In a previous
post I expressed unease about offering a divine stamp of approval on a
person’s gender transition as a means of welcoming and affirming trans people.
Chris Newlands introduced the General
Synod motion which called on the House of Bishops of the Church of England “to
consider whether some nationally commended liturgical materials might be
prepared to mark a person’s gender transition” 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.* This is arguably a
clear case of the
cruelty of heresy. We want to reassure this person but doing so by means of
such a rite runs the risk of reinforcing the heresy rather than refuting it, suggesting
that the person really did need to be re-introduced to God.
Nevertheless, the House of Bishops responded
by commending the liturgy for the Affirmation of Baptismal Vows as “an ideal
liturgical rite which trans people can use to mark this moment of personal
renewal” (GS
Misc 1178). Such re-purposing of a rite that relates to
Christian Initiation is apparently thought appropriate on the grounds that baptism is a suitable moment to celebrate our unity in diversity and has
something to do with personal renewal and with being welcomed and affirmed by God and the church. But the mixture introduces several
tensions.
First of all, baptism stresses our unity in Christ irrespective
of gender or ethnic distinctions or social class. It seems therefore problematic
to highlight gender at this moment by affirming a person precisely with regard
to their gender identity. The same applies for the Affirmation of Baptismal
Vows. (Note that the church is not given guidance for celebrating a Baptism, an
Affirmation of Baptismal Vows, or a Marriage service when one of the parties
involved is a trans person but guidance for liturgically marking a person’s
gender transition.)
The Guidance
tries hard to maintain the integrity of the existing rite but it is difficult
to amalgamate celebration of (acquired) gender identity with our identity in
Christ without corrupting the rite. It may be possible to minimise this when
such an Affirmation is made alongside other candidates in a main service but it
will be maximised where a service is centred around the trans person whose
affirmation is the reason for the rite being celebrated in this time and place.
Secondly, the Affirmation of
Baptismal Vows is “intended for those who are already baptized and confirmed and
who, after preparation and instruction, come to make a public act of commitment”
(from the current rubrics). For a committed Christian “to re-dedicate their
life and identity to Christ” in the context of gender transition raises
questions about their dedication to Christ prior to this “serious and lasting
change.” Is a service of re-turning to Christ really the most appropriate for those who have gone through the gender transition in close fellowship with Chris?
And even if the re-dedication is not seen as a re-turning, does it nevertheless drive too
much a wedge between before and after in terms of the person's discipleship?
And has the
House of Bishop considered the possibility that people who have no
Christian commitment may approach the church with a request for a service of
celebrating their gender transition in the same way that some couples without
Christian commitment approach the church for a marriage service? While this may
be an opportunity to encourage people to explore the Christian faith, it would surely
prove hard for them to do so in the right spirit if the question whether or not
they can have a gender transition celebration service hangs on their decision
to commit to Christ in a much more explicit, focused way than in a marriage
service.
It is noteworthy that, departing
from GS
Misc 1178 as well as from the original rubrics, the new Guidance
explicitly makes the service available to those who have not been confirmed
with no expectation that confirmation would necessarily follow in due course.
It also remains silent on the need for “preparation and instruction” prior to
the public act of commitment. This makes it look as if the aspect of the liturgy which is to do with (understanding and) affirming the Christian faith very much takes second place to
the affirmation of the gender transition.
Thirdly, baptism presumes a journey,
a history of before and after. This may at first make it especially suitable
for marking a gender transition which also knows a before and after. But the
question is if and how the two transitions (from slavery to freedom on the one hand, from
one gender to another on the other) are related. Is it possible, even
necessary, in celebrating such a rite to equate living in the previous gender
identity with living in rebellion to God, in darkness and in slavery? The implied answer seems to be: “The
minister should be guided by the wishes of the candidate regarding the way in
which past experiences may be mentioned or reflected upon.” But such matters are never private and personal in a way that does not impact
on others because the rite, maybe reinforced by the trans person’s testimony, could
well communicate to others in the congregation who are ill at ease with their
identity that they are living in rebellion to God and need to repent.
The
potential impact of the service on those who belong to the trans person’s history needs to be taken into account as well. “If members
of their family are to be present, the minister will wish to be sensitive to
their pastoral needs.” Indeed, especially if a gender transition is intimately
related to the breakdown of a marriage or in other ways has profoundly altered
relationships. This may prove difficult to do. The desire to affirm the trans person and the celebratory tone of the rite may
well drive away any notion of sin on the part of the trans person although even
the weakened, alternative form of the Decision still asks the candidate “Do you
repent of your sins?”
A liturgy of thanksgiving for
having successfully managed a gender transition or a thanksgiving service for the gift of
an external gender presentation that corresponds to one’s internal gender
perception would have posed much the same theological questions that were raised
in the previous
post but it would have avoided the issues raised here. Did the House of
Bishops shrink back from devising a new liturgy in the belief that a service
for marking gender transition would be more readily accepted if its existence
was only acknowledged in the rubrics? Or were they genuinely excited about the Affirmation
of Baptismal Vows as “an ideal liturgical rite” for marking a gender transition. unaware of the theological and pastoral issues this might raise for at least
some clergy?
* Source: Ian Paul, On
welcoming transgender people
