LIE: Church leaders should carefully avoid publicly addressing questions about the true nature and assumptions of the pandemic.

Lie: Church leaders should carefully avoid publicly addressing questions about the true nature and assumptions of the pandemic.

Truth: Church leaders should wisely address questions about the true nature and assumptions of the pandemic and thereby lead people to a deeper trust in the living God.

Here in June 2021 in America, the so-called pandemic appears to be winding down, while at the same time vaccination efforts go into full swing. Some restrictions – masks, capacity limits, distancing – are being rescinded but the media push is still almost non-stop. Here in Indiana, churches are allowed to gather at 100% capacity, some with masks, some without.

But one common standard in many churches is the tacit, self-imposed restriction to avoid discussion, dialog, or communication of the questions that many people, including many Christians ask.

Questions like:

• Is the virus real?
• Is the virus a bioweapon?
• Do masks work to prevent infection?
• Does social distancing work?
• Is shutting down bars and restaurants and other businesses really necessary?
• Could there be a nefarious transformational agenda behind the pandemic?
• Are the vaccines really safe? and effective?
• Should we implicitly trust our health and government agencies?
• Is the COVID-19 illness really that bad?
• Are the case numbers inflated?
• Are the COVID-19 tests reliable?
• Should everyone be considered an asymptomatic carrier of the SARS-CoV-2 virus?

I could cite many more but that’s enough to demonstrate the gravity and number of serious, but unanswered – and some would say unanswerable – questions.

My question is: Why? Why is the church silent on these questions? Why do American churches make these questions taboo, off-limits, untouchable? These questions are certainly discussed privately, behind closed doors, but not from the pulpit or any other officially-sanctioned church forum.

In this article I will make a case that these and many other questions can, and in most cases, should be addressed by wise, humble and caring leaders. And leaders should do this, not to satisfy any morbid fascination, but to, through the process, help people to more fully trust in the living Christ. That actually is my purpose here — not to answer all the questions, but to persuade you to courageously and humbly lead the flock of God.

Objections

First off, let’s address the top objections that church leaders may have and why they avoid these questions and will even discourage attempts to bring these things out into the open.

Objection 1: Addressing these questions will lead to confusion

Let me quickly agree that certainly there are unwise ways of attempting to answer questions that will lead to confusion. Also attempting to definitively answer all questions will likely cause confusion. Allowing anyone to use an open mic to angrily curse Bill Gates or Tony Fauci or praise Trump or Biden is also a recipe for disaster.

That’s why I say wisely address questions.

The fact is that people are already confused. All of us hear conflicting narratives, medical professionals who doubt the effectiveness of masks, for example, ‘conspiracy theories,’ half-truths, unsupported or irrational statements. So one reason to positively address these questions is to dispel the confusion that is already endemic. Leaders should do this, but not in a willy-nilly fashion. Any leader who attempts to wade into these waters must do so with careful preparation and prayer. He or she must have a clear purpose and goal; must have solid support within the church leadership, and the goal must not be to have THE answer for every question. The goal is not to formulate a complete alternative narrative.

It’s okay to say: ‘I don’t know.’

Also, clear ground rules need to be established for any discussion of this magnitude. Comments should be respectful, factual, scriptural (or not unscriptural), and ideally personal (‘how does this affect you or the church?’)

So addressing these questions may cause more confusion, but that will depend in large part on how well leaders lead.

Objection 2: Addressing these questions will lead to divisions

This objection also has merit. But what is true for the first objection is also true for this one. Confusion and division often dynamically foster and reinforce the other. So the same need for careful preparations, prayer and unity within the leadership is imperative before engaging with the body on these questions.

To avoid division, the body must see and understand that the church leaders are unified in bringing this forth and must understand the purpose for it — to dispel confusion and division and to encourage our faith in God.

But it’s unrealistic to expect that every church leader must personally be in lockstep agreement on every question. Every church leader needs to sincerely respect and appreciate the other church leaders, no matter their belief. We have to remember that we all have different perspectives born out of our gift and calling and history. We’re all on a journey of discovery of the Lord, the world, the church and even ourselves. To love each other is to sincerely listen to understand. Isn’t that what we all want? Isn’t that what you want?

Objection 3: Addressing these questions will not accomplish anything

Again, depending on how and why we engage the members of the body of Christ, will determine what is accomplished and what is wasted. But we must remember the bottom-line purpose for engaging in this or any other thorny cultural issue, and that is, to lead people into a deeper trust and walk with Christ, a deeper love for him and his truth, and its corollary: a deeper trust, love and compassion for others.

Dealing with the actual questions that people have, respecting and treating them as mature adults and modeling the unity of the faith, despite our individual questions, will accomplish good things.

The purpose must not be to explicate the dark underbelly of the world’s systems, which is what these discussions can too easily turn into. More on that later.

Objection 4: Addressing these questions will distract our attention from the gospel

Another way to put this objection is: ‘What business is it of the church to discuss such ‘non-spiritual issues?’

Good question. But what cultural issue, especially of such magnitude as this one, that affects practically every aspect of our lives, and for so long, would not affect our spiritual health?

Yet, this objection — that it may distract our attention from the gospel — may turn out to be true if the engagement is not done wisely. But on the other hand, a greater understanding of these questions should lead to greater faith, hope and love — the basic building blocks of the gospel of Christ Jesus.

Let’s tackle one question and see how it could and should foster faith, hope and love. Let’s take the question:

Does social distancing work? Is it really necessary?

After establishing the ground rules that everyone can have a voice, and are encouraged to be respectful, factual, scriptural and personal, all sides of the issue will likely be heard:

‘Romans 13 says we need to obey our authorities’

‘The CDC says distancing reduces the spread of the virus’

‘But I feel alone and isolated. I’m depressed.’

‘I miss hugging.’

‘We’re commanded to show affection’ — Romans 12:10

‘Social distancing requires us to limit the number of people in our services. We should not do that.’

Once everyone has had a say, church leaders weigh in with their thoughts. But no one’s comments are disparaged or downplayed. We hear each other in our own words; we understand each other better; we’ve given each other the respect of taking their questions seriously; we understand the depth of the loss of physical presence and affection. We understand that, at least in the long run, distancing is unsustainable and that at least now, we need to work harder at showing each other affection in other ways.

Some will want to dominate and force their opinions on others; some will be more persuasive then others. Dogmatism will only be counterproductive. By it’s very nature this is taking a risk, but the potential benefits far outweigh the risks.

I’ve intentionally rehearsed this fictional scenario as one scenario where no resolution on the question is reached. Church leaders don’t step in to artificially resolve the issue and definitively answer the question — yes or no. For some that will be frustrating, but for others it will be liberating to speak honestly of these things, to get things out in the open with the people they love and the leaders that they respect.

Perhaps one leader expresses doubts about the effectiveness of distancing, while another leader expresses his agreement with it but acknowledges the reality of the detriment of distancing. The body sees that they are not in complete agreement but, nevertheless, they love and respect each other; they model to the body their love and faith and hope in Christ, that Jesus transcends our disagreements and despite them, we learn to love and respect each other more.

I can imagine other scenarios that would be more or less helpful, depending on many factors. But the heart of the leaders is the most important of all. If leaders are humble, respectful, wise and let their words tell the story, not their dogmatism (on either side), it opens a space for the body to do the same.

Objection 5: Addressing these questions is irrelevant

For some these questions, so they say, don’t really matter to them. ‘It’s no big deal — just get the shot, wear your mask and get on with your life.’ In some ways I admire these people who, while others panic, fume, mope around, and long for a return to normal, they however seem to have a no-nonsense equilibrium about it all. I definitely think we can take a lesson from them.

The problem is that, at least for some people, the ‘pandemic’ really is a big deal, whether you believe it’s real or not. Something is happening in our world that affects everyone and many people really are suffering, either from the illness or the effects of the lockdowns, the quarantines, etc. And when one suffers, we need to learn to suffer with them: com- (with-) passion (suffer).

So since this ‘issue’ (if you want to call the pandemic an ‘issue’) is relevant, then serious attempts to ask hard questions about it are not irrelevant.

Saying that any serious discussion is irrelevant may be a veiled but innocent objection arising out of fear and avoidance. Actually I would ask you to check your heart if you use any of these objections. Fear can lurk and masquerade in many religious or reasonable-sounding arguments. This kind of fear rarely announces itself.

Ignoring is intentional ignorance — Non-confrontation is passive acquiescence to the prevailing narrative

It’s not hard to discern the prevailing narrative since it’s repeated, non-stop everywhere. The prevailing ‘official’ narrative goes something like this:

---

A new virus somehow went ‘viral,’ starting in China and infecting people and causing illness (COVID-19) and death. This virus is highly contagious and dangerous. Therefore, to stop the spread, practically every nation in the world locked down their people, closing businesses and allowing only essential workers to work. This was necessary to ‘flatten the curve’ and ‘slow the spread’ and to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed.

And since everyone is a potential asymptomatic carrier of the virus, we all should get tested and if tested positive, we should quarantine for fourteen days, even if we feel perfectly fine.

The virus or variants of the virus will continue to infect people until enough of a population is vaccinated (herd immunity). Therefore, to get back to normal life, a majority of the population needs to be vaccinated with a safe and effective vaccine. If not enough people get vaccinated, the pandemic will continue and we will continue to need to mask, social distance and quarantine in wave after wave of pandemic.

---

There are variations on this narrative[1] but the variations that are universally not allowed to propagate include the following:

• the virus is not real and has never been isolated
• herd immunity should include those who have gained natural immunities
• the PCR test produces a large percentage of false positive results
• since the PCR test produces so many false positives, each one being a new ‘COVID-19 case,’ the tracking of cases is misguided as a measure to determine what population health measures to implement.
• masks don’t work and are cruel and unhealthy
• social distancing doesn’t work and are cruel and destructive
• lockdowns don’t work and are cruel and destructive
• the CDC, WHO and other health agencies are corrupt and not trustworthy
• COVID-19 is just another flu and is not that bad
• vaccine adverse events are worse than is normally thought
• pharmaceutical companies make huge profits on vaccines
• pharmaceutical companies are immune from prosecution in vaccine injury cases
• the theory of ‘one virus–one disease’ is not true

The news networks’ navigation and avoidance of these alternate narratives is narrative management at its best and most sophisticated. To protect the integrity of the narrative, whether you believe it’s accurate or contrived or partially contrived, takes a tremendous amount of power, influence and coordination. But this is precisely what we see happening now and for the last fifteen months or more. The following are in practical lockstep in propagating and protecting the narrative:

• news networks: CNN, FOX, etc
• health agencies: CDC, WHO, NHS, etc
• governments: national, local
• big tech: Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, etc
• science, scientism, universities, think tanks, etc

The only place where alternative narratives are currently allowed (other than private websites) is on the major social media platforms, primarily Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Reddit. But it’s also clear that governments are working to police these spaces. The social media companies, especially in the last six months, are becoming much more aggressive in de-platforming, locking out, restricting, ‘fact-checking,’ demonetizing, and constantly referencing official sources. Any major voice that does not parrot the prevailing narrative is quickly silenced.

Their justification for this policing of alternate narratives is that it amounts to medical misinformation and — no matter if it has data and science to back it up — may jeopardize someone from seeking necessary life-saving medication. But this giant effort to manage the official narrative should tell you something. It should tell you one of two things. It should tell you that this amount of assiduous coordination and control either:

1  Really is evidence that the vast consensus does support the official narrative and that only minor contrary or alternative narratives are dangerous and should be avoided.

OR

2  There really is substantial evidence to the contrary but that those in control of major power centers have to work very hard to suppress it.

Unfortunately it’s beyond the scope of this article to go into the massive amount of evidence that these major powers collude on a local, national and international level. I could also go into the reasons that this collusion does NOT require a command and control center or a chain-of-command structure. But I will simply state that these powers do collude to reinforce and protect the official narrative despite any evidence to the contrary. And everyone in that power structure, from the lowest reporter, scientist, engineer to the highest-paid president, CEO, board member or investor, they all are smart enough to know that if they deviate from the narrative, there will be hell to pay. Consequently there are few who do, and those brave souls we call either whistleblowers or martyrs or both.

My contention is that when churches ignore this corrupt power structure and fail to confront its corruption, abuse, deception and destructions, we indirectly — whether ignorantly or innocently — contribute and participate in it.

Although their message often fell on deaf ears, the prophets, Jesus being chief among them, were right to confront the failures and sins of the prevailing power structures.

Jacques Ellul prophetically called this failure to confront ‘the respect for facts’:

Now, however, we have the right to ask: “What is the general motive which — at the present time — leads man to this blindness about the world in which he lives?” There is no doubt that the most powerful motive — which weighs upon us like an interdict, the motive which prevents us from questioning the elements of this civilization, and from starting on the road leading to this necessary revolution — is our respect for facts. It is well known that in other civilizations men did not respect facts to the same extent, nor did they conceive facts in the same way. At the present time the fact — whatever it is — the established fact, is the final reason, the criterion of truth. All that is a fact is justified, because it is a fact. People think that they have no right to judge a fact — all they have to do is to accept it.

Thus from the moment that technics, the State, or production, are facts, we must worship them as facts, and we must try to adapt ourselves to them. This is the very heart of modern religion, the religion of the established fact, the religion on which depend the lesser religions of the dollar, race, or the proletariat, which are only expressions of the great modern divinity, the Moloch of fact.[2]

In other words, Ellul is saying that, if any institution or basic element of our society is unquestionable it is therefore a ‘fact.’ And most certainly Ellul would have seen the pandemic as another fact that cannot be questioned. It must be accepted whole and worshiped as a fact.

This is idolatry.

So when church leaders act as gate keepers and refuse to treat people as adults and allow any real discussion of these things, they participate in and worship an idolatrous system of control, knowing they’ll be safe and protected from its wrath.

And to put a bow on this, I’ll drill down into one significant part of this whole discussion: the vaccines — the vaccine that has gotten non-stop coverage by all major media channels, incessantly pushing people to get it. Now parents are being pressured to get their 12–15 year-old child to take it. Soon our small children will not be exempt.

To keep quiet about the vaccines when they may or may not have dire consequences, is a dereliction of duty. When the stakes are this high, we should at least open the discussion to allow people to get more context, to allow alternate perspectives, and to allow people more perspective to make their own choice before God.

Posture toward evil powers

I can hear the cries now:

‘If I do this, if I open this can of worms, it will all unravel, all the good programs, our worship, our small groups, our ministry will be swallowed up with bickering and endless speculations. There will be a mass exodus of people and [enter any number of horrendous consequences here].’

I know: ‘Easy for me to say since I don’t have to clean up the mess!’ Yes, as I’ve said before, doing this — allowing real discussion on these things — will take serious preparation, prayer, unity, wisdom, humility and repentance. But isn’t that what leaders are always called to do? Big problems require a big God. So prove that our God is big by getting out of the way and allowing him to prove his greatness! He truly is big enough for this big problem.

Just remember: we do not and should not allow an unhealthy focus or fascination with these evils. Jesus and the apostles did not, but clearly they acknowledged their reality. We should do no less.

I’ll conclude with a story that I hope illustrates the gravity of the risk but also of the promise that is in front of us all:

The Pilgrims who sailed to settle Plymouth Colony had many reasons not to board the Mayflower on that day in 1620. They were leaving practically everything to voyage to an unknown world they had only heard about. They faced starvation, loss, sickness, misery, brutality and death. But they did it for the promise of freedom to worship the God they loved and of raising their families in peace. My prayer is that we as church leaders will acknowledge the overwhelming dangers and still decide to go on that voyage.

---

[1] Apparently there are variations on the official narrative that are allowed. They include how the virus originated, whether hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin (or other drugs) can be used to successfully treat COVID, and a few others.

[2] Ellul, Jacques. The Presence of the Kingdom, Helmers & Howard, Colorado Springs, pg 27.