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

[Don Johnson]
dcbii wrote: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.

Don, thanks. I would love to see a fully fleshed out analysis of what “forsaking the assembly” really means. I still struggle with the idea that it must always be in person face to face. I have not studied every scenario in Scripture in detail. While face to face is preferred, can we still be Biblical to do this via Zoom for a relatively short defined period of time? If, as it says in Hebrews, that we should not forsake the assembly of ourselves so that we do not miss stirring up love and good works or exhorting one another, can that still not be accomplished with technology today? Every pastor who has resisted the government has targeted assembly as meeting in person. I just don’t feel that we have done a good job in the theology of this, especially given technology and situations that exist today that didn’t exist in the 1st century AD. Is the mother who must sit in a cry room and away from the congregation and away from direct view of the pastor, still assemblying by hearing the pastors sermon through the loudspeaker? Don’t want to derail this particular thread but would love to see this discussed in detail.

You could argue that Paul’s message to Ephesus via a letter was more powerful than his message to them face to face. We have no record of what took place face to face, but the letter that they received was the very Word of God.

Yes, I think we can assemble via technology, albeit I recognize it is a poor substitute. Still, it is better than nothing. I mentioned in this article that I attended a business meeting via Zoom where we conducted business, elected officers, etc. It was not as good as in person, but we got some things done.

I also touched on this thought in the current article where I said that it seems that the interpretations the rebels are arguing are constructed as a response to the situation, not as a response to the Scriptures. In other words, if the pandemic had never happened and the restrictions never imposed, these guys would never have come up with their current positions. That doesn’t seem to me to be “let the Scriptures speak” but “let me tell the Scriptures what I want to hear”

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Don Johnson]

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.

Well — that’s a direction I didn’t expect you to go next! Looking forward to your next installment.

Dave Barnhart

[dgszweda]

While face to face is preferred, can we still be Biblical to do this via Zoom for a relatively short defined period of time?

It’s pretty easy to say “relatively short defined period of time,” but it’s not at all obvious what relatively means, and “defined period of time” needs to be better fleshed out than “as soon as it’s safe to get back.” If the goalposts keep moving, it will be easy for a “relatively short” period of time to turn into a long one, which it already has for many.

Is the mother who must sit in a cry room and away from the congregation and away from direct view of the pastor, still assemblying by hearing the pastors sermon through the loudspeaker? Don’t want to derail this particular thread but would love to see this discussed in detail.

Yes, it would be interesting to see a well-developed theology of what “assembling” means, particularly in light of the new technologies we have that you mentioned.

You could argue that Paul’s message to Ephesus via a letter was more powerful than his message to them face to face. We have no record of what took place face to face, but the letter that they received was the very Word of God.

While true, we don’t have apostles today, nor do we have scripture being written any longer, so I’m not sure this particular argument is helpful to the modern church or the current Covid situation.

Dave Barnhart

[dcbii]

While true, we don’t have apostles today, nor do we have scripture being written any longer, so I’m not sure this particular argument is helpful to the modern church or the current Covid situation.

Understood. Wasn’t trying to equate anything more than throwing out how truth can be conveyed. I agree it has no direct link to what we have today.

I would say, like others on this thread, that we have been conducting business at my company fully online, with no in person for more than a year. We hold business meetings, share stories, actually engage in aspects of our employees lives more deeply than we would have at work, and run a successful public company with no issues. While face to face has its advantages, we have actually obtained other advantages that we would not have had if we fully met only face to face. I think in light of technology today. assembly can take on an entirely different meaning than 1st century Christendom understood it.

[Don Johnson]

Here: Putting Hebrews 10 into Perspective - an Oxgoad, eh? (substack.com)

Don, this is great. And I would align to this. One question, are you going to take this further to define how we can assemble? We know face to face is the most preferable route. But is zoom an acceptable situation in either short term situations (COVID) or longer term situations (extreme age) where gathering in person may not be acceptable. In the past we had an either or situation. That meant that if you were ill or older you might have no options. Hebrews says we gather to for the sake of such things as encouraging one another. The focus is less on the assembly and more on assemblying to create an outcome (encouragement). Can we generate the identical outcome by virtually assemblying? I have not fully studied this out, but I feel that we can worship, sing together, prayer for each other, encourage, help others to grow through something like Zoom. The reason that I ask is that some churches have thrown that out as an option altogether. Like I had said before my mother teaches a Sunday School class to those who are very aged, unable to get around…when the church went to Zoom it was the first time they felt a part of the church and a body of believers. While I don’t think a church should cancel in person services, I think there is even some value in continuing online and Zoom for those who cannot make it.

The next topic I want to address is the horribly twisted take the Covid rebels have on Romans 13. I think I will address the things you mention eventually, but I want to explore our relationship to government authority further first. There are issues rising that have the potential to become issues where we will have to stand up to authority. We need to be clear about why and when. My hope is to present some clear thinking to prepare us for that.

but to answer your questions, I think as long as we have access to online tools, we should use them

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don,

I have now had a few days to think a bit on your new chapter. In light of what you wrote there, I guess I have a question or two for you. After all the Covid mess is over, if you have an able-bodied (i.e. non-shut-in) member who only shows up once or twice in 3 months, but faithfully participates online, emails you questions about the sermon, shares prayer requests with you online, communicates and prays with others in your church, etc., would you tell them it simply isn’t “best” that they stay away in that fashion, or would you consider this a matter of sin/church discipline? If there is no command or imperative to meet in person, could you do more than just encourage them to attend in person — i.e. could they be a faithful member without personally attending (much) if they participate faithfully online, communicate with fellow members, etc.?

It’s obvious from what you write that you consider church attendance vital, but, from what I read, not a matter of disobedience to God if the government commands us not to assemble personally. However, if we are not in disobedience by not assembling in person due to government, what makes us disobedient by not assembling personally at other times where there are other ways to stay engaged with the church? Or is it just an “unwise” choice not to do so?

Dave Barnhart

Hi Dave

It depends. We have a provision in our bylaws that drops someone from membership after a six month unexcused absence. (They go inactive - can’t vote - after three months, but can reinstate themselves by simply attending.) That’s for members.

Still, we have a situation where a member has had a job for some years that requires work on Sunday. He only occasionally shows up. It has hurt him spiritually. I recently had coffee with him and encouraged him to take steps to change his days off, which he agreed he needed to do.

If his attitude was “I don’t need it, I’m doing fine” we would approach it differently. We have numerous attenders who are not members. We would always encourage them to be more active and join, but there is no means to exercise anything more than that.

I guess the bottom line is that for us a commitment to membership means active participation at in person meetings. It isn’t commanded in the New Testament as such, but it is assumed everywhere in the New Testament. And we require it in our bylaws, but not as a matter of doctrine.

However, certain circumstances make attendance difficult or impossible (shut-ins, for example) and we put that in the category of “providential hindrance.”

If someone was able to attend but just chose not to, I don’t think we would make a big issue of it and hold a formal disciplinary meeting. If they persisted, we would simply let our bylaws operate and remove them from membership by attrition. That would mean they couldn’t vote. They would always be welcome to attend.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Don Johnson]

The next topic I want to address is the horribly twisted take the Covid rebels have on Romans 13. I think I will address the things you mention eventually, but I want to explore our relationship to government authority further first. There are issues rising that have the potential to become issues where we will have to stand up to authority. We need to be clear about why and when. My hope is to present some clear thinking to prepare us for that.

Look forward to seeing that.

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.

[Don Johnson]

Hi Dave

If someone was able to attend but just chose not to, I don’t think we would make a big issue of it and hold a formal disciplinary meeting. If they persisted, we would simply let our bylaws operate and remove them from membership by attrition. That would mean they couldn’t vote. They would always be welcome to attend.

Sounds like you have a consistent application — not exactly a sin issue, but important and dealt with in your church’s bylaws. Our church would deal with this similarly.

I’m still not sure I 100% agree that there is no command to assemble, but I agree with you that it’s both vital and assumed.

Dave Barnhart

I’ve posted another installment in my discussion of our reactions to Covid.

That is… just in case you’d like something else to talk about around here…

“No Assailment Zone”

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3