Before reacting to the stance of Grace Community Church and John MacArthur regarding governmental orders, it’s crucial to pause and consider the nuances of their position and the broader implications for Christian freedom and obedience. Grace Community Church, led by John MacArthur, has made headlines for its decision to gather for worship despite restrictions imposed due to the pandemic. This has sparked considerable discussion within and beyond the Christian community, raising important questions about the relationship between church and state, and the limits of governmental authority over religious practice.
John MacArthur and the elders of Grace Community Church released a powerful statement that unequivocally affirms several key principles: Christ’s ultimate authority over all earthly governments, the Christian duty to disobey governmental mandates that prohibit worship, and the inherent lack of governmental jurisdiction over a church’s doctrine, practices, and governance. MacArthur’s courageous stance serves as a significant example for pastors and church leaders as they navigate increasingly complex interactions with governmental powers. In the years ahead, the church may face further challenges requiring similar acts of principled defiance.
The elders of Grace Community Church articulate a reasoned position, stating they “respectfully inform [their] civic leaders that they have exceeded their legitimate jurisdiction.” Their conviction is rooted in their “faithfulness to Christ,” which they believe “prohibits [them] from observing the restrictions they want to impose on [their] corporate worship services.” This conviction, while potentially the right course of action for them, is acknowledged as a matter of conscience, as Romans 14:14 and 23 suggests. If they are genuinely compelled by their faith to gather, then their decision to do so warrants respect.
However, it’s important to recognize that civil disobedience, as chosen by Grace Community Church under the leadership of John MacArthur, may not be the singular legitimate or morally obligatory response for every church in every situation. Other valid and ethical paths exist for Christian communities navigating these challenging times.
Considering Alternative Approaches to Government Orders
While Grace Community Church has chosen a specific path, other approaches deserve consideration and respect within the body of Christ. It’s vital to acknowledge the diversity of contexts and convictions within the global church.
Church, Not Just the Building: Adapting Forms of Worship
One crucial point often overlooked in discussions surrounding church gatherings is the distinction between the church as the body of Christ and the specific physical form a congregation takes. While Grace Community Church maintains its traditional structure, other models of church demonstrate flexibility and adaptability. As the original article suggests, “Christ’s church can meet,” even if a particular church building cannot function in its usual way.
Currently, in many locations, including California where Grace Community Church is located, outdoor gatherings are permitted with certain guidelines. This presents an alternative avenue for worship that allows for physical gathering while adhering to public health recommendations. Furthermore, the concept of church isn’t inherently tied to large, centralized buildings. The early church often met in homes, and throughout history, Christians have adapted their forms of gathering to suit various circumstances.
The example of J.D. Greear and Summit Church, who chose to transition their 12,000-member congregation into hundreds of house churches, illustrates this adaptability. While structures may differ, the essence of Christian community and worship can be maintained. Similarly, Capitol Hill Baptist Church has explored the possibility of dividing into multiple autonomous congregations if restrictions necessitate smaller gatherings. These examples demonstrate that prioritizing worship and community doesn’t necessarily require maintaining a specific pre-pandemic form of church. Churches might consider adopting alternative structures temporarily, without compromising their commitment to gathering and worship. This approach allows for obedience to both God and governing authorities, where possible, and can be a strategic way to maintain community and witness during times of restriction.
Historical and Global Perspectives: Wisdom in Diverse Contexts
Throughout history, Christians have navigated government restrictions on gatherings in diverse ways. During World War II, churches in coastal cities accommodated blackout requirements, recognizing the government’s role in protecting citizens during wartime. These churches didn’t perceive such measures as an infringement on worship but as reasonable accommodations in a time of crisis.
Looking globally, the church in China offers another valuable perspective. Chinese house churches often operate underground, defying government restrictions when necessary to practice their faith freely. However, they also exercise wisdom in navigating complex political realities. As the original article mentions, some Chinese pastors maintain congregations under a certain size to avoid undue government attention, strategically planting new churches as their communities grow. This isn’t to suggest that the Chinese government’s restrictions are legitimate, but to highlight the wisdom in making calculated judgments about how to best sustain the long-term witness of the gospel.
These historical and global examples underscore that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach to government restrictions. Wisdom and discernment are crucial in evaluating each situation and determining the most effective way to uphold Christian principles while navigating complex societal realities. Simply assuming that defiance is always the most faithful response overlooks the rich tapestry of Christian experience and the diverse strategies employed to advance the gospel under varying degrees of governmental pressure.
Wisdom and Public Witness: Balancing Rights and Responsibilities
The decision to defy government orders, especially in the context of a pandemic, warrants careful consideration of its impact on public witness. The original article raises a pertinent question: “Do we want to spend down our capital on pandemics?” This prompts reflection on whether civil disobedience in this specific context is the most strategic use of the “muscle” of defiance, especially considering potential future conflicts over issues like LGBT rights, where religious freedom might be even more directly challenged.
Furthermore, considering the broader societal impact of church actions is essential. Pandemic restrictions often apply not just to churches but also to restaurants, businesses, and other sectors of society. If churches are perceived as unwilling to abide by restrictions that are causing financial hardship for others, it could negatively impact the Christian witness. Finding alternative ways to comply, such as outdoor services or online engagement, might be a more effective way to demonstrate love for neighbor and contribute to the common good, while still maintaining the essential aspects of Christian community.
Again, these considerations fall under the realm of judgment and wisdom, areas where Romans 14 encourages Christian freedom and mutual respect. Churches may reach different conclusions on these matters, and that diversity should be embraced with charity and understanding.
Jurisdictional Overlap: Recognizing Legitimate State Authority
John MacArthur rightly emphasizes the separation of jurisdictions between church, state, and family. However, it’s crucial to acknowledge that these jurisdictions, while distinct, are not entirely separate and can overlap, especially when the same individuals are subject to multiple authorities.
The example of parental authority and state intervention in cases of child abuse illustrates this point. While parents have God-given authority to raise their children, the state also has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens, including children, from harm. Similarly, churches routinely comply with building codes, fire codes, and zoning regulations, recognizing the state’s legitimate role in ensuring public safety and order. These regulations, while they may impact church gatherings, are not typically viewed as illegitimate intrusions into ecclesiastical matters.
In the context of a pandemic, governmental measures aimed at preserving public health can be seen as an exercise of the state’s legitimate authority to maintain peace, order, and the preservation of life. When large gatherings, like church services, have the potential to contribute to the spread of a contagious disease, it’s not immediately evident that governmental restrictions are inherently an “illegitimate intrusion of state authority into ecclesiastical matters,” as MacArthur suggests. One could argue that such measures fall within the state’s responsibility to protect the well-being of its citizens.
The Importance of Christian Charity and Unity
Ultimately, navigating these complex issues requires a spirit of Christian charity and a commitment to unity within the body of Christ. As Romans 14:13 urges, “Let us not pass judgment on one another any longer,” and as Romans 15:7 exhorts, “accept one another, therefore, just as Christ has accepted you.”
The conversation surrounding Grace Community Church and similar situations should be characterized by grace, patience, and a recognition that Christians and churches may reach different conclusions in good conscience. Even when disagreements arise, maintaining mutual respect and understanding is paramount. As challenging as it may be, Christians are called to “make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (Romans 14:19).
This may even mean, as the original article suggests, that individuals may choose to move from one church to another if they fundamentally disagree with leadership decisions on these matters. However, even in such cases, the departure should be marked by peace, charity, and grace. The kingdom of God transcends any single congregation or viewpoint. Maintaining unity and love within the broader Christian community should remain a paramount concern, even amidst differing convictions on complex issues like civil disobedience and the appropriate response to governmental orders.
* * * * *
For further exploration of these themes, consider reading Jonathan Leeman’s follow-up reflection: “Further Reflections on Recent Conversations about Christian Freedom.” Also, listen to Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman’s conversation on this topic at 9Marks Pastors’ Talk.
