By Robin G. Jordan
I vet most articles to which I post links. In some cases the examination that I give them is cursory. It depends upon the subject matter of the article. Those related to the COVID-19 pandemic and church reopenings I look at more closely.
I will sometimes reject an article because it does not fit with what the larger number of accounts on church reopenings are reporting. For example, I decided against posting a link to an article upon that subject, which I read earlier today. The support for the claim that the author was making was anecdotal and involved a very small number of churches.
The tone of the article suggested that the author had been caught up in the initial excitement of reopening and was overlooking accounts of reopenings that do not support what she was claiming. Her description of the inadequate precautions or lack of precautions that these churches took in reopening might have encouraged other churches to follow their example and to endanger their congregations and communities. It might also have reinforced the poor decisions that other churches had made at the time they reopened.
The author herself did not show an appropriate level of concern over the laxity of these churches in implementing adequate levels of protection against the transmission of the COVID-19 coronavirus.
While I may not agree with an author’s contentions, I may post a link to the article because it contains ideas or information that may benefit readers. I believe that readers are able to judge for themselves the merits of a writer’s arguments. I may in a comment draw attention to points where I disagree with the author and why.
In the case of the article in question it contained nothing that might benefit readers. Its only redeeming value was as an example of how the excitement of reopening can blind people to the need for caution in the midst of a pandemic but that did not outweigh the harm that it might cause.
The article also reflected an attitude that is proving an obstacle to efforts to suppress or mitigate the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus in the United States. It is the attitude that whether we observe social distancing, wear face masks, and take other precautionary measures to prevent the transmission of the virus is a matter of individual choice. It is summed up in statements like this one, “You can choose to wear a face mask but I’m not going to wear one. That’s my choice.” It ignores the fact that the choices that we make affect others. It results in the inconsistent implementation of precautionary measures that can reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection. As long as this attitude is countenanced, the United States is not going to be as successful in suppressing or mitigating the virus’ spread as it could be. It points to a weakness in the American value system—a lack of a sense of social responsibility. We are not just responsible for ourselves but we are responsible for others too.
It is also an attitude that is not consistent with the Christian faith. Jesus talks about loving our fellow Christians. He talks about loving our neighbors. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan he expands the definition of who are neighbors from the “brethren” of the Old Testament, the people of our “tribe,” to those who are outside our “tribe. In these days of “the tribalization of America” his redefinition of neighbor should give us pause. Jesus even talks about loving our enemies, those who hate and despise us. Loving others includes caring about how our own behavior may impact them.
Jesus talks about serving others. The service that we offer to them is service which we are offering to him. Jesus also talks about treating others in the way that we would wish ourselves to be treated.
In regard to what appear to be unfair demands that are made upon us, Jesus further talks about going the second mile, doing more than we need to do to meet these demands. This is a reference to the practice of Roman soldiers forcing the Jews to carry burdens for them. However, Jesus’ teaching applies to the demands that others make upon us and which we rightly or not may perceive as arbitrary and unreasonable.
We can search the Bible but we will not find a passage in which Jesus says anything that approximates, “You do your thing; I’ll do mine. I won’t interfere with what you are doing as long as you don’t interfere with what I’m doing.” This way of looking at things is not found in Jesus’ teaching.
In practice those who voice this point of view frequently do not refrain from interfering with the other person. They often as not belittle that person for his choices.
What they are really saying is that they should be allowed to what is right in their own sight. They should be permitted to do what they please no matter what the consequences are to others.
The Bible does not have kind words for the kings of Israel and Judah who did what was right in their own sight. They turned their backs on God’s ways. They led the people of Israel and Judah astray.
In our day those who do what is right in their own sight are endangering not only their own lives but also the lives of others. Their actions are harming others.
No comments:
Post a Comment