISTRICT
THE REV. J.E. PAUL BRETON, DISTRICT COORDINATOR

BALTIMORE, MARYLAND MISSION METROPOLITAN COM!'IUNITY CHURCH OF PHILADELPHIA TilE COMMITTEE OF CONCERN (Gay Friends)
METROPOLITAi; COMMUNITY CHURCH P.O. Box 8174 357 Dean Street
P.O. Box 1145 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Brooklyn, N.Y. 11217
Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Services: Sunday, 8 p.m.
Services: Sunday, 7:30 p.m., 2125 Chestnut Street
27th & St. Paul Streets (First Unitarian Church)
(St. John's United Methodist Church).
Phone: None.
The Rev. J.E. Paul Breton, interim pastor. DIGNITY: An Organization of Gay Catholics.
METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCH OF PROVIDENCE
METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCH OF BOSTON 410 Waterman Avenue
DIGNITY: Baltimore.
East Providence, Rhode Island 02914
131 Cambridge Street c/o Sr .• Jeannine Gramick
Services: Sunday, 7 p.m.
Boston, Massachusetts 02114 St. Jerome Convent
Phone: (401) 434-0668.
Services: Sunday, 7 p.m. 761 Hamburg Street
The Rev. Arthur Cazeault, pastor.
Phone: (617) 523-7664. Baltimore, Maryland 21230
The Rev. Laurence G. Bernier, pastor.
The Rev. Nancy Wilson, associate minister.
DIGNITY: Boston.
UNIVERSAL FllLLOI;SHIP OF METROPOLITAN 1105 Boylston Street
BROOKLYN HEIGHTS STUDY GROUP COMMUNITY CHURCHES Boston, Massachusetts 02215
METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCH Suite 211
50 Monroe Place 373 North Western Avenue
Brooklyn, New York 11201 Los Angeles, California 90004 DIGNITY: New York/New Jersey
Services: Sunday, 2 p.m. Phone: (213) 462-652l. P.O. Box 1554
Pierrepont and Monroe Place ~he Rev. Troy D. Perry, moderator, F.D.R. Station
(First Unitarian Church) board of elders. New York, N.Y. 10022
Phone: (212) 662-7400 Ext. 717.
The Rev. Howard R. NeIls, interim pastor.
DIGNITY: Providence
METROPOLI"fAN COHMUNITY CHURCH OF c/o Mr. Frank Murphy
WASHINGTON, D.C. 199 Garden Street
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT STUDY GROUP
P.O. Box 40551 Pawtucket, Rhode Island 02860
METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCH
Palisades Station
P.O. Box 514
Washington, D.C. 20016
Hartford, Connecticut 06101
Services: Sunday, 3 p.m. DIGNITY: wash Lnqcon , D.C.
Services: Sunday, 3 p.m.
lOth & G Streets, N.W. c/o Apt. 204
Phone: (203) 525-3523.
(Alcord Chapel, First Congregational 215 C Street, S.E.
Mr. F. Jay Deacon, worship coordinator.
United Church of Christ) Washington, D.C. 20003
Phone: (703) 528-3783.
The Rev. John M. Barbone, pastor.
METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCH OF NEW YORK DIGNI?Y: National office.
P.O. Box 1757 Room 514
General Post Office 755 Boylston Street
New York, N.Y. 10001 Boston, Massachusetts 02116
Services: Sunday, 7 p.m.,
Ninth Avenue at 28th Street
(Church of the Holy Apostles) .
Phone: (212) 674-4850 and
369-8513 (pastor's
The Rev. Roy Birchard,
residence).
pastor.
Other Gay Religious Groups THE GAY SYNAGOGUE
in the Northeast 300 Ninth
New York,
Avenue
N.Y.
at 28th
10001
Street

PENN STATE CAMPUS MINISTRY Services: Friday, 8 p.m.

METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCH
Services: Sunday, 7 p.m., THE CHURCH OF THE BELOVED DISCIPLE
Eisenhower Chapel, Penn State 348 West 14th Street UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST GAY CAUCUS
University Campus, New York, N.Y. 10014 IN NEW YORK: c/o Mr. Milton Lounsberry,
University Park, Pennsylvania. Services: Sunday, 2 p.m. Apt. 2D, 421 East 78th Street,
Mr. Charles Rinear, Phone: (212) 242-6616. New York, N.Y. 10021. Phone:
worship coordinator. The Rev. Robert M. Clement, pastor. (212) 628-2038.

BOX 1757 • GENERAL POST OFFICE. NEW YORK, N.Y. 10001

NON PROFIT ORG.
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
NEW YORK, N.Y.
TO PERMIT NO. 751

-PRINTED MATTER