Culture Wars
When They Shout “Peace and Safety”
Luke gives an account of Christian persecution in Acts 16. He writes that Paul’s missionary team was going to “the place of prayer” in Philippi, presumably a synagogue, when they ran into a slave girl who was possessed by a spirit of divination. The girl, Luke tells us, was bringing her owners a great deal of money by her fortune telling. Curiously, she didn’t leave the team alone, but followed them for “many days,” all the while crying out after them, “These men are slaves of the Most High God, who preach to you a way of salvation!” Paul finally had enough and cast the spirit out of her.
You’d think this exorcism would have brought great joy to the city. A young girl had been spiritually freed after all. But not so. The girl’s owners were livid. Paul had just obliterated their income. They dragged him and Silas before the city’s magistrates. They didn’t complain that these missionaries had put the kibosh on their demon-possession trafficking. They were smarter than that. They framed the two as foreigners and groused that they had come to undermine the citizenry’s peace and safety: “These men are disturbing our city! They are Jews and are advocating customs that are not lawful for us as Romans to adopt or observe!”
You’d think this argument wouldn’t have gotten anywhere with city officials, but you’d be wrong. Luke writes that a mob attacked the missionaries, and the magistrates even joined in by having Paul and Silas stripped of their clothes and beaten with rods. They also had them thrown into the innermost jail and their feet put in stocks. They were later saved by a God-induced earthquake.
The curious thing about this is how the whole episode started. It didn’t spring out of a clash of religious tenets. The slave girl’s owners weren’t a group of hardcore Pharisees wanting to maintain their covenantal exceptionalism. They weren’t Sadducees wanting to maintain their priestly birthrights. They were fierce capitalists looking for vengeance. Arguments about religious beliefs probably wouldn’t have gotten them anywhere. Their painting of missionaries as foreign extremists who had come to disrupt the city’s culture had all the traction needed to set the crowd and magistrates ablaze.
A Brewing Storm Ahead
The Supreme Court recently decided Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, a case involving New York’s 10- and 25-person occupancy limits. The Diocese and Agudath Israel of America sought relief from restrictions on attendance at their services in areas that the governor had classified as “red” or “orange” zones. They contended that the restrictions violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Agudath Israel argued that the governor had specifically targeted the Orthodox Jewish community and gerrymandered the boundaries of the zones to ensure that heavily Orthodox areas were included. Both the Diocese and Agudath Israel argued that the regulations treated houses of worship more harshly than comparable secular businesses.
The Court agreed. It said that the governor’s statements made in connection with the challenged rules could be viewed as targeting the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community. But, even putting those comments aside, the parties showed that the regulations weren’t neutral because they singled out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment. The Court observed that while a synagogue or church could not admit more than ten persons at any one time in a red zone, businesses the government had categorized as “essential” could admit as many people as they wished. And the list included acupuncturists, camp grounds, garages, as well as manufacturing plants and transportation facilities. In orange zones, while attendance at houses of worship were limited to 25 persons, even non-essential businesses could decide for themselves how many persons to admit. Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence summed it up:
These restrictions apply even to the largest cathedrals and synagogues, which ordinarily hold hundreds. And the restrictions apply no matter the precautions taken, including social distancing, wearing masks, leaving doors and windows open, forgoing singing, and disinfecting spaces between services.
At the same time, the Governor has chosen to impose no capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers “essential.” And it turns out the businesses the Governor considers essential include hardware stores, acupuncturists, and liquor stores. Bicycle repair shops, certain signage companies, accountants, lawyers, and insurance agents are all essential too. So, at least according to the Governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians. Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?
The Court held that New York could not constitutionally enforce its restrictions because of these disparities.
opinion was decided by just one vote. The minority would have upheld the restrictions based on the policing power of local officials and opinions of health experts. Justice Sotomayor summed up the dissenting justices by stating, “Justices of this Court play a deadly game in second guessing the expert judgment of health officials about the environments in which a contagious virus, now infecting a million Americans each week, spreads most easily.” She opined, “The Constitution does not forbid [state governments] from responding to public health crises through regulations and that treat religious institutions equally or more favorably than comparable secular institutions, particularly when those regulations save lives.” In other words, targeted restrictions on churches are well and good in order to keep the peace and maintain safety.
The idea that Christians could be persecuted by city authorities, no less, for the exorcism of a demonic spirit seems ludicrous. But American culture appears to be heading that direction, where personal security and preconceived notions of self-actualization not only are accentuated but used to muzzle and even displace our freedom to worship. Which brings to bear the kind of gospel we care to walk out—one of a cross, resurrection, and enthronement, or one that promotes our own self-advancement in that culture.
“It’s an equally logical outscomes of too much prosperity. Or you could put it that it’s the rsutl of too strong a desire for security.”
“For Paul, the message of the cross and resurrection of Jesus, and his enthronement as Lord of the world, never failed to arouse the wrath of the powers in one way or another. ”
“We have previously recognized that courts must grant officials ‘broad’ discretion when they ‘undertake to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties.’”
