Wyatt Graham and our Views of the Virus

 

I do not know Wyatt Graham, and until recently I had never heard of him. That is probably simply because I have never followed TGC.  More recently I have taken an interest in him because of his position on covid.  He represents the other side and I am one that likes to know what the other side is thinking.  

Here I would like to respond to his recent article titled Our Views of the Virus Affects Our View of Persecution.  It is a gracious article, but the author is saying what he and others and TGC Canada have been saying for a while: that what James Coates, Jacob Reaume, Tim Stephens, Michael Thiessen, Aaron Rock, myself and others have experienced isn’t persecution.   

The problem begins with the premise.  Graham says “If I view the pandemic as severely harming society and if I see restrictions as preventing that harm, then fining someone for breaking health regulations generally makes sense.”  He adds, “On the other hand, if I do not see the pandemic as a genuinely harmful virus and if I see restrictions as useless… then government interventions could look like unjust persecution.”  

There are layers of problems with this premise.   I will name just two. 

First, he assumes that the perceived  severity of the pandemic has determined our response to it.  In other words, he seems to believe we are gathering our people because we don’t believe the virus is actually very dangerous.   That isn’t the case at all.  When we first learned of covid many of us believed it would be very serious.  We believed the mortality rate would be very high.  We didn’t know how high, but we expected many more deaths than we have seen.  Still we argued the church must gather.   Early on (in March of 2020) Rev. Rob McCurley urged that churches were throwing God under the bus by failing to gather.  At the time he insisted - in effect - that risking life and limb for worship was worth it.  I agree.   

I remember early on watching people take risks to gather with family members and friends.  I saw people at Walmarts and other grocery stores, and it troubled me that people would take risks to buy groceries while refusing to take similar risks to gather for worship.   They said the risk was worth it.  They even had a name for those kinds of activities.  They were “essential”. 

I believed then as I do now that if anything is essential it is God’s worship.  I believed then as I do now that if our forefathers could risk life and limb for their faith, surely we can take a similar risk by gathering for worship during a pandemic.  

Early on I thought it was probably dangerous to gather with believers, but I did it anyway.  It seemed a small price to pay.  I have been asked if I would do as I have done during covid if this were a pandemic like the bubonic plague.  My answer has been an unequivocal "yes".  I would likely wash my hands more, I would probably take more precautions outside of worship, and I would certainly be more sympathetic with the mask wearers, but otherwise I would conduct myself exactly the same. 

Here’s why:  the principles which have governed my conduct throughout 2020 and 2021 have not been recently adopted.   When I began as a Christian I counted the cost.  I expected to carry a cross.  And I didn’t think it would necessarily come down to a man with a gun to my head asking if I believed in Jesus.  I knew that it would come down to my allegiance to Jesus both in word and deed. 

Second, Graham assumes a definition of persecution I do not hold.  His is a mistake being made by many Christians across the country.  The assumption is that persecution is when Christians suffer for the fact of their being Christian.  So, if the government isn’t necessarily specifically targeting Christians  it isn’t persecution.  If we can still believe and teach what we like and no one is being arrested for sharing the gospel it isn’t persecution. 

By that definition what Daniel experienced wasn’t persecution because the king’s law applied equally to everyone.  Actually Daniel was still allowed to believe what he wanted.  What got Daniel into trouble - predictably - was his inability to comply with a law that prevented him from praying to God (even though just temporary).  Daniel didn’t comply.   He didn’t alter his behaviour (even temporarily) and because of it he was thrown to the lions.  And we know the rest.  God honoured him and delivered him.  Similarly, by the definition held by many Canadian Christians what Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego experienced also wasn’t persecution.  There again the king’s law applied equally to everyone.  They, too, were allowed to privately believe whatever they wanted.  What got them into trouble was their inability to comply with a law that required them to fall down and worship an image. 

Actually what those men experienced fits Jesus' description perfectly.   What did He say about persecution?  He connected it with righteousness.   He said we are to rejoice when we suffer - at the hands of men - for righteousness’ sake.  The issue isn’t orthodoxy.  Its orthopraxy.  When we suffer for obeying God we are suffering for righteousness.      

The problem we are having in this debate may be that men are taking their definition from a dictionary rather than the Bible. 

Some have recently suggested that noncompliant Mosques are being left alone while churches are being targeted.  I don’t know if that is the case or not.  If it is, it merely demonstrates that Christians are indeed being targeted.  If it isn’t we are back where we started.  Whether targeting Christians or not the government is enforcing rules which require Christians to disobey God.  Whether in the negative (as with Daniel) or the positive (as with Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego) it is persecution.  

Let me put it this way.  If the government introduced a law that - in the name of safety - forbade its citizens from attempting to proselytize transgender people we would have to disobey it.  That may actually happen.  And what if Christians were imprisoned for disobeying a law like that?  It could be argued that they are merely being prevented from causing harm.  It could also be argued that the government isn’t specifically targeting Christians.  Muslims and Jews fall under the same restrictions, which means they are not allowed to proselytize transgender people either.   It could even be argued that we are still allowed to believe the gospel and preach the gospel.  So, by Graham’s definition, it wouldn't be persecution.  If that happened we could call it a hardship, just not persecution.  I suspect most evangelical Christians would disagree with him. 

But there's more going on here than a debate over the meaning of persecution.  I think that the underlying problem may have more to do with our definition of righteousness.

If men like Reaume and Coates are being persecuted for righteousness what does that say about the men who, living in the same country (and under the same regulations), aren’t being persecuted? 

Either God is sparing them or they aren’t practicing righteousness.   I fear that for many of these men that simply isn’t a possibility they are willing to face.   They know that God isn’t sparing them.  They are sparing themselves... by complying.  Which means that they must either justify what they are doing or admit that they are not practicing righteousness.   Since they are not willing to do the latter they must justify their actions; and part of that justification involves insisting that the rest of us aren’t being persecuted.  It’s a line they simply have to tow. 

The alternative, one they don’t - at the moment - seem willing to face, is that they need to repent of their sinful compromise.  

I certainly hope am wrong. I hope that these men are prayerfully considering whether they may be wrong. I hope they are willing to face the possibility that they aren't practicing righteousness. Only God knows their hearts. But I am praying that the current controversy between us will be used of God to bring men to repentance. Our aim is not to win a fight, but to see men renouncing sin and turning from unrighteousness.

Change in practice from 2020 to 2021?

In his article Graham argues that “all (or virtually all) churches have followed the safety guidelines at one point.” 

I don’t have the numbers but I can say that certainly not all churches have done so.  Actually, it is true that virtually all churches are following safety guidelines even now.  I will also grant that the small few that aren’t following those guidelines did respond in a variety of ways in the early months of 2020.  But certainly not all complied.  I didn't, and I know a number of pastors who, on principle, never stopped gathering for worship. 

Graham then argues that the one key reason for the change that took place over the course of months had to do with the disagreement over the severity of the virus. 

I can see how Graham would make that an assumption, but it is false. 

There may be some who changed their practices based on their assessment of the severity of the virus.  For the majority it had nothing to do with the virus and everything to do with the Scriptures.  Most men I have talked to changed because their consciences were bothering them.  They saw the harm done to their congregation, they missed gathering for worship, and they believed that compliance was disobedience to God.  Some of these church leaders have publicly repented of their previous decisions.  They didn’t admit a miscalculation in terms of risk assessment.  They confessed sin.

Later Graham poses a question.  He asks, "Since the churches who say, “Reopen without restrictions” and those who say, “We should open with restrictions” have agreed frequently by their practice on Sunday, one key question is: where is the threshold before we feel like we can disobey government-imposed health regulations?” 

I am not sure I understand what he was getting at.   But I will share what I have observed.  

There appear to be two main groups: 

1. those who comply with the regulations; 

2. and those who don’t. 

Those who (1) comply can be generally divided into two subgroups.  

• Those like Wyatt Graham who comply primarily in obedience to the government (while admitting, as he does, that their assessment of the severity of the virus may inform their decisions as to whether or not obedience is due);

• and those who who comply and even go beyond compliance primarily because of the virus.  The latter subgroup represent those have stayed closed even when permitted to gather.  

Those who (2) don’t comply can also be generally divided into two subgroups.  

• Those who don’t comply with any of the guidelines; 

• and those who comply with some of the guidelines.   

But all those who (2) don’t comply are agreed on this: that the church must gather.  We may not be agreed on the extent of social distancing required and whether or not masks should be worn, but we are all agreed that the church must gather with or without the permission of the civil authorities.  

So when Graham says "even strong 'reopen without restrictions' churches have often met according to Provincial Health Guidelines” I think he is missing the point. 

There are differences among us in terms of social distancing and mask wearing, etc.  But what explains the difference? 

Some have decided that while they must gather in obedience to God, they want to give the government as much as possible.  Others have decided that when they gather the government will have no say in what they do.  These differences do not reflect a disagreement in terms of threat perception but a disagreement in principle.  Some believe that social distancing and mask wearing are adiaphora.  Others believe them to be disruptive and ultimately ungodly.  Either way, the (perceived) severity of the virus has nothing to do with it. 

Conclusion

Wyatt Graham says there is “room here to allow for brothers and sisters in Christ to disagree over the specifics of how we resist.”  

I appreciate the sentiment, but is there really room to allow disagreement on this issue? 

Actually, it depends on our definition of righteousness. 

I don't want to put words in their mouths, but I suspect that for Wyatt Graham and his colleagues it isn’t persecution because it isn’t righteousness.  The minority of us on the other side are saying "actually it is righteousness." 

Righteousness isn’t something that changes with the wind or the tides.  It doesn’t change based on current cultural proclivities nor does it change based on some kind of risk assessment.  Righteousness is defined by God’s law. 

I said the following in a previous article and I believe it bears repeating:

“...until 2020 the saints considered gathering for worship righteousness.  Until 2020 the saints believed that submitting to the authority of Jesus Christ over His Church was righteous.  They believed that it was righteous to sing His praises, righteous to turn no one away, righteous to greet each other with some symbol of affection (beyond a wave), righteous to exclude only the duly excommunicated, righteous to do worship how God commanded, and righteous to render to Caesar only what was his.”

So how can there be room for disagreement?  What's needed is not more latitude.  What's needed is repentance. 

Simply put, those who have spared themselves the pain of persecution by complying need to confess their sin and get right with God. I have no wish to see these men swallowed up with sorrow (2 Corinthians 2:7). Actually, I look forward to seeing them restored. But first they must find a place for repentance. In Peter's case it wasn't until the cock crowed that he fully realized what he is doing. It was only then - after denying Jesus 3 times - that he wept bitterly. I am personally praying that God will graciously help these men see how they have denied their Saviour. I am praying that there may be public repentance and that the two sides which are currently at odds may be joyfully reconciled... not by agreeing to get along, not by granting greater latitude, but by confession and repentance of sin.

- Steve Richardson