Words really do matter - Conversion therapy and 'appropriate pastoral support'
‘Sheep Conversion Therapy’ by David Hayward, nakedpastor.com
LAST MONTH the Director of the Evangelical Alliance wrote to the Prime Minister to defend 'religious freedom' in calls to ban conversion therapy. Our Trustee Neil Rees helped OTN produce a response. Now an ITV journalist has shared a reply from Boris Johnson, Neil writes a personal response.
What exactly are we to make of the Prime Minister’s suggestion that the government will not ban ‘prayer’ around a person’s sexuality?
Boris Johnson writes in his reply to the Director of the Evangelical Alliance [EA]:
“...we will continue to allow adults to receive appropriate pastoral support (including prayer), in churches and other religious settings, in the exploration of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
After 27 years serving in international mission, Neil Rees was the minister of CLM Church in Ormskirk near Liverpool until November 2021. He maintains a strong interest in the global Christian community and international development and serves today in Bible teaching, training and leadership development. He has an MA in international development and one published book, Not Everything in Our Bibles Is Inspired.
He is actively working to see the Christian community become more inclusive to all, which led to him becoming an LGBT+ ally, and a trustee of the Open Table Network.
Judging by his past record, this is typical Boris, promising one thing to one set of people and another to others, then walking away from the inevitable consequences. For example: when quizzed about a potential customs border down the Irish Sea, he famously replied, ‘There will be no border down the Irish Sea - over my dead body.’ And now we have petrol bombs being thrown in Belfast in response to a growing sense of betrayal, as well as the EU taking the UK to court.
So, I don't consider anything the PM says as, well, ‘gospel’. The letter says what he, or his advisors, think evangelicals would perhaps want to hear but may prove to have no relation at all to any final legislation.
However, we should also consider the content as, even if it ultimately proves to be meaningless, words are important - or they should be.
Like all communication, meaning depends on the interpretation of words. And in this respect, the Prime Minister’s letter is inadequate.
He assures evangelicals that ‘appropriate pastoral support’ will be acceptable. But who defines what is ‘appropriate’? Where does support become pressure? And when does pastoral interest become religious control?
‘Normal non-coercive activity’ should not, he says, be criminalised. But again, who defines what is considered ‘normal’? When do ‘non-coercive’ approaches tip over into ‘coercive’ behaviour? Of greater significance in the evangelical context, how much do deeply rooted attitudes contribute to the formation of a coercive and potentially abusive culture, in which specific and apparently ‘non-coercive activity’ is actually highly coercive? Can the real threat of losing all one's family and friends unless accepting our ‘offer’ of prayer ever be considered ‘non-coercive’, even if all that is actually said is ‘We’d like to pray for you.’? Where the threatened consequence of departing from the church’s position is eternal torment in hell - taught as truth, absolute truth, God's truth - would this not rightly be considered coercive?
‘Exploration of sexual orientation or gender identity’ can never be neutral if there is a pre-existing commitment on the part of those giving ‘pastoral support’, whether in a religious or any other setting, to heteronormativity - the belief that heterosexuality is the ‘normal’ sexual orientation, that there are only two distinct, opposite genders, and that sexual and marital relations are most fitting between people of the ‘opposite sex’. So, when the implicit goal of ‘prayer support’ is to correct a person’s ‘distorted sexuality’, it would never be ‘appropriate’. It is my hope that future legislation would make that much clear. But it needs spelling out. Ambiguity in language will only allow harmful practices to continue.
So, above all, the real issue is proper definition and understanding of the terms used, what they include and what they exclude. And when considering interventions from Christians who take on a counseling role in the lives of those exploring their sexuality and gender identity, it must explicitly define what may legitimately be considered appropriate, and, more importantly, inappropriate.
Let me strike one positive note - the letter speaks of adults. Most exploration of sexual orientation and gender identity starts when people are, legally speaking, children. This letter leaves no room for much of what is done within churches. Without reform of current practice in some conservative evangelical circles, many would still face their actions being criminalised. I would be surprised if the EA takes the implications of specifying ‘adults’, and thus excluding ‘appropriate pastoral support’ from children, without further comment or appeal.
Finally, from Peter Lynas's letter, I am not sure that the EA's understanding of the ‘scourge of conversion therapy’ is the same as that which the Prime Minister refers to and wishes to end. Like the US and the UK, it is easy to be ‘two countries divided by a common language’. The current row over lobbying shows that laws must first be clear, and then must be enforced. The government must not give room through the use of unclear language for practices that would otherwise be banned to flourish. And once the language is clear, ways must be found for what it means in practice to be upheld, and not simply glossed over.
