For God did not give us a spirit of fear, but of power, love and a sound mind.
2 Timothy 2:7
If you did not see our post last week, on “Christian churches and Covid lockdowns, the jab, and vaccination certificates”, see here. We reported what appear to be the majority and minority positions among Christians on a number of Covid-related issues.
Our overarching concern, though, was to encourage Christian people to avoid ungodly division and rancour over these matters, and instead to relate with respect and graciousness to those we may disagree with. As fellow believers in Christ, we must carefully guard our unity in Christ (Ephesians 4:1-6).
We also noted the biblical mandate to obey the governing authorities (e.g. Romans 13:1), even though we all know that this and every other human government sometimes gets things wrong.
Insights from various sources
In the last week or so we have become aware of many Christians writing on these matters. Here’s some of it (and we don’t necessarily endorse all of it). See, for instance, this piece by Tim Palmer, surveying a wide range of Christian perspectives on vaccination. Or this article from the Baptists, as well as these from the Syndey Morning Herald, The Gospel Coalition TGA U.S. Edition, and especially this piece from TGA Canadian Edition.
And finally, here’s an interesting secular article from The Spinoff on the wide range of people who are not happy with taking the vaccination.
Determine your position and then communicate your position with as much love, humility and patience as you can muster. And then huddle together, pray and endure.
This too shall pass.
Don’t let a momentary agony rob you of an eternal glory. Don’t sacrifice your ministry, your fellowship or your soul in support of either side of this passing controversy. Make reasonable policies, communicate kindly with affected parties, suffer losses and transfers with quiet dignity and pray for wisdom, insight and blessing upon our elected officials. We are in a crisis and many people outside the church are making extraordinarily difficult decisions on our behalf.
Lord have mercy!
TGA Canadian Edition
Lockdown protests
We have been asked what NZCN’s view is on lockdown protests, and whether Christians should participate in them. Our view is that in a free society public protest is a valued right, and we make no judgement on whatever concerns and values may lie behind any current protests.
In the context of a pandemic, however, our rights of assembly are temporarily restricted by emergency laws, and our personal liberties are necessarily constrained for the sake of others. All Christians must act within the law, and must not do anything which would risk further prolonging the current public health crisis.
We are aware that some protests are planned to take place around the country. If you are planning to go, please keep safe and protect others by following the practices of social distancing, wearing masks, and turning on Bluetooth tracing in your Covid app.
Whatever government is in office, we are urged to pray for them (1 Timothy 2:2).
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.
Submission from the NEW ZEALAND CHRISTIAN NETWORK on the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill, including a suggested additional clause
What we can agree with in the Bill:
The promotion of “respectful and open discussions regarding sexuality and gender”.
Affirming “the dignity of all people”, and upholding “the human rights of all New Zealanders, including rainbow New Zealanders, to live free from discrimination and harm”.
A ban on “therapies”, “treatments”, and “conversion practices” for LGBT people which are “harmful”.
The values and practices of most Christian churches:
We disavow any pastoral or counselling practices with regard to gay or transgender people (or anyone else) that are uninvited, coercive, unloving, harsh, or disrespecting of people’s freedoms.
We agree that pastoral counselling and interaction should always be compassionate, gentle, and respectful of everyone’s personal worth, dignity, and freewill.
The core element of this submission is our proposal that the Bill be amended with an additional clause in Section 5 (2):
[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”.
We believe such a clause would give effect to the Bill’s second stated purpose (“respectful and open discussions regarding sexuality and gender”), and would address the majority of concerns being expressed about the Bill.
Our reasons for proposing this additional clause 5 (2) (g)
The proposed additional clause would not detract in any way from the first of the two stated purposes of the Bill, i.e. “prevent harm caused by conversion practices” [Part 1, 3 (a)]
The Bill would still clearly criminalise any “harmful” practice, “performed with the intention of changing or suppressing the individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression” [5 (1) (b)].
But, outside of any such harmful practices, the proposed amendment would clarify that “respectful and open discussions regarding sexuality and gender” and expressions of opinion, advice, and support would not be criminalised, if “requested”, “respectful” and “non-coercive”.
The proposed additional clause would give effect to the second of the two stated purposes of the Bill i.e. [Part 1, 3 (b)] “promote respectful and open discussions regarding sexuality and gender”
There appears to be nothing in the Bill as currently worded that would address or facilitate that stated purpose of the Bill.
Instead, we believe the Bill as currently worded and without our proposed amendment would have the effect indicated in Crown Law’s advice to the Attorney General: “a significant limitation on freedom of expression” and “a potential chilling effect on legitimate expressions of opinion within families/whānau about sexuality and gender”. That “chilling effect” would also extend to every other societal context.
The Bill of Rights (Clause 14) is also clearly relevant: “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 proposed additional clause would allay the considerable public concern about the Bill interfering with the rights and responsibilities of parents to give guidance and counsel to their children.
Most parents know their children very well, and are eager to do whatever is best for them.
Most parents are also sensitive about the State inappropriately infringing on their own rights and responsibilities as parents.
The proposed amendment would help clarify what is legal and what is not, and prevent the law having an inappropriately restrictive effect on what Crown Law refers to as “legitimate expressions of opinion within families/whānau about sexuality and gender”.
The proposed additional clause would address legitimate concerns that the Bill would deny people the freedom to seek and receive whatever advice or support they themselves desire.
Sexuality and gender identity are often less than clear-cut matters, and choices can be difficult. In reality some people do sometimes wish to change the way they live or self-identify. Movement can occur in all directions: from heterosexual to homosexual or bi-sexual (and vice versa), or from male gender identity to female gender identify (and vice versa).
Those exploring any such change may often seek input or assistance from those around them or from professionals (including counsellors, mental health practitioners, religious leaders, youth workers), and should have the freedom to seek advice or support from anyone they choose, with all options open for discussion and exploration, providing that advice is respectful and non-coercive.
Without this proposed amendment, it is likely that those (professionals or otherwise) who could offer appropriate listening, discussion and support to those who request such help would be very wary of saying anything, out of fear they could be criminalised for any words or actions which could possibly be construed as “intended to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression”. The law would thus prevent some people from receiving the support they themselves want.
The proposed additional clause would also address concerns that the Bill would inappropriately compromise religious freedoms.
We believe 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 practices.
The New Zealand Bill of Rights guarantees:
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,” 15 “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”
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 avoid any undue interference in such matters.
Our concern is simply about the likely constricting effect of this Bill on legitimate and un-harmful religious practices, i.e. the appropriate exercise of respectful pastoral advice, counselling, and prayer in church contexts.
Caution about those effects was expressed by Crown Law, 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 particularly disturbed that the State could take any interest in the content of private pastoral discussions and prayer. We would consider that an inappropriate 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”.
The adoption of the amendment we propose would likewise largely address our concerns in the area of religious freedom.
Thank you very much for your work, and for carefully considering this submission.
Rev Dr Stuart Lange (National Director), on behalf of the New Zealand Christian Network
The New Zealand Christian Network is a significant inter-church organisation with member churches, individuals, and Christian organisations from a very wide range of church affiliations. It represents a moderate, orthodox Christian perspective. NZCN’s National Director is also a member of the Executive of the National Church Leaders Aotearoa New Zealand (NCLANZ).
The Select Committee’s online submission form takes you through the simple steps, and the only part that you really have to take time to consider is the important section onwhy you oppose the bill as it currently stands, and whether you want to make an oral submission. If you prefer, you can upload your submission if you’ve already done it as a document or PDF.
While it is easy to agree and disagree with other people’s opinions, it’s actually rare for someone to take a stand and speak up either in support or against an issue in a way that counts. Why? Sometimes, it’s because they think their voice doesn’t really matter. Sometimes they are scared to let others know what they really think because it might not agree with the overruling sentiment. And sometimes, they really just don’t know how to go about it.
When it comes to issues that affect society, often the best way to be heard is to add weight to the voices of others. And during lockdown, the best way to do this is by making an online submission.
Online Submission Form: Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill
The Select Committee’s online submission form takes you through the simple steps including the option to make an oral suggestion or to upload your submission as a document or PDF.
Write what you want to say to the Select Committee considering this bill.
Be brief and share your views. Do not copy other submissions however, you may quote others with appropriate credit to the source. If appropriate, tell your story and provide personal reasons to support your submission.
It is very important that submissions are:
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
At all times,be positive, respectful and constructive. Avoid overly religious language, personal attacks, negative labels, or angry words. Highlight what you are FOR and what you OPPOSE in the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill.
Consider quoting Dr Stuart Lange, National Director – New Zealand Christian Network with this suggested 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”.
Click the button above to make an online submission
Your personal information will not be published if you use the online process – just your name. If you do upload a doc or PDF, don’t put any personal info on it.
Press the SUBMIT button
That’s it. Your submission has been sent AND received.
Additional things you can do:
When you send your submission in, please consider alsoemailing or posting a copy to your local MP. You can find out who your local MP is (and their email address) on the parliamentary website.
Share your submissionwith friends and family and let them know how easy it was to do. It may inspire them to make a submission also.
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”.
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
