PArt 3 in a 4-part series on the American churchs’ response to Covid-19 related restrictions.
As we continue to explore the cost-benefit of the choice to impose government restrictions to church attendance, we must ask, “When has imposing unbiblical rituals on church attendees led to positive results?” Haven’t we, the “come as you are” contemporary church people, been relentlessly striving to reverse the legacy of hurt and misunderstanding created by exactly that type of unbiblical church behavior?
The popular and unrelenting narrative of 2020 would have us believe that we are in “unprecedented times,” facing an imminent threat of death with every outing. But plagues and pestilence are not unprecedented experiences to the world or to the church. The most notable unprecedented aspect of this go-around with disease is not at all the death toll, but the ruling authorities’ use of technology to invade every home and mind with a non-stop, terror-inducing news cycle of rigorously controlled information.
Also unprecedented is the church’s unquestioning and immediate compliance with the government, readily suspending gatherings and locking their doors at the mere idea of spreading infection.
This isn’t the first time that churches chose to close during an outbreak, but this time is very different. In 1918, when dozens of community members were dying daily, the pastors of churches in Washington DC agreed to halt indoor services, some choosing to meet outdoors and others encouraging members to continue worship at home. The quick compliance of the church emboldened the state agents who, just days after the church’s agreement, banned all gatherings. Now, the churches would have to fight to regain the freedom to assemble that they had so quickly surrendered for the sake of public health. After 3 weeks of closure, when the community could see that the death toll was declining, these same pastors took up the fight against the state to lift the ban and regain the right to resume worship services. They grew in number and influence quickly over the course of several days, until the governing authorities backed down and the ban was lifted. It is notable that their effort to reopen was strengthened by the publication of articles by influential pastors’ in the city newspaper. It appears that the media of that day hadn’t been completely co-opted by the state to be used only to promote one side of the story. (Since the passing of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, the US government has authority to use all available media outlets to promote its agenda.)
An eerily similar pattern of events just occurred in New Jersey where state public health agents called for the closure of houses of worship, to which the faith leaders readily complied, then the governor followed by banning all gatherings. Because Christians have historically presented the strongest opposition to government intrusion in daily life, and are enabled by the religious freedom affirmed in our Constitution, the government targets this community because they know that once they can get those serving God to comply, it will be easy to remove the rights of those who have no allegiance to a higher power. Once the Christ-followers give in, there is no one left to fight for freedom.
1918 Recap: Voluntary Closure —> State Removal of Freedom—>Fight to Regain Lost Freedom
2020 Recap: Voluntary Closure —> State Removal of Freedom—>Fight to Regain Lost Freedom
Half a century before the Spanish Flu, when the world struggled sorrowfully through a cholera pandemic of 1846-1860, the church did not close its doors. Charles Spurgeon, pastoring in the heart of London where many of his friends and flock were falling ill and dying, continued leading church services and visiting the homes of those who were sick and dying. Throughout history, from the example of Jesus ministering to the sick and afflicted to the time of the deadly Spanish flu outbreak of 1918, church leaders have steadily continued ministry. Yet in October of 2020, the majority of churches in the US have been locked up for 7 months. Most of those that have reopened have done so only with the implementation of strict government restrictions. In some states, the closures and restrictions on churches is law, but in others, like my home state of Pennsylvania, church closures and compliance with government restrictions is, and always has been, completely voluntary.
Church leaders have chosen to minimize the sea changes in church life by celebrating the opportunity to meet outside or the wonders of using technology to reach more people. Worshipping together outside can be a beautiful experience, but when 6-ft distancing and masks are required, the experience is wholly different. These options that may appear as an innovative success on the outside are still taking the church off course when compared to its scriptural purpose. Pastors’ optimistic language, intended to encourage the dispersed members, feeds the culturally common belief that church meetings aren’t really that important, taking church life even further down in rank as a cultural value. When churches don’t meet, the devil is happy. When church attendance is restricted or allowed only under a criteria set by the world and its rulers, eternal lives are at stake. If the church takes the government’s direction to go underground voluntarily, how soon might that become the only option for believers to gather? Certainly the church – defined as the body of believers – can survive in a hostile political climate. But it is poor stewardship to welcome that suppression willingly.
The Bible is, at its core, a collection of stories of those who acted radically different from the world. Abounding Biblical examples of ancient church icons like Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Daniel, Peter, Paul, and, of course, JESUS, who took radical counter-cultural actions, provide the necessary miraculous accounts that brought palpable glory to God, achieving His purposes for His people, against all odds.
When I think about Biblical examples where God’s people opted to play it safe, they all end in peril. When Moses sent 12 spies into the Promised Land, only 2, Joshua and Caleb, gave a report of confidence that God could enable them to succeed in overcoming the people living there and claiming the land. The other 10 spies returned fearful and warned that there was no possible way that their small army could defeat the formidable inhabitants. Moses chose to heed the advice of the fearful spies, rather than the faithful ones, and this choice led to Moses dying in the desert, never reaching the Promised Land he so longed for. Instead, after 40 years wandering in the desert, God chose Joshua – who had consistently shown faith in God – to lead His people into the refuge promised them so many years before. Moses’ legacy came to a pitiful end and God’s people suffered for 40 years because of their choice to act out of fear and not faith.
Of course we all know about Jonah, who tried to take the safe path rather than the Godly path, and ended up hanging out in a stinky whale stomach for 3 days.
Even Peter, famous for his bold devotion to Jesus and willingness to shun the ways of the world, had a moment where he wanted to choose safety over suffering. Upon hearing Jesus foretell the coming of his arrest and subsequent death, Peter became indignant and sought to find a safer path for Jesus to walk, rather than allow him to take the difficult path that God had laid out. Do you know what Jesus said to Peter?
Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” Matthew 16:23
Jesus knew that it was Satan, his enemy, feeding Peter fear-based and safety-seeking thoughts.
When I think about the church leaders who inspire and inform me for leadership, it is those with the greatest fortitude in choosing Christ-like resistance to cultural norms that have repeatedly succeeded in saving people both inside and outside of the church from bondage. Do we want to imagine a world that had never seen the steadfast faith of Deitrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King, Jr., John Wesley, William Tyndale, or B.T Roberts?
I am not seeking to be critical or argumentative. I love pastors. I love them so much that I have waited my entire life to become one. The duty of pastoring is sacred and honorable, and intensely challenging. The apostles who authored the New Testament clearly knew that pastors would be given a hard time by people both inside and outside the church, and that their role would require a conscious vigilance to keep the main thing the main thing. James 3:1 cautions that “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”
Above all, I want to be found faithful. I want to triumph over Satan, and I want to lead others to that same victory now, while there is vitality in my body and strength in my spirit. To do that, I am obligated to oppose the world’s doctrine of self-preservation, and instead live in complete submission to my Lord Jesus, not loving my life so much as to shrink from death. I can only hope that God will continue to give me opportunities to engage with Him in Kingdom work, leading his lost children out of bondage and into His unconditional love, so that “all who are weary and heavy-laden” will come to Jesus, where He will give them rest.
“Salvation is free, but discipleship will cost you your life.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Charmaine Rusin 