It was all arranged. The General Synod office had allocated a time for a fringe meeting, being organised by Rebecca Hunt, a lay member for Portsmouth diocese, a barrister, and centre manager of Christian Legal Centre.
The original title for the meeting was ‘People Change: sexual identity transformation’, but it was changed to ‘Journeys of Identity: Faith, Sexuality and Personal Experience’ at the behest of York University. Also arranged was a display in the Exhibition Centre, on the same subject. The purpose of both fringe and display was to communicate the stories of people who had found their identity in Christ Jesus and had left a gay lifestyle. They were being transformed by the Holy Spirit to experience change in their self-identification, desires and behaviours.
The prospect of this fringe meeting and display caused 82 members of General Synod (including seven archdeacons) to write to the two Archbishops, complaining and raising the matter of safeguarding; and the Archbishops (who have the right to refuse space for a fringe meeting or display in certain circumstances) in turn to write to Rebecca Hunt. Following her reply to them, the Archbishops agreed that the fringe meeting could proceed, since it was to be held in a private room. However, they tried to pressurise Rebecca into agreeing to state, in writing, that ‘conversion practices’ would not be carried out at the meeting.
In the end, the meeting did proceed, at 7.30 am on Monday morning. A university security man was at the entrance to the building, checking that all those entering had a Synod pass – there were protesters outside – and, apart from protesters banging on the windows for about thirty seconds, the meeting went as planned, with about forty people attending. The speakers were Dr Mike Davidson, of Core Issues Trust, and Matthew Grech from Malta, who was accompanied by his fiancée. They both answered questions, and their accounts of how God had changed their lives were inspirational.
But the Archbishops refused permission for the display in the Exhibition Centre, giving various reasons: that the “publicly visible statement of a particular position – i.e. that people can change – would be seen as in conflict with what the General Synod has previously decided”. This was a reference to a General Synod debate in 2017 in which the motion claimed that so-called ‘conversion therapy’ was “potentially harmful”.
The motion was passed, but, then as now, ‘conversion therapy’ has not been adequately defined. Not every activity that some choose to label ‘conversion therapy’ is harmful, as has been recognised just recently by the Government: the recently published draft Bill on ‘conversion practices’ and its explanatory notes, likely to be hotly contested, make clear that the Government does not consider all such practices to be abusive. The voluntary seeking of support, including support relating to personal beliefs, conduct, or identity, should be distinguished from coercive or abusive behaviour.
Another reason given was that people “walking past the display would see it whether they wanted to or not. This could be distressing for some individuals …”.
And yet, over the years, Synod has consistently allowed campaign groups and advocacy organisations from differing perspectives to present their arguments publicly. The Church has historically recognised that disagreement is best addressed through dialogue and engagement rather than through exclusion; the Church’s historic commitment to freedom of expression and theological engagement has never depended upon the absence of disagreement or distress.
It is very worrying that the public testimony of people who have moved away from a gay lifestyle was being banned at General Synod. Is it really the case that the existence of former homosexuals will not be acknowledged by the Church of England?
And yet, in law, this should not be so. The Court of Appeal has expressly recognised in R (Core Issues Trust) v Transport for London that the protection afforded by the Equality Act 2010 extends to individuals who identify as former homosexuals or who seek to move away from a homosexual identity. The law therefore recognises that so-called ‘ex-gay’ individuals constitute a protected class whose dignity and identity are entitled to equal respect. To deny them the opportunity publicly to describe that protected aspect of their identity would appear to be discriminatory.
Another thought: because the display was banned, the opportunity was lost for any individual seeking help to move away from same-sex attraction or a gay lifestyle. That person could, at the display, have met Sam, who was helped to deal with the childhood trauma that had led to his homosexuality, and who is now “a normal guy who’s just got some stuff he’s trying to work out”. Freedom of expression, anyone?
Sarah Finch is a member of the Church of England General Synod for the Diocese of London.