In which our regular
writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
Ah, the coronavirus! I was so determined not to go there in
this space. Then it threatened to go on and on and on, and then it became such
a feature of our current media experience as to be utterly inescapable. After
that, it changed the way we do most everything, at least for the foreseeable
future. And still we left the subject alone; after all, if you want the latest
on COVID‑19, you can get that absolutely anywhere, right?
Tom: But then The New York Times started blaming
evangelicals for “crippling
our coronavirus response”, and there you are: turns out it was time to
start talking about it here. Not being an expert of any sort, I don’t want
to discuss the virus itself, where it came from, how it is spreading, and what
might be done about it; nor do I want to speculate about what the total
bill for fighting this thing will be. I simply want to talk about the
church and its response to the crisis.
Defying the Bans
Katherine Stewart’s article is a wealth of misinformation,
innuendo and straw-manning. There are points when I almost laughed out
loud. But the part that involved a commendable degree of effort on the part of
the reporter, and which seems to me most worth talking about together is this,
Immanuel Can: Ms Stewart actually managed to find several examples of
church leaders urging their congregants to ignore government-mandated lockdowns
and limitations and show up for church as usual on Sunday. In the real world,
I do not know of one Christian who is doing this. Every single church I know of has quietly
complied with the directions they have received from the authorities, recognizing
that they are not an attack on churches or Christianity, but something that, rightly or wrongly, is
being done across the board with a view to the good of citizens generally.
Outside of this article, IC, have you encountered a single Christian who thinks
flaunting these temporary guidelines is a great idea?
Immanuel Can: No. In fact, I’ve found Christians in general exceedingly quick to respond to the crisis, and in the
most compassionate ways. It seems that because they understand, but do not
fear, that this world can make such mistakes, they had less trouble than the
general public in absorbing the idea that we are in a bad situation, and they
immediately sought out ways to help out, supporting not only one another but
their neighbors as well. Practical compassion happens very quickly in the
Christian community, I’ve noticed.
Tom: It’s also notable how quickly and cheerfully Christians have gone about finding ways to meet together that
don’t involve violating the “distancing” rules. Within days of the changes,
YouTube was full of videos made by Christians in local congregations for others
in their own churches that, thanks to technology, are available to be watched
by anyone out there who cares to. Smaller churches were “piggybacking” on the
Sunday morning videos of larger ones, and the evangelical community was coming
together in very practical ways, as you’ve mentioned. The tone of all the
videos I’ve seen has been relentlessly optimistic and compliant.
Picking on the Outliers
So when I read about pastors who mocked people concerned about the disease as
“pansies” or planned on passing out “anointed handkerchiefs” to people who are
panicking, I don’t think Katherine Stewart is necessarily making it
up — there are some goofballs out there — but I also don’t think
she’s made any effort to represent what is happening in the larger evangelical
community. She’s picking outliers.
IC: Definitely. She’s doing what we call “picking the data to create the theory”. She shows she has absolutely
no thought of investigating the evangelical communities themselves for real
actions; she’s looking to cherry-pick the public declarations of whatever
scattered loonies she can find, and then to use them to defend the proposition
that all evangelicals are nutty. And I’m certain she knows that’s exactly what
she’s doing. She can’t be a stupid person, because she writes coherent articles
and has them reviewed by editors. So we can only say that she’s viscerally
prejudiced against Christians, as are the editors who are not bothering to
fact-check for her. It’s the only reasonable explanation left. Why else would
educated people be content with resorting to such an obviously poor and limited
data set?
Tom: That’s the only conclusion I can reach. After all, we have celebrities licking toilet seats on YouTube, and
Gen-Z making a game out of licking banisters. Why not write an article about
how Hollywood or the up-and-coming generation is crippling our coronavirus
response? It’s because, as Stewart puts it, “Donald Trump rose to power
with the determined assistance of a movement that denies science, bashes
government and prioritized loyalty over professional expertise. In the current
crisis, we are all reaping what that movement has sown.” Celebrities didn’t
vote for the President, and Gen-Z didn’t vote, period, so Stewart has no bone to
pick with those people even if their antics end up spreading COVID‑19 all over North
America. What the evangelical movement has sown by voting for Mr. Trump in
large numbers is the near-destruction of the Democrats, especially if the
President is perceived to be successfully navigating a global crisis.
Unfortunately for Ms Stewart, Mr. Trump has never been more popular.
Going Ballistic
IC: There was another interesting evangelical-hatred moment two days ago. MyPillow CEO Mike
Lindell, who escaped crack addiction through conversion to evangelical
Christianity, announced that to help Americans, he is converting 75% of his
factories’ production capacity to producing cotton masks at the rate of 50,000
per day to help with the COVID-19 epidemic. But then he made the fatal mistake
of thanking God publicly for the Trump presidency and begging people to spend
time with their families and their Bibles … and the Left went ballistic. Now, you might think that might be partly just ordinary anti-Trumpism, except that they’ve accused
Lindell of “violating the separation of church and state”, and of an
unforgivable introduction of faith and family values into the present
situation.
Tom: God forbid. Oops. What would you say to the accusation that we’re being a little paranoid here, and that
poor ol’ Progressives not really picking on us; they are simply panicked over
COVID and striking out at anyone who is perceived to threaten their safety?
IC: If this were just about COVID-19, it would have started with the plague. But the pattern was already
very well established. The Left sees evangelicals as the Deplorables among Deplorables, and blames them for everything that’s wrong with the world.
This actually goes back to Marx, who claimed that “religion is the opium of the
masses”. Opium is a soporific, a sleeping drug. The Left believes that the
reason their longed-for revolution that will produce utopia continues to fail
to arrive is the sleepy, inhibiting influence of “religion” — not ALL religion, apparently, but most
especially Jews and Christians. So we are very bad people, in their
thinking; we’re the one thing standing between them and secular paradise. And
you’re allowed to treat very bad people any way you want; in fact, the
more vicious to them you are, the more you show yourself committed to the
revolutionary cause and the ultimate good of mankind.
Tom: I would say that’s unfair, except that I’ve seen many, many things on social media that lead me to think
that attitude is fairly common.
Hated by the World
Now, I’m not bothered by that. “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me
before it hated you.” But if we are going to introduce the words of Christ into
the picture, especially in our own defense or as evidence of our own
righteousness, then we had better be very sure that the things they really hate
us for are things that genuinely please God, and that the agenda they are
fighting against is God’s agenda, not just ours. When the pro-abortion crowd
rages about evangelicals, I’m pretty comfortable it’s mostly for the right
reasons. But when it rages about us “crippling the coronavirus response”,
I start to wonder if that’s really the reason, or if that’s just a
convenient way for people who already want to get evangelicals out of their way
politically for other reasons to justify their prejudices. The evidence that
the U.S. coronavirus response has been crippled in any way, let alone by
evangelicals, is very thin on the ground. Meanwhile, we have Democratic state governors banning the prescription of anti-malaria drugs for COVID-19 patients because they are not yet FDA approved,
which sounds much more like “crippling” a response than anything evangelicals
are doing.
I noticed Katherine Stewart made no attempt to identify what percentage of
evangelical churches defied the social distancing rules. I’d be very curious to
see hard numbers. My suspicion is that they are very small. Even Stewart
acknowledges “Not every pastor is behaving recklessly, of course, and not every
churchgoer in these uncertain times is showing up for services out of disregard
for the scientific evidence. Far from it,” before going straight back to making
her case.
IC: Well, that’s the phrase that dismisses all the contrary data. It means, “Of course not ALL the evangelicals
are psychotic haters of science and the common good, but (tacitly) MOST still
are.” So now she’s not going to have to deal with the contrary data, because
she’ll say she’s already acknowledged its existence, and it changes nothing,
for her. Lovely Orwellian doublespeak, that.
Disavowing the Crazies
Tom: All the same, her complaints about marginal Christian groups with anti-scientific ideas and her tendency to conflate
their views with those of evangelicalism generally bring up another issue: at
what point do we Christians disavow our crazies? Reading what these quoted “pastors”
have allegedly said, it is awfully tempting to say that Christians who flout the lockdown guidelines have never read the New Testament. The apostle Paul tells us to “Let
every person be
subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except
from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever
resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist
will incur judgment.”
Now of course there are conditions under which obedience to
secular authority is not the governing rule for believers. The apostles had to
tell the Jewish authorities, “We
must obey God rather than men.” But that is an extreme situation where
preaching the gospel was itself forbidden. We are not in that position at all.
We are not restricted from preaching the gospel, or from using the internet to
fellowship with one another, or from talking to our neighbors about Christ. We
are simply limited to gatherings of five and under. I don’t find that even
slightly unreasonable under the circumstances, and it is being done quite
even-handedly.
IC: For me, disavowing the craziness of the crazies happens the minute they depart the teaching of scripture, because we are not conformists to men but duty-bound to God. It’s the Leftists who think that everybody has to belong to a “class” or “group”, and speak only from that perspective. And they’re just wrong about that; their Neo-Marxism is making them irrational. Among Christians, the right to speak up and say, “Hey, that’s not scriptural” is inviolable. Even the apostle Paul made himself subject to it. So we have every reason to point out that whatever small faction of loonies is not behaving well is not speaking on behalf of evangelicals or for us.
Compliance that Reserves Options
Ironically, evangelicals have an absolute right not to follow misguided teachers, nor to
abandon their personal critical faculties out of misguided loyalty to any
group. The Leftists, however, know very well that they must all walk in
lockstep, keeping up the PC narrative, or their comrades will inevitably make
them pay.
Tom: Well then, let us make it clear that we are happy to be in compliance with the powers that be ...
for the time being, of course. There are options currently being batted around
in the corridors of power which tout “saving lives” as their ostensible
purpose, but may well actually cost more lives in the long run if they are
implemented. Should that ever happen, then individual Christians will have to
decide how to respond to the new rules conscientiously before God.
But we are not there yet. Far from it. In the meantime, the responsible thing is to
do as we are told, always bearing in mind that ultimately we do not answer to
governors, premiers or even Prime Ministers, but to God himself.
No comments :
Post a Comment