Thinking Anglicans

Conservatives react strongly to CofE gender transition guidance

Updated again Sunday morning (scroll down)

There have been strong conservative responses to the recent announcement from the Church of England’s House of Bishops.

Christian Concern has published this: New CofE guidance on gender transition services follows “devastating trajectory”.

Lee Gatiss of Church Society has written Transitioning a Liturgy which helpfully includes links to previous materials from that source on this topic.

Ian Paul has written Wisdom and folly: the bishops’ guidance on transgender welcome.

Anglican Mainstream has published a more comprehensive roundup of conservative reactions, also including links to earlier articles. In addition there is this contribution from Andrew SymesThe secular, postmodern re-shaping of church and society (the relevant part comes towards the end).

Updates

GAFCON UK has published this Statement from Bishop Andy Lines following the Church of England’s guidance on liturgies to celebrate gender transition.

CEEC has published this: A response to the House of Bishops’ “Pastoral Guidance for use in conjunction with the Affirmation of Baptismal Faith in the context of gender transition”.

11
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
2 Comment threads
9 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Ian HSimon SarmientoJames ByronCharles ClaphamKate Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Charles Clapham
Guest
Charles Clapham

It is disappointing (once again) to read the misrepresentation of contemporary science regarding transgender from conservative Christians like Ian Paul. “Why the complete absence of reference to biological reality?” he asks in his blog, before going on to claim that “the medical journal The Lancet just this week made an impassioned appeal for proper engagement with biological reality.” That would be notable, if it were true. But in fact the editorial in the Lancet makes no such claim, as is easily verifiable by any one who follows the link Ian Paul provides to it. Written by a group of four… Read more »

Charles Clapham
Guest
Charles Clapham

For more on the dodgy representation of science shown by conservatives when it comes to transgender (e.g. Ian Paul’s comments in his piece regarding “the poor success of transition” or to “continued mental health issues” post-transition, or the claim by Lee Gatis that “the scientific basis… of medical intervention or social transition in response to gender dysphoria is far from established”), readers might be interested in comments I (and Tina Beardsley) have made in the past on this website, at https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/7777-2/#comments .

Kate
Guest
Charles Clapham
Guest
Charles Clapham

Thank you, Kate. Couldn’t agree with you more. As it happens, Cecilia Dhejne (the Swedish author whose work you cite) is the author of the study so blatantly misrepresented by Martin Davie (referenced in the Thinking Anglicans link I mention above), which appears subsequently to have influenced Ian Paul’s comments.

There is a point where we need to recognise that so-called ‘conservative’ christians have as much credibility in terms of science of transgender as those who (like Trump) deny the science on climate change.

James Byron
Guest
James Byron

The issue’s much wider than “conservative” Christians: being a passionate supporter of women’s ministry and taking a nuanced approach to biblical interpretation, Ian Paul’s not close to being a con-evo, but is as open as evangelicals get before they cross over into the outer darkness of Steve Chalk / Rob Bell “unsound” territory. If even he’s taking this position, then it’s endemic to evangelicalism, not just the conservative branch.

Kate
Guest
Kate

The letter opposing the view of biology expressed by Paul. Trump etc has now been signed by over 2,600 scientists https://not-binary.org/statement/

Ian H
Guest
Ian H

Whatever its value… It is diminished by the number of “PhD candidates” and “ecology” “cosmology”. Is it as much against Trump (which I quite understand) as anything else? It could have been entitled “some American scientists”… out of far more thousands

Kate
Guest
Kate

Some of those links lead to quite upsetting material. They should carry a health warning.