Canadian pastor arrested for holding outdoor service after church was seized by authorities

The article omits any information on what the Alberta restrictions actually are. You can find them here: https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/2be831dd-d83e-42da-b634-6bc6d5232d1a/re…

In my view, they’re excessive, but that doesn’t erase Romans 13, which doesn’t include an “unless you believe they are excessive” clause. If I were pastoring in Alberta, we would connect online and have multiple outdoor gatherings of 10 people, and we’d take it to court. This would be a painful ordeal, for sure, but Romans 13 also doesn’t contain an “unless it’s a painful ordeal” clause.

So we have both a government doing wrong and a church doing wrong.

Edit: just read the rules more carefully. They can meet indoors at 15% building capacity, so … this is really not all that burdensome, and there is no disobedience to Scripture involved in doing multiple services at 15% capacity each. This pastor is not some sort of persecuted Christian hero. He’s disobeying the clear teaching of the New Testament.

Our government has a reopening plan. Supposedly our mask mandates will move to “recommended” on Canada Day. Our reaction will be something like this, in Israel:

Rick Smol on Twitter: “The moment the teacher tells her pupils that as of now no more masks are required in the State of Israel. ” / Twitter

I agree with Aaron on this, Tim Stephens and friends are in error, and constructing a false narrative of persecution. The vast majority of churches in Canada (like 99%) are finding ways to accommodate themselves to the regulations while maintaining some means of taking care of one another. That care for one another is the heart of local church ministry, after all. We can do that (somewhat) without meeting in one place if we have to.

Thankfully, we are able to comply with our current regulations with a combination of a drive-in worship service (FM broadcast from our front porch) and indoor meetings for our services that have lower attendance.

It is incredible to us, but our church seems to be growing through this ordeal, with more evangelistic opportunities than we’ve ever had all at one time before. We’ve never been busier with evangelism and discipleship.

I usually only lurk and haven’t posted on here in ages, but this is a situation that touches close to home since Tim is a grad of DBTS. He was an excellent student and we love his family and him. Grateful for his commitment to Christ and the local assembly.

As I read the criticisms of the position he has taken, and now been jailed improperly* twice over, they leave me somewhat baffled by the strength of opposition to his stance. I really don’t understand why a simple “Here’s why I don’t agree with him, but respect his commitment to not violate his conscience” wouldn’t suffice. It seems often (if not mostly) past that. I will grant that the advocates of opening their churches have, as well, too often demanded others do as they do.

In reality, none of us believe that Romans 13 teaches that we must obey the government no matter what the government says (or until we have fought it fully through the courts). We all draw a line somewhere. Tim, and others, have drawn the line at the regulation of the church’s worship. The two of you think it is the wrong line. That’s your call. The congregation and he made a different call. This seems exactly like the kind of situation where believers would leave room for disagreements while recognizing that each will answer to his own Master, not one another.

The number of churches which are doing something other than what Fairview and Tim are doing really isn’t a very compelling argument. “Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom 14:5). I would imagine that there are many other lines that are going to be drawn as Western culture moves continually toward full fledged paganism. If the reactions by pastors to how churches have differed with each other in the present situation is an indication of what will happen then, it will be ugly.

It is easier to criticize where others draw the line than to draw one ourselves. And, sadly, it is easy to demonize those who draw it differently (whether right or left of us). I am much more comfortable with Tim’s position than I am a year+ long hiatus from assembling, but nobody answers to me on this matter. I bear responsibility for my leadership in this congregation and should be content to leave others to fulfill their stewardship before the Lord. I certainly can advocate my position without raising doubts about the character of other pastors or minimizing the consequence some are facing for seeking to maintain a good conscience (the judging or despising problem of Romans 14).

*https://www.jccf.ca/pastor-tim-stephens-arrested-illegally-again/

“I just signed a law that prohibits any government agency or public official from issuing an order that closes places of worship,” -Governor Greg Abbott, TX

“Churches provide essential spiritual, mental and physical support in a time of crisis,” [Scott] Sanford said about the bill, which passed the Texas House in April. “Closing churches not only eliminated these critical ministries and services, but it violated their religious freedom, guaranteed by our laws and Constitution.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/abbott-bans-orders-closing-houses-of-w…

Wish every state had the same attitude, and same law.

David R. Brumbelow

[Dave Doran]

It is easier to criticize where others draw the line than to draw one ourselves. And, sadly, it is easy to demonize those who draw it differently (whether right or left of us). I am much more comfortable with Tim’s position than I am a year+ long hiatus from assembling, but nobody answers to me on this matter.

I agree that everyone needs to make a choice and they are accountable to God. I also agree that each individual will see that line differently. The challenge that I think many of us face when examing these stories is that we have a number of individuals who are parading around the umbrella of extreme persecution, when it is a situation created of there own doing. Yes there are limits put on the churches. And yes, the limits put some constraints on how the church operates. But it doesn’t prevent the church from operating or the pastor from shepherding. It just prevents it from taking place in the exact same manner and fashion as before COVID. In addition, restrictions are lifting in various degrees and there is a line of sight soon when all restrictions will be lifted.

If a church building burns and a congregation must now meet in a tiny facility that makes it difficult to meet together and the church must split into two services for a time until the building is rebuilt. We say that God is in control and we praise the church for their perseverance through the trial. When a government says that a church must limit their meeting size for a time until a pandemic is under control. The church than views this as an opportunity to resist. It isn’t God that is in control it is the government taking away our rights.

Churches in this province are meeting, pastors are being faithful and shepherding their flock. Not in ideal circumstances, but also not being prevented from preaching, teaching, assemblying and shepherding. The fact that this individual refuses bail conditions to make a “stand”, while leaving his family without their husband/father, when some of these mandates are about to be removed in a matter of weeks, confounds me. I don’t understand what they are trying to accomplish.

I am not so much criticizing this individual for his beliefs, but trying to understand why they are going to to such an extreme when other God fearing pastors are accomplishing their calling without coming anywhere close to the persecution that this church has decided to undertake.

Comments from Don again point to the stark differences around the world. Mask mandate is looking to be removed come July 1st., in his Canadian province. In Florida we haven’t had a mask mandate for quite some time, everything is fully open with no restrictions, vaccines are everywhere and anywhere you want to get them at no cost, and practically no one is sick in the state.

I know 3 posts is the limit :). Looking at the Alberta restrictions, they just hit 60% vaccinated, which allows them to enter into Stage 2 reopening. At their current rate of 53,000 doses being administered a day, they should hit 70% before the end of June, which would trigger Stage 3 reopening two week following. Which means that full reopening with no restrictions could be as soon as July 11th.

So again, making such a strong stand as this, when all restrictions could be gone in less than 4 weeks, and refusing to adhere to the guidelines for bail so that you can be with your family, just boggles my mind. We have a primary duty to obey God. We have a secondary duty to our family and spouse. We have a tertiary duty as pastor. He is not being asked by the Canadian government to disobey God. He is not being asked to not fulfill his duties as a husband or a father. He is not being asked to fulfill his pastoral duties. He is perceiving his rights to be infringed because he is being forced to hold a service outside, social distance and wear a mask.

In return he is giving up his right to be a pastor as his actions have now prevented him from preaching, teaching and shepherding his flock on Sunday. His actions have now prevented him from fulfilling his duties as a spouse and a father and his protection and ability to direct and lead his family on a daily basis is hindered. And depending on how you want to interpret Romans 13, you could argue that his actions have prevented him from obeying God by obeying the government that God has ordained.

[Dave Doran]

I usually only lurk and haven’t posted on here in ages, but this is a situation that touches close to home since Tim is a grad of DBTS. He was an excellent student and we love his family and him. Grateful for his commitment to Christ and the local assembly.

Hi Dave. I am aware that Tim is a grad of DBTS. Of the Covid rebels in Canada, his arguments are the most cogent, I have to say. It speaks well of his training and him. I don’t doubt his sincerity, but think he is badly mistaken.

[Dave Doran] As I read the criticisms of the position he has taken, and now been jailed improperly* twice over, they leave me somewhat baffled by the strength of opposition to his stance. I really don’t understand why a simple “Here’s why I don’t agree with him, but respect his commitment to not violate his conscience” wouldn’t suffice. It seems often (if not mostly) past that. I will grant that the advocates of opening their churches have, as well, too often demanded others do as they do.

The matter isn’t as simple as that. As might be expected, Tim’s arrests and the arrest of James Coates earlier in the year garner national headlines in Canada. Church members here raise questions. They wonder why we aren’t taking the same stand. Beyond that, James Coates and some others (not so much Tim) have created real division in churches by their statements. James Coates is on record on Tom Ascol’s podcast saying that he doesn’t understand how those who disagree with him can honestly preach the book of Daniel, etc.

I know of one case where a family who have relatives in James Coates’ church have agitated for their local church to take the same stand. Since that church has not, they recently announced they were leaving the church to start their own church. They have no pastor, but they are going to avail themselves of sermons piped in from John MacArthur to serve as their “preacher” for their new church.

The issues are a little more real for us here as a consequence, I’d say.

[Dave Doran] In reality, none of us believe that Romans 13 teaches that we must obey the government no matter what the government says (or until we have fought it fully through the courts). We all draw a line somewhere. Tim, and others, have drawn the line at the regulation of the church’s worship. The two of you think it is the wrong line. That’s your call. The congregation and he made a different call. This seems exactly like the kind of situation where believers would leave room for disagreements while recognizing that each will answer to his own Master, not one another.

That is not really true. Tim argues that Romans 13 does not give the government authority to make regulations concerning health. You may not be aware (most of the world isn’t), but I’ve done a good deal of writing on this topic. I started by summarizing the arguments of the Covid rebels (“The Rationale of the Christian Covid Rebels”), then addressed each of the main arguments as covered in that article (I am not alleging that Tim agrees with all of the arguments the others make). Here are links to my next three articles on the subject:

• Putting Hebrews 10 into Perspective

• The Extent of Governmental Authority

• Submitting to Froward Governments

My next piece (due “real soon now”) will examine what is and what is not persecution. I plan to address other topics in this discussion over the next few months. I believe we are deficient in our understanding and that real persecution may well be in our future. Critical Race Theory and the gender issues may well become litmus tests for public legitmacy, and if we don’t say the passwords right, look out.

[Dave Doran] The number of churches which are doing something other than what Fairview and Tim are doing really isn’t a very compelling argument. “Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom 14:5). I would imagine that there are many other lines that are going to be drawn as Western culture moves continually toward full fledged paganism. If the reactions by pastors to how churches have differed with each other in the present situation is an indication of what will happen then, it will be ugly.

I don’t think you can get away with arguing this is a Romans 14 issue. Romans 13 demands submission to government. That’s a very high bar to get over. Disobedience to government isn’t a matter of indifference (Romans 14), but a matter requiring very serious thought.

[Dave Doran] It is easier to criticize where others draw the line than to draw one ourselves. And, sadly, it is easy to demonize those who draw it differently (whether right or left of us). I am much more comfortable with Tim’s position than I am a year+ long hiatus from assembling, but nobody answers to me on this matter. I bear responsibility for my leadership in this congregation and should be content to leave others to fulfill their stewardship before the Lord. I certainly can advocate my position without raising doubts about the character of other pastors or minimizing the consequence some are facing for seeking to maintain a good conscience (the judging or despising problem of Romans 14).

*https://www.jccf.ca/pastor-tim-stephens-arrested-illegally-again/

There was never a “year long hiatus” from assembling in Alberta. They have had restrictions that varied over the last year.

However, as dgssweda pointed out,

Churches in this province are meeting, pastors are being faithful and shepherding their flock. Not in ideal circumstances, but also not being prevented from preaching, teaching, assemblying and shepherding. The fact that this individual refuses bail conditions to make a “stand”, while leaving his family without their husband/father, when some of these mandates are about to be removed in a matter of weeks, confounds me. I don’t understand what they are trying to accomplish.

Just so. The government is not attacking Christian ministry, it is trying to prevent the spread of Covid. Ironically, I also think their “solutions” are wrongheaded and ineffective, but God appointed them to authority, not me. They haven’t prevented me from preaching the gospel, nor have they prevented Tim Stephens or anyone else. They have restricted public assembly as to size and manner. It isn’t easy to work with the restrictions, but wise pastors are working with it to serve their congregations and build them up in the faith. I’ve never had so much to do as in this past year. Nevertheless, the effort makes us sharper, and in our case at least, stirred up our people to greater discipleship than before. We’ve had problems, but many blessings.

I’m actually finding much joy in the experience. Just this evening I went to pick up a used bed-frame I purchased through our local online marketplace and as always gave my card to the guy selling me the item. He started asking me questions about church and our reaction to Covid and the gospel. The conversation wasn’t long, but he promised to check out our website and our sermons. We’ll see how it goes, maybe he will call back and want to talk more.

In any case, we are seeing a greater openness to the gospel than ever before in thirty-six years of ministry here. We aren’t making headlines, but the Lord is opening doors for us.

Gentlemen:

Thanks for responding. I am about to head out for the day so pardon the brevity and bullet point nature of my reply.

• If a position is taken on the basis of principles, then the timeline issues raised are moot. Hopefully you can disagree with that position but see the validity of my point. It would seem difficult to maintain any leadership credibility if one says “we must do X” and “let’s not do X for a few more weeks because there won’t be trouble if we wait.” Add to this the fact that these principles and positions have already been advocated and taken, so to change course now would be either to go against conscience or admit that they were not conscience bound in the first place.
• The position I articulated was that WE all draw the line somewhere when it comes to Romans 13, not that others have drawn it wrongly or mishandled Romans 13 badly. I was not arguing for anybody else’s position, only suggesting that it is easier to criticize other people’s positions than to stake one out for ourselves clearly and consistently.
• Regarding my use of Romans 14 here: (1) I don’t believe it is about “matters of indifference” in the way it is often treated precisely because Paul treats it as anything but that—they must be fully convinced, they should not go against conscience; (2) my post was not at all saying that obedience to government is a matter about which believers may disagree, but that identifying the precise place where obedience to God takes precedence over obeying government orders is (IOW, each of us will have to settle in our own minds where the line is where obeying gov’t becomes disobeying God).
• As I said in my post, some people on both sides of this debate have done and said things that are not helpful, not respectful of their spiritual family, and have produced tension in congregations. That is true but should not lead to a “well you did it first” kind of fight. If our congregations aren’t able to process the fact that good brothers will disagree at times, then we need to teach and model that better.
• I am genuinely encouraged by anecdotes that I hear from those who are both sides of this that point to how God is using the pandemic for good in their congregations and for the spread of the gospel. That both sides have these anecdotes to share means they effectively weigh each other out as a compelling argument. IOW, the “We took this stand and look what good came out of it” isn’t a persuasive argument, at least to me, since both sides are saying it and only time will tell how much lasting fruit comes from it.

To summarize my perspective: (1) there is a line where believers and churches won’t be able to cross, thereby acknowledging that Romans 13 isn’t the final answer; (2) each context (time & place) has its own peculiarities, so we should leave room for others to take the stand that they believe to be in good conscience; (3) we certainly can express why we don’t see it the way they do, but we should be very careful not to indict the character of those who are applying Scripture differently than we do; (4) given the trajectory of our culture we better take seriously the task of identifying where we believe that line is for ourselves and our congregations so that we are not making “heat of the moment” decisions; and (5) when the proverbial bullets start flying, I think sympathy for our spiritual family should be a higher priority than criticism of them.

I’ll leave you all to have the last word if you’d like it.

The context of Romans 14 is the individual believer not the assembled congregation. If the pastor is making decisions that affect the entire congregation, he can’t argue this is a Romans 14 issue.

That’s like saying, I think drinking alcohol is wrong therefore no one in my congregation is allowed to drink alcohol. That’s not Romans 14.

First, as I recall more of Tim Stephen’s argument, I think he does move into conscience and Romans 14. However, I don’t think we want to use conscience as a justification for any action a Christian might take. That is way too subjective. The fact is, Paul strictly limits the conscience issues in Rm 14 to matters of indifference. He makes no moral judgement, the matters are significant to individuals, but not binding on anyone else. Romans 13 is binding on all. It may only be set aside by a clear command of God, not merely an individual’s conscience.

Second, I should clarify that my testimonial at the end of my last post was not an argument, just a general comment. I think the trials of these days are a tremendous opportunity for the gospel. We should all be opening conversations with people about the gospel by asking about their response to the pandemic. The story touches everyone, everyone has an opinion, and many are fearful and thinking about eternal things. During the shutdowns, I wrote a letter to the editor of our paper which the paper published. I was calling for equal treatment for the churches. I didn’t think anything of it other than my politics, but recently a young man contacted us. From the letter to the editor, he checked out our messages on YouTube, then visited our services. He’s recently made a profession of faith. Praise the Lord, and may he truly grow in the faith.

But that isn’t an argument, nor does it prove my point in this discussion AT ALL!! In our current days, I am exhorting everyone to tell others about our hope in the Lord. May he bring in more souls to his kingdom!

I wonder if Pastor Doran’s concerns have been given due consideration. Without offering any specific opinion on the decisions made by Fairview Baptist Church, he argued simply that we should respect the right of a church to make a collective decision, based on their careful consideration of multiple Scriptures, without being savaged by their “friends.”

To the point, suggestions in this thread that Pastor Stephens considers himself a “hero,” is “parading around under the umbrella of extreme persecution,” or is “viewing this [situation] as an opportunity to resist” are uncharitable and frankly unfair. Pastor Stephens may be wrong, but he is as thoughtful and unpretentious as any pastor I know. He has developed a careful and biblically robust case from a network of NT texts (not, as some have suggested, from a single text) for the responsibility of local churches to meet as whole assemblies.

To the point of appeal to Romans 14, the argument here is not that the contemporary situation shares synonymy with Paul’s, but that there is a biblical principle at stake, namely, that when a Christian (or in this case, a Christian collective) makes a coherent biblical argument for a particular motion of conscience—even if it is wrong—they should not be subjected to the judgment or contempt of the Christian majority. The appeal to Romans 14 is a valid one, and one we should take to heart.

Jiminy Cricket was not an apostle. “Let your conscience be your guide.”

My concern is not that he is relying on his conscience. It is that he is choosing to make a stand when one is not needed and painting that the Gospel and Christ is under attack and that his only recourse is to make this stand. If you look at his tweets, many of them resonate with other objectors religious or secular. For example, he states, “AHS still wants Tim to tell people what to wear”. This just does not resonate with Romans 14 with me. I am sure that Tim tells people what to wear. I would assume that if individuals attending Sunday morning worship were wearing bikinis, that he would have a discussion. When you read the tweets, and quotes in news stories, it appears the anger is more directed into the fact that AHS is directing the church what to do. He wasn’t arrested because he held an outdoor service. He was arrested because the outdoor service was not following guidelines. And ultimately he was arrested not for breaking the guidelines, but for repeated violation after many warnings. He can still meet outside. But the tweets want to paint it into a picture that the government is preventing services and therefore I am doing something great by being persecuted. I cannot speak to his heart, but only to the words that he speaks.

As Don, stated, no doubt this is a very big inconvenience and definitely not one that churches would like to be under. But it is not preventing the church from meeting, pastors from shepherding, or the Great Commission from being followed.

I fail to see how Christ is honored or the Gospel is exalted in this situation. The current situation is not of AHS’s own choosing, but the church the pastor. They have created the scenario they are facing today. The purpose of Romans 13 is to help the church focus on furthering the gospel. If the goal of the church was to resist government, the church would never move forward with anything as everyone, everywhere could make the focus the resistance of government. The purpose is to focus on the Gospel and communicate to the church that God is in control of the government.

[Mark Snoeberger]

To the point of appeal to Romans 14, the argument here is not that the contemporary situation shares synonymy with Paul’s, but that there is a biblical principle at stake, namely, that when a Christian (or in this case, a Christian collective) makes a coherent biblical argument for a particular motion of conscience—even if it is wrong—they should not be subjected to the judgment or contempt of the Christian majority. The appeal to Romans 14 is a valid one, and one we should take to heart.

So, I can lead my church in making “a coherent biblical argument for a particular motion of conscience” then quote Romans 14 to escape accountability for what turns out to be a poor decision or to silence other believers who disagree with how I led my church? Yeah, that’s not why Paul wrote Romans 14. Romans 14 applies primarily to the individual believer in matters of conscience that the Bible does not clearly and directly address. Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 are pretty clear and direct.

Further, Romans 14:20-22 is clear: “The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God.” In other words, if this were truly a Romans 14 issue, the pastor and his church should not be publicizing on social media their decision to flout the law because that decision is between them and God.

Therefore, the appeal to Romans 14 to condone this pastor’s decision and behavior is fallacious.