Recently the Supreme Court of the United States voted in a split decision 5-4 in favor of the State of Nevada over against Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley (Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak). This decision marks a turning point in the relationship between the Church and the State regarding the COVID-19 pandemic response.
Summary of the Case and the Dissenting Justices’ Opinions
In this case, Nevada passed a public health order governing which businesses and institutions may remain open during the pandemic, and under what terms these institutions may do so. Herein lies the problem. According to the State’s rules, churches and other kinds of houses of worship may not admit more than 50 people at the same time. However businesses and institutions of similar public gatherings (i.e., casinos, breweries, bowling allies, and gyms) may admit up to 50 percent capacity. Regardless of the square footage, the State limits the houses of worship to 50 people total while other businesses where masses of people assemble get up to 50 percent capacity (which could be in the thousands in Las Vegas casinos and other places).
The Church made the argument that this demonstrates favoritism toward other businesses and institutions, which breaks the First Amendment regarding the free expression of speech and free exercise of religion.
Almost without exception, laws must be applied neutrally. Related to typical legislation for churches and businesses, ordinances and rules must be neutral and generally applied to both parties.[1] Examples of neutral rules regulating both include the fire code, ADA policy, and, until now, the pandemic response. However, when the State regulates the Church to a greater extent than these other businesses, the State fails to remain neutral.
Chief Justice John Roberts, siding with the liberal wing of the court and the State of Nevada, by mandated unfair practices took away the free exercise of religion in Nevada.
The Dissent by Other Justices – Precise and Accurate
The dissent by the remaining four justices is noteworthy. Here are key excerpts:
Justice Neil Gorsuch
This is a simple case. Under the Governor’s edict, a 10-screen “multiplex” may host 500 moviegoers at any time. A casino, too, may cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table here and a similar number gathered around every roulette wheel there. Large numbers and close quarters are fine in such places. But churches, synagogues, and mosques are banned from admitting more than 50 worshippers—no matter how large the building, how distant the individuals, how many wear face masks, no matter the precautions at all. In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion. Maybe that is nothing new. But the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion. The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.
Justice Samuel Alito along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh
The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about the freedom to play craps or blackjack, to feed tokens into a slot machine, or to engage in any other game of chance. But the Governor of Nevada apparently has different priorities. Claiming virtually unbounded power to restrict constitutional rights during the COVID–19 pandemic, he has issued a directive that severely limits attendance at religious services. A church, synagogue, or mosque, regardless of its size, may not admit more than 50 persons, but casinos and certain other favored facilities may admit 50% of their maximum occupancy—and in the case of gigantic Las Vegas casinos, this means that thousands of patrons are allowed.
That Nevada would discriminate in favor of the powerful gaming industry and its employees may not come as a surprise, but this Court’s willingness to allow such discrimination is disappointing. We have a duty to defend the Constitution, and even a public health emergency does not absolve us of that responsibility.
The Responsibilities of the State and the Church
What is the responsibility of the State?
As I have written elsewhere, the responsibility of the State by God and the US Constitution are clear.
God both ordains government and grants them power. Our government also is “by the people, of the people, and for the people” in the United States. However, this “by, of, and for” is secondary to God granting authority to government (Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-17). Theologically we would say, God granted three institutions: the family, the government, and the church. As such, we must see and respect government as such.
God gave government to protect citizens and punish evildoers. When government acts inside its God-ordained authority, it blesses us. As such, wise policy and the implementation of that policy provides for our good.
The responsibility of the government is to protect citizens and punish evildoers. That is their God-ordained authority.
To limit the expression of religious worship is not just barred by the First Amendment based upon these passages, but is forbidden by God. The State’s authority does not include limiting religious expression. Therefore, to leave open some businesses without leaving open the houses of worship oversteps the God-given authority of the State. In other words, to treat the Church one way and other powerful businesses another way violates both the Bible and the First Amendment.
What is the responsibility of the Church?
The Church must submit to God-given authority. Submission means to live consistent within the role God has granted. The State functions with specific authority. The church also functions with specific authority. As I wrote earlier:
As followers of Christ, we honor the king (1 Pet 2:17). In other words, we respect those in authority and see them as instruments of God for good. Further, we submit to government as well (Rom 13:1). If we systemically resist government, we resist God (Rom 13:2).
Can the government abuse its power? Of course. You see that over and over throughout history. However, just because a person or even a particular government abuses its power does not mean that we can choose to disrespect the authority God grants to them. In fact, one person’s actions or behavior (or a group of people’s) do not justify a disregard for the biblical principle of respect.
Even though a government can abuse its power, as long as it stays in its own lane and does not demand the limitation of worship, the Christian seeks to maintain an attitude of respect. In other words, if the government mandated that all citizens everywhere in the continental United States could not drive, then we would respectfully obey. Is that an abuse of power? More than likely yes. However, walking is not sinful. However, if the government required all citizens to steal from his or her neighbor, the Christian must not obey. Stealing from one’s neighbor breaks God’s law and would mean the government was functioning outside its God-defined and God-limited powers.
In this case, the government is saying to Christians they must limit their religious expression (assemblies no greater than 50 regardless of the square footage) while at the same time saying to non-Christians that other types of expression in the same manner (assemblies up to 50% of fire code capacity) are fine. This is the State against the Church. The State inconsistently applies its measures for protection (God-ordained authority) in a way that misuses that authority. If it is fine to gamble in groups greater than 50, then it is also fine to worship in groups of greater than 50. What is good for one must be good for the other.
Again, in this case, the State seeks to function outside of its authority both from God (biblical mandate) and from the people (First Amendment).
Since the Days of Jesus, the Church Must Obey God Rather than Men
According to the apostles from the very beginning of the Church, they maintained that God must be obeyed rather than the State, if the State requires the Christian to do something outside of God’s mandated authority. Here’s the story from Acts:
17 Then the high priest rose up, and all those who were with him (which is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with indignation, 18 and laid their hands on the apostles and put them in the common prison. 19 But at night an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors and brought them out, and said, 20 “Go, stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this life.”
21 And when they heard that, they entered the temple early in the morning and taught.
…
25 So one came and told them [governing authorities], saying, “Look, the men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people!”
26 Then the captain went with the officers and brought them without violence, for they feared the people, lest they should be stoned. 27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, 28 saying, “Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man’s blood on us!”
29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”
…
41 So they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name. 42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ. (Acts 5:17-42)
Notice how the Apostles responded: They chose to obey God rather than man. Why? Because the men were commanding what was not their’s to command. They were outside their God-given authority to demand disobedience to the command of God.
Simply put: the Church must obey God and not man or the State wherever man’s laws violate God’s laws.
As the pandemic shutdown affected every business and house of worship, the Church has chosen to submit and seek to follow the guidelines given by government. However, as the government has began to discriminate against churches, the State (at least in the case of Nevada) has moved outside its parameters.
Praying and Supporting the Church in Nevada
The Church in Nevada must make hard choices. The State ruled against them in what amounts to be a violation of God’s authority and Constitutional authority given by the First Amendment. Now the pastors of the churches in Nevada must determine their response.
As always, there is more than one choice here. They can meet in spite of the law or continue to choose to follow the law in an effort to live peaceably with all people. The pastors, elders, and congregations in Nevada must make those determinations. It is hard to determine what they should do all the way from Missouri and outside of robust conversations with them.
(Interesting as a side note, John MacArthur penned a response to California’s law and argued this same principle. The situation is different in California than Nevada. I disagree that civil disobedience was MacArthur’s only choice; however, he and the elders of Grace Community Church saw it otherwise.)
Ed Stetzer offers the following three responses that are necessary by the church:
- First, churches should consider their own context.
- Second, churches need to remember that gathering is a major part of a church’s function.
- Third, churches need to recognize that this was the line that we all said should not be crossed, and respond accordingly.
As we carefully consider our own contexts (individual states and local governments), we also pray for those in Nevada who are fighting against the unbiblical and unconstitutional practices by the governor of Nevada.
We need to appropriately lift our voices in prayer, lift our voices in support of the Church, lift our voice in dissent, and serve as we can.
KevinCarson.com | Wisdom for Life in Christ Together