A biblical response to Ross Clifford on conversion practices
By Rod Benson
What is required of faithful Christian ministry when someone seeks pastoral help in relation to their sexual identity?
Sydney Baptist leader Ross Clifford’s recent reflection on Tasmania’s proposed conversion practices legislation highlights the principle of religious freedom. I share his concern for freedom of belief and the practice of prayer as part of religiously-based pastoral care. As a Uniting Church minister, I respectfully disagree with his proposal to exclude religious and spiritual practices from the proposed legislation.
As a follower of Jesus, I believe that Scripture requires us to carefully consider the person receiving pastoral ministry, the responsibilities attached to spiritual leadership, and the form and consequences of our conduct in ministry situations. I see these biblical concerns reflected in the approach of the Uniting Church in Australia which affirms the place of prayer in pastoral care, insists on respect for individual conscience, recognises the potential harm that can attend irresponsible pastoral care, and accepts accountability and correction in pursuit of best practice.
The biblical writers did not discuss conversion practices or sexual orientation in their contemporary psychological sense. However, thoughtful reflection on Scripture and its application to contemporary concerns yields significant ethical insights pertinent to the current debate on the draft Tasmanian legislation. In my view, the biblical teaching about mercy, power and responsibility provides a searching critique of Clifford’s argument.
The shepherd’s responsibility
In the Hebrew Scriptures, the prophet Ezekiel condemns Israel’s leaders, portrayed as shepherds of their people, who neglect the weak, sick and injured while serving their own interests (Ezekiel 34:1–6). God promises to seek and tend the scattered flock (34:11–16). In the New Testament, Jesus draws on this image, identifying himself as the good shepherd who remains committed to the sheep when danger comes (John 10:11–13).
Applied to Christian pastoral leadership, these passages establish a fundamental test of ministry: how should leaders treat those entrusted to their religious or spiritual care? A pastor’s sincerity cannot by itself establish that a pastoral intervention is responsible and ethical. The purpose, methods and consequences of intervention require examination and evaluation.
In my opinion, Clifford’s article gives considerable attention to possible restrictions on ministers, but insufficient attention to those who are harmed by conversion practices. Shepherds of God’s people must consider both. Someone seeking help may already carry shame, fear of rejection and anxiety about acceptance by God and standing in the community of faith. Ethical ministry practice demands investigation of that distress before determining that a person’s sexuality requires correction or suppression.
For example, one might ask: Has religious teaching contributed to their suffering and anxiety? Have they been promised radical (or miraculous) change if they can demonstrate sufficient personal faith? Are continuing sexual attractions interpreted as spiritual failure? The church must remain willing to examine its own contribution to the distress it encounters.
Authority without domination
Jesus abhors the misuse of power and rejects leadership that is patterned on domination. He calls his disciples to a radical life of service to others (Mark 10:42–45). Paul describes his ministry as working with others for their joy rather than exercising mastery over their faith (2 Corinthians 1:24).
Clifford’s appeal to the classic Southern Baptist principle of soul competency should reinforce rather than abrogate these responsibilities. If each person stands directly before God, no pastor may possess or compel another person’s conscience. Religious freedom includes the freedom to question pastoral advice, decline prayer and other forms of intervention, and seek other interpretations of Scripture in consultation with the other loci of authority, namely tradition, reason, experience and imagination.
His suggestion that someone may request prayer or leave the session while prayer is in progress overlooks the significant emotional and moral pressures that frequently surround the religious choices we all make. A teenager, for example, may depend on parents who believe radical change is necessary to “heal” their sexual identity. A teen or adult may fear losing family, friendships, community and ministry opportunities. Physical freedom to leave does not establish freedom from spiritual coercion.
Recognising these pressures respects human agency. It asks whether someone can refuse without punishment and whether their request rests on realistic information. Consent is vital, but does not remove a minister’s responsibility to avoid harmful interventions including prayer and counsel.
Mercy and its fruits
Jesus challenges religious interpretations by leaders in his day that obscure or suppress mercy and healing (Matthew 12:1–14). He condemns neglect of justice, mercy and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23). James describes wisdom through its practice of gentleness, mercy, sincerity and good fruits (James 3:13–18). These teachings do not suggest that discipleship is always comfortable. They do require scrutiny when religious conduct produces persistent shame, fear and injury. This is why religious leaders and pastors need to act with wisdom and careful reflective practice in counselling situations.
The Tasmanian Law Reform Institute accepted evidence of severe harm and continuing risk from conversion practices and recommended reform. The Australian Human Rights Commission’s 2026 assessment reports that survivors are more than three times as likely as their peers to have experienced self-harm, attempted suicide and a PTSD diagnosis. The Commission’s summary does not establish causation, or that the same increase applies to every survivor population. They require serious engagement. Clifford’s reassurance that existing remedies are available needs an explanation of how those remedies adequately address the identified harms.
Prayer itself requires discernment. Prayer for courage or peace differs from an intervention premised on someone’s orientation making them unacceptable to God. Purpose, context and pressure matter. Likewise, whatever a minister believes about deliverance from demonic oppression or possession, the minister remains responsible for interpreting events and responding in appropriate ways. Describing a person’s sexual identity or behaviour as demonic can deepen self-rejection and associated trauma. That is never an appropriate way forward in pastoral care. Further, a spiritual explanation cannot remove responsibility for foreseeable harm.
Conscience and transformation
Christians defending conversion practices may appeal to repentance, holiness and biblical sexual ethics. Those convictions deserve thoughtful engagement. Christians do legitimately disagree about the interpretation and application of biblical texts such as Romans 1:26–27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9–11. However, such disagreement does not suspend obligations of mercy and accountable leadership.
Nor does any biblical understanding of personal transformation establish that a particular intervention will change a person’s sexual orientation. Christian transformation encompasses love, justice, humility and our exercise of power. Pastors and institutions remain subject to its demands.
An adult may freely choose celibacy (see Matthew 19:12 and 1 Corinthians 7:7–9). Respectful pastoral care can support that commitment without promising heterosexuality or treating persistent attraction as failed discipleship. People should also remain free to explore sexuality and faith without a prescribed outcome.
Romans 14 addresses different disputes, concerning food and sacred days. Its resistance to contempt and concern for mutual strengthening nevertheless offer relevant guidance. Respect for conscience requires patience, while safeguarding sets boundaries against coercion and harm.
The Uniting Church’s commitment
The Uniting Church’s Sixteenth Assembly recognised in 2022 that sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts harm mental health and wellbeing. It affirmed continuing prayer and pastoral care while insisting that Christian practices should uphold people rather than harm or condemn them.
Its subsequent resource, Welcome and Safety for All, emphasises dignity, listening, autonomy, survivor experience and appropriate professional referral. It is a general educational resource, expressly not formal professional guidance. I regard its framework as a compelling application of biblically informed pastoral responsibilities.
When implemented, these commitments offer vulnerable and marginalised people the pastoral support they need without pressure to change their orientation, help families sustain relationships, and assist ministers to reflect on responsible care. Theological disagreement does not excuse harmful interventions. These commitments require consistent implementation and honest examination of our failures.
Who becomes a neighbour?
In a recent sermon on the Parable of the Good Samaritan, I considered how compassion creates belonging across religious and communal boundaries. The Samaritan recognises suffering, offers practical help and provides continuing care (Luke 10:25–37).
Clifford’s priorities arguably suggest an affinity with the actions of the priest and Levite, with concern for institutional religious interests displacing adequate attention to wounded people. Survivors need dependable support, fair independent complaint processes and protection from retaliation. They should help shape the church’s response without pressure to recount traumatic experiences. Biblical repentance requires changed conduct (Luke 3:8–14). Where churches have harmed people, acknowledgment must lead to changed practices and appropriate repair.
Supporting protection does not entail approving every clause of Tasmania’s bill. Definitions and safeguards need scrutiny. But drafting concerns do not establish a case for blanket religious exemption; proposed alternatives must protect people effectively.
Religious freedom, drawing on biblical and democratic principles, deserves attention and defence amid contemporary pressures to deny its legitimacy. But Scripture also requires us to protect those in our care whose sense of belonging is precarious or conflicted. Ministers of religion need to ensure that those in need retain their agency, freedom and wellbeing. Faithful ministry takes the risk of crossing the road, listening and accepting the responsibilities of remaining alongside the person in need. That is the essential work of a faithful Christian shepherd.
Rod Benson lives in Sydney and writes about a range of topics from books and local history to food, faith, philosophy, ethics, research skills, and everyday life. Away from the keyboard, he enjoys cooking for friendst, walking in the Australian bush, exploring a beach, discovering new restaurants, and reading philosophy, fiction and poetry.He is married to Emma and is minister of North Rocks Community Church, a Uniting Church congregation.
References
● Ross Clifford, “Conversion Therapy Acts – A personal reflection”, 15 October 2026.
● Uniting Church Assembly, “Welcome and Safety for All”, 15 May 2024; Assembly resource and recorded resolution.
● Tasmanian Law Reform Institute, summary of findings and recommendations, 2022.
● Australian Human Rights Commission, Australian Human Rights Assessment 2026: sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex.
● Rod Benson, “The Jesus model of social cohesion”, sermon preached 11 October 2026.
Image source: Uniting
