As the number of new COVID-19 cases decline throughout much of the U.S., some governors and local officials have cautiously moved to lift bans on in-person worship services. But, others have doubled down on bans or declined to give clear timelines for lifting bans or limits on in-person gatherings. In response, pastors from California to Illinois to Massachusetts have announced plans to meet regardless of in-person meeting bans, and a number of churches have sought protection via federal lawsuits. So, what should church leaders do in this situation? How should churches show respect for civil authorities while still honoring the command to assemble together (Hebrews 10:25)?

As I often note, I am big on conscience (Hebrews 13:17), and I defer to the conscience of local pastors in making decisions for their congregations. But, I am also big on wisdom (Mark 10:16), and I pray that God grants us all wisdom as we navigate this conundrum. Here are three options (along with some considerations) for pastors in states that are still facing bans or limits on in-person services:

#1 Patience and Persistence

The major headline from the COVID-19 pandemic is not “pastor defies government” or “governor tramples on First Amendment.” Rather, the major headline is how well church and state leaders across the country have worked together to navigate this crisis, keep people safe and lift restrictions as soon as medically reasonable. Obviously, there have been some bad actors that, out of ignorance or difference in worldview, have trampled First Amendment rights. But, we should be circumspect and precise about defining the crisis. Gathering restrictions have primarily been government officials acting in their God-ordained role of restraining evil (in this case, a natural evil) and promoting good (Romans 13; I Peter 2). And, these orders have been issued by officials who, like church leaders, are navigating their first pandemic.

For this reason, if you are in a state that has not yet lifted bans or limits on in-person gatherings, there is a strong argument to be made that simply waiting a few weeks may provide clarity on this issue. As new COVID-19 cases decrease, the public pressure from business and faith communities will increase, and the state’s compelling interest in protecting the public from the virus will lose some of its persuasive power. Further, the U.S. Department of Justice’s strong intervention on behalf of churches and the examples of other states will place pressure on hold-out governors.

That said, patience doesn’t mean passivity.

Over the last few weeks, I have received this question multiple times: “When should we push to reopen churches for in-person gatherings?” My answer? If you have not done started already, NOW is the time to make the case for reopening. The number of new cases are declining (this was one of the key indicators the church relied on in 1918 to argue for reopening), a number of states are allowing church services as long as social distancing and other CDC recommendations are followed, and a U.S. Circuit Court has issued a strong opinion in favor of in-person gatherings (more on that below). So, yes, it is time to responsibly reopen in-person services.

I imagine you are familiar with the Parable of the Persistent Widow (Luke 18:1-8). In the story, a judge refused to grant the request of a widow seeking justice. Under Jewish law, widows were afforded special protection (Deuteronomy 10:18; 24:17–21; James 1:27), but this judge simply ignored her and her claim. So, what did the widow do? She kept asking. And, finally, just to be done with the matter, the judge relented and addressed the widow’s claim. Though this passage is primarily about prayer, it points to a simple truth about government and government officials that is still true today: persistence pays off.

So, if your state has not issued a clear reopening plan or timeline for in-person services, now is the time to respectfully raise this issue with governing officials and to persist until you have a clear timeline for reopening. Here are a few ideas if you haven’t tried them already: (1) contact your governor’s office, (2) ask you state or federal representatives to help, (3) join with other pastors in respectfully petitioning for clarity on this issue, and (4) ask your church members to join you in respectfully petitioning government officials to reopen.

In sum, the first option is to be patient and to practice the persistent widow’s strategy. I know many pastors are not wired this way. But, is it worth the public scrutiny (considering the history and future of your ministry) to pursue litigation or public defiance that–even if successful–wins you a few extra weeks of in-person services? Again, I leave this up to the individual church leader’s conscience. But, the patience and persistence option has proven successful for many churches across the country.

Now, for those of you that are questioning which side I’m on, I don’t think churches should be patient forever. On to step #2.

#2 Litigation

First Amendment rights are fragile, and they must be defended. Though many churches have temporarily canceled gatherings, the in-person assembly of believers for worship, discipleship, and fellowship is an essential Biblical requirement that cannot be canceled long-term (Hebrews 10:25). So, if your efforts under #1 have failed, if the number of new COVID-19 cases in your area are declining, if your city is not experiencing a concentration of cases, and if businesses (and especially businesses that allow meetings or gatherings) are reopening, then you may want to consider litigation. And, I will offer a timeline of sorts. If you have not received some clarity on reopening by the end of May or latest June 30, litigation may be in order so that a court can review the issue. I am always cautious about setting arbitrary deadlines, but many state reopening plans are using these dates as a benchmark. So, it is reasonable to use these benchmarks for your church as well.

That said, you should consider this very helpful survey of First Amendment claims filed by churches on or before May 14, 2020. According to the survey, churches have “…won four cases challenging government lockdowns, lost eight, and ‘tied’ once in a ‘no’ decision.” I would add to this list the following “losses” for churches: Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker (Northern District of Illinois), Hawse v. Page (Eastern District of Missouri), and Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills (District of Maine). In all of these cases, courts have sided with government officials and declined to stop enforcement of stay-at-home orders. I will note that these churches may ultimately prevail in a trial or on appeal; but, the churches that filed these cases did not win immediate relief (in the form of an injunction) against gathering bans.

However, one of the successful cases was a big win. In the case Roberts v. Neace, the Sixth Circuit (with jurisdiction over Tennessee, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio) entered an Order preventing Kentucky officials from interfering with in-person services at Marysville Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky. Though this is a preliminary ruling and will be litigated further, this Order suggests an ultimate win in the case. Further, Judge Tatenhove of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky extended the same protection to churches throughout the Commonwealth, stating, “There is ample scientific evidence that COVID-19 is exceptionally contagious. But evidence that the risk of contagion is heightened in a religious setting any more than a secular one is lacking.If social distancing is good enough for Home Depot and Kroger, it is good enough for in-person religious services which, unlike the foregoing, benefit from constitutional protection.” Thus far, the courts that have upheld bans on in-persons gatherings have focused on the state’s compelling interest to slow the spread of the virus and the general application of shut-down orders to all public assemblies. And, the courts that have ruled in favor of churches have focused on the fact that applicable stay-at-home orders: (1) did not define churches (or at least the worship and preaching aspects of church services) as “essential” or “life-sustaining” or (2) included a laundry list of secular exceptions without similar treatment for churches and religious organizations.

My purpose in sharing this list is not to dissuade churches from pursuing First Amendment claims against in-person gathering bans. Rather, it is to provide a national survey of sorts and to explain the outcome of similar cases around the country. In sum, the success or failure of such a claim (aimed at obtaining immediate relief) probably depends on your location, the language of the stay-at-home order, and the timing of the challenge (as new cases decrease, so does the power of the state’s compelling interest). This may change in the coming weeks with additional rulings and a decrease in new COVID-19 cases, but that is the current state of these decisions. On to Option #3.

#3 Civil Disobedience

While many governors have set out specific plans evidencing a respect for the First Amendment, others have shown little consideration for churches and other religious assemblies or at least evidenced a lack of understanding or concern for the First Amendment. For example, Governor Cuomo of New York assembled a 116-person reopening advisory board made up of representatives from various disciplines and communities; but, he did not include a single pastor or church representative. Governor Beshear of Kentucky, in a set of requirements for in-person gatherings, initially banned congregational singing. And, Governor Pritzker of Illinois recently issued a plan that would not allow gatherings of more than 50 until Illinois has “a vaccine, highly effective treatment, or elimination of any new cases over a sustained period”–a process that may take up or more than a year.

In response, thousands of California pastors have indicated that they will meet on May 31st regardless of the state’s orders, and a number of Chicago churches have vowed to meet on Sunday in defiance of the governor’s and mayor’s orders. So, this brings up the complex issue of civil disobedience.

When the Jewish council commanded the apostles to stop preaching the gospel, Peter and the apostles responded, “We ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).” But, Peter later wrote, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well (1 Peter 2:13-14).” So, the principle here is clear: Christians should obey governing authorities unless those authorities contradict a clear command of Scripture. If that happens, the Christian is to submit to God’s ultimate authority rather government’s.

Here’s a quick review of civil disobedience in Scripture: (1) the Hebrew midwives refused to obey Pharaoh’s command to take innocent life; (2) Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, and Daniel refused to bow or pray to false gods; (3) Esther refused to remain silent when failing to speak meant death for innocent people; (4) Mordecai refused to bow to Haman because Persian rulers claimed divine attributes; and (5) Peter and John refused to stop preaching and teaching the gospel when commanded to do so by the Jewish council (which wielded civil and religious authority).

Further, for American Christians, the refusal to follow an arguably unconstitutional law is not “breaking the law” in the historic or Biblical sense but rather an appeal to constitutional rights. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white passenger on a Montgomery bus, she did so in violation of a local ordinance but in furtherance of constitutional rights.

In summary, from a Biblical perspective, these principles indicate that Christians should only practice civil disobedience if government action clearly contradicts a command or principle in Scripture and if all reasonable requests for accommodation fail (note that litigation can be pursued as a request for accommodation). And, from a constitutional perspective, American Christians should only practice civil disobedience on an issue not directly addressed in Scripture (this would be rare) if constitutional rights are clearly abridged.

The issue at hand is Hebrews 10:25, which commands Christians not to forsake “the assembling of ourselves together,” and the interplay of that command with COVID-19 stay-at-home orders. During this pandemic, most church leaders agreed to temporarily cancel in-person services to protect congregants from the threat of a highly contagious virus that doctors and public health officials (both religious and secular) recognized as a serious threat. And, this decision was certainly in line with Christ’s command to love God and love our neighbors (Matthew 22:36-40).

But, when and where should church leaders draw the line?

Please note that I am about to shift from Biblical principles into my admittedly subjective attempt to apply wisdom to this situation. So, please understand the spirit in which this is offered. I will answer this in degrees. If government officials banned in-person services indefinitely, then civil disobedience would be in order because the indefinite ban would prove that the lockdown is about silencing or ignoring religion and not about public safety. If government officials open other public assemblies or similar businesses but ban in-person worship services (this is similar to the drive-in service issue), civil disobedience would be in order because such a decision signals a disparate treatment of religion rather than a general concern for the public. But, if government officials that have been elected by the citizens of your state and appointed by God (Romans 13) maintain or even extend the ban or limits on in-person services while citing medical data and applying that ban to similar businesses and assemblies, we should not rush to draw an arbitrary line in the sand (or calendar) or value our subjective government overreach meter above the default position we are to take with governing authorities: respect and obedience.

Remember that even the American patriots suffered “a long train of abuses and usurpations” (27 to be exact) before declaring independence from Britain; and, we should be known for patience, moderation and peaceful action (Romans 12:18). Do we want to be known for serving our communities or for defying the government so we can meet a few weeks early? And, is this (churches being able to open earlier rather than later due to concerns about a virus) really the most important fight? In the last two weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard oral arguments on (1) whether nuns can be forced to pay for abortifacients and (2) whether religious schools have the right to hire and fire their teachers based on religious principles. And, that is my biggest reason for sharing my concern on this issue. I value religious freedom, and I want to see it respected in the courts and in public life into the future. If we cry “religious persecution” at every turn, the words will lose their meaning. I understand that others have landed at a different application of the above Biblical principles, but that is my analysis after weighing Biblical and legal concerns.

In conclusion, church leaders that are still facing bans or limits on in-person services have three options: (1) patience and persistence, (2) litigation and (3) civil disobedience. In a few states, government overreach may require all three. But, for much of the country, I expect that decreasing case numbers and increasing public pressure (including from churches) will lead governors and other officials to amend quarantine orders to address religious liberty concerns.

As always, your thoughts are welcome.

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.