This past week has seen the publication of two important
documents relating to the church and LGBT+ people. The first is the Oasis
Foundation Open Church Charter and the second is the Methodist Church Report toConference from the Marriage and Relationships Task Group (report 29 in the second part of the Methodist Conference Agenda). At the outset I want
to say I am supportive of both documents and wish to express thanks to those
whose hard work has produced them. What follows is intended as a supportive
critique rather than negative criticism.
I will start with the Methodist Report. My first question
point comes from the legal implications. As the report does explicitly mention
trans issues within it I would suggest that this section also needs to include
that ensuring that legislation related to gender recognition is duly
considered. This is relevant to marriage and relationships because if one looks
at the legislation one will see there is a grey period where a trans/ cis couple
which was previously same sex may are legally be considered to still be of the
same sex if the trans person has not gained their gender recognition
certificate. The legislation does not allow for them to remain in a civil
partnership but for the gender recognition certificate to be granted they must
be married. The Equality Act 2010 states that trans people who are going
through gender reassignment cannot legally be discriminated against in the
provision of goods or services (and as the working group report does state)
there is no religious opt out on the law around those going through gender
reassignment.
With regard to the report this is picked up in 3.2.2.b.ii “A reality is that the marriage of
transgender people in church may be already be happening, because the
authorised person and celebrant would probably not know a person’s gender
status other than what is on the legal documents. If the Task Group recommends
that the definition of marriage be revisited and if that revisiting recommends
removing or widening statements around gender, then the issue of transgender in
relation to the marriage definition would be irrelevant – although there would
continue to be pastoral responsibilities.”
This paragraph is important because it shows that
currently, as explained above trans issues are currently relevant in the
discussion of marriage and relationships and will only cease to be so if the
task group recommend the definition is widened.
With regard to the definition around homophobia I
understand how this came out of the 2014 report and why, as a result of this,
it would be outside the remit of the group to also say that definitions of
transphobia and biphobia should be excluded within their discussion. However,
if a definition of homophobia is going to be included with the CPD document I
believe that definitions of transphobia and biphobia should also be included,
thus I would argue that these issues also need discussing with Faith and Order
in relation to 2.1.4.
What this document is, quite unintentionally doing I
believe, is reinforcing the privilege of gay and lesbian people within
discussions on LGBT+ (which then serve to make invisible or secondary the
concerns of other groups within that spectrum who are impacted by both
prejudice and lack of visibility within the church). Following on from this it
is important to understand that gender queer people do not have the legal
protection that those going through gender reassignment do. Whilst the report
recognises and explicitly mentions intersex people it makes no reference to
those who are gender queer and does not refer in any way to the problems which
the use of binary language in the documents being discussed may cause to those
who have a non-conforming gender identity and those seeking to minister to them
within the church when it comes to marriage and relationships. In terms of
listening to each other I think it is vitally important that these minority
within minority voices are heard and that we consider what policy reflects the
world we are in now. This is particularly important with regard to the
development of scriptural understanding and theology. This is an area where the
Methodist could take a lead in producing some excellent scholarship if it
included the full spectrum of identities in the work it understands it needs to
produce to examine the issues in a truly Methodist way.
I am not sure if relevant documents relates only to
documents which have been to conference but I would argue within the Methodist
Context the document We Are Family which was a piece of research sponsored by
the Methodist Church is also a relevant document to be considered when looking
at the issues here.
The fact we can remain united whilst holding disagreement
on some issues and disagreement on the dominant interpretation of scripture is
important and I am glad the report has underlined this. The model statement on
Living With Contradiction in 1.5 is quite moving and I believe should be held
up as a model of good practice.
The EDI toolkit produces excellent resources and I would
argue needs to be much more widely available. I understand why it takes the
form it does but because of the wider importance and use of a number of the
documents I would argue they do need to be made more easily and freely available
via the Methodist website.
The issue of shared premises and legislation raised in
2.4.1 links to the second point of the Open Church Charter and explains why the
term “within the scope of current British law” is so important.
The report brings to light the problems for churches who
share premises. Whilst this is a minority problem at the moment I believe if
the URC were to say it became a congregational issue and vote denominationally
to allow congregations to hold marriages on the “opt in” basis that the number
of problems could increase. Whilst understanding about the wish not to pre-empt
conclusions I think the delay may be problematic and cause deep hurt in
churches which may in the next couple of years wish to “opt in” if the
denominational barrier within the URC is removed but are told the discussion
cannot even begin to happen because of their Methodist partners providing a
legal bar on this. As the report makes clear within it the URC is due to come
to a conclusion in July of this year and the Book of Reports 2016 which has been published by the URC ready for their General Assembly (page 32) shows that they are taking the view there is no common view and so recommending it come down to individual churches.
I am pleased that the wording being looked at by various
committees in relation to 2.5, on the provision of assistance, is including “other
immediate family members” as it widens the scope to not only include assisting
partners but also adult children who may for various reasons still be dependent
upon their parents.
The discussion of the impact of our understandings and
policy on marriage and relationships upon mission is one which is both informative
and moving. The discussion shows a real understanding of many of the issues
involved and the understanding of what the impact of this issue has been on
some church leavers.
The pastoral issues raised show insight and are very
important too although at times the insertion of the words “and gender identity”
would be helpful too. This is one of the strengths of the Oasis document. It is
not cis-normative in its language and outlook.
3.1.2 is an important piece of this document and it is good
that there was work between Faith and Order and the working group on this.
Within the issues linked to the view marriage is for procreation I think that
further work might be done to look not only at same sex marriages but how this
understanding needs to be examined in the light of the marriages of those
heterosexual couples who choose not to have children or cannot have children,
and those older couples who might marry late in life. This is again a rich area
for theological reflection if the church chooses to invest in it.
I want to look at 3.2.2b, already referred to in detail. The
argument that there is little or no biblical material on gender identity is
true to some extent, however emerging scholarship and theology is being to
develop this particularly in how it links to existing liberation theologies and
the scholarship around them. The reality is indeed that gender identity is more
complex is true and so it is a pity that nowhere in the document there appears
to be reference to the concept of “gender queer” or “non-binary” and
transgender is in there instead of trans*. Now, I know that much of this will
have been based on the consideration of the knowledge of the readership but I
do wonder how much actual trans input there has been on this. It is right and
proper and really good that the report recognises that gender identity is
different to sexuality but there is a complex connection between the two which
may exist. I think this is something that all sectors of the church need to
look at in more detail, particularly as the number of people who identify as
trans and those close to them is growing within the church as a whole, as well
as becoming more visible in society.
The recommendation of the EDI to produce some simple
guidance on trans is important, although I believe the wording should relate to
gender identity as a better and more inclusive term. I also believe that within
this there should be specific work, guidance and resources given to providing
some resources around the pastoral care of the friends and family of trans
people. This is important in relation to issues of loss I have talked about
extensively elsewhere within previous posts on this blog.
With regard to the preparation of appropriate marriage
resources this is where working with organisations such as the Oasis
Foundation, (whose charter explicitly refers to marriage preparation within it)
may be useful. Traditionally we have focused on looking at ecumenical partners.
I think in the current age it may be useful to look at what para-church groups
and organisations can be seen as useful partners too with regard to this type
of thing.
The report highlights the excellent work being done by
other working groups within the church and the need for joint working. What I
think the references to the working group and EDI work, amongst others, do is
identify why there needs to be a more joined up approach at times within the
church.
What about putting on a national Methodist equality and
diversity conference where all the groups concerned with and working on the issues
related to the wide range of these areas of diversity and inclusion can come
together and share their experiences identifying the common ground between them
and how this can be Connexionally harnessed.
The
recommendation in 3.2.2 is welcomed but I am concerned about the wording for
the reasons previously mentioned. I think the inclusion of the term “non-conforming
gender identity” would be an important amendment to make.
With regard to the issues of non-participation I would like
to add that within one circuit there was selection of those asked to
participate and that to break through that system one had to be eager enough to
pursue information on when the consultations were taking place.
As explained in a previous post on this blog I agree the
concentration on same sex marriage issues was a shame., especially in light of the range of excellent resources provided to take the discussion beyond this.
I was heartened by the way in which the youth participation
strategy has been taken seriously with regard to this issue and the feedback from
3 Gen has been extensively included.
So the overall conclusion of the task group is we keep on talking
and we keep on working on things. On one hand this is really frustrating and I
want to scream….can we just get on with it. On the other the way this is being
handled is bringing real fruit. There is, through this report, a motion on
looking properly at trans issues going to conference and there is real
discussion going on about change.
My worry is something which has been reinforced by looking
at the conference agenda more widely….do we want to carry on talking until the
Anglicans have sorted themselves out and so we can put in place policies which
more closely mirror theirs? I know a lot of work went into this report and I do
not believe that is the motivation of the working group….but I do wonder if it
is the motivation of some others in the church.
As I finish though I want to reinforce my thanks to those
who have put this report together and all those who have been involved in
helping facilitate the discussions. What we are doing, when compared to many of
the other denominations via the resources put together through this group and
via the EDI, is actually putting together a lot of good practice.
It does highlight though a worry I have with the Open
Church charter. Whilst I fully support it I do worry that point 2 within the
charter, because of the messy situation within our denominations, may put
people off from signing. Now I know it has been carefully worded to say: “Within the scope of current British law we will offer
marriage to couples regardless of gender identity and sexuality and where this
is not allowed under law, we will offer celebration, preparation and support
for same-sex marriage partners in loving, healthy monogamous relationships” but I still worry if it might
cause churches who would otherwise be quite happy and willing to sign to delay.
A
long post I know but I hope you appreciate why this one had to be.