Introduction
Jonathan Leeman writes over at 9 Marks, asking the question When Should Churches Reject Governmental Guidelines on Gathering and Engage in Civil Disobedience.
First off, I suspect that Leeman and I are quite close theologically. While he is a baptist, I imagine that we would work our way down a list of significant biblical and theological truths and double check them all in solidarity. But I do think there are weaknesses in Leeman’s article that are common in the broader Reformed evangelical landscape and therefore worth addressing.
I happily acknowledge that the question he is asking and attempting to answer is an important one, and it isn’t an easy one. Perhaps my biggest overall objection is the apparent over-simplification of his answer. This simplification seems obvious even as he sets the question up, betraying a common contemporary bias, in favor of deference to civil government. But ask a different question: When should a wife reject her husband’s authority and disobey him? Or when should a Christian disobey his pastor or elders? In our hyper #metoo moment, I suspect that Leeman would express a whole lot more sympathy with wives of abusive husbands or congregants of abusive pastors than he does in his article about civil authority. At the very least, I think he would have included a number of qualifiers – indicating that abusive husbands and pastors should be ignored or disobeyed yesterday. But this article doesn’t seem to acknowledge that some American churches may be facing truly abusive civil mandates.
Truly Overlapping
I agree with Leeman’s point that there is often jurisdictional overlap, and I believe there is some of that overap here in this COVID-19 situation. But I don’t think Leeman develops that point consistently. What *I* mean by jurisdictional overlap is that both church and civil authorities retain their authority. When lives in the church are at stake, the church does not abdicate or relinquish its authority. And this doesn’t have to be formal: if you get a call from the police and they say there’s an active shooter in the area of the church, the service can be immediately interrupted. But the civil government does not have the authority to cancel church services. Period. Full stop. Civil magistrates and law enforcement have the authority to interrupt worship temporarily, if there is truly a life and death situation. But if you get that call three weeks in a row and there are no active shooters in your area, the elders would be fine to thank the officer for his concern and carry on. And if the threat is not immediate, then the civil government may ask for the cooperation of the church, and the church may consider that request, which, given what we know now about COVID-19 is most certainly what most civil authorities ought to have done in our country.
Leeman says the church and government have overlapping jurisdictions, but then he actually says that the government’s authority to preserve and protect life comes first. But it doesn’t. That authority is co-equal with the church’s authority to preach the gospel and maintain public worship. Both jurisdictions remain fully in effect. Privileging civil government, by making safety the first priority is a slippery slope. Leeman says we should submit because preserving life now allows for the freedom to gather for worship later. But certainly not always. Is it better to save your life now and worship God later? Well, surely the Biblical answer is: it depends. Sometimes it’s better to lose your life now. I’m pretty sure Leeman would agree, but I don’t think his argument was laid out carefully. And given the actual stats for COVID-19 for healthy folks under 65, what’s stopping a civil magistrate from using the same argument to order churches shut down every flu season, so that we can still be alive to worship every summer?
A Multitude of Jurisdictions
The other weakness in the article was his failure to differentiate between different levels and spheres of civil government. In a constitutional republic, we have the federal and state constitutions, then we have elected officials tasked with upholding those constitutions, both at the federal and state level, and then we have county and city authorities. In America, the constitution is the supreme authority. We don’t have kings (on purpose), and our magistrates are servants of the constitution. While I take the general meaning of overlapping jurisdictions between church and state, it’s really much more complicated than that. There are actually a multitude of overlapping jurisdictions. Beginning with the civil government side, we have federal, state, county, city, judges, sheriffs, legislators, governors, mayors, and police chiefs. Which government am I supposed to submit to? If my governor is looser than my sheriff, do I submit to the sheriff or my governor? If the governor is stricter than the President, do I submit to the president or the governor? And what if a judge says that what the governor is doing is illegal? And what if my city council is stricter than my governor? And what if my state constitution prohibits what my governor is doing? Do I submit to the constitution that my governor swore to uphold or do I submit to the governor who is breaking his vows? And do I have to wait for a judge to announce that or am I allowed to see it with my own eyes?
Then on the church side, there are also often multiple layers of authority. We have local sessions of elders, and some of us Presbyterians have presbyteries and broader denominational bodies that may issue declarations and statements as well. Should I submit to my local elders, presbytery, denomination, or my governor? And if there are only 5 cases in my county, does that matter? And if there are members of my congregation being crushed by all the effects of the COVID lockdowns, does that matter?
Protecting Life vs. Health & Safety
Now add to this the fact that while the Bible does grant the civil magistrate the duty to protect life, it does not grant it the authority to generally supervise public safety. The Bible grants the magistrate the authority to punish evil doers. Let’s have another Period and Full Stop, shall we? The magistrate may pass certain safety laws, but it only has the power to enforce them when an actual crime has taken place. The civil magistrate’s job is primarily punitive not preventative.
In Deuteronomy 22:8 it says, “When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.” This is not a requirement for everyone to live in a castle. This is a safety regulation. It’s perfectly fine for there to be laws that require fences around balconies and swimming pools, but the civil magistrate is not authorized to send building inspectors around to check and see and fine those who do not have them. What the civil magistrate is authorized to do is issue the public warning that if anyone does not have a fence and someone dies, the property owner will be liable for that death. The death penalty for negligent homicide does have certain public safety blessings, but for some reason, that isn’t usually what people have in mind.
On the other hand, the Bible clearly grants the family government the duty to make decisions regarding day to day health and safety. It is the husband’s job to protect his wife as his own body, and see to it that she is fed and clothed and make sure all under his care are provided for and protected (Eph. 5-6, 1 Tim. 5). So, again, if the civil government says COVID-19 is a life threatening disease, and a couple months later, the only thing dead is my business and my ability to feed my children, at what point does a man have the duty before God to thank the civil magistrate for his concern and happily disregard isolation orders and reopen business in order to obey God in providing for his family? I recognize that Leeman’s question and answer were more narrowly tailored to churches gathering for worship, but it seems to me that to the extent that his argument partially rests on the jurisdictional authority of the civil magistrate’s interest in safety, the fact that God has actually given that jurisdiction to the family plays directly into this.
A Lot More Questions
I think my greatest particular disagreement is with Leeman’s conclusions. He rightly states that the government has to have a reasonable argument to ban all gatherings, but then he concludes that in our current situation they do. He says that stopping a pandemic that kills more than 50K in a month is reasonable. But this is really sloppy. How many of those 50K were primarily in a few highly dense populations? How many were over 65 years of age? How many were in nursing homes that got locked down with the disease or were sent sick patients with the disease? How many died with other co-morbidities? And do we actually know that the lockdowns did anything? Some nations like Sweden were fairly light on regulations and seem to have come out at about the same mortality rate. Also, how many have died not from Covid-19 but from the side-effects of the lockdowns – people not getting medical treatment for other “non-essential” medical procedures?
Leeman rightly notes that the government may not single out churches in its regulations, but that is manifestly what they have done in many states. It has not been an even-handed blanket ban at all. Costco and Walmart and the Building Supply and the liquor store have all been crowded with people in my area. True, they do have those creepy dystopian announcements going over the intercom every few minutes reminding me to stay at least 6 feet away from everyone in the store, but I refuse to say “Amen” at the end of those prayers. Now I don’t think most politicians are intentionally targeting churches or religious gatherings, but I do think that their general postures have been singularly arrogant and discriminatory. If Pizza Hut can deliver a pizza to someone’s door, then pastors should be allowed to perform pastoral care. If big box stores can be trusted to implement common sense precautions, so should small businesses. And if you can have a couple hundred people in Costco, then churches should be wide open.
Conclusion: A Bad Witness
Finally, Leeman believes that Christian churches submitting to the civil government is a “good witness.” I would have granted that point at the beginning of this disaster. When no one knew exactly how bad COVID-19 was, I do think it was a good witness to be willing to take precautions and submit gladly to those entrusted to protect our lives. But at this point, (and leaving room for exceptional situations), going along further with this insanity is just a witness to the general fecklessness of the modern church.
My question for Leeman is: What about all the small businesses that are being crushed – the working class, who go from paycheck to paycheck? What about the elderly and shut-ins and alcoholics that are suffering under these measures and being tempted to despair or revert to addictions? What about the spiking suicide rates? What about the soaring domestic violence rates? What about our witness to those people? Many evangelical theologians are relatively insulated by upper-middle class suburban contexts – folks with government jobs or the ability to work remotely at home or several months of salary in savings. But I would argue that unless you’re in a neighborhood that has been completely ravaged by the disease, continued church closures at this point, given all that we now know, is a terrible witness. At this point, continued acquiescence to government orders runs the risk of presenting a testimony of fear and virtue signaling.
The continuation of these regulations is quickly becoming nothing short of pharisaical purity laws which always land hardest on the weak and the poor. My neighbors are suffering, but at least I’m wearing this silly mask. Jesus said it was completely evil to allow man-made regulations to get in the way of obeying the commands of God, things like honoring our elderly parents and grandparents, providing for our families, and caring for the poor and needy in our midst. And the Church needs to lead by disregarding foolhardy and unconstitutional mandates that disproportionately land on the most vulnerable and cause us to disobey God’s clear word.
Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash
Jonathan Leeman says
Toby,
Thanks so much for taking the time to engage with my article on civil disobedience. I’m always grateful for charitable, friendly engagements, which you offered. I think you’re right: we probably do agree on a number of things. In fact, the main sense I got when reading your helpful response is that you might be exaggerating the nature of our differences on the issue at hand, at least on several points:
1) First, you write, “What I mean by jurisdictional overlap is that both church and civil authorities retain their authority…the church does not abdicate or relinquish its authority.” I’m not sure what else overlap could mean. It means both retain authority there. In that space. As my graph tried to show.
Now, it’s possible we disagree here. I’m not sure. At one point you write, “the civil government may as for the cooperation of the church, and the church may consider that request.” Now, that’s saying something different than what I quoted in the last paragraph. (Maybe here you mean only when the threat has passed?) Doug Wilson—do you know him?—offers three different positions a church might adopt:
“The first [position] is that the civil magistrate has no authority over whether a church holds worship services. They may advise, but not command. The church is like a house cat. Unlike a dog, it never obeys you; it sometimes agrees with you.
“The second position is that the magistrate has genuine authority in times of emergency to command the church to do certain things, or refrain from certain things (as with a quarantine in a time of plague). When the church complies, it is obedience, not happenstance agreement. At the same time, because no human authority is absolute, and because every form of human authority can be corrupted, those under authority, including the church (and especially the church), have the authority to identify when the genuine authority of the magistrate is being abused or mishandled to the point where it is now legitimate to disregard what they are saying.
“The third position is to take a surface reading of Romans 13 (obey the existing authorities) as a straightforward absolute. Whatever they say, we are supposed to do.”
It’s this second position that I tried to affirm. I disavowed the first by saying, “They shouldn’t just ‘go along with the government by our own free will,’ as a friend of mine put it. They should positively submit.” I disavowed the third by saying, “No authority is absolute except God’s, which means we never surrender judgment to another human entirely, and therefore we have to ask God for wisdom and rely on him in these tough cases of jurisdictional overlap.”
I assume this second position is your position, too?
2) That brings me to a second point of possible misunderstanding. You write, “Privileging civil government, by making safety the first priority is a slippery slope. Leeman says we should submit because preserving life now allows for the freedom to gather for worship later. But certainly not always. It is better to save your life now and worship God later? Well, surely the biblical answer is, it depends.”
Yes, exactly. That’s just the point. We’re in the domain of wisdom. And wisdom always has to decide, is it time to build up or time to tear down? Sometimes we’ll make the judgment to defer to government. Sometimes we’ll make the judgment that we shouldn’t.
You’re right, though. I do offer a kind of privileging to the government on this particular question right now. Not privileging as in higher or more important. But privileging in terms of chronology. It’s exercise of authority must be in some sense prior. There’s a much larger theology at play here, but the basic idea is: I believe common grace builds platforms for special grace work, as in, you have to learn to read before you can read the Bible. You have to make money before you can show evangelistic hospitality to your neighbor. You have to take a breath before you can preach the Word. And, ordinarily, a government needs to secure order and peace before we can get on with God’s plan of redemption. Genesis 9 and the giving of the power of the sword comes before Genesis 12 and the call to Abraham for a reason (see also Acts 17:26-27 and 1 Tim. 2:1-4). In that sense, the state serves salvation. Here’s a short piece where I explain my views on all this.
3) You write, “The other weakness in the article was his failure to differential between different levels and spheres of civil government.” In fact, it was exactly this that I had in mind when I wrote, “Plus, Christians should utterly exhaust all ordinary means of legal recourse before contemplating disobedience.” Let’s just say I was trying to make your point more economically!
So, a good friend of mine played a lead role in overturning the KY governors ban on churches. I support his work entirely, which is why I tweeted after the fact:
https://twitter.com/JonathanLeeman/status/1258982850277380096?s=20
Ironically, just today I we were discussing the doctrine of the lesser magistrate and the challenge of when state and county authorities disagree. So, yes, I appreciate your raising this point.
While I think you maybe exaggerating our differences on these first three points, there are three places where we might disagree.
4) You write, “The civil magistrate’s job is primarily punitive, not preventative.” In fact, I think an argument can be made for preventative, too, at least on some occasions. Indeed, I think Deuteronomy 22:8 does just that. But that’s a big topic we can leave that for another day.
5) You write, “I think my greatest particular disagreement is with Leeman’s conclusions. He rightly states that the government has to have a reasonable argument to ban all gatherings, but then he concludes in our current situation they do.”
May I offer you two cautions on this point, brother? First, again, don’t exaggerate your difference with me or with other believers on this question. I believe our difference here is a prudential one, not a principled one. We’re making different strategic judgment calls, and surely of a kind that would operate within the space of Romans 14 and the forbearance we owe other believers. You believe we may have reached the moment where we should disobey government. I’m not sure that time has come. Okay, fine. But we still line up on the basic principles at play, and I think that’s worth something. I say this because you called it your “greatest” disagreement with me. I know what you mean, but let’s keep it in perspective.
Relatedly, second, I sincerely believe you are writing as a pastor to protect the church. Praise God. Thank you. But. Take care you’re not outside your God-given jurisdiction. You’re not an epidemiologist. Yes, you can read articles and draw your own conclusions. Yes, you’re obviously intelligent. But reading a few books on engineering doesn’t make me an engineer. Plus, more than a question of competence is the question of authority. As a pastor, you’re authorized by God to read, interpret, and apply the text to God’s people. Part of that includes commanding the church to gather (Heb. 10:25)! Yet we as pastors should be slow to begin taking conscience-binding positions on health care, tax law, environmental law, and the whole range of what Robert Benne called “jagged-line” (as opposed to “straight-line”) political issues.
Further, suppose every Christian in the country decided he or she could figure out what’s best for right now—better than the epidemiologists, or at least better than the ones the governing authorities have chosen to listen to. We’d have chaos, no? (This HAS to be my favorite tweet on the topic.)
That’s what worries me about the coming months. Every county administrator and mayor and governor is going to come to his or her own set of convictions. Every Internet-reading Christian is going to pick his or her favorite report coming out of Sweden or Britain or Stanford or the WHO or whatever, in many cases in ways that correspond to their political dispositions. And what are we going to get? Not just chaos, but a lot of bickering and rancor within the body.
What’s the solution? I think it’s to help Christians/churches realize we’re free to make different judgments here about what’s best, even as we agree on our basic duties to government and church. It’s to emphasize and reemphasize Romans 14 (not just 13!). It’s to insist on seeking the unity of the body in the bond of peace, even as your convinced we should wear masks and I’m not; or you’re convinced we should sing loudly and I’m saying we shouldn’t; or your church is convinced you should gather and mine isn’t.
6) You write, “What about all the small businesses that are being crushed…Many evangelical theologians are relatively insulated by upper-middle class suburban contexts…I would argue that unless you’re in a neighborhood that has been completely ravaged by the disease, continued church closures at this point, given all that we now know, is a terrible witness.”
On the one hand, I take your point. I’m impacted by my context, and were I in a different one, my prudential judgments might be a little different. I’ve been speaking to pastors in majority world contexts, and their neighbors too often have a choice between obeying the government by staying at home but running out of food or disobeying government so they can get work and put food on the table. That said, I’m not sure how the church’s ability to gather as a whole church right now impacts these challenges. Hopefully all our churches are presently attending to the different physical challenges people are facing right now even though they aren’t gathering.
Last comment. This article was written at a particular moment in time. In fact, right after publishing it I began to notice how a couple of state governments did seem to be singling out churches (Illinois?). So, no, I don’t assume the judgment I made at the beginning of this month to stand forever. Furthermore, I hope to write another article soon calling on Christians to begin leaning into lawmakers and making the case for gathering together.
Thanks again for the gracious and helpful engagement. You developed a couple of things more carefully than I did, especially your point about the multitude of jurisdictions.
Blessings!
Toby says
First off, thanks much for the reply, Jonathan. I’ve answered you, following your numbered points:
1. Yes, I agree with Doug Wilson’s second position as you do. And thanks, that’s helpful. I completely agree with your overlapping circles diagram. My point is that it didn’t seem that you were developing those overlapping jurisdictions consistently, for example…
2. I think that comes out here in your number 2 where you say that common grace builds platforms for special grace to work. I appreciate that point. However, I’m not sure that applies to jurisdictions like it applies to learning to read before reading the Bible. While Genesis 9 comes before Genesis 12, I might also point out that Genesis 3 comes before Genesis 9! The covenant promise that God will crush the seed of the serpent comes before the covenant with Noah. So I grant your point about common grace generally coming chronologically before special grace, but when it comes to authority and sovereignty, all the God-ordained spheres were established in the Garden (family, church, state), and so I wouldn’t want to privilege one over another. But if we’re really going chronological, it would seem the family came first (Adam & Eve’s wedding) and the church came second (they communed with God in the Garden at the tree of life). I take God’s command to be fruitful and multiply and explore and fill the world to imply the need for civil government as a result of families multiplying. Wouldn’t that seem to make civil government last chronologically?
3. Thanks. I appreciate your support of lesser magistrates. Go team! I also just noticed that you added an additional paragraph at some point on the Final Judgment Test – I’m pretty sure the tab I had open in my browser was from before that addition. I still think your rhetoric there betrays a bias toward civil government, and I wonder if you would use the same language if you were discussing when it is right to disobey or ignore abusive family or church government.
4. I look forward to hearing your case for this! Although to be clear, as I stated in my article, I do think the government can act to prevent a clear and present lethal threat. But its routine, ordinary task is punishment of evil-doers – it’s primarily punitive. (BTW, this is what I meant when I said the government may ask the church to cooperate — when there is *not* a clear and present lethal threat. When there *is* a clear and present lethal threat, the government may command and the church should gladly submit.)
5. Caution taken, and I’m actually fully on board. I’m not an epidemiologist or lawyer for certain. But I am a pastor, and while that does include commanding the church to gather, as you note, it also includes commanding men to provide for their families. It also includes commanding that orphans and widows be cared for. I also don’t think you have to be an expert in economics or health care to see with your own eyes the fact that (for example in my county) there have been only five confirmed cases of COVID-19 (all recovering at home), but there are many hundreds more people suffering the consequences of business shutdowns, some already announcing permanent closures.
I also appreciate the concern for unity in the body, and I agree with the Romans 14 emphasis. I just wish there had been more of that in your original article, particularly for those who are convinced by the Word of God and common sense that the civil orders in their regions are unbiblical, unconstitutional, and abuses of power. I am happy to give brothers the benefit of the doubt in their judgment calls to continue not meeting as a church in submission to civil authorities, but your article seemed to lean heavily towards suspicion of those convinced that the time had come to disregard those orders.
6. The church’s ability to gather now impacts the challenges of those being crushed by lockdowns by being a source of encouragement, discipleship, and support. But this portion of my article was particularly addressing the question of testimony and witness. So the point is also one of cultural leadership. If we believe the poor and vulnerable, the hair salon owners and nail stylists and hometown breweries should be open so they can pay their bills, the churches should lead the way in being open. Worship is warfare. And as many rightly recognize, all true freedom flows from the Cross of Jesus. So religious freedom really is the first freedom. If we want social and political freedom, the Church must lead the way in gathering for worship.
Again, thanks very much for the thoughtful interaction.
Jonathan Leeman says
P.S. When i say “you may have exaggerated our differences,” I certainly don’t mean intentionally. I should have said, “you may have an exaggerated sense of our differences.”
Toby says
Thanks, Jonathan.
Jonathan Leeman says
PPS. After posting, I discovered hyperlinks don’t work.
– here’s the article I mentioned: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/how-state-serves-salvation/
– here’s the tweet I love: https://twitter.com/joshuaray/status/1258751033922088961?s=20
Lance says
Jonathan, It seems like you’re missing one of the major points of the Church and State in America.
In America, the people are the authority, they elect representatives to do their bidding and bind them with the Constitution (they aren’t leaders per se, they are representatives, i.e. stewards). When those representatives violate the bounds the people have placed on them, then THEY ARE REBELLING against Romans 13. We may do many things for many reasons, applying our discernment for any given situation, sometimes doing what they ask because the larger fight isn’t worth it, but we should not accept the rebellion of our stewards. God gave parables about unjust stewards and the punishment they would receive. We should not be conspiring with the rebels by saying that obeying them is a Romans 13 issue, we should be calling them out.
Jonathan Leeman says
1. Great!
2. Hmmm. I think the language of prior works; you don’t. That’s fine. Let me try this a different way. God establishes different authorities with different jurisdictions, each for its own set of reasons. When it comes to adjudicating places of overlap, our task is to consider what those reasons are, and whether one set of reasons appears more pertinent to the situation at hand than another. And I’m less interested in what was or wasn’t the case in the Garden, and more interested in what is the case at our own particular moment of redemptive history. So it’s finally never about “privileging” this or that institution. It’s about considering each on its own terms in a certain tough case. An example I commonly use is: who has “final” authority over the child—the state or the parent? Well, in many ways I want to “privilege” the parent’s authority because God has given parents the authority to teach, instruct, admonish, provide, and protect that child, which I assume roots finally back in the dominion mandate but which further Scripture attests to. That said, suppose the parent becomes physically abusive? I believe God has given authority to the state to intervene because, at this point, the parent is harming one of the state’s citizens—the child. I remember an abuse case at a friend’s church. A man physically abused his 2-year-old (by anyone’s standard; it was awful). The wife told one of the elder’s wives, who is a mandatory reporter. She reported. The elders backed her up. The man got mad at the elders, saying it was none of the state’s business. Au contraire. It sure is! That said, switch up the scenario: imagine a state forbidding Christian education; or insisting that a parent must submit to a child’s preferred gender identity. In that case, I’d say: sue the government, leave the country, throw a revolution, whatever it takes! That’s nuts! The bottom line in all this: I’d reassert my original points that (i) in places of overlap, we need wisdom, because there are multiple lines of authority at play. As much as we’d like black-and-white case law for every conceivable scenario, the Bible doesn’t provide it, and we’re forced to ask him for wisdom. That’s why the story of the two prostitutes with Solomon concludes: “the people were amazed God had given WISDOM to Solomon to do JUSTICE” (1 Kings 3:28). Forget the entire corpus of political philosophy. There is the political philosophy of the Bible in one verse: we need God’s wisdom to do justice. And (ii) I maintain that God has given us governments for the purpose of providing a platform of peace and safety for the storyline of redemption to ensue. Again, see the Ligonier article link I mentioned before. Or see my article on “Church and State” at TGC.
3. I think my last point addresses what you say here, too.
4. I’ve discussed all this in Political Church (chapter 4) and How the Nations Rage (chapter 4, too). And I freely admit it’s an argument where Christians will disagree on how “big” government should be. If there’s a spectrum between a purely protectionist (night watchman state) view of government and something more perfectionist, I consider myself definitely toward the protectionist end, but it’s possible I’m one or two clicks less protectionist than you.
5. You may be proving your point about the relevance of location. My county in Maryland has the highest rates of infection in the whole state, and yesterday had the highest number of deaths so far. Also, I trust I could have done a better job of emphasizing the need for charity and a Romans 14 forbearance in that article. Thanks for the suggestion.
6. Well, as William Wallace, as performed by Mel Gibson, said, “They may take our lives, but they’ll never take our freeeeeeeddddddoooooom.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIvRkjOd1f8
Thanks again for the convo.
Toby says
Jonathan,
Again, thanks much for taking the time to interact. Really appreciate it.
I agree that these situations are challenging, and it is about considering the claims of each institution in each situation. I like the way you spelled that out more clearly and with more balance in your reply in #2 above (giving instances of overreach/abuse in two different directions). Of course, I also agree that all of this requires great wisdom.
At the same time, I think it’s frequently easy for Christians to assume that because the word “Obamacare” is not found in their Bible dictionary, biblical wisdom must be some kind of mystical Zen instinct (as though something like government mandated healthcare could go either way biblically speaking), when in reality, wisdom is the ability to apply God’s clear word to our current circumstances.
Cheers!
Lance says
Another point.
The Government has authority over individuals in its area, justice. It does not have authority over the Church or over the Family. So it can come get a murderer who’s hiding in the church, but it can’t ever tell the Church when it should or shouldn’t meet. It can warn them, and they will have to decide. The Government not having authority over the Church has been championed by the faithful for centuries. It’s borne out today by the Church being tax-exempt, long before non-profits where a thing. The Government just has no authority over the Church as a body.