Any CofE members around here - LLF response

[PCCmember]

Long time mumsnet user (and FWR lurker) who has NC for this post.

Is anyone currently grappling with the outcome of the Living in Love and Faith process? Despite the sub-heading of LLF of "identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage", almost the entirety of the Bishops' response (available here: www.churchofengland.org/resources/living-love-and-faith/bishops-response-living-love-and-faith) - and the corresponding media reports - is about the new prayers that will be developed that can be used to bless same sex marriages/partnerships.

The question of " identity" got a one-paragraph address where they basically said how awful the debates on social media were and committed to church to "listening". I found this response quite hurtful to be honest; that legitimate safeguarding concerns regarding women's prisons, women's sports, women's single sex spaces are just dismissed as debates on social media. And they've had 6 years to listen! It's almost like the church has swallowed the language of Stonewall (they talk a lot about LGBTQIA+), but actually what they are really talking about most of the time is LGB and this makes me worried about unintended consequences of what they are trying to do.

If anyone is within a C of E church - how are these discussions playing out in your church at the moment? Ours is pretty focused on same sex marriage/blessing. I appreciate that many posters on here may not be Christians and may not have a positive view of the church, but I am particularly interested in hearing from other church members if there are any about here.

It’s clear to me that same sex means same biological sex on the context of the church. It just has to. Unless a grc exists. But I am going to check that.

Thank you. I need to do a bit more reading, I think, and also consider whether to start getting myself about a bit.

I'm interested in starting a group to discuss this. PM me if you're interested. I would not to do it on MN which is too public for me!

prefer not

In my experience C of E members, including senior leadership, fall into two camps on GC issues.

One is conservative in theology and sexuality, and rather uncritically GC ('Male and female God made them').

The other is liberal in theology and sexuality, mostly exercised over gay stuff, and uncritically assuming a Stonewall approach to trans questions, bolstered by a 'God calls us to be kind' instinct.

The result is two loud groupings, defaulting to rather unexamined 'tribal' positions on GC matters.

I've found few who take the nuanced approach of Synodmember in being pro gay unions, but also GC because of the need for women's safe spaces etc (the Ash Regan line). I don't know of any networks or groups in the Church that focus specifically on GC issues, which is a real gap. I'd love to hear of any.

Synodmember: big thanks for your plans to push on this door.

Is anyone involved in church schools? I was unimpressed to discover my local was buying into it, and sounded out the chair of governors (my only contact) a few years ago. She was very uninterested in hearing more. However she's recently had a change of heart and become very GC, so I'll be pushing on that door again. I wonder whether I sewed seeds for her change of heart on my first attempt.

One is conservative in theology and sexuality, and rather uncritically GC ('Male and female God made them').

I wouldn't count them as GC, I'd count them as gender enthusiasts - they're absolutely on board with the idea that femininity is innate to females, they just don't think that males can be females.

To paraphrase a Twitter meme, conservatives: women should not speak in church and stick to flower arranging; genderists: anyone who doesn't want to speak in church and prefers flower arranging is a woman; GCs: why shouldn't women have positions of leadership?

I absolutely agree there are two loud 'groupings' but I think GC voices are quiet to the point of silence.

It's quite tricky to speak up- the conservatives assume you're on board with them which makes me feel like a bigot, the liberals assume I'm a bigot.

But actually very few people who have thought about it are in any way bigoted. They have reasonable grounds for their beliefs in both directions. Those who feel they can't in good conscience bless same sex marriages are very concerned about the hurt that will cause to those who ask.

To be fair, quite a few haven't thought about it and just parrot a Bible verse and slap the table.

It is hard to speak up when those two voices are the loudest and people just assume you have to fall into one of two camps when really you're in a third!

This has been bothering me, thanks so much for starting the thread. I go to a conservative evangelical church. Not deliberately, I joined it when I was a new Christian and I didn't even know what male headship was. But we have stayed for various reasons.

Part of me worries that my daughters will notice that women don't speak much up at the front and what that could be teaching them, but I thought at least they're safe from gender ideology.

Then we had a series of evening discussions including one on gender. One of the scenarios was what to do if a child at a youth group identifies as non-binary. The people in my group were all very focused on welcoming the child as they were and not excluding them. But no mention of the safeguarding risks around potentially affirming an identity without parental knowledge or consent. And as we know social transition is not a neutral act.
I'm planning to raise this with the vicar.

Would love to talk to other GC Christians. I was a feminist before I became a Christian and I've always felt they are separate things but it would be good to bring them more together in my head.

True. I was hoping for more LLF conversations than we had. My church didn't do it. I did half a course with clergy.

This is exactly how I feel. The third camp needs a voice!

Thank you for starting this thread! I'm a local synod member and very GC (not in the conservative/complementarian camp at all - interesting to see posts above about this very real difference). Our church did LLF and it did work well because the leadership modelled a listening perspective by having a leader with a more traditional view and a leader who was more liberal and leading it between them with respect and care which I thought was good.

However, we really didn't go into the GC side of things - any mention of it was just shot down with the usual be kind. I tried to talk about women's spaces and children's safeguarding etc but I might as well have been speaking in tongues for all the response I got - slightly rolled eyes and immediate 'but be kind!' type of thing.

I'm really interested in this thread and would love to talk with GC Christians as this stuff all unfolds and think about how we can talk about it in our churches.

I think the CoE has made its position pretty clear, at least in the ‘higher’ echelons. The statement made by the previous archbishop and backed by several senior clergy that ‘trans is a sacred journey’ was a turning point for me.

I also find the appointment of TW and the non binary to be parish priests fairly unsettling.

It is in fact a classic of that homophobic 'trans the gay away' attitude. Perfectly happy to marry two women as long as one of them says they are a man.

It seems to make itself comfortable under so many banners. Just not the reality one.

I'm hearing some more nuanced responses to LLF which go beyond the 'no women and no gays here' conservative camp and the 'crack on and celebrate SSM in church now' camp. It doesn't translate well on Twitter. My sense is that clergy and congregations as working out what it all means to them in their context.

My elderly ladies are very GC. Don't underestimate women who have lived and can critique Judith Butler as well as cook fabulous scones,

I am currently a CoE regular attendee, which I am debating at present as I see what’s happening as However having spoken with our vicar I am slightly comforted by his biblical views. In my 30s and became a Christian in my 20s.

In the latest synod discussions it’s clear to me that the CoE has moved away from teaching the Bible to pander to the very strong and loud popular culture, which quite simply contradicts what is in the Bible.

Sexual immorality (ie sex outside of marriage), marriage being between one man and one woman for life, and there being 2 sexes are absolutely crystal clear in the Bible. When the established Church moves away from these teachings unfortunately it no longer represents the Bible and the Bible is no longer ultimate authority. The church can then just make it up as it goes along. The Culture is constantly changing, God’s word is the same yesterday today and tomorrow.

In essence quite simply the Bible clearly states that marriage is between one man and one woman for life so why would the church teach otherwise? Surely that is heresy. It violates the principles of the Bible and the establishment.

I believe a church should be a welcoming inclusive place for all, however it should absolutely not ‘ bless ‘sin or redefine marriage or redefine gender.

But it’s important to say we are all sinners in church, none of us are perfect. (People are just hyperfocused on sex.)

To give an example if I was having sex outside of marriage I would not expect a ‘blessing’ from my vicar about this behaviour. We are all falling short of God’s standard, this is the crux of the gospel and good news of Jesus, His love and His Grace. however the Church should still teach the ultimate truth on God’s standard - ie that sex is for inside marriage as defined in the Bible.

In fact if I were leading a life of ‘sin’ I would hope for loving truth which is there to help you to recognise the error of your ways and steer you to the ‘narrow way’ ie the more difficult path of following Jesus, which yes can involve sacrifice but is ultimately for us to thrive as God’s people. People need truth now more than ever in this fragmented broken world where there is so much confusion and therefore I am disappointed how confused the church has become over this issue when it is very clear for anyone from the
Bible.

Our church has been pretty silent on these topics in terms of sermons etc. it’s clear they want to steer clear of controversy. The conversations can be had after the service but it is pretty disappointing to be honest. However I understand it is a difficult situation for the clergy too.

I'm concerned that the CoE endorses a grown male parish priest who posts pictures of himself dressed like a teenage girl on social media.

This is common sense, it's a bit weird. Parish priests by all means dress as you like, but in private. They are doing a holistic kind of job are they not and publicly putting out stuff like that really undermines their role.

Sorry slightly off topic but it shows this stuff is there already and being unchallenged, at least seemingly.

I wondered about raising LLF at PCC, and have referred to it as an ongoing discussion in sermons. No one wants to unpack it any further.

We are able to avoid the issue as we have one liberal part time priest and one almost certainly conservative evangelical priest (across several churches), so we can cover any requests.

We've recently welcomed a lesbian mum who has had very painful experiences with church in the past. It's taken her a long while to trust us, and I'm very anxious we don't mess that up!

It's interesting, I understand some people think it's sinful but they are so much more vocal about that sin- which hurts no one and impacts on none except themselves- than about the other sins like being judgemental, greedy and selfish which impact pretty much everyone else. I wish we all dedicated ourselves to eradicating and judging all the sins with as much energy as is aimed at this. Actually I don't. We'd be pretty darn uncomfortable and have no time for all the beneficial things we do!

And having talked to lots of highly educated and trained people, there is no single 'biblical view'. If there were, there'd be no discussion at all. If the theologists who spend their lives studying the bible can't agree, that means there is no consensus in the Bible.

I haven't been back to church since Covid, & there was no mention of this stuff then. I'm alarmed at what I've seen on twitter: drag queens in churches, 'Progress' flags draped over altars, etc. That seems totally innappropriate. Yes, everyone should be & feel welcome, but that doesn't mean being allowed to take over or to act with disrespect.

Another name changer for this.

I’m not a member of General Synod but I am in a relatively senior position in the CofE. I agree with the analysis above that this has become very tribal: you’re either a conservative who is both anti same sex relationships and also doesn’t think people can chance sex, OR you’re a liberal who is uncritically pro both SSM and genderism.

I am another one who is absolutely pro SSM and also GC so we do exist. I speak out where I can, quietly. We welcome trans people in my church and we also attend and support local Pride events but I am clear in my own head I do this out of care and love for the people concerned and not because I agree with all the views expressed. I would also speak up in an instant if there were safeguarding issues (eg access to toilets or changing spaces) but there haven’t been.

Of course there isn’t one view of sexual morality that is ‘biblical’ as someone above (and many conservatives) are trying to argue. I am completely content that the Christian faith can encompass same sex relationships and I’m certainly not alone in this.

The person who said we’ve had same sex marriage in the CofE for years because we will marry people who’ve ‘transitioned’ to a new gender is absolutely correct. The guidance is that we can marry people if they’ve got a GRC (so, eg, we could allow what is in effect a lesbian marriage if one of the women has a GRC and has transitioned to male) and this has been the case for several years. There is a conscience clause for clergy in that an individual cleric can refuse to perform such a ceremony on the basis of conscience - but when I queried this I was told this would be very hard to enact because a) there’s a very strong right in common law for people to get married in their parish church, and b) you might suspect someone is trans but you aren’t allowed to insist on seeing a GRC, and if they have a passport in their acquired gender, well… I’m not aware of any cases where this has been an issue (which doesn’t mean there haven’t been any) but there’s a clear difficulty there.

In summary, it’s a mess. I’m throwing my weight, such as it is, behind the liberals on LLF because I so want to see same sex relationships properly welcomed and blessed, and ideally then for this to be a step towards full equal marriage in the CofE. However, I am also trying to find ways to highlight the safeguarding and feminist issues raised by genderism. I do think that they will actually quietly percolate through. Often the CofE is behind wider society on such issues, and with the tide turning in wider society hopefully it’ll also happen here soon. I certainly know I’m not the only one on the liberal side with, at the least, misgivings about genderism.

Related issue that concerns me- in my area conservative evangelical churches appear to be getting more central funding. They are doing lots of really good outreach, but seem to be a bit complementarian, conservative view of marriage etc.
It bothers me that small parish churches who do great work on a show string aren't supported in the same way as these plants. However that could be just a local to me issue!

It’s definitely not just local to you. How money works in the CofE is extremely complicated but under the current regime at Lambeth there certainly have been central grants available to snazzy new ‘plants’ that tend to be of a charismatic evangelical stripe and often conservative on women’s issues and sexuality. Unfortunately. Also, it’s generally accepted that these haven’t had the ‘success’ in terms of outreach that was hoped for, or if they have, it’s very short-term. Certainly many of us think that many struggling ‘ordinary’ parishes could have put much of that money to better effect.

name changed for this.

A friend of mine is a female (gay) vicar and wrote to the safeguarding team to raise concerns about the safeguarding of women and children due to the 'Affirming transpeople' service and guidance. As you may know it tells vicars to gaslight congregations about sex and safeguarding in the 'affirmation' service as far as possible, and no GRC is required- it's self ID. It was written by 3 male priests who identify as women in the COfE, with no input from transwidows, children of transitioners, or female victims of sexual assault and rape by trans offenders- all of whom are represented in church congregations across the UK if they haven't already self excluded.

The response from the CofE safeguarding team, which I have seen, is shocking. It's effectively be kind and shut up- the CofE prefers the male kind of women to the female kind. It's revolting.
if you haven't seen the guidance, please advise and will upload if I can...