AP

What Should We Make of Jereth Kok’s Legal Case?

You may not agree with everything that Dr Jereth Kok said, or the manner in which he said it. But you should be concerned about his case because it has significant implications for all Christians, especially Christian professionals.

As many readers will be aware, Dr Jereth Kok was a Christian GP who is currently in the midst of legal proceedings which will determine whether he will be able to practise as a doctor again.

The facts have been rehearsed in other articles, such as this and this. In short, Dr Kok was suspended by the Medical Board – under emergency powers – for Facebook posts and comments he made on various websites. Those posts and comments expressed opinions on matters such as abortion, marriage, Covid lockdowns and transgender ideology.

Jereth has not been able to practise medicine since his suspension took effect – a period of approximately five years. The matter has finally been brought to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) for determination, and VCAT will need to decide whether Dr Kok should be permanently disqualified from practice.

Speaking Softly

Many of Jereth’s comments and posts expressed standard Christian teaching. However, in some of those posts the way in which those views were expressed was cutting, insulting, bitterly ironic and sarcastic.

It should be noted that the vast majority of Jereth’s posts and comments include ordinary, tame language, and were not expressed in strident or harsh language – only about 12% contain words which are considered inappropriate.

Dr Kok described doctors who performed abortions as “butchers” and “serial contract killers” and wrote: “What’s wrong with capital punishment for serial contract killers?” Dr Kok called the Royal Women’s Hospital the state’s “premier baby killing facility” and referred to the “industrial-scale massacre of babies by doctors”. Another post referred to doctors who perform gender reassignment surgery as “crooks engaged in mutilation”.

Here’s another example:

“Thanks to “family planning”, developed nations (Europe, Japan, North America) are in steep decline and are facing an impending financial and economic crisis that comes with an aged population.

See, for example, what is happening in Japan: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12296077

Soon, our civilisations will be vanquished, and the Earth will be overrun by Black people. The solution is clear: we must take “family planning” to poor countries and exterminate them before it is too late!”

Are these comments needlessly inflammatory? Could he not have expressed his views in a manner which conveys grace and compassion? Does it really achieve anything to express such views on social media? Should Christians not speak with a soft voice in the public square?

I make several points in response.

First, Jereth has himself conceded that some of his posts were unnecessarily inflammatory. At the VCAT hearing his barrister conceded that language such as “murder”, “slaughtered”, “industrial-scale massacre”, “butcher” and “mutilate” was inappropriate for him, as a registered medical practitioner, to use. It is not appropriate for one doctor publicly to imply that other doctors are engaged in murder or butchery.

However, these strictures do not necessarily apply to other Christians: doctors are under unique constraints. 

Secondly, the exchange of propositions is not the only means of engaging in public debate. Satire, irony and sarcasm are also legitimate tools, and have their place. A satirical quip can make a point with far more bite than a chain of logical reasoning. Of course, such modes of debate carry risks, including the risk of being misunderstood.

There is no one single biblical model for Christian public engagement. There are of course scriptural examples of Christians engaging non-believers in ways that are not inflammatory, with Acts 17:22–31 being the classic one.

But other passages of Scripture are not so tame. Paul expressed a desire that the Judaizers would emasculate themselves (Gal 5:12). Other passages pour out judgement on non-covenant nations in no uncertain terms.

Public debate is the richer for a diversity of voices and modes of engagement. In one High Court case, Justice Michael Kirby wrote that “[f]rom its earliest history, Australian politics has regularly included insult and emotion, calumny and invective, in its armoury of persuasion. They are part and parcel of the struggle of ideas”. Kirby is right.

Thirdly, Christians are built differently, have different temperaments, and have differing levels of tolerance for robust debate. This is true diversity: the diversity of the body of Christ, which is drawn from “all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues” (Rev 7:9).

Evidently, Jereth is at the more “robust” end of this spectrum. Other Christians are more inclined to gentle and softer modes of persuasion. The temptation for Christians at the other end of the spectrum is to distance themselves from Christians who find themselves in trouble: Jereth was not winsome. His posts were not wise.

I think this is a mistake. At stake is the nature of the body of Christ:

God has so composed the body, giving greater honour to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honoured, all rejoice together (1 Corinthians 12:24–6).

Christians ought to maintain unity – even if one thinks that Jereth was too strident, too caustic, too sarcastic. Christians ought not to pass judgment on each other – even if we would not have expressed ourselves in that manner. Let a thousand Christian flowers bloom.

Professional standards

There is another reason why all Christians ought to take an interest in Jereth’s case, even those who are cautious about the manner of his posts. This is because the time is coming, and now is, when professional standards regulations pose a real challenge to Christians.

The Medical Board of Australia’s case, in short, is that Jereth has engaged in professional misconduct under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law by making his posts and comments.

If it is found that expressing private opinions that are critical of mainstream views and practices relating to topics such as abortion and transgender ideology, amounts to professional misconduct, then this is likely to have significant implications for Christian professionals.

Other professions such as doctors, nurses and other health professionals, lawyers, teachers, accountants, dentists, psychologists are also subject to professional conduct regulations. VCAT’s decision in this case is likely to set a precedent which will influence how those professions are regulated.

The conduct for which Jereth is being targeted was engaged in outside the surgery, and may not ever have been seen by his patients. To what extent should professional conduct regulations impact the private activities of professionals outside the surgery or office?

I suggest, therefore, that all Christians ought to take an interest in this case, pray for Jereth and the Tribunal, and consider donating to help cover the costs.

– Dr Ben Saunders blogs at https://saeculum.blog.