Q: When is a government taking one’s personal freedoms no longer an abuse of power?

A: When there is no one opposing their actions.

Martin Niemöller famously said, “First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.” What happens when members of the targeted group silently stand by while their leaders are facing persecution?

Fifteen months into “15 days to flatten the curve,” a pattern has emerged regarding the establishment and execution of restrictions imposed under the premise of battling a health emergency. We first didn’t know what we were facing and needed to take measures to ensure safety and not overwhelm our healthcare system or recklessly spread this novel virus. Like the virus itself, however, the strategies that were adopted continued to mutate. The variances have included inherent inconsistencies, changing narratives, massaging of information, shifting goalposts, and selective enforcement. Churches and small businesses were the presumed culprits for any uptick in cases merely by opening their doors. For purposes of this blog, my focus is on the government’s response to the church and vice versa.

It is easy to do a search on YouTube to find throngs of North Korean citizens inconsolably wailing over the death of Kim Jong Il in December of 2011. While it is possible to imagine they may have been clairvoyant and could see what their future under Kim Jong Un would look like; this is not the most likely explanation for this effusive outpouring of existential inconsolable grief. There are 2 far better explanations for this phenomenon:

1. Fear of death or persecution that might await anyone not found to be suitably contrite over this duty demanded by this authoritarian state, or;
2. The public had been so propagandized into the idea that their salvation depended on the beneficence of their dear leader to provide for they feared an uncertain future without this man on whom they had projected godlike attributes.

I certainly don’t plan to conflate the conditions that exist in North Korea with our situation in the true north, but we similarly no longer need to project ourselves into serpentine “slippery slope” theories about what we may be facing. While we were sleeping, Canada has been on a trajectory toward an increasingly tyrannical system that has been trampling the rights primarily of Christian conservatives. With the secular left having taken over our institutions, the narrative has already established whereby Christians are the scapegoats responsible for everything wrong with our culture. That will happen when the zeitgeist inverts every biblical teaching; censuring whatever scripture beatifies and lionizing all that Christ called sin.

Some years back, my wife and I attended a fundraising dinner for a Hamilton area father who was suing the Ontario Board of Education over the right to exempt their child from the government mandated sex education curriculum. The schools refused to even inform parents of when the material would be taught and would not permit any child to be excused from this ideologically driven propaganda. After years of insisting the school had the default duty to relieve parents of this unwelcome task; they now deign to override the parental prerogative to determine what sexual mores are to be imposed upon their child. For the most part, we as Christians have permitted this usurpation of our God-ordained duty to guide the moral and academic instruction of our children to the godless state.

I have written extensively on the restrictions related to COVID and challenging the validity of these government-imposed mandates based on necessity and efficacy. This time around, I want to address this issue through the lens of basic rights and religious freedoms. Before delving into the practical concerns at the crux of my argument, I will preemptively deal with the fallback argument I have been hearing from fellow believers about why we are duty-bound to submit meekly to the state. This is based on the criminal misapplication of the Romans 13 passage about submitting to governing authorities.

• The command clearly was not intended to give full authority to the state as Jesus also said to “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Unless believers are willing to accede to the notion that government’s rights extend as far as they determine rather than recognizing their duty to remain in their realm of authority, then simply falling in line with anything the government says means placing government over God instead of, as Roman 13 reads, that the state serves at God’s pleasure.
• If submission to government was the priority, then Daniel, Shadrack, Meshach and Abednego, the Apostles, and all the Christians imprisoned and martyred for preaching the gospel without state approval warrant God’s condemnation. Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement were disrupters who failed to honour their first responsibility to obey the state. Those who opposed Hitler and hid Jews from the Nazis would be condemned by God for their duplicity and contravention of state dictates. Since there are exceptions that not only justify civil disobedience, but require it, then this argument must be thrown out as a blanket endorsement and must be weighed against the issue under consideration.
• Romans 13 also says the we are to obey the state because their purpose is to enforce what is right and punish wrong. If they subvert their calling, then disobedience is an act of virtue. When the state mandates that the public participate in what God calls sin and punishes individuals for carrying out our duty as Christians, then we are to stand against this. After all, if we are to expect persecution, then this by nature presumes that we are engaged in an act of which the state does not approve. In fact, our institutions including government have pushed the message that dissent is hate, so if our leaders stand athwart duties the believer owes to God, we will be deemed enemies of the state. The believer therefore must oppose the state, knowing that we are to love our enemies who are pitting themselves against God and therefore against us.

Sadly, many Christians fall for the premise that failing to affirm sinful choices is unloving and therefore increasing numbers of churches and church leaders are no longer even teaching the gospel. It is my contention that the reason for this concession is precisely why we won’t stand against tyrannical government. We fear man more than God and it is easier to go along with a lie than to stand up for what is true and right. Those who hate us have redefined who we are and what we believe; thus, implicitly impugning our Lord and his perfect standard and we have agreed with their premise.

What has prompted this current article is the number of professing Christians who have been silent on or even linked arms with state actors fining and imprisoning Canadian pastors who have kept their churches open in contravention of government prohibitions. One person told me that they refused to take a position on the matter; somehow failing to recognise that refusing to challenge the authority being imposed on pastors is itself a position. If one does not take a moral stance on issues of rape, slavery, child exploitation, graft, assault, robbery, discrimination, spousal abuse, abortion, or any number of social issues, then your Christian duty to be salt and light in calling out evil is forfeit. This makes one a passive and therefore tacit enabler of those imposing these penalties on these pastors.

Since I have castigated those who have either stood silent or essentially applauded the government for enforcing the mandates that these pastors have clearly violated, it is not only reasonable but prudent to question whether their defiance was justifiable as agents of Christ. I believe that their actions were not only defensible, but absolutely essential.

As to the idea of what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God, there should be no question that our freedom to share our faith and meet together as a body of believers is one that comes directly from God. For the state to determine our comings and goings, who we may meet with and under what conditions is to submit to tyrannical rule. Our God not only grants us free choice, but holds us accountable for how we use this liberty. Would he be pleased to see us shuttering our churches under the rationale that this will keep us safe and healthy? Is that our primary directive? If not, how far does our responsibility for the health and safety of ourselves and others extend?

Let’s consider what the government has allowed to fit under the penumbra of choice and health. Those involved in pro-life work will recognise the court decision where the term “penumbra” was insinuated into the decision to justify the taking of the innocent life of the child in the womb. This whole issue is defended under the guise of “choice” and the language most often used is for the “health of the mother” while ignoring the health of the baby she is carrying. Why is bodily autonomy permitted for the pretense of health here, but is not extended to attending church? We are told that GLBT+++ must be affirmed, simply because criticism does harm. In fact, Canadians can be charged for “misgendering” (failing to pretend that gender is subjective and not biological) and parents can have their children apprehended for not endorsing their 6-year-old’s false self-identity. Christians are losing their jobs, their businesses and being sued for not providing services that sanction unbiblical same-sex unions. Is this an appropriate government role in advancing freedoms and promoting health?

I expect the day is not far off where pastors will be told they must never preach against homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, divorce, or some similar issue because they insist this perpetuates a hate crime and creates an unsafe space for this demographic. Should pastors go along with government and limit the scope of their preaching to avoid issues not approved by the state? Isn’t this the exact same argument for going along with church lockdowns? Is the church to pursue peace through compromise with an oppressive state? What does “being the church” even mean if the state can dictate what may or may not be said? Many could argue that there is still much room for the church to address “safer” subjects, but submitting would cede more ground to Caesar and reduces the influence and relevance of the church. Perhaps we should consider God’s thoughts on this.

Many maintain that complying with health standards is insufficient grounds for civil disobedience as there is no clear violation of a biblical standard. As mentioned, I will cover the genuine health risks and I’ve talked about the potential abuse of “health” as a path to censoring speech. With this in mind, the Bible is firm about not giving up the habit of meeting together. The great commission offered by Jesus as his parting words to the disciples also cannot be effectively done if our reach is relegated to those who might tune in to an online service. You may reach the flock and those who somehow stumble into a church broadcast, but there is no relationship and no genuine witnessing taking place. It is no different than pew sitters who show up on Sundays and never bring their witness into their daily lives. I cannot in any way imagine Jesus living in these times falling in line and keeping his social distancing and shuttering the church in favour of virtual masked worship. Everyone knows how hollow this is compared with the real thing and this is merely playing at church.

The church is known for not playing it safe. The church started the hospitals where they would be interacting with the ill. We have sent missionaries to countries where diseases and conditions like leprosy where prolonged exposure creates a major health risk. We know the stories of those who witnessed to remote tribes including cannibals and lost their lives in their efforts to share the gospel. Christians respond to natural disasters and countless other arenas where we follow our obligation to put others above ourselves. The idea that we ought to place such a high premium on our lives does not comport with anything I read in scripture. Furthermore, I’m deeply troubled by how many seem to not grasp or don’t really believe that their temporal life will merely transition into eternity with our Lord. Why are we so fearful of a virus – let alone one that for most of the population is on a par with the flu – that we are willing to board up our places of worship and eschew our gathering together as believers?

Beyond these safety considerations (I have written extensively on this issue in other blogs), let me touch on some key salient points related to avoiding the spread of COVID – especially if it preserves the safety of our neighbours which is a worthy biblical consideration:

• Outside of old age and comorbidities, COVID is on a par with the flu, yet they have stoked fear in the young and healthy and severely restricted freedoms and autonomy.
• They intentionally test beyond the cycle threshold recommended by the CDC, thus guaranteeing an almost half of all tests will show a false positive.
• Natural immunity, known to be the best protection and overriding the need for an untested gene therapy injection is being ignored.
• Stats are exaggerated by including those who die “with” instead of “from” COVID and conflating cases with hospitalizations and death – all while not mentioning the most severe cases involve comorbidities.
• Choosing to lock up the healthy and keep people indoors – away from sun and exercise – the best methods to build immunity.
• Refusing to treat patients with COVID with provably effective prophylactics such as Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, zinc and vitamin D. Government has in fact forbidden doctors from using these treatments and have punished doctors advising or treating with these options.
• Masks don’t work. Decades of study proved this. Furthermore, recently released information demonstrated that those imposing the mask mandates knew them to be ineffective (see my previous article here.) In fact, parents had the masks of their children used for one day of school tested and found 9 dangerous pathogens trapped in the masks that also inhibit breathing and blood oxygen levels.
• COVID is airborne and therefore strict standards for wiping down surfaces has not done anything to stop the spread. In fact, heavy reliance on sanitizers to clean hands reduces our God-given immunities, thus making us more vulnerable to illness.
• Asymptomatic spread is not an issue. The notion of closing schools, keeping children inside and cloistering the healthy in their homes has too worsened the situation. COVID is primarily spread in close quarters indoors with poor ventilation.
• The CDC has admitted that social distancing rules were arbitrarily decided. They indicated that young people could reduce the distancing to 3 feet. Why was this fact not widely disseminated? Also, if this applies to children, why is it not the same for adults? I’ll leave those questions for your consideration.
• The heightened risk of depression, suicide, domestic violence, substance abuse and all manner of mental illness have been left out of the equation. What we have done to our kids is particularly pernicious and unconscionable.

There is absolutely no question that many overtly or implicitly approving of the fining and imprisoning of pastors are genuine believers. As such, then grasping the rationale for this seeming indifference is essential. I believe they must adopt the view that the measures are either necessary to protect the health of society or at least is a well-intentioned measure to meet that objective. Similarly, there is an assumption that pastors are merely being held to the same standard as the rest of society or the prospect of persecution would be undeniable. Here are the facts as I see them.

Given the details I offer above, the notion that any of this promotes health is delusional. Adopting an assumption and clinging to it while ignoring the contravening evidence is a failure to do their jobs of maintaining safety. Tyranny is no more noble even where intentions are judged to be sincere. As to the notion that government is an equal opportunity tool of oppression and obstacle to health is also nonsensical. Consider the following:

First, we have the selective application of regulations. Small businesses were all closed down under the presumption that this, rather than in massive box stores that already are crushing the competition are perfectly safe. No one has explained how fewer shopping and eating choices increases health. Never has this assumption been proven to be true. They also made allowances for lottery outlets, abortion clinics, liquor stores. No one has explained how these were deemed essential services and churches did not make the cut. Until a few years ago, cannabis was illegal. It is now a product we can’t manage without.

Furthermore, we have the unequal application of the law. Allowances have been made for protesting for leftist causes, including an encampment at City Hall in Toronto and memorials for beloved criminal and victim of overzealous policing, George Floyd. Also permitted were pro-Palestine and pro-Israel clashes. “No More Lockdown” events however led to fines as did small business owners who opened gyms, hair salons, restaurants, etc. There have been 2 cases of churches having massive fines imposed and even being locked down in Ontario with 3 pastors fined, arrested and jailed in Alberta. Where were any other faith communities subjected to the same treatment? I have seen two videos filming mosque parking lots overflowing with vehicles in Alberta, but there has been no fines, lockouts or jail for these Imans and Muslim leaders. Let me be clear, I don’t blame them for deciding to meet if they know they will be permitted, but it is the double standard at work that is disturbing.

Worst of all, several of the politicians imposing these rules on the rest of us have directly violated their own rules and of course face no punishment. This is not simply hypocrisy, but is dangerous. There is no selfless disregard for their safety at work here – just proof that they are lying. When you have an elite class that tells everyone else how they must conduct themselves and selectively punish based on ideology, you have a blossoming tyranny. When they censor the right and opportunity for speech and protest to their political and faith-based enemies, then you are on the road to a dictatorship. All of this is happening.

I see many pastors and Christians cowed into not defying the state for fear of the fines based on the premise that this shows the government takes public health seriously. I merely see that they are exploiting their power to effectively force the church into submission – and it’s working.

If you think I’m wrong, please use facts to demonstrate that my claims are false as I am more than happy to back up anything I have set out here. I’d also encourage you to look up videos of the arrests of Pastor Artur Pawlowski of his brother Dawid, literally arrested in the middle of a busy highway, forced to kneel and be cuffed. In another video, Artur recounts how he was transported and then kept in a cell with no mattress and refusing him even a Bible. Please explain to me how this furthers public health. The arrest of Pastor Tim Stephens of Fairview Baptist Church is heart wrenching as police cuff and place him in the police cruiser in front of his crying children. Pastor James Coates wasn’t so fortunate to have cameras there to capture his arrests.

Note a few more facts:

• Canada is the only western country arresting pastors over COVID
• The arrests have garnered international attention and condemnation even from church and political leaders in other countries
• Pawlowski, who saw fascism first-hand, called the police Nazis and gestapo, so consider whether this was them seeking retribution for being embarrassed
• Artur was charged for “inciting people to attend church” which, I’m pretty sure is our mandate
• Neither these pastors nor those who consent to show up for in-person services are jeopardizing anyone else’s health; they are merely exercising their right to worship and it should be no business of the government or those who choose to stay home

The controversy over church opening was initially sparked by John MacArthur when his church organically kept gradually filling with increasing numbers showing up on Sundays as he recorded his services. The media pounced on him for being irresponsible and the cap set by the governor of 100 attendees has been surpassed by 70-fold with the church being fined $1,000 a day. They are countersuing. Note that there have been no deaths or hospitalizations for COVID reported and none of several churches who either defied lockdowns or were not forced to do so have had a genuine outbreak.

A final consideration I present to those who are sanguine about the pastoral lockdowns, consider that Alberta Premier, Jason Kenney, who set and enforced these draconian measures was exposed violating his own policies. He and his cabinet had participated in a relaxed dinner gathering. After excusing this breach, he rendered a reluctant and insincere apology, but did not pay a fine or end up in jail. Now, perhaps this was some selfless sacrificial act to put their lives on the line to test the lethality of steering directly into the face of this killer. This does present a new perspective and we learn that actually Kenney is  Islamophobic and his failure to enforce mosque shutdowns is a veiled attempt to eradicate this demographic. From where I sit, this reeks of tyrannical and duplicitous persecution of the church, but I welcome your innocent explanation.

In short, there is clearly deferential treatment focused on uniquely shutting up the churches over non-existent health concerns that are arbitrarily enforced and clearly seem to keep Christians from gathering together. This smells far more of an effort to emasculate the church to prevent any attempt to stand against a clearly anti-Christian agenda. For their efforts they have faced essentially no resistance and I believe we are approaching the endgame. The heroic leaders that I am certain will hear, “Well done, good and faithful servant,” are being met with sneering contempt or indifference by the rest of us who will also face that day of judgment. I say we need to wake up before we discover we have only been stirred into consciousness to witness our own funeral.