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.
- 33 views
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
Featured Resource
Discussion