# Can the State convene religious councils?



## RamistThomist (Aug 22, 2007)

Given the concern for the separation of church and state, can the state convene religious councils? If the state does not have that prerogative, are such councils valid?


----------



## Kevin (Aug 23, 2007)

Since I am a presbyterian,of course I believe the state can & should convene religious councils.

That is just black letter presbyterianism.


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 23, 2007)

Since I am a Presbyterian, the civil magistrate can not interfere with the workings of the church per Chapter 23 & 31 of the WCF.

Would recommend David Hall's book on Confessional Subscription regarding the exception allowed by the Church of Scotland since the adoption of the Standards by that church concerning the role of the civil magistrate.


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 23, 2007)

I can't see how it would be legitimate without a godly State in the first place. 

Leaving Constitutional issues aside, I ponder the result of a President Clinton (or a President Bush for that matter) convening a religious council. Almost certainly Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Native American shamans would be invited, as would all the televangelists and apostate protestants. Would a solid believer in Christ even attend such a council? I doubt that I would. It would be a circus of fools.

So, for our wild and wicked day at least, the State should stay out of these matters altogether. The State has forfeited its authority to even participate in religious discussion at this point.


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 23, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> I can't see how it would be legitimate without a godly State in the first place.
> 
> Leaving Constitutional issues aside, I ponder the result of a President Clinton (or a President Bush for that matter) convening a religious council. Almost certainly Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Native American shamans would be invited, as would all the televangelists and apostate protestants. Would a solid believer in Christ even attend such a council? I doubt that I would. It would be a circus of fools.
> 
> So, for our wild and wicked day at least, the State should stay out of these matters altogether. The State has forfeited its authority to even participate in religious discussion at this point.



Even if we had a "godly" state, whatever that would look like, how would that work? Could the state set the agenda? Could the state overrule the decisions of a particular demonination? Would we have to institute a State Church to get some kind of consistency? How would the state deal with indepenent churches? How would we avoid Erastianism, which certainly isn't Presbyterian?


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 23, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> > I can't see how it would be legitimate without a godly State in the first place.
> ...





Actually, being a Baptist, I have at least as much fear of Erastianism as a good Presbyterian.

By godly state, of course, I meant only one which was ruled explicitly by our King. I think history has demonstrated how difficult it is for men to do this kind of ruling. I think that Scotland was the only country that came close, and it succumbed to the same failings that our country has.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 23, 2007)

As one of those "confessionalists" here on the PB, I feel obliged to copy and paste the original WCF (convened by Parliament, btw) on this subject (those who are not interested in what the confession has to say can feel free to disregard):



> Chapter XXXI.
> Of Synods and Councils.
> 
> I. For the better government, and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils.(a)
> ...


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 23, 2007)

It's kind of ironic I think that those who oppose the authority of the magistrate to call synods/councils accept the WCF who was conviened by the magistrate of the time. Oh the irony!


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 23, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> As one of those "confessionalists" here on the PB, I feel obliged to copy and paste the original WCF (convened by Parliament, btw) on this subject (those who are not interested in what the confession has to say can feel free to disregard):



That's odd, Andrew, my 1689 LB confession doesn't have this in it at all!  

Seriously, brother, I really respect this position. I yearn for it, even. My favorite historical period is that of the faithful Presbyterians seeking to establish a just and godly state. Still, my sentiments (whether pragmatic or concessional) fall on the side of Owen and Bunyan: that is, a suspicion that men will never get government right with regard to religion.


----------



## crhoades (Aug 23, 2007)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> It's kind of ironic I think that those who oppose the authority of the magistrate to call synods/councils accept the WCF who was conviened by the magistrate of the time. Oh the irony!


 
Let us not forget our 3FU Dutch brethren...Dordt was also called by the magistrate. Oh yeah,...Council of Nicea as well.


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 23, 2007)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> It's kind of ironic I think that those who oppose the authority of the magistrate to call synods/councils accept the WCF who was conviened by the magistrate of the time. Oh the irony!



Not really. As you are aware, the Church of Scotland was not too thrilled about the section on the magistrate. Again, I would recommend David Hall's book on Confessional Subscription.


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 23, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> > As one of those "confessionalists" here on the PB, I feel obliged to copy and paste the original WCF (convened by Parliament, btw) on this subject (those who are not interested in what the confession has to say can feel free to disregard):
> ...


 
You might also notice that the confession allows the church itself to call synods in cases where the magistrate is an open enemy to the church. My point is that I don't think that the confession (scripture) allows the magistrate to call a synod of let's say, muslims to get advice from on these matters, or something of the like. I agree that in today's day, many abuses of this authority would certainly happen, largely because we don't have a godly government. However, I see the confession as being idealistic in this regards, "if everything were as it should be".


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 23, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> Jeff_Bartel said:
> 
> 
> > It's kind of ironic I think that those who oppose the authority of the magistrate to call synods/councils accept the WCF who was conviened by the magistrate of the time. Oh the irony!
> ...


 
I am only a little aware of the reaction of the Scottish Church to the section on the magistrate. I know that my pastor believes that they were rejecting a mischaracterization of the confession on this point.

That aside, the issue is still that the English parliment still called for the synod that was the Westminster Assembly, who had delegates from Scotland that in good conscience could affirm even the section on the magistrate.


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 23, 2007)

If memory serves me right I believe that the Scots were commissioners and did not vote, though they had considerable influence. As you also know it is the Church that establishes doctrine for the Church, not individual theologians. So regardless of Rutherford or Gilispie's opinion the Church of Scotland allowed an exception for that chapter.

The following is an excerpt from a paper by Lig Duncan that was on the old CAPO site about the exception on chapter 23:

When the Church of Scotland adopted the Westminster Confession it specified two areas in which it disagreed with the Confession: (1) presbyterian polity [the Presbyterians of Scotland went on record as saying that the Confession's failure to articulate a full-blown jure divino Presbyterianism was not to be taken as an indication that the Church of Scotland was not fully committed to such] and (2) *the civil magistrate's right to call an Assembly [the Confession had granted to the magistrate the right to call ecclesiastical assemblies, as it had the Westminister Assembly (!), but the Scots said this applied only to "unsettled kirks' -- in other words, it was okay for the English to do this, once, because they didn't have their act together, but this will never be allowed here in Scotland where we have an honest-to-goodness Reformed Kirk and nation].*


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 23, 2007)

Cunningham's Discussion on Church Principles has invaluable information on the mind of the Westminster Assembly in relation to this section here:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/WCF/CunninghamWilliamChurchState.htm


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 23, 2007)

Wayne,

My point is that even if the Church of Scotland did take exception (which I am not sure of all the details), ministers do not vow to uphold the teachings of the church of Scotland. They vow to uphold the WCF, which WAS conveined by the civil magistrate at the time.


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 23, 2007)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Wayne,
> 
> My point is that even if the Church of Scotland did take exception (which I am not sure of all the details), ministers do not vow to uphold the teachings of the church of Scotland. They vow to uphold the WCF, which WAS conveined by the civil magistrate at the time.



No argument here!! 

When I took my subscription vows it was to the American version not the original. It is interesting to note that this exception from the Church of Scotland made its way into the 1789 American version.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 23, 2007)

For the record, the following is an extract from the Act approving the Westminster Confession of Faith which the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland passed on August 27, 1647:



> And the said Confession being, upon due examination thereof, found by the Assembly to be most agreeable to the Word of God, and in nothing contrary to the received doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of this Kirk.
> ...
> But, lest our intention and meaning be in some particulars misunderstood, it is hereby expressly declared and provided, That the not mentioning in this Confession the several sorts of ecclesiastical officers and assemblies, shall be no prejudice to the truth of Christ in these particulars, to be expressed fully in the Directory of Government. It is further declared, That the Assembly understandeth some parts of the second article of the thirty-one chapter only of kirks not settled, or constituted in point of government: And that although, in such kirks, a synod of Ministers, and other fit persons, may be called by the Magistrate's authority and nomination, without any other call, to consult and advise with about matters of religion; and although, likewise, the Ministers of Christ, without delegation from their churches, may of themselves, and by virtue of their office, meet together synodically in such kirks not yet constituted, yet neither of these ought to be done in kirks constituted and settled; it being always free to the Magistrate to advise the synods of Ministers and Ruling Elders, meeting upon delegation from their churches, either ordinarily, or, being indicted by his authority, occasionally, and pro re nata; it being also free to assemble together synodically, as well pro re data as at the ordinary times, upon delegation from the churches, by the intrinsic power received from Christ, as often as it is necessary for the good of the Church so to assemble, in case the Magistrate, to the detriment of the Church, withhold or deny his consent; the necessity of occasional assemblies being first remonstrate unto him by humble supplication.


----------



## Kevin (Aug 23, 2007)

Orthodox Theology--defined by synods called by civil government (Nicea, Chalcedon, etc.)

Reformed faith--defined by synods called by civil govt. (Dort, etc)

WCF--writen by a synod convened by the civil government.

WCF-- adopted by parlament for use in & by churches


QED.


----------



## Kevin (Aug 23, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> As one of those "confessionalists" here on the PB, I feel obliged to copy and paste the original WCF (convened by Parliament, btw) on this subject (those who are not interested in what the confession has to say can feel free to disregard):
> 
> 
> 
> ...







As I said, Black Letter Law.


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 23, 2007)

I understand that the ARP and the RPCNA hold to the orginal and that the original allowed the magistrate to call a synod or council. But as we all know, the Church has the authority to amend or even change their Confessions. 

So black letter law is not so black!


----------



## JohnV (Aug 23, 2007)

It seems to me that it makes sense for a state to want justice and equity. It would therefore be in the state's interest to abide by the Word of God, to rule and be ruled by the supreme Judge and King. Therefore it would be in the state's interest to call together the men of the true Church to be the spiritual leaders of people of the state. It would follow, therefore, that they ought to be calling synods on matters which involves the interests of the state. 

This is not to suggest that the state has authority over synods, to call or dismiss as if synods were convened only on the authority of the state. The state may and should call synods, but it is at the discretion of the churches whether they accept that call. A synod called by the state is not a called synod; a synod called by the Church in response to the state's request, though, is a synod. There should be no compelling churches to attend conferences or synods that are not wholly in agreement with the Word of God, or with the general or specific duties of such assemblies. Because each church is also a church on its own along with being a church within the whole, such a synod must seek and receive the approval of such churches. 

In other words, a synod called by our present governing bodies of state is pretty well an impossibility. The present-day culture makes it political suicide via the influences of poll and media. They may call, but few would answer. As much as we might need such a synod, no true church would respect a synod which must consist of a certain percentage of women, minority groups, representatives from other religions, etc., as delegates; and no state in our cultural atmosphere would dare call a synod without these definitions. 

I guess what I'm saying is that I think the state may and ought to call synods, but it's up to the churches to convene one at their discretion: it should not be that the churches ignore the state's request, but neither should the state ignore or disrespect the churches' sphere of authority.


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 23, 2007)

John,

Sounds like you're splitting the baby


----------



## JohnV (Aug 23, 2007)

Wayne:

Solomon wasn't giving his two cents worth; I am. That's the difference. There I go splitting again....


----------



## crhoades (Aug 23, 2007)

Check out _Jus Divinum's_ distinction between circa sacra and in sacris (think I got those right...been a while since I read it.)


----------



## Kevin (Aug 23, 2007)

Can we go so far as to say that when the church does convene a synod (itself without being convened by the civil power) that the church does so in its capacity as the "lesser magistrate"?

I am asking "is the power to convene a "civil power"?"


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 23, 2007)

Kevin said:


> Orthodox Theology--defined by synods called by civil government (Nicea, Chalcedon, etc.)
> 
> Reformed faith--defined by synods called by civil govt. (Dort, etc)
> 
> ...



Precisely.


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 23, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> > Orthodox Theology--defined by synods called by civil government (Nicea, Chalcedon, etc.)
> ...



J.

I don't think anyone would argue whether the State "did" call synods and councils. But this is the 21st century not the 16th or 17th. I assumed in your OP that you were asking whether they "can" today. Or maybe "should" they be able to today?


----------



## raderag (Aug 23, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Given the concern for the separation of church and state, can the state convene religious councils? If the state does not have that prerogative, are such councils valid?



If by the state, you mean the USA, then no as it is a violation of the establishment clause of the 1rst amendment. To do so would be lawlessness. I suppose we could amend the constitution.

BTW, Presbyterians would loose. 

We would be forced to preach Rick Warren sermons, have throw away our hymn books, and be provided powerpoint slides for the new and improved songs.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 23, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin said:
> ...



Why would it be wrong for it to do so today? Ok, I see where you are going. You will probably point out that the present state, even in its Republican manifestation, is not Christian. I agree.

Case study:
What if a collection of states, albeit small, were Christian (like the Confederacy), could they convene a religious council?


----------



## raderag (Aug 23, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> > Spear Dane said:
> ...



My 2 cents is that I think it is obvious that the Christian pluralism that the founders sought is impossible in todays world, and is being replaced by a secular statism. I think if we really had a Christian nation, we would need to consider all of the lessons of the past of state churches, secular countries, etc. I don't think we can totally ignore all of the knowledge of the enlightenment, but certainly we don't want more of the same. I think this would need to be a VERY long conversation, and one that was with the entire orthodox Church. Of course the state of the Church today is another problem.


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 23, 2007)

> Why would it be wrong for it to do so today? Ok, I see where you are going. You will probably point out that the present state, even in its Republican manifestation, is not Christian. I agree.
> 
> Case study:
> What if a collection of states, albeit small, were Christian (like the Confederacy), could they convene a religious council?



J.

Republican, Demoncat, Libertarian, Socialist (oh wait, I already mentioned Democrat. Sorry) it wouldn't matter. Besides, that's not my point.

Even considering the issues that raderag has mentioned, what makes the Church sub-serviant to the State in that it can call for the Church to meet? What does Jerusalem have to do with Washington D.C.? or Richmond? That's why I'm more than comfortable with the language of the American Version of the Standards.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 23, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> > Why would it be wrong for it to do so today? Ok, I see where you are going. You will probably point out that the present state, even in its Republican manifestation, is not Christian. I agree.
> >
> > Case study:
> > What if a collection of states, albeit small, were Christian (like the Confederacy), could they convene a religious council?
> ...



I am sensitive to that concern. I recently had a post about the spirituality of the church that is in agreement with what you are saying. Do I have a good answer to it? No, not really. I am trying to work out all the hard arguments of it.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 23, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Given the concern for the separation of church and state, can the state convene religious councils? If the state does not have that prerogative, are such councils valid?



The problem is that you cannot separate church and state. The only question is whether or not any particular state will enact proper laws concerning religion and churches. The reasoning is simply that no group can serve two or more masters. At some point there will be a "war" and one master will prevail.

CT


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Aug 23, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> Leaving Constitutional issues aside, I ponder the result of a President Clinton (or a President Bush for that matter) convening a religious council. Almost certainly Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Native American shamans would be invited, as would all the televangelists and apostate protestants.... It would be a circus of fools.



You've got that right brother. The only thing a "pooling of ignorance" provides is a place for fools to drown.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Aug 24, 2007)

I detect a conspicuous lack of Scripture references - which is rather significant.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 24, 2007)

Dieter Schneider said:


> I detect a conspicuous lack of Scripture references - which is rather significant.



Lack of references on which side?

CT


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 24, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> J.
> 
> Republican, Demoncat, Libertarian, Socialist (oh wait, I already mentioned Democrat. Sorry) it wouldn't matter. Besides, that's not my point.
> 
> Even considering the issues that raderag has mentioned, what makes the Church sub-serviant to the State in that it can call for the Church to meet? What does Jerusalem have to do with Washington D.C.? or Richmond? That's why I'm more than comfortable with the language of the American Version of the Standards.



But, if the visible church is made up of believers and unbelievers alike, it has everything to do with Washington D.C. and Richmond. Doesn't it?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 24, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> > J.
> ...



That raises another good point, while we can speak of the "spirituality of the church," what do we mean by spiritual?

*Something not extended into space? That can't work, since the church includes people, who are entities that do extend into space.

*Does spiritual refer to "spiritual" matters? If so, this still doesn't evade the force of the question, for Christ, being Lord, claims all of life. Are we not told to take "all thoughts captive to Christ?" (2 Corinthians 10:5)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 24, 2007)

If I am understanding my Bible correctly the two powers of Church and State are to exist side by side and be there for the benefit of the other. When one is lacking the other is to take up the defense and cause of God. The Government does rest upon his shoulders and he has been given all dominion for the benefit of the Church. 

In the last two millenia the Church and the Government were so closely associated that it was unavoidable for the Ruling powers to act. Now days we have a totally different situation. Maybe it needs repaired? 

What thinkest thou?


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 25, 2007)

> That raises another good point, while we can speak of the "spirituality of the church," what do we mean by spiritual?
> 
> *Something not extended into space? That can't work, since the church includes people, who are entities that do extend into space.
> 
> *Does spiritual refer to "spiritual" matters? If so, this still doesn't evade the force of the question, for Christ, being Lord, claims all of life. Are we not told to take "all thoughts captive to Christ?" (2 Corinthians 10:5)



The following from the OPC BCO may be of help with your question:

_All church power is only ministerial and declarative, for the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. No church judicatory may presume to bind the conscience by making laws on the basis of its own authority; all its decisions should be founded upon the Word of God. "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship" (Confession of Faith, XX, 2).

All church power is wholly moral or spiritual. No church officers or judicatories possess any civil jurisdiction; they may not inflict any civil penalties nor may they seek the aid of the civil power in the exercise of their jurisdiction further than may be necessary for civil protection and security._


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 25, 2007)

puritancovenanter said:


> If I am understanding my Bible correctly the two powers of Church and State are to exist side by side and be there for the benefit of the other. When one is lacking the other is to take up the defense and cause of God. The Government does rest upon his shoulders and he has been given all dominion for the benefit of the Church.
> 
> In the last two millenia the Church and the Government were so closely associated that it was unavoidable for the Ruling powers to act. Now days we have a totally different situation. Maybe it needs repaired?
> 
> What thinkest thou?



I think both are still closely related, the problem is that one side has attempted to not acknowledge their allegiance to God(state). The other has just thrown of its historical understanding of its role (church).That always leads to problems.

There is no way to be neutral on the subject, that is an enlightenment plague.

CT


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Sep 10, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> Dieter Schneider said:
> 
> 
> > I detect a conspicuous lack of Scripture references - which is rather significant.
> ...


Well - where in the NT does the Roman Empire get involved in councils?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 10, 2007)

Dieter Schneider said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > Dieter Schneider said:
> ...



That argument can't prove anything. It runs the risk of being an argument from silence fallacy. Where in the new testament does Paul mention the virgin birth? He doesn't. Therefore, Paul doesn't believe in the virgin birth.


----------

