The Portal October 2017 | Page 11

THE P RTAL October 2017 Transgender and the CofE Page 11 Anglican News  The Revd Paul Benfield reports on a General Synod debate I f you read some of the popular press in July you might have been under the impression that the Church of England was about to start re-baptising transgender people in their new names. As is so often the case with complex debates at General Synod, most of the journalists were unable or unwilling to report accurately what Synod decided. On Sunday 9th July, after attending the Eucharist at York Minster in the morning, the General Synod debated a diocesan synod motion from Blackburn Diocesan Synod. The motion was moved by The Revd Christopher Newlands, Vicar of Lancaster Priory, who had moved the original motion at Blackburn. It was ‘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.’ Mr Newlands said that in 2010, 97 children had been referred to gender-identity clinics and the number had risen to 1400 in 2016. The welcome of the church for these people must be Christ-like, he said. In the UK, transphobic hate crimes had risen by 170 per cent in the past year, and, around the world, 17 people had been killed, “because they were different”, by relatives and others. Moreover, the charity Stonewall stated that 48 per cent of trans people had attempted to take their own lives, 30 per cent in the past year. There was rejection, discrimination, physical abuse, stereotyping, and internalised transphobia. replaced the motion in its entirety. This invited synod to “welcome unconditionally in all our churches people who experience gender dysphoria … [and] consider that the preparation of liturgies to mark gender transition raises substantial theological and pastoral issues that the Church of England has not yet considered”. It went on to ask for the matter to be referred to the House of Bishops.  Dr Land argued that the Church of England had not settled on a doctrinal position on issues around transgender and that serious theological thinking must be a prelude to any liturgy. He was also concerned that there was an increasing trend to see humanity as redefined not in the image of God but as a self-defined construct, with gender fluid, non-binary or irrelevant.  The amendment was lost in all three houses: Bishops 11-19, with two recorded abstentions; Clergy, 64-103; Laity 75-108, with three recorded abstentions. The last speaker before the proposer of the motion replied to the debate was the Archbishop of York. Not for the first time he told the Synod how to vote. He asked if there was anyone who was against the first part of the motion which welcomed and affirmed transgender people.  He pointed out that the motion only called on the house to ‘consider’ whether liturgy ‘might’ be prepared. The House would conduct a lot of It was possible to use existing liturgy, but the Church work on the theology before anything was produced, could do better, he said. “An authorised liturgy of he assured Synod. welcome and affirmation would stand as a prophetic At the end of the debate the unamended motion sign to all people that the Church accepts the reality of gender dysphoria and the situation of trans people.” was passed in all three houses: Bishops, 30-2 with two recorded abstentions; Clergy 127-28, with 16 recorded He also referred to the Gender Recognition Act abstentions; and Laity 127-48 with eight recorded 2004, which had been passed unopposed by the Lords abstentions. Spiritual, and which confirmed their new gender in So the position remains as it was before the debate law, allowing people to marry in their new gender – services at which clergy of the Church of England unless and until the House of Bishops bring anything had already officiated. The Church had also ordained to Synod, the Church of England does not re-baptise transgender people and does not have a special people who had changed their gender identity. liturgy for transgender people, but the affirmation of Dr Nick Land moved an amendment which baptismal vows may be used, if appropriate.