MacArthur sues state over worship restrictions

“In the complaint, MacArthur and Grace Community Church accuse state government officials of interfering with their religious freedom and selectively restricting gatherings amid the pandemic.” - C.Post

Discussion

I don’t know what the facts of the case are, but have to wonder how they’re going to prove that rules that apply to indoor gatherings were inconsistently applied to protesters gathering outdoors.

Still, it’s better than just defying the law.

But per this thing called the New Testament they should be complying with the restrictions while they persue the case.

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.

But per this thing called the New Testament they should be complying with the restrictions while they persue the case.

So your position is that they should disobey their consciences about what God requires until some government agency approves it? And if they lose, should they continue to disobey their consciences? Where’s the line for you?

When it’s conscience vs. Scripture, absolutely, they should “disobey their conscience”! No contest whatsoever.

There is no biblical command to worship indoors. No biblical command to worship in groups larger than 250. There is a biblical command to obey the powers that be. This is not a matter of conscience.

It’s at least as clear as the NT teaching that women should not be pastors. More clear than the NT teaching that speaking in toungues should not be a thing today.

Way more clear than pretrib rapture.

I could go on.

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 case will go nowhere. They have no case. Their Christian nationalist attorneys are more publicists than litigators. This whole affair is a joke. JMac has embarrassed himself beyond belief.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

I think you have misdefined the problem. This is not “conscience vs. Scripture.” It is conscience about what Scripture requires. At the very least, your position seems to require disobedience in violation of Romans 14 by requiring people to do something they cannot do in faith, namely, don’t assemble as a church. One of my concerns from the beginning was that by canceling church I was binding people’s consciences. I did that but with great caution. There was a better biblical case to be made for meeting with great allowance for people not to come as their conscience dictated. But by canceling, I was binding the conscience of those who believed they were sinning by not assembling.

More importantly,. your position allows something other than Scripture to define what a church is and who has authority in the church. That is, to me, a significant error regardless of what a church should do regardless of the health situation. I have been clear that I think churches should have stopped meeting for a time and should be very cautious and careful in returning. But you have gone beyond that. You have allowed the government to determine what a church is by forbidding it “to church” (to verb a noun), or by limiting it to X number of people or by requiring X number of assemblies. You have allowed the government to determine the elements of worship by forbidding singing, offering, and communion. I am troubled by that. It is, as you say, at least as clear as women preachers, tongues, and pre-trib rapture.

I don’t know exactly where the line should be drawn. I believe, as you surely do, that the biblical command to obey powers that be is limited. That’s why I asked you, “Where’s the line for you?” At what point would you say the church should obey God rather than man?

I would say we are to obey the powers that be until and unless they require disobedience to God. In this particular case, the powers that be are requiring disobedience at least to some degree by refusing to allow a church to gather. They have either outright refused or redefined a church. They have ordered that only part of a church can gather and the rest of the church must be excluded from that gathering. They have ordered that a church cannot obey the biblical to teach and admonish one another in songs, hymns, and spiritual songs. The government has no biblical right to redefine the church or its worship.

Think about it: Should a government be able to require five elders in a church? Or no more than ten elders? Should the government be able to mandate one song or three songs? Or no songs? Should the government forbid communion?

Where would you draw the line and how?

So you say you could go on. I wish you would.

The case will go nowhere. They have no case. Their Christian nationalist attorneys are more publicists than litigators. This whole affair is a joke. JMac has embarrassed himself beyond belief.

All bluster aside, where do you draw the line and say, “No more”?

This is a nuisance suit. My comments are not bluster.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

[TylerR]

This is a nuisance suit. My comments are not bluster.

God did not promise us religious liberty, but America has offered it, and I for one am grateful. I don’t understand why you’re so willing to throw that blessing away and so contemptuous of those who strive to retain it. If you don’t see the organized and concerted attack on religious liberty that is unfolding, I don’t know how to help you. I can only quote Samuel Adams: ” We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

Have a lovely day. I wrote an article outlining my concerns with the bad argument put forth by JMac. I said, repeatedly, there may be an argument to be made, but JMac just hadn’t made it.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Words like “go nowhere,” “no case,” “joke,” “embarrassed himself beyond belief,” and “nuisance” certainly sound like bluster, particularly in the absence of an argument in support of it. And calling a respected conservative law firm with Supreme Court victories “more publicist than litigators” adds to the appearnace of bluster.

But all that aside, I am interested in the substance of the issue: Where’s the line for you? At what point would you do something?

It appears LA County’s order was simply stayed pending the formal hearing.

‘Merica.

JMac’s attorney/publicist deliberately chose to spin this pro forma stay as a victory on a show with a Christian nationalist interviewer, knowing this misleading framing would be crack cocaine to his base. She was right.

Unfortunate.

My concern is not that I don’t want JMac’s church to meet. It’s that his initial statement was bad, he is using Christian Nationalist figures (Mataxes) and rote GOP fanboys (Tucker) to promote his cause, he encourages local churches to sign his bad argument, he hired attorneys who double as publicists, and his attorneys trumpted pesudo “victories” in a manipulative manner to the Christian Nationalist base. In short, I don’t like being manipulated. This entire matter disgusts me.

What JMac does reaches across the entire world; into all our lives. That means he has a great responsibility to act appropriately. Last night, after I met with a couple whose son has gone insane and attacked them, the wife looked at me solemnly and intoned, “You see what’s happening in California with John MacArthur? The Democrats are trying to ruin everything and take over the Church. The Scripture told us that persecution would come …”

What’s it like to live your life through the prism of American politics? To view over 50% of your fellow citizens as de facto “enemies” of the GOP out to destroy the Church? To casually impugn every public health official at the city, county, State and Federal level as evil? To actually file a lawsuit against some of those civil servants, who are NOT politicians, and attack their character and integrity in such a cruel way? And then, to actually believe you’re being persecuted for righteousness’ sake?

It makes me so sad.

As I mentioned in another thread, I feel more and more alienated and homeless (even in Church) from my fellow Christians because I am not a fan of either political party and don’t view life through a prism of American politics. I fear there aren’t many of us around. It makes you feel hopeless.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

What JMac does reaches across the entire world; into all our lives. That means he has a great responsibility to act appropriately. Last night, after I met with a couple whose son has gone insane and attacked them, the wife looked at me solemnly and intoned, “You see what’s happening in California with John MacArthur? The Democrats are trying to ruin everything and take over the Church. The Scripture told us that persecution would come …”

Had a very similar conversation with family this week, who are all aboard the “California progressives are out to illegalize Christianity and we neeed to defend our rights” train. I explained some more of what was going on and settled their concerns but they got that spin from FOX.

Part of this issue is that many (perhaps including myself) have put way too much support into John MacArthur as a leader, and I can’t help but think a portion of this is all of the fame/popularity going to GCC’s head. As i have said elsewhere, I’m tired of the constant badgering on all sorts of non-Scriptural issues or on “the Way Things Must Be Done By Christians Or Else”.

"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

The government has no biblical right to redefine the church or its worship.

Think about it: Should a government be able to require five elders in a church? Or no more than ten elders? Should the government be able to mandate one song or three songs? Or no songs? Should the government forbid communion?

Where would you draw the line and how?

I don’t think there’s any mystery to it.

The conscience passages refer to matters about which Scripture has not clearly spoken. By your reasoning, churches that want to have women pastors because their conscience, tells them Gal 3.28 requires that, must have women pastors in order to be obedient to God.

I know some people who think abstaining from alcohol is sin for similar reasons, “conscience” driven by 1 Tim 6.17, and passages associating wine with God’s gifts, gladness, etc.

Speaking in tongues… same reasoning.

Snake handling?

How far do you want to go?

I remember hearing the same reasoning in reference to not paying taxes some years go. Taxes were funding abortion and other unethical things, so Christians must not pay taxes. Never mind the clarity of Rom. 13.16.

But Rom. 13:1-5 is just as clear.

So, to answer your question, where do we draw the line on what a church should let the government tell them to do? Exactly where JMac has said to draw it for decades: at the point of contradiction. Should the state tell the church how many deacons to have? It should not. But has God told us how many to have? He has not. Obey the state.

We have words for that kind of interference, and it’s been going on for millennia. It’s oppression; it’s persecution; it’s contrary to widely valued concepts of human rights. It’s suffering. When it happens, we are called to obediently endure, while using the legal means at our disposal to change it.

So the choices are not:

  • Comply or resist

The choices are:

  • Comply and resist
    or
  • Defy and resist

Romans 13, and the rest of the NT teaches the former.

So you say you could go on. I wish you would.

Well, I did.

I’ve been planning for weeks to write up something systematic on the topic. But I don’t know yet when I’ll get to it.

It’s not like this hasn’t come up before. This is an old topic that most (including JMac) took a position on long ago. Suddenly we have these very public departures from that teaching at a time when churches need to be encouraged to handle these things biblically.

It all begins by setting aside the politics and the culture war at looking at the situation through Christian lenses… zoomed out a couple of millennia.

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,

You say that rightly that the conscience passages refer to matters about which Scripture has not clearly spoken. I don’t think I would word it this way but I get the point you are making. I think this raises at least two issues.

First, it seems to me that Scripture has spoken and spoken clearly. The church is to assemble (not part of the church or part at a time). On the other hand the government has commanded the church not to assemble, or to assemble as part of the church (e.g. 25% of the capacity or 100 people). At this point, it seems to me that the church has to decide whether to obey God or man, right? Assemble as God says or don’t assemble as man says? Should the government be able to forbid what God has commanded? Is assembling a matter of conscience about which God has not clearly spoken?

As another example, the church has been commanded to sing. If a church does not teach and admonish one another is psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs while singing and making melody in their hearts to the Lord, they have disobeyed, have they not? (For the sake of argument, we could grant that a church does not have to sing every time it gathers; but it cannot abandon singing without engaging in disobedience, right?).

So when a government tells a church it cannot meet or cannot sing, is this not a command to disobey God?

Second, can a believer in good conscience differ with you on where to draw the line about resisting or defying? You seem to object to MacArthur’s dogmatism but I wonder if your dogmatism is much different? Can you grant any room of conscience for a sincere believer to differ about where to draw the line?

I know some people who think abstaining from alcohol is sin for similar reasons, “conscience” driven by 1 Tim 6.17, and passages associating wine with God’s gifts, gladness, etc.

Speaking in tongues… same reasoning

Snake handling?

How far do you want to go?

I would like to go at least far enough to establish a similar scenario. I have never heard anyone say abstaining from these things is sin. I have heard people say that forbidding them is sin, but abstaining? Does anyone really say that we must drink wine to be obedient? Or speak in tongues? Or handle snakes?

So, to answer your question, where do we draw the line on what a church should let the government tell them to do? Exactly where JMac has said to draw it for decades: at the point of contradiction.

How is this not that point of contradiction? I am trying to understand that here.

God says meet; government says don’t meet. Which should we obey?

So the choices are not:

Comply or resist

The choices are:

Comply and resist
or

Defy and resist

Romans 13, and the rest of the NT teaches the former.

Does the NT teach the former or is there more nuance than that? When Peter and John said, “We must obey God rather than man,” were they not defying and resisting? When believers around the world have met in defiance of government, were they not defying and resisting? I think you would answer “yes” to both.

Which leads to a question about how this is different. And that is what I am searching for clarity on. How is this different than Acts 5 or any other point in church history?

Again, I am not sure where to draw the line. I am not convinced MacArthur drew it in the right place. But I am trying to hear from all sides on this to clarify my own thinking.

It all begins by setting aside the politics and the culture war at looking at the situation through Christian lenses… zoomed out a couple of millennia.

On this, I completely agree. I often wonder if Trump wasn’t president if this would be nearly the issue it is. People’s attitude toward Trump (both pro and con) certainly seems to have colored the issue and that is sad. I wish churches would just stay out of politics.

When we resumed meeting outdoors, I told our church I didn’t want any social media—pictures, comments, celebrations, etc. In fact, we asked a couple of people to remove some comments. The reason was because I di not want it to be viewed as a political statement. This was about us doing what God had commanded us to do.

Would you say we did the wrong thing by meeting?