Churches Not Locking Down During The New Wave Of Covid
ChastMastr
Shipmate
in Purgatory
I'm a bit maddened that my own church, the Episcopal Church (in the US), and my own Diocese of Southwest Florida, aren't locking down right now when we have possible super-spreader events at Christmas. Is anyone else dealing with this in their own denominations or dioceses? Aren't things worse now than when everything was locked down? Am I missing something here?
(If this belongs in Hell or perhaps All Saints--certainly, I'm really unhappy about this, and also would appreciate prayer for sanity here in the US in general and also for my own denomination and diocese and individual church--please move it there, but I thought it might fit here best.)
(If this belongs in Hell or perhaps All Saints--certainly, I'm really unhappy about this, and also would appreciate prayer for sanity here in the US in general and also for my own denomination and diocese and individual church--please move it there, but I thought it might fit here best.)
Comments
And I'm thinking, you know how lots of people who don't usually go to church attend during Christmas? We have less than two weeks before, however lovely the planned services might be, we could have an explosion of Covid cases spinning out of this...
While the churches were closed we had weekly Zoom meetings for fellowship, but I was the only member of my congregation who attended. One of the other elders has internet access and we've used Zoom for elders meetings but the other elder was on the phone. That technology, nor live streaming services etc don't really work for us.
When we went into Tier 4 we closed down again, even though our congregation is small enough that continuing to meet would be permitted. We've just restarted having moved back to Tier 3 - but will shut again if we go back to Tier 4. A few weeks ago Jason Leitch (national clinical director, on TV all the time) congratulated places of worship for following the guidelines and going beyond to protect their members and the wider community, with no cases linked to places of worship. I don't know if that's still the case, but here places of worship are not seen as locations where the virus is spreading.
Your measure may vary as to whether "Covid-Secure" lives up to the name, but they are definitely trying.
They also aren't having super-spreader Christmas events.
and even if there were, people don't have to attend them.
Our TEC diocese is locked down. My own church is a little more cautious than the diocesan instructions - we had a couple of in-person services with very limited numbers, as a test run to see how well we could manage the gymnastics safely. When rates get back down to where they were over the summer, we'll entertain the idea of in-person services again.
The vaccine isn't going to be prevalent enough for us to have a normal Easter, though.
(As an aside, the national church passing the responsibility for setting local rules to the dioceses is the right thing to do. Conditions vary. Your local Bishop is better placed to assess what makes sense for your diocese than the national office is.)
No, but the people who do attend spread the disease to those who didn't. This sort of thing isn't a matter of individual choice.
For Christmas Eve, we’ve received permission to close the street in front of the church and have an outdoor service in the street and our courtyard. Given the logistics, we’ll forego Communion.
In my town, you will find conservative churches open, but other denominations take a more cautious approach. The Episcopal church uses zoom to keep connections with its members. My Lutheran church has a large parking lot so we have been having worship while in our cars. Today was interesting because we were in the middle of a blizzard, but more people showed up than was expected.
Alas, here in the US, things are skyrocketing, and here in Florida, we literally hit a new record, and then smashed through it the very next day for a newer record, of the highest new Covid cases since our previous high back in July.
https://www.wftv.com/news/local/florida-reports-most-cases-since-july-second-day-row/BBHF4GY3U5E2BHEKNUXSRNQ77U/
And our state governor is determined not to shut down or restrict anything at all.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-ron-desantis-kissimmee-news-conference-20201130-liy73dz2hvh2rl6fhj2izx55hu-story.html
And of course Florida has lots and lots of older and elderly retirees, as well (usually) as a very large number of "snowbirds," people who come from colder climates to winter here in Florida, who are also older and elderly people.
A very, very wealthy businessman has started legal action to get the restrictions set aside and is arguing the case himself. Basically he's relying upon a provision of the Aust Constitution which provides that "On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free." An odd provision which has sparked more litigation than any other, in the course of which several fortunes were made. I have zero expertise in the area, but doubt that he'll be successful.
Obviously controlling singing/spontaneous praise/hugging might also prove challenging in a charismatic church.
But we are now thinking about how a return might be managed in future.
On the other hand there must be lots of alternative worship-things out there being offered by others (even if you have to leave your tradition or nation to find them) so you could log in to them, and maybe encourage others to stay away and join you? You would be welcome to use what my church provides. (Church of Scotland, so a bit different)
Our CofE churches have re-opened subject to safety requirements including face masks which lead me, and any who have a distinct aversion to face masks to stay away. But it is not easy to see how you would present a convincing case that these would be super spreader events.
If your Church is having no such restrictions I can understand your criticism. Is that the case? Is it a mask-free singalong hug-in?
I don’t go, I attend the zoom service. To me being distant on zoom is preferable to being distant in the Church building.
You have the choice whether or not to avoid those that attend.
The difference in church is that you are there for longer, with the same group of people; conversely it is (or should be) a more controlled environment than either of the above.
When it comes to holding an indoor Christmas Bazaar, however, the high standards of which @TheOrganist speaks are more difficult to maintain.
Given that we are likely to remain in Tier 3 for the foreseeable future, I think we would do well to cancel the event - it's not worth the risk, and it's not as easy as @Telford suggests to avoid those who do attend (even if one knows who they are - and the event is supposed to draw in people who don't normally form part of the worshipping congregation).
One way system through hall where sale held, flyers on windscreens at local school and shops, plus puece in local paper did the trick with advertising.
Bonus : we were spared the retired churchwarden's usual mulled wine which tastes like nothing on earth and acts as a powerful laxative 😈
We've been streaming services from the church since March, with a small group (10 or fewer) in the church leading the service. We decided early on that we'll continue to stream services even after the pandemic is over—both for those unable for any reason to come to church and because we've found that it's a good way for people to find us and check us out.
Our place consecrates the elements monthly (odd little pre-packaged egg-cup looking things with a sip of wine in one side and a morsel of bread in the other) and distributes to parishioners who want communion; parishioners then follow the form for communion from the reserved sacrament in their homes (it's basically the same script that we use for the lay visitors who took communion to nursing homes pre-Covid.)
Once during the first lockdown I went for a drive which I believe was longer than permitted, on the grounds that in my judgement, driving a car whilst remaining in the car the whole time, could not cause transmission of the virus.
The second was of somebody who went to provide support for someone in terrible circumstances, on a day when the weather prevented human contact outside and so broke the rules by having a coffee somewhere. In this case one would have to accept a minimal risk of infection as insufficient to outweigh the benefit of providing human contact.
At first that sounded like the "real freedom is doing what you're told" argument often used by Christians (slavery is perfect freedom) and authoritarian states. But it may be that you are saying that when someone has true freedom in themselves, they do not feel their freedom is removed if they obey something, even something they are not convinced about. That's a fair point, and I would like to think it applies to me. Although I totally disagree with some of the government diktats, I don't feel somehow defeated if I keep to them as a general rule, which I do (and have the face masks to prove it). But that doesn't imean that I regard obedience to the state as an ethical absolute. There may be circumstances in which non compliance can be justified.
I agree. Rejecting them for no other reason than that the government imposed them would be silly.
There are two issues here.
One is how you handle very small risks in guiding your life. The riskiest thing I have done in this whole pandemic is to get my hernia operation done in November, given that around 30% of the infections where I live are picked up in the NHS. And FWIW I did keep very much to myself for about a fortnight following, not full on self isolation but not all that far from it.
The risk was small but if I had been infected in hospital I would quite possibly have caused the death of my mother-in-law who is 93 and living with us. But in the end I took the risk. Would you?
Then there is the legalism mind set. I guess that in this case you might argue (I hope not) that I shouldn't feel bad about my MIL dying because I wasn't breaking any rules. To me, that is not relevant.
In the end, you either take responsibility for your actions or outsource that to the state. And every time we go out and do anything, we risk infecting others to some small extent, according to what we are told.
tl;dr - In the end you have to do this thing I started out by saying you can't do.
The whole point is that many of our most vulnerable people - those in nursing homes and prisons - CAN'T choose who they associate with. (In the US, due to long sentences for drug crimes and terrible living conditions, a lot of our prisoners are over 50 and in poor health.) This wedding, which broke Maine's state regulations on indoor gatherings and face masks, led to seven deaths. A nursing home employee caught the virus from someone who had attended the wedding.
This is why "personal responsibility" is nonsense. The people who attended that wedding presumably made an informed decision that they felt safe enough to gather indoors without masks. They ended up spreading the infection into a county jail and a nursing home and killing seven people who had no choice to avoid them.
As others have said, or implied, the best way to keep the rate of infection down is to restrict contact with other people as much as possible.
Shops and buses are necessary - Christmas Bazaars are not.
Or if they attended and are your caregiver in, say, a health care facility, you may have no choice about whether to be in contact with them. And if they didn't attend but have been in contact with someone who did, you'd never know.
My point was that you have no way of knowing whether anyone in any particular situation actually has a choice to avoid people who attended, or have been in contact with someone who attended, a large gathering of people. At most, you can only speak for yourself and the choice you may have if you are aware.
First, I think given your circumstances, you handled your situation as best as could be handled.
Re totally avoid being the unknown and unwilling medium, we can't. But that's where listening to wise scientists and doctors comes in, to be as safe as possible while still being able to eat, pay the bills, etc. As for outsourcing these decisions as to what's best for all to the state, that's literally the point of government, isn't it? (Again, here in the US nationally--until January 20--and here in Florida for the next two years--we have ghastly governance which is abrogating its responsibility.)
As a side note, I'm not ignoring you--others are basically saying what I would say here.