Tuesday, May 5, 2020

Did Your Church Open Sunday?

Although you may not have heard about it, Sunday (May 3) was ReOpen Church Sunday. Did your church open? Mine didn’t either. But should they have? Is religious liberty being attacked by the federal and state governments? That is what some Christians are charging.
There are at least three important issues that intersect in the discussion about when to reopen in-person church services: (1) religious freedom, (2) local church finances, and (3) public health. 
Baptist Church in Des Moines, Iowa, on May 3
The ReOpen Church Sunday Initiative
Liberty Counsel is a conservative Christian law group that promoted May 3 as ReOpen Church Sunday. That organization was founded in 1989 by Mathew D. (Mat) Staver, who was the dean of the law school at Liberty University from 2006 to 2014.
I first learned about Staver in 2005 when talking with people from Kentucky who had bussed to D.C. to protest the removal of the Ten Commandments in public places. They did that in front of the Supreme Court Building, and I wrote about that in my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism (2020 ed., pp. 123-4).
In the days leading up to May 3, Staver and Liberty Counsel had promoted ReOpen Church Sunday, and more information about that can be found on their website.
For Staver and his supporters, the issue is primarily one of religious freedom. They claim that government agencies prohibiting churches from meeting for worship services, even during the current pandemic, violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The Church Finances Issue
Despite stay-at-home orders, some churches have defied those directives and held public meetings anyway. Some did that because of their strong belief that they had the right and the need to conduct public worship.
Although usually not said, no doubt many of those churches were inclined to go against the grain for fear of losing financial support. And, in fact, a large majority of churches have seen a  marked decline in offerings and are suffering because of that.
(Without fail, we who are church members need to send our tithes and offerings to our churches even when they cannot conduct public worship.)
Already on April 24, an article in The Washington Post was titled “Church donations have plunged because of the coronavirus. Some churches won’t survive.” Four days later, ReligiousNews.com reported that more than $400,000 had already been raised for small churches at risk during covid-19.
The Churches Helping Churches Initiative relief fund was launched about a month ago, and by last Wednesday had received more than 1,000 applications.
The Public Health Issue
As a strong advocate of religious liberty and an ardent supporter of local churches, I sympathize with those who wanted to open their churches on May 3—or before. But I am also a strong supporter of the government seeking to protect the life and health of the citizens of the country.
I see no indication that churches (or synagogues or mosques) have been unfairly signaled out for mistreatment, although there were a few questionable actions by some local agencies.
I also see considerable indication that many governors and mayors have acted decisively to restrict public meetings in order to keep people safe during the pandemic.
Some have charged that the caution has been excessive. But how can people say that with a straight face when already there have been 70,000 covid-19 deaths in the U.S.?
What about May 10?
In Missouri where I live, Governor Parson’s March 21 order banning gatherings of more than 10 people expired yesterday (May 4). That means that, among other things, events in large venues and stadiums, including churches, will now be able to open with some restrictions.
Many churches in Missouri and elsewhere, it seems, will again have public worship on May 10, which is Mother’s Day. I hope and pray that that will not mean the deaths of an increased number of mothers, and others, because of opening churches too soon.

11 comments:

  1. Yesterday, a ran across a couple of pertinent articles: "As states ease lockdown restrictions, churches must decide when — and how — to reopen" (https://religionnews.com/2020/05/01/as-states-ease-lockdown-restrictions-churches-must-decide-when-and-how-to-reopen/) and "12 considerations as you prepare to reopen your church doors" 
    https://themennonite.org/opinion/12-considerations-prepare-reopen-church-doors/?utm_source=TMail&utm_campaign=6dba5eb9b6-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_05_04_01_07&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_710b2b7199-6dba5eb9b6-96756509

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is a tough one and if us Christians will go to our Living Manual(our Bible), we will find the answer to this difficult question.
    I'm Not going to Give here what our Bible says about this difficult question.
    I have a tendency to agree with Leroy on this, but your decision will be up to you.

    In Christ,
    John(Tim)Carr

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not long after 7 a.m., Thinking Friend Eric Dollard sent me the following comments by email:

    "Thanks, Leroy, for your comments about church 'lockdowns.' The freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, including the freedom of worship, are not absolute. Some degree of responsibility is implied if those freedoms are to endure.

    "Wicker Park Lutheran Church here in Chicago closed to in-person meetings on March 15; it is unlikely that in-person meetings or services will resume during the month of May. The church has been using Zoom to conduct its services and classes. Zoom is better than nothing, but in-person services would be much better. I suspect that most of the members, except for those who may have lost their jobs, continue to honor their pledge commitments, but the church has lost its Sunday morning 'loose change' and some rental income.

    "Reopening parts of the economy depends on whether or not people are responsible. If everyone follows the health protocols (e.g., wearing masks in public, etc.), then the risks can be minimal. But will most people be responsible? We shall see, but note what happened on the beaches in California and Texas."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here's a brief comment from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky:

    "We have had strong resistance from one church in Kentucky, Leroy. Only about 40 0r 50 people attended. I’m expecting a few Covid-19 cases to come from it, but our governor has handled it nicely."

    ReplyDelete
  5. And then about an hour ago I received these comments from local Thinking Friend Temp Sparkman:

    " A clear reading of the 'free exercise' clause of the first amendment means that the government cannot ‘prohibit’ a church from having a public assembly, but, as you say, a government has the authority to protect its citizens from unhealthy practices. You’d think the later would overrule the first, so the dilemma. I guess social distancing is the compromise.

    "Anybody used to having large congregations, though, cannot imagine that kind of gathering. Neither can I, but neither could I have imagined not being able to shop safely at the usual sites. Guess we’ll have to see how it comes out. Guess we can pray, 'Lord, help us through this.'”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for reading and responding to this morning's blog post, Temp. -- If people were only endangering themselves by going to in-person church services, the government might be out of line in saying that they could not do that, but the contagious nature of covid-19 means that if people are infected at a church meeting they likely will spread the disease to others. That, surely, is adequate grounds for prohibiting gatherings as long as there are many people daily being infected.

      Delete
  6. Dennis BoatrightMay 5, 2020 at 9:53 PM

    I think it takes a serious persecution complex to believe that a government in the USA would infringe the religious freedom of Christians. States emphasize health concerns as their reasoning and do not limit their orders to churches, and in some cases exempted churches. Obviously I only question the motives of one side, but that might be because my chosen church does not see the urgency of holding services until plans are in place and health concerns are low.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This morning I linked to this article on Facebook, and there have been a couple of meaningful responses there. The first is from Jamea Smith Crum in Springfield, Mo.:

    "I enjoyed the article and was reminded of and grateful for many things. I was reminded of the true meaning of Church. It isn't just the building, but yet it is the building. The place where Christians jointly gather to worship has always been important.

    "I was also reminded of its meaning to present to others the way to a relationship with God through Jesus, which is not the building but through the hearts and souls of those who bear witness of God's love for All.

    "I was reminded of our need as Believers to put the need of others before our own, to love others as we love ourselves, and the requirement to care for the least of these. To me, this is the Church.

    "By willingly closing the building by thinking of the protection of others, I believe the Church is showing that it truly cares for those not in their fellowship. This virus has truly presented many opportunities for followers of Christ to show their love for others, to reach out to the needs of those in their communities, and to care for the least of these.

    "Only through loving all of God's creation can the Church be that conduit through which God's love can be seen by others."

    ReplyDelete
  8. John R. King, Jr., in Florida also posted this brief comment on Facebook:

    "When the government is more interested in protecting life than some churches, it makes me wonder who or what is truly church."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Just a few minutes ago I was happy to receive lengthy comments from Thinking Friend Virginia Belk in New Mexico. Here are her first four paragraphs:

    "My understanding of Separation of Church and State has always been that the church would not rule the state; the president would not be pope/archbishop, etc. and vice versa; government would not tax churches or make laws concerning the actions of churches…When I first heard about the pastor who was told he should not conduct services and protested, I knew he was thinking of that principle.

    "However, Jesus taught that we should love our neighbor as ourselves. To endanger my fellow humans by failing to take precautions against spreading a disease is not an act of love. Mother had an adage: 'Your rights end where the other fellow’s nose begins,' meaning one’s rights end where the next one’s rights begin. It is as simple as that.

    "The Covid-19 virus and related complications has put a crimp in many of my usual activities and I chafe under the restrictions: I deeply miss corporate in person worship, carrying on with usual duties of a Deacon; getting together with friends for table games and eating at a favorite restaurant; traveling to visit family in distant locations or with my Navajo 'sister' who is only 3 hours away; popping in on my neighbor; traveling with my husband to nearby places/events of historical interest…but I realize the absolute necessity to refrain from all these activities, so…

    "The sacrifices I make are but a drop in the bucket when compared to the selfless service of doctors, nurses, public servants, non-profit organizations and our elected representatives. We completed our census on line; I printed out requests for absentee ballots via computer, both of which were new experiences. How lucky we are that such is possible."

    ReplyDelete
  10. In 2018, Second Baptist, Liberty, Missouri celebrated its 175th anniversary by publishing an updated church history titled "I'll Second That!" On page 30 it recounts what happened to Second during and after the Civil War. During one Federal occupation of Liberty, all meetings, including church services, were banned. Second was among those that obeyed the order. After the war, a "Test Oath" attempted to ban all southern sympathizers from voting. This time Second fiercely resisted, refusing to let anyone preach who had signed the oath. So we have leaned both ways in the past.

    For coronavirus, Second has appointed a special reopening committee that is working to determine a safe time and method for reopening. Meanwhile, we are all learning more about Facebook and Zoom! As I am approaching age 70 next month, I plan to keep watching services on Facebook for a few weeks after the official reopening. I am even in an "upper room" so I thank Jesus' disciples for their sheltering-in-place precedent!

    ReplyDelete