Church and Corona

The Church has been challenged over the past few months - to love and serve the communities to which we are called, to reach out to our congregations who are isolated and keep them connected to
the body, and to be mindful of guidelines that are intended to keep us from spreading the Coronavirus to one another. Romans 12 says:
10 Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another;
11 not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord;
12 rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer;
13 distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality.

I think its remarkable the degree to which the Church has made responsible decisions to preserve public health, living out the directive of Scripture to love one another. And, where appropriate, churches have challenged orders that have been given by public officials that are contradictory to constitutional guarantees of religious freedom.  The vibrancy of the Church has been tested, yet we can rely on the Lord and recognize that He will bring us through.

+++++

In our current health crisis, the Church has the opportunity to show that it cares for one another, as
well as for the suffering world around us. Philippians 2 states:
3 Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.
4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.

Three or four months ago, perhaps many were thinking that the Coronavirus would be winding down by now.  Now, that so many summer activities have been cancelled and there is trepidation about the reopening of schools, there is uncertainty where this virus is heading.  But there is plenty of analysis of about how we got here.  And, I would say that one of the reasons we are seeing the number of cases that we are is that testing has increased; but, the percentage of positive tests has been concerning in some areas.  Overall, though, nationally the death rate does seem to be declining.  All in all, we need to continue to pray, to be strong in the Lord, and to take necessary precautions to protect ourselves and others from the virus.

But, there is plenty of theorizing to go around.  The New York Times has one - it's the church's fault.  Yes, it was a few months ago when the paper blamed the "Hostility to Science" exhibited by people of faith for the rise and spread of the Coronavirus.

Now, the Times has decided that it's the Church's fault that we are seeing cases rise. In a piece at The Federalist, writer Holly Scheer states:

As you’d expect from the not-so-subtle title, the NYT blames rising numbers on churches, ministers, sermons, and religious youth camps, specifically noting, “It has struck churches that reopened cautiously with face masks and social distancing in the pews, as well as some that defied lockdowns and refused to heed new limits on numbers of worshipers.”

Overt shaming like this might make you wonder how many of these millions of cases trace back to the faithful cautiously gathering for comfort and consolation during this pandemic. Surely the caseload must be astronomical to warrant targeting in this matter.

Except the article paints a different picture in the actual numbers: “More than 650 coronavirus cases have been linked to nearly 40 churches and religious events across the United States since the beginning of the pandemic.” I’m no epidemiologist, but I don’t need to be, because simple math shows that 650 out of 3,000,000 cases across our nation means 0.0216 percent of them trace back to churches. Less than one-tenth of 1 percent should not — and cannot — be called a major source of this infection.

Scheer declares, "It’s disingenuous to pin the caseloads of these states on churches, ignoring that contact tracing connects dozens of cases in Texas to churches, for example, out of their 230,000 and counting total cases. It is divisive. It’s fake news. A tiny fraction of a percent can’t responsibly or seriously be described as a 'major source' of transmission. And it’s a total distraction from what drives the predominance of coronavirus infections."  She also noted the difference, the double standard, in which churches are treated in contrast to the protests that have been held throughout the country.

Yes, there have been churches where an increase in the number of cases have resulted in pulling back on in-person worship. Once such instance last month was at Clays Mill Baptist Church in Kentucky. Pastor Jeff Fugate has been at odds with the governor and his restrictions, and made the decision to close temporarily after a number of cases were reported in the congregation.  But, the Louisville Courier-Journal quoted the pastor's social media post:

"There is no evidence that anyone contracted the virus at our church. That was only an 'insinuation' by the media," Fugate wrote. "They may have got the virus at a grocery store or another place of business that they had visited. ... Your bias and misinformation against 'church' is too obvious."

"Our church was not closed down by anyone, it was me personally who decided to close the church for a couple of weeks," Fugate added. "The media took that to mean that there was an outbreak at our church and you believed it and repeated it. Not true. But it was another opportunity for you to show your bias once again."

Tim Challies points out:

The article, which also made its way to the front page of the Drudge Report and various other aggregator sites, employs a lot of evocative language: Outbreaks are surging; the virus has infiltrated; cases have erupted; and so on. While it affirms that many churches and ministries have created and followed strict guidelines related to masking, social distancing, and other practices, it focuses primarily on churches that “have remained defiant in the face of rising infections.”

But, he believes the Times is missing a key element of the story of churches and the virus:

The true story of churches and coronavirus is their willingness to shutter their services for a time; to move online; to create and implement health and safety guidelines; to open with caution; to reduce seating capacity; to modify elements of their services; even to adhere to guidelines that are stricter for churches than for other sectors or industries. Kristen K. Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom says rightly that “a vast majority of churches meet or exceed federal health guidelines for reopening.” The true story of churches and coronavirus is the willingness of Christians to go above and beyond. Across America and across the world, Christians are doing their utmost to express love to God by worshipping him while also expressing love to their fellow man by taking every reasonable precaution. In that way churches are deserving of commendation, not rebuke.

But the virus has taken its toll on church attendance.  Many churches across our nation are not meeting in-person, which I believe especially affects smaller congregations who may not have the resources to stream their services.

The comfort level, though, of Americans in re-connecting with church in-person, is not particularly high. A study conducted by the American Enterprise Institute, reported on by Religion News, found that...

...64% of Americans said they were “somewhat uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable” attending in-person worship.

Even among those who reported their congregations offered in-person worship in the past week, 56% of respondents said they chose not to go.

61% of the category the survey terms "white evangelicals" "said they were 'very comfortable' (34%) or 'somewhat comfortable' (27%) with in-person worship services at their church. (Among them, men were far more comfortable than women — with 71% of white evangelical men saying they would be at least somewhat comfortable attending in-person worship services compared with 51% of white evangelical women.)"  The article also says, "By comparison, 36% of white mainline Protestants, 32% of Black Protestants and 39% of white Catholics said the same. (Among major non-Christian religions, 26% said they would be comfortable returning to in-person worship services.)

So, the reality is that the comfort level is not there, even among some evangelicals.  But, it is disingenuous to say that a church that is taking precautions to preserve the health of its parishoners is contributing to the spread of the virus.  Each church has to make the decision for itself and what is in the best interest of its congregation members, and a church with fewer members may be better equipped to return than a large body. 

We each, in this time of Coronavirus, have to make sure that we are taking responsibility for ourselves and others, following the directive to love our neighbor.  And, churches can extend grace toward their members and other churches in navigating these difficult decisions.