First non-binary priest in C of E

[inkjet]

uk.news.yahoo.com/church-england-first-non-binary-161400908.html

They describe themselves as non-binary and genderqueer but also say that the phrase “from maleness to femaleness” in Genesis provoked an epiphany.

It could be seen as that, if he is 'expecting' or 'coercing' the wife to accept the changes that have happened since first getting married. Or perhaps he's saying what he believes 'should' happen at a theoretical level but sometimes it just doesn't.

I've been with my partner over twenty years we have definitely changed in that time. I accept him for who is now. If he wanted to wear make up and feminine clothes I'd probably just shrug and help him out with sizing and colours.

If I came out as a trans man and medically transitioned to have muscles and a beard he probably wouldn't accept it to be honest. We might stay together but not have a sexual relationship. Who knows.

I think we 'should' probably be accepting in an ideal world but there shouldn't be an expectation.

Reported

But I'd like to believe you marry the person someone becomes as much as you marry the person that they are

This sentence is absolutely chilling in its quiet coercive control. The poor wife.

@WarningToTheCurious I couldn't find any verses relating to maleness and femaleness for Genesis 1 27. Most translations are:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I think 'man' in the fourth word relates to mankind, male and female relate to the sexes.

However reading the article they say they got the epiphany reading Genesis 1 3 so I googled and its the really long one about creation and had the famous 'let there be light'.

www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201-3&version=NIV

He had no disapproval for even the 'outcasts' of his time (prostitutes and lepers?)!

He wouldn’t despise a prostitute but he didn’t think a prostitute should carry on being one after he had helped her. Jesus did not appear to think ‘sex work is work’.

Its not up to the vicar to decide what terms someone else stays in a relationship on. Its not for anyone to do that. To publicly state their own expectations as to why the wife should remain in the marriage, is coercive. It's deliberate. It makes it more difficult for her to pull away, as she is presented as the bad one. What this individual has done is a present in plain sight the emotional coercion and pressure they are putting the wife under. It remains me of the tactics Jan Morris's daughter reported recently Jan used against her. To put her down publicly but to do it in a way that others won't quite see.

I see it.

@WerewolvesAtMidnight

The original article in the Liverpool Echo states:

It was while writing an essay on how God created the earth that Bingo had an epiphany. They said the language which the bible originally used in Genesis 1:27 spoke about “from maleness to femaleness” as opposed to men and women.

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/church-england-priest-how-god-25771430?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

I’ve seen various translations where they use “man and woman” instead of “male and female”, but never “maleness and femaleness”.

As I said, I always thought that the significance was that it gives women the first mention in the Bible in a way that implies an equal standing with men.

@BarkAscending you could well be right, they did come out seven years ago though and and said they told their wife and children before that I think, so seven years of marriage have actually passed before the public statement in the paper.

Perhaps they made their 'expectations' clear at that point though. I'm definitely not going to victim blame someone for staying if it wasn't the wife's honest choice because you could be right, we have no way to tell if they are another Jan Morris. Or perhaps they aren't coercive and the wife is fine with it. Could be either.

Ah the Mail said Genesis 1 3. Can't expect them to be accurate I suppose. There looks like there's additional quotes in the original Liverpool version, I'll have a read.

Good that 'equalness' is the implication but it doesn't seem to have filtered through to the church sadly, although probably better than it was?

Very sprightly, too, when they slid down the bannister 😉

@Toomie

Re the article you linked.
I've got a thought on this bit:

M
any proponents of the queer view of gender describe their own gender identity as ‘non-binary’, and present this in opposition to the vast majority of people whose gender identity is presumed to be binary. On the face of it, there seems to be an immediate tension between the claim that gender is not a binary but a spectrum, and the claim that only a small proportion of individuals can be described as having a non-binary gender identity. If gender really is a spectrum, doesn’t this mean that every individual alive is non-binary, by definition? If so, then the label ‘non-binary’ to describe a specific gender identity would become redundant, because it would fail to pick out a special category of people.

Where is the claim that 'only a small proportion of individuals' can be described as having a non binary gender identity coming from? Do they really say that not many people can be non binary or, could it be they don't care how other identify, or even the more the merrier?

And the bit where 'the label' needs to pick out a 'special category' or become redundant. Where is that coming from? I guess that could be the case if it IS all just for attention as some people say, or, the 'label' might still be valid however many people use it. I'm thinking fashion and trends probably also play a part.

@WerewolvesAtMidnight

Good that 'equalness' is the implication but it doesn't seem to have filtered through to the church sadly, although probably better than it was?

I’m not religious (gave up when Sunday School stopped handing out the stickers and colouring books), but DSIS and BIL had their own epiphany (to put it mildly) and he ended up getting ordained.

Sorry bold fail, how do you do your excellent bolding people!?

You put an asterisk before and at the end of the paragraph.

Or on the mobile site you tap the B symbol in the bar below the reply box.

Wow that's quite the epiphany!

It was! BIL had a bit of a chequered past, they enrolled on the Alpha Course and saw the light! He enrolled at theology college and ended up as a priest - they had some interesting parishes, including a spell abroad. It’s still weird when I see BIL in his dog collar though.

Thanks 😊

Someone I was in an evening class with had trained to be a priest in later life too, it's quite something and takes a long time I understand. Yeah the dog collar thing may take some getting used to!

@Toomie you did say you were interested in my thoughts so sorry if I'm spamming the thread, I'll leave the rest of the article after this one until you have time to come back to the thread later.

So just this last one for now;

However, those who describe themselves as non-binary are unlikely to be satisfied with this conclusion, as their identity as ‘non-binary person’ depends upon the existence of a much larger group of so-called binary ‘cisgender’ people, people who are incapable of being outside the arbitrary masculine/feminine genders dictated by society.

I think this one relates a little to the assumption of attention seeking and being 'special' with the comment about 'being satisfied'. Also seems to assumes non binary people think the rest of us are 'incapable of being outside the arbitrary masculine/feminine genders' which I don't think is the case. Most (all?) people think there are 'masculine' and 'feminine' traits in all of us.

All in all, an excellent article so far with points I either agree with or can see the theory or logic behind, other than the few bits I've commented on so far. The bits on 'different' types of feminism was helpful too. Thanks, very instructive!

Aah bold didn't work again despite excellent instruction 😩 note to self, must try harder.

That Stonewall poster says : Remember gender expression does not denote transgender identity.

Should it not be Remember gender expression does not denote gender identity. Why according to Stonewall is it only trans people able to look however they want?

Sorry not intentionally showing off with the bold @WerewolvesAtMidnight 😁. Have a go with a single word Just an asterisk before and after, no spaces.

Testing testing testing

MORE TEA VICAR?

I've just been on a thread, and had a decent time.

There are posters there, who disagree, who's views don't really chime.

But have stayed a while, and took a risk. It's been truly quite sublime.

Because, you'll never guess..they've been happy, to stay a while, and chat.

There's been none of the hissy fitting, and constant to and fro back chat.

No, it's been refreshing to just talk. To shoot the breeze. And that. Be.That.

The conversation has been interesting, on topic, and slightly off.

There's been lots of "I agree" and " yes, but, have you maybe thought of... "

But no one's, I think, been deleted, for slagging a poster off.

So, if this is 2023, then I say yes to bliss.

Sod bloody last year. Let's have some more of this.

To the poster who invoked this poem I give you a great big kiss.💋

Yes absolutely I think it should say gender you're right. Ps thanks for the tip I was trying to use the B button on my phone and it seemed okay then disappeared when it posted!