What’s going on in the Church of England over transgender issues? How does that relate to wider UK society? How will the future unfold?
The CofE is in a mess over this. In 2017, the General Synod – a denominational Parliament of sorts – supported a call for ‘the House of Bishops to consider preparing nationally-commended liturgical materials to mark a person’s gender transition’. The bishops refused. But in 2018 they did suggest that the existing liturgy for the Affirmation of Baptismal Vows could be used ‘as the central feature of any service to recognise liturgically a person’s gender transition’.
Confusion
This ‘pastoral guidance’ was immedi-ately mired in confusion. The guidance itself appeared slapdash, lacking any serious theological content, with imprecise lan-guage and out-of-context Bible verses. The situation was compounded by the fact that Bishop Julian Henderson, president of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC), had in theory been overseeing its production – but retracted his support after its publication.
Another evangelical bishop, Pete Broadbent, continued to stand by it, argu-ing: ‘I don’t think I accept the premise that we have changed anything of our understanding.’ Justin Welby stressed the guidance was ‘not binding’ and said people could ‘take it or leave it’. This did not allay concern – and more than 3,000 clergy and others signed an open letter (at www.responsetohob.co.uk) calling on bishops to ‘revise, postpone or withdraw’ the guidance.
Headway?
More recently, four of us (Ian Paul, Rachel Marszalek, Edward Dowler and myself) from the bigger team of letter organisers met three leading bishops in London to discuss our concerns face-to-face. This proved to be a prayerful, positive encounter, yet also robust, direct, and frank.
The bishops agreed that the press release which accompanied the guidance had been unhelpful and undertook to remove it from the Church of England website. They also invited us to send representatives to take part in the ‘Living in Love and Faith’ process dis-cussing wider sexual issues. Several other points were raised and agreed, and a more detailed report is on the website mentioned above.
Subsequently the press release was not in fact removed – though it was rewritten, which the bishops suggested was a better option. More significantly, perhaps, the guidance will not now be published in the ‘Common Worship’ liturgy as planned but relegated to a footnote providing a link to a webpage containing it. It’s progress, of sorts, but still an ‘Anglican fudge’.
Backlash
Needless to say, the meeting attracted ire from liberals, with Colin Coward, among others, accusing bishops of succumbing to ‘extreme pressure’ by ‘agreeing to meet in secret with an exclusive group of conserva-tives’. At the other extreme, some evangelicals discouraged action in the first place, declaring ‘the time for letters is past’. But it is hard to contend unless you communicate with your opponents, and abandoning the fight in the heat of the battle seems unwise. The point about contending is not that it guarantees success – but that we do so in obedience to Scripture. This side of heaven, it never stops.
What happens now?
Plans are emerging to maintain pressure at General Synod; the sense is that some bishops are belatedly realising this is not just a ‘pastoral’ issue, but a theo-logical one – and that they are in danger of succumbing to a sectarian transgender ideology which is itself now being hotly disputed in secular society.
Lee Gatiss of Church Society declared: ‘It’s so important that Christians keep up momentum in their godly opposition to the transgender agenda.’ He said bishops needed ‘urgent encouragement to speak up’. And Hugh Palmer, CEEC chairman, said that the bishops’ guidance contained ‘muddled thinking and assumed theology’. He declared: ‘These are sensitive pastoral issues but also important doctrinal ones.’
We must be relentless.
