A Christian’s Response to “In court, Legacy Church argues mass gatherings should be allowed in places of worship”
A Christian’s Response to
“In court, Legacy Church argues mass gatherings should be allowed in places of worship”
As reported by KOB
“Reasons are the coin we pay for the beliefs we hold.” - E.W. Schipper
Purpose: to briefly examine the position of Legacy Church, the main points, implications, reasoning, as well as it’s consistency withing the Christian worldview.
Disclaimer:
I am not claiming to be an “expert” in teaching the Bible, in theology, in philosophy, or in apologetics. Nevertheless, I have been a Christian since 2001; studied theology, apologetics, evangelism, and worldviews for over 10yrs; attended various churches of various sizes for may years. Moreover, I have learned and continue to learn from various Christian teachers who have various professional backgrounds and are from denominations. This includes professionals such as pastors and scholars (philosophers, theologians, New Testament Greek scholars) many of whom have advanced degrees (e.g., Dr. Norman Geisler, Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. J.P. Moreland, Dr. William Mounce), to nonprofessionals.
Also, please consider this more of a “rough draft” than a final presentation as more can be said.
I am assuming that the articles by KOB 4 and KRQE about Legacy Church are factual (i.e., correctly quotes the leadership of Legacy and correctly represents the position and beliefs of Legacy) and I am assuming the comments (paraphrases) by the reporters about the church are also true:
To evaluate their position or argument, I have attempted to number the relevant propositions found in their statements:
(1) “'I think what's at stake is our religious freedoms,' said pastor Steve Smotherman of Legacy Church….
(2) 'When the state talks about mass gatherings and commercial gatherings, they're trying to distinguish but
(3) when I go to Home Depot, I go to Walmart, I go to Smith's, there is mass gatherings,
(4) and people aren't six feet apart at times....”
(5) Smotherman claims the government does not have the right to determine what's essential to produce his religious-based services.
(6) “My goal is not to put people in danger,
(7) [ My goal is] it's only to have the right to do what we do -- and we're doing the online streaming, but
(8) we have to have the freedom to do it the way that we normally do church,' said Smotherman….
'I think we had like three services on Easter Sunday and I think the first one--maybe 40 [parishoners], the second one was 10, the third was like seven,' he said.
(9) 'It's not a lot of people when you look at a sanctuary that's over 2,500 seats, so it was very few.'….
(10) 'They want to be in a service because
(11) they don't really have the online streaming, or
(12) they don't know how.'”
And from
Federal judge to decide if state violated Legacy Church’s First Amendment rights
https://www.krqe.com/health/coronavirus-new-mexico/federal-judge-to-decide-if-state-violated-legacy-churchs-first-amendment-rights/
and
Legacy Church files lawsuit against state of New Mexico
“Head Pastor Steve Smothermon of Legacy Church claims
(13) in order to live stream Easter Sunday service, they needed more than five people inside the church. Under the governor’s order, only five people are allowed to gather at one time.”
(14) “for Legacy Church, they say in order to have put on their Easter Sunday service, they needed far more people inside the church then currently allowed under the governor’s amended order.”
(15) ‘“We wouldn’t be able to put on the quality that we have and the engagement that we’re able to do and look people in the eye, you know through the camera and say you know we can’t be there but we’re together.
(16) And I think it would hinder our quality,” said Smothermon….
(17) He went on to say what she did, and how she did it was evil….”
Before I examine some of these propositions there are a few things I think we need to consider:
Would you agree that it is important to understand Legacy’s reasoning process (as well as our own)? to ask them how they came to their conclusions, opinions and views (assuming that they actually have reasonable explanations for their claims)? and to listen carefully for self-refuting ideas, logical contradictions, and factual errors?
Would you agree that the burden of proof is the responsibility someone has to defend or give evidence for his or her view?
Applied to our topic, would you agree that Legacy should give reasons (support and evidence) for their actions and beliefs and make sure that those reasons are theologically and logically correct? This would include presenting evidence from the Bible where applicable.
Would you agree that one should listen to others but also question any underlying assumptions that their view has, reducing their view or comments to its basic premise, assertion, principle, or moral rule?
“If you want success in spiritual conversations, you need to know why your beliefs are true and understand your case better than anyone you might engage. Don’t be lazy. Take the time to know what you believe and why you believe it.” - Seven Tips for Good Christian Case Making Conversations (Free Bible Insert) http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/seven-tips-for-good-christian-case-making-conversations-free-bible-insert
Would you agree that our belief system and standards no matter who you are or what religion you adhere to should be coherent (make logical sense, cannot be contradictory), consistent (internally consistent with itself and other statements in a given system) and comprehensive (live able/ practical) as much as possible? We should all attempt to live consistently between the claimed beliefs we claim to hold and between our actions and our claimed beliefs.
One should always ask “does the Bible really teach this or is this my interpretation of what the Bible says, my personal opinion?”
All Christians should be growing in our knowledge of God and of our personal beliefs, should be doing theology in community, checking our beliefs and theology to make sure they are coherent (make logical sense), consistent (internally consistent with itself and other statements in a given system) and comprehensive (live able). We should not be afraid to have our personal beliefs challenged. Being humble and sensitive to the conscience of others does not mean that one cannot discuss disputable, situationally relative matters with other Christians.
In his letters, Paul often spoke about growing in faith, knowledge and understanding. He exhorted Christians to mature (e.g., 1Cor 3:1-2; Rom 12).
Philosopher and Christian, J.P. Moreland comments: “As Gallup poll after Gallup poll has shown, the result of our inaccurate emphasis on the Spirit, along with our intellectual laziness, is that modern Christians are largely illiterate about the content of their own religion and feel inadequate because of it...We must develop intelligent Christians; that is, Christians who have the mental training to see issues clearly, make important distinctions carefully, and weigh various factors appropriately. If we are not really planning to see this happen, then at the end of the day, what we are really saying is that a deep understanding of the Scripture, creeds, and theology of Christianity just doesn’t matter that much...Any disciple of Jesus who is doing his or her best to raise children, nurture other believers, or grow in the Christian way needs a plan for making certain progress in these endeavors. And any plan must take into account three critical New Testament texts:
Romans 12:1-2... the critical point of verse 2 is that we cannot “prove,” that is, “make known to ourselves and to others,” what God’s will is without the renewing or transformation of our minds. This brings the mind to the spiritual stage, front and center! We all want to know God’s will, but this text is telling us we can’t unless we present our bodies, including our soul and minds, to the Lord for transformation and renewal!
Matthew 22:37-39... 1 Peter 3:15... The spiritually mature person is a wise person. And a wise person has the savvy and skill necessary to lead an exemplary life and to address the issues of the day in a responsible, attractive way that brings honor to God… Wisdom is the fruit of a life of study and a developed mind...the application of knowledge gained from studying both God’s written Word and His revealed truth in creation...[and it] results when a respectful heart is united with a disciplined mind. Knowledge is the fruit of study, and knowledge is necessary for wisdom. Holy Scripture is the central object of study in loving God with the mind. However, it is not the only object of such study. God has revealed Himself and various truths on a number of topics outside the Bible. As Christians have known throughout our history, common sense, logic, and mathematics — along with the arts, humanities, sciences, and other areas of study — contain important truths relevant to life in general and to the development of a careful, life-related Christian worldview. ” - Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul. J.P. Moreland.
The following Tests for Truth used in philosophy can also be applied to theology and to the assertions that Legacy has made (Charts of Apologetics and Christian Evidences. H. Wayne House, Joseph M. Holden. Zondervan; Bibliology and Hermeneutics. The Theology Notebook. The Theology Program. www.bible.org; How to Study Your Bible: Discover the Life-Changing Approach to God's Word. by Kay Arthur, David Arthur, Pete De Lacy):
Test of Reason: Is it Coherent and Consistent? Does it make logical sense (LNC)? Does it contradict itself?
Internal and External Consistency (Reveals what can’t possible be true): Is it internally consistent with itself & other statements in a given system (e.g., Christian Worldview)? Is it consistent with confirmed truths previously known in the rest of the Bible?
What you discover (interpret) to be true must be united with and not violate other truths.
Is it externally consistent with truths in all fields of study (e.g., Science, Law, History, Ethics; different areas of theology)?
Is it Comprehensive? Does it answer life’s most important questions? Does it answer and stand up against difficult questions and issues within it’s relevant domain/category/field?
Note: A negative test: If something is inconsistent, then it must be wrong. BUT, if something is consistent, then that doesn’t prove that it is right.
Compare your interpretation with scripture; tradition, experience, emotions, reason
Systematize, put together all the info in Bible to form a theology or system of doctrine
Take the time, effort, and care to examine at all the relevant facts or considered all the views on the matter.
Test of Experience: Does it correspond with reality as we know it? Does it explain the real world? Does it agree (consistent) with what we see and know about the world & ourselves (thoughts, feelings, behavior)? Is it consistent with what we feel?
Test of Practice: Does it really work? Can you live it?
Would you agree that we should not be afraid to have our personal beliefs challenged? It seems to me that we tend to be inconsistent and in comprehensive with our beliefs because of our laziness, complacency. We don't want to be inconvenienced. We don't want to give up our traditional and religious folklore, or the passion, and personal investment we have made.
As mentioned before, J.P. Moreland in his book, “Love Your God With All Your Mind”, claims that: “A confident mind is a mind free to follow the truth wherever it leads, without the distracting fear and anxiety that come from the attitude that maybe we’re better off not knowing the truth. This is one reason why Christians need not fear the honest examination of their faith...[and] The third group of virtues relevant to the intellectual life includes humility and the associated traits of open-mindedness, self-criticality, and nondefensiveness. We must be willing to seek the truth in a spirit of humility with an admission of our own finitude, we must be willing to learn from our critics, and we need to learn to argue against our own positions in order to strengthen our understanding of them.”
He further explains how Christians: “must stand against the culture (including inappropriate tendencies in the evangelical subculture), resist the empty self, and eschew the intellectual flabbiness that goes along with it. Motivation is a key here… Expose yourself to ideas with which you disagree and let yourself be motivated to excel intellectually by the exposure. Listen to talk shows, read the editorial page, and walk around a local university and look at bulletin boards or read the student newspaper. Get into discussions with people at work with whom you differ. The point is to spend time around those who do not simply reinforce your own ways of looking at things. There are two advantages to this. For one thing, we can learn from our critics. For another, such exposure can move us to realize just how serious the war of ideas really is and how inadequately prepared we are to engage in that contest.” - Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul. J.P. Moreland.
I could be wrong but the following represents my current thoughts and questions….
Evaluation of Legacy’s Assertions:
(1) “'I think what's at stake is our religious freedoms,' said pastor Steve Smotherman of Legacy Church….
The first question to ask: Is this pastor Steve’s personal opinion (a position that only he and perhaps the leadership at Legacy Church hold) or is he making a universal statement (i.e., all Christians and other religious groups) would agree that what is at stake with the new order by the governor is our religious freedoms)? In other words, since he consistently uses “I”, are his statements just subjective opinions or is he claiming to represent all of Christianity? If they are just his personal opinions, then why should the government change a rule just to satisfy one person or one church? Other churches seem to be compliant with the new order or at least not willing to pursue a lawsuit.
The next question is: What do they mean by religious freedoms?
The comment by the church comes after this statement by KOB, “On Saturday, just before Easter, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham expanded the existing order that bans mass gatherings of more than five people to include churches. It's intended to help curb the spread of COVID-19 amid a global pandemic.”
So the assumed argument is probably this:
The governor’s order that now includes churches directly affects and restricts religious freedoms. Or stated differently: The governor made an order that prohibits mass gatherings of more than five people and now that includes churches, therefore this affects and restricts our religious freedoms.
Adding the possible implied premises:
P1: Prohibitions of mass church gatherings of more than five people restricts our religious freedoms.
OR
Prohibitions of mass church gatherings of more than five people is a restriction of our religious freedoms
P2: Governor’s new order prohibits mass church gatherings of more than five people.
OR
Governor’s new order is a prohibition of mass church gatherings of more than five people.
C: The governor’s new order restricts our religious freedoms.
OR
The governor’s new order is a restriction of our religious freedoms.
P2 is not in question but P1 is debatable. How exactly does the order (which is a direct result of the pandemic situation) directly affect religious freedoms? Support is needed to prove that Prohibitions of mass church gatherings of more than five people restricts our religious freedoms. And even if it were true, one would need to prove how restricting religious freedoms during a crisis situation (state of emergency) is wrong or illegal.
P1 is true if one assumes that mass Church gatherings of more than five people during any and every circumstance (e.g., pandemics, times of war, hurricanes, tornadoes) are part of our religious freedoms. It is part of our Amendment rights to gather for church no matter what the current situation or circumstances are. Again, support is needed to prove this claim to be true.
Stated another way, the assumption is that
Under no circumstances should religious freedoms be restricted.
So the argument could be:
P1: Restricting religious freedoms during any circumstance even a crisis situation (state of emergency) is wrong or illegal.
P2: Prohibitions of mass church gatherings of more than five people is a restriction of our religious freedoms
C1: Prohibitions of mass church gatherings of more than five people is wrong or illegal.
And
P3: Prohibitions of mass church gatherings of more than five people is wrong or illegal.
P4: Governor’s new order is a prohibition of mass church gatherings of more than five people.
C: The governor’s new order is wrong or illegal. (because it is a prohibition of mass church gatherings of more than five people and Prohibitions of mass church gatherings of more than five people is a restriction of our religious freedoms).
Again P1 (Restricting religious freedoms during any circumstance even a crisis situation (state of emergency) is wrong or illegal) needs support and we then have the question: Are there any circumstances when religious freedoms can and should be restricted?
Legacy’s statements seem to claim that are absolutely no circumstances when religious freedoms can and should be restricted. OR Under no circumstances should religious freedoms be restricted.
If so, how did they come to this conclusion? No support to my knowledge has been given. The church fails to give evidence why this premise is true. This would need to be shown as true to be a sound argument. Is it true legally and theologically that Christians have the right to gather for church and not be held to a limit to that gathering no matter what the current situation is? Or stated differently, does religious freedom apply at all times or are their special circumstances that allow these freedoms to be limited? If so, what are they? See (13) below.
(2) 'When the state talks about mass gatherings and commercial gatherings, they're trying to distinguish….|
Question: what does this mean? Distinguish between the purposes of the gatherings? Religious vs business (grocery stores) vs medical (e.g., hospitals)? The assumption is that it is wrong for the government to distinguish. This has to be proven to be true.
(3) when I go to Home Depot, I go to Walmart, I go to Smith's, there is mass gatherings,
(4) and people aren't six feet apart at times.…”
If I paraphrase these:
(3) There are mass gatherings in secular essential businesses.
(4) People are not following the rule of being six feet apart (social distancing) in those secular businesses.
And we can combine these to to get something like:
All mass gatherings in essential businesses/places except churches is allowed and social distancing is not enforced with them.
OR
Mass gatherings in non-churches is allowed and social distancing is not enforced with them.
OR
All mass gatherings in essential businesses/places that are not churches is allowed and social distancing is not enforced with them.
OR
Mass gatherings in non-churches is allowed and people are not social distancing there.
Adding the possible implied premises:
P1: Mass gatherings in non-churches is allowed and people are not social distancing there.
P2: Mass gatherings in Churches and mass gatherings in non-churches are equal (both should be allowed for the same reason; both are essential, and the rules apply to them equally).
C: Mass gatherings in Churches should also be allowed and social distancing should not be enforced with them.
(i.e. “Because people don’t follow the 6 feet apart recommendation, and are apparently getting away with it, Legacy and other churches should be allowed to gather and have more than 5 people.”)
The implied premise P1 if it truly represents the position of Legacy, assumes that everyone is not following the rule of being six feet apart (social distancing) in those secular essential businesses. This proposition is false. And even it were true, the question then becomes: should Christians base and justify their behavior on the behavior of non-Christians? One could argue that Christianity has never taught that Christians and Churches should follow (model their life) after non-Christians. The Christian position has never been, “If non-Christians can do…, then Christians should also be able to do….” or “Because they can…. we Christians should also….” Instead, Christians find counterculture principles and commands (e.g., Sermon on the Mount). Christians are always called to a higher standard, to set the example in life and conduct, (see Romans 13, Ephesians 4-6; Colossians; Titus 3; ), and to live differently. Just because some people are not social distancing does not mean that Christians should also do the same. If fact, Christians should be social distancing even if there was no order or mandate from the government! (See Conclusion.)
If the argument is that social distancing is not enforced in secular essential businesses, the question to ask is why? Could it be that the business or the government (local, state, federal) do not have the resources and staff to enforce it?
Just because some people choose to not follow the rule of being six feet apart (social distancing), does not mean that the government is allowing them to do so. It does not mean that they are discriminating against churches. If the claim is that they are, support needs to be provided.
Even if P1 is true, P2 - Mass gatherings in Churches and mass gatherings in non-churches are equal (both should be allowed for the same reason; both are essential, and the rules apply to them equally) - would still need to be proven to be true. The assumption here seems to be that Church buildings and non-Church buildings (e.g., businesses; grocery stores) are equal in purpose and function. If the are equal, reasons need to be given to support.
Do churches and grocery stores provide the same public service? Are they both essential for the same reasons?
(Side note: it is also a category mistake and misinterpretation of Scripture if a church believes that they will be “conforming to the world” if they follow the mandates and suggestions of the government.)
Most of the business are labeled “essential” or necessary because they directly impact the health and safety of the community. They directly relate to our food, water, shelter, finances…. Last time I checked, people need food to live.
And what if grocery stores become “closed stores”?
Experts say it may be time for grocery stores to ban customers from coming inside
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/04/19/business/grocery-stores-coronavirus-pickup-delivery/index.html
(5) Smotherman claims the government does not have the right to determine what's essential to produce his religious-based services.
This might be true; however, the implied assumption is that religious rights and freedoms override public health and safety even in pandemics. Do they? What support does Legacy give for this assumption?
Question: Is there ever a circumstance or situation where the government has the right to determine what's essential to produce his religious-based services? If so, what is it? If not, why? Support needs to be given if your position is that there is never a circumstance where the government has the right to determine what's essential to produce religious-based services. This is similar to (1). Legacy needs to argue how determining what is essential to produce religious-based services during any circumstance even a crisis situation (state of emergency) by the government is wrong or illegal.
Does the government have the right to determine what is essential to maintain public health safety?
Do churches have the right and authority to determine what is essential to maintain public safety, what is or is not safe for the health and well being of the public? The assumption made is that churches do but this is unsupported.
It seems to me that this is similar to (1).
If we paraphrase this to: (5) No government has the right to determine what's essential to produce religious-based services.
Stated another way: Only Churches have the right to determine what's essential to produce religious-based services in all circumstances.
OR
Churches always have the right to determine what's essential to produce religious-based services.
OR
All determination of what’s essential to produce religious-based services must be made by churches in any and all circumstances.
This claim again needs support.
But Legacy also needs to prove that the government is actually determining what's essential to produce religious-based services. Support needs to be given that Governor’s new order specifically and directly mandates the production activities of religious services. Does the Governor’s new order directly or indirectly determines what's essential to produce religious-based services? A look at order clearly show that it is indirect.
We also need to ask: what does “essential to produce” mean? See (8) below.
(6) “My goal is not to put people in danger,
What does Steve mean by “in danger”? How did he come to that conclusion? How is having more people gather at the church not putting people in danger?
This claim seems contradictory from what we know about the virus (how it spread; more people = greater chance of contracting) and from experience where the virus has spread in areas where social distancing was ignored.
Legacy needs to prove how having more people (having a gathering of more than 5 people) is less or as dangerous as not having more than 5 people. The stats and data tell us whether this is true….. it’s not.
(7) [ My goal is] it's only to have the right to do what we do -- and we're doing the online streaming, but
(8) we have to have the freedom to do it the way that we normally do church,' said Smotherman….
'I think we had like three services on Easter Sunday and I think the first one--maybe 40 [parishoners], the second one was 10, the third was like seven,' he said.
(7-8) What does he mean by “have to” and “freedom” and “normally”?
Again, support must be given as to why they have to have that freedom in any and all circumstances. How does Steve come to the conclusion that they have to have the freedom to do church the way that they normally do church in any and all circumstances (e.g., pandemics)?
Assumptions being made:
1. That legacy has to have the same freedoms to do or have church services no matter what the circumstances (e.g., pandemics, times of war, hurricanes, tornadoes) are.
This claim needs support.
2. That there is no other way to do “church”. By saying “have to”, they imply this and this needs support. They need to argue why they can’t do church any other way, why other churches can and they can’t, etc.
What they really mean or should say is that they “want to”, they want to do church services the way they have always done them during non-pandemic circumstances.
3. That these are “normal” circumstances and so the church should be allowed to “normally” do church.
This seem to me to be a form of The Fallacy of Accident. The freedom to do church services, the determination of what’s essential to produce religious-based services by a church and religious freedoms are all general rules but Legacy fails to recognize any exceptions. Rules have exceptions. When we try to apply the rule to an atypical, abnormal case, like the current pandemic the rule will fail, and this is when the fallacy of accident occurs. See https://www.fallacyfiles.org/accident.html
(9) 'It's not a lot of people when you look at a sanctuary that's over 2,500 seats, so it was very few.'….
What does he mean by “very few”? Compared to their regular attendance this number is few but compared to the social distancing guidelines from government and health authorities, this is not “very few”.
The church has no authority to state what is or is not safe for the health and well being of the public. But their arguments or claims imply that they do. See previous comments.
(10) 'They [people] want to be in a service because
(11) they don't really have the online streaming, or
(12) they don't know how.'”
(10-11) This is understandable especially if the church is made up of older folks who may not be tech savvy; however there was sufficient time (December 2019?) where the church could have prepared and created a contingency plan. The bible speaks about the importance of preparing for times of distress. (See Bible).
Some “low tech” options could be:
1. print out and mail transcripts of the sermon to church members
2. create a hot-line where they can call in and hear the message.
And from
Federal judge to decide if state violated Legacy Church’s First Amendment rights
https://www.krqe.com/health/coronavirus-new-mexico/federal-judge-to-decide-if-state-violated-legacy-churchs-first-amendment-rights/
and
Legacy Church files lawsuit against state of New Mexico
“Head Pastor Steve Smothermon of Legacy Church claims
(13) in order to live stream Easter Sunday service, they needed more than five people inside the church. Under the governor’s order, only five people are allowed to gather at one time.”
This is similar to (8).
What does he mean by “they needed more than five people inside the church”? How did he come to this conclusion?
The assumption here is that there is no other way to do “church” with less than 5 people.
Is this true? If so, how are other churches “doing church”? If they are able to live stream with 5 people, then why can’t Legacy do the same? How are these other churches able to function? So the question is: Is this true for just Legacy Church or true for all churches and media/entertainment broadcasts? How are shows like the Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon able to broadcast with less than 5 people? How are artists and bands able to perform and live stream their concerts with less than 5 people? If other people and broadcasters are “making it work”, why can’t Legacy. The simple answer is that they don’t want to make it work. They want to continue doing “business as usual”. One can argue that they are in a state of denial of the seriousness of the pandemic. One can also argue that they may even be entitled and pretentious.
Some people (including Christians) argue that since we don’t shut down Church during flu season, why should we restrict our gatherings now?
But this assumes that Covid 19 and flu are the same.
See:
https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html
Greg Koukl offers some comments about this topic in his “Greg’s Recipe for Getting through a Crisis and Is the church being too compliant in giving up our right to assemble during this health crisis?” podcast
https://www.str.org/podcasts/gregs-recipe-getting-through-crisis
This podcast was produced to be heard and not read so I strongly encourage you to listen to the audio starting at 50 min. Here is a summary:
This pandemic like other times of crisis requires people to set aside their normal rights because there is a greater concern.
Liberties are temporarily restricted. Justified infringements on rights to assemble. At certain times, this is appropriate. Examples: times of war; pandemics...
The order to not gather in large groups is a restriction on entire population, not just Christians. The government is not singling out Christians.
This is an unusual circumstance and we have unusual restrictions to deal with that. This is not the norm... conditions are not normal.
“medical martial law”
Comparing Covid 19 to the “regular” flu.
Accurate threat assessment and response.
What is the nature of the current threat?
Why should Christians trust government and CDC etc especially if they promote a non-Christian or anti-christian worldview?
Politics and Covid 19.
Anti-Christian Conspiracies.
Is Social Isolation Really Necessary for Coronavirus?
https://medshadow.org/social-isolation-necessary-for-coronavirus/
How canceled events and self-quarantines save lives, in one chart
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/10/21171481/coronavirus-us-cases-quarantine-cancellation
America’s coronavirus testing failure has forced us to rely more on painful social distancing
(14) “for Legacy Church, they say in order to have put on their Easter Sunday service, they needed far more people inside the church then currently allowed under the governor’s amended order.”
(15) ‘“We wouldn’t be able to put on the quality that we have and the engagement that we’re able to do and look people in the eye, you know through the camera and say you know we can’t be there but we’re together.
(16) And I think it would hinder our quality,” said Smothermon….
(14-16) are similar to (13) above.
What is meat by “needed”. How did they come to this conclusion?
They “need” because they refuse to work with anything less (with less than five people). They refuse to lower their standards and quality and just make it work. They want to keep the same production standards as pre-pandemic times. One may be able to argue that Legacy has crossed the line into idolatry by fighting to maintain the same quality and engagement and programming no matter what the circumstances are.
Could it be that church (the building, the production, the service itself) has become an idol to some Christians?
See
Is the Coronavirus Exposing Our Idols?
https://www.crosswalk.com/special-coverage/coronavirus/is-the-coronavirus-exposing-our-idols.html
During unusual circumstances such as the one that we are in now: content (truth and accuracy) > production quality.
We need to reset our expectations! The principles they mention How to Stay Married in Quarantine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kzKP1hcBlU
applies to marriage but can also apply to churches.
We also need to ask what Legacy’s view of church is. This may help us understand their reasoning:
“What is the Church?
1. A building for religious worship? (average Joe theology)
2. Any body of religious worshipers? (politically correct theology)
3. The house of the Lord as the Temple in the Old Testament was the house of
the Lord? (Eastern Orthodox theology)
4. A Christian religious institution through which appointed leaders guide the
people of God through administration of the sacraments? (Roman
Catholic theology)
5. The people of God of all time? (Covenant theology)
6. Those who have trusted in Christ since the day of Pentecost?
(Dispensationalist theology)
7. An invisible body of people, both alive and dead, who hold to a common
orthodox confession of Christ? (Early Church theology)
8. A visible body of people who have a common practice, demonstrating
Christ’s mercy? (Liberal theology)
9. Any group of people who come together to worship God and study His
Word? (Fundamentalist theology)
10.Christ’s continued active presence on the earth? (Evangelical theology)
What is the nature of the Church?
Four Primary Views:
1. Liberal View
2. Liberation View
3. Roman Catholic View
4. Evangelical Protestant View
The Church is the unified, continued presence of Christ composed of all people who
have trusted in the Gospel of Christ.
What is the purpose of the Church?
Views:
The Church is here to take part in
relationships with others
(communal purpose).
2. The Church is here to fight against
sin (holy purpose).
3. The Church is here to worship God
(doxological purpose).
4. The Church is here to represent
Christ’s ruling authority
(authoritative purpose).
Purpose of the Church
5. The Church is here to represent Christ’s
mercy and love (sociological purpose).
6. The Church is here to spread the Gospel
to the lost (evangelical purpose).
7. The Church is here to help people grow in
Christ (discipleship purpose).
8. The Church is here to enjoy God and the
world that God has created (hedonistic
purpose).
9. The Church is here to glorify God in
whatever we do (panoramic purpose).
The purpose of the Church is to worship and enjoy God, representing Christ through
evangelistic outreach, discipleship, social concern, fellowship, and holiness. When all
of these are accomplished, God is most glorified, and we are most satisfied.
Guiding Principles:
• There is no one right way to “do Church.”
• While the forms may differ, the main concern is that the essential ministry
functions/principles are being accomplished.
• Attempt must be made to accomplish all ministries in balance, with priority
given to the teaching of God’s word, outreach, and the creation of relationships
(fellowship).”
The Theology Notebook – Ecclesiology and Eschatology https://bible.org/series/ecclesiology-and-eschatology
(17) He went on to say what she did, and how she did it was evil….”
What does he mean by “evil”? How did he come to this conclusion? Is this his personal subjective opinion or is this objective (e.g., torturing kids for fun is evil)? How is maintaining public health and safely evil?
CONCLUSION
In conclusion: the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few or the one!
And
God commands His followers to love and serve others even those who are enemies:
Joh 13:34-35 NET.
(34) "I give you a new commandment -- to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.
(35) Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples -- if you have love for one another."
1) Context is love for other fellow Christians.
2) what does “love” mean? see 1 Corinthians 13:
a) “This universal love of God is manifest in blessings which God bestows on all people indiscriminately. Theologians refer to this as common grace.” (The McArthur Study Bible (NKJV). Copyright © 2005 by John MacArthur Published in Nashville, Tennessee, by Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
b) God's love toward all people is sacrificial, unconditional, selfless, active, independent on others, independent of personal feelings
c) “should not necessarily be taken to mean doing that which will please them [enemies], but choosing to show them favor and goodwill (Mat_5:43-44). One should realize the need of people to be changed through Christ's grace, and do everything possible to bring them to a knowledge of the Lord. This mayinvolve expressions of benevolence or even discipline and punishment, all as the outworking of this love...Agapáō [used in verse 46] and never philéō [indicating feelings, warm affection; to be content with, denoting common interests, to befriend] is used of love toward our enemies. The range of philéō is wider than that of agapáō which stands higher than philéō because of its moral import, i.e., love that expresses compassion. We are thus commanded to love (agapáō) our enemies, to do what is necessary to turn them to Christ, but never to befriend them (philéō) by adopting their interests and becoming friends on their level” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary © 1992 By AMG International, Inc. Chattanooga, TN 37422, U.S.A. Revised edition, 1993)
3) Jesus desires His followers to be the kind of person who shares the characteristics of God himself (The NET Bible® footnotes, copyright © 1996-2006 by Biblical Studies Press L.L.C. All rights reserved. Used by permission from www.bible.org)
a) see Gal 5:22-24; Col 1:11; Eph 4:25-31; 2Pet 1:5-9.
b) Christians are to reflect God's moral nature:
4) “Some Jewish teachers emphasized kindness to pagans (Gentiles) to draw them to the truth, but most people greeted and (apart from charity) looked after only those they knew. Tax gatherers were considered among the most apostate Jews; Gentiles were considered (usually rightly) immoral, idolatrous, often anti-Jewish pagans. Jews agreed that one should not be like the pagans (so also the Old Testament: Lev_18:3; Deu_18:9; Jer_10:2).” (The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Copyright © 2000 by John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews and Mark W. Chavalas and The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Copyright © 1993 by Craig S. Keener InterVarsity Press.)
5) “But Jesus asks His people to suffer rather than cause others to suffer (1Co_6:1-8). Keep in mind that this has to do with private offenses; the courts must still deal with people who break the law and must be punished accordingly. Christians may sacrifice and suffer as the Lord leads them, but they have no right to ask others to join them. Mat_5:42 does not command us to give to everybody who asks whatever they desire, for in so doing we might do them harm. We must give them what they need the most and not what they want the most.
Lev_19:17-18 deals with the treatment of enemies, and see Exo_23:4- 5...Jesus advised us to pray for them and do them good, just as the Father does to us. If we treat our enemies as they treat us, we are stooping to their low level. Nor should we be satisfied to do what the average Christian does. “What do you more than others?” We must go higher and imitate the Heavenly Father. The word “perfect” in Mat_5:48 points the way to maturity of character, the kind of qualities described in 2Pe_1:1-21 and Gal_5:22-23.” (WIERSBE’S EXPOSITORY OUTLINES. By Warren W. Wiersbe. Cook Communications Ministries)
The real question is not who is my neighbor but will I be a neighbor to others? (Luke 10):
1. Jesus teaches how His followers are to respond to the needs that people have
a) not make excuses or ignore people in need
b) do something to help, taking action even if it involves sacrificing your own time, resources, skills, knowledge with no expectation of return
c) continually being a neighbor, demonstrating God's love to people, seeking their interests, serving, being an instrument of God's kindness and representing Jesus' love, patience, selfishness, goodness, kindness, compassion and humility.
d) NOT allowing our emotions, feeling or personal beliefs direct our behavior
1. acting and helping people and obeying God out of love even if we don't feel like loving or helping
2. loving people requires action.
SEE ALSO
Breakpoint/Colson Center covers this topic very well:
The Coronavirus . . . from a Christian Worldview Perspective
The Non-Essential Church?
BP This Week: When Churches Are 'Non-Essential' . . .
The Viral Pandemic of Distrust and Misinformation
Religious Freedom and the Coronavirus
BP Podcast: Religious Freedom During the Coronavirus--and Beyond
Religious Freedom and the Coronavirus
Where Is God in a Coronavirus World?
https://colsoncenter.libsyn.com/where-is-god-in-a-coronavirus-world
Why We Shouldn’t Get Used to Online Church
https://colsoncenter.libsyn.com/why-we-shouldnt-get-used-to-online-church
God and the Coronavirus
https://www.calvaryabq.org/teachings_view.asp?ServiceID=4534
The Quarantined Life
https://www.calvaryabq.org/teachings_view.asp?ServiceID=4532
Don’t Be a Couch Potato During This Crisis
https://www.str.org/podcasts/dont-be-couch-potato-during-crisis
Greg’s Recipe for Getting through a Crisis and Is the church being too compliant in giving up our right to assemble during this health crisis?
https://www.str.org/podcasts/gregs-recipe-getting-through-crisis
Coronavirus and Christ
‘Behold the Kindness and Severity of God’
https://www.desiringgod.org/coronavirus
How to Talk to Your Kids About the Pandemic
https://plainsimplefaith.com/how-to-talk-to-your-kids-about-the-pandemic/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=how-to-talk-to-your-kids-about-the-pandemic&fbclid=IwAR1oL-CMlrHAAGM6bdhdM5X2ixeNLsjgRCDiXfgkheSAnyJQLj7MN7ExCz4
God Takes Our Worries: COVID-19 Lesson and Resources For Kids
A Message from Greg on the COVID-19 Upheaval
https://www.str.org/blog/message-greg-covid-19-upheaval#.Xntw4PF7nV8
Generosity in a Time of Hoarding
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/christians-as-givers-in-a-time-of-hoarding/
If God, Why the Coronavirus? …And Your Other Tough Questions about Faith
https://www.rzim.org/read/rzim-global/if-god-why-the-coronavirus-1
How Can We Be the Church if We Don't Meet Because of the Coronavirus?
what COVID-19 Reveals About Us: Four Categories of People Surfaced from the Pandemic
Listen: Biochemist Michael Behe Puts Coronavirus in a Helpful Scientific Perspective
Quick Challenge Answer? Is the Coronavirus Judgment from God?
Don’t Panic over COVID-19
https://www.str.org/podcasts/follow-thoughts-covid-19#.Xn0tjXJMHIV
Ravi Zacharias on The Ben Shapiro Show - Interview March 19, 2020
C. S. Lewis and the Coronavirus