18th April 2022<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What did the Church think it had learnt? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n (This series of articles was written a year after the first lockdown in March\/April 2021)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Previous articles are still available on the Premier Christian radio website – https:\/\/www.premierchristianradio.com\/Blogs2\/Yeshua-Explored \u00a0– (until they finally pull the plug!)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n It is customary to judge a new national leader by examining what they achieved in the first hundred days of office. It\u2019s not the best indicator of progress, but it allows for revealing comparisons. Well, it\u2019s worth extending this to the 2 years or so between the start of the first lockdown and the time of writing this. We are not judging the progress of the virus (relentless) or the actions of the government (lamentable yet heroic in places), but rather to chart the response of the UK Church.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the beginning of the crisis the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, remarked that the Church of England had \u201creinvented\u201d itself in response and was providing \u201ccomfort and hope\u201d. A year later he has much to say on social affairs and matters of justice, whether housing, adoption, climate change, the elderly, the LGBT community or in response (through retweets) to various national initiatives. Yet there is silence on what this \u201creinvention\u201d actually entails and certainly no prophetic declarations that one would expect if he was truly God\u2019s spokesman for our nation, like the prophets of old, rather than the spearhead of a political multinational organisation, operating in the field of \u201creligion\u201d (i.e. the C. of E.) But, in fairness, there is little else being said by God\u2019s \u201cspokespeople\u201d from other Christian traditions too. Could it be that God has become our \u201cenemy\u201d on account of allowing this horrible virus to inflict us and people would rather hear from the politicians and scientists, who \u201cseem\u201d to be dealing with the situation? It takes a brave person to go against the grain. Of course, Jesus would have had something to say, but what about those of us who claim to follow him and speak for him? Am I being unfair here? Is this too much to ask?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let us give the benefit of doubt to those who have insisted that the Church has<\/em> reinvented itself. How does it think it has done so? Where is this reinvention? Here are some suggestions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n What does the CHURCH THINK it has learned in the past 12 months?<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, this is a massive generalisation and, of course, not true in every case for every Church in Western Christendom. Most \u201cend-of-term\u201d lockdown reports will feature a number of these, though. Where do you stand with this? Where does your Church stand? Let the arguments begin \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n Prosperity \u201cgospel\u201d leader Kenneth Copeland evidently believes this if you have seen his shameless and foolhardy antics on YouTube. Just search for him on YouTube and cringe. A megachurch pastor from Louisiana declared, \u201cSatan and a virus will not stop us from meeting up<\/em>\u201d, after being told that communal Easter 2020 services were being banned. A bishop in Moldova warned last year that COVID-19 was a conspiracy with an occult agenda, involving the 5G network, globalist powers and Bill Gates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then there is the QAnon<\/em> conspiracy, people who \u201cfollow the white rabbit\u201d into who knows what? <\/em>This is surprisingly popular, even, sadly, with some Christians. Here is how it is described on Wikipedia: a disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory alleging that a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping cannibalistic paedophiles is running a global sex-trafficking ring and plotted against Donald Trump while he was in office. <\/em>Certainly no feel-good factor here! But what is the COVID-19 connection? Again, more conspirational ramblings, that coronavirus is a distraction to take our eyes off the \u201cchild sex trafficking\u201d, or that both are evidence of activities of the \u201cNew World Order\u201d. This whole murky area is, quite frankly, a distraction in itself and certainly not a healthy preoccupation for Christians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Satan has also been reeled out by those who oppose the vaccination programme. South Africa\u2019s chief justice himself linked the vaccines to a \u201csatanic agenda\u201d and the President of Tanzania has rejected social distancing and vaccines, instead urged his people to pray against the \u201csatanic\u201d virus. Many Christians are still fearful along the lines of suspecting DNA manipulation, worries about the \u201cmark of the beast\u201d and a whole load of suspicions of a moral, ethical or medical nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I would be one of the first to extol the virtues of Zoom. After all, our ministry has been using it effectively for well over three years, way before the pandemic hit. Just like all other technological endeavours, it is a tool created for our use. Zoom is in favour among many Christian groups because it offers a modicum of interactivity. For other Christian groups it is out-of-favour for the very same reason<\/em>, preferring the \u201cfamiliar\u201d detachment of \u201cone way delivery\u201d (i.e. we speak, you listen!<\/em>) offered by streaming services such as Facebook live and YouTube live. At Foundations, particularly with our two virtual Zoom conferences in 2020, Zoom was used in its fullest capacity and, in fact, provided a more balanced interactive experience than we could have ever achieved at a physical conference centre. It\u2019s just that we couldn\u2019t hug or sing communally!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, do we consider Zoom (and other similar facilities, in the same way as Hoovers are not the only vacuum cleaners) a \u201cstop-gap\u201d, something that helped us to make the best of a bad situation? Do we view it as a huge elastoplast (more product placement!) covering the wound inflicted on the Church by the virus, to be tossed in the bin once it\u2019s all over? Are we all Zoom-ed out, virtually engorged, only too eager to dispense with it as soon as possible? Or \u2026 could it still be part of our ongoing Church experience, allowing us to be true to the real meaning of \u201cChurch\u201d, as the Ekklesia, the \u201ccalled out ones\u201d? Being \u201ccalled out\u201d is not about being herded into buildings \u2013 the traditional view \u2013 but rather being everywhere, connecting up wherever Wi-Fi prevails and smartphones are juiced up. And, of course, meeting in buildings (and in the open air)!<\/p>\n\n\n\n From what I have seen, most churches have tried their best to approximate the \u2018usual Church experience\u2019, but virtually<\/em>. This is an indicator of some people \u2018riding it out\u2019 until normal service is resumed (whatever that is?) At the end of the day, people are just people, whether they are within touching distance or whether they are squeezed into electrical pulses and reassembled on a \u2018screen near you\u2019. Does the \u2018virtual\u2019 Church comprise of \u2018actual\u2019 people connected by Wi-Fi, or is it a whole different beast? Evidence has shown us that the virtual environment may lack in physical intimacy, but, by its very nature has served to break down barriers between people. We have seen people emerge from their shells of shyness and awkwardness and find a freedom and release that they perhaps may never have found in physical Church settings. Emotions have flowed freely and a surprising intimacy has been made possible. We saw a lot of that at our Foundations 14 conference, when Christians disagree<\/em>, with people opening up to each other in surprising and liberating ways. I too have benefitted greatly from this. As an awkward so-and-so it had been hard for me to find accountability partners I could relate to and meet with regularly. This is not an issue now and I meet weekly with \u2018the chaps\u2019, three other men hundreds of miles apart, who could not hope to get together in any other way than on Zoom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n