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.