Buy truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, instruction, and understanding. (Prov. 23:23)
Recently, Pastor John MacArthur posted an article entitled "Christ, not Caesar, is Head of the Church." The article caused a firestorm from accusations that MacArthur is endangering people, that he is trivializing the pandemic, and that he is violating Christian liberty by forcing people to stake a stand on whether to disregard all safety measure and not wear masks or practice social distancing. With all the accusations, one really wonders whether anyone has actually READ the article instead of reading what they think is present in the article.
What does the GCC (Grace Community Church) article actually say?
The article by John MacArthur and the elders of Grace Community Church asserts the following major propositions:
- Christ is the only head of the church
- Christ therefore determines how Christians ought to worship.
- Physical corporate worship is essential and commanded by God ("A non-assembling assembly is a contradiction in terms")
- Civil authorities are to be obeyed in matters not pertaining to the worship of God
- Each of the three God-ordained human institutions (family, church, government) has its own distinct sphere of authority.
- Civil authorities have no right to dictate how God is to be worshiped, as "God has not granted civic rulers authority over the doctrine, practice, or polity of the church" (Italics original)
- When one institution has exceeded its authority, "it is the duty of the other institutions to curtial that overreach."
- Government intrusion into Christian worship is a form of persecution and should be rejected.
The minor propositions (in the addendum) state thus:
- GCC obeyed the initial lockdown due to love for neighbor
- The elders of GCC in their personal opinion believed that the pandemic is not so severe that it necessitates the continual closure of the church.
What the article does NOT say
Before we address a few misunderstandings, we can see from Phil Johnson's (an elder at GCC) tweets what the article does not say. First, it does not say that ALL Christians and all churches must reopen church in the exact same way as GCC.
Some are claiming that GCC was calling upon all churches to gather and insinuating that those who don’t are sinning. Multiple leaders at GCC have made it clear that this isn’t the case. But I asked @MikeRiccardi_ to clarify this once again. I found his response to be spot on: pic.twitter.com/S5AJ4Ctar6
— Tom Buck (@TomBuck) July 29, 2020
Second, it does not say anything about masks or social distancing. These words are not found in the entire article. Third, it does not say that one must agree with GCC's assessment of the pandemic. That is why it was in the Addendum and not the main article. That it was in the Addendun under the beginning words "The elders of Grace Church considered..." indicate that this was the elders' particular application of the principle of Christ being the head of the church to the situation of GCC.
The article and its critics
From these, it can be see that many of the critiques of GCC have little to do with the article. Jonathan Leeman of 9Marks in his response totally misunderstood the purpose of the article's clause asking people to sign on the statement, a fact he later learned.
Micah, if you're telling me they are NOT saying this isn't the only way of faithfulness, WONDERFUL! I'd encourage them to clarify and offer less conscience-binding language, because many people have shared my misunderstanding. Blessings.
— Jonathan Leeman (@JonathanLeeman) July 27, 2020
Sadly, misrepresentations continue. Taking offence at one of MacArthur's remarks, Gary Ortlund asserts that MacArthur is saying that churches that do not reopen like GCC are not really churches and thus in sin. But that is NOT what MacArthur has said. Mark Lauterbach repeated Leeman's misunderstanding and also Ortlund's misunderstanding. On top of that, Lauterbach has apparently read into the article that GCC is equating their situation to full-scaled persecution. But that is NOT what the article has said. It merely asserts that government intrusion into the worship of God is a form of persecution, NOT that it is persecution like that suffered by the persecuted church around the world! Lastly, Lauterbach fails to recognize the major statements from GCC's particular application of her beliefs to her situation, which is sittuational, as Mike Riccardi has publicly stated!
The problem in American Christianity today, as seen in the blatant misrepresentations by Leeman (initially), Ortlund, and Lauterbach, is a disregard for the truth. What MacArthur and GCC has actually stated does not matter. What matters alone is what they THINK MacArthur and GCC are saying. Except for Leeman, Ortlund and Lauterbach have not retracted their blog posts and corrected their errors, although I can surely hope they do so. The problem of truth is not limited to the Liberals but also the Conservatives, both "Big Eva" and "Big Reformed." Besides the Covid-19 virus, the aversion to truth is truly endemic throughout American Christianity. How else can we explain why misrepresentations are seldom retracted, lies about people or ideas or things refuse to die, and there are absolutely no consequences or at the very least penitance from those who have engaged in violations of the 9th Commandment, both American Evangelical and Reformed pastors and theologians alike? The Genevan Commons fiasco is one such example where the 9th Commandment is routinely violated by Reformed pastors, for example. The churches in America have become just like the world, believing her own lies when it suits her!
Apart from God, there is no hope for the churches of America. She has imbibed the culture's aversion to truth, and refuses to repent of her craven idolatry, pastors and parishioners alike. Lord, have mercy!
There ought not to be fierce disagreement over the eight major propositions, but the devil is in the detail of the two minor propositions,
ReplyDelete66
1. GCC obeyed the initial lockdown due to love for neighbor
2. The elders of GCC in their personal opinion believed that the pandemic is not so severe that it necessitates the continual closure of the church.
99
What Caesar promulgates is necessary (or permissible if he exceeds his secular authority) informs the former and the latter opinions of the elders, who have changed their minds as the perceived circumstances have changed over time. The elders relevant rulings, which determine whether the church assembles, are not, in any case, supposed to be their "personal" opinions, but rather a vicarious wielding of the authority of Christ, led by the Holy Spirit.
On the narrow point of the misrepresentation of another position being against the 9th commandment, you are 100% correct, of course.
@John,
ReplyDeleteI do not necessarily agree with GCC on their minor propositions. However, I see these as matters that we can agree to disagree.
Agreeing to disagree is a duty, when it is permitted. At least, I take that as the gist of the apostles' teaching recorded in scripture.
ReplyDeleteMy point was that what the state demands (and its rationale for demanding that) informs the difficult decisions of church leaders, like the one recorded in minor proposition 1, and the later decision in proposition 2 reversing the earlier decision because of a perceived change in the circumstances, and therefore the rationale of the state's demands.
When the state ("Caesar") seeks to impose its will upon the saints, as regards worship, there is likely to be disagreement amongst the saints as to whether to submit or to defy the state. It is entirely possible that the Holy Spirit will lead one, through his conscience, to rebel, another to submit, neither in the wrong. It isn't that God is in two minds about anything. It's just that God deals with us individually, and nobody has the right to demand that he makes his plans known when, to the wicked, he shows himself shrewd.
@John,
ReplyDeleteyes, I agree that there is no one way of thinking about the issue. I just wish certain Christians will agree to disagree instead of trying to talk about "Christian liberty" is a passive-aggressive manner (e.g. Jonathan Leeman)