First non-binary priest in C of E

Does he claim that? Or is he describing his own interpretation? I'm afraid I don't know enough about ancient languages to even begin to describe what was originally written so long ago so you could be right, that's what it says.

I do know though that there are different English versions with different words for similar concepts, I think I remember 'man and woman he created', so I don't know.

I agree I don't think the story of Genesis is meant to be literal. His interpretation is not what I get from it either. Humans being created 'fully formed' makes no sense if one believes in evolution!

I’m completely over this bullshit. What has this guy actually done to warrant a place in the spotlight? I’m in no way religious, but there’s no doubt there are good people in various churches who have a strong social conscience. They feed people, clothe people, shelter people, counsel people. They do this day in, doubt out without drawing attention to themselves for it even though they absolutely deserve plaudits and gratitude.

What has this guy done? Declared an identity. Not only that, he’s declared an identity that all of us have but don’t feel obliged to declare it out loud.

It’s because we live in the era of the Influencer: people who are desperate to tell us all about who they pretend to be and why what they do is somehow so important. In reality these are people who are nothing special and do nothing special.

This is the Priest version of a Kardashian; people famous for doing nothing. Even the Instagram account is vacuous nonsense: “Going to church because Jesus loves sparkly eyeshadow. #girlslikeus #transisbeautiful #nonbinary #eyeshadow”. What’s next? A close up of a glass of red wine while at a resort with #holidaycommunion?

All while genuine worthwhile people who give everything and ask nothing get on with their lives.

FOTTFSOF.

Just dreadful. I feel sorry for his children and the congregation. Another example of the spineless Church of England moving further away from Christian values.

A man who likes to wear makeup no female vicar (or churchgoer) would ever wear to a service. A man who enjoys wearing fake tits. A man who claims that Jesus (a pretty socially conservative Jewish man who lived 2000 years ago and preached the word of God, preached humility and poverty and dedicating yourself to others) liked fucking "sparkly eyeshadow".

What an insulting little attention seeker. No wonder the CofE is in serious decline.

HirplesWithHaggis
Re the shellfish, perfectly sound dietary advice for largely desert-dwelling Bronze age nomads. "Off" shellfish can make you very ill indeed

So the at the time equivalent of the food safety standards Agency, ensuring they didn't lose vast swathes of people to food poisoning. Clever. Although (as with probably vast chunks of writing in the godly book not really relevant in the 21st century) now we have refrigeration and better understanding of hygiene and bugs.

@Boiledbeetle yeah pretty clever for the time, considering! So better understanding of hygiene means they no longer follow that bit. Sadly some still follow the anti gay bits. Hopefully better understanding will help that bit soon too.

My biggest problem with this is his claim that we are all interpreting Genesis 1:27 wrong. It doesn't talk about "maleness and femaleness" at all. It says "male and female he created them".

It shocks me that this chap passed all the theological training to become a priest and yet clearly cannot even look up a verse in an interlinear Bible to see what the original Hebrew words are and hasn't grasped that Genesis 1 is a poetic/meditative story.

I dunno it seems like a useful diagram for a seminar, nothing fundamentally wrong with it. I think it's fine for diagrams to exist even if we don't agree with what's on it e.g. a diagram describing a religion I've don't know much about, set out in a simple way. I don't believe in the religion but it's interesting to learn the basics.

@Wellies54 You might have come up with an idea for the community there. Donate what you don't want and pick up what you fancy.

Exactly!

So the at the time equivalent of the food safety standards Agency, ensuring they didn't lose vast swathes of people to food poisoning. Clever. Although (as with probably vast chunks of writing in the godly book not really relevant in the 21st century) now we have refrigeration and better understanding of hygiene and bugs.

@Dunnowhattodonow thank you, sorry I see the Mail does quote them saying that. That wasn't in the Telegraph version I must have missed it somehow.

Hmm very odd. I can't tell you what they mean, they do seem to be referring to gender in the absence of anything else though, so really not sure.

And the stats are quite interesting too aren't they, they definitely refer to being straight as opposed to gender.

I thought they said the first 'out' non binary priest rather than there not being any others. I think they also said something like 'to my knowledge'.

I see your point about it being like religion. We are expected to believe it, or at least tolerate it while being polite. I do find it hard to tolerate things I don't believe in so I get it.

I'm not sure we have to go along with any religious tenets or rites, only the non binary pronoun of 'they' which apparently has been used as a singular pronoun since Shakespeare times so I don't have a problem with it. We already use it for a single person when we don't know their gender so it kinda fits.

Thanks Toomie I really appreciate that, and also the article. It was interesting to see gender described from the different feminist perspectives at the beginning bits of the article, although this next bit was probably true in the past and may be still true in certain age groups or personality types, but I don't think it's that widespread:

From birth, and the identification of sex-class membership that happens at that moment, most female people are raised to be passive, submissive, weak and nurturing, while most male people are raised to be active, dominant, strong and aggressive.

From my perspective I tried to raise my children equally and where they were 'treated differently' when they got older that was due to their personality and other traits not their sex or gender.

Neither of them have any particular traits relating to their gender described in the para above but they are in their thirties now. Is it a more recent thing again rather than just old fashioned sexist attitudes? Genuinely asking as none of my friends have small children.

I'll comment on the next bit soon. Thanks again

Mermaids webinar in summer 2022 distancing themselves from gender expression bring stereotypes of your gender identity. So if you feel non binary you are and no one can question it because it is in your head.

The weird thing is, if you and I wanted to declare ourselves non-binary, our act of rejecting the binary could be to take all our old make-up and frilly blouses to the charity shop. Bingo then strolls along to the very same shop, buys up all our discarded items and declares themselves non-binary! It's almost as if there might be something fundamentally different about us and Bingo, but I just can't put my finger on it!

There’s this (pic) talking about his wife thinking she married a straight man and then also the following text :

“Bingo says that during their educational work they are constantly impressed by how 'open-minded' younger people are.

A recent survey by Stonewall found that more than a quarter of younger people now identify as LGBT.

The LGBTQ+ charity claimed 71 per cent of Gen Z respondents – those aged 16 to 26 – identify as straight.

The figure is a contrast to the Baby Boomer generation – those aged 56 to 75 – in which 91 per cent described themselves as straight.

Of the next generation, Gen X, described as being those aged 43 to 56, Stonewall said 87 per cent said they were straight.”

The article seems to conflate not-straight with trans. If they’d discussed NB stats it would’ve made more sense.

I don't think they are assuming everyone else is binary.

He's at least assuming they're not non-binary, because he says he's the first "non-binary priest"!

The only way you can totally reconcile this with no assumptions about other people is if you conclude that non-binary is meaningless, hence not being non-binary is also meaningless.

But I think you can reach a mid-point where non-binary means "someone who wants you to pretend they're not a man or a woman (ostensibly due to odd ideas about sex roles)". In which case, yes, he is the first of those, and it is true that most other people do not want you to pretend they're not a man or a woman, and it may indeed be true that there has not been a CoE priest demanding that before now.

The problem and objection with "non-binary" really comes down to the fact that people are expected to accept believers' own definition, and follow their religious tenets. It's as if we were expected to think of "Christians" as "someone who is going to heaven" rather than "an adherent of Christianity", and also to engage in their rituals.

"Non-binary" makes sense as a religious signifier. The sooner everyone recognises that, and treat it in a secular fashion - so the demands on others stop and it becomes a purely personal thing - the better. (And it's far from unusual for a religion to have regressive ideas about sex roles - it fits in quite well).

Interesting. Suggesting there is scope to “trans away the gay”.

As a lapsed Catholic I can’t contribute much on modern day CofE bar a couple of recent conversations about Christian societies at Universities, some of which are apparently Evangelical dominated with elements of homophobia, and a perception that ordinary students are not welcome unless their beliefs align. (A friend’s son has gone in pretty deep.)

I have no idea whether trends within student societies go on to influence the CofE, but it is a concern if transition is seen as the compromise solution to homosexuality. Especially in a body so embedded within the English establishment.

Probably a good time to share this excellent essay on non-binary identities by Rebecca Reilly-Cooper. Covers a lot of the discussion points on this thread.

aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-is-a-spectrum-is-a-new-gender-prison

Someone on here posted it a few years ago and reading it was a formative experience for me. It's well written and worth a read whatever your view on the subject. Deserves to be more widely shared IMO

@WerewolvesAtMidnight I've appreciated your willingness to engage and debate in good faith on this thread. Would be genuinely interested to know what you think of it.

Re the shellfish, perfectly sound dietary advice for largely desert-dwelling Bronze age nomads. "Off" shellfish can make you very ill indeed

Night night Boiled

@WerewolvesAtMidnight thank you for that twas most educational!!!

Every days a school day.
Night night
Boiled

I've re-read it but can't see where they say they aren't straight, would it be possible to copy paste that bit?

Being straight normally relates to sexuality rather than gender. Being queer can refer to either although they do specify genderqueer I believe. I don't think they are referring to sexuality are they?

Woh there are A LOT of verses on Sodom and the Sodomites. The least horrible quote I could find is:

The Bible clearly and explicitly condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin (Leviticus 18:222; 20:133; Romans 1:26-277; 1 Corinthians 6:99).

The shellfish thing is:

Leviticus 11:1010_ *
But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you.

Psalm 23 is my favourite (and the only one I know!). I'll have a google see if I can find the stuff on sodomy and shellfish. Not looking forward to what the google algorithm will think to give me tomorrow though!