Rendering to Caesar What is God’s: The 2024 NSW Presbyterian Assembly

            In 2024 the Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in New South Wales felt obliged to respond to state Workplace Health and Safety (WHS) laws. It did so by voting to do the following things (according to NSW 2024 Min 72 and NSW BB 2024 Min 89):

1. Adopt principles in relation to WHS, that before considering any changes to The Code that might change roles and activities, the Assembly must deliberately consider the WHS Act implications of the proposed change, with such consideration including
   1. conducting a risk assessment to identify any actual or foreseeable risks of harm associated with any proposed workplace change (including the potential for any physical or psychosocial injury for any current or future worker, any person who might aspire to be a worker, and any person who might otherwise be affected by the change); 
   1. consideration of how each and every identified risk may be removed, minimised or effectively managed, if necessary, through the provision of psychological counselling or any other reasonable support mechanism for those affected; 
   1. consideration of the design of a relevant consultation process in conjunction with workers (and where appropriate consultation on a “trauma-informed” basis) to minimise risk of harm during a consultation process; 
2. Establish a WHS Consultation Committee to consult widely to ascertain the issues requiring consultation in the proposals relating to the gender of Elders so as to develop a WHS compliant consultation process and implementation plan
3. Determine forthwith that the sex qualifications of elders shall not be the subject of questions, speeches, comments or debate for the duration of this session of Assembly.

The impact of these decisions was that members of Assembly were required to refrain from any speech related to gender roles in ministry. This prevented discussion on various gender-related issues for a second year running, having also been prevented in 2023 when the matter first came to Assembly. I among others recorded my dissent to the 2024 decisions, with a few others also taking leave of the house to complain to GAA.

This matter could have been raised as a pastoral / disciplinary matter through the church courts (i.e. Session, Presbytery etc.) rather than as a legal issue. But it wasn’t.

Various Concerns

About 30% of the Assembly consistently voted against the Assembly’s decisions regarding WHS, which leaves about 70% who consistently voted for. The 70% were probably not of “one mind” but were concerned with various separate (yet sometimes related) considerations. These include:

• A belief that the church’s freedom is not being infringed on if it was not the target of the state
• A belief that the WHS laws ought to apply to the church as we are indeed a workplace
• A concern for not exposing the church to the courts and individual members to litigation
• A concern for pragmatics i.e. the quickest way to get “on with things” is to obey
• A concern to protect the church’s reputation by avoiding negative media publicity
• A belief that the state’s infringements on our freedoms do not constitute an infringement on our essential duties as a church
• A belief that even if the church’s spiritual authority was infringed upon, civil disobedience is not the answer
• A belief that even if the church’s spiritual authority was infringed upon, acquiescence is still a valid option
• The belief that the church ought to adopt the government’s position of preventing psychosocial harm

I will not address all of these beliefs as some of them have already been addressed by others (e.g. David Roberston in “Erastianism in the church” who addresses whether it matters whether the church is a target). Some of the beliefs are also clearly more of an outworking of pragmatism and self-preservation rather than principle.

There are other concerns that still require addressing.

a. The belief that the WHS laws ought to apply to the church as we are indeed a workplace

Some in the Assembly argued that the church has no right to resist these laws because we are also classified as a workplace. If there is no justification for other workplaces to resist these laws, what justification do we have?

I hope it is clear to everyone that we are a church, and being the church is special. Does the mere classification of something as some type of thing, mean that it is merely that thing? Does the mere classification of humans as animals mean that we can be culled if there are too many of us?

Governments may be able to regulate how we go about archiving records but not how we go about selecting, say, office-bearers. For example, suppose the government required workplaces to choose office-bearers without any discrimination (e.g. marital status or sexual orientation). Should this rule also be applied to churches?

Rules concerning the workplace can encroach upon the essential duties of the church.

The Assembly was unable to exercise its spiritual authority to even discuss these matters without being implicated by the law. During Assembly it was suggested that perhaps we could go ahead and discuss constitutional changes to gender requirements of officers, and then after that, consider how we might help reduce adverse impacts to people in the workplace.

This was denied because even the consideration of making constitutional changes was under the purview of WHS laws. Does this not itself demonstrate that we are dealing with an overreach of WHS laws – as we have chosen to interpret them – into the spiritual authority of the church?

b. The belief that the state’s infringements on our freedoms do not constitute an infringement on our essential duties as a church

It was suggested at the Assembly that our constituting documents (e.g. Westminster Confession of Faith [WCF], Declaratory Statement and GAA Constitution, Procedure and Practice) would not classify this as an infringement.

For example, WCF 23.3 was relied upon several times in arguing that the civil magistrate was acting entirely within the jurisdiction provided by the WCF.

It was also claimed that Chapter 7 of the GAA Code’s (on the spiritual freedom of the church) was not applicable because the historical situation from which the chapter arose was an attempt of direct interference by the state into church affairs (specifically whether the state could force the church to reinstate the employment of a minister) and this was not such a case.

“In Sacris” and “Circa Sacra” and the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF)

In response to these assertions, it should be noted that the Reformed tradition has maintained a distinction between the principles of “in sacris” (in sacred things) and “circa sacra” (about sacred things) (see John McClean’s “Living with the Lion: framing legal threats to gospel ministry theologically” presented at Freedom for Faith 2024 Conference, August 5 2024: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnYMNSd3g-0 from 19:00 to 24:00). Things “in sacris” include doctrine, worship, discipline and government and these are under the jurisdiction of the church, while things “circa sacra” include activities such as regulation of church property and the enforcement of religious laws e.g. Sabbath, which are under the jurisdiction of the state.

Following the principle of “circa sacra”, the state “may lawfully call synods and councils” (WCF 31.2) and has the duty to “to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed” (WCF 23.3). Following the principle of “in sacris”, WCF 31.3 states that “It belongs to synods and councils (i.e. the church), ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church”.

In other words, WCF applies the Reformed principle of “in sacris vs circa sacra”.

Declaratory Statement

As for the Presbyterian Church of Australia’s declaratory statement, the framers also seem to have designed it to keep in check whatever powers WCF 23 afforded the state.

Point 6 of the Declaratory Statement reads:

“That with regard to the doctrine of the civil magistrate and his authority and duty in the sphere of religion, as taught in the subordinate standard the church holds that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only King and Head of the Church, “and Head over all things to the Church, which is His body.” It disclaims, accordingly, intolerant or persecuting principles…”

Further, when one considers that Australian Presbyterianism has its roots in Scotland, where the Free Church disruption occurred in 1843 in response to the state interfering with the selection of clergy, point 6 of the Declaratory Statement can be seen as being designed to weaken the powers that WCF 23 affords the civil magistrate vis-à-vis the church.

The framers of the declaratory statement were quite sensitive to matters of government interference.

GAA Constitution, Procedure and Practice

As for GAA’s constitution, procedure and practices, Chapter 7 is titled “Declaration on the Spiritual Freedom of the Church”. This chapter seems to have been specifically framed to provide further clarity on the relationship between church and state and the boundaries provided in WCF 23 and 31. This chapter is worth reading in its entirety, but note the following words:

“the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Australia hereby declares as follows:…

(b) That the Lord Jesus has instituted His Church in the world… and this Church of the Lord Jesus is distinct from the kingdoms of this world, both in its origin and its nature, and not subject to them in spiritual affairs.

(c) That the Lord Jesus, as King and Head of His Church, has therein appointed a government and jurisdiction, in the hands of Church Officers, distinct from the Civil Magistrate. With this distinct jurisdiction, which is directly from Christ, the only King and Head of His Church, the Civil Magistrate has no lawful right to interfere or to assume to himself any authoritative control over the same. This jurisdiction comprehends the determining, interpreting, changing, adding to and modifying its constitution and laws, its subordinate standards and Church formulas; the preaching of the Word; the administration of the Sacraments; the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline, including the admission and exclusion of members, and the ordination, induction, and suspension, or deposition of office-bearers; and generally all matters touching the doctrine, worship, discipline and government of the Church.

It seems that the GAA penned these words precisely to make sure that the church would not apply this principle too narrowly! That is, to not only consider the context from which the statement arose (i.e. the direct interference of the state reinstating a minister), but to make it more of general statement with broader application.

Even though this declaration does not formally constitute any part of the doctrine of the church, if it is not there to guide the Church in its thinking as to how to make judgements, then what is it there for?

c. The belief that even if the church’s spiritual authority was infringed upon, civil disobedience is not the answer

While I do not recall this particular belief being shared during Assembly, I have certainly encountered it from various people since.

One argument I have encountered is: “If the state is asking us to do things that are not unbiblical, we ought to do it.”

Calvin maintains that obedience to the state can still be constituted as obedience to God even if the state is mandating things that are contrary to God’s revealed will.

‘Samuel, when he warned the people of Israel what sort of things they would suffer from their kings, said: “This shall be the right of the king that will reign over you: he will take your sons and put them to his chariot to make them his horsemen and to plough his fields and reap his harvest, and make his weapons… Surely, the kings would not do this by legal right, since the law trained them to all restraint [Deut. 17:16 ff.]. But it was called a right in relation to the people, for they had to obey it and were not allowed to resist. It is as if Samuel had said: The wilfulness of kings will run to excess, but it will not be your part to restrain it; you will have only this left to you: to obey their commands and hearken to their word.’ (Institutes IV, xx, 26).

Let’s consider Romans 13. What do we say about Romans 13:2 “whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed”? Surely, however we apply this, we must not overturn Peter’s point in Acts 5:29 (“we must obey God rather than men”), and Jesus’ point in Matthew 22:21 (“render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render to God what is God’s”).

The sphere of the government’s authority according to Romans 13 is one of the state “bearing the sword” and “avenging wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4). They are the “Lord’s servant for our good” (Romans 13:4) for which they are owed taxes, revenues and honour (Romans 13:7).

It seems clear from the context, that the state is to be obeyed when they are acting in their own sphere of authority, upholding good conduct and punishing wrong conduct. In any case it cannot be determined from the context that the state is still the Lord’s servant when they are punishing someone for doing right.

Thomas Schreiner says of Romans 13: “This text is misunderstood if it is taken out of context and used as an absolute word so that Christians uncritically comply with the state no matter what is being demanded. What we have here is a general exhortation that delineates what is usually the case: people should normally obey ruling authorities.”

It is for this reason David van Drunnen (see “Reformation of Civil Government”) speaks about the development of thought among Protestant scholars in the mid to late sixteenth century that considered the conditions where resistance to civil authority would be justified, whose theories went “considerably beyond the narrow scope permitted by Calvin.”

One can imagine various plausible scenarios where Christians could hardly be accused of practising civil disobedience inappropriately. For example, suppose the government required ministers to provide ample warning about the psychological “harm” (as defined by the government) that might take place by listening to our messages. Or if we faced heavy penalties if we fail to show evidence that we took adequate care in the preparation of the same.

Love trumps Rule-keeping

But one more thing to note, we should also remember that for Christians obedience to law is not our highest duty, but love. The New Testament teaches that Christians are no longer under a bondage of the law (Galatians 5:1) but live under the reign of Christ and the assurance of his grace (Galatians 5:4). Fear of punishment from not following rules is no longer what motivates us. Our motivation must now be the ethic of love (Galatians 5:6, 13).

In maintaining this duty, it is worth noting that how this might work out is that sometimes even God’s laws take a back seat if strict observance to the law produces an unloving / unjust set of affairs. Take, for example, Sabbath. On face-value, the Law provided no exception to the rule of Sabbath observance. Nevertheless, the Jews did on occasion appear to break Sabbath in order to save their sheep or that of their neighbours (Matthew 12:11). Jesus, in fact, includes the breaking of the law by David in eating the bread of the presence to highlight how his actions were overall lawful, under the ethic of love (Matthew 12:1-14).

Thus, it is not following the law, including state law, that is our highest duty to God, but following the ethic of love.

So it should be clear that the church is not restricted to the narrow scope of civil disobedience only when obeying would entail something expressly unbiblical.

d. The belief that even if the church’s spiritual authority was infringed upon, acquiescence is still a valid option

Like the belief above I do not recall this particular belief being explicitly shared during Assembly, but I have certainly encountered it from various parties since. This is a belief held particularly by those who have taken a rather pragmatic approach: “Let’s submit – even if it does infringe on spiritual affairs, because it is the quickest way to get on with things”.

Do we have a moral obligation to maintain the principle of “in sacris” and to resist the government when there is an intrusion into this sphere? This makes this a matter not just related to conscience (Romans 14), but whether the church’s “in sacris” functions are solemn duties and not merely privileges.

Some will maintain that our compliance with WHS laws is not so much a refraining from fulfilling a solemn duty (of governing) but choosing to restrict the use of our rights and privileges in the realm of spiritual authority.

The idea is biblically dubious. To take a parallel example: is it acceptable for me to regard my responsibility to govern my family as merely a privilege rather than a duty? If so, we must ask the question who else will govern the family when I don’t?

If the government mandated me to consult my children before changing house rules, I would count it dereliction of my duties if I submitted to them in a way that delayed the well-ordering of my household. Or if the government prohibited me from practising any form of discipline, I would count it dereliction of my duties if I submitted to it.

Acquiescing to civil authority in a way that prevents the well-ordering of the church is clearlya dereliction of our duties as those charged with governing the church as a family (1 Timothy 3:4–5).

Church officers have the duty to govern the church according to the rules set out in the word of God (1 Peter 5:2). It is difficult to see how refraining from governing, even for pragmatic reasons, can be called a principle and right.

e. The belief that the church ought to adopt the government’s position of preventing psychosocial harm

Lastly, we come to the belief that the church ought to adopt the government’s position of preventing psychosocial harm; that if we act from an ethic of love, we would be conforming to these laws.

The Ethic of Love

The church already permits interference from the government in several areas, most notably child protection. We allow this interference, not from a need to comply with the state as much as a burden to love our neighbour. For the most part, we can see that compliance itself is a loving thing, which is why we have developed our own policies that go above and beyond mere compliance.

Allowing the infringement for the sake of love (see point c) is the only reason where I can see the church could have acted validly. Yet this is precisely the area where it can be least demonstrated that the WHS laws would entail love.

Some spoke of needing to follow WHS regulations out of love for those who were hurting in our congregations. Others suggested that the Assembly’s failure to comply with WHS regulations would be akin to a repeat of the church’s historic failure around sexual abuse.

Abuse is condemned by God’s Word, but the same cannot be said about any impropriety in failing to consult with potential workers before changing the constitution. Inherent in these views is the all-too-readily-made-assumption that the government’s understanding of psychosocial harm (and the need to prevent it) is based on biblical principles.

The sufficiency of the Bible to equip the church to adequately love one another (2 Timothy 3:16–17) doesn’t mean that I disbelieve all psychologists. Trauma and depression are real issues. We may benefit from the advice of clinical psychologists. God knows that I have. But in the area of spiritual oversight in the church, I do not believe that ministers of the word must have their knowledge augmented by insights from certain clinical psychologists in order to adequately oversee the flock.

We were told that there were people really suffering because of the gender issues being discussed at Assembly. This may be so, but it does not take away from the fact that the church is not to be overseen by “experts” managerial or psychological, but ministers of the word. “Experts” do not hold the keys of the kingdom, but ministers of the word and sacrament.

The Idol of Psychological Wellbeing

In Psalm 119:67 it says, “Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I keep your word” and Psalm 119:71 “It is good for me that I was afflicted, that I might learn your statutes.”. The Psalmist could see the positive role of affliction in bringing him into greater conformity with God’s revealed will. In 2 Corinthians, Paul shares, “For we do not want you to be unaware, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia. For we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself. Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death” (2 Corinthians 1:8-9). As Christians, we recognise that there are times when affliction is the necessary means by which God brings us into greater likeness to Christ. Sometimes affliction may need to come as a result of our ministry. The question is whether ministers are morally obligated to take measures to prevent this. Is that biblical? Is that even a loving thing to do?

We live in a world where psychological health and “safety” are so highly prized that they have become an idol. We live in a world where “self is constructed psychologically and in which the therapeutic is the ethical ideal” (to cite Carl Truman). It is no coincidence that we are having this issue appear in our Assembly at this point in history. The church is being slowly coerced to bow the knee to the idol of psychological wellness in the name of love.

The burden of proof does not lie with those who are yet to be convinced that the state’s position has a biblical basis, but with those who think otherwise. If the state’s position is to be adopted, then where is the evidence that the state’s view of love and the Bible’s view of love are compatible, that they can be married together?

One other thing to consider is that most of us very well know that to get the most loving outcome, we need more information, not less. Following the WHS laws would result in church leaders gathering less information about the people in question. We would be using rather blunt “trauma informed” instruments for which we can only guess at whether they would be doing any good to the people under our care, while the people in question are never identified and counselled. Is this a good result? We ought to have insisted on treating the complaint as a matter for the church courts rather than dealing with it as a matter of compliance in the first place.

Conclusion

Did the NSW Assembly act illegitimately in seeking to comply with WHS laws and stifle debate about gender roles in ministry? It is with deep sadness that I must answer “yes”. The spiritual authority of the church was infringed upon, and the church allowed its God-given rights to be infringed.

The church is not merely a workplace. The state must not interfere with our uniquely essential duties as a church. Such interferences duties violate the Reformed “in sacris vs circa sacra” principle. The church’s scope for civil disobedience goes further than the narrow scope of whether obeying the state would be expressly unbiblical. We have a moral obligation to render to God what is God’s, in particular governing the church according to the word of God. We have a moral obligation to love, rather than to merely “follow rules”. It is difficult to see how the government’s position of preventing psychosocial harm is loving in the biblical sense.

One of main driving forces behind the GANSW decision was not love, but fear: to comply with the government regulations in order to avoid penalty. Some discussion did revolve around “what is the most loving to do?”, but in (at least) equal measure it seemed we were driven by the question “what is the course least likely to attract penalty?”

Perhaps my reasoning above is wrong. Perhaps I have missed something. But surely clarity is needed as to how the 2024 NSW Assembly got this at all right.

My prayer is that both the GAA and the NSW Assembly will see the importance of getting this right from here on in. Because as it currently stands, it seems very much that NSW Assembly is rendering to Caesar what ought to be God’s.

– Bryan Kim