In Defense of the B.C. Churches
In British Columbia, several Reformed churches have continued to have worship services despite government regulations. In that same province many activities continue. Schools, restaurants, fitness classes, and support groups are open. As in many regions in the Western world, churches are one of the first to be closed and the last to open under COVID regulations.
We must admit that dealing with COVID has been a challenge for government and churches. Some hospitals have been full. Our thoughts and prayers are with those churches who have had members die. We can grant that there have even been churches in some parts of the world that have been spreader events. Though it has been well established that those gatherings involved close quarters, food sharing, and close contact such as hugging and kissing. Very few Canadian churches have been significant spreader events. Perhaps because we don’t do all that much hugging and kissing, and many churches were quite careful with following regulations. I have been in several churches in three provinces since the pandemic began, and they were all meeting with reasonably sized groups in large and airy rooms. People were giving each other space. I myself, and many others I know, have also been at church services where people contracted COVID just before, and there was far less spread than expected. Often none. There have been relatively few cases attributed to churches in Canada.
Yet, across Canada, there have been hundreds of thousands of cases in areas where proportionately few people go to church. Also while churches were closed. If you look at a map of COVID spread it has been most prevalent in the most left-leaning areas of the nation: the largest cities. These are places where churches are often small, and stores and businesses are big. An incomparably large amount of the spread is happening in schools, social gatherings, on transit, and in workplaces in these cities.
Now, thus far, most of this has been besides the point. My main concern is that a number of Christians have begun to point the finger at churches which have opened. They are being called childish, dangerous, and rebellious. Their leaders’ character is attacked. Some believers point at Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2, and demand unconditional obedience to government. It is simple, they say. Even if there is low risk to health, we must obey the government. To do otherwise is a bad example, and a poor witness. It does not show love.
This attitude is not, and never has been, taken for granted in Reformed churches. We deny that God has given the government the authority to either call or to unilaterally prohibit worship. Worship is called by God himself.
Throughout the Bible, there are many examples of believers refusing to listen to government edicts when it comes to worship. Daniel’s three friends defied the emperor, and refused to worship the statue, and the Lord defended them. Daniel himself defied the emperor, and insisted on publicly worshipping the Lord, and the Lord defended him. The temptation of the Lord Jesus Christ involved a call to bow to Satan. At that time, Satan was the ruler of the kingdoms of the earth. The Lord Jesus refused to worship him, and would worship God only. The examples of the apostles, especially Peter and Paul, show that they preached and worshipped often against the will of governments.
Throughout history, believers and their worship were unjustly blamed for all manner of social ills and problems. Fingers were pointed at them for rejecting the gods, and refusing to bow to superstitions. Their lack of fear was seen as foolish. During plagues, many Christians stayed in the cities with the sick, while the others fled.
“Death is swallowed up in victory. O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?” - 1 Corinthians 15:54–55.
I believe that this lack of fear is at the root of many of the “atypical” responses that some Christians have to COVID. They simply are not as scared as they are supposed to be. Not of COVID, or of government. They desire to worship the Lord, and if necessary, this means they in good conscience decide they must obey God and not men. (Acts 5:29) They would even be quite comfortable taking a much more significant risk than COVID to worship. This is not a new thing in history. More and more Christians have the conviction that it is high time to let the chips fall where they may. That position, in many regions, has merits despite the risks. In some cases, when fear does not motivate, this may mean that extra thought and effort has to be put into respect for health concerns and government.
Beyond this, there is a confessional Reformed view of government that relates to why churches may be opening. The Belgic Confession of faith outlines the duties of government and the relationship of the church to government. It states that government has the following responsibilities in Article 36:
…their office is, not only to have regard unto, and watch for the welfare of the civil state; but also that they protect the sacred ministry; and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of anti-Christ may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by every one, of what state, quality, or condition so ever he may be…
If we subscribe to this confession, we can see that it is actually the BC government that is being disobedient. It is failing, on multiple accounts. The protection of, not interference in, true worship should be a high priority for them. Instead, it is clearly the lowest. This is a government that is being disobedient to God.
In the midst of these times other individuals, perhaps inadvertently, have adopted Erastian views of government rather than Biblical and Reformed views. Erastianism was a view of the church-state relationship that thought the government had ultimate authority over the activities and worship of the church. The “Free” in Free Reformed speaks, at least partially, to a historic denial of Erastianism. We need to be careful to insist that it is the Lord who calls us to worship and governs worship by His Word. The spheres which government is responsible for may affect worship. Government is to "protect" and "countenance" worship. Government, however, does not have power over worship. That is not a confessional view. A balanced Reformed view will affirm that the church has authority over worship, while the government may legitimately make decisions that affect yet protect thriving worship.
To be clear, I am not insinuating that closed churches are necessarily doing so from an Erastian position. There may be other factors to consider. The point is that some individuals have been, perhaps inadvertently, promoting Erastian positions in this context. Especially on social media. That narrative needs to be corrected.
In the historic Reformed view, church and government are not in a relationship of subjugation to one another. Their relationship should be seen more like that of two sisters than parent-to-child. Each has a different sphere of authority and responsibility, and this means that there are times when one must counsel the other. There are situations where the government has legitimate authority that affects the church and Christians. We do not say that the Lord’s call to assembly justifies speeding recklessly on the way to church, or meeting in an unsafe building that has been condemned by government. The government does indeed have a role to play that affects the church, and in these areas government may call the church to obedience. Ultimately, this would mean that government is calling us to principles that are rooted in God's law. If regulations are annoying, we should obey as much as possible. (1 Peter 2:13) If they call us to act in ways that are clearly contrary to God's law, however, we must not obey. (Acts 5:29)
BC's regulations are clearly more than imbalanced, and even unjust. What message does it send to a child if they spend Sunday at home, and the rest of the week at school? Is government bigger than God? Does education rank higher than worship? Which is worth risking your life for?
We grant that there will be times of crisis where the government ought to advise the church to suspend worship. If death was imminent, government ought to protect us. In such cases the church will be wise to err on the side of acquiescing, especially at first when knowledge of the situation is limited. History often shows, however, that governments easily cross over into attempting to be far too restrictive of the worship of the church. (Psalm 2:1-4) If this happens, at some point, government has crossed the line into disobedience, and the church must restore worship in obedience to God. That point is not easy to determine. Different local circumstances will result in some making that determination "earlier” than others. We should be careful not to judge others too hastily.
Beyond the scriptures and confessions, our church order is helpful under the current circumstances. Many members of Reformed churches who are looking for a “one-size-fits-all” approach may not be aware of Church Order Article 85. I would suggest that Reformed churches need to teach this principle to their people:
Article 85: Jurisdiction of Local Churches.
No church shall in any way lord it over other churches, no minister over other ministers, no elder or deacon over other elders or deacons.
It is in times like these that this article becomes vitally important. Churches are in different regions and under different jurisdictions. Each consistory must wrestle with a unique hodge-podge of factors. There are, undoubtedly, varying views within some consistories. In one area, there may be zero cases for weeks on end. In another, a church may be next door to an overwhelmed hospital, and have had recent COVID deaths. Some consistories may have nurses or doctors sitting at the table with strong opinions, or even have lost an elder or deacon to COVID. We are human, these factors make some cautious. There are good biblical and historic reasons we do not have popes or archbishops, we prefer a multitude of counselors. (Prov. 11:14) That is why things in Reformed churches sometimes move slowly, but we trust with a little more wisdom. It is also why many of us do not agree with letting just the medical experts steer the ship, and why many Ontario folks think that voices like the Honourable Roman's should be heard out and not cancelled. Knee jerk reactions abound in our day, and they do not actually help with either unity or a comprehensive approach to health.
Christians should be aware that some municipal governments, local police forces, and health units have been very respectful to churches as well. Other government agencies have been dismissive and even cruel. Some churches can legally divide into small groups. Members of the churches must understand that few churches are in identical circumstances. We ought to be slow to judge, and quick to think the best of others. We ought to pray that wisdom is given to each consistory.
Due to article 85, we are bound to say that whatever happens in another congregation is not ours to judge in circumstances like these. Despite our own convictions, it is not my place to unilaterally call on all of the churches in Canada to open. Some of us may wish that many of the churches would open. But to "call" them to open would be a step too far. It may even be impossible for an entire denomination or synod to rule on whether churches should be open or closed, as circumstances constantly change in each locality. Perhaps in the future. But for now, beating up our brothers is not going to move the needle forward, in fact it may bring it back. If they are going to stand, their convictions need to be well-held first. Without conviction, a stand is not going to be steady. Still, no matter where a church is, the need to return to living and breathing worship of the Lord is growing.
Beyond scripture, church order, and confessions, we could look at church history and find many examples that give us pause for thought. I wonder how many of the Reformed at this time would cancel Calvin himself? He certainly had some flaws. But during the Bubonic plague, a much worse plague than this pandemic, he visited the sick. Fellow pastors died doing this work of the Lord. His local government ordered him to stop visiting the sick because they wanted to keep him around! Better priorities, at least, than our governments. Yet there is good evidence that Calvin secretly defied his government, and continued to visit the sick. That was an act of “civil disobedience.” Would we call him a rebel? Disobedient? Or a loving minister who was radically faithful to the Lord's calling? Consider that ministers who continue to visit and worship are doing so out of love. “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” - James 1:27.
Some will still say: we must pray and wait, and respect the government. We may patiently respect that conviction, but not all will share it. I firmly, and without reservation, support the B.C. churches in standing up against a disobedient government. I also greatly respect those ministers who are putting it all on the line, in other jurisdictions as well. (Matthew 5:12) May we all pray that the Lord will have mercy on His church and our nation. "Let brotherly love continue..." (Hebrews 13:1-3)
