10 July 2021

A Postmortem on Covid Postmortems (Part 1)

https://thelocalkirk.org/a-postmortem-on-covid-and-the-church/

Perhaps what I found most disappointing about this piece is that many will believe it to be well-reasoned and moderate in its tone and posture. I did not find this to be the case and in addition I found it indicative of some other disturbing trends at work within conservative Evangelical and Confessional circles.


I have written a fair amount on the Christian and in particular ecclesiastical response to the Covid crisis and I found Kilpatrick falls into the same patterns I've seen throughout this episode and like so many others misses the salient points.

For all his talk of the state being non-neutral and his framing of the issue as to whether or not we obey the law based on our interpretation of it and whether or not we agree with the state's use of scientific data and so forth – he's missing the point. The powers that be are ordained by God. If they want us to wear masks all the time, then we're called to do so. It's not sin and therefore we are compelled to obey – for many reasons we might add.

In other words even if the whole Covid episode was completely bogus, we would still be called upon as Christians to obey. I'm a little baffled by Kilpatrick who seems to place great stock in FOX-resourced data (which calls into question his own credibility) given that Right-wing circles (generally speaking) can't seem to make up their minds. On the one hand the whole thing is fake and overblown, a bad case of the flu. On the other hand it's a malicious plot hatched by a lab in Wuhan and Biden and the other Democrats are guilty of some kind of great cover-up. Which is it?

As far as civil life goes, the whole Covid mask debate is pretty plain. We're called upon to obey the law. Within the Church the basic questions are different but as I've pointed out the myriad churches that have integrated themselves with the system via registration, tax breaks (or often subsidies), insurance, building codes, banking, investments, and the like have already reduced their autonomy and called into question their standing to suddenly challenge the system – the system they've wed themselves to.

Love of neighbour and the Church's testimony vis-à-vis society were hardly if ever taken into account in the discussions that emerged in the spring of 2020. This is largely because Christians have become highly politicised (which has clouded their Biblical judgment) and their ethics are rooted more in a rights-based Enlightenment order than anything remotely connected to the doctrines and imperatives of the New Testament. Kilpatrick is no exception to this. For all his talk of being 'Biblical', the Bible itself plays only a small part in his thinking and ethics.

Meetings should not have been canceled but churches needed to think things through – something that wasn't done. Measures could have been taken, a change in venue could have been pursued, but again so many are tied to buildings and creature comforts that these discussions were largely reckoned out of bounds.

The entire discussion of essential vs. non-essential was a trap the Church fell into. We don't ask for the right to meet. We're meeting, period. It has nothing to do with rights, prohibitions, or permission. We will meet and share in the fellowship of the Word and the ministries of baptism and the Lord's Supper. These are basic to Christian and Church life.

The other considerations might have driven us to meet masked, meet outside, meet with windows open, or meet in smaller groups. Many things could have been done. At that point if we were taking every measure to meet safely and responsibly and the state still cracked down – then praise God that we're counted worthy to suffer for His name.

But of course, that's not what happened. Not even close. Instead many bowed to the state without qualification or reservation. Others in reckless and unscriptural defiance got into trouble and then did the very thing Christians should never do – they filed lawsuits and some (to their everlasting shame) have reaped large settlements.

Even Kilpatrick's discussion about essential and non-essential is somewhat misleading. I honestly do not believe there was any attempt on the part of the state to permanently shut down churches or persecute them. In my own state of Pennsylvania, Christian Right-wing activists misrepresented the situation and tried to paint a picture of the Democratic governor coming after churches. They pushed for legislation which blocked any attempt to do so – even though no attempt had been made. The governor never went after churches in any way. But by pushing the line the perception was given. It was deliberately misleading, a political stunt meant to energise the base. And they call themselves Christian activists.

From the standpoint of germ spread, it's one thing to go into a grocery store, get what you need and get out. You're in a large space, presumably for a short time. A church service is quite different, especially if the windows are closed up, the heat is turned on and everyone is packed in. Add in the Trumpite element of defiant (in your face) types who are hostile to any imposition on their personal liberties and the scenario was ripe for the disease to spread – and spread it did.

While we will all certainly die and no one will die before the moment Providence has declared it so – there is no Biblical warrant to be reckless and to treat the lives of others as inconsequential. The dynamics here are mysterious – the way in which human responsibility interacts with God's sovereignty and the way in which God uses means. If someone died, then yes, it was in the plan of God but that doesn't mean that others aren't responsible for his death and if so, they will give an account for it. And if their conduct harmed the testimony of the church and gave the Lord's enemies occasion to blaspheme they will certainly answer for it as well.

So contrary to Kilpatrick the essential/non-essential distinction was not arbitrary but as Christians we needed to frame the questions differently. The question for us was this – we will meet because we must. How can we do it in a way that remains legal (if possible) and yet also demonstrates regard for the people around us?

Also, we all understand that those who were (generally speaking) healthy had little to fear. And so, we were told not to shut down the economy for the sake of the weak. This strange Darwinian line was coming from the ostensibly pro-life community. I think this episode showed what a lot of these people are really made of. It was very eye-opening though in other respects it was but the outworking of the economic social Darwinism and the rank mammonism many Right-wing people seem to advocate. I expect such things from the lost but the fact that this brutal ideology has been brought into the Church and has even been given a veneer of Christianity is something I continue to find reprehensible.

As mentioned in other writings there's the additional problem that many on the Right believe that the Left wants to destroy the economy and the country. It's as if they wake up every morning and with a sinister laugh plot the downfall of America. And as millionaires they're all part of some communist fifth-column. I'm afraid under such scenarios these terms are redefined to the breaking point – to the point they no longer have any meaning at all. This conspiratorial framing defies all reason and available data. These lost folks may have a different vision of the United States than a Right-wing person from Kansas, and yet if you think they want to 'destroy' America then you don't understand them at all.

The Evangelical movement does have a low ecclesiology. No one would dispute that but Kilpatrick's statements demonstrate an ecclesiology that has been also affected by Enlightenment categories and individualist Right-wing political theory to such an extent that his thinking is just as clouded. We could discuss the many ways in which the Christian movement that has united itself to the likes of FOX and Glenn Beck has confused the sacred and the profane. For him to attack Evangelical ecclesiology, epistemology, or ethics is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I also find it strange that Kilpatrick is so quick to equate the state with Satan (a point I would happen to agree with) and yet I have a hunch that were the right party in or the right president in office there would be considerable optimism regarding the role of the state, it's duty as a pedagogue, as a protector of society and the civil order etc. It's just a hunch mind you.

His discussion regarding the Constitution and the Westminster Confession strays into the absurd and isn't worth engaging. There are multiple false premises but it's a typical case of wrong-headed and Biblically unfaithful framing of the issue and because of Kilpatrick and hundreds (even thousands) of church leaders like him the waters have been muddied, the discussions have been sidetracked, and chaos reigns.

The Westminster Confession and for that matter the Magisterial Reformation tradition has largely erred when it comes to Romans 13. It's not a prescriptive statement that establishes limits to the state. People seem to forget the context in which it was written. It is descriptive of how Providence works to restrain evil in the world – even when the state is headed by a Nero. Libertarians and their fellow-travelers do not understand this and demonstrate a sub-Biblical view of sin and the fall. No government at all is worse than even a bad one. So many of the things they find to be burdensome are due to a simple truth – they're not living like pilgrims and strangers. They have invested themselves in Caesar's realm and deeply given themselves to his coin and as such they are caught up in and entangled in the affairs of this world. We can live under any government and we go about our business. But the worst scenario is no government. Then you end up with a situation like Libya post-Qaddafi. You end up with warlords and an oligarchic mafia. That is a situation in which the Church struggles to function and Christian life becomes almost impossible.

Rome used tax revenue to fund idolatrous temples, evil wars, and all kinds of waste. Hadrian used tax money to erect monuments to his sodomite paramour. So what? In light of eternity, it doesn't matter. We don't condone it. We condemn all these things as Christians must also condemn the evil government of the American Empire and the evils of its social and economic order and certainly the theft and violence it spreads around the world. We condemn these things but not in a political context. We not part of the political order and its struggle. Such a posture changes things. A rejection of the New Testament teaching on these points clouds judgment and pulls the Church into the miasma that is the world. In order to play the game you have to play by the world's rules and for all their talk of worldview – what we really have is the sanctification of worldly thinking and ethics. It's syncretism – the very thing Kilpatrick is condemning others for in their response to the virus.

Continue reading Part 2