One of our church elders and I met with the Sadiq Khan, MP for Tooting, Balham, Earlsfield and Wandsworth Common this morning in Westminster. Sadiq is a delightful man. He listened to our concerns, understood them and agreed to write on our behalf to Meg Munn, the Minister Responsible for the SORs. I undertook at that meeting to send a copy of our representation to him. This is a copy of the letter that was sent.

Dear Sadiq

Thank you for meeting us this morning and for allowing us to express our concerns about the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs).

We recognise that these regulations have now passed through the House of Commons. Although there’s a vote in the House of Lords on Wednesday we accept that it’s unlikely that they will be sent back to the Commons since all three major parties have supported the legislation. However, we remain hopeful that Baroness O’Cathain’s amendment will meet with widespread support and the Peers are persuaded to reject the SORs in their current form.

The essence of our discussion this morning was that in the delicate balancing act between the freedom of personal sexual expression and personal religious freedom this legislation discriminates against faith communities. We obviously made representation on behalf of your Christian constituents at Christ Church Balham (CCB). Our issue was not so much with the protection and exemption afforded to religious organisations but that ordinary Christian men and women will be forced by this legislation to act against their consciences or risk being sued.

I mentioned five important qualifying statements.

First, we are not homophobic. Homophobia is an irrational prejudice against homosexual people and leads to unfair discrimination. As Christians we want to love our neighbours irrespective of their sexual orientation. Many of our congregation have homosexual friends. I was converted to Christianity through a dear friend who is now a practising gay man. Within our congregations we have men and women of homosexual orientation who continue to reject the homosexual lifestyle. But though we are not homophobic we do stand by the Bible’s teaching that the only appropriate place for sexual activity is within the marriage relationship.

Secondly, in general Christians will be very happy to provide goods and service to people of different sexual orientation. In most circumstances there will be no need for discrimination. But in some instances the SORs compel Christians to promote or assist what the Bible regards as sinful sexual activity. Christians would therefore become complicit in sin themselves.

Thirdly, we understand that the Government wants to protect homosexual people from homophobic harassment. We laud and support the Government in the efforts to provide that.

Fourthly, we would not choose to campaign on the homosexual issue and realise that for many people this brings unwelcome attention. Not least, to those of a homosexual orientation within our own congregations. This has become an issue on which we have needed to say something because the traditional liberty of religious conscience is being threatened by Government legislation.

Fifthly, we appreciate the protection given to religious organisations but we seek further protection and exemption from the SORs for individuals. The Christian faith is not simply about doing Christian things on a Sunday, it’s about living in obedience to Jesus Christ throughout the rest of the week. This will mean that under some circumstances Christians will decide it’s inappropriate to allow their expertise to be employed.

The three specific examples that I provided from with our own congregations were as follows:

1. The SORs will require Christian teachers to teach that homosexual civil partnerships and sexual activity is equivalent to marriage. Both the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Joint Committee on Human Rights recognise that the curriculum is not exempt from these regulations. So for example, one of our primary school teachers would be vulnerable to a legal case being brought against him or her if they thought and taught that homosexual activity was immoral.

2. The SORs will require our self employed personnel to facilitate, condone and promote sinful homosexual practice or risk litigation. So for example, if the Pink Paper sought the services of our Management Consultants, our Graphic Designers or the Printing Company whose offices we’ve been using and any one of those Companies decided that in conscience they couldn’t help the Pink Paper because of their homosexual agenda they would be acting unlawfully.

3. The SORs will require our church leaders to reinvent or remain silent on the Bible’s teaching on sexual ethics. This appears to be an inadvertent error in drafting but I am advised by Christian Lawyers that there is a crucial gap in the protection of Vicars and Ministers because of a potential breach of either Regulation 9 or Regulation 11.

In essence this legislation makes it illegal for our congregation to live by the Bible’s teaching. In some instances it requires us to quash our conscience or makes us law breakers. That can’t be a good thing for the Government to propose.

Thank you for your willingness to pass our concerns on to Meg Munn. We look forward to hearing her response.

Yours sincerely

Richard Perkins