I wrote parts of this weeks back and never posted it. And even though many things appear to be getting back to “normal” at this point, I thought it might still be worth sharing.
Originally, I was prompted by two events–on their face seemingly unrelated–to write this; but, the more I have thought about it, they are quite related.
The first event was national news relating to the numerous arrests of pastors and church seizures in Canada. One example being the RCMP seized and barricaded GraceLife Church in Alberta at the direction of the Alberta Health services (AHS) for repeated violations of COVID-19 health measures.
The church had been visited more than 20 times in the past year by AHS, and recently, Pastor James Coates served 35 days in solitary confinement for non-compliance with COVID-related health measures. All this while there have been no reported COVID cases related to the church membership or its worship services.
GraceLife Church and Pastor James Coates is one out of only a handful of churches across the West who have refused to comply with unlawful and unbiblical government mandates. Adding to those who have chosen to obey the Lord rather than man, Pastors Artur Pawlowski and Tim Stephens were also each arrested in Calgary for worshipping.
The second event is seemingly much smaller but of even greater consternation in some sense.
In one of my integrated humanities classes, we were discussing Ivan Karamazov’s “The Grand Inquisitor,” which raised questions about Christ choosing to leave humanity with free agency and personal responsibility instead of the illusion of security.
Being a Socratic conversation, this led to further conversation about the relationship between the Church and State, revisiting a long history of conflict between the Church and the various European kings about who had authority over whom. After working through those questions, the idea of church taxation was raised and to my surprise, the entire class of conservative Christian homeschooling students agreed it would be just for the State to tax the Church.
Without any use of logic or legal precedent to back their opinions, every single student in the class intuited a priori that the Church was subject to the State. Again, these are not public school students explicitly indoctrinated with such a notion.
And being these are homeschooled Christian students who confess Jesus is not only the head of the Church, but also Lord of all, the question that perplexed me was “From where does such confusion and cognitive dissonance come?” Since these are not public school students, I could only conclude this line of thinking is being propagated from somewhere beyond the public school walls.
Now, here is where this event connects with the first.
It seems the same unwitting influence that led students to believe the Church is subject to the State also led many pastors and church members in the West to wholeheartedly comply with unbiblical (and unconstitutional) government mandates to close their church doors.
Such notions that the State possesses the highest authority among human beings, including authority over the Church, literally permeates our Western culture—including some of our most conservative Christian communities.
Granted, the State has indeed been given a realm of authority by God (Romans 13), the COVID-related government lockdowns have been something far more nefarious than the fire department exercising its authority to evacuate a burning church building, or the police department cordoning off a crime scene for investigation.
In order to protect the populace from a “global pandemic”that has a survival rate above 97% for all age groups and above 99% for most ages groups, government officials have issued unprecedented draconian mandates that have prevented family gatherings at holidays, forced businesses to close their doors—many of them permanently—and most heinously, kept worshippers from singing, preaching, and gathering on the Lord’s day.
It is all too Orwellian, a clear case of government overreach, but an overreach exercised on an entitled and fearful populace who willingly submits to government security in lieu of exercising personal freedom and responsibility.
And most sadly, many pastors and Christians have blindly and enthusiastically joined the fearful and complied with these closure orders.
It is not surprising that the modern man without Christ willingly submits to the nanny State as its Lord and Savior, but Christians? How do we account for so many Christians unreservedly offering incense to Caesar?
I submit that COVID-related restrictions only revealed what has sadly already been happening in Western Christianity. For some years now, Christians have been too comfortable in our stylish Roman digs, and in an unprecedented attempt to contextualize with an unbelieving culture, we have been casually offering to Caesar what actually belongs to Christ, never believing it would catch up with us.
For example, consider how—far before COVID—many churches resemble the concert halls and coffee shops they culturally desire to emulate, instead of the gathering place of holy saints for the consumption of Word and sacraments they should desire to manifest.
I further submit that the pandemic Christians should be most concerned with is not COVID-19. The other, more ominous, pandemic that should concern us is the wide-spread fear-mongering bent on establishing globalized socialism and the current spiritual condition of this generation of Christians who believe the Church is subject to the State and gladly offer incense to Caesar in the interest of maintaining personal comfort and feigned security.
At this point, a well-meaning Christian is about to come along and assert that we should follow Romans 13 and that the government is “God’s servant for your good.” What this well-meaning Christian has perhaps failed to understand is that the ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις (governing authorities) of the United States is not the POTUS, SCOTUS, or even the FLOTUS. Neither is it the Congress or Senate, ultimately.
The ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις of this particular nation is the U. S. Constitution—lex rex! And the king of all nations is Jesus Christ. Government mandates and orders that are issued outside of these boundaries are not lawful orders of the ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις.
Image if you lived in the United States and Dudley Do-right rode Horse across the border to arrest you for not paying taxes to the Queen.
Right!
At best, you would ignore it. At worst, you might have to resist.
For what it’s worth, I pray Christians across the West will repent of their unbelief, unfaithfulness, and double-mindedness, and once again preach and live as though Christ is crucified, risen, and reigns—not only as the head of the church but also as the King of kings and the Lord of lords—over the nations of men.
Perhaps, then our children’s children will be able to rightly intuit where the boundaries of authority lie—that is, who rightfully submits to whom.
Hi Scott,
I have no interest, really, in arguing about this, most particularly because Moscow has staked itself so vehemently to a particular, highly-specific position that it’s difficult to see how a constructive conversation between believers could happen. Alas, for Moscow it seems that the culture war isn’t any longer just between Christians and secularists: it’s now between Christians, too, over matters of debatable interpretations and localized customs masquerading as absolute truths – and that’s quite distressing.
I would beg you, as a fellow classical educator, to stop using such charged rhetoric about other Christians, who may, so far as you know, be quite well informed about history and political philosophy and yet come to quite different positions than you do. You’re a student of Aristotle: why don’t you speak as if political arrangements are not only NOT subject to certainty but instead relative to different historical and cultural and linguistic conditions, and so not subject to a one-size-fits-all evaluative grid? You’re a student of the classical Romans, so why don’t you recognize that politics doesn’t begin with autonomous individuals clinging without moderation to their personal private rights against all comers?
Perhaps you should consider, if you’re also a student of Christian political thought in the Middle Ages, that Moscow’s position on the relationship of church and state is not only NOT classically Reformed, but is much closer, geneaologically, to the “monistic” view articulated by Pope Gregory VII in his controversy with the Empire. This ought to give any Reformed Christian significant pause in how confidently he writes such severe chastisement of other Christians. Your views on these matters are not only NOT obviously biblical, but they are NOT obviously classical and are quite challengeable on numerous text-based fronts.
To so bluntly and without proper observation of substantial intellectual and ethical factors other than one’s own call other believers “schizophrenic” and long for the day when they will “repent of unbelief and unfaithfulness” where those words are defined by their holding positions other than the ones you think are so plainly “biblical” smacks less of a courageous stand for truth and more of a sort of pride.
The more I’ve read your thoughts these past months, the more it has seemed to me that “biblical” political thought for you is scarcely distinguishable from a particular inflection of “conservative” Americanism – and you, at least, ought to know better, being a student of the City of God. Don’t divide the body over matters of custom. Christ’s kingship is most certainly not honored by that.
I won’t argue any of these points: I only post them as goads to further thought. I greatly respect your work, or I wouldn’t bother saying anything. Thanks.
Hi Tim,
Thanks for showing interest in this subject, though I have to admit it disappointments me that you are choosing to “hit and run” as it were rather than engage in any sort of rational discourse.
I characterize your position this way because you mention at the beginning of your comment that you “have no interest, really, in arguing about this” and the end of your comment that you “won’t argue any of these points.” And you clarify your hard-line position is due to your assertion that “Moscow has staked itself so vehemently to a particular, highly-specific position that it’s difficult to see how a constructive conversation between believers could happen.”
On that account, it seems the most glaring concern for you is that because I live in Moscow, I must be in lock-step with a particular Christian Reconstructionist and Theonomist agenda of the dominant Christian culture. Is that close?
Additionally, you appear to assume that I am propagating a “conservative” Americanism, something I’ve heard also referred to as Christian Nationalism or American Fascism. I’m not 100% sure if those are accurate representations of your suspicions but that’s the message I’m getting.
Given your position, I would probably be wasting my time then—at this point, anyway—to unpack many of what I suspect are sweeping and conflated assumptions (i.e., Moscow, conservative Americanism, etc.); but if you’ll indulge me, I’ll at least try to respond to what I believe is the most salient point and then leave it up to you to reconsider whether or not you feel a constructive conversation could be had.
In your second paragraph, you “beg me, as a fellow classical educator, to stop using such charged rhetoric.” I’m guessing that because I use terms like “Christian schizophrenia” and “pray Christians across the West will repent of their unbelief, unfaithfulness, and double-mindedness,” you mean that I come across “preachy!”
If that is an accurate description of your meaning, I confess that I am guilty as “charged.” Whether because of “a courageous stand for truth” or “more of a sort of pride” (as you suggest is my motive for writing)—God knows—I do feel strongly that Christians in general are embracing the idols of the age while confessing Christ as Lord, and should repent of it. Like Israel,
“They also feared the Lord and appointed from among themselves all sorts of people as priests of the high places, who sacrificed for them in the shrines of the high places.” -2 Kings 17:32
“So these nations feared the Lord and also served their carved images. Their children did likewise, and their children’s children—as their fathers did, so they do to this day.” -2 Kings 17:41
Whether that manifests itself in utter submission to the state at the cost of disobeying the Lord, in presuppositions about who has authority over whom, or in myriad other ways, I believe the church needs to once again “preach and live as though Christ is crucified, risen, and reigns—not only as the head of the church but also as the King of kings and the Lord of lords—over the nations of men.” I don’t see how that is an unbiblical or less-than-classical position.
If you believe I’m saying we can’t have different political positions arrived at through rational and ethical trains of thought, that we can’t disagree about how to manage COVID-19-related policies, or that we can’t disagree about the various possible relationships that could or are believed to exist between church and state, you’ve missed my point.
What I am advocating for is that we Christians stop vacillating on who we say we believe is Lord and maintain the biblical attitude of the disciples who when they were told they can’t preach in Jesus name, “answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men’” (Acts 5:29), and of the author of Hebrews who maintained that we should not neglect to meet together (Hebrews 10:25), or even of the virtuous pagan character, Antigone, who upon threat of death from the state (Creon) for honoring the sacred (religious ceremony for her dead brother), asserted “It’s not for him to keep me from my own” and “Nor did that Justice who lives with the gods below mark out such laws to hold among mankind.”
This is in no way—as far as I can see—a matter of advocating for a “conservative Americanism” as the Romans did in Augustine’s day, or a matter of “dividing the body over matters of custom.” And what “Christ’s kingship is most certainly not honored by” is calling him Lord but bowing to the idols of the age—of which the state holds prominence in modern culture.
If I’ve missed something, by all means, enlighten me. I humbly and enthusiastically invite the conversation.
Blessings!
I agree, with you, Scott. My question is–what would you suggest a Christian do if they find themselves in a church that does not see the problems you have outlined so well? Should my family and I leave that church and find another church? Or do we stay and try to help the pastor see that we may be giving in to the state too much? I know of only one church that is willing to take a stand against the state and has taken a stand against the state. We are still living in the state of Washington and I am sure you know what Inslee is doing over here. And when I tell you my thoughts, be assured that Steve and I stand together on it. The Lord has truly given me a wise husband.
Hi Becky,
Thanks for your comments. I’m sorry your family is in this situation but I don’t think leaving a church is the first step. That would be the very last step, if at all. Every situation is unique, so I would begin with much prayer, then sit down to have a reasonable conversation with your pastor to learn how he is viewing his responsibility to shepherd the church amidst these trying times. Perhaps, after understanding his perspective, share yours and hear his response. So, prayer, a reasonable–not threatening–conversation where everyone is listening to one another. Perhaps the support for opening the church doors is not there but there are alternative ways to gather for worship. Blessings as you navigate this trial.
Hi Scott
This is a challenge to my thinking, as usual! There is definitely a battle going on. I am torn between loyalty to the goodness in society and government and their intentions and loyalty to Christ as Lord. I guess I’m at “can’t they both be right?” We are to pray for our governments and leaders.
Here in New Zealand I am not aware of or troubled by “state overreach.” It seems clear to me that the line we are taking with regard to the pandemic is the correct one. We have a vaccination rate of 4% so far. We have no community cases, the only cases are people who have just come from overseas and are in managed isolation for two weeks or longer if they are tested positive. A 97% death rate would have corresponded to a loss of 150,000 people in this country if everyone had got the virus. There would have been a huge drain on our medical resources from people being ill. So in this regard, I would see gathering for worship while the virus is in the community as dangerous to people’s health. I think of Jesus’ comments about the Sabbath – saving the life of your animal who has fallen in a ditch as being an okay thing to do on the Sabbath. I think the verses you quoted from Acts and Hebrews aren’t directly applicable to this situation, as we have technology that means we can continue to preach and meet together. In some cases being in lockdown may result in spiritual growth as people develop their own time with God rather than relying on being physically with others. (We had a month of lockdown in 2020.)
I can’t comment on the bigger issues raised by Tim. You both seem reasonable people with valid views.
Thanks and God bless!
That should have been 97% survival rate, or 3% death rate, not a 97% death rate, sorry! But the figure 150,000 is correct.