A Statement on My Recommendation to Grace Baptist Church of Granite City Regarding the Madison County Health Board’s Decision to Reopen Madison County in Defiance of J.B. Pritzker’s “Stay at Home” Mandate.

By Daniel Wilson

Dear beloved,

Below is my perspective on the recent events that surround the decision of the Madison County health board that was made on Tuesday May 12, 2020, to reopen many businesses, organizations, and churches in Madison county. This decision is quite progressive in comparison with the governor’s mandate for the state. I feel that as your pastor, it is my obligation to communicate a Biblical perspective during these confusing times, and I perceive this statement as a teaching opportunity. As I have looked over and researched this issue, I have carried a tremendous burden regarding what action to recommend for our church family. I was initially under the impression that the governor was transferring authority to the counties for reopening as they saw fit, and eventually, that may be the case, but it has not been transferred yet. You may recall that I communicated this perspective on Sunday morning, May 10. I was incorrect in this assertion. Nevertheless, due to the decision of Madison County, some churches are going to begin having onsite services, while others are going to continue to follow the governor’s mandate. I have had the opportunity to interact with many of the pastors in our association, and I want to express my gratitude for the Deacons and Church Council members who also interacted with me on this issue.

Here is a bullet list of legal and health issues that I think will help you to understand my research on this topic to this point. 

• The Madison County Health board’s decision is recognized by all parties as in defiance of Governor J.B. Pritzker’s mandate to shelter in place through May. The governor has stated that counties which take action against the mandate would be breaking the law, and the governor’s mandate has already been upheld as constitutional by two U.S. District Court Judges: John Lee and Robert Gettleman respectively. Further, I have contacted the governor’s office directly and spoken with them about the Madison County decision, and our town of Granite City has also chosen to continue following the governor’s mandate. (see: https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/madison-county-illinois-to-vote-reopening/63-d7a18ea8-c083-4f3c-b8ab-4e2d21a9fae9?fbclid=IwAR2DPatAPNWt0wkHU7VWo3oEiC0z_XaLToAHJ27n8JUJCtSglxLUNRY6-8s and https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/497736-judge-denies-two-churches-challenging-illinois-stay-at-home-order  and https://chicago.suntimes.com/coronavirus/2020/5/3/21245936/stay-at-home-order-constitutional-us-district-court-john-lee-beloved-church-lena-illinois and see also https://www.taftlaw.com/news-events/law-bulletins/mutiny-in-the-counties-illinois-divided-over-governors-extended-stay-at-home-order )

• One argument claims that Illinois counties should make the call about issues (such as reopening) during a pandemic. This may be a good argument, and I would be interested in seeing the research. However, it appears that this argument is debatable from a constitutional standpoint, and therefore should be determined in a court of law. Once again, the governor’s rule has been determined constitutional by two U.S. District Court judges on two different occasions, and other experts have also affirmed the constitutionality of the governor’s mandate such as Ann Lousin (a law professor at the University of Chicago, former parliamentarian, and staff of the 1970 Illinois Constitutional Convention), which would be a good representative of a legislative perspective. (see: https://will.illinois.edu/21stshow/story/perspective-are-illinois-stay-at-home-orders-constitutional )

• From a local perspective, the Madison County’s states attorney agrees that the court is the arena in which a dispute involving the governor’s mandate and the county’s argument should be determined. In a conversation that I had with Tom Gibbons, who is the highest law enforcement officer in Madison County, Gibbons communicated that the decision of the Madison County health board, which occurred on Tuesday May 12, simply reveals the “county’s wishes and desires but has no legal authority.” The decision of the board basically communicated to the businesses and organizations in the area that the county will not take action against them as long as they follow the safety protocols that the county has set in place. When asked if that meant that the ultimate authority still resides with the governor and his “stay at home” order, Mr. Gibbons responded in the affirmative. He further communicated that according to our justice system, the governor’s mandate stands until it is overturned in a court of law.

• I contacted Grace’s insurance company, Brotherhood Mutual. During our conversation, Amber Kolbeck, a company representative, communicated that Brotherhood recognizes the higher authority as the state. Ms. Kolbeck recommended continuing to follow the governor’s mandate. Otherwise, Grace may be held liable.

• Beyond all these legal issues, the health concerns surrounding COVID 19 are still very valid, and the safety of Grace’s congregation needs to be taken into consideration. Further, great concern is felt for those who are experiencing economic hardship because of the pandemic.

On a personal level, I would love to start on-site services at the church, but I cannot recommend such a course of action at this time for several reasons. In consideration of the points above, I care very much for the safety and financial well-being of our flock and would not want Grace to be liable or negligent in relation to our insurance company. However, I believe the most prominent issue that we should consider relates to the Biblical argument of submitting to the governing authorities. 

Biblical and practical issues for following the governor’s mandate:

• Romans 13:1-7 clearly communicates that we are to be subject to the governing authorities.

• 1 Peter 2:13-18 communicates that we are to be in subjection to such authority even if the leadership seems to be “unreasonable.” Therefore, whether we agree with the mandate or not, we are to adhere to the authoritative ruling if it does not contradict God’s Word or require us to disobey a Biblical principle.

• 1 Peter 2:15-16 speaks to how living in such subjection to the governing authorities evokes a witness to the surrounding community. With such a submissive attitude we appear as ”lights in the world” (Phil 2:14); we continue to “be at peace with all men” (Rom 12:18); we show that we follow Biblical principles as “the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15); and we adorn the gospel of Christ (Titus 2:10).

• Regarding an implication that touches this issue, the Scriptures teach a very specific methodology for conflict resolution in the church (Matt 18:15-17). Grace follows this manner as outlined in our governmental polity of the constitution. Further, God has called us to do all things “decently and in order” (1 Cor 14:40). If we fail to follow the correct process of secular conflict resolution which would flow through the court system as outlined in the polity of our state, how can we expect our own conflict resolution to be followed in an orderly manner?

The following section is a series of questions that have arisen recently, mostly from various conversations that I have experienced over these Biblical truths:

• Question: Aren’t these governing authorities supposed to promote good and not evil? Response: That is correct. In 1 Peter 2:14, it states that these governing authorities are “to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.” This is a general statement that relates to these governing authorities as a “minister” or “servant” of God for good (Romans 13:4). Our governor has repeatedly stated that his motivation for the “stay at home” mandate is the safety of his constituents. He claims to follow the advice of scientific experts, and whether we agree or disagree with these “experts” is not really the main issue. The Bible communicates that part of the function of governmental leaders is protection of the weak (Ps 82:2-4), which seems to be a motivation that would fall into the category of “good.” Now, we know that some governing authorities promote things that are not good, such as Herod who was rebuked by John the Baptist for his “evil things” (Luke 3:19), or Nebuchadnezzar who was told by Daniel to “Break off your sins by practicing righteousness” (Dan 4:27), or the many kings of Israel who “did what was evil in the sight of the Lord” (1 Kings 11:6), or Nero, who was the Roman emperor during the writing of Peter’s first epistle. Those ancient leaders like leaders today do not always promote Biblical principles. Some leaders today even promote the legalization of marijuana, an aggressive abortion agenda, and do not support an agenda for the Biblical description of marriage. However, just because a secular ruler promotes unbiblical practices in some parts of his agenda, this does not mean that we can defy other mandates that he has regulated if they do not contradict the principles of God’s Word. When such principles do contradict God’s Word, then we respond as Peter did, claiming that we must obey God rather than men (Acts 4:19; 5:29), or as Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego who did not worship the golden statue (Dan 3:18), or as the Hebrew midwives who defied Pharaoh’s command to kill the Hebrew newborn baby boys (Ex 1:17;21), or Daniel who disobeyed the kings edict and continued to pray to the one true God (Dan 6;10), or the Magi who disobeyed Herod’s command by failing to return by way of the king and divulge the location of the newborn baby Jesus (Matt 2: 8; 12). Brothers, as far as I can tell, the principles in the governor’s mandate do not oppose Biblical precepts. Further, if we choose to defy the government on issues of non-Biblical status, then when the time comes to defy the government on principles of Biblical truth, the potency of our stand will have been compromised.

• Question: What if the governing official disobeys his own rule or regulation? Response: My friend, if a governing official does not obey his own rule or regulation, he definitely is not depicting a good example for his constituents, but this would not make disobeying the regulation or rule permissible. It was Jesus, our Lord, who told his disciples to obey the religious leaders like the scribes and Pharisees who were in positions of authority such as the “seat of Moses,” but they were not to follow their negative examples. Yes, the scribes and Pharisees were hypocrites, but even in this hypocrisy, Jesus did not allow the disciples to disobey their authority (Matt 23:1-4).

• Question: On a practical note, didn’t our country begin when our forefathers defied the authority of King George III? Response: The answer is yes, and I admittedly question the ethics of their defiance. However, this issue really is beside the point. Reflecting on the view of John Calvin, Wayne Grudem states in his Politics According to the Bible, “The reason that a number of early Americans thought it was justified to rebel against the British monarchy is that it is morally right for a lower government official to protect the citizens in his care from a higher official who is committing crimes against these citizens” (Grudem. Politics, 89; Calvin. Institutes, 4.20.31). Therefore, to protect from tyrants arising in our government, these forefathers implemented a system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. It then appears that the correct challenge to the governor’s mandate by our county health board should have come in the form of a lawsuit, which was actually considered but ultimately rejected by the board during a meeting that occurred four days before the decision made on May 12. (See the above issue on conflict resolution, my discussion with Tom Gibbons and https://www.thetelegraph.com/news/article/Madison-County-officials-look-poised-to-defy-15257931.php )

• Question: The Madison County health board thinks it is permissible for Grace to go ahead and meet, though at a reduced capacity. And if Madison County communicated that they would not take action against us if we safely start to congregate, then why can’t we go ahead and meet? Response: Our town, Granite City, has encouraged its citizens to continue following the Governor’s mandate. On a Biblical level, consider the story of David at the cave of Engedi. Saul, the current king who was outside the will of God, was pursuing David for an unjust reason. While Saul was relieving himself in a cave, David had a chance to kill him. David’s men encouraged David to go ahead and take Saul’s life, reminding Him that the Lord said He would give David’s enemy into His hand. However, David knew that this was not what God meant, replying “The Lord forbid that I should do this thing to my lord, the Lord’s anointed, to put out my hand against him, seeing he is the Lord’s anointed.” David had the promise that one day he would be king, and the suffering under the hands of godless King Saul would end, but this was not that day. David knew that God was sovereign over Saul and his reign, and so David chose to wait on God instead of taking things into his own hands to speed up the process (1 Sam 24, Ps 37:34). We also wish that the process of reopening would speed up, and it is tempting to know that the county will not act against those churches that start to meet. But in submitting to the higher secular authority, the governor, and his plan of reopening, we are ultimately submitting to God and His plan.

I know some of you may feel differently. And I want you to know that I respect your opinions, as I respected the differing opinions of some of the pastors that I spoke with in our association meeting over this topic. I am not a lawyer, and I have much to learn about civic controversies. However, I know that I personally could not conscientiously do anything that I feel would violate God’s Word, whether I agree with the governor’s position or not. And I believe that reopening our onsite services while the governor’s “stay at home” mandate is in place would do just that. Once again, I am speaking from a standpoint of personal conviction, knowing that not everyone will have the same conviction as I do. I invite you to call me if you have any questions about the above statement. As your pastor, I am open to discussion and dialogue regarding these issues. Thank you for taking the time to read this statement.

In Christ, 

Pastor Daniel