My heart goes out to churches in places where COVID-related health orders have made it impossible to “gather in a normal way,” to use a phrase from Grace Community Church’s (GCC’s) “Statement from Pastor and Elders.”
True, gathering that way is only “normal” in the sense of “what we’re used to as a megachurch, in modern times, in the most prosperous nation on earth.” But if we consider the conditions they actually have to meet under, to gather legally, it’s much easier to feel their pain. Outdoor temperatures in parts of LA County, California (where GCC meets), reached 121 degrees a couple weekends ago.
Can they really comply with God’s command to obey the local authorities—including health orders banning indoor gatherings—and also obey God’s command to gather for worship?
I believe they can, and in a previous post I laid the principles groundwork for a comply and resist response, rather than assuming churches must comply or resist. Here, I want to look at GCC’s case for it’s noncompliant-resistance response. Tyler Robbins’ evaluation posted here several weeks ago. I’m looking at it a bit differently, though we land in similar places.
One Case for Noncompliant Resistance
In August, GCC’s elders issued a statement subtitled A Biblical Case for the Church’s Duty to Remain Open. The purpose was to explain and support their decision to continue to meet indoors in disobedience to LA County’s ban on indoor gatherings (a ban that—I hasten to repeat—applies to bars, restaurants, and most other indoor gatherings).
The statement has just shy of 3,000 words, and probably 90-plus percent of it is exactly right. This is because the statement focuses on obedience to Christ as the Head of the churches—which is not in dispute among those who believe obedient resistance is the biblical approach. The bulk of the statement doesn’t address the question of whether the health orders are truly a case where obedience to Christ requires disobedience to the authorities.
I’ll be focusing here on the parts that are most relevant to that question.
“Duty to Remain Open.”
- First, the statement’s title, A Biblical Case for the Church’s Duty to Remain Open, unhelpfully frames the issue right from the start. There is no NT command for churches to have buildings at all, much less buildings that remain “open.”
- Second, Does “duty to remain open” mean “duty to never close, even temporarily?” Does it mean “duty to never close permanently”? If it means temporarily, the statement comes nowhere supporting the claim that such a duty exists. If it means permanently, the statement is pointless. Nobody is proposing permanent building closure.
“Therefore we cannot and will not acquiesce to a government-imposed moratorium on our weekly congregational worship or other regular corporate gatherings. Compliance would be disobedience to our Lord’s clear commands.”
- There is no “moratorium on … weekly congregational worship.” The ban in LA County is on indoor gatherings, with no special targeting regarding gatherings for religious purposes. This spin on the situation has been repeated often in the Christian news media. (But the mainstream media are worse, as we all know, and that makes it OK, right?)
- Meeting inside a building is not included anywhere in “our Lord’s clear commands.” We have “clear” biblical precedent for the church meeting outdoors in Acts 3:11, and 5:12.
“Insofar as government authorities do not attempt to assert ecclesiastical authority.”
- John MacArthur has consistently taught that there is one exception to the biblical command to obey the authorities (see Part 1). This statement introduces an additional exception.
- This is a second exception—and it threatens to nullify Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 entirely. The statement develops this idea a bit further, but not in a way that adequately defines its boundaries.
“… neither of those texts [Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2] (nor any other) grants civic rulers jurisdiction over the church. God has established three institutions within human society: the family, the state, and the church. Each institution has a sphere of authority with jurisdictional limits that must be respected. A father’s authority is limited to his own family. Church leaders’ authority (which is delegated to them by Christ) is limited to church matters.”
- There’s a noticeable absence of Scripture references in this section of the statement.
- In reality, these spheres overlap: the law says a father can’t abuse his children or kill them. There have also long been many things states do not permit churches to do, such has exceed building capacity, have too few properly-marked exits, break agreements with employees, transport persons in unsuitable vehicles using unlicensed drivers, advocate violence, and more.
“God has not granted civic rulers authority over the doctrine, practice, or polity of the church…. no right to interfere in ecclesiastical matters…. 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.”
Here, the problems begin to really pile up!
- First, the ambiguity of “practice”—on what basis is a temporary (though unquestionably long and burdensome, at this point) within the scope of a biblical idea of “practice” that the state does not have authority over? The statement does not address the boundaries of “practice” at all. For example, why does use of the building during a pandemic come under this umbrella of state-authority exclusion, while requirements for disabled parking, ramps and elevators, and restroom codes do not? Objection: “Building codes aren’t about meeting, and meeting is outside the sphere of state authority.” If simply being inside the building for a service is “about meeting,” isn’t every feature of the building itself also “about meeting”? The scope of “practice” here seems arbitrary.
- “Ecclesiastical matter.” As above, what’s included in this term? If the NT doesn’t tell us to use buildings, how can use or non-use be an “ecclesiastical matter”? If we can fit that square peg into that round hole, what else can we claim is “ecclesiastical”?
- “Duty… to curtail.” So, not only do we have three completely distinct spheres, but there’s a duty to actively fight boundary violations? This is a hefty claim. A bit of biblical support seems reasonable. The statement offers none.
“Said another way, it has never been the prerogative of civil government to order, modify, forbid, or mandate worship. When, how, and how often the church worships is not subject to Caesar.”
- Again, what’s included in “when, how and how often”? If we define this sphere broadly, why have churches accepted so much government regulation in other matters? If we define it narrowly, it doesn’t really apply to a temporary suspension of use of a building for purposes of public health… along with restaurants, bars, and many other venues.
“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.” (In the statement’s addendum.)
- What these cancellations “signal” is that major events require lots of planning and phased preparation, and you can’t have a big event in a couple of months if you can’t arrange parts of it right now.
- What these cancellations also show is that the health orders are not aimed at controlling what churches do.
Conclusion
While the GCC statement speaks accurately of the authority of Christ over His church, it doesn’t deal adequately with the fact that the same Christ ordained the governing authorities and commands us to obey them. It fails to establish on biblical grounds that a temporary ban on indoor gatherings is outside the state’s sphere of authority or within the exclusive authority of the church. It certainly doesn’t establish that the indoor-gathering bans issued by leaders in California and LA County are an “attempt to subvert sound doctrine, corrupt biblical morality, exercise ecclesiastical authority, or supplant Christ as head of the church.”
This presumption of hostile intent expresses an attitude and tone problem that surfaces frequently in the statement. Our fight is not with flesh and blood (Eph 6:12), and the weapons of our warfare are not carnal (2 Cor 10:4). We are called to “strive for peace with everyone” (Heb 12:14), and that spirit really needs to be the starting point in working through these challenging times.
Churches should keep in mind that a question on the minds of many owners of restaurants, cafes, and other temporarily-closed businesses is, “If we can’t gather, why should churches be allowed to gather?” Many of these businesses will never recover. They can’t do their thing over Zoom or Teams or video streaming. How does our attitude toward government regulation make us, and our Savior, look in the eyes of the communities we’re called to reach?
For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. (ESV, 1 Cor 9:19–23)
(Still to come: a post responding to objections to the comply-and-resist approach, and some practical alternatives for churches in locations where indoor gatherings are banned or severely limited. Photo: Maya GM.)
Aaron Blumer 2016 bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is Information Coordinator for a law-enforcement digital library service.
There are 17 Comments
Elder rule
Thank you for your excellent post, Aaron. You have handled these matters well. I look forward to reading your post about the options that churches like GCC have to obey and resist the government.
It seems that much of GCC's case is built on the separation between church and state. I hold to that separation. But as I argued here, belief in separation of church and state does not intrinsically demand that I disobey the government when it oversteps its bounds.
But I think that GCC is going a step further than that. They are arguing that the church has an authority sphere all its own which is broader than the commands of Scripture. They acknowledge Christ as Head of the church, but they believe that elders are delegated authority to act on Christ's behalf in each local church. In other words, they're taking a position similar to John Wesley, who stated that pastors have authority, not only to command what Scripture commands, but also authority in "all things indifferent." (To be clear, I don't think that obeying the government is a matter that is "indifferent," but I'm emphasizing the limits of pastoral authority.)
I hold strongly to a congregational form of church governance with limited pastoral oversight. The only sphere of authority that a pastor genuinely has is what Scripture clearly states. Yes, he is the overseer of church matters but only to implement the will of the church as governed by Scripture. First Timothy 4:11-13 give a contrast between those things which Timothy could "command and teach" and those matters in which he must be an "example." The only instance in which pastors are expressly stated to have authority is in Titus 2:15, and the word authority (ἐπιταγή) everywhere else in Scripture refers to God's commands, not human authority. By contrast, government entities are repeatedly called authorities (ἐξουσία, δυνάστης, ὑπεροχή). As just one example, government entities are called authorities four times in Romans 13:1-2. Moreover, government entities are the ones who exercise authority (κατεξουσιάζω, ἐξουσιάζω) over people, whereas followers of Christ are called to be servants (Matthew 20:25-28, Mark 10:42-45, Luke 22:25-26). Thus, to argue that the church has a distinct sphere of authority apart from the commands of Scripture and on a plane equal to or higher than government is fallacious. Christ has a higher authority than government, but the church does not.
GCC provided three passages to support their view of elder authority. I studied each of these passages in a paper that I wrote last year on the scope of pastoral authority. I will duplicate my conclusions here with slight editing for format and clarity:
Sep of church and state
I'm a believer in separation of church and state as well. It has always seemed messy at the margins, though, for the same reasons referenced in the article. And I have to say that I mostly "believe in it" as a matter of natural law/history/human experience, rather than as biblical principle.
But there is reasoning from biblical principle that plays a key role.
One of the biggest factors is the nature of faith as something that cannot be coerced + history of genuinely religious governments proving to be unable to resist the temptation to pretend they can coerce it--substituting forced lipservice in its place. There is still mostly unbelief, but the powers that be declare "we're all believers here" and force everyone to join in the stage play.
Liberty is much better from an evangelistic standpoint, among so many other reasons.
As for messy at the margins, what I mean is that it's often very difficult to tell where the power of the state ends and the power of a religious body begins. In reality, as I've pointed out, they overlap, and there's a murky area of transition.
So why doesn't the NT directly teach the spheres/separation of church and state idea? It can barely be said to even imply it. That's highly significant. As authority structures, I'm convinced they're best mostly separated, but the NT very clearly emphasizes submission to the state. Maybe the main reason is that there was no such thing as separation of that sort at the time, nor would there be in most countries of the world for most of human history so far. So the NT gives us principles that work regardless of how the state is structured.
... which means a separation argument is really not a strong argument.
It's like the idea is, "Whatever sort of government it is, submit (If it happens to be one that doesn't tell you what to do most of the time, great!)."
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I agree
I agree with most of what you state here. I believe in separation of church and state more as an ideal than as a reality. As far as I can lawfully encourage that ideal, I will do so. But I have to recognize that I live in a fallen world where most people don't follow Scriptural ideals. Thus, we recognize that our duties to even a non-ideal government is still submission.
I do think that there are legitimate biblical reasons to seek separation of church and state. For example, the government, not the church, is given the privilege to bear the sword and punish those who oppose its dictates. On the other hand, the church is tasked with preaching the Gospel, and the government is not.
As you state elsewhere, our task in response to non-ideal governments (at least in democratic countries like the US) is to comply AND resist.
Exactly!
So, GCC is correct to seek the ideal of separation of church and state, but they're missing the point that Paul commanded submission even to a non-ideal government.
Digging their hole deeper
A result of having drawn national attention to their decision to defy is that now they have even more restrictions (apparently) than they did in the begnning: https://churchleaders.com/news/382408-john-macarthur-lists-the-requireme...
Would "comply and resist" have had this result? We'll never know.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Horribly written article
I still disagree with Jmac's course of action and his attitude throughout but that article is basically a hit piece. I understand Aaron that you were only posting it to show the onerous restrictions GCC has brought upon themselves. I just wanted to point out that the author of that article obviously has a bone to pick.
Yes
Definitely more opinion than news. I'd like to hear more of JMac’s comments in context. It sounds like he's acting like this list was the rules they were given all along. But it was not. The county health order is pretty vague on the details and if they'd even decided to keep meeting quietly, they'd probably have gotten away with it.
So... I've been arguing for comply and resist as a better path than defy and resist, but I'm not convinced even that is necessarily the best path.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
How much of the disagreement with MacArthur by other Christians
is that he pastors a large church that can't meet in one place outside? In other words, the anti-mega church crowd.
I think its a lot of it.
The people who piously say their church is obeying are small and can easily meet outside. GCC cannot. Not as a whole at least.
When Rome made Christian gatherings illegal
Did the people say ok, comply and resist? No. They went underground.
I also think there is a significant 1st Amendment issue here. Congress, and by extension through the 14th Amendment state and local governments, may not hinder the free exercise of religion. Churches determine what the free exercise is, not the government. Another part of MacArthur's argument is that COVID-19 is nowhere near the threat we thought it was in March.
I just looked at my state's numbers during supper. 50,000 total cases, 2800 hospitalizations, and 580+ deaths. Is that worth shutting the whole system down? It is at least a question to ask.
It sounds like he's acting
The list he read was in a county order last updated 7/17/20, which was well before the suit (http://www.ph.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/docs/protocols/Reopening_Pl...). "Pretty vague" isn't how I would describe an 8 page document with small print and single spacing. I didn't check every single one of these things MacArthur mentioned, but I know many of them are in there and I assume they all are in some way or another. I saw this list of rules over a month ago in a blog post that was subsequently deleted, perhaps because they were trying to negotiate with county, though I don't know.
So these requirements were not in response to the suit. They existed before then.
Comply and resist isn't really a thing though, is it? Those two things seem to be contradictory. You can comply or you can resist. You can't do both. You can comply and seek legal redress or you can resist and seek legal redress. Defying seems to me to be a particular kind of resistance.
In the end, these articles still don't address the main point.
Who should the church obey? The stuff with MacArthur and masks and the list is a red herring. What should the church do when the governments forbids it to meet or allows only part of it to meet? Forget the rest.
A few responses
On "they went underground" etc. I addressed all that in part 1. There is an exception to "comply." One. And there are situations where resisting is appropriate. Detailed in part 1.
Severity or nonseverity of the pandemic is not relevant to "obey or don't obey" per Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2.
Constitution: I'll talk about that in part 3, but for now, just point out that (a) GCC went out of their way to avoid making a Constitutional argument, but (b) in any case the Constition does not say citizens have the right to disobey laws they personally think are unconstitutional. The Constitution establilshes the principle of due process. So, you sue. Hence the "resist" part of "comply and resist."
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The list
I'll have to dig into where this list allegedly came from. There is nothing like that in the county health orders for LA County. The article I linked to says, if memory serves, that it came from a judge.
Explained in Part 1. I think I'll not repeat it here at the moment... except to say, yes we can do both. Paul did.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron
Underground- when its appropriate to do that will be seen differently by different experiences. If you have a 100 person church and you can easily and happily go outside, you say, what's the problem. GCC can't do that as a whole, so they see it through different eyes.
Severity- this is a representative democracy. We have a voice. That changes a lot of the "application" of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. We have the right to petition the government for grievances. And, no, we have no obligation to follow illegal laws while doing so. Normally, temporary relief is granted to the petitioner. It's nearly automatic.
Constitution- we'll see what you write.
I don't know why so many people are attacking GCC other than pure jealousy. Is he your servant? No. Leave him alone. Do your own thing. Put down and deal with your own jealousy of his church's size and influence. Disagree with him? Fine. But pray for relief.
Mark_Smith wrote:
Mark this is just silly. He isn't being attacked if people disagree with him. Pretty sure he can handle it. Also, you are attributing motives which is wrong. Jmac has been one of the most used men in my life to teach me God's word. I'm not a pastor so I have nothing to be jealous of to begin with. Even if I were though, I should be able to disagree (even strongly) with a pastor who is making a very public decision without sinful motives being attributed to me. It's not like he is doing this quietly.
JMac vs. Stanley
The juxtaposition between JMac and Charles Stanley's handling of contentious issues is striking. Stanley has never been known as a culture warrior or an otherwise militant pastor. But, he is staunchly evangelical in his convictions and his passion. He has just retired after many decades as a pastor. His In Touch broadcast was always incredibly edifying to me, and I rate him as a much, much better preacher than JMac (who always sounds like somebody hit "play" on an Audible bible commentary). I recommend Stanley's NLT Life Application study bible for folks looking for something good.
I love and respect Stanley. He finished well. JMac's final chaper has yet to be written. Perhaps it is being written now.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?
Ummmm
As long as you ignore what the Bible says about qualifications for pastoral ministry. Otherwise not so much.
I'll have to dig into where
The link I provided is from lacounty.gov. The header on every page says "COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER." The first paragraph begins, "The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health is adopting a staged approach, supported by science and public health expertise, to allow places of worship to safely reopen." What follows is 7 pages (the 8th just has a little bit on it) of regulations.
How can you say there is nothing like that in the county health orders from LA county?
Explicit teaching
I think that I understand your argument here. Those of us in small churches (I'm not a pastor myself) can more easily meet outdoors and thus should not condemn large churches like GCC for meeting indoors--is that correct? I have no issue with large churches. And your point that meeting outdoors would be more difficult for them than it would be for a smaller church is correct. But difficulty does not intrinsically negate responsibility to obey the government, does it? Other large churches have divided into smaller groups during the pandemic. Why can't GCC? Some argue that it is their choice to make, not the government's. I agree in theory. But the question isn't whose choice should it be. The government has already laid down rules. The question now is whether they obey. If the Bible explicitly gave churches the responsibility for determining how large their church should be, I would agree that churches should maintain that right despite what government says. But Scripture is not so explicit. For clarity sake, I'll give a comparison between a few things that Scripture explicitly (or implicitly) states and a few things that it does not state so explictly:
(1) The Bible explicitly states that believers should gather together, but it does not state how many believers should gather together in one gathering or where they gather together.
(2) The Bible explicitly requires pastors/overseers/elders and deacons in a local church, requires certain qualifications of them, and implicitly states that congregations choose these men, but it does not state how many pastors or deacons each local church should have (although an argument can be made for a plurality).
(3) The Bible implicitly states that preachers should preach the whole counsel of God, but it does not state that they must stop every evil or preach against political leftism.
So, to apply this, if the government were to order us to not preach against the LGBTQ+ agenda, we would (by the grace of God) still preach what God's Word says about God's design for marriage. But if the government ordered us to meet outdoors and/or in smaller groups, we would comply.
To be clear, I respect GCC's stand. It seems that they are genuinely trying to follow God's Word, and for that I commend them. But I disagree in their application of separation of church and state to mean a separate sphere of authority for the church apart from what God's Word clearly states or, stated differently, a sphere of authority for the government so limited that we can disobey if it infringes on the church in any substantial way.
I agree with the first few of these statements. We can vote. We can challenge a law in court. I believe that this is the "resist" side of what Aaron is arguing. Believers under Roman rule did not have such great privileges, although Roman citizens had some. For example, Paul had the privilege to appeal his case to Caesar. And he used that privilege.
But I disagree that we are not obligated to obey illegal laws. Several considerations are in view here:
(1) Who determines what is illegal? At a day-to-day level, we make those determinations based on what the laws say. If laws conflict, we seek legal advice. Ultimately, however, the judicial branch of the government has taken the responsibility of determining what is legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional. Do we have a right to assert our opinion, even a well-informed opinion, over what the recognized authorities view as legal?
(2) You mention that "normally, temporary relief is granted to the petitioner." True. But does that fact prove that we may take that privilege for ourselves when it is not granted?
(3) Ultimately, our arguments must be biblical, not constitutional. I have yet to see a cogent biblical argument for other exceptions to obeying the government aside from obeying God rather than men. Kevin Bauder, however, comes close with his argument that Christians can disobey laws that violate higher laws (see my analysis of his argument).