Trial liturgy premature

THE WORK of liturgy is to “re-point the person praying, taking him somewhere else,” says Lauren Winner. I like that way of putting it.  The Anglican Church of Canada recently distributed a “Trial Pastoral Liturgy for Journeys of Gender Transition and Affirmation.” Both the title and a close reading suggest that the goal here is to offer care and affirmation.  But good liturgy isn’t primarily pastoral care, and it is not oriented toward affirming our particular journeys. Rather, liturgy is meant to draw us into the life of Christ, and the ancient wisdom and ways of the apostolic faith. Of course, this doesn’t diminish the events that are liturgized – the Marriage service, for example, draws the couple and their relationship into the life of Christ, defining marriage in that light.

I believe that the skilled liturgists who developed this trial liturgy will have attempted to fulfil this purpose. You can see references to key biblical stories and themes and the effort to draw the experience of gender transitioning or renaming into those stories. For example, the trial liturgy uses the renaming of Abram and Sarai to connect with the experience of the person expressing a new identity. 

But here’s the problem: the goal of affirming a certain experience was established, and then the writers seemed to cast about for fitting biblical stories and themes. To my mind, this is an example of Biblical eisegesis, or reading into the Bible, and in the end the result is dubious at best. And does a liturgy that takes the lead from a particular kind of experience risk actually neglecting the complexity of individuals, in favour of an abstraction? Are we prepared to liturgize the full spectrum of these experiences, which must include not only feelings of freedom and self-actualization, but also, for some, despair, confusion and regret?

Instead of putting forward this trial liturgy, the Anglican Church of Canada needs to grapple seriously and theologically with issues around gender transition and identity. We should also remember that especially for Anglicans, liturgy shapes doctrine (lex orandi, lex credendi). A trial liturgy that may be in conflict with other Anglican doctrines leads to a further decentralizing and splintering of the Church. While I’m pleased that there is an official feedback process for this trial liturgy, the cart is still way out in front of the horse. 

So, from an institutional standpoint, how should we approach this difficult issue?

In the same-sex marriage debate, while the theological commission that produced “This Holy Estate” (2015), was lacking in diversity, still, at least there was an effort to do some theological work before attempting to change a key doctrine of the Church.

If there were to be a theological commission again, the hope is that it would be more representative of the breadth and diversity of the Anglican Church of Canada. 

The trial rite leaves open a number of questions, among them:

Embodiment and Identity: Is there an unhealthy level of mind-body dualism, or even some Gnostic tendencies, in the typical language around this issue? What do the Hebrew Scriptures teach us about bodies?

The Doctrine of Creation: What does it mean to be a creature, and to see our bodies, male and female, as gifts designed by God? Does our sexual differentiation reveal to us something about our Creator? And while a small group, and distinct from those who identify as trans, how may our work also take into account the lives and experiences of intersex people?

The Fall: How do we see ourselves, all of us, as part of God’s good creation, broken, yet being healed and redeemed? How will we accompany those experiencing the anguish of gender dysphoria, recognizing that on this earth, there may not be complete healing (either through medical interventions or through spiritual care)? 

Theological work on these questions and others could inform discussions within the House of Bishops, COGs, dioceses, synods and parishes.

Conversations around inclusion and pastoral care for sexual minorities are not new to the church – and while the “progressive” approach might currently hold sway, I am still thankful that we do not shy away from these difficult questions. Further, I am not so sure that the divide between “conservatives” and “liberals/progressives” is as clear cut as it has been on same-sex marriage. But in any case, healthy conversations will require of us all the humility to acknowledge that this is a far-ranging conversation, and in terms of pastoral care, resources and practical questions we probably have a lot more work to do. 

We need also to remember that while we can speak broadly of “trans issues” or “trans people,” there is great diversity. We have ten-year-olds experiencing acute suffering through gender dysphoria; we also have those whose main goal appears to be more philosophical or ideological – the replacing of the gender binary with the concept of gender fluidity. (We should note that this can put them at odds with those whose strong desire is very binary: Their body is one sex, and they wish to be the other one, or feel that they are the other one.) Then there are those whose motivation seems to be more related to sexual desire, sometimes seen in the more theatrical expressions of gender crossing. Each of these might invite a different pastoral response. But in every case, Scripture must inform and shape that response.   

In the meantime, pastoral care does not wait for a theological Commission – or a liturgy, for that matter! It should always be done with sensitivity, patience and willingness to walk alongside individuals and their families who struggle with these issues. Pastoral care is not just done by pastors, but by church families who offer a warm and loving welcome to all, who are humbly aware of the brokenness we all experience, who petition together for our healing, and wait patiently, and suffer together, especially when that healing is not yet, or not yet complete.  TAP