Submitting to the governing authorities when they exercise their legitimate function is to acknowledge Jesus as Lord.
Fire codes and capacity restrictions in buildings were, up until last year, accepted functions of government—even though only .00001% of buildings ever catch fire when occupied.
Amen. “Legitimate function” is the tricky part.
I’ve greatly appreciated the material from Warhorn this last year addressing the rebellious bent that exists within the church, and how that manifested in the knee-jerk rebellion of many churches against mask mandates, etc. The natural propensity in God’s people to rebel against civil authority (and all authority) is definitely an evil thing, and I praise God for the attention that has been called to it over the last year, and the occasion to reflect on it on my own heart. God has been very gracious to all of us in this.
And yet, I think it’s also been well acknowledged that the answer isn’t simply to turn around and have the church cede all authority to the state. We need to repent of our rebellion toward God in his ordaining of civil authority, but that repentance does not look like regarding civil authority to be our god.
Certainly the point so many are missing, is that we have always understood that the magistrate has the authority to establish occupancy limits on church’s and other buildings. And the point that you are making is clear, no one ever wanted to start a rebellion over the lack of a certain number of relevant deaths to justify that authority. We all knew it’s that magistrates job to make those decisions, not the church’s job.
I came across these excerpts from Richard Baxter’s A Christian Directory last year. Found it helpful. May be good fuel for discussion.
Forgive the odd copy/paste markings. Link here. Would be interested to hear comment.
Quest. 109. May we omit Church-assemblies on the Lords day, if the Magistrate for∣bid them?
Answ. 1. IT is one thing to forbid them for a time, upon some special cause, (as Infection by pestilence, fire, war, &c.) And another thing to forbid them statedly or prophanely.
It is one thing to omit them for a time, and another to do it ordinarily.
It is one thing to omit them in formal obedience to the Law; and another thing to omit them in prudence or for necessity, because we cannot keep them.
The Assembly and the circumstances of the Assembly must be distinguished.
If the Magistrate for a greater good, (as the common safety) forbid Church Assemblies in a time of pestilence, assault of enemies, or fire, or the like necessity, it is a duty to obey him. Because positive duties give place to those great natural duties which are their end: so Christ justified himself and his disciples violation of the external rest of the Sabbath. For the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 2. Because Affirmatives bind not ad semper, and out of season du∣ties become sins. 3. Because one Lords day or Assembly is not to be preferred before Many which by the omission of that one are like to be obtained.
If Princes prophanely forbid holy assemblies and publick worship, either statedly, or as a renuncia∣tion of Christ and our religion; it is not Lawful formally to obey them.
But it is lawful prudently to do that secretly for the present necessity, which we cannot do publickly, and to do that with smaller numbers, which we cannot do with greater assemblies, yea and to omit some assemblies for a time that we may thereby have opportunity for more: which is not formal but only material obedience.
But if it be only some circumstances of Assembling that are forbidden us, that is the next case to be resolved.
Quest. 110. Must we obey the Magistrate if he only forbid us Worshiping God, in such a place, or Countrey, or in such numbers, or the like?
Answ. WE must distinguish between such a determination of Circumstances▪ modes or accidents, as plainly destroy the worship or the end, and such as do not. For instance, 1. He that saith, You shall never assemble but once a year or never but at midnight; or never above six or seven minutes at once, &c. doth but determine the circumstance of Time: But he doth it so as to destroy the worship, which cannot so be done, in consistency with its ends. But he that shall say, You shall not meet till nine a clock, nor stay in the night, &c. doth no such thing.
So 2. He that saith, You shall not assemble but at forty miles distance one from another; or you shall meet only in a room that will hold but the twentieth part of the Church; or you shall never Preach in any City or popular place but in a Wilderness far from the inhabitants, &c. doth but deter∣mine the circumstance of Place. But he so doth it, as tends to destroy or frustrate the work which God commandeth us. But so doth not he that only boundeth Churches by Parish bounds, or for∣b•deth inconvenient places.
So he that •aith, You shall never meet under a hundred thousand together, or never above five or six doth but determine the accident of Number. But he so doth it as to destroy the work and end. For the first will be impossible; And in the second way they must keep Church assemblies without Ministers, when there is not so many as for every such little number to have one. But so doth not he that only saith, You shall not meet above ten thousand, nor under ten.
So he that saith, You shall not hear a Trinitarian, but an Arrian, or you shall hear only one that cannot preach the essentials of Religion, or that cryes down Godliness it self, or you shall hear none but such as were ordained at Ierusalem or Rome, or none but such as subscribe the Council of Trent, &c. doth but determine what person we shall hear. But he so doth it as to destroy the work and end. But so doth not he that only saith, You shall hear only this able Minister, rather than that.
I need not stand on the application. In the later case we owe formal obedience. In the former we must suffer, and not obey.
For if it be meet so to obey, it is meet in obedience to give over Gods worship. Christ said, when they persecute you in one City, flee to another: But he never said, If they forbid you Preaching in any City, or populous place, obey them. He that said, Preach the Gospel to every Creature, and to all Nati∣ons, and all the World, and that would have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, doth not allow us to forsake the souls of all that dwell in Cities and populous places, and Preach only to some few Cottingers elsewhere: No more than he will allow us to Love, pity and relieve the bodies only of those few, and take none for our Neighbours that dwell in Cities, but with Priest and Levite, to pass them by.
Fire codes and pandemic responses are apples to oranges. For one, fire code occupancy limits for the most part are set before a church builds, buys, or rents a building. It is is not a moving target in constant flux. For the most part, there is some common agreement on these laws and they have not had much impact upon the worship of God’s people. In other words there is a some what objective standard for them and they have little or minimum impact upon the worship gathering. We have never for example had to think about them because the design of the church building and seating arrangements have made some sense.
These covid restrictions are of another nature. They are arbitrary. The warrant for them has not been fully established. They are imposed after the fact. They have more than a minimum impact upon the gather of God’s people.
It is one thing to concede to a law long established that has little impact and another to concede to arbitrary commands that are intrusive and burdensome without the appropriate warrant. Again going back to the Presbytery’s statement is helpful.
As a general law of neutral applicability, a quarantine at times interferes incidentally with the worship of God. This incidental interference in itself does not necessarily exceed the civil sphere’s authority as long as it is understood to be temporary and localized, lasting no longer and extending no farther than the conditions that gave rise to it. Yet, through a protracted, extensive, and comprehensive quarantine whose sway over the lives of the people is nearly absolute, the civil sphere does exceed its authority. When a sphere exceeds its authority and acts ultra vires, its acts are void.
But here’s the rub. We don’t agree on what is temporary and localized. What’s one man’s temporary and localized is another man’s conversion to anarchy.
Which is why the last couple of paragraphs of the statement are helpful.
I think this excerpt from Baxter above is most relevant to this discussion:
He that saith, You shall not assemble but at forty miles distance one from another; or you shall meet only in a room that will hold but the twentieth part of the Church; or you shall never Preach in any City or popular place but in a Wilderness far from the inhabitants, doth but determine the circumstance of Place. But he so doth it, as tends to destroy or frustrate the work which God commandeth us.
In other words, taken at face value, the Alberta civil authorities aren’t telling Grace Life that they can’t worship God. They are merely putting restrictions on the place of their worship. See? No harm done.
But what’s actually happening is that these restrictions are destroying or frustrating the work which God has commanded the church to do.
There is a kind of restriction which the civil authorities can impose (e.g. fire codes) which does not so infringe upon the worship of the church, and merely serves the common good under the charge of the magistrate. But, as Joseph has pointed out, there are other restrictions which may be issued in the name of that same good interest, which have a decisively inhibiting effect on the worship of the church.
We’re meant to think that it’s apples and apples, but it’s definitely apples and oranges.
I think authority is arbitrary within its sphere.
If I don’t like a dress my wife buys for my daughter, do I have to abide by some norm to say that I don’t like it and don’t want her wearing it.
Even if I’m inconsistent and like other dresses that are very similar to the one that I don’t like, are you suggesting that such authority, is not merely patriarchal but tyrannical and should be openly disobeyed?
Now let’s not confuse the matter with un-chaste clothing, for surely that is not arbitrary, but should a father be limited to only those decisions of biblical command in his authority. Does scripture tell women and children only to obey certain kinds of commands of their husbands, or fathers and to disobey other kinds, that are not tied to moral obligations.
Let’s not forget authority means author. The Lord is the author of this world, he establishes both his moral will and his decretive will, and he divides and delegates his authority. Just because it is divided does not mean that the authority is regulated by enumerated of powers. If we say government is limited by a regulative principle of authority in the Bible then we deny that God ordained government and authority in nature for all man, not just believers.
I think some are applying a Jeffersonian view of authority, rather than a patriarchal view.
I haven’t caught up here, but I want to interject right away that when I said it was an issue of strategy, my point wasn’t to (pre)-judge their strategy as wrong. I don’t know the law there, the strategy they are following, their goals, etc.
But it is important to say that nothing biblically requires them to disobey this order per se. It may well be allowable. It may even be wise and good. I don’t know off hand.
But to demonstrate those things it would not be sufficient to appeal to the command not to forsake the assembly of the believers. That’s all I was saying.
Thanks, Joseph. That is helpful.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, I think there is a decent body of evidence that the mask mandates have been judged illegal in OH, thanks to those who challenged them. Read a recent judgement here, which also refers to two others (which I haven’t read.)
Here is what appears to be the pertinent decision language from that judgment:
Despite Defendants’ [the county] contention that the food service license was suspended pursuant to R.C. 3717.49(C)(1), the basis for the suspension was non-compliance with the Dine Safe Ohio Order. R.C. 3713.49(C)(1) only sets forth the ability to revoke a license without hearing upon the finding of an immediate danger to public health. This Court finds and determines that “an immediate danger to public health” was never factually established nor scientifically demonstrated in this case, nor in support of the actions of the Ashland County Health Department.
The nature of this case is not one new to the courts in Ohio. Similar cases
raising similar challenges to COVID-19-related orders of the Director of the Ohio
Department of Health have met challenge in Lake County, Ohio [Rock House Fitness,
Inc. et al. v. Amy Acton, Director of the Ohio Dept. of Health, et al., Lake C.P. No.
20CV000631 (May 20, 2020)], and Erie County, Ohio [ILMV DEV SPE, LLC, DBA
Kalahari Resorts & Conventions, et al. v. Amy Acton, et al., Erie C.P. No. 2020-CV-
0201]. In those cases, the respective courts found the COVID-19 related orders of the Ohio Department of Health to be unconstitutional, whether authorized by R.C. 3701.13
or arguably R.C. 3701.14(A). While this Court generally agrees with the positions
expressed by the common pleas courts of both Lake County and Erie County, it is more
inclined to agree with the Erie County Common Pleas Court that R.C. 3701.13 grants no
authority to the Director of the Ohio Department of Health to issue or enforce mandatory
mask, social distancing, or other similar type orders since there is no stated or implied
authority in R.C. 3701.13 which authorizes any action to prevent the spread of
contagious or infectious disease (the orders’ express purpose). Under R.C. 3701.13,
the Ohio Department of Health only has ultimate authority in matters of quarantine and
isolation. Furthermore, the orders at issue in Erie County, Lake County, as well as the
Dine Safe Ohio Order in this case, fail to accomplish anything scientifically
demonstrable, or otherwise corroborated with empirical data, to prevent the spread of
contagious or infectious disease even if that purpose were authorized by R.C. 3701.13.
James Coates’ actions were not inevitable. He and his church could have submitted to the decree without accepting that it was good (or because they believed that the rule needed more scrutiny). At which point they could’ve pooled their resources to begin the legal process against AHS.
A response like that seems more appropriate to the circumstances. Perhaps it would lead to more lasting fruit, as well.
Peter and the other apostles could have submitted to the Jewish council’s charge that they not preach the name of Christ publicly, too. They could have rallied together resources and hired someone like Tertullus to represent their interests before the Roman magistrate, right?
We must be clear on the fact that the church does not minister by the leave of the civil magistrate. This is the presupposition that needs to be surgically removed from our thinking. The spheres of authority exist, in their own capacities, by the ordinance of God. The civil sphere does not simply reign supreme over the ecclesiastical and familial spheres. But that’s how secularism has conditioned us to think.
I say this presupposition needs to be surgically removed, because neither can we commit the sin of thinking we have no accountability to the civil sphere.
Apples and oranges, in more ways than one.
Pastor Coates’ strategy may have been to score points in the culture war. Certainly he’s gotten a lot of publicity which helps. That can be legitimate. The culture war is real and they are out to get us. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.
The thing which really made me angry about the restrictions in relatively free and open Indiana was the Governor putting his name and seal on signs closing the playgrounds my kids go to while permitting abortion clinics to remain open. That one thing right there is why he did not get my vote in 2020.
It’s my personal, fallible opinion that culture war politics are what is driving the resistance to Covid rules. The expert class hates the Christian redneck class, and since we know they hate us, we aren’t going to do what they say. We are obeying of one Alinsky’s rules. We are forcing the enemy of live up to the rules he made for himself. Ever since the Warren Court era, individual rights have been elevated above and beyond all other considerations. You can abort your baby or get same sex married because it’s what you want to do.
Well, now the Christians are turning that around. Take your personal autonomy and equal protection clause and shove it! Our bodies our choice!
I understand it. I once held to it. I’ve come to realize it’s wrong. But having Trump as our president shifted the attitudes of many of us in how we approach cultural conflict. The goal is to stick your finger in the other guy’s eye, that’s what I think a lot of this is about. But I could just be projecting.
You understand I don’t disagree with this point, right? Nonetheless, there is an imprecise overlap in the jurisdictions. The only way to make the point that Coates’ actions were inevitable and only good is to frame his situation as analogous to the Apostles being told to stop preaching Jesus before the Jewish council (an ecclesiastical council, anyway). AHS has made the process more difficult, but they have not forbidden preaching Jesus. And you must acknowledge that there is some kind of an overlap of jurisdiction when the state determines code for churches, even and especially in a new health emergency.
I affirm that there is a relationship between the spheres of authority, and I would affirm these relationships as they are described in the statement linked by Joseph.
A few things.
First, my reference to the apostles is not to draw a 1 for 1 correlation to every detail of the biblical narrative compared to what’s going on at present. But as it relates to making the point that the church does not minister by the leave of the civil sphere, there is definitely application. If the ministry of the gospel were something that could only be conducted if the civil authorities bless it, then Christianity would have been snuffed out in the first century, and it began with the apostles defying the Sanhedrin (who, in this context, were a civil authority, granted certain powers of rule by their Roman magistrates, and not an ecclesiastical one, as you suggest – but no need to derail the thread on that detail).
Second, this idea of inevitability. If you believe that the corporate gathering is a strictly commanded and vital part of the Christian faith – as James Coates does – then defiance of the civil authority’s commandment here was inevitable. That’s what true conviction produces – hard lines. Things like this:
“Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”
"O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”
If you believe something is right and true and commanded of the Lord, then honesty demands that you hold the line on that conviction even when it becomes costly to do so. Might there be ways in which Grace Life is presently walking inconsistent with their convictions? Sure. But that doesn’t mean you abandon the conviction because you’re inconsistent. We’re Christians, which means none of us live up to the moral standard which we affirm. Sometimes hardship provides us the occasion to test the legitimacy and sincerity of that conviction, and in the end that testing results with us living with greater consistency and vigor in that conviction than we did before.
I would refer back to Baxter’s comments on edicts at face value, versus their functional effects.
