The Authority of Christ’s Church
by Dr. Joseph Morecraft, April 11, 2003
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And
Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son
of the living God.” And Jesus answered and said to him,
“Blessed are you, Simon Barjonas, because flesh and blood did
not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also
say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My
church; and the gates of hell shall not overpower it. I will give
you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind
on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you shall
loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” -(Matthew 16:15-19)
Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall have
been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have
been loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree
on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for
them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have
gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst. -(Matthew
18:18-20)
I. The Basis of the Church’s Authority: The Keys of the Kingdom
Keys are symbols of authority and government (Revelation 1:18). A
key is used to lock and unlock doors. The keys of the kingdom of
heaven are symbols of the authority Christ has given the church to
enforce His government, just as the sword is the symbol of the
authority Christ has given the civil magistrate to enforce His
government (Romans 13:4). Therefore, according to Jesus, those who
possess the keys of the kingdom possess the authority and power He
gives them to bind and to loose, to forgive sins and to
retain sins (John 20:23), to unlock the door of the kingdom of
heaven for some and to lock the door of the kingdom of heaven to
others.
The picture Jesus wants us to see is this: a door is closed by a
lock and chain, and opened by a key so that the chain is loosed and
the doors are opened. These “keys,” then, are the
authority and power of the preaching and teaching of the Word of
God and the exercising of government and discipline in the church
according to that Word. This means that the church has the
authority to chain the door of the church to the unbelieving and
impenitent and to open the door of the church and kingdom to the
believing and the penitent. Those who heed the call of the gospel
preaching of the church and believe in Jesus Christ enter His
kingdom and have their sins forgiven. Those who reject the gospel
preaching of the church and do not believe in Jesus are excluded
from the kingdom and their sins are retained, i.e., not remitted
but kept in their possession. Those who embrace the Word of God
experience forgiveness of sin through the means of grace in the
church; and those who refuse to embrace the Word remain in their
sins, unforgiven. Peter uses the “keys of the kingdom”
on the Day of Pentecost in a Christian sermon, when three thousand
people were converted, Acts 2. He used those keys again in
disciplining Simon the sorcerer, excluding him from the church,
Acts 8.
This authority symbolized in the keys of the kingdom was not given
to Peter alone, thus making him the first pope, as Roman
Catholicism claims. It was first addressed to him as representing
the rest of the apostles in Matthew 16; but in Matthew 18:18 it is addressed to
all the apostles in common, and addressed to them in circumstances
that show that this conferred authority is not limited even to the
apostles, but also to those whom the apostles would appoint to
exercise authority in the church after they were gone. As the
apostle Paul said to Timothy, a preaching elder in the church,
“And the things which you have heard from me in the presence
of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able
to teach others also” (II Timothy 2:2). Therefore, today the
only people who may use the keys of the kingdom and exercise
the authority of government and discipline in the church are those
appointed to that office by Christ through His Holy Spirit-inspired
apostles, i.e., preaching and ruling elders (I Thessalonians 5:12;
Acts 20:28; Hebrews 13:7,17; I Peter 5:1-4; Acts 15; I Timothy
4:14).
Whom did the apostles appoint to exercise the authority of rule
after they were gone? To whom did they commit the
“keys?” Only those may rule in the church now and use
the keys of the kingdom and “bind” and
“loose,” who have been appointed by the apostles of
Christ to do so; and ... those men [class of officers] are
called in the New Testament presbyters, pastors, elders, bishops,
ministers of the Word. So, therefore, the power of self-government
is given to the church, but the church acts through its officers
appointed to rule, that is, through its eldership or presbytery.
(Thomas Witherow, The Form of the Christian Temple, pp.
150-151)
As the Westminster Confession of Faith testifies: “The Lord
Jesus, as king and head of His church, has therein appointed a
government in the hand of church-officers, distinct from the civil
magistrate. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are
committed, by virtue whereof they have power respectively to retain
and remit sins, to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both
by the word and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by
the ministry of the gospel, and by absolution from censures, as
occasion shall require” (30.1-30.2).
II. The Headship of Jesus Christ Over His Church
Any correct understanding of church authority, government, and
organization must presuppose the headship of Jesus Christ over His
church. We learn from Ephesians 1:20-23 that Christ is the Head
over all things for the sake of His church. In Ephesians 4:15-16,
He is set forth as the organic head of the church. In Romans 5:12f
He is presented as the covenantal head of the church. And in
Ephesians 5:23,24, Christ is the organizational head of His church,
which He purchased with His own blood: “For the husband is
the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He
Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject
to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in
everything.”
In the purest sense of the word, the organized church is a
Christocracy, with Jesus Christ as its Head and King. He and He
alone, is the organizational Head of the church, governing and
regulating it inwardly by His Holy Spirit and outwardly by His
Word. In the church, then, Christ’s word is law. Only Christ,
the King of the church, has jurisdiction in and over His church. No
other person or institution has the authority of jurisdiction in
Christ’s church. He bears absolute and total government
(Matthew 28:18). The church and all of her members are to submit to
His headship in everything (Ephesians 5:23,24).
Since Christ is the head of the church, and since the Bible is His
Word, the Bible alone is the governing standard for the
church’s worship and work. It is unlawful to introduce into
the theology, ethics, worship, work, discipline, government, and
organization of the church any innovations which have not been
sanctioned by Christ in His Word. Only the Head of the church has
the prerogative to settle the constitution, doctrines, laws,
government, worship, discipline, organization, and work of His
church.
III. The Sufficiency of the Bible for the Government of the Church of Christ
In Christ’s church His Word is Law, to which nothing ever is
to be added or subtracted (Deuteronomy 12:32). Christ has revealed
His will concerning the worship, work, and government of His church
in the Bible, which is His all-sufficient, complete, perfect, and
inerrant rule of faith and practice for His church in all ages. It
needs no supplementation, correction, or abridgement. “Every
word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in
Him. Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved
a liar” (Proverbs 30:5-6).
Ezekiel 43:11 makes this point in vivid imagery: “As for you,
son of man, describe the Temple to the house of Israel, that they
may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the plan.
And if they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to
them the design of the House, its structure, its exits, its
entrances, all its design, all its statutes, and all its laws. And
write it in their sight, so that they may observe its whole design
and all its statutes.” Since the New Testament
identifies the temple of God as the church of Christ (Ephesians
2:21), this verse can be applied to the church in the following
manner.
As under the old dispensation nothing connected with the worship or
discipline [or government] of the church of God was left to the
wisdom or discretion of man, but everything was accurately
prescribed by the authority of God, so, under the New, no voice is
to be heard in the household of faith but the voice of the Son of
God [its Head and King]. The power of the church is purely
ministerial and declarative. She is only to hold forth the
doctrine, enforce the laws, and execute the government which Christ
has given her. She is to add nothing of her own to, and to subtract
nothing from what her Lord has established. Discretionary power she
does not possess. (James H. Thornwell, Collected Writings,
Vol. IV, p. 163)
By the design [or “law”] of the House, Christ
the king, whose glory fills His house, governs everything in His
House — its structure, exits, entrances, all its designs, all
its statutes, and all its laws. That law, written in the
Bible, is the inerrant and all-sufficient revelation of the will of
Christ for His church so that the entire church through the ages
may observe its whole design and all its statutes, and do them;
“Behold, this is the law of the House.” So then,
what form of government, what kind of authority and what kind of
organization has Christ instituted for His church in His Word?
These questions will be answered as we discuss the following
issues: (1) The foundational principles of biblical church
government; (2) The source, nature, and limits of church authority;
and (3) The relation of church authority and civil authority.
IV. The Foundational Principles of Biblical Church Government
A. The Church Elects Her Own Officers
The Head of the church places the men He chooses and equips into
church offices by the popular vote of the people to whom and with
whom they will be ministering, i.e., the congregation. In Acts
6:1-6, we read of the election and ordination of deacons. The
apostles recommended the selection of seven men. After stating
their qualifications, the congregation chose the seven men whom
they judged suitable. Then, the apostles ordained them.
In Acts 14:23, we see the election of elders: “And when they
had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with
fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had
believed.” The literal meaning of the word,
cheirotoneo, translated “appointed,” is
“to elect by a show of hands” or “to elect with
the outstretched hand.” So then, the meaning of Acts 14:23 is
that Paul and Barnabas presided over the election of the elders. Church leaders are not
imposed on a congregation, they are elected by the congregation,
having been called to and equipped for that office by Christ. They
are democratically elected by the vote of the male heads of
households in the congregation to represent Christ the King and to
administer His Word. This is ecclesiastical republicanism. As Louis
Berkhof has written in his book Systematic Theology, p. 589:
The election by the people is merely an external confirmation of
the inner calling by the Lord Himself. Moreover, the elders
... do not derive their authority from the people, but from
the Lord of the church. They exercise rule over the house of God in
the name of the king, and are responsible only to Him.
B. All Elders Have Parity
Parity means equality of authority, and parity existed among the
elders of the New Testament church, whether they were ruling elders
or preaching elders. The elders did not have an hierarchy among
themselves. They exercise church discipline and church government
in unison. All elders are on par with each other in the government
of Christ’s church.
We see this parity among the eldership in the fact that all elders
are bishops and all bishops are elders. In other words, the office
of bishop and of elder is one and the same. They were not two
offices, but one office. This becomes obvious with a comparison of
Philippians 1:1 with James 5:4. Also, in Titus 1:5-7, Paul uses the
titles “elder” and “bishop”
interchangeably: “For this reason I left you in Crete, that
you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in
every city as I directed you ... For the overseer
[bishop] must be above reproach...”
Here Paul begins with setting forth the qualifications of an
elder, and then changes over to the word bishop, or overseer, while
referring to the same office. His argument is that an elder must
have these qualifications, because a bishop must be blameless.
Compare also Acts 20:17, 18, 28. The bishops were not
“over” the elders, any more than the preaching elders
were “over” ruling elders. The name “elder”
or “presbyter” expressed the maturity, dignity, and
wisdom of the office; and the name “bishop” or
“overseer” denotes his function, i.e., shepherding
oversight, pastoral care, and church management.
C. Local Churches are to Have a Plurality of Elders
A plurality of elders existed in each congregation in the New
Testament church. Each congregation elected more than one elder:
“And when they had appointed elders for them in every church,
having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom
they had believed” (Acts 14:23). Christ does not want any of
His churches to be “one-man-shows” so that no one can
be a petty dictator in Christ’s church. See also Philippians
1:1; Acts 20:17.
The church is governed by Christ through elders called by Him and
elected by the congregation. It is not to be ruled by one man, as a
pope or archbishop, as in churches with Episcopal church
government; nor is it to be ruled by 50%+1 of the membership, as in
churches with congregational government. Christ’s church is
to be governed and served by representatives elected by the members
to represent and administer the rule of Christ the King in His
Word, Hebrews 12:7,17. Christ’s church is not a democracy; it
is a Christocracy, governed by the living Christ through His
representative-elders, officially sitting together, i.e., in
session.
D. Ordination to Church Office is the Act of Presbytery
The word “presbytery” is a biblical word: “Do not
neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed upon you
through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the
presbytery” (I Timothy 4:14). A presbytery is a term for a
plurality of elders (presbyters) meeting in official session. The
local congregation is governed by a presbytery, usually called
“the session,” comprised of a plurality of elders
elected from and by the congregation in which they will serve. Both
testaments speak of the “session,” or
“sitting” of the elders, Proverbs 31:23; Revelation
4:4. The representative-elders “sitting” together in
official association from the congregations of a particular region
is usually called “a presbytery,” which is the way the
word is used in I Timothy 4:14.
The point is that the government of the church is in the hands of
assemblies of elders, and not of individual elders. The church is
governed by judicatories, not officers acting individually. This
principle is fundamental and vital to the system of church
government set forth in the Bible. The church is governed by
presbyteries, not by presbyters.
E. Church Members Have the Privilege of Appeal to Presbytery
In the New Testament church, members had the privilege of appeal to
the assembly of elders exercising government jointly. Acts 15
proves this point. (1) Barnabas and Paul had a dispute with certain
false teachers from Judea who were teaching that circumcision is a
prerequisite for salvation (15:1). (2) This dispute was not settled
in the church at Antioch where it originated (15:2-4). (3) The
matter was referred to a church court (presbytery) consisting of
apostles and elders in Jerusalem (15:4f). (4) This presbytery met
publicly to deliberate the issue (15:6-7). (5) These apostles and
elders, acting jointly as a presbytery, rendered a decision on the
issue (15:22f). (6) To this decision, the church at Antioch and the
churches of Syria and Cilicia yielded submission (15:23f).
The apostolic church was governed by presbyteries, i.e., elders
(presbyters) in their official and associated capacity. In the New
Testament history of the apostolic church we see three kinds of
presbyteries:
(1) Congregational presbyteries, or sessions of local churches,
have been given the authority by Christ, through calling, election,
and ordination, to govern the local congregation, of which they are
members: “And when they had appointed elders for them in
every church, having prayed and fasted, they commended them to the
Lord in whom they had believed” (Acts 14:232).
(2) Regional presbyteries, which are referred to today simply as
presbyteries, represent several churches regionally and govern the
congregations that they represent. In Acts 11:30, we read of relief
being sent from the church of Antioch to the needy church of
Jerusalem: “and this they did, sending it in charge of
Barnabas and Saul to the elders,” i.e., the elders of the
church of Jerusalem,
which was comprised of several congregations, as we shall see. In
Acts 21:18, we read that the following day Paul went in with us to
James, and all the elders were present, i.e., all the elders of
Jerusalem assembled — the presbytery of Jerusalem. In Acts
20:17-18, we read of a plurality of elders gathered as the
presbytery of Ephesus, representing several congregations:
“And from Miletus he set to Ephesus and called to him the
elders of the church,” i.e., the church of Ephesus comprised
of several congregations.
How do we know that the church in Jerusalem, the church in Ephesus,
the church in Corinth, and the church in Antioch were each
comprised of several congregations or local churches? Answer: By
necessary inference from what the New Testament says about each of
these churches. In Acts 8:1, we read of “the church which was
at Jerusalem,” and yet it is certain that several smaller
churches comprised this one church. There were far more believers
in the church in Jerusalem — thousands, in fact — than
could meet together in one congregation (Acts 2:41,47; Acts 4:4;
5:14; 6:7; 12:24; 21:20). These thousands of believers and their
families that were members of the church which was at Jerusalem
must have been members of smaller congregations that met in
synagogues, homes, and elsewhere, and yet they are one church,
governed by elders from each of these congregations.
In Acts 13:1-3, we see this statement: “Now there were at
Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and
teachers...”This church also was comprised of more than
one congregation. We know this because of the multitudes of
believers that were members of that church (Acts 11:21-26). Here
again the number of believers in Antioch in Syria was too large to
meet in one location. They had to meet in several local
congregations, each governed by elders, which congregations
together are called one church which itself is governed by elders
from the local churches.
The same is true of the church of God, which is at Corinth in
Greece (II Corinthians 1:1). Also, because of the vast numbers of
believers there, this church had to be comprised of several
smaller, local churches, or congregations (Acts 18:7-11). The point
is that the local congregations, e.g., in Corinth, were called
churches in I Corinthians 14:34, and at the same time all of
these churches together are called “the church of God
which is at Corinth.” We can only infer that the church of
Corinth was a plurality of single congregations governed by elders
from each church meeting together as a regional presbytery.
(3) The apostolic church also had synodical presbyteries, or
general assemblies (Hebrews 12:22f). The word “synod”
comes from the Greek word sunode meaning convening or coming
together. These synodical presbyteries are of the broadest
jurisdiction and authority. They are of a broader region than
“regional presbyteries.” They can include all the
presbyters from an entire nation meeting together, or they can
consist of presbyters from churches throughout the Christian world
meeting together, as ecumenical councils in the early church, e.g.,
Chalcedon in 451 A.D., or ecumenical synods as the Synod of Dort in
1618.
This would mean that as the session has oversight of the local
church, and the presbytery over a special region, synod or general
assembly would have oversight over all the church in all regions of
a larger region. Furthermore, it would mean that as church members
have the right to appeal a session’s decision to a
presbytery, so they have the right to appeal a presbytery’s
decision to a synod or general assembly. These three types of
presbyteries in the Christian church were modeled after the Jewish
system of church government with its three ecclesiastical courts:
the Sanhedrin, corresponding to the synodical presbytery; the
Presbytery, corresponding to the regional presbytery; and the
Synogogue with its rulers, corresponding to the session in the
local congregation.
What is our biblical basis for believing that the apostolic church
had synodical presbyteries or general assemblies? This question
should be answered theologically and exegetically.
Theologically, the unity and catholicity of the visible church
comprise the theological foundation for church government by
synodical presbyteries. Christ has one visible, catholic church. He
has given this church His form of government for her in the Bible.
The ordinances and offices Christ has instituted belong to the
entire church for her edification and not just to single
congregations. Therefore, since there is one visible, catholic
church having a form of government by divine right, being commanded
by Christ in the Bible, and since this government belongs to the
whole body of Christ, it must be necessarily inferred that the more
extensively Christ’s ordinances of church-government are
managed in more general assemblies, the more fully the perfection
and end of government, viz., the edification of the whole body of
Christ, is attained.
Exegetically, the apostolic church in the New Testament provides us
with a model for synodical presbyteries or general assembles (i.e.,
Acts 15 and 16). The regional “presbyterial” church at
Antioch (14:26, 27; 15:3, 23, 30) and probably the churches of
Syria and Cilicia as well (vs. 23, 41) sent representatives to a
broader synodical presbyterial church, or presbytery, at Jerusalem
to settle an issue that was troubling the less broad region of
Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. The adjudicating assembly of appeal
was a public meeting of the apostles and elders with an apparent
multitude of non-ordained church members in attendance as observers
(vs. 12, 22, 23). The decision that was made was directed to all
the presbyterial church or regional presbyteries by
name — Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (vs. 23f) — and was
binding upon all, each having representative elders at the meeting
in Jerusalem. It also was binding on the churches at Derbe and
Lystra (16:1-4). Conclusion: the regional presbytery of Antioch was
subordinate to the broader synodical presbytery of Jerusalem;
therefore, we conclude that a particular church is subordinate in
the Lord to broader assemblies.
The power of presbyteries — local, regional, and
synodical — is limited by the lordship of Christ and the Word
of God. This power is the spiritual power of the keys of the
kingdom, not the political power of the sword. Neither is it
absolute or infallible, but limited and fallible. All of its
decrees and decisions must be in total agreement with the Word of
God. And if the decision of any presbytery is not consonant with
that Word, a member of a presbytery has the right of appeal, from
the local session to the regional presbytery to the synodical
presbytery. Furthermore, the power of presbytery is not only
persuasive, it is also juridical. In other words, the presbytery is
not only able to give solemn advice and counsel with forceful moral
persuasions, but everyone within its bounds is “obliged
reverently to esteem, and dutifully to submit unto it so far as
agreeable to the Word of Christ” (Samuel Rutherford, The
Divine Right, p. 224).
It belongs to synods and councils ministerially to determine
controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules
and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of
God, and government of His church; to receive complaints in cases
of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same:
which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the word of God,
are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for
their agreement with the word, but also for the power whereby they
are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in His
word. (Westminster Confession of Faith, 31.3)
V. The Nature and Extent of Church Authority (the Jurisdictions
of Church Courts)
A. The Source of Church Authority and Jurisdiction
According to some political theories of influence in the United
States, the authority of the civil government is derived from the
voluntary consent and appointment of the people, who surrender a
measure of their own authority by social compact to those selected
to govern. We are told that political power originates with the
people, the true sovereigns of the land, and that a nation should
be a nation “of the people, by the people, and for the
people.” As far as the Bible is concerned, this is not true
in either church or state. The political powers that be are
ordained by God, and therefore are accountable to Him, and should
recognize Him as the source of their authority (Romans 13:1f). This
is also true of the church. The authority of the church comes
directly from God, “being exercised and enforced, not only or
chiefly because of the permission or consent of its members, but
because it is a positive Divine institution, apart altogether from
that consent” (James Bannerman, The Church of Christ,
Vol. I, pp. 190-192). In other words, the source of church power is
not in the members, but in Christ (Matthew 28:18).
The elders are the organs through whom the church acts. Christ has
endowed His church with the authority of rule and government, but
that authority is exercised by the elders called by Christ, elected
by the congregation, and ordained by presbytery. All
lawful — i.e., biblical — acts of lawful presbyteries are
acts of the whole church which they represent; and they who hear
the presbytery, hear the church.
We know this to be the case because of Matthew 18:15-18, where
Jesus instructs His disciples to turn the uncooperative and
resistant members of the church over to the church, or the public
assembly of the people of God, for discipline. “But the
public assembly, consisting of men, women and children, is not a
tribunal competent to decide a case in which, it may be, evidence
of a complicated nature shall have to be produced. They naturally
refer it to those officers who have been chosen and ordained to be
over them in the Lord, who may examine the case themselves, or
leave it to arbitrators, I Corinthians 6:1-7. Every local church is
by divine right vested with a self-governing and self-purifying
power, to be exerted in accordance with the law of Christ, and that
its rulers, acting on its behalf and with its consent, have divine
authority to admit members, to edify and judge brethren, to expel
offenders, to restore penitents, and to carry out, in accordance
with divine directions, the general objects for which the church
was founded” (Thomas Witherow, pp. 148f, 159).
B. The Standard of Church Authority and Jurisdiction
The standard defining the nature and extent of church authority is
the entire Word of God written — sola
Scriptura — not the laws of the state, the civil
constitution of a nation, nor the will of the members or officers.
“From the very nature of the church, as subject to Christ its
Head, His will must be the only rule for guidance of the church in
the matters in which it is called upon to act; and Christ’s
will is nowhere expressed or announced, except in the Bible”
(James Bannerman, Vol. I, p. 212). Therefore, the conclusion cannot
be successfully evaded that the church is bound in everything it
does to take the Bible as her only, final, inerrant, and
all-sufficient law and rule of proceedings.
C. The Nature of Church Authority and Jurisdiction
1. The Ministerial Nature of Church Power
The authority of church officers and church courts is subordinate
to Christ and His Word, and is, therefore, ministerial,
“having no authority or discretion of their own, and being
merely ministers or servants to carry out the will and execute the
appointments of Christ. In reference to the office-bearers of the
church, of whatsoever place or authority in it, they, if they keep
within their office, are but the instruments in the hands of Christ
Himself, acting in His name, ruling in His authority, and carrying
into effect no more than His instructions” (Bannerman, Vol.
I, p. 219).
2. The Nature of the Authority of Decisions of Church Courts
“If the judgment or decision pronounced in the lawful
exercise of their authority by the church or its office-bearers is
in accordance with the principles of the Word of God, that decision
was before pronounced in heaven; and it is both valid and binding
upon the conscience, not only because it is consistent with
God’s Word, but also because it is a decision lawfully
pronounced by a lawful tribunal appointed by Christ for that
purpose, Matthew 18:15-18. No judgment of any church whatever can
bind the conscience, except in so far, and no further than, it is
grounded upon the Word of God” (Bannerman, Vol. I, pp. 220f).
D. The Jurisdictions of Church Authority
1. The Authority of the Church in Matters of Doctrine
As the pillar, guardian, and custodian of the revealed truth of
God, the church is to be a witness, interpreter, and defender of
biblical truth to the consciences, minds, hearts, and lives of
people, both inside and outside the church.
The church is the official custodian and teacher of the Word of God
to those within her membership (I Timothy 3:15; Matthew 28:19-20;
II Timothy 2:2). The Head of the church has commissioned His church
to guard His Word from supplementation, perversion, alteration, or
abridgement. She is to teach it, pure and unmixed, that it may
accomplish the purposes for which it has been given. “The
church is the institution of God on earth to preserve His truth,
that it may not perish from the hostility directed against it by an
unbelieving world.... In this respect the church is the keeper
of a precious deposit.... But more than this. Over and above
our preservation and defense of the truth, there is laid upon the
church the additional duty of the teaching of the truth”
(Bannerman, I, p. 279). “So then, the church, particularly
through her office-bearers, has been authorized by Christ to be the
guardian and teacher of the Word of God” (p. 282).
The church is also commissioned by Christ to be the authoritative
witness to the world on behalf of the truth of the Word of God
(Acts 1:8; Philippians 2:15-16). In being Christ’s
authoritative witness to the world, she is also to confess her
faith solemnly, boldly, and clearly in the face of the
world’s unbelief and evil (Ephesians 5:1f). This
responsibility of confessing the truth of the Word of God to the
world has been discharged by the church historically by the framing
of summaries of the truth in confessions of faith or catechisms,
“directed particularly against the particular heresy or
unbelief which may have arisen; so that, in addition to defending
and preaching the truth, it may bear specific testimony against the
corresponding falsehood” (Bannerman, p. 282). Such
confessions and catechisms, concisely and precisely bearing witness
to revealed truth over against falsehood, serves a twofold purpose:
(1) A witness for the truth; and (2) A protest against false
doctrines. Confessions and catechisms, therefore, are at the same
time testimonies for the truth of Christ and testimonies against
the unbelief that would deny or the heresy that would pervert that
truth.
These confessions and catechisms of faith do not displace the Word
of God, nor are they on par with the Word of God. They are
subordinate to the Word of God as helpful aids in understanding and
confessing the only rule of faith and practice, i.e., the Bible.
They have a place in the life of the church only if they represent
biblical Christianity in its purest human expression. Such
creeds, confessions, and catechisms, if they are fully Biblical,
have many important functions in the life of the church. They serve
as a basis of fellowship, a test of orthodoxy, and a method of
education, as well as a means of confessing our faith clearly and
unequivocally before the world.
2. The Authority of the Church in Matters of Worship
The church has the authority to put into effect the institutions,
ordinances, and laws appointed by Christ in His church, which does
not involve the power to bind the conscience of its members to the
observance of new and additional ordinances enacted by itself. Just
as the church cannot use any coercive or compulsive physical power
to force people to believe its doctrines, so it cannot use any
physical means to enforce obedience to its ordinances. “Let
the church pretend to use a compulsory, not a spiritual authority,
in enforcing its laws; and obedience becomes a dead and mechanical
and worthless form, not a living and spiritual obedience” (p.
227).
The authority of the church in matters of worship is concerned with
the following four points: (1) The church is commissioned to
preserve from generation to generation the public worship of God
according to the way God Himself has commanded in His Word. (2) The
church is to preserve from generation to generation the observance
of the Christian Sabbath according to the way God Himself has
commanded for it to be observed in His Word. (3) The church has the
responsibility to maintain the office of the minister of the Word
from generation to generation as “the instrumentality by
which ... the public services of the church in its acts of
worship are to be carried on, requiring as they do a special order
of men to be set apart and qualified for the work” (p. 323).
The doctrine, then, in regard to the exercise of church power in
the worship of God ... is sufficiently distinct. The church
has no authority in regulating the manner, appointing the form, or
dictating the observances of worship, beside or beyond what the
Scripture declares on these points, — the Bible containing the
only directory for determining these matters, and the church having
no discretion to add to or alter what is there fixed. (Vol.II, p.
337f)
3. The Authority of the Church in Matters of Discipline
The church has the power to apply church discipline, to admit and
to exclude from the fellowship of the church, and to govern the
conduct of members while they continue members. This power of
discipline has been conferred upon the church by Christ Himself in
Matthew 16:18f; 18:15f; John 20:21f; I Corinthians 4:18f; 5:1f; II
Corinthians 2:1f; 7:8f; 10:2f; 13:2f; and I Timothy 1:19f. This is
not a physical discipline, nor is any of its application physical
or corporeal. “A discipline not spiritual, not addressed to
the understanding and conscience, cannot be discipline in the
proper sense of the term at all” (Bannerman, Vol. I, p. 228).
Church discipline is “necessary for the reclaiming and
gaining of offending brethren; for deterring of others from the
like offences; for purging out of that leaven which might infect
the whole lump; for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy
profession of the gospel; and for preventing the wrath of God,
which might justly fall upon the church, if they should suffer His
covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and
obstinate offenders” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 30.3).
In the apostolic church, believers in Jesus Christ joined
themselves and their families to a local congregation under the
shepherding oversight of elders (Acts 20:28; Hebrews 13:17; I
Thessalonians 5:12). These elders would lead them into the truths
of the Bible so they might be “established in grace”
(Hebrews 13:9), that they might grow in grace and in the knowledge
of the Lord (II Peter 3:18). In those local congregations, the
elders and all faithful members would work and pray toward the end
that the church would be as pure as possible in both what it
believed and confessed as well as in how it behaved (Acts 19:8-12;
Romans 16:17-20) to the glory of the Head of the church, the Lord
Jesus Christ. This must be true of us today, for a strong church is
a church that looks like the church the apostles left as our model
in the New Testament. One of the vows a person takes when he joins
a Presbyterian church is this: “Do you submit yourself to the
government and discipline of the church, and promise to strive for
its purity and peace?”
The purity of the church is the goal toward which a church is
constantly striving — a goal of faithful orthodoxy of doctrine
(Ephesians 4:13-15; II Timothy 3:15-17; Acts 2:42) and of faithful
orthodoxy of life and love (I Peter 1:16; 2:1-9; Hebrews 3:12-13),
motivated by an intense love for God in Christ (II Corinthians
5:14). To be orthodox is to be right, to be biblical, and to be in
conformity to the word of God in what we believe (theology) and in
how we behave (ethics).
Why should we have this concern for the purity of the church in
faith and practice, since no perfect church will ever exist on this
side of death? The immediate response to such a question is another
question: Why should a Christian strive after peace and holiness,
when no perfect person will exist on this side of death? The answer
to both questions is obvious: The individual and the church are
commanded to do so by the Lord Jesus Christ, who bought them as His
own personal property with His own blood (Acts 20:28f; I
Corinthians 6:19-20). Motivated by love and gratitude, the
Christian individual and church seek to please the Lord Jesus
Christ by obeying and worshipping Him, repenting of failure,
continuing to persevere in well-doing by the Spirit’s help in
the way of holiness to the end (Matthew 5:48), knowing that one
day, after death and resurrection, the Christian individual and the
Christian church will be completely perfect (Ephesians 5:27).
How is the purity of the church in its doctrine and life to be
maintained? This is a vitally important question that is rarely
asked; but the life of the church in America depends upon our
response to it. How does the Bible answer this question?
First of all, church discipline is rooted in self-discipline. Every
Christian is called to practice self-discipline by living his life
unto the Lord according to His revealed will (Matthew 6:13;
Galatians 5:23; I Corinthians 7:9; 9:25). Without this
self-discipline, church discipline will be either non-existent or
tyrannical.
Three means are presented in the Bible whereby a church can
preserve and advance its purity of doctrine and practice. As we use
these three means diligently, depending upon the empowerment of the
Holy Spirit, the purity of the church will be maintained and
advanced. Those means are: (1) The careful admission of people into
the church’s membership and to the Lord’s Table by the
elders; (2) The practice of loving church discipline in the
congregation; and (3) The careful, faithful preaching and teaching
of the whole Word of God.
4. The Careful Admission of People into the Membership of the Church By the Elders
The one requirement for church membership is a credible profession
of faith in Christ and the Bible (Matthew 16:16-18; Acts 2:41;
Matthew 28:19). A credible profession of faith is a profession of
faith in Christ and the Bible that is believable, that is in
general conformity with the teachings of the Bible, and that is
demonstrated in a life of obedience to God in the one making the
profession. A credible profession is one that is able to affirm
vows similar to these:
Do you believe that you are a sinner, justly deserving God’s
displeasure, and without hope, except for His sovereign mercy?
Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Savior of
sinners, and do you rest upon Him alone for salvation?
Depending upon the Holy Spirit to give you strength, do you promise
to live as becomes a follower of Christ?
Do you promise to support the church in its worship and work to the
best of your ability?
Do you submit yourself to the government and discipline of the
church, and promise to strive for its purity and peace?
Elders have a special responsibility here: “Be on guard for
yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has
made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He
purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage
wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from
among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to
draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert,
remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did
not cease to admonish each one with tears” (Acts 20:28-29).
Elders must exercise great care and vigilance in this area of
receiving people into the church, praying that God would give them
discernment, courage, and wisdom (James 1:5), so as not to expect
too little or demand too much from those who would come under their
shepherding oversight and join the congregation committed to their
charge. They must make the requirements for church membership and
admittance to the Lord’s Table in complete accordance with
the requirements of the Bible, guarding their membership to keep
out professed unbelievers, hypocrites, and those who because of
their life and beliefs cannot give a credible profession. On the
other hand, they must be sure that their requirements are such that
they can include and welcome into the church the spiritually
immature and the weaker brothers and sisters who are converted but
in whom the marks of grace are barely traceable.
5. The Practice of Loving Church Discipline
Discipline and discipleship are the same thing. It is the training
of a believer to live an increasingly faithful life of devotion to
Jesus Christ, glorifying and enjoying God in all he is and does.
Christian discipline or discipleship is comprised of three
components: instruction, which is preventive discipline;
chastisement, which is corrective discipline; and counseling, which
is restorative discipline.
Preventive discipline is the exercise of the authority
Christ gave His church to instruct and guide its members in the
revealed ways of God (Deuteronomy 29:29) and to promote purity and
peace in the church (Matthew 16:19). It involves the active,
vigorous, and consistent preaching and teaching of the Word of God,
catechizing, training, and instructing the young and old in the
true revealed religion. This careful teaching of the whole counsel
of God protects and nurtures the disciple and his family as they
learn how to observe, from the heart, all that Christ has
commanded. Restorative discipline is essential to the purity
of the church. It is not only to be practiced by the ministers and
elders, but by all the members of the church, who, as they are
filled with faith, goodness, knowledge, and wisdom from the Word,
are “competent to counsel” (Romans 15:13-14). The best
and most biblical books on biblical counseling are by Jay Adams.
Corrective discipline is needed in the congregation because
all congregations are comprised of believing sinners. According to
II Timothy 3:16-17, the Bible is God-breathed and therefore
inerrant in all it asserts to be true on any subject. Scripture is
all sufficient, so that the man of God can be thoroughly and
all-profitable, not only to lead and teach us, but also to correct
us when we are wrong. When a church member wanders into sinful
paths, inadvertently or deliberately, he needs loving correction
and restoration, much as an erring child needs correction, even
chastisement, to learn that the way of the transgressor is hard so
that he might be restored.
The Bible involves every church member in the work of discipling or
disciplining one another (Hebrews 2:12; 10:24). Matthew especially
involves each member, for he sets forth the procedure by which we
encourage one another in the faith and by which we apply corrective
discipline to wayward members in order to restore them. This
biblical procedure of church discipline revealed in Matthew
18:15-20 places the primary, frontline responsibility for the
watchful care and discipling of members on the church members
themselves, and not primarily, much less exclusively, on the
Session. A church that has members who have compassion and courage
to practice church discipline humbly, consistently, and sensitively
is a strong and healthy church. The procedure is as follows:
First, the person who is offended and concerned because of some sin
against him from another church member is to approach the offender
in love about his sin and the problems arising from it in an effort
to set things straight and to save the brother from further hurt
and shame.
Second, if this fails, he is to take witnesses with him either to
witness the offender’s refusal to repent or to back up the
pleas of the offended person that the offender make things right
with God and with his brothers and sisters (James 5:19,20).
Third, if this fails, the matter is to be brought before the
ruler-representatives of the church, the Session of elders, to
offer a solution through prayer, love, counseling, and the
searching of the Scriptures. The provision in Matthew 18:15-21 that
Jesus made for dealing with persistently wayward members, after
private counsel and admonition before a witness have failed, is to
tell it to the church (v. 17). This is an allusion to the practice
of the Jewish church — to turn the impenitent over to the
official representatives of the church for admonition and/or
excommunication. Because of the representative nature of elders,
the word “church” can signify the church of God as
represented in its elders. In the Old Testament, when the elders of
Israel met in official “session” (Psalm 29:10), they
represented the entire congregation of the Lord, just as they
represented the Lord and His covenant with Israel. To address the
elders of Israel was to address the entire congregation of the
Lord. In fact, when these elders met in official session, they
could be said to be the congregation of the Lord, or the children
of Israel representatively (Exodus 3:14, 16,18; 4:29, 30, 231;
19:7, 8; Leviticus 4:13f).
The Hebrew word for “church,” qahal, and the
Greek word, ekklesia, in the Septuagint, are both used with
reference not only to the congregation of the Lord directly, but to
the elders and rulers of the congregation (I Chronicles 13:2,4; 29:1; II Chronicles
1:3). That which is said of elders in Deuteronomy 19:12 and Joshua
20:4 is said of the whole congregation in Numbers 35:24. In
Revelation 4:1-4 and 5:8f, the entire church of Christ is gathered
around His throne in her representatives — the twenty-four
elders, i.e., the twelve patriarchs of the Old Testament (heads of
twelve tribes) and the twelve apostles of the New Testament. As
George Gillespie said, “It was not, therefore, to any
assembly, but to an assembly of rulers, that causes were brought in
the Old Testament. The church mentioned in Matthew 18:17 has a
forensical and juridical power [as the O.T. elders]... I hope
I may now conclude that ‘Tell it to the church’ is
neither meant of the civil magistrate, nor simply of a greater
number, but of the elders, or ... of the eldership or assembly
of elders” (Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, pp.
188-190).
Hence, when read in the light of the Old Testament, the phrase in
Matthew 18:17 — “tell it to the church” — means
“tell it to the elder-representatives of the church for
adjudication.” As a final resort in church discipline, we are
to turn a straying member over to the elders for their counsel,
ministry, and adjudication. Furthermore, it must be kept in mind
that it was the ruling officers of the church to whom the keys of
the kingdom were given to govern and discipline the church.
Fourth, if this fails, and the offender hardens himself in his
impenitency, the Session is to excommunicate him from the
fellowship of the church, and he is to be treated by the church as
apostate and an unbeliever who is outside the warmth and safety of
the church, that he might be forced to live by the consequences of
his rebellious decision, be brought to his senses and to
repentance, that he might be restored to Christ and to His church.
The elders also make such a judgment for the sake of the purity of
the church that Christ might be glorified and honored by all men.
It must be added that, while this should be done in great sorrow,
it should not be done in despair, because it is done to the glory
of God and for the purity of the Church, in obedience to the Word
of God; and usually, consistent corrective discipline brings the
offender “back home.” (In Acts 15 we see how several
churches cooperated in practicing church discipline.)
Several ways are offered in the Bible whereby the elders may
correct and discipline an obstinate church member who has been
brought before them. They may strongly admonish him for his sin and
solemnly urge him to repent (I Thessalonians 5:12; Galatians 6:1).
It may bar him from the Lord’s Supper for a season to shame
him into repentance (Romans 11:14) or to move him to holy jealousy
of those who are walking with the Lord under His rich blessing,
that he might be provoked to return and walk with them. If the
offender persists impenitently in his sin, he may be excommunicated
from the church of Christ.
Excommunication is a thoroughly biblical concept: Genesis 17:14;
Numbers 15:30; Matthew 18:17; Romans 16:17; I Corinthians 5:1-11;
II Corinthians 2:6-8; II Corinthians 6:14-18; II Thessalonians
3:6,14; I Timothy 1:20; Titus 3:10. This extreme and final form of
church discipline is the withdrawing of church fellowship from the
person who impenitently and obstinately commits sinful acts, as
defined by God’s Law, which cannot be tolerated in the
church, only after admonition and entreaty. Once a person has been
excommunicated, he is to be viewed and treated by the rest of the
church members as an unbeliever. He must be loved, prayed for, and
evangelized. But Church members are forbidden to fellowship with
him or to eat meals with him that he might learn how lonely it is
to be “without God in the world.” “But actually,
I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he
should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a
reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler — not even to eat with
such a one” (I Corinthians 5:11).
The Bible presents us with four general areas of offense deserving
excommunication:
Impenitent and Persistent sins against love (Mat. 18:15-17);
Impenitent and Persistent sins against church unity (Rom. 16:17; I
Cor. 1:10f);
Impenitent and Persistent sins against Biblical Law (I Cor. 5:7,11;
II Thes. 3:6,14); and
Impenitent and Persistent sins against revealed truth (I Tim.
1:19-20; 6:3-5; Titus 3:10; II Jn. 10).
The reason these sins are deserving of excommunication is that they
are assaults on the very heart and foundation of the church’s
life in Christ. If such sins are allowed to remain unchecked, they
will eventually destroy the fellowship and purity of the church
(Hebrews 12:14-17; I Corinthians 5:6,7).
In Revelation 2:13-16 (cmp. 2:20-25), Jesus Christ addresses His
church at Pergamus, compliments them for their faithfulness in the
face of persecution (2:13), rebukes them for the toleration in
their membership of those who believe and teach doctrines contrary
to Holy Scripture (2:14,15). Then He exhorts them to repent (2:16)
or else He will come in judgment upon that church at a particular
point in their history. What would repentance involve in this
instance? They would have to cease their toleration of those who
are false teachers and convert or excommunicate them, thus shutting
their mouths from teaching falsehoods. In doing so, they would
avert divine judgment and “overcome” in such a way as
to be highly favored by Jesus Christ and richly rewarded by His
gracious hand so that communion with Him is deepened and assurance
of salvation increased (2:17).
As the honor of the church is inseparably connected with the
character of her elders, each presbytery ought, with the greatest
care and impartiality, to watch over the personal and official
conduct of all elders. On the other hand, no elder ought to be
shielded from justice, nor his offences be slightly rebuked; so
neither ought charges to be received against him by any church
court on slight, trivial, or hearsay grounds. As the apostle Paul
instructed the minister Timothy: “Let the elders who rule
well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who
work hard at preaching and teaching.... Do not receive an
accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three
witnesses. Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of
all, so that the rest also may be fearful of sinning. I solemnly
charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His
chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing
nothing in a spirit of partiality” (I Timothy 5:17, 19, 20,
21).
E. The Limits of Church Authority and Jurisdiction
First, church authority is limited in that it is distinctly and
exclusively spiritual authority. This means that the church does
not have the authority to impose civil or physical sanctions and
penalties, such as pecuniary fines, beatings, imprisonment, or
corporeal penalties of any kind.
Second, church authority is limited by its Origin, the Lord Jesus
Christ, the Head of the church, from whom it is derived. The
authority of the office-bearers in the church is subordinate to
Christ’s authority and is purely ministerial, not
legislative. It cannot add to or subtract from what Christ has
given it. It may not create new laws, doctrines, or rituals for the
church; rather, it is to administer only and totally what is
written in God’s Word. Office-bearers are, in the strictest
sense of the term, the ministers and servants of Christ; their
authority may never be viewed as independent of, equal to, or
higher than His.
Third, church authority is limited by the Standard by which it is
to be exercised, i.e., the written Word of God. The church is
forbidden “the unauthorized addition or subtraction of
anything in the constitution, doctrine, worship, or discipline of
the church, such as Christ has not sanctioned in His Word”
(Bannerman, Vol. I, p. 248).
Fourth, church authority is limited by the subjects of that
authority, that is, it is limited by the privileges and duties of
the Christian people themselves. This limitation “prevents
church power from becoming the instrument of spiritual oppression
and tyranny as directed against the members of the church....
Beneath the shelter of such a limitation, the conscience has a
sanctuary which is blessed and sanctified by Christian freedom
within, and over the threshold of which authority, even the
authority of the church cannot pass. Within that sanctuary none but
the Lord of the conscience may enter... ” (Bannerman,
Vol. I, p. 248).
VI. The Relation of Church and State
A. The Institutional, Functional, and Jurisdictional Separation of Church and State
Much ink and blood have been spilt in defense of this biblical
principle that, when recognized, preserves the liberty of the
church from the tyranny of the state: “The Lord Jesus, as
king and head of His church, has therein appointed a government in
the hands of church-officers, distinct from the civil
magistrate.” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 30.1).
Both church and state are of Divine origin, and, although they are
different institutions with different officers, functions,
organizations, and jurisdictions, both are under the same Divine
King and accountable to the same biblical revelation: “Now
therefore, O kings, show discernment; Take warning, O judges of the
earth. Worship the LORD with reverence, and rejoice with trembling.
Do homage to the Son, lest He become angry, and you perish in the
way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who
take refuge in Him!” (Psalm 2:10-12).
The state is a ministry of justice, obeying and enforcing
God’s Law in the protection of the law-abiding and the
punishment of the lawless (Romans 13:1f). The church is a
ministry of grace, obeying and enforcing God’s Law in
the preaching and teaching of the gospel of Christ (Matthew
28:18-20). God has given the state the power of the sword to
enforce Christ’s supremacy in civil matters, since He is the
ruler of the kings of the earth (Revelation 1:5; Romans
13:1f); and He has given the church the power of the keys of
the kingdom to enforce Christ’s supremacy in spiritual and
moral matters (Matthew 16 and 18) since He is the head of the
church (Ephesians 5:23).
This fundamental distinction between the kinds of power wielded by
the church and the state respectively draws a broad line of
demarcation between the two societies, as essentially separate and
independent. From the very nature of the state it cannot, without
departing from its proper place, usurp the office or assume the
jurisdiction of the church because it has received no authority to
perform, and is not competent to exercise, spiritual functions;
and, on the other hand, the church has no power to assume to itself
the powers and prerogatives of the civil magistrate, because those
powers and prerogatives, being civil and coercive, are wholly alien
to its character and jurisdiction.
The church did not originate with, nor is it subordinate to, the
state, being a holy commonwealth under Christ; nor did the state
originate with, nor is it subordinate to the church, being a civil
commonwealth under Christ. Neither did the church nor the state
originate with the family. Each of these spheres of authority and
government — family, church and state, stands directly under
God and His Word. Whereas there is mutual dependence between them,
the boundaries and purposes of the power exercised in each are
clearly delineated in the Word of God. (Bannerman, Vol. I, pp. 99f)
This separation is firmly rooted in the Bible. In the Old
Testament, we find the functional separation of church and state in
ancient Israel. There was a distinction between the work of Moses,
the civil leader, and Aaron, the levitical priest (Exodus 16:33;
29:1). During the period of the restoration after the Babylonian
Captivity, there was a clear distinction between Nehemiah the
governor and Ezra the scribe. After Mt. Sinai, the liturgical
duties were assigned to the priests, while the judicial and civil
authority resided in the elders, judges, and kings (I Samuel 8:4;
10:20; II Samuel 3:17; 5:1). The only times that the levitical
priests were involved in political matters were in extraordinary
cases (I Kings 1:38).
In the New Testament this separation is even more specifically
defined. The church, not the state, is given the authority of the
keys of the kingdom (Matthew 16:18), i.e., the authority to preach
and teach the Word of God.
B. The Interdependence of Church and State Under God’s Law
Christ is the Head of the church and the King of the state. In
both, His written Word is the Source of Law. The state is as
accountable to His Law as the church. As Ephesians 1:20-23 tells
us: when God raised Christ from the dead, “He seated Him at
His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and
authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not
only in this age, but also in the one to come. And He put all
things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all
things to [or ‘for’] the church, which is His body, the
fullness of Him who fills all in all.”
Among the all things [of Ephesians 1:20-22] over which Christ is
now made Head to the church, i.e., for the benefit of the church,
is to be numbered the ordinance of magistracy or civil government
in this world — a truth which seems unquestionably to draw with
it the conclusion that, in the hands of Christ, and under His
control, the civil government of nations may be made instrumental
in advancing the interests and promoting the well-being of the
church.... Distinct and separate in their essential character,
they are yet brought into one in their mutual subjection to the
same Divine Head, and in their mutual subserviency to the same
gracious purpose of promoting the prosperity of the church and
advancing the cause of Christianity. Fundamentally unlike in their
character on earth, they are resolved into a higher unity through
means of one Head in heaven. The church and the state, because
equally servants of Christ, are helps made and meet for each other.
(Bannerman, Vol. I, pp. 113f).
C. The Duty of the State Toward the Church
The state is assigned the duty by God to be the civil protector of
the church of Christ. Addressing the church of our Lord, Isaiah
says: “And kings will be your guardians, and their princesses
your nurses. They will bow down to you with their faces to the
earth, and lick the dust of your feet; and you will know that I am
the LORD” (49:23). As the guardian of the church, the civil
government is to be God’s avenger of evildoers to terrorize
them and to punish them for their criminal behavior, as defined by
God, for the benefit and protection of good people (Romans 13:1f).
The state is to protect the church, not only from those who would
injure her, but also from those who would hinder her from her world
mission of preaching the gospel to every creature. The civil
government must guard “the full and free and unrestricted
power [of Christianity] to take possession of this world in the
name of Christ to the exclusion of any other form of faith and
worship.” (Bannerman, I, 141). This is what Christianity
demands and it cannot and will not be satisfied with less!
D. The Duty of the Church Toward the State
The church has a prophetic responsibility toward the state: when
the state strays from the Law of God, the church is to call it to
repentance and to show it the right way from God’s Word,
warning it that it faces divine judgment if it refuses to do so.
This is the way Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, the
apostles John, Paul, and Peter, along with Jesus Himself,
confronted the state. Martin Luther, in describing the
church’s ministry to the state, said that the church is to
“lick the fur” (not the feet) of the state. In other
words, as a cat is constantly licking its own fur to keep it clean,
so with the preaching of the Word of God, the church is to
“keep the state clean,” i.e., obedient to biblical law
and the supremacy of Christ the King.
E. The Relation of Church Courts to Civil Courts
The church, under Christ her King, is an independent domain, even
as the state is. The church is a separate institution with its own
powers, functions, and jurisdiction. The state has its own domain.
Each institution may exercise authority only within the
jurisdiction given it by Christ. Ecclesiastical constitutions have
no authority in civil government; and civil constitutions have no
authority in ecclesiastical government. To reject this limitation
is political, cultural, and ecclesiastical suicide. The courts of
the church are not under the jurisdiction of the courts of the
state and vice versa. The church, therefore, is not a
tax-exempt organization; it is, rather, non-taxable by the
state, because as an organization, the church is not under the
state’s jurisdiction. Its government is in the hands of the
officers of the church and is distinct from the civil
magistrate.
After having said this, it must be reiterated emphatically that
this institutional separation of church and state does not imply
any antithesis between God and state, Christianity and state,
biblical morality and state, or Bible and state. Religious
neutrality in politics is a myth the humanists try to impose on
Christians, while they themselves are never neutral. Christians may
never even attempt to be religiously neutral, for Jesus said that
we are either for Him or against Him. Between these two poles there
is no neutral ground.
In Deuteronomy 16:18-17:20, God instituted civil courts. The origin
of their authority and jurisdiction is God Himself (v. 18). The
function of courts is defined by God alone: to administer justice
in terms of God’s revealed Law (v. 18-20). The judge is not
to be an impartial referee, but a champion of God’s Law,
actively concerned with bringing God’s justice to bear on
every situation (II Chronicles 6:23). As Rushdoony wrote: “If
the judge does not represent God’s Law order, he is
ultimately a political hack and hatchet man whose job it is to keep
the people in line, protect the establishment, and, in the process,
to feather his own nest. Ungodly judges are to be feared and hated:
they represent a particularly fearful and ugly form of evil, and
their abuse of office is a deadly cancer to any society”
(Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 613).
The standard of judgment in civil courts is to be the Lord’s
revealed Law (Deuteronomy 16:21-17:1). As Samuel Rutherford has
taught us in his classic, Lex Rex, as only God can define
and distinguish good and evil, so only God can justly define
criminal behavior and the nature of civil punishments for that
behavior. When man is the source of law, who determines what crimes
are and how they are to be punished, good is called evil, evil is
called good, justice is perverted, and penalties become arbitrary
and cruel.
“The more a power departs from God’s Law, the more
impotent it becomes in coping with real offenses, and the more
severe it becomes with trifling offenses or with meaningless
infractions of empty statutes which seek to govern without moral
authority and with reason.” (Rushdoony, Institutes, p.
620)
In 17:2-7, we are taught that the procedure of the court must be
just, orderly, solemn, and public. Cases can be appealed to higher
courts (I Kings 3:5-15). Trials should be swift and just (Ezra
7:26). And corroboration among witnesses is absolutely essential
(Deuteronomy 17:1-7; Exodus 22:10f). This means that perjury is a
heinous civil and criminal, as well as religious, offense. Perjury
is a destructive blow at the foundation of justice. Therefore the
penalty of perjury is in terms of lex talionis, i.e.,
“eye for eye, life for life” justice. This means that
the heinousness of the crime determines the severity of the civil
punishment, or more simply, the punishment must fit the crime.
When a judge renders a righteous decision, according to the Bible,
it is the judgment of God Himself (17:10-12). Although imprisonment
is not a biblical form of civil punishment, three kinds of civil
sanctions are presented in the Bible, depending on the nature of
the crime. The first is restitution in matters concerning money,
property, and injury. For instance, in cases of damages, the person
who injures or wrongs another shall be liable to pay damages (Lev.
24:19) and medical expenses (Exod. 21:19) and for time lost from
work. In regard to stealing property, double restoration and more
in some cases is required (Exod. 22:1-14; Lev. 6:1-7). Second,
whipping is also required for some offenses, (Deuteronomy 22:18).
Third, capital punishment is required without mercy for those
convicted of capital crimes as defined by God (Exodus 21:12-14;
21:16; Deut. 22:23-27). Romans 13 tells us that the civil
government still bears the power of the sword to punish evil-doers.
What is the relation of the Christian to civil courts of law today?
As we have just shown, civil courts were instituted by God to be
used by God’s people for protection from criminals, for the
maintenance of liberty and justice for all, and for the
preservation of God’s moral and social order. The apostle
Paul used the established judicial system of his day in Acts 25.
The leaders of the Jewish church had brought unjust and untrue
charges against Paul before the civil official, Festus. In his
court, Paul spoke in his own defense testifying that he had
committed no crime. Because Festus was prejudiced toward his Jewish
accusers — wishing to do the Jews a favor (v. 9), Paul
knew that he could not receive a fair hearing. Therefore, in formal
legal language, Paul appealed to a higher civil court: “I am
standing before Caesar’s tribunal, where I ought to be tried.
I have done no wrong to the Jews, as you also very well know. If
then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything worthy of death,
I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of
which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I
appeal to Caesar” (v. 10-11). In making this appeal, he was
“taking to court” his fellow-members of the Jewish
church.
In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:33-42), Jesus condemned the
abuse and perversion of issues that pertained only to the court
with its administration of justice. He forbade his disciples to use
vows and oaths in their everyday conversations with each other
because they were too solemn to be used casually in ordinary
interpersonal relations. Oaths and vows may be imposed by those
with the authority to do so, i.e., heads of families, elders in
churches, and civil magistrates. He is not outlawing oaths and vows
absolutely, for to do so would require Him to contradict what God
had revealed elsewhere in His Law. In Matthew 5:38-42, he also made
clear that the principle of lex talionis, so essential to
the administration of justice in civil courts, is not to be used in
ordinary, everyday interpersonal relationships. Those relationships
are to be governed by love, mercy, and kindness. Courts are to
administer justice, not show mercy (Deuteronomy 13:8). In this
text, Jesus is not concerned with the relationship of the Christian
to the state, but the response of the Christian to things done to
him personally. He is to be concerned for law and order, while not
always pushing for his own rights, and being prepared to suffer
insult for believing in law and order.
The apostle Paul dealt with the relation of the Christian to courts
of law, both civil and ecclesiastical, in I Corinthians 6:1-8.
Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare
to go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Or
do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the
world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the
smallest law courts? Do you not know that we shall judge angels?
How much more, matters of this life? If then you have law courts
dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges
who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame. Is
it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to
decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law with brother,
and that before unbelievers? Actually, then, it is already a defeat
for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be
wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? On the contrary, you
yourselves wrong and defraud, and that your brethren.
The point of this important text has been narrowed by some today to
say merely that members of the church of Christ should never sue
their fellow-members in a civil court of law. Such a narrow view
fails to understand our text in the light of its biblical and
historical context. First, such a view disregards the fact that God
Himself instituted civil courts for the benefit of all citizens,
including those who are members of churches (Deuteronomy
16:18-17:1). And, it should not be forgotten, since these courts
were instituted in ancient Israel, all of those participating in
lawsuits would be members of the covenant community, i.e., they
would be fellow members of the Old Testament church. Second, Paul,
who is issuing these apostolic injunctions to the Corinthian
church, initiated a lawsuit-appeal, not only against fellow church
members, but also against the leaders in the Jewish church of his
day in his appeal to Caesar recorded in Acts 25. As Charles Hodge
has written: “...under the circumstances in which the
Corinthians were placed, it was wrong to go to law, even to protect
themselves from injury. That this is not to be regarded as a
general rule of Christian conduct is plain, because ... God
appointed judges for the administration of justice; and because
Paul himself did not hesitate to appeal to Caesar to protect
himself from the injustice of his countrymen” (I
Corinthians, p. 97)
Furthermore, what Paul is condemning in I Corinthians 6:1-7 is, to
quote John Calvin, “an excessive fondness for litigation,
which took its rise from avarice.” Calvin, then, clarifies
the point of the text: “Paul does not here condemn those who
from necessity have a cause before unbelieving judges, as when a
person is summoned to a court; but those who of their own accord,
bring their brethren into this situation, and harass them, as it
were, through means of unbelievers, while it is in their power to
employ another method.... Let us therefore bear in mind, that
Paul does not condemn lawsuits on the ground of its being a wrong
thing in itself to maintain a good cause by having recourse to a
magistrate, but because it is almost invariably accompanied with
corrupt dispositions, as, for example, violence, desire of revenge,
enmities, obstinacy, and the like” (Commentaries, Vol.
XX, pp. 198-199, 205).
The points Paul is making in our text are practical ones: (1)
Christians dare not do anything that tends to bring reproach on the
name of Christ, the church of Christ, or their Christian profession
of faith (James 2:7). (2) Christians should never engage in
lawsuits until all other remedies have been tried and have failed.
(3) Christians must put aside completely a spirit of revenge and
retaliation. We may go to court to maintain law, order, and
justice, but never to get even. (4) Christians must learn to suffer
injuries quietly. (5) In Corinth, an improper lust for possessions
had them in such a grip that they could not refrain from hurting
one another. (6) The Christian, and especially the elder, has the
responsibility to know biblical law to the point that he can apply
it correctly to situations as they arise without being too loose or
too strict.