As we face the difficulties, fears, and even anguish regarding the impact the coronavirus has had not only on our world and nation but also on our churches, it is important that we discuss criteria for the time when we will return to church. It is axiomatic that it is not possible to wait for the world to be under control, the virus to be eliminated from existence, and there to be no more risk of infection before we return to Church. Perhaps it bears repeating: We cannot wait for all risk to be removed before returning to Church, because at no point are all risks ever really removed. Yes, as we talk about this issue, it is necessary to remember and continue to recall the gravity of the illness and the need to protect those at risk of infection, but in taking these aspects of our situation into account we have to be equally careful not to end the conversation there. We have to prepare for our return.
It would be unreasonable to ask for a specific date of return, much less for the hour, but at the same time there must be objective, identifiable criteria for our decision-making. Too many of us are quarantining ourselves under the mistaken idea that we are waiting for the storm to pass and the sun of virus-elimination to emerge. Current information tells us that the virus will remain with us for a long time, perhaps permanently, abating and returning, abating and returning, and therefore there must be some other criterion for making the decision to return to Church. This may be obvious to many, but there are a great many people who are not exactly sure or are confused as to what the specific goal and motive of the quarantine are.
Since the criterion for return cannot be the eradication of the coronavirus, some other criteria must be suggested. Since one of the presented concerns is the availability of medical equipment and supplies, one obvious criteria for return is an affirmation that the medical community has, not maximally, but reasonably sufficient resources to treat those infected. Currently we are told there are regional shortages of x, y, and z. Therefore, when the shortage of x, y, and z is met at the regional level, churches in that region ought to consider that an objective criteria for returning to worship has been met. Another criteria could be the slowed or decelerated rate of infection. Concomitantly, in the presence of the decelerated numbers of infections, standard precautions ought to be implemented to minimize excessive risk. We cannot eliminate all risk, and we also cannot expect churches to be sterilized as though they were hospitals, and so reasonable precautions must be in place, like hand-washing, sanitary wipes, etc. It would be unreasonable, however, to wait for there to be “no risk,” because there will simply never be a time when there is no risk. Criteria also include instructions that while the infection is on the rise that those who are already ill or suffer from complicating medical conditions that increase their risk of infection should stay home until either they are recovered or until the rate of cases of infection decelerates or plateaus.
It is important to remember that current information estimates that over 95% of cases experience recovery (unlike the H5N1 Bird Flu which is estimated to kill 60% of those infected), which is to say that among historic pandemics the coronavirus is arguably the least deadly of all. This fact, however, ought not cause complacency or a cavalier attitude, but in affirming the gravity of the contagion one cannot simply pause the conversation there as if the seriousness of the situation justifies all measures taken in response. Along with the affirmation of its seriousness is the need for definite but limited closures (which has already happened) together with identifiable criteria for reopening. By not giving these criteria for return we do not provide people with hope of return. It is unreasonable to demand that people who are at little or minimal risk, who understand said risk and are willing to take reasonable precautions to safeguard themselves and others, be barred from attending Church for undefined periods of time. Although definite and tightly purposed closures may be warranted, indefinite and open-ended closures of churches are a red flag that ought to cause us concern and immediately propel us to identify reasonable criteria for reopening.
An additional concern, amidst the reasonable cautions and precautions, is that there is also the spread of the passion of fear and anger. Passions darken and confuse clarity of mind, and so it is important to not only take reasonable cautions and precautions against threats of physical disease, but also the spiritual disease of impassioned fear and anger. It cannot be overlooked that “erring on the side of caution” is still “erring.” It may be wise as a temporary or initial policy, but since experts seem to indicate that we will have this threat for a long time to come, it cannot become a standing policy for the simple fact that no churches will be left to come back to.
Two additional points emerge. The first, realistically speaking, is that it is a doctor’s job to “warn” of “health risks,” and so waiting for the doctor to give the “all clear” is not always workable, and may never happen. A doctor cannot say without risk of liability that one is at "no risk," and so it would not make sense to wait for the doctor to say what he almost in principle cannot say. The second point, cynically speaking, is that the media’s principle concern is with gaining and maintaining audience, page views, shares, subscriptions, etc., and fear operates quickly on the nervous and endocrine systems, and thus provides a rapid chemical stimulus to propagation of negative news. They survive as an industry on the fight-flight response of their viewers. Perhaps their agenda is not wholly nefarious, but neither is it particularly noble. Since they survive based on maintaining viewership they will always frame a story or spin a fact in order to promote sales of their “news product.” Fear must therefore be strictly guarded against, and so in the face of real dangers and necessary cautions, fear cannot be allowed to have the last word, nor only vague words of encouragement.
It is also important to recall that there are at least two economies that must be kept in mind: the medical and the national. Not simply money, the idea and reality of economy refers to the distribution and redistribution of resources. The medical economy includes hospitals, clinics, treatments, medicines, etc., and this medical economy depends for its existence on the national economy. If “erring on the side of safety” is to be measured against what is currently estimated as a 95%+ recovery rate, then it is reasonable to conclude that the risk of shutting down the majority of the economy may ultimately undermine the medical economy such that no one will be able to receive the needed medical support because there will no longer be a national economy to sustain the medical industry. This is not to mention the deaths that will result from a collapsed economy. What is more, as long as one sides with extreme caution, they will always place themselves in a position to criticize anyone who sees a better way that involves more risk. This creates an illusion of wisdom on the side of those who err on the side of caution. Of course, one must not err on the side of pure risk, either, but since it is impossible to eliminate risk (for even the position of extreme caution risks collapsing the national economy and consequently the medical industry that it supports), tarring and feathering ideas which include more risk as being "unloving" of one's neighbor must be guarded against. That is a manipulative use of compassion language which undermines the ability to discuss viable solutions. In this way it is better to strive for wisdom rather than mere caution.
In addition to the national and medical economies, there is also the economy of the local church. It is not simply a matter of paying the pastor, for if local closures remain indefinite and extend without objective criteria for reopening, then churches will be unable to reopen. The spiritual harm this would cause is incalculable. The Church is a necessary entity, and its local parishes cannot simply allow themselves to perish through “erring” on the safe side. A plan must be in place. Currently, the government has defined a working distinction between “essential” and “non-essential” businesses. It is also important to insert the Church into this equation because, although the Church is not a business, it is certainly essential, and so we must treat the Church as essential. We implicitly understand that grocery stores are essential, and do not protest when dozens of people are together in a single store shopping despite the official restrictions of gatherings being limited to ten people. If grocery stores stay open, then Churches should consider that they likewise remain open. If churches simply remain closed without clear direction for criteria of when to open, not only will they close, but the spiritual service and support they provide will disappear with them.
To close, I would like to stress that the above series of reflections and suggestions are not intended to be authoritative, exhaustive, or conclusive, but as a departure point for further discussion and a call for the clarification of a determined set of criteria for a return to church. It is unacceptable to not have a plan of return, even if that plan does not include date or time but includes rather more general, yet objective, criteria. Certainly more criteria may be suggested or rejected, but it is important to establish them, even if it is in favor of more extreme caution. Currently, too many are stopping the conversation with the approval of the closing of the church doors (as necessary as that may have been). It is a serious situation that requires solemn, compassionate attention, but not inertia. We have already agreed to suspend services, which means the next phase of reflection is necessitated, which is the objective, reasonable plan and hope of return to the worship of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.
-Fr. Joshua Schooping
No comments:
Post a Comment