Over the last couple of weeks there have been two public statements by liberal members of the Church of England referring to a decision made by the Church's General Synod in 2017, in support of their view that there should be a legal ban on 'conversion therapy,' that is to say, therapy aimed at helping people who are struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria and seek assistance in changing their behaviour.
The first was a statement by the Bishop of Manchester, Bishop David Walker, included in a government press release on 25 June, in support of the government's proposal to introduce a bill banning conversion therapy. The Draft Conversion Practices Bill “will set the criminal threshold for conversion practices as conduct that aims to change someone’s sexual orientation or transgender identity through abusive acts that seriously harm the victim”.
Bishop Walker said: “I welcome the publication of this draft Bill as a positive step towards banning conversion practices. These have harmed LGBT people over many years, leaving many with lifelong trauma. This work is long overdue, and comes after the General Synod of the Church of England voted, by a very large majority, in favour of the Government bringing forward a ban in 2017. I am pleased that this will bring an opportunity for consultation and scrutiny, so that substantial progress can at last be made.”
The second is an open letter to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, published by Thinking Anglicans, regarding the approval of the fringe event ‘People Change: Sexual Identity Transformation’ featuring ex-gay Christians and the allocation of exhibition space to organisers during the forthcoming General Synod.
In this letter the eighty-two signatories appeal to the same General Synod motion referred to by Bishop Walker as one of the reasons that the fringe meeting and exhibition space should not have been agreed given that the organisation involved supposedly supports conversion therapy. They remind the archbishops that:
“General Synod has previously endorsed the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy, recognising the harms associated with conversion practices and supporting legislative action to prohibit them.”
The motion in question, which was passed overwhelmingly in all three houses - bishops, clergy and laity - in July 2017 runs as follows:
“That this Synod:
-
endorse the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy in the UK of November 2015, signed by The Royal College of Psychiatrists and others, that the practice of gay conversion therapy has no place in the modern world, is unethical, potentially harmful and not supported by evidence;
-
call upon the Church to be sensitive to, and to listen to, contemporary expressions of gender identity;
-
and call on the government to ban the practice of Conversion Therapy.”
The passing of this motion means that the Church of England officially opposes conversion therapy and wants the government to ban it. However, the Church of England also holds as part of its official doctrine (Article XXI of the Thirty-Nine Articles) that decisions made by Church councils may be in error and there are three reasons for thinking that the Church of England’s 2017 decision was an example of such error.
The first reason is that, contrary to what is said in clause (a) the evidence simply does not support the claim that conversion therapy necessarily causes harm and never works.
As Peter Ould, an Anglican writer on the issue, has pointed out, the only rigorous scientific study of the issue is the 2011 study by Stanton L Jones and Mark Yarhouse entitled ‘A Longitudinal Study of Attempted Religiously Mediated Sexual Orientation Change.’ To quote Ould, this study followed “a number of individuals over a few years through a variety of religious orientated therapeutic approaches” and “there was no statistically significant evidence of harm, even in those for whom the therapy 'failed' or who dropped out.”
Ould further notes that the study “was clear that there was no statistically significant change at the group level in their self-reported sexual orientation. Particular individuals reported change and others reported no change, and this fits anecdotal evidence elsewhere.”
However, he asks:
“… should a low success rate be a reason to ban a therapeutic group? Peer review studies indicate that the success rate for Alcoholics Anonymous (another spiritual based group therapy) is around five per cent to ten per cent (lower than the anecdotal success rates for forms of ex-gay therapy) and there is plenty of evidence of those who believe they have been harmed by the experience. Given the lower success rates and same reports of harm than conservative support groups for those who are not happy with their sexual orientation, should such alcoholics support therapies also be banned? If not, why not?”
Furthermore, although there has been no comparably rigorous scientific study of the issue since Jones and Yarhouse’s work in 2011, the fifteen years since have produced an ever increasing number of reliable firsthand testimonies from people with unwanted same-sex attraction or sexual identity problems who hold that the Christian therapeutic help they have received has been beneficial to them in helping them to live in the way that they as Christians want to live. Such testimonies can be found, for example, on the website xoutloud.com.
The second reason is that there is a compelling theological case for Christians seeking to assist people who experience unwanted same-sex attraction or struggle with their sexual identity and who want help to change so that they can live in a godlier way in future.
In thinking about this second reason, we need to begin by thinking about what it means to live rightly as a human being.
The Christian faith teaches us that to live rightly as a human being means to respond rightly to the grace of God. The grace of God is the love of God shown to those who have done nothing to deserve it. We see this grace at work in the way that God has created us out of nothing when he had no obligation to do so and in the way that he bestowed new life on us through Christ and the Spirit when through our rebellion against him we had fallen under the power of sin and death.
Living rightly as a human being means living in the light of this double grace. It means being set free to live a life of love for God and neighbour that reflects the truth about who we are as people God whom has created and upon whom he has bestowed new life, so that in the world to come we might live with God forever in a restored creation and thus fulfil the purpose for which we were made.
The fact that we have received the grace of God does not mean that we can henceforth live the way we are called to live without any difficulty. On the contrary, the Bible and the mainstream Christian tradition following the Bible, both insist that this path is a difficult one. It will be a journey full of ups and downs, of sorrows and disappointments, in which we constantly let God down and must constantly receive his forgiveness and seek his strength to do better in future.
As Paul notes in Romans 8:25, living through all the ups and downs of our present life involves hope and patience: “But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.” We do not yet see, in the sense of present experience, the total and complete victory over sin which God has promised us. However, because of what God has done through Christ we confidently hope that this victory will one day happen and that we shall participate in it.
Because we have this hope, we can be patient in the face of our current difficulties in the conviction that, as Paul puts it elsewhere, “this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond comparison” (2 Corinthians 4:17). What will be, will make our present afflictions worthwhile.
Part of loving our neighbours involves helping them to live in the way which I have just described. This means offering them help through prayer, teaching, advice, and emotional support and, if it is necessary and if we are equipped to offer it, offering them more specialised forms of help if they are facing particular difficulties because of their personal circumstances or family backgrounds, or because they have mental health issues which lead them to behave in ungodly ways (for example, addiction to alcohol, gambling, or pornography).
What is never permissible is to try to force people to live rightly through the threat or application or physical force, or through the use of drugs or psychological manipulation. Such activities go against the inherent dignity of human beings as those made in God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27) and even if they were successful in affecting an individual’s behaviour, they could never bring about that willing response to God’s double grace that is fundamental to living rightly as a human being. By its very nature a willing response must involve free and informed consent. We must genuinely want to live God’s way.
From a traditional Christian perspective, it is this big picture of what living rightly involves that provides the proper framework for thinking about the particular cases of people who experience same-sex sexual attraction or who struggle with their sexual identity.
God’s revelation of his purposes for humanity through the natural order, and through Scripture and the witness to Scripture borne by the orthodox Christian tradition teach us that God created human beings as creatures who are either male or female depending on their biology (Genesis 1:26-27), that human bodies are created to have sex with members of the opposite sex within a lifelong union, and thereby fulfil God’s command to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ (Genesis 1:28). Ultimately God has instituted marriage between one man and one woman as the proper context for sexual intercourse and the begetting of children (Genesis 2:18-25).
Living according to God’s double grace means accepting these truths and learning to live in accordance with them even if we find this very difficult to do. As in the case of anyone else, helping people to live in this way involves giving them the general and more specialised help previously described. However, for the reasons already given it cannot involve any form of physical coercion or psychological manipulation. Just like anyone else, those with same-sex sexual attraction or sexual identity problems need to have the freedom to willingly respond to the grace of God. They too must genuinely want to live God’s way.
In relation to the issue of conversion therapy, what all this means is that Christians should agree that any form of physical coercion or psychological manipulation of people with same-sex sexual attraction or difficulties with their sexual identity is wrong in principle and should not be permitted.
What they cannot agree with, however, is that they should not be permitted to help these people to live rightly before God through prayer, teaching, advice, emotional support and specialised forms of counselling and therapy. In the face of such activity being banned, the teaching of Acts 5:29 ‘We must obey God rather than men’ would come into play and so disobedience to such a ban would be called for. This is because abandoning those seeking the Church’s help to live in a godlier fashion is simply not a Christian option. Those who want help to live in God’s way must be offered it.
The third reason is because of the very damaging consequences a ban on conversion therapy would have for freedom of religion in this country. This is a point that is very well made by the Evangelical Alliance in its recent statement ‘How should the church respond to the proposed conversion practices ban?’ The statement notes:
“The proposals prompt many questions as to the workability of the legislation, and how it would apply, and they certainly do not provide reassurance that the concerns we have raised have been heard, nor that the work of churches and the role of parents will be protected.
“Can parents guide their children in critical conversations about sexuality and gender or will those be viewed as controlling? Could the refusal to pay for puberty blockers be seen as economic pressure? Can churches teach a biblically orthodox view of sexuality even if it causes a listener serious distress? The proposals also extend to trustee or elder boards – are they at risk of criminalisation if they insist that staff hold to their view of sex and sexuality?
“A lot rides on these proposals and what is meant by sexual orientation, and whether this covers teaching or pastoral practice which encourages individuals to refrain from sexual activity with someone of the same sex. If it does, then a wide range of church practices, employment policies, or questions around church membership might be brought within the scope of the proposals.”
The 2017 motion completely ignores such concerns when it calls for a government ban on conversion therapy. In effect, if not in intention, it is calling for a legal ban on normal Christian ministry and responsible Christian parenting.
For the three reasons just outlined there are good grounds for believing that the 2017 General Synod motion was seriously in error. It follows that members of the Church of England should not appeal to it any way and should in fact vote to overturn it.
