According to Calvin there are three ecclesiastical powers
– Doctrine (Institutes, 4.8.9), Legislation (Institutes, 4.10) and the third, Jurisdiction
(Institutes, 4.11, 4.12). Jurisdiction
is the focus of this chapter and pertains to the discipline of morals, which is
an order framed for the preservation of the spiritual polity which is not the
same as civil polity.
To Calvin “the preservation of spiritual polity courts
of judgement were established in the Church from the beginning to deal with the
censure of morals, to investigate vices, and to be charged with the office of
the keys” (Institutes, 4.11.1). Calvin cites Paul’s letter to Timothy that
there are two kinds of presbyters; “those
who labor the word, and those who do not carry out preaching of the word yet
rule well” (1 Timothy 5: 17) - those whose power depends on the keys which
according to Matthew 18: 15-18, Christ gave to the Church.
To Calvin, Matthew means that “those who are
contemptuous of private warnings be severely warned in the name of the people;
but if they persist in their stubbornness, they should be cut off from the
believers fellowship. He adds that this has to take place only with due and
fair process – which gives the Church some jurisdiction for the application of
the keys which Christ gave to the church.
Calvin says that two passages, one from Matthew, where Christ promises
to give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter and that whatever he binds
or loosen on earth shall be confirmed in Heaven, (Matt. 16:19) and gospel of John
“if you forgive the sins of any, they will be forgiven, if you retain their
sins of any, they will be retained in Heaven” (John 20:23). To Calvin this is
solely in reference to the ministry of the Word, because Jesus equipped the
apostles for his work.
Forgiveness of sin and damnation which they preached are
from God. According to Calvin both text have
the power of binding and loosing, it is the same command, and the same promise. The difference is that the first is concerned
with the preaching of the word, whereas the second applies to discipline and
excommunication which is trusted to the church.
The church binds him who it excommunicates but not call him to
despair. But one is also loosened when
one regrets and is accepted into communion.
The difference between civil and ecclesiastical powers
are as follows; that for the civil punishment, the sinner is punished against
his will, whereas for ecclesiastical, the sinner professes his repentance in a
voluntary chastisement. In doing this it
is important that care is taken to understand the true use of ecclesiastic
jurisdiction and the first aim of ecclesiastical jurisdiction is “that offenses
be resisted, and any scandal that has arisen be wiped out” (Institutes, 4.11.5). In which case the spiritual power be
separated from the magistrate’s authority over the use of sword. And also, such jurisdiction be administered
not by one person but by a lawful assembly as observed in scripture (1 Corinthians
5: 4 - 5).
Calvin outlines stages of church discipline as
follows:
First - Private admonition – if anyone does not live
honorably, or has committed any act disserving blame.
Second - if any man stubbornly rejects such admonition
and persist in his own vices, he should be admonished second time in the
presence of witness. Then he is admonished by public authority. If he persist, then he be removed from the
believers fellowship (Matt. 18:15, 17)
According to Calvin, there are private sins and public
sins, for which he quotes, “Reprove him, between you and him” (Matt. 18:15) and
“rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear” (1
Timothy 5:20), respectively to show how correction is to be carried out.
Calvin also distinguishes between light and grave
sins. He says that “some are faults;
others, crimes or shameful acts” (Institutes 4.12.4). For Calvin agrees with
Paul on the use of severe remedy – to correct crimes or shameful acts. To Calvin, the purpose of church discipline,
include; first, that discipline, the order of the church may be preserved. Second,
the good be not corrupted by the constant company of the wicked. Bad examples
lead us away from Christian living. Third – Those overcome by shame for their
baseness begin to repent.
Calvin enjoins church discipline to be gentle for the
church is the body of Christ.
Accordingly, he advises individuals also to temper themselves to the
wilderness and gentleness of church discipline. Unfortunately, heinous crimes –
thievery, killings, and other occur in the church, how do we reconcile or civil
powers and ecclesiastical powers over such crimes?
Comprehensive summary, Kwasi. Nice job. I think we can clearly say these crimes fall into the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate. That criminals would be "punished or compelled" to restitution by civil authorities. (Institutes 4.11.3)
ReplyDeleteEven so, I think the church has a role to play here. As Calvin says, "Their functions [civil and church authorities] ought to be so joined that each serves to help, not hinder the other." (4.11.3) That role for the church, at least in part would be, according to Calvin, "condemns his life and morals, and warns ... him of his condemnation unless he should repent." (4.9.2) In other words I think the civil authorities take charge o physically dealing with criminals and the church does so spiritually.
Bill: I agree with you but we are also faced with the challenge that these crimes are committed in the church by church members who are in trusted position. What happens here? Do we hand them to the civil authorities or by ecclesiastical powers?
DeleteHi Kwasi. Here I think we have to refer to the Book of Order. There is a whole section on discipline that sets up an adjudicating process for dealing with malfeasance, etc. I would say such people should be removed from positions of authority, but through the proper channels.
DeleteThank you for your post, after reading your summary I went back and re-read Calvin. This was a particularly stressful segment of Calvin for me. I am often torn by the gray-lines (for me gray-lines) of judgment. And it seems Calvin may have difficulty with this too. How do we reconcile civil powers and ecclesiastical powers over crimes? My simple-mindedness tells me that by looking at each incident individually we would reconcile each according to the insult, thievery, assault, murder are carried by both ecclesiastical and civil judgment, while other actions may be purely ecclesiastical in nature and would not necessarily include .... or be reconciled with the civil courts.
ReplyDeleteI am in agreement with you. When I read the chapter, a question I asked myself is why me? But I have gained a lot from the chapter by comparing it with how an incident that happened in my church was handled and I can assure you that not only have I confirmed that the process used was in line with the reformed tradition and as Calvin outlines in the chapter, but also gave me in-depth understanding about how what was done was done.
ReplyDeleteThank you for being on my side.
Kwasi, great post! I particularly loved your emphasis on binding and loosing. Calvin had me so flummoxed in this section by trying to split hairs in the Matthew citations! It seems that the civil authorities do much binding, but not much loosing. The church, according to Calvin, is called not only to discipline, but to reconciliation (4.12.8). I suppose it can be argued that the church today is too far into forgiveness, but as I was reading recently, we err on the side of forgiveness because Jesus taught us that.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, I have also lived through a situation where the church wanted to hold tenaciously to the condemnation position, even though this person was truly repentant. As Claire pointed out, it is extremely difficult to know when the chastisement has gone far enough to achieve the desired result - and not too far. (I wish Calvin had called this section Discipline and Reconciliation because he clearly warns us about getting too big for our britches in discipline in Sections 4.12.7-11.)
Hi Kwasi,
ReplyDeleteI am particularly struck by the line in your summary of:
"any scandal that has arisen be wiped out” How do we in the age of modern media accomplish this task. As I consider wiping out scandals, it seems as though people often have "long" memories. Is this wiping out a matter of the love and grace of Jesus Christ. As I think about this, it seems to be the only possibility. Thank you again for this excellent summary.
I think even in matters of heinous crimes, it is important to remember that eternal judgment is left to God alone. As his agents, church officers exercise discipline with much care, always prayerfully hoping for the repentance and restoration of the sinner. The gospel of forgiveness is prevalent in Calvin.
ReplyDeleteThat is an important thing to state Pam. Event though there are times that discipline may be needed, it needs to be done to build the community and not tear it down.
DeleteI appreciate your summary, Kwasi and our colleagues’ comments. Discipline is a tough topic, because none of us is perfect. We all make mistakes; we all fall short. So it is really tough to call someone else out for their error in judgment or mistake. Of course, we all want to be treated with patience, grace and love. So I like Calvin’s emphasis on the importance of mildness and gentleness. Ultimately, we want people to repent and to be restored. Our Head of Staff encourages us to look at mistakes (not heinous crimes obviously) as “teachable moments,” where we can all learn from one another.
ReplyDeleteWhen the sheep and goats are divided and Jesus says "when I was in prison you came to visit me." Not many churches today have prison ministries. We feed the poor, we help cloth kid and homeless, we provide for the widow/widower, single parents and many more down that list but when it comes to people who have committed crimes extra grace is required and that can be difficult. It is something that we need to look at individually first before putting off on the church to fix. I know I struggle with it, and it's something I need to get better at.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate how Calvin models his instruction on Matthew 18. Even today, this feels like a natural, caring progression in the context of a church community (although I do agree with Sharon – he often appears to be splitting hairs). Your question is really interesting – basically inviting a comparison between ecclesiastic and civil authority.
ReplyDeleteThe churchie in me wants to think the church can manage a wide array of wrongs “in-house”. However, in this age, any attempt to do the job of the state is a liability to the church. We are pressed to push all actions to the civil law, then deal with what spiritual issues are left in our jurisdiction. I think about examples I’ve seen of theft or misappropriation in the church. We inhabit a time that makes those issues the purview of civil law ahead of church law.