A prominent Brisbane Christian school is reviewing how outside speakers are selected after a chapel presentation to young teenagers triggered complaints that students were left believing gay people could face eternal punishment in hell.

St Peters Lutheran College at Indooroopilly has acknowledged that aspects of the presentation caused genuine concern within its community after Jonathan Vickers, a gospel worker in training with St Lucia Bible Church, addressed Year 7 and Year 8 students during a chapel service in late August.

Parents and students subsequently raised concerns that parts of the talk were interpreted as suggesting people who were gay could go to hell, with a parent also reporting that students understood the message to mean people who waited too long to become Christians could face the same fate.

Vickers disputes that characterisation. He has said he did not target any particular sexuality or group and maintains that his presentation was a general Christian message calling on students to repent and put their faith in Jesus.

The competing accounts have placed the school in the difficult position of distinguishing between what the guest speaker says he intended to communicate and the effect the presentation had on some of the children who heard it.

St Peters has now told its community it is reviewing the circumstances surrounding the service, including its process for choosing external speakers, to ensure future presentations are consistent with the college’s values and educational philosophy.

Students raised concerns after the chapel service

According to reporting on the controversy, concerns emerged soon after the presentation, with some students telling staff they had been left uncomfortable or confused by aspects of the message, particularly those relating to sexuality.

A parent whose child attended the service said the presentation appeared to suggest that being gay, or failing to embrace Christianity soon enough, could result in a person going to hell.

The parent argued such a message could be particularly damaging for teenagers who may already be dealing with anxiety, uncertainty about their identity or questions about sexuality and belonging.

Those claims remain allegations about how the presentation was understood rather than an established transcript of precisely what Vickers said.

No publicly available recording or full transcript of the chapel talk has been released establishing that Vickers directly told gay students they would go to hell.

That distinction became central to the response from both the speaker and the school.

Vickers said subsequent reports had taken aspects of his remarks out of context. He denied singling out LGBTQ+ people and said his message had been directed at all students rather than one particular group.

He said students were generally encouraged to recognise sin, repent and place their faith in Jesus — teachings he described as part of basic Christianity.

St Lucia Bible Church also defended the presentation as an expression of orthodox Christian belief and rejected the suggestion that the talk had been designed to target students because of their sexuality.

School focuses on impact rather than intent

St Peters, however, has made clear that the speaker’s intentions do not end the matter.

In communications to families, college leaders said it was necessary to distinguish between a person arriving in good faith to speak about their religious beliefs and the effect their words could have on young people listening to them.

The school said messages that cause harm, or that fail to reflect the theological and educational setting in which children are being taught, require a response even where the speaker did not intend to cause distress.

Head of College Tim Kotzur said the college regretted that comments made during the presentation had caused genuine concern among members of the school community.

He reaffirmed the school’s position that every person is loved by God and that an individual’s dignity and worth are not conditional on their identity, sexuality, beliefs, background or circumstances.

Kotzur also said St Peters did not support messages that could diminish a person’s sense of dignity, belonging or respect.

The college’s position was particularly clear on how Christianity should be communicated to students: school leaders said faith should not be presented through fear or shame.

That response reflects values St Peters has publicly promoted for years.

The Lutheran school describes itself as an inclusive and welcoming Christian community and says care, dignity and respect should shape relationships between students, families and staff.

Its published material also describes each person as having inherent value and encourages students to treat people with dignity even where beliefs, experiences or backgrounds differ.

Why the age of the students matters

The controversy has attracted particular concern because the audience was made up of Year 7 and Year 8 students, generally young teenagers at an age when questions about identity, relationships, faith and sexuality can be intensely personal.

Schools regularly invite external speakers to discuss subjects ranging from religion and mental health to relationships, online safety, careers and social issues.

In a faith-based school, religious teaching is also an expected part of education.

The question raised by the St Peters episode is therefore not simply whether a Christian speaker should be allowed to teach Christian beliefs in a Christian school.

It is about how those beliefs are communicated to children, what safeguards schools use when selecting speakers, whether the presentation is appropriate for the age group, and how schools respond when students experience a message as frightening, exclusionary or personally directed at them.

Those considerations become especially important when presentations touch on subjects associated with personal identity.

St Peters itself has previously highlighted student wellbeing, respectful relationships, empathy and dignity in material published to its school community.

Earlier this year, for example, the college promoted presentations aimed at helping young people deal with relationships, social media, self-worth and the pressures surrounding identity, describing the wellbeing of students as extending beyond academic achievement to their development as healthy young people.

The backlash over the chapel service has therefore raised questions not only about the speaker’s message but about whether the content was sufficiently checked before being delivered to younger secondary students.

Queensland government leaders respond

The controversy has also reached the Queensland government.

Education Minister John-Paul Langbroek said all children should feel safe at school, whether they attend the state or non-state education system.

He described the reported incident as unacceptable and said schools should carefully consider who they engage to speak with students, particularly given the complex issues young people can be navigating in their personal lives.

Langbroek said he expected principals to communicate proactively with parents and students when concerns of this kind arose.

He also suggested the publicity surrounding the St Peters case would encourage schools more broadly to reconsider the way guest presenters were selected and briefed.

Acting Premier Jarrod Bleijie was similarly critical when asked about the reported remarks.

Bleijie said that telling young students they faced eternal suffering because they were gay would be completely inappropriate.

His remarks responded to the allegation as reported rather than to a verified transcript of Vickers’ presentation.

That qualification remains important because the central dispute has not been resolved by the release of a complete recording.

Faith, doctrine and pastoral responsibility

The incident also highlights a broader issue faced by religious schools across Australia: how institutions maintain their theological identity while educating increasingly diverse student communities.

Christian denominations hold a range of theological positions on sexuality, salvation, sin and the afterlife, and individual churches can interpret and teach those subjects differently.

There is also considerable variation in how religious schools translate doctrine into pastoral care.

St Peters’ response indicates that its own concern is not with the existence of Christian teaching about repentance or faith. Instead, college leaders have focused on whether the delivery of that teaching undermined a student’s dignity or created fear and shame.

That distinction is significant.

A religious school can teach its faith tradition while still setting standards about the language, tone and age-appropriateness expected from people addressing students.

The school’s review will therefore need to consider not only which organisations or individuals can be invited to speak but what information those speakers receive before entering a classroom or chapel.

Questions may include whether presentations should be reviewed in advance, whether sensitive topics should require additional approval, whether students need pastoral support after controversial discussions and whether external speakers sufficiently understand the school’s own theological approach.

Speaker says his message was misrepresented

Vickers has pushed back strongly against claims he deliberately targeted gay students.

He said his remarks were a Christian appeal to everyone in the audience and argued that a presentation based on the words and teachings of Jesus should not be surprising in a school that openly identifies itself as Christ-centred.

His church likewise said the talk represented beliefs held by large numbers of Christians.

That defence does not erase the concerns raised by students, but it means the story cannot accurately be presented as a simple case of a speaker being proven to have told gay children they were going to hell.

What is established is that students reported interpreting aspects of the presentation that way, parents complained, the school accepted that parts of the message caused genuine distress or confusion, and the speaker disputes having targeted sexuality.

It is also established that the college considered the reaction serious enough to communicate repeatedly with families and review its external-speaker procedures.

Review now turns to how the speaker was chosen

The most immediate question for St Peters is how an invited presentation ended with students, parents and the school leadership holding such different understandings of what had been communicated.

The college has not suggested that Christian chapel services will stop, nor has it said outside speakers will no longer be used.

Instead, the review is focused on ensuring future speakers and messages align more closely with the school’s values and educational philosophy.

That leaves several issues for the college to resolve: what was understood about the content beforehand, whether enough guidance was given to the guest speaker, how complaints were handled after the service and what additional safeguards may be needed for future presentations to younger students.

The controversy has also demonstrated how quickly disputes about religion, sexuality and education can move beyond a school community and become a wider political debate.

For families at St Peters, however, the immediate issue is more practical.

Students attended what was meant to be a routine chapel service. Some left believing they had heard a disturbing message about sexuality and eternal punishment. The speaker says that was not the message he intended to give.

The school now has to determine how that gap developed — and how to prevent a similar breakdown between intention and impact from happening again.