05.15.2020
I just picked up two free face masks from the Rotary Club of Nashua, New Hampshire. It’s just one of the many examples of people responding to their “neighbors” and being the hands and feet and heart of Christ in this time in our world.
Sadly, some of the responses to the coronavirus pandemic represent the worst aspects of our human nature. It is especially sad when folks who profess to be followers of Christ are clearly marching in such a different direction.
Like those church leaders who declare they follow “God’s law not man’s law,” and insist on their “right” to conduct in-person church services.
Neither the assertion nor the demand are valid.
Let’s take that “right” first.
The U.S. Constitution’s First amendment does say “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” So these church leaders decry the “no crowd” orders in various states as an infringement of their free exercise, and violate the directive. But that “free exercise” has always been limited, (as have the other freedoms in the Bill Rights). The general principle is that one person’s freedom extends only to the point at which it harms another person. And the evidence is clear that gathering a lot of people into a limited space for any length of time significantly increases the likelihood of spreading COVID19 and causing harm, both to those folks in the gathering and to the folks they come in contact with after the gathering.
That “free exercise” also exists within an important context. The Preamble sets out the overall purposes of the Constitution. One of those stated purposes is to “promote the general welfare.” Stopping or minimizing the effects of coronavirus will protect the welfare of all the people in the country. And since the Constitution did not give specific power to the Congress, the ability to control crowds resides with the states. The “free exercise” of a religion does not give anyone the right to endanger the welfare of another.
So what about following “God’s law not man’s law” (ever wonder why it’s always man’s law? wouldn’t “human law” be a more appropriate label?).
The initial question has to be what “law” of God are they referencing? Christ said there are two: Love God, and Love your neighbor. Neither one requires meeting with a large number of other people. In fact Christ told the Samaritan women (at the well, it’s at John 4:7-26) that where we worship would not matter — true worship would be “in spirit and in truth,” no sanctuary, no crowds, and no church leader required. (And if these church leaders are saying God can’t use the internet, they are worshipping a pretty lower case god.)
There is another problem with that “God’s law not man’s law” false dichotomy. Christ himself followed human law — both Roman law and Jewish law. Paul says Christ did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross, [Phil 2:7-8]. The Romans found Christ guilty of treason. The Jews found him guilty of blasphemy. So they crucified him. And God responded by turning that worst-possible situation into the greatest possible blessing.
If Christ had not subjected himself to human law, there would have been no crucifixion. There would be no resurrection. There would be no church.
So what or who are these church leaders following?