Doug Wilson is not the only Christian blogging about the
phenomenon of people leaving a church over the issue of compulsory mask-wearing,
but he’s probably more quoted on the subject than most. Responding in a
recent post to questions from believers frustrated by the stand their own
elders have taken over the issue, Doug has (perhaps inadvertently) opened a
larger can of worms than the mask issue itself, which is the authority of
elders to bind the consciences of those under their care over matters about
which scripture is silent.
And the mask issue is certainly that.
Facts and Opinions
A recent University of Florida study showed the likelihood of
an asymptomatic person passing on the coronavirus is 28 times
lower than a person showing symptoms, a finding consistent with an earlier (June 8)
statement from the WHO’s technical lead to the effect that asymptomatic
transmission appears to be “very rare”.
For me, that seems to square with what we are observing.
I believe we’d be seeing significantly higher infection and death rates
than we are currently seeing if both symptomatic and asymptomatic infected
people transmitted the virus at comparable rates. If this study is correct,
then masks are really only useful when a person is already displaying symptoms
of infection ... and I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but people with
fevers, coughs and shortness of breath are tending to stay home these days. It
also suggests that the medical reasons to mask in church are few and far
between.
However, it should be pointed out that estimates of the
percentage of the COVID-19 infected who are asymptomatic vary wildly, from
15%
all the way to 80%,
leaving plenty of room for Christians to disagree about the likelihood they
might catch the bug from unmasked and symptom-free fellow churchgoers — or
worse, feel responsible for having passed it on. At this stage, I am not
at all concerned about the risk, but I recognize others are. Love requires
we take their feelings into consideration, even if we think they are
unnecessarily fearful or gullible. That is the walking definition of a “weaker
brother”, and we all know how they
ought to be treated.
R.E.S.P.E.C.T.
Does that mean everybody should mask in church? Not
necessarily, but it does mean respecting the fact that folks in masks probably
don’t want a hug from an unmasked brother or sister; in fact, they may prefer
you sit over there rather than in the pew behind them. Yes, WAY over there,
right by the back door, up in the balcony, or even downstairs with the rest of your ilk, listening to the speaker through the sound system.
But that’s not enough for some. There are Christians who
become offended when their brothers and sisters in Christ will not mask to
worship, praise, pray or listen, and there are those who become offended on their behalf even when they
will not push the issue. Still other Christians are offended at the State’s
intrusion into the local church, where it possesses no
legitimate authority, and view refusing to wear a mask in church as something just short of a proclamation of the
headship of Christ. Both positions are matters of conscience, and elders everywhere
have been left trying to play referee over an issue where facts are thin on the
ground and chimerical, while opinions are wall to wall.
Political Footballs
If you think elders like being handed political footballs
like this, you do not know many elders. After weeks of lockdown, nobody wants
to be forced to mandate a bunch of new rules that threaten to drive either the
COVID-fearful or the feisty questioners of State authority back home to watch
meetings on Zoom over a matter of principle. But of course the elders are the
ones to whom the people of God turn when questions get difficult, and here we
are. And some elders, apparently, have decided to solve the problem by
mandating mask-wearing for everyone.
The difficulty, of course, is that in doing so they are
binding the consciences of Christians who feel that worshiping the Lord with
faces covered week after week is at bare minimum weird and spiritually unhealthy,
and at worst a craven capitulation to either fear or the inappropriately exercised
authority of the State. And hey, I understand their position too.
Moreover, even if I didn’t, and thought they were a bunch of crazy loons,
I need to respect the fact that they too are taking a position on the basis
of conscience before God.
Hmm, but then again, if they are crazy loons, doesn’t that make them “weaker brothers” too? And
we all know how
weaker brothers ought to be treated.
See the problem? Poor elders. And people are actually leaving.
Blocking the Exits
Most church auditoriums are fairly large, and most
congregations are currently well below 100% of their normal numbers. You would
think in most cases there should be adequate space for the expression of a
little freedom of conscience. For myself, I’m fine with sitting in a room full
of believers, masked and unmasked, distancing or not, as each sees fit.
I am not fine with mandatory masking, because mandatory masking requires
imposition of the will of one bloc of Christians on another over a matter where
our differences are not over morality, but over disputed facts. I would
not leave a church permanently over it, but I might consider going down
the street for a few months where the elders are allowing a little more
freedom, or participating in church life from home to the greatest extent possible.
Doug Wilson contemplates a situation in which this option
has been ruled out:
“At the same time, if the elders require masks in order to participate in worship, and if they also require attendance at worship — not allowing their dissenting members to visit other churches during this time, or to worship at home, then I do think it would be possible to leave the church on that account without being rebellious.”
I must admit I had never thought of that one. Maybe
I know too many reasonable elders. But now that Doug brings it up,
I have certainly heard of churches where church “membership” is only
granted to congregants who sign pledges of obedience to local leadership. Such
a scenario does not seem quite so unlikely in a context where the elders, for
whatever reason, anticipate future non-compliance with their directions and
have attempted to deal with it up front.
First Century Blues
I’m trying to picture how something like this might have
played out in the first century of church life, and I must admit to having
some difficulty. We are so far away from where they were. Paul speaks of the “churches
of Galatia”, the “churches
of Macedonia” and the “churches
of Judea”, all plural. While the areas in question were fairly sizable Roman
provinces, and we do not know how many local churches existed within them, or
how far away these gatherings were from one another geographically, Paul does address
all the churches in Galatia with
a single letter, which strongly suggests the various congregations had
regular contact and access to one another.
Further, while there was always the danger of Christians developing
a sectarian spirit, in those early days there were no denominations; the gnawing
concern that “those people over there are heretics” would come later. It is
hard to imagine the shepherds of a mid-first-century church forbidding their sheep
from enjoying the fellowship in other sheepfolds. Diotrephes
too would come later, perhaps by as much as four decades.
And even with our modern denominational departure from
orthodoxy, I increasingly dislike the notion of elders restricting where
their sheep graze. Advising, certainly. Warning, definitely, especially where
the other church has a reputation for holding questionable doctrines. But not
allowing a dissenting member to visit another church? That would be a real
shame; in its own way a
denial of the one Body.
I haven’t seen it or heard of it yet. I hope not to.
No comments :
Post a Comment