5 years on and a time to reflect
Are we any closer to the evangelical churches repenting from their trespasses?
The 23rd March 2025 marks the fifth anniversary of the first COVID-19 lockdown in the UK, which began on 23rd March 2020. This milestone provides an opportunity to reflect on the response of churches during that unprecedented time, particularly through the lens of whether their actions aligned with biblical principles or veered into what some might consider an "unbiblical" reaction.
When the UK government announced the initial lockdown, churches across the nation closed their doors to public worship, following the guidance of both secular authorities and, in many cases, their own denominational leaders. The Church of England, for instance, saw its archbishops call for a suspension of public services, a move echoed by other Christian bodies and faith communities. This was a seismic shift—public worship had not been halted in Britain on such a scale since the Magna Carta, enduring through plagues, wars, and other crises. For many, this closure raised immediate questions about the biblical mandate for communal worship, as seen in Hebrews 10:25, which urges believers not to "forsake the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another." Did the widespread compliance with lockdown measures reflect a lack of faith or a failure to prioritise this scriptural call?
On one hand, the decision to close could be viewed as a practical expression of love for neighbour, a core biblical principle (Mark 12:31: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"). Churches sought to protect vulnerable congregants and support the broader societal effort to curb the spread of a deadly virus, aligning with Romans 13:1-2, which instructs believers, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." The shift to online services, whilst imperfect, allowed many to maintain spiritual connection and even reach new audiences, reflecting a creative stewardship of resources in a crisis. Some might argue this was a faithful adaptation, balancing obedience to God with care for the community.
However, critics could contend that this response was unbiblical in its acquiescence to state overreach, particularly when worship was deemed "non-essential" whilst secular activities—like shopping—continued. The lack of resistance from many church leaders might be seen as a capitulation that undermined the church’s role as a prophetic witness. Acts 5:29, where Peter declares, "We ought to obey God rather than men," became a rallying cry for those who felt churches should have defied the bans, especially as evidence emerged that worshiping together posed minimal risk anyway. The fact that some congregations later held clandestine services—meeting in barns or bookshops—underscores a tension: was the mainstream church’s compliance a betrayal of its calling to gather, preach, and administer sacraments, regardless of circumstance?
The lockdown also exposed theological fault lines. For instance, the debate over online Communion—embraced by some denominations but rejected by others as invalid without physical presence—highlighted differing views on the nature of worship. Critics might argue that suspending sacraments or settling for virtual alternatives diluted the embodied faith Scripture demands. Meanwhile, the financial and spiritual toll on congregations, with some churches closing permanently, raises questions about whether leaders adequately fought to preserve the "household of God" (Ephesians 2:19: "fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God").
Reflecting five years on, the response of UK churches appears as a complex mix of faithfulness and compromise. It’s hard to deny the genuine intent to protect life, yet equally challenging to ignore the precedent set by yielding to restrictions that sidelined both the clear commands in scripture and the people’s spiritual needs. Perhaps the unbiblical aspect lies not just in the closures themselves, but in the muted pushback—the failure to robustly assert the church’s indispensable role in a time of despair. As 1 Corinthians 10:23 suggests, "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient." The question lingers: did the church, in seeking to do good, unintentionally forfeit something vital to its witness? This anniversary invites not just reflection, but a reckoning with how faith meets future trials.