ViaMedia

Category: Conversion Therapy

  • Improving Safety in Pastoral Care with LGBTQA+ People

    by Dr Timothy Willem Jones, Associate Professor of History at La Trobe University, and the author of Sexual Politics in the Church of England, 1857-1957 (Oxford, 2013). He leads a multidisciplinary research project, Improving Spiritual Health Care for LGBTQA+ Australians, funded by the Australian Research Council and the Victorian Government.

    LGBTQA+ people of faith are at high risk of spiritual and psychological injury in the context of pastoral care. They may experience over 8 times higher risk of suicidality than the wider LGBTQA+ population. Simultaneously, pastoral workers frequently lack confidence in their ability to provide appropriate pastoral care related to gender and sexuality, more than any other issue in pastoral care. There is currently limited research into safety in LGBTQA+ spiritual health care, and no research that considers safety across multiple faiths, irrespective of their theological and pastoral positions related to sexual orientation and gender identity. This article introduces some guidelines for improving safety in pastoral care with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, asexual and other people with diverse sexual and gender identities (LGBTQA+). The full guide is available here.

    The guidelines are based on our research with LGBTQA+ people about their experiences of pastoral care, reported in Healing Spiritual Harms. Our research showed that significant religious and psychological trauma can result from pastoral practices that make a person’s sexuality and gender identity incompatible with belonging to their faith, family and community. Being told that unchangeable parts of yourself are incompatible with your faith can create a condition of existential crisis: the feeling that it is impossible to live at peace with the core parts of who you are. Such experiences can feel like a threat to someone’s very existence, and can lead to complex post-traumatic stress disorders, suicidality as well as a host of other symptoms of mental ill health.

    Best practice pastoral care with LGBTQA+ people will support them to accept who they are, and not try to change or suppress their identity. It will support an LGBTQA+ person of faith to explore the possibilities for safety, connection, belonging and self-expression within and consistent with the rules, traditions, and practices of their faith community. If their faith community has mixed views about LGBTQA+ people, it may also involve supporting them to find additional or alternative communities of belonging where their various parts can be valued and affirmed. It will also involve referral to appropriate mental health professionals when that is needed.

    The following guidelines provide principles and ethics of pastoral practice that will help you improve your care of LGBTQA+ people in your community. They frame the principles of safe LGBTQA+ pastoral care in generic terms, not specific to any particular religious tradition. As you read them, consider the best ways that these principles could be applied in your own faith community.

    1. Recognise: In the diversity of human experience, some people are same-sex attracted or have a gender that is different to what people assumed when they were born. We know from decades of medical research that attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, in fact, only suppress that part of a person. When key parts of a person, such as their faith and their sexuality or gender identity, are put in conflict and suppressed, extreme psychological distress can result.
    1. Protect: As a pastoral worker, you have a role to play as an advocate. If your community is telling LGBTQA+ people that to be a member they are required to suppress their sexuality or gender identity, that requirement will be harmful and unsafe for LGBTQA+ people in your community. LGBTQA+ people should be protected from such unsafe policies and practices.
    1. Accept: Safe pastoral care for LGBTQA+ people involves supporting them to find a path where they can accept and hold in harmony their faith, their inner sense of sexuality and gender, and their relationship with their religious community, and also to explore how they might safely express those aspects of themselves in relation to the rules and traditions of their faith and community.
    1. Explore: Sometimes people have uncertain feelings about their gender or sexual attractions. Safe pastoral practice with such people involves supporting their exploration without predetermining any particular outcome for who they are. While your religious tradition will have rules about sexual and gender expression and behaviour, it most likely also has space for a person to explore and accept their sexual orientation and gender identity, who they are inside.
    1. Support: There are many aspects of being LGBTQA+ in your community about which a person might seek support. Some of these might be: experiences of trauma and discrimination, perhaps even in your community; the social implications of affirming an LGBTQA+ identity on their significant relationships; and their personal safety as they explore and reconcile the different components of their identity.
    1. Refer: Know what your expertise is and be prepared to refer people to others when they need support outside of that expertise. This could include referral to pastoral workers with more experience in your tradition, or appropriately qualified mental health professionals.
    1. Reflect: Pastoral care with LGBTQA+ people provides you with a valuable opportunity to reflect on your, and your community’s, pastoral practice. Do you listen carefully to LGBTQA+ people’s experiences in your community? What are the range of attitudes towards LGBTQA+ people that your community holds? What are the different ways that gender and sexual expression have been valued at different times and places in your faith tradition? Do your current pastoral responses to LGBTQA+ people reflect the core values of your faith?

  • An Open Letter to Bishops – Your Pastoral Charge

    by Jayne Ozanne, Founder of Via Media, Member of General Synod and Director of the Ozanne Foundation 

    ‘Again, Jesus said, “Simon son of John do you love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said: “Take care of my sheep”’ (John 21:16)

    Jesus had just asked Peter a second time “do you truly love me”.  Peter’s answer was the same.  Jesus’ response wasn’t.

    The charge Jesus left Peter, the ‘rock’ on whom Jesus said “I will build My church” (Matt 16:18), was first and foremost a pastoral one.  It was not a doctrinal one, or a call for unity but quite simply a charge to care for His people.  All of them.  Each and every of one of us – those that we know, those that we don’t know.  Those who are like us, those who aren’t.  Those we agree with, those that we don’t.  Everyone.  That is, unless you think there are any sheep that Jesus is not concerned about?

    ‘Take care of my sheep.’

    It really is that simple.  A pastoral charge given by the Good Shepherd to the person who would go on to start His Church.  Peter is called to look after Jesus’ sheep and safeguard them from harm.  I would therefore suggest that it is this that you are called to – above all else! Taking care of people.

    But I fear that many appear to have forgotten this of late – and instead have got side-lined into prioritising arguments around doctrine, around ‘unity’ and misplaced notions of collegiality.

    ‘Take care of my sheep.’

    It may seem obvious to say, but a shepherd should never knowingly harm his or her sheep – they should never take a decision that they know will leave some vulnerable.  Indeed, quite the opposite – a ‘good’ shepherd will always prioritise protecting those in their care, particularly the most vulnerable, from forces that are seeking to kill and destroy.

    So why then, bishops, are you so determined to sacrifice certain sheep on the altar of expediency?  Why are you protecting some and not others?  I for one know that you have been presented with reams of evidence of the harm that LGBT+ people have experienced in their churches, you have heard countless testimonies of how so many have suffered because of the religious teaching they have been subjected to, you have been made aware of the numerous research studies (including one from the UK government itself) stating the mental health outcomes of young LGBT+ people growing up under conservative teaching.  Goodness, even the UN are now commissioning a report to document the harm done by religious teaching on the LGBT+ community.  But for some reason you just don’t seem to want to engage with these facts or prioritise them.  So why, please, is that?

    I’d love to know just how much time you have dedicated to listening to the impact of church teaching on LGBT+ people’s lives?  Indeed, how many LGBT+ people have you met who have attempted to take their lives (for there are far too many of them, but they may not feel able to talk to you about it – it would be interesting to reflect on why)?  Can you honestly say you’ve given as much time to listening to LGBT+ people as you have done to arguing about scripture?

    Cutting to the chase.  Did you listen to LGBT+ people yourself, or did you try and create a short cut because of time pressures?  Perhaps you chose just to read the executive summary instead?

    ‘Take care of my sheep.’

    Maybe you don’t think this is that important after all.  Or maybe you don’t really believe that LGBT+ people are getting hurt by current church teaching?  I mean, it would be difficult to hear that we have been causing so many people such deep distress, causing young people to hate themselves, leaving them in impossible situations at far too young an age, where they have had to choose between hiding who they are and being accepted and welcomed by their families and friends.

    Or perhaps you don’t want to believe these truths because, let’s face it, it’s all a bit awkward?

    Or is it because you just don’t care about the harm your teaching is inflicting on certain sheep?

    ‘Take care of my sheep’

    Not just some of them.  Not just the religious ones.  Not just the good ones.  Not just the ones that conform to your understanding of what a sheep should look like.

    As you may know, I had the great honour of meeting Pope Francis just over 3 years ago.  I was told I would have about 45 seconds to say something and was advised to choose my words carefully.

    I wonder what you’d choose to say in my position?  As it happens, I spent many sleepless hours the night before trying to discern what I should say.  Here was a golden opportunity, and I wanted to make the most of it.  In the end I decided it would be best to reach out to his pastor’s heart – for that, ultimately, is what he is.  Christ’s pastor.

    So, the next morning after introducing myself I held his hand, looked him in the eyes and said:

    “Your Holiness, I grew up being told by the church that I would never be a wife, a mother or a grandmother – and sadly this nearly killed me.  This is my story (giving him my book) and this is some research showing that there are thousands more just like me.”

    Before I could say anything else he grabbed both my hands, lowered his head and in what many witnessed as a holy moment, whispered softly “please pray for me – as I will pray for you”.

    Two days later I was invited back to the Vatican to hear him castigate leaders who spoke out against LGBT+ people.  Two years later he then also chose to give a speech to various theologians urging them to engage with lived reality of people’s lives, not just ideological doctrine.

    ‘Take care of my sheep.’

    Bishops, we have journeyed long enough on this road regarding whether we LGBT+ people have the right to be treated as equals, and to be honoured for our desire to love and be loved.  You may think that we have travelled it together, but I can assure you that there are many who have been lost along the way as they can no longer cope with the pain of it all.

    If we are honest, we have spent hours discussing certain biblical texts, but we have spent precious little time discussing the harm that we have inflicted and continue to inflict on some of our most vulnerable members.

    I know that many of you have chosen to stay silent through this ‘time of reflection’, which has sadly only served to strengthen the status quo. I can’t help wonder why you chose to do this? Perhaps it was because you were scared of upsetting some of your flock?  But I have to ask you, what about the sheep you left undefended on the margins?  What about those who needed you to protect them?

    So please, as you deliberate this week ensure that you make have one thing central in your mind:

    “Take care of my sheep.”!

    And that means all of us!

  • A Peek under the Episcopal Carpet – Past Cases Review 2 and its Blind Spots

    by the Revd. Dr. Brenda Wallace, a former member of General Synod, an active member of Broken Rites, and part of the organising group of the Campaign for Equal Marriage

    Last week, without much fanfare, the Church of England published the Past Cases Review 2. This summarises the thorough investigation into past cases of abuse which have been “swept under the carpet” by church authorities across the country. Time and time again, the need to protect the ‘integrity’ of the organisation has been prioritised over the need to protect the individual victims of abuse.

    The report notes that: ‘The review of the 75,253 files within the scope of PCR2 was conducted by independent reviewers across the dioceses and other church bodies between July 2019 and April 2022. […]  The independent reviewers identified 383 new safeguarding cases relating to children and vulnerable adults’ (p. 11).

    The continued scandal of the sexual abuse of children and vulnerable adults in the Church of England has – rightly – received much attention in recent years, as the Church has been forced by IICSA to wash its dirty linen in public and admit to its persistent failures to protect its most vulnerable members. Despite much handwringing by Bishops and Archbishops, and in General Synod, there is still a long way to go, both to address and redress the past failings, and to create a safer church.

    I don’t want to minimise this appalling record of cover-up of the abuse of children and young people within the church. But I want to draw out two areas of abuse which continue to receive little or no acknowledgement in discussions about safeguarding.

    The first is around the whole issue of human sexuality. Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic under equality legislation. Yet the Church has continued to allow discrimination against LGBTIQA+ members. In over 400 pages, the Living in Love and Faith book only mentions safeguarding twice, briefly, and in both cases, in relation to children. There is no comment on the constant abuse, marginalisation, and exclusion that many gay people receive in their churches and in social media. Pressure by some individuals and organisations for churches to be exempt from proposed government legislation to ban conversion therapy highlights the safeguarding issues and the danger that young people are in within certain church traditions, where attempts to ‘cure’ them of their supposedly aberrant sexuality continue to be practised.

    When the LLF discussions were taking place last year, the Campaign for Equal Marriage ran a series of workshops where those sympathetic to our aims could have a conversation within a safe space about the LLF Report. We heard numerous stories of individuals who had not felt that discussions within their Diocese or local church were a safe space for them to be, and that the Pastoral Principles which were supposed to provide protection were frequently ignored. While taking part in the national Safeguarding training required regularly for all licensed clergy, I raised the question of safeguarding for LGBTIQA+ people within church contexts. Those delivering the course looked puzzled that I even raised the question, and quickly replied that it was not part of the training. Of course, all young people and vulnerable adults need to be protected within the church, but an awareness of the particular vulnerability of young LGBTIQA+ people in our churches appears not to feature.

    The PCR2 report briefly mentions bullying (p. 107), quoting from a case of a priest who was persistently bullied by a member of the congregation and was forced out of post, which the church authorities dealt with inadequately. But there is no mention of numerous recent cases where gay, partnered priests were forced by Bishops to relinquish their licences and their posts because of their desire to marry their partners, the alternative being to live in enforced celibacy. The lack of pastoral care for clergy in many such cases, and the attempts of church authorities to suppress complaints, is well documented. This is yet another area where safeguarding is inadequate, and the institution is protected in preference to the individual.

    The second area which I would like to highlight is the issue of domestic abuse within clergy marriages. This does indeed get a mention in the PCR2 report – three whole pages (pp. 102 ff.)! It wryly notes that ‘The number of domestic abuse cases seems low for the size of the organisation and where allegations are made there is an inconsistent approach to investigating and identifying risks. There were cases where no final outcome was recorded, which could suggest that risks were left unmanaged, and no safeguarding was put in place’ (p. 103).

    In this context, I am writing as a member of Broken Rites, a charity providing mutual support when clergy marriages fall apart, founded in 1983 at the initiative of Frank Field MP. We are an ecumenical organisation with members from other UK Church denominations; it’s obvious that this is not just an Anglican issue. Our broken and bruised members, victims of failed clergy marriages, tell time and time again of the way in which the circumstances of their breakdown have been swept under the carpet by church authorities. These spouses, the majority of whom are women, have often suffered decades of physical or emotional abuse, coercive control, or narcissistic behaviour. Others have seen their marriage ripped apart by adulterous relationships by their priest partner. While marriage breakdown is always painful, it is particularly so for clergy spouses who have to leave their home in the vicarage, their own role within the church and its supportive network, and fight for financial support for themselves and any children. Some have to find paid employment for the first time, after many years of faithfully supporting their clergy partner’s parish work. Whatever their situation, they face being forced out of most of their familiar settings to make a fresh start, while recovering from the trauma of an abusive or broken relationship.

    The Church does now make some practical support and financial provision for separated clergy spouses, but the support is patchy and poorly signposted, and inconsistent across the country. In many cases, the offending priest gets to stay in post and in the clergy house, whilst the spouse is the one to move out. Even more patchy is the pastoral and emotional support for the departing spouse. Once again, the Church protects its own and has prioritised the safeguarding of the Church’s reputation rather than the individual. This is not the space to tell my own story, simply to note that I talk from personal experience.

    The stories we hear through Broken Rites are only a few – the stories of women and men who have had the courage to break away, despite the emotional and financial cost. We have no idea how many more continue to suffer because of the pressure to hold on to their marriage vows no matter what, and because of the lack of awareness of the problems by church authorities. Allegations of abuse by their partners have been repeatedly ignored or downplayed.

    PCR2 has taken a peek under the carpet and found a massive pile of debris. But, if you will excuse the mixed metaphor, there’s still an awful lot of muck left in the Augean stable under the episcopal floor-covering.

  • Pageants, Progress & People – The End of an Era?

    by Jayne Ozanne, Founder of ViaMedia, Chair of the Ban Conversion Therapy Coalition and Member of General Synod

    On Sunday I shall be incredibly “proud” (in the best LGBT+ tradition of the word) to take part in the Queen’s Jubilee Pageant as part of a small group of “contemporary” LGBT+ figures who have been asked to carry a giant rainbow flag in the parade.  We will feature in the 1970s section of the pageant, a decade chosen in order to honour those who took part in the first ever Pride March 50 years ago – some of whom will also be taking part on Sunday.

    Not all LGBT+ people who were approached wanted to participate in this event – most notably my friend Peter Tatchell, who has made his views very clear in a recent article for The Guardian.

    Whilst I respect Peter’s views, I must admit I am saddened that he is not taking part because this People’s Pageant (as it is being called by the organisers) marks one particular thing that has underscored the seven decades of Her Majesty The Queen’s reign.  It is the one thing that we cannot take for granted, but which the British Public have I believe embraced.  It can be summarised in one simple word: Progress.

    We are not where we were 50 years ago, thank God.

    As we walk down Whitehall, through Admiralty Arch and up the long red road that leads to the Palace, we will be met by tens of thousands of people who will, I anticipate, be cheering us and waving us on our way.  That would have been utterly inconceivable 50 years ago – indeed even arguably 25 years ago, when we were still in the dark days of Section 28.  But today the majority of the British public are keen to celebrate diversity and embrace difference.  Indeed, many are far more attuned to the pain that discrimination has caused for most now know a friend, a family member, a neighbour or a workmate whose life has been scarred by prejudice.  To borrow a phrase from the late President Nelson Mandela, it has been ‘a long walk to freedom’ and I for one believe we should stand tall, mark it and celebrate it.  For all freedoms are hard won and none are totally secure, as we are seeing with the advancement of far-right politics that is sweeping through the Western world.

    Which leads to a question that I have been asking myself over the past few days – what, I wonder, would the crowd’s reaction be if those of us holding this enormous rainbow flag were followed directly behind by the Prime Minister or the Archbishop of Canterbury?

    Interestingly, I seem to have got my answer as I heard the crowd outside St Paul’s Cathedral react to the arrival of the Prime Minister at the Service of Thanksgiving.  In case you are unaware, many booed.  It was quite an audible and a seemingly unprompted reaction. Crowds, as we know, can react in three ways – they can cheer, they can remain silent, or they can boo.  The latter is rare and is usually only invoked when people want to show their profound disapproval of a situation they believe is deeply wrong.

    I do not need to rehearse why the public might currently want to boo the Prime Minister given the ongoing Party-gate saga.  However, were he perhaps to be positioned behind us in the pageant, I am convinced that the crowd’s reaction would be doubly vociferous – given his recent attempt to backtrack, without explanation (or indeed apology) on his one primary commitment to the LGBT+ community, that of promising to ban “conversion therapy”.  Whilst it may have found its way back into the Queen’s Speech last month, this was only partly and grudgingly so – as we sadly have now had confirmed, those who most need the ban are to be excluded from it.  It makes no sense at all and is one of the main reasons behind the fact that the UK have plummeted in its ranking on international LGBT+ rights.

    So, what if we were to be followed by the Archbishop of Canterbury?

    Well, quite apart from the fact that many would, I think, be unaware who this man in a colourful cape and a pointy hat might be, those who do recognise him would I think fall silent for – let’s be honest – the Church of England remains very publicly opposed to LGBT+ people.  Yes of course there are wonderful examples of parish churches trying to make us welcome – but many of the British public now know someone who has been rejected from having their wedding in church, and others are aware of the rejection their friends have faced when coming out to Christian relatives and friends.  Silence might, in fact, be too optimistic – I fear that it would only take a few to start being vocal (as they were with the Prime Minister) and the rest would probably follow suit.

    So why am I labouring this point?

    Because whilst it is clear that Britain has made significant progress over the past 70 years, in truth these institutions and administrations that are there to serve the people have yet to catch up.  Unless they do so soon, they will I believe seriously risk undermining the trust people have in them and as a result risk their very future.

    Am I the only one, I wonder, who senses that we are coming to the end of an era?  For all that Buckingham Palace might want us to start to embrace “succession planning” I can’t help thinking that significant changes lie ahead in the not too distant future – particularly for the established Church.  No institution has an indubitable right to exist, and the Church of England is no exception.  Despite all the church planting and mission focused plans we might have, I just can’t see institutional religion being something the British Public are going to be keen to embrace in the years ahead – certainly not if it remains a place of discrimination, prejudice and pain for those who so many of the public care about.

    Is that progress?

    Time alone will tell.

     

  • Living in Love and Faith: The Ozanne Foundation Responds

    Organisations as well as individuals have been invited to share their response to the LLF course, materials and process by 30 April 2022.

    Here is the response of the Ozanne Foundation.

    We write to share our thoughts and reflections on the LLF process and our hopes for the “next steps”.

    1. Overview of LLF

    Whilst we recognise that the LLF was originally conceived as a “necessary step” towards a more inclusive and just Church of England, we question whether the time and money that has been invested in it has been worth the significant harm that it has caused.  This is not least because of the time that it has taken – indeed it is now over five years since the archbishops promised a “radical new Christian inclusion”, a promise that had originally brought hope to so many and yet has now faded to become yet another example of “words not action” for the LGBT+ community.

    It is therefore of no surprise that during the intervening years – where open debate has been stymied within the General Synod and discussions around LLF have been heavily managed – that positions on both sides have hardened.  Sadly, as always, those this has impacted the most are the LGBT+ community, particularly those growing up in certain conservative settings.  Same-sex relationships are still not recognised, our LGBT+ priests are still asked to sign “Issues”, our LGBT+ youth are still taught that they must deny themselves any physical intimacy for life, even if it is lawfully recognised – severely impacting their mental health.  There continues to be no admission of the harm that conservative theology can inflict on those in their “care” and, perhaps most worryingly, there has been little desire by bishops to challenge or chastise those who inflict such harm, allowing them to continue their practices with impunity.  This can be evidenced by the various public letters that many conservatives have signed stating their desire to continue to practice “conversion therapy” and the increasingly hostile rhetoric towards trans people.  Conservative networks and many conservative churches and individuals continue to threaten schism and to withdraw funding, holding their dioceses to ransom.  Meanwhile LGBT+ people, their friends and families have continued to leave quietly – dismayed and disheartened by the lack of any real or meaningful progress.  What is more, we see no evidence that the national conservative networks have engaged with LLF.  Instead, they have publicly promoted the use of their own materials, including the “A Beautiful Story” video, to shore up their positions and underline their homophobic/transphobic doctrine.

    What is most worrying are the stories that we have heard from those LGBT+ church goers who were brave enough to take part in the LLF discussions.  Few found them safe spaces, and most wished afterwards that they had not taken part – even senior LGBT+ clergy.  The Church of England’s “good disagreement” strategy serves only, it seems, its heterosexual cisgendered members, with little thought for those who are most affected by these discussions.  Despite repeated calls to avoid giving equal weight to views on either “side” of the “debate”, given the significant power imbalance that exist and the clear evidence of harm that one side inflicts on the other, the Church of England has continued to push a strategy of “balance”.  In so doing it has lost the trust and respect of a large section of the general public, who look with incredulity at the way the LGBT+ community continue to be treated by a religious organisation whose central message is meant to be that of love and justice.  We are seen, rightly, as hypocrites!

    1. What Next?

    We recognise that we sadly cannot undo the damage that has been done, but we can – we hope – ensure that the next step is one that will lead to concrete decisions, actions and equality.  We cannot continue to objectify and problematise LGBT+ lives, for this has gone on long enough.

    It is clear to most that the only possible way forward is to allow some form of accommodation for those who wish to recognise LGBT+ faithful loving relationships.  This step is now well overdue.  We are well beyond creating a “middle ground” of sanctioning “just” blessings and must now move without delay to a Church that offers marriage to all living in England.  We already have a proven model for accommodating this while respecting individual consciences with the way we have managed marriage after divorce.

    At the same time, however, we are deeply concerned about the continued abuse of LGBT+ people, particularly young LGBT+ people within conservative churches, and the homophobic teaching that they are made to endure, which leads to self-hatred, shame and internalised homophobia – let alone rejection and alienation from their families and friends.  Research shows that this has a significant and lifelong impact on their mental wellbeing and can lead many to consider or indeed to attempt to take their lives.  This spiritual abuse must stop.  For too long the Church of England has turned a blind eye to this abuse and have let the brave testimonies of those who have spoken out go unheeded and unheard.  This lack of resolve to tackle the damage done by conservative theology is deeply inconsistent with the Church’s developing understanding and practice of the importance of safeguarding for vulnerable people and continues to make the Church of England vulnerable to the charge of complicity in abuse.  We therefore urge the Church of England to move swiftly to adopt the Global Interfaith Commission on LGBT+ Lives’ “Safeguarding Principles to Protect LGBT+ Lives” agreed in March 2022 at a conference sponsored by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

    We hope that you will find these reflections useful and await with interest the publication of a set of proposals from the House of Bishops regarding the way forward, for action is now long overdue.

    Yours sincerely

    Very Revd Joe Hawes, Chair, Ozanne Foundation

    Jayne Ozanne, Director, Ozanne Foundation

    April 27th 2022

  • Truth – The First Casualty in War

    by Jayne Ozanne, Director of the Ozanne Foundation, Chair of the #BanConversionTherapy Coalition and Founder of ViaMedia

    “Truth is the first casualty of war” is a phrase that has been attributed to a number of leaders over the years, but whether it be Senator Hiram Johnson in 1918 or Dr Samuel Johnson in 1758 it remains as true today as it has ever done.

    From the war on Covid to the war in Ukraine, there have been significant attempts to undermine the truth about the reality of the horrors of what is happening.  And it is always the most vulnerable and the most at risk who bear the brunt of these falsehoods.

    Sadly, we are witnessing exactly the same “war on truth” in relation to the lived reality of our trans friends, neighbours and colleagues, and again it is the most vulnerable and the most at risk who are bearing the brunt of the falsehoods that are being spun by the gender critical lobby. What is utterly unforgiveable in this case is that it is those in power, who have the means and the opportunity to do something about it, who are actively choosing not to do so.

    I know I am not alone in being appalled by Downing Street’s confirmation yesterday afternoon that they would not be including trans people in a ban on “conversion therapy”.  Their rational? Well their statement claims that this is “a legally complex area” which needs “further careful thought”, which is a pathetic excuse given that they have been working on this for nearly four years now!  That is why I and over 100 LGBT+ organisations have chosen to distance ourselves from the government’s ironically named “Safe To Be Me” international conference planned for the summer.  The fact that the Prime Minister is prepared to leave those who are the most likely to undergo and be offered “conversion therapy” open to abuse has only served to confirm in the minds of many that this administration is institutionally transphobic.

    One has to ask who is advising the Prime Minister?  It would appear that he has surrounded himself by people who are either too scared to tell him the truth or, perhaps more worryingly, those with a specific agenda, who are determined to peddle their own faux concerns about trans people and in so doing are wanting to wage a culture war against them.  What is clear is that he is not listening to the advice of the UN Independent Experts, his medical profession, research experts or indeed the brave testimonies of survivors, who all are calling for protections against a form of abuse that leads many to consider taking their lives.

    Let us be clear, “conversion therapy” has nothing to do with good medical practice, despite what the gender critical lobby would have us believe.  What we urgently need is to ban any practice that has a “predetermined purpose”, where a person is told that they cannot be who they know themselves to be and are encouraged to change or suppress who they are in order to fit in with a perceived “norm” of a certain group, cultural community or religious belief.

    Affirming spaces, whether they be in a healthcare setting, the home or a religious setting, is the essence of good practice and must be encouraged.  Despite what the gender critical lobby would have us believe, these are spaces where one can explore who one is without prejudice or fear.  That is why senior leaders, including Lord Rowan Williams, sent a letter to the Prime Minister yesterday condemning “conversion therapy”, particularly trans “conversion therapy”, and emphasising that “every church should be a safe space which affirms people in being who they are, without fear of judgement.”

    These are dark days, where there is a spirit abroad that seeks to want to ignore the evidence of harm caused and instead cling to certain falsehoods and ideology.  We see this repeatedly when trying to engage with those religious leaders who are hell bent on opposing a ban.  Time and time again they have been confronted with stories of people whose lives have been torn apart by their actions, with research that shows that these individuals are not alone, with medical professionals explaining the damage they do.  Their response?  Well, it should perhaps concern us all that their tactics seem worryingly familiar – they say we are exaggerating, that we are making things up, that we are bringing these terrible mental health traumas on ourselves.

    Indeed “truth is the first casualty in war”, and we are I would offer in a spiritual war.  The good news though is that we know the outcome already for, to quote one very brave president recently, “we shall win for truth is on our side”.

  • Banning Prayer?

    by Jeremy Marks, Founder of Post-Courage and Winner of the Colin Blakely Lifetime Achievement Award

    “In the silence of the heart God speaks. If you face God in prayer and silence, God will speak to you. Then you will know that you are nothing. It is only when you realise your nothingness, your emptiness, that God can fill you with Himself. Souls of prayer are souls of great silence.”   Mother Teresa (vaticansite.com)

    One of the most controversial aspects of the proposed Ban “Conversion Therapy” legislation concerns the notion of “banning prayer”.  To some people it can feel like the beginnings of persecution for Christians! But is it?

    As an evangelical Christian (in the sense that I believe knowing Jesus, studying his teaching and living according to his words is Good News) I am ALL for prayer!  If only sincere prayer from the heart played a bigger part in all of our lives. . . !

    However, I have learned through nearly 50 years of life as a Christian (30+ in full time ministry) that prayer is much more about listening than speaking… learning to listen to God above all and being willing to learn.

    I love the story of Mother Teresa of Calcutta’s reply to a journalist, years ago, when he asked her how she prays?

    “I listen” replied Mother Teresa.

    “Oh?” replied the journalist, clearly interested. “And what does God say to you?”

    “He listens too” she replied.

    This made me laugh. Because I have to say that this is exactly how I find prayer to be. Long ago I came to realise the foolishness, the short-sightedness, of bringing a list of prayer requests to God, to ask for needs to be met. . . that God understands far better than I do anyway!  I began to change my prayers to something more like, “So what do YOU think I/we/they need Lord?”

    I also discovered in this process what a wonderful sense of humour God has.  Like the day when I observed in my prayers (a little self-indulgently) “Lord sometimes I wonder if I have any true friends who really care about me? Nobody ever seems to ring or contact me unless they are in trouble or need something!”  Quick as a flash I “heard” God reply, “Whatever makes you think you are so special?  Nobody ever turns to me unless they want something, or they are in trouble – and I am GOD”. I must admit I burst out laughing, and then sheepishly replied, “I see what you mean.  I cannot complain, can I?”

    So it follows that when praying for others, I realised that listening to them and coming to a place of deep empathy comes first, comes second, and comes last! As someone once observed, “God gave us two ears and one mouth, so let us use our ears and mouth in those proportions!” Learning to walk alongside those who feel lonely, marginalised, and misunderstood (as Jesus did) is what prayer is all about. But never starting with assumptions as to what a person needs or wants, then boldly launching into ardent prayer, which can do far more harm than good!  To be sure, it certainly has its effect, but often in totally the wrong way!

    Humility is the foundation stone for all prayer, I have found.

    Regrettably there are some evangelical Christians who believe that a few Bible texts can be applied to everyone, in a superficial one-size-fits all way. I can accept that when it comes to a verse such as “All have sinned and fall short of the grace of God”.  (Romans 3:23) But they don’t seem to believe that it is necessary to learn about the complex issues of human sexuality, before they just sally forth and pray triumphantly that God will “deliver”, say a gay person, from their same-sex desires and make them heterosexual.  Such people can be among the worst culprits for arming their prayers with a cocktail of prejudices and undisguised agendas that demand change, then push those assumptions into a vulnerable person’s life, like a lethal injection, causing incalculable damage.  Consistently I have seen this to be the most pernicious and toxic form of prayer imaginable.

    The better way, I have found, is to pray for wisdom as to how to help and comfort somebody.  More and more I discover that when I do so, and then trust in the Holy Spirit to guide me as I make a response, I am amazed at what comes out of my mouth.  So are the people who listen to my response, who often go on their way rejoicing. It really is such a privilege to listen and pray for God’s wisdom to be revealed.

    When Jesus taught about prayer it’s fundamental premise was about changing the person praying NOT about trying to change another person, the one you are praying for, however well-intentioned!  Just consider the Lord’s prayer for starters. It is impossible to pray that in a “me-centred” way.  The Lord’s prayer is only about me in the context of my relationship with God – as Father God, as provider of all my needs, as protector and guide, as minister of forgiveness, grace and empowerment.

    So, I’m all for prayer when it is informed and appropriate, coming from a place of empathy. But there’s nothing that undermines the quality of prayer more than crass assumptions that say more about the pray-er’s ignorance and prejudices than about the person seeking support.  If “banning prayer to change people’s sexuality” results in persecution of those kinds of Christians, then I can see that there is good reason for it!  The law is given to protect people from abuse and harm.

    Just in case there are any readers who feel that I have just invalidated their prayer life with dismissive comments, may I just share something else about my own prayer life that I hope might restore the balance.

    Many years ago, I got stuck in my prayer life. With my heart full of huge concerns for other people’s dire needs and seemingly intractable situations, I not only felt overwhelmed but also frustrated! I couldn’t see how a good God needed any input from me at all when God can perfectly well what heartbreak there is and what needs to happen. Gradually I realised that God has put us on this earth to be His/Her/Their eyes, ears, and arms to reach out, and feet to take us to help others in God’s name. And that this sense of partnership with God is what the Christian life is all about.

    ­­One b­­­­usy day, burdened with­­­­ huge concerns for myself as well as others, I sat down for a few moments and wrote down everything I could think of there and then, that I would have prayed about if I’d had the time and faith to do so. Then added “God’s To-Do List!” at the top. Then I got on with my day. That piece of paper quickly became buried in my paperwork pile and re-surfaced when I was looking for something else about 6 weeks later. I stopped for a moment to glance through the list and was astounded to see that almost everything on that list had been resolved in one way or another and that in most cases I had completely forgotten that I had listed them. Moreover, the resolutions had come in all kinds of ways, most of which I would never have thought of.  So, I concluded that sharing our hearts and concerns with God is valid and important. Then we can leave these things with God and one way or another resolution comes. Because when we are motivated by love our prayers can indeed be very powerful in all the best ways… and they won’t get us into trouble with the law either. It is not the sort of prayer that can be banned!

    “I used to pray that God would feed the hungry, or do this or that, but now I pray that he will guide me to do whatever I’m supposed to do, what I can do. I used to pray for answers, but now I’m praying for strength. I used to believe that prayer changes things, but now I know that prayer changes us and we change things.” – Mother Teresa 

  • Collateral Damage – Do Church Leaders Care?

    by Jayne Ozanne, Director of the Ozanne Foundation, Chair of the Ban Conversion Therapy Coalition and Editor of ViaMedia.News

    This week saw the publication of the 2021 LGBT+ Christians Safeguarding Survey Report, which has shone a bright spotlight on the cost many of us LGBT+ Christians are paying for being caught in the crossfire of the “debates” over our future.

    The results are very disturbing – with only a third (36.9%) of the LGBT+ Christians surveyed feeling safe enough ‘to be out to everyone’ in their local church.  Perhaps even more worryingly is that over one in six (17.4%) said that “church” was a place where they used to be able to be out, but now no longer feel safe enough to be so.  We appear to be regressing.

    The fact that over three quarters (75.3%) chose the indicator ‘I’m not worried about what might be said in the sermon’ to show that they could feel safe to be themselves in their local church should be a wakeup call to church leaders about the hidden toll that this is all taking.

    The question is, will it?

    For years LGBT+ people have spoken out about the trauma and pain that they have endured, just for being “different” to the perceived heterosexual cis-gendered ‘norm’.  Many from across the medical professions have added their voices too, clearly highlighting the psychological damage being done to those trying to reconcile their faith with their sexuality and/or gender identity.  Then has come a raft of evidence about the evils of so-called ‘conversion therapy’, including harrowing testimonies from survivors.

    Has it made any difference?

    I must admit that one of the things that has shocked me most in these recent years of speaking out about the harm inflicted on LGBT+ people has been the callousness of the response from those hell-bent on continuing with this spiritual abuse.

    They know, but they just do not care.

    And it is that cold indifference and lack of pastoral concern that proves to me, beyond any shadow of a doubt, just how un-Christian their dogmatic stance is.  They may think that they are ‘standing firm for the Gospel’, but the fruit of their teaching is so rotten and bad that it gives off a stench that few wish to be associated with (and those that do just hold their noses and try to put up with it!).

    This was brought home to me in my recent interview with Peter Lynas for Justin Brierley’s show on Premier Radio, Unbelievable.  Time and time again I confronted him with the harm that the Evangelical Alliance was inflicting on LGBT+ people through their promotion of the ironically named ‘Biblical and Pastoral Responses to Homosexuality’ – the ten ‘affirmations’ that set out how church leaders should treat LGBT+ people and their allies in their congregations.  Time and time again he deflected, obfuscated and refused to engage with the evidence.   It didn’t go unnoticed.

    There is nothing loving about ignoring the cries of people you are harming.

    There is nothing loving about turning your back on those who are asking for help.

    There is nothing loving about doggedly pursuing a course of action that is clearly abusive.

    The most upsetting thing is that few in positions of power, who have the ability and indeed the duty to safeguard against this abuse, choose to use their position of power to intervene.  Most stay silent.

    Why? Because they just see LGBT+ people as collateral damage.

    For some reason – which has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with fear – they just don’t appear to care.  And it is that which makes me so angry – and I believe makes Jesus really angry too.

    Jesus always dealt with the real-life situation of the person in front of him.  He always responded with love and compassion, whilst the religious leaders around him stuck to ideologies and principles.  He called them on it.  He chastised them for it.  He was crucified because of it.

    Not much has changed, sadly.

    The only thing we do know, is that they will be judged because of it.  One day.

    In the meantime, I know that God is watching and waiting to see who will protect His sheep from harm.  Fortunately, there are many wonderful Samaritans, even if many of the religious leaders walk right on by.  They at least want to help heal and protect the wounded.

    So what can be done?

    Well the first step is to break the silence, gather the evidence and call out the abuse – which is why we did the survey and why I eventually agreed to do the interview with Peter.  The second is to take that evidence to people who have both the pastoral heart and the positions of power to do something about it.

    Watch this space…it’s coming!

  • General Synod: Over and Out!

    by the Revd Canon Rosie Harper, Chaplain to the Bishop of Buckingham and Trustee of the Ozanne Foundation

    Jayne very kindly invited me to reflect on my 11 years on General Synod, as the new Synod is about to begin. So please excuse it being a bit more personal than usual.

    My father’s first journey outside the UK was to Switzerland to meet the family of the beautiful young woman he had fallen in love with. Round a massive wooden table he was introduced to her parents and the six brothers and one sister. Later that evening they went for a walk and my mother (yes reader, she married him) asked him how he felt. He told her he’d been horrified. ‘Why were they all shouting at one another all the time? Why were they so cross?’

    Turns out he had mistaken passion for anger. Many British people do.

    I have often thought of this story as I have tried to make sense of my relationship with General Synod and indeed with the Church of England. Having retired from Parish ministry earlier this year and called it a day with General Synod, am I now heading for a divorce”?

    In order to fit in, to belong, to be a fitting wife for my pastor Dad, my mother interiorised her passion.  Coming over here just after the war and speaking with a Germanic accent I can only imagine how necessary that felt. I caught glimpses of a deep thinking, unconventional woman who was very concerned that I wouldn’t spoil my life chances by being perceived as too ‘over the top’.

    Somehow my drive to ask difficult questions, to challenge, to speak for people without a voice – yes, to be passionate – never got moderated to a fully British tone. It took me quite a while to understand that this was a problem in the Church of England.

    I first went to an Anglican church at university and that was because Ivor Keys was the organist and he was magic! While I was at the Royal Academy of Music I went to All Souls Langham Place and again, playing the violin in their orchestra more than compensated for the oppressive theology that I found there.

    Walking through the years I learnt Anglican ways and there was so much to enjoy. I found God in the hearts of good and loving people. Much as I loved my parish, and I really did, in due course I tried to get some new and very interesting jobs. I failed, not, I was told  because of my ability but because I was too outspoken. I belonged but I didn’t belong. General Synod was much the same. I remember being told ‘we need people like you’. Ha!

    Well – we all probably have a tale like that to tell. We all bring both spiritual and cultural baggage and encounter many layers of unwritten rules, disability, class, gender and race divisions, intellectual snobbery, power structures and old school networks, reputational lawyers and NDAs. It’s an Institution. What do you expect?

    Only this is a church that is meant to preach something rather different. That we are all equal before God and equally loved. That the first shall be last. That we should not judge.

    Sadly it seems that we just can’t get it right.

    I sat on the Synod that was trying to make women equal and become bishops and we managed to embed inequality into its very laws. I voted for a ban on conversion therapy and yet Christians are lobbying the Government for an exemption. We are still at the point where gay people are deemed to have been created less equal than others and denied both the joy of marriage and a place at the high table. We fail to see how even discussing this as an option is abhorrently abusive. There are just so many ways in which, by the sheer essence of who you are, it is so difficult to truly belong.

    For most of these years the discomfort was perfectly bearable. Daniel Finkelstein wrote a pre-obituary of terminally ill Frank Field in The Times on 2nd November. He described Field’s position in a way that resonated: ‘Field saw political allegiance as being a little like supporting a football team. Not something to which, once you had adopted it, you gave much further thought to or could easily change.’… ‘What Field meant by his analogy was that he realised his continued membership of the Labour party was tribal and he wasn’t going to let it constrain his thinking or actions.’

    Yep! That was how it was with me and the CofE.  It had become my home, yet I was fine about being a critical friend.

    It stayed like that for many years. It’s why I stood for election to General Synod. I was looking for reform and even rebirth and wanted to do my small part from within. The time I felt most lonely was when I articulated a Christian and compassionate argument for Assisted Dying, but even then I found kind and encouraging folk to talk to.

    What changed things for me was safeguarding. Working as chaplain to Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham, we found ourselves listening to a growing number of people whose experience of abuse within the Church was made unspeakably worse by the way the institution treated them. I gained a far deeper understanding of the parable of the Good Samaritan. It was walking by on the other side writ large. Somehow with each new person’s experience I made a shift from feeling that the CofE was basically a good but flawed outfit, to wondering if there was something irredeemably rotten at its core.

    Over many years decent men and women promised to put survivors at the heart of all they did, but no-one could make it happen. Apology followed tear-stained apology.

    We began to drown under an avalanche of new policy, training and procedure, but the actual survivors remained an afterthought. Good grief – we still don’t even have a date for the Makin report into the Smyth abuse and Smyth died in 2017. The actual abuse has been known about for far longer and it seems the survivors matter so little that their story has not even been logged.

    I don’t know how this will end. It’s never great to divorce, and I’m not quite at that point yet, but it‘s hard to see the way forward once the trust has gone. I sincerely hope that the next generation of Synod members will find cause to be less cynical and I will watch with interest and encourage where I can.

  • LGBT Stories: Bring on the Ban!

    by the Rt Revd Paul Bayes, Bishop of Liverpool and Chair of the Ozanne Foundation

    This is a brief and unoriginal article, simply reminding us what we have done as a Church, and what the Government has done, and what still needs to be done, and what you can do.

    In July 2017 the General Synod voted to support the following motion:

    That this Synod:

    (a) endorse the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy in the UK of November 2015, signed by The Royal College of Psychiatrists and others, that the practice of gay conversion therapy has no place in the modern world, is unethical, potentially harmful and not supported by evidence;

    (b) call upon the Church to be sensitive to, and to listen to, contemporary expressions of gender identity;

    (c) and call on the government to ban the practice of Conversion Therapy.

    Here’s how that vote went:

    In the House of Bishops: 36 in favour (97%), 1 against (3%), no abstentions

    In the House of Clergy: 135 in favour (78%),  25 against (14%), 13 abstentions (8%)

    In the House of Laity: 127 in favour (68%), 48 against (26%), 13 abstentions (7%)

    Archbishop Sentamu said this in his speech:

    “The sooner the practice of so-called ‘conversion therapy’ is banned, I can sleep at night.”

    As part of my own brief contribution I said this:

    “As the world listens to us the world needs to hear us say that LGBTI+ orientation and identity is not a crime. LGBTI+ orientation and identity is not a sickness. And LGBTI+ orientation and identity is not a sin…

    What matters here is that a therapeutic model is not appropriate if LGBTI+ orientation and identity is not a sickness. And if the Church suggests that really, actually it is, then our many statements opposing homophobia are void, and the world will think that in fact we really do believe LGBTI+ people to be second-class humans no matter how they behave; and this is not acceptable to me and I hope not to this Synod. That’s why I will vote for this motion…”

    In 2018 in the Government document “LGBT Action Plan”, the then Minister for Women and Equalities committed the Government to:

    “Bringing forward proposals to end the practice of conversion therapy in the UK”

    In July 2020 the Prime Minister said this:

    “On the gay conversion therapy thing, I think that’s absolutely abhorrent and has no place in a civilised society, and has no place in this country.”

    On 11 May 2021 a press release from the Government Equalities Office said this:

    “…the Government will take legislative steps to ban conversion therapy… Many forms of the practice are already prevented under current legislation, but this new ban will ensure that it is stamped out once and for all.”

    The stories told by contributors to Via Media over the past few weeks underline once again the human cost of conversion therapy. The decision of the General Synod to call for a ban stands. The statements of the Prime Minister and the Government stand.

    Despite this the Government has not yet brought legislation forward. Like my colleague the Bishop of Manchester, I regret this. In Via Media a month ago he wrote:

    “Meanwhile, whilst we fail to press on with draft legislation, young people are continuing to suffer abuse disguised as therapy. Their harm is real and immediate. For their sakes we need to make this consultation both short and to the point.”

    The Church has spoken confidently, and Government ministers have agreed. But action is needed now.

    And you have the opportunity to influence this action. So:

    • Please write to your Member of Parliament, and/or to the Minister for Women and Equalities, and/or to the Prime Minister, asking for a swift and positive introducing of legislation to ban conversion therapy “once and for all”. Please encourage those in your church community to do the same. And as you do so, remember those who have courageously told their stories on this website, and the many thousands whose stories remain untold, and pray for them.
    • And please consider supporting those who are working to advocate to Government and to play their part in whatever consultations are to come. For example Ban Conversion Therapy Campaign or the Ozanne Foundation could really use your help and support.

    Many thanks to all difference-makers!