In one of the most significant rulings in generations, the ABC reported in February that, ‘Justice Martin found the Police Commissioner failed to comply with this section of the Act [Human Rights] … based on this, declared that the QPS directions were unlawful.’

Essentially it meant that some Covid directions in Queensland for select professions were wrong and should not have been made.

Premier Steven Miles, who replaced the Covid-era Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, said in response that he had ‘no regrets’.

The government, its leaders, state police forces, and expert advisors whose purpose it is to uphold the sanctity of the law were found to have made serious errors in judgment. That these violations happened in the domain of Human Rights only compounds the severity of the problem in the view of Christianity, which views man as having inalienable rights being created in the image of God.

Not that this should come as a surprise.

The government appears to have breached Section 116 of the Constitution, ‘The Commonwealth shall not make any law … prohibiting the free exercise of any religion…’ by monitoring church communication, directing the implementation of draconian restrictions, and ultimately ordering church closures during Covid.

The result is a resounding end to the charade of apparent limitless obedience to ‘those in authority’ which has received a one-sided representation by many in Christendom.

Further highlighting the problem, several secular academics appear to have a more profound understanding of the wisdom of scripture than many whose profession it is to teach Christianity, with Indigenous academic Anthony Dillon and author James Lindsay referring to the importance of Matthew 10 in educating all facets of society: ‘Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.’

It is a verse with timeless relevance and with greater importance now than anytime in generations.

This chilling set of events during Covid should have triggered a stampede of leadership from every religious faith to hastily form committees comprising of the best and wisest the organisations have to offer to map out a response and plan of action. I am unaware of such meetings. Certainly, the Anglican diocese have had multiple synods all absent of meaningful action on examining the consequences of conceding to government diktats.

Little public consideration appears to have been given to conceding to church closures when spiritual, emotional, and physical consolation was most needed at the same time as indebting taxpaying parishioners by accepting what some view as blood money from self-ordained bureaucratic overseers in the form of handouts. The full list of impacts is overwhelming and includes undignified restrictions on funerals, devaluing the beauty and essential nature of marriage, and facilitating the systematic abuse of those already living in precarious situations.

In the wider view of government overreach into spiritual matters, it also strikes at the core of many of the virtues held for generations. This includes the sacrosanct view of life and concern around the role abortion played in the development of Covid vaccines. The US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas noted: ‘They object on religious grounds to all available Covid vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children.’ This was no secret, with many in the Christian community expressing concern over the role abortion played in the early development of Covid vaccines. Yet many in church leadership either mandated or strongly supported their use without due consideration or implication of contradicting established church teaching.

The scepticism churches should have had towards governments was recently expressed by former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson who noted, ‘It is disappointing to see the Prime Minister reneging on his election promise to protect religious freedom, and perhaps even oversee it going backwards as well…’ illustrating governments see churches as a tool, rather than a partner, to be used to achieve a desired outcome.

A Christian organisation should always be aware of the government’s perchance toward interference and should not be shackled to it.

Professor at Stanford School of Medicine Jay Bhattacharya commented, ‘A sentence to sum up the Covid era: the government censored dissidents to suppress public realisation that the government was the primary source of pandemic misinformation.’ With US Representative Thomas Massie adding, ‘The government censored dissidents to suppress public realisation that the government was the primary source of the pandemic.’

Many churches appear to desire avoiding the stark reality of life, preferring to lurk like Gollum from Lord of the Rings in some dark recess, hoping to remain unseen. Senator Gerard Rennick recently reminded us of former Prime Minister Robert Menzies, ‘It’s the supreme duty of every man to be unpopular in a good cause at some time in his life … if he’s always popular it probably means he’s run away from his problems … never be afraid to be different, because to dare to be wise is to dare to be different.’ The significance of this statement should be obvious to those who seek to represent the King of Kings. The Christ we remember at Easter, who was willing to sacrifice himself for us for no personal gain but because he recognised our infinite worth merely by existing.

The absence of support to those who take a stand consistent with Christian values has been conspicuous. This was recently illustrated by the silence offered to John Ruddick MLC in exposing the so-called Conversion Practices Ban Bill 2024. There is, however, an opportunity to change tact and embrace the magnificence and awe of what it means to be created in the image of God demonstrated through actions and speech. If Christian leaders won’t do it, who will?

History is clear, there will be a reckoning and an apology offered by churches for their actions and leadership during the Covid years, as Archbishop Glenn Davies did in 2018 in response to stories of abuse that occurred decades earlier:

‘I take the opportunity again to offer an apology on behalf of the Anglican Church in Sydney, where such abuses have happened in the past. That our Church was complicit in any way in these events, by ignoring them, disbelieving the testimony of survivors, or allowing sex offenders to continue their horrendous conduct in what should have been the safe environs of a church, is itself a matter of deep shame.’

He wasn’t alone. The heads of most mainstream churches followed suit. The question is, will the current leadership grasp the opportunity to reset the course of the narrative and reconcile the church to the community as a positive cultural influence, or wait for a future leader’s apology and risk shame and a tarnished legacy?

Peter in Acts 5 gave an emphatic response to the dilemma of who should be obeyed by proclaiming, ‘We must obey God rather than human beings!’ Further, it was the religious leaders who resisted the good news of Jesus being taught posing current church leadership with a dilemma and an opportunity. Will they assume the role of the Pharisees who willingly became subservient to government, or like the apostles who made mistakes, repented, and went on to be sources of salt and light to the world? The choice is clear, resist government attempts to determine the virtues of Christianity and the relationship between the church and its people or, as GK Chesterton warned, they will bear responsibility for government being crowned the King of Kings.