The SCOTUS Decision of May 29, 2020

The decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States May 29, 2020[1] reveals I believe, just how complex the issue of the right to assemble is under the duress of a pandemic. The justices, for the most part, split along ideological lines. The liberal-leaning justices voted in favor of the authority of the governor of California. The conservative-leaning ones voted in favor of the church’s first amendment right to assemble and worship. The swing vote was John Roberts, a moderate leaning conservative. 

In Justice Roberts’ opinion he said, “Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment,” 

“Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time,” the chief justice wrote. “And the order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.”

He recognized that severe[2] restrictions have been placed upon all sorts of secular gatherings. The point, whether well-founded or not, is that these sorts of gatherings are easy places for the Chinese virus to spread. The more liberal opinion in our country views this virus as dangerous. The more conservative in our land see it as dangerous but no more so than the typical flu. I disagree with the governor of California just as I do with our own. I do not necessarily see an aggressive posture against churches unless it is that these governors view churches as of lesser importance than movie theaters, concerts and etc.

In the opposing opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the state cannot, “‘assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work or go about the rest of their daily lives in permitted social settings.’”

I maintain that: 

·      This virus is not as dangerous as people were led to believe, that 

·      Liberal governors have chosen to use the fear that has spread to advance an agenda of their own and unrelated to the virus and therefore

·      We cannot win this thing merely by legal means, but we must use sound persuasion to convince people to not fear

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields for our Lord

---

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/30/us/supreme-court-churches-coronavirus.html?fbclid=IwAR2cu83Om0V6i4FuzWeSSmis4PwdiPiRkplLMy-yenBf1juZ8JkZObwc1s8

[2] In my opinion too severe.

Perception vs Perspective

“Perception is what you interpret - it is your understanding of a given situation, person, or object. It is the meaning you assign to any given stimulus. Perspective is your point of view - it's the lens you see the world through and determines how you view yourself, others, and everything else around you.”[1]

I’ve been thinking a lot about perceptions d perspective lately. So many of our actions and attitudes derive from one or the other. Perception is most often the result of perspective. We interpret a thing the way we see the thing. 

Pastors today are forced to make decisions whether to open their services illegally, remain totally compliant to government mandates, or attempt some sort of combination. I find that the decisions they make have a great deal to do with perspective and that with perception. 

Recently I spoke with a pastor who says he’s had it with government orders and he’s opening his church to services. He explained to me that “we expect our missionaries to go to foreign fields and break the law for the sake of the gospel. Why should we do less?” Frankly, I didn’t respond. But I did begin to think. In my experience, from my perspective, the last thing anyone has ever expected of our missionaries is that they would break the law. From my perspective missionaries take great pains to obey the laws of the lands they seek to minister. They go to open countries. They get their support from the U.S. so as not to be a drain on the mission field’s economy. They often dress like the culture of the mission field. I have heard of a few missionaries who have been shady in the dealings with governments[2] but, from my perspective, those missionaries are always marginalized by the majority of missionaries. 

I spoke with a pastor just the other day about our Anabaptist forebears, as I consider what I know of them to aide me in my own decisions. His response was, “I don’t mean to be argumentative, but wouldn’t we dismiss the Anabaptists as not good Baptists?” From his perspective, complying with governments as the Protestants and most Baptists in the U.S. do has worked out well. Why would we want to consider the Anabaptist doctrine of separation of church and state? He would like to return to Pre-COVID19 practice because, in his perspective, it’s worked well. My perspective is slightly different. I tend to agree with old B.R. Lakin who, in the 1950’s I think said that churches in America could be successful doing what they are doing without God. Whether he actually said it, I am not sure. I’m taking the word of a preacher from his day. What I am sure of is that nothing in church has improved since then. 

My perspective gives me the perception that this would be a grand time for God to bring revival.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields (praying)

---

[1] A Google search yielded this from onboardonline.com.

[2] Bribing to grease the wheels they want turned.

Chief Concerns over Re-opening Church

I just finished listening to David Gibbs III of the National Center for Life and Liberty, his video of recommendations dated May 13, 2020. I have also obtained and read the guidance PDF from David Gibbs II of the Christian Law Association. Both guidance recommends strong precautionary measures from the parking lot, into the building, and while inside the church building, all guidelines meant to minimize the risk of contracting Coronavirus for those in attendance and to limit the liability of the church in case of legal action. Both organizations seem to believe that we will never go back to “life as we knew it.” NCLL recommends that everything done in the church is documented, preferably on video:

·      A posted notice of disclaimer that by attending our services the attendee assumes responsibility for their own health and will not seek legal action against the church should they get ill as a result of attending.

·      The disinfecting procedures

·      The safe distancing measures and

·      Any contact the church might have with authorities.

Some of my chief concerns, when we return to the House of God is that I do not believe we can allow the scare that the media and the government fomented over this virus, to place us in a state of “new normal”. 

·      I am unwilling to meet under conditions of having to document everything we do from the parking lot to building for safety’s sake[1]

·      I am unwilling to accept that the people of God will no longer be allowed to show reasonable affection and care for one another while in the house of the Lord

·      I am unwilling to document who does and does not attend for the sake of government contact and surveilling 

·      I may be willing to allow for those who deem it necessary to wear masks, but I unwilling to require, or even recommend it

To return to church assembly with restrictions sets a precedent, in my opinion, giving the government ever-increasing authority over church worship. We must return with the same liberties that we had previously, or else we have given liberties I do not believe we can afford to lose.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields, (resisting new normals)

---

[1] On a practical level, I simply know we will never do it well enough to meet the standard. I want our church to be an informal and reverential place of worship and not a business-like atmosphere.

Senator, Dr. Rand Paul Questions Dr. Fauci

I want to give kudos to those who question the science being foisted upon us during this Chinese Coronavirus crisis. While I understand having "leading experts" in any field, I also understand that no human being has all of the answers and, sometimes, a human's personal paradigm prevents him or her from seeing the answers at all. Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx come to the table with blinding paradigms.
It's time to hear from those who see from a different angle. Dr. Rand Paul certainly has his own paradigms, but his voice offers a new perspective.
Senator, Dr Rand Paul Questions Dr. Fauci

The Public Perception

The Public Perception

I personally do not believe that the Chinese coronavirus, though real, is a threat to human existence. It does appear to me that it could be a threat to human existence as we have known it. The civil liberties of Americans have not only been threatened, they have all but been removed. Now that there is talk about loosening the shelter at home orders, there is also talk about how life will be different than it was pre-COVID-19. 

·       Will we ever shake hands again?

·       Will we ever enter a grocery store without a mask again?

·       We will ever willingly speak to a stranger again, smile at an unknown person on the street again?

I have watched, over the past 38 years in the ministry as even churchgoing people, those who claim to love the Lord, are more germophobic and willing to sit in a chair next to people they have known for 20 years. It used to be they said that Americans will tolerate a crowd until a building reaches 80% capacity. Really? Are we going to let the world dictate that a building is full at 50%? Are we honestly going to allow the government to mandate that restaurants must get our personal information and surrender it in order to serve us? Will we allow the same demands of our churches? 

I know.

I hear the bravado statements of those patriots claiming, 

·       They’ll never get my DNA!

·       I’ll never wear a mask in a store!

·       They’ll never come to my house to test me for COVID-19!

I think my father in law was the first one I ever heard say, “Never say never.” The fact is, if 40-50% of the American people really are convinced that the Chinese coronavirus is going to kill them off, then the patriot doesn’t stand a chance of standing his ground.

The battle right now, at least one of the major fronts of the battle, must be public relations. There needs to be an all-out assault of verifiable, believable, and credible information refuting the death knell of Chinese coronavirus. We need to flood the world with reason, facts, and, if the person is a believer, faith that we need not fear this virus. Be cautious, yes. Wash our hands, yes. But remain socially distant for the remainder of our lives? Certainly not!

Nothing has changed since December 2019, except our perception. There have always been bugs, viruses and bacteria that are a threat to those with health complications. It is also truer now that probably any other time in recent history that Americans, in particular, are less healthy, less able to fight off illness. Some good old-fashioned re-education on physical fitness, especially among the aging population (maybe 45 and up) would be helpful. But still, nothing has changed except our perception.

The answer to this battle for American liberty in the future rests, to a large extent to a large extent, on resetting our perceptions. If not to pre-2020, at least to something other than fear of common diseases.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields, and praying for the harvest

Two Streams of Concern for the Patriot and the Baptist

Two Streams of Concern for the Patriot and the Baptist

As unrest concerning the Chinese coronavirus shelter orders grows, we’re hearing more and more from Christians citing rights, and heritage. I think that works so long as we speak only of Christian heritage dating back to the founding of the United States. As a Baptist who has spent considerable time looking at the history of the ancient Anabaptists ^[1] I see two separate issues at play. As a Baptist, I do not believe my heritage as a Christian, and as an American are synonymous. 

Freedom to assemble, the liberty to worship God according to one’s own conscience is well-grounded in American heritage.

Many Christians in America are willing to defend that liberty today, viewing it at threatened by current policies that seem random and, in some ways, pointed against churches. It is interesting that so many of these churches are not Baptist but stringently fight for what was provided to them by the Baptists in the earliest days of our country. While our country’s history, heritage, and Constitution do provide freedom of assembly and the liberty to worship God according to one’s own conscience, this argument marries church and state. It provides that our freedom of worship is a matter of state. This marriage of church and state is a fundamental and historic principle of Protestantism (as well as Catholicism).

Separation of Church and State is the genuine history of the Baptists

The ancient Anabaptists had little to nothing to do with the State. This position put them at odds with almost every government in which they found themselves from the very first days of Christianity, whether it was the Jewish state of Israel in Paul’s day, the Romans through the 4^th century or the Catholic led monarchs of Europe until the founding of the United States. Anabaptists, the forefathers I follow, held they had but one sovereign, Jesus Christ. Thus, they would not abide to attend the state-sanctioned churches.^[2] They met in secret meetings^[3] in the woods, in barns, and in the backrooms of buildings.^[4] They never protested governments for the right to worship because they did not receive their command to worship from the government. They did what they did because God convicted them to do it. 

·      They were quiet about their meetings

·      They were persistent to continue their meetings

·      They were witnesses outside their meetings

Baptists today have simply become another of the great melting pot of protestant churches. 

·      We have buildings

·      We have debt because of those buildings

·      We have advertised times to meet in those buildings

·      We depend on those meetings for both our outreach and our finances

·      We rely on our American liberties to keep it all functioning

Perhaps it is time to return to simple worship, without the Protestant trappings. Perhaps it is time to worship God because He is God and not because the government gives us the freedom to do it.

We are privileged to live in the United States. I am not at all opposed to exercising our rights of redress. Those legal means at our disposal to appeal to our government are truly a blessing. I am just concerned that we have put too much stock in them.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

---

[1] And believing that our roots rightfully trace back to them.

[2] And were persecuted for it.

[3] Believing in assembly, but not wishing to be punished for it.

[4] And, when caught, were persecuted for it.

The Flesh, The Spirit and the Shelter Order

I would refer the reader to a series of messages I have lately been preaching from the Book of Romans on the flesh and the Spirit. The flesh of man has a plan, a desire, and a direction. Likewise, the Holy Spirit of God has a plan, a desire, and a direction for our lives. Regarding the current shelter at home order by our government:

·       The flesh may want to react too soon

·       The Spirit may have other lessons for us to learn in confinement

While a good number of pastors are becoming impatient with the shelter order and even pressuring other pastors to resist the order with them, a pastor friend of mine suggested to me that we have not yet exhausted all of our Constitutionally legal means of redress yet. Truth is, we haven’t used any of them yet.

I am reminded that, in the case of the history of the United States, our independence from England involved two parts, the revolution and the war from independence. The revolution work lasted more than ten years with colonists petitioning the British Parliament, the King, and using all means at their disposal to redress their grievances. It was only after all those means were exhausted that the thought of war for independence was brought to the table. The Declaration of Independence was a carefully drafted explanation of why such an act was then justified.

An impatient flesh may believe resistance is the American way and right. I do not believe it is the way of the Spirit or truly our heritage.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields (praying for liberty)

Five Reasons the Shelter at Home Makes Sense for Churches

1. Because we do not know that the virus is not dangerous.

This is the least of my concerns because, I think, we must still be exposed sooner or later in order to overcome it. Whatever the risk, we will not defeat it in hiding.

2. Because we have yet to exhaust all legal means to appeal the shelter at home.

This is not high on my priorities because, if God wants us to gather, we ought to do it with or without government permission.

3. Because a church body is a natural petri dish.

A local church is a close-knit bunch of people from various parts of the community who are encouraged to be among the community when they are not gathered. When we are together, women are going to hug, men are going to shake hands, and children are going to play. When we disperse, we are going to go into all the world.

4. Because we haven’t prayed yet.

Oh, I know we have prayed. I just don’t believe we have prayed to the Lord believing He is our ONLY hope of an answer.

5. Because the Spirit of God is at work right now.

At least I believe He is. This is my primary concern. If we were to somehow force open the doors of the churches, it may be only by human means. As desperately as God loves the church, He has designed that believers be conformed into the image of His Son, Jesus Christ. A church opened and operated in the power of human flesh could never do what God has designed to be the result of the church.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields (constrained by His Spirit)