Andrew, it appears you have triggered an interesting discussion on the proper time and circumstance for civil disobedience from a Biblical perspective. I think at the heart of it I am in general agreement with you. I did a little research on Governor's authority across the country during times of crisis. These vary from state-to-state anf commonwealth to Commonwealth. The authority given to Governor's during special periods of times like these has been established by the States Constitution and then supported by various laws and case law historically. In some States these are subject to legislative review. it would be my humble judgment then that I must obey them. The exception, as you point out very well is when those orders or edicts are in direct violation of God's word. The prohibition against worship services would in my judgment constitute a reasonable and valid act of civil disobedience. Even under those circumstances however, I believe we should take all reasonable steps to protect the health and safety of our congregants. Thank you so much for bringing this issue to light and as always your thorough treatment of the subject.
Thanks for your informative comments, Paul. A crucial point in my post is the recognition of the definition of civil authority in the U. S. context. It's a complex, shared phenomenon that vests neither politicians nor citizens with final authority. This fact calls into question the notion that in the U. S. politicians alone are identified as the civil minister in Rom. 13. In short, neither citizens nor politicians may be anarchists.
Agreed, the individual mandates from the Governor did not go through what you called due process of the legislature. However in CA law: section 8627 of article 13 of ch 7 of division 1 of title 2 of the Government code (which did go through the due process of law and was added to California law in about 1970) gives the governor "complete authority over all agencies of the state government....) and the power to "make, amend or rescind orders and regulations during a state of emergency...".
That is a pretty compelling argument that the Governor's orders are legitimate and should be obeyed (unless they are immoral).
When the mayors/governors unilaterally issued curfews in certain places during the riots/protests did they also implement illegitimate laws? Applying your logic consistently seems to say the curfews were too broad and should have been disobeyed.
It seems to clisely parallel your argument against quarantining the healthy by not letting even peaceful people out past curfew.
Since We live in a state and country that allows us to work within the law to change the law, wouldn’t it be better to obey CE while lawfully working to get them changed?
“ But the CE are not narrowly focused, as the Bible requires, but comprehensively apply across the board. This, then, is a violation of God’s law that must not be obeyed.”
If i obey CE by staying home or wearing a mask would you say i am in sin?? It seems like you would by using words like “must not be obeyed”. If i must not obey it and do iney it sounds like I’m sinning in your opinion.
For a healthy individual to refuse God’s command to provide for one’s family when he is able to provide for them on the grounds of adherence to political edict is to violate God’s law. For a church to refuse public worship solely on the same political grounds is equally disobedience to God.
That’s getting clearer. If i am still providing for my family by working from home and wear a mask when gathering for public worship (or gather for worship outdoors), it seems I am able to obey both God and man. It sounded like you were saying obeying both couldn’t be done.
Are you equating asymptomatic people with healthy people?
What about pre-symptomatic COVID-19 patients who don’t show symptoms for a few days before they actually need to be quarantined as your article supports? The problem is asymptomatic are equally dangerous and even more so because they are not aware they have the virus. If we had rampant testing, perhaps that could be a way for an asymptomatic person to self-quarantine as they would learn that they are positive.
If I were a person who was asymptotic or presymptomatic, I cannot fathom the possibility that I could be the cause of someone’s death because I wanted to live normally in this pandemic. I would rather choose to be inconvenienced temporarily than to transmit and be culpable for somebody’s death. My rights to be free from the slightest chance and regret that I caused someone’s death is the freedom I would choose... We are not asked to put our lives at risk by wearing masks but we will be putting other people’s lives at risk by not wearing one.
Yes thanks for recognizing freedom and choice... and I do not have the authority to demand people to wear masks but I think we can please and ask the anti-maskers to respect human lives by possibly thinking that WE could be the asymptomatic/presymptomatic virus carriers and act accordingly. Those who are sick can demand that no one should quarantine them either as it infringes on their civil liberty. I can't think of anyone who loves wearing masks and nobody likes to be locked down. But promoting that people should not wear masks only will drag out this pandemic instead of quenching it. Many other nations successfully subdued the virus with mask-wearing policies and it is not an immoral request to ask people to wear masks. If mask wearing was immoral, that would be a different story.
I believe most of 1 Corinthians supports this mindset. Giving up your personal liberty for the sake of loving others is pretty much the theme of the entire epistle. Why, it's the gospel from the point of view of Christ Himself.
Andrew, it appears you have triggered an interesting discussion on the proper time and circumstance for civil disobedience from a Biblical perspective. I think at the heart of it I am in general agreement with you. I did a little research on Governor's authority across the country during times of crisis. These vary from state-to-state anf commonwealth to Commonwealth. The authority given to Governor's during special periods of times like these has been established by the States Constitution and then supported by various laws and case law historically. In some States these are subject to legislative review. it would be my humble judgment then that I must obey them. The exception, as you point out very well is when those orders or edicts are in direct violation of God's word. The prohibition against worship services would in my judgment constitute a reasonable and valid act of civil disobedience. Even under those circumstances however, I believe we should take all reasonable steps to protect the health and safety of our congregants. Thank you so much for bringing this issue to light and as always your thorough treatment of the subject.
Thanks for your informative comments, Paul. A crucial point in my post is the recognition of the definition of civil authority in the U. S. context. It's a complex, shared phenomenon that vests neither politicians nor citizens with final authority. This fact calls into question the notion that in the U. S. politicians alone are identified as the civil minister in Rom. 13. In short, neither citizens nor politicians may be anarchists.
"Because of God’s creational revelation inscribed in men’s hearts, even godly civil magistrates can partially reflect a righteous political order. "
I think you meant to write "ungodly".
Thank you so much!
Thanks so much, Joe. Looks like I need to draft a sequel!
Agreed, the individual mandates from the Governor did not go through what you called due process of the legislature. However in CA law: section 8627 of article 13 of ch 7 of division 1 of title 2 of the Government code (which did go through the due process of law and was added to California law in about 1970) gives the governor "complete authority over all agencies of the state government....) and the power to "make, amend or rescind orders and regulations during a state of emergency...".
That is a pretty compelling argument that the Governor's orders are legitimate and should be obeyed (unless they are immoral).
When the mayors/governors unilaterally issued curfews in certain places during the riots/protests did they also implement illegitimate laws? Applying your logic consistently seems to say the curfews were too broad and should have been disobeyed.
It seems to clisely parallel your argument against quarantining the healthy by not letting even peaceful people out past curfew.
Since We live in a state and country that allows us to work within the law to change the law, wouldn’t it be better to obey CE while lawfully working to get them changed?
So when you say
“ But the CE are not narrowly focused, as the Bible requires, but comprehensively apply across the board. This, then, is a violation of God’s law that must not be obeyed.”
If i obey CE by staying home or wearing a mask would you say i am in sin?? It seems like you would by using words like “must not be obeyed”. If i must not obey it and do iney it sounds like I’m sinning in your opinion.
For a healthy individual to refuse God’s command to provide for one’s family when he is able to provide for them on the grounds of adherence to political edict is to violate God’s law. For a church to refuse public worship solely on the same political grounds is equally disobedience to God.
That’s getting clearer. If i am still providing for my family by working from home and wear a mask when gathering for public worship (or gather for worship outdoors), it seems I am able to obey both God and man. It sounded like you were saying obeying both couldn’t be done.
Are you equating asymptomatic people with healthy people?
What about pre-symptomatic COVID-19 patients who don’t show symptoms for a few days before they actually need to be quarantined as your article supports? The problem is asymptomatic are equally dangerous and even more so because they are not aware they have the virus. If we had rampant testing, perhaps that could be a way for an asymptomatic person to self-quarantine as they would learn that they are positive.
If I were a person who was asymptotic or presymptomatic, I cannot fathom the possibility that I could be the cause of someone’s death because I wanted to live normally in this pandemic. I would rather choose to be inconvenienced temporarily than to transmit and be culpable for somebody’s death. My rights to be free from the slightest chance and regret that I caused someone’s death is the freedom I would choose... We are not asked to put our lives at risk by wearing masks but we will be putting other people’s lives at risk by not wearing one.
You are free as a Christian to wear masks. You are not free to demand everyone else wear them.
Yes thanks for recognizing freedom and choice... and I do not have the authority to demand people to wear masks but I think we can please and ask the anti-maskers to respect human lives by possibly thinking that WE could be the asymptomatic/presymptomatic virus carriers and act accordingly. Those who are sick can demand that no one should quarantine them either as it infringes on their civil liberty. I can't think of anyone who loves wearing masks and nobody likes to be locked down. But promoting that people should not wear masks only will drag out this pandemic instead of quenching it. Many other nations successfully subdued the virus with mask-wearing policies and it is not an immoral request to ask people to wear masks. If mask wearing was immoral, that would be a different story.
I believe most of 1 Corinthians supports this mindset. Giving up your personal liberty for the sake of loving others is pretty much the theme of the entire epistle. Why, it's the gospel from the point of view of Christ Himself.
Thanks so much Doc, this is really helpful.
I'd love to hear you expound and tease out the idea of having some freedom to choose which laws to follow a little further.