OBEDIENCE TO GOVERNMENT: A STICKY ISSUE.

The sudden advent of the Covid-19 virus to an unsuspecting nation has caused a tremendous upheaval in American life on every level. We are like a baron’s son who thinks he is financially secure for life but when on a sudden his father dies, he discovers that his family is bankrupt and he must finally scratch out a living like the rest of the world. Perhaps the issue that has most challenged Americans during this pandemic has been their relationship toward government. This issue is more complex for Christians who must pay heed to the Bible when forming any opinion. So what should the Christian do as he is faced with many governmental mandates regarding vaccinations and mask wearing?  It will be my goal to bring the Christian reader through certain grids of thought that might help him address these complex issues and do so with a clear conscience. This by no means is a final word on the subject. I am merely suggesting that Christians decide their course of action from a clear-headed rationality rather than on sheer reaction and emotion.

The first thing every Christian must understand is distinguishing in their minds the concepts of prejudice and conviction.  Prejudice is to choose a path of behavior based on what one sees in the object.  In prejudice, decisions as to how to relate to certain persons or institution rests upon certain external qualities connected to those persons or institutions. Prejudice is always a shaky foundation upon which to determine how one will relate to a given object.  Believers are to love all men equally, in the sense they are to treat men equally who are made in the image of God.  The same holds true of our relationship to governments. Christians are never to resist legitimate governments of any kind, for governments have been established by God.  That is, Christians are not entitled to reject a legitimate government because they don’t like the type of government it is or because they don’t believe in big governments. All things being equal we are to obey every legitimate government and every legitimate government mandate unless it clearly violates the law of God.

The idea of conviction is a principle that is a 180 degree turn from prejudice. Convictions have nothing to do about things outside of us but have everything to do with one’s internal belief system.  All men have belief systems by which they must abide.  For the Christian, convictions are formed by the overall principles established in the Bible. They differ from clear black and white commands in that they are formed in the furnace of practical day to day living.  Convictions are formed from a category the Bible calls wisdom.  Convictions do not respond to the question ‘what is right?’ But ‘what is wise?’  Convictions can be different for everyone. However they are important. A conviction may be just as tenaciously defended as one might defend a clear biblical command.  According to the Bible it can be just as harmful to the spiritual life of a Christian to trample on his conviction as to disobey a command.  The apostle Paul says, “Let every man be fully convinced in his own mind” (Romans 14:5).  Paul further warns that to trample over a conviction-- yours or someone else’s -- can have dire spiritual consequences. “Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died” (14:15). Thus if any Christian brother or sister has a conviction about government mandates then we are bound to honor their convictions.

But hold on, the issue is not quite that simple.  One must always ask the question, “Does is my conviction about disobeying government rest on solid data that exempts it from the category of commandment?” In other words, a Christian cannot simply say ‘disobedience to government is a conviction’ unless he has a solid reasons for showing that Romans 13 does not apply to his case. 

There are two possible reasons for a Christian to legitimately resist obeying a government mask or vaccination mandate. The first has to do with the legitimacy of the mandate itself given the founding principles of the American Government.  Earlier I said only ‘legitimate’ government orders need be obeyed. In other words if a government authority tells the citizens to do something that is wholly outside of the authority he has been granted by the founding documents, then those under this authority may choose not to obey him. To put it bluntly, one need not obey one who does not obey the very government he represents.  So let us consider mandates. Mandates are a form of an executive order. According to the Heritage Foundation an executive order is “a type of written instruction that presidents and governors employ to work their will through the executive branch of government” (see: https://www.heritage.org/political-process/heritage-explains/executive-orders).  Note that an executive order is essentially a law that comes directly from the executive branch of government. For those of us familiar with the structure of government at both the federal and state levels, making laws are not the domain of the executive branch. The law-making arm of the government is the Legislative Branch. Nevertheless, executive orders have become part of the normal functioning of the U.S. government. The reason is that in times of national crises, it is too cumbersome and dangerous to deal with a crisis by waiting on Congress to pass laws. Thus, in the name of expediency, presidents or governors are given the implicit power to execute laws where there is a clear and present danger to the wellbeing of the people over whom they govern. The reason that the Founding Fathers were so frightened by an executive officer making laws is that is put far too much power in the hands of one person. The antidote for that was setting up a government with three separate branches all designed with a specific role with each role serving to limit the power of the other branches. This ‘separation of powers’ was born from a conviction by the framers of the Constitution (most notably Madison) that man was essentially a self-seeking creature. To put the power of rule in the hands of one individual or committee was therefore perilous to the survival of the nation.  Everything about the American Government was to prevent such a single power structure.  In fact the entire government of America exists on the fact that all power ultimately rests with the people not the government itself.  Thus, the most important function of the Federal Government is to ensure the rights of its citizens. The First Amendment makes that exceedingly clear when it says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  A later president would echo the same sentiment as he defined the American Government as one that was to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” The danger of the Executive Order is that it threatens the balance of power in the government. It takes the authority of one branch (legislative) and gives that authority to another branch (executive). Executive orders give to presidents and governors powers foreign to their own mission. Alarmingly, executive orders have proliferated in the modern era.  Franklin Roosevelt, for example, issued 3721 such orders during his presidency (the aforementioned Lincoln only 48).  So what does the Christian do about these mandates? The answer is that he must decide if the mandates are necessary given the national threat involved, specifically the threat of Covid 19.  Thus the believer must rest his decision on assembling good data (not easily found in today’s market). If he feels the executive officers are operating illegitimately because there is no national crisis then he can rightly argue these magistrates have become the law breakers.

In saying all this we have purposely taken no sides.  We are only trying to arm the reader with ways to think through this sticky issue.    

A second and more important consideration regarding mandates is simply this, “Do they in any way violate a clear command of the Bible?” If they do then the mandate must be ignored. Whether or not these mandates have ever reached this level has been argued back and forth ad nauseam by Christians of every stripe.  This issue rose to prominence when various governments began limit or prevent the public meeting of churches. Some Christians argued that because the government left open the option to live stream this was not a clear violation of the command to “forsake not the assembling of ourselves together” (Hebrews 10:25) and thus the government must be obeyed.  Others found that this command to gather had been compromised and so one had a legitimate reason to disobey it. Many churches divided over this issue. Perhaps they should have seen that this legitimate question fell under the domain of Christian Liberty and they ought to have displayed more forbearance and love with one another. Again, there is no easy answer to this.  The good thing was that many Christians began for the first time to wrestle with questions such as ‘what constitutes worship?’ ‘How essential is bodily contact to Christian sanctification?’  And, ‘what are the means of grace that God has ordained which are non-negotiable to for the building up of the Kingdom of God?’ Lively debates about these issues that lie under the safety net of Christian Liberty and permeated by the attitudes of love and forbearance will only serve to strengthen the church.

The conclusions? Let every Christian wrestle individually with these issues with an open Bible. Second, let every man be fully convinced in his own mind and not allow the opinions of others to sway him. And third, let every man have the graciousness to hear out the convictions of others and to grant them their God given right to obey God with a clear conscience.  For me that’s the best I can do on a difficult issue.