Re-reading the exchange between Ross and Pr. Wilson, the situation he describes is not simply over masks. That’s a factor, sure. But his elders apparently said they’d wear a jester’s hat if required to by the government, revealing a rather inflated view of the governments authority.
Whether it was or wasn’t a big mistake, the fact of the matter remains that there was a conspiracy against a presidential candidate perpetrated at the highest levels of American government, law enforcement and intelligence agencies with the full knowing cooperation with the opposing party and everyone got away with it. Like Ruby Ridge and Waco before it, everyone will get away essentially scot-free.
I very much care less whether the Democrats’ Russia obsession helped them or hurt them than I do that we have apparently decided as a country that the three-letter agencies have a secret veto power over the electoral process.
And more to the point, the people who assured me that the Big Experts all knew that Trump had colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election (proof forthcoming Real Soon Now) are the same ones who are assuring me that there’s no need to investigate any of the obvious irregularities with the 2020 election. Electoral transparency is for seditious traitors.
Well, that doesn’t mean that the election was stolen, but it seems to me that I’d have gotten a lot richer in the last 4 years betting against the Big Experts than by betting on them.
2 Likes
Very strong agree. The people who are getting worked up about masks on both sides of the issue seem very silly to me.
Masks seem to me to be neither the panacea that one side of the debate tries to make them, nor the ridiculous caricature of idolatry that the other has made of them. They seem like a reasonable precaution in light of a dangerous new disease. But like many reasonable precautions, it’s possible to take them to silly or even sinful extremes.
(And to be clear, I do not see our Warhorn hosts on the radically pro-mask side of the debate.)
7 Likes
It seems a lot of people just don’t like having to go along with the lie that they are effective.
1 Like
Yeah, you’re in Southern California. : )
This isn’t the first time your perspective has been different.
2 Likes
I completely understand your frustration with the Big Experts. That is exactly what is driving anti-mask and anti-lockdown sentiment on the right. And when you tell people they need to submit, or try to explain the facts about the virus, or tell them the election was not stolen because of such and such facts, you sound like you are running cover for the aforementioned Big Experts, whether that is your intention or not. Which just makes reasoned discourse impossible. Yay.
Elites do have an obligation to be credible. They should try to be respectable. Because when they are not, people won’t believe them even when they are right. It’s the fable of the boy who cried wolf.
3 Likes
Addendum: locking down everyone in their homes for months with nothing but social media and Netflix to keep them company, with no sports or concerts or bars open, will have bad effects on the collective psyche of the nation. I think you are already seeing it.
I believe that one of the reasons the BLM riots were as large and well attended as they were, and even why the Capitol riot was as large as it was, was because people just wanted something to do. They were stuck in their homes, with no way to relieve pressure. Perhaps they had lost their jobs. They were anxious and fearful and depressed. So why not block traffic, set some fires and break a few windows?
If Covid had happened in 2010 instead of 2020, or 2005, lockdowns and mass isolation would have been limited by the reach of the Internet at that time, which was not so great that large numbers of white collar workers could feasibly do their jobs remotely. The same is true of schools: remote learning as we know it really only became a thing in the last 10 years. Back then we would have had to move on with life because we would have had no choice. To an extent, we are doing what we are doing because we can, which isn’t always the best reason to do something. A Very Online Life is not real life. But our technocratic engineerish expert overlords don’t understand this.
7 Likes
This is one aspect of the whole thread that I think is confusing people (in this thread!). The question about tyranny and revolution is helpful and necessary, by itself. And I think different people have different views. I’m pretty convinced by the necessity of a thick theology of the lesser magistrate. Others may not be so.
But that conversation needs to be disconnected from this whole issue of masks in church. ASAP!
Masks in church, assuming you have a decent church with reasonably biblical theology and moderately shepherding elders, is about the authority of the elders, their responsibility to honour the state, and the congregation’s responsibility to honour the elders with obedience.
Big deal. So what. Who cares. I actually agree. I’m fully expecting books to be written 10 years from now on the medical harm being done by being continually masked up. I hate preaching to a masked congregation. The interpersonal communication that takes place during preaching is gutted when you can’t see their faces. I think the whole mask thing is ridiculous, even if it is within the government’s authority to mandate. But that’s not the point…especially when we’re dealing with Christians who are giving their elders trouble for asking them to follow what the government is asking them to do.
Yes it so totally is! The stupid jester’s comment was Ross’ issue! What is an elder supposed to say to that kind of scoffing? ‘Oh, how right you are. Yes, requiring jesters’ hats would be a bridge too far, and yes, masks are dangerous close to that, so maybe we should reconsider our position. Thank you for your superior wisdom and maturity. It’s a strange trick of providence you haven’t been picked as an elder of this congregation!’
We have got to disconnect our American pathological fear of tyranny from our understanding of the elders’ authority in the local church. Elders who abuse their authority in the local congregation do so by commanding things that God doesn’t tell them to command! ‘Honour the governing authorities’ is kind of a Bible command…no wait, it actually is a Bible command. And as far as I know, most of the elders who are urging submission, on this thread, are doing so irrespective of the rhetoric of the government. In other words, it’s a principled submission. And I think that should give us pause before we insist those elders are complicit in idolatry.
Can’t we see, even in this thread, it’s dividing churches! As I said before, when we’re faced with the sort of idolatry we all fear may be coming, we’ll know. Won’t be hard to detect. As for when we should rise up, well the English Civil Wars were started over the Star Chamber, Charles I trying to bring England under a foreign power (the pope), and Charles I plotting to bring in a Spanish army to invade his own realm. The American Revolution was different situations, but they still took years to develop. Hardly one issue. Hardly quick. And most of the time, the tyranny was pretty easy to spot. We, from the comfort of our keyboards, are really going to lock and load over masks? I hates masks but that seems kinda petty.
Our love for the body and respect for our elders has to have a superior influence over our fear of tyranny and desire for independence.
10 Likes
I think there must be some other reason why you don’t accept that they have clarified that it is not meant in the absolutist sense you are taking it. One of a number of examples:
my line about bowing down to idols was one of the lines I’m prepared to use in my attempt to resist the mandates. I do believe there are idols involved and the masks are being used to bow down to them, but if pressed, I would say it’s closer to the NT question about eating food sacrificed to idols. As I said in the article, it really is a matter of Christian liberty, so there’s nothing evil in a piece of fabric over your face in itself. So Paul says if someone invites you for dinner, eat whatever is put in front of you asking no questions, but if the guy invites you over and puts on a show, explaining how he got the steak from Aphrodite’s little whore hut, then you should definitely abstain — not because the steak is contaminated, but for that guy’s conscience. I think wearing face masks has definitely become more of the latter (ie. idol worship) with everyone putting on elaborate shows of devotion to the health and safety gods of the state, but I certainly grant that depending on the situation it could be the former.
Regardless of whether you agree with his attempted analogy, it is clear that he does not link masks to idolatry in the absolutist way you take him. I don’t expect them to add this qualification every time they touch on the subject. Nor do I expect them to couch all of their words as specifically only to their own flock, since I don’t expect these things from anyone else.
I think you are overstating what he said - he made no mention of pastors and elders or trying to make a serious accusation against them, and Moscow has explicitly made room what what they seem to regard as the Warhorn anomaly. One of many examples:
I do not counsel rebellion against otherwise good and godly men who read this situation differently than I do or have determined to run a different play while being committed to the very same enemies.
They have said this more than once.
From what I’ve seen this is a bit overstated. In Doug’s letters he’s generally tried hard to encourage folk to not give up on otherwise faithful elders, whilst at the same time maintaining his conviction that masks are to be opposed, and woke unfaithful churches left. That is the sense I’ve gotten. Perhaps someone could go through and collate all these mask letters to see how this bears out.
I think this is making too fine a distinction between require and request especially since a request coming from one’s elder is a very serious thing. I also don’t think this is a fair representation of Warhorn’s position, e.g. this (emphasis added):
On Friday, Clermont County, where we are currently meeting, was added to Ohio’s list of counties requiring masks be worn while in indoor public gatherings. This means that those 10 years old and older are required to wear masks while at church for the time being. Any sort of material will suffice, and we recommend finding something comfortable. If you forget your own or do not have anything that will work well, we have masks available in the lobby.
Maybe you would respond that it is the civil authorities requiring it, not you, that you are certainly not joining the civil authorities in their requirement (!). But in context of what else you have written I don’t think you give your readers any reason to make that distinction, and every reason not to, as is clear from further statements from the same article I will quote shortly.
@jtbayly I find this quite incredible given some of the other things you have written:
There has been some divisive rhetoric from some people claiming that we should not submit to the civil authorities concerning masks… encouraging rebellion against the civil magistrate over a law that transgresses none of the laws of God
If those laws mentioned above are not commands to disobey God, then men who refuse to obey the authorities, advocate that other Christians disobey the authorities, accuse those who do obey of being idolaters… those men need to be warned against.
We are prone to justifying disobedience, and I know that many of us have no desire to do what this law requires. So we want to address some of the excuses we’ve heard for why it is reasonable to disobey this law…
What do most readers reasonably conclude when they read this - that you don’t think it is a duty and don’t require your church members to obey? I don’t think so.
Since I made this charge, let me defend it. It is certainly an impression I have come away with from reading Warhorn. Here are some quotes illustrative of the mockery I believe you have employed to communicate how silly it is for people to be opposed to something as trivial as masks:
Now then, what is the occasion these Reformed pastors and elders are using to foment rebellion against our governors? What is the occasion they are using for their railing against the civil authorities? Are these pastors being forbidden to pray? Are they being forbidden to preach and teach in the Name of Jesus?
No, not at all, but rather they are being told to wear a face mask. Their face mask can be any color they want. It can say anything they want. It doesn’t stop them from singing. It doesn’t stop them from preaching in Jesus’ Name. If they want, they can even force everyone looking at them to read the full text of John 3:16
… In former times, the battle cries had some weight… No such weight today. Instead, our libertarian pastors yack at their parishioners about now being the time to rebel… because:
Face masks may not help; or
Face masks need to be washed; or
Face masks irritate my ears and make me look stupid!
… This is not complicated. No one is being told not to pray. No one is being told to come out in public and bow down to any image of Donald Trump. No one is being told to stop teaching and preaching in Jesus’ Name.
Aside from the political flag post that came quite late in the game (and seemed to lessen the strong stand that been taken previously), I don’t think I read anything at Warhorn seriously grappling with why many feel something deeply amiss with the covering of the human face. It was simply attributed to rebellion.
What I find more serious though, is that after the extended quote above accusing Moscow of fomenting rebellion against civil authorities for opposing masks, in the course of which you also imply it poses no significant issue for preaching:
… they are being told to wear a face mask. Their face mask can be any color they want. It can say anything they want. It doesn’t stop them from singing. It doesn’t stop them from preaching in Jesus’ Name.
…you then, just one month later, reverse course and write the following:
Thank you for your clarification of the July 17 2020 Monroe County Public Health Order in which you make it clear worship leaders are not required to wear face covering as long as they maintain social distancing of at least six feet from the congregation and others. We believe the spiritual health of our congregants as they exercise their right to religious assembly and public worship necessitates this accommodation, especially since so much of leading, teaching, and preaching relies on information conveyed through the facial expressions of the presenter.
I have no problem with people changing their mind in light of new considerations. But it is not good when it is done having just used high dudgeon against your brothers for doing a very similar thing.
Personally, I think I’ve bothered quite hard. I’ve probably read every one of the very many words (too many I think - Missouri Presbytery-type too many) you guys have written on this issue and if I tell you what I really think - it is that I have come away for many months finding Warhorn’s writing on this whole issue schizophrenic at best, jaded/cynical and sowing discord at worst. And I’m a long-standing sycophant*, and no particular Moscow fanboy.
I don’t think Moscow is right on every point, and there are some good points of opposition to be made, but in my opinion the very public wound that has been opened up between Warhorn and Moscow could have been avoided with less of the high dudgeon rhetoric. And, sorry to say, I think most of the blame lies at the feet of Warhorn on that count.
I hope you don’t resent me for being kind enough to oppose you.
*Clarification: When I used the word ‘sycophant’ the meaning intended was that I am speaking as one whose long-standing loyalties have been with Warhorn - possibly too eager to take Warhorn’s side - and not Moscow. Perhaps the word ‘sycophant’ does not really carry that sense, hence this clarification.
7 Likes
I have to agree with Henry here. If someone in presbytery together has a hard time getting exactly what you’re saying and keeps getting the sense you think Masks are a duty, I don’t know what those who know you less think.
I still would have a hard time thinking that you don’t believe that they are a duty for us even after you probably feel like you talked with me about it until you’re blue in the face.
Going back to the Q/A with Wilson
I think everyone does agree that masks are a stupid thing in and of themselves to divide over and to be upset about. But the issue of masks is not about masks in and of themselves.
I know thus is a bit of an exaggerated metaphor but yellow badges in and of themselves are no big deal. But they were not in and of themselves either.
Masks for some mean protection. For others they mean humble submission to civil authority. For others they mean telling a lie. For others they mean enabling tyranny, joining in with an attack on the nation from liberals who think a fat man in a dress makes a good health expert.
For me, a church that has just gone along with every shutdown and covid thing and has required masks with no room for those whose conscience is different, and who hasn’t at least questioned the narrative and wrestled with it, is a big red flag. I can’t imagine that to be a church which would actually fight against abortion or speak out against unjust laws. I also don’t think that would be a church where you would receive good close pastoral care.
A church that would answer his question about jester hats that way would be one I wouldn’t trust either.
2 Likes
When a man says that wearing a mask in worship is a violation of the third commandment, and then goes on to say that it’s a matter of freedom, maybe, kind of, in a few circumstances, I think I know what he means.
There’s no need. We’ve already clarified with him privately and publicly add nausea on the issue. In the end he said to leave rather than wear a mask. End of story. No matter how many times he clarifies and qualifies it, that is his position unless you can show me otherwise.
And not surprisingly, people are taking him at his word and leaving faithful churches all over the country over only the issue of masks. I’m not sure if you haven’t read me or if you don’t believe me or if you think I’m lying, but this is the fruit, the schismatic divisive fruit of Moscow’s teaching. Now here Joseph Spurgeon will be quick to bring up unfaithful churches of which there are a sad plethora. And yes the people in those churches need to be told to leave, but not because of masks.
Do you men truly not see the difference between telling people to leave their churches over masks even if they are otherwise faithful, versus telling people to leave their unfaithful churches regardless of their position on masks?
Leaving aside your truly nasty dig, if you were to add up the amount that has come out of Moscow on masks compared to us, I think I know who has written and said more. Far far more. Likewise, you read them with far more charity and understanding and looking for ways to make sense of their various statements than you have us. (Eg. the issue of preaching and masks)
Regardless, as I’ve said before, but you’ve completely ignored, all across the country, faithful churches are being divided by Moscow’s false teaching, but somehow us opposing them publicly is judged intemperate, an unnecessary division, and something to be avoided. I’m happy to bear the “blame” of publicly disagreeing with Moscow on this issue if that’s what it takes to defend sheep against their schism, if that’s what it means to encourage and strengthen faithful pastors and elders.
I don’t know why, but since you never address it, it’s clear you either don’t believe me or don’t care about that issue.
3 Likes
“For me, a church that has just gone along with every shutdown and covid thing and has required masks with no room for those whose conscience is different, and who hasn’t at least questioned the narrative and wrestled with it, is a big red flag. I can’t imagine that to be a church which would actually fight against abortion or speak out against unjust laws. I also don’t think that would be a church where you would receive good close pastoral care.”
Joseph, I think you and I are close to being of the same mind on these matters, but I can’t go along with this paragraph.
The nature of masks is you either wear them or you don’t. You can accommodate people whose conscience is against it to a degree, but if 25% or 33% of the church isn’t wearing masks, that will freak out visitors who are afraid of the virus. On the other hand, the visitors who are skeptics will look at the 2/3 wearing masks and think wow, these guys down with the Covid insanity.
There’s no winning. People will be mad no matter what you do. So how do you bear up with people and preserve church unity? Well, if you aren’t in a situation like Sovereign King Church is in, where the magistrate who owns our building has told us it’s fine to not wear masks, I think the prudent thing would be to strongly recommend masks.
Trinity Bloomington has approached the situation differently than Sovereign King has. And that’s fine! It’s their decision! I completely understand why they did it. It’s not my place to give them grief about it.
Our provisional elders asked us to stop meeting in person for a time and we complied. We did the right thing.
Doing ministry in a country that is falling apart because nobody on either political side trusts those who are on or perceived to be on the other political side is endlessly frustrating. The Internet and social media just feeds the insanity and distrust. I don’t know what you do about it. But I think we should give each other a lot of elbow room.
5 Likes
Yes, a thousand times over.
For love of the brethren, they should humble themselves and admit they got carried away in the moment. We are all controversy junkies with a mob of disconnected and demanding followers to please (thanks, social media). Vanity is a besetting sin of our age.
Whether from the left (whitefluenza-woke) or the right (mask-woke), the push to be woke is the wicked attempt to bind the conscience by adding extra-biblical hurdles to fellowship in the church, to put it mildly.
4 Likes
Yes, and the political decision to replace real life with the Internet with mass remote schooling and working is only making the social media/Internet vanity and obsession worse.
Dear Ben notice there were several qualifications in my paragraph that would make it distinct from what the churches in our presbytery are doing. Most importantly they are wrestling with the issue and I’m taking their word that they don’t require masks.
What I would like to see is evidence of people leaving solid churches because of masks only. I’ve talked with many thinking of leaving a church and while covid has served as a catalyst I don’t know of one person for whom it is the only issue. In every case the going along with Covid was also accompanied by more important issues that they probably already should have left over but it wasn’t until Covid hit that they were moved out of their comfort zones to really question the direction of the church.
Maybe I’m just a conspiracy minded person but I have zero trust in our institutions right now to tell me the truth or to be seeking our good. My work to end abortion has brought me into contact with civil magistrates, some whom we think of being good and in every case they refuse to do anything to end it. They lie to your face and then work to persecute you behind your back. I’ve seen first hand that major news outlets can’t get basic facts right. I’ve been lied about by The NY Times, had the Washington Post make up a quote and attribute it to me. They have lied and lied and lied about any and everything. Then add the censorship of dissident voices.
A church that just goes along with every Covid thing to come down the pike and doesn’t at least wrestle with it. And then treats those who do wrestle with it with contempt is one I don’t trust and would not entrust my family to.
3 Likes
Like forcing people to wear masks to have fellowship in the church? Why is that not an extra biblical hurdle
1 Like
What, you want me to name the people I’ve already described? I’ve gone so far as to give the first names of pastors and elders in my town. I can’t and won’t go further.
So what is this supposed to mean except you won’t take me at my word?
The only reason I wrote about this in the very beginning was because a close friend of mine had his people quoting Doug Wilson and calling my friend a false shepherd for asking them to wear masks to and from their seats. But yeah, I’m sure masks aren’t dividing any churches. Yeah, I’m sure the pastors and elders I’ve spoken to across the country, some of whom I know quite well, are just liberal and faithless and can’t be trusted.
2 Likes
I wasn’t referring to you brother. I’m referring to the trust of the institutions and media that causes churches to go along with everything without question.
2 Likes
Lest anyone think otherwise (and it seems I will never convince Joseph), we’ve never done this.
I wasn’t saying you were. I’m talking about other churches outside our presbytery who have required them.