AP

Erastianism or Managerialism in the Church? A Critique of David Robertson’s Recent Article

In a provocative article published on 24 July 2024, Rev David Robertson argues that a form of Erastianism is in danger of taking over the contemporary Presbyterian church. The observation arises from a recent debate at the Assembly of the New South Wales Presbyterian Church relating to the application of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) to changes to the church’s constitution and procedures.

I agree with David that questions of the relationship between church and state will be among the defining challenges of the 21st century. However, it is more accurately seen as an internalised form of managerialism.

What is Erastianism?

Erastianism is a slippery beast, given that Thomas Erastus never held to the view which is labelled “Erastian”. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “Erastianism is the doctrine that the state is superior to the church in ecclesiastical matters”, and actually derives from the teaching of Richard Hooker, not Erastus.

Thus, Erastianism is usually intended to mean the view that “the civil government has authority over the Church in sacred things”.

But that is not in fact what is going on here. The Work Health and Safety Act 2011 is a law of general application, which (in broad summary) is designed to ensure that workers are protected in their employment. The Act sets out a duty of care which obligates a person who conducts a business or undertaking to ensure the health and safety of their workers so far as is reasonably practicable, and there are obligations to consult workers in relation to work health or safety matters.

The Act is not directed to the church, and very likely the drafters of the Act would be astonished that it has now been interpreted so as to apply to changes to the constitutions and policies of the church.

In other words, the government is not asserting any authority in sacred or ecclesiastical matters by virtue of the Work Health and Safety Act. It is not Erastian.

Managerialism and the church today

If the application of the Act to changes to the constitution of the church is not Erastian, then what is it? In my view, it is better seen as a form of managerialism, driven by risk-aversion and compliance.

In my assessment, the Australian Presbyterian Church as a whole has become increasingly legalistic, risk averse and compliant in recent years.

There is growing regulation of aspects of church life and activities by governments across Australia. In every case I am aware of, the instinctive reaction from the Presbyterian administrators has been to comply – and over and beyond – with those regulations. Covid regulation was a clear illustration of this, and the situation highlighted by David Robertson is also an excellent illustration of this point.

Worse, risk aversion is coupled to the mandate for Christians to bear witness to Christ in their life and conduct. Indeed, a compliance-focused approach is often justified on the basis of the need to maintain a good reputation in society. For instance, the Victorian church was advised during covid that obeying mandatory vaccination laws would “bear a positive witness to the Lordship of Christ in submitting to rulers appointed by Him to govern for our welfare”.

However, while scripture commands us to maintain a good reputation in society, this is to be achieved primarily through good works and godliness (1 Peter 2:12), not compliance with bureaucratic rules. An overly risk-averse approach is very likely to send the message that the church is no different to every other bureaucratic institution that exists.

Compliance and legalisation go hand in hand with centralisation. In 1941 James Burnham published The Managerial Revolution, which argued that managers – technical experts – occupy a position of supreme importance in modern capitalist production because production is impossible without them. He predicted that managers would become the dominant ruling class in society and that a capitalist society would be replaced by a managerial one.

A similar dynamic appears to be at play in the church: as government regulations dictate more and more aspects of church life, the institutional church is run by bureaucrats and administrators who advise on compliance with those regulations.

A further problem with an overly legalistic approach to church life is that it fundamentally changes the nature of the church, gradually turning it into a bureaucracy. The priorities of the institutional church become primary. Congregations feel the pressure to deal with difficult issues not on a pastoral and Scriptural basis, but based on risk-averse interpretations of government regulations and church codes.

In sum, in the contemporary Presbyterian church there appears to be a trend towards an overly cautious and risk-averse approach which places a strong emphasis on compliance, and which is tending to the detriment of the church.

I recently heard an intriguing thought from an American Presbyterian pastor, namely that centralisation in church bureaucracies inevitably leads to liberalism. His explanation was that centralisation leads to a lowest common denominator approach within the church. This may or may not be true, but it is worth pondering.

Erastianism or managerialism?

I have argued that it is not Erastianism, but rather managerialism, bureaucracy, risk-aversion and compliance that is taking over the contemporary Presbyterian church. Is this mere hair-splitting? Does it matter which label we affix to the problem?

It matters for the following reason. Erastianism tends to suggest that the problem is imposed upon the church by an outside force – the government, and civil law.

But that’s not actually what is occurring. In reality, the problem is self-imposed. Government laws are being interpreted in the most risk-averse manner possible – very likely contrary to the intentions of the drafters of the law. We are internalising a particular, risk-averse interpretation of these laws.

And if the problem is self-imposed, we can more readily do something about it.

One point must be signalled very clearly. The legal position adopted by the PCNSW in this case is not inevitable. It is the result of a choice. It is a choice to interpret the Work Health and Safety Act in such a manner. It is a choice to adopt a highly risk-averse approach.

Although the legal advice has not been made available, the interpretation of the Work Health and Safety Act that has been adopted by the church seems a tortuous one. Applying it in this way, in this context, was very likely not envisaged by its drafters.

And it seems unlikely that a court would hold that the Act applies to constitutional amendments adopted by a church – although it is of course difficult to be absolutely certain.

But this leads to a second point, namely that churches need to radically re-assess their approach to risk. Risk, including legal risk, almost always exists along a spectrum. If the church seeks legal advice, it is almost guaranteed that the advice will admit that there is some level of legal risk. No sensible lawyer is going to suggest that there is no legal risk whatsoever.

The question is not: “is there some risk?”, because the answer will almost always be ‘yes’. Rather, the key questions are: how serious is the risk? How likely is it to eventuate? What are the likely consequences? Are the benefits of a particular course of action worth the possible risks? Lawyers are useful servants but rarely helpful masters.

Finally, Presbyterians need to recover their Presbyterianism. In an age of government overreach we need to emphasise a robust sense of the institutional autonomy of the church, and the limits to the powers of the civil ruler. The church needs to prepare itself to cultivate a posture of disobedience.

If the church is unable to flex its Presbyterian muscle with such low hanging fruit as this, how will it do so when a real test comes?

Dr Ben Saunders holds a PhD in constitutional law from the University of Queensland and recently published The Crisis of Civil Law: What the Bible Teaches about Law and What It Means Today (Lexham Press, 2024).

Response from David Robertson

I would like to thank Dr BB Saunders for his thoughtful interaction with my article. I think he is correct to point out the risk of managerialism, and I agree with his solutions.   But there is no reason why the two things cannot be true.  There is a danger of both managerialism and Erastianism.    The trouble with ignoring the Erastian aspect is that by the time it becomes more obvious it will be too late.  My article was not based on the premise that the State was being deliberately Erastian, but that the Church was accepting Erastian doctrine.  A modern secular State which rejects God will by its very nature be Erastian because it seeks to control everything – unless it has a more small government, libertarian perspective (but that is not true of any current Western democracy).  

The problem occurs when the Church accepts that the State has the right to control the Church.   The trouble is not with Health and Safety – but when Health and Safety is used as a controlling mechanism for other decision making.   In the instance I was discussing, I understand that the NSW General Assembly, stopped a motion declaring whom we could appoint as elders, because one person sent a letter complaining that it was against the WHS Act because it did not take account of his or her psycho-social well being.   The latter term is so broad as to become meaningless.   When the government claims it has the right to determine how the church appoints its leadership, then it is being Erastian.   The example I gave of the Productivity Commission suggesting that a state authority could appoint or remove a clergyman, proves my point.   Essentially I think that Dr Saunders and I are both recognising the problem – but from different angles.  The question is what are we going to do about it?

– David Robertson