I butted heads over these policies with a local pastor with whom I'm friends on Facebook... well, distant acquaintances, really. In December I posted that there was a certain grim irony to churches turning people away at the door at Christmas, telling them that there was no room for them. He took issue with this, replying that the gov't had announced that vax passes wouldn't have to be checked at the Christmas Eve services. Big of them. I responded that I was aware, just at 25% capacity, and no singing. I also opined that separating the body of Christ into what amounted to "clean" and "unclean" was a terrible thing. I followed up with a question: Respectfully, I'd like to ask if there's any red line for you as a pastor. It seems to me that the gov't has intruded dangerously on our freedom of worship, but that there has been little in the way of pushback from church leadership, at least that I'm aware of. Is there any point where you would simply tell the government "no."?
His response: "my red line is when prohibited from sharing the gospel. I'm no fan of the nonsensical laws but my first purpose is ministering the gospel. I need to ask in every situation "what is the best way to do that". My freedom is not even 2nd consideration. Standing on a soap box does nothing. I speak to authorities directly and they take my call because of how I purposely live and respect their office, no matter which party is in power. Please consider Ester. She said she would not bother the king were it just her people being sold in slavery, but for elimination, she risked her life. A vaccine is not even close to slavery so we can easily endure the current state."
My answer: Thanks for answering. I did not suggest treating political leaders with disrespect, nor did I equate vaccine mandates with slavery. Though one could point out that the right to bodily autonomy is a big factor in why slavery is immoral. It's impossible to draw a direct correlation between Esther and us; we do not live in ancient Babylon under a tyrant king. I would hope however, that in present times someone would speak up long before either slavery or elimination was on the table. We might also consider Daniel: when praying was outlawed, he didn't obey or pray in secret. Rather, he did it in the open window where the lawmakers would see him breaking that law. He was not disrespectful to them; he just did what was right and didn't worry about the fall out. Again, it's not a linear comparison, but for me, when it's a choice between possibly turning away the saved and the seekers from the house of God or obeying the gov't... well. Again, thanks for taking the time to answer. I hope you didn't interpret my original question as an accusation; it's just something which has been troubling me and I genuinely want to know why pastors are making the choices they are on this matter. I obviously disagree with at least part of your reasoning, but unless the people of God are willing to discuss these issues in good faith and with Christian love, the fractures and divisions which have occurred over them could become permanent.
As you can see, when debating with fellow Christians on this issue, I've attempted to remain charitable and rational, even if sometimes my inner anger makes me feel like responding in the manner of Hildy Johnston:
We were, regrettably, an anomaly: most local churches complied with this lunacy despite the fact that- for instance- the local sports arenas were open for business. You could cheer for your favourite sports team but not sing praises to your God. And most went along quietly.