No to Conversion Therapy?

The tsunami of individualism set in motion by the tectonic shifts in our courts has launched another wave onto the shores of our faith. Or has it? Does the growing ban on conversion therapy across our country deal a blow to the church’s practice of discipleship or is this another tempest in a teapot? 

The massive writing campaign from Christians aimed at MPs is attempting to keep this issue at a boiling point before final decisions are made. The private members bill creating the stir seeks to forbid advertising for conversion therapy and targets any financial consideration for services offered to those under 18 years of age. 

Studies carried out by MIT and Harvard suggest that sexuality is shaped by “cultural, political, social, legal and religious structures” more than by any genetic base. MPs are getting multiple reminders of statistics saying that 80-90 percent of children experiencing forms of gender dysphoria will assume their “biologically assigned genders” during adolescence or adulthood. 

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) says that the current bill, finishing its second reading in the senate, should have minimal direct impact on churches but it could affect Christian organizations “who advertise conversion therapy or receive payment for offering support groups or counselling for individuals seeking to live out their sexuality in the manner they choose.”

The City of Spruce Grove, Alberta, has enacted Bylaw C-1103-19 which prohibits Conversion Therapy where an individual provides a service or treatment “designed to change or convert an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” Medical professionals exploring sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or else supporting gender transition “to align an individual’s biological and anatomical features with the individual’s gender identity” are protected.

In British Columbia, former Green Party leader Andrew Weaver, before stepping down, introduced a bill to the BC Legislature to end the practice of conversion therapy. 

While parent, Rob Hoogland, didn’t practice conversion therapy on his transitioning child, he found out through court muzzling that he was helpless to prevent counselors and medical professionals from applying gender altering treatments to his offspring. This bill is a one-way street.

Justice Minister, David Lametti, stated on CTV’s W5 show that he planned to amend the Criminal Code to “ban the practice of conversion therapy.”

Proponents of the bill are no doubt influenced by reports like those from the American Psychiatric Association (APA) opposing reparative or conversion therapy performed with the assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder. The APA cites risks such as “depression, guilt, helplessness, hopelessness, shame, social withdrawal, suicidality, substance abuse, stress, disappointment, self-blame, decreased self-esteem and authenticity, increased self-hatred, hostility, blame of parents, feelings of anger and betrayal, loss of friends, problems with sexual and emotional intimacy, sexual dysfunction, high-risk sexual behaviors, feelings of dehumanization, loss of faith, a sense of wasted time and resources.” 

Google searches on conversion therapy often site the practice as pseudoscientific and unethical and a source of concern for medical, scientific, psychological and government leaders. To emphasize the horror of techniques previously used, there is mention of ice-pick lobotomies, chemical castration, genital shock, nausea inducing drugs and “masturbatory reconditioning.” 

Contemporary therapists are more likely to rely on talk, visualization, prayer, social skills training, psychoanalytic or group therapy.

An article in the Outlife publication states that “conversion therapy, or so-called ‘gay-cure therapy’, is any form of talk therapy or similar activity that seeks to remove a person’s feelings of same-sex attraction or change their gender identity. Attempts may also be made to force an attraction to the opposite sex, or identification with recorded birth sex.”

Kevin Cavanaugh, a co-founder of the OneAccord movement and pastor of Cedar Grove Baptist Church, states: 

“I have been working with pastors, leaders, counsellors and organizations across Canada for over 22 years now. I am personally unaware of anyone using, or for that matter who has ever used, shock therapy or corrosive measures of any kind, seeking to force anyone to either ‘believe’ or ‘behave’ differently. Neither am I aware of anyone who knows of any such persons.”

The EFC is “concerned with the breadth of the definition in S-202 and by the prospect that the government could adopt this definition in its anticipated changes to the Criminal Code. Further, while the activities prohibited by S-202 are focused on advertising and paid services, future government legislation could apply this definition to a broader range of activities, which could then be problematic for churches, religious officials and/or parents.”

Cavanaugh states that “The concern of those of us who oppose the ban is this. It is a very open and notorious effort on the part of the Liberal government to remove the personal rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens. 

“Every Canadian citizen, including those in the LGBTQ movement, should have the right to choose whatever health care options, be they mental, physical or spiritual, that they desire. Canada is all about diversity and personal choice, not about governmental intervention.

“What we can all agree should be banned in Canada is this – that no one should be subjected to forceful, invasive or corrosive treatments of any kind, by anyone, for any reason, including the government.”

The perceptive few see that the potential for this bill, could actually have far-reaching impact on pastoral care and support groups. The shore of religious freedom is indeed being eroded again.