Two related stories:
The ECUSA should have closed shop long ago and returned property to faithful Anglican congregations.
@Trent_HornSuspending mass because of a pandemic shows prudence, not faithlessness. Charity demands we not unwittingly infect others and God gave us intellects to discover how to stop diseases. As the Bible says, "There is a time when success lies in the hands of physicians" (Sir. 38:13).Would you agree sick people shouldn't go to mass? If so, then what do we with people who are sick without symptoms and don't know they are infecting and possibly causing grave harm to others?
i) Not what the Bible says, but OT apocrypha. Medical care during the time of Sirach wasn't notably successful. Usually did more harm then good.
ii) I don't take the position that weekly church attendance is absolutely obligatory. This post is more about the motivation to justify church closures during an epidemic.
iii) Life isn't risk-free. Christianity isn't risk-free. In India and the Muslim world, Christians take their life in their hands by going to church.
iv) There is, of course, an important moral distinction between a necessary risk and a gratuitous risk. But due to the corporate nature of Christian, there's the additional principle of shared risk, shared suffering, and shared reward.
v) Refusing to attend church during an epidemic, or suspending church during an epidemic, betrays a lack of faith. I don't mean you should count on God to protect you from infection, even fatal infection. Rather, you should have the faith to attend church during an epidemic, not because it's risk-free, but because, even if you did contract a fatal inflection, you died because you were acting faithfully. That's good way to die. There's no better way to die. You were acting faithfully by continuing to fellowship with God's people, share in corporate worship and prayer.
vi) That said, I'm fascinated by the assumption that it's safer to be outside church than insider church. Among other things, the church is a house of prayer. Isn't that the right kind of place to go during an epidemic? And to join with others there in prayer.
Is your church just a building with religious furniture, or is God present where his people are present? Does public worship confer no blessing? Is it more dangerous to be in church during an outbreak than to absent yourself? Only go back when the coast is clear? What do we expect to find when we go to church–in ordinary times? Does church make any appreciable difference?
vii) Where did some professing Christians ever get the idea that we're supposed to shun the sick? Think of those mission trips sponsored for church teens. They go off to some exotic location for a week or two to do mission. What if one of them develops the symptoms of a highly contagious, life-threatening illness. Should his roommates abandon him to fend for himself? Or should at least one of team risk his own life to stay behind and nurse him back to health?
viii) To some extent I think we've developed a mentality where we contract out the dangerous or distasteful jobs to "professionals". A number of doctors and nurses are at an age where they are more susceptible the infection. Some of them aren't even Christian. Should we expect more courage from them than from Christians?
Many modern-day Americans have never seen anyone die. In the past, that was commonplace.
Many modern-day Americans have never seen anyone die. In the past, that was commonplace.
By the same token, visitation ministry can be a valid alternative. But once again, that doesn't mean we should act like we pay the clergy to do take on the hazardous activities. That's not a proper view of Christian vocation generally.
ix) In fairness, Trent raises a valid question. Sure, if you have the flu, it would be more considerate to stay home. Likewise, Typhoid Mary shouldn't attend church. Indeed, she should be quarantined.
Yet this isn't about individual discretion, but a blanket ban. Moreover, he extends that to folks who may be sick but asymptomatic. Their illness hasn't manifested itself at that stage of the incubation process.
But consider what an extreme and paranoid principle that is. I shouldn't attend church if I might be sick but asymptomatic, and I should avoid church because other parishioners might be sick but asymptotic. Well, who's left? That could apply to everyone?
x) In fairness, he's talking about an epidemic, where there's a greater presumption of asymptotic people with a contagious, life-threatening disease. Yet there's a paradoxical sense in which it's more important to go to church the worse things are. Where Christians can pray with each other and not simply for each other.
What about hosting church services especially for the sick and dying. Those who are still able to come on their own or be brought? Pray over them. Sing together. Read Scripture together. That would be risky for the clergy, but so what? That goes with the territory. That would be risky those who brought them, but so what? Religion is ultimately about death and the world to come.
Suppose we had a recurrence of the Black Plague, only this was a new, incurable strain. Suppose 80% of the population succumbs. Should they die in overcrowded hospitals or die in church? Would it not be better for plague victims to take refuge in church? What better place to spend their final hours of life? What better place to die?
xi) There's an opportunity here for a Christian witness. The real or perceived threat of the pandemic has shaken up lots of folks who don't normally think about death. Thanks to modern medicine, we in the west haven't been exposed to pandemics for decades. That makes it a lot easier for folks to be worldly and suppress existential questions about the meaning of life, death, and the afterlife. Evangelical churches should take advantage of the crisis, and swim against the tide.
xi) There's an opportunity here for a Christian witness. The real or perceived threat of the pandemic has shaken up lots of folks who don't normally think about death. Thanks to modern medicine, we in the west haven't been exposed to pandemics for decades. That makes it a lot easier for folks to be worldly and suppress existential questions about the meaning of life, death, and the afterlife. Evangelical churches should take advantage of the crisis, and swim against the tide.
ReplyDeletethank you for posting, can you please answer these objections. Our local Gathering is really wrestling through this.
If you choose to gather you are not loving your neighbor and being part of the solution but instead exacerbating the problem of large gatherings.
Other churches are closing so why should we not heed that advice? Does that not weigh something?
The authorities are strongly suggesting not together, according to Romans 13 there words should carry weight to us. We will be openly rejecting their counsel in front of the world and your congregation.
This is a state of emergency end in addition public perception will be wrongdoing in a state of emergency to be gathering still.
Also on the side of actually Gathering as a Counterpoint, would you say there is a likelihood or a obligation to stay open for the unsaved who could potentially be walking through your doors? Or is this point nullified since large Gatherings are where the danger is at.
The final question that was posed was what is the greater risk?
Would really like to hear your input.
A basic problem is that there are right and wrong ways to address the pandemic (or better and worse), but we don't know for sure which is which in advance, and it's too late if we get it wrong. We don't know what will work. Maybe nothing will work. Maybe it's unstoppable. Or maybe it will burn out after it hits the most vulnerable fraction of the population. Maybe the crisis is overblown.
DeleteRight now the popular assumption is that we need to practice social distancing to contain the virus. But we don't know if that's a solution. To my knowledge, most healthy adults aren't at mortal risk from the virus.
There's the danger of the copycat syndrome. It becomes a social contagion. Mounting pressure to imitate what others are doing.
You can never please everyone. But there's an opportunity here for a Christian witness. The real or perceived threat of the pandemic has shaken up lots of folks who don't normally think about death. Thanks to modern medicine, we in the west haven't been exposed to pandemics for decades. That makes it a lot easier for folks to be worldly and suppress existential questions about the meaning of life, death, and the afterlife. Evangelical churches should take advantage of the crisis, and swim against the tide.
Rom 13 is irrelevant in this situation. The state has no legitimate authority to ban Christian gatherings.
DeleteI agree with this post. Some comments:
ReplyDeleteIn the Gospels, when Jesus touched an unclean person, or an unclean person touched Him, the person would often get well. Now we're supposed to believe that the transubstantiated elements which is the GLORIFIED Jesus Himself can transmit/pass on sickness? In the Old Testament merely looking at the Bronze Serpent was sufficient to heal one of the poison of asps. Yet, ingesting the anti-type of the type can actually make one sick??? [cf. Num. 21:8-9 with John 3:14] So much the less for Catholic sacramentology and its infusion of grace through the conduit of the sacraments.
I wonder if part of the devastation the Black Death wreaked in the mid 14th century in Europe was significantly due to Catholic sacramentalism. Also whether Catholicism has had a difficult time establishing itself in countries where it was difficult to grow wheat and grapes to make wheat based bread and grape based wine. Though, often the laity were denied the wine [and the shared cup]. Maybe partly due to seeing a correlation between sharing the same cup and the outbreak of disease. The Jews in Europe at the time were accused of being the source of the plague because they didn't get as sick as the Christians in terms of numbers and severity.
Now I know why there aren't Catholics in world of Star Trek. Replicated bread and wine are illegitimate elements to consecrate. Perish the thought of replicated transubstantiated bread and wine [g].
There are pictures circulating on facbook of Catholic receptacles for holy water being empty and a sign attacked to them explaining that their empty in order not to spread infection. Looking back, that might explain why as a young Catholic in the 1980s I found those receptacles empty from time to time. We're being advised not to touch our faces in order to keep from being infected. Yet, to make the sign of the cross, one has to touch his forehead. As a wikipedia article rightly states, "In some Catholic regions, like Spain, Italy and Latin America, it is customary to kiss one's thumb at the conclusion of the gesture, while in the Philippines, this extra step evolved into the thumb quickly touching the chin or lower lip. Ending the sign of the cross some place the right open hand upon the other (the left open hand), with all the five fingers, like in a prayer, till the height of the face. "
I fear for the Christians in countries like China where the governments are hi-tech and yet where the Christians are more devoted to church attendance than U.S. Christians. Christians in those countries will be stigmatized and systematically persecuted more severely because they'll be known for being a plague infested group.
At the same time, it's an opportunity for Christians to shine as those who take care of the sick out of Christian love. As well as possibly being an opportunity for signs and wonders to be manifested. Where Christians appear to be a group capable of healing the infected through prayer.
typo correction: "...a sign attacked [attached] to them explaining that their [they're] empty in order not to spread infection."
DeleteI think it is permissible for churches to suspend services on a very temporary basis in response to extraordinary circumstances. Extreme weather events, wildfire, etc. And we can add wartime circumstances to that list...we generally wouldn't demand people go to church during the Blitz in England during WW2.
ReplyDeleteBut the flip side is the error I see a lot of evangelicals making. The "we can worship Jesus anywhere" crowd who think that "worship services" via Skype and YouTube are adequate substitutes for public worship. Of course, their worship has already been digitized and commodified with the megachurch concert + pep talk model. So why bother to drive somewhere physically to imbibe such thin gruel?
This also follows from a neglect or minimizing of the Lord's Supper, and of Christian fellowship.
Yes, those are valid examples.
DeleteYou think all this overrides loving our neighbor and doing our part to flatten the curve?
ReplyDeletehttps://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/wellness-prevention/flattening-curve-for-covid-19-what-does-it-mean-and-how-can-you-help
Things like:
"courageous, proactive and aggressive steps to play our part in helping our community/region slow the continuing spread of COVID-19, we have a moral obligation to do what we can to limit such gatherings. The example of Christ, who set aside divine prerogative, who laid down his life willingly, gives us courage to take such a bold step. Although we do not trust in human wisdom over God’s wisdom, we do trust that God grants common grace to us through research and medicine, providing guidance as we seek to limit the extent of this pandemic."
And another idea
"our aggressive decision to limit the chances that we are the next Italy—not only shut down as an economy, but with its health system completely overwhelmed."
i) You're assuming that lockdowns flatten the curve. For reasons I've given, I'm not convinced that's the case:
Deletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/03/quarantine.html
ii) To my knowledge, the main direct effects of the pandemic are the fatalities and stain on the medical system. The main problem with overwhelming hospitals is that it prevents other kinds of patients from receiving the treatment they need.
But statistically, these aren't huge problems. And they may well resolve themselves in a few months.
In addition, massive economic damage harms the medical system, too. These are interrelated. Quality hospitals require an affluent society. Draconian lockdowns will cause potentially severe blowback on the medical system by shutting down countless retail/service industries.
Likewise, shutting down elementary schools forces many nurses who have children that age to take a leave from hospitals to care for their kids.
Another economic effect of lockdowns: https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/03/lockdowns.html
Deletei) The comparison with Jesus is a non sequitur. My post isn't about Christian rights but the good.
Deleteii) Nothing in my post is opposed to medical R&D. But you're assuming a particular policy is the solution. That's myopic.
Just to add to Steve's points:
Delete1. Listen to what Dr. Eric Strong at Stanford University has said about school closures. He really starts at much earlier, but I linked to 5:40 because that's when he says approximately a quarter of the entire health care force may be affected if we shut down schools. If so, that could cripple our response to the pandemic.
2. I've seen many experts argue it was less than ideal (to put it mildly) for Italy to have done city-wide then nation-wide lockdowns. Moreover, the same experts argue we should tailor our response rather than have a one size fits all response. For example, Dr. Anthony Fauci:
"I don’t think you want to have folks shutting down cities like in northern Italy. We are not at that level. That is a hot spot. Social distancing like in Seattle is the way to go. I’m not talking about locking down anything. There’s a big difference between voluntary social distancing and locking anything down."
Also, Dr. Amesh Adalja: "Social distancing measures (ie temporary shutdowns), NOT lockdowns, that respect individual rights will be a tool that may be appropriate to use in certain contexts based on local transmission dynamics."
Peter, a lockdown isn't the only containment model. S. Korea hasn't resorted to lockdowns.
DeleteAnother example, from a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist named Caitlin Rivers and Dr. Scott Gottlieb who was the former FDA chief:
Delete"I wrote with @ScottGottliebMD about the need for fast, coordinated mitigation measures to slow COVID19 - not geographic quarantines."
"But consider what an extreme and paranoid principle that is. I shouldn't attend church if I might be sick but asymptomatic, and I should avoid church because other parishioners might be sick but asymptotic. Well, who's left? That could apply to everyone?"
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me you've made your own case for staying home. In a situation where there's good reason to believe anyone might be infected and transmitting it seems the moral thing to do would be to assume you are and reduce contact as much as possible. It's not paranoid if we know that's exactly what's happening all over the world and in every state, especially if you already have confirmed cases in your community. Granted the scientific facts are still in flux, but my understanding is up to 50% of infected may be asymptomatic.
There's an odd stubbornness about this situation among Christian leaders that seems to me to be at odds with comparable non-medical situations. I have to think it comes down to not really believing the risk. We close church when there's a high risk from tornadoes, hurricanes, and blizzards because it's a gratuitous risk. We don't make speeches about the faithful witness of getting swept away in a tornado on the way to church. This situation has the potential to kill many more in our communities than the average tornado or blizzard, and there's something every one of us can do to mitigate the risk to our fellow congregants and by extension the broader community.
I'm still balancing facts and opinions trying to make up my own mind about this but so far this type of reasoning just smacks of the same type of odd moral calculus that characterizes Christian pascifists and those who argue that we shouldn't lie even to save Jews from Nazis. "I wouldn't kill even if it meant saving lives," "I wouldn't lie even if it meant saving lives," "I wouldn't skip a week or two of church even if it meant saving lives." The lack of careful moral prioritization is so strange to me that I can only think it betrays a feeling that things aren't really that bad and this will all end up "blowing over" and being much ado about nothing. And it may be. But I doubt we would be getting this level of resistance to closing church if people were convinced the dangers were more akin to the next Black Plague than the next flu. Of course solutions need to be balanced against the costs and the actual risks and it can't be an indefinite situation. Eventually life must go on even under threat. But if it can buy doctors, nurses, and scientists some time and lesson the risks to them and the community, I don't see why it would be any more unfaithful than closing church during inclement weather. Maybe I'm wrong and the risks aren't that severe. If so I'd love to see evidence of that, because I love going to church.
i) I'm not seeing a high level of resistance to closing churches during the pandemic. To the contrary, I'm seeing groupthink capitulation.
Deleteii) I already discussed a Black Plague scenario in my post and drew the opposite conclusion.
iii) I'm struck by the paternalistic attitude of elders who view themselves as the grown-ups in the room and demote their parishioners to the status of a kids to can't be trusted to make their own risk assessments.
If churches remain open, that doesn't mean you must attend at gunpoint. It simply gives you the freedom to attend or not attend, based on your individual risk assessment. Every parishioner will make their own risk assessment. It's not endangering other parishioners against their will, since everyone who attends has taken the potential risk factors into account. They've chosen physical contact over social distancing.
iv) We are embodied agents. Physical contact is an integral part of normal Christian worship. We live out our faith as embodied agents.
v) How is attending church more hazardous that going to a supermarket or bulk store or Dollar store or drug store? You're rubbing shoulders with crowds, standing in line, using public restrooms.
vi) As I explained before, unless you live alone, how does staying at home practice social distancing? You are in constantly physical contact with family members, and families are notoriously contagious.
vii) Finally, it's revealing when the issue of suspending worship services is cast exclusively in terms of risk, as if we shouldn't take into consideration how that might be offset by God honoring the faith of Christians who continue to fellowship together. It's a fundamentally secular attitude to view it as all risk on one side, with no compensatory benefits on the other side. The risk of going compared to avoidance of risk by saying home. What about the risk of missing out on God's gracious blessings on those who faithfully practice public worship during uncertain, potentially threatening times? If absenting yourself from church is cost-free, when attend church at all? If you have nothing to lose by staying at home, why go back to church after the dust settles? What were you going for in the first place?
i) You oversimplify the variables in risk assessment. There are several factors to consider in risk assessment. What's the likelihood that the threat will materialize? Do we know the likelihood? What's the cost if we fail to take necessary precautionary/countermeasures and we're wrong? What's the cost if we overreact? A one problem with the one-sided arguments of the alarmists is how they overlook the unintended consequences of their policies. That may generate an artificial crisis which is worse that the virus.
Deleteii) I couldn't drive to church in a blizzard if I tried since I couldn't see the road.
Mind you, there are worse fates than being snowed in in church, if it came to that.
Our forbears used to walk or ride or a horse in rain and snow to get to church. We've gone soft.
iii) A tornado is a narrowly targeted, short-lived event. You're comparing that to the pandemic, whose duration and impact are diffuse, disparate, and unpredictable.
iv) A hurricane is a more interesting comparison. That poses a dilemma because the track and power of a hurricane are unpredictable. If you choose to evacuate, you have to get out of time ahead of the gridlock. But evacuation may be premature since the hurricane may change track or lose power. As a result, many people disregard mandatory hurricane evacuations. In some cases, the gamble pays off, in other cases they lose the bet.
v) Some folks have a duty to stay behind, even if they endanger their own lives in the process, to check on those (e.g. shut-ins) who can't evacuate.
vi) In general we should take necessary precautionary/countermeasures. But that offers no specific guidance if what's necessary is in dispute.
viii) Church attendance isn't what has the potential to kill far more people than the average tornado or hurricane. You really think church attendance is driving the pandemic?
"I wouldn't skip a week or two of church even if it meant saving lives."
DeleteThat's you imputing to me your own assumptions. It's a malicious and scurrilous misrepresentation of what I said.