Should we disobey the government?

I think it has been increasingly likely, especially in the States, that the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions would eventually cause churches to rebel against the authority of the state - even within more conservative evangelical contexts. At the weekend, that debate broke in a big way because John MacArthur's Grace Community Church decided to open. The statement of the elders is, I think, a useful read on addressing some of the issues. Jonathan Leeman at 9Marks issued, what I think, is a gracious and thoughtful response.

Now I say that I think it was especially likely to happen in the States simply because unlike us in the UK, they style themselves as "the land of the free". The kind of state intervention we have seen in both our countries is unprecedented, especially outside of war time, but I'm not sure in the UK we've ever quite got over our class system where there are lords and peasants and the peasants have to do what the lords say. Note we again have a Prime Minister who went to Eton!

From the word "go" in States there have been questions and protests around the interventions and the curtailment of freedoms, whereas in the UK we have a tendency to think those kind of things only come from cranks in the right-wing press!

That said, in the UK, a group of Christian leaders did begin to take legal action against the government because of the restrictions - although the situation changed when the restrictions changed. Again there was response from other evangelicals, e.g. a post from John Stevens, of the FIEC.

For Christians, as lots of the posts mention, there is the ongoing balance of submitting to our rulers found, for example, in Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14, but not doing so in a way that abandons our submission to the Lord, most famously found in Daniel 3:16-18 and Acts 4:19-20. This makes it a question of whether it is government over-reach to legally prevent what God commands of us. If it is, then we are free to disobey (in Christian terms), despite the consequences (in legal terms).

Let me also mention a side-issue here that is often raised, but I think slightly misses the heart of the question, although is massive in the application of your position. This is the issue of neighbour-love. Usually this is getting at the idea that if we love our neighbour, we should follow the government. I say this is a side-issue, because we may (a) think the government has over-reached and that we need not obey and (b) still choose not to meet because that is the way to love our neighbour. Although, this broadly doesn't seem to be how it plays out it is interesting that an answer to a question at the end of the MacArthur statement spells this position out, where they explain why they initially obeyed the government - not because they had to, but voluntarily. Of course, beyond that we may think that the government guidelines don't express neighbour-love appropriately.

For what it's worth, as with almost everything with Coronavirus, the rights and wrongs of what you do seem to me extremely tricky to work out. I have sympathy for government leaders and scientists in what seems to be a fast-evolving situation. Broadly, I'm also unenthusiastic about approaching everything through law and legality and I think it says something about our society, our willingness to care and our trust of government where it is perceived that we must legally enforce so much of what is perceived to be right.

I think that points to a deeper question about why Christians have reacted so differently and not always particularly helpfully to these issues. I think that question is one of how we view our moment in time in relation to government. Put crudely, as Christians we could view the attitude of government along a kind of continuum from hostile to supportive with the middle being something along the lines of neutral or maybe more accurately indifferent. If we find ourselves more towards the hostile end, our tendency will be to be much more concerned about the government creating law that restricts churches. If we find ourselves more towards the indifferent to positive end (I'm not sure how many are at the positive end these days to be honest!), then we will probably be more willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt and try to work with them.

It's interesting to note that Leeman in his response to MacArthur notes this by suggesting this might not be the point to jump into civil disobedience, because it's coming with respect to other issues. Perhaps this is why I find his response gracious. I think he understands the question of government over-reach more acutely than some others.

For what it's worth, I find myself thinking that broadly western governments are now, because of a whole set of contemporary debates, at the more hostile end of the continuum. That makes me very fearful when I see them ordering church closures, even if I can understand and support their logic. I would much prefer to have seen them give advice and recommendations (something more like the situation we have now in the UK).

While I suspect if we see a spike in Coronavirus cases in MacArthur's church many will at least have a sense of schadenfreude - we told you so! I wonder if in 5 or 10 years time, we might feel some of MacArthur's arguments were uncomfortably prescient.

As one who has recently come out of the established (somewhat different to state) church, I have seen how fast legislation affects the church and how quickly the church becomes compliant. This is not how the church relationship should be with the state. Many Church of England clergy like to talk about being prophetic and speaking truth to power, but mostly I see them towing the cultural line. To be prophetic and speak truth to power, one might suggest we need to see more courage in standing up to what is culturally the norm, especially in the circles you move. I think church leaders could have done better on this.

Cautiously, I would suggest that I would have liked to see more on the following from church leaders:

1. Clarity on the theological whys and wherefores of closing, particularly around the limits of obedience to the state.
2. The tragedy of closing/restrictions. In the scramble to provide something, leaders could have been clearer that online, limited numbers, non-singing etc. was in general wrong, even if in this specific situation tolerated.
3. Teaching on civil disobedience in general. At the moment I don't see that as necessary in the UK on the Coronavirus issue, but it may be that the power we have seen government take in this crisis will not be given up and that similar logic may be applied in other circumstances. We need to be providing our church members with the theological backbone now.

All three of these suggestions would, I think, have been helpful to both government and church members. Government would have found a church that they are not in charge of, despite what I hope is our general lawfulness and positive contribution to society. Church members would have been informed and prepared.

Now, I am super-sympathetic with the realities of being a church leader right now. Most probably feel they have plenty on their plate as it is! I'm just cautiously wondering that, if we're not careful, there's been a focus on the apparently urgent, while the ball may have been dropped on some things with longer term and more far-reaching significance.