Government response to COVID-19 challenged Christian thinking on Romans 13 and other like New Testament passages. In other terms, it sharpened ecclesiology. One might call it a test or trial that aided sanctification. In the middle of this test, growth occurs. A church might look and act differently in a matter of months and say something it never said before that seems to contradict former statements and stated doctrines or practices. It might sound like it is contradicting itself. Everyone and every church needs the opportunity to change. That’s even a reason why the Jezebel of Revelation 2:20 was given space to repent, including by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
People don’t want to change, if in the middle of the change, they get clubbed both for changing or for not changing fast enough. They’ll just keep their head down to avoid the carnage. This reflects what Paul commands the church in 1 Thessalonians 5:14, “Be patient with all men.” Especially young people need to be given the opportunity to fall and get back up again. Church discipline has the purpose of restoration, which takes some time. One could notice how patient Jesus was with his disciples. They had to change, but they were given time to own their beliefs.
Sanctification itself is a lifetime engagement. Not until we are glorified do we arrive. Until then we see through a glass darkly. I’m not going to make major changes any longer at my age, but I’m still changing and growing. I’ve got more to learn and I love it.
Someone may have written earlier, “civil government should be obeyed and submitted to by Christians,” and, “Peter told a persecuted group of believers to accept and obey their authorities.” Those statements don’t contradict disobedience to civil government and authorities. As has become popular verbiage, the application of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 isn’t binary.
Romans 13 1 states:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
The important two words regarding the application of Romans 13 to the government response to churches during COVID-19 are “be subject.” Maybe next important are “higher powers.” An important word for application is hierarchical. “Be subject” doesn’t mean “submit.” It means, “place yourself under.” There are higher powers and even higher powers. The highest power is God and when someone places himself under higher powers, there is always the very highest power, God that arbitrates all subjection.
As subjection relates to the husband and wife relationship, the husband is a higher power, but the wife submits to her husband (submits different than subjects) “as unto the Lord.” The Lord helps a woman submit to a knuckle head. She recognizes that above him is the Lord. She is ultimately submitting to the Lord, which helps her submit in the short term to a man.
At some point, a church that submits itself to civil government can see that it clashes with the highest power. Right then, in accordance with hierarchicalism, it circumvents or bypasses the higher power for the highest power. The church is still subject to civil government, but does not submit to civil government because it contradicts God.
Even the Constitution of the United States recognizes a highest power that gives power to the government. The authors of the Constitution limited the powers of the federal government in the Bill of Rights, acknowledging that men possess certain rights from God, not from government. This includes the right to the free exercise of religion, what people call “the free exercise clause,” which reads: “Congress shall make no law. . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof [religion].”
Civil government does not define the exercise of religion. At least according to religion, God does. Civil government does not have power either to define the exercise of religion or to regulate it.
Government in the United States, whether local, county, state, or federal, has an interest in the safety of its citizens. To what degree can the power of the state function in regulating its citizens? Every citizen walks out his front door with many risks and also risking others. The government can’t eliminate all risk and it doesn’t have the power to do that. If it did, it could take away every liberty any of us possess.
There are 39.51 million people in California. I’m saying that is 39,510,000 people. 9,399 have reportedly died of COVID-19. I did the math. That’s .00023788914 or .023% or two one-hundredths of a percent. You can correct me if you think I’m wrong. Let me apply this math to Oregon. 333 have reportedly died in Oregon of COVID-19. There are 4,281,000 in Oregon where I live. That is .00007894736 or .0078 percent or seven one-thousandths of a percent. I will risk seven one-thousandsths of a percent for the freedom to practice my religion.
I could become more eggheaded. I could ask, what percentage of these above people died in a nursing home? Officially over 25% of all COVID-19 deaths have occurred in nursing homes. I did that math too. There are 157,000 COVID deaths in the United States and 40,273 are nursing homes.
Abortions constitute over 800,000 or more deaths every year in the United States. You could see how that Christians, who believe abortion is murder, might see this protected and even supported practice as a contradiction. Also certain massive and regular political protests are being allowed by the same governments all over the country. The same governments that restrict churches are in writing permitting these protests. All the West Coast states deemed cannabis businesses to be essential.
A major reason for the free exercise of religion is incapability of government to legislate morality. How damaging is immorality? God wants worship. In the face of death, someone needs preparation to meet God. Is soul solace essential during a pandemic? Civil government cannot abrogate moral law. It cannot say, “No, there is no eternal life and eternal death, only physical life and physical death.” The government supercedes its power, both by the judgment of God and even by the judgment of the Constitution, when it prohibits free exercise of religion.
Regarding COVID-19, where does civil government overstep its authority? How does it violate the free exercise of religion? It does that when it says a church cannot meet. County, state, and federal governments in the United States have revealed their interest in intruding on the rights of churches. Churches must submit to the highest power when only higher powers, lesser powers than the highest power, violate the highest power.
Churches now are defying their government. They have the right to do this. Perhaps they started out submitting to the government edicts regarding COVID-19. Because they are not doing so anymore isn’t a contradiction. Much of what is happening is new. Through further evaluation and new and better information, churches are applying scripture and submitting to God rather than men (Acts 5:29). They are subject to the higher powers, but not at the expense of the highest power.
Well stated. Civil disobedience to government is a very weighty matter and shouldn't be rushed, and I think your last sentence sums it up quite well. Things were unclear at the start, but that clarity developed over time because of the providence of God. Few things have manifested His providence in the recent past the way that this pandemic has. But that's likely a separate blog post.
Thanks James. Agree.
I disagree with you because it seems you are making a god out of freedom. Just because America has had freedom for many years doesn't mean it's always going to be that way. You are making too big of a deal of this and turning your freedom into a god.
However, I totally agree with you here: "People don't want to change, if in the middle of the change, they get clubbed both for changing or for not changing fast enough. They'll just keep their head down to avoid the carnage. This reflects what Paul commands the church in 1 Thessalonians 5:14, "Be patient with all men."
I think we need to be patient with our church members. A lot of people think we should continue meeting, just because "we've always met for church." We need to give people a little bit of grace and time to adjust to not having church for a year or two. A lot of people also think we should sing in church, just because "we've always sung in church." We need to give our members a bit of grace and time to adjust when we ban singing in our churches because it spreads Covid19, once our churches do open up in a year or two.
These are great points. Telling a church member in her 90's whose gone to church since her childhood that we no longer will meet is probably going to be met with some resistance. We need to give people a couple of weeks to adjust to the new normal. We may need to assist people in their 90's with getting Zoom set up because some older people are so dense they can't even to the most basic things.
Maybe only an anonymous commenter would say, "you are making a god out of freedom." How could you get that out of this post? God is God. God wrote the Bible. God wrote Romans 13 and 1 Pet 2 and even when we don't have freedom, we are still subject to God as the highest power, even if the government takes away that freedom. The Constitution, however, agrees by saying that the free exercise of religion is a right given by God, so it protects that right. I'm not making too big a deal about meeting for church. I'm really being kind to you.
I don't know one person who says meet because we've always met or sing because we've always sung. No one is meeting because of tradition. Scripture teaches it. I wonder if this is a satirical or joke comment. It's not coming across like a joke, so it seems more like something else that would be perhaps unkind to say, so I'm leaving that alone.
So only members in their 90s have this unscriptural idea of meeting? The church is an assembly. It assembles. Non-assembled things aren't a church. This isn't just tradition, this is scriptural teaching. I think you should look in the mirror on who is "dense."
I am going to try to translate what the poster above was saying. We have seen lots of church members complain about not meeting and we have seen some churches actually defy the law and go ahead and meet anyway. I am guessing that this person was saying that we are making a god out of our "freedom and independence" and all that stuff that so many radical-right Trump supporters are proclaiming right now. I don't know what was controversial about that statement. We need to oppose those church members who want to flaunt their so-called "freedom" and insist that we meet anyway. My guess is that the poster was just saying that so many Christians are flouting the law and taking the whole 'merica thing too far. Instead of trying to say we have some sort of "right" to meet and sing, we need to obey our governments and discontinue these practices for some time. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about that? Why is that a controversial post?
I think the poster used a poor choice of words when describing older people. I think he or she just meant that a lot of older people are not familiar with Zoom or computers in general. They weren't saying that old people are dense in general. He or she just meant that they are not as familiar with computers as their great-grandkids are. Not being familiar with something does not make one "dense." That was just a poorly worded.
Thanks for the translation anonymous. Neither of you are dealing with what I wrote in the post that sound nothing, nothing, like making a god out of freedom. This also has nothing to do with radical-right Trump supporters either. The first amendment is in the Constitution. It has nothing, zero, to do with Trump. You say "meet anyway." Anyway, as in, against the law? 'merica? Your comment reads like you've got to be joking. These dense grandparents, who don't know how to use computers, want to got to church. Uh-huh. You uber-smart young people only want to protest, kill millions of babies, and defund the police.
When this whole COVID thing started, they were predicting millions dead by a disease with a massive mortality rate. This obviously hasn't happened. In fact the rate of mortality is comparable to other strains of influenza, just with a faster spread rate. But there are clearly those who would like to use this crisis as an opportunity to affect people psychologically in advance of the election, tank the economy and as an excuse to go after those people meeting for church, all at the same time.
These are simply partisans, and I say it's time we stopped avoiding the obvious. They only talk about infected rates and never talk about how that number goes up as more people get tested, not to signify new hotspots; while the mortality rates on the other hand are very LOW compared to what they were saying in March, and they are not increasing. Face it, all we need in this situation is for anyone vulnerable to voluntarily self isolate to protect themselves while this thing reaches an equilibrium and we reach herd immunity. The only reason we had to wear the masks to begin with was because they didn't want too many people to get infected at once. That obviously hasn't happened except in a few places very early into this like NY where it spread rapidly in the subways. Overcrowded hospitals isn't happening. If it was you'd be seeing it. All we see are panic-mongers from those who are trying to sway the election process, and as soon as it's over they will lose steam.
However, it is a portent of what is to come that many are choosing this time to vent their rage at the churches in this time, while they ignore the riots that aren't self-isolating, the bars and nightclubs, the abortion clinics that remain open, and so on. All these people are doing is venting anger at churches, but for now, it amounts to a few isolated people and officials, that's all.
The people who want to crack down on churches are also delusional, the book of Hebrews clearly teaches us that, in the long term we should not forsake the assembling of ourselves together.
The Roman empire was cracking down on those assemblies, and at the time they probably sincerely believed it was for the better good that they would stop meeting, but they still met. This is nowhere near to that level of universality nor the level of ruthlessness employed then, there are just a few incidents happening here and there. But the same principle applies and if you want to ban someone so badly, ban yourself from attending. Nobody is stopping you from banning yourself, my friend.
Well written. The answer to the questions you ask in the penultimate paragraph are worthy of their own blog posts. Given the uniqueness of the US in that the constitution starts with "We the people…." Just to point out the fact that obeying an unlawful order/rule is conceding to that lesser authority as authoritative in the particular order/rule, and the hard question is the unlawfulness, as you point out in your question, "How does it violate the free exercise of religion?" I appreciated how you point this out in the ultimate paragraph on how it's not a contradiction. It's not a contradiction these issues are nuanced and you point that out.
Thanks TTurner!
This article is embarrassing: "Regarding COVID-19, where does civil government overstep its authority? How does it violate the free exercise of religion? It does that when it says a church cannot meet."
You have chastised a couple of posters for not dealing with the article. Well, I'm dealing with the article. You sound like one of these pro-Trump, pro-America right wing nuts when you write articles like this. These churches that are fighting the government and saying they have some sort of "right" to meet together are an embarrassment. And yes, they are making a god out of some sort of freedom that they think they have. I thought this blog was smarter than this. You are embarrassing yourself by taking this extreme position. We need to obey our government officials and stop with these weird conspiracy theories that the government is somehow "targeting" us. Seriously. That is embarrassing. I thought this site was above conspiracy theories. Sadly, I was wrong.
Anonymous,
You are very tough and brave writing an anonymous comment. And no, you didn't deal with any arguments I made in the piece. You are a troll too. You just did name-calling, ad-hominem comments. Usually I don't even publish a comment like this, because it didn't interact at all with what I said, which was based upon Romans 13, the text of it, and the first amendment to the Constitution, the text of it. You didn't deal with either, and you sound like the wing-nut. I gave no conspiracy theory. I didn't even say that government officials were targeting us. You put targeting in quotes like someone said that. You said that. Name one conspiracy theory in the piece. I'll await that, and I don't expect you to come back, except anonymous and with more foolish commentary. That's what your comment was, just plain foolish. You are deranged. Yes, I'm saying names, but that is the level of commentary you made, but it was not the level of post I wrote. Do you really think your comment was smart? You think you're smart, can understand what is smart, and then you write just a plain dumb comment. Interact with the arguments. Be smart, self-proclaimed smart person.
This is a tough issue. If a church wishes to claim exemption from Romans 13 (and 1 Pet 2), it can. But, it's important leadership make a good argument. They're teaching their people by the way they react. First, identify when exactly scripture allows us to disobey the government. Then, prove (don't assert, but prove) that your local jurisdiction has done just that. Then, act accordingly.
My criticism of JMac was that his announcement article was badly argued. He didn't do either of those, above. He may well have a case to make. I just don't think he made it.
The biggest sticking point I see is this: at what point does a church, that is, the individuals in the congregation, decide to arrogate to themselves the authority to determine when they will (or will not) respect the government in a whole host of OTHER issues? A sloppy justification with COVID may give cover to folks who decide to ignore some other "inconvenient" laws.
Tyler,
I think there are also good arguments for taking precautions. I don't think a church has a biblical basis for flouting precautions. We paid a lot of money for two disability spots and a disability ramp and the state didn't even tell us to do it. We are very legal. I think that the hoaxers are also guilty of something, when they don't take precautions and then deadly illness sweeps through the church. It's a list of things. I know churches that flouted and then got very, very sick. I was wondering what was going to happen at MacArthur's church if that happened there. It could. I know two churches personally where it did happen.
MacArthur and GCC got an initial win I notice there. We'll see if they keep winning. I hope they do, because I believe that ability to meet even with some flouting defeats at least constitutionally, and especially scripturally, not meeting. I think they have some good points on their side. They didn't keep meeting from the start. They respected the authority of the state for weeks until it was clear that the state wasn't ruling in a just way. There is a precedent for not meeting in a pandemic, which I argued early in this, but here I argue that someone can change then too.
I don't disagree with you at all. The obedience to the spirit of the civil laws of the OT is keeping the spirit of the law. At this time, everyone knows what the risk is. People have to make decisions and they are. I'm guessing that you are not quarantined or sheltered in place still and that you take risks all the time with the virus. When MacArthur called it a peaceful protest, he was pointing out the hypocrisy. This becomes political, and it has become that. BLM and riots not charged. Churches threatened. People are not being serious about this.
Thanks for dropping by.
Tyler,
By the way, someone anonymous above used your 'merica, that I see you use. Maybe people are reading you.
Tyler, your criticism of JMac relies on your assumption as to where the dividing line is. Your assumption is not stated in Scripture.
You say he didn't identify when Scripture allows us to disobey government. I don't know what you missed from this: "Insofar as government authorities do not attempt to assert ecclesiastical authority or issue orders that forbid our obedience to God’s law, their authority is to be obeyed whether we agree with their rulings or not." Seems pretty clear to me that your slippery slope argument in your comment here is pretty well precluded if people follow that, and it's his dividing line — obey the government unless they assert ecclesiastical authority or forbid obedience to God's law.
Your problem is not that he didn't state his dividing line, it's that you don't agree with his dividing line. And yours isn't in Scripture. It nowhere says, "We ought to obey God rather than men when man's law targets churches." It doesn't go there.
A timeless principle runs through both Testaments that civil disobedience is appropriate at times. Hebrew midwives, Elijah in II Kings 1 (he even torched the messengers!), Jonathan refusing Saul's order in I Samuel 20 to summon David, several examples in Daniel, the wise men flouting King Herod, the apostles before the council, etc, etc.
Not all of these fit your construct but they, and others, have the appearance (or more) of God's sanction. I'm still working through this and I've moved somewhat from where I've been for decades, but I'm quite sure that I won't raise my banner where you have. Too many things don't fit. It's broader than you've defined it, and you haven't given a Biblical basis for your definition. It's not whether we are being deliberately targeted that is the dividing line between obey / disobey. You either need to give a Scriptural basis for insisting on your dividing line or back off criticism of others who draw it differently.
Kent:
I don't think he got 'Merica from me! I think it's a pretty popular derogatory remarks, but who knows!
Here's my basic conundrum. I skimmed the filing by JMac's attorneys. I think the arguments there are pretty good. I just don't think he'll win. I think his initial letter did a poor job of teaching Christians how to think through this issue, which is why I disagreed with it so much.
I'm conflicted because I think JMac has a point, from a moral and practical perspective. Clearly right. There is hypocrisy and arbitrariness in "essential" vs. "non-essential." I agree. I think it's wrong.
But, Acts shows us defiance in the face of deliberate, intentional persecution. I'm willing to go beyond that and say a church may disobey if the government edicts are defacto discriminatory, even if the intent is not malicious. Nevada, for example. I think this is JMac's best case, and it appears to be the substance of the filing. It did a good job pointing this out.
HBut, the context here is odd. There is a public health emergency. People may quibble about the lethality of the virus, but public health officials (city, county, State, Federal) are worried. Either (1) they're all stupid, (2) there is a vast conspiracy led by a cabal of evil people, or (3) there is at least SOMETHING to be worried about. So, it's difficult to broadbrush and say the state is persecuting Christians. It may be, but it's hard to make sweeping statements and still speak responsibly. Are we talking about city, county, State or Federal? Or all four?
In short, this is hard. It's complex to think through. I'm not sure where the line is. For me, it'd have to be something like (1) a deliberate animus against the church, or (2) defacto discrimination without just cause. I suspect JMac's situation is #2, but whether he should wait for the Courts before disobeying the magistrate is a real sticking point.
These are somewhat scrambled thoughts, but that's my 0.02 cents for the morning.
Tyler, suppose the government required everyone (not just Christians) to report any Jews of which they become aware.
That's not deliberate animus against the church nor defacto discrimination against believers. It applies to everyone.
Should Christians obey?
Jon:
Acts 4-5 is fairly clear, and it's from whence I drew my line. Refuse to obey the magistrate when you're ordered to not preach the Gospel = overt persecution. I'm willing to extend it to implicit, non-intentional discrimination, but that's scripturally debatable and based more on US law than the bible. I discuss my concerns with JMac's initial statement here: https://eccentricfundamentalist.com/2020/07/24/a-bad-argument-from-a-good-man/
Jon:
I have to conclude you are not a serious person, based on the way you're confusing categories. A public health emergency is not analogous to the ramp-up to the genocide of the Holocaust. I will not interact with you again, on any topic. Take care.
Tyler, I've been compiling a list of cases of disobedience to the civil authority in Scripture. Some are not obvious but most are. Some are commanded by God (the wise men), some are obviously approved by God in the context (the Hebrew midwives, Elijah in II Kings 1). Others come from godly people and receive no condemnation, suggesting that the most likely interpretation is that the action was appropriate. https://mindrenewers.com/2020/08/18/obeying-god-obeying-man-some-key-scriptures/
God-approved civil disobedience is a timeless principle that manifests in both Testaments. It is something that, in some cases, He approves — "obey every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake" is therefore not an absolute, it is circumscribed. On that, we agree.
The question is the nature of the circumscription. It appears to me that you've used one case (that of the apostles) to define the circumscription and ignored a host of other evidence. I think you need to look further.
I'd suggest also that your 'Merica and "crack for Christian nationalists" comments which I've seen are unworthy. This is an issue that may mean fines or imprisonment for some believers who are under greater restrictions than anything you have in America and have no 1st Amendment. So let's avoid the political stuff and keep it to Scripture.
Well, what an interesting comment, that I'm not a serious person.
Tyler defines the dividing line for civil disobedience based on two passages in Acts. They are instructive as applying an underlying principle (that there are times to disobey) but hardly a comprehensive explication of it. He ignores a host of other instructive Scriptural examples of civil disobedience.
Thus, he has taken a hard line on when civil disobedience is appropriate, and excluded all other cases. Yet there are many instances (the one I cited is obvious) where almost every Christian would agree that civil disobedience is appropriate, and which do not fit within his dividing line.
So here's a better dividing line.
1. Christians should not, even if it isn't targeted persecution, obey a command to do anything that directly violates God's commands. Thus, the midwives were right to disobey Pharaoh, the men of Saul who refused to kill the priests were right to refuse, and the apostles were right to refuse to the council's gag order.
2. Christians should also not obey any command that directly facilitates blatant wickedness. Thus, Jonathan was right to disobey Saul's command to summon David, the wise men should not have returned to Herod (so God told them not to), the elders were right to bar the door to the king's messenger (II Kings 6), Christians who refused to turn over Jews to the Nazi regime were correct, and Christians should not provide transportation to abortion clinics if commanded to do so.
I'm not sure that covers everything but it's close. Tyler's dividing line fails on multiple counts. If his dividing line is the right one, there's a whole lot of disobedience that Scripture does not condemn and, in fact, sometimes commends.
Now, having responded to that, since Tyler chose ad hominem I'll follow Paul's example in II Cor 11. I've been a believer for 56 years, read the Bible 5x this year. I've been a bivoc pastor in a foreign country, away from family and friends, for 25 years. My six adult children are all active in solid churches, including in missions.
I was assaulted outside our building, and threatened with a pellet gun at my head. I've been bitten by dogs many times and threatened with assault more than once while distributing Gospel literature. I've had a drug gang try to break down the door to assault us during a Bible study because I helped someone get off drugs and into the Lord's service. There have been several attempts to burn us out of our building by neighbourhood thugs. My car has been vandalised multiple times.
I have studied Greek and Hebrew, I have a BA and MA in Bible. I learned textual criticism from Dr Harry Sturz (the same man who taught Dan Wallace). Dr Steve Hankins, Dr Sam Schnaiter, and three other pastors or former pastors served on my ordination council. Dr Michael Barrett once encouraged me to pursue a PhD, but understood why it didn't fit with the ministry path I was taking. I have been accused of many things in my life, but never of not being serious.
Finally, while I don't always see eye to eye with Tyler, I don't think I've ever been disrespectful. On a personal level I just do not understand his comment. But since it was public, I'm responding here.
Tyler Robbins,
I would urge you to reconsider your statement about Jon Gleason. If he is anything, he is serious. Please get to know him as Christian brother. I was hoping to read some dialog between you two men (and others), but you've written him off as not being serious enough to deal with. Wow! Please check his blog and consider what he's saying. He's a serious follower of the Lord Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture and, in my view, very good at applying Scripture.
E. T. Chapman
Tyler,
I was gone to a conference for a few days, and I didn't have time to comment. I figured everyone would carry on the discussion for themselves, but I'm quite sure that through the years that others could look into your comments and then flush you completely forever based upon disagreement and thinking your argument was bad. In fact, I know that could have taken place. You've been very disrespectful to Jon Gleason. Maybe you don't like his argument, but one strike and you are out, and especially in the fashion that you did it, is not acceptable.
Over at sharperiron there are incessant inane comments, and people go on their sweet way without moderation for years. You put up with those people.
Jon Gleason has been very reasonable for a long time. I don't know what set you off, but he doesn't merit it. Some people might (plenty of which are at SharperIron) but not him.
ET, Kent, thanks for your comments.
I don't know what set Tyler off. If we're going to declare a universal principle as he seemed to be doing it needs to apply universally. Either the rule is that we only disobey government in times of persecution, or that isn't the rule and there are other cases. Committed believers have historically decided (as far back as into the Old Testament) that there are other cases. That suggests Tyler's dividing line is problematic.
For me personally, the thing with Tyler doesn't matter. I have no contact with him outside of online and probably never will. There are thousands of miles between us. There is no connection between our churches and probably never will be. I've been "ghosted" by people with whom there was a real connection. That matters. Someone on the Internet really doesn't.
I responded to Tyler in the first place because he historically has been at least willing to listen and consider. I responded to him after his "ghosting" because, unlike some of the people Kent mentioned, I thought he was worth it. It's not that I care what he thinks about me, what he thinks about me will likely never matter in any way. It's because he made a hasty judgment and I think that's out of character and I hoped to be an illustration to him of the danger of that action. I don't like writing the kinds of things about myself that I did but I thought he was worth it.
Blessings to you all.