Church Services Enforcement

I've been hoping some LE types would stand up and say something to the effect of: Ya know, as this was starting, we knew nothing and what we did know changed every day, so we went along with it. The edicts we are asked to enforce now are confusing at best, raw politics at worst, and we shall default to the Constitution and our oath. Have a Nice Day.
 
Last edited:
Just saw on the news that some Sheriff's in NC have decided that they will NOT enforce Gov cooper's orders for worship services to be Limited to 10 people since Phase 1 has started in NC. To them I say Good Job and Bless you. So Onward Christian Soldiers !!!
Bet that don’t include Wake or Durham County ...
 
Curious what you guys think of Romans 13.....

The Constitution is the highest law we have and anything that contradicts it stands to be ignored quite compatibly with Romans 13.

Start with the freedom of speech, travel, assembly, etc etc.
 
Just saw on the news that some Sheriff's in NC have decided that they will NOT enforce Gov cooper's orders for worship services to be Limited to 10 people since Phase 1 has started in NC. To them I say Good Job and Bless you. So Onward Christian Soldiers !!!
Them I say, what took yall so long
 
This 10 people max has to be the stupidest thing ever. Some churches have maybe 100 seats and some 1000 so how does 10 max make sense.
 
I don’t see this being widely enforced... I’ll grab some popcorn for those foolish enough to try.
 
I think the reason Ole Roy is picking on Churches is because most of these people didn't vote for him.

I believe this is a true violation of our rights to basically single out Churches. They want a separation between Church and state, so why does the state have any right or domain there?
 
I swear I was honestly shocked that people were standing with guns in front of hair salons before they were standing in front of churches.

Most of Christianity is not made up of pacifists and since they can reconcile themselves with serving in the military and going to war I honestly thought they would side with the constitution and their right to worship as they saw fit.
 
I swear I was honestly shocked that people were standing with guns in front of hair salons before they were standing in front of churches.

Most of Christianity is not made up of pacifists and since they can reconcile themselves with serving in the military and going to war I honestly thought they would side with the constitution and their right to worship as they saw fit.

I thought about this a bit, but there were a few things I personally noticed:

Most churches I am involved with were able to quickly alter their service structure to accommodate the rules put in place. So we never had a real cessation of services. Some churches went to virtual online sermons, some like ours continued to meet, but did so in the parking lot with people still in their cars distances apart. Many of the pastors (myself included) posted sermons and videos online or on our church social media sites.

Also, most of the more conservative churches that I know of personally are in areas where the local LEO weren’t going to be policing them anyway. Whether it’s because they thought the rules were silly, or they knew they were messing with the exact type of constitutionalist that would shoot back.

There is also the matter of church leadership being involved. The church I am part of refused to close, and me and the head pastor were willing to be arrested if the LEO had an issue with our “altered service arrangements”. But we also recognized that the vast majority of our members would follow our lead. So we had to keep them in mind. At first, when we >really< didn’t know if the KungFlu was going to be as bad as they said it could be, none of us wanted to risk the lives of our members. So we were willing to postpone a few things until we knew more. Then, when things seemed to be flattening out we recognized that we were still achieving the mission of the church (preaching the gospel, serving the community, and providing a place of fellowship), so there was no need to further endanger our parishioners by forcing the LEOs hands.

I will, however, say that this patience is growing thinner week by week.

Now, compare this to a business: if they don’t open, they don’t eat. Their central mission is profit, they cannot achieve that while closed. A church, whose central mission is saving souls and serving the community can.

And finally, as weakly mentioned above in a “pick and choose” manner, there is biblical directives to respect the law of the land as long as it doesn’t directly go against Gods word or grossly impact the goals of the church. Which again leads to the “patience was/is growing thin” as more and more churches are realizing that it is becoming less about safety and more about state control.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I thought about this a bit, but there were a few things I personally noticed:

Most churches I am involved with were able to quickly alter their service structure to accommodate the rules put in place. So we never had a real cessation of services. Some churches went to virtual online sermons, some like ours continued to meet, but did so in the parking lot with people still in their cars distances apart. Many of the pastors (myself included) posted sermons and videos online or on our church social media sites.

Also, most of the more conservative churches that I know of personally are in areas where the local LEO weren’t going to be policing them anyway. Whether it’s because they thought the rules were silly, or they knew they were messing with the exact type of constitutionalist that would shoot back.

There is also the matter of church leadership being involved. The church I am part of refused to close, and me and the head pastor were willing to be arrested if the LEO had an issue with our “altered service arrangements”. But we also recognized that the vast majority of our members would follow our lead. So we had to keep them in mind. At first, when we >really< didn’t know if the KungFlu was going to be as bad as they said it could be, none of us wanted to risk the lives of our members. So we were willing to postpone a few things until we knew more. Then, when things seemed to be flattening out we recognized that we were still achieving the mission of the church (preaching the gospel, serving the community, and providing a place of fellowship), so there was no need to further endanger our parishioners by forcing the LEOs hands.

I will, however, say that this patience is growing thinner week by week.

Now, compare this to a business: if they don’t open, they don’t eat. Their central mission is profit, they cannot achieve that while closed. A church, whose central mission is saving souls and serving the community can.

And finally, as weakly mentioned above in a “pick and choose” manner, there is biblical directives to respect the law of the land as long as it doesn’t directly go against Gods word or grossly impact the goals of the church. Which again leads to the “patience was/is growing thin” as more and more churches are realizing that it is becoming less about safety and more about state control.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thats an excellent post you got there Alex.
 
Thats an excellent post you got there Alex.

giphy.gif



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Acts 4 and 5, in context, are specifically talking about persecution. If the governor had said "mosques can meet but churches can't because there is only Allah", then we could ignore Romans, but this isn't persecution.

Hebrews, again in context refers to "forsaking" assembling together, which means skipping church because you want to go fishing. It is not referring to persecution or not meeting together because of a pandemic.

Don't forget Paul was saying this about the government(s) that had beaten, imprisoned, and executed Christians. To Christians in Rome, the center of that government. And ultimately the government that would imprison and execute him.

Ok


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I’ve noticed that many churches have utilized technology effectively to deliver worship services to parishioners stuck at home, which is especially important to vulnerable members of the congregation who would be vulnerable to COVID.

However, there are segments of the populace who have not had significant interaction with their churches. A lot of clinic patients of mine really fumble with technology and feel isolated-they may prefer the fellowship of their congregation. They are well within their God-given rights to worship as they please.

Having dealt with this virus in the hospital from the outset, I really think attending church is no less dangerous than going to Walmart or the ABC store, or a marijuana dispensary. Biggest risks are patients with obesity, diabetes, hypertension, or immune compromise. Those that fear the virus can stay home. Otherwise, people are free to choose...especially since churches can be left to sensibly provide precautions.

I’m personally very tired of people like Roy Cooper and “Dr” Mandy Cohen-who lacks a NC medical license-dictating the terms of our lives. Their motives are not pure, and they have weaponized economic misery for political gain. I fear tin pot dictators more than any infectious disease. I’d rather die from COVID than watch my kids face economic ruin.
 
From my point of view it seems pretty straightforward and very similar to the choices churches have to make whenever it snows. The people most at risk of contracting and actually dying from The 'Rona are the same ones who are absolutely determined to be in church every time the doors are open. The people who aren't in the at-risk group are the ones looking for any reason to skip church.

The only way to stop the people who seriously need to isolate themselves from breaking their isolation to come to church is to close the church. Model Gunch the 99 year old widow who hasn't missed a sunday in 50 years doesn't have any more business being out going to church during a pandemic than she has driving in a snow storm. But she would do both without question unless the church was closed.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk
 
Quoting Romans 13 as an absolute and unquestionable command to follow the edicts of government is intellectually lazy and displays a shallow understanding of the Bible as a whole and that passage in particular.

Indeed, that would hypothetically be true. However, in complete objective fairness, this is how Romans 13 was referenced:
Curious what you guys think of Romans 13.....

It would be equally intellectually lazy to misconstrue what is clearly an open query as quoting it as an absolute command. Whatever it's intent or purpose, the question itself isn't negatively suggestive on it's face.
 
I didn't say it was unquestionable. In fact, I said in the face of actual persecution, obviously it wouldn't apply.
When asking what a passage means, we have to use the analogy of faith, meaning scripture interprets scripture. As best I can determine based on the full scope of the commands given in scripture, what is happening now is not persecution, nor is disobeying it good or pleasing to God, and whatever the "sword"- whatever punishment people receive for disobeying it, is warranted.
I think your trade may be influencing your interpretation of scripture here, brother.
 
Our own government has ignored the US Constitution which I would view as the government Paul instructed us to obey.

Which whim are we to follow? The one that is foundational to this great country, or the one that the current occupant of the governor's mansion dictated.
 
I honestly don't think this argument is a 100% answer to my original question, as a government has the right to change it's own laws.

That's why the Constitution has amendments, but it's still the highest law in this land and any contradictory law is invalid until such time as an amendment renders it valid.

You can argue anything you want, nobody's denying the authority or validity of scripture, just the validity and authority of those miscreants who are violating the Constitution at every opportunity.

Our government (Ceasar) is by the people for the people, anything else is an imposter.
 
Last edited:
That's why the Constitution has amendments, but it's still the highest law in this land and any contradictory law is invalid until such time as an amendment renders it valid.

You can argue anything you want, nobody's denying the authority or validity of scripture, just the validity and authority of those miscreants who are violating the Constitution at every opportunity.

Our government (Ceasar) is by the people for the people, anything else is an imposter.

While a Christian will not dispute the sanctity and validity of scripture, they are more than capable of discernment when it comes to the behaviors of their “rulers”. The Bible itself it filled with defiance of governmental authority based on righteous purposes. From Moses defying the Pharaoh to Peter and John defying the orders not to preach in Acts. The true question isn’t whether or not Christians are allowed to ever be vocally disobedient, it is whether the Christians doing it feel they are serving God but doing so, or their own vanity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
While a Christian will not dispute the sanctity and validity of scripture, they are more than capable of discernment when it comes to the behaviors of their “rulers”. The Bible itself it filled with defiance of governmental authority based on righteous purposes. From Moses defying the Pharaoh to Peter and John defying the orders not to preach in Acts. The true question isn’t whether or not Christians are allowed to ever be vocally disobedient, it is whether the Christians doing it feel they are serving God but doing so, or their own vanity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Couldn't agree more, sir.
 
Back
Top Bottom