AP

Love and Legislation

There’s been some debate recently about the interplay between legislation and love. Some people – including me – have claimed that complying with certain legislation is loving, or even that government legislation and Christian love are the same thing. Others have claimed that not complying with certain legislation is actually loving, or that you cannot legislate love. In this article, I want to look at Old Testament civil law and how that might provide some much-needed background for this debate.

The Reformed tradition has usually divided the Law into three categories. Let me briefly outline them. The first is the moral law, which reflects God’s character, and so is universal and enduring. For example, the command “do not lie” (Lev 19:11) reflects the fact that God is always truthful and we should be too. It is repeated in Colossians 3:9-10 with an explanatory note to that effect.

The second category of the law is ceremonial. These laws were put in place as a kind of lived object lesson and find their fulfilment in Christ. For example, the various animals that could be eaten or not (Lev. 11:1-23) are designed to show how holiness requires separation and sin defiles. Of course, it’s sin, not food, that really defiles and so the food laws looked forward to Jesus who could cleanse us once and for all. Now that he has come, the food laws are no longer required (Mark 7:14-23, Acts 10:9-16).

The third category is civil law. Civil law dealt with specific situations of daily life. These laws were specific to the nation of ancient Israel and so don’t apply directly to us. Having said this, they outline what it looks like for the people of Israel to live in a peaceful, just, and God-honouring way. In a negative sense, the civil law had a restraining effect on the excesses of sin. Behind the detail of the law lies a moral principle. For example, Deuteronomy 25:4 says: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” In the first instance, this is about giving working animals food for their labour. In the New Testament, however, the same law is used to show that those who work for the church are worthy of being supported by it (1 Cor. 9:7-11; 1 Tim 5:17-18). This argument only works if there is a moral principle behind the law, namely that it is fair to be compensated for honest work.

At this point, we could ask: why did Israel have civil laws? Given that civil laws are based on moral principles, wouldn’t the moral law be sufficient? God obviously didn’t think so. The civil law provided the boundaries. A landowner may have the desire to be fair and kind to his animals, but how would he know if he was doing so? By the civil law telling not to muzzle his ox.

I want to suggest that modern civil law can do the same thing. How do I know if I’m being a considerate driver? By driving through the school carpark at the signposted 10 km/h. There are of course many inconsiderate drivers who stay within the posted limits (insert school pickup horror story here), but the same is not true the other way around. Good civil laws provide a benchmark for moral behaviour.

At the NSW General Assembly in July 2024, I, along with others, argued that we should adopt a WHS compliant consultation process (i.e. comply with a legal interpretation of Work, Health and Safety regulations). I did this in part because of my Reformed understanding of the law. I believe that the WHS requirements provide a good benchmark for what loving and unloving action might look like.

This is not to say I think the secular government always has a good working definition of love. When a politician quotes the expression ‘love is love’, that becomes obvious. The gospel is always the primary example of God’s love, not the state. Nor am I claiming that all civil law strikes the right balance. There are some civil laws that are downright ungodly, immoral, or just get the limits wrong. And yet, I do believe that in God’s common grace, civil governments can, and often do, make just laws.

The question then is: are the WHS consultation requirements just and balanced? Are they in line with God’s moral law? I don’t think it’s wrong to honestly ask that question. Perhaps the problem is not in the question or in the divided opinion about the answer. Perhaps the problem is that the different frameworks behind the opinions were never explained. Some of us have been arguing for apples, while some have been hearing oranges. Without stating my framework, I can see how this could happen. Saying that adopting WHS legislation is the loving thing to do sounds like a claim that all opponents are not loving. That is not true, and for my part, I’m sorry it came across that way.

Since the GANSW, I get the impression that this debate is still quite live. Probably, most people have made up their minds about the issue, and I doubt I’ll change that. I do hope and pray though, that the various sides in the debate may at least understand the logic of the others just a little bit better and that a better discussion may result. That is all I hope for from this article.

– Hugh Prattis