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.
No comments:
Post a Comment