Our Trouble With Submission: Grace Community Church

This article was originally published in Christian Renewal Magazine.

The Case of Grace Community Church

Much has already been said about the decision of Grace Community Church (GCC) and Pastor John MacArthur to defy the state’s COVID decrees by gathering indoors for public worship. I’d like to try to say something different about this issue, something that I hope constructively adds to this conversation. (In Part II of this article, I’ll follow up by addressing a few of the more practical issues related to COVID and worship)

First, quick background. After about twenty weeks of obeying California COVID ordinances against large indoor public gatherings, GCC announced that they would once again begin meeting in person, which they did in August. GCC is a large mega-church, with weekly worship numbering in the thousands. Legal action has ensued, including threats of fines and imprisonment from Los Angeles County health board. A judge has preliminarily ruled that the church may gather without threat, but a full hearing is still in the future. 

The question arising from this situation is whether and when a church should disobey the edicts of the state? Per Romans 13, obedience to the civil ruler is a good thing. Yet virtually every Christian agrees that we must obey God rather than man, and that there is a line which, when crossed, compels the believer to disobey. 

The difficulty comes in discerning where that that line lies. The vast majority of commentary on this issue in the COVID era has dived into the various details of how we much flexibility we should exhibit in our worship in an effort to remain compliant with the edicts of the state, while still fulfilling our mission as a worshiping body of Christ.

Here is where I want to depart from that well worn path and pursue the matter from a different perspective.

The Biblical Case for Submission

Submission is hard. 

The first sin in the Garden comes down to “Has God really said?” What did he really say, and what do you really have to do, especially when you’re really hungry and the fruit looks so delicious. Should you follow your heart, or God’s commands? 

When God sought to replant his people in the garden a second time — a land flowing with milk and honey — one of their biggest problems was their incessant tendency to grumble. I’m hungry. I’m thirsty. Are we there yet? Who does Moses think he is? Obedience to Joshua and the Judges wasn’t much easier, and it was these same people who of all things cried out for a King. And it went downhill from there. 

Paul’s teaching on submission to the civil authorities in Romans 13 is not in the context of relative peace and calm. Recall that five times he had received from the Jews the forty lashes less one. It was, in short, not an uncommon occurrence for him to be beaten within an inch of his life, and even if the Jews weren’t in a formal position of authority over him in the Roman empire, that empire had permitted such ruthless behavior and given Paul little protection. 

In Romans 12, Paul reminds us to “Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse them.” Further, never be wise in your own sight. Do what is honorable in the eyes of all. So far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all. 

Note for a moment what a radical departure this is from the mission statement of the nation of Israel, who was to take the land by force, utterly destroy their persecutors, and reflect God’s holy dominion in their rule of that land on the battlefield. Paul’s turn in Romans 13 is a radical reorientation for the people of God around the heavenly kingdom that has come in the death and resurrection of their Messiah. Now they were not to occupy a physical territory between the river and sea, but to go forth and bring the blessings of a spiritual kingdom wherever they might dwell.

And this kingdom was not to have a revolutionary impact on the societies in which it dwelt. Do you remember the line in Acts 17:6 “These men have who have upset the world have come here also?” That was a slander of the Jews spoken against Paul and Silas, blaming the Christians for the riot they had started. 

Against this backdrop, Paul writes one of the most difficult commands in the New Testament: Bless those who persecute you. And further, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities… for those that exist have been instituted by God.” God has established the Los Angeles City Council, Governor Newsome, the Health Board. Just as much as he has instituted Nero, the vicious persecutor of the church. Just as he instituted Pilate, and the soldiers who drove the nails into Christ’s hands and feet. 

Be subject to the governing authorities. Not just the good ones. Not just the fair ones, not only the ones who share your estimation of the danger of the novel coronavirus. 

The problem isn’t that most authorities are on balance quite good and every once and awhile we have to put up with a stinker. No. Every individual that has ever been in a position of authority over another human being has always been a sinner. And while some may on occasion be good, many are unjust. This is why our catechism tells us to “be patient with their failings” in its teaching on the fifth commandment (Heidelberg Catechism 104). This is in the spirit of Peter, “Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust” (1 Peter 2:18).

Submission is hard, especially submission to foolish and unjust rulers. But we’re not given a hall pass for the difficult situations. We are not commanded to submit when it’s easy, or when it makes sense, or when the rulers are doing the proper thing. We are commanded to submit. There is of course the exception of Acts 5:29 — “We must obey God rather than man.” In context, we must preach the gospel, rather than be silent. But notice that Paul doesn’t articulate an exception in Romans 13. 

Our Trouble With Submission

America’s original sin is rebellion. No matter how justified you might believe the American Revolution was, it ultimately comes down to the claim that the authority of the King was unjust, and therefore was no longer worthy of submitting to. But Peter commands Christians to be subject to unjust masters. 

The modern spirit of freedom is expressed politically in the American Revolution, and it now infests us all. It is the air we breath. Our freedoms are sacred to us — interesting expression, no? — and we don’t question the regular need to rebel. Compounded with radical individualism and deep suspicion of institutions of all shapes and sizes, and the result is that the modern believer has a chronic problem of rebellion. 

Spiritual rebellion may be an unfortunate byproduct of political freedom.

Consider the matter of submission to Christ’s lawful authority expressed in the local church. In every single new member’s class and membership interview I have ever sat in, every single believer has agreed with the principle that Christ exercises his authority in the local church through elders and ministers. They have all agreed in their membership vows to “submit to the admonition and discipline of the government of the church.” 

Yet, if you ask elders how regularly members submit cheerfully to their admonition and discipline when it is needed, I’m sure you would get a consistent reply. Rarely, if ever. The church’s authority is good and fine, until it tells me something I don’t want to hear. Has God really said? Well, maybe, but the fruit looks so tasty and I’m so hungry. Surely he didn’t want me to starve and eat the same thing every day. 

Submission is hard, and I believe it is even harder for us today. Culturally and politically we live in a moment where individual freedom is celebrated. And it hasn’t generally made us more faithful Christians. 

Submission: A Teaching Moment and Practical Reflections

I have argued above that this situation is an opportunity for us to revisit the difficult issue of submission. Since we in the modern west hold our personal freedoms as sacred, it is difficult for us to hear the clear teaching of Scripture about submitting to God’s authority, whether in the home, the church, or the civil sphere. While there are limits to the state’s authority, it is my view that GCC has significantly lowered that bar for the sake of convenience. Furthermore, with much future state interference and opposition on the horizon, now is the time for us to raise the bar, and think in fresh ways about the importance of our witness to a watching world, that we might do what is honorable in the eyes of all and live peaceably with all. All. (Romans 12:17 – 18).

What follows are a few more practical suggestions on how the church might proceed in these perilous times.

God calls us to submit to his will in the church, the home, and the civil sphere. How shall we expect Christians to submit to their God-given authority in the home or in their local church when the local church doesn’t submit to their God-given authority in the state? In Romans 13, Paul is adamant on this point:

For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. (Romans 13:1 – 2)

So, what shall we then do? 

Should we expect our rulers in the state to appreciate the essential nature of Christian worship, and privilege it as highly as the procurement of food from the grocer or medicine from the doctor? Of course not. The civil ruler, though given by God, is ignorant of the things of God. They are not merely naïve, but oppositional by definition to the concerns of the spirit, as opposed to the body. They have expressly by God been given care of our bodies, and that is precisely why they seek to exercise such dominion over them.

So we should not expect favor from the state, but rather, persecution, implicit and explicit. We should expect them to place burdens, not benefits, upon our worship. And yet as Paul says, while being persecuted we should bless them, and seek to live peaceably among them, while endeavoring to worship faithfully as foreigners in this strange land. I doubt Daniel expected that the other Babylonian satraps, prefects, and governors would respect his sacred diet, daily prayers, or his abstinence from idolatry. Yet he remained steadfast when necessary to obey God rather than man, and stood ready to either receive the punishment the Babylon dished out, or be miraculously delivered from it.

How does this relate to GCC and John MacArthur? I believe our bar should be very high for defying an order of the state. Here are four practical reflections on how to set and navigate this high bar

How Shall We Worship?

It is not in fact clear to me that by prohibiting large indoor gatherings the state of California was prohibiting GCC from worshiping, per se. It is true that the church may have not been treated equitably in the eyes of the law, and they should pursue justice on that front. But many other churches have adapted to the circumstances by conducting worship in person outdoors, in smaller home groups, or other permitted methods . I understand that such accommodations place a huge burden on the business model of a mega church which regularly gathers thousands inside an indoor auditorium. Yet, Paul doesn’t say “submit to the authority when it is convenient.” He says submit. 

There is a different way forward. Due to prohibitions in the District of Columbia, Capitol Hill Baptist Church (CHBC) has decided to worship outdoors at an alternate location and time. They are meeting on Sunday evenings at a sister church in Alexandria, Virginia. This is approximately a thirty minute drive away from their historic church building on Capitol Hill, and a tremendous burden on their membership and leadership. Doubtless it involves great sacrifices. Yet these sacrifices are a powerful witness to their desire to live peaceably — and healthfully — with their neighbors outside the church, and gives great respect and honor to the authorities God has placed over them, even when it may not seem warranted. This orderly submission has not kept them from petitioning government officials vigorously for the freedom to worship together on Sunday morning, and indeed has perhaps given those petitions a better chance of being heard in a positive light.

Perhaps we should be more willing to rethink our methods of gathering, and in particular, the challenges that large mega churches will face. Open air services, micro in-home services, breaking large churches into regional or neighborhood gatherings. Maybe we should pursue smaller congregations in principle to be more neighbor-friendly and live more peaceably with our communities. GCC’s action seems to condemn all of these alternatives as less than faithful. 

I do not believe that Christians must stand by idly while the freedoms we possess in the west are eroded. We should, like Paul, us the law of the land and the courts to defend the privileges we possess as citizens, while preserving honor and respect for the state as God’s servant. But we must also recognize that privileges will indeed likely be lost, and learn how to worship faithfully under a more restrictive regime, even as many of our sister churches around the globe worship faithfully today.

When Should the State Be Defied?

The GCC statement defending its actions argues that Romans 13 “does not include compliance when such officials attempt to subvert sound doctrine, corrupt biblical morality, exercise ecclesiastical authority, or supplant Christ as head of the church in any other way.” This, to me, seems to set the bar way too low for when the state may be defied. I expect most governments to behave this way most if not all the time, especially with regard to “corrupting biblical morality.” When Paul wrote these words, he clearly was mindful that the civil authorities God had placed over him were bound to corrupt biblical morality on a daily basis. Yet he does not qualify his command to submit. This is why the Heidelberg Catechism tells us to be “patient with their failings.” Patience means we submit, if possible, even when they fail..

The church should never cede doctrinal or ecclesiastical authority to the state. But the standard for open defiance of a state edict must be more than attempted interference or burdening of worship. The church must defy any edict that directly conflicts with God’s law. GCC hasn’t demonstrated that is the case in California.

GCC submitted to the ordinance for 20 weeks, and then insisted that in principle it could do so no longer. It then gave public notice that it was going to defy the order, without any clear evidence that they have petitioned the state in any way for relief from these burdens. Why not conduct a lawful and orderly appeal of the state to the fullest extent possible, before pursuing civil disobedience? Further, if the burden could be borne for 20 weeks, why not 21? Why was there a limit to the duration to which they were willing to submit? Does Scripture give us a statute of limitations on Romans 13?

Finally, GCC argues that the passage of time has demonstrated that fears about coronavirus were unfounded, and it is precisely here that I fear that GCC has overstepped its spiritual boundaries and transgressed in the domain of the state. It is the state which God gives authority over our physical well being, and I am not aware of the Scriptures — the sole basis for the church’s authority — giving any clear advice on the lethality of viral infections, or appropriate public policy responses to them. Yet GCC has reached such a determination, and stands in judgment over the state on that matter. 

To be clear on this final point, citizens are free to question the edicts of the state — perhaps especially emergency edicts for the supposed welfare of the citizens. We are free to question the supposed scientific and medical underpinnings of these edicts. But this is not the expertise — nor the authority — which the church possesses, and when she holds forth as a body on such determinations, she sets herself up for public embarrassment. This has the potential of damaging our gospel witness.

Conclusion

In the coming years, the church will increasingly find itself out of favor with the governing authorities in the western world. Historic privileges will be revoked. Courtesies will be withdrawn. We will revert to a state a lot closer to Rome under Nero than America under Reagan.

How shall we then live? How shall we demonstrate our care for neighbor, our desire to live peaceably? I have not explored in this article the many ways in which the church’s gospel witness may be harmed by wrongheaded civil disobedience. How may the gospel be set back when a church spreads infection, as occurred early on during COVID outbreak in South Korea? How may our love for neighbor be doubted with the unnecessary suffering or death of even a handful of visitors to our gatherings?

This is not about the true health danger of COVID. Individual opinions may and should be allowed to vary greatly, in the light of Christian liberty, and our individual behavior as believers may vary widely as well. My own opinions are far from accepted wisdom.

But the church as an organized expression of the body of Christ is not ultimately tasked with determining risks of transmitting infectious disease. We are tasked with preaching the gospel, and obeying our civil authorities as far as possible. This, it turns out, is a much more difficult task. 

Submission is hard. 

Intermittent Fasting in the COVID Era?

Originally featured on Modern Reformation on May 12, 2020.

In A Shepherd’s Life, real-world shepherd James Rebanks tells of the real-world value of the shepherd’s crook, a vital tool in caring for real-world sheep. The crook remains the best tool to catch a sheep and enables the Shepherd to draw skittish sheep near so he can care for them.

How shall spiritual shepherds guide their flocks when God’s common grace shepherds — doctors and presidents — enforce isolation and distance, real absence, upon God’s people? How can we shepherd when our crook is broken?

There are a few ingredients necessary to begin to make an answer at this question: honesty, context, and the means of grace.

Honesty

First, I think it is essential that we acknowledge that anyone writing pastoral guidance in the seventh week of a radically new circumstance doesn’t really yet know what they are talking about. The world is flying blind with minimal data in the face of the coronavirus, and spiritual leaders are equally ignorant in grappling with its fallout.

Including myself. Full stop.

However, like a true fool, allow me expand on my ignorance.

We must acknowledge that many of our guiding lights from Christian history faced plague and pestilence with less knowledge than we have today. Calvin and countless others often showed great compassion and courage in desiring to visit the plague-stricken. They knew there was personal danger, yet they were willing to entrust their lives into God’s hands for the sake of caring for others. In Calvin’s case, he was prohibited from visiting the sick by the Geneva city council, mindful of this risk to his life and his immense value as a teacher to the church.

But we know a lot more about infectious disease today. We know, for instance, that visiting a sick person during a plague endangers not only the visitor and those she lives with, but also the community. We also know that even visiting a well person poses widespread risk during a pandemic. They too may spread disease. Selfless risks taken by heroes of earlier ages may rightly be judged selfish today. Thus, the Christian minister faces a more widespread distancing and isolation today than ever before, with fewer options. No visitors at deathbeds, no graveside prayers at burials.

So any advice today is a best guess. We must return to first principles, humble ourselves, and be able and willing to learn quickly and adapt.

Context

Before the coronavirus struck we were already living in an age of extraordinary isolation and individualism. That is perhaps the key context we must grapple with.

Before “Alone Together” was the Orwellian motto of government medical experts, it was the title of an important book by Sherry Turkle.

Turkle chronicles the pandemic of isolation that a generation born into a digital world is facing. This book is worth re-visiting today. We are surrounded by ubiquitous communications devices that are designed by the marketplace to give us the stimulating patina of “connection” while further isolating us — and isolating our dollars from our wallets. Sadly, most of those born as “digital natives” prefer electronic communication to face to face conversations.

During this pandemic it has been a commonplace for commentators to worry about the impacts of isolation, but who are we fooling? Our response to this pandemic is merely accelerating what we have been proactively trying to accomplish with technology for the past century.

It is true, isolation flies in the face of fundamental human nature and our longing for physical presence, communication, and contact. But it is not true that it flies in the face of the denatured humanity that increasingly populates our sin-stained world. Digital media gives a whole new meaning to Augustine’s descriptive phrase for sin, “curved in on oneself.” The real danger of enforced isolation is not that it is contrary to our wills, but that it gives us just what we want by nudging us further within.

Case in point: One of the great pastoral challenges of my ministry before the pandemic was scheduling a coffee. Or actually trying to talk with someone on the phone. I know that I often would prefer sending a text or email to picking up the phone, or sitting down with someone, when confronting a touchy issue. Or even when just catching up. It’s so easy. I can check that box, now they know I care. No need to send a thank you note — I gave their text a thumb’s up!

One of my greatest worries about pandemic isolation is that it plays to my sloth, it runs concurrent with the ethos and ease of electronic communication. “Look, I finished all my pastoral visits and I’m still in my pajamas!”

So here’s a practical tip, that also serves as a warning.

One of the first things we did in our small church was assign a deacon or elder to every member of our church. We set a goal of contacting everyone at least once a week and built a shared spreadsheet online for tracking our contacts. But I worry, is it enough? Would a personal visit, perhaps from the front porch, though less frequent, be better?

How would we manage this crisis without technology? How would we manage if it were permanent? Perhaps it would be healthy for us to ask those questions, and seriously consider the old paths before celebrating the victories of the new.

This context makes me worry that even as much as we miss and complain about the loss of public worship, an extended isolation will not in fact make the heart grow fonder for it. It will in fact chisel away bit by bit, mortar from the crumbling façade. It will weaken the tenuous bonds we share with the church, the visible body of Christ on earth.

Means of Grace

Word, Sacrament, and Discipline. These are the old paths, the marks of Christ’s church on earth.

All three of these marks require physical presence. The sacrament anchors this truth, but the preached word as well requires that an assembly of sinners sit still and corporately receive the saving message of God’s envoy, together acknowledging that apart from this grace we are in the same sinking ship. Discipline, in its extreme exercise, is fundamentally exclusion from the sacrament and its shared presence.

I have probably thought more about the means of grace in the last two months than anything else. The two big questions are the flip sides of a coin: “How shall we keep people from them?” and “How shall we bring people to them?”

Reflecting upon our real absence from the means of grace, I was reminded that whatever workaround we can come up with in our human wisdom can’t compare, can’t replace the divine wisdom of the means of grace. They are unique, and irreplaceable.

Like many church leaders, our church initially scrambled to come up with solutions to canceled gatherings on the Lord’s Day. We wrestled with whether to stream the entire liturgy, or just send our members a pre-recorded sermon. We wondered, are people really participating in corporate worship from home, is there true communion of the saints at a distance? I think not. Then why stream a service? Don’t we risk leading the flock astray by encouraging them to emulate the divine service in their living room?

Perhaps the most counter-cultural claim here is that the preached word cannot be fully received remotely. It would require its own article to defend, but I think the claim is this: so long as the viewer at home is in control, he is not sitting under the word. He is in charge so long as he can pause and fast-forward and schedule his consumption, can dress and position and wander his body in whatever fashion pleases him, and need endure no limits on distractions. The sinner that remains in the drivers seat has not truly been summoned before the judgment seat of a holy God.

At the end of the day, I don’t think absence will make the heart grow fonder. I don’t believe the lack of the means of grace will strengthen our confidence in the means of grace. If these are God’s chosen methods of blessing his people, starving us of them can only lead to less blessing.

Yet there is an opportunity in this loss, an opportunity to teach via negativa. In streaming our services, it has therefore been a priority to convey to those at home what they are not receiving. Viewing a remote feed of a Christian worship service is not worship. You are not a participant in the divine dialogue, you cannot stand and renew your covenant oath, you cannot taste, smell, and feel your participation in Christ.

Why, then, provide a simulacrum of a service online? Ultimately, we believe even this image of a service can serve as a crutch, an extreme measure to be used only until one heals. A crutch is a temporary help that no healthy person ever wishes to adopt as a permanent means of conveyance.

The next phase of our response resulted from this experience and reflection upon real absence, and from the limitations being extended. We began to ask ourselves how we could provide the genuine means of grace even under severe constraints?

In our context, this has meant restoring the Lord’s Supper and holding two small communion services, feeding 17 saints each Lord’s Day (due to the order not to gather in groups of ten or more). We have been mindful to make attendance voluntary, preserving each member’s liberty to measure the risks of small gatherings and their potential risks to others. Theoretically, a church with multiple meeting spaces could easily multiply this number by two or four or six. In a month of Sundays our small church can spread a table in the wilderness for 68, though one can imagine other churches communing and gathering many more in small worshiping groups.

We may not be able to commune our entire congregation in a single gathering. But we can commune them once or twice a month, and in the intervening times reaffirm how important those irregular meals are. This is like intermittent fasting for the soul: real hunger satisfied with real food.

In the face of future restrictions, we are likely to move immediately to maximally preserving word and sacrament under limited offerings, rather than suspending the sacrament in total.

Yes, being a pastor is more than administering the means of grace: visiting, praying, counseling are all integral parts of wielding the crook. But the means of grace are the building blocks, the foundation, the medicine we feed our sheep when the crook draws them close. Without a regular flow of their life-giving power all our other efforts are in vain. The best counsel, the best prayer, ultimately relies upon the means of grace, it points sinners to Christ in them, and brings them closer to him in his word, his table, his holiness.

A pastor’s official title is Minister of Word and Sacrament. My provisional advice is simple: Pastors, do not abandon your post. Stand firm. Do your job.

The Socially Distanced Church

This article originally appeared in Christian Renewal Magazine.

It is odd to write for print these days, especially on the topic of coronavirus. This is an evolving situation, and things are changing fast.

If I had to guess, as you’re reading this little two-week-time-capsule message to the future, the White House restrictions of March 16 are, at a minimum, still in force. Even today, 8 days into a 15 day program, things have already gotten tighter in statewide shelter in place requirements in New York and California.

We are still adapting to social distancing. When we began this strategy, we may have thought it would last 15 days, or a month. But what if it endures much longer? Two months, six months, or until a coronavirus vaccine is developed, perhaps eighteen months for now? What does church look like during a season of social distancing, and what impact might that have on what the church looks like going forward?

I am not a prophet, but the following are some first thoughts on these questions I hope to develop, both in dialogue with our local church leadership and with other ministers in the church.

Shall We Hold Public Worship?

The single largest impact of social distancing is on our public worship. When the government is advising against or prohibiting gatherings larger than ten for the sake of public health, how are we to respond?

This is a new, rapidly developing situation, so it makes sense that reactions to this problem will vary. I have urged a healthy dose of Christian liberty in the early phases of this disease, as there are so many unknowns and so much difference of opinion, it is reasonable for faithful Christians to come to a wide range of different conclusions.

I understand those churches that initially felt it was essentially that they continue worshiping until absolutely forbidden to do so. Worship is an essential activity if there ever was one. If God commands us to worship, and man forbids, we must obey God rather than man. 

But of course, this is not merely a question of God’s law vs. Man’s law. God commands many things. God commands love of neighbor, as well as worship. He also commands submission to the governing authorities. If the governing authorities advise that public gatherings will harm public health, harm our neighbor, then we should listen to them. They are after all charged with maintaining public health — by God himself — and have gathered vastly more expertise to that end. 

We should halt our public services. This is not a time for civil disobedience. The disease was largely spread in South Korea because one of the first infected individuals attended a large gathering of a Christian cult, where failure to attend was strongly discouraged. Hundreds and ultimately thousands were thus infected. Though well contained in South Korea, COVID-19 to date has killed 126 there. In the face of growing knowledge about how this disease spreads, it is unloving and an exceedingly poor witness to a watching world.

One note of caution: We have many models of Church Fathers or Reformers selflessly ministering to the plague stricken. These heroes of the faith showed great courage in ministering gospel comfort to others at great risk of personal harm. We may be tempted to emulate them, both personally, and as church bodies, gathering for worship in the face of great personal risk. However, we know much more today about epidemiology and the spread of communicable disease. We know that violating a quarantine not only puts the individual at risk, but it puts the community at risk, it potentially harms our neighbor. I urge Christians to think carefully about how our actions will impact others. It may be that the most loving thing we can do is model submission to civil authorities on matters of self-quarantine, to love our neighbors by helping them to live.

How Shall We Worship?

Suspending worship for a week or two for the sake of public welfare is not unheard of. We have all done so for the sake of a blizzard or a storm. But what if this lasts for months? What if, after government restrictions are lifted, it remains extremely hazardous to attend large groups, creating good reason for people to stay home?

Obviously, under these circumstances, the church should encourage a greater reliance on private, home worship. There have been long seasons where the church was restricted to very small home gatherings, due to persecution, for instance, and the Christian faith has survived and thrived during these times.

Technology provides a wealth of options for us to feed our flocks during this time. Our first response in Washington, DC was to provide a live stream of our full Sunday liturgy for our members to view online, excluding the Lord’s Supper. Our hope is not to build a “virtual worship” experience, but to supplement home worship during this time. We plan to do this as long as necessary. Other churches have provided video messages of sermons or devotionals or song. 

While these resources may be useful, we need to carefully distinguish that they are not the same as gathering together, and that the church is by definition a worshiping assembly. As more and more areas of our work and school life transition to remote, online participations, Christians should stand firm that the breaking of bread and pouring of wine can’t take place over a Wi-Fi connection, and true Christian fellowship entails incarnate, bodily communion.

The individualistic, Gnosticizing impulse in modern religion is strong. Many for years have been pushing Christianity toward a personalized, virtual expression of the faith, and we need to be particularly wary of these tendencies during this time. Satan will seek to use this season of isolation to peel week sheep away from the flock, and watchful shepherds need to be on their guard. 

With these thoughts in mind, I urge pastors and elders to think deeply how they can maintain a virtual diet for their people — as well as for a watching world — that leads to thriving and faithfulness. I urge leaders to teach your flocks to long for gathered worship, put them on guard against the foe of virtual life. And perhaps, due to a flood of zoom conferences and Skype calls, God will use this season for our good, to instill a greater love, a greater longing for public worship and human fellowship that only the church of Christ can provide.

Song

God’s people need to sing. This is harder to do in private than in public, and we live in an age of waning musical talents. Singing alone at home is tough, yet we should encourage the saints to do so. 

During this season of increased isolation the church should identify this challenge and make an extra effort to exhort and enable the saints to maintain sung worship in the home. Pick a monthly psalm to memorize, provide musical accompaniment. At Christ Reformed, we have encouraged ownership of the Trinity Psalter Hymnal, and during this season have loaned hymnals to those who don’t own it. We have a list of publicly available musical accompaniment at our church website (www.christreformeddc.org) and Facebook page. There are a lot of other resources available, and churches should be taking the lead in marshaling them to address this challenge.

Pastoral Care

My dad was a mediocre golfer, and in this respect the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. But we used to enjoy watching the pros play golf on television, and I’d be a wealthy man if I had a nickel for every time he said “Drive for show, putt for dough” after a professional golfer missed an easy putt. It looks impressive to hit a golf ball a long way — drive for show — but mastering the short game is where the money is made — putt for dough.

Sunday morning worship is the pastor’s equivalent of a 300 yard “drive for show.” Public worship is the big show. But the short game is where great churches separate themselves from the pack. This is where the real harvest of pastoral ministry is reaped. This has always been the case, but in the age of the socially distanced church, our short game is going to be put to the test.

How does a church be a church without gathering for worship? How can we be the “called out ones” when we’re not responding to the call to worship publicly? One answer I would normally give to this challenge is Christian hospitality in the home. But for obvious reasons, the socially distanced church faces restrictions on that front as well. 

One initial thought is that we take advantage of technology to stay in contact as much as possible. At Christ Reformed, one of the first steps we took was dividing our membership list up among all our elders and deacons in an effort to ensure robust personal connection with each and every member. Technology helps us have lots of small points of contact, such as texts and emails. It also lets us have slightly more robust interactions such as phone and videoconference calls. In an age of cheap electronic communication — firing off a text takes seconds — we shouldn’t underestimate the value of the human voice and human face. In a phone call you can hear anxiety in a voice, ask follow up questions, trade stories and jokes, laugh together. 

Here’s one basic tool we developed at Christ Reformed. We have a Google document all our leadership can easily access that tells us when each member was last contacted, and keeps a running status report on their work, home, and other needs. I check this daily and make a few calls to those who haven’t heard from us in a while, just to ensure that no one falls through the cracks.

We must not forsake prayer during this time. Praying together, one on one or in small groups, will be very important. Continuing in prayer, as leadership, for the flock will be more essential than ever. 

Evangelism and Mission

It is challenging enough to think of shepherding a socially distanced church. But growing a socially distanced church through evangelism and outreach can seem impossible in times of limited personal contact.

Yet the world needs the gospel now more than ever. Times of loss reveal the fading power of worldly comfort. Death and disease will strike many and bring the final enemy near. The missionary call of the church to be salt and light is never more relevant than during times of plague. 

Public worship is a key tool in evangelism. It provides a place for a an interested party to meet with the church, hear the gospel, and observe Christian fellowship. With the loss of public worship, how do we reach and welcome the world into our midst? 

I must admit that I’m still wrestling with this challenge. Increased live streaming of public worship and gospel preaching means more may hear our message of hope and comfort. And yet, what action shall they take?  How and where will we meet them, come alongside them, bear their burdens, and catechize them to living faith?

Here are three initial thoughts on socially distanced evangelism:

First, works of love and mercy always bear witness to the power of Christ’s saving work in our hearts and in the world. There will be many opportunities for such service in the days ahead. We must all look to our closest neighbors and see how we can love and serve them. We love because he first loved us, and works of selfless love will be used by God to lead our neighbors to Christ. 

Second, many, many of our family members need Christ. The internet was full of humorous and yet tragic memes about how challenging and difficult it will be for many of us to live in close quarters with our wives, our parents, and other immediate and extended family members. Such is the world’s view of family. Ours is different. Yes, we are sinners living in close quarters. But we should embrace opportunities of Christian love and service, confession and forgiveness, within our own homes. More than ever, our households should be models of Christian love and reconciliation for the world to see. Let’s double down on family worship, catechesis, and reconciliation. 

Third, I am reminding our members during this time that we all have many callings in life. As our work and school lives are upended by self-quarantine, we must remember that being a Christian is a vocation, being a husband or wife, a child or a parent is a vocation. Being a neighbor is our vocation. As some vocations fall away, there are abundant opportunities in faithfulness in others. All of the members of our churches need to be activated to love and care for one another during this time of remote, distance church. Not only our leadership, but our membership, must learn to love one another in new ways. 

Conclusion

One of our central callings as Christians is prayer. It is a mark of gratitude, and a work of mission. We should be focused and diligent in our prayers both for the church, and for the world. 

Finally, we should note that this is a partial list. Many things about our church life — including finances, property, etc. — will have to change. We won’t be able to anticipate them all. We should pray that God would give us wisdom, and the strength and flexibility to adapt to a rapidly changing world. And, as always, that we would have boldness and courage in the work of Christ. Boldness to change our habits and traditions to suit the present circumstances.