The Anglican Archdiocese of Melbourne (ADOM) has been alleged to have amended its Code of Conduct for Child Safety & Wellbeing in a manner which forces church workers to obey Victoria’s Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act (CSP ACT). That law, tougher than the laws enacted in other States, tightly restricts prayer and counselling of individuals intended to change sexual orientatition or gender identity.
Author and minister Mark Durie has described Elizabeth Kendall a well-known researcher on religious persecution as “a canary in the Anglican coal mine.” Kendall “was recently forced to stand down from her roles serving in a small Melbourne Anglican congregation because she could not give her assent to this rule,” Durie reports in an article published in Quadrant magazine – and on his website. Durie says he will not apply to renew his PTO (permission to officiate) which will prevent him acting as a priest.
The Code of Conduct, authorised by the diocesan leaders meeting as Archbishop in Council, has a section 6.2(y) which lists among an extensive list of “unacceptable behaviours:” “engage in any conduct to change or suppress a child’s gender identity or sexual orientation.”
Disquiet among the evangelical majority was made clear at a meeting of the Melbourne synod (church parliament) when as Durie records, “a senior priest Dr Peter Adam, brought a motion which mildly requested a review and clarification of 6.2(y), asking for pastoral guidelines from the bishops. In an extraordinary move, Archbishop Freier withdrew the motion on the grounds that a debate could present legal and reputational risks to the Church. Church practice, he said, should conform to the law.”
For Peter Adam, the highly-regarded former principal of Ridley College, the evangelical Anglican seminary in Melbourne, to bring the motion indicates near total support from the evangelicals of Melbourne archdiocese.
If Durie has the Archbishop’s reasoning correctly, it is a likely example of erastian thinking – the doctrine of state supremacy in ecclesiastical (church) affairs, an idea that many Anglicans, progressive or conservative, would not ascribe to.
But despite widespread desquiet about the CSP Act, it is unlikely that Mark Durie and Elizabeth Kendall will lead a wave of refuseniks.
The Code of Conduct applies to children – the controversial section 6.2(y) sits in a list of unacceptable practices which include common restrictions on youth ministry such as section 6.2(w) “become ‘friends’ with, follow or add a child on any social media platform (unless they are a parent, carer, guardian or relative of that child);” and 6.2(cc) “spend time alone with a child unless it is in view of other adults.”
A child, defined in the national Anglican Faithfulness In Service standard is anyone under 18. For sexual matters the age of consent, 16, is also relevant.
Plus, the expectation of the Code of Conduct is that leaders should not “discuss sexual activities with a child unless it is a specific job requirement and the person is qualified or trained to discuss these matters;” (Section 6.2(k)).
This applies to all children whether straight, gay or transgender.
The Anglican Church doctrine remains that sexual activity is reserved for marriage. This is based on the Book of Common Prayer remaining as a “ruling principle” in the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia. This is reflected in Faithfulness In Service, however some other dioceses (church regions) including Perth and Southern Queensland have dropped the “chastity in singleness” requirement of that code. The last General Synod (national church parliament) affirmed “unchastity means sexual intimacy outside a marriage relationship, (which is) defined in the Book of Common Prayer as the union of one man and one woman.” However, the church’s legal body, the Appellate Tribunal, has permitted some other dioceses to bless same sex couples.
In a parallel situation with the Baptist Union of Victoria, where the VEOHRC (Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human rights commission has prodused a guide Providing Safety for LGBTQA People of Faith in consultation with that denomination, more specific guidence is given.
In a section “Prayer and teaching of abstinence and celibacy,” the VEOHRC’s Baptist manual advises “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.
“General comments about celibacy and abstinence in broad statements of belief are not unlawful. However, specifically telling a person in a same-sex relationship that they must stop being sexually active and become celibate could be regarded as a suppression practice and may be unlawful, depending on the circumstances.”
It is unlikely that the Anglicans have read the Baptist manual. However many will have formed the reasonable belief that their own code of conduct in banning speaking about sexual activities with young people and the CSP ACT which does not ban general comments about abstinance means only a very few circumstances would cause legal difficulty.
With Children under 16, the laws of the state regarding consent apply. For older teenagers, evangelicals and many other leaders will urge abstinence. The CSP ACT restricts that happening individually.
Mark Durie and Elizabeth Kendall’s stand on a matter of conscience is recognised and honoured by many who have read the Quadrant article. But The Other Cheek understands that section 6.2(y) of the Code of Conduct will not lead to people leaving ministries in ADOM.
This does not take away strong crique of the CSP Act by many, Melbourne Anglicans, which share the common critique that the legislation was rushed and is poorly drafted – on top of their theological diagreement with it. The continuing failure of failure of the the leadership of the Archdiocese to provide guidelines on how to deal with the CSP Act remains a disappointmentt for ADOM evangelicals.