Erastianism is a theological and political doctrine that advocates for the supremacy of the state over the church in ecclesiastical matters, particularly regarding the appointment of clergy, governance of church affairs, and church discipline. This view asserts that civil authorities should have ultimate control over religious matters, including the power to determine church practices and enforce church discipline. Erastianism is typically regarded as a serious error rather than a formal heresy. While it distorts the biblical relationship between church and state, it does not deny core Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, or salvation through Christ alone, which are the usual markers of heresy.
History of Erastianism
The Origins of Erastianism: Erastianism is named after Thomas Erastus (1524–1583), a Swiss Protestant theologian and physician. Erastus himself did not fully advocate the extreme form of the doctrine that later bore his name, but his views were foundational. Erastus argued that church discipline, including excommunication, should be the responsibility of the civil magistrate, not the church. He believed that civil authorities, rather than church officials, should be responsible for enforcing religious uniformity and overseeing church governance.
Erastus' ideas developed in the context of the Reformation, when Protestant leaders were often working closely with civil rulers to establish state churches. He was concerned with avoiding abuses in ecclesiastical discipline and wanted to protect civil peace by placing religious matters under the authority of the state.
Erastianism in the Reformation Era: The doctrine became influential in the context of the Magisterial Reformation, where reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin often depended on secular rulers to implement religious reforms and protect Protestant communities. While Luther and Calvin did not fully embrace Erastianism, their close collaboration with state authorities created an environment in which the role of the state in religious matters became a significant issue.
Erastianism became more clearly articulated in the Church of England, particularly during the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. The Act of Supremacy (1534) declared the monarch to be the Supreme Head of the Church of England, marking a clear assertion of royal control over the church. This effectively placed the English monarch as the ultimate authority over ecclesiastical matters in England, aligning with Erastian principles.
Erastianism in the English Civil War: During the English Civil War (1642–1651) and the debates within the Westminster Assembly (1643–1653), Erastianism became a significant theological and political issue. The Westminster Assembly was called to reform the Church of England, and one of the key questions debated was whether the state or the church should have ultimate authority over church governance and discipline.
Thomas Erastus' ideas were influential among some members of Parliament, who supported the notion that the state should have final authority over the church. The Presbyterians and Independents, however, opposed Erastianism, arguing that the church should govern its own affairs without interference from the state. Despite this, Erastian principles were reflected in the final outcome, as Parliament retained significant control over the governance of the Church of England.
Later Developments: Erastianism continued to influence debates about church-state relations in Europe and North America. In countries like Germany and Switzerland, where state churches were established, Erastian principles often led to the state exercising authority over ecclesiastical appointments, church taxes, and religious practices.
In the United States, Erastianism was largely rejected with the adoption of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which established the separation of church and state. However, debates about the relationship between church and state continue to this day in various forms, particularly in discussions about government influence on religious institutions and church involvement in political matters.
Theology of Erastianism
Erastianism is characterized by the following theological and political ideas:
State Supremacy Over Church Matters: Erastianism teaches that the civil government has ultimate authority over the church in both spiritual and temporal matters. This includes the power to appoint clergy, determine church doctrine, regulate church practices, and enforce church discipline. In this view, the church is seen as an institution within the state, subject to the authority of the state, rather than an independent spiritual authority.
Church as a Department of the State: In an Erastian system, the church functions almost like a department of the government, with civil authorities overseeing its governance. The state is seen as responsible for maintaining religious order and uniformity, and religious leaders may be appointed or removed by civil rulers. This leads to a blending of political and ecclesiastical power, with the state assuming a significant role in spiritual matters.
Excommunication and Church Discipline: A key aspect of Erastianism is the belief that church discipline, including excommunication, should be carried out by the civil magistrate rather than the church. According to Erastus, civil rulers had the right to enforce religious obedience and moral behavior through civil means, including fines, imprisonment, or other penalties. In contrast, historic Christian teaching views church discipline as a spiritual matter under the authority of church leaders.
Religious Uniformity: Erastianism often promotes religious uniformity as a means of maintaining social order. The civil government, according to this view, has a vested interest in ensuring that all citizens adhere to the state-approved religion, which is often tied to national identity and political stability. This can lead to the persecution of religious minorities and dissenters who do not conform to the established church.
Why Erastianism is Considered an Error
Erastianism has been rejected by historic Christian orthodoxy for several reasons:
Separation of Church and State: Erastianism undermines the biblical principle that the church and state are distinct institutions with separate God-given roles and responsibilities. According to historic Christian teaching, the church is the spiritual body of Christ, tasked with preaching the gospel, administering the sacraments, and exercising spiritual authority through church discipline (Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:17-18).
The state, on the other hand, is given authority by God to maintain civil order, punish wrongdoing, and protect its citizens (Romans 13:1-7). While the church and state can work together in some areas (such as promoting justice and morality), the church is not subject to the authority of the state in spiritual matters. The New Testament affirms that Christ is the head of the church, not the civil authorities (Ephesians 1:22-23).
Church Autonomy in Governance and Discipline: The Bible teaches that church leaders (such as elders and bishops) are given the responsibility to shepherd the flock of God, teach sound doctrine, and exercise church discipline (1 Peter 5:1-3; Titus 1:9). Church discipline, including excommunication, is a spiritual matter and should be carried out by the church, not the state (Matthew 18:15-17). Erastianism, by giving the state control over church discipline, subverts the church’s spiritual authority and autonomy.
The Lordship of Christ: Erastianism can be seen as a challenge to the Lordship of Christ over His church. According to orthodox Christian teaching, Jesus Christ is the head of the church (Colossians 1:18), and His Word (the Bible) is the final authority in matters of faith and practice. The church is governed by Christ’s teaching and the work of the Holy Spirit, not by civil rulers or political powers. Erastianism, by placing the church under the authority of the state, compromises this fundamental belief.
Historical Rejections of Erastianism: Throughout church history, many theologians and church leaders have opposed Erastianism. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), a key document in Reformed theology, explicitly rejects Erastianism by affirming the autonomy of the church and its right to govern its own affairs without interference from the state. John Calvin and the Presbyterian tradition also rejected Erastianism, emphasizing that the church should be governed by elders and ministers, not civil magistrates.
The Historic Christian Orthodox View
The historic Christian view upholds the distinct roles of the church and state while affirming that both are instituted by God for different purposes. Key aspects of the orthodox position include:
Christ as the Head of the Church: The church is a spiritual body, with Christ as its head. All authority within the church comes from Him, and the church is governed by His Word. Church leaders (elders, pastors, bishops) are responsible for shepherding the flock and maintaining spiritual discipline within the church (Ephesians 4:11-16).
Spiritual Authority of the Church: The church has its own spiritual authority to administer the sacraments, preach the gospel, and exercise church discipline. This authority is separate from the civil authority given to the state (Matthew 16:18-19; 1 Corinthians 5:12-13).
Legitimate Role of Civil Government: While the state has legitimate authority over civil matters, including justice and the protection of citizens (Romans 13:1-7), it does not have the right to govern the spiritual affairs of the church. The church and state have separate responsibilities, and their authority should not be confused.
Support for Religious Freedom: Historic Christian teaching supports the freedom of the church to govern itself without interference from the state. This includes the right to freely worship, appoint church leaders, and exercise discipline according to biblical principles. Religious freedom, particularly in Protestant and Reformed traditions, rejects the coercion of religious belief by the state.
Conclusion
Erastianism is the belief that the state should have authority over the church in spiritual and ecclesiastical matters, a position that has been considered erroneous by historic Christian orthodoxy. Throughout church history, this doctrine has been challenged for its failure to recognize the separation of church and state and the independent spiritual authority of the church under the Lordship of Christ. According to biblical teaching, the church and state have distinct God-given roles, and the church is to be governed by spiritual leaders appointed according to the teachings of Scripture, not by civil rulers or governments.
-----