Rehearsing Control: The WHO Practices For The 'Next Pandemic'

The World Health Organization says it is merely being responsible--getting ready for the next pandemic. On the surface, preparedness sounds wise. Scripture itself commends prudence (Proverbs 22:3). But prudence becomes something far darker when preparation quietly shifts power away from nations, families, churches, and consciences--and concentrates it in the hands of unelected global authorities. That is why the WHO's recent large-scale pandemic simulation should give Christians pause.

In December, the WHO coordinated a weeks-long exercise known as IHR Exercise Crystal, involving 31 countries across the Western Pacific. The stated purpose was explicit: readiness for the next pandemic. This was not a hypothetical discussion. 

Participating governments were required to respond in real time--verifying alerts, sharing data, conducting risk assessments, and coordinating actions across agencies. The drill even triggered real-world airport and border systems. Some observers described it as "rehearsing the sequel."

Preparation itself is not the problem. Authority is.

Christians should be the first to affirm the importance of protecting life and caring for the vulnerable. The Church has a long history of leading during plagues--tending the sick when others fled. But what troubled many believers during COVID was not public health guidance per se; it was how quickly guidance hardened into coercion.

We saw governments restrict worship while allowing casinos and big-box stores to remain open. We saw pastors fined or arrested for gathering their congregations. We saw livelihoods destroyed, mobility restricted, and dissent censored--all justified as "following the science." The WHO was not a neutral observer in that era; it consistently advocated lockdowns, travel restrictions, mask mandates, and vaccine campaigns with little room for local context, religious liberty, or informed consent.

The concern now is that the WHO wants to formalize and expand that power.

During COVID, the WHO promoted measures that effectively controlled mobility--who could travel, when, and under what conditions. That alone should alarm Christians who understand freedom of movement as tied to human dignity and mission. But mobility is only the beginning.

What else could be controlled next time?

Medical compliance: Pressure to adopt specific treatments or vaccines, even when conscience or medical history raises concerns.

Information flow: WHO-aligned narratives elevated as "authoritative," while dissenting doctors, researchers, and pastors are marginalized or censored.

Economic participation: Access to work, banking, or commerce conditioned on compliance with health directives.

Religious practice: Limits on gatherings, sacraments, singing, and pastoral visitation--all deemed "non-essential" in the last crisis.

When an organization argues for centralized, binding authority during emergencies, Christians are right to ask: Who decides what is essential?

One of the most ominous unresolved issues from the COVID era is the concept of a health passport--a digital credential proving vaccination status, testing compliance, or health risk profile. While rolled out unevenly last time, the infrastructure is already here. Many countries experimented with QR codes that determined access to travel, restaurants, workplaces, and events.

A future pandemic could normalize this system globally.

What would that mean?

A health passport would not merely track illness; it would function as a permission slip for daily life. Without the "right" status, individuals could be barred from travel, employment, worship, or even basic commerce. For Christians, this raises profound moral and theological questions about bodily autonomy, conscience, and coercion.

Scripture warns against systems that control buying and selling based on compliance (Revelation 13). While not every digital system is prophetic fulfillment, Christians are called to be watchful--not naïve--about technologies and authorities that centralize power over the human body and movement.

Trust must be earned. The WHO's record during COVID does not inspire confidence.

Early on, the organization echoed assurances that human-to-human transmission was limited--statements later proven false. It praised China's transparency even as whistleblowers were silenced. It downplayed lab-leak discussions, discouraged travel bans that some nations found effective, and shifted guidance repeatedly without clear accountability.

Even more troubling was the WHO's tendency to dismiss the social, spiritual, and psychological costs of its recommendations. Lockdowns contributed to spikes in depression, addiction, domestic abuse, and educational loss--harms that disproportionately affected the poor and vulnerable. Churches were treated as transmission risks rather than sources of hope and care.

An institution that failed to weigh those costs adequately should not be granted more authority next time.

Christians are not called to panic--but neither are we called to sleep. Scripture commands believers to respect governing authorities and to obey God rather than men when the two conflict (Acts 5:29). The tension is real, and it requires discernment.

We can affirm preparedness while rejecting authoritarianism. We can support public health without surrendering conscience. We can care for the sick without accepting a future where unelected global bodies dictate worship, movement, and livelihood.

The WHO's quiet simulations are not neutral. They reveal assumptions about control, compliance, and centralized power. As believers, we must ask hard questions now--before the next crisis makes resistance socially unacceptable.

Because if the last pandemic taught us anything, it is this: emergencies do not create power grabs; they reveal them. And next time, the restrictions may not simply return--they may come back refined, digitized, and far harder to resist.