Gender recognition
AFFINITY (formerly the British Evangelical Council, which was founded in 1952) is a network of evangelical Christian denominations, church groupings and independent causes. It is probably the largest association of exclusively Bible-centred churches in the United Kingdom, representing approximately 1,200 congregations.
We would like to express our wholehearted support for the inclusion of a general exemption within the above Statutory Instrument, in the following terms:
It is not an offence under section 22 of the Act to disclose protected information1 if the disclosure is made by a person acting in his official capacity2 within an organised religion3, so long as the disclosure is in compliance with the doctrines, teachings, traditions or practices of the religion or in accordance with the religious susceptibilities of a significant number of its followers4.
This general exemption would enable our churches to carry out their proper and fair responsibilities in connection with marriages, appointments and ordinations, and applications for church membership and the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Communion).
These procedures are basic to the life of national and local churches, and in several hundred years the way in which these procedures have been carried out has not been regarded as controversial. Unless the application of biblical principles is now and suddenly to be outlawed altogether, the exemption must be broad enough to allow material facts to be disclosed, so that decisions in these areas of church life may be taken, as they always have been, in the light of all the information which is relevant to those decisions.
For this not to be permitted, on an issue as fundamental to an individual’s humanity as this, would be alien to the nature of life, and the relationships which exist, within a local church. It would replace the warmth and confidence which characterises the common purpose of a church congregation at its best with a superficiality and falsehood which is foreign to the pattern of honesty and straightforwardness advocated in the Scriptures. A simple example of this is found in Ephesians 4:25 - “Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbour, for we are all members of one body.”
We would particularly like to comment on the four areas of church life in which in our view it would be essential for disclosure to be permitted.
1. Marriage
The view that “God created man in his own image . male and female he created them” [Genesis 1:27] is a fundamental belief in our churches. On the basis of this, we cannot believe that it is possible for a person to change sex in actual fact. We acknowledge that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 has given legal recognition to alternative gender acquisition, but this is not the same as a real change having taken place.
It would not be acceptable therefore that two persons who at birth were of the same gender should present themselves to be married in our churches, as in our eyes they would still be of the same gender.
While the draft exceptions permit a minister of religion in certain circumstances to make a lawful disclosure, these exceptional provisions do not meet the realities of necessary and customary practice within our churches. Not only would the current wording of the draft exceptions require anyone who is remotely likely to be asked to conduct a marriage ceremony to make a public declaration, but it completely fails to address one of the major effects of the Act as far as our churches are concerned - the corporate nature of the decision-making process.
Although a minister of religion in our churches obviously has a crucial involvement in whether a wedding can be permitted to take place, he is by no means the only person involved. In the variety of circumstances and tiers of responsibility which exist in connection with our churches and their buildings, it would be perfectly normal for a body of elders or trustees to be involved in decisions as to whether a particular marriage ceremony could be permitted to take place. If the applicant’s connection with the church is more remote, this would increase the likelihood that more of the church’s leaders and officers would need to be consulted. It would be a travesty if in these circumstances a minister of religion was not permitted to disclose a matter of gender transfer.
2. Appointments and ordinations
We are concerned that the expression “minister of religion” in the draft Exceptions could be interpreted more narrowly than is required within the context of the churches we represent. Other workers in the church, such as a full-time pastoral worker, exercise their ministry in the same sensitive contexts as a minister of religion, but might not be regarded by some as a “minister of religion” in the legal sense. For the avoidance of any difficulty in this area, we feel that the general exemption suggested above would prevent needless arguments about definitions in those areas of Christian ministry where there was a deemed necessity for the ministry concerned to be exercised by a man. It could cause difficulties if it became known later that there had been a gender re-assignment, and that it had not been possible for there to have been complete transparency in the appointment process. It is surely unreasonable and disproportionate for a church to be subjected to the risk of being torn apart - which can happen if a strong biblical ethos is betrayed without the knowledge of the members - merely to give a very few individuals the opportunity to seek an unsuitable appointment.
3. Membership applications
In many of our churches, decisions to admit new members are made by a meeting of all the existing church members. If an applicant has undergone a change of legal gender, this would be a relevant material fact. It would not in itself necessarily mean membership would be refused, but in view of its doctrinal and pastoral implications, it would be wholly inappropriate for the matter not to be made known at all to the members making the decision. A minister or church leader who knew of the gender change ought to be in a position legally to be able to disclose this in these circumstances.
4. Baptism and communion
Ever since the church began following the resurrection and ascension of Christ, churches have administered the sacraments of baptism and of the Lord’s Supper (Communion). In some instances admission to these sacraments is as a result of formal processes, but in many cases it is the result of subjective pastoral judgements in individual cases. The great majority of churches represented by Affinity practises the baptism of believers, and this involves a judgement on whether the person is qualified for baptism according to the biblical standards. Several church leaders may well be involved in the decision about an individual applicant’s baptism, and again it would be unthinkable that such decisions should be taken without it being permitted for leaders to disclose to one another facts, such as a gender re-assignment, which may be material to that decision. It is the practice of some churches to grant by decision the right to partake in Communion services, and those involved in these decisions would need the liberty to share information. Again this does not presuppose that the fact of gender reassignment will necessarily affect the right of a person to be granted these sacraments, but without the freedom to share information, such details could never be taken into account. The intrusion of law in order to bind church freedom in these areas is a strange incongruity, and bolsters the argument for a general exemption.
In each of the above circumstances it might be pointed out that a great deal of protection against the offence of disclosure is afforded by the provision that an offence is not committed if permission to disclose is given by the person who has undergone gender change. In most cases we are sure that this permission would be likely to be given, but this does not alter the fact that the problem would be serious in any case where permission was withheld.
This is because a minister would be left without a legal course of action consistent with his conscience and ministry. If he refuses to submit the candidate’s name to those with responsibility for decisions in connection with marriage ceremonies, appointments, membership applications and sacraments - he would be leaving himself open to criticism for that omission, while having no legal opportunity to explain the reason for it. This is both unjust and unreasonable.
In the light of all the above, we have no doubt that a general exemption in the terms suggested is workable, fair and proportionate to the interests of all the parties affected.
Submitted by Rod Badams, on behalf of Affinity’s Social Issues Team
Tel. 020 8681 7422. Email:
References
1 - Expression lifted from s 22(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and defined in s 22(2).
2 - Expression lifted from s 22(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and defined in s 22(3).
3 - Expression lifted from s 19(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (as amended).
4 - Expression lifted from s 19(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (as amended).
