Yes, I know. The title comes across awkward. Writing a response to a response is sort of like writing a thank you letter to someone for writing you a thank you letter. It could go on and on. When does it end? Perhaps never. You may even forget what the original thank you letter was thanking you for.
So, at the risk of appearing awkward, I’d like to pen a response to Jonathan Leeman’s response to John MacArthur and the elders of Grace Church’s recent statement Christ, not Caesar, is Head of the Church. I urge you to read it. It might also be helpful to read A Time for Civil Disobedience? A Response to Grace Community’s Elders, though I plan to quote both throughout this brief response.
I first came across Pastor MacArthur’s statement through an email to Master’s Seminary Alumni prior to its public release. Leeman’s response came less than twenty four hours later. I have read both statements several times.
I am a graduate of the Master’s Seminary and have the deepest respect and admiration for John MacArthur. Before attending Master’s, I was profoundly impacted by his preaching, books, commentaries, and character. I think he will go down in history as the greatest expositor of the twentieth century. He has also taken many courageous stands during over five decades of faithful ministry – really too many to count. I have been privileged on several occasions to interact with John MacArthur both in class and in more private settings and can honestly say he is one of the most sincere, gentle, and honest men I have ever known. But don’t take my word for it. His reputation proceeds him.
I also want to say a word about Grace Church and its elders in particular. I know several elders there personally and have attended elders’ meetings and interacted with several of them on numerous occasions. They compose a group of very godly men. I have regularly attended the Shepherd’s Conference for nearly a decade and the Grace membership serving pastors at the conference reflects the leadership of their elders: godly, servant minded, sincere, and faithful.
In light of these factors, I dare not try to speak on behalf of the elders of Grace Community Church. That is not my place, nor is it my attempt. They can choose to respond to Leeman if they desire, though I do not personally think it is necessary. In fact, Leeman addresses his article not to the elders of Grace Church (though the title may lead you to believe that), but to other Christians who may follow their example. I do not believe he was looking for a response from Grace Church elders. My purpose in writing is more personal and general. I fear that Leeman’s sentiments could influence Christians in the wrong direction. That is the reason I am writing this. I do not speak on behalf of Grace Church. I speak on behalf of Christians in the United States. I speak to pastors in particular. I appeal to members of American churches. I speak to my own congregation. I do so because it is my responsibility as a minister of the gospel.
Jonathan Leeman is the editorial director for 9Marks and attended The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary where we both earned our Master of Divinity degrees. In the Fall of 2003, less than two weeks after my first semester began, a representative of the Center for Church Reform handed me a booklet as I was on my way to class. It was entitled Nine Marks of a Healthy Church. I devoured its contents. Later, the Center for Church Reform changed its name to 9Marks. I still have that original booklet in my library – its aged yellow pages and smeared blue ink in the margins reveal its oft referenced character.
Though I appreciate 9Marks and consider Jonathan Leeman a scholar, churchman, and brother in Christ, I have been concerned for quite some time about his association with the Gospel Coalition, a notoriously woke organization. Leeman has made statements himself that I would take issue with. Of course, this should not be surprising. It would be impossible to agree on everything. Though I have never met Leeman (at least to my knowledge) I find his podcasts with Mark Dever very interesting and easy to listen to. I find myself agreeing with him in many areas, but I think his response to Grace Church’s statement is extremely concerning, and even dangerous to religious liberty. Let me explain.
On the one hand, Leeman’s opening paragraph seems to betray the purpose of his response. He openly admits that “MacArthur provided a wonderful statement affirming Christ’s lordship over governments; our duty to disobey governments when governments forbid worship; and the government’s lack of jurisdiction over a church’s doctrine, practice, and polity.” So far so good. But if that is truly the way Leeman feels, then his article could have ended there. But it didn’t. He goes on to critique and question the wisdom of MacArthur’s public stance and intended action to gather for corporate worship in defiance of the civil magistrate.
Leeman even says: “I also respect the decision of the Grace Community elders to “respectfully inform [their] civic leaders that they have exceeded their legitimate jurisdiction” and that “faithfulness to Christ prohibits [them] from observing the restrictions they want to impose on [their] corporate worship services.” That might be the right decision. I believe it’s a judgment call, but if they feel bound of conscience to gather their church, then they should gather (see Rom. 14:14, 23).”
Now we’re getting somewhere. At least he admits to respecting the decision of Grace Church eldership to release their statement informing civil leadership of their intent to express loyalty to Christ over Caesar. He even agrees that such is a judgement call and perhaps the right decision. Okay great. But it’s that last statement which is concerning. Appealing to Romans 14 and Christian liberty, Leeman implies his thesis, namely that if Grace Church makes that decision then fine, but other Christians somehow may decide it’s okay to submit to Caesar instead of Scripture if Caesar says, “Don’t gather”. Later in the article, he suggests, “Again, all these are judgment calls. My point is merely, let’s leave room for churches to make different decisions a la Romans 14.” He also says, “I’m sympathetic with Grace Community’s concern about the indefinite elongation of this time. Still, if the state does have the authority to tell church leaders, ‘If you try to bind the consciences of church members by telling them they should attend a gathering that could physically harm them, we will intervene,’ then we should be patient even as that time extends for a while.” What are we to conclude but that Leeman appeals to Christian liberty in order to argue for the viability of Christians to violate the clear command of Scripture to not forsake assembling together (Hebrews 10:24-25)? How can he do this? He can only do so by implying that Romans 14 is somehow more important than Hebrews 10. And this appears to be exactly what he is doing.
He goes on to suggest that “civil disobedience may not be the only legitimate or moral course of action at this moment.” I actually agree with this statement in principle and so would the collective eldership of Grace Church since for weeks they tried other legitimately moral actions. For example, they tried to obey the civil magistrate when it appeared to them that moral action compelled them, in light of all the reports of health risks early on, to love their fellow neighbor by being extra careful not to spread the virus. There have been many cases throughout church history where churches did not meet in order to prevent contagious diseases from spreading. And MacArthur was clear from the beginning that he believed that it was in the best interests of the church to walk carefully through these issues. Grace Church has not met for months. But MacArthur’s statement argues, “History is full of painful reminders that government power is easily and frequently abused for evil purposes. Politicians may manipulate statistics and the media can cover up or camouflage inconvenient truths. So, a discerning church cannot passively or automatically comply if the government orders a shutdown of congregational meetings—even if the reason given is a concern for public health and safety.”
In other words, the Grace Church elders simply came to the conclusion that the government was being less than sincere in their mandates for churches not to gather. Now someone may argue that churches should never have shut down to begin with. In fact, there are many who have poo-pooed MacArthur’s stand for another reason, not because they disagree with it in principle, but rather because they feel that such a statement should have come sooner and that Grace Church should have never shut down from the beginning. I do not intend to address that topic. It is a separate issue because such is not Leeman’s quibble. Besides, my opinion on that does not matter. I’m not interested in publicly dissecting all the reasons and protocols any number of churches have chosen in order to navigate through these waters. Those debates can take place privately, within my own congregation, and among friends who ask my opinion.
My bigger concern is the angle by which Leeman, and I’m assuming others, view the actions of Grace Church. Behind Leeman’s assertion is that there exist other legitimate moral actions for Christians to take other than civil disobedience when Caesar oversteps his bounds by telling churches not to assemble. That is a frightening argument. Either Christ is Lord of all, or He’s not Lord at all. Either He is the Head of the church, or He is not. What possible moral action legitimately exists over against the Sovereign Lord’s command that the church assemble? Let me quote MacArthur’s statement again:
“The church by definition is an assembly. That is the literal meaning of the Greek word for “church”—ekklesia—the assembly of the called-out ones. A non-assembling assembly is a contradiction in terms. Christians are therefore commanded not to forsake the practice of meeting together (Hebrews 10:25)—and no earthly state has a right to restrict, delimit, or forbid the assembling of believers. We have always supported the underground church in nations where Christian congregational worship is deemed illegal by the state.”
“When officials restrict church attendance to a certain number, they attempt to impose a restriction that in principle makes it impossible for the saints to gather as the church. When officials prohibit singing in worship services, they attempt to impose a restriction that in principle makes it impossible for the people of God to obey the commands of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. When officials mandate distancing, they attempt to impose a restriction that in principle makes it impossible to experience the close communion between believers that is commanded in Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, and 1 Thessalonians 5:26. In all those spheres, we must submit to our Lord.”
Curiously, Leeman the churchman, goes on to deny the structure of the local church. This seems odd in light of the breadth of material he has devoted to the local church’s structure – material that I personally view as largely helpful and biblical. Indeed, that is the very reason 9Marks exists. “Equipping church leaders with a biblical vision and practical resources for building healthy churches” is their exact mission statement.[i] So how can Leeman say, “it’s true that MacArthur’s church cannot meet, but Christ’s church can meet.” Okay. I guess that is true on the surface, but that’s not what MacArthur argues for. He’s not denying that Christians can meet in homes. He’s saying that the government has no right to take away from the church her central duty, which is to assemble together in public worship. Leeman seems to be muddling together concepts of the universal and local church that are foreign not only to his own arguments in 9Marks publications, but more importantly the Bible itself. He suggests that Grace Church could meet outdoors before affirming, “There is nothing sacrosanct about the particular and present forms of our congregations.”
Really? So, there is nothing sacrosanct, and additionally hypocritical, about the government keeping liquor stores open while forbidding the church to gather to drink wine at the communion table? There is nothing sacrosanct about forbidding churches from gathering to sing when Scripture commands the church to address “one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16)? What about prayer? Is there nothing sacrosanct about the government forbidding the Bible’s command for elders to pray over sick members anointing them with oil (Js 5:13)? Or should they use hand sanitizer instead?
What about preaching in corporate worship? Is there nothing sacrosanct about this? Paul tells Timothy not to neglect his spiritual gift of preaching (I Timothy 4:14). Are we to assume that Timothy could obey this by livestreaming from his living room indefinitely, or were Paul’s words intended for Timothy to obey within the context of his local assembly, and specifically corporate worship? In fact, the purpose of pastor-teachers as outlined in Ephesians 4 is to build up the body of Christ to use their spiritual gifts (Eph 4:11ff.). Sure, this can be done (and should be done) outside of corporate worship. But corporate worship is first and foremost on his mind. How else do you serve one another with your spiritual gifts unless you are assembled together?
Interestingly, after the Holy Spirit inspired apostle Paul commands the church to sing to one another, he concludes by issuing another injunction. He tells them to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph 5:21). Christians are to submit to one another as they gather in corporate worship for mutual edification. And they are to do so as they sit in submission to Christ under the authority of His preached Word. They are to do so out of reverential awe and fear of God. But this seems to be the opposite of what many Christians are arguing. Some are suggesting the opposite – to have reverential fear of government, not God, lest persecution come.
I do not make that last statement lightly. That is precisely Leeman’s argument. He says: “Third, addressing this matter of what’s wise or “beneficial” (see 1 Cor. 6:12), I personally wonder if defying government orders for the sake of a pandemic is the most judicious opportunity to exercise those muscles. The politics of LGBT tells me our churches may have more occasions to defy government requirements in years to come. Do we want to spend down our capital on pandemics?”
This statement comes after Leeman lauds the decisions of J.D. Greear and the other elders at the Summit Church to cancel their worship services for the rest of the year. The reason this is strange is because Greear has a checkered past in his dealings with the LGBT movement (https://crosspolitic.com/podcast/crosspolitic-pro-choice-insanity-jd-greear-queering-the-sbc-and-interviews-with-rep-matt-shea-and-pastor-jon-speed/). But both Leeman and Greear are Southern Baptists, so that may explain Leeman’s support of him over MacArthur. Even still, it sounds strange for Leeman, who would presumably be more in agreement with MacArthur theologically and ecclesiastically, to affirm Greear’s positions over MacArthur’s. But even more concerning is Leeman’s suggestion that church leaders choosing to obey Caesar over Christ is a matter of a wiser and more beneficial path based on the principle of I Corinthians 6:12.
Additionally, Leeman makes a straw man argument by raising the issue of a pandemic. He earlier admits that MacArthur and company do not view Covid-19 as the threat it once appeared to be. He even seems okay with this position. So why does he then revert back to calling it a pandemic? Is it a pandemic or not? The statement by the Grace Church elders make it clear that they do not trust the government. And anybody who has followed the history of California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, must admit that his actions towards churches blatantly appears as hostile. This is the consensus among essentially every Christian I know regardless of their view regarding the severity of a potential pandemic.
Leeman frames our current situation as a pandemic on the scale of those witnessed throughout history. But even the most extreme statistics do not bear this out. He then questions the wisdom of disobeying government mandates in such a health crisis as we find ourselves in. He suggests there are more important issues, like those related to LGBT, that the church needs to save its energy to fight for in the future. But unless I’m missing something, one of the purposes behind MacArthur’s document is to create an opportunity to communicate to government officials the church’s commitment to Christ in all things and at all times. What makes Leeman think Christians and church officials will stand up to the government when, as he predicts, in the future they mandate pastors not to speak publicly against the sin of homosexuality? Will the same excuses be made? When that day comes, will pastors argue from I Corinthians 6:12 that the Bible’s stance on gender issues is not a prudential or beneficial hill on which to die? On that day, will they use the same argument Leeman is making that the future holds more important battles for the church to fight?
I fear these will be the exact arguments made if the church refuses to stand against Caesar on the issue of governmental prohibited gathered worship. Indeed, in some ways this is a more important battle than the LGBT battle since if churches are prohibited from gathering, what platform will they have to defend the Bible’s stance on the sin of homosexuality?
I also have difficulties with Leeman’s argumentation that the danger of Covid-19 is comparable to bombings of English cities during World War II. Yes, churches followed black-out orders and sometime did not meet. I will agree that was a war and not meeting was required at times to protect congregants, especially women and children. (Though it’s also true that Martyn Lloyd-Jones famously continued preaching in the middle of bomb raids!) And I further agree that we are in serious straights today. I actually believe Leeman’s analogy is comparable in one sense because I believe we are in a war as well – a spiritual war. The battle for religious liberty has far greater consequences, if lost, than the health risks of Covid-19 have. The virus will not last forever. But if religious liberty is taken away, it may never return. Is that the legacy church leaders today are willing to leave to their children and grandchildren?
Leeman also tries to argue in general terms that restrictions against churches across our nation are no different than those for restaurants, bars, and gyms. But such is patently not true. What do we do with government mandates not to sing in churches, or for churches not to gather at all? How is that the same as telling restaurants they can remain open at fifty percent capacity? And what do we do with the recent ruling by the Supreme Court regarding the church in Nevada? Amy Howe at the SCOTUSblog quotes justice Gorsuch’s dissenting statement on the decision:
“Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a separate dissent in which he described the dispute as a ‘simple case’: Although ‘a 10-screen ‘multiplex’ may host 500 moviegoers at any time,’ houses of worship are limited to 50 people, ‘no matter how large the building, how distant the individuals, how many wear facemasks, no matter the precautions at all.’ ‘The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world,’ Gorsuch concluded, ‘in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.’”[ii]
That last remark is compelling. “There is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.” It’s sad to me that conservative voices not necessarily Christian are making bolder and more biblical statements than some pastors.
It seems many Christians are more concerned about what the world thinks than about what Christ thinks. Leeman asks, “As those restaurant and gym owners cast a glance over at our churches, will our refusal to abide by the same restrictions which are causing them financial distress help the witness of the gospel, especially if we could find other ways to comply, such as meeting outdoors?”
Perhaps Leeman is right. Maybe those in the world will despise churches. Perhaps this will cause the church to have a reputation less than ideal. But should we expect something different? The early church was pushed to the margins of society and fallaciously accused of sexual immorality because they greeted each other with holy kisses. Pagans rumored that Christians participated in orgies during their gatherings, which they referred to as love feasts. But in reality these were pure celebrations associated with the communion meal. Jesus said, “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).
As I write this, a friend texted to inform me that local officials in Los Angeles are threatening to turn off the power at Grace Community Church for their insistence to disobey mandates and gather for corporate worship. Pulling the plug on the church sound system is exactly what is at stake. Some civil magistrates (not all of them) are intent to silence the preaching of the gospel. They want to silence God. There are rivals to King Jesus. They are competitors. But to be sure, Christ will win this battle. The gospel will prevail.
Even still, this is not a time for Christians to wax eloquently about what sort of policies their church has come up with to navigate Covid-19. Instead, this is a time to for the church to take a stand. This is the moment for our generation of Christians. What will we do with it? Indeed, this is a golden opportunity. We have intercepted the foolish Hail Mary of the civil magistrate’s authoritative overreach. They have been exposed. In one sense, they are on the defensive now. But will our team fumble the ball on our way into the end zone? Victory for religious liberty must be achieved for the sake of the next generation of Christians and gospel witness. I agree with Leeman when he says that gospel witness is important. But my view is that of MacArthur’s regarding the effectiveness of gospel witness when he writes in the statement, “How can the true church of Jesus Christ distinguish herself in such a hostile climate? There is only one way: bold allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ.”
MacArthur is right. Gospel witness does not involve showing the world how much we love Caesar, but rather how much we love Christ. This requires bold allegiance. Perhaps Leeman is right as well. But that all depends on punctuation. Leeman titled his response, A Time for Civil Disobedience? But I do not think we should make this a question any longer. It should be an assertion: this is A Time for Civil Disobedience! The matter is one of urgency, not hesitation.
[i] https://www.9marks.org/about/
[ii] https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/07/justices-decline-to-intervene-in-dispute-over-nevada-covid-19-restrictions/