(Photo: Church of England / Sam Atkins)
A contentious debate is brewing within the Church of England as a movement to cancel a fringe event supporting non-affirming therapy at the upcoming General Synod gains momentum. This event, often described by critics as ‘conversion therapy,’ is at the center of a heated controversy.
A group of 82 revisionist campaigners have penned a letter urging the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to halt the ‘People Change: Sexual Identity Transformation’ meeting, scheduled for July 13, along with the associated exhibition stand.
Rebecca Hunt, a lawyer from the Christian Legal Centre and a lay member of the General Synod for Portsmouth Diocese, is sponsoring the contentious fringe event. The event, set to take place at York University campus, will feature Andrea Minichiello Williams, the chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, as a speaker.
In his letter to Archbishops Sarah Mullally and Stephen Cottrell, Robert Thompson, a vicar in West Hampstead, London, questions the decision-making process behind allowing the event, citing potential conflicts with the Church’s ethos and safeguarding guidance. He writes, “The Fringe Meeting Guidelines expressly reserve to you, as Presidents of the General Synod, the right to refuse a fringe meeting where its subject matter would be contrary to the ethos of the Church of England, may adversely affect its reputation, or would be inconsistent with House of Bishops’ safeguarding guidance. We would therefore be grateful if you could explain how those criteria were applied in relation to both the fringe meeting and the exhibition stand.”
Thompson’s letter further intensifies the call for cancellation by referencing the Labour Government’s Draft Conversion Practices Bill, emphasizing its significance for the Church’s safeguarding protocols.
The letter continues, “Whatever differing views may be held about aspects of that legislation, we believe it makes it all the more important that the Church of England is able to explain clearly how decisions of this nature are reached and how they are reconciled with its own safeguarding commitments. We would therefore be grateful to know whether safeguarding assessments were undertaken in relation to both the fringe event and the exhibition stand and, if so, whether they specifically considered the potential psychological and spiritual impact upon LGBTQIA+ members of Synod.”
Thompson also indicates potential political ramifications, stating, “For transparency, I have copied this correspondence to those with responsibilities for the governance of General Synod, safeguarding, the bishops in the Diocese of London in whose ministry I share, and those with interest in the Church’s relationship with Parliament and government.”
The event is set to feature speakers like Core Issues Trust founder, Mike Davidson, and X-Out-Loud co-director, Michael Grech. X-Out-Loud, an international organization, states on its website, “We are passionate about our freedom! Our lives are living proof that Jesus is still transforming lives and that the gospel offers full hope to those voluntarily moving away from LGBT. We celebrate our identities by sharing our stories and supporting and giving a voice to those who no longer identify as gay, lesbian or trans.”
Michael Grech, who faced legal troubles in Malta for promoting ‘conversion practices,’ will discuss the broader implications of his case for free speech and religious liberty at the Synod event.
Recent events have shown how safeguarding can be used as a tool against free speech, as evidenced by the case of Jamie Michael, a former Royal Marine. Despite being acquitted of inciting racial hatred, he faced consequences from his local safeguarding board, impacting his ability to coach youth sports.
Toby Young, General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, criticized this misuse of safeguarding protocols, stating, “Citing safeguarding concerns to silence people you disagree with is a scandalous abuse of the system. Those protocols have been put in place to protect children from abusive parents and sexual predators, not people with patriotic views.”
The Archbishops, who have previously shown support for LGBT initiatives within the Church, now face a challenging decision regarding the proposed event. Their stance on same-sex blessings in February 2023 indicates potential alignment with the revisionist campaigners, but they must weigh the implications of potentially opposing the Christian Legal Centre’s vocal advocates.
This article was originally written by www.christiantoday.com
