An English Epistle

 "For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation". Galatians 6:15.

Recently, several hundred church ministers across the UK have signed a letter sent to the Prime Minister to convey why they will not be requiring anyone to present any manner of vaccination paperwork to either enter a church or attend a service in a place of worship. As a partial opening of some commercial venues has been allowed this week, some other groups, especially in the hospitality sector, are beginning to follow along this course with their own manner of petitions to convey the same objection, but the Christian response to this latest Government initiative is worth examining further, so let's unpack it together.

The communique opens with an affirmation to see peace maintained, those saying so referring to the verse 1 Timothy 2:2 as the basis for their prayers for this. Whilst the sentiment is certainly worthwhile, it should be noted here that Paul's reason for expressing a desire for such calm to be evident is so that the Lord may employ such ends for the Gospel, for He "desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" (verses 3 & 4).

We then confront the nub of the present problem - the required 'evidence' that a person is suitably 'free' from the Coronavirus and is thereby allowed to engage in various social activities with others. The message rightly states that the undersigned are entirely opposed to such a requirement, and goes on to give three particular reasons why this is the case.

The first point relates to the 'success' of the vaccines. If a vast proportion of the vulnerable portion of the population have already obtained such protection, then the need for additional assurances such as a card or app become superfluous.

The key issue here, of course, is the vaccines, and if the Prime Minister himself is now making statements such as 'lockdowns not vaccines' are doing what's required (not to mention the growing issues with the vaccines themselves), then you have to at least question what will unfold here, but given what is supposed to have been procured, the point is reasonable.

Next comes the far more weighty ethical matter of how dividing the populace because some cannot participate in this particular vaccination is inherently dangerous and may imperil other realms of public life. Generally, this is a point which should be resounding through the country right now. If we begin to encourage a society where such validation becomes essential in virtually every aspect of life beyond our homes, then we are travelling into very dangerous waters indeed.

Thirdly we come to the matter that motivated me to write this entry.

The signers are keen to emphasise that because of the nature of the faith they profess, they could not close their doors to anyone wanting to enter to fellowship with God and neighbour.

The reason is clear - any person the state deemed a socially undesirable could not be rejected by the churches as this would be entirely contrary to the nature of the Gospel.

As with those affirming this, I whole-heartedly say absolutely, that must be how we understand this, but I do have a query.

I am only too aware that when we faced this present trial back in March last year that none of us understood its ramifications, so the initial compliance for the three week "flatten the curve" obligations seemed sensible and not beyond the realms of precaution, but by the end of April, the situation was very different. Not only were the increasing "requirements" continuing to impede the national church's work, but we knew FAR MORE about the nature of the virus and how it functioned - the well-nigh perfect research situation of the cruise liner Diamond Princess with a population of nearly 3,000 people, quarantined for some 15 days off the coast of Japan provided scientists with a base line regarding infection, deaths and harm that has been repeated almost continually across the globe in the last 12 months. What muted the voices of those experts who commenced speaking out concerning the recognised nature of the virus at that time was the Government response developed from its "advisors" that went into full swing. This presumed only one route for the country to take, which meant, for a very large number of believers, that any manner of engagement had to become almost entirely virtual for much of the past year.

So the question is simple.

Church leaders now see the danger of what is emerging from this crisis and the harm it will cause. Can they also not now look back, with hindsight, and equally see and acknowledge the trials that adhering to Government requirements have brought about in this past year?

The intention here is to in no manner dismiss the virulence or cruelty of the virus, but prior pandemics have shown that effective shielding of the vulnerable is a effective procedure to employ - not the almost total closure of a society, especially when, again, it was quickly known that the most at risk were of a particular age group.

Yes, we must call upon Government to reject such a foolish course of action as the one being addressed in this letter, but if we truly value and seek to live by the letters of the New Testament, then we must also learn from this moment not to be so foolish ourselves in respect to the vital freedom and requirements we are called to as the ones gathered in by the saving faith.