Just as the notion of “harm” is being used to limit freedom of speech, so the notion of health and safety (and its expansion beyond the physical to the psycho-social) will be used to limit the freedom of the Church to govern itself. We must not wait until it is too late. Now is the time to declare that we stand under the Bible, and that the State too stands under the judgement of God’s word.

The Two Kingdoms
In 1596 one of the most famous scenes in Presbyterian history took place. Andrew Melville, a well-known Scottish minister was summoned to appear before King James to answer for his opposition to the ‘Black Acts’, which sought to impose the King’s desire for bishops on the Church of Scotland. Melville told the King: “I must tell you, there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland: there is King James the head of this commonwealth, and there is Christ Jesus the King of the church, whose subject James the sixth is, and of whose kingdom he is not a king, nor a lord, nor a head, but a member. Sir, those whom Christ has called and commanded to watch over his church, have power and authority from him to govern his spiritual kingdom both jointly and severally; the which no Christian king or prince should control and discharge, but fortify and assist; otherwise, they are not faithful subjects of Christ and members of his church.”
The history of Scottish Presbyterianism, from the Reformation, through to the Covenanters and the Free Church Disruption of 1843, is the history of the two kingdoms. This is also true of Presbyterians throughout the world. We are not theocrats. We do not believe that the Church has the right to tell the State how to govern. But neither are we Erastians—we do not accept that the State has the right to tell the Church how we should be governed.
The Australian Presbyterian church was set up on that basis. So was the Australian constitution, which declares in section 116 that the Commonwealth was banned from making any law which would prohibit the free exercise of religion.
However, there is an enormous danger that the Presbyterian churches in Australia could forget their historical, confessional and biblical roots—by adopting a 21st century version of Erastian Church/State relations.
Today’s Cultural Background
The cultural background to this situation is that we live in a society which is rejecting its Christian roots. Rather than there being two kingdoms, there is in effect only one—that of the State. The government, instead of accepting that it has a limited role, is now setting itself up as God, determining what is right and wrong, for everyone. This is seen in terms of business, academia, media, sport and most significantly for us—education, the family and the church. Ultimately Caesar does not mind if we exist, as long as we acknowledge Caesar as Lord (i.e. the Supreme Authority) in everything.
Chaos and Confusion
As an observer to last week’s New South Wales General Assembly, I saw at first hand the confusion and chaos that the acceptance of this Erastian doctrine causes us.
The situation arose out of a decision which in effect binds the Assembly from making any decisions without first of all, conforming with the NSW government’s Work Health and Safety Act. Under this Act we were told that all office bearers, staff and volunteers were to be considered workers—and therefore the Act would apply to them. Accordingly, no change can occur without consulting all workers and addressing any concerns they may have. The Assembly were told that all members of the Assembly were to be regarded as PCBU’s (Persons Conducting a Business Undertaking) and were individually legally responsible to consult every ‘worker’. We were also told that this includes not only actual volunteers but those who might ‘aspire to the role’. In other words, everyone. By requiring ‘consultation with all workers’ (i.e. anyone who does anything within the Church), we are in danger of forsaking the basic principles of Presbyterianism, that we have government by elders and that we are not Independents or governed by votes on each issue. Nor are we be governed by ‘experts’, lawyers or focus groups.
This is all done with the worthy aim of protecting workers’ health. Health in the Act includes psychosocial effects. Counselling should be offered and, in some cases, even the consultation should not take place until the relevant risks were minimised. This all arose because of a threatening letter which the General Office received before the 2023 Assembly. In response, everything was put on hold.
The presenting issue was the decision of the Assembly to seek to draw up legislation which would permit only male elders. I have no desire to get into that issue in this article—(although I think it is important, especially where the biblical teaching has been misused to disguise or justify misogyny.) My whole point is that that is a question for the Church to determine, not the State. My concern is with people who use the civil law in order to control what the Church can and cannot do—on whatever side of whatever issue.
The Assembly decided that, amongst other things, “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 result of this decision was to make the Assembly one of the most confused and chaotic I have ever witnessed. We had reports on the Women’s committee and from the Elders committee, which we were not allowed to discuss fully. Decisions were made on the basis of legal advice that we were not allowed to see (although we were told that we were legally liable for it!). A second legal opinion was asked for and refused. A motion limiting discussion was itself passed without discussion. (I am not telling tales out of court. This was all done and decided in public. As an observer, I observed).
State-Sponsored Pharisaism
I am sure that most of this was done with good intentions. The decision makers wanted to protect the Church, and also to deal with some of the injustices that some women have faced over the years. In that they were right. The trouble is that the decision did neither, and in fact may have made both worse. If you can’t talk about a subject, then you can’t deal with it. And if you limit the discussion to the confines of the WHS Act, you have placed the Church in an unbiblical bind. The root meaning of the word ‘religio’ means ‘to bind’. Ironically, by allowing the State to be our rule maker and supreme governor we have ended up in a bind that will cripple us—a kind of State-sponsored Pharisaism. To paraphrase an article in the Spectator (on a different subject): “Our Presbyterianism is in danger of wrapping ourselves in bureaucratic bandages to manufacture the visage of life and competence, even as holiness and courage evaporate”.
What’s Wrong with Wanting to Obey the State?
Why do I say this? What can be wrong with just simply obeying the law of the State, especially when that law is designed to prevent harm? That is a good and reasonable question. But it all depends on:
a) how much you trust the State to make the laws of the Church,b) what is meant by harm?c) whether the State has authority over the Church.
Some of the arguments made in the Assembly were quite disturbing. For example, we were told that we should always want to follow the Word of God first, but it should not be the first box to tick. On the contrary, it should be the first and the last tick in the order—the alpha and omega of all we decide!
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Robert A.J. Gagnon |
Tuesday, March 28, 2023
Christians who attend a “gay wedding” should be honest with themselves and announce publicly that they have changed their mind about homosexual practice in key ways that deviate from the only witness of Scripture. They will eventually come to that realization in the not-too-distant-future if they aren’t already putting on a fake mask now.

The question as to whether it is right and loving for a faithful believer in Christ to go to a same-sex “wedding” should be answered from a Christ-centered, biblical perspective. If the reader agrees with that premise, then the moral answer is a relatively easy one: Certainly not.
To be sure, carrying out this answer when invited to a same-sex wedding involving a family member, friend, or employer may create internal disquiet in the faithful Christian. It might lead to a severance of relationship or affect one’s job. Yet Christians are never assured by God that doing what is truly right and loving will never come at a cost. Quite the opposite. I will come back to why it is a scripturally easy answer; but first I want to note the differing opinion of some prominent Evangelicals.
Some Evangelicals Who Answer “Yes” or Allow a “Yes”
Some Evangelical leaders today who claim to accept (or at least once accepted) the scriptural view that homosexual practice is a sin do not see the answer as a certain “No.” Timothy Dalrymple, the CEO and President of Christianity Today, formerly the flagship magazine of Evangelicalism, actually attended a “gay wedding” in 2019, where he engaged in activities that could only be characterized as celebratory. His defense to me was that the employee who invited him was a dear friend to whom Timothy’s attendance meant a lot. So he went, albeit telling his friend that he held to a “traditional view of marriage.” For him it was “a Romans 14 issue,” a decision left to each Christian’s Spirit-led conscience.
Similarly, when addressing whether a Christian can attend a same-sex “wedding,” Focus on the Family called it “a Romans 14 issue” and cited Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman in John 4 as an example of how Jesus “scandalously overleapt all of the social barriers in order to show His love and concern for her,” but without expressing “approval for her lifestyle or behavior.” It seems that Focus uses John 4 in part to indicate that one could attend a “gay wedding.” Yet nothing in that text suggests that Jesus would have attended an immoral wedding ceremony, least of all one celebrating a woman being married to another woman.
Preston Sprinkle, a biblical scholar who heads up his Center for Faith, Sexuality & Gender, thinks that saying “yes” to an invitation to attend a “gay wedding” is one of the options that “can be faithful to the biblical view that marriage is between two sexually different persons—as long as you don’t send mixed signals to the couple getting married.” He too appeals to Romans 14. He even advises parents to attend their child’s “gay wedding” lest they be shut out of their child’s life forever (and grandkids!) and miss an “opportunity to embody Christ’s love in your son/daughter’s life.” This is responding to the child’s manipulation and extortion to do evil, setting a pattern that will eventually lead to de facto, if not explicit, acceptance of the child’s immoral actions.
Megachurch pastor Andy Stanley is reported by one pastor as saying at a meeting with pastors (corroborated by other pastors present), “I don’t do gay weddings, but I can’t say I would never do a gay wedding. . . . If my granddaughter asked me someday, maybe I would” (also this). However, these are probably not the words of a Christian pastor who still believes homosexual unions to be sinful. Stanley, who has been drifting toward acceptance of homosexual unions for at least a decade, employs counselors like Debbie Causey who direct Christians struggling with same-sex attraction to ministries that affirm homosexual practice.
Not “a Romans 14 Issue” as the Analogue of Incest in 1 Corinthians 5 Shows
Attending a “gay wedding” is not “a Romans 14 issue” where believers can agree to disagree over matters of indifference like eating meat or not, which do not determine entrance into the kingdom of God (Rom. 14:17). Those who think otherwise either have difficulty reasoning analogically on this matter or else have departed in some way from the scriptural view of homosexual practice. They use arguments like wanting to stay in relationship with a “gay” family member or friend; imitating Jesus’ practice of eating with sinners; or comparing attending a “gay wedding” to attending a wedding of a divorced believer.
All these arguments can easily be seen as wanting if one compares attending a “gay wedding” to its most appropriate analogue: Attending an incestuous wedding between consenting adults “committed” to one another—for example, a man and his mother, or a woman and her brother. There may even be a “genetic sexual attraction” between close kin who are reunited late in life (see also this, this, this, and this). Incestuous unions are comparable to homosexual unions in terms of degree of severity (though from a biblical perspective homosexual practice is even worse) and problematic aspect (sex with another who is too much of an embodied same, whether as regards kinship or gender).
Paul’s response to the incestuous man in 1 Corinthians 5 gives us a good indication of what Paul’s response to attending a “gay wedding” would have been. True, Paul doesn’t mention that the self-professed Christian man who is in a sexual relationship with his stepmother is getting married to his stepmother. Yet, given Paul’s overall reaction to the situation, it is historically absurd to contend that Paul would have given his consent to their attendance of such an incestuous wedding, had it been requested.
The Corinthian response of being “puffed up,” inflated with pride, at their ability to tolerate an incestuous relationship, certainly made matters worse. That does not mean, though, that had they made clear to the incestuous man their disapproval of the relationship, Paul would have approved their attendance of a wedding between the two.
Paul insists rather that the Corinthian believers should “mourn” his actions, because it puts the offender at high risk of exclusion from God’s kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9–10). One mourns at a funeral. A person cannot go to a wedding mourning, since the entire point of the event is to celebrate the rendering permanent of the union. Marriage involves a commitment to stay in the union permanently. In this case, the parties would be declaring their intent to sin egregiously as long as they live, and celebrating that declaration. A believer can’t attend such a ceremony.
Indeed, Paul recommends that the Corinthians put the incestuous man, who “calls himself a brother [i.e. a believer],” out of the community (“remove from your midst the one who did/does this deed”), to cease “associating with” him, “not even to eat with such a one” (1 Cor. 5:2, 11). Obviously, such injunctions preclude something much worse: Going to the wedding of a man celebrating the grave immorality of incest. Going to a wedding that celebrates a gravely immoral union would be comparable to going to a ritual celebrating a person’s suicide or self-immolation.
Paul’s Act of Love in the Face of Today’s Excuse to Stay in Relationship
Paul’s actions may seem harsh, but Paul’s hope was to yet save the offender’s “spirit . . . on the day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5:5). Paul’s actions are remedial, not punitive. The offender needs a massive wake-up call; otherwise, he is heading to hell in a hand basket. He does not need further accommodations to his death-inducing immorality by the church. Paul wants the incest to have stopped yesterday, for the sake of the offender (whom he seeks to reclaim), for the sake of the community (whose accommodations to immorality are threatening their existence), and for the sake of God (who expended the ultimate cost to redeem them, the atoning death of his Son).
We should bear in mind that this is the same Paul who wrote in marvelous praise of love just eight chapters later in the same letter. Paul did not violate that praise in the actions that he took toward the incestuous man.
To claim that Paul gives us no advice as to whether a believer can attend an incestuous wedding, making it “a Romans 14 issue,” would be historically ridiculous. Paul’s remarks in 1 Corinthians 5 make crystal clear that there is no way that he would have condoned attendance at such a celebration of immorality. Try any of the arguments that some Christians use to justify attendance at a “gay wedding” and see if they work well for an incestuous “wedding.” For example:
“It is better to go to an incestuous wedding and stay in a relationship with a person who wants to marry a parent or sibling than it is to not go and thereby cut oneself off from future opportunities to witness to Christ.” Do you think such an argument would pass muster for Paul, much less for Jesus? Attending an incestuous wedding communicates acceptance even if you tell your incestuous friend that you do not approve of incestuous unions.
Read More
Related Posts:

This life is filled with many trials and hardships. Satan and his minions would tempt us away from God and His Word. An unbelieving society would assail us, persecute us, and call us traitors to our own species. They may even throw us in prison or kill us for having the audacity to hold fast to the Word of Christ. The pandemic lockdowns have even brought with them actual persecution during corporate worship gatherings, eerily reminiscent to the setting of this psalm of ascent. Yet the confident assurance of the psalmist must be ours. Though we walk through the valley of the shadow of death, we need not fear, because He is with us and keeps us for all eternity.

Wandering eyes are bad harbinger in Scripture. From the opening chapters of Genesis, when Eve looked at the tree and saw that it was good for food and “a delight to the eyes,” humanity’s false reliance on sight is a consistent theme. From Lot to David, whenever an individual sees that something appeals to their sense of sight, sin and disaster follow closely behind. The opening line of Psalm 121 then should immediately strike us with an impending sense of disaster. This sense is exacerbated by the object of the psalmist’s gaze: the hills. Written to be sung on the march to Jerusalem for worship, the worshippers were quite literally passing through a valley of the shadow of death. Vandals and thieves inhabited those hills, lying in wait for the estranged traveler to traverse those hidden and treacherous roads alone. They would jump out from the many hidden places to attack and steal. The road to Jerusalem was a dangerous way. The listeners to Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan, who was attacked in this very manner, would have understood the situation perfectly. So when casting one’s eyes up to the mountains, the natural question is exactly what follows: where does my help come from?
The answer of the psalmist is immediate and definite. The Lord is his help, the Lord who is Creator of all things. The contrast is sharp: the thieves may inhabit those hills, but it is the Lord who made them and who commands their very existence. The psalmist expresses swift confidence that he has nothing to fear on his journey to worship, because the God that he worships is the maker of heaven and earth. But this confident assurance is not mere comfort for the psalmist; it is polemical. Notice how the personage switches from first to third: “He will not let your….” The psalmist’s profession of faith is not merely personal but is instructive for all those who walk the same path. The psalmist almost wills that his readers and singers express the same trust that he displays. But what further evidence does he provide for the recipients of his message?
The psalmist highlights two truths about God by using two images: sleeping and shading. In verses 3-4, the psalmist reminds the listener that God doesn’t sleep.
Read More
Related Posts: