MacArthur sues state over worship restrictions

Behold this:

The California Court of Appeal today set aside a lower court order that would have allowed indoor services to take place at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley.

The Court of Appeal’s decision temporarily upholds the County’s Health Officer Orders prohibiting indoor worship services in order to protect congregants and the community as a whole from transmission of the highly contagious and potentially fatal COVID-19 virus.

I wrote, before, that this “victory” (which is now no victory at all) was being spun as crack cocaine for the Christian Nationalist base. I also told you it meant nothing. I’ve operated in this world for a long time. JMac’s attorneys know it, too; far better than me.

[Larry]

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).

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 3000 people were added to the church in Jerusalem in Acts 2:41, did they have to start looking for a space to all meet together so they could be obeying the command to assemble?

The early church typically met in homes. The early days of the church are a time of transition and so most make a distinction between prescriptive and descriptive. In addition, the NT generally refers to a church of a city rather than individual local assemblies which may have numbered more than one in a city. We simply don’t know for sure.

In a country where churches are illegal, the Christians would obey God by meeting together secretly, but would they also have to be singing out loud in order to be obedient to God?

I believe they do, though quietly so as not to call attention to themselves.

Wouldn’t the phrase “in their hearts” mean that the teaching and admonishing with songs can be done without everyone singing out loud?

No, “with your heart” or “from your heart” most likely indicates the sincerity of thankfulness, and that is “to the Lord.” And I don’t know how your idea would work. How do you teach and admonish someone in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs without saying anything?

I think at some point we have reach a point of desperation of sorts. I think churches can certainly approach this in different ways in good conscience. But I think we need to start with what the Scripture says,

[Larry]

So when 3000 people were added to the church in Jerusalem in Acts 2:41, did they have to start looking for a space to all meet together so they could be obeying the command to assemble?

The early church typically met in homes. The early days of the church are a time of transition and so most make a distinction between prescriptive and descriptive. In addition, the NT generally refers to a church of a city rather than individual local assemblies which may have numbered more than one in a city. We simply don’t know for sure.

In a country where churches are illegal, the Christians would obey God by meeting together secretly, but would they also have to be singing out loud in order to be obedient to God?

I believe they do, though quietly so as not to call attention to themselves.

Wouldn’t the phrase “in their hearts” mean that the teaching and admonishing with songs can be done without everyone singing out loud?

No, “with your heart” or “from your heart” most likely indicates the sincerity of thankfulness, and that is “to the Lord.” And I don’t know how your idea would work. How do you teach and admonish someone in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs without saying anything?

I think at some point we have reach a point of desperation of sorts. I think churches can certainly approach this in different ways in good conscience. But I think we need to start with what the Scripture says,

I didn’t say the teaching with songs could be done “without saying anything.” I said it could be done “without everyone singing out loud.” As long as one person is singing it, or even reciting it, a song can be teaching and admonishing.

First, for clarification, the point of desperation comment was not about this particular conversation between you and me but about the broader conversation of the last five or six months.

Second, I think the issue is related to what it means to assemble. if one group of people meets at one place and one group of people meets at a different place is that one assembly or two assemblies? Isn’t it obviously to assemblies? isn’t that why there is a church at Philippi and the church at Ephesus and a church at Corinth? They were not the same assembly because they did not assemble together? I will gladly grant that we don’t know exactly what the early church look like. but I don’t think that changes the fundamental meaning of assembly.

Third, to the issue of singing you raise several issues. I believe the verbs are plural which means that the command cannot be fulfilled by one person singing to everybody else. It is to put it in southern speak y’all sing to each other. while special music can certainly play a part in the building up of the congregation that does not seem to be sufficient for the command nor does it seem to be the way that the church has historically understood that command. It also cannot be done by reciting something because reciting by definition isn’t a Psalm, a hymn, or a spiritual song.

Back to the point of desperation comment, I would not call these arguments desperation but they certainly seem to be stretching the issues in order to accommodate. Early on Mark Dever called this a time of God’s strange Providence and said we should accept it. He said we should not go making fundamental core changes in what we are doing or who we are as a church. My concern from the beginning has not been whether churches should have stopped meeting or stopped singing as a group. We did both of those things. I think it was the right thing to do. My concern from the beginning was whether or not the government has legitimate authority over the worship of the church to demand these things. I am not convinced that it does and none of the arguments that I have seen convince me of that.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/08/second_thoughts_on_complyi…

[Larry]

Second, I think the issue is related to what it means to assemble. if one group of people meets at one place and one group of people meets at a different place is that one assembly or two assemblies? Isn’t it obviously to assemblies? isn’t that why there is a church at Philippi and the church at Ephesus and a church at Corinth? They were not the same assembly because they did not assemble together? I will gladly grant that we don’t know exactly what the early church look like. but I don’t think that changes the fundamental meaning of assembly.

I’m not against discussing these secondary points, but just want to note that it’s mostly not relevant to the central questions:

• Has God commanded believers to assemble in groups larger than 250?
• Has He commanded any church to have a membership larger than 250?
• Has He commanded indoor worship?
• Has He commanded worship without masks?
• Has He commanded obedience to the powers that be?

The answer to only one of these is “yes.”

From the order overturning the false “victory” JMac’s attorneys trumpeted forth like crack to the Christian Nationalists:

At this very preliminary stage in this litigation, the County has demonstrated a likelihood that it will prevail on the merits of enforcing its July 18, 2020 Health Order. The County’s Health Order is presumed to be constitutional unless its “unconstitutionality clearly, positively and unmistakably appears.”

I re-read your answer to me regarding that, and I’m wondering if you were saying that the church in Jerusalem was technically in disobedience by meeting in homes, but that happened during the “time of transition” in the early church, so we aren’t to consider it to be allowable later. Is that right? Or is it allowable as long as you consider it “two assemblies” or “three assemblies”?

No, that’s not right. And if they meet in two or three homes, it’s not so much that we “consider it two assemblies or three assemblies.” It actually is two or three assemblies.

I don’t think the church was in disobedience at all. I think the “church at Jerusalem” could well be a number of churches referred to collectively. I think it could have been a time of transition in which the need for meetings was developing and being adjusted to.

Neither of those is particularly helpful, so far as I can see. The question is, What is a church? By definition a church is an assembly of people (with various qualifiers I won’t add here).

I’m trying to figure out from Scripture what would be wrong with having multiple assembles taking place by a group of people that had been all meeting together previously. Does that really change the fundamental meaning of assembly? I don’t see how it does, since each group is still assembling.

There is nothing wrong with having multiple assemblies taking place by a group of people that had been all meeting together previously. I think we should call it a church plant. It doesn’t change the fundamental meaning of assembly. But if the two groups never assemble together, are they actually an assembly? Or are they two assemblies?

I think there is allowance for this time of present distress, so to speak. Churches can adjust as they see fit to meet the needs. If they decide to meet in different groups for spacing or for size, that is fine for each congregation to decide. My primary concern remains that government does not have the authority to mandate that. I am not convinced that, at least in our system of government, the government has the authority pass a law regarding the free exercise of religion.

In the larger picture, I am concerned that we not adjust our ecclesiology to meet a temporary need.

Aaron, I agree that these are secondary point and mostly not relevant. It would be helpful to the furtherance of the discussion if you would give us your view on where you would draw the line. At what point as the government gone too far? At what point would you do what MacArthur (filing suit) or others (just meeting anyway) have done? What would trigger that for you.

Your questions are actually a distraction from the main issues. Focusing on a number is the wrong thing (God doesn’t limit the size of a church so why should we or government?). Focusing on indoor or outdoor, masks or no masks is the wrong thing. I think you would even agree that obedience to the powers that be is not absolute. You have admitted as much, IIRC. Which is why I wonder where your line is?

Again, to try to focus in, the question is, “Who gets to decide what a church is and what a church does?”

Historically, that question has had a clear and mainly agreed upon answer, particularly in the free church tradition. And it is being answered differently now by people who, just a few months ago, would have had another answer.

Both theologically and civically (in the US at least), it has been widely agreed by both church and state that the church gets to decide what a church is and what a church does in worship. In recent days, some (both in church and state) have thought that authority should be given at least in part to the state. Again, I am unconvinced. Which I why I am asking for you and Tyler (the two main objectors here) to outline for us your view.

Regarding the court case, here is an interesting Twitter thread quoting from the judge’s order: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1295394190713470976.html

The essence appears to be this:

”ALTHOUGH THE MOVING PAPER PURPORTS TO TREAT CHURCHES THE SAME AS OTHER BUSINESSES, THAT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY WRONG. THEY’RE ENTITLED TO HEIGHTENED PROTECTION, NOT TO BE TREATED LIKE A HAIR SALON. … IN MY VIEW, THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE. I DO NOT BELIEVE — I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE GOVERNOR AND THE COUNTY HAVE NOT TREATED CHURCHES DIFFERENTLY THAN ANY OTHER BUSINESS, AND THEY HAVE TO. THEY ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO.”

It will be interesting to see it play out.

am not convinced that, at least in our
system of government, the government has the authority pass a law regarding
the free exercise of religion.

Is it ‘regarding the free exercise of religion’ or regarding large indoor gatherings, regardless of religion or absence thereof?

On drawing the line, I think I answered that. I can only explain more. It’s impossible to list every possible scenario, which is why the NT doesn’t attempt to do that. So you draw the line everywhere and only where the government orders something you can’t obey without disobeying God.

But also sue, whenever government commands are unconstitutional.

A few of the things God has not commanded churches to do:

• Meet in large numbers
• Meet inside buildings
• Pass an offering plate
• Employ only full time pastors
• Use hymnals
• Print bulletins
• Have nurseries for little ones
• Have Sunday School
• Have carpet
• Shake hands
• Have paved parking lots
• Have parking lots at all
• Have potlucks
• Have picnics
• Have youth groups

Well, it’s a long list.

It would be unconstitutional for states or federal gov to ban any of these things… Most likely. But we could comply with all of that without disobeying God.

… and also sue.

[Aaron Blumer]

• Shake hands

If only someone could ban the shaking of hands in the middle of the church services, I for one would think the corona crisis *might* have been worth it after all.