Government Regulations and the Gathering of the Church

Not sure if that was a response to me since it didn’t address anything I said. You said I have a wrong opinion but no explanation as to why.

But here’s the bottom line: you were adamant that these men were disobedient to God and a harm to the gospel and fellow churches like yours and that there was no room for Christian conscience. Romans 13 simply does not allow it. And yet you did the exact same thing with no hint of an apology for your comments and attacks or even a willingness to defend and explain what you did and why it was okay while their actions were not. Romans 13 didn’t change. The law didn’t change. But you seem to have changed.

I am fine with your original position and even your service the other night. But your attacks on fellow pastors were strong and adamant. To pretend there is no problem is a problem.

If you are going to be that adamant against it and then do it, it seems to me that some sort of explanation should be forthcoming. There are people who paid a pretty high price for doing what you did and you attacked them.

I’m perfectly fine with my opinion, and don’t feel any need to discuss it further

I will give it a rest but I think you miss the point. It’s not just about your opinion. It’s about the fact that you spilled much virtual ink both here and at your blog attacking men for doing the same thing you just did: It was wrong for them to do it but it is okay for you to do it.

You should at least understand why that looks bad. You can’t just wave it away with “I am okay with my opinion” and “give it a rest.” If you can be “fine” with that, then that’s on you. But don’t expect others to be, especially when, as you already admitted, you expected the questions. That means you knew there was a problem with what you did. You want to question them and impugn them but you don’t want anyone to question you.

Don, you publicly attacked men who lived according to their conscience and accused them of harming the gospel and then you want a free pass when you do the exact same thing. One could be forgiven for wondering if perhaps you did it when you were finally assured there was no price you would pay for it.

I’ll bow out unless there is something directed specifically to me but understand why this is an issue.

[Larry]

I will give it a rest but I think you miss the point. It’s not just about your opinion. It’s about the fact that you spilled much virtual ink both here and at your blog attacking men for doing the same thing you just did: It was wrong for them to do it but it is okay for you to do it.

I don’t agree. We were gathering under the rules of our province (for the last month or so, we were allowed indoor meetings up to 50, distanced and masked, no singing, only a soloist). We relaxed the last two within the last five hours prior to the new rules (ie, no restrictions) coming in force.

You can play Pharisee if you want, but I think you should learn to rejoice with those who rejoice.

To respond to your comments …

We relaxed the last two within the last five hours prior to the new rules (ie, no restrictions) coming in force.

So you only broke the law by five hours? Whereas others did it by five weeks or five months? Can you show us that time frame allowance in the Scripture you used to condemn those who did it five weeks or five months early? Or can you show us where your previous arguments about rebellion included something along the lines of “unless you are within five hours of it being legal”? It seems to me that if you have to obey the government (a point which you made clear and condemned those who violated the order), then you have to obey the government. So what is your justification for “it was only five hours”?

Again, Don,the reason I press this is because you attacked men for doing exactly what you did. Otherwise, it would be uncontroversial. The only difference is you were closer to it being legal than they were. But it was not yet legal. If government is to be obeyed, how is “five hours” an exemption from that?

You can play Pharisee if you want, but I think you should learn to rejoice with those who rejoice.

I am not playing Pharisee at all. I think that is actually what you have done. You placed burdens on men you were unwilling to bear yourself. For the sake of five hours, you gave up your entire premise.

I don’t have a problem with what you did either refraining or allowing when you did. The problem is that you attacked others for doing it. You made the point very clear and then violated your own point because “it was only five hours.”

On June 29, they province announced that the restrictions would drop, that masks would be optional on July 1. On June 30, we have a Wednesday night service. We could have delayed until midnight, and been perfectly compliant, but I didn’t choose to do so. I see no sense in insisting on a legalism that will be moot in less than five hours.

In the midst of the regulations, however, we did follow the orders. The difference is that the other guys were publicly defying the orders and almost daring the province to come after them. They weren’t just opening up early on the last day before a change of orders. They were making a stand, and then twisting Scripture to justify their stand.

Furthermore, they are causing division in the churches over their fraudulent stand, especially James Coates. I don’t think our position is at all the same and I have no problem raising charges against them

[Larry]

I don’t have a problem with what you did either refraining or allowing when you did. The problem is that you attacked others for doing it. You made the point very clear and then violated your own point because “it was only five hours.”

The difference here is that the others who made the choice to meet despite the rules had no line of site of whether it was 5days or 5 months. They chose to break the rules because they did not agree with following them. Don had guidance from the government that the restrictions were lifting. The date was not a date around safety, but was stuck at July 1st based on review guidance. Whether you want to criticize Don for jumping the gun by a few hour or not is one thing. But comparing him to what others were doing is not the same by any stretch of the imagination. Don wasn’t jumping the timeline out of civil disobedience or a desire to attack the government. That is the difference.

The difference here is that the others who made the choice to meet despite the rules had no line of site of whether it was 5days or 5 months.

Can you show any biblical support for this? Don hasn’t offered any. At least the others offered biblical support for their position.

Would this argument be okay from an engaged couple who spent the night together the night before their wedding with the excuse “We were going to be married in five hours anyway”? Or a student who lies completing a reading assignment because he was going to read it as soon as class was over in five minutes? Or a physician who assists in a suicide because “the patient was going to die anyway”? I can’t imagine disobedience is okay because of any of these reasons.

As I see it, the only biblical basis for disobedience is conscience, not time. I am open to other biblical arguments if you have some.

Don is one of the ones here who have repeatedly told us we must obey the government and we were not allowed to substitute our own judgment or conscience for it. And the thing is that Don didn’t even do it out of conscience like the others did.

Furthermore, we were told by Don and others that we shouldn’t disobey because this was temporary anyway. So even if it was 5 hours or 5 months, it is the same principle.

It seems strange that those who were most adamant about obeying government are now willing to give a free pass. What am I missing here?