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:

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.

Discussion

So was he right then or is he right now, when the disobedience being advocated isn’t even an issue of obedience to God?

Why not consider that he is right both times and is talking about different things. CA limits gatherings to 100 and forbids singing. How isn’t that a matter of obedience to God?

[T Howard]

BTW, you will remember, of course, that the emperor Claudius forbid Roman Jews from meeting in synagogues around A.D. 41 and expelled them completely from Rome around A.D. 49. Claudius took these actions because, “the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [i.e. Christ] ” (Suetonius, Divus Claudius 25).

According to Wikipedia, the reference to Chrestus is debatable, and in any case the expulsion was anti-Jewish, not anti-Christian as such.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Aaron: I don’t understand the complexity some have introduced on this. It’s simple. If there is any way to obey both God and man, churches must obey both. If there isn’t, we obey God.

The difficulty is that we are commanded to meet and worship. But this suffers from the sins of omission concept: at what point of not doing these are we sinning? The method and timing of them is not a clearly commanded thing.
These are matters of personal conviction and church leadership conviction. If an elder board says, “We are convicted to obey meet and worship in this way, but the government says, “No, not that way,” then it seems to me that the government is usurping some of the church’s and individual’s authority.
I don’t mean to imply that the church is right in their decision - only that they have the right to make it.

[Don Johnson]

According to Wikipedia, the reference to Chrestus is debatable, and in any case the expulsion was anti-Jewish, not anti-Christian as such.

Good to know Wikipedia is your source of truth. The expulsion was anti-Jewish because at that time Rome saw Christianity as a Jewish sect and not as a separate religious group.

…and now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

[T Howard]
Don Johnson wrote:

According to Wikipedia, the reference to Chrestus is debatable, and in any case the expulsion was anti-Jewish, not anti-Christian as such.

Good to know Wikipedia is your source of truth. The expulsion was anti-Jewish because at that time Rome saw Christianity as a Jewish sect and not as a separate religious group.

…and now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

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.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[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]
Don Johnson wrote:

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.

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:

  1. Directives that appear to target religious institutions due to animus against the message and/or its people.
  2. 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)

  1. Directives that appear to target religious institutions due to animus against the message and/or its people.
  2. 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.)