The Times - Church of England trans backlash

This is being discussed on radio four now

Can I have multiple re- baptisms, if I’m diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder? I imagine that could be quite a long service, since people with DID can have well over a dozen different identities.

Could I have a re-baptism if I dye my hair blond, get blue-eyed contacts, dermal fillers and a boob job, begin wearing leopard everything and change my name to Annika? Since that’s long been a fantasy of mine, in fact even a sense of the person I really am, deep down?

Yes, I agree with drspouse. This is theological overreach, really, not wide ranging inclusivity. I mean, let's look at the situation wrt marriage.

Despite the fact that the CofE is the state church, and has adjusted to accommodate divorce and you don't need to be a Christian to marry in a church anyway, it is still impossible for gay men and lesbians to marry in church. If inclusivity was a big driver, there is a WAY better argument to be made for allowing same sex marriage in church than there is for completely screwing up the initiation sacrament to accommodate a few people with a quirky understanding of personal identity, even though it will leave a lot of wounded people in it's wake.

transition is perhaps the only major event in parishioners' lives where the church doesn't currently have any involvement.

Except that coming out as gay, and divorce, also graduating with a degree is HUGE for some people (may be the biggest ceremony they ever go to if they don't end up getting married), retiring...

All big transitions in people's lives and the last two have official ceremonial parallels in the secular world.

I don't think that's why - there are plenty of other transitions that have no church ceremony. I think it's about a very, very dodgy theology.

Another thought: transition is perhaps the only major event in parishioners' lives where the church doesn't currently have any involvement.

Hatches (through baptism), matches (weddings) and dispatches (funerals) are all church services. Divorces don't count because they aren't always recognised / approved of within the church community.

So I can see why the CofE was attracted initially to the idea of a service to celebrate / mark the transition, even if (as pp have said) it has no religious connection.

It's an interesting example of TRAs over-reaching, sympathetic naive people agreeing with their suggestions, then the general population going "wait, what??!"

If the CofE had published guidelines for clergy to adopt in dealing with trans parishioners (respect their choice of pronouns; ask them whether they want anything to be mentioned more generally in announcements or not type stuff) and a model prayer to use to welcome Bob Smith - who used to be Anne Smith - to the congregation, this probably wouldn't even have been noticed, never mind discussed on here and the national press.

Good to see that the comment accusing The Times of being transphobic has zero recommendations, whereas it's rebuttal has been recommended 68 times. Excellent.

Rats! I meant to sign off by saying how much I have enjoyed reading all the posts on this subject. On the issue of baptism I think that you show more theological wisdom than the Bishops by far!

I think that the Church of England has probably been surprised by the intensity of the backlash against its proposed guidelines for a liturgy celebrating a new gender identity. Let's hope that the Bishops do give serious consideration to the opposition as they promise to do.

www.christiantoday.com/article/bishops-always-say-theyre-listening-are-they-listening-to-us-about-transgender/131572.htm

www.christiantoday.com/article/church-of-england-says-it-will-give-serious-consideration-to-letter-opposing-transgender-services/131575.htm

Lol, I'm so knackered I didn't even notice!!

Cosmetic? Stray auto correct word from somewhere.

I know/know of a few people on the list. I am surprised at who are not on there.

drspouse amen, I can't emphasize that enough.

And mainstream cosmetic Christianity doesn't really think body and soul are separate; Body Bad Soul Good is very heretical.

Quite, Anne. Its got sod all to do with Christianity and is, as far as I can see, a fairly naked attempt to further entrench the Genderist religion in existing structures.

In other words, what in the faith can be more essential in the full meaning of the world than the soul?

Surely not ego.

It's so internally contradictory. Are transitioners claiming they now have a new soul to be welcomed into the faith?

But I thought their "soul" was always was it was (male or female) and they are simply changing the body to match.

So why baptise the new "soul"? It makes no sense unless the soul has transitioned also, in which case -- what exactly IS the eternal masculine or femine that both the new soul and new body must match? What is this entity that governs both soul and body but is separate from soul and body, so separate as to be mismatched?

'You don't get reborn again and again'

Reminds me of one of my favourite books 'Lila' by Marilynne Robinson.

I think the Rev Rachel Mann is one of the key drivers. A trans 'lesbian' who gave last year's Feminist Theology lecture at Southwark Cathedral.

I'm not really sure. But that isn't internally consistent, theologically. Baptism is ripe with symbolism of death/resurrection itself. It's not about anything to do with personal identity. It's supposed to be a death to your 'self' and a new life in Christ, and it's also a one time thing.

It doesn't matter what you do afterwards, you don't get reborn again and again. Fresh starts, repentance is ongoing yes, but taking important, central tenets of the Christian faith and tinkering with them to accommodate and 'celebrate' something which can so profoundly damaging to lots of people is just so irresponsible, even if you don't believe the religion.

NicolaStart, the notion of God is also highly contested in wider society!

I'm trying to unpick the thinking behind this...

Is it something along the lines that transitioning means becoming a whole new person (hence the issue around deadnaming), so for someone to continue to be a baptised member of the community they need to have another baptism?

So Anne Smith was baptised, but then Anne becmae Bob Smith, and Bob has not been baptised

www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/a-plea-to-the-bishops-on-trans-guidance-please-listen-and-respond/

"The notion of gender transition is highly contested in wider society. There is widespread concern at the idea of biological males claiming to be women when they have not shared their personal and social experience; there has been a worrying increase in rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) particularly amongst girls who appear to lack confidence in their identity as female; there are concerns about the long-term effects of ‘puberty blocking’ hormones given the poor quality of the research; and there is no scientific or medical consensus that surgical and medical interventions (‘gender transition’) effectively address the complex symptoms associated with gender dysphoria over the long term. The bishops’ guidance offers no recognition of the wider issues at play here."

I have signed as a lay member (nobody from my area has that I can work out - lots from my diocese but other areas) but I really wanted to email our vicar to let him know except that we've recently moved churches and frustratingly he doesn't advertise his email address.

nauticant that's a very good point

Otepot that's quite a dramatic change! don't want to derail this thread by asking how that happened

I like the need to discuss changes more widely in the church.

I don't have any thoughts on the theological aspects of this but one thing that occurs to me is that this would raise another barrier for detransitioners to overcome. For all of the talk of gender fluidity, a transition back to accepting one's sex seems to be something that activists are rather keen to hinder.

Well, I was a Catholic and now I am a Presbyterian, so am not familiar with the modern Anglican Church. Does watching 'All Gas and Gaiters', 'The Vicar of Dibley' and that wonderful series 'Rev' starring
Tom Hollander and Olivia Coleman count?

In terms of church process the Presbyterian church in NZ has the Barrier Act." In the ecclesiastical law of the Church of Scotland, the Barrier Act of 1697 is a measure which compels the General Assembly to consult the wider Church before innovating in the areas of worship, doctrine, discipline or church government.[1]

It is a provision which prevents the General Assembly from making core innovations which might profoundly affect the polity of the church without first referring these to the presbyteries. A matter which falls under the Barrier Act must first be passed by the General Assembly, then be referred in the form of an overture to the presbyteries and ratified by a majority of these, before being returned to the General Assembly of the following year and passed again there. This is intended to prevent rash decisions to the long-term detriment of the church. Important matters which fell under the Barrier Act in recent years include the ordination of women, which was passed in the 1960s, and the proposed union with the Scottish Episcopal Church, which failed to receive the support of the presbyteries in the 1980s.[2]" Wikipedia.

That extract refers to the Church of Scotland, but is relevant to PCANZ (Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa NZ). As you can see the Barrier Act means that a thorough and democratic process takes place before any decisions are finally made. 'Decently and in Order' is the Church's motto, and if it means that progress can be frustratingly slow at least everyone has a chance to have their say.