• Five Questions about Pride, Gender, Drag Queens and Religion

    UPDATE

    Free Pride has now updated its policy and welcomes Drag Performers.
    See here for details: https://freeprideglasgow.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/free-pride-to-welcome-drag-performers/
    I’m leaving the post below up here as the discussions it has started seem to me to have value in themselves.

    IMG_3922 with the sisters small

     

    “Can I walk with you a bit? I’ve got some questions.”

    “Hi there, of course you can. Where are you from?”

    “Well, from Australia actually. This is my first Pride.”

    “Oh right, are you enjoying it?”

    “Oh yes, but I wanted to ask you something. The thing is, I was wondering if you are real. Are you real?”

    “Oh yes, I’m real.”

    “But the nuns…they’re not real, right?”

    The picture at the top is one of my favourite pictures from Pride and the conversation I’ve just related is one of my favourite pride encounters.

    This week there’s a bit of a stooshie going on in the LGBT+ world because of plans for a Pride event in Glasgow in a couple of weeks time.

    First of all, you need to know that there’s been a schism. Pride Glasgow is the main event and will be organising the Pride March through Glasgow, starting and ending at the dear green place – Glasgow Green. Secondly you need to know that once the march is over there will be a day long event on the Green. And thirdly you need to know that there’s a charge being imposed on those who want to get into the event. And therein lies the schism. There is a body of opinion, with which I have some sympathy, which finds gates and barriers around Pride a nonsense. And thus there has evolved a split, a schism, a divergence. There will be a new event this year called Free Pride which does what it says on the tin – it will be a free event that you don’t have to pay to attend. Yes, that’s right, it is a bit like the Church of Scotland and the Free Church of Scotland. Close your eyes and make a wish and you’ll find out that there will be Wee Free Pride before we get to August too.

    Furthermore, Free Pride has issued an edict saying that it won’t book any cis drag acts (in other words, men who were born as men presenting themselves as female characters (caricatures?) for the entertainment of the company, out of sensitivity to those in the Free Pride movement who are trans people and those who don’t identify as one gender or another.

    This has led to headlines going all around the world suggesting that drag has been banned at Pride in Glasgow. Now, that’s not true. There will be drag acts at the main Pride.  And at Free Pride, people of any gender (however one defines that) will be able to attend wearing anything they like and presenting themselves as any gender(s) they choose.

    Nonetheless there has been searing condemnation of the Free Pride movement from some quarters and the whole thing gives me much to think about. What’s more, what I think about it changes whenever I think about it, which may be entirely appropriate when considering those who live out the fluidity of gender more than I do most of the time.

    So anyway here’s a five questions that I’m trying to think through about pride, gender, drag and religion.

    How are religious people going to begin a conversation about trans and non-binary issues?

    The truth is, I’ve been engaged in LGBT+ conversations with LGBT+ people for a very long time. The reality is that the church conversation has focussed on G a huge amount, L not so much, B hardly at all, T almost never and the + just makes people say “What?”

    And yet in every congregation I’ve worked in there have been people making huge decisions about themselves in terms of gender.

    I’ve yet to hear from an anti-gay, anti-divorce evangelical as to what a straight married couple should do if one of them transitions and begins to live life from within a different gender identity.

    Now, I know that all couples are different and need to make their own decisions for themselves, all people’s experience is different and all that, but to someone who holds anti-gay, anti-divorce views, which trumps which? Should such a couple stay together if they want to? Are they then in a same-sex marriage or are they not? Might either of them be refused ordination or ministry on the grounds of their situation?

    And believe me, these are not hypothetical questions. Not at all.

    When I was a university chaplain, I sometimes worked with people who were one gender when they came to university and who had a different gender identity when they left. For people of faith who are living with such a situation, there’s all kinds of questions that have no answer and no-where even to ask the questions.

    I don’t incidentally think that the difference between a drag act and a trans person is always the difference between apples and pears. Usually it is. Sometimes it just isn’t. I’ve known people who did drag because for one reason or another they couldn’t transition and didn’t feel able to come out as anything other than an act. This identity stuff is hugely complex.

    There’s a suggestion currently in the Episcopal Church based in the USA that a naming ceremony might be devised which might enable people in a new identity to have that marked in a religious way. My own view is that here in Scotland we’ve already got quite a useful liturgy in the form of the Affirmation liturgy which might well be used for such a situation. However, I’ve never heard of any bishop’s guidelines on how to use it. If I asked for such guidelines, I have to say I’d be surprised if they were useful.

    How can the LGBT+ communities combat transphobia and sexism?

    But if there’s a silence about trans issues in religious communities, there’s not always silence in LGBT+ communities and yet what we hear isn’t always good. Now, in my view, gay men have more of a problem being respectful of others who might find themselves identifying under the LGBT+ umbrella than others do. I don’t know why that should be but I do know that in my world those who are closeted are very often less respectful of women than those who are not and I suspect that reaches out across the rainbow.

    As people come out more and more, I think we can have more of an open conversation about these issues but I suspect that it won’t always be easy.

    I’ve been surprised by the Free Pride decision about drag acts and I don’t entirely agree with it. However, I can understand how some people might think that some drag is less than affirming. Of course it is. Sometimes it is downright offensive. But is it offensive intrinsically or isn’t it? I’m not convinced that it is though I’m also not sure I’ll always hold that view. Notwithstanding the fact that I don’t entirely agree with the Free Pride position, I can’t say I entirely disagree with it either.

    Can we speak of ethical drag?

    So, can we speak of drag acts that are ethically better than other drag acts? Heavens!

    I think my position on this begins by remembering the heritage of those in drag who have fought for my freedoms. It was drag queens who were at the front of the action at the Stonewall Riots in 1969. There’s a long heritage of people speaking truth from under a cross-dressing wig.

    This has perhaps been exemplified most brilliantly recently by some of the speeches of Panti Bliss in Ireland.

    I can’t speak against someone who can do this. I want to add my own standing ovation:


    Indeed, I’m in awe of such a powerful political speech. You can hear the passion, the frustration, the fury – and it is fury that took its own place in helping to change the law in Ireland recently.

    What about clerical drag?

    People who have silk robes in their vestry closets should not cast aspersions. The truth is, clerics have been dragging up for years though not entirely for the same reasons as drag acts at Pride.

    I was recently doing one of my Sacristy Safari tours and reached into a cupboard for some robes. As soon as I put them on, someone gasped, “Oh, you look different in those; no, you are different in those!” And I think that’s true.

    Generally speaking, I think that clerical drag is used to de-emphasise sexuality and gender identity. I can understand female colleagues wanting good fitting clerical shirts but I’ve never been able to understand how anyone would want feminine vestments. When we put on our drag it is to take (drag?) attention away from ourselves rather than towards it. At least, I think that’s what is going on. But then I’m not (contrary to what most people think) a vestment queen.

    How will the the future will judge us?

    One of the reasons that I’ve hesitated before commenting on the situation with Pride and Free Pride in Glasgow is that I’ve found myself unable to work out how the future will judge us.

    I can imagine that in 50 years, drag acts might well be seen as being as uncomfortable to watch as the Black and White Minstrel Show is today – an anachronism of history that people simply will struggle to believe was ever acceptable.

    However, I can also imagine and alternative to that too in that in 50 years our attitude to gender might be completely different to the way it is today. I can imagine a future where all gender is regarded as performative, where gender-play is taught in nursery school and where the drag queens of old are hailed as the vanguard in a movement that has freed the world from expectation and conformity.

    I have no idea which future is the more likely.

    The truth is, it isn’t just gender that is fluid. Mores and morals are fluid too and we don’t know how our own times are going to be judged.

    I happen to think that I’ve seen drag acts that have made me laugh and I’ve certainly known drag artist(e)s who have brought about the liberation of others, built community and done lots of good. I also know people who are offended by drag itself and who find themselves silenced as they try to express why.

    Glasgow’s going to have a pretty good Pride offering this year, in amongst all this. We’re going to have a Pride event as of old where anyone living in any gender identity can come and enjoy a range of acts including cis drag acts. We’re also going to have a Free Pride event where anyone living in any gender identity can come and enjoy themselves in a place where there won’t be such performers.

    I’m not sure whether it is because I’m a good Anglican trying to find a via media or whether it is because I’m trying to be a good catholic embracing all that God has made or whether it is just that I can’t make my mind up, but I find that I have a foot in both camps. (So to speak).

    Let there be Pride – lots of it. Let there be love, joy and peace.

    And let us, inside and outside closets, churches, LGBT+ communities and yes, both within and far outside our comfort zones talk about these things. For they are not settled, not clear-cut and downright interesting.

    Amen

10 responses to “Response from the College of Bishops”

  1. Father Ron Smith Avatar

    Thank you, Fr, Kelvin, for making the contents of the SEC Bishops’ Response to the Letter from 50 people concerned about their attitude towards the openness of the Church to the prospect of its eirenic treatment of clergy and Church members – desirous of solemnising Same-Sex monogamous relationships in the context of Marriage.

    It seems to me – an outsider, but a member of the New Zealand Anglican Church – that the Letter has challenged your Bishops to positive action on behalf of Christians – and others – who consider faithful Gay relationships to be equally acceptable to God as those of heterosexuals. The Church, surely, must act to affirm faithful monogamous relationships on both sides of the spectrum.

    Let’s hope your General Synod will move ahead to affirm such relationships, so that the Church may get on with other aspects of its mission; knowing that human justice for ALL people is paramount in the propagation of the Gospel. If SEC is pro-active in this important matter, it can only encourage churches like my own – in ACANZP – to follow suit.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      The General Synod is, to some degree, inhibited from sorting this out until the bishops themselves decide to back a proposal which would allow all to flourish in the church.

      The synod contains the bishops and they have an effective veto on canonical legislation.

      I’m baffled at the moment as to why they have not rallied around a position which allows all of us, both those in favour and those against, to act according to our consciences in this area. I think that this is a position which would re-unite the church again. I know those who disagree with me on the substantive question about lesbian and gay relationships who are as mystified and as frustrated as I am that we are taking so long to deal with this and who, like me, want to get on with the business of letting Scotland’s people know that God loves them.

      Everyone I know says they want to come to a resolution which does not de-church other Episcopalians. The position that the bishops have taken comes very close to de-churching some of us and I remain greatly concerned for the Province as a whole.

  2. Pam Avatar
    Pam

    From my reading, it’s a carefully worded document that attempts not to pre-empt what may happen at Synod. Talking to each other face-to-face is always better than written communication, in my opinion. This issue does need a resolution and I’m sure that people on both sides of the debate, in good faith, would want to honour each other. Bishops have a tough job but so do the people who don’t get the opportunity to attend Synod, for whatever reason.

  3. Chris Hansen Avatar
    Chris Hansen

    I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of being talked about by people who would rather not talk to me. This “listening process” that the C of E is going through is bull. They’ve been doing variations on that for years. Nothing comes out of it except more conversations. No progress is made thereby.

    The trick is to push the bishops to take a stand and do some prophetic leading.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      The current process in the Church of England is related to the Cascade Process that we’ve had in Scotland.

      Some people have benefitted from the process here. There’s no getting away from that. It has been a good thing for some but by no means all.

      Some have felt very disappointed and upset that the bishops themselves now appear not to have been working in accord with the principles of the process itself.

      And some, like me who have been working for change in this area for years, were excluded from the design of the process and from its major set piece provincial event.

  4. FakePete Avatar
    FakePete

    I feel very angry reading that.

  5. Steven Avatar
    Steven

    Dear Kelvin

    Interesting developments. Not much in that letter really.

    What would you do if you were Primus?

    The reality is the SEC has always (at least in my mind) been open to a more progressive stance on this kind of issue and yet does contain those for whom this would be (very?) difficult.

    Would you seek to maintain unity by some kind of compromise (CoE and women Bishops) or would you forge on ahead with prophetic change leaving those who didn’t like it to make their own choices (like the Episcopal Church)…?

    The New Testament Christians didn’t seem to care much for unity at the expense of integrity and justice.

    For my own part I think it is better for churches not to try and fudge this issue (look at the terrible mess in the Church of Scotland) but to agree a position and then firmly pursue same, come what may. People would not tolerate an institution that allowed a minority of people to adopt racist positions and so it should not really be any different for those who want to maintain positions that discriminate against same-sex couples.

    All this is – of course – easy for me to say.

    Steven

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      What would I do if I were the Primus? Well that’s a good question.

      The first thing I’d remember is that the Primus is simply the spokesperson for the College of Bishops and doesn’t have the authority that, for example, an archbishop might think he possesses.

      I would however as a bishop argue in a favour of a solution which allowed people to act according to their conscience in this area. I don’t agree that people should be forced to “firmly pursue” a particular stance over this issue. It isn’t who we are. In fact I think the problem at the moment is that people are being forced to pursue a position that they don’t agree with and that situation is unsustainable.

      The reasons for not forcing people to marry gay couples are these:

      1 – No gay couple wants to be married by someone who has been forced to do so but who would really prefer not to.

      2 – It would be illegal anyway and our canon law determines that we will abide by Scots Law.

      3 – We already have a precedent with divorce – no-one is forced to marry anyone who is divorced, they can chose whether or not to do so. I think that is a reasonable compromise and it has served the church well.

      4 – I don’t think anyone should be compelled to marry anyone and that is the situation that we currently have.

      However there are some positive things that a Scottish bishop could do at the moment. Although I agree that same-sex marriages cannot take place in churches or be done by SEC priests until there is a decision made by General Synod I don’t agree that it is the case that someone cannot affirm allegiance to the canons of the church because they happen to be in a same-sex marriage.

      I think de-coupling those two issues is urgent.

      I would argue in favour of an equal opportunities policy for the church.

      I would try to seek a way of bringing forward a synodical resolution which would allow same-sex marriage, allow those who don’t want to be party to it not to have to be and I’d argue in favour of that as a godly compromise that would allow us to get on with our gospel business of sharing the good news.

      If I were the Primus I would probably be encouraging the College of Bishops to allow me to say publicly that we regretted that some people had been excluded from the Cascade Process and I’d seek to commit the College to a more consultative leadership style. In particular I’d want to say that there should never be a process about people that did not include them in the design of the structures of the conversation. I’d want to say that we would never construct a conversation about the ministry of women without women being involved, we would never construct a conversation about ethnic minorities in the church without appropriate consultation with people who belong to ethnic minorities and I’d commit the church never to make the mistake that has been repeatedly made of constructing a conversation about LGBT people without their involvement.

      If I were wise, I’d be learning a lot more about the experience of trans people because I’d realise that trans issues are inevitably coming our way.

      Does that answer the question?

      1. Steven Avatar
        Steven

        Yes, it does rather. Thanks.

        For the avoidance of doubt I would not advocate forcing anyone to marry anyone. When I said it is better to adopt a position and then pursue that I meant in terms of whether or not to permit equal marriage in the SEC (which is not the same as saying that all priests would therefore be compelled to marry gay folk).

        We have just filed an equal marriage petition in Belfast, so thoughts and prayers all welcome!

        Steven

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Fifth Anniversary

    Well, today is the Feast of the Visitation and that means that it is also the anniversary of my becoming the Provost and Rector at St Mary’s Cathedral, Glasgow. I remember my installation service with great fondness. It was wonderful service liturgically and the shape of things to come. Does it feel like a long…

  • Colin Slee’s J’accuse

    My goodness, it has been a busy week for those concerned over the issue of gay leaders in the churches. Monday saw the Church of Scotland making its welcome but tentative steps forward. Today it is the leaking from beyond the grave of an astonishing memorandum from the late Colin Slee, recently Dean of Southwark.…

  • What the Church of Scotland decided today

    Well, a significant debate in the Church of Scotland today on questions relating to ministers in same-sex relationships and also with regard to ministers who are looking to bless couples in same-sex relationships. They have chosen a very modest step forward. It’s not a great triumph for the cause, but the alternative was worse. So,…

  • BBC Broadcast

    My very greatful thanks to all those who helped to make the BBC Broadcast possible. I’m very pleased with it. It is a big corporate task involving script input and delivery, choiring, organing, breakfast service, stewarding, serving, musician supporting and congregation turner-uping. Without any of these it would be greatly diminished. I’m told that the…