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
- 2 views
[Aaron Blumer]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.
A lot of this list has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion. No one actually needs parking lots. Governments require them in new church constructions to reduce the pressure on neighbourhoods. That government requirement itself might be an infringement on free exercise, though it is hard to imagine anyone getting too worked up about it.
Have carpet? Seriously? The government would ban this or require it? Doesn’t make sense.
In other words, your list seems to be thinking out loud, trying to grasp for straws to make up your argument with. A lot of this (most of it probably) is beside the point. So I think you are dodging around and not grappling with the real issue or question that MacArthur is raising.
Personally, I am not sure that I am ready to stand exactly where MacArthur is right now. Our governments have deemed our current situation to be a state of emergency and are using emergency powers for some draconian restrictions on a lot of our activities. Whether their restrictions are actually an infringement of religious liberty or not is the question under discussion. They may be. Our government in BC restricts gatherings to no more than 50 (we are ok so far) and requires us to take precautions, distancing, hand sanitizers, making sure we have liquid soap in the washrooms, etc. We think these requirements are no restriction on free exercise (though we don’t have the same laws as you). We do think the government is overreacting, but we are able to fit within their requirements without too much trouble so we do it so as not to ruffle feathers.
If our church were much larger, say over 1000, we would find it very hard to comply with the gathering restrictions. Can you imagine 20+ services on a Sunday with a 50 person limit? That just wouldn’t happen. At that point, we might have to take action, or just act and take the consequences.
Anyway, the question isn’t “should any church be so big that restricted gathering sizes becomes an issue” but rather, “can government legitimately tell churches how they can meet and what they must do when they do meet”? At some point, I agree with the view that government cannot tell churches when and how to meet. I am just not sure myself where that point is.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Looks like round 3 goes to GCC.
Let’s throw it back to our ringside reporter who knows more about the law than the attorneys defending the church.
https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/pastor-john-macarthurs-religious-free…
This is Tyler, coming to you LIVE from the beulah land of ‘Merica:
JMac’s Christian Nationalist attorney, Jenna Ellis, tweeted today that the charges against Steve Bannon were malicious. She’s a partisan publicist who happens to be an attorney; a brand name.
This show won’t be over for a while.
But, KD, one thing we can be sure of is that many of those who agree with JMac will continue to insist the public health orders are part of a concerted, leftist plot to destroy America.
Just this past week, Phil Johnson, said on a podcast that “support for the quarantine goes hand in hand with being woke.”
The worldview divide shows no signs of closing!
Back to you in studio, KD …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Is it ‘regarding the free exercise of religion’ or regarding large indoor gatherings, regardless of religion or absence thereof?
This starts off with an easy one. It is the free exercise of religion that is at stake. Government has no such restriction on large indoor gatherings per se. There is a restriction on laws regarding the free exercise of religion (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” So it’s in there twice … once for free exercise of religion and once for peaceable assembly.
So you draw the line everywhere and only where the government orders something you can’t obey without disobeying God.
Good so far, but then we get to the list and again find a distraction from the issue. The question is simple: Has God commanded the church to meet? The answer is “yes.” Correct?
So “the church” must meet. Agreed?
If a church is larger than 250 and the government forbids gatherings of more than 250, than you can’t obey the government without disobeying God. I would be curious as to how that is debatable or questionable to you.
If the church is “large numbers” then God has commanded the church to meet in large numbers. If it is small numbers, than God has commanded the church to meet in small numbers. Again, the issue is the definition of the church vs. part of the church. God has not commanded half the church to meet at 8:30 and half to meet 10:30. When the government requires such a thing, it is requiring disobedience to God.
What if the weather prevents an outside meeting (too hot, too cold, rainy as it was for us this past week)? Should the church disobey God? What if the church cannot meet outside without creating too much noise for the neighbors?
Again, I think there is room in this time of strange providence to draw these lines differently. I can see how someone could conclude differently about the specific application of these commands. But it doesn’t appear that you do. You seem to have no room for someone to see it differently.
“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” seems to make common sense here. And yes, I know the Sabbath was OT.
While the Bible instructs churches to meet, I can’t imagine that God expects:
- Churches to meet as usual even during a pandemic when that type of gathering is one of the worst ways to continue the spread.
- That they are to meet even in defiance of an obviously temporary government order which is intended to help stop the spread.
- That they can’t follow the government’s instruction to modify the way they meet. They are still required by God to continue to meet indoors in large numbers (thousands in MacArthur’s case), sing even though the government has told them not to sing indoors, not social distance, and not wear masks.
If they were being told that churches could never meet again and that religion was outlawed, of course they should continue to worship. That is not even close to being the case here.
Despite all the flailing, this reasoning remains unassailed.
- Premise 1: God commands us to obey the authorities He has ordained except when obeying them would be disobeying Him.
- Premise 2: God has not commanded us to meet in numbers larger than 250 and indoors.
- Conclusion: Therefore, we are to obey the authorities in this matter.
Objections…
Objection: but it isn’t right!
Response: Let’s say it isn’t. The response would be to obey and seek legal redress.
GCC & JMac’s error here is choosing to disobey and seek redress rather than choosing to obey and seek redress.
Objection: where do you draw the line?!
Response: wherever and only wherever the command from authority requires disobedience to God.
Objection: but where do you draw the line?!
Response: several illustrations have been offered.
Objection: but these are silly.
Response: you asked. The actual line is wherever and only wherever the command from authority requires disobedience to God. I happen to think insisting on +250 and indoors during a pandemic is silly. Why is your idea of silly superior to my idea of silly?
Objection: first amendment says no law hindering free exercise of religion
Response: this has never meant churches get to do absolutely anything they want. Further, churches already comply with all sorts of government related health regulations: ramps, exit signs, building capacity limits, building codes, regulations related to drivers of church vehicles, the list goes on.
So I say, where do you draw the line? Why are all these other government regulations perfectly OK, but keeping the indoor crowd size down during a pandemic is suddenly a violation of the first amendment?
… I’m stealing most of the thunder from the article I’ve been planning to write, but I’m still not sure when I’ll get to it. Lots going on at work, the house, and some preaching this weekend.
Objection: You seem to have no room for someone to see it differently.
Response: This isn’t really relevant. The question is, is the way of seeing it I’ve described correct?
Sorry, but it clearly is.
There are many biblical principles that are difficult and complex to apply. This is really not one of them. I’m not saying it’s easy to obey. It’s not easy at all for large congregations in CA or Nevada etc. But seeing what Scripture calls us to do in these situations? Simple. It’s the difficulty of doing it that is driving the difficulty of seeing it, I suspect. I sympathize. I really do. I’ve “failed to see” something in Scripture that I really didn’t want to see many times myself. We’ve all done it. This time, it’s GCC and JMac.
But given that we’re in a post-Christian culture now and the flushing of character from the evangelical political agenda has ensured and hastened our defeat in the culture war, the question of how churches ought to respond to government oppression is going to be increasingly relevant. Some of the questions of “What has God commanded us to do and does it contradict a government mandate?” are going to be complex and difficult.
We really need to get the simple ones right if we’re to have any hope of getting the more complex ones right.
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 Blumer]Despite all the flailing, this reasoning remains unassailed.
- Premise 1: God commands us to obey the authorities He has ordained except when obeying them would be disobeying Him.
- Premise 2: God has not commanded us to meet in numbers larger than 250 and indoors.
- Conclusion: Therefore, we are to obey the authorities in this matter.
Your attempt at a syllogism just doesn’t seem to work. I don’t see how Premise 2 fits properly in this or actually states the whole case.
I am not sure MacArthur is making the right decision, but I think you haven’t proven his actions are unbiblical.
From an American constitutional point of view, I think he is on very firm ground. The clause says the government cannot prohibit peaceable assembly. There don’t seem to be exceptions to this.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Despite all the flailing, this reasoning remains unassailed.
To return to this briefly, I think your reasoning is unassailable. It is your theology that is the problem for me. Impeccable reasoning cannot overcome bad premises. And I think you keep distracting from that with flailing, as you call it.
Here’s the primary question: “What is a church and who gets to define it?”
One position is that God, in Scripture, defines a church and it is a group of people who have received the word, been baptized, and joined together to follow Christ. There is no number placed on that (as you rightly note and then fail to take into account). Therefore, the state has no biblical right to define a church as a certain number (250, 10, or 0 as it is in some places). Here’s the theological issue: If a church is defined as a group of people without a number, then we should define a church the same way. If 100 people have received the word, been baptized, and covenanted together to follow Christ, then 100 people should gather. If 1000 people have done that, then 1000 should gather. To say that God didn’t command more than 250 to meet is to completely miss the point. God commanded the church to meet, and if that church is more than 250, they are included in God’s command. God did not command part of the church to meet.
You take the position that the government has a right to define a church and the church must obey that order. So if 1000 people meet the biblical definition of church, you think the government should be able to step in and overrule that and say, “No, your church cannot be bigger than 250” (or 10 in some places). By so doing the government de facto creates multiple churches, which might not be a bad idea, but it isn’t the government’s prerogative to do so.
I struggle with this for a couple of reasons.
In our government, the government is prevented from such action. And so we as Christians (or Muslim, JWs, Jews, etc.) have a right peaceably assemble free from government interference and the government is prohibited from restricting the free exercise of religion. And it is not wrong to pursue that right. Christians do not lose their civil rights because they are Christians. However, in a place where religious freedom has less clout, if a government were to limit churches to 100 people, I would tend to think that when a church reaches 100, they should plant another church. The problem is that our laws prevent that from being a requirement, at least as of now.
Where I differ with you is that I think churches are free to see this differently for this time. You do not. You allow no freedom of conscience to a church despite the biblical definition of a church and the command to a church. You give no room for a church to believe that they ought to assemble as a church rather than as part of a church. I think extraordinary times of strange providence can lead to different churches concluding differently on how and what to do.
Objection: where do you draw the line?!
Response: wherever and only wherever the command from authority requires disobedience to God.
That’s not really an objection in terms of an argument. It was a request. And having shown where this might require disobedience to God (i.e., the definition of a church), you have not engaged that issue.
Objection: but where do you draw the line?!
Response: several illustrations have been offered.
Objection: but these are silly.
I don’t think anyone called them silly, though I may have forgotten. I think the issue I raised was relevance. I think you are distracting from the main issue.
I happen to think insisting on +250 and indoors during a pandemic is silly. Why is your idea of silly superior to my idea of silly?
I think the issue is theology. I don’t think it is about silly or not silly. I think insisting on 250+ indoors during a pandemic might well be silly; it might not be (and the evidence at this point seems to lean towards the latter). The point is that the Bible does not define a church that way and neither we nor the state should either.
Objection: first amendment says no law hindering free exercise of religion
Response: this has never meant churches get to do absolutely anything they want. Further, churches already comply with all sorts of government related health regulations: ramps, exit signs, building capacity limits, building codes, regulations related to drivers of church vehicles, the list goes on.
Again, at the risk of pointing out the obvious that has been pointed out before, these things are not parallel issues. None of them attempt to take over the biblical definition or commands from God to a church. This is what I mean by a distraction. You bring up a bunch of irrelevant things on which we agree and then shove the definition of a church into this list. I disagree.
So I say, where do you draw the line? Why are all these other government regulations perfectly OK, but keeping the indoor crowd size down during a pandemic is suddenly a violation of the first amendment?
Because none of those restrictions prevent a church from meeting or carrying out any biblical command. I draw the line at biblical commands. See this article: https://thecripplegate.com/3-views-of-submission-to-government-from-rom…
Objection: You seem to have no room for someone to see it differently.
Response: This isn’t really relevant. The question is, is the way of seeing it I’ve described correct?
Sorry, but it clearly is.
I think you may have overestimated clarity here. Is the way of seeing it you’ve describe correct? Not so far as I can see from Scripture. Again, your reasoning is excellent. Your theology is suspect here.
Again, the issue seems rather simple:
- God commands the church to meet.
- The government forbids the church from meeting or limits the amount of the church that can meet.
Who should the church obey? And how do you insist that there is no way to see it differently in good conscience?
Again, as I have said, I am not convinced MacArthur drew the line in the right place. But you have yet to provide a place other than a rather nebulous “where God commands.”
There are many biblical principles that are difficult and complex to apply. This is really not one of them.
I completely agree with this. It is not hard.
I’ve “failed to see” something in Scripture that I really didn’t want to see many times myself. We’ve all done it.
Have you considered that maybe you are doing it here?
…, the question of how churches ought to respond to government oppression is going to be increasingly relevant. Some of the questions of “What has God commanded us to do and does it contradict a government mandate?” are going to be complex and difficult.
We really need to get the simple ones right if we’re to have any hope of getting the more complex ones right.
Again, I think you are completely correct in this, which is why your arguments seem so strange. You make the right philosophical points and miss the theology of it, it seems to me.
So the crux of the matter, while putting all the distractions aside is this: Who gets to define a church?
Just now at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, John MacArthur told his congregation,
The article goes on:
What is embarrassing for MacArthur is that this has been known for months. The CDC has released reports before showing the underlying health conditions of deaths and hospitalized patients. Yet, in ominous tones, MacArthur makes it appear he is revealing some previously concealed truth …
The possible source for this misinterpretation of the CDC data is one of MacArthur’s attorneys in his legal battle to continue worship services indoors – Jenna Ellis. She tweeted a misleading post from far right blog Gateway Pundit on the CDC report very early this morning.
The article includes an excerpt from JMac’s sermon this morning, in which he says he’s long been suspicious about the truthfulness of the “virus” because he doesn’t personally know anyone who has been sick. He suggests this is all a conspiracy of lies from Satan.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[RajeshG]https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2020/08/30/how-la-county-is-re…
Wow, seizing a large portion of their parking lot! I have never heard of any government doing anything like that.
[Mark_Smith]Wow, seizing a large portion of their parking lot! I have never heard of any government doing anything like that.
LA county didn’t seize the parking lot. They own the lot and terminated the lease with MacArthur’s church based on the church’s actions.
[Ken S]LA county didn’t seize the parking lot. They own the lot and terminated the lease with MacArthur’s church based on the church’s actions.
Exactly, when has a govt done that.
The church I last attended the city owned a right of way right through the middle of our property for a storm drain that was once under the property but no longer there. We discovered it when we applied for a permit to build a drive-in awning for drop offs at the front door. We found out the right-of-way was given a pass in the 60s to build the front door, but they would not let us build anything new over it.
What if a new mayor decided we weren’t towing the line and revoked the exclusion. Our church would literally be split in half!
I am guessing a surprising number of churches have some kind of special exemption from the city.
Discussion