Feb 6, 1991

The apple of knowledge whereof...I do a massive database search for the agent of religious fundamentalism while suspending my disbelief in an attempt ....to learn. Knowledge of the inscrutable worm within the apple...has always fascinated me. Yesterday Hart gave me a copy of "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis at the same time I gave my first search in his behalf as gift. Thus, the possibility of enslavement by power of a gift was simultaneously anulled. My good adversary. Ron thinks I'm crazed, and K. advises me of Pentecostal things to ask: "Does he believe in spiritual gifts?" Well, obviously. She illustrates for me the complexity of sectarian battles amongst the ranks of those born-again. Those who "witness" should resist sarcarsm and react with mild incredulity. (Kurt M., peace activist). My motives are unclear to me even as I pray for guidance and forbearance. Andy H., editor-in-chief, Newspapers) overlooks my search and suggests new angles. I tell him: Church, New Life -- or he knows, must wonder -- it turns out to be a cult. I know that he is impressed by my actions that cast aside what he thought he knew of me. Pigeonholes won't hold water of life. Burroughs wrote of Ezra Pound: "One does not thank the oyster for the irritating instance which produced the pearl." Amen! I read and find Lewis' style partly irritating, a book written as if to 'lure' in the fish without its knowing. -- and since I know I am annoyed. I cd. get into analysis of his words: "tradition," "natural" law or "human nature," most of which are discredited. But I think I know well enough from the departed Northrop Frye's "The Great Code" which I read at my Mother's dinner table years ago. The question once again is of "the process": how does one so privileged fall into the hands of a Christian evangelica cult, which will arrange a marriage, watch his every move, call him thrice daily? To save him from what "mistake?" I think I know. There is a terrible fate awaiting those who hurt and harm in the name of Christ, whispers K. calmly. Meanwhile, the march of Madame Hyle goes on -- me, I'm a spiritualist and believe in my soul. Ought not I act like it is so? In the beginning and in the end there is process. Who judges it all in the end?

"Those who can."

"His perfect liberty to be at ease asserted," I once wrote.

Feb 7, 1991

Ahh, the quotation above written just before Hart walked in, and we talked about each other, and faith, with only hints of what was to come. I shared a parable of friends whose 'inerrant' message is -- "if you expect me to agree with you as the basis of some kind of relationship, forget it" and I delivered my seed with the white fire of righteous anger. His reply, equally as heartfelt -- "I haven't had much of that in my life, and it reminds me of something C. S. Lewis wrote about the free exchange of ideas" . . .shrewd, shrewd opponent-lover. Kurt M. found an article on 'choice' in education, tuition vouchers in the Times, and copied it for me -- probably thinking I was some type of Reaganite. If someone so different can accept the burdens of transcending differences then I am willing to be exposed. Today, there was another meeting that went farther. I asked if he believed in spiritual gifts and he said that he did but hadn't experienced them. He said he didn't believe yet in inerrancy and was trying to read "Genesis as history" and having great problems." It must be awful for a mathematician to attempt such downscaling of mind. I replied that I felt 'inerrancy' misses the point of parables -- "behold a sower" thank you. Then he was on to 2 Live Crew and I said: "responsibility lies with parents." I ignored abortion so that he cd. get through to sex education and AIDS and the white heat between us grew-- "AIDS is not treated as other contagions have been" he lamented, and I pointed out the absurdity of the idea that gays have somehow gained politically from it, a disease that has nearly obliterated an entire culture, if not its generation -- and pointed to the exemplary response of change, education, and compassion from a community once only one of common prurient interest. I added that there are those who say all this despite resistance from the government. To homosexuality he said he "used to live with two gay guys in Nashville" -- these must be the ambassadors of homophobia I anticipated and "if I were an employer I would have to fire a homosexual because he/they would be emotionally unbalanced and disloyal." (Joe Steffan I'm with you). Here, I thought, is the careless theology of those whose true goals are financial gain by hatred and sedition. No more, no less. It must be a matter of control. I can remember what I said, surely you must know. It's not a lifestyle or a disease and not sin, but like all sexual acts (I addressed his verb, but not his adjective or its implications about 'being'), neither inherently good or bad. I presented a child custody scenario -- "gay father, abusive mother" -- who gets custody? Father? Mother? Or, the State? "That's a hard one," he says thoughtfully. I feel I know him. But I do not. Where is his love? I see the reactions in his eyes. He isn't thinking as much as scanning a list of acceptable thoughts for answers. The fact that he extended, so nervously, this detail of knowing two gay 'roommates' in lieu of condemning them as disloyal -- is the cornering detail for me. I sensed it all that first day in his handshake. Gaydar. What fate for those poor men of the Inquisition? This is the eye that fired them. Or, the Holocaust, those still dishonored? This is the careless theology that pays the fireside griddlecake vendors....satanic guise of businessmen. IF I WERE A BUSINESSMAN I'D HAVE TO FIRE THEM. McGurn's May 28, 1990 The National Review article carried the same memetic system: "the gay community is not looking for compassion" -- that Cardinal O'Connor is 'hated' because, like a wise father, he withholds approval of H. itself. And McGurn depicts the day that Bush wakes up and finds he may have already alienated his friends. McGurn's analysis leaves one feeling a bit cheated, too obvious, too in the middle of the right-wing milieu: "For the moment gay-rights activists are delighted with Bush" ( a remark so dubious in its own right as to be laughable ) like 'fickle' children or 'women.' pp.22-23 What is yer interpruh-ta-shun of Genesis 19:1, Dr. Johnson, of the Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary writes: "the practice of phallic aggression, in the larger setting of opulent, xenophobic hubris, underlined by Ezekiel and Josephus elsewhere, provider of the most logical explanation of the sexual dimensions of Genesis 19." Gay/Lesbian Liberation Theology, p.46, George Edwards. "It shd. be self-evident that the healthy homosexual wd. no more condone the conduct implicit in Genesis 19:5 than the healthy heterosexual would approve the conduct of Judges 19: 22-25. ibid., p. 46 Which is: AND category. The salient point here is rape. Is rape. Sex? Hart tried to compare sexuality to alcoholism. Common enough. LSU basketball coach Dale Brown, a Baptist preacher, has repeated that ofttimes. Whaat? "There is a difference between choosing to have sex with someone and saying "oh, it's 6:15pm, happy hour, I'd better find some sex," but that the scenario itself does nothing to indicate a quality or nature of sexual category itself. Obviously. He means John Rechy, I presume, the "City of Night" stereotype, dark compunctions, compelling phantoms and spectres of the Hollywood night. What happened, exactly, in Nashville anyhow? I certainly am not going to try and explain the arcane credos of sexual revolution to him. Kurt Strom, hero of the libidinal epics "The Boy Who Picked the Bullets Up" and "Panthers In The Skins of Men" wouldn't even be having this conversation, I think. But then again, I'm not a studly blond muscular Navy medic picking up straight officers in Da Nang either, I smile to myself. How disloyal of me. Character assassinator, Hassan i Homo. Will not do. Personal anecdotes will not suffice as prejudices, only specific meaning for specific incidents extrapolated here. Hart said: "I used to be like that," looking at his watch to make sure of the time. I read on to page 69 in the second book he gave me, time-bomb and Trojan horse of a gift: " More Than a Carpenter," it's titled, by Josh McDowell. All the same it's a solid volume about the deity of Jesus Christ == who, indeed, (it's main point), cannot be seen as a "Great Teacher." Either God, or a false prophet. Wicked mean one at that.