I have made the case that the arguments for demanding that believers submit to the mandates as our Christian duty are not only specious, but defamatory. I then presented the realities of our circumstances that demonstrate that evil is both a logical and inevitable explanation for the mandates from our overlords. Similarly, I presented both that all the evidence points to hegemony rather than health and addressed the reasons that secular authorities therefore cannot be trusted. Today my objective is to establish that there is no justification for any believer to stand on the sidelines regarding these divisive mandates and insist, “Let’s just agree to disagree on this one.”

There is a well-known Aesop’s fable about a frog and a scorpion. The scorpion asks the frog for a ride to the other side of a stream as he cannot traverse the dangerous waters without the frog’s help. The frog wants to be of assistance, but he expresses his concerns that the scorpion might sting him midstream. The scorpion allays the amphibian’s fear by pointing out that to do such a thing would be absurd since they would both drown. Mollified, the frog obliges; only to be stung just as he had feared. Just before he croaks, the frog manages to sputter out, “But why?” to which the scorpion replies, “I’m a scorpion and that’s what we do.”

I believe the frog is a perfect analogy of the compliant churchgoer and the scorpion is the government. Under the notion of shared interest in safely passing through the choppy waters of COVID, they have messaged that we are all in this together. We were given assurances of a return to freedom and normalcy provided everyone played their part. They convinced most believers to trust them and blame the non-obedient for why they need to keep recanting on their promises and vast numbers have obliged. They see the scorpion as their ally and fellow frogs who passed on the invitation as their enemies.

This may sound harsh and get some backs up, but our circumstances suggest to me that this is not a time for moderation. Scripture is full of hard truths and we can’t ignore the difficult passages and hope to stay grounded. While the scorpion, on the surface, poses the clearest threat, the fable – and scripture – reminds us, scorpions are gonna scorpion. The one at fault is the mandate-compliant within the church. Pressure, coercion, and ostracism only works if people participate, or, put in the far-out philosophical nuance of the sixties, “What if they gave a war and nobody came, man?” I’m sorry if my bluntness stings.

The church has several responsibilities that it has failed, in large measure, to meet through this time of COVID. Christ-followers are called to:

• Follow the greatest commandment(s)
• Live out the great commission
• Speak and preach truth
• Be discerning
• Not live in fear
• Put the comfort and well-being of others above our own
• Submit to God, not man
• To the best of our ability, live at peace with everyone
• Live in unity as members of one body and care for those in need

There is nothing controversial here and every Christian reading this list knows these are all duties we are commanded live out. The specifics are broken down in greater detail in previous articles, so I won’t revisit the arguments here. Anyone can tag me if they feel these challenges are unjust or are actually violations committed by the non-inoculated. An illustration, however, should succinctly make my point.

What if I showed up at church one day and there was a baptismal font at the entrance and all attendees were directed to dip in their fingers and genuflect before going to their seats and praying the rosary while situated on the kneeling bench. Perhaps you instead were told by the rabbi that you were to strictly follow the teachings of the Torah and Talmud and not corrupt the temple by bringing in the teachings about the false prophet named “Jeshua.” How about if, upon entering the mosque, the pews and chairs were gone and you needed to get your prayer rugs – men at the front and women in the back. Your Imam preached about your duty to pray facing Mecca five specific times a day and observe Ramadan. Worse yet, you were now forbidden to eat – bacon!

Presumably, a Protestant would not participate in any of these three services because you are not a Catholic, Jew, or Muslim; even though 2 of the three believe in the same God and the other falsely claims allegiance to the same God under a different name. This is no less true if one is told they must bow down before a golden calf because the rulers require it. Let’s say the state tells you that calf worship will end the drought that is plaguing the nation, would that make it okay?

Finally, what if the state made a convincing evidentiary case that carrying a talisman appeared to heal people; so, they established a mandate that all Christians must bring a lucky charm to restore health to the sick? The measure would be temporary and would be rescinded once all took part and people had been restored to health? The inconvenience would be minor in terms of personal comfort, compliance would keep the state off your back, and the practise would not become permanent. After all, don’t Christians want the sick to get well? Would churches set up compliance officers to keep out anyone without the requisite amulet? Would their refusal be grounds for breaking company rather than breaking bread with friends, neighbours, brothers and sisters?

For any who still feel these analogies are irrelevant, I ask you to read to the end and tell me whether I have failed to put meat on these bones.

• The mandates place conditions on God’s people meeting together. This has extended not only to outright banning through closures, but limiting numbers, isolating worshippers from one another, setting up a barrier to fellowship, and inhibiting or ensuring an inability to join in corporate worship. I knew I was no longer returning to my church until it opposed these measures when the worship team led us in a song about throwing off chains while everyone sat muzzled by masks and sitting in pods. Whether the issue was hypocrisy or blindness didn’t matter as neither gave me solace. If we set conditions on visiting unbelievers (i.e., no tattoos, exclusion of homosexuals, proper attire, only approved hair colours), this would be recognised as indefensible and hypocritical. It is no different if the conditions are either less selective or whimsical and include both believers and unbelievers. Equal opportunity discrimination is still discrimination and government mandates don’t justify such exclusion (see above).
• Protecting the physical health of others does not suffice as grounds for deferential treatment or exclusion. Christians are promised a life of adversity and persecution. Many Christians historically strengthened the church by risking their personal safety to the point of martyrdom to be a vessel for Christ. Not only should we not fear those who might be health compromised or endanger our well-being – something missionaries, police officers, soldiers, fire fighters, health care workers, etc. do on a daily basis – but we should not be afraid of death even if COVID was a real threat to life and limb. Christians without an eternal perspective likely also cannot be an effective witness either due to intimidation or by being a poor example of life obedient to the Holy Spirit. Look into Christ’s end-time warnings – signs of which are incrementally growing leaps and bounds with each passing day – and consider how many would refuse to take the mark of the beast or refuse to recant their Lord under pressure.
• Providing assurance to the emotionally fragile is not only wrong-headed, but indicts them for their paucity of faith. The reasons are enumerated in the point above. Yes, this includes seniors – especially those who have professed faith in Christ for most of their lives. We are inspired by those who, upon learning they have a terminal illness, don’t brood and fret, but exhibit an inner peace and focus on what is of utmost importance. My mother was one such example as was my father-in-law. Such stark differences from the world are to be hallmarks of the believer that compels others to ask, “What is different about that person. I want what they have.” They are also far more likely to hear the words, “Well done, good and faithful servant,” than those paralyzed by fear and cowering if someone gets too close. We are not talking about invading one’s personal space, but maintaining 6 feet. Volitionally living in solitude from friends, family, and the lost for our own self-preservation should not be something any believer should aspire to. Certainly, the truly physically fragile might well choose to watch online, but their circumstances should not negate the invitation for those who don’t face the same risk. In fact, those secluded out of necessity should not want others to be denied the chance to meet.
• Showing our Romans 13 bona fides and/or avoiding the risks of fines and possibly even jail is not biblical. I needn’t go over the many Old and New Testament heroes whose heroism shone brightest by defying the state – up to and including our Lord. If unquestioned deference to worldly authorities was a noble pursuit, then the underground church in oppressive countries who face top level persecution ought to be condemned by trying to circumvent their masters. The ten Booms should not have harboured Jews. Bonhoeffer should have stayed in his lane and not provoked the ire of the Nazis. William Wilberforce would be wrong for trying to oppose the government commitment to slavery and ought to have waited them out in hopes they would come to their senses eventually. This has been a 2 year test of the church as governments have incrementally taken rights and freedoms by using threats, enticements, intimidation and coercion and the church has, for the most part, cleared a path for their tyranny. Nazis did not start by carting the Jews off to the death camps, but began with a process of othering, including insisting that the Jews carried disease. We also know that most churches were complicit by choosing to not make waves. I’d argue that a church properly grounded, united, and aware of their primary duties would have stood together and collectively refused to comply with closures – if not right away, within the first month. Failure in this regard empowered and exposed the tyranny that allowed select churches and pastors with courage to be picked off and rendered the church increasingly irrelevant and indistinguishable from the culture. In truth, many secular business owners and workers have shown more courage in risking their livelihoods based on principle while the church has been eerily silent or even said to themselves or verbalized, “Just take the jab and all this can end.” To this I say, how is this different from the admonishment to “Just wear the star.”
• The truth should matter. From the outset I distrusted the motives and sought out seasoned believers and friends to share my concerns. I warned that the response was not commensurate with the data and observable reality. I circulated blogs to promote church cohesion and tried to bring to light issues that were being intentionally kept from the public. It has been well nigh impossible to dialogue with almost anyone who adopted compliance. Conversely, I can speak freely with a large cluster of believers I didn’t know before and who are completely sympatico in the recognition of what trajectory we are on. Comity cannot be achieved through those who see the gathering clouds of an approaching storm while attempting to unsee or pretend to believe contrary to what we know. Those adopting the narrative have put their trust in self-appointed authorities who are choking dissent and information they wish to keep buried. They aren’t interested in knowing what people risking their jobs, livelihoods, or even lives might know. To be clear, they are not just predetermining that “expert class approved” information is reliable, but that anyone not sharing their faith in the inherent virtue of the ruling class must be delusional. Opinions can differ, but facts cannot. Those of us speaking against mandates offer and can articulate a more robust understanding because we hear the voices that are being suppressed as well. Imagine being a juror in a court case and the judge predetermined that the defendant was guilty. Exploiting his authority, he only allowed witnesses for the prosecution and exculpatory evidence and exhibits were kept out of the courtroom. All objections from the defence were overruled and the jury was dismissed with instructions that only permitted degrees of guilt and no finding of innocence was permitted. The defendant may have been guilty, but the denial of even reasonable doubt sealed the conclusion and the jury needed to reach their verdict solely based on what they were privy to. By default, the person who hears the full case is in the best position to judge fairly based on the preponderance of the evidence. Anyone claiming that they only need to hear one side to reach their conclusion and dismiss alternate theories or explanations out of hand is not only closed-minded, but also disrespectful.
• If the “vaccine hesitant” are correct, countless lives are at stake. There would be unity if “safe and effective” was not just a catchphrase, but a reflection of reality. I have shown through questions, details, and logical takedowns of the claims from the decision-makers that they are serving up pure fantasy. One can conclude they are instruments of evil (which I do here), or that they are complete fools who don’t know how to read facts or apply reason. In either case, they are disqualified from managing our lives, revoking our freedoms, and dictating our social and meeting practises. There are overwhelming reams of evidence that the protocols being imposed are killing people and this is not hyperbole. The irony is that those in power know they are lying while many “useful idiots” are taking their propaganda at face value. Censorship is a tool used by those without an argument to rout any dissent and this is especially true for those of a despotic disposition. Keeping up a façade of disinformation requires a pliant public who won’t question orders. Assuming that any details being intentionally obscured must be invalid, however, is simply blind trust or even outright gullibility. I became intensely interested in Christian apologetics because I wanted to know my faith was well founded and to convince unbelievers based on facts rather than emotion. What I have seen is that those claiming to be atheists or nones (those who outright reject any faith) do not have facts behind them. They will assume that the universe and all of creation came into existence on its own unless the Christian can answer all the challenges they want to make to scripture and, after that, they decide whether they deem it sufficiently convincing. These are the same people telling us to “trust the science;” adopting the presumption that the mandates are beneficial, safe and necessary unless counter-evidence (that they won’t permit) proves them wrong. That isn’t how science is done or truth is established. As an aside, I don’t accept that government should mandate for the believer or unbeliever what they must do even if the measures were safe and effective. Ours is a God of free-will including the right to sin and we are to persuade rather than force people out of their bad choices. Mandates from government or pressure from Christian brothers and sisters is indefensible – period.
• We are to protect the vulnerable and be a voice for the voiceless – even at the cost of our very lives. Many will insist that the measures are to save lives and protect those at risk. We are then faced with determining if the “mandates” being established live up to the hype. This can only be done by fully weighing all the evidence since, as previously noted, opinions and facts are not the same thing. More often than not, I am hearing self-serving and shallow arguments in favour of the inoculations and requirements. Some will insist that holding out from getting the jab are preventing things from opening up. This relies on faith that the government will follow through – for the first time – on promises they have made. It also means requiring that those opposed to the mandates put their blind faith in the earthly authorities simply because others are willing to do so. Most argue that getting the jab protects those who already have taken it. I have already addressed the absurdity of this, but I will now instead stress the inherent selfishness of this assertion. With all we now know about the inoculation’s failure to protect against the virus or prevent the spread, the only remaining claim is that the needle reduces the likelihood of hospitalization and death. If so, why are all the arguments focused on protecting those who are presumed to be safer? Where is that compassion for the “unvaxxed?” Why the hostility for our personal health decision? Why the indifference to the reduction in doctors and nurses fired for refusing the inoculation? Assuming compassion to be the driving force, how can you stand idly by while some doctors refuse to treat the unjabbed and we are being taken off lists to receive organs? Do you have the temerity to believe that pressuring us into compliance by caterwauling about your own needs is virtuous? Is our right to make a health care choice for ourselves easily dismissed because you think we are getting what’s coming to us? What basis is there for claiming we need to show compassion to you by reducing your health concerns while you face no restrictions that will impact you because of your willing compliance? This may sound harsh, but I am open to hearing any way that I have misrepresented the situation.

Renowned theologian, Theodore Geisel, offers a fitting analogy of our current circumstances in his tome, “The Butter Battle Book.” Here, Mr. Geisel – also known as Dr. Seuss – tells a story of 2 tribes that are divided based on those who slather butter on their bread with the butter on the top or the bottom. The divide is deemed to be irreconcilable and they square off into a war of escalation culminating in a stand-off where they have achieved MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). The not too subtle and overly simplistic message of this children’s book from the time of the U.S./Soviet Cold War is that people should not risk civilizational destruction over minor disputes. In this case, the chasm between oppressive Soviet style socialism and an American Republic are highly consequential. The irony is that while the U.S. defeated socialism and freed Russian citizens, the present trajectory will ensure enslavement for all under tyrannical socialism by closing off all avenues of escape.

I mention this because I have been told by Christian brothers who support the mandates that this is merely a difference of opinion – much like a dispute over whether one spread butter on the top or underside of a piece of bread. If that is the case, then there is no justification for going along with the state taking a side and mandating the correct placement of the butter. There should be a vigorous defence of those who opt for different buttering practices and a willingness to call out such unjust discrimination over competing viewpoints. Participation in the iron fist approach from government demonstrates either that they know it is not just about a difference of opinion or they don’t wish to rock the boat by telling us that our opinion should not go against the one that they and the state have mutually settled on.

We are back to the problem of those advocating compliance minimising the merit of those who refuse to go along. In fact, since we are the ones willing to take all the risks, lose our sources of income and basic rights and freedoms to defend our principles, then this suggests they ought to come over to our side in full throated advocacy and become activist allies on our behalf. If this is merely a way to be non-committal and ignore the plight of those facing active discrimination out of self-preservation; then this is an act of cowardice and avoidance. If they, however, are convinced that the state is right in forcing mandates, then we are back to the undeniable need for mutual understanding through open debate and hearing out all the facts to find a respectful solution for all.

Failure by the church to unify means the enemy can eviscerate our effectiveness and our witness. The fact is that I have gone to great lengths to seek harmony after being ejected from fellowship over mandates. I have no capacity to overcome a divide that will not accommodate my choices and I cannot give warning to those who aren’t interested in listening to what I know. Certainly, I am speaking with the confident assurance that I’m right, but I am willing to present my full case, hear out the other side, and see what results emerge. My detractors can accept this opportunity to either reinforce or rethink their position. To keep the door closed between one another threatens to be the death knell to the prospect of Christian unity.

If the real objective for the Christian church is health and well-being, it goes far beyond a protocol in response to a virus. The solution for what ails us will not come through the point of a syringe, but by being the people God called us to be – and that leaves no room for stubbornness, petty animus, or needless division.