By Joel Nelson, Guest Series
Purpose of Weekly Church Gatherings
The Body of Christ is called not to imitate the practices of the world, including its darkness and fears, but rather to walk as children of light to try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord, and to take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness but instead expose them (Eph. 5:9-11). The cultural contrast necessitated by walking in the light, and exposing the works of darkness, may be uncomfortable. It may be foreign, even shocking to the sensibilities of those outside the church. This should be expected when two cultures collide. But even so, some may question whether it is prudent or appropriate for this contrast to be exhibited during a time of societal upheaval. Specifically, when the rest of society comes to a standstill and goes indoors out of fear of contagion, should the church situated in today’s world follow society’s lead and also retreat, or should it continue to meet to worship, sing and pray? We will now focus on this question.
For context, the arguments in this essay are predicated upon specific assumptions regarding the church, its union with Christ, and its position in the world.[i] It is assumed throughout this essay that the primary purpose of weekly assembled gatherings of the covenant people of God is worship, not evangelism to nonchristians. Within this context, evangelism takes the form of members of the church body going out from the weekly assembly to the world to witness and evangelize. Thus, the purpose of the assembled gathering is not primarily that of outreach, or attracting those outside to come in. Rather, as Jeff Meyers wrote in The Lord’s Service, it is a family gathering for access to the sanctuary.
In fact, within this assembly of the baptized covenant community, the assembled saints before YHWH’s throne may be so counter-cultural, so unique compared to ordinary society and civic gatherings, that the unbeliever who enters may be “convicted by all, called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you” (1 Cor. 14:24-25). The nature, format, even style of the corporate assembly is modeled on heavenly patterns, not on the whims and styles of contemporary cultural practices (whether legislative assemblies or modes of entertainment such as “TED Talks” or music concerts). It follows, then, that the culture of that assembly will not be congruous to outside cultural practices as well. Peter Leithart notes in The Baptized Body that “the church, as the body of Christ made up of baptized believers, is a separate culture, a separated and holy people” from that of the surrounding world. And as a separate culture, rather than a religious organization within an existing culture, “it has its own internal political and social configuration, its own language, rites, and disciplines.” As such, “what will outsiders think of our worship practices” ought not to be the deciding factor or overarching concern of the local church body.
Scripture References Regarding Submission to Government Authorities
Three New Testament Scripture references are likely to be cited by those who take the position that the local church (both as a non-profit corporation operating within the laws of the various concentric jurisdictions in which it is located[ii] and as the ecclesial community of baptized Christians) is to defer to the authorities. These are Romans 13 (“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities… whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed”), Titus 3:1 (“Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities…”), and 1 Peter 2:13-17 (“Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution… for this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.”)
These Scriptural exhortations may initially appear to offer a convincing argument that it is the proper duty of local churches to submit to whatever the authorities pass down (including by illegitimate means), on the grounds that the authorities themselves are ministers of God (Rom. 13:6) and to “be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution” (1 Pet. 2:13). It is true that during this season many are asserting exactly that. But in the Christian faith the church is not merely another human institution, but rather the primary institution.[iii] It is an outpost of the future city of God. The rulers of the church are not merely one among several types of community leaders and organizers. Though they are physically among them, they are leaders of a separate society among the cities of men. The church exists in cities and nations of the world— but it is not of these cities and nations. It may look similar from the street, but the local church is not the equivalent of the local country club or local businessmen’s group. Thus, it should not automatically be accepted that the local church must operate under the same regulations or guidelines as do these other groups.
Applying the Reformational principle of interpreting Scripture with Scripture and with regard for the original context, there is considerable evidence that the first-century Christians scattered around the Roman Empire would not have interpreted these commands to mean that they must comply if an authority said to stop meeting or stop preaching the name of Jesus. These are but some of the instances where the early Christians were given clear directives from authorities but defied the directives of men in order to continue to carry out the commands of Christ:
- Acts 4:18: “So
they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of
Jesus.”
- Acts 4:31: “…they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.”
- Acts 5:28: “We
strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled
Jerusalem with your teaching.”
- Acts 5:29: “But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men.’”
- Acts 5:40: “[And]
when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to
speak in the name of Jesus…”
- Acts 5:42: “And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus.”
Although 1 Peter 2:13-17 does contain an exhortation to “be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution,” it is evident that the apostles and other Christians did not “get creative” in the face of local orders to stop teaching, but instead openly and directly continued to preach the name of Jesus, obeying God rather than men. The apostles continued to engage in worship, preaching and teaching in the Temple and from house to house against the rulers’ commands. The exhortations in Scripture to obey authorities clearly do not supersede the commands to obey the Word of God.
The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIII, section 3, states the following regarding limits on the reach of governments or “civil magistrates”:
Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in the matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.
Could there be room for a compromise with
governmental officials, for example heeding the order outwardly while still
inwardly worshiping in secret (or by “Zoom”)? There is considerable support for
this view, both present-day and historical (at least as far back as the 16th
century A.D.). However, the theological basis for this is at least in part
grounded in dualistic demarcations which regard the “physical” as distinct from
and lesser than the “spiritual” and the “visible” as inferior to that which is
“invisible.” Further theological treatment of such dualisms and their
historical basis and precedent must be outside the scope of this essay.[iv]
However, even as some traditions within the Christian faith are more compatible
with physical/spiritual or visible/invisible distinctions, some are not. If a
government bans bodily worship, singing, baptism and the Lord’s Supper with the
excuse that those aspects of the Christian faith are non-essential, then such action
amounts to giving preference to certain denominations over others (in violation
of the role of the Civil Magistrate as defined in the Westminster Confession).
The example of Daniel in the Old Testament should be considered as applicable
in this context:
- Daniel 6:7: “All
the high officials of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the counselors
and the governors are agreed that the king should establish an ordinance and
enforce an injunction, that whoever makes petition to any god or man for thirty
days, except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions.”
- Daniel 6:10: “When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem. He got down on his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously.”
It is likely that jealous high officials of the Medo-Persian empire would never have known Daniel continued to pray, and that Daniel would have never been arrested, had Daniel simply closed his windows, or prayed in a secret inner room where he would not be visible to the outside world. This was not even a permanent change in legislation, but rather a thirty-day executive order. To many Western evangelical readers this likely would seem to be an obvious “missional” accommodation to local culture. But it is evident that in order for Daniel to be a faithful witness to YHWH and recognizing YHWH as a higher authority than even Cyrus the Great/Darius the Mede, he must continue doing exactly as he had done before the illegitimate order was signed.
Limitations on the Scope of Government Authority
The purpose of examining these Scriptures and points of doctrine is not to condemn or disparage those denominations whose confessions and standards allow an easy transition to remote worship and teaching by way of a television screen. This essay assumes a specific format and purpose for the Sunday worship assembly, and as such may lack direct application for other church traditions. However, within this context, it is this author’s assertion that many COVID-19 executive orders are in violation of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 23, section 3. As such, it is this author’s position that COVID-19 orders which infringe upon church assemblies, sacramental practices, and the liturgy of the church (for example restrictions upon singing) are not legitimate, “wholesome” orders protected by the commands contained within Romans 13, Titus 3:1, or 1 Peter 2:13. The evidence in the Biblical record, Old and New Testaments alike, and the examples of Christians throughout history including in times of plague, do not support the notion that it is the duty of Christians to forsake assembly (or modify the liturgy such as to remove all singing) when ordered to by civil authorities. The civil authorities may not take kindly to this, as Peter Leithart has noted in his book Against Christianity: “Suppose the king… [tells] the Church where it can and cannot speak, what it can and cannot do. In that case too, a clash is inevitable and, again, kings have a hard time winning such battles. Besides, once the king decides to police the boundaries of the Church, he is again making claims of a constitutional order about the extent of his power.”
Calvin, in Institutes of the Christian Religion, addressed the great difference and unlikeness between ecclesiastical and civil power. The two have distinct areas of responsibility with some overlap (for example, prosecution of crimes which are both civil offenses as well as moral sins). The office of the pastor and the office of the civil ruler are so distinct as to be impossible to bring them together in one man, and each has a specific and unique office. When there is overlap between civil rulers and the church, Calvin determined an order was valid if done to preserve the order of the church, not to disrupt it.
In summary, the power of the civil authorities over when and how the church gathers and is governed is limited. Based on Calvin as well as the Westminster Confession, there is sufficient reason to doubt the validity of government policies that disrupt the order of the church or assume authority over the meetings and liturgy of the church. As previously stated, the church is not just one incorporated institution among many institutions of men, but rather is a sacramental body incorporated in Jesus Christ. Christ is the head of the body, the church— over all thrones, dominions, rulers or authorities, in everything preeminent (Col. 1:16-18).
[i] A good starting point for further understanding this conception of the church is The Lord’s Service by Jeffrey J. Meyers. The final chapter in that book, entitled “A Bibliographical Essay,” contains references to numerous supporting and influential writings. Additional resources which may be helpful in understanding this viewpoint will be listed below.
[ii] It is debated whether churches should incorporate, on the grounds that the church is sui generis (of her own kind, having no foundation in any other human institution). It should not be assumed that incorporation with the state is a requirement; however, this is the case for many Christian churches within the United States of America. See Jordan, James B. The Sociology of the Church: Essays in Reconstruction. (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1986), Chapter 9.
[iii] This understanding of the church and its role among other institutions is drawn from the work of James B. Jordan in The Sociology of the Church as well as that of Peter Leithart in The Theopolitan Vision and other works. It is in agreement with the position of Biblical Horizons and the Theopolis Institute.[iv] Refer to the “For Further Reading” section in subsequent pages for some materials which better explain these doctrinal distinctions and why they matter in the life and practice of the local church.
