So what should we think about the Louisiana pastor who has been defiantly violating the governors ban on assemblies larger than ten people? Should Christians follow his example or should they cooperate with the governments orders forbidding assemblies?
It is fair and legitimate to evaluate this question by examining the foundational document of the institution in question. The first consideration should be: Who has authority over a Christian and a church which is comprised of Christians? The answer is clear: Jesus Christ is head over all things to the Church (Ephesians 1:22; NASB and throughout unless otherwise noted). Christ delegated His authority to representatives whom He chose and called Apostles to whom He said He who receives whomever I send receives Me (John. 13:20) and The one who listens to you listens to Me and the one who rejects you rejects Me (Luke 10:16). A legitimate Christian church is thus in submission to Christ whose will is revealed in the writings of His Apostles and their close associates which comprise the New Testament in the Bible. Therefore the Apostles identified their messages to the churches as commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:2). Since Christ is the head of the church it follows that the church is subject to Christ (Ephesians 5:23-24).
So what does the Lord of the Christian Church think about civil disobedience? (Full disclosure: I am a Conservative Evangelical Christian and I present my case from that perspective. It is vitally important that the response of Christians to this crisis must be sound well-reasoned and faithfully Biblical.)
Christians need to be extremely careful when addressing the subject of civil disobedience. God has very clearly commanded His people: Submit yourselves for the Lords sake to every human institution whether to a king as the one in authority or to governors as sent by him (1 Peter 2:13-14). Or stated another way: Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities...Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor (Romans 13:1 7). We are to be subject to rulers to authorities to be obedient (Titus 3:1).
There is only one Biblical exception clause to these requirements: We must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). That means Christians not only have the right but the duty to engage in civil disobedience if a governing authority either demands that we do something contrary to Gods revealed will or forbids us from obeying Gods revealed will. Our only authoritative and binding source of the revealed will of God is His Word the 66 books of the Bible (as properly understood in its plain literal straightforward grammatical meaning and context--in other words according to the intended meaning of the texts original authors whose canonical writings are directly inspired by God and without error in the original documents. That means it is our solemn duty to draw from the text what God has put there not force onto the text what we want to put there...). Yes the exception clause is there--but we had better have a very good reason for invoking it making sure that we have carefully and prayerfully considered what we are doing.
In the immediate and current context of Coronavirus lock-down measures being mandated by state and local governments the obvious concern among Christians is our Biblical responsibility for not forsaking our own assembling together as is the habit of some (Heb. 10:25). So it is a fair and legitimate question for us to ask: At exactly what point does our responsibility for assembly override our responsibility to submit to governing authorities who are at the moment forbidding mass assemblies at all levels of society?
First let me apply the three cardinal considerations which are at the foundation of proper and honest Biblical interpretation: Context Context and Context. There are 2 things in the context of Hebrews 10:25 that have particular bearing on this discussion. For one thing the verse forbids us forsaking our assembly. No governing authority is calling for the permanent abridging of the right of the people to peacefully assemble which would violate the First Amendment to the Constitution. A Christians submission to and cooperation with a temporary government order forbidding large assemblies for the purpose of mitigating the spread of a deadly virus does not qualify as a forsaking of our assembly in the context of Hebrews 10:25. This is further borne out by the additional explanation provided in the rest of the verse: as is the habit of some. What this verse forbids is the careless disregard of assembling together with other Christians--not the temporary isolation being required as part of the Coronavirus response (otherwise we would be guilty of violating this verse every time we missed church when we were sick with the flu or some other contagious disease that we would not want to spread to our brothers and sisters).
Also there is Biblical precedent for the concept of quarantines to prevent the spread of infectious disease. For instance in Leviticus 13 if a person was found to have the infection of leprosy they would isolate him who has the infection for seven days. Upon further examination if the person was still symptomatic they would isolate him for seven more days (Lev. 13:2 4-5). In the case of a chronic leprosy (vs. 11) with persistent symptoms the person would be considered unclean all the days during which he has the infection. He is unclean. He shall live alone (vs. 46). The whole chapter is filled with very precise and exacting criteria for the examination and isolation of people with potentially-infectious diseases.
I realize that the context of leprosy has significant differences from the current Coronavirus crisis. But I only make the above citation as evidence that the Bible does indeed recognize--and it even required in the Israelite theocracy--the principle of isolation to contain the spread of infectious diseases even if that isolation prevented the sick person from participating in otherwise-mandatory religious duties and convocations until the person was no longer symptomatic.
To be sure the Coronavirus lock-down mandates are preventative instead of reactionary in the sense that assemblies are being forbidden for everyone whether symptomatic or not--but the principle still applies: It is a completely legitimate measure for the governing authorities to restrict assemblies in order to prevent the spread of a highly contagious virus--one that is suspected to be contagious 1 to 3 days before it becomes observably symptomatic in the infected person!
And it is completely legitimate (and Biblically required) that Christians eagerly and submissively cooperate with these government mandates forbidding large assemblies showing ourselves examples to society of sacrificial submission to reasonable temporary restrictions imposed by the duly constituted governing authorities for the protection and well-being of society.
Now that is not to say that we would not revisit the issue later if the virus has apparently run its course and it becomes apparent that those governing authorities are attempting to take advantage of the crisis in order to perpetuate the suppression of assemblies beyond reasonable measure--but for the moment Christians should submit and cooperate availing ourselves of the many technological resources we have for maintaining contact and fellowship with each other by phone and computer.
