‘Line in the sand’: defiant pastor plans July 4 beach service after town’s denial of permit

Any law restricting the practice of legitimate Christianity or that compels Christians (or anyone else for that matter) to sin is in opposition to God, who is above all earthly rulers, and is therefore invalid. Therefore Christians are not bound by scripture to obey such laws, and indeed should not obey them. The best example of this is Daniel. Granted, Daniel was a member of the church of the OT, but his actions were emulated by others before and after, including when the apostles continued to teach openly in the temple and in the synagogues despite the civil leaders (Jewish and Roman) making it illegal. When the law against praying to the one true God was established, Daniel immediately broke it. Now yes, Daniel did not go pray publicly because that was not his practice. His desire was not to make a spectacle. But Daniel did go pray immediately. He did not wait until his next regular prayer time. Instead, he went back to his room and prayed as soon as he was aware of the law. It was an explicit act of civil disobedience in defiance of a human government that placed its own laws in conflict with God’s law. And in this case, the church and pastor did follow proper procedures by applying for a permit to hold worship services. So it isn’t as if they were being agitators, baiting the local officials and townspeople into a confrontation. The local officials brought this upon themselves by refusing to acknowledge that there is a higher law than Caesar’s.

This is different from “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” where pastors purposefully violate the law of the land by taking political positions from the pulpit. That is not religious praise/worship/fellowship activity as defined by the Bible, but secular worldly matters that would already be highly questionable behavior to introduce into the sacred sphere even if there wasn’t a civil law against it.

We are told to submit to the ordinances of man for the Lord’s sake. The state is not stopping them from ministry, but that they cannot use the public beach for a public service. They are not being told not to share the gospel with others.

When Daniel prayed, he went to his room as usual and prayed. The state had ruled private prayer illegal. Daniel did not go to the public square and tweak the nose of the government.

This pastor is out of line.

As far as I understand, holding a worship meeting in a public place is not illegal, if it has proper authorization. I have attended worship services or religious gatherings in national parks, city parks, amusement parks, theaters, malls, fairgrounds, public schools, public libraries, etc. If a permit is being denied illegitimately by the ignorance or stubbornness of a city official, something can be done. This? Maybe not. But something.

This is city official is citing his personally wrong interpretation of the principle of separation of church and state and not citing any other ordinance that would forbid this public worship.

The Pastor is well within his biblical and constitutional rights to do what he is doing. He may have to pay a price for doing it but I support his right to hold that public service.

Paul had no problem using his Roman citizenship in dealing with legal matters. As U.S. citizens we have a Constitution with a bill of rights that allows us the liberty to worship God.

[Charlie]

As far as I understand, holding a worship meeting in a public place is not illegal, if it has proper authorization.

And if the government refuses a permit, for whatever reason, then the answer is no.

The article “quotes” the City Manager thusly:

“I am so sorry to inform you that I cannot grant your request to have church services on the public beach in Rehoboth. I cannot mix Church and State. I trust you understand. Wishing you the very best.”

If that is an accurate quote, it would seem that the Pastor of this rather moderate Presbyterian church would wholeheartedly disagree with the public official, and say that he does not “understand” such an unconstitutional statement and denial. There are both the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment and equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the constitution to support the church’s desire to use public property in a lawful and equal manner as other social, political and community groups. The Alliance Defense Fund defends the constitutional rights of religious groups on issues like these, as well as other legal rights organizations.

This link gives several examples of similar situations: http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/News/PRDetail/3724.

Is there a line in the sand for Christians to not do as they are told by the government?
Yes, when the government commands sin (either by expressly ordering sin take place or ordering something not to take place that would be sinful not to do).

Is there a time for Christians to openly defy the government?
Not one that I can see anywhere in scripture (excluding the cases of direct commands to prophets and judges to do so).
Sure Daniel went and prayed, but he didn’t go before the king and the court to do it aloud and cause a ruckus to “defend his rights.” Sure, the three Jewish men refused to bow before the golden idol, but they didn’t go in and picket those who were doing so. They even told Nebuchadnezzar that they were not afraid to answer him in their refusal, but they didn’t go up to him at the announcement of his policy and tell him “we’re not doing it.”
The biblical response to the rise of the wicked in authority, even to the point of persecution of the righteous is not to revolt or fight, but to hide (Pro 28:12 & 28).

The big question for this discussion:
Is the minister in question being commanded to do something sinful by the government?
No, not in the least.

The congregation tried to do the right thing in requesting permission to use the public land for their services, and they were responded to in ignorance by a public official. That’s a sad fact of our nation today.
However, that in no way justifies the open defiance of the law in going to a place where they have been denied the permission to be.
Is there some mandate from God that they are disregarding by not having services on a public beach?

What’s happening here is that someone has gotten their priorities mixed up.
Instead of taking the rejection in stride and finding some other solution (like finding a private beach they can use, appealing the decision, or just not bothering with being on the beach), they have chosen to instead spend their time on a political gesture that has nothing to do with the Gospel and has the potential to damage the reputation of Christianity instead of helping it.

Matthew nails it. The government has not commanded that the church commit a sinful act. Defying the local government isn’t given a pass by God. It is in fact a political act birthed in rebellion.

Disagree with the government? Who doesn’t at one time or another? There are plenty of avenues to address such issues and try to “get your way”. That is the beauty of our governmental system. Ultimately this pastor could replace the city manager through the processes already in place. But don’t insinuate persecution. Reasonable people will just roll their eyes and the cause of Christ will receive another dingy layer of grime.

Matthew, I generally agree with you, but you need to expand your boundaries for civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is warranted not only when the government commands us to do something God forbids, but also when the government forbids us from doing something God commands.

In this case, the pastor believes the government is forbidding his church from doing something God commands, which is to hold worship services.

However, I agree with you and others that point out they can still worship freely in their church building, and even if he feels the need to “appeal to Caesar” by using legitimate means of appeal, he seems to go to far in his in your face, hey-everybody-look-at-me style of disobedience.

I’m just pointing out that your definition of civil disobedience needs to be broader.

in order for there to be a court case this particular church must suffer harm to have standing before the court. E.g. Prop 8 and the defense’s lack of standing.

1 Peter 2:18-20:

Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.

This Pastor seems to be inviting persecution, rather than encountering it in the normal course of ministry.

In this case, the pastor believes the government is forbidding his church from doing something God commands, which is to hold worship services.

Greg, It seems this is not actually the case. They are allowed to hold worship services, just not at the beach. So unless you think God commanded them to worship at the beach (I suppose one might invoke Acts 16:13 here), then they are not prevented from doing what God commanded.

They could pursue this on the grounds that other groups are allowed to use the beach and they are not simply because of their religion. That would be religious discrimination and that has already been ruled on across the country in favor of equal access for all groups, or no access for any groups.

For this type of problem, I think the correct place to fight it is in the courts because no issue of obedience is at stake. They should, if they choose, fight it that way. Perhaps go back to the city manager with the court precedents in hand to show that they courts have already rule on this and he or she is opening the city up to a legal battle which they will most likely lose. Perhaps appeal to the mayor and city council to apply some pressure on the city manager. Perhaps file for an emergency injunction or something in court. There are all kinds of means short of what they are proposing.

Or another alternative is just go about the business of being the church. Take this as a sign from God that this was a bad idea from the start and he used an unbelieving city manager to instruct the church as to how to be the church.

[Larry]

In this case, the pastor believes the government is forbidding his church from doing something God commands, which is to hold worship services.

Greg, It seems this is not actually the case. They are allowed to hold worship services, just not at the beach. So unless you think God commanded them to worship at the beach (I suppose one might invoke Acts 16:13 here), then they are not prevented from doing what God commanded.

They could pursue this on the grounds that other groups are allowed to use the beach and they are not simply because of their religion. That would be religious discrimination and that has already been ruled on across the country in favor of equal access for all groups, or no access for any groups.

For this type of problem, I think the correct place to fight it is in the courts because no issue of obedience is at stake. They should, if they choose, fight it that way. Perhaps go back to the city manager with the court precedents in hand to show that they courts have already rule on this and he or she is opening the city up to a legal battle which they will most likely lose. Perhaps appeal to the mayor and city council to apply some pressure on the city manager. Perhaps file for an emergency injunction or something in court. There are all kinds of means short of what they are proposing.

Or another alternative is just go about the business of being the church. Take this as a sign from God that this was a bad idea from the start and he used an unbelieving city manager to instruct the church as to how to be the church.

[Greg Long] However, I agree with you and others that point out they can still worship freely in their church building, and even if he feels the need to “appeal to Caesar” by using legitimate means of appeal, he seems to go to far in his in your face, hey-everybody-look-at-me style of disobedience.

Larry, did you read the rest of my post? I didn’t say I agreed with the pastor, I was just explaining what might be his reasoning. I actually agree with you, which is why I said:

Yes,. I was simply saying that what the pastor may believe is incorrect.

[Greg Long] Matthew, I generally agree with you, but you need to expand your boundaries for civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is warranted not only when the government commands us to do something God forbids, but also when the government forbids us from doing something God commands.

I think you missed my statement on this, since it is entirely in agreement with what you just said.

[Matthew Eastland] Is there a line in the sand for Christians to not do as they are told by the government?
Yes, when the government commands sin (either by expressly ordering sin take place or ordering something not to take place that would be sinful not to do).

Really, such a statement we should all know and agree with.
I mentioned it primarily for the sake of setting up the groundwork for my main point. However, I also mentioned it because there is a growing movement in Christianity right now (and I’ve seen it on SI) that thinks we have some kind of Christian duty to fight against the government if it infringes on our national rights. There is no Christian call for that at all.

My primary purpose was to show how there is no biblical basis for defying governmental authority or fomenting rebellion.

So far, no one since then has disagreed with the substance of that.