California's Temporary Ban on Singing in Churches Encounters Opposition

By Robin G. Jordan

The Church Leaders website has posted an article on the State of California’s temporary ban on choral and congregational singing and corporate recitation in churches. Singing and loud talking have been implicated in the transmission of th COVID-19 coronavirus. This public health measure has provoked a negative response from a number of California church leaders.

The article quotes the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, as saying that the ban discriminates against churches since “tens of thousands to march in protest without wearing masks,” sung and chanted as they marched, and the state did nothing about it. The argument that the Rev. Rodriguez makes is one that other church leaders have made. This argument tries to persuade us that if protesters are permitted to sing, shout, and speak loudly on the street, Christians should be permitted to sing, shout, and speak loudly in their churches. It tries to persuade us that two sets of circumstances are equivalent to each other. But are they?

It would have been difficult to disperse the protesters without resorting to draconian measures—water canons, tear gas, tanks, and gunfire. We live in the United States, not the People’s Republic of China, and such measures would have provoked an international outcry. The dispersal of the protesters at Lafayette Park, now Black Lives Matter Park, with flash bangs and pepper balls provoked such an outcry.

Some protesters were wearing face masks and observing social distancing. Others were not. In a mass protest it difficult to enforce such measures even for the organizers of the protest.

The protesters were outdoors. They were in the open air. They were also for a large part of the time moving.

This set of circumstances is entirely different from that found in churches. Worshipers in a church are indoors. They are in an enclosed space which may be inadequately ventilated. They may be breathing recirculated air. Depending upon the church, they may or may not be wearing face masks and observing social distancing. They may stay in the same space for an hour or longer. They may be in sustained contact with other people who are not wearing face masks and who are within six feet of them during this time. All these circumstances have been tied to super-spreader events.

Arguing that because the protesters took risks with their lives and acted in what may be viewed as a social irresponsible manner as far as the transmission of the COVID-19 coronavirus is concerned, churches should be allowed to do the same is like arguing that because some people ignore the sign warning people of the danger of climbing over the fence and going too close to the cliff edge, and fall to their deaths, the sign and the fence should be removed and those who wants to should be allowed to go close to the cliff edge and fall to their deaths.

The public health measures that the State of California has implemented and which affect churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious organizations are reasonable measures in the midst of a public health emergency. The COVID-19 pandemic is a public health emergency. In a number of states and counties the number of COVID-19 cases is skyrocketing. People are being hospitalized. People are suffering permanent damage to their health. People are dying.

What those who are objecting to these public health measures are arguing is that there should be no restraints upon the practice of religion at all. But the logic of that argument leads into dangerous territory. In the United States we do not permit ritual murder, human sacrifice, honor killings on religious grounds, the mistreatment of woman on these grounds, the abuse or neglect of children on the same grounds, or cruelty to animals. It has been a longstanding principle of US jurisprudence that adherents of a religion are free to practice their religion as long as it does not cause harm to them or others.

Those who are calling for the lifting of the restrictions that the State of California’s public health measures have imposed upon religious organizations are essentially calling for the abandonment of this principle. Whether they may realize it, such a move would have serious consequences. It would be a step backwards to a dark period in human history and pre-history, a step that would not be consistent with the teachings of Jesus. In the heat of the moment they may not have fully thought through the implications of what they are championing.

An example of the application of this principle was a case here in western Kentucky where a group of Amish farmers were arrested for refusing to pay fines for not having a bright orange triangular reflector on the back of their buggies as required by state law.  There had been a number of fatal collisions involving automobiles and buggies in the parts of the United States where the Amish have settled. The Amish farmers argued that the reflectors were contrary to their religious beliefs. The case went to the Kentucky Supreme Court but was resolved by the state legislature which enacted a law permitting the use of white tape on the back of a horse-drawn buggy in place of the bright orange triangular reflector. The state legislature did not exempt the Amish from the state traffic safety requirements but added a proviso to these requirements that allowed the alternative method of identifying their buggies as slow-moving vehicles.

The United States is not China, Iran, or North Korea where there is a concerted effort to suppress Christianity on ideological or religious grounds. The government is not bulldozing church buildings. It is not arresting, imprisoning, and executing Christians. What California and other states are asking churches to do is comply with reasonable measures to prevent the transmission of the COVID-19 coronavirus and to check the spread of the pandemic.

The alternative is empty churches, empty not due to the actions of the government but due to the actions of their church leaders, empty because people no longer feel safe attending in-person services and gatherings at these churches, empty because their church leaders have lost credibility with the community and have damaged the public image of the church.