There is a story I have been following for about three years now. This is a little bit scarey for Christians in some ways, but also provides a little bit of hope going forward.
It is no secret that radical homosexual activists have been very active targeting Christians who are not willing to go along with their agenda. There have been multiple incidents of people filing lawsuits against Christian photographers, bakers, and others here in America. But it is even worse in some countries.
About three years ago, Matthew Grech was facing prison in Malta for violating their “Affirmation of Sexual Orientation, Gender and Gender Expression Act.” He potentially faced up to five months in prison and a fine of 5,000 euros ($5,400.00) if he was convicted. That law declares that “no sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression is a disorder, disease, or shortcoming,” and it criminalizes any efforts to change, repress, or eliminate these aspects of a person. Grech was prosecuted for having the audacity to publicly share his testimony of leaving the LGBTQ lifestyle in a TV interview.
During the interview segment, Grech discussed his personal journey of leaving a homosexual lifestyle to become a born-again Christian. In that, he didn’t advocate for people to participate in conversion therapy, he only shared his personal journey.
In spite of that, radical homosexual activists filed a police report following the airing of the interview and he was charged with the crime. The police report was filed by Silvan Agius, a former senior EU equality official who helped draft the original legislation, along with activists with the Malta Gay Rights Movement, Christian Attard, and Cynthia Chircop. They alleged that the interview served as “marketing” for the International Foundation for Therapeutic and Counseling Choice (IFTCC), an organization Grech represents. You can read about this at https://www.foxnews.com/media/christian-man-who-faced-jail-ex-lgbtq-testimony-found-not-guilty.
Well after three years of the case working its way through the court system, a judge finally ruled that Grech sharing his personal story did not constitute a criminal offense under the act. In particular, the prosecutors didn’t prove that the broadcast amounted to advertising a prohibited conversion practice, or that any services referenced actually fell within the legislation’s definition.
According to Malta Today, Vella compared the interview to public debates on other controversial issues, and said discussing these topics does not amount to criminal conduct. The court also pointed to the legislation’s carve-out for “free exploration and development” through counseling/psychotherapeutic services, cautioning against treating public discussion of contested issues as criminal conduct. Malta is obviously siding with acceptance of immorality on a societal level, but at least has not gone completely off the deep end.
Now, it is pretty obvious that inhibiting free speech in that way would be contrary to the law in America based on the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. While several local jurisdictions in the U.S. have tried to create laws, and have brought prosecutions to prohibit free speech in that regard, they have been slapped down in every instance.
But many other countries don’t have that kind of constitutional protection. In the case of Malta, the Affirmation of Sexual Orientation, Gender and Gender Expression Act criminalizing any efforts to change, repress, or eliminate these aspects of a person is still in effect. It was only found that Grech was not guilty of violating it.
The most important issue at play in this case, however, is not whether or not conversion therapy should be legalized – though that is an important topic on its own. But there is an underlying issue that is even more important – the issue of freedom of conscience.
People who are trying to prohibit opponents from even having a debate about the topic are not merely trying to promote their own preferences. The are attempting to dictate to everyone else what they must think and believe. That is diametrically opposed to biblical beliefs.
Of course, the Bible teaches that some things are moral and other things are immoral – and certainly homosexual activity falls on the immoral side. But it does not advocate for a position that legally regulates people’s beliefs. It expresses what is moral and immoral, and calls on individuals to make a moral choice about how to live their lives.
That does not mean, of course, that living immorally is okay with God. It is not. It also does not mean that there are no consequences for immoral actions. Some consequences are set by society as the community decides how it affects society at large. But the ultimate consequences for a person’s thoughts and beliefs are not set by society – they are set by God. And in the end, He will be the judge.