IS THE PANDEMIC CORROSIVE OR CLARIFYING?
By Tom Bartlett
Will any genuine follower of Christ deny the church has neglected its twin duties to serve as salt and light in a dying, darkened world? Probably not, but the real debate starts when the church is challenged to speak with unity on a particular question, such as how Christians ought to behave during the current COVID-19-inspired government-ordered shutdowns. Is there a pandemic? Are shutdowns the kill shot this pandemic requires? Christians find themselves on both sides of these question. Are governments trampling our Charter rights? Yes, but sincere Christians cannot agree on whether said trampling is justified. I am forced to ask at the present time, is it even possible for believers of good will to find such unity that we can avoid neglecting the twin responsibilities I mentioned above?
Here are the issues that seem to perpetually divide us.
The voice of authority can no longer be relied upon to determine the severity of the current pandemic because experts with equally valid credentials are found on all sides of the question. These experts’ disparate conclusions have either brought comfort or consternation to concerned individuals, based largely upon everyone’s pre-determined position. One man’s sage is often denigrated as another man’s fool.
The efficacy of mask wearing, and social distancing has never been proven. Even a US Centers for Disease Control report could not come to a firm conclusion that mask wearing provides any real benefit, finally admitting: “direction, ventilation, and intensity of airflow might affect virus transmission, even if social distancing measures and mask use are implemented according to current guidance.” The report provides ample cause for skepticism. It also raises the question: if masks are effective, why is social distancing necessary? And why is the reverse not also true?
Many statistical reports are manipulated to exaggerate the appearance of risk and minimise critical thinking. There are too many examples of reports where those dying with COVID have been conflated with the numbers of those dying of or from the virus. In some cases, patients have been retroactively deemed to have died of the virus well after they were dead and buried. Tests of asymptomatic people are notoriously prone to reporting false positives and, to my knowledge, these errors have not been corrected. In other instances, people who were never tested have been informed they tested positive. The fact that at least 80% of COVID-19 deaths have happened in long term care facilities has been consistently ignored when reporting to the public. Meanwhile, the virus’ extremely low death rates have been downplayed.
Governments have only reluctantly admitted the social, spiritual, emotional, and economic costs associated with lockdowns and isolation. But we know there has been a surge in rates of depression, substance abuse, domestic violence, and suicide.
No one can sensibly argue that governmental response has been measured or consistent. Goalposts have been moved repeatedly, and sometimes it seems they have been taken right off the field. No one seems able to say when, or if life will return to normal. Moreover, the prospect of an eternally imposed new normal is especially galling to those already concerned with government overreach. Today’s climate has made it easy to adopt apocalyptic theories, further dividing populations as some advocate to throw off unwanted tyranny and others express frustration over perceived half measures that will never rid the land of disease. The only guarantee is that the present divide will only extend the time we remain in relational hell.
My point is not to argue for a particular agenda. I genuinely believe that people of good will can differ over what should constitute essential safety measures. But discussion has not been allowed by our provincial governments, and the enforcement being applied allows no quarter for dissent. We are forced into deciding between binary choices—compliance or rebellion, with the latter running the risk of social or legal penalties. There are no gradations and without nuance, we are being forced into a kind of Sophie’s choice. Christians advocating against shutdowns are accused of conspiracy mongering and political posturing. On the other hand, Christians advocating for shutdowns are accused of exaggerating the crisis and destroying small businesses and families.
So, what do we say to unbelievers in this time of trial? Historically the people of God have gone beyond governments in times of pandemics and plagues, fearlessly putting their bodies on the line to serve the dying. But our society’s current structure, in which governments control all forms of healthcare, has made the traditional approach almost impossible. Unless you are a trained medical technician you will not be allowed into a nursing home, and any spiritual comfort one might wish to offer (prayer, Scripture, etc.) is explicitly forbidden.
But governments have done more than kick Christian ministry out of nursing homes. Only the most naïve can ignore the reality that the authorities are now dictating how churches may conduct themselves, giving instructions as to how services must be run and how Christians may relate to one another in churches and in the larger community. We are then left to consider whether these are reasonable temporary measures or whether Caesar is encroaching on the things of God (Mat. 22:21). We are no longer allowed to discuss the possibility of a third alternative.
While there is no specific roadmap through the present scenario, we do know that scripture must always be our guiding light. We also know the church is called to unity. Moreover, all Christians affirm that our Lord Jesus is the best interpreter of God’s Word. Thus, we should consider that the example of one who did die on a hill for us might be the example we seek. To show what I mean, I want to use an illustration that reveals the difficulty of placing our present reality into a biblical context. Please note that in the following illustration I have no intention to mock anyone, or anything; I especially have no desire to mock the Christ who died for me. I simply want to show how seriously I take our mutual obligation to get right our response to the COVID crisis.
The following allegory comes from the book of II Contagions:
While walking at a safe distance from the people, the rabbi was startled as he realized that someone had not socially distanced and had gotten close enough to touch him. Mortified by the implications, he slowly turned, asking, “Who touched the hem of my garment?” The culprit was easy to spot because her attempt to insinuate herself into the crowd was a failure. Family groupings were already clustered in small units six feet apart from one another and they all shrank back lest the woman invade their space. Soon she was face to face with her healer. He chastised her, telling her that because of her actions they would both need to quarantine for two weeks at the decree of Caesar. Furthermore, her failure to wear a face covering meant she might be stoned or at least face prison time. The rabbi spoke to them all, saying, “Know that all are to follow the mandates of the authorities without question as their judgments take precedence over mine.” Immediately, he walked from that place to the camp of isolation.
It is hubris to insist that anyone can claim to determine what Christ would do in unique situations. Scripture does not prescribe specific duties to believers caught in pandemics, but it does set out principles that give direction in the face of every challenge. Rather than trying to determine our stance regarding government actions, we need to consider what is the right perspective for one submitted to Christ. Here are principles I see as most relevant to our 2020 COVID-19 reality.
Do not be afraid. We are routinely admonished throughout scripture to look beyond our circumstances and trust in God. He is always in control of everything happening around us. Even if we believe COVID-19 is a huge risk to the general population, Christians should not be fearful. In fact, the effectiveness of the church and the heroic actions of believers are always the result of knowing when to zag with confidence while the rest of the culture is zigging. Christianity is not a reactive faith. Conversely, those of us troubled by government overreach must likewise refuse to fear. It should also not be forgotten that our confidence in defying the lockdown will not likely translate into an effective witness to those inside or outside the church. Thus, pushback against government overreach should always be in furtherance of a deeper Christian duty and not allowed to be seen as an end in itself.
Christians should always pursue what is true. Christ made clear that he is truth and that those on the side of truth know his voice. The application here is that regardless of what “experts” say, we should be interested in knowing the truth. You may discover that the dangers being touted are overblown, yet still believe that compliance is what you should do. You should also accept that others with the same information you possess will choose to challenge government restrictions, and they are not necessarily wrong to do so. Discussions should promote clarity and understanding grounded in the source of all truth.
Every believer is responsible for his attitude. Believers are to always exhibit the fruit of the spirit and reflect the loving nature of our God. With the additional challenges that stem from today’s disconnectedness, this means we must work harder than usual to discover how best to serve and care for one another effectively and respectfully. This is also true of our outreach which should cause others to see Christ in us, while doubtless taking a different form than in less controversial times. If the church is neglecting this duty just to wait for a return to normalcy, then we have failed to be the church and have rendered ourselves irrelevant.
We should remember that our first duty is not to government, but to God. As such, restrictions cannot be an excuse for neglecting our Christian duty. Neither complying with restrictions nor pushing against them is inherently moral or immoral. Sincere believers must learn to disagree while knowing we are accountable ultimately to God, not each other. And because we are all equally graced by God in our salvation, we should extend grace to one another.
The title of this article poses the question: Is the pandemic corrosive or clarifying? The answer is “Yes.” The churches’ time in limbo has had a transformative impact but the long-term effects are still to be determined. Many are happily consuming church online. And apart from a few notable exceptions, churches have been unwilling to violate government mandates on social distancing and mask wearing. I do not agree with this approach, which leaves me feeling disconnected from my church community. I am not convinced that showing up under mask and separated by social distancing mandates is the remedy to this malaise. Online services are becoming the new normal, but I cannot persuade myself to believe the online approach will build community, show hospitality, or build relationships with unbelievers.
The evident ease with which the church has adapted to government restrictions is quite concerning. Why? Because it seems to me the church’s readiness to comply too closely mirrors the position adopted by the larger public. My impression in walking through our masked and socially distanced spaces is that there is a growing sense of unease and distrust toward anyone who refuses to slavishly comply with government regulations. More than that, a level of animus has taken hold against those who do not comply. I have often been made to feel like a pariah by the anxiety people display as I pass too close or get in the way of a shopper using the same aisle. I am starting to wonder, not how long it will take to get beyond this polarization, but whether it will ever happen.
Since I do want people to better understand the motives of the resisters, here are key points that I and others hold.
Masking and distancing are obstacles to fellowship, they limit how people attend church.
Online worship turns people into spectators removed from the intimate experience of coming into the presence of God corporately.
We are nurturing fear in our children and causing them to miss out on the joys of childhood; this is especially egregious since they statistically run no risk of serious harm from the virus.
The loss of a small business robs many of a key source of meaning—especially when they are already isolated from friends and family.
Accepting the shutdown makes us unavailable to respond to people feeling depressed isolated, etc.
Churches, like many small businesses, will not survive until the reopening—if that day ever comes.
The more we accept reliance upon government to meet needs, the less we will rely on God.
If businesses collapse, there is a real risk of food shortages and other essentials.
Continued shutdowns increase tensions and divisions among people.
Already the shutdowns have resulted in the criminalization of individual autonomy. Police are being trained to accost and charge people for merely living their lives. Who know where this will lead, but it cannot be good.
Shutdown measures tend to arbitrarily favour big business, and it is still a mystery how governments can justify shutting down churches while making allowances for gambling, alcohol, cannabis sales and abortion.
There is no way to determine how long the status quo will persist because government standards are nebulous and arbitrary. Since we appear to have granted governments the right to capriciously restrict fundamental Charter freedoms, it may become impossible to get the toothpaste back in the tube.
Governments are oppressive, by definition, and once citizens lose the desire to assert their God-given liberties, there will be no limit to the evils powerful people may feel free to pursue. Doubtless many readers may consider this to be the stuff of paranoid fantasy. But history, modern and ancient, presents numerous examples of this pattern, along with the sad reality that people never saw it coming. It is always a shock to realize that in modern history Christians have often led in the surrender of precious rights, even though they should be especially sensitive to the reality of evil and the concomitant danger of the loss of dearly-won liberties.
Nothing would make be happier than to discover that I have seriously underestimated the moral fibre of Canadian Christians. But even if my dire predictions of what may happen are wrong, I insist my evaluation of what is already happening is accurate. My question for the church is can we find a compromise and a place for mutual respect as we seek to live according to what we believe to be our Christian duty? None of us can foretell the future, but everyone must recognize that our religious freedoms are currently suffering severe restrictions. So, here is my exit question. If real persecution lies ahead, will the church have the unity to stand together in public opposition, or will we have prepared ourselves to surrender to tyranny?