AP

LOVE AND THE LAW: A Response to Hugh Prattis

Hugh Prattis makes a good and necessary plea that we seek to understand one another.   Amen to that.   And he is absolutely right to point out that the State does not get to define love and also to highlight the different meanings of the term ‘law’ as defined by the Westminster Confession.

The moral law remains, the ceremonial law has gone, but what about the civil law?    In WCF 19:4 we are told that God gave to Israel “as a body politic… judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require.” The modern state making laws is not equivalent, nor analogous, to the civil law given to Israel. 

This does not mean that the State is to be disregarded.  Indeed, Paul describes the State as an authority established by God, to which we are subject (Romans 13:1).  It is God’s servant to punish wrongdoers (Romans 13:4).   But that does not give the State power over everything.  Jesus makes it clear that we are to ‘give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God’s what is Gods’ (Mark 12:17).

It is to be hoped that we do not judge our morality by the laws of the State, but, rather, judge the laws of the State by the morality of the law of God.  To use Hugh’s example, it is good to observe the speed limits especially around schools.  There may be other laws that are questionable but nonetheless we obey.  For example, I would object to paying 90% tax but I would if I had no choice in that.  However, when the State demands something which goes against the Law of God, I have no choice but to obey God rather than man.  That will be always be the loving thing to do.

In terms of this current debate the Confessional position is summarised in 23:3 – “Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith.”

When the Church regards itself as just another corporation or political body in the State, and allows the government to determine how we worship, or who we appoint as leaders, or how we make our decisions, then it has turned away from Christ, and is in danger of just becoming another department of the Almighty State.  The trouble with the Assembly’s decision about women elders was that it was made because of a threatening letter, rather than because of any concern for women who might have been affected by it.  In other words, the Assembly was allowing the threat of legal action from the State to determine how we conduct our business.   What happens we discuss transgender or sexuality issues?  Will we be required to submit to state law on these?  Could we be sued because we have not taken sufficient consultation from every member of the church who might be affected by them?  This decision is setting up a dangerous new form of governance for the church.   John Buchanan illustrates just how dangerous when he states: “we just need a framework that is compatible with state legislation and that allows us to discuss whatever we want.”.  The point is that we do not accept, and should never accept, that the state can legislate how the church is governed and what we can discuss.   This would be a fundamental betrayal of our history, constitution and most importantly, of Christ.

 That is why I regard it as a dangerous precedent which must immediately be overturned.  The Church does not have the right to give to Caesar what is God’s.

– David Robertson