In His providence, in January of 2020 Jehovah God unleashed a pandemic upon the world. This consequence of the fall into sin and harbinger of the judgment to come left nearly everyone in the world waiting and wondering what the SARS-CoV-2 virus was going to do if it infected their bodies. As is usually the case for humans when something too big for us to control confronts us, we “cried every man unto his god” (Jonah 1:5). Whether that god was an idol, science, man himself, or the true God, men cried out. According to God’s decree, once sick, some like Benhadad, “enquired of the Lord by means of his faithful servants, shall I recover of this disease?” (2 Kings 8:8). At such a time we believers felt the need more than ever to be gathered in the house of God for worship of this holy, terrible, and yet gracious Being, and, by the provision of biblical truth, to help those making genuine inquiries.

Yet that was the great question the church faced was it not: “Shall we gather for worship? And if so, how?” Upon calls for social distancing to slow the spread of the disease, attempts of various levels of government to shut down worship services, mask mandates, lawsuits, threats, and varied responses among even faithful churches, the pandemic created a firestorm of controversy within the church of the Lord Jesus Christ right at this point—shall we worship?

The last thing I want to do is reignite that firestorm. Yet, just as it can be healthy and helpful to revisit a disagreement between spouses after the heat of the moment has passed, I think it might be worth our while now, a number of years after the threat has ended, to revisit the specific question of worship services during a time of pandemic. It is my judgment that we can find a simpler approach to the questions that swirled within and around us. I began developing the following guide as a pastor attempting to help my local church pass through the pandemic. Reflection over the last couple of years has cemented a number of aspects of it in my mind. This article consists of five assertions concerning the issue, which assertions I also then explain. I ask that you not give up on the article before you read all five.

#1 The Fourth Commandment requires that the congregation physically assemble for public corporate worship on the Lord’s Day.

This has always been the way of the church’s keeping the fourth commandment, Old Testament and New. Besides, this is the specific requirement of Hebrews 10:25, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” Just as the church’s “gathering together unto him” (2 Thess. 2:1) at the end when Christ returns is a physical congregating about the Lord, so this “assembling of ourselves together” (same Greek word) in Hebrews 10:25 is a real physical gathering together in one place to worship God. This gathering for worship in a specific place we call a gathering of “the church.” Thus, physical congregating is implied in the catechism’s explanation of the fourth commandment when it requires us to “diligently frequent the church of God to hear His word….”

While “gathering together” through Zoom or YouTube, for example, is a helpful backup, and a backup we can be thankful for, it does not meet the full requirement of the Scriptures, and may not be put on the same plane as physically congregating for worship. To give online “gathering” the same weight as physical gathering would be like making your spare tire your main tire. It dishonors the one who made the car, and long-term use is unsafe for the car and the people in it. A spare tire is helpful when in God’s providence your main tire cannot function. But you make a serious mistake, and dishonor the Lord, if you make the spare tire of online worship into what it is not.

#2 The only legitimate reason for not physically assembling with the saints for worship on the Lord’s Day is if God Himself in His providence prevents us from doing so.

There are instances in the Scriptures when God Himself, according to the providential outworking of His decree in His children’s lives, prevents them from heeding this call to gather physically for worship with the saints on the Sabbath Day. An important reference to this is found in Leviticus 12-15, where God gives various laws concerning ceremonial uncleanness. Understand well, the cause of uncleanness in these chapters is not sinful behavior. Rather, in these cases, the Lord makes clear that one could be faithful to the Lord and yet become ceremonially unclean. In these instances uncleanness was simply the result of God’s providence working out in one’s life. Examples include a woman who has given birth (Chap. 12), someone who contracts leprosy (Chaps. 13-14), or a person who has a “running issue out of his flesh” (Chap. 15). These people were not allowed to “come into the sanctuary” (Chap. 12:4) for worship services until they were ceremonially pure again. God in His providence gave these people circumstances in their lives that prevented them from gathering together on the Sabbath, and thus their absence among the congregating saints was legitimate.

Psalm 42:1-4 describes an individual (possibly David) who was in a situation where God prevented him from physically gathering with the saints for worship. The psalmist wrote, “As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God. My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?” Verse 4 makes clear that this “appearing before God” was public corporate worship with “a multitude who kept holyday.” The man could not attend. But this man’s absence was not due to rebellion or apathy in his heart. On the contrary, he laments in the psalm because he longs to be there! Likely a sickness prevented him. But whatever the circumstances, they were God’s providential working in the life of the psalmist that he could not control.

To be sure, one ought not appeal to “providential prevention” lightly. Paul’s conviction to go out of his way to stop in Troas for the Lord’s Day on his way back to Jerusalem (Acts 20:6-7) prevents us from thinking we can easily use God as an excuse for our own laziness or cold hearts. Nonetheless, “providential prevention” is a legitimate reason— indeed the only legitimate reason—to keep oneself back from physically congregating for worship on the Lord’s Day. This is the reason why we tell a child who is sick with the flu, “It’s ok to stay home.”

#3 In some situations, it is the responsibility of the consistory to decide for the entire congregation that God in His providence is preventing the congregation from gathering for worship.

There are two important considerations here. First, the consistory (not the civil magistrate) has the responsibility and right to decide to cancel the worship service for the congregation. The elders alone, in the office of king, have been set up by Christ to rule over the worship of the church. Nowhere in the New Testament does the government receive the command to “rule well” (1 Tim. 5:17) the church institute, “taking the oversight thereof” (1 Pet. 5:2). Elders do. This does not mean the church may altogether ignore the civil magistrate. (More on this later in the article.) But let us establish that the right to govern the worship services of the church belongs to the elders alone. The civil magistrate may make decisions about fire code and such, but that is not the same thing as making decisions regarding whether or not the congregation will gather for the worship of God and what she will do therein.

Second, in statement number 3, note that the consistory has the right to make a decision regarding whether or not the “providential prevention” principle applies in any instance to the whole congregation, so that they must cancel the worship services. I realize this is an implication of what I said so far and there is no direct scriptural proof to give, but the logic is sound, and the practice has been in existence for ages. This is what lies behind the notion that a consistory may cancel the worship service for inclement weather. The consistory makes the judgment for the whole congregation that God in His providence is preventing the congregation from gathering for worship.

The consistory may legitimately decide the same in a time of pandemic also, thus canceling services, or reverting to the “spare tire” of online “gathering.” The consistory ought not do this lightly, just as they do not do it lightly for weather concerns. They ought to take into consideration many factors, including the fact that the fourth commandment is one of the Ten Commandments (no light thing!). Yet, when making this decision, they may (and ought to) also consider the declarations of the civil magistrate regarding gathering. The magistrate’s declarations are not by themselves the determining factor. The government does not itself have the right to cancel any worship service of the church, and the civil magistrate may overreach in its concerns. Nonetheless, the rightful rulers over the worship of the church ought to take into serious consideration the concern of the civil government when they face the question, is God providentially preventing us from gathering for worship? They are given a place by God to protect the citizens of the nation. In the case of a pandemic, a consistory ought to ask, Why is the government decreeing what it is decreeing? Are the government’s reasons legitimate? Is there a danger to the people? Is there a danger of the local hospitals being overrun? How long is this decree of the government lasting? Legitimately so? Illegitimately so? What is the physical health of our people generally? Our community? Are there ways to gather physically and yet comply with all or some of the government’s wishes? All of this and more should be considered when the consistory makes the decision that it alone has the right to make.

#4 In some situations, it is wiser for the consistory not to make the decision on behalf of the entire congregation that God in His providence is preventing us from worshiping together. Instead, the consistory is wise to leave it up to the conscience of the individual church member (or family) to decide if God in His providence is preventing that individual (or family) from gathering for worship.

A consistory legitimately does this, for example, when they judge that the weather is poor, but not poor enough to be a legitimate danger to a large section of the congregation. The consistory may send a notice out saying something like, “We are going to hold church services tonight, but we want every member (family) to use their own judgment concerning whether or not they believe they ought to attend.” When the elders do this, they are essentially saying, “We will hold services, but we want you to decide for yourself (family) if you believe God in His providence is preventing you from gathering for public corporate worship. If you do determine that to be the case, we will understand.”

It may be in certain situations in a time of pandemic that the consistory decides this approach is the wisest for now. They decide to hold worship services and leave it up to the individual (family) conscience to decide the matter for themselves. In fact, if the consistory feels compelled to make a judgment regarding the worship service, I would argue that the consistory does well to default to this position if at all possible and move to making a decision on behalf of the entire congregation only if the circumstances absolutely require it. In making this decision to leave it up to the individual conscience, the consistory must take into consideration all the questions and circumstances listed under #3.

#5 Both the consistory and the church members ought to comply with government regulations that do not bring them into conflict with the commands of God, even if the consistory and the church members do not like the regulations.

Now I am not speaking about the question of gathering for worship, but the magistrate’s regulations that may legitimately govern us when we do so. The basis for this assertion is the fifth commandment, which, as the Heidelberg Catechism instructs us, requires that I show all honor, love and fidelity, to… all in authority over me, and submit myself to their good instruction and correction, with due obedience; and also patiently bear with their weaknesses and infirmities, since it pleases God to govern us by their hand. It may be legitimate to question what is or is not “good instruction and correction” from the civil magistrate. And there may be instances where the consistory makes a judgment for the congregation that a particular regulation is illegitimate (for example, no singing) and that another regulation is legitimate (some form of distancing). Then again, there may be instances where the consistory leaves this too up to the individual conscience to determine what God would require them to do or not do (mask mandates?). Nonetheless, the principle itself is clear enough.

CONCLUSION

The approach above seeks to:

1) Honor the God-given place the consistory has been given to rule over the worship of God.

2) Honor the place the civil magistrate has been given to protect its citizens.

3) Recognize the two may come into conflict with one another, and give principled help to consistories and church members when they do.

4) Relate the issue to the practice the church has always had regarding inclement weather.

5) Recognize the priesthood of all believers and the individual conscience.

Does what is written here help answer every question that may arise in every scenario? Probably not. But if you think through what is here with your question in mind, you will see that it gives a principled way to deal with the vast majority of questions, and probably your own. Will there be times when church members disagree with the decisions their consistory makes in these matters? Well, are there times church members disagree with their consistory regarding canceling or holding services when there is a tornado warning? Just as in those circumstances the church members are then helped by consistory members who understand the principles clearly and explain their decisions clearly on the basis of those principles, so too during a pandemic. Meanwhile, the consistories are helped by church members who show honor, love, and fidelity to their elders, even if they feel obligated to voice a contrary opinion, which is their right.

But if the Lord sends a pandemic again in our lifetimes, which is certainly possible given the words of Christ in Matthew 24:7, may we glorify God by acting in a principled manner, willingly humbling ourselves, so that when we speak, we speak “that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers” (Eph 4:29).

You can access the Dutch version of this article, translated by Gerben Jongsma, by clicking the following link. Een terugblik op COVID en de kerkdiensten