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

[Terabith]

Our church is having online services and parking lot services every week, plus daily devotionals over the internet, weekly Wednesday evening prayer and Bible study over Zoom, Zoom book and movie groups.  

A church I've been "attending" since covid many states away is having Sunday Zoom/ facebook live services, daily morning prayer via zoom, compline on Wednesdays, Friday office hours for fellowship that alternates between online and outdoors in the pastor's back yard.  They had an online summer camp, with weekly chapel online and small "cabin" groups that did activities in small groups outdoors and masked.  They have goodie bags that they mail out or people pick up that have gorgeous masks with the church name on it that people made and various goodies that are incorporated into house blessings via video or some of the online services (flash paper at Pentecost, sage for blessing your computer and house, saint medals).  It's been pretty fabulous, actually.  I'm going to be sad when they go back to meeting in person, because my life has been extremely enriched by my virtual attendance there.  

[frogger]

4 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". 

 

 

A lot of people, well everyone, sins and the church (except for a few ) doesn't kick them out. That is not what they are called to do.  If they don't call the police on someone though and love people where they are at, that means those who prefer masked and distance are put at risk. 

Whether I agree or not, it appears they are attempting to minister to both groups.

[JanetC]

This doesn't mean it's OK -- since it's replacing a risk to spiritual health with a risk to physical health -- but churches do have a Q problem...

If members won't support a pastor because they don't share their belief in the coronavirus conspiracy, what is a pastor to do?

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/26/1007611/how-qanon-is-targeting-evangelicals

[Halftime Hope]

3 hours 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.  

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.  

 

I think I could have written your post, including the faithfulness of those giving, and the difficulty of finding solid science to guide the mask/no mask answer. (I know there are some new studies out, but that didn't help most people when they needed to formulate an opinion and they were already sick of the waffling back and forth from the professionals.) 

[frogger]

43 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.  

 

I have to say first off this is just hard. Period. It is always easier to complain than do. 

Our church has tried to follow all mandate but do not enforce things on others. I don't know that many on here would agree that it is well done. We have of late been having service outside, rain or shine, rather than in the building. They did have a pre-recorded sermon during the lock-down but also split the church into groups which elders hosted,  to actually speak TO one another and prayer for each other.

I have to say I'm totally impressed with a local mega church locally who is still doing sermons online but have also made it a priority to contact every member of their church and check in via phone. Although, still not open themselves,  they are providing a study hall for those in need that can't stay home with kids where they can help with tech and homework questions since our district is all online presently. The kids still won't be in big classrooms, jumbled together etc so it will still be easier to distance etc than in the actual school though I'm sure the logistics of not causing  spread is still challenging but they are still attempting to serve their community rather than just demand their rights. 

[PeterPan]

2 hours ago, JanOH said:

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.

That is such a good point. That's how he has been all along.

2 hours ago, JanOH said:

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.

Yes, if that's what he was hoping, it's not happening here. 

2 hours ago, katilac said:

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. 

That is probably it. I'm trying hard to see their perspective and there just isn't that sort of justifiable, defensible position based on something. It seems to boil down to tired, y'all are liars, we're done with it. And maybe they have been using the statistics to lie and maybe everyone is just done with it, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. I guess you could frame it as a form of civil disobedience.

1 hour ago, Storygirl said:

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.

Nah I meant the weird 1:7 number. I don't remember where I read that. They had it as actual data, and I was just totally surprised. It's just if I say numbers, then people ask WHERE I got them and I don't remember, lol. 

And no. I seldom have watched DeWine's news conferences. Mental health. I google the state once a day and look at whatever pops in the feed. I've been shocked how radically the feed has shifted. Like you'd think Google would be STUFFING the feed with chaos, telling us the world is falling apart, and instead it's just blank, hardly any astonishing news at all. Just to google, you wouldn't think ANYTHING was happening right now. 

1 hour ago, Storygirl said:

that the counties that were downgraded from red to orange or yellow were doing better at masking.

Yes, I get the Dispatch emails and they have a distinctly liberal skew on everything. If there's a negative, left, whatever way to spin it, they do. I'm just saying for *my* county I watched the numbers. Statistics are always a way to frame a story and not necessarily about "truth." 

1 hour ago, Storygirl said:

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.

Yes, the pastor has pretty much said something to that effect. And while I get that people can have that opinion, I'm also not sure I wanted church to be my political statement. I thought I was there for God, not a political protest. And yes, that's part of the problem. I've been back 3 times, and I stopped even before this decision trying to take ds because I felt like he would see their attitude and find it very confusing. Now it's even worse. The sad thing is, their online feed is extremely hard to watch. They still haven't done direct micing etc. I may just start having us watch for a different church and move on. Taking ds in a mask, when it's already stressful, isn't practical. And while having permission to take him without a mask sounds nice, I'm not sure civil disobedience was the lesson I was going for. Here I thought it was love God, God loves you, read your Bible, really basic things.

1 hour ago, Storygirl said:

I don't understand the logic, and I don't think they can truly justify these kind of choices scripturally.

Yup, somehow their freedom is turning into license. 

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

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

Oh but they are. Walmart still only has ONE set of doors open instead of TWO. I kid you not.

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

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?

Yes, or to be upset if you're asked to modify but not upset if the bars are asked to modify. So businesses you DON'T like/agree with can be harrassed, altered, affected, but not you.

1 hour ago, Frances said:

in order to show their support and agreement with the president.

Yes, the president who just last night was on national television via a rally TELLING EVERYONE TO WEAR MASKS.

1 hour ago, Frances said:

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.

Oh that's interesting. I've heard some similar stories. So maybe that's what they anticipate, that the worst that happens is that contact tracing is done and they get a slap?

1 hour ago, Storygirl said:

so I think people are taking advantage of the no-ask policy.

Interesting. This may be more widespread than I realized. I think there's this difficulty of placing churches as *enforcers*. Stores do it, and I haven't seen any willingness on the part of the church here to do that. 

1 hour ago, Storygirl said:

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.

Yes, I think that's what I was trying to sort out. I wasn't sure if there was something I was missing, some obvious truism, moral principal, whatever that was getting them there, something that could get me there too. But "I'm tired of it" and "you can't make me" don't quite cut the mustard. Frankly, bringing the CONTENTION into the church, to me is mind boggling. That's what I don't like. I guess I'm just too rule following, because I don't identify with it and can't get there. I will say though that church in a mask sucks. It really does. Hardly anyone sings, it's hard to breathe, can't see your ipad by the end, you spend too much time fidgeting, etc. So I personally think you could frame the statistics that the masking needs to end, but I DON'T think it will happen before the election and I DON'T think civil disobedience is the way to get there.

1 hour ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

We are pretty anti multiple-services

Well this church was too, but the building was pretty much packed with one service, meaning they had to go to two services just to get the mandated spacing. So it may happen that so many drop from the masked service and condense to the 2nd that they return to one, no requirement, service and are done with it.

1 hour ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

Maybe 10% of the church isn’t masked,

No it will be much, much higher with this. I suspect almost no one will be masked.

 

[alisoncooks]

I've been impressed with my church -- but we are a small church and that makes some things easier. 

We had FB live church for a while, until the state relaxed restrictions. Now we have socially-distanced outdoor services; everyone wears a mask. Or you can sit in your car in the parking lot and tune in to an FM station to hear (for those that want to actually be there but not around others). Or you can keep on with the FB option.  There are also small groups that continue to meet via Zoom. 

[PeterPan]

55 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

They have added in virtual bible studies, virtual prayer group,

Don't worry about our church not doing any of that for 6 months, because thankfully they're now bringing them back, in person, with no masks and no distancing.

[PeterPan]

55 minutes ago, SKL said:

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

It clearly violates the *mandates* from the governor.

22 minutes ago, JanetC said:

This doesn't mean it's OK -- since it's replacing a risk to spiritual health with a risk to physical health -- but churches do have a Q problem...

If members won't support a pastor because they don't share their belief in the coronavirus conspiracy, what is a pastor to do?

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/26/1007611/how-qanon-is-targeting-evangelicals

Yup until this thread I had never heard of it. Seems so outlandish I can't imagine ANYONE getting into that. But mercy, who knows. I mean, people believe stupid, incorrect stuff every day of the week.

[katilac]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

Do you have some examples to point to of churches handling this well?  

I don't, it's just been people posting in the various threads mostly, but I see a few people are giving examples. 

56 minutes ago, SKL said:

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

No, the OP says they are ignoring mandates. 

[katilac]

24 minutes ago, JanetC said:

If members won't support a pastor because they don't share their belief in the coronavirus conspiracy, what is a pastor to do?

Stand strong in their beliefs? 

[forty-two]

1 hour ago, PeterPan said:

Yes, I think that's what I was trying to sort out. I wasn't sure if there was something I was missing, some obvious truism, moral principal, whatever that was getting them there, something that could get me there too. But "I'm tired of it" and "you can't make me" don't quite cut the mustard. Frankly, bringing the CONTENTION into the church, to me is mind boggling.

In some ways, I think this might be their attempt to *not* bring contention into the church.  I mean, one masked, one unmasked - that's kind of trying to be all things to all people.  I can see this as an attempt to *lessen* the contention, by giving everyone a chance to pick the service that matches their comfort level.  In other circumstances, that's the preferred mode of action, really - sidestepping contention by allowing all the options.  But that's not helping pastors figure out what to do now, when there's really no fence-sitting option, no compromise position.

~*~

I'm happy with how our church is doing things (being small makes a lot of things easier for us). We (both as a family and as a church) went with masks before it was the standard in our community (even now, with a state mask mandate, it's still not really a *standard*, but just that thing you do only when someone makes you).  We are having both live-streamed and in person services, and require both social distancing and masks for the latter (we keep a bunch available to hand out).  We are the only church I know of in the area that is requiring masks (churches are exempt from the mandate, though they are strongly encouraged to follow it).  But we are otherwise doing our usual services, singing and communion and all.  Dh (the pastor) got some pushback from requiring masks, but he does have elder support, which helps a lot.  (When trying to make the decision, he really felt like he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.)  Giving is way down, though it's been that way since the lockdown, not just since we required masks.  And dh has been working extremely hard to connect with members via phone calls and home visits.

Edited September 5, 2020 by forty-two

[Terabith]

The UMC in the Virginia diocese has a mandate from a bishop that not only must everyone be socially distanced, but if anyone removes a mask during the service, the pastor is to immediately give the benediction and dismiss the service and the person who removed mask is not welcome the next week.  

[Pen]

41 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

It clearly violates the *mandates* from the governor.

Yup until this thread I had never heard of it. Seems so outlandish I can't imagine ANYONE getting into that. But mercy, who knows. I mean, people believe stupid, incorrect stuff every day of the week.

 

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

[katilac]

10 minutes ago, Terabith said:

The UMC in the Virginia diocese has a mandate from a bishop that not only must everyone be socially distanced, but if anyone removes a mask during the service, the pastor is to immediately give the benediction and dismiss the service and the person who removed mask is not welcome the next week.  

I bow to their bad-ass bishop self. 

[Bootsie]

Could the logic be that the church is to minister to all of God's people and to provide the sacraments to all--whether that person has high speed internet, has a computer, or obeys the law?  Could it be that the minister knows that some will not come if they must mask, or sign-up online ahead of time, or some of the other steps that I have heard of churches taking and the minister wants to offer the church to those people, also.  

[Frances]

2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

It clearly violates the *mandates* from the governor.

Yup until this thread I had never heard of it. Seems so outlandish I can't imagine ANYONE getting into that. But mercy, who knows. I mean, people believe stupid, incorrect stuff every day of the week.

Like the extreme US centric view that this is all going to end after the election? 😉

 

[Halftime Hope]

2 hours ago, frogger said:

 

I have to say first off this is just hard. Period. It is always easier to complain than do. 

Our church has tried to follow all mandate but do not enforce things on others. I don't know that many on here would agree that it is well done. We have of late been having service outside, rain or shine, rather than in the building. They did have a pre-recorded sermon during the lock-down but also split the church into groups which elders hosted,  to actually speak TO one another and prayer for each other.

I have to say I'm totally impressed with a local mega church locally who is still doing sermons online but have also made it a priority to contact every member of their church and check in via phone. Although, still not open themselves,  they are providing a study hall for those in need that can't stay home with kids where they can help with tech and homework questions since our district is all online presently. The kids still won't be in big classrooms, jumbled together etc so it will still be easier to distance etc than in the actual school though I'm sure the logistics of not causing  spread is still challenging but they are still attempting to serve their community rather than just demand their rights. 

Where do you live, Frogger?   My son's church is doing this, although probably many are....  

My church is meeting in person, but we have pews roped off  so you are 7 feet behind the person in front of you. (I measured.)  People are asked to wear masks, although a portion of them wear them in and then take them off; staff requests that people not sit close together, but they don't get in people's business about masks, but ministers and staff wear them faithfully.  We still have only a few worship team members, and when they come off the stage, their masks go back on.   

[Frances]

2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

 

Yes, the president who just last night was on national television via a rally TELLING EVERYONE TO WEAR MASKS.

 

 

Was that the same rally where very few of his supporters were wearing masks and he mocked the mask wearing habits of some of his political opponents (both D and R) or a different one? I’m pretty sure that if his hardcore supporters really thought he was for masks they would all be wearing them at his rallies. Or if he really believed in mask wearing, they would be required, not optional, at his rallies.

[katilac]

1 hour ago, Dreamergal said:

I think this is unique to America in my experience. My old pastor in my native country has been extremely helpful to me even now and is a WhatsApp chat away or even a phone call though we are in opposite time zones and I am no longer a member or even a regular contributor to the church money wise. He used to regularly house visit, pray with us, do sick communion or old people communion once a month. There was simply more personal pastoral care and our parish was huge, around 3000 members. I think it was possible because he was not called to be a "leader". The bishop was the leader, he was the one who lead in the diocese. The pastor was more congregational pastoral care and ministry like village, jail into the community. 

Unless it is an independent church which America seems to be full of, I don't understand why a pastor has to be a business leader or even a leader in any way. Churches are not business with a lot of employees from where I come from. Only one pastor and a sexton were there. In the rare case pastor fell sick, an older retired pastor would lead the service. Few pastors who are genuinely called sign up to ministry because they want to be business leaders in any way or even a leader, they do so because they want to spread the gospel or minister to people. The pastor is supposed to serve, not lead so why unnecessarily burden them with leadership ? The church model in America must change in my opinion, become more streamlined. Pastors cannot be responsible for the church finances as well, few are equipped for that in my experience. 

I am not at all referring to business or finances, but spiritual and community leadership. 

 

34 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Could the logic be that the church is to minister to all of God's people and to provide the sacraments to all--whether that person has high speed internet, has a computer, or obeys the law?  Could it be that the minister knows that some will not come if they must mask, or sign-up online ahead of time, or some of the other steps that I have heard of churches taking and the minister wants to offer the church to those people, also.  

This logic falls apart for me because of the danger to the other people in the congregation. If people refuse to mask or sign up for services, that's their decision and they are turning down the chance to worship with others. If they don't have internet, of course the church should put forth as much effort as possible to reach them, just as they should for someone who doesn't have a ride to church. 

If there was only danger to the minister, then I think it would be their own decision to meet with someone who might pass on a dangerous illness. But when you decide to ignore safety mandates, you are endangering not just the entire congregation, but the entire community. It's like the usual limits on people put in place by the fire marshal - even if more people want to come in, you can't just ignore that. It's pretty common for churches to be forced to limit capacity at Christmas or Easter, and nobody thinks twice about that. They turn people away and tell them to come back for another service. It's not a big deal unless people make it a big deal. 

[kbutton]

3 hours ago, JanetC said:

This doesn't mean it's OK -- since it's replacing a risk to spiritual health with a risk to physical health -- but churches do have a Q problem...

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/26/1007611/how-qanon-is-targeting-evangelicals

Here's another two from Ed Stetzer (and he's spoken out before). The USA today one is first, and then he talks about why he wrote it and such on the one from CT. I imagine there are churches where this is not an issue, some where it's huge, and some where people don't realize that what they are seeing and nodding along to is from QAnon. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/09/04/qanon-and-evangelicals-its-time-address-qanoners-column/3446756001/

https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2020/september/qanon-conspiracies-disciple.html

I have stopped following or unfriended some people who are Christians and VERY committed to Q because I felt like they were so far gone there was no room to even talk about the weather. I unfriended some early on that were posting really weird stuff, and it turned out later to be linked to Q (and I didn't know at the time), but I unfriended them due to their disproportionate influence on others, and they aren't people that respond to pushback, largely because their own following convinces them they are so discerning. It turns out some repudiate Q...but still come to nearly the same conclusions about things like vaccines being a trap of some kind (unless they've changed their minds since I dropped them). 

[PeterPan]

3 minutes ago, kbutton said:

VERY committed to Q

Never even heard of this. Wow.

[kbutton]

10 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

Never even heard of this. Wow.

I saw it before I knew what it was. It was like in Wrinkle in Time (book--not sure what the movie was like) where Charles Wallace is taken in by the dark force imprisoning his father, but it was a ton of people on my FB feed*. My understanding in my circles is that people are getting there via the wellness movement, anti-vax (more specifically, pro-life groups that object due to fetal tissue vs. being anti-vax for other reasons), anti-trafficking movement, and people who feel like Christians are victims and losing influence. 

I am not sure, but I would not be surprised if one of our local pregnancy center directors that went into public office at the state level is into Q. She's rabid, and she's not very science-y. She seems to think that you can transplant ectopic pregnancies to the womb. 

Edited September 5, 2020 by kbutton
*ETA that it was instantaneous as if they'd all been waiting for their cue to start recruiting. Very creepy!!!

[PeterPan]

3 minutes ago, kbutton said:

She seems to think that you can transplant ectopic pregnancies to the womb. 

Wow. I mean, nice sentiment, but not possible that I know of.

4 minutes ago, kbutton said:

and she's not very science-y.

Yes, it's easy to fall into stuff. But the PASTOR should have enough education to be able to sort through this, mercy.

[Bootsie]

58 minutes ago, katilac said:

I am not at all referring to business or finances, but spiritual and community leadership. 

 

This logic falls apart for me because of the danger to the other people in the congregation. If people refuse to mask or sign up for services, that's their decision and they are turning down the chance to worship with others. If they don't have internet, of course the church should put forth as much effort as possible to reach them, just as they should for someone who doesn't have a ride to church. 

If there was only danger to the minister, then I think it would be their own decision to meet with someone who might pass on a dangerous illness. But when you decide to ignore safety mandates, you are endangering not just the entire congregation, but the entire community. It's like the usual limits on people put in place by the fire marshal - even if more people want to come in, you can't just ignore that. It's pretty common for churches to be forced to limit capacity at Christmas or Easter, and nobody thinks twice about that. They turn people away and tell them to come back for another service. It's not a big deal unless people make it a big deal. 

Luckily, I have not been called to be in a position of decision-making for a church on this issue.  I think it would be extremely difficult, and I can see arguments on both sides.  And, I don't think that it is a new issue for the church; I think if we look at Biblical times and throughout church history this issue has come up in a variety of ways--whether it has been based upon leprosy, prostitution, AIDS, murder, race, sexual preference, alcohol, food purity laws, divorce, carrying a firearm, or circumcision.  In many of those situations there was concern of the sinner's sin contaminating the purity, physical, or spiritual health of others in the congregation.    

If someone speeds on the way to church, or doesn't come to a complete stop at a stop sign, or runs through that light just as it turns red, they are putting other people who chose to be in their car on Sunday morning on the way to worship in danger, but we do not tell them because of their wreckless driving they are not welcome.  While I know of limits of people in a building for Christmas and Easter services, I have known of churches to go to great lengths to have extended seating in a fellowship hall, outdoors at another service.  I do not know of any church that has said these people are allowed because of their acceptable behavior to be here on Christmas Eve, but these people are not because their behavior is illegal--so I see these issues as very different.  

 

[kbutton]

7 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

Wow. I mean, nice sentiment, but not possible that I know of.

Yes, it's easy to fall into stuff. But the PASTOR should have enough education to be able to sort through this, mercy.

I don't know what our pastor thinks about all this, and I am a little afraid to find out. He apparently is a nationalist, which surprised me; granted, he might not have an extreme position that way, but he's made comments about it. Not everyone that has been freaky is local to me or in my church, but nearly all have been committed evangelicals. One is a mother/daughter pair that was a pastor's daughter/pastor's wife. 

*ETA the pregnancy center director turned representative is not from my church. 

Edited September 5, 2020 by kbutton

[katilac]

1 minute ago, Bootsie said:

Luckily, I have not been called to be in a position of decision-making for a church on this issue.  I think it would be extremely difficult, and I can see arguments on both sides.  And, I don't think that it is a new issue for the church; I think if we look at Biblical times and throughout church history this issue has come up in a variety of ways--whether it has been based upon leprosy, prostitution, AIDS, murder, race, sexual preference, alcohol, food purity laws, divorce, carrying a firearm, or circumcision.  In many of those situations there was concern of the sinner's sin contaminating the purity, physical, or spiritual health of others in the congregation.    

If someone speeds on the way to church, or doesn't come to a complete stop at a stop sign, or runs through that light just as it turns red, they are putting other people who chose to be in their car on Sunday morning on the way to worship in danger, but we do not tell them because of their wreckless driving they are not welcome.  While I know of limits of people in a building for Christmas and Easter services, I have known of churches to go to great lengths to have extended seating in a fellowship hall, outdoors at another service.  I do not know of any church that has said these people are allowed because of their acceptable behavior to be here on Christmas Eve, but these people are not because their behavior is illegal--so I see these issues as very different.  

 

 People speeding on their way to church is analogous to people not wearing masks to the grocery store - the church has no control over that, and trying to ban people for such things would indeed be an overreach. 

People not wearing masks in church is analogous to people speeding through the parking lot. Both are issues the church can and should address. 

Acceptable behavior outside of the church has nothing to do with it. Churches of every stripe routinely regulate behavior inside the church. If someone started chugging from a bottle of whiskey or screaming curse words, I have no doubt they would be escorted out, even though there's nothing illegal about those behaviors. If someone started engaging in actual illegal behaviors, all the more so. Just not, y'know, masks. 

The question at hand is whether churches can or should require attendees to physically distance and wear face mask. Well, obviously they can, they regulate tons of other behaviors in church. If they want to claim they shouldn't, they're going to have to come up with a better reason than being afraid some people might leave church if they enforce rules, because they already enforce rules all. the. time. 

[Bootsie]

1 minute ago, katilac said:

 People speeding on their way to church is analogous to people not wearing masks to the grocery store - the church has no control over that, and trying to ban people for such things would indeed be an overreach. 

People not wearing masks in church is analogous to people speeding through the parking lot. Both are issues the church can and should address. 

Acceptable behavior outside of the church has nothing to do with it. Churches of every stripe routinely regulate behavior inside the church. If someone started chugging from a bottle of whiskey or screaming curse words, I have no doubt they would be escorted out, even though there's nothing illegal about those behaviors. If someone started engaging in actual illegal behaviors, all the more so. Just not, y'know, masks. 

The question at hand is whether churches can or should require attendees to physically distance and wear face mask. Well, obviously they can, they regulate tons of other behaviors in church. If they want to claim they shouldn't, they're going to have to come up with a better reason than being afraid some people might leave church if they enforce rules, because they already enforce rules all. the. time. 

I know many churches that have at one time or another not only allowed actual illegal behavior but encouraged illegal behavior.  And, I have seen ministers deal with someone drinking alcohol and screaming curse words inside the church, which has not resulted in the individual being escorted out.  

While I would hope that the church could find a way to address someone speeding in the church parking lot, I do not think that means it should be "you are not welcome back next week".  I also think there is a difference in a church saying it shouldn't regulate behavior because it is afraid some people might leave the church and saying that it shouldn't deny people access to the church because of their behavior.  

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I know many churches that have at one time or another not only allowed actual illegal behavior but encouraged illegal behavior.  And, I have seen ministers deal with someone drinking alcohol and screaming curse words inside the church, which has not resulted in the individual being escorted out.  

While I would hope that the church could find a way to address someone speeding in the church parking lot, I do not think that means it should be "you are not welcome back next week".  I also think there is a difference in a church saying it shouldn't regulate behavior because it is afraid some people might leave the church and saying that it shouldn't deny people access to the church because of their behavior.  

But they wouldn't let them continue to scream obscenities during the whole service, right?

No one is saying anyone isn't welcome, they are saying the church can and should require they follow the law while there. You can stay if you stop screaming curse words, you can stay if you put your mask on. 

[SoCal_Bear]

I'm in CA so that restrictions are probably the strictest in the nation. Only starting this week, churches have been allowed to resume indoor services capped at 25% of capacity or 100 people if you moved to tier 2 status. SD is the only urban county that is. 9 out of 10 CAs live in a Tier 1 status county which is the strictest level and no indoor services or activities can happen. Only outdoors. 

I found it deeply disappointing that John Macarthur has decided to go against the health mandates and meet with 7K in his church with no masking and no distancing. He is telling his congregation that there is no pandemic. Don't get me started on the 6% death conspiracy theory that he was pushing as well. He put forward this as their biblical argument arguing Christ not Caesar.
https://www.gracechurch.org/news/posts/1988

This article in Christian Post illustrates the difference between his stance versus Andy Stanley (Northpoint in Georgia)

https://www.christianpost.com/news/john-macarthur-urges-churches-to-challenge-govt-and-reopen-in-pandemic-andy-stanley-disagrees.html

Gavin Ortlund has an excellent response to carefully consider the biblical values that are informing our thought process and decision making here:

https://gavinortlund.com/2020/08/02/should-churches-in-california-defy-government-restrictions-a-response-to-john-macarthur/

This was the best theological response to John MacArthur I've read:
https://davenantinstitute.org/christ-and-caesar-a-response-to-john-macarthur/?fbclid=IwAR2HEfDa0r_NsNmdbMOR9fXaiORNVTqATFk-vzacV6CzTxusOLup-sZvEWs

Not In It to Win It

Andy Stanley - Aug 16, 2020

People sometimes use religion to justify positions, especially around social and political topics. But Christianity was never intended to try and win arguments. In fact, it’s just the opposite.
He talks about Northpoint's decision not to hold in person services until 2021 here: https://northpoint.org/messages/not-in-it-to-win-it

My own church has done stellar job with this and really increased our engagment and reach during this time. The online worship services are really good and a lot of midweek support with different online events, outdoor distanced events/ministries activity. There's plenty of online content for all the children and youth as well. 

[Happy2BaMom]

40 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

I would absolutely stop attending a church that threatens to tell people they're not welcome back for not wearing a mask. How far we have fallen when people are going to be told that they're no longer welcome. 

 

And how far we've fallen when wearing a paper mask for an hour church service during a pandemic becomes a hill worth dying on for Christians.

Edited September 6, 2020 by Happy2BaMom

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

But they wouldn't let them continue to scream obscenities during the whole service, right?

No one is saying anyone isn't welcome, they are saying the church can and should require they follow the law while there. You can stay if you stop screaming curse words, you can stay if you put your mask on. 

I know some ministers, who I respect greatly and who have thought deeply, about this who would say, yes, they would allow someone to stay through the entire service although their behavior was disruptive to other worshipers.  I think there is a different in saying "you are welcome IF..."  whatever that if -- if you are quiet, if you don't use certain words, if you have a mask on your face, if you have a covering on your head, if you don't drink.... You could fill in the blank with whatever.  I know ministers who do not feel comfortable with an IF.   

I also would not agree that the church should require that attendees follow the law while they are there.  I lived in a city where it was illegal to feed a homeless person many churches allowed people to feed the homeless on church property.  I know of people who were in situations where it was illegal for different races to participate in certain activities together--but the church allowed for that, not requiring people to follow the law while they were at church.  I realize those are different situations, but I cannot agree that the logic is that the church should require people to follow the law while they are there--I don't think the argument is because it is a law the church should require it.  There could perhaps be other reasons a church should require a particular behavior, but I think those reasons need to be voiced.  Falling back on "because its a law" doesn't hold with many precedents in church history.  

[J-rap]

5 hours ago, JanetC said:

This doesn't mean it's OK -- since it's replacing a risk to spiritual health with a risk to physical health -- but churches do have a Q problem...

If members won't support a pastor because they don't share their belief in the coronavirus conspiracy, what is a pastor to do?

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/26/1007611/how-qanon-is-targeting-evangelicals

I'm beginning to think this all goes back to the underlying focus of the church itself.  For example, our church's leadership has decided to not meet online until probably 2021, and the entire congregation is in support of this. This is not surprising.  Our church happens to have a very "other-oriented" approach -- which I'm so grateful for! -- not just within the congregation, but the broader community as well.   It doesn't have an us vs. them attitude at all, and is not distrustful of outsiders, including non-Christians, people of differing political parties, etc.  

 

[J-rap]

38 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

I would absolutely stop attending a church that threatens to tell people they're not welcome back for not wearing a mask. How far we have fallen when people are going to be told that they're no longer welcome. 

Well, I think one could word this in a more loving way.  Such as, "We understand you have a different opinion.  We do ask that you stay home and view our services online for the time being, since we are committed to protecting each other -- especially our most vulnerable congregants -- by wearing masks right now.  However, we love you and hope you will remain part of our community and return in person as soon as it is deemed safe."

[Moonhawk]

9 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I know some ministers, who I respect greatly and who have thought deeply, about this who would say, yes, they would allow someone to stay through the entire service although their behavior was disruptive to other worshipers.  I think there is a different in saying "you are welcome IF..."  whatever that if -- if you are quiet, if you don't use certain words, if you have a mask on your face, if you have a covering on your head, if you don't drink.... You could fill in the blank with whatever.  I know ministers who do not feel comfortable with an IF.   

I also would not agree that the church should require that attendees follow the law while they are there.  I lived in a city where it was illegal to feed a homeless person many churches allowed people to feed the homeless on church property.  I know of people who were in situations where it was illegal for different races to participate in certain activities together--but the church allowed for that, not requiring people to follow the law while they were at church.  I realize those are different situations, but I cannot agree that the logic is that the church should require people to follow the law while they are there--I don't think the argument is because it is a law the church should require it.  There could perhaps be other reasons a church should require a particular behavior, but I think those reasons need to be voiced.  Falling back on "because its a law" doesn't hold with many precedents in church history.  

 I agree that many times in history the Church has not followed the law because it was obviously wrong to do so.

To be accurate, I believe that most churches agree that their attendees should obey just laws. Or, perhaps, laws that are not immoral to be followed. Now, if you want to say that a law is unjust or immoral, that's where you have I think a justifiable grey area about how to approach compliance. 

But I don't see how a mask mandate is unjust.

edit to take out redundancy, oops

Edited September 6, 2020 by Moonhawk

[Bootsie]

1 minute ago, Moonhawk said:

I can't talk about every instance and every situation, and I do not know the reasoning behind why those laws were made or how they were actually stated. I agree that many times in history the Church has not followed the law because it was obviously wrong to do so.

To be accurate, I believe that most churches agree that their attendees should obey just laws. Or, perhaps, laws that are not immoral to be followed. Now, if you want to say that a law is unjust or immoral, that's where you have I think a justifiable grey area about how to approach compliance. 

But I don't see how a mask mandate is unjust.

But, I think there is a difference in saying that their attendees SHOULD obey just laws and saying that a person is not welcome to attend a worship service IF they are not obeying a law, just or unjust. 

[Moonhawk]

10 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But, I think there is a difference in saying that their attendees SHOULD obey just laws and saying that a person is not welcome to attend a worship service IF they are not obeying a law, just or unjust. 

Fair enough. 

I would say though that when it is on church property, a church probably has more responsibility in how they approach the situation. I won't make a judgment about what they "should" do (each situation/law break/reason is different, anyway), but being clear that people need to wear masks on their property is giving the person a choice, it is not the same as saying this particular person is not welcome on their grounds.

I recognize the example in-thread was a bit more explicit about a one-week ban. But I saw it as a temporary ban, a slap on the wrist, more than an and-stay-out situation. And if the congregation knows about the rule beforehand, it should be understood as such. it is not singling out a particular person unjustly or giving an unjust or permanent punishment.

Communities and spaces such as churches have at least some responsibility to everyone who uses their facilities, I do not see it as unChristian to ask people to mask or come back when they are ready to.

It'd probably be Christian, however, to put the potential needs above one's own temporary comfort.

 

Edited September 6, 2020 by Moonhawk

[PeterPan]

48 minutes ago, calbear said:

I found it deeply disappointing that John Macarthur has decided to go against the health mandates and meet with 7K in his church with no masking and no distancing.

I'm guessing the article you linked is factoring in and in the major influencer here, not the Qanon stuff. This is not a group to mess with Q but they would know MacArthur and be aware of his arguments. And frankly, I agree with him that CA has completely, completely overstepped all bounds. I thought he was going to have some kind of modified services. Nevertheless, he's clearly within his religious bounds to go forward. And you know, hey, if his church with 7k is doing this and he's not having breakouts (which SURELY would make the news), then that's pretty interesting data frankly. We have a whole lot of assumptions, but really, considering the number of churches where this is supposedly happening, we're having surprisingly few breakouts. There should be more if it's THAT likely to cause problems. At least I'm not seeing that in the news. Sporadic, a few. But it's sounding like there are enough churches allowing nonmasking that it ought to be appearing more brilliantly statistically (like the bars are) if it's an issue.

[katilac]

 

58 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

I would absolutely stop attending a church that threatens to tell people they're not welcome back for not wearing a mask. How far we have fallen when people are going to be told that they're no longer welcome. 

How far we have fallen when we won't wear a mask in order to protect the people we worship with every week. 

22 minutes ago, Happy2BaMom said:

 

And how far we've fallen when wearing a paper mask for an hour church service during a pandemic becomes a hill worth dying on for Christians.

Yes. Of all things, gracious! 

21 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I know some ministers, who I respect greatly and who have thought deeply, about this who would say, yes, they would allow someone to stay through the entire service although their behavior was disruptive to other worshipers.  I think there is a different in saying "you are welcome IF..."  whatever that if -- if you are quiet, if you don't use certain words, if you have a mask on your face, if you have a covering on your head, if you don't drink.... You could fill in the blank with whatever.  I know ministers who do not feel comfortable with an IF.   

I also would not agree that the church should require that attendees follow the law while they are there.  I lived in a city where it was illegal to feed a homeless person many churches allowed people to feed the homeless on church property.  I know of people who were in situations where it was illegal for different races to participate in certain activities together--but the church allowed for that, not requiring people to follow the law while they were at church.  I realize those are different situations, but I cannot agree that the logic is that the church should require people to follow the law while they are there--I don't think the argument is because it is a law the church should require it.  There could perhaps be other reasons a church should require a particular behavior, but I think those reasons need to be voiced.  Falling back on "because its a law" doesn't hold with many precedents in church history.  

They're going to allow someone to stay that one week, or they're going to allow them to come back week after week after week, even though other parishioners can no longer worship in any meaningful way? Because I have never, in my entire life, heard of a church would or did welcome the same wildly disruptive people every single week. I have never heard of a church that would welcome someone to engage in behavior that endangers others, week after week after week. Have I heard of churches who did other things to help such people, other things to make them feel loved and welcome? Certainly. But no churches who are just like, yes, certainly, come in and do whatever you want, every single week, the service isn't important compared to you doing whatever you want. 

To be clear, I'm using the word 'disruptive' as a catchall, and I am by no means talking about crying babies or people with special needs who might be disruptive at times. I'm talking about people making an intentional decision, like the intentional decision to not wear a mask.

Of course the reasons for requiring certain behaviors in church should be voiced, and of course there are times when the church or churchgoers should break the law, and the reasons for that should be voiced as well. But feeding the hungry and fighting for racial justice are in a different universe to refusing to wear a mask, so much so that it's an absurd comparison to me.   

9 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But, I think there is a difference in saying that their attendees SHOULD obey just laws and saying that a person is not welcome to attend a worship service IF they are not obeying a law, just or unjust. 

Yes, there is a difference, but, again, I don't see churches being laissez-faire about people breaking the law while sitting in church. I mean, should I just light up a joint next Sunday? 

2 minutes ago, kand said:

Not even if they are harming other congregants by disobeying that law? Would they be allowed to smoke in the service? Come in pantsless and sit in the chairs? Surely there are situations where you could imagine a pastor may have to ask someone to step out (I don’t think the word “unwelcome” would—or should—be used). Allowing people to be there without masks is telling other people they are not welcome or worth accommodating, particularly the most vulnerable of the community. Wearing a mask isn’t harmful. Catching Covid from someone not wearing a mask is. The two things aren’t equivalent. 
 

Our church has decided we will not congregate in person until 2021. For us, this is a an important way to show the greater community around us that we love and care about them. 

Amen.

Bootsie, you said you hoped that a way would be found to address speeding in the parking lot, but you hoped that way would not include telling the person they weren't welcome to come back the next week. Fair enough, the first time. What if they continue speeding? What if the make it clear they have no intention of stopping? Do they get welcomed back week after week until they run over a kid? Welcomed back after that? 

[Bootsie]

14 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

Fair enough. 

I would say though that when it is on church property, a church probably has more responsibility in how they approach the situation. I won't make a judgment about what they "should" do (each situation/law break/reason is different, anyway), but being clear that people need to wear masks on their property is giving the person a choice, it is not the same as saying this particular person is not welcome on their grounds.

I recognize the example in-thread was a bit more explicit about a one-week ban. But I saw it as a temporary ban, a slap on the wrist, more than an and-stay-out situation. And if the congregation knows about the rule beforehand, it should be understood as such. it is not singling out a particular person unjustly or giving an unjust or permanent punishment.

Communities and spaces such as churches have at least some responsibility to everyone who uses their facilities, I do not see it as unChristian to ask people to mask or come back when they are ready to.

It'd probably be Christian, however, to put the potential needs above one's own temporary comfort.

 

I think there is a difference in saying what an individuals Christian duty is--yes I agree to put the potential needs of others above one's own temporary comfort is the Christian thing to do--and saying what a church should do when some chooses not to act in a Christian manner.  To say that there would be a "ban" whether one day, one week, or whatever for a person to be welcome at a church is something I am not comfortable with.  I do not think the church should be in the position of punishing people (permanently or temporarily) by refusing attendance at a worship service.   

[PeterPan]

56 minutes ago, calbear said:

https://www.christianpost.com/news/john-macarthur-urges-churches-to-challenge-govt-and-reopen-in-pandemic-andy-stanley-disagrees.html

That article was helpful, thank you.  

And you know, I think there's something to the argument that with THAT MANY people in the congregation, some serious super spreading ought to be occurring if it's likely to.

[frogger]

2 hours ago, Seasider too said:

I am hoping church leaders are using this time to re-evaluate what church should look like, rather than just struggling to find ways to keep on doing things the pre-CV way. 

DH and I were doing a little math over coffee this morning and concluded that every church member could have easily received at least 5 personal phone calls from our pastoral team since March. Sadly we have not. I applaud the church you mention for making that effort. I know it would have meant something to us to have had even one personal phone call over the past five months. 

 

I can't say I have any clue if they actually succeeded, I just know it was in their plan.  Plus they probably have lots of attenders that aren't members that come on Sundays without really knowing people which is probably why they stated members as they have a list. 

My only advice is find 5 people the Lord lays on your heart or just who lives nearest you or whatever and try giving them a call. 

 

[J-rap]

34 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But, I think there is a difference in saying that their attendees SHOULD obey just laws and saying that a person is not welcome to attend a worship service IF they are not obeying a law, just or unjust. 

I think the difference is that it is believed that other congregants (and beyond) could be harmed by these laws not being followed.  

[katilac]

5 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I think there is a difference in saying what an individuals Christian duty is--yes I agree to put the potential needs of others above one's own temporary comfort is the Christian thing to do--and saying what a church should do when some chooses not to act in a Christian manner.  To say that there would be a "ban" whether one day, one week, or whatever for a person to be welcome at a church is something I am not comfortable with.  I do not think the church should be in the position of punishing people (permanently or temporarily) by refusing attendance at a worship service.   

Then what should the church do, if they know this person is going to attend and is going to do something that has a good chance of harming others? Are you saying that the church should not intervene in any way, that it's not their business if other people come to harm at their service? 

[Bootsie]

24 minutes ago, kand said:

Not even if they are harming other congregants by disobeying that law? Would they be allowed to smoke in the service? Come in pantsless and sit in the chairs? Surely there are situations where you could imagine a pastor may have to ask someone to step out (I don’t think the word “unwelcome” would—or should—be used). Allowing people to be there without masks is telling other people they are not welcome or worth accommodating, particularly the most vulnerable of the community. Wearing a mask isn’t harmful. Catching Covid from someone not wearing a mask is. The two things aren’t equivalent. 
 

Our church has decided we will not congregate in person until 2021. For us, this is a an important way to show the greater community around us that we love and care about them. 

I disagree that telling someone that they are only welcome to enter the church IF... is equivalent to someone who knows it is unsafe for them to enter the church under certain conditions feeling as if they are not welcomed.  

[Moonhawk]

2 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I think there is a difference in saying what an individuals Christian duty is--yes I agree to put the potential needs of others above one's own temporary comfort is the Christian thing to do--and saying what a church should do when some chooses not to act in a Christian manner.  To say that there would be a "ban" whether one day, one week, or whatever for a person to be welcome at a church is something I am not comfortable with.  I do not think the church should be in the position of punishing people (permanently or temporarily) by refusing attendance at a worship service.   

Okay ... I think the disconnect I see is that the person is making the choice to disregard the rules of the church (not just the law of the land) and they are choosing to value something else above their attendance at the service. They are *choosing* to refuse attendance *to themselves.* They are just forcing the church officials to enforce it (or more likely, expecting to get away with it). 

I can agree from a theoretical standpoint that as a house of God all should be welcome. I also see that some basic requirements are generally understood to using the space -- like, staying clothed.

[Tenaj]

10 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

That article was helpful, thank you.  

And you know, I think there's something to the argument that with THAT MANY people in the congregation, some serious super spreading ought to be occurring if it's likely to.

I've wondered about this, too but I wonder if the congregants are being super careful about attending when they are sick.  The Christian school that our son is attending is not following the masking mandates but they are being fairly cautious about social distancing and have insisted that the kids not attend when they are sick or anyone in their family is sick so far they have not had a large outbreak in either the church or the school.  Just a few cases over the past few weeks.  The jury is still out on whether they will be successful.   I haven't seen anywhere that McArthur has mentioned that , but it may very well be that they are taking the same approach about attendance guidelines even though they are still meeting as normal.

[katilac]

I'm actually going to change or add to my prior example of people doing things intentionally, because sometimes people do things unintentionally (say, due to mental illness) and yet something still needs to be done. If a mentally ill person is screaming and cursing at a frail senior citizen, really just getting in their face but not touching them, do you let that go because it's church and you don't want the mentally ill person to feel unwelcome? What if they're going to do it every week, because they have fixated on Grandma Jones as the (delusional) source of all their problems? I just think it's disingenuous to suggest that churches never face situations in which they would and should make a person leave the service, or not allow them in.  

11 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I disagree that telling someone that they are only welcome to enter the church IF... is equivalent to someone who knows it is unsafe for them to enter the church under certain conditions feeling as if they are not welcomed.  

Can you clarify? Are you saying that you would err on the side of allowing people to not wear masks, even knowing that means other people will be unable to attend services? That seems backwards to me if so, because the first person is making a choice to refuse to wear a mask. The second person is not choosing to be vulnerable. The first person could attend and wear a mask, the second person can't attend if others aren't masked. 

Edited September 6, 2020 by katilac

[Bootsie]

2 minutes ago, katilac said:

Then what should the church do, if they know this person is going to attend and is going to do something that has a good chance of harming others? Are you saying that the church should not intervene in any way, that it's not their business if other people come to harm at their service? 

I think it is a dilemma and I can see reasons why church authorities would come down on either side.  I think the church should be clear about the dilemma and make their stance clear so that people can choose whether their personal beliefs align with that or not. I don't think that there are easy answers and I am not sure if any human has the ability to know definitively what the right answer is.  Community is hard.  

In my area, churches have struggled with open carry issues.  It is legal in my area for someone to openly carry a gun in a church unless the church has specifically stated otherwise.  Some have argued that a person should only be welcome in church IF they do not carry a gun, everyone else in the congregation has the right to worship in peace without the fear of a gun being fired.  Others have argued that all are welcome, even if they are carrying a gun.  There have been many surprised people who thought it would be obvious that everyone else had the same opinion as they did.  

[Pen]

Just now, JanOH said:

I've wondered about this, too but I wonder if the congregants are being super careful about attending when they are sick.  The Christian school that our son is attending is not following the masking mandates but they are being fairly cautious about social distancing and have insisted that the kids not attend when they are sick or anyone in their family is sick so far they have not had a large outbreak in either the church or the school.  Just a few cases over the past few weeks.  The jury is still out on whether they will be successful.   I haven't seen anywhere that McArthur has mentioned that , but it may very well be that they are taking the same approach about attendance guidelines even though they are still meeting as normal.

 

?  Just a few cases over how many weeks amongst how many people?