One of the struggles that emerged from the Protestant Reformation was the battle over authority. The Catholic Church vested—and continues to vest—equal authority in Scripture, tradition, and the magisterium (the teaching authority of the church). In Catholic thought, these three sources of authority serve as a three-legged stool, with no one source more important than any other.
The Protestant Reformers countered this three-legged stool with the rallying cry of “Sola Scriptura.” They believed that authority in matters of faith and practice is derived ultimately from Scripture. There may be other authorities in the Christian life, but all other authorities are subservient to the authority of Scripture when it comes to matters of faith and practice.
As the Reformation progressed, several prominent traditions emerged. Among these, were Presbyterianism and Anglicanism, which each had their own ecclesiological hierarchical structures, though each recognised the ultimate authority of Scripture. Congregationalist churches, on the other hand, recognised the local congregation, under the lordship of Jesus Christ as mediated through the Scriptures, as the highest governing authority for the church. While Protestants shared opposition to papal authority, Congregationalists further objected to the hierarchical structure of presbyteries and episcopates. They insisted that, while the local church should be led by qualified, called elders, it should be governed by the congregation itself.
Baptist and baptistic churches stand in the tradition of the Protestant Congregationalists. Faithful Baptist and baptistic churches are concerned about rightly appointed and functioning leadership but value the autonomy of the local church.
Against this backdrop, it has been strange in recent times to see a practical undermining of this principle in some corners of the evangelical world. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was disappointing to see church leaders pass judgement on one another because of differing opinions over how churches should respond to government mandates. Rather than allowing for differing convictions and responses, some prominent church leaders appeared to take the view that their response was the correct response and all faithful churches should follow suit. And while we might wish to think that COVID-19 is behind us, these judgements have sadly not abated.
Grace Productions, a ministry of Grace Community Church in California, recently produced a documentary film called The Essential Church. Riding the back of the COVID-19 pandemic, the film “explores the struggle between church and government throughout history.” The film’s title is a play on the pandemic restrictions, during which, in many countries, churches remained closed while “essential” services were opened. “The church is essential,” argues the film, and its “stand remains true from a scientific, legal, and, most importantly, biblical perspective.”
I was struck most starkly (and disappointingly) by John MacArthur’s speech at the film’s premier, in which he said, at one point, “I wanted some pastors and leaders to see this and feel guilty.” He reiterated this goal in a later interview with Justin Peters. When Peters asked him to explain his heart behind that sentiment, he said that to suspend church services in keeping with health regulations is to deny that Jesus is the head of the church.
While I appreciate some of MacArthur’s concerns around the pandemic regulations (for example, the prohibition against visiting ill church members in hospital), I find his insistence that his way was only one way to respond to government regulations disconcerting. The elders of Grace Community Church led their church in noncompliance to government regulations. I have no issue with the way that church’s elders led that congregation. But, as far as MacArthur is concerned, their way was the only faithful way for all pastors to lead all congregations. Pastors who led their congregations differently should feel “guilty.”
It strikes me as virtually papal to declare that pastors of other churches, who chose to lead their congregations differently, should feel guilty about their leadership in that period. Grace Community Church’s statement of faith states affirmation of “the autonomy of the local church, free from any external authority or control, with the right of self-government and freedom from the interference of any hierarchy of individuals or organizations.” Seemingly, this autonomy does not extend to elders leading their flocks in responding to government mandates in global pandemics. Grace Community Church’s way was the only faithful way to respond, and elders who, after wrestling with the Scriptures and in prayer, led differently should feel guilty because, evidently, they sinned.
If it seems that I am overstating the case, consider the concept of guilt in Scripture, which is inextricably linked to sin. The Holman Bible Dictionary describes guilt as “a sense of shame at personal wrongdoing.” Guilt “exists,” it says, “because one has done something forbidden or failed to do something that was required.” Perhaps more accurately, guilt is less about “a sense” or feeling of shame and more about an objective standing before God because of sin. Sinners are guilty before God whether they feel like it or not. The fact that you do not feel guilty does not change the fact that you are guilty in your sin. To bear guilt, therefore, is to reckon with the reality that you have sinned.
We see this worked out, for example, in Leviticus 4, where God lays out the laws for sin offerings. An “anointed priest who sins” brings “guilt” on the congregation (v. 3). The entire congregation might “sin unintentionally” by transgressing “any one of the things that by the LORD’s commandments ought not to be done” and thereby bring “guilt” upon itself (v. 13). A leader might unintentionally sin and later realise his “guilt” (v. 22), as might one of “the common people” (v. 27). Throughout this chapter—and throughout Scripture—guilt is the result of sin. To suggest that pastors should feel guilty after watching The Essential Church is to suggest that pastors who did not do things the way that the film promotes were sinning.
But what happened to the autonomy of the local church, “free from any external authority or control, with the right of self-government and freedom from the interference of any hierarchy of individuals or organizations”? Has Grace Community Church become the standard by which sin is assessed? Has John MacArthur become the evangelical pope, with authority, even in the absence of clear scriptural precedent, to tell others that they have sinned?
During the pandemic, elders of local churches needed to wrestle with Scripture and in prayer about the right way to respond to government mandates in the context of their local church. As MacArthur would have us think about it, there was nothing to wrestle with at all. It was clear cut across the board for all local churches everywhere. To submit to government restrictions was sin and pastors who led their churches in that way should feel guilty about it. And, feeling guilty, they should (presumably) repent.
I have a great deal of respect for John MacArthur and his decades-long ministry. I have no qualms with the way that he and his elders chose to lead their church through the pandemic. But I hesitate to think that church leaders who prayerfully chose a different response were in sin and should therefore feel guilty.
I suppose it is possible that some pastors were sinfully motivated to follow government restrictions, but I am weary of pastors who insist that there was only one faithful way to respond to lockdown mandates. Such declarations strike me as far more papal than evangelical Protestantism should be comfortable with. It is perhaps time to remind ourselves of the principles of sola Scriptura and the autonomy of the local church and to cease casting unjustified judgement on faithful pastors and churches who do not share our minutest convictions.