Exclusion.

 "And those who seemed influential added nothing to me". Galatians 2:6.

The 'Weaponisation" of culture has continued apace this past week. A woman in Australia, double-jabbed and masked whilst jogging, and another in Canada who had medically verified her natural immunity and sought 'identity' (papers) on that basis have both been prosecuted under covid regulations. New York has followed Saudi Arabia in implementing requirements that prohibit around 70% of ethnic minorities in the city from engaging in any indoor public recreational activities until vaccinated. Germany has forbidden protests which question official policy on vaccinations and related I D materials, whilst parts of Australia have deployed military manpower to enforce the new lockdown. It is now illegal in France to serve unvaccinated people, bringing a prison sentence whilst growing numbers of services and Venues in the UK only allow access on presentation of the appropriate app.

All of this occurs in the same week that a research department in Israel, having finished tests on over 5,000 types of existing drugs, announced they have discovered some 18 generic forms of medication that are effective against the virus, so the actual need for vaccination may well prove unfounded in the months to come.

Whilst resistance to mandatory measures has been evident in many parts of the world (in spite of the MSM's refusal to show it), large sections of the church continue to relent to official divisive requirements, some bodies taking the view that only those complying with all the imposed demands can be considered 'obedient' (in a Romans 13 sense) and therefore suitable for inclusion into full church activity.

Such action derives from the view that Christian faith includes a moral imperative to always do what is ordained by secular authority, regardless of the consequences, but this is clearly contrary to the behaviour and convictions we encounter in many circumstances by those who sought to serve God first. When a culture imposes rules which effectively shut-down the role and presence of the church within society, then we must certainly reject the power of state to do so. Yes, we (the church) may decide that a temporary suspension of some activities is appropriate to gain clarification in a situation, but to succumb to any continual, long-term suppression of worship and ministry without a just reason is a clear abandonment of our true service.

In Luke's account of events in the early church, we read of how a particular group became active who sought to claim a superior role to others, principally because they sought to re-instate the rulings of the Mosaic law, not only upon Jewish believers, but equally amongst the gentiles. The ramifications of such 'moral' action brought about the assembly of the first church council (Acts 15), in which it was clearly affirmed that God makes no such requirement (verse 28) and that freedom to serve should define church fellowship and growth, not authoritarian decrees and requirements. This, however, did not hinder the pro-law lobby (who became known as the Judaizers) from spreading their erroneous dogma amongst the gentile world, leading to all manner of disruption, which, in truth greatly damaged the ministry and calling given through the liberation gifted in the good news.

Legalism is often the device employed by evil to bring Christians into a bondage to all manner of extra notions and practices in respect to what is taught as defining 'godliness'. Paul spoke of how a Christian community - which had been known for all manner of weaknesses and required corrections in respects to moral and spiritual issues - which slipped from the pure simplicity of the good news of the gospel into some contrived, diabolical 'wisdom' was a very genuine fear (2 Corinthians 11:3). We should equally be disquieted by this hour - genuinely troubled as to where recent 'requirements' have now placed many churches in respect to their theology and practice. Exclusion is simply not an option on medical grounds, however 'moral' the wrapping may appear.

The events (especially in respect to official mandates) of the times have made it imperative to convey the perspective I have sought to affirm here in many of my postings, conversations and actions. The continuing to tighten restrictions in such a way that small yet significant numbers of those expressing alternatives must be exiled is neither a permissible or desirable position, and is extremely dangerous - it threatens to overturn the essential conventions between the state and the autonomy of individual expression in respect to their own volition in matters of conscience and free choice, and that is simply is a truth we must respect.