If you haven't heard of Andrew Ramer, you will. Here's a little something to get you started.
From our cool friends at Jewcy:
This is what I want to hear...
Don't tell me about the Shekhinah.
How God's female aspect
is a sacred part of our tradition.
The word "aspect" gives it all away.
Your Shekhinah is God's sidekick
Purim drag costume.
She's His sad dark girlfriend
evicted from her Jerusalem apartment
by the Romans
and wandering ever since.
I don't want an Aspect in my prayers
not even that upgrade to First Class
Yah is a masculine form
not the Tah Shekhinah that would
make it truly female.
This is what I want
and nothing less
if we really mean
that God isn't Male.
I want prayers to Her
that don't frighten us into thinking
"This is paganism. Heresy.
Something we've avoided for
two thousand years!"
I want Her presence to be felt
Her names to be called
Her blessings to be known
Just as His are.
May She who makes peace
in Her high heavens.
And on the seventh day She rested.
Holy Holy Holy
is the Lady of Hosts
the whole earth is full of Her glory.
I want new liturgy to Her
or I want us to throw out
everything stale and male and old.
I want generations of Jewish girls
to grow up hearing us pray to Her.
Mother of all.
I want us to bask in Her magnificence.
I want us to midrash Miriam
in the cleft of lightning-struck tree
as She flashes by
I want the cosmos to be Her challah
shaped and molded.
The universe her handiwork.
birthed from her Sacred Self
and never separate from It.
Is this too much to ask
of a tradition that has reinvented itself
over and over again
for three thousand years?
Not contracted fear
but expansion and open embrace.
That we see in Her
what we find in ourselves
and see mirrored in ourselves
what we find in Her:
Creator of the Universe
Source of Life.
If you haven't heard of Andrew Ramer, you will. Here's a little something to get you started.
You want to know what I hear a lot? I hear people saying that the only way to change people's hearts and minds is to let them get to know you. Once they know a real live lesbian, the reasoning goes, they will magically become all queer-friendly and pleasant. It's the incarnational reality of the homo at home that'll win the day. That's what they say.
Unfortunately, it's bullshit.
I've spent a good deal of time and energy "being present" to homophobes, exposing myself to their careful scrutiny, trying to make the grade on behalf of all of us. But, here's what happens. They wind up liking me quite a lot. You, not so much.
Even hardened homophobes have learned to like me. I wear lipstick and act like a girl, after all. I'm not at all like the rest of you. And, I'm not making this up. That's pretty much what they say:
"We like YOU, Lindy. But..."
But, not those girley-men,
not those transexuals,
not those women in leather,
not Louie Crew and his feather boa,
or Susan Russell and her manish haircut.
No, we don't like them.
But, you, Lindy... you're a good homo. We like you.
That's what they say.
And often I counter that statement with a little statement of my own. I call it the I AM statement.
"I AM those people," I say.
I AM the flamingist queen,
I AM the butechest dyke.
I AM the most strident, the girliest, the queerest, gayest one of all.
I AM the one who frightens you. Yes, me.
I AM your worst nightmare. And, look, I'm not so bad."
I wish you could see the looks on their faces. They are utterly dunfounded. Why, after all, having been graced with their good favour, would I now identify myuself with that kind of person?
For all the crap I've put up with, no hearts have been moved, no minds changed. Sure, people like me. But, they won't fight for me, or for you whom they still do not like.
It's a loosing game, this business of winning people over with our gay charms. The fact of the matter is that while we may be tolerated, or even accepted, on an individual basis. They still won't have anything to do with us as a matter of justice, still don't see our cause rooted in the gospel, and only play along to amuse us when we dare to bring it up.
For me, I am no longer in the business of gaining acceptance from homophobes. I quit.
I AM who I AM.
The Episcopal bishop of Texas has written to the diocese. I guess nobody told him that he's making an ass of himself and that he will eventually expend a great deal of energy back-peddling out of his neolithic Windsor musings. I am certainly not going to tell him because I don't care about his fat ass. But, here are just a few little gems from his post for those of you who still care:
These are from Bishop Doyle's blog post entitled "From Bp. Andy Doyle on Day 8." Clever title, eh?
...I believe the House of Bishops has in its power to make decisions and take actions through pastoral letters to the church without the House of Deputies.
...I shared with them my very clear commitment to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Windsor Process, and the Covenant Process.
Both resolutions (DO25 and CO56) will, I am most certain, place strain on the Anglican Communion. Reactions I've received support this belief. However, we need to give the communion time to respond, and we need to listen to our Archbishop as he speaks to us about his thoughts and reflections on the events of General Convention.
I am committed to the Windsor Report recommendations and process which include a moratoria on blessings and elections of partnered gay clergy to the office of bishop.
I am committed to the Covenant and a process.
... And, that you will know of my very clear intention to continue on the Windsor Path.
OK. There's so much wrong with this that I'm not even going to go into it. Most of the people who read my blog are smart enough to figure it out without my blatherings.
But, remember what I said several months ago about how whatever goes on at GC won't really matter because all the bishops will go back home and do whatever they want anyway? 'Member that? Because it does appear that I was spot on. And you thought I was just being a negative nellie...
Look, read the whole thing. That's why I gave you the link to it. And read Andy Baby's other musings. Don't just take my word for it. There's plenty of assyness there to be discovered by you too.
Some of you may have been wondering why I am less than enthusiastic about the goings on at General Convention. Well, take a look. These are the two clowns who run things in the Diocese of Texas. There's also Cowgirl Dena who, to the best of my knowledge, is not wearing headgear at this convention. Dena's a bag of dicks but she dresses well.
Bishop Doyle, that's the fat one, was once rumored to be a change-maker. "He's young," people said hopefully, as if that would also make him less of an asshole. It has not, by the way.
People were once hopeful about Bishop Wimberley too, remember? But, within months of Wimberley's election the kindest thing people were saying was "...disappointing." In the ensuing years he proved himself to be ham-handed and authoritian. Nobody really likes him except maybe a few bishop-ass kissers. But, even they have to know that Don Wimberley's has been a failed episcopate.
Now I am neither a prophet, nor am I the son of a prophet, but I predict that Andy Doyle is headed for the same kind of episcopate that Don Wimberley had. What makes me think that? Well, several things.
- He was born in this diocese
- He attended Episcopal schools in this diocese
- He was called and ordained in this diocese
- He has never served in any other diocese
- He was canon to Don Wimberley
- He has identified himself as a "Windsor Bishop"
You have heard me lament that at the end of General Convention the princes of the church go back to their little fiefdoms and do whatever they damn well please, regardless of any resolutions that are passed. And that is exactly what Cowboy Andy is doing.
Here's what he had to say about D025:
Bishop High, Bishop Harrison and I each voted against the resolution as we have been and continue to be concerned regarding the repercussions throughout the Anglican Communion. And we were concerned with the idea that DO25 repeals BO33 from the 2006 General Convention....
Which, of course, are the same bogus arguments that have been floating around out there since 2003. They weren't real arguments then and they aren't now. These are not-so clever excuses, and unlike in 2003, it is now clear that they are totally false. Our place in the communion is secure, and B033 remains invalid since it violates out canons.
Regarding B033, Andy says
The Diocese of Texas honors the moratorium not because of DO25 or BO33, but because of our belief that the teachings of the church on sexuality have not changed, that the Windsor Report asks the American church to refrain from election and ordination of a bishop who is living in a partnered relationship, from the development of rites for same sex blessings, and our own resolutions and canons currently have reaffirmed our views on the topic.
Do you want me to go over it for you?
1. By definition moratorium has a set ending point. Thus, until such time as a set end point is established, there is no moratorium. Maybe we should call it what it is, a bone-headed refusal to change.
2. One would not honor such a moratorium, if such existed, because of D025. One would do so in spite of it. Because of and in spite of are really two quite different things. I do hope someone will explain this to Bishop Doyle.
3. "The teachings of the church on sexuality have not changed..." What? Ever? I mean, I don't think you can get any dumber than that. But, there it is. From one of your princes.
4. The Windsor Report!!! Egads! The Windsor Report is not a canon, it's has no authority. Even those who worked on it have said that they did not understand our polity and have urged us to move forward. But Andy Doyle, like Don Wimberley before him, has has made it a part of his own identity. They are Windsor Bishops. And soon they will either have to back-pedal out of that identity or resign themselves to a place on the wrong side of history.
5. "...our OWN resolutions and canons..." In other words, we'll do whatever we want, Regardless.
So, there's all the hoop-la in Anaheim, moving past B033 and all that jazz, But, what do you think will really change here in the Diocese of Texas for gay and lesbian Christians? Do you think the trans community will feel the impact of the General Convention welcome here in Texas? What's your guess, would the standing committee of EDoT consent to a gay or lesbian bishop? You know the answers.
So, forgive me if I'm not caught up in the euphoria of the moment. I'm of the opinion that until ALL of us are welcome, none of us are truly welcome. Even you,,,