Wisdom and folly: the bishops’ guidance on transgender welcome
The proclamation on Tuesday of the House of Bishops' guidance for the welcome of transgender people in the Church arose from a diocesan motion brought to General Synod in July 2017. At that place were several things most this fence which indicated how problematic the whole process was jump to be.
First, it was brought by Chris Newlands on behalf of Blackburn Diocese, and the Bishop of Blackburn, Julian Henderson, actually voted against the motion when it was debated in the diocese. Secondly, the wording of the motion was rather slippery: information technology did not enquire the bishops to produce a liturgy for the welcome of transgender people, merely asked them to consider whether such a liturgy should be devised. In that sense it was a 'cipher' move: whatsoever yous idea about the substantive result, how could anyone object to asking the bishops 'to recall about it', every bit they were of course at liberty to think about it and quickly say 'no'. In fact, Richard Frith, the Bishop of Hereford and Vice-Chair of the Liturgical Commission, actually said in the debate that no new liturgy would be forthcoming, so nosotros already had the answer. And, thirdly, there was a complete absenteeism of any adequate theological reflection, either prior to the debate or during it.
The problems inherent here came to the surface when the House of Bishops' decision (equally they had indicated in the fence)notto offer a new liturgy was in January 2018 leaked to theDaily Mail who construed is as a rejection of what Synod had 'demanded'—the confusing arising precisely because of the slippery wording of the motion. They then had to rush out a argument, which is withal listed as offering a 'theological rationale', but is in fact almost devoid of theology.
The problem with this week's argument is nigh the contrary. Having said that they volition not produce a new liturgy, information technology virtually appears as though they accept offered 1: the guidance isnon entitled 'How to carry the Affirmation of Baptismal vows when transgender people are present' but 'Guidance for gender transition services' which will be 'incorporated intoMutual Worship'.Then it at present appears that we have 'gender transition services' when nosotros were told that we would not have such things. The overall event is non what some trans people wanted, which is at to the lowest degree 1 adept affair, since the liturgies that have been proposed are entirely sub-Christian and probably merit the label 'heretical'. Only the bishops do announced to have proposed a new use for existing liturgy, rather than issuing pastoral guidance on the utilise of a liturgy nether detail circumstances. Dr Rachel Isle of mann, who is a trans fellow member of General Synod, commented:
I helped ensure that trans people were properly addressed in the guidance, that the recommended ritual possibilities would be rich and flexible, and that the biblical resources would be wide and vibrant. I know many people will experience that an entirely new liturgy of welcome and affirmation should have been developed. Given that that was non on the tabular array, this guidance is genuinely heady and fresh.
It is flexible and sensitive enough that, for the first time, trans people'south stories tin be best-selling and celebrated with boldness in the C of E. It says that we, too — as trans people — are bearers of the image of God. . . as much as non-trans people. This is surely something to celebrate and welcome, and represents a watershed.
Tina Beardsley, another trans person involved in the process, commented online:
'What is the condition of this new Business firm of Bishops' Guidance on trans people and the liturgy?' was ane of the questions I was anticipating when I was interviewed on Premier Christian Radio half an hour ago. And the respond – I checked – is that HoB's guidance is something that clergy 'must' follow information technology. 'Does that hateful people will be forced to do so?' was the next question. Well, yes, was my respond. The House of Bishops issues guidance about all sorts of things, such as marriage, for example, and so that those clergy who wish to officiate at the wedding of a same sex activity couple in church are currently unable to do so due to the force of House of Bishops' guidance. The word 'guidance' is misleading in this context. It doesn't mean you can follow it if you like it but not if y'all don't like information technology. Then maybe the issuing of this guidance today is more than pregnant than it looks. It also raises the matter of conscientious objection, which clergy would presumably need to take up with their bishop.
So those involved in the procedure do think that this is a watershed, that is changes C of E do and teaching, and that it is compulsory. And, non surprisingly, it was widely reported that 'Church building of England to offer baptism-style services to transgender people to gloat their new identity for first time.'
If these assertions are not truthful, and so the House of Bishops needs to issue clarification immediately. If they are true, then the bishops have in fact done precisely the opposite of what they said they were going to practise, several times in the debate, and in the subsequent statement, and they need to offer an explanation
Quite apart from the firsthand perception, the guidelines issued heighten a series of fundamental questions nigh the bishops' approach.
Why the complete absence of theological reflection?Given deep Christian theological thinking about creation, and the narrative of male and female person, the affirmation of creation in the instruction of Jesus, the reference to bodily deviation in cosmos in Paul (Romans 1), Paul's entreatment to the resurrection body in sexual ethics (1 Cor five), the importance of actual resurrection as the post-mortem destiny of humanity—why is there merely no reference to this at any point? The use of the affidavit of baptism vows is particularly problematic here; non only is this central to Christian understandings of initiation and discipleship, baptism actually enacts bodily death and bodily resurrection in the immersion in and coming up out of the water. Nosotros tamper with these foundational understandings at our peril, and the ambiguous linguistic communication in the guidance of 'identity' ('This could provide both the candidate and congregation with an opportunity both to empathize theperson'south Christian journey and to assert them in their identity' para 7) is in real danger of hijacking linguistic communication about initiation, new life and eschatology to trans ideology.
Why the collapse of Christian linguistic communication of initiation into cultural memes? The bug with the guidance brainstorm with its opening line:
The Church of England welcomes and encourages the unconditional affirmation of trans people, equally with all people, within the body of Christ
Since when was the gospel of 'repent and believe, for the kingdom of God is at hand' (Mark 1.15) reduced to 'unconditional affidavit'? If the signal is that trans people shouldn't be treated every bit a different class of humanity, and then that would be difficult to disagree with—so why not merely say that? All the debates effectually sexuality become mired in impossible ambivalence because of different construals of what it means to 'affirm' people. Jesus welcomed the marginalised, and called them to repent along with everyone else (Luke 5.32) then should we.
Why the misuse of biblical texts? In reading Scripture, context is everything, and the list of passages where God's redemptive action leads to a alter of proper noun, in the context of a service which appears to be celebrating the transition of name and identity, has stiff echoes of Tina Beardsley's proposed trans liturgy, misreads these texts badly, and overlays on the scriptural narrative a item ideology of sex identity.
Why the complete absence of reference to biological reality? One of the heated debates around trans ideology and advocacy relates to biological reality—what is actually going on in the transition procedure? A correspondent to the medical periodical The Lancet just this week made an impassioned appeal for proper engagement with biological reality:
Sex has a biological basis, whereas gender is fundamentally a social expression. Thus, sex is not assigned—chromosomal sex is determined at conception and immutable. A newborn'southward phenotypic sex, established in utero, merely becomes apparent after birth, with intersex being a rare exception.
Distress about gender identity must be taken seriously and back up should exist put in place for these children and young people, but the impacts of powerful, innovative interventions should exist rigorously assessed. The testify of medium-term benefit from hormonal treatment and puberty blockers is based on weak follow-upwardly studies. The guideline does not consider longer-term effects, including the difficult event of detransition. Patients demand high-quality inquiry into the benefits and harms of all psychological, medical, and surgical treatments, too as so-called wait-and-encounter strategies. This approach will provide reliable data for children, parents, and clinicians, and inform societal argue.
Where is pastoral consideration for families? In that location is a single, picayune reference to the families of the trans person at the centre of the procedure:
If members of their family are to be nowadays, the minister will wish to be sensitive to their pastoral needs. (para four)
And then what does this hateful for the married woman who feels devastated by her husband who decides he is trans? For the children who feel abandoned? What does it ways for parents who feel that their kid has died, and that they demand to come to terms with this new person? And what does it mean for marriage, given that the Church does not recognise same-sexual practice marriages? Are a adult female and her sometime husband, now a trans woman, all the same married or not? How could the bishops have issued 'pastoral guidance' without considering these bug? Is their own pastoral experience and so limited?
What about the impact on teenagers and their own thinking? The writer to the Lancet goes on to observe:
We need to sympathise the rapid increase in referrals of girls and any relationship with gender identity legislation, the coaction betwixt gender dysphoria, sexual orientation, and unpalatable roles in our highly-gendered society, and the twin potentials for underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis and handling.
What might this kind of service say to a teenage girl, who is learning very quickly how challenging modern life is for a woman, and is thinking that life could be much less challenging if but she were a male child—and here is the Church maxim that such a change is not only unproblematic, just might fifty-fifty be God'south intention for her? How could such a Church building escape the charges of being misogynistic at the very least, and perchance even open to the allegation of child abuse?
What about the poor success of transition, continued mental health issues, and the vexed question of detransition?A trans person wrote this letter of the alphabet to the Telegraph final calendar month:
Trans legislation will endanger the young
SIR – I wish to express business over the Government'south proposed trans self-identification Nib, specially in its implications for immature people.
The current reckless and, in my opinion, irresponsible "trendy to exist trans" culture (which social media has helped to promote) is pushing many very young people into making life-irresolute surgical decisions. I cannot stress enough how vital it is to have in place medical criteria and adequate preparation and workout (which the Bill seeks to remove) before embarking on such action. What if he or she discovers that they were not trans after all, just in fact gay, a cantankerous-dresser or asexual?
Trans success stories are eagerly promoted by those calling for self-identification, since they regard them as lending acceptance to their crusade. It is indeed tragic that some transsexual people take their own lives if transitioning is delayed; simply how many as well dice by their own hand when all goes disastrously wrong? I had high hopes of finally realising my teenage dream when I left infirmary in 1995. Sadly, over the years, it has all unravelled for me due to post-op complications, family unit torn asunder and societal prejudice, simply nigh of all because I cannot entirely escape my male origins. I must take the harsh reality that no amount of drastic cutting of my body can e'er alter my biological science – fact. And this proposed Bill is claiming to be a definitive solution to the question of gender identity.
I would non desire others considering such desperate, irreversible action to end up like me, lost in a twilight world of fright and loneliness. They should be made aware of all the risks and warned that for all the legal entitlements the proposed Beak promises, it will not bring public acceptance.
Leanne Mills
Sutton Coldfield
And why do something now, when there is a long and lengthy debate happening underLiving in Love and Faith?Following the disaster of July 2022 in Synod, it was wisely decided past the Business Committee to postpone any farther debates on sexuality until after the LLF reporting in 2022 (or across). So why didn't the bishops include this under the same rubric? Why put the pastoral cart before the theological horse on this issue merely no other?
So did the bishops consider all these result before issuing the guidance? If they did, then were is testify of their thinking? If they did not, then why on world did they start tampering with liturgy, and baptism liturgy at that, before engaging with these bug? Some might say that they felt under pressure to act. Just why? The questions around trans identity are much more than complex than those around same-sex matrimony, and wide society is much more ambivalent. When Jenni Murray was no-platformed for suggesting, from a feminist perspective, that trans women were not the same as biological women, she reflected:
I know that in writing this commodity I am entering into the most controversial and, at times, vicious, vulgar and threatening debate of our 24-hour interval. I'm diving headfirst into deep and dangerous waters.
Did the bishops not call back the same? Fools rush in where angels fear to tread, and there seems to be footling that is celestial about this guidance. The House of Bishops are, to many people, at present looking either incompetent, breathless or duplicitous in this motility, and without farther comment and response, they volition be inviting members of the Church to make their ain decision as to which is the all-time clarification.
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Similar my folio on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance footing. If yous have valued this post, would you considerdonating £one.20 a calendar month to support the production of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, do share information technology on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my folio on Facebook.
Much of my work is washed on a freelance basis. If you have valued this mail, you tin brand a single or echo donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Expert comments that engage with the content of the postal service, and share in respectful debate, can add together real value. Seek first to empathise, then to exist understood. Brand the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; address the statement rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/wisdom-and-folly-the-bishops-guidance-on-transgender-welcome/
0 Response to "Wisdom and folly: the bishops’ guidance on transgender welcome"
Post a Comment