Although this discussion is particular to Presbyterians in Australia (especially NSW) it is an issue that is relevant for churches across the Western World. In an anti-Christian ‘progressive’ world where governments seek to impose a pseudo-religious ideology upon the whole populace – just how much should the Church go along with this and compromise?
I wrote this article explaining the situation a few weeks ago….The Greatest Danger Facing the Presbyterian Church in Australia Today? AP
Not everyone agreed with it….John Buchanan wrote this response –
The following is my answer:
THE TRUTH, THE CHURCH AND THE TROJAN HORSE OF CIVIL LAW IN THE CHURCH – A RESPONSE TO JOHN BUCHANAN.
Give Light and the Darkness will Disappear of Itself (Erasmus).
I am grateful to John Buchanan for responding to my article and for making the points he does. I find them helpful because they illustrate precisely the points I was trying to make in my original article. In response I would suggest these principles for us all.
- We must always seek to tell the truth at all times.
When I first read John’s article, I was shocked at the allegations he made about the Presbyterian Church in NSW. In particular I was surprised at the statement that the Church had lost its ethical authority, (and by implication must hand it over to the state), because “some of our leaders faced the full force of the law”.
This is the kind of statement that people often just accept and so it becomes an incontrovertible meme within the culture that the Presbyterian Church of NSW was found to be guilty by the Royal Commission of cover up with regard to child sexual abuse. But I was curious and so did some investigation.
I have actually read the full, three-book, Royal Commission report, which is an outstanding and thorough piece of work. Out of the 4,029 people who told the Royal Commission that they were sexually abused as children, 117 cases were associated with the Presbyterian and Reformed churches, in 40 institutions, for the whole of Australia, including schools, churches, and institutions. And there were no reported cases of institutional cover up by the PCNSW. There were no Presbyterian church leaders who faced the full force of the law. There was no criminal case against a church leader.
“We, like others, tended to believe and protect the guilty and further punish the abused. The Christian churches, including the Presbyterian church proved to be ineffective moral governors. We did not take appropriate action when our own leaders were abusing children. The Christian churches have besmirched the churches’ reputation and dishonoured God.”
Who is the ‘we’ in this instance? It is all too easy to confess the sins of others from the past, but is John really saying that he, and the NSW General Assembly were complicit in cover up and punishing the abused? I can find so evidence for such a statement. In fact, the Wood Royal Commission in 1994 commended the Presbyterian Church of NSW for the policy known as ‘Breaking the Silence’.
What besmirches the churches’ reputation and dishonours God takes place when we admit to sins we didn’t commit and accept rumours as truth. Which is not to say that there were no cases of child abuse within the Presbyterian church (given the tens of thousands of people that would be extremely unlikely) but there is no evidence of systemic cover up of child abuse in the NSW presbyterian church. In the course of my ministry, I have had to deal with several cases of abuse and have sought to do so biblically, compassionately and in accordance with the laws of the land. Having reported these to the authorities they would doubtless have been recorded as abuse statistics. But they were all dealt with, and there was no cover up. Indeed in 33 years as a minister of the Free Church of Scotland I am not aware of any cover up of any child sexual abuse case by the denomination or its leaders. The evidence I have seen suggests that that is the same for the Presbyterian Church of NSW. We should not take on our shoulders the sins of other churches. That is between them and God. Which leads me on to the next principle.
- We must not take our view of the church from the world.
John tells us that the wider society and the NSW government view all Christian churches as one entity. I doubt that is true but even if it were – so what? I am not going to let the ‘wider society’ determine what the church should be and do. The Sydney Morning Herald test should never be part of our calculations. WWTSMHD should never replace WWJD!
- We must not use the Bible as Proof Texts for Political Points.
John cites David’s sin with Bathsheba, Jesus’s warning in Matthew 18:6-7 about causing little ones to stumble, and Jesus’s going through Samaria, as biblical support for the NSW Assembly deciding not to discuss the issue of women’s ordination, without first seeking to comply with one lawyer’s opinion of NSW government legislation on work, health and safety. I’m not sure that these have any direct bearing on what we are discussing – and even the indirect is so tenuous as to be a tautology. Yes, sin does have consequences; yes, we should seek to reach out to those not of our tribe, and yes, it’s an appalling thing to abuse children or cause them to stumble. But quite what that has to do with a discussion about women’s ordination, is beyond me! In fact, I would suggest that Jesus’s warning about the world causing harm to children is one that should make us very wary of handing over our ‘moral authority’ to the state. This is a state that thinks it is ok to teach children that they can change sex and that permits double mastectomies for teenagers just because they have a mental disorder. ‘Woe to the world because of things that cause people to stumble” (Matthew 18:7).
John then adds Ananias and Sapphira (lying to the Holy Spirit), the pornography of Pope Alexander VI and the sexual perversions of some Catholic leaders of Pascal’s day as further reasons for the NSW assembly to submit itself to the psychosocial work, health and safety demands of the state government, before we discuss the question of women’s ordination. It is not easy to see the connection! John seems to be putting two and two together and making 100! Is it really the case that because some professedly Christian leaders have behaved badly in the past, we should submit ourselves to the encroachments of the state government today?
- We must not give to Caesar what belongs to God
The notion that because the Church has failed in its moral authority and therefore has to hand that authority over to the state is a logically flawed and unwise proposal. Much more abuse has occurred in state institutions and under state laws than any other. And 99% of perpetrators got away with it because of the statute of limitations and the lack of hard evidence. The state is not the superior moral authority. Rather than submit ourselves to a highly questionable state authority for our morality, we should submit ourselves to the Head of the Church, and what he says in his word. Further we should be calling the state to account for the harm it permits to children through its policies.
It is illogical to claim that accepting the right of state to determine what measures the church has to adopt to alleviate psychosocial abuse, is not interference with church matters by the state. It is precisely that. Or rather it is the church saying to the state: “We bow before your authority, and we invite you to censure us if we don’t run our church the way you want.’ The majority of the Assembly failed to see the harm that the Trojan horse of psychosocial abuse and state-mandated ‘counselling and consultation’, would bring into the church. But we got a taste of it the next day when the Assembly descended into confusion and chaos, with people not being able to speak on some issues, others apologising for things others had done, and the whole Assembly being handicapped by itself!
The trouble is that ‘psychosocial’ can be used for anything. The Assembly, and by implication the lower courts of the church, won’t be able to make any decision without consultation and counselling for anyone potentially impacted by any decision. Presbyterianism is already bureaucratic enough without adding yet another controlling layer.
- We must not use worldly methods to get our way in the church. I hate church politics – including the manipulation of procedures and rules in order to get the outcome one desires. I have seen it far too often and it cripples the courts of the church.
John tells us that the decision of the NSW Assembly was to ensure an appropriate procedure was set in place and to set up a framework that is compatible with state legislation. The problem is who determines what is appropriate? The state government? The lawyers? The clerks? John’s position is to allow us to discuss whatever we want provided we only do so in a framework that is determined by state legislation. That is the very definition of Erastianism! The state has no business in telling us how we conduct our discussions, or what decisions we can make regarding our own leadership. Our far greater concern should be to have a church government and procedures which are compatible with the Bible.
I cannot envisage a situation where, for example, the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), delayed sending out its letter to the Gentile believers, without first of all sending it to a committee so that they could consider the civil law, and the psychosocial impact of it on idolaters, the sexually immoral and those who like black pudding!
Which brings us back to the real reason behind all of this mess. The question of women’s ordination. It was only after the Assembly passed legislation which would limit the eldership to men, that a letter was received threatening the church with state legislation under the Work, Health and Safety Act. To bow to that was both unwise and lacking courage. Unwise because it was done so on the basis of one legal opinion with the Assembly refusing to get a second one. And lacking courage because it now appears that we are open to being intimidated by any quasi-legal threat. Perhaps some saw this as an opportunity to put a spanner in the works. I hope that that was not the case.
I think it is patronising to women to suggest that they are a class of particularly vulnerable people who need the special protection of men. There are vulnerable women, as there are vulnerable men, ministers, youth workers, organists, flower arrangers, elders, deacons, dishwashers and doorkeepers. Due care and consideration should be taken of all. But the government of the church should not be handed over to penpushers, politicians and lawyers. If the Scripture says that only suitably qualified men can be elders, then that is what we must stick to. If the Scripture says that the office of elder is open to women, then that is what we must stick to. We have no option but to follow the head of the Church. If the State doesn’t like that – then so be it. Christ, not the Prime Minister, is head of the Church.
What does the future hold for England’s church-state relations? – CT
Some denominations do have major problems with hidden ill-treatment of adults or children. The Church of England has suffered negative comment when we read up on Canon Mike Pilavachi, John Smyth QC and Rev Jonathan Fletcher. House of Survivors (https://houseofsurvivors.org/) covers the breaking story at Blackburn Diocese in 13 reports on their ‘recent section’. The Church Times report is especially poignant and sad. My experience of Presbyterianism has always been positive on this score. Empowered membership and blunt integrity are what I perceive. The situation within Anglicanism feels much worse. An aristocratic cult of Bishop veneration, can at times perhaps leave victims and abuse witnesses out in the cold.
Is there not an Erastian situation which is decreed by God wherein the Church is allowed to fall under the command of its enemies due to its sins? The equivalent of a Babylonian Exile so to speak (Jeremiah 27:6-8).
In such a context, despite any debate, action or prayer, nothing will turn the main tide until, like Babylon, God “will bring again the captivity of my people”.
Would that apply here?
Thank you, David, for calling John Buchanan to account. I read his comments before yours and was dismayed. His accusations of past moral failure of church leadership, all anonymous, were gratuitous and for those without specific understanding, set up an entirely false narrative.
In almost 30 years membership of the Victorian General Assembly and one of its Presbyteries, I only ever observed concerted endeavours by these bodies to act in ways consistent with our Christian profession. For two of those years, I was Moderator. of the General Assembly.