Church - State: limitations of authority

[JohnV]

What areas of authority apply to each the Church and the State? What limitations does the Scripture put on each? What may the Church not impose on, and what may the State not impose on?

In the past, whenever the Church took up the power of the sword, it often used that authority against the wrong people, against those who were steadfast in the faith instead of against real criminals or heretics. It abused that authority. But did the Church ever really have that authority?

In the case of Servetus we often judge that as being a case of over-punishing by the Church? But was it? Is it not more dangerous to have a Servetus walking around than the way we allow drug-dealers, or sexual offenders walk around? I'm not justifying anything, just asking whether maybe sometimes the Church ought to carry a sword.

And in the present we have the State legislating morality, but defining morality according to arbitrary standards. That is abusing that authority. But does the State have authority at all to legislate morality? How can it make laws without legislating morality?

I'm not asking what the definition of Church / State separation is; I'm asking what the limitations of each is? I just gave the above as general examples. I'm open to any limitations you might think appropriate.

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by JohnV
What areas of authority apply to each the Church and the State? What limitations does the Scripture put on each? What may the Church not impose on, and what may the State not impose on?

In the past, whenever the Church took up the power of the sword, it often used that authority against the wrong people, against those who were steadfast in the faith instead of against real criminals or heretics. It abused that authority. But did the Church ever really have that authority?

In the case of Servetus we often judge that as being a case of over-punishing by the Church? But was it? Is it not more dangerous to have a Servetus walking around than the way we allow drug-dealers, or sexual offenders walk around? I'm not justifying anything, just asking whether maybe sometimes the Church ought to carry a sword.

And in the present we have the State legislating morality, but defining morality according to arbitrary standards. That is abusing that authority. But does the State have authority at all to legislate morality? How can it make laws without legislating morality?

I'm not asking what the definition of Church / State separation is; I'm asking what the limitations of each is? I just gave the above as general examples. I'm open to any limitations you might think appropriate.

Not really answers but a couple of observations...Servetus was ultimately condemned and judged by the "state" of Geneva, not the church. Calvin even pleaded with them for a more humane execution - beheading - not burning. So ultimately the church ruled that he was a blasphemer and a heretic and the state did their business (if you grant that the state should punish the first table - and you do.)

As far as the limitations goes - first things first - principles of determining the answers. you stated above - "What limitations does the Scripture put on each?" and I think that is the right starting point. But that's the rub isn't it! OT or NT? Mosaic Judicials or no? This brings up the dreaded "t" word again (of which I don't have time to beat the dead horse right now...) As an assertion, I think the Bible can pretty clearly limit Church, State, Family, Commerce etc.

I think a starting point that all Christians *should* be able to agree with is: Ultimate limitation on both church and state is God Himself. He is sovereign therefore neither the State nor the Church is. By definition as creatures and created institutions, we are limited. The church moreso in the sense that the Bible lays out our limitations more specifically (although doesn't this bring up RPW and the Lutheran idea of whatever isn't forbidden is allowed?), whereas there would be more debate on the limitations of State by the Bible.

What I always think is a thread killer regardless if one is theonomic or not is when someone wants to point to Josiah, David, Moses or any other illustration from the OT and is met with - "yeah but Israel was a theocracy and we are in a different period in redemptive history". Yes that statement is true but I think it is misapplied in most cases. Even if one doesn't want to grant full blown theonomy of legislating the judicials, one has to grant that we should at least look to them for wisdom at certain levels...

Anyhoo...Great questions - should be a good thread. I'm just trying to point out that it will be interesting to see people's foundations for the limitations that they give to your questions. You could probably guess a lot of mine already.

 

[crhoades]

On a side note that you'll appreciate - I've been reading more and more into Beza, Bucer, Althusius, Bullinger, Mornay, Viret, Rutherford, Goodman etc. in all things civil magistrate and law. So I'm getting some pre Rushdoony, North, and Bahnsen perspectives on things as well. Funny thing is, there's not a whole lot of difference. Most people that would have problems with theonomy would have problems with those guys as they weren't pluralists. I know you don't fit in that category, nor Andrew, nor a whole host of people on the board. But interesting nonetheless.

In case this post got buried - bump!
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=12256

Here is some online Reformational Political Tracts that should definitely address your questions. Good stuff!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

As a point of reference, I would refer folks to Chris' thread which collates Reformed confessions on the civil magistrate and his thread which contains a bibliography on magistracy and church-state relations.

In particular, I would highlight Bannerman's The Church of Christ, Cunningham's Discussions on Church Principles and Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism which all treat the boundaries of civil and ecclesiastical government very ably.

 

[RamistThomist]

I always find it encouraging that people phrase the issue in terms stated above. Far too many Reformed folks extrapolate Romans 13 from the Bible and say, "well, we just have to take it on the chin." When people reject that unbiblical (and highly unreformed assumption), they are incorporating politics into a biblical worldview.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I suggest Jus Divinum as it is a document written for the Westminster Assembly and what they believed about these issues.

 

[JohnV]

To be perhaps too specific:

Would you let a minister preach NPP, even though he understands and acknowledges that it is different than the gospel the denomination commissioned him to preach? Is he going over the heads of the Church authority by doing this?

Do you think the Scripture allows a State to sanction homosexual marriages on the basis of majority rule? ( Say it went to popular vote, a referendum, and still passed. )

Two obvious cases, I think, of overstepping limits of authority. Related? I would think that most of us don't think so. Yet it would follow that a church that does not practice her limitations would not have much influence in a State observing hers. I am wondering if these are more related than we think. It sounds like the argument of present weather patterns being more an indicator of spiritual pollution than of global abuse, I know. But I'm tying them together by thinking a weak Church means a weak State; not that a weak State means a weak Church.

But what, when both are strong, would be the limits of their sphere of authority? For example in culture, in economics, in daily activities and recreation, in points of view and free speach, in advancing new ideas and science, in education, and so on. In each both have a role and a mandate, but also limitations.

I know, its broad. So pick your area of concern and tell me what you think according to your knowledge of Scripture.

 

[JohnV]

A commentary on what Chris wrote:

Servetus was ultimately condemned and judged by the "state" of Geneva, not the church. Calvin even pleaded with them for a more humane execution - beheading - not burning. So ultimately the church ruled that he was a blasphemer and a heretic and the state did their business (if you grant that the state should punish the first table - and you do.)

Yes, and that's just the point. The Church judged, because it is not the State's place to determine heresy; but the State executed, because its not the Church's place to execute. In general, that is.

The "t" word isn't such a bad word. The first time I heard it, and it was explained to me in simple terms, I said I agreed with it. After all, who doesn't look to the law for just judgment? But I made the mistake of asking why we needed the term, since it was the same thing that Presbyterianism has been teaching for hundreds of years. And now again it is basically the same as ordinary Reformed teaching on law. At least, what is put forward by Theonomists here is not all that different than what I have held to for a long time. I just wouldn't describe it as "theonomy", that's all.

But the point is this: there is a lot of doctrinal immorality going on. There is such a wide gap between what is called "the churches" in America and Canada and what a church should be. Everyone is their own authority, preaching from Benny Hinn and Kenneth Hagen to hiding sexual predators in clerical robes. Is it any wonder that the State doesn't have moral guidance?

Does it matter, though, whether it's charismatic gifts, salvation through the saints, or whatever, or whether its our own little "isms", such as was discussed in the Wilkins thread: we are ordaining people to be their own authority, not even subject to "ecclesiastical standards" anymore? Its now a question of whether or not someone can make his own theory "fit" into the Confession of Faith, instead of a question of faithful unity in doctrine and taking the proper steps in discussing differences to protect that unity. They're just going ahead and preaching it.

Everytime the Church takes a hit in her unity, the State takes a hit too. The Church lives in the State's sphere, but the State also lives in the Church's sphere; so when a denomination splits, the State splinters morally too.

If anything, this is what Theonomy ticks on. Its not just God's law, because everyone, even antinomians, can make that claim. Whatever it is they believe, they relate it to obeying God. Its like saying that preaching the Word is central, but not putting guidelines on what is and what is not preaching of the Word: it means nothing because everyone thinks they're doing that already.

What I am saying in response to Chris is that our own lack of unity may be one of the key problems to the State's moral decline. We just would not have happen in our day a case where the Church judges and the State carries out the sentence. The immoral godless have no shame because too many godly people have no shame within their sphere either. One decline feeds off the other. And right now the separation of spheres is just too dichotomous. But they both relate to the same society of people! You can't draw an airtight circle around one or the other, because we can't live in this world without having something to do with worldy idolaters, but we are commanded not to have anything to do with idolaters who claim the name of Christ; we are separating from the wrong people sometimes.

That's just one of the areas where I see a wrongful view of separation taking place. We take secondary issues, matters of conscience, too far; or we take our own views too seriously, thinking we have a right to put others down for not holding to our views. For example, I am quite certain that Baptists are wrong, but I also know my own limitations. But more than that, I know that God has gifted some Baptists, and who am I to think that my knowledge exceeds God's good judgment in gifting some people who do not have the same knowledge as I do? As sure as I may be, I should not think too highly of myself. And especially, I should not think too lowly of my brother. Then, after we take hits at one another, we turn around and decry the lack on moral unity in the State.

So I take it to be a limit to ecclesiastical authority that it may not trangress the conscience of the individual. And yet there is also a limit on State's authority not to allow too free a conscience, as if there are only arbitrary laws, or that rule is by popular opinion and not by God's laws. That is, a State cannot legislate a new set of morals, because there is no other set. The Church shares this authority, and its limitations, with the State, but each within the other's sphere of authority, working together unto a godly society.

I want to rethink the whole Church/State relationship under the understanding that what happened in Geneva was right.

 

[crhoades]

JohnV,

Don't have time to review your whole post but I have to give a hearty amen! I was going to post this last night but I fell asleep...

Calvin was writing to I think a leader at the time (name escapes me) about the Caroli (sp?) incident where he accused the pastors in Geneva of Arianism. Calvin's response was priceless as he was showing the magistrate that he needed to call a colloquy quickly so that it wasn't perceived that the pastors was teaching something false and seditious as well as to show unity. I'll try to post it sometime soon because it is exactly what you were posting just now.

 

[JohnV]

So I'm not out in left field then? Whew!

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by JohnV
So I'm not out in left field then? Whew!

Nah...You'll have some new quotes to put in your note pad.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by crhoades
JohnV,

Don't have time to review your whole post but I have to give a hearty amen! I was going to post this last night but I fell asleep...

Calvin was writing to I think a leader at the time (name escapes me) about the Caroli (sp?) incident where he accused the pastors in Geneva of Arianism. Calvin's response was priceless as he was showing the magistrate that he needed to call a colloquy quickly so that it wasn't perceived that the pastors was teaching something false and seditious as well as to show unity. I'll try to post it sometime soon because it is exactly what you were posting just now.

Chris,

I think I found reference to the situation you described. The search engine you provided was very helpful.

Here is the letter and here is the context:

In October, we find Calvin, Farel, Viret, Fabri, Caroli, and others, attending a disputation which the Council of Berne had appointed to be held at Lausanne. Vigorous attempts were made to prevent this conference; but they were discovered and frustrated.

On the fourth and fifth days Calvin addressed the gathering on transubstantiation. A friar, named Tandi, confessed himself at once a convert to the reformed doctrine, and threw off his monk´s frock, never to be worn again. Farel rose, and said, "œLet us thank our Lord together. Let us receive our new brother, for whom Christ has died, as Christ has received us."

This conference proved of great service in advancing the Reformation cause.

Farel and Calvin drew up a Confession of Faith, containing twenty-one articles; the nineteenth of which claimed the power to excommunicate unholy and vicious persons until repentant. On November 10th, 1536 this Confession was laid before the Council of Two hundred, who ordered it to be printed, publicly read, and circulated.

At this point a trouble arose, caused by Caroli, This man had been a doctor of the Sorbonne, and had professed conversion to the "œnew" doctrines. He was vain, weak, fickle, changing his opinions with every wind for the sake of advantage. By these unworthy means rising step by step, he made an attempt to obtain the office of inspector over the churches. But the Council perceived his pride, and suitably rebuked him.

This so mortified him that he meditated vengeance on the pastors, and he selected the more prominent to accuse them of Arianism. The defense of Calvin is so noble that I quote part of it: "œIt is but a few days ago that I dined with Caroli. I was then his very dear brother, and he told me to make his compliments to Farel. He then treated as brethren those whom he now charges as heretics, and protested that he wished always to live in brotherly love with us. But not a word did he say about Arianism. Where was then the glory of God? Where the purity of the faith, and the unity of the church? If you had a single spark of true zeal or piety, would you have silently suffered your brethren and colleagues to reject the Son of God? Would you soil yourself with the infection of such an impiety by communicating with them? "œBut, supposing all this of no consequence, I demand how you know that I am infected with the Arian heresy. I believe that I have given a pretty clear testimony of my faith, and that you will find no more ardent supporter than myself of the divinity of Jesus Christ. My works are in the hands of everyone, and I have at least derived this fruit from them, that my doctrine is approved by all the orthodox churches. Show us, then, the very passage on which you found our accusation of Arianism; for I will wash out this infamy, and will not endure to be unjustly charged."

Caroli was overwhelmed by this reply, and appealed to the Council; but they reproved him by ordering him to acknowledge in public the innocence of the ministers he had slandered. To avoid this, he fled to Rome, and was received into the Romish church.

Source: JOHN CALVIN: HIS LIFE, HIS TEACHING, AND HIS INFLUENCE.
BY WILLIAM WILEMAN.

 

[crhoades]

close...upon further looking, the site doesn't contain everything I thought it did. I thought they bascially took the Ages Software works of Calvin and dumped it to html. The letters are out of order chronologically. I do know that the letter was within the first 15 or so letters in the 7 volumes of Calvin on Selected Works that is now available from SWRB (where I got mine - the books are going for 500 bucks on Abebooks...)

I'll try to remember to post it tonight. Good letter though. I can't imagine the turmoil that was going on back then. Reading through Calvin's letters just amazes me. I daresay there are not many men if any that could make it through as a reformer. (I know by God's grace Calvin did...)