1. A Generation of Definitions.
Let us now leave the convoluted thinking and logic's of mainstream popular scholarship, and enjoy a short and relaxing canoe ride down one of the many smaller feeder streams by way of fun and recreation. We arrive then, in the ever expanding world of DEFINITIONS! Now one of the first things that a good theology student will want to do in the early stages of writing a paper on any topic (general or particular) is to nail down the precise meaning of the most important key-words of the given theme or topic. Right? So then you might be thinking that this is no big deal. Just look up the word in any handy dictionary and/or encyclopedia and that's that. Right? ... Wrong! Things are never so easy in modern theology, you see. Various definitions of the same word abound; especially for the REALLY important ones (eg. justification). And it's anybody's guess which is the most valid or authoritative. There are no real standards in place for sorting through all the available resources and latest literature, and so determining which definition is best among all the options. But then one can always choose your favorite standard reference work and simply stick with that. So that's fine too, except that many words, ideas, and concepts have a nasty habit of changing their meanings in various ways. The sharp student will be aware of this, and know also that in the 21st century the English language will keep right on changing; often at bewildering speed.So now let us illustrate some of the difficulties involved in this 'simple matter' of definitions. We will choose as our example word/idea the strange term 'lesbianism', and see how it has been variously presented over the last four decades. Let us begin with an impressively authoritative textbook, circa 1962, entitled Dictionary of Moral Theology. There is, of course, no listing for our word (ie. it does not merit an article unto itself), but 'Lesbianism or Sapphism' does appear in the article under 'PERVERSION, SEXUAL'. So this article has a curious observation to make about dykes: "In these cases, an insufficient psychosexual differentiation of the subjects or hermaphrodite structures seem to be at the root of the disturbance." Now I'm not exactly sure what this means, but it does sound rather NASTY! On the other hand, the text clearly recognizes various forms and levels of the 'perversion of the erotic instinct'. Indeed, some of these 'dangers to society' are declared to be relatively mild: "Under similar accidental circumstances, homosexuality and bestiality have a relatively minor morbid character." Well! I must say that, all in all, this article does very little in the way of actually telling us what lesbianism or Sapphism IS ... Other than suggesting that this type of homosexual is a woman who makes her 'own sex the object of eroticism'.
Ten years later the psychological model has given way to a more biblical approach. In Baker's Dictionary of Christian Ethics scholar Neil Yorkston offers an early article on 'Lesbianism'. It begins by referencing related articles elsewhere on something called 'Homosexualism', etc; and then mentions the poetess Sappho from the Greek island of Lesbos, who ... Well, we all know what SHE did! Then he rounds off this introduction with a nice observation: "Encouragement by another person, often combined with loneliness, and with a fear of heterosexual relations, seem important factors in a woman becoming a lesbian." So this remnant of the psychological model is rather astonishing in several ways (but we won't burden you with THAT ... just yet, I mean).
Now begins the heart of the article. The short presentation of the Bible's perspective on lesbianism begins with an unusual declaration: "The Biblical view of lesbianism contrasts sharply with that of the ancient Greeks, who extolled it as admirable." And they did too; to some extent. Now the Bible sees it as sin, pure and simple, but also declares God's distinction between, and different attitude towards, the sin and the sinner. The text also adds that "Christians sometimes find it difficult to learn these distinctions." This is quite true, and also a challenge to all Christians to inject a little wisdom and common sense into an area that is fairly soaked in irrationality and unnecessary emotionalism. Then we learn that Paul's attitude is both extreme and ambiguous; which is, of course, perfectly natural and typical of Paul (cf. Rom 1:18 & 1Cor 6:9-11). And that's it for the article. The two poles on which this reality is stretched out are condemnation and justification. Of course, I believe that the Bible has a great deal more to say to this topic (but we won't burden you with THAT either). On the other hand, this article is clearly a considerable improvement over the previous effort.
The year 1986 saw the appearance of A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics. In this book our word is found in a lengthy article (three pages) under Homosexuality. An interesting detail here is page 274, where we see that the two following articles are on Honesty and Honor, which are Christian virtues of no small relevance to our unfortunate word! Anyway, the article opens with the now classic distinction (or should that be 'distortion'?) between orientation and acts. Then we learn that 'same-sex oriented persons' prefer the term 'lesbians' to 'homosexuals', "believing that the latter term carries negative clinical associations and conveys a narrow genital focus in the definition of the person." ... LOL
... Objection sustained! [1] So now instead of obscure definitions, we get politics. This is progress? Anyway, this is followed by a brief account of the genesis of orientation (which is also 'political' in tone), and a summary of the biblical approach; where the relevant texts merely "appear to make completely negative judgments upon same-sex genital expression." A subtle 'hermeneutics of suspicion' skillfully deconstructs the text such that the Bible no longer has anything relevant to say to us enlightened moderns, in that it can no longer answer the questions that most need to be answered today. Now I would suggest to Mr Nelson that if the Bible appears irrelevant to us, maybe it's because we're just NOT PAYING ATTENTION to the text!
So anyway, this exegesis is followed by a brief sketch of the Church's varying levels of hostility through the centuries.[2] Then we get an account of "the continuum of current Christian understanding" as represented by "four theological-ethical positions": (1) rejecting-punitive; (2) rejecting-nonpunitive (Aquinas, Barth); (3) qualified acceptance [This position makes a few obvious errors; the most serious being the highly unchristian idea that homosexuals are "frequently unsusceptible to reorientation". To my mind this simply means that God cannot save them; a truly ridiculous notion. But for us, anything is possible if you only believe; or as the early Christians put it: 'Faith can move mountains']; and (4) full acceptance.[3] This four-pronged division of the whole range of human responses to the social-reality of homosexuality is actually rather useful in dealing with the complex reality of Lesbianism & Bible, Lesbianism & Feminism, Lesbianism & Church, Lesbianism & Culture, Lesbianism & Liberation, Lesbianism & Tradition, Lesbianism & Theology, and Lesbianism & WHATNOT! [By the way, and just in case you're wondering, my own position is somewhere in the foggy borderland between two and three, trying hard not to lose sight of those two giants upon whose broad shoulders we ALL stand.]
So since the first position is a tad too 'Old-Testament-ish', it is expected that of the various churches, "the majority embrace the rejecting- nonpunitive stance." This is also quite understandable, and even demonstrates that most Christians in general adopt a common-sense approach that tries to do justice to all those involved (ie. God, Bible, Church, Homosexual, etc). In any case, the "central questions that appear to distinguish the above positions are these: the meaning of human sexuality, the interpretation of scripture, the use of empirical data, and the criteria for evaluation of moral action." Of course, the most Christian position will be the one that can develop and shape these four resources into a coherent and compelling argument that shows ALL due respect for Scripture, Tradition, and Reality.
But in the conclusion to this article, Mr Nelson throws off the shackles and lets fly his political passions; raising all manner of 'specific moral issues' that 'now face the churches'. It is a most impressive list, to be sure, and it quite logically ends with "the far-reaching challenge" of "dealing with the moral and spiritual dynamics of homophobia". Then there are references to works by Bailey, Kosnick, Scroggs, and others; and pointers to other related articles (including Sexual Ethics, Lesbianism, and Marriage). Of course, the article under Lesbianism is notable only for its extreme smallness. It offers us very little, as does this article under Homosexuality. Although there is quite a lot of information here [as compared to nothing at all, I mean], this political tract does not move us very far forward along the way of our quest for understanding sufficient unto the creation of an adequate definition of the word 'Lesbianism'.
2. The Present State of Affairs
The very next year (1987) the topic of Lesbianism once again merits a full column: in the Encyclopedia of Biblical and Christian Ethics. The opening statement is curious enough to merit repetition: "Lesbianism refers to the attraction of women into a primary love relationship with other women." This exceedingly ambiguous statement is immediately "clarified" by suggesting that both homosexual activity and/or orientation are involved; and that a necessary distinction must be made here. In other words, lesbianism is a complex psycho-social reality that includes many types and kinds of people, activities, intentions, sentiments, motivations, and so on. I dare say that each individual lesbian does indeed manifest her activity and orientation in a unique and very personal way. Thus we cannot simply say that 'Lesbianism is Good'. Nor can we say that 'Lesbianism is Evil' either. Evil resides in the concrete and individual human heart. Lesbians are not immune from evil (though many behave as though they were). Neither are they immune from grace. Therefore each individual lesbian must be evaluated and judged according to her own unique life and personality, her own unique actions, dispositions, affections, intentions, etc. What is perhaps forgivable in children, adolescents, convicts, and unbelieving pagans may not be so excusable in a mature woman who not only claims to be a good and faithful disciple of the Lord, but also seeks to pastor a flock of the Lord's people.
Now these are difficult matters, to be sure, and it is all but utterly impossible even to discuss them within the confines of the Church; but there is one distinction I simply must insist on. And that is that the lesbian cannot claim Christ as an undeniable right and privilege. True faith is a gift to be cherished and nourished (by way of the Church and the Scriptures). Grace and the Holy Spirit abound, to be sure, but this does NOT mean that everyone who claims to know Christ is, in fact, a True Believer. Therefore the lesbian-Christian must be held accountable for her faith, as well as for her words and actions; and those among them who seek to serve God's People as pastors and ministers and teachers must understand that there is no such thing as a personal private life for God's dedicated Prophets, Priests, & Servants. Dedication to God and his Church must be total in the pastor, and this means that no action or intention or emotion is too small or too meaningless. EVERYTHING she says and does and thinks belongs to God, is open to his Gaze, and subject to his Judgment. Let us not deceive ourselves into thinking that what is "good" for the trendy and fun-loving middle-class pagan is automatically good for the true Christian Lady also.
In any case, the definition at hand is followed by mention of Lesbos and Sappho, and the famous ongoing debate about the origins of homosexuality. Is it psycho-sexual, or is it genetic? [Only her hairdresser knows for sure!] I tend to favor the first option myself; for various reasons. One of these is that the actual number of born-homosexuals is necessarily rather small. In general, homosexuals are made, not born. Therefore the so-called debate over the origins is little more than a smoke screen to further cloud and confuse an already bewildering chaos of information and misinformation. Then we are given the important, but also apparent, fact that lesbianism is all but invisible to history: 'No doubt this is partly because the role of women in society has been poorly documented." Even today Christian men and women are still quite reluctant to step forth and pursue a serious interest in lesbian studies. Thus despite a vast literature on the topics of homosexuality, feminism, moral theology, and so forth, the actual amount of usable resources and good solid Christian scholarship on lesbianism remains embarrassingly small.[5] Out of this great apathy and ignorance, mostly on the part of men, also comes the persistent notion that gay men are more profligate than lesbians. This is a variation on the silly idea that what you can't see and don't know can't hurt you. Any microbiologist can tell you, in no uncertain terms, just how fatally stupid that idea can be. Personally, I don't believe that gender has any significant bearing on any given individual's level of flagrant and reckless immorality. Bizarre theater is one thing; true evil is a genderless something-else again.
Now begins the commentary on the much dreaded Paul. The article actually quotes Rom 1:26-27 and beautifully distills the Apostle's mind on the matter: "The stark picture that Paul paints is of lesbians and homosexuals being consumed by their own lust." Well! It's no wonder that such a politically incorrect, and even impolite, peasant is very ill regarded in many dark corners of the Church. Would that the Lord come down and blot out those mere two dozen words from his Holy Book! Oh yes; life would be a whole lot easier for the Christian Lady of Good Taste if that particular verse in Romans had never been written. This is because in all the dozens of books that are deemed holy, nothing is said directly and specifically about lesbianism. Which is just fine, of course. But then along comes Paul, and with a casual stroke or three by the scribal hand, the fate of all lesbian- Christians was henceforth sealed. They were, in short, forced underground; and only of late have they broken silence, and are now voicing their displeasure with this oppressive, heterosexist, misogynistic man who is grossly over-respected by far too many Christians ... Ahem. But Paul also preached the good news, as at 1Cor 6:11, and his contrast of human sin and divine love, of darkness and light, like the ancient Chinese yin-yang symbol, is "a good model" for Christians to use in building their thinking and attitudes around this topic. And with this I agree whole-heartedly! Indeed, that yin-yang symbol contains a great deal of profound biblical theology that could be well applied to an adequate definition of Lesbianism..
The final sentence is also worth quoting in full: "Homosexual activity is a heinous sin, but this doesn't relieve us of our responsibility to work and pray for the redemption of the sinner." Now I fully agree with the latter part (after 'but'), as it applies pretty much to everyone regardless of gender, or age, or orientation, or whatnot. But I'm not so sure that the all-inclusive "Homosexual activity is a heinous sin" quite captures the richness of Paul's moral teachings. It certainly does not do justice to the wider biblical context. Nor does it take the full range of human psychological, social, and cultural experience into account. Homosexual activities vary enormously in scope and content, and are in no way confined solely to 'the naughty bits'. In short, the sinfulness of any particular homosexual act depends on the many specific personal and social factors within the event; not least of which are the basic affections and dispositions within her heart. Actions are important, without a doubt, but in and of themselves they are not enough to allow for a proper Christian understanding of this complex reality. But despite the article's few unfortunate flaws, it does manage to cover a lot of ground; and, in general, represents an improvement over previous efforts. However, a lot of work was still clearly called for.
Nine years later (in 1996) the results of all the labor that had been done found its way into the Dictionary of Feminist Theologies. Here the changes that occurred are apparent and impressive. Gone is the strange word 'Lesbianism'. Here a whopping three and a half columns are devoted to the term 'Lesbian'. But will we discover a sound theology within? First we are told that 'lesbian women' (surely a useless phrase[6]) are very varied in looks, occupations, attitudes, behaviors, etc. We also get this bit of practical advice: "Women may recognize their sexual orientation as lesbian ... by paying attention to their feelings of attraction." Now the assumptions and the logic underlying this rhetoric clearly identify this article as coming from Nelson's fourth position. With that in mind, we can see that there is plenty of room here for apologetic statements of doubtful value. Some of these even suggest the voice of the martyr: "Although lesbians are prominent among religious writers, seminary professors, and ordained and lay congregational leaders, the heterosexism of Christianity and Judaism forces many of them into a costly silence concerning their sexuality, and hence their very lives." WOW! Are you hearing this? Many feminist Christians (both male and female) actually do think like this; and, of course, this sort of thinking both reflects and forms their basic attitudes and dispositions. 'Lesbianism' is out. 'Heterosexism' is in.
If Nelson's political agenda somewhat obscures his understanding of our word, here in Mollenkott's tract it completely determines the definition itself: "... or as women who bond with other women in political opposition to male supremacy, refusing with their lives to collaborate in their own betrayal." Well! The careful reader of this article will gain much insight into the nature of lesbian-theology by paying close attention to the language used (eg. key words such as 'mutuality' and 'friendship'), and the thinking and attitudes underlying this language. For example: "... and articulating a theology of relationship in which the mutual supportiveness of friendship becomes normative for all ...". Now this is very dangerous stuff, in that some people might actually mistake it for acceptable Christian thinking. Furthermore, we also learn that "lesbian history is caused to vanish" by a "conspiracy of erasure" which stems from "heterosexist or homophobic oppression". Hmmm ... I wonder if there is any historical evidence to support this anti-lesbian conspiracy; which must be thousands of years old, extremely well organized, and still very much going strong . . .
And has the Bible been forgotten in all this? Certainly not. Virginia closes off her article with a few observations on scripture: "Hence it must be acknowledged that the modern obsession with 'the Bible and homosexuality' reflects our era's hangups, not biblical priorities. In fact, the biblical authors knew nothing about sexual orientation or same-sex lovemaking as an adult consensual form of intimacy, so consulting the Bible about lesbianism is anachronistic."[7] However, she does go on to point out that some biblical ideas can be developed; to further the cause (as it were). For example, one such 'development' is to understand "one-fleshedness" as referring to "fidelity to covenant or sexual intimacy" and the "importance of mutuality". The only problem with all this is that it flatly contradicts the biblical vision of one-flesh, which necessarily involves the concept/reality of complementarity between the sexes (as in the yin-yang symbol). Therefore, lesbian-Christians can have their distorted 'chemistry' and 'mutuality' and 'friendship', but they can never - ever - attain the sublime reality of one-flesh; simply because a mutual masturbation society woefully lacks the necessary resources (physical, emotional, and spiritual). As to the 'modern obsession', I would suggest that this reflects, not hangups, but a good deal of genuine Christian concern to discover the divine mind on this vexing matter by carefully examining the biblical evidence for anything that might help us make sense of this madness.
For example, in his short and very readable recent book on this very topic, professor Soards outlines his basic approach to the subject in words of pragmatic wisdom: "I have tried to reflect upon the meaning of scripture for the life of the church today as Christians seek to comprehend God's will regarding the matter of homosexuality. Nevertheless, there are times and topics in Christian thought and life that seem ambiguous, despite every effort to bring decisive evidence into view. Such matters demand informed discussion among the members of the community of faith" (ix). Moreover, this work is far from complete. Nor should we suppose that just because we know more about the universe than the biblical authors did that this automatically means that we are also far wiser than them. I firmly believe that the very opposite is, in fact, the case; despite our superior knowledge and 'know-how'. The article also has a P.S. by way of reference to CLOUT; which is a national organization (Christian Lesbians OUt Together). Interested parties can here find Clout's address; and presumably will write to them for more information (or should we say 'misinformation'?). And that, dear reader, is that, for the word 'lesbian'.
3. The Hopeless Quest
So what have we learned from four decades of scholarly wrestling? Well, several things actually. Firstly, we now know (beyond all doubt) that we are a long *long* way from anything even approaching a scholarly consensus adequate to a useful definition and description of lesbians and their 'ism'. We have also learned that politics and social justice issues tend to be intensely counterproductive in the matter of assisting us in our seemingly Hopeless Quest for understanding. We have also seen that many scholars and good Christians flatly refuse to take the Bible seriously; even bemoaning *any* use or influence in this matter; when it is perfectly obvious that the Sacred Scriptures contain a vast untapped potential to shed Light & Wisdom on this Dark Corner of human being and experience. Now Paul is NOT the first word to be said about all this; nor is he the last. It is Jesus only who always comes First & Last; and there is a great deal there in the four gospels of immense relevance to Lesbian Studies. The most important of these 'little nuggets' is found in Mark's Divorce Controversy pericope where Jesus answers the Pharisees by giving a midrash on Torah. He thus points us straight (so to speak) to the creation myths of the Yahwist. Similar views on human sexuality can also be found among the Wisdom Literature (eg. the Song of Songs). So while there is certainly no lack of relevant texts, there is a most unfortunate (and very distressing) lack of will and imagination in making the most of these God-given resources. One can only bewail the sad fate of the Holy Word in these 'enlightened' post- modern times: consigned to oblivion simply because it occasionally offends our grossly over-delicate sensibilities!
We also know now that the psychological model can be very useful; IF our psychology is strengthened by a sound Christian anthropology and philosophy that never loses contact with the knowledge that our religion, in general and in all its various parts, is about transformation (as in real change, emotional growth, and spiritual maturity)! We are also very impressed with the fact that most lesbians find their calling as very young children. I do not think that many people fully appreciate the meaning and implications of this "minor" detail. [However, there are exceptions (as usual): see Brueggemann p.10-11.] Nor am I prepared to overlook the fatal importance of social support and encouragement from those around her, and from all her so-called 'friends'. If lesbians are made as children, then they can be unmade as mature and responsible Christian adults [8]; with the help of grace and those who truly love her: not for what she is, but for who she is! While lesbianism is never entirely appropriate (in Christians); it is perhaps forgivable (or at least understandable) in children, adolescents, those imprisoned, those unable or unwilling to pursue polite civil relations with men in general, unbelieving pagans, and all manner of others who are ignorant of God's will. BUT this does NOT mean that God approves of lesbianism and desires lesbians to be pastors and ministers of his flock!
The point here is that lesbians are lesbians because they flatly refuse to let go of the magic they discovered as seven-year-old girls. They flatly refuse to change; hence their general disdain for Scripture and its transformative power. Furthermore, all those who actively encourage them in their immaturity have no business pretending to be blameless disciples of Christ. 'Be all that you can be' does NOT mean that you never have to grow up and put aside your childish ways. For the true believer it means conforming the heart and will to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; no matter how much it hurts, no matter how much you don't want to do it! If you want to be a saint or an apostle or even just a good and faithful follower of the Way, then you simply must accept the awful truth and GET ON WITH IT! With that in mind, let me offer you a slightly modified version of Yorkstan's insightful observation: 'Encouragement by other people, often combined with loneliness, and with a fear of true intimacy in heterosexual relationships, are very important factors in a woman remaining a lesbian.'Let me also add, perhaps unnecessarily, that none of these potent 'factors' is absolutely insurmountable. Healthy heterosexual relationships are possible, but you must work at them to make them truly successful. Of course, this will naturally involve SACRIFICE (on both sides). Also bear in mind that there is very probably just as much uneasiness and trepidation on the other side. After all, we are all of us in this thing together. Lesbians never have, and never will, stand alone in their struggles to be fully human (as mature sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father) because true liberation can only be found in solidarity with Jesus! [9]
So there you have it. In the space of a single generation the Christian understanding of lesbianism has moved from a harsh and rejecting attitude to a harsh and accepting attitude. It seems to us that in this move from one extreme to the other, a lot has changed (eg. language, assumptions, theology); but very little has actually been said or learned about lesbians and the main features and characteristics of lesbianism as such. So we reject both the political and psychological models as being wholly inadequate to a good Christian understanding; but we also accept that they do have some valuable contributions to make to a balanced and moderate approach. At the present time, however, we are still engaged in a futile search for an adequate definition of Lesbianism.What is most needed now, therefore, is the courage and imagination and determination to create a Christian approach that respects Culture, Tradition, Reality, *and* the wondrous Complexity & Mystery of human being, but is still firmly tuned into sacred scripture as seen through the faith and love of an enlightened biblical theology [10] (which is necessarily vastly superior to the fuzzy softness of the popular theology that is practiced by many radical feminists). Oh yes, there is much work yet to be done in 'this obsession with the Bible and Homosexuality'; and until most of this is accomplished, no meaningful definition of Lesbianism will be forthcoming. Perhaps in the twenty-second century Christian scholars will have the resources with which to attempt the construction of a useful and realistic definition of lesbianism that will benefit everyone.
4. Gender Issues & Language Lessons
"Yes,
these Ones are the grumblers and complainers who walk
according
to their own lusts. By their mouths they speak haughty
words;
and also admire persons for the sake of advantage" (Jude16/PV)
Alas, we cannot afford to simply await the arrival of a more sensible world. So before we begin the daunting task of defining such a spooky word as 'lesbianism', let us be clear on what it is exactly that we are talking about here.[11] In the course of these investigations I make many and various references to 'feminists' and 'feminism'; but the reader should bear in mind that by doing this I am not referring to all feminists without exception, wheresoever they may be found. In fact, there are only two types of feminism of interest to us. One is a wise and moderate feminism that is genuinely Christian, and which the Church desperately needs. The other type is a far more radical feminism which is little more than a front for religious lesbianism. Now this latter is actually an independent faith that is fundamentally opposed to authentic Christianity. This is because it is extremely destructive to the Spirit of Love & Truth (and hence to the Church as a whole).On the more personal level it is highly poisonous to the (male and female) believer's spiritual health and welfare. So it is to this latter group that I refer (unless otherwise indicated) when I speak here of 'feminism' or 'lesbianism' in the general sense.[12] I mention this as a primary orientation of this essay because the basic problem with lesbian studies lies in the nature of the theological enterprise itself. We have observed that theology in general is characterized by a notable lack of respect for (or inability to perceive) Truth, Fact, and Reality. Now most theologies do have something valuable to say and contribute to our 'faith seeking understanding', but they all have a fatal flaw inasmuch as they fail to make adequate contact with the sheer fullness of God's awesome and mysterious reality as it is given to us within the context of our daily lives.
Let me illustrate my meaning by way of one quick example. 'Orthodoxy' refers to the right and proper practice of the Christian religion as expressed in outward speech and observable actions. It is closely connected to the idea that as we pray, so we believe. So, for example, we believe the Creed because we pray it, and we pray it because we believe it. Now this statement - 'as we pray, so we believe' - is a perfectly proper theological assertion, simply because for many Christians this is just the way it is. However, there are also some Christians (eg. even some seminarians and liturgical lesbians) for whom this statement does not apply. In other words, there are some Christians for whom the faith on their lips is one thing, while the faith in their hearts is something quite different. If we fail to recognize and appreciate this distinction between inward and outward realty, then we will necessarily fall into the same trap that destroys the credibility of the vast bulk of modern theology. Fidelity to the truth demands that we can never turn a blind eye to any part of Reality; especially if we see something there that we do not want to see or acknowledge as fact (even those things that endanger our faith, or cast doubts on our reasonings). Here we must acknowledge that liturgical lesbians are more flexible in their thinking, and more adaptable in their morality. For example, they see no contradiction in being a saint in the chapel, and a sinner in the bedroom. Men, by way of contrast, in general tend to be more honest about such things; if not always with themselves, then at least with others. There is no mystery in this. The simple fact is that most women are not so chained to rational consistency as many men are. This is both a strength and a weakness; and of itself proves only that women and men are not identical creatures.[13]
Now the popular lesbian-theology flows so smoothly into (and out of!) orthodox thought, and is so gosh-darned appealing, that one need never even suspect the awful (unspoken) truth that lies behind the sweet-smelling rhetoric. Misdirection is the key characteristic to bear in mind while trying to untangle the confused mass of popular lesbian-Christian thinking. Lesbian-theology does speak the truth; but what is withheld is always the main thing. So misdirection works best when it is based on both ignorance AND truth. Loving Lesbians also like to pretend that their unique brand of Christianity is meant for all people, and so applies to everyone (ie. women AND men), and so they couch their apologetics in general and universal terms. In this way, their horribly discriminating and exclusive practices [14] are covered over and hidden behind inclusive language and terminology.
So one cannot fully understand religious lesbianism without paying close attention to the way lesbian-Christians think. Indeed, it is even more important to know the lesbian language and theology; for these things shape their perceptions of the world, and the way they respond to the various people and situations that make up their lives. Therefore, let us first be clear on the simple fact that lesbianism is not solely and purely a matter of sexual encounters between women. It is also a way of thinking, and a very specific mode of being-in-the-world. I would even suggest that these latter aspects are the more significant; if only because this is the face of lesbianism that meets the World (and Church), interacts with it, and shapes it this way and that. What happens in the bedroom is one thing; but it is what happens outside the bedroom, in the form of her thoughts, feelings, and actions in daily life, that have the greatest impact on the People of God, and society as a whole.This is the public face of lesbianism. It is the place where the consequences and results of what happens in the bedroom most clearly manifest their Christian fruits. It is here in the world (eg. in the nature of her relationships with others) that religious lesbianism often displays its self-centered advocacy. Thus Loving Lesbians seek out those institutions and peoples who will support and encourage their particular ways of thought and action; and will avoid those things and individuals who would rather question and challenge these very thoughts and actions. Being an oppressed and abused people therefore, lesbian-Christians naturally expend a great deal of energy in gathering together all those ideas, images, and realities that make lesbianism acceptable and appealing, all those things that show lesbianism to be a good and Christian way of life.
Thus a certain young scholar and spokesperson says that 'we are a vulnerable people'. [15] In other words: 'We' are small and fragile seeds who are easily bruised. 'We' need a great deal of protection and nourishment and encouragement. 'We' have it in the Roman Catholic Church! She also speaks of 'the unique Newman Spirit'; not even aware of the bitter irony that is evidently not so apparent in her words. The reason for this is that the spirit of John Henry Newman has long since departed from Alberta; not because it ever left, but only because so many have turned their backs on him! Nevertheless, we all know his name, and have great respect for his accomplishments and achievements, and his prophetic vision ('So well ahead of his time', they say). Why, we'll even quote a nice snippet or two once in a while just to keep the ball rolling. ... Rolling, rolling ... rolling away, it seems to me. No courses on JHN are taught around here. No one is required to actually read any of his many, many books and stuff. Indeed, no one really has to know anything about the man (or his spirit) other than that he once was somebody who made a (brief?) splash in the Church.
Today John-Henry's utility lies in the simple fact that he serves as a fine inspiring symbol for all of today's new young forward-looking and forward-thinking loving ladies. Apparently, we are meant to suppose that the spirit of prophecy can now be found with them. But I've looked all over this wide and open land (wild and closed too); searched high and low, this way and that, in the streets and in the air, and I've never even once come close to catching a whiff of the spirit of John Henry Newman. Why, one might even conclude that ol'Henry's prophetic spirit is an extremely rare one! In any case, our Lady-Scholar affirms that intense joy can be experienced through mutual-love and "friendship". Of course, the attentive reader may be able to guess what 'mutual-love' really means; and so can imagine what this "intense joy" actually consists of. Nuff said. She also suggests that because we are thoroughly convinced of each others worth, we are challenged to view our Christian faith, our discipleship, from another perspective; even a different perspective. Yes? Well, that's certainly a very good way of stating the meaning and purpose of lesbian-theology ...
So lesbian-Christians [16] are concerned, above all, with making lesbianism an integral part of the Catholic Faith, with promoting lesbianism as a valid and wonderful way of being human (ie. a true and noble Christian woman). In the same way, much of their public activities will involve resisting and combating all those things which work against the movement and expansion of the force of religious lesbianism. Now Jesus has something very relevant to say about this social, political, and religious program. His first message to lesbians is this:
"If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves ... For those who want to save their life will lose it,This is not mere fancy rhetoric that can be overlooked or dispensed with. Here we have, rather, a fundamental fact of Christian life. Being a Christian, in other words, involves a willingness to deny oneself (for something greater than one's self). It demands a willingness to make sacrifices, to put others (even the Gospel) before our deepest desires. But, significantly, this is the one thing that Lesbian-christians cannot, will not, dare not, do!
and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it" (Mark 8:34-35).Therefore lesbian-theology is surely a very strange animal. It is the only form of liberation theology that does not routinely and openly advocate its goals and intentions. [Truly, as Oscar Wilde so wisely put it, it is the love that dares not speak its name!] So it usually appears as a seemingly innocent and innocuous form of popular feminist theology. But its radical nature can be quickly discerned if one bears in mind the true meaning and full implications of certain key words and phrases; eg. circle of life, struggles of women, pursuit of excellence (NOT what JHN means!), transformation, passion for life, friendship, mutuality, chemistry, etc etc; all of which have a special added meaning in lesbian thought.
In lesbian-theology none of the most significant points are stated directly, but are always implied and alluded to by means of these images, symbols, key words and phrases that normally pull double duty (ie. having the usual benign meanings for them, but also having a special meaning for us). Thus a hasty reading of popular lesbian-theology will usually fail to uncover anything sinister or unorthodox. It is only when we relate all the secondary meanings to each other, and add these together, that the real intent gradually emerges from the sweet smelling fog of fuzzy words and warm phrases that make up the normal style of this popular theologizing.
Accordingly, in the language of popular lesbian thought certain key words have a special meaning that is often missed by those who are not of the Circle of Friends (ie. the urban lesbian subculture). This is because these vital code words bear a superficial resemblance to their usual and ordinary meanings. But actually, they have a special twist to them that radically alters their intended meaning. For example: 'chemistry' means 'only women turn me on'; 'friendship' means 'I like you. Let's have sex at once'. 'Sharing' means there is no limit to how many lovers or encounters a woman can have. In fact, when it comes to sharing, more is always better; except that a lady never shares herself with a man (ie. a heterosexist oppressor), for that would be tantamount to treason. 'We are a vulnerable people' means 'I'm scared; so please keep me well away from those bad, abusive, and unchaste hetero-males', and also means that 'we' need not take into consideration anybody's needs and feelings other than our own. 'Mutuality' means that men and women are not equal. In fact, women are far superior to men, therefore men and women can never be truly 'mutual' with each other. Only women can be mutual with women. 'Patriarchy' means society sucks, and therefore no crime against men is unwarranted. 'Heterosexist oppression' and 'homophobic abuse' can also mean 'I hate and/or despise and/or fear men'. And so on.
By the way, another obstacle preventing a proper Christian understanding of lesbianism is the current fashion of not allowing words like 'sin' and 'evil' and 'responsibility' to enter very deeply - if at all - into the popular and scholarly literature. Another word that Lesbian-Christian theology, language, and culture apparently has no use for is 'righteousness'. Of course, this word is intimately bound up with 'responsibility', 'honesty', 'honor', and other oppressive and very non-empowering Christian values and virtues. However, righteousness is not merely an option for the Christian; it is a requirement. "Any suggestion that Paul's law-free, grace-centered gospel leads to antinomianism - a life devoid of righteousness - therefore consistently receives the immediate, strong protest: me genoito, 'By no means!"' (Hagner 29) The concerned Christian should also know that this word - 'orientation' (like 'homophobia') - is a LIE! What I mean is that (apart from gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender persons) while men are attracted to women, and women to men, this grand universal truth should not be overly confused with reality. That is, in the concrete world of daily mundane life (where most of us actually live), no individual is attracted to all members of the other gender. Each and every man and woman is attracted to a very small and select group of particular individuals (ie. those we find beautiful and/or desirable).
If we want to speak about 'orientations', we could say that a certain type of man is attracted to 'babes wit big jugs', or that a certain type of woman is sexually aroused by unmarried millionaires, and so on. Talk of a universal gender orientation is well intentioned, in some sense, but also tends to obscure this necessary particularity that pervades both Reality in general, and the subjective world of every individual. Speaking for myself, I would not say that I am oriented to women in general. I would say that I find many women appealing and attractive, physically and/or personally. Does this constitute an orientation? If so, then it is rather too general and diffuse to be of much practical value.
Moreover, I would also say that there are some men who are altogether overwhelmed by one particular person, one special lady who is marvelously unique and unutterably beautiful and absolutely irreplaceable! Could this be called an orientation? I think not. Thus it is not a lie in its most basic literal and descriptive sense; but rather in the way that it is used as a theological concept to slip falsehoods ever so smoothly into the fuzzy softness of popular radical-feminist theology. In this sense, it is designed solely to justify and validate a multitude of sins. Not only that, but it also allows the 'oriented' to blend in among other oppressed peoples; as if there were no significance in the difference between a willful and trendy lifestyle, and an unwanted condition imposed by external forces!
Now the flourishing language of religious-lesbianism is a fairly recent development among the churches, but it is already spread wide throughout the popular Christian thinking of young church-minded Americans. Christian institutions of higher education are the very heartbeat of the Canadian churches; and here the feminization of religion is most obvious. Hence the liberal, pluralistic, ecumenical, and feminist atmosphere of most of these places creates the perfect environment for the development and dissemination of a powerful and popular (almost) lesbian-theology. Thus it is the current social and cultural developments and realities around them that effectively shape the language and minds of today's "liberated" Christian ladies.
5. Freedom, Friendship, & Chemistry
"They have exchanged the Truth about God for a Lie" (Rom 1:25).
Out here in God's Country we have the big bad city made of endless walls of concrete, steel and glass. The city separates and insulates the modern urban dwellers from the natural world around them. But nature is not the only thing that is exiled from the city; the universe itself is likewise deemed irrelevant, as is the past and future.[17] This almost total lack of connectedness with REALITY is very unfortunate indeed, but can be 'optimistically' understood as leading to greater freedom for all. Now choosing freedom over reality must, almost by definition, be considered a suspicious and highly problematic proposal at best. Indeed, the illusion of freedom that accompanies the loss of reality necessarily creates many serious and confusing misunderstandings that tend to result in much needless pain and tragedy.Take, for example, the political concept of gender equality. This idea directly depends upon other questionable ideas and assumptions about human nature and the essence of human being. 'Equality' and 'Freedom' can both suggest that the individual is an entirely autonomous entity; a human billiard ball that can occasionally bounce off of other free and autonomous billiard balls, but can never really make any lasting or meaningful contact with them. Moreover, even a person's gender, like race or eye color, are said to be incidental and accidental features that do not (or should not) enter into the core of our personal self-definitions. To be free means to know that gender roles and expectations are socially created, external cultural trappings that are oppressively imposed on the individual without her consent or approval.
But if our very physical natures, like the world and universe around us, are utterly irrelevant in saying who and what we are, then of course we are absolutely free to define ourselves however we wish. If men and women are essentially very different creatures (two entirely different 'species', as one priest puts it), then of course there is nothing wrong with homosexual impulses and activities. Why, they are not only legitimate, but grand and beautiful as well! Indeed, equality and freedom mean that we are honor bound to overcome the evils of homophobic abuse, and so reach a higher morality and a new and greater level of dignity and self-respect. Now Loving Lesbians are certainly thoroughly convinced of their own worth (and equally convinced of the utter worthlessness of unmarried and unchaste heterosexual lay-men). So this new morality and dignity are the guiding principles of the new world order that lesbian-feminist Christians envision.
They wish to break the chains of heterosexist oppression and cultural patriarchy in the name of freedom, equality, and justice. So they take actions that seem to be in conformity with these noble ideals; yet in doing this they create insurmountable barriers between the genders (simply by reserving all the benefits of freedom, equality, and justice to females only). It seems that this is perfectly proper because women are *naturally* better than men; and so deserve to be 'more equal', and thus to be accorded special rights, protections, and freedoms. So much for equality! In the same way, the freedom of the post-modern Christian lady is secured by occasionally 'restraining' (eg. via threats and warnings) any and all who dare to inhibit their precious freedom, or try to impose heterosexist ideologies and restraints upon them (eg. by taking Scripture seriously). Freedom for this group is thus bought at the cost of slavery for that group. But that's OK, because it is only the unmarried lay-men who are thus made to suffer (and they surely deserve it).[18]
So when the meaning of life becomes focused on the desperate need for freedom and autonomy, for human rights and protections, for the demand for privacy and dignity, and the right to do whatever you please, with whoever you please, whenever and wherever it pleases you, then you can know that the Cross of Christ has lost all meaning in the world. Radical-feminists speak often of structural oppression against women, and yet Lesbian-christians will gladly exclude half the human race (ie. the uncelibate hetero-males) from participating in meaningful relationships with women. Only women can engage in friendships that are allowed to venture into sexual expression without the oppressive burden of guilt and fear. But the 'circle of friends' is itself built upon beams of structural oppression that discriminate among human beings solely on the basis of their reproductive organs.
So Loving Lesbians can certainly form friendships with men; but these are never too deep or too lasting, and even then, only with men who are not interested in them as women (ie. in a sexually aware manner - if you know what I mean). Men who are totally blind to eros are the most suitable as friends, but men who are not so blind are to be avoided like the plague. And if these latter type persist in pursuing after being ordered not to, then any sort of attack or retaliation is more than justified. Freedom, you see, is essential for these women; but for these men it is only something that must be taken away because lesbians only gain their freedom by removing it from men.
This allows Lesbian-christians the space to integrate their sexuality into women's friendships; and they will occasionally do this in a loving and responsible manner, of course. But many will not extend the slightest courtesy or charity to any nonemasculated hetero-male who is dumb enough to get in the way of women's efforts at "bonding and integration". However, Loving Lesbians are not usually consciously hostile and sadistic toward those whom they consider 'the enemy' (although there are exceptions, of course). Indeed, those who take their religion seriously will seem to be far from the ways of sinners. Yet they foolishly suppose that their superficial and exclusive 'feminine friendship' is a healthy and liberating social development. Actually, it is anything but that. In fact, it only serves to further alienate and separate men from women, and women from men; and so succeeds only in perpetuating an unhealthy and unfortunate division within the Catholic Church (and indeed within all the churches).
Now I believe that it is this fundamental separation of the human race into two unequal halves, or rather, two distinct 'species' ('and never the twain shall meet') that characterizes and corrupts the spirit of the Roman Catholic Church. Basically, it all comes down to this: Loving Lesbians act in evil ways because they are blind (as many other sinful people are just as blind). They reduce romance and agape to the level of casual friendships; and reduce Passion & Eros to the level of 'chemistry'. Only by thus twisting and distorting the meaning and value of human and Christian love can Loving Lesbians make the absurd claim that what women do to each other in 'freedom and privacy' is just as valid and good as any authentic I-Thou relations between a man and a woman. Loving Lesbians tend to sin because they elevate a disordered will to the level of an awesome and unstoppable sexual orientation; and because they do (in fact and in practice) despise love (especially the love of a man for a woman, which they define as heterosexist oppression, or homophobic abuse, or just plain old sexual harassment).
Now it seems that lesbians on campus evidence "a clear awareness of how relationships with women offer them more depth and possibilities for growth" (Hunt 141). What this suggestive rhetoric actually means is that many young Christian women are discovering the fun and convenience of guilt-free casual sex. They are discovering that it is OK to hate men, to despise love, to hide their disordered passions under the thin veneer of a hypocritical celibacy such that they need not be bothered by the unwanted attentions of rude and un-emasculated males. In fact, Loving Lesbians firmly believe that the love between women far exceeds and surpasses the love of men (ie. the love of a man for a woman, the love of a woman for a man, and the love of a man and a woman for each other). It is this belief that justifies and approves the exclusion and abuse of males, but it also shows the resident evil that lurks in the lesbian-feminist agenda.
Or at least, it raises some very basic questions. It always comes down to the matter of definitions, and the existential and experiential meanings that we value apart from, and in place of, the common or universal intent of these special 'words of power'. For example: What is love for these Loving Lesbians? Where can it be found? In friendship? In the 'Circle of Friends'? Can we speak of the lust of the heart, and the lust of the loins, and make a distinction here? Does friendship and lust (either kind) together add up to love? Or is a tingling down below quite enough to merit the name of love? Is this chemistry a valid basis for love and friendship? Does freedom to 'love' whomever you will, justify the rapid and casual exchange of "special friends"? Loving Lesbians tend to express their 'abundant love' by replacing sex-partners the way other women replace pantyhose. Even those who restrain their private encounters to a minimum will consider themselves chaste and celibate if they go a month without a kiss from their mutual-friends.
Loving Lesbians are also very big on freedom. Their goal "is that persons [ie. women] eventually be allowed to love whom they will without [regard for the] current heterosexist gender restraints" (Hunt 139). This implies that we should not distinguish between men and women when it comes to the matter of sex between consenting adults. That is, both options are valid expressions of human love. The details of sex are, of course, private and personal matters that are 'no one else's business'. This means that no one has the right to inquire about such matters, because that would be oppressive and abusive. If Loving Lesbians cannot tolerate the 'current heterosexist gender restraints', this does not stop them from discriminating among persons solely on the basis of gender. This is because liberation means excluding from the circle of friends all those who are male, and are therefore lacking the necessary equipment to make the chemistry that is the ultimate basis of all lesbian-love. Apparently, the only thing that white middle-class women need to be liberated from is men.
Freedom also means that if some stupid hetero-male comes along and dares to interfere with a lady's 'free expression of love', then she is free to remove his freedom (via restraining orders, withdrawal of aid, shunning (aka 'the Big Ignore' -> you simply don't respond to someone in any way, and thereby make them to vanish), social sanctions, etc etc).[19] Never mind that the Christian life is not about the freedom to follow the lusts of the heart, or the autonomy that comes with being an isolated individual in a self-proclaimed 'compassionate and enlightened society'. Never mind what Scripture has to say about love and covenant. Never mind what the Church teaches about sexual morality. Never mind that our history, tradition, and culture are hopelessly geared to the one-sided male-mindset. None of this matters in the least! All that matters is that Loving Lesbians be free from men, free to reject and destroy men, free to define love however they wish, with whomever they wish, however often they wish, with as many as they wish, etc. Ah yes; freedom! What could be greater than that? Well, it's a funny thing about freedom, you know. Just when you think you have achieved it, you turn around to discover yourself firmly bound in chains of your own making. Chains that extend to ensnare all those around you. But freedom and chemistry; yes, and even a casual attitude toward sex and human relationships. These are the Stuff & Substance of Lesbian Love!
