“A constraint should be regarded as a stimulus for positive change — we can choose to use it as an impetus to explore something new and arrive at a breakthrough.”

If you believe that “God causes all things to work together for good,”¹ then you must be wondering what God is going to do to redeem the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Disruption’s Opportunity

Whatever our thoughts, stances, and opinions are in relation to the pandemic, one thing is clear: it has disrupted all of us. Disruptions are jarring because they are unplanned and usually happen very quickly. Typically, when disruptions affect us, our reaction is to think of them as problems. But their positive side—and yes, they have one—is that they force our attention on to a new reality and create an urgency to do something so that we survive the disruption with good prospects for the future. 

Now is an opportune time to reimagine ministry to meet the challenges of new conditions and take advantage of the opportunities they provide. I believe those opportunities are a gift from God to the church. While the pandemic is a terrible scourge, it is not beyond God’s power to redeem it by bringing some good out of it. We need to open this gift of opportunity and use it! How will you participate with God in drawing out that good to bless others? CCCC members can discuss this post in The Green.

Surviving a disruption requires a mindset that goes beyond incremental changes to how we think about and do our work. There may be some very helpful tweaks to make, and those should be done, but more importantly when in a disruption, we need bold, creative ideas for completely new initiatives that make the most of the possibilities inherent in the disruption. 

Some questions to start a discussion with your team about innovation in your ministry include:

• What new needs have been created by the disruption?
• What other ways to pursue our mission does the disruption make possible that weren’t possible or desirable before?
• How can we make sure we are open to the expansiveness of God’s possibility and will for our ministry in this moment and going forward?

Whether we like it or not, both we and our society will be changed by the disruption of COVID-19. But there is good news in that if we take the initiative and act proactively we can achieve greater mission success because of those changes. 

The choices we make might even bring about changes that are much needed and overdue.

Without minimizing the terribleness of the pandemic, this time of disruption holds an opportunity for churches and Christian ministries to further develop and expand how they work on their missions.

Making the Most of the Opportunity

The current disruption is already benefiting the church in that it has:

• Highlighted more than ever the difference between the church and its buildings,
• Forced us to find new ways to be the church without relying on buildings or large gathered groups, and
• Upset regular routines and practices, making people more open to change than usual.

What we learn from our experience during the pandemic can continue to be used when large gatherings resume. Our new skills and practices can go forward and augment (and in some cases replace) the traditional ways of doing ministry. 

To make the most of the disruption, churches and ministries need to think innovatively about their activities with respect to two time frames: what they can do during the pandemic and what they need to do to prepare for ministry after the pandemic.

During the Pandemic

“Saddleback has never been closed during these past eleven weeks,” Warren says. “On the contrary, we’ve been doing more in our communities than ever before. Our buildings have been closed, but the church is not a building. We are a living, breathing body …we are a people, not a place.”

Rick Warren

A number of churches and ministry leaders have shared how they are creatively responding to the pandemic. Follow the links to be inspired by their stories and then see what ideas your own team can come up with.

• The quote above comes from Rick Warren’s interview about how Saddleback Church is making the most of the pandemic not only to serve but also to evangelize through its members rather than its programs.
• This church transformed an existing program that was no longer needed as it was into a high value program meeting specific pandemic-related community needs. 
• Some churches are thinking about the new possibilities of being a church without walls.  
• Fresh Expressions helps churches build new forms of churches alongside themselves to attract non-church people. Their post discusses how distributed leadership makes possible a distributed church that can minister during the pandemic. It also covers integrating your church into the digital era and listening, loving, and serving your neighbourhood.
• Here are a number of suggestions for engaging and re-engaging people with your church while reaching out to new people with new programs.
• Christ’s Church of the Valley in Phoenix, AZ developed a new mental health program based on text messaging, their website, and telephone and is providing financial assistance to individuals for their first ten counselling sessions.
• A ministry leader offers ten creative ideas to continue effective ministry.
• Here’s a church that turned to the ministries it supports to find ways to help them with their missions. The church is also supporting its local Social Services office.

But don’t just look at what other churches or ministries are doing. For real game-changing ideas, look to see what other industry sectors are doing. We are all in the same boat, having to innovate during the pandemic. Secular charities could have great ideas and so could the retail, manufacturing, hi-tech and other sectors of our economy. Hospitals, for example, improved their patient management system by examining automotive factories. Look for transferable ideas from sectors that are very different from our own. 

For guidance and ideas in developing creativity, please see my post on imagination. 

Preparing for after the Pandemic

During this time of disruption, churches and all other ministries should re-explore their missions and take a deep dive with a fresh perspective into what the words of their mission mean, what success of their mission looks like, and how their mission can be fulfilled. A process for how to do this will be the topic of my next post.

Conclusion

If the church makes the most of God’s gift of opportunity in disruption, it will emerge from this pandemic fresh, reinvigorated, and highly relevant to whatever the new normal turns out to be. 

The post Finding God’s Gift in Disruption appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Churches and denominations must decide for themselves what their answers will be. While CCCC will not tell churches what to do, we will help your church make an informed choice. Our COVID-19 commitment to our members outlines our thoughts on the pandemic-related restrictions and our support for our members to practice their beliefs. To give you context for the issue, we have also published brief histories of the Church’s responses to pandemics of the past and of Christians and choices about civil disobedience. 

This post will lay out some considerations for four basic responses to the gathering restrictions.

Four Response Options 

There are four main ways to respond to the governing authorities that apply to any situation. They are:

1. Comply with the law either because you agree with it or want to show goodwill if you don’t.
2. Consult with the appropriate authorities when they are agreeable to discussion.
3. Challenge the authorities when they are not agreeable to discussion with either a protest or a legal challenge.
4. Disobey the authorities when circumstances are so egregious and the authorities are so resistant that this is the only option.  

The real choice is between Comply and Disobey. The other two options are intermediate steps that can be taken in addition to the choice to comply or disobey. 

In reading blogs and chats and seeing what people are saying, there are lots of misrepresentations of the opposite viewpoint. Everyone, no matter what your position on the choices, should read up on the reasoning of our brothers and sisters who hold the opposite opinion and allow them to speak for themselves. If you listen only to people with your own opinion interpreting what they think the viewpoints of others are, you will most likely be misled by bias because these interpretations can be very simplistic.

This article by David Robertson (pastor of a church in Dundee, Scotland for 27 years, Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland 2015-16, contributor to Christianity Today, and currently leader of an evangelism ministry in Sydney, Australia) is the best introduction I could find to the issues that you should consider in making your decision. He takes the most even-handed approach to the comply/disobey decision I’ve come across. He outlines the arguments for both sides before making a recommendation that is a bit like “having your cake and eating it too.”

The Comply/Disobey Rationales

In this post, I’m giving people from both viewpoints equal time (about 3,400 words if you follow the links) to speak in their own words. I’ve searched through a lot of material to find the best, most concise arguments from the comply/disobey rationales and will provide links to those articles.

Remember, be sure to read and give thoughtful consideration to the side that you currently disagree with, or you will not make a truly informed decision! Think of it as though you and three others were taking a picture of something. Borrow their “camera” (which is different from yours) and look at the subject through their lenses rather than yours. In his January 16th newsletter, Ray Pennings of Cardus makes this same point with three questions:

• First, have I read and heard the other side?
• Second, what are the deeper concerns that prompt the opposite position? 
• Third, how can I resist the temptation to brand those with whom I passionately disagree as permanently different and anathema?

Attitude is critical

“I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all people will know that you are My disciples: if you have love for one another.” John 13:34-35

CCCC recognizes that well-meaning and faithful Christians can end up on opposite sides of a debate. We all want to be faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ, and we must remember that we are members of one family and that we are commanded by Jesus to love one another. So all our conversations on this matter need to be civil, respectful, and assuming the best of those with whom we disagree. Otherwise, you may find in the end that even if you are right, you displeased the Lord by your behaviour.

If you are a CCCC member, you can go to The Green and contribute to the discussion there.

Comply

Pastor Rick Warren explained why he is complying with COVID-19 restrictions in an interview on December 21st, in which he said:

“Some churches are willing to gamble the health of their people. I’m not. The good shepherd prays for his sheep, cares for his sheep. One day I will be responsible. I don’t want to be a super-spreader. I’m not doing this out of fear; I’m doing this out of love. You wear a mask for love of your neighbors, yourself.”

Baptist News

Dr. Richard Land, president of Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, NC and formerly president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, wrote a thoughtful and well-researched article last March on why churches should comply with the restrictions. Since he has not returned to this topic in his very active blog, it appears his answer would still be the same today.

A few days ago, pastor Paul Bickley of Trinity Vineyard Church in London, UK, explained in this article why he voluntarily closed his church building shortly before the law forced him to. He takes a pastoral approach and distinguishes between the church as a building and the church as a congregation.

Pastor David Navarro, in a Facebook post at the end of November, said “The primary narrative of the Jesus movement is not about Jesus instituting MEETINGS. It’s about Jesus decisively CONQUERING DEATH. This is why the central event of the narrative is the resurrection of Jesus. Because of this, the most basic ethic of a disciple is to, like Jesus, actively oppose any forces of death – whether the death of our spirit, or of our mental health, or of our body (since they’re all integrated, because we’re whole beings). Gathering together is part of the story, but it falls under a greater mandate to oppose forces which bring death, harm, decay, or chaos. This virus is such a force.”

Disobey

Pastor John MacArthur presented the case last July for why his church is disobeying the pandemic restrictions:

“It has never been the prerogative of civil government to order, modify, forbid, or mandate worship. When, how, and how often the church worships is not subject to Caesar. Caesar himself is subject to God.”

The Federalist

In December, Pastor Aaron Rock of Harvest Bible Church in Windsor, ON was charged with reopening his church unlawfully. The church followed health and safety protocols but exceeded the gathering limit. He wrote a comprehensive article on why churches should not obey the pandemic restrictions. This article is long enough to capture the breadth of the arguments for civil disobedience.

Indicators for the Four Options

Indicators favouring compliance

The starting point should always be to comply with government laws and regulations, as the New Testament is clear that Christians are to obey their governments,  unless a particular government directive is deemed to be unjust. In that case, Christians can move directly to a more active step to change the law. The principle is to start with Comply, then move to Consult, Challenge, and Disobey in that order.

Churches are likely to comply when they see the restrictions as:

• Temporary
• Having a rationale with factual support
• Reasonable in light of the goal they are meant to achieve
• Having effects that
  • Align with an incarnational theology of community and suffering
  • Provide a good witness to Jesus Christ and the Church, thus helping with evangelism
  • Promote innovation and vitality in churches as we seek and listen to the Holy Spirit in unusual circumstances

Indicators favouring consultation

Consulting with people who have the power or the influence to bring about the change you want means that you are constructively working with them to problem-solve a solution that everyone can live with. This option is viable if:

• You have goodwill because you are complying.
• You have expertise and a fact-based proposal that will carry weight in the secular world.
• You can reach people who can make a difference. This may be a politician, a policy analyst, or other person of influence who in turn has the ear of the person who can make the decision you want.

As an example, CCCC, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, and Christian Legal Fellowship submitted a joint letter in May to provincial Ministers of Health and Chief Medical Officers of Health and will continue to make submissions.

Indicators favouring challenge

A challenge is more adversarial than consulting is. A legal challenge or peaceful protest creates a confrontation and is a little riskier because the outcome could reinforce the way things are, the very thing you are trying to change. But this is a good option if:

• You have obtained legal advice that your challenge has reasonable grounds.
• You can make a strong case for how the public will benefit from a win (to minimize people thinking the legal challenge is for selfish reasons that only benefit churches). 

Toronto International Celebration Church has done this well. They obeyed the law and all health regulations but are challenging the reduction of attendees from 30% capacity to just ten people. Although a partial ruling was not favourable to the church, the court has not yet finished dealing with the Charter issues.

Indicators favouring civil disobedience

Virtually all defenders of civil disobedience (who see it as a basic right, even a duty) stress that a citizen should take this step only after all conventional channels for redress have been exhausted, because civil disobedience has potentially serious consequences. The indicators favouring civil disobedience are:

• Just like the indicators favouring a challenge:
  • You have obtained legal advice that your defense has reasonable grounds.
  • You can make a strong case for how the public will benefit from a win (to minimize people thinking the challenge is for selfish reasons that only benefit  churches).
• You can disobey without using violence.
• You are willing to accept the consequences.

There is a high likelihood of fines and possibly even jail time if you disobey the law, so know in advance what you are getting yourself and your team into. One church that is engaged in civil disobedience, Trinity Bible Chapel in Waterloo Region, ON, is now facing the possibility of the church and its elders being fined close to $11 million. 

Next Steps

Discussing with church leadership/congregation

A previous post had lots of suggestions for how to have discussions when there are divisions in the church. I highly recommend reviewing it before risking a debate that could further harden divisions within church leadership or the congregation.

If leaning towards civil disobedience

In a recent post, Ray Pennings, who we heard from above, provided some sober reflections on the risk of pushback from the government that civil disobedience can lead to. If you are going to use civil disobedience, he calls for it to be a respectful disobedience. Ray’s main point is that when we resort to civil disobedience we should be mindful that there is much more than the immediate issue at stake. 

And if you choose disobedience, there is a “must read” guide published by The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada: an excellent primer on civil disobedience that includes a discussion on when civil disobedience is justified. Study this and make good use of it if civil disobedience is your choice.

Final Questions to Ask

Three questions to ask before selecting a response option may help confirm that it is the right choice for your church: 

1. What is the lasting legacy we want to leave with the secular public when this is all over? 
2. Will this response damage Jesus Christ’s reputation and that of the church? 
3. Will this decision help us fulfill the church’s mission?

Concluding Thought

Deciding between the response options can be a weighty and difficult choice, but the Lord has promised to give us wisdom when we ask it of him (James 1:5). We at CCCC have heard from many people with differing views on the issue, and we feel the struggles you are having. There is no single, clear answer; there are only arguments favouring one option or another and you will have to use group spiritual discernment and good judgement to make your decision.

Whatever your decision, the most important follow-up activity is to use your God-given creativity to find ways to be the church  while the restrictions are in effect. Fortunately, many churches have gone public with the exciting and fruitful new ministries they’ve created, and I will be sharing those in the next post.

The post Church Gathering Restrictions: What to do? appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Facing a pandemic is not a new experience for the Church and we can learn today from how the Church responded to previous pandemics and epidemics. CCCC members who would like to discuss this post may talk about it here in The Green.

The world has dealt with pandemics and plagues for thousands of years, and social distancing, quarantining, and even wearing masks have been ways humanity has responded  before. Even closing churches in Canada for in-person services is not new, as the following two pictures show.

If you like to go down rabbit trails, although it does not deal with churches, this 432 year old manual written during the Black Death (Bubonic Plague) includes many measures that we are still using today!

Here is a brief overview of how the Church responded in previous pandemics.

The Ancient Church Responds to Pandemics

The ancient Church grew significantly because of its actions during the Antonine (165-180 A.D.) and Cyprian (249-262 A.D.) plagues. The Church did not social distance in those pandemics, but their refusal wasn’t so they could hold worship services—it was so they could care for the sick and bury the dead. Because everyone who was healthy, other than Christians, fled, these pandemics showed the pagan world by the actions of the Christians who remained how the Christian faith was a powerful new way to live.

The Early Protestant Church Responds to Pandemics

Martin Luther and John Calvin both adjusted their ministry activities to be socially responsible and deal with the plagues of their times (Calvin had to deal with five plagues!).

The North American Church Responds to a Pandemic

Finally, during the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918, churches were closed all over the United States and Canada, yet they found creative ways to continue their work. Clergy of that time mostly supported public health measures that closed their churches and gave advice about what to do instead.

The link above about churches being closed includes this little nugget about the attitude of pastors to enforced church closings: the Washington DC Protestant ministerial recorded that, “An emergency meeting of ‘Protestant ministers’ on October 5, 1918, decided unanimously to ‘place ourselves on record as cheerfully complying with the request of the Commissioners.'” (I’ve added the italics for emphasis.) Dr. Mark Steinacher, church historian and an expert on the Canadian church, confirmed to me that “churches did indeed largely comply a century ago.”

There is very little documentation about legal challenges and civil disobedience during the Spanish Flu epidemic. One report refers to many legal challenges from the general public but that the judges were not sympathetic at all. Another report includes the following:

• In San Francisco, about 100 people were charged for not wearing masks. The Anti-Mask League of San Francisco only ever held one meeting but that meeting attracted 2,000 people in January 1919 to protest the requirement to wear a face mask, and it led to the mayor rescinding the order shortly afterwards. Unfortunately, with people tired of the flu, the relaxed regulations led to the second wave being many times worse than the first.
• The same report mentions that two Christian Scientist churches mounted legal challenges. The Portland, OR church said it believed they would not get sick and claimed “the police power of the state should not be used to prevent Christian worship in the churches.” They were unsuccessful, but the other church in Los Angeles won its case with the claim that religious groups were unfairly targeted by the restrictions.

Here are some excerpts from a sermon delivered by Rev. Francis J. Grimke on Sunday, November 3, 1918 at the Fifteenth Street Presbyterian Church in Washington, D. C. after churches reopened. I will quote several passages because they speak directly to the issues of our day, but with the benefit of hindsight that we don’t yet have.

Our own beautiful city has suffered terribly from [the flu], making it necessary, as a precautionary measure, to close the schools, theaters, churches, and to forbid all public gathering within doors as well as outdoors. At last, however, the scourge has been stayed, and we are permitted again to resume the public worship of God, and to open again the schools of our city.

Rev. Grimke went on to reflect about the experience.

I have been asking myself the question, what is the meaning of it all? What ought it to mean to us? Is it to come and go and we be no wiser, or better for it? Surely God had a purpose in it, and it is our duty to find out, as far as we may, what that purpose is, and try to profit by it.

What a great question to ask! The Bible assures us that God will work to redeem all situations for good. So what can we see God doing in his church today? Why wait until it is all over to look for God’s purpose? Can we see God at work in the Church and in the world even while we are in the midst of the pandemic? If you are a CCCC’s member or are registered with The Green, let’s talk about it.

Here are three of Rev. Grimke’s reflections and his closing summary statement.

This epidemic…has brought out in a way that is very gratifying, the high estimation in which the Christian church is held in the community—the large place which it really occupies in the thought of the people. The fact that for several weeks we have been shut out from the privileges of the sanctuary has brought home to us as never before what the church has really meant to us. We hadn’t thought, perhaps, very much of the privilege while it lasted, but the moment it was taken away we saw at once how much it meant to us.

In his day, the community thought well of churches, something we cannot take for granted today. And it seems that churchgoers gained a fresh appreciation for public worship that made them appreciate their churches all the more. The Baptist Standard also found this benefit when it summarized what it learned from the historical records of Baptist churches and organizations. It reports, “It seems from evidence from churches around the country, one benefit of the brief loss of Sunday services was a new appreciation for the value of fellowship and Christian community.” This was a collateral benefit that at least partially redeemed the closings.

The following excerpt is the crucial one as far as the debate about civil disobedience is concerned.

Another thing that has impressed me, in connection with this epidemic, is the fact that conditions may arise in a community which justify the extraordinary exercise of powers that would not be tolerated under ordinary circumstances. This extraordinary exercise of power was resorted to by the Commissioners in closing up the theaters, schools, churches, in forbidding all gatherings of any considerable number of people indoors and outdoors, and in restricting the numbers who should be present even at funerals. The ground of the exercise of this extraordinary power was found in the imperative duty of the officials to safeguard, as far as possible, the health of the community by preventing the spread of the disease from which we were suffering.

And then, just as now, there were disagreements about closing churches. Here’s Rev. Grimke’s take on the closings.

There has been considerable grumbling, I know, on the part of some, particularly in regard to the closing of the churches. It seems to me, however, in a matter like this it is always wise to submit to such restrictions for the time being. If, as a matter of fact, it was dangerous to meet in theaters and in the schools, it certainly was no less dangerous to meet in churches. The fact that the churches were places of religious gathering, and the others not, would not affect in the least the health question involved. If avoiding crowds lessens the danger of being infected, it was wise to take the precaution and not needlessly run in danger, and expect God to protect us.

For a sample of some of that grumbling, and to see how the issues are just the same today, read this article, which also includes some comment about how churches thrived while closed.

Finally, just like many pastors today, Rev. Grimke was anxious to be back in the pulpit with his congregation before him, but he found a faithful way to think about the situation.

And so, anxious as I have been to resume work, I have waited patiently until the order was lifted. I started to worry at first, as it seemed to upset all of our plans for the fall work; but I soon recovered my composure. I said to myself, why worry? God knows what He is doing. His work is not going to suffer. It will rather be a help to it in the end. Out of it, I believe, great good is coming. All the churches, as well as the community at large, are going to be the stronger and better for this season of distress through which we have been passing.

I found it helpful, as I think you will too, to hear directly from a pastor from a century ago who went through what we are going through today and learn from how he responded to the same restrictions.

The public health measures and debates of 1918 were similar to ours today: they included “Stay at home; shop by phone (instead of shop online!) and “To mask or not to mask” (a headline in the L.A. Times). 

Since the Internet and other mass communication channels were not available then, newspapers ran sermons each week, often rotating between churches. Again, the same article linked to above about churches closing reports that pastors told their congregations to conduct their own services at home, read a sermon from the newspaper, and pray.

Throughout history, the church has been a great witness to the beauty of Christianity and its care for our neighbours and people remembered what Christians did when the crises were over. The church has endured temporary closings before and resumed services once it was safe.

With this historical perspective as context, pastors today are wrestling with how the Church should respond to pandemic-related restrictions in today’s world. My next post will cover the four main options that are available. We all need God’s wisdom to choose the option that will best help us be a faithful Church in 2021.

The post How the Church Responded to Previous Pandemics appeared first on CCCC Blogs.