Our Compromise: a follow up on Covid-19 and the Church

A friend asked me the other day, "do you regret it?"  He had heard that my open letter to the Church had stirred up controversy and that I might be in trouble.  My answer was immediate.  No, I didn't regret it.  I believed (and still believe) it needed to be said.   In fact, as time has passed and I have prayed over the matter my feelings and my resolve have grown stronger not weaker.   God has tried us to see what is in us, and we have been found out.  We aren't the lion hearts we thought we were.  We are strong on theology and confessions and ecclesiastical procedure, but we aren't so strong in the day of adversity (Proverbs 24:10).

But my friend's question raises an interesting question.  

First, why would I regret what I had written?  My friend was assuming that the events that had transpired since the letter was first written had somehow changed my mind.  He was wondering if maybe the trial had made me rethink my actions.  Of course, he meant well by it.  He was being a friend.  But what was behind that question and so many like it?  Pragmatism.  I have been appalled by how often I have heard leaders in the Church reasoning pragmatically rather than principally.  As ministers and elders we should never reason from second principles.  Our business is not first to figure out the consequences of our actions.  We are not in the business of calculating.  Rather, as men of God we are to reason from first principles.  We are to ask simply, what is our duty?  I haven't been hearing that.  Recently, I heard men deliberating about the cost of gathering for worship.  I heard questions like, "what if we are fined $50,000?"  What if our ministries are permanently interrupted because we have caused offense?   I have heard family members ask, "are you sure you want to jeopardize your children?"  I have heard others say, "what will the world think of us?"  These are the wrong questions.  I can't help wondering, didn't these people count the cost when they started?  Jesus said, "For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?"  We were explicitly told that if we want to follow Him we must take up our crosses.  Why, then, are we allowing consequences to figure into our calculations?  Alexander Henderson wrote, "It was the practice of the prophets, apostles, and holy martyrs and in this as in other things, ministers, and all others who have by their place any calling to give any testimony to the truth, must do their duty, committing the event unto God."  In other words, duty is ours, events (or consequences) are God's.  We are not to ask, "will it work?"  Or "will people like it?"  Or "will I suffer for it?"  When we began the Christian race it was assumed we would suffer!   Your Christian journey began with someone telling you of the sufferings of Jesus who was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities.  How many of us have said with Paul, "and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me?"  He suffered unspeakably for you.  He gave Himself for you.  And are you not willing to give even a little of yourself for Him?  How often have you been warned that the servant is not above His Master, that as they hated Him so they will hate you, that friendship with the world is enmity with God?   Why now when suffering for Christ is a real possibility are you thinking in terms of results and consequences when you were told from the start that following Jesus would cost you?  Why now when the current of popular opinion is so clearly against it are you deciding what is right on the basis of results rather on the basis of God's Word?  Why now does it matter so much what the world thinks?  

I have been thinking lately of the early martyrs.  They were truly a different breed of men.  They were actually eager to die for Christ.  They counted it a privilege to suffer for Him.  They weren't just blind to consequences, they seemed to welcome them, particularly if it meant a martyr's crown and a sight of Jesus.  They longed to be at the marriage supper of the Lamb, but they also wanted to have a part in His sufferings.  As I survey the Church today I am convinced we are not at all like them.  We are not eager to die, and I am not even sure we can honestly say that "to die is gain."  Our math is all wrong.  We see comfort and ease and riches and health as privileges rather than the snares that they are.  Unlike our forefathers, we want to avoid suffering at almost any cost.  We want to be liked by a world that does not like Him.  We actively curry the world's favour and yet behave as if it were a little thing to have God's favour.  I read of men who took their families to islands where previous missionaries had been murdered by cannibals, and I am not just surprised at their courage, I am surprised this generation even dares to hold them up as examples.  I read of men who entered leper colonies to bring suffering, dying men the gospel, and I wonder if this generation would even let them do it let alone honour them for it.  I read of martyrs and wonder how many of them by their loyalty to Jesus brought suffering and death upon their families and friends; and then I wonder, how we can pretend to be their heirs.  Like the Pharisees we honour them, we "build the tombs of the prophets and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous," but we prove by our behaviour that we are "children of them which killed the prophets."  I wonder how many of them in today's terms would be considered seditious and unloving.  They were men of whom this world is not worthy, and men whose testimony should make this generation of Christians blush.  

I wrote recently to a friend that I am grieved.  Every time I get alone to pray I feel such a strong sadness over the Church's position on gathering for worship.  We can say its not persecution all we like, but we are afraid to suffer - even when it is for One who suffered so freely for us.  How can I be sure?  If the media were clamoring for Christians (and other religions) to be allowed to gather for worship, if public opinion were on our side, and if gathering wouldn't incur fines we would be gathering.  But we don't want the fine, and we don't want to be alienated.  It appears as though we are reasoning from second principles rather than first.  We are concerned with consequences rather than duty.  We always believed it was our duty to gather for worship.  That was never a question... until the government said we couldn't and threatened fines.  

So back to the issue at hand.  What is our duty?  I have already addressed this in the open letter, but I would like to expand on the argument I made there.  I am still hearing the same old arguments.  We are being urged to obey the government (5th commandment) on the basis of public health (6th commandment), and this at the expense of the first four commandments.  When King Darius ruled that for 30 days no one could pray to any god or king except himself, Daniel disobeyed.  The Bible says, "Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime (Daniel 6:10)."   It is important to recognize that this was not persecution.   It was a law that applied to everyone; but Daniel didn't reason like Christians today.  It didn't have to be persecution for him to disobey.  He understood that a man cannot have two masters, so when he was commanded to stop doing what God wanted him to do he simply ignored the command.  Have you noticed how straightforward the account is?  There was no reasoning his way out of something that would jeopardize his life (6th commandment).  He didn't argue like we do that it was just temporary.  He didn't reason from the 5th commandment that, after all, Darius was his king.  He didn't even alter his habits so as to escape detection.  Think about how we have justified live-streaming as an alternative to gathering.  For most of us it was not an option we even considered until just recently.  We didn't consider it because we reasoned from first principles.   Until covid-19 it was not even a subject we debated.  We knew God wanted His people to gather for worship.  In fact, before this pandemic, and before the emergency act threatened fines, we disciplined church members who didn't gather on the Lord's Day.  So what has changed?  Not the principles that have shaped our habits for generations.  Not the Biblical mandate.   What changed is simply this:  gathering became illegal.   So, on the basis of the 5th and 6th commandments we adapted.  Why didn't Daniel adopt a similar policy?  Why didn't he adapt?  He could have prayed with his eyes open while walking about his home, and no one would have known.  But we are told that he did exactly as he had before.   Nothing changed.  Why?   Because he had but one Master.

In the same way when Shadrach Meshach and Abnego refused to bow before the golden image, friendly well-meaning Israelites might have urged them to bear in mind that they weren't being persecuted.  After all, everyone was required to bow not just believers.  They might have been urged to obey the king (5th commandment), and had they access to Romans 13 they might even have been told that that, after all, Nebuchadnezzar - like Nero - was a minister for good.  They might also have been urged that this was in its own way a public health matter.  Shouldn't they be more careful with their lives?   And if they were to die what would become of their families?  And before defying his order shouldn't they start with letters of appeal?  Do you remember how these brave principled men answered the king?   Their policy was simple:  "be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up."  The question wasn't whether or not they were being pointedly persecuted (as if Nebuchadnezzar was targeting just them).  Nor was the question "what will people think of us?"  These men didn't work it out pragmatically, though they were confident that God could preserve them if He chose.  There was but one question for them to sort out: what did God want?  

And then... they went out and did it.  

So what does God want?  Jesus was once asked a question that is particularly relevant to the issue at hand.  "Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"  Now keep in mind that on the coin was the image of Caesar and the words, "Tiberius son of the divine Augustus supreme high priest."  Jesus' answer, considering the context, was both pointed and controversial: "render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."   In other words, there is something that belongs to Caesar and that should be given to him; but there is something that belongs to God and that ought to be given to Him (rather than to Caesar).   So, yes, taxes belong to Caesar, but worship belongs to God.   Over and over again I have heard men defend live-streaming over gathering - something they would never have done pre coronavirus - by referencing Romans 13.  In its own way, I believe it is a kind of begging the question.  Everyone grants that ordinarily Christians are to obey authorities.  What is forgotten is the context in which those words were written.  Paul was simply admitting that there is something that belongs to Caesar and that that something must be rendered to him.  He wasn't for a moment suggesting that the king could demand along with taxes what belonged to God.   Paul wrote at a time when "civil disobedience" was an ordinary part of Christian life.  We read repeatedly in Acts words of instruction and warning to the apostles and early believers plainly telling them what they must not do.   As we read on we find those same believers doing the very thing they were just told not to do.  So no one reading Romans 13 then would mistake Paul in the way that he is being mistaken today.   What was Paul saying?  Just what Jesus had said.  Render to Caesar what is Caesar's.  Give him what properly belongs to him as magistrate.  But don't you dare give him what is God's!  What have we done?  In the name of Romans 13 we have also given to Caesar what is God's.  I don't mean that we are worshiping our magistrate, but I do mean that on the magistrate's order we have given up what actually belongs to God.  We have said for centuries that he shouldn't meddle in the affairs of the Church, but now because he asks (and threatens) we have allowed him not just to meddle but to take it entirely from us.  

God has made it clear that though we are to obey the authorities (per the 5th commandment), when there is any conflict we are to obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29).  Richard Adams (Puritan Sermons, vol. 2) said, "parents [and other authorities] are to be obeyed in all things only in the Lord."  He explained this by quoting Anselm who said, "That is in those things only which are not beside or do not exceed the precept of the Lord' because it is pleasing unto God, that in such a manner we should obey them."  Adams continued, "It should seem be held then according to truth, that if a superior should exceed his commission by imposing any preter-evangelical canon for doctrine or practice, the inferiors' non-conformity thereunto was no transgression; for in obeying the command of a subordinate power we are primarily to take care that the right of the absolute Sovereign remain inviolable."  James Janeway in the same volume said, "If men would never command any thing but what they have warrant for from the word of God, commands would then be just, and obedience easy; then the poor servant would never be put upon that sad dilemma, whether he should obey his earthly or heavenly Master."  Matthew Poole (Puritan Sermons, vol. 5) wrote, "Can any man think that the authority of the church [or magistrate] could make void the command of God?"

God has also made it clear that while we are to do what we can to to preserve life, we are to seek first His kingdom and righteousness, and that we are (as Gavin Beers put it) "to hate everything else relatively speaking in reference to first table duties toward God."  There is a priority in the commandments.  The first and great commandment is to love God.  The first four commandments are to take priority over the last six.  None of us are surprised by the fact that this priority is not recognized by the State, but it is tremendously sad that in this generation it is not being recognized by the Church either.    In his webinar presentation Gavin Beers asked an important question: "what is public worship?"  Here was his answer: "It is the highest form of Christian service!"   Ponder that for a moment.  The government has said it is inessential.  By submitting the Church has tacitly agreed.  With our feet we have said the highest form of Christian service is inessential.  What is most dear to God, what we have called heaven on earth, has been set aside while people still gather in stores, on assembly lines, in workplaces, and even for fellowship.   This doesn't just come across as hypocrisy, but as a mark of this generation's attitude toward God.  Samuel Lee said that "God hath left no age without a witness of the pure word dispensed, of the two sacraments duly administered, and of spiritual worship and order managed in a comely, apostolical manner.."  That may have been true in every age and true somewhere - China perhaps - in these strange months of 2020, but for months now it hasn't been true in my community.   The pure word has not been dispensed in the way God has intended, God's people have not been called by their elders to worship, the sacraments have not been duly administered and spiritual worship and order have not been managed in a comely apostolical manner.  Not for months!  Yesterday was the Sabbath.  In the morning my family went, as we do each week, to worship, but our gathering (as usual) was very small.  In the afternoon in deference to a brother we stayed home.  And my eldest daughter wept.  Since she was little she has had a tender heart for Jesus.  I remember finding her at 3 years of age alone on her knees praying.  She loves the Sabbath and loves gathering for worship.  Yesterday she wept because she misses the Sabbaths of the past.  And I found myself heartsick because it ought not to be so.  Christians are saying we cannot gather when actually we can.  We can certainly give to Caesar what is his, but we can and we must at the same time give to God what is His!  My daughter's heart aches because she longs like the psalmist for the sanctuary (Psalm 63, 84), but what breaks my heart is how truly unnecessary this is.  If only God's people were willing we could gather.  We could gather in smaller groups. We could gather in fields or forests or barns.  We could wear gloves and masks.  We don't have to stay home.  We don't have to endure these barren Sabbaths.  I said to someone today that it would be far easier to bear real intense persecution with the Church than to bear this without her.  I know what many are saying, that the Church is the people, that live-streaming is still worship, that God can still bless us.  But those of us who have tasted of the heavenly gift know the difference.  We know with Beers, that public worship "is the holy convocation of saints with the peculiar promise of his presence and blessing."   There is nothing, this side of heaven, like it.  And that holy convocation "is issued by a divine call through the Church not the State." 

A word about our hypocrisy:  In his presentation Gavin Beers pointed out that we can go to Walmart and mingle with lots of people, we can go to work places where we mingle with lots of people and many of the people in our congregations are doing this because essential.   Just the other day I was at a garden center.  In one room there were 9 people and in the next 16 +.  Where are all the voices objecting to this on the grounds that it is putting lives in jeopardy for something truly inessential?   But then many Christians are also willing to mingle in groups over 5 just for fellowship.  They meet with family and friends and don't mind breaking the law to do so.  But when it comes to worship they insist on strict letter of the law obedience.   How many of the same people that are calling for submission on the basis of Romans 13 would not hesitate to disobey if ordered to vaccinate their children?  How many of them would refuse to obey if ordered to teach LGBT+ propaganda to their children?  How many would refuse even to give up their firearms if ordered to do so?  But the government asks us to give up gathering for worship and we point to Romans 13 and the 6th commandment and then insist it's the Christian thing to do.   As Beers pointed out there is a fundamental inconsistency in our logic.  What we are doing as we continue to mingle with people outside worship while carefully avoiding the house of God bears all the marks of hypocrisy.

For part 3 go here.

[This post was written on May 11, 2020]