More on the Coronavirus & Church Attendance

If you have not had the opportunity to read my first article on this issue, you can click on the following link:  “Church Attendance, the Coronavirus, & Guilt”

This article is a follow-up to some of the thoughts expressed in the first article. The reason I wrote the first article is that I had read comments from Christians all over the country condemning individuals and churches who decided to alter their normal routine due to the virus.  Many were explicitly stating that failing to attend worship services during this health crisis was a sin and a lack of faith in God. I believe that such accusations are overreaching and do not necessarily reflect the truth. While it may be true that some could use this crisis as an “excuse” to get out of their obligations and responsibilities to the Lord, that is certainly not the case for most followers of Jesus.

Allow me to share a few additional thoughts about what actions could be appropriate under the current circumstances.

1. The Scriptures provide precedence for temporarily “closing the doors” due to a physical crisis.  In Acts 8:1-4, the church in Jerusalem was growing and doing well. Then there arose a “great persecution” (Acts 8:1) against the church. Saul was a part of instigating that persecution by entering every house and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison (Acts 8:4). While the early church did not have church buildings at this time, they did have places where they assembled to worship, primarily individuals’ homes.  But note what the church did when this threat to their physical safety occurred — They “scattered” (Acts 8:1).  The assembly places where they once convened to worship were now empty of worshipers.  Neither did these worshipers just move a couple of blocks away to another member’s house. The text says they scattered throughout all the regions of Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1). In other words, these Christians who were faithfully assembling with each other to worship, for a time, left their meeting places and scattered throughout the region for their own safety. I would not be among those who would question the faith of these early brothers and sisters in Christ. Their decision to “close the doors” (wherever that may have been) and scatter for a period of time for their physical safety, and probably having to worship in family units, was not a demonstration of their lack of faith or their disobedience to God. If it were, Luke sure missed an opportunity to expose and condemn their error.
2. The accusation that we are setting a “bad example” if we opt to temporarily close our doors is not a valid argument. Some have raised the question, “What will our non-Christian neighbors think?”  “If we close our doors, will they think we are more concerned about our physical safety and our government mandates than obeying God?”  But the flip side of that coin goes something like this, “What will our non-Christian neighbors think if we keep our doors open?” “Will they think we don’t care about the jeopardy in which we are potentially placing them and their families?”  “Will they think we don’t respect our civil authorities?” You see, the question of “What will our neighbors think?” cannot be used as a determination for what we should do, for no consensus could ever be reached.  As with most decisions we make, concern for what others think should always be a factor, but the deciding factor must be what is right and what is most expedient. Consider how this “bad example” would cause us to have to rethink our early brethren under Roman persecution, who closed their places of worship and secretly worshiped in the catacombs. Should we question their faith and condemn their action because of what their neighbors must have thought about their faith?
3. Arbitrary exceptions fall into the realm of judgment. For example, I have heard some say, “I have no problem with people who are sick or who may be at high risk staying home from the assemblies, but if you’re a healthy person, it would be a sin to be absent during this time. The problem with such reasoning is that it is arbitrary. A healthy sixty-year-old is both healthy and at a higher risk of this virus.  So, can they absent themselves from the assembly without sin or not? They’re both healthy and at higher risk. Or what about the Christian who is a caregiver for others who are at high risk? Can they absent themselves without sin, not for their own safety, but for the safety of others? And what if a person is a fifty-nine-year-old and eleven months? Can that person absent himself from the assembly without sin? And now we just start bartering over matters of judgment. And that’s what these are: matters of judgment. I know we like rules with no exceptions. But this is a case that requires discernment and discrimination and involves the heart and attitude.

The issues we are facing at this time are difficult for everyone, especially our bishops. There are countless decisions they can make that fall within the realm of judgment. If the decisions they make in these matters of judgment aren’t the same as yours, they don’t need an undercurrent of discontentment and second-guessing to deal with in such troubled times.  What you can do to help them and the church during this difficult time is to live out your faith through your submission to God’s appointed leaders, commitment to unity, and love for all men.