All of my recent writings on Thelemic/OTO theology as they relate to EGC gender policy can now be found grouped under the gender series tag.
Last month I wrote a series of posts on my private Facebook exploring Thelemic and OTO theology as it bears upon the Gnostic Mass and current EGC policy regarding gender. As these posts largely represented a process of research/discovery for me rather than finished products, I initially chose not to share them on my Lapis Mercurii blog. However, in retrospect, I think the process I went through—from questioning to considered opinion—might be valuable for other researchers and individuals questioning EGC policy.
- Questioning EGC policy on gender
- Questioning EGC policy or Thelemic theology is not “drama”
- Crowley on liberation, sexual freedom, and eucharist
- Biological reductionism and counterculture
- Why the outrage on the part of those in authority seems disingenuous
- Why Thelemites should develop competence in theology
- Solar-phallicism and EGC gender policy
tl;dr – The theology underlying OTO mystery—solar-phallicism—to my mind does not support transgender clergy or queer mass. In other words, EGC policy is already a lot more liberal than it ought to be if we were adhering to Crowley’s original intention. That being said, the theology itself is problematic and kind of gross, and current EGC policy at least represents a move in a direction where OTO can remain relevant. The main problem with the policy is that the church now occupies a middle position—a kind of no man’s land—where they must inevitably draw fire from every side. We’ve already deviated from the Blue Equinox model of OTO in countless ways. There seems to me to be very little gained by holding the line on this particular issue. If enby people want to serve as both Priest and Priestess, church authorities should just let them.