On welcoming transgender people
by Ian Paul, Psephizo:
Last July, General Synod voted on a contentious motion about the welcome of transgender people in the Church, proposed by Chris Newlands as a Blackburn diocesan motion. That it was contentious was already evident from the fact that the Bishop of Blackburn had voted against it when it was previously debated in the diocesan synod. The motion read as follows:
That this Synod, recognising the need for transgender people to be welcomed and affirmed in their parish church, call on the House of Bishops to consider whether some nationally commended liturgical materials might be prepared to mark a person’s gender transition.
Chris Newlands had introduced the issue with a story about someone who approached him wanting a liturgical rite akin to baptism, because they were not sure that God knew them under their new gender identity. In his Synod speech, he cited the story of a five-year old as an example of transgenderism:
“David” and “Ruth” are active members of an evangelical Church of England parish church and they have been for a long time. Five years ago, they became parents of a healthy baby boy, “Nathan”. The church was delighted to share their joy at his birth, but it was not long before Nathan showed every sign that he was actually their daughter and not their son. He refused to wear trousers and showed absolutely no interest in any boy toys, only pink princess-type toys and decorations for his bedroom.
The striking paradox about this story is the detachment of the terms ‘daughter’ and ‘son’ from any sense of biological reality, coupled with an absolutising of socially constructed gender markers. In the Victorian period, pink was associated with boys and not girls. And the projection of transgender ideology on children when they are so young appears to be highly damaging, especially to young girls, a group who already have enough to cope with as they form their understandings of themselves in society.
But the problem with the motion as it was presented was the absolute connection made between ‘welcome’ and ‘liturgical materials’. There was an attempt to separate these two issue out, in the form of an amendment proposed by Nick Land, but this was resisted by Chris Newlands, largely on the grounds that he refused to ‘acknowledge different understandings around gender dysphoria and the field of gender identity more widely’, and rejected in the debate. Despite this, members of the House of Bishops had indicated clearly that these were indeed different issue. Richard Frith, bishop of Hereford and Vice-Chair of the Liturgical Commission, made it clear that the ‘consideration’ that was being asked for would result in a decision not to act:
Listen here: Hurrah for Bishops being Bishops. On Transgender liturgies, the House of Bishops did everything the liberals asked them to do and the liberals are furious about it. Podcast by Peter Ould
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
