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

If I may, a few observations on Romans 14 might be useful here:

• I grant that the specific issue addressed in Romans 14 is a matter of propriety in local churches. I don’t think anyone would dispute this. But the instruction applies in principle beyond local polity and offers instruction about conscience and interpersonal conflict that need not be limited to a local church context.
• The specific question in view in Romans 14, unless I’m reading the chapter incorrectly, is not “matters of conscience that the Bible does not clearly and directly address,” as Mr. Howard suggests, but rather two matters that the Bible does address clearly and directly, but with apparently conflicting voices: (1) eating meat and (2) observing special days (vv. 1–8), issues routinely paired in discussions of orthodox Jewish praxis. Because the eclipse of Israel by the NT faith community was such a complex issue, Paul allowed those who continued to follow the old rule to remain in the church without censure, even though they were slow to accept NT revelation (they were “weak in faith”).
• Paul’s surprising conclusion, if I may respond to Pastor Johnson, is that even what is not sin can be sin to the one whose conscience tells him it is sin (vv. 14, 23—one can be condemned by what he eats in violation of his conscience, even when his conscience is wrong). So, yes, crude as it may be, “Jiminy Cricket” does stand as a valid source of authority for Paul. Of course, there are limits here—all recognize this. But intertextual harmonization of apparently conflicting Scriptures (the same issue in both Paul’s day and our own) is a very difficult matter, and Paul offers extraordinary latitude here.
• The governing principle in Romans 14, in matters such as these, is that we should accept one another, without passing judgment and without condescension, and pursue peace and mutual edification. How refreshing it would be to see this happen! By saying this, I do not mean that we cannot have significant discussions of key texts, aspects of ecclesiology, and the relationship of church and state (of which there has been precious little), but it does mean that the conversation needs to be irenic and edifying.

Hopefully this helps explain the connections I see between Paul’s situation and the current conflict.

T Howard,

Romans 14 is not about matters which the Bible does not address—Jesus had declared all meats to be clean (Mark 7:19) and there are no holy days in this dispensation (Gal 4:9-10; Col 2:16). That is why one group was weak and the other strong. The weak did not have faith to do something that the Scriptures permitted, whereas the strong did. And Paul clearly sided with the strong regarding food (“that nothing is unclean in itself”) while recognizing that for some it remains unclean because he thinks it is unclean (Rom 14:14). IOW, the difference of conscience was based in wrestlings about what each believed was acceptable to God.

You are misunderstanding the argument here. I am arguing that we should leave room for disagreements about what the Scriptures require of us in matters like these. Nobody on this thread is saying that any pastor should tell the government he doesn’t have to obey because of Romans 14. This is internal discussion among believers about how much room we should allow for those who disagree with us on the real world application of Romans 13. IOW, when two believers or congregations take different positions on where the line is between obeying God above the orders of men they are not denying Romans 13, only trying to harmonize the seeming conflict between obligations to God and obligations to human government. Within reason, those disagreements should be respected both ways rather than belittled.

And I think you misunderstand the nature of applying biblical truth when you dismiss Romans 14 as having any bearing on this discussion. For some reason you seem comfortable applying Romans 13 to an entity (the congregation) although it is written to individual believers, but reject the application of Romans 14 to congregations because it is written to individual believers. Seems like you can’t have it both ways. And the culmination of this section is decidedly congregational anyway (“together with one voice”). But, frankly, all of that is beside the point because we, as individuals, are having a conversation about the decisions of other believers and should therefore follow what Romans 14 says about how we relate to them.

It is genuinely baffling to me that believers, particularly pastors, are so intent on judging this brother so harshly and so publicly. And, to be fair, I am surprised by the character shots fired both ways. The mindset seems to be everyone to the right of me is a egotistical rebel and every to the left is a compromising coward.

[Dave Doran]

Nobody on this thread is saying that any pastor should tell the government he doesn’t have to obey because of Romans 14. This is internal discussion among believers about how much room we should allow for those who disagree with us on the real world application of Romans 13. IOW, when two believers or congregations take different positions on where the line is between obeying God above the orders of men they are not denying Romans 13, only trying to harmonize the seeming conflict between obligations to God and obligations to human government. Within reason, those disagreements should be respected both ways rather than belittled.

Dave, I will concede the possibility of misunderstanding you, but I think you and Mark are allowing your personal connections to cloud your judgement.

Tim has made explicit statements about Romans 13 that I think are not hard to contradict. You can read my answers to those arguments in the artices I linked above. He makes an astounding claim that God only instituted human government for the purpose of “taking vengeance on wrong doers” (Rm 12), and did not authorize government any authority over public health. I see no way to justify that and appealing to the idea that “a local church came to this conclusion so shut up and give them space” is not acceptable.

Why don’t you answer this question: Does government have legitimate authority over public health?

There are follow-up questions.

Does government have legitimate authority over occupancy standards based on fire codes and safety standards, etc.?

Does government have legitimate authority to require conformity to building codes?

Don,

I suppose it is possible for all of us to be influenced by our closeness to the issues here. But I’ll play along. Here are my answers to your three questions: Yes, under God (or, IOW, up to the point of disobedience to God). I’m sure we all agree that God is our highest authority and government has been given legitimate authority from Him, so that’s not really the point of disagreement. It is the part where we have to decide in government has gone too far. Certainly we can all concede it is possible that a government might wrongly use such mechanisms against believers.

But my answers really aren’t the issue here because: (1) they are beside my point (which is to argue for allowing room for disagreements); and (2) they are more of the “gotcha” kind of question than they are substantive refutation of Tim’s position.

Regarding (2), I can disagree with his answers to those questions without disagreeing with his larger points. For instance, when he writes “By no means does Romans 13 give power to the state that requires obedience in all circumstances,” I agree. Further, “It does not give power to the state to outlaw gathering freely in worship, and then bring the punishment of the sword upon those who do,” I also agree. And, I also agree when he argues that Romans 13 “does not command that Christians must always be obedient to the state.”

So, let me ask you then:

• Does Romans 13 give power to government that requires obedience in all circumstances?
• Does God give the government the authority to outlaw worship gatherings?
• Does Romans 13 command that Christians must always be obedient to the state?

I would contend that if your answer is no to the first and third questions, then you must wrestle through what circumstances would justify disobedience, If you answer yes to the second, then you must wrestle through what limitations are placed on that authority?

If I am correct about this, then it makes sense that believers and congregations might come to differing conclusions about the circumstances and limitations. I might not agree with (or even like) the conclusions that some others come to, but if they show evidence of sincerely seeking to wrestle through it biblically and practically, I’m content to leave it with the Lord to make the assessment. I believe I can say, with a good conscience, that this has been my position for almost four decades, so I am not inclined toward the idea that my thinking is being clouded by personal attachment here.

[Dave Doran]

But my answers really aren’t the issue here because: (1) they are beside my point (which is to argue for allowing room for disagreements); and (2) they are more of the “gotcha” kind of question than they are substantive refutation of Tim’s position.

Regarding (2), I can disagree with his answers to those questions without disagreeing with his larger points. For instance, when he writes “By no means does Romans 13 give power to the state that requires obedience in all circumstances,” I agree. Further, “It does not give power to the state to outlaw gathering freely in worship, and then bring the punishment of the sword upon those who do,” I also agree. And, I also agree when he argues that Romans 13 “does not command that Christians must always be obedient to the state.”

not a gotcha question at all, Dave. I think you are a little disengenuous in your representation of Tim’s position. Here is a quote:

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. Source

and another

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. Source

In fact, Tim’s position is that the government has no authority to regulate health and we have a right to follow our conscience as to whether we will obey or not. I encourage you to read my articles linked above and I invite you to correct my reading of him if you can.

[Dave Doran]

So, let me ask you then:

• Does Romans 13 give power to government that requires obedience in all circumstances?
• Does God give the government the authority to outlaw worship gatherings?
• Does Romans 13 command that Christians must always be obedient to the state?

No to the first.

It depends to the second.

Yes to the last, but other Scriptures give authority that supersedes Romans 13.

On the “it depends answer” - it depends on

1. The reason the government is closing down the churches
2. Whether this is an action directed especially to Christian churches alone (or to religious institutions alone)
3. Whether this is an attempt to permanently close the Christian church

And in this case, the government of Alberta (as far as I know) has never outlawed worship gatherings. They have restricted them, but not outlawed them. There is a difference.

Here in BC, in-person gatherings were closed from November 15 until about a month and a half ago. Outdoor Drive-in meetings were permitted, with strict guidelines and about three weeks ago they opened up indoor meetings with masks up to 50 people, with distancing.

That is still not “outlawing” Christian services.

These are regulations under a public health order. As I understand it, our emergency powers act gives the Provincial Health Officer the legal authority to make such orders as long as the state of emergency exists. When the state of emergency ends (and it will), the power dies.

I look forward to that day, probably sometime this fall.

Don,

I was curious to see if you were properly understanding and presenting Tim’s arguments, so I looked at his articles. I was surprised to see what he actually said in the second quotation you cited:

“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. This is not my argument.”

So you cited a statement as though it were his when in the very next sentence he denies that hypothetical argument. While I trust that was an honest mistake, at a minimum it gives me little confidence that you are actually understanding what he is arguing well enough to properly critique it.

Ben

I looked at my saved copy of the article and the part I left out was indeed in that as well, so clearly I blew that one. I will go back and make corrections in my articles where I cited it. I don’t want to misrepresent Tim and it appears I may have misunderstood that point

Where I included the offending quote, I deleted it and inserted this line:

[In the original edition of this article, I discussed Tim Stephens’ position on Romans 14, the next chapter. I find I misunderstood his point and grievously misquoted him. You can see the correction at the end of the article.]

Here is the error correction at the end of the article:

Error Correction

In my original post, I misquoted Tim Stephens. My misquote caused me to misunderstand and misrepresent his argument. Here is the offending section:

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.”

What I missed was the next sentence in the quote: “This is not my argument.” My missing that sentence misconstrues Tim’s argument at this point and I unreservedly apologize. I thank Ben Edwards for pointing out my error.

~~~

I still disagree with Tim, but not on Romans 14 as such. He discusses Romans 14 in one of his articles, but he doesn’t make it clear how Romans 14 ties into the government regulations. I think he makes some errors in that discussion (calls Heb 10.25 a command - it is not), but he doesn’t say “government regulations are a matter of indifference, you can’t judge me if I ignore them.”

Don,

First, thank you for correcting the misrepresentation of Tim’s position that Ben pointed out. I also had noticed it, copied Tim’s full statement, and was about to post when I read Ben’s comment and your response. I appreciate the fact that you responded to this concern. Thanks.

Second, although I’m inclined to think you won’t agree with my assessment of your answers, it seems that we agree on the basic point that government does not have unqualified authority over believers and that believers must use discernment in applying the Scriptures to the real world circumstances in which they find themselves. It is not always as easy as yes/no. My basic contention is that we should then be very circumspect about public criticism of those who disagree with our applications. No one has said “just shut up” about this topic.

Well, I’ve expressed my concerns so I plan to bow out at this point.

Don,

I’m glad to see you acknowledged the error and made the correction in your article.

Ben

[Dave Doran]

Don,

First, thank you for correcting the misrepresentation of Tim’s position that Ben pointed out. I also had noticed it, copied Tim’s full statement, and was about to post when I read Ben’s comment and your response. I appreciate the fact that you responded to this concern. Thanks.

Second, although I’m inclined to think you won’t agree with my assessment of your answers, it seems that we agree on the basic point that government does not have unqualified authority over believers and that believers must use discernment in applying the Scriptures to the real world circumstances in which they find themselves. It is not always as easy as yes/no. My basic contention is that we should then be very circumspect about public criticism of those who disagree with our applications. No one has said “just shut up” about this topic.

Well, I’ve expressed my concerns so I plan to bow out at this point.

Dave, I also thought we had each said all we needed to say to each other on this thread and expected you to bow out. I’m quite prepared to continue the discussion with others, though I don’t know if anyone really has anything they would like to add.

I will note a couple of things in closing up with you, however.

First, I am chagrined I misunderstood Tim’s point in the section I cited. However, it is essentially your point, isn’t it? After all, what is the difference between the bolded portion of this:

“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. This is not my argument.” [Tim Stephens]

And this:

My basic contention is that we should then be very circumspect about public criticism of those who disagree with our applications. No one has said “just shut up” about this topic. [DMD]

Perhaps you wouldn’t be so crude as to say “just shut up,” but that’s really what you mean, isn’t it?

We agree on the concept that there does come a point when Christians must resist government action, but only on the concept.

I don’t agree

1. That it’s a matter of conscience that other Christians should be silent about.
2. That government is wrong to institute public health regulations
3. That Christians have the right to claim “persecution” when they don’t like the restrictions put on them (and all other citizens) by public health regulations
4. Or that there is a command to assemble in Hebrews 10.25.

On that last, I challenge anyone to prove that point. My article “Putting Hebrews 10 into Perspective” addresses it, and so far all I’ve gotten is “I disagree” or “I still see a command there.” All I ask is, prove it, don’t just assert it.

[Don Johnson]

We agree on the concept that there does come a point when Christians must resist government action, but only on the concept.

I don’t agree

1. That it’s a matter of conscience that other Christians should be silent about.
2. That government is wrong to institute public health regulations
3. That Christians have the right to claim “persecution” when they don’t like the restrictions put on them (and all other citizens) by public health regulations
4. Or that there is a command to assemble in Hebrews 10.25.

On that last, I challenge anyone to prove that point. My article “Putting Hebrews 10 into Perspective” addresses it, and so far all I’ve gotten is “I disagree” or “I still see a command there.” All I ask is, prove it, don’t just assert it.

So given you agree that there is a point (somewhere) where Christians must resist government action, is it your contention that on #1, when such resistance becomes necessary it will be so clear that there will be no possible difference in application among Christians, such that there will not need to be any quarter or deference to conscience given? Or is it just that you think that differences in interpretation will need principled opposition and discussion (which, at least in my view, is also different from simply declaring other views to be wrong or against scripture). I.e., even in disagreement, I think we should do so with charity.

I would agree on #s 2 and 3 with you — to a point. You mention in #3 “all other citizens,” and I think that is key. If restrictions are put on Christians that are not put on all other citizens, and that implementation goes against other laws not permitting such discrimination, then in that case I (and many other Christians) see government as violating the law itself. It becomes difficult at that point to decide who to obey if some ministers of government attempt to enforce the violation when others do not. There have been plenty of examples (even in my own state) during this current pandemic of local officials coming to a different conclusion on the validity of state-level emergency orders and what to do in response.

On #4, I’m one of those who isn’t sure yet whether to agree with you. It’s not that I can prove my view, or just want to be resistant, but given what I’ve heard from many other men who have also studied that scripture and come to an opposite conclusion from you, it’s not a matter of simply discarding an “incorrect” interpretation, but one of careful analysis. For years, I’ve followed the principle that if a new look at a scripture (or a new article I read, etc.) concludes something different from long-standing interpretation by well-respected orthodox Christians, then my previous belief isn’t something that should just be blithely discarded without a lot of careful thought and prayer.

[dcbii]

So given you agree that there is a point (somewhere) where Christians must resist government action, is it your contention that on #1, when such resistance becomes necessary it will be so clear that there will be no possible difference in application among Christians, such that there will not need to be any quarter or deference to conscience given? Or is it just that you think that differences in interpretation will need principled opposition and discussion (which, at least in my view, is also different from simply declaring other views to be wrong or against scripture). I.e., even in disagreement, I think we should do so with charity.

Well, in Nazi Germany (see, he runs to Hitler right away…) and in Soviet Russia and in Communist China, there are churches that go along with the regimes. One would think resistance is obvious, but then the guns are pointed at you, the rationalization begins.

I think we need to do a lot of thinking about this right now. That is the purpose of my substack. I am thinking and writing about the topic in the hopes of developing some understanding about what we should do when the time comes. I don’t want to just offer myself up as a sacrificial lamb when the guns are pointed at me, rather I want to think about how most effectively to resist and prepare myself at least (and others who read) to perhaps take some mental steps at preparation for the eventuality.

[dcbii]

I would agree on #s 2 and 3 with you — to a point. You mention in #3 “all other citizens,” and I think that is key. If restrictions are put on Christians that are not put on all other citizens, and that implementation goes against other laws not permitting such discrimination, then in that case I (and many other Christians) see government as violating the law itself. It becomes difficult at that point to decide who to obey if some ministers of government attempt to enforce the violation when others do not. There have been plenty of examples (even in my own state) during this current pandemic of local officials coming to a different conclusion on the validity of state-level emergency orders and what to do in response.

Another variable is the kind of government you are dealing with. In America, you have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is a powerful weapon (albeit expensive to access). In Canada, for example, not so much. Our so-called Charter of Rights and Freedoms isn’t worth the paper its printed on.

[dcbii]

On #4, I’m one of those who isn’t sure yet whether to agree with you. It’s not that I can prove my view, or just want to be resistant, but given what I’ve heard from many other men who have also studied that scripture and come to an opposite conclusion from you, it’s not a matter of simply discarding an “incorrect” interpretation, but one of careful analysis. For years, I’ve followed the principle that if a new look at a scripture (or a new article I read, etc.) concludes something different from long-standing interpretation by well-respected orthodox Christians, then my previous belief isn’t something that should just be blithely discarded without a lot of careful thought and prayer.

I hear you. I actually have changed my position here. I used to preach it as a command. I am forced to conclude by studying the Greek construction that my previous understanding was incorrect. I would like my friends to argue with me, to push back on these points. Especially my friends who are better in Greek than I am. So far nothing.

It looks to me like ἐγκαταλείποντες (Heb 10:25) is a fairly straightforward participle of antecedent reference that attaches itself to the three hortatory subjunctives in vv. 22, 23, and 24, respectively (προσερχώμεθα, κατέχωμεν, and κατανοῶμεν). If this is the case, then ἐγκαταλείποντες, while not imperative in form, borrows imperatival force from the hortatory verbs that it attends. Wallace suggests further that it is a “clear example” of a customary/habitual present (GGBB, 522): “Let us not forsake our customary assembly,” or perhaps stronger, “We must not forsake our customary assembly.”

That said, I’m not sure that this is the best text to use to establish the biblical expectation that whole churches assemble regularly. Hebrews 10 is a warning against personal apostasy, and doesn’t exactly fit the circumstances brought about by COVID. It is a piece of the argument, I’ll warrant, but texts like Acts 15:55; 1 Cor 5:4; 11:17–34; and 14:23 seem better suited to demonstrating the need for whole-church, in-person participation in order to successfully satisfy the regulative principle of worship. The church cannot do all that it must if it does not assemble as a body.

This is where I think Pastor Stephens, who apparently harmonizes competing biblical commands according to the Dooyeweerdian sphere sovereignty model (by all accounts a recognized approach within orthodox church life), has a case. He argues that while the spheres of civil and ecclesiastical authority legitimately overlap, the command to gather in whole congregations falls squarely in the ecclesiastical sphere, and thus cannot be countermanded by civil authorities; nor, further, may pastors be conscripted as agents of the state to enforce civil mandates.

This is not the only approach to harmonizing the texts in question, but it is one that is well established in the literature and in church history. My burden all along has not been that we all must agree with Pastor Stephens at every point (full disclosure: I don’t), but rather that we should charitably admit that his approach is reasoned and principled (even if we reject it), represent him fairly, and show sympathy for his plight.

[Mark Snoeberger]

It looks to me like ἐγκαταλείποντες (Heb 10:25) is a fairly straightforward participle of antecedent reference that attaches itself to the three hortatory subjunctives in vv. 22, 23, and 24, respectively (προσερχώμεθα, κατέχωμεν, and κατανοῶμεν). If this is the case, then ἐγκαταλείποντες, while not imperative in form, borrows imperatival force from the hortatory verbs that it attends. Wallace suggests further that it is a “clear example” of a customary/habitual present (GGBB, 522): “Let us not forsake our customary assembly,” or perhaps stronger, “We must not forsake our customary assembly.”

That said, I’m not sure that this is the best text to use to establish the biblical expectation that whole churches assemble regularly. Hebrews 10 is a warning against personal apostasy, and doesn’t exactly fit the circumstances brought about by COVID. It is a piece of the argument, I’ll warrant, but texts like Acts 15:55; 1 Cor 5:4; 11:17–34; and 14:23 seem better suited to demonstrating the need for whole-church, in-person participation in order to successfully satisfy the regulative principle of worship. The church cannot do all that it must if it does not assemble as a body.

Thanks for this Mark. However, I would encourage you to read through my article and interact with my reasoning. I looked up Wallace there, but I think many serious commentators disagree with him. Forsaking means for saking, abandoning, not the habitual ignoring. At least so say some. I don’t think I dealt with that aspect too much in my article, however, I was concentrating on the grammar. I take the participle as an adverbial participle of means, answering the question “how” - the exhortation is “consider one another to stimulate to love and good works” and the “how” is answered negatively, “by not abandoning” but positively “by encouraging (parakaleo) one another”

It is also interesting to me that all the commentators I consulted (if I recall correctly) made NO application to regular church meetings being commanded by the passage, including John MacArthur. (I quote MacArthur at the end of my article.)

Thanks for this, though, I will think more about this comment by Wallace, but I wonder if he is correct on this particular example.

Also, of course, is the issue of the regulative principle, which I categorically deny. I see no Biblical proof of it in the New Testament. At all. (But let’s not go down that road!)

[Mark Snoeberger]

This is where I think Pastor Stephens, who apparently harmonizes competing biblical commands according to the Dooyeweerdian sphere sovereignty model (by all accounts a recognized approach within orthodox church life), has a case. He argues that while the spheres of civil and ecclesiastical authority legitimately overlap, the command to gather in whole congregations falls squarely in the ecclesiastical sphere, and thus cannot be countermanded by civil authorities; nor, further, may pastors be conscripted as agents of the state to enforce civil mandates.

This is not the only approach to harmonizing the texts in question, but it is one that is well established in the literature and in church history. My burden all along has not been that we all must agree with Pastor Stephens at every point (full disclosure: I don’t), but rather that we should charitably admit that his approach is reasoned and principled (even if we reject it), represent him fairly, and show sympathy for his plight.

I think Tim is reasoned and principled, but I think he is wrong. I want to represent him fairly, but to be honest I have little sympathy for him in putting himself into this position. I feel sorry for his little kids, but the fact is that he doesn’t have to be in jail. It’s his choice, and I don’t believe its a noble one.

Further, the way this is played out, especially in the States, is equally irritating and amusing. Irritating when Americans, who live in a different political and cultural system, accuse our government as being a dictatorship and persecuting churches and amusing to see the lengths to which they go to distort what is actually happening up here.

I am all for liberty and hold to right wing political views, but we have lots of people in the right wing media who are as capable of distortion as those on the left.