All that day they walked about, in the woods with him, singing, and laughing; for Quickbeam often laughed. He laughed if the sun came out from behind a cloud, he laughed if they came upon a stream or spring: then he stooped and splashed his feet and head with water; he laughed sometimes at some sound or whisper in the trees. Whenever he saw a rowan-tree he halted a while with his arms stretched out, and sang, and swayed as he sang.
The Two Towers, J.R.R. Tolkien
I have been reading recently Bruce Waltke’s short book “Proverbs and Politics” which is a record of Waltke’s 2015 messages at an inaugural conference organised, in part, by The American Renewal Project - an organisation that aims to equip those in positions of authority. In his introduction, David Lane of The American Renewal Project writes:
“As Christians, we take full responsibility for allowing secularism to destroy our culture, society, and government; we ask God for mercy and forgiveness for what we Christians have allowed to happen to our nation”
Initially, this appears to be a commendable - even biblical - sentiment. One thinks of Daniel and his prayer of confession and repentance in Daniel 9. Lane similarly continues:
“To be a part of the solution we as Christians must turn to God, renewing our minds and hearts meditating on Biblical wisdom”
To be sure, as Christians we must turn to God (this basically defines what a Christian is) and we must certainly be meditating on Biblical wisdom and renewing our minds (Romans 12:2). The concern lies in what is meant by saying we must do these things “to be a part of the solution.” What solution does Lane have in mind?
Lane makes clear what he considers this ultimate solution to be.
“to train men and women to impart righteousness to our nation and restore American governance to its God-given purpose. Our call as Christians is not to “take our nation back,” but to turn back to God and humbly serve our fellow citizens.”
It seems, therefore, that Lane understands the church’s (or at least the church in America’s) aim to be “restore American governance to its God-given purpose.”
It is this idea that I take issue with. While we must serve our fellow citizens and encourage them to turn back to God, our aim is not to restore Government “to its God-given purpose.”
Someone might respond and say “why not? surely God desires all to come to repentance and knowledge of the truth and surely this includes, perhaps especially includes, those in authority?” In response: as far as this sentiment goes it is good - but this is not all that Lane is saying. He says that Christians should “take full responsibility” and “ask God for mercy and forgiveness for what we Christians have allowed to happen to our nation.” In other words, the Church has failed in its purpose if the nation does not govern in the fear of the Lord.
Here, then, is the key question - what does ‘success’ look like for the church? Lane’s words more than suggest that success for the church is restoration of Christendom - in the sense of a Christian society. I would argue instead that the true responsibility of Church is her own faithfulness to God. This obviously has political implications (who and what we vote for, what causes we promote and support etc. and which laws we submit to and which we resist etc.) but its focus is not on the political but morality.
A few scriptural examples will help illustrate the point.
Daniel was a believer in Babylon. The Babylonian Empire was, in many ways, an evil empire. Scripture itself chronicles many of her sins. It is noteworthy, however, that at no point does Daniel blame the people of God for the sins of Babylon. Instead, Daniel confesses the sins of God’s people. God certainly commanded that His people seek the good of the nation (Jeremiah 29:7), and it is likely that Babylon benefited from the prayers and righteousness of God’s people, but the state of Babylon was not Israel’s responsibility. This can be shown by looking at some New Testament examples.
John the Baptist was a preacher of righteousness. His preaching even reached into the political realm (because morality unavoidably reaches into politics). John rebuked Herod for marrying his brother’s wife and John was thrown into prison and, eventually, was beheaded. John was successfully faithful even while he was politically unsuccessful..
Joseph of Arimathea was a political figure - he was a member of the Jewish council (Mark 15:43). He, in fact, served on the council that oversaw the most heinous act of moral and political injustice this world has ever seen - the sham trial and crucifixion of the Son of God. We are told, however, in Luke 23:51 that Joseph did not consent to the decision or action. Politically Joseph failed - Jesus was crucified. Morally, however, Joseph succeeded.
Joseph can be helpfully contrasted with Peter. In the Garden of Gethsemane, Peter drew his sword to prevent Christ’s arrest and sliced off the ear of the High Priest’s servant. Christ, however, rebuked him for this action with the words “Put your sword back in its place because all who take up a sword will perish by a sword.” Peter’s political sentiments were understandable - but they were morally flawed. Christ meaning is made clearer in his later words to Pilate “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36). Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. The Church’s success or failure is not determined by the state of our society or our culture. It is determined by our faithfulness - whether it leads to persecution or revival.
This would explain why the apostles seemed to have little interest in reforming the Roman Empire. Their focus, instead, was on preserving and promoting the holiness and purity of the people of God in whatever nation they lived.
All this is not to dismiss entirely the work of The American Renewal Project - or any Christian organisation with a strong political emphasis. Much good can be done insofar as the aim is to encourage Christians to call people to repentance and turn again to God themselves. The danger lies in thinking that success depends on the results rather than on the simple obedience of the Great Commission. We share God’s Word in word and deed - and then we leave the results to God.
Have you ever said “I will pray about it?” Perhaps you have some big decision to make. A job opportunity, choosing a university, which subjects to take for A-level, when to retire or who to marry. There are any number of decisions that we all have to make in life and, if we are a believer, invariably we ‘pray about it.’
But have you actually pondered what you expect to happen as a result of your prayer? How, exactly, do you hope that God will answer? We perhaps hope that God, in some mysterious way, will clear the fog of our thinking. Or else we hope that God will so arrange circumstances that the ‘right’ option becomes clear. I suspect a good number of believers simply pray so that they can say that they have done so - before they go ahead and do whatever it was they most wanted to do anyway!
Whatever the case, all believers seem to fall back on, when asked why they made a certain choice - “I prayed about it.”
The disconcerting thing, if we allow ourselves to ponder it, is that many Christians say this after objectively bad decisions. This begs the question: what was God doing when they prayed? Did he not answer their prayer? Or did they not pray enough?
A spiritual answer is that God may have answered but that in His wisdom he desired the pray-er to go through the consequences of the bad decision. This could well be true - but it does beg the question of what was the purpose of praying in the first place? Why not rather just simply pray ‘your will be done’ and go ahead and make your own choices - trusting to God to work it all out for good?
Here we come to the point of this post. I would argue that this indeed is the attitude that we should have to prayer - but with a very important caveat. Our danger is that we spend a disproportionate amount of time talking to God and not enough listening to Him. We should pray ‘your will be done’ - but for that prayer to have any credibility we must also seek out what God’s will is. And the only place we can discern this with any assurance is Scripture.
Let’s suppose that you are pondering which university to apply for. You have many options before you. One is close to your parents. Another is miles and miles away from your parents. One has a great academic reputation whilst another is in a very popular city. As a believer you ‘pray about it’ - vaguely hoping for some guidance. In the course of time, such ‘guidance’ occurs - ‘doors’ open and close. Perhaps your grades end up ruling you out of the university with the highest reputation but then you discover your friend failed to get into their first choice also - freeing you both up to attend your second-choice which is the same for both of you. You praise God for his ‘providential’ leading and happily head off to university.
What is the problem? The problem is that no listening has taken place - except to the shifting circumstances of life. What has God to say of the decision? In short, prayers may have been spoken, but answers have not been sought from Scripture.
Of course, the Bible does not provide specific answers to many of the choices we must make in life. But it most definitely does teach us what God desires of us - Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 4:3, for example, “this is God’s will - that you be sanctified.”
We ought not to make our choices by following merely our own whims and desires or by the whim of changing circumstances. This was a mistake that King David’s men made before he had yet been made king. The current king, Saul, was seeking to kill David and was hunting him around the wilderness. Saul happens to walk into the cave where David is hiding and proceeds to relieve himself. David’s men encourage their leader to seize this ‘clearly’ God-given opportunity to rid himself of his persecutor and seize the kingdom - but David refuses. The man after God’s own heart know that this is not what God desires - despite the favourable circumstances.
The best way to make good decisions is not to rely on circumstances - even when we call it ‘providence.’ Instead, we must do as Christ told us “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you” John 15:7. We must pray, but we must also listen to the answer.
The Christian Institute published a short piece of news today regarding updates to the BBFC guidance. The BBFC is the British Board of Film Classification and it sets the rating of TV shows and Films in the UK.
The BBFC guidance states the following:
Words you may hear in a U rated film or TV show may include: ‘damn’, ‘hell’, ‘God’, ‘Jesus Christ’. We know that some people find these words particularly offensive, but our research shows us that the majority of parents are comfortable with their children hearing them in U rated films.
That the majority of parents would not find the careless use of words such as 'God' and 'Jesus Christ' particularly offensive should not be surprising - committed followers of Jesus Christ are a minority in this country. What is surprising (at least on one level) is the double-standard when it comes to other minorities.
It is hard to imagine that the BBFC would say the same regarding such words as 'Muhammad' and 'Allah.’ And we all know why - it is all too obvious the potential violence that would result.
This is problematic because this means that the BBFC is effectively sending the message that the only way to be respected in our society is to react violently to disrespect. Besides this, the BBFC is also teaching children (and adults for that matter) that certain sorts of disrespect are ‘universally’ acceptable i.e. not disrespectful at all.
We are commanded not to take God’s Name in vain but, instead, to revere it as holy (Exodus 20:7). One way we can do this is writing to the BBFC and pointing out their inconsistency. Contact details for them can be found here.
Fake news is a trendy topic today – but it is an important one because it affects all of us. No matter how much we may think otherwise, we are all, sadly, susceptible to confirmation bias - the tendency to filter information according to what we already believe or want to believe.
This would not be a problem if we could be sure that all we believe is truly accurate. Unfortunately, what we believe is, in reality, shaped by a great variety of experiences, people and influences and we would likely be shocked by what weak foundations some of our strongest convictions are built on if we ever paused to consider them.
Realising this, many today have decided it best to take the path of doubt. To refuse to believe anything unless it can objectively be shown to be true. Over a century ago, however, psychologist William James observed the difficulty with such a position
It is often practically impossible to distinguish doubt from dogmatic negation. If I refuse to stop a murder because I am in doubt whether it be not justifiable homicide, I am virtually abetting the crime. If I refuse to bale out a boat because I am in doubt whether my efforts will keep her afloat, I am really helping to sink her. If in the mountain precipice I doubt my right to risk a leap, I actively connive at my destruction. He who commands himself not to be credulous of God, of duty, of freedom, of immortality, may again and again be indistinguishable from him who dogmatically denies them. Scepticism in moral matters is an active ally or immorality. It’s like standing on a cliff edge. You have to choose one. Standing still is a choice.
In short, it is often the case that doubting can be as dangerous as taking a step of faith.
What are we to do, then, when we are sorrounded by such a storm of contradicting opinions and ideas all claiming to be ‘truth.’ What can we do?
Happily, we are not left without a guide. Jesus Christ tells us:
If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
John 8:31-32
Christ claims to be sure foundation that we can stand upon. He, and His words, are the standard upon which we judge everything else. He teaches us what science cannot - What is right and wrong? What is the meaning of life? How do I find love? How do I find peace?
The best way to spot a forgery is not to learn all the ways in which something may be faked. That would be an impossible task. Instead, the way to spot a forgery is to know the genuine intimately. As Jesus put it:
Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls
Matthew 11:28-29
The England team has been ‘taking the knee’ to highlight racism in sport. Whether such a gesture will diminish or increase racial tension generally is debatable. What is less debatable is the tension it will increase in any England player (especially one who happens to have white skin) who is reluctant to do so. Such reluctance will likely be met with accusations of racism and insinuations of lurking white supremacy.
On the website of Black Lives Matter (to which ‘taking the knee’ has become inseparably attached) one can read the following exhortation to white people:
White communities are used to consciously and unconsciously maintaining the racist policies and practices … as white people, we must speak out against those policies and practices. When we remain silent and on the sidelines, we are complicit in maintaining these unjust systems
There is the key word – complicit. White people who do not speak out (or, in the case we are addressing, take the knee) are complicit in racism. But is this accusation justified? Is it justified to expect white people to take ownership of the sin of racism in this way? Is it right for white people to do so?
The central problem is the assumption of moral high ground from those taking the knee. It is not unreasonable to ask, however, who made BLM our judge? Why do Black Lives Matter get to decide what does, and does not, consistute speaking out against racism?
Long before Black Lives Matter, the famous Christian Apologist, C S Lewis, wrote of a not disimilar situation back in 1940. Lewis observed young Christian intellectuals (as a professor at Oxford, Lewis was very familiar with these) who ‘confessed’ and ‘repented’ of national sins. They claimed that such national sins were responsible for, amongst other things, causing the First World War.
In our day and age, the sins in question are racist ones - sins which led to the wicked slave trade and, allegedly, the systemic racist attitudes that exist to this day. The argument then was that English people needed to take ownership, and repent, of the sins of ‘England’, the argument today is that white people of today need to repent for the white people of yesterday.
Lewis questions, however, the propriety of such ‘repentance.’ He observes that ‘England,’ as such, cannot commit sin. Sins are committed by people. The sins of ‘England’ for which these English intellectuals were ‘repenting’ were, in reality, the sins of the British Government. Their ‘repentance’, therefore, was not repentance at all but denunciation – for true repentance is acknowledging our own sin, not the sin of another.
Lewis does not argue that rebuke and denunciation is never justified - if laws and attitudes rooted in racial prejudices exist then such things should be denounced and rebuked. Lewis, however, observes an ever-present danger for those who do. As he puts it:
A group of such young penitents will say, ‘Let us repent our national sins’; what they mean is, ‘Let us attribute to our neighbour (even our Christian neighbour) in the Cabinet, whenever we disagree with him, every abominable motive that Satan can suggest to our fancy*
Lewis observed that the denunciation of the young intellectuals rather suggestively coincided with real sins which Lewis observed himself - cynicism of authority, self-righteousness and a failure to honour parents. We must beware when our denunciations, or even our confessions, conveniently coincide with our hates.
Lewis gives the example of a man who rebukes his mother who is committing a serious sin. A man who loves his mother will find this a painful but necessary act of obedience to Christ (who taught us that we must hate our mother in comparison to our love for Him). If, however, the man has demonstrated disdain for his mother previously, and so gleefully rebukes her when the opportunity presents itself, then his rebuke is not noble but merely the ugly overflow of his hatred for her.
True confession of sin is a costly and humbling act, and righteous denunciation should be also. If it is not then far from killing sin it indulges it. Our so-called ‘protest’ against evil, may merely be a manifestation of our own.
To come back to where we started. Taking the knee may be a sincere expression of protest against racist attitudes and practices. But it may, just as easily, be an expression of self-righteous hate and/or a manipulative tool for social coercion. The upshot is that we mustn’t excuse or accuse others based on appearance alone. Let the person who takes the knee, take the knee as they feel is right before God, but let the person who does not take the knee, likewise do so before God. Let everyone be convinced in their own mind. Only then can we hope to gain true harmony and freedom.
*https://blacklivesmatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BLM_Trayvon_toolkit_english.pdf
*C S Lewis, God in the Dock, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2014), 206.
The Evangelical Times recently published an article entitled ‘PERSONAL VIEW: Why Christians must question ‘the science’ right now.’ This article presents the personal perspective of the author, Rowina Seidler, and not necessarily that of the editors of ET.
Seidler starts the article very helpfully. She describes the two basic scientific points of view regarding the current pandemic. The first she describes as the ‘Neil Ferguson camp,’ named after a prominent exponent, and the second as the ‘Michael Levitt camp’ named likewise.
According to this first camp, COVID-19 is an incredibly contagious and dangerous virus which spreads exponentially, and extensive lockdowns are currently the best means of limiting its spread. According to this camp “The collateral damage of these measures (in lives lost and economic damage) is acceptable due to the severity of COVID-19.”
According to the second camp, however, COVID-19, though clearly very contagious, is not so severe as first thought and there already exist significant immunity in the population. As such, a wiser approach would be to aim for herd immunity - “the collateral damage of the lockdown measures is unacceptable.”
Seidler helpfully summarises
“if Ferguson’s camp is correct then it might seem sensible for churches to indefinitely and willingly submit to government restrictions. It could be seen that those churches who practiced civil disobedience and opened up when they had been mandated to close were irresponsible, disobedient, unloving to the vulnerable, and a bad witness…if Levitt’s camp is correct our government could be making one of the biggest mistakes of all time and in doing so are pushing the world into unimaginable poverty, death, and turmoil unnecessarily. It could seem irresponsible, unloving and wrong for the church to simply submit and allow herself to be endlessly restricted, repeatedly closed, and her members indefinitely distances with faces hidden while the world suffers”
So far, so helpful. However, after this the article goes south. Seidler attempts to argue that there is a biblical principle that helps ordinary, relatively uneducated believers to discern what they should do. She cites Deuteronomy 18:22
“when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him”
She determines that the various camps are comparable to prophets and their statements amount to prophecies. She then attempts to call the bluff of the ‘Neill Ferguson’ school of prophets by pointing to a case study: Sweden.
According to Seidler, the data from Sweden refutes the Neill Ferguson school’s prediction but affirms that of the Levitt school. She concludes
“Your church may well be told to lock down again based on the Ferguson camp’s ‘prophecies’. Can you see how the ‘prophecies’ you trust will have a profound effect on if you think this is a sensible ask, or a government overreach that is stopping you fulfilling your Christian duty to gather?”
The problem with Seidler’s conclusion is that it still requires considerable scientific understanding. It may be that Seidler’s assessment is correct – but to follow her conclusion requires trusting her understanding of the science of the matter. It may be that Sweden is simply not a fair case study. It may be that Swedish people have been naturally more cautious in their response to the virus – regardless of official Government legislation. Citizens of Sweden may voluntarily do what other countries have felt the need to impose. Sweden also has its own unique climate, demographics etc.
The point is: we are still, apparently, left with the necessity that ordinary, unscientifically trained, Christians, or at least church leaders, must now be scientists in order for them to know how to behave in a truly God-honouring way. This is disheartening and demoralising, making the whole situation all the more anxiety-inducing and disorienting.
Thankfully, there is a principle in the Bible that DOES enable us to know what to do – without needing to become scientists or resorting to obscure biblical verses of doubtful relevance. The principle is, simply put, Christ’s words “follow me” (John 8:12). We are to follow Christ, listen to his words and build our lives upon them (Matthew 7:24-27). Jesus tells us to Love God and Love our neighbour (Mark 12:30-31)– and a part of that includes honouring the Government. Jesus taught us to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and render to God the things that are God’s (Matthew 22:21). In some (relatively rare) instances, Caesar tries to take what should be given to God (by forbidding us to do what God commands or commanding us to do what God forbids) in which cases we must defer to God – precisely because we must render to God the things that are God’s. In all other cases, however, our instructions are clear: honour the king (1 Peter 2:17).
What this means is this: an accurate understanding of the science of this pandemic is, ultimately, the Government’s responsibility. They have a responsibility before God to do justly and protect the country that God has called them to govern. Of course, Government, comprising of people, do succumb to human sins – greed, selfish ambition, fear etc. - BUT it is they who will answer to God for that, not us. OUR responsibility is to obey God, and obey God BY honouring and obeying our Government except when the Government instruct us to disobey God. We may take an interest in the science but our personal understanding does not relieve us of our duty of obedience.
Seidler’s conclusion implies the opposite - implying that we have the authority to pick and choose what governmental restrictions and laws we obey if we deem our understanding to be greater than our rulers. This is opposite of Christ’s teaching.
In short, we should wear masks – thus demonstrating our godly submission. Of course, we can (and must!) peacefully protest and petition when we believe the Government to be incorrect or unreasonable. But it must be done legally - civil disobedience is not an option if we are to follow Christ. It is only an option when following Christ compels it.
But what if the Government forbid us to meet? It all depends what we mean by ‘meet.’ As yet, the Government has never actually forbidden us fellowship. It did, for a time, forbid us being in physical proximity of each other. That is not the same as forbidding us to meet. In countries where the church is persecuted and is truly forbidden to meet, the governmental authorities’ intention is to prevent what God commands. They do not want the church to grow, they do not want the church strengthened, they want to hinder the potential threat that it would pose to their aims and ambitions. Such is not the case - yet - in our nation.
God does not command us to assemble together because there is an inherent value in being within a few metres of another person (however pleasant and beneficial that is). God commands us to assemble together so that we can exhort to love and good works (Hebrews 10:24). Until the Government forbids that (as other governments in the world do – by forbidding fellowship and the reading and propagation of God’s word) we make do with lesser means – using the technology that God has given us.
There is currently much discussion in the church regarding civil disobedience - in large part fuelled by Grace Community Church (‘John MacArthur’s church’ to you and me) and their decision to defy California State restrictions due to the spread of Covid-19 - see here.
I am not sufficiently educated on the state of government in California, or the precise nature of their restrictions, to feel able to either condone or condemn this decision. Their decision, however, creates ripples for the church in the UK that need to be navigated wisely.
In the UK, churches are permitted to gather but with certain restrictions - no singing and, now, mandatory masks. These restrictions cause considerable frustration - masks are uncomfortable and singing is enjoyable (and, more importantly, believed by many to be an essential aspect of worship). It is natural, therefore, that we should ask - are we obligated to obey? And it is this that makes Grace Church’s decision relevant to churches in the UK, especially also given articles such as this from influential pastor and blogger Doug Wilson regarding the wearing of masks and governmental overreach.
In answer to the question ‘are we obligated to obey?’ I have to stretch my neck out and say the answer is; yes. We must obey the Government in these matters. The fundamental reason for this is Romans 13:1-2:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
It seems fairly clear, doesn’t it? But John MacArthur responds that the authorities in California have exceeded their authority stating that “government officials have no right to interfere in ecclesiastical matters in a way that undermines or disregards the God-given authority of pastors and elders.” For this reason, MacArthur argues, they are no longer obligated to obey.
In so doing, MacArthur essentially sets up the church as, potentially, a rival state to the Government. This is a highly debatable position - Christ Himself said that His kingdom is NOT of this world (John 18:36) and it is Christ who has placed us under the authority of earthly authorities (Luke 20:25 cf. Romans 13:7; Romans 13:2). Pastors and elders do not have a God-given authority over the government but only over the church of which they are a pastor or elder.
This is what lies behind Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:2-4. Here, Christ states:
The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
Jesus instructs the people to observe what the scribes and Pharisees tell them because they were the governing authorities in moral matters (they sat “on Moses’ seat”). But he warns them not to be like them. This is the answer to the article by Doug Wilson. For the record, I think I essentially agree with Wilson’s critique of the powers that be. What I disagree with is the inference that just because we can point out hypocrisy and inconsistency in governing authorities, we are therefore somehow released from our obligation to obey them. Such hypocrisy should cause us to loudly protest - but in an obedient, submissive way until we are instructed contrary to Christ. It is in this way that we provide a contrast to the BLM protests that Wilson speaks of - by being different to them not by being like them. This may feel weak, and even humiliating, but it is, after all, the meek who will inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5).
The central issue is this: Are we being instructed to disobey Christ by being instructed to wear masks and not to sing? As far as masks are concerned, the answer has to be; no. Those who worship Christ must do so in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24) and a mask does not prevent this. Furthermore, it seems perfectly reasonable that a mask may help prevent the spread of an airborne disease so the wearing of one may even be an act of uncomfortable, and therefore sacrificial, love. Some argue that this is not the case but, unfortunately (perhaps), they are not the ones with God-given authority and to obey them is to ignore those who do.
But what of singing? does that not contradict Christ’s instructions? Perhaps an illustration will bring clarity. A road may have a speed limit of 60mph but if, for example, there is an oil spill in the road only a fool would drive at the speed limit because it is their ‘right’ to do so. We have been told that singing risks spreading a new, still largely unknown and highly contagious virus, and for this reason singing has been restricted. Until this can be shown not to be the case then it seems reasonable to view it as an ‘oil spill’ and comply until we know more.
Again, like Doug Wilson, I suspect there is a certain amount of over-reaction and even politicalisation in all of this and the applicability of the above illustrations will before long start to wear thin. Not even the Government can keep crying wolf - and it may be that the governing authorities in California have crossed that line. But, here in the UK, before we proclaim that the Emperor has no clothes we must be very sure that he doesn't - and, indeed, that we do - for the sake of others and of conscience (Romans 13:5).