Anabaptist Exceptionalism and Response to Government

[Josh]

They asked a government official. He told them what he thought. Why should they obey the governor instead of a legislator?

When I had my wedding, I called the local county health department and they advised me to do things in defiance to the state. (The local county had also filed a grievance with the state.) Exactly who should I pick as the authority in that situation? Should we go and ask the federal government too? The U.N.? The queen?

Officials are responsible to carry out the law. If they make an exception, I have no problem with taking the exception.

A lawmaker is not an official. He needs to follow the same laws that everyone else does.

Except there are, generally speaking, no laws about facemasking. Officials don’t have a right to just invent new laws out of thin air without lawmakers passing them first.

[Ken]

They asked a government official. He told them what he thought. Why should they obey the governor instead of a legislator?

When I had my wedding, I called the local county health department and they advised me to do things in defiance to the state. (The local county had also filed a grievance with the state.) Exactly who should I pick as the authority in that situation? Should we go and ask the federal government too? The U.N.? The queen?

Officials are responsible to carry out the law. If they make an exception, I have no problem with taking the exception.

A lawmaker is not an official. He needs to follow the same laws that everyone else does.

Except there are, generally speaking, no laws about facemasking. Officials don’t have a right to just invent new laws out of thin air without lawmakers passing them first.

Yes, actually they generally do.

Most statutes passed by either Congress or state legislatures are pretty vague and general and they authorize executive branch agencies to implement said law through regulation. In my former life I worked on Federal fisheries law. The main law governing all commercial fishing in Federal waters is the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which is really quite short. Congress could not possibly come up with detailed fishing regulations for every species of fish in every region of the country. So they delegated all of that to NOAA and that has generated thousands of pages of regulations coming out of each of the 5 regional branch offices of NOAA-Fisheries. Every 5-7 years Congress revisits the Magnuson-Stevens Act, holds a bunch of hearings, and makes changes as necessary. But all the day to day regulatory work is all promulgated by the agencies through the Code of Federal Regulations.

In the case of public health regulations, state legislatures have granted broad authority to state and local health officials to promulgate emergency regulations as they find necessary. None of that is remotely unusual. That is how all laws are implemented.

Without reading all the public health laws in question, I'm pretty certain that all these various agency actions are citing the statute that gives them the authority to do what they are doing. For example, this is the new Oregon mask mandate for large outdoor gatherings like football games and concerts: https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/vie ... Rsn=280702 If you scroll too the bottom you will find that they cite the exact statutory authority for what the are doing.

[ohio jones]

The Ten Commandments are a well understood starting place, with the exception of the third commandment, which is not binding in Gentiles. (Many Christians try to honour it anyway.) Man’s laws follow God’s plan the closer they are to the Ten Commandments.

The third commandment is binding on Gentiles who post on MN. Moderators reserve the right to remove profanity.

[danfreed]

Thank you, Ernie, Mike and Joshuabgood for posting about Anabaptist Exceptionalism and Response to Government.

For those who have not read the article, I have pasted the conclusion below.

Two comments from me on this topic ...
I'm amazed how the 1 Peter 2 instruction was given in a time of severe Roman government oppression - submit to government ..{and] honor others "for the Lord's sake"
I'm also very interested in summary point # 3 - look for creative ways to help, not hinder...

My prayer this morning ...
"Heavenly Father, give us Your help to lift our focus from ourselves to the Lord Jesus; and to see the needs of others through His compassion. Forgive us for our sinful and selfish ways. Submitting this request in Jesus Name, with thanksgiving, Amen"


Here are ViewPoint excerpts, with my underlining ...

“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man
for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as
supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that
are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers,
and for the praise of them that do well. For so is
the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to
silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and
not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness,
but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love
the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king”
(1 Peter 2:13-17).


To sum up:

• The resistance among some Anabaptists to
follow government restrictions to control
the spread of COVID-19 reflects a dangerous
mindset that we are exempt from following
government mandates that don’t make
sense to us.

• When we openly disregard civil laws and
contribute to societal problems, we are
damaging our witness to civil authorities,
showing disregard to our neighbors, and
undermining our credibility with our
children.

• We should look for creative ways to live
out our values within the government
restrictions where we can, and be a help,
not a hindrance, to solving large societal
problems.

This article was prepared by ViewPoint:
Anabaptists working together on current issues.
Writing group: Merle Burkholder (ON), John
Coblentz (PA), Matt Landis (PA), Gary Miller (ID), and
David Yoder (KS). Before release, this article was
reviewed by a number of conservative Anabaptist
leaders.

We welcome your response. Write us at
contact@anabaptistviewpoint.org or send a letter to:
ViewPoint
28527 Guys Mills Rd
Guys Mills, PA 16327

[joshuabgood]

Officials are responsible to carry out the law. If they make an exception, I have no problem with taking the exception.

A lawmaker is not an official. He needs to follow the same laws that everyone else does.

Except there are, generally speaking, no laws about facemasking. Officials don’t have a right to just invent new laws out of thin air without lawmakers passing them first.

Yes, actually they generally do.

Most statutes passed by either Congress or state legislatures are pretty vague and general and they authorize executive branch agencies to implement said law through regulation. In my former life I worked on Federal fisheries law. The main law governing all commercial fishing in Federal waters is the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which is really quite short. Congress could not possibly come up with detailed fishing regulations for every species of fish in every region of the country. So they delegated all of that to NOAA and that has generated thousands of pages of regulations coming out of each of the 5 regional branch offices of NOAA-Fisheries. Every 5-7 years Congress revisits the Magnuson-Stevens Act, holds a bunch of hearings, and makes changes as necessary. But all the day to day regulatory work is all promulgated by the agencies through the Code of Federal Regulations.

In the case of public health regulations, state legislatures have granted broad authority to state and local health officials to promulgate emergency regulations as they find necessary. None of that is remotely unusual. That is how all laws are implemented.

Without reading all the public health laws in question, I'm pretty certain that all these various agency actions are citing the statute that gives them the authority to do what they are doing. For example, this is the new Oregon mask mandate for large outdoor gatherings like football games and concerts: https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/vie ... Rsn=280702 If you scroll too the bottom you will find that they cite the exact statutory authority for what the are doing.

Yes the health statutes that were written were very vague and can be interpreted very broadly. My question is though, in a tripartite governance model, which we have, the courts serve to adjudicate what is "over-reach" and what is legal, that is they have judicial review for a reason. Is it a problem in instances like this to say, we'll "test something in court" and if the court sides with us, that a given order was illegal and doesn't rightfully apply (as they did in CA churches), is that ok? Sort of like Paul appealed his case judicially to Caesar...

And of course if the court issues a compliance injunction noting the order is legal then we comply?

[Josh]

There is, quite simply, no lawful basis to tell half the country they can’t work, can’t go to church, can’t sing, and can’t see their family, yet that’s what happened last year in places like California, Canada, and Australia.

The executive branch does not have unlimited dictatorial powers. Christians do not have some duty to comply with an unlawful official who just makes stuff up, particularly one like Gov Newsom who doesn’t even obey his own unlawful edicts.

As far as my witness to my neighbours... none of them complied with these unlawful orders either. I was the most “compliant” person/household on my street. Avoiding your neighbours out of fear of disease or government mandates is not “loving your neighbour”.