The Times - Church of England trans backlash

[feministfairy]

The plans for the C of E to offer baptismal services to mark a person's day of "gender transition" have met a huge backlash. At the time I remember reading comments pointing out the insensitivity of this for women / partners / children struggling with the loss of the person they thought they'd married or who was their parent. (The comments underneath are some of the oddest I've ever seen under a Times article).
Share token:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/church-of-england-faces-backlash-over-services-for-trans-people-62dmbhmq9?shareToken=7e46b9a36e278dd8d47533fbdc02b2b6

The article is clear. The comments are extraordinarily weird!

Well this sums it up for me.

...baptismal services that they say should be about affirming faith and not gender identity.

BTL comments usually have a default of weird/obsessive. Multiply that by religion and you're going to have something special.

I thought this was refreshing to read:
"Given the many instances in the history of medicine where under-researched interventions, introduced prematurely, have caused more harm than good...." So reassuring to find an organisation not capitulating to the instant drugs and mutilation mantra.

There some exceptionally 'special' comments there. Many people seem very confused ....

As a GC member of the CofE, I need that full list of clergy.

Comments mainly bizarre, there are some good ones in there though. Good article, nice to see a grass roots backlash.

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.

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.

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 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...

Ahem. Anyone got link for signing the letter?

That's really helpful OtepotiLilliane42
I suppose this is where we all started - let's be kind and inclusive and welcoming - why ever not? Until you start to look behind what is presented and understand that it's not as simple as you first thought.

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.

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

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

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...

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

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....

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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