It is good if governments are inspired by a range of Christian values e.g. generosity, social justice, fighting poverty, caring for the vulnerable, environmentalism, and respect for faith, life, marriage, and family. However, too close or direct a connection between Christianity and politics can lead to very unhelpful distortions.
NZCN is politically non-aligned, not least because values that are consistent with Christian faith can be found across the political spectrum, and there are committed Christian believers in a number of political parties. We acknowledge the work of all MPs, and pray for them. We know they all face relentless pressures from many directions.
We congratulate Christopher Luxon, as he takes on the very challenging role of leading the Opposition. It has been disturbing to observe media obsessing over the fact that Luxon is a Christian, as if being a Christian has now become something obnoxious and dangerous. Some interviewers interrogated Luxon about his views on abortion, as if it were now completely unacceptable for anyone to question the ethics of killing the unborn. Some others wrote speculative and deeply uninformed articles about what sinister and extreme things it might mean for someone to be “evangelical”. Was all this a display of secular intolerance?
Church leaderships around New Zealand are busily working out how to provide church services, fellowship, and other activities for their own people, once we move into the Traffic Light system. For some churches, it will mean certificated services, for some open-to-all (uncertificated) services, and for some it will mean both. For many churches, on-line church services will continue, along with house gatherings and outdoor gatherings. Many churches in Auckland will defer large worship gatherings until the Orange level, and some until February.
Whatever the decisions, it is important we respect one another, care for everyone, and strenuously guard our unity. Churches must also do everything they can to keep people safe. Many church denominations are now putting out helpful new Covid guidelines, which emphasise churches’ legal responsibility to uphold all health and safety requirements.
Mandates
Notwithstanding the justifications for vaccination mandates for some jobs, this policy has undoubtedly brought much distress and loss for some.
A projected vaccination mandate for church staff
A media release this week by the Hon Michael Wood (Minister of Workplace Relations and Safety) signals that it could become mandatory for church staff – along with the staff of all businesses and workplaces that are “either required to or can use the My Vaccine Pass” – to be vaccinated.
The COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Act (which was passed this week) allows the Minister the authority to issue orders that require vaccine mandates for certain classes of workers
As indicated in the media release, such orders would include church workers
Potentially, the order could also apply to church volunteers
Until any orders are issued, and the detail is available, none of this is yet in effect, and it remains unclear how churches may be affected
It cannot be claimed churches are being singled out, as the orders would apply across many workplaces
Most churches are legally workplaces. Nevertheless, many churches are likely to feel uneasy about the State ruling who churches may retain as staff
Most people accept that a public health crisis warrants extra-ordinary measures, but there is also concern about overreach.
We were surprised to note in the media release that religious communities have given “broad support”, as any consultation on this particular matter has not included the National Church Leaders of Aotearoa New Zealand, the InterChurch Bureau, or the New Zealand Christian Network.
Many New Zealanders are concerned about the way in which this legislation has been introduced and pushed through within a mere 24 hours, with no select committee process, and no opportunity for public debate. Is this sound democratic practice?
There is a lot of push back today against the doctrine of “original sin”. Some question whether the Bible teaches it, others question whether it is fair that someone pay the consequences for someone else’s sin.
So what is “original sin”? The term refers not to the actual sins we all commit, but to the universal sinfulness shared by all human beings, a sinfulness which is traceable to the moral fall of the first humans, Adam and Eve.
While debated, some of the more common passages used to support the doctrine of original sin are Psalm 51:5, Romans 3:23, Romans 5:12, Romans 5:18, Ephesians 2:3, and 1 Cor. 15:22. Romans 5:12 says, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned”.
Some argue that it is not fair or just that humanity has to be punished for Adam’s sin. It should be noted that we are not being “punished” for Adam’s sin. Instead, we are living with the consequences of Adam’s sin. There is a big difference there. God does not punish us for Adam’s sin, that idea is mistaken.
However, because Adam fell, we live in a world that is completely affected by that act. Now someone may reply, “But that’s not fair! Why should I live in a messed-up world because of what someone else did?” That is true – it’s not fair. It is not fair when a negligent driver hits an innocent person and that person dies. But it sadly happens. It, interestingly, is also not fair that God would offer anyone salvation in Jesus Christ. Mercy is not fair. So, if we want only justice, we are in big trouble. But the Christian message is that God, in his mercy, is willing to reverse the consequences – this time with our representative as Jesus, instead of Adam. We can have the righteousness of God in Jesus Christ when we are united with him (Romans 5:12-19).
However, what is often forgotten in the push back against original sin, is why it is actually a very important Christian doctrine. There are many reasons why, including its explanation of why human sinfulness and evil is so persistent and pervasive.
But here’s another: when we discard the doctrine, we set ourselves up to look down on others. Original sin is a very democratic doctrine, because it means that we’re all sinners. We all have faults and flaws. We all depend on the grace of God. By denying original sin, we begin to think that it is possible to become virtuous, even perfect, and obtain God’s salvific favour if we perform certain actions.
This most famously goes back to an argument between two theologians back in the fifth century. Pelagius – who denied original sin – argued that it was possible for Christians to become perfect through their own agency. For him, “grace” was just free will, the Law of Moses, and the teachings of Jesus. In Pelagius’s thinking, if you acted sufficiently virtuously, you could attain perfection and God’s favour through your own good actions. This, of course, went completely against the gospel of grace as taught in the scriptures.
Against Pelagius was Augustine, the famous North African Bishop, who argued that due to original sin (which Pelagius denied) all people are deeply affected by sin and thus cannot earn salvation through their own agency. They need God’s grace. Augustine, thankfully, won the day, and Pelagius’ teaching was declared heretical by the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD.
A denial of original sin allows us to sit in moral judgment on those we consider less enlightened as ourselves. It allows us to look down on people in disgust. It creates the toxic environment we are seeing today in our public and political discourses where people look down on others who do not share their own particular opinions and beliefs.
Sadly, Christians who believe in original sin can be as equally toxic or destructive as anyone else. But that is inconsistent with their core beliefs. If a Christian believes in original sin, then they have to equally believe in the beautiful doctrine of grace. That our salvation is not based on our own works and actions, but on the works and actions of Jesus Christ. And thus, it is impossible to look down on anyone, and as the famous saying goes, “there but for the grace of God go I”.
As in wider society, there is significant anxiety among many Christians. Apart from general worries about Covid, lockdowns, livelihoods, vaccinations (for and against), vax mandates, and some people losing their jobs, some Christians are also concerned about the State impinging on the Church, or about how churches can operate within the traffic light system.
From our very wide contacts across churches, however, we can confidently say that most Christian people in New Zealand accept that Covid restrictions and vaccinations are necessary measures during a pandemic (even though some may disagree with the Government on many matters), and that the vast majority of Christian pastors believe they should obey the authorities, are feeling for those most vulnerable, care for those they disagree with, are struggling with how best to hold church gatherings within the new framework, and are eagerly looking forward to completely unrestricted church services post-pandemic.
As is their right, and on various grounds, some Christians have decided not to take the vax, and continue to act with grace, reason, and respect towards others. Some others have become close-minded, angry, militant, and divisive, and that is causing problems in some churches.
To all Christians we say: love and honour one another, listen to one another, show the fruit of the Spirit, and whatever your views on lesser matters always keep Christ at the centre.
CHOICES: vaccination certificate-required church, or open-entry?
This issue is particularly preoccupying church leaders at this time. The very idea of the Government prescribing who may or may not come to church is troubling to many. Some believe the separation of vaxed and unvaxed believers us contrary to biblical principles. Some see the matter from a more pragmatic perspective.
Some churches, especially those which already have multiple services, may decide to offer two different types of church services (at least once we reach the orange level):
vaccination-certificate-required church gatherings (which are allowed to be larger)
open-entry church gatherings (but with smaller numbers allowed – see the NZCN summary graphic of the traffic light system above). In these services, no consideration need be given to whether or not attenders are vaccinated. We feel it is unhelpful to see these open-entry services as just “services for the unvaccinated”.
Some smaller churches may opt for just one or more open-entry services.
For very large churches, with thousands of members, limits on numbers are obviously highly restricting. Some such churches may delay resuming on-site church services for some months.
Some churches may rely heavily on small groups.
Some may hold outdoor gatherings or picnics, in accordance with whatever is permitted at the time.
Some churches would like the Government to change the rules about church gatherings. For the sake of public health, the authorities may or may not be willing to agree to that. For instance, some are hoping that tests such as Rapid Antigen Tests may be able to be used by some who don’t have vaccination certificates.
Please pray for church leaders as they find their way through all this, and also please let us know what your own church or denomination is thinking! We are happy to share useful resources.
Here is a heartfelt piece from Rev Frank Ritchie, asking for people to be generous with regard to whatever decisions their church makes. Among other things, Frank writes: “Be gentle with your leaders. I can almost guarantee any who take this seriously will be having sleepless nights and have probably shed tears. They feel the pressure of loud voices. If they’re listening, they’ll be wondering if they’re making the right calls. There is no absolute right and wrong in navigating this. We stick close to God and trust that the wisdom of the Spirit is guiding our steps…”
We the Church respect our Government’s role in keeping our country safe through the implementation of varying measures as we confront the challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic together. To them we pledge our peaceful cooperation.
We the leaders of the Church respect the consciences and choices made by each church member to be vaccinated or not vaccinated. To them we pledge our impartial care and edification.
We the members of the Church respect the challenges facing our leaders in facilitating the gathered life of the church whilst cooperating with the varying measures asked of all organisations. To them we pledge our encouragement and patience.
We the vaccinated leaders and members of the Church respect the consciences and choices of our unvaccinated leaders and members, and accept that the way we are able to interact with them will be limited as we confront the challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic. To them we pledge our non-judgemental love and solidarity.
We the unvaccinated leaders and members of the Church respect the consciences and choices of our vaccinated leaders and members, and accept that the way we are able to interact with them will be limited as we confront the challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic. To them we pledge our non-judgemental love and solidarity.
We the Church have chosen to be known by the love we have for one another, and choose the privilege of demonstrating that love to all people through the mutual respect we have promised to embrace.
But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace for those who make peace.
James 3:17-18
The 22 October announcements have been helpful, in that at least we know what the new rules are and how they affect churches. For churches, the new rules contain both some welcome easing of restrictions and also some ongoing challenges for churches of every size. One good thing is that churches are free to choose for any particular gathering whether they require vaccination certificates or not, and then to operate that gathering with the required numerical limits and safety measures.
Below, we set out our take on the new rules as they apply to churches, and also suggest some options for how churches may gather. These are far from easy times (we remain in the middle of a worldwide pandemic, and many Christians continue to feel a deep unease with restrictions on church gatherings), but we are confident that with God’s guidance we can find our way through.
The new COVID-19 protection framework:
our summary of what it means for churches
SOME REASONABLE AND PERMISSIBLE OPTIONS…
All-in church services: Some churches may decide to hold church services for everyone, with no vaccination certificate required but with limits on numbers, and to manage the risks for everyone with all appropriate safety measures in place. Small churches would be able to hold just one service, while larger churches would require two or more services.
Two different types of church services: Some churches may decide that they will hold two different types of services…
Church service(s) which are only for those who have vaccination certificates, and which can have greater numbers attending.
Church service(s) which are open to everyone, regardless of vaccination status, and which have smaller numbers allowed.
Those church services which require vaccination certificates and those which don’t would need to be clearly designated, so everyone knew what they were attending, and on what basis. We must also do all we can to avoid any sense of division.
Providing access to church in other ways: Some churches may decide that they will care for and make provision for those who are unvaccinated in other ways, such as through small groups, zoom gatherings, pastoral visits, and through continuing access to church services through livestreaming, Zoom, and so on.
Waiting: Some churches may feel reluctant to gather until everyone can gather together. This is very understandable, but churches will need to take into account that the current rules are likely to remain in place for quite a long time.
Finally, here are some reflections and questions by Tim Palmer as a follow-up to his article last week.
