Football and “transgender vilification” — the Kirralie Smith cases

“I have written previously about litigation involving Kirralie Smith stemming from her comments about a biological male playing in a womens’ football team.

In that post I noted the decision in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘NCAT’) in Blanch v Smith [2024] NSWCATAD 20 (22 January 2024). …”

– at Law and Religion Australia, Neil Foster shares updates and his opinion on four recent legal decisions.

Inside Australia’s Hate Speech Backflip and what it means for Faith Communities

A special edition of The Pastor’s Heart –

“A roller-coaster week for religious freedom in Australia.

In just days, sweeping Australian national legislation moved from deeply alarming to not great, but not terrible — after intense pressure from faith leaders across the country.

In this special bonus episode of The Pastor’s Heart, we speak with Michael Stead, Bishop of South Sydney and director of Freedom for Faith, who had a front-row seat as the law was debated, amended, and finally passed late at night in Parliament.

What was originally proposed? Why did faith leaders unite in an extraordinary last-minute letter to the Prime Minister?  Which parts of the bill remain concerning — and which dangers were narrowly avoided?

We walk through how the law was actually made — and what it now means for preaching, Bible teaching, protest, and free speech in Australia.”

– Watch or listen here.

Have the bishops put the LLF Travelator into reverse?

“Just over two years ago, an Anglican Futures blogger adopted the concept of the ‘Travelator’ as a way of explaining how the process of changing the Church of England’s practice and teaching about sexual relationships works.

The blog explained how David Porter, the then Archbishop of Canterbury’s Strategy Consultant, ensured that the process would itself become the outcome, by legitimising the questions being asked and preventing any ‘end point’, other than the introduction of blessings and/or same-sex marriage, with the expectation that those who disagree are required to ‘walk together’/ ‘agree to disagree’.

Just like a Travelator – once the first step is taken, there is no way off.

Today, however, some are suggesting that the House of Bishops’ latest statement represents a reversal of the Travelator. If this were true it would be a cause for great rejoicing amongst orthodox Anglicans throughout the Anglican Communion.…”

– Is the LLF Travelator really going into reverse?

Anglican Futures has six reasons why it isn’t.

Faith Leaders “express serious concern regarding the Combatting Antisemitism Hate and Extremism Bill 2026”

A wide range of Faith Leaders, including the leaders of Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, Islamic, Buddhist, and Sikh communities, have written to the Prime Minister expressing “serious concern regarding the Combatting Antisemitism Hate and Extremism Bill 2026, both because of its (perhaps unintended) adverse implications for religious freedom and freedom of expression and the inadequate consultation and review”.

They conclude, “We offer these views in a constructive spirit and stand ready to engage further with all parties to develop appropriate amendments to ensure an appropriate legislative response to hatred and extremism.”

Download the PDF file here.

This is an important letter and deserves wide distribution.

It would also be good to share with your Federal Member of Parliament for their information.

Federal “Hate Crimes” Legislation

Freedom for Faith have added more to their web page of concerns about the proposed Federal Hate Crimes legislation, including the above video from Mike Southon, Executive Director of Freedom for Faith.

If you have concerns about the proposed legislation, this would be a very good time to urgently contact your Federal Member of Parliament – and also to share that page with others.

“Coalition condemns hate speech laws as ‘unsalvageable’”

From a Canberra Times article – mainly on political opposition to the Federal Government’s proposed “hate speech” laws –

“Religious leaders have urged the government to halt and rewrite the laws, saying it may open people up to prosecution over past remarks in its current form.

Anglican Bishop Michael Stead said the reform created a ‘minefield of definitions’ about hate and the bill included a retrospective element in relation to banned groups.

Dr Stead told a parliamentary inquiry on Wednesday the bill could be expanded to claim Christian teaching caused serious harm, leading to a Christian organisation being listed as a hate group. …”

– Read the full report here.

See also:

“The Federal Government has released its draft Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill.

We need legislation to combat antisemitism and racial hate, but this rushed bill has significant risks to religious freedom.

The legislation was released on the January 12, submissions were due on the 15th, and voting is expected on January 22. In this timeframe it is impossible to get careful analysis of the legislation and its possible impacts. …”

– Freedom for Faith encourages readers to contact their Federal Member of Parliament with some urgency.

Church’s net zero crackdown forces parish to rip out new boilers

“The Church of England has ordered a parish to rip out new gas boilers because they are not ‘sustainable’.

Christ Church Chineham, in Basingstoke, Hants, spent £18,200 last year replacing two failing gas boilers, with the new ones expected to last for at least two decades.

But the parish will now be forced to remove the system and pay for an eco-friendly replacement after a church court ruled it had not ‘adequately explored more sustainable options’ before installing them. …”

– Report from The Telegraph, via Anglican Mainstream.

MPs tell incoming archbishop to halt £100 Million reparations plan

“A cross-party group of 27 Members of Parliament and peers have called on the Archbishop-designate of Canterbury, the Rt. Rev. & Rt. Hon. Sarah Mullally, to intervene and halt the Church of England’s proposed £100 million slavery reparations fund.

In a letter first reported by The Sunday Times of London (28 Dec. 2025), the parliamentarians warn that the plan—known as ‘Project Spire’—risks setting a ‘worrying precedent’ by encouraging other institutions to divert charitable resources to political or symbolic causes. …”

– George Conger reports at Anglican Ink.

What are the (Church of England) bishops up to now?

“On Tuesday, 16th December, the House of Bishops of the Church of England announced that ‘more time’ was needed to finalise its ‘proposals on the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process’.

While they said that the decisions they took in October had not been ‘contested’, they ‘identified some areas where further clarification is needed and agreed to continue work on a letter to the Church summarising LLF and setting out an agreed position.‘ Later in the press release it was explained that the text of the letter would ‘take the form of a statement from the House,‘ which would have a degree of authority in any future dispute.

Archbishop Stephen Cottrell also reassured the Church that the bishops ‘remain on course to bring proposals to Synod for consideration in February.’

This has led many observers to scratch their head and ask ‘What are the bishops up to now?’

Of course, unless there is a leak from the House of Bishops, the Church will need to wait until January to find out for sure. Meanwhile, this blog explores the possibilities that arise from a careful reading of the both the statements and the theological and legal advice the bishops received.…”

– Curious. Read it all at Anglican Futures.

But see this post at Church Society from 7th November 2025: Why we can’t have the Prayers of Love and Faith after all.

Image: Archbishop Stephen Cottrell speaking at the Church of England’s General Synod in February 2025.

Who Owns Jesus? Tommy Robinson and The Dirty Revival

Republished at Ian Paul’s Psephizo, Dr Jason Clark reflects on responses to the “Unite the Kingdom” Christmas Carol event planned for central London tonight Australian time:

“Over the last few days, my social media feeds—shaped by the strange, selective algorithms we all live under—have been replete with progressive and left-leaning Christians condemning the upcoming ‘Christ in Christmas’ event in London linked to Tommy Robinson. Anecdotally, those are the voices I see most loudly. And beyond my feeds, the national news and radio have been wheeling out predominantly Anglican clergy (as they always do) to denounce the gathering in firm, moral tones, with warnings of the ‘Far Right’ and ‘Christian Nationalism’.

I understand why people feel uneasy. I am no Tommy Robinson supporter. But I also sense that something deeper is happening here—something revealing, something uncomfortable, and something worth paying attention to. Because if we only focus on the personalities involved, we risk missing what this moment is saying about the soul of the UK, and perhaps the state of Christianity itself. …

For years now, huge numbers of ordinary Brits have felt ridiculed, unheard, and publicly shamed simply for being British. And the moment some of them reach for Christian symbols, language, and tradition—the very things Christianity once assumed belonged to all—those who preach tolerance respond with moral panic and purity tests. The contradiction is hard to ignore.”

– Read here.

Related:

‘Putting Christ back into Christmas’: Carol concert announced as follow up to Tommy Robinson rally – Premier Christian News,

Possibly related:

Let the young man come to church with mixed motives – Steve McAlpine.

How new laws could impact believers

“A new podcast from the Freedom for Faith group aims to keep believers informed of looming threats to religious freedom in Australia.

Freedom Matters features Bishop Michael Stead, the chairman of Freedom for Faith and diocesan spokesman on religious freedom in conversation with Monica Doumit, the director of public affairs and engagement for the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney and a fellow board member of Freedom for Faith. …”

– At SydneyAnglicans.net, Russell Powell highlights an important new podcast.

Watch the podcast at Freedom for Faith.

Why Euthanasia Feels Intuitive

“Canada has gained a lot of attention in recent years due to its commitment to Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), its preferred idiom for euthanasia. Some honor Canada as groundbreaking in its commitment to bringing dignity to death, while others abhor it as taking advantage of the weak, the elderly, and the vulnerable. Already euthanasia is responsible for more than 5% of deaths in Canada and the rates are rising fast.

Behind every death by euthanasia is a story, and the stories are tragic. Elderly people who live in care homes will have breakfast with a friend in the morning, then learn at lunchtime that they were euthanized shortly thereafter. Grown children are being asked to attend a celebration of life service for parents who are still alive but intend to die shortly thereafter. People who want to live but cannot get access to sufficient medical care are taking their own lives rather than continue suffering. …”

– Tim Challies writes about the tragedy of medically assisted suicide. And it’s not just his homeland of Canada.

Riding the young adult revival

From The Pastor’s heart –

“Something is happening. In England the data shows a quiet revival. In France a new evangelical church is opening every ten days. But what about here in Australia?

Among young adults we’re hearing stories of renewed interest in Jesus, fresh conversions and surprising openness. Is this a cultural phenomenon or is it something deeper?  And how do we ride the wave?

We talk about ground level experiences, the big picture, the influence of politics, and the five percent conversion growth goal for Sydney Anglican churches.

We’re joined by three frontline evangelists:

• Dave Jensen from Sydney Anglican Evangelism and New Churches
• Sam Mahdavi from Wollongong Baptist Church
• Pre Shunmugam from MBM Rooty Hill in multicultural Western Sydney.”

– Watch here.

Very helpful discussion, including opinions on how much the church should link into politics and current events, such as the murder of Charlie Kirk. Take the time to listen.

Related:

Alive. Not an Event. A Rescue Mission.

Aged Care, VAD, Religious Freedom and s 109

“Should a religious aged care provider be able to operate in accordance with its religious convictions?

This issue is being debated in NSW at the moment in the context of the law allowing “voluntary assisted dying”.

The Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2022 (NSW) allows persons with a terminal illness to choose death, which can be self-administered or administered by a health professional. Many health professionals have religious convictions which mean that they find the procedures for persons to choose death morally unacceptable. They do not wish to be involved in the process.

Under the legislation there is a right for individual health professionals to conscientiously object to the procedures, and to decline to be involved: see sections 9, 21 and 32. Faith-based hospitals may also decline to be involved in VAD procedures. However, at the moment faith-based aged care facilities are obliged to allow medical practitioners onto their premises to administer VAD. …”

– Associate Professor Neil Foster writes at Law and Religion Australia.

Related:

Contact your MP – via Freedom for Faith.

Why we can’t have the Prayers of Love and Faith after all

“The Church of England has finally published the theological papers and legal advice that the House of Bishops saw before its October meeting.

At that meeting, the bishops gave in to the inevitable and concluded that they weren’t going to be able to go any further without going through the proper legal processes. Just what was in the papers that led to this about-face?

The papers consist of three theological papers produced by the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC) and one legal paper produced by the Church of England’s Legal Office. …”

– At the Church Society website, Michael Hayden shares what has been learned from the information released by the House of Bishops.

His conclusion: “Those of us opposed to the whole project have been saying for years now that they can’t do what they’re attempting to do, and they certainly can’t do it in the way they’ve been attempting to do it. These papers only confirm what we’ve been saying all along.”

Next Page →