The Times - Church of England trans backlash

Except that, like the It's Like A Night Club So Dress Accordingly baptismal party members at one church I used to go to, having a CofE ceremony is open to all parishioners and they go for it for the party and the lovely building.

I wish that I had read this article before making any comments on this thread, as it makes it plain that the new liturgy is designed for transgender people who are members of the Anglican communion, and that for already baptised transgender men or women the liturgy will be adapted to reflect a renewal of baptismal vows. I still think that baptism should not be the basis of the new liturgy, but I understand more clearly the Church's intentions, misguided though I think they are. It's interesting to read the criticism from both Anglican and Catholic clergy in the article.

www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/church-of-england-to-create-celebratory-transgender-liturgies-78350

Is it known who is on the committee/panel/whatever that developed this new liturgy?
I know of one of the drivers.
He is in a CP with his male partner. He wants to get married in church. Though I don't see either of them getting a GRC.
He's also vicar of a church with a girls' choir and a boys' choir. I wonder if self-I'd applies there? I'm still a treble because I say I'm a girl?

silentcrow

According to Wikipedia

The House of Bishops' membership comprises all 42 of the Church of England's diocesan bishops, including the extraprovincial Bishop of Sodor and Man and Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe. Suffragan bishops are also represented via the Bishop of Dover, acting as episcopal oversight on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Diocese of Canterbury, the Bishop to the Forces[5] and nine suffragan bishops elected by their fellow suffragan bishops

The guidance they published is here and it does sound like Stonewall speak

www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2018-12/Pastoral%20Guidance-Affirmation-Baptismal-Faith.pdf

Is it known who is on the committee/panel/whatever that developed this new liturgy? A small group pushing the trans agenda with no consultation smells of either personal interest or "follow the money".

As an aside I'm really pleased to see so many signatories from my diocese, even as an out and out atheist - I have been seriously worried about the CofE bending to this agenda because of the sheer number of schools it has access to.

www.responsetohob.co.uk/

It's extraordinary that the bishops are rewriting guidance in order to validate trans ideology and so worrying that trans lobbyists have that kind of influence. We already knew TRAs had the ear of the government but they also now appear to have the ear of God!

The bishops will surely have to listen to the signatories of that excellent, well informed letter? Or will all the 1686 signatories receive a visit from the police for non crime hate speech?

The possibility of celebrating gender transition appears to be based on the rejection of physical differentiation between male and female (known as ‘sexual dimorphism’). This dimorphism is not only an almost universal biological reality (with the exception of a very small number who are biologically intersex)..

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

Exactly, AnonymousClergy and 2ndWave. I wonder how the Church would justify the disparity in its decision-making processes.

AnonymousClergy its interesting isn't it, changes positive for women in the church huge amounts of consultation, changes primarily aimed at men transitioning pushed through in secret with the largely negative impact on marriage and family life disregarded by the church.

I hope you do feel able to sign, it sounds like you'd be representing the view of the majority of your congregation I've you do.

It was no surprise to see the vicar from my previous parish church has signed it. I would almost have been disappointed if he hadn't knowing his views on related subjects.

Usual suspects like St Helen's Bishopsgate and StAldates but loads and loads of village churches and smaller ones. I'll be signing as a lay member.

The thing about baptism is that it only happens once. Hence the problems with people who are baptised as infants but later argue that that baptism doesn't count because as babies they couldn't affirm a Christian faith. The Presbyterian Church here in NZ does have provision for those who feel that their adult faith should be recognised, as see below. The Church also performs adult baptisms for those who weren't baptised as infants.

www.presbyterian.org.nz/for-ministers/worship-resources/the-directory-for-worship/chapter-4-ordering-worship-for-special-pur

Oh and to make it clear. For allowing both female priests and then female Bishops there was a huge amount of consultation, right down to parish level. That hasn't happened with this.

I didn't know didn't about it until I read a newspaper article about it

I've found the link.

https://www.responsetohob.co.uk/

Umm. I want to sign it but feel very vulnerable doing so. Especially as there are very few female clergy who've signed it. Plus I have reservations about the dimorphic sex being linked to the institution of marriage.

I'm trying to work out whether to sign it or not....

I think there's a general view amongst the public that baptism=christening=being given a name
certainly that's what they thought in my junior school, when I was told my name wasn't really newt because I hadn't been christened
but you would think, wouldn't you, that the clergy would have a more advanced view

you can't change the theology behind the main sacrament of the Christian Church on a whim

As a committed atheist even I thought this. Even though god is not real I understand that the church have a very carefully constructed belief system, and to change one of the most basic things, baptism, with such speed seems very unusual - I mean look how long it took for women to be allowed to be vicars (or whatever the correct term). I would have thought that a change of this significance would need to have substantial thought and prayer...

@AnonymousClergy you could contact the clergy listed in the Times article?

Didn’t realise the C of E were doing this... and I’m just 😮

whiteworld I meant to say that a service should only be offered to people who already have a link with the Church, but didn't make that clear. The original sentence got left on the cutting room floor!

I agree with you that the Anglican Church needs to look at the way they treat women clergy, and those who wish to train for ministry first before any idea of changing baptism for transgender people. By the way, are there transgender clergy in the C of E? I am sure I recall reading an article somewhere on a male clergyman who transitioned to female.

Ahem. Anyone got link for signing the letter?

I don’t see anything in the article that said that transgender people need to believe in god or be members of the church to have a baptism in their new name. Looks like the C of E is jumping on the bandwagon.

I think they’d better change how they see women, and Look at their ratio of female to male priests and bishops, before looking at the trans issue...

I read that Times article too, and did sigh a bit. As someone who trained for the Presbyterian ministry in New Zealand I spent three years studying the doctrines of the Church, and I honestly don't know what the C of E clergy were thinking. By all means offer a service of some sort to gender transitioned people if it is asked for (a blessing perhaps) but you can't change the theology behind the main sacrament of the Christian Church on a whim. Below is a lovely example of a baptismal certificate given to parents by the Presbyterian Church. The text accompanying the image makes it quite clear what baptism is for.
And I agree, some of the comments on that article were odd.

teara.govt.nz/en/document/31086/church-sacraments-baptism

I hadn't heard about this it is surprising how far trans ideology has spread so quickly through all of our institutions. The backlash letter is very well thought out.
The comments underneath are batshit though.

Whatever your opinions on the Church are, they've actually taken a very thoughtful position. Having responded to some pressure presumably to be inclusive to their trans parishioners, there has then been a faction that has pushed back on that for the theological conflict it presents.
This will be given careful thought and it's probably worth watching to see what they decide to do.