Christian reactions to the Conversion practices laws that ban some form of christian ministry to LGBTQIA persons have been scattergun, with some forecasting jail for prayers and others saying it is largely business as usual. It seems this magic pudding has been both overcooked and underdone.
An example of the “we could go to jail for praying camp ” is Presbyterian minister David Robertson’s Facebook post from last week, as the debate heated up.
Robertson is correct to draw attention to the global tragedy of Marxism in the 20th century, although his estimate is at the higher end of the range that historians estimate.
Another example of a Christian commentator saying prayer will lead you to jail:
But will people go to jail for praying with people with unwanted desires?
The state conversion acts in Victoria, NSW and South Australia ban prayer when the prayer is one-on-one or directed at an individual in a group to change or suppress their LGBTQIA identity or expression.
However, the jail terms, of five years maximum in SA or NSW and ten years in Victoria, apply to criminal offences that run alongside civil complaints before an anti-discrimination body.
Although the argument can be made that the tribunal process can be arduous and a punishment in itself – think of Archbishop Porteous of Hobart’s anti-discrimination case – there is a big jump imposed by the conversion acts before a jail term is a jail term.
Taking NSW, which the state Robertson references, as an example, to engage criminal penalties, the law requires substantial harm to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Section 5 reads: “Offence of engaging in conversion practices that cause mental or physical harm
(1) A person commits an offence if the person provides or delivers a conversion practice to an individual—
(a) with the intention of changing or suppressing the individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, and
(b) that causes mental or physical harm to the individual that—
(i) endangers the individual’s life, or
(ii) is substantial.
Maximum penalty—imprisonment for 5 years.
It is worth quoting Attorney-General Michael Daley’s second reading speech about the criminal provisions. “For the offence to be proved, evidence that the victim has experienced harm from the conversion practices must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This element is not about the intention of the person in question who delivers or performs the conversion practice; it is solely a question of fact as to whether the harm has or has not occurred. The relevant harm must either endanger the victim’s life or be “substantial” to satisfy the offence. Substantial harm has been held in case law to mean harm that is more than trivial or inconsequential. It must be more than taking offence, hurt feelings or shame and humiliation…
“Criminal sanction is appropriately reserved for very serious conduct. Containing the offence to cases where the harm has endangered life, or where substantial or protracted harm has occurred, aligns with those principles. Further, this is a threshold that reflects and incorporates the views of the majority of stakeholders in the consultation process. It also aligns with the graduated approach that underpins the overall structure of the bill and our legislative response.”
For prayer to merit the criminal penalties, an extreme case would have to be mounted. Driving an individual to suicide might be an example – it would take a high degree of pastoral blindness for that to happen, either through prayer alone or as a substantial contribution when other practices are involved.
At the other end of the scale of responses to the conversion bill (leaving out those who simply support the Acts) are Christians who are seen to minimise the effects on Christian ministry of the Acts.
Mark Durie, a Senior Research Fellow at the Melbourne School of Theology, published a story in Quadrant A Canary in the Anglican Coalmine announcing his intention not to renew his license to act as a presbyter/priest in the Melbourne Anglican Diocese. This is because the diocese added a rule to its Code of Conduct for Child Safety and Wellbeing: Rule 6.2(y) states that no church worker may “engage in any conduct to change or suppress a child’s gender identity or sexual orientation”
In effect, this code of conduct requires youth ministers to follow the provisions of the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021.
Durie reported that Elizabeth Kendall, a veteran religious freedom campaigner, had also decided to stand down from her ministry roles.
“I mean what if a 12-year-old girl tells me that they’re going to socially transition and they don’t want to be called Mary anymore, they want to be called Kevin, and then they’re going to start on puberty blockers and testosterone,” Kendall told Vision Radio.
The former principal of Ridley College, Peter Adam, sought to bring a motion before the Melbourne Anglican Synod (church parliament) that requested a review and clarification of 6.2(y), asking for pastoral guidelines from the bishops. Archbishop Freier did not allow the motion to be put.
But the Melbourne Anglican code of conduct alert contained a provision 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 meant that one-on-one discussions about sexuality would not normally be happening with young people. Group discussions about Christian teaching are not banned by the Code of Conduct or the Act (provided they are not directed to an individual. In effect, the new section in the Code of Conduct does not ban anything that was not already banned by this existing code, with rare exceptions.
Graham Stanton, a high-profile youth work expert, posted this significant contribution to The Other Cheek’s earlier news story about the Melbourne situation.
“I made this contribution to a discussion forum hosted by the New Cranmer Society in relation to Motion 15: I do want to point out that there’s nothing obvious about how to respond on this issue.
“I am not intending to minimise anything of Elizabeth [Kendal]’s experience with the Diocese. I don’t know enough about the situation to be able to comment.
“I do want to reiterate what [two other evangelical children’s and youth ministers] have said earlier: that with this particular piece of legislation and the wording of the code of conduct, those of use who have been working with young people with diverse sexuality and gender identities over the past three years have not been hindered from the pastoral work that we believe is in the best interests of these young people.
“We do need to tread carefully, but I believe that the care that we exercise because of the change or suppression law is the same care that we exercise to promote the personal agency of young people and express the limits of our authority as gospel ministers.
“We are not hindered from teaching what the church believes, or sharing what we hear the Spirit to be saying in the Scriptures. We can pray for and with young people as they navigate these challenges. We can commit to walk with young people through the choices that they have the privilege and responsibility to make before God. We can continue to share the good news of Jesus as the better story that takes up every other aspect of our being into his life.
“I am committed to obeying God rather than human beings (Acts 5:29), but I am also committed to being subject to the governing authorities (Rom 13:1). I don’t believe that the change or suppression laws place us in an Acts 5 situation. I understand that others will disagree with me. I am simply wanting to point out that there is an alternative way of seeing this.”
For completeness in rounding up responses, here is a bold maximalist statement by academic and author Stephen Chavura:
Correction: to Mark Durie’s name, Porteous spelling