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
A Christian response to suggested “Hate Speech” law changes, and some proposed re-wording
byDr 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.
Freedom of speech is currently under serious threat in New Zealand. This was made very clear in recent days, when both the Justice Minister and the Prime Minister gave misleading interviews on the meaning of their proposed hate speech law. What they said was vague and confusing, and contrary to the document they had released. If you haven’t seen Tova O’Brien’s excellent (and quite disturbing) interview with the Justice Minister, you can find that interview here.
When given three clear and likely scenarios (see 5:37 in the interview above), the Justice Minister was unable to say whether the speech in those scenarios would be a crime. If the Justice Minister, the creator and the designated public educator of these new hate speech laws cannot answer simple questions about his own proposal, how are the public supposed to know what is or isn’t hate speech, and how are the police supposed to properly discern what is hate speech? How can there be a punishment of up to three years in prison, when the definition of hate is so extremely woolly and subjective?
Later, when the Prime Minister was asked about the proposal on NewsHub’s AM Show, she made seven mistaken or misleading claims about her government’s own proposal. You can read more about this in Tova O’Brien’s outstanding follow-up piece, “Jacinda Ardern has misled the public and shut down debate on hate speech laws.” It should be noted that Tova O’Brien personally supports strengthening NZ’s hate speech laws, so her criticisms here are especially significant.
If you have not read the current discussion document on the proposed hate speech legislation, put out by the government, you can do so here.
In that document, the Government states, “The Government wants to foster greater social cohesion in Aotearoa so that it is a place where everyone feels that they belong.” What the government seems to be unaware of is that almost all positive changes in our society have happened because of western society’s commitment to free speech. Things like the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, improved treatment of sexual minorities, and labour laws all came about because there was free speech. If our goal is a better and more just society, legislating against hate speech and removing free speech is definitely not the way to do it.
Why is this important for Christians? There are many reasons, but here is one. This proposal is often presented as trying to stop “hatred”. But anyone who has been closely following media or western culture in the last few years realizes that “hatred” can now mean nothing more than mere disagreement. Just disagreeing with someone publicly can now be grounds that you “hate” that person or “group”, if they feel offended by what you say, or even “could” be offended by what you say.
Suppose the law becomes that you may no longer say anything that “offends” anyone. You say something that expresses your deep beliefs, which many people may disagree with, but most people will not be actually offended by. But is it realistic, though, to think that you’re going to come out and say something important about your beliefs and not offend somebody somewhere, even if it is only one person in a thousand? If that’s the case, the proposed law would make everyone think twice about ever saying anything important about what they believe, because someone somewhere will always be offended, and could lay a complaint.
So why is this so important for Christians? Because by its very nature the Christian gospel is going to be offensive to some people. It just is! (and anything else important will likewise often be offensive to those who have different beliefs). If we as Christians value our freedom to share and live the Gospel, we need to make our voices heard against this slippery and dangerous government proposal.
Two things can be true at once. On the one hand we condemn in the strongest possible terms the atrocity that happened in Christchurch on 15 March 2019, and absolutely say no to violence and to all incitement of violence. And on the other hand we can still vigorously uphold the principles of free speech in our free society, even though we often disagree with other people’s opinions and sometimes find them deeply offensive.
Recently, I have seen making the rounds a finding from the Barna Group (an evangelical research organization focused on the intersection of faith and culture). Barna’s finding comes out of a huge study they did about how the next generation views the church and Christian faith. Their conclusion is: “This generation doesn’t just want to know whether Christianity is true; they want to see that it is good.”
I have also seen some people use this conclusion of Barna as a reason to justify doing away with some of Christianity’s more difficult teachings. Not only doctrines like final judgement or the exclusivity of Christ, but also teachings that come up against our current NZ cultural values in regards to sexual ethics. They argue: “people want a Christian faith that is good. These traditional teachings of Christians are not good, so let’s do away with them.”
But here’s the rub: how do we know what is good, unless we know what is true? Just because our culture views something as good does not mean it is actually good. Further, just because people find certain Christian beliefs abhorrent does not mean they are actually abhorrent. Christians have been accused of not “being good” since the beginning. Look at this quote from the Roman historian Tacitus, writing in AD 115–117…
“Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd called Chrestians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital [Rome] itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become fashionable.”[1]
Today is not the first time in history where people have found certain Christian doctrines unappealing!
Ok, what is Barna really trying to say? That the next generation has realized that Christianity is not just about having the correct beliefs (though correct beliefs are important), but that how we live our lives in the light of those beliefs is equally important if not more so.
Christianity is not simply: “Believe this doctrine, and you are good to go”. No, Jesus tells us: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me” (Matt 16:24). Jesus is calling us to action. We need to love God, love truth, and love others. For example, we need to love the truth that Jesus died for us while we were still sinners, and thus love the truth that we also need to love others while they are still sinners.
If we want to reach the next generation, how should we live? Not just by believing something different than our neighbour, but by living and loving, in consistency with the truth both revealed and lived out by Jesus.
Is our life both distinctive and good? Are we spending our money and time any differently than the non-Jesus-believing world around us? Are we just scrolling through social media, watching Netflix, and taking our kids to sport? The next generation is looking for something more. They do want truth. They also want to know that Christianity will do good in the world. They want truth that leads to action on big issues like racial injustice, the environment, and poverty. They want both clarity and grace, on things like sex, identity, meaning and purpose. Jesus reminds us that following him costs something. It cost his life. And Barna’s research reminds us that Jesus calls us to radical life change. That includes loving others at their worst, just like Jesus loves us.
We don’t show love by abandoning truth, so as to be called “good” by our culture. We show love by loving God, loving the truth, and going out of our way to love others.
– – –
[1] Tacitus, Annals 15.44. Translation lightly adapted for readability from Tacitus Annals Books 13–16, Loeb Classical Library 322 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937), 283, 285. The translation has also been adapted to use the spelling Chrestians rather than Christians.
Freedom to believe and practice religious faith is considered a basic human right. It has not always been so. In the early church, great numbers of Christian believers were persecuted or killed by the Roman State, which demanded on pain of death that everyone worship the emperors and the pagan gods, In medieval times, the State was involved in burning heretics (and later some Protestants) at the stake, and many Catholics were executed during the reign of Elizabeth I. In modern times, Christians in many parts of the world are subject to discrimination, violence, and bloodshed, as are members of some other faiths.
By comparison, Christians in New Zealand lead a much easier life. We need to be aware, however, that any poorly-written legislation in the areas of ‘hate speech’ and ‘anti-conversion therapy’ could pose significant risks to the freedoms of religion and expression for Christians, and also for people of other faiths. But we can acknowledge there is a case for changes to legislation that would deal more effectively with extreme and deliberate incitements to hatred and violence.
It’s often been claimed that it was the intolerance of Christians, from the apostle Paul to the Renaissance Popes, that led to the Enlightenment’s secular cry for “freedom of religion” – and even for freedom from religion. The secularist assumption is that religion fosters bigotry, and violence towards those who are different, and that its enlightened secular thought that fosters peace and pluralism.
But is all that actually true? Are there in fact Christian origins to the concept of freedom of religion?
On his podcast Undeceptions, John Dickson (an Australian Christian author, speaker, historian, and media presenter) interviews Professor Robert Louis Wilken (an emeritus Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Virginia) on the historic origins of freedom of religion. In contrast to the common perception that religious freedom was a secular Enlightenment idea, Wilken shows that religious freedom originated back in 312 through Constantine the first Christian Roman Emperor. Constantine declared: “Freedom and full liberty has been granted in accordance with the peace of our times to exercise free choice in worshipping as each one has seen fit. This has been done by us so that nothing may seem to be taken away from anyone’s honour or from any religion whatsoever.”
“Where did Constantine get this idea of religious liberty for all? Most of us, all these years later, take for granted that the state will grant complete freedom in spiritual matters. But for most of history, in most parts of the world, this simply was not the case. Religion was seen as too important to the health of society not to be regulated. The significance of religion lay mainly in that it secured prosperity for the state and victory over enemies, so long as the gods were duly honoured by the people….We do not have to speculate about where Constantine got his relatively “enlightened” views about religion outlined in the Edict of Milan. Two Christian thinkers had made a striking case for religious liberty well before Constantine defeated Maxentius and proclaimed himself a Christian. One of them was in the distant past, but his writings were still well known. The other became one of Constantine’s confidants.”
Check out Dickson’s book or podcast if you would like to know who these two Christian thinkers were.
