Christian ministry under threat...

[Carl Emerson]

If the prayer is generic and sexual preference is not mentioned, then there is no proof that any illegal has occurred. The person may go forward to receive prayer for his sexual preference issue, and he asks for prayer concerning it, if the person doesn't mention it in his prayer, but prays just that the will of God be done in that person's life, there can be no proof that the prayer is directed at the person's sexual preference. It is no crime to pray that the will of God be done in a person's life. If a complaint is made, the complainant has to prove beyond doubt that the person praying actually used the words referring to sexual preference during the wording of the prayer. The person going up to receive prayer may know it, and the person praying may know it, and the complainant might also know it, but unless the words relating to sexual preference are actually used, the complaint could not be proved in court.

Oscarr - check out post #298 it seems Derek Prince would be charged.

 

[Carl Emerson]

We are in Bright Monday...

I have a positive RAT, fever gone, strength returning, just like a cold at this stage - thanks for praying.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Oscarr - check out post #298 it seems Derek Prince would be charged.

I read the post. If the counselling had been done before the law was past, Derek Prince could not have been charged. Anyway, he is no longer alive, so one cannot bring charges against a dead person!

 

[Carl Emerson]

I read the post. If the counselling had been done before the law was past, Derek Prince could not have been charged. Anyway, he is no longer alive, so one cannot bring charges against a dead person!

You miss the point - it is important to understand if the ministry recorded in Derek Prince's book, would fall foul of the Law in New Zealand since the passing of the Conversion Therapy Bill.

Can you give an opinion on this please.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You miss the point - it is important to understand if the ministry recorded in Derek Prince's book, would fall foul of the Law in New Zealand since the passing of the Conversion Therapy Bill.

Can you give an opinion on this please.

The counselling is not involved in changing the person's gender. Also, professional counselling has a confidentiality clause. A professional counsellor cannot be compelled to violate counsellor client privilege.

I think that the only way a client can make a complaint is if the counseling doesn't work and the client doesn't receive what he paid for.

 

[Carl Emerson]

The counselling is not involved in changing the person's gender. Also, professional counselling has a confidentiality clause. A professional counsellor cannot be compelled to violate counsellor client privilege.

I think that the only way a client can make a complaint is if the counseling doesn't work and the client doesn't receive what he paid for.

Derek was not functioning as a professional counsellor, but a Pastor.

Would a Pastor today fall foul of the Law in NZ for ministering in that way ?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Derek was not functioning as a professional counsellor, but a Pastor.

Would a Pastor today fall foul of the Law in NZ for ministering in that way ?

I think that there is a bit of guesswork and speculation about the law. I would be interested in reading the actual Act of Parliament to see what it actually says.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Derek was not functioning as a professional counsellor, but a Pastor.

Would a Pastor today fall foul of the Law in NZ for ministering in that way ?

Here is the link to the legislation:
Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill 56-2 (2021), Government Bill 5 Meaning of conversion practice – New Zealand Legislation

There is nothing in the legislation prohibiting assisting through prayer or deliverance a person who voluntarily participates in the prayer or deliverance through their own free will.

What the legislation does clearly imply that using prayer or deliverance practice to suppress a person's sexual orientation against their will or by not allowing them participation by free choice. This can happen through inducing guilt and the fear of God's punishment in hell, and I think this is a form of coercion which would be an offence under the law. Unfortunately this sort of guilt and fear based Coercion, using the verses in Romans is not uncommon in many churches, especially the ultra conservative ones.

 

[Carl Emerson]

There is nothing in the legislation prohibiting assisting through prayer or deliverance a person who voluntarily participates in the prayer or deliverance through their own free will.

The Bill clearly states that receiving permission is not a defence.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Bill clearly states that receiving permission is not a defence.

Which is a key reason why it is immoral. This whole bill just goes to validate the importance of constitutionally unrestricted religious speech and practice which only the US and a handful of other countries have. In the US, even Covid bans on worship and on singing in worship were found illegal by the Supreme Court, and plenty of churches courageously defied the bans knowing they would be vindicated. The supreme court has also protected other minority religions, even ones we don’t like, like scientology, animal sacrifices and so on, but that’s kind of the point. Laws restricting the free practice of religion in the United States are unconstitutional under tne First Amendment.

Indeed first amendment exceptions are extremely rare, generally limited to filming in courthouses, violating peoples privacy, slander and libel (which are difficult to litigate and very difficult in the case of a public figure), abuse of the 911 system, perjury, filing a false police report, rioting, sedition, demonstrating without a permit (which municipalities must provide, which is why even in busy Manhattan entire avenues get shut down for parades), and the classic example of shouting “fire” in a public theater. I would also note that not all of these cases have been tested in a court of law.

I am opposed to the narrow definition of conversion therapy, but the New Zealand legislation literally makes it illegal to pray on request that someone be liberated from that terrible vice, which I find unconscionable.

 

[Paidiske]

Which is a key reason why it is immoral.

We don't make that argument about laws which prevent other harmful behaviour. I may not kill someone with their consent, for example.

Given that conversion therapy is harmful whether someone consents or not, it is good that consent is not a defence.

 

[The Liturgist]

We don't make that argument about laws which prevent other harmful behaviour. I may not kill someone with their consent, for example.

Given that conversion therapy is harmful whether someone consents or not, it is good that consent is not a defence.

There is no possibility of harming someone if you pray for them on request. God will refuse the prayer if it is not in the best interests of the person being prayed for. The Christian religion has a basis for prayer among multiple persons, “Where two or three are gathered together I am in the midst of them.” Thus, infringement of rights, pet se. Probably illegal under the UN Convention of Human Rights but alas that convention is toothless, unlike the ECHR/Council of Europe.

Also, I have outlined numerous safety precautions which can effectively mitigate the risk of suicide, such as agreeing to a prayer provided the person become a patient of a traditional Christian who is a board certified psychiatrist who can diagnose and treat using both pharmacology and therapeutic techniques any illnesses, and commit to a mental health facility, that such a person may have.

Now just to be clear, my assumption is that your objection to conversion therapy is a nexus of high suicide rates and psychological trauma resultant from coercive behavior. I have outlined precautions against this.

However I have to ask you directly: do you oppose the idea of a change in gender identity on a conceptual level, ceteris paribus, that is to say, all other things being equal, or to put it another way, would you support this legislation even if it was shown there was no risk associated with it?

 

[Paidiske]

There is no possibility of harming someone if you pray for them on request.

What an astonishing claim. I would have thought there is the possibility of harming someone any time we open our mouths to speak; even more so if we invoke the power of the Almighty when doing so.

God will refuse the prayer if it is not in the best interests of the person being prayed for.

True, but that says nothing about the human impact of our words.

Also, I have outlined numerous safety precautions which can effectively mitigate the risk of suicide, such as agreeing to a prayer provided the person become a patient of a traditional Christian who is a board certified psychiatrist who can diagnose and treat using both pharmacology and therapeutic techniques any illnesses, and commit to a mental health facility, that such a person may have.

Suicide's not the only risk, though. And I'm not really sure that putting mental health professionals in place to deal with any harm we cause is really better than avoiding the potential harm in the first place.

Now just to be clear, my assumption is that your objection to conversion therapy is a nexus of high suicide rates and psychological trauma resultant from coercive behavior.

I think my objection is broader than that. The problem is bigger than simply coercive behaviour.

However I have to ask you directly: do you oppose the idea of a change in gender identity on a conceptual level, ceteris paribus, that is to say, all other things being equal, or to put it another way, would you support this legislation even if it was shown there was no risk associated with it?

If conversion therapy - by which I mean any attempt to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity - were ineffective but harmless, I could shrug and put it in the bucket of weird things some people do that I don't particularly care about. But it's not harmless. It's deeply harmful. And that's why I support the legislation.

 

[hedrick]

There is no possibility of harming someone if you pray for them on request. God will refuse the prayer if it is not in the best interests of the person being prayed for. The Christian religion has a basis for prayer among multiple persons, “Where two or three are gathered together I am in the midst of them.” Thus, infringement of rights, pet se. Probably illegal under the UN Convention of Human Rights but alas that convention is toothless, unlike the ECHR/Council of Europe.

Also, I have outlined numerous safety precautions which can effectively mitigate the risk of suicide, such as agreeing to a prayer provided the person become a patient of a traditional Christian who is a board certified psychiatrist who can diagnose and treat using both pharmacology and therapeutic techniques any illnesses, and commit to a mental health facility, that such a person may have.

Now just to be clear, my assumption is that your objection to conversion therapy is a nexus of high suicide rates and psychological trauma resultant from coercive behavior. I have outlined precautions against this.

However I have to ask you directly: do you oppose the idea of a change in gender identity on a conceptual level, ceteris paribus, that is to say, all other things being equal, or to put it another way, would you support this legislation even if it was shown there was no risk associated with it?

I just checked the text of the law. It is not a offense if the person is over 18 and there is no serious harm or recklessness with respect to causing harm.

Morally, i.e. outside the context of the law, I object to anything that would imply that there is something wrong with someone’s gender identity.

 

[The Liturgist]

I just checked the text of the law. It is not a offense if the person is over 18 and there is no serious harm or recklessness with respect to causing harm.

Is that the NZ law? @tall73 can you verify? Also we will want to compare the NZ law with any Australian and other legislation.

Because it seems that everything I have proposed would be protected unless the Crown Prosecutor decided that that if someone’s sexual preference was changed to be compatible with sacred Scripture that this constituted serious harm, which would not surprise me.

 

[hedrick]

Is that the NZ law? @tall73 can you verify? Also we will want to compare the NZ law with any Australian and other legislation.

Because it seems that everything I have proposed would be protected unless the Crown Prosecutor decided that that if someone’s sexual preference was changed to be compatible with sacred Scripture that this constituted serious harm, which would not surprise me.

Someone posted this already. Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill 56-2 (2021), Government Bill – New Zealand Legislation I’m assuming the final law is the same as this. There are two offenses. One involve people under 18, etc. The other involves serious damage. The definition of conversion could include things you might want to do but it also has to cause serious harm or involve someone who can’t consent to be an offense.

There seem to be two things, criminal and civil. I’m assuming the civil wouldn’t come into play unless there are damages. That’s what the commentary says. But you’d need a NZ lawyer to be sure.

 

[Paidiske]

Is that the NZ law? @tall73 can you verify? Also we will want to compare the NZ law with any Australian and other legislation.

Basically, the law makes it illegal to attempt to change someone's sexuality or gender identity. But the way the law is drafted, you're very unlikely to suffer any real penalty unless you do serious harm in the process, or should reasonably have realised that your actions might cause serious harm.

 

[tall73]

Is that the NZ law? @tall73 can you verify? Also we will want to compare the NZ law with any Australian and other legislation.

Here is the NZ legislation in PDF as it was enacted:

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0001/latest/096be8ed81bbdd35.pdf

As @Paidiske alluded to it has multiple sections, which can apply variously. You will need to read it if you want anything other than second-hand views.

 

[tall73]

I think it's related to aesthetics, but I think when it's interpersonal, it takes on a dimension that's not there for a painting or a sunset. Humans are built for relationships and there is that pull towards one another that's not sexual, or at least has a dimension that's not sexual.

I think, when we're talking about sexual orientation, we're talking about a tendency to find appealing; as one person described it to me, in the first instance it's what you notice, even without intending to look.

Ok, I think it is a good way to phrase the part I am speaking of, the "initial notice, that you do not intend."

I think sexual orientation is something else, we can discuss after working through the dynamics of attraction/temptation. Sexual orientation is by definition broader than the specific sub-set of people that, as you described it earlier, push buttons for an individual.

However, that initial notice that you do not intend then prompts some kind of processing.

Do I look more with the intent of lusting?
Do I "bounce the eyes" as one author put it, so as to not see the person further?
Do I admit the attraction and move on, having decided not to give it any traction, as it would be wrong?
Do I physically flee the area?

I have seen all the above listed as things people do, and there could be more. But at the point it hits that decision I would say it is already a temptation, whether strong or weak. If it were not then no decision would be necessary. You would just go on as normal.

I am thinking of the Latin; id quod volo (that which I desire); but that is the same verb for what I will. (So in the old Latin marriage rite, "Will you..." was responded to with "volo," "I will." That is, not a future tense, but a present tense I will to do it. It's at the root of English words such as volunteer and voluntary, arising from the free exercise of one's will. It's that range of words which is informing the way I think about the difference between attraction, desire, choice and so on.

So, in that semantic field, what I will or choose to do is the same as what I desire to do. When you speak of "desire," I read that as "what I choose, or would choose to do if I could." Not, "what might appeal to me but I would not choose." That latter sense is closer to what I mean by attraction but not desire.

Ok, then we are using slightly different understandings, which might be part of the problem coming to terms. I think desire can reference will, but also I think sometimes it is speaking of sinful propensities, more than will or decision. The flesh has propensities for how it wants to act that are against the Spirit. For now I will avoid the term "desire" in this conversation, and try to look at other terms.

I would include "what might appeal to me but I would not choose" as within the idea of temptation, depending on why I would not choose it. If it is referring to something I have chosen before, and the reason I am not choosing it now is I realize how poorly that went and I now have Christ working in me NOT to choose it, then it is still temptation. Even if it is lightly felt it is temptation, or I wouldn't be thinking it through in the first place because it wouldn't register as an issue to address.

In other words, if something is attractive enough that I know it could be a problem, then that is in itself a temptation. Something is before me I have to take a course of action regarding, because it is attractive and forbidden, and therefore dangerous.

 

[tall73]

Years later God reminded me of such an occasion and set me free of a spiritual bondage that came with the abuse.

And if someone had assisted you with that and prayed with you, that should not be forbidden either.

Good example.