Vic Baptists told what they can say about sex – and what they can’t

Restrictions on what to say about sex features in “Providing safety for LGBTQA People of Faith” and labeled as “A guide for the Baptist Union of Victoria (BUV) ” published by the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC).

The guide outlines restrictions on Baptists and other religious leaders on discussing sexuality and gender identity with LGBTQA persons imposed by the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021 (CSP Act). It acknowledges that the BUV takes the position that “Marriage is the union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.” and that “BUV shall not ordain persons who engage in homosexual practice.” The guide says that these statements of belief, and others can be made generally or in sermons and Bible studies, but not when “not targeted at an individual to change or suppress their gender identity or sexual orientation.”

The guide suggests refusing to use a gay worship leader is against the CSP Act. This affects whether a church, as a body of believers, can follow its doctrine in practice or whether religion is only a matter of individual and personal belief.

The guide uses a number of case studies to detail the effect of the restrictions.

Anya and Pastor Sandy 16-year-old Anya is a member of Pastor Sandy’s Bible Study group and was raised in a family that believes marriage is the union between one man and one woman, is attracted to girls and is self-harming. She fears rejection. “Pastor Sandy does her best to support Anya – as she would any other young person in a crisis – by carefully listening and affirming the very real anxiety she is experiencing. Pastor Sandy avoids advising Anya towards any particular path but says that, while she may have different views, right now it is more important that Anya knows she is loved and will always be a child of God.”
“Pastor Sandy affirms the importance of Anya having professional support. She also invites Anya to pray with her and says, ‘God, we ask that you help Anya to know how deeply she is loved by you and guide her through this time.’”

This case study reflects “Providing safety for LGBTQA People of Faith” guidance that counselling permits “Listening to someone explore the possibility that they may be attracted to the same sex or don’t feel comfortable with their assigned gender,” but not conversations advocating traditional Christian belief. That would go against the general principle of the CSP Act: “A change or suppression practice is a practice or conduct that is directed at an individual (or a particular group of people) – with or without their consent – because of the person’s or group’s sexual orientation or gender identity, with the intention of changing or suppressing their sexuality or gender identity.”

Pastor Sandy is also restricted in praying with Anya: “The CSP Act does not prohibit personal prayer in any way. However, praying with or over a person to change or suppress their sexuality or gender identity is unlawful. It is unlawful even if that person has asked you to pray for them to be able to change or suppress their sexuality or gender identity.”

In this case study, the guide suggests Pastor Sandy adopts a particular theological position.

Pastor Senn and Deepak Deepak, a man attracted to other men, “tells Pastor Sen that he has known for a long time that he is attracted to men – but that he also knows from the church’s teachings that homosexual practice is wrong, so he feels conflicted about what he should do.”

When Pastor Sen looks at the VEOERC he finds that “The site makes it clear that Pastor Sen can talk about his own views on sexuality and those of the church, but should avoid telling Deepak to change who he is or suppress that side of himself.”

“The code of conduct for Pastor Sen’s church provides guidance on celibacy and that isn’t likely to be a suppression practice as it isn’t targeted at an individual because of their sexual orientation. However, church leaders may find it difficult to implement the code of conduct, as enforcing celibacy against an individual may be a suppression practice.”

It seems that if Pastor Sen was to tell a heterosexual person to be celibate, it would not be an offence. But to tell a lesbian or a gay male the same thing may be. “Whether this conduct would amount to a change or suppression practice will depend on all of the circumstances as to whether the elements of a suppression practice are present.”

Rev Matteo: has been asked to give a speech at a public forum and “does not agree with same-sex marriage and is opposed to gender transition and homosexual practice.”

“While reading the Commission’s website, he also learns that if he knows that someone in his audience is questioning their sexual orientation and thinks they might be gay, he may need to be
careful of his phrasing. His speech could be seen as an attempt to encourage that person to suppress those feelings and that could fall within the definition of a change or suppression practice under the CSP Act.

“However, because it is a new audience and Rev Matteo is not giving his speech with the intention of changing anyone, there is less risk of his actions being unlawful. But to be sure, he edits his speech
a little to be clear that the framing is about his beliefs and his understanding of the Bible.”

This case study raises the question of whether sermons are safe places to deliver conservative doctrine. The guide states that the CSP Act permits “Delivering a sermon or other teaching to a group of people on any of those subjects, as long as the sermon is not targeted at an individual to change or suppress their gender identity or sexual orientation.” In a church where the minister knows there are gay people in the congregation, is making it clear that the sermon is “about their beliefs and their understanding of the Bible” sufficient to conform to the CSP Act? What if someone feels targetted even if that is not the intention of the speaker?

Pastor Wang and Lee: Lee is a twelve-year-old and “although everyone sees them as a boy, they’ve never really felt like a boy. For as long as they can remember, they’ve felt more like a girl.” Having read the Commission’s website “Pastor Wang is better informed. Knowing more about gender-affirming care and the legislation, she feels more comfortable about supporting Lee and their parents to talk about what’s going on for them without judgement.”

This case study suggests that being well informed means there’s only one view on this contentious topic that can be expressed by a pastor or leader in conversation with a trans person. The guide states “If a person comes to a faith leader asking for help as they want to change and not be gay, lesbian or trans, it is still unlawful for the faith leader to try to change or suppress the person’s sexual orientation or gender identity (or to refer them elsewhere for this purpose).”

Elizabeth and Pastor Anselm This case study raises the issue of church discipline. Elizabeth is a musician at his church. “Pastor Anselm believes that practising homosexuality is a sin. He believes Elizabeth is leading a sinful lifestyle as she has said that she is open to dating women. He is worried that having her lead worship would look as if he endorses what he sees as her sinful choices and feels that she should not act on her attraction to women.”

“It’s one thing for Pastor Anselm to believe that practising homosexuality is a sin. It’s another thing to require Elizabeth to change or hide who she is because the church’s stance is that romantic and sexual relationships should only occur between one man and one woman. Saying that Elizabeth must only date men to be able to continue in her role may be a change or suppression practice, as it may be seen as conduct directed towards Elizabeth on the basis of her sexuality for the purpose of changing or suppressing her sexual orientation.”

In a summary section, “Supporting LGBTQA people of faith” makes explicit demands of pastors and leaders “As a pastoral worker, you have a role to play as an advocate. If your community is telling LGBTQA people that to be a member of your faith community they are required to suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity, you should be aware that such a requirement will be harmful and unsafe for LGBTQA people in your community. LGBTQA people should be protected from such unsafe policies and practices.”

The BUV is a diverse organisation, it includes some churches with Lesbian and gay male ministers, who have not been formally ordained. Some Victorian Baptists will welcome “”Providing safety for LGBTQA People of Faith” Others will feel unsupported, or unsafe.

The guide states that VEOHRC “consulted with BUV – an association of autonomous churches – to produce this guide, but we understand that this guide does not represent the doctrine, opinions, advice or policies of BUV.”

Clarification: the title of the Commission has been corrected to Human Rights, not Equal Rights, as in the original.