Five years ago, in the wake of the Obergefell ruling, John MacArthur preached a defiant sermon. Among other things he said:
At the seminary, we put an article up on the seminary website about homosexuality. Within a matter of hours, we received a letter ordering us to cease and desist immediately or face a very severe lawsuit. Could we be sued for taking this position? Absolutely. Insurance companies that provide liability insurances for churches so that we’re protected against lawsuits are beginning to say, “We will not accept responsibility for lawsuits on homosexual or same-sex marriage issues.” The church is out there all on its own.Now, just to make it clear: We don’t bow down to Caesar. We bow to our king. But the faithful people didn’t bow down. The unfaithful people bowed down to idols. They bowed down to monarchs. They bowed down to godless kings. Faithful people didn’t bow down. Mordecai didn’t bow down. Daniel didn’t bow down; his friends didn’t bow down. Jesus didn’t bow down. Paul didn’t bow down.
It was a classic sermon. And it's striking to compare it to the current policy at Grace Community Church:
We were looking forward to our normal Sunday fellowship and worship. But we have been ordered by the state authorities to limit gatherings to 250 people or less, which means we are unable to meet together.
So JMac bowed down to Caesar after all. Sure, it's on a different issue, but notice all it took for him to disband public corporate worship. A state order.
Notice he didn't switch to livestreaming services as an alternative to flatten the curve. They were planning to continue worship as usual. No, all it took was a state order, and he immediately capitulates. But there are two problems:
1. The bans are unconstitutional. Churches above the arbitrary numerical threshold–which varies from one locality to the next–should practice civil disobedience. In some cases there are ways to circumvent the numerical threshold by subdividing services, but in general, civil authorities who violate the free exercise of religion clause of the 1st amendment ought to be defied and a class action suit brought against them. When gov't officials ban public gatherings of 250 people (or whatever the figure), that's an indirect ban on church services with 250+ attendance. And that, in turn, is a Constitutional violation. Whether or not that's their intention, that's the effect.
2. This is the state disrupting the normal nature of Christian worship. This is the state redefining what is permissible Christian worship. Where the state dictates the size of a Christian worship service. Where the state proscribes how many Christians are allowed to meet at one time and place. And this may drag on for months. Moreover, it sets a dangerous precedent. It's fascinating to see how many reputedly conservative churches have buckled under to numerical thresholds and disbanded physical fellowship.
3. Notice, I'm not commenting on churches which have substituted livestreaming because they think social distancing is necessary to bend the curve. That's a different argument. I've discussed that as well, but that's not the point I'm drawing attention to here.
"Notice he didn't switch to livestreaming services as an alternative to flatten the curve. They were planning to continue worship as usual."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how this plays into your thoughts, but just in the interest of additional information: GCC almost always livestreams their services (I think they make very rare exceptions or at least edits for services where church discipline or missionaries in sensitive areas are discussed). At a minimum, they've livestreamed all three Sunday worship services for many years now. So livestreaming IS part of "worship as usual" at GCC.
The not meeting corporately is absolutely unusual, and you might want to make some points about that. But just so that you're aware: they've been doing livestreaming routinely for many years as part of their ministry to folks abroad, shut ins, etc.
The objection was never to livestreaming services, but using that as a substitute for physical fellowship. And in the context of this post, resorting to that simply in obeisance to a state diktat.
DeleteThis is not bowing to Caesar but being prudent about the health of people.
DeleteTotally irrelevant since that wasn't the rationale given on the church website. You're doing a bait-n-switch.
Delete2 different issues. You are confusing them. Also, the Scriptures tell us to be in subjection to the governing authorities. See Romans 13
DeleteYou're persistently inconsistent on this issue:
Deletei) I didn't confuse the two issues. You're the one who substituted a different issue. I specifically commented on the explanation provided by the church website (the public statement of the elders).
ii) Your statement also contradicts JMac's position in his original "We will not bow" sermon, in which he does advocate civil disobedience.
If we take what you think Mac meant then he would have to disobey Romans 13. You are indeed confusing 2 different issues. One is a moral issue and the other is a health safety issue.
Deletei) Once again, you're the one who keeps interjecting a public safety issue into the discussion. The explanation for cancelation of services wasn't predicated on a public safety issue. Why is it so hard for you to absorb that distinction? Just because *you* think the (alleged) public safety issue overrides meeting for worship has nothing to do with explanation provided by the elders on the website. Are you completely unable to untangle your own priorities from someone else's priorities?
Deleteii) The point of his "We will not bow" sermon is to defy the state when, by force of law, it tries to compel Christians to comply with homosexual marriage mandates. So from JMac's point of view, that overrides subjection to civil authorities (Rom 13).
Public safety is the issue here.
DeleteThere is a time to defy the state in moral matters such as homosexual "marriage" but not when public safety is at stake. It is you who has a problem with making a correct distinction between these 2 issues. Certainly Romans 13 applies to public safety while homosexual "marriage" does not.
*You* make think public safety is the issue here, but that's not the reason the elders gave for canceling services. You suffer from an incorrigible mental block when it comes to accurately representing the stated rationale. You keep projecting your own priorities onto the elders, when that wasn't what they said. It's a pity that you lack the critical detachment to state a position other than your own. The justification the church website offered wasn't because public safety is at stake. Why is it so difficult for you to honestly represent what was actually said? You simply retranslate it into your own priorities. In addition, you compound your confused interpretation with condescension. Not a stellar combination.
DeleteBTW, I've posted on the alleged public safety issue as well. So you beg the question.
Your interpretation is demonstrably false. The official explanation explicitly says they were planning to hold the usual service. So they didn't think that posed a threat to public safety. Rather, as they go on to say, they canceled the service because the new state edict forbad a public assembly larger than 250, and since it's a megachurch, they are way over the limit.
DeleteIf their motive for canceling services was public health and safety, they would have taken the initiative rather than waiting for the state to force their hand.
DeleteI don't think these orders are unconstitutional. If public gatherings were cancelled since who knows how long by the government during times of plague and this would be grandfathered in from English common law to America. I wouldn't extrapolate from a point in time of a health emergency to unconstitutionality more generally because it doesn't seem to set a precedent.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't about common law or limiting public gatherings in general, but a policy that dictates the size of Christian worship services. That's an unconstitutional infringement on the free exercise clause. Churches are exempt. There's a reason we have a written Constitution, including a Bill of Rights, rather than a common law system.
DeleteSince the 1st amendment is about the lack of a state religion and this is applied neutrally to all gatherings, it wouldn't be unconstitutional.
DeleteThe establishment clause is about the lack of a state religion, not the free exercise clause.
DeleteWhat evidence is there that this is being applied neutrally? Has that limit been imposed on supermarkets, bulk stories, Home Depot, &c.?
Moreover, even if it was neutral, that would still violate the free exercise clause since that acknowledges a specific right to the exercise of religion, whereas there is no Constitutional right for 500 people (pick a number) to assemble just anywhere.
DeleteFire marshals routinely set a maximum capacity of any building.
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that churches are exempt from those laws as well? If not, what's the difference?
If churches were being singled out, that'd be one thing. But they're not. Restaurants, bars, sports arenas and convention centers are all being held to the same standard.
That confuses two different things: You simply have larger sanctuaries for larger congregations. That's not an upper limit for social gatherings, but how many people to pack into a space of a particular size. The size of the room or building is correlated to the side of the crowd. Plus enough exits, fire extinguishers, &c.
DeleteAs for being singled out, are there police at entrances of supermarkets, bulk stores, shopping malls, Home Depot, &c, restricting the number of customers at a time?
1. I'm not sure why some people here seem to misunderstand Steve's point (even if they disagree with it)? It seems to me the point is that John MacArthur's church, Grace Community, was going to hold services as usual, but then they received an "order" from the "state authorities" to limit their numbers to 250, so they complied. Please see Grace's own website. That was their explicitly stated reason.
ReplyDelete2. Note Grace did not state on their website that they were concerned about public health (even though I assume that was looming in the back of people's minds). Rather they explicitly stated on their own website that they were "looking forward to our normal Sunday fellowship and worship". So they were going to go ahead and meet as normal. However, then they were "ordered by the state authorities" to limit the number of people at their worship service. So they complied.
3. Surely, this should be concerning to any Christian who values biblical priorities (cf. Acts 5:28-29)? That a megachurch like Grace is voluntarily acceding to the state's "order"?
4. The communist party in China allows Christians to meet, but only if they go to state-sanctioned churches. The communist party in China allows Christian pastors to preach sermons, but only if they preach state-sanctioned sermons. The communist party in China allows Christians to congregate, but only if they congregate within state-sanctioned limitations. My point isn't that Grace is anything like these state-sanctioned churches in China, but that's because our government isn't like the Chinese government. However, governments don't become like the Chinese government overnight. They do so in degrees and over time. Yet, if we don't resist the government encroaching on our rights today, when it's relatively easy to resist them, then when will we resist them? When it's too late?
Delete