What Churches Should Do When Civil Authorities Restrict Their Assemblies

The COVID-19 pandemic presented unique challenges for communities worldwide, including communities of faith in the United States. Among other things, it led to the first modern circumstances where churches faced substantial limitations on their ability to assemble on the first day of each week as Christians have done for two millennia. This was perhaps the only time most Christians today seriously considered how they should respond to government restrictions on such a fundamental aspect of their identities as Jesus's disciples. In the United States, responses were varied and sometimes spurred by heightened suspicion that civil authorities intended to use the pandemic as an excuse to circumscribe religious liberties perpetually.

This brief article does not purport to resolve the manifold dilemmas created by restrictions on religious assemblies in their various complexities. It does, however, highlight essential principles Christians should consider while working through future constraints they might face on their freedom to assemble, whether or not the limitations are related to a global health crisis. There may be occasions where religious groups defy civil orders that completely and indefinitely prohibit them from publicly gathering to worship. However, Christians should remember that governments legitimately regulate assemblies of all kinds, including religious gatherings, and the need for tighter controls is often greater in exigent circumstances. Before defying civil authorities, Christians in the United States, especially, should seek redress through the courts.

The Importance of Christian Assemblies

Assemblies of local congregations have been part of the lifeblood of Christianity since the first century. ¹ According to the book of Acts, Jesus's disciples consistently met together in the early years after his ascension. For some time in Jerusalem, Jewish Christians met together daily (Acts 2:46–47), and there was a practice of gathering specifically on Sundays in Gentile nations where the church subsequently spread. For instance, in Acts 20:7–11, Luke indicates that Paul met with Christians at Troas and preached a sermon on the first day of the week. The group seemingly shared a meal and celebrated the Lord's Supper on that occasion. ²

New Testament epistles confirm that weekly meetings had a special significance among early disciples. In First Corinthians, for example, Paul instructs Christians at Corinth to take up a special financial collection when the members meet on the first day of the week and indicates that he gave the same instruction to congregations in the region of Galatia (16:1–2). Additionally, the writer of Hebrews exhorts readers, without specifying a day of the week, “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near” (Heb 10:24–25 ESV).

Early extrabiblical Christian texts confirm that Jesus's disciples followed the examples and exhortations of Scripture. ³ The Didache, dating to the second century, reminds readers, “But every Lord's Day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure” (Did. 14:1). ⁴ Justin Martyr also affirms the consistency of worship assemblies on the first day of each week:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. … But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. (1 Apol. 67) ⁵

Writing in the third century, Eusebius speaks of an ecclesiastical decree declaring “the mystery of our Lord's resurrection should be celebrated on no other day than the Lord's day” (Hist. eccl. 5.23.2 [Cruse]).

Witnesses of this ilk understandably lead Ivor J. Davidson to conclude that, “within twenty years of Jesus's passion, it had become widespread practice to treat Sunday, ‘the first day of the week’ (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2), as the special day for worship, in commemoration of the day on which the Lord had been raised from the dead.” ⁶ From the earliest times, then, Christians have generally believed corporate gatherings on Sundays are necessary expressions of their relationships to God, Jesus, and fellow disciples. Consequently, churches assemble weekly for worship wherever the Christian faith has spread, including the United States.

The Interruption of COVID-19

There have been few historical hindrances to religious assemblies in the United States. However, the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (“COVID-19”)—a severe acute respiratory illness caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus—presented a dramatic and widespread obstacle. The virus swept the globe beginning in late 2019. In January 2020, the United States Department of Health and Human Services determined that a nationwide public health emergency existed because of the virus. In March, the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic. A couple of days later, President Donald Trump declared a national emergency in the United States.

For a time, there was no known cure, effective treatment, or vaccine. Intensive care facilities were pressed beyond capacity. Major medical procedures were postponed. Hundreds of thousands of people died in the United States alone. This was the most dangerous pandemic the world has endured since the deadliest medical holocaust in history, caused by the 1918 H1N1 virus (the “Spanish flu”). ⁷ Given the unique severity of challenges posed by COVID-19, authorities and citizens had to make rapid decisions based on limited and imperfect information.

Because infected people were sometimes asymptomatic, they could unknowingly infect others. Without a vaccine or other treatment, the most effective ways to control the virus were generally thought to be “social distancing”—remaining at least six feet away from people of other households—and wearing masks or other face coverings. The World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and many epidemiologists recommended these measures along with limiting the maximum size of gatherings and isolating people who contracted the virus. In many instances, in consultation with public health experts, states enacted an evolving series of restrictions on various activities, including mandates substantially limiting the size of public gatherings, especially indoors, and requiring that face masks be worn in most public spaces.

With rising alarm in the early months of the pandemic, life radically changed worldwide. Travel practically halted. Authorities asked people to remain in their homes unless they absolutely needed to venture out for food or other necessities. In the United States, schools at every level either ceased or met exclusively online. Any businesses not deemed “essential” either closed or had to operate with remote workers. Many businesses failed. Most large gatherings were canceled or substantially limited, so large funerals, weddings, and similar activities were postponed or eschewed altogether.

These restrictions were extreme. They seemed onerous to many. They were inconvenient and stressful for all. As one federal court noted, though, “there is no instruction book for a pandemic. The threat evolves. Experts reevaluate. And government officials make the best calls they can, based on the best information they have.” ⁸

The Impact on Churches

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution restricts Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. As a result of the Free Exercise Clause, there have been few official restrictions on worship assemblies in the United States, and most Americans take the liberty to worship publicly without government intervention or oversight for granted. This sense of entitlement to relatively unfettered religious gatherings was challenged in an unprecedented way by civil authorities’ responses to the COVID-19 outbreak.

Along with other aspects of American society, religious gatherings were substantially impacted by alarm for the public welfare caused by coronavirus and the attendant restrictions. ⁹ Absolute prohibitions on public meetings were exceptional—perhaps even anomalous—but the limitations were still burdensome for religious groups. For instance, mask and social-distancing mandates applied inside houses of worship as in other buildings. Moreover, singing indoors was considered a higher-risk activity than merely speaking indoors because singing was thought to increase the risk of transmitting COVID-19. As a result, singing inside church buildings was temporarily forbidden in some places.

In the earliest days of the pandemic, indoor gatherings were typically limited to groups of no more than ten people. Most Christian congregations have more than 10 congregants, and this restriction created a disproportionate burden on larger groups. A church with 200 members, for example, was impacted more severely than a church with 20 members. Over time, though, restrictions were tethered to the occupancy limits of public facilities so that groups could gather in numbers up to 25 percent of facilities’ maximum authorized occupancies. Over weeks or months, the allowable percentages grew progressively until numerical limits were again at pre-pandemic levels.

Many churches and religious groups were creative during the restrictive times. Some groups elected to forego heavily regulated in-person meetings in favor of virtual services, where individuals and families participated in worship activities in real time from their respective homes via the Internet. In those instances, a few leaders broadcast from their homes or regular worship facilities for the benefit of their members, but the groups held no in-person meetings. Many churches chose this option because of the safety risks of assembling announced by civil and medical authorities. In some cases, in-person meetings adjourned for a month. In some cases, they ceased for a year or more.

Of course, not all churches suspended their meetings. Even at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was nearly always possible for religious groups to meet in person, albeit with severe limitations. Some groups increased the number of their services to ensure congregants could attend at least one smaller Sunday assembly in their usual facilities. Instead of one service for 100 people, for example, they may have offered five services for smaller groups to accommodate all their members while respecting civil restrictions. Other groups, though, met outdoors since most constraints, other than social distancing, did not apply outdoors. Some groups used lawn chairs to meet on their grounds. “Drive-in meetings” in church parking lots were also employed in some areas.

Religious groups were not immune to the onerous curtailments on freedoms of movement and assembly imposed by authorities rapidly responding to the pandemic. In some instances, in light of the restrictions and health warnings, Christians and others elected to temporarily forego in-person meetings in hopes of minimizing the spread of the virus, particularly among the elderly and persons with preexisting health conditions. In nearly all cases, though, church members could assemble in person—with the unprecedented restrictions—and many did so.

Examples of Religious Groups’ Resistance

At the height of the pandemic, authorities limited religious exercises along with almost every other sphere of public life. The restrictions were intended to address the health crisis, but some people were uncomfortable with them. Many Americans are suspicious of official efforts to curb their liberties, especially those—like the free exercise of religion—announced in the Constitution. ¹⁰ This reflexive skepticism was sometimes evident as Christians and others bristled under the weight of curtailments on public meetings. ¹¹ Many faith communities resisted limitations on their corporate assemblies. Among those that resisted, some initially opted to defy civil orders while others resorted to immediate legal challenges.

Toward a Measured Christian Response

During the COVID-19 pandemic, government prohibitions on religious assemblies were exceptional. If federal, state, or local authorities absolutely and indefinitely prohibit Christian assemblies in the future, Christians might eventually have an obligation to defy civil orders and ordinances. As Peter and the apostles advised the Jerusalem Sanhedrin, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). However, several principles should be considered before resorting to non-compliance.

First, while non-compliance might conceivably be necessary in some instances, it is rarely—if ever—the appropriate first response. After all, the NT exhorts Jesus's disciples to submit to civil government. Paul says, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment” (Rom 13:1–2). Peter suggests that, by submitting, Jesus's disciples can avoid or lessen scandal and scrutiny from authorities and neighbors (1 Pet 2:13–15).

Second, in the United States, if a civil authority forbids public worship assemblies, essentially limiting Christians to private worship in their own homes, the first recourse should be legal action in the courts. The experience of several religious groups confirms the viability of legal redress for resisting unfair and unnecessary civil restrictions in lieu of reflexive resort to non-compliance. There are multiple levels of appeal, so concerned parties can petition successively higher courts if they disagree with the initial outcomes. Non-compliance with restrictions imposed by proper authorities, though, is a last resort. If the courts were to affirm absolute and indefinite prohibitions on religious meetings, only then would defiance potentially be justified.

Third, whether there is a pandemic or not, state and local authorities routinely regulate gatherings of various kinds. Among other things, they limit the locations and times for assemblies, and they regulate the sizes through various ordinances. It is not unreasonable—in fact, it is eminently reasonable—that tighter regulations are applied during global, national, or local crises. For instance, authorities might forbid travel on public roads during extreme weather events like tornadoes or blizzards to help ensure public safety. Most people understand and accept this reality, even when restrictions temporarily impact religious gatherings.

Fourth, Christians must be consistent regarding whether religious assemblies can occasionally be suspended. Worship meetings are interrupted for various reasons, even in the absence of government edicts. Safety conditions sometimes make normal gatherings impossible, or at least inadvisable. For example, churches sometimes cancel religious assemblies voluntarily due to inclement weather in some geographic areas. In unusual circumstances, threats of various kinds—including terroristic threats and active shooters—might dissuade people from leaving their homes. Services may even be canceled or adjusted because of maintenance concerns with electrical, plumbing, heating, or air conditioning systems in meeting facilities. People of faith generally recognize that public meetings may legitimately be canceled or temporarily curtailed, at least in extraordinary circumstances.

Fifth, expectations that Christians should be excused from civil restrictions imposed on others for public gatherings during times of crisis are misguided. There is a fundamental difference between religious people in the United States not being allowed to meet when, where, and how they prefer and being forbidden from assembling at all. Few may have needed to confront this reality before COVID-19, but the pandemic made certain practical limits obvious. Exigencies inevitably require changes in modus operandi. When temporary changes occur, Christians should do their best to worship God, submit to civil authorities, and love their neighbors in suboptimal circumstances.

Concluding Observations

A century passed between the Spanish flu and COVID-19 pandemics, so it could be a long while before a comparable circumstance arises. However, it is foreseeable that local, state, or even national governments may temporarily restrict religious meetings in the future, even without a global health crisis. Consequently, the tensions religious groups in the United States recently experienced were a valuable learning opportunity, and Christians must learn the appropriate lessons.

In order to avoid zealous overreactions, temporary restrictions must be distinguished from indefinite prohibitions. Civil authorities can legitimately restrict public gatherings, including worship assemblies, to protect public welfare, and it is reasonable for restrictions to become more onerous during crises. Religious groups should be wary of being restricted more than other groups, but religious groups should not expect preferential treatment, especially where preferential treatment might potentially imperil their neighbors.

When churches are actually targeted with impediments to their ability to assemble, the proper first recourse is via legal processes rather than violations of laws and ordinances. In the United States, courts have shown a willingness to enjoin enforcement of unconstitutional restrictions on the free exercise of religion under such circumstances. Defiance of executive or judicial orders should only be contemplated after exhausting legal remedies.