by Dr Stuart Lange | 11 Oct , 2021 | Articles, Christianity in New Zealand
As in society at large, Christian people and churches hold a wide range of views on all sorts of things, including some of the current issues around Covid and vaccinations. But here’s our take on what the majority of Christians and churches think in these matters…
1 Lockdowns
Almost all Christians accept that the purpose of lockdowns is to help prevent the spread of a highly contagious virus, and a major threat to public health. Yes, lockdowns seriously affect many businesses and livelihoods, temporarily restrict our freedom of movement, and have brought the suspension of large gatherings including church. However, lockdowns have spared New Zealand the huge loss of life that has happened in many other countries. In all parts of society, there appears to be some flouting of lockdown rules. But most Christians would not see that as responsible or morally right, and most do their best to comply with lockdown rules.
As Christians, we are biblically bound to submit to the law, and to respect and pray for those who govern. We don‘t have to agree with everything governments think or do. Who does, with any government? At the time the New Testament was still being written, some emperors were ruthless despots, who required people to either worship them or be put to death. The biblical injunction to obey the powers that be is not absolute, however: Christians should put God first if those in authority forbid us to hold or express our faith, or if they try to compel us to do something clearly unethical and wrong.
2 Vaccinations
As with society at large, the majority of Christians are willing to accept public health authorities’ assurances that Covid vaccines are generally safe and effective for most people, and that a high vaccination rate is the key to New Zealand starting to move beyond a reliance on lockdowns to manage the pandemic. Most church leaders accept that when a high percentage of the New Zealand population is vaccinated, all of us (including the unvaccinated) will be better protected against the virus, and that as a society we can then move forward. Some church leaders have been pro-active in encouraging their people to get vaccinated, to help protect them, while at the same time respecting individual choices.
For various reasons, a minority of Christians are unwilling or unable to take the vaccine, or have serious hesitations or worries about taking the jab. The anti-vax movement is not a specifically Christian movement, but it does include some Christians. Some are influenced by medical professionals here and overseas who have raised concerns about the Covid vax. Some others fear that something underhand could be going on.
To vaccinate or not is not an issue of doctrine, but a medical and public health issue. It is not an issue which excuses us from Jesus’ command to love one another, or which nullifies the principle of making “every effort to guard our unity in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). We recommend church leaders encourage their people to make their own well-informed, prayerful decision, to respect the conscience of others, and to avoid judging those who see things differently.
3 Vaccination certificates
Vaccination certificates could be another useful practical tool in the fight against Covid, at least in the short term until vaccination rates reach 90%. Because of Christian values of welcoming all, however, most churches would be very concerned if people without a vaccination certificate were excluded by law from attending church. Most churches will likely want to retain measures to help protect everyone, including those not vaccinated. Some unvaccinated people may choose to avoid mass gatherings for the time being. Those attenders who are vaccinated may be at a relatively low risk from those who are not. It was reassuring to hear the Prime Minister say that churches would probably not be included in laws to exclude the unvaccinated.
ALSO
In these strange and uncertain times, it is good for Christian believers and churches to keep the main things the main things: to love God, to love others, to proclaim Christ, to be salt and light, and to pray and work for the extension of the God’s kingdom.
by Dr Stuart Lange | 21 Aug , 2021 | Articles, Christianity and Social & Moral Issues, Christianity in New Zealand
Some problems with the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill, and a suggested (and highly necessary) additional clause
Dr Stuart Lange (National Director), on behalf of the New Zealand Christian Network The “Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill” was recently introduced to Parliament. For the text of the Bill, see here. Is this Bill a good thing? Or is it potentially “harmful”? Many Christians might agree in principle with some aspects of the Bill, such as its declared intent to
- “promote respectful and open discussions regarding sexuality and gender”
- “affirm the dignity of all people”
- “uphold the human rights of all New Zealanders, including rainbow New Zealanders, to live free from discrimination and harm”
- ban “therapies”, “treatments”, and “conversion practices” for LGBT people which are “harmful” and which “can contribute to issues such as low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts”.
Certainly Christian churches should disavow any pastoral or counselling practices with regard to gay or transgender people that are unloving, uninvited, coercive, harsh, or disrespecting of people’s freedoms. Most Christians would agree that pastoral counselling and interaction should always be compassionate, gentle, and respectful of everyone’s personal worth, dignity, and freewill. There, are, however, many aspects of the Bill which are problematical. Here’s some of them…
1. The State should not be legislating (or criminalising anyone) on the basis of a disputable opinion:
The Bill criminalises any “practice” which is “intended to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression”. But this assumes that no one can ever change their sexual preferences or behaviour, or their gender identity. But the reality is, when it comes to sexual and gender identities, there is some traffic in all directions. Criminal law should not be based on a questionable assumption that nobody ever changes, when it is clear that some people actually do change, in various directions: heterosexual to homosexual or bi-sexual and vice versa, and male identity to female identity and vice versa.
INSTEAD, WE SUGGEST: if the key problem which the Bill is intended to prevent is coercive, abusive, and harmful conversion therapy, the law should be more narrowly focused on defining and eliminating that, not on enshrining in law debateable opinions.
2. The law should not deny people freedom to seek and receive whatever support they desire.
To criminalise any words or actions which could be construed as “intended to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression” cuts across the freedom of people of any sexuality or gender identity to both seek and receive (see Bill of Rights 14) any assistance and support they may want, so as to explore any different identity or way of living. Most people remain settled in their identity and lifestyle, but some want to explore making major life changes, and naturally seek assistance from those around them. The current wording of this Bill would make many parents, family members, counsellors, religious leaders, and friends very wary of saying or doing anything, even when they are asked by someone to give advice, guidance, or support. As the Crown Law Office has advised (see whole document here), the Bill would bring “a significant limitation on freedom of expression”, and could have “a potential chilling effect on legitimate expressions of opinion within families/whānau about sexuality and gender”. The current wording of the Bill in effect undermines the second stated purpose of the Bill: to “promote respectful and open discussions regarding sexuality and gender” (Section 3 b), and would undoubtedly achieve the opposite outcome.
INSTEAD, WE SUGGEST: the Bill should (a) clarify what “conversion practices” are illegal (e.g. anything unsolicited, condemning, harsh, or coercive), and (b) clarify what sorts of casual advice, family guidance, counselling or pastoral assistance is fully lawful.
3. The law should be consistent and even-handed:
- The Bill criminalises those who attempt to “change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression”. But will that apply to those who encourage and advise young people to change their sex or identity away from their biological sex, or will it only apply to those (such as parents) who advise against such changes?
- The Bill rightly shows concern for protecting from harm anyone either under the age 18 or who “lacks, wholly or partly, the capacity to understand the nature, and to foresee the consequences, of decisions in respect of matters relating to their health or welfare”. But will that apply to those who encourage and advise children to make major life-changing decisions about gender identity, at an age when, wholly or partly, such minors are unable to understand the consequences of their decisions?
WE SUGGEST: The Bill’s inconsistencies in these matters indicate weaknesses in its logical underpinnings, and inappropriate biases.
4. The Bill as worded compromises religious freedom:
- The New Zealand Bill of Rights guarantees “Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference” (Clause 13), “Freedom of expression: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form,” (Clause 14), and “Manifestation of religion and belief: Every person has the right to manifest that person’s religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private” (Clause 15).
- On the other hand, the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill allows only for “the expression only of a religious principle or belief made to an individual that is not intended to change or suppress the individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression”. This is too narrow a freedom that is being permitted by this Bill. Religious groups do not state their doctrinal beliefs in isolation from life and practice, but legitimately commend them as a basis for life. Doctrine divorced from life is deeply inconsistent with Christian “observance” and “practice” as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, and the State should be extremely careful about any interference in such matters.
- The heart of the Christian message is not its sexual ethics (i.e. the belief on biblical grounds by most Christians that God’s intended context for human sexual relationships is marriage between a man and a woman). The heart of the Christian message is about God’s love and grace: reconciliation with God through Christ, God’s forgiveness, and new spiritual life in Christ. In response to God’s grace, all Christians are called to make some changes, in many parts of their lives. None of that is easy, and none of that can ever be orchestrated or coerced. It is simply a work of God’s grace, through the Spirit of God, and a very private matter.
- The church should certainly repudiate or avoid any pastoral practice which is coercive, disrespectful, or harmful, and we must emphasise that our point here is not to make space in any way for such harmful practices. Our concern is simply about the likely cramping effect of this Bill on legitimate and un-harmful pastoral practices. The vagueness and broadness of the Bill’s prohibition against anything “intended to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression” would likely have an unhelpfully constricting effect on the time-honoured exercise of appropriate pastoral counselling and pastoral prayer in church contexts (and also in families).
- Caution about those effects was expressed by the Crown Law Office, which noted that “the broad definition of those [conversion] practices creates the risk that it could extend further, to the exchange of thoughts or opinions about sexuality and gender that occur within the family/whānau or religious groups that do warrant protection and where the limitation could not easily be justified”, and that “There is no doubt that as expressed the prohibition will extend to activities and communications that occur within families and within religious groupings”.
- We are especially disturbed and affronted that the State would take any interest in the content of appropriate and time-honoured religious practices of pastoral discussions and prayer. We would consider that an unacceptable breach of the Bill of Rights clause 15, which asserts “Manifestation of religion and belief: Every person has the right to manifest that person’s religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private.”
A suggested (and highly necessary) additional clause:
To give effect to the second purpose of the Act as stated in 3(b), and to mitigate most of the inappropriate likely consequences of this Bill, we very strongly recommend a further clause be inserted into Section 5 (2), that…
[“in this Act, conversion practice does not include— ] (g) respectful and open discussions regarding sexuality and gender, and advice, guidance, prayer, or support given to anyone by anyone else including parents, family members, friends, counsellors, religious leaders, or health professionals, when such advice or support is requested, and is respectful and non-coercive”.
Additional Resources:
Download a PDF version of this article > Submission guide: Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill >
We urge you to share this New Zealand Christian Network response far and wide, as a tool to help churches and Christian people make their own submissions.
Submissions close 8 September 2021 This is not our actual NZCN submission, but our submission will make similar points (and be more detailed on some technicalities). In particular we commend to you our suggested additional clause. It is very important that a large number of submissions are made to the Justice Committee. The potential ramifications of this Bill for society, families, and churches are serious, and MPs need to feel the weight of or concerns. This is no time to be complacent. It is also very important that submissions are…
- in your own words, rather than just copy and paste “form” submissions
- respectful and sensitive, rather than angry and hostile
- thoughtful and measured
- related closely and accurately to the actual text of the Bill, rather than just to generalities
- if possible constructively suggesting changes or improvements to the Bill
- reflecting a biblical perspective, but not normally quoting scripture
- generally quite brief
by Dr Stuart Lange | 28 Jul , 2021 | Articles, Christianity and Social & Moral Issues, Christianity in New Zealand, Featured, Secularism
A Christian response to suggested “Hate Speech” law changes, and some proposed re-wording
by Dr Stuart Lange, on behalf of the New Zealand Christian Network
Some principles we begin from…
Nobody comes to any issue without some preconceptions, and it can be helpful to state where we are coming from. So, as people of Christian faith…
- We are deeply committed to God, to love for all, to God’s truth revealed in Christ and the scriptures, to the intrinsic God-given equality of all people, and to justice, righteousness, grace, mercy, and peace.
- We absolutely reject all racism.
- We deplore all abusive language, name-calling, hatefulness, and violence – by anyone, and to anyone.
- We believe that, ideally, all people should relate to one another with gentleness and respect, even when they strongly disagree. Secular people should respect religious people, and vice versa. People of faith should relate respectfully to people of other faiths.
- We believe that, if we are to remain a free society, our freedoms of religious belief (or unbelief) and of expression must be carefully and unequivocally protected.
- We believe that a wide diversity of viewpoints and freedom to debate important issues is extremely important, even though it is at the cost of most people sometimes being exposed to views we find objectionable or offensive.
We believe that the State should avoid all attempts to control the thoughts and speech of its citizens, except where the beliefs and opinions of people are unquestionably inciting extreme hatefulness and violence.
What is behind the proposed “hate speech” laws, and why do they matter?
The Government consultation document has presented the proposed “Hate Speech” law changes as a revision of existing legislation to help restrain extreme racism, and as extending protections against “hate speech” to “groups” defined by sex, sexuality, religion, and disability, and thus to build a “greater social cohesion”. But many people see what is proposed as a dangerous limitation of public debate and freedom of expression, in which constant pressure from some groups could lead to a growing censorship of public debate.
A key question is around the precise scope and wording of the proposed changes, particularly in relation to exactly what is meant by the words “hate” and “hatred”. For different people, and in different contexts, these words carry a range of meanings and implications.
In existing legislation it is already a civil offence (see Section 161 (c) of the Human Rights Act 1993) to use “words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting, being matter or words likely to excite hostility or ill-will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any such group of persons in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons”. This prohibition on incitement only applies to racism. We agree that for the sake of public safety this existing law is appropriate, to help restrain those ranters who spew forth appalling racist rhetoric, stirring up disharmony and violence. We also fully agree that the law should be extended to electronic communication.
Because of the significant risk of the proposed law changes increasingly suppressing freedom of expression, however, we have some caution about the list of groups covered by incitement provisions being extended from just race and nationality to also include groups based on religion, disability, sex, and sexuality. We could accept that, though, if (1) the threshold of criminality remains very high and (2) the nature and limits of “hate speech” are clearly defined.
The key problem with what is proposed
We agree in principle that it should be criminal to stir up extreme animosity and/or incite violence towards any group in society.
The core problem with the wording proposed in the consultation document, however, is that it removes the definitions of incitement that are in the Human Rights Act (see above) and instead substitutes the very elastic term “hatred” – with no adequate definitions.
We believe the word “hatred” is too broad and subjective, and – in the absence of very clear definition – is worryingly vulnerable to freedom-stifling misapplications.
In our societal context of increasingly clamorous identity politics, the word “hatred” is highly loaded. Why not stick with incitement to “hostility”, or change it to “extreme hostility”? Across the western world, the introduction of “hate speech” laws is primarily driven by the desire to restrict the expression of views which disagree with LGBT ideologies. Is that what the Government primarily has in view here?
Our concern grows when we read that it would not only be a crime to incite “hatred”, but also to “maintain or normalise hatred”. This too (especially the “and normalise” phrase) is capable of many interpretations and misapplications, and we believe this proposed wording should be dropped.
Over time, we fear, the wording of the proposed law changes would make it all too easy for various secular, religious, and sexuality activists to hunt down any expression of viewpoint that does not support their own views, or which they find offensive, and to claim that it is “hateful” to their group and therefore unlawful. The police and law courts may end up very busy.
All this poses some significant risks for the freedom of our society, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights:
“13 Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.
“14 Freedom of expression: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”
The only way to avoid oppressive outcomes with the proposed law change is for there to be included some extremely clear explanations of what inciting “hatred” does and does not mean.
Some sample questions…
- Under the proposed law changes, could anyone be prosecuted for denying a core belief or doctrine of any religion, and thus potentially causing offence?
- Could it become criminal for anyone to say that they do not believe in sex transitioning for children and adolescents?
- Could it become criminal for anyone to say that they do not believe it is fair for “trans” people born as males to compete in women’s sport?
- Could it become criminal for someone to say that they do not personally believe that same-sex relationships or same-sex marriages are intended by God? (This is not “hatred”, but just a matter of religious belief and expression)?
- Could anyone be prosecuted for reading out or referring to – in public, or even in a religious gathering – any passage or verse in the Bible, Qur’an, or any other sacred religious writing that asserts a doctrinal belief about Allah, Jesus, or salvation, or against unbelief, or against any behaviour, and thus will likely offend someone somewhere?
If the answer to any of those five questions is “yes, or maybe”, then for the sake of everyone’s freedoms the proposed law changes must be worded so as to avoid that.
If the answer is, “no” (or as it says in the consultation document, “only extreme hate speech is criminalised, and that there must be an intention to cause others to develop and strengthen hatred towards a group”), then we need to see that protection clearly reflected in the actual wording of the proposed law changes.
If the answer is, “we don’t know, and we won’t say, but over time we will see how the police and the courts interpret this law in relation to society’s changing thinking”, then we can rightly be very concerned, and may want to ponder what sort of oppressive, thought-controlling Orwellian society our children and mokopuna may inherit.
In our view, the only way for society to protect itself against unjust and tyrannical outcomes through its proposed “hate speech” laws is to state as precisely as possible exactly what “hate speech” is, and exactly what it isn’t.
“In the context of this law, “inciting hatred” means to incite extreme hostility, to deliberately and maliciously vilify with the clear intention of stirring up loathing, hostility, contempt, or violence towards a group; it does not mean to express disagreement, criticism or caution in relation to any of the views of a group, or simply to express beliefs and views which members of any group may consider objectionable or even offensive.”
We believe the Government’s forthcoming Bill must clearly provide some such explicit clarification and balance, and should drop the “maintain and normalise hatred” line. If it does so, these law changes may yet possibly be safe, and may prove acceptable to most people. Nevertheless, whatever our religion (or our lack of it), all New Zealanders need to remain highly vigilant in protecting critically important human freedoms of belief and expression.
Read NZCN’s submission to the consultation document here >
