Church of England to consider transgender naming ceremony

"The Church of England is to debate plans to introduce a ceremony akin to a baptism to mark the new identities of Christians who undergo gender transition.

The Rev Chris Newlands, the vicar of Lancaster Priory, has proposed a motion to the General Synod to debate the issue, after he was approached by a young transgender person seeking to be “re-baptised” in his new identity.

The motion, which was passed by Blackburn Diocese last month, calls on the House of Bishops to consider whether it should introduce a new service to mark the milestone in the life of a trans person. A spokesperson for the Archbishops’ Council confirmed that the motion had been received, but said it would not be debated imminently…"

theguardian.com/society/2015/may/21/proposal-for-transgender-baptism-to-go-before-church-of-england

I hope this only prompts mature and charitable discussion.

FWIW the CofE is doing its best to be “relevant” and while the end result if one emerges will be frankly a little embarrassing because of the way the CofE expresses its inclusivity in language, it should be warmly applauded for the attempt I think.

However…given baptism is a mark upon the soul rather than the body, it doesn’t really matter if you change your name (or what you have between your legs), surely? You can’t ever be re-baptised (and whatever the Church’s position on Anglican sacraments are in general, obviously the baptism is valid)… A baptism isn’t a naming ceremony; people change their names all the time and no one has remotely thought until now that this somehow confuses God. I’m not sure why the CofE is going down this particular cul-de-sac.

Sounds cool
Lets invent a new sacrament
Scripta Sola and all that

Truly the apostolic faith.

There’s nothing to admire here.

The COE is trying to “keep up with the times” and drift with the alternative-sexual tsunami now battering the general society.

But as one of her most famous sons once said, “Those who keep up with the times end up where all times go.”

IMNAAHO.

ICXC NIKA

Wow, it’s almost as if the Church was founded specifically so that the Monarch of England could promote sexual promiscuity. Who’d have guessed, huh?:rolleyes:

Baptism is a soul-deep mark upon the body.

So is one’s sexuality. Change the name, alter the surface of the skin,** it doesn’t matter**, every body-cell and the soul remain in the original gender unto forever. The person would just have damaged their body in vain.

The COE is IMNAAHO doing everybody a disservice by trying to sacramentalize something that does not in fact happen.

ICXC NIKA

This is a mockery. Diabolical, even.

I don’t see how it could be based upon Baptism either, nor do I see a reason for it. People often change their names after baptism, especially womens surnames lest we forget.

That said, I suppose most ceremonies must seem a bit quirky and pointless the first time they are preformed. While it seems odd I can see why it might help an individual who feels ostracized from the community, its provides a way to know they are accepted and none within feel ill towards them.

Yes clearly Catholics don’t want to accept an “unrepentant” transgender but for those Christians who do I actually think it is a nice idea although I don’t think a re-baptism is the way to go and from my knowledge of the synod system I don’t think they’ll be too keen on it either.

I think the Reform Jews actually have some sort of optional re-initiation rite for transgender members, so it’s not actually that new an idea.

Next up - species dis-morphia ceremony. John will now be known as Cuddles and acknowledged now by God as a house cat. Cuddles will undergo fur reassignment surgery and have a tail attached so as to match her outside to how she feels inside.

Uncalled for.

Two thoughts
1). Generally, I don’t think Anglicans would consider themselves sola scripturist, per se.
2). Sola scriptura is the practice of holding doctrine accountable to scripture. This idea has absolutely nothing to do with scripture. Seems to me, then, it would be a tradition, and a disturbing one at that.

Jon

The thing is, no matter who we are and what gender we’ve been baptized in we are still the same person and soul. A second baptism is more of an attempt to socially accept the act of someone becoming the opposite sex.

God still loves that person but it is not a scripturally-approved action…

Blessings,

Rita

sometimes it gets tough to stay in our beautiful Church-issues of sexuality have really created incredible stress-

we are not a sola scriptora church -we bellieve in the 3 legged stool of scripture -tradition and reason

Just a point God the Father and the Holy Spirit are not of any specific gender correct???

so far in my Parish no one YET has tried to make the Lord Jesus female -YET

To say the least. But the fact that God loves us does not give us license to do what we will. He loves murderers, rapists and pedophiles too. What they are after is a Church to “baptize” their actions and they obviously either have no idea or just don’t care what Baptism really is. I am amazed it is even being considered.

No, they just want to do away with any reference at all having to do with maleness. My favorite is replacing “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” with the “Creator,” the “Savior” and the “Sanctifier” (that was a Catholic nun back in the 70’s). Groovy.

Amen to that, Steve…

Goodness. How far have you all gone. It’s not meant to denigrate, just flabbergasted. Perhaps that because I am not in the world much thus am easily bewildered. :o

Edit: Just musing. When that happens then maybe the doctrine of the Trinity needs to be reviewed as well. Maybe Father, Daughter and the Holy Spirit?

:hmmm: Not even the good ol’ C of E would go as far as to say Christ was a woman (the church isn’t THAT radical…). Probably.

To be fair, I’ve read nothing official from actual Anglican sources on this, and the Guardian while often well-meaning is pretty left-leaning and on the subj of religion isn’t as careful to check stuff as it could be - it might be that no one who is actually “in” the church or leads it is using or would remotely consider using the word “baptism” (of course if they’ve not been previously baptised then it’s a different matter).

The idea - which is to welcome transitioned people “back” into the church with their new identity, is a very good one; it’s not an example of the church bending in the wind (if it was introducing same-sex marriage, then I’d say it would be), just it being welcoming and frankly, Christian. What I can’t believe is that the Church of England will manage to do this in a way that isn’t embarrassing and ham-fisted…

Careful how you use “Anglican,” Murmurs, lol! Continuing Anglicans don’t consider that either the C of E or the Episcopal Church of the USA should even merit the name anymore. I’m not sure what to replace it with in their case, though. Something that suitably reflects their bizarre fixation on contemporary culture and hyper-liberal theology, to be sure.:slight_smile:

No, I consider them Anglicans. Anglicans are motley in the extreme. Sometimes I have trouble spotting their Christian trademarks, though.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus-Catholicus

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.