As Faith Beyond Belief moves into 2022, we are committed to helping the church as it rebuilds and/or refocuses after the last 2 difficult years. At FBB we believe in having effective conversations. Participating in a healthy conversation means both speaking and listening. For this reason, we are inviting Christian apologists and writers from a variety of backgrounds to share their thoughts on how the church should move forward. While you may not agree with every one of the opinions of our contributors or guests, we encourage you to read/listen to their thoughts and respectfully share your comments below so that we can learn from each other.  A healthy dialogue will help the church rebuild.

We thank all of our contributors and guests for their time and willingness to offer their own opinions which may or may not reflect the beliefs of Faith Beyond Belief.

-Heather Skinner, Executive Director

By: Tom Bartlett, FBB Contributor

       “Two weeks to flatten the curve,” then, “two more weeks to stop the spread.”

     Everyone doubtless recalls the dulcet tones of world leaders making these and many other pronouncements that most believed were to mitigate a situation that threatened our health and safety. In short order, the cryptic and foreboding quality of the messaging became more dire and the hoped-for resolution moved increasingly out of reach. 

     This, we have come to learn, was the opening salvo into what would lead to unrelenting fear and division within our network of friends and families. It also transgressed the halls of our churches, leading to internecine conflicts that have already caused incalculable damage to long-standing relationships and undermining the influence, witness and reach of the church.

     I want to make it clear that this is not another deep dive into the controversy surrounding COVID. Like every other living human being, I have strong feelings about it all. For the sake of full disclosure, I believe the response has been for purposes of control rather than public health. 

     With this in mind, whether or not your assessment tracks with mine or is diametrically opposed; how the church responds to this situation is at the same time irrelevant and of central importance, as we look to the future of the church. This may sound absurdly cryptic, but as I make my case, I believe the rationale for this seeming contradiction will become clear.

     First, to understand why I contend that this two-year trial by virus is not the main thing, simply look at the title. I am not claiming to prophesy over what the church will become in 2022, but attempting to reflect on where I see the church has gone off course in order to ensure we are aligned with our calling as the body of Christ going forward. Consequently, looking back is useful to the extent we can glean insights that help chart the course ahead.

     Secondly, COVID is not responsible for the corrosion within the western church, but merely a clarifying event that exposed cracks already within the foundation. This is an argument I made in a post for FBB over one year ago; before the introduction of a global inoculation program even came into being. A church that is well grounded will not be knocked out of commission by the machinations of man or the prospect of a perceived health crisis.

     Finally, the virus has merely been a tool being wielded to implement a response plan that will brook no dissent or questions. The devil has been in the details and those more interested in shaming and threatening people into compliance; the exact opposite of how honest brokers committed to the welfare of others would react.  This has never been a compassion test to determine who does or does not care about their friends, relatives, and coworkers - regardless of the messaging. Instead, it has been a crucible that exposed worldview assumptions and who people deem to be trustworthy sources.

     The flip side of this inherent dichotomy resides in the fact that there is no reason to assume the mandates paired with the commensurate divisions it has sparked is going away anytime soon. As such, it will necessarily be part of the calculus for 2022; not only for the church, but for every person with whom we bump elbows. Furthermore, more directives mean churches must choose whether or not to comply with the mandates which has been a source of tension between churches since the first concession was demanded by the state. Finally, even if a church’s leadership makes peace with its decision on how it will respond to seemingly endless mandates, this will not necessarily mollify those within the church who are not sanguine about the selected course.  The world too will judge our actions from their respective vantage points as ambassadors for Christ.

     Roughly two years ago, I started a blog ( www.burningstrawmen.blog ) out of concern that the cultural divide between Christians and unbelievers was needlessly caustic and demanded ‘ideological conformity’ in ways that involved coercion and social pressure. I challenged false assumptions to ensure the issues and biblical response comported with reality since activists with nefarious agendas have corrupted the information. Under COVIDLAND, I have come to see how many church leaders and congregants have fallen for what I am convinced is a scam.

      What can – and should – be said of the COVID mandates is that there is not a clear-cut answer to how we are to address this issue and we should have the humility to admit this. Romans 13 is not a tacit call to relinquish complete authority to the state over God; nor is it to be dismissed lightly as though turning to other passages completely negates its existence. We must treat one another with respect and honour the right to reach disparate conclusions when the righteous path is unclear.

     The theme of this treatise is that we must commit to unity as a church divided is no church at all. While it is true that the church is the people and thus does not require a building, it is also a fact that to be a church we must congregate. Locking down the church in theory does not violate our calling, however moving to an online alternative is not a replacement. We must break out of our social isolation even if there is a cost and this obligation remains even if we see COVID as an existential threat. Christians have a proud tradition – and promise – of persecution and peril in the furtherance of the great commission and the great commandment.  I would go so far as to say that anyone not facing real obstacles and opposition is living a cloistered existence that betrays a weak faith. 

     We are given the caution in Hebrews 10:23-25: “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” This is both clear-cut and consistent with any direction given regarding the body of Christ. There are no provisions that negate this duty contingent on health and safety measures or any other extenuating circumstances. 

     As many have insisted that the church can stay true to its mission while closing its doors to in-person gathering and moving services online, there are several questions that I believe need to be considered:

• If there is no essential need to gather together, should we simply sell off the churches and move to homes? What would that mean to our understanding of worship and fellowship? Is there any scriptural basis for this claim or does it merely indicate that some are comfortable with this alternative?

• Would you be satisfied simply inviting an unbelieving friend to watch an online service to grasp the depth and complexities of the truth of the gospel? What if he has questions? How likely is she to feel part of a Christian community? 

• How would discipleship happen over the internet? Who is likely to feel comfortable with sharing about the struggles and challenges of the week over Skype? 

• What happens to churches that don’t have the technology and/or budget for online services? What should be done about those who don’t have internet or who lack the capacity or desire to take in services online? Considering loneliness, depression,  social isolation and even suicide have been arguably the greatest “unintended consequence” of these lockdowns, how is one able to minister to this demographic?

• While the church is not a building, but the people, how do we have contact-free church? Doesn’t this at least necessitate meeting in small groups and, if churches are deemed “unsafe,” then isn’t this the same argument for not gathering for home church?

Check out our Friendlies!

*Click the image to go to their site.

 More than anything, my problem is with the premise that those who believe church to be too risky ought to be the arbiters to tell the rest of the church that they may not meet. Some years back, before I fully understood the futility, I would debate socialists over the internet. Inevitably I would let them know that I did not care how they wanted to live. I pointed out that there are communes and, if they could not find one they liked, they could start their own. This would allow them to live off the land, live free of possessions and set their own terms to institute “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” My issue is not with their utopian fantasies per se, but the fact that they demand that I adopt their delusion as well.

     I am nonplussed by the notion that people who feel safer and satisfied with online church as a replacement for in person services want to insist that all need to share their fondness for arms-length community. I am sincerely not trying to be insulting, but if you would rather participate from the comfort of your home, then my desire to attend in person should not matter to you. This strikes me as an ecumenical adaptation of the dog in a manger parable by Aesop where the dog doesn’t want the food in the manger, but insists on guarding it to ensure no other animal can eat from it either. If the argument is that the state is acting in the interests of public health, so staying at home is for our greater good; but this brings us back to the presumption that the state is acting nobly - a premise I reject out of hand. Just like arguing that the government is willing to fine those who hold church without their approval; we return to the question of whether Caesar is trying to claim what is God’s.

     I can tell you without reservation that the most disempowering and disturbing experiences of my entire churchlife experience have happened during COVID. First, after deciding I would not go to church masked and being told the policy would be enforced, I attended once - just once. We were standing in tiny masked pods singing about breaking down walls and throwing off chains and I couldn’t help but think that I understood better than ever before what Kunta Kinte must have felt.  Second, when two church members tested positive for COVID, the leadership contacted the government health agencies to get permission to meet. They were given the green light, but still decided to close down. Finally, I saw an announcement in the online bulletin expressing gratitude that the Ford government had restored his permission for them to sing. It was “goodbye” to that church.

     I will address one additional common challenge; namely, since governments claim the right to establish zoning laws or restrictions on gatherings (i.e., church socials and potlucks), this is merely an extension of that same authority. To the extent that zoning laws are both necessary and equally applied, they provide for the safety of society. What happens when these standards are unjustly applied and enforced and/or verge into hyper-regulation. For instance, were all businesses forced to close under lockdowns, or only the small ones? Why were liquor and cannibus stores and abortion clinics kept open and other businesses closed based on arbitrary measures of what is essential? Why were Christian churches uniquely given massive fines for holding services or were shut down under the presumption of being super-spreader gatherings without evidence? Why were pastors arrested in Alberta for “enticing people to attend church (which happens to be their primary directive) while leaders setting the standards flaunted their non-compliance by participating in maskless social events without consequence? Are they boldly staring down danger for the public good, or telegraphing that we are chumps? How many mega-stores were shut down based on the assumption that COVID was caught in these places which everyone was corralled into? 

     So, what are we to make of our obligation to follow earthly leaders especially if they are presumed to be acting for the greater good of society? After all, what kind of witness are we if zealously defending our autonomy compromises the health of others? In fact, I’m hearing even more that we need to protect the emotionally fragile who fear a departure from mandates, even if they don’t work. To this I say the following:

1. To insist that the admonition to obey earthly masters is unconditional is to claim that any circumstance where Christians have directly defied the state is rebellion against God. Consequently, everyone martyred by government authorities – up to and including our Lord – was acting outside God’s will. This is obviously absurd, so since there are exceptions, we need to determine whether the state is usurping God’s authority.

2. Romans 13 makes clear that the state is an instrument of God to the extent it is promoting good. If the laws restrict what God commands from his followers and does not provably bring about good (or even coddles evil), then they can and should be opposed. That is precisely the conclusion reached by those of us who resist the mandates. 

3. The mandates must be necessary and not just a legal imposition of something they consider “best practices.” To mandate even a social good (i.e. charity or welcoming strangers into one’s home) is not an act of compassion, but compulsion. Even the most charitable should rightly resent such an incursion into our free will.

4. Being kind to others does not mean we must avoid causing them upset. Many may not welcome being told that they are sinners in need of a saviour and instead want affirmation to do as they please. Imparting some hard truths can be precisely what Christians must do.   

     

     As promised, this is not simply about the COVID flu and all the commensurate implications for the church, but a bold call to action as a people under the blood of Christ as we advance his kingdom. After all, we were a compromised church able to be exploited for purposes of division before “COVID” ever entered our collective consciousness. We need to recapture our first love and go back to the source if we hope to get out of our present situation. 

 Mostly I have been addressing the failings of the church and promise to address in greater detail how the church should rise up in response to the cultural tides that threaten us in 2022. I promise that my next submission will not be so COVID-heavy.