Becky Garrison–The Episcopal Church promotes the “T” in the LGBT equation

Lost in this discussion are the developments in theology, science, psychology and other disciplines around this topic that inform the work of academics like as the Rev. Dr. Cameron Partridge, a transman who is the Episcopal chaplain for Boston University and a lecturer at Harvard Divinity School. He notes how those with bodies perceived as “different” can make us feel uncomfortable about our own bodies. But transgender clergy bring embodiment into the conversation in an exploration of “what does it mean to be human?”

For now, this appears a question that those commenting about the changes transpiring in the church don’t appear willing to address. After a slight flurry of articles about these trans friendly resolutions in outlets such as the Chicago Tribune and Anglican newspaper Church Times , once a trial rite for same-sex blessings passed, the media coverage shifted to focus solely on this particular LGBT related resolution.

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Culture-Watch, --Gen. Con. 2012, Anthropology, Episcopal Church (TEC), Ethics / Moral Theology, General Convention, Psychology, Science & Technology, Sexuality, Theology, Theology: Scripture

4 comments on “Becky Garrison–The Episcopal Church promotes the “T” in the LGBT equation

  1. Archer_of_the_Forest says:

    A “transman”…Is that a real word?

  2. C. Wingate says:

    Possibly the lack of interest is because because there may be a much higher proportion of the population that thinks that trans-gender is weird; possibly it’s because everyone who sees themselves as transgendered and wants to be ordained already is so. OTOH her snide comments about fifties-era religion are somewhat beyond dubious considering that she’s younger than I am and therefore wasn’t even an embryo in the fifties.

  3. BlueOntario says:

    Everytime I read the meme that science has overcome the Bible, I can’t help but hear Thomas Dolby’s song play in my head.

  4. driver8 says:

    She seems to be mixing her critiques in the first and second paragraphs.

    1. Opening paragraph – them dudes is so old fashioned, they want the horrific 1950s back.

    2. Second paragraph – hang on, they don’t want the real horrific 1950s back, what they want is all in their heads – it’s some nostalgic, soap opera fantasy.

    So 1. is a critique of desiring that which is past and 2. is a critique of desiring that which was never past. “Heads I win, tails you lose”. If you find things laudable in the past – you’re a loser – and if you find things laudable that aren’t in the past – you’re a loser too.

    Of course all right thinking Christians know that the period one should be nostalgic about begins about 1968…