God and Caesar: Has Caesar crossed a line in the Faith Community Baptist Church adultery case?

The Separation of Church and State is a concept rooted in Christianity. It is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ:

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's;
and unto God the things that are God's.
(Matthew 22:21, KJV)

There are Two Kingdoms which God has ordained: the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of "Caesar", or the World. Martin Luther laid down a general theory of secular government in his treatise, "Secular Authority: To what extent it should be obeyed", which was published in 1523.

Among the important implications that flow from this are freedom of religion and the non-interference of secular government with spiritual matters.

Institutional autonomy of the Church
Freedom of religion and the non-interference of secular government with spiritual matters mandate that secular government should respect the autonomy of the Church.

The Catholic Church has since embraced a model which separates Church and State, and in its Note on the Catholic Church’s freedom and institutional autonomy, laid down one of the most articulate expositions on the autonomy of the Church:

1. The distinction between the Church and the political community

The Church recognizes the distinction between the Church and the political community, each of which has distinct ends; the Church is in no way confused with the political community and is not bound to any political system...

This distinction is based on the words of the Lord Jesus (Christ): "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s" (Mt 22:21). In their own areas, the political community and the Church are independent of each other and autonomous. When it is a question of areas which have both temporal and spiritual ends, such as marriage or the education of children, the Church is of the view that the civil power should exercise its authority while making sure not to damage the spiritual good of the faithful. The Church and the political community, however, cannot ignore one another; from different points of view they are at the service of the same people. They exercise this service all the more effectively for the good of all the more they strive for healthy mutual cooperation, as the Second Vatican Council expressed it (cf. Gaudium et spes, n. 76).

The distinction between the Church and the political community is ensured by respecting their reciprocal autonomy, which conditions their mutual freedom. The limits of this freedom are, for the State, to refrain from adopting measures which could do harm to the eternal salvation of the faithful, and, for the Church, to respect the public order of the State.

Therefore, the Church must be free from state interference in its internal affairs, including the "choice and formation of her co-workers and of the clergy", the "exercise of her Magisterium" and "pastoral care":

2. Freedom with respect to the State

The Church claims no privilege but asks that her freedom to carry out her mission in a pluralist society be fully respected and protected. The Church received this mission and this freedom from Jesus Christ, not from the State. The civil power should thus respect and protect the freedom and autonomy of the Church and in no way prevent her from fully carrying out her mission, which consists in leading the faithful, by her teaching, sacraments, prayers and laws, to their eternal end.

The Church’s freedom should be recognized by the civil power with regard to all that concerns her mission, whether it is a matter of the institutional organization of the Church (choice and formation of her co-workers and of the clergy, choice of bishops, internal communication between the Holy See, the bishops and faithful, the founding and governing of institutes of religious life, the publication and distribution of written texts, the possession and administration of temporal goods …), or the fulfilment of her mission towards the faithful (especially by the exercise of her Magisterium, the celebration of public worship, the administration of the sacraments and pastoral care).

Separation of Church and State under the Singapore Constitution
Is the Separation of Church and State found in the Singapore Constitution?
 
The secular nature of the Singapore Constitution is implied by the fact that the State does not discriminate between citizens on the basis of religion (Article 12(2)). In contrast with the Malaysian Federal Constitution, which declares that "Islam is the religion of the Federation" (Article 3(1)), Singapore does not declare any religion to be the "official religion". In fact, the Constitutional Commission of 1966, led by then-Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin, referred to Singapore as a "democratic secular state" in which it would be inappropriate to "[single] out a particular religion for special treatment".

However, the Singapore State is not anti-religious, since religious freedom is protected as a fundamental right under Article 15 of the Constitution. The government also places a very strong emphasis on the importance of religious harmony.

Institutional autonomy of religious groups, including churches, is guaranteed under the Singapore Constitution. Article 15(3)(a) guarantees the right to every religious group "to manage its own religious affairs", subject to "any general law relating to public order, public health or morality":

Freedom of religion 

15.—...

(3)  Every religious group has the right —

(a) to manage its own religious affairs; 

...

(4)  This Article does not authorise any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.

Further, in order to preserve the autonomy of religious groups, an express exemption from the right to equal protection of the laws is provided for under Article 12(3)(a), by allowing "any provision or practice restricting office or employment connected with the affairs of any religion, or of an institution managed by a group professing any religion, to persons professing that religion." Hence, for example, a church may choose to employ only Christians, even though this essentially discriminates against non-Christians on the basis of religion.

Faith Community Baptist Church Adultery Case

The Faith Community Baptist Church (FCBC) case involved a woman in her late 30s who was a member and also employed as a worker in the church. She handled administrative and coordination work for the church, and was involved in the Marriage Preparation Course. She had an extra-marital relationship with a fellow colleague and became pregnant. 

She refused to confess and repent, to cease her sexual misconduct, and to come under the discipline of the pastors to assist her throughout the term of her pregnancy thereafter. The church fired her from her job on the basis of her adultery.

The woman complained to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), which directed the church to pay her about $7,000, including maternity benefits. The church refused, on the basis that its employees and members were expected to adhere to certain moral standards.

Eventually, the church compensated the woman, but made it clear to the ministry that it will not concede that the dismissal was unjust. According to Pastor Lawrence Khong, "We are a church. If we concede that the dismissal was unjust, it means we are condoning adultery and it will weaken our moral and spiritual authority in the organisation."

Has Caesar crossed a line in the Faith Community Baptist Church adultery case?

Has the Singapore government crossed a line here by ordering FCBC to compensate the woman it fired for adultery?

The answer is yes.

Church discipline is an important part of the church's mission. A church which is dedicated to the consistent preaching of God's Word must exercise church discipline to preserve the purity of the Gospel message.

Since the Bible is clear that adultery is sin (John 8:1-11; 1 Corinthians 6:9), the church was correct to have called upon her to confess and repent from her sins. It was when she remained unrepentant that the church sacked her from her job. FCBC's actions are entirely justified on the basis of the Bible.

In such matters, the church must be free from state interference in its internal affairs, including the "choice and formation of her co-workers" and "pastoral care", as discussed earlier. MOM had overstepped the limits of its secular authority.

In early October, FCBC petitioned the Singapore Courts for judicial review of MOM's order, arguing on the basis of Article 15(3)(a) of the Singapore Constitution that FCBC has the right "to manage its own religious affairs".

Senior Pastor Lawrence Khong made the following statement on his Facebook page:

Further to my statement of 26 August 2013 (officially announced through Faith Community Baptist Church’s (FCBC) corporate website and various electronic platforms), after much deliberation, FCBC has appealed to the Supreme Court with respect to Minister's decision ordering the Church to pay the requisite compensation as reported in the media.

FCBC has always been respectful of the governmental authorities. We are constantly praying for and interacting with them as they lead the nation. This continues to be so. The fact that we have paid the compensation amount as ordered after consideration bears testament to our stand.

Having said that, whilst we respect the authorities and believe that they have been established by God over us, in light of Minister's decision, we are concerned about any far-reaching repercussions this decision has on FCBC as a church or for that matter all religious organisations, in our continuous attempts to uphold the values of our faith as we lead and watch over our flock.

Specifically, we sincerely hope that the Courts can give guidance on where we stand with reference to the constitutional rights of religious bodies in the management of their religious affairs, which we believe include the hiring and dismissal of staff, the moral standards expected of staff at a level that reflects the ethos and values of the organisation. We also hope to stand guided in terms of understanding the process involved in any dismissal scenario, should a similar incident unfortunately happen again.

We are mindful of the gravity of this application, and we recognise any outcome may have a bearing beyond our own organisation and affect the religious community at large - Christian or otherwise. We therefore trust and pray that the Courts will be able to help us move forward as an organisation that seeks to uphold the values of God - yet coexisting with all in our secular society that thrives on democracy and religious freedom.

Continue to pray for the church, the government and religious freedom in Singapore.