Lesbianism through divine revelation

There are more than a few essays here in Yawning Bread where I have been sharply critical of religion, which perhaps is not really fair to religion generally.

There is a whole side of religion, namely spirituality, with which I have no quarrel. To many people, it is a major and enriching part of their lives, and through their spirituality, they arrive at a deeper and fuller understanding of themselves and their relationships with others around them.

Of course, it is artificial to see spirituality as divorced from religion, because for most, spirituality begins from certain articles of faith about the greater whole, far, far more encompassing than our observable world; a religious credo. Moreover, it may be through reflection upon scriptural texts that they arrive at a blossoming of the spirit.

What God(s) you believe in, if any at all, what scriptures you guide yourself by, isn't terribly material. What matters more is what kind of person you become. Are you at home in yourself? Are you appreciative of others? Are you humble about your blessings? Do you do right by others? Are you open to the vastness and the possibilities of the world?

Then there are those who perhaps share the same religion with you in name, but whom you may not recognise at all, for they use religion not to liberate themselves, but to control others. They treat their interpretation of it as unquestionably correct and they vilify those who do not conform. There is no intellectual curiosity, no communicability of the mind, no receptivity of the heart, but a meanness of spirit.

These are the ones that raise my hackles.

* * * * * 

One day, I was surfing the web randomly, only to come upon a raging argument among some Christians. What piqued my interest was that one side of the argument involved a lone dissenter who was either Singaporean or Malaysian.

Before you start cheering the dissenter, let me warn you that his dissent was limited to just one element of the dogma. He had no quarrel with all the rest of it, which, as far as I could see, was based on a very literal reading of biblical scriptures.

The quarrel - - and was it heated! - - was over just one bit of text:

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. (Deut.22:5)

Apparently the leader of the sect had condemned Chinese women for wearing the samfoo, a traditional suit comprising a blouse with side buttons and loose slacks. Trousers were for men, the leader had thundered. For women to wear the samfoo was cross-dressing and an abomination.

His Chinese ancestry and culture having been insulted, this dissenter then made the valid point that what constituted a man's garment was culturally-based, and to interpret that particular verse thus, displayed Western bias.

Please note, he did not say that the verse in question was completely archaic and meaningless in the light of greater understanding about cultures and respect for individual human liberty. His position was that the verse was indeed a valid injunction, except that the sect leader was being racist and trousers are not exclusively men's garments.

The quarrel went on and on, and even led to another verse,

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; (1Tim.2:9)

Whereupon it got into a question of how modest was modest... but it was getting to be too much of a muchness. While it had been entertaining to watch the quarrel unfold, I could not follow the issue any further, and gave up.

Nevertheless. going by this verse, the next time you see a fire-breathing literalist-evangelical wearing jewelry, even just a string of pearls, rebuke that godless woman!

* * * * *

Many of us who have been at the receiving end of offensive remarks by people claiming to be holier than thou, are ambivalent about mixing sexuality with religious faith.

But we ourselves should not be closed-minded. There are those who have approached their sexuality via their spirituality. It is their faith - - and in the case I cite below, a belief in prophetic miracles - - that has helped them to be at one with their true selves. Who are we to say it is not an appropriate route?

In his book Gay Seattle, Gary Atkins recounts the story of two lesbians, who by the time they understood their sexuality, were already mothers. They were later to become legal test-cases for the right to retain custody of their children after their husbands divorced them. Prior to their legal fight, it had always been assumed that lesbianism automatically made one unfit to be a mother. The book recounts the long legal battle (ultimately successful), but here I wish to quote the earlier bit about how the two women, Sandra Schuster and Madeleine Issacson, came to terms with their sexuality and their relationship.

Quote:

Schuster had studied nursing at Stanford, graduating in 1961, joined the navy to help pay her college bills, and then married. She and her husband eventually had four children. Isaacson had also married and given birth to two. At first, Schuster lived with her husband north of San Francisco, slowly growing more alienated.

"I knew there was an emptiness in me, but I didn't know what it was," she would tell the Advocate in a later interview. For one thing, her husband did not share her fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs. Schuster prayed for guidance. She told the Advocate that one day, in the shower, she thought she heard God say she should move to Seattle to help a friend working in the city as a fundamentalist preacher. At first, she wondered whether she was crazy. A few months later, her husband was transferred to Seattle. Schuster considered it the first miracle.

In April 1970, Schuster was attending an evening service at the friend's church when she saw a woman walking down the aisle with young sons grasping her hands. "I swore that I saw a glow around her head," Schuster said. "I thought, 'Listen girl, you're really sick.' " A few days later, one of Schuster's own sons eagerly dragged her to meet his new Sunday school teacher. It was the same woman - - Issacson. The second miracle.

She, too, had a strained marriage. She, too, had been praying for help. "I remember when we first shook hands," Isaacson would say of that first meeting with Schuster. "My knees got weak. I had this funny feeling all over."

A few camping-and-prayer-filled months later, Issacson confessed her feelings. At first, Schuster resisted by quoting Bible passages. When Isaacson - - the Sunday school teacher - - was unfazed, Schuster began to reexamine and realized that Biblical condemnations of lust were not condemnations of love. Still, she wanted a more personal sign. She told the Advocate, "I said if God will send a prophet, I'll know it's right."

Driving around Lake City one day, the two women stopped on a whim at a Pentecostal church and found a young man from California preaching. In the middle of his service, he suddenly said he felt a great burden from two people in the room and called Schuster and Isaacson forward. "Everything he told us," Isaacson said, "was just what we'd prayed for."

Still, Schuster demanded an even clearer sign before she would agree to act on the feelings that were becoming ever stronger. She told the Advocate that she traveled to California to go to her old church, along the way praying, "Lord, are you really sure you know what I've been thinking?" Standing there on the street, by coincidence or design, she found the same young preacher she had met in Seattle. That was enough. The third miracle.

Lesbianism through divine revelation. By a patriarchal God sending a sign through a male preacher. That was something the political analyses had certainly not addressed.

Eventually, both women divorced, and in 1972 the ex-husbands filed for custody of their children, citing as harmful not only the women's lesbianism but their fundamentalist religious beliefs as well.

- - Gay Seattle, by Gary L Atkins, chapter 8.

 
The legal fight took six years and an appeal to the State Supreme Court to reach a conclusion. In 1978, the Court ruled that lesbianism did not by itself disqualify the women, and the two families could continue sharing a home together. It was a shattering precedent.

But are our assumptions shattered hearing their story?

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None