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.

Responding to the Methodist Working Party on Marriage and Civil Partnerships Report

The second volume of the Methodist Church Annual Conference Agenda was published today. Within it were many important documents but there are a couple of particularly significant reports within it which are probably of interest to people beyond the Methodist Church. One relates to "Statistics for Mission" and the second is the report of the "WorkingParty on Marriage and Civil Partnerships." Within this post I am going to be reflecting on the latter of the two.

As I write this I have to outline my own position, for readers who may be new to this blog. I am a Methodist Local Preacher and member of a local fellowship who is writes this blog very much in a personal capacity. I am also a gay woman who is in a civil partnership with a female to male trans man currently going through gender reassignment. In line with the requirements of gaining a GRC we are planning to transfer our civil partnership to a marriage, because the legislation currently forbids us from keeping our civil partner status if my husband is to gain his gender recognition certificate. This is a personal response to the report and on that basis I make no apology for this post being subjective.

I want to start my response by paying tribute to the members of the working party. I know a couple of them, but the majority are unknown to me. Together they have produced a document which shows real sensitivity whilst coming to difficult conclusions.

I am personally disappointed by some of the conclusions reached within the report. However, in contrast to certain similar documents published by other denominations, this has been sensitively written and one cannot fault its apparent understanding of the issues involved. One example of this understanding is how the working group have drawn attention within the report to responses making reference to trans, intersex and bi exclusion.

Often reading such documents as a gay Christian I have been made to feel that we (gay Christians) are an unwelcome problem to be dealt with or that our feelings of dismay when reports such as this are published are not at all understood. This report didn't have that problem. Throughout it underlines the way it believes LGBTQI people should be treated by respect. Paragraphs 70-73 of the report outline there was dismay amongst the working party at the homophobic attitudes displayed by a small number of respondents to the public consultation. There is also a recognition of how disappointed some will be with the recommendations that the denomination should not to revisit the Methodist understanding of the meaning of marriage. The report refers to the way in which they might interpret them as not standing up for justice and rights of people whatever their sexuality.

Therefore one of the resolutions going to conference relates to clarifying what is and isn't homophobic language and instructing conference, if the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion unit think appropriate, to bring a formal statement to conference on the issue. I think this would potentially be very helpful for a wide range of institutions not just the church.

With regard to the discussion of what is and isn't acceptable language there was one section of paragraph73 which particularly stood out. It says: "There is a limit to what is acceptable and where that is over stepped it needs to be taken seriously in the same way that we as a Church have done in declaring that “racism is a denial of the Gospel."

 

The report methodology was clearly outlined and explained. In addition to a literature review there was the collation of quantitative and qualitative data. What I was pleased about was the way in which it was clear there was an emphasis on the qualitative data. This had involved a real listening process. The few quotes peppered through the report illustrated this. One of the criticisms levelled at the Church of England amongst other organisations is they have not really heard what is being said by LGBTQI people or their allies. This report demonstrates that both hearing and understanding have taken place.

 

The key recommendation in the report has been to institute a listening period of genuine "reflection and discernment" which will feed back to Conference in 2016. This may be seen by some as a delaying tactic, but I think in light of the announcements made by other denominations it was to be expected. What is slightly different to the responses of some other denominations is that the report put forward some serious ideas about how to help people engage with the issue.

The recommendations being voted upon at conference include the following which I feel has major significance if followed through:

"40/4. a) The Conference adopts the recommendation contained in paragraph 157 and appoints a task group on marriage and relationships to be responsible for the implementation of the work. It recognises the significance and therefore the need for adequate resourcing and support of this work.

b) The Conference directs that the tasks which the group shall work to implement shall be as follows:

(i) to seek to engage the Church more widely in exploring the two major themes of

i. living with contradictory convictions, and

ii. the nature of the authority of the Bible by drawing upon the existing material produced connexionally and identifying other ways of resourcing and encouraging these conversations throughout the Church;"

 

That resolution also proposes that the Conference should vote:

 "(iii) to explore in depth the implications arising from the divergence between the Methodist Church’s teaching on marriage and the legal definition and concept of marriage now applying in England, Wales and Scotland. These explorations should include

i. the missional challenges involved

ii. the tradition and experience of the Christian Church in living in contexts where its values, teaching and practice as to marriage have not been shared with those of the surrounding society

iii. the considerations for and against the continued involvement of the Methodist Church in the solemnization of (opposite sex) marriages;

(iv) to find ways to encourage Local Churches (and if thought necessary, equipping them with pastoral and teaching resources) to welcome same sex couples and their families and to enable their participation in the life and worship of the Church;

(v) drawing as appropriate upon the theological material already produced by the Faith and Order Committee and in collaboration with that committee, to develop resources to help people to explore the teaching and practice of the Church in relation to cohabitation"

  

The reasons I am encouraged by this resolution is that it comes out of the reports underlining of the fact to hold a different interpretation of the bible to others is not to deny the authority of scripture. It does acknowledge that some will disagree with seeing it in that way.

I am also particularly encouraged because the report as a whole and this resolution recognise the missional issues and problems which are connected with the position being put forward.

 

Too often I have found that LGBTQI people such as myself are accused of not caring about the bible (and of being liberals on this basis) and not caring about the gospel. I am an evangelical Christian who really does care about the authority of scripture and has a heart for mission. This report and recommendation allow for recognition of that whilst seeking to ensure those with more traditional interpretations are also heard and can feel listened to.

 

The door to changing understandings of marriage has not opened with this report, but the door has been opened for more in depth discussion as to whether civil partnerships should be celebrated within church and to wider discussions on family and relationships.

 

Very importantly the report and resolutions coming out of it are seeking to ensure that the measures protecting clergy as well as lay people in civil partnerships are extended to those within same sex marriages. There is also a resolution seeking to give provision for the protection of those who are already in same sex marriages should the main resolution not be passed. This is a significant difference to the CofE approach on the issue and one to be welcomed.

 

In the report and responses it is interesting to note the part the URC position at the moment has played. The URC have yet to report on their position and won't do so until after the Methodist Conference. They are one of the major partners to the Methodists. This looks as if it has had a positive impact on what has been proposed.

 

Amongst the international responses reported I was most interested in that from Uruguay given in paragraph 123. It explained because of their experience of living under a dictatorship that protection of all human rights was important to their church. This showed how within some countries there is an intersection between liberation theology and attitudes towards sexuality and gender issues.

 

I want to draw out of the report was that just before the closing date of the consultation there was a surge of responses as a result of online activism from those resisting change. These were taken into account but so was the way in which they altered the pattern of responses up to that point. This shows wise discernment by the group.

Finally, the breakdown of the statistics for the responses cannot be taken in isolation. The data they give has to be seen in relation to the wider statistics of the church, particularly those in those mission statistics I referred to at the beginning. The age distribution within the Methodist church and the attitudes of the different cultural and age groups need to be considered in light of that data and I believe the working group have to some extent done that. However, they have also recognised if that demographic data is to change some decisions which some older people may struggle with may need to be taken.

 

All in all whilst I believe this just one more frustrating step in a journey I wish were over, in some ways, it is also a very hopeful document. I hope that the recommendations including the one which would provide full on going protection for all same sex couples in marriages whether lay or ordained are passed. I look forward to engaging in the conversation and learning much from all positions in the listening process.