Replies

How about when the church abdicates its moral responsibility to police itself? Then there's this, dan.... Romans 13:1-7

I referenced that myself, for after and in addition to what the church is to do, there is the power of the state. As i said, the problem is the dangerous disregard of the function of both church and state, and of making the latter necessarily the first recourse to what happens under church jurisdiction, and the supreme judge on what is moral (which would include communist and Islamic governments).

But which recourse becomes the case when the state is acting more according to Scripture than the church.

But would you call or want the police to be called at every allegation made against your teen age kids under your roof, even before you investigated allegations made against them, and implicitly trust that the judgment of the state as to what is moral or not, and who is guilty or not will be superior to your own?

In the case of a family or church which has lost its credibility than the state sadly does become the first recourse for members, but as explained, in principle the fearsome power of the state should only be required when a person or church is not controlled from within. And thus when an allegation is made, the first recourse should be to the church leadership, which is to try cases and publicly expose/rebuke guilty pastors and further execute judgment corresponding to the violation. Which in the case of excommunication for moral offenses can mean leaving such to the state to deal with.

Thus a church officer who is suspected of stealing money is to be tried by the church, and if guilty then loss of position and restitution is to be mandated. Recourse to prosecution by the state is always available by the victims, but should not be used unless the church is negligent and or the guilty is incorrigible and excommunicated

In the case of moral violations in the NT church, the judgment against deception and (basically) breach of contract was that of death by supernatural means, (Acts 5) which also was the means in the case of a gross incestuous relationship. (1Co. 5)

Both were also unacceptable in Roman society, and likely had laws against it, but the church effectively dealt with it.

In addition, shunning/disfellowship was mandated for any one that was called a brother that was a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner. (1 Corinthians 5:11) Which would leave him at the mercy of the state.

But I do not think we are mandated to report every single violation of law by those in our home, church or even neighborhood, and they of us.