This was originally a Facebook post that I wrote and placed on my timeline April 19, 2020. The response was so positive, I decided to catalogue it with my other articles. On April 30, 2020 Communities Digital News published a shorter version, essentially the same but without the prologue that I wrote to my Facebook friends. What you see below is the original version:

-Bob Siegel

 

I’m about to talk to my Christian Facebook friends. If you are not a Christian, you are still welcome to read the post. There’s nothing to stop you from doing that anyway and I am not assuming it wouldn’t apply to you in some ways. I am merely pointing out who I am addressing.

Lately, on Facebook, I am seeing a lot of well meaning posts being circulated, words of concern written in the form of letters. The letters are scribed by dedicated Christians who feel a need to challenge other committed believers; brothers and sisters who, in their minds, are over reacting to the government mandated shut downs; most specifically, the cessation of church services in exchange for regulated quarantine.

These messages are obviously well intentioned. They read like loving rebukes, calling on the body of Christ to grow up and realize that any proper reading of Scripture portrays a God who expects us to obey our government, especially since social distancing/shelter in place orders are not really treating Christians any differently than other Americans. Indeed, the more Christians complain, the more they are being a “bad witness.”

“What is the big deal,” they ask. “if we are unable to gather on Sunday for a very temporary period of time? Lives are at stake. We must mitigate this coronavirus and flatten the curve as our President’s team of skilled, experienced scientists and doctors have recommended. What does it hurt if we can’t gather together in a large building? The church is not a building anyway; the church is the body of Christ. Didn’t Jesus say, ‘wherever two or more are gathered in my name, I am in the midst of you?’ God’s church is everywhere. When we meet on Zoom, the teaching is no less inspirational and the prayers are no less effective.”

And so the admonishment goes…

I wish to respond….

I’m about to respond…

Before I do…

If you, yourself wrote such a letter, please relax. I am not upset with you; neither am I thinking of you specifically or any other single person. Many such posts are circulating on Facebook. Chances are, yours was not even amongst the ones I read.

In any event, I have no doubt whatsoever that these posts were written sincerely. The motive was to express concern in a loving way; the motive was to help. That is the tone I am seeing; I am taking such words in the spirit they were obviously intended.

In that vein, the purpose of my response right now is not to strike up debate.

There is a place for debate, but not at the moment.

Instead, I wish to establish a framework for future discussion, a guideline for the exchange of differing view points in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Since I am convinced that Christians on both sides of this matter love God and strive to do the right thing, I would like to clarify where I and others like me are coming from. I am certain every one reading right now is just as eager to clarify where they are coming from. Often, when people listen, I mean really LISTEN to each other, they discover that they agree far more than they realized. The modicum of leftover disagreement seems more palatable afterwards. After celebrating what unites us, contrarian opinions need not threaten us.

And so, let us do away with myth and replace it with clarification.

Truth be told, many of us are more interested in people understanding our thoughts than embracing our thoughts. We all need to be heard. I can easily accept that you might disagree with me, but I do not wish to be falsely represented; neither do you.

The statements which follow are statements I believe all Christians can agree with regardless of what actions they feel God is calling them to (or in some cases, not calling them to) during this unique time of history we share together.

AGREED: One can pray, trust in God, have faith, know that God is sovereign, that He will have His way, that all things work together for good, and still be mindful of the spiritual warfare around us, our own role in carrying out God’s work, our responsibility to carefully monitor our religious liberty, a liberty which the Bible says is conducive to the spreading of the Gospel (1 Timothy 2). Trusting God, but acting as a watchman, are not mutually exclusive practices.

AGREED: Those who choose to speak in the face of perceived danger are not necessarily calling for civil disobedience. One stance does not immediately translate into the other.

AGREED: Bible verses such as Romans 13 do command us to obey the government. But we also acknowledge incidents in Scripture where God’s people were called to disobey. Daniel chose to pray even when the King of Persia issued a decree forbidding prayer. Peter and John were dragged before the authorities and instructed to no longer preach the gospel out in the streets. They refused. They openly expressed their refusal before the court.

These stories do not contradict Romans 13. The same Apostle Paul who penned Romans was himself jailed many times and eventually executed because he would not refrain from speaking out. Paul would be the last one to encourage Christians to compromise their faith. However, he did not want them rebellious either. There were many sensible protections under ancient Roman law. Christians were to obey such laws, short of denying Jesus.

Today in California, the speed limit is 65 miles per hour. I may feel that’s a stupid law, especially if I am driving on an open freeway late at night. But guess what? My Christian convictions are not compromised by obeying the speed law. If I were told to stop sharing Christ or ordered to discontinue a conscience driven biblical position on certain social issues, that would be another matter.

AGREED: Indeed, church is NOT a building; church services can be held anywhere, even on line, even at the beach, even in the woods. I preached my first sermon at a small church service in the beautiful Santa Cruz Mountains!

We can agree that for a few weeks to a few months, being away from a literal church building is probably not the end of the world; it does not short circuit our relationship with God.

But choosing to go along with these present edicts does not make the Constitution suddenly evaporate. Certainly, one can argue that a temporary suspension of church gatherings imposes no restriction on true heart felt worship. But it DOES restrict a guaranteed First Amendment freedom, the right of assembly. Yes, our constitution allows for extenuating circumstances. So does God. The 50-million-dollar question asks how much longer such circumstances will persist and how honestly “extenuating” they will continue to be. Should it go on for an indefinite period of time, who would not agree that the situation must be reassessed and reevaluated?

That is a discussion for the near future. Meanwhile, the discussion is not over in the present. Can we not also agree that not everyone has access to Zoom meetings? Some, including many of our senior citizens, seldom use the Internet. Some don’t even own computers or smart phones. While it’s fine to say that “virtual church” is every bit as spiritual as “geographical church” not everyone has access to this new reality. A lot of people are being left out. Their Bible commands them “not to neglect meeting together.” As for the idea of churches meeting in homes, that sounds great! But at the moment, families are being told to shelter in place. And while out door church services can certainly be rejuvenating, many states and counties have closed down their public beaches, parks and national forests. So, yes, the church CAN meet anywhere but it becomes a problem if we are being quarantined EVERYWHERE. I am not insisting on a specific solution. But surely we can agree that there is a problem.

AGREED: One can acknowledge that presently (in most of the country, at least) churches are NOT being singled out. We can also agree that this current paradigm could easily serve as a template for the future, an excuse to curtail religious freedom. Evangelicals are all too familiar with the anti-Christian agenda of the left, and their track record for exploiting a crisis, a Trojan Horse whose aim is to eradicate any breath of thought which contradicts Political Correctness.

In some parts of the country we already see inconsistencies. In Mississippi, people were not allowed to meet even for a drive-in church service. But drive -through fast food and liquor stores are permitted. Nobody could explain in a satisfactory way why one was allowed and not the other, neither could they show how being in one’s own car got in the way of “social distancing.”

True, the double standard toward churches is not going on everywhere. In fact, it’s not going on in most places, but yes, it IS going on. Some will choose to view such confusing incidents as a mere hiccup in the system, an aberration that will self-correct in due time. Others see it as a sign of things to come. Both opinions are legitimate at the moment. Our country has never gone through anything like this, an entire nation virtually shut down for a pandemic. No one knows how it will turn out. Many feel optimistic. Many others see a need for sobering caution, a yellow light at the very least. Time will tell. Hindsight is always 20/20. Until then, it is understandable that people will interpret the situation through they’re own personal filters.

Throughout history, Christians have responded differently in the face of adversity or perceived adversity; they always have; they always will. We must extend each other some grace.

We don’t need uniformity to have unity. It is not “once size fits all” with God. He calls us to a variety of gifts and ministries. Some are involved with dynamic intercession and prayer; others are called to counsel with encouragement. Still others are called to be like Jeremiah the prophet, who sat on the city gate where people could hear a message of warning from him as they walked by.

AGREED: Conspiracy theories are useless and must always be avoided. Conspiracy theories should also be properly defined. They are assumptions and speculations about so- called devious, secret back-handed actions going on behind the scene. But actual lawsuits and judicial rulings against Christians who stood by their convictions, or literal public promises/ threats by politicians and candidates warning Christians to get with the times and change their views, are not conspiracy theories. They are news. Responses from Christians are appropriate and do not meet the threshold of conspiracy theory. They are, instead, justified expressions of concern about what really has been said, what really has been done, and where it might lead if a line is not drawn in the sand.

AGREED: Those who suggest that certain government officials enjoying their new power may not wish to give it up so easily, are not claiming that the same will be true of all in political leadership. State by state, and city by city, we see variations. The variations can be acknowledged. The constant moving of the goalpost in some states and counties before public life can be allowed to return to normal must also be acknowledged.

AGREED: One can accept that the corona virus pandemic is real (not a hoax) but still conclude that certain politicians are exploiting the danger and exaggerating the danger.

AGREED: Doctors, as a general rule are a respected profession. This does not mean that once a doctor speaks, the discussion is automatically over. The medical profession can be quite fluid. Doctors disagree with each other constantly and doctors all over the country are in disagreement over how to handle this coronavirus. History has provided profiles of doctors with pure motives and doctors with ulterior motives. We have seen the gamut run from Dr. Stanley Livingston, to Dr. Joseph Mengele.

In current time, we can presume the sincerity of Trump’s medical team without being afraid to call out mistakes. They have admitted to many mistakes themselves anyway.

Well, thank you for lending an ear. (“lending an eye” would be more appropriate.)

You will continue to see my very opinionated posts; I will continue to see yours. This current edition was offered as a rest stop, an oasis if you will, or a reset button, a chance to stretch, breathe deeply, and appreciate the richness of various callings.

Be well, my friends, brothers and sisters.

In His Service (as I know you are too)

Bob Siegel

Share this on