Around the world, there have been multiple outbreaks of the Covid-19 virus, leading to the declaration that it has become a pandemic. With the high infection rate of the virus, certain precautions have been recommended included social distancing. Part of this social distancing as it pertains to the church has been societal pressure to stop corporate worship services altogether.
As Christians, what should we think about this? Before we think through the spiritual issues, first, it must be pointed out that the panic seen in many parts of the world is irrational, as the relatively low fatality rate of the virus plus the fact that is it borne by droplets makes it a relatively benign outbreak. Note that I said it was relatively benign, insofar that it is not something on the scale of Ebola or the Spanish Flu. Thus, there is absolutely no need to panic over it. Second, it can be limited by taking precautions, thus we are to be responsible and take necessary precautions in maintaining hygiene and being wise in social interaction.
More importantly, the question is asked as to the worship of God on Sunday, the Lord's Day. Christians must remind ourselves why we physically meet Sunday after Sunday together to worship God. For many Evangelicals, it is understandable that there is little understanding of this matter, with only a superficial appeal to Hebrews 10:24-25. If the focus of worship is merely to sing worship songs to God and to hear His Word, then it is understandable why some churches think that there is nothing wrong with moving church online to live streaming, and this is seen as the "socially responsible" thing to do. But that manifests a deficient doctrine of the church and an ignorance of the reason for corporate worship in the first place.
Why have Christians met together Lord's Day after Lord's Day to worship God? Is the corporate nature of the worship service merely because of the technological limitations of the First Century AD, or for that matter all of human history until the last few decades?After all, if Hebrews 10:24-25 speaks about encouraging one another, surely that can be done online or even through Whatsapp and other social media platforms? But the corporate nature of the worship service is demanded by what the worship service is, and the physical presence of the saints manifests the importance of the body. The Scriptures always declare that we are spirit and body, not a spirit inhabiting a body. When we are raised up on the Last Day, our bodies are raised anew (1 Cor. 15:44) and we will always be embodied spirits through eternity. Therefore, where the physical body is is important, which is why online church or even virtual reality church is no church at all! To denigrate the body is to embrace Gnosticism, and unfortunately, many Evangelicals fail to see that.
The nature of the worship service is that it is not a time for us to give to God, to sing songs and hear the Word preached. Bur rather, the worship service is where God is present spiritually (Mt. 18:20, 1 Cor. 4:5, 11:29-30, Rev. 2:1), meeting us covenantally (Hos. 2:23, Rom. 9:26, 1 Pet. 2:10). The worship service is God's service, not ours. For just as we are saved by grace alone through faith alone, so likewise we cannot approach God to worship Him except through His invitation only. And just as in an ancient covenant, the parties of the covenant physically meet, so likewise the reason why we must be physically present for worship is that the Lord meets us there as we are there physically. We encounter God in the corporate worship, praising Him and hearing Him speak to us through the pastor who proclaims His Word. This is why Christians ought to meet together in church services Lord's Day after Lord's Day, honoring God in our use of time and our use of space.
If that is true, how then should we respond to the secular pressure to stop the worship service? First of all, we must agree that the corporate worship service is very important in the life of the Christian. It should not be something to be cancelled at whim. It must be said that it is understandable though wrong that many think that religious worship gatherings should be the first to stop, but work is seen to be something must more important and must continue. If corporate worship is that important in the Christian life, then surely it must be treated at least as important as work and school. If the outbreak results in the cessation of work and school, then certainly there should be a cessation of corporate worship for that period. Yet, if work and school continue, then the corporate worship should likewise continue.
This does not necessarily mean that there should not be precautions taken. The necessity of corporate worship does not negate the requirement for wisdom. Rather, during an epidemic or pandemic, steps can be taken to reduce the risk of infection. Perhaps this is a good time for big churches to practice church the way the early church did so, by splitting up into many congregations of smaller numbers. Instead of halting services, why not have groups of 20 or so which can worship God corporately? This can be a good time to break up the business model of doing church, in favor of a model more in line with biblical Christianity. While not for the "house church movement," there is nothing wrong with meeting in homes per se to worship God, so why not get around to doing that?
Corporate worship is biblical mandated by Scripture. Barring a situation like the Black Death, Christians ought to continue to worship God corporately. God is still sovereign over the virus, and He calls us to worship. The paranoia over Covid-19 displays the world's fear of the unknown, but Christians ought to be better than this. While taking precautions, we must have faith and trust in God. We are not to panic as the world does, but put our faith wholly in God. After all, as it is confessed in the Heiberg Catechism:
Q1: What is your only comfort in life and death?
A. That I am not my own, but belong with body and soul, both in life and in death, to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ. He has fully paid for all my sins with His precious blood, and has set me free from all the power of the devil. He also preserves me in such a way that without the will of my heavenly Father not a hair can fall from my head; indeed, all things must work together for my salvation. Therefore, by His Holy Spirit He also assures me of eternal life and makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live for Him.
God is sovereign, and thus we should not fear this virus. We must know this and believe this. If God wants me dead through the virus, I will get it no matter what. If God wants me alive, I will stay alive no matter what. So, trust God and do not panic. Take precautions and attend to the worship service. For there is where God is, and where we receive from Him His grace and mercy, our supply for each and every week.
Spot on! Exactly what I was thinking.
ReplyDeletePlease see also:
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/03/12/church-of-cyprus-god-would-never-let-coronavirus-spread-via-communion/
including my own comments on that thread.
@John Allman,
ReplyDeleteI do not know what you are trying to drive at here. I have made it very clear that wisdom and caution should be exercised. I do not appreciate the post that manifest the author's ignorance of Eastern Orthodox theology and his vitriolic anti-religious bigotry.
I am not interested in being dragged into an argument over the ignorance and stupidity of anti-religious bigots manifested in your URL. If you agree with the mocking taking place over there, post there and do not return here.
@ Daniel
ReplyDeleteThank you for publishing my first comment, beginning, "Spot on! Exactly what I was thinking."
You have misunderstood my purpose in offering that link, very badly indeed. It wasn't to acclaim the contemporary atheist's mockery of the Orthodox priest's statement in the article It was primarily to draw attention to what the priest said, which was quoted in the article that mocked it.
Although your churchmanship is reformed, following the Reformation in the west, and his is Orthodox, part of the eastern church that excommunicated the pope about 500 years before Luther even began to suspect that the Bishop of Rome might not be all he was cracked up to be and therefore nailed his theses to a church door, I saw parallels between what the Cypriot priest had said and what I was thinking anyway, which I then read in your blog put better than I could have put it myself.
I agree with you. We must not be in a hurry to give up the habit of meeting together, just because of a scary news story, about a new disease.
If you had also read my comments on the detestable atheist site, you would have realised that I don't agree with the mocking of the priest taking place over there. I have criticised that and defended the priest because, in a roundabout way, he said much the same as you, which was what I'd been thinking too.
@John Allman,
ReplyDeleteah OK. Your post was ambiguous, and your response there was no less ambiguous. Thanks for clarifying your position and your intent.
I must however state that I do not agree with the Cypriot priest, mainly because I do not agree with his view of the real presence in the elements of the Lord's Supper, neither do I believe that it is always God's will to heal in the partaking of the elements. While Eastern Orthodoxy is not quite the same as Roman Catholicism, both see the elements as somehow presenting the Body and Blood of Jesus in them, a position which the Reformed tradition has rejected.
You wrote,
ReplyDelete"While Eastern Orthodoxy is not quite the same as Roman Catholicism, both see the elements as somehow presenting the Body and Blood of Jesus in them, a position which the Reformed tradition has rejected."
I was aware of this history and anticipated that you might mention this.
There are several mysteries in life. One of those is that the Russian Orthodox Church (Nicene Creed) distanced itself some years ago from The Church of Scotland (Westminster Confession, I believe), over same-sex marriage.
The Romanian Orthodox priest I spent several hours getting to know a month or so ago, quoted scripture a lot. He talked about individuals being either saved or lost in a way I used to hear nominal Evangelicals talking in the olden days. We had very similar beliefs about the Roman papacy.
The Baptist Confession of 1689 denounces the pope as "the" Man of Sin. The *type* of the Man of Sin sets himself up in God's temple exalting himself and demanding to be worshiped. That seems to me to a Reformed doctrine that implies that the Roman Catholic Church was still a Christian church, in which even in 1689 a distinction needed to be drawn between the faithful (and the nominal) in the pews, who may (or may not) be saved by hearing the word of God read (if not preached always), and the pope who was so strongly denounced in the confession precisely because it was within Christ's church that he'd usurped power.
Nowadays, I hear too often the words that Roman Catholics aren't Christians. I understand why those who say this say it, but I have never been able to say that myself.
On the other hand, as Jonah said in the belly of the fish, "those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace that could be theirs" (NIV I think, Chapter 2 somewhere, quoted from memory). I've said that to one Roman Catholic, but to do with a specific issue in his churchmanship. The only time I took him to my then Baptist church, the reading was the Magnificat and the sermon extolled the blessed virgin Mary, mother of the Lord Jesus Christ. A divinely ordained coincidence, I thought at the time.
I have followed your blog for many years. You are well informed and thoughtful. Sorry not to have thanked you more often. But you don't do it for man's praise, I think I know that about you.
An article somewhat contrary to your's:
ReplyDeleteJoel McDurmon:
"With the potential for the spread of disease, I have stated that self-quarantine and social distancing is more important in the immediate term than even attending church on Sunday. I stand by this. I will skip church this Sunday, and perhaps more. I encourage you to think through doing so also. But what about Hebrews 10:25???
"Forsaking the Assembly, out of Love — Coronavirus Edition"
https://www.facebook.com/joel.mcdurmon/posts/10157203533845885
@John Allman,
ReplyDeletethe historical context for understanding the phrase "man of sin" as applied to the Pope is to acknowledge the reality that the Medieval Catholic Church claimed to be the Christian church, and yet the Pope had rejected the Gospel, thus he is in that sense the Man of Sin in the house of God. That phrase does not indicate to us what we should think concerning the modern status of Roman Catholicism or whether Roman Catholics are or are not Christians. This is especially true since Trent happened, and then Vatican I and Vatican II.
@Greg,
ReplyDelete1) I don't think McDurmon should be an authority on anything, even more so after he joins the "social justice" bandwagon.
2) I am not dictating whether anyone should or should not go to corporate worship. By all means, if the person is high risk, being cautious might mean skipping corporate worship. Key word: might
3) McDurmon has a low view of the church and a faulty ecclesiology. My post explicitly addresses that. I am not surprised by McDurmon's approach since he was a Christian Reconstructionist, and those people tend not to have high views of the institutional church.
4) Thus the main problem with McDurmon is not whether he attends church or not, but his reason for not doing so is unbiblical.
@Daniel C
ReplyDelete"the historical context for understanding the phrase 'man of sin' as applied to the Pope ..."
Are you referring to the 17th-century historical context in which those confessions were first drafted, or the historical context of the 21st century, during which certain churches retain the old confessions, as their contemporary bases of faith, i.e. their creeds?
@John Allman,
ReplyDeletethe 16th and 17th century historical context. The many ways of adopting the historic documents in the modern times is a separate topic altogether.
@Daniel C
ReplyDelete>"I am not surprised by McDurmon's approach since he was a Christian Reconstructionist"<
He is still a Christian Reconstructionist and Theonomist, it's just that he has gotten much more Biblical in that area and has even caused me to change some of my opinions on that issue with his recent last two books on those issues. I don't agree with him on everything but I believe you are incorrect on the matter concerning him in this area of Christian Reconstructionism.
@Greg:
ReplyDeleteit depends on what you mean by "Christian Reconstructionist" and "Theonomist." Generally, both positions take positions that are regarded as right-wing (e.g. primacy of family, free market economy). Generally, those who hold to the principle that the Christian faith speaks to social issues but take left-wing approaches are not called "Christian Reconstructionist" or "Theonomist," even though the principle remains the same.
McDurmon has shifted to take the left-wing approach. Thus, I do not believe the term "Reconstructionist" or "Theonomist" is a good description of where he is at. After all, both Rushdoony and Wallis both believe that the Bible addresses contemporary social concerns rather plainly and literally.
>"McDurmon has shifted to take the left-wing approach."<
ReplyDeleteHow so?
@Greg,
ReplyDeletesorry, I forgot to respond to this.
McDurmon has been at the forefront of promoting Critical Race Social Justice. That is left-wing, and unbiblical.
@Daniel C...What did Joel say that cause you to reach that decision?
ReplyDeleteHi Daniel. Thx for your essay above. I appreciate the argument you made that if it's OK to go to work and school, then it's more than OK to continue corporate worship. Some Christians have said to me that we ought to obey our leaders and I don't really have an answer for that, but am rather muddled by it. We know the government is secular and they don't give a hoot about Christian worship, but assuming they are trying to do what they think is best for all the community, is it wrong for them to tell people to stay at home, rather than mix together? (BTW, I find the medical opinions to be very diverse and confused, yet the government is in a tough position if they do nothing because the media would have a field day). Thx.
ReplyDelete@John,
ReplyDeleteon principal, there is nothing wrong with the government imposing temporary restrictions due to an emergency. The question is whether they are justified in doing so. Any restriction on civil liberties ought to be limited to achieving achievable ends. No emergency justifies giving the government unlimited power, and doing on indefinitely.
@Greg,
ReplyDeleteI am sure you can google that to find out.