We are thankful to the Lord that we continue to meet on Sundays here in Ixtapaluca, after having had interactive services online for 18 weeks.
I’m sure most of us have put a lot of thought into the question of “closing churches”. As I’ve mentioned before, we really started thinking about this during the H1N1 flu pandemic in 2009. Strains of H1N1 continue to circulate, and people die from it every year.
So there are a lot of questions to ask when it comes to “closing” churches. For example, what does “close” mean? Do you continue to interact online? Do you continue to meet in small groups? I have argued before that an interactive online service can indeed be a part of church – that is, the assembly of believers.
Not everyone would agree with that, but maybe more would agree that that cannot be all of church. In other words, when we are commanded to assemble together as believers, it means more than an online service. It means taking the Lord’s Supper – together. It means church discipline. It means singing together, hearing God’s Word together. Being physically present, with elders and families and everyone. In fact, a physical “Bible study” probably wouldn’t fulfill the command for the assembly either.
And I would argue that the assembly of believers is a teaching that goes all through the Old and New Testaments. So – if we’re commanded to do it, we must do it.
Of course that does bring us back to some other questions, such as – can we stop meeting temporarily in a crisis? Could we meet in smaller groups if the government asked us to (assuming that we’re able to have elders, teaching, worship, baptisms, etc. in those smaller groups)? (And by the way, I recognize that some churches have major issues simply because of their resources, location, and facilities.)
As you might guess by now, I’m not prepared to answer all of these questions. And if we were asked to close again here, the decision would not be up to one person. But I do have some thoughts which I don’t think have been discussed as much as they should be.
One of the biggest ongoing questions has been – just how serious is this situation? And as COVID-19 has become more of a political issue, it seems that it’s become harder to find good information. From the official numbers that governments are putting out, we have a lot to be thankful for! COVID-19 has not been anywhere near as dangerous as we feared at the beginning. Some have suggested that the majority who get the disease have minimal or no symptoms. But in spite of this, we know that it can be deadly for some (and yes, it has hit close to home, in case you’re wondering).
It has been difficult to find good comparisons between COVID-19 and other diseases, or between COVID-19 and the effects of the lockdowns. If politics doesn’t get in the way, looking back in a couple of years we may have a better idea.
So we may disagree about just how serious COVID-19 is compared to other issues and medical issues caused by the lockdowns, etc. People have, of course, died because of the lockdowns as well as from COVID-19 itself. But if we agree that COVID-19 is relatively serious, the next question is – what should we do about it?
Well, actually, maybe there’s another question first. And this is one that’s often missed. The question is – who should be in charge of what we do about it?
Let’s say there’s a virus going around the country, and I live in a small town. There’s a flower shop on the corner. Who should decide a) if the flower shop opens on Monday morning and b) if I go to visit the flower shop? In other words, the question is not should the flower shop close – the question is, who should have the final say?
What has been increasingly happening is that the decision is left to a handful of worldwide experts and leaders. So someone in a far away city, perhaps a far away country, decides that they have the power to close the flower shop on Monday, or tell me I can’t walk in to buy some flowers. Never mind that other experts and leaders disagree (for example) – the question is, who has the power at this time to make those decisions?
So when it comes to the politics of the situation, that probably concerns me more than anything else. Of course there are advantages to worldwide and nationwide cooperation in some things. Sharing information, for example. But when someone far away tells the corner flower shop to close, we know that that person has little reason to care for my little town, and the family of the flower shop owner (whereas a the town mayor would have a lot more interest – and the family of the owner a lot more!).
So in some ways, I think we should be asking “who?” before we start asking whether or not I should go buy some flowers today. That’s a different question.
And there are those who are charged to lead the church – elders. And God gives them the responsibility to make sure that the assembly of God’s people happens. They actually have the final say, not governments national or local.
That’s not to say that they should not obey the government where possible – but the final decision belongs to the shepherds, who are under the Good Shepherd Himself.
And if we blame anyone, we can’t just blame far-away governments. That is, we can’t blame them if we keep looking to them to save us, bail us out, make decisions for us.
The other concern I have is one that has been mentioned over and over. It is frequently overlooked and denied that church (again, I’m using the term as biblically as I can here – to refer to the assembly of believers) is an “essential service”.
Years ago in Canada, and I imagine in many other countries as well, church was far more respected, as was recognized as having an important role in mental health, strong families, moral behaviour in general. Today it’s just as likely that church will be the usual suspect for everything that’s “bad” in society. So in Canada as well as Mexico, churches have been put in a category all their own, and told when to open and close.
With the result that in some places people can go to bars and strip clubs, or walk around a high-traffic grocery store, but they cannot “go to church”. There’s no doubt that many churches who have put measures in place for social distancing etc. are far more “safe” according to the current COVID-19 orthodoxy than some of these other places are. So why are they being targeted? Are they easier to shut down? Less loss of tax income? Are some governments recognizing how revolutionary the Christian faith actually is? There are probably a number of reasons, depending on where you are.
So here’s one question I would encourage you to ask. If there were no government telling it what to do – if you just knew generally about COVID-19 and all the other diseases flying around in the world today – would you have closed your church?
It’s easy to ask – is it safer now? more dangerous? is such-and-such a similar place opening? what does so-and-so in my church think about it? But wait – would you have closed at all if the government hadn’t told you to? Why, or why not?
What’s the answer the Bible would give? What is your answer? If the answer is “yes”, we had better have some good biblical reasons why (beyond “love your neighbour”, please. A great argument can be made for staying open to “love your neighbour”.). And if the answer is “no” – we need to do some soul searching again, because the time may come – and maybe has come where you are – when you are being asked to close. Or at least to become so restricted that it is no longer reasonably possible for everyone to come.
It’s subjective to say this, but it sounds true (maybe it’s always true) – there has never been a time when the assembly of the saints has been more important. The devastating effects of a loss of community are something even the world is noticing. But how much greater the need to pray together, study God’s Word together, be accountable to one another to get rid of sin, baptize believers, reach out to the world, organize ourselves so that we can help our communities when they are in crisis. Can some of these things be done to a limited degree without “church”? Yes, but not completely. Because the Head of the Church did not ask us to meet via letters, or Zoom, as important and useful as these things may be.
If we are asked to “close temporarily” again, what will we do? I don’t know. But I hope that we spend even more time in earnest prayer and study as we make our initial decision and ongoing decisions. And if you’re in that situation, I hope you will too.
