ViaMedia

Category: Disability

  • Be Kind

    by Canon Dr Phil Groves, who was a CMS Mission partner and lecturer in theology at St Philip’s Kongwa in Tanzania. He served at the Anglican Communion Office for 10 years. He has attended two Lambeth Conferences, three Primates’ Meetings and four ACCs. He has a PhD on Partnership in the Anglican Communion and is Vicar of the parishes of Cuddington and of Stone, Dinton and Hartwell. He is dyslexic and a member of the Church of England’s Neurodiversity Working Group.

    An extraordinary article entitled Nonsense and Neurodivergence in response to our motion as the Neurodiversity Working Group to General Synod has just been posted on The Critic website by Andrew Tettenborn – a Professor of private, commercial and maritime law at the University of Swansea.

    I wanted to reply directly but The Critic does not appear to allow for comments on their opinion pieces and while the Critic tells us that Tettenborn tweets at @seatradelaw – that X handle does not exist. It appears that The Critic does not like debate and dialogue, just shouting into an echo chamber.

    Tettenborn’s key criticism comes in the penultimate paragraph where he says:

    The chief difficulty with this document is that, though produced in a religious environment and making a nod to religious ideas, it is actually almost entirely secular in approach, interestingly not containing a single reference to scripture. The twenty-first century mantra Be Kind runs through it like the letters in a stick of rock.

    Kindness – far from a twenty-first century mantra – is a key Biblical concept central to the Biblical faith. Here are just 8 examples:

    1. Ephesians 4:32
      Be kind to one another.
    2. 1 Corinthians 13:4
      Love is patient; love is kind.
    3. Galatians 5:22
      The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. 
    4. Micah 6:8
      He has told you, O mortal, what is good;
          and what does the Lord require of you
      but to do justice, and to love kindness,
          and to walk humbly with your God?
    5. Proverbs 21:21
      Whoever pursues righteousness and kindness will find life and honour
    6. Colossians 3:12
      As God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience.
    7. Matthew 25:34-36
      Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.”
    8. Zechariah 7:9 (ESV)
      Thus says the Lord of hosts: Render true judgements, show kindness and mercy to one another.

    The mantra of the age is rather that of conflict and disparaging others. The temptation is to be cruel not kind and I find no Biblical consensus in favour of cruelty.

    We are proud that Ephesians 4:32 runs through our motion like the letters in a stick of rock: Paul told us to ‘be kind to one another’.

    Theology informs all that we do as the Neurodiversity Working Group. We are not driven by a secular ‘human rights’ agenda: rather we are energised by the Scriptures that call out for diversity and inclusion. We remember 1 Cor 1:26 ‘Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.’

    We are energised by Paul’s description of the church as the Body of Christ.

    Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

    Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be?

    The celebration of diversity and the inclusion of all is a core doctrine of the church. Just read any of the gospels and see how Jesus welcomes the outcast and challenges the powerful.

    Along with kindness, another key Biblical word runs through our thinking and that is flourishing. Jesus said he came to bring life and life in all its fullness (John 10:10). Our aim is for all to find this fullness as individuals, collectively as a church and for this flourishing to be embraced in society.

    Tettenborn thinks I am someone with ‘mental issues’ and unsuitable to be a vicar. All through my time in the Church of England I have faced unnecessary barriers because of my dyslexia. I was not considered capable of much in the Church of England, so I went to work for the Anglican Communion worldwide and ended up solving problems for Archbishops of Canterbury and working alongside primates, bishops, and some of the most impressive lay people imaginable. I have a PhD in theology, I’ve written or edited serious books, advised bishops and archbishops, preached at numerous cathedrals around the world, pioneered effective peace initiatives, inspired successful charities, and, now I am back in parish ministry I am highly regarded -especially by children who love my storytelling.

    Tettenborn thinks it is ‘no disrespect to say to anyone [that is me] that they are not fitted for this role.’ I have my faults – and just like Archbishop Sarah says, dyslexia makes you very aware of your failings – but I have not done badly. I do think it is disrespectful.

    To me, Tettenborn’s article sounds like a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. In response, we should eagerly desire the greater gifts: faith, hope and love. The greatest of these is love and love is kind.

    I didn’t get that from a trendy woke writer – it comes from the heart of the Bible.

  • All Kinds of Minds

    by Canon Dr Phil Groves, who was a CMS Mission partner and lecturer in theology at St Philip’s Kongwa in Tanzania. He served at the Anglican Communion Office for 10 years. He has attended two Lambeth Conferences, three Primates’ Meetings and four ACCs. He has a PhD on Partnership in the Anglican Communion and is Vicar of the parishes of Cuddington and of Stone, Dinton and Hartwell. He is dyslexic and a member of the Church of England’s Neurodiversity Working Group

    If you look at the Agenda for the July General Synod, you will see that on Friday Synod will be asked to support a motion affirming neurodiversity in the life of the church. This is a day of hope.

    Our world is blessed by the diversity of thinking. If we all thought the same way we would not have had the breadth of creativity, insight, and scientific developments that shapes who we are.

    We are all part of this wonderful world of different thinking. We all have a part in a ‘neurodiverse’ world.

    Most of us have brains that work in a way that social scientists have described as ‘neurotypical’. Some of us are ‘neurodivergent’. Collectively, we are neurodiverse.

    ‘Neurodivergence is how we talk about minority ways of processing the world. Neurodivergent minds include, for example: being autistic, ADHD, dyslexic, dyspraxic; having dyscalculia, sensory processing differences, Tourettes, aphantasia, or executive functioning differences. Neurotypicality is how we talk about the majority ways of thinking’.[i]

    Archbishop Sarah is the first Archbishop of Canterbury to be open and confident about her neurodivergence – in her case, dyslexia. She has brought hope to all of us who know we are neurodivergent. In her article for the Autumn 25 edition of the Church of England Newsletter Disability Matters, she spoke of her confidence that we are all called by name by God (Isaiah 43).

    She has been speaking about this for years. In her landmark interview with Kate Griggs of Made by Dyslexia in 2021 – alongside her successor as Chief Nursing Officer and fellow dyslexic Ruth May – she talks about how we are all unique and all made in the image of God.

    Dyslexia is seen in our society as a weakness to be mitigated. When I told a bishop I was dyslexic, he offered his sympathy and offered ways I could be supported. I was offering my gifts; he was treating me as a diminished human being.

    Archbishop Sarah talks about her dyslexic strengths. Dyslexia gives her humility – there is nothing like not being able to spell to bring you down to earth. It is also her source of empathy, emotional intelligence, and her ability to listen. She notes that all these gifts come together in teambuilding. Teambuilding, or ‘connecting’, is one of six key dyslexic skills highlighted in the Made by Dyslexia research.

    As a dyslexic, she doesn’t read her sermons. When she preaches, she engages with the people in front of her, changing her language to ensure she is communicating directly – another key dyslexic skill.

    Archbishop Sarah has not got to where she is today despite her dyslexia: she is there because of it.

    This is important. I had to correct the tribute paid to Benjamin Zephaniah in the Guardian by one of his friends who said that he was a great poet despite his dyslexia. I asked him to listen again to the performance of ‘Dis Poetry’ and recognise that dyslexia was a part of him and essential to what made him great.

    However, there is a darker side. As Chief Nurse, Archbishop Sarah found herself with people who were speculating that dyslexics should be barred from nursing as they may not be accurate in record keeping. Imagine being in the room as this is being discussed. As a bishop, she heard the same question being asked about parish priests; people in the hierarchy were questioning if any dyslexic could be a successful parish priest.

    This is the reality for neurodivergent clergy and laity in the Church of England. We experience shame. We know we have gifts to bring – gifts that are intrinsic to our being – but we are shamed by being judged by things that we are not good at.

    Archbishop Sarah identifies her time on the cathedral staff at Salisbury as her most challenging time. Suddenly the accuracy of reading was considered vital and she found herself judged in a way that she had not been before. The Dean – the wonderful June Osborne – recognised her gifts and gave her the most difficult roles in building relationships in the community, and recognised that what she was good at were precisely those things needed in a bishop.

    In his excellent biography of Archbishop Sarah, Andrew Atherstone gives a very helpful summary of her sermons from that time and notes how often she preached on Jesus’ encounters with outsiders and her emphasis on relationships.[ii] This emphasis is typical of dyslexic preachers. We find in Jesus the one who does not judge us and takes away our shame.

    Shame is immensely powerful. A recent video highlights how many bright and inquisitive children enter school with an excitement to learn and find that schools value neatness, spelling, and order over creativity, excitement in learning, and passion for life. We are told we have a learning difficulty. Dyslexic adults all share stories of being shamed, often humiliated, while at school.

    The good news is that Churches are so often ‘communities of appreciation’[iii]. We welcome and engage people with all kinds of minds. It can be a challenge. The services in my churches have to provide for autistic children who value calm, consistency, and a service that does not overstimulate. Meanwhile, our children with ADHD want excitement, stimulation, and sometimes just need to run from one end of the church to the other. To welcome all requires the ability to listen to what they and their parents – who often share the same neurodivergence, even if it is undiagnosed – have to say. As a church we have to be like Jesus.

    The benefits are huge. We find that, by enabling neurodivergent people – including myself – to speak about our reality, we are welcoming so many people of all ages who find they can finally be honest about who they are and can know that they are loved and accepted.

    However, as an institution the Church of England needs to change. Neurodivergent clergy – and there are a lot of us – share stories of exclusion and humiliation. We are advised not to disclose our divergence when applying for roles and we face barriers throughout our ministry.

    When we first gathered a dyslexic clergy forum in our diocese, many of the older clergy would only come if it was absolutely confidential. When we invited the Bishop of Oxford to our meeting, they would not come. Shame and fear are hard to remove. They believed they would face discrimination and with good evidence.

    This is why Friday’s Synod motion is so important. If it is passed, dioceses will be encouraged to develop inclusive practices and policies which promote the flourishing of neurodivergent people. This will involve training for all that is led and shaped by neurodivergent people themselves. We are calling for each diocese to appoint neurodivergent people as Neurodiversity Champions and we will encourage all churches and church members to listen and respond to the experience of neurodivergent people in their specific local contexts to enable the flourishing of all.

    We know that these are all key elements of change.

    Change is not just for the church. The oppression of neurodivergent people in our society is hidden, but it is real. Ask anyone involved in prisons and they will tell you how many prisoners have dyslexia. One government paper estimates that 50% of prisoners are dyslexic. The paper is intended to shape education in prisons, but does not ask why a dyslexic person is 9 times more likely to go to prison than a neurotypical person. Compare that to the equally unjust reality that you are two to three times as likely to go to prison if you are from a UK Minority Ethnic group (Global Majority) and think about it. Changing the way we think about neurodiversity and then changing our education system could transform lives and society.

    Tim Wyatt’s recent edited collection, Archbishop Sarah Mullally: And ten urgent challenges for the Church of England, did not include neurodiversity as one of those challenges – and barely anyone noticed.

    We hope that if this Synod Motion is acted upon it will produce real and effective change, both within the Church and beyond.

    [i] See the background paper for GS 2444: Neurodiversity – definition point 3.

    [ii] Andrew Atherstone, Archbishop Sarah Mullally: A Biography

    [iii] A term used in the research underlying the Synod Motion; see the appendix to GS 2444.

  • Learning and Listening: Being Inclusive

    by Kat Campion-Spall, Rector of the Bristol Harbourside Churches, and a member of General Synod

    Arriving 3 years ago in a newly formed parish, a question from a parishioner awaited me: would we consider joining Inclusive Church?

    The two parishes had just merged. One church is community-focussed, with evangelical roots, although not wanting to use that label any more, with a vocation to hospitality and welcome. The other is a city centre church with a more creative, radical edge, historically the first point of contact for seafarers arriving from all over the world. I hadn’t expected the question of Inclusive Church but, as someone personally committed to working for inclusion, I welcomed it.

    It quickly became clear that this question came with history. A pastoral situation at one of the churches over a decade previously had caused pain and division, a number of people had left the church, attempts at reconciliation seem to have been ineffective, and the bishop’s instruction to stop talking about it and move on had left unhealed wounds beneath the surface. This wouldn’t be an easy conversation. 

    Although Inclusive Church has a wide remit, the point of tension was LGBTQI+ inclusion. The PCC and congregations cover a broad spectrum. Some who actively campaign for LGBTQI+ inclusion, many quietly affirming but cautious about division, some who hold to the church’s traditional teachings on marriage. Some were particularly concerned not to leave anyone feeling excluded because of their theological position.  

    Mention of Inclusive Church seemed like a flashpoint for many and even the history of the conversation caused disagreement – some remembered a discussion and vote on IC at one church, while others felt it had never been properly explored: historic PCC minutes suggest that a conversation about whether the PCC wanted to explore joining IC concluded that there wasn’t sufficient will to pursue it. It’s likely that that discussion had been a difficult one and many had little appetite to repeat it.

    So, over the course of 2023, we went back to basics. There wasn’t a shared narrative across the two churches, so we started with each church’s history of LGBTQI+ inclusion. We followed this by sharing our own personal stories of inclusion and exclusion, to try and understand each other’s perspectives.

    In January 2024 we had a pastoral decision to make. The Prayers of Love and Faith had been commended by the House of Bishops, and one of our congregation was planning to marry his long-term partner that spring and would love us to pray for them in church. I cautiously proposed that we offer these prayers to people with a connection with the parish. I was delighted that a PCC member suggested offering them to anyone who asked, as some couples wouldn’t have this option in their own parishes, and this received broad support. The resolution was passed unopposed, and I was privileged to lead prayers for Sam and Albert that April. This also demonstrated that the PCC was overwhelmingly wanting to affirm same-sex couples, so the difficult question was how we express that and whether IC membership was the right way to do this.

    Over the course of 2024 we adopted new values for our church community: inclusive, engaged, connected, inviting, which were warmly welcomed by the PCC and congregation. At the APCM, the question came again: would the PCC consider joining Inclusive Church? With all that we had done, we still hadn’t fully explored this. So the PCC discussed how we could have this conversation well. This in itself was a difficult conversation to have. Some members felt joining IC was essential to signal our inclusivity to those outside our churches, whereas others felt our church values and offering the PLF did this sufficiently; others feared that aligning with a particular organisation might alienate people with more traditional views. It became clear that a simple debate and vote would not move us forward. We had already spent many hours of PCC meetings on this and were making little meaningful progress towards agreement. It also became clear that we had to walk towards this. However difficult it would be to make a decision, not making a decision was taking its toll too.  

    So I planned a “month of inclusion”, for the PCC and wider congregation to learn about Inclusive Church and explore ideas of inclusion in general. We invited disabled, GMH, LGBTQI+, and neurodivergent guest preachers to help us listen to voices underrepresented in our church community and leadership. Our monthly discussion group heard from members of local churches that were part of IC. I encouraged PCC members to reach out to people who saw things differently and try to understand each other. And we set aside a whole PCC meeting to learn about Inclusive Church, with a vote at the following meeting.

    For the meeting, I invited an external facilitator. We reflected together on 1 Corinthians 12, on what it means to be a diverse body and to need one another. Each person was invited to share what they had learned so far in the process. We were joined on zoom by the IC National Co-ordinator, who answered our questions. I assured the PCC that while I was in favour of joining IC, I was committed to the parish whatever the outcome of the vote, and I wanted them all to be part of the churches.

    The meeting was difficult. Some people found it upsetting. Some felt that the process was too focussed on joining Inclusive Church and wanted to hear about alternatives. Some wanted to have a fuller exploration of Biblical and theological perspectives on sexuality. Some were concerned about aligning ourselves with an external organisation we had no control over. Some, sadly, felt approaches by other PCC members had been aggressive (although I remain convinced that was no-one’s intention). Some felt that not to join IC would be letting down the next generation. Some people felt uncertain about their future in our churches. 

    I wanted everyone to feel heard, but giving everyone even 5 minutes to talk would take up another whole PCC meeting. So between PCC meetings I offered 1:1 conversations to everyone on the PCC, not to persuade but to listen to their perspective. Each PCC member was invited to write a short statement setting out their position, and these were circulated before the meeting. With the Churchwardens, I gathered the arguments we’d heard into a ‘pros and cons’ list.

    We finally came to the vote. I set out the long journey of learning and listening we had been on. I set out what would happen if we voted no, and if we voted yes – both of which were underpinned by the same ongoing commitment to inclusion that the PCC had already expressed. We agreed to receive the vote in silence. We voted, and had a clear majority in favour. And we continued our meeting to discuss the things we really wanted to be talking about as a PCC – our mission, safeguarding our children, caring for our buildings.

    At one level, little has changed. Both churches remain committed to inclusion. Each is now forming a small group to develop different areas of inclusion: one probably focusing on disability, the other on LGBTQI+ welcome, which I hope would have happened anyway.

    But a few new people have found us through the IC directory. We now partner with Christians at Pride to host a monthly service, and have joined other local Inclusive Churches to share a stand at the university Freshers’ Fair. Most importantly, the Inclusive Church logo on our website and noticeboards now stands as a specific sign of welcome to those who might otherwise presume that they were not.

  • Whose Toilet Is It? A Personal Theological Reflection on Bodies and Spaces

    by Alex Clare-Young. Alex is a thinker, facilitator and writer. They are a minister, member of the Joint Public Issues Team and patron of the Open Table Network

    I am going to write about toilets. I should probably explain a few things first: I am trans and I am disabled. Both of those facts mean that I cannot use gendered toilets any more. In fact, they mean that I have lost access to an awful lot of public spaces in general.

    Anyway, back to toilets. I grew up living as female, before I transitioned, which meant that I spent 18 years of my life using a mixture of female-designated and accessible toilets. I have been attacked multiple times in single-‘sex’ toilets. Every single time it has been by a cis woman – a woman who wasn’t trans.

    It may not come as a surprise to hear that I don’t think that public toilets have ever been safe spaces.

    The context: gender and public spaces

    I don’t like the term ‘culture wars’. It implies a dynamic of equal powers battling it out with mortal consequences. It also lends a sort of unearned gravitas to the political gameplay that instrumentalises trans people. Nevertheless, I will use the term here as it is the one most often used to refer to the situation we find ourselves in.

    Trans people have been the game-pieces of culture wars for some time. We have been banned from bathrooms in various USA states for over a decade. This has extended to the separation of gender-nonconforming children and young people from their families and a significant reduction in access to healthcare for trans people.

    In the UK, culture wars are different, with many people largely uninterested whilst those on the margins find themselves pushed increasingly farther out of the rapidly-shrinking middle ground. Recently, this has been particularly apparent in three areas: 1) horrific clashes over the housing of human beings who are seeking asylum in local hotels, 2) the provision of vital benefits to human beings who happen to be disabled and 3) the presence of human beings who happen to be trans in public spaces. So as a disabled trans person things are increasingly difficult.

    The EHRC Guidance

    The particularly challenging piece of this current phase of the UK’s Americanesque journey, for me, is caused by corporate and local responses to the EHRC interim guidance on gender and the Equality Act. The guidance effectively states that trans people may not use the gendered space that accords with their gender identity and should not use the gendered space that accords with their gender identity if this is likely to cause concern.

    That means that many trans people are left unable to use gendered public spaces – including public toilets – at all. The EHRC’s way of handling that has been to suggest that premises should ensure gender neutral toilets are available. This is not only unhelpful, it is a mishandling of the Act which requires the necessity of any exclusion based on protected characteristics to be rigorously proven – it has to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This means that it needs to be the least discriminatory way to meet that aim.

    The myth of the accessible toilet

    Now I’m going to take off my trans hat and put on my disabled one (I wish I could effect this switch, in both directions, in real life). Since becoming a full-time wheelchair user, I now have to use the accessible toilet at all times. The thing is, accessible toilets are already kind of a unicorn.

    So-called accessible toilets often have toilet roll you can’t reach, filthy floors that you wouldn’t want to wheel over (remember, many wheelchair users effectively have to touch very near the soles of our shoes with our hands for every move we make), and small-to-nonexistent turning circles crowded by overflowing bins.

    So, when I realised that several moto service stations had responded to the EHRC guidance by labelling their ‘accessible’ toilets as ‘inclusive’, I began to worry. It’s not that I don’t want trans folks to be able to use accessible loos. Of course I do. I want every trans person to feel safe, and to feel like they – we – have public spaces we can access. If those are intersectional spaces, what’s not to like.

    However, this label was not only targeting trans people. The big wheelchair on the door had been replaced with a big man symbol, a big woman symbol and a tiny little wheelchair in the bottom corner. The radar key lock had been removed. This was now just a big toilet. And there was only one.

    The more public spaces I go to, the more I realise that this has been the general response to the EHRC guidance – taking already limited space away from disabled folks and opening up accessible loos to anyone who can’t be bothered queuing. Yes, invisible disabilities exist – mine used to be one. Yes, trans people deserve toilets we can use – I am one. Yes, women are not safe in toilets – I learnt that the hard way.

    The thing is, taking away spaces is not the answer. No-one can win this so-called battle. All that we have gained is toilets that are less safe for women because anyone with a beard can access one by claiming to be a transman, accessible toilets that are predominantly used by able-bodied cis men, and a general increase in both transphobia and misogyny.

    The theology: Christ in public spaces

    So how do we reframe this woeful web of misinformation? How do we take the power out of a rapidly-escalating human rights battle? I believe that we need to unpick the underlying threads. To do this, I would like to consider three ways of looking at fair, safe and just uses of public space.

    Inclusivity

    Firstly, let’s consider what inclusivity means. An inclusive space is a space where everyone is welcome, just as they are. It is often held up as being the gold standard. And yet, inclusive spaces can be undermined by scarcity narratives. Remember when a woman poured expensive perfume on Jesus’s feet and was accused of denying the poor? No-one has been policing gendered toilets to date and trans people have been using them without causing harm. So why now? Are we, like the early disciples, playing whataboutery with Christ’s own body?

    Exclusivity

    So what about exclusivity? That seems to be the next logical move. Scarcity leads to protectionism. MY flag, MY taxes, MY spaces. You can’t have our spaces – get your own. It has seriously alarmed me to see so-called feminists arguing that the tiny minority of folks who are trans should simply create our own spaces. Last time I tried to build a public toilet without planning permission it didn’t go so well… I wonder what the un-named convert to Christianity in Acts 8 would have done if, when they asked, “Here is water, what is there to stop me being baptized?”, were given the response, “Not until you dig your own well”.

    Practicality

    I’m aware I may be using too much humour here. It’s a defence mechanism. This stuff is actually scary to me. Disabled people avoid leaving our houses due to lack of safe, sanitary, accessible public facilities, trans people are being attacked in public and often sadly losing their lives in private, and women are not any closer to real solutions to the actual causes of sexual violence in public spaces, not least the lack of any form of adequate justice.

    The only way to get through this is to stop looking for convenient scapegoats and to start helping each other. Can’t get to the soothing water? OK, I will carry you. Can’t reach Jesus? OK, this roof has to go. What’s to stop me being baptised? Nothing.

    We need to work together to create safe and accessible public spaces for trans people, disabled people and women, and that journey does not start when we attack each other. It starts by shifting the narrative. Are public toilets safe, accessible and inclusive? No. Why? Because systemic injustice and capitalist motivations have led to flimsy stalls and unsanitary spaces. Are trans people the problem? No. So how do we solve it? We build something better. Together.

    In practice: what now?

    10 hours before I wrote this, the EHRC submitted an updated code of practice to the Minister for Women and Equalities. They did not complete a full and proper public consultation and Parliament has not yet had a chance to debate the advice. The chair of the EHRC is encouraging people to preempt the process, stating that “We have been clear that service providers, associations and public functions should not wait for the code of practice to be published”. This irresponsible weaponising of legal process is what has caused the chaos I have described throughout this article.

    So firstly, please wait. If you own a space, please don’t change the rules before the rules actually exist. Secondly, please speak. Whatever happens, the draft code must be laid before Parliament for 40 days before it is in effect. Speak to your MP urgently and ask them to insist on a debate on this guidance, before it is too late. Finally, counter the misinformation. Trans people are not the problem. Women are not the problem. Disabled people are not the problem. The systems that use us as pawns are. Can we not just stop fighting and start building the solutions ourselves? Please?

  • The Body the Church Forgot: Reimagining Sacred Space from the Margins

    by Revd Canon Timothy Goode, Canon for Congregational Discipleship and Nurture at York Minster and member of the National Disability Task Group

    It is no small thing to speak in Canterbury Cathedral.

    To stand in such a space, as I did recently, where liturgy has echoed for centuries, where saints have walked and kings have knelt, where martyrdom was once not metaphor but blood on stone – it humbles you. The architecture seems to breathe with history.

    But I did not come to offer a history lesson or critique the Gothic arches. I came with something far more personal. I came as a disabled priest to speak to cathedral architects and to all those who advise cathedral chapters on matters related to the care, conservation, and development of our cathedrals. And I came to ask: Whose body is the Church really built for?

    Because for more than thirty years, I have been making my way through churches that were never designed with someone like me in mind. I have been pointed to side doors. I have been told the sanctuary was not accessible. I have preached from the nave floor while pulpits loomed like fortresses behind me. And I have listened to sermon after sermon about “healing”, often from people who have never actually asked what it is like to live in a body that will not, and should not, be cured.

    These are not just awkward moments or minor design flaws. They are symptoms of something much deeper. What we are dealing with is a theological vision of the human body that has been built into the DNA of the Church, a vision that equates holiness with symmetry, sanctity with strength, and wholeness with conformity to an able-bodied norm

    And this vision did not come from Christ. It came from Rome.

    To really understand this, we have to travel back to the fourth century. Before Constantine, the Christian movement was marginal, persecuted, made up of people who lived in their bodies very differently. The paralysed, the blind, the bleeding woman in the crowd – these were not just characters in miracle stories. They were the Church. They were apostles, disciples, leaders.

    Paul’s famous words in 1 Corinthians 12 were not poetic flourish: “The parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable.” That was not metaphor. It was the living theology of the early Church; a Body made up of many, including those society wanted to cast aside.

    But once Christianity gained imperial approval through Constantine’s Edict of Milan in 313 CE, something fundamental changed. With power came prestige. With prestige came compromise.

    The Church began absorbing Greco-Roman ideals about what bodies should be. Classical culture idolised symmetry, athleticism, control. The perfect body was strong, upright, unmoved by pain. And this ideal soon seeped into Christian theology.

    By the time we got to Augustine, even resurrection got redefined in these terms. In The City of God, he imagined glorified bodies as unmarred, restored to their ideal state: male, able-bodied, thirty years old. And that image was projected onto Christ. No blindness, no paralysis, no visible deviation. Jesus Christ, the template of the idealised norm.

    It was a compelling vision, if you fitted the anthropomorphic mould. But what happened when you did not?

    This theology did not stay in books. It seeped into the very stones of our churches. Cathedral architecture is not neutral. It never has been. It preaches. It catechises. It teaches us, without saying a word, what kind of bodies are expected, and what kind are not.

    Take the basilica model adopted from Roman civic halls: the nave, transept, chancel; spaces laid out not for inclusion, but for hierarchy. The sanctuary is elevated. The priest processes up stairs. The pulpit rises above the people. It is majestic, yes, but it is also profoundly exclusionary.

    Because every architectural decision makes a theological one. Stairs do not just raise the altar, they declare who is allowed to approach. Pews do not just organise a congregation, they assume bodies that sit still, rise easily, kneel without pain. Even the very materials of worship – hard stone, cold marble, polished brass – make a statement about which bodies are comfortable here, and which are not.

    So when I say these spaces were not built with me in mind, I do not just mean there is no ramp. I mean the entire architectural logic assumes I do not belong at the centre.

    Even churches that claim to be “inclusive” often betray this same DNA. The ramp is added later. The accessible toilet is behind a locked door or is used also as a storage space. The hearing loop was installed, yes, but no one knows how to turn it on. And the excuses? “It would ruin the symmetry.” “It would not match the historic stone.” “It might interrupt the line of sight.” What we are really saying is this: the building’s aesthetic matters more than the bodies inside it. And that is not just poor design. That is architectural idolatry. It is a heresy. It places form above flesh, heritage above hospitality, symmetry above sacrament.

    What makes this even more painful is the irony at the heart of our faith.

    Christianity’s most powerful metaphor is the Body of Christ, and that body was not perfect by classical standards. It was broken. Wounded. Pierced. And when Christ rose from the dead, he did not shed his scars. He showed them.

    That is the body our churches should have been built to reflect. But instead they reflect the sculpted ideal of Greco-Roman virtue, the inaccessible grandeur of empire. We have built not sanctuaries, but tombs. Our anthropology is not focused on the risen body of Christ. It remains focused on the able body of Rome.

    And yet the risen Jesus appeared in locked rooms, cooked breakfast with wounded hands, and invited Thomas to touch his open and pierced side. The glorified body of Christ was not healed from trauma, it was transformed through it. For the Word became flesh – not the Word became idealised marble; not the Word became stones and mortar – but the Word became flesh: human flesh, wounded flesh, disabled flesh, risen and ascended flesh. And the Word dwelt among us.

    So where do we go from here?

    We return to the risen Christ, not the polished Christ of stained glass and statuary, arms spread in symmetrical benediction, but the Christ who says: “Touch my wounds. They are still here. They are still holy.”

    And we build and adapt our churches accordingly.

    • A cathedral or church reordered from the eye level of a wheelchair user
    • A pulpit that can be used by a priest who signs the Gospel
    • A sanctuary without stairs, not because it is fashionable, but because it is just
    • Artwork that honours disabled saints, not after healing, but in the truth of their embodied reality
    • A memory wall where chronic illness, neurodivergence, and pain are honoured as sacred testimony

    This is not utopian. It is already happening, in small communities, in artistic collectives, in chapels where theology is being shaped from wheelchairs and hospital beds. The Spirit is moving. The question is whether the Church is willing to follow.

    I did not bring a building plan to Canterbury Cathedral. I brought a body – my own body – and the bodies of so many others who have been overlooked by the architecture and theology of a Church that said it was for all.

    And most of all, I brought the Body of Christ, a body still wounded, still risen, still with us.

    This is the Body I believe in. This is the Body I serve. This is the Body we can build.

    Let it be risen. Let it be wounded. Let it be real.

     

  • Lives Worth Living? Principle and Practice in the Assisted Dying Debate

    by the Revd Dr Charlie Bell, Fellow at Girton College Cambridge, Assistant Curate, St John the Divine, Kennington and forensic psychiatrist

    I will admit to being quite surprised that the Assisted Dying Bill passed its second reading.

    Of course, much of that surprise can be put down to the ever-shrinking social media bubbles we all inhabit – mine, for example, seemed full of MPs saying that whilst they might support the principle, they couldn’t support the Bill as it stands. Yet parliament has spoken, and whilst there is still a long way for this Bill to go, it should make us at least recognise that we are in a new place culturally when it comes to matters of life and medicine. It looks, at the very least, like it is now a case of when and not if, when it comes to assisted dying.

    Plenty of ink has been spilt on this debate, with some of the arguments being put forward more charitable than others. There has seemed, at times, to be a wilful refusal to hear – and rather to simply dismiss – the concerns raised by large numbers of disabled people, and in addition the voting figures (and associated speeches) from UKME MPs might also get us thinking. The professionally religious have, in the main, been opposed (with some notable exceptions), but there is interestingly no neat left-right distinction in this debate. The religious opposition has not always erred on the side of kindness, and yet perhaps this is best interpreted as a sign of how concerned many religious people are about the threat this Bill poses to something so central to how many people of faith understand human life to be. It is worth our all remembering that very few people – if any – are coming at this issue with bad intentions, even if their failure to see the consequences (from whichever direction) of their opinions is frustrating!

    It’s not an original thought, but it is worth repeating that there are already grey areas in this debate that we have all learned to tolerate. Whilst the so-called doctrine of double effect – where a death-inducing dose of medication can be given if the intention is to relieve pain not induce death – really doesn’t have much (if any) actual use in contemporary medical practice (because the reality is that such high dosing is vanishingly rarely, if ever, required), nonetheless we know that patients can quite competently refuse treatment if they have decided that enough is enough. Similarly, we don’t simply go ahead and invasively treat patients when the treatment appears futile or actively harmful – there are decisions to be made on the what, where, when, and how in contemporary medical practice that cannot fit into simplistic binary choices. Yet what is being proposed here really is something new, in my mind, because – I think – it changes what it means to be a doctor, and hence what it means to have a doctor. It changes what choices doctors can legitimately be involved in – and what associated actions they can take.

    I think that’s the angle that I’m approaching this debate from, although I am aware that not only am I a psychiatrist – and hence someone who deals in matters of capacity, competence, suicidal thinking, life and death on a fairly regular basis – I’m also a priest. There have been rather silly suggestions that those with faith cannot objectively talk about this stuff – silly because the truth is that none of us, with or without faith, can talk objectively. We’re all caught up in our different (and sometimes internally contradictory) worldviews, and so whatever we have to say about this is going to impact us differently. What I would like to do, though, is offer some reflections on how this whole debate hit me as a practitioner of medicine – one with faith, sure, but primarily one thinking through how my medical life might change in this new cultural landscape.

    The first thing is how many MPs of various stripes, including some of those who were vocally opposed to the Bill, stated that they didn’t like this Bill but that they did agree ‘in principle’ (often in the stated context of poor palliative care provision). I’m not totally convinced that in matters of assisted dying, it’s quite so easy to separate principle and practice (as many disabled campaigners have made clear in their contributions to the debate), but putting that aside for a moment, it’s evident that more people are now willing to say that they think that there is a genuine choice possible between death and life. This is new, and significant, if it is indeed true (that is, unless the ‘agree in principle but not practice’ argument was simply being used because it was easier than to be seen to disagree in principle too). Assisted dying is, in the main, seen as a liberal, progressive cause – an assertion not without possible challenge, but an assertion that seems to have taken on a widely accepted status. Those arguing against assisted dying are doing so on the back foot.

    Which makes me wonder what precisely the principle is that MPs (and the wider public) agree with. One of the difficulties with all this is the strange bedfellows each of us might find ourselves with, where the thing we agree or disagree on is not actually the same in substance even if it is in effect. Definitions throughout this debate have been shaky and unclear – we might think of the word ‘intolerable’, for example, of which more below – and so the grounds on which we agree or disagree can themselves feel shaky and unclear too. The Church of England has felt a little limited in what it has had to offer on all this – something I found when writing a book on despair and dying – which means that much of the official public output, such as it is, has felt rather last minute, unprepared, and shallow. In the church, we’ve forgotten that a vast number of people don’t speak our language, and our words have lost shared meaning.

    Which brings me back to how words in general have lost that shared meaning in society. We have heard a lot about ‘intolerable’ pain during debates, but what exactly does that mean? When life is ‘not worth living’, again, what does that mean? Just as importantly, who makes the decisions about what those words mean, and against what are these meanings measured? As a medic, I feel uncomfortable with saying that some pain is inevitably intolerable, but who am I to determine what that means?

    As a psychiatrist, too, I wonder about exactly what doctors are being asked to make a judgement on. Historically – in medicine and in law – we haven’t really accepted the idea that living vs dying is a legitimate choice for an individual to make for themselves. The Mental Health Act, and various other bits of medical legislation, make that clear – and our practice mirrors that. Meeting someone who is suicidal in clinic or in an emergency situation, I would inevitably err on the side of caution and see this risk as something that is at least an indicator that a deprivation of liberty is appropriate. Yet whilst it is only in very particular circumstances, this proposed Bill changes that, in a way that fundamentally changes the way doctors and patients interact. For all the talk on the content of the Bill, its safeguards and so on, this aspect seems not to have featured nearly enough.

    Yet that also makes me wonder something else about this Bill specifically, which is whether it actually addresses the question its proponents state it aims to. For all the talk of slippery slopes, this Bill claims to only address those with a likely six-month time limit – ignoring, for a moment, the imprecise nature of any such prediction. In my experience, anecdotal though it is, I have infrequently met people with such a limited lime left on this Earth wishing for less – most, in fact, have wanted more. I can think of situations where ‘intolerable’ might make most sense to me – locked-in syndrome, for example, or degenerative diseases, which might be someone else’s tolerable but might be my intolerable – yet these are not included in this legislation. In other words, the arguments around assisted dying might be more palatable when addressing people in the last six months of life, but are they actually practical or necessary in this group of people? If the answer is, in fact, no, then that opens up a lot more questions.

    This debate is not going to go away, and nor is it going to become much easier or clearer. Those of us who have serious and deep concerns about what this does to medical care – where on the one hand I am expected to see all suicidal thinking as suggestive of disorder, whilst on the other hand can now determine someone to be entirely of sound mind despite this thinking – have a duty to engage carefully and thoughtfully with the debate as it progresses, whilst drawing attention to the realities that underpin it. For all the talk of this being one of parliament’s finer hours, I am not convinced – by the principle, or the practical workings out.

     

     

  • Young Christianity Today

    by Sorrel Christian, a student and a multiply-disabled queer Christian. They enjoy writing and are particularly interested in crip theology and ecumenism

    My name is Sorrel Christian, I am a student in my early 20s, and I am a queer disabled Christian. I became a member of the United Reformed Church a few years ago. However, due to the only URC in my area not having approved same-sex marriage, it having been allowed on a church-by-church basis since 2016) when I’m not at university I’m currently worshipping with a local independent church community. I also attended a Roman Catholic sixth form college, and have had both helpful and harmful experiences in the Church of England in my ongoing journey to a committed faith.

    It will come as no surprise that the established church as a whole tends to have a poor reputation amongst my peers. Years of anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-disabled rhetoric and action from powerful churches has led to a deep mistrust and fear within these overlapping communities in all age ranges, particularly when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England. And it often seems like the powers that be do little to help themselves. Sex education and compulsory RE in Catholic sixth form was entirely heteronormative, with no mention of any other type of potential sexual encounter, gender non-conformity, or even an acknowledgement that the many LGBTQ+ youth at the college existed. One of the most powerful and well-known Church of England churches in my university town does not accept same-sex marriage or women in ministry. Such experiences give a strong impression, even amongst young people who are not part of the LGBTQ+ community, that organised religion is backwards looking, limited, and not in sync with anything they care about.

    Having said all that, I have found my non-Christian peers to be largely respectful of my personal faith, if somewhat baffled on occasion. Many would also describe themselves as spiritual in some form, and mutual respect and understanding goes a long way. Despite this, I find myself “caveating” my faith when meeting new people. “I’m a Christian but…”. As I’ve started expressing myself using queer fashion and rethinking the binary concepts of gendered clothing, it’s becoming less and less necessary – yet at the same time, the Church of England is in the news for still not having approved same-sex marriage. I pray for a world where I don’t have to consider “how queer” I look to my peer group before deciding if I need to justify and explain that my faith is not one of exclusion and hatred. Maybe it’s partly egotistical. I don’t want people to think, even for a moment, that I’m exclusionary. Maybe my sense of self-worth is too much based in how people may judge me. I feel the need to caveat my faith, even as I am aware of how God knows me. A more charitable view of this need to caveat would be that I do it to protect others. Whenever I try online dating, I state my religion on my profile. Whilst it’s true that this is partly for simple reasons of compatibility, there’s more to it than that. Being non-binary, if the apps do their job, my dating pool is entirely made up of LGBTQ+ young people. I haven’t met a single person of faith in the LGBTQ+ community who does not also hold religious trauma. Many more have left the church and their faith due to spiritual abuse and hostile churches. Still others have never held deep convictions, but associate church schools with a place they were never safe to be themselves. For the sake of both parties, I choose for the cross around my neck to not come as a surprise on the first date.

    Speaking of surprises, my first experience of an exclusionary church when I moved to university came as a complete shock. My experience of the Church of England up until then consisted of occasional services at the parish church in my small hometown. It was a fairly standard semi-rural set up, family-friendly, with a primary school attached, and also happened to be a part of the Inclusive Church network. With a family tradition of non-conformist churches, I naively assumed that all Church of England churches were much of a muchness when it came to societal viewpoints, if I considered it at all. I wasn’t even out to myself at that point. I was mostly just desperate for somewhere to belong. I started attending a popular church in my university city without even thinking to google it or find out it was a conservative evangelical branch of the CofE. I knew that the “party line” at the CofE didn’t include same-sex marriage, but I had no idea of the strength of anti-gay and anti-woman sentiment that could be found in some churches; something which SCM’s Honest Church campaign is trying to make visible. The wake-up moment was an anti-abortion rant from the pulpit. I kept going until the end of term though, because I didn’t know how to leave. Eventually, in the holidays, a family friend from the parish church explained the wide spectrum of belief in the Church of England, and how I needed to use critical thinking to find a church which aligned with my values of how to treat others.

    What confused me at the time, and frankly still baffles me today, was the popularity amongst students of a church which doesn’t accept female ministry and whose rector has openly written that same-sex relationships are sinful. All the students I met outside the church seemed to be in favour of the rights of women and LGBTQ+ people, and yet, this narrow-minded preaching attracted enough devotees for an entire separate student congregation. My theory is that is that it’s a question of resources and priorities, and a question of connections, of insidious roots throughout the university structure. Right from freshers’ week, the church works with a large Christian Union to attract new students through the tried and tested formula of free food. The promotional materials promise that everyone’s welcome, no strings attached. The leadership structure is carefully designed to disguise their views on women preachers at first glance. Once in, the usual mechanisms of organised religion slide greasily into action to keep you there. Guilt, shame, fear. A cult of personality around the rector. Upbeat music and a free student lunch. If you leave now, you’re going to Hell. By the time you discover the anti-gay rhetoric, you’re supposed to have bought in to believing everything the rector says as gospel truth. This dangerous machine is funded and legitimised by the powerful institution that is the Church of England.

    And yet, there is hope. The following term, just down the road, I found a wonderfully inclusive URC church. We’re smaller, less well funded, and much less powerful than those that can afford an entirely separate service for the student congregation. But by working with the other local non-conformist churches, we’re making changes in the city. I believe ecumenism is key in youth Christianity. I don’t understand the strict divides between denominations, the ‘us’ versus ‘them’. At the Student Christian Movement National Gathering this year, there were Quakers, Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans and more, all coming together to share ideas and theology and inclusive Christian love. Of course, there were differences in theology. But not rigid divisions. No one young person seemed convinced that they were more in the right than anyone else. That’s the spirit we need to take forward into the future.

     

  • Profile: Burn Out, Exclusion and the Church of England

    by the Revd Canon Valerie Plumb,  Area Dean for Rural Mission and Development in the Diocese of Oxford and elected member of General Synod

    I have spent nearly two years living and working remotely. This has been and remains a challenging situation for all involved in my household. It’s vitally important to make sure that all who are still medically shielding are not forgotten.

    The government is desperately attempting to bring back ‘normal’ but nothing has really changed for the clinically vulnerable community. Now they are living in more fear and with a growing sense that they simply don’t matter any more.

    ‘Shielding’ and what it was all about seems to be fast dropping out of our vocabulary. Society is increasingly divided between mask wearers and non- mask wearers. Being pro and antivax is becoming a hot point for feelings and conversations.

    In reality those who medically shield have no choice. Choosing life over potential death seems a no-brainer.

    We who continue to shield begin to slip into the shadows and learn to live in what feels like a second-class level of existence. My biggest fear is that the church succumbs to the same mindset.

    In November 2021 Archbishop Justin Welby declared in a General Synod inaugural president’s address ‘it’s not Christian to exclude’. It was a powerful address. As an elected member I heard that speech, and the rest of General Synod in the following days, online, but was unable to debate, vote, share in group work or even offer my maiden speech should I be called. This felt an awful lot like being excluded.

    I felt so upset and outraged by the whole experience that I began to question it. This inaugurated months of ping pong correspondence with the Synod’s Business Committee.

    By the February 2022 group of sessions I was delighted to hear that they had become fully hybrid. I was even able to offer my maiden speech. It addressed the importance of ensuring that remote working isn’t considered ‘not good enough’. It went down well.

    I am one of many clergy across the country who are still working remotely. Not all of us have been supported in the same way. My Area Bishop and Archdeacon completely understand my situation. They support and acknowledge the seriousness of my need to shield whilst strongly validating my mission and ministry in these extraordinary circumstances. Others have not been so lucky.

    Some people think that church isn’t proper church unless it’s in a building. Somehow, ministering to each other via zoom isn’t as valid as in person. It’s not the same, but it’s more a case of just being different rather than less. Thank goodness God is still God!

    The pressure on those who continue to work from home remains extremely intense. It has led to some experiencing burnout because of a need to repeatedly validate their work. Even now I still get folks asking me ‘When I am coming back to work?’ Ironically, throughout this whole pandemic I have continued to lead services, chair meetings, train LLM’s, oversee ordinands, participate in discussions, interview people, lead retreats and even attend General Synod. I have been there pastorally for others. This sounds an awful lot like full time work to me!

    During this uncharted time in history we have learnt to travel a new landscape. We must use this opportunity to learn and understand all we can and use that knowledge to prepare for future journeys.

    Some decisions made by the C of E during this pandemic have brought panic and pain to vulnerable people. They have over burdened those trying to make local choices. Now we seek a better and brighter future. Let’s not forget those ones who are not yet able to put it all behind them.

    It’s personal. I suffer from an immunological disorder requiring strong immunosuppressive medication. Shielding has been my only option. Covid 19 could bring a potentially deadly reaction. Even those I live with have had to change their lives accordingly. Last week my God-daughter finally sold her car having she lost her job because of the risk to me.

    This journey has been hard, but it doesn’t feel wasted. I often think of Henri Nouwen’s words ‘Who can take away suffering without entering it? The great illusion of leadership is to think that a man can be led out of the desert by someone who has never been there.’ Deserts can be interesting places to live, but being in them changes you.

    Through all the trials and tribulations I have felt blessed with a constant sense of how precious life really is. Seeing this from the sharp end has encouraged me to live life to the fullest. It has created a purer sense of soul freedom that is beginning to show in my ministry.

    This sudden and deep awareness of humanity’s fragility has allowed me to see how important it is for people to see their priests’ vulnerabilities. It shows they are real and accessible, but most importantly it shows them a God who blesses all people no matter what shape they come in. Churches are as vulnerable as individuals. Archbishop Justin’s November address acknowledged “our failures in safeguarding, in racism and the way we treat those with disabilities.”

    It’s profoundly necessary for the church to recognise and cherish many different coloured sparks of holiness that come from those who bring difference to the holy table.

    I leave the last word to a former Archbishop, Dr. Rowan Williams, who in conversation with me about illness once said ‘Val, I want you to always remember that God never wastes anything, and in your suffering, you will learn new skills and he will direct where and when to use them’ 

    Guess what, he was right. Now let’s acknowledge this as a church!

  • MI5, Exclusion & The Church of England

    by the Revd Canon Dr Phil Groves, former Director of the Anglican Communion Office (2006 – 2016) and Associate Rector Wychert Vale Benefice 

    I don’t think like a normal person – my brain works differently. I am remined of this every day, not just in what I can do, but also because most people just can’t seem to see the world how I see it. I see solutions to problems they think are impossible, but often, because I can’t spell, they think the ideas I have must be stupid.

    I am dyslexic.

    Dyslexia, and Autism are forms of neurodiversity. Our brains function differently to most people. It is not better or worse, just different. I see some things clearly that you cannot. You see things clearly that I cannot.

    Dyslexic people are a hidden minority and just like every other minority we are victimised and dehumanised. If you think that is a bit strong – wake up.

    Just think about this. 14% of the UK population are UKME and everyone knows that it is a sign of injustice that they make up 25% of the prison population, a sign of systemic racism. Only 10% of the UK population is dyslexic but according to the best research between 30% to 40% of the prison population are dyslexic. Just take that in. Either dyslexics are wired to be criminals or something is very wrong in our society.

    Discrimination against neurodiverse people is subtle and complex, but it is very powerful. It can be very well meaning and it begins from when we go to school.

    Put yourself in the position of a parent of a child you suspect might be dyslexic and click on the NHS website entry on dyslexia. It will tell you that dyslexia is a ‘specific learning difficulty’. As a parent you will focus on the word difficulty and then ‘problem’ that occurs 4 times in the first section. Depressingly you will discover that your child will have a ‘life long problem’. Admittedly, there is the occasional mention of something positive, but what is heard is that dyslexics need support, special software, and help in the workplace.

    This reflects how our society understands dyslexia: it is a problem. We dyslexics hear that we are a problem and that our society would be better off without us.

    Dyslexia is a problem for children because our school system is built around the thinking process of the dominant group. Most dyslexics will tell you that for them school was a place of shame. Our inability to spell our names or neatly present our work was made worse by the fact that our verbal reasoning showed we were clever. The only reason for the mess we handed in on paper must be that we were lazy and our work was paraded to the class as the example of carelessness.

    School for dyslexics can just be too much. We are asked to pass exams designed for the majority society. School for some can be like conversion therapy for LGBTI+ people. We are made to feel ashamed for not being ‘normal’. Things that our teachers think should come easy to us are a constant fog, while concepts and problems seem so easy to solve, but even our teachers can’t understand the answers. We are rarely tested on our strengths. Creativity, empathy, and problem solving are difficult to test: spelling and rapid-fire numeracy are easy. If you are great at spelling, you cannot imagine the horror of being asked to swap papers with another child to mark only to be taunted by your failure in the playground.

    There is a different story. Made by Dyslexia believes ‘in the game-changing power of Dyslexic Thinking. After all, everything from the light bulb to the iPhone, the aeroplane to the motor car, was invented by a dyslexic mind. And our skills are vital in shaping the future too.’

    There they will discover that MI5 is specifically recruiting dyslexics and people on the autistic spectrum to build neurodiverse teams, because teams with diversity of thought are much stronger than teams where everyone thinks the same.

    MI5 lives out 1 Corinthians 12. Paul tells us that all are to be valued and everyone has a role to play in a healthy society. We don’t all need to be the same.

    And what about the Church of England?

    Since launching the Clergy Dyslexia Forum in the Diocese of Oxford we have discovered just how many clergy identify as dyslexic. We think it is at least 15% and it may be as many as 20% in our diocese, and in one of the four episcopal areas all the incoming curates are dyslexic. Having begun to speak of my dyslexia in sermons and elsewhere, I have discovered just how many of our congregations here in this benefice are dyslexic. They have come to me quietly and often never told anyone else: they are ashamed of their ‘problem’ and work hard to ‘overcome’ it. I believe that we are sitting in every pew in every church in the country.

    When I ask them about why they come to church – especially a church that places such an emphasis on writing – there is a common answer: Jesus loves us, even if the church does not. It is the same answer I have heard from Indigenous people in North America, LGBTI+ people across the world and women in misogynistic churches in male dominated societies. When we hear the gospel, we identify as the outcastes who Jesus embraces and we know we are loved.

    But what about in the leadership of the Church of England?

    The Church of England is facing up to the exclusion of UKME people in senior posts and at the same time working out what ‘Radical Inclusion’ means for LGBTI+ people. There are not enough, but there are UKME bishops and UKME people in other senior roles. There is one out partnered gay bishop, but there are also gay and lesbian archdeacons and cathedral deans. I have tried hard, but I can find only one openly dyslexic person in a senior role – the Bishop of London. We are absent unnoticed from the leadership of the Church of England.

    This is not about representation, our absence from power means that problem solving is limited to one way of thinking. The MI5 insight of the importance of diversity of thought is being ignored in the Church. More importantly, we are failing to be the church envisioned by Paul. We ought to worry when MI5 is more closely aligned to Pauline ecclesiology than the Church of England.

    How does it work?

    What I have discovered is that when I am open about my dyslexia the response is one of compassion. It is assumed I am asking for support and what software I require or how I can overcome my difficulties. I may be told that there are some amazing dyslexics out there, but I am never then asked how I can bring my skills to the table. I can hear the mental note being made – this person has a problem and needs helping, not this person has a gift that we need.

    When I talk to dyslexic clergy, I discover that when applying for jobs some have been encouraged not to be upfront and open about their dyslexia because they are told that it will potentially harm their application. Apart from being illegal and immoral, this plays into the sense of shame that is a very powerful part of the dyslexic experience.

    Again and again, it is this word shame that is raised by dyslexic clergy. We do not feel worthy of senior roles and we constantly fear being caught out as imposters. We need to listen to 1 Corinthians 12:

    Those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honourable we treat with special honour.

    God has put the body together, giving greater honour to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.

    The church needs to listen to this too. It is time to open the discussion on the inclusion of neurodiverse people in the church and society.

  • A Story of Transforming Love – and My Mother

    by the Revd Canon Timothy Goode, Rector of St Margaret’s, Lee, Disability Adviser to the Diocese of Southwark, Member of Archbishop’s Council and Co-Chair of MOSAIC 

    I wish to share with you a personal story. It is a true story and one that I hope will offer some insight into how I have come to understand my relationship with God specifically as a disabled person, and how the resurrected Body of Christ has become for me the place of ultimate belonging and the answer to all my longing.

    I have a hereditary congenital bone condition called Multiple Exostosis. It involves lots of bony spurs growing outwards from all my joins, interfering with my ability to move freely, so, like my mother before me, it involved lots of invasive surgery, especially whilst growing up.

    As a child I had all my many operations at the Woodlands Orthopaedic Hospital in Birmingham. Now the thing that one needs to know about the Woodlands is that the children’s ward is the furthest ward from the operating theatre, so the journey to the operating theatre took between 15 and 20 minutes, sometimes longer. It was not a fun journey!

    Looking back, I remember one constant throughout my many operations and that was my mother. She was at my bedside early on the morning of each operation, always seeking to calm me down either by telling me how proud she was of me or offering catchy little prayers, all to help distract and ease my anxiety.

    When the porters came to take me to theatre, my mother would walk beside me holding my hand, talking, soothing, and distracting me as only a mother can. She was with me as I was put to sleep, and she was there holding my hand as I awoke, ready to tell me that I was the other side of the operation.

    I regret now how rarely I reflected at the time how costly this was for her, for my mother deeply understood what I was going through as she too had gone through the same experience on countless occasions. It must have been intensely distressing to be alongside one whom she loved so acutely, watching me go through what she had suffered as a child. And yet she also knew that each operation was essential for my health and so she quietly bore the cost, operation upon operation.

    Now there was only ever one time in my early teens when my mother couldn’t be there with me for one of the operations and I felt, having been through multiple operations by this time, that I would be able to manage on my own.

    So, the same routine unfolded – the porters arriving to take me on the 20-minute journey to theatre – being put to sleep – waking up in the recovery room post operation. Only this time without my mother present.

    Oh dear. By the time the porters arrived I was all but climbing the wall.  Sitting bolt upright in tears, I implored the porters not to take me down to the operating theatre. I fought the anaesthetist and had to be held down so that I could be put to sleep. And when I woke up, I was so confused as to where I was, I shouted the ward down. It was a profoundly distressing experience.

    Not having my loving constant, my mother,  present, the one who understood me from the inside out, the one who loved me and who I trusted above all other, profoundly changed the whole context and the whole experience. I missed my mother’s profound and deep empathy rooted in lived experience. I missed my companion on the journey. I missed her immeasurable love and compassion.

    Now, when I imagine God, it is the image of my mother accompanying me on the journey to theatre that often comes to mind. Like her, God is by my side. Like her, God is reaching out his hand and inviting me to take it and hold it. Like her, God is telling me that I am loved, that I am perfect in his sight, that I am fearfully and wonderfully made.  For I am made in God’s glorious image revealed through the Risen Body of Jesus Christ, both wonderfully divine and profoundly vulnerable.

    The Risen Body is God’s invitation to acknowledge, own, and ultimately love our vulnerabilities thus delivering for us our ultimate freedom and liberation. Christ’s Risen Body reveals true love to be vulnerable, selfless, and open to suffering. The open wounds are not healed but nor is the body broken. The wounds of Christ are fault lines, places of often profound pain and suffering and yet also places of creation, gift and growth. The Risen Body is our place of ultimate belonging and God’s answer to all our longing.  God suffers as we suffer, God celebrates as we celebrate, God mourns as we mourn.

    My mother didn’t stop my operations. She was only too aware that they would cause me pain and suffering but she also knew that on the other side of each operation was the promise of hope, healing and restoration. Neither does being a Christian avoid us facing the realities of life. Being a Christian is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card.  Rather, the Risen Body of Jesus Christ promises us a new way of living, a new lens through which we can face in hope the realities of life – a promise of redemption and hope that empowers and transfigures the very way we live our lives.

    The invitation to be a Christian is the invitation to respond to the generous offer of God’s graceful hand. God’s hand is offered to us today and every day. The life, death and resurrection, the incarnated Risen Body of Jesus Christ, affirm that this really is a hand worth taking. For God’s hand is offered through grace. We neither deserve nor not deserve it. God loves each one of us with such a graceful love that goes way beyond that of a parent to a child, way beyond that of any human relationship, it is a love that is utterly selfless, open to suffering, wishing to enter our vulnerabilities; a love whose sole focus is our personal and collective flourishing.

    During the pandemic we have been forced to gaze upon the open wounds of the risen body. It has proved deeply uncomfortable, but we can hold our gaze because the open wounds of Christ’s Risen Body reveal a God who intimately understands our deepest concerns, because God has been there. The Word became flesh.

    Why would we deny God’s invitation and refuse the loving hand of God who seeks to love, support, and hold each one of us through this troublesome time? Just as my mother’s love for me transformed my experience of childhood operations, so God’s immeasurable love for each one of us transforms and transfigures our journey through life, with all the joys and travails that beset us.

    For remember… ‘the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.’ (John 1:14)