The question of whether closing churches is an appropriate response to a pandemic is a complex one that requires careful biblical reflection. On one hand, gathering for corporate worship is a sacred duty for Christians and an act commanded by Scripture (Hebrews 10:25). However, the Bible also teaches Christians to submit to governing authorities (Romans 13:1-7) and to act in love towards our neighbor (Mark 12:31). In a pandemic, efforts to limit the spread of disease by avoiding large gatherings, including suspending in-person church services, could be seen as a legitimate exercise of state authority and a way to protect the vulnerable. Yet totally prohibiting church gatherings may cross the line into interference with religious freedom. There are good-faith arguments on both sides of this issue.
In thinking through this biblically, several key principles emerge. First, Christians’ ultimate loyalty is to Jesus Christ, not to the institutional church (Acts 5:29). Gathering physically is not required for worshiping God, since He is omnipresent. Second, protecting human life is a paramount concern. The Bible consistently upholds the sanctity of life (Genesis 9:6; Exodus 20:13; Psalm 139:13-16). If suspending gatherings can reasonably prevent deaths, that is a weighty consideration. However, third, considerations like economic impact and mental health consequences of long-term shutdowns are also biblically valid factors that leaders must weigh. Loneliness takes a real toll (Genesis 2:18; Hebrews 13:1-3). Fourth, creativity in enabling worship despite restrictions is warranted, whether through small gatherings, online services, or other means. The early church met in homes (Romans 16:5). Fifth, Christians should reject fear-based reactions or knee-jerk defenses of church authority, instead evaluating restrictions calmly and reasonably (Proverbs 14:29; Philippians 4:5).
Applying these principles, several key questions emerge:
- What is the actual, documented risk of COVID-19 transmission in the particular church context? Rural churches may warrant different treatment than urban megachurches.
- Are restrictions narrowly tailored? Banning all religious gatherings indefinitely is harder to justify than limiting crowd sizes or requiring masks/distancing.
- Have churches been unfairly singled out compared to secular gatherings?
- Have less restrictive means been tried first, like wearing masks and sanitizing?
- Are exemptions available for especially crucial pastoral needs like funerals?
- Is the church community taking reasonable voluntary steps to limit risk?
Additionally, restrictions should be applied equitably to protests and political rallies, not just to churches. And allowing liquor stores or abortion clinics to operate while closing churches appears morally inconsistent.
In Acts 5, when the apostles were forbidden to preach, they continued to do so, accepting the consequences. However, they were proclaiming the gospel message on which people’s salvation depended, not maintaining a particular mode of gathering. Online preaching may still reach people in a shutdown. And they exemplified respectful civil disobedience, not hostile resistance.
Romans 13 teaches obeying governing authorities, but this instruction assumes authorities are not asking believers to violate God’s commands. Most scholars believe Romans 13 refers primarily to submitting to punishment when disobeying laws that contravene biblical principles, not obeying immoral laws themselves. Still, Christians should exercise patient endurance rather than aggressive legal challenges when facing restrictions, exhibiting faith in God’s sovereignty (Romans 8:28).
Biblically, much depends on whether restrictions represent mere temporary precautions or indefinite bans. As 1 Corinthians 7:29-31 explains, normal activities continue amid difficulties, but with shifted priorities and perspective to account for the surrounding trials. This counsel likely applies to pandemics. Short-term precautions enable maintaining a long-term ministry (Luke 14:28-30). However, open-ended bans raise religious freedom concerns.
In assessing restrictions, churches should consider medical evidence, not just complaints about inconvenience. Love fulfills God’s law (Romans 13:10), so protecting others through temporary measures is arguably obedience to the second greatest commandment (Matthew 22:39). But restrictions must balance multiple priorities rather than focusing only on health. And if shutdowns persist indefinitely without evidence of their necessity, responsibilities to gather could outweigh safety concerns.
The example of the early church is instructive. Christians worshipped in homes when necessary but moved to public spaces like Solomon’s Colonnade when possible (Acts 3:11). Church is fundamentally about people more than places. But places facilitate people’s spiritual health. Wise leaders prayerfully determine when the people of God need to meet corporately despite risks or government restrictions.
In conclusion, church closings require careful, contextual analysis in light of basic biblical principles. Seeking the common good, protecting lives, and respecting authority suggests accepting reasonable temporary restrictions during public health crises. However, open-ended bans that substantially burden religious practice may go beyond necessity and warrant pushback or creative workarounds. Given the key role of corporate worship in Christian life, churches and officials should strive to allow responsible gatherings to the extent possible.