In this second post, I am turning to the question of definition. How is conversion practice being defined and what should we think about it?
The definition which the Victorian Government is suggesting is the same as that offered by the HCC report. However, before offering a comment on the definition it is worthwhile highlighting this salient point which comes from the Government’s own website for the rather Orwellian sounding, “Department of Justice and Community Safety”.
The Government justifies limiting religious freedom
The Government has admitted that it is prepared to further limit religious freedom.
“Both the HCC and HRLC Reports highlight that many modern LGBT conversion practices are religious rather than medical in nature in that they involve, or consist entirely of, pastoral and prayer activities. Manifestation of religious belief through religious practice is protected by the right to freedom of religion. This right to manifest is not absolute and a number of commentators argue that it is not clear that it extends to practices that seriously harm others. The impact of a ban of conversion practices on the right to freedom of religion may be justified given the nature and extent of the harm described in the HCC and HRLC Reports. Legislation to implement the government announced ban on conversion practices needs to demonstrate that it is necessary, effective, and proportionate to protect LGBT individuals from harm.”
To be clear, the Victorian Government is targeting religion, and specifically, the primary focus is on Christian churches, organisations, and denominations, as the material in the 2 reports exemplifies.
The intention is also clear: without any philosophical working, the Government has assumed that sexual rights are more important than religious rights. It is, of course, a false binary, for a person’s understanding of sexual morality is always attached to religious presuppositions. Sexual expression is an expression of one’s deepest convictions about God, the world, and the individual. Having said that, we mustn’t ignore the suggestion of harm, for the wellbeing of these Victorians is important.
Classical Christian teaching defined as harmful
The Government is using the argument of harm in order to limit the freedom of religious groups. Certainly, we do not want any Victorians, including LGBTI Victorians, being harmed. It is important to hear that I am not disputing that some Victorians have been subjected to practices that have caused them all manner of distress and damage. It seems as though these have come about through good intentions, but funnelled through misleading understandings of Christian faith and psychology. The definition of harm, however (as expounded in the HCC and HRLC Reports) extends beyond certain practices which are found on the margins among some religious organisations. For example,
The HCC report includes under its understanding of harm,
“Conversion therapy/practices reinforced homosexuality as a form of ‘brokenness’”
“Church teachings that homosexuality is sinful;”
Notice the attention given to Church teachings (as opposed to other religions who also identify homosexual practices as sinful). In other words, classical Christian teaching about sexuality is deemed to be harmful. According to the HCC, an exposition of Romans ch.1 or 1 Corinthians ch.6 would fall under the umbrella of harm. If a Church organises a marriage enrichment day where the Bible’s presentation of marriage is affirmed, this event could fall foul of harm. From weddings to Sunday sermons, from Bible study groups to counselling sessions, in contexts where sex outside of heterosexual marriage is spoken of as sinful or broken, the Health Complaints Commissioner identifies all of the above as harmful and therefore the State can justify limiting religious freedom.
I don’t know of anyone who would argue against protecting people from genuine harm. But dragging traditional Christian teaching and ethics into the ‘harm’ category diminishes the real harm that has been done to some Victorians. Is the Health Complaints Commissioner really proposing that the Government step in to control and redefine Christian belief and practice?
The Proposed Definition of Conversion Practice
Here is the suggested definition of conversion practice:
“(i) any practice or treatment that seeks to change, suppress or eliminate an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity,
(ii) including efforts to eliminate sexual and/or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same gender, or efforts to change gender expressions.”
The Government acknowledges that there are narrow and broad definitions available and that they have chosen to accept the broader definition that has been supplied by the HCC. It is important for the Government to explain why they are preferencing a broad definition rather than a narrow one. Also, why are they seeking to expand the definition even beyond the few international jurisdictions that have proceeded to ban conversion therapy?
Let’s be clear, the proposed definition of Conversion Practice is so broad that it includes more than a psychologist’s clinic or a counselling room.
The HRLC report wants included under the umbrella of conversion practice,
“pastoral care which includes (or claims to include) ‘counselling’, ‘healing’, claims about ‘curing’, ‘changing’ or ‘repairing’ a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, or claims about improving a person’s mental or physical health, would likely still be classified as a health service, and the above regulations would apply.”
Indeed, the definition is so expansive that it may include sermons, Bible Studies, marriage courses, counselling, and prayer. Before a Government spokesman denies this is the case, let’s turn to the reports themselves.
Under the heading of, “RELIGIOUS CONVERSION THERAPY IN AUSTRALIA TODAY”, the HRLC report refers to new forms of conversion practice, which include promoting self-control and abstinence.
“Instead, they are beginning to promote activities designed to help same-sex attracted people live chaste and celibate lives, in accordance with the sexual ethics of their religious traditions.”
As one academic in the field of gender studies has said to me in private, according to the above assertion, “self control is conversion therapy”. In one foul stroke, significant portions of the Bible would have to be removed.
The examples don’t end there. According to the same report, affirming the historical and biblical definition of marriage is also considered a form of conversion therapy,
“This ‘welcoming but not affirming’ posture equates to a more sophisticated version of the old evangelical adage, ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’. LGBT conversion therapy is not prominently promoted. However, LGBT people worshipping in communities that present cisgendered heterosexual marriage as the only valid form of gender and sexual expression are positioned to repress and reject their LGBT characteristics and to seek reorientation.”
Without significant revision and clarification, the Government’s plan to outlaw Conversion Practices will be used by some to impede what are normal and deeply held convictions among our religious communities.
It should also be said that religious institutions have a responsibility to prevent practices/therapies that are genuinely harmful and wrong. While I cannot speak for other religions, I know that the aim of Christianity is not to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender. I’m reminded of the testimony given by Sam Allberry,
“I am same-sex attracted and have been my entire life. By that, I mean that I have sexual, romantic and deep emotional attractions to people of the same sex. I choose to describe myself this way because sexuality is not a matter of identity for me, and that has become good news,”
“My primary sense of worth and fulfillment as a human being is not contingent on being romantically or sexually fulfilled, and this is liberating,”
“The most fully human and compete person was Jesus Christ. He never married, was never in a romantic relationship, and never had sex. If we say these things are intrinsic to human fulfilment, we are calling our saviour subhuman. “
“I have met literally hundreds of Christians in my situation, and know of thousands more, who are same-sex attracted, and who joyfully affirm the traditional understanding of marriage being between a man and a woman, and the only Godly context for sex. If you do not hear from more of us, it is because it is really hard to stand up and describe ourselves in this way…”
The Bible calls Christians to sexual purity; this does not necessarily mean there will be a change in sexual orientation. The fact is, in becoming Christian many gay and lesbian people will not become heterosexual. When people become Christians, there is however always a change in life. What point is there in becoming a follower of Jesus Christ if nothing changes? In beginning the Christian life, there are newly found desires for sanctification. Let me repeat, this does not imply that people cease to struggle with aspects of their past, including sexual orientation, but it does mean that they now want to be godly in their sexuality. According to the Bible, sanctification includes affirming that sexual practices should remain within the loving, exclusive, mutually consenting, covenant of marriage between a man and a woman. I say all this while I can without fear of being pulled up before a tribunal or court for espousing ‘conversion therapy’!
The fact is, some people over time do change. It is not a Christian teaching that homosexuals ought to become heterosexuals or that transgender people will conform to their biological sex, but it does sometimes happen, and for these reports to ignore this fact is curious, to say the least.
Conversion by coercion or conversion by choice?
As it stands, the Government’s proposal is nothing short of forced conversion. Without significant revisions, this looks like an attempt to control and redefine what religious organisations believe and teach about human sexuality and flourishing.
It is difficult not to see the Government’s grandstanding as somewhat duplicitous, given their proclivity to legislate in favour of gender and sex changes. On the one hand, the Government’s position here is that a person’s sexual orientation and gender cannot change, and supporting someone who wants to change is immoral and should be banned. On the other hand, only a few months ago the Victorian Parliament passed a Bill from the Government that gives Victorians permission to change the sex on their birth certificate, once every 12 months. And of growing concern to many people are Government policies which encourage children to transition their gender, something that State permits without parental permission and knowledge. There is growing consensus and concern amongst medical experts that these kinds of practices are indeed harmful and detrimental to the long-term physical and mental health of Victorian children.
Victoria is witnessing a fundamental clash of worldviews, one supports a healthy pluralism in our society and the other believes in conforming to a narrow and uncompromising agenda.
The Government’s current position on conversion practice is about pressuring religious groups to change their views on sexuality. If the definitions were limited to those rare, extreme, and dangerous practices that some peoples have been subjected to, there is warrant for discussion. What we are seeing thus far from the Government is unnecessary and contravenes those basic distinctions between Church and State.
Christians don’t believe in forced conversions. We believe in persuading others of a message that is good and attractive. Christianity is by definition a conversion religion. No one is born a Christian. People become Christians as they are convinced by the truthfulness and goodness of Christianity’s message, the Gospel of Jesus of Christ.
As Jesus once said to a notable leader,
“Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
Christianity posits conversion as a result of personal conviction and choice, whereas the Government’s position seems to be, convert by coercion. Indeed, placing this conversation on conversion under the “Department of Justice and Community Safety” is probably not meant to be prophetic, but the irony is certainly not be missed.
All Victorians should be concerned by the Government’s plan to ban conversion practices. Let me reiterate, the Government is indicating more than simply banning practices that have proven harmful to some individuals, they are proposing to force-convert religious organisations and churches to the theological convictions of the new secular sexual milieu.
In the future, will Churches and religious organisations in Victoria have freedom to preach, teach, and counsel and pray in line with their religious convictions? Without significant revisions to the proposed definition, the answer is probably no.
5 thoughts on “Victoria to Outlaw Conversion Therapy (part 2)”
Pingback: "Praying for gay celibacy" could be banned - Eternity News
I am Christian and proud to be Christian. The Bible teaches no me is perfect. We are all sinners all influenced by Satan to greater or lesser degrees in many ways. Satan appointed ruler as the most beautiful & cleverest of Angels. the ruler of this world until Christ returns. He is ruler of the air so tv radio etc and cancer into people’s minds making wrong seem right”. I was Athiest for about 54 years then converted over about 2 years after reading and debating bible belief. I am now 65. It is ridiculous and controlling for a government to impose rules on people’s religious beliefs. It is manipulative for any homosexual or trans person to say harm is being caused to persons that willingly opt to go to conversion therapy then claim to have been harmed psychologically or otherwise. They made a choice to attend. However Christian teachers probably need to stick just to teaching Christian law from the Bible and discussing it in bible school. It is up to individuals from this world to determijne whether they want to be true followers of God and God’s Law. There is no compromise in Christianity. As Bible says God is the same today as yesterday and will be tomorrow. His Laws do not change. He made the Human race and like the potter who makes the pots or vases or plates or cups we cannot say I do not want to be a pot or vase or plate because who is the pot to tell the potter what he should be? This is a very dictstorial government to say that Christianity is harmful. Those that claim it are deceitful. If they dont want to convert dot ask to be converted but Christians should teach what is in the Bible and leave up to those who are not following the Christian path to choose freely. It must come from the individual seeking God’s help in prayer and learning rather than Christians trying to teach the need to change. Christians should just encourage the seeking to know the WORD OF GOD. as Athiest I read criticised argued reread and reread and discussed and PRAYED for understanding of the BIBLE. I came to see a whole new way of looking at tbe world and my part in it. I sincerely wanted to understand but had been educated on DARWINISM and EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. Had Science degree in Zoology. I knew the issues but overlooked willingly. No Government or group of people has the right to quell understanding or seeking of knowledge. Some Christian religions have not gone about this well and should just be told to teach within your church just from the Bible. Let God do the work for those that truly seek him. If people don’t seek the Church leave them be. But invite to church and to read the Bible & if they choose further up to them. God says all people are his children and he celebrates in heaven for each one that joins his flock.
Thank you Murray
Well written. I am sure you are aware that there are no ministries practicing the kind of things regularly spoken about and defined as ‘conversion therapy’. As you have mentioned, the La Trobe Report was skewed and I felt was a poor piece of supposed academic research. No one was consulted from a non-affirming Christian viewpoint. Much of this report was inaccurate and flawed.
There are hundreds of people who have left LGBT lives and many who continue to have same-sex attraction who are happy to be in churches where they receive support to live within their personal understanding of faith. Some of these people are feeling very anxious that they may not be able to receive this help in the future and this is causing much distress. The ban that is really targeting churches, will no doubt do more harm than good. Two places in the USA have recently rescinded laws banning such help as they found this was the case, or that it impinged on other people’s freedom of belief.
My own recent doctoral project found that there are no churches offering any programs to change LGBT people from gay to straight. However, those who are same-sex attracted who I interviewed and who go to traditionally biblical churches, had chosen these churches for their stance so that they could feel supported. This move to ban help takes away the personal rights of people such as this.
I have recently been in Taiwan with representatives from all around the world who are post-LGBT. There is a rising number of people who are feeling tired of being told they do not exist. If anyone does speak out to say that they have left LGBT lives, they find themselves relentlessly attacked and often forced into silence. However, many of us are feeling that we can no longer remain silent (Rev 12:11).
In Taiwan the churches have laid aside their differences to meet and discuss how to respond to these ongoing onslaughts against the church. They have put aside November to pray and fast regarding same-sex issues. I would dearly love to see churches unite to do this here, however most do not seem to be aware that this latest move by the Andrew’s government is focused on them.
A summit of pastors or some kind of Symposium would be helpful before it is too late and churches are muzzled or some pastor is dragged before the courts for simply praying for someone.
You mention that there are no churches offering programs to change LGBT people from gay to straight. That’s not quite the same as saying there aren’t organisations that churches could refer people to that aren’t practising conversion therapy.
Could you define what you mean by conversion or reparative therapy?
I was wondering if you could clarify the difference between the practices of ex-gay ministries such as Exodus Global Alliance and conversion therapy practices?
Pingback: New Concerns over Victoria’s Proposed Banning of Conversion Practices | MurrayCampbell.net
Comments are closed.