To Open or Not to Open: Let’s Not Divide Over It.

Written by P. Ryun Chang

Ben Witherington, a long-tenured professor at Asbury Theological Seminary, is a top New Testament theologian. So, it was jarring to read what he said on April 20—because theologians usually don’t talk like this—against those believers who, after enduring several weeks of shelter-in-place, wanted to return to work. He said, “SHAME ON YOU FOR URGING PEOPLE TO VIOLATE THE GREAT COMMANDMENT. This is not at all what Jesus would do” (emphasis his). Calling them “narcissist” to boot, Witherington insinuated that these believers cared more about their “standard of living” than human life. Those are strong words of indictment!
One of them—in Witherington’s eyes—may be Pastor Jack, the Senior Pastor of a large evangelical church in Southern California, whom I know well because his church faithfully supported us when we served in Mexico in the 2000s. He, like all pastors except for a few, had his church closed since mid-March. Now, however, he is concerned about the fallout from a potential economic collapse, leading to “starvation, homelessness, severe depression, and even suicide”—a consideration missing in Witherington’s argument. What is more, Jack is alarmed that “the local community has been spiritually starving.” So, after mulling over when to reopen church doors—while asking himself, “Are we going to continue to preach the gospel? Are we willing to obey God and get back to the business of the church?”—Pastor Jack declared, “With much prayer and fasting, we have decided . . . [that] May 31st will be a day of great rejoicing as we meet for Sunday morning services.”

No, I am not writing this blog to cast my vote for either Dr. Witherington or Pastor Jack—both of whom are faithful men of God and champions of God’s truth. But, as more states reopen, it will fall upon individual pastors to decide what’s in the best spiritual and physical interest of their congregations: some will open up their church doors (while practicing physical distancing, I am sure) while others will continue with their virtual ministry. Yet what concerns me is a real possibility that the matter of whether to reopen will lead to acrimonious exchange of words between the Witheringtons and the Jacks in the church and which will end up fracturing the body of Christ. The fact that an esteemed theologian went ballistic on otherwise sincere believers forebodes the coming storm, though, perhaps, Witherington’s rhetoric has softened, seeing more states reopening.

Lest the unity in the body of Christ is taken lightly, note what Christ said to the Father the night before the crucifixion: “I pray . . . that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you . . . May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me” (Jn. 17:20, 23). Considering this, regardless of whether believers lean one way or the other, we should be mindful to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). Our failure here will remind the world that Christ’s followers are no different than our political leaders of both parties who are shamelessly and hopelessly divided.

So, what would it take to keep the unity? I offer two small suggestions.

First, to those who agree with Dr. Witherington’s sentiment, note that for most people reopening is neither anti-science nor narcissistic. On March 27th, journalist Katherine Stewart, in an New York Times op-ed, entitled, “The Religious Right’s Hostility to Science Is Crippling Our Coronavirus Response,” insinuated that Christians who favor reopening US economy and easing social distancing are “a denier of science.” That, however, is not necessarily true since numerous reputable doctors and scientists—not named Dr. Fauci—have been calling for reopening. That would include the well-credentialed Dr. David Katz who appeared on Bill Maher’s Real Time in late April. Dr. Katz also wrote a New York Times op-ed entitled, “Is our fight against coronavirus worse than the disease?” Super liberal Maher agreed with Dr. Katz whose reasoned response to coronavirus—in favor of "allow[ing] most of society to return to life as usual" while protecting “the elderly and chronically ill”—is neither violating the Great Commandment nor denying science. And there is nothing narcissistic about people needing to work to feed their families.

Second, to those who agree with Pastor Jack’s sentiment, let me redirect your attention to something you probably read in the past few days: [May 15] “Butte County Public Health officials had to tell more than 180 people who went to a Mother’s Day religious service to self-quarantine after someone in attendance tested positive for COVID-19”; [May 19] “A new federal report analyzing a cluster in Arkansas shows how easily the virus can spread in faith communities—even when they take precautions.” Considering this, even if the vast majority of people infected with the coronavirus will eventually recover, don’t shame people—like calling them “pansies” as one pastor actually did, or telling them, “You are full of fears”—for choosing to stay home and worship virtually instead of coming to church. In much the same way that people have different measures of faith (Rom. 12:3), not everyone has the same level of risk aversion; therefore, we ought not to “[pass] judgment on disputable matters” (Rom. 14:1).
COVID-19 snuck up on us without any warning and has taken many lives and ruined the finance of millions of people. Still, if the church of Jesus Christ loses its witness to the world by way of bickering among themselves over reopening, that will be the biggest casualty of the pandemic. How so? The hope of the world rests with the very institution Jesus built on earth to proclaim the gospel—the church. “Therefore, let us stop passing judgment on one another” (Rom. 14:13a).