Saeculum: government, law and culture

Political theology has to do with the nature and role of civil government. Central to Christian reflection about civil government throughout history is the church. God has established church and government as parallel institutions, with different functions and purposes. As expressed by concepts such as sphere sovereignty and the two kingdoms, the existence of church and government as both legitimate, God-ordained authorities suggests limitations on the other. That is, the scope of church authority is defined over against the nature of the civil government, and vice versa.

It is instructive, therefore, to contrast church power with civil power. The power of civil governments is typically divided into three categories: legislative, executive and judicial.

Church power is not legislative

Legislative power is the power to enact law. In doing so, lawmakers create binding obligations that did not previously exist. The Christian tradition has universally held that human civil law must be based on the universal moral law (or natural law). The natural law is indeterminate, giving high level principles (such as do not kill, do not harm others) but not their detailed application, leaving freedom to lawmakers when enacting civil laws. When human civil laws enact a law based on the moral law, that creates a new obligation.

For instance, there is no universal moral principle that I cannot travel in a vehicle at more than 60 km/h. But there is a universal moral principle that we should not harm others. If the civil lawmaker enacts a law mandating that vehicles must not travel at more than 60 km/h in a particular area in order to protect public safety, then that becomes a binding legal (and moral) obligation, as a determination of the natural law.

This illustrates the fundamental difference between church power and civil power: churches do not have authority to make binding determinations of the natural law. Churches cannot create new legal or moral obligations which did not previously exist. This, of course, is at the heart of Reformation theology: no pope or presbyter can mandate anything which is not contained in Scripture, whether attendance at confession or observance of Lent.

The church lacks any legislative power – it is purely advisory and declaratory. As Zacharius Ursinus, author of the Heidelberg Catechism, wrote:

if the edicts of magistrates bind the consciences of men, why do not the traditions of the church also? Ans. The cases are not the same. God has given to the magistracy the authority to frame civil laws, and has threatened to pour out his wrath upon all those who violate these laws; but he has given no such authority to the church, or to her ministers, but requires merely that their laws and ordinances be observed according to the rule of charity: that is, with a desire of avoiding offence, and not as if there were any necessity in the case, as though the conscience were bound thereby.

We might adhere to church traditions and codes, but merely out of a desire to avoid offence, not because they are binding.

Church power is not executive

Secondly, church power is not executive. Executive power is a slippery beast, given the wide nature of functions conferred on government agencies today. But the core idea is the power to execute and implement the law. Legislatures enact law, courts interpret and apply the law, and the executive enforces the law. Executive power is coercive. If a person commits a criminal offence, the person can be tried and a punishment such as imprisonment imposed. The executive can order a person to pay money to settle a debt, and forcibly sell property if he or she fails to do so.

It should be clear that church power bears little resemblance to executive power. The church has no coercive power, or power to enforce any form of law, whether ecclesiastical or civil. Church officers cannot force a person to repent, or reconcile, or impose punishment if they fail to do so. It is no part of the business of the church to enforce government regulations and the government cannot recruit churches to be enforcement agents.

Church discipline may seem to be like executive power. But it is declaratory rather than coercive: the purpose is to encourage the person to repent and be restored to fellowship, not to punish or enforce scriptural teaching.

Church power is not judicial

Finally, church power is not judicial. Judicial power is the power to authoritatively determine controversies between people – between people in dispute, or between the government and a person. Determining controversies involves an examination of the relevant facts, weighing the credibility of witnesses, and making a decision as to what really happened. One aspect of this is that it is the courts’ role to determine what the law is. Judges are independent and impartial, and must make decisions in a procedurally fair way. The courts, therefore, authoritatively interpret the law and determine the respective legal rights and obligations of litigants.

No such power is conferred on churches or church officers. It is true that disputes often arise involving church members and adherents, and that church officers are called upon to resolve such disputes. And, regrettably, church bodies often fall into a quasi-judicial mode of resolving disputes, although without the expertise and protections which exist in the legal system. This is not helped in the Presbyterian system, where church bodies are called “courts”, but possess few of the characteristics of civil courts.

But the role of the church in such instances is very different from the secular courts. Their role is not to investigate the facts and make a determination as to which party is in the right. The role of the church is to seek to bring about repentance and reconciliation. People in dispute should be encouraged not to stand on their rights, but to forgive and repent.

What is the nature of church power?

Church power is not legislative, executive or judicial. What then is church power? This is determined, of course, by reference to Scripture, by precept and example. The church has only those functions and powers which are conferred on it by Christ, its head.

The core function of the church is to make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all that Christ has commanded, baptising in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:16–20). The church is to be Christ’s witnesses to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). Church officers are to shepherd the flock and keep watch to guard against false teaching (Acts 20:25–31). The church should gather for prayer, corporate worship and the Lord’s supper (Acts 2:42). The church is to exercise discipline over unrepentant sinners within the church (Matt 18:15–20; 1 Cor 5:9–13).

Drawing these threads together, the Reformed understanding is that the power of the church and church officers is ministerial and declaratory. Church officers have the power to declare the truths of the Scriptures, and shepherd the flock by teaching, warning and exhorting. Their power is confined to the declaration of the Scriptures, and goes no further. Church officers have no right to impose their own views on their congregations, whether of politics, education or child-rearing. Elders and church officers also have the power to govern aspects of the life of a congregation in matters relating to order.

As put by Ursinus, “there is a great difference between the civil magistrate, whose province it is to exercise authority over his subjects, and to compel such as are obstinate to yield obedience by corporal punishment, and the ministry of the church, to whom no such power is granted; but who are entrusted with the office of teaching men in reference to the will of God”.

The leading account of Presbyterian church government is probably James Bannerman’s book The Church of Christ: A Treatise on the Nature, Powers, Ordinances, Discipline, and Government of the Christian Church. He wrote:

the laws framed and announced by the Church, or by Church courts, as binding in matters ecclesiastical, are declaratory and not enactive, involving, if they be valid at all, no new exercise of authority on the part of the Church, but limited to the object of explaining and applying the law previously uttered by Christ in reference to such matters. The office of the Church in relation to the laws of her Divine Head, is to explain, to declare, and to apply them, in reference to every fresh case that may occur, warranting or requiring her interference. Beyond this the legislative function of the Church does not extend. She has no power of legislation for herself.

Some implications

The power of the church is declaratory and ministerial. This is standard Reformed and Presbyterian ecclesiology. And yet it seems to be under threat, or at least misunderstood within churches today. How readily the church seems to slip into secular modes of operating.

For example, church decision making bodies sometimes take sides in disputes, rather than seeking to facilitate repentance and reconciliation. In some denominations church officers have undertaken investigations into alleged breaches of the law. But churches are not courts, and do not exercise judicial power. Church officers lack the training to undertake such an exercise.

Recall how readily churches enforced Covid regulations, including mask wearing, “social distancing”, and mandatory vaccination. Assume, for the sake of argument, that all these regulations were reasonable and just, and that Christians were bound to obey them under Romans 13:1–7. Even if that were the case, it is no part of the role of a church to enforce government regulations.

There should even be hesitation about whether churches should give recommendations or advice about compliance with government regulations. While advice from centralised church bodies might take the burden off local ministers and elders, my experience is that such advice is often incorrect and does more harm than good.

A civil ruler who uses his or her power other than for the common of the community abuses that power. A parent who misuses her authority other than for the purpose for which that authority is given abuses that power.

Similarly, if church power is only ministerial and declaratory, then using it for any other purpose is an abuse of that power. Church officers must be faithful stewards of the authority conferred upon them by Christ.