Celebrating Our Baptismal Identities: A TransEpiscopal General Convention Wrap-Up

As we hit the two-week mark from the ending of the 78^th General Convention of The Episcopal Church, I look back on those nearly two weeks in Salt Lake City with a sense of gratitude for what the Church accomplished. We elected Bishop Michael Curry the new Presiding Bishop. We passed legislation in support of the rights of immigrants and refugees. We passed a new initiative on racial justice and reconciliation. We began the process of shifting our own structure as a General Convention. We passed legislation moving us clearly into the path of liturgical marriage equality.

We also passed several trans- affirming resolutions. In fact, all of the resolutions that TransEpiscopal was there to support (a list of which you can find here) passed. Two of these looked beyond the borders of TEC: A051 (“Support LGBT African Advocacy") and D028 (“Oppose Conversion Therapy”). Another pair, A073 and A074, called for “the creation of inclusive policy and practices in regard to LGBTQ and gender variant individuals" as part of a broader update of TEC’s call for an update of TEC's Model Policies & Resources for the Prevention of Sexual Misconduct and Abuse of Youth and Children.

The two resolutions on which we focused the most strongly were about name changes: D036 ("Adding Name Change Rite to the Book of Occasional Services”) and D037 (“Amending Names in Church Records, Registries and Certificates”).

D036: "Adding a NameChange Rite to the Book of Occasional Services”

As reported earlier, a number of people, both trans and cisgender, spoke at the open hearing on this resolution before the Committee on Prayer Book and Liturgy. All testimony was supportive—no one spoke in opposition. The testimony was also well received, and the committee supported the resolution strongly. They voted it forward to the House of Bishops with an amendment that we felt good about as well. The original wording of the resolution called for the planned expansion of the Book of Occasional Services to include a particular name change rite from a resource entitled Changes:Prayers and Services Honoring Rites of Passage. The amended version of the resolution opened that process, inviting the revisers of the BOS to consult both that rite and other rites. Other rites they might consult, for instance, include the one in Justin Tannis’s pioneering 2003 book. This amended version of D036 then passed both the House of Bishops and of Deputies on their respective consent calendars. This means that the resolution was basically considered so non-controversial that it could simply be approved without discussion. Very good news!

So we are on our way to having a widely accessible name change liturgy in The Episcopal Church. Over the next three years, as the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music (SCLM) revises the Book of Occasional Services, it will incorporate a name change liturgy. At the next General Convention the SCLM will present its revised BOS to the 79^th General Convention in Austin, TX and will call for its approval. In the meantime, for those interested in using or putting together a name change rite, you too might consult the two above mentioned sources, among others: Changes  and Justin Tannis’s book.

D037 “Amending Namesin Church Records, Registries and Certificates”

Like D036, D037 also passed both Houses and is now an act of the General Convention.

D037 addressed the pastoral need for TEC to respond to requests by those who have had a legal name change to amend names in church records and to reissue certificates. It calls for the church to study what canonical issues—if any—there may be to fulfilling such requests. It also called for trans people to be consulted as part of that study, since the resolution itself was generated precisely by the experiences of trans people in our church—by people requesting a new baptismal, confirmation, or ordination certificate after they have legally changed their name, for instance.

Like D036, this resolution was supported by powerful testimony during the open hearing process, this time before the Committee on Structure and Governance. Again, all testimony at this level was supportive, and the committee was glad to move it forward in the legislative process. And as with D036, the committee amended its language. The substance of the resolution stayed the same—the changes simply impacted what other committees should help plan and execute the study. While D036 traveled first to the House of Bishops, D037 began its road in the House of Deputies .

Unlike D036, however, D037 was discussed on the floor of Convention (and not only in the open hearing process). This, too, was a good thing. On the whole, the debate was supportive with some constructive criticism:

 • a deputy from the diocese of Fon du Lac spoke in support of the resolution and told a powerful story that underscored the broad range of people potentially impacted by this resolution. After her husband left the family, the deputy explained, the local Episcopal church took the family under its wing. Her daughter, for whom the father’s departure had been especially difficult, eventually sought to be baptized. But because we don’t currently have an official policy about how name changes impact our historical church documents, the daughter didn’t want to risk having her dad’s last name on her baptismal certificate: she waited until it was legally changed to her mother’s maiden name before proceeding. (All of us in the gallery were very moved by this testimony.) 

• a deputy from Michigan wondered why this needed to be studied when it so clearly referenced a pressing pastoral need. Why wait three years when people need clarity now? (Listening from the gallery, we sympathized—we want the clarity now as well, but we also want this to be done right.)

• Deputy Fredrica Harris Thompsett from the Diocese of Massachusetts made the connection between this resolution and the power of baptismal naming. She expressed a desire that everyone might be able to proudly hang their baptismal certificate on the wall reflecting their current identity. If study is indeed necessary, she as an historian invited us to be open to the possibility that the process could widen our appreciation of the matter. And as a theological educator she underscored that studies are not necessarily a bad thing. (In the gallery, we very much agreed on all counts.)

• a deputy from Pittsburg proposed an amendment adding the officers of the national Episcopal historians and archivists to the list of those involved in the study. She did so after expressing a concern to be careful about “altering historical records after the fact.” (In the gallery we supported the idea of having historians and archivists involved—we too feel the need to be careful about this. We also have particular insights on how our histories impact us in the present that we look forward to sharing as the study is conducted.)

• a deputy from Colorado supported the amendment and also identified with the resolution as a cisgender woman who changed her baptismal name several years ago. Although she goes by a different name now, she explained, that doesn’t erase the history of her life prior to her current name. Retaining records of aspects of personal and corporate history is a good thing, she concluded. (Again, those of us in the gallery weren’t opposed to preserving necessary records. We simply want the Church to be very careful about how they are used in the present and future, to make sure that historical records are not projected into our present lives—or shared with others-- in ways that prevent us from free and full participation.)

The amendment was passed, followed by the full resolution. I don’t recall hearing any no votes. It then continued on to the House of Bishops where it was put on the consent calendar and passed on the last day of General Convention. I heard the news while I was at the airport waiting to board my flight.

* * * *

Now, two weeks out from the close of General Convention, as I think over all the amazing things that happened on so many fronts, and as I think about these particular resolutions that we put so much energy into supporting, I come back to Fredrica’s testimony in the House of Deputies. We are a people who have striven, who are striving, to claim and fully move into our baptismal identities. In this we stand with many—indeed, with all the body of Christ – and we share much even in the midst of some differences. And because of how we stand in the midst of that larger body we are reminded that we are always amid the already and the not yet. These resolutions are now entrusted to the General Convention and its (now shifting) interim bodies. They become the work of the Church, in progress, between now and 2018. Between now and 2018 we will join that progress, we will offer our support, insight, energy, and ultimately our trust. We look forward to having a name change liturgy in the Book of Occasional Services. We look forward to hanging our baptismal certificates on the wall. And while we still have much, much work still to do, right now let’s hang this General Convention on the wall—let’s celebrate. 

Name Change Liturgies and Trans People: a Church of England Perspective

This morning resolution D036 ("Adding a Name Change Rite to the Book of Occasional Services") was passed by its legislative committee and now heads to the House of Bishops, where it should be on their calendar tomorrow (and will subsequently need to pass the House of Deputies). As we await the forward movement of this resolution, TransEpiscopal is pleased to share this reflection from The Revd Dr. Christina Beardsley of the Church of England about how the Church of England is going through its own process regarding a name change liturgy. The major difference between D036 and the C of E's is that ours is not specifically a trans name change resolution, whereas theirs is in fact intended to be. TransEpiscopal is very glad that D036 proposes a rite broadly applicable to many people. At the same time, we are also glad to see that another part of the Anglican Communion is thinking about name change liturgies in connection with trans people. The Spirit seems to be moving in the midst of all of this, and we look forward to seeing what emerges. 

The Blackburn Diocesan Synod Motion on Liturgies for Transgender People

A Blog Post for TransEpsicopal by the Revd Dr Christina Beardsley,

(former Changing Attitude, England trustee for trans people)

First of all, thank you for inviting me to post again on the TransEpisocpal blog, and I’m sorry not to be joining the TransEpiscopal delegation at General Convention in Salt Lake City in July. I loved being with you in Indianapolis in 2012, and was so pleased and proud when the transgender non-discrimination resolutions were approved then.

Revd Dr. Christina Beardsley at the 77th General Convention

It would have been exciting to be present at this year’s General Convention, when name change liturgies are being considered because, as you’ve no doubt heard, the General Synod of the Church of England will also be discussing this … at a date to be confirmed; but discuss this matter it will, at some point.

Let me explain – just a little – how governance works in the Church of England. Unlike TEC, with its triennial meetings of the General Convention, the Church of England’s General Synod meets twice, sometimes three times a year, depending on its current business load. The meetings are held in February (in London), July (in York) and, if need be, in November (in London); they usually last three to four days.

General Synod is composed of three houses: Bishops, Clergy and Laity. The three Houses can, and do, meet separately – the House of Bishops (diocesans plus elected suffragans, plus, for the moment, elected women clergy representatives) and the College of Bishops (diocesans, suffragans, plus the elected women clergy) meet regularly at other times – but most of General Synod’s business and debating is conducted with members of all three houses present in the chamber, even if they subsequently vote by houses.

The Church of England’s synodical structure is made up of Deanery Synods (composed of laity elected by the parishes, plus the licensed clergy of the deanery), Diocesan Synods (composed of clergy and laity, elected respectively by the clergy and lay members of the deanery synods) and General Synod (also elected by the clergy and lay members of deanery synods). There are a number of additional constituencies as well, including cathedral deans and universities.

The opportunity to vote in Church elections is something I feel strongly about having been disenfranchised for at least four years as a consequence of my transition in 2001. It felt dreadful to be excluded from this important aspect of Church life, and I would urge anyone who has a vote to use it, wisely and well.

There will be elections to the General Synod in 2015 and much is happening to ensure that people with inclusive views are elected on this occasion. Synod members serve for five years, and it was soon apparent that some of those who served during the last quinquennium had not been transparent about their views when they stood as candidates. That period was dominated by the debates on the consecration of women as bishops, and given the struggle that entailed, some of those who had claimed, as candidates, to ‘favour’ women’s ministry, evidently did not equate that conviction with their inclusion in the episcopate.

The newly elected Synod will discuss the Shared Conversations on Human Sexuality that are taking place in the Church of England, with diocesan delegations currently meeting in regional groups, and it is vital that those elected support the full inclusion of lgbti people.

It will also be the new General Synod that will discuss the following motion from the Blackburn Diocesan Synod:   

“That this Synod, recognising the need for transgender people to be welcomed and affirmed in their parish church, calls on the House of Bishops to consider whether some nationally commended liturgical materials might be prepared to mark a person's gender transition."

The Church of England’s synodical structure is a two-way street. General Synod can send matters for discussion to Diocesan and Deanery Synods, as it did with Women Bishops. Likewise, a Deanery Synod can send a successful motion to its Diocesan Synod for debate and, if approved there, on for discussion by the General Synod, as has happened in this case.

The story of the Blackburn motion is one of grassroots Christian response. A young man approached his local church for baptism, following gender transition, but he had already been baptised, so the parish priest, the Revd Chris Newlands, Vicar of Lancaster Priory, worked with him to produce a suitable rite to mark this significant change in his life. Realising that this scenario must be occurring in other places, Chris brought it to the attention of his church council, and then his Deanery Synod (Lancaster and Morecambe), where a motion was passed, and sent on to the Blackburn Diocesan Synod. I prepared the background paper for the Blackburn Diocesan Synod debate, which is available here:

After receiving Diocesan Synod approval, the motion was sent on to the General Synod. It is now parked in a list of such motions which you can find here. It will be for the General Synod’s Business Committee to decide when to schedule it for debate, and one can anticipate delay, maybe until the regional Shared Conversations are complete. 

In the meantime there has been press interest in the motion, the most sensitive piece coming, naturally, from the Guardian with a companion piece by the Revd Giles Fraser, who mentions the late Revd Carol Stone (Carol and I were at theological college together, though neither was aware that the other was trans at that date – 1976-78). The Guardian article also mentions Susan Musgrove’s Service of Affirmation and Blessing, which took place in her parish church in Northumberland in 2013, and which I blogged about at the time (here).

Services of this kind, therefore, are happening already and have been for some time. Will the General Synod have the courage to invite the House of Bishops to explore and commend forms of prayer for Church of England parishes that wish to celebrate with and affirm their transgender congregants and parishioners? I do hope so, given that parish clergy are already recognising and responding to a pastoral need.

Chris Newlands was interviewed about the motion on the BBC Radio 4 Sunday programme (which covers religious current affairs) on the 24^th May 2015. Sadly, I don’t think you’ll be able to access the link but I’ll include it just in case (here). The interview begins at 6 minutes 58 seconds. 

Chris is asked why, if parish clergy are already devising services for transgender people, a common liturgy is needed. In reply, Chris notes that transgender people are a vulnerable group in society, often subject to bullying and abuse, and at high risk of suicide. He believes that an official Church of England service would be an important signal of the Church’s welcome, an affirmation of God’s love for transgender people that would counter the many negative messages transgender people often receive.

As the Revd Rachel Mann has commented, it will also be important for trans people to be consulted and involved in the preparation of any liturgies, given that we are the best people to articulate our own needs, and some of us will be skilled in theology, spirituality and worship (Rachel, for instance, is a poet as well as being a priest).

In the Sibyls, Christian spiritualityfor transgender people,  which I’ve belonged to for nearly two decades, we have noticed a huge change. In the early days of Sibyls, the mid to late 1990s, trans people were rejected by their churches, and Sibyls events the only place where members could receive Holy Communion as themselves. Today, society is so much better informed about trans matters, and clergy and congregations less judgemental and more receptive to trans people. Sadly, rejection can still happen, of course, but a transformation has taken place, and the grassroots desire for Church of England liturgies to mark trans people’s lives is part of that.

At this side of the pond we will watch with interest as similar proposals come before the General Convention, praying for you, as I know you pray for us. Pray please that the Blackburn motion, now passed, will not be delayed too long in coming before the General Synod, and for its successful progress once it reaches there.      

God Was There: Open Hearings on D036 & D037

by the Revd Dr. Cameron Partridge

What a whirlwind the last couple of days at General Convention have been. Friday the news of the Supreme Court’s decision blew through Convention like wildfire. People are absolutely jubilant. And then yesterday Bishop Michael Curry of North Carolina was elected the next Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church on a landslide, first ballot vote. He follows Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as a pioneer: she has been the first woman elected to this position, while he is the first African American. He is an firey, articulate preacher and evangelist, the kind of inspiring leader you want to get up and follow to the ends of the earth. Yesterday the House of Deputies also discussed C019 “Establish Response to Systemic Racial Injustice”. As Deputy Jennifer Baskerville Burrows wrote, “To hear a white member of the [Social Justice and U.S. Policy] committee say words to the effect of, “we have the chance to make race the centerpiece of the next triennium” signals a shift.  If funded, resolution C019 will put real muscle (to the tune of $1.2 million) behind the work of racial reconciliation for both justice and mission strategy.”

Amid this intense, spirited movement, two of the resolutions that TransEpiscopal has been particularly tracking have also made their way through the open hearing process.

Andrew Amanda testifying
in support of D037

D037 came first. This is the resolution that calls for a study of the canons to clarify that and/or how people who have legally changed their name(s) can have their names amended in church records and registries and church certificates reissued. It came to the committee on Governance and Structure last night amid several other complex resolutions on the possibilities of restructuring aspects of our Church’s governance. To begin, the chaplain of the committee lead us in prayer and a hymn, one of my favorites: “God is love and where true love is, God [Godself] is there.” When our resolution came up, something like six or seven of us testified in support of it. No one testified against. We told stories of how we or people we know have been impacted in our full access to the life of the Church by not being able to change records in a consistent way, or to have certificates reissued. After we were finished, a number of deputies and bishops came up to us, thanking us for our testimony. As the Structure committee sifts through all the complexities of the restructuring resolutions, our stories were, as one committee member later related to me, very straight forward and incarnational. We hope it moves out of committee and to one of the houses quickly.

Then twelve hours later, at 7:30 this morning, we gathered again to testify in support of D036. This resolution, on “Adding a Name Change Liturgy to the Book of Occasional Services”, came to the Committee on Prayerbook and Liturgy. Once again we began and ended with prayer and song, and once more we had a great group of people prepared to testify. I am hoping that some of these folks will write about their experiences as well. I lead off my own testimony by recounting an experience I had in 2001 when I first claimed my name. I described how I passed a difficult night, sharing the name Cameron with loved ones. When I went to church the following morning and was asked to do the first reading, I had been stunned to find myself standing before the congregation reading the story of Jacob wrestling with the divine stranger who then gave him the name Israel. Flash forward several years, my tesimony continued, to my years in parish ministry in which I had a trans parishioner who 

Cameron Partridge testifying in support of D036.
Photo credit: the Living Church / Covenant magazine

wanted to take on his chosen name in the context of the congregation. And so I put together a rite as a component of the Sunday liturgy, drawing in part upon the name change rite in Changes: Prayers and Services Honoring Rites of Passage that is the subject of D036. To be able to take up one’s name in the midst of one’s congregation, to be named and seen in that way, can be a profound recognition of the deep spiritual significance of embodying one’s name, I concluded. I was also struck that in addition to the other trans folks who testified—and, again, there were several powerful speakers – there were non trans ones as well, lifting up the flexibility of this resource to be used by many people. These were folks in a religious order who talked about the possibilities of claiming a new name in connection with religious life. This rite is additionally applicable to situations like adoption or divorce/remarriage. I especially appreciate that this resource came out of indigenous Episcopal congregations, communities that have long recognized the spiritual significance of names and particularly of taking on a new name later in life.

We now wait for D036 and D037 to go to their houses of origin. The name change liturgy resolution should first travel to the House of Bishops, while the name change canon study resolution should head to the House of Deputies. Meanwhile a number of resolutions related to liturgical marriage equality are coming forward to the Houses of Bishops and Deputies as well. Stay tuned on all of these fronts.

Amid all of this, the hymn from the beginning of the D037 hearing continues to echo in my ears: God is love and where true love is, God Godself is there.