In a development that would have absolutely shocked American Christians just a few short weeks ago, Pastor Rodney Howard-Browne of the River Church in Tampa, Florida, was arrested yesterday for holding two worship services at his church last Sunday. Here are three observations about his controversial stand as they relate to religious liberty and the church’s public witness:
Observation #1 His Arrest Is Not Unprecedented.
Last week, a pastor in Kentucky told me about the curious and strangely familiar case of Pastor Harvey Boyce Taylor, who was arrested by a Kentucky sheriff during the 1919 Spanish Flu epidemic for holding services at his church despite a ban on meetings at “places of amusement, schools, churches and other places of assembly.” If you have not heard about Pastor Taylor previously or have not read this fascinating article with original newspaper clippings, I encourage you to take a minute to read his colorful tale. Pastor Taylor was eventually convicted by a jury for violating the ban and fined $100. The Louisville Courier Journal recorded this statement: “The Rev. Mr. Taylor, in his address to the jury declared that Judge Phillips and all other county officials should be in jail, because they had violated the laws of God and federal constitution by disturbing religious worship.”
Pastor Taylor also went on record to say this about the Sheriff, “I suppose Sheriff Houston, who is a member of my congregation, had to do his duty – but God pity him.” I know this is a serious topic; but, I had to point this out. Pastor Taylor was arrested by his own church member! I’ve experienced some awkward church conflicts before, but that one might take the cake! Pastor Taylor was eventually convicted a second time and, when he refused to pay the fines, was imprisoned for a short period. In summary, this is not the first time a pastor has been arrested on similar charges, and those charges were upheld by a Kentucky court.
Observation #2 His Arrest May Have Been Unconstitutional.
In this excellent episode of Albert Mohler’s The Briefing, Dr. Mohler explained the concept of general applicability–that the “Safer-at-Home” Order does not specifically target religious assemblies but rather applies to society in general. And, he stated that Pastor Howard-Browne should have complied with the Order because of its general applicability. I would add the following to his analysis: I would argue that any infringement on religious liberty should be subject to the highest form of constitutional scrutiny and that the government must prove (1) that the state has a compelling interest and (2) that its actions and mandates are narrowly tailored to accomplish that interest. In the case of Pastor Howard-Browne, the state of Florida will argue that it has a compelling interest (maintaining public health during a pandemic) and that the Order is narrowly tailored (closing all large public assemblies for a temporary period of time) to achieve that interest.
However, as pointed out by Liberty Counsel, which has taken Pastor Howard-Browne’s case, the “Safer-at-Home” Order is filled with exemptions for commercial operations but devoid of exemptions for churches. And, therefore, the Order may fail the “narrowly tailored” test. One constitutional attorney has opined that the state will ultimately prevail in this case because of the strength of the state’s interest (when it comes to “compelling interests,” a global pandemic is at the top of the list) and because online videos appear to show that River Church was not enforcing social distancing requirements among its congregants. This will definitely be an interesting case to watch. And, it is important for church leaders and other committed Christians to understand the legal analysis involved.
Observation #3 His Arrest Illustrates (In My Opinion) Unwise Defiance.
As many of you are already aware, the Mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, recently threatened to permanently close churches or synagogues that meet in violation of the current quarantine order. In making this pronouncement, Mayor de Blasio missed a not-so-obscure legal provision called the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (among other legal provisions). Such statements have rightly raised concern among church leaders, and the fact that a pastor has now been arrested for holding worship services only adds to the crisis.
I am a strong proponent of Christian conscience (especially as it relates to pastors making decision for their congregations; see Hebrews 13:17), but I am also a strong proponent of Biblical wisdom (Daniel 1:20). And, here’s my fairly straightforward (though admittedly imperfect) attempt to apply wisdom to this situation. Religious freedom faces real and developing threats, and we need to pick our battles over our first freedom wisely. As I have stated in a former post, this pandemic is an important time to serve our communities, to love our neighbors and to show the beauty and power of the gospel (and, by extension, the importance of religious freedom). Therefore, and for all of the above reasons (legal and Biblical), I would argue that open defiance of an order designed to protect the general public from a global pandemic is the wrong fight at the wrong time. Instead, we should focus on vigilance about religious freedom and service to our communities during this time.
In conclusion, I can’t think of a better way to explain my analysis of our current moment and how we should think about our constitutional liberties than a quote attributed to Oliver Cromwell, who defeated King Charles I in the English Civil War. He said, “Trust God and keep your powder dry.”
P.S. I went first and shared my opinion. What’s yours? Will you respectfully share your opinion in the comments or send us an email at info@goodcitizen.us?
This article is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is being provided to church and ministry leaders with the understanding that The Good Citizen Project is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, tax, or other professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Laws vary by jurisdiction, and the specific application of laws to particular facts requires the advice of an attorney.
Very well written and thought through.
My first reaction when I heard of this Pastor meeting was one of shock that he would ask his people to come together at this time.
After reading this blog, I see the larger picture of a concern for our religious freedom, but I whole heartedly agree that this is the wrong battle and the wrong time. Our voices can be made much more effective in a different battle.
Just my .02
Thanks, Kent!
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts on this case. An article I read stated that the church purchased and installed $100k hospital grade equipment that would kill the virus in the air. Should this be justification to conduct the services?
The air scrubber could have helped keep people safe, but this does not change the fact that the local government had ordered a closure. I believe the local government has now changed its position on whether or not churches are essential, but I still think this is the wrong fight at the wrong time.
I do agree that on a daily basis our religious freedoms are under attack, and till the end of time they will be. I’m not sure I completely agree with the arrest and think a better option should have been to first try to have them agree to close for the time being (not sure if this was the case or not) and then if the order wasn’t followed more drastic action be taken. I have been seeing many people invoke the name of God to try and give reason why they shouldn’t adhere to the government’s request (see Hobby Lobby though I believe they are now closing). God gives us governing bodies and raises up leaders (good or bad) that creates laws and mandates we are to follow as long as we are not sinning against God for following them (ie..abortion rights being one to not follow). Trump (while I’m not always in agreement with him and think that if he is a Christian should have much better council than he does) is not trying to infringe on our religious freedoms, just trying to get rid of a terrible virus that is bringing the World to its knees (granted it should be there more often) it seems to much pride and Biblical Illiteracy often gets in the way of God given common since. I pray for our leaders as well as out spiritual ones to work hand in hand to help “flatten the curve” and help us get back to some what normalcy. This should however make us think of our brothers and sisters in Christ around the globe that are persecuted much worse than we are in America and how they often must meet in secret or in homes and not fancy buildings with lights and slideshows. Simply Christ followers and the Word of God.
Aaron, thanks for sharing. I agree that we need to be praying for our leaders during this time and that we enjoy much greater religious liberty than most Christians around the world or throughout history. This is why need to stay vigilant but wise in how we stand up for our constitutional rights. Thanks for commenting!
Our church is obeying the stay at home and the pastor is recording his sermon earlier in the week and posting to youtube. Its not perfect but he is still preaching and anyone with internet can watch, healthy or sick,from home.
Thanks. I think that is the best approach for now.
There are times when Christians cry religious freedom and so choose to disregard the law in order to obey God. Then act surprised when they face consequences. Remember that even when choosing Christian liberty to disregard civil authority there will be consequences. The early apostles who chose to obey God rather than man also rejoiced that they suffered for the sake of the Gospel. We cannot expect and do not deserve the praise of man when we defy the law. Regarding the current situation, the pastor is faced with a difficult dilemma. Is he still obeying God in his submission to government? I believe prudence would be to follow the instructions of the government for now.
Stephen, thanks for commenting. I agree with your analysis.
Appreciate your balanced approach and making sense of these sensitive matters during these difficult times.
Thank you!
As a pastor, my church has not been meeting. With that said I have question the fact how liquor stores can be considered essential business, and a Church can not? The car lots can still sell cars as well. With everyone stuck in their homes depression kicks in, this is when we need God in our lives. Paul to Timothy to gather with like minded people. But on the same hand this is just temporary.
Andy, I also wrestle with the definition of essential and non-essential businesses. As the attorneys for Pastor Browne have pointed out, the stay-at-home orders may not be narrowly tailored or fair to churches. I maintain that the government does not have the constitutional authority to shut down churches (and can only urge them to do so); but, for the sake of the church’s public witness, I don’t think now is the time to challenge this. Praying for you and your church!
Very good point Mr. Hoskins. Liquor stores are essential? This is when we need God the most. These are very tough, lonely times. We have had to put our hopes and dreams on hold. We miss church so much. Sure pray they don’t extend the date into May. We need to get on our knees and pray as never before. GodBless America!
Well written.. I think he should’ve complied with Romans 13… what he did was maybe not unconstitutional.. but it was unscriptural.
Thanks for the comment!
As a Pastor, I made the decision for our Church to Not Hold services at the Facility for the time being. Since we are a small Church in a small Town, and do not have the resources to move to on line services, we have been, as a Church, meeting together on line with another Church that is able to have their services on line. We, as a Church, communicate almost daily, and are praying this ends soon. We have had men’s meetings on the phone, prayed together, discussed issues, etc. With the technology of today, it is possible, in my opinion, for the Church to meet, without meeting in the building. In my opinion, we show more to the community we minister to through our compassion than we do through defiance. There may come a time when we have to stand and say “We need to obey God rather than man”, but I do not believe this is that time.
I agree completely, and it great to hear about how you have moved disciple-making efforts online! Keep up the great work!
He needlessly risked the lives of his church members. Now is not the time to act foolishly, or think you’re somehow immune to the virus, or that God won’t let you die from it. How do you know for sure? I’ve seen too many people act this way, and it’s seriously distressing. We need to listen to and follow the instructions set by our scientists and government leaders.
Dan, I agree. One of my concerns is what happened in Korea. A megachurch became the epicenter or at least one of the epicenters of that outbreak. I am praying that a similar situation does not develop here.
The legality of this case will have to turn on how the rule was narrowly tailored. In terms of the exemptions for business, I have to think the argument must be made that the prohibition is on gathering in person. Essential businesses that stay open are not “gathering” places in terms of meeting places, which would need to be well defined during litigation. In my area, businesses are making sure that a very limited number of people are inside at a time and that people are spread out as much as they can enforce. I also think some arguments may be misplaced. There is much biblical precedent for isolation or separation of people for the purpose of keeping people from getting sick.
The Church, although open to the public, is not by definition a public assembly. Brown’s decision to have services, was I believe, a matter of his conviction. And accordinng to the Levi Wisner Supreme Court decisoon one cannot be punished for not violating their convictions.
A good friend of mine recently wrote this article: Neil Silverberg
Hi everyone.
I just got a call from someone who is trying to calm people’s fears regarding a governmental takeover of the Church. This extends all the way to those who are convinced that the Covd-19 pandemic is a hoax perpetuated by a worldwide conspiracy to take over the Church, to those who are generally wary of the government. While I somewhat sympathize with the latter group (since human government is portrayed in Scripture as a beast), and we should always be wary of government overreach, there is no evidence that this present crisis is a governmental attempt to takeover the Church. Nor is there any evidence that we are being persecuted in being asked to temporarily not meet. The truth is people, this is a real health crisis, not a manufactured one! People are dying and governments are trying to deal with it.
Our posture as the Church falls under the purview of Romans 13 and I Timothy 2:1-3. We are willingly submitting to the governmental authorities who have asked us to comply. We should do so, fully aware of the beastly nature of government and their tendency towards overreach. I see a difference between complying to a governmental request not to meet in groups of over 10 for a protracted period, and a governmental edict that makes it illegal to ever meet again. One is godly and falls under the apostle’s teaching in Romans 13 (that we should submit to governing authorities), while the other falls under Peter’s announcement to the Sanhedrin—we ought to obey God rather than men. I remind you that the apostle was calling for believers submission in the first century to the Roman authorities which were far more intrusive than the US government who is acting (in my opinion) for the good of the citizenry.
Having said that, let me once again remind everyone that Rome (along with human governments today) is portrayed as a beast in Scripture (Rev 13). That means that while the body of Christ submits to reasonable requests such as our present ‘sheltering’ requests, we are not to do so blindly. Because of the beastly nature of human governments, we do so cautiously, always aware that overreach is ever possible.
Remember, God has called us to be the best citizens of our nation. This is a ‘Daniel’ moment—an opportunity to work with government while confronting human government with the true government of God—the kingdom. If genuine overreach occurs, leaders will have to be discerning as to how to respond. There are some governmental edicts we can never submit to because they violate the clear commands of Scripture. In China, believers are arrested for attending Christian meetings since they are illegal. But that’s not a request the Church can compromise on since meeting regularly is a command of Scripture.
So what should our present posture be? I believe that we should give government the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their genuine attempts to control a pandemic, while being on guard that the body of Christ is part of another Government altogether—one that takes its orders from heaven. If the lines begin to get blurred, there should be no doubt where we must stand—we ought to obey God rather than man!