Ten Short Theses on Churches, Wisdom, and Civil Disobedience
Government prediction about the number of COVID-19 deaths was drastically overplayed, as was the rate of mortality. As always, humility and fallibility about the present should inform how we’ll look backward in the future.
Government, in some jurisdictions, has been inconsistent in its application of equal treatment under the law: Numerous officials have turned a blind eye, or even promoted protests (public, or otherwise) under the First Amendment, while treating other entities unequally, including churches. Inside and outside distinctions are irrelevant when the operative principle underlying our response is shared responsibility by all citizens alike.
The government has been inconsistent at the level of moral principle on what constitutes an essential service. Abortion kills more than COVID-19, yet death-by-abortion is deemed not only permissible but “essential.” Other examples abound, but moral incoherence serves no one and undermines everything the government is appointed to do (1 Pet. 2:14).
Based on what we know now about COVID, the government cannot maintain its original argument toward churches with the underlying inaccuracies and inconsistencies undermining its credibility to demand obedience.
Christians and churches should not judge other Christians or churches who do not take the same approach to hosting in-person worship gatherings (Rom. 14:10).
It is advisable that churches that meet together in-person implement sensible policies that protect all parties.
While Christ has ultimate authority over his church, Romans 13, I believe, authorized the government to call for a temporary halt to in-person gatherings. With statistical inaccuracy, moral incoherence, and legal inconsistency, I believe authorized legitimacy to suspend in-person meetings has expired. To that end, the government should be continually revising and seeking to narrowly tailor its policies to restrict incursions on associational liberty.
For the sake of intellectual honesty and clarity, churches that initially suspended services by appealing to Romans 13 should be forthcoming about why they believe Romans 13 is no longer operative. One pastor I spoke with said that 1 Tim. 2:1-2 was more operative in their immediate decision to suspend churches than was their belief that Romans 13 allowed the government to have carte blanche authority over its gatherings. I find that compelling.
Civil disobedience does not absolve churches from acting with wisdom toward its gatherings, nor does it require disregarding otherwise sensible prevention measures.
Love of neighbor—whether for the believing or unbelieving neighbor—and support for in-person gatherings requires preventing the spread of COVID-19 and anticipating and evaluating policies should a spike in infections occur.