COVID, the Church, the State and a More Excellent Way?

I wrote this article for the congregation where I serve, based on our specific context. It may not be your context!

What to think about government public health edicts and the Church regarding COVID-19? In an outburst of representative frustration, a Southern Baptist theologian recently posted the following on Twitter in response to his Governor’s new lockdown restrictions which, among other things, forbade dancing:1

As the American philosopher Yosemite Sam has often remarked, “them’s fightin’ words!”

Basic principles

We begin with some principles to help us consider how to react to the latest public health directive from Governor Inslee.

  1. The Bible tells us we need community and relationship to be truly human, and the Church is God’s community.

God saves His people to join them to the brotherhood of faith so we can be in relationship with Him and with our new brothers and sisters in the faith.2 This is why God gave us pictures of the Church as God’s bride (Hos 1-3; Ezek 16; Eph 5), His body (1 Cor 12), and His spiritual house (1 Pet 2). It means we are only complete in community and fellowship with each other. This cannot be done solely by Zoom or YouTube. Therefore, just as a marriage does not exist unless there is a spatial closeness and relationship, so the Church cannot long exist if it does not meet for corporate worship. There are reasons why long-term, long distance marriages often die!

For God’s people to not meet in community is to deliberately hinder the image of God that Father, Son and Spirit are refurbishing in our individual and corporate lives (2 Cor 3:18; cp. 1 Cor 15:49).

Therefore, the Church should close its doors only as a matter of extreme necessity, as a last resort.

  1. The Bible says God puts the government official in place.

We cannot forget this, no matter who is in office:

Daniel 2:21: “He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings.”

John 19:11: “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above.”

Romans 13:1-2: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”

  1. The Bible says we must obey the secular authorities.

This also cannot be wished away.

We do it because we would be disobeying God if we disobeyed the authorities. “Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid, God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience,” (Rom 13:5).

Paul told Titus to “remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities,” (Titus 3:1).

We do it for the sake of evangelism. “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people,” (1 Pet 2:13-14).

  1. The Bible tells us we can disobey the authorities in certain circumstances.

The penultimate examples are Acts 4:1-22 and Acts 5:27-33. But, before we use these as the escape pod for which we have been searching, we must note three things:

  • The authorities singled the Christians out for discriminatory treatment. They treated the Church differently than other groups.
  • The State ordered the Church to not preach the Gospel. The State wanted to stop evangelism, not corporate worship.
  • The State did this maliciously and on purpose because it hated the Gospel.

We also think of Daniel and his friends who refused to compromise the way they practiced their faith—even after the State commanded them to do so (Dan 1:8). Would they have done so if there were a legitimate public health reason? Perhaps a famine, a crop failure, or something similar? We do not know. We do know the king’s order did not supersede God’s command, and Nebuchadnezzar provided no compelling reason for them to think it did. God blessed Daniel and his friends for their allegiance (Dan 1:17-21).

In non-canonical but very helpful Jewish literature from the period between Malachi and Matthew, the theme of staying loyal to God in foreign lands was also a tough issue. The Book of Tobit is set during the Assyrian exile, and it is about a man named … (you guessed it) … Tobit, who struggled to be a faithful Israelite in a strange land. He explained:

Now when I was carried away captive to Nineveh, all my brethren and my relatives ate the food of the Gentiles; but I kept myself from eating it, because I remembered God with all my heart (Tobit 1:10-12).

Like Daniel, Tobit loved God and so tried very, very hard to observe the dietary laws even in hard circumstances. As with Daniel, it was not about the dietary laws per se; it was about an honest desire to do what God ordered.3

What “certain circumstances,” then, allow us to disobey the State? Based on our survey, there are three triggers:

Considering COVID in Thurston County

This brings us to COVID, and Governor Inslee’s proclamation 20-25.8 of 15 November 2020.5 These are his new directives for congregations:

Governor Inslee explained during a press conference:6

This spike puts us in a more dangerous a position as we were in March … And it means, unfortunately, the time has come to reinstate restrictions on activities statewide to preserve the public’s well-being, and to save lives. These were very difficult decisions that have very real consequences to people’s livelihoods. I recognize that and don’t take those impacts lightly, but we must act now and act quickly to slow the spread of this disease.

As of 15 November 2020, the Thurston County Health Department reports the following statistics:7

This data shows a 98.4% survival rate and indicates 6.4% of those infected have required hospitalization. The Thurston County Public Health Officer recently wrote the community8 (p. 1, §7) that her recommendation to abandon in-person school instruction was “made based on our local patterns of transmission, rising transmission rates, hospital capacity, public health capacity, and our likely trajectory of disease going into winter.” It is reasonable to assume Governor Inslee’s proclamation is predicated on similar concerns.

As of 15 November 2020, the cumulative data for the State of Washington is as follows:9

This data shows a 98.1% survival rate and demonstrates 7.3% of those infected have required hospitalization. For comparison, here are the State of WA and Thurston County datasets side by side:

COVID and basic principles

We now turn to the triggers we previously discussed which allow the Church to disobey the government. We can eliminate one of these and further explore two others, as follows:

Discrimination?

The State has not engaged in intentional discrimination. Has it engaged in defacto discrimination? In this context, to discriminate means to “make an unjust or prejudicial distinction”10 regarding the Church. To be unjust is to not behave “according to what is morally right or fair.”11 Something is prejudicial if it is “harmful to someone or something; detrimental.”12 Therefore, we can summarize and say Governor Inslee’s proclamation is defacto discriminatory against the Church if it draws morally wrong or unfair distinctions between it and other organizations in society, and these distinctions cause harm.

In his proclamation 20-25.8, Governor Inslee states (p. 3, §3):

These below modifications do not apply to education (including but not limited to K-12, higher education, trade and vocational schools), childcare, health care, and courts and judicial branch-related proceedings, all of which are exempt from the modifications and shall continue to follow current guidance.

Is this distinction morally wrong? Is it unfair to allocate the Church less societal value than a daycare? Is it morally wrong to say the Church is less valuable than an undergraduate institution which runs a course about the sociology of gender, in which students read texts that advocate transgender ideology?13

In this context every policy decision has, at its root, a moral calculus that weighs the organization’s value to society.14 Governor Inslee has decided public schools, universities, trade schools, childcare, health care, the courts and their associated activities are more valuable than religious community. He has conducted a moral reckoning, and he sincerely believes his conclusions are correct.

But, the fact remains he has made a distinction. Is it an immoral or unfair distinction? According to Governor Inslee, both the organizations above are more precious than the Christian church. Thus, they may operate under current guidelines and are not subject to this new proclamation. According to the scriptures, gathering in community is not optional, it harms God’s people to prohibit it, and transgender ideology is a false construct of self-identity and humanity.

Therefore, we could say Governor Inslee’s proclamation 20-25.8 is defacto discriminatory against the Church. However, he has not prohibited churches from meeting. He has set limits on the manner of worship, and he has set similar (financially) harmful limits on how other organizations conduct their operations. The State economy has been crippled and is only now beginning to recover.15 It is safe to say this latest proclamation will rip the new scab off this wound for all manner of organizations, across all sectors. If Governor Inslee is explicitly or implicitly injuring the Church, even his foes must admit he is making a very clumsy job of it.

Evidence suggests the allegation of defacto discrimination against the Church is ambiguous and unclear.

We turn to the next issue.   

Adequate cause to change the manner of worship?

The question is about predication. In SKRBCs context, the weightiest issue from WA’s new restrictions is whether Governor Inslee has adequate cause to prohibit congregational singing in a worship service. Does he? In his press conference, Governor Inslee declared:16

We have a pandemic raging across the state. It is a potentially fatal disease. Left unchecked, it will assuredly result in grossly overburdened hospitals. It will keep people from receiving routine but necessary medical treatment because of the stresses our hospitals will be under.

Left unchecked, the economic devastation, long term, will be continually prolonged. And, most importantly, left unchecked, we will see continued untold numbers of death.

We will not allow these things to happen.

This brings us back to the datasets about COVID:

Just from this admittedly simple review, COVID-19 does not seem to be a serious disease. The number of WA dead (2,519) seems only to be so high because so many have been infected (130,419). And yet, this data masks the true horror of the virus. Even this seemingly modest amount of hospitalizations may overwhelm the public health sector:17

… in the hardest-hit areas, there are simply not enough doctors, nurses, and other specialists to staff those beds. Some health-care workers told me that COVID-19 patients are the sickest people they’ve ever cared for: They require twice as much attention as a typical intensive-care-unit patient, for three times the normal length of stay.

The article goes on:18

The entire state of Iowa is now out of staffed beds, Eli Perencevich, an infectious-disease doctor at the University of Iowa, told me. Worse is coming. Iowa is accumulating more than 3,600 confirmed cases every day; relative to its population, that’s more than twice the rate Arizona experienced during its summer peak, “when their system was near collapse,” Perencevich said. With only lax policies in place, those cases will continue to rise. Hospitalizations lag behind cases by about two weeks; by Thanksgiving, today’s soaring cases will be overwhelming hospitals that already cannot cope. “The wave hasn’t even crashed down on us yet,” Perencevich said. “It keeps rising and rising, and we’re all running on fear. The health-care system in Iowa is going to collapse, no question.”

In the imminent future, patients will start to die because there simply aren’t enough people to care for them. Doctors and nurses will burn out. The most precious resource the U.S. health-care system has in the struggle against COVID-19 isn’t some miracle drug. It’s the expertise of its health-care workers—and they are exhausted.

Just how difficult is it to care for a single COVID-19 patient?19

A typical patient with a severe case of COVID-19 will have a tube connecting their airways to a ventilator, which must be monitored by a respiratory therapist. If their kidneys shut down, they might be on 24-hour dialysis. Every day, they’ll need to be flipped onto their stomach, and then onto their back again—a process that requires six or seven people. They’ll have several tubes going into their heart and blood vessels, administering eight to 12 drugs—sedatives, pain medications, blood thinners, antibiotics, and more.

All of these must be carefully adjusted, sometimes minute to minute, by an ICU nurse. None of these drugs is for treating COVID-19 itself. “That’s just to keep them alive,” Neville, the Iowa nurse, said. An ICU nurse can typically care for two people at a time, but a single COVID-19 patient can consume their full attention. Those patients remain in the ICU for three times the length of the usual stay.

Are some Christians so insulated in their echo-chamber of favored news commentators that they do not realize how awful COVID is? One public health worker recently lamented:20

Health-care workers and public-health officials have received threats and abusive messages accusing them of fearmongering … They’ve pleaded with family members to wear masks and physically distance, lest they end up competing for ICU beds that no longer exist. “Nurses have been the most trusted profession for 18 years in a row, which is now bull**** because no one is listening to us,” Neville said.

Add to it that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now concludes COVID-19 spreads through droplets in the air:21

Some infections can be spread by exposure to virus in small droplets and particles that can linger in the air for minutes to hours. These viruses may be able to infect people who are further than 6 feet away from the person who is infected or after that person has left the space.

This kind of spread is referred to as airborne transmission and is an important way that infections like tuberculosis, measles, and chicken pox are spread.

There is evidence that under certain conditions, people with COVID-19 seem to have infected others who were more than 6 feet away. These transmissions occurred within enclosed spaces that had inadequate ventilation. Sometimes the infected person was breathing heavily, for example while singing or exercising.

In light of this, does the Church have cause to question the State’s motives in a public health emergency? Can it responsibly ignore the recommendations of public health experts? It seems the following guidelines should apply when considering public health emergency orders:

  1. Are there credible reasons to suspect the State is targeting the Church with the public health order?
  2. Is there a reasonable expiry period for the modification of public worship?
  3. Are there credible reasons to expect the modification might help achieve the public health goal?

In the State of Washington’s context, the answers to these questions are, in order, No, Yes and Yes.

Does Governor Inslee therefore lack adequate cause to restrict congregational singing? Only if the Church believes the proclamation (and others like it from other Governors) is part of a conspiracy against Christ and His Church. Such theories abound on the internet, that warm incubator for so much cold darkness.22

Of course, these questions do not consider that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14) and rarely works in an overt way. He seeks to destroy the Church (1 Pet 5:8; Rev 12:17). “For we are not ignorant of his designs,” (2 Cor 2:11). We also must consider whether the Church is the proverbial frog in the pan that slowly boils to death … and never notices. Is the burner dial turning to “MED-HIGH” even now? 

We must remember we live in two worlds: the City of God and the City of Man. This world does not like the Church, does not respect it, does not value it, and never will. We must only go along with public health decrees that re-shape our community and our worship as long as we are reasonably certain there is no explicit or implicit evil motivating them.

Is there, in this case? With Satan, we can never be sure. But the evidence suggests no.

A more excellent way?

We make a mistake when we consider COVID and the State from the perspective of Satan as the moving force in the universe. Yet, that is what we have done. It is what we have all done. We forget the most biblical way to think of COVID is as God’s judgment on the world. Examples from scripture are too numerous to list, but here is one (Jeremiah 14:11-12):

The LORD said to me: “Do not pray for the welfare of this people. Though they fast, I will not hear their cry, sand though they offer burnt offering and grain offering, I will not accept them. But I will consume them by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence.”

God brings curses on a world that rejects Him. True, the world is not Israel. But the point remains—God brings judgment so people might repent. We do not know what His specific message is, but we can be certain it has to do with repentance and allegiance to His name.

While it is necessary to focus on the Church’s obligations to the State regarding public health orders, it is perhaps best for the Church to re-double its efforts to fulfill its mission. That mission is to preach the Gospel. To build bridges to the community in service of that Good News. To be innovative, creative, and winsomely aggressive in this outreach.

That is what God would have us do.

Notes

1 See https://twitter.com/ostrachan/status/1328413157325410304. This was posted on 16 November 2020.              

2 See the sermon “Made for Each Other? The Bible on Marriage” (preached 01 November 2020) for an exposition of Genesis 2:18-25. This sermon is essentially about the imago dei and how it is imaged in the covenant of marriage. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/BHZaV6YwXSg.

3 See also 1 Maccabees 1:58-64 for a similar theme. 

4 The case of defacto discrimination is well illustrated by Pliny the Younger’s letter to Emperor Trajan querying how he ought to handle Christians. This came about after Pliny issued a general edict outlawing political associations. Christians were then caught up in this administrative dragnet. This was not an explicit, but a defacto discrimination.

5 Retrieved from https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/proclamations/proc_20-25.8.pdf

6 TV Washington, “Governor Inslee Press Conference on COVID-19,” (15 November 2020). Retrieved from https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2020111099.

7 Retrieved from Thurston County Public Health and Social Services on 15 November 2020 from https://www.thurstoncountywa.gov/phss/Pages/covid-19-data.aspx

8 Dr. Dimyana Abdelmalek, “Letter to the Community: 10 November 2020.” Retrieved on 15 November 2020 from https://www.thurstoncountywa.gov/phss/phssdocuments/11%2010%2020%20letter%20to%20community%20FINAL.pdf

9 WA State Department of Health, “COVID-19 Dashboard.” Retrieved on 15 November 2020 from  https://www.doh.wa.gov/Emergencies/COVID19/DataDashboard.

10 New Oxford American Dictionary, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford, 2010), s.v. “discriminate,” verb, 2; p. 497. 

11 Ibid, s.v. “unjust,” p. 1893. 

12 Ibid, s.v. “prejudicial,” p. 1378. 

13 For example, see SOC 235 “Sociology of Gender” from South Puget Sound Community College. The assigned textbook is Lisa Wade and Myra Ferre, Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions, 2nd ed. (New York: Norton, 2018).

14 “A man who acts, makes decisions, ranks things above or below, sets a high or low value on things, is acting according to definite principles—even though theoretically he may deny these principles—and he is acting with the consciousness—although in theory he would certainly deny it—that it is right to act in such a way,” (Emil Brunner, The Divine Imperative, trans. Olive Wyon [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1947], 18). 

15 See State of Washington Economic and Revenue Forecast Council, Economic & Revenue Update – October 15, 2020, pp. 3-5. Retrieved from https://erfc.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/documents/publications/oct20.pdf

16 TV Washington, “Press Conference,” 00:25 – 01:10. Retrieved from https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2020111099.

17 Ed Yong, “‘No One Is Listening to Us,’” The Atlantic (13 November 2020). Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/11/third-surge-breaking-healthcare-workers/617091/.

18 Ibid.  

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid.

21 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “How COVID-19 Spreads,” updated 28 October 2020. Retrieved on 16 November 2020 from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html. Emphasis added.

22 These theories usually include varying amalgamations of George Soros, the World Economic Forum, Bill Gates, microchips, a belief COVID-19 is not real or is being exploited for nefarious purposes, and conviction that there exists a coordinated, multi-national cabal of political and civil service conspirators ready to execute sinister orders from on high across the globe.  

1840 reads

There are 21 Comments

josh p's picture

Thanks for this one Tyler. Our church has followed all of the guidelines so far. We have been able to spread into different rooms to allow everyone who wants to come to do so. The problem as I see it is whether Inslee has the authority under the constitution to make the demands on churches. My position is that he doesn’t but, as we aren’t disease experts, the peaceable thing is to comply until it’s impossible to do so while obeying God. So far we can and should. If our church was larger, such that we couldn’t comply with the 25% capacity in one service, it may be necessary to go ahead and meet. One thing that was pointed out to me that I’m still wrestling with is the repeated commands to physical touch in greeting one another. There does seem to be something there that is important.

TylerR's picture

Editor

The NT doesn't contemplate the nature of the government's authority; it just assumes it exists. The NT context was a dictatorship, so the question of authority really didn't occur. In our context, it seems we have to consider the nature of the political philosophy that is America.

When you read John Locke, you see he explains that man unites and puts himself under government authority to escape the state of nature in which he (and his property) is vulnerable. Man gives up autonomy for shared security, and gives the State authority to act on his behalf with his consent.

This philosophy is what informed much of the Constitution. The fundamental question is whether the Church is willing to be a part of society, of this social compact (Rousseau) any longer. Can the Church in America decide its elected leaders have no authority to impose public health orders for the common good?

If you're willing to grant that there is no explicit or implicit discrimination, then that gets you back into the "adequate cause" discussion in my article.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

TylerR's picture

Editor

I know the kind of reasoning I make in the article is too much for some people to follow. I spoke to one lady from church last night, went through an abridged version of the article, and she just shook her head and said, "The Lord commands us to sing! We must sing!"

It didn't matter that she'd agreed (1) there is no explicit or implicit discrimination, (2) COVID patients can overwhelm the public health system, (3) the CDC concluded COVID can spread by air and this undergirds Gov. Inslee's directive about no congregational singing, (4) that the ban on singing is meant to prevent an overload on the health system, (5) that the policies are killing our whole State and not singling out the Church.

In the end, she just shook her head and said, "We must sing! The Bible commands it!"

I know people aren't as analytical as me, and have little patience for this kind of reasoning. I don't resent her for it. It is just frustrating, sometimes.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

josh p's picture

I don’t think it’s an issue of the church deciding that the state does not have the authority. It’s an issue of whether the law of the land (the constitution) gives the state that authority. Obviously the debate about whether health orders give special temporary authority is important and worth having. I believe we should comply up to the absolute last moment when nothing but disobedience to God is required. I just don’t think that we are required to by (the highest) law.

TylerR's picture

Editor

At some point, the Church must ignore. I just don't think we're there in WA. But, I'm aware of the frog in the pot analogy. I could be wrong.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

What would your argument say about Christians in Nevada?  Since churches are subject to different rules than casinos, your point about discriminatory treatment would apply, thus, as far as I can see, leading to a different conclusion than you are making about Washington state.

And while I know nothing about the woman you mentioned, you do realize you could have members that understand your argument and still do not agree, right?  Disagreement doesn't necessarily mean that the one disagreeing is unable to follow your argument.

Dave Barnhart

TylerR's picture

Editor

Yes, Nevada would likely be different (see the disclaimer at the top). Yes, I do know people may disagree. My point is that she agreed with everything, but still thought we should sing.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

TylerR wrote:

Yes, Nevada would likely be different (see the disclaimer at the top).

I somehow missed that small line at the top about a different context.  Mostly likely I read over it like I do most photo captions, and this wasn't one.  Thanks for pointing it out.

The situation in my state is different from both Washington and Nevada.  As far as I can tell, there's no particular discrimination against churches (there could be some of the inadvertent variety), but because the governor lost a court case earlier this year, the rules he puts out can't actually even apply to churches.  Now it becomes a question of what we should (or should not) do in the absence of such regulations, both to allow us to worship and to protect the members and guard our testimony.

Dave Barnhart

TylerR's picture

Editor

That is very hard. I wonder, too about Michigan. I believe the MI Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that Gov. Whitmer's emergency powers have gone too far, yet she has ignored them. That's crazy. At what point does government become illegitimate?

This is why I think it's very difficult to make broad-brush applications. Things are different in each State.

If the WA Governor instituted a near total lockdown, further than what he's already done, then I am not sure if we would agree. Our leadership team would have to meet to hash it all out. We're meeting with the pastor of the Bible Presbyterian Church tomorrow for lunch, to get an idea of what they're thinking. They're right across the street from us.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Bert Perry's picture

...was actually a Republic going into a de facto monarchy.  Keep in mind that Paul repeatedly affirms his rights as a Roman citizen, humiliating a magistrate at least once by forcing him to enter the prison he ran.  Given that cleaning, medical care, and ventilation were not high priorities in such places, it's safe to affirm that this was not exactly pleasant.  So in the New Testament context, at least citizens had some rights of appeal, and I believe even non-citizens had some rights if they could hire an orator (lawyer for those times) to make their appeal.

Since we're also in a (theoretical at least) republic, this does inform our response.  Now we do not want to make our appeals recklessly, but there are times when we do have the right (and responsibility) to question what public health authorities are doing, especially since they've come out on both sides of face masks (Fauci) and shutdowns (WHO).  There is also a much bigger, and scarier, question of whether the shutdowns actually make the problems worse by depriving people of ordinary human interaction--and thus inadvertently drive people to "superspreader" events, suicide, drug abuse, and the like. 

That's a side of the response that I think our public health authorities have dropped in an abyssmal way, to put it mildly, and fully one third of the "excess" deaths since the epidemic started are not for COVID.  (sadly, the article I saw did not break this down so we would know what they were)

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Bert Perry's picture

....stereotypically, wouldn't we have expected that a Baptist leader like Strahan would have applauded a ban of dancing?  :^)

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

TylerR's picture

Editor

I mentioned to another pastor yesterday that I'm not even sure I agree with myself on the conclusions in my article. I think my basic grid is sound:

  1. Is there explicit or de facto discrimination against the Church? If not, then
  2. Does the State have adequate cause to command the Church to change its manner of worship?

But, I am very concerned about the very nature of worship itself. Some elements of worship are non-negotiable - like congregational song and the Lord's Supper. At some tipping point, "adequate cause" loses its force when things drag on forever and ever. It's at that point that "adequate cause" becomes "inadequate."

After consulting with our ministry team, I released this to the church last night:

I am very unhappy with this recent order. A church must sing. It must meet. It must pray. It must hear the preaching of the Scriptures. I have little confidence the virus will magically disappear when this new order expires on 14 December, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Governor Inslee extended it past New Years and/or tightened it further. I do not personally see an end to this merry-go-round if the State continues to use the same sledgehammer approach it has been using.

So, I make this announcement:

If Governor Inslee extends, tightens or otherwise negatively alters this current order, or issues a new one in the future about COVID, we will hold a business meeting on the closest Sunday following that announcement and vote as a church as to whether we will comply.

We will do it by Zoom and in-person. Absentee ballots obviously won’t be possible in that circumstance, so we’ll work out an email vote option at that time.

Going forward, I don’t think it’s right to close or further remove essential elements of a church service at the Governor’s order without the consent of the church. So, if another order comes out, just know we will call a meeting for that Sunday. We’ll communicate more if that event occurs. Please pray for wisdom, because I suspect we’ll have to have that meeting sometime next month or in early January.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Larry's picture

Moderator

What is the biblical basis for "treating everyone the same"? I don't know where that comes from biblically. That was a (very controversial) principle laid out by, of all people, Antonin Scalia. It is a principle of American jurisprudence. But is there a biblical basis for it? 

Where in the Bible is disobedience to God permitted so long as everyone is disobeying God?

 

WallyMorris's picture

The debate we are having today about obeying the gov't or resisting the gov't is similar to the debate colonial Christians (and others) had about whether to remain loyal to England  or join the movement for independence. Although the situations are very different, some of the debate principles are the same.

Wally Morris

Charity Baptist Church

Huntington, IN

amomentofcharity.blogspot.com

Bert Perry's picture

Larry wrote:

What is the biblical basis for "treating everyone the same"? I don't know where that comes from biblically. That was a (very controversial) principle laid out by, of all people, Antonin Scalia. It is a principle of American jurisprudence. But is there a biblical basis for it? 

Where in the Bible is disobedience to God permitted so long as everyone is disobeying God?

I'd argue that Biblically speaking, the rationale for treating people equally is James 2, no?  At least within the church, that would be the case.  You would also have a bunch of cases like His parable of the Good Samaritan, His reaching of the Samaritan woman's village, and the principle that there is no Jew or Gentile, etc., in Christ.  In the Torah, you have various prohibitions against mistreating foreigners.  

Politically speaking, the principle played a key role in parting ways with England, and it is fleshed out very specifically in Anglo-American law, specifically the 14th Amendment and our Constitutional protections prohibiting bills of attainder, laws targeting a specific person or group.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Larry's picture

Moderator

I'd argue that Biblically speaking, the rationale for treating people equally is James 2, no?

The question here is not about personal ethics, which James 2 is about. It is about the legal principle of not being singled out for disparate treament under the law, so it is an entirely different conversation.

The question is, Does the Bible permit disobedience so long as everyone is being treated equally?

I think we would all say no, which then raises the question of why people argue that restrictions are okay becaus churches aren't being singled out.

Bert Perry's picture

Keep in mind that the book of James (really almost all of the Bible) is not written to "you" in the singular form; it is rather written to "you all", to use the Southern form, or "youse" if you're in Michigan.  It's the plural form of you.   Hence we must assume that it does not just govern individual actions, but also serves as a guide to what the church should tolerate, and that's exactly what we'd infer from the Torah, which is also written to "you all".  

Moreover, since the Torah also was a guide to politics of national Israel, we can infer that if the principle can carry over to the New Testament (not a gimme with the Torah, to be sure), it would apply to us as well.  That is precisely what we would infer from James 2, and for that matter from Paul's use of Roman law to ensure more equal treatment in Acts 16:37 and Acts 25.  We ought to insist on equal application of the laws for the same reason that we push for banning abortion; it is a valid moral principle from Scripture.  We are rightly offended when our restaurants are all closed to us, but our "betters" nosh at Michelin-starred restaurants in blatant violation of the regulations they themselves encouraged and enacted.

Plus, practically speaking, don't we have abundant examples of the mayhem that results from unequal application of the law?  As Frederick Douglass noted, the four boxes of liberty are the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.  Those who don't get relief from the first three sometimes use the fourth, which is a thing I'd at least hope we can avoid.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

TylerR's picture

Editor

The local Bible Presbyterian pastor told me this week he doesn't think the Church can ever change it's manner of worship for any reason, even a public health emergency. There is literally no circumstance, he avers, that can obligate a church to change its worship.

So, to him, there is no "adequate cause" factor. It doesn't apply. God says you sing, you pray, you observe the Supper, and you hear preaching. It must happen, no matter what.

I don't agree, but I see his point. I'm also aware I'm perhaps more rationalistic and empirical in my thinking than other Christian leaders.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Larry's picture

Moderator

Hence we must assume that it does not just govern individual actions, but also serves as a guide to what the church should tolerate, and that's exactly what we'd infer from the Torah, which is also written to "you all".  

Moreover, since the Torah also was a guide to politics of national Israel, we can infer that if the principle can carry over to the New Testament (not a gimme with the Torah, to be sure), it would apply to us as well. 

No. The Torah was given as a law to a theocracy, not to a constitutional republic or a democracy. The Torah was a civil governance document, and yes, the principles of equal justice under the law is valid no matter what.

But again, this completely misses the point. In our system of government, religion is singled out to be treated in a way different than everything else. It wasn't designed to be treated the same. So is speech and assembly, which is why political protests were not banned but sporting events were and movie theaters were. An equal justice claim, in this case, would be if Baptist churches were permitted to meet, but Prebysterian churches were not. Then, there is not equal treatment under the law. Or if Christian churches could meet but Muslim mosques could not meet. 

To the particular biblical point, James 2 is calling for obedience, not disobedience and it is talking about individuals in the church, not the church and government. It has nothing to do with a political governance and whether or not a church should obey God or man. So it has no relevance here. 

The question remains, When God says, "Do X," and the government says, "Do not do X," what is the biblical  basis for not doing X because the government forbids everyone from doing it? 

 

Larry's picture

Moderator

The local Bible Presbyterian pastor told me this week he doesn't think the Church can ever change it's manner of worship for any reason, even a public health emergency. There is literally no circumstance, he avers, that can obligate a church to change its worship.

I wonder if he would admit to a snowstorm being a reason to cancel a service? Or a hurricane blowing through on Sunday morning?

I would agree, I think, that no circumstances can "obligate" a church to change its worship, but wisdom might allow it. I wonder if he would admit to that.

WallyMorris's picture

Larry's comment: "The question is, Does the Bible permit disobedience so long as everyone is being treated equally?"

If we lived in North Korea which does not allow any religious practice and treats all the same in that no one is allowed to practice any religion, then YES, we can disobey even though all are treated the same.

Wally Morris

Charity Baptist Church

Huntington, IN

amomentofcharity.blogspot.com

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.