Churches Not Locking Down During The New Wave Of Covid

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.)
«13

Comments

  • I've contacted my local church, my diocese, and the national church, and basically the national church is letting dioceses decide how to handle it, and my diocese is letting individual churches decide how to handle it, and my local church MAY change their approach but at the moment they're still open.

    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...
  • We haven't re-opened, and because many in our elderly congregation don't use computers, we have continued by phone-in-conference-call-church. We've all got used to it. Our minister is really good, and this way we get to enjoy her most weeks (UK Methodists don't work that way normally). We've got used to it, and the people joining (up to 50 I guess) really value it. Christmas will be odd, but OK. My family (me, wife, 2 kids) are the de-facto music group. It will be very odd :smile:
  • Ours is a small congregation and though mostly elderly we reopened after the summer with precautions (chairs spaced more than 2m apart, no singing, masks worn throughout, no hand shaking etc). We're one of three congregations in a joint pastorate, and the minister prepares a recorded service every week accessed by phone and we've found that not only has this helped the current membership but also been listened to by some former members who have moved away. Even after the end of the pandemic restrictions this will continue as it helps our housebound members and connects the pastorate.

    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.
  • Ours, held services for a few weeks before the second national lockdown, and when that stopped re-opened again. But both times have been in a "Covid Secure" manner.
    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.
  • jay_emm wrote: »
    Ours, held services for a few weeks before the second national lockdown, and when that stopped re-opened again. But both times have been in a "Covid Secure" manner.
    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.

  • We are a two church family. My Episcopal Diocese has been on lockdown since Spring, My local Methodist church has never closed although the average Sunday attendance is now reported as 6, the service is online for others. . Although the Methodist church is holding services in place it would appear people are not willing to attend. The local Catholic church is full speed ahead. I base this on the number of cars in the parking lot and parked along the street.

  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    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.

    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.)
  • Telford wrote: »
    jay_emm wrote: »
    Ours, held services for a few weeks before the second national lockdown, and when that stopped re-opened again. But both times have been in a "Covid Secure" manner.
    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.

    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.
  • In my tribe, the decision-making authority on this rests at the congregation level, specifically with the Session, not with presbytery or the denomination. We have not reopened, and given the inadequate-for-an-airborne-virus ventilation system in our building, won’t anyone soon. Most other Presbyterian churches around here have remained closed; those that have opened are smaller, have limited attendance with strict sign-up and other guidelines, and/or have sufficient outdoor space.

    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.

  • @ChastMastr you can count on it that I'm intentionally praying for the USA and Americans in this multifaceted crisis.
  • I am wondering if your Floridian Diocese is bending to public pressure to keep their churches open. Many people in the United States believe the government has no right to interfere with the affairs of a religious body under the First Amendment of the Constitution. It seems the churches in conservative states tend to stay open; whereas churches in moderate states follow the advice of their health boards.

    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.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    The lockdowns here have been decided by each State government and enforced on that basis. Given that the rates of new infections have dropped, most restrictions on gatherings, which include church services, have been eased considerably. At one stage, funerals were limited to 10 including the clergy/celebrant. Weddings were down to 5, which meant bride, groom, one bridesmaid, the best many and the celebrant. I don't know the exact figures for church services at the moment, but there are still limits on singing, and there must be somewhere around 2.4 sq.m per person with suitable spacing.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Given that the rates of new infections have dropped, most restrictions on gatherings, which include church services, have been eased considerably.

    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/
    Florida health officials reported 11,699 new cases of COVID-19, marking the second day in a row that cases have been the highest since July.

    The cases surpass the 11,335 reported on Thursday, which was the highest day since July.

    To date, there have been 1,106,396 cases of COVID-19 reported in the state. Florida marks the third state to surpass the 1-million-cases milestone, joining Texas and California.

    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
    Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday ruled out imposing any further coronavirus restrictions or a mask mandate, despite rising case numbers across the state and nation.

    DeSantis said there would be “no lockdowns, no fines, no school closures. No one’s losing their job because of a government dictate. Nobody’s losing their livelihood or their business.”

    “That is totally off the table,” he said.

    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. :(
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    ChastMastr - a major difference between the US and here is that from the start, the various governments imposed heavy restrictions on gatherings, and have enforced them by moderately hefty fines. Most people seem to have gone along with these. The extreme right in Victoria and extreme left here (NSW) have fought against them, but got nowhere.

    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.
  • Australia is saner than the US in several ways, it appears. <3
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Going back to what Alan Cresswell said, here in Britain meetings for worship have been surrounded by many safety precautions and caveats - this may be a major difference to those elsewhere. Having said that, I do know of churches which have decided not to meet in person, for instance the lovely but tiny ancient parish church here which is normally packed out for Christmas but can only accommodate a handful under the regulations. The churches which have been really "hit" are the so-called "new churches" which often have large congregations and meet in hired buildings such as schools - they have not been able to meet at all since March (but are usually very tech-savvy).
  • HeavenlyannieHeavenlyannie Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Our large ‘new’ church has its own small warehouse to meet in and about 400 people meet over the 2 services usually. We have not met together since March and meet via Zoom and, yes, we are very tech savvy. Our situation is the opposite of many Anglican churches in we have a much younger population; our main difficulty is the large number of children who would normally be running around the church as about a quarter of the congregation is under 18. They have increased contacts and are less likely to understand social distancing.
    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.
  • @ChastMastr I feel for you. It is difficult if you church has not closed down because then they will not be providing alternative worship for those who don’t feel safe attending (which maybe should be all of you).
    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)
  • I have been wondering about the perverse definition of freedom which is used to justify not doing what the government has laid down as the sensible behaviours to prevent the communication of the virus. A real freedom would allow the adoption of those behaviours as an alternative to rejection of them. To automatically reject them because the government has introduced them is to be as unfree as they claim following would make them.
  • Setting aside my overall lockdown scepticism, which will add nothing outside of eye-rolling and requests to give it a rest . . . .

    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?
  • Ours is open with a strict one way system, chairs 2m apart, book your place, stay in your place, sanitiser, masks etc and no singing. Batting only allowed on the car park 2m apart.

    I don’t go, I attend the zoom service. To me being distant on zoom is preferable to being distant in the Church building.
  • "Batting" ?
  • Batting? = chatting! :tongue:
  • Common term or typo?
  • Penny S wrote: »
    I have been wondering about the perverse definition of freedom which is used to justify not doing what the government has laid down as the sensible behaviours to prevent the communication of the virus. A real freedom would allow the adoption of those behaviours as an alternative to rejection of them. To automatically reject them because the government has introduced them is to be as unfree as they claim following would make them.
    This discussion might be of interest: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000q4bz

  • tclune wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    jay_emm wrote: »
    Ours, held services for a few weeks before the second national lockdown, and when that stopped re-opened again. But both times have been in a "Covid Secure" manner.
    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.

    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.

    You have the choice whether or not to avoid those that attend.

  • How do you know whether someone you meet randomly has or has not been at a super-spreader event?

  • You don't. But that would equally be true in a shop or on the bus.

    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.
  • If churches are going to hold services - and I think they should - they must be rigorous about cleaning, policing social distancing and mask wearing: to do otherwise is, IMO, un-christian.
  • Couldn't agree more.
  • Yes, indeed - and that's what Our Place has been doing all along.

    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).
  • @Bishops Finger Split the bazaar up into smaller weekend sales. We've done this and ended up making more than if the annual Christmas Fair had been held.

    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 😈
  • BerkeleyBerkeley Shipmate Posts: 20
    I'm in Greater Manchester. My local Anglican Churches are open at the moment and preparing for Christmas services where possible with covid safety measures in place and online services running along side. Interestingly all the local Methodist churches remain closed and have been so since the first lockdown in March. Independent churches also seem to be remaining closed from what I can tell. I wonder if there is a correlation between a church's view on the status and importance of the Eucharist and whether they are open or not.
  • A good idea - perhaps rather late for this year, but I'll bear it in mind as a suggestion to the PCC for the Spring...
  • Berkeley wrote: »
    I wonder if there is a correlation between a church's view on the status and importance of the Eucharist and whether they are open or not.
    Could well be so. My RC friends are much more likely to attend mass in-person than most others I know.
  • edited December 2020
    .
  • Berkeley wrote: »
    I wonder if there is a correlation between a church's view on the status and importance of the Eucharist and whether they are open or not.
    I think that is a good point. My church has been closed since March but we are quite happy to have communion in our own homes with our own bread and wine (or fruit juice).
  • Telford wrote: »
    tclune wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    jay_emm wrote: »
    Ours, held services for a few weeks before the second national lockdown, and when that stopped re-opened again. But both times have been in a "Covid Secure" manner.
    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.

    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.

    You have the choice whether or not to avoid those that attend.
    Maybe, maybe not. You have know way of knowing.

    Cathscats wrote: »
    I feel for you. It is difficult if you church has not closed down because then they will not be providing alternative worship for those who don’t feel safe attending (which maybe should be all of you).
    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.

  • I think that is a good point. My church has been closed since March but we are quite happy to have communion in our own homes with our own bread and wine (or fruit juice).

    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.)
  • (1) "Pandemic fatigue" ... (2) "Budget panic" ...
  • PennyS:
    I have been wondering about the perverse definition of freedom which is used to justify not doing what the government has laid down as the sensible behaviours to prevent the communication of the virus.
    The freedom is simply the freedom to use one's own judgement, and this includes accepting responsibility for any outcome. So to take two examples which you may disagree with, which is fair enough.

    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.
    A real freedom would allow the adoption of those behaviours as an alternative to rejection of them.
    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.
    To automatically reject them because the government has introduced them is to be as unfree as they claim following would make them.
    I agree. Rejecting them for no other reason than that the government imposed them would be silly.
  • Anteater wrote: »
    PennyS:
    I have been wondering about the perverse definition of freedom which is used to justify not doing what the government has laid down as the sensible behaviours to prevent the communication of the virus.
    The freedom is simply the freedom to use one's own judgement, and this includes accepting responsibility for any outcome.
    How do you take responsibility for unknowingly spreading a virus that kills other people?
  • tclune:
    How do you take responsibility for unknowingly spreading a virus that kills other people?
    Daft question. You can't - obviously. But this attitude will, IMO lead to a neurotic refusal ever to leave your house ever again. How can anybody totally avoid being the unknown and unwilling medium used by the virus?

    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.
  • Anteater wrote: »
    tclune:
    How do you take responsibility for unknowingly spreading a virus that kills other people?
    Daft question. You can't - obviously.

    <snip>

    In the end, you either take responsibility for your actions or outsource that to the state.

    tl;dr - In the end you have to do this thing I started out by saying you can't do.
  • Anteater wrote: »
    tclune:
    How do you take responsibility for unknowingly spreading a virus that kills other people?
    Daft question. You can't - obviously. But this attitude will, IMO lead to a neurotic refusal ever to leave your house ever again. How can anybody totally avoid being the unknown and unwilling medium used by the virus?

    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.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    tclune wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    jay_emm wrote: »
    Ours, held services for a few weeks before the second national lockdown, and when that stopped re-opened again. But both times have been in a "Covid Secure" manner.
    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.

    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.

    You have the choice whether or not to avoid those that attend.
    Maybe, maybe not. You have know way of knowing.
    I would certainly know if they told me




  • Yes, but supposing they don't know they have the Plague...

    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.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    tclune wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    jay_emm wrote: »
    Ours, held services for a few weeks before the second national lockdown, and when that stopped re-opened again. But both times have been in a "Covid Secure" manner.
    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.

    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.

    You have the choice whether or not to avoid those that attend.
    Maybe, maybe not. You have know way of knowing.
    I would certainly know if they told me
    And if they didn't tell you, you wouldn't know. And if they hadn't attended but had been in contact with someone who had, you very will might not know.

    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.

  • ChastMastrChastMastr Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Anteater wrote: »
    How can anybody totally avoid being the unknown and unwilling medium used by the virus?

    . . .

    In the end, you either take responsibility for your actions or outsource that to the state.

    First, I think given your circumstances, you handled your situation as best as could be handled. <3 But what I think is the focus here is not dealing with medical situations or other crises which need attention, but attending church services (and to a degree, other things which are not crises or medical situations in general).

    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.)
  • Telford wrote: »
    I would certainly know if they told me

    As a side note, I'm not ignoring you--others are basically saying what I would say here.
Sign In or Register to comment.