Coronavirus: What Will Church Services Look Like in the 'New Normal'?

Dromore High Cross and Cathedral

It is the announcement churchgoers in Northern Ireland have been waiting months for.

Covid-19 emergency legislation led to the closure of churches in March, with private prayer only allowed again in May.

Last Friday, the executive confirmed services can resume from Monday 29 June, but it may take a little longer for communal liturgy and worship to actually take place.

That is because the guidelines for safe worship now have to be implemented.

Those guidelines have been developed through ongoing discussions between faith leaders, the Stormont Executive, its scientific advisers, and the chief medical officer.

But what will our local churches look like? And will services be any different? Read More

Also See:
Northern Ireland Executive's Guidelines for Safe Worship
Changing Church: Responding to the Coronavirus Crisis

I am posting links to this article, the Guidelines for Safe Worship, and the Changing Church report because they offer a glimpse into how churches in the United Kingdom and Ireland have adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic and how Northern Ireland is handling the reopening of church buildings for in-person services and gatherings. My posting of links to these articles is not in any way an endorsement of the precautionary measures recommended in the Guidelines for Safe Worship. I do, however, find their approach to church music far more commendable to that taken by the White House which suppressed the CDC's recommendations against singing and loud talking. They recognize that singing and loud talking can play a role in the transmission of the COVID-19 coronavirus. Over the next thirty days we will see if the recommended measures are effective.

Regathering in the COVID-19 Era

By Robin G Jordan

In deciding whether they should reopen their buildings and relaunch in-person services and gatherings, I strongly urge church leaders to look at what is happening not only in their community and county but also surrounding communities and counties and neighboring states. Even though the state may advice against unnecessary travel and ask those enter the state from another state to quarantine themselves for 14 days, people are ignoring this guidance. With the US population divided over precautionary measures like social distancing and face masks and the growing number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths reported in all but two states, there is a genuine risk of widespread infection. The acting director of the Centers for Disease Control has warned that for every reported case, there is 10 unreported cases. The reported cases are the tip of a much larger iceberg.

In my county at least two new cases have been reported for three Monday in a row. When they occurred two Mondays in a row, the director of the county health department described them as a worrisome “little spike.” For each of these reported cases there are 10 more unreported cases in the county. Each of these cases is capable of spreading the virus. One or more of these cases may have traveled to another county or state and is spreading the virus there.

Narrowly focusing on the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the community or the county will not give church leaders an accurate picture of the level of risk in their locality. They need to look at a much larger area.

In my state the reopening has moved into the phase in which gatherings of up to 50 people may held and bars may reopen. At the same time there has been an uptick in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths state-wide. The governor has urged residents of the state and visitors to the state to wear face masks and to observe social distancing guidelines. The state’s commissioner of agriculture, a Republican, is suing the governor, a Democrat, claiming that in implementing restrictions on business, the governor did not follow state administrative regulations and hold public hearings at the state and local level, and therefore the restrictions are unconstitutional. He ostensibly filed the suit on the behalf of a small business on the grounds that the 50-person limit on gatherings was causing it to lose income. The business in question serves as a venue for weddings and other large gatherings.

Anyone who is familiar with the politics of the state, however, knows that the commissioner of agriculture is eyeing a run for the office of governor in the near future and is trying to garner votes. His motivations are political. He is hoping to win the backing of the state’s small businesses.

If the courts do declare the restrictions to be unconstitutional, the state is likely to experience a surge of new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths as did Arizona where the governor initially refused to impose restrictions on businesses. Holding public hearings on a new set of restrictions would not only politicize the process but delay the implementation of any restrictions that were eventually agreed upon, leaving the virus to go unchecked in the state.

One might suspect the state’s agriculture commissioner of discounting the seriousness of the pandemic or having a callous disregard for human life and suffering and putting the interests of the business community first. Whatever one may think of his motives, the outcome of the suit will affect not only businesses but also churches. It may result in some church leaders being even less cautious than they already are and exposing their churches and communities to further infection.

In deciding whether they should reopen their buildings and relaunch in-person services and gatherings, church leaders need to keep an eye on similar developments in their states and counties. It is important to remember that a relaxation of state and local restrictions is not a license to be careless and ignore the need for precautionary measures. While the state or county may permit gatherings of up to a 100 people, it may be still safer for a church to limits the size of its in-person services and gatherings to smaller numbers of people. Based upon what has happened across the United States, church leaders cannot always rely on the decisions of the state and local authorities. These decisions may be motivated by politics and economics and not public health concerns.

Right now the COVID-19 pandemic is raging unchecked in most of the United States despite the statements from the White House that the pandemic is under control and the worst is past. These statements, if anything, are wishful thinking. Across the country the virus is demonstrating that these statements are without substance.

We are far from out of the woods. We have just started down the path through the woods. We have a long way to go before we reach the other side. The path we are on has trail markers. If we keep to the path that they mark, we will reach the other side. But if we ignore the trail markers, we are likely to end up following a rabbit track to nowhere.

What are the trail markers? Quarantine. Self-isolation. Social distancing. Face masks. Limits on the size of gatherings. Good ventilation. Avoidance of unnecessary trips. Hand washing. Avoidance of unnecessary physical contact. The list goes on. All of these precautionary measures when used together have proven their effectiveness in checking past epidemics. If we follow the trail markers, we will eventually get out of the woods.

Tuesday's Catch: Creation Care and More

The Common Nighthawk

Caring for Our Animals, Caring for Their Habitat

We are assigned by God – from creation on – to superintend and care for this world and its animals. Read More

I often saw common night hawks, night jars as my English grandparents called them, bull-bats as the locals called them, in southeast Louisiana when I was a teenager and a young man. I am saddened to hear that they are disappearing. They were a common sight at dusk where I lived.

Time for the New Normal

This pandemic has shaken the world—so much sickness, death and economic destruction. Our first concern should be the hurting, but we eventually do need to consider life after the pandemic. And I’m concerned about life after the pandemic, but my concern is in a direction that may surprise you. Read More

Positive Trends, Social Realities, and the Future of the Post-COVID-19 Church

Many churches have at least temporarily adapted to COVID-19 restrictions, and the conversation among church leaders has moved on to ponder what the church and its ministries might look like after COVID-19 restrictions are lifted (or at least eased). My concern is that most churches are asking good questions... in the wrong order. Read More

Relationships in the Time of COVID-19

We are genetically wired for socialization, for working and being together. Thus, COVID-19 poses a particular challenge to us as humans. By socially distancing ourselves to reduce the spread of the novel coronavirus, we are going against our natural instincts and psychological needs. Read More

CDC Says U.S. Has ‘Way Too Much Virus’ to Control Pandemic as Cases Surge Across Country

The coronavirus is spreading too rapidly and too broadly for the U.S. to get it under control as some other countries have, Dr. Anne Schuchat, principal deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said Monday.

The U.S. stands in stark contrast to countries like South Korea, New Zealand and Singapore as it continues to report over 30,000 new infections per day.

“This is really the beginning,” Schuchat said of the U.S.’s recent surge in new cases. Read More

Also:
Flu Virus with 'Pandemic Potential' Found in China

How many cases, hospitalizations, and deaths will it take before the people of the United States come to their senses and take the pandemic with the seriousness that it warrants? Are Americans, as health experts feared, becoming inured to the growing number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths?

The Lessons Canada Can Take from the U.S.'s Mishandling of COVID-19

Experts caution about reopening economies too quickly

Nearly two months ago, a health-care adviser to two U.S. presidents burst out in frustration when asked whether Americans would see a quick spike in new COVID-19 cases as states reopened.

Zeke Emanuel, who served in the Obama White House and has informally advised President Donald Trump, expressed exasperation that people kept looking for an immediate effect.

Launching into a sermon about the mathematical realities of exponential growth rates, Emanuel said the disastrous consequences of reopening too early would only emerge around early summer.

"Two months, not two weeks," Emanuel said in early May. "That's likely when you'll see the effects of what we're doing today. ... That's when people will recognize, 'Wow, now we've got 1,000 cases today, 3,000 cases tomorrow, 6,000 the next day.'"

He predicted the country would awaken to the disaster around mid-July.

It's happening ahead of schedule. Read More

This article offers a Canadian view of how the United States is handling the COVID-19 pandemic.

How the COVID-19 Pandemic Can Impact Our Thinking

By Robin G. Jordan

COVID-19 cases are on the rise across the United States. In Arizona, Florida, and Texas they are soaring. The number of younger people, those between 18 to 44 years of age, requiring hospitalization is widening.

One of the casualties of the COVID-19 pandemic has been rational decision-making. Americans are behaving in an increasingly irrational manner. They are ignoring the health authorities’ recommendations to wear face masks, to keep a six foot or more distance between themselves and other people, to wash their hands, to avoid crowds and large gatherings, and to not make unnecessary trips. The cacophony of online voices dismissing the seriousness of the pandemic, promoting conspiracy theories, and discouraging compliance with precautionary measures is growing louder.

Pandemics do have strange effects upon people. One of those effects is that it activates a defense mechanism commonly known as “flight from reality.” People defend themselves against the anxiety caused by an unpleasant reality by withdrawing into a world of their own construction—a fantasy world albeit fantasy due to its associations might not be the best word to describe this world. It is a product of the human imagination. This world, while improbable if not impossible to an outside observer, is very real to the individual who has withdrawn into it. That individual may have no insight into what he or she is doing. He or she may come to believe that it is the real world. What we may be witnessing is flight from reality on a massive scale.

Americans in the twenty-first century evidence a high level of distrust in professions and institutions of which previous generations had a more positive view. This is particularly true in the case of young people. They themselves may not have been burned but they have heard the stories of those who have been burned and these stories have reinforced their distrust. They, however, are not entirely untrusting. As a consequence they are vulnerable to being misled by those whom they do trust.

This lack of trust may be expressed in the attitude that seeing or experiencing is believing. Unless they or someone that they know becomes seriously ill with the COVID-19 coronavirus, they will not take the pandemic seriously. It does not affect them directly. This can be attributed to the influence of the “it’s all about me” culture which cuts across all generations and is not just confined to Millennials and Generation Z.

A major factor that has contributed to the high level of distrust is the electronic age. Everyone is pushing a product or peddling a point of view. First it was on radio, then on TV, and now on the internet. In the close-knit communities of the nineteenth century people knew whom they could trust in the community and whom they could not. For this reason strangers to the community were viewed with suspicion because they were an unknown quantity. Their trustworthiness had not been established. Despite the popularity of social media we now live in a society of strangers. Online we know an individual’s persona, the mask that he or she wears. We do not know the real person.

While distrust may to some extent be instinctual, it is also appears to be cultural. For example, the Finnish will trust someone else unless that individual repeatedly demonstrates that he or she is untrustworthy. Americans, on the other hand, will tend not to trust someone until he or she proves that they can be trusted.

Two factors that affect trust in the United States are familiarity and tribe. Americans are more likely to trust someone whom they know personally than someone that they do not know personally They have sized up the individual and determined those areas in which they can trust him or her and those areas in which they cannot. A few individuals may enjoy their complete trust but I think that most individuals are trusted only to a point. The trust these individuals enjoy is conditional.

A “tribe” may be defined as “a group of people, or a community with similar values or interests, a group with a common ancestor, or a common leader.” A number of articles have been written on the “tribalization” of America, its division into tribes--groups of people who not only share the same values but also the same perceptions of reality. The members of a “tribe” will have a common worldview. They will subscribe to the same myths and evidence the same biases.

From time to time I have read articles in which the author voices amazement at the complete trust that individuals express in a politician who has in his business dealings and public statements shown himself to be far from trustworthy from an objective view point. The writer may infer that the individuals in question lack discernment or are otherwise defective in their thinking. What the authors of these articles miss is that the trust of such individuals in the particular politician is not based upon his past behavior or present actions but upon their perception of him as a member of their tribe and a representative of their tribal interests. Whether that politician is actually a member of their tribe and a representative of their tribal interests may be an open question. What matters is that these individuals perceive him to be such. He will enjoy their trust and their support as long as he does not do anything to alter their perceptions of him.

From a psychological viewpoint a number of their perceptions may be projections. They are taking traits that they consider desirable in themselves and other members of their tribe and attributing these traits to the politician. For this reason among others shaking their trust and confidence in him would likely prove to be difficult. Their perceptions may erode and weaken over time. However, as at least one study has shown, the part of the human brain that responds to negative behavior does not respond the same way to the negative behavior of someone toward whom an individual has developed feelings of affection, attachment, or love. The individual will make excuses for the negative behavior or rationalize it.

When these factors are taken into consideration, the increasingly irrational behavior of Americans, while it is worrisome, is not surprising. It increases the difficulty of the task of containing and suppressing the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Each country has its own unique set of circumstances which hamper its own efforts. In the United States a major hindrance are its people, the very same people who are threatened by the virus.

The local church is not immune from these developments. Church leaders must deal with members of their congregations whom the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting in this way. They themselves may be affected in the same way. The increasing irrationality can result in a decision to reopen the building of the church at a time when the risk of infection is high. Church leaders may be pressured to reopen the building against their better judgment. Church leaders may themselves dismiss safety concerns of members of the congregation.

While we would like to believe that church leaders will act in a responsible manner in determining when the building should be reopened, what in-person services and gatherings should be relaunched and when, and what precautionary measures should be implanted, circumstances may prevent them from doing so. Church members may have unrealistic expectations about what will happen when the building reopens. In the midst of the pandemic they may expect a return to a full schedule of activities like those to which they were accustomed in pre-COVID-19 times. Church leaders may encounter resistance to the precautionary measures that they wish to implement, not only from the congregation but from members of the leadership team. A struggle for leadership may ensue. Those who want to implement multiple layers of protection against the transmission of the virus may be forced to make dangerous concessions to those who do not see the necessity of these precautionary measures.

The COVID-19 pandemic is not only accelerating change in a society in which a segment of the population is adverse to change and responds to change with an emotional reaction in the form of open resistance as well as passive-aggressive behavior but also it is exposing the weaknesses of that society. It is revealing America’s divisions and shortcomings. It is overturning the rock and uncovering what is lurking beneath in all its ugliness.

Should You Close Your Church after Reopening: Rethinking Your Church Growth Strategy

Every time you think 2020 is going to get easier, it just gets more complex.

So here’s a question: “Should you close your church after reopening it?”

While that sounds like a terrible question, what if it was your best church growth strategy?

I know that probably sounds like heresy and you may be too annoyed to read further, but just hang on for a second more.

As the coronavirus resurges across the US, and even areas that thought COVID wouldn’t impact them are breaking all-time infection records, clearly this is a time to ask all the questions.

But this is a deeper question. In Canada, our cases have slowed to almost a trickle, but I think it’s a live issue here too…if you really want to reach more people.

As much as we say it’s not true, there’s a nagging sense among many church leaders than unless the building is open, the church isn’t. If you’re actually going to reach people, that may have to change.

So why would anyone want to close their church after reopening if no one ordered you to do so?

Well, that depends on your mission.

If your goal is to gather people in a building, then keeping your building open despite public health risks and diminished returns makes sense.

But what if that’s not your mission?

Most church leaders (myself included) would say their chief goal and mission is to connect people to the hope of Christ and to each other.

So, if your goal is to reach people, let me walk you through a few strategic points that might help you assess whether keeping your building open at all costs until someone orders you to close it might be actually be harming your mission, not helping it.

Here are 8 things you may want to consider if you really want to reach more people. Read More

The authors of a number of the articles that I have read in my search for articles for Anglicans Ablaze are obsessed with the idea that the church is not the church unless it reoccupies the building. Their ecclesiology or the ecclesiology of the church leaders whose churches they are writing about may explain this obsession at least in part: It conceives the church in terms of warm bodies occupying a common physical space. The emphasis is on the visible church. The spiritual nature of the church as the Body of Christ in which its members are united to each other and to God by the Holy Spirit and through which God manifests himself in the world through the individual and collective actions of its members receives negligible attention. 

Monday's Catch: Church Self-Investigation and More

Why Churches Should Not Investigate Themselves

Churches investigating themselves protect themselves from investigation. Read More

It is the nature of the beast. Survival of the institution will take precedence over uncovering the true, especially if the truth may harm the institution.

Americans Don’t See Human Life as ‘Sacred’—But See Humanity as ‘Basically Good’

A new study finds that a majority of Americans no longer believe human life has intrinsic value, with six out of ten rejecting the idea that “human life is sacred.” Yet a majority also say that humans are “basically good.” Read More

Tear Your Sermon In Half 

It's a daring move: slash your outline! Your congregation will love you, and they'll remember more. Read More

Microsoft Teams is Worth a Look

The pandemic has many working at home for the first time and organizations are struggling to keep this new crop of remote workers connected and productive. Congregations and their small groups are also struggling to find meaningful ways to connect while in-person gatherings are heavily restricted. If your organization uses Office 365 (now named Microsoft 365) you have access to an incredibly powerful tool called Microsoft Teams. Odds are you’ve had access for a while and just didn’t know it. Read More

New Research Explores How Conservative Media Misinformation May Have Intensified the Severity of the Pandemic

The three studies paint a picture of a media ecosystem that entertains conspiracy theories and discourages audiences from taking steps to protect themselves and others. Read More

In God's Time - CORRECTED

When I originally posted this article, the fourth and fifth paragraph were inadvertently omitted. I did not discover the omission until late Sunday evening. 

By Robin G. Jordan

I am becoming concerned about the articles that I am seeing posted on a number of websites. These websites are not what I would consider “fringe” websites whose posts are dominated by conspiracy-theories, COVID-19 denialism, and other forms of irrational thinking. They are normally the sources of reliable information that is useful to the local church. But it is quite evident from these articles that whoever is selecting the articles has not really come to terms with the realities of the COVID-19 pandemic or is not keeping up with the latest developments.

Earlier in the week an article was posted on one website describing what one Florida church had done to integrate children into its services upon reopening its building. The problem with the article was that the church was not engaging in what I would consider best practices when it comes to precautionary measures against the transmission of the COVID-19 coronavirus.

A second article I read yesterday evening offered a list of reasons to go back to church after the COVID-19 pandemic. While the article made some credible arguments in support of regathering, at this stage of the pandemic it was the wrong article to post. The author of the article was a pastor of a Texas church.

Right now a number of states are experiencing significant increases in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. Florida and Texas are experiencing unprecedent surges in cases and hospitalization. States are backtracking on reopening.

A third article which I read earlier in the week was blaming the low attendance at in-person services at churches that had reopened their buildings upon attendees having fallen into the habit of not attending church. The author of the article dismissed the research which shows that many people do not yet feel that it is safe to attend in-person services and gatherings, arguing that it was not safety concerns which keep people from returning to reopened buildings.

In some quarters of the North American church the fear that those who once regularly attended in-person services and gatherings will not return borders upon panic. This has led to a spate of articles extolling the importance of regathering. These articles promote the idea that the end of the pandemic is just around the corner and things are returning to normal. As a result they tend to downplay the serious of the pandemic at its present stage and the need for multiple layers of precautionary measures against COVID-19 transmission. A common theme running through the articles is that those not returning to the building are missing out on something important.

However, if a church that has reopened its building is implementing the full range of precautionary measures needed to prevent the virus’ transmission, those returning to the building should be having a quite different experience from what was their experience when they attended in-person services and gatherings before the pandemic. If their experience has not changed or has changed only slightly, the church is not doing an adequate job of protecting them and the community from infection with the virus. Except in those places where the COVID-19 pandemic has been checked and the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths have gone down substantially and stayed down, churches should not be reopening their buildings, much less cajoling, coaxing, or guilting their church members and regular attendees to return to the building.

I believe that we are going to have to trust God on this one. When the time is right for people to return to the building without jeopardizing their lives and the lives of others, the Holy Spirit will bring them back. In the meantime, some churches will close their building’s doors, never to reopen them again. A number of churches will disband.

It is time to remember the Chinese proverb, “Don’t push the river. It flows by itself.” It is tempting to rush things. States worried about their deteriorating economies and churches panicked by the prospect of permanent membership losses have moved too quickly to reopen. But as we are seeing, rushed state re-openings bring with them unprecedent surges in COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. Churches that reopen their buildings prematurely become the epicenters of new COVID-19 case clusters. We are not living in normal times. As C. S. Lewis argued in one of his wartime addresses, we have never lived in normal times.

While sound theological reasons exist for having in-person service and gatherings, they are not more important than slowing the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus at a time when the virus is spreading unchecked in many parts of the country. They do not justify the reopening of church buildings when the infection rate is high and members of the public are not taking adequate precautions to protect themselves and others from infection.

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the pace of change in the local church. While some people adapt quickly to change, others do not. A number of people are change adverse. They have become accustomed to a particular way of doing things and do not react well to changes that may alter what they have accustomed to doing. While people may intellectually recognize the need for change and welcome the opportunity for change, they may not at a feeling level embrace change and may resist it.

I encountered that phenomenon during the short time that I had pastoral charge of a small church. A new pastor may mistakenly believe that he has found in such individuals allies for introducing needed change, only to discover that these individuals prove to be serious obstacles to change. They have an investment in keeping things the way that they are even though they realize doing so is killing the church. In appearing to ally with the new pastor they are seeking to prevent the introduction of too much change. They are seeking to place themselves in a position in which they can dissuade the new pastor from introducing what they consider undesirable change.

Emphasizing the importance of in-person services and gatherings and reopening the church building prematurely may be an attempt to avoid unwelcome changes and to cling to the past. Whether the change in question is undesirable is an open question. The past itself may be romanticized and viewed through rose-tinted glasses.

The premature reopening of the building and the relaunching of in-person services or gathering to avoid unwelcome change may prove to be more detrimental than the change itself, particularly if inadequate precautionary measures are taken to prevent the church from becoming the nexus of a new cluster of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.

A good turnout at its first services upon the reopening of the building may encourage a church that takes a relaxed attitude toward precautionary measures against the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus to ease up on the few measures that it has implemented. Since the virus takes fourteen days to incubate and can be confused with other respiratory infections in the milder cases, the church may develop a false sense of security, only to have brutal awakening when the virus spreads to more vulnerable members of the congregation and the community. A church that takes a relaxed attitude toward such measures will also encourage a similar attitude among its attendees with the result that they may became a health threat to the community.

A church that does implement multiple layers of protection and experiences a low turnout at its first services upon the reopening of the building may be tempted to imitate the less strict practices of a church that has a higher turnout at its initial services. Churches do influence each other’s behavior for better or worse. One thing that should be kept in mind is that different churches draw their attendees from different demographic segments of the population of a community. They may also draw their attendees from different subcultures. Demographics and subculture can influence how much a segment of the population views the need for precautionary measures.

These factors warrant our attention when reading articles which may influence our own decision to reopen our church building and to relaunch in-person services and gatherings. Enthusiastic reports of first services need to be weighed against what is happening in the communities of the churches that are making these reports. We need to wait for follow-up reports. How are these churches doing weeks down the road? Did they become an epicenter for a fresh outbreak of the COVID-19 coronavirus? Are they located in communities with high infection rates and their glowing reports do not jibe with what is happening in those communities?

While it would be nice if the websites posting such articles were more selective in what they posted, we cannot count on that happening. They may experience pressure to post these articles. We must therefore take it upon ourselves to carefully evaluate each article that we read. If things go wrong, it will not be the author of an article or the website on which the article was posted who will be blamed. It will be the leaders of the local church.

Saturday Lagniappe: Face Masks - An Ethical Decision and More

An Ethical Case for Wearing a Mask during This Pandemic

Our nation and the wider world is experiencing a once in a lifetime generation-shifting moment. Throughout all of this social upheaval and global health crisis, some are beginning to protest the simple guidelines to wear a mask in public on theological grounds or even out of a sheer rebellious spirit. While there are some obvious reasons that some might not wear one given health concerns, a rebellious or contentious spirit should not be one of them. But the Christian moral tradition calls us to not only love God but also to love our neighbor even if that means having foggy glasses or receiving weird stares. Read More

What Does the Road Ahead Look Like?

Churches are beginning to reopen in many states and routes forward are being plotted. In our conversations with churches, we are repeatedly hearing leaders wrestle with how to continue to gain momentum with their virtual ministries while at the same time relaunching their in-person experiences. This won't be easy. Read More

Controversy and Coronavirus Keep Church Plants Out of Schools

Church of the Highlands’s expulsion in Birmingham has some pastors worried about growing scrutiny. Read More

Five Ways to Honor the Past While Not Losing the Future

We do not know our history like we once did—biblical history, family history, and our nation’s history. Why should we care? History gives meaning to traditions. History gives purpose to church practices. History gives insight into culture. History contains all the chapters leading up to the current narrative in the church. You cannot create an enduring story without history. Church leaders can—and should—honor the past. We can do so without losing the future. Read More

The Power of Double Listening

Double listening . . . is the faculty of listening to two voices at the same time, the voice of God through Scripture and the voices of men and women around us. These voices will often contradict one another, but our purpose in listening to them both is to discover how they relate to each other. Double listening is indispensable to Christian discipleship and Christian mission. Read More

Friday's Catch: Effective Church Website Redesign and More

5 Mindset Shifts for an Effective Church Website Redesign

Before you start your next church website redesign, consider these five mindsets that might be a shift from traditional thinking, but put you in the right frame of mind to create an effective church website. Read More

Scholarship in a Pandemic? A Lesson from C. S. Lewis

Brian Tabb offers wisdom gleaned from one of C. S. Lewis' wartime addresses. Read More

There is no going back to normal because there has never been normal.

Hunger, Food Supply and Food Waste

According to the nonprofit Feeding America, more than 37 million people struggle with hunger in the United States, including more than 11 million children. This is one reason it was so troubling this spring to see news reports of food being destroyed as the COVID-19 virus hit our country. As the pandemic continues to play out and affect the economy, even more people will face food insecurity. Read More

7 Ways for Next Gen Ministries to Approach This Unique Summer

Here are seven ways for next generation ministries to approach this unique season in a way that could make this the most effective summer your ministry has ever experienced. Read More

5 Surprising Things Corona Has Unmasked in the Christian Family

Over the past few months, it has been undeniable that the world has changed. Covid-19 and recent social justice issues have swept across our nation. And both have changed us. There are 5 things corona has unmasked in the Christian family. Read More

Common Pitfalls in Family Worship

The key to family worship is to stick with it, to keep plodding.... If you are just starting, I want to warn you about a common pitfall that can potentially derail this good work when barely getting out of the gate. Read More

When the girls were elementary school age, my mother and I often had them on weekends and during the summer. We made a point of having family worship in the evening. We gathered around the dining table and used a simplified version of the Order of Worship for the Evening from the 1979 Book of Common Prayer--the lighting of one or more candles, the singing of O Gracious Light, a short reading from the Good News Bible, the Lord's Prayer, and the Collect for the Aid against Perils. The girls took turns lighting and extinguishing the candle or candles, which was their favorite part of our family worship gatherings. Simplicity and repetition works well with children of that age. For readings we picked passages from the New Testament that highlighted Jesus' person, his teaching, and his example and which children could grasp. We also used Arch Books, particularly those with a theme of God as One who saves--Noah's Ark, the Moses and the Crossing of the Red Sea, Jonah and the Whale, the Three Young Men and the Fiery Furnace, and similar Bible stories. My mother and I may have had an edge over other parents and caregivers. My mother was a graduate of Hockerill Teacher Training College, Bishops Stortford, Hertfordshire, a college "established in 1852 by the Church of England for the training of women teachers, who like their brothers, 'would go out to the schools in the service of humanity, lay priests to the poor, moved by Christian Charity,'"and in which those training to become teachers also received training in giving religious instruction to school children. I was deeply immersed in the study of liturgics, particularly in all-age worship.

What Does the LGBT-Discrimination Decision Mean For Religious Employers?

The Supreme Court recently ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. What are the ruling’s real-world implications for those who maintain traditional, biblical views about human sexuality? How will it affect churches, schools, camps, mission agencies, humanitarian organizations, and small businesses run by religious believers? After Bostock, can these institutions maintain hiring and employment practices consistent with their religious views without running afoul of Title VII? That remains an open question. Read More

The COVID-19 Pandemic and In-Person Small Group Meetings and Similar Gatherings

By Robin G. Jordan

Allen White offers some good advice in his article, “When Should Groups Meet in Person.” This article is an expanded version of two comments that I posted in response to his article on the Church Leaders web site. In addition to being applicable to small groups, I believe that his advice may also be applicable to very small congregations such as those of cell churches, home fellowships, and micro-churches.

I would add to his recommendations that a small group leader before holding an in-person meeting should thoroughly acquaint himself with the views of the small group members on the pandemic, including its seriousness and the need for precautionary measures, and what precautionary measures they themselves have been taking. It only takes one person who dismisses the seriousness of the pandemic and does not wear a face mask or observe other precautionary measures to infect with a virus a group of individuals who are observing these measures.

The small group leader also needs to acquaint himself with the views of the other members of the household with whom each small group member lives. On the BBC News web site there have been several good articles about "social bubbles" and "social bubbling." These terms describe a approach to expanding contacts outside the immediate members of a household, which has been pioneered in New Zealand. While an in-person small group meeting is not the same as a "social bubble," a number of the precautions that are recommended in picking an individual or household to form a "social bubble" with are applicable to such a meeting. Before a small group leader holds an in-person meeting, he or she needs to determine if all the participants are "safe." They are not going to expose the other members of the small group and their households to the COVID-19 coronavirus through their attitudes and actions or the attitudes and actions of members of their households.

Forming a "social bubble" with someone who ignores public health guidelines or with a household in which one or more members ignores such guidelines is likely to be disastrous. Holding in-person small group meetings with one more individuals that who ignore such guidelines or who are members of a household in which one or more members ignores them is also likely to be disastrous.

I would also add that in-person small group meetings should be held outdoors, preferably in a breezy space. One study showed that small outdoor gatherings in which the participants wore face masks and maintained a distance of six feet (two meters) or more between themselves were the least likely gatherings for the transmission of the COVID-19 coronavirus. If they are held indoors, they should be held in a large, open space, doors and windows open, and ventilated by electric fans. What is critical is that the air in the room should circulate and prevent the formation of a concentration of COVID-19 coronavirus particles should one or more members of the small group have the virus.

The longer an individual breathes COVID-19 coronavirus particles, the more likely he or she will become infected with the virus. To reduce the risk of exposure, the length of in-person small groups meetings should be kept short. They should not be allowed to run past the time the meeting is scheduled to conclude. Long meetings increase the risk of exposure.

I would further add that all who attend the in-person small group meeting should be required to wear face masks with no exceptions, not just before and after the meeting but throughout it. It is unfortunate that the wearing of face masks has become controversial in the United States.

A number of individuals on Facebook and other social media platforms appear to have dedicated their waking hours to the spreading of all kind of false and inaccurate information about face masks. The reaction of some members of the public to face masks as consequence borders on the irrational. Face mask, however, serve two purposes. They reduce the number of COVID-19 coronavirus particles that the wearer inhales. Most importantly, they reduce the number of particles that the wearer exhales.

While we might like to believe that people act with the best interest of others in mind, in reality that is often far from the case. The first confirmed case of the COVID-19 coronavirus in my county was someone who was tested positive for the virus and advised to self-isolate. However, this person decided to go ahead with a planned visit to a relative in the county because he was not feeling sick. During that visit he attended his relative's church and exposed about 100 people to the virus. The relative was the second confirmed COVID-19 case in the county.

While a small group leader may ask anyone who is sick not to attend the meeting in person but to participate online, he may not get 100% cooperation. Small group members who are unable to wear a face mask for legitimate reasons or who refuse to wear one should be asked to not attend the meeting in person but to participate online. If they do show up for the meeting, they should be turned away. All small group members should be advised that this will happen ahead of the meeting. They should not be allowed to jeopardize the health and safety of the other small group members. Human nature being what it is, small group leaders should be prepared to deal with small group members who may choose to test this requirement.

The use of toilets before, during, or after a in-person small group meeting during the COVID-19 coronavirus presents a unique problem. One study of the transmission of the virus in hospitals found that bathrooms had the highest concentration of COVID-19 virus particles. This was attributed to three factors--the size of the bathroom, poor ventilation, and the shedding of COVID-19 coronavirus particles by those infected with the virus when they urinate or defecate. A more recent study has drawn attention to the problem of "toilet plumes," columns of air containing virus particles which occur when a toilet is flushed with the lid open. As a result of these studies it is recommended that whoever hosts an in-person small group meeting should take steps to ensure that the bathroom is adequately ventilated, that those who attend the meeting are instructed to put down the lid of the toilet before flushing, and that the bathroom is decontaminated after each use. The decontamination of the bathroom should not be left to the person who uses the toilet and the failure of any small group member to close the toilet lid should be brought to the attention of the whole group. Carelessness should not be overlooked or ignored.

The built-in ceiling fans typically found in bathrooms may not be adequate for ventilating the bathroom. Exhausting the air of the bathroom to the exterior of the building with a window fan and leaving the door of the bathroom open with the occupant screened from view may be the best approach to ventilating the bathroom. Small groups leaders will need to size up the bathroom that will be used and determine the best method of ventilating it.

Small group leaders should closely monitor the number of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the community or communities in which the small group members live and work and in the region and the state. Only if the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths has consistently dropped over an extended period of time should they consider holding in-person meetings. If the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths begin to rise again, they should discontinue the in-person meetings. It is much safer to suspend in-person meetings during such an uptick than it is to keep holding meetings, hoping that the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths will go down. With each rise in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, the infection rate goes up. The likelihood of someone becoming infected with the virus is much higher.

Only when Americans as a nation takes the COVID-19 pandemic with the seriousness that the outbreak of a dangerous, highly infectious respiratory disease warrants will the United States begin to see a light at the end of the tunnel, not an imagined light but a real one. The present administration and the federal government could be doing a great deal more to educate the American public about the need for face masks and other precautionary measures to contain and suppress the pandemic and taking other steps to prevent the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus.

To observers outside of the United States, in Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere it appears that the United States has given up the fight against the virus and is letting it go unchecked. There is a very real danger that the United States, if it emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic, will emerge as a much weaker nation.

Those who truly wish to preserve the nation’s standing in the world may need to give serious consideration to replacing the present administration. Having vacillated between denying the seriousness of the pandemic and maintaining in the face of surges in COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths that the worst of the pandemic is past, one is prompted to wonder what the present administration will do if it retains the White House.

Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in The Peter Principle, published in 1969, made the observation that “people in a hierarchy tend to rise to their ‘level of incompetence’: employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another.” People may avoid reaching their level of incompetence in one of two ways—by engaging in what Peter and Hull described as “creative incompetence” and preventing their promotion. Or they may switch to a new hierarchy in which they may continue to rise without reaching their level of incompetency. People may also switch to a new hierarchy where they immediately reach a level where they are no longer competent.

Among the conclusions that can be drawn from Peter and Hull’s observation is that because a individual is successful in his positions in one hierarchy, it does not follow that he will be successful in positions in another hierarchy. One often hears the argument that a high executive position in government needs a businessman but their observations show the weakness of that argument. Someone may be competent in business but incompetent in government. They require different skill sets.

While President Trump’s success as a businessman is open to question due to the string of bankruptcies in which he was involved, he did enjoy a measure of success as a showman—as a promoter of beauty pageants and a reality show star, for which he deserves credit. During serious pandemic like the COVID-19 pandemic the United States, however, needs a chief executive in the White House with a different skill set from a showman, someone who will bring the country together in the fight against the COVID-19 coronavirus.

Whether it is an accurate impression, President Trump gives the impression that he has written off the hundreds of thousands of people who will become seriously ill and even die as a result of his pursuit of the re-invigoration of the US economy, which he sees as necessary to his successful re-election. The past occasions on which he has shown a lack of empathy for other people reinforce this impression.

Some readers may disagree with this analysis. I, however, believe that it is a credible assessment of our current situation in the United States. It also has bearing upon whether small groups should hold in-person meetings and under what circumstances.

Denominations, church networks, judicatories, churches, and small groups are going to have to look out for themselves and each other as long as politics and economics determines what goes into the Centers for Disease Control guidelines and state and local reopening policies. The kind of accurate, reliable information that they need to make the right decisions in reopening church buildings and holding in-person services and gatherings, including small group meetings, may not be available from these sources. What information is available may be incomplete and may reflect the priorities of the present administration or a particular state or local government. COVID-19 denialism is not limited to posters on Facebook and other social media platforms.

It is my belief that these organizations need to develop their own sources of accurate, reliable information, based upon the latest, trustworthy research into the transmission of the COVID-19 coronavirus and the best precautionary methods for preventing its transmission. They also need to develop their own programs to educate people about the transmission of the virus and the best transmission prevention precautionary methods.

Thursday's Catch: The COVID-19 Pandemic and In-Person Religious Services and More

Study: This Is How Americans Are Feeling About In-Person Worship

As the debate continues about what COVID-19 precautions people should feel compelled to take, a recent survey from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has found that most Americans say they would be uncomfortable attending in-person religious services. There is one religious group more comfortable with in-person worship than others, however—white evangelical Protestants. Read More

A number of evangelical website, I have noticed, in the articles and podcasts they post are in subtle ways (and at times not so subtle ways) pushing gathered worship even though the COVID-19 pandemic is surging in a number of states. At least one church that is associated with one of these websites resumed gathered worship without what I would consider adequate precautionary measures in place. These websites, while they promote caution in regathering, nonetheless stress the importance of gathered worship. That prompts me to wonder if theological considerations are outweighing safety considerations in regathering decision-making. It could be a blind spot for these websites.

Dream City Church That Hosted Trump Rally Backtracks on Safety Claim

After receiving widespread criticism, Arizona megachurch Dream City Church and the maker of an air-filtration system the church both walked back claims about preventing the spread of COVID-19. Phoenix-based Dream City Church, which hosted a Students for Trump rally on Tuesday, had been plugging a system from Clean Air EXP, saying it can kill “99 percent of COVID within 10 minutes.” Read More

I wonder how many of the young people who signed waivers releasing the Trump Campaign from any liability in the event that they became sick or died out of the mistaken notion that they would be safe from virus infection in this particular venue and that young people develop only mild symptoms if they contract the virus. A number of young people have become extremely ill, required hospitalization, and even died after they contracted the virus. They have also spread the virus to Americans who may be more vulnerable than themselves.

4 Characteristics of a Healthy Church Culture

What are the characteristics of a church with a healthy culture? Let’s look at four of them. Read More

How Often should Preachers Practice their Sermon?

I’ve served in ministry over 39 years and I’ve preached a lot of sermons. Some have been good and some, well, not so good. Three factors have made the biggest positive difference for me: preparing my heart before the Lord, scheduling adequate study time to avoid feeling rushed, and practicing preaching my sermon. In this blog I suggest a few benefits from practice and describe my practice/preparation process (pre-COVID....). Read More

5 Ways to Get People to pay Attention to Your Sermons

One of the most disconcerting feelings we pastors experience is when we prepare a sermon and pour our heart into it, yet feel that it didn’t make a difference in people’s lives. It’s equally frustrating when we preach to see somebody tuning us out. What can we do to help people pay more attention to our sermons? For when they do, there’s a greater chance what we say will stick in their minds to give the Holy Spirit time to ultimately change their hearts. Here are some neuroscience-based tips. Read More

7 Considerations for Updating Your Kids Ministry Policies Now

The COVID-19 pandemic has given kids ministry leaders a lot of uncharted waters to navigate, but it has also provided opportunities to review and revise what we do and how we do it. Read More

The COVID-19 pandemic has created an opportunity to reintegrate (or integrate for the first time) children into the Sunday and other worship gatherings of the local church instead of separating them in their own children's services and to make the Sunday and other worship gatherings of the local church more child-friendly. The pandemic has created an opportunity for children to become accustomed to worship with adults and adults to become more accustomed to worshiping with children. It has also created an opportunity for children to be exposed to the faith of a larger segment of the congregation of the local church than that of a handful of volunteers. As far back as the 1970s it was discovered that children who were relegated to their own children's services had a difficult time in making the transition to the adult services of the church when it came time for them to make that transition. When they became teenagers, they drifted away from the church in search of a worship experience like the one they had experienced as children or they dropped out of church altogether.

Record Increases of New Covid-19 Cases in 3 US states with the Most Population UPDATED

The three most-populous states in the US are reporting record increases in new coronavirus cases as concerning trends in the pandemic have emerged across the country.

California, Texas and Florida all set records for the number of new cases in one day. Nationally, 34,720 new cases were reported Tuesday in the US -- the third-highest number of new cases reported in one day since the beginning of the pandemic, based on a data archive kept by Johns Hopkins University. The two days with more cases were both in April.

Those three states account for 27.4% of the 328 million people living in the US, according to the latest US Census Bureau estimates. Read More

Also See:
Coronavirus: New York imposes quarantine on eight US states NEW
'They want to throw God's wonderful breathing system out'[Video] NEW
Why we should all be wearing face masks NEW
Coronavirus: 'Deadly masks' claims debunked NEW

Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming are seeing an uptick in COVID-19 cases in comparison to the previous week. As of today Kentucky has 229 new cases and one death, bringing the total number of cases in the Commonwealth up to 14,363. This comes less than a week before residents of Kentucky can gather in groups of 50 people and bars and taverns can serve customers on the premises. Governor Andy Beshear is urging Kentuckians to wear face masks and to follow the rules. This morning the Calloway County Health Department announced two new COVID-19 cases. These two cases bring the total number of cases in the county up to 69. The surge in cases highlights the dangers of ill-considered reopenings, COVID-19 denialism, and widespread indifference to the health and safety of others that has come to characterize the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.

Some Considerations in Church Building Reopening and In-Person Gatherings Planning

By Robin G. Jordan

Among the factors that are contributing to the increase of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations across the United States is that a number of states reopened too fast and people abandoned social distancing and face masks too quickly. The reopening of these states may have conveyed the wrong message to their populations, particularly to those segments of the population that were chaffing at state restrictions to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus.

With a cacophony of voices declaring that the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic was exaggerated by the media or even a hoax perpetuated to deny President Trump a second term in office and that face masks and other precautionary measures were unnecessary, and influencing people’s decisions, these upticks in cases and hospitalizations are not surprising. The Trump administration has made little effort to counter the misinformation circulating on the internet and has in a number of instances contributed to it.

One reads on Facebook and other social media platforms the claim that the record of deaths is the only reliable statistic and therefore should be used as the sole basis for determining the seriousness of the pandemic. However, health experts point out that recording of COVID-19 deaths typically lags behind the compilation of other statistics such as reported cases and hospitalization due to the documentation required in the confirmation of a death from the COVID-19 coronavirus. The record of deaths is not the reliable statistic that its proponents claim that it is. Unfortunately people believe such misleading claims and conclude that the COVID-19 pandemic is not as serious as the health experts maintain. This also influences their decisions.

Rather than believe the health experts, those who devoted a lifetime to the study of how epidemics spread and what measures work in suppressing or containing them, segments of the US population prefer to believe the purveyors of this misinformation. The result is the surge of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations in a number of states, surges that cannot be accounted for by increased testing. The spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus in the United States has so alarmed members of the European Union that the EU is not considering lifting restrictions on travel to and from the United States.

In my own state, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the number of new cases has held steady for the past few days. At the same time several rural counties have reported an uptick in cases and hospitalizations. My own county is experiencing what the local health authorities describe as “a little spike” in cases. The number of new cases has consistently gone up two Mondays in a row. The total number of confirmed cases is 67.

The COVID-19 coronavirus has a typical infection rate of 1.5. The rate can be higher or lower. An increase in new cases or a reduction in new cases reflects shifts in the rate of infection. An increase in the number of new cases means that for every confirmed case there is likely to be one or more unconfirmed cases. As the number of confirmed cases increases, the number of unconfirmed cases goes up exponentially. The number of confirmed cases is like the tip of an iceberg. The larger mass of the iceberg is submerged beneath the surface of the water. The tip of the iceberg is what shows above the surface of the water. In the case of confirmed cases in a county they represent the smaller number of cases in proportion to the total number of cases, confirmed and unconfirmed.

Based upon articles, comment threads, and social media posts the decisions of Christians returning to their buildings and regathering for in-person services are also influenced by the misinformation circulating on the internet. A number of the purveyors of this misinformation identify themselves as Christians. They include pastors and other church leaders as well as lay persons. To what extent this misinformation is influencing reopening decisions is an open question but the anecdotal evidence suggests that it having an influence upon these decisions. It may not be a direct influence but it is impacting churches in ways that may result in more COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.

While pastors and other church leaders may work to create and maintain safe environments for returning attendees and first-time guests, uncooperative church members may undermine their efforts. They may refuse to wear face masks and act in other ways that jeopardize the health, safety, and well-being of other people. Church leaders are faced with the difficult challenge of how to deal with such individuals. If church leaders overlook their behavior or acquiesce to it, the church may become the epicenter of a COVID-19 outbreak. The church and its leaders will bear the brunt of the blame, not the uncooperative church members.

Among the steps that churches may need to take before they reopen the doors of their buildings again is survey the members and regular attendees of the church, determine how much they have influenced by the misinformation circulating on the internet, and how willing they are to follow the precautionary measures that the church implements to protect the congregation and the community from a COVID-19 outbreak. This survey will give church leaders some idea of what they will be facing and how they might deal with it.

Once church leaders have decided upon what precautionary measures will be implemented, they will need to inform church members and regular attendees of what will be expected of them when they return to the building. They should use every means available to them to convey these expectations to church members and regular attendees—mailouts, telephone calls, pre-recorded videos, emails, Facebook notifications, blog posts, website pages, etc. They should be prepared to answer questions.

A good rule of thumb in deciding upon what precautionary measures a church will implement is to err on the side of caution, in other words, to put in place multiple layers of protection. It is better to be overly cautious than it is to take the need for caution lightly. Those who do not take care to avoid danger and mistakes run a higher risk of encountering danger and making mistakes.

Rash decisions, those that do not give careful consideration to the possible consequences of an action, should be avoided. Recklessness, lack of regard for danger or the consequences of our actions, is not commended in the Bible. Indeed it is associated with fools and their folly. The Bible has nothing positive to say on that subject as word search on a “fool” and “folly” will reveal.

Church leaders may wish to ask returning attendees to sign a covenant in which they agree to comply with the precautionary measures that the church is implementing for as long as it is determined that they are needed. This covenant should include provision for the implementation of additional layers of protection if they are needed. It can be pointed out to returning attendees that they as Christians are responsible for the health, safety, and well-being of their fellow-Christians but also their neighbors, those who live in their community and beyond. By agreeing to the covenant, they are committing themselves to ensure the health, safety, and well-being of their fellow-Christians and neighbors. They are serving Christ in them.

Those who insist that they are right and the views of other people are wrong should be reminded about what Paul writes about respecting the consciences of weaker brethren in his first letter to the Corinthians. If such individuals prove to be intractable, it may be best to ask them not to attend in-person services when the church reopens its building. It may be necessary to alert the church’s security people to who they are, with instructions to escort them off campus if they do not comply with the church’s precautionary measures or otherwise create trouble such as encouraging other returning attendees not to conform with these measures.

It does not take many people to create the kind of critical mass that can initiate within a church a movement which will undo all the efforts of church leaders to protect the congregation and the community from the COVID-19 coronavirus. Only a small number of people is needed to start such a movement. Some people will go along with the preventive measures that a church is implementing as long as other people are going along with them. However, these people do not fully support what the church is doing and will gravitate to a faction that is opposed to these measures if one forms. It is one of the unfortunate weaknesses of our sinful human nature—the tendency toward “…quarrels, dissensions, factions…and things like these.”

We should not underestimate the spiritual warfare dimension of the various forms of COVID-19 denial and opposition to precautionary measures to prevent the transmission of the virus. The evil one knows our weaknesses better than we do and will exploit them to cause suffering and death.

A phenomenon of which church leaders need to be aware is the tendency of those who are engaging in negative behavior to encourage others to join them in this behavior. They may recognize that the behavior is negative but are able to rationalize it when others join in the behavior. They justify what they are doing with the argument, “Others are doing it too.” It is a form of rationalization typically seen in adolescents but it also seen in adults. It is not an uncommon rationalization for abandoning social distancing and wearing face masks. When people gathered in crowds over the Memorial Day weekend, many of them justified what they were doing in this manner. When people go out in public and do not wear face mask and observe social distancing and see other people doing the same thing, they feel that they were not wrong in their decision.

Another phenomenon of which church leaders need to be aware is what is called the mob mentality, the herd mentality, or the pack mentality. Peers can influence people to adopt behavior on the basis of emotion, rather than reason. When they are influenced by their peers, they will make decisions differently from how they would make decisions as individuals. This phenomenon affects adults as well as teenagers. Returning attendees who are susceptible to the influence of a particular group or faction in a congregation may be persuaded to abandon face masks and social distancing.

As one can see, church leaders who are planning to reopen their church’s building and to hold in-person services and gatherings or who are in the midst of doing so have their work cut out for them. It would be nice if things were a lot simpler. But they are not. Those who underestimate the complexity of the task may be in for some nasty surprises.

In writing my articles on church regathering I sometime feel like one of the characters in C.S. Lewis’ The Silver Chair—Puddleglum the Marsh Wiggle. He was a gloomy individual who expected everything to go wrong. His fellow Marsh Wiggles, however, considered him to be an optimist! Those who have read the book also know that Puddleglum had his strengths. I hope that I am drawing on my own strengths in writing these articles. I greatly value congregational singing and other forms of corporate worship. At the same time I do not want to see happen to my readers’ churches what happened to the church in Greenbrier County, West Virginia and the church in LaGrange County, Oregon. What happened to those churches was someone took the need for caution too lightly. In the case of the Greenbrier County church, it may have not been the church leaders but whoever modified and authorized the guidelines that they were given. Someone placed other considerations before the health, safety, and well-being of churches and their communities.

Human beings are weak creatures. We tend to place our self-interests first. Our natural proclivities run counter to Jesus’ call to love one another, to love our neighbor, to love our enemies, and to serve him in the last and the least. Even the regenerate, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, historic Anglicanism’s Confession of Faith, reminds us, retain the propensity to rebel against God and fall into sin. In each of us our sinful human nature is at war with the Holy Spirit.

The good news is that God recognizes our weaknesses. He bestows upon us an abundance of his grace. He works within us to will and do what is pleasing to him. Without the power of Holy Spirit at work in us, we would be in much direr straights than we are now.

My prayer for church leaders who are planning to reopen their church’s building and to hold in-person services and gatherings or who are in the midst of doing so is that the Holy Spirit will keep them from all foolishness and guide them in making wise decisions.

Image Credit: The Episcopal Church of St. John and St. Mark, Albany, Georgia

Wednesday's Catch: COVID-19 and White Evangelicals and More

White Evangelicals’ Coronavirus Concerns Are Fading Faster

But when it comes to behavior, evangelicals are as likely as the rest of the country to keep up social distancing, according to Data for Progress survey. Read More

Why You Should Never Take the Mass

I want to give you three reasons why you should never, ever take the mass! Read More

The Catholic Church practices closed communion. Only Catholics in good standing may receive communion at Mass. Consequently I was surprised to hear that people were asking whether they should receive communion at a Catholic Mass.

The Catholic Church's Code of Canons is quite specific about who may receive communion at Mass. Only under extremely extenuating circumstances may a Catholic priest offer the communion elements to a non-Catholic.

The Catholic doctrines of eucharistic presence and sacrifice have no basis in Scripture albeit Catholic theologians will argue that they do.

While the ecumenical-minded may disagree, both from a Catholic perspective and a Protestant perspective it is not appropriate to receive communion at a Catholic Mass.

What If You Struggle to Forgive Yourself for a Past Sin?

Have you confessed your sins to Christ? If yes, then you are forgiven. Whether or not you have doubts, whether or not you have a subjective emotional sense of “feeling forgiven” is irrelevant—the fact is, if you have done what 1 John 1:9 says, (and unless God isn’t telling the truth!) you are forgiven. Read More