It had not yet been a full year since we changed our global status to “in a relationship with Covid,” when I wrote a blog for Faith Beyond Belief titled: “Is Covid Corrosive or Clarifying.” My assessment was that through this dark period, both of these factors were in evidence. What remained uncertain was the lasting impact in the aftermath of this defining period. The results are in and are not good.

The corrosive effects were self-evident to me when I was, for all intents and purposes, excommunicated from my church of 20 years for opposing the church closure and politely seeking to be exempted from what I believed to be unnatural and irrational mask mandates. I’ve no wish to relitigate this matter, but want to reflect on what I see as the state of the church some 4½ years later. Now for the clarifying side of the equation.

Corrosives do undeniable damage, but the effects need not be long lasting nor severe. Depending on how early the problem is identified and steps taken to arrest the damage, the chances can be good for a full restoration. The longer the decay is permitted to eat away at the integrity of the structure, the prospects of repair drop precipitously and may never be salvageable.

With regard to relations between believers, earnestly seeking repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation can culminate even stronger bonds forged by weathering the trials of adversity with integrity before God. Conversely, an open wound left untreated and ignored can lead to debilitating harm that can be infected through neglect. It is not enough to know or possess the remedy if one chooses to not apply the salve provided for us.

What I found clarifying was the profound lack of preparedness I saw within the body of Christ to identify and stand against a tyrannical government. While my pre-Covid pastor on several occasions would reference the fact that Christ-followers are on a battleship, not a cruise ship, I certainly heard no call to man battle stations. On the contrary, we quite literally rearranged the deck chairs on the instruction of the yeoman while failing to consult the Captain.

I discovered just how disposable I was as not one of those I’d worshipped alongside for 20 years contacted me to find out where I had gone. Actually, to be fair, there were 2 families and both shared my concerns. One found and pointed me to my new church home and the other followed some months later.

Much as the congregation was not privy to the cause of my departure; it was not as though I had surreptitiously slipped out the back pew. I did my best to communicate my position to the pastor and elders only to largely be rebuffed. It should be noted that I had served as an elder for 7 years and was asked to return several months prior to the release of Covid, but did not feel God was putting it on my heart to return at that time.

One elder clearly had been assigned to address my concerns and he was the man with whom I had the closest connection. Far from being needlessly antagonistic, I simply stated that I would consider attending if I could attend without a mask which was a minor concession given the collective apprehensions that I had regarding the leadership’s response to Covid. I was respectfully informed this request would regretfully not be approved.

There can always be disputes among the body of Christ, but aside from circumstances that directly contravene scripture and calls for church discipline, we can largely carry on and not be hobbled by these minor abrasions. We all struggle together with what it means to confront challenges of this world and well-meaning but rightly grounded people can come to disparate views on peripheral matters and still get along just fine. God designed us differently and disparity of thought and personality even among those in the church are inevitable and even desirable. This, however, is not an apt understanding of what was at work here.

A great deal was made about the fact that the scenario of a pandemic is not directly addressed in scripture, so we had a duty to submit to the state out of deference to the narrow interpretation of Romans 13. I won’t rehash a myth I’ve demolished in former posts, but will point out 2 counterpoints. First, we have the Hebrews 10:25 admonition to not give up meeting together. The other comes from the sermon on the mount where Christ warns us to beware of false prophets who come in sheep’s clothing but underneath are ravenous wolves.

How does this apply? We need only direct our attention to the teaching that Jesus is the source of truth and all who are on the side of truth hear his voice. This is how we avoid snares set by the enemy. The state was acting much more like the serpent in the garden challenging the veracity of Christ’s words. We were assured, sans evidence, that these unnatural restrictions were for our health and safety. Every communist/socialist/fascistic takeover in history is couched in the language of public welfare and is exposed by any who rightly divide the word of truth.

Government and health authorities were prophesying mass death and claimed to hold the sole secret knowledge to get us through this existential threat. Coincidentally, every measure increased their power and held us captive to the state while denying not only our God-given rights and freedoms; but prevented us from our duty to one another and to our Lord.

One could justly argue that I was merely being contrarian and am applying my own bias to justify my selfish preferences. As such, I will explain my position and the rationale for it. Consider the issue of mask mandates and my case for why they did not comport with scripture. My conclusions were derived from:

• Science: I knew that such a face covering would reduce the flow of oxygen, trap bacteria, impede clarity of speech, and allow plenty of room for this airborne virus to pass through. I also knew from actual numbers and observable reality that the dangers of the so-called coronavirus were negligible to anyone not burden with major pre-existing health conditions and, as such, universal mask compliance, even if they worked, would have a negligible effect if any on preventing spread let alone saving lives.
• Respect for unbelievers and those with exemptions: I reasoned that if an unbeliever came through our doors and was turned away for not masking or finding the notion of masking absurd, it would irreparably damage our witness and violate our primary calling. I similarly was troubled by the inhumanity of forcing someone with medical reasons to not mask (i.e. a respiratory or PTSD condition). Alternatively, if there would be concessions for these scenarios, what justification is there to deny a concession to a member or adherent on principle? In fact, the pastor at my post-covid church wrote me a religious exemption for the mask; a freedom that my former church would never countenance.
• Logic dictated that if masks worked, they would protect the wearer as the unmasked was the one taking the risk. If the efficacy of their mask necessitated that I don a protective covering, that means that masks don’t work. I also knew that it is not possible to spread a disease that you don’t carry, so universal masking was like quarantining the healthy which serves no public health objective.
• Hygiene: If a mask was actually intended to help (i.e. as a splashguard in the event of a sneeze) I had no intention of leaving it on in such an eventuality. I would take the normal steps to prevent emitting germs onto others. For that matter, I would remain home if I was symptomatic. Besides, if the masks actually worked as an effective barrier against the virus, this action alone should preserve the safety of mask wearer from my germs.
• The rationale given did not hold up under scrutiny. The widespread claim the to wear a mask was loving and the exclusive and disingenuous application of Romans 13 as a call to unquestioned obedience exposed false teaching. If the case for compliance was legitimate, it would not demand such eisogetical contrivances.
• Lack of fear: Put simply, believers should not live in fear of a virus, the state, or our mortality so, even if masks worked, they were unnatural demonstrations of abject fear and thus, a refutation of the protective hand of God and his promises. Furthermore, it is he who created our immune systems.

I should add that social distancing was inextricably linked to masking and thus had as much bearing on my resolve. The difference, as I saw it, was simply that if people were fearful enough of their neighbour as to shun them as potential conduits for a killer virus, I would not volitionally enter their space and disrespect their bodily autonomy – misguided as their beliefs may be. Masking put an obligation on me to muzzle myself and thus participate in what I saw as a farce based on paranoia; whereas social distancing could fall tenuously under the principle of not causing a weak brother or sister in the faith to stumble.

As an aside, it was suggested to me by one of the elders that not wearing a mask would be a gesture akin to not eating food offered to gods. This refers to the apostles adapting to the cultural circumstances of those to whom they preached due to the weakness of their faith. As I informed my friend, I was actually being asked to make an offering to the gods. It was like requiring everyone who enters the narthex to pray the rosary, dip their finger in holy water and make the sign of the cross, or recite the Shahada (the Muslim statement of faith) as a precondition for entering. The church was essentially creating a safe haven strictly for those weak in their faith and a church population too frightened to buck social convention was certainly was no match against the schemes of the devil.

In a magnanimous act of Christian charity, I attended one service donning a mask for entering. It was the spectacle of seeing masked mini-pods of humanity raising muffled voices to proclaim how they were breaking down walls and throwing off chains that exposed the self-deception and assured me that no compromise was possible. I exited at the end of the service without a mask and giving fearful congregants a wide berth: never to return.

After my departure and before finding a new place to worship, I extended open invitations to the pastor and elder team to meet individually or collectively to further discuss my position. No one took me up on this or even responded. I even contacted one elder I thought might be the best prospect to respond and stated I would be receiving ivermectin which I would offer to anyone with Covid symptoms. There was no response and ultimately, my offer was moot as my order was destroyed at the Canadian/US border.

My final attempt was presented roughly 2 months ago. I sent individualized letters to each elder and the pastor seeking reconciliation in the furtherance of the Romans 12:18 admonition to, as far as it depended on us, to live at peace with everyone. Their subsequent silence assured me that their final word to me was a unified, “Shut up,” they explained.

I set out in my letter that, we who take on the obligation and privilege of leadership have a higher calling; knowing we will be judged more harshly for our actions (or inaction) due to the greater responsibility inherent in this role. While our elder-member relationship is no longer in effect, our personal duty to God has no expiration date. I should also note that I invited each brother to bring to my attention any failure on my part that required correction.

What I plan to address in the balance of this post is the genuinely unsettling implications for why the door has been closed to any reconciliation. This is not simply a petty grievance unique to my situation, but I will argue is a massive threat to the mission of the church and the potential cost of many souls. This is not hyperbole.

I need to make clear that the concerns I am addressing are not restricted to the relations within the church. In fact, as difficult as it was to discover that long-term, but comparatively more superficial relations among my fellow church attendees was so fragile; this was insignificant when measured against those where the harms were far more personal, ergo, much more deleterious. I can be more circumspect regarding my former church family because I have been embraced by a new church community who walked through these fires and emerged where I did. Limiting my observations to my former church family allows me to socially distance from the pain of addressing wounds that are far more debilitating and cause daily pain.

For the most part, even when there has been a degree of contrition in some circles, it has been largely muted with efforts to move on and not dwell on “mistakes of the past.” While this may offer some comfort, it is hardly the kind of resolve that will light a fire to stand against tyranny.

Of course there are other explanations for their radio silence, but they carry far darker implications. I’m certainly not qualified to assign any motivations on those who won’t answer for themselves, so must resort to conjecture. For my part, while I earnestly attempted to convey my justification and specifics; this does not change the math that if a fact falls in a forest of propaganda and there are no ears to hear it, then no fact been imparted. Whether the problem stems a deficit in speaking or listening, the results are the same.

Rather than infer, I instead plan to present the possibilities that influenced the decisions and the implications, weighing each through the lens of Christian ethics.

Option #1: They placed their full faith in the veracity of the message from “experts.”

This is the most likely, not only because it explains the dutiful compliance with the conditions established, but it extends the grace of putting the safety and welfare of others first as preserving public health and welfare has been the enduring premise for all of this.

For context, we were reliably informed that Covid posed an unparalleled global existential threat to the health and life, primarily of the elderly. In response, masking, social distancing, and moving to online services was essential to the survival of hundreds of thousands or millions of people. The presumptively unintended, yet known consequences of compliance under this premise were:

• Indefinitely severing or heavily limiting any interaction with church family and relations, friends and neighbours outside of our immediate households. There would be no counselling, no congregational worship or fellowship, no prayer gatherings or communion. All of this happened at a time where there was palpable existential panic among the population. That fear should have been greatest among unbelievers and those struggling in their faith in their final days. There was no place to come for teaching, solace, prayer or direction and thus no hope of salvation.
• It sent the clear message that the prospect of dying and coming into the presence of God prematurely because you foolishly decided to congregate, pray, worship, and support one another during a crisis was something to be avoided at all costs. This relegated the promise of an eternal home to the dustbin as survival as the great omission took precedence over the great commission – that is, if our efforts to outrun the grim reaper succeeded.
• The state was justified in deeming the church non-essential in contrast with liquor, cannabis, major box stores and abortion clinics which were branded indispensable. As I have asserted often, any church that believes they are non-essential is probably right.

To this I will add, regarding the injections, the presupposition that these shots offered essentially 100% protection; consequently, those who did not take the “vaccines” were the ones putting their own lives in jeopardy. Later, without questioning the shift, the claim was that those who were injected would be spared from severe impacts and death. In response, the church shunned and severed contact with those at greatest risk of death in order to preserve the lives of those inoculated against the worst impacts of the virus. Even if they believed the worst about the delusional beliefs and actions of dissenters, Christ actively sought out sinners as the ones most in need of a doctor.

Option #2: They knew the state was lying or weren’t certain what was true and erred on the side of caution so as to not upset attendees or put them in the crosshairs of the state.

This shows a similar disregard for the truth and the sphere sovereignty of Christ. It is even worse because it plays into the lowest common denominator by sacrificing the mission of the church as a matter of convenience. They failed to steel the congregation to do battle against forces of evil that wrought much damage and fed a sense of fear, dread, and hopelessness.

Option #3: They believed the state was being sincere at the beginning, but started to question their narrative when the evidence around them did not comport with what they had been told.

     We know that despite the suppression of truth, more people have questioned what they were told or jumped into the other camp. The prospect of an epiphany is also reasonable considering the precipitous drop in “vaccine” uptake in the last year or two. This means that they have reason to question the experts they trusted, yet will not listen to those who may have been right from the beginning or express contrition for their unchristian reaction. They are also refraining from imparting their newly acquired insights onto the congregation, many who may have been harmed or who lost loved ones because of the misguided mandates they encouraged.

Option #4: Their fear of repercussions for admitting their errors is too great.

     Whether due to the potential backlash by congregants for their inadvertent deception or risks associated with becoming a target of the state; their pragmatism lacks integrity and is an affront to their calling to be bold in the face of persecution.

Option #5: Their pride won’t allow them to admit to their erroneous thinking and they don’t want the humiliation of being treated to some expression of “I told you so.”

     This shows a similar lack of integrity before God and in relation to fellow believers and allows unrepentant sin to nullify their witness; putting a barrier between themselves and God’s grace.

Option #6: They know that extensive harm was being done (from the outset or belatedly) and simply don’t/didn’t care.

This is a level of cynicism I refuse to give any credence to and only raise it as a theoretical possibility. Since many professionals and leaders blindly gave or followed such orders, however, this is not irrational, but I maintain that most folded out of a lack of conviction or an outright rejection of God and thus does not apply to sincere but misguided believers.

Option #6: They cannot entertain the prospect that man is capable of such diabolical and coordinated evil.

     Any Bible-believing Christian knows to the core that man is evil and satanic levels of evil can so infest the heart of man that no act is too depraved. Scripture, history, and cases like the vilest serial killers all expose what man is capable of. If not, this means that atheists have a clearer grasp of true evil as many attribute their unbelief on God’s failure to intervene in heinous acts of evil. Ironically, they ignore the implications arising from their belief in objective morality or the fact that it is scripture that tells us that man’s nature is to do evil.

I am absolutely convinced that this is the erroneous premise that is responsible for the blind trust in authority underlying Option #1. These considerations acted in tandem and continue to prevent my Christian detractors from being fully open to how they have been duped. This would call for them to not only be oblivious to such existential evil, but to have allowed themselves to be tools for the success of the hellish agenda. As such, this necessitates understanding that coordinated evil and sweeping gullibility from most Christians was not only possible, but happened with their cooperation and approval. This also necessitates the concession that a handful of believers that they marginalized saw through the deception that somehow eluded them. That is a bitter and horse-sized pill to swallow.

Conversely, this is the greatest danger and indictment of the modern Christian church. Collectively, the whole Covid response shows that we have lost our humanity, our courage, our desire for truth, and our discernment to identify and root out evil. We all want to believe that we would be the Oscar Schindlers, boldly standing against the oppressive state. Most have dutifully swallowed the prideful assumption that we are far too civilized and wise to fall for the machinations of a state seeking to tyrannically oppress and/or kill off its citizens.A meme that circulated among the anti-mandate group captures this sentiment beautifully, reading: “Some people wouldn’t recognise tyranny if it covered their faces, locked them in their homes, censored them, made them show their papers, and force injected them.”

Based on the law of noncontradiction, granting one assumption necessitates the rejecting of opposing alternatives. For example, one may not insist simultaneously that God exists and is good while arguing that no god exists (or more perversely, that a non-existent god is evil). Similarly, to accept the premise that government and health authorities were unimpeachable authorities committed to protecting the public health means that anyone who failed to comply were foolish, ignorant, or uncaring. In short, if the evidence points to malintent in either the mandates or those opposed to them, then granting virtue to one side necessarily condemns the other. This attitude would be consistent with shunning and refusing to engage with those in opposition.

Before I close, I want to address 2 additional factors that should be part of any Christian response and evaluation of any truth claim and the results of those actions.

First, we are to judge the fruit. Following the mandates we saw divisions, lost businesses, jobs, income, schooling, etc., social isolation, a spike in suicides, severing of friendships, depression, anxiety, fear, and a loss of freedoms (of speech, movement, choice, bodily autonomy, religion), etc. The state grew while churches and individuals shrank. Children became depressed, suicidal, anxious, fell behind academically, and were denied (or afraid) the chance to be around grandparents. This doesn’t even deal with the body count which didn’t increase until after mass “vaccination” commenced and most people already contacted Covid, were injected, and only the weakened strains remained. I mentioned several of these concerns in my letter and offered to furnish evidence to support anything they doubted. I cannot explain the apparent apathy.

Finally, the vast majority of those who stood against the mandates and advocated for open churches, early treatments, social engagement, informed consent, the restoration of freedoms, rights and choice were those with strong Christian faith convictions who cited this as their justification for speaking out in the face of persecution. Many directly sacrificed their professional licenses, reputations, personal finances, faced lawsuits and/or went to prison for standing on principle. All sought to present facts and evidence and several openly stated they were willing to die on this hill – most notably for the protection of children.

Conversely, I am not aware of a single avowed Christian of strong conviction with decision-making authority as representatives in government or healthcare responsible for establishing the mandates. In fact, many violated their own mandates and did so with an air of entitlement. Christian leaders who lent their support to the mandates did so almost exclusively based on risible and nebulous calls to compliance based on a perversion of Romans 13 and a self-affirming premise that following diktats was loving one’s neighbour. The lack of engagement by my former church leaders is a case in point.

Let me be clear that this is not an embittered diatribe borne of self-righteousness or a need to gloat about devastated lives. Yes, I am frustrated, but will always remain open to reconciliation. I don’t want any of us to stand before the final judgment with regrets for what we have done or left undone.