Some pushback from my original post:
@Phil_Johnson_The GCC elders discussed whether the California ban on large gatherings is an Acts 5:29 issue or a Romans 13:1 situation.Our consensus was that since this is a health emergency and applies to everyone (as opposed to a decree targeting the church for persecution) we’re going to act in accord with Romans 13.
Problem with Phil's explanation is that it stands at odds with the official rationale:
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.
Not only does the official rationale fail to mention a "health emergency" as the motivating factor, but it's contrary to the official rationale they do give, which is that they were planning to hold services as usual, and only canceled the service when the state forced their hand. But if the health emergency was their motivation, they'd take the initiative rather than waiting for the state mandated closure (of services over the arbitrary numerical limit).
For his part,
@Fred_ButlerGiven the current health crisis, no one is currently concerned about constitutional rights.
Well, that's a rather damning oversight. When the state abrogates the authority to regulate the size of Christian gatherings, that's a serious issue.
Finishes w/ some odd comment about live streaming and bending the outbreak curve or something.
Nothing odd about that: the oft-cited rationalization is that we need to practice social distancing to flatten the outbreak curve. Large social gatherings supposedly contribute to the exponential infection rate. That's not a statement of my own position.
complains this is the state disrupting worship. Well, other than GCC's 4K plus members told to stay home, we held the standard worship service today. No disruption. Back to normal in a couple of Sundays.
It's not disruptive to public worship when a state mandate forces GCC's 4K plus members to say home rather than meet together for corporate fellowship?
All this simply because a state official picks a figure out of the hat about the size of public gatherings. There's a failure by Phil and Fred to integrate Rom 13 into the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But under our system of gov't, the Rom 13 principle is mediated by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Citizens are in submission to gov't via the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
“Pushback”? That Tweet-thread from me was posted 2 days *before* you made your blogpost criticizing the elders’ decision. The facts were available (and had been widely circulating for 48 hours) if you had actually bothered looking into it.
ReplyDeleteThe pushback includes Fred Butler's response. And your reply is not a substantive rebuttal to this post or the original post.
DeleteOn one hand, I struggle to drum up sympathy for megachurches being hindered from holding their services. People would do well to leave them and never come back.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, a 250 person church very likely represents 60-70 families, about the practical maximum that a minister can substantively get to know (and actually, that's probably on the high/optimistic side).
"Well, other than GCC's 4K plus members told to stay home, we held the standard worship service today. No disruption." That unintentionally says a lot about the quality of the "standard worship service".
On the other hand, trotting out Romans 13 to justify the government putting the kibosh on worship services of any kind certainly won't do. Obviously in Paul's context he wouldn't have included prohibitions of public worship for Christian churches as being a legitimate use of the magistrate's sword.
Steve, I've read you for years, and consistently appreciate your thoughts. But you're being unreasonably difficult and nitpicky on this one. Isn't it obvious that the health emergency was a motivating factor? Do they really have to spell that out in their statement? I understand they were "planning to have service as usual" but changed their plans when the government said to limit gatherings. But that doesn't mean health concerns were not a motivating factor. They obviously were. You raised the question, then why didn't they already plan to cancel services? Probably because they weren't yet aware of the severity of the situation. And it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the government's restriction was what made the elders more aware of the severity. Moreover, it's also obvious that the government's restriction itself is motivated by public health concerns, and not Christian persecution. The most you can reasonably say is that perhaps the statement could have been worded better. But it's not worth wrangling over. And to claim that it represents "bowing down to the state" is just blowing things out of proportion. Big time.
ReplyDelete"Isn't it obvious that the health emergency was a motivating factor?"
DeleteNo it's not, since they are now offering contradictory explanations.
"Probably because they weren't yet aware of the severity of the situation. And it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the government's restriction was what made the elders more aware of the severity."
i) That's quite implausible. We've been subjected to saturation media coverage regarding the (alleged) severity of the situation and the preferred solution (social distancing). They certainly didn't need a state order to apprise them of that instant trope.
ii) Moreover, I don't presume that the elders at Grace Church necessarily share the outlook of state officials regarding the solution to the pandemic. I don't know for a fact that the elders regard radical social distancing or lockdowns as the solution. And I doubt they'd concede that congregations larger than 250 pose a threat to public health and safety. Why is that supposed to be obvious to elders who oversee a church with 4K members?
"Moreover, it's also obvious that the government's restriction itself is motivated by public health concerns, and not Christian persecution."
I never said it was motivated by Christian persecution. But when gov't dictates the size of church services, that should be a cause for alarm, and I'm struck by how many evangelicals are so passive, acquiescent, and shortsighted about it.
"But it's not worth wrangling over. And to claim that it represents 'bowing down to the state' is just blowing things out of proportion. Big time."
JMac was the one who cast the issue in those terms with his "We Will Not Bow" sermon. I'm just holding him to his own words and measuring his actions by his own yardstick.
It's not asking too much that evangelical leaders be morally and logical consistent. It's not asking too much that they have the foresight to anticipate the abuse of gov't authority in relation to the church.