About three days ago the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 as a “pandemic.” COVID-19, officially also known as the “NOVEL CORONA VIRUS” (nCoV) and Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) , was detected in the late 2019 rapidly spreading in provinces in China and later on spreading to the rest of the world.
As a response just a few days ago, our very own President Rodrigo Duterte, proclaimed proclamation 922 declaring a state of public health emergency throughout the Philippines in accordance with Republic Act 11332. As of the time of this writing Metro Manila has been placed under “Community Quarantine.” Other jurisdictions also made their own local proclamations and provinces and cities all across the country also imposed their own “Community Quarantine.”
Since as announced by the President, “Community Quarantine” involves the prevention of “mass gatherings” which of course includes church services, several churches in Metro Manila have announced that they will not be holding church services this coming Sunday. Other churches in areas where no community quarantine was declared took the initiative to also suspend their church gathering till further notice. (See update at the end of this article) Basically the argument used by the pastors and leaders of these churches that suspended their church services can be summarized as follows:
1.) As Christians we are suppose to follow the orders of the government according to Romans 13:1-7, Titus 3:1.
2.) Subjecting ourselves to the directives of the government shows our good testimony
3.) It shows concern for the safety and health of our fellow church members thus exhibiting Christian love.
On the other hand there are those that oppose the government’s directive and still conduct church services despite the ban. Their arguments can be summed up as follows:
1.) “We must obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29). Scripture is explicit that we should “not forsake the assembling of ourselves together” (Hebrew 10:24, 25)
2.) “The separation of church and state is inviolable” according to the Sec. 5, 6, Article II of the Philippine Constitution. The prohibition of religious gatherings violates our constitutional rights.
3.) God will protect us and will heal us if we only follow his command. Thus there is no need to worry about COVID-19 infecting church members during church services.
In light of the Scriptures cited by both sides of the argument it would seem to be quite a difficult choice. Hence the interesting discussion generated online regarding this issue. Being torn by solid arguments from both sides, others have resorted to the “it is a matter of your conscience” or deciding based on “individual convictions.” Others have played it safe, just presenting both sides of the issues and merely making observations. Let us deal with the issues one by one and see if we can come up with a Scriptural and reasonable position regarding this matter.
1.) “Obeying God” rather than men (The duly constituted government authorities) ?
This is perhaps the most popular arguments from both sides. Obeying the duly constituted authorities is very clear cut in Scriptures. (Romans 13:1-7, Titus 3:1, 1 Peter 2:13,14) There is no room for “misinterpretation” on this matter. The Apostles Paul is very explicit on this in his writings instructing Christians to obey the duly constituted authorities. In fact, the historical background of Romans 13 is quite surprising. Take note that the Apostle Paul is writing to the Christians in Rome. Unless you are a Roman citizen your rights are limited and Caesar together with the Roman senators are the undisputed head of this somehow autocratic society. In other words when Paul writes to submit to the duly constituted government authorities, he is telling the Christians in Rome, both Jews and Gentiles alike to submit to this kind of government.
As Christians everybody knows that it is our duty to obey the duly constituted authorities to maintain our good testimony. But up to what extent should we obey the duly constituted authorities? Was not the Sanhedrin in Acts chapter 5 who issued a directive to Peter and the other Apostles not to teach in the name of Jesus also a “duly constituted authority” ? Is not King Nebuchadnezzar who issued a directive to worship the image he has created (Daniel 3) and not to pray to any God except him (Daniel 6) a “duly constituted” authority ? Why did Daniel, Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego not obey the “duly constituted” authority during their time ? Why did the Apostle Peter stress that they would rather obey God than man ?
The answer is obviously simple, and every Christian knows the answer by heart. For as long as the “duly constituted authorities” do not in any way violate the direct, clear cut, no room for gray areas command of God according to the Scriptures, then we must obey the duly constituted authorities. Daniel, Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego, being Jews knows that God is a jealous God and does not tolerate any kind of idol worship. His command on “not having any other gods” and not bowing or serving these gods in Exodus 20:3-5 is direct and clear. The command by our Lord Jesus Christ to go and make disciples of all nations is very clear to Peter and the other Apostles. In these cases, the command of God is clear and direct. Hence in this case the Apostle Peter is right, “We must obey God rather than man!”
Applied to the issue at hand, did the Philippine government issue a directive to churches to stop preaching the gospel, worship other gods, ban churches altogether, ban church assemblies etc. perpetually? The answer is obviously in the negative. What the government is saying is to stop mass gatherings in the meantime for valid, good and legal reasons. There is no restriction on preaching the Scriptures. In fact, some pastors and leaders who has suspended their church services has resorted to recording their sermons or doing a Facebook live broadcast. Hence the excuse to “obey God rather than man” does not apply to this case as the government directive in anyway does not violate the direct and clear cut commands of God.
But one might ask, but does this not violate the instruction of Scriptures to “assemble together” ? Once again there is no perpetual ban on “assembling together as a church.” Again, this is but a temporary ban again for good, valid and legal reasons. The early church met daily (Acts 2:46) Later on it became a “first day of the week” thing for the church (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 11:18) Unlike the keeping of the Sabath for the Jews, there is no clear cut and direct command that if we fail even one daily and or weekly meeting we have already violated the command with regards to the assembling of ourselves. I am not saying that it is ok not to meet weekly as a church. On the contrary, the more we meet as a church the better it is and if we can meet daily like the New Testament church, then it is even so much better! However, let us not be dogmatic and legalistic that just because the government has restricted us to suspend mass gatherings for the meantime that this already violates the instruction of Scriptures. As Christians we do not do things legalistically, that is because they are mandated of us. We do things under grace. We love to go to church because we love God and we desire to worship Him together with other believers, encourage one another, observe the ordinances and continue steadfastly in the Apostle’s doctrine so to speak. In other words, the focus should not be on “did we comply with the once a week thing” that we are supposed to do but rather the love and desire for the assembling of ourselves. The suspension of church assemblies is but a temporary thing. COVID-19 shall soon come to pass and we can assemble together as a church so let us not be too overly legalistic of missing the once a week assembly for the meantime.
2.) The prohibition of church gatherings violates our constitutional right ?
The freedom of religion is indeed enshrined in our constitution. However take note that any first year law student knows that the “freedom of religion” as referred to in the Philippine Constitution refers to two things, the freedom to believe and the freedom to act on one’s belief.
The freedom to believe is absolute. Any Filipino citizen can believe anything he or she wants or worship whatever one believes in. The state does not interfere with such right. However the freedom to act on one’s belief may be subject to state regulation. This concept is explained eloquently by the Supreme Court in the case of Centeno vs. Pornillas, G.R no. 113092 decided on September 1, 1944 citing the U.S Supreme Court in Cantwell vs. Connecticut (310 U.S 296),
“ . . . The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus, the constitution embraces two concepts, that is, freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society. The freedom to act must have appropriate definitions to preserve the enforcement of that protection. In every case, the power to regulate must be so exercised, in attaining a permissible end, as not to unduly infringe on the protected freedom. Whence, even the exercise of religion may be regulated, at some slight inconvenience, in order that the State may protect its citizens from injury. . . . . It does not follow, therefore, from the constitutional guaranties of the free exercise of religion that everything which may be so called can be tolerated. ”
Attending church services is exercising the freedom to act on one’s belief. This may be subject to state regulation. In fact Sec. 6, Article III of the Constitution while guaranteeing non impairment of the liberty of abode and travel makes an exception for the impairment of such in the interest of “national security, public safety or public health . . . “ The state can even restrict you from traveling from your house to your church in the interest of public health and hence has completely the right to prevent you from attending a church assembly.
Citing the case of Gerona vs. Secretary of Education 106 Phil 2, the case of German, Pedrosa, Santillan et. Al vs. Barangan and Lariosa (G.R No. L-68826) decided March 27, 1985 the Supreme likewise expounded on this matter,
“. . . The realm of belief and creed is infinite and limitless bounded only by one’s imagination and thought. So is the freedom of belief, including religious belief, limitless and without bounds. One may believe in most anything, however strange, bizarre and unreasonable the same may appear to others, even heretical when weighed in the scales of orthodoxy or doctrinal standards. But between the freedom of belief and the exercise of said belief, there is quite a stretch of road to travel. If the exercise of said religious belief clashes with the established institutions of society and with the law, then the former must yield and give way to the latter. The government steps in and either restrains said exercise or even prosecutes the one exercising it. . . ”
The government’s restriction on mass gatherings is therefore not a violation of our religious freedom and is a valid exercise of police power, in this case for public health reasons to promote the general welfare.
3.) Not assembling together as a church an exhibition of Christian love care and concern for our bretheren ?
Christianity is not new to pandemics. Moses Y. Lee in an article published at the Gospel Coalition entitled “What the early church can teach us about the Coronavirus” writes that in A.D 249 to 262, much of western civilization was devasted with a deadly pandemic. It is said that around 5,000 people died per day in Rome at the height of the outbreak. The response of non-Christians to the outbreak was noted by Dionysius of Alexandria as follows:
“At the first onset of the disease, they pushed the sufferers away and fled from their dearest, throwing them into the roads before they were dead and treating unburied corpses as dirt, hoping thereby to avert the spread and contagion of the fatal disease; but do what they might, they found it difficult to escape.”
In short, the non-Christian response to the plague “was characterized by self-protection, self-preservation, and avoiding the sick at all costs, the Christian response was the however the opposite.” Dionysius writes of Christians that, “Most of our brother-Christians showed unbounded love and loyalty, never sparing themselves and thinking only of one another. Heedless of the danger, they took charge of the sick, attending to their every need and ministering to them in Christ, and with them departed this life serenely happy; for they were infected by others with the disease, drawing on themselves the sickness of their neighbors and cheerfully accepting their pains.”
Lee concludes that The impact of the Christian response was twofold: “(1) Christian sacrifice for their fellow believers stunned the unbelieving world as they witnessed communal love like they’d never seen (John 13:35), and (2) Christian sacrifice for non-Christians resulted in the early church experiencing exponential growth as non-Christian survivors, who benefited from the care of their Christian neighbors, converted to the faith en masse.”
In an interview with the Philippine Daily Inquirer published on March 14, 2020, Philippine Secretary of Health Francisco Duque said that church gatherings is like a “petri-dish” for COVID-19, as this is the source of mass infections (See the article “How religion is playing a role in the spread of coronavirus in Korea“)
If we are true Christians, we should have communal love for our fellow believers and we should be willing to sacrifice not assembling together for the sake of the health and welfare of our fellow believers and those around our respective communities if needed.
4.) Will God indeed protect us and heal us such that there is no possibility that we will be infected with COVID-19 if we continue with church mass gatherings despite the ban ?
In response to the Black Death plague let us reflect on the words of wisdom by Martin Luther (Luther’s Works Volume 43 pg 132 the letter “Whether one may flee from a Deadly Plague” written to Rev. Dr. John Hess),
“I shall ask God mercifully to protect us. Then I shall fumigate, help purify the air, administer medicine and take it. I shall avoid places and persons where my presence is not needed in order not to become contaminated and thus perchance inflict and pollute others and so cause their death as a result of my negligence. If God should wish to take me, he will surely find me and I have done what he has expected of me and so I am not responsible for either my own death or the death of others. If my neighbor needs me however I shall not avoid place or person but will go freely as stated above. See this is such a God-fearing faith because it is neither brash nor foolhardy and does not tempt God.”
Indeed it is brash, fool hardy and tempting God presuming that He will protect and heal us even if we fail to do things required of us such as simply following the government directive on suspending mass gatherings for the meantime.
In conclusion, we Christian can therefore make a definite stand on the matter. No need to say it is a matter of personal conviction or conscience as this is not a gray area. No need to be afraid to offend others and just make mere general observations. Suspending church assemblies for the meantime is the appropriate Christian response and is the Scriptural, logical and right thing to do.
NEWS UPDATE: Malacañang has released guidelines for the Metro Manila community quarantine, which will take effect from March 15, 2020 to April 14, 2020, this Saturday, March 14. The undated memorandum, which is made public by Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, is relative to the management of the COVID-19 situation. “Essential work-related meeting and religious activites” may continue as long as they maintain “strict social distancing”, which is defined as “strict maintenance of a distance of at least one meter radius” between and among attendees. This must be observed during the entire event. (See: https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/3/14/metro-manila-coronavirus-quarantine-guidelines.html)
In light of this government update, the choice to hold church service or not is then at the discretion of each individual church. If God forbid that the situation gets worst and the government will really explicitly state and give an order that it is banning all church gatherings, I do hope and pray that Christians are sensible enough to follow the government on this matter considering the arguments in light of Scriptures as I have stated above.
Hi ! my name is Zigfred Diaz. Thanks for visiting my personal blog ! Never miss a post from this blog. Subscribe to my full feeds for free. Click here to subscribe to zdiaz.com by Email
You may also want to visit my other blogs. Click here to learn more about great travel ideas.
Leave a Reply