The Rationale of the Christian Covid Rebels (Part 2)

Image

Read Part 1.

Reading several articles by the activist group of pastors, I find the re-interpretation of Romans 13 best articulated in a series of posts by Tim Stephens, pastor of Fairview Baptist Church in Calgary.7 He begins by proclaiming the lordship of Christ over the church (all Bible-believing Christians agree with this). He describes the Scriptural pattern for church life as set down by the Lord Jesus Christ:

“We can all see from Scripture the pattern set down for congregational worship, singing, fellowship, preaching, public prayers, practicing hospitality, a host of ‘one-anothers,’ celebration of the Lord’s Supper and baptism, and living as a family of faith—brothers and sisters under the lordship of Christ.”8

In that description, we see a summary of the activities argued above as “commanding” always in person worship meetings as the “only” way we can fulfill this direction by the Lord. Covid-19 and government restrictions interrupted this pattern, pastor Stephens points out, and now we are confronted with a choice – either conform to government restrictions or not. However, Stephens terms the negative (not conforming to government restrictions) as “conscience.” To him, those who follow conscience means they “live their lives in a mostly normal manner,” that is, they mostly live without following government restrictions.9 He says that when the choice confronts the church, those who lean towards conformity follow Romans 13, those who lean towards conscience follow Romans 14. So, which should we follow? For that we need to understand clearly the meaning of Romans 13.

Romans 13 may not seem that hard to understand. The first two verses are very plain:

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. (Rom 13:1-2)

The statement seems open and shut, we must obey government authority. We do have some Biblical exceptions, such as when the apostles refused to stop preaching in Christ’s name. In the main, however, governmental authority seems clear. We must obey.

Ah, not so fast, says pastor Stephens, consider the context. Romans 12 closes with a series of commands, including, in verses 19-21, commands to the individual to not seek vengeance, rather overcome evil by good. Next comes the commands of 13.1-2, and they are followed by 13.3-4:

For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. (Rom 13:3-4)

You see, God appoints governments for avenging evil, for matters of justice and injustice. “So, if we bring Romans 12 and 13 together we get a clearer picture. Don’t take revenge against evildoers, for God has appointed the state to be an instrument of his wrath against them.”10

But, you see, this appointment is really a limitation. It isn’t that government authority extends over every area of life, but only over areas having to do with evildoers and justice and injustice. Governments have no authority, pastor Stephens says, over “the common good.” He goes on to say:

“There is nothing in Romans 13 that teaches that the government is responsible for the common good. There is nothing in Romans 13 that teaches that the government is responsible for keeping people safe from a virus such that they even command what takes place in the church and in the home.”11

“Romans 13 defines the authority of the state to uphold justice and mete out God’s wrath according to God’s standards. It does not give power to the state to define justice or what is good and evil. It does not give authority to the state to outlaw gathering freely in worship, and then bring the punishment of the sword upon those who do.”12

According to Stephens, Christians may defy government health orders as a matter of conscience. If their conscience allows them to meet in church services, their conscience is the only authority they need follow, government has no authority in this matter at all.

“One might seek to argue that all matters relating to health restrictions all fall under Romans 14. That is, it is a matter of conscience and conviction before the Lord. So whether one chooses to gather or stay home, to submit to restrictions in all areas or defy in others, it is all a matter of personal conviction not to be judged by any other.”13

Now there is much more to say about Romans 13, but this sums up the arguments this group makes against government authority in the matter. In their minds, government has no authority to regulate public health, so Christians are free to disobey. Pastor Aaron Rock of Harvest Bible Church in Windsor, Ontario bluntly says:

“In Romans 13, civil authority is given jurisdiction over justice in the public sphere. Our Christian forebears were comfortable with that and urged churches to submit to it. But modern states have extended their authority well beyond matters of justice to include public education, public health, private property use, transportation regulations, right down to requiring dog tags for the family pet. To extend the biblical notion of subjection to any and all areas of life that the government chooses to control is a failure to acknowledge the discontinuities between the ancient and modern world.”14 [Emphasis mine.]

It is hard to imagine that the normal interpretation of language would lead someone to so narrowly conclude that governmental authority in the Bible is strictly limited to issues of crime and punishment. One suspects that this interpretation, a novel one as far as I can tell, came about as a consequence of the Covid crisis, not from a deeply held theological belief.

However, the argument doesn’t end there. We have the statement of GraceLife Church, posted on their website on Feb 7, 2021, and revised on Feb 16, 2021. Presumably the author is James Coates, but the author is unidentified. In any case, the final argument against conformity to government Covid restrictions comes down to a simple denial of the crisis at all.

The article is posted here. The following remarks summarize the points the article makes.

First, the article says that the Covid crisis isn’t really a pandemic because the definition of pandemic changed after H1N1. “Ten years ago, COVID-19 would not have qualified as a pandemic.” Further, the testing is faulty, “the number of Albertans who have actually contracted the virus is likely significantly less” than reported. Covid-related deaths are insignificant statistically, and ignore other deaths brought on by the lockdowns. The implication of this is, simply, “Crisis, what crisis?” We don’t need to follow government restrictions because there is no real crisis.

Secondly, the negative effects of the lockdown far surpass the effects of Covid-19 and the lockdowns aren’t effective in stopping Covid. There may well be some truth to this, but even if true, how is this relevant for GraceLife church to simply ignore government restrictions? The point is a value judgement, and reasonable people can disagree on this point (unless empirical data exists). The proponents of disobedience are simply saying, “My opinion is better than the government’s opinion.” (Keeping in mind that government officials have far more data available to them than average citizens.)

Third, the lockdowns have a nefarious purpose, “to fundamentally alter society and strip us all of our civil liberties.” The article goes on, “By the time the so-called ‘pandemic’ is over, if it is ever permitted to be over, Albertans will be utterly reliant on government, instead of free, prosperous, and independent.” Conceivably, governments could be motivated by the lust for totalitarian power. However, this ignores that governments of all political persuasions, left, right, and center, have all imposed at least some restrictions on their jurisdictions. And please note, the Conservative government of Alberta hardly has a totalitarian ideology! (One might suspect more dastardly intentions of the socialist government in British Columbia, but I truly doubt it.) This is conspiracy thinking, not sober analysis of the current situation.

Fourth, the article claims that love for the neighbor demands resistance to the lockdowns — because our activism will bring the lockdowns to an end. (Well, at least it makes the defiance noble!)

And finally, the article claims the public is living in fear to media hype — the media convinced the people “that yielding up their civil liberties to the government is in their best interests.” This is more conspiracy thinking. Although it is true that the media in general seems far more interested in big government and leftist ideology, these assertions are just fear-mongering. They seem to be trying to “out-media” the media.

In my summary of this argument, I’ve pulled threads from the various paragraphs. The statement jumps from topic to topic without much coherent thought. Check the link above to see what I mean.

~~~

I’ve tried to summarize the positions of the “Covid rebels” here in Canada. They aren’t an organized group, they aren’t even from the same denominations. However, their arguments seem to overlap with all of them holding, more or less, to some form of the views summarized in this article.

To close this chapter, I would like to strongly disagree with the positions I’ve summarized above. The “Covid rebels” are forcing Hebrews 10 to bear an absolute and dogmatic position that demands more from Christians than the original author intended. The recipients of Hebrews wrestled with the temptation of abandoning their faith, their apostolic teacher called them to maintain their commitments. There are scenarios when the whole church cannot gather, and likely it is a rare Sunday when a whole local church does gather in its entirety. No one should burden the conscience of Christians with something beyond the meaning of the text.

The “Covid rebels” are taking Romans 13 in a novel direction. They are narrowly limiting its application to matters of crime and punishment alone. We can’t accept that interpretation. The Bible itself demonstrates that this interpretation is far too narrow. The obligation to submit to governing authorities is a very high bar in Scripture. There are Biblical exceptions, but we must be sure that our exceptions are based squarely on Biblical precedent, not our personal preferences. As noted earlier, it is unlikely that this narrow interpretation of Romans 13 drives that activities of the “Covid rebels.” Rather, their dissatisfaction with Covid restrictions led them to a novel Bible interpretation.

Finally, with respect to James Coates’ dismissals of the Covid crisis itself, what can we say? There is a real crisis. Many fell sick and many died from it. Despite that, perhaps the crisis is overblown. Perhaps the government’s solutions are ineffective or nonsensical. Nevertheless, to base your flagrant disobedience to regulations on the claim “I’ve done the research, and I have concluded,” as Coates does, is shockingly arrogant to say the least. One may hold an opposition opinion, but no one gave special insight to James Coates and the other elders of his congregation so that they are free to act on their own initiative, apart from the God-appointed authorities of the land.

I plan to address the Biblical arguments of Hebrews 10 and Romans 13 in more detail in future chapters. I would like to also address some of the history of church relationships with government. Christians and churches need to think about these issues, because there are storm clouds of persecution on the horizon. We won’t face it over Covid, but over the rising “woke” mob, Critical Race Theory, and the homosexual agenda. These threats need some discussion as well.

Discussion

I appreciate the analysis.

I’ve been surprised by how much energy the COVID rebels seem to put into claims that just aren’t relevant. If the question is “do we obey?” It doesn’t matter whether government commands are effective for a particular purpose, whether they’ve exaggerated the problem, or whether their commands are beyond the scope of the ideal government.

Rome was not ideal, was certainly excessive at times, was often not effective, etc. but Christians were instructed to obey.

Now if the question was, “Is government making good policy in response to this problem?” Much of that would be relevant. So, it’s like there’s a conflation of “What should we think about policy?” and “What should we do about policy?” and “Should what we do include obedience?”

There are three things there, because you can obey and simultaneously act in any number of legal ways to oppose the policy. Well today you can. In Rome, you didn’t really usually have the option of complying and opposing. You just complied! We should be grateful that as we comply, we can also oppose. (Though I don’t see much reason to even do that in most of these cases…. though a few, yes.)

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]

Now if the question was, “Is government making good policy in response to this problem?” Much of that would be relevant. So, it’s like there’s a conflation of “What should we think about policy?” and “What should we do about policy?” and “Should what we do include obedience?”

I agree that this is the crux. I believe it is still rooted in this idea or drive amongst many evangelicals to create a “Christian” nation. (obviously not the same issue in Canada). There is a blurring of lines between politics and theology. I think everyone would agree that there are problems with governments policy. And like you said Rome was even worse. The questions is how do we respond to it. We shouldn’t make light of the passage in Scripture where the Jewish leadership challenges Christ on taxes. That was extremely controversial back then, filled with all kinds of problems (some similiar to today), including Scriptural, yet Christ answered it pretty succinctly.

[dgszweda]
I agree that this is the crux. I believe it is still rooted in this idea or drive amongst many evangelicals to create a “Christian” nation. (obviously not the same issue in Canada). There is a blurring of lines between politics and theology.
You might be on to something there, David. Many of the Canadians in this story either received their education from the USA (several Masters Seminary grads), or are Americans serving in Canada. Besides, though we do have our own history and identity, we consume American culture, so I think some of the rebels are following a more American model than a Canadian one. That is actually a topic I want to explore further later on in my writing about it. There is a lot of legal confusion as some are applying American laws and traditions to a Canadian situation. That”s my opinion, anyway.
However, I don’t want to distract any discussion that might arise in a thread on my own article! So maybe we should leave that topic there for now.
My main goal in this effort was to try to understand what the Covid rebels are arguing. I hope I articulated their positions fairly. I got one little bit of pushback on Facebook when a Canadian friend shared my article. He claimed I misrepresented what they said, so I asked him how so, as I want to be accurate. His reply was to simply repeat their arguments which I had reported in my article. When I pointed that out, he had nothing more to say.
I think everyone would agree that there are problems with governments policy. And like you said Rome was even worse. The questions is how do we respond to it. We shouldn’t make light of the passage in Scripture where the Jewish leadership challenges Christ on taxes. That was extremely controversial back then, filled with all kinds of problems (some similiar to today), including Scriptural, yet Christ answered it pretty succinctly.

This points to why I am taking this issue up. I think this epidemic is giving the totalitarians plenty of ideas. The secularists among them have no love for the church and would love to repress it. Every time a news item about a church defying the health orders shows up on Twitter, the comments jump immediately to strong attacks (and the usual mantra, “make them pay taxes”). There are other, bigger, issues coming at us. We should expect some in government to want to put pressure on the church. How do we know what to do when that happens? When to defy? When to flee? How to negotiate when there is negotiating room? etc.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

One thing that strikes me is that serving Christ in church was not the only way the ancient believers disobeyed Rome—they also did so when the consequences of Roman law were evil. Telemachus took a stand against gladiatorial fights (trespassing, disrupting entertainment for the masses), Valentine performed marriages that were against Roman law (disrupted conscription and provided soldiers with wives, reducing rape), and Chrysostom is said to have stood against corruption by officials. Paul told the magistrate to release him himself when Paul was whipped without a trial. And then you’ve got Esther, obviously.

So we’re free to disobey when government officials ignore their own governing rules, or when they’re doing something really evil, IMO. So our question, really, is whether the Canadian Constitution protects churches in this way as does the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, whether Canadian Christians can reference earlier law (1688 Bill of Rights comes to mind) protecting religious liberty, and whether the restrictions on churches are such an evil that they can and should be disobeyed.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Only Paul and Esther in your examples are Biblical. And in those examples, it is unclear to me which laws you think they were defying. I don’t see a Biblical warrant for your conclusion, so perhaps if you could expand on that or would be helpful

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

….and for that matter, Naboth, who refused to sell his vineyard to Ahab. Long and short of it is that the consistent witness of Scripture and church history is that we are not obligated to obey the government when they are doing evil and actively harming people.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

[Bert Perry]

….and for that matter, Naboth, who refused to sell his vineyard to Ahab. Long and short of it is that the consistent witness of Scripture and church history is that we are not obligated to obey the government when they are doing evil and actively harming people.

That is not the story of Naboth. First Naboth refused to sell. A sale and offer is a voluntary discussion. Second, Naboth refused to sell because of direct contradiction to Leviticus 25:23. It was in violation to Scripture, as well as in violation of the laws that God set forth for this nation. The US, a secular government, is not bound to OT laws established for the nation of Israel. This is not a story of obeying government when they are doing evil or actively harming people. There are times where we should resist, where I think that Don will eventually take this, but the current case is not one of them, nor does it align to the story of Naboth. In actuallity Naboth was following the laws of the land, and Ahab was the individual who was not following the laws of the land as laid out in Leviticus. As a result Ahab was punished for not following the law.

Shiprah and Puah were commended in Hebrews for breaking the law of Egypt (Pharaoh’s word was law there, after all) and even God’s law by lying to Pharaoh about why the Hebrew babies were not being slain at birth.

Again, disregarding government because there is a higher law is consistently commended in the Scriptures. We need to keep in mind regarding Naboth as well that he is appealing to a law that was not consistently honored in Samaria—the kings of Israel were one in denying the Torah, starting with setting up false altars besides the Temple at Jerusalem. So in a very real way, no, the Torah was not the law in the northern kingdom, and yet Naboth appeals to this in defense of his property.

We might say that just as a pastor’s authority ends where the Scripture’s grant of authority ends, a government’s authority ends when its actions and laws are in contradiction to God’s law.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Bert, you didn’t answer my question about Paul and Esther.

anyway, it is clear that Christians are justified in disobeying some orders. We need look no further than the apostles and Acts 4 and 5. However, that justification is not subjective, ie, based on my own opinion of the validity of the law.

I will get to that point eventually, but first I am dealing with the arguments of the Covid rebels.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Paul was defying the “executive order” of the magistrate on the grounds of the rights of Roman citizens. Esther disregarded the prohibition (under penalty of death) of appearing before the emperor unsummoned. Together with the prophets and Naboth disregarding the executive orders of the kings, we might suggest that this tells us some things about the way we ought to evaluate the executive orders which form the basis of the approach to COVID on both sides of the 49th parallel. It’s worth noting here that there are precious few actual legislatively passed laws in play here.

And yes, it’s not an arbitrary opinion, but a real thought about the side effects. For example, the COVID restrictions here in MN included a shutdown of schools, and many students appear to be responding to their isolation by suicide. Given that COVID deaths are less than 1:10000 for young people,do we ignore certain parts of the COVID regulations to keep young people alive? (should nursing homes have refused to take COVID patients to keep their patients alive? Should hospitals and the CDC have pleaded for secondary “COVID homes” to actually isolate the sick? I dare say “yes” to both)

In the case of Canada and churches, the claims I’ve heard are that (as was the case in Minnesota) the restrictions on churches were often far more onerous than for other institutions, and that falls afoul of Constitutional guarantees on both sides of the border. You’ve also got the reality of the side effects of crippling one significant institution that helps people deal with the failures of other institutions.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Paul was exercising his legal rights. He wasn’t defying the law.

Esther’s approach to the king wasn’t unprecedented, though had a legal risk.

As far as the Covid orders are concerned, they are lawful because they are backed by legislative authority. Health Officers are empowered by law to issue Public Health Orders. You don’t get to pick and choose which ones you obey just because the orders aren’t official legislative acts. You also don’t get to play epidemiologist and decide which orders you obey. Civilized nations don’t work that way.

As far as Canada is concerned, we don’t have constitutional guarantees. We aren’t like the States in that regard at all. We have freedoms, but clause 1 of our so-called Charter of Rights and Freedoms says the government can suspend those freedoms in an emergency. And they get to pick the emergency.

Anyway, if you want to check out how lawful “executive orders” are, try defying one and use your arguments on a judge and see how far it gets you

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

A few observations that might be helpful:

  • We all know that Scripture authorizes Christians to disobey human government when obeying the government would be equal to disobeying God.
  • That exception can certainly occur because the law in question requires behavior that would be morally wrong.
  • Inflicting pain or loss is not the same thing as “morally wrong.” That is, sometimes doing the right thing involves making someone suffer.
  • In Scripture the rule is obedience to authority and disobedience is the exception.
  • That places the burden of proof on anyone who wants to justify disobeying the powers that be.
  • The fact that a government order results in some suffering is not in itself evidence that the government order is morally wrong or that obeying it would be morally wrong.
  • There’s a difference in Scripture between narrative description and direct teaching. When we see examples of individuals who appear to have disobeyed legitimate authority, that doesn’t carry the same weight as direct teaching that we ought to obey authority. The reason is that, with narrative, we’re often not told whether what the individual did was right or wrong; we’re simply told that they did it.

(But I agree that the case of Naboth appears to be one in which Ahab was violating the law. I’ve written before about the situation where an authority issues and unlawful order. These cases are usually very clear, very serious, and very urgent—not situations where due process can be used to clarify whether a requirement is lawful or not.)

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]

These cases are usually very clear, very serious, and very urgent—not situations where due process can be used to clarify whether a requirement is lawful or not.

Yes, that’s exactly right. Your whole comment is right, I’ll probably plagiarize it later. (Joke, if I use it, I’ll attribute.)

The case of the Polish pastor calling the cops fascists in Calgary is a case in point. There is a journalist up here claiming that the government is in violation of the criminal code which says anyone who unlawfully interferes with a religious service is guilty of an offense. Through this crisis, I’ve made an e-mail acquaintance of a guy who is on the law faculty of the University of British Columbia. I asked him about this claim. He pointed out the word “unlawful.” The actions of the police here are lawful, because they are carried out under a lawful order.

There is some hope of lawsuits challenging the legitimacy of restricting our freedoms. The hope is that when other institutions (Costco, for example) are allowed to be open and crowded with “precautions” in place, why not churches? There are cases working their way through the system on that one, but it takes a long time and the government has unlimited resources.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Aaron Blumer]
  • We all know that Scripture authorizes Christians to disobey human government when obeying the government would be equal to disobeying God.
  • That exception can certainly occur because the law in question requires behavior that would be morally wrong.

I generally agree with your comment. I think the issue for many of us is that the exception does not require something to be “morally” wrong in the sense we usually think of it. Most of the people wrestling with this are not wrestling over wearing masks, even if they hate doing so and find the government edicts about them to be overreaching. The Bible says nothing about that, so this isn’t something God commanded us not to do that I know of. The issue about “assembling” is one that on its face doesn’t seem like a moral one, except that God has commanded it, and that puts it in the same realm of seriousness as what we think of as moral issues.

There have been a lot of arguments over the last year about what constitutes actually meeting, and how long the restriction against the church meeting has to be in place before we consider disobeying it under scriptural authority. A few weeks of virtual meetings? Almost no one fought that hard about that. A few months? Now, people are wrestling with whether virtual meetings count as assembling. A year or more? Now people are wondering if this restriction is enough to disobey. Assembly hasn’t yet been “forsaken,” maybe, but how long does it have to go on before it’s practically the same thing?

If any pastor has a member who has been out of church for several months or a year, and then speaks to that person about being in church, it might go like this:

“Hello X, I haven’t seen you at our church in a while, is everything OK?”

“Sure. All is fine with me. I know I haven’t been there in a while, but I haven’t forsaken the assembly.”

“It sure looks like you have.”

“But, I have been tuning in all your meetings.”

“That’s not the same thing.”

Does a government restriction on meeting now make virtual assembly the same thing as really assembling?

I’m not ready yet to say that churches that haven’t been allowed to physically assemble in over a year should do so anyway in defiance of the law, but at what point do “temporary” restrictions become disobedience? Most of us have been content to think that this will be over in a few months. Here we are, over a year later, and any letup of restrictions, at least in some places, is still months away, and places that have reduced restrictions are accused of “killing people.”

I completely agree that we can’t just call the police or government “fascists” because they are enforcing lawful orders during a crisis. But let’s not pretend that after more than a year deciding whether to meet anyway is an easy call, and that there is no argument for deciding that restrictions on the church being able to assemble do, in fact, after all this time now meet the definition of the government telling us to disobey what God commanded.

Thankfully, in my state this hasn’t been an issue, since the “powers that be” lost in court and churches can meet. So I have some luxury to think about this issue in the abstract, while being able to attend church normally. That’s certainly not true in many other places.

Dave Barnhart

[dcbii] The issue about “assembling” is one that on its face doesn’t seem like a moral one, except that God has commanded it, and that puts it in the same realm of seriousness as what we think of as moral issues….

Does a government restriction on meeting now make virtual assembly the same thing as really assembling?

You are touching on the subject of my next installment. I am working on it and will hopefully publish it next week.

A little preview, also known as a shameless plug: are we commanded to meet? That is not at all clear to me. I don’t think you can actually find such a command in Scripture.

I’ll have more to come. I am ready for Sunday, so my spare time today and tomorrow afternoon are set aside for this.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3