As the scope and scale of the coronavirus pandemic became clear, most states issued “stay-at-home” orders, closing all but essential businesses and limiting the travel of their citizens. Thirteen states exempted churches and religious organizations, though eight of these severely limited the number who could attend services. But even in states where churches were exempted, most voluntarily suspended regular services, recognizing the risks to their members and neighbors.
But as states gradually began to “open” their economies, many church leaders — still abiding by restrictive orders — grew restless. Some argued that Scripture requires Christians to meet (Hebrews 10:25). Many wondered aloud if the restrictions had been fairly applied. Were they even constitutional? And didn’t the apostles proclaim, “We must obey God rather than men”?
Inevitably, these matters went to court. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit public interest law firm, reports that faith groups have filed around 30 legal challenges to state and local reopening plans. Four federal appeals courts have now ruled on cases — the 7th and 9th Circuits ruled in favor of the states; the 5th and 6th Circuits found for the churches. Upon appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 9th Circuit’s ruling in a 5-4 decision. More cases are pending.
Are there circumstances, given the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, under which the government may order churches to close? What does the Bible tell us about whether a church should obey such an order?
A number of church leaders have threatened to defy state orders. In a May 20 letter to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Archbishop Bernard Hebda of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, and the Rev. Lucas Woodford, president of the Minnesota South District of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, announced they would allow their congregations to gather indoors at one-third capacity starting May 26. Also on May 20, more than 1,200 California pastors presented a petition to Gov. Gavin Newsom declaring their intention to reopen on May 31 regardless the state’s stay-at-home order.
Two days later, these efforts received a boost from President Donald Trump. In a news conference, the president declared houses of worship “as essential places that provide essential services” and called on governors to open churches “right now.” Should they fail to comply, the president threatened to “override” them.
Walz revised his order to allow churches to hold indoor services at 25% capacity beginning May 27, and the California Department of Public Health announced that places of worship could open with no more than 100 people as long as social distancing is observed. Still, some California churches have ignored the guidelines.
The Wall Street Journal reported that at one nondenominational church in Murrieta, California, “parishioners sat side-by-side on chairs less than a foot apart with no masks.” Following music, the worship leader invited people to, “Say hi to somebody. Elbow. Fist Bump. You can hug if you want.” According to The Journal, many did.
All this raises two sorts of questions. The first is legal: Are there circumstances, given the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, under which the government may order churches to close? The second is biblical: What does the Bible tell us about whether a church should obey such an order?
The Legal Question
Regarding the legal question, David French, a PCA church member and lawyer who has argued religious liberties cases, gives a qualified yes. French explains that from colonial times states have enjoyed a very broad police power to respond to emergencies — even temporarily limiting First Amendment rights — so long as their actions meet two tests. First, the action must further a compelling governmental interest. Second, it must be applied by the least restrictive means possible.
“At the onset of a pandemic,” French argues, “there is a ‘compelling governmental interest’ — controlling the spread of a deadly infectious disease.”
And the prohibition of gatherings meets the second test, he believes. “If the science says that being in a room with a bunch of people facilitates the spread of the disease, and elimination of such gatherings is the only way to prevent a super-spread event, it will pass the test — even if it eliminates gatherings normally protected by the First Amendment.”
But French goes on to point out that even qualifying orders have limits. For one thing, “The constitutionality of these orders is based on a highly fact-dependent analysis that changes as conditions change. You can’t say, ‘Until coronavirus is gone, we can ban large gatherings.’” Development of a vaccine, for example, would remove the government’s “compelling interest” in prohibiting large gatherings. Furthermore, preventing such gatherings would no longer be the least restrictive means of thwarting further contagion.
“In my opinion,” French says, “you need a time-limited response that must be reevaluated periodically.” Additionally, orders that close churches even temporarily face further legal limitations. For one, churches can’t be singled out. If a provision allows large gatherings in some venues, it must allow them in churches. “When you restrict churches more than you do other comparable activities, such as school or entertainment or athletics,” French says, “then you’ll be violating the First Amendment.”
The Biblical Question
What about the biblical question? If the Bible calls us to meet together in person, does the state have a right to tell us not to? Does obedience to God demand that we defy such an order?
Dr. Timothy Persons, chief scientist of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and stated clerk of the PCA’s Chesapeake Presbytery, has worked on pandemic-related issues for years and argues that it depends on the nature of the order. While acknowledging that there are circumstances in our nation where religious liberty is a proper concern, he doesn’t believe the current situation is one of them. In Persons’ view, the civil government’s authority to prohibit public gatherings is derived from the civil magistrate’s biblical responsibility to protect the safety and security of their people as summarized in the Westminster Standards.
“The government is not telling us how to do our worship or what the content of our preaching should be,” he says. “The National Guard is not standing at the doors of our churches with guns trying to keep us from worship.” Persons argues that public health and safety affect the application of passages such as Hebrews 10:25.
“I don’t believe it’s correct to interpret that passage as requiring us to gather in person, when gathering carries a risk of spreading a deadly disease to people in our congregations and in our communities,” he says, “especially when we have the technology to gather online.” He argues that the prevailing biblical principle in this particular moment is the command to love our neighbor.
Michael Langer, associate director of the PCA Ministry to State, agrees. “1 Peter 1 tells us that as Christians, we are sojourners and exiles,” he says. “This keeps the church grounded in humility and service.” He argues that since “we must proclaim the excellencies of the One who called us out of darkness and into His marvelous light,” it’s imperative that we obey the directive of Romans 13:1-3. “It would be bad conduct to gather in such a way that causes harm to the community that we are intended to bless,” he says.