Comments

Does the Bible Teach Us to Disregard Man-Made Laws At Times? — 31 Comments

1. Thank you for this, William. Your first paragraph is powerful. It had not occurred to me to see the story that way.

   It is important to note that while the three Hebrews never even hinted at bowing to the image, they still attended the demonstration. They did not refuse to show up just because they knew where this was going. They obeyed the king as far as they could, until the king gave a command that directly violated God’s law. The example the three Hebrews gave us aligns with biblical counsel.

   Christ provided some illustrations of how to relate to people in civil and religious authority positions.

   As we read about how He related, it helps to know that the Roman government at the time of Christ was totally corrupt. Taxes were collected by corrupt Jews who took their cut. Yet Christ supported paying taxes to "Caesar." (Matt. 22:16-21) He did not get embroiled in politics or try to "fix" the corrupt system by protest or other means. His focus was totally on the Kingdom of God.

   The religion of the Jews was corrupt too. Christ taught the true meaning of the services, and He taught the real way to enter the Kingdom of God. He taught His listeners to look to the Father in heaven.

   Because He was a teacher in Israel, Christ was not subject to the temple tax. Yet He complied with paying the temple tax - by performing a miracle! (Matthew 17:23-25)
   -------------------

   I see that some folks have responded to your COVID masking reference by posting arguments against various government mandates. I believe we should not get involved in such arguments, because we will alienate half the country, no matter what side we pick.

   So here is a "Moderator Note"
   I am leaving my comment at the top of the comment section to redirect attention back to William's point.

   The question for us to consider is at what point we are free to disobey or obligated to disobey civil orders. Which orders are truly immoral - that is contrary to the government of God? It's worth a thoughtful discussion.

   Please refrain from commenting about COVID mandates or vaccines; instead, focus on the point of William's post.

   (11)

   Reply ↓

2. This subject still irritates me. There was nearly nothing moral, ethical or legal about how the Covid situation was handled. I know that I'm not alone in feeling that way. The Covid situation was unique in that civil powers exceeded their authority in many ways. One being by mandating an experimental drug, that had no informed consent (both violations of the Nuremburg code). Also by mandating that masks (which they knew were as effective as a screen door on a submarine) be worn in public places. You had to wear them in restaurants until you were seated at your table, then you could remove them. I guess that the "virus" knew that you were there to eat, so it wouldn't attack you. Medical institutions were financially incentivized to allow people to get worse and eventually need ventilation and die. Yes, the reimbursement by Medicare and private insurance sadly, made the whole situation worse, not to mention the protocols.

   The entire thing was the greatest scam and psychological operation ever foisted on humanity since the Garden of Eden. The laws passed were unethical, immoral, and in many cases unconstitutional. Post Covid lawsuits against employers have resulted in terminated "conscientious objector" employees receiving major settlements. Even the military was chastised by the Supreme Court and damages awarded.

   The most troubling part for me was how quickly churches, even our church, went along with the government and denied people their freedom to worship and religious objection against an experimental gene altering injection. In that sense it violated biblical principles.

   The devil was clever to muddy the waters and confuse people on the issues. I fear that the church will go along with the government when it comes to the coming Sunday law.
   -----------
   Moderator Note:
   This comment violates our guidelines by being off-topic, among other things. We are leaving it up because people have responded, and we may grow from a discussion.

   Tim apparently thought he was writing to William privately before publication, and a lot of things can be said privately that are not appropriate for publication on this blog.
   Please do not reply to Tim by discussing Covid issues!

   (16)

   Reply ↓

   • Tim many thanks for your comment. Your post has placed this vexing issue into perspective. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 ‘prove ALL things hold fast to that which is good.’

     Despite media blackout there was sufficient warning scientific and medical evidence from prominent doctors and experts, for anyone to make an informed - rather than coerced - decision.

     Our bodies are the temple of the living GOD. Our first duty and line of obedience therefore is to Him. To enquire from Him what we put into it. Again l think, when an issue is forced upon someone without any choice, claiming it’s for your good and for the good of the nation. Then it’s a red flag.

     We have already seen the fallout from dumb compliance. Have that ‘death causing’ virus suddenly disappeared? I think not, then why aren’t the restrictions still in place? And why so many civil lawsuits and admissions that the ‘remedy’ was not fit for purpose? Personally, l think it was never about the virus. It’s still here and rampant just everyone’ gone quiet. I really think it’s a test of blind obedience and a wake up call for GOD ‘s people.

     Oh incidentally l deplore the fact that some dissenters chose to become church judges and put themselves up on their own man made pedestals. Criticising others not aligning with their point of view. To those l repeat the Saviour’s words in Matthew 7:5 & Luke 6:42 "Thou hypocrite first cast out the beam that is in thine own eye and then that shalt see clearly to pull out the more that is in thine brother’s eye." May GOD grant us clarity in vision, the Spirit of discernment like the children of Issachar ‘ which were men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do’
     1 Chronicles12:32

     (10)

     Reply ↓

   • Maranatha.
     I had the privilege of working at a medical facility that treated TB (how long since you've heard about that disease?) patients so we were already using N-95 masks and daily precautions against the further spread of the disease; so when COVID hit staff was readily prepared. So like David to prepare for Goliath, he fought the lion, the bear these smaller test prepared him for the "final". Our daily tests can hopefully prepare us for the final crisis as these last day events are being fulfilled.

     (14)

     Reply ↓

   • Tim, you wrote:

     The devil was clever to muddy the waters and confuse people on the issues.

     Perhaps it's not wise to dive into muddy waters but focus on clear flowing water - the water of life which Christ dispenses freely. And I believe He wants us to be channels for the life-giving water.

     You also wrote:

     The most troubling part for me was how quickly churches, even our church, went along with the government and denied people their freedom to worship and religious objection against an experimental gene-altering injection. In that sense it violated biblical principles.

     I agree with you. In our family, some believe all the government mandates were a great idea, while others share your perspective. To maintain family relations, we choose not to discuss that particular subject, except perhaps to share a few factoids here and there. We love our family, and we don't want it to be divided by government policies.

     And this is how our church handled it:
     We have two churches in our area, and although our membership is in one church, we occasionally attend the other as well.

     During the first panic, both churches closed for a couple of Sabbaths. During that time, some of the church ladies got busy and sewed up stacks of COVID masks, following instructions on the government website.

     When people came to church, they were invited to wear one of the cute or dignified masks. (There was a lot of variety.) They were also invited to use the hand sanitizer available at the entrance, if needed.

     In our church we had several people who double-masked! They were both nurses and probably realized that a cloth mask or even an N95 mask is no barrier to viruses. But maybe they vaguely hoped that doubling up would offer some protection. No one made fun of them. (One got COVID several times in spite of the mandated shots and boosters. She survived just fine, no doubt due to a healthy immune system.)

     Others, not quite as frightened, and even 100% non-mask believers, donned masks for the sake of the "weak" mentioned by Paul. (1 Cor. 8:1-13) A couple refused to wear masks for any reason anywhere. They sat a good distance from the others and prayed for them.

     One sad result of those times is that one woman, a fairly recent convert, came to church on Sabbath morning, but when she was offered a mask, she turned around and went back home. (That reminds me I need to call her again and tell her that we still love her!)

     The bottom line is that we did our best to respect people's choices because each person is responsible to God for following their own conscience. I trust that we can all continue to do that.

     (11)

     Reply ↓

   • Please remember:Titus 3:9
     New International Version
     9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.

     (1)

     Reply ↓

3. William, I agree with you that we have to be careful about the way we relate to civil laws. I'm not saying that every government handled COVID-19 perfectly, but ultimately they do have jurisdiction over such things. I feel obeying those laws was rendering to Caeser what is his. This was especially true in countries like Canada, my country, where we have publicly funded health care. Restrictions were necessary to keep the hospitals from being overwhelmed.

   The worst thing I see, though, is how divided the church is over this issue. Both those who supported regulations and the vaccine and those who were completely opposed have done a lot of labeling of the other side. It has become a "testing truth" when it shouldn't be. Sometimes I wonder if our church will ever recover from those days.

   I was vaccinated and I followed the government restrictions as best as I could, hard as they were. I didn't do these things because I was afraid and I don't see those decisions preparing me to fall on the Sunday law issue. I also respect those who chose not to be vaccinated or were uncomfortable with some things. Each one of us has our reasons and we answer to God alone.

   (20)

   Reply ↓

   • Thank you, Christina, for providing a perspective from the "complying" side.

     As I see it, sincere Christians followed their conscience on both sides of the issue - likely because they had access to different sources of information.

     You also wrote:

     The worst thing I see, though, is how divided the church is over this issue. Both those who supported regulations and the vaccine and those who were completely opposed have done a lot of labeling of the other side. It has become a "testing truth" when it shouldn't be.

     I hear you. Division is unnecessary and would be prevented by following the broad biblical principle of liberty of conscience. That allows us to be "one in Christ" while still being different individually.

     The Seventh-day Adventist Church is firmly founded on the principle of individual freedom of conscience. As individuals we cannot impose our conscience on others, and others cannot impose their conscience on us. Not a General Conference President and not even the President "standing united" with three other church officials is free to impose his conscience on the membership of the church.

     (4)

     Reply ↓

4. Pastor William you wrote "During the COVID shutdown, I was saddened by Christians who were making fun of people wearing masks and refusing to wear masks where they were required simply because they felt their rights were being taken away."

   I would like to respectfully inform you that those in the UK who due to their convictions didn’t go along with the vaccine programme were chastised by the church, being warned that it was their ‘moral and ethical duty’ to do so. Here the church was aligning a political agenda with moral - as in moral law.

   Combined church and state edicts for me raise a red flag of an ungodly agenda. It was mainly the conscientious objectors who were laughed at and vilified.

   It was not so much what was being propagated, that could have been anything, but it was the element of coercion combined with disdain and mockery, media propagation of fear, threats and alarm. Loss of livelihoods, loved ones dying alone, family being denied to say farewell and kiss them.

   World leaders threatening what they intend to do to dissenters. All of this smacks of forcing obedience to a ungodly power, rather than being ordained of GOD.

   (11)

   Reply ↓

   • Mocking people is wrong from every angle. Romans 14 is very clear each one should be convinced in their own minds and respect the convictions and boundaries of others. Christians do not mock other people, regardless of their beliefs or convictions. This is why it saddens me so much to see professed Christians mocking other people who were simply following their own convictions.

     (14)

     Reply ↓

   • Marcia, you raise some troubling issues.

     Unfortunately, wrong decisions were made both in local churches and in our world church. One of these was a sentence in a statement on the GC website that prevented people from using the "conscience" clause for not taking the COVID "vaccine."

     claims of religious liberty are not used appropriately in objecting to government mandates or employer programs designed to protect the health and safety of their communities.

     Many people suffered as a result of this - losing employment, homes, and even custody of their children - all because leadership failed to respect the principle of freedom of conscience, which is part of the heartbeat of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

     No one, nor any group, has the right to control the conscience of another. Since God speaks to us through our conscience, that is sacred territory between an individual and God alone.

     The GC AdCom Committee has no legal or spiritual right to make statements of conscience on behalf of the whole church. It is possible to take corrective action to eliminate that troubling sentence at the upcoming GC Conference session in July. Pray that the Holy Spirit will be present and guide in this matter.

     We've already gone through troubled times, and there are more to come. I believe it is of utmost importance that we obtain our directions directly from God and not blindly follow a human leader—whether a GC President, a popular ministry leader, the pastor of our church, the president of our country, or the mayor of our town.

     Conscience can and must be educated. But we must make decisions, according to our conscience, based on our best understanding.

     If we do not stand for principle, we will surely fall for deception.

     To connect this with William's post, we see that some people saw certain COVID mandates as a matter of conscience, and others did not. To respect liberty of conscience, we must not attempt to make others live by our conscience. This is true on an individual and on a corporate level.

     For our part, we can pray that the General Conference Session will take action to a troubling sentence from the otherwise acceptable official statement Reaffirming the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s response to COVID-19

     (6)

     Reply ↓

     • I don't want to further drag on discussion about COVID. But I have to make a comment about conscience.

       In a sense, each of us must follow our conscience. But I don't think it's reasonable to say that the church must affirm everyone's conscience in every situation. For those of us who are reasonable, it may be hard for us to understand this. But people's consciences can be very distorted.

       Here are two examples, one real and one hypothetical (but sadly possibly real). You might remember the couple in New Zealand who starved their infant son to death because they refused to deviate from a strict vegan diet. (Sadly there have been other similar cases) I am sure these parents would tell you they were following their conscience. But the Adventist church could not support them, conscience or not. Or let's say parents feel they are following their conscience by beating their children (I'm not talking about spanking here, but something much more severe) and appeal to conscience, saying they are just following the verses in Proverbs. Similarly, should they be arrested in country that prohibits such discipline, should the Adventist church support them? I would hope not.

       In each of these cases, people have the right to follow their conscience, but they'd better be prepared for the consequences. And I don't want them using my church to justify their actions.

       Our church has clear teachings on many things, but vaccines are not one of them. We have never been opposed to vaccines. The message from the church was always that people can make a case for conscience but it must be personal conscience and not based on a denominational doctrine on this issue. And I think that's reasonable. Otherwise, it opens a huge can of worms that I don't think we want to start dealing with. I can only imagine how many issues could come up.

       (2)

       Reply ↓

       • You wrote

         But I don't think it's reasonable to say that the church must affirm everyone's conscience in every situation.

         I may not have expressed myself clearly. So let me try again:

         "The church" or any group of leaders in the church has no business "affirming" how to act in various situations.

         If a small group of leaders had not made any statement about vaccines, that would have left members free to act according to their conscience. Instead, they drafted a statement that sided on the side of vaccines and included justifications that have since been disproven. But worst of all, after giving lip service to religious liberty in the matter, they included this

         claims of religious liberty are not used appropriately in objecting to government mandates or employer programs designed to protect the health and safety of their communities.

         That statement has done a great deal of financial, emotional and social harm in the church world-wide, as I mentioned above.

         Members of other churches used the religious liberty clause in the mandates to be permitted to avoid the vaccines. Our members could not, unless they hid their connection with the church or withdrew their membership first.

         That situation can be corrected at the General Conference session this July by removing that sentence from the official statement on the church website.

         I am suggesting that the church should make fewer "affirming" statements, not more!

         Unfortunately, our leadership has gradually built up a body of statements and guidelines that is beginning to look very much like the Jewish laws and traditions that were intended to "help" people keep God's law.

         That is exactly what the pioneers of our church feared when they wanted to avoid organizing and having a creed. Organization became a practical necessity, but it is not necessary for church leaders to make statements to tell people how to keep God's law in various situations. It won't serve God's people any better now than it did in Christ's time.

         (3)

         Reply ↓

         • An excellent measured response Inge.

           The problem begins when the church gets entangled with the government, and gets out of their lane. The church has no business compelling anyone to do anything. God Himself doesn't operate in that manner, for if he did we would all be in big trouble for the times that we have refused to walk in His ways. When we refuse to follow, God allows for the operation of natural consequences, especially when it comes to matters of conscious affecting the "body temple." Is man more "just" than God by using compulsion to comply? I think not.

           Does the church have the right to punish people who aren't plant based eaters, or those that refuse to eat "veggie links?"
           God forbid!

           (4)

           Reply ↓

           • They definitely don't have the right to do that, but in an informal way they do. I'm not involved with a church that behaves that way, but I know there are churches that do plenty of informal shunning of non-vegans. I'm sure there are churches who use diet to decide who can hold church office, for instance.

             It was that way in the past with people who wore wedding rings too. In the 50s, some people from my dad's church got into trouble for bowling. Now maybe they weren't disfellowshipped, but this sort of thing has always existed.

             (2)

           • Christina,

             A while back at church I talked to a lady who told me that when she was young the church youth group would not let them going bowling because there were sinners at the bowling alley. I asked her, then why did they allow the kids to go to church? There are sinners there too!

             (4)

       • Christina, you wrote,

         In a sense, each of us must follow our conscience.

         Your "in a sense" troubles me. If we do not follow our conscience, whom do we follow? Since God speaks to us through our conscience, it seems to me that we put someone else in place of God if we ignore our conscience to do what someone else tells us to do.

         You also wrote

         But people's consciences can be very distorted.

         That is true. But it doesn't give us who consider our consciences to be less "distorted" to impose our conscience on them.

         An example: If we had the power, it would be every bit as wrong for us to make a Sabbath law, so people would keep the "right day" as it would be for others to make a "Sunday law" to force us to keep "the right day" according to their understanding.

         (2)

         Reply ↓

         • Maybe my words aren't the best - Ultimately we must follow our conscience. What I was trying to say is that for some people, everything becomes a conscience issue. And that's where we are heading for trouble.

           The New Zealand couple I mentioned no doubt were following their conscience when they refused to listen to the doctors and alter their son's diet/accept treatment. Probably they felt that it was a sin to do so and that they were risking being lost if they did so. But in my opinion what they did was awful and wrong. I can sympathize with their motives, but I can't support them.

           Earlier you said that the church has no business affirming how members act in certain situations. So would you say that applies to the situation mentioned? Let's say the Adventist church in New Zealand became aware of the situation before the boy died. Should they just say, "We encourage our members to follow their conscience. We have no opinion on what these parents are doing. They have to do what they feel is right."?

           Yes, I know it's an extreme example and I hate to use it because it's quite different from refusing to be vaccinated, but I think it illustrates the extremes of conscience. And one man's extreme is another man's righteous.

           Maybe you're right, the church shouldn't have waded into the vaccine situation. But the church makes pronoucements on all sorts of things. We all do. If they made no pronouncements, there would be no rules, doctrines, anything. I can't see a church that functions that way working very well. Be careful what you wish for. Because it would be easy to break different doctrines and say "I'm just following conscience." And maybe you are, but those choices put you outside the church body potentially. And I don't think that's unreasonable.

           We probably need to figure out exactly what constitutes conscience issues and what doesn't. I know in the past I was told that the government (or a church) had no business legislating on the first tablet of the ten commandments, but could on the second tablet. Based on that principle, I feel the covid regulations were acceptable as they related to the sixth commandment (not taking life). Now, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they do relate to the first table, but I just have trouble seeing it. Of course, I have never had issues with vaccines and the people connected to me in the medical profession didn't see the covid vaccine the way some of you do.

           Anyway, I don't want to argue about this. I don't think the two sides of this issue will agree anytime soon. I will try not to judge those of you who disagree with me and I hope you will do the same. If I can respect your choices to try to honor God with good health, hopefully you can also respect that I made my choices to do my best to protect the fragile around me. I was motivated by love, not fear.

           (3)

           Reply ↓

           • Thank you for clarifying that, "Ultimately we must follow our conscience." We are in agreement.

             You brought up the important issue that I believe to be the natural follow-up to William's post:

             We probably need to figure out exactly what constitutes conscience issues and what doesn't.

             That means understanding what God requires of us and judging whether or not what the government requires conflicts with God's requirement. William made the point that we are obligated to follow the laws of our land as long as they do not conflict with God's law. So your observation is right on point.

             You also wrote

             I know in the past I was told that the government (or a church) had no business legislating on the first tablet of the ten commandments, but could on the second tablet. Based on that principle, I feel the covid regulations were acceptable as they related to the sixth commandment (not taking life).

             I think we both agree that the government has no authority over a person's relationship with God, which is what the first table of the Decalogue addresses.

             Your second point illustrates why "the church" should be very reserved about making official statements on behaviors. You believe the vaccine mandate saved lives and therefore was legitimately enforced by government.
             Others believed that the mandate likely violated the commandment to preserve life (look after the body temple) and thus felt obligated to refuse the vaccine.

             This is not the place to argue the merits of either view, but the fact that the question is highly controversial and currently a subject of congressional investigation with plenty of testimony in favor of the second view (after the previous government actively promoted the first view and did not allow dissent) should remind us that the church's statement that

             claims of religious liberty are not used appropriately in objecting to government mandates or employer programs designed to protect the health and safety of their communities.

             should never have been made.

             You decided on the information available to you, and I believe God respects your choice. Others made decisions on the information/understanding available to them, and I believe God respects their choices. Either way, He does not necessarily interfere with the natural consequences of choices. (Just two examples of many: One member of our extended family died within days of receiving the vaccine, with blood clots throughout her body - a side effect of the vaccine well known to the manufacturers but not made clear to the public. Another member of the family lives today, in spite of a genetic
             disposition to excessive clotting, because he did not take the vaccine, with several doctors affirming, "You are alive because you did not take the vaccine.")

             You bring up some extreme "conscience" decisions and imply that maybe "the church" should make statements in such matters or interfere in some way in order to save lives. I respectfully disagree.

             I believe that in such situations, the official church can state that the choice of the people involved is not a church teaching on such issues. Full stop. Even in such extreme cases, "the church" must NOT issue an official statement that such individuals can not use "claims of religious liberty" in their defense. Such a statement would imply a) that "the church" can read minds and that "the church" has the authority to legislate matters of conscience.

             On the other hand, I believe that local church members have the responsibility to draw close to members who appear to be making a decision harmful to their family and do all in their power to persuade them to follow a life-saving course of action. They should counsel with them and pray with them, but they should not threaten them with expulsion from the congregation.

             Conflicts with civil laws are a matter for civil courts to decide, and I believe that "the church" must not interfere with the defense. For instance, the church has actively intervened in the defense of Muslims in the name of freedom of conscience, and I believe that was right, because complete freedom of conscience is a cornerstone of Adventist teaching.

             We are fast heading into a time when "the church" we identify as Babylon will speak authoritatively and have such authoritative statements enforced by the state. Let us not teach our members to follow official statements of "the church" - whichever church that might be.

             (3)

           • Christina, I want to address the statement you made:

             Maybe you're right, the church shouldn't have waded into the vaccine situation. But the church makes pronouncements on all sorts of things. We all do. If they made no pronouncements, there would be no rules, doctrines, anything. I can't see a church that functions that way working very well.

             You observe that "the church makes pronouncements on all sorts of things," and I disagree with the implication that this is the way it should be. Official statements are unfortunately treated as authoritative directives, and, in effect, that teaches people to look to "the church" for direction, rather than directly to God and His Word. Thus, I believe that most of the "official statements" our church has made are no better than the traditions that weighed down God's church at the time of Christ.

             In the comments, we can see how certain "official" or traditional positions have changed over time. Has God changed? If not, God's church shouldn't make "official statements" on such matters.

             You argue that without such statements we could not function as a church. I disagree.

             Our church was formed without such detailed statements. Despite our pioneers' reluctance to organize (fearing exactly what has happened), they did organize based on a core of mutually agreed-upon beliefs. Years later, these were formulated as official statements of "Fundamental Beliefs," officially subject to change.

             These beliefs are not supposed to be a "creed," but a mutually held set of beliefs that defines the boundaries of our fellowship. Those who believe differently should not be castigated as going to hell, but they cannot reasonably be part of our fellowship. This fellowship functions at the local-church level.

             I believe that the matter of how to put these mutually held beliefs into practice should be left to individual conscience. Members are free to counsel with each other in the local fellowship and thus shape the culture of the local church. They make mistakes, too, and these can be corrected—but not by some higher-level administrators. Christ made clear that positions of power should not be held by His followers. (Matthew 20:25-27)

             Under the guidance of God, our organizational structure was not intended to be a hierarchy, where "the top" makes pronouncements to be followed by the lower echelons. Instead, ours is supposed to be a bottom-up structure, in which the local membership has the ultimate say, not the General Conference. Unfortunately, my 65 years in "the church" have seen incremental changes to the Church Manual and "official statements" that have gradually siphoned more and more power to "the top." (For example, congregational power --> pastor --> conference --> union--> General Conference)

             We function somewhat like a democracy, but we are not a democracy. We are to listen to the Holy Spirit who guides God's church. When the Spirit leads members of the church, the vote of the membership becomes the voice of God. I think we can see how that can break down, but the breakdown is much easier when Satan only needs to capture the minds of a few leaders to turn the whole church off-course.

             (3)

5. Maranatha!
   I'm thinking of the admonition Jesus gave us in Mark12:17:
   Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him. Yep, our taxes are rendered before we have the opportunity to do it ourselves and are used for expenses we may not approve. Hopefully, we render unto God what is His cheerfully and on a regular basis.

   (1)

   Reply ↓

6. In a fallen world we are subjected to both just and unjust, moral and immoral, ethical and unethical laws. When a man-made law contradicts God's Law or biblical principles, we by necessity must refuse to obey those laws. Our first allegiance is to God before any earthly government. In these instances we must be like the apostles and declare our first allegiance. We must obey God, rather than man. Acts 5:29

   The greatest and most successful weapon the enemy has is fear. He uses fear to manipulate our responses. He will do it time and again because he has had so much success with it. Greater is he that is in me than he that is in the world. 1 John 4:4 Another great passage to combat the enemy's psyop of fear is Psalm 118:6-9. If we will be victorious in the final battle we must have faith in our Father, and not fear of the future. God hasn't given us a spirit of fear. 2 Tim 1:7 is a verse we should all commit to memory (among others).

   (9)

   Reply ↓

   • Tim, that is something that really confused me during the Covid shut down. People were telling me to stop wearing a mask and stop being afraid. I was never afraid. We need to be careful that we do not judge what people’s motives are.

     The three Hebrews did not go to the ceremony out of fear. They exhibited bravery.

     (13)

     Reply ↓

7. Tim, you are 100% correct in your last comment. Many people wore masks not because they were 'good citizens' obeying authorities but because they were afraid of catching Covid. Unfortunately, some of our churches leaders were proactive in shutting our church doors, even before the government asked them to do so (at least here in the UK). And some pastors went on the pulpit to tell their congregations to stock-pile masks, sanitisers, and food before the situation got worse. I had to contend with at least one pastor who tried it in my church. At the time the general conference president released a short video of encouragement for the Adventist Christians to be a beacon of hope and an anchor of stability when the world is crisis, some of our church leaders were making empty speeches of 'protecting one-self by wearing a mask or self-distancing!' It was sad to see the lack of faith in God's power to save and protect by us, so called Christians.

   As for me, I did not change my ways of life (just like Daniel). Most of the time I was outside the home, I was exercising - even the police that checked if people had masks on did not require me to have one because I was either running or cycling. When I went shopping, at times I was allowed inside without a mask and sometimes I was denied entry. When churches re-opened, I still went to church without a mask. How would I sing with a mask on? Why would anyone tell me how I should worship? To me, the wearing of masks had to be a personal choice not forced on people's consciences - my protection was in God and not in masks or authorities (they themselves had no clue about what they were dealing with anyway - and some of them did not even believe in what they were forcing people to do!).

   Yes, we should obey the authorities as long as we don't violate God's law and, for me, as long as they don't dictate my conscience. That was a smoke screen test. Something bigger is coming. Are we ready? Will we stand or fall?
   Let's have faith in God and not in man.

   (8)

   Reply ↓

8. Bravo to Pastor Earnhardt for a thoughtful, Bible-backed post. Please prayerfully consider the following, additional Bible verses on points that people have brought up, in the context of whether the Bible sometimes teaches us to disregard manmade laws — including, but not limited to, laws on public health and human rights.

   God commanded people to wear masks and to practice social distancing to stop an epidemic in the Bible, in Leviticus 13:45. So, wearing masks and social distancing during the Covid-19 pandemic was both reasonable and consistent with the Bible, including the Bible’s command, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers [government officials] … For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” Romans 13:1-5.

   When God told people in Leviticus to wear masks and to socially distance, there was no "medical evidence" from worldly doctors to explain why God's commands were necessary, yet -- when modern, educated people look back -- many of us realize that wearing masks and socially distancing was a "common sense" way to avoid spreading germs, both in Biblical times and during the Covid pandemic.

   But, unfortunately, many church leaders and their parishioners needlessly died of Covid-19 after ridiculing and defying government-mandated precautions that had Biblical precedents. And most of those church leaders and parishioners never read what God's Bible says about how masks and social distancing help stop disease.

   Thus, church members who emphasize the “health message” arguably should have been at the forefront of proclaiming God’s simple, natural, Biblical remedies for preventing the spread of an epidemic -- masking and social distancing from Leviticus 13:45, and hand-washing and other hygiene from Leviticus 11 and 15. Health laws of the Old Testament are still useful today because, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, that the man [or woman] of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped for all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

   As Pastor Earnhardt correctly pointed out, Romans 13 tells us to obey human laws that do not conflict with God's word, but when civil laws directly contradict God's word, then peaceful, civil disobedience is appropriate, as in Acts 5:29.

   (15)

   Reply ↓

   • Thanks for referring to the scripture. I hope that settles it. We were fortunate to have physicians in our congregation who encouraged us in wearing masks. I believe their advice was very helpful. We did not close our church be we kept our church services in our parking lot and maintained safe distances. Some of our members especially those with health challenges stayed away but joined by radio/other media. Some of my other family and friends whose churches were closed attended our church in the parking lot. We asked our members to follow the mandate, and they did. It is my belief those mandate saved lives.

     (4)

     Reply ↓

   • The trouble with C-19 was that there was compelling evidence on both sides of mask wearing and social distancing. On both sides there were medical professional, researchers and PhD’s of whom many cautioned adverse effects of masking, especially children. When one looks deeper - the fact that people were secluded and were dying alone due to mandates - does it justify it? I completely understand the belief that distancing and masking saves lives, but there were plenty of medical professionals stating that the virus is way to small that the mask would stop it from spreading. My point is that the biblical example you have is totally appropriate for a disease such as leprosy, of course. Now we have plenty of evidence that masking and distancing did not really stop the spread. In any case agreeing to disagree and avoid antagonism is something that’s a real issue, beyond Covid.

     (0)

     Reply ↓

9. Although I took my COVID-19 vaccines and am a proponent of health policies, I am sure that people have the right to question policies, such as vaccines and face masks. Overall, I am not sure this is the right forum to discuss the C-19 hits and misses of the church. This is unwise.

   Elder Earnhardt, what is concerning is the undertone of your sentence, "Peter did not teach us to violate civil law just for the sake of demanding our rights."
   1 - Of course, Peter would not, as even Paul (1 Thessalonians) thought that the second coming would happen within their generation's lifetime.
   2 - Even though you are a white man, I expected you to understand the value of human rights for those who are not in the social majority. Would you oppose the idea that Jesus advocated for human rights?
   3 - Was the US Civil Rights Movement against that hierarchy set by God? Was the French Revolution, that granted rights to the Protestants, against God's law? Does your "god" condone the oppression of the vulnerable by the powerful? If *it* does, I would want to meet *it*?
   4 - What is the male version for "Karen" again?

   (1)

   Reply ↓

   • Hi Clarisse everyone should have equal rights, my article is not about every-day civil rights, but about last day events the persecution all Christians will experience. In Acts 22:25 Paul was simply claiming the same rights as every other Roman citizen. Every citizen should have the same rights as other citizens. But Jesus also taught in the sermon on the mount to go the extra mile. Yes I am white but my only right as a Christian is to pick up my cross and go die with Jesus. That has nothing to do with the color of my skin. That has to do with me being a follower of Christ.

     (8)

     Reply ↓

   • Clarisse, for me I feel it is right to fight for the rights of others. I am less inclined to feel that I should fight for my own rights (of course there may be overlap). The Bible has a lot to say about standing up for the oppressed in society (widows, orphans, foreigners...) But as individuals, Jesus urged us to turn the other cheek. In an ideal world, everyone would be sticking up for everyone and there would be no injustice.

     It's not wrong to take advantages of the rights we have in society. But when we go down the path of demanding our own rights, it's easy to get corrupted by the dark side and act in unrighteous ways. Oppressed people can become monsters in their own ways and I think God wants to protect us from that risk.

     (7)

     Reply ↓

     • Thank you, Christina. These are my thoughts exactly.

       (0)

       Reply ↓

Please make sure you have provided a full name in the "Name" field and a working email address we can use to contact you, if necessary. (Your email address will not be published.)

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>