Americans of all stripes and sides assert their rights. Religious Americans are no different. In some ways, this is glorious. We should be jealous of our rights. After all, we believe they are OUR rights. The Declaration claims government exists to secure those rights–not “grant” them or “recognize” them, but to secure them. Advocating for our rights is, for us, a mark of good citizenship.

But our rights do not exist in a vacuum. I have a robust freedom of speech, but there are things I should not say because they are thoughtless or corrosive. I have freedom of the press, but I should not publish serious allegations without corroboration because it is poor journalism and destructive of civil society. Good citizenship is more than the assertion and exercise of individual rights. Good citizenship is a balance between the rights I retain and a concern for how my actions contribute to, or detract from, our civic culture.

As a Christian, my thoughts must take on an additional hue. My concerns are not only for my good, or the good of our earthly kingdom, but for the Kingdom of God. I am an ambassador of that Kingdom at all times and in all places. These obligations can come into conflict, as we have seen with the onset of the Coronavirus.

State and local governments throughout the nation have limited gatherings in general. Some, like Ohio, have exempted religious groups, while others have not. A few churches are defying either guidelines or orders. Granted, some of the guidelines have gone too far. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear has been adamant in blocking churches from meeting in person. He has authorized local police to record the license plate numbers of those who attend services. This information would be passed to public health officials, who would then order a quarantine of fourteen days. Gov. Phil Murphy, of New Jersey, took a different approach by ignoring religious rights altogether. He said recently he “wasn’t thinking of the Bill of Rights” when he limited all gatherings. As a narrow, constitutional question, these churches may* be able to win the legal battle, but it is one, as of now, they should not fight.

Not only do we have the right to exercise our religion, but as believers we are part of a corporate body that worships and learns together. Even so, our rights can be used wrongly. To gather, even as the Body of Christ, during a pandemic, when the evidence shows how easily the virus spreads through proximity, disregards the safety of our fellow citizens. It demonstrates not Christ-centeredness, but self-centeredness. We can love our neighbors, friends, and family members by staying away from them and, during this brief interlude, staying away from each other. If to show our love we can lay down our lives for our friends, surely we can love them also by choosing, if possible, not to infect them with a lethal virus caught at church.

If these orders persist, and extend past the threat of the Coronavirus, there is a problem. If governments begin to enforce these regulations against religious groups alone, there is a problem. I will be among the first to advocate resistance by meeting in opposition to the decrees, but we are not there. Instead of creating a conflict, and possibly worsening a crisis, this is a time for submission and respect, and not for lawsuits.**

*Generally, I think such challenges would fail as long as the government can show that it did not create the order to target religion and it is not enforcing the order differently based on religion. The Smith standard is still operative in state actions. Even if one could argue that some form of discrimination exists, the state can demonstrate a compelling interest to protect public health and safety (as the government could not in Lukumi, but could here). One could argue these orders are not narrowly tailored, but I am not sure that holds up in a pandemic. Narrow tailoring would undermine the purpose of the order itself, potentially, and requiring exemptions based on religion would do the same. State police powers are extensive in these particular times and places. They may be able to force people to get a Covid-19 vaccine (see Jacobson v. Massachusetts).

**Some churches have found clever ways to meet while eliminating the possibility of viral spread. Drive-up services, for example, seem to make sense as long as they are not held in opposition to the explicit orders of the state.