Anyone who has been exposed to social media or other communication outlets during the present COVID-19 pandemic has witnessed the back-and-forth over alleged threats to freedom and Constitutional rights on the part of government restrictions relative to the transmission of this plague that has ravaged the world and (to date) caused the death of nearly 160,000 Americans.
Such labels as “tyranny,” “socialism,” “communism,” and other epithets have been attached to such regulations as mask-wearing, stay-at-home orders, social distancing guidelines, and restrictions on in-person meetings. The latter restrictions have especially come under fire when applied to religious gatherings, in particular weekly worship services. The very idea of trying to regulate assemblies of a religious nature has caused some in the Christian community to raise the specter of “underground churches” such as those existing in Communist countries; some have even mentioned the catacombs in which many Christians worshiped when persecuted by the Roman Empire.
A popular word voiced among such persons regarding those who follow the above restrictions is “sheeple,” implying that those adhering to state and mainstream medical guidelines relative to the pandemic are mindlessly obeying authority, and that true patriots and true Christians should defy this authority. Making the present crisis one of freedom rather than safety, some of these folks even recall the famous words of Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty or give me death.”
Is such rhetoric justifiable? More to the point, should Seventh-day Adventist lend their voices to it?
Choosing Our Battles
Wise parents understand the necessity of carefully choosing issues of potential conflict within the home. Failure to choose wisely in such circumstances can create needless friction, the fraying of trust, and more seriously, the weakening of parental authority when issues arise where major matters of principle are truly at stake. If parents permit every possible point of disagreement with children to become a test of wills and authority—taking the attitude, as some do, that “giving an inch” will mean children will “take a mile”—such parents may well find that when significant issues of character and life-altering choices arise in the lives of their maturing offspring, that the counsel they as parents badly need to offer will go unheeded.
The same, I believe, holds true for conflict between devout Christians—Seventh-day Adventists especially—and civil authorities. Careful students of the Bible and the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy are acutely aware, not only of historical and even contemporary examples of Christians who find themselves at times constrained by Biblical truth to resist the decrees of civil government, but even more importantly, of inspired predictions which foretell worldwide circumstances in which such resistance will be imperative for the faithful (Rev. 13:11-17).
The Rightful Purview of the State
With this awareness in mind, it is easy for serious believers to regard with suspicion any effort by the state to regulate the association of citizens, in particular when it concerns faith and worship. But when thoughtful Christians stop and consider the matter, greater discernment is invited.
The fact is that churches and other religious entities have long been subject to legal constraints relative to physical safety. Such organizations are compelled, for example, to adhere to fire codes and restrictions on numerical attendance so that evacuation in an emergency can occur without physical harm resulting to those present. Such rules have nothing to do with preventing peaceable assembly or freedom of religion. Rather, they are designed to protect citizens in all settings, religious or otherwise, from physical injury.
Keeping citizens physically safe is a duty lying fully within the purview of civil authority. Laws designed to protect citizens from a respiratory virus easily transmitted and demonstrably lethal is not a usurpation of civil or religious liberty.
Some of us remember, back in the 1980s, the introduction of laws requiring the use of seat belts for those driving and riding in automobiles, and how some construed these laws as a restriction of freedom. But few would argue today that these laws haven’t in fact resulted in the saving of millions of lives.
Opposition to Science
There are those among us who resist the idea of vaccinating themselves or their children against infectious diseases, and who claim they will neither receive such a remedy themselves or permit their children to do so should a workable vaccine for COVID-19 be developed and required by law for the general public. Some of these persons dispute the wisdom of scientists in this field because many of these same scientists accept such fallacies as the theory of evolution. (Some who oppose the scientific evidence behind global warming make similar arguments.)
But here is a notable case of needing to choose one’s battles wisely. To begin with, the creation/evolution controversy is not, in fact, a scientific debate. Science requires observation and experimentation, and no one was present when the natural world came into existence. By standard rules of scientific investigation, the question of natural origins is much more a philosophical than a scientific question, though scientific evidence can be found on both sides of the dispute.
Observation and experimentation relative to disease transmission and prevention is quite another matter. Whatever one’s opinion about vaccinations, objective evidence is available so as to determine whether such treatments are effective. For any Christian, Seventh-day Adventist or otherwise, to refuse such treatments for oneself or one’s family merely out of resentment at government regulations, or because of unfounded conspiracy theories as to the motive or purpose behind such treatments, is to choose a battle foolishly.
When loyalty to God’s Word requires that we defy the collective wisdom of experts, let us do so. But to defy state regulations relative to such practices as the wearing of masks, social distancing, the avoidance of large gatherings, or vaccination requirements is not mandated by any command in the inspired writings. Moreover, to allow our thinking to be molded by theories and speculation based less on hard facts than on flashpoints of cultural and political divisiveness, represents a needless compromise both of our relation to society and the credibility of our witness as Seventh-day Adventists.
Inspired Warnings
Many seem not to know that Ellen White, under divine inspiration, offers some very stern warnings against knee-jerk hostility to civil government. Perhaps the strongest of these statements is the following:
By some of our brethren many things have been spoken and written that are interpreted as expressing antagonism to government and law. It is a mistake thus to lay ourselves open to misunderstanding. It is not wise to find fault continually with what is done by the rulers of government. It is not our work to attack individuals or institutions. We should exercise great care lest we be understood as putting ourselves in opposition to the civil authorities. . . .
The time will come when unguarded expressions of a denunciatory character, that have been carelessly spoken or written by our brethren, will be used by our enemies to condemn us. These will not be used merely to condemn those who made the statements, but will be charged upon the whole body of Adventists. Our accusers will say that upon such and such a day one of our responsible men said thus and so against the administration of the laws of this government. Many will be astonished to see how many things have been cherished and remembered that will give point to the arguments of our adversaries. Many will be surprised to hear their own words strained into a meaning that they did not intend them to have. Then let our workers be careful to speak guardedly at all times and under all circumstances. Let all beware lest by reckless expressions they bring on a time of trouble before the great crisis which is to try men’s souls [1].
Another statement offers similar counsel, articulating more fully the rightful balance in the true Christian’s relation to the secular powers:
We are to recognize human government as an ordinance of divine appointment, and teach obedience to it as a sacred duty, within its legitimate sphere. But when its claims conflict with the claims of God, we must obey God rather than men. . . .
We are not required to defy authorities. Our words, whether spoken or written, should be carefully considered, lest we place ourselves on record as uttering that which would make us appear antagonistic to law and order. We are not to say or do anything that would unnecessarily close up our way [2].
Conclusion
In sum, fighting the government over safety measures in the present pandemic is not a battle wisely chosen. Such misguided zeal springs too often from the make-believe world of conspiracy theories and “alternative facts”—the latter more appropriately called lies. Such thinking is deeply offensive to intelligent people and profoundly injurious to our witness as God’s remnant church. Most of all, such thinking carries with it no Biblical imperative, but is most often based on non-spiritual issues of cultural and political identity. The day will come when we will have to stand against the world, for the sake of God’s commandments. It is best we keep our spiritual powder dry for that future conflict, and not expend our credibility in defense of secular ideology and misbegotten self-reliance.
REFERENCES
1. Ellen G. White, Testimonies, vol. 6, pp. 394-395.
2. ----Acts of the Apostles, p. 69.
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan