Three California churches have now been fined or threatened with fines for holding in-person worship services contrary to state and local health directives: Grace Community Church, Godspeak Calvary Chapel and North Valley Baptist Church. I recently wrote a post on MacArthur’s “line in the sanctuary,” but much has happened since then. Here are some Biblical principles, the facts and a few conclusions:

#1 Principles

I have addressed civil disobedience in a couple of different posts, so I will compile those thoughts here. Others may, of course, see this differently; but, this is where I have landed. The state’s role is to restrain evil and promote good (Rom. 13; I Pet. 2). The church’s role is to fulfill the Great Commission and to do good (Matt. 28:16-20; Matt. 5:16). Protecting people from a virus falls somewhere in the messy middle of the Biblical role of the church and the Biblical role of the state. And, our default should be to submit to government authorities (I Pet. 2).

However, the state steps outside of its Biblical role when it attempts to limit the church’s religious exercise (Acts 4 and 5), and limits on singing or preaching are especially questionable. The church’s religious exercise and the church’s real estate are closely correlated because churches are commanded to assemble (Heb. 10:25). That said, I do not know of a church that has filed a religious liberty claim over occupancy permits, sprinkler requirements, etc. The church is, most precisely, a body of believers and not a building.

Next, government should treat the church as a partner or peer institution. And, government may not treat churches differently than similar secular venues (1st Amendment); in fact, government should treat churches with more deference because worshipping is an activity specifically protected by the Constitution and watching a movie is not. For these reasons, I previously concluded that civil disobedience is permissible (from a Biblical perspective) though not required if government treats churches differently than other secular venues. Pastors have split (along with the 5-4 split on the U.S. Supreme Court) as to what venues are similar to churches. The formal position of the Supreme Court is that churches are like movie theaters and other forms of public assembly, but many pastors have argued that that legal distinction is imprecise and arbitrary. The best example of this is the fact that casinos in Nevada are free to open but churches are limited to 50 people. Please note that I am not encouraging civil disobedience. My approach has been to state the law (no federal or state court has overturned California’s restrictions) but then to defer to the conscience of local pastors as they lead their churches.

#2 Facts

Here’s a brief overview of the legal proceedings and news thus far.

Grace Community Church. The County of Los Angeles filed suit against Grace Community Church in a local superior court on August 14, 2020, and sought a restraining order against the church. Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff denied the request and entered an Order allowing the church to meet on the condition attendees of GCC wear masks and social distance. The county appealed this ruling on August 15, 2020, and the Court of Appeals stayed the enforcement of Judge Beckloff”s favorable order, citing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in South Bay. GCC met anyway on August 16th. Based on the Court of Appeal’s ruling, the county filed a request to enforce the court’s order preventing GCC from meeting; but, Judge Beckloff pointed out on Tuesday that he never issued such an order and neither did the Court of Appeals. So, this case is essentially back to its starting point. The county claims the legal authority to enforces its health order through fines or other measures but has not yet done so. A hearing is set for September 4th.

Godspeak Calvary Chapel. On August 7, 2020, the Ventura County Superior Court issued a restraining order against the church and ordered the church not to hold indoor services (outdoor services are allowed if social distancing is observed and if masks are worn). The church met indoors anyway and did not require masks to be worn or enforce social distancing. On August 14, Charlie Kirk was the guest speaker for all three Sunday morning services. Last Friday, August 21st, the court held Pastor McCoy and the church in contempt and ordered the church to pay fines of $3,000.00. Judge Vincent O” Neill stated, “I fully understand that freedom of religion is protected by the very First Amendment, but I have a duty to uphold the court’s order that was duly issued.” In response to the church’s comparison between recent protests and indoor worship services, county officials responded that protests were held outside. A full hearing is scheduled for August 31st.

North Valley Baptist Church. North Valley Baptist has also been fined for holding services–$5,000 for the morning service on August 23rd and $5,000 for the evening service on August 23rd. The cease and desist letter, which was taped to the church doors, reads, “North Valley Baptist is failing to prevent those attending, performing and speaking at North Valley Baptist’s services from singing. This activity is unlawful. The county understands that singing is an intimate and meaningful component of religious worship. However, public health experts have also determined that singing together in close proximity and without face coverings transmits virus particles further in the air than breathing or speaking quietly.” The church has been practicing social distancing. Notably, the county admits to sending representatives to church services to check on compliance with the health order. This matter has not yet proceeded to litigation, and Pastor Jack Trieber made a public appeal to his church and the community.

Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Clara counties are all experiencing a decrease in new COVID-19 cases.

#3 Conclusions

Earlier this year, I wrote that Rodney Howard-Browne’s defiance of a COVID-19 related shutdown order was unwise given what we knew about the virus at the time, the public temperament and the applicable legal standards. Much has changed since then, though I still believe that was the right conclusion in March. MacArthur, McCoy and Trieber are now arguing that shutdowns have turned from temporary to indefinite, that restrictions have not been fairly applied, and the best way to serve their communities has become less than obvious due to conflicting messaging and standards about COVID-19.

Note that these three pastors are not every pastor in California (though they are representative of many more). Many pastors are still complying with health orders in an effort to protect their congregations and partner with local officials. But, these three pastors are the ones in the headlines and facing fines. This is, of course, a big deal. So, how should we think through and respond to this? Here are a few reflections and conclusions.

• Pay to Pray. California authorities have not yet resorted to arrests, opting instead for fines. In a sense, these cases have resulted in a “pay to pray” or “pay to gather” scenario. That is certainly a cause for concern.
• Pastor’s Perspective. I certainly sympathize with these church leaders. And, I cannot imagine being told my church cannot meet for twenty-four weeks straight without an end in sight. Pastor Trieber’s recent video appeal is especially powerful. He focused on a number of key arguments: the length of the restrictions, the low number of new cases, and the importance of gathering for worship.
• Legal Perspective. These are significant First Amendment cases. But, I am reluctant to describe these events as the specific targeting of churches. Feel free to disagree, but these cases are primarily a disagreement over the seriousness of the virus, the best preventative measures and what venues are most similar to churches. Should health officials be more precise and deferential to church leaders? Absolutely (see my analysis above). Do I wish Justice Roberts had made different decision in the South Bay case? Yes. But, is this a specific targeting of churches for religious beliefs? No. Churches and religious worship happen to be a setting favorable for transfer of this particular virus; and, health officials appear to be reacting to that threat, not trying to specifically target religious worship. There is a tendency in such matters to use hyperbole (such as describing the situation as “tyranny”), but I have found such an approach less than helpful in achieving the end result–opening churches for worship. Also, given the May 29th U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding California’s COVID-19 restrictions, the aspects of these orders that are most subject to scrutiny are the bans on singing and limitations on house gatherings. Justice Roberts did not mention these elements in the South Bay decision.
• Focusing the Argument. Grace Community Church (at least at first) and Godspeak Calvary Chapel do not appear to be requiring masks or social distancing. This is not a statement about the efficiency of masks and social distancing but rather a reflection on focusing the argument. Some are already painting religious liberty claims in these cases as the right to infect ourselves, and I imagine Governor Newsom and others will have a field day if any of these churches become a COVID-19 hotspot. The more effective argument (from a legal/public relations perspective) is to comply with all other health recommendations and focus on the Hebrews 10:25 argument. I still defer to the conscience of Pastor McCoy and Pastor MacArthur, but why give the state a reason to discount the primary concern of assembling for worship?
• Difference of Opinion and a Resource. Christian thought leaders remain divided on this issue, as evidenced by Jonathan Leeman’s response to MacArthur and by the lineup of an upcoming Q Webinar on this topic, which features well-known pastors, attorneys, law professors, cultural apologists, etc. Further, the church has rich resources on the issue of civil disobedience. If you have not taken the time to review Martin Luther King, Jr.’s (who knew a thing or two about civil disobedience) Letter from a Birmingham Jail, now is the time to give it a read.

To conclude my conclusions, I will say this: conscience cases are not about my conscience or your conscience but about the right of conscience. How these cases play out will definitely affect religious liberty claims in the future. These are difficult developments in complex times, and I pray that these restrictions are lifted soon.

I went first and shared my thoughts. What are yours? Feel free to leave a comment below or send me an email at josh@goodcitizen.us.