Fourteen months ago, we entered into an era unlike any other in our lifetime. The COVID-19 pandemic changed almost everything about our daily routines. Churches had to wrestle with the question of how to respond to the crisis. On the one hand, we had to consider the health of church members and our testimony with the lost. On the other hand, there was the danger of neglecting our Biblical obligations to evangelize and edify corporately and in person.
I published an article last year based on Romans 14 encouraging believers to respect the decisions of other churches and Christian leaders when those decisions differed from their own. Each of us will answer to God for the decisions we make, so, in matters of conscience where the Bible does speak directly to an issue, we must not judge others but give them the liberty to act as they believe the Lord would have them act.
One of the most common points of contention was whether to suspend in-person services for a time. Many felt that it was necessary to do so for a short period until COVID-19 was better understood. Some felt that any deviation from the regular services schedule displayed a lack of faith and was akin to apostasy. Everyone needed to show grace and deference as pastors and churches weighed their specific circumstances and sought wisdom from God for how to proceed.
But then a disturbing trend emerged. State and local governments across the country began to demand that churches cease in-person meetings. Later, when governments began lifting restrictions, some placed limits on attendance. Bureaucrats and elected officials began dictating to churches how they must conduct their services. In some cases, the restrictions on churches were greater than those on businesses. Any unbiased observer could see that some officials were attempting to assert authority over the church. In every case, there was a clear message being sent: the government can tell the church what to do.
Astonishingly, some men who we might have expected to resist government interference in the church caved to the governments’ demands, refused to meet in person until a politician said they could, and placed the rules of government above the Word of God. This was done not solely out of concern for others’ health or the church’s testimony in the community but simply to comply with a government mandate. Those who decided to return to services only when the government granted them permission proved who they were truly following in these matters.
Many turned to Romans 13 to justify their submission to government restrictions on the church. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers” meant, in this instance, we must obey when the government suspends the right of Christians to gather in person. We must obey the government that is just trying to keep us safe. Christians accepted government control of churches.
But not all did. Many refused to concede that the government can tell the church who can gather, when they can gather, or what they can do when they gather. I stand with them, and I do so based on that same passage some others have used to justify their acceptance of government control of the church.
Romans 13:1-5 teaches that we must obey the government. “The powers that be are ordained of God.” To be in rebellion against God-given government is to be in rebellion against God. How then can this passage be used to justify disobeying the orders and laws of government? An important and often overlooked detail in Romans 13:1-5 is the proper role of government. “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:” (Romans 13:3) The Biblical purpose of government is to punish evil and promote good as God defines evil and good. As long as the government does this, we are obligated to submit. But when a government usurps God’s authority and begins to promote evil and punish good, we must resist. In such an instance, rebellion is the right course of action. “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)
The issue becomes complicated because the church exists in the physical world ruled by human government. When a church gathers, it gathers in a physical location, often under the jurisdiction of multiple levels of government. Those governments can regulate certain physical aspects of the church property. Building and fire codes are typical examples of this. As long as those regulations do not interfere with the Biblical mission of the church, they are acceptable. But the moment that government impedes a church’s ability to fulfill its God-given mission as it believes God is leading, that government has overstepped its Biblical authority.
For example, God says the church should regularly gather in person to exhort and instruct each other. (Hebrews 10:25) If the government says we cannot meet, for whatever reason, we should meet anyway. Maybe we meet in a different location. Maybe we modify our seating arrangement. But by every means available, we meet because God says we must. God also says the church should sing. (Ephesians 5:19) If the government says we cannot sing, we sing anyway. God says we must “preach the word.” ( 2 Timothy 4:2) If the government says that there are portions of the Bible that we cannot preach because they are offensive, we preach them anyway.
In an ironic twist, many of the same preachers who would applaud a missionary for going to a “creative access” country to illegally preach the gospel condemned pastors in their own country who disobeyed state and local officials by holding in-person services. Why would it be commendable to defy the unbiblical laws of foreign governments but condemnable to defy unbiblical (and, in many cases, unconstitutional) laws of our own governments? If we are to be consistent, then we must either stop all missionary efforts in closed countries or stop allowing our governments to control our churches’ activities.
There is also the problematic issue of the church becoming a law-enforcement arm of the state. Scripturally, the church and the state are two distinct entities, each with separate realms of authority. When a government demands that churches enforce its laws, such as mask mandates, social distancing, or limiting the number of people gathered, it is attempting to use churches as an auxiliary policing force. Some churches might decide to ask attenders to follow such guidelines because they genuinely think it is best for the health of others. But the government has no right to require churches to act as law enforcement agents.
Some would argue that Romans 14 should apply in this case. It might be the conviction of some believers that the church should be in submission to the government’s control in this matter. Therefore, we should not judge them for following laws that limit when, if, and how they gather in person as a local church. But such an argument is self-refuting. If we argue that Christians (or churches) must be free to follow God in matters of conscience as they believe best and that other believers should not judge them if they arrive at different conclusions, then we must also argue that the state should afford Christians and churches the same freedom. If we should not judge our brethren in matters of conscience, then the state should not either.
The end of the argument is this: there is only one Head of the church, and He is the Lord Jesus Christ. He is “the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. (Ephesians 1:22-23) He purchased the church with His Own blood. (Acts 20:28) The church is His bride and answerable to Him alone. (Ephesians 5:24) To yield control of the church to human government is to make the bride of Christ an adulterous wife.
Instead of relying on secular authorities, Christians and churches should depend on the Lord’s guidance for their unique situation. The truth of 1 Corinthians 6 certainly applies in this instance. In that chapter, Paul chastises the Corinthians believers for taking each other to court over material disputes. He instructed them to settle their disputes in the church instead of relying on the judgment of unbelievers. He wrote, “Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?” (1 Corinthians 6:2-3) If this is true in material matters, then it is also true in spiritual matters. If, when, and how a church meets is, first and foremost, a spiritual question. Using the wisdom that God gives, we can evaluate our circumstances in the light of Scripture and, in dependence on the Holy Spirit, decide for ourselves what God would have us do. There is simply no need for the church or Christians to look to secular government to answer these kinds of spiritual questions.
Our forefathers met in caves and catacombs rather than disobey God’s command to gather in person regularly. For them, faithfulness to God was more important than obeying unscriptural laws. When submission to human government means disobeying the Word of Christ, we must rebel against the government in that case, or else commit high treason against the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
Copyright © 2021 Steven Chambers. All Rights Reserved. Used By Permission.
