That is one of the most pellucidly stupid questions ever uttered, both the sense of it, and the motive for it, because it betrays one of the most basic flaws in Christian (or religious) thinking. There exists differing things authorized for different groups in the New Testament (this betrays my apriori assumption that the Bible is authoritative in matters of faith and practise.) In church life, there are three groups involved, at least in this case. First you have individuals, then the church (local congregation, then the State (or "Caesar"). Each of these groups has Scripturally authorised abilities and spheres of influence; differing jobs, if you will. In money usage, for example, I as an individual Christian may do as I like with my money. It is mine as long as it is in my possession (and as to Facebook theology "Well, it REALLY all belongs to God....", no. Peter told Ananias that as long as he kept his money, it was his to do with as he wished -Acts 5:1-11). I determine what I do with my money. Once I deliver some to the local church in an offering, different rules apply. Scripture gives example of uses of a congregations offerings, and it appears to be quite narrow, helping true widows and orphans in the congregation, giving aid to indigent believers elsewhere, and the support of evangelist/teachers locally and on "mission" journeys. What I as an individual may do charitably is broader than what the congregation may do.
As to censure, and the "church court", if I see a brother falling into an unhealthy lifestyle, rebelling against the counsels of God's Word, I may speak to him. If he will not listen to me, then I may bring someone else with me to speak with him. If he rejects that, we take him before the church. If he rejects the church's judgment, "let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector" Matthew 18:15-17 As an individual, I may not censure him. The congregation and its leadership has that authority.
But what if he kills someone? Same rules apply. The church, however may not apply Ultimate Sanction, execution. The State alone has that authority. Romans 13 teaches:
Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
The State wields the sword against evildoers; it has that authority. I do not, nor does the church.
(The individual may protect himself and others...that is a different issue). Jesus would not have wielded the Civil Sword; His Kingdom is not of this world. Nor would he have waterboarded, nor let a dog bark close to a prisoner, nor applied heat to soft tissues. Right or wrong, those things are the purview of the State. I am not seeking to argue whether any of these practices are right or proper, or not.
I merely wish to correct the blithering idiocy of that question.