(This is first of two posts on this topic. Part 2 can be found here.)
It is a dark day for churches in Quebec, and my heart is heavy. Word came down on the evening of December 16th that houses of worship have been mandated by the provincial government to turn away from their public services those without vaccine passports.
I do not make it a habit to get on my soapbox and declare my thoughts about public policy, but today I am making an exception. I would like to try and make the argument that this new regulation from the government is categorically different than any other regulation that has heretofore been applied to churches, and that in asking churches to do this, the government is asking churches to disobey the teaching of the Scriptures and to betray the essence of being a church.
Elders and pastors have carried a heavy burden since the very start of this pandemic. I know the weight of it, as I served as an elder for the first chaotic year of the pandemic. All the local church elders and pastors I’ve spoken to, without exception, affirmed that they have had under their shepherding care people at both ends of the spectrum (and everywhere in between) when it comes to responding to this pandemic. This government decree has, with one fell swoop, made each of their lives and leadership exponentially more difficult.
Church leaders have, by and large, done their best to thread the needle during these two tortuous years, and have repeatedly had to adapt at the last minute to ever-changing regulations, coming up with new policies for their gatherings. Each of those decisions has been stressful, demanding, and usually criticized by some for going too far and by others for not going far enough. I have immense respect and admiration for these faithful leaders.
When we were mandated to wear masks indoors, we bought masks and wore them. When we were restricted to 50, and then 25 people in the building, we mobilized volunteers and multiplied services, running three per Sunday at one point. We also bought equipment, trained volunteers, and started live-streaming services. When singing was restricted, we chafed and struggled but we sang with our hearts instead of our lips. We did all these things because, as hard as these restrictions were, they did not seem to directly go against the teaching of the Scriptures which we hold as the only ultimate authority in matters of faith and worship.
I will not pretend to be of two minds about this. The announcement from the government marks the start of something completely new. Everything that has come before has been on the scale from mildly to extremely inconvenient. To my mind, the church in Quebec now faces a test not of creativity and flexibility, or of neighbourly love and graciousness, but of conviction and principle.
To be plain: I think it unconscionable for a local church, which is a visible manifestation of the universal church of Christ on earth, to enforce this kind of discrimination. We simply cannot say in our call to worship, “This church opens wide her doors,” while at the same time having someone with a QR-Code scanner shutting those doors on the unvaccinated.
Yes, this new regulation is different. I believe it asks churches to disobey the clear teaching and principles of Scripture that we find in several passages. I will limit myself to two that come to mind, for the sake of brevity and clarity.
First, James 2. In this passage, the church is commanded to not show favoritism by seating a rich person in a good seat and telling a poor person to “Stand over there” or to sit on the floor. The passage concludes by saying to those who behave this way: “haven’t you made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?” (James 2:4). The principle is simple: favoritism that makes such distinctions among the body of believers is wrong. The distinction need not be between rich and poor, but between any two groups of people within the church body who are not treated the same. More could be said, but we move on to a second passage.
In Galatians 2, Peter fell into hypocrisy by separating from one group of believers (the Gentile believers in Antioch) out of a fear of displeasing another group (legalistic Jewish believers from Jerusalem). Paul rebuked him publicly, for he saw that creating such a division in the body of Christ was tantamount to “deviating from the truth of the gospel” (Gal. 2:14). These passages do not mince words – let us heed them and consider their implications carefully.
And although the Scriptural principles are clear, perhaps an even more powerful line of argument is found in the power of symbolism.
So let’s picture the scene: In order to obey this mandate, someone will need to stand at the front door with a device that has some government application on it. And that person will need to take each arriving worshipper in turn and scan their government-provided code, at which point their device will communicate with a government database, exchange some packets of information, and find out if they are allowed to come in and worship the living God in person.
But not so fast – a successful scan will not be enough. A photo ID will also be required to establish that the person is who they claim to be. The ecclesiastical bouncer will need to be ready to turn people away; people who are looking for hope, life-giving truth, and fellowship. Yes, that person will need to be willing to say words to this effect: “You cannot come in to this church, since you do not meet our government’s definition of ‘fully vaccinated.’ You will have to turn around, get back in your car, and go home.” Who is willing to do this work? Are you?
It is a shocking scene even to imagine, but we must imagine it and be clear about what it means. Tragically, I assume it will be a scene playing out at some houses of worship this Sunday and in coming weeks.
While different churches have responded differently thus far in the pandemic, the vast majority have made extraordinary efforts to meet and exceed the safety measures required by the government regulations, even when some of those regulations had awfully thin rationales behind them; the vast majority have sought to honor and obey the magistrates over them. But brothers and sisters, this is not one more rule among many; this is not just a new item on the list. No, this is something we cannot do. Whatever creative solutions and workarounds churches come up with – and there is surely a place for that – this is a line no church should cross.
I earnestly hope and pray that houses of worship of every type and stripe will hold firm to their convictions on these matters and present a unified front of non-compliance. I also hope and expect that those houses of worship will continue to follow all the other recommended safety guidelines even as they disobey this new rule. The posture must be one of gracious but firm refusal: We have bent over backwards, we have stretched, we have multiplied our services, we have taxed our volunteers, we have found ways to make it work, but we cannot and we will not do this thing. To do so would be to cease to be the kind of church we say we are.
The people of God are surely willing to be inconvenienced to a great extent, even to sacrifice much. But we cannot betray those principles and truths which amount to our very obedience to the One who is forever and infinitely above any provincial or national authority. We cannot turn hungry and thirsty souls away from the place where they might hear the words of life spoken to them. The heart of the gospel is the free offer of forgiving and renewing grace to any and all who would come to Jesus Christ by faith. We cannot make such an offer to people who have been turned away because the government told us to.
One feels that this moment is pregnant with meaning, and that much is at stake. The dramatic tension is high. In such a moment, dramatic words are not uncalled for. And I can’t think of any better suited to the moment than those purportedly uttered by the reformer Martin Luther (slightly adapted for our purposes). May this be the essence of the unified voice of the churches of the Lord Jesus Christ in response to this moment:
“Unless we are convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures and by clear reason, we are bound by the Scriptures. Our conscience is captive to the Word of God. We cannot and we will not enforce this mandate, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. Here we stand. We cannot do otherwise. God help us. Amen.”
(I think maybe even a Roman Catholic could say “Amen” to that).
I conclude with a word to church leaders, among whom are many dear friends and family members. I do not envy your position. Whatever decision you make, there will be emails, messages, and phone calls to face from those who disagree. And indeed, many churches are led by teams of elders, meaning that there is a diversity of viewpoints on all kinds of matters among them. The final decision may not be what every member (or any one member) of that group desired. And yet, for the good of the church, and the glory of God, decisions are made, policies put in place, and the work continues. I have tried to make my case as plain and clear as possible. And while I see a red line here, others may not. Even in disagreement, may we be known for a remarkable gentleness and humility. We never know all that goes into a group decision. Let us believe the best about each other and seek to preserve that precious bond of unity when all around us is division.
4 thoughts on “Vaccine Passports for Churches?”
The Bible also tells us to sing unto the Lord and that He inhabits the praises of His people. So by not singing you have already given away ground you should never have surrendered. I praise God that I am now part of a fellowship that has never worn mask, Social distanced (an oxymoron), closed the church or foregone their weekly meal together after the service. I do find the compliance to these ungodly restrictions extremely cowardly and indicative of a wilful ignorance re. Pthe true agenda of the Plandemic
Thanks for your comment.
Of course I followed such arguments closely over the last couple years as a subset of evangelical churches refused to cooperate with almost all government safety protocols. The Scriptures you cite are obviously not specific about exactly how, when, and how often we are to sing. I think it is fine for some people to be convinced in their conscience that to suspend vocal singing for even one week is to disobey these commands, as you clearly are, but it is not like that is the only possible interpretation and application that faithful Christians could make.
Sadly I find that those who have taken the path you are advocating are lacking a generous spirit towards other believers who land elsewhere. Instead, as the thinking seems to go, the only motivation for making any decision other than the ones these folks have must by necessity be extreme cowardliness and willful ignorance. This makes for a kind of posture that is reminiscent of the “fighting fundamentalists” of the early 20th century, a posture towards culture and other believers that did not bear good spiritual fruit even among their own numbers. There are spiritual dangers there.
I certainly recognize the boldness and courage of churches like yours, and honor that as virtue. I cannot help but notice as well, however, just how much your words, “I praise God that I am now a part of a fellowship that has never …”, seem to echo the words of the Pharisee in Luke 18:11, “‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men…”. I hope the similarity is only an appearance, for I know how quickly my own heart leaps at the chance to be self-righteous, and I suppose I’m not the only one.
Bravo for this bold and courageous stand on the matter. Many of us stand with you on these convictions. Many have waited to hear these declarations. We are headed into a very slippery slope if the church does not take a unified position on this demand. The unvaxxed in church are not the problem. Wake up and understand the agenda people. Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.
The science behind the government’s regulation is that an unvaccinated person is much more susceptible to contracting the virus and, consequently, to transmitting it.
The fact is that the virus can be present in a person and transmissible and yet the person has not developed symptoms. This is a crucial detail, as one would hope that a person exhibiting symptoms would not be permitted to enter.
If church elders decide to ignore the regulation and allow entry to anyone who wishes to attend a service, the following is a possible scenario:
An unvaccinated person, who is infected but who is asymptomatic or not yet symptomatic, enters the church. They sit next to someone who is immunocompromised. The virus is passed to this person. The newly infected person, due to their vulnerability, becomes extremely ill, is hospitalized, spends time intubated in the ICU and then dies.
This is a very real possibility.
The government has put in place the vaccine passport regulation in order to avoid, as much as possible, the occurrence of just such a preventable tragedy.
What will the church elders say in response to learning of such a tragedy?
“It was God’s will and the person is now with Him.”
“This had nothing to do with our decision to ignore the government’s directive!”
I wonder what Jesus’ would say?