During this current pandemic and the accompanying states of emergency, stay-at-home orders and measures taken by state governments in an attempt to stop its spread, at least to avoid overwhelming hospitals and trying to save lives, the political climate of the day has contributed to a conversation centered around whether or not a state government, specifically a governor, has the authority to include churches in executive orders which limit the size and scope of public gatherings. The courts, and inevitably the Supreme Court, have been called on to interpret the constitutionality of their executive orders and the extent of their authority.
In a decision specific to a California congregation, the court majority ruled that churches are subject to a governor's emergency executive orders, specifically, orders which limit the size of a gathering during a pandemic. You can read the media account of their ruling here. The ruling would also have applied to two Chicago-area churches who had also filed a case with the Supreme Court but the governor changed his executive order when the state moved to a new phase of its re-opening plan. There has been a lot of muttering, along with some outright civil disobedience, on the part of some churches over whether closing churches is a violation of the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. The correct course for churches to pursue in this regard was the pathway through the court system. The incorrect course, according to the Bible, would be civil disobedience.
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. Romans 13:1-7, ESV
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. I Peter 3:13-17, ESV
These are the words of two of the most prominent Christian Apostles to the churches. They have a meaning within the specific context that they were written and there is an interpretation that provides relevant instruction to the church today. There are some additional scripture passages, among them Jesus' own words, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's", in Matthew 22:21. Paul puts some clarification to the context behind these words in explaining how Christians in the Corinthian church should handle the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols. It was an issue that went to the very core of the church's testimony of faith in Christ. A church that was seen as rebellious against the governing authority would be seen as just another faction, not as a church bringing a message of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus.
There are no places in the scripture where there is an "opt-out" or an exception to the principles given by the church's apostles in these two passages of scripture. And while there are a few examples in the New Testament where Christians found themselves at odds with the civil government regarding the restriction of their activity, instead of resistance or civil disobedience, they followed the principles outlined in these scriptures, accepting the consequences that came as a result of their actions.
Paul was a Roman citizen and invoked the rights of his citizenship on multiple occasions to clear a pathway for the gospel ministry to move forward. This included his eventual appeal to Caesar. Had Paul been labeled as a troublemaker, rebel, or been involved in civil disobedience as a result of the wrongs done to him by the government authorities, he likely would not have survived. As it was, his demeanor led to his being permitted to live in a house and continue his gospel ministry in Rome while waiting on his appeal.
The argument that Christians don't have to apply these verses to a "tyrannical" government, or one that doesn't reflect their values has no Biblical support. In fact, it would not be very many years after these words were written that one of the emperors whom Peter says to honor would begin to distinguish the Christian church from Judaism, perceive that its growth and spread, visible within the city of Rome itself, was a threat to his authority and to his rule and would light the fires of persecution that would result in the deaths of literally thousands upon thousands of Christians and last for over 200 years. If the church had responded by rebellion or civil disobedience, it would have been wiped out when its numbers were decimated. But it was the steadfastness of their obedience to Christ, visible in their obedience to these specific passages of scripture, that amplified their testimony among their neighbors, convincing them that Jesus must have been real if he was worth obedience to the point of death. By the beginning of the third century, evangelism had overwhelmed most of the empire, leading to the conversion of the emperor himself.
I've seen some attempts to justify bypassing the literal application of these passages from Old Testament examples. But the context in the Old Testament doesn't apply here. These passages were instructions given to the church in the first century, not to Israel in captivity so the example of both Daniel and that of Shadrack, Meshach and Abednego do not apply. God allowed the captivity of Israel as punishment for disobedience to his law. Through his prophets, he gave a direct word to Israel regarding his expectations for their obedience during their captivity and for those who were obedient. And while the Old Testament makes a clear distinction between the theocratic government of Israel and the surrounding pagans, the Apostles established a church that would transcend the artificial divisions of humanity and be capable of spiritual transformation through the gospel of Jesus Christ in any culture or nation.
Peter makes this distinction very clear:
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. I Peter 2:9, ESV
Those words are written to the church, made up of a variety of different nationalities, cultures, former religious backgrounds, races and even economic status.
Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all. Colossians 3:11, ESV
There's no question that the early church faced far more opposition and found themselves at odds with the civil government of their day in far more serious and consequential ways than the American church faces in a democratic republic where its members have been a dominant force in the political system and a majority of the members of the elected government at every level are also professing members of Christ's church. There is no comparison between the persecution that the early church faced at the hands of the Roman emperors and a disagreement with the political position of some members of the various levels of government entities in America. What others have endured for the cause of Christ makes our grumbling and complaining pitifully petty.
Nothing about the American system of government in any way resembles the context of the times during which Peter and Paul wrote those words. Executive orders and emergency restrictions issued by governors of various states (irregardless of partisan political affiliation, since such orders were issued across the board by Republican and Democratic governors and mayors alike and some of the more restrictive orders were issued by Republican governors) are not some kind of sign of an outbreak of persecution against Christians.
In the broad, collective definition of the term "church" as it applies to the institutions which exist in the United States, Christianity is still the biggest single influence at virtually every level of government, from municipal to state to federal and there is no other place in the world where the Christian churches receive anywhere near as much government favor. The churches and church-related institutions in this country just received billions in government assistance for their payrolls and expenses, including churches themselves, which used the funds to pay pastors, church employees and missionaries serving in the field.
It would have set a better example, and been more in line with the mission and purpose of the church, if more Christians would have looked at the pandemic as an opportunity to step up and do more in the way of outreach and ministry, and less whining and complaining about infringement on rights that they still have and privileges which go beyond the scope of government "neutrality" toward religion and which still cross the line of church-state separation.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment