Monday, August 15, 2022

"God vs Government": the pretend heroics of Grace Community Church.

 

                                                  

 

"“Welcome to our peaceful protest.”

In the spring of 2020, government mandates forced churches across North America to close their doors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As societal fear and unrest increased, Christians were forced to grapple with how God wanted them to respond to these state-imposed restrictions. After all, didn’t the closure of churches pose a serious threat in a time when people needed spiritual direction more than ever?" - Amazon blurb (preface)

The reality is that GCC  shut down for 4 months in obedience to the government. Now they're profiting off of their reversal as if they were always courageous. Actually, it was biblical churches that obeyed God rather than man and therefore never did shut down their churches and didn't feel the need to thumb their noses at the government by making videos and announcing it. They quietly, like Daniel, continued on with how they'd been practicing sound doctrine.  They treated and continue to treat Scripture and it's doctrine as it is: God's very word,  knowable and essential, and not given to situational obedience. The government has zero jurisdiction over the local church. In any way. It neither defines it nor regulates it. That is solely the jurisdiction of Christ Jesus.  Rather, James tells the elders to go to the sick. Quarantines in the OT was for the lepers and all the regulations of how, when, and for how long is given in detail in Leviticus to the Jews for a specific reason, mainly to show the insidiousness of sin and it's widespread growth in man. Never were the healthy quarantined or isolated. Johnson neglected these important distinctions.

Phil Johnson in May 2020 posted:






This guy, angry that Grace Community Church yielded to the 9th Circuit Court's ruling banning church meetings in California this weekend, Tweets at me: "An unjust law need not be followed."

I'm appalled at how many people who profess to believe Scripture echo that sentiment. Nero was emperor when Paul wrote Romans 13:1-7: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. . . ." First Peter 2:13 was written to people suffering unjustly. ("Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him...")

Peter goes on to say: "Be subject . . . also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly" (vv. 18-19). Indeed, "to this [unjust suffering] you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps." (v. 21). When someone in authority over us treats us unjustly, the example we are to follow was set for us by Christ, who simply "continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly" (v. 23).

The only exception to this principle is when the one in authority instructs us to sin. Then "we must obey God rather than men" (
Acts 5:29).

The answer to that question may vary according to where we live. Quarantining people in the midst of a pandemic is a legitimate prerogative of government. How long the quarantine should last and who should be exempted are questions that don't have clear, fixed answers. The severity and duration of the pandemic determines what's reasonable or not. We may or may not agree with how the quarantine is being implemented (I certainly do not), but we have a clear duty to submit unless we are being asked to sin. 

How long until the government-ordered quarantine is undeniably excessive, or we conclude that it's targeted persecution against our worship and therefore an illegal attempt to make us disobey Hebrews 10:25? That time may come, and when it does, we may have to implement the principle of Acts 5:29. The question of whether we have already passed that point is another subjective issue, but it's clear that among believers—in the church itself—there is not yet consensus on whether the quarantine has gone too far.

Nevertheless, if you hang out on Twitter or Facebook, you may have noticed that there are countless people in the evangelical community who refuse to regard any of the above questions as matters of conscience. They believe the answers are perfectly obvious. They are eager to tell you what you and your church ought to be doing. They are locked and loaded with vituperation for anyone who sees matters differently. Two camps of them have squared off against each other—hordes of angry Karens at opposite extremes, all of whom disagree with the position I've outlined above. Some of them are scolding us for thinking Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 actually apply in today's circumstances. The others are berating us for wanting to resume public worship ASAP.

Sorry, but in the words of Martin Luther, here I stand. I can do no other. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help us.

~Phil  Johnson May 25, 2020 [bold, original; underline, mine]

But a little over two months later, he and his church became JUST AS DOGMATIC:

Churches are shutting down. Large churches are shutting down until (they say) January. I don't have any way to understand that—other than they don't know what a church is and they don't shepherd their people. But that's sad. And you have a lot of people in Christianity who seem to be significant leaders who aren't giving any strength and courage to the church. They're not standing up and rising up and calling on Christians to be the church in the world.

John MacArthur (2 August 2020) (italics, mine)

GCC's stance changed 4 months later, going from "we need to submit to the government--Romans 13!!, to stating what biblical churches and Christians had held to and practiced from the moment of the shut down—that the government has no jurisdiction over the Lord's church ever---the very stand Johnson ridiculed as “angry Karens”.

Johnson partially quoted Romans 13, but forgot to include the JURISDICTION of the government God gave (aka, context). It was not over health, family, marriage, working (work is mandated by God); who to isolate and not isolate for health risks, how to run a church. Rather, the government’s jurisdiction given by God is VERY NARROW:

Rom 13:3  For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; 4  for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. 

1 Peter 2 explains what the "good" and "evil" is--it's according to Scripture, not Caesar. 1Pe 2:14  or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right1 Peter 3:14 says it's in regard to righteousness.  So, tell a church how to function especially when it’s against Scripture IS sin. It’s source of authority is satanic and therefore illegitimate. It goes back to the ancient Serpent in the Garden of Eden, saying “Has God said?”. Yes, He has said. He has spoken.  Any view that is not a biblical view is sin. Doing things from fear rather than faith, is sin (James 4). So, for Johnson to infer that disobedience to the government is allowed only if they command you directly to sin (for example, only IF they say you shall bow to an idol” or “you shall take the mark of the beast”, or "you must have an abortion"), is a very immature view of Scripture. It’s really a low view of God, Scripture, and His church, His people. (I think a better example is Daniel, who obeyed God in food, drink, and worship regardless of what the government said, yet still showed honor to the king. Note that he did nothing different when things got bad—he continued on as he always had done—pray to Yahweh, obey Scripture, trust in God. He continued to LIVE according to biblical doctrine. )

Months later he changed his tune. It was his experience with o
ngoing regulations, not a clear understanding of and trust in Scripture, is what changed his mind.  He wasn't a little off and just needed "fine tuning". He did not start with the presupposition of God's Word trumping government mandates and fear. He didn't start with having a high view of the Lord's children. He mocked them. He got angry and impatient with them. Rather his post comes off as everyone has their own  own interpretation of Scripture---the very thing he slammed the Emergent Church (Post-Modernists) for. He said, 

But GCC ended up saying what we said all along: we won't submit to the government shut down of churches because it was wholly unbiblical. But for a quarter of an entire year they cowered before unholy men who dared to dictate to Christians and how they relate to God. And they didn't admit they were wrong, apologized to all those they rebuked for daring to be dogmatic on sound doctrine and practice. No, they rewrote the narrative, painting themselves as fierce, unmovable heroes of the faith when the fact was, they were cowards for months. That's dishonest and it's fleshly.

The problem is that GCC thinks time is what justifies or does not justify disobedience to the Lord when it comes to closing down a church, having no communion, no fellowship, no church discipline. Their view was purely pragmatic, self-preserving, and out of fear of government and illness. For four long months they kept their flock from obeying the Lord as they continued to not obey the Lord as "leaders". It was over-lording the people with their own fear and rebellion. And now they wrote a book on how bold and courageous they were to stand (even taunt, if you look at MacArthur's video statement), against the shut down AS IF they had always stood open. 

 So that’s the problem with the book. For four months, GCC was doing that very thing they accused others of doing: redefining by action what a church is; shepherds not shepherding their people and not giving strength and courage to the church. I’d add they didn’t deal with sin within the church either. Rather they were cowering and in fear of a less-than-lethal virus and the government. They really want to be heroes and make some money and gain some recognition out of it. It's fleshly.

(Tangentially, it was MacArthur who refused to submit to the human institution of WASC, the accreditation institute, when starting TMS. He said he knew they weren’t supposed to start the seminary because WASC said no, but went ahead, “hoping for forgiveness later” (TMS Chapel 8/21/18 Part 1 time mark 4:25). So the hypocrisy goes back quite a ways with them- obey or disobey at whim.) They are no Daniel. Not even close.

 


 




No comments: