One of the questions that came up during the COVID-19 pandemic and has continued to be debated since has been over the extent to which the church should have complied with Government guidance and regulations. To some extent, the debate was about the extent to which Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 applied in terms of injunctions in Scripture to obey the authorities and to what extent the remarks of Peter and John that they were duty bound to obey God not man applied.[1]
For some, the decision to close churches seemed to mean that we were choosing to obey man here when God’s Word commands that we are not to forsake meeting together for worship. Those who chose to submit to Government regulations agreed that Scripture calls us to gather together, however the view taken by church leaders was that suspending in person meetings did not amount to disobedience to God here because Scripture does not legislate in detail for what it means to gather regularly. Some took the view that a gathering with the assistance of technology such as Zoom was obedient to God’s Word (the position I took) others that because that we should meet to the best of our abilities and often as possible, that meeting might not be feasible in a public health cris, just as you might not be able to meet during a snow storm for example.[2]
However, an argument has been put forward that things go further than that. From that position, it was not merely the outright closure of churches that was a problem but any attempt by the State to interfere in how public worship was conducted, such as through requiring social distancing and mask wearing whilst forbidding singing. Furthermore, whilst generally speaking, the assumption seems to be that we obey the Government unless they require us to disobey God and therefore sin, this argument takes that a stage further too. The issue, from this perspective is not just that the State may have asked us to do something sinful but that even if they had not, that we should have resisted because the State was seeking to exercise authority beyond its legitimate reach. As one person put it
“The Government should no more tell churches how to conduct worship than it should tell parents what they can feed their children.”
The point then is that when anyone steps beyond their legitimate authority that they become tyrannical and if that is so, as a matter of common grace, we will want to at least challenge such tyranny. I have some sympathy with this perspective.
However, the argument to some extent seems to rely on a particular view of how a nation functions. Specifically, it seems to draw on the arguments in Samuel Rutherford’s landmark book “Lex Rex.” Rutherford was a puritan writing during the 1600s and his concern was about the extent that the King was seeking to act beyond his rightful authority, meddling in the affairs of the Church. He argued that the State/King, The Church and The Family all had their own limited spheres of authority. This meant both that they were not to use their power within their sphere in a despotic manner for their own gain but also that they were not to seek to exercise power outside of their own sphere. This of course worked both ways, the Church were not to exercise political power and the King was not to interfere in spiritual matters. This reflected a Reformation response to the power of the Pope as well as to the behaviour of the Stuart Kings.
What also stands out here is that such an approach also requires some shared assumptions about the nature of the State. In effect, it requires a Christian nation where Church, King and Family mutually recognise each other’s spheres of authority and all agree that such authority is received from God.
Now, there’s much to be said for such an approach. This of course also touches on recent debates about Christian Nationalism. Whilst I see the current push in American for this kind of philosophy as dangerously toxic, for reasons I’ve set out previously, I do think there’s a place for recognising tow things, first that a nation’s cultures and laws come from somewhere, there are no neutral values and so we can legitimately talk about a Christian nation, Jewish Nation or Muslim nation for example. Secondly, that as a Christian I believe that it is a good thing if a nation’s laws and values are shaped by Scripture.
However, having said that, the reality is that for most of history and in most places, it hasn’t been Scripture or a Christian culture that has shaped the laws, values and customs of most countries. Not only that but from what I can tell, Scripture does not specifically set out an expectation that this will happen. It is perhaps telling that when Joseph Boot sets out the case for Christian nation states he comments:
“Since the biblical idea of a nation-state under God with public religion based on Scripture is not worked out in detail in the Bible into a systematic political philosophy, a Protestant (or Calvinist) construction was helpfully fleshed out by the Christian philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd in terms of a worldview applicable to modern human society.”[3]
If we are dependent on a very modern (20th century academic) to set out in detail the case for a very modern phenomena because Scripture does not set it out and for most of history we did not really see such a political philosophy in practice, then I’m mindful to approach such things with a great deal of caution.
My greater concern here though is about the extent to which the particular philosophy is feasible in practice when it seems to describe a political and religious context which not only is alien to our contemporary experience in the modern/postmodern west but is alien to the experience of much of the rest of the world, not just today but throughout history. Does the argument make sense in a Communist, Buddhist, Muslim or Hindu culture. Would the argument have made sense for early Christians living in the Roman Empire.[4]
The impression I get is that the arguments only really work in a very specific culture. The experience of the church today in the West is much closer to the experience of the early church under the Roman Empire. I’m not sure how helpful a 17th century lens is as we try to apply God’s will to our current circumstances.
[1] Acts 5:29.
[2] Such a position may perhaps have been easier to hold when it was expected that lockdown would be for a short, limited period. I suspect it was harder to hold this view as lockdown restrictions continued or when they were reintroduced.
[3] Boot, Joseph . Ruler of Kings: Toward a Christian Vision of Government (pp. 76-77). Wilberforce Publications Ltd. Kindle Edition.
[4] And we might note that when the apostles said that they must obey God rather than man, they were in fact talking to religious leaders not political ones.
Faithroots 