Further to the Church of England Press Release Bishops confirm replacement of ‘Issues in Human Sexuality’ in discernment process and the associated media interest, and in the recent five-figure payment to the victim of ”exorcism”[1], this post revisits the paper Briefing and reflections on Conversion Therapy, (“the Briefing”), presented to the House of Bishops for information and as a briefing on the question of Conversion Therapy[2].

It was agreed by the House that it would be appropriate for this lengthy paper (17pp) to be made available to the wider Church, to increase understanding of the issues involved and promote good practice in line with the General Synod’s vote that Conversion Therapy should be banned.

For ease of reference, the 17-page Briefing was presented in the form of forty nine questions and answers under the thirteen headings, (A to M), extracts of which are reproduced below. These include a summary of the CofE’s initial response to the Government consultation (C), and consideration of whether the proposed legislation is likely to put limits on prayer? (K).

Proposed legislation

There are a number of references in the Briefing to the “proposed legislation”. In its analysis of Is the government on course to introduce a ‘full trans-inclusive ban’ on conversion practices? (16 April 2025), Full Fact commented:

“The government says legislation to achieve this pledge—the Draft Conversion Practices Bill—will be brought forward in this session of Parliament, but it has not yet been published and we don’t know exactly when it is expected.

[…]

In its manifesto, Labour pledged to “finally deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, while protecting the freedom for people to explore their sexual orientation and gender identity”. Since 2018, successive governments have promised to outlaw conversion therapy, though not all of these proposals covered conversion practices related to gender identity, as Labour promised to include.

The pledge refers to England and Wales, as criminal law is devolved in other UK nations. Separate proposed legislation in Northern Ireland would also criminalise conversion therapy practices if successfully introduced and passed by the devolved assembly. The Scottish government has said it favours working with the UK government on a ban, but that it would introduce its own legislation if necessary.

A. What is Conversion Therapy and why ban it?

[3]. Using the word ‘therapy’ is in itself controversial as such practices, which damage and wound rather than enable healing, are considered a perversion of therapy. Stories of ‘Conversion Therapy’ include the use of extreme physical force and violation, including rape, assault, deprivation of liberty, abduction, beatings, and torture. They also include the use of psychological techniques to try and convince/force a person to change.

[4]. Some LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, such as the Ozanne Foundation, argue that the words ‘Conversion Therapy’ should be changed to ‘conversion practices’, and cover any act attempting to change a person’s gender identity or sexual orientation. This ‘catch all’ definition is intended to be as broad as possible so as to protect, in particular, young people who are in an explorative stage of development and who are statistically most at risk from conversion practices.

B. What is the relationship between Conversion Therapy and prayer?

[8]. The key concept in the planned legislation is that of coercion. Any form of prayer which is coercive and does violence to an individual’s agency would fall under the scope of Conversion Therapy in the legislative definition.

[9]. The key concept in the planned legislation is that of coercion. Any form of prayer which is coercive and does violence to an individual’s agency would fall under the scope of Conversion Therapy in the legislative definition.

[10]. The Government’s initial proposals and subsequent communications have stressed that, where consenting non-vulnerable adults are concerned, conversations, prayers and counselling which may explore issues arising from their explorations of sexuality and gender, should not be criminalised.

C. What are the difficulties in relation to a ban on Conversion Therapy?

[14]. The chief difficulty in banning Conversion Therapy is establishing a definition of the practice which captures abuse and coercion, but which does not inadvertently ban important therapeutic practices, which help people address issues concerning sexuality and gender identity.

[…]

While churches do not offer therapy per se, the same concerns apply to pastoral care, which is subject to similar dynamics. The BACP MoU  addresses this concern explicitly:

“Psychological therapists routinely work with people who are struggling with inner conflict. For people who are unhappy about their sexual orientation – whether heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual – there may be grounds for exploring therapeutic options to help them live more comfortably with it, reduce their distress, and reach a greater degree of acceptance of their sexual orientation”.

The CofE’s initial response to the Government consultation stated:

• The proposals outlined in the consultation seem to us to have negotiated these tricky questions well. They make good use of existing law where that is pertinent.
• They strengthen the law, and the potential penalties, in ways which emphasizes the likely harm of CT and bring it more strongly into the public consciousness.
• They focus on protecting the vulnerable.
• They place the onus for defending any practice identified as CT on the person or organisation offering the therapy to prove that it is not coercive or within the scope of the ban (which seems to be a reversal of the usual burden of proof).
• They rightly give unequivocal protection to minors and those not able to give free and informed consent.
• They do not infringe the rights of informed, consenting adults to believe things which are unpopular, whether about themselves or others, or infringe their right to manifest those beliefs — while carefully balancing individual rights and the common good of all.
• They do not outlaw conversations exploring complex and disputed issues and should not therefore impinge upon freedom of speech.

D. What is prayer and how do we avoid coercive practices?

[23]. …it is important to distinguish between coercion and taking offence. This matters particularly in the context of an increasingly pluralistic society with multiple religious groups whose dissenting views could risk being suppressed by being termed harmful, rather than simply offensive…

[24]. If the power relationship between two people is not heavily imbalanced in one direction, someone who doesn’t want to follow a particular line of prayer can just walk away. But if the power relationship is heavily weighted to the other person, that may not feel like an option.

E. How do you define ‘harm’ in relation to Conversion Therapy?

[26]. The notion of ‘harm’ and what constitutes harm is not straightforward. This is explored in some detail in Chapter 5 of the Living in Love and Faith resource Friendship and the Body of Christ … [reproduced here].

F. What is the Church of England’s previous guidance on ‘coercive prayer’ and Conversion Therapy? 

[27]. There has been previous guidance from the Church of England on good practice in prayer, particularly in the document A Time to Heal, (2013). However, questions of coercion and Conversion Therapy have only fully come to light over the last few years and are increasingly highlighted as part of spiritual abuse. It is therefore timely that the Church of England should do new work to issue guidelines on good practice, in light of emerging research and current questions.

[28]. In July 2017, the General Synod of the Church of England debated CT and voted overwhelmingly to call upon Her Majesty’s Government to ban this practice. The Church of England recognises that CT is (a) ineffective on its own terms and potentially harmful, (b) contrary to what is known of the science of sexual orientation etc. and (c) in some cases involves violence and abuse. The Church of England, as part of the global Christian church, is committed to the protection of the vulnerable in all circumstances.

[29]. The CofE statement following the 2017 Synod can be found here.

G. Can coercive prayer/Conversion Therapy be considered a form of spiritual abuse?

[30]. Prayer which becomes abusive and displays gross misuse of power is a form of abuse exercised within a spiritual setting. Conversion Therapy is described by those who have gone through it as abusive, hence the Church of England Synod’s decision to call for a ban on it.

H. Why has the issue of Conversion Therapy come up?

[31]. The question of how to think about, and respond to, Conversion Therapy and forms of prayer that can be considered coercive has arisen as part of an increasing awareness of the stories and experiences of LGBTQ+ people and concerns about how to help everyone be treated with respect within the church.

[32]. In addition, there are anxieties in the church that forthcoming legislation to ban CT may lead to situations where all prayer itself is prohibited and that some clarification of what is, or is not acceptable, and how to respond to different types of unhelpful uses of prayer is now needed and timely.

[34]. The Church of England has never formally ‘endorsed’ Conversion Therapy or coercive prayer, as these were not defined as specific practices. However, the practices of certain local churches, either deliberately or unwittingly, can now be seen to have been inappropriate but not formally challenged.

Until recently, there was poor understanding of the harm caused by CT and a failure to listen to the experience of those who had faced pressure to change their orientation. Any behaviour involving coercion, violence or abuse is now more clearly defined in our safeguarding guidelines, with clear instructions for reporting. Beyond safeguarding guidelines, Lord, Teach Us To Pray will help provide a framework of self-appraisal for churches, with guidelines on good prayer practice and a generous approach to the complexity of human relationships within churches. The National Safeguarding Team has been involved throughout the work to advise and help identify abusive practices.

[35]. It may be puzzling to wonder how communities of faith, well-intentioned, have nevertheless participated, in smaller and larger ways, in practices that we now recognize to be abusive. A number of reasons have been suggested by a range of groups, coming from different perspectives; there is no coherent account owned by all. Some of the reasons listed below may be controversial, and this paper does not endorse or refute them, but simply highlights what has been suggested in debates and conversations as areas to engage with, with self-awareness and attentiveness to the impact of belief and practices on others. [These areas include those listed here].

[36] One of the most effective ways of preventing CT and coercive forms of prayer amongst any Christians that might still support it will be correcting these types of misunderstandings.

J. How should we handle personal requests for prayer around sexual or gender identity?

[37]. … Coercion can run in different directions: it can be to try and convert someone out of a same-sex orientation; but to coerce an individual to move away from a conservative expression of faith which has sustained them can be damaging and inappropriate too. The temptation for the one who offers prayer, whatever their perspective, is to take the place of God and seek to manipulate, define, or dictate the life of the other.

[38]. There is also always the danger that good intentions are marred by misjudgement and carelessness…we should take care to ensure that the human relationship in prayer is psychologically safe and the church should be prepared to learn from wider wisdom in the world, as well as the church’s historic traditions, to ensure this.

[39]. There is, however, clearly space for coming alongside an individual who is struggling and accompanying them as they seek to find ways to live with the inner conflicts and challenges that they face…the remarks of the BACP (British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy), quoted above, are particularly relevant:

“For people who are unhappy about their sexual orientation – whether heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual – there may be grounds for exploring therapeutic options to help them live more comfortably with it, reduce their distress and reach a greater degree of acceptance of their sexual orientation.”

[40]. This point assumes the openness of the process in contrast with Conversion Therapy in which the outcome of the encounter is predetermined. Instead, it leaves open the possibility of supporting someone in living according to the spiritual practices that they wish to follow. “Acceptance” does not prejudge how this acceptance is lived out or understood, nor does it preclude a degree of fluidity in an individual’s understanding of their own identity and sexuality over time.

K. Would legislation put limits on prayer?

[41]. The key concept in the planned legislation is that of coercion. We have been assured that, where consenting non-vulnerable adults are concerned, conversations, prayer and counselling within which they themselves question their sexuality or gender identity will not be criminalised.

[42]. It remains that it is impossible to say, in the light of the Government’s plans, that “prayer will not be banned”, since some forms of prayer, involving (at the extreme end) physical violence, or mental or spiritual abuse, will fall within the scope of the Bill. The question for churches, therefore, is whether their practices of prayer and pastoral care with, and for, others remain demonstrably non-coercive.

[43]. Any ‘limits’ would apply specifically to pastoral prayer (interpersonal prayer focused on an individual), whether in a private setting or a wider public setting and seek to prevent explicitly abusive or coercive behaviour only.

[44]. …we believe that non-vulnerable adults should be allowed to express beliefs that the majority of the population may not share, and that treating members of groups which hold such beliefs as, by definition, incapable of informed consent, is incompatible with basic human rights.

[45]. No matter what part of the Church someone comes from, it is expected that they should be treated with kindness, respect, and dignity. Furthermore, the temptation to impose one’s beliefs on another can come in many guises and varied theologies and spiritualities. Appropriate safeguarding training and good practice should ensure that, where strong beliefs are expressed, they are expressed in non-coercive, respectful ways for all.

M. What is the place of consent in relation to Conversion Therapy and forms of prayer?

[46]. A key concept in the legislation, and in good practice, regardless of legislation, is that of coercion…it is coercive practices that are problematic and would be banned, but it should still be possible for people to be free to ask for help or prayer if they feel that they do not want to experience same sex attraction or want to live in a way consistent with conservative beliefs. In this case, prayer can be offered to help them live well as they wish, but this should not move into coercive practices, should be about supporting that person’s own journey, and be highly sensitive to the complex issues surrounding this type of prayer.

[47]. Children and vulnerable adults should never be in a position where CT or prayer to change their sexual or gender identity is offered, as their vulnerability makes informed consent extremely problematic. As such, the question of consent arises primarily in relation to non-vulnerable adults. It is important that they should be able freely to request and to receive.

Updated: 4 August 2025 at 10:56. 

[1] This recent case of Conversion Therapy was reported in our post Settlement reached on conversion therapy ‘exorcism’ (17 July 2025).

[2] The document is undated, but the URL suggests that it was issued on February 2024, and updated in July 2025.