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

[J-rap]

21 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.   

I'm having trouble understanding this, as it seems others are.  So, let's say a contagious sickness was very apparent and the person, or even their entire family, had smallpox, or the plague, or polio, or was vomiting with the stomach flu several times during the service into a doggie bag.  Would you still not see any problem with that person coming to church with their entire family who also had the same sickness and sitting right next to everyone else?   It's not "punishing" that person to ask them not to come.  It's just asking them to please refrain from coming in person until it's considered safe for everyone.

[PeterPan]

article on Macarthur https://religionnews.com/2020/09/01/john-macarthur-claimed-there-no-pandemic-he-was-politicizing-the-science/

data on covid in churches from someone trying to keep track

https://www.wthrockmorton.com/2020/05/24/churches-and-the-spread-of-covid-19/

[Tenaj]

4 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

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

 

 

 

From the information I have, three people out of a church of about 300 in the past month or so.  Two of the three are a married couple.  The school just started up and we've heard of no cases from the school side of things.  The first grade teacher became sick before school started and was never in the school or around teachers or students.  Her husband is currently in the hospital (or was as of Thursday).  The other case was asymptomatic.  He was in the hospital for an unrelated illness, was tested as routine and didn't get his positive test results until after his quarantine period was already over (crazy!).  This church never stopped meeting twice on Sunday, once midweek all the way through.  They are social distancing, most are not masking,  and attendance has been lower but these are the only cases so far.  That could change at any moment, of course.  

[Starr]

I'm wondering how all this is going for those of you who are attending in person church. Are your buildings open for coffee hour, children's programs, Bible study or outside groups? Are you having food at any of these meetings? Are most people agreeing on these decisions?

[Bootsie]

9 minutes ago, katilac said:

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.  

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. 

I honestly do not know what I would do if I were in the position of having to make a decision about this.  I do know that if I were in that position I would devote a lot more time to prayer and discussion about the issue than I have, and I don't think it would be easy.  

I don't know exactly where you draw the line.  If Alice is extremely allergic to perfumes, do you tell people they are welcome to attend worship IF they do not where perfume?  If Bob is extremely allergic to peanuts, do you tell people they are welcome to attend worship IF they have not eaten peanuts that day?  If the wife of a parishoner is missing (and it is feared that he has murdered her and dumped the body) and it is strongly suspected that the same parishoner has physically abused his children (to the point that a member had written a 10-page document for CPS documenting injuries before the mother went missing), is the parishoner welcome to attend church and stand in the hallway of the children's wing (My church was in that situation).  Or, if open carry is allowed, but some members think that one of their relatives is mentally ill, is he not welcome if he is carrying a gun (My church has been in this situation, also.) 

I am not suggesting that churches never face situations in which they would or should make a person leave a service.  I am suggesting that it can be a extremely difficult situation, and where to draw the line can be blurry.  I would also hope in those situations it is not simply where the offending party is told to leave--or even worse that they aren't welcome back the next week--but that the person is ministered to with a great deal of love, care, and concern.  

[Bootsie]

24 minutes ago, J-rap said:

I'm having trouble understanding this, as it seems others are.  So, let's say a contagious sickness was very apparent and the person, or even their entire family, had smallpox, or the plague, or polio, or was vomiting with the stomach flu several times during the service into a doggie bag.  Would you still not see any problem with that person coming to church with their entire family who also had the same sickness and sitting right next to everyone else?   It's not "punishing" that person to ask them not to come.  It's just asking them to please refrain from coming in person until it's considered safe for everyone.

If a family were so sick and showing up at the church, I hope that the church would recognize a need that this family has to be ministered to and determine the best way to minister to them.  There is a great distance between "you will be welcome once you are healthy and are not a risk to anyone else" and "you are ill and hurting, the church is here to minister to you; the best way we know how to minister to you is...."  

[PeterPan]

Well fwiw, I think we finally sorted out what is going on in my church at least. Now that I'm reading MacArthur's arguments, odds are that's where they're coming from. And I kind of feel like I can at least say, having read M's arguments, that I can at least grant them some room to say ok that's where they are. I don't think I have to see it quite as far as like gone off the deep end, rogue, leave the church.

Now that doesn't answer what *I* need to do for me, haha but it at least makes clear for me where they're coming from, which was my goal in the thread. I think for my own choice, I have more things to balance. My ds will not attend church masked, guaranteed. He can hardly stand it anyway and definitely won't go masked. I also need to stay relatively well to be able to visit my dad (in assisted living) on occasion. So I have to sort that through for myself. But at least I think I see where they're coming from.

So y'all have at it, rabbit trail, do whatever y'all want now. I'm sorted out. 

[ktgrok]

3 hours 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. 

So there is nothing one could do during a church service that would mean they need to sit out that service? Like, your church is cool if people show up to church naked? Women can come topless? Can people smoke during the service, in the pew, exposing people to second hand smoke for the duration, and not be asked or told to put it out?

Not to mention, that if they allow people witout masks, that means people who are concerned or at higher risk are then NOT welcome, because it is not a safe place for them. 

2 hours 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.

Seriously!

2 hours 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 also would not agree that the church should require that attendees follow the law while they are there.  

As I said above, would your church allow people to smoke in the pews during the service? Light up a joint? Blow pot smoke on others? Or would they nicely say "you are welcome, we want you here, but you can't be doing that in the pew"?

As for the law, the standard for most Christians is you follow the law unless the law goes against the bible - goes against God's law. Wearing a mask is not anti-Jesus, so Christians therefore are called to follow that law. 

[J-rap]

34 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

If a family were so sick and showing up at the church, I hope that the church would recognize a need that this family has to be ministered to and determine the best way to minister to them.  There is a great distance between "you will be welcome once you are healthy and are not a risk to anyone else" and "you are ill and hurting, the church is here to minister to you; the best way we know how to minister to you is...."  

But the whole thing with masking and Covid is that often people are contagious without even realizing they have it.   A church's perspective very well might be that they are ministering to the entire church congregation out of love for one another by requesting masks, in order to protect each other and the community around them.  And I have to believe that if anyone at a church that has those requirements were to come down with Covid some other way, the church wouldn't just say, "Come back when you're healthy, buddy."   No, they would do what they could to help them -- whether it's bringing them meals, helping them financially, or driving them to the doctor.

 

 

 

[katilac]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

I honestly do not know what I would do if I were in the position of having to make a decision about this.  I do know that if I were in that position I would devote a lot more time to prayer and discussion about the issue than I have, and I don't think it would be easy.  

I don't know exactly where you draw the line.  If Alice is extremely allergic to perfumes, do you tell people they are welcome to attend worship IF they do not where perfume?  If Bob is extremely allergic to peanuts, do you tell people they are welcome to attend worship IF they have not eaten peanuts that day?  If the wife of a parishoner is missing (and it is feared that he has murdered her and dumped the body) and it is strongly suspected that the same parishoner has physically abused his children (to the point that a member had written a 10-page document for CPS documenting injuries before the mother went missing), is the parishoner welcome to attend church and stand in the hallway of the children's wing (My church was in that situation).  Or, if open carry is allowed, but some members think that one of their relatives is mentally ill, is he not welcome if he is carrying a gun (My church has been in this situation, also.) 

I am not suggesting that churches never face situations in which they would or should make a person leave a service.  I am suggesting that it can be a extremely difficult situation, and where to draw the line can be blurry.  I would also hope in those situations it is not simply where the offending party is told to leave--or even worse that they aren't welcome back the next week--but that the person is ministered to with a great deal of love, care, and concern.  

I agree that many situations are quite difficult. I disagree that mask wearing is one of those difficult situations, or that the lines are blurred. There is a mandate to wear masks, there is strong evidence that it helps others, and there is no compelling moral reason to not wear them. 

51 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

If a family were so sick and showing up at the church, I hope that the church would recognize a need that this family has to be ministered to and determine the best way to minister to them.  There is a great distance between "you will be welcome once you are healthy and are not a risk to anyone else" and "you are ill and hurting, the church is here to minister to you; the best way we know how to minister to you is...."  

But, for this to correlate to wearing masks, the family would have to decline being ministered to in a different way, and insist that they want to be ministered to in church. 

[frogger]

6 hours ago, Halftime Hope said:

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

 

 

Alaska

[Bootsie]

11 minutes ago, kand said:

I don’t see how the second situation is kinder. In the second situation, as regards to not wearing masks, you’re saying you’re only welcome (safe) if you are young and healthy. Someone can’t choose to be that if they’re not. In the first situation, literally all they need to do is wear a face covering while at church and they’re good to go. Would your standard be the same for someone who wanted to attend naked from the waist down? Are they welcome that way, or do they need to put on pants?

I didn't say that one situation was kinder than the other--in fact, I didn't say that either situation was or was not kind.  I think there are differences between being welcome, feeling welcome, being safe and feeling safe.  There have been many times where Christians have been welcome at church but have not been safe there.  

[Bootsie]

12 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

So there is nothing one could do during a church service that would mean they need to sit out that service? Like, your church is cool if people show up to church naked? Women can come topless? Can people smoke during the service, in the pew, exposing people to second hand smoke for the duration, and not be asked or told to put it out?

Not to mention, that if they allow people witout masks, that means people who are concerned or at higher risk are then NOT welcome, because it is not a safe place for them. 

Seriously!

As I said above, would your church allow people to smoke in the pews during the service? Light up a joint? Blow pot smoke on others? Or would they nicely say "you are welcome, we want you here, but you can't be doing that in the pew"?

As for the law, the standard for most Christians is you follow the law unless the law goes against the bible - goes against God's law. Wearing a mask is not anti-Jesus, so Christians therefore are called to follow that law. 

I did not say anything about my church allowing anything.  In fact, my church is not meeting in person although we are legally allowed to do so. 

I also think there is a difference between ministering to and welcoming all and being cool with particular behavior.  I do know some ministers who have allowed those types of behaviors, focusing much more on how they can minister to those individuals than on what their own comfort level is with particular behavior; it is a hard choice that they have made, not necessarily the one I would make, but I certainly cannot condemn them or say that they are wrong for doing so.  They make those decisions out of a great sense of calling and after a great deal of prayer.  They aren't cool with the behavior.  

Again, I think there is a difference between a Christian being called to do something and a Christian being told they are not welcome to attend a church service because they are not doing that.  I think the church would be a pretty empty place if only those who were doing what they were called to do were welcome to attend. Especially if they are told that they aren't even welcome back the following week because they didn't do something they were called to do.  I know that many times I have sat in church and not done as I was called to do--did I really welcome the homeless?  Did I really give my cloak when asked for my shirt?  Did I really pray for my enemy?  Did I really feed the sheep?   

[Bootsie]

38 minutes ago, katilac said:

But, for this to correlate to wearing masks, the family would have to decline being ministered to in a different way, and insist that they want to be ministered to in church. 

I don't think this is necessarily the situation. I have heard a number of people say that someone who is not wearing a mask is not welcome in church, or even further, they are not welcome back the next week.  Yet, I do not hear them mention any way that the church would be specifically working to minister to that individual or meet that individual's needs.  There is not any mention of these people being offered to be ministered to in a different, meaningful way or these people declining that offer.  It is my hope that churches who will tell someone they are not welcome if they are not masked have a well-thought out way to minister to those individuals, but I am not hearing of those.

[Frances]

3 hours ago, PeterPan said:

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.

I think the blog you linked below where someone is attempting to track cases related to churches refutes much of this. Also, testing, tracking, contact tracing, reporting, etc. varies greatly from state to state. Many people are also refusing to cooperate with contact tracers. The large outbreak at a church in rural part of my state was identified primarily because it was early on when virtually everything else was closed at the time, there was video evidence on the church website of large, unmasked gatherings without social distancing, and given the low population of the area, it wasn’t really possible for people to hide information about the source. I’m guessing things are very different in a densely populated area like LA with innumerable places for people to go. And MacArthur himself is quoted in one of the posted articles as saying they won’t be able to trace it back to church.

Edited September 6, 2020 by Frances

[Frances]

2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

article on Macarthur https://religionnews.com/2020/09/01/john-macarthur-claimed-there-no-pandemic-he-was-politicizing-the-science/

data on covid in churches from someone trying to keep track

https://www.wthrockmorton.com/2020/05/24/churches-and-the-spread-of-covid-19/

I think the article on MacArthur is spot on. He is politicizing this, just like he and so many other church leaders do with so many things. It’s no wonder so many nonbelievers have such a negative view of Christianity in the US with outspoken leaders like him.

[Frances]

3 hours 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.

But MacArthur also says they won’t be able to trace it back to churches and that he hasn’t heard of that happening. While I agree that tracing it back to churches or any other specific source is often difficult and incomplete data on spread is likely still unfortunately the norm rather than the exception in most places in the US, I find it very hard to believe he has not heard of some of the church spread cases. Either he’s lying or he’s dangerously poorly informed for someone making major decisions for a very large church. I’m not clear how this fits with his claim that pastors need to do their homework and stand up to the lies around the pandemic.

[ktgrok]

7 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I did not say anything about my church allowing anything.  In fact, my church is not meeting in person although we are legally allowed to do so. 

I also think there is a difference between ministering to and welcoming all and being cool with particular behavior.  I do know some ministers who have allowed those types of behaviors, focusing much more on how they can minister to those individuals than on what their own comfort level is with particular behavior; it is a hard choice that they have made, not necessarily the one I would make, but I certainly cannot condemn them or say that they are wrong for doing so.  They make those decisions out of a great sense of calling and after a great deal of prayer.  They aren't cool with the behavior.  

 

So if someone was doing something actively harmful to others in the congregation, the pastor would let that behavior continue during the service, rather than ask the person to stop or leave? 

No one is saying someone can't come to church, they are saying they need to wear a mask when they come. No one is being kicked out, they are being given a mask and asked to wear it. If that individual CHOOSES to leave rather than wear the mask, that is  on them, not the Pastor. They are not being kicked out, they are choosing not to do this thing.

Pastor needs to be welcoming, but he also needs to protect his flock. That is the whole job of the shepherd. 

 

 

[J-rap]

9 hours ago, Bootsie said:

Again, I think there is a difference between a Christian being called to do something and a Christian being told they are not welcome to attend a church service because they are not doing that.  I think the church would be a pretty empty place if only those who were doing what they were called to do were welcome to attend. Especially if they are told that they aren't even welcome back the following week because they didn't do something they were called to do.  I know that many times I have sat in church and not done as I was called to do--did I really welcome the homeless?  Did I really give my cloak when asked for my shirt?  Did I really pray for my enemy?  Did I really feed the sheep?   

Sure, there is a big difference between the two things you mention, and we're not really referring to either of those in our examples here.  We're talking about a Christian (in our church, it could be a non-Christian too -- they are welcome as well) being told they are very welcome to attend church, and to please wear a mask out of consideration of others.  

Of course if the person refused, someone from the church would hopefully kindly explain their reasoning, and either usher them to a back room where they could listen to the sermon through a speaker but away from congregants or maybe in an empty choir loft, for example, or tell them about how to listen to the sermon virtually, and invite them to please return when it's safer.  

It's not a matter of a calling, so your examples of of wondering if you welcomed the homeless, etc., don't really apply.  But if you want to go there, those examples are about things you know you should do, but for whatever reason, didn't.  You're not coming to the conclusion of:  I refuse to welcome the homeless, and no way am I going to give someone my cloak.  I will absolutely never pray for my enemy, and the sheep can find their own food."  

I think a better example would be if a person entered a church with a gun in his holster, cocked and pointing outward...  With no plan to actually shoot anyone, it's just how he was carrying his gun.  And the church greeter saw it and asked the man to please uncock the gun and point it away from people.  And the man responded with, "No I won't, I don't believe in doing that."   (I don't really know gun terminology, so I might not be explaining that quite right.)

[annegables]

9 hours ago, Frances said:

I think the blog you linked below where someone is attempting to track cases related to churches refutes much of this. Also, testing, tracking, contact tracing, reporting, etc. varies greatly from state to state. Many people are also refusing to cooperate with contact tracers. The large outbreak at a church in rural part of my state was identified primarily because it was early on when virtually everything else was closed at the time, there was video evidence on the church website of large, unmasked gatherings without social distancing, and given the low population of the area, it wasn’t really possible for people to hide information about the source. I’m guessing things are very different in a densely populated area like LA with innumerable places for people to go. And MacArthur himself is quoted in one of the posted articles as saying they won’t be able to trace it back to church.

The bolded is only somewhat the case, I think. While there are technically more places to go in LA than most other places, LA is under phase one of the governor's orders:https://covid19.lacounty.gov/recovery/

I think those phases are some of the strictest in the nation. I know that many people are privately not following the rules and having small gatherings, but in public there is very little to do because almost everything in closed. The beaches are open, thank God, but most LA beaches do not get crowded as compared to beaches on the east coast.  (Yes, we have all seen the photos of Huntington Beach in May being crowded). It is not hard to go to most beaches here and not get within 20 feet of another family. 

[ktgrok]

I think it is important to also clarify that this isnt an issue of you can't come because you are a sinner (we'd have empty churches!) but that you can't be actively doing something dangerous to others in the congregation during the service. 

[Murphy101]

14 hours 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. 

so far my diocese’s official stance is that these mandates are not so onerous as to be fought since they may benefit some with health issues. The wording is that everyone is “strongly encouraged” to wear a mask at mass and ushers will tell you where you can sit for social distancing.  If you want to receive on the tongue, our priest is not refusing you - but he will make you be last to receive.  He also says anyone that wants to watch the live stream on their device in their car can let him know and he will bring the Eucharist to them at end of mass.  Overall, I’m very happy with how accommodating and yet within guidelines that is.

Otherwise inside the church masks and social distancing are supposed to be happening - but that’s crap due to what I think is open rebellion by his staff. Youth group still meets and the leader makes little effort to insist on following guidelines for example. 

Their are people who go to mass without masks but they are a minority. Thankfully.
 

ETA - but being Catholic may help? Seeing the Vatican close (Even with this unpopular pope) is a very strong message. 

Edited September 6, 2020 by Murphy101

[Storygirl]

I try to keep up with our what our previous church is doing, because I greatly respect the pastor, Alistair Begg, who is nationally/internationally known. They have been having outdoor services only until this fall, when weather starts to become a factor. They will not be resuming children's services yet and encourage children to sit with their parents. They are following all state guidelines without quibbling whether Christians are required to. They ask that everyone wear masks, and that if you cannot, due to health reasons, contact the church in advance, and the church will arrange a separate area for you to sit and watch the service. The only thing I don't like is that they will be singing.

You can see the guidelines on their website, if you are interested. https://www.parksidechurch.com/visit/news-and-events/resuming-indoor-services/

This week, Pastor Begg posted a letter to his congregation that shows, in my opinion, an exemplary example of what Christian leadership can look like during this time. You can find a link to it from the church's main web page. If it doesn't show up immediately with the link below, click the right or left arrows on the changing banner toward the top of the page to find "A Letter from Alistair Begg."

https://www.parksidechurch.com/

[Bootsie]

4 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

So if someone was doing something actively harmful to others in the congregation, the pastor would let that behavior continue during the service, rather than ask the person to stop or leave? 

No one is saying someone can't come to church, they are saying they need to wear a mask when they come. No one is being kicked out, they are being given a mask and asked to wear it. If that individual CHOOSES to leave rather than wear the mask, that is  on them, not the Pastor. They are not being kicked out, they are choosing not to do this thing.

Pastor needs to be welcoming, but he also needs to protect his flock. That is the whole job of the shepherd. 

 

 

But, what you are describing here is not what others have posted.  I have seen some post that if someone removes a mask the minister will offer the benediction and then tell the person they are not welcome back the following week.  

Jesus welcomed someone to the table who he knew would betray him and cause him physical harm.  As a Christian I am not convinced that it is right to say, "You are welcome to the table IF..." 

[Bootsie]

11 hours ago, kand said:

Okay, but what about the no pants situation?

If someone came to a church service without pants on?  Let's see, I have done that a number of times..   Pants aren't required at my church.  In fact, I have known some people who would have been horrified and would not want a woman to be allowed to walk into a church with pants on.  

[J-rap]

34 minutes ago, Storygirl said:

I try to keep up with our what our previous church is doing, because I greatly respect the pastor, Alistair Begg, who is nationally/internationally known. They have been having outdoor services only until this fall, when weather starts to become a factor. They will not be resuming children's services yet and encourage children to sit with their parents. They are following all state guidelines without quibbling whether Christians are required to. They ask that everyone wear masks, and that if you cannot, due to health reasons, contact the church in advance, and the church will arrange a separate area for you to sit and watch the service. The only thing I don't like is that they will be singing.

You can see the guidelines on their website, if you are interested. https://www.parksidechurch.com/visit/news-and-events/resuming-indoor-services/

This week, Pastor Begg posted a letter to his congregation that shows, in my opinion, an exemplary example of what Christian leadership can look like during this time. You can find a link to it from the church's main web page. If it doesn't show up immediately with the link below, click the right or left arrows on the changing banner toward the top of the page to find "A Letter from Alistair Begg."

https://www.parksidechurch.com/

I've always loved Alistair Begg!   I used to listen to his podcasts.   I wrote him a personal letter once, and he responded within a week or two.  (I've never heard him preach in person.)  He states things so clearly and kindly on the link you posted.  If someone isn't comfortable coming to church with a mask on, there's an online alternative.  So sensible.

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, J-rap said:

Sure, there is a big difference between the two things you mention, and we're not really referring to either of those in our examples here.  We're talking about a Christian (in our church, it could be a non-Christian too -- they are welcome as well) being told they are very welcome to attend church, and to please wear a mask out of consideration of others.  

Of course if the person refused, someone from the church would hopefully kindly explain their reasoning, and either usher them to a back room where they could listen to the sermon through a speaker but away from congregants or maybe in an empty choir loft, for example, or tell them about how to listen to the sermon virtually, and invite them to please return when it's safer.  

It's not a matter of a calling, so your examples of of wondering if you welcomed the homeless, etc., don't really apply.  But if you want to go there, those examples are about things you know you should do, but for whatever reason, didn't.  You're not coming to the conclusion of:  I refuse to welcome the homeless, and no way am I going to give someone my cloak.  I will absolutely never pray for my enemy, and the sheep can find their own food."  

I think a better example would be if a person entered a church with a gun in his holster, cocked and pointing outward...  With no plan to actually shoot anyone, it's just how he was carrying his gun.  And the church greeter saw it and asked the man to please uncock the gun and point it away from people.  And the man responded with, "No I won't, I don't believe in doing that."   (I don't really know gun terminology, so I might not be explaining that quite right.)

I was particularly referring to another post that I thought was suggesting that someone is welcome to church if they are doing what they are called to do, but if they are not doing what they are called to do (wear a mask) they are no longer welcome.  I have been in plenty of situations where there is a homeless person in the sanctuary who is not warmly being welcomed or someone i have a grudge against, I envy, I resent.  No, I am not coming to the conclusion that I refuse to do something in those cases, primarily because I am not being honest about it.  I am not in love and charity with my neighbor, but I justify it.  Sins of omission are sins, just as sins of commission are.  

There has been a lot of focus that Person A is called to make sure that it is safe for Person B to be welcome at church.  I would agree that there is a calling for that.  I also know that there are some who feel that Person B has a calling to welcome Person A to the table, even if Person B is a risk to Person A's health or safety.  There have been some, such as Brother Roger Schutz,, founder of the Taize community, who strongly believed that, living (and dying) that way.  I know my courage falls short of that.  I know that not everyone agrees with that approach to the Christian life.  But, the original poster was asking if there were any arguments someone might make to justify having a service where those who aren't wearing masks were welcome; I think those who follow Brother Roger's line of reasoning would say yes.  

[Frances]

55 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

so far my diocese’s official stance is that these mandates are not so onerous as to be fought since they may benefit some with health issues. The wording is that everyone is “strongly encouraged” to wear a mask at mass and ushers will tell you where you can sit for social distancing.  If you want to receive on the tongue, our priest is not refusing you - but he will make you be last to receive.  He also says anyone that wants to watch the live stream on their device in their car can let him know and he will bring the Eucharist to them at end of mass.  Overall, I’m very happy with how accommodating and yet within guidelines that is.

Otherwise inside the church masks and social distancing are supposed to be happening - but that’s crap due to what I think is open rebellion by his staff. Youth group still meets and the leader makes little effort to insist on following guidelines for example. 

Their are people who go to mass without masks but they are a minority. Thankfully.
 

ETA - but being Catholic may help? Seeing the Vatican close (Even with this unpopular pope) is a very strong message. 

This is very similar to what my Catholic family members in the Midwest are reporting about their various churches, with the exception of the youth group, as none currently have children of that age. With the exception of my mom who is attending online due to doctor’s orders, they are all happy to be back and comfortable with the practices at their churches. 

I am curious about your statement that the pope is unpopular. Of course he’s not as well liked among the conservative faction of the church, but he does seem pretty popular overall.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/03/three-quarters-of-u-s-catholics-view-pope-francis-favorably-though-partisan-differences-persist/

[frogger]

13 hours ago, kand said:

I don’t see how the second situation is kinder. In the second situation, as regards to not wearing masks, you’re saying you’re only welcome (safe) if you are young and healthy. Someone can’t choose to be that if they’re not. In the first situation, literally all they need to do is wear a face covering while at church and they’re good to go. Would your standard be the same for someone who wanted to attend naked from the waist down? Are they welcome that way, or do they need to put on pants?

 

Great, now I'm going to have to show up at church with nothing on my lower half and see if they will still love me where I am and accept me.

[Bootsie]

2 minutes ago, kand said:

Oh, come on. You know what I (and others who have asked the same in this thread) meant. If someone came into church naked and exposed from the waist down. I was trying to phrase it a little less in your face than that, but since apparently it wasn’t clear, I’m talking an adult wanting to sit in church naked. Maybe they want to stroll the children’s wing that way as well. Totally okay? They don’t need to cover up if they want to stay in service? 

I don't know what the best thing to do in that situation would be.  I can see a number of different ways that it could be handled--and I can't conclusively say one is right and one is wrong.  Hopefully the focus would be on how the person can be ministered to.  What bothers me is that the focus is on whether the person should be allowed to remain, not a focus on "How can the church minister to and serve this person?"  I think the starting point of the questioning is flawed. 

[katilac]

26 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I also know that there are some who feel that Person B has a calling to welcome Person A to the table, even if Person B is a risk to Person A's health or safety.  There have been some, such as Brother Roger Schutz,, founder of the Taize community, who strongly believed that, living (and dying) that way.   

That is a decision you make for yourself, not for other people. 

[J-rap]

18 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I was particularly referring to another post that I thought was suggesting that someone is welcome to church if they are doing what they are called to do, but if they are not doing what they are called to do (wear a mask) they are no longer welcome.  I have been in plenty of situations where there is a homeless person in the sanctuary who is not warmly being welcomed or someone i have a grudge against, I envy, I resent.  No, I am not coming to the conclusion that I refuse to do something in those cases, primarily because I am not being honest about it.  I am not in love and charity with my neighbor, but I justify it.  Sins of omission are sins, just as sins of commission are.  

There has been a lot of focus that Person A is called to make sure that it is safe for Person B to be welcome at church.  I would agree that there is a calling for that.  I also know that there are some who feel that Person B has a calling to welcome Person A to the table, even if Person B is a risk to Person A's health or safety.  There have been some, such as Brother Roger Schutz,, founder of the Taize community, who strongly believed that, living (and dying) that way.  I know my courage falls short of that.  I know that not everyone agrees with that approach to the Christian life.  But, the original poster was asking if there were any arguments someone might make to justify having a service where those who aren't wearing masks were welcome; I think those who follow Brother Roger's line of reasoning would say yes.  

I'm not familiar with Brother Roger Schutz, but just read a little about him.  (Sounds like a very inspiring person, a real saint, if we can use that term!)  My own pastor reminds me of him, actually.  Our church generally follows a theology that is pacifist, and our pastor would rather take a bullet and die then defend himself with a gun.  He also welcomes homeless people and actively shelters them and feeds them in our church and in his home, and holds weekly dance parties for cognitively disabled adults mixed with our regular congregants (pre-Covid, that is) in order to help everyone be comfortable with one another and feel welcome and loved.  

But, as far as the more challenging sacrifice-your-life type events, he doesn't expect the rest of the congregation or community at large to meet those extreme self-sacrificial expectations.  God stoops down to meet us where we're at in our humanness. 

[katilac]

13 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I don't know what the best thing to do in that situation would be.  I can see a number of different ways that it could be handled--and I can't conclusively say one is right and one is wrong.  Hopefully the focus would be on how the person can be ministered to.  What bothers me is that the focus is on whether the person should be allowed to remain, not a focus on "How can the church minister to and serve this person?"  I think the starting point of the questioning is flawed. 

Let's assume that everyone is 100% in agreement that the focus is on how the church can minister to and serve this person. Let's further assume that what this person continues to want is to sit through services without a mask on. There are no other factors at play. What happens? 

Edited September 6, 2020 by katilac

[Murphy101]

44 minutes ago, Frances said:

This is very similar to what my Catholic family members in the Midwest are reporting about their various churches, with the exception of the youth group, as none currently have children of that age. With the exception of my mom who is attending online due to doctor’s orders, they are all happy to be back and comfortable with the practices at their churches. 

I am curious about your statement that the pope is unpopular. Of course he’s not as well liked among the conservative faction of the church, but he does seem pretty popular overall.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/03/three-quarters-of-u-s-catholics-view-pope-francis-favorably-though-partisan-differences-persist/

Oh side notation for context:

the pope tends to be unpopular with the same people who think c19 is a hoax. But even for them seeing an empty Vatican was a stunning thing to behold. 

Edited September 6, 2020 by Murphy101

[Bootsie]

3 minutes ago, katilac said:

That is a decision you make for yourself, not for other people. 

The decision was made as to how the community would operate.  Brother Roger did not make the decision that other people had to be there and take part in the community.  Other people in the community were at just as great risk of harm as he was.  

[Bootsie]

4 minutes ago, katilac said:

Let's assume that everyone is 100% in agreement that the focus is on how the church can minister to and serve this person. Let's further assume that what this person continues to want is to sit through services without a mask on. There are no other factors at play. What happens? 

One possible way to handle this is to have a service that is designated as one in which masks are not required--which is what the original poster asked about --if there was any argument that someone could make of why that would be OK.  

[ktgrok]

59 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But, what you are describing here is not what others have posted.  I have seen some post that if someone removes a mask the minister will offer the benediction and then tell the person they are not welcome back the following week.  

Jesus welcomed someone to the table who he knew would betray him and cause him physical harm.  As a Christian I am not convinced that it is right to say, "You are welcome to the table IF..." 

Are you sure that they didn't mean that they couldn't come back unless they wear a mask, not that they just are no longer welcome? I've not heard one instance of someone being told that because they didn't wear a mask this week they no longer can come back at all? Or was this like a one Sunday suspension? A punishment? Because if so, I agree, that is ludicrous, and I don't agree with any kind of future withholding of the church for current action or past action. But I don't think that is actually happening?

The appropriate response should be to have them put it back on, or ask them to listen to the service outside where speakers are set up, a separate room with a tv, whatever. And that they are welcome to rejoin the congregation in the main pews if/when they can wear a mask. 

So in my analogy to smoking, a person would be told to put the cigarette out if they lit up IN the pew during the service, or steered outside to finish their smoke, and they can come back in when done. Not that they are no longer welcome to attend, period. Just that they need to put the cigarette out first due to the hazard of second hand smoke to others in the pews. That is not unwelcoming. One could even set up a nice smoking area, with ashtrays and benches and shade or whatever, to be hospitable. Being welcoming doesn't mean letting them smoke in the pew, nor does it mean letting them sit maskless during a pandemic. 

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

so far my diocese’s official stance is that these mandates are not so onerous as to be fought since they may benefit some with health issues. The wording is that everyone is “strongly encouraged” to wear a mask at mass and ushers will tell you where you can sit for social distancing.  If you want to receive on the tongue, our priest is not refusing you - but he will make you be last to receive.  He also says anyone that wants to watch the live stream on their device in their car can let him know and he will bring the Eucharist to them at end of mass.  Overall, I’m very happy with how accommodating and yet within guidelines that is.

Otherwise inside the church masks and social distancing are supposed to be happening - but that’s crap due to what I think is open rebellion by his staff. Youth group still meets and the leader makes little effort to insist on following guidelines for example. 

Their are people who go to mass without masks but they are a minority. Thankfully.
 

ETA - but being Catholic may help? Seeing the Vatican close (Even with this unpopular pope) is a very strong message. 

I wish ours did this!! I also wish they'd bring communion just outside....they have speakers already out there, permanently, so that people with crying babies or whatnot can sit on benches outside and listen, so would be easy enough to do. 

[frogger]

1 minute ago, katilac said:

Let's assume that everyone is 100% in agreement that the focus is on how the church can minister to and serve this person. Let's further assume that what this person continues to want is to sit through services without a mask on. There are no other factors at play. What happens? 

 

I am wondering if we should care more about the spirit than the physical. 

So someone who is a political anti masker is in trouble not because he disagrees with those who mask but rather that he disobeys God. First, if something is mandated, like it is in my area, they are explicitly disobeying Romans 12 and 13. By all appearances the worship of their politics supplants God which of course, is part of the greatest commandment. Now if they have suffered trauma in the past or other things then I think we as a church should be gracious and this is where I would rather not judge people I randomly pass but this doesn't mean that teaching from the pulpit, from friends in discussion, etc should not center on tribal politics supplanting God in the hearts of man because their souls are at stake.

They obviously, likewise, disobey the second greatest comandment which is love your neighbor as yourself. Obviously, if they just want to lock away all those who might be at risk, they are showing no love and compassion and breaking the second law. 

Maybe it's time to recognize the spiritual danger they are in and that will help us think more clearly. Talking mostly to myself here. I am appreciating the conversation here.

[Bootsie]

4 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Are you sure that they didn't mean that they couldn't come back unless they wear a mask, not that they just are no longer welcome? I've not heard one instance of someone being told that because they didn't wear a mask this week they no longer can come back at all? Or was this like a one Sunday suspension? A punishment? Because if so, I agree, that is ludicrous, and I don't agree with any kind of future withholding of the church for current action or past action. But I don't think that is actually happening?

The appropriate response should be to have them put it back on, or ask them to listen to the service outside where speakers are set up, a separate room with a tv, whatever. And that they are welcome to rejoin the congregation in the main pews if/when they can wear a mask. 

So in my analogy to smoking, a person would be told to put the cigarette out if they lit up IN the pew during the service, or steered outside to finish their smoke, and they can come back in when done. Not that they are no longer welcome to attend, period. Just that they need to put the cigarette out first due to the hazard of second hand smoke to others in the pews. That is not unwelcoming. One could even set up a nice smoking area, with ashtrays and benches and shade or whatever, to be hospitable. Being welcoming doesn't mean letting them smoke in the pew, nor does it mean letting them sit maskless during a pandemic. 

This was in a previous post:

"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."

Did I misunderstand that?  It seems to be saying that because of an action one week a person is not welcome the next week.  

[Murphy101]

Considering it this way:

A person confirmed to be dying of Covid will still be given a priest to come give them last rites.

Unless the priest knows the catholic is in mortal sin unfit to receive - he is not supposed to deny them the Eucharist and even if they are in mortal sin - he cannot deny them mass attendance.

Now outside of mass though a priest can be much stricter.

 

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

This was in a previous post:

"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."

Did I misunderstand that?  It seems to be saying that because of an action one week a person is not welcome the next week.  

Ok, if that is really what is meant - that even if they wear a mask next week they cannot come - that I am in total opposition to. Access to the congregation and the service is not meant to be used as a weapon. If the person "repents" in the sense that they will wear a mask, they should be welcome - be it next week or in the next minute. 

So if that was what you were referring to all along, I totally agree - that is wrong. 

But that doesn't mean one can't insist they wear a mask while in attendance. 

[ktgrok]

Just now, Murphy101 said:

Considering it this way:

A person confirmed to be dying of Covid will still be given a priest to come give them last rites.

Unless the priest knows the catholic is in mortal sin unfit to receive - he is not supposed to deny them the Eucharist and even if they are in mortal sin - he cannot deny them mass attendance.

Now outside of mass though a priest can be much stricter.

 

And even if he did know of a mortal sin, if they have confessed and repented they are welcome again. There is no 'you can't go to church next week" nonsense. 

I really am wondering if that was a misunderstanding, and whomever said it meant that they couldn't come back unless they masked. 

[Murphy101]

Just now, Ktgrok said:

And even if he did know of a mortal sin, if they have confessed and repented they are welcome again. There is no 'you can't go to church next week" nonsense. 

I really am wondering if that was a misunderstanding, and whomever said it meant that they couldn't come back unless they masked. 

I said IN mortal sin, which implies they have not confessed and repented. Just for clarification on my post.

idk. It could have been misunderstanding or it’s possible the priest is made an egregious error. 

[Terabith]

I haven't been to an in person, indoor service since the pandemic started, but I am the one who posted about the Virginia diocese of the UMC about mask consequences.  If anyone takes off their mask during the service, the entire service is dismissed, and EVERYONE has to leave, and I think (but am not sure) that the person who removed their mask is not welcome back the next week.  It's possible that what they meant was that there is no in person service allowed the next week.  I'm not certain about that.  I believe the theory is that it is so much of a danger to others for people to be unmasked that the calling of the church is to protect the vulnerable.  In an area where a lot of people think it's a hoax, without real consequences, it is impossible to keep people from removing masks during the service.  

I'm sure exceptions would be made for extreme circumstances like an asthma attack or something.  

[Bootsie]

13 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Ok, if that is really what is meant - that even if they wear a mask next week they cannot come - that I am in total opposition to. Access to the congregation and the service is not meant to be used as a weapon. If the person "repents" in the sense that they will wear a mask, they should be welcome - be it next week or in the next minute. 

So if that was what you were referring to all along, I totally agree - that is wrong. 

But that doesn't mean one can't insist they wear a mask while in attendance. 

I can see how a minister, after prayerful consideration, can choose to insist on mask attendance while at worship to protect those in attendance.  I can also see how a minister could choose to have, at least at certain times, the church doors open to those who choose not to cover their face, to minister to those people.  

[Pen]

15 hours ago, JanOH said:

From the information I have, three people out of a church of about 300 in the past month or so.  Two of the three are a married couple.  The school just started up and we've heard of no cases from the school side of things.  The first grade teacher became sick before school started and was never in the school or around teachers or students.  Her husband is currently in the hospital (or was as of Thursday).  The other case was asymptomatic.  He was in the hospital for an unrelated illness, was tested as routine and didn't get his positive test results until after his quarantine period was already over (crazy!).  This church never stopped meeting twice on Sunday, once midweek all the way through.  They are social distancing, most are not masking,  and attendance has been lower but these are the only cases so far.  That could change at any moment, of course.  

 

One odd thing is that sounds Good  in that it doesn’t seem like there has been any cluster / outbreak / spread within the church — which is great!  Especially given low mask use and continued services.

 

But otoh if I try to convert it into cases per 100k in that population, it does actually seem fairly high.  

Maybe I did math wrong but I got an estimate of an equivalent of around 50 cases per 100k per week .    Our schools aren’t allowed to open if there are that many new cases per 100k per week in our county, or even 1 in school district sets back school opening. 

 Could you or someone else try to do an estimate of an equivalent to weekly rate per 100k population?  For 3 cases in 300 people in around 5 weeks or so? 

 

Let’s see 1 in 100 over 5 weeks would be like 1 in 500? Or 2 in 1000? Or 20 in 10,000?

or 200 in 100,000?  

 

Hmmm .  That came out way  higher than my first estimate done in a different way.   Idk.  Good thing I don’t need to take SAT tests now. 

 

 

Though Idk what the state and county averages are where you are. Maybe whatever figure would be right,  it is merely tracking your over all new cases per week per 100K for your state and or county? 

[katilac]

42 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

The decision was made as to how the community would operate.  Brother Roger did not make the decision that other people had to be there and take part in the community.  Other people in the community were at just as great risk of harm as he was.  

Oh, I know, I did mean that each person in the community made that decision for themselves. I meant to contrast it with decisions that affect other people. 

38 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

One possible way to handle this is to have a service that is designated as one in which masks are not required--which is what the original poster asked about --if there was any argument that someone could make of why that would be OK.  

To me, there is not an argument for this being okay, because the entire point of masks it to control community spread. The more it is done, the better off the community as a whole is, so I don't see indoor services without masks as a good or loving choice. An argument could certainly be made for outdoor services with physical distancing but without masks. 

18 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

And even if he did know of a mortal sin, if they have confessed and repented they are welcome again. There is no 'you can't go to church next week" nonsense. 

I really am wondering if that was a misunderstanding, and whomever said it meant that they couldn't come back unless they masked. 

I know it's not exactly what the poster said, but that's still how I interpreted it - that you aren't welcome back if you continue to not be willing to keep your mask on. 

[katilac]

6 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

One odd thing is that sounds Good  in that it doesn’t seem like there has been any cluster / outbreak / spread within the church — which is great!  Especially given low mask use and continued services.

But otoh if I try to convert it into cases per 100k in that population, it does actually seem fairly high.  

 

Plus, I'm not really counting on the "covid is a hoax" population to be amenable to contact tracing. 

[Bootsie]

27 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I haven't been to an in person, indoor service since the pandemic started, but I am the one who posted about the Virginia diocese of the UMC about mask consequences.  If anyone takes off their mask during the service, the entire service is dismissed, and EVERYONE has to leave, and I think (but am not sure) that the person who removed their mask is not welcome back the next week.  It's possible that what they meant was that there is no in person service allowed the next week.  I'm not certain about that.  I believe the theory is that it is so much of a danger to others for people to be unmasked that the calling of the church is to protect the vulnerable.  In an area where a lot of people think it's a hoax, without real consequences, it is impossible to keep people from removing masks during the service.  

I'm sure exceptions would be made for extreme circumstances like an asthma attack or something.  

Do you know where you heard this about the Virginia UMC conference?  I have looked at their website to get clarification but haven't found it.  I am finding things that people are required to wear a mask from the time they leave their car to the time they return to the car, that the church doors are to be locked if someone approaches the building without a mask, that a service is to be immediately terminated if a child removes a mask, that there are no exceptions to mask wearing, and that the church will NOT provide masks.  If a church thinks that face coverings are important enough to be a requirement for attendance, I wish that the church would make sure that there is provision for those who do not have a face covering for whatever reason rather than locking them out of the building.