From Steve Gregg/The Narrow Path Facebook Group:
Christine wrote:
"Hi Steve - I agree with much of what you're saying. I know that Peter said we are to obey God and not man. It seems that Christians have differing ideas about whether a temporary suspension of gatherings violates the scriptural direction to "not forsake the assembling of ourselves." And how does Romans 13:6-10 fit into our Christian paradigm right now?”
Steve Gregg’s reply:
"Hi Christine,
Many Christians who have become concerned about government overreach are asking themselves, "How much toleration of such governmental abuse does Paul require me to endure patiently, according to Romans 13?" Paul does not say that governments have all authority (only Jesus has that””Matthew 28:18). Paul, in fact, says that governments have only such authority as God has ordained for them””which is limited to criminal law enforcement, national defense and taxation.
Apart from that, each nation places its own restrictions, or lack thereof, upon legitimate governmental power, by either a written or assumed charter. In this country, the very founding documents place the people above governmental officials in most respects. The officials are public servants who are to serve at the pleasure of the governed. The officials are not the bosses. Those who elect them are the bosses, whom the officials are elected to serve. This is, of course, entirely different from the way most nations understood government five-hundred years ago, but it is the understanding of modern constitutional republics, like ours.
Remember, the supreme authority of this country (under God, I mean) is the U.S. Constitution. This is not true of every country, but in this country the Constitution defines the rights of citizens which the government cannot legitimately curtail. For several years, specific government entities have been gratuitously violating more and more of these rights and having gotten away with it. They are pushing the envelope, to see how far they can go.
If our memories need to be refreshed, remember when it was possible to express your opinion about the definition of marriage without losing your job? Or when it was possible to exercise your religious freedom to abstain from certain professional activities which violate your conscience, without being threaten with jail? Or when a person could defend his home and family with a gun without being treated as if he is the criminal? Or could attend a free and peaceful assembly to worship God according to his conscience at whatever risk to himself he might choose?
An American citizen must submit to all Constitutional authority””unless it violates biblical morality. Behavior on the part of government agents (whether elected or police), which violates the Constitution, is rogue activity””even if it become standard and widespread. I cannot think of any Constitutional authority that I would be required to violate for conscience sake. The Constitution defends everyone's legitimate rights, and no command of God would ever require me to violate anyone's legitimate rights. If governments do what they are authorized to do, they will hear no complaints from me.
I do not think that civil disobedience against mandates that violate my rights is a Christian obligation, per se. For me to have my rights violated is something that, as a Christian, I am prepared to suffer on behalf of Christ or my brother. On the other hand, when unconstitutional authorities are illegitimately violating everyone's rights, my concern for my fellowman may require my speaking up for justice. If there is a trend of unjust governmental activity that has no Constitutional warrant, then speaking and standing against it may become a Christian duty, simply out of love for my neighbor.
Again, I have personally suffered nothing from the shelter-in-place policies. I have plenty of toilet paper. My concern is for people whose lives are ruined, who lose their jobs and their homes, and, in some cases, their lives, due to inept and callous government response to a virus that has turned out to be less deadly than anyone anticipated””less deadly, in fact, than the annual seasonal flu, for which no one has every found reason to shut-down the world's economies, or to restrict Americans' Constitutional freedoms.
I do not believe (and a constitutional scholar is welcome to prove me mistaken) that any elected official has the right, by a unilateral pronouncement or the stroke of a pen, to open-endedly cancel the Constitutional rights of an entire non-criminal population. Laws are to be made by legislatures, not executives, both at the federal and state levels.
Short-term restrictions for the general safety of the public probably fall under the purview of executive orders, but can anyone pretend that the public good or safety is served by tyrannical restrictions such as the following:
1) A California surfer being fined for being alone on the ocean with his surf board?
2) A Pennsylvania woman being fined $200 for going out for a drive alone at night?
3) Glendale, California placing a $1,000 fine upon those who walk their dogs without wearing a mask?
4) The Michigan governor making it punishable to drive from one's city home to one's own second home on the lake? Or to go on the lake in a motorized boat””even though it is permitted to go on the lake in a non-motorized (green-agenda-friendly) boat?
5) Locking down people in states where there is almost no occurrence of the virus?
6) While allowing people to congregate at food markets, Costco, Walmart, liquor stores, and government offices, nonetheless forbidding more than ten Christians to be in one place?
Would anyone wish to embarrass himself trying to logically defend these nonsensical rules?
When we see the meaningless restrictions being dictated to a supposedly free people, it is clear that something far more than public safety is on their minds. They are pushing the envelope ever so gradually to see where the tipping point is for a formerly free people's tolerance for the violation of their Constitutional rights. No awake person can call this a conspiracy theory. There is absolutely no rationale for these restrictions based upon any legitimate health threat. It is simply government exercising its muscle. Nothing but a love of power and addiction to overreach can explain these dysfunctional behaviors on the part of certain elected officials.
I am very alarmed at the way many lives are being destroyed by these governmental actions. The long-term disruption of many families' lives for the sake of a virus that has proved to be far less deadly than any of the alarmists anticipated, seems completely disproportionate. Numerous experts say the statistics on the rise in alcoholism, drug addition, domestic violence and suicide are traceable to the lock-down. It is credibly possible that more people may die, or have their lives ruined by the governmental response than will be impacted long-term by the virus.
The government did not cause the pandemic, but a certain kind of politician will never let a good crisis go to waste in pressing for more power over the people. A precedent is being sought. If the population simply rolls over and lets Unconstitutional governmental actions strip them of their legitimate rights, such intrusion will become the trend, and will be pressed ever-further each time it recurs. If the American people respond by holding their elected officials responsible for criminal overreach (particularly by un-electing them), or by taking even stronger measures of protest (itself a Constitutional right), perhaps the criminal interlopers will think twice before trying it again.”