Government Regulations and the Gathering of the Church

Premise 1: Christians/churches must submit to all government regulations unless there is a clear command/prohibition in Scripture to the contrary.

Premise 2: There is no clear command in Scripture that a church must gather

Conclusion: Therefore, Christians/churches are sinning when they gather for worship in violation of government regulations (i.e., not submitting to government regulations)

The conclusion of a syllogism cannot be valid if either premise is false.

He’s correct that the conclusion fails if either premise is false. But premise two is not the real premise. The premise is this: There is no command in Scripture that a church much gather all at once in one place.

This is what’s actually at issue in the Tim Stephens case. The church can meet, in multiple gatherings of a smaller number. Last I checked, the rule was 15% of building capacity, if memory serves.

Looking at the situation biblically requires getting the central question in focus.

[Aaron Blumer]

But premise two is not the real premise. The premise is this: There is no command in Scripture that a church much gather all at once in one place.

While you may disagree with his conclusion on that point, he does deal with exactly what you are saying:

[DBTS article] Better Argument: There is no clear command in Scripture that a church must regularly gather, as a whole, in-person

Here we have added three additional elements: gathering regularly, gathering as a whole, and gathering in-person. Let’s briefly consider each, again with the caveat that I do not intend to present a developed argument for these practices in part because I think those claiming the novel Christian position bear the burden of proof, not those maintaining the historic Christian position (i.e., that churches must gather regularly, as a whole, and in-person).

Again, you may disagree with how and what he presents, but it’s not like he hasn’t considered what you are saying. He just believes it’s novel to think that assembling doesn’t mean gathering as a whole, in-person. While arguments about modern tech providing us the ability to “meet” in different ways are interesting, they are in fact new, and can hardly be considered the historic Christian position on the church assembling.

Note: I’m not claiming that historical positions are always right, but I do believe that something held for a long time by a large percentage of orthodox Christianity should be set aside only with a lot of study and careful consideration.

BC’s Restart: A plan to bring us back together - Province of British Columbia (gov.bc.ca)

Check third bullet point in our Phase 3 reopening, which starts tomorrow:

No capacity limits or restrictions on religious gatherings and worship services

There will be SINGING in our church

Here is my comment to Ben on the DBTS site:

Ben, I think you show a fine example of reasoning, but you have little Scripture to back up your reasoning. Tim has at least tried to justify his position Scripturally. I think he has failed, but of course, that is a matter of opinion.

When you say this: “Suppose a government came out with the regulation that, from this time forward, Christians are not allowed to gather together for worship, full stop.”

That is just a straw man. No government in North America has given that kind of order that I am aware of. We aren’t arguing about that at all.

Finally, as one who argues that Hebrews 10.25 is not a command to assemble, I offer two challenges. Prove that it is a command to assemble. Also, if it is not a command to assemble, where is the command found in the New Testament?

I think assembly is spiritually necessary, it is simply assumed in the NT, but never commanded as such. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but you will have to use Scripture, not logic.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Aaron Blumer]

Premise 1: Christians/churches must submit to all government regulations unless there is a clear command/prohibition in Scripture to the contrary.

Premise 2: There is no clear command in Scripture that a church must gather

Conclusion: Therefore, Christians/churches are sinning when they gather for worship in violation of government regulations (i.e., not submitting to government regulations)

The conclusion of a syllogism cannot be valid if either premise is false.

He’s correct that the conclusion fails if either premise is false. But premise two is not the real premise. The premise is this: There is no command in Scripture that a church much gather all at once in one place.

This is what’s actually at issue in the Tim Stephens case. The church can meet, in multiple gatherings of a smaller number. Last I checked, the rule was 15% of building capacity, if memory serves.

Looking at the situation biblically requires getting the central question in focus.

Premise 1 is also false. Or at least not universally true. I think most Christians only take it so quickly at face value because they’re used to largely benevolent, rule-of-law governments.

I can think of many situations, hypothetical and otherwise, without clear instruction from Scripture where disobedience to the govt becomes necessary or unavoidable.

[Don Johnson]

BC’s Restart: A plan to bring us back together - Province of British Columbia (gov.bc.ca)

Check third bullet point in our Phase 3 reopening, which starts tomorrow:

No capacity limits or restrictions on religious gatherings and worship services

There will be SINGING in our church

Great to hear, Don! I rejoice with you. Since our church never faced the level of restrictions placed on churches in your area, in some ways I have no concept of what your church went through, but I can imagine the joy at being able to get back together. We certainly were very happy when after a couple months we could first meet together again outside last year.

Last night was still Phase 2, but most of us had no masks (individual choices, not church decision) and we sang favorites… it was great

[Aaron Blumer]

The premise is this: There is no command in Scripture that a church much gather all at once in one place.

I would also go a bit further. Scripture doesn’t clarify what “gather” means. Scripture also doesn’t dicate whether gather is under a single roofed building, under multiple roofed buildings or even outside. It was very clear that the early church was challenged with gathering, so what it looked like day by day, month by month or year by year was quite fluid given persecution, size constraints, government mandates…. We are a bit spoiled when we get upset that our 500 person congregation is temporarily imposed from meeting in their multi-million dollar sanctuary.

I think someone has already pointed this out over the past months, but the reality is that we rarely have every single member of the body present at any one time. Even in a very small church like the one I serve, someone is absent nearly every Sunday. Does this mean that we have not fulfilled our obligation to gather? How is this qualitatively different from a capacity limit that requires multiple gatherings?

Even if you could prove that gathering is commanded by Heb 10:25 (and I think Don has put his finger on an important clarification here), I think our churches would be in violation every Sunday unless we accept that less than 100% still counts as obedience.

[pvawter]

I think someone has already pointed this out over the past months, but the reality is that we rarely have every single member of the body present at any one time. Even in a very small church like the one I serve, someone is absent nearly every Sunday. Does this mean that we have not fulfilled our obligation to gather? How is this qualitatively different from a capacity limit that requires multiple gatherings?

Again, though you may not agree, Ben has dealt with this in his article:

[DBTS]

If the church is required to gather as a whole, are you not fulfilling that requirement if a family is gone on vacation for a weekend or a mom stays home with her sick children? But this is not a serious argument. It is akin to the accusation against the pro-life position that argues one cannot be against abortion and for capital punishment. Both take one thing in common (not everyone in the church is present at the gathering; a life is being intentionally taken) and ignores something that clearly distinguishes the two. For the pro-life argument, the key difference is the reason the life is being taken. For the gathering of the church, the key difference is that in one situation an individual is choosing not to come to the gathering of the whole church while in the other the church leadership is deciding not to allow the whole church to gather. Anyone should be able to distinguish between the church leadership intentionally dividing the body up into multiple services/gatherings and the leadership hosting one service/gathering even though not every member may be able to attend every week. Even if some people are not able to be present, churches should work to allow the whole assembly to gather.

While there indeed may be no command for the entire church to meet together in one place at one time, someone being out on a Sunday is most definitely different than intentionally dividing up the assembly into groups to meet separately and not together. Is that last a problem? That’s what we’re trying to determine, but I agree with the article that bringing up someone being out due to providence or their own choice doesn’t really help answer the question.

Last night was still Phase 2, but most of us had no masks (individual choices, not church decision) and we sang favorites… it was great

Don, I am curious as to how you justify this. You were adamant that we must obey the government but then didn’t. Why was it okay last night but not last week, last month, or last year?

[Larry]

Last night was still Phase 2, but most of us had no masks (individual choices, not church decision) and we sang favorites… it was great

Don, I am curious as to how you justify this. You were adamant that we must over the government but then didn’t. Why was it okay last night but not last week, last month, or last year?

I expected this question!

First, you know the saying about consistency, right?

Second, we were less than five hours from “phase 3” and we had no concerns that an early change by us would materially change anything.

[dcbii]

While there indeed may be no command for the entire church to meet together in one place at one time, someone being out on a Sunday is most definitely different than intentionally dividing up the assembly into groups to meet separately and not together. Is that last a problem? That’s what we’re trying to determine, but I agree with the article that bringing up someone being out due to providence or their own choice doesn’t really help answer the question.

This does get to the crux of the issue. What is Hebrews 10.25 about?

Clearly, if someone is out for a providential cause (sickness, what have you) they are not in violation of whatever Heb 10.25 is teaching. Likewise, I don’t think you can say that Christians who are gathering in make-shift ways (a few groups in homes, or some kind of multi-site situation, or a Zoom meeting) are in violation. While their make-shift isn’t ideal they haven’t abandoned the assembly. They have done what they could to preserve it.

Abandon is the key word. Do a word study on “not forsaking” and you will see. The issue in Heb 10.25 is a rebuke to those who think they can abandon the assembly because times are tough. They need to encourage one another, serve one another, and do what they can to keep the assembly together, even if they have to use make-shift means for a period of time.

First, you know the saying about consistency, right?

Yes but it would seem hard to make that claim about obedience to God wouldn’t it?

Second, we were less than five hours from “phase 3” and we had no concerns that an early change by us would materially change anything.

So the real issue was timing and material change? How does that come out of Romans 13? Are we allowed to disobey if it’s close or if there is no material change?

Honestly, Don, it’s hard to see a significant difference between you and the ones you condemned such as Tim and James and others. If anything, maybe yours is more significant because it was just hours. Surely you could have held on for a few more hours. Theirs was at least a matter of conscience.

I’m quite comfortable with mine