Yes, the civil government can lawfully, biblically close church services, and probably should

I have seen a few people, including more influential leaders among some small groups, resisting the declarations in several states (and now at the national level) to ban public gatherings of certain sizes (50 to 100 or so people depending on the location), which of course applies to church gatherings as well. These people reject this notion. They say the state does not have the right to shut down their public worship services. Some say this is a confusion of the separation of powers, church and state. But this is simply not true. Quarantine is within the realm of civil law, and in the rare cases it is necessary, it can be applied to fullest extents necessary, including postponing religious services.

This is not the same as religious persecution, in which a government forbids Christian worship services or preaching, and then enforces that decree. This is a public health concern, and it is temporary. This is the law of quarantine. Quarantine could potentially be abused as a guise for the purpose of religious persecution. But the probability of this is low given the economic ramifications of doing so. Aside from such a massive, self-defeating conspiracy, ours is a case of quarantine pure and simple. It is lawful.

Last week, as much of this Coronavirus was ramping up in the U.S., I was discussing the issue of biblical quarantine law with Dr. North. Ironically, he was just finishing the final chapters in his magnum opus on Christian economics, and the final chapter includes a treatment of biblical quarantine laws. You can read that chapter for free: “Boundary Violations.”

The exegetical case derives from the quarantine laws from Leviticus 13–14. Admittedly, these are priestly laws and were dealing in part with ceremonial aspects of uncleanness. They nevertheless also deal with public safety and the spread of contagion—clearly a moral and civil matter as well. An individual or even an entire house could be quarantined at their own expense for a period of time, or indefinitely. A house, if it failed cleaning and re-inspection, could be utterly demolished, along with everything in it. The state or temple were not required to reimburse. An individual could be stuck outside the camp, with no community, business, or intercourse with others, at his or her own expense, as well as whatever further social and familial costs that would incur. There was no provision for state-funded aid. The outstanding assumption of charity remains, though.

In such a scenario, the individual would be required to miss all the necessary mandated church services in Old Testament Israel. This is not the same as shuttering the services for everyone, but the same principle prevails at the core of it: in cases of infectious disease and the potentials of contagion, it is lawful for civil governments to enforce a quarantine that could even ban affected individuals from a church service.

The important point to grasp here is that such a procedure was not a violation of the separation of powers or of an individual’s religious rights or liberties.

It is only a small step to apply this principle in cases where a contagion is spreading among a larger populace already, and under conditions that predict terrible potentials. The most important objective difference is that under the Old Testament scenario, the physical test for diagnosis involved only easily-observable breakouts on the skin. With COVID-19, people are contagious for days before any symptoms appear. The only objective test is still relatively rare and difficult to obtain, and no one who needs it will realize it at first before they have had the chance to spread it. The potential here justifies a broader quarantine outlook.

It is foolish to be flippant or dismissive about these potentials. It is also nearly foolish to continue most of your normal routine while only giving lip service to the danger. The “Well we said it could be bad, didn’t we?” defense after the fact will not merit any respect. Meanwhile, I believe some of the same people engaged in such rhetoric, while maintaining their heroic continuity, chaps, holster, and all, are also the ones condemning more radical approaches as “panic.” But I also don’t see such condemnations defining exactly what they mean by “panic.” It seems like a convenient way to criticize others in contrast to oneself. It’s also the kind of thing people say so that no matter what result happens, they can position themselves as a hero anyway.

In times like this, tough decisions have to be made. For those who don’t understand enough facts, have enough compassion, who generally distrust the government (like me!), generally distrust political discourse (me!), and/or perhaps think too highly of themselves and their jobs or ministries, secretly fear losing financial support, etc., the types of reaction that decision-makers will perceive to be necessary will almost certainly be deemed as tyrannical and in violation of our rights. Such a reaction does not understand the nature of quarantine or the governmental power associated with it. It is virtually the same power asserted, temporarily, as that during an emergency invasion or war. And for sure, the actions required to avert the contagion will almost certain be extreme enough to have been tyrannical under normal conditions.

Further, people who are screaming about violations of rights now will really be screaming if the States were to come anywhere near following through with the emergency powers they have already quietly granted themselves in executive orders. Not only can they forbid church gatherings, but they could potentially confiscate the church property to house patients and triage centers, and more. They could potentially take over cars, homes, businesses, hotels, and bank accounts without reimbursement.

Acknowledging the government’s lawful powers does not mean that the government is doing things perfectly or that we have no right to speak against it or to criticize it; but it is still a fundamental right and power of civil government in certain circumstances.

A final note on it from me: one reason we end up with nanny-state tyrannies is because people don’t help others voluntarily enough to begin with. Do not get me wrong, the U.S. leads the world by far in charitable giving. But too many also are still very slack on voluntary sacrificial behaviors. This unfortunately includes many Christians and libertarian-conservatives.

A pattern has already emerged in some states, where voluntary guidelines were given for social distancing, etc. People largely ignored them. The states then followed through with the same guidelines as mandates. I grant that it is difficult to change behaviors when the threats are not so easily perceived, but this is the pattern by which tyranny comes. It does not justify statism by any means; it only explains it. The goals which statism purports to achieve are indeed sometimes illegitimate—but they are not always. Sometimes, they are merely the works of charity, education, inclusion, etc., that a free people should be doing anyway, but are not. In some cases, they are works a people utterly refuse to do and abhor.

This is how we got the Civil Rights Act, for example. From a strict conservative or libertarian view of property rights, the CRA is a violation. No one should be able to tell me whom I must serve on my own property. But from a moral perspective, the widespread use of this principle by individuals and business to cloak their personal hatred of blacks was abominable. You cannot appeal to one aspect of God’s law to cloak your failure in another, especially an even more fundamental part of it. God is not mocked. Thus, came judgement in history with an imposition of civil government. Until we learn to love our neighbors, God will allow such acts as schoolmasters to enforce outward behavior at the very least.

It is sad, is it not, that behaviors which should be the rule according to God’s love have to be described as tyranny when enforced even partially, outwardly by the civil government? To a person sensitive of the Holy Spirit’s guidance, this should be an indication that we also view the underlying call to love our neighbors, at least in this area, as a tyranny to us.

It is not without reason that John has to tell us, “His commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3): it is because we often believe and feel that they are, and we fail to keep them according to his love.

The ultimate worship of God is to love him and to love our neighbors as ourselves. On these two commandments hang the entire rest of the law and prophets (Matt. 22:37–40). If we put our own interests in formal gatherings ahead of the potential harm we may be doing, or encouraging, to our neighbors, then we are failing at both of the greatest commandments.

For example, it is looking like 80 percent of the cases in South Korea stem from one woman who . . . went to church, once before and once after she had manifested symptoms.

Because we tend to fail in this way, God has instituted civil governments. They are far from perfect, but they also have the power to infringe upon our normal liberties when we are far from perfect ourselves. In the case of quarantine laws, they not only have the power but the right to do so as well.

I’ll repeat North’s conclusions here:

There has to be a system of government regulation, up to and including quarantine, in order to stop the spread of dangerous pathogens. These should be regarded as invaders. If a society has the right to create a military defense system against invading armies, then it has the right to do the same with respect to invading armies of pathogens. Only the civil government can do this. This cannot be done on a profit-seeking basis. This is not a matter for the free market to solve. The free market can solve certain issues, such as the development of anti-pathogen chemicals or techniques. There can be profit in this. But the taxpayer is going to have to provide the money that civil governments use to develop systematic pathogen defense strategies, and then implement these strategies.

In terms of the total cost of government, these are minor expenditures. Societies have used them throughout history. Most people accept them. There is no well-organized opposition to their use. Compared to the massive expenditures of the modern state on projects that are clearly banned by the Bible, these exceptions do not constitute a threat to the freedom of covenant-keeping people. Furthermore, those free market economists who would deny any of these expenditures have not developed comprehensive monographs on how the free market could attain these goals. They are legitimate goals. Free-market economists need to come to grips with this fact: they cannot beat something with nothing.