Undivided by Vicky Beeching - A Review

Reading through Vicky Beeching's memoir Undivided is an emotional experience. It cannot be read from a neutral position because none of us are robots and all of us have opinions on faith, LGBT+ issues and mental illness. Many of us also have our own experiences of these things. The thing about Vicky's book is it makes clear that whilst some feel free to be vocal about these things for others they are subjects of fear. To state my position from the start I am a progressive evangelical queer woman married to a f to m transman who is also a Methodist Probationer Minister. I work in a church too. So I'm sympathetic to the view she is espousing in the book.

Now I've got all that out of the way we can look at the book. It's an honest looking back on her journey and the way she wrestled not only with her own identity but also with the demands of being a successful Christian musician.

It's a book which shows that whatever one's view of the "celebrity LGBT+ Oxbridge elite" her journey has been very costly in both emotional and financial terms. Yes, she is part of that elite but it provided her with a support network which she needed around her coming out. I'm noting it but not knocking it in her case.

What I found interesting about the first parts of the book, including her time in Oxford were the way she used institutionalisation for safety. I was struck by the choice of Oxford College she describes, and am aware that it was a similar choice that she made when she went to Durham an experience briefly mentioned later in the book. (Aside here one of the most embarrassing moments of my life was realising what a twat I'd been when I'd been chatting to her and others in a bar in Durham on the day of my viva (one of the very few times I've met her by the way). I don't have a great gaydar and that day I had a total failure, which resulted in me giving a version of "the only gay in the village" spiel when the exact opposite was true). Anyway I digress back to the review.

This institutionalisation which many Christian young people get caught up in and which many of those of us in churches actually collude with in ways intended to be helpful and can lead to great opportunities, but which may also be deeply damaging is something which challenged me in reading the book.

In Vicky's case it was this which enabled her to have her song writing and performing career. Something which has to be applauded, but it was at a cost of conforming to a damaging Christian stereotype.

The LGBT+ narrative which is a central theme to the book is important because it is a story which needs to be told and shared widely. I believe that this book quite honestly has the power to save lives and that cannot be underestimated. There will still be young Vicky's who may at times feel the same suicidal pressures that are talked about in this book and to have a role model is important.

More than that though this is probably the easiest to read discussion of the scriptural arguments I've come across. It's a book I'd be happy to recommend to people as a key resource.

The discussion of chronic pain and illness is also important because it is through the sharing of these stories that progress is made.

I referred earlier to the Oxbridge elite and that is something I find interesting about this book and about some recent developments in both the Christian and secular LGBT+ worlds in this country. There is an elite and make no mistake they are doing a great job in pushing for equality but they are also clearly there and integrated into the institutions of this country. This book along with other developments I'm not going into here show that there is a change happening which is not primarily grass roots but taking place in the wood panelled or glass clad rooms of this country. This book is here because it fits into that world, but it is also here because as I've indicated it's a valuable resource.

So I recommend giving it a read and then giving time yourself time to reflect on it. I think for many it raises as many questions as it answers but thank you Vicky for writing it and for your bravery. This is a book that as I've said will help others but has clearly come at cost.

Just as a help if you've happened upon the book or this blog and you are looking for support as a LGBT+ Christian who is not out or who is not connected to other LGBT+ Christians can I recommend Diverse Church which has sections to support different age groups and parents of LGBT+ people.

Allies and Shared Struggles

Westminster Cathedral was full of people “Rediscovering Justice” and participating in “A Service of Hope on the 50^th anniversary of the death of The Reverend Dr Martin Luther King Jr” yesterday. The service was a moving one which called us to continuing action. According the the Ekklesia article about it the service was recorded and will be on Radio Four this Sunday.

 I was acutely aware throughout the service of the way in which race and gender identity are separate issues yet their intersectionality is a crucial factor when we look at those murdered around the world for being trans – trans BAME people are most at risk. I was also struck between the similarities of this service and Transgender Day of Remembrance (TDOR)  events in terms of tone and at points content, (the last time I heard Something Inside So Strong used in the way it was yesterday was at a TDOR event).

The Confession had the response “Forgive us and make us strong to raise our voices in hope” and the words throughout could be equally related to a range of issues. This is important because yesterday was a day for all who believe in justice and want to build what MLK described as the beloved community as Dr. R. David Muir reminded us in his testimony.

Amanda Khozi Mukwashi is the new chief executive of Christian Aid and within her testimony she talked of MLK as “inspiration from the past and energy for the future”. This is how I think his legacy should be taken. She, as others yesterday, remind us that he fought against the scandals of both poverty and injustice. A speaker on the Channel Four News last night, reflecting on the anniversary and his legacy reminded us of the need to tackle these at both a structural and personal level, engaging with both policy makers in meetings and the public on the street. Using both as a means of influencing decision makers and changing attitudes.

The address was given by the bishop of Woolwich, The Right Reverend Dr. Karowei Dorgu and throughout he used MLKs words “when there is injustice to one there is injustice to all” as a refrain. He asked “how many more young people die before stabbing and gun crime is declared as a national emergency?” I would echo this sentiment but add how many more trans people have to die before we act. I ask this in the same spirit because those young people and those trans people are both more likely to be from BAME backgrounds. Naomi Hersi, a trans woman of Somali origin, was one of those murdered in London this year….another one of those who was part of both communities.

In his address the bishop made the point that “the challenge is to make a difference on a national scale, we focus on the small things and miss the big picture”. I can’t help that this is the case with the debates around trans at the moment. There is so much focus around the issue of who can and should use which toilets – linked to the issue of self-identification we are losing sight of the much bigger justice issues, of which that is one part of the jigsaw. The fact is that trans people are dying, both through suicide (made worse by the time they are currently having to wait for assessment) and murder. Self-identification will be great but if the waiting list to be able to get the medical support needed to safely access hormones and then further life changing surgery, if desired, continues to grow people will continue to die.

A focus on stopping young people dying is something that should be treated as a national emergency but so must the fight against the murder of trans people and against domestic violence, which also contribute to the scarily high numbers of those murdered in London this year. As the bishop made clear in his speech, “killings are our problem” and “we can’t afford to stand by as bystanders”. He also made clear “we don’t have the option to do nothing” and “It is all of us who must overcome the crippling disease of injustice”. As he said after referring to Pastor Niomeller’s First they came for … poem “We need to act with courage – inaction is not an option”.

These words struck me, as did the words in the act of commitment which began “Will you keep the dream alive, of justice for all peoples, without prejudice or favour?” That means that the LGBT+ community need to support the BAME community and put an end to the racism which has seen Stonewall pull out of Pride in London this year.  Other people too, including many churches, should be supporting the LGBT+ community – and putting an end to using BAME issues as a reason not too -an attitude which is in it’s own way racist too as it assumes that LGBT+ people will be white and all BAME people will oppose LGBT+ rights - which we know is a myth. It should mean that BAME diversity networks in companies should join as allies to the LGBT+ community and vice versa. 

The truth is that LGBT+ BAME people are the group most at risk and the current attitudes are contributing to the death of these family members here and abroad. If MLK’s justice means anything today…50 years and 1 day after he was murdered for speaking truth against injustice it means we must stand together against injustice and bigotry and the words we speak in his name must be more than words from history or service sheets.

Found Out by Alison Webster Reviewed

I was sitting in GBK and had, Found Out: Transgressivefaith and sexuality, the new book by Alison Webster on the table, ready to read whilst I was waiting for my burger. The waiter came over, took a look at the cover, and asked if he could have a look. I said of course, he picked it up and said, “oh, I thought it was a yoga book from the picture”. I smiled and said no, but as he continued to read the blurb he asked “what is it then?” I was part way through and replied, “it’s a book about different women’s experiences of life and sexuality and a book which explains even though life gets messy God loves them as they are.” He smiled and said, “I understand”.

In truth this book is far more than how I described it to the waiter and the description I gave does not give justice to what this book is. It’s an exercise in practical theology which takes things forward and gives voice. The opening chapter seeks to give the reader an introduction to this form.

It begins as a history book, where through the use of autobiography she gives voice to the experience of women of Alison’s generation – those now in their 50’s. As somebody just those few years younger I found this useful. I am old enough to have grown up through much of what she was talking about, but too young to have truly “lived” through it. There is a relevance in this because the book comes 20 years after Found Wanting, which looked at the experience of women in the church in what might now be described as a different time.

It then moves on to putting together a collage of participants voices and experiences. Looking at the topics of what Webster calls “resistance” and “reclaiming spirit”. The rich variety of people sharing - some heterosexual, some bi or gay, some black, some white, some Christian, some of other faiths, some cis, some trans, some intersex, some the partners of trans people, some single, some ordained, some lay, some abused, some loved – means that it gives a wider spectrum of books.

The participants are all anonymised yet all their stories are real, raw and powerful.

However, as I say this is not a sociological study seeking to unpack the stories and find the correlations between them and the reasons for those. Rather it is an exercise in practical theology which seeks to look at the overall pattern of what is being said through the lens of theological reflection.

The chapters start with a reflection on a part of the gospel story and then jump to the present having given a tool for the reader to think about how the narrative of the gospels and example of Jesus might relate to what is being spoken about.

Chapter five “Recreating Faith” looks at how a nuanced and slightly queered use of queer theory might enable us to develop a way of looking at faith which can deal with the dissonance and apparent contradiction which is apparent in the real, lived experience of many people.

Finally in “Remaking Love” Webster looks at the way in which we might live out our relationships (both with partners and more widely). In this chapter much of what was being said was not new but it was more concrete and wide-ranging than in other books (such as Robert Song’s Covenantand Calling). The reason for this gets to the root of this book. Whilst others are often looking at these issues from a theoretical point of view, Alison Webster looks at them from the point of view of current, real, lived experience. 

She is looking not to “solve the problem” of what to do about the churches engagement with those who don’t fit into the hetero-normative worldview that the institutions are working from. Rather she is looking at how those who don’t fit into that worldview are currently living and engaging with spirituality and what that might teach us as we move into the future.

The book also differs from many of the positive books relating to LGBT+ people and spirituality.  The use of the contributors voices is not to focus on victim-hood and injustice in a way which seeks to demand justice through rhetoric which refers back to the contributions. Rather this shows the reality of what is happening and how power, when misused is problematic, but how power can also be and is being reclaimed by those who may appear marginalised in creative and hopeful ways.

Do I recommend this book, of course I do for all the reasons given above. 

Oh and finally, must mention the publishers are Darton, Longman and Todd, who are producing a lot of the cutting edge, affordable practical theology at the moment.

Reflecting on a weekend of Pride, Hope & Celebrating God at Work

This weekend was Pride in London and there were a Christians at Pride group marching again, just as there have been for a number of years now. Except this year it was different, very different.

This weekend the Church of England synod in York and as has become a regular happening LGBT+ issues were discussed. Except this time it was different, very different.

This weekend I preached at the church which has been home over the last couple of years, just as I have in other churches. I was faced with the dilemma of whether to mention anything about LGBT+ witness and mission in my sermon, just as I have on a couple of other occasions as a local preacher. Except this time it was different, very different.

So what were these differences and what do they have to tell us about what is going on in the churches and the Christian LGBT+ world?

The Christians at Pride Group was bigger than in the past, much bigger. This year it was made up of about 250 people and was the third biggest group after Barclays (the main sponsor) and Stonewall. It was also a much more mixed group culturally, with a far higher number of BAME people involved, (despite what this picture seems to show). It was not just “the usual faces”, many of them were watching in the crowd – being among those who stood next to the “angry Christians” turning their yellow negative placards into a rainbow proclaiming love. There were also some at the church where the annual Pride Service was being held offering hospitality through a tea party in the garden.

The Church of England synod was different because whilst there was the “official discussion” on what to do about LGBT+ issues with the usual prevarication and kicking into the long grass there were compassionate and important motions passed. These were motions bought by synod members and diocese which committed the Church of England to condemn conversion therapy and look to develop an official recognised liturgy for people who wanted to mark their transition and reaffirm their new/ true identity.

The church I was preaching in is a URC/ Methodist church which has in the past year signed up to Inclusive Church and become a recognised One Body One Faith Church. It set up a stall outside the church, which is on the Birmingham Pride route, and gave out water and sweets to those in the Birmingham Pride parade this year. It was also one of the co-ordinating groups involved in getting Christians at Pride in Birmingham off the ground this year. Preaching there I didn’t have the dilemma of whether to mention LGBT+ issues I knew I could do so, encouraging the church in the way in which God had been working in there. I could talk about the impact that their actions have; how they help the LGBT+ community and the way God is obviously working through them. I could talk about the way in which I know that church has not changed their thinking (it all went through Church meeting very quickly and without much debate) and they probably don’t think they’ve done anything much but actually what they’ve done is really important.

The passage I was preaching on yesterday was Matthew 11: 16 -30 (note without the gap which the lectionary suggests) and this talks about some recognising God’s signs and wonders whilst others rejected them. To recognise what God was doing in the world then you had to recognise experience. I think the same is true now…..we need to look at experience as well as using scripture, tradition and reason.

Experience is what is telling me something is happening, God is at work through ordinary people in the church who may or may not belong to the LGBT+ community. Experience is telling me that divisions in the church between different groups are being broken down. Is telling me, through conversations I’ve been having with people and coverage of Christians at Pride in publications like Pink News, that the perception the wider LGBT+ community has of Christians and the gospel message is beginning to change.

Yet, I know all this doesn’t happen without hard work. I know that there are those who have been patiently working towards where we are now for many decades. So I want to thank them for their hard work and faithful witness over the years.

I also know that there is still much to be done if LGBT+ people are to be fully accepted, acknowledged and included in the church. There is still much to be done if our relationships are to be treated on an equal basis. I know that the more the church embraces the LGBT+ community the more vicious some opponents will become, as they realise they have lost the argument (I remember the late Pauline Webb explaining this was the case with the campaign for women’s ordination in the Methodist Church).  

Yet as I have shown God is at work and I have more hope than I have ever had.

From Chocolate Makers to LGBT+ Tories...What I've Learnt

Recently I went along to a Stonewall/ LGBT+ Conservative event and been to various events and demonstrations protesting against the Tories whilst their conference was in Birmingham. I’ve also listened to Vince Cable give the Lunar Society Adrian Cadbury Lecture and read a really interesting book by Deborah Cadbury called Chocolate Wars. All of these things have had the impact of both challenging and encouraging me.

I’ll start with my visit to the Stonewall/ LGBT +Conservative event, which has raised more than a few eyebrows amongst many of my friends. I went along because this event also involved the Diversity Network of Lloyds Banking Group, and as part of the day job I am looking at how we join up chaplaincy in HE with encouraging students to take a holistic approach when thinking about employability. How do we encourage people to see the transferrable skills gained in areas of their lives which are often privatised? The exploration of personal values also comes into this.

As I listened to the panel discussion which included Maria Miller amongst others I was surprised by how comfortable I felt amongst this group who were in many ways so different to myself. It reminded me that whilst ideologically I hold opposite views to them on many issues particularly around social policy there is much that can be worked on across political lines and there are things which we do hold in common with people if we move beyond the headlines. They were talking about the need to reform the Gender Recognition Act in line with the recommendations of the Transgender equality inquiry report from the Women and Equalities Committee. They also picked up on the need for people to recognise the differences in experience of LGBT+ people in this country. The experiences of those living in rural areas as well as the increasing levels of hate crime throughout the country and specific issues relating to sport are examples of issues we all need to address.

The other thing which made me feel more comfortable was the general dress code. It was standard professional dress. As I looked around I pondered how different it had been to the left wing events I had been to over the event. Karl and I had dressed casually on Saturday evening as we went to the pub to listen to a great evenings entertainment by Bethany Black and Grace Petrie, at the Eagle and Tun, yet had still felt overdressed. On Sunday I had gone straight from preaching to protesting and was clearly over dressed for that, but…I realised that the extent I was overdressed depended upon who I was with. Amongst the TUC socialist demonstration, I was ridiculously different, however amongst the pro-EU protestors with whom I paused for a short while I was less over-dressed. The Refugees Welcome walk of witness (which didn’t even manage to be a demonstration due to the invisibility involved and which I left to go on the TUC one) was somewhere in between.

Dress was an interesting aspect of the historical material in Chocolate Wars. The move from embracing plain Quaker dress to a more relaxed approach which fitted with the world was part of a wider movement away from strict values based on the faith. Yet, as the very interesting and informative book shows dressing well didn’t mean the values were completely abandoned, it was a series of various individual decisions which saw the values of business becoming so divorced from those which were at the core of many of the chocolate businesses originally.

The question of what happened to these Quaker values and how we might be able to recover some of these values was essentially at the heart of what Vince Cable was talking about in his public lecture on “The Governance of Business and Their Relationships to Society Locally and Nationally”.

There were three areas which this lecture sought to address remuneration, ownership and social enterprises. As he spoke much of the lecture related to the frustrations Cable had felt as Business Secretary he looked at the problems with possible solutions to the issues he and his colleagues recognise exist within a world where free market capitalism has caused great inequality. For example when looking at the huge differences in remuneration he spoke of the problems caused by publishing pay ratios because many of the lower paid workers were sub-contracted in some companies.

He was scathing of the pension companies and the way in which institutional investors don’t hold them to account because they are focused on short term profit rather than long term social benefits.

With regard to having workers on the board, an idea which works elsewhere and reflects some of the practices which were part of the Chocolate companies and which our current PM is advocating he gave a warning. Beyond the multi-national nature of many companies now many firms are not unionised and so workers can become tokens working on behalf of the interests of the owners rather than representing the rights of those employed. Implicitly within this part of his lecture what he was saying was that we need to give a voice back to the unions rather than continuing to restrict them.

He was clear that we need to think about diverse forms of ownership if we are really serious about social responsibility. Within this he highlighted some of the problems which come out so strongly in the Chocolate Wars book of how ownership dilutes as the need to raise capital in order to expand increases and how do you lock capital in for future generations. He spoke about the role of private equity. Within this area the current story of the Eagle and Tun is interesting. The owner, a very nice Sikh gentleman, was explaining to us at the Anti-Austerity event with Petrie and Black,  how HS2 is threatening his business, this iconic pub. He doesn't want to take the short term approach and just make money from selling the land. He wants to have a business which will be able to take advantage of the development of the area and wants to be given a 25 year lease once the redevelopment has taken place in exchange for the building but has been told that is not possible. If we are serious about taking our country forward in a more socially responsible way we need to support businessmen like this who want to protect their businesses and the future of their families.

One thing which connected the Adrian Cadbury lecture to the LGBT+ Conservative event was the theme that we need to ensure that the discussion around Brexit does not mean the areas where we are making progress become lost or side-lined. This is something I think many of us believe. If we are truly going to move forward at this time of uncertainty I think that we need to identify, as these events did, the things that truly represent the shared centre ground.

On a final note in terms of recognising where my politics stand in this shifting area where I feel somewhat alienated by left and right these events gave me confidence that they stand where they always have. I am a socialist who stands in the tradition of people like Roy Hattersley and Barbara Castle. I am not part of the “far left” whilst I sympathise with much of what they stand for but neither am I part of New Labour. What I want is a modern politics based on values which are inter-generational and which can take in the shared concerns of people from left and right. 

A personal evaluation of what went wrong with Methodist & other responses to Orlando

There has been a lot of discussion on social media around the hurt caused by the initial prayer offered by the Church of England yesterday and by the initial official response issued by the Methodist President and Vice President as well as the prayer offered by the URC.  In the case of the CofE there was a later joint statement by the Archbishops of York and Canterbury which sought to repair some of the damage. It was welcomed by many, but also seen as ringing slightly hollow in terms of the difference between the words and level of hurt many within that many within that Church have experienced as a result of the policies and actions of the church.

In contrast to this the contributions of LGBT+ Christians, particularly Ric Stott and Rachel Mann were welcomed and widely shared. Indeed by the end of the day their two contributions had been combined into a very moving and visually attractive prayer.

To be fair at times there was a coming together of the welcome and unwelcome. The Methodist initial statement included as links below the CofE prayer which had caused so much pain with the one by Rachel Mann which had been balm to many.

As I followed what was going on and felt the pain caused along with others I struggled to understand what had gone so wrong. Those releasing the statements and prayers which had caused the pain by their omission were seeking to give solace and respond in a compassionate way, of that I was sure. However, in not understanding a crucial aspect of the context their words were painful.

I was reminded of a quote I understand is drummed into the students studying where I live, “a text without a context is a pretext”.

So what had gone wrong in their, and others, reading of the context and what might we be able to learn from this.

Firstly, I believe those responding had read the context in a hegemonic way. That is they had read it in terms of those impacted being “like them” – predominantly white, middle class, heterosexual, middle-aged and cis. This context was not one where these were the dominant social characteristics of those most directly impacted. Most importantly those impacted were LGBT+ and many were Latino. Whilst one might hear as a defence these responses were put together before all the information was available the key piece of information, “that this took place in a LGBT nightclub” was there from the beginning.

Secondly, I believe that the responses which were lacking focused on seeing “community” in term of a physical, geographical location. The community impacted in this case was not only the geographical area of location but the LGBT+ community, which is a global community. This illustrates, I think, that the institutions are rooted in modernist understandings of community, rather than those linked to our current networked communities, which are far more based on identity. The formal discussions around these changing understandings of community have tended to revolve around digital/ online faith communities and fresh expressions within our institutions. We need to catch up on understanding the world we live in now. Our responses to tragedies need to be focused and context specific rather than generic.

Thirdly, I worry that those initially responding were doing so based upon media reports which were seeking to frame the story within a particular hegemonic way. Until Owen Jones walked out of the Sky studio so much discussion had sought to  frame this as a “terrorist” attack and to straight wash away the fact that a hate crime could also be a terrorist attack, the two did not need to be separate and that when the LGBT+ community were targeted that was relevant. As a prophetic community we need to be ready to think through the messages we are getting from the wider media as well as those we are contributing.

Finally, I think we need to think about the audience our messages are going to be read by and how they will be read. Again I think that this is where part of went wrong was hegemonic understandings that are held by some. I believe these statements would have been checked and published by people with similar outlooks and that is why nobody appeared to pick up why others might be so hurt was going out. We need to ensure that the teams we have working within the church are as diverse as possible and that in situations such as this we have people in place to check what is going out from an EDI point of view.

Between beginning to write this and posting it on my blog the Methodist statement has been expanded with some excellent statement and material by London Chair, Micky Youngson, an ally who gets it. This has changed the piece totally. I have then also updated this post because the media department have again updated the response so only Micky's material is showing and the original response is now a short link at the bottom. It's been a fascinating exercise in seeing how media responses change according to how understanding develops.

So where do we go from here, bearing in mind that Micky's material has been added later after a lot of the initial damage had been done and however much that original response is changed and the media department seek to erase it they cannot erase our memories of it? Well, I think that it would be useful if the president or vice-president and the media department were to apologise, admit that they had got it wrong and explain why. We are a faith that believe in confession and repentance, to illustrate this now I think could be very powerful.
*as a post script to this I have just seen a beautiful prayer on the President's face book page which expresses his care for the LGBTQI community. I have no doubt that this is an honest and heartfelt prayer and was very moving.
The president and vice president statement has been updated with wording which explicitly addresses the hurt caused they say
""We stand in solidarity with our LGBTQI brothers and sisters, and acknowledge the pain caused when we fail to live out the love of Christ for all. We are desperately sad that hurt has been caused by the statement made yesterday, which was an immediate response to assure people of our love and prayers for those affected by this tragedy. The murders in Orlando were an abhorrent tragedy, possibly the largest targeted killing of the LGBTQI community since the Second World War. God's love is for all. As Christians we are called first and foremost to love all. We stand in together with gay and straight men and women, and continue to hold the LGBTQI community, the victims' friends and their families in our hearts, thoughts and prayers."

I for one want to thank them for these words and that we, who were hurt by the statement yesterday, have been heard.

 

Response to Marriage and Task Group Report and Open Church Charter

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.

Initial feelings of being a partner of a trans person

In doing the thinking out loud as I put together paper for the Twilight People Symposium on Trans and Faith last week I am aware it got a bit academic.

I want to see if I can put together some posts which might be a bit more useful for those people actually going through the journey too. I also want to eventually get to looking at this using some biblical material to help people of faith think it through that way.

In terms of doing this I am going to keep to the three questions that arise from Jake Lever’s excellent art work The Blue, The Gold and The Dim:

 

1.    What does your journey feel like?

2.    How has your journey been different to what you expected?

3.    What sustains you as you travel in your boat?

 

Today I’m going to look at what does your journey feel like? As I do this I need to explain we are now several years into the process of my husband’s transition. He has been through process of coming out, accessing the medical services, having his top surgery and is due to have his hysterectomy in the summer.

It’s been a scary journey, especially in the early stages. I didn’t really understand what was going on and was scared. I was scared about what the person I loved was saying. Even though I had identified before he said anything something of what was going on it messed with my head. I live in a world when it’s much easier to think in terms of the binary (i.e. male and female).

I was scared by how scared he was. There were a lot of tears and I knew he was really hurting inside. I also had an awareness that a lot of trans people end up taking their own lives and that scared me lots. I was worried that he wouldn’t make it through.

I was scared about how other people would react to him. He had talked about fears of being attacked and that got me really scared. As time went on that fear subsided but I was upset that he got aggro, especially one morning when he went to the loo in a coffee shop. This was overcome a bit when we worked out where had the gender neutral toilets and were able to plan things like where we did coffee around this.

I was scared that he would never understand how I felt about it. I was supportive but I was supportive because I saw it as being like a disability. The transition was about fixing something that had gone wrong. I know this annoyed him because he doesn’t see it like that, but it is the only way that I can understand it.

I was scared that because I was gay I wouldn’t be able to stay with him when he transitioned and if we did things would never be the same in the bedroom.

Then I was scared about the impact of surgery and if it would all go ok.

I was scared about how you talk about it and when.

I was scared that the church might reject us both and I was scared that his employers might not be great.

I was scared it might damage what felt like a fragile relationship with his parents.

There was a lot of fear around as you can see. But as my journey has gone on my journey, our journey, has felt a lot different to expected.

Where I expected him to face rejection by the church and work he has on the whole experienced love. That’s not to say there haven’t been people who have used the bible to be transphobic, but on the whole there has been love. People tend to be much more loving and understanding then we often give them credit for.

Where I expected our relationship to fall apart it nearly did, but we got through that largely by hugs. We found a way to talk about things….somehow…and we cried lots but we didn’t let this destroy us.

Where I expected him to fall apart he actually began to blossom. As he stopped repressing things he actually became a much happier person and that made life easier.

In terms of the reactions of others they weren’t as bad as expected and when he did get hassle we learnt how to handle it, as I say primarily by identifying the safe toilets.

We learnt to stop living in fear and to enjoy each day much more.

His parents did struggle and that was an interesting one. I listened and made sure I used the right pronouns as I affirmed I understood some of the things they were saying about how they felt.

One strategy I found really useful was to ensure we went out to eat when he had had a medical appointment. It was easier to talk about it over dinner because it was less likely to end up in an argument or misunderstanding. I guess in a public setting you just ask the questions you need to know like “how long?” “what next?” and so on. You both have to keep your emotions under control as you discuss scary things.

I found it useful to go clothes shopping with my husband and whilst he developed his style I was able to help discuss what I thought would work. This also helped me know his style so if I were shopping alone for him I would be more likely to get it right (e.g. at Christmas).

If I were putting forward a resource to help trans people and their partners I would put the following questions together as things to talk about:

1.    What are you scares you about your partner transitioning?

2.    Which of these things do you think you can control?

3.    Which of these are the really hard things you won’t be able to control?

4.    What relates to your partner and what relates to your feelings about yourself?

5.    Who do you know who it will be safe to talk about these fears with?

6.    How would I like my partner’s life to be if they are transitioning?

7.    How can I help them blossom whilst ensuring I don’t wither?

8.    How do I understand the process of transition?

9.    Is there any more information I need to get about what’s involved and if so where do I get that information?

10. Where my safe place is and what am I going to do when it all seems overwhelming?

At that point it will be useful to know of some support groups and good sources of information. Note the list is not exhaustive and I would suggest if there is a LGBT centre or organisation near you that you get hold of them in the first instance to find out about local groups:

 Gires

 

TGPals

 

Partners of Distinction

 

DiverseChurch (for 18-30 year old Christians)

 

For Parents:

Mermaids

 

 

Gendered Intelligence

 

          DiverseChurch Parents (Group for Christian parents)

Identity (Partners Story....A Narrative of Loss? 5)

This post is the one where I was going to look at how my journey has been different to how I expected it to be. It is the one which deals with my identity and how I see myself but before I get to that I need to get something off my chest.

There is a hidden body of work which I have come across this week, doing my research for the talk, which would have been so useful if I had come across it some time ago.

Some of it I have been able to access because I happen to have an academic email account, other parts have come through putting fragments of things together and coming up with gold.

One of the most important documents I have found is a 2012 thesis by Claire Jenkins whose PhD work was “Straddling the scalpel of identity: a critical study of transsexual transition in a familial context”. This was not found via your standard key word Google search. Rather I read a chapter in the Inclusive Church book Sexuality, (Cornwell, 2014) and the introduction to that chapter sent me on a search of the institution, topic and first name.

Then there is the wealth of useful stuff on Canadian professor Elspeth Brown’s website which specifically relates to the partners of Trans Men. It was there I found the link to Nicola R. Brown, "TheSexual Relationships of Sexual-Minority Women Partnered with Trans Men: AQualitative Study", Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol.39 No.2, 2010, pp.561-572. 

This latter article has helped me more than any other in working out how to describe my identity now & I only found it yesterday! Having another scan through Rachel Mann's excellent book Dazzling Darkness didn't hurt either.

Previous to the last 24 hours if asked to describe my relationship and identity I would have said that I was gay in a relationship beyond categorization.  However, I realized reading Brown’s article that whilst there are only a relatively small number of people in the same situation the relationship is not without categorization. It is simply a queer relationship.

Now I am of an age where I relate the word queer to slightly odd and I think that is one reason why I have been resistant. However, I think there has also been a huge desire to hold on to my own sexual orientation particularly as the law has not allowed me to (as I have had to move from civil partnership to marriage in order for my husband to be in a position where he can apply for his Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC)).

Yet, our relationship has been based on negotiation through the transition and a working together to ensure that the essential parts of our relationship which is based on far more than primary or secondary sex characteristics is not lost. If we adopt the word queer and say we are in a queer relationship it reflects the reality of what is going on, particularly as my husband is a man but one who is aware of the risks of genital reconstruction and so is not taking that route through transition.

The world may see it as straight and that is fine, (it is far easier than when my partner gets mis-gendered because they see two people of a similar height together) however, we know there is more than that going on. Embracing the word queer allows the whole situation to be embraced.

You might wonder why it has taken me so much time to get here…..well in part because somebody wise at the beginning of the journey said it was the loss of identity and issues around that which were most likely to see us not make it through. Thus it is an area I have sought at times to avoid really thinking about.

Having sat and thought it through though I think it helps that I am find intellectual attraction stronger than physical attraction and so the physical change has not been so difficult for me. Also the decisions regarding which surgery to have and not have my partner has made for safety reasons have also helped.

In terms of how you help people through the discussions and worries they have in this area it is a difficult one. This is an area where fear can be huge and where the worries of others are perhaps most likely to be voiced, (that was certainly my experience).

I think it is helpful to discuss the question but not in terms of “but you’re….. and how will that work now they’re……”

Sometimes it is easiest to let go of the labels and let people simply be people.