I need to start off with a sincere apology. I violated one of the key premises that launched this endeavor in the first place. My concerns were that we were being divided over false perceptions of one another being shaped by malevolent forces on the left. That has never been more true than in this time of COVID. There is major manipulation going on here and a straw man needs some torching.

To be clear, I am not apologising for the content of my previous blogs nor the ones yet to come. They have never been more relevant or necessary. The problem is that there is a wall that has been erected even between those within the Christian sphere. Brothers and sisters have been set against one another. Whenever there is infighting or division within the church, it must be put down. This is not an option. Not only are we commanded to come together, but we are incapable of being a witness to the rest of the world when we have knives drawn against each other.

Setting aside false perceptions of one another requires that we put to death our pride and show grace toward one another. In essence, even seeking to understand each other equips us to be the Christ-followers we are intended to be while laying the groundwork to again come together in unity. This also means that many may still not become convinced of the merit of the facts and evidence I address in my various articles; but there must be no justification for holding an attitude of intolerance and/or contempt toward those who won’t go along with you.

Anyone choosing to stubbornly cling to an antagonistic view of one’s ideological opponents based on perceptions, projections, and prejudice are engaging in sin. From the beginning, I have welcomed challenges to any assertions I have made. While my other writings deal with my attempts to provide facts and evidence that go against the narrative about COVID and the response being imposed by force, this blog is intended to demonstrate why opposition is more than justified. My contention is that imposing a duty on everyone to adopt a binary choice with no no room for accommodation or consideration is indefensible based on scripture. To challenge my evidence-based claims requires proof that there is a case that going against mandates is de facto disobedience to God. Animus based simply on emotion and/or unsubstantiated premises jeopardizes the prospects of seeking comity over truth or even obedience to God.

I will start by offering my response to the arguments I’ve heard from those espousing that we have a duty to comply with mandates.

• Adhering to these mandates is an outworking of our Christian obligation to demonstrate love towards our neighbours by ensuring their safety through our own sacrifice.

The premise that the Christian has an irrevocable duty to show love for others is not a matter for debate. Scripture tells us that if love is not found in us and evident through our actions, then the love of God is not in us. To be clear, this should be love exhibited through our attitudes, a willingness to meet the needs of others, forgive, carry one another’s burdens, advocate for those in need, offer up prayers, and similar expressions of compassion. The notion of laying down one’s life is held up as the supreme form of love we can show to our friends. This is a right interpretation of scripture through which we must learn how to apply it to this situation.

Next, we need to clarify what is being asked of us for the sake of loving our neighbours as ourselves. What if a neighbour wants you to cover for them by providing an alibi that they were with you last night as this would help to preserve their marriage? No one would insist that this would be deemed a defensible way to show love; so we know that there are conditions that require us to rightly interpret what it means to show love without compromising on principle. We cannot abandon our integrity as a means to demonstrate love for one another.

Those of us who refuse the mandates do so because we believe they do more harm than good. Many, due to trauma, breathing difficulties or similar conditions are directly harmed by masking, so not imposing a demand that they cover their face would be unloving in this case. Speaking for myself, I don’t wear the mask because I am convinced by the preponderance of the evidence that it is, at best, ineffective and, more than likely, causes more harm than good. Masks trap bacteria inside while restricting the normal oxygen flow that God designed for us while showing no benefit based on efficacy measures. It also places a barrier between ourselves and others. Therefore, if I agree to wear a mask, not only would I be bearing false witness, but I would be allowing an obstruction to impede my interactions and engagement with others. This cannot be squared with showing love to my neighbour – especially when it perpetuates anxiety and when there are implications that it could be an effort to propagate unquestioned compliance to authorities unworthy of such a trust. My hope is also that my rejection of this affectation will encourage others to follow suit.

As for the injection, the incoherence of the argument once again makes this both a specious and confusing stance. If the inoculation is effective, then it should not matter to the “vaxxed” individual that others receive this elixir. If it doesn’t work, the question remains of why the jab is necessary. Those of us who reject the inoculation do so for one or more reasons which include:

• Having immunity due to already having contracted COVID naturally
• The presence of preconditions that suggest doing so would be contraindicated
• A determination that the risk of catching and recovering from COVID is less risky than submitting to the jab
• Concerns that the statistical mortality rate from catching COVID is wildly out of sync with the coercive demand to forcibly “vaccinate;” thus calling into question the true motivations of our governing authorities for imposing such a demand where there is a substantial risk-benefit consideration

None of these decisions is selfish in nature, but may in fact be a sage course of action based on the evidence. Presuming to determine for others what mitigation strategies you would impose on your neighbour based on your subjective opinion is decidedly unloving

I would defend the decision of those committed to the mandates to determine for themselves their own comfort level in being around others who don’t share their views. Much could be learned by taking the time to have a discussion; ask questions and listen to each other to understand why one concluded they did not want the jab or do not fear catching the virus.

• As believers, we are duty-bound to follow the dictates of the state based on Romans 13.

I have already addressed this in previous writings, but put simply, no Christian actually believes we must follow everything imposed by the state. In fact, being martyred for opposing those in authority making unrighteous demands is the hallmark of a committed, faithful and obedient servant of Christ.  We are promised persecution which means that believers will clash with governments, friends, neighbours, and families.

Christ says he came to set family members against one another (Matthew 10:34-36). Obviously, this is not a whimsical incitement to division, but a recognition that there will be circumstances that divide us and, since Christ unifies, this means the divisions will be driven by godless or satanic influences. This makes clarity on this issue highly consequential as no one ought to be opposing God’s will based on a faulty premise.

Those who dispute and reject the mandates do not have the presumption of truth on their side; but neither does the individual who cites compliance as virtuous or our Christian virtue. In fact, anyone who outsources their decisions to the unquestioned proposition that submission to earthly authorities is in any way seen as sufficient on its own is dangerously deceived. Before offering ourselves up as submissive to the whims of the administrative states, there are 3 tests that should inform our response.

1. The government is acting for our good and, thereby, passes the Romans 13 test that calls believers to submit. This requires evidence and a trustworthy authority will not seek to withhold the facts to validate their claims. Even in the event that this bar has been met, compulsion effectively nullifies any claim to virtue. For example, it is neither loving nor charitable to surrender earnings to the state for redistribution to those they decide are in need. Coercion nullifies any virtue since compliance in the face of pressure is merely self-preservation. Furthermore, even if those who make unwise decisions that are provably harmful (i.e., living in sin and rejecting God’s gift of grace) deserve a loving response of impressing upon them why this is beneficial to them.
2. What is being asked of us is dangerous and/or evil and contravenes what God asks of his people and therefore we should not only not comply, but should stand firmly against such malevolence and abuse of authority. In this case, the resisters are acting righteously both through their opposition and their warnings. This too must be established by evidence, but the dissenter who does not seek to warn even those who are endangering themselves and their families could rightly be accused of lacking compassion or empathy.
3. The edicts are questionable and/or have divergent considerations that means a one size fits all demand unsuitable and possibly even harmful to some. This may include pre-existing health conditions or determination based on age, comorbidities, natural immunity, or similar factors. Even those in higher risk demographics should be informed, but not forced into compliance. This means that the church should carefully weigh the implications to ensure that brothers and sisters aren’t being put at risk. This obligates the church to act in opposition to universal mandates.

If the first argument conforms with reality, the church should be united, not based on our duty to the state, but because they are acting in accord with their just role. In fact, the church may well be justified in disciplining or even removing someone from membership or active participation in worship if this is true that their actions pose an imminent threat to others.  There is no real-world evidence to support this conclusion.

Should the second and/or third circumstances apply, then the church is choosing worldly authorities over God or, at minimum, are demonstrating a lack of compassion for the individual based on their judgment. This means that those calling for obedience had better be right or they alone are guilty of creating a divide by demanding submission to a process that increases the danger to friends and family members. We who oppose the mandates are not known for discriminating against those who accede to these requirements. Only in cases where such inverse prejudice is shown would the resistant be guilty of allowing division. The pro-mandate side thus must have certitude based on facts that the measures are known to provide a significant benefit to all that far outweighs the risk – so much so that it imposes an implicit duty.

• Even if the mandates may not be as effective as we are told that they are, the chance that we can save even one life outweighs the restrictions on our freedoms.

While this rightly places a high value on humankind as God’s image bearers, it expresses a utilitarian ethic that can be dangerous. Just think if believers decided they wouldn’t be missionaries to any regions that are hostile to the Christian message as it could jeopardize their lives? Is a Christian righteous in avoiding careers such as firefighter, police officer, soldier, etc. because there are inherent occupational risks? What if you could save your life by denying Christ? The sentiment is incomplete and requires context – especially for the believer.

First, there are conditions that may call for sacrificial love that may entail forfeiting our lives. We admire those who exhibit such courage in the face of danger. This demands that we determine who is choosing or being asked to sacrifice, is it reasonable, and what are the consequences of such a decision. Are those insisting on the jab bearing the cost themselves or advocating sacrifice by proxy. It is not loving to compel someone to take a risk for your personal benefit.

When we know that getting the injection – especially among certain demographics – is more likely to increase the prospect of an early death, the claim doesn’t hold water. In such a situation, the “unvaxxed” is making a personal decision for the sake of their health and truly loving people should preoccupy themselves not with compliance, but removing barriers that responsible for ostracising the “unvaxxed.”

Also, to my earlier point, I consistently hear the argument that those refusing the inoculation are putting the injected at risk. One thing that should be beyond dispute for those convinced of the necessity of the jab is that those who don’t take it are presumed to be at the greatest risk. How loving is it to be angry at those choosing to take on the added peril of the full force of the virus if you believe that you are protected from severe infection? This becomes an even more significant question when one recalls that the “vaxxed” can be just as likely to pass on the virus to the “unvaxxed” since the latter group would therefore pose the greater threat – based on their own theory.

We also know that there is something of immensely greater worth even than a person’s life and that is one’s soul. Jesus reminds us in Mark 8:36 that we have gained nothing if we keep our lives while forfeiting our soul. Using this plea as a call to universal injections is irresponsible as it puts survival ahead of unity for the purposes of spreading the gospel by keeping away from neighbours who are otherwise hell-bound.

• Following these decrees helps to reduce the anxiety in those who are convinced that these measures provide them with safety from the virus.

We don’t serve a God who is places our safety on the forefront or even in any significant place in the continuum of his calling for us. We are repeatedly reminded throughout scripture – 365 times – that we are not to fear. If your emotional security or those in your congregation rests on everyone in your extended circle of contacts wearing a mask and having an injection for fear of death, I would question what kind of witness you can hope to have.

Imagine standing before the throne of God and offering the explanation for operating under strict confines of government mandates, parting company with fellow believers, and keeping distant from unbelieving friends and neighbours that you feared catching high-level flu. I don’t this would elicit a “well done, good and faithful servant” from our creator. It is precisely the concern about preserving the fragile emotional state of others and avoiding offense that has turned far too many churches progressive, diluted their message, and impeded their capacity to be salt and light to a condemned world. If clinging desperately to this life holds such importance, then ceding authority to the state for your bodily autonomy and even principles becomes increasingly likely.

• By following these obligations, we can again have the freedoms restored for everyone. The layers of inherent assumptions underlying this argument are legion. For instance, we must be certain that:
• The injections and masks are provably safe, beneficial, and necessary to the individual and to society
• The risk-benefit analysis favours submitting to the mandates both for the individual and the “greater good” of the collective
• The government is authorized to levy such demands on citizens; over-riding what God demands of his people
• The state will keep its promise by lifting the restrictions once the correct threshold of the jabbed is reached

Even if all the above were true, then one would need to conclude that denying one’s personal autonomy is a reasonable concession. If so, then defenders of this argument could expand this to include forced “vaccinations.” Far too many people have shown shrugging indifference to the creation of a two-tiered society based on “vax” status; so, couldn’t it even be considered more humane to make everyone get injected even if it is done against their will? We could achieve unity, even if it is reached at the point of a gun – or a needle. If this makes you uncomfortable, it should. Be clear that this is merely a natural outworking of the argument itself. If force and discrimination are wrong – which I assume Christians can hopefully agree with – then any church accepting the premise is complicit in extolling an unrighteous process. If one is not prepared to go all-in, then it’s time to consider how we can coexist with one another in unity which is the entire point of my discourse.

Such manipulations have been exploited to impose godless secular humanism on society as a replacement for biblical principles. The “COEXIST” society we have been propagandized into accepting has nothing to do with tolerance. Progressives have created a message that accepting their narrative is the only way to unify a society and anyone resisting their subjectively determined mores guilty of intolerance. Such erosion is precisely what has rendered the church vulnerable to this viral incursion that has deposed truth and permitted compulsion as a remedy to achieving unity. These fallacious arguments are, of themselves, evidence of how the church has swallowed the poison pill of progressivism and allowed it to corrupt the heart of believers.

• There is nothing in scripture that suggests that governments cannot exert authority for the sake of public health, so there is no basis for non-compliance.

I have been fired from one job and forced out of another with substantial evidence showing that their rationale for doing so was based on my faith convictions. In neither case did they state that they were passing me over for promotion or letting me go because of my Christian beliefs.” The same has been true when it comes to any form of discrimination. When churches are given massive fines and pastors are put in prison for prohibited gatherings while BLM and antifa groups are permitted to engage in close quarter protest and vandalism, then the pretense of equality under the law is belied through the mechanisms of enforcement. Just look at how many complain about the disproportionate number of blacks are pulled over without justification. Without getting into the validity of the claim, it demonstrates how people recognise the way that unequal application of the law can disadvantage some and favour others.

There is no question that the lock-downs and restrictions have not only impeded or outright prevented our opportunity to worship together, but our ability to witness and reach our neighbours and communities has also been segregated. If this reality has not been evident, consider that this may well say a great deal about the failure of the church to be a witness of the community at a deeper level. Never before has the message of Christ been more essential than in this time of anxiety, uncertainty, social isolation, and hopelessness. Churches that have been open in defiance of the lock-down enforcement measures have had the most growth and naturally have the greatest sense of community. They certainly have not stood for discrimination or conditions for attendance and many have derived courage and hope from this level of push-back.

I have written two previous posts dealing with the logistical problems that reveal how this COVID response points to malevolence and a totalitarian attempt at control rather that an attempt to sustain public health. Those articles can be found here and here. In the meantime, I want to leave my readers with some questions to ponder:

Since the “unvaxxed” don’t deny that the virus exists or even that in certain cases it can lead to serious illness or death; I believe the “vaxxed” should have more relevant questions than why people are not submitting under the presumption that it si out of fear or apathy. Instead, I would like you to ponder the following:

• Why are the non-injected less fearful? The claim from the beginning is that the needle reduces the most serious risks. Since the inoculated are the most afraid even of the “unvaxxed,” why are the “protected” clearly more anxious that those who have stood against the pressure and assumed the risk? The vast majority of us were not previously “anti-vax” and, unless there is reason to believe we have a death wish, isn’t it possible we know something you have not considered?
• Since we clearly value personal freedom, rights and autonomy, why would we be willing to lose our jobs, our licenses to practice, our ability to travel and be around friends and family when compliance would expand our freedoms? Do the injected believe we somehow haven’t done the math on this? Is it reasonable to imagine that we are not afraid of dying from COVID or facing risks to our survival simply because we are afraid of a “lifesaving” needle?
• Are those that are not submitting selfish by nature and lacking in wisdom or discernment? Are we arguing based on emotion or trying to offer a much more substantial challenge to what is being said? Who is seeking to present evidence and who is parroting a “safe and effective” narrative without investigating the opposing view?
• Do you believe the mandates are necessary based on the assumption that politicians and journalists are trustworthy? Do you believe that information tightly controlled by government and heavily relying on censoring opposing views are more or less likely to be accurate? Is it possible they may have another agenda?
• Why are so many doctors risking their lives and careers by spreading conspiracy theories? For that matter, why are so many health professionals – who are assuredly most aware of and susceptible to the true health risks – refusing to comply even if it means losing their job?
• Shouldn’t a people who are also deeply committed to our faith in Christ and guided by compassion warrant a chance to be heard rather than dismissed as unloving, “science deniers,” and “anti-vaxxers?”

What I am presenting is not merely a different opinion, but a different explanation for what is happening. While there may be a lack of specificity (on both sides) and while the motives and/or future goals require some speculation; facts are not merely opinion. This is true no matter how strongly we feel about our conclusions or sources. If it was merely a matter of opinion, then failing to tolerate differing views would be wrong. Being closed to evidence out of stubbornness would mean that truth doesn’t matter and, in this case, that we are content to allow schisms to take hold and impede our relationships. Worse yet, if the “mandate hesitant” are correct, then the most loving thing we can do is to sound the alarm about what we know.

That alone should be sufficient ground for walking through the evidence together to discover the truth and respond accordingly in the spirit of true unity befitting our identity as God’s elect.