Lux Lucet

We ought to obey God rather than men.

• Acts 5:29

“Rand Paul and Thomas Massie rip Kentucky governor for tracking license plates of Easter church attendees,” ran the headline in the Washington Examiner.  The story went on to detail the reactions of KY Senator Rand Paul and KY Representative Thomas Massie to KY Governor Andy Beshear’s Friday statement outlining the actions the state plans to take against Kentucky Christians who gather for in-person worship on Easter Sunday.  “Taking license plates at church?  Quarantining someone for being Christian on Easter Sunday?  Someone needs to take a step back here,” tweeted Senator Paul.

Although the statement from the Governor’s office makes the point that the “order is for all mass gatherings and not just worship services,”  given the timing of the announcement (Good Friday), the preface that references people of “multiple faiths”, the statement’s specific warning that, “anyone planning to attend an in-person mass gathering this weekend [Easter] will face quarantine orders, and the statement’s reference to six churches in the commonwealth that are still planning to hold in-person services,” it is fair to see this statement from the Governor’s office as directed at Christians in particular.

Governor Beshear’s stance is not unique.  Last week, Louisville mayor Greg Fischer barred drive-through church services in the city, saying that he can’t allow “hundreds of thousands” of people to drive around town this weekend in observance of Easter festivities when they need to be home riding out the COVID-19 pandemic.  Just yesterday (April 11) a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order filed by a Louisville church against Mayor Fischer.  In his ruling, which applied only to the church that brought the suit, Judge Justin Walker blasted the mayor’s decision to prohibit drive-in church services as ‘beyond all reason’ and akin to what one might find only in a dystopian novel.

Earlier this month, a Tampa, Florida pastor was arrested for holding church services in defiance of a county order.  He was charged with violating quarantine orders during a public health emergency and later posted a $500 bond and was released.

Some Reformed brethren may argue that the churches in Louisville and Tampa are not Reformed and, therefore, these cases do not concern us.  But it’s worth asking this question, would it matter if the pastors of these churches were rock ribbed, 5-point Calvinist Presbyterians?  It’s highly doubtful.  They would have been arrested just the same.

These and other examples raise the important question, what is the relationship between church and state?  Does the civil government have the right to tell churches they may not hold in-person worship services, or have the magistrates overstepped the proper limits of their authority when they arrest or threaten pastors and church members for attending Sunday worship? It’s doubtful most American Christians have even considered this question before.  It’s simply never come up.  But now that it has, how do we as Christians answer it?

Citing Romans 13:1-7, some Christians have concluded that they must obey all coronavirus related government orders prohibiting mass gatherings.  Romans 13:1-7 reads,

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. ² Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. ³ For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. ⁴ For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. ⁵ Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. ⁶ For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. ⁷ Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

For them, the command, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities,” and the conclusion, “Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves,” apply in the case of orders from the civil magistrate prohibiting in-person Sunday church gatherings.

Other Christians disagree, citing, for example, Jesus command to “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12.17).

It is this author’s studied conviction that the former group is in error and the latter group has the correct understanding to the relationship between church and state as set forth in the Scriptures.  What is more, this author believes the US Constitution is on the side of the latter group as well.

It is my goal in this post to defend the proposition that the government has no authority in matters related to church meetings and that by prohibiting in-person worship, these civil authorities have exceeded their rightful jurisdiction and have thereby sinned.  Further, it my conviction that this point can be proven from the Scriptures.

Before proceeding, it is worth noting what this argument is not as well as what it is.  This argument is not that churches are wrong to cancel in-person services and to seek alternate worship service arrangements due to concerns over coronavirus.  Citing 1 Cor. 11:13,  the Westminster Confession of Faith says, “Nevertheless, we acknowledge…that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” If a church Session believes that, in light of that church’s circumstances that it is best to suspend regular worship and institute some alternate form or worship such as internet video, then the Session is within its right to do so.  This author has no argument with such a decision.

My argument is simply this, that there is no support in Scripture for civil government to prohibit church meetings, whether it be on the Lord’s Day or any other day, and that those civil magistrates who do prohibit such gatherings of the Lord’s people have overstepped their God-given authority and are sinning thereby.

Let us turn now to the Scriptural proofs.

Romans 13:1-7, Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities…

Some argue that Romans 13:1-7, which begins “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities,” means that Christians are obligated to obey orders prohibiting Sunday church services.  Such persons almost seem to see Paul’s injunction in 13:1 as applying to all Christians in every circumstance without exception and that quoting this verse settles the matter.  When the civil magistrate says, “no church for you,” no counter argument is admissible.

Now it may be that this is not really their position.  It may be that those who cite Romans 13:1 would admit of exceptions.  But if so, then this weakens their position of quoting Romans 13:1 as if that verse by itself settled the matter.

In truth, one does not have to look very far to find that the Bible does not command Christians to blindly obey every command from the civil magistrate. For this point, I am indebted by my friend John Bradshaw.  Romans 13:3 reads, “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil.  Do you want to be unafraid of the authority?  Do what is good and you will have praise from the same.”

In light of this verse, let us ask ourselves this question, is attending Sunday worship a good work?  It was the practice of Christians from the earliest days of the New Testament church to gather on the first day of the week to break bread, to sing pslams, hymns and spiritual songs, to read the Word of God and to hear it preached.  Without a doubt these are good works.  Therefore, if Sunday worship is a good work, and clearly it is, then it is a work to which the civil magistrate is not to be a terror.  When public officials – governors, mayors and police chiefs – threaten pastors and church members with fines and house arrest merely for attending Sunday worship, they are being a terror to good works, have overstepped their authority and are sinning.

Worth noting is that, unlike Kentucky Governor Beshear, there are some civil magistrates who still have respect for the God-appointed limits to their authority.  For example, the Ohio Department of Health’s Stay At Home Order explicitly names “Religious entities” – a term which includes “Religious facilities, entities and groups and religious gatherings, including weddings and funerals” – among the “Essential Businesses and Operations” that are exempt from Governor Mike DeWine’s Stay At Home Order.  Likewise, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s order exempts houses of worship from the statewide ban on mass gatherings.  “That’s an area we don’t have the ability to directly enforce or control,” Whitmer was quoted as saying on Fox News Sunday.  She also noted that “her hands were tied by the separation of church and state.”

In the opinion of this author, the argument presented here is enough by itself to prove that governors have no right to prohibit in-person Sunday services. But there are additional passages of Scripture that further buttress this argument.  Let’s look at them.

Acts 4:1-22 and 5:26-32, We ought to obey God rather than men

In Acts chapters 4 and 5, we have recorded for us two examples of an attempt to suppress the preaching of the gospel by the civil authorities.  In Acts 4, “priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees” arrested Peter and John and put them in prison.  The next day they questioned the apostles, “commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus,” then threatened them and let them go.

Not long thereafter, the apostles were arrested a second time and again were brought before the ruling council.  The rulers said to them, “Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this [Jesus] name? “ To which Peter and the other apostles answered, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

If, as some appear to argue from Romans 13, that Christians are to “be subject to the governing authorities” without exception, then this implies that Peter and the other apostles sinned by responding as they did to the Sanhedrin.  What they should have done, if in fact Christians are to obey all orders by the civil magistrate without exception, is to have apologized to the Sanhedrin for disregarding their earlier command, ignored Jesus injunction to preach the word and to baptize, and gone back to their fishing nets.

But that’s not what they did, and very clearly their actions were not sinful, as the context makes clear.  Acts 5:40-42 records for us that the Sanhedrin physically beat the apostles and that they, “departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name.”  Had the apostles been beaten for their faults, as Peter tells us, there would have been no honor in their taking it patiently.  “But,” as 1 Peter 2:21 relates, “when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God.” Perhaps Peter had his beating before the Sanhedrin in mind when he wrote this passage.

So how do we reconcile the apostles’ disobedience to the “governing authorities” with Romans 13 which reads, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities?”  Simply this, right and wrong are not determined by government fiat, but by the Word or God.  John Robbins explains,

The Bible teaches that the distinction between right and wrong depends entirely upon the commands of God. There is no natural law that makes actions right or wrong, and matters of right and wrong certainly cannot be decided by majority vote. In the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, “sin is any want of conformity to or transgression of the law of God.’’ Were there no law of God, there would be no right or wrong.

This may be seen very clearly in God’s command to Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Only the command of God made eating the fruit sin. It may also be seen in God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. God’s command alone made the sacrifice right, and Abraham hastened to obey. Strange as it may sound to modern ears used to hearing so much about the right to life, the right to health, and the right to choose, the Bible says that natural rights and wrongs do not exist: Only God’s commands make some things right and other things wrong. In the Old Testament, it was a sin for the Jews to eat pork. Today, we can all enjoy bacon and eggs for breakfast. What makes killing a human being and eating pork right or wrong is not some quality inherent in men and pigs, but merely the divine command itself (“What Is Christian Philosophy?”).

We in the West, the nations to which the Reformation came, have been greatly blessed to live in societies that have had their institutions largely formed in light of Biblical principles.  As a result, most of us have not been forced to choose between obeying God and obeying the civil magistrate.  Christians in other parts of the world have not always been so blessed.   But as the doctrines of the Reformation fade from the minds of men in the formerly Christian West, believers can expect more and more to find themselves in situations, as were the apostles, of having to choose between obeying God and obeying man.  May we, as did the apostles, make the right choice.

Mark 12:17, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s

Much like Romans 13, this saying of Jesus is often used to argue that the Bible teaches that Christians are to obey the civil government with little of no exception.  On this assumption, when Caesar tells us to jump, we are required to respond “how high” without giving any consideration to whether it is appropriate for Caesar to command us to jump in the first place.

While it is my belief that many Christians who argue this way are well-intentioned, those who do so are unwittingly endorsing totalitarianism, a state of affairs in which everything belongs to Caesar and he can do with his things whatever the wants.  But as Jesus’ full statement clearly teaches, some things do not belong to Caesar.  Again, John Robbins explains,

Just as when Christ said render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the thing that are God’s, you have for the first time a challenge to the totalitarian state of Greece and Rome. Up to then everything was Caesar’s.  Everything was rendered to Caesar. Or everything was rendered to the polis.  The polis could kill Socrates for corrupting the youth of Athens. But Christ first made the distinction, he said some things were Caesar’s and some things were not Caesar’s. And we’re to render to each what is his due (“Money, Freedom, and the Bible” 35:25).

So to whom does the Church belong, to Caesar or to Christ? Obviously, it belongs to Christ.  Referencing Colossians 1:18, the Westminster Confession puts it this way, “There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof. but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.” It is the Church of Jesus Christ.  He alone is the head of it.  It is Christ’s Church, not Caesar’s, and certainly not the Pope’s.  And it is to Christ that the Church owes obedience.  If Christ tells Christians to do one thing – gather on the first day of the week, for example – it is not the place of Caesar to order them to do otherwise.

Separation of Church and State, the Biblical Case

Due at least in part to the activities of the American Civil Liberties Union, some Christians have concluded that the separation of church and state is an anti-Christian idea.  But far from being anti-Christian, this doctrine can be found in Scripture.  Jesus statement above, where he commands that we render to Caesar what is his and to God those things belonging to God imply separation of Church and state.  But there’s more in Scripture concerning this idea.

It has been argued by some, and this author concurs, that there are three types of government discussed in Scripture: family, church and state, each one having a different area of responsibility.  To fathers is given the power of the rod, to discipline their children.  The church has the power of the keys, that is, to preach the gospel.  Civil government has the power of the sword, to punish evildoers.

Consistent with the idea that there are different types of government with different areas of authority is the notion of separation of church and state.  One can see the separation of church and state even in the theocracy of the Old Testament.  For example, Hebrew kings, while having authority over the nation’s civil affairs, were not to arrogate to themselves the functions of the priest.  2 Chronicles 26:16-23 relates what happened when King Uzziah attempted to burn incense in the temple.  He was confronted by the chief priest Azariah and eighty other priests, became angry at them, and was immediately struck with leprosy.   It was on the principle of separation of church and state that, as John Robbins noted in his essay “Christians and the Civil War,” Tennessee’s 1796 Constitution forbade church ministers for holding legislative office.  As civil magistrates are not to interfere in the affairs of the church, so too are ministers not to interfere in the affairs of the state.

As long as the government sticks to its area of responsibility, it does well.  But when a government official (family, church or state) oversteps his bounds, he has sinned.  Fathers, for example, do not have the power to put their children to death.  Roman law acknowledged something called patria potestas (Latin:  “power of a father), which included the power to put inflict capital punishment on his children.  Biblical law acknowledges no such thing, but reserves capital punishment to the state.

Just as fathers overstep their just authority if they attempt to kill their children, so too do governors overstep their authority when they attempt to prohibit church meetings.  They are civil government officials and have authority over the affairs of the state.  They do not have authority over when the local church conducts its worship services any more than King Uzziah had the authority to burn incense in the temple.  When Governor Andy Beshear threatens Christians with having their license plates recorded by government officials and with being placed under a 14-day house arrest for attending Sunday service, he has overstepped his God-given authority and is sinning.  And this is quite apart from any Constitutional problems that may attend to his order.

Closing Thoughts

In closing, God has ordained government, both civil government and church government.  Just as it is improper for church government to dictate to the civil government, so too is it improper for the civil government to dictate to the church what it ought to do.  When civil authorities prohibit Christians from meeting in person on the Lord’s Day they overstep their God-appointed authority and thereby sin.

This is not to say that it is wrong for churches to decide on alternate worship arrangements in light of their circumstances, but that decision properly lies with the individual church Session and not with any president, governor, commissioner, or mayor.   In the opinion of this author, by prohibiting churches from gathering on the Lord’s Day, governments – federal, state and local – in the United States, as well as governments in many other nations, have abandoned their proper sphere of authority and have crossed over into a form of incipient technocratic totalitarianism – see, for example, this article which explains Bill Gates’ proposal to create “biometric identification technologies” that will allow governments to monitor who has had his state approved vaccinations; this proposal is straight out of Nazi Germany and, perhaps, even Revelation 13, which tells us that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark of the beast –  which, if left unchecked, threatens, not just our liberty to worship God, but every single one of our other liberties as well, both political and economic.

Jesus said, “Therefore if the Son of Man makes you free, you shall be free indeed.”  This is true spiritually, but it’s also true politically and economically.  This can be seen in the unprecedented liberty and prosperity enjoyed by citizens of the West since the time of the Reformation.  But these liberties are under dire threat in the early 21^st century from governors and bureaucrats who know not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but worship instead the secular god of the state.  This is not progress, as it often styled, but rather represents a recrudescence of pagan totalitarianism of the sort Jesus spoke of when rebuked the disciples for arguing about who was the greatest.

Jesus said, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them [one could translate this more colloquially as “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them”], and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors’ “(Luke 22:25).    Not only did the ancient kings lord it over their people, but while doing so they also styled themselves “benefactors” of their people.  Indeed, many rulers in the ancient world bore the title “Euergetes” (Greek:  benefactor), and perhaps Christ had these men in mind when making his statement.  “But,” Jesus continued, “not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves.” This is the basis for the idea of government as servant of the people.  It is a Christian concept.

As America and the rest of the formerly Christian West becomes more and more pagan in its political theory and practice, it should come as no surprise that Western governments are abandoning the principles of individual liberty and tending more and more to the historical default position of totalitarianism.  If Christians are to have any hope of pushing back on the “Benefactors” of this present age, their only hope is in Jesus Christ and in his Word, what the Apostle Paul called “the sword of the Spirit.”  It is by the Word of God that Christians pull down strongholds, cast down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God.   In this time of testing, may the Lord grant that we, his people, heed the admonition of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians, “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.”