Now the feminist movement in general considers itself as part of the larger world-wide liberation movements. Thus feminist theologies are thought to be a sub-category of liberation theology. But most lesbian-feminists (at least in America) are white middle-class ladies; and they are not so much interested in their liberation from anything, as in their liberation for something. This is what sets them apart from authentic liberation theology. Basically, this something is the freedom to initiate what they call unlimited feminine friendships. A more accurate translation of this goal might be thus: to realize the freedom to engage in abundant same-gender 'passion for life' (as they so politely call it). A careful reading of the popular theology of lesbian-feminist literature will clearly show that this is the primary and ultimate goal of many radical-feminists (especially among the more liturgical and/or religious types).

    To accurately assess the meaning and value of the various feminist theologies, we must not only carefully examine the thinking, vocabulary, and logic of the theologies themselves, but we must also observe how Lesbian-christians actually conduct themselves in the mundane terms of daily life. When this is done, it soon becomes apparent that what looks good on paper is somewhat less than ideal in practice.[20] In fact, if we altogether disregard the fancy rhetoric, it seems obvious that the version of Christianity proposed by religious lesbianism is established on a foundation made of unshakable stone; namely, hardened hearts filled with cold cold darkness. The visible actions of some of these people (in notable contrast to their honey-laden words), and the quality of their personal relationships with all those around them, clearly hints that maybe there is a certain lacking of the Spirit of Christ (ie. Love & Truth) in them.

"But you, beloved, remember the words that have been previously spoken by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were telling you that in the Last Time there will be mockers walking according to their own lust for ungodly things. These are the Ones creating divisions; these "natural" men and women (being utterly bereft of the Holy Spirit)." -- Jude v.17-19 / Prophet Version.

     For most sensible Feminist-Christians (gay or not, female or not) true charity and true friendship are NOT reserved for women only. But for the majority of lesbian-Christians, most men (aside from the few 'safe-ones' => those with no interest in them as women) are heterosexist oppressors who rightly deserve only contempt and hostility. So the vision of human sexuality favored by lesbian-theology is inevitably distorted and inadequate; not to mention *grossly* misinformed. The problem, of course, is that the teachings (by the churches) on human nature and sexuality also tend to be somewhat distorted and inadequate, such that it is readily rejected as irrelevant, and replaced with a shallow doctrine of chemistry, mutuality, and sharing; which is little more than the demeaning reduction of human and spiritual love to the level of good company and physical lust.

    Now there could not possibly be significant numbers of Lesbian-christians among the churches without this fact being reflected somehow in popular theology. And indeed there is some noteworthy literature out there in the traditional scholarly mode (cf. Hunt). However, the quality of this literature varies enormously, and often does not even address the questions that most need to be asked. In any case, most of this explicitly lesbian-oriented scholarship makes little impact on the daily lives of the vast majority of Lesbian-christians. Far more relevant to this point is the popular lesbian-theology that reaches readers by way of the media and popular press (eg. magazines, newspapers, radio). The main feature that distinguishes this form from the more explicit scholarship is that there are no unambiguous statements that clearly expose the lesbian agenda. So this is a very careful theology that appears to be of the usual benign feminist type. Only a very careful reader keenly attentive to the full intent of key words and phrases and images can pick up on the hints and clues that point us in more radical directions. If this popular radical-feminist theology is never explicitly and unambiguously lesbian, it is nevertheless clearly aimed at promoting the ways and means of religious lesbianism.[21]

    After all, as has been suggested, in the circle of life there is a transformation in the struggles of women that is not a passing fad, but of the essence of God, and his most deep desire. God's reign of Freedom is limitless. It can't be legislated. It can't be logically defined. God's fertile initiative flourishes, and is far beyond our arrogant understanding. And in the Great Mystery of the Creator there is plenty of room for compassion; plenty of room for passion for life ... Now wait just a doggone minute here! While this brief digest does indeed represent the reigning popular lesbian-theology as it is practiced and taught here in Canada (and elsewhere), and has many attractive features, we should not be blind to the fact that this sort of Christian thinking is basically designed to express the feelings and dispositions, thoughts and intentions of Lesbian-christians. And to validate and justify their actions. We should therefore maybe ask some questions. I mean, Holy-Cow! Is this compatible with sound Christian doctrine and theology? And more importantly: Is it consistent with a truly Christian life? Can one hate and despise half the human race, and still be an effective and admirable pastor of the People of God? Are these strange goats qualified to be shepherds? These are very difficult questions ... NOT! But whether they are easy or hard, they are questions that clearly need to be addressed (if you are in any way concerned about the future welfare of the Church). And soon.

    Now Lesbian-christians are a growing and flourishing breed here in the civilized Western world. Just another one of the many "countless species" in "God's freeing reign". We are also told that the prophet Ezeklel "teaches that God cherishes and favors the fragile and vulnerable. Calling us to do the same, God attracts and welcomes not rigid uniformity, but rather unity in diversity" (Robertis). Right here at the start of this short, but pungent, meditation (entitled 'Small seeds burst into abundant life') we get the first glimmerings of which particular 'species'[22] is uppermost in Sister R's mind as she struggles to describe the Reign of God. The first thing we should note is that there are often certain obvious hints and clues in popular feminist literature that often suggest (or assume) radical-feminist moods and tendencies.

     For example: (1) one never refers to the 'reign' as the 'kingdom'; (2) one never refers to 'God' as 'Father', but always simply as 'God'; (3) there is mention of "a white, European male perspective", being a clear jab at universal patriarchy (an obvious giveaway, but not necessarily or always a bad idea). All these standard markers or techniques are typical of the popular feminist theologizing. They are needed to demonstrate ones feminist credentials, but in and of themselves are not enough to indicate any radical (or even moderate) leanings. But the above quotes do begin to narrow down the possibilities a mite.[23] Let us see if we can determine whereat Sister R's heart resides.

    Returning to the article itself, we soon find, in the same sentence yet, these highly significant words: "We see this transformation in ... the struggles of women ... to assume their rightful place in the circle of life." Now everyone who is 'in the know' is well aware that circles are (for obvious reasons) a favorite and well loaded symbol for the radicals. The mention of this word in connection with 'transformation' and 'struggles' is of no small gravity. Then she goes on to deny that this change is a passing fad, but rather affirms that it is "of the essence of God" and "God's deep desire"! Now we can clearly see that the change in tone that comes after the mention of patriarchy alternates anger and passion with increasing intensity. This section also ends with a revealing declaration: "... especially for and with those deprived of justice." Could this be a clear reference to oppressed lesbians? Given what we've seen so far, it looks like a very good bet. Yet certainty still eludes us. Better to err on the side of caution, and so give Sister R. the benefit of the doubt.

    The following statement is also important in that it returns us to our immediate purpose; which is - if you can remember - describing the nature of God's Reign. What is it like? So here we get two important concepts that lock together and support each other: "... God's freeing reign is something we can neither limit, legislate nor logically define." So now we know that we can't define it by rational thought and method. This could be very bad. But we can hint at what it's like. And we also know that at its core are these two things: Freedom and Mystery!  But as if that were not clear enough, she immediately emphasizes this yet again (third time!) by reminding us that "God's fertile initiative" is quite "beyond our understanding" . . .  We are definitely moving away from the moderate position now, I should think.

     Could there be a covert reason behind all this talk of the others 'arrogant understanding'? Moreover, this fertile initiative "flourishes" only "through our co-operative action". Ah, so. In the context of this article, these particular words are striking; one might even say shocking. God's reign is beginning to look more and more like a place of strange and sensuous wonders. Thus the "transformation" of these "small seeds" (ie. Lesbian-christians) is dynamically active and mysterious and overcomes *many* oppressive obstacles. There can be scant doubt by now that we are speaking of the emergent FORCE of religious-lesbianism in North America.

    The next step of the argument and demonstration is even more pointed. We are always faced with choices, Sister rightly tells us. The main choice is between "seeds of destruction" (ie. men) and "seeds of abundant life" (ie. women). Obviously the only 'good choice' is to "choose life". Oh my, what a giveaway! Now we know, without a shadow of a doubt remaining, that the Reign of God belongs, above all else, to Lesbian-christians! Not only is this article an excellent example of the subtlety and misdirection of popular lesbian- theology, but it is also a very adamant and fervent lesbian-theology as well. After this revelation one may suppose that the reflection has now served its primary purpose, and is thus more or less over. But no; there is one more important point yet to make: In the Mystery of Transformation "violence melts into compassion, as well as passion for life." This is, we might say, the climax of the piece. It describes not some future hoped for heavenly paradise, but a woman-made heaven on earth whereby women are free to greet each other with both compassion and passion. Now no one can accuse Sister R of not being able to put too fine a point on the matter! 

    This is the end of the description of "God's freeing reign", and, hence, of the article's purpose. The rest of it is just concluding fog and filler, which are the main elements of the necessary camouflage; since you can't just come right out and be obvious about all this! After all, there's no real reason to offend anyone unnecessarily. In light of all this, it is clear that Sister R is both very subtle and very careful in the expression of her (almost) lesbian theology. Indeed, her presentation is highly effective and compelling (even if you don't always know what exactly all the key words and phrases really mean). I would hasten to add that it is also extremely dangerous in its seductiveness. When we see popular theology turned to such a purpose; when we see a supposedly orthodox newspaper used as a vehicle for such radical and unchristian teachings; then we have to wonder: How many of God's People are thinking that maybe their leaders and teachers are no longer able to discern the difference between what is right and what is wrong? Obviously, not nearly enough to matter. Such is the power of apathy in today's Post-Modern world!

    By the way, it is well-known that in all apathetic worlds 'perception is everything'. When two women have sex on film, it is called degrading pornography which demeans women. But when two women do the same things in their shared 'privacy and dignity', it is called 'passion for life' and 'God's deepest desire'. Everything is good and beautiful wherever only women are involved; but as soon as men stick their unwanted noses into these things *then* it becomes corrupted, and thus oppressive degradation. Now two women in lust with each other can in no sense be construed as God's deepest desire! It is, in fact, an insult that not only demeans them both (and God), but degrades the entire human race, and poisons all possibility of encouraging normal relations between the genders. If the clergy, seminarians, and religious (and even liberal-minded people in general) are so eager to encourage and nourish the growing numbers of lay liturgical lesbians, then the People of God have every right to question their ability to discern right from wrong; and even to challenge the theological judgment of these "progressive" church leaders and teachers.

     Let us also not forget to ask exactly where our good leaders are so joyously leading us. What is the abundant harvest that these particular seeds will give to the Church, eh? The destruction of all virtue, decency, righteousness, charity, responsibility, and family (ie. Christian!) values? Is this corruption and degradation of the churches and the biblical faith of the apostles, prophets, and saints *truly* God's most deepest desire? Many of those in positions of power and authority among the churches certainly seem to think so. And so even mainstream 'orthodox' theology is infected with the virus of lesbian-theology. Frankly, dear reader, in some parts of the Church the situation is most appalling. Indeed, it sometimes seems that so many people are so intent on protecting and nurturing these 'small and fragile seeds', that even the most blatant contradictions and inconsistencies, and the most obvious injustices, are deliberately overlooked or ignored (though always in the name of lofty ideals). This also contributes to a situation that becomes ever more morally, emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually doubtful. Very doubtful! Once Double-Think sets in (eg. as regards certain 'exceptions' to the general rule), then anything (and I do mean ANYTHING) is possible.[24]

    So now the most difficult thing to do when discussing lesbians, lesbianism (religious or otherwise), or lesbian theology is to remember that in reality there is a broad spectrum of events and realities, a wide range of human thoughts and behaviors, that may (or may not) apply to any specific reader's memories and/or dispositions. Our definitions, however, cannot be so general as to include everything and everyone who may (or may not) fit under the category of 'gay, lesbian, or transgender people'. In fact, our quest for logical definitions (notwithstanding Sister R's claim that such things are impossible) must be far more exacting, far more demanding. Therefore, whenever we casually say 'lesbian this' or 'lesbian that', let us assume that we do not mean bi-sexuals, or part-time lesbians, or those who are chaste with orientations, or any random act of affection or friendship between women. No; let us forget all that, and instead confine ourselves to that special minority of women who have always had sex with others of their gender (and always will), and have never (or almost never[25]) had sex with a man (ie. never been defiled by male hands; and never will). Now this is a very important minor detail; and one can also see that it is a basic element of religious-lesbianism.

    Therefore, as a general hermeneutical principle to guide the reader, please bear in mind that our remarks are intended for all Christians who want to know something about lesbianism (including especially the not-so-small and not-so-fragile seeds we call Lesbian-christians). So we are speaking of women of faith (I won't say what kind of faith) who are somehow connected to the Christian churches in various important and meaningful ways, AND who just happen to be sexually exclusive (as defined above). Now all our sources in general are agreed that those in this particular category are rather small in numbers; but I recognize that some departments of the Roman Catholic Church attract a good many such women, and I tend to think that this church is, in some spots at any rate, rather well stocked with them. Now let us further assume - purely for the sake of clarity, of course - that even this more manageable category is still too wide in scope and range. Let us then say that a Lesbian-christian is a woman of faith, exclusive of orientation, AND is both rational and articulate in her thinking and speaking. In other words, a Lesbian-christian is a woman who knows exactly what she is doing. There is no possibility here that these women are unaware of their actions and feelings, or are unable to express themselves in a coherent and even semi-moral manner.

    So today there are many impressive theologies; many sweet sounding and well-phrased ways of Christian thinking. In all this theological diversity it is hard to find any small seeds that have not their advocates, or any that are without a voice. By looking at life and the relevant literature from the point of view of one such voiceless group it may be possible to construct a rather haphazard theology that expresses the Christian thinking of these special seeds. Such a theology will not be systematic; but it will be coherent, and even compelling, if thought of as a mosaic of small images that together form a thing of beauty (eg. the face of Christ). Among all this passionate abundance of isolated bits and phrases are a melange of things taken out of context (ie. a mosaic-theology).

     Now "Ellen" (Western Catholic Reporter, June 9/97, 'Letters') is a good place to start. Here we can find a most astute observation: "In reality, most people are neither ready to jump on the gay pride bandwagon, nor are they homophobic bigots." Hurray for the anonymous Christian! Unfortunately, this situation also means a state of ambiguity that resolves nothing, but allows everything. In other words, there is plenty of room for great variety in the circle of life. And although most would much prefer the matter remain way over there (ie. in so-called dignity and privacy), the general attitude is a cautious and careful compassion combined with (unrealistic) hopes of chastity. Now this seems to be the best approach to this "highly complex issue"; but perhaps we should first ask: Best for whom? I do not see how confusion and uncertainty can be of benefit to the Church as a whole; although it certainly seems very useful to the supposedly 'voiceless ones'.

    In any event, it has been observed that the recent surprising series of fourteen articles on homosexuality in L'Osservatore Romano are unique in their 'tone of openness and tolerance'. They also show considerable diversity and confusion regarding the various troublesome aspects of this perplexing human reality. The intention of the series seems to be "a clear effort to de-polarize and deflate the entire issue. As one theologian remarked, 'maybe there are bigger problems' than homosexuality in today's world" (Thavis). of course there are many other problems facing the Church, but there are few that are so urgent, so in need of enlightened and realistic solutions. To admit that we don't know everything about it is a good beginning, but it does not allow us to pretend that there is no real problem here; after all, 'gay people can get to heaven'. Indeed some can and do just that.

     But let us also not forget that there is a reason for the Church's long negative attitude toward this matter. That there is a reason why She teaches "that homosexual acts are immoral, and that a homosexual orientation is 'disordered"' (Thavis). It is not because homosexuality or gays are evil as such, but because this deliberately chosen way of life gives much occasion for evil to arise within the context of our mundane daily lives. Very few are able to practice perfection in all aspects of life. For many, the evil that arises hardens the heart, and it is from a hardened heart that all sinful actions flow. And do not think that a person's private life is entirely their own personal business, of no consequence to their public and Christian life. The Second Vatican Council clearly recognized that human sexuality affects all aspects of a person and his/her public and private life. In the same way, it is not our gender, or our so-called 'orientation' to this or that gender, that makes us do the things we do. All our actions stem from the same loving or unloving heart.

    In the fourteenth article in the series, Fr Brugues declares that "radical conversion and perfect chastity are possible for everyone" (WCR May 5). While I have serious doubts about that second clause, I believe that the answer can indeed be found in radical conversion. But this does not mean total and instantaneous change. Fr Green rightly says that "Growing in holiness means becoming wise" (WCR May 5). He urges us to develop our common sense, and encourages us to keep growing and changing. Let us therefore apply some wisdom to this confusing problem by first exercising some uncommon common sense, and not allow ourselves to be deceived into thinking that a so-called 'open and tolerant' attitude simply means 'live and let live'. The failure to challenge and encourage our brothers and sisters (gay or not) to grow and change is nothing less than a profound personal failure of Chrlstian love. Clearly this is a question of knowing how to live and why. But while Rome may lately, in some sense, be getting 'soft on gays' (as they say), the Sacred Congregatlon for the Doctrine of the Faith has not been sleeping on the job. In fact, the Congregation (in the 'Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons', #8) urges bishops to wake up and smell the river:

  Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person, as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual. The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great, and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church's position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.

    Yet in popular Chrlstian thought, the issue of homosexuality tends to be stretched out between the poles of compassion and intolerance. How this works as a vehicle for the gay & lesblan-theology is beautifully illustrated by a letter to the Editor of the Western Catholic Reporter entitled 'Homophobia leads to abuse' by J.A.Krause. This short letter addresses the matter of "education to combat homophobia in the B.C. school system." In defending the need for such combat, Krause serves up many interesting statements that may give us some insight into the nature of lesbian theology. So Krause takes exception with Heather Stilwell's "negative position" on the matter, and so the argument proceeds by way of rebuttal. He begins, quite properly, with the matter of defining our terms: "Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. Lifestyle is how a person lives. Sexual orientation is about who a person is. There is a big difference" (Krause).[26] If we can take these (and the previous) self-definitions as expressive of what we have called popular lesbian-theology, then we can see that most lesbians are not evil monsters to be done away with as soon as possible; but are, in fact, ordinary human beings deserving of all the compassion and affection with which we approach any human creature.[27]

   With that in mind, let us now turn our attention to the definitions as just given above. Krause claims that there is a big difference between who a person is (which is determined by orientation) and how a person lives. Apparently, we are to assume that while life-styles are subject to change, who we are is not. This would, of course, constitute a significant difference. But although I do agree that lifestyle is how a person actually lives their life on a day to day basis, I do not see that we can make any hard and fast breaks between who we are and how we live. In fact, 'how we live' both shapes and expresses, in large measure (though not entirely), 'who we are'. Our actions, our words, show others the nature of our thoughts and feelings. They show the World, the Church, and the LORD, what is foremost in our hearts!

     Therefore we are free to change our lives, our life-styles, only because we can first change ourselves. We deliberately and willfully make ourselves who and what we are. I say 'deliberately' because all people are responsible for what they are and do: "It is our gift to be the creator of our own sufficiency; and to be emphatically self-made. This is the law of our being; which we cannot escape" (Newman 273). Moreover, change is built into the very nature of the Cosmos; and each and every one of us is subject to the laws of personal growth and maturity. This is what transformation in Christ means. It means growing and changlng and becoming ever more conformed to the image and likeness of our Lord. As John Henry puts it: To Live is to Change. So one's gender or orientation in no way exempts one from this universal process. We are all called to be Christ-like in all that we do. But many people do not seem to understand that even this imaginary 'sexual orientation' business is NOT somehow disconnected from the cosmic necessity to change and mature as loving human persons.

    Moreover, I do not agree with this notion that 'sexual orientation is about who a person is'. Christians are NOT defined by whatever lust or ambition is foremost in their hearts. Christians (and indeed all people) are defined - in the first place - by our relationship to God; by the nature of our relationship with Jesus. Our identity as Christians will therefore be shaped and formed by our relations with the Church (ie. the People of God) and all her traditions. In the same way, our attitude to the Scriptures (whether we heed them or not; whether we love them or not) nicely expresses the nature and depth of our commitment to Christ. Because of all this, human sexuality must necessarily be of secondary importance; at best. The chief value of celibacy is to remind us of this basic fact of Christian life. But those who define themselves firstly according to their sexuality, and only latter (by way of afterthought) according to their religion are making a very serious error in judgment. One that clearly contradicts everything the Lord teaches us about who we are as Daughters and Sons of Our Heavenly Father! This is why I constantly assert that Lesbian-christians are a contradiction unto themselves. In fact, they place so much importance on their beloved orientation, that some are even willing to deliberately hurt and humiliate anyone who dares to challenge them on this very point.

    And to say that we are helpless in our orientation, and so slaves to our feelings, is to declare that we have no control over who and what we are. It is to deny responsibility for who and what we make of ourselves. It implies that the human creature has no free will and cannot choose to grow, or to be a better person through the disciplined cultivation of virtues and healthy habits (and healthy relationships too). It also implies that we are totally determined, totally beyond the power of grace (and the Holy Spirit) to transform us, or even to help us grow into a more mature and Christian personality. Being a lesbian thus means never having to grow up! Being a lesbian-catholic means never having to apologize for our sexual irregularities, and the damage that it does to others. [Whether they, or their friends, can actually discern this damage is quite another question entirely!]

    But for most Lesbian-christians, their exclusive orientation to their own gender is something that is largely of their own making. For these women (and no matter how long they have been gay) being lesbian is not really an eternal and unchangeable basic characteristic of who and what they are (although they might very much wish it were so, and so delude themselves into thinking it is so). Rather, it is more a matter of something that they put on - like a shirt - on a daily basis. A 'preference' or 'orientation' is something that must be nourished and supported in every conceivable way; lest it wander off. Those religious lesbians for whom being homosexual is primary to the definition of their self-image and self-identity (whether they can admit it or not) clearly demonstrate that no woman can serve two masters. When Jesus takes second place in our hearts and priorities, we have already abdicated all right to consider ourselves as one among his faithful disciples.

   While most Loving Lesbians nevertheless consider their sexuality to be foundational, and in perfect harmony with the Faith (and even with the faith OF Jesus), the truth is that their religious commitment to lesbianism, although certainly sincere, is little more than an affectation; a program that they have eagerly constructed for themselves in order to justify their disordered passions. The inability to change (or even to want to change) stems from the fear and pain, the anxiety and dangers, that all inner change brings. If a woman can stop smoking, then clearly she has the strength of will to stop having sex with other women. All that is required is that she have the proper motivation as well! Both of these important life-style changes can be accomplished by first seeing the need for change, then by making the necessary decision, and thirdly, by manifesting the persistent determination that comes from personal maturity and strength of character.

     Most of those lesbians who think that this is what they always were, and always will be, are simply manifesting their own immaturity and eagerness to slavishly follow after the lust in their hearts. They just don't want to change, and see no reason why they should. Besides which, this is a private personal matter that is certainly no concern of Scripture or the Church (or even God). Their most fundamental flaw is this childish selfishness and arrogant egoism that is in direct contradiction with the very essence of Christian existence. This is made apparent in their great need for "freedom and liberation"; as well as in the terrifying results of the 'paradise' that they are building here on Earth for themselves.

    But actually, Krause's argument is quite logical at one point; he merely misplaced the words a bit. Let us correct them: "Sexual orientation (or rather 'preference') is not about who a person is. It is about how a person chooses to live their life. 'Who we are' is not determined by a fun and trendy life-style; it is determined by the nature of our relationship with God and the people around us." In the same way: People are not born to hate and/or despise and/or fear half the human race according as they are the wrong gender. Children learn to do these things. And after some years it seems to them that they were born this way. But just as sexual preference is learned, so the adult Christian lady (in her quest for spiritual maturity) can overcome it by slowly, painfully, and gradually breaking the habit of rushing into the arms of other women the moment anything or anyone threatens her precious 'freedom'. If she can also focus her attention on the one man who truly loves her, then she will surely succeed in saving the lives of many endangered 'gay, lesbian, and transgender youth'. Krause also explains that when we think of 'gay and lesbian people' as evil or sinful we learn to hate them, and must therefore abuse them. Now every Christian knows that the Church does not sanction hatred and violence. Neither does She accept suicide and substance abuse as adequate responses to life's difficulties.

   In the same way, most people will hope that a Christian education will provide the skills needed to distinguish right from wrong, and to accept responsibility for all our actions (and their results)! So Krause urges us to much "dignity, understanding, tolerance", and to practice 'zero tolerance' (as regards 'abusers' and 'harassers') and respect (as regards the 'victims' of this social oppression). But respect cannot be tossed about willy-nilly. If it is to have any meaning at all, respect must be earned. It is very interesting the way our brother Krause talks and thinks; the diction itself is particularly revealing. So lesbian-theology serves well the needs of its target audience. Its central pillars are Freedom, Mystery, and Compassion. Lesbian- christians are thus free of the need to take responsibility for their actions,[28] and liberated from decency. They are free to enjoy a fun and trendy lifestyle, and liberated from the need to interact with men in positive and healthy relationships.[29] This is what we call progress out here in God's country.

    And so it seems that we have all the elements here of an attractive and popular theology. Moreover, if you do not accept it, you are homophobic and contributing to the attempted suicides of gay, lesbian and transgender youth. Well now! Obviously this is some very potent theology we have here. It certainly appears to be in harmony with the Catholic Faith. But only if certain ... well, details are conveniently overlooked. At the risk of being spiritually toxic I would ask you not to hide behind blindness for the sake of being politically correct. Was it not the same Ezekiel who also said:

"... I will enter into judgment with them; and I will rain upon them and their hordes and the many peoples that are with them, torrential rains and hailstones, fire and brimstone. So I will show my greatness and my holiness, and make myself known in the eyes of many nations. Then they will know that I am the LORD" (Ezek 38:22-23).

 Therefore let us first dispense with our dignified silence and subtle misdirection, and so speak openly and honestly. Only then will we truly know what to think and do!

 "As Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in the like manner to these fallen angels, having indulged in fornication, and having lusted after *strange-flesh*, are set forth as an example of those undergoing the penalty of eternal fire. Thus these Dreaming Ones, on the one hand, defile the flesh, on the other, they reject the Lord's commands ...". -- Jude 7-8 / Prophet Version

9. The Jazz Lady

When the world is pregnant with death, a secret long hidden will be revealed. ~ anon.

    So now let us take Krause at his word. He lays considerable stress on putting into practice the things Jesus teaches us. Who could do this better than an enthusiastic and intelligent young woman studying for professional church ministry? I am thinking of a certain seed that indeed cannot openly sing with her own voice. But this does not mean that she is powerless to speak in other ways. That is to say, she is voiceless AND her words are powerful. Now before we pause to consider her actions and character, let us take another brief detour to John Henry Country: "The heart is commonly reached, not through the reason, but through the imagination, by means of direct impressions, by the testimony of facts and events, by history, by description. Persons influence us, voices melt us, looks subdue us, deeds inflame us" (Newman 4.3).

     I tend to agree. That is why it is important not to be thrown off track by various statistics, oppressed social groups, 'secret societies', liberation movements, and trendy subcultures. Christian-Lesbianism is not about women's liberation or saving the lives of some percentage of endangered homosexual youth. It is not about "unity in variety", or progressive mosaics, or so-called "equality for all". It is, however, about people;[30] about concrete individual women who are very well motivated (for whatever various reasons) to swim against the tide in order to do the things they value most in life.

    Motivation! Each individual lesbian (Christian or not) has her own motivations, her own unique set of influential memories and ideas and feelings and affections and dispositions. Who can know the full depth of such mysteries, or the strange ways of a young girl's wounded heart? Only God can fully discern such things. The best we can do is to maybe catch a glimpse or two of the heart that hides behind the various actions of our various social roles and lifestyles. Now this is no easy thing, in one sense, yet we also do such things every day by watching those around us and PAYING ATTENTION to the meaning of their words and deeds. Usually this is just a big waste of time, and little or nothing of value is gained, but sometimes (and usually inadvertently) people will say or do something that appears trivial but is actually quite self-revelatory. Indeed the heart's motivations must of necessity 'show forth' every once in a while (or we would not be human). Let us therefore see how a well respected, Church involved, and homo-oriented young lay-woman (let us call her the Jazz Lady) behaves as measured by the standards of the popular homo-theology.

    So Krause would like to see Christians practicing love and understanding toward the marginalized (on the one hand) and avoiding all intolerance and rejection (on the other). Well now! Isn't this interesting? I know someone who can certainly testify to the Jazz Lady's expert knowledge of rejection and intolerance.[31] Indeed, she has been consistently (and may I say: often rather brutally) shunning, avoiding, and generally rejecting this person for the past five years, and currently has him well wrapped up in chains of her own devising (via a restraining order that really isn't a restraining order after the manner of the legal justice system, yet nevertheless functions in exactly the same way). And he has seen precious little compassion or charity from her. There has been no real attempt at understanding either (she won't allow him to initiate any such attempts); although there have been threats, warnings, and retaliations. Consequently, her grade for 'love and understanding' must be somewhat below adequate.

     Frankly, it may well be that she really has not a good grasp of what love can be; what love should be (for Christians). But I can tell you this much: saving the lives of endangered gay, lesbian, and transgender youth is certainly NOT uppermost in her mind when she slips softly into the arms of her latest mutual-friend, eh? This is because what is foremost in her heart is her cherished 'chemistry'; which is her only consolation, and which she believes is the only sort of love that she can depend upon. She is, of course, wrong on all counts; all the way from those first tentative kisses to her desperate need to keep very far away from her delicate person any man who would dare to question or challenge her charity and motivations; or worse, encroach upon her precious freedom.

    Now do not misunderstand me here. My Dove is nobody's fool. On the contrary, she's as sharp as a razor. Indeed, she is far more perceptive and sympathetic than most of the people I've ever met. She knows very well that I 'love her madly' (as The Doors so musically put it). So she justifies her sadistic treatment of me by thinking that it is for my own good; because, after all, she can never provide me with what I most need (which is to say, the total gift of herself: body and mind, heart and soul; because nothing less will do, of course). Now such a gift is truly an immense sacrifice for any woman (or man). It is a sacrifice that the Loving Ladies never ask of each other; they much prefer to 'share and share alike'. This is a major selling point; a very appealing feature that attracts many girls and women who rightly fear this awesome commitment that truly loving a man involves. But she cannot bear the thought of me having any influence on, or control over, her life. She cannot abide my compromising her beloved freedom in any way, shape, or form. Therefore, she has assumed total control over my life in many and various ways.

    Now Lesbian-christians are no mean minority; but the Jazz Lady is also the meanest, most Assyrian, person I've ever met! ["The Assyrians exhibit unbridled aggression and self-interest, and a lack of humaneness and compassion" (Brue 56). Some Lesbian-christians thus give new meaning to the phrase 'walk like an Assyrian'.] Her manner of thinking and speaking is also most curious: so many questionable assumptions, so many doubtful assertions[32], so many illogical propositions and twisted reasonings; not to mention many confusing and ambiguous actions. Yet her most fervent desire is not the universal emancipation of women (ie. the universal self-emasculation of men  -  after the manner of Saint Joseph  -  which is a basic tenet of the priestly and lesbian theologies), but rather seems (occasionally) to be my sudden and final demise. "Gay and lesbian youth", Krause says, "just want to be accepted for who they are. They want to be understood. They want to be cared about".[33]

     So this is all rather confusing, alright. I certainly accept the Jazz Lady for who she is; although we clearly have very different ideas about just what that is. I also understand her; much better than she thinks I do. And I care about her too; much more than any of her so-called supportive-friends. And do you think that she is over-joyed by this? Hell No! Her response was to shun me for five years; and when that proved not to be enough, she promptly wrapped me up in chains. For daring to love her, she threatens me, deprives me of my freedom, forces me to live in fear; thus making me her slave, and so reducing me to total and absolute dependence on her! And why has she done all this? Simply because I was unfortunate enough to have born the wrong gender! Because, for that very reason, there is (she is so sure) no 'chemistry' between us. Therefore my love and understanding is nothing more than harassment, oppression, and a blatant attempt to deprive her of her freedom and self-determination.

    Yet despite all her crimes against me, I have nothing but the utmost love and compassion for her. Does she have any love and compassion for me? Certainly not! What she means by love, compassion, and understanding is that we should all accept and heartily approve of her glorious self-definition as 'God's Good Gift to Women'... I trust that the careful Christian reader will be aware of the horrible contradiction in all of this; and may also be wondering how anyone could be unaware of the sheer self-destructive sinfulness of such behavior. But you must also understand that most intergender relationships are very confusing for these voiceless 'invisible ones' who have grown accustomed to daily wearing a shroud of lies, secrecy, and deception, simply in order to walk among us unharmed in this oppressively heterosexist (NOT homophobic) world.

     Moreover, because there are no such things as sin and evil in the lesbian theology, any retaliation, any vengeful act, is perfectly justified, as long as the target is the worthless single adult lay-male. So it is that the Jazz Lady and all her many powerful friends will refrain from no abuse, insult, or outrage in order to protect her freedom and dignity, and her 'private and personal' concerns. And to make matters worse, the Church (unofficially, of course) couldn't agree more, and therefore supports and approves all such actions on her part. [And why is this? Because in the new and progressive post-modern Catholic Church the only love that is forbidden is that of a man for a woman!]

                         "Thus you will know them by their fruits" (Mt 7:20).

     The ultimate value and Christian integrity of the subculture of mutual-loving lesbians can be adequately judged solely on the basis of its daily fruits: alienation, anger, anguish, apathy, deception, defamation, degradation, de-humanization, depression, discrimination, half-truths, hard-heartedness, heart-break, hypocrisy, insensitivity, lies, loneliness, misdirection, misery, pain, secrecy, suffering, wretchedness, etc etc. These are but some of the 'gifts' and 'charisms' that liturgical lesbians bring to the Church, and contribute to the growth and development of the spiritual lives of True Believers (along with their more positive contributions, of course). Hence the need for a great deal of dignified silence!

     The truth is that Loving-Lesbians fear the light of truth, and so they gladly wrap themselves in secrecy and deception. But ultimately, the feeble and distorted religion of Christian-Lesbianism is not at all a question of personal rights and freedoms and protections under civil law (which has nothing to do with the law of Christ anyway!); but rather, it is a question of whether or not there is any real contact with a genuine faith in Jesus. It is also a question of public character and personal integrity; of honor and honesty.

     A question (in other words) of having, or not having, a divided heart . . .

  "Consider it all joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith works endurance; and let endurance have its complete work (that you may be mature and complete, lacking for nothing). But if any one of you is lacking wisdom, let that one ask God (who gives generously and without reproach), and it will be given. But let her ask in faith (doubting nothing); for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, being blown and tossed about by the wind. And do not let that one think that she will receive anything from the Lord; for she is a double-minded woman (unstable in all her ways). But let the lowly brother boast in his exaltation, and the rich one in her humiliation; because she will pass away like a flower of the grass. For the sun rose with the burning heat, and dried the grass, and the flower fell, and its visible beauty perished. So also the rich one in her goings will fade away" (Jm 1:2-11 / PV).

10. On Lust & Tolerance
"The Egyptians treated us harshly." -- Von Rad[34]

    In today's fast-paced world, where more and more people are choosing to live alone, more and more men and women are also discovering the ease, convenience and fun of same gender sexual encounters. For many young women these attributes make the unique semi-christian Loving-Lesbian culture and lifestyle irresistible. Moreover, in today's supposedly compassionate and tolerant social atmosphere, there are few (if any) major obstacles that prevent women from extending themselves in this way. Now the numbers also indicate that, in general, women are more tolerant of homosexuality, homosexuals, and the gay subcultures, than men are. Again, there are many and various reasons for this. One of these may be that women's unique way of knowing (or mode-of-being-in-the- world) gives them a more direct understanding of the meaning and implications of the early stages of fetal development. That is, the biological data could be interpreted to suggest the basically androgynous nature of human being.

    In other words, human primate-type creatures are, at first, sexually ambiguous; and this is true not only on the biological and physical levels, but also on the psychological level. Actually, most of this information is common knowledge in many cultures. Some explicitly recognize the implications, while others prefer to suggest the truth by way of symbols (eg. Adam's Rib) and images (eg. ying-yang). All of this only goes to show that human sexuality can't be summarily reduced to a simple matter of 'peg B into hole A', of macho-men and demure-women, and that's it! No; human sexuality is clearly arranged along a wide spectrum of human behavior and response that must recognize a variety and complexity that cannot be accounted for by mere reference to the overt nature of one's reproductive organs. And why is this? Because human sexuality, while it is basically a physical and psychological phenomena, is also fundamentally and essentially a spiritual reality. Those who misperceive or misunderstand this biblical vision of human sexuality will, of course, run at once to the most absurd and distorted ideas: eg. homosexuality is genetic, or lesbians can realize and manifest the complex interpersonal realities of "one-flesh".

    In any case, the ever increasing feminization of the churches has also brought with it an ever increasing tolerance for 'the wild life'. Accordingly, it is not surprising that many Lesbian-christians should envision a world free from all heterosexist constraints; where all women are (what Mary Hunt calls) "loving lesbians" (to a greater or lesser degree, as they each will and prefer). In this world men are 'free' to be gay, if they wish to express themselves sexually; and they are also 'free' to be celibate, if they don't so wish. In this brave new world, men are certainly NOT free to be attracted to women (only women are allowed that privilege); but if they are, then they certainly cannot act upon this attraction, for that is the way of patriarchal oppression, and heterosexist abuse and harassment. Now Howard Stern thinks that lesbians are exceedingly funny; but the avowed agenda of Lovlng Lesbians is hardly humorous unto the Lord. The world they desire is already breaking into reality, and the consequences are severe, and intensely painful for *many* good and honest true believers. Cigarettes cause cancer, to be sure; but many Lesbian-christians do easily cause heartbreak, loss of faith, moral corruption, emotional chaos, and spiritual death!

    It seems to me, therefore, that there is nothing even remotely amusing about any of this. Except in a *very* odd sort of way, of course. For example, once women are liberated from the constraints of oppressive patriarchal heterosexism, then "and only then can women make real choices about relationships with particular people, not excluding a whole class of people (women) from the beginning" (Hunt 138). Loving Lesbians also claim to be opposed to 'the dynamic of instant exclusion of whole classes of people'. All this simply means that all women should seriously consider being or becoming Loving Lesbians so that they can instantly exclude, from the beginning until the end of eternity, a whole class of people (ie. unmarried heterosexual men). You see, exclusion is only reprehensible when women are hurt by it (ie. when men do it to them). However, exclusion is perfectly acceptable when women do to men (because men can't be hurt?). This is because in the first case it is an expression of unjust oppression, and in the second case it is an expression of freedom from that same unjust oppression. So now you see the great utility and value of having as your first principle that perception is everything. You simply have to see a certain thing in a certain way, and voila, you "make it so".[35]

    So there are some among the Christian scholars working in the field of homosexual studies who consider the Church's attitude, actions, and teachings regarding gays as a test case for Christian ethics; one that shows us the modern shape of Catholic compassion in the world. Now the Church's open view toward the world, and her willingness to deal with all its many confusing aspects, is precisely what the Second Vatican Council called the modern Church to do. This is also a true and faithful guiding principle which should always be respected, but in actual practice entails necessary limits and compromises. The most obvious of these limitations is the Church's own teachings and traditions; which are, almost without exception, geared to the male mindset. Patriarchy is a very real and extremely difficult problem in today's global village.[36] It is built into the very structure or the Church from top to bottom. This creates many fears and biases throughout the People of God; mainly because modern Church teaching comes almost exclusively from a very small and very particular group within Vatican City.

     Now contextual theology suggests that any theology emanating from a limited group with a limited point of view (and a very particular agenda) will very probably be inadequate to deal with all the world's many and varied problems in a consistently responsible and loving manner. Therefore they will require assistance from the People; and many are only too eager to provide it. In many, varied, and contrasting ways, no less. This also creates conflicts within and between various churches, local assemblies, families, and individuals. But then this has always been the main struggle within the Church. Even the New Testament gives clear witness to the conflicts within and between the local assemblies, where anger often outpaced justice and compassion. Oh, those were hard times, to be sure; but not so very different from today. The main difference is that the level of overt violence has been reduced. Anger, injustice, apathy, and persecution still abide; but today we make war with words, as much as by more subtly destructive actions.

    In America (and elsewhere) the ecumenical movement intends to overcome the many barriers between the churches. But this is understandably a difficult business, and so major developments here are rather slow in coming. But there are also significant exceptions in some places, and on some occasions. In the same way, many applaud the integration of seminaries with theological colleges and universities, but few seem even aware of the profound gulf that exists between the rubbing elbows of the brothers and sisters. Inclusive language appears to bridge this gulf; and does, in some very minor respects. Indeed, inclusive language can and does convey the divine inclusive vision that was already apparent in Israel's understanding of Yahweh's Cosmic Kingdom, according to God's prophetic blessing: "Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my heritage" (Isa 19:25). However, inclusive language can also sometimes compromise the integrity of the biblical message in subtle ways; although, in general, it can and does 'improve Scripture'.

    In the same way, inclusive language can and does also serve to cover over the unbreachable walls that exist between many Christian men and women. Invisible walls that only serve to protect and promote the exclusive subculture and people committed to the evil ways of religious lesbianism. Indeed, liturgical lesbians do include men within the scope of their vision; but only a very select set of males: boys, old men, and all manner of good (ie. chaste and celibate) Catholic males. Thus uncelibate, single, heterosexual, lay-males are rarely to be found among the many Egyptians, Assyrians, and Israelites that make up the countless species who are the Post-Modern People of God. Yet these rare and unfortunate creatures are indeed included (can we say 'barely tolerated' by some?) in the inclusive scheme.

     However, most post-modern Assyrians (and all the peoples that are with them) consistently view this particular species as, at best, a worthless stone in the mosaic, and to be treated with all due suspicion and contempt. Under such a social atmosphere inclusive language is simply not enough to overcome the fear and bias that some Assyrians harbor as regards these 'heterosexist oppressors and harassers'. And if a certain member of this dangerous species does not consent to 'keep his place', and even to imagine himself to be in love with one of these highly regarded liberated ladies, then all hell will break loose. Not surprisingly, the divine revelation also has some relevant observations to make about all this: "But she who hates her brother is in the darkness, and walks in the darkness, and does not know where she is going, because the darkness has blinded her eyes" (1John 2:11).

   The consequences of all this for the Catholic Church in Canada are a major threat, on the one hand, yet also shape its primary features on the other. Thus the characteristic quiet Cathollc tolerance of homosexuality is firmly based on three foundations: (1) the perceived lack of credibility of Catholic moral teaching regarding human sexuality; (2) the Church's limited and naive understanding of human beings (ie. the priestly-theological interpretation of Christian anthropology); (3) and the various cultural values of a self-proclaimed 'compassionate and enlightened society' (eg. individual freedoms, rights, and protections). Not surprisingly, these shaky foundations are the very ones that are used and adapted by Lesbian-christians to create a theology that supports and justifies the total liberation of women at the expense of the spiritual, moral, and emotional health and dignity of the entire human race.

     But Lesbian-christians are certainly not unethical beings. Indeed, many are morally scrupulous and very ethically conscientious; even unto the extra mile (ie. many are meticulously moral in the more public aspects of their mundane lives). Moreover, many have a firm foundation from which all ethical dilemmas and moral choices are made; namely, the basic principle that 'girls just wanna have fun'. This principle even supersedes the will of God as revealed in Scripture and Church teaching, and can even take priority over the Golden Rule, as well as the theological virtues of faith, hope and love!.[37]

    Now I have nothing against a wise and moderate Christian feminism. Indeed, I think it can contribute a great deal to a sane and balanced theology (which is just what the Church and the World cry out for). It is also an essential element for any Christian anthropology that wishes to include both halves of the human race in its thinking. In short, any theological enterprise that excludes authentic feminist concerns is simply inadequate and unrealistic. Moreover, the first principle of any sound theology today must be an unshakable respect for reality, for the way things actually are (as opposed to how we wish they were). The second necessary principle is the willingness to be guided by Scripture, Tradition, and Common Sense; this last element is just as important as the previous two.

     When common sense drops out of the scope of theological vision (often!), then we are simply unable to discern the fact that there is a colossal difference between a faithful Christian feminism (eg. Carmody's) and a radical religious-lesbianism (eg. Mary Hunt's). Most honest Christian men and women tend to have considerable respect for the Truth, and for Reality, and also strive to maintain an acceptable level of consistency in their beliefs, and between their words and actions. Of course, given the way things are in America today, it is quite understandable that consistency in all things is highly problematic and practically impossible. Compromise is, therefore, a virtual necessity; especially if you really want to get ahead in the post-modern computerized urban environment.

    Lesbian-christians, however, shape Reality according to their whims and feelings; and have no problem whatsoever holding two (or more) contradictory ideas at one and the same time. This unique ability allows for maximum flexibility in their thoughts and actions such that honesty is highly overrated, and discontinuities between liturgy and life, between word and deed, between spirit and flesh, are no real cause for concern. In the same way, the evils of patriarchy and the oppression of women in the third world justifies and encourages hostility and contempt for Scripture, ecclesiastical authority, traditional morality, and the bulk of Church teachings. And although most of these women are sincere in their radical religious-lesbianism (such that it constitutes an independent faith), many tend to lack the imagination and will needed to sustain a rigorous critical reflection on the precise nature and meaning of either faith.

     Perhaps this is why some Lesbian-christians display a remarkable intolerance for any and all actions and ideas that are perceived as threats or attacks on their most cherished beliefs and practices. Thus any who dare to question any aspect of their religious- lesbianism are simply dismissed as heterosexist oppressors, and therefore their criticisms need not even be seriously considered. Indeed, the force of radical-feminist influence is so great in some parts of the Canadian churches that the mere presence of those perceived as 'heterosexist oppressors and harassers' need not even be tolerated. So 'Zero Tolerance' has become a horrifying reality in some "liberal" areas of the Canadian churches; and a lethal weapon in skillful hands as well!

    Thus it must be true that, in some very real and very serious way, that the Church is in great measure responsible for this 'relatively' small (but extremely potent) sea of lesbian lust that exists here in Alberta (and across the country). It is common knowledge that the Church attracts homosexuals of all sorts and types. There are various reasons for this, not least being that the Catholic Church is the perfect place for them to find protection and nourishment. It's also a good place to hide. If anyone notices (itself highly unlikely) that some of the young ladies are lacking for boyfriends (ie. other than seminarians), they can simply plead celibacy; by which they truthfully mean no sex -> with males. So that's fine; why inquire further? ... But in a more fundamental way is the Church itself held accountable. Although She officially teaches mutuality, equality and the basic goodness of male-female relations, in practice the alleged People of God (especially the clergy and religious) are foremost among those who encourage the separation of the genders.

     Now this is done in many and various ways (with mixed results, of course). The most obvious of these is the seminary environment. The ultimate result of all this is that the exclusive male priesthood tends to create its own mirror image in the priestesshood of Loving-Lesbians who perform their secret services on the altars of their own bodies, upon which they anoint one another with their own fragrant oils. [As my former friend says: "Abound in Love; One (Lesbian) Toward Another (Lesbian)" (1Thess 3:12 / Superior Catholic Version).] No man can observe these rituals, let alone take part in them. The Church, for her part, simply turns a blind eye to all this, pretending that such things do not exist; but even those few who can see, simply accept and approve these women as a unique and necessary element in the mosaic of the many types of peoples that compose the post-modern "enlightened and progressive" Church.

    So there you have it. Of course; this essay resembles nothing so much as a confused mass of disorganized observations, hasty judgments, and fanciful speculations. But it is also, alas, the best that we have at the moment. In this vast ocean of ignorance and confusion, of blatant deception and willful confabulation, the prospects of ever achieving a good definition of Lesbianism are dismal in the extreme. In fact, nothing worthwhile will be accomplished unless and until we put aside our rampant individualism that sees the autonomous individual as 'the be all and end all' of all human reality. Once we do this, however, it becomes clear that Lesbianism is a fundamentally social (and anti-social) reality.[38] Lesbians are not born. Our society, our Church, makes them. And as long as apathy and alienation are the canvas upon which we paint our collective lives, you may rest assured that the number of Lesbian-christians in America will continue to grow and grow.[39]

     As for the Church, while she officially teaches that homosexuality can in no way be approved, unofficially, and in everyday practice she not only approves but actively supports and encourages her darling liturgical lesbians. Indeed, if they are clever and charming enough they will be granted great influence and responsibilities, and will be honored as outstanding Christians. This is not to be wondered at, for lay lesbian-Catholics are the perfect complement to priests, seminarians and religious. Indeed, they are the only sorts of lay-females that present no dangers to them or their cherished celibacy. This is why the Church holds them up as excellent models for all Christian girls and women to emulate. All that is required of us is a profoundly blind respect for freedom, dignity and privacy. And as long as we can keep ourselves from thinking overmuch about the exact nature of lesbianism, then we can continue deceiving ourselves that there is nothing wrong here. 'Everything is fine; just fine.' Famous last words indeed!

    And so we have reached the end of our not-impartial investigation into the perplexing phenomena of lesbianism. In seeking an adequate definition we have learned much along the way; but mostly we have learned how much still remains unknown. This is because lesbians in general, and particularly Lesbian-christians, like mushrooms, thrive in the darkness. As long as these Liberated Loving Ladies are content to remain in their quiet and cozy closets, busily bonding and integrating, little more can be done than this. No doubt they wisely fear the wrath of the righteous; but neither are they the martyred angels that they take themselves to be. Now we do not hate people because they can and do sin. In fact, the sins that hurt us most are those we see in those we love the most!

   In the same way, we recognize that evil words and actions can sometimes proceed from even the most outstanding and influential people. But love and compassion do not forbid us from seeing the truth and speaking its name. Let us therefore give the final say to the Word of God: "And because wickedness is multiplied, the love of most people will grow cold. But they who endure to the end will be saved" (Mt 24:12-13).

GOTO ENDNOTES  and Works Cited

textman
*