Church Rifts, Unjust Laws and Six Objections

During this whole C-19 pandemic, I have been a strong and vocal opponent of the government measures which they claimed and were supposedly taken to combat a presumed threat to our health-care system and secondly to slow the spread of the contagion. During this time, divisions and rifts have formed between those supporting the measures and those opposed. These rifts have also been evident as well within the Christian community. There is serious division about such things as newly imposed rules, and the suppression of individual rights and freedoms. As well, we are divided over how we respond to public protest and resistance to governmental over-reach. In this essay I want to focus mainly on the debates and divisions I’ve been aware of within the Christian church body. I must hasten to add however, these issues have moral and ethical aspects that across the board, impact all upstanding and decent folks.

I’ve gathered a list of objections and arguments I’ve come across during this pandemic. These are often challenges to my personal beliefs and the position I, and many like me have taken. In no particular order, I will attempt to answer each point as best I can. So, here goes:

Objection #1: “Making sacrifices for the benefit of others is exactly what Christians are called to do. The primary example that Christians are explicitly commanded to imitate is Jesus who gave up his rights when he came to earth.”

The point of this argument is to stress the fact that Jesus gave up his “rights” and there is no denying he did. He give up far more than we can even comprehend by leaving Heaven and coming to this sinful and fallen planet. This was his plan from the beginning and something He freely and gladly did to be joined with us forever.

However, this argument, in taking such a narrow point of view, ignores many of the aspects of the work Jesus did while here on earth. The implication is that in this instance we should willingly surrender our constitutional and charter rights so as to somehow be a benefit to others. This is, of course, the same media message given almost nonstop as part of the, “we’re all in this together” governmental propaganda campaign. Of course the assumption is that by resisting the “rules” I am placing others at great risk. This is nonsense and completely lacks any supporting data or evidence.

In order for any government to limit or deprive anyone of their rights, the constitution holds that the burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate the absolute necessity of their actions. They must show that such actions are being taken for the briefest amount of time necessary, how other measures are not available and that they are taking the least intrusive/restrictive course possible. Quite simply the government has never met any of these tests – nor is there any suggestion they even attempted to do so.

During his time on earth, Jesus was accused of breaking laws established by religious authorities, he never relinquished his right to speak freely and, at times forcefully. He never gave up the right to assemble peacefully even though the crowds were sometimes seen as a threat to some in authority – and he never isolated himself and his followers from the sick, homeless and destitute.

Our freedom was not and is not free. It came at a huge cost. If you go to any cemetery honouring our war veterans, if you consider that every one of the thousands of markers represents the life of a young person who died for your freedom by surrendering their life, you might not be so quick to give it away. It’s as if every dying soldier hands to you this gift, “here, I gave my own life so you can be free” to which the response is, “No thanks, I’d rather accept the government ‘assurance’ to be safe rather than free.”

Objection #2: “We know that Churches have spread the virus through their gatherings. We know choirs have spread the dangerous disease through their joyous praise of God. We know the dangers of Covid-19 and how it is spread. Making sacrifices to protect others is exactly what we are called to do.”

My response to this is much the same as that given to the previous objection. However the additional element here is the suggestion of a possible threat posed by in-church gatherings. Frankly, this argument leaves me shaking my head with incredulity. That a contagion might be “caught” in church is not new anymore than it might happen anywhere else on the planet. In fact, periodically I news stories about someone “that tested positive” from Walmart, Costco, Canadian Tire and various grocery stores. Nobody has thus far decided these all must be shut down. The real question is about defining what is essential and I believe that individuals should make that distinction not governments.

Let us, just for a moment, imagine that instead of government officials dictating that all churches must close, simply because they say so… let’s suppose they asked for the churches to help in the effort to control the spread. Suppose they asked the churches to look at “best practices” to limit the spread of a contagion and, in the least disruptive manner possible, implement such measures within their congregations. I’d be willing to bet that an overwhelmingly positive – perhaps unanimous compliance would result. Such an approach would demonstrate a reciprocal respect between both church and state.

It also should be noted, up until now best medical practice has always been about isolating the sick – never isolating the healthy. Never in our history have we implemented a kind of house arrest strategy for healthy people as a means of controlling a contagious illness. Such a strategy has never proven to be effective. This would be especially the case when the government selectively decides where people might congregate and where they may not.

By government designation, liquor stores and dope shops were designated essential while churches were not. Is this indicative that those who frequent different “essential” places somehow have more common-sense or are somehow more “safe” than those who might go to church? Personally, I believe churches, and other places where people might gather, are capable of maintaining their own safety standards. Everyone who is experiencing symptoms of illness can and should remain home. Those who are feeling a bit fearful can remain at home as well – each person can decide based on guidelines for dealing with contagious illness.

Objection #3: “Our democracy values civil discourse. But there is a vast distinction between civil discussion and brazen law-breaking. Refusing to obey the law by having large gatherings for church services is simply criminal. Perhaps even worse are the examples of pastors using their pulpits to spread conspiracy theories and lies about the reality of Covid-19 and its threat.”

I guess that my first response to this objection would have to be to define some terms. I’d like to know what you (the objector) mean by “civil discourse” as well as “brazen law-breaking.” For the record, civil discourse can also include peaceful protest – at least in most western democracies and republics. Next, there are differences between “mandates,” public-health orders, rules, guidelines, directives and actual “laws.” In our democracy the elected serve by the consent of the governed. The highest law of the land is not government decree but rather it is our constitution and charter of rights and freedoms. In fact the constitution places constraints on the government and what it is permitted to legislate.

The right to peaceful assembly is a guaranteed charter right and not a criminal act – period. There are times when the government may pass legislation that in some manner conflicts with the constitution. At that point the legislation may be legally challenged and if it does violate the constitution, it will not be allowed to stand, and it must be tossed out.

There are exceptions, it is true that when the government, faced by an emergency, may temporarily restrict certain freedoms; even then the constitution remains the supreme law of the land. The onus is on the government to show cause why such extreme measures are necessary and where no other less restrictive measure could be used instead. Temporary means just that; the restriction must be for the briefest time period necessary. To keep that time period brief, governments are expected to review such restrictions after short intervals of time (such as every two weeks) at which point the order is open for debate as to the necessity to continue. These measures are in place to prevent a government from declaring a “necessary emergency” in order to dictate things they would not normally have the authority to implement.

In Ontario for instance, an abuse of power can be seen when Premier Ford twice determined – IN ADVANCE – to grant his government extraordinary powers for prolonged periods lasting months. He resorted to such lengthy periods rather than the frequent reevaluations as is required by law. Not only that but no evidence has ever been produced to justify his actions beyond his initial “flatten the curve” measures.

In the meantime both provincial and federal legislatures were largely shut down as were the courts. This meant the ability to challenge governmental measures, as well as the abuses of power, were severely curtailed. It has been said, and for good reason, that “justice delayed is justice denied.” Some of these cases are just beginning to come to light before the courts almost a year and a half after much government overreach. In numerous cases government has been found to have acted unlawfully.

The other part of ‘objection #3’ concerns, “pastors using their pulpits to spread conspiracy theories and lies about the reality of Covid-19 and its threat.” This of course presumes anything counter to the official narrative to be a lie… but what if the official narrative is the lie? There is a great deal of information and research to show that this very well might be the case. Perhaps these brave pastors are taking on a very important issue – one that seems to have targeted churches in particular – and are trying to expose the truth? Suppose they are standing up to a very particular present and pressing evil? Just some food for thought as I’m quite certain pastors are fully aware of their responsibility in relation to the words they speak.

Objection #4: “There is a great value and need for Christians to gather together corporately. Corporate worship honours God and blesses people. We should not trivialize it. But we must not limit our view of the Church to such gatherings. There are countless other things churches could and should be doing in this time of crisis as they obediently operate under the limitations placed on them for the health of us all.”

I’d like to address this objection by taking it one statement at a time:

a) “There is a great value and need for Christians to gather together corporately.”
- I agree.

b) “Corporate worship honours God and blesses people.”
- I agree.

c) “We should not trivialize it.”
- I agree.

d) “But we must not limit our view of the Church to such gatherings.”
- I agree.

e) “There are countless other things churches could and should be doing in this time of crisis as they obediently operate under the limitations placed on them for the health of us all.”

- I disagree to the extent that it is not an either/or question we are faced with. I would say that IN ADDITION TO gathering corporately, there are other things churches could and should be doing. And I would strongly dispute that the “limitations placed on them” are for “the health of us all.” That simply is not the case, and there is much evidence to demonstrate the disastrous effects such limitations have had on far too many folks. As a number of experts have now stated, “the ‘cure’ was far, far worse than the disease.”

Objection #5: “Jesus commands us to love our neighbour. Under the current circumstances we can [somehow] demonstrate love and compassion by suspending our assembling together in church.”

- One online posting stated this argument as follows:

“In my mind there is not much good that can come of this. In my mind, gathering in large crowds during a pandemic will not produce much good nor does it look good. Romans 12:17 says that we should ‘Respect what is right in the sight of all men.’ Even if you disagree with something, such as the quarantine, most people believe it is doing good. Thus, the Christian must at least respect it.

Additionally, protesting like this might ruin your Christian testimony. In my mind, only less gospel opportunities can arise from this. It will show to the world that Christians are just like them.”

In my opinion, this whole line of thinking is completely wrong headed. In the very beginning, before much was known, it was quite natural and wise to exercise caution. Every church I know of did just that and cooperated fully with authorities in closing for several months. As more became known about C-19, along with the various strategies that had been employed, it became a lot more clear about what we were dealing with, and how much it had been over-estimated and over-played. We also learned very effective measures that could be employed to treat those who required medical intervention. We learned as well, what severe damage was being done by the lock-downs and the social isolation of healthy individuals. We learned how ineffective all those measures actually are. Even to this very day, if individual people decided they still wished to personally keep practising those measures, that would be their choice and not unreasonable.

Governments that were very quick to grab near absolute power, quickly became drunk with such “authority” and proved to be very reluctant to give up what they had taken. They rapidly abandoned sound policy and stripped away civil and constitutional rights using the excuse of, “public safety.” That claim was and remains, a lie. Very quickly all the available data, and numerous highly accredited experts, stated the public health policies should be rescinded. They showed those measures that were put in to place (up to and including the rush to “vaccinate”) were an over-reach, totally unnecessary and ineffective.

With the above statement in mind, it seems to me that for the church to enable the facade, to perpetrate the lie, is NOT a loving and compassionate response or act. Sometimes speaking the truth and making every effort to live the truth will not be appreciated by the world – indeed it may be received with hatred. Hostility is often the response when lies and fiction are what those with itching ears want to hear rather than the truth. Sometimes the truth can be painful – and darkness is preferred.

With respect to the quote from Romans 12:17, I’m not sure what translation the quote was taken from or if it was a paraphrase. Romans 12:17 in the NIV reads, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone.” While that passage may well have application outside the church, I personally read it as being primarily addressed to the believers (those who come together and form the church). You can not assume that government edicts, and “what most people believe,” is automatically right or true. Indeed more and more experts such as doctors, scientists, epidemiologists economists etc, are coming on board to say the actions taken by government have caused far more harm than good. They are exactly the wrong actions to take.

I think one of the biggest mistakes many within the church make sometimes is contained within the last paragraph of Objection #5 above. These days there are many within the church who seem to place “public image” ahead of truth and seem far too willing to compromise our mission for the sake of “public appeal.” Within the church, Progressive Christianity has a gained a foothold and is the growing threat eroding from within.

Objection #6: “Obeying the government isn’t giving into panic.

The Apostle Paul commanded us to be in subjection to the governing authorities (Rom 13:1). Why? Because those who resist the government unlawfully are resisting God (v. 2). He warned that if you disregard this command that we must be warned for the Government is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil (v. 4). Thus, resisting authority brings about unnecessary wrath. The government is already against us, why make it worse?”

- I see this one quite often and have puzzled over it myself. I think there are several keys to first understanding and then applying this principle. The first thing that must be recognized is the very obvious differences in governance and the relationship of the authorities to the general population.

Our system of governance is radically different from Paul’s day. In our “western democratic system,” we the people elect our leaders. Our leaders in turn gain their authority by the “consent of the governed.” Their authority IS NOT ABSOLUTE but is quite limited by our constitution that holds freedom (our rights, freedoms and responsibilities) as the supreme law of the land. It is to this principle that all governmental authority must be subject. Our system includes the provision to assemble and address/protest our grievances directly, and we have the authority to remove our leaders from office. In my opinion, when a government attempts to restrict all avenues of opposition (such as the courts and legislatures) and when they act in an unlawful manner, we are under no obligation to obey their totalitarian dictates. Remember in the passage quoted above, the assumption seems to be that the government is acting rightly against those practising evil… or in other words, government authority rightly restrains and punishes those practising evil.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, for those of you to whom this essay may apply, my concern is not just your complicity but your willingness to turn your backs on friends and neighbours who simply decided to continue exercising their rights and freedoms. They have broken no laws. I’m very troubled by those of you who were willing to report or use government snitch lines. Those of you who ridiculed and condemned folks who: 1. failed to “obey the rules” as you saw fit 2. questioned the “medical” decisions that were more political than scientific 3. refused to even consider the viewpoints and data you were offered by those whom you claimed as friends and family… you will all have to answer for yourselves and the fractured relationships that persist after this ultimately ends.

Personally, I have maintained all along that if you want to wear a mask, isolate yourself, avoid all human contact, stay six feet away from everybody else or take any other measure that made you feel safe – you are free to do so and I will respect that. If you don’t feel safe or comfortable coming to church, don’t come, but avail yourself of some of the other available options. If you want to get the genetically modifying jab or any one of the other experimental options, that is ultimately up to you. But please, stop with the virtue signalling. Please respect those of us who, because of our own research and concerns decided to forgo the experiment – and please don’t expect that those measures should be a condition under which we may attend church. Ultimately we are all individually responsible for our decisions and actions.