William Wilson on the civil magistrate withdrawing endowments

[Reformed Covenanter]

But is the State to have no control over a Church whose ministers it pays? Yes, it possesses, and ought to have, control over the Church to the extent of withdrawing the emolument it conferred, whenever it becomes convinced that the Church is not fulfilling the ends for which she was established.

If, instead of teaching the truth of God, the Church becomes pervaded by error, it is the duty of the Civil Magistrate to withdraw from her his countenance and protection. In this he must act upon his own responsibility to the King of kings.

But to invade the province of the office-bearers of the Church — to assume the power of the keys — to take into his own hands the appointment of her ministers, and make them subservient creatures of his own — these things he may not do without incurring heinous guilt.

For the reference, see:

William Wilson on the civil magistrate withdrawing endowments

But is the State to have no control over a Church whose ministers it pays? Yes, it possesses, and ought to have, control over the Church to the extent of withdrawing the emolument it conferred, whe…

reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com

 

[Phil D.]

How having the state pay a church's ministers is deemed a good idea escapes me. Even if such a state were supposed not to have the power to assume ecclesial functions, in effect they do - whenever they see something happening in the church they don't like (or don't see something they want to happen), just threaten or actually cut off their funding. Like the old adage - He who has the purse strings makes the rules.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

How having the state pay a church's ministers is deemed a good idea escapes me. Even if such a state were supposed not to have the power to assume ecclesial functions, in effect they do - whenever they see something happening in the church they don't like (or don't see something they want to happen), just threaten or actually cut off their funding. Like the old adage - He who has the purse strings makes the rules.

The same logic may be applied to relying solely on voluntary contributions. I have known of situations where church leaders have turned a blind eye to offences that ought to have been censured owing to the persons in question being large contributors to the church. In either case, if the church leaders have the virtue of disinterestedness, they will do what is right irrespective of the financial consequences to themselves, which is exactly what William Wilson himself did at the Disruption.

 

[Phil D.]

The same logic may be applied to relying solely on voluntary contributions. I have known of situations where church leaders have turned a blind eye to offences that ought to have been censured owing to the persons in question being large contributors to the church. In either case, if the church leaders have the virtue of disinterestedness, they will do what is right irrespective of the financial consequences to themselves, which is exactly what William Wilson himself did at the Disruption.

No church structure is immune from the problem of undue influence exerted by financial supporters, to be sure. But it seems individual cases are much more limited and manageable than those arising from state patronage. From my perspective, having the government so involved in church affairs is indeed bound to lead to various Disruptions as well as cyclical Restorations to accommodate the state's political desires. What, if I may ask, do you believe is the biblical case for state's direct financial patronage of the church in a non-theocratic/reconstructionist context?