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

[Halftime Hope]

14 hours ago, frogger said:

 

Alaska

Yep, they are far, far away.  His church is starting their second week of having about 160 kids on campus.  They have plenty of facility space for grouping kids in small cohorts, and their heavily treed campus also lends itself to outdoor study and eating. They are grouping two adults per small group, and other adults are performing auxiliary functions like food prep, recess (they had to negotiate with the school board for that one!)  The church decided early on that they would provide food, because that way all the children would be fed, no questions asked.  The kids come from homes that skew heavily toward frontline, essential worker professions, and ironically, from the families of teachers who cannot be interrupted while teaching online.   

[Guest]

My best friend is a UMC Pastor in the VA Conference. She is in a small church in an area that has had a lot of covid denial and more than a few outbreaks. She has had multiple parishoners, in a very small church, get sick and a few die prematurely as a result of COVID. (All have had other medical issues, but in most cases, well controlled and not likely to kill them in the immediate future-it took something to push that preexisting condition out of balance such that the body could not recover). I've been attending her church since March, and they went back in person a few weeks ago, with the service simulcast virtually. 

The Bishop is made of win-she has simply been amazing since she took on the role-and one reason why she has been is that she truly is not afraid to call the church out on areas where they are not behaving according to the UMC discipline. The focus is not masking and social distancing in compliance to mandates by the state, but in compliance to loving and caring for one another, to allow those who are more vulnerable the option of attending.  The stated policy of "if someone refuses to mask, removes a mask, refuses to distance" that the service is ended honestly takes a lot of pressure off of pastors like my friend, who might otherwise face a lot of pressure from her church. She has not yet had to do it-and I suspect one reason is that the consequence is clear. Because the bishop has said it, the bishop is the target. My friend can be the good guy, the one who finds ways for them to worship anyway, and who can cheer each gain with them- "Good news! We can have worship outdoors!" "Good news! We can come back into the sanctuary. You'll just have to wear a mask and spread out a bit, but isn't it awesome that we can do that now?" "Good news! We can have communion again. We'll do the rest of the service inside, and then you'll get your elements, go outside, and spread out so that we can take safely with our families without masks, and then we can sing a final hymn together outdoors, too!"  "Good news! our children will have Sunday School outside in the pavilion! You can pick up their Sunday school packs to bring next week in the Narthex, including the special masks that Elizabeth and Esther have made for each of them!"  Instead of each step being seen as something lost that we used to have, each step is able to be shown as a positive. And it's working.  

 

I have little doubt that as soon as the bishop says it is OK to return to services unmasked, my friend's church will do so, probably with the big pot luck dinner that has been missing for months.  But for now, the church is a community and is able to be the church, instead of falling apart in division. And one big reason is that the bishop chose to take the blame on herself so that the pastors didn't have to. It is not a church and state issue because the CHURCH is the one setting the rules. 

 

 

[Terabith]

19 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

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.  

http://doc.vaumc.org/News2020/HandbookforLocalChurches.pdf

page 13.  And apparently it's not "you can't come back next week," it's "you can't come back until you have met with leadership and agreed to follow the rules."

Edited September 6, 2020 by Terabith

[ktgrok]

56 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

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.  

Well, and I suppose a minister could decide to allow people to smoke in the church, to minister to those that refuse to go even an hour without smoking, or a willingness to step outside when they need a smoke break - just like he could decide to allow people to go without a mask in order to minister to those who are unwilling to wear one for an hour, or at least step outside if they need a mask break. 

In both instances, a minister could do that - but if he was violating the law to do so, and putting his congregants at risk and making THEM feel unwelcome, I'd sure question his decision making. 

Better it seems to minister to that person outside, either way. 

32 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

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.  

Oh, I agree! Our church has them right at the front door area - at least in the office. I've not been to an actual service yet, but I stop by the office building each week to pick up communion and there is a box of disposable masks on a table in the entryway. 

And the ushers are charged with handing them out during the service, as people arrive, if they don't have one.

[Guest]

I suspect it is more that churches are not mandated to spend their budget on masks-but most probably do have them available. I know the sewing circles have been hard at work making masks for months. There are masks available in most cities for pick up.
 

I also haven’t forgotten the response I got on this board when I suggested I could provide masks for my students. It was very obvious that nothing I did would be good enough for everyone. I have seen the same with the local schools providing masks. If you say you will provide them, you leave yourself open to people who want to micromanage what they feel then entitled to. If you baldly state the requirements, it is up to them to decide if it is worth meeting them. Help then is seen as just that, not an entitlement

Edited September 6, 2020 by dmmetler

[Terabith]

6 minutes ago, dmmetler said:

I suspect it is more that churches are not mandated to spend their budget on masks-but most probably do have them available. I know the sewing circles have been hard at work making masks for months. There are masks available. 
 

My center officially does not provide masks, but I have a box, the dance teacher has a box, there are some in the office, etc. We can’t promise we will have a mask for everyone, but if most people bring their own, we can supplement the occasional need. 

 

Yeah, and I think in addition, when the guidance was released originally in the spring, it was very difficult to source disposable masks, and even cloth and elastic were in short supply.  Was going to be a huge spending of time and money if they gave masks to everyone who came, and they really wanted to reinforce that they needed to be on "from the time you left your car in the parking lot until you returned."  It was part of emphasizing how serious they were about it.  (And they have been very serious.  Honestly, I've been blown away impressed by the bishop's guidance.  @dmmetler is absolutely right.  Pastors on the ground are so relieved that they don't have to be the bad guys.)  

[Bootsie]

12 minutes ago, dmmetler said:

I suspect it is more that churches are not mandated to spend their budget on masks-but most probably do have them available. I know the sewing circles have been hard at work making masks for months. There are masks available in most cities for pick up.
 

I also haven’t forgotten the response I got on this board when I suggested I could provide masks for my students. It was very obvious that nothing I did would be good enough for everyone. I have seen the same with the local schools providing masks. If you say you will provide them, you leave yourself open to people who want to micromanage what they feel then entitled to. If you baldly state the requirements, it is up to them to decide if it is worth meeting them. Help then is seen as just that, not an entitlement

This is on P 11 of the document previous poster linked for Virginia UMC 

Required—Everyone must wear a face covering at all times. The church will not provide face coverings. Bandanas work just fine. The nose and mouth must be covered at all times. As a general rule, the church will not be providing hand sanitizer because the supply is low and many churches may not be able to obtain enough for use for members and guests. If anyone wants or needs hand sanitizer, the person must bring it. The church will not be supplying other personal protective equipment (“PPE”) for anyone.

It is bolded in the original document.  

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

This is on P 11 of the document previous poster linked for Virginia UMC 

Required—Everyone must wear a face covering at all times. The church will not provide face coverings. Bandanas work just fine. The nose and mouth must be covered at all times. As a general rule, the church will not be providing hand sanitizer because the supply is low and many churches may not be able to obtain enough for use for members and guests. If anyone wants or needs hand sanitizer, the person must bring it. The church will not be supplying other personal protective equipment (“PPE”) for anyone.

It is bolded in the original document.  

But I know that my friend's church, and my former home church and other churches I have friends who attend in the VA conference  have sewing circles that have been sewing masks and putting announcements in newsletters that they are available for pick up if you need them. Until about May, the churches were not allowed to be open for anyone, so it was often through some community organization, but yes, masks are available. However, the church is not required to provide them. 

 

Realistically, if churches were required to source masks, hand sanitizer, etc in sufficient quantities and types to suit their entire church, from age 2 through seniors, I suspect a lot of smaller churches would be unable to reopen at all.  

 

 

[ktgrok]

11 minutes ago, dmmetler said:

 

 

Realistically, if churches were required to source masks, hand sanitizer, etc in sufficient quantities and types to suit their entire church, from age 2 through seniors, I suspect a lot of smaller churches would be unable to reopen at all.  

 

 

I'm guessing the wording is there so individual congregations are not required to have them on hand, but doesn't forbid them from doing so and most/many will, in fact, have some for those that forget/need it. 

[forty-two]

2 minutes ago, dmmetler said:

I suspect a lot of smaller churches would be unable to reopen at all

See, I thought the opposite - that while small churches can source 50-100 masks plus a few containers/month of hand sanitizer and wipes and such, larger churches would find it very hard to source masks, etc., for 1,000s.  We're small, and we've had no problems keeping the church in hand sanitizer and wipes and masks, even during the shortages (to be fair, we didn't aim for masking till May/Jun).  Between one woman sewing masks and me and a few elders buying disposable masks, we have more than enough; after the first week, when half the people needed one, we've barely gone through one mask/week.

And it was important to us, both practically and symbolically, to be able to enforce mask-wearing with a cheerful "and here's a mask if you don't have one", instead of turning people away.  

[J-rap]

1 hour ago, dmmetler said:

My best friend is a UMC Pastor in the VA Conference. She is in a small church in an area that has had a lot of covid denial and more than a few outbreaks. She has had multiple parishoners, in a very small church, get sick and a few die prematurely as a result of COVID. (All have had other medical issues, but in most cases, well controlled and not likely to kill them in the immediate future-it took something to push that preexisting condition out of balance such that the body could not recover). I've been attending her church since March, and they went back in person a few weeks ago, with the service simulcast virtually. 

The Bishop is made of win-she has simply been amazing since she took on the role-and one reason why she has been is that she truly is not afraid to call the church out on areas where they are not behaving according to the UMC discipline. The focus is not masking and social distancing in compliance to mandates by the state, but in compliance to loving and caring for one another, to allow those who are more vulnerable the option of attending.  The stated policy of "if someone refuses to mask, removes a mask, refuses to distance" that the service is ended honestly takes a lot of pressure off of pastors like my friend, who might otherwise face a lot of pressure from her church. She has not yet had to do it-and I suspect one reason is that the consequence is clear. Because the bishop has said it, the bishop is the target. My friend can be the good guy, the one who finds ways for them to worship anyway, and who can cheer each gain with them- "Good news! We can have worship outdoors!" "Good news! We can come back into the sanctuary. You'll just have to wear a mask and spread out a bit, but isn't it awesome that we can do that now?" "Good news! We can have communion again. We'll do the rest of the service inside, and then you'll get your elements, go outside, and spread out so that we can take safely with our families without masks, and then we can sing a final hymn together outdoors, too!"  "Good news! our children will have Sunday School outside in the pavilion! You can pick up their Sunday school packs to bring next week in the Narthex, including the special masks that Elizabeth and Esther have made for each of them!"  Instead of each step being seen as something lost that we used to have, each step is able to be shown as a positive. And it's working.  

 

I have little doubt that as soon as the bishop says it is OK to return to services unmasked, my friend's church will do so, probably with the big pot luck dinner that has been missing for months.  But for now, the church is a community and is able to be the church, instead of falling apart in division. And one big reason is that the bishop chose to take the blame on herself so that the pastors didn't have to. It is not a church and state issue because the CHURCH is the one setting the rules. 

 

 

Yes!  This is how it should be in a church community!  They should be motivated by true compassion.

[Bootsie]

15 minutes ago, dmmetler said:

But I know that my friend's church, and my former home church and other churches I have friends who attend in the VA conference  have sewing circles that have been sewing masks and putting announcements in newsletters that they are available for pick up if you need them. Until about May, the churches were not allowed to be open for anyone, so it was often through some community organization, but yes, masks are available. However, the church is not required to provide them. 

 

Realistically, if churches were required to source masks, hand sanitizer, etc in sufficient quantities and types to suit their entire church, from age 2 through seniors, I suspect a lot of smaller churches would be unable to reopen at all.  

 

 

I am glad to hear that some are making face coverings available.  I do, however, see a big difference in a face covering being provided for someone who (1) gets the newsletter and  (2) has a way to come pick it up--at some time other than a service. And I don't see how the person is supposed to have a face covering on when the person gets out of the car when the person is going to pick one up. 

The protocols do not read that the church is not required to provide them.  It states that the CHURCH WILL NOT provide them.  I find nothing in the document about finding ways to make sure that anyone who would like to come to church can abide by this requirement.  I find a lot in the document that says what requirements there are for someone to be included and welcomed into worship, and I see consequences outlined for those who do not abide by those requirements for any reason.  I would hope the church's official documents would have more about making church accessible and welcoming to all.  

[J-rap]

28 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

 

Wow, lock the doors if someone is headed toward the church without a mask on? They are requiring masks but won't provide any? That's all just so wrong. 

I would interpret this as speaking to those people who just plain refuse to wear a mask, even if they were given one.  Not people who would like to come but can't afford or find a mask.  I would expect that most people in the congregation would be happy to give that person an extra mask if they had one so that they could come in.

[Halftime Hope]

1 hour ago, dmmetler said:

My best friend is a UMC Pastor in the VA Conference. She is in a small church in an area that has had a lot of covid denial and more than a few outbreaks. She has had multiple parishoners, in a very small church, get sick and a few die prematurely as a result of COVID. (All have had other medical issues, but in most cases, well controlled and not likely to kill them in the immediate future-it took something to push that preexisting condition out of balance such that the body could not recover). I've been attending her church since March, and they went back in person a few weeks ago, with the service simulcast virtually. 

The Bishop is made of win-she has simply been amazing since she took on the role-and one reason why she has been is that she truly is not afraid to call the church out on areas where they are not behaving according to the UMC discipline. The focus is not masking and social distancing in compliance to mandates by the state, but in compliance to loving and caring for one another, to allow those who are more vulnerable the option of attending.  The stated policy of "if someone refuses to mask, removes a mask, refuses to distance" that the service is ended honestly takes a lot of pressure off of pastors like my friend, who might otherwise face a lot of pressure from her church. She has not yet had to do it-and I suspect one reason is that the consequence is clear. Because the bishop has said it, the bishop is the target. My friend can be the good guy, the one who finds ways for them to worship anyway, and who can cheer each gain with them- "Good news! We can have worship outdoors!" "Good news! We can come back into the sanctuary. You'll just have to wear a mask and spread out a bit, but isn't it awesome that we can do that now?" "Good news! We can have communion again. We'll do the rest of the service inside, and then you'll get your elements, go outside, and spread out so that we can take safely with our families without masks, and then we can sing a final hymn together outdoors, too!"  "Good news! our children will have Sunday School outside in the pavilion! You can pick up their Sunday school packs to bring next week in the Narthex, including the special masks that Elizabeth and Esther have made for each of them!"  Instead of each step being seen as something lost that we used to have, each step is able to be shown as a positive. And it's working.  

 

I have little doubt that as soon as the bishop says it is OK to return to services unmasked, my friend's church will do so, probably with the big pot luck dinner that has been missing for months.  But for now, the church is a community and is able to be the church, instead of falling apart in division. And one big reason is that the bishop chose to take the blame on herself so that the pastors didn't have to. It is not a church and state issue because the CHURCH is the one setting the rules. 

 

 

This is the kind of leadership that is just as it should be, but i"m so sorry to say it is rare these days, and it's been disheartening to me to see how rare it is.  I thought it would be more common because I'm used to wide, kind, benevolent leadership.  That it is missing is so discouraging! 

[Moonhawk]

7 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I am glad to hear that some are making face coverings available.  I do, however, see a big difference in a face covering being provided for someone who (1) gets the newsletter and  (2) has a way to come pick it up--at some time other than a service. And I don't see how the person is supposed to have a face covering on when the person gets out of the car when the person is going to pick one up. 

The protocols do not read that the church is not required to provide them.  It states that the CHURCH WILL NOT provide them.  I find nothing in the document about finding ways to make sure that anyone who would like to come to church can abide by this requirement.  I find a lot in the document that says what requirements there are for someone to be included and welcomed into worship, and I see consequences outlined for those who do not abide by those requirements for any reason.  I would hope the church's official documents would have more about making church accessible and welcoming to all.  

I think though this is practically because since they cannot guarantee they would have enough masks for everyone, in order for the rules to work, they tell you to assume there will be none, ie: the church will not provide them.

As dmmetler said, the individual parishes are probably handling the actual dispersal of masks to those who need them through charities and community outreach. I don't think official documents from a bishop would be the best place to address this, since each parish will have their own needs, problems, and solutions. Other than generalities, such as "Call your local parish to discuss attendance options and support for your particular situation" or something of that nature. 

It sounds like this particular parish and the larger VA conference are finding ways that work for them that keep everyone as safe as possible and also be welcoming to all. 

 

[frogger]

30 minutes ago, kand said:

I agree it’s appropriate to make it easy for people to follow the rules, and people shouldn’t be excluded if there’s a way to make them included. That said, I’m in leadership of a non-profit that has a handbook of rules. When I read through the rules, there are parts that make me cringe, because it makes us sound so harsh, which is so not our organization’s personality. The reality is, we almost never need to actually go to that degree of enforcement, even when people are breaking those rules, because we can do so without needing to. However, those rules and consequences that sound a bit harsh are there for those very rare circumstances where someone or something is a problem to the degree that we need to have those to fall back on. That’s what those rules are actually there for, the really hard cases. I expect that’s probably true for a lot of organizations. The rules and consequences are written to address the very most difficult situations, but 99% of the time, that’s not the way things are actually going to go down. I could certainly be wrong, but I’d be surprised if, in practice, there are many UMC churches that are running to the doors  and locking them as soon as they see someone walking toward the door with no mask.

 

Quoting to jump off- not argue. I think most organizations think like this. No one wants to be the persnickety one.

That being said, there is no grace without the law.  If everything is ok, then there is zero need for grace or forgiveness.  The entire concept of Christianity is built on the fact that there is sin and sin costs. If you harm someone, then there is a cost. That other person WILL suffer.  That is where grace comes in and grace costs something but that is also where there must be a recognition that there is a rule that was broken, a confession that that rule exists for a reason (all can be summed up by the 2 greatest commandments: Love God and Love your neighbor) and repentance. 

I think there is or was an understanding that just getting rid of rules as in just saying something is alright when it is sin, negates the need for grace.  John wrote, "If we say that we have no sin, the truth is not in us." 

 

[G5052]

Yes, this is very interesting to me.

My small church seems to go back-and-forth with how compliant they are with the indoor mask mandate. It wasn't good this Sunday at mine despite a sign on the door since June that masks are required per the state and multiple emails from the elders. There masks at the back of the church where the programs and such are. It will be good for a week or two, and then it isn't. As the morning goes on, people in that church tend to take off their masks. Now the speakers in the teaching hour no longer wear masks in a small building with poor air circulation. It's been that way for the last three weeks.

At the college where I work, professors teaching live classes are behind a plexiglass shield and are wearing masks or shields. All students in live classes are supposed to wear masks or shields or have an accommodation letter on file. Same with the college my kids attend, but they are home because all of their classes are online this semester. My landlord came by yesterday to look at a tree that needs to come down and told me that their daughter's school is doing the same for their face-to-face classes.

But not at my church. I have severe asthma and complained twice, but I'm just going to make the right choice for me and leave after the first service which is all front-facing and mostly masked. The elder who gave the announcements after the first service this morning talked about how COVID is just like a cold and how silly he thinks all of the mandates and such are. Well, I have several friends who still aren't feeling right after COVID and have lost several family friends from it who were older but otherwise healthy. I don't think it's "just a cold" at all, and my asthma doctor would agree. You just can't convince all of the people all of the time. 

 

Edited September 6, 2020 by G5052

[rebcoola]

We went to church today.  They have been following all the mandates.  They have been meeting for a couple of months.  We only felt comfortable now that our numbers are way down.  I'm still not completely comfortable just because I know how so many are behaving like this is all over made up.  They are going to start offering child care next week which I think is stupid.  Our church is only about 75 people but we have a lot of kids.  It will undo most of the protection of having people sit in family groups 6ft apart.  We asked to be taken off the volunteer list and won't be using it.

[SKL]

On 9/5/2020 at 4:31 PM, kand said:

Unless someone stays home and away from all people, I don’t see how anyone can choose to be exposed to the virus and be protecting others at the same time. As far as I can see, it’s necessary to do what you are able to avoid contracting the virus as one of the main ways to protect those who are trying to avoid it. If you contract it on a Sunday (and don’t know it yet) and then go to the grocery store where I am on Tuesday, I’m at risk. 

A lot of people who go to church are elderly people who don't get out much.  It's one of the reasons going to church is so important to them.

FTR I am not going to church at all (nor into grocery stores for that matter), so don't make this personal about me.

The OP asked us to suggest an argument why something was OK.  If that wasn't what the OP wanted then the OP was misleading IMO.

Edited September 7, 2020 by SKL

[SKL]

On 9/5/2020 at 3:09 PM, PeterPan said:

It clearly violates the *mandates* from the governor.

Someone said somewhere that the governor's mandates were never intended to cover churches.  Most churches that I know of did socially-distance and / or close, but for those that did not, I'm not sure the governor has a say in what they do about masking.

[Tenaj]

16 minutes ago, SKL said:

Someone said somewhere that the governor's mandates were never intended to cover churches.  Most churches that I know of did socially-distance and / or close, but for those that did not, I'm not sure the governor has a say in what they do about masking.

Churches are not exempt from the masking order.  If you read the order, no place that is indoors is exempt.  There are "people" who are exempt for medical or safety reasons but not places.

[Bootsie]

I have been think a lot about this issue--simply thinking because churches around me are not open (and not even having outdoor services)--and if I were going to church I would personally wear a face covering.  If the church refuses entry to those who are not wearing a face covering out of care, concern, and love for others who are in attendance, what is the church's responsibility with regards to people who engage in risky behavior during the week and arrive at church with a face covering.  Face coverings are not 100% effective.  I know some people I would feel more comfortable being around, even if they were not wearing a face covering, than other people I know even though they are wearing a bandana because of the activities those individuals have been engaged in.  Should the church request that people not attend if they have been running around to parties, flying, going to the gym all unmasked during the week?  If the church knows of that behavior should they say the person is unwelcome?  

[SKL]

28 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I have been think a lot about this issue--simply thinking because churches around me are not open (and not even having outdoor services)--and if I were going to church I would personally wear a face covering.  If the church refuses entry to those who are not wearing a face covering out of care, concern, and love for others who are in attendance, what is the church's responsibility with regards to people who engage in risky behavior during the week and arrive at church with a face covering.  Face coverings are not 100% effective.  I know some people I would feel more comfortable being around, even if they were not wearing a face covering, than other people I know even though they are wearing a bandana because of the activities those individuals have been engaged in.  Should the church request that people not attend if they have been running around to parties, flying, going to the gym all unmasked during the week?  If the church knows of that behavior should they say the person is unwelcome?  

Lots of good points.

Honestly, I think it goes back to each individual's responsibility to stay away from at-risk people if they are a risk.  I honestly think church should be a place where at-risk people should not be afraid.  If a church isn't big enough to have a separate service for at-risk people, then IMO people who are healthy and running around town all week should stay out of church for now.

[frogger]

21 minutes ago, SKL said:

.then IMO people who are healthy and running around town all week should stay out of church for now.

 

This is very funny.

It would be nice if the strong sacrificed for the at risk but it appears in our culture we are told that the at risk people shouldn't impose on us and lock themselves away if they are scared. 

If your congregation does this, kudos to them but this is totally not the attitude of my extended family, many members of my church, or most people in the community. Sigh

Some of the at risk people I know have hid out and stay home from most everything except doctors and grocery runs. The others simply accept that they can't ask others even the simplest of requests to groups and friends and are trusting God and accepting they may get it and that yes, it is likely to affect them more. The older ones can get away with hiding out. The younger ones with kids and young adults realize they can't seclude them for years and even with multiple comorbidities don't feel like they can make any requests. It is so entirily one sided, it's hard not to get angry at times though I know that doesn't help. 

It may depend on where you live, but where I'm at the at risk or elderly take care of the strong healthy people's feelings and that appears the end of the discussion. 

[SKL]

1 hour ago, frogger said:

 

This is very funny.

It would be nice if the strong sacrificed for the at risk but it appears in our culture we are told that the at risk people shouldn't impose on us and lock themselves away if they are scared. 

If your congregation does this, kudos to them but this is totally not the attitude of my extended family, many members of my church, or most people in the community. Sigh

Some of the at risk people I know have hid out and stay home from most everything except doctors and grocery runs. The others simply accept that they can't ask others even the simplest of requests to groups and friends and are trusting God and accepting they may get it and that yes, it is likely to affect them more. The older ones can get away with hiding out. The younger ones with kids and young adults realize they can't seclude them for years and even with multiple comorbidities don't feel like they can make any requests. It is so entirily one sided, it's hard not to get angry at times though I know that doesn't help. 

It may depend on where you live, but where I'm at the at risk or elderly take care of the strong healthy people's feelings and that appears the end of the discussion. 

Our church did do a survey that asked, among other things, whether the respondents would attend a church service exclusive to at-risk people.  I assume this didn't get many "yes" answers, since the church has not created such a service.  Of course it could be because not many older at-risk people filled out the online survey at all.  I wouldn't know.

I can only speak for myself and those close to me.  We are not hiding, but we are also staying away from places likely to contain at-risk people.

I do think church is different from places where at-risk people can easily choose not to go.  I feel it's more like a medical visit - it is important for health IMO.  I don't I need to stay home from everywhere in order for at-risk people to go there.  I mean, should we stay home from TKD class or eat-in restaurants to keep them 100% safe for at-risk people?  No, because (a) the businesses would close if only at-risk people went there, and (b) those are places that are easy to avoid if you're at-risk.

[J-rap]

4 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I have been think a lot about this issue--simply thinking because churches around me are not open (and not even having outdoor services)--and if I were going to church I would personally wear a face covering.  If the church refuses entry to those who are not wearing a face covering out of care, concern, and love for others who are in attendance, what is the church's responsibility with regards to people who engage in risky behavior during the week and arrive at church with a face covering.  Face coverings are not 100% effective.  I know some people I would feel more comfortable being around, even if they were not wearing a face covering, than other people I know even though they are wearing a bandana because of the activities those individuals have been engaged in.  Should the church request that people not attend if they have been running around to parties, flying, going to the gym all unmasked during the week?  If the church knows of that behavior should they say the person is unwelcome?  

The mandates aren't mean to evaluate everyones' personal lives, and I'm sure the church doesn't want to get into a detailed investigation into everyone's activities every week, trying to determine exactly at what point going out into public spaces crosses a line.  Is taking care of an elderly relative in an apartment across town crossing the line?  Is going to a gym crossing a line?   How about the grocery store?  Does three doctor appointments = one party?  I think that gets too complicated and is hard to measure..

Masking assumes that people are exposing themselves to Covid in one way or another.  It's really just a compromise, since the U.S. is a free society and people value and expect the freedom of making their own decisions so much.  The government could shut down all gyms and put people in prison for going to parties and such, but we don't work that way.   

So, most places just say:  At the very least, can you please wear a mask when you're here?  

Masks aren't 100% effective, but if everyone is wearing one and sitting at a distance from each other, then the chances of spreading something are diminished quite a bit.

 

[Happy2BaMom]

5 hours ago, frogger said:

 

 

It may depend on where you live, but where I'm at the at risk or elderly take care of the strong healthy people's feelings and that appears the end of the discussion. 

 

This.

Can't count how many times I've heard, "let the at-risk stay home" (translation: they're inconveniencing us, so stop).

Edited September 7, 2020 by Happy2BaMom

[Bootsie]

6 hours ago, SKL said:

Our church did do a survey that asked, among other things, whether the respondents would attend a church service exclusive to at-risk people.  I assume this didn't get many "yes" answers, since the church has not created such a service.  Of course it could be because not many older at-risk people filled out the online survey at all.  I wouldn't know.

I can only speak for myself and those close to me.  We are not hiding, but we are also staying away from places likely to contain at-risk people.

I do think church is different from places where at-risk people can easily choose not to go.  I feel it's more like a medical visit - it is important for health IMO.  I don't I need to stay home from everywhere in order for at-risk people to go there.  I mean, should we stay home from TKD class or eat-in restaurants to keep them 100% safe for at-risk people?  No, because (a) the businesses would close if only at-risk people went there, and (b) those are places that are easy to avoid if you're at-risk.

It's interesting that your church did they survey asking that; I had not heard of a church doing that.  It would be interesting to know if older at-risk people didn't fill out the survey, feel that it is too risky to attend any service, or are not as concerned and feeling as at-risk as others think they are.  The church that I attend is not even allowing small group meetings on the lawn (and churches are allowed to be open here).  But conversations at a ZOOM prayer group go, "I am SO GLAD our church is being so loving and caring and not opening.  It would just be such a risk to those of us who are in our 70's and 80's.  Well, it was so nice to go to the restaurant last night, we saw Bob and Sally there.  But, I have to get going now because I will be late for my pedicure--and I can't miss that since we are flying across the country tomorrow...."   

[frogger]

8 hours ago, SKL said:

Our church did do a survey that asked, among other things, whether the respondents would attend a church service exclusive to at-risk people.  I assume this didn't get many "yes" answers, since the church has not created such a service.  Of course it could be because not many older at-risk people filled out the online survey at all.  I wouldn't know.

I can only speak for myself and those close to me.  We are not hiding, but we are also staying away from places likely to contain at-risk people.

I do think church is different from places where at-risk people can easily choose not to go.  I feel it's more like a medical visit - it is important for health IMO.  I don't I need to stay home from everywhere in order for at-risk people to go there.  I mean, should we stay home from TKD class or eat-in restaurants to keep them 100% safe for at-risk people?  No, because (a) the businesses would close if only at-risk people went there, and (b) those are places that are easy to avoid if you're at-risk.

 

Well, that doesn't surprise me. Why would people go to a service that is at risk only? So the diabetic asthmatic mom with a bunch of teens is supposed to go to a service with no other teens? That would make no sense. Or is the mom supposed to go to the at risk service while the teens go to the regular service while they live with each other?  It might work for elderly people but most of them would rather see their family. 

 

 

[frogger]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

It's interesting that your church did they survey asking that; I had not heard of a church doing that.  It would be interesting to know if older at-risk people didn't fill out the survey, feel that it is too risky to attend any service, or are not as concerned and feeling as at-risk as others think they are.  The church that I attend is not even allowing small group meetings on the lawn (and churches are allowed to be open here).  But conversations at a ZOOM prayer group go, "I am SO GLAD our church is being so loving and caring and not opening.  It would just be such a risk to those of us who are in our 70's and 80's.  Well, it was so nice to go to the restaurant last night, we saw Bob and Sally there.  But, I have to get going now because I will be late for my pedicure--and I can't miss that since we are flying across the country tomorrow...."   

 

Dementia?  I have heard nothing like that. I know 3 elderly couples who simply hide out and don't leave their homes. Well, one grocery shops. The others order groceries. My aunt actually drives my disabled brother to and from church but considers it to risky to go herself and yes singing with a couple hundred people (in the case of my brothers church) is much more risky then eating out. But she considers the risk of sitting in the car with my brother worth it as she doesn't want him alone. 

It is probably a cultural thing as I grew up with you don't ask anybody for anything but in that case she is also taking on risk for another person's good.  My brother is unable to think through these things with his mental handicap but others are.

I'm sure we are coming at this from different perspectives depending on what we see.

[SKL]

5 hours ago, frogger said:

 

Well, that doesn't surprise me. Why would people go to a service that is at risk only? So the diabetic asthmatic mom with a bunch of teens is supposed to go to a service with no other teens? That would make no sense. Or is the mom supposed to go to the at risk service while the teens go to the regular service while they live with each other?  It might work for elderly people but most of them would rather see their family.

The majority of people who regularly attend our church are older and don't have young people living with them.

Also, if you have anyone in your household (or very close circle) who is high risk, you probably are going to make your healthy kids distance more than average.  I know some families who aren't letting their teens out because they are in frequent contact with at-risk relatives.  So in that case, why would it be wrong for the whole family to come to the at-risk service?  If a kid is safe to hang with her great-grandma or medically fragile sibling, then she's safe to hang with the elderly folks at church.

And in your example re teens - many teens don't attend church together with their families.  They may attend a different church or service or not attend at all.  My folks stopped making us attend with them when we were in middle school.  We ended up joining various different churches or following our own studies as we grew up.

[frogger]

9 minutes ago, SKL said:

The majority of people who regularly attend our church are older and don't have young people living with them.

Also, if you have anyone in your household (or very close circle) who is high risk, you probably are going to make your healthy kids distance more than average.  I know some families who aren't letting their teens out because they are in frequent contact with at-risk relatives.  So in that case, why would it be wrong for the whole family to come to the at-risk service?  If a kid is safe to hang with her great-grandma or medically fragile sibling, then she's safe to hang with the elderly folks at church.

And in your example re teens - many teens don't attend church together with their families.  They may attend a different church or service or not attend at all.  My folks stopped making us attend with them when we were in middle school.  We ended up joining various different churches or following our own studies as we grew up.

 

That may work in your church then. The majority of people who attend my church our family groups with young and old. Grandparents and toddlers.

I also don't know any teens who don't attend church with their family. Young adults- certainly.  We are perhaps a more family centered community than yours. My teens are disappointed when we quit attending church. That is where their friends are both young and old. 

It is obvious that you and I live in different worlds but it doesn't really matter. I need to figure out how to help out in the world I live in and I have been working on that.