A Bad Argument from a Good Man
Image
Grace Community Church, where John MacArthur serves, has released a statement announcing its intent to defy California’s latest rollback of church gatherings due to concerns of a resurgent COVID-19.
The statement is a disaster.
If MacArthur wishes to defy the California government, he needs to do better than this. Here are some relevant excerpts:
As pastors and elders, we cannot hand over to earthly authorities any privilege or power that belongs solely to Christ as head of His church. Pastors and elders are the ones to whom Christ has given the duty and the right to exercise His spiritual authority in the church (1 Peter 5:1–4; Hebrews 13:7, 17)—and Scripture alone defines how and whom they are to serve (1 Corinthians 4:1–4). They have no duty to follow orders from a civil government attempting to regulate the worship or governance of the church. In fact, pastors who cede their Christ-delegated authority in the church to a civil ruler have abdicated their responsibility before their Lord and violated the God-ordained spheres of authority as much as the secular official who illegitimately imposes his authority upon the church.
He continues:
History is full of painful reminders that government power is easily and frequently abused for evil purposes. Politicians may manipulate statistics and the media can cover up or camouflage inconvenient truths. So a discerning church cannot passively or automatically comply if the government orders a shutdown of congregational meetings—even if the reason given is a concern for public health and safety.
MacArthur explains:
When officials restrict church attendance to a certain number, they attempt to impose a restriction that in principle makes it impossible for the saints to gather as the church. When officials prohibit singing in worship services, they attempt to impose a restriction that in principle makes it impossible for the people of God to obey the commands of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. When officials mandate distancing, they attempt to impose a restriction that in principle makes it impossible to experience the close communion between believers that is commanded in Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, and 1 Thessalonians 5:26. In all those spheres, we must submit to our Lord.
Unfortunately, MacArthur made no substantive case, here.
In the New Covenant, without a Yahweh-mandated theocracy, we find precedent for defying the State in the Book of Acts. That volume shows the Church (1) being ordered to not preach the Gospel because the quasi-civil authorities do not like the Gospel, and (2) the Church refusing to obey (Acts 4:15-20).
In order to take advantage of this precedent, the Church must argue a local jurisdiction is acting in a way that fits the pattern. Specifically, persecution or otherwise discriminatory treatment because of religion. Of course, Luke is not on hand to take us into the minds of civil authorities, so we must use a “reasonable person” standard.
So, you must separate government directives into two broad categories of impetus for our context; (1) public health, and (2) persecution or otherwise discriminatory treatment because of religion. In order to trigger civil disobedience, a church must make a plausible case Scenario #2 is happening. In this, MacArthur has not succeeded.
He’s essentially advocating civil disobedience whenever a church disagrees with civil authorities. In fact, on his argument, why should any Christian ever obey his government? This logic is a blank cheque for anarchy, for those looking for it. I expected better from MacArthur.
What about Nevada?
Consider the situation in Nevada.
The Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) declined last week to hear arguments from Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley alleging religious discrimination by the State of Nevada. Calvary Chapel sought to hold services with 90 people, with appropriate social distancing. However, Nevada restricts churches (and certain other institutions) to 50 people flat. But certain other public facilities, including casinos, are limited to 50% of the fire code capacity. Clearly, these are different metrics. When SCOTUS declined to hear the case, it let the lower court decision stand. In Justice Alito’s dissent, he noted:
The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about the freedom to play craps or black-jack, to feed tokens into a slot machine, or to engage in any other game of chance. But the Governor of Nevada apparently has different priorities.
Claiming virtually unbounded power to restrict constitutional rights during the COVID–19 pandemic, he has issued a directive that severely limits attendance at religious services. A church, synagogue, or mosque, regardless of its size, may not admit more than 50 persons, but casinos and certain other favored facilities may admit 50% of their maximum occupancy—and in the case of gigantic Las Vegas casinos, this means that thousands of patrons are allowed.
That Nevada would discriminate in favor of the powerful gaming industry and its employees may not come as a surprise, but this Court’s willingness to allow such discrimination is disappointing. We have a duty to defend the Constitution, and even a public health emergency does not absolve us of that responsibility.
If I were in Nevada, I would give serious consideration to defying the State’s order. To return to California, if Grace Community Church feels it’s in an analogous situation, it should explain. Perhaps it cannot.
In short, MacArthur (et al) has made a bad argument. No doubt, some evangelicals will gleefully post it as though Christ has spoken and the matter is settled.
It is not settled.
Perhaps there is an argument to be made that churches can defy the California governor. John MacArthur just hasn’t made it. No Christian should rely on this statement as a basis for defying his State government. We must do better than this.
Return to California
In response to questions about what, precisely, has changed to warrant this reaction, Grace Community Church released a clarification appended to the original article. It reads, in part:
But we are now more than twenty weeks into the unrelieved restrictions. It is apparent that those original projections of death were wrong and the virus is nowhere near as dangerous as originally feared.
This appears to be the beginning of an argument for civil disobedience based on government incompetence. But, again, the examples from the Book of Acts show us quasi-civil authorities who order the Church to not preach the Gospel because they doesn’t like the message. We have no example of the Church disobeying civil authorities simply because it disagrees with public policy. If Grace Community Church believe otherwise, it ought to prove its case.
Still, roughly forty percent of the year has passed with our church essentially unable to gather in a normal way. Pastors’ ability to shepherd their flocks has been severely curtailed. The unity and influence of the church has been threatened. Opportunities for believers to serve and minister to one another have been missed. And the suffering of Christians who are troubled, fearful, distressed, infirm, or otherwise in urgent need of fellowship and encouragement has been magnified beyond anything that could reasonably be considered just or necessary.
To be sure, this is hard. Every pastor feels it. But, is there really nothing that can be done? A full, corporate worship service in your auditorium is the only solution to this problem? You can’t do visitation? You can’t have smaller gatherings in homes? You can’t have outdoor services?
Major public events that were planned for 2021 are already being canceled, signaling that officials are preparing to keep restrictions in place into next year and beyond. That forces churches to choose between the clear command of our Lord and the government officials. Therefore, following the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, we gladly choose to obey Him.
If MacArthur believes California is doing this to deliberately target religious institutions, then he must provide evidence. If he has none, then he’s encouraging any Christian on earth to disobey the State whenever he disagrees or otherwise finds civil authority inconvenient. This is puzzling coming from MacArthur, who believes (rightly, in my view) there was no biblical warrant for the Colonies to revolt against the British!
This is a terrible document. Too many Christians will accept it uncritically. Some of them will do so because they’re anxious for theological cover, any cover, to justify what they already want to do. Others, perhaps some of the same, will be moved by conspiracy theories or animated by political animus. Given MacArthur’s stature in the evangelical world, the bad arguments here are particularly disappointing. Even worse, MacArthur encourages you to “add your signature to the statement,” regardless of whether California’s civil context is your own.
I shall close with a summary from Phil Johnson, of Grace Community Church, made in the context of a dispute with Mark Dever about a 9Marks article which disagreed with the decision:
The core of our argument is that warm, regular face-to-face _koinonia_ and worship is absolutely essential to the health and testimony of a church. It’s not one of the nine marks in your book, but my assumption always was that you viewed it as a given, like missions and prayer.
— Phil Johnson (@Phil_Johnson_) July 27, 2020
This is not an argument that triggers Scenario #2. Again, I say it’s possible there is an argument to be made for civil disobedience in California’s context. MacArthur just hasn’t made it.
Tyler Robbins 2016 v2
Tyler Robbins is a bi-vocational pastor at Sleater Kinney Road Baptist Church, in Olympia WA. He also works in State government. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist.
[Don Johnson]Nice tone.
I posted Wikipedia for convenience sake. If you know for certain that the Jews were expelled from Rome by Claudius because of Christianity, you are welcome to post links to studies/papers/books whatever that *prove* your assertion. Sarcasm doesn’t do it.
No thanks. No need.
[T Howard]No thanks. No need.
pathetic
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Before others successfully derailed my point on side issues, I said:
In the first century, Rome didn’t allow unapproved religions to propagate their message. The apostles preached the gospel anyway. Rome’s laws weren’t directed against Christianity per se, there was no particular animus against Christianity at that time, there was a reasonable argument that “you can’t just let every religious quack have a soapbox”…
I think you are over thinking this.
Tyler has not chosen to respond to this, but I’ll add a bit more.
Was Daniel’s refusal to eat the king’s diet in response to a direct anti-Jewish attack? Was Daniel justified, by your logic, in taking his stand?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I have explained my preliminary argument has two possible triggers:
- Directives that appear to target religious institutions due to animus against the message and/or its people.
- Directives that unfairly discriminate against religious institutions. That is, religious institutions are treated differently for insufficient reasons. This is the defacto form of #1, above, but likely not as explicit.
Unless you have an extraordinarily careless local government, it’s unlikely Trigger #1 will apply. However, Trigger #2 is another matter entirely. There needs be no overt animus, just discriminatory treatment. By “discrimination,” I mean “unjust or prejudicial treatment” (New Oxford American Dictionary, s.v. “discrimination,” n., 1). Justice Gorsuch, casting about in a similar manner to apply “discriminate” in the context of Bostock v. Clayton County, defined such treatment as “treating that individual worse than others who were similarly situated,” (Bostock, 7). Again, I say the situation in Nevada is a good example.
To return to your claims about Rome. Assuming for the sake of the discussion I grant your point, we would thus, under Trigger #2, have a parallel situation. The State issues an edict not directed against religion per se, but it’s impact is discriminatory because it treats “similarly situated” entities (public facilities like churches and casinos) differently, in a prejudicial manner. By “prejudicial,” I mean detrimental or harmful (New Oxford American Dictionary).
Your parallel of Daniel is out of order. We are not in a theocracy. The Church is a party to the New Covenant, which is in full effect. We are not prisoners of war. At best, the example is helpful for some broad principles.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
You guys have turned this into some kind of Supreme Court level twisted argument. This situation is in fact simple. In California, the governor has ordered that churches cannot meet in groups over 100 (I think that is the number). Furthermore, if a church does meet, it cannot sing.
This is unconstitutional given the First Amendment (and 14th) prohibition against government affecting the exercise of religion.
Churches initially accepted orders to not meet during the coronavirus situation given the potential threat and the reasonable need for the government to stop the outbreak. Since then it has become obvious the disease is not as virulent as supposed (though still serious). Thus, reasonable restrictions are acceptable. However, in this case, not allowing churches to sing is above the power of government. Second, the inflexible attendance cutoff is also suspect given the size of the facilities of many large churches.
This has nothing to do with Rome, or zoning, or any other thing.
Again, you’re making a better argument than MacArthur. I never said there wasn’t an argument to be made. I just say he didn’t make a good one. My analysis is actually pretty simple; two possible triggers! I have simply sketched, with emphasis on the word sketched, one possible route to make a substantive biblical case for civil disobedience. And, let me emphasize, this is a possible route to a robust, logical argument to satisfy your conscience and the congregation’s. It isn’t necessarily a legal argument.
It may seem like a complicated route to some. Not to me. I do this kind of analysis every day, and I’ve done it every day for 18 years. I recently spent all day being deposed by corporate attorneys who wished to argue about what “predecessor” means in the context of a case my unit finished, as our attorneys gear up for litigation with the company. The fact is that it always comes down to these little things. Always. That’s the nitty gritty reality of things that frustrate “outsiders.”
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I got all my stuff from the GCC statement (not the MacArthur statement, but the elders at GCC), so I don’t know why you think it is so deficient.
If Churches can’t meet, and can’t sing, why is there a mass gathering for John Lewis’ funeral? My mother died recently. No funeral allowed. Why does he get one? There are singers there too.
[Mark_Smith]If Churches can’t meet, and can’t sing, why is there a mass gathering for John Lewis’ funeral? My mother died recently. No funeral allowed. Why does he get one? There are singers there too.
Because … he’s special (and you’re not)
Also works for Hollywood luminaries and leftist politicians who can either have guns or be protected by gun-toting bodyguards … but your right to own a gun is questioned.
Also works for Hollywood and other luminaries who can have a large ‘carbon footprint’ but you shouldn’t! (Al Gore, British princes, John Travolta et al)
- Directives that appear to target religious institutions due to animus against the message and/or its people.
- Directives that unfairly discriminate against religious institutions. That is, religious institutions are treated differently for insufficient reasons. This is the defacto form of #1, above, but likely not as explicit.
I think there remains a burden to demonstrate that these are biblical considerations, that following Christ’s commands depend on animus or unfair treatment. Where in the Bible are we taught that it is okay to disobey so long as those requiring disobedience require it of everyone?
(Again, distinguish this question from the question of whether or not churches should have stopped meeting. I am here talking about a government requirement to stop meeting.)
That’s what I mean by saying you are too narrow, Tyler. I think Larry said it better than me. We serve God, and if serving God conflicts with what government says, we serve God - regardless whether the directive is targeted at Christians or not.
Now, we can be creative in light of government directives in order to avoid conflict, but we still serve God anyway.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Part of MacArthur’s defense:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssMW4QOCr7g
A pretty good argument.
David R. Brumbelow
Too busy to watch a YouTube video. If he didn’t put it into his article he released publicly then encouraged everyone in the world to sign, then I’m not interested. Got other things to do! Not trying to be nasty, just being honest.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[David R. Brumbelow]I was pretty disappointed in the Tucker Carlson interview, especially the flaunting his church’s refusal to social distance and wear masks, in spite of California’s mandate for both. Even if he is right about meeting (which I’m not sure about), how is the disregard for these other mandates showing obedience to Romans 13?Part of MacArthur’s defense:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssMW4QOCr7g
A pretty good argument.
[AndyE] I was pretty disappointed in the Tucker Carlson interview, especially the flaunting his church’s refusal to social distance and wear masks, in spite of California’s mandate for both. Even if he is right about meeting (which I’m not sure about), how is the disregard for these other mandates showing obedience to Romans 13?
John Mac is.a COVID minimizer. I’m disappointed
“Pastor MacArthur and Grace Community church are not disobeying the Constitution; it is California’s Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Eric Garcetti that are defying their constitutional obligation to protect religious freedom and church assembly,” said Ellis. “Our American system of government specifically recognizes that our individual, fundamental right to free exercise of religion and freedom of assembly is a pre-political, God-given, inalienable right. That right is not given by the government or the Constitution, but rather, government is mandated by the Constitution to preserve and protect it for the church. Grace Community Church has every right to assemble without impossible and unreasonable infringement from the state, and the state has absolutely no power to impose the restrictions it is demanding. Church is essential, and the government has no power to arbitrate whether religious organizations are essential. This is not about health and safety, it is about targeting churches.”
“Pastor MacArthur and his church, as well as all churches, are entitled to practice their religion without government interference,” he explained. “This is especially the case when the government has given free rein to protestors, and is not similarly restricting marijuana dispensaries, large retail outlets and factories, and abortion providers.”
The counsel stated California’s hospitals are not overwhelmed and the death rate remains relatively low. Because of that, churches shouldn’t face restrictions.
“It is time for Governor Newsom and Mayor Garcetti to recognize what President Trump has already proclaimed: Churches are providing an ‘essential’ service to the people.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2020/08/05/how-a-ca-church-an…
David R. Brumbelow
From a tweet thread from a Pastor in the Bay area of California:
“Police came to our church last night while my sons lead worship for our youth group in response to a neighbor’s complaint that we violated California law on church gatherings. Officer saw we were outside, masked, & distanced while singing & he commended us and told us to proceed.
2/ So, b/c we met outside and followed Covid-19 rules for church mtgs, the police, when called upon by neighbor to shut down our biblical mandate to proclaim the gospel and assemble together, instead said we were doing well and please continue while neighborhood heard us worship.
3/ Now, this is in SF North Bay, in California, where it’s being said by some that the church can’t meet. We CAN meet. And when the police were sent out to stop us, they showed up, saw what was going on, and thanked us for doing it well. They didn’t stop us. And praise continued.
4/ I commended my sons and our assoc. pastor for continuing to worship God, proclaim gospel, assemble together, AND follow guidelines even when they had NO idea anyone would see or police would come. Their heart was to obey God AND honor the law. Neither was a burden. Character.
5/ Our church meets every Sunday morning outside w/ 2 worship services, singing, preaching. We wear masks and distance. Neighbors are beginning to visit. People walk by on the busy street and stop to listen. Last night the police were called and said, “Keep going.” In California.
6/ We’ve built relationships w/ county supervisors and local authorities. They’ve affirmed. Ministry opportunities are opening. We’ll not compromise our call to gather in worship, but we’re also making every effort to follow state rules as a witness so we can tell a better story.
While I appreciate the tweet Joel shared and realize there is the possibility of meeting outside for some churches, what if we are in the middle of winter in the north or midwest (or other places with storms, etc), and suppose the mandate is not to gather with more than 10 inside (Michigan’s current executive order - though churches in our state are exempt from the penalties that may be in place), what then? Just not gather for worship? Easy to meet outside when it is sunny and warm, not so much when it is cold and windy. This is a very complex and challenging time and I keep reading, listening, evaluating, studying, and seeking the Lord for wisdom to see what might be best to fulfill the commands of the Scriptures in both respect for authority and the church remaining faithful to it’s ministry mandate from the Word. Also, to balance the scriptural commands and also apply the Constitutional freedom we have (or did have?) while seeking lead our people to be safe, healthy, and wise…this is not easy. We are doing all we can “virtually” as well as meeting with certain protocols in place, but not sure what we could do if the state starts doing what seems to be going on in California. Thanks to all who share here to help us think through this together.
CRR
Frankly, I’m really concerned about the direction of GCC lately. There is WAY too much emphasis on fighting the culture war and not enough emphasis on just the standard preaching of God’s Word. I think that’s borne out yet again in this all or nothing fight to conduct the worship services the way they want to. First it was over the “Nashville Statement”, then it was the “Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel”, and now it’s this fight with CA government. I especially despise the constant calls to take sides with GCC against “them” (whoever they are at the time), as I know of several pastors/ministers who are now dealing with schisms in their church over why they have or have not signed whatever the newest statement from Grace is. This is not healthy.
Someone told me yesterday that GCC does not recognize house churches without an elder or “Zoom churches” as legitimate expressions of church, so some of this is ecclesiology. While I certainly wouldn’t want my church to use these methodologies as SOP going forward, I do think that this pandemic should make us step back and permit things we would / should not have before the virus hit until things pass. Some might say, as GCC does, that it’s been “long enough” and that the government is being “hypocritical” (or worse) because it allows protests. I agree with that, but governmental hypocrisy or malice does not give us license to disobey it.
The core issue for me is this:
When any one of the three institutions exceeds the bounds of its jurisdiction it is the duty of the other institutions to curtail that overreach. Therefore, when any government official issues orders regulating worship (such as bans on singing, caps on attendance, or prohibitions against gatherings and services), he steps outside the legitimate bounds of his God-ordained authority as a civic official and arrogates to himself authority that God expressly grants only to the Lord Jesus Christ as sovereign over His Kingdom, which is the church.
If you want to make this argument, fine. But where does it end? We’re talking about guidelines for the physical wellbeing of others right now. If the government removes the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt protections enjoyed by nonprofits, does that trigger civil disobedience and a refusal to pay taxes for Jesus’ sake? I’d argue that it does not, and that the ramifications of that decision would be far, far more destructive than these guidelines. GCC specifically identifies certain roles as legitimate expressions of civil government within their statement (building codes, fire zone regulations), but wants to draw a very hard line between “civil” and “ecclesiastical” authority that simply cannot be made. Furthermore, at least two of the church fathers (Richard Baxter and George Gillespie) expressly approve of suspending services or altering worship during times of “plague” or “pestilence”.
I don’t know how this ends, but I did see that the Mayor of LA has authorized the shutoff of power and water to facilities that won’t comply. I don’t think that will stop MacArthur or the elders of GCC, and all I see coming out of this is more chaos and the blackening of our reputation as believers. If unsaved Joe Someone is stopped on the streets of LA and asked “what do you think about John MacArthur’s church”, is the answer going to be positive or are they going to be seen as “that church that insists on breaking the law that everyone else is dealing with”?
My guess is that it’s the latter.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
If unsaved Joe Someone is stopped on the streets of LA and asked “what do you think about John MacArthur’s church”, is the answer going to be positive or are they going to be seen as “that church that insists on breaking the law that everyone else is dealing with”?
Yep. Let’s compare Grace Community with Faith Community Church, a GARBC megachurch in Indiana, that is cooperating with the government and setting a positive example for institutions throughout Indiana to follow and using the crisis as an opportunity to further the gospel. I realize that some of California’s rules are different than Indiana, but Grace Community has given the impression to the rest of conservative evangelicalism that their approach of civil disobedience is a standard of how churches should respond throughout America. Faith has gone from 7 worship services to 18 in order to comply, among other things.
https://blogs.faithlafayette.org/church/why-faith-church-listens-to-the…
Grace Community has given the impression to the rest of conservative evangelicalism that their approach of civil disobedience is a standard of how churches should respond throughout America.
It seems as if a lot of churches have given the impression to the rest of conservative evangelicalism that their approach of compliacne is a standard of how churches should respond. Isn’t that equally troubling? Why is dogmatism okay on one side but not the other?
It seems to me the question is who gets to define a church and who gets to determine what goes on at a church meeting. Does the government or does God?
There is still a silence here on the biblical basis for the argument that churches are not being singled out or persecuted. I think the silence is significant. We are failing to interact with key questions.
If unsaved Joe Someone is stopped on the streets of LA and asked “what do you think about John MacArthur’s church”, is the answer going to be positive or are they going to be seen as “that church that insists on breaking the law that everyone else is dealing with”?
I wonder what the biblical basis is for this being a major consideration. I think we should do things reasonably in the sight of all men, but to what degree should we subject our church practices to an admitted unbeliever?
As far as what will the outsiders think; my church waited until just recently to meet. We were one of the last ones in the county. My dad (who is very concerned about COVID and is also an unbeliever) was impressed. On the other side though, a very political friend (who goes to church infrequently himself) thought we were compromising to democrats. The fact is, it really doesn’t matter what people outside of the church think. People will be on both sides. The congregation needs to decide how to follow God according to their understanding of the scriptures.
Faith has gone from 7 worship services to 18 in order to comply, among other things.
And multiple churches have decided to split and spread out for the purpose of evangelism and reaching their communities rather than insisting that they all meet once a week as the norm was before COVID. More power to them! GCC counters that argument by saying that these kinds of house churches aren’t churches because they aren’t elder-sanctioned, but it seems to fit the NT model better, IMHO.
There is still a silence here on the biblical basis for the argument that churches are not being singled out or persecuted. I think the silence is significant. We are failing to interact with key questions.
While I think that this is a legitimate question to ask, it doesn’t apply to GCC or CA. There are other churches in CA, many of whom are peacefully complying with all of the (onerous and frustrating) restrictions; I think someone linked to an example earlier on this thread. It’s only GCC (and maybe one other now that I’m thinking about it) that is arguing that this a Constitutional freedom issue.
The silence isn’t significant because the argument of ‘governmental persecution’ against the universal church is specious, no matter what GCC’s elders may say and decide.
Finally, as for this:
I think we should do things reasonably in the sight of all men, but to what degree should we subject our church practices to an admitted unbeliever?
It’s a good question and worthy of discussion but I would argue that Romans 12:14-21 applies, for starters:
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
And I’ll again refer to I Peter 2 and Romans 13 and reiterate that I do not believe GCC’s position regarding those passages is sustainable.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
This circus is nowhere close to a resolution. Meanwhile, please turn in your hymnals to #326, “America,” and let’s stand as we worship the Lord …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]This circus is nowhere close to a resolution. Meanwhile, please turn in your hymnals to #326, “America,” and let’s stand as we worship the Lord …
Great conflation of two completely different issues there. If that’s an example of the kind of thinking and preaching I’d hear from your pulpit, I’ll bet I’ve heard better preaching at some of those churches that are way too comfortable thinking of America and Christianity as the same thing.
Dave Barnhart
Personal attacks are more than a bit beyond the pale. I believe Christian Nationalism is at play here, especially because JMac’s attorney is a partisan who tweets incessant, sycophantic content praising President Trump and who, just yesterday, suggested the charges against Steve Bannon are malicious. Jenna Ellis is deliberately spinning this entire matter in a fashion calculated to be like crack cocaine for the Christian Nationalist base. Phil Johnson appeared on the Babylon Bee podcast this past week and stated that to support the quarantine is to capitulate to “wokeness.” The whole thing is disgusting.
JMac’s initial statement did not teach Christian how and when to defy the government, he encouraged Christians to support his statement regardless of their particular context, he engaged a Christian Nationalist publicist who happens to be an attorney, and Phil Johnson apparently believes (or, strongly hints) there is no valid public health justification for any restrictions on movement.
The initial filing by Ellis (et al) makes perhaps the best case that can be made; that of defacto discrimination by unequal treatment. Even if you grant that argument, you still have to consider when you defy the government; before or after exhausting legal options? All this would be difficult enough without dragging a partisan Christian Nationalist into the fray or suggesting the “quarantine” = wokeness. That is just wrong. It’s distasteful in the extreme.
JMac has not handled this well. He hasn’t handled it well, in part, because it should be clear that it’s immature to insult people and accuse them of the worst possible motives if they won’t affirm all your opinions. That is what JMac is doing when he sues public officials, not all of whom are politicians. That is what Phil Johnson is doing when he suggests that every single public health official at the city, county, State and Federal level in this entire country is “woke.” He impugns their integrity, their character, their jobs, their skills, their professionalism. He slanders them all with that off-hand, nasty comment. That’s why this whole thing is terrible.
I don’t know you. You don’t know me. Please refrain from personal insults.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]Personal attacks are more than a bit beyond the pale.
[…]
I don’t know you. You don’t know me. Please refrain from personal insults.
If you read my post carefully, you’ll see I attacked (insulted) what you said and your thinking, not you personally.
At least your most recent post laid out why you believe that JMac’s arguments are based on Christian nationalism. Though I would still think that things his attorney or Phil Johnson said are actually not something he has said in his arguments. I don’t actually agree with everything JMac has said on this, but his quoting Paul’s use of the law, even if he stretches it beyond what it can support, is hardly an expression of Christian nationalism, and arguments from his associations are not that strong.
Be that as it may, when all I see is you writing about the JMac situation and then without any segue seeing your comment on the song “America,” it still looks like you conflated two issues. Without any argumentation, it was a big leap. And I stand by what I said. If I would hear you make such a jump in your preaching, especially on more than one occasion and without any explanation, I can say that without question I’ve heard stronger preaching from men that are too close to Christian nationalism for me to be comfortable with. And I can say that without knowing you or what kind of man you are. Is that clear enough for you?
Dave Barnhart
Your cruel comment only reminds me that there really is no meaningful “home” in conservative, American Christianity for people who are not partisan about their politics. There is no place in evangelicalism or fundamentalism for any kind of third-way; there is only a GOP or Democrat lens from which to view reality. the criticisms Aaron has taken, the angry pushback from some about the MJac situation - it all shows this as the inconvenient truth that it is.
Younger Christians see through all this. They largely hate the politics. They hate the poisonous legacy of the Religious Right and it’s siren song to Christian Nationalism. They don’t buy the myth that David Barton and his ilk peddle that ‘Merica was founded an an explicitly Christian nation. They see through it all, and place their allegiance in Christ’s coming kingdom. Russell Moore wrote about this five years ago. Even more people are writing about it now. They look at JMac, Phil Johnson, and their choice of Jenna Ellis as their publicist, they see all the public statements, and they see what’s happening here. They see the twisted framing. They see the slander of all public health officials and civil servants in the State of CA via the lawsuit and public statements by the publicist and JMac’s followers. They see it all, and it disgusts them. It disgusts me.
It makes me sad, because I have to talk to an 85 year-old woman in my church and gently tell her that “the Democrats” in CA are not trying to “take over” churches, and that JMac is not being “persecuted,” and that this is not a fulfillement of prophesy about the end-times persecution against Christians. JMac is responsible for this mindset about the situation. He’s responsible for the people he’s engaged to represent him to the public. That Christian Nationalist framing has repercussions; all the way to the 85 year-old woman in Lacey, WA. She gets his newsletter. She’s scared. She thinks the government is coming.
The distance between me and most other conservative, American Christians on this is, quite simply, a worldview gap that will likely not be bridged. There is no home for non-partisan Christians in America. You tow the line or you are a compromiser.
I don’t intend to engage you on this issue anymore. Take care.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
You certainly don’t have to interact with me at all, and I don’t care if you do, but I’m sorry if I don’t see your connection between JMac’s ministry and full-out Christian nationalism.
To be clear, in case you don’t understand this — I understand you are not a Christian nationalist, and I’m not one either, though I don’t have quite the vitriol for those leaning that direction (which unfortunately was the default position for much of fundamentalism 40-50 years ago) that you do. But I am older than you, and I had to leave that way of thinking myself, so I have some understanding of those still struggling with it. Though I don’t approve of that way of thinking, I’ve heard some excellent preaching from men sadly still in that branch of fundamentalism, that doesn’t take such liberties making logical leaps without connecting things together. I don’t apologize when I say such leaps are unworthy of good preaching, no matter whether you have the right position on Christian nationalism or not.
At my own church, we still have a US and Christian flag at the front, but we never ever use church services to preach America, patriotism, or politics, nor do we take political stands from the pulpit. The most we do in that direction at all is remind people during announcement time (after the service is over) on one Sunday shortly before an election to use their privilege to vote in order to be salt and light. That’s it.
Like GCC, we also struggle with the whole issue about meeting, though a court case in our state (which was resolved before we resumed meeting inside) makes our legal position stronger than what JMac’s is now. I’m fairly certain we would not do what he is doing, though we are a small church, and our options for meeting are wider than his. Still, the fact that a large majority of those attending our current services do not wear masks may make you think we are somehow “Christian nationalist” in our thinking when nothing could be further from the truth.
If you want to hold that any “so-called Christian” who does not immediately say “Yes and Amen” to everything the government is doing is a “Christian nationalist,” then go right ahead. Your saying so won’t make it any more true.
Dave Barnhart
It seems to me the best way forward, on this issue, is for somebody to do three things:
- Do a historical study of response to persecution, ideally from the Baptist perspective (if that’s your flavor). I have Garrett, Beale, McBeth’s Baptist histories, as well as Larkin’s book of creeds and confessions. I may do something like this. How did Christians in the past react? Where did they go wrong? When did they not go far enough? For example, the 1644 London Confession reads that, if the Church is not protected from “wrong, injury, oppression and molestation” from the magistrate (Art. 50), then “we must not withstanding proceed together in Christian communion, not daring to give place to suspend our practice …” (Art. 51). This is good stuff. Has “wrong, injury, oppression and molestation” (which implies intent or defacto harm by the State) happened here, with COVID-19? Good questions.
- Then, produce a systematic work on the Christian’s duty to obey secular government in a New Covenant, non-sacral context. When can we defy, exactly? The work should identify explicit circumstances, and draw some implicit conclusions, too. The historical examples will be very critical to help flesh out what might otherwise be an abstraction.
- As an appendix, or as part of the larger work proper, someone needs to really clarify the Church’s relationship to the State. Constantianism, Isolationism, or some kind of third way? After examining what scripture says, there can be an analysis of how the Church has done this throughout the centuries. There should be particular emphasis on the Religious Right, to apply the matter to the present-day.
This would be a massive amount of work. But, there are some bright folks out there right now who can tackle it. It’s worth doing. I may attempt a modest answer to #1 and #2. I fear #3 is beyond the time I have to commit.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]This would be a massive amount of work. But, there are some bright folks out there right now who can tackle it. It’s worth doing. I may attempt a modest answer to #1 and #2. I fear #3 is beyond the time I have to commit.
Not that I’d expect you to take on that work, but I could certainly get behind it, as I would agree it’s well worth doing, and results would certainly benefit Christians in America.
Dave Barnhart
Tyler’s suggestion has been started here: https://thecripplegate.com/3-views-of-submission-to-government-from-rom…
It’s worth reading.
Thanks. I read the article this morning and thought it was very good.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
This excerpt is from Beale’s Baptist History in England and North America (pp. 418-419). The context for Boston in 1679 is that of a sacral society with the Congregational Church as state church:
In the spring of 1679, town authorities discovered that the Baptist congregation had erected a wooden meetinghouse on the corner of Salem and Stillman Streets, in the north end of Boston. The General Court immediately created a law, making church buildings illegal without a license. Obediently, the Baptists withdrew from their meetinghouse and quietly returned to their homes.
In December, a letter from King Charles II reached Boston’s officials expressing the monarch’s desire “that freedom and liberty of conscience be given to such persons as desire to serve God in the way of the Church of England … or any other his Majesty’s subjects (not being papists) who do not agree in the Congregational Way.”
The primary purpose of the King’s letter was to provide freedom for Anglican worship. Aware, however, that the term Congregational Way referred to the Puritan establishment, the Baptists saw in the letter a legal argument for their own freedom. To the Baptists, the royal letter called for a test. In early March 1680, the Baptists of Boston resumed the use of their building. On March 8, Boston officials boarded up the meetinghouse door and nailed to it this warning:
All persons are to take notice, that by order of the court, the doors of this house are shut up, and that they are inhibited to hold any meeting therein, or to open the doors thereof, without license from authority, till the court take further order, as they will answer the contrary at their peril. Edward Rawson, Secretary.
Unflinchingly, on that same day, the congregation held their regular services outside their building in freezing temperatures. In the King’s name, they petitioned the Court for the use of their place of worship.
Two weeks later, the congregation, finding the boards removed, gladly entered to resume their worship. In May, the Court again ordered them to evacuate, but the Baptists ignored the order.
Finally, in February 1681, the General Court acknowledged the Baptists’ petition and granted them official permission to occupy their building. Never again would the courts harass them over the matter. In fact, in March 1682, the General Court sent a letter to its London agents to assure the King of England, “As for the Anabaptists, they are now subject to no other penal statutes than those of the Congregational way.”
The dawn of the eighteenth century would bring renewed persecution from incriminating, false charges of “Anabaptism,” but the Baptists would face it with revitalized perseverance.
In sun, there appears to be an initial drive to petition the State for redress, even after having in hand a letter that seems to give them what they want. Still, they persisted in petitioning the magistrate for clarification anyway. They even met outside, in freezing temperatures, rather than defy the State. However, after regaining use of their facility, at a certain point the Baptists simply ignored the State when ordered to vacate again.
McBeth also has some excellent descriptions of what Baptists faced in New England.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Having reviewed a lot of threads and articles and blog posts on topics like this, and trying to nail down what I think myself about civil disobedience and defying the government, I’ve been trying to abstract the question from the American situation.
- Daniel under Nebuchadnezzar and Darius; Christians living in communist China or a Muslim-majority country. How did/do they deal with this?
- If God has truly bound my conscience to practice such-and-such a behavior, regardless of what man says, then what would be the point in appealing man’s dictates within man’s governmental framework, if I have no intention to comply even if I lose the appeal?
- If indeed I am appealing within man’s governmental framework, have I thought through my intentions to eventually comply, or compromise, or continue to defy, and how is that affecting my rhetoric now? If I say such-and-such a behavior is a non-negotiable, am I ready to die for it? Or will it suddenly become negotiable? (And this means that I better know what I actually believe about the practice, and not just shape my rhetoric just for the optics.)
And when I run those hypotheticals in a country where I really could lose my head over the matter, versus here in America with constitutional freedoms, I’m observing an irony that the success or partial success of the gospel has complicated the question. I don’t believe that America was or is a Christian nation, but you can’t deny that Christians (nominal or genuine) concerned about religious liberty baked that into its founding documents, even if the batter included Enlightenment principles, etc. So any Christian dealing with this in an American context or similar Western context has two possible considerations to tackle: (1) how do I continue to worship God according to His prescriptions; and (2) how do I hold the government accountable to its own founding principles, which really can benefit Christians?
Starting down the path of suing your own government is hard, because (1) it raises visibility; and (2) it could imply that you acknowledge the government’s authority over how you worship. So how do you frame your case? “We intend to worship God as He commands regardless, but you [gov’t] are out of line with your own founding principles, and that in and of itself is an evil that we seek to address if we can.”
In my own case, I believe the state of PA and the city of Philadelphia have different regulations, Philadelphia being for the time being stricter. But here is the practical situation: if our church follows CDC recommendations in its large auditorium with open windows and plenty of ventilation and people generally wearing masks…nobody in the entire city is going to care if we exceed the 25-person limit and have 40 people, and many members still tuning in through live streaming and chat apps. Why would a small, relatively poor, inner city church go after the government’s on-paper regulations when the government is not remotely interested in going after the church? Our murder rate is through the roof; our trash pickup schedules are shot; the city government is barely functioning; the libraries are just easing back into allowing hold book pickups. Whatever the regulations say, the police are probably very glad that people are showing up for church.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
I’ve been trying to abstract the question from the American situation.
This is the key point to me. Whatever Biblical texts and reasoning are used must be able to work outside of the 21st Century American context. That’s part of why I think GCC’s position is not just misguided but actually wrong. Believers have assembled together for thousands of years and never required (or had in some cases) the luxuries that most churches presently do. They certainly don’t have the luxuries that Grace Community has for its’ members and attendees.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I’ve been trying to abstract the question from the American situation.
This is the key point to me. Whatever Biblical texts and reasoning are used must be able to work outside of the 21st Century American context. That’s part of why I think GCC’s position is not just misguided but actually wrong. Believers have assembled together for thousands of years and never required (or had in some cases) the luxuries that most churches presently do. They certainly don’t have the luxuries that Grace Community has for its’ members and attendees.
So True! As one of my friends recently tweeted, “…John MacArthur isn’t really fighting for the right to “do church” he’s fighting for the right to do “mega-church…” and there is a significant difference.”
Discussion