We the Church respect our Government’s role in keeping our country safe through the implementation of varying measures as we confront the challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic together. To them we pledge our peaceful cooperation.
We the leaders of the Church respect the consciences and choices made by each church member to be vaccinated or not vaccinated. To them we pledge our impartial care and edification.
We the members of the Church respect the challenges facing our leaders in facilitating the gathered life of the church whilst cooperating with the varying measures asked of all organisations. To them we pledge our encouragement and patience.
We the vaccinated leaders and members of the Church respect the consciences and choices of our unvaccinated leaders and members, and accept that the way we are able to interact with them will be limited as we confront the challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic. To them we pledge our non-judgemental love and solidarity.
We the unvaccinated leaders and members of the Church respect the consciences and choices of our vaccinated leaders and members, and accept that the way we are able to interact with them will be limited as we confront the challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic. To them we pledge our non-judgemental love and solidarity.
We the Church have chosen to be known by the love we have for one another, and choose the privilege of demonstrating that love to all people through the mutual respect we have promised to embrace.
But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace for those who make peace.
James 3:17-18
The 22 October announcements have been helpful, in that at least we know what the new rules are and how they affect churches. For churches, the new rules contain both some welcome easing of restrictions and also some ongoing challenges for churches of every size. One good thing is that churches are free to choose for any particular gathering whether they require vaccination certificates or not, and then to operate that gathering with the required numerical limits and safety measures.
Below, we set out our take on the new rules as they apply to churches, and also suggest some options for how churches may gather. These are far from easy times (we remain in the middle of a worldwide pandemic, and many Christians continue to feel a deep unease with restrictions on church gatherings), but we are confident that with God’s guidance we can find our way through.
The new COVID-19 protection framework:
our summary of what it means for churches
SOME REASONABLE AND PERMISSIBLE OPTIONS…
All-in church services: Some churches may decide to hold church services for everyone, with no vaccination certificate required but with limits on numbers, and to manage the risks for everyone with all appropriate safety measures in place. Small churches would be able to hold just one service, while larger churches would require two or more services.
Two different types of church services: Some churches may decide that they will hold two different types of services…
Church service(s) which are only for those who have vaccination certificates, and which can have greater numbers attending.
Church service(s) which are open to everyone, regardless of vaccination status, and which have smaller numbers allowed.
Those church services which require vaccination certificates and those which don’t would need to be clearly designated, so everyone knew what they were attending, and on what basis. We must also do all we can to avoid any sense of division.
Providing access to church in other ways: Some churches may decide that they will care for and make provision for those who are unvaccinated in other ways, such as through small groups, zoom gatherings, pastoral visits, and through continuing access to church services through livestreaming, Zoom, and so on.
Waiting: Some churches may feel reluctant to gather until everyone can gather together. This is very understandable, but churches will need to take into account that the current rules are likely to remain in place for quite a long time.
Finally, here are some reflections and questions by Tim Palmer as a follow-up to his article last week.
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.
The new COVID-19 protection framework:
