Name Change Liturgies and Trans People: a Church of England Perspective

This morning resolution D036 ("Adding a Name Change Rite to the Book of Occasional Services") was passed by its legislative committee and now heads to the House of Bishops, where it should be on their calendar tomorrow (and will subsequently need to pass the House of Deputies). As we await the forward movement of this resolution, TransEpiscopal is pleased to share this reflection from The Revd Dr. Christina Beardsley of the Church of England about how the Church of England is going through its own process regarding a name change liturgy. The major difference between D036 and the C of E's is that ours is not specifically a trans name change resolution, whereas theirs is in fact intended to be. TransEpiscopal is very glad that D036 proposes a rite broadly applicable to many people. At the same time, we are also glad to see that another part of the Anglican Communion is thinking about name change liturgies in connection with trans people. The Spirit seems to be moving in the midst of all of this, and we look forward to seeing what emerges. 

The Blackburn Diocesan Synod Motion on Liturgies for Transgender People

A Blog Post for TransEpsicopal by the Revd Dr Christina Beardsley,

(former Changing Attitude, England trustee for trans people)

First of all, thank you for inviting me to post again on the TransEpisocpal blog, and I’m sorry not to be joining the TransEpiscopal delegation at General Convention in Salt Lake City in July. I loved being with you in Indianapolis in 2012, and was so pleased and proud when the transgender non-discrimination resolutions were approved then.

Revd Dr. Christina Beardsley at the 77th General Convention

It would have been exciting to be present at this year’s General Convention, when name change liturgies are being considered because, as you’ve no doubt heard, the General Synod of the Church of England will also be discussing this … at a date to be confirmed; but discuss this matter it will, at some point.

Let me explain – just a little – how governance works in the Church of England. Unlike TEC, with its triennial meetings of the General Convention, the Church of England’s General Synod meets twice, sometimes three times a year, depending on its current business load. The meetings are held in February (in London), July (in York) and, if need be, in November (in London); they usually last three to four days.

General Synod is composed of three houses: Bishops, Clergy and Laity. The three Houses can, and do, meet separately – the House of Bishops (diocesans plus elected suffragans, plus, for the moment, elected women clergy representatives) and the College of Bishops (diocesans, suffragans, plus the elected women clergy) meet regularly at other times – but most of General Synod’s business and debating is conducted with members of all three houses present in the chamber, even if they subsequently vote by houses.

The Church of England’s synodical structure is made up of Deanery Synods (composed of laity elected by the parishes, plus the licensed clergy of the deanery), Diocesan Synods (composed of clergy and laity, elected respectively by the clergy and lay members of the deanery synods) and General Synod (also elected by the clergy and lay members of deanery synods). There are a number of additional constituencies as well, including cathedral deans and universities.

The opportunity to vote in Church elections is something I feel strongly about having been disenfranchised for at least four years as a consequence of my transition in 2001. It felt dreadful to be excluded from this important aspect of Church life, and I would urge anyone who has a vote to use it, wisely and well.

There will be elections to the General Synod in 2015 and much is happening to ensure that people with inclusive views are elected on this occasion. Synod members serve for five years, and it was soon apparent that some of those who served during the last quinquennium had not been transparent about their views when they stood as candidates. That period was dominated by the debates on the consecration of women as bishops, and given the struggle that entailed, some of those who had claimed, as candidates, to ‘favour’ women’s ministry, evidently did not equate that conviction with their inclusion in the episcopate.

The newly elected Synod will discuss the Shared Conversations on Human Sexuality that are taking place in the Church of England, with diocesan delegations currently meeting in regional groups, and it is vital that those elected support the full inclusion of lgbti people.

It will also be the new General Synod that will discuss the following motion from the Blackburn Diocesan Synod:   

“That this Synod, recognising the need for transgender people to be welcomed and affirmed in their parish church, calls on the House of Bishops to consider whether some nationally commended liturgical materials might be prepared to mark a person's gender transition."

The Church of England’s synodical structure is a two-way street. General Synod can send matters for discussion to Diocesan and Deanery Synods, as it did with Women Bishops. Likewise, a Deanery Synod can send a successful motion to its Diocesan Synod for debate and, if approved there, on for discussion by the General Synod, as has happened in this case.

The story of the Blackburn motion is one of grassroots Christian response. A young man approached his local church for baptism, following gender transition, but he had already been baptised, so the parish priest, the Revd Chris Newlands, Vicar of Lancaster Priory, worked with him to produce a suitable rite to mark this significant change in his life. Realising that this scenario must be occurring in other places, Chris brought it to the attention of his church council, and then his Deanery Synod (Lancaster and Morecambe), where a motion was passed, and sent on to the Blackburn Diocesan Synod. I prepared the background paper for the Blackburn Diocesan Synod debate, which is available here:

After receiving Diocesan Synod approval, the motion was sent on to the General Synod. It is now parked in a list of such motions which you can find here. It will be for the General Synod’s Business Committee to decide when to schedule it for debate, and one can anticipate delay, maybe until the regional Shared Conversations are complete. 

In the meantime there has been press interest in the motion, the most sensitive piece coming, naturally, from the Guardian with a companion piece by the Revd Giles Fraser, who mentions the late Revd Carol Stone (Carol and I were at theological college together, though neither was aware that the other was trans at that date – 1976-78). The Guardian article also mentions Susan Musgrove’s Service of Affirmation and Blessing, which took place in her parish church in Northumberland in 2013, and which I blogged about at the time (here).

Services of this kind, therefore, are happening already and have been for some time. Will the General Synod have the courage to invite the House of Bishops to explore and commend forms of prayer for Church of England parishes that wish to celebrate with and affirm their transgender congregants and parishioners? I do hope so, given that parish clergy are already recognising and responding to a pastoral need.

Chris Newlands was interviewed about the motion on the BBC Radio 4 Sunday programme (which covers religious current affairs) on the 24^th May 2015. Sadly, I don’t think you’ll be able to access the link but I’ll include it just in case (here). The interview begins at 6 minutes 58 seconds. 

Chris is asked why, if parish clergy are already devising services for transgender people, a common liturgy is needed. In reply, Chris notes that transgender people are a vulnerable group in society, often subject to bullying and abuse, and at high risk of suicide. He believes that an official Church of England service would be an important signal of the Church’s welcome, an affirmation of God’s love for transgender people that would counter the many negative messages transgender people often receive.

As the Revd Rachel Mann has commented, it will also be important for trans people to be consulted and involved in the preparation of any liturgies, given that we are the best people to articulate our own needs, and some of us will be skilled in theology, spirituality and worship (Rachel, for instance, is a poet as well as being a priest).

In the Sibyls, Christian spiritualityfor transgender people,  which I’ve belonged to for nearly two decades, we have noticed a huge change. In the early days of Sibyls, the mid to late 1990s, trans people were rejected by their churches, and Sibyls events the only place where members could receive Holy Communion as themselves. Today, society is so much better informed about trans matters, and clergy and congregations less judgemental and more receptive to trans people. Sadly, rejection can still happen, of course, but a transformation has taken place, and the grassroots desire for Church of England liturgies to mark trans people’s lives is part of that.

At this side of the pond we will watch with interest as similar proposals come before the General Convention, praying for you, as I know you pray for us. Pray please that the Blackburn motion, now passed, will not be delayed too long in coming before the General Synod, and for its successful progress once it reaches there.      

Pastoral Fallout: a Trans Perspective on Women Bishops

Rev. Dr. Christina Beardsley

The Reverend Dr. Christina Beardsley is an ordained priest in the Church of England, is a board member of Changing Attitude (which works for full LGBT inclusion in the Anglican Communion), and has served for a number of years as a hospital chaplain.  In the piece below she reflects on last week's vote by the General Synod of the Church of England which fell just shy of allowing women to become bishops there.  As she notes, because the various members of the Anglican Communion have somewhat different governing structures, women already are bishops in other parts of the Communion (e.g. Australia, the United States and, most recently, South Africa).  Her comments on the church's relation to equality legislation also reflect the fact that the Church of England is a state church. As we reflect with Tina, may we stand in solidarity with all in the Church of England who are struggling, who are angry, who are in pain.

CP

“Well, and which way did you vote?” The lady who asked me was sitting with an elderly friend in the High Dependency Unit of the hospital where I work. It was her first remark to me as I introduced myself as a hospital chaplain, the day after the General Synod’s recent vote on women bishops.

People are angry at the outcome – and rightly so. I explained that I hadn’t had a vote – not at the Synod anyway, but that as a member of a deanery synod I had voted in the clergy elections: ‘and it was passed in the House of Clergy’ I said encouragingly. She seemed to calm down then, knowing that I was ‘on side’. I think that it has probably shocked many women to see television clips of women arguing against the consecration of women as bishops. This lady clearly needed to check me out.

It wasn’t the place or the occasion though to talk about me, or my credentials as a supporter of women’s ordination, which go back a long way. I was there in my role as a chaplain and we quickly moved on to the needs of her friend.

Prior to transition I was a member of Priests for the Ordination of Women, and, of course, the ordination of women in the Church of England enabled me to remain a priest when I transitioned. Most of my working life, though, has been about pastoral care. It’s only in the last six years I’ve become an activist for LGB&T inclusion, and now that I have it’s probably too late to stand for General Synod, even if I wanted to (and I might not be elected anyway).

In any case I’ve felt very ambivalent about the General Synod since 1987, and the personal morality debate initiated by the Revd Tony Higton, which basically set the scene for the marginalisation of LGB&T people in the Church of England.

http://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/marriage,-family-and-sexuality-issues/human-sexuality/homosexuality.aspx

That catastrophe, combined with the painfully slow progress of the legislation on the ordination of women to the priesthood from the late 1970s onwards, means that I’ve never felt wholly confident in the processes and ethos of the General Synod. Perhaps I should have taken time to observe it at close quarters, but each time the Synod is in session I’m either working or elsewhere. Back in July, when the General Synod was meant to have voted on women bishops in York, I was at General Convention in Indianapolis, networking with the TransEpsicopal delegation.

What a contrast between General Convention 2012, where the three transgender inclusive resolutions were passed overwhelmingly by the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies, and the defeat, last week, of the women bishops’ legislation in the House of Laity of the General Synod!

Tina Beardsley in the Speaker's Corner at General Convention 2012 

On the other hand, the failure of the laity to meet the required two-thirds majority by just six votes was not a complete surprise. It had been evident for some time that this could happen. The legislation had been drafted, redrafted and amended several times, and it’s claimed that there was an orchestrated campaign in the last election to the House of Laity by those opposed to women bishops. If that’s true, it shows just how political the Synod has become, and how the moderate middle need to be more politically aware in future.

In many ways this was not so much a vote about women bishops but about the creation of a measure that could accommodate those – Conservative Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics – who, for different reasons, would be unable to accept the ministry of a woman bishop. From the General Synod vote, and the voting by the dioceses (42 out of 44 in favour), it would seem that those opposed to women bishops are a minority; but the Church of England tries hard to hold on to its conservative minorities. I find that slightly uncomfortable when the Church of England seems to treat other minorities as expendable, though the principle is sound and could, and should, be extended.

What has shocked people about the latest decision is that a truth that has been hard won, and is now widely experienced in society in general, the equality of men and women, cannot be embraced by the church because of its tenderness to those with conscientious objections. Such tenderness is the Christian way set out by Paul in relation to dietary regulations in Romans 14-15.1 and 1 Corinthians 8, but not when it challenged the inclusive character of the gospel (Galatians 2.11-21). Parallel jurisdiction, which some of the opponents to women bishops appear to want, would likewise compromise the oversight of a woman bishop, leading to a two-tier episcopate.

This is the so-called ‘circle that cannot be squared’ which is plunging the Church of England into crisis. Since the Church of England is the Established Church of the land, the General Synod’s legal decisions are subject to scrutiny and ratification by Parliament and there is serious concern within Parliament about the Synod’s inability to progress the legislation in favour of women bishops.

There is talk of making the government’s experience in promoting equality available to the Church of England. Some MPs, and even bishops, are keen for the Church’s exemptions to equality legislation to be lifted. If this were to happen there would be a huge outcry from conservatives but it is something that I have longed for. Back in the late 1970s, when I was lamenting the Church of England’s slow progress towards enabling the ordination of women to the diaconate and the priesthood, the priest who was training me said this: ‘It was scandalous that the Church of England was granted exemption from the Sex Discrimination Act (1975).’

How right he was, and how important now for us, as LGB&T people, that ALL the Church’s exemptions should be removed, not just with reference to the Sex Discrimination Act, but to all the equalities legislation the UK Government has enacted in recent years. Only when the Church of England has finally embraced the principle of equality – which, after all, lies at the heart of the gospel – can it with integrity minister to the tender consciences of those who find such strong meat too hard to swallow.

The Listening Process Compared

By the Rev. Dr. Christina Beardsley of Changing Attitude

This afternoon I attended the hearing of the Ministry Committee considering Resolution D002 which would add the category ‘gender identity and expression’ to the non-discrimination canon for the ordination discernment process, and D019 which would add the same wording to the Episcopal Church’s canon on access of the laity to all levels of church participation and representation. These additions, as one speaker remarked, were a necessary enhancement to the standard of welcome - at policy level at least - in the Episcopal Church.

Forty-five minutes was set aside for testimonies, with each person assigned two minutes for their contribution. No one had signed up to oppose D019 and only one person spoke against D002. Indeed, so many people had signed up to testify in favour of D002 that the forty-five minutes was reached before everyone had a chance to speak. I had signed up to testify about the Church of England context, which is not that different from that of the US, and I’ll append the testimony I had prepared below (in italics).

The testimonies over, I stayed on in the committee room to hear the discussion by the deputies and bishops and to await their outcome. The process is entirely open, not behind closed doors. I’m merely a visitor to the Convention, from another Province altogether, but I could have testified had there been time, and was, with others, privy to how the decision was made. It was very easy really. The deputies and bishops were appreciative of the courage of all who spoke – including the individual who spoke to the minority position - and there was a commitment on both sides to mutual listening. When it came to the vote there was hardly any discussion – the rightness and justice of full inclusion for trans people was almost unanimous. Now the Resolutions must go to the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies where there is likely to be much more debate, but this is a wonderful start.

What a contrast between my experience today and what happened to Colin, Keith, Jenny and Rob in their meeting with the Pilling Committee at Church House. I wasn’t there so I don’t know the tone in which the chair’s comments were made, but this is a working party that is supposed to be reviewing the listening process in the Church of England. Ought it not to be modelling listening to LGB&T people rather than lecturing them about how things are done in the Civil Service? Or was this intended as avuncular advice to an organisation that was once considered safe by the church establishment, but that now, in the face of an intractable culture, has become increasingly edgy, radical, and ready to say exactly what we think rather than what people would prefer to hear? Whatever the motives it sounds quite bruising for those who were there.

Changing Attitude, England, like the other organisations which have been called so far by the working party, has had its allotted hour. What happens next? I’m sure we won’t be privy to the discussions of the working party as I was to those of the Ministry Committee at General Convention today. As a delegate to the Triennial Women’s the Triennial Women’s Convention – which runs parallel to General Convention – observed to me this afternoon, the protocols of General Convention are modelled on those of the United States Senate and Congress. The model for the central bodies of the Church of England, as Sir Joseph reminded Colin today, is the British Civil Service. Excellent as that may be for purposes of government, in the context of the listening process it doesn’t seem to be creating a safe space for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people to be heard. So, London or Indiana? I know where I would rather have given my testimony today, and here it is:  

My name is Christina Beardsley.  I’m a visitor from the Diocese of London, England. I’ve been a priest for thirty-three years. I transitioned eleven years ago so I’ve spent a third of my ministry as a trans woman working throughout that time as a hospital chaplain. I’m now the Head of a Multi-faith Chaplaincy team and manage more than twenty people. 
  
I’m aware of seven trans clergy in the Church of England who have transitioned – exactly the same number as in the United States. Two are parish priests, one has an active ministry in retirement, three are in secular employment but involved in their parish and diocese, and I am in a sector ministry.
An English House of Bishops working group’s reflections on trans people in the life of the Church, including ordination, were published in 2003 as Chapter 7 of ‘Some issues in human sexuality 


In 2002 the English House of Bishops discussed the discernment process for trans candidates and the outcome can be found in the Handbook for Diocesan Directors of Ordinands, Section 2.16, which sets this out in detail.


You might expect me, as an English person, to say that it was ‘time for t’ but by that I don’t mean time for a cup of tea: I mean it is now time for the letter T -  for Trans -  and I urge you to add ‘gender identity and expression’ to your non-discrimination canons.