If I’d been inclined to name them, I would have done so. I’m never one to avoid naming names, if you don’t know. So just search for words such as “panic” and “paranoia” and “legitimate” and so forth. But again, why don’t you address context and do a compare/contrast with past fathers in the faith, as we have suggested? Love,
1 Like
I just think it’s helpful to put up some specific text, rather than “some people are saying stuff” and then dropping the hammer of judgment on heart motivations – something that we really can’t know. I am all for judging and examining specific words that have been uttered, but I do think it’s unsound ground when we start looking across the Internet into a heart and saying “here’s why you’re doing that thing you just did: it’s because you’re rebellious and you hate authority.”
It’s the difference between saying “John MacArthur makes over $300K. I am sure that presents certain temptations and challenges” and saying “John MacArthur makes over $300K because he is greedy and bound to the things of this world.” The second statement sets a vector that preempts other possibilities and steers the conversation off a cliff. The second statement is also, arguably, slander.
So with some of these “Reformed men.” Maybe there’s a genuine conviction there. Maybe not. Maybe these individuals have really agonized over such decisions, and want very much to honor God, and think that they’re doing so. I don’t know, because I don’t follow Facebook or Twitter, and haven’t read what any of them have written in context. I also haven’t sat in their session meetings and listened to the different counsel and rationales offered. But I have sat in our own session meetings, and godly men really, authentically wrestle with this. We had 7 elders with 7 varying opinions (though we are not in your reticle as Governor Kemp has not locked down Georgia. But if he did I would advise our church to adhere to that.).
I’m happy to do the legwork in reading the Fathers. There is usually a common mind that one can eventually suss out. My issue here is in the way that we argue things. We can win arguments but sort of lose them at the same time. I am thinking of Francis Schaeffer in this case and the sorts of things he wrote in The Great Evangelical Disaster many years ago. It’s worth a read.
1 Like
If you haven’t seen the stuff, then you don’t need to worry about it. If you have, you’ll know and be able to judge for yourself whether any motivation is discernible.
Regardless, we live in a culture that is awash in despising authority, and reformed types are not exempted from that judgment.
If the conversation starts with an assumption that we have to make a decision, based on our judgments of the risks and rewards, rather than whether the command we have been given is contrary to God’s law and must be disobeyed, then we are despising authority, full stop. And that’s much less a judgment of motive than it is a judgment of fact. Countless people today have no intention of despising authority. They have simply been taught that they make their own choices as they make their own truth. It would never occur to them that they are despising authority. Nor do they hold the man any ill will. Even the office isn’t despised by them. They just have so little understanding of authority, much less regard for it, that it would never even occur to them that there is any moral obligation on them when an authority speaks.
Until they stand before a judge. Or an officer commands them to move or stop. And all of the sudden, they feel the authority, and generally they hate it.
1 Like
Come on, Eric. Do you really think anyone here hasn’t seen the same agonizing you have? Do you really think anyone here couldn’t produce at least as good a debate over the civil magistrates amonng their pastors and elders as you and others could? Do you really think anyone at all/at all is incapable of authentic wrestling. Stick to the point. For the third time, context.
But so you know what I’m saying myself and the judgments I’ve made from decades among these reformed men, I reiterate: “rebellion against all authority is the ordering principle of Reformed men today and takes many forms with all the different authorities.” If you think it’s wrong for a pastor/church officer to judge men’s motives (starting with ourselves, of course) then you don’t read the same Bible I do. If you think it should only be done if names are named, again, you don’t read the same Bible I do.
So now, context. Compare and contrast, please, and stop discussing the discussion. Love,
Precisely, son. Thank you. Love,
These comments greatly resonate with me, and by that I mean that I observe what you are describing in my very own self. And it’s something I think I can say with integrity that I’ve been earnestly trying to repent of for the last few years. Still, I find myself endlessly vexed on the topic of authority.
Most sin in my life as it relates to submission to authority, I think, is plain to see. It was certainly plain when I was a boy in the home of my parents. It was plain when I defied my school teachers. These are some of the first authorities that a child really encounters in their life, and I was clearly guilty of rebelling against them.
As a young man entering the work force, I certainly learned and modeled what it was to rebel against my employer. Though I was outwardly a fairly good and reliable employee, I hated and resented it when I was given tasks or orders to follow that I thought were stupid. While I’ve never done anything that the world would regard as grossly unethical, I’ve certainly cut corners against my boss’ instructions. I’ve spoken rebelliously both to and about a boss before – perhaps not in the kind of egregious, bitingly disrespectful way that gets a man fired, but certainly with the "rebel’s conviction that he knows better than the man in authority over him," as Tim put it.
My failure to submit to authority in these spheres of life – father, mother, teachers, employers – are plain to me, in all of their aspects. I can own them as my own, free and clear, with no excuse. I understood the sinfulness of them then, and I understand the sinfulness of them now.
But when it comes to the authority of the church and her officers, things don’t seem that clean cut to me.
Growing up, I never had any concept of the authority of the church or its officers. I was not taught this by my parents, nor by my pastors, nor by my private Christian school teachers. I understood that God was the final and supreme authority, but the church itself was never put forward as anything authoritative. If the concept of church discipline – at any level – was ever taught in any of the churches I attended as a boy, I don’t remember it. My parents didn’t model anything in their lifestyle that would signal that the church was regarded as authoritative in their lives. We made it to church on Sunday if we wanted to. We came and went as we pleased. My dad was the church treasurer at one point, and my mom taught Sunday school, but even these activities managed to be done with a sense of aloofness. Church was never something we were a part of and accountable to, it was something we attended and contributed to.
So my parents didn’t teach me anything concerning church authority, but neither did pastors. I am reminded of that thread we had on here about a year ago about how pastors today labor to position themselves as having no authority. So many pastors – even those who are powerful preachers and sound exegetes – have abdicated their role as shepherds in favor of creating a pulpit ministry for Christian consumerism. There has been a great death to authority in the church today, and while I must confess and account for my own iniquity as it relates to this, I can’t say that the blame falls on my generation. This is a systemic sin that we’ve inherited from our fathers.
And honestly, I feel clueless as to how to find the way back.
I appreciate all the appeals that are made to men of the past, such as Calvin. I also understand that there is nothing new under the sun, so there is much to be gleaned from church history, and in the example of our fathers from ages past. But I have a hard time drawing straight line applications from Reformation-era Europe to post-modern America.
For instance, the relationship between the church and state in the Middle Ages and Renaissance periods was extraordinarily different than what we have today. The institution of the church (whether Catholic or Protestant) had a formal and tremendously influential place in civil government. This formal connection between the church and the state meant that if you were a citizen of Geneva, it was the church in Geneva that you would be giving account to. They were your authority. The board was already set for you. This was your church. You didn’t pick them. You were placed under their authority federally.
Contrast that to our day. A man grows up in a town where there are forty different churches nearby. They all confess different things. None of them regard themselves to be subject to one another. The government couldn’t care less which one of them you attend as long as you remain civil. And all of these churches are positioning themselves as a product to be consumed.
Which church does a man join himself to? Or rather, by whose authority will the man end up joining himself to a church? Simply put, his own. The man must decide.
This is where I find it vexing. We affirm the necessity of submitting to authority, but in this generation, the first thing a man must do is choose which authority to submit to… by his own authority. But is submission to authority every really genuine if you’re at liberty to choose your own authority?
I suppose the answer to that has to be yes, since that’s what a wife is typically doing when she chooses to marry a particular husband. Maybe that’s the attitude we need to use when choosing a church. We’re looking for a husband, as it were, and that includes being humbly cognizant of our own weaknesses and immaturity, with the knowledge that whatever husband we join ourselves to is going to be imperfect, and we can only look to the future with faith.
Still, it vexes me. I wasn’t assigned under the authority of my church through federal association. Rather, I chose it. Yes, I took counsel from others, and searched the Scriptures as best as I knew how to evaluate what I ought to look for in a church, but was it not ultimately my own authority which was acted upon when I endeavored to join this particular church and not another? Doesn’t that mean that my very submission to this church is, as it were, an act of my own authority? (I understand that the church received me into membership by their authority, but I’m focusing on my part of it).
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t deny God’s providence in how we end up in one church and not another. On the contrary, I am banking on God’s providence, else I don’t know how to understand the events of my life whatsoever! In all of my vexation, I am positively convinced that the only answer is to lean not on my own understanding; to endeavor in all my ways to follow him, trusting that He is the one who will make my path straight. If Christ has so regarded my helpless estate that he gave himself to purchase me, my only confidence is that he will see to it that he receives me safely to glory as his due, in the end. With what other confidence can we go through life?
Anyway, there’s my quarterly ramble. Thank you all.
3 Likes
You are not the only one, brother. I don’t always or perhaps even most of the time think that I know better than those over me, but when I do, it really chafes. My father-in-law once told me I would never have made it in the military because it is difficult for me to submit to anyone I do not personally respect. Therefore, I got myself into a profession where I have a long leash and great autonomy to determine what I work on and how I do it.
2 Likes
Regarding being away from the assembly for a possibly extended time makes me think of King David, driven away from Israel for a time, and when he was in the dry wilderness what he thirsted for was the Lord’s house:
For the choir director; on the Gittith. A Psalm of the sons of Korah. How lovely are Your dwelling places, O LORD of hosts! My soul longed and even yearned for the courts of the LORD; My heart and my flesh sing for joy to the living God. The bird also has found a house, And the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, Even Your altars, O LORD of hosts, My King and my God. -Psalm 84:1-3
I am surprised that David did not write this psalm, but I still think (based on 1 Sam 26:19 for example) that it captures how he felt in the years that he was not able to be with his brothers. What lay heaviest on his mind was that he was cut off from the assembly. He longed, even fainted, for the courts of the Lord. And the Lord answered his prayer and brought him back.
I pray that the Lord shortens the time of this quasi quarantine; with all the inconveniences the thing we long for most is to get back to his courts with his people.
Love,
4 Likes
Agreed. But the irony is that I have felt more “part” of the virtual services I have been following (morning prayers, a Compline, two main Sunday services) than I have sometimes felt in a church where I have been physically present … but not present in spirit, tbh.
As Mark Driscoll joked recently, “and just like that, we are now all TV evangelists”. 
1 Like
Speaking personally, the other part of this is: avoiding going into a job where exercising authority comes with the territory. I have steadfastly avoided going for jobs where I would have to manage other people, for a mixture of good reasons (I am low-level Aspie, so would not do it well); but maybe for not-so-good reasons (as they say in the north of England, “nowt so queer as folk” (= “nothing so strange as people”), and I’ve always thought I would far rather get on with work I like).
1 Like
The conversation has shifted a bit from authority regarding the government during COVID19, but I found this last night and was interested in any thoughts?
2 Likes
There are some good recommendations in here, such as taking special offerings to help those in need caused by the economic crises. However, it dismisses the civil authority in a way that makes no sense of the Apostle’s command to submit to Caesar—an authority just as godless as the ones we have today.
I’m inclined to agree that social distancing is not required per se, but that assumes other things are in place that we have not had, such as intrusive contact tracing (which he would probably oppose) and widespread testing.
As to this claim:
In China, CV is currently “burning out” as the disease has not spread, by the Providence of God, throughout the country like wildfire causing mass casualties. Given longer days and warmer temps, a “burnout” here very soon is most probable.
It is false, as far as I can tell. It has not burned out in China. It was snuffed out through even more aggressive action than we have taken. And here is the weather report in New Orleans where the cases are exploding:
1 Like
Yes, but UV light does kill it, so heat and sunshine stop these things. They are latitude driven, interestingly enough. Love,
1 Like
I’d be interested to see where you’ve read that about latitude. I know people are hoping for that, but I’ve not seen any evidence for it yet.
Regarding UV light, UVC is what we use to sterilize things, and UVA and UVB are the only ones that make it past the ozone in sunlight. A and B may have a good impact, but it is slow with other viruses.
We also know heat is effective with every virus at some level, but we don’t know how much heat for how long, yet, for this one. At least that’s my understanding.
1 Like
Rebellion against authority is part and parcel of Adam’s original sin. There’s nothing new under the sun.
We’d agree that if the government would forbid us to do something contrary to the Scripture we have the obligation to resist that (too strong?).
Would we agree that there is a biblical mandate for a man to care for his family? The government has curtailed many men from this responsibility. Yes, we currently understand the reasons. At what point does the man of a small business say, I can no longer do this.
These are competing mandates. How do we apply/reconcile these?
2 Likes
Related to our ongoing discussion of COVID-19 more broadly, does the calculus of what constitutes rebellion change if the government more or less arbitrarily (or at least unwisely, in the face of strong urging to the contrary) decides it soon will be safe to cease social distancing? Am I thusly in rebellion if I petition my employer to let me continue working from home because I have a pregnant wife with gestational diabetes (which increases the likelihood of developing serious complications) who is due to deliver in May, which will give me three children under the age of 5 (which increases the likelihood of developing serious complications, especially for my newborn and my daughter with asthma)?
Am I being “sentimental” about life vs. death? Am I being defiant, sinful, or rebellious if I decline to take the word of the civil magistrates or my bosses that return to normal by Easter is safe? If Pastor Tim’s paraphrase of Romans 13 holds true more or less across the board, then the grounds for my declining to return to work would be on the basis of belief that the civil magistrates and my employers are wrong (wrong, that is, that it is yet safe to return to work). To avoid sinning, if declining to return to the office early is a sin, do I just obey and then hope that my family doesn’t die? And if they do, well then at least I didn’t rebel?
I work in the largest office building in DFW in the middle of downtown. Someone who shares office space with my company tested positive for COVID-19 a couple of weeks ago (see the 3/18 entry referring to the 54-year-old man, with whom I interact on a daily basis and who shares our office kitchen space).
I’m not trying to snarky, although I know that my dubiousness over the converse situation is making it seem so, but I want to know when not obeying the authorities in this case is permissible, if ever.
There is a categorical difference (at least in the US, though perhaps not in China) between the two situations. No governmental office is going to order you to return to work, but they have ordered you right now to stay at home (I’m assuming in your state, since in most at this point, though I didn’t look it up.) If that mandate is lifted, your employer may certainly require you to return, but there is nothing wrong with petitioning for an exception in either case. But your employer is not the civil magistrate, either. If you find the terms of your employment unacceptable, you may seek other employment. In saying this I don’t mean to downplay the potential difficulty of that step. I just mean to show the category difference between the question.
I hope that helps you to make some progress in thinking about this potential scenario. However, I don’t expect it to be likely. I would assume that restarting the economy will happen with plenty of exceptions for those most in danger, and much greater acceptance of people working from home, in general.
1 Like
My employer is a civil magistrate and they were the subject of a report that they will not report COVID19 exposure in the workplace when it occurs and even when it results in death. The current policy internally, is even if you are high risk, keep working. If someone had symptoms but cleared up, they are to return to work too. I think the previous comment is very valid in my case. We also have three 5 and under. And my wife also had diabetes. But the only way I get to shelter in place is if we show symptoms. Interestingly, several of us have been coughing and my baby daughter’s stool look like she might have a bug, so out of an abundance of caution I’m calling out from work. Should I have to do that…seems like our magistrate are unwilling to accept the burden and responsibility for the decision, so I have to. Isn’t that one of the reason’s TFC decided as elders, to show leadership and take the decision away from those that were struggling with it. TFC has shown more leadership than my office. Our numbers are skyrocketing now, because we failed to act earlier.
1 Like
By now (31 March 20), “stay-at-home” orders which also prohibit gatherings over certain limits (usually 10 people) are fairly common.
Just stumbled across this news story that’s on point to some of the discussion.
This is also relevant: