Jump to content

Menu

Church and covid--make an argument why this is ok


PeterPan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Say someone attends a church that, has up till now, at least paid lip service to being very respectful about mandates, what the gov't says, blah blah. And say it was obvious there was an undercurrent (in church leadership) that REALLY DIDN'T LIKE what was going on, but in theory everything was getting done. And say this church finally said nuts with it, one masked service, one unmasked service, and y'all sit wherever you want, none of this roped off rows mess either.

I'm not asking whether you think that's terrible, because I can already imagine those arguments. What I'm asking for is *what is going through their brains*? What is the logic here? Under what viewpoint are they getting there that they can disobey the printed mandate from the governor that the governor is saying applies to churches?

Is the idea that the mandates are *requests* not *law* and that therefore the church can do what they want?

The church is claiming that the new clarifications by the CDC on death certificates makes clear that this has been a sham, that it's not as big an issue as claimed, that the church's ability to sing, worship, fellowship (that's a new one, masks hinder "fellowship" haha), etc. is being affected.

Again, I already know how to frame this as terrible, so don't bother. **I'm just asking someone to ENLIGHTEN me on what kind of political persuasion or thought process or whatever is getting them there.** 

I don't go to church for politics, and I'm an extremely rule following, b&w person. This completely and utterly flabbergasts me. I mean, even logically I can't get there. Ours is the state with the rogue former amish pastor and the 91 cases from a man (or his family? the church disputes everything) coming to church symptomatic. https://spectrumnews1.com/oh/columbus/news/2020/08/18/after-91-cases--church-pastor-says-virus-is-milder-than-flu  So I know the data, I know this is odd. Me, just me, I'd toss the masks and keep distance. I think the whole roped off pews is stupid and overkill but that they should rearrange and space the rows a bit more. There's plenty of evidence for distance. So how are they getting to NO DISTANCE, NO MASKS, NO NOTHING??? 

Help me out here. Channel my inner person whatever, cause I'm missing where they're coming from. I really want to see it. Or at least I think I want to see it? I'm trying to think there's SOME element of rationality to this and I'm missing it. How do they interpret the math to get to this? Or it's a statement on law and civil liberties? The virus isn't deadly so shut up and don't care if you get exposed? What am I missing?

Adding: It's important to me, because I don't know how I'm supposed to take my ds into this kind of lawless environment. Talk about confusing. But if there's a moral argument for their unmasked service, it's actually better for my ds because he struggles to go anywhere in a mask. So he'd be more likely to be back in church with this.

Edited by PeterPan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

Say someone attends a church that, has up till now, at least paid lip service to being very respectful about mandates, what the gov't says, blah blah. And say it was obvious there was an undercurrent (in church leadership) that REALLY DIDN'T LIKE what was going on, but in theory everything was getting done. And say this church finally said nuts with it, one masked service, one unmasked service, and y'all sit wherever you want, none of this roped off rows mess either.

I'm not asking whether you think that's terrible, because I can already imagine those arguments. What I'm asking for is *what is going through their brains*? What is the logic here? Under what viewpoint are they getting there that they can disobey the printed mandate from the governor that the governor is saying applies to churches?

Is the idea that the mandates are *requests* not *law* and that therefore the church can do what they want?

The church is claiming that the new clarifications by the CDC on death certificates makes clear that this has been a sham, that it's not as big an issue as claimed, that the church's ability to sing, worship, fellowship (that's a new one, masks hinder "fellowship" haha), etc. is being affected.

Again, I already know how to frame this as terrible, so don't bother. **I'm just asking someone to ENLIGHTEN me on what kind of political persuasion or thought process or whatever is getting them there.** 

I don't go to church for politics, and I'm an extremely rule following, b&w person. This completely and utterly flabbergasts me. I mean, even logically I can't get there. Ours is the state with the rogue former amish pastor and the 91 cases from a man (or his family? the church disputes everything) coming to church symptomatic. https://spectrumnews1.com/oh/columbus/news/2020/08/18/after-91-cases--church-pastor-says-virus-is-milder-than-flu  So I know the data, I know this is odd. Me, just me, I'd toss the masks and keep distance. I think the whole roped off pews is stupid and overkill but that they should rearrange and space the rows a bit more. There's plenty of evidence for distance. So how are they getting to NO DISTANCE, NO MASKS, NO NOTHING??? 

Help me out here. Channel my inner person whatever, cause I'm missing where they're coming from. I really want to see it. Or at least I think I want to see it? I'm trying to think there's SOME element of rationality to this and I'm missing it. How do they interpret the math to get to this? Or it's a statement on law and civil liberties? The virus isn't deadly so shut up and don't care if you get exposed? What am I missing?

Adding: It's important to me, because I don't know how I'm supposed to take my ds into this kind of lawless environment. Talk about confusing. But if there's a moral argument for their unmasked service, it's actually better for my ds because he struggles to go anywhere in a mask. So he'd be more likely to be back in church with this.

The argument that I have heard most often mainly centers on freedom of religion, the free exercise clause of religion. The state can't mess with their desire to meet, however they want to meet, because of the first amendment. Secondly, a lot of churches believe that God will protect their congregation and/or bless them because they are doing what is "right" in God's eyes against an unjust government.

Since they had been forllowing the laws up til now, I would assume the leadership has decided that COVID is a sham, and now that they know this "fact", the state's rules make no sense. Therefore, since the state is trying to keep them from meeting for no sensible reason, it is now a first amendment thing.

Edited by beckyjo
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, beckyjo said:

against an unjust government.

Thing is, they don't actually come out and SAY this. It's like it's implied or going through their head. I must not drink from the right bottle of koolaid or something, because I don't even know where this is coming from. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, beckyjo said:

the free exercise clause of religion.

ok, I'm chewing on this.

Are mandates LAWS? Where are they legally? Wasn't it something sorta like sideways laws, not passed by the legislature but allowed/enforceable? So the church is saying the governor doesn't have the right to mandate churches wear masks?

See my problem is, what happens when the county health dept comes in? Or are counties all looking the other way and not enforcing this? Is this just kind of quietly happening in LOTS of (conservative, obviously not the more politically liberal) churches? Am I just totally out of the loop? Haha. 

So the governor can't say you have to wear a mask while singing in church because you have the right to free exercise of your religion, yes? But the governor keeps swearing up and down his mandate applies to churches. 

I don't know. But how does keeping some distance affect free exercise of religion? They don't like talking outside instead of in the sanctuary? How is that part defensible if they get hauled into court? Are other churches doing this too and it's just a swoosh movement? 

They claim there's "no end" in sight, but we all know that's hogwash. We all know the whole thing ends after the election. THAT is easy to see. If they had said Pelosi goes unmasked, we go unmasked. That I would have bought, lol. Clearly there's something going on with the data if Pelosi is going around unmasked but we can't be. 

Oh, I did figure out part of that btw. Found the death stats for I think our state and it was like 1:7 who gets covid in congregate living will die. (sorry, it was a couple days ago and I don't have the link handy.)  I was totally surprised, because I figured the numbers were like 1:2 or something. So even with the most vulnerable population factored in and skewing it (nursing homes, assisted living, long term care facilities, prisons) the death rate was 1:7 for those who contracted covid. Means that even if my dad got it living in assisted living and being high risk (60+, overweight, comorbid conditions) his likelihood of SURVIVING is much higher than we realized. Now his likelihood of dying is very real too. But it's not like 99% death for that group.

To me it just means there's a lot they aren't telling us. The treatments are working, something. I google our state and they don't even bother to put up stats anymore. I kid you not. The whole "the sky is falling" every day thing on the news has stopped. Cases are still up, but this intense montage of we're dying we're dying has stopped. So again, maybe that is factoring in? But driving your argument on that (that the gov't is lying, whatever), isn't that kind of making church about politics? That's what gets me.

Well whatever. Just don't know if I can tell my ds with a straight face that the church has the right to free exercise and has tossed masks. Dunno.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would guess, since they are offering both a compliant service and a laissez faire service, that there was pressure from within, and this was their compromise to try to appease a divided congregation.  

I think there are many people who "believe" in covid, but who also are beginning to think the end is nowhere in sight.  A vaccine isn't guaranteed, and any sort of timeline is unclear.  So even without invoking conspiracies or plots, many people are simply deciding it's time to live with, instead of around, cv19.  And while some could argue that, by taking no precautions, they are also taking decision-making power out of the hands of others who prefer to mask/distance, the argument works both ways.  Those who have decided on a herd immunity approach feel that those who insist on mask/distance are taking away their decisions to greatly reduce quality of life.  

I'm not making any value statements here, this just seems like a reasonable interpretation of the situation.  

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

 

Are mandates LAWS?

I don't know. But how does keeping some distance affect free exercise of religion? 

They claim there's "no end" in sight, but we all know that's hogwash. We all know the whole thing ends after the election. THAT is easy to see. If they had said Pelosi goes unmasked, we go unmasked. That I would have bought, lol. Clearly there's something going on with the data if Pelosi is going around unmasked but we can't be. 

 

To me it just means there's a lot they aren't telling us. The treatments are working, something. I google our state and they don't even bother to put up stats anymore. I kid you not. The whole "the sky is falling" every day thing on the news has stopped. Cases are still up, but this intense montage of we're dying we're dying has stopped.

1. Yes, they have the same impact/weight as laws passed by the legislature. 

2. Keeping distance does not violate the first ammendment. 

3. Um, one person doing something dumb doesn't make the science change. The virus will not morph or disappear when the election happens. I mean, hello - that would mean that people in OTHER COUNTRIES were isolating and masking due to OUR political crud - which makes zero sense. Australia isn't going to change their regulations based on the US election, and that kind of shows you that the regulations are not about American politics. 

4. Over Eleven THOUSAND people died in my state from Covid so far. 11,000. That's a whole lot of people dying, no matter how you want to phrase it. Many of whom would be alive had regulations been put in place in my state earlier, and followed. Thousands of people would still be alive. (we went from 10K cases a day down to 2-4K cases a day once masking became more regulated). If a church doesn't think that is reason enough to follow the law, well, I'd not bother looking for logic to support their stance.

In other words, there is no logic or reason there, other than , "because we want to" and "you can't make us". 

 

  • Like 13
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In our state, churches are exempt, despite a governor with over 175 executive orders.

There is something to be said for corporate worship.  It is NOT the same to not sing together, fellowship, etc.  If the church was just the sermon we could all watch online....but it isn't.

So the freedom of religion aspect has some merit.

Now, our church is spacing people out, changing communion, offerings, no handshaking, etc.  They welcome masks but do not require them....but do ask that people maintain space.  Hand sanitizer is everywhere, doors are propped open so people don't have to touch them, etc 

I think for many, esp in more conservative churches, the whole "the sky is falling"  early on that went on and on, even when data showed a lot lower death rates, better treatment guidelines, etc made them less likely to trust the officials now.

Also, I see the the church a more acceptance of death as part of life.   We don't do everything possible to avoid death (thinking more of continued treatments that just prolong death but not save a life.....is, tube feeds, vents, cpr, etc for elderly terminally ill patients).  So many I have talked to, want to be reasonable and take precautions but also heavily weigh the physical and mental health of people in the equation......ie, go see grandma and hug her and let her love on the grandkids (provided no symptoms or known exposure) and take the slight risk of her getting it and then the slight risk of her dying from covid.

More of the Living life now idea vs putting everything in hold for months or longer.

Most of those I talk to are not uncaring or unconcerned, they just have weighed the risks of shut down and isolation as more risky than continuing to live a more normal life with some precautions.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

?

Sounds to me like the church doesn't want to lose congregants who take COVID seriously, so they're doing one service aimed at meeting the exposure concerns of those congregants.

And they also don't want to lose congregants who chafe at the mandates, so they've doing another service aimed at meeting the signaling of those congregants.

I don't know that there has to be much more going on than that.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Money.  
 

The possibility of losing a chunk of their congregation makes it easy to find a way to make them happy and it seems easier for a church to take the viewpoint you’re describing.   What I mean is, for lack of better terms here, “both sides” will attend if they go the anti-mask route and the pro-maskers will grumble, but if they go the pro-mask route, the anti-maskers get loud and threatening.

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

we went from 10K cases a day down to 2-4K cases a day once masking became more regulated

our numbers are a little more convoluted. Went up with the protests, went down with mask mandates, back down to the levels they had been when employees were masked and people were distancing. Now nobody distances, everybody wears masks, and the numbers are the same, a complete wash. Our numbers in our county were going down BEFORE the mask mandate, because the surge was due to the protests and went down as the protests calmed down.

So yes, it's totally easy for them to make the argument that masks are unnecessary in church, because our state numbers are the same as they were before the mask mandate, maybe even worse in some areas (surges with the partying at the universities). But at the time when we were not mandating masks for everyone, people were distancing. So to say no distancing and no masks, that doesn't make mathematical sense to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

In other words, there is no logic or reason there, other than , "because we want to" and "you can't make us". 

Yes, I'm afraid that's how they were framing it. I'm just trying to figure out how you are in the congregation paying the bills to defend that, what the lawyer says. Churches ARE winning in court, but there has to be some logic and reasonableness to the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the previous posters.  They are trying to keep both sides happy and attending.  Pastors are having a hard time with all of this and are constantly having to listen to complaints from both sides.  We've personally known situations in which families have left churches over both issues.  One church requiring masks and lost a deacon (leadership position) and his family because they didn't agree.  Another church which was making masking optional (against state mandates) and lost members because people were not masking.  Just like the governors, it's a no-win situation.  If they don't do anything, Covid breaks out and they are the bad guys and the blame game begins;   if they do any restrictions, people say "Look, Covid isn't as bad as they said" so they are still the bad guys.  

The poor pastors have to hear it week in and week out from both sides and this has been going on for 6 months now.    Just like the rest of us, they are weary of it, and worried about their ministries.  I think it's a bit "cold" to view it only as a money issue though that has to be a part of it.  Expenses and salaries don't cease because of a church shut-down.  I'm the treasurer of our church.  Our faithful givers have remained faithful, going as far as to mail me their tithes or drop them off at our house or the Pastor's house when we were shut down.  What has surprised me, is that in our tiny congregation, we have had those who don't usually participate in giving, become regular givers during this time and make a similar effort to get their donations to the church even when it isn't convenient.  People are amazing and always surprising!

We are loosely associated and have a lot of acquaintances at the large church where the majority doesn't mask.  They are taking social distancing fairly seriously but the choir has been singing and the congregation has been meeting in person pretty much through all of these months.  They are just now seeing a few cases here and there.  We don't agree with their stance but their pastor believes that it is a violation of the second amendment for the state to make any requirements of churches or church-run schools.

I honestly wish our little church had remained closed down . . it's getting better but the mask issue has been contentious and it has made me view people I love with less respect.  It makes me sad.  I don't like what it's done in our little congregation.  

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ottakee said:

In our state, churches are exempt, despite a governor with over 175 executive orders.

Whoa, back me up here, because I'm with you that your state has a pretty stiff reputation. So you're saying in your state the mask mandates do NOT apply to churches? That's interesting.

2 hours ago, Ottakee said:

I think for many, esp in more conservative churches, the whole "the sky is falling"  early on that went on and on, even when data showed a lot lower death rates, better treatment guidelines, etc made them less likely to trust the officials now.

Yes, exactly. 

1 hour ago, RootAnn said:

God's on their side?

[Until He's not, I guess]

Yup, pretty much what I'm trying to figure out, lol.

1 hour ago, Pam in CT said:

?

Sounds to me like the church doesn't want to lose congregants who take COVID seriously, so they're doing one service aimed at meeting the exposure concerns of those congregants.

And they also don't want to lose congregants who chafe at the mandates, so they've doing another service aimed at meeting the signaling of those congregants.

I don't know that there has to be much more going on than that.

I hear you. I just think strong leadership could get over that. Or else 2/3 of the people are so convinced of SOMETHING. And seriously, I'm not exactly a slouch on my conservative politics and I can't manage to run in the right circles to know where they're coming up with this. To me, it's the law, you follow the law. Unless it violates something God himself says, you follow the law. Simple. So "I'm tired of it" doesn't quite stack up. 

1 hour ago, Ailaena said:

Money.  
 

The possibility of losing a chunk of their congregation makes it easy to find a way to make them happy and it seems easier for a church to take the viewpoint you’re describing.   What I mean is, for lack of better terms here, “both sides” will attend if they go the anti-mask route and the pro-maskers will grumble, but if they go the pro-mask route, the anti-maskers get loud and threatening.

Ah. I need to whack my head a bit and figure how giving in to that is wise. 

1 hour ago, happysmileylady said:

SO with that in mind, I suspect that the leaders/employees are really just tired of all the extra work that they consider useless, and figure that they are very unlikely to get caught anyway.  

 

44 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

There was research that came some time ago by the Berna Group that 1 in 5 churches will not survive the pandemic.

Thanks, I hadn't seen this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, JanOH said:

I agree with the previous posters.  They are trying to keep both sides happy and attending.  Pastors are having a hard time with all of this and are constantly having to listen to complaints from both sides.  We've personally known situations in which families have left churches over both issues.  One church requiring masks and lost a deacon (leadership position) and his family because they didn't agree.  Another church which was making masking optional (against state mandates) and lost members because people were not masking.  Just like the governors, it's a no-win situation.  If they don't do anything, Covid breaks out and they are the bad guys and the blame game begins;   if they do any restrictions, people say "Look, Covid isn't as bad as they said" so they are still the bad guys.  

 

 

 

Yes, this is causing so much division in so many churches.  I know people who have left or are considering leaving churches on both sides of the issue (they want a church that is more open, not following rules...or they think their church is being too open/reckless).  I can see how it could feel like the right thing to do to try and walk the middle ground and make everyone happy -- but ultimately people will probably still be unhappy. 

I lean more toward thinking avoiding division is a bigger motivator than money.  In our circles, what I hear (about a few different churches) is that giving has either remained steady/increased (thanks to online giving, people being concerned for the church during the pandemic) or if it has decreased, the decrease was no more than what could be offset by changes in expenses due to not meeting in person or offering fewer services (not buying coffee and refreshments, not needing VBS or Sunday school supplies, not needing to pay for as many hours of building cleaning if most of the building isn't in use, etc). 

Edited by kirstenhill
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JanOH said:

They are trying to keep both sides happy and attending.

Ok, thanks, that was a helpful explanation.

So do you think that the argument that the state does not have grounds to make mandates of the churches on this holds water? I tried to look up the "letter" that DeWine was sending the churches, and it was so incredibly milktoast. It was like he's trying to *imply* the masking applies to churches without actually doing it in an explicit, legally disputable way. 

Found this curious article https://www.dispatch.com/news/20200807/bill-proposed-to-allow-local-health-officials-to-reject-ohios-mask-mandate-other-state-orders saying what you're saying, that local health officials aren't enforcing the mandates. However if they were to, the fines are HIGH, ouch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in a very similar situation. I don't understand the thinking. But the thinking is extremely resistant to any nuance. It is also very entrenched. Very. If we end up losing a lot of people over this (and I will probably be one of them--it's much more than just this one issue, but this one has shown a lot of other things more clearly), the leader will feel he can't win. He does one thing, and people are upset, he does another thing, and people are upset. I know this because he has stated it. But for me, and for others I have heard about in a roundabout way, it is his attitude that is the biggest issue. The sarcasm, the mild (in public) but very much there "scared" sneer, the public statement in the masked service that he doesn't really think they do any good, the conspiracy theories, the political rhetoric, etc., etc. I can sympathize with someone trying to do the right thing and finding resistance on both sides. I can't sympathize with a leader who is arrogant and cannot comprehend deeper conversations. Sadly, there are others who cheer him on in his echo chamber. I am very weary of it. If it were just me to be concerned about in our family, I would have left already, but it isn't, so I have to wait as we pray through what we need to do, and how/when we need to do it. I have probably already been painted with a certain paintbrush, which is pretty ridiculous--that is not who I am, either.

ETA (and adjusted some wording above): There is no way it isn't a difficult situation to walk through. I would hate to be having to make the decisions. But a leader can still influence in a positive way, and ours isn't. He is very open about his own annoyance and aggravation about this virus, but it comes across less as concern about people, and more as if it's a bother because it interferes with his plans and is an inconvenience to him. It's all very sad to me and has caused me a lot of stress.

Edited by Jaybee
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument I've mostly heard is that it violates their freedom of religion, and believe that if restaurants are open, why can't churches be open?  (And the freedom of religion bit sometimes seems to blur with a particular political party and then it becomes a political party statement.)  Now, if a state doesn't really care if restaurants and bars violate their mandates and allow people to go inside without masks and sit crowded together with no limit, then I can certainly see (legally) a church's argument.  (Of course, you'd still expect a church to have a stronger moral compass than bars and restaurants, but that's a different subject.)

I've also heard the argument that many in their church community are lonely or really struggling emotionally, so meeting together is good for them.  (This argument I certainly understand as well, but I think there are ways of addressing this that are safer than crowded unmasked gatherings.)

I'm sure it's harder to be strict about it if you live in an area with very few cases.

I have heard of lots of churches that seem to be meeting smartly and carefully (I mean, as much as you can in the circumstances), and are respectful about doing so in the midst of a pandemic.

I live in a big city with lots of cases that has been hit hard with a lot of stuff in recent months, so I guess it feels really obvious that worshipping in person is still out of the question.  Our church went virtual as soon as the shelter-in-place began, but remains very active in different, creative ways.  It has the full support of its congregation, so I'm sure that helps.  It has re-directed a lot of its energy into helping the multitudes of homeless people, the low income, those struggling with recent job loss, racial disparity, etc.   It does continue with its emergency services.  

Interestingly, our family has been part of churches in other countries, and I notice that those churches seem to be more accepting of the circumstances.  They don't seem to have that gut reaction to fight back and protest that their freedom of religion is being violated, or to make it political at all, or anything else to stay open.  They just re-direct their energy in different ways to help their larger community.  I wonder if that's a more common attitude in other countries.

 

Edited by J-rap
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jaybee said:

I can't sympathize with a leader who is arrogant and cannot comprehend deeper conversations. Sadly, there are others who cheer him on in his echo chamber.

Yes, I don't know to what degree this happening but I've *suspected* it. Because I think a more clear cut, no fuss, no tolerance would have quieted it down. Instead, the leaders' own *preferences* got reinforced.

And frankly, I think fines are serious. I think it's serious what it means to intentionally disregard law/mandate if you have no clear legal case or thing that any reasonable person would think was clear. And I wonder what it means to give in to this sort of disruptive bullying. I don't like it on EITHER side of the political aisle. 

I just don't see where this movement is coming from. I mean, at the most basic, that it doesn't violate their conscience to do this. That's something the pastor said, if it violates your conscience then go to the masked service, fine, implying it *doesn't* violate the consciences of these people. How are they getting there? What am I missing? If the whole argument was freedom of religion, they should have said that from the beginning.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, J-rap said:

bars violate their mandates

Bars in our state have HEAVY restrictions right now and are losing their licenses for violating them. Apparently a large portion of their income is generated in the wee hours (11 pm -2 am) and the governor has completely restricted alcohol sales after 10pm. So they can stay open, but they can't take new orders. Someone can order a whole table full, haha, but he can't order more after 10pm. They apparently had data to show it as an issue.

So what happens to these churches if they have outbreaks? But it sounds like some do, some don't, and some have spectacular outbreaks and others just blips. But to me, why go there? I wouldn't even blink an eye if they continued the distancing, but why no distancing??? So easy, just a nothing.

I'm with you that it doesn't seem kind to the bar owners to keep your church open and not follow the rules but make hard, income killing rules for others.

10 minutes ago, J-rap said:

but remains very active in different, creative ways.

Bingo. That's what *I* think is the problem, but what do I know? They're very top down, be in the building driven, and they don't do a good job of creating ways to connect during the week. If you suggest things, they get shut down. It's a totally stifled setting honestly, turning congregants into ships in the night.

15 minutes ago, J-rap said:

They don't seem to have that gut reaction to fight back and protest that their freedom of religion is being violated, or to make it political at all, or anything else to stay open.

Yeah, that's a bigger question, lol. I think our freedom and our willingness to work to protect our freedoms is so important. However we should exercise it with consideration. 

Ultimately, what makes me sad is that this is such a GRAVE DISTRACTION from what really ought to be happening in the church. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PeterPan said:

Bars in our state have HEAVY restrictions right now and are losing their licenses for violating them. Apparently a large portion of their income is generated in the wee hours (11 pm -2 am) and the governor has completely restricted alcohol sales after 10pm. So they can stay open, but they can't take new orders. Someone can order a whole table full, haha, but he can't order more after 10pm. They apparently had data to show it as an issue.

So what happens to these churches if they have outbreaks? But it sounds like some do, some don't, and some have spectacular outbreaks and others just blips. But to me, why go there? I wouldn't even blink an eye if they continued the distancing, but why no distancing??? So easy, just a nothing.

I'm with you that it doesn't seem kind to the bar owners to keep your church open and not follow the rules but make hard, income killing rules for others.

Bingo. That's what *I* think is the problem, but what do I know? They're very top down, be in the building driven, and they don't do a good job of creating ways to connect during the week. If you suggest things, they get shut down. It's a totally stifled setting honestly, turning congregants into ships in the night.

Yeah, that's a bigger question, lol. I think our freedom and our willingness to work to protect our freedoms is so important. However we should exercise it with consideration. 

Ultimately, what makes me sad is that this is such a GRAVE DISTRACTION from what really ought to be happening in the church. 

It makes me sad too.  It has really caused me to re-evaluate what the role of the church should be...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

Ok, thanks, that was a helpful explanation.

So do you think that the argument that the state does not have grounds to make mandates of the churches on this holds water? I tried to look up the "letter" that DeWine was sending the churches, and it was so incredibly milktoast. It was like he's trying to *imply* the masking applies to churches without actually doing it in an explicit, legally disputable way. 

 

I read that letter.  Not sure if our pastor received it or not.  He was going to post it on our bulletin board and read it from the pulpit so I'm guessing he hasn't received it yet.  They probably missed our little church.  I took it as he was begging the churches to follow the mandate so that he didn't have to try to legally enforce it.  He's been so careful to not shut down the churches during this whole thing despite it being implied quite often by the reporters during the press conferences that he had indeed shut them down.  I think this came up again Thursday during the press conference question section.  He often speaks of the confidence he has that Ohioans will "do the right thing".  I think that was the tone he was going for in that letter to the churches.  I afraid it fell on deaf ears in many cases though.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're wanting a deeper reason when it's really just people doing what they want to do. There's no hidden justification to discover. Like you said, they won't even continue social distancing even though it would be easy. They're toddlers, screaming YOU CAN'T MAKE ME. 

4 hours ago, PeterPan said:

 Adding: It's important to me, because I don't know how I'm supposed to take my ds into this kind of lawless environment. Talk about confusing. But if there's a moral argument for their unmasked service, it's actually better for my ds because he struggles to go anywhere in a mask. So he'd be more likely to be back in church with this.

If they were social distancing, I would still disagree with it but I could see how you would be tempted to go that service anyway. But they're not, and I just don't think I could do it. It's modeling contempt for the law, and I would be a hot mess if my kid got it from an outbreak at that church. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of those things I could debate either and all ways for hours.  The mental health and suicide statistics are currently rising to epic proportions.  The reality is some people need to be able to worship in the corporal setting.   I truly believe that,  the ability to worship must be availiable.  That said my family has been extremely grateful for the online opportunities our church has provided.  We are actually able to worship with some of our churches in England during which has been wonderful.  

I think this is an extremely tough time to be a pastor.  Depending on the internal polity it may not even be the pastor’s decision yet he/she is the face of the decisions that are being made by elders, PCC’s, and other behind the scene decision makers.   I know of at least two situations where the pastors have had mental breakdowns because of the extreme pressures placed on them during this time.  

As for explaining the decisions in some cases it is simply a desire to try and make worship availiable to all in the form they need while serving the needs of all parishoners........I am also among those staying home.  Last Sunday Dh and I took the normal drive to our place of worship at the normal time just to see how many are attending in person at the dozen or so churches (including what most would consider a mega) we pass in our normal 15 minute drive to our church.  Parking lots were sparse........maybe 30% of normal.

Even though we have been using the online option we have been grateful to have the option of going in person.  Last week my kids started meeting with their small groups.  That option wasn’t there before.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen so many references, on this thread and others, about pastors being in a difficult position. Yes, very much so, but they are meant to be leaders. With all the issues involved in running a church, how on earth is this one the hardest? They only make things harder on themselves when they try to please everyone (which of course can't be done, and isn't good leadership). 

I'll say the same thing I keep saying about government officials: they have a responsibility to lead. If you don't want to make the hard decisions, if you don't want to catch any flak, if you want to keep everyone happy, then you should not choose a leadership position. Just like in business, you can either hang out at the water cooler and complain with the other employees, or you can be the boss. It's a mess if you try to do both. 

There have been success stories also: churches doing well, still getting donations, still doing services and/or activities as best they can. Those success stories all seem to have one thing in common: strong leadership. Leadership that accepts the situation, doesn't whine publicly, gives clear expectations to the congregation, doesn't try to please everyone but does try to rally everyone to unite and make it work. 

I get that not every leader is going to outstanding in every situation, but some of these folks aren't even trying. 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, PeterPan said:

The church is claiming that the new clarifications by the CDC on death certificates makes clear that this has been a sham, that it's not as big an issue as claimed, that the church's ability to sing, worship, fellowship (that's a new one, masks hinder "fellowship" haha), etc. is being affected.

 

It sounds like this is the answer to what they believe. 

 

.  

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, J-rap said:

 

Interestingly, our family has been part of churches in other countries, and I notice that those churches seem to be more accepting of the circumstances.  They don't seem to have that gut reaction to fight back and protest that their freedom of religion is being violated, or to make it political at all, or anything else to stay open.  They just re-direct their energy in different ways to help their larger community.  I wonder if that's a more common attitude in other countries.

 

We've been noticing that several pastors in our acquaintance have been very quick to jump onto the "persecution" bandwagon.  Almost as if they've been waiting for the chance and are excited that it's finally here.  My son and I were discussing this recently.  His pastor is preaching a persecution series for the past month and is viewing the pandemic and responses to it as persecution of the church in the United States.   He was disgusted by the reaction because so many Christians around the world are facing serious persecution and he feels that comparing what churches are being asked to do here is so mild as to be laughable compared to what is happening in other countries.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, katilac said:

I've seen so many references, on this thread and others, about pastors being in a difficult position. Yes, very much so, but they are meant to be leaders. With all the issues involved in running a church, how on earth is this one the hardest? They only make things harder on themselves when they try to please everyone (which of course can't be done, and isn't good leadership). 

I'll say the same thing I keep saying about government officials: they have a responsibility to lead. If you don't want to make the hard decisions, if you don't want to catch any flak, if you want to keep everyone happy, then you should not choose a leadership position. Just like in business, you can either hang out at the water cooler and complain with the other employees, or you can be the boss. It's a mess if you try to do both. 

There have been success stories also: churches doing well, still getting donations, still doing services and/or activities as best they can. Those success stories all seem to have one thing in common: strong leadership. Leadership that accepts the situation, doesn't whine publicly, gives clear expectations to the congregation, doesn't try to please everyone but does try to rally everyone to unite and make it work. 

I get that not every leader is going to outstanding in every situation, but some of these folks aren't even trying. 

Yes to this, and also, doesn't fear part of his congregation leaving if they disagree, and is willing to take that risk and lose reputation and income, because he/she believes they're doing the compassionate and right thing.

That's actually what happened to our pastor when he wrote the book "Myth of a Christian Nation."  I think about half the church left.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mumto2 said:

The reality is some people need to be able to worship in the corporal setting.   I truly believe that,  the ability to worship must be availiable.    

Even though we have been using the online option we have been grateful to have the option of going in person.  Last week my kids started meeting with their small groups.  That option wasn’t there before.

At this point, I don't think that churches should be closed altogether. I do think it was okay to do so for a few weeks when we had little knowledge of the virus or how it spread. 

In PeterPan's situation, they absolutely have the option to worship in person. That's the kicker; no one is trying to stop them from getting together, so it's appalling to me that they would not only set the example of defying the law, but would also refuse to do the two fairly simple things that experts believe are most likely to slow down viral spread. 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

I don't think it's a great argument to make that churches in other countries are more tolerant to government control. They have different religious histories with government, different laws regarding government control, etc. I mean, people in other countries are much more tolerant of people organizing protests being arrested, people being locked in their apartment buildings with police outside, and many other things, but that doesn't mean that we should all aspire to be that way.

It's true, but on the other hand, there may be other things at play.  Maybe they don't get distracted by politics in the same way either.  Also, one church in particular that I'm thinking about is one we attended for three years in Central America, and was the only English-speaking church in the country.  The pastor was American, and most of its congregants were American ex-pats or people from other countries who knew English better than Spanish, and the denomination was Baptist.   Most of them had lived there for years so had been apart from the US political environment for quite awhile.  This was a country that is very peaceful and doesn't even have a military.  People are definitely not being locked in their apartment buildings or controlled by force.

Anyway, just thinking about this.... 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PeterPan said:

Thing is, they don't actually come out and SAY this. It's like it's implied or going through their head. I must not drink from the right bottle of koolaid or something, because I don't even know where this is coming from. 

The leadership might not be into conspiracy theories, but the members might be (likely are). QAnon has a very large evangelical following, and a lot of the "news" people are consuming about the pandemic is coming from Q followers. The people reading, accepting, and passing it along are not necessarily followers of Q--until recently, they've probably never heard about Q. I started seeing stuff from Q in my feed in March--it was like someone had flipped on a switch and everyone was parroting it. I didn't know it was from QAnon until maybe May or June. There are also a small set of people who would repudiate QAnon but their apocalyptic leanings lead them to some of the same crazy conclusions.

When this is running in the backdrop, it reinforces almost any belief as better or more moderate, even if it's still pretty extreme. 

1 hour ago, JanOH said:

We are loosely associated and have a lot of acquaintances at the large church where the majority doesn't mask.  They are taking social distancing fairly seriously but the choir has been singing and the congregation has been meeting in person pretty much through all of these months.  They are just now seeing a few cases here and there.  We don't agree with their stance but their pastor believes that it is a violation of the second amendment for the state to make any requirements of churches or church-run schools.

I think this is also common, but I don't get it--I assume they follow fire codes, building codes, drive on the correct side of the road, use stop signs, and appreciate it when laws are passed that reinforce their beliefs. Obviously, I reject this line of thinking entirely, lol! But yes, it's probably a factor.

1 hour ago, Jaybee said:

I'm in a very similar situation. I don't understand the thinking. But the thinking is extremely resistant to any nuance. It is also very entrenched. Very. If we end up losing a lot of people over this (and I will probably be one of them--it's much more than just this one issue, but this one has shown a lot of other things more clearly), the leader will feel he can't win. He does one thing, and people are upset, he does another thing, and people are upset. I know this because he has stated it. But for me, and for others I have heard about in a roundabout way, it is his attitude that is the biggest issue. The sarcasm, the mild (in public) but very much there "scared" sneer, the public statement in the masked service that he doesn't really think they do any good, the conspiracy theories, the political rhetoric, etc., etc. I can sympathize with someone trying to do the right thing and finding resistance on both sides. I can't sympathize with a leader who is arrogant and cannot comprehend deeper conversations. Sadly, there are others who cheer him on in his echo chamber. I am very weary of it. If it were just me to be concerned about in our family, I would have left already, but it isn't, so I have to wait as we pray through what we need to do, and how/when we need to do it. I have probably already been painted with a certain paintbrush, which is pretty ridiculous--that is not who I am, either.

ETA (and adjusted some wording above): There is no way it isn't a difficult situation to walk through. I would hate to be having to make the decisions. But a leader can still influence in a positive way, and ours isn't. He is very open about his own annoyance and aggravation about this virus, but it comes across less as concern about people, and more as if it's a bother because it interferes with his plans and is an inconvenience to him. It's all very sad to me and has caused me a lot of stress.

Our pastor is not like this, but way too many people in the pews are. I am not sure about my long-term status in our church as a result. My church is actually being quite judicious for our area, though I feel like those of us attending online are going to be WAY out of the loop when we come back. 

I think there is a lot of lip-service to masking from those in the pews also, which I guess is fine since it does lead to fewer cases, but lip service to the authorities while constantly undermining the legitimacy of stemming the pandemic really wears on the morale and makes people feel more persecuted in the long run, IMO. 

1 hour ago, PeterPan said:

I just don't see where this movement is coming from. I mean, at the most basic, that it doesn't violate their conscience to do this. That's something the pastor said, if it violates your conscience then go to the masked service, fine, implying it *doesn't* violate the consciences of these people. How are they getting there? What am I missing? If the whole argument was freedom of religion, they should have said that from the beginning.

It's a warped view of Christian Nationalism (which I think is inherently warped also) that is very fixated on the being the aggrieved and persecuted. 

27 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

churches are being treated differently than businesses (such as dine in restaurants) in many cases

Maybe because they aren't businesses, lol! Or dine-in restaurants. Churches LOVE and REVEL IN being treated differently when it works in their favor--tax exempt status, not having the health department checking out their potluck, etc. 

13 minutes ago, JanOH said:

We've been noticing that several pastors in our acquaintance have been very quick to jump onto the "persecution" bandwagon.  Almost as if they've been waiting for the chance and are excited that it's finally here.  My son and I were discussing this recently.  His pastor is preaching a persecution series for the past month and is viewing the pandemic and responses to it as persecution of the church in the United States.   He was disgusted by the reaction because so many Christians around the world are facing serious persecution and he feels that comparing what churches are being asked to do here is so mild as to be laughable compared to what is happening in other countries.

Yep. It's the nationalism thing. Not a fan. Ditto about the quote below.

10 minutes ago, J-rap said:

Yes to this, and also, doesn't fear part of his congregation leaving if they disagree, and is willing to take that risk and lose reputation and income, because he/she believes they're doing the compassionate and right thing.

That's actually what happened to our pastor when he wrote the book "Myth of a Christian Nation."  I think about half the church left.  

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

our numbers are a little more convoluted. Went up with the protests, went down with mask mandates, back down to the levels they had been when employees were masked and people were distancing. Now nobody distances, everybody wears masks, and the numbers are the same, a complete wash. Our numbers in our county were going down BEFORE the mask mandate, because the surge was due to the protests and went down as the protests calmed down.

So yes, it's totally easy for them to make the argument that masks are unnecessary in church, because our state numbers are the same as they were before the mask mandate, maybe even worse in some areas (surges with the partying at the universities). But at the time when we were not mandating masks for everyone, people were distancing. So to say no distancing and no masks, that doesn't make mathematical sense to me.

Do you watch the governor's news conferences? You can find them archived at ohiochannel.gov

He said this week, and I've seen an article in the mainstream news (can't remember if it was in The Dispatch or on cleveland.com) that the counties that were downgraded from red to orange or yellow were doing better at masking. And we have fewer red counties, so the numbers they are using for the color indicators have gone down some. And you can always find the current state stats on www.coronavirus.ohio.gov and should be able to find your county level stats on your county website. I signed up for a weekly update from my county, and it contains a bunch of stats and charts.

I probably quoted the wrong post from you; I'm really responding mostly to your comment that you googled and can't find published state statistics.

As far as the church's decision that concerns you -- I suspect that the church leaders have decided that the virus is largely a hoax. Which is a thing that is believed by some Christian leaders who have some national influence, unfortunately. Have you seen what is happening with John MacArthur and his church?

If you don't agree with what your church is doing, don't take your son there. I have not taken my kids to church since March and have not gone, myself. We do watch online. Because I don't agree with my church's choices, we may be looking for a different church home when we feel it is safe to go back in person.

Oh, and the same thinking that is influencing churches to think they don't need to mask is likely driving the decisions of some Christian schools to have classes unmasked. For some reason, some Christians think they have a pass when it comes to public health orders. I don't understand the logic, and I don't think they can truly justify these kind of choices scripturally.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ottakee said:

 

So the freedom of religion aspect has some merit.

 

Only if your religion requires you to sit closer than 6 ft from people while not masking in an indoor space. 

If your religion doesn't require that, than this isn't about religion at all. Because their church is allowed to meet, and sing with masks and distance,  and fellowship outside without masks, or inside with masks, etc. 

 

  • Like 7
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

I just don't see where this movement is coming from. I mean, at the most basic, that it doesn't violate their conscience to do this. That's something the pastor said, if it violates your conscience then go to the masked service, fine, implying it *doesn't* violate the consciences of these people. How are they getting there? What am I missing? If the whole argument was freedom of religion, they should have said that from the beginning.

 

In past illness situations in discussions with a pastor I know the underlying belief was that bodily life is short and heavenly life long such that getting to heaven sooner is not significant. and aside from out and out deliberate murder by action (not by inaction), there is not a problem for conscience 

 

ETA: I don’t personally agree with this, just giving you an argument as you requested. I left the church congregation that had such a low regard for earthly life. 

Edited by Pen
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, katilac said:

I've seen so many references, on this thread and others, about pastors being in a difficult position. Yes, very much so, but they are meant to be leaders. With all the issues involved in running a church, how on earth is this one the hardest?

YES!!! I mean, of ALL the things Christians are asked to do by Jesus and the Church - sitting 6 feet apart and wearing a face covering is the part they think is "too hard"? Cause seriously, if they think that is too big a sacrifice, they are going to be really uncomfortable when they get to some of the actual hard stuff in the Bible. 

In all seriousness, this sucks and it is hard. But you know what? Not gossiping is hard. Not having premarital sex is hard. Not being slothful is hard. Loving your enemies is hard. Etc etc. Christian leaders ask people to do hard stuff ALL the time! Why is this different?

It especially blows my mind in pro life churches where they think carrying a baby for 9 months and  a lifetime of parenting, even after rape or incest, is not too hard or too much to ask, but sitting further apart in the pews IS too much to ask of people?

1 hour ago, JanOH said:

We've been noticing that several pastors in our acquaintance have been very quick to jump onto the "persecution" bandwagon.  Almost as if they've been waiting for the chance and are excited that it's finally here.  My son and I were discussing this recently.  His pastor is preaching a persecution series for the past month and is viewing the pandemic and responses to it as persecution of the church in the United States.  

only if Walmart shoppers are also being persecuted, lol. I mean, the requirements are not different. 

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PeterPan said:

ok, I'm chewing on this.

Are mandates LAWS? Where are they legally? Wasn't it something sorta like sideways laws, not passed by the legislature but allowed/enforceable? So the church is saying the governor doesn't have the right to mandate churches wear masks?

See my problem is, what happens when the county health dept comes in? Or are counties all looking the other way and not enforcing this? Is this just kind of quietly happening in LOTS of (conservative, obviously not the more politically liberal) churches? Am I just totally out of the loop? Haha. 

So the governor can't say you have to wear a mask while singing in church because you have the right to free exercise of your religion, yes? But the governor keeps swearing up and down his mandate applies to churches. 

I don't know. But how does keeping some distance affect free exercise of religion? They don't like talking outside instead of in the sanctuary? How is that part defensible if they get hauled into court? Are other churches doing this too and it's just a swoosh movement? 

They claim there's "no end" in sight, but we all know that's hogwash. We all know the whole thing ends after the election. THAT is easy to see. If they had said Pelosi goes unmasked, we go unmasked. That I would have bought, lol. Clearly there's something going on with the data if Pelosi is going around unmasked but we can't be. 

Oh, I did figure out part of that btw. Found the death stats for I think our state and it was like 1:7 who gets covid in congregate living will die. (sorry, it was a couple days ago and I don't have the link handy.)  I was totally surprised, because I figured the numbers were like 1:2 or something. So even with the most vulnerable population factored in and skewing it (nursing homes, assisted living, long term care facilities, prisons) the death rate was 1:7 for those who contracted covid. Means that even if my dad got it living in assisted living and being high risk (60+, overweight, comorbid conditions) his likelihood of SURVIVING is much higher than we realized. Now his likelihood of dying is very real too. But it's not like 99% death for that group.

To me it just means there's a lot they aren't telling us. The treatments are working, something. I google our state and they don't even bother to put up stats anymore. I kid you not. The whole "the sky is falling" every day thing on the news has stopped. Cases are still up, but this intense montage of we're dying we're dying has stopped. So again, maybe that is factoring in? But driving your argument on that (that the gov't is lying, whatever), isn't that kind of making church about politics? That's what gets me.

Well whatever. Just don't know if I can tell my ds with a straight face that the church has the right to free exercise and has tossed masks. Dunno.

We all know the whole thing ends after the election? If those in leadership feel as you do, I’m guessing it’s all political for them and that’s why they are changing their practice, in order to show their support and agreement with the president.

Do you live in a state where the health officials would actually come after a church for defying the mandate? I’m in a blue state with a very red rural part. The governor and other officials are being very careful about not upsetting the more conservative parts of the state, and that’s why many of our rural, sparsely populated counties have much worse numbers per capita than densely populated areas. Our largest outbreak to date started with a rural church defying all mandates. The state and county officials just worked with them to get everyone tested, quarantined, etc. No one was fined or arrested. I’m not sure there’s anything a church could do here in regards to COVID that would result in any action against them.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that your hope to understand the church leaders' thinking is not going to help you with your own decision making, unless you are willing to change your mind about what is safe and whether it is right to obey or ignore the mandates. The church leaders have made up their minds and are not going to change.

Personally, I won't go back to church just because our pastors think it's safe to do so. In our church, masks are supposedly mandated now, but anyone can choose not to wear one and no one will question it. The rest of us are supposed to assume there is a health reason for them not wearing a mask. I sometimes see a shot of the crowd when I watch the online service, and I see very few masks, so I think people are taking advantage of the no-ask policy. And they seem to be sitting in normal rows, not distanced. Originally, the plans called for distancing the rows, and there has not been an announcement that they would change that, but it seems like they have just quietly given up on it or are at least requiring less distance.

For these reasons and others, I cannot trust my church to make decisions to protect my family's health, so we can't go back at this time.

I will say that my kids are in school in the school building, and I am not fully comfortable with the school's choices, either, but I still send them. So I'm sure some people choose to attend church, even if they are not fully comfortable with the way their church is doing things. You may find that you fall into that camp, or you may not.

Edited by Storygirl
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ottakee said:

In our state, churches are exempt, despite a governor with over 175 executive orders.

There is something to be said for corporate worship.  It is NOT the same to not sing together, fellowship, etc.  If the church was just the sermon we could all watch online....but it isn't.

So the freedom of religion aspect has some merit.

Now, our church is spacing people out, changing communion, offerings, no handshaking, etc.  They welcome masks but do not require them....but do ask that people maintain space.  Hand sanitizer is everywhere, doors are propped open so people don't have to touch them, etc 

I think for many, esp in more conservative churches, the whole "the sky is falling"  early on that went on and on, even when data showed a lot lower death rates, better treatment guidelines, etc made them less likely to trust the officials now.

Also, I see the the church a more acceptance of death as part of life.   We don't do everything possible to avoid death (thinking more of continued treatments that just prolong death but not save a life.....is, tube feeds, vents, cpr, etc for elderly terminally ill patients).  So many I have talked to, want to be reasonable and take precautions but also heavily weigh the physical and mental health of people in the equation......ie, go see grandma and hug her and let her love on the grandkids (provided no symptoms or known exposure) and take the slight risk of her getting it and then the slight risk of her dying from covid.

More of the Living life now idea vs putting everything in hold for months or longer.

Most of those I talk to are not uncaring or unconcerned, they just have weighed the risks of shut down and isolation as more risky than continuing to live a more normal life with some precautions.

I find it interesting that you say the church doesn’t do everything possible to avoid death, e.g. tube feeds, vents, etc. I’ve usually seen the opposite in real life among conservative Christians, both in famous court cases and personal experience. I know lots of people, myself included, who don’t want any of those life extending measures, but they are generally either not religious or of more mainstream Protestant denominations or moderate or left leaning Catholics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Frances said:

We all know the whole thing ends after the election? If those in leadership feel as you do, I’m guessing it’s all political for them and that’s why they are changing their practice, in order to show their support and agreement with the president.

Do you live in a state where the health officials would actually come after a church for defying the mandate? I’m in a blue state with a very red rural part. The governor and other officials are being very careful about not upsetting the more conservative parts of the state, and that’s why many of our rural, sparsely populated counties have much worse numbers per capita than densely populated areas. Our largest outbreak to date started with a rural church defying all mandates. The state and county officials just worked with them to get everyone tested, quarantined, etc. No one was fined or arrested. I’m not sure there’s anything a church could do here in regards to COVID that would result in any action against them.

 

I am in a purple part of same state, I think.  This ”working with” approach seems to be the stance of state OSHA as well.  Tthey will give fines to businesses for out and out defiance and refusal to change, but otherwise prefer a “work with” approach.  I think so far, afaik, once area churches have experienced outbreaks they have become willing to change— but it is super unfortunate that it takes personally experiencing outbreak to be willing.  State authorities aren’t called in afaik unless there’s an outbreak discovered— or people in the church lodge a complaint with state (which I think tends not to happen even if people like OP have reservations they tend to just attend or not, but not to officially bring their own church to attention of state law).   This is for our state, not Ohio etc. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

 

only if Walmart shoppers are also being persecuted, lol. I mean, the requirements are not different. 

Right!   Not to mention, church is a larger risk than running into Walmart!

Edited by JanOH
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jaybee said:

I'm in a very similar situation. I don't understand the thinking. But the thinking is extremely resistant to any nuance. It is also very entrenched. Very. If we end up losing a lot of people over this (and I will probably be one of them--it's much more than just this one issue, but this one has shown a lot of other things more clearly), the leader will feel he can't win. He does one thing, and people are upset, he does another thing, and people are upset. I know this because he has stated it. But for me, and for others I have heard about in a roundabout way, it is his attitude that is the biggest issue. The sarcasm, the mild (in public) but very much there "scared" sneer, the public statement in the masked service that he doesn't really think they do any good, the conspiracy theories, the political rhetoric, etc., etc. I can sympathize with someone trying to do the right thing and finding resistance on both sides. I can't sympathize with a leader who is arrogant and cannot comprehend deeper conversations. Sadly, there are others who cheer him on in his echo chamber. I am very weary of it. If it were just me to be concerned about in our family, I would have left already, but it isn't, so I have to wait as we pray through what we need to do, and how/when we need to do it. I have probably already been painted with a certain paintbrush, which is pretty ridiculous--that is not who I am, either.

ETA (and adjusted some wording above): There is no way it isn't a difficult situation to walk through. I would hate to be having to make the decisions. But a leader can still influence in a positive way, and ours isn't. He is very open about his own annoyance and aggravation about this virus, but it comes across less as concern about people, and more as if it's a bother because it interferes with his plans and is an inconvenience to him. It's all very sad to me and has caused me a lot of stress.

I would have a big problem with that too.  The more I dig into Jesus's message, the more I believe humility is essential.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

No, I think it’s very common. The issue is when the choice isn’t the family’s, that is where the friction happens. But many of us are not for extending our lives or our children’s by any means necessary, however we are completely opposed to euthanasia or decisions to withdraw care that come from the doctors and not the family or individual. That’s extremely common in the churches I’ve attended and how I feel as well. It was one thing for me to ask the doctors to turn off the oscillator and then the vent. It would have been another thing entirely for them to do it while I protested.

Also, things get much less clear in the case of long term care where there is dubious consciousness or no muscle function but still brain activity. Erring on the side of preserving life if there is ANY question is the most life honoring, unless the individual has an advanced directive to the contrary, I’d say. Too many advances in brain scans and too many people waking from long comas or regaining function after complete loss if voluntary muscle control for this to be a cut and dry/end care situation.

And as a parent with a child who has had significant brain damage I have to say nothing has driven home for me how much we are more than our brain function and capabilities than actually living it.

This really is news to me and so the opposite of what I’ve experienced in real life. I’m glad to hear it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that there's a way to make an argument to make it OK. Pandemics are about risk of infection and managing (or not) that risk. Some people take risks in defying government mandates/laws/whatever, and sometimes those risks turn out not to have consequences. Sometimes those risks turn out deadly for (usually) other people, in which case, since the death is not directly traceable (at least in this country) to anyone else's action(s), it's viewed as just part of the pandemic (still not sure how people explain away all those pesky excess deaths, though).

There's a lot of other undercurrents at play....the tendency of many conservative churches to view this pandemic solely (or mainly) through a political lens, the allegiance to needing to feel "special" or righteous, the bullsnot FB memes and echo chambers that are a part of life today, combined with the fact that government policies sometimes don't make much sense, or they don't at the start & then they're adjusted, etc. (In my view, that's just part of the process of dealing with a new pandemic, but to some who need and want unchanging certainty, it's "proof" of a conspiracy.)

But really, as Storygirl stated above, it comes down to you....and you in relation to what your church is doing (or not doing). I don't know that you're going to make sense of what's happening there, because it's a difference in values. There's what you value, and there's what values are being lived out at your church. Whether or not those differences are enough to cause a disruption, whether temporary or permanent, is one only you can make. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Frances said:

We all know the whole thing ends after the election? If those in leadership feel as you do, I’m guessing it’s all political for them and that’s why they are changing their practice, in order to show their support and agreement with the president.

Do you live in a state where the health officials would actually come after a church for defying the mandate? I’m in a blue state with a very red rural part. The governor and other officials are being very careful about not upsetting the more conservative parts of the state, and that’s why many of our rural, sparsely populated counties have much worse numbers per capita than densely populated areas. Our largest outbreak to date started with a rural church defying all mandates. The state and county officials just worked with them to get everyone tested, quarantined, etc. No one was fined or arrested. I’m not sure there’s anything a church could do here in regards to COVID that would result in any action against them.

I live in a  county where the local Baptist church is being fined $5000 for each church service they hold.  It is not clear to me whether that would stand up in court, but since you’re wondering about enforcement, I can assure you that it is actually a thing.

Edited by Carol in Cal.
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I live in a  county where the local Baptist church is being fined $5000 for each church service they hold.  It is not clear to me whether that would stand up in court, but since you’re wondering about enforcement, I can sure you that it is actually a thing.

But you’re not in the OP’s state, correct? My point being that if her state is like mine, the church leaders likely know no government action will be taken against them. 
 

There have also been multiple instances in the state capitol, including just yesterday, where evangelical groups get permits to hold large outdoor services that exceed generally allowed group size, and promise to mask and social distance. But when they don’t, nothing is done. I completely understand why not, but I do find it interesting the organizers have no trouble with lying about following mandates, especially when they are being given a special exemption from gathering size.

Edited by Frances
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, katilac said:

There have been success stories also: churches doing well, still getting donations, still doing services and/or activities as best they can. Those success stories all seem to have one thing in common: strong leadership. Leadership that accepts the situation, doesn't whine publicly, gives clear expectations to the congregation, doesn't try to please everyone but does try to rally everyone to unite and make it work. 

I get that not every leader is going to outstanding in every situation, but some of these folks aren't even trying. 

Do you have some examples to point to of churches handling this well?  I have been very disappointed locally that our churches have just about disappeared--they are simply big, empty buildings with a sign advertising a website.  Personally, I think corporate worship is an important role of the church, but I think there are many other ways the church is to be light to the world.  There are at least 5 churches within walking distance to me and they just appear dark and lifeless.  We recently moved to the area and had begun attending a church, after visiting several, but had not yet joined; We got a little 2 inch square sticker in the mail that says "We are sticking together" with the church logo on it and a piece of paper with a few sentences--not even enough to be a letter--no prayer, no Bible verse, no number to call for spiritual guidance--just replace the logo with the local restaurant and the same thing could have been mailed.  

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Do you have some examples to point to of churches handling this well?  I have been very disappointed locally that our churches have just about disappeared--they are simply big, empty buildings with a sign advertising a website.  Personally, I think corporate worship is an important role of the church, but I think there are many other ways the church is to be light to the world.  There are at least 5 churches within walking distance to me and they just appear dark and lifeless.  We recently moved to the area and had begun attending a church, after visiting several, but had not yet joined; We got a little 2 inch square sticker in the mail that says "We are sticking together" with the church logo on it and a piece of paper with a few sentences--not even enough to be a letter--no prayer, no Bible verse, no number to call for spiritual guidance--just replace the logo with the local restaurant and the same thing could have been mailed.  

Ours has a weekly online service, plus an in person service with distancing and masking. They have added in virtual bible studies, virtual prayer group, and now a live (and recorded for later) sung Compline service and Evensong service during the week. And in place of our normal food drive weekends they are reminding people to send in e-gift cards to grocery stores, etc.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume whatever they are doing is not against the law....

I would say this provides an option for people who are OK being exposed to the virus, either because their family is low risk or they already had the virus; while still protecting those who want to be more careful.

I don't think this option would be legal in my state right now, though I'm not an expert on that.

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...