AP

The Psychosocial Harm of God’s Word

“It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.” This is often attributed to Mark Twain. God’s word certainly has parts that are harder to comprehend, but as Twain implies, it also has plenty of clear ideas that are problematic to us as sinful humans, and often this causes us certain levels of distress and personal suffering as our worldview and way of life are challenged by God.

It is therefore not uncommon to hear people speak about their experience of engaging with God’s word as causing them some form of harm. Until recently many who were upset with the word of God would just reject it, or find some alternative view that was more agreeable to them. However, it appears as if this is changing, as Australian society has become increasingly focused on mental health, resulting in our laws taking on a psychological nature, aimed at protecting the fragilities of our minds and emotions.

In New South Wales, Work Health and Safety (WHS) have implemented a whole range of requirements, including a code of practice designed for managing the risks of psychosocial hazards in the workplace. Of course, every well-meaning citizen wants to reduce genuine harm, but to do this we must know what is meant by ‘psychosocial’ harm. It is common knowledge that in the normal course of social engagement different opinions and views are  expressed, and action is taken that not all agree on. This leads to hurt feelings and negative emotions and adverse physical responses.

To be helpful, psychosocial harm must be very clearly defined and limited in scope. Unfortunately, the code does not specifically define what it means by ‘psychosocial’, except to say, “Psychosocial hazards at work are aspects of work and situations that may cause a stress response which in turn can lead to psychological or physical harm. These stem from: the way the tasks or job are designed, organised, managed and supervised; tasks or jobs where there are inherent psychosocial hazards and risks; the equipment, working environment or requirements to undertake duties in physically hazardous environments; and social factors at work, workplace relationships and social interactions.”^[1] This is all quite vague as psychosocial hazards are things that can lead to psychological or physical harms.

The Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017, Division 11 deals with ‘Psychosocial risks’ and says the following:  A psychosocial hazard is a hazard that— (a)  arises from, or relates to—

(i)  the design or management of work, or

(ii)  a work environment, or

(iii)  plant at a workplace, or

(iv)  workplace interactions or behaviours, and

(b)  may cause psychological harm, whether or not it may also cause physical harm.”

The regulation goes on to speak about the meaning of “psychosocial risk”: “A psychosocial risk is a risk to the health or safety of a worker or other person arising from a psychosocial hazard.”

This is all marvellously unhelpful, vague and circular, being very open to interpretation and subjective application. Going wider afield than WHS leads to a more specific definition of the term ‘psychosocial’ as “describing the intersection and interaction of social, cultural, and environmental influences on the mind and behaviour.”^[2] Clearly, ‘psychosocial’ is a term that is nebulous, ill-defined, over-determined, and unquantifiable, encompassing varied ideas from within the world of psychology and social theory.

All of which means that any law that uses the term ‘psychosocial’ cannot be rigorously tested or challenged, but instead it can be used widely as a subjective tool to forcibly shape and change the way society thinks and functions. Since the invention of the term ‘psychosocial’ in the academic world of the 1890’s, it has increasingly been used by social change agents to influence modern governmental policy, creating an ideal of psychological well-being, presented as an ideal human potential that could best be realised through central political direction and control.

This ought to be concerning for the church, as much of what is spoken about as psychosocial hazards, risks, or harm will be used to impinge upon the beliefs and activities of the body of Christ as we aim to live in obedience to the authority of God’s word. Perhaps the church of Australia will soon need to recognise that our society is bothered by what it understands in the Bible, and our laws are changing to reflect our nation’s increasing desire to be protected from the offence of the word of God.

– Michael Bosshard

^[1] Code Of Practice: Managing Psychosocial Hazards At Work, Safework NSW MAY 2021, https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/983353/Code-of-Practice_Managing-psychosocial-hazards.pdf, Page 6.

^[2] American Psychological Association, https://dictionary.apa.org/psychosocial