Author's Note: Thanks to Pastor Keith Hoover for the discussion and much of the framework regarding this article. His input was indispensable. This is not an official position of the Ecclesiastical Law Center, but is my own opinion. Jason
Statement of the Issue at Hand
It has come to our attention that a pastor has been arrested for assembling against a county order that assemblies are outlawed. We must begin by making the statement that we do not believe the same way Rodney Howard-Browne does regarding doctrine. We do not agree with how he handled the issue either. He makes the wrong argument that churches are exempt businesses with regard to the stay-at-home order in Florida. Instead, Lordship churches should take a consistent stand. As with any other issue, we should determine to follow the Word of God above all without regard to whether or not the government will allow it. Businesses do not have First Amendment rights. Individuals have God-given rights that are protected by the First Amendment. This is a very important distinction to make. Instead, the argument of a Scriptural church should be this:
Statement of the Issue at Hand
It has come to our attention that a pastor has been arrested for assembling against a county order that assemblies are outlawed. We must begin by making the statement that we do not believe the same way Rodney Howard-Browne does regarding doctrine. We do not agree with how he handled the issue either. He makes the wrong argument that churches are exempt businesses with regard to the stay-at-home order in Florida. Instead, Lordship churches should take a consistent stand. As with any other issue, we should determine to follow the Word of God above all without regard to whether or not the government will allow it. Businesses do not have First Amendment rights. Individuals have God-given rights that are protected by the First Amendment. This is a very important distinction to make. Instead, the argument of a Scriptural church should be this:
We have been commanded by God to hold church services. If we do not, we fear the wrath of God due to our disobedience more than we fear arrest.
For the church, it is all about obedience to God. It is not about constitutional rights.
From a Christian Post article penned by Leonardo Blair on Monday, March 30, 2020,
From a Christian Post article penned by Leonardo Blair on Monday, March 30, 2020,
“[Hillsborough County Sheriff Chad] Chronister noted that Howard-Browne’s church has the technological resources to simply resort to online worship temporarily and abide by the order but the church instead chose to endanger congregants.”
https://www.christianpost.com/news/pastor-rodney-howard-browne-arrested-for-holding-church-service-defying-safer-at-home-order.html
Realize that there is no proven danger to congregants. This is an assumption. Those that attended, did so at their discretion. It was their own free-will choice and they were not coerced to attend services.
The article continues:
The article continues:
“The River Tampa Bay Church has an advantage over most places of worship,” said Chronister, “as they have access to technology allowing them to live stream their services over the internet and broadcast television for more than their 4,000 members to watch from the safety from their own homes. Instead, they encouraged people to come and gather at the church, even provided bus transportation for the services."
Sheriff Chronister argues that because the church has the ability to live-stream services it is thus incumbent to do so as a measure of public safety. The sheriff makes two inescapable misconceptions in this statement. The first is that every congregant has access to online services and has the knowledge and technology to livestream into their home. We personally know many Christians who do not know how to live stream the services, and even some that do not have internet access at all.
The second assumption made by Chronister is even more insidious. He alleges that individuals can worship adequately in a corporate sense through the internet. The reason this is particularly dangerous is that this line of argumentation, the livestream, could be applied to all assemblies as an alternative to “dangerous” gatherings. What is the next danger that will be the pretense for dispersal of assemblies? Society has already declared in the realm of psychology that religion is pathological and harmful to our children. If online assembly meets the requirement for the Constitutionally-guaranteed right of assembly, why would a government allow any physical assembly at all? After all, it is dangerous. Someone could get hurt.
The safety over liberty mindset of the sheriff is shown in the following statement:
The second assumption made by Chronister is even more insidious. He alleges that individuals can worship adequately in a corporate sense through the internet. The reason this is particularly dangerous is that this line of argumentation, the livestream, could be applied to all assemblies as an alternative to “dangerous” gatherings. What is the next danger that will be the pretense for dispersal of assemblies? Society has already declared in the realm of psychology that religion is pathological and harmful to our children. If online assembly meets the requirement for the Constitutionally-guaranteed right of assembly, why would a government allow any physical assembly at all? After all, it is dangerous. Someone could get hurt.
The safety over liberty mindset of the sheriff is shown in the following statement:
"Our goal is not to stop people from worshiping," Chronister said at a press conference, "but the safety and well-being of our community must always come first. "
When the Sheriff’s Department restricted worship to what they deemed to be adequate, they opened up a very dangerous line of thought. If what the sheriff deems to be adequate is then the law, enforceable at the end of a gun, the sheriff makes himself the authority as to what sort of worship is permissible. A government agent then becomes the final arbiter as to whether or not we can worship according to the dictates of our conscience. This is a disturbing mindset to the freedom-loving individual and it leads to only approved religious activity being permissible. It is shocking that this vehicle for oppression is opening up on a local county level in the United States of America.
This is a denial of liberty of conscience. Sheriff Chronister may not realize or admit it, but he has placed himself above God by demanding Christians and any other religious group be allowed to only worship how he sees fit. He is willing to enforce this idea of worship by imprisoning pastors.
We have no doubt as to the sincerity of Sheriff Chronister. More than likely, he believes he is doing what is right and good by keeping the people of Hillsborough County safe. It is our opinion that he was truly concerned for people. Law enforcement officers are on the front lines of panic and disease and they need our prayers. It is not the job of law enforcement, however, to protect people from disease at the expense of liberty. Chronister goes on to state:
This is a denial of liberty of conscience. Sheriff Chronister may not realize or admit it, but he has placed himself above God by demanding Christians and any other religious group be allowed to only worship how he sees fit. He is willing to enforce this idea of worship by imprisoning pastors.
We have no doubt as to the sincerity of Sheriff Chronister. More than likely, he believes he is doing what is right and good by keeping the people of Hillsborough County safe. It is our opinion that he was truly concerned for people. Law enforcement officers are on the front lines of panic and disease and they need our prayers. It is not the job of law enforcement, however, to protect people from disease at the expense of liberty. Chronister goes on to state:
“It’s a shame that someone has taken advantage of this. For whatever reason, I just don’t understand it. The only reason I can see is it’s a reckless reason – to put your parishioners in jeopardy."
Of what is this church taking advantage? A God-given right to worship according to the dictates of their conscience? A Constitutionally guaranteed right to assemble? What is it? Sheriff Chronister has no right to assume a nefarious or even neutral purpose for meeting. If he is doing that which he deems right according to his conscience by shutting down a lawful assembly, does the church not have a right to act according to the dictates of their conscience? No elected or appointed official finds it within their sphere of authority to determine the boundaries of worship, whether it is a Christian church, an Islamic Mosque or a Jewish Synagogue, so long as that group is not violating the God-given rights of others. The litmus test is whether or not that religion physically harms another. The argument is made that assemblies such as this will spread disease and yet one can find a liquor store open and an abortion mill destroying life. If social distancing works for business, it works for churches. No doubt, it would be wise at this time for churches to modify their meetings, practice social distancing and sterilize the building and hard surfaces after every use. These things ought to be done to protect the physical safety of the attendees. Some may even close their doors for a time out of urgent necessity. Each church and pastor is required to make their decision on these things as their conscience before God dictates. As we will see, however, there are much more grave consequences of the wholesale shuttering of churches upon government order.
In the case of Hillsborough County, the sheriff was wrong in his exertion of authority over a peaceful, voluntary assembly. This is the case even though there is a deadly contagion spreading throughout our country. Chronister over-stepped his bounds as an earthly governmental authority and put himself in direct opposition to God in doing so.
Biblical Commandment and Example of Assembly
The question must then come, what do the scriptures say about the assembly of the saints? Is it optional? Can it be done via technology?
The first time we see the word “assembly” mentioned in the scriptures, God is rebuking two of Jacob’s sons and He is rebuking Simeon and Levi for doing something evil. When He rebukes them, He says this:
In the case of Hillsborough County, the sheriff was wrong in his exertion of authority over a peaceful, voluntary assembly. This is the case even though there is a deadly contagion spreading throughout our country. Chronister over-stepped his bounds as an earthly governmental authority and put himself in direct opposition to God in doing so.
Biblical Commandment and Example of Assembly
The question must then come, what do the scriptures say about the assembly of the saints? Is it optional? Can it be done via technology?
The first time we see the word “assembly” mentioned in the scriptures, God is rebuking two of Jacob’s sons and He is rebuking Simeon and Levi for doing something evil. When He rebukes them, He says this:
O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall.
Genesis 49:6
Here we find the word “assembly” is connected with the meeting of two people in secret and the Bible says that our soul is not to be bound with them in their secret or in their intention. In other words, assemblies are for a purpose. They are not just getting together and hanging out. The church is not to be a place where people are loitering, but a place where coming together has occurred for a particular purpose. With the mindset given by the Biblical definition of assembly as mentioned in the passage above, we are binding ourselves together when we assemble in our churches. With this in mind, it is very important that we choose the church with which we assemble. Our souls are to be bound to our church to which we have been called. We are placing our honor and our identity in the church we join.
Exodus 12:6 gives us additional information about the word “assembly.”
Exodus 12:6 gives us additional information about the word “assembly.”
And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.
Exodus 12:6-8
Assembling, or coming together, is something the “whole assembly” was to do. We see here that the “whole assembly” refers to everybody. This is the entire group.
In Leviticus, we see a similar usage of the term “whole assembly.”
In Leviticus, we see a similar usage of the term “whole assembly.”
And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty;
Leviticus 4:13
There is a wonderful Old Testament example here of a gathering that did so in order to watch and protect each other. This is very instructive to us as churches even though the passage is found in the Old Testament law. The principle of God’s people gathering for this reason is clear even in the Old Testament.
We have heard such statements as, why can’t churches assemble at home, separately? A brief look at the actual meaning of the word “assembly” dispels this idea.
The first two definitions of “assembly,” as defined in Oxford Dictionary are as follows:
We also find applicable passages in the New Testament to help us apply the principle of assembly to the churches of our day and time.
We have heard such statements as, why can’t churches assemble at home, separately? A brief look at the actual meaning of the word “assembly” dispels this idea.
The first two definitions of “assembly,” as defined in Oxford Dictionary are as follows:
- A group of people gathered together in one place for a common purpose.
- The action of gathering together as a group for a common purpose.
We also find applicable passages in the New Testament to help us apply the principle of assembly to the churches of our day and time.
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
Ephesians 2:19-22
According to this passage, we are not just citizens in the Kingdom of God, but we are also placed into a household. That is the local church. This passage applies the terms “whole building” and “all the building” directly to the assembling together of the local church. The last phrase says “In whom ye also are builded together an habitation of God through the Spirit.” This thrust of this statement is that we are not only part of the whole family of God, but that we are a part of our local assemblies, builded together. The Spirit of God is amongst us when we meet together.
As used in other passages in the New Testament, the term “church” comes from the Greek word “ecclesia,” and means “the assembly.” It is an assembled church. A church that has come together for a specific purpose.
I Corinthians teaches us more about why the assembly is important:
As used in other passages in the New Testament, the term “church” comes from the Greek word “ecclesia,” and means “the assembly.” It is an assembled church. A church that has come together for a specific purpose.
I Corinthians teaches us more about why the assembly is important:
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
1 Corinthians 5:4-5
This passage is speaking about one who knows the truth, claims to follow Christ, and is living in abject, open sin. We see also that he is not repentant about this sin. Paul’s instruction to the church of Corinth is to put out this person from the assembly. It is the hope that as a result of this, the individual might return to Christ and be reunited with the local church assembly. The church must assemble in order for this putting out to occur. The Bible says that the only way this “putting away” is to be done is when the church has gathered together. This is an event that necessitates the entire church body being present.
I Thessalonians 5 is also helpful in furthering the definition of a church assembly:
I Thessalonians 5 is also helpful in furthering the definition of a church assembly:
For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.
1 Thessalonians 5:9-11
When we are to get together as churches, we are to comfort, edify, and encourage one another in the church. This is an important reason for a church to get together and cannot be left out. Virtual services cannot fulfill this function of the church. This thought is continued and expounded upon in Hebrews 10.
And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Hebrews 10:24-25
Rejecting the assembly by forsaking it is something that is done by those who do not see value in the local church. We certainly recognize this in a large number of Christians who do not see the church as being “essential.” Christians down through the ages, under various persecutions and pestilences would disagree. Many met in spite of the danger. Their urgency to meet was not only the direct command to do so, but so they could look out for the safety of others in the congregation. When we consider someone else in the church, we look upon them and contemplate their situation. To consider something is to take a close look upon and think about the condition of the object of our consideration. You must see the other person and interact with them to fulfill this. This is an in-person interaction. If we were to simply provoke unto love and to good works without consideration, we would miss the needs of our congregations.
The scriptures are clear about gathering together also in the cases of illness and for the purpose of confessing our faults one to another.
The scriptures are clear about gathering together also in the cases of illness and for the purpose of confessing our faults one to another.
And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
James 5:15-16
The scriptural path to healing requires an assembly. The church is to gather and confess their faults to one another in humility.
We need to realize that when someone says that churches do not need to assemble, as we hear from many different sources now, Christian and otherwise, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches regarding how Christians are to interact. Internet church cannot provide what is needed by and required out of a church.
When we look at the actions of the early church, we see a pattern set forth as early as the first part of the book of Acts.
We need to realize that when someone says that churches do not need to assemble, as we hear from many different sources now, Christian and otherwise, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches regarding how Christians are to interact. Internet church cannot provide what is needed by and required out of a church.
When we look at the actions of the early church, we see a pattern set forth as early as the first part of the book of Acts.
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Acts 2:41-47
In the early days of Christianity, every time the church met there was the threat of death. Every gathering of every day as they sought to serve their Lord Jesus Christ had the overhanging shadow of personal injury to all who attended. We should never allow fear to dictate whether or not we fulfill our biblical duty to congregate. The duty is there, even if sometimes it is put off for a time by the voluntary action of a local church according to their sincerely-held religious belief.
This is not said to guilt those who would not assemble. Let every man be convinced in his own mind.
This is not said to guilt those who would not assemble. Let every man be convinced in his own mind.
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
Romans 14:12
Response to Dr. Al Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
There have been many responses to the arrest of Rodney Howard-Browne of Hillsborough County, Florida. We were sent the audio to a podcast by Dr. Mohler regarding the issue. His answer was very eloquent, but also very dangerous to liberty-minded individuals and churches in particular.
The first clue we have of Dr. Mohler’s viewpoint on liberty actually comes from his Wikipedia page:
There have been many responses to the arrest of Rodney Howard-Browne of Hillsborough County, Florida. We were sent the audio to a podcast by Dr. Mohler regarding the issue. His answer was very eloquent, but also very dangerous to liberty-minded individuals and churches in particular.
The first clue we have of Dr. Mohler’s viewpoint on liberty actually comes from his Wikipedia page:
Mohler has argued that libertarianism is idolatrous, and as a comprehensive world view or fundamental guiding principle for human life, is inconsistent with Christian ideals. He is a proponent of personal liberty, but believes such liberties can run into problems when applied in the political sphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Mohler
As a proponent of personal liberty, he believes that sometimes these liberties must be subjected to the political realm. This explains a lot of what he said on his podcast, but ultimately we have to point out this is a conflicted position. The liberties we have been given by God are designed to protect us from politicians in our own government that would attempt to remove rights our forefathers called “inalienable.” It is important to note that the founders of our country did not give us rights. They affirmed rights that were given by God and thus we call them “inalienable” rights.
Concerning Dr. Mohler’s argument against meeting together as a church during the age of Coronavirus, he begins with a quote from Sheriff Chronister we have already visited as a question of safety versus freedom:
Concerning Dr. Mohler’s argument against meeting together as a church during the age of Coronavirus, he begins with a quote from Sheriff Chronister we have already visited as a question of safety versus freedom:
"Our goal is not to stop people from worshiping," Chronister said at a press conference, "but the safety and well-being of our community must always come first.”
https://albertmohler.com/2020/03/31/briefing-3-31-20
We disagree with this statement. There is no way to guarantee the safety and well-being of our community completely. There is one thing that can be more destructive than any disease to a people, and that is the removal of churches from the list of those things deemed essential for our country. The diminishing of the role of churches, relegating them to the realm of casinos and party shops, would work far more damage to a community than Covid-19 could ever accomplish. Dr. Mohler states with regard to the sheriff’s statement:
“The kind of orders or requests coming from government entities makes sense in the context of the Covid-19 crisis.”
In saying so, he has entered very dangerous territory. This statement is illogical and immoral. When a government issues an order, they are not requesting something be done. They are demanding it. When a government requests something of its citizens, it is asking, but not demanding. We cannot be both ordered and requested to close down our church services. If they are ordering, even if they do it in nice terms or flowery statements, they are still orders they expect to be followed. In the case of Rodney Howard-Browne, there was a penalty if he did not comply. It was in no, way, shape, or form a request. It was a command.
If the government were issuing requests, a church could listen and consider the request and not expect consequences for going against the request. The government authority, in this case, did not make compliance optional. The church was supposed to listen to the order and directly obey, and they were to be held responsible even if they did not know the command had been given. The police were to enforce the command under threat of fine and imprisonment. That there was a penalty and thus this was in no way a request.
A fundamental question comes out of this action. Does the state have a right to issue a command that overrides the commandment of God? We must consider whether or not a government official is able to override a God-given right. If they do have that ability, under what other circumstances and to what extent can our responsibilities before God be overridden? When the two conflict, we are given an example in the Bible of what to do:
If the government were issuing requests, a church could listen and consider the request and not expect consequences for going against the request. The government authority, in this case, did not make compliance optional. The church was supposed to listen to the order and directly obey, and they were to be held responsible even if they did not know the command had been given. The police were to enforce the command under threat of fine and imprisonment. That there was a penalty and thus this was in no way a request.
A fundamental question comes out of this action. Does the state have a right to issue a command that overrides the commandment of God? We must consider whether or not a government official is able to override a God-given right. If they do have that ability, under what other circumstances and to what extent can our responsibilities before God be overridden? When the two conflict, we are given an example in the Bible of what to do:
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Acts 5:29
Dr. Mohler continues:
“If you were to rewind just three or four weeks ago and talk about a pastor, any pastor of any church or religious organization being arrested merely for holding religious services, it would make no sense. But, at the present time, it does make sense. Would it ever be valid for a pastor to be arrested merely for holding services at his church? The answer is yes. Sometimes, but it would have to be extremely rare.”
In this quote, Mohler has revealed what he really is. He has admitted in this instance that there could be a circumstance in America where pastors can be arrested for simply exercising their religion. A true Baptist would never suggest this. A believer the sufficiency of the Word of God would do his best to obey the Scriptures. All the while, he would make the assertion that each church is autonomous and must make a decision in this area as their conscience demands. He would never support the arrest of those who disagree with his position. In making the statement above, he has stated that pastors should be arrested, but that it should be extremely rare.
We are going to guess that if the rare instance would apply to him, he might change his outlook on allowing pastors to be arrested. We truly believe that Mohler is convinced he is doing Christianity and even God a service by making allowance for pastors to be arrested for merely holding religious services. Christ warned His apostles there would be times such as this:
We are going to guess that if the rare instance would apply to him, he might change his outlook on allowing pastors to be arrested. We truly believe that Mohler is convinced he is doing Christianity and even God a service by making allowance for pastors to be arrested for merely holding religious services. Christ warned His apostles there would be times such as this:
They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
John 16:2
Dr. Mohler actually believes he is doing God a service by recommending that pastors be arrested for the exercise of their faith. In doing this, he forcing open Pandora’s box of violation of freedom of conscience, the very one that his Baptist forefathers dreaded and fought against. We pray that Dr. Mohler would wake to this fact or it may be his seminary or his audio commentary that is shut down for a compelling government interest.
Dr. Mohler uses Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of Constitutional governance as an example as to how this has been done in the past. It causes us to wonder at how he would not only defend or use Lincoln’s actions to promote the imprisonment of pastors for assembling, but sees it as a good example of how we ought to do things in times of national distress. It would do us well to be reminded that Lincoln’s actions brought about military tribunals of citizens among other absurd and harmful consequences attested to by history. In the end, it was the Supreme Court that stepped in against Lincoln’s unconstitutional actions. They ultimately defended the American people from Lincoln’s tyrannical actions (Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866)).
The essence of Mohler’s argument is that because Lincoln violated God-given rights, we can arrest pastors for holding religious services in the United States. We disagree vehemently. He would give powers-that-be the ability to suspend the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people during times of a national health crisis based on statistical modeling of a future what-if scenario. This power in the hands of an immoral government is frightening to those who love liberty.
Dr. Mohler then argues beautifully for the defense of God-given rights. He follows this with an even more ardent defense as to why inalienable rights should be alienated under certain circumstances. It must be noted that no inalienable rights can removed by any authority, compelling interests notwithstanding, without them losing their inalienability. They become alienable when they are alienated. It was not a coincidence our forefathers used the term inalienable. This means they cannot be taken away for any reason, otherwise they are privileges distributed by the ruling power.
Dr. Mohler then attempts to convince his listener that the infringement of the constitution is made necessary under the conditions whereby the government is operating. Remember, we are talking about a Baptist leader here, not a communist-leaning Democratic-Socialist. This is a very dangerous condition Dr. Mohler would wish to place us under. Who determines the conditions are extreme enough to override God-given rights? What if a government were to find churches to be dangerous to the mental health of individuals who are citizens of the country? Would then this be sufficient a condition to revoke our rights? The end of this argument is that the government gets to pick and choose the conditions under which we exercise our God-given rights, thereby making them the giver and taker of the right of assembly, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, or whatever liberty we currently possess. The government takes the place of God. The right to exercise freedoms should never be in the hand of the government, but in the hands of the citizenry who exercise their right to assembly based upon the dictates of our conscience.
Dr. Mohler continues by stating religious liberty is not infringed when there is a generally-applicable law. In other words, since they are banning everyone from assembling, they should be able to ban religious assemblies. The danger in this argument is self-evident. It could be applied to any right or liberty. According to Mohler, you can suspend all religious liberty as long as you suspend all others’ liberty as well. Think about this in terms of church incorporation. At the founding of our country, there were several attempts to force incorporation or government participation upon all churches equally. Does this mean the standing government had created a good law, just because it is generally applicable? This is an absurd notion, and that from the mouth of a Baptist theologian. Our forefathers fought a revolution over the issues at hand.
If we were to apply Dr. Mohler’s arguments equally to the rest of the constitutional amendments, we can immediately see the absurdity. It can be summed up this way:
Dr. Mohler uses Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of Constitutional governance as an example as to how this has been done in the past. It causes us to wonder at how he would not only defend or use Lincoln’s actions to promote the imprisonment of pastors for assembling, but sees it as a good example of how we ought to do things in times of national distress. It would do us well to be reminded that Lincoln’s actions brought about military tribunals of citizens among other absurd and harmful consequences attested to by history. In the end, it was the Supreme Court that stepped in against Lincoln’s unconstitutional actions. They ultimately defended the American people from Lincoln’s tyrannical actions (Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866)).
The essence of Mohler’s argument is that because Lincoln violated God-given rights, we can arrest pastors for holding religious services in the United States. We disagree vehemently. He would give powers-that-be the ability to suspend the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people during times of a national health crisis based on statistical modeling of a future what-if scenario. This power in the hands of an immoral government is frightening to those who love liberty.
Dr. Mohler then argues beautifully for the defense of God-given rights. He follows this with an even more ardent defense as to why inalienable rights should be alienated under certain circumstances. It must be noted that no inalienable rights can removed by any authority, compelling interests notwithstanding, without them losing their inalienability. They become alienable when they are alienated. It was not a coincidence our forefathers used the term inalienable. This means they cannot be taken away for any reason, otherwise they are privileges distributed by the ruling power.
Dr. Mohler then attempts to convince his listener that the infringement of the constitution is made necessary under the conditions whereby the government is operating. Remember, we are talking about a Baptist leader here, not a communist-leaning Democratic-Socialist. This is a very dangerous condition Dr. Mohler would wish to place us under. Who determines the conditions are extreme enough to override God-given rights? What if a government were to find churches to be dangerous to the mental health of individuals who are citizens of the country? Would then this be sufficient a condition to revoke our rights? The end of this argument is that the government gets to pick and choose the conditions under which we exercise our God-given rights, thereby making them the giver and taker of the right of assembly, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, or whatever liberty we currently possess. The government takes the place of God. The right to exercise freedoms should never be in the hand of the government, but in the hands of the citizenry who exercise their right to assembly based upon the dictates of our conscience.
Dr. Mohler continues by stating religious liberty is not infringed when there is a generally-applicable law. In other words, since they are banning everyone from assembling, they should be able to ban religious assemblies. The danger in this argument is self-evident. It could be applied to any right or liberty. According to Mohler, you can suspend all religious liberty as long as you suspend all others’ liberty as well. Think about this in terms of church incorporation. At the founding of our country, there were several attempts to force incorporation or government participation upon all churches equally. Does this mean the standing government had created a good law, just because it is generally applicable? This is an absurd notion, and that from the mouth of a Baptist theologian. Our forefathers fought a revolution over the issues at hand.
If we were to apply Dr. Mohler’s arguments equally to the rest of the constitutional amendments, we can immediately see the absurdity. It can be summed up this way:
The constitution can be suspended and liberty can be infringed if (1) it is a generally applicable law and (2) it makes sense because of the conditions under which the government is operating.
As a test of this absurdity, we will try this logic on the Bill of Rights itself.
This is a frightening line of argumentation. This is an all-powerful government that has the ability to set aside God-given rights at its leisure, even under times of great national distress.
Mohler bases his arguments on the genuine threat of the virus. We do not dispute this threat. He then encourages Christians to surrender certain liberties “that they would otherwise claim largely and unconditionally.”
From the Oxford English Dictionary, the term “inalienable” means:
- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion unless it is a generally-applicable law and unless the conditions under which the government is operating makes it necessary.
- We have freedom of speech unless it is a generally-applicable law and unless the conditions under which the government is operating makes it necessary.
- We have freedom of the press unless it is a generally-applicable law and unless the conditions under which the government is operating makes it necessary.
- The right of people to assemble peaceably and to petition their government for a redress of grievances unless it is a generally-applicable law and unless the conditions under which the government is operating makes it necessary.
- The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless it is a generally-applicable law and unless the conditions under which the government is operating makes it necessary.
This is a frightening line of argumentation. This is an all-powerful government that has the ability to set aside God-given rights at its leisure, even under times of great national distress.
Mohler bases his arguments on the genuine threat of the virus. We do not dispute this threat. He then encourages Christians to surrender certain liberties “that they would otherwise claim largely and unconditionally.”
From the Oxford English Dictionary, the term “inalienable” means:
Not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor.
In other words, if a right is inalienable, it is something that cannot be taken away by any means or even given away. When Dr. Mohler would have us forgo (give up, put away from us, acknowledge it is no longer there) inalienable rights, he would have us possess no rights as a people. When you give up liberty, you no longer have liberty. One does not have to give up liberty to practice safety as long as it is your decision to do so.
The Bible teaches us very plainly how we are to use our liberty. Notice, it is a use of liberty, not a forgoing of it.
We have been given liberty in Christ Jesus, and we are to use this in our day. We are not encouraging the rejection of all rules the government has made. Instead, we are arguing that in good conscience we should do things safely using our liberty, but not accepting that we have to give up that liberty to do what God is calling us to do.
The Bible teaches us very plainly how we are to use our liberty. Notice, it is a use of liberty, not a forgoing of it.
We have been given liberty in Christ Jesus, and we are to use this in our day. We are not encouraging the rejection of all rules the government has made. Instead, we are arguing that in good conscience we should do things safely using our liberty, but not accepting that we have to give up that liberty to do what God is calling us to do.
Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
1 Corinthians 10:29-31
It is incumbent upon us to realize that we are not to use the liberty we have been given to judge another. We preach in our churches because we believe that God has commanded us to do so. There may be times when we abridge our services because we love our people. Most of us have done so in allowing for different provisions in the church. We stand in our pulpits because of the command of God and because we believe God wants us to be there. We cannot say, however, that since some are not in agreement with what we are doing, they are in violation of God’s will. In doing so, we are judging our brethren. There are some who have made a decision in their churches to avoid meeting because of health reasons or concerns about the current virus. We cannot judge that. They answer to God for their decision just as we all do.
Likewise, those who have ceased meeting are not to judge those who have continued to do so. For instance, those that meet should not be called “crazy” or “reckless.” We cannot use our liberty to judge another’s conscience.
In a desperate situation, such as the one in which we find ourselves with Covid-19, there is always a tendency to place the blame on others who are not doing things as we are. There is a virus in the air. That is nobody’s fault. We need to pray for each other, not blame each other. There is a reason for this. The Bible says:
Likewise, those who have ceased meeting are not to judge those who have continued to do so. For instance, those that meet should not be called “crazy” or “reckless.” We cannot use our liberty to judge another’s conscience.
In a desperate situation, such as the one in which we find ourselves with Covid-19, there is always a tendency to place the blame on others who are not doing things as we are. There is a virus in the air. That is nobody’s fault. We need to pray for each other, not blame each other. There is a reason for this. The Bible says:
But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
1 Corinthians 8:9
We are not to use our liberty as a stumblingblock to others. Some might have a firmly held belief that the Coronavirus is a hoax, which is not our belief. That individual should not force their beliefs on others by giving them hugs or shaking their hands whether they want it or not. We can become a stumblingblock by mocking the other side of an issue. We are not supposed to do this with our liberty. It harms others.
Liberty is a calling to which we have been called and we must avoid giving occasion to the flesh through our exercise of it.
Liberty is a calling to which we have been called and we must avoid giving occasion to the flesh through our exercise of it.
For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Galatians 5:13-14
The liberty we exercise as Christians does not give us an excuse to threaten or harm people that are around us. In fact, it is reasonable for us to recommend that those who are high-risk stay away from services for a time. We should show more love to our community than anyone else. We should show more love to our people than anyone else. We are to, by love, serve one another. It is possible that Rodney Howard-Browne would not have had such a problem if he would have shown the concern and love for his people that he ought to have shown. He could have expressed this love for his brethren by social distancing and cleaning as he should. In times like these, as Lordship churches, we are not to grieve our local law enforcement, but to love our neighbors.
We are not to cause issues and difficulties that can be avoided, but we must do what we believe is right according to the dictates of our conscience out of a love for God and our neighbors.
We are taught this in James, chapter 2:
We are not to cause issues and difficulties that can be avoided, but we must do what we believe is right according to the dictates of our conscience out of a love for God and our neighbors.
We are taught this in James, chapter 2:
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
James 2:12
We are to be judged by God how we use our liberty.
We see the arguments of Dr. Mohler to lay aside our liberties as abhorrent. We strongly recognize the dangers of what he is postulating.
We also recognize that as believers who love one another, we should be of all people most careful toward those in our congregations that might be affected by the Covid-19 virus. It is not unreasonable for us to make some modifications to our service times and how we clean the buildings in which we meet. We need to be wise as to our response. If we choose to continue to meet, we should take the proper care over the churches over which we have been made overseers. We should not act in fear. We should show our love to each other as a testimony to the world. May God be glorified in our churches as He leads us.
We see the arguments of Dr. Mohler to lay aside our liberties as abhorrent. We strongly recognize the dangers of what he is postulating.
We also recognize that as believers who love one another, we should be of all people most careful toward those in our congregations that might be affected by the Covid-19 virus. It is not unreasonable for us to make some modifications to our service times and how we clean the buildings in which we meet. We need to be wise as to our response. If we choose to continue to meet, we should take the proper care over the churches over which we have been made overseers. We should not act in fear. We should show our love to each other as a testimony to the world. May God be glorified in our churches as He leads us.
RSS Feed