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
I said in the article that, because Luke isn’t around to take us into the minds and hearts of civil authorities’ minds, we have to use the “reasonable person” standard. In the case of Acts 4, which was the only thing I cited, the reason for the command for silence was “in order that it [the Gospel] may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name,” (Acts 4:17). But, I think you identified a fruitful approach for analysis to build an argument. I think Christians should study this very thing out in preparation for further lockdowns that are likely coming.
The triggers for civil disobedience, to me, seem to be some combination of:
- 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. This is likely the category into which your suggestion for further study will fall.
I think you can break these down into elements, in question form, as follows for analysis:
1a: Is the directive aimed specifically at a religious community or institution?
1b: Does the directive, and/or accompanying public statements by relevant officials, display an animus against the religious belief system? The word “animus” (or an appropriate synonym) must be defined by a modern lexicon, such as the OED, Merriam-Webster, or the Oxford New American Dictionary, and and discussion must show the definition has (or, has not) been met.
1c: Does the directive, and/or accompanying public statements by relevant officials, display an animus against the religious community? See above, on “animus” or an appropriate synonym.
2a: Does the directive treat the religious institution/community differently than other analagous public organizations? That is, does it “discriminate.” See above on a lexicon definition of the verb “discriminate” and the need to show it has happened.
2b: Does the directive, and/or accompanying public statements by relevant officials, provide a reasonable rationale behind the disparity in treatment? That is, is there a valid reason for the discrimination?
As one analyzes these questions, point by point, one will likely be in a very good position to make a robust argument. All this, of course, is in conjunction with relevant principles from scripture about the New Covenant community and civil authorities.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]I said in the article that, because Luke isn’t around to take us into the minds and hearts of civil authorities’ minds, we have to use the “reasonable person” standard. In the case of Acts 4, which was the only thing I cited, the reason for the command for silence was “in order that it [the Gospel] may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name,” (Acts 4:17). But, I think you identified a fruitful approach for analysis to build an argument. I think Christians should study this very thing out in preparation for further lockdowns that are likely coming.
The triggers for civil disobedience, to me, seem to be some combination of:
- 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. This is likely the category into which your suggestion for further study will fall.
I think you can break these down into elements, in question form, as follows for analysis:
1a: Is the directive aimed specifically at a religious community or institution?
1b: Does the directive, and/or accompanying public statements by relevant officials, display an animus against the religious belief system? The word “animus” (or an appropriate synonym) must be defined by a modern lexicon, such as the OED, Merriam-Webster, or the Oxford New American Dictionary, and and discussion must show the definition has (or, has not) been met.
1c: Does the directive, and/or accompanying public statements by relevant officials, display an animus against the religious community? See above, on “animus” or an appropriate synonym.
2a: Does the directive treat the religious institution/community differently than other analagous public organizations? That is, does it “discriminate.” See above on a lexicon definition of the verb “discriminate” and the need to show it has happened.
2b: Does the directive, and/or accompanying public statements by relevant officials, provide a reasonable rationale behind the disparity in treatment? That is, is there a valid reason for the discrimination?
As one analyzes these questions, point by point, one will likely be in a very good position to make a robust argument. All this, of course, is in conjunction with relevant principles from scripture about the New Covenant community and civil authorities.
Useful thoughts, Tyler. Thanks!
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.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]The way I’ve always understood it is that Rome would allow any religious quack to have a soapbox as long as they also acknowledged Caesar to be a God. If they refused to acknowledge that, then they were promoting rebellion against Caesar, and that wouldn’t be allowed to spread.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.
[Don Johnson]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.
Really, Don? No animus against Christianity at that time in Rome? Most of the Apostles were killed as a result of the animus. You have Nero, who killed Peter and Paul, you have Nero blaming the Christians for the fire and mass persecution of them….
[dgszweda]Really, Don? No animus against Christianity at that time in Rome? Most of the Apostles were killed as a result of the animus. You have Nero, who killed Peter and Paul, you have Nero blaming the Christians for the fire and mass persecution of them….
Really. Note how I worded it. “At that time” - Nero’s persecution is post-Acts.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
We need to support and pray for JM and the Grace ministries. The churches are suffering in California. My daughter’s baptist church has not met for nearly 5 months. Very negative impact on her family. He is taking the lead so that other churches can meet again as well.
Pastor Mike Harding
If there are specific reasons why California has gone beyond the pale and has discriminated against religious institutions, then the case needs to be made. As I mentioned in the article, there may well be a case for civil disobedience in California’s context. JMac just hasn’t made it.
Someone needs to make the case.
If you want to publish an open letter, openly defying civil authorities then encourage people to sign it, using your platform and stature in a deliberately activist fashion, then you need to make a strong case. That didn’t happen, here.
Just make a case, and run with it. It’s just gotta be better than this. We opened up one week before our Gov authorized, because of President Trump’s statement. That was enough for me.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Three comments:
First, I went to the Shepherd’s Conference 3 years ago. At that time, GCC had attorneys and at least one judge on its elder board.
Second, if public officials do have animus toward Christianity or a particular church or organization, they most likely will not communicate that publicly. Communicating their animus against Christian beliefs is what cost Colorado officials their court case against Masterpiece Cakeshop. Lesson learned. Discriminate but don’t say you’re discriminating because of religious belief.
Third, Don, you began your statement with “In the first century…” Thus, “at that time” would cover Nero. Regardless, Kevin is correct. Rome’s issue with Christianity was that it promoted “atheism” and refused to worship Caesar as deity. Additionally, Christianity opposed many of the societal norms of Greco-Roman society.
You wrote:
Second, if public officials do have animus toward Christianity or a particular church or organization, they most likely will not communicate that publicly. Communicating their animus against Christian beliefs is what cost Colorado officials their court case against Masterpiece Cakeshop. Lesson learned. Discriminate but don’t say you’re discriminating because of religious belief.
This is correct. You’ll have to work hard to show a plausible case for discrimination. That isn’t a blank cheque to impute evil motives to “the government.”
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]You wrote:
Second, if public officials do have animus toward Christianity or a particular church or organization, they most likely will not communicate that publicly. Communicating their animus against Christian beliefs is what cost Colorado officials their court case against Masterpiece Cakeshop. Lesson learned. Discriminate but don’t say you’re discriminating because of religious belief.
This is correct. You’ll have to work hard to show a plausible case for discrimination. That isn’t a blank cheque to impute evil motives to “the government.”
Agreed. Proving motive will be hard. Thus, the only real route is to demonstrate that churches are being either singled out or treated differently in the application of the health orders. That is what the church in Nevada tried to do. SCOTUS rejected the church’s argument. So, that church can either get creative while abiding by the health order or it can defy the health order and risk fines / closure.
Yes. As I mentioned in the article, I believe NV churches have great cause to defy authorities.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Don Johnson]Really. Note how I worded it. “At that time” - Nero’s persecution is post-Acts.
You said “In the first century”. Acts ends between 62 and 63 AD. The fire was 64 AD, both were in the first century. Nero’s persecution was tagged onto already a disdain for the Christian cult.
To say JM didn’t make an argument or made a bad argument seems to require skipping the first paragraph (and the rest of it).
Christ is Lord of all. He is the one true head of the church (Ephesians 1:22; 5:23; Colossians 1:18). He is also King of kings—sovereign over every earthly authority (1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 17:14; 19:16). … As His people, we are subject to His will and commands as revealed in Scripture. 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.
The argument is quite clear and quite sound. And it is quite easy to understand.
- Christ, the Lord of the Church, says to meet.
- The government says not to meet.
- We must obey Christ rather than government.
I think there were good reasons not to meet and I think churches should have stopped meeting or drastically changed out they met. But government compliance should have been off the table from day one.
I wonder if the “bad argument” relies on something Scripture doesn’t say, namely that as long as churches are treated equally, we should obey. The idea that churches aren’t being singled out is an argument that has been popularized without thought. You will search the Scriptures in vain for an allowance to disobey so long as everyone else isn’t meeting. Scripturally, “being treated the same as everyone else” is not an actual principle. Civically, it ignores the first amendment in which religion is specifically singled out not to be treated like everyone else.
To say that churches aren’t being persecuted is also an empty argument. It’s not about persecution or singling out. It is about what Christ has commanded.
Has Christ commanded us to meet? Does any civil government have the authority to override the command of Christ?
Christians have always believed in the rule of law, and the idea that we get to disobey as soon as we feel the legally authorized leaders have lost their moral authority is just another way of saying ”anarchy.”
If disobedience is based on feeling something about a loss or moral authority, than it is wrong. In this particular case, the disobedience would be based on being commanded to disobey Christ. I think too many are “feeling” something rather than obeying the Word. Government commanded disobedience. Every church should have rejected that command.
Discussion