A plea to the bishops on trans guidance: please listen and respond
Last December, the House of Bishops issued guidance on the use of the liturgy for Reaffirmation of Baptismal Faith in order to 'marking gender transition' in a 'celebratory' way. I wrote then identifying a broad range of problems that it raised in relation to the use of liturgy and scripture, the lack of evidence of any theological thinking, and the failure to take into business relationship some key pastoral realities or the debate in wider society effectually the issue. A subsequent argument was issued simply addressed none of these major bug.
Because of this lack of acceptable response, a group of people from across the traditions of the Church building accept written an open letter to the House of Bishops, asking them to 'revise, postpone or withdraw this guidance until all these questions are properly addressed'. You can read the letter hither, forth with the more than 1,700 names of those who take signed this (and the text is also reproduced below). The letter has now been publicised in the national media, and is sure to attract more signatures—if you share these concerns, do add your name also. I commented to Christian Today:
This is an area of debate that people are very cautious about commenting on. The fact that then many, from a wide range of traditions in the Church building, have been prepared to 'put their heads in a higher place the parapet' is an indication of the strength of concern expressed here.
'The letter has been signed past 800 clergy, including surface area deans, archdeacons and retired bishops, every bit well as 700 lay members, including members of Synod, Church building wardens and PCC members. But the most of import thing here is not simply the numbers, but the fact that the letter highlights really important doctrinal, liturgy and pastoral problems that take non been adequately addressed. The bishops really need to call up again and consider these things properly.'
David Baker adds his view that, if the bishops value listening and so highly, they need to heed and respond to these concerns:
Nosotros enquire not to be heard considering of our numbers – though those should give suspension for idea. We inquire non to be heard because we are 'correct' – for nosotros practice non claim to have all the answers. We enquire not to exist heard considering nosotros bring threats – for nosotros come in the peace of Christ. Nosotros inquire not to be heard at the price of excluding others – for by all ways hear the voices of those who recall differently from us, and particularly those who feel transgender bug personally.
No: we enquire to exist heard considering we believe the detailed theological questions we raise merit close examination. So we inquire not to be dismissed with soundbites ('this is not compulsory') nor with platitudes ('this does not alter doctrine') – for nosotros accept heard the soundbites and the platitudes, truly nosotros have, and yet we still come to the table now with our voices, our questions, and the detail of the problems we raise. And nosotros will keep coming until the details are answered.
We ask to be heard considering the voice of the church, of which we are part, right across the earth and through history, speaks generally with a unlike voice on these matters to what we now hear from you. Nosotros cannot simply ignore the vox of brothers and sisters in Christ in other denominations, in other continents, at other times and places. And we ask to be heard because the phonation that should be heard above all is not ours merely the voice of God through Scripture – and we do not believe the existing guidance has yet engaged with that fully. Nosotros enquire to exist heard considering nosotros wish to walk with you, our shepherds in Christ, our bishops, to the Give-and-take of God once more and to say to you, 'Evidence us – please bear witness us, how may our questions be answered from these pages?'
So respectfully, and from our hearts, we ask you to listen. To engage, point by point, in detail, with the matters being raised. To mind from the middle, with minds engaged, and in and then doing to hear the questions well. And as you engage with u.s., listen to us, pray with us, we assure y'all of our prayers. We are fellow pilgrims together, walking as part of his church, under the authority of his ever-speaking Word. For it is his voice and his voice lonely that counts – not ours.
Here is the full text of the open letter for ease of reference. Add your name at the letter'south web folio.
Gender dysphoria is an emotionally painful experience that requires understanding, support and compassion. Because it has affected a very minor proportion of people, testify from the medical and social sciences is oft alien and of poor quality. Although gender dysphoria has been recognized for many decades, in recent years controversial new theories virtually the relationship between biological sex and the social meaning of gender have been linked to gender dysphoria. These ideas go on to exist widely contested, with well intentioned and thoughtful people on all sides of the debate.
The many ordinary parents and teachers who now express business concern about these new theories do not wish to cause impairment to the tiny number of children affected by gender dysphoria; but neither practice they want to harm the potentially larger numbers of children by prematurely imposing untried and untested ideas on young children. Given the many instances in the history of medicine where nether-researched interventions, introduced prematurely, accept caused more harm than expert, our guiding principle should be 'kickoff do no damage'.
This is the wider medical, social and political debate into which the Business firm of Bishops have introduced their brief 'Guidance for gender transition services'. The document is undoubtedly well intentioned but lacks the serious theological analysis required to address the philosophical, anthropological and social issues in play in public discourse.
We, the undersigned, are unreservedly committed to welcoming everyone to our churches and communities of faith, so that all might hear and be invited to respond to the proficient news of repentance and religion in Jesus Christ. Merely we do not believe that the Guidance is the right way to do this, since it raises some significant issues for the Church's belief and practice.
- The House of Bishops previously stated that no new liturgy would be offered. The championship of 'gender transition services', the focus on the employ of a person'south new name, the use of oil and water opposite to previous rubrics in Common Worship, and the clarification in the afterwards explanatory annotation confirming that this service is to be used to 'mark gender transition' amount to the offering of a new liturgy, since existing wording is now being put to a new purpose.
- We are securely concerned at what appears to be a misuse of the liturgy by which we gloat i of the dominical sacraments, which are the founding markers of the Church itself (Manufactures 19 and XXV). Although reaffirmation of baptismal vows might well be appropriate at certain seasons of life, it should primarily be focussed on celebrating new life in Christ rather than a new state of affairs or circumstance, as gear up out in Common Worship: Christian Initiation, and should e'er centre on conservancy, repentance and faith rather than 'unconditional affirmation'.
- Nosotros are similarly concerned at the inclusion of new biblical readings within the guidance and their suggestion that the changes of name for biblical characters in the light of God's salvific activity and intervention offer a legitimate parallel to the alter of proper name associated with gender transition.
- The possibility of jubilant gender transition appears to be based on the rejection of physical differentiation between male and female (known equally 'sexual dimorphism'). This dimorphism is not only an virtually universal biological reality (with the exception of a very small number who are biologically intersex) simply has also been the basis of the Church building's understanding of Christian union, is seen as an important feature of God's work as creator, and is a symbol of God's covenant relationship with humanity. The guidance offers no theological reflection to justify this sort of revised narrative.
- Although the guidance presents itself equally 'pastoral', there does not appear to have been whatever consideration of the enormous and often traumatic touch on of gender transition by an individual on firsthand friends and family, including spouse and children. On the principle of 'non talking about us without talking to united states', there should take been careful consultation with these groups and consideration of the impact on them of such a service before issuing the guidance. In addition, there is no recognition that novel and largely untested theories nigh sex and gender likewise bear potential for harm in terms of the psychological and developmental needs of children and young adults.
- The notion of gender transition is highly contested in wider order. There is widespread concern at the idea of biological males claiming to be women when they have not shared their personal and social experience; there has been a worrying increase in rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) particularly amongst girls who appear to lack conviction in their identity as female; in that location are concerns about the long-term effects of 'puberty blocking' hormones given the poor quality of the research; and there is no scientific or medical consensus that surgical and medical interventions ('gender transition') effectively address the complex symptoms associated with gender dysphoria over the long term. The bishops' guidance offers no recognition of the wider problems at play here.
- We are grateful for the clarification that the offering of such services is non mandatory, opposite to the public statements of those involved in formulating the guidance. However, the guidance remains a new policy statement past the Business firm, to be incorporated into Common Worship, and if information technology stands will be appealed to in the hereafter equally signifying a modify in liturgical and therefore doctrinal understanding, whether or not that was intended.
In the light of these significant concerns, nosotros enquire that the House of Bishops revise, postpone or withdraw this guidance until all these questions are properly addressed. We assure the House of our prayers as they consider the best way forward.
Add your own name here.
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is washed on a freelance footing. If yous have valued this mail, would you consideraltruistic £1.twenty a month to support the product of this web log?
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 page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this mail service, you can make a single or echo donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Skilful comments that appoint with the content of the mail, and share in respectful debate, can add existent value. Seek offset to understand, then to exist understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to acquire from their perspectives. Don't view debate every bit a disharmonize to win; address the statement rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/a-plea-to-the-bishops-on-trans-guidance-please-listen-and-respond/
0 Response to "A plea to the bishops on trans guidance: please listen and respond"
Post a Comment