Much has been reported about new Covid restrictions that have been rolled out in Austria and Germany over the last week. These restrictions are especially targeted at those who are unvaccinated and have as their goal increasing the overall vaccination rate of their respective populations. The logic is that if life is made sufficiently uncomfortable or inconvenient for individuals who are holding out against getting the vaccine, then those people will ultimately acquiesce and get vaccinated so that they no longer have to abide by the additional restrictions. Initial data does show that has indeed been the case. Many previously unvaccinated have gotten the vaccine in order to no longer be under the restrictions.
The worrying aspect of the situation has been the response of the church to the new governmental guidance. The guidance restricts access of unvaccinated people to stores and venues outside of those that are considered essential, like supermarkets and pharmacies, and it mandates what they call 2G rules (rules that limit access only to those who are vaccinated or have a documented recovery from Covid, where the words for “vaccinated” and “recovered” both begin with G in German) for access to those venues. In response to the government guidance, things that are not stores and restaurants can choose whether or not to implement 2G rules or 3G rules (allowing for the additional “G” of those who have a recent negative covid test) for entry. In all of these cases indoor masking is required. Interestingly, many churches have responded to the new guidance by requiring 2G rules rather than 3G rules for attendance and participation in church activities, including the sacraments in those sacramental traditions. The Catholic diocese in Berlin has publicly posted a 2G policy, and many of the Protestant churches have done the same.
Why is this so worrying? It is setting up a system wherein the church is essentially saying to a segment of the population “You are not welcome here.” I don’t see any other way to read the situation, and I don’t see how anyone in church leadership could possibly not grasp the theological and ethical error they are making in instituting such a policy. Jesus was accused over and over again in the Gospels of associating with “undesirables,” the sinners, the prostitutes, and the tax collectors to name a few. We see he freely interacted with those whom the world told him he should not, whether a Samaritan or a leper. Would he have drawn the line at the unvaccinated? Apparently, some in the church think that he would have!
I can understand (though do not agree with) the government’s move to make life uncomfortable in order to accomplish a particular public health end, but I cannot in any way understand how a church could possibly think it a good idea to limit access to the church only to those who were “desirable” and thereby ostracize an entire segment of their local population. Regardless of what one thinks about the efficacy of the vaccines and whether everyone should get one or be required to get one, certainly thoughtful faith leaders should recognize that dividing the population into those who qualify for the care of the church and those who don’t is folly. They are clearly communicating a value judgment: the vaccinated are good, wise, righteous, and worthy while the unvaccinated are bad, foolish, evil and unworthy of the love of God. Some might say that perhaps “bad, foolish, evil, and unworthy of the love of God” is over the top, and that these church leaders are only trying to protect the others in attendance. Okay…if that is the case, then they are at least calling those who are unvaccinated foolish and selfish. Whatever one may think, that isn’t the way to communicate that there is room at the foot of the cross for everyone.