Gwallard
Puritan Board Freshman
I make this thread as an extension of the last thread, "On an Elder's Ability to Ban Church Members," ( https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/on-an-elders-ability-to-ban-church-members.105343/#post-1271936 ) because that thread is no longer open for replies (if a mod is reading this, what determines that?), and I have researched the topic more fully since that date. The paper I am posting below is not completely finished, as I still have to edit it more, add a few quotes and citations, and add the most complex argument, number 4. However, I will add those tomorrow and in the coming days. I would love critiques, if you are still interested in this topic! It has been a delving into ecclesiology, and I often feel out of my depth. This is the second rewrite of a more extensive paper that looked at Acts 15 more explicitly for the sake of understanding "Ordaining Power."
Take Ministerial and declarative as an example of feeling out of depth: it seems proved to me that pastoral power has ministerial and declarative character, but the intricacies of what that means are elusive. It is not coercive, because it is not the power of the keys, but how "ordaining power" interacts with that has been difficult to pin down. Bannerman, Calvin, and Turretin both say that it is for the avoidance of scandal, like Acts 15. However, it is something more than advice - as it comes from God's undershepherds - but less than a command - as elders have no authority to create laws. All this has made my opinions (shown in the last thread) about ordaining power being basically the equivalent of "circumstances" in the Regulative Principle of Worship more certain. Ordaining is only for the good order of the church, and should not be invoked unless the good order of the church is impossible without it, because to ordain is to constrain the conscience. Not to constrain it by new laws from God, but by more-than-advice from the pastor. Bannerman calls this an inverse relationship between Christian liberty of conscience and ordaining power. However, I find myself thinking there are very few - if any - legitimate applications of ordaining power. The Acts 15 declaration is the only one that I can find, and it still is confusing to me. Either way, I hope you will enjoy the unfinished article below.
___________________________________________________________
Introduction
Scripture has a storied history of banning. Although at first allowed the great freedom of eating from every tree of the garden save one, Adam and Eve were both banned – upon pain of death – from the garden paradise after their fall. Later, all save one tribe – the tribe of Levi - was banned from the holy places of tabernacle and temple, and all save one Levite, and that once a year were banned from the most holy place. However, these examples were both bans coming from God himself, and – as some may object - part of a time of greater strictness in the Old Testament. However, Some would argue banning is still within the purview of the elder in these last days, the overlap of the ages since Christ’s earthly work on the cross. Is banning allowed in the church after Christ, and if so, under what circumstances? Specifically, this paper will examine whether church officers ban other men from Sunday worship or church fellowship in our New Covenant context.
To understand this question, we must understand what is meant by banning. The type of banning that will be examined in this paper is defined as “a public declaration by a session to effect a sustained removal of a person (whether a member of that church or no) from the church building’s premises with or without conditions for reconciliation, and without the courts of the church or the state courts or powers involved.” As there are very few direct examinations of this problem, we will start from the general to the specific – defining the powers of ministers in general from scripture, then civic powers, then applying those general principles to this particular area with additional support from other loci of theology. I am arguing that the practice of banning as defined above is unscriptural, unhelpful, and should never be practiced by any Christian minister. This is because banning is 1) coercive, 2) against the free offer of the gospel, 3) a further punishment beyond excommunication, 4) beyond the scope of ordaining power, and 5) has never been practiced by faithful churches in history.
Take Ministerial and declarative as an example of feeling out of depth: it seems proved to me that pastoral power has ministerial and declarative character, but the intricacies of what that means are elusive. It is not coercive, because it is not the power of the keys, but how "ordaining power" interacts with that has been difficult to pin down. Bannerman, Calvin, and Turretin both say that it is for the avoidance of scandal, like Acts 15. However, it is something more than advice - as it comes from God's undershepherds - but less than a command - as elders have no authority to create laws. All this has made my opinions (shown in the last thread) about ordaining power being basically the equivalent of "circumstances" in the Regulative Principle of Worship more certain. Ordaining is only for the good order of the church, and should not be invoked unless the good order of the church is impossible without it, because to ordain is to constrain the conscience. Not to constrain it by new laws from God, but by more-than-advice from the pastor. Bannerman calls this an inverse relationship between Christian liberty of conscience and ordaining power. However, I find myself thinking there are very few - if any - legitimate applications of ordaining power. The Acts 15 declaration is the only one that I can find, and it still is confusing to me. Either way, I hope you will enjoy the unfinished article below.
___________________________________________________________
Introduction
Scripture has a storied history of banning. Although at first allowed the great freedom of eating from every tree of the garden save one, Adam and Eve were both banned – upon pain of death – from the garden paradise after their fall. Later, all save one tribe – the tribe of Levi - was banned from the holy places of tabernacle and temple, and all save one Levite, and that once a year were banned from the most holy place. However, these examples were both bans coming from God himself, and – as some may object - part of a time of greater strictness in the Old Testament. However, Some would argue banning is still within the purview of the elder in these last days, the overlap of the ages since Christ’s earthly work on the cross. Is banning allowed in the church after Christ, and if so, under what circumstances? Specifically, this paper will examine whether church officers ban other men from Sunday worship or church fellowship in our New Covenant context.
To understand this question, we must understand what is meant by banning. The type of banning that will be examined in this paper is defined as “a public declaration by a session to effect a sustained removal of a person (whether a member of that church or no) from the church building’s premises with or without conditions for reconciliation, and without the courts of the church or the state courts or powers involved.” As there are very few direct examinations of this problem, we will start from the general to the specific – defining the powers of ministers in general from scripture, then civic powers, then applying those general principles to this particular area with additional support from other loci of theology. I am arguing that the practice of banning as defined above is unscriptural, unhelpful, and should never be practiced by any Christian minister. This is because banning is 1) coercive, 2) against the free offer of the gospel, 3) a further punishment beyond excommunication, 4) beyond the scope of ordaining power, and 5) has never been practiced by faithful churches in history.