Conversion Therapy Bans

The Advance of Conversion Therapy Bans – Part 1

Rick Plasterer on February 11, 2022

The global campaign to ban “conversion therapy” (reported in earlier articles here, here, and here), understood as any effort to move homosexual or transgender identifying persons from their inclinations and behaviors, and including religious efforts based on religious doctrine, is advancing across the western world. It seems to be a final stage in the effort to prohibit religious opposition to homosexuality. It has many added benefits for contemporary opponents of traditional religion, such as the destruction of parental authority and the religious instruction of children, as well as claiming the supremacy of the state over the church.

Very severe bans against admonishing anyone against sins of homosexuality or transgenderism have been enacted in Canada (which is quite severe), France, Germany (for minors only), and the state of Victoria in Australia.

A similar proposed ban in the Great Britain is being vigorously contested. There the Christian Institute, which defends the religious liberty of Christians in the U.K., is in contact with both the national British government at Westminster and the devolved (Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Ireland) governments concerning proposed conversion therapy bans.  It also will advance litigation (if need be) to protect the liberty of Christians in speaking or acting against the sins of homosexuality and transgenderism.

CI has interviewed Murray Campbell, a pastor in Melbourne, Victoria, concerning the impact of the ban there, due to come into effect this month, and also presented two British Christian leaders speaking about an open letter to the British Minister for Women and Equalities signed by more than 2,500 British pastors against censoring the speech of Christians against LGBT behavior. Happily, from what was said, both in the letter and by those interviewed, it appears that Christian leaders in these areas, and it can be hoped, their people as well, will obey God and continue to offer the whole counsel of God to everyone, regardless of state requirements or penalties.

Campbell said that under the ban, due to come into effect on February 17, private conversation, including prayers, group discussions, or one on one conversations will be prohibited if they are shown to be an attempt to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Complaints can be made either by a person admonished to change or by a third party. Pastors who are accused will be summoned to explain themselves by the authorities, and will be required to produce sermons and relevant correspondence (as was attempted a number of years ago with Houston’s failed SOGI law). Campbell said that this process itself is onerous, even if one is not charged or is acquitted, and the ultimate penalty if convicted could be ten years in prison.

Another ominous feature of the Victoria law is the dropping of any pretense of neutrality toward religious doctrine. Government officials at information sessions for pastors in Victoria about the law said that no one’s sexual orientation or gender identity is sinful, and churches must affirm everyone’s sexuality. To state the obvious, government officials are not competent to say this. Religious doctrine is determined by divine revelation, and cannot be changed by the state. We have religious freedom to allow people to be obedient to what they understand to be divine commands, for which they understand they will give an account in eternity.

Yet another feature of the law in Victoria and elsewhere is that while they seem targeted at traditional Christians, they apply to anyone. In particular, parents who question their child’s desire to identify with the opposite sex, and perhaps his or her desire to embark on “gender transitioning” would be breaking the law. And similarly, reproof or correction of a child for homosexual desire would be illegal.

Murray said that pastors in Victoria are still figuring out how to respond to the law, but seem determined to remain faithful to God and his revelation in Scripture, understanding that there will be a cost.

In Great Britain, no conversion therapy ban has been enacted, but some kind of ban seems inevitable. A recent webinar of CI discussed the situation in detail. Simon Calvert, Deputy Director for Public Affairs at CI said that “conversion therapy” legislation is “concerning for Christian ministers, indeed for Christian families.” Nevertheless, it offers a “real opportunity for us to speak about the Gospel.” The letter to the British Women and Equalities Minister expressing concerns about conversion therapy legislation was discussed by two of its authors, Ian Paul and Matthew Roberts

Ian Paul, Adjunct Professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, Managing Editor of Grove Books, and Associate Minister at St. Nicholas parish in Nottingham, England said that the “conversion therapy” ban was first proposed in the General Synod of the Church of England, and it had “all the hallmarks” of the proposal now being considered by the government. Many of the same people who proposed the ban within the Church of England are also pressing it with the government. He said that the use of the term “conversion therapy” is confusing, because it begins with and highlights coercive practices to overcome homosexuality in the past, when society generally regarded homosexuality as immoral. But the proposal gives the term an expansive meaning to cover any counseling, whether secular professional counseling or religious, and whether voluntary or not, to overcome homosexuality in an individual. It also now covers any counseling to overcome transgender identity, and thus would cover any counseling to deal with what is called “gender dysphoria” (identification with the opposite sex).

He said that zeal to claim that people “have the right to express their sexuality” obscures the “right to live according to their own religious convictions. Have people got the right to ask questions about where their desires are taking them?” He also said that the way the discussion is “couched is that everybody is either straight or they’re gay, there’s no such thing as bisexuality, there’s no fluidity within people’s sexuality.” The discussion within the Church of England Synod showed, he believes, “a particular agenda targeting Evangelicals in the Synod and targeting charismatic groups as well.” This controversy is not a situation where leaders should be circumspect; one is more likely to be effective and respected as a leader if one makes his or her views clear on this contentious matter. He also said that traditional Christians have “not been alone” in their belief that there are serious concerns about the conversion therapy legislation – they have “allies in other places.”

Paul observed that there was a wide variety of religious groups represented in the letter to the government – Anglicans, independent Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and black led churches. He said that besides the more than 2,500 clergy who signed the letter, many others have joined, and the letter has “gained traction.”

Regarding the general environment in which the conversion therapy debate is occurring, Paul cited three important elements. First is the dominance of issues around sexual experience or sexual orientation in the media driven culture.  Mainstream news, television shows, and mass media generally seem to be pervaded by these issues. He said that for a component of the population (those who are same-sex attracted) constituting 1.8-1.9% of the population, the dominance of issues related to them is remarkable. However, 12% of the BBC and 9% of Parliament are LGBT identifying persons.

Additionally, there is much confusion in the language that is used. In particular, there is confusion about the word “conversion.” The central call of Jesus was to repentance (the first word of the gospel, which is a call to conversion). He said that it is “provocative, or at the very least confusing, to land on this particular kind of language.” But “the main protagonists” of a ban on conversion therapy in the Church of England were either “ignoring, or setting aside” research that shows that sexual orientation can change over time. In the current “cultural moment” there is a wide assumption that the human body can be altered to match a person’s interior identity, while the interior identity is “fixed.” But “research evidence says that that’s not the case.” Finally, “there does appear to be quite an explicit anti-Christian agenda at work here.” He said that Christians in the civil service in the U.K find it “quite hard” to be open about their faith, given the strong pro-LGBT environment. He mentioned the member of Parliament in Finland who is on trial from making comments critical of homosexuality. He also mentioned the case of Bernard Randall, a Christian chaplain at a Christian school who was reported to the police as a domestic terrorist for trying to tell students that there is an alternative to the narrative of gender ideology.

Paul said that the debate over conversion therapy raises “major questions” about truth, and freedom of belief and speech. “Am I free to question my pattern of sexual desires, am I free to exercise discipline in my personal life” are questions raised by the debate.

Conversion is central in Christian theology, and especially in Evangelical Christianity. This writer has believed since the conversion therapy controversy became prominent that the word “conversion” was carefully chosen, to be expanded beyond sexual issues to prohibit evangelism. Indeed, the casting of evangelism as coercive, and prohibition of any threat of divine displeasure if a particular religion is not adopted, already exists in states in India. Matthew Roberts, another of the authors of the letter to the British Women and Equalities Minister along with Paul, focused on the religious importance of conversion in his comments to the Christian Institute, which will be reviewed in a subsequent article.

View it here.

  1. Comment by John Rentz on February 16, 2022 at 12:26 am

    Tonight the New Zealand Parliament passed a law prohibiting ‘conversion therapy’ — similar to the extreme measures taken across the Tasman in Victoria, Australia. This move came despite the vast majority of the 106,000 submissions to the Select Committee opposing the proposed legislation.

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.