When the coronavirus began to spread and churches joined their communities in reluctantly “social distancing,” we all shuddered just a bit with Easter just a few weeks away. Would we be able to enter our sanctuaries again for Easter Sunday?
Even President Trump acknowledged this critical benchmark. Tuesday, March 24, during a Fox News virtual townhall, Trump affirmed that he “would love to have the country opened up and just raring to go by Easter.”
But as Sunday, April 12, approached, it became evident that our country would still be social distancing on Easter Sunday, and pastors and churches would need to decide, How do we do Easter in the era of social distancing?
To provide worship, churches had three choices:
First, continue to comply and stream worship exclusively online, using the same resources we have used since the pandemic began. Most churches nationwide chose this avenue for Easter worship.
Second, ignore the “stay at home” orders and congregate in clear violation of the local and state municipalities, rebelling openly against civil mandates.
Or, third, find a way to continue to comply with the social distancing guidelines while at the same time “gathering,” in some way, for worship. And suddenly pastors and churches chose something that had not been widespread since Robert Schuller launched his Garden Grove, CA, Community Church in 1955—drive-in church. (Ironic, isn’t it, that by going off-line these pastors mimicked one of America’s first televangelists?)
Now we are on the other side of Easter, and I think it is wise to reflect on what churches did and how governments responded.
See, we learned something. Since we live in a nation resting on the pillar of religious liberty, we rarely have such a widespread occasion to actually test whether, to what extent, or even how municipalities would be willing to permit churches to retain those liberties or might threaten them.
We learned how the government will respond when Christians either refuse to comply–or seek to comply with creativity. We now know that, without hesitation, some municipalities will react with heavy-handed pressure, even sanctions or the threat of law, unless they are reeled in by higher, wiser authorities. The good news is that most backed down quickly, such as Wake County in NC. But still others dismissed the Constitutional protections of religious freedom, such as Mayor Greg Fischer in Louisville, KY, whose cavalier actions prompted a local judge to issue a restraining order against enforcing a ban to prohibit drive-in church services.
But second, we learned that, unfortunately, some churches and pastors are unclear on the biblical relationship we share with the government. Maybe that’s because, again, so far we have lived in relative harmony, protected by the Constitution, so anything else has been mostly theoretical.
Well, not anymore.
With that in mind, let’s regroup and remember how the Bible describes the relationship that Christians have with the government and how the Bible teaches Christians should respond when pressured to renounce their faith.
Three characteristics should inform our relationship with the government:
- An attitude of respect
Our relationship with the government should be characterized by an attitude of mutual respect. Government has its role, and in the United States that role includes protecting the freedoms of its citizens, especially religious liberty. Government also has the job of keeping us safe from invisible viruses, protecting us from invading armies, and fostering our freedoms to work and raise a family—to name a few things. These are the reasons we pay our taxes (Rom. 13:1-7, 1 Peter 3:13-17, Matt. 22:21, Titus 3:1).
So, Christians should be the best citizens any country or community has. That’s not because we worship government. It’s because we represent Christ. And we grasp essential biblical truths—that all government is a reflection of the authority of God, that laws reflect the sinful nature of humanity (if we weren’t sinners, we wouldn’t need laws), that good citizenship gives us the freedom to exercise our faith, and that ultimately Christians are citizens of heaven, but residing here for now to influence our culture for Christ (Phil. 3:20).
So, for these reasons, churches comply with the directives for social distancing, but, as we are voluntarily complying, we expect the government to support our efforts to be creative as we provide our congregations opportunities for fellowship, evangelism, worship, and service.
- A measured response
But sometimes the government crosses the line.
The Apostle Paul had the unique position in society of dual citizenship. He was both a Jew and a Roman citizen. So on one occasion when he was about to be scourged, a brutal form of torture by whipping, he challenged the authorities on the legality of their actions. He had not been convicted of a crime, and, more importantly, a Roman citizen could not legally be scourged under any circumstances. So he stopped them and spoke up, “Is it legal for you to scourge a man who is a Roman citizen and is uncondemned?” (Acts 22:22-29)
No, it wasn’t. And Paul didn’t keep silent. But he also did not stir up a rebellion or raise an army or create havoc. He simply pointed out that the government itself was about to break the law and, in the process, victimize a man who had done nothing wrong. And notice—he did it for his own self-preservation. There is nothing particularly spiritual about laying on the mat and taking an underserved beating from the government for no other reason than you are a Christian.
For American Christians and Americans of other faiths, this is why it is critical to stand firm for religious liberty and speak up at even the hint that it might be abridged or, worse, revoked.
- A refusal to comply
But what if things get worse? It’s an exception, but sometimes outright resistance is warranted.
Also reported in Acts, as the early Christians spread the Gospel and people were healed by the power of God, the local authorities arrested Peter and John. They misunderstood what was happening and considered the disciples a risk. They pulled them in and “ordered them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. Peter and John answered them, ‘Whether it’s right in the sight of God for us to listen to you rather than to God, you decide; for we are unable to stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.’ After threatening them further, they released them” (Acts 4:18-21).
In this instance, the government tried to shut down what clearly God wanted the Christians to do. The disciples were not refusing to comply with a reasonable request from local authorities. They were refusing to concede the government’s unreasonable assumption that their authority superseded God’s authority in the lives of the disciples.
At some point, such civil disobedience may be necessary. But that is not the same thing as provoking the civil authorities by refusing to comply with a reasonable request to let the government do its job.
And as long as churches help the government do its job, the government should never hinder churches from doing their job. That harmony is why we have religious liberty as a first-order Constitutional freedom.
But make no mistake. If one day we have to choose Who we serve, let’s be sure we get it right (Joshua 24:15).