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

I hadn't thought about that decision making process but of course you're all right. The battle for women priests was a lengthy process with many years of theological arguments, challenge and protest. The "decision" to offer baptisms in this way made with zero discussion / consultation about the theological basis.
It exemplifies how many changes in relation to trans issues have been made - all starting from the naive 'let's be kind and welcoming' leading to the acceptance or imposition / policing of changes. When those who have rights stripped away from them protest - they're just dismissed as unkind bigots.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out - with the usual cries of bigotry, bullying and silencing - or whether there can be an informed theological discussion about this where different opinions will be considered.

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

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.

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?
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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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'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

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

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.

'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.

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?

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

Surely not ego.

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.

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

drspouse amen, I can't emphasize that enough.

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

Cosmetic? Stray auto correct word from somewhere.

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

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