Food for thought from Scottish ruling

The conflict between the Christian’s duty, indeed natural longing, for divine corporate worship and their civil duty to obey the government has been tested over the course of this pandemic.

Months of discontent at government restrictions impinging on the freedom of Christians to meet in person for worship reached a crescendo when the Scottish Government introduced regulations effectively criminalising worship.

This was a step too far for many, culminating in 27 ministers of religion (including my own former pastor, Angus Cameron – now minister at Cumnock Baptist Church) successfully bringing legal proceedings against Nicola Sturgeon’s government.

Their lawyers successfully argued that the Scottish Government acted outside of her constitutional powers and that the blanket closure breached the right to religious freedom under the Human Rights Act.

But it’s important to read beyond the headlines. This case was not about whether churches should be closed during the pandemic, it was about how the government’s decision to impose regulations banning corporate worship in church buildings (and in other places) was reached.

What is worship?

As I continue to ruminate Lord Braid’s ruling, I’m increasingly struck by his comments on Christian worship. The fact that he’s not a believer (as far as I know) makes his ostensibly objective description of worship (or more accurately, what it is not) all the more remarkable for its incisiveness and empathy towards Christians.

In fact, I’d go far as to suggest that his observations are more important than the ruling itself. Why? Two key reasons: first, the Supreme Court could in theory overturn Lord Braid’s ruling (though an appeal is unlikely in the circumstances). Second, his commentary on Christian worship will remain publicly on record for all to digest. In a secular society, I can’t underestimate the importance of this.

Criticising an internal government email, Lord Braid noted the apparent absence of any recognition of the spiritual harm caused by the Christian’s inability to worship. He went on soundly to reject the government’s repeated assertions that worship is possible online, stating unequivocally that worship ‘cannot properly take place online’. Online broadcasts and services are best viewed, he said, as an alternative to worship rather than worship itself – it is ‘worship-lite’.

Lest there was still any room for doubt, Lord Braid added: ‘Live-streaming does not amount to collective worship and the essential features of worship… including Communion and baptism – cannot take place by those means.’

It followed that closing places of worship and banning gatherings of Christians for the purpose of worship effectively prevents them from practising or manifesting their religion, wherever that might be in Scotland.

A proportionate response

The next question was whether the closure of churches was a proportionate response to the growing incidence of Covid-19 infections. The answer was: ‘No’. The government had not discharged the burden of showing that less-restrictive measures had not been available. Lord Braid said the regulations pursued a legitimate aim (protecting health and preservation of life), but they were not proportionate and were therefore unconstitutional.

Comparisons are not always helpful. Conflating one scenario with another is not always productive. But Lord Braid made the valid point that government ministers ‘had not adequately explained why some activities such as jury centres in cinemas were able safely to continue, but not places of worship’.

Could Christian worship yet be legally banned during the pandemic? Yes it could, under our existing laws – but only if such a ban was shown to be a proportionate response at the particular time. In fact, the court specifically rejected the argument that any government interference with the right to worship was beyond its powers.

There is a balance to be struck, and in this case, the government was found wanting.

What next?

This all may seem academic at a stage in the pandemic when society is gradually opening up and churches are open, even if still subject to restrictions. However, we don’t yet know which direction the pandemic will go. Despite an apparently successful vaccination programme placing the country on an excellent footing, there remains uncertainty around variants of the virus. The issue of church closures could arise once again.

Whether Lord Braid has correctly interpreted the law and provided a theologically-sound observation of the nature of Christian worship may yet be tested further. But for now, the ruling gives Christian leaders throughout the UK plenty of food for thought. It should also challenge us as individual Christians to rethink our view of true corporate worship before almighty God, particularly if we have become comfortable with online ‘worship’.

A final point: Christians enjoy the freedom to disagree; and this unprecedented period in history illustrates the polarising views that exist. On the one hand, opening churches is not ‘loving your neighbour’; and at the other end, ‘closing churches prevents us worshipping God as He commands’. He knows our hearts. Let’s act and make decisions wisely with God-honouring motives.

We might not have expected Lord Braid to have referred to Scripture itself in his ruling, but if he had – I wonder what he’d have chosen?