Liberty of Conscience

I guess we all prayed and perhaps expected that, by Fall, this COVID crisis would be a thing of the past. Not so, is it? Some of us are attempting to get on with our lives, but it has been challenging. It seems like the longer the thing stretches on, the more potential for division and disagreement. 

Now is a good time to practice grace! One of the strong doctrinal positions of Baptist churches in history has been that of “individual soul liberty.” It has applied primarily to the subject of worship. A person has a right to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience. The doctrine leans heavily upon another Baptist distinctive, “separation of church and state.” Historically the Catholic, and then the Protestant churches, married with the state to force people to worship according to the dictates of the state-approved church. The doctrine has applications in this current climate. Every one of us must give every other one of us the liberty to find our own path through the fears this virus has stirred. 

Imagine living 500 years ago. Certain denominations were so sure they were right that they turned in people who disagreed or that didn’t comply. Those who were captured were tortured, sometimes to death, just because they owned a Bible, or refused to have their children baptized as babies, or baptized by immersion rather than sprinkling. England went through a period when the Catholics would gain the throne and kill all the Protestants, and then the Protestants would achieve it and try to kill all the Catholics. It was cruel, senseless, and heartless.

Please. Whatever your personal views of how to navigate this pandemic, let’s rise above pointing fingers at others. Let’s love one another, pray for one another, and give one another liberty of conscience.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

(Watch this video of the devastation California's dictates are having on just one of the churches in their state.) Dr Jack Trieber appeals for prayer.

 

After Having COVID-19

My personal thoughts and opinions concerning this virus are,

First, we cannot stay isolated and sheltered forever.

This shelter at home and hide from the virus strategy is untenable in the long run. America’s vast wealth has sustained us for these several months but there has been a cost and it cannot continue.

Second, the longer we shelter the worse will be our recovery.

I understand that I am not a doctor, but I am convinced that the longer we isolate from others, the weaker our immune systems become. Sooner or later we will be forced out of our homes and from behind our masks and when the day comes, we will be more vulnerable than ever to colds, flu and illnesses we never dreamed of making us sick before. No amount of vitamin c and other immunity enhancers can take the place of our body’s own immunity defenses. They become compromised by hyper-cleanliness. When we come out of this shelter mode, we are likely to see a spike in illness and death from those common things we used to brush aside.

Third, A vaccine is not our enemy.

Thank God for vaccines that protect us from smallpox, polio, tuberculosis and etc. I am thankful for the medical expertise of those who have created these vaccines and pray for a quick and effective vaccine for COVID-19. I do not believe, however, that such should be mandatory. Those who choose to be vaccinated will be, effectively protected. They cannot be harmed by those who choose not to be vaccinated. The only one at risk is the one who has elected not to be vaccinated. A greater risk, in my opinion, is the issue of personal liberty.

Marvin McKenzie

In The Fields

The Effeminizing of America and Covid-19

The effects of effeminization in America has been a matter of concern for some decades now. 

First, there was a rush of popular musicians who manipulated their physical features to appear more feminine, and the girls loved it. It seemed like the more like girls they looked, the more the girls thought they were “cute.” The push for equal rights has made it almost shameful to be manly. To be a strong provider, to be a leader in the home, or for that matter, in the world, and to be a male, is thought of as brutish.

America’s leadership from the highest government offices, to even the pulpits, have been yielded, in many cases, to women. Some churches have recognized the problem and have attempted a resistance with “men’s advances,” “man up conferences,” and all the like. I think it is probably too little too late.

Now we have to coronavirus crisis, and it seems to me that the typical reaction is an effeminate one. Almost every governor in our country, Democrat and Republican (ironically except for a powerful woman governor - she’s more manly than many of the men leading our nation) has taken to responding to this virus like a motherly figure rather than a manly one. Their instinct has been to hover over, to fret about, to overprotect for the purpose of saving lives. It has been at the expense of liberty of life.

I understand. It’s a mom’s place to nurture and to protect, to care for her children under her wings. She weeps emotionally, bitterly at the thought of any hardship to come upon her brood. We all loved to be loved upon.

But no advance happens in the shadow of mom’s apron. Enter the role of the fathers. The masculine figure has always been one to embrace conquest. Exploration, experimentation, and discovery always come with risk, as does liberty.

·      Patrick Henry’s mother would surely have wished him to keep his thoughts “Give me liberty or give me death” to himself

·      Nathan Hale’s mother most assuredly would have rather he was never required to say, “I regret I have but one life to give for my country.”

History is filled with brave men whose mothers surely fretted for their boys.

·      Alan Shepherd, John Glenn, Neil Armstrong

·      Brave soldiers who hazarded everything for their country.

Who doesn’t think the mothers of those signers of our Declaration of Independence and thereby pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor would rather have coddled them?

No caring soul wishes another human being to contract the coronavirus, suffer, and to die from it. None of us, with any sense of decency, would knowingly or willfully infect another human being, knowing it will likely kill him or her. But there is the trouble. It will not probably kill him or her. Yes, some will contract the coronavirus, develop a complication, and die. No one wants to die before their time, but all of us will die. A few of us will die from the coronavirus. We must not allow a motherly, effeminate, emasculated fear to drive us under the apron strings and lose the precious gift of life and liberty.

 

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

 

 

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.

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.