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:

We see that Scripture as revelation is breathed out by God. Typically, one of the more technical descriptions used to refer to God’s breathing out of Scripture is verbal plenary inspiration. Inspiration refers to the way in which God led the writers of sacred Scripture, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to write down exactly what He desired them to write. While this did not strip them of their individual personalities or writing styles, divine inspiration insists that the words of the Bible are truly God’s words. 

Article III: “WE AFFIRM that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God. WE DENY that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.”
When The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was being prepared, the framers of this statement recognized in article III that the doctrine of the Bible’s inerrancy is directly tied to the doctrine of the Bible’s divine revelation. Only if the Bible is the inspired and revealed Word of God can it also be said to be inerrant, perfect, and without fault. The question that must be asked, however, is what exactly does it mean to affirm that the Word of God in its entirety is given by God?
Affirmation of Scripture as Revelation
We must first determine what is meant by revelation. When the term is used in reference to sacred Scripture, revelation refers to God’s supernatural disclosure of knowledge to the creation. It is perhaps of some interest that the book of Revelation is itself derived from the Greek title given to the book, Apokalypsis. This word means to unveil or reveal something. Thus, we can conclude that to say the Bible in its entirety is revelation given by God means that the Bible is God’s direct word to mankind revealing who He is, who man is, and what the purpose of the creation is. As revelation, it tells man what God expects of him, how he is to live, and what he is to do upon the earth.
Probably the most famous biblical text relating to the concept of revelation is 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which states, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” This text gives us both a helpful definition of what revelation is, plus a few practical ways that biblical revelation directs our lives.
In the first case, we see that Scripture as revelation is breathed out by God. Typically, one of the more technical descriptions used to refer to God’s breathing out of Scripture is verbal plenary inspiration. Inspiration refers to the way in which God led the writers of sacred Scripture, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to write down exactly what He desired them to write.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by T. M. Suffield |
Sunday, April 3, 2022
I’ve been reading through Ezekiel recently, with Robert Jenson’s commentary as a guide. The commentary is idiosyncratic and moves from flashes of brilliance to Jenson’s seeming admission that he doesn’t know what’s going on chapter by chapter. I haven’t been able to shake Jenson’s surprising conclusions about chapter one from my mind, though.

In Ezekiel chapter one, the prophet relates to us a bizarre and compelling vision he has of Yahweh enthroned on his chariot by the rivers of Babylon.
I’ve been reading through Ezekiel recently, with Robert Jenson’s commentary as a guide. The commentary is idiosyncratic and moves from flashes of brilliance to Jenson’s seeming admission that he doesn’t know what’s going on chapter by chapter. I haven’t been able to shake Jenson’s surprising conclusions about chapter one from my mind, though.
He contends that Ezekiel’s vision is a vision of Jesus.
So far, so obvious. I understand that some readers may be uncomfortable with a fully throated conviction that everything in the Old Testament is ultimately about Christ, and that this conviction is not pasted on as a later addition but is a natural and correct reading of the text as it is. But, if you are uncomfortable with that, I’m surprised you’ve stuck around—I’ve contended elsewhere that the first word of the Bible is about Jesus, so this is less out there than that.
Here’s the bit that got me though, you tell me Ezekiel has a vision of Jesus and what I think is: yes, Old Testament theophanies—direct encounters with God—are visions of the preincarnate second person of the Trinity or of Yahweh in his Triune glory, so we can use the shorthand ‘Jesus’ for that even if a pedantic theologian would pick us up on it.
That’s not what Jenson means. He means this is Jesus in the chariot. The incarnate Jesus. In Babylon during the exile.
I told you it was wild.
Jenson suggests that broadly the vision is a vision of incarnation because the division between the heavens and the earth—God’s place and ours—is overcome as the heavenly throne has been literally mounted on wheels (well, cherubim, wheeled eye covered winged lightening serpents that are lions with the face of men: or angels to you and I).
He goes further though. Ezekiel’s vision homes in on the figure in the chariot, above the throne. One with the “appearance”, “the figure of a man,” or as the ESV has it “a likeness with a human appearance.” This is a human figure who is lit with the brightness and fire of the whole vision, and it seems the brightness even emanates from him.
Read More