Responding to a Worship Lockdown

Daniel’s courageous stance on the curtailing of faith

The prophet Daniel lived in conflicting times. Yet he prevailed, demonstrating both integrity and courage. Faced with an impossible challenge via a worship lockdown, he determined the cost to be worth the fight. Just as it was then, freedom to gather for worship is presently being challenged. Though the reasons differ the effect is the same. As such, the demands of lockdown measures call for a Daniel-like expression of adventurous faith.

Decisive Action

Any worship lockdown is an assault. Consequently, there was no question of what must be done in Daniel’s mind. When laws were imposed in an attempt to define how he should worship, he acted decisively. His response is compelling.

“Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went home. And in his upper room, with his windows open toward Jerusalem, he knelt down on his knees three times that day, and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as was his custom since early days.”

Daniel 6:10

Immediately following the decree made by King Darius, Daniel acted in accordance with His faith. No contrary rationale was able to penetrate his conviction, and neither did he deviate one increment from his custom. 

This stand became the foundation of one of history’s most pivotal moments. It is a monumental expression; a pinnacle example of devotion and faith, looked upon with admiration by generations of believers young and old. It was recorded in order to be repeated.

The Greatest Battle

Yet the greatest battle does not always come from enemies. As we gauge the response of Christians today it is clear a myriad of options are possible exposing a potentially divisive scenario. Unfortunately, before we encounter our enemies, we must hurdle past the objections of friends and associates. Objections, which if applied to Daniel, would suggest he made a tragic mistake. Yet this is the nature of a spiritual conflict. The opposition expected from enemies must first come from those we hoped would ally with us.

The prospect of our current worship lockdown has unleashed a similar controversy. Which is the reason heroes are a rarity. Controversy separates the men from the boys. This is what makes a champion like Daniel so unique. If it were easy, everyone would do it.

This is why the moment warrants caution. Especially toward those who see only defiance in a Daniel figure. It is not necessary to label those who resist government intrusion as ‘rebellious’. There is a pattern worth noting here. We should suspect accusation centred on motive, particularly because it requires no proof.

The Biblically literate should also notice the parallels between accusations of this sort and key historical events. In particular, we should not hold to a view defining non-compliance as simply the machinations of rebellion and hubris.

The Defence of Inaction

David’s older brother similarly scolded him for defying Goliath. Quick to defend their inaction, people tend to want to dismiss people of action as ‘agitators’. Today, as with Daniel, there exists an inference as to the legitimacy of gatherings and those who participate. It is dismissive ascribing questionable intent. Beneath it, all is the idea that modifying our customs is a perfectly reasonable accommodation.

At least, that is the justification for the hostility thrown at those believers who object to the legitimacy of worship lockdown rules. Daniel would not be among them.

The details of his stand are worth examining though the narrative is somewhat silent on the peripheral details. Nevertheless, given the rest of the scripture and our current situation, we can safely speculate as to the alternatives possibly offered to Daniel. It does not take a lot of imagination.

Preserving Status

Consider the effect of fear and ambition. The need to preserve status is a compelling force. Was this not a key motivator in the murder of Jesus? Imagine the fear surrounding Daniel’s deliberate transgression.

Being one of three governors, he exercised a broad range of powers and outshined his associates. To most, this was an influence not worth risking. A degree of shared prestige, highly valued by the beneficiaries, was to be prized. No doubt, these would be shocked by Daniel’s apparent cavalier approach.

Their response would be a predictable accusation. We can almost hear it.

Was Daniel not duty-bound to think of more than himself? The fate of the entire Jewish population hung in the balance. His obstinate and impulsive need to maintain ‘his custom’ could jeopardize the standing and security of his people.

Oddly enough, this was the very reaction Moses received from his people after challenging Pharaoh. They feared the disfavour of Pharaoh so much they were willing to censure Moses rather than entertain freedom.

“… you have made us abhorrent in the sight of Pharaoh and in the sight of his servants, to put a sword in their hand to kill us.”

Exodus 5:21

What they were really saying is ‘Moses don’t you care about us’. ‘Are you so bent on being a hero you would risk our wellbeing?’

The cost of being a champion of faith appears to require being reviled by those you mean to set free.

Uncaring and Disloyal

The assault continues. Moving from accusation to obligatory guilt, the pressure mounts. It begins with the notion of undue care before turning to possible disloyalty.

Was there not a debt of gratitude owed his benefactor, King Darius? ‘Surely defiance is no way to repay a man who extended us such favour’. Remember, Darius was a friend, so anything short of strict observance would be equivalent to poking him in the eye with a stick. 

Modern critics would likely not appreciate Moses or Daniel. Claiming a lack of care or concern for the welfare of the rest of the nation. They would make the case that nothing noble was at the heart of non-compliance. Or in other words, adherence to a traditional desire to worship equates to selfishness. Sound familiar?

Worship Lockdown?

If questions of guilt and disloyalty fail, inevitable attempts to redefine the nature of worship ensue. Assurances are made that obeying the ban does not compromise actual worship. That is, Daniel could continue to hold his faith undisturbed. He could secretly revere God in his heart.

One can almost feel the panic behind this tailspin of theological contortions; anything to find legitimate ways to avoid conflict or risk appearing peculiar.

Does worship really demand outward corporate expressions? The cautiously fearful would justify observance to this temporary 30-day edict, as a means of satisfying both God and the law. Always, of course, emphasizing the temporary nature of the ban. 

It seems people have already forgotten the ‘two weeks to slow the spread’ may never end.

Evidently, this kind of thinking did not sway the conviction of the prophet Daniel. As soon as he knew the edict was inscribed, he set himself to worship. The specifics are definitely worth noting.

Daniel repeated the daily routine of his devotion without deviating. Brushing aside any apprehension, he continued his observances, unmoved by what was now clearly outlawed! In plain view, before an open window toward Jerusalem, he prayed and gave thanks.

Accommodation Ignored

It seems he avoided several layers of simple and reasonable accommodation. We can be sure this was calculated! 

Though options were available he refused them. Daniel could have prayed with the windows closed. His refusal is perplexing and would be seen by some as promoting rebellion.

Similarly, this exact rationale questions us today. Authorities are downplaying the restrictions on worship by portraying them as a harmless inconvenience. Both a justification and a slight, it suggests the present guidelines are nothing more than a mild curtailing of our preferences. In other words, you are selfish and wrong to do otherwise.

If this were true then Daniel would be guilty of sedition instead of lauded as a champion of faith.

Between the Lines

Daniel is a champion of faith, and his entire posture emerged from a heavenly conviction; a type of ‘reading between the lines’. Since God’s law did not specifically stipulate open windows, Daniel acted on the basis of a personal interpretation. A perspective which, according to the Biblical record, was exemplary.

He disagreed with those who would minimize the significance of the ban. He brushed aside any suggestion there would be no real harm to religious freedom. Daniel correctly saw the issues for what they were and acted accordingly. His deliberate approach is worth noting. Certainly, no one would have faulted him for praying with closed windows. Still, he stubbornly insisted on a public display. Why?

Is this arrogance or did he know something others did not?

The nature of the crisis and trying times should give us reason for pause. At the very least it might be wise to withhold judgment against your spiritual family who continue to gather. If you object to opposing the ban on worship gatherings, at the very least consider that there may be more to this than what is being presented.

Daniel, for one, understood the importance of the moment he was in. Today we may very well be living in just such a time — a moment for champions driven by strategic faith. Still, to others, it may appear reckless and thoughtless. But what if there was something in these events we did not see? Do we really want to risk being on the wrong side of a Daniel story?

The Real Battle

Daniel possessed a keen prophetic insight. You could say he saw the ‘big picture’ which enabled him to properly diagnose the threat. Similarly, God is looking for a people with divine perspective. Ones who are unmoved by either the motives ascribed to them or the threats of enemies.

While Daniel’s accusers would attempt to paint him as extreme and unreasonable, the very opposite was unfolding before them all. What if such a moment was in the making?

Indeed history is not beyond repeating itself, as the lives of Moses, David and Esther also demonstrate. What seems clear in scripture is that an intelligent enemy will use every circumstance to suppress worship and the freedom of God’s people. Then when champions rise to advocate for liberty, the very recipients of that goodwill rise to defend slavery.

This is not about mere tradition or the convenience of routine, but a relentless effort to suppress worship. This worship lockdown is by extension just another expression of the siege on righteousness. It may not be the intent of natural rulers though it is the outcome.

Our battle is not with flesh and blood. Even so the ‘Darius’ figures continue to play a part. They are mere pawns! Mere people who, doing their best, have unwittingly complied with a spirit they cannot understand. The motives of governments, be they friend or foe, are besides the point.

This fight focuses squarely on the agenda arrayed against worship—the worship lockdown is simply evidence of a demonic intention. Those who see it, who can read between the lines, will not be distracted or misdirected by dismissive rhetoric or drawn into divisive debate with those who don’t understand. This is a time for unfettered worship! A time for leaders to stand with Daniel-like faith and courage.