Wednesday, April 1, 2020

Safe distance. . .

It has been observed that churches have gone from nothing different to locked doors and isolated clergy seemingly overnight.  There have been odd attempts at trying to manage the affairs of the kingdom within safe distance -- everything from holding your own bread and wine close to the video screen for home communions to drive by absolution.  But mostly the churches have acquiesced to the orders to close their doors and suspend all worship services.

It is strange that along with this has come the silence that is deafening -- the tacit admission that the church is non-essential and that worship is merely a social gathering.  Abortion clinics, cannabis dispensaries, beer distributors, veterinary clinics, and a host of other odd things are essential but not the church.  They are important to the quality of life and we as people have rights to maintain in nearly every area but the church and worship.  How strange it is that churches have not simply shuttered their doors but given in to the prevailing idea that right to practice your faith unhindered by regulatory restraint is relative and that nothing the church does is all that important or essential to life.

Just to make clear my point.  I am not saying that the church should do her business like usual as if nothing were out of the ordinary.  Of course not.  But there is a big gulf between our locked doors and creative ways to serve the faithful within the constraints of reason, caution, and good medical advice.  It seems as if we have quickly agreed that virtual reality is a good substitute for the personal and that we have no other choice but to surrender to closure.

Think about this.  We are told over and over again the many, perhaps the vast majority, of church buildings are mostly empty on Sunday morning.  How hard can it be to find a way to respect social distance and continue services?  It is not as if we would have to find larger venues.  Furthermore, why is the option of more services with smaller attendance dismissed so frequently?  Rome can get by with the idea that the Mass can be said without people present and they still benefit from its grace but no Lutheran should agree to that.

Strange also is that all of this has one goal and purpose:  the preservation of health.  Yet this goal and purpose is routinely flaunted in pursuit of abortion without restriction and assisted suicide for those who believe their lives are not worth living.  How odd that one goal should conflict with another so entrenched with the liberal and progressive wing that is at the forefront of shuttering the church in time of epidemic?

I find it hard to believe that if a grocery store, abortion clinic, vet clinic, cannabis dispensary, liquor store, etc., can be open and safe that churches are by nature unsafe.  How curious it is that we would prefer close proximity to strangers in pursuit of a loaf of bread or roll of toilet paper but cannot abide the prospect of being within a couple of yards of the folks with whom we have shared the pew for many years?  Am I wrong in this or is something simply off with such logic and presuposition?

The office of the pope reported that if the church abandons the people in this crisis, the people will abandon it.  Another commentator suggested masses without the faithful will soon lead to a country without masses (and if you are certain Lutherans, insert your favorite substitute for mass).  Unless we as religious leaders reopen the churches, we will have given our quiet agreement to the proposition that the church is always non-essential, worship need not be in person, and the concerns of mortal life are greater than eternal life.  Are we ready to give such things our tacit approval?  If not, perhaps we ought to rethink what we are doing and not doing, what we are saying and not saying.

6 comments:

David Robison said...

I would separate what Christians are considering essential from what the state has told us is essential. Everyone agrees grocery stores need to be open. We think abortion clinics should be closed, they think churches should be closed.

The tension for the church is between the third and fifth commandments. How do we attend church without getting our neighbor sick?

The cancel-service argument for church is that church services are an ideal way to spread the disease in a way that shopping at the grocery store is not. The choir practice in Mt. Vernon, Washington is the best example of the problem with church. It was a bunch of people in the same room singing together. The sick person is expelling virus when they sing and everyone else is inhaling it. Do that for an hour and half the people end up sick. Two of them end up dead.

How far away do you need to be from people to prevent that from happening? Six feet works for normal breathing and talking. Singing will send it farther.

How long do you have to be in the same space to transfer enough virus to infect someone? Most anecdotes I read suggest 15 to 30 minutes will do it.

I could see a modified church service. Get the length to less than 15 minutes: confession, absolution, scripture reading, no sermon, consecration, communion, then out the door. Everyone have two homemade masks, one you wear before communing, commune, then one you wear after communing. No singing or chanting. One family group at a time at the communion rail.

For Christians who are choosing not to attend church or hold church, our motivation is not because the state told us to or because we are not willing to die for the faith. Rather, we are not willing to kill someone else for the faith. That keeps us home. I want to attend church, but I want a way to do it in a way that doesn't put everyone around me in danger.

Addressing the risk to others directly would be one way to engage Christians who are in favor of canceling service. I'm not sure what your exact argument would be. Here are some I could imagine you could make:

I don't think there's any risk of transmitting the virus at church. (You'll get push back on the science of this argument.)

The risk of transmitting the virus at church is just as low as going to the grocery store and spiritual health is as important as physical health. (You'll get push back on the science of this argument too.)

I acknowledge that the church service could spread the virus, church members could be hospitalized or die, and the world would point to us as irresponsibly spreading sickness during the pandemic, but the spiritual benefits outweigh the physical harm. Make this argument and that would be an interesting discussion.

I am going to greatly modify my service to prevent infection. Then we can discuss how much modification is the right amount.

(Sorry that my comment ended up as long as your blog post!)

David Robison said...

I would separate what Christians are considering essential from what the state has told us is essential. Everyone agrees grocery stores need to be open. We think abortion clinics should be closed, they think churches should be closed.

The tension for the church is between the third and fifth commandments. How do we attend church without getting our neighbor sick?

The cancel-service argument for church is that church services are an ideal way to spread the disease in a way that shopping at the grocery store is not. The choir practice in Mt. Vernon, Washington is the best example of the problem with church. It was a bunch of people in the same room singing together. The sick person is expelling virus when they sing and everyone else is inhaling it. Do that for an hour and half the people end up sick. Two of them end up dead.

How far away do you need to be from people to prevent that from happening? Six feet works for normal breathing and talking. Singing will send it farther.

How long do you have to be in the same space to transfer enough virus to infect someone? Most anecdotes I read suggest 15 to 30 minutes will do it.

I could see a modified church service. Get the length to less than 15 minutes: confession, absolution, scripture reading, no sermon, consecration, communion, then out the door. Everyone have two homemade masks, one you wear before communing, commune, then one you wear after communing. No singing or chanting. One family group at a time at the communion rail.

For Christians who are choosing not to attend church or hold church, our motivation is not because the state told us to or because we are not willing to die for the faith. Rather, we are not willing to kill someone else for the faith. That keeps us home. I want to attend church, but I want a way to do it in a way that doesn't put everyone around me in danger.

Addressing the risk to others directly would be one way to engage Christians who are in favor of canceling service. I'm not sure what your exact argument would be. Here are some I could imagine you could make:

I don't think there's any risk of transmitting the virus at church. (You'll get push back on the science of this argument.)

The risk of transmitting the virus at church is just as low as going to the grocery store and spiritual health is as important as physical health. (You'll get push back on the science of this argument too.)

I acknowledge that the church service could spread the virus, church members could be hospitalized or die, and the world would point to us as irresponsibly spreading sickness during the pandemic, but the spiritual benefits outweigh the physical harm. Make this argument and that would be an interesting discussion.

I am going to greatly modify my service to prevent infection. Then we can discuss how much modification is the right amount.

(Sorry that my comment ended up as long as your blog post!)

Carl Vehse said...

"and if you are certain Lutherans, insert your favorite substitute for mass"

Like this Lutheran did.

Anonymous said...

Not only is it a 5th Commandment thing, but also a 4th. If the governing authorities have asked/ordered all gatherings to cease for the time being in order to stop the spread of this deadly disease, are we at liberty to disobey them? Rom.13: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement.”

Archimandrite Gregory said...

Fortunately I live in Michigan where our governor treats the church as essential. She asks that we limit the attendace to 50. Therefore we have had the Eucharistic Liturgy every Sunday. Thank God We are not in NY with that so called Catholic governor.

Pr. Schroeder said...

The Mount Vernon choir practice was brought to my attention on Facebook. According to a news article, the congregation kept all the sanitary protocols. The article reported there were some 60 choir members. If they kept 6 feet apart, in circumference around, then the church sanctuary must be huge. Even a small choir can not practice, 6 feet apart, and so I do not think they followed all the protocols.
Also covid-19 has a 14 day incubation period: those came down with the virus, could have been come down with a week to two weeks prior the practice. Sadly, the 2 who died, maybe already had symptoms and did not follow the dictum, if you're sick stay at home.
I read about this in CNN which might a bias in reporting.