Tony Spell has church in spite of the ban

[Pressing-On]

Posted by Connie Bernard. Yes, I know Spell isn’t UPC.

For all of you that are wondering about our churches, all churches, not just our organization, my husband has written a constitutional law article that is really good.

David K. Bernard:

Constitutional Law.

As a matter of US constitutional law (which I studied in law school), the government does have the right to enact measures for health and safety. Thus, churches must follow building, fire, and health codes. Governments routinely shut down meetings, including church services, that violate these safety regulations. It can't discriminate against churches, and it must use the least restrictive means possible. If it passes ordinances of general applicability based on professional medical advice for the safety of the community, it is presumptively constitutional. Some states have gone the second mile to treat churches with extra respect, but they are still asking churches to cooperate voluntarily. They have both the law and public opinion on their side when they do.
We shouldn't question anyone's motives if they try to have church, and we shouldn't attack them. However, that doesn't mean their actions are constitutional, legal, wise, advisable, or divinely ordained. We shouldn't rejoice if they suffer consequences, but the burden of civil disobedience is to accept consequences. The burden of not following medical advice is either to have superior medical knowledge or ask God to intervene. However, it is one thing to trust God for yourself, but it is another thing to take the responsibility for the entire community, including vulnerable people.
For those who believe they must have large gatherings in order to please God, I would suggest that they think more creatively. While I endorse large crowds & buildings (having built a congregation of up to 1,000 and a building of 100,000 SF); we cannot say this method is biblically required. I agree that this method is highly effective, and over the long term I want to find ways to resume this method. But in times of crisis (war, pandemic, persecution, natural disaster), we can use other methods, even as the apostolic church did in times of persecution. In doing so, we aren't violating God's Word, becoming cowards, or acting in unbelief. We are operating outside our modern, traditional, Western box.
Finally, we are right to be concerned about religious liberty. Some might want to use this situation for a future precedent, but we will fight against that idea if it surfaces, and we will have the Constitution on our side. Right now, we aren't facing religious persecution in this situation, and we shouldn't characterize it as such. If we do, and then we lose, that could become a negative precedent. We must be vigilant to protect our freedom, but we must choose our battles wisely.