Some Thoughts On The Church’s Mandate - In Covid Season And Out

A difficult and confusing time for the Church these last 10 months. How to navigate all things Covid-19... What with legitimate health concerns regarding risk for certain demographics, guidelines either recommended or mandated by State authorities, competing views among church members as to risks and what the church should and shouldn’t do. Central to this is: what does Scripture have to say to guide Church leaders in their decisions? Here are some considerations I’m presently thinking through.

It seems to me that many pastors and elders have assumed that it is their responsibility to not only encourage their church members follow these State Covid mandates at worship, but to enforce them. I want to challenge that assumption. But first things first: What kingdom does the Church belong to - 1) the kingdom of this world, 2) the kingdom of heaven, or 3) both? The working answer tends to be #3 based mostly on the Romans 13 passage on obedience to the civil magistrates. I’ll address that in a later paragraph. With the previous question as context another question follows: what is the Church’s duty in relation to the State?

Scripture’s answer as to what kingdom the Church belongs is #2 - the kingdom of heaven. Just like the law is not of faith (Gal 3:12), the Church is not of this world (John 17:14). Though Christians individually are citizens of both kingdoms the Church is not, even as Jesus Christ is not (John 18:36). The Church is the kingdom of heaven on earth. She is the sovereign embassy in this world of a heavenly kingdom under the dominion of Christ Jesus her Lord. She has one allegiance, one charter. From that flows her mandate and calling. And that mandate is to proclaim the gospel message (calling sinners out of sin and death), confess one Lord, one faith, one heavenly birth. And the sole duties of that calling are summed up as the ministry of word and sacrament (the means of grace). These are the ordained or mandated tasks given by Christ to pastors and elders, ambassadors of His local embassies in the world.

On the other hand, believers are citizens of both the civil earthly kingdom and the heavenly spiritual kingdom. The Church is not. She is Christ’s kingdom on earth and as such is not of this world (John 18:36; Heb 12:22, Gal 4:26).

He declared that his kingdom was not of this world. It is not of the same kind with worldly kingdoms; it has different ends to accomplish, and different means for the attainment of those ends. It is spiritual, that is, concerned with the religious or spiritual, as distinguished from the secular interests of men. It moves, therefore, in a different sphere from the State, and the two need never come into collision. (Systematic Theology by Charles Hodge)

The Church in this world is of the heavenly King. Her officers are His envoys. Her expertise is not in the disciplines or politics of this world but in the gospel means of grace, i.e. solely in the the things from above. Further, she is not a citizen nor agent of the State, the civil kingdom. She is an agent of Christ and her charter is to represent Him by preaching the gospel, calling sinners out of this world to salvation in Christ through faith, and to nurture and maintain believers in that faith. When a church loses sight of that unique heavenly calling she is inevitably tempted to wander into areas where angels fear to tread.

Like Augustine, Luther and Calvin defended in theory a two-kingdoms approach that they did not always follow in practice. More clearly than Augustine, Luther and Calvin articulated the distinction between the heavenly and earthly kingdoms. The former proceeds by the Word alone, not by the secular sword, they insisted... Because Christ inaugurated his kingdom and poured out his Spirit as a harbinger of the last days, this reign is partially realized and becomes visible through the gospel ministry. (The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way by Michael Horton, Chapter 28)

As pastors and elders wade into the murky marshes of State mandates they might soon find themselves enforcing those mandates with a sword. No mask? You’re not loving your brother! Sorry, you must leave the worship service. This is the implicit warning put out by church leaders. As a result, many believers are staying home on Sunday. Discouraged by it all they self exile. Discipline according to the State, not discipline according to Scripture.

So what about Romans 13? Well, I don’t think this passage is referring to the Church as an organization visa-vis the State. In Paul’s day the Church had no officially recognized civil standing. Individual Christians did. They were subjects of the State and obliged to submit to civil authority. The Church as a civil organization didn’t exist and thus wasn’t a legally recognized entity in the Roman Empire. Paul was addressing believers. So likewise, shepherds in the church should indeed admonish the saints to submit to civil authorities because, though citizens of heaven, they are also members of the civil kingdom. But it gets murky. The supreme “magistrate” of our day in the U.S. is the written law of the Constitution not a caesar or provincial governor. Not to mention in many locales the guidelines are optional and subject to interpretation. Yet church leaders often decide to make them mandatory. Murkier still. I would argue it is not the place of pastors and elders to require compliance/obedience to State guidelines as a condition of entrance to the worship service.

As a result, many Christians, because of enforced State guidelines have stopped coming to church altogether. It’s a situation that becomes more and more untenable as the weeks and months pass. Sheep are wandering from the fold. Virtual services on computer screens in individual homes fall way short of nourishing the saints before the heavenly throne of grace. Yet the State protocols stay in place! What to do?

Some church members believe it essential for all to wear masks and social distance. Others think it is unnecessary for all demographics. Some think that masks are necessary for all. Some think masks are ineffectual for the asymptomatic and preventing spread of the virus. Both can marshal supporting evidence from authoritative sources. I don’t think church leaders are called to sort out the “science.” What to do? Perhaps allow two or more services? One with masks/social distancing and one that is optional in order that none feel compelled to offend their consciences? The overall mission is: Tend the sheep. Feed the sheep. Caring for the souls of the saints should be the preeminent concern and duty of the church.

But what about those States mandating that churches should enforce the Covid guidelines? Well, what if next the State announces that all churches must worship only online for a period of two years due to the growing number of cases? [Cases - what does that even mean? But that’s for another time] Elders need to consider whether or not they want to be an enforcement arm of the State or ambassadors of the heavenly kingdom. Not an easy path forward given the authoritarian impulses of the State. And that path is all the more difficult because churches by and large have chosen to legally organize under the State as non-profit corporate citizens [501(c)(3)] under existing Federal IRS law. A very modern development.

Prior to 1954, there was no such thing as a 501(c)(3) church. All donations, contributions, gifts, etc. given to churches were automatically tax‑deductible under the old English common law, known as the "Law of Charities." Then in 1954, Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson (D‑Texas) sponsored legislation which brought churches under the new 501(c)(3) section of the Internal Revenue code. As a part of this legislation, churches would incorporate, and having that status, they could not be sued in a legal action. (History Of 501c3 Government Licensing Of Churches by David J. Stewart)

The result is that most churches now exist as civil corporate citizens, subject in some sense to the State, if you would. So there could be real negative judicial and financial consequences for any church organized under State law that deviates from State orders. This is another reason why it is essential for elders and leaders to consider the Church’s heavenly calling so that they may chart a faithful course in the face of encroaching Statism. No easy answers. But we look heavenward…

“I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)

Marriage, the World, and the Gospel...

Some thoughts rumbling about in my head regarding the recent Supreme Court marriage ruling:

The cultural environment is arguably becoming more anti for the Christian church in America, though hardly rising to anything I would would label as persecution. Certainly not a pleasant thing for Christians and possibly even more so for pastors going forward. But I wondering if this development, this increase in antithesis between Christ’s kingdom and the kingdom of this world, may be something that ends up helping to clarify the gospel call to believe in Christ. Similarly, as when the antithesis of Law and Gospel is diminished things get dangerously fuzzy concerning the role of believer's faith and works in their salvation, maybe also the lack of antithesis between church and state in America muddies the church's identification with Christ's kingdom that is not of this world. The result? Too many in the world end up seeing the church as only a “clean club” and hearing her message as just one of many vying to establish its own particular beatific vision of how life should be lived in America. The gospel's offense of the cross, though not intended, sadly ends up taking a back seat. Just wondering…

The Constitution, fairly read, indeed should protect the free exercise of religious belief. But maybe the time is here when the world in the person of the State isn’t inclined to read the 1st Amendment fairly. The words of Jesus are helpful and comforting to me:

“These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.”

Update: The Bible doesn't teach that the role of the church is to get the world to shape up or back off, but to proclaim the gospel, calling sinners out of the world into the kingdom of Christ. To the Church: preach Christ and him crucified. The rest, we are promised of God, will fall into place...

Calvin: Man, Law, and the Civil Kingdom

"Since man is by nature a social animal, he is disposed, from natural instinct, to cherish and preserve society; and accordingly we see that the minds of all men have impressions of civil order and honesty. Hence it is that every individual understands how human societies must he regulated by laws, and also is able to comprehend the principles of those laws. Hence the universal agreement in regard to such subjects, both among nations and individuals, the seeds of them being implanted in the breasts of all without a teacher or lawgiver. The truth of this fact is not affected by the wars and dissensions which immediately arise, while some, such as thieves and robbers, would invert the rules of justice, loosen the bonds of law, and give free scope to their lust; and while others (a vice of most frequent occurrence) deem that to be unjust which is elsewhere regarded as just, and, on the contrary, hold that to be praiseworthy which is elsewhere forbidden. For such persons do not hate the laws from not knowing that they are good and sacred, but, inflamed with headlong passion, quarrel with what is clearly reasonable, and licentiously hate what their mind and understanding approve. Quarrels of this latter kind do not destroy the primary idea of justice. For while men dispute with each other as to particular enactments, their ideas of equity agree in substance. This, no doubt, proves the weakness of the human mind, which, even when it seems on the right path, halts and hesitates. Still, however, it is true, that some principle of civil order is impressed on all. And this is ample proof, that, in regard to the constitution of the present life, no man is devoid of the light of reason."

John Calvin. Institutes: Christian Religion, 1.2.13

Calvin on Kingdom Considerations...

"Therefore, lest this prove a stumbling-block to any, let us observe that in man government is twofold: the one spiritual, by which the conscience is trained to piety and divine worship; the other civil, by which the individual is instructed in those duties which, as men and citizens, we are bold to performs (see Book 4, chap. 10, sec. 3-6.) To these two forms are commonly given the not inappropriate names of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, intimating that the former species has reference to the life of the soul, while the latter relates to matters of the present life, not only to food and clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require a man to live among his fellows purely honorably, and modestly. The former has its seat within the soul, the latter only regulates the external conduct. We may call the one the spiritual, the other the civil kingdom. Now, these two, as we have divided them, are always to be viewed apart from each other. When the one is considered, we should call off our minds, and not allow them to think of the other. For there exists in man a kind of two worlds, over which different kings and different laws can preside. By attending to this distinction, we will not erroneously transfer the doctrine of the gospel concerning spiritual liberty to civil order..."

Calvin's Institutes of Religion, Book 3:19:15.

The Church, Growth, and the Gospel...

Mary, Mary, quite contrary,
How does your garden grow?

How to grow the church?  What methods and programs are most effective?  How to shepherd visitors into becoming church members?  How to keep members active?  

I have to admit that these questions, as I type them, sound off-key.  It's like the Christian who, introspectively self-focused on his growth, is asking questions like, "How can I become more spiritual?  What are the best methods I can employ in order to become more sanctified?"  It's usually the one most focused on his personal progress who is least likely to be growing in true godliness.  Yet in both instances (church and individual Christian) growth is meant to occur.  And in both cases that which is central and indispensable, though too often assumed or ignored, is the same one thing.

From Martin Luther's commentary on Galatians:

But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother. (Gal. 4:26) ASV

26.  The spiritual Jerusalem corresponds to Sarah, the true lady and free woman who is the mother of us all, bringing us into liberty, and not into slavery as Hagar does..The heavenly Jerusalem is the church--that is to say, the faithful scattered throughout the world, who have one and the same Gospel, one and the same faith in Christ, the same Holy Spirit, and the same sacraments.

The word above should not be understood of the church triumphant in heaven, but the church militant here on earth. Godly people are said to be citizens of heaven (Philippians 3:20), but Christians are in heaven when they believe and lay hold of those inestimable, heavenly, and eternal gifts (Ephesians 1:3).  We must distinguish heavenly and spiritual blessing from the earthly.  The earthly blessing is to have a good civil government, to have children, peace, riches, fruits of the earth, and other physical things.  But the heavenly blessing is to be delivered from the law, sin, and death; to be justified and brought to life; to have peace with God; to have a faithful heart, a joyful conscience, and spiritual consolation; to have the knowledge of Jesus Christ; to have the gift of prophecy and the revelation of the Scriptures; to have the gift of the Holy Spirit and to rejoice in God.  These are the heavenly blessings that Christ gives the church.

Therefore, the Jerusalem that is above--the heavenly Jerusalem--is the church that is in the world now, not the city of the life to come or the church triumphant.  She gives birth through the Holy Spirit, by the ministry of the Word and sacraments, and not physically.

So Sarah, or Jerusalem, our free... mother, is the church itself, the spouse of Christ, of whom we are all born.  This mother gives birth to free children unceasingly, to the end of the world, as long as she preaches the Gospel, for this is truly to give birth.  She teaches the Gospel in this way:  we are delivered from  the curse of the law, from sin, death, and all other evils, by Jesus Christ, and not by the law or by doing what it commands.  Therefore, the Jerusalem that is above--that is to say, the church--is not subject to the law and its obedience, but is free and a mother without the law, sin, and death.  That is the sort of mother she is, and that is the sort of children she bears.

This allegory teaches that the church should do nothing but preach and teach the Gospel truly and sincerely, and by this means should produce children.  So we are all fathers and children to one another.  I am born of other people through the Gospel and now give birth to others who will also give birth to others later on, and this will continue to the end of the world. Everything is done by the ministry of the Word.  (Galatians - Luther, edited by Alister McGrath and J.I. Packer; pp. 230-231)

Two Cities, Two Kingdoms...

Few Reformed doctrines draw more heat today than that of the much misunderstood two kingdoms.  Most of the the time it seems, at least to me, that those criticizing this teaching are arguing against something that it is not.  I can only imagine what it must be like for one of its main proponents, David VanDrunen.  I've excerpted some of his book review of  Kingdoms Apart: Engaging the Two Kingdoms Perspective, edited by Ryan C. McIlhenny, as it provides clarification which often comes forth best in response to one's critics.  I tend to think that those who take issue with the two kingdoms theology do so for at least one main reason - it offers no support for those societal-transformational agendas pursued by many Christians.  The entire review can be read at The Ordained Servant.  Dr. VanDrunen writes:

My claim is that Augustine’s Two Cities and the Reformed Two Kingdoms ideas are compatible, not that they are identical. They are harmonious, but get at different aspects of the truth: Augustine’s Two Cities describe two eschatological peoples, one marked by love of the Creator above all and one marked by love of the creation above all; in this world the Two Cities mingle, but they can’t be identified with any particular earthly society or institution; there is stark antithesis between these Two Cities, and each person is a member of one city and one city only. The Reformed Two Kingdoms, on the other hand, pertain to the twofold way in which God rules this present world, primarily (for early Reformed theologians) through church and state. This means that Christians are actually citizens of both kingdoms. Christians, in other words, are citizens of two kingdoms, but of one city. As citizens of the city of God they stand in eschatological conflict with unbelievers; as participants in the common kingdom, they are called to co-exist in peace with unbelievers as far as possible...

My basic case in chapters 2–5 of LGTK is this: God gave the original cultural mandate to Adam as representative of the human race in an unfallen world, demanding perfect obedience and promising the attainment of an eschatological new creation as a reward for obedience. Adam failed and plunged the human race into a state of curse rather than eschatological blessing. But God sent his Son as the Last Adam, to fulfill God’s task for humanity perfectly and thereby to attain the new creation for himself and his people.  Popular recent neo-Calvinist works speak of redeemed Christians being called to take up again Adam’s original cultural task (not to go back to Eden, but to fulfill Adam’s responsibility to fill the earth, have dominion, etc.). In response, I have argued that this cannot be the correct biblical paradigm for the Christian’s present responsibilities in this world. If Christ is the Last Adam, then none of us are called to be new Adams. It is not as if Christians have no cultural mandate (as Kingdoms Apart suggests I claim), but that the cultural mandate comes to the human race only as refracted through the covenant with Noah after the flood. It comes thereby to the human race as a whole (not to Christians uniquely) and is geared for life in a fallen world and holds out no eschatological hope of reward. Thus in order to understand our calling to participate in the life of politics or commerce, for example, we should understand these responsibilities as rooted in the Noahic covenant and as work to pursue in collaboration with unbelievers, as far as possible (without forgetting the different attitude, motivation, goals, etc. with which Christians take up these tasks). I also suggested that all of us who share a commitment to the Reformed doctrine of justification should appreciate the attractiveness of my suggested paradigm, built as it is upon traditional understandings of the covenant of works, the Two Adams, and the sufficiency of the obedience of Christ. This is an invitation to soteriologically orthodox neo-Calvinists to embrace a view of Christianity-and-culture that is more consistent with doctrines at the core of the gospel they love.

And from the Conclusion of his review:

It might also be interesting for a valiant defender of neo-Calvinism to address the following observation: most ordinary Reformed believers already live what might be called a two kingdoms way of life. When they follow the regulative principle of worship, uphold the church’s jurisdiction over its own discipline, and respect the Christian liberty of fellow believers in matters of faith and worship that are “beside” God’s Word (see Westminster Confession of Faith 20.2), they embrace aspects of Reformed practice historically inseparable from the two kingdoms doctrine. And when they live peaceably with their unbelieving neighbors—working, buying, selling, driving, flying, playing, and voting alongside them—are they not giving implicit witness to the reality of God’s distinctive common grace government over the world through the covenant with Noah? And if this is the case, then I suggest that the two kingdoms idea serves a clarifying function: it helps Reformed Christians understand in a more theologically clear way the Christian faith and life they are in so many respects already practicing.  

Two books by David VanDrunen  on two kingdom theology:
Living In God's Two Kingdoms
Natural Law and The Two Kingdoms

What would Jesus cut? Two kingdoms confusion...

I came across this column via this post at the Spectator Blog . Jim Wallis, the column's author and "progressive" Christian of Sojourners fame is concerned as to what programs the U.S. Congress will choose to cut in order to rein in seemingly out-of-control government deficit spending. He writes - "Already, in a first wave of response to the proposed cuts, thousands of Christians told their members of Congress that they need to ask themselves, "What Would Jesus Cut?" They believe, and so do I, that the moral test of any society is how it treats its poorest and most vulnerable citizens. And that is exactly what the Bible says, over and over again... Taking the cutting knife to programs that benefit low-income people, while refusing to scrutinize the much larger blank checks we keep giving to defense contractors and corporate executives, is hypocritical and cruel."

My point here is not to argue what should or shouldn't be cut. I'm sure I would have some differences with Mr. Wallis, as well as some areas of agreement. Rather, I want to take issue with the use of Jesus' name as a means of rallying people to a political cause. The question What would Jesus cut? exposes, at a minimum, an ignorance as to the nature of the kingdom of this world vis-à-vis the kingdom of God - and Christ's mission as Savior.  I added a comment on the Spectator blog and then a follow-up to respond to another commenter. I'm posting a summary here to expand on my point:

"Jesus, what would you cut?"  I don't think he would answer such a question with a list of programs. The closest he would ever get to opining on tax cuts is probably what is recorded in the Gospel of Mark:

14-They came and said to Him, "Teacher, we know that You are truthful and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. Is is lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not? 15-"Shall we pay or shall we not pay?" But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, "Why are you testing Me? Bring Me a denarius to look at." 16-They brought one. And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" And they said to Him, "Caesar's." 17-And Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."  And they were amazed at Him.

Wallis is simply misusing/misappropriating the name of Christ for his own well-intended personal/political agenda in Caesar's kingdom, just as the questioner was attempting to do in the above interchange.

Someone replied to my initial comments with the following: "I am no theologian and would welcome any informed input. I have always regarded this passage as meaning that things of this world, including money and material goods are ephemeral and unimportant when contrasted to the kingdom of heaven. Christians please do not take offense if I say it seems similar to Buddhist teaching."

I replied that the above passage has more to do with the nature of Christ's kingdom and mission than the relative importance of material things. Jesus came not to remake this present world kingdom, but to call lost souls out of it; out of this kingdom of darkness and into his kingdom. This is similar to the passage in John 18:

35-Pilate answered, "Am I a Jew? Thing own nation and the chief priets have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?" 36-Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

Jesus was not advocating pacifism, but again was speaking to the nature of his calling, his kingdom as contrasted with the kingdom of this world, and the means his followers would and wouldn't utilize for his cause.  The kingdom of God is not established by the sword. It is not advanced or inhibited by the power of earthly governments. God's kingdom is not brought about by the transforming of societies through various legislative schemes and programs. Though Christians, in this sense, are not "of the world", they still are "in the world". So actually the point is not that earthly things don't matter or are unimportant (money, jobs, possessions, governments). Christianity is very non-Buddhist in that the things of this world are important.  They're just not the things of Christ's kingdom.  They're things of this world.

A Christian is a citizen of two kingdoms. As a citizen of Christ's kingdom, he has a responsibility to follow Jesus' command to "Love thy neighbor as thyself" as the thankful and obedient response to the love and grace he, a sinner, has been shown by God. As a citizen in this world the Christian also has a duty to take seriously what would lead to the betterment of society around him by whatever legal and wise means he deems best; voting for whatever policies that seem the most likely to be just and effective towards particular societal goals. He can and does seek to help the disadvantaged and those who are suffering. But doing so through the means of his involvement in the political process is simply just being a good citizen of this world, as embodied in the teaching of Romans 13: 1-7. Mr. Wallis blurs the line (as Christians also often do from the political right) between God's kingdom and that of this world by equating certain legislative schemes (good or bad) as "Jesus' preferred policies."

The commenter responded: "Thank you. Your reply is quite informative. It's good to get past some of the nonsense and this site and make contact with intelligence."

Me: Well, that was very gracious of him, especially as this is only a partial sketchy outline of a much debated and misunderstood teaching of Scripture. For those who want to delve into this doctrine of two kingdoms more deeply I recommend the David VanDrunen book Living in God's Two Kingdoms.  

From Jesus' prayer in John 17: 9-23-

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me; for they are thine:

 and all things that are mine are thine, and thine are mine: and I am glorified in them.  

And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are.  

While I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me: and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.  

But now I come to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy made full in themselves.  

I have given them thy word; and the world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.  

I pray not that thou shouldest take them from the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one.  

They are not of the world even as I am not of the world.  

Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth.

  As thou didst send me into the world, even so sent I them into the world.  

And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. 

Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; 

that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me.  

And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one; 

I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that thou didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me.