Conversion Therapy Bans: an Ongoing Threat to Biblical Christianity – Part 2

Rick Plasterer on February 14, 2023

An earlier article discussed the attempt in Great Britain to prohibit religious teaching and practice against homosexuality and transgenderism through enactment of a “conversion therapy” ban. As noted earlier, the word “conversion” seems targeted at religious doctrine, and lumps coercive (and sometimes physically painful) practices of the past against homosexuality together with Christian doctrine and practice, which people who disagree with find painful. While the U.K. government in Westminster seems disinclined toward the ban, and particularly disinclined toward including religious practices, the “devolved” governments in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland want to go ahead. Although it is not clear that they have the authority to do so, they are nonetheless forging ahead against the vocal opposition of Christian groups, who understand that their faith is being made illegal.

Simply to digest the scope of anti-conversion campaign in terms of what it will cover and the depth of its reach into ordinary, family, and church life takes time to digest. It is on par with the common prohibition that existed in communist countries against providing religious education to young people, perhaps even worse, as it makes illegal all religious speech and activity against sexual sin.

Commitment of the Devolved Governments to Make Religious Activity Illegal

In Scotland, the proposed ban was drawn up by a panel of “experts,” consisting in large measure of pro-LGBT advocates. Naturally, it produced a ban covering religious activity. Christian Concern, an evangelical advocacy group in the United Kingdom, has called the proposed conversion therapy ban in the country the “worst in the world.” Perhaps its most striking feature is the provision that the government should target “conversion ideology.” Since Evangelical Christianity gives conversion a central place in its theology, and emphasizes the need for conversion to Christ both for non-Christians and those born into Christian homes, and regards repentance – including repentance from sexual sin – indispensable to conversion, it is inevitable that Evangelicalism and other creeds that believe adherence to their precepts is necessary to avoid the wrath of God would be effectively illegal. The U.K.’s Evangelical Times similarly notes that Scottish activists for the ban want certain “ideas” and “ideologies” to be illegal.

Among the “ideas” to be prohibited is apparently the idea that one properly belongs to one’s own biological sex. This is typical for conversion therapy laws. Joe Fitzpatrick, convener of the Scottish parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, has said that only speech encouraging transitioning from one’s biological sex may be affirmed. Encouraging identification with one’s biological sex will be illegal “conversion therapy.” 

Such a denial of freedom of religion, speech, and thought is clearly contrary to the historic liberalism of Western civilization. ET referred to a King’s Counselor (senior trial lawyer) in the U.K, Aiden O’Neill, who has maintained that the Scottish proposals “could be struck down by the courts.” The Christian Institute said last year that it would take legal action if Scotland’s conversion therapy ban were enacted. CI observed that there is widespread support among members of the Scottish parliament for the proposed ban. Assurances of protecting freedom of religion and belief essentially redefined it to being protected if it is “a positive influence on people’s lives.” It then becomes only what the government deems “positive” religion which is protected. Another comment confirming this by a ban supporter said that ordinary religious activity (which includes pastoral or parental counseling, prayer, group discussion, and sermons), would only be allowed if it is “non-judgemental and non-directive.” Against this, it was observed “what is the Bible, if not directive?”

Similarly, in Wales, the devolved government seems to be working closely with LGBT activists and liberal clergy to enact a broad ban which would prohibit religious beliefs and activity that they object to. They claim to want “systematic cultural change.” (It might be noted in passing that classic liberalism pointedly does not aim to change culture). While soliciting “dialog” about the ban, it threatens to report “hateful comments” to “the authorities” (i.e., police). Of course, from the standpoint of LGBT liberation, anything condemnatory of homosexuality or transgenderism (as would be found in many religions) qualifies as “hateful.”

The Christian Institute also noted that the Welsh government had included advocates of a ban on religious activity against homosexuality or transgenderism on its “expert panel,” and that the government wanted “a dedicated campaign” to re-educate the Welsh people regarding homosexuality and transgenderism. While the government stated its desire to “end the practice of conversion therapy” in Wales, CI observed that that “the powers to bring forward a ban are not devolved to Wales.” Further, CI obtained a legal opinion from Jason Coppell, KC, in which he determined that broad conversion therapy bans, like the one the Welsh government would like to enact “contravene UK human rights laws, which protect ‘the freedom of church organizations to preach’ and ‘require conformity’ to their beliefs on sexual ethics and gender identity.”

Northern Ireland’s Assembly approved in principle the idea of enacting a ban on conversion therapy in April, 2021. An amendment to protect “preaching, prayer, and pastoral support” was defeated. Prohibiting these religious activities seems to be the main purpose of the ban. Christian Concern also noted the lack of clarity about what “conversion therapy” is, and even what are the “legitimate activities and conversations” which advocates of the defeated amendment want. CI observed at the time that by banning conversion therapy “in all its forms,” the law would prohibit “the wrong kind of prayer.” It further observed that the ban would make it criminal for a parent to disagree with their child about the legitimacy or desirability of “gender transitioning,” would conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) of which the United Kingdom is a part, and would be challenged in court.

Surveillance of Private Life to Conform to LGBT Ideology

Although these devolved governments may not have the power to enact broad conversion therapy bans that target religious activity, the threat to religious practice that LGBT liberation poses remains nationwide in the U.K., because the scope of a ban to be enacted by the Westminster government remains unclear, and because other measures can be taken that threaten at least something of the same thing. Early in 2022, the U.K. government advertised for a “conversion therapy helpline,” which would give users the option of: 

“making a report to the police, and other public services such as emergency housing. The service should also provide support to professionals who may be concerned about an instance of conversion therapy and are seeking support on what action to take.”

This is an invitation for family members, friends, neighbors, and (perhaps especially) quarrelling spouses to report on one another to the police. Or perhaps children disagreeing with their parents. Keep in mind that “conversion therapy,” as it stands now is not clearly defined, and LGBT activists want it to cover any expression, including religious activities, opposed to homosexuality or transgenderism. The reference to professionals is an invitation for professional counselors to report on one another to the police. Christian Concern also notes that callers invited to “anticipate who might be guilty [of conversion therapy]. Anybody who speaks positively about the possibility or reality of change away from same-sex attraction and gender confusion is potentially at risk.”

No U.K.-wide ban has yet been enacted, but when it is, and if it is a broad ban covering religious activity (which may be enacted, and a Labor or Labor/Liberal Democratic government surely would enact), the helpline would be a powerful weapon against religious and free speech, reaching into families, churches, and the private world generally. It attacks Biblical morality at the level of private life, where it lives and where it is perpetuated from generation to generation. As the Christian Concern link notes, children could be removed from their homes under the Children Act of 1989. 

This, of course, is exactly what activists want. It is what is deemed necessary to eradicate ideas they find painful. Although a gross violation of freedoms of religion and speech, the launching of a “conversion therapy helpline” the previous fall was celebrated in the mainstream media, which seemed blithely unaware that in fact freedom of expression was being radically denied. The linked Forbes article seemed to agree with activists, who deplored that adults could “opt-in” (as Forbes put it) to “conversion therapy.” In other words, adults could agree to voluntary counseling against homosexuality or transgenderism. Here is a sharp example of controlling language, which then controls attitudes and opinions.

It is important to keep in mind, as the conflict over religious counseling rages, that even secular professional counseling against homosexuality or transgenderism should not be illegal. Counseling bans violate the most basic protection for freedom of speech, thought, and inquiry. The International Federation for Therapeutic and Counseling Choice has sharply criticized the “affirmative” laws, regulations, and policies being taken by governments and professional associations, observing that they are based on ideology, and are not “scientific and rational.” The “harm” these bans claim is essentially hurt feelings. After years of complaining about society “imposing” traditional morality, it is the repudiation of both morality and biology which is being imposed, causing people to be unable to access the professional help they want.

Prosecution Under Malta’s Conversion Therapy Law

The first prosecution under “conversion therapy” laws is now happening in Malta, where Matthew Grech, a trustee of Core Issues Trust, which provides counseling for people with unwanted same-sex attraction, is being prosecuted for sharing his testimony of leaving homosexuality for Jesus Christ online. It is the first case in any jurisdiction in which someone is being prosecuted simply for sharing their own testimony, as opposed to calling on others to change. This, it is feared, could be a precursor to what will happen in the U.K. if a conversion therapy ban is passed that does not protect religious practice. Lawyers for the Christian Legal Centre, which is defending Grech, argue that the prosecution breaches the “Fundamental Right to Freedom of Expression safeguarded under Article 41 of the Constitution of Malta and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).” Grech’s own moving testimony of his conversion on YouTube was posted by Christian Concern.

LifeSiteNews has said that this case is being viewed as a “test case” by groups supporting religious freedom and free speech around the world. Perhaps not coincidentally, Malta was the first country to ban “conversion therapy” in 2016. Grech’s prosecution coincides with the Maltese government’s effort to strengthen its conversion therapy law to include “the publishing, advertising, displaying, distributing, referral and circulation of any material promoting the practice” of conversion therapy. Since Grech simply offered his testimony, and did not call on any one to change (which would nonetheless have been entirely Biblical (Acts 17:30), indeed a mandate (Acts 20:27-30; I Cor. 11:1) of the Word of God), it is apparent that simply expressing Biblical truth is being made illegal.

Grech himself maintains “if we don’t act now, more countries will introduce such bans as if they were a charitable noble cause that is saving lives and works for the common good, when they are tyrannical, draconian and will achieve the opposite of what they set out to do.”

Similarly, Mike Davidson, IFTCC Chairman, and CEO of Core Issues Trust , of which Grech is a trustee, has said “in what is probably a test case, the freedoms of speech, conscience, and religion are being attacked. The fact is that therapeutic and counselling choice is a fundamental right. Governments promoting monocultural viewpoints – this idea that sexual orientation is inborn and unchangeable, and that gender is unrelated to biological sex – are denying those unwilling to identify as LGBT the right to leave identities and practices no longer relevant to them. This is a human rights issue. Without ideological diversity in any life issue, democracy is denied checks and balances [and] descends to totalitarianism.”

While we all have a duty to obey God, which is absolute, and the duty to abstain from homosexuality and transgenderism is clear from Scripture, as well as the duty to pursue, as far as possible, God’s design for our lives, Christians and others who admonish against homosexuality and transgenderism face the claim, now made by governments, professional associations, and “the establishment” in general that such efforts are harmful and ineffective. In fact, data show the opposite. A study from Sweden (hardly a socially conservative country) shows persons undergoing sexual anatomy altering surgery 19 times more likely to commit suicide over the long term (opposite the official narrative), while a six year longitudinal study by respected Christian researchers Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse of Wheaton College (Yarhouse formerly of Regent University) found a reduction in distress among those who participated in counseling against homosexuality. Groups like Core Issues Trust and Restored Hope Network continue this work, and even from a secular viewpoint (which respects classical freedoms of religion and speech and the clear evidence of serious professional researchers) should not be suppressed. The real “harm” opponents of “conversion therapy” are claiming is hurt feelings at the truth.

As noted in the previous article, we all face the prospect of death, and giving an account for our lives. The government is not competent to limit the possibilities of what we may be held accountable for, however painful the consideration of such possibilities might be. Mere human governments are not competent to address the questions of ultimate reality that religions address, and yet that is what is being done in the interest of the peace of mind of LGBT identifying persons, and ultimately – in prohibiting a call to conversion – the peace of mind of everyone. Essentially secularists want transcendently based religions replaced with a therapeutic system that affirms what the cultural elite deems the good life. This opinion of the cultural elite serves as the absolute in the new system, although it cannot be truly absolute, but is subject to the elite’s changing feelings.

As the LGBT agenda has become coercive, today’s Christians not uncommonly look to the persecutions of the past for inspiration, and to such figures as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church. We of course do not live in material discomfort nor (generally) in danger of physical violence. But we do live in a time when a central tenet of our faith – Christian conversion – is being made illegal, and as individuals, may face loss of jobs, family, friends, and reputation. In some sense, the comfort of our day makes obedience more challenging. But what God commands in Scripture is perfection, keeping in mind that our treasure is not in this world, but the next.

  1. Comment by David on February 14, 2023 at 9:40 am

    “In 2022 the General Assembly [of the Church of Scotland] acknowledged the practice of conversion therapy is harmful and urged the Scottish Government to ban conversion therapy. The definition which was used is outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy in the UK, which is backed by more than 20 health, counselling and psychotherapy organisations including the Association of Christian Counsellors.”

  2. Comment by Rick Plasterer on February 14, 2023 at 12:23 pm

    David,

    As the linked articles Paulk and also of Jones and Yarhouse show, the opposition of professional associations to sexual orientation change therapy (SOCE) is contradicted by empirical data. This shows the strategy of the contemporary Left, seen prominently in the recent pandemic – gain ideological control of professional associations and make authoritative pronouncements that laymen are not competent to disagree with.

    Rick

  3. Comment by Ben on February 15, 2023 at 3:33 pm

    It is interesting that Jones and Yarhouse lift up Exodus International as a worthwhile example of their evidence. Exodus was disbanded in 2014 with its founder, Alan Chambers, apologizing “I do not believe that cure is a word that is applicable to really any struggle, homosexuality included, for someone to put out a shingle and say, “I can cure homosexuality”—that to me is as bizarre as someone saying they can cure any other common temptation or struggle that anyone faces on Planet Earth.”
    Condon, Patrick (June 27, 2012). “Christian group backs away from gay ‘cure'”. NBC News.

    Paulk renounced the cause. Brydum, Sunnivie (April 24, 2013). “John Paulk Formally Renounces, Apologizes for Harmful ‘Ex-Gay’ Movement”. The Advocate. Archived from the original on June 26, 2013.

    And the Jones and Yarhouse study was debunked:
    Panozzo, Dwight (2013). “Panozzo, D. (2013). Advocating for an end to reparative therapy: Methodological grounding and blueprint for change”. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services. 25 (3). doi:10.1080/10538720.2013.807214. S2CID 143092082.

  4. Comment by David Gingrich on February 20, 2023 at 7:42 am

    Not just a threat to Christianity but a clear violation of Constitutional free speech.

  5. Comment by Rick Plasterer on February 22, 2023 at 1:26 pm

    Ben,

    I hadn’t looked at comments for about a week until late last night, but at this point, I do want to say that this article refers to Anne Paulk, not John Paulk. Of course Stanton Jones and Mark Yarkhouse are respected scholars, who have written many books. With the right assumptions and methodology anyone can debunk anything.

    Rick

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

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.