Click here to get this post in PDF

Church vs State Jurisdiction

The Church’s jurisdiction is broader than that of the State. The Church’s jurisdiction is limited as to what forms of punishment it may impose. For example, it is denied the use of “the sword,” which is the God-endorsed tool of the State. However, the Church can discipline any sin and assign the punishment appropriate to that sin. It must have such broad jurisdiction because God’s kingdom has total jurisdiction over all things, all men, all women, the Church, the State, the Family, the grass, the animals, the dust of the earth, the stars of the heavens; God rules over all and has given all authority to His Son, who is the Head of the Church.

The scriptural separation of Church and State is not that each has its own hermetically sealed box of jurisdiction that the other cannot enter. In that case, the State could not prosecute a priest who sexually molests an acolyte in the confessional booth. The State could not prosecute a father who beats his son to within an inch of his life, for a father has jurisdiction over his own family, which is another oath-bound government instituted by God at creation. The Church and the State can exercise jurisdiction together. For example, a murderer, who is recalcitrant in the face of attempts by his own Minister and Session to bring about his conversion and who refuses to repent, can be executed by the State and excommunicated by the Church.

However, we live in a day when the understanding of the Church’s broad jurisdiction is reversed, and the Church is actually complicit in teaching a view of Church and State that promotes that reversal. Today, the impression is that the State rules all things – health, welfare, economics, crime, family life, gender definition, everything that exists is subject to its authority because sinful man wants votes, money, & power to proclaim himself the savior of mankind, etc. It is the sin of the Garden of Eden – “Ye shall be as gods” – written into the heart and policies of sinful, statist man. Therefore, the sinful public official claims jurisdiction over all things and demands immunity from the Church’s (read, Christ’s) jurisdiction over his acts on earth in history. He says,

“You, Church Elders, cannot touch me with respect to my responsibilities as a public official, for it is outside your jurisdiction. Whether it’s a personnel decision, a public policy action, a campaign speech or act, or anything else I do in my official capacity as a public official – none of that is subject to your authority to discipline me even though I’m a member of your local Church. For the State and the Church have different jurisdictions.”

What he means:

You, Church, might be able to discipline me if I commit adultery against my spouse, but I can sin all I want in an act as a public official. Those acts are off-limits to you. I’m immune from Christ’s jurisdiction in that area of my life. Christ doesn’t rule all things, just what goes on in Church and, perhaps, the Family.

Here’s a sarcastic hypothetical showing how it would play out. A Church’s disciplinary arm of the Session sends a letter to a public official, stating that it has been reported that the public official signed a bill (if a governor) or voted/sponsored a bill (a legislator) which granted the right to kill to mothers, and their hired doctors, to kill their own unborn children. The public official replies:

You can’t discipline me for this; it’s outside your jurisdiction. This is within the jurisdiction of the civil authority, of which I’m an authorized, God-appointed official. You’re stepping outside the Church’s authority to even question me about this matter.

The standard Church response:

“Oh, you are so right. What were we thinking? You are totally immune from our authority when you act ex cathedra, that is, when you act in your civil capacity as a representative of the State. You may sin as much as you like as a public official, and it’s all good. In fact, because Christ said, ‘. . . whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,’ God won’t even hold you accountable at the Final Judgment. He’ll say, “I know that you know that murder is wrong and that my jurisdiction over heaven and earth is universal; however, because you endorsed the legality of killing unborn children only in your capacity as a civil servant of mine, your acts in that area are immune from my judgment. Also, your church didn’t even discipline you when you executed this particular policy. I could care less about the murder victims that resulted from your acts as a representative of the civil authority; you were acting as a civil authority.”

This cannot be correct. Such a position takes the self-assumed and illegitimate power that the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church exercised prior to the Reformation and gives it to public officials of the modern State.

The following is another fiction based on a hypothetical placement of historic characters referenced in the scriptures. Take King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and move him through time into the Age after Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. Also, assume that Nebuchadnezzar is post-conversion and is a member of a local church. We’ll name this church “The First Church in Babylon.” Remember that Nebuchadnezzar is a King; therefore, he’s a public official, a nearly all powerful public official, not like an American official who is limited by the Constitution and other legal principles, like the separation of powers. He’s a King.

Now lift the edict King Nebuchadnezzar issued in Daniel 3:1-6 from its historical placement in the 6th century B.C. Instead, he issues the edict in the Age of the Church (A.D. whatever) and as a member of a local congregation. Here’s how it plays out:

“Oh, King, live forever, we, the Session of the local congregation of the worshippers of Jesus Christ, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and the local church of which you are a member, have something grievous to report to you. It has come to our attention that you have commanded all people of your realm to worship another god, in fact, an image which you have erected in the plain of Dura. Sir, we hasten to remind you of the 1st & 2nd Commandments, that we shall have no other gods before the true Creator God nor bow down to any image, and of your baptism, by which you swore allegiance to the true Creator God, and His Son, your Savior and your King. If this report of an idolatrous public policy and persecution to the death of believers who do not commit idolatry is true, we require you to either repent immediately and publicly or to appear before the Session of this Church for an investigation and potential prosecution for a notorious sin, unheard of even among the Roman public officials, who do demand offering of incense to the Emperor but do not demand that we Christians bow down to an image. We present this overture to you for the salvation of your soul, if the report is true. And you should understand that we must keep such conduct from infecting our Church, the members of which would rather die for Christ than bow down to an idol. Surely, you as a believer understand this.”

The response of Nebuchadnezzar, as taught to him by the Church of our day:

“O Session, I am ‘not careful to answer thee in this matter.’ (Dan. 3:16b) I did issue such an edict, and I issued my edict as a public official within the civil authority, and you have no jurisdiction over that act. This image will bring unity to our realm, for everyone will be acting in unison in a public manner. Won’t that be so much better than the disputations, disunity, and acrimonious speech we’ve seen among my subjects of late. It will show who is obedient to the King, for those who are disobedient are not law-abiding citizens, and you know that Romans 13[i] and I Peter 2[ii] teach that Christian citizens are to be law-abiding, right? I’ll find out who the rebellious and criminal elements that are in the realm. In fact, some may even attend my own church. How horrendous would that be! That one of my fellow church members won’t show love and loyalty to their King, one of their own Christian brothers. Surely you see that the peace and prosperity of my realm depend on such things. You can’t possibly demand that I go back on my own edict and appear wishy-washy to my subjects! That would be worse than if I’d never issued it. In any event, the Church doesn’t have jurisdiction over me in the civil realm, right? You taught me that yourselves.”

Daniel’s friends, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, understood that the King in their time did not have jurisdiction to tell them to disobey the King of Kings, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So they told Nebuchadnezzar: “O King, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.”[iii] The modern Church has turned God’s governance of the universe on its head with its doctrine about Church and State. You’re free to sin in your position as ruler in the civil realm, and Christ can’t (or won’t) make a peep about it. Except perhaps in the individual’s conscience. But that’s not what this writing is about; this writing is about the Church’s jurisdiction.

The individual’s conscience, even if acting in an official capacity in the civil realm, is not sovereign over that of Christ and the scriptures.

2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.

3. They who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.[iv]

“Any sin?” The Church of our day may need to revise the Confession & add: “They who, in their capacity as a ruler in the civil realm, commit any sin in their official capacity or impose any sinful public policy upon the citizens in the jurisdiction over which they govern, need not obey conscience or God if they act officially.”[v]

Although the Westminster Confession requires synods and councils to conclude only matters ecclesiastical,[vi] it also allows for the Church to “petition” the civil realm regarding civil affairs in extraordinary cases. Secondly, that Chapter of the Confession is not dealing with disciplining the individual believer who happens to be an official in the civil realm. Third, a synod or council which concluded that civil rulers must be disciplined by the Church of Jesus Christ when that official’s policies offend Christ and His law would not be intermeddling with civil affairs,” but would be concluding an ecclesiastical matter.[vii]

Consider Paul, appointed by his governing authority (civil and religious), the High Priest and the Sanhedrin, to arrest and prosecute Jews who had come to believe in Christ. The following is a scenario that also demonstrates the absurdity of two hermetically-sealed jurisdictions, one for the Church and one for the State. Paul tells the disciples in Damascus: “Look, I’m going to start preaching the gospel, but I also have to arrest any believers because I have an appointment from the governing authority, which I can’t just walk away from without violating that authority’s jurisdiction. God’s grace is sufficient to allow me to obey the civil authority, of which I’m appointed a public official, and forgive me for any sin there may be in arresting and prosecuting believers.”

If the Church will not discipline those believers who are public officials when they violate God’s law in their official duties, in fact when it teaches that it cannot discipline them, then it will and has unleashed statist hell on the citizens of the realm over which that civil authority rules. Any unchecked human power will expand to fill whatever void it can, and it will bring misery to all, whether believers or unbelievers. And what will we say when they all with one accord ask, “Where was the Church when these so-called believers started issuing their decrees?!” I suppose we’ll answer,

It’s not our business as the Church to police public officials who are acting in their official capacity as civil rulers. The civil ruler has his jurisdiction, and the Church official has his. We issued a position paper saying it wasn’t biblical. You’ve got to expect persecution from the State on this side of heaven, people! Isn’t that what Paul said in his epistles?

No, it’s not.

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.[viii]

I suppose that when Paul said that we should pray for “all that are in authority”[ix] to be saved, he didn’t mean that public officials in the civil realm would become members of the local church and then be subject to discipline in their official capacities when he wrote the above. Otherwise, we might have a conflict of jurisdictions and miss out on all the wonderful persecution. Believers would have a much easier time being “subject unto the higher powers,” if they knew one of those higher powers, the Church, would stand up for them and God’s kingdom, instead of leaving the rulership of the world to sinful men intent on exercising their godless power over the earth and giving them a “pass” to sin in even greater ways than any individual can. For the individual who practices sin has a limited number of people whom he can harm, mostly himself. But the civil ruler can harm millions. It cannot be that Christ’s present kingly rule at the Father’s right hand means he has given the Church keys to bind and loose in heaven and on earth, with the exception of public officials on earth when acting in their civil capacity!

[i] Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Romans 13:1-4, KJV.

[ii] Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: . . . .” I Peter 2:13-15, KJV.

[iii] Daniel 3:16b, KJV.

[iv] Westminster Confession, Chapter 20 (emphasis added; quoted in part; footnotes omitted), “Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience,” PCA website, http://www.pcaac.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/WCFScriptureProofs.pdf, accessed Jan. 8, 2017.

[v] Interestingly, the very next paragraph (#4) of Chapter 20 of the Westminster Confession could be used to apply discipline to a believer refusing to submit to a sinful public policy. Therefore, when a hermetically-sealed, two-box type of jurisdictional separation between Church and State is promoted, the believer, who seeks to emulate Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, becomes the object of discipline, not the public official issuing a sinful policy. In that same Chapter of the Confession, it states: “. . . they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, oppose any lawful power [which God hath ordained], or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, . . . .” It could even apply to “publishing of such opinions.” Ibid. Then, not only may the State freely persecute the believer seeking to be faithful to Christ, but also the Church must do so. As I’ve written before, this doctrine promotes a diabolical evil, when it implies that even the Church must persecute the believer who, like Peter and John, seeks to obey God and not man. See Acts 4:19.

[vi] “4. Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.” Westminster Confession, Chapter 31 (emphasis added; quoted in part; footnotes omitted), “Of Synods and Councils,” PCA website, http://www.pcaac.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/WCFScriptureProofs.pdf, accessed Jan. 8, 2017.

[vii] One might argue that before a public official could be disciplined about a policy in the civil realm, a synod or council would first have to determine such a policy is sinful to the extent that church discipline may be appropriate. And that would violate the Confession. Perhaps, but the Church should, at least, allow for such conclusions in “extraordinary cases.” Do we not live in extraordinary times when human life and marriage are subject to amendment at will by sinful men and women?

[viii] I Timothy 2:1-4 (emphasis added).

[ix] By definition, the words “all men” would include “those in authority.” However, considering the context of this passage, which has to do with obeying the civil authority, then a fortiori, one has to accept that he wants Christians to pray that civil rulers be saved. If saved, are they not subject to the jurisdiction of the local church in which they are members? “For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?” I Corinthians 5:12, KJV.