transgender issues, CoE (Anglicans)

[archer75]

Link: Church of England issues transgender advice for clergy

I am sorry to bring up what may be a difficult issue, and I recognize that the document is not about any kind of re-baptism. Neither do I mean any kind of insult to Anglicans or to anyone in the CofE.

But I would like to ask those of you more familiar with Anglican praxis than I am (which I guess is everyone here) how you understand this.

My first anxious thought, which I mentioned in OBOB, is "what about people who want to de-transition?" What will be considered to have happened in such a ceremony once they give up on what they felt sure about?

But I wanted to ask here about an Anglican perspective on this, or for more info, even if the document is very new.

 

[Paidiske]

I am not sure that the rules of this forum allow a proper discussion of this. Any response which does not criticise the decision might be seen as "promotion" of transgenderism.

 

[archer75]

Another great thread from me, I guess.

Thanks anyway, @Paidiske.

 

[seeking.IAM]

...But I would like to ask those of you more familiar with Anglican praxis than I am (which I guess is everyone here) how you understand this...

My simple reply is I don't understand it at all, but I suspect you were looking for something more deep or theological than that. As I read this today my strongest reaction was to be pleased that they stopped short of re-baptism. I would have been vehemently opposed to that.

With that out of the way I found it merely curious - perhaps a bit strange and unnecessary - and filed it away as one of those things that doesn't affect me and doesn't affect those things that do attract me to Anglicanism.

 

[Albion]

What I read said that the CofE simply wanted some sort of a ceremony that would assure trans people that they were accepted. I don't care for that kind of practice (inventing one new ritual after another essentially for no reason other than to make people feel welcome when the church welcomes everyone already), but it isn't a sacrament or anything like that. Otherwise, I like how you explained your feelings about the matter, and...it is about the CofE, not (yet) any of the churches the rest of us belong to.

 

[Paidiske]

But isn't part of the point that "the church" doesn't welcome everyone already, and that trans people as such have often not been welcome?

Exhibit A might well be CF's own rules on the matter.

 

[Albion]

Aren't trans people welcome in the CofE??

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not trans, and I've never worshipped in the C of E, but anecdotally from others I gather it rather depends where in the C of E one finds oneself. Some parishes would be welcoming and others very much not so.

 

[seeking.IAM]

A ceremony does not make you welcome. Sitting beside me in the pew, exchanging the peace, sharing the common cup, chatting over coffee and a donut, having a seat on the Vestry...those things make you welcome.

 

[Albion]

Hmm. Now I am wondering how this ceremony is supposed to change the minds of whoever resents trans people at present.

I mean, I am pretty sure that the official position of the CofE already is that they are welcome to be members and attend church services.

 

[hedrick]

Hmm. Now I am wondering how this ceremony is supposed to change the minds of whoever resents trans people at present.

I mean, I am pretty sure that the official position of the CofE already is that they are welcome to be members and attend church services.

I'm not sure I understand. Why would it be expected to change people's mind? It's a celebration of a significant event in someone's life.

 

[Albion]

As I get it, Hedrick, that is not the purpose. What I read said something about them being assured of being accepted in their new identities. Something like that. But I could be mistaken. The idea behind s-s blessings was more like what I think you have in mind.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I read a slightly different report in The Church Times, which is behind a paywall.

What I see, in a nutshell, is that transgender people can be welcomed into the church by baptism or reaffirmation using their new name.

Name changes are biblical, eg Sarai to Sarah.

Transgender people have been, and still are, on a difficult journey. They are nevertheless made in the image of God.

 

[PloverWing]

For what it's worth, here's what I posted in the discussion over in OBOB, before I realized I was posting in the Catholic group:

I guess my first question is "are there liturgies for those who end up regretting their transition, who want to go back?" If so, do they somehow invalidate the old one?"

I agree that this is something the church should think about. In an ideal world, a person wouldn't go through transition only to change their mind later, just as in an ideal world there wouldn't be divorce. But human beings are imperfect and make mistakes, and the church needs to think about how to deal with messy situations.

On reflection, I don't think our church has a ceremonial rite for divorce, either, even though we have many divorced church members. There's still a lot to figure out.

I guess here, in the case of the CoE, it makes me wonder "what happens, retroactively, to the baptism the person originally received?"

The Anglican tradition, like yours, sees baptism as occurring only once. So whatever rite the Church of England constructs, it won't be a re-baptism, or any kind of repudiation of one's earlier baptism. It might involve a reaffirmation of one's baptismal vows, but that's a different matter. Our tradition has a number of occasions (such as confirmation or returning to the church after a time of unbelief) on which one says, effectively, "Now that I've gone through this change in my life, I want to affirm that I'm still a Christian and recommit myself to Jesus." Such a reaffirmation isn't seen as any kind of rebaptism.

So, the original baptism would still be seen as the one and only baptism in the person's life.

I haven't yet seen any draft liturgies for gender transition. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not trans, and I've never worshipped in the C of E, but anecdotally from others I gather it rather depends where in the C of E one finds oneself. Some parishes would be welcoming and others very much not so.

Just my Lutheran POV, but the Church has no power to ordain sacraments that aren't of Jesus' own ordinance.

As far as welcome goes, at my own church my pastor calls everybody by their name at Communion. Considering we believe the sacrament is the body and blood of Christ, I don't see how there could be anything more affirming of a person.

I think attempts to ape baptism are well-meaning gestures, but it's wrong to imply a resemblance to baptism. Baptism should be more than a christening or naming ceremony, and the promise contained in it is true regardless of the name a person goes by or even their gender.

I have only heard of commemorations of a person's affirmation of their identity, a sort of naming ceremony. I haven't heard of any serious suggestions of "rebaptism" in America, even among liberal Christians. Perhaps its just an English thing.

A ceremony does not make you welcome. Sitting beside me in the pew, exchanging the peace, sharing the common cup, chatting over coffee and a donut, having a seat on the Vestry...those things make you welcome.

A similar point was made to me some time ago in my own church. Perhaps some people have lost the ancient idea that the ordinary sacraments we participate in at church, are effecacious. It certainly doesn't require the extraordinary to find acceptance in church. More Christian pedagogy is needed here, perhaps, and less political posturing.

 

[Paidiske]

This is not a sacrament, and it's not a re-baptism.

I don't know whether other churches do this, but it's reasonably common - as PloverWing says - for Anglicans to re-affirm their baptismal promises. The reasons for doing so are many and varied, but it's something that's open to everyone who feels the need, often after significant life transitions of various kinds. So in that sense there's nothing new or unique about this, except that it's making explicit that it's appropriate for transgendered people to be able and welcome to do so, and to be affirmed in their chosen identity.

 

[PloverWing]

It's a celebration of a significant event in someone's life.

That's how I see it, yes. The closest I've been to a ceremony like the one being proposed in the CofE is a ceremony that was held for a friend of my daughter's, in the interfaith chapel of their college, affirming their new name and identity as a nonbinary person. I didn't attend the ceremony, so I have only a secondhand report, but apparently it was an important experience for them, marking their identity transition.

We bless all kinds of events in our church: the start of a school year, the start of a new ministry, moving into a new house, and so on. Whether the church should accept transgender people is a subject that cannot be discussed fully on CF. But if the church already has a policy of acceptance, then a ceremonial blessing is consistent with that policy, and is also consistent with the habit of blessing lots of life's milestones.

 

[everbecoming2007]

That's how I see it, yes. The closest I've been to a ceremony like the one being proposed in the CofE is a ceremony that was held for a friend of my daughter's, in the interfaith chapel of their college, affirming their new name and identity as a nonbinary person. I didn't attend the ceremony, so I have only a secondhand report, but apparently it was an important experience for them, marking their identity transition.

We bless all kinds of events in our church: the start of a school year, the start of a new ministry, moving into a new house, and so on. Whether the church should accept transgender people is a subject that cannot be discussed fully on CF. But if the church already has a policy of acceptance, then a ceremonial blessing is consistent with that policy, and is also consistent with the habit of blessing lots of life's milestones.

I agree.

I recently became acquainted with a transgender person. I have helped him out with errands since he had no car, and we became friends. It was a huge milestone for him to change his name and gender marker legally. The event was more than just a legal formality for him: it was treated as a sort of ceremony and accompanied by a road trip that was not strictly necessary.

We humans are creatures of rituals, and the church provides us with many of them to mark milestones. People are already making secular ceremonies to mark the kinds of transitions transgendered people make. Something about that is important to humans psychologically. So if the church accepts both transgendered people and their decisions about how they present and identify themselves, I don't see why she wouldn't give her blessing in the form of liturgical rites.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Surely we can discuss transgender members of the church under CF rules. The rules ban the promotion of transgenderism, as if that were even possible.

 

[Paidiske]

The rules say:

" transsexualism and transgenderism may not be promoted* on CF...
* Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity."

So if you write in a way which encourages acceptance of transgendered people, that would be promotion under these rules.