(CC) When you disagree with the pastor

[ktgrok]

48 minutes ago, Janeway said:

Unless the kids are aware that he is supposed to wear a mask too and notice that he is not wearing it and ask, then this is a non issue. I would not bring it up. IF they do bring it up, remember you don't know what reasons he has for not wearing the mask. This can be a good time to teach the kids that we don't know all the facts so not to be quick to judge. And also, that it probably isn't our business to ask. Those are two great lessons to learn from this. And that is all that should be said.

Wait - this is something that impacts the health of everyone in the church, so it absolutely is their business to ask. 

[katilac]

2 hours ago, Janeway said:

Unless the kids are aware that he is supposed to wear a mask too and notice that he is not wearing it and ask, then this is a non issue. I would not bring it up. IF they do bring it up, remember you don't know what reasons he has for not wearing the mask. This can be a good time to teach the kids that we don't know all the facts so not to be quick to judge. And also, that it probably isn't our business to ask. Those are two great lessons to learn from this. And that is all that should be said.

If someone in a leadership position is not masking when required by law, I 100% consider it my business to ask. 

[kiwik]

2 hours ago, katilac said:

If someone in a leadership position is not masking when required by law, I 100% consider it my business to ask. 

While I am happy for my pastor to break the law in major areas of conscience I expect them to obey health and safety rules.  Sure they are not perfect but that means they may forget their mask and put it on quickly when reminded.  It doesn't mean deliberately ignoring and bragging about it.

[marbel]

8 hours ago, Janeway said:

Unless the kids are aware that he is supposed to wear a mask too and notice that he is not wearing it and ask, then this is a non issue. I would not bring it up. IF they do bring it up, remember you don't know what reasons he has for not wearing the mask. This can be a good time to teach the kids that we don't know all the facts so not to be quick to judge. And also, that it probably isn't our business to ask. Those are two great lessons to learn from this. And that is all that should be said.

 

The OP said: 

He outright said that he doesn't want to.

So, they do know all the facts. They can judge. 

And, as others have said, because this is a public health crisis, it is their business to ask.

This isn't something like driving over the speed limit, which people often do mindlessly. (And some people do mindfully, of course.)  This is someone saying, in essence, "I have decided to break this law simply because I don't want to follow it."  

[SKL]

I feel comfortable telling my kids when I disagree with our pastors.  I also believe there is no church I could go to where I'd agree with everything they say and do, so I am not likely to drop out of our church over a disagreement unless it rises to a certain level.

As to the specific issue of a face mask, that would not be a reason for me to complain or leave.  As mentioned above, I would kind of expect that while the pastor is preaching from the pulpit.  Closer to other people, I think it is up to each individual to decide if they are comfortable approaching the pastor or not.  Will he put on a mask if asked in order to meet with someone who needs him to?  I think most people who "don't want to mask" will still do it when dealing with people who feel they need that.

In his defense, there are a lot of people who don't feel comfortable with the idea that the pastor needs to wear a mask in order to interact.  Many will stay home if the pastor decides to do that.  So it really is not an easy decision for pastors.

[Janeway]

2 hours ago, marbel said:

 

The OP said: 

 

So, they do know all the facts. They can judge. 

And, as others have said, because this is a public health crisis, it is their business to ask.

This isn't something like driving over the speed limit, which people often do mindlessly. (And some people do mindfully, of course.)  This is someone saying, in essence, "I have decided to break this law simply because I don't want to follow it."  

Children are not always aware of the politics of something. Unless the pastor said it during sermon and the kids heard, then they likely did not know. On that note though, there is plenty of church going on online still. 

[ktgrok]

3 hours ago, SKL said:

 

In his defense, there are a lot of people who don't feel comfortable with the idea that the pastor needs to wear a mask in order to interact.  Many will stay home if the pastor decides to do that.  So it really is not an easy decision for pastors.

Wait, why would someone stay home if the pastor is wearing a mask? What does it bother them for someone else to wear a mask? I'm totally lost. 

Getting upset over someone NOT wearing a mask is due to being concerned about their own safety. They feel the unmasked person is putting them at risk. Getting upset over someone wearing one, even if you don't think it is necessary is based on what?

[SKL]

22 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Wait, why would someone stay home if the pastor is wearing a mask? What does it bother them for someone else to wear a mask? I'm totally lost. 

Getting upset over someone NOT wearing a mask is due to being concerned about their own safety. They feel the unmasked person is putting them at risk. Getting upset over someone wearing one, even if you don't think it is necessary is based on what?

I didn't use the word "upset."  I said not comfortable.  If you go on the church thread, you will see that some people don't feel like it's church if the pastor is wearing a mask.  Each person may have his/her own reasons.  If it doesn't feel like church, many people will just stay home / stick to online church.  So it is a consideration for the church/pastor to weigh.

I have heard various reasons why some people don't like seeing others wearing a mask in certain situations.  Some feel more valid than others.  I do feel like it's kind of important to see the pastor's expression when he's talking to you about something important.  I could see people feeling no value in hearing the pastor's muffled voice through an opaque shield.

[historically accurate]

23 hours ago, PeachyDoodle said:

If it's required by law, I missed that point. It's not required by law here.

Regardless, my answer stays the same. Pastors are human. I expect they also drive 10 miles over the speed limit on occasion too. You're not going to find a pastor who doesn't do wrong.

As to the bolded, it is true that pastors aren't perfect. However, I wouldn't let my kid ride in the church van with a pastor who doesn't obey the speed limit and/or seat belt laws. While I don't agree with breaking any laws just for the hay of it, to me it's a different story when they are acting in their position of leadership versus going to the Walmart for shampoo both for traffic laws and mask laws. 

OP, I am sorry. I am not currently attending church, so I really don't have a dog in this fight. My family does attend, and their church isn't reopening yet due to safety concerns of the older members. But my MIL, who I am currently caring for as she has had surgery, was basically told to stay home even though her church has re-opened . They told her they're leaving it up to members whether to wear masks even though it is mandated in our state. It's been hard to watch her grieve that loss. 

[marbel]

5 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

What’s confusing me is the mentions of it being illegal.  Most states do NOT have mandatory mask laws, and not for churches.  There are some exceptions I’m aware of.  But it’s a very different matter if it isn’t illegal but recommended vs actually breaking a law.

Why is this confusing?  The OP said masks are a legal requirement where she lives. Do you live in the same state/area she does?  If not, what is there for you to be confused about? 

[KungFuPanda]

2 hours ago, Dreamergal said:

Based on my family WhatsApp group with people I blocked, it means I am not "living out my faith" in these times because we choose precautions. I am supposed to live out my faith loudly and go forth boldly to proclaim, what exactly I don't know putting m children at risk. 🙄.

Wait! Do they think only sinners get Covid? They must believe it’s real for faith to be involved at all, but I’m not sure why they think the unmasked faithful are protected. 

[SKL]

1 hour ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

But if church is unsafe for people with disabilities, including the elderly, then people are going to stay home too.  They'll just be different people.  So, i guess the pastor needs to make a decision.  Whose attendance and participation does he value the most?  Is it better to make it safe for everyone, and have some people not come because it's not comfortable, or is it better to make it comfortable for everyone and have some people not come because it's not safe?  Or is there an option that's safe and comfortable for everyone?  (Stay online earlier?  Face shield instead of mask?)

I will say that one of the things that makes church feel like church to me are the people.  Church won't be the same unless I get to see them, and like many Catholic churches the people I see every Sunday are more likely to be elderly or people with disabilities than the general population.  One of the things that has been hard about this virus has been the way that it has made clear that there are many people who feel like society can be whole without the elderly and people with disabilities.  I keep hearing "those people can just stay home, so we can get 'back to normal'" and I think "how can it be normal without Pop or my neighbor Jeanne, or my son?"  People with disabilities are coming from a long history of being excluded from society.  In my opinion, in the days when people weren't at church because they were institutionalized, or there was no ramp, our churches were never whole or complete or normal. But it seems like other people are happy to go back to those days.  I'm not surprised, but it hasn't been fun to see how freely people admit that.

Well, for the record:

1) I quit going to church before any of the restrictions started, because I personally do not want to endanger the elderly people who go there.

2) I will not be returning in the near future for the same reason.

3) My church is doing the face mask thing, AND recommending that at-risk people stay home.

4) I wish churches would prioritize the elderly and fragile people, since they tend to be the people most hurt (in the short run) by not being able to attend.

[SKL]

10 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

Sorry if I wasn't clear.  I didn't mean that to sound like I was responding to you.  You had provided an argument, that masks can lead to people staying home, and I was providing the counter argument.  I didn't actually interpret what you wrote as you agreeing or not agreeing with the argument.  Although it happens that I do agree with my own counter argument.  

My point was that whether the pastor does or doesn't wear a mask, some people are going to stay home.  So they do have to weigh both sides.  Some of the posters were not considering or believing that there are two sides to be weighed.

I don't think this is an easy thing at all.  I will use my parents as an example.  My mom (who is in the poorer health of the two) pooh-poohs masks and all of it.  She would not attend if the pastor wore a mask to preach (what he does to talk to people after would probably not concern her).  My dad is more worried, and might be the one to refuse to attend if the pastor didn't wear a mask.  I don't know, since right now they don't have a church they regularly attend anyway.  But I could see where many "at risk" people would hate a service led by a masked pastor.  There are also many older people who do not want to wear a mask themselves to church.

I heard there were mask designs where the part over the mouth is transparent.  They were designed for deaf people who read lips, but may be a great idea for anyone who normally communicates with facial expressions, like clergy.

There are probably other solutions that would please many of the most at-risk people.  The thing is that when it comes to church, physical safety isn't the only thing and it may not be the biggest thing.  I am just saying it's not an easy or obvious choice for pastors.

In a big city area, I could actually see churches temporarily breaking it up with church A having masks and church B not having them (assuming that is legal).  Just another thought.

Edited June 15, 2020 by SKL

[KungFuPanda]

9 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

If you're a member of most Christian denominations then I guess you do believe this?  Isn't it a pretty universal Christian beliefs that all humans are sinners, except maybe Mary if you're Catholic or Orthodox.  And Mary isn't likely to get covid.  So other than that one tiger and someone's pug dog, isn't everyone with Covid (and every human without Covid) a sinner?  

How that translates to not wearing masks if you're Christian, I have no idea.  I could follow the same line of logic and conclude that since only sinners get killed in car crashes, or drown, I shouldn't wear a seatbelt or watch toddlers in the bathtub, but I still do those things, or would if I had a toddler. 

 

I probably shouldn’t have used the word Sinner. I meant people-who-aren’t-GOOD-Christians. I’m wondering if the Right Kind of Christian has special viral immunities that are cancelled out when you wear a mask at church but not the grocery store. 

[ktgrok]

28 minutes ago, SKL said:

My point was that whether the pastor does or doesn't wear a mask, some people are going to stay home.  So they do have to weigh both sides.  Some of the posters were not considering or believing that there are two sides to be weighed.

 

Right, but if he wears a mask, some will choose to stay home as a personal preference. If he refuses to wear it, some will HAVE to stay home for their own safety. That's different. 

Now, I am starting to think that given the evolving situation in some places, it would make sense to have multiple services, with the first requiring masks. That way the people most concerned can attend when the building is cleaner/air is fresher, and everyone is in masks. Those that hate masks can attend the unmasked one later. 

My parish is having a shorter service with no singing at all at 8:45am (Rite I - which is an older style, with Elizabethan language) , and then a more normal Rite II service with some singing at 10:15. Both are masked, but it allows people options regarding risk levels. If I go, it will be the early service with no singing, for sure. But those who think church isn't church without singing can go to the later one. (If the Pastor felt singing was too dangerous obviously he shouldn't have one with singing...but he doesn't)

[Jean in Newcastle]

28 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

Oh these are the ones that are self appointed authority on what a good christian (TM) is supposed to do. They also speak for God. 🙄. I am sort of averse to that so being the bad christian that I am, I blocked them. 

Good.  Of course you know this, but I don't believe that they are using proper application of Scripture at all.  The principles of love behind "the letter of the law" teach us to "Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;" (Philippians 2:3).  I get so annoyed by Christians who in arrogance talk about how they "are not living in fear" but "know where they are going to spend eternity".  I know where I am going to spend eternity too but I don't think that God wants me to take along everyone I can for the ride.  And I'm not fearful.  I'm prepared and am taking very simple precautions.  If God wants to take me home despite those precautions then He will.  But in the meantime I'm going to do what I can to live out my faith in these circumstances that He's put me in.  I believe that this includes finding contentment in the midst of a pandemic because He doesn't call us to only be happy and content when things are going along to the norms that we set for ourselves.  I believe that it also includes reaching out to people in different ways because we are not limiting to showing our love only in those ways that give us warm fuzzies.  I can put myself on a soapbox for this (or a pulpit 😉  ) but my point is not to preach but to encourage others as well as myself to take advantage of how I can grow in my faith in the midst of this crisis. 

Right now I'm working on preparing for the small Bible camp where I am director.  I don't know if God will open the door for us to have it this year - we will abide by our state guidelines for reopening.  The county we have camp is in phase 2 and must be in phase 3 for us to have camp.  But I don't feel like our preparation will be in vain.  If we can't have it this year we will next year.  (Reminds me of how Paul prepared for missionary journeys some of which got postponed by God for a time or rerouted.)  And if we are allowed to go ahead with camp then we will still follow "best practices" of hygiene, group separation, staying outside as much as possible, medical checks, masks etc. because it's not just about getting to do camp, it's about doing it safely while we're at it. 

[SKL]

8 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Right, but if he wears a mask, some will choose to stay home as a personal preference. If he refuses to wear it, some will HAVE to stay home for their own safety. That's different. 

Now, I am starting to think that given the evolving situation in some places, it would make sense to have multiple services, with the first requiring masks. That way the people most concerned can attend when the building is cleaner/air is fresher, and everyone is in masks. Those that hate masks can attend the unmasked one later. 

My parish is having a shorter service with no singing at all at 8:45am (Rite I - which is an older style, with Elizabethan language) , and then a more normal Rite II service with some singing at 10:15. Both are masked, but it allows people options regarding risk levels. If I go, it will be the early service with no singing, for sure. But those who think church isn't church without singing can go to the later one. (If the Pastor felt singing was too dangerous obviously he shouldn't have one with singing...but he doesn't)

Honestly, I don't think a pastor wearing a mask is going to guarantee anyone's safety.  Statistically it may make a small difference.  I think that other parishioners are more likely to impact the risk factor vs. the pastor.  Frankly, if I lived in a place with many cases, and I was at serious risk should I be exposed, I'd stay home regardless of what the church / pastor did.

I actually think it's a little irresponsible to imply that at-risk people are gonna be perfectly safe as long as other people wear masks.

[J-rap]

I have various thoughts on this.  I do think that, as our governor once quite practically stated, "The whole purpose of this (shelter at home) was just to push this thing out, flatten it and slow down. You’re not going to prevent it."  Our state has sheltered at home pretty strictly and I've supported it.  But, the point isn't to keep everyone from getting it.  

At the same time, our church's theology (which is one of the reasons I go there) believes that God's "Kingdom" doesn't begin in a future Heaven, it begins right here, right now.  That means that right now, we need to always act in a way that is most loving...  That is the very essence of God, after all.  To me, a very loving act in the midst of this pandemic is to try and keep people safe.  The fact that your church is even meeting in person (ours won't for probably several months still) is great!  It's a little thing to wear a mask and request others to do so too.  It has nothing to do with living in fear, and everything to do with acting in a loving way.

Edited June 15, 2020 by J-rap

[catz]

55 minutes ago, SKL said:

Honestly, I don't think a pastor wearing a mask is going to guarantee anyone's safety.  Statistically it may make a small difference.  I think that other parishioners are more likely to impact the risk factor vs. the pastor.  Frankly, if I lived in a place with many cases, and I was at serious risk should I be exposed, I'd stay home regardless of what the church / pastor did.

I actually think it's a little irresponsible to imply that at-risk people are gonna be perfectly safe as long as other people wear masks.

Well to be fair there are some interesting cases coming out that put some compelling evidence on mask wearing.  And other evidence that demonstrates some riskier situations.   If mask wearing is required, I assume the OP is in a higher risk outbreak kind of area.

https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2020/06/12/two-infected-missouri-hairstylists-were-wearing-masks-none-of-their-140-customers-also-masked-contracted-coronavirus/

https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them

But I agree, risk is never zero if you are leaving your house.   

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

Honestly, I don't think a pastor wearing a mask is going to guarantee anyone's safety.  Statistically it may make a small difference.  I think that other parishioners are more likely to impact the risk factor vs. the pastor.  Frankly, if I lived in a place with many cases, and I was at serious risk should I be exposed, I'd stay home regardless of what the church / pastor did.

I actually think it's a little irresponsible to imply that at-risk people are gonna be perfectly safe as long as other people wear masks.

Well, no one said anything about guaranteeing anything - heck, a lightening bolt could hit the church too, lol. But it would be safer, yes. Considerably so if everyone is wearing a mask - I assume that since she only mentioned the pastor that the others are abiding by the law and wearing them. If everyone wears them, it greatly diminishes the risk. Perhaps not enough for some people to feel it is safe, but if nothing else there are likely people in the congregation who don't know they have risk factors, but do. And keeping the flock as safe as possible sure seems like part of the job of the shepherd. 

[Janeway]

On 6/14/2020 at 5:34 PM, Arctic Mama said:

So this is kind of irrelevant too.  Are we not supposed to meet with the possibility of communicable disease ever again then? Or never without masks? There is always a risk of spread, no vaccine on the horizon, etc.

There are more important things in life than a virus, and death comes to us all. How long do we continue this behavior and mitigating our meeting and habits and who gets to decide that for the church? Is it three months more? A year? Until a vaccine that may or may not ever come and may not have total efficacy arrives?

 

When is it ‘safe’ and who gets to choose? I have no illusions that we are somehow at zero risk of it showing up here, especially when there is spread in this area (it’s just very very low and the fatality rates are even lower).  There is so much finger shaking and pontificating on the public safety on this thread, but precious little discussion of where the line is that makes sense to resume normal civic life with this risk in the background.  As a church we decided where it was for us, as a hospital my child’s facility decided that for themselves and their patients, as a homeschool group my kid’s extension program decided their lines too.  There are always lines, this is not something reasonable to require for life here on out in any communal singing or tight quarters indoors situation.

For us and our area, we crossed the line for safety and have resumed life, most of us.  Some have made a different assessment and are staying home still.  That’s okay too.

I just do not think the disease turned out to be the incredibly deadly disease we thought it might be at the beginning. And when I take my children swimming or get in the car and drive or anything else, I am taking risk. I think the line has been crossed to acceptable risk for the general public. People who are at especially high risk can quarantine if they want. However, this needs to be better defined. I am hearing "high risk" conditions in young people are really not that high risk. It is elderly or at least much older people with high risk conditions that is an issue. And even then, the death rate is not a certainty.  If my child were on chemotherapy or had HIV, I would quarantine. There are probably a few things that are that high risk. But for asthma, autoimmune disorders, etc, not so much. Like I said before, no point in being dead while still breathing, live life while you have it and be dead when your time comes.

edited to add: I think the media has done a lot of fear mongering. I think the riots are showing us how not contagious and not deadly this thing is. 

Edited June 15, 2020 by Janeway

[ktgrok]

6 minutes ago, Janeway said:

I just do not think the disease turned out to be the incredibly deadly disease we thought it might be at the beginning. And when I take my children swimming or get in the car and drive or anything else, I am taking risk. I think the line has been crossed to acceptable risk for the general public. People who are at especially high risk can quarantine if they want. However, this needs to be better defined. I am hearing "high risk" conditions in young people are really not that high risk. It is elderly or at least much older people with high risk conditions that is an issue. And even then, the death rate is not a certainty.  If my child were on chemotherapy or had HIV, I would quarantine. There are probably a few things that are that high risk. But for asthma, autoimmune disorders, etc, not so much. Like I said before, no point in being dead while still breathing, live life while you have it and be dead when your time comes.

edited to add: I think the media has done a lot of fear mongering. I think the riots are showing us how not contagious and not deadly this thing is. 

UM, it will take weeks to see the spread via the riots? We can't see that yet. 

And at least in my area, there are way more people hospitalized under age 65 than over, so although it may not be as deadly for younger ages, it certainly is very serious. My area is starting to run out of room in the hospitals again. 

I mean, how on earth can people say that something that in a matter of months has killed more Americans than died in World War I is not dangerous and contagious?

[Janeway]

43 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

UM, it will take weeks to see the spread via the riots? We can't see that yet. 

And at least in my area, there are way more people hospitalized under age 65 than over, so although it may not be as deadly for younger ages, it certainly is very serious. My area is starting to run out of room in the hospitals again. 

I mean, how on earth can people say that something that in a matter of months has killed more Americans than died in World War I is not dangerous and contagious?

The US population has more than tripled since WW1. Every year, almost 3 million people die from a variety of causes (when you do not include those who died to abortion). The number of people from the US who died in WW1 was less than a quarter of a million. 250,000 people sounds like a lot, especially when you think of it as a city being wiped out.  Legal immigrants come to this country every year at the rate of over 1,000,000. Babies are born at a rate of almost 4 million. And then there are the rest of the people who come here, not legally.  So you have to put it in to the context of the huge and vast population.  Even if that many people died in the US, it would still be less than 0.1%. Frankly, if our overall death rate were that low in the US, we would be in huge trouble. (it would mean people are living more than a 1000 years if the death rate were that low)

 

edited to add: I looked up each of these statistics online before I posted them and only posted the ones I found on .gov sites and such.

Edited June 16, 2020 by Janeway

[Janeway]

41 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

UM, it will take weeks to see the spread via the riots? We can't see that yet. 

And at least in my area, there are way more people hospitalized under age 65 than over, so although it may not be as deadly for younger ages, it certainly is very serious. My area is starting to run out of room in the hospitals again. 

I mean, how on earth can people say that something that in a matter of months has killed more Americans than died in World War I is not dangerous and contagious?

Also, it has been over 2 weeks since the start of the riots. Look at this article... https://www.foxnews.com/us/minnesota-protesters-few-coronavirus-positives

 

 

[Janeway]

13 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Actually, hardly anyone thought that COVID was an "incredibly deadly disease." In fact, the mortality rate is trending about where it was predicted around February or so. 

How do you know who is and who is not actually high risk? Have you studied the mortality rates for COVID? 

And the protests might not show what you think they show. The demographics of the protestors not match up with the demographics of those most at risk. 

80% of the ICU beds in our state are filled right now. 

Are you aware of the long term complications from COVID? It's always been about more than just the mortality rate. 

For the first month of lock down, I sat around and cried when I had to go in public and studied, constantly and obsessively searching for every study and every single thing I could find on Covid. I am not sure when I changed my mind and stopped feeling so scared. But there came a point in digging through the endless studies that I decided I am not scared enough to not go out or not continue to live life. I have grown to feel most people will get this in the end. I do not think a vaccination will come to fruition before then. I think it is better to have it now than during flu season. I plan to be tested for antibodies around September/October and if we have none, potentially face another lock down. But I could not really show you the hundreds of studies I have looked at. I have mostly relied on things that came out of WHO, CDC, .gov sites, or universities. And this is just my conclusion. And I could be completely wrong. I don't know the answers. This whole thing is such an unknown, we all need to make our own decisions. I might die tomorrow, and it might be Covid. But I might stay locked down only to die of cancer next year, or in a car accident tonight. I don't know. But I know when my mom died, suddenly and unexpectedly, over and over I thought about how cautious she always was, how she was always dieting and always worried and always frugal. And then she died before she ever got to do some of the many things she wanted to do. She also died while dieting, which really sucks. I mean, no last meal of chocolate. This has affected me. I know I will die some day, and I don't want my final days to be living in fear, closed up in my house (and certainly not on an awful diet).

Also, Covid has not been around long enough for us to know the long term consequences. We also don't know the long term consequences of the shut down either. Flip a coin and pick your poison. 

 

edited to add: I highly recommend the book "Freakonomics." It is about how people perceive danger vs where the danger really is. I can tell you, I do not know a single Actuary right now that wears a face mask or stays home. 

Edited June 16, 2020 by Janeway

[ktgrok]

45 minutes ago, Janeway said:

The US population has more than tripled since WW1. Every year, almost 3 million people die from a variety of causes (when you do not include those who died to abortion). The number of people from the US who died in WW1 was less than a quarter of a million. 250,000 people sounds like a lot, especially when you think of it as a city being wiped out.  Legal immigrants come to this country every year at the rate of over 1,000,000. Babies are born at a rate of almost 4 million. And then there are the rest of the people who come here, not legally.  So you have to put it in to the context of the huge and vast population.  Even if that many people died in the US, it would still be less than 0.1%. Frankly, if our overall death rate were that low in the US, we would be in huge trouble. (it would mean people are living more than a 1000 years if the death rate were that low)

 

edited to add: I looked up each of these statistics online before I posted them and only posted the ones I found on .gov sites and such.

You seem to be saying that hey, doesn't matter if 100,000 people die on average a decade before they should have, because we have plenty of other people to replace them with?? And maybe it is good, since we don't want too many people?

I'm sorry, but if my DH dies, I'm not going to be okay with it because hey, we got a new batch of immigrants. 

It honestly sounds like society feels that since masks are not super comfy, might as well let people's loved ones die. After all, we have new people coming to replace them. that's not...comforting. 

Besides, many of us fear the hospitalization, not death. I would be unlikely to die, but it would sure be a huge problem for my family if I were in the hospital for weeks on end. My poor 3 yr old would be miserable not understanding, and not able to visit me. I'm sure there are people in that congregation for whom a lengthy hospital stay, followed by rehab, etc would be nearly devestating. To have the pastor violate the law and increase that risk because he just doesn't like masks hardly seems Christian. I mean, how on earth is that "caring for the least of these"? Because they are not nice to wear? We are all asked to sacrifice, to carry our cross. Following the law and wearing a mask for an hour or so isn't much of a cross, really, in the scheme of things. I'm sure he asks harder sacrifices of his congregation. 

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

Ironically, I'm hearing this message primarily from people I wouldn't have previously thought of as particularly pro-immigrant.  I'm pretty pro-immigrant.  I intentionally choose to raise my kids in a diverse community where many of our friends and neighbors are immigrants.  I also advocate for more humane policies around immigration, and a path to citizenship for people who originally arrived undocumented.  I think that it's great that our county is getting so many new residents, and yet even I don't want to replace my gfil or my son with immigrants.  

Yeah. And that our population is higher....that doesn't make me not want MY dh, not some other random person. And if I end up in the hospital for weeks, knowing there are a whole lot more people in our population won't really help make me feel better, nor are those people likely to show up and change my 3 yr old's diaper, keep track of DS 7's meds and supplements, etc. 

Edited June 16, 2020 by Ktgrok

[ktgrok]

And people keep comparing it to dying in a car crash. We've already had over 111,000 people die in really, about 3 months, from COVID 19. 

There were only 36,000 traffic fatalities in ALL  twelve months of 2020.  

[Frances]

44 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

And people keep comparing it to dying in a car crash. We've already had over 111,000 people die in really, about 3 months, from COVID 19. 

There were only 36,000 traffic fatalities in ALL  twelve months of 2020.  

Probably the one way that it is like car crashes is that while you may not die, you could be left with life altering health issues.

[SKL]

11 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

You seem to be saying that hey, doesn't matter if 100,000 people die on average a decade before they should have, because we have plenty of other people to replace them with?? And maybe it is good, since we don't want too many people?

I'm sorry, but if my DH dies, I'm not going to be okay with it because hey, we got a new batch of immigrants. 

It honestly sounds like society feels that since masks are not super comfy, might as well let people's loved ones die. After all, we have new people coming to replace them. that's not...comforting. 

Besides, many of us fear the hospitalization, not death. I would be unlikely to die, but it would sure be a huge problem for my family if I were in the hospital for weeks on end. My poor 3 yr old would be miserable not understanding, and not able to visit me. I'm sure there are people in that congregation for whom a lengthy hospital stay, followed by rehab, etc would be nearly devestating. To have the pastor violate the law and increase that risk because he just doesn't like masks hardly seems Christian. I mean, how on earth is that "caring for the least of these"? Because they are not nice to wear? We are all asked to sacrifice, to carry our cross. Following the law and wearing a mask for an hour or so isn't much of a cross, really, in the scheme of things. I'm sure he asks harder sacrifices of his congregation. 

First, people need to stop saying stuff like this - implying "you apparently don't care if people die."  Nobody feels that way and you know it.  So what is the point of saying that?  Honestly I want to know, because it seems to me like an attempt stifle people with different opinions/observations.

Second, I think the comments here are really about whether people want to go to church if the pastor is masked.  It doesn't necessarily mean they want to go to church the old way right now (though some may).  For many it means we will just stay home through this masking phase.  There is loss in that on both sides, so maybe churches could explore other ways to try to meet in the middle.  Humans being the inventors that we are, I think we'll see new ideas in this regard week after week.

[ktgrok]

10 minutes ago, SKL said:

First, people need to stop saying stuff like this - implying "you apparently don't care if people die."  Nobody feels that way and you know it.  So what is the point of saying that?  Honestly I want to know, because it seems to me like an attempt stifle people with different opinions/observations.

Second, I think the comments here are really about whether people want to go to church if the pastor is masked.  It doesn't necessarily mean they want to go to church the old way right now (though some may).  For many it means we will just stay home through this masking phase.  There is loss in that on both sides, so maybe churches could explore other ways to try to meet in the middle.  Humans being the inventors that we are, I think we'll see new ideas in this regard week after week.

Because when I brought up the huge loss of life, I was told that well, our population is bigger now. The only reason I see for that to matter, is to be saying that we can afford to lose more people. That it isn't in fact a huge loss of life for 100,000 people to die. 

If someone says, in response to my concern for a hundred thousand people dying, "well, we have more babies and immigrants, and we don't want overpopulation" that sure sounds like they are saying it is okay for those people to die, we have plenty of extra people. 

[hs03842]

On 6/14/2020 at 1:32 PM, Ordinary Shoes said:

It's not a silly reason to find a new church. People who refuse to take precautions are doing so for a number of reasons, all of which are objectionable to me. They are rejecting science. They are probably politically motivated. They likely implicitly believe that they are safe because they pray and God will protect them. These are all problematic as far as I'm concerned. Do we drive in a car without our seatbelts assuming God will protect us? No. I actually think that's almost heretical because it's testing God. We have faith and we pray but we also receive medical treatment, wear seatbelts, and get vaccines. Obviously, I'm evaluating this based on my own tradition which might have a different perspective on this. 

It's never just about the mask with most people who refuse to wear them. 

This pretty much sums up what I was thinking after reading the post—the pastor is doing it to fly in the face of “the government overreach” or “for liberty” or some other thing. It has been disappointing to see how some faith leaders have responded to this. My pastor/church leadership was very wise about it/followed the law, and I know most churches are that way. Maybe he isn’t trustworthy in more than the mask issue. You have just seen this side of him due to covid. 

[DoraBora]

I haven't read all of the responses.

This is not a silly reason to leave the church.  Your pastor is sinning in his rebellion against civil authority --  and only because he doesn't want to wear a mask.  He isn't resisting for righteous reasons (as Corrie Ten Boom and her family did when hiding Jews from the Nazis, for instance).  

Sins like this are forgivable, of course, if one turns from them.  It may be that he hasn't thought this through and he needs someone to gently point out his error.  Pastors are spiritual first responders who often don't receive much support from others, and he has likely been carrying heavy burdens for the people of your congregation.  He may be weary and upset.   

That said, if your church's leaders (deacons, elders, etc.) are obedient to Christ, they won't allow your him to continue in his sin for very long.  They will exercise the church discipline mentioned upthread -- Jesus provided the guidelines in Matthew 18 -- and ultimately remove him if he isn't willing to turn around.  Unrepentant sin poses grave danger to your pastor's soul and is harmful to the Body and to those who might come to Christ but are disillusioned by this sort of behavior.

I might watch for a change for a short time, but I would leave if it continues.  The virus isn't the greatest danger in this situation.

[ktgrok]

4 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

Yes!

In addition, even if everyone gets it, buying time by slowing things down helps.  It might mean that someone gets another year or two with their family before they die.  It might mean that we have time to rebuild our PPE supplies, so that people can visit their loved ones in the hospital.  It might be that we keep the load in our hospitals down to the point that we can continue to do elective procedures.  It might mean that we identify treatments that work, and mortality and morbidity rates decline.  Those things matter.  

Truth. Just today the BBC had an article about a new treatment that will save one  in 8 lives on a ventilator and one in 25 lives on oxygen. And that had we known this in the beginning thousands of lives would have been saved. Had those people been able to avoid the illness a few extra months, they would likely be alive, to spend years more with their families. And people who get it this month will die who would have lived if they caught it later, when we have more treatments, most likely. 

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

Because when I brought up the huge loss of life, I was told that well, our population is bigger now. The only reason I see for that to matter, is to be saying that we can afford to lose more people. That it isn't in fact a huge loss of life for 100,000 people to die. 

If someone says, in response to my concern for a hundred thousand people dying, "well, we have more babies and immigrants, and we don't want overpopulation" that sure sounds like they are saying it is okay for those people to die, we have plenty of extra people. 

Well I suggest you dig a little deeper for intent.

She was saying it isn't logical to compare death statistics today with 75 years ago.  She wasn't saying the lives don't matter (or didn't 75 years ago for that matter).

The fact is that a lot of people die every year.  That doesn't make any life less valuable, it's simply a fact.  There is also the fact that we have no reliable actual numbers for the death toll from Covid19.  We do know that some people die from it, yes, and we should try to keep that to a minimum, but that does not require the entire world population to live in a bubble indefinitely, because the fact is that this virus has a relatively low death rate for the general population, compared to other pandemics.  Every day we hear more news that makes the virus seem less scary.  It doesn't spread like people thought, and it doesn't kill like some people thought.

Putting Covid19-positive individuals in nursing homes was a great way to show how much our state/local leaders care about those most at risk.  That damage is done and that caused roughly half of the Covid19 deaths in some states.  So it should not be surprising that people are skeptical about "health recommendations" coming from the same people.

The numbers are skewed every which way, and the "science" changes every day.  Makes it hard to have an intelligent conversation about this.  But that doesn't mean salting every discussion with "you obviously don't care who dies" is gonna improve the quality.

[DoraBora]

58 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Yes, exactly. 

I've been saying for the last several months that the reaction to COVID has revealed many unpleasant truths about American Christianity. It's pretty ugly, IMHO. The Rusty Reno articles and tweets were despicable. For those not in the know, he drunkposted (or drunk-tweeted?) a series of tweets where he alleged that wearing masks was "cowardly" and un-manly. It was incredibly bizarre and I think it's pretty obvious that he was drunk because the last tweet was just one word like "So" or something like that. 

I saw someone on FB refer to masks as "face diapers." It's the same mentality. 

Again and again and again people tried to explain that wearing masks is actually about protecting other people and again and again and again people like Reno claimed it was cowardly. They could not even seem to comprehend that someone could do something to protect another person. It's sick. 

Basically, these people (men mostly) bellowing about how wearing a mask is "cowardly" aren't going to do much to protect you and me and our kids from anything. Rusty Reno wants to go to Mass - who cares about your grandma or your kid. 

Well, his attitude is wrong, but it isn't representative of many Christians.  He's just a loud voice.  It's frustrating because people like him give non-Christians cause to turn away from the Gospel.

[prairiewindmomma]

Oregon just had a church case pop up... https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2020/06/99-new-coronavirus-cases-reported-in-union-county.html

The previous known case count in that county was 22.

99 new cases out of the less than 400 samples taken, still processing the rest...

I am not sharing this to fear monger, just as a data point that asymptomatic spread combined with a highly contagious virus can quickly spawn an outbreak in an area previously thought to be very low risk. Short of regular testing of a good number of people we may not know what is actually going on in our communities.

Edited June 16, 2020 by prairiewindmomma

[prairiewindmomma]

2 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Truth. Just today the BBC had an article about a new treatment that will save one  in 8 lives on a ventilator and one in 25 lives on oxygen. And that had we known this in the beginning thousands of lives would have been saved. Had those people been able to avoid the illness a few extra months, they would likely be alive, to spend years more with their families. And people who get it this month will die who would have lived if they caught it later, when we have more treatments, most likely. 

Katie, are you referring to dexamethasone? The steroid has been around forever. The initial reports in the US back in Feb and March were that steroids like and including dexamethasone were causing harm. It’s been much like the ace 2 inhibitor stuff. We are getting very mixed data. I am hesitant to call dexamethadone a wonder drug here. I know our local hospitals didn’t have tremendous success with it with the initial outbreak.

[prairiewindmomma]

The initial question was, “What do I do?” For us, we will not be rejoining our congregation when services resume. Masks will not be required and knowing our fellow congregants many refuse to wear them. We aren’t changing churches (which is our only option, as our attendance is based on geographical assignment). It is a hard position to be in.

[TCB]

On 6/14/2020 at 5:34 PM, Arctic Mama said:

So this is kind of irrelevant too.  Are we not supposed to meet with the possibility of communicable disease ever again then? Or never without masks? There is always a risk of spread, no vaccine on the horizon, etc.

There are more important things in life than a virus, and death comes to us all. How long do we continue this behavior and mitigating our meeting and habits and who gets to decide that for the church? Is it three months more? A year? Until a vaccine that may or may not ever come and may not have total efficacy arrives?

 

When is it ‘safe’ and who gets to choose? I have no illusions that we are somehow at zero risk of it showing up here, especially when there is spread in this area (it’s just very very low and the fatality rates are even lower).  There is so much finger shaking and pontificating on the public safety on this thread, but precious little discussion of where the line is that makes sense to resume normal civic life with this risk in the background.  As a church we decided where it was for us, as a hospital my child’s facility decided that for themselves and their patients, as a homeschool group my kid’s extension program decided their lines too.  There are always lines, this is not something reasonable to require for life here on out in any communal singing or tight quarters indoors situation.

For us and our area, we crossed the line for safety and have resumed life, most of us.  Some have made a different assessment and are staying home still.  That’s okay too.

My take on this is that there are ways of doing most things safely so that almost everyone could take part if they want. If you choose to take risks, fair enough I guess, but you are thereby excluding those that don't choose to take the risks. If there are 2 ways of doing things, 1 that involves risk and excludes a number of people, and 1 that doesn't involve near as much risk and would include many, if not all, then why on earth would you not choose the safe one. That is what I find hard to understand. My church is choosing the unsafe one. I am not particularly worried for my own safety, if there is spread in my area I work with those patients in ICU so face far more exposure there probably, although with the benefit of PPE, but I have decided that I want to do everything I can possibly do to not make the problem worse and not spread it to anyone if at all possible. So their choices to take risks mean I can't attend. There are things - like meeting outside, sitting spread apart, not singing etc, that might make it possible for me to attend. But that is not what they have chosen so it is what it is. Only time will tell what was the right thing to do, but looking at states like Arizona, Arkansas and S Carolina now  makes me nervous. It's also not all about death, it's about suffering and flooding the system. A friend of mine just worked 8 weeks in a NJ hospital. When she arrived there, in a 700 bed hospital, there were over 400 patients on vents. That is a crazy situation no matter how you slice it.

ETA I have worked with these patients in the first round of this mess and I can tell you it is not the flu.

Edited June 16, 2020 by TCB

[TCB]

1 hour ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Katie, are you referring to dexamethasone? The steroid has been around forever. The initial reports in the US back in Feb and March were that steroids like and including dexamethasone were causing harm. It’s been much like the ace 2 inhibitor stuff. We are getting very mixed data. I am hesitant to call dexamethadone a wonder drug here. I know our local hospitals didn’t have tremendous success with it with the initial outbreak.

The study is, I think, quite promising though. I have not looked at it in great depth though and should do. There were many things that were recommended at first that turned out to be either useless or possibly even harmful. The avoiding steroid thing came from information from China I think, and I think it was taken on board here initially and so steroids may well not have been widely used. The greatest benefit of dexamethasone was found in the population of extremely sick patients on vents. My experience with my facility in the first round of illness was that, at least initially, we were avoiding steroids. I'm surprised your local hospital used it initially because there was definitely information making the rounds then that it might be contraindicated. We don't used dexamethasone much in usual practice in our ICU, mostly methylprednisone and hydrocortisone. I think dexameth. is sometimes uses in neurology for patients with brain tumours.

Edited June 16, 2020 by TCB

[Bootsie]

5 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Because when I brought up the huge loss of life, I was told that well, our population is bigger now. The only reason I see for that to matter, is to be saying that we can afford to lose more people. That it isn't in fact a huge loss of life for 100,000 people to die. 

If someone says, in response to my concern for a hundred thousand people dying, "well, we have more babies and immigrants, and we don't want overpopulation" that sure sounds like they are saying it is okay for those people to die, we have plenty of extra people. 

I haven't seen, on this board, anyone saying the bolded.  I have seen people say we have a larger population now than we had in the past.  We don't look and say that COVID-19 is much worse in the US than in Belgium because we have had over 100,000 people die and Belgium has had less than 9750 people die.  We look at the deaths relative to the population.  In putting our minds around the risk and prevalence of death, there is a reason for looking at the prevalence relative to the size of the population.  This reason is grounded in mathematics, probability, science, and risk assessment.  

[ktgrok]

4 hours ago, SKL said:

 

The fact is that a lot of people die every year.  That doesn't make any life less valuable, it's simply a fact.  

Putting Covid19-positive individuals in nursing homes was a great way to show how much our state/local leaders care about those most at risk.  That damage is done and that caused roughly half of the Covid19 deaths in some states.  So it should not be surprising that people are skeptical about "health recommendations" coming from the same people.

 

Ok, sure, it is a smaller percentage of the population, but we still, most of us, think when we walk by say, the Vietnam wall with all the names on it, "wow....that's so much life lost!". We don't say, "well....people die every year." 

100,000 people dead from a disease that is spreading, and that can partly be prevented by a small action...and people are like, "well..I mean, what can you do?"

You can wear a mask! That's what you can do! And it would help those people in nursing homes too, since it would limit the community spread which would limit spread into the nursing homes. 

3 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

There are dozens and dozens of Christian churches not requiring masks that in no way represent any of that sentiment in Christianity, I feel like that has to be said.  Heck; the sermon my pastor preached on Sunday was specifically in Romans 13, on respecting the governing authorities. And the entire guidance from the beginning of meeting back up was that on not judging one another for what level of precaution one felt they should take, and honoring one another in love in respecting the boundaries and guidelines the other preferred.  
 

This thread disgusts me, but probably not for the reasons most of you are patting yourselves on the back for. Plenty of Christians in this country are managing to love their neighbor and not wear a mask without some sort of selfish, haughty motivation or political statements at hand.  We are believers first, and foremost, after all.

I expect this to fall on deaf ears, but am compelled to say it anyway.  You’re not more righteous and loving for wearing a mask than your neighbor is for NOT wearing one, because this is not a sin issue and the heart motivation behind either action is where the judgment rests.  It’s not completely cut and dry, even if the pastor in the initial example may well have been sinning, himself.

Well obviously not all Christian churches, most of the people here discussing it are saying their church the priest/pastor is wearing a mask, complying with rules, etc. 

As for not judging others on what level of precaution they take for themselves, that's fine. But when we are talking about what level of precaution they take regarding infecting others, that's totally different. It's why we have laws against smoking in public buildings, etc. 

And yeah, I'm going to say, that if you are in an area with enough community spread that there is a law requiring masks, and you are in an enclosed space for a significant period of time as described by the OP, wearing one is in fact more loving of an action to your neighbor than not wearing one. How could it not be?

23 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I haven't seen, on this board, anyone saying the bolded.  I have seen people say we have a larger population now than we had in the past.  We don't look and say that COVID-19 is much worse in the US than in Belgium because we have had over 100,000 people die and Belgium has had less than 9750 people die.  We look at the deaths relative to the population.  In putting our minds around the risk and prevalence of death, there is a reason for looking at the prevalence relative to the size of the population.  This reason is grounded in mathematics, probability, science, and risk assessment.  

Right, but my point about saying it was more than died in war, is that we DO think that was a lot of life - not in relation to the population, but in general. At least, i do. I was responding to the idea that this isn't a dangerous illness. It is. It has killed a LOT LOT LOT of people, but more than that, it has put many more in the hospital, in sick beds for weeks, into rehab, etc. That it isn't dangerous is flat out false. 

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

No, I absolutely meant it.  Responding to and discussing things with you and several others is absolutely not worth the aggravation.  You don’t listen, you’re not reachable or flexible, and less so gracious.  Sharing blogs or arguments or scripture will go nowhere and I’m a fool for bothering on this forum.  This is not the place and you ladies aren’t the people it’s wise for me to expend effort with.  It was foolish and naive of me to try.

I think people have done a good job of responding to this situation, but I also think that you feel when people say that this Pastor is sinful for not wearing a mask or whatever, that they are saying that anyone anywhere is just as bad for not wearing one. I am personally not talking about your situation, I don't know the numbers there, and I'm not talking about other places, I'm talking about this situation, where it is required by law and spread is such that masks were deemed a needed public health measure. 

[TCB]

8 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

No, I absolutely meant it.  Responding to and discussing things with you and several others is absolutely not worth the aggravation.  You don’t listen, you’re not reachable or flexible, and less so gracious.  Sharing blogs or arguments or scripture will go nowhere and I’m a fool for bothering on this forum.  This is not the place and you ladies aren’t the people it’s wise for me to expend effort with.  It was foolish and naive of me to try.

Maybe they just aren't convinced by your arguments, just like you aren't convinced by their's (you may well include me also so I should probably say ours instead of theirs). Honestly I think that is ok. It is OK if we don't agree, we can still discuss.

[prairiewindmomma]

39 minutes ago, TCB said:

I think dexameth. is sometimes uses in neurology for patients with brain tumours.

Yes, ^dd^ took dexamethasone with her brain tumor.  Its use for more than a few weeks generally comes with significant weight gain, endocrine impairment (dd ended up with Cushing's), and the need for a prolonged step-down schedule. It's about 6 times as strong as prednisone and has a longer half-life. Dexamethasone is also used in rheumatology and pulmonology in some parts of the US as a 1-3 day alternative to 5-10 day courses of prednisone. Having moved around a bit, it's interesting to see some of the regional differences in what meds are used.

I do agree the warnings were out there....I think in some instances they were just throwing everything they could at it....and I'm west coast so we had some of the early stuff.

 

[Bootsie]

57 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

 

Right, but my point about saying it was more than died in war, is that we DO think that was a lot of life - not in relation to the population, but in general. At least, i do. I was responding to the idea that this isn't a dangerous illness. It is. It has killed a LOT LOT LOT of people, but more than that, it has put many more in the hospital, in sick beds for weeks, into rehab, etc. That it isn't dangerous is flat out false. 

I don't see how looking at the number of people who have died in relation to the population is equivalent to the idea that it isn't a dangerous illness.  I haven't seen anyone state that it isn't dangerous.  There may be a difference of opinion of HOW dangerous. Lots of things are dangerous--snakes, war, climbing on a ladder, swimming pools, hurricanes, electricity, listeria, trampolines, hepatitis...  For all of these, how we react depends on how dangerous each is and how practical precautions to mitigate risk are.  

[Pen]

“Sheer cussedness”?   I don’t actually know what that is! But it’s an explanation I have heard for why some things are as they are.

[ktgrok]

This is a local church's information, maybe could find useful info to pass along? It's a United Methodist Church, and not only do they lay out the guidelines for reopening, but have a bunch of links at the bottom (a LOT) showing where the got the information they are basing this on. I'm impressed!

http://cpumc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/CPUMC-Reopen-Plan.pdf

[ktgrok]

7 hours ago, kand said:

This is really well put together. This article in the resources about what we can learn from healthcare workers that will allow the  general public to most safely re-enter society is excellent:

https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/amid-the-coronavirus-crisis-a-regimen-for-reentry

New York statistics have healthcare workers—the people with highest, riskiest exposure—having lower disease rates than the general public. There are  definitely lessons for us to learn there. 

Also...not going to lie...gotta wonder if the excellent information gathering and communication put out by that church in comparison to most around here has anything to do with the lead pastor being a woman (and a mother of five!). Mama ain't got time for people to get sick!