Butchery in Afghanistan, American Medical Mandates, and the futility of Twitter "owning" your brothers

I don't want to pick on Josh Daws. I don't know much about the guy other than he is a podcast host and talks about the problem of "wokeness" a lot. However, I do think this "hot take" of his needs to be addressed. I've seen it shared around quite a bit, and I've seen multiple memes being shared effectively saying the same. Though I'm usually reluctant to write about a Tweet, I think this deserves to be addressed as it reflects attitudes and dynamics that have become far too common in the Body of Christ. I'll post the Tweet, and for those who may not be following, he's comparing the response of many Christians to COVID-related mandates to the persecution of Christians in Afghanistan. 

I want to address both the content of Daws' message as well as his tone (I know, I know). Before I dig in, know that I largely agree with his policy positions related to COVID and foreign policy regarding Afghanistan (see the full thread and his other Tweets). I hope he and others take this as a brotherly and loving criticism.

I don't support government mandates or lockdowns. Heck, I barely support any government action. However, after many good-faith debates with intelligent and faithful brothers and sisters who I strongly disagree with on this issue, I can't with a clear conscious act as if their position is irrational. Nor can I oversimplify what the vast majority of thoughtful believers are saying about their position. To be fair to Daws and others, it's easy to find simplistic and downright absurd claims on social media and even real life (for literally any position). Still, when he is referring to evangelical leaders, I take issue. 

Why do Some Christians Support COVID-Related Mandates? 

It's important to realize that there is no one answer to this question. Different Christians will have different reasoning. However, a few arguments seem to be brought up regularly. It's also important to note that not all of these Christians support all mandates. Many have nuanced positions that neither rejects all mandates nor endorse all mandates. Many, for example, may find the relatively lax measures in Virginia reasonable while maintaining a stern opposition to the arguably draconian measures in Australia.

Public Health

First, many Christians have argued that the civil government has the Biblical jurisdiction to enforce mandates regarding public health. Considering that we have Old Testament texts that enforced medical quarantines (Leviticus 13–14), this is a reasonable position. It is not a far-fetched or "tyrannical" position to suggest that the civil government has the vested interest and the duty to act in the name of public health during a pandemic. Last year, one Lamb's Reign author argued this position by using these Old Testament laws, while another detailed why the circumstances are different enough not to support preemptive mandates. Essentially, the argument was made that while God's Law did justify government health mandates, it only did so in situations in which an individual or household is ill instead of preemptive measures for entire regions or nations. I tend to agree with the second explanation. However, we should remember that the position that justifies preemptive mandates isn't without merit and is not pulled out of thin air. There is, in general, a Biblical precedent for health mandates. How and when these mandates are enacted is the real debate. 

Romans 13 & Jurisdiction

Next, one argument that I often hear relies on an appeal to Romans 13. As the argument goes, even if we disagree with mandates, we should still follow them as they're not causing us to sin. Though we might disagree with how the civil magistrate enforces laws or regulations, they have the proper biblical jurisdiction to enact and implement laws, so we should generally submit to those laws and regulations. That's the basic argument. 

Now, I could spend a lot of time here getting into the details of Romans 13 and civil law jurisdiction (it's a big subject) but suffice to say that I believe the civil magistrate is limited in more ways than just not forcing us to sin. The civil magistrate is also limited by its Biblically mandated purpose and function, i.e., its jurisdiction. I believe the jurisdiction of the civil government is tightly restricted to God's Law and its prescriptions regarding civil law (taking into account Christological fulfillment, which is a long discussion beyond the scope of this article). It could be seen as a sort of Regulative Principle of Government. Functionally, this means that I would be within my rights to choose to disobey the civil magistrate when they, 

  1. Ask me to sin

  2. When the magistrate acts outside of its defined jurisdiction

Though many evangelicals would not self-consciously think about governmental submission in these terms, most would presuppose some idea of the "proper role of government" as a prerequisite for a call to submit. I have not met many evangelicals nor read any evangelical leaders who would not limit civil submission to one degree or another. 

Regarding the Taliban, I daresay that rounding up political enemies and raping their wives would not be under the definition of most evangelicals' understanding of the proper role of the government. There's also the question of whether or not the Taliban are to be viewed as a legitimate government or rather as a hostile invading force (though this question could also be applied to Western powers). 

I still take issue with most evangelical leaders regarding the Romans 13 question as many have conflicting or poorly developed ideas regarding governmental submission. However, it is still a matter of argumentative honesty to recognize that by-and-large they do place limits on the power of the government and the extent of our duty to submit. When it comes to COVID-related regulations, the presupposition has been the affirmation of the above point; that public health is within the scope of the proper role of government. The argument is rarely, if ever, unqualified submission. Is there understanding of the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate flawed? Yes, I'd say it is. Is there view irrational, unfounded, or based on a radical and concrete appeal to submission? No. 

Not only is the prevailing evangelical view warranted, but there are also several examples from Church history that make similar arguments. Agree or disagree, the view should be taken seriously.

Selfishness

If we give our brothers the benefit of the doubt and trust that they believe that COVID-related mandates are beneficial to the health of your neighbors, then yes, it makes sense that it would be selfish to cling to your personal rights when your decisions could very well lead to the bad health or even death of image-bearers of God. Though we can and should care for our rights, a very basic Christian ethic is selflessness and thinking of others as more significant than ourselves (Philippians 2:3).

Another factor is how quick we are to advocate for our own rights while the rights of others are being trampled upon. This is more nuanced and is a matter of emphasis. I’m hesitant to stress this point, but it is something to at least consider.

The position I’ve seen articulated has been based on comparing the personal rights of individuals to the medical needs of those potentially at risk (whatever you think of the extent of risks, etc.). I don’t recall any position disregarding caring about all personal rights in a vacuum divorced from the context of weighing Christian priorities. Regarding the persecuted Church of Afghanistan, what is the correlating comparison? What is the personal human rights of the Afghan believer being pitted against? The desire of Taliban militants to rape and murder? There is no such correlating comparison.

What is persecution? 

There is a legitimate argument that could be made that any overreach of the civil magistrate is an abuse of power. When those abuses negatively affect the Church, one could also say that the Church is being persecuted. That argument is legitimate. But I want to push back and offer a few thoughts. 

How we use rhetoric matters. Even if we can make a technical argument explaining and justifying our language, we should think critically and empathetically before using extreme language. Though there are indeed different degrees of abuse and persecution, these words are strong and loaded. Unless we are transparent with our meaning, the deserved weightiness of these terms (and others like them) will lose their weight and meaning. In other words, if everything is persecution, nothing is persecution. If everything is abuse, nothing is abuse. 

This is a similar rhetorical problem to when discussing interpersonal abuse on a familial or ecclesiastical level. Though we should be clear that even relatively minor and rare sinfully abusive behaviors are real examples of abuse, the weight of the topic demands that we make distinctions of degree. A man who snaps at his wife once in a moment of frustration, albeit sinning and abuse, is not what we think of when we think of an abusive husband. All of us, to one degree or another, are abusive, toxic, and unjust people. Not because we are monsters, but because we are all sinners. Yet, monsters are real. 

We must not flatten the rhetorical language as if all abuse and all persecution are the same. Do not cheapen these words. Do not cheapen the suffering of those suffering under more extreme examples. Do not obstinately cling to your right to use, without qualification, ambiguous technical terminology when you know good and well that these terms are usually applied to much more extreme situations. Consider this. It would not be wise, helpful, or loving for some Israelite safely living thousands of miles away from Babylon to remind us that he is under the oppression of, let's say, having to walk for others (Matthew 5:41) while discussing Nebuchezzer attempting to burn alive Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Daniel 3).  

There's also the matter of consistent thinking. For well over a hundred years, the US government could mandate masks and other health-related orders. The appeal to a slippery slope of tyranny argument is being made a century too late. These are not new government powers, but rather very old ones. Further, while some have claimed that the government has zero authority to regulate any element of how we worship the Living God, we never hear about the tyranny and persecution of fire codes and building codes, which directly and indirectly affect how the Church gathers to worship. I am a bit of a radical, so I happen to think even those regulations are an example of overreach. Nevertheless, I do find our cries of "persecution!" very inconsistent and cherry-picked when we have silently acquiesced to laws and regulations built on the same legal principles as COVID-related mandates for several decades without as much as a peep of criticism. If this were about principles, I'd wager the outcry would look very different and would have started a very long time ago. 

Daws, and many others, are comparing government mandates such as mask and social distancing mandates with the brutality of the Taliban. What is happening in Afghanistan? There are many different reports, and some are conflicting, but what's clear is that the Church in the region is under direct threat of violence and extreme persecution. But what sort of persecution? 

The Afghan Church will not be persecuted, for a season, by having to hold a few Zoom worship services before they return to their megachurches. Instead, the overseas families of Afghan Christians are praying that the last Zoom call they had with their loved ones won't be the last time they see their family. The Afghan Church will not be persecuted by having to wear masks in certain public places. Instead, Afghan Christians are praying that their faces and locations aren't already known to the Taliban. The Afghan Church will not be persecuted by only walking one direction down Target aisles to pick up their favorite organic meal. Instead, the Afghan Church may be having their last meals very soon. The Afghan Church will not be persecuted by inconveniences. Instead, the Afghan Church may be butchered for the name of Jesus. 

Don't cheapen, or completely neglect to even mention, these distinctions. 

Owning, zingers, and spicy jabs

I don't like playing the "tone police," and I'm sure what I'm saying may be dismissed as just that. But as the years have passed, I have become more and more concerned with tone and attitudes. Perhaps I'm growing soft (in the bad way), or perhaps I'm growing gentle (in the good way). And, to be frank, I'm preaching to myself yet again. Though harshness or sharpness is undoubtedly warranted, at times, I have sometimes spoken too quickly or jabbed when I could have softly answered more lovingly. But this is more than just about tone. 

Christians must deal honestly and deal well with positions they disagree with. Not only is this a fundamental matter of ethics, as we're commanded to be truth-tellers, this is also a very practical stance. You may get many reTweets and Facebook likes from people who already agree with you while poorly dealing with your ideological opponents. Still, you will not change minds with caricatures, mocking, and snark. You may have come up with a zinger you can show your friends, but that neither honors God or helps your position. Many brothers and sisters are often in "the middle" or do not have firmly held views. The snarky "gotcha" tweets or the "spicy" memes alienates you and your opinions from the undecided and the moderates. If it is your goal to persuade and influence, we must do better. If your goal is to get virtual back slaps from your internet buddies, you already have your reward. 

And even if we speak dispassionately and without mocking, we still must present our opponents in the best possible light instead of the worst possible light. Is the benefit of the doubt only for fellow believers who agree with your views on secondary matters? Grace, charity, and giving the benefit of the doubt are only ever needed when there are differences or conflict, not when we're dealing with friends in our ideological cliques. Even if we address the worst of heretics or moral monsters, God still commanded us to tell the truth about them. How then should we treat brothers and sisters in the faith with who we disagree? Will we twist their ideas or make their ideas out to be worse than they are so we can "own" your Christian Twitter enemies? Though I can understand a very broad definition of persecution, I would also ask for a broad understanding of who our brother is and then treat him likewise.

Is it worth it?

Flippantly comparing COVID restrictions with the persecution of Afghan Christians is not only unwise; it's a futile strategy. While getting the approval of the proverbial choir, you look tone-deaf, calloused, and even cruel to many more. Though I understand how one could make those connections if I really stretch things, the comparison is lacking in needed nuance and compassion. That may not be the intent, but that's what's being communicated to many. As someone who disagrees with most COVID-related mandates (and agrees, along with Daws, that we should get out of Afghanistan, though how we did so was botched), we could do much better. And, lastly, putting all matters of tone and perceptions aside, if we are not honest in our criticism, we fail to honor God. Is it worth it?

ArticleJohn Reasnorcovid, afghanistanComment