Is there a doctor in the house?

I saw my Ob-Gyn this morning. TMI, you say? Well, I'm only telling you this because she told me a great story. Well, great in an aggravating way.

Here's the deal. Her husband, she explained, is the stay-at-home dad while every day she heads off to her practice at the hospital.

One evening at home, she told her daughter the old riddle: a father and his son are in a car accident and are taken to the hospital where they are rushed into surgery. The father, tragically, dies, but the boy can be saved with an emergency procedure. The surgeon comes in to where the boy is on the operating and says, "I can't perform the surgery. This is my son." How is this possible?

My doctor's daughter thought about this a while and decided that the answer must be...the son had two fathers.

My doctor tried again with a different scenario: this time a mother and a son in an accident, mother dies, nurse enters, says, "I need someone else to help; this is my son." How can this be?

My doctor's daughter thinks and decides this must be a lesbian couple.

*facepalm*

On the one hand, nice to have the acceptance of gay and lesbian couples and families. On the other...geez, the persistence of gender roles and stereotypes! How do you fight that?

Does this make you feel great?

This week, Stephanie Drury, who is a keen observer of Christian Culture (a different animal entirely from Christianity), ran across an article recommending 62 Things to Say to Make Your Husband Feel Great. She decided to text these things to her husband and post screen shots of his responses. A few gems are below. You can read them all here and here.

Update: Bonus! Part 3!

Various & Sundry: People to avoid, theologians to watch, magicians to mislead

Oh, I give up. I'm not getting anything else done today, so I might as well move on to the snips and snails of the blogging week that I wanted to share with you.

The White House has gotten some push back on its recent proposal...not to build a death star. The Mischiefs of Faction debate the estimated cost of building the Death Star, the intergalactic politics of blowing up planets, and the technical work-arounds for the thermal exhaust port problem. And Galactic Empire Public Relations also posted a response: Planet Earth Abandons Death Star Project In Face Of Superior Galactic Imperial Power. Our planet is such a wuss.

In school shooting news, I'm surprised we haven't heard more about the fact that it wasn't an armed guard that stopped a shooting in Bakersfield, but an unarmed teacher who talked a student into putting down his weapon. Of course it may have helped that this was a shotgun and not a semi-automatic.

I doubt I would be able to stand up to someone holding a shotgun. On the other hand, I would do well to remember these 5 types of people to run like heck from: Distract-o-matics, Grillers, Status Claimers, Narcissists, and Non-Learners.

I just finished a huge and hard project in 2012, and I realize the people that made that project successful were exactly the opposite of this list of five-to-avoid: They were collaborators who were open and willing to explore ideas together, inherently curious people, and ones who didn’t grade our relationship on some hierarchical scale but based on our shared interests.

Good to remember.

Impressive news from the world of theology: 10 theologians under the age of 10, inspired by works as varied as Brown bear, brown bear, what do you see? to Toy Story. Here's Derrick, age 10:

Author of Why I want to be an Archeologist
What was the first piece that had an impact on your theology?
The Missing Piece. I’m not sure you can say anything definitive about salvation and self-understanding if you’ve not read that book. This idea we have that we are somehow deficient, and need to spend our lives searching for that one piece that will make us whole is so destructive. Shel Silverstein did the world a great service.
Tell us a bit about the piece included for this list.
“Searching” is a theme in my life. Clarifying what our gifts and skills are is the first step to understanding who God has called and created us to be.
What makes good theology “good theology”?
I need it to do something new. Listen, we’ve all read Barth and Moltmann. Those guys are old hat. I want you to push a few boundaries. Make me see something I hadn’t before.
What is your current project?
I’m working on a lost treasure story. I’m thinking of calling it Seek and Ye Shall Find. Do you think that’s too on the nose?
Name one of your favorite theologians over 10.
I gotta go with Tony Jones. A Better Atonement is the best thing I read last year.

Suzannah Paul wrote a really great post on Privilege and the Emerging Church. Whitney Johnson and Tara Mohr remind women that work isn't school. And illusionist Derren Brown explains why you are deceived.

Various & Sundry: The Sound of the Music of the Wolves of the White Christmas of the Dead. And some other stuff.

Hey, how about we have a normal Friday evening V&S post before the end of 2012. Won't that be fun? Let's see here.

For some lightness, let's start with Tom & Lorenzo's devastating take-down of White Christmas. There were never such devoted sisters. "Honeys, if a gay man over 35 tries to tell you that they don't know EVERY SINGLE WORD to this song, don't believe them. Trust us on this."

Meanwhile, the Baroness Schraeder regrets to inform you that her wedding to Captain Von Trapp has been canceled.

But I don’t want you to be angry at him. We are all adults here. “But Baroness,” so many of my friends have said, “you must be devastated. You yourself are fabulously wealthy, so you cannot have wanted the Captain for his money—you must have truly loved him.” It’s true. But so, I am sure, does his new fiancée, his children’s nanny. Her wardrobe is made of curtains. She’s definitely not a gold digger or anything.

Ha. That will bring us back to dough. (oh oh oh)

Speaking of dough, I thought this article on women and organizational leadership made an absolutely fascinating point: when asked why there was a disparity in leadership representation, the men blamed the system; the women blamed themselves.  It suggests a radically different approach to creating change in an organization which was, in many ways, a huge relief.

Also on the issue of gender/racial balance, the Columbia Journalism Review did officially what I have done only casually and analyzed who gets a NY Times obituary. Among other things, dead people most often went to an Ivy League school. Did you know that? State school people apparently live forever. The gender imbalance is noted in the chart below:

I loved this idea of the Virtual Food Drive from the Alameda County Community Food Bank.  

Why a Virtual Food Drive?

It's the greenest (and easiest) of all food drives

You save the Food Bank precious resources – schedulers, drivers, food sorters and fuel

Your donations allow us to purchase our most-needed items

And, they point out, they can stretch every $1 donated into $4 of food by buying in bulk. Sounds sensible.

Finally, I was very sorry to see that this was the Anglian Wolf Society, not the Anglican Wolf Society. But I think someone ought to start an Anglican Wolf Society. Then we can all have a Wolf Experience and Llama Walk, instead of needing to go to North Bedfordshire. Might be worth a trip, though.

Review: Skyfall ***THERE WILL BE SPOILERS!***

For my dad's birthday, my parents and I went to see the new James Bond film, Skyfall, and I have things I want to say about it that involve HUGE spoilers! I'm warning you now! If you don't want to know, then don't keep reading.

Have you averted your eyes, you who do not wish to know?

All right then.

Various & Sundry: Patriotic Food, as women bring home the bacon and Alan drinks his tea

Well, I'm not done with all the work I set for myself today, but I crossed a good chunk off my to-do list and I've hit a wall on the lesson I'm revising for CnC Adult, so I'm taking a break to write another blog post of odds and ends goodness before taking the dogs for a walk. Ready? Here you go:

Let's start with bacon. September 1, as I'm sure you know, is International Bacon Day and to celebrate, Archie McPhee posted this 1901 essay on the patriotic nature of American Bacon. "Without bacon, this superbly flourishing domain would in all probability be a howling wilderness at the present moment," it explains.

Let's follow this up with some patriotic ale. I'm pleased to report that, in response to an on-line petition, the White House has released the recipe for its Honey Brown Ale, reportedly the first alcohol brewed or distilled on the White House grounds. Kegger at Obama's!

And while we're talking about food and politics, I'd like to point out the article headlined Canadian Thieves Pull Off  Big Maple-Syrup Heist. Note the lead (emphasis mine):

TORONTO—Sticky-fingered thieves made off with as much as 30 million Canadian dollars (US$30.4 million) worth of maple syrup from a little-known strategic reserve in rural Quebec—leaving authorities to investigate just how much is missing and where it has gone.

Yes, my friends, if they can tap Canada's strategic maple syrup reserve, America's bacon is next! Be alert!

On a less frivolous note (not that there's anything frivolous about maple syrup), PeaceBang explores the "woeful undercompensation" of new clergy

For too long, ministers have jumped with joy at the very notion of getting a pulpit. It’s time to partner more respectfully and professionally with our churches, to negotiate ethical compensation packages and to nicely inform underpaying, over-demanding congregations that you’ll work X amount of hours or weeks for what they’re able to offer. Be clear about that hours, and keep them firm. Then get a second job at someplace local and interesting, tutoring or teaching or making coffee or selling books. The church won’t get into the cozy habit of exploiting clergy and you’ll get to hold a healthy boundary around your professional obligations to them, while staying in touch with non-parish sources of income.

Preach on, PeaceBang.

Tangentially related, I'm interested in the new book The Good Girls Revolt by Lynn Povitch, coming out next Monday, that describes the fight of the women at Newsweek over the opportunity to become writers and reporters. The New York Times has a good write up about it.

Meanwhile, Hanna Rosin, author of the new book The End of Men, also coming out next week, thoughtfully answers the question Why are boys doing so badly?

And then, to finish with a cup of tea, please settle in for seven minutes of Alan Rickman intensity. Oh, I do love this.


Or you can watch it in real time, which is 11 seconds.

Who's talking about women's issues?

No comment.

via Upworthy. h/t Dave Dickerson.

Update: OK, some comment.

After seeing this, I sent the link on to the New York Times and NPR ombudspeople, since those are the two  news sources cited that I use. I asked:

Would you care to comment on this chart? What is [your organization] going to do to increase the parity (at least) in quoting men and women -- particularly on issues with a strong women's interest? Thank you for your attention and answer.

Answer from NPR:

Dear Laura ,

Thank you for contacting the NPR Ombudsman.

As for your email, we appreciate your comments regarding the perceived lack of female voices in stories concerning women's issues. The Ombudsman has written on gender, racial and ethnic diversity, both at NPR specifically and with respect to specific issues. Below are some links that may be of interest:

Where are the Women?
Black, Latino, Asian and White: Diversity at NPR
The Contraception Mandate: Where are the Women?

And then some boilerplate about NPR.

Kudos, NPR, for at least acknowledging the issue!

Here's what I got from the NY Times:

I can't really comment on this because I have no idea how these findings were calculated. The reason I say that is that I find it incredibly difficult to be able calculate what is suggested in this article. If you can get me more information on how this calculated, or the raw data that was used, I would be much more willing to take a look.
 Best,
Joseph Burgess Joseph Burgess | Office of the Public Editor |
NYT Note: The public editor's opinions are his own and do not represent those of The New York Times.

Well, OK then. You do realize, Joseph Burgess, that this chart is circulating around out there. I didn't make it up.  Apparently you're not interested in learning whether this is accurate or not. Oh, heck, let's go further: apparently, the NY Times thinks the burden of proof is on me personally to fact check data about the Times.

This is as much about how you are perceived as it is about the data. I'm not sure it's my job to do your public relations for you. And for all that little note, there, I'm assuming this is the attitude of the NY Times.

I think I'll just believe this data is accurate until it's proven otherwise. By, say, a reporter. Who is willing to investigate. Because it's their job.

On the contra-contraception conniptions

I have been trying for...it seems like forever, but it's probably only been days to wrap my brain around the Catholic bishop's argument against allowing people in their employ to get the contraception that would be provided by the insurer as part of the insurance policy.  I really am trying to understand, to try to find an equivalent situation where my beliefs would be so strong that I would say, "No, I cannot bear to have any possible part in other people making their own moral and ethical decisions that are against no law but are against my own morals." I just can't come up with an equivalent that allows me to comprehend their argument.

I find myself going to extremes, thinking, "Well, you probably shouldn't pay them either, since they may do something you find immoral with the money--like buying birth control."  I find myself asking, "Does the Christian Science Monitor offer health insurance benefits to its employees?" (Yes, they do.)

I have been floored by the comments I've been hearing: that women should "keep their legs together," that birth control is "a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be," and similar notions. In a way, I'm glad to get them out in the open where we can look at them, go "wha?! You mean people in this day and age actually think that?", and then do our best to counter-argue.

One of the things that ticks me off most about this argument is that I haven't heard much mention of the fact that birth control pills can be used for other medical reasons not related to birth control.  A very good friend of mine used them for endometriosis; another friend who had both ovaries removed  also used them.  Neither was able to conceive and in fact both of them had to go to great lengths to have children.  And yet, as I visited my friend in the hospital after emergency surgery to remove her ovary, I heard that she was unable to get the pill because the only pharmacy available to her that day was that of the Catholic hospital.

It is irrational that hospitals cannot provide treatments because a particular religious group doesn't like something else that the treatment does. It is unconscionable that one group should block any means for others to live according to the law and in keeping with their ethics.  Keeping your legs together will not control the pain of endometriosis.  And requiring women to buy birth control from the salaries you give them just means reducing their pay, not keeping you pure.

The masculine world of the Church

The General Synod of the Church of England is debating this week about whether or not women should be allowed to become bishops. Sigh.  And much of the debate is about how to keep the people who don't want women bishops happy.  Deep sigh.  Don't they know by now that they're not going to be happy as long as there are any women bishops?

Meanwhile, here is the U.S. of A., someone named John Piper (I didn't know who that was) said something at some conference recently about how "God's intention for Christianity is for it to have a 'masculine feel.'" This would be more convincing if the goalposts for "masculinity" didn't seem to move whenever women stand on the field.

A couple of examples leap to mind.

Let's start with the color pink (also a newsmaker these days, is it not?). According to an article in the Smithsonian,

a June 1918 article from the trade publication Earnshaw's Infants' Department said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.”

Take, also, the flute, which until the last century was a man's instrument. The late Frances Blaisdell, who played with the New York Philharmonic, told the Flutist Quarterly, “I had lots of opportunities because I was sort of a freak, and people couldn’t imagine a girl flutist."

Yeah, so let's have Christianity with a more masculine feel: lots of flute music and pink banners everywhere.

Seems to me that the problem is not that Christianity is becoming feminine, but that men still think standing side by side with a woman makes them less than a man.  Maybe someday they'll get a grip. Or are they afeard someone's going to steal their purse.

Women in full

It's time for my yearly campaign to get people to use the full names of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Amelia Bloomer, Sojourner Truth, and Harriet Ross Tubman in the collect for their feast day, four weeks from today. Here's what I wrote about it last year.

The Facebook group I started to promote this now has 52 members, and you're welcome to join.

I also started a Twitter campaign using the hashtag #womeninfull.

I know it's not world peace, but it's about equality and respect, and it continues to rankle me that these women who were all for equality are referred to by a diminutive.

Here's a snippet from Nice Girls Don't Get the Corner Office (great book!) that explains better than I can why this is important to me.

Whenever I hear a woman answer the phone with only her first name, or leave a voice-mail message that says, "This is Sarah. Please leave your message...," it makes me wonder why she dropped her last name. It's comon among administrative staff--and entirely unnecessary. You will rarely hear a man answer the phone using only his first name*. It's a small but significant difference. Using only your first name relegates you, once again, to a childlike status. Ask a child his or her name and most often you get only the first name. The combination of your first and last name moves you to adulthood.

*The priestly equivalent of that is how often I hear male priests leave a voicemail as "Father X," while female priests often do not claim any title.

Equality occurs in the little things as well as the big ones. How can I believe that the church is interested in men and women being equal in the big things if it can't be equal in the small ones?

Please share the word.

Various and Sundry

Yet another week in which I let other bloggers and writers and artists do the heavy lifting. I'm glad to be busy, but sorry not to have the time to blather on with you.

Let's start with the obit section, shall we? There were a number of good ones this week, but the obit for Albertina Sisulu stands out for her valiance in the struggle against apartheid. Here's the line that killed me:

“I did not mind going to jail myself, and I had to learn to cope without Walter [her husband, who was imprisoned for 26 years],” Mrs. Sisulu once said. “But when my children went to jail, I felt that the Boers were breaking me at the knees.”

The obit ends: "Her daughter Lindiwe Sisulu is the nation’s defense minister. Her son Max is speaker of the National Assembly. Another daughter, Beryl Sisulu, is South Africa’s ambassador to Norway. She is also survived by her son Zwelakhe Sisulu and daughter Nkuli Sisulu."

Just...wow.

Gee, thanks, Dad.

I loved this story about the dad who embarrassed his high school age son by donning costumes and waving at the bus as it passed by every day. Did I mention, every day? Wearing a different costume? It inspired me enough to write a post for the Confirm not Conform blog about how this relates to youth ministry. I love how the Wave at the Bus blog with pictures of all the costumes has a donate button for the son's college/therapy fund.

I thought this article on 10 common mistakes made by non-profits in social media was spot-on...and that they apply equally to churches (with the possible exception of #3). And for churches, I would change #7 to "Ignoring Yelp and other user-generated review sites."

Finally, two visuals. I loved, loved, loved this list of Sexual Assault Prevention Tips:

And I also loved, loved, super-loved this ad from the Alamo Drafthouse. Really, it will make you happy. (h/t Andrew Sullivan)

Monday Morning Preacher: Preaching like a girl

I thought the sermon went pretty well yesterday, kind of middle of the pack. But afterwards I got an interesting comment: that I wasn’t fiery enough. Huh.

I had a meeting with the music director after that which led to a long discussion about claiming authority which made me realize something: I have a habit of preaching (and blogging) thusly:

“Here’s what I think, and I’m not saying that’s right—I’m not saying that’s wrong either. I’m just saying this is what I think at the moment, but, you know, if I think about it some more I might change my mind, so don’t mind me.”

One of the things I need to work on is preaching (and blogging) thusly:

“Here’s what I think.”

That’s going to be hard for me.

I’m stopping now before I say something diffident.

Monday Morning Preacher: Interactive Sermons

Yesterday's gospel lesson (as many of you know) was the story of Mary and Martha. Great text but, similar to The Good Samaritan, difficult to find something new to say. I went to a church yesterday where the priest basically said, "I've preached on this a lot; so what do you think of this story?" which was either brave or foolhardy. I think it worked all right because the church is small and the congregation stable--not a lot of visitors. But "What do you think of it?" is a mighty broad question to be throwing out to the congregation, in my opinion.

It was hard for me to keep my mouth shut! I had a sermon I could have preached, seeing as this congregation had never heard it before. It's actually interactive, too, but with very specific questions: How many of you picture Martha in the kitchen? How many of you picture Martha cleaning?

The great thing about having interaction with the congregation during the sermon is that the congregation is awake and involved. The problem can be that you get a Certain Type that are happy to share while a lot of people who might have interesting and worthwhile things to say tend to keep to themselves. That's why I like to really focus the interactive part, making it safe for everyone to contribute while keeping a bit of a rein on those who would want to take over.

Yesterday's reactions were fascinating--excellent sermon prep for the next time I get to preach on Mary and Martha. All but one of the people who shared were women, all of them expressing pain at the way Martha is portrayed. The one man who talked, talked about Martha's "negative energy." I noticed that he was not paired with a woman. I wasn't totally surprised.

Great story, Mary and Martha, but boy howdy have women been poorly served by the church with this text. Over and over the women who shared said something along the lines of: Someone still has to make dinner and women do not get let off the hook. Basically, what I heard is that when most women hear this story, they hear that they have to drop everything and also still do everything. This is a story that tends to weigh people down--women down, I should say. That's something I hope the church can combat.

I wouldn't have done the sermon this way, but I admit I was very glad to hear these reactions. Next time I'm given Mary and Martha, I'll be able to speak about the pain I heard. A most unusual and most enlightening sermon.

July snarkfest continues! Today's topic: SEXISM

Because I haven't been snarky enough this week, let's talk about sexism for a moment, shall we?

There's been a bit of a kerfuffle around The Daily Show hiring only its second female correspondent since 2001. An article on Jezebel claims that "it's a boys' club where women's contributions are often ignored and dismissed." In response, the women who work on The Daily Show posted an open letter saying, "while it may cause a big stir to seize on the bitter rantings of ex-employees and ignore what current staff say about working at The Daily Show, it's not fair. It's not fair to us, it's not fair to Jon, it's not fair to our wonderful male colleagues, and it's especially not fair to the young women who want to have a career in comedy but are scared they may get swallowed up in what people label as a 'boy's club.'"

In response, another writer, at the end of a fair analysis of the sexist forces at work in the world (of The Daily Show, comedy, and everywhere), made a huge gaffe as she ended by saying, "if you respond to suggestions that your hiring practices may be sexist with a letter signed by all the women on your staff dismissing these claims out of hand, then your hiring practices are almost certainly sexist." Thus hurting her own arguments by claiming that the ladies can't be trusted to speak for themselves or their own experience.

All this for me personally is a backdrop to a) my recent ranting about Elizabeth Cady Stanton & co.; b) the current debate before the Church of England about whether and in what manner women can be bishops; c) the recent "mitregate" debacle; and d) my own hunt for work in the church. So I'm glad for The Daily Show issue to be able to explore this at a one-step remove. Because, the truth is, it's complicated. Here are my vague thoughts about what might be more productive in addressing any sexism at The Daily Show--or perhaps the church.

1) Get your data in order

You know about me and data. I love data. Data is helpful. One of the things that's hardest for me to grapple with when considering sexism is the question: Is this real or am I imagining things? Hard data can help with that. Jezebel didn't do a bad job getting their facts. I think they weakened their argument, however, when they went for personality, saying, "The host and executive producer's onscreen persona is lovable mensch, but one former executive on the show tells us 'there's a huge discrepancy between the Jon Stewart who goes on TV every night and the Jon Stewart who runs The Daily Show with joyless rage.'" That just opened them right up to the "disgruntled employee" line. Much harder to argue with "only one female correspondent since 2001" or "this year alone, the show’s roster of guests has featured 63 men, but only 13 women."

2) It may be counterproductive to tell someone they're sexist.

One of the things that I find problematic in the critique of The Daily Show is that what they seem to want to conclude is "Jon Stewart is sexist and should stop being sexist." To which the women of The Daily Show say, "Jon Stewart is the opposite of sexist." So that didn't get anybody anywhere except to get women arguing amongst themselves about who's right about who's sexist. And if he is or if he isn't, what has changed? Of course, their goal may be getting readers and sparking debate rather than actually changing The Daily Show, in which case, mission accomplished! But if that wasn't what they were after...

3) Figure out the goals

One thing that might have changed this debate would have been for Jezebel to figure out what actual, measurable result they would like to see. It's one thing to say an organization is a boy's club; it's another to say, "By 2015, we would like to see that 50 percent of the employees of The Daily Show are women, with at least 1/3 of the on-air personalities and 1/3 of the guests being women." It's more fun to tear people down, but it seems to me more practical to find goals and move toward them.

4) Humor is a powerful tool

Weapon, even, I'd like to say. I don't want to give the impression that this is all about being nice and saying please and working within the system. But one way in which the Jezebel piece lost (rhetorically) to the letter from the women of The Daily Show is that the letter was funny, leaving readers with the impression that those complaining about The Daily Show weren't hired because they weren't funny, which is a problem for a comedienne. Remember that "joyless rage" quote above? Compare it with how the women at TDS describe Jon Stewart:

But what's he really like? Well, for a sexist prick, he can be quite charming. He's also generous, humble, genuine, compassionate, fair, supportive, exacting, stubborn, goofy, hands-on, driven, occasionally infuriating, ethical, down-to-earth and--a lot of people don't know this--surprisingly funny (for a guy brimming with “joyless rage”). How else to describe him? What's the word that means the opposite of sexist? That one.

(emphasis mine)

If you can laugh at your opposition and find ways for others to laugh at them too, they are hugely defanged.

5) Do NOT undermine other women!

I still cannot believe that writer suggested that Stewart had the women who work for him write a letter on his behalf. Way to ruin your credibility, there! They may be wrong, but suggesting that these women were somehow brainwashed into writing a supportive letter--it just boggles the mind. Women can certainly disagree, but to suggest that the disagreement is because of The Menfolk suggests your argument has no merit.

OK, I have a lot more thinking to do about this, and this is incredibly long and yet still very incomplete. Your thoughts and comments, as always, most welcome. More snark, no doubt, next week.

Use the full names of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Amelia Bloomer, Sojourner Truth, and Harriet Tubman

There are worse things in the world, I know, but it gets my dander up every year.

Here's the collect for the feast of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Amelia Bloomer, Sojourner Truth, and Harriet Tubman whose feast is July 20:

O God, whose Spirit guides us into all truth and makes us free: Strengthen and sustain us as you did your servants Elizabeth, Amelia, Sojourner, and Harriet. Give us vision and courage to stand against oppression and injustice and all that works against the glorious liberty to which you call all your children; through Jesus Christ our Savior, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

So what's the problem? Let's compare it with the collect for William Reed Huntington whose feast day is one week later.

O Lord our God, we thank you for instilling in the heart of your servant William Reed Huntington a fervent love for your Church and its mission in the world; and we pray that, with unflagging faith in your promises, we may make known to all people your blessed gift of eternal life; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen

So maybe it's because there are several of them on one day, you say. Let's take a look, shall we? Ah, here we go:

Keep us, O Lord, constant in faith and zealous in witness, after the examples of thy servants Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley, and Thomas Cranmer; that we may live in thy fear, die in thy favor, and rest in thy peace; for the sake of Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.

OK, so first of all, the Episcopal Church is breaking the style for the collects by leaving off the last names of these women. And secondly, they are doing it to four women who fought to see that women would be treated and respected as the equals of men.

Man, it ticks me off. I wrote to the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to point this out a couple of years ago, hoping it would be duly noted and corrected at General Convention last year. No dice.

So this year, I'm pulling out the big guns: I've started a group on Facebook. Please feel free to join, and pass the word along to any liturgically-minded friends. And if you are marking this feast day, please amend the collect to include their full names. This July 20th, I would like to know that at least a few churches are showing these women the respect they deserve.

Episcopal Church News

Man, I'm a blogging fool today!

The Episcopal Church grapevine is full of the news that Rev. Mary Glasspool, openly partnered with another woman, has received the necessary consents from both standing committees and bishops (churchy lingo for "OK by us") and will be consecrated a bishop on May 15. Understandably so since there was very real doubt that she would receive the consents needed.

What has truly caught my notice, however, is that absolutely NOTHING has been made of the fact that another woman was elected bishop in LA that day. Diane Jardine Bruce (that's her picture, there) was approved with pretty much a yawn.

Does anyone else remember the huge kerfuffle when Barbara Harris was elected bishop in Massachusetts a mere 20 years ago? The protests? The End Of The Church As We Know It pronouncements? And now it's not even news.

I especially appreciated Mark Harris' take(s) on these events over at Preludium.

News about her election and now about the consents for her election, almost always carry the banner that includes the word 'lesbian.' She is touted as the first partnered lesbian elected bishop, the first lesbian bishop (how do they know), the second homosexual partnered bishop (lesbian subset), and so on....It seems that almost everyone looks at this election as one filled with 'portent' because of her being put in a category of persons.... Apparently, no one in the world of ecclesial news and views gives a damn about who anyone is, but only what category of persons they belong to.

But look at how far we've come. I imagine it might be galling for Rev. Jardine to have no one notice that she too was elected bishop; but isn't it a tremendous development that we don't first place her in a category of persons. She's been overlooked, and that is good news.

Congratulations to you both.