The Dutch Evangelical Alliance is wary of the possibility of a new ban on the “gay conversion” practices passed by Dutch lawmakers to threaten pastoral leadership.
The Christian Democrat Appeal (CDA) first blocked proposals by the Social Liberal Democrats 66 and the Liberal Peoples Party for Liberals and Democracy (VVD). However, supporters of the bill eased the wording so that guidance on changing sexual orientations would only be illegal if it creates severe psychological stress or is systematically or intrusive.
The amendment led to Christian Democrats who support the bill that passed “conversion criminal acts” in the House of Representatives on Thursday (September 9). It still needs approval to become law by the Senate Senate.
Mythienderland, the Dutch evangelical alliance, was confirmed on LinkedIn before a vote that it had contacted other people, including political parties and churches, “because the bill raised many questions and concerns.”
The alliance supported not manipulating someone to change their sexuality, but evangelical groups are concerned about the impact of the ban on church pastors.
“We accept the good points (for example, there is no conversion therapy or guidance that manipulates someone to change their identity to force or manipulate them), but we will again alert them if we find that the idyllic space is at risk.” “In our opinion, there should be room for voluntary guidance and prayer for those who are searching for sexuality or gender, or suffering from a gender worthy of their beliefs.”
Before the vote, Missienederland issued a press release (September 8) explaining its status as an umbrella organization for evangelical Christians, churches and organizations. The group rejected any form of therapy in which people were manipulated to change their sexual identity, subjects of coercion, violence, or sexual identity.
“We believe it is important that we receive pastoral care consistent with our faith and that it is important that idyllic workers are free to provide this care,” Mission Ringland said. “Conscience and freedom of religion are fundamental rights worthy of protection.”
The group acknowledged that the memorandum of explanation for the bill includes references to freedom of religious practice, but despite clarification of the amendment, concerns remained about the bill.
“The utmost attention and clarity of the wording is essential, as it relates to the themes that touch on people’s deepest identities,” Mission Ringland said.
“There are various interpretations of the legal implications of these practical examples, but we see that the bill itself raises debate, uncertainty and concerns,” the leader said. “We don’t think this is desirable.”
Evangelical bodies questioned how the bill could be interpreted in certain scenarios, such as whether choosing a single lifestyle would be considered “oppressive.”
“Shared concerns raise a broader issue. If the law is not easily interpreted, there is a risk that idyllic workers will refuse certain conversations and support as a precaution,” they said. “Therefore, people who suffer from sexuality may find themselves facing closed doors. They may find themselves in this concern and undesirable.”
Leaders said they appreciated the bill being passed in the House but many objections and recommendations emerged during the debate.
“We are also grateful for the constructive cooperation with various political parties, churches, organizations and individual participants,” they said.
The leader of Missienederland pledged that he was “attention to advances in this law,” and pledged to discuss its development with political groups.
