A Plea for a Distinction Between "Different" and Wrong and a Brief Case for Assembling at a Distance
One of my less glamorous traits is that once I hear or say a phrase that I find really helpful, it makes frequent appearances in my speech and writing. Last week on the podcast, as Chris and I talked about congregations meeting online, I kept returning to the idea that some people can’t distinguish something being different and something being wrong. You might hear that and think it’s not all that profound, and realistically, you’re right. However, I want to unpack this distinction because it’s a valuable, to me at least, heuristic tool when deciding whether or not to get riled up about something. With that said, let’s hop to it.
How to Make the Distinction
There’s a concept called theological triage that I find to be both fascinating and tremendously helpful. Essentially, in the same way that doctors and nurses prioritize cases to treat based on their urgency, it’s arguably beneficial to prioritize doctrines based on how central they are to the Christian faith and base decisions of fellowship and discipline as such. The most obvious criteria for theological triage is a simple question: “Is this issue definitional to the Christian faith?” Alister McGrath, in his excellent book, Heresy, put forth the notion that heresy entails beliefs that are directly antithetical to core truths of the Christian faith or transformative in such a way that it would make Christianity unrecognizable if it were adopted. I think this is remarkably helpful and clarifying, especially historically speaking. The question of what exactly should be a primary issue and what can be secondary or tertiary is far afield from this discussion, but I do want to work through this key question with reference to meeting in different ways: is it antithetical to a key tenant of the Christian faith and does it fundamentally transform the Christian faith in a way that makes it unrecognizable. Before all of that, however, I want to deal with the two main objections I see.
Assessing the Current Situation
I think that we can concede that the Biblical text doesn’t explicitly address our current situation. Yes, there are laws regarding quarantine in Leviticus and there are admonitions for the elders to visit the sick in James, but a question of how to interact with a nationwide quasi-quarantine isn’t touched on. As such, we can only work with principles and inferences. As I see it, the main issue that people seem to hang on is twofold:
Christians are commanded not to forsake the assembly (Heb 10:25).
An emphasis on coming together “in one place,” based on the language used in 1 Cor 11:20 and 14:23.
Now, there are a few responses to be made. Firstly, I’ve yet to find anyone arguing that using Zoom, Facebook Live, etc., should become the normative way that Christians gather. Even if we find out that it’s remarkably convenient or that it’s much easier for a preacher to send everyone a copy of the sermon on audio or video every week and have the song leader send everyone a list of songs to sing and just trust people to do that themselves, I think it’s safe to say that few, if any would say that it should be the way things are normally done. i strongly doubt that this current crisis will unearth a legion of firm believers suddenly refusing to attend worship in person once this all blows over.
As for the insistence on the language of coming together in one place I have two responses:
Methinks you’re missing the point or more pointedly, pressing language into service it was never meant for.
I seriously doubt you’re willing to entertain this emphasis in other areas of discussion about church assembly.
To expand on the second point, consider the following. There are nearly 20 buildings with “Church of Christ” plastered on them in Corinth, MS, a city of a little under 15,000 people. Several of these congregations have less than 100 members and some rarely exceed more than ten members on Sunday mornings. I say this not to shame smaller churches, but to introduce a very salient point: if indeed Christians are to gather in one place, why, exactly, are we satisfied with situations like the one in Corinth, situation that can be replicated in virtually every part of the United States? Why do the same people that are currently pushing for meeting at designated buildings in spite of a viral outbreak not spend the same energy urging congregations to merge because Christians are supposed to meet “in one place?” After all, doing so would centralize resources and make a strong statement regarding unity. In fact, the reasons that many congregations don’t merge are certainly less serious and pressing than a potentially fatal virus. Granted, there are legitimate logistics issues that arise when congregations merge, but those can be worked through and, if one is serious about Christians in a given area meeting in “one place,” they should be worked through. The situation in modern Corinth would’ve been bewildering to ancient Corinthians and should surely be unacceptable if we’re going to be consistent in applying the language of “in one place.”
Of course, I doubt there’s going to be a sudden surge in attempts to merge congregations, nor will be I quick to pass judgment on congregations that choose to remain separate and autonomous. As much as I personally think mergers are often a wise thing to do, my point here is not to advocate for merger but instead to point out an inconsistency that, I think, is indicative of a failed argument. Briefly, the argument fails because if my objection were to be brought up, extenuating circumstances would be cited as a sufficient reason not to meet in one place when, without sufficient warrant, they wouldn’t be be accepted in the current situation. Keep those extenuating circumstances in mind, as there is a point in bringing them up. Now, onto a positive case.
Different, Yes. Wrong? Not Necessarily
With the negative case, that is noting what I think to be the insufficiencies in the arguments noted above, out of the way, I want to talk about assembly in light of the criteria I mentioned earlier, particularly being directly antithetical or egregiously transformative. With that stated, there are a few key reasons that I believe that in this current situation, assembling at a distance is acceptable.
It is recognized that this is not the normative or ideal way for Christians to assemble, nor is there a call to permanently suspend physical assembly or decry coming together for corporate worship.
While the physical aspect is obviously hampered in circumstances such as this one, Christians can still join one another in singing together, prayer, the reading of the Word, hearing/delivering a message from that same Word, and taking the Lord’s Supper. Obviously, these acts will look, feel, and sound different in this circumstance, but it does not change the fact that they are being done by a group of Christians who have purposely come together, albeit it in an abstract way. As such, I don’t believe that temporarily meeting using conference call programs and the like either denies the necessity of assembly or transforms assembly beyond recognition.
Extenuating circumstances haven’t been fully accounted for.
Remember that Phrase I Told You to Bear in Mind?
I told you I’d get back to extenuating circumstances, right? I’m few things if not a man of my word. Throughout the Biblical text one can find interesting examples where a clear commandment was broken or things were done in a way that wasn’t exactly right without necessarily being incontrovertibly in the wrong. Consider a few key instances:
David eating the Bread of the Presence (1 Sam 21:1–6), which was referenced by Jesus in Mark 2:23–28, wherein Jesus and his disciples gather grain. While one can argue about the impropriety of David’s actions, especially given that he lied and his actions led to the slaughter of the priests. However, what cannot be argued is how Jesus approaches the argument in Mark 2. He doesn’t argue that what he’s doing is actually allowed because of some little known minutia or errata in the Torah. Instead, he makes an argument that an extenuating circumstance can exist. The prohibition against working on the Sabbath wasn’t intended to lead to people going hungry, nor was the rule dictating who could and couldn’t eat the Bread of the Presence. As such, in the moment, allowing people to eat is more important than keeping these precise laws. Obviously, one should avoid situations that would require breaking rules anyway, but the course of life doesn’t always accommodate that sort of thing.
Consider also Hezekiah and Josiah. The reforms noted in 2 Chronicles 29–32 and 34–35. While it’s noted that Manasseh resorted to outright idolatry and rebuilt the high places, note that Hezekiah and Josiah are not held accountable for the deficiencies in worship in their lifetimes, especially during their reform efforts. While we can argue and speculate about what deficiencies may have existed, what we can know is that both these men were considered, in the final analysis, faithful servants. We can commend their efforts to bring the nation back into alignment with what God had commanded while also acknowledging that there was grace for them in the meantime.
To put it plainly, I believe that it’s consistent with what one can observe in the Bible to argue that under extenuating circumstances, something less than ideal is sufficient. The question at this junction is whether or not one considers this a truly extenuating circumstance. While I do believe that an argument could be made in good faith otherwise, wisdom, to me, dictates that we should, for the time being, tread cautiously.
To Bring it All Together
Perhaps there’s a lot here to unpack for you or maybe you find a more lengthy explication wearisome. If that’s case, to close out this essay, I want to attempt to offer a quick guide to performing triage and determining if something is different as opposed to wrong outright:
Is the action or concept considered explicitly condemned or commanded?
Does the action or concept considered directly contradict or negate something that is explicitly condemned or commanded?
When considering making a change of some sort, does the change being proposed make a non-negotiable belief or practice so fundamentally different that it can’t be honestly compared to the original?
Do situations addressed or discussed in Scripture have any parallels to the present situation? How so? How is the situation in Scripture handled? Does Scripture indicate that God approves or disapproves of the solution?
Are there Biblical principles that, broadly speaking, can apply to the current situation?
How have faithful Christians in the past addressed similar issues or even the same issue? (Perhaps it goes without saying, but even the best and wisest of the past can be wrong. Good discernment should always be used.)
In working through these questions, the goal is to be clear, precise, and of course, honest. That’s not to say that people who’re arguing one side or the other are lying or otherwise being deceitful, but rather a word of caution to encourage us to seriously consider both the arguments we make and how we make them. We may find that a position or way of reaching a certain conclusion would seem dubious coming from someone else. It may even be that we find ourselves to be inconsistent (there’s another word that shows up a lot) in one area or another.
As a closing thought, when considering these sorts of issues, charity is key. Even if you decide that it is absolutely essential one way or another regarding attendance, we ought to treat one another with dignity and love. Perhaps it should go without saying, but I’ve found that sometimes, the most basic reminders are the most helpful.
If you’ve made it this far, dear reader, you have my thanks. It’s my hope and prayer that this has been helpful to you and provides both a case for long distance assembly and a helpful foundation for assessing future issues. In all things, let’s examine issues careful and charitably, to the glory of God and the good of the church.