The Other Side of the Separation of Church and State
The Exclusion of Purely Ecclesiastical Disputes
While Christians are often concerned, or even angered, because Christian views and activities are stifled in public places, bodies and schools, there is a compensating balance. Each will have to decide whether it is enough to balance that which is lost in “separation of church and state.” Generally, my view is that it is for the best, because properly tithing churches and Christians can solve the impact of stifled religious expression in public places by simply privatizing their locations and funding.
In exchange, purely ecclesiastical disputes are not within the jurisdiction of the courts. The exact line between purely ecclesiastical disputes and disputes invoking the military power of the state, i.e., disputes over property and money, is often hard to find.
The Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church of Memphis, Tenn., fell into the black hole of bitter rancor when part of the membership sought to prevent a new employment contract between the church and its senior minister. Other disputes included concerns over contributions to a para-church organization, as well as bonuses to the senior minister. During the trial court proceedings, the members bringing the lawsuit were excommunicated.
The Court of Appeals of Tennessee dismissed the case and held that the issues involved were purely ecclesiastical disputes, disputes over which the court had no jurisdiction. That will be the result in most courts whenever internal church issues are presented. External issues, such as title to property and bank account ownership, would likely remain the province of judicial decision-making. As a result, Christians have no choice but to obey Paul’s admonition to settle their own disputes without involving worldly courts. 1 Corinthians 6:1-8. Thus, the separation of church and state may not be all bad.
