CASEY, VIC — Casey City Church has quietly adopted a new constitution that significantly restructures how authority, membership, discipline, and finances operate within the church—changes that critics say entrench leadership power while weakening congregational oversight.
The constitution, now publicly available through the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC), was approved internally and lodged as the church’s official governing document without public explanation or external review.
PDF: Constitution CCC
Unlike doctrinal statements or vision documents, a constitution is not aspirational. It is legally binding. Once adopted and lodged, it governs how a church functions, how leaders can be removed, how members can be disciplined, and how disputes are handled.
‘Pastor’ Larry Sebastian of Casey City Church with Guy Sebastian.
A close examination of the document shows that Casey City Church has not merely updated administrative language. It has rewritten the balance of power inside the church itself.
[Click to read the ‘Timeline and resources on Larry Sebastian of Casey City Church]
HOW THE CONSTITUTION WAS FORMED—AND WHY THAT MATTERS
According to the constitution and standard ACNC practice, the document did not require approval from any external authority, denomination, or regulator prior to adoption. Under Australian charity law, an incorporated association may, draft its own constitution internally; present it to its members; approve it via a members’ resolution (typically at an Annual or Special General Meeting) and then upload it to the ACNC as its governing document. That process appears to have occurred here.
In practical terms, this means Casey City Church members themselves voted to approve the constitution, a document that spans dozens of pages, contains dense legal language, and redefines fundamental member rights and obligations. There is no evidence the constitution was independently reviewed, externally audited or explained to members clause-by-clause prior to the vote. Once approved, the document was lodged with the ACNC, making it the church’s official legal framework.
This is a critical point: the ACNC does not vet constitutions for spiritual safety, power imbalance, or abuse risk. It records what an organisation submits. Responsibility for content rests entirely with the organisation—and, in this case, with the members who approved it.
In other words, the most far-reaching governance changes at Casey City Church were enacted internally and lawfully but without meaningful external accountability.
After closely reviewing the 50-page document reveals a governance model that experts in church accountability describe as high-control, non-transparent, and dangerous for ordinary members, particularly those who raise concerns or attempt to leave.
This is OUR analysis of CCC’s own governing document.
Permanent Leadership Class Written Into Law
At the heart of the constitution is the creation of a special and effectively permanent membership category: “Founding Pastor Members.”
The constitution states that only Larry Sebastian and Christa Sebastian may hold this status and that their membership may only cease under extremely limited circumstances, such as death, resignation, or expulsion for acting “in an inconsistent manner to the Scriptural beliefs of the Association” (Part 3, Clause 8.1(a)(i)(A)–(C), p. 12). Interestingly, no equivalent protection exists for any other member.
In plain terms, the senior pastors are constitutionally insulated from removal, while ordinary members remain fully disciplinable. There is NO elder accountability.
Tithing Made a Condition of Membership (and children?!?)
The constitution explicitly requires members to financially support the church by way of tithing in order to qualify for membership.
Under eligibility requirements, a person must:
“A natural person is eligible to apply to become a Member if the person:
…
(e) financially supports the Association by way of tithing (aside from Associate Members who are temporarily located in another place and are unable to regularly attend services and activities of the Association);”(Clause 7.1(e))
NOTE:
This requirement is not framed as voluntary generosity or spiritual discipline, but as a membership prerequisite. This stands in direct tension with New Covenant teaching on giving, which consistently emphasises freedom of conscience rather than compulsion. Under the New Covenant, financial giving is described as voluntary, proportionate, and flowing from personal conviction rather than institutional mandate: “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion” (2 Corinthians 9:7). Likewise, the apostle Paul deliberately rejects coercive authority in matters of Christian obedience, stating that church leaders are “not lording it over your faith, but working with you for your joy” (2 Corinthians 1:24).
The New Testament never establishes tithing as a condition of belonging to the church, nor does it attach financial contribution to membership status. Instead, believers are exhorted to give freely as an act of worship and love, not as an entry requirement or compliance mechanism (Acts 2:44–45; 1 Corinthians 16:1–2). By transforming giving into a formal condition of membership, the constitution moves beyond biblical exhortation and into institutional compulsion, a move the New Covenant explicitly warns against (Galatians 5:1).
More concerning, Junior Members, (children/teenagers), who must meet the same obligation unless temporarily unable to attend (Clauses 7.1(e), 8.1, pp. 4–5).
The constitution states that “A Junior Member ceases to be a Junior Member:”
“(i) upon resignation;
(ii) upon that person dying;
(iii) upon that Junior Member no longer satisfying the criteria for being a Junior Member pursuant to clause 8.2 (a); or
(iv) if removed from being a Junior Member by the Board.”(Clause 8.2(f))
In practical terms, the constitution places junior members (children) under the same compliance and disciplinary framework as adults. If a child fails to meet these requirements, including financial participation or submission to leadership, the constitution allows for disciplinary action that may result in loss of standing or expulsion from the church community.
In other words, a child’s continued belonging can be made contingent on compliance—functionally resembling a loss of salvation membership and spiritual standing within the church, even though the constitution itself does not use salvific language.
This must be noted:
This _____ qualifies as a form of abuse, specifically spiritual abuse, when evaluated against both biblical and safeguarding standards. Spiritual abuse is not defined by tone or intent, but by structure and effect. It occurs when spiritual authority is used to coerce, control, or condition belonging in ways Scripture does not authorise.
NOTE:
At this point, the constitution conditions belonging on compliance. When continued membership (and by extension, spiritual standing within the church community), is made contingent upon obedience to leadership and financial participation, authority shifts from pastoral care to behavioural control. Rather than encouraging voluntary discipleship, the structure places institutional requirements at the centre of belonging.
The constitution also applies adult compliance mechanisms to children. By requiring junior members to submit to spiritual oversight and meet financial expectations, the document places minors under authority structures they cannot meaningfully consent to. With Larry Sebastian and Casey City Church’s history, this raises red flags. This constitution creates a significant power imbalance without corresponding safeguards, contravening widely recognised child-protection principles and exposing children to undue pressure within a religious setting.
Further, the document blurs the line between discipline and belonging. Even without using explicit “salvation” language, membership within a church carries clear spiritual and relational significance—acceptance, inclusion, and legitimacy within the faith community. Conditioning that belonging on compliance effectively creates a performance-based system of acceptance, undermining New Testament teaching on grace and freedom of conscience.
Finally, the constitution removes meaningful avenues of protection or appeal. Where leadership retains control over disciplinary framing, timing, reinstatement, and legal protection—without independent oversight or external accountability—the risk of misuse is no longer theoretical. It becomes systemic, embedded within the governance structure itself.
Submission to Leadership Mandated
To qualify for membership, an individual:
“(e) financially supports the Association by way of tithing (aside from Associate Members who are temporarily located in another place and are unable to regularly attend services and activities of the Association);
(f) submits to the spiritual oversight of the Association;
(g) supports the Principal Purpose of the Association and agrees to comply with the terms of this Constitution and any code of conduct which the Board may produce from time to time;”(Clause 7.1(f))
The constitution provides no definition, limits, or safeguards around this “submission,” nor any appeal mechanism if leadership abuses that authority. There is no reciprocal requirement that leadership submit to the congregation. This clause effectively codifies spiritual control.
Leaving the Church Does Not End Financial Liability?
One of the most alarming provisions appears under cessation of membership.
The constitution states that resignation:
“A Member may at any time resign as a Member but will continue to be liable for any money due by the Member to the Association under this Constitution.”
(Clause 11.1(b))
Translated plainly: members may remain financially liable to the church even after leaving it.
The constitution does not define what “money due” includes, nor does it exclude pledges, commitments, or disputed obligations. For members seeking to leave an unhealthy or abusive environment, this clause creates a financial trap.
Public Discipline, Private Control
The disciplinary process outlined in Part 4 permits leadership to broadcast the grounds of discipline to the voting membership, followed by a public appeal meeting.
At these meetings:
“(a) At a Disciplinary Appeal Meeting:
(i) no business other than the question of the appeal may be conducted;
(ii) the Board must state the grounds for the disciplinary action and the reasons for taking that action; and
(iii) the Member that is the subject of the disciplinary action must be given an opportunity to be heard.”(Clause 13.6(a)(ii))
Members then vote by secret ballot on whether discipline is upheld:
“(b) After complying with clause 13.6(a), the Members present and entitled to vote at the meeting may vote by secret ballot on the question of whether
the decision to discipline the Member should be upheld or revoked.”
(Clause 13.6(b))
This structure also allows for public shaming (or potential shunning) without independent oversight.
However, the constitution also gives leadership control over the framing of allegations, the timing of disciplinary proceedings, and whether an expelled member is ever restored. While appeals are conducted in a public forum controlled by the Board, ultimate authority over reinstatement rests solely with leadership:
“A person may not be re-admitted as a Member after the person has been expelled, unless the Board passes a resolution to permit this.”
(Clause 13.8)
This structure allows for public shaming (or effective shunning), without independent oversight or any guaranteed pathway to restoration.
Leadership Legally Shielded Using Church Funds
Part 11 of the constitution provides sweeping indemnity protections for office holders (emphasis in red):
“The indemnity granted by the Association contained in clause 44.1 will continue in full force and effect notwithstanding the deletion or modification of that clause, in respect of acts and omissions occurring before the date of the deletion or modification.”
(Clause 44.3)
While leadership indemnity is mandatory, any legal support for ordinary members is purely discretionary (emphasis in red):
“Discretionary Indemnity
The Association may indemnify, to the extent permitted by law:(a) a person who is or has been a Member
(b) a person who is or has been an employee or a volunteer; and
(c) any other person that the Board sees fit to indemnify,against any loss, damage, liability, expense, or cost (including costs incurred in legal proceedings) incurred in good faith and arising in relation to their engagement with the Association.”
(Clause 44.2)
In effect, members’ tithes can be used to fund legal defence for leaders—even against members themselves.
The Casey City Church property (Image from tovchurch.org)
Board Power Without Congregational Checks
The Board is granted broad authority to manage church affairs, including finances, contracts, and property:
“Powers of the Board
A Board Meeting at which a quorum is present may exercise all the powers and discretions vested in or exercisable by the Board under this Constitution.”
(Clause 36.1)
Resolutions may be passed without a meeting, including via electronic means (emphasis in red):
“37.1 Putting a Resolution to be Passed without a Board Meeting
The Board may pass a resolution without a Board Meeting being held in accordance with this clause 37.37.2 How a Resolution is Passed without a Board Meeting
A resolution is passed by the Board without a meeting if all the Board Members entitled to vote on the resolution cast a vote in favour of it by agreeing to it in the manner set out in clause 37.3, subject to clause 37.5.37.3 Passing of a Resolution without a Board Meeting
The Board may pass a resolution without a Board Meeting by each Board Member signing a document setting out the resolution and containing a statement that they agree to the resolution. For this purpose:(a) signatures can be contained in more than one document; and
(b) an email which is received by the Association and which purports to have been sent by a Board Member is taken to be in writing and signed by that
Board Member at the time of the receipt of the email by the Association; and(c) a vote made by a Board Member using an online voting platform operated or commissioned by the Association is taken to be in writing and signed by
that Board Member at the time the vote was received by the online voting platform.37.4 When a Resolution without a Board Meeting is Passed
A resolution without a meeting is passed when the last Board Member entitled to vote on the resolution votes in favour of it by signing or otherwise agreeing to the resolution in the manner set out in clause 37.3, subject to clause 37.5.”(Clause 37.1-37.4)
And the constitution allows documents to be executed “in any other manner” authorised by the Board:
“The Association may execute a contract, deed or other document by the signature of:
(a) two Board Members; or
(b) if the Secretary is not a Board Member – a Board Member and the Secretary; or
(c) in any other manner authorised by the Board.”(Clause 45)
While options (a) and (b) appear to provide standard safeguards by requiring two authorised signatories, option (c) quietly overrides both by allowing the Board to approve “any other manner” of execution at its own discretion. The constitution does not require that this alternative method involve two signatures, be disclosed to members, or be subject to any form of independent oversight. In practical terms, this means safeguards that appear firm on paper can be set aside internally, without transparency or accountability.
(Note that there is no requirement for congregational approval of major financial decisions; independent auditing beyond statutory minimums; or external accountability.)
A Constitution Built for Control, Not Church Care
Taken together, the Casey City Church constitution establishes a governance framework that consolidates authority at the top while narrowing the rights and protections of ordinary members. It entrenches permanent pastoral authority, makes financial participation a condition of belonging, and requires submission to undefined “spiritual oversight” as a prerequisite for membership. The document formalises public disciplinary processes, permits ongoing financial liability even after a member resigns, and places legal and financial protections for leadership above those of the congregation. Rather than introducing transparency or shared accountability, the constitution codifies a system in which power flows in one direction and meaningful oversight is structurally absent.
These features are not incidental. They are structural, deliberate, and legally binding. For Christians reading this document, the issue is not a matter of personal preference or secondary differences in church governance. It is whether a church should operate in a manner that increasingly resembles corporate risk management and internal control mechanisms, rather than biblical shepherding marked by accountability, plurality, and care for the flock.
Casey City Church has a documented history of controversy and serious internal conflict (see timeline again here). While the adoption of a new constitution may appear designed to reassure members, regulators, and the broader public that past failures have been addressed, the content of the document suggests otherwise. Rather than correcting prior patterns, the constitution centralises authority, protects leadership, weakens congregational safeguards, and formalises practices that place spiritual compliance above transparency.
For current members and families, this raises unavoidable questions about the future direction of the church. A constitution does not describe intentions; it governs outcomes. Where authority is entrenched and oversight is removed, further harm becomes not only possible, but predictable.
(Still not sure? Readers are encouraged to examine the constitution directly and verify each clause cited above.)
Email all comments and questions to c3churchwatch@hotmail.com
“Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?” Galatians 4:16
Categories: New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), World Harvest Church